- Either you are part of the 99% or you are a part of the 1%.
- Assume you are part of the 99%.
- If you are part of the 99%, then it is in your interest to support movements that promote a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.
- The Occupy Movement promotes a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.
- Therefore it is in your interest to support the Occupy Movement.
- Now assume you are a part of the 1%.
- If you are a part of the 1%, then it is in your interest to support movements that promote a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.
- The Occupy Movement promotes a more equitable distribution of power (wealth) in society.
- Therefore, it is in your interest to support the Occupy Movement.
Now clearly (7) is the most contentious premise. What is there to say in its favor? It seems to me that history teaches us that precipitous inequities in power (wealth) distribution almost unfailingly lead to mass revolution against those few hands who hold all the power (wealth). The French Revolution, The American Revolution, The Bolshevik Revolution, and revolutions in countries throughout the world always seem to occur when the balance of power (wealth) skews to far toward any minority.
Thus it behooves the 1% to occasionally relinquish their hold on their ill gotten stores of power (wealth) so as to avoid mass uprising. To do anything else is contrary to their own interests. Sure, they'll have less power (wealth), perhaps much less, but they will survive and even flourish. If this argument is sound, then regardless of one's position, whether among the 99% or the 1% one should support the Occupy Movement. The alternative is too ugly to fathom.
Unfortunately, I don't think this argument goes through on a narrowly self-interested conception of "interest" (which is what you seem to be using - if you include the interests we have in non-material goods, like justice and healthy social relations, I'm all with you). Both 3 and 7 are, I fear, problematic.
ReplyDelete7 has the issues you raise, which I'll get back to.
But 3 has those same issues as well, at least for many, many in the 99%. My (and my wife's) household income, if Wikipedia does not fail me, puts me in the 17% or so (depending on summer salary and other variations). Is it in my narrow material interest to have a fairer distribution? Probably not! Or, at least, it may be in my interest to have a fair*er* distribution, so long as it's not *too* fair. For many, many members of the 99%, we need to face the fact that fairness will hurt us, too. Again, in a sense of "hurt" that is tied to narrow economic self-interest.
But what about the revolution? I don't want to be up against the wall when the revolution comes! A lot of that argument depends on how close you think we are to the edge, and how much reform you think is necessary. Were I concerned only with my narrow self interest, especially were I part of the 1% rather than part of the 17%, I'd probably be betting right now that a) OWS will not lead to an actual uprising (US GDP per capita is too high) and b) that relatively moderate reforms that would make the system a little bit more equitable, but not much, would be sufficient to push the date of the revolution off at least well past my daughter's death.
And if I don't care that much about my own kid, I can get away with even less!
Anyway, the upshot is that I think, if there's a persuasive argument in favor of these things, it will have to do with re-defining our understanding of "interest."
history teaches us that precipitous inequities in power (wealth) distribution almost unfailingly lead to mass revolution against those few hands who hold all the power (wealth)
ReplyDeleteFor on the order of a thousand years, Europe, Dar al-Islam, India, and China all had variations on feudal (in terms of politics), manorial (in terms of economics) systems. These systems all had spectacular levels of inequality, and no more mass revolutionary activity than the occasional minor peasant uprising.
So clearly the argument for (7) needs some restrictions: under some sets of conditions, inequality leads to mass revolution. We need to ask what those conditions might be, and whether they obtain today. (Or would obtain in the near future if the 1% didn't support the Occupy Movement.) And -- as I recall from my undergrad poli sci days -- we have no good ideas about the first part.
We also should remember that when discussing potential distributions, we need not hold that the pie is fixed: that is, that we are choosing between Pareto noncomparable arrangements. Our share of the pie (as a percentage) is fixed and thus a competitive good. However, it is possible to move to a Pareto superior distribution. Because it results in a greater GDP benefit (nearly a factor of 2) to distribute close to the bottom rather than towards the top, we can (soon) acheive a higher GDP simply by redistributing.
ReplyDeleteBecause we could move to a Pareto superior distribution, it is possible that we could have some redistribution that still benefits the top percentile: it is possible to distribute it such that they have a smaller percentage of the wealth, but a higher absolute number. And that is definitely the case for those even at the higher quintiles within the 99%.
Of course, I am not saying that it self-interest, narrowly construed, that justifies the move. However, I would deny that it's necessarily *not* in their narrow self-interest to redistribute.
ReplyDeleteI think what is far easier to argue is that a more egalitarian distribution results in greater macroeconomic stability, which clearly does benefit everyone. We are currently experiencing a sharp decline in aggregate demand, which is C + I + G + NX. (C)onsumer spending is 70% of that number (it includes government spending on health).
There are many different reasons for the current inequality. Slate has an excellent series here that examines the impact of various social, political and economic factors on the growth of income inequality.
Whatever the reasons may be, it is clear enough that consumers are overburdened with debt and unable to spend. Job security is tenuous. Public services are cut, forcing consumers to dig deeper. Cutting taxes isn't going to help, because it's not going to stimulate demand. The size of the pie is shrinking, and we would all do better with a larger pie.
Of course, this is all about narrow economic interest. We could also discuss the ways in which it is in everyone's interest to live in a society of free and equal persons, and that resource inequality undermines fundamental commitments to political equality.
That is to say, I think that [7] is actually quite plausible.