Just A Thought: Economic Inequality

In the short YouTube video that we watched in class discussion, Slavoj Ziezek ended the portion by saying, “Today we must ask: how to rethink the critique of the political economy.”  This statement followed his opinion of the ineffectiveness of our current system of welfare. Ziezek doesn’t think that our increase in giving to the lower class actually accomplishes any positive outcomes. His argument is that, if anything, there is an increase in the inequality among our society through this “welfare solution.” *

Let’s look at one of the greatest issues of the 21^st century: economic inequality. The growing issue with the “top 1%” of the nation has alerted the public’s attention to the devastating economic inequality that exists in America. As a result, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement broke out, causing long protests against this economic inequality. Now that everyone is aware of this significant problem in the United States, what the hell is our nation going to do about it?

Going back to Ziezek’s argument about giving to those less fortunate, his reasoning is that a “charitable” * mindset will not save America nor bring equality to the nation. Let’s look at it in this way: if you are to give money and food to a poor man, you will relieve him of that current suffering. At the same time, your charity reflects your ability to give something to him because you are clearly wealthier and better off than he. In addition, what happens after that money and food is gone? All you have done is give him money and food. You didn’t give him a job, education, or an opportunity to change so that he can leave that state of “inequality” (his poor standing in comparison to your wealth). In other words, our welfare solution to economic inequality is to give, give, give to the less unfortunate; when does that giving turn into equality? There is a famous saying, “You can give a man fish, and when you leave he will starve. Or you can teach the man to fish and he can support himself.” In this welfare solution America’s solution is to either allow the poor to starve or continue to feed the poor. But in both cases, the poor doesn’t become empowered! So how the hell is this a solution for economic equality?

Let’s move away from this welfare solution. Another concept that our class previously discussed was Marx and Engel’s article about a communist solution. If we want to restructure America into a nation that gives equal opportunity at the occupational level (the main concern for this communist change), we might have equality result in our current issue with the wealth gap. But when we look at the Marxist concept, he contributes a great deal of this occupational inequality to come from the competition that exists in industry. He states that the issue is a result of capitalism. Theoretically speaking, how shall our nation disable capitalism and competition (in regards to the inequality of wealth)? Our current society supports a capitalistic structure. I am not so sure that can easily change anytime soon (or that it would even be a good idea). I think that in a “business-like” society, we should use business-like solutions.

I have recently been taught about the concept of social entrepreneurship. I suppose I knew that this idea existed but I never knew a whole about it nor did I really think about its productiveness in the United States. Social entrepreneurship is the concept of using business ideas to create projects that benefit the socioeconomic state of some community. The project or business creates revenue for that community, challenges people to create creative projects for the well being of others, and it allows those who benefit economically from the project to be proactive in changing their economic inequalities. This idea still allows us to “give money and food” to the poor man*; but we also help him improve his way of life through something that gives him a way to no longer be unequal from the wealthy man. But with this concept, we must keep a few things in mind. For example, even if we aim for equality, we can’t measure it by a monetary value. If the poor man is able to no longer receive the monetary assistance from those wealthier than he, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is now as rich as they are. The goal here is to close that “wealth gap” to an extent so there is not such a significant distinction between those who doesn’t even have food and those who have everything imaginable. And secondly, we have to assume that the poor man wants to change this inequality. Not everyone wants to change, and sometimes it’s a problem when we try to give to those who simply want to easiest, simplest way to barely survive. For that situation, I simply don’t have a solution. Lastly, social entrepreneurship could mean endless things. In some cases it could be the creation of actual businesses or just an occupation in another business. I am not defining it as something specifically; I also don’t known if it is even a realistic solution.

I present these arguments and concepts as important issues that we should all be thinking about. And, believe it or not, one of you has a solution that might just work. So think about it. 

Notes:

*welfare solution is just a term I am using to describe the use to increased welfare (monetary and otherwise)

*Charitable meaning the rich giving to the poor 

*poor man is not meant to be used in any offensive or discriminating manner. It simply indicated his economic standing only. 

References: 

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

Photo: http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_occupy_wall_street_dm_120917_wg.jpg