This article explores the origins and current state of income inequality in our society by focusing on the theory of cutlery caste, represented by the gold, silver, and dirt cutlery. It explains the origins of human inequality by comparing it to animal societies and provides a historical background of how inequality has increased since the agricultural revolution. It analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism, points out the problems of financial capitalism, emphasizes the need for wealth redistribution and universal welfare, and proposes the possibility of eliminating inequality through a basic income system.
What is cutlery class theory?
There’s a phrase that’s been trending on the internet and social media lately. It’s the gold, silver, and dirt cutlery. The term comes from the European proverb “born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth,” which refers to being born into a wealthy family. This cutlery classism is a self-help neologism that expresses the idea that social class is determined by parental wealth or income. It reveals how the gap between the rich and poor in our society creates yet another status hierarchy. Where does this class and income inequality come from? Has our society always been this way? Let’s take a look at the origins.
The origins of human inequality
This status hierarchy can be seen in animals that live in groups. On a cold winter day, a hot spring is like heaven for monkeys. However, only a select few monkeys are allowed to enter this paradise. Under the watchful eye of the alpha male, the leader of the group, the rest of the macaques are left to shiver in the cold around the baths. This is not unique to the monkey world. Animals that live in groups have a status hierarchy in their societies that creates inequality when it comes to feeding and mating. Animals that hunt in groups hunt together and eat their prey on the spot. There is no need for fair distribution. Some will try to compete to eat the prey faster in order to get more, but this is orchestrated by the alpha. But our ancestors were different. Our ancestors, who discovered fire and thus cooking, hunted and shared the fruits of their labor. Even the alpha of the pack didn’t get to keep it all to himself. Everyone had a weapon in their hand, and any attempt at dictatorship by force would result in being cast out of the group. So when did we start living with inequality? In The Origin of Human Inequality, the French philosopher Rousseau argues that human inequality began with the institution of private property.
In Yuval Harari’s book Homo sapiens, he argues that the quality of life for humans became poor after the Agricultural Revolution, based on nutritionally deficient diets and increased working hours, but that’s not all. After the agricultural revolution, humans abandoned their hunter-gatherer ways and began to live in tribes, and began to own crops, and this is where the human tragedy began. Agricultural societies provided humans with a life of settlement, and humans began to cluster together. Thanks to agriculture, the population grew rapidly and rapidly. Unlike hunter-gatherers who lived from day to day, farmers became conscious and concerned about the future. This laid the groundwork for large-scale political and social systems and the emergence of rulers and elites. Most of the surplus food produced by farmers went to them. The first earthen spoon was born.
This inequality has continued to exist in one form or another throughout human history, whether it’s gender, status, or wealth. But recently, humanity has been changing. We’ve begun to strive for an egalitarian society and to eliminate many of the inequalities that exist in our society. We are recognizing and addressing inequality and discrimination, including classism, racism, and, although not yet perfect, sexism. But there’s one area where we’re not quite there yet. The gap between rich and poor.
Broken capitalism
The world today is a world of financial capitalism, and it doesn’t look like a happy one. Since the financial crisis in the United States in 2008 and the eurozone financial crisis that began in Greece in 2010, newspapers have been full of stories about the crisis of neoliberalism. And the debate between Hayek and Keynes has begun again, just as it did during the Great Depression in the United States in 1930.
Keynes, the father of macroeconomics who didn’t trust the invisible hand, argued that government intervention in the market was necessary to normalize the lack of effective demand (the desire to buy things with money that can actually buy them). His argument was accepted, and Keynes’ theory became the economic guiding principle for all governments. And the world experienced an unprecedented boom for 30 years. At this time, someone argued the exact opposite of Keynes. Hayek argued that excessive investment and consumption had caused the Great Depression and that we should trust the market’s ability to self-correct, even if it takes time. At first, no one listened to him, but when the depression and inflation hit at the same time, Keynes’ theories couldn’t explain it, and Hayek’s neoliberal ideas gained acceptance. Hayek’s neoliberalism swept the world’s economies as communism collapsed after failing to overcome the economic crisis. The United States and the United Kingdom asserted a global economic system and gave birth to financial capitalism through their huge financial capital. However, this financial capitalism led to a global financial crisis. Globalization has brought unprecedented affluence, but it has also led to extreme polarization of wealth and poverty.
The question is whether governments should increase regulation or deregulate and trust in the market’s ability to adjust in order to escape the current financial crisis and redress these imbalances. In both cases, the limits have already been shown. Does this mean that capitalism is broken and we should move on to another new economic system? I don’t think so. Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has experienced an unprecedented boom. A significant number of people were able to escape poverty, and capitalism was at the center of it. Even if we modify some aspects of capitalism, the principles of a market economy should be preserved. As the authors of Homo sapiens point out, we have already created a world where only capitalism can operate, and eventually we will have to find an answer to the question of how to fix a broken capitalism.
The possibility of welfare
When there is a crisis in the economy, many people lose their jobs. Welfare is a way to share the burden of these problems. It’s like an insurance policy. It could be a solution to the current problem. According to a survey by the National Assembly’s Legislative Research Service, in 2012, the top 10 percent of South Korea’s income earners accounted for 44.9 percent of the total income. This is the highest in Asia and second only to the United States in the world. We must address this imbalance and redistribute wealth.
Let’s take a look at one man’s attempt to redistribute wealth through wage adjustments. Dan Price, the owner of a credit card payment system company in Seattle, USA, took on the unconventional challenge of raising the minimum salary of his employees from $32,000 to $70,000, while lowering his own salary from $1.1 million to $70,000. To everyone’s skepticism, he succeeded. Revenue doubled, turnover was at an all-time low, and his employees were so happy that they started having kids like you wouldn’t believe. Wealth redistribution had even led to an increase in fertility.
Wealth redistribution is all about taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. But not all haves want to give away what they have, like Dan Price. And this attitude is guaranteed in the name of freedom within capitalism. This is where all the problems arise. Jobs are shrinking, polarization is growing, the economy is unstable, and discontent is building in society. The question then becomes: how do we share what belongs to the haves? How do we create a society where it’s normalized for the haves to give to the have-nots? The answer is universal welfare for all. In a society where everyone is well off, where it is natural, wouldn’t it be natural for the haves to give to the have-nots?
One concrete example of how this could be implemented is basic income, which is an unconditional income paid without the obligation of property or labor. In the recently aired SBS special, “Spoons and Ladders,” the theme of basic income is explored by playing a game called “Buru Spoon,” which is based on the rules of the Buru Marble game. The game is divided into two rounds: the first round, in which assets are divided according to the cutlery at the beginning of the game, and the second round, in which taxes on unearned income are collected and distributed to everyone in equal amounts. For gold and silver cutlery, there’s not much difference between rounds 1 and 2. However, unlike the first round, where the earthen spoons gave up the game while sitting on a pile of debt, the second round saw them persevere even when their wealth didn’t change much. Of course, this is just a simple experiment. Basic income is still an experimental policy in many countries, and we don’t yet know if it will work. However, the results of these experiments suggest that basic income could offer hope to the poorest in society.
This is not to say that we should try these changes right now. As I mentioned earlier, all of the current options have their limitations. But change is clearly needed at this point. And that means that the direction of change should be toward universal welfare. We need to create a society where universal welfare is a value that the haves and have-nots share with the have-nots. So, in 100 years, will we have gold cutlery but no earthenware cutlery?
