Material Equivalence (short version)
- Details
- Written by Ian E. Macindoe
The Human Right to Material Equivalence:
A major factor for Social Justice.
Because humans are not equal in their ability to attain wealth, an ethical case can be made for each human having the right to a living standard equivalent to the living standard of all other humans. This is called 'the human right to material equivalence'.
The reduction, or even the elimination, of poverty is not good enough. Gross unjustifiable differences in wealth and standard of living must go, as must much of the social stratification that accompanies these inequities. Social evolution on this planet—if we are to survive with some dignity—must move positively on many fronts: ecologically, economically, culturally. Material equivalence, through a permanent and thoroughgoing redistribution of wealth, is part of that necessary evolution.
While evolutionary changes, in the social sphere no less than in nature, can span decades and centuries, they can also progress in fits and starts in response to opportunities which may be benign and peaceful or calamitous and disruptive. In either case there is a need to examine core values and to plan for long-term goals. The author thinks that what follows is a crucial value for fairness and harmony among people. It is not the only one, but it is an important one.
It is asserted that there is a human right of equivalence in standard of living (material equivalence)for all humans. 'Material equivalence' is defined as 'a more-or-less equal amount of material wealth (the sum total of an individual's assets and income) resulting in a similar standard of living for all'. That is, no individual should live at a higher or lower living standard than any other individual. This does not mean that everyone's material circumstances should be identical, but merely that the varied and idiosyncratic material circumstances of each person should be equivalent in material value to those of all others.
Humans vary in the genetic advantages and disadvantages they are born with. These genetic differences interact with the wide variety of experience that humans are exposed to. One result of such variations and interactions is that individuals are anything but equal, for example, in their creativity, their capacity to cope with life, their resilience to recover from adversity, their capacity to relate happily with others, their capacity to earn a living or to acquire wealth or to carry out a variety of productive tasks and so on. Added to these differences are circumstantial effects (often referred to as 'luck' or 'being in the right place at the right time') that may fortuitously present individuals with opportunities, not available to others, to improve their material level; not to mention, of course, advantages conferred by virtue of parental wealth and social standing.
So it is that, as a general rule, those born with genetic advantages (for example, greater intelligence; more stable nervous systems; greater capacity for persistent effort and concentration; higher social dominance; greater capacity for energetic motivation; and so on) can better take advantage of what the environment (experiential, social, educational) has to offer in order to optimise their material circumstances. Put simply, generally those who become wealthier than others, do so because of genetic and experiential advantages. While this is a natural state of affairs, it is not necessarily a socially desirable state for the 21st century and beyond.
Differences in the material standards of life (wealth) have been in the past, and are in the 21st century, a major source of social discord: sometimes openly acknowledged; often only vaguely sensed; frequently denied or disputed; and nearly always discounted by those who are threatened by its recognition and revelation. People in the last-named group, for example, will discount such ideas by reference to such phrases as 'the politics of envy' or by labelling as passé the concept of 'class struggle' or by railing against 'terrorists', as if such assertions dissolve the problems by denial of their existence or by giving them an odious label.
It is understandable that those materially advantaged by their superior ability to live better (the 'haves') are reluctant to acknowledge a human right to material equivalence that might put them on a material level with the less advantaged (the 'have nots'). On the face of it, it is not as understandable that the less advantaged should acquiesce in the social system that provides 'goodies' to some while denying those 'goodies' to themselves --- or at least withholding the full quantity or quality of 'goodies' enjoyed by the advantaged. While many people are morally outraged by poverty, they are frequently not able to experience the same degree of righteous indignation at the opposite end of the material spectrum: the multimillion dollar corporate executives, the speculators, the top-flight sports heroes, the music or performance 'stars', and many others who experience wealth and material living standards barely dreamed of by the vast multitudes on the planet.
On the above argument then, it is asserted that no person is justified in living better than others by virtue of their superior genetic make up, their exceptional talent, their contribution to society, their more advantaged experiences, or their more fortuitous circumstances. Similarly, no person should live less comfortably than others by virtue of their less fortunate genetic inheritance, their less advantaged social or educational experiences, their less fortuitous circumstances, their lesser ability to make a valuable contribution to humanity and so on.
