Ofcourse, the bastard still lives an affluent life. A palatial house in the estate and coffee exports to foreign countries guaranteeing that he never has to work again. But the peer pressure to be "one step better than the rest of you" amidst the thousands of other similar estate owners, led him to pursue a career in the US, so that when he goes back to India, he can boast to his peers "I design software that manages millions of US dollars. And what are you guys doing here looking after your parent's estates?".
To justify himself, he also believes that workers who now enjoy a collective ownership of the land that was distributed at that time were better off without it.
"How much land does a man need?" I ask him, quoting Tolstoy's short story and he says "But there are other people who didn't get affected because of their influence in the government and they are much better off than me now."
Clearly, he doesn't get it. An otherwise intelligent and well read man, he seems to be off by a big margin on this one.
Does just being born into a family entitle you to their fortune?
In a perfect world, everyone would have equal fortunes and motivations for working and excellence would be altruistic and for one's own satisfaction in contributing something to the society.
And usually, they are. The best discoveries and inventions by man were motivated by the 'cause' and not by the fortune that awaited it. See for e.g. this TED talk on 'The science of motivation'.
Which all leads me to conclude that Socialism is the ideal solution and the only reason it doesn't work is because we are not ideal humans yet, which is a perfectly valid reason not to adopt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment