Publications
Partners
THE far-reaching discussion about equality (or lack thereof) which originated with the French economist Professor Thomas Piketty’s provocative thesis continues unabated in the international media. Even South African newspapers have published commentaries about it.
Just to refresh the memory: in his recent book, Capital in the 21st Century, Piketty posits the statement that capitalism’s natural consequence is growing inequality.
He says the first three quarters of the 20th century were an aberration, due to the Great Depression and two world wars, but the natural order of things, according to the Gospel of Capitalism, has since then been re-established.
Piketty writes that since capital accruement due to investments and inheritance grows faster than that generated by ordinary labour, the whole system stimulates an ever-growing inequality. He proposes to redress the situation by imposing heavy taxes on the rich.
Why not abolish inequality altogether? Is it not true that the rich and mighty will always abuse their power to maintain and expand their privileges – and do so at the expense of those who are helpless and poor?
History - and understanding human nature - confirms this. Which is exactly why raw capitalism is a bad thing.
But we need to dig deeper. If you recognise the truth in the previous paragraph, what on earth could you have against socialist-type enforcement of equality? After all, this will put an end to, as Karl Marx put it, the exploitation of man by man.
Can you run like Usain Bolt?
Well, people are simply not equal. We are different. Pit me against Olympic champion Usain Bolt over 100 metres, and see how unequal we are.
On the other hand, I daresay Bolt would not be able to write an article like this. I am not better than him, or vice versa; we are different.
The same thing applies to life generally. People have different IQs, talents, characters and interests. One would be perfectly suited to (and happy to do) unskilled labour; the other suited to build buildings; yet another to litigate in court or preach to congregations.
Exactly because people in real life are unequal, that means that equality has to be enforced. This is what happened in communist countries.
And that necessarily leads to freedom and democracy being curbed or even abolished. On a most terrible level this happened in Cambodia in the 1970s, where the Khmer Rouge killed everybody wearing glasses, because this marked them as being “better” than others.
But inequality reared its head even in communist countries, most notoriously in the so-called egalitarian Soviet Union, where the few enjoyed priviliges denied to the many.
Does this mean that we have to let nature simply take its course? No, it doesn’t.
Personally, my moral and religious principles prevent me from acquiescing to a situation where the rich and mighty lord it over the poor and powerless. It is wrong.
But not everybody will share my principles. So, let us identify practical, pragmatic reasons why too much inequality is bad.
Marxism-Leninism an unmitigated disaster
First of all, the boundless inequality engendered by the raw capitalism of the 19th century was one of the reasons for the rise of Marxism-Leninism, which was an unmitigated disaster.
It was a totalitarian ideology and system, in its practical manifestation similar to Adolf Hitler’s Nazism. It was the total antithesis of liberal multi-party democracy which is embodied in the South African constitution.
It is, therefore, also in the interest of the rich not to have too much inequality.
Nevertheless, the very same liberal democracy is built not only on the foundations of freedom, but also on an ethical equality. In a democracy, all are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, and every single person is endowed with inalienable human dignity.
However, as the French socialist writer Anatole France once sarcastically said: “The law, in its majestic equality, gives every man the right to dine at the Ritz or to sleep under a bridge.” The plain fact is that no one can fill his belly with abstract equality; it has to have some practical content.
And, therefore, society as a whole has to work together to curb inequality. I am not denying that the state has a role to play, but I am wary of too much state power. The institutionalised freedom of a democracy needs to strike a balance between freedom and equality.
Therefore, civil society itself has to realise that too much inequality, especially of the kind that may generate chaos and revolution, is a bad thing.
This means that the bean counters in the private sector - who, by the way, have accumulated much too much power in modern private sector - will have to look out more for the human beings in their care, instead of looking coldly at columns of figures.
Too often one sees bean counters who look only at their companies’ short-term profits, instead of taking the long-term interests (in the form of their greatest assets, their workers), into account.
What is needed, therefore, is a wide-ranging social debate about freedom, equality and prosperity. The cold-hearted bean counters and second-hand car salesmen who populate too many boardrooms need to take note.
