Angleščina - enake možnosti

First of all, it is important to define what equality & equal opportunity actually mean.
The most common definition is that by being equal, we all ought to be treated the
same, with the same rights and the same duties. Equal opportunity is an extension
of that - by being the treated the same, that would mean everyone having the same
opportunities to achieve our goals. At least in theory. Even if the take this definition of
equality at face granted, this already conflicts with the core belief that all people are
different at a personal basis - their personalities, intelligence etc. all being key factors
in this aspect. Just by acknowledging this, we support the thesis that different people
will need different resources to reach their full potential. By quoting the Critique of
the Gotha Program by Karl Marx:

“Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than
another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and
hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than
another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects,
right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”
Thus we can see that, by treating people equally, the result would result in inequality,
which runs against the principle of both general equality & equal opportunity.

Now this is the abstract, theoretical part, but even putting this aside, there are many
indicators that suggest that equal opportunity is not an actual thing currently holding
true for our society.

For example, place of birth determines greatly how we will live our lives. Someone
born in a wealthier family is not going to have the same opportunities as someone
born in a poorer family. This varies from country to country, with, for example, a post-
industrialized nation with a high Gross-domestic production (or GDP) having vastly
better opportunities for the average person than say, for example, an impoverished
developing nation which is exploited by said post-industrialized nation. But even
amongst developed nations, there are vast differences when it comes to equality to
opportunity. This is especially true in states where even essential resources are
commodified, such as in the U.S., where your financial status might as well
determine if you will be able to afford an ambulance or go to college. And since
having a higher education is key to achieving financial success in our highly-
competitive, and almost technocratic, society, material status at birth is a massively

Angleščina - enake možnosti 1

 important indicator of our future employment. There is actually is a website called
‘The opportunity Atlas’, which shows different U.S. counties and shows you how high
your income is going to be if you are born in a certain specific county. And the sad
part, is that it is mostly accurate: in many cases, the place in which you are born will
determine your future income.

This is, of course, mostly due to the systemic inequality that is built into our current
economic system. In a system which requires different classes that share conflicting
interests and where one is bound to lose in order for some else to win is, both
general inequality & inequality of opportunity are things that are inevitable. This is
why societies where the economy is the most unregulated are also the societies
where income inequality is the largest. Examples range from developing countries
located in the Global South such as Brazil or India, to even industrialized 1st world
nations such as the U.S.
Something that also becomes practically inevitable in such deregulated economics is
the formation of monopolies. In short, monopolies are mega-corporations that control
a large share of the market to the extent that they begin to seriously influence it. For
example, in the late 19th century, when Anti-Trust laws were something that did not
exist yet, it was not uncommon for a company to control prices on the market
because they had the power to do so. Furthermore, monopolies are practically the
number one way to prevent actual equality of opportunity. In the sense that with
monopolies, starting a business is practically impossible, as you have no way to
grow, since the moment your company will start to climb up the social ladder, a
monopoly will either try to buy it or, if you refuse, it will start manipulating the market
by, for example, lowering prices in order to force you out business. In short, actual
competition, one of the key principles of equality of opportunity, is not an actual thing.

And at the end we also have the most obvious factor when it comes to equality of
opportunity - the state. Whilst it can prevent inequality from happening, something
we will go over in a bit, it can also be used as a massive weapon against the equality
of opportunity. The state is, at its core, an institution that is used by one class to
oppress another. So by principle, the state wants to keep a certain unequal
relationship in order to preserve a type of societal & economic system. Such a thing
is most obvious in authoritarian systems, but even in nominally democratic states,
the governmental apparatus is not immune to outside influence, such as lobbying,
where people will bribe high-ranking government officials in order to gain a personal
advantage. And in some cases, they don’t even have to do that, as a democracy
does not select the most honest & correct representatives, but rather people who are
elected, no matter their beliefs. If people are misled and elect people who want to

Angleščina - enake možnosti 2

 purposefully utilize the state to distort society and ensure better outcomes for some
while at the same time negating equal opportunity for others, something that neo-
liberal politicians like to a lot, then their job can be so much easier. And of course,
this also allows for nepotism, the selection of individuals for certain jobs based not
on their skill, but rather on their family connections and acquaintances. This of
course exists both in the private & the public sector of the economy.

