To: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
Re: Never mind the government, Polly - what are "we" going to do about growing inequality?
Date: Friday 29 October 04

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