In the early months of 1848, French poet Alphonse de Lamartine found himself captivated by new and radical ideas. His previous culinary penchant for frog legs gave way to a voracious appetite for progressive thoughts of the time.
Initially, these ideas brought excitement and promise. However, as Lamartine immersed himself deeper, his enthusiasm spiraled into madness.
It felt as though he had been bitten by a rabid dog—as he metaphorically had. Yet, this dog was not a French poodle but rather the aggressive ideology of Karl Marx.
This shift in perspective elicited little concern among the populace. At that time, many French citizens were equally animated, having recently ousted their leaders yet again, marking a second upheaval in fifty years. This unrest was born out of economic distress—a situation that had repeatedly stirred the public into action.
Redistributed Poverty
With King Louis Philippe removed from power, Lamartine, alongside a group of provisional government officials, took the reins. They sought to implement Marx’s tenets, aiming to penalize the wealthy, eliminate poverty, and redistribute wealth to those they deemed unworthy of its acquisition.
However, to their shock and dismay, Marx’s utopian vision didn’t create a paradise but rather resulted in what could only be described as “redistributed poverty.” Instead of achieving equal riches, everyone became uniformly impoverished.
Frederic Bastiat, another insightful French thinker, encapsulated the folly of this social experiment with clarity and wisdom…
“Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen free and inoffensive use of faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.”
In the end, Lamartine faced a fitting consequence. He spent his later years in poverty, reliant on government support, a living testament to the failures of wealth redistribution.
Change We Can Believe In: Soak the Rich
Around this period, French critic Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr penned an epigram in the January 1849 edition of his journal, Les Guêpes (“The Wasps”)…
“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”
This translates to, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Karr seemed to suggest that events which seem to promise significant transformation often only serve to entrench existing structures.
In contemporary contexts, particularly regarding finances and politics, the situation remains ironically consistent. The European Monetary Union approaches a potential breakup, raising questions about whether this will lead to more decentralized authority or provoke further consolidation of power and authoritarian governing.
Reflecting on the last century, the latter seems more likely.
In the United States, each wave of economic instability has prompted increased government intervention. Following the tumult surrounding the recent debt ceiling discussions, substantive changes remain elusive. Instead, the status quo persists.
Just last week, President Obama unveiled a proposal aimed at taxing the wealthy, introducing a series of tax increases, including the “Buffett rule” aimed at raising capital gains taxes. Yet, it’s noteworthy that few people actually earn as much as Warren Buffett, while the focus remains on increasing tax burdens on couples making $250,000 or more annually.
“Change We Can Believe In,” was the slogan from Obama’s 2008 campaign.
Regrettably, the change he promises mirrors that proffered in France 163 years prior. Beginning with the notion that the wealthy are villains deserving of punishment, it inevitably extends to anyone earning above a modest salary.
Before long, we may all be driven to desperation.
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
Return from Change We Can Believe In: Soak the Rich to Economic Prism