----- Original Message ----- It's not even clear that an "equal" society - in the sense of equality of wealth, not isonomy - is desirable. Upward mobility seems to me like an important part of species-being - of striving to move upward in one's society as part of the fun of being alive, as long as that upward mobility goes along with, and not in opposition to, self-realization. In communism, can there be no bildungsroman? That seems sad.
I think this is the dialectical truth which lies behind neoliberal worries about crisis of motivation, etc.
Of course the slope of this uneven distribution should be relatively shallow; we need to bring up the lowest end substantially and reduce the high end dramatically. The SCALE of material inequality in our contemporary moment is, as I'm sure we all agree, grotesque.
Thoughts?
--------------
Upward mobility -- in terms of what? status? wealth? power? Why? How can that be a worthy goal
This is the victory of capitalism, that it has convinced a good part of humanity that without competition and the spice of desperation life is drab and dull.
You bring up the bildungsroman -- have you ever noticed how badly that particular plot ends? In pre capitalist tales the journey of the hero is not about the aggrandizement of the hero; it's about the hero's capacity to cross, even violate, boundaries and to return and enrich his society with the experience and wisdom he has gained. In bourgeois fiction this last step -- of giving back -- is impossible. The whole notion of the gift in fact is degraded or trivialized. Pierre returns from Moscow with a basket of nothings; justice in Dickens is doled out by alms giving; etc.
The fun of being alive lies in fully realizing our freedom consciously and in concert with others engaged in a similar struggle. The fun of being alive is not achieved by being an object of envy, although I agree that this is the sumum bonum under capitalism.
Joanna