Wealth distorts the relationship of living things to the
biospheric systems upon which life depends. Great wealth distorts the human relationship with this
Reality in two primary ways: first, the accumulations of material that
underwrite the wealth must be sustained and grown without regard to other
conditions of wellbeing; and second, the accumulations of wealth limit the
general human (and other) population’s access to essential materials supporting
life and so confer power on those who control those accumulations. Combining these two statements: wealth
arrogates power to act in the world without regard for the wellbeing of other
entities or systems; wealth is only responsible to itself.
The idea of, and the word, wealth has had a long run as
positively valued. The idea of
being wealthy tends, in most people, to create a ‘warm and fuzzy’ feeling. For some it would be relief from the anxiety
of insufficiency, for others it is the opportunity to live without the caution
required by “just enough,” for still others it is the chance to ignore many
restraints and for an important group it is the chance to seem to live with
complete impunity.
Belief in the value of, and the desire for, wealth is
ultimately the desire for impunity.
Impunity is the “freedom” from the consequences of and responsibilities
for actions. This is completely
obvious in the statements of why people wish to be wealthy with almost all such
statements translating into, “so I can have and do whatever I want.”
Each of these levels of “freedom” from responsibility is,
however, a denial and a rejection of Reality “purchased” by wealth. Accumulations of material excess allow
those in control to avoid Reality in favor of the machinations of sustaining
and growing the excess – machinations that are then called economic reality.
Once the wealth accumulation process begins it becomes
self-perpetuating – a positive feedback system (positive in this application
does not mean “good”, but only that each iteration of action adds to rather
than subtracts from the next iteration).
Wealth is accumulation; there is no standard that establishes what is
enough. This is unlike Reality based
living in which it is straightforward that certain levels of use and
accumulation are required for health and safety, accumulations beyond those
levels are gratuitous; the only reason for a general need for excess
accumulations is as protection from the actions of those who are driven to
accumulate greater and greater excess at the expense of their neighbors.
And so, a small group of people driven to wealth
accumulation and uninhibited by their communities move this process from a
marginal issue for a community to making it a most important and dangerous
process. Once wealth reaches the level
that some community members can act with true impunity, then the society is
doomed to a convulsive end.
Impunity of action is a powerful and destructive
motivation. When we observe it in
others it is clear that we need some degree of similar power as protection, an
observation that can quickly turn to the destructive uses of our own impunity
should we acquire its capacity.
We are at this moment in history in the most extended form
of this process. The tiny number
of the most wealthy have accumulated the control of material to such an extent,
and have come to live with such levels of impunity, that they no longer
recognize any connection with either the great mass of humanity or ecological
reality – beyond some recognition of the need to control them.
Large numbers of people in the “developed” countries who
have accumulated enough material excess that they can imagine true impunity
have come to act in the support of those with great wealth on the (utterly
unwarranted) assumption that they too have a substantial chance to “have it
all:” again, we must be clear, it is the impunity of action that is
desired. While the middle classes
(especially corporate and political middle classes) in the developed countries
do not have the wealth to actually do whatever they wish without responsibility
for actions, their identification with the truly wealthy confuses them as to
their real standing and power.
However, once they have ‘the taste of impunity,’ they are often driven
by the same process of thoughtless acquisitiveness.
The idea of wealth must become anathema. Mores precede law,
so while it would be useful for laws to be passed that regulate the
accumulation of material excess, this will not happen so long as the majority
of people in general and the vast number of people in power glorify both wealth
and the wealthy.
I hear and read arguments in progressive media that go
something like this: “The great concentrations of money are ruining the
American political system, but there is nothing wrong with being rich; I know
many fine rich people.” Think
about that for a moment: since concentrations of wealth are the source of
plutocracy, then either we can only allow the “good” people to be wealthy or
wealth itself must be seen as an inherent danger. Those good people who are wealthy will be just fine with a
socially comprehensible level of accumulation, and might even find a more
vibrant community with which to engage.
And, if wealth were generally disallowed by social pressure, those whose
impunity of action would damage human life and the ecological future would be
mitigated.
We can reject wealth and the wealthy. Only a few years ago it was unthinkable
to criticize a smoker and yet today they are outcasts huddling around the
dumpsters out of sight. Only a few
years ago people spoke with a strange sort of pride about driving drunk and the
scrapes they got out of and into; today, people who try that are looked at with
considerable distain.
We need to understand that pride in wealth is pride in
theft. The community combined in
its efforts to accumulate material and the wealthy person finds a way to take
an excess share, either by avarice or accident – and most often both. I knew a man who discovered a trove of
valuable objects in the possession of an old woman – things that her deceased
husband had produced. He
cultivated her, eventually buying the collection for a few thousand dollars and
then selling the objects for 10s of thousands of dollars each. He was very proud of this. His friends were envious. He was unafraid to tell this story to
strangers. Multiply this impunity
by the millions of people in this country and it becomes unlivable by any
standards of civility and dignity.
There are two parts to this reunderstanding, a proper
understanding, of wealth. We must
realize and make public our rejection of the accumulation of great wealth. People who collect great excess must be
criticized, not lauded; the person who arrives by Rolls Royce shunned, the
person who arrives by bicycle applauded.
My acquaintance should never feel comfortable telling the story of his
theft from the old woman. The lie
must be given to the argument that the rejection of those with wealth is envy;
it is the understanding of the dishonesty of wealth and the inherent theft it
requires.
Secondly, rejecting wealth means that one cannot become or
desire to become wealthy – even by accident. The goal must be to accumulate a level of wealth that
confers safety and a minimum of the distress from want. But, everyone should have regular times
of caution and consideration with how they allocate their wealth
resources. No one should be so
wealthy that they never have to make choices between items of desire and items
of necessity.
The allure of impunity is powerful, but it is easy to see
that no one should be able to act without being responsible for the
consequences of their actions. It
is exactly this easily understood connection that is ruined by wealth – with
the consequence that society itself becomes inhumane and unlivable for all but
those whose impunity dominates the rest (and even these people are diminished
as members of the species). There
is no alternative: wealth must be properly understood and rejected as we have
done with other socially disbeneficial behaviors.
