Charles Brass wrote:
> John Courtenage suggests that a task for the future of work is to
> eliminate inequality.
>
> Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I value the fact that I am
> unique - something which by definition could not exist if there was no
> inequality.
...
> overall vive la difference - and all the tension and conflict and
> doubt and confusion that this brings.
Methinks that you're confusing *outer* (material) (in)equality/wealth with
*inner* (immaterial) (in)equality/wealth. John Courtneidge surely doesn't
advocate that we all become 'assmiliated' robots, but that the *material*
inequality be decreased -- leading in turn to *more* opportunities for
self-actualization and diversity!
You see, what's so hypocritical about the proponents of laissez-faire
capitalism is that they ignore (deny) the basic flaw of their ideology:
They pretend that in capitalism, everyone is as rich as s/he "deserves"
(earning/owning as much as they "perform"). But the problem is that people
start at very different levels, due to *inherited* wealth and opportunities.
If everyone would start at the same level, capitalism might be a pretty
acceptable system ;-}. But as it is, one person has to start with almost
zero and the other inherits millions and high positions for doing nothing
(worst recent example in point: Dubya). The latter sort happens to praise
the "fairness" of capitalism and "free competition" the loudest...
As long as most people have to work silly jobs mainly to pay the high rent
(and other interest-rates) which lazy land-heirs fork in for doing nothing
(--a bad inheritance [pun] from the Roman RealEstate Law--), we still have
to work for a better future of work... And acknowledging the problem is
the first step in this direction, Charles.
Chris
