The Pauper: Chapter 9: Wealth & Social Acceptance
Without economic clout, there can be no true political clout.
So long as he has little to no material relationship to society, the pauper has no true influence, and society along with the powers that be, will not regard him.
Without economic clout, there can be no political clout. It is why poor demographics, which command little to no resources, are easy to disregard by political and social establishments.
If the pauper has nothing physical to control, by which he can exert influence, authority, or will in his society or community, he holds no sway, except he be a charismatic man or an intellectual.
But intellectuals and charismatics can be put in prison, scandalized, or assassinated, and their movements die with them. The foundations of their political