A conspiracy of the rich

What sort of justice is it when some aristocrat, goldsmith, moneylender or, for that matter, any such individual who either does nothing at all or else something quite remote from the real needs of the commonwealth, enjoys a life of luxury and elegance thanks to his idleness or his inessential services, while at the same time a labourer, a wagoner, an artisan or farm-worker sweats so hard and so long that a beast of burden could scarcely bear it, and at work so essential that no commonwealth could survive for a year without it; yet they earn such pathetic recompense and live such wretched lives that the condition of beasts actually seems preferable, since beasts don't have to toil without a break and their food is scarcely worse – in fact, to them it's more tasty – nor of they fret about the future. But men like these are compelled for the present to labour that brings scant reward, and are haunted by the prospect of a penniless old age, for their daily wage is so far from meeting their current needs that there's no chance of any surplus being put aside that they might rely on when they're old.

Now isn't it an inequitable and selfish society where such rewards are lavished on the nobility (as they're called), and on goldsmiths and others of that sort, who are either parasites, or flatterers, or purveyors of idle pleasures? And where, by contrast, no decent provision is made for farm-workers, or colliers, or labourers, or carters or artisans, without whom the commonwealth couldn't even function? When their best years have been used up in drudgery, when they are word down by age and sickness and are quite destitute, an ungrateful society, disregarding their long hours of work and the extent of their services, repays them with a wretched death. But there's more: the rich are forever fleecing the poor of some of their daily pittance, not only by private fraud but even by official legislation. In this way what initially seemed an injustice, namely that those who deserved most from the commonwealth received least, has now been converted from an abuse into an act of justice by the passing of a law. So when I survey and assess all the different political systems flourishing today, nothing else presents itself – God help me – but a conspiracy of the rich, who look after their own interests under the name and title of the commonwealth. They plot and contrive schemes and devices by which, for a start, they can cling on to whatever they have already accumulated by shady means without any fear of losing it, and then take advantage of the poor by acquiring their works and their labour at the lowest possible cost. Once the rich, in the name of the community (and that, of course, includes the poor), have decreed that these fraudulent practices are to be observed, they become laws.

Thomas More, Utopia (Penguin Classics, 2012) pp. 119-120

Wherever things are measured in money

To be entirely frank it seems to me that wherever you have private property and all things are measured in money it's all but impossible for a community to be just or prosperous, unless you consider that justice can function where the best things belong to the worst people, or that there can be happiness where everything is divided up among very few – and even those few derive little benefit while the remainder are thoroughly wretched.

Thomas More, Utopia (Penguin Classics, 2012) pp. 51-52

Permanent orättvisa

Vi har vant oss vid en standard.
Vi betraktar den som vår rättighet.
Den är inte bara ett hån mot världen idag.
Den kommer alltid vara det.
Vi måste vara ensamma om den. För all framtid.
Vi har skapat en livsform som gör orättvisan permanent och ofrånkomlig.

Är slutsatsen klar?
Vi måste bli fattiga igen.
Eller med våld upprätthålla våra privilegier.
Ännu har inget folk, än mindre världsdel, valt frivillig fattigdom.
Det finns inga utsikter att vi kommer att göra det.

Sven Lindqvist, Myten om Wu Tao-tzu (Månpocket, 2013) p.174

Consensus has become an outmoded and suspect value. But justice as a value is neither outmoded nor suspect. We must thus arrive at an idea and practice of justice that is not linked to that of consensus.

Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report On Knowledge (Manchester University Press, 1984) p. 66