"I don't want to take £1 billion pounds to the grave with me." (Sir Tom Hunter, Daily Telegraph, 18 July 2007).
Andrew Carnegie, Bill Clinton, Bob Geldof et al would no doubt agree that there can be only a small percentage of financial, business, sport or artistic successes in any one generation. There just isn't space at the top of any profession or vocation for the majority of the population. The system doesn't work like that. A pyramid requires a very broad, solid base made up of multitudinous blocks rising in successively smaller layers to the apex. The financial structure of the world is the same; the many enabling the few to amass their fortunes. In sport or art, whether through talent or promotion, a similar structure exists.
Whilst the super-rich can afford to give away much of their monetary wealth without hardship or set up trusts, charities, concerts and the like to alleviate some of the world's worst conditions (and the rest of us can donate much smaller amounts according to our individual situation and whim), the plain facts are that each year, year in, year out, millions more around the world find themselves in abject poverty. Whatever is given in aid, grants or donations is never, and will never be, sufficient to "make poverty history".
Sir Tom Hunter appears not at all gloomy about the world situation and claims "he gets a bigger buzz from a successful philanthropic venture than from his businesses". There is an obvious satisfaction to be gained from personally being able to bring positive solutions to problems of those less fortunate than oneself; however, even supposing all the world's billionaires were to prove as altruistic in ministering to the world's needy, it would only result in a partial cure of humanity’s sores rather than total elimination of the disease.
The Daily Telegraph article ends with Carnegie's assertion that "all personal wealth beyond that required to supply the needs of one's family should be regarded as a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the community." Which is not all that different from Karl Marx’s dictum “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". However, the poor of the world don't need a hand-out. They simply need to be a part of a world system that doesn't exploit them and with the universal right to nutritious food and clean water, shelter, responsibility for self-determination, all long recognized as prerequisites for a fulfilling life.
With "from each according to ability, to each according to need" applied globally it will not only be possible but achievable in the foreseeable future to eliminate poverty, malnutrition and the other ills inherent in global capitalism.
When doctors, teachers, musicians, scientists, technicians, farmers, entrepreneurs use their expertise solely for the benefit of the (world) community; when the Earth's rich resources are used for people, not profit; when all citizens of the world are seen to have equal, intrinsic worth regardless of background, intelligence or class; when our collective aims are truly altruistic rather than accumulative then there would be no worries about taking money to the grave. Wealth would be real, not virtual; the Earth's resources would belong to all, not to be pillaged for profit for the minority; talent, skills and human endeavour would be the wealth to be spent by all for the benefit of all.
How satisfying to go to the grave fully used up with absolutely nothing going to waste.
JS
4 comments:
Given the conditions mentioned here, who would take pain to generate wealth to take to the grave or do the charity, if the government does not rob one off most of it through taxes to create a welfare state? And why?
I would, because I'm a goddamned human being. I want to matter and I want to help.
Each according to his abilities....who defines those abilities? Does that mean you work 8 hours a day? 10? 12? Take according to needs....what are the needs? 1000 calories per day? air conditioning? So, redtyler will work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week and live the same as some guy in Bangladesh, because he really wants to help and matter. What about the guy in Atlanta (call him Smitty) who, as fan of socialism, thinks 35 hours a week of work is more than enough. He could work more, but decided personal quality time is more important. Is he doing enough? Is he really working according to his abilities? How will this be decided? Who will decide? Will it be each according to his conscience? If so, redtyler working 80 hours a week, limited to 1500 calories per day and no A/C and Smitty, working 35 hous a week, getting 2500 calories per day with his A/C on full in GA will both be sleeping well at night with perfectly clear consciences. But vastly different giving according to his abilities, not to mention, taking according to his needs.
And even more telling...what about families? Who is more important to redtyler...his kids or the kids of a guy in China? Will most dads (or moms) work an extra 15 hours a week to make his children more safe, more secure, able to have a better life? Sure. Will he do the same for a kid in China? Most likely, a smarter kid is more likely to be successful and finish college. Will he give up his children's chance to go to college to someone else's poorer kid in Cambodia who has a 20 point higher IQ can go instead and more likely to be successful in finishing college? Ideally, he should, right? It is within his ability...and the poorer kids need is greater than his own. Not sure that is likely to happen. Global needs tend to become less important when you look close to home, and fewer things mean more to a parent than their own kids.
Who will be the arbiter of needs and abilities? This seems to point to a tremendous loss of individual freedom. And if the current society is typical of reflection of what happens when these principals are are not adhered to widely, someone will have to step up and arbitrate these things. A slippery slope.
The two key phrases in the from each to each mantra is. From each and to each.
Who determines these. If you are a liberal you probably hate George Bush. Do you want HIM to determine those? If on the other side you hate Bill Clinton. DO you want HIM???? to determine that. Gosh no.
Clearly it will be people in power, people with political savvy who will get to make these decisions.
Why would we want to do that. Arent the american people good and kind enough to on their own in their communities give to those that need?
I think so. Those that don't must clearly prefer the politician they HATE doing this redistribution.
Learn more about corrupt politicians. Understand that no political system can keep out the corrupt. But we CAN limit the power they have when they are in power. Its called a democratic republic within a free market system. That is the form of government the US used to have.
Freedom. Get more of it.
Post a Comment