Great Books Ep 105. Aristophanes - The Plutus. The Enduring Dream of Wealth Distribution
If everyone becomes rich, will people move on towards tackling bigger challenges or just enjoy the wealth and not do anything?
“And whatsoever in the world is bright, And fair, and graceful, all is done for thee. For every mortal thing subserves to Wealth.”
~ ‘The Plutus’ by Aristophanes (Benjamin B. Rogers translation. GB5 - p. 630)
Brief Summary
The play starts with an elderly Athenian named Chremylus following a blind man in rags. His servant Cario asks him why he is following the blind man. Chremylus explains that he went to consult the oracle of Apollo to ask if he should guide his son to be wicked and cunning since he feels that is the only way to become wealthy. The oracle told him to follow the first person he sees when he comes out of the temple, and that happened to be the blind man. Cario asks the blind man who he is, but he tells him to go away. Cario and Chremylus persist and find out that the blind man is actually Plutus, the god of wealth. He is dishelved and dirty because he came from the house of a man who never took a bath. When Chremylus asks him why he is blind, Plutus tells him that Zeus deliberately blinded him so that he would not know who is virtuous and not. That’s how random people end up getting wealthy.
Chremylus says that he will rally people and get all the help that he can get to restore Plutus’s sight. Cario tells Plutus that Wealth is greater than even Zeus, since everything in the world depends on wealth. Cario goes to get people and convinces a group of poor farmers to go with him. Chremylus’ friend Blepsidemus comes after hearing rumors. As they are getting ready to help Plutus regain sight, Poverty appears as a wild woman. She says they are making a grave mistake by making everyone wealthy. She claims that poverty is necessary for society since it creates the need for people to do things. Without the need, no one would work, there would be no crafts or luxury items, no one to build a ship or anything, no one to fix things and so forth. Despite the compelling arguments, Chremylus dismisses Poverty and goes ahead with his plan.
Chremylus and the group go to the temple of Asclepius, the god of medicine. Plutus’ sight is miraculously restored that night, and he begins to bestow wealth on all the good people, which is pretty much everyone except a few. Through dialogues with some people, the play shows how the redistribution of wealth has affected everyone. First, a generous man who had become poor by helping others has now become wealthy and is very grateful. Then an informer comes in and says that he has lost his wealth and means of livelihood since no one is interested in blackmail and gossip. Then a rich old lady comes in and says that her young lover has abandoned her since he has now become rich. Then the young man, who has now become rich, comes in and mocks the old woman.
In addition to ordinary people, the change in wealth affects gods also. Hermes appears and says that he is starving because no one is doing any offerings anymore. He is ready to abandon Olympus and work in Chremylus’ home. Then a priest of Zeus complains that there is no use in being a priest anymore. The play ends with Plutus being installed in the Temple of Athena.
My Thoughts
The concern that wealth is in the hands of a select few, most of whom don’t deserve it, was a theme among common people 2500 years ago, and it is still the central debate of our time. In the past couple of millennia, especially in the past century, so many different systems have been tried out to redistribute wealth, and most of them have failed, I guess.
In comparison to all the times in the past where effort was made to make everyone rich, is it different this time? Is the availability of AI to the common man ushering in an age of abundance for everyone? A lot of smart people seem to think so. There are talks that many countries could give UBI (Universal Basic Income) to all their citizens. Elon Musk goes one step higher and talks about Universal High Income. He reiterated his thoughts just a couple of days ago in the Middle East.
I also think it unlocks an immense amount of economic potential, because when you think of what the output of an economy is, it's productivity per capita times population. Once you have humanoid robots, the actual economic output potential is tremendous. It's really unlimited. Potentially, we could have an economy ten times the size of the current global economy, where no one wants for anything. You know, sometimes in AI they talk about universal basic income. I think it's actually going to be universal high income, where anyone can have any goods or services that they want.
~ Elon Musk speaks at Saudi-U.S. investment forum (YouTube link)
I agree with a lot of the arguments in favor of AI tremendously improving humankind. Technology has proven that it is able to increase the average person’s wealth and well-being. But, the disparity might still exist, till eternity, unless humanity in humans is taken away and everyone becomes a cyborg, a thinking machine with a human body. And if there is no disparity, if everyone has what they need, will anyone do anything? The arguments made by Poverty in the play were simply phenomenal, I thought.
