Can we have equality without equal material wealth?

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, but the money disappears after you die. I'd rather have $195k than Old Age Security, because it would pass immediately to my kids via inheritance. As it is, they're currently going to each inherit a $7800 income when they turn 65, due to the citizenship I blessed them with.

I would agree, but that only happens when folks are allowed to build wealth. So much depends upon the goals of the program: cash up front, income over time, wealth building, free programs in lieu of money (education or training, etc.). And then, what % of folks will squander it all anyway?

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, granted. My point was more that the OAS is not best calculated as a $195k wealth transfer. It's a wealth loan, sure. But if we wanted to calculate how much richer our seniors got on their 65th birthday, we'd not say "$195k".

 

[Snerk]

I lean towards John Rawls' take on inequality: inequality is fine as long as it benefits those who have the least. I.e. it can be a very useful incentive for progress that benefits all. Clearly that's not the reality of today's world. But it's what we should stive for IMO.

 

[Narz]

Additionally the “humans are naturally greedy/selfish” arguers are also off the mark. If there could be anything like a true human tendency in a putative state of nature, that tendency is towards mutual aid and a conscious elimination of hierarchy as it develops, and probably has been from the moment humans developed the ability to use projectile weapons and produce poisons. This has been the case in basically every immediate return Hunter-gatherer society we have ever observed. Humans tend towards greed/selfishness given material conditions that produce them, namely when subsistence is dependent on a fixed resource whose access can be restricted, and the ability to freely associate is thereby eliminated.

This is the common view but it's a little more complicated than that. Some hunter gathers had slaves, some early cities may have been fairly egalitarian.

Our modern world certainly encourages more sociopaths @ the top but people have lived all sorts of ways accepting & rejecting many forms of hierarchies over the millenia.

If @Narz is agreeing with my limited citation of Marx in a thread about equality and not actually about Marx, he’s already agreeing that Marx is not about the equality that is the topic of the OP.

I don't know that much about Marx. Haven't read any of his books mostly quotes. Seemed like a smart guy.

 

[Narz]

I lean towards John Rawls' take on inequality: inequality is fine as long as it benefits those who have the least. I.e. it can be a very useful incentive for progress that benefits all. Clearly that's not the reality of today's world. But it's what we should stive for IMO.

Peopld in the middle need some benefit too.

Having social services available to the very poor and as soon as you meet some arbitrary thersehold that says you're not in poverty and you get nothing only escalates class divides. Perhaps intentionally?

 

[Lexicus]

Does material equality mean everyone has the same exact things? I think not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Does material equality mean everyone has the same exact things? I think not.

What does it mean then?

 

[Snerk]

Peopld in the middle need some benefit too.

Having social services available to the very poor and as soon as you meet some arbitrary thersehold that says you're not in poverty and you get nothing only escalates class divides. Perhaps intentionally?

Agreed. I belive in a basic universal income paid by a progressive tax on wealth and inheritance. Both as a redistributer of wealth, and as an investment in people if you will, as already discussed in this thread.

But to answer OP's question I think a goal of equal material wealth is both unobtainable, and nonconstructive in making the best version of earth possible.

 

[Hygro]

Marx, being a Hegel-influenced materialist, did not believe in being, but saw everything as existing in a continuous process of becoming. He fervently rejected teleology of any kind, even to the point of writing glowingly of his contemporary Darwin, in whose work he saw the potential to finally rid the British sciences of its pernicious teleological thinking. It’s not for no reason that he described communism as the point at which real human history could truly begin.

This is consistent with my mostly secondary source education of him, in school, and at CFC, and the primary source passages I have read such as the one you posted above.

Similarly, it is why my imagined utopia is different than my question to begin with. I am not so much trying to bridge contradictions but explore, most of all, the opinions of posters here of an idea of equality in an otherwise familiar world.

 

[Lexicus]

What does it mean then?

To me, it all goes back to the social relations. Material inequality (in the sense of class inequality rather than just "we have two different brands of refrigerator") arises from social relations of domination or coercion. So what does a distribution of resources that arises from free association rather than from domination look like?

I would contend that it looks more like prehistoric hunter-gatherers than like contemporary society. By the nature of things it's quite difficult to compel nomadic hunter-gatherers (or even nomadic pastoralists, much more common in historical times) to do what you want them to, which is why agrarian states have so often resorted to extermination in dealing with them.

The utility of this observation is limited though because, regardless of the merits of returning to monke, doing so doesn't seem possible for us.

Anyway, I don't think it is a useful contribution to the conversation to say something like "but are two people REALLY equal if one has a Sony TV and the other has a Samsung TV?" The kind of inequality we ought to be concerned with is not lack of identity (ie, people not having the same exact stuff, or in the sense that 5 does not equal 3) but with lack of dignity and lack of autonomy. Dignity because many are too poor to support themselves; autonomy because (and this is an opinion/value statement you are free to disagree with) people aren't meant to take orders all day.

