https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3042/3114731507_0abdbbe39c_b.jpg

<div class="text-justify"></div >

In general, Marxists, be they communists or socialists, declare themselves the only defenders of equality among men. They argue that capitalism creates a real inequality among men based clearly on an imaginary construction typical of bourgeois society.

This, of course, has always made opponents of Marxist doctrine argue, against it, that the concept of equality is incompatible with the concept of liberty, because according to opponents of Marxism, inequality is not created by capitalism or by a social construction, but it is the nature of man to be unequal, and that therefore, violate the basic principles of people to get them are equaled is a negative act.
 
However, it should be noted that, under no circumstances, Marxists are the only defenders of equality between men, because as the universe has a curious way of generating a kind of duality, (good and evil, material and spiritual, and so on), a duality has been generated within both parts of the liberty-equality conflict, while on the side of liberty there is a dispute between negative or positive liberty, or liberty and slavery, in the field of equality, a dispute is fought between equality and inequality, and between material equality and symbolic equality.

The representatives of the left movements want and propose the use of the coercive force of the State as a means to achieve their objectives, that is, equality, but if we are specific, the equality that matters to them is material equality.

The ideas that proclaim material equality as a supreme goal arise from Marxist thought, because this equality has nothing to do with equality before the divinity, before the law, before the State, or before ourselves, this equality is merely a material equality, that is, the primacy of material equality over any other type of equality.

This is where I have to make a great differentiation, because I consider that there are two types of equality, a material, and another symbolic or ideal.

The first is the one that affirms that we must all possess the same material conditions and opportunities, while the symbolic or ideal equality is that which affirms that we must all be judged in the same way.

Although it is not something absolute, material equality is usually presented under a scenario of symbolic or ideal inequality, and *vice versa*, that is, symbolic and ideal equality is presented under a scenario of material inequality, something that leads, in a way another, consequently to injustice. In fact, the line that divides these two equalities is the line of what we consider fair and unfair in a given circumstance.

For example, for defenders of material equality it is unfair that two people have different levels of income, however, for the defender of symbolic equality it would be unfair for two people to be paid in the same way when probably one contributes more to society , strives more, or has more responsibility than the other.

So while material equality is measured quantitatively, symbolic equality does so qualitatively.

In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the following was established in its first article:

> Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Well, although we know that theoretically we are equal in rights, we also know that in practice it is not like that, there are criminals who are not punished and innocent who are, just to give an example, however, that does not mean that man it can't or should not try to ascend to values and symbolic principles greater than itself.

Here is the difference between material equality and symbolic equality, and in those who profess one or the other. Some are guided by idealism and others by materialism.

>That men are all born with equal rights to the benefits of society, has been sanctioned by the majority of the learned; but it has also been sanctioned that not all men are equally capable of attaining every distinction; since all should practise virtue, not all do practise it; all should be courageous, and all are not courageous; all should possess talents, and all do not possess them. Hence the real distinction existing among individuals of the most liberally established society. If the principle of poltical equality is generally acknowledged, that of physical or moral inequality is also recognized. Nature has made men unequal as regards genius, temperament, strength and characteristics. The laws correct that difference by giving man a place in society so that education, industry, arts, service, virtue may give him a fictitious equality, properly called political and social equality.
>
>Simón Bolívar, Address at the Congress of Angostura.

---

Image Source: [1](https://www.flickr.com/photos/fhwrdh/3114731507)

https://steemitimages.com/DQmNPVpoHikcSoNb82Gvoe3GTQkxHmEWQ6dZfU6AeabD9G2/U5drdSsVTuCnmk12Cb8fzMd7tBYk2b8_1680x8400.png