> Or, perhaps, my oblique point would be clearer if I came at it from another
> angle: the greatest indignity inflicted on the poor is not their poverty; it
> is the retroactive justification of that poverty (and the corresponding
> wealth of the wealthy) as being "as of right". It's worth entertaining the
> thought that *most* inequality results not from misfortune or personal
> qualities but from the ideology erected *ex post facto* to explain, justify
> and, ultimately, naturalize inequality.
I am very sympathetic to this view. Rationalization of exploitation as
being in the interest of the exploited is the ultimate insult. [While I
have a lot of respect for John Rawls, I believe that his difference
principle has been used to do a lot of just this kind of thing. Growing
inequality is rationalized under the PRESUMPTION that the greater gains
of the better off are necessary to win the more meager gains of the
worse off. It's usually just plain BULL.]
> As a thought experiment, I'll pose an alternative to
> parecon: "socialotto". Socialotto doesn't seek to eliminate inequality or
> free-ridership, only to systematically randomize them. As an aside, I'd
> reckon that, given a choice in the structure of rewards (but not in their
> actual distribution), people would opt for much less inequality than now
> exists but for substantially more than a ratio of 2:1.
I agree that randomized inequity is better than systematic inequity.
Slavery where blacks and whites had equal probabilities of becoming
slaves or slave masters would have been better than blacks having a 0%
probability of becoming slaves masters while whites had a 0% probability
of becoming slaves. But I wouldn't spend a lot of time fighting for
randomized slavery.
I know from my students' reactions to parecon that most of them THINK
they'd like more of an income lottery than 2:1 But they -- mistakenly
in the case of the students at the university where I teach -- usually
assume they are more likely to come out on the high than the low end
too. In any case, American culture is strongly into the "vision" of how
exciting casino's can be. I know. I think it's one of the myopias we
suffer under -- and I think it is "pushed" on us as part of establishing
capitalist ideological hegemony. But, if people really want casinos, we
can certainly arrange for them in parecon. If people want to take their
effort earned consumption rights and exchange them in a Casino for a
possibility of much more consumption right -- and a possibility of much
less, I see no reason to discriminate against gambling. So if someone
doesn't like the 2:1 distributive odds of the parecon economy, they can
make it as risky as they want!
A welfare safety net for the losers? What would you say?