 

[Rg339]

dignity

Agree with your general points on history of social structures/implausibility of returning to past eras.

I wonder about the influence of social standing on a persons perception of their dignity. Somebody’s likely always gonna feel like they lack social rank. Say individual X has characteristics that don’t garner social capital(ugly, dull, shy) as efficiently as other characteristics. Such people likely feel their treatment is unequal(probably rightly).

I dunno how realistic it is to be free from social domination, assuming you do get to a place where material disparities are not so relevant to the consideration

 

[Hygro]

No one in Nicaragua has ever once seemed jealous nor envious of my phone, for example. I have a 1-2 year old iPhone, most young people here have like a 4 year old Samsung. We are equals in phones in dignity.

But there comes a point when my cool stuff is going to route positive (and thus, negative as well) attention my way, and I will have more status. Can we have equality if by a sum of “virtues” including fancier brands, the prettier girls decide they want to hang out at my house instead of yours? And our otherwise, let’s pretend, equal vibes and at first, but by circumstance the result giving me giving higher vibes than your lonelier house, feedbacking as such?

Or is that all so small?

Could we have billionaires as long as our work was fun and cool, we were not obligated to consume, and our time was our own, and have it be equality?

 

[Rg339]

No one in Nicaragua has ever once seemed jealous nor envious of my phone, for example. I have a 1-2 year old iPhone, most young people here have like a 4 year old Samsung. We are equals in phones in dignity.

But there comes a point when my cool stuff is going to route positive (and thus, negative as well) attention my way, and I will have more status. Can we have equality if by a sum of “virtues” including fancier brands, the prettier girls decide they want to hang out at my house instead of yours? And our otherwise, let’s pretend, equal vibes and at first, but by circumstance the result giving me giving higher vibes than your lonelier house, feedbacking as such?

Or is that all so small?

Could we have billionaires as long as our work was fun and cool, we were not obligated to consume, and our time was our own, and have it be equality?

Prestige(or lack of it) of a brand is probably going to have some effect on a persons social relations, yeah. I don’t think it’s necessarily a small effect.

Knowledge of the zeitgeist is probably what determines how effectively a person can parlay brand prestige into social prestige.

A Harley Davidson shirt is gonna “click” with some people. Some people find Harley’s obnoxiously loud, though. Probably not gonna click with those people.

Somebody who really knows the spirit of the time is gonna find brands, band shirts, a certain style of fashion that probably “clicks” with a high number of people. Say somebody else has a wardrobe with a similar $ value, but is style most will find dull or unappealing, nope, not gonna have the same social success. Cliques are fickle I guess.

One may end up with a large number of friends willing to provide them altruism in tough times. The other may not. The outcomes aren’t certain, but the potential there for the effect to be substantial

 

[bernie14]

Yes, materialism is not the base of social relations.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

humans have not been equal in recorded history and there's no clear reason they need to be.

if you mean equal in particular/constrained respects, such as before the law, then in principle it's possible w/o equal material wealth and should happen. in practice we do not observe it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Hygro Does being an America have a "brand" advantage? Does the fact that you can get on a plane and leave anytime carry a "brand" advantage? And that goes for your education, musical talent, command of English, etc. too. And we cannot forget the various "audiences" you interact with that might see each of those things differently nd hence see you differently.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I would agree, but that only happens when folks are allowed to build wealth. So much depends upon the goals of the program: cash up front, income over time, wealth building, free programs in lieu of money (education or training, etc.). And then, what % of folks will squander it all anyway?

Probably about the same as the % of people who inherit wealth squander it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Probably about the same as the % of people who inherit wealth squander it.

Good point; if you are giving away public money knowing (guessing?) how much will be squandered is important from a budgeting, PR, and planning perspective. Johnny Jr. misspending Daddy and Mommy's money is of less concern to the state.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Good point; if you are giving away public money knowing (guessing?) how much will be squandered is important from a budgeting, PR, and planning perspective. Johnny Jr. misspending Daddy and Mommy's money is of less concern to the state.

Although there is an argument money is better spent and circulated than hoarded.
Depends what its being squandered on I suppose.

 

[Hygro]

@Hygro Does being an America have a "brand" advantage? Does the fact that you can get on a plane and leave anytime carry a "brand" advantage? And that goes for your education, musical talent, command of English, etc. too. And we cannot forget the various "audiences" you interact with that might see each of those things differently nd hence see you differently.

These are great questions: the good news is out here, not really, no. Though I don’t want to over stress it, the degree of envy is low and dignity is high. Being able to “hang” is still king. But it’s not all equal.

I am nevertheless optimistic.