To:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk |
||
|
||
Dear Polly (Ms
Toynbee),
I've responded to
your championing of a fair
minimum wage before, mentioning the
need for a "maximum
wage ", but you
obviously did not take my
suggestion seriously
("Our
subsidy to low pay").
300 years ago (in
some places a lot more
recently), anyone suggesting
the abolition of slavery or
outlawing wife beating would
probably also not have been
taken seriously. It simply
wasn't in human nature, they
would argue. Likewise
with the idea of a
"maximum wage".
And there is some
truth in it, because we tend
to conflate our primitive,
"more animal than
human " nature with
our more enlightened human
nature. It wasn't just Goethe
who had two souls in his
breast - we all do: one
animal, the other human (that
is the human condition,
beautifully described, but
horribly interpreted as the
"FALL of man" in the
biblical story of Adam and
Eve; see Genesis
Revisited).
To our animal nature
the idea of a "maximum
wage" is laughable (just
as the abolition of slavery
and wife-beating are); but not
to our more enlightened human
nature.
Your arguments for
improving the lot of the poor
are analogous with earlier
arguments for improving the
lot of slaves or for
regulating and
"humanising" the
beating of wives. What you
(given your good intentions)
should be doing is advocating
the complete abolition of
poverty - and the only
way to do that is by insisting
on "fair" and
"proportionate"
income differentials.
In the real world the
very opposite is happening:
wealth and income
differentials are increasing.
Why? Because our
socio-economic order is still
rooted in man's "more
animal than human "
nature.
You cannot teach an
old dog new tricks, or an old
intellectual new ideas - so
they say. but you are not THAT
old, are you? Although,
admittedly, what I'm
suggesting is more a shift in
paradigm than simply a new
idea.
I realised where you
were going wrong when you
wrote in one of your comments
that "David Beckham earns
his money". In saying
that you express acceptance
(and approval) of the fact that
some people may have
disproportionately larger
incomes than others. Can you
blame the executives of big
companies for feeling that
they are worth at least as
much as a glorified
footballer?
It is in man's "more
animal than human "
nature to focus, not on those
earning less than he does, but
on those earning more. Many
people on a mere 100,000
pounds a year must feel like
paupers when they are
continually comparing
themselves with those on
double and more that amount.
But how can you
legislate for a "maximum
wage"?
You cannot, and
simply taxing the rich more is
not the answer either -
because it does not go to the
root of the problem: the
acceptance of primitive,
"more animal than
human " values,
attitudes and aspirations,
which - and this makes the
situation so difficult to
recognise - are built into the
very fabric of our society and
economy.
Like most people, you
seem to believe that poverty
and the poor are the world's
biggest problem. But
it is not true. In fact, the
RICH are a far bigger problem
- not simply because they
(or "we", depending
on one's perspective) ) place
a far greater per capita drain
and strain on Earth's limited
resources and carrying
capacity than the poor do, but
even more importantly, because
they ("we") act as
role models, whose
extravagantly materialistic
lifestyles billions of others
seek to emulate. When
only a few (million) people
could afford cars and to jet
around the world our planet
could shrug it off, but not
any longer.
Achieving fair and
proportionate income
differentials is no longer
just a matter of combating
poverty and injustice, but of
achieving sustainability on
our imperilled planet, and
thus of human survival. If
we seriously damage our
planet's ability to support us
- which we are well on the way
to doing - the consequences
will be catastrophic, for rich
and poor alike. The
poor will suffer most at
first, of course, but
ultimately the rich (or their
descendents) will suffer too.
Thus, for the sake of
achieving sustainability
(and human survival), fair and
proportionate wealth and
income differentials are in
EVERYONE'S
"enlightened "
self-interest.
It is up to those of
us who recognise where their
"enlightened "
self-interests lie to set
about creating an alternative
socio-economic order, based,
not on our "more
animal than human "
nature, as at present, but on
our more enlightened human
nature.
I'm talking
REVOLUTION Polly. A very
worrying prospect for someone
like yourself, with a such a privileged
and comfortable position in
the existing socio-economic
order. But if you are the
woman of principle, which I
hope you are, you will at
least consider it.
More at www.spaceship-earth.org
|
||
|