"I'm a big supporter of capitalism but there are moments in time when capitalism can go into overdrive and it is important to have measures in place … that ensure we avoid excesses in terms of income and wealth distribution," said banker David Cole.
Cole helped to write "Global Risks 2014," the main discussion document for the World Economic Forum's annual Davos summit, which opens as we go to press. The bankers, corporate executives, and political leaders who gather at Davos, Switzerland will focus this year on rising global inequality as a cause of social upheaval. These bosses are especially worried about what they call a "lost" generation of jobless and frustrated young people. From Greece to Thailand to Brazil, young adults have been in the forefront of a massive wave of social protest.
"Disgruntlement can lead to the dissolution of the fabric of society, especially if young people feel they don't have a future," said Jennifer Blanke, chief economist for the World Economic Forum.
Even in the United States, "Low- and middleincome Americans don't appear to be on the threshold of revolt. But the middle-class squeeze continues to tighten, and it would be imprudent to consider ourselves immune." This was economist Robert Frank's warning to readers of the New York Times business section (1/11/14).

How Much Inequality Should There Be?
Capitalist defenders like Cole, Blanke and Frank want as much inequality as possible so bosses can compete successfully for maximum profits, without inciting the masses to rebellion. Most of us, however, want "equality." But what do we really mean by that? And is "equality" the best word to describe what we really want?

"Fair Play" versus "Fair Share"
William Galston (Wall Street Journal, 1/15/14) claims that liberals and conservatives agree that "the objective is equal opportunity." He quotes Abraham Lincoln, who said that the main goal of government should be "to afford to all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life." This is the "Fair Play" interpretation of equality, which William Ryan contrasted with a "Fair Share" interpretation in his still-useful and very readable book Equality (1981).
Ryan described "Fair Play" as the dominant ideology. He wondered why it has such a strong hold on many workers and others who end up with the short end of the stick. He set out to demolish the "Fair Play" arguments that many Red Flag readers will recognize as some of the main arguments people put forward against communism.

Is Life Really Like a Foot-Race?
No, argued Ryan. Most of us never get to the starting line. And "the heart of the matter" is that the prizes in this supposed "race of life" are "laboriously produced … by the bulk of us who are nonstarters."
"I don't know about you," Ryan declared, "but I never agreed to make prizes for rich people. Nobody even asked me." He concluded that "equality of opportunity is, inevitably, a pathway to inequality."

Does "Fair Share" Mean "Equal Results"?
Fair Players often pretend that their opponents want everyone to get the same or even be the same. Some people think that's what we mean by communism, so let's be clear that it's not.
All people are more alike than different, but our differences are real. As Ryan argued, nobody in their right mind would want everyone in society to get the same amount of time on a kidney dialysis machine. We don't all need the same number of calories in our daily diet.

Sharing: The Fabric of Communist Society
Instead, said Ryan, "The idea of sharing… is the basic idea of equality."
"Most of the good things of life" are either freely available in Nature (like air) "or have been produced by the combined efforts of many persons, sometimes of many generations. As all share in the making, so all should share in the use and the enjoyment."
Our goal, therefore, should be "holding resources in common, to be shared amongst us all – not divided up and parceled out, but shared." Ryan used the example of a public library: nobody should be excluded, and different people take out different numbers and kinds of books. That's communism, folks, though Ryan wouldn't have said so.
To get there takes armed revolution, not just revolt. It takes ending exploitation, not just the most extreme poverty. And yes, it means tearing apart the entire "fabric of society" woven from money and private property.
Instead of advocating "equality" (abstract and unclear), why not say we're for "sharing," which people understand. Better still, let's just say we're for communism – and explain what that means. But Ryan was right about the need to win the masses away from capitalist ideology and to the idea of a society based on sharing. That's part of what we mean by MOBILIZING THE MASSES FOR COMMUNISM.
And as we do that, the worst fears of the capitalists assembled at Davos will be more than justified.