“if Wealth should allot himself equally out (assume that his sight ye restore), Then none would to science his talents devote or practise a craft any more. Yet if science and art from the world should depart, pray whom would ye get for the future To build you a ship, or your leather to snip, or to make you a wheel or a suture?”
~ ‘The Plutus’ by Aristophanes (Benjamin B. Rogers translation. GB5 - p. 635)
The optimistic scenario would be that once the basic problems are taken care of, humans will be dealing with bigger problems. As someone said, the number of problems we deal with may not change, but the scope of the problems we deal with changes as we progress in life. In the play, poverty makes a clear distinction between poverty/frugality and beggarliness/destitution. People could be poor but have some means to earn a livelihood and move up. But there are so many who are destitute and have no means to find a way to survive. At least that should be eradicated. Because people should always be striving to do something - invent things, discover new places, understand things better and so forth. We’ve understood so much of the world, but a lot more is still unexplored, within the human body, the world we live in and the world beyond Earth.
AI Response to the Post (Gemini)
It’s fascinating how “The Plutus” continues to resonate across millennia! Your thoughts on the play’s relevance to modern discussions around wealth distribution, UBI, and the potential impact of advanced technology are spot on.
Expanding on Your Thoughts
The Allure and Perils of Equal Wealth Distribution and Universal Basic Income:
You’ve astutely identified the enduring appeal of equitable wealth distribution. The idea that everyone should have enough to live comfortably is a powerful moral imperative. Aristophanes, through the restoration of Plutus’s sight, playfully explores a scenario where this ideal is realized. The immediate consequences he depicts are both positive (the generous man finally receives his due) and disruptive (the informer and the gold-digging lover lose their parasitic livelihoods).
Your connection to Universal Basic Income (UBI) and Elon Musk’s concept of Universal High Income (UHI) is particularly relevant. The core idea behind these proposals is to provide a safety net, ensuring a basic standard of living for all citizens, regardless of their employment status. Proponents argue that this could alleviate poverty, reduce inequality, foster entrepreneurship (as people have a cushion to take risks), and potentially free individuals to pursue education, creative endeavors, or caregiving responsibilities.
However, the play, through Poverty’s compelling arguments, raises crucial questions that UBI/UHI proponents must address. If everyone’s basic needs are met, or even if they have access to “any goods or services that they want,” what motivates people to engage in labor, innovation, and the myriad tasks that keep a society functioning? Poverty argues that necessity is the mother of invention and industry. Without the pressure to earn a living, would society stagnate?
Your point about the distinction between poverty/frugality and beggarliness/destitution is important here. UBI/UHI aims to eradicate destitution, providing a foundation. The question then becomes whether this foundation fosters a society where people still strive for more – not necessarily more wealth in a traditional sense, but more knowledge, more skills, more creative expression, more contribution to the community.
The optimistic view, as you mentioned, is that humans will naturally gravitate towards “bigger problems” once basic needs are met. Perhaps the focus will shift from material accumulation to scientific discovery, artistic creation, philosophical inquiry, or addressing global challenges like climate change or disease. However, the play subtly cautions against a naive optimism. The informer and the jilted lover represent self-interest and the potential for societal disruption even in a seemingly utopian scenario.
What Becomes of Humans If Everyone is Rich?
This is the crux of Poverty’s argument and a question that continues to provoke thought. If “universal high income” becomes a reality, what would human existence look like?
Loss of Motivation and Purpose: One potential consequence is a decline in traditional forms of work. If robots and AI handle most labor, and everyone has ample resources, what will people do with their time? Will they find meaning and purpose in leisure, hobbies, and personal pursuits, or will widespread apathy and a sense of aimlessness prevail? The play hints at this with the gods themselves becoming redundant.