- Fin24
* Leopold Scholtz is an independent political analyst who lives in Europe. Views expressed are his own.
Just to refresh the memory: in his recent book, Capital in the 21st Century, Piketty posits the statement that capitalism’s natural consequence is growing inequality.
He says the first three quarters of the 20th century were an aberration, due to the Great Depression and two world wars, but the natural order of things, according to the Gospel of Capitalism, has since then been re-established.
Piketty writes that since capital accruement due to investments and inheritance grows faster than that generated by ordinary labour, the whole system stimulates an ever-growing inequality. He proposes to redress the situation by imposing heavy taxes on the rich.
Why not abolish inequality altogether? Is it not true that the rich and mighty will always abuse their power to maintain and expand their privileges – and do so at the expense of those who are helpless and poor?
History - and understanding human nature - confirms this. Which is exactly why raw capitalism is a bad thing.
But we need to dig deeper. If you recognise the truth in the previous paragraph, what on earth could you have against socialist-type enforcement of equality? After all, this will put an end to, as Karl Marx put it, the exploitation of man by man.
Can you run like Usain Bolt?
Well, people are simply not equal. We are different. Pit me against Olympic champion Usain Bolt over 100 metres, and see how unequal we are.
On the other hand, I daresay Bolt would not be able to write an article like this. I am not better than him, or vice versa; we are different.
The same thing applies to life generally. People have different IQs, talents, characters and interests. One would be perfectly suited to (and happy to do) unskilled labour; the other suited to build buildings; yet another to litigate in court or preach to congregations.
Exactly because people in real life are unequal, that means that equality has to be enforced. This is what happened in communist countries.
And that necessarily leads to freedom and democracy being curbed or even abolished. On a most terrible level this happened in Cambodia in the 1970s, where the Khmer Rouge killed everybody wearing glasses, because this marked them as being “better” than others.
But inequality reared its head even in communist countries, most notoriously in the so-called egalitarian Soviet Union, where the few enjoyed priviliges denied to the many.
Does this mean that we have to let nature simply take its course? No, it doesn’t.
Personally, my moral and religious principles prevent me from acquiescing to a situation where the rich and mighty lord it over the poor and powerless. It is wrong.
But not everybody will share my principles. So, let us identify practical, pragmatic reasons why too much inequality is bad.
Marxism-Leninism an unmitigated disaster
First of all, the boundless inequality engendered by the raw capitalism of the 19th century was one of the reasons for the rise of Marxism-Leninism, which was an unmitigated disaster.
It was a totalitarian ideology and system, in its practical manifestation similar to Adolf Hitler’s Nazism. It was the total antithesis of liberal multi-party democracy which is embodied in the South African constitution.
It is, therefore, also in the interest of the rich not to have too much inequality.
Nevertheless, the very same liberal democracy is built not only on the foundations of freedom, but also on an ethical equality. In a democracy, all are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, and every single person is endowed with inalienable human dignity.
However, as the French socialist writer Anatole France once sarcastically said: “The law, in its majestic equality, gives every man the right to dine at the Ritz or to sleep under a bridge.” The plain fact is that no one can fill his belly with abstract equality; it has to have some practical content.
And, therefore, society as a whole has to work together to curb inequality. I am not denying that the state has a role to play, but I am wary of too much state power. The institutionalised freedom of a democracy needs to strike a balance between freedom and equality.
Therefore, civil society itself has to realise that too much inequality, especially of the kind that may generate chaos and revolution, is a bad thing.
This means that the bean counters in the private sector - who, by the way, have accumulated much too much power in modern private sector - will have to look out more for the human beings in their care, instead of looking coldly at columns of figures.
Too often one sees bean counters who look only at their companies’ short-term profits, instead of taking the long-term interests (in the form of their greatest assets, their workers), into account.
What is needed, therefore, is a wide-ranging social debate about freedom, equality and prosperity. The cold-hearted bean counters and second-hand car salesmen who populate too many boardrooms need to take note.
- Fin24
* Leopold Scholtz is an independent political analyst who lives in Europe. Views expressed are his own.
