What Philosophy Underpins Economic Inequality?


Poverty

What belief system or philosophy underpins the inequitable distribution of wealth in the world?

Historians called it “social Darwinism.”

Popular self-help writers called it “Looking Out for Number 1.”

Economists called it “enlightened self-interest.”

I call it the self-serving bias.

The Company of Heaven [the CoH] calls it service to self.

The CoH has said many times what the fundamental and critical structure in it is: The belief in our total separateness.

I say “total” separateness because we have now and will continue to have individual bodies until a much higher dimension. We’re not yet a “monad” or “group soul” or whatever other name is used to denote the dropping of many aspects of individuality and the rise of group consciousness. So we are to all intents and purposes separate.

Individuality is only dropped completely when we merge again with the Godhead from whom we’ve come.

But its more what we do with that knowledge that we’re looking at here.

Our body has biological needs that have to be satisfied to stay alive. Probably none of us could survive alone any more. We rely on each other to create an economy that can satisfy our needs.

To satisfy our needs, we have to work with others, buy from them, and sell to them.

Some people will choose to cooperate with others to satisfy their biological needs and some will choose to compete.

Among those who choose competition, some will compete but “play fair” and some will play by the law of the jungle. As a group, the social Darwinists hold that human society and economic activity favor the strongest. Like nature, human society is red in tooth and claw. The weakest goes to the wall.

For them, “strength” translates into wealth – or, more particularly, what money can buy. In some countries, it buys protection, immunity from prosecution, favorable press coverage, etc.

Moreover, advantage is cumulative. Having certain possessions, perks, and prestige gain the wealthy access to still more lucrative circles.

Myths of rugged individualism shored up the social-Darwinist viewpoint. Stories of rags to riches, of pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps, of local boys making good were promoted.  Endless tales of individual courage and compassion – many of them war stories – were contributed by mainstream media and Hollywood.

How the wealth of those who “made good” was to be shared with others was mandated by Ronald Reagan’s “trickle down” theory of economics. Trickle down proved to be simply a facade, a cover for seeing that nothing reached the masses. Or as little as possible.

***

The problem with social Darwinism, apart from it being based on falsities, is the penalty one pays in terms of one’s beingness and awareness for holding it as a belief.

We know some of the ways in which life is designed. For instance, we know that the truth sets us free from the bonds of our stress and tension. The converse is also true, that lying, fabricating, deceiving multiply our stress and tension.

Our social-Darwinist friends who’ve gained their wealth through pushing and lying, will have burdened their consciousnesses with deviousness, strategies, ulterior motives, hidden agendas, etc. Their awareness will be lower than otherwise as a result.  Their experience of life will be curtailed in the sense that they cannot experientially reach such levels as happiness, joy, bliss, and so on.

And, irony of ironies, they probably won’t be able to tell what’s happened because they won’t be aware that their awareness has decreased.

In fact awareness of what one is doing is decidedly avoided. Cover-ups and masquerade are the order of the day.

Rather than valuing awareness, many in this belief community admire shooting off a pat answer or having a comeback that brings the house down, hiding their weaknesses, failures and defeats, and looking good (desirable, attractive).

Since males are deemed the strongest, social Darwinism obliges women to succeed as best they may. All too often, that becomes translated into “looking good,” sending women off to buy lotions and potions, do’s and dabs, all to have “that look.” Women become sexual objects, dependent on men for their livelihood.

This whole belief system and everything that flows out from it is what needs to go.

In place of an economically-competitive society that favors the strongest and wealthiest, I’d like to see what folks at the turn of the Twentieth Century called a “cooperative commonwealth,” that doesn’t favor anyone and sees to the needs of all.

The higher our vibrations go in this love shower from afar, the more we’ll see and yearn for unity as a planet.

I can guarantee that, when one is in bliss, the unity of the planet and all life is more readily apparent than in our ordinary conscious state. And soon that will become apparent to large numbers on the planet and the drive to express our unity in our social arrangements will become irresistible.