In the NY winter of 2008 I lodged with a very colorful middle aged English man, he was one of the three roommates I had in Mysore. One night the conversation ranged from the Indian gods to money, and during the course of it we realized we had different points of view. I believe money to be a blessing, he thought of it as just a “door opener”, and it that sense we could probably had agreed, but I could see that behind the aggravated and confrontational tone of his voice resided some real anger.
A lot of people still seem to think that money is bad, or rather, that rich people are bad. There is a certain pleasure derived from hating the rich, but I prefer to follow the Hawaiian saying “bless that which you want”, and bless wealth, moreover, respect it as a powerful energy, as a synonym of freedom.
Reading Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found this morning, I come across the author saying the following when referring to the wealthy in Bombay:
“...But it is also these rich who create wealth, who create the conditions that will allow the mother on the streets to find a home for their children. They must be allowed their penthouses, their brandy, so the poor may be allowed their simple clear room."
The way I translate it to countries that have wealth, is in my noticing, especially in the last couple of days, that there is a breed of people out there saying that money should be shared by all, distributed fairly. Now I agree that laws should be ready and in place so that opportunities are equal, but the socialism idea, really?
I read on the internet about a professor who tried an experiment with his students on a semester, he told them that they would be graded on an “average” of all the grades from everyone. Before you tell me, I know this did not actually happen, it was just written by someone as an exercise to explain why “grade socialism” would not work, but if you are interested in how the story goes, well, if you know money or a grade is coming anyway, why bother? Why innovate? Why try something new? Why ever study?
If it was not for wealth, I wonder if we could even go to India these days, if people did not venture into new things with the promise of money and yes, following their hearts too, would we even have airplanes?
I disagree, somebody may become successful and rich not merely because of hard work but perhaps because they live in a country where those opportunities are available. That situation is built on the lives and labour of millions, past and present, and for this reason there is perhaps a responsibility for the state to acknowledge that. I disagree too the people venture into new things for the promise of money, we venture for ADventure, money can be a nice bonus perhaps. I and millions like me work hard and to the best of our abilities out of respect for the work and the job. Recently my company wanted to offer a bonus scheme, I argued against it, I'm already paid to do a Job and to do it to the best of my abilities, I don't want a bonus, to me that's like a tip. just pay me a fair and honorable wage for an honorable days work. I don't hate people with money, good for them but I am dismayed by people who strive for it. Strive for success, but not just for money, it may be a sign of success but it doesn't equate with it.
ReplyDeleteGood job we agree more about the yoga : )
The argument against sharing the wealth more evenly (or socialism) is that it does not take into account self-interest. If people do not get to keep all the money/wealth they earn/create then they lose their incentive to create wealth for themselves. Capitalism is the best system to take into account self-interest according to this.
ReplyDeleteBut what is self-interest?
The question is how self is defined (and also wealth).
The standard definition of self used in capitalism is that self ends at your fingertips or if it is larger than that it does not expand beyond the immediate blood family.
Anything that goes beyond those parameters in distributing wealth goes outside of self-interest and this is why socialism does not work ultimately ... at least that is the claim.
The thing is however that this is a limited definition of self and self-interest.
In socialism the definition of self is larger and expands outside of one's immediate family to include the entire community or the entire world.
That is the justification for distributing the wealth ... it is all self-interest, but a different definition of self is in use.
Is the self truly limited to one's blood family?
If it is not, then the premise of capitalism's justification for self-interest falls apart in economic terms since it is based on a false definition of self. As soon as the definition goes outside one's own fingertips it is the beginning of socialism, or of casting the net into a social field.
The above is in purely economic terms, but it also overlaps with philosophy in that the question of how to define self is not just an economic question but also a psychological/philosophical question.
Does the self truly end at one's own fingertips?
Of course this is the way the mind perceives things, but isn't this an illusion?
And then the whole question opens up of whether the self exists at all and that if in some way it does not actually exist, then what is grasping and holding on in a possessive way to wealth (wealth defined as money or material possessions)?
A hungry ghost?
i love maximum city & mumbai.
ReplyDeletei also like $
Después de casi dos meses de ausencia, por motivos laborales, y co el tiempo justito de postear minimamente, ahora ya con más dedicación y tiempo, paso a saludarte y ver actulizaciones.
ReplyDeleteSiempre un placer visistarte, con mis mejores deseos de serenidad, recibe un relajante y cálido abrazo para tu ser.
Hi Grimmly, I am glad that we agree to disagree... :-) the only thing I would question in your case, mostly because when my job offered a bonus skim for everyone I argued it had to be on the base of merit, is weather by not accepting a bonus we are by default assuming that whoever the 'employer' can better determine what to do with the money we do not accept. I believe wealthy individuals (OK some) have a further reaching effect in helping out where it is really needed that governments... but that could be just me...
ReplyDeleteAnon, thanks for your opinion. I suppose we also agree to disagree here, the concept that we are all one is fantastic, but as a yogi I don't have direct experience of it, although I fervently believe in it I never actually felt it at a visceral level, I aspire to it, but not yet,I have a feeling I am not the only one and that we are living in a much more basic world. And about the illusion, I suppose it can go either way, even supposing everyone wanted to work for the benefit of all, there always has to be an "administrator" somewhere, history speaks for itself here as of the disastrous dictatorial results.
Bindy, the book is breath taking really, it is painting a whole new picture on Mumbai for me, one I did not know existed.
Beatriz, gracias por visitar y bienvenida de nuevo