The Inauthentic Concern Over Inequality

Posted 28 November 2012

In the last decade there has been considerable concern expressed over the economic inequality in Canadian society. This unease has been primarily expounded by those who regard themselves as belonging to the political progressive or left community, and to a lesser extent by those who position themselves in the political centre or right. It is necessary to question the authenticity of this professed concern with economic inequality.

Canada has always had immense economic inequalities, even if they were inferior to the current levels, and the persistence of dramatic inequality raises the question of why so many people who now speak out against economic inequality have remained silent on this issue for so long. Furthermore, those who now decry the economic inequality frequently dwell on its negative consequences, and seem to fancy that they are uttering novel pronouncements on these effects. However, the deleterious effects of marked economic inequality have been known for a long time, and most of the current arguments for a reduction in economic inequality have a lengthy history. It is now widely maintained, for example, that pronounced economic inequalities are adversely affecting health outcomes; these comments, although accurate, have been stated by countless others for over a hundred years.

The main reason why Canadians should be sceptical about the intentions of those who castigate economic inequality is that the overwhelming majority of individuals, organizations, political parties and social movements in Canada engaging in such criticism do not usually indicate to what extent they want the level of inequality to be reduced, and on the occasions that they do, their proposed decreases in inequality would still leave society marked by huge economic inequalities. A call for a reduction in economic inequality without specifying the desired amount is meaningless and almost invariably implies only a cosmetic alteration to inequality. Those who do quantify their remarks habitually state that a very small percentage of society, frequently 1 or 2 percent and rarely 5 or 10 percent, should be taxed at a slightly greater rate. These recommendations, which are based on the assumption that only a minority has excessive income, are essentially symbolic attacks on inequality and would not make any significant dent in the degree of economic inequality. 

There is a thinly disguised self-interest behind much of the outrage over economic inequality. The prominent denunciators of Canada’s economic inequality are mostly member of the middle and upper middle classes. Their common tactic is to designate the rich, or those whom they deem responsible for the economic inequality, as a miniscule group in order to ensure that members of their class will be excluded from that category; these critics of inequality believe that their class will thus be shielded from any possible suggestions that it too possesses gratuitous income. 

It is important not to equate the criticism of economic inequality with the advocacy of economic equality. The vast majority of Canadians expressing alarm over economic inequality do not want economic equality, or anything even resembling that condition. Their displeasure over economic inequality is often only political posturing. Those who declare themselves opposed to economic inequality, but who only want minor modifications to that inequality, are eager to give the appearance that they are fighting inequality and promoting equality and social justice.   

The American academic Stanley fish aptly noted that “despite their polemical differences, the left and the right are jointly committed to the perpetuation of inequality.” His insight also applies to Canada, as behind the veil of expressed concern over inequality by Canadians of all political persuasions, there lies the ugly reality of a pervasive longing for obscene economic inequalities, with the nuance that the Canadian left seeks a slightly less unequal society than the Canadian right.  

Fortunately, it is possible to discern the authenticity of the criticism of economic inequality. If the critic merely proposes an unspecified reduction in the inequality or prescribes a minor tax increase on a tiny minority, then these exhortations can usually be dismissed as inauthentic as they would maintain the status quo and tremendous class differences. An authentic criticism of economic inequality occurs not when the critic advocates absolute economic equality, as this is unattainable and probably even undesirable, but when the critic unambiguously envisages a society with minimal economic inequalities. The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, clearly demonstrated his desire for approximative equality when he stated that he wanted a society in which “no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another and none so poor as to be forced to sell himself.” An authentic concern over economic inequality also occurs when the critic states that there should be strict limits on permissible differences in income and wealth. Plato, for example, stated that nobody’s wealth should be more than four times that of another’s.