search instagram arrow-down

Is the tragic accumulation of wealth a new form of oligarchy?

Have you ever wondered how some people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates managed to amass so much wealth in their hands? Have you ever wondered if they deserve to control all this power? The phrase says no pain, no gain, as long as, of course, your pain corresponds to the gain.
If you were not particularly concerned with such questions, you would probably wonder at some point in your life what steps these people took, in case you needed a little inspiration. Well, the steps are simple, firstly a free market without limits and moral barriers, and secondly, plenty of luck. I will add a little effort, without always being necessary. At this point, of course, I would like to make it clear that these people have certainly done something better than the rest. However, it appears questionable whether they have won such a distinct reward based solely on their worth.
The real question is not whether anyone individually can get to the same point, but whether it is worth getting there? Is it worth it for someone, no matter how better he is than the others, no matter how much effort he has made in his life, to have an amount of money that could support thousands of families? By reason, the answer is simple, definitely not. Unfortunately, the system of such a free market allows such tragic discrimination of wealth, resulting in the benefit of a few. That is why we could refer to a modern oligarchy. Wealth, however, also brings power. Therefore, these few, who accumulate all this wealth, with dubious value, as we have already mentioned, and with equally dubious criteria, as I will peruse shortly, have the power to dominate an entire society, which is essentially limited to its livelihood.
The concentration of power in the hands of a few leads to a closed system, which favors those who make it up by increasing their wealth while keeping most of society stagnant, a society struggling with a tax system that is slowly drowning it out. All large companies are run by a few, having monopolized the market. The lack of opportunities, diversity, and competition weakens its free form. So, we are talking about a free market that ceases to be so free.
The distribution of value in modern society seems unjustified. The tragic dimension of social classes (with a considerable blow to the middle class) does not characterize a meritocratic system. Given that the free market does not always respond to value, but to demand, which is often accompanied by human weakness (advertising, brainwashing, etc.) and exploits our biological needs, there is no margin to develop such a system. On the other hand, this small modern oligarchy blames its criteria to this system (mainly due to heredity and the creation of interest-profit relations, where we are talking about social rather than meritocratic criteria), for sealing its power. Finally, as our choices dwindle due to shrinking competition and expanding monopolies, like Google and Amazon, we are inclined to strengthen this oligarchy.
The only sure thing is that our society, and more specifically the free market system, needs to be redefined. The dilemma, of course, remains. Do we need a system as described above, that intervenes in the efficiency of the free market by setting limits, or are we ready for, perhaps, a completely non-binding free market?

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: