In this blog post, we will look at the origins of the spoon class theory and the historical background of capitalism and the creation of unequal structures.
What is the spoon class theory?
There is a popular phrase on the internet and social media these days. It is “gold spoon,” “silver spoon,” and “dirt spoon.” This spoon class theory originated from the European proverb, “born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth,” which refers to being born into a wealthy family. This theory of class based on silver spoons is a self-deprecating neologism that expresses the idea that social class is determined by the assets or income of one’s parents. This reveals one aspect of our society, where the gap between the rich and the poor creates another hierarchy. Where did this gap between the rich and the poor and income inequality originate? Has our society always been this way? Let’s take a look at its origins.
The origins of human inequality
This kind of hierarchy can be easily found in animals that live in groups. On cold winter days, hot springs are like heaven for monkeys. However, only a few monkeys with silver spoons can enter this paradise. Under the watchful eye of the alpha male, the leader of the group, the rest of the monkeys with earthenware spoons can only shiver in the cold around the hot springs. This is not unique to the monkey world. Animals that live in groups have a social hierarchy, and there is inequality when it comes to feeding and mating. Animals that hunt in groups hunt together and eat their prey on the spot. At this point, fair distribution is not necessary. Some compete to eat quickly in order to get more food, but this is regulated by the alpha. However, our ancestors were different. With the discovery of fire, our ancestors began to cook and shared the results of their hunting. Even the leader of the group could not monopolize the food. This was because everyone had weapons, and anyone who tried to impose their will by force would be expelled from the group.
So when did we start living with inequality? In his book The Origin of Inequality, French philosopher Rousseau argues that human inequality began with the institution of private property. In his book Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harari argues that the quality of life for humans has deteriorated since the agricultural revolution due to nutritionally deficient diets and longer working hours, but that is not all.
After the agricultural revolution, humans abandoned their hunter-gatherer lifestyle and began to live in tribes, and they began to take ownership of the crops they cultivated. This is when the tragedy of humanity began. Agricultural societies provided humans with a settled life, and people began to live together in larger groups. Thanks to agriculture, the population grew rapidly. Unlike hunter-gatherers who lived from day to day, farmers began to think about and worry about the future. This laid the foundation for large-scale political systems and led to the emergence of rulers and elites. Most of the surplus food produced by farmers went to them. This was the moment when the first poor people in human history were born.
Such inequality has existed in some form throughout human history, whether in terms of gender, social status, or wealth. However, humanity is changing. Humankind has begun to pursue an egalitarian society and has started to eliminate various inequalities that exist in our society. We are recognizing various inequalities and discrimination, such as class discrimination, racial discrimination, and even gender discrimination, although it is not yet perfect, and are working to correct them. However, there are still areas where there is no clear way to eliminate inequality. That is the gap between the rich and the poor.
Broken Capitalism
Today, the world is dominated by financial capitalism. However, the world of financial capitalism in which we live does not seem very happy. Since the 2008 financial crisis in the United States and the Eurozone financial crisis that began in Greece in 2010, newspapers have been filled with articles about the crisis of neoliberalism. And, as during the Great Depression in the United States in 1930, the debate between Hayek and Keynes has begun again.
Keynes, the father of macroeconomics, who did not trust the invisible hand, argued that the market should be normalized through government intervention to compensate for the lack of effective demand (the desire to purchase goods with money that can actually be used to buy them). His argument was accepted, and Keynes’ theory became the economic principle of all governments. As a result, the world enjoyed an unprecedented boom for 30 years. At that time, there was someone who 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 took time. At first, no one listened to his argument. However, when recession and inflation struck at the same time, Keynes’ theory could not explain it, and Hayek’s neoliberalism was accepted. With the collapse of communism, which failed to overcome the economic crisis, Hayek’s neoliberalism swept across the global economy. The US and the UK advocated a global economic system and gave birth to financial capitalism through huge financial capital. However, this financial capitalism caused a global financial crisis. Globalization brought unprecedented prosperity, but it also led to extreme polarization between the rich and the poor.
So, in order to escape the current financial crisis and resolve this imbalance, should governments strengthen regulations or relax them and trust the market’s ability to adjust? There is no clear answer to this question. This is because both approaches have already clearly revealed their limitations. Does this mean that capitalism has failed and we must seek a new economic system? I do not think so. Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Capitalism has enabled many people to escape poverty. Even if some aspects of capitalism need to be modified, the principles of the market economy must be preserved. As the author of Sapiens points out, we have already created a world that can only function under capitalism, and we must find a way to fix capitalism when it breaks down.
The possibility of welfare
When an economic crisis hits, many people lose their jobs. Welfare is a way to share the burden of such problems. It is similar to insurance. Welfare can be a solution to the current situation. According to a survey by the National Assembly Research Service, the top 10% of income earners in South Korea accounted for 44.9% of the total income in 2012. This is the highest figure in Asia and the second highest in the world after the United States. We must resolve this imbalance and achieve redistribution of wealth. Let’s look at the case of a man who attempted to redistribute wealth through wage adjustments. Dan Price, who runs a credit card payment system company in Seattle, USA, took on the unprecedented challenge of raising the minimum annual salary of his employees from $32,000 to $70,000, while lowering his own salary from $1.1 million to $70,000.
His challenge, which everyone viewed with skepticism, was a success. Sales doubled and the turnover rate fell to an all-time low. Not only that, but the employees were so happy that they all decided to have children. The redistribution of wealth even had an impact on the birth rate.
Redistribution of wealth is ultimately about giving to those who have nothing from those who have everything. However, not all wealthy people want to share what they have, as Dan Price did. And this attitude is guaranteed under capitalism in the name of freedom. This is where all the problems arise. Jobs are lost, polarization deepens, the economy becomes unstable, and discontent builds up in society. The key question, then, is how to distribute the wealth of those who have it.
What if it were accepted as natural for those who have to share with those who have nothing? How can we create such a society? The answer is universal welfare for all. In a society where everyone enjoys welfare, where it is taken for granted, wouldn’t it be natural for those who have to share with those who have nothing? One example of a concrete implementation of this is basic income, which is income paid unconditionally without any obligation to work or own property.
In a recent SBS special program called “Spoons and Ladders,” a game called “Buru Spoons” based on the rules of the board game Monopoly was played with the theme of basic income. The game consists of two rounds: the first round, in which assets are distributed according to the spoons at the start of the game, and the second round, in which taxes are collected on unearned income and distributed to everyone in equal amounts. There was no significant difference between the gold spoon and silver spoon players in the first and second rounds. However, unlike the dirt spoon players, who gave up the game in the first round due to their heavy debts, the dirt spoon players in the second round did not give up until the end, even though there was no significant change in their assets. Of course, this is only the result of a simple experiment. Basic income is still being tested in several countries, and its effectiveness cannot yet be guaranteed.
However, the results of these experiments suggest that basic income has the potential to give hope to the socially disadvantaged. This does not mean that we should attempt to implement these changes immediately. As mentioned earlier, the current proposals all have clear limitations.
However, change is clearly needed in the current situation. And that means that the direction of change must be toward universal welfare. We must create a society where it is a natural value to share with those who have nothing through universal welfare. If so, perhaps in 100 years, even if there are still silver spoons in our society, there will be no more wooden spoons.