Now that we have gone over the arguments for why equality of opportunity is a
fictitious idea that has never existed in practice, we can go over the arguments for
why equality of opportunity is supposedly an actual thing. The main argument on this
side of the isle is most commonly the citation of the legal groundwork that
theoretically ensures the equality of everyone. The things which are most commonly
cited include, but are not limited to,: the right to life, the right to freedom, equality
before the law, the right to private property etc. There are most commonly in the Bill
of rights of most modern constitutions. These rights, as it is often argued, ensure that
everyone has the same opportunities when trying to achieve their, as since everyone
has in theory the same rights and duties, failure to achieve something should lie in
their personal responsibility, not due to structural problems preventing them to do so.
This is the standpoint most often advocated for by neo-liberals
Now, if before we talked about the state being used as a tool to ensure inequality, it
can, because of its immense influence in society, also be used to ensure equality,
both general and of opportunity. The issues of monopolies that was mentioned in the
previous section can be resolved by the use of Anti-trust laws, essentially legislation
that prevents companies from acquiring too much power and manipulating the
market. Apart from Anti-trust laws, there are also other policies which can help
reduce inequality, ranging from economic regulations such as environmental
protections and directing state-agencies such as the FDA to control food safety, to
social welfare programs to help people who have been left behind by society by
helping them to get back on their feet, which include programs such as food stamps,
unemployment subsidies etc., all the way to having the state be the owner of
essential services such as healthcare & education and, in some cases, even larger
for-profit companies in order to use generated income to improve the lives of its
citizens, such as for example Equinor, the oil company which is owned by the
Norwegian government and of which the income is directed towards financing social
welfare programs, alongside progressive taxation which further eases funding for the
above mentioned programs.

Angleščina - enake možnosti 3

 All of this stems from the so called ‘Keynesian school of though’ of economics, which
implies that it is crucial for the state to actively be involved in the management of the
economy in order to ensure social harmony. In its principle, this school of though
does not reject the concept that real equality of opportunity does not exist, but rather
acknowledges it and, knowing this, tries to minimize the effects of capitalism in order
to ensure the most equal opportunity for most people. In other words, it does not
attack the core illness of modern society, but rather tries to cure its symptoms, the
illness being the capitalist system and the symptoms being the structural inequality.
States that include such policy have all been led by Social-democratic governments
at some point in their history, the most notable being the Nordic countries such as
Denmark, Sweden, Norway & Finland, all based on their ‘Nordic model’ type of
development, with Swedish Prime Minister Per Albin Hannson proposing the idea of
a ‘Folkhemmet’. There are however other social-democratic countries such as
Germany, the UK, Spain etc., which ought not to be excluded.

In conclusion, here is my personal opinion. The short version: equal opportunity is

not real because of systemic issues with our society. The long version: The legalist
arguments for why equal opportunity does in fact exist can all be refuted by looking
at the materialistic evidence at hand. Whilst we may live in a nominally equal country
with certain rights of equality enshrined in our fundamental legal principles, there is
nothing to prevent such principles from being broken, as legally speaking, the built-in
inequality of our society does not go against said constitutional values. On the other
hand, in order to accept the concept of the Welfare state as practiced by Social-
democracies in order to solve or at the very least minimise both general inequality &
inequality of opportunity and to thus ensure greater equality, only works by accepting
the premise that true equality of opportunity is by default not a real thing and has to
be managed in order to be achieved, and even then it is impossible, at least within a
Social-democratic framework, to fully achieve it.

Angleščina - enake možnosti 4