What is next?

I know I have written about this before, but it is sometimes both interesting and instructive to refer to what the ancients had to say about life in general and in particular about money and wealth.  Plato (427 – 347 BC) in his Dialogues, particularly the Republic (Jowett translation) writes about Oligarchy and the changes that take place in people’s ways of life and expectations.

Plato defines Oligarchy as - “Typically ruled by a small group of men usually distinguished by wealth or with military backing. Seeking to rival rich men, the great mass of citizens become lovers of money. The more they think of money the less they honour virtue. Men become lovers of money and money-making; they honour and look up to the rich man and promote him to high office and dishonour the poor man ….. 

There is a further defect that arises, its division into what Plato calls a Timocracy. The State is not one but two States, the one of the poor, the other of rich men, living in the same spot and always conspiring against one another....

.... At the same time the rich with their fondness of money makes them unwilling to pay taxes.”

Plato defines Timocracy as, “An intermediate state between Oligarchy and Aristocracy (Aristocracy according to Plato is a state ruled by philosopher kings – rule by the wise) ... Timocrats are unique in their fear of philosophers as rulers (preferring passionate, less complex characters more fitted to war than peace) and on the value placed on military stratagems and contrivances, and in the waging of everlasting wars. But people living in a Timocracy are very like those in an Oligarchy in their covetousness of money.... They will spend large sums of money on women, and other others who please them .... they will spend that which is another man’s on the gratification of their desires, stealing their pleasures and running away like children from the law...”

Oh dear! I wonder where I have heard all this before – it seems that we never learn! All this sounds distressingly familiar, doesn’t it? We can all relate to Plato’s comments, which show that human nature hasn’t changed in twenty-five centuries (at least)! 

Its well worth repeating that unless we escape the maelstrom that we are descending into, when people relate more to money and “stuff” rather than the wellbeing of people (human beings) whose labour produced both (money and “stuff”) - we have a real problem, as currently seems the case.

Rather glibly economists speak of the ‘global village’ and of the benefits of ‘globalisation’ but do they really know what they are talking about? Now that we are all in this together – the Covid-19 pandemic - isn’t it time that we recognized the benefits of prioritising the well being of the populace in one’s own country? 

As an example of the “dangers” of coveting money above all else, I offer the following – possibly extreme but true none the less. Some years ago now I listened to a sad tale, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview, about the changes that had taken place on a Pacific island (I cannot now remember which one). The speaker, an old Islander, told of how, certainly within his life time, there had been no unemployment, no starvation and no crime (except the occasional ‘crime of passion’) and that there had been a general sense of well being and of belonging to a community and of a long continuum in that community – going back generations. Each knew their place. Everyone was educated in the traditions of their community, their complex (and very accurate) system of maritime navigation and the various skills of canoe building, weaving and such like.  Everyone did what they could – they planted their taro, they fished, collected coconuts or whatever and they continued a simple barter trade with neighbouring islands – sometimes many days travel away in their out-rigger canoes. While they had never known any other way of living they were content.

Then all of a sudden some developer, with financial gain foremost in his mind, thought it would be a good idea to open a supermarket and associated infrastructure on the island. This brought about an abrupt change in the islanders way of living. Now all of a sudden they had to have money to purchase the many desirable items in the shop and they quickly acquired a taste for the different foods on offer. 

This brought massive disruption to their previously ordered society. Families were split up when some members had to travel to either Australia or New Zealand to find work to send back money to their families ‘back home’ so they could purchase ‘stuff’ from the supermarket. Previously unknown health issues arose (from the changes in diet and alcohol intake); previously unknown social disruption and types of crime occurred  – there was now theft, violence, greed, unemployment, poverty, exploitation and the occasional case of starvation.

The old Islander plaintively questioned, “Are we better off entering this “new” world   (i.e. the Global Economy)?”

I know things never stay the same and that longing for the past is a fruitless exercise, but I again ask the question - do the economists, who promote the “global” concept, really know what they are doing – promoting the acquisition of money as the end game of life? Surely the well being of people should be paramount? I fully realise this is not a simple Yes or No question – but it still needs to be asked.

I have often wondered about the ethics of globalisation and whether it really has brought the benefits to ALL that its promoters trumpeted that it would.