66
There is never a ‘meritocracy’ – a ‘just’ correspondence between performance and income – in capitalism. However, the idea of a just income is useful: it justifies conditions in which a discussion about just wages occurs, but not one about the relations of disposition and power that actually underlie and regulate income. This legitimizing function is what Piketty has in mind when he warns against growing inequality. What does he see as the central problem of growing inequality and the concentration of wealth? The fact that wealth is increasingly distributed through inheritances and not through performance. With that – and only with that – inequality becomes injustice and thus a problem for Piketty, since inheritance is a way of transmitting wealth that is not mediated by the market, which he regards as scandalous. His demand is that only the market should decide the distribution of income. The market is for him the central entity of justice: market results are fair results.
this. is. so. good.
There is never a ‘meritocracy’ – a ‘just’ correspondence between performance and income – in capitalism. However, the idea of a just income is useful: it justifies conditions in which a discussion about just wages occurs, but not one about the relations of disposition and power that actually underlie and regulate income. This legitimizing function is what Piketty has in mind when he warns against growing inequality. What does he see as the central problem of growing inequality and the concentration of wealth? The fact that wealth is increasingly distributed through inheritances and not through performance. With that – and only with that – inequality becomes injustice and thus a problem for Piketty, since inheritance is a way of transmitting wealth that is not mediated by the market, which he regards as scandalous. His demand is that only the market should decide the distribution of income. The market is for him the central entity of justice: market results are fair results.
this. is. so. good.
68
The performance ideology that Piketty promotes moves – particularly in Germany – within a dangerous context. Performance ideology goes hand in hand with a chauvinism of affluence, which is expressed in Europe through racism and a hatred for supposedly ‘unproductive’ people, for example ‘lazy Greeks’.
The idea of a performance-linked income also has a flipside: if the market is recognized as an entity for evaluating performance, then economic failure can consistently be explained by a lack of potential and willingness to perform. Greece is in crisis? Then the Greeks surely have not worked hard enough. Somebody is unemployed? Then he or she obviously did not make enough of an effort. Somebody earns very little? Then he or she is not worth more. Somebody earns a lot of money? Then he or she is an excellent character who possesses saleable ‘skills’: the ability to perform, assertiveness, the capacity for teamwork, in short: the ability to succeed. Every result of the market can thus be explained by quasi-natural, personal qualities of individuals, and is therefore justified. Success and failure thus become a question of character.
With that, every critique of the economic system is rendered toothless. Those who succeed can be proud of themselves and look down upon those who fail. Those who fail can admire the winners of the competition and be ashamed – which is to say, turn the critique towards themselves.
A+++
The performance ideology that Piketty promotes moves – particularly in Germany – within a dangerous context. Performance ideology goes hand in hand with a chauvinism of affluence, which is expressed in Europe through racism and a hatred for supposedly ‘unproductive’ people, for example ‘lazy Greeks’.
The idea of a performance-linked income also has a flipside: if the market is recognized as an entity for evaluating performance, then economic failure can consistently be explained by a lack of potential and willingness to perform. Greece is in crisis? Then the Greeks surely have not worked hard enough. Somebody is unemployed? Then he or she obviously did not make enough of an effort. Somebody earns very little? Then he or she is not worth more. Somebody earns a lot of money? Then he or she is an excellent character who possesses saleable ‘skills’: the ability to perform, assertiveness, the capacity for teamwork, in short: the ability to succeed. Every result of the market can thus be explained by quasi-natural, personal qualities of individuals, and is therefore justified. Success and failure thus become a question of character.
With that, every critique of the economic system is rendered toothless. Those who succeed can be proud of themselves and look down upon those who fail. Those who fail can admire the winners of the competition and be ashamed – which is to say, turn the critique towards themselves.
A+++