The Distribution of Wealth

Today’s society is witness to a huge gap in wealth distribution between rich and poor, and it is often written that this gap has increased over the past 20-30 years. This may be the case, but in general, over the past 6-8 millenia, there has always been such a vast difference in wealth distribution that neither side of the divide can imagine what life is like for the other.

We can safely presume that any society based on a hierarchical structure (of payments), is going to distribute around 80% of its wealth to around 5% of its population. And we have examples in history of why and how this happens; to understand the dynamics of unequal wealth examine what happens to an egalitarian society that clashes with a `civilized’ one. One of the best documented examples of this is what occurred within the lands east of the Rhine and north of the Danube over the first 4 centuries AD. The meeting takes place on the frontier of the Roman Empire between Romans and the Germanic Tribes.

The Germans were materially poor, generally nomadic/semi-nomadic and seemed to have 3 hereditary castes of citizen. Slave, freedman and freeman. The slaves were `recruited’ from prisoners of war, the freedman was someone who had himself been freed or whose ancestors, recent or past, had attained freedom from bondage. Neither slaves nor freedmen held any political power within the tribe, but the freemen did, and their power was evenly spread across the whole population. It’s difficult to know what percentage of the population were freemen, but we can estimate anywhere between 30-60%. Whatever the case, the distribution of wealth was evenly distributed across a large (possibly a majority) portion the population and was not concentrated in the hands of the few.

A consequence of this political organization for the Romans when they came into contact with the Germanic tribes was that they had no control over the peoples beyond their frontiers. So began a process of `Romanisation’ in which the Romans would foster a preference for certain individuals within the tribes, or certain cliques, and materially and politically elevate them above their fellow tribesmen. The favoured few would receive material wealth, weapons and even armed support from the empire to further their ambitions – so long as they suited Roman interests. A classic divide and rule policy that many European powers continued to exercise in later centuries (e.g. The British in India).

By favouring persons, cliques and sometimes tribes over others, the Romans spread the seed of inequality into the ranks of the German peoples and thus, German society was transformed utterly and permanently.

Politically this was expedient for the Romans; they began to obtain a measure of control over the unruly northern tribes that had eluded them before. Ironically this policy, though successful for 400 years, was to contribute hugely to the downfall of the Western Roman empire in the 5^th century, as it was through ever increased coordination amongst the German tribes and a concentration of power in the hands of a few, that provided the Germans with the means to penetrate the empire and finally parcel it out amongst themselves. But this is to reach beyond the point of interest here, that being, what occurred over these 4 centuries within the internal dynamics of German society.

As wealth flooded in to certain elements of society, so the sense of inequality and injustice began to infiltrate the tribes. The wealth being so desired by all, became an object to be fought for in itself, and evidence suggests it was hard fought for. Thus a radically new element of political strife entered the lives of the Germanic peoples. With it came a transformation of their political organization; as wealth accrued in the hands of individuals, so those `fortunate’ ones could afford retainers. Once a man could sustain this kind of `private army’, he could bequeath it to his heirs, and so wealth, as it concentrated through Romes’ deliberate policy, became something that could be passed on within the family and the creation of a landed and militarily dominant aristocracy emerged.

The radical transformation of German society resulting from this cannot be underestimated. It created an environment that would allow them to eventually take on and over-run the most powerful empire in the world (or at least, half of it) – but gone was the egalitarian society of the first century. Gone were the general assemblies in which the whole tribe would decide domestic and foreign policy (a bone of particular contention for the Romans), gone forever was the political `grass roots’ power base; from this point forward, German society, like Roman, would be dominated by a wealth grasping elite, a situation which continues into our modern day.

I would suggest, the basic principal behind the deliberate distribution of wealth, remains the same. Attract the few with the `carrot’ of wealth, power and prestige, and control society from the top down. The more wealth people have, the more they have to lose, and as such, the more compliant they will be; for in our society, like Roman society before us, only those who conform to the received wisdom of the culture, will be chosen to attain positions in society that carry the tenets of wealth, political power and prestige. This is perhaps why it was said the `kingdom of heaven’ was most accessible to the `poor’, for they have not sacrificed any of their values to become poor.

Perhaps for the first time in our `known’ history, we are at a place where there is a dawning understanding that wealth is available to all. The truth is that all that prevents us from achieving wealth in our lives is our own limited consciousness. Naturally the `elite’ classes in our society will hold on to wealth as much as they can, this is our challenge and that is their role within the unfolding play that we take part in. But creation of wealth is linked to our subtle consciousness and its elusive nature in so many of our lives, is due, not primarily to a grasping social elite, but to our inability to allow wealth into our lives through our attitudes which are so grounded in fear, sense of lack and desperate desire for that which we feel is denied us. The political and social elites of society are aware of these negative mindsets and engage themselves heartily to keep us caught there.

The system of unequal distribution of wealth challenges us to overcome our conscious blocks and create our own sustainable livelihoods. The first step in that process being to release our judgements around wealth, who has it, and why. Generally if we are caught up in resentment of those with wealth, it’s unlikely we’ll ever taste it ourselves. Yet one man’s wealth doesn’t need to be another’s lack of it. Ultimately, it is communal wealth we need, to heal the damage caused by the `distribution racket’. Thus we not only aim to bless ourselves with our wealth, but also others.

Much of the work that is emerging at this time around our ability to create our own wealth tends to centre on individuals, which is understandable since we must all start at the individual level. But it remains essential in my mind to proceed with such work with the whole community in mind; that the enriching of the self is simply a step along to road to enriching others. As this increasingly becomes the understanding of wealth creators around the world, so we will begin to see our society change dramatically. This will require a certain level of altruism, but altruism is at heart, primarily a self-interested pursuit since balance is impossible within the individual if it is not evident within the whole. Thus the redistribution of wealth will not rely on `doing good’ or a `sense of moral responsibility’ but will depend upon the wakefulness of the society as a whole. Part of that waking process requires coming to an understanding of why and how society has been manipulated into such an equal position, realizing that this manipulation is no longer necessary or in any way beneficial, and finally receiving the divine insight that the gifts we give are what truly enrich us.

——————————————————–

`I had gone a-begging from door to door in the village path, when thy golden chariot appeared in the distance like a gorgeous dream and I wondered who was this King of all kings!

My hopes rose high and methought my evil days were at an end, and I stood waiting for alms to be given unasked and for wealth scattered on all sides in the dust.

The chariot stopped where I stood. Thy glance fell on me and thou camest down with a smile. I felt that the luck of my life had come at last. Then of a sudden thou didst hold out thy right hand and say “What hast thou to give me?’’

Ah, what a kingly jest it was to open thy palm to a beggar to beg! I was confused and stood undecided, and then from my wallet I slowly took out the least little grain of corn and gave it to thee.

But how my surprise when at the day’s end I emptied the bag on the floor to find a least little grain of gold among the poor heap. I bitterly wept and wished that I had had the heart to give thee my all.’

The Gitanjali (Verse 50) – Rabindranath Tagore