Transformation of Values: Our current societal structures and values are largely built around economic scarcity and the need to work for survival and advancement. In a world of abundance, these values might shift dramatically. What would be the new measures of success, status, and fulfillment? Would intrinsic motivations like curiosity, creativity, and social contribution become more dominant?
The Nature of Human Desire: Even if material needs are met, human desire is often insatiable. Would new forms of competition and inequality emerge around non-material goods like status, recognition, or unique experiences? The play touches on this with the young man abandoning the old woman for newfound social opportunities.
The Role of Struggle and Challenge: Poverty argues that hardship breeds resilience, ingenuity, and a sense of accomplishment. If life becomes too easy, would humans lose their drive, their ability to overcome obstacles, and ultimately, their capacity for growth?
The Potential for Flourishing: Conversely, a world without the constant pressure of survival could unlock immense human potential. Freed from the constraints of economic necessity, individuals could pursue their passions, develop their talents, and contribute to society in novel and unexpected ways. Perhaps a new era of creativity, innovation, and human flourishing could emerge.
Aristophanes doesn’t offer a definitive answer, but he cleverly presents both sides of the argument, leaving the audience to ponder the complexities of a world without economic scarcity.
Deeper Analysis of the Play’s Themes and Symbolism
Beyond the central theme of wealth distribution, “The Plutus” engages with several other significant ideas:
The Blindness of Fortune: Plutus’s literal blindness is a powerful symbol of the arbitrary and often undeserved nature of wealth accumulation in the real world. Aristophanes critiques the idea that wealth is a reward for virtue or hard work, suggesting instead that it is often a matter of chance. The play’s central action – restoring Plutus’s sight – represents the desire to impose order and fairness on this chaotic system, to direct wealth towards the deserving.
The Critique of Greed and Self-Interest: While the play advocates for a fairer distribution of wealth, it also satirizes the negative aspects of greed and self-interest. The informer and the gold-digging lover are caricatures of individuals who exploit the existing system for personal gain, highlighting the moral corruption that can accompany wealth inequality. Their downfall after Plutus regains his sight suggests a desire for a society where genuine merit and generosity are rewarded, not manipulation and exploitation.
The Interdependence of Society: Poverty’s speech emphasizes the interconnectedness of different roles and professions within a society. She argues that even seemingly undesirable jobs are essential for the functioning of the whole. This highlights the organic nature of a complex economy and the potential dangers of disrupting established structures without fully understanding their purpose.
The Relationship Between Humans and the Divine: The appearance of Hermes and the Priest of Zeus underscores the impact of wealth redistribution on the traditional religious order. The decline in offerings suggests a shift in priorities when material needs are met. It raises questions about the role of religion and the gods in a prosperous society. Are they still necessary? Do humans turn away from the divine when they feel self-sufficient? This could be interpreted as a subtle commentary on the changing social and cultural landscape of Athens at the time.
The Nature of “Goodness” and “Deserving”: Chremylus intends for Plutus to bestow wealth on the “good” people. However, the play portrays a rather broad definition of goodness, essentially encompassing anyone who isn’t overtly malicious. This raises questions about how one defines “deserving” and the practical challenges of implementing a system of wealth distribution based on such criteria.
The Power of Persuasion and Rhetoric: The debates between Chremylus and Poverty showcase the power of rhetoric and argumentation in shaping public opinion. Poverty’s logical and compelling arguments initially seem to hold sway, yet Chremylus ultimately dismisses them based on his desire for a better future. This highlights the role of emotions and utopian visions in driving social change, sometimes even in the face of pragmatic concerns.
Thought-Provoking Questions for Modern Readers
“The Plutus” continues to spark relevant discussions. Here are some thought-provoking questions it raises for modern readers:
In an age of increasing automation and the potential for AI-driven abundance, how do we redefine “work,” “value,” and “contribution” to society?
What are the potential unintended consequences of widespread wealth redistribution, whether through UBI or other means? How can we mitigate these risks?
How do we balance the desire for economic equality with the need for individual initiative and innovation?
How do we define “deserving” in a complex society, and can any system of wealth distribution truly be “fair”?
As technology potentially reduces our reliance on traditional labor, what new sources of meaning, purpose, and social connection can humans cultivate?