A global social system practicing material equivalence assumes certain prerequisites. There would need to be universal relative affluence; not the affluence that characterises today's wealthy elites, but a level of comfort that frees people from anxious preoccupation with survival, health threats and security; affluence that guarantees basic needs and enables people to pursue cultural and personal interests for a fulfilling life.
While a social system that incorporates material equivalence would do so as a matter of public policy, it would not intrude upon the private sphere of spirituality, relationships, religion and so on. Just how this would be worked out under differing social milieu is a matter for each society to resolve. Keeping the private and public spheres separate is generally not seen as a problem for the West, but may be a difficulty for Islamic and some other societies. The great variety of human endeavour and qualities might be promoted more effectively in the relative absence of today's obsessions with competition, wealth and power.
Another assumptions is that there would be full, non-stressed employment, although the nature and organisation of work might be substantially different from present practice.
It is probable that social stratification will continue to exist, although differences based on social rank might be minimised, and 'rankism' (the use of social rank as a means of humiliating others or aggrandising oneself) would be socially unacceptable, to the mental health of all concerned. Power differentials due to social stratification would no longer be based on wealth, but might be limited to the particular roles and tasks that individuals are called upon to fulfil.
A more general objection to the present proposal is that it is unrealistic and fails to spell out the practicalities of how it could possibly be implemented. This objection is frankly acknowledged. However, the principle should be established first. There is no point in working out detailed solutions if there is no consensus that there is a problem to be resolved. If the proposal for a human right of material equivalence is universally dismissed as an error, an undesirable state of affairs, or the idiosyncratic fantasy of a fevered brain and nothing more, then there is little point in anyone speculating as to how such a right might be pursued. If, on the other hand, these ideas were deemed to have merit, despite the difficulties for bringing them about, then people might suggest ways and means for their attainment over time.
Material wealth (meaning both assets and income) is currently widely disparate. One can imagine a pyramid in which the base and lower half of the pyramid is made up of those people living in poverty or near poverty. The very top apex of the pyramid would then represent the extremely wealthy. While the improvement of the many will take time, if only because it is so large a group and so intractable a problem, the reduction at the 'extreme wealth' part of the pyramid should be accomplished much more rapidly.
Ongoing adjustments, both downwards and upwards until equivalence is approximated among a global mosaic of societies, could take decades if not centuries. This assumes continued adherence to the goal as a desirable world community outcome, plus a continued determination to work towards it. It also assumes a stable world order, a condition that is by no means guaranteed. It is quite possible that unexpected opportunities to progress in a more equitable direction may be presented by major global upheavals of social dislocation. Such upheavals may be associated with economic collapse due to energy scarcity accompanied by pervasive ecological damage, political and social chaos or repression, wars to capture resources, and the violent struggles to protest and rectify these distortions. And, of course, climate change will form a pervasive backdrop to all these possibilities.
Conclusion
While the human right of material equivalence is compatible with the human striving for betterment, the espousal and pursuit of other human rights, and such conditions as the sustainable balance between human populations and a viable planetary ecology, it has to be recognised that it will conflict with key features of current life. Among these are the markets that dominates the world's economic evolution at present. It may be that markets can exist alongside material equivalence, provided that market fluctuations and regulations avoid elevating individuals' wealth and living standards beyond that of their fellow humans. To evolve in such a direction will be a challenge to future socio-political and economic strategists.
It also needs to be recognised that while a gradual evolution towards an agreed worldwide social goal of material equivalence is desirable, global circumstances may preclude an even or smooth progress towards the goal. For example, the almost certain social and economic upheavals attendant upon an imminent energy crisis—including the effects of oil depletion, global warming and related phenomena—could either retard or accelerate the evolution towards material equivalence. Other geo-political developments (e.g. the so-called 'war on terror'; shifts in the global balances of power) may present opportunities for more rapid evolution towards material equivalence; but they could just as easily facilitate the mobilisation of military, police and judicial power to prevent it.
Despite objections concerning the realisation of the concept of the human right of material equivalence, the present priority is to establish whether any consensus is possible as to the concept's desirability in principle.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.