One of the largest phenomena in politics is the growing wealth gap in our country. Throughout my humanities courses, this idea has begun to surface in subtle ways, but recently it has appeared in full force in the form of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Thus, a great opportunity presented itself to study the philosophy surrounding the issue, and it was something I simply couldn’t resist. 

First I examined the values, Marx especially, prioritizes the happiness and fulfillment of the average individual above all and strongly believes the average worker must be freed from the cycle of capital production to be free and happy. Some more modern thinkers have tended towards the idea of the wealth gap being a threat to social cohesion. Both; however, move away from the idea of material wealth and focus less on the material and more on the social aspect of the issue. 

On the opposite side of the aisle, sit those who either dismiss or support the wealth gap phenomenon their logic historically falling toward the material aspect of people’s lives. This cannot be better stated than through Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote regarding a proponent of closing the gap, she would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.” It’s clear she prioritizes objective quality of life, which she assesses through an individual’s material wealth, rather than focusing on the elements of social cohesion. 

What I found most intriguing from this thought experiment is that the two sides operate on fundamentally different goals, one social, one material. The most common situation we see in politics is that both sides typically have the same goal and mission, but differing paths to its achievement. However, in this instance, both sides have a completely different goal in mind. 

For me, I believe in the second, Iron Lady, interpretation. I find little substantive evidence for the first argument. I believe objective, material quality of life is significantly more important than the possible emotional drawbacks. This perspective is fueled by my family’s experience in Communist China: while everyone had similar levels of financial standing, no one had enough to eat, is that happiness? I feel that the opportunities for citizens to acquire the necessary food, and shelter, and possess the ability to pursue a better quality of life are preferable to designated financial equality for the sake of morality.

Cover Photo by Jaylan.