Opponents of capitalism tell
us that capitalists are greedy. These
oligarchs use the free marketplace to grow rich because they want to have more
than others. In fact, they intend to
take the bread out of the mouths of the poor so that they can pay for solid
gold bathroom fixtures.
Socialists think of the
wealthy as bloated buffoons or clones of Scrooge McDuck. Either these plutocrats are plotting to
trample over the rights of working stiffs or literally swimming in counting
houses filled with gold coins. Far from being
hard workers, they are jet setters skiing the slopes of Gstaad or playing the
roulette wheel in Monte Carlo.
The reality is somewhat
different. Truly successful people are
usually workaholics. They are like Bill
Gates and Jeff Bezos. Microsoft and
Amazon,com were not initiated by lazy good-for-nothings. Their founders had a vision that they were
driven to fulfill.
Wealth is nice, but it has
its limitations. After a certain point,
it does not buy additional comfort.
Given that this is so, the quest to grow richer would inevitably run
into a brick wall. The very successful
would simply stop working because they did not need more money.
They don’t stop because what
drives them is ambition. They want to be
the best. They want to have more than
others because this demonstrates that they are winners. And they want to win. They want to be the biggest winners of all.
But who does not want to
win? Most of us will never climb to the
top of Disraeli’s greasy pole, but if we could, we would be thrilled. Instead, we obtain vicarious victories by
rooting for sports teams. When our
favorites come out on top it is as if we had won.
Yet there is a downside to
winning. If some grow rich, then others
are left behind. They may not be
starving, but they realize that they have less than the truly affluent, which
is galling.
But something similar is
true in sports. We love it when our team
wins, whereas we hate it when it loses.
Hence it was great when the Falcons got to the Super Bowl and
heartbreaking when they were defeated by the Patriots. It was similarly wonderful when the Braves
were the best team in baseball and frustrating once they became also rans.
Nevertheless doesn’t the
chance of winning compensate for the pain of losing? Would we really want socialist inspired
sports leagues where all teams were equal?
Would a world filled with mediocrities set our hearts thumping or swell our
chests with pride?
It is the same in the
marketplace. Were everyone merely to try
to get by there would be no innovations.
Likewise, if everyone settled for exactly the same compensation, no one
would be motivated to turn out quality products.
If this sounds doubtful, the
experiment was tried. It was in Russia,
China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and most recently Venezuela. In every case, it led to economic
catastrophe. In none, did it provide
ordinary people with the promised affluence.
What was worse, in order to
enforce equality, repression had to be instituted. If no one was allowed to be better than
anyone else, ambitious souls had to be held back. They had to be brutalized and stripped of
their gains. As a consequence, the
Russian Kulaks were killed, while Chinese artists were expelled from the cities
and compelled to live as peasants.
In the United States, in
contrast, inequality produced more assets than in any large nation in the
history of the world. Millions of
individuals in quest of personal glory contributed to an economic dynamo and
democratic phenomenon. Their ambition
impelled them to efforts from which billions benefitted.
Yes, some folks did better
than others. Yes, this was not always
based on who was best. Cheating and luck
sometimes played a part. Even so,
collectively we have come out just fine.
What we need, therefore, is
not complete equality. Instead we
require equal opportunity and equal treatment before the law. If so, personal ambition will continue to
prosper, which will be to our joint good fortune.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment