I haven’t posted anything here in a long time, but today I read a piece that got my blood boiling so much, that I had to write something in response to it, just to get it out of my system.
The piece in question is by Tom Hyde, and can be found here: https://tomhyde.substack.com/p/inequality. It is not long, so please read the whole thing to ensure I am not taking Tom out of context.
The piece, generally, is a defense of capitalism, and an attempt to reframe extreme wealth inequality as, if not an absolute good thing, then at least a morally and practically neutral one. It posits that wealth inequality is one of the things that allows capitalism to do its healing work. In doing so it misunderstands not only the reasons wealth inequality persists, but the fundamental underpinnings of capitalism itself.
The piece begins by asking why we’re so concerned with “wealth inequality” as opposed to “absolute poverty”, asking “Why is it that instead of fighting scarcity and subsistence face on, 78 percent of Democratic voters decry economic difference and attack those with more in place of aiding those with less?” Tom, notably, does not answer this question in his article, instead satisfying himself with pointing out that those decrying wealth inequality are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of capitalism. While not answering the question is not a flaw in the piece, merely a rhetorical device, I do believe that in giving a genuine, honest answer to this question, we can expose some of the falsehoods and assumptions made by the piece, and see not only why people focus on wealth inequality but also why we need to end it.
In the second paragraph of the piece, Tom states that “wealth inequality can be either good or bad for the poor. In a vacuum, it is neither.” Now, regardless of whether or not this is true, what is certainly true is that we do not live in a vaccuum: we live under capitialism. Under capitalism the rich are not rich independent of the state of the poor, the rich are rich AT THE EXPENSE of the poor. Putting leftist arguments about labour exploitation aside for a moment, it’s a simple matter of mathematics. In a world with finite resources, the fact of someone having the lions share of them necessarily prevents someone else obtaining them. Money is, of course, not a finite resource, but capitalism must treat it as though it is or it ceases to function. The real world value of a dollar, it’s spending power, is tied by capitalism to the amount of dollars in the system. If you doubt the truth of this, simply ask a capitalist why governments can’t simply print more money to lift their citizens out of poverty, and be faced with the spectre of hyperinflation.
This gives the lie to Tom’s hypothetical world in which the poorest people have millions and the richest have quadrillions. In such a world, the value of a million dollars would simply deteriorate, until those “millionaires” are little better off than the poorest among us today.
“BUT BUT BUT” I hear you yelling at me, “What about a world in which capitalism’s creations and innovations have made even the most luxurious items affordable and available?” This is clearly the world Tom is trying to evoke here, but it is one which cannot exist. The reason for this, conveniently enough, gives us another answer to the question of “Why Wealth Inequality”: The rich are rich BY EXPLOITING the poor. In this fantasy world of Tom’s, why do these rich-poor people, these working class millionaires, continue to work? If they have enough cash to afford luxury space yachts and other insane fantasy baubles, why do they continue to work for someone else, giving their time to bosses and owners? “Well”, you might say, “they don’t have to! Capitalism has innovated our way to a fully autonomous society!” Fine! Great! Then where are they getting their millions? Do they own some of these incredible robots? Do they rent them and sell the products? What of those who do not own robots, or cannot afford the rent?
Speaking of rent, Tom mentions that these millionaires do not own property but rent it. If this is the case, why have the landlords not raised rent to the point where it prevents the “working class” from buying these luxury items, or similarly raised the price of food? Everyone is a millionaire, so they can afford it! What mechanism is keeping life on planet earth affordable?
The contradictions in this hypothetical are manifold for a simple reason: capitalism REQUIRES an exploited class. In order for someone to trade away their time and energy away for money, they must be in a position where it is necessary for existence.
Elsewhere, in the comments of this article, Tom espouses the idea that people in developing countries “progress” from subsistence farming to sweatshop labour. Putting aside the grotesque contortions of a system that posits growing food as less valuable than producing cheap sneakers, the idea that this represents “capitalism lifting people out of poverty” is a cruel joke. Capitalism, requiring poverty by definition, ensured that farmers were paid subsistence wages for the food that feeds the world, then, finding cheaper ways of generating that food, forced the farmers into other, equally horrible, equally exploitative work. The claim that “capitalism has lifted 1 billion people out of extreme poverty” is a bully finally stopping giving you a swirly and turning around and claiming “Bully Heroically Lifts Nerd’s Head Out Of Toilet”. Imperialism, capitalism’s mergers & acquisitions department, stripped these people of their lives and livelihoods, and then expects them to be thankful that they’re allowed to work inhumane hours in exchange for pennies. Automating and streamlining industries does not prevent this from happening, it worsens it. Just ask auto workers, or Amazon workers, or Uber drivers.
This brings us to the final answer to the question: “Why do we focus on wealth inequality?” Because it is patently, obviously and gargantuanly unfair. When one individual has enough money to end food insecurity or homelessness in their country in a single day, while millions are starving, homeless, or living in unsafe conditions, it is impossible not to see the inherent inhumanity of a system which allows it. Any arguments made about global poverty or innovations are merely justifications of this inhumanity, attempting to explain that it is for the Greater Good that people die in starvation while there is plenty of food to keep them full and happy. The truth is that this state of affairs only benefits the capitalists, the already wealthy, the exploiters.
And it’s here that we get to the meat of the issue. The reason we focus on the gap between the hyper-wealthy is because it defines the sides of a conflict, a conflict that we have been fighting for centuries, millenia. On one side are the vast majority of people, those who are coerced into labour they don’t care about, that they’d rather not do, simply in order to continue to exist. On the other side are those who do not merely exist, but thrive, living in obscene luxury not just in spite of everyone else’s struggle, but because of it. When Tom lists the relative comfort of (some of) today’s workers compared to those of the past, these aren’t the natural beautiful flowers of capitalism in full bloom, these are small victories in an ongoing war against oppression. A living wage, safe working conditions, the 35 hour work week: workers and activists gave their lives to wrest these small mercies from the hands of those at the top of the wealth gap. We came out of serfdom not because capitalism came from space to save us, but because we cut the heads of kings and queens until they stopped abusing us. This didn’t represent the end of the war, but it’s beginning.
So yeah, Tom, maybe Jeff Bezos giving me a swirly is a little better than King Æthelred giving me a wedgie, but I’m definitely better off with both of those motherfuckers gone.
