Equality without violence

“This superb and superbly written book justifies its profound but pessimistic conclusion that in world history inequality has declined significantly only as a result of violent changes caused by wars, state breakdown, or pandemics. It should have a huge impact on world historians and generate interesting and important debates about growing inequality in today’s world.”

This review refers to a book I wrote about in my last column written by Walter Scheidel, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. This is a time when global income inequality has been at its worst since the beginning of human history. The income gap is also continuing to widen. Scheidel’s thesis that only conflict and violence will solve income inequality is a scary and terrifying prediction.

Is there any way that income inequality can be alleviated without violence? I sincerely hope that the world will continue to keep on looking for possible non-violent solutions to this global crisis of income inequality. 

I received several reactions to my column. Let me share just two with my readers. One message is from former Agrarian Secretary Gil de los Reyes who is now Vice-Dean of the DLSU College of Law. Here is what he wrote:

“I just read your column on inequality. I have not read the book of Scheidel (I hope to do so) but this is a great companion to Piketty. The unanswered but often asked question is how we can reduce inequality without the shocks of violence. We have been trying to give an answer, unfortunately we have continued to fail. In my involvement in agriculture, we continue to flounder because we fail to accept realities facing us. We continue to deny opportunities to those who we wish to maximize our potential. Orthodoxies abound from the left and the right  – we cannot seem to shake them off. “

The other message I want to share is from Tito Aliga. Here is his message:

“Thanks for sharing Scheidel’s book. We must learn from the points he cited for us to build a better Philippines – for the masses at the bottom of the pyramid.

Innovation is the buzzword now – but I continue to raise red flags among my colleagues. Innovation only benefits the upper half of the pyramid – those who can afford whatever can be produced by new innovations. One school of thought says innovations will make things cheaper, better. But what good are those things if the poor Filipino has no job that will enable him to earn and buy, even the cheapest things? Thus I always bat for things that will create jobs, that will enable farmers to increase productivity.

True, machine intelligence will enable the busy executive to switch on the aircon in his bedroom, or to open the door based on machine’s recognition of his face. But what about a farmer or uneducated person who can’t find work even if it pays only P100 a day. Then violence comes into the picture, as they use poverty as a driver for such action.”

One of the topics that Scheidel discussed lengthily was land reform. Here is what he said: “Land reform deserves pride of place for the simple reason that for most of the past, most people lived on the land...The distribution of land was thus a key determinant of inequality. Attempts to change landownership in favor of the poor were made throughout recorded history. 

Land reform is not inherently associated with violence; in theory, nothing keeps societies from peaceably adjusting ownership of land to benefit the poor. In practice, however, things usually worked out differently: as we will see successful land reform almost invariably depended on the exercise or threats of violence....Many land reforms in history were the result of war.” 

Concerns about potential violence, internal or external, precipitated land reform. Land reform in South Korea was motivated by anti communism and the fear that North Korean communists who had appropriated land in their own part of Korea might mobilize the local peasantry in the south. 

Scheidel surveyed the history of land reform in several countries. This is one of his findings: “In the modern Philippines, the lack of a credible threat of war or revolution allowed landlord elites to drag their feet even as land reform remained a perennial campaign slogan  for decades, little changed. Even when a more serious attempt was made after 1988, results were modest, just as they had been in India, Pakistan and Indonesia.”

One of Scheidel’s boldest suggestions is on the use of taxation as a means of redistributing wealth. Here is what he says:

“Income should be taxed in a more progressive manner: capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income and higher taxes imposed on capital income in general regressive payroll taxes should be eliminated. Wealth should be taxed directly and in ways designed to curtail its transmission across generations. Sanctions such as trade tariffs and the creation of a global wealth regime would help prevent offshore tax evasion. 

Corporations should be taxed on their global profits and hidden subsidies ended. French economists have even proposed an annual global tax on wealth withheld at the source. In addition, a larger one time levy on capital would reduce public debt and help rehabilitate the ratio of private to public wealth.”

There are now more proposals on how to reduce inequality without violence. Hopefully, those in power and those who will have to share some of their wealth will have the will and moral courage to accept that inequality must be seriously addressed. 

Creative writing classes for kids and teens

Young Writers’ Hangout on Jan. 27, Feb. 10 and 24, March 3 and 17 (1:30pm-3pm, independent, stand-alone sessions) at Fully Booked BGC.  For more details, email [email protected].

Email: [email protected]