5 ms·
This is an interesting answer. But I'm not sure if inequality-of-power-driven-by-inequality-of-wealth can be problematized (put into the discussion and on the a
by thanatropism 9y ago
This is an interesting answer. But I'm not sure if inequality-of-power-driven-by-inequality-of-wealth can be problematized (put into the discussion and on the agenda) and fought in such a way that equalizes power. We're shuffling power around and the dynamics of power inequality aren't clear at all.
- pron 9y agoGreat inequality of wealth is virtually always an inequality of power, and so it is "problematized". You're right that all social dynamics are complex (even economics, or "the dynmaics of wealth", isn't known to the way it can be effectively controlled), but at the end of the day, policies are made based on values. A society that values the maximization of freedom would fight against growing wealth inequality beyond a point it deems acceptable. A complicating factor is that, while power is relative, it certainly grows sub-linearly in the absolute baseline. For example, if I have nothing, someone with a few thousands of dollars can have great power over me. But if I have $0.5M, even someone with $1B wouldn't have as much power over me[1]. This is why absolute wealth is also very important, which is why the question of "would we rather have more absolute wealth or less inequality?" doesn't have a simple answer. [1]: Although it is not true that my own "fuck you" money is enough to completely counteract the richer person's power. For example, their wealth is used to indirectly affect many people, say through political campaign ads, who then change the laws and thus influence me.
- scott_s 9y agoI agree with your comments, but I want to add to it. I agree that wealth inequality leads to power inequality. And I agree that curtails freedom. But I think it also tends to societal instability. Closing the loop, we care about wealth inequality because we don't want society to collapse.
- thanatropism 9y agoAre there historical examples of societal collapse due to wealth inequality? (Honest question)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fjsolwmv 9y agoGreat Depression and various Communist Revolutions might fit your bill.
- tokai 9y agoThe Russian empire?
- marcosdumay 9y agoLook for collapse due to power concentration, not wealth. You will find plenty of examples, but we usually call them "revolution", not "collapse".
- scarmig 9y agoNot in itself. Even the various Communist revolutions cited in other comments don't correlate well with inequality: Tsarist Russia in 1905 and 1917 had lower levels of inequality than Victorian England.
- ambicapter 9y agoThe French Revolution?
- thanatropism 9y agoYes, yes. I agree with all of this (well, "grows sub-linearly" is grossly speculative, but matches the marginal utility of consumption, etc.) But you misunderstand my question. To counteract the power of wealth, some other sort of power is needed. Doesn't this lead to power inequality again? Do we know anything about power inequality dynamics that lets us choose this or that structure of coercion?
- pron 9y agoWell, democracy counteracts the power of wealth when it places limitations on it (in the form of policies that aim to reduce wealth inequality and in more limited ways like regulating political campaign finance) as well as other forms of power (like hereditary authority, power through the threat of violence not controlled by society etc.). Even if we did have a good model of power dynamics, controlling it would still be hard, as it's an intractable system. Instead, what we have is politics, where different groups fight for their power (and freedom). That's exactly what politics is. When power inequality grows too much, we have revolutions. What scares me is that we may be seeing an increase in soft, non-authoritarian power (like the power in the hands of companies like Google and Facebook), that is almost as bad as authoritarian power but harder to fight against because it doesn't feel coercive.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoIt has to do with universal commodification. Check out Michael Walzer and 'Spheres of Justice.' He makes the case for a kind of 'complex equality' where power in one sphere doesn't bleed into another. Thus having a lot of money would allow you to buy fancy paintings and a nice car and typical commodities but when it comes to something like healthcare, we'd be better off if money couldn't be used to buy a better version of it. The easiest thing to make the case to be a separate sphere is education. Should a wealthy parent really be able to opt-out of public education and pay for a better one? Perhaps all of society would benefit if we put everyone 'on the same side' so to speak and the rich and poor alike had to advocate for improvements to the same universal system.
- drieddust 9y agoThat is an interesting idea. I have not read the book so just wondering what will be his solution for concentration of power within the sphere or it is just a lesser evil system.
- pron 9y agoThat's a nice idea, although I suspect it would garner much opposition if it were workable at all. One of the main reasons for accumulating wealth beyond a certain point is, I would assume, to gain power :)
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoSure, that's the thing about political philosophy, it's all so radical. Still though we can bring in shades of these ideas to our world, just small reductions in the power of wealth on healthcare or education are nice.