How to correctly understand the inequality in the process of social development?

I don't answer when I do the task, the main thing is to do this knowing the task, I answer too much, my neck is sore, don't blame me. It's just a passing by.

.= The upstairs are copied from somewhere else...

The content is all the same ...

Sweat... Let's do it yourself...

2000 words of things, you came here to ask people to search for the Internet and copy it to you...

To be honest, it's hard to believe that someone would write a 2000 word proposal for you for a reward...

I hope it will be helpful to you in terms of your views on this topic.

To write a piece of discussion, you must first solve the problem.

Under the new historical conditions, how to correctly understand value-creating labor?

There are two key points in this topic:

1. What are the new historical conditions?

2. What is "correct understanding"?

As to what are the new historical conditions, I don't know if there was a note on this topic when it came out. If there is no comment, I think that the so-called "new historical conditions" refer to the fact that in today's highly developed industry, the social value generated by mental and physical labor has shown a huge difference. After returning to the same intensity of labor (both mental and physical work), the value of mental work is usually much greater than that of physical work.

For the same 8-hour work, a scientist may be able to create value that benefits tens of millions of people, while a porter can only create value that benefits a few. The same work, but the remuneration is very different because of it.

In such an environment, we need to correctly understand the difference in the remuneration of the same labor. Except for the difference in remuneration, or the difference in value creation. We should see that although each person creates different amounts of value, he or she has created a corresponding social value to a greater or lesser extent in the process of labor.

This value cannot be denied. No matter how big or small, they are positive and an indispensable part of society. To put it simply, the great value created by scientists can only be realized and reflected through the small value of countless ordinary people.

While grasping these two key points, expounding and demonstrating them becomes an article.

Hope it helps.

Adjust your mindset and enrich your knowledge.

Such problems will arise in all developing countries, and it can also be said that it is inevitable, including India, Brazil, Russia, and even developed countries in the period of development, which can be proven in history.

Of course, there are solutions, such as improving social welfare, paying attention to the living problems of vulnerable groups, improving the legal system, improving the quality of the whole population, establishing an effective operating system, and so on, all of which require a long-term process.

From our own point of view, we should look at these problems, there are these problems in society, but it does not affect your own growth, you just need to do your job well. Don't jump out and fight against these phenomena, because you can't fight, and in the end you will be defeated by these phenomena. Everyone has to rely on their own efforts, I feel that equality is earned by oneself, don't wait for the country to give you equality, and there is no absolute equality in this world.

No way is the way, close your eyes and you can't see.

The main body of society is people, people are animals, but they are more advanced, quick thinking, strong contact ability and logical ability, and people's desires are unlimited, so everyone is selfish, but some people are obvious, and some people are gloomy. Species survival competition makes people smarter and dominant; And intraspecific competition is that people have a hierarchy, and those who stand in high positions are always a minority, but their power can dominate a large number of groups below, which is called leadership in human terms. The person who dominates the top can be upright, he will satisfy himself first and then take care of the group below, so that the whole group will unite to resist the other groups, the inter-ethnic group has competition and is the main competition, and the development of people to the present is not the main direction of resistance to competition outside the race.

If he is short-sighted, that is, selfishness is obvious, then the line.

There will inevitably be complaints. If there is no unity, there will be an uprising and rebellion. Society cannot be inherently fair because desire cannot disappear.

No matter how much material materials are surplus, there are still groups that have no material security, which will only increase waste and decay. Man will never be averse to material things, that is to say, he will never be more material than himself. An object must have a lifespan, and the same is true for the earth, and at present, human beings dominate this home on which they live, and in a few years, it may be replaced by other species, or an object in the universe may replace the earth, and the earth will die.

I only believe in Darwin.

As for philosophy, probably because we have learned it well, I think it says something with real guidance. And there is a certain contradiction before and after, he said: "Things are developing, there is no highest only higher, and the communist society is said later."

It is the highest social constitution. "That's not right! I can't finish talking for a while, and I just want people who can't think about it to look far away and expand their thinking.

The ideological realm is raised, and society is viewed from the highest theoretical angle, and the irrationality of society has its rationality. Finally, I would like to explain your question in a few simple words. Social inequality does not originate from the system, the system of any society is human and equal.

