Sharing the Wealth: An Impossible Dream

More and more we see what Barack Obama really meant when he spoke about redistributing the wealth. In multiple initiatives—not just his efforts to control Wall Street—he has demonstrated his intension to take from the rich to give to the poor. This is described as “social justice” and thought to be extremely moral.
Behind this conclusion, however, lies an unspoken assumption. Obama, like most left-wing progressives, believes that inequality is corrupt. He is convinced that the natural human condition is complete equality; hence anything that produces inequality is fundamentally misguided.
But more than this, he like most liberals blames inequality on the selfish machinations of the wealthy. Precisely because the well-off are eager to control as many resources as they can, they conspire to cheat the less powerful of their birthright. The old-fashioned Marxist word for this is “exploitation.”
The answer is therefore to confiscate the excess profits of the rich. This will cut them down to size, while simultaneously lifting the oppressed to where they belong. If taxes are raised, heavy fees imposed, and personal discretion reduced, the powerful will no longer have the wherewithal to oppress ordinary folks. As a consequence, the promise of democracy—which is complete equality—will finally be fulfilled.
There is, sadly, a small fly in the ointment. What the Democrats are attempting is impossible. Were they to notice what occurred in the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution, they might understand why. They would realize what happens when an artificial egalitarianism is imposed from above.
The Communists, when they took over from the Tsars, assumed that if they got rid of the oppressive elites, fairness would become universal. Without the Boyars to keep people in virtual slavery, things would automatically sort themselves out in a more balanced way.
Except that is not what happened. The Bolshevik leaders themselves rushed in to fill the void. They became the new elite. Suddenly it was they who occupied the biggest houses, consumed the best food, and drove the fanciest vehicles. Worse still, it was they who had the power of life and death over those they ruled.
It seems that when one elite is overthrown another rises to occupy its status. Some of the previously deprived take advantage of the opening and assert their authority over others. They become the new bosses and as such appropriate social resources for themselves.
The point is that we human beings are hierarchical creatures. We all participate in creating and maintaining the ranking systems in which we partake. Take away a current elite and someone else fights to be on top. Then once there they make the most of their comparative superiority.
If this sounds far-fetched, ask yourself how comfortable you would feel as a “loser.” If in competition with others you were defeated, would you be content to be at the bottom of the pecking order? Conversely, if you won, would you mourn your good fortune?
If this sounds silly, it is because we all want to be winners. This is what is means to be human. No one wants to be mediocre; hence we all seek to be better than someone. Indeed, this is why we take pleasure in playing games where only someone wins.
Obama and company say they want to share the wealth, but look at what they actually do. Despite their protests, they are accumulating as much power as they can and then distributing the benefits among their friends. Thus, when they took over General Motors they didn’t give the lion’s share of assets to the bondholders, but to their allies in the union.
Similarly, when running for president Obama promised to be bipartisan. But has he been? Has he shared power with the Republicans? Surprise, surprise; he has not! It turns out that he too likes to win because he too is a hierarchical animal. He may believe in redistributing social resources, but he is going to make sure that he gets more than an equal portion.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University