Ambition and Equality

Ambition – the drive to climb in society. I always imagine to myself the small town kid determined to make it in the big city or college. Also, Napoleon comes to mind (I guess he was sort of a small town kid – definitely ambitious though).

Equality – every ones needs are equally deserving of satisfaction. Western societies are not really egalitarian. I am imagining an egalitarianism that says that if you own something that someone else does not have or anything equivalent you are bad. Contrary-wise if someone does have something exclusive and you and most everybody doesn’t you are justified in banding together to take it away.

Aristocratic impulse – therefore, if you do possess things you should be very generous with them and unconcerned (at least fake it) with wealth. Money is so crass. These then become the status of the truly elite – not that they give up the actual status symbols of wealth such as clothes, mansions, etc.
Thus we arrive at a common figure in history and literature: the broke billionaire, the destitute duke. This person is very generous, unconcerned with wealth, surrounded by luxury and the trappings of wealth and in hock up to his eyeballs. Thomas Jefferson or Michael Jackson – without their contributions in entertainment or politics.

The Bourgeois reaction – Hide your wealth, don’t overindulge. Keep it though for the troubles in life. Thus, the millionaire who drives an old economy car. Warren Buffet.

What does this have to do with society in general? I think the first reaction tends to impoverish society as a whole. Why? Part of the aristocratic impulse is to eschew work as degrading (although of course one fails to live to the ideal if one openly despise workers. One needs to sympathize and patronize and condescend to help them on their little troubles with ones vast power.) This harms society because their principal pursuit is the consumption of wealth. A few individuals doing this of course makes little difference but there are always many imitators. Soon all the ambitious (consuming wealth remember, not producing it) are in a fierce competition with each other to consume the limited pie – they turn their ambition and energies to corruption and oppression or losing out they become idle and indebted.
The bourgeois on the other hand see work as a positive ethic in itself. They continue to do so but now their labors are assisted by having a large supply of capital at their disposal. Their ability to innovate is unparalleled. Innovations increase the pie, so these driven people need not engage in cutthroat competition with each other, trampling law and custom. The society as a whole is wealthier. Branson and Jobs come to mind here.
I think that a good example of this is the antebellum United States. The South adopted the aristocratic model of handling wealth and enjoyed linear economic growth. The north adopted the bourgeois model and enjoyed exponential economic growth (something like 3 percent a year I believe).