It's about execution.

human selfishness and competition; There is no good constraint and distribution mechanism.

The law is a clause established for fairness, and if someone uses illegal production to create value, but makes the people bear the consequences, this creates a serious injustice, and if no one takes care of it, it will become more and more serious.

Summary. Hello, glad to answer for you. What is the theoretical significance of the problem of social inequality?

Dear, according to the data: Social inequality refers to the differences in the possession, access to opportunities and satisfaction of relatively scarce social value goods by various classes, as well as the unequal political and economic status of people in the society, and the unequal treatment given by the society, all collectively referred to as social inequality. Theoretical implications of the problem of social inequality.

Hello, glad to answer for you. What is the theoretical significance of the problem of social inequality? Hello dear, according to the information:

Social inequality refers to the differences in the possession, access to opportunities and satisfaction of needs of relatively scarce social value goods by various classes and strata, as well as the unequal political and economic status of people in society, and the inequality of all the treatment given by the society, all collectively referred to as social inequality. Theoretical implications of the problem of social inequality.

2.Attitudes towards inequality are inconsistent across countries. 3.Absolute equality is not a good thing, and equality in the true sense is not necessarily the definition of economics. 4. Inequality is subjectively a human feeling.

Summary. What is the theoretical significance of the problem of social inequality, which is as follows: Dear Hello, the first is the Marxist theory of inequality. In traditional Marxism, inequality is rooted in a mechanism called the market.

Competition in the market, especially unbridled capital, is a source of inequality. The solution is to replace the market mechanism with the redistribution of the state. The second is the liberal theory of inequality.

Liberalism's interpretation of inequality is almost entirely polar opposites to Marxism. In the view of liberalism, redistribution with the intervention of power is the root cause of social inequality. On the contrary, the market mechanism will provide equal possibilities.

What is the theoretical significance of the problem of social inequality, which is as follows: Dear Hello, the first is the Marxist theory of inequality. In traditional Marxism, inequality is rooted in a mechanism called the market. Competition in the market, especially unbridled capital, is a source of inequality.

The solution is to replace the market mechanism with the redistribution of the state. The second is the liberal theory of inequality. Liberalism's interpretation of inequality is almost entirely polar opposites to Marxism.

In the view of liberalism, redistribution with the intervention of power is the root cause of social inequality. On the contrary, the market mechanism will provide equal possibilities.

Hello Dear is a new institutionalist theory of inequality that has just been developed in recent years. This theory argues that liberal and Marxist theories of social inequality, although opposite, have a common feature, that is, they both regard inequality as an inherent feature of a mechanism of economic integration, while ignoring the institutional environment in which such a mechanism operates. These three theories provide us with important theoretical ideas for analyzing the problem of social inequality in China, and prompt us to pay attention to the mechanism of inequality.

However, if these theories are directly used to explain the rapid growth of inequality in China over the past 20 years or so, it can be found to be very inadequate. This leads us to consider the possibility of another theory: the new institutionalist theory of inequality assumes that the effects of the market and redistribution on inequality must be reversed, so is there another possibility that the effects of the market and redistribution on inequality may be in the same direction.

The process of change in inequality in China over the past 20 years can go a long way in supporting our new hypothesis. In other words, the mystery of the rapid growth of social inequality in our country over the past 20 years may lie here. According to the interpretation of neo-institutionalism, if the redistributive power before the reform had created a certain degree of inequality in the distribution of welfare and goods, then the emergence of market mechanisms in the early stage of the reform played a certain role in alleviating inequality.

This was manifested in the opportunities that the "free market" that had been gradually developing since the early days of the reform brought to the disadvantaged at that time. For example, peasants and people with unfixed jobs or unstable incomes in cities have gained income by participating in market operations, and some have even become the earliest "10,000 yuan households" in China, which is the "equalization effect" of the market in the early stage of reform.

It can only be said that it is inevitable.

You have to realize that there is no absolute fairness, only relative fairness.

Absolute fairness can make people lose their motivation to move forward and erase people's creativity. This is not alarmism.

Of course, I believe that the fairness of what the subject said is not so absolute. I wonder if you've ever heard of "class solidification"? This is what is happening in China.

In the founding of New China, when the class was not solidified, there were many talents, and there were countless people who went to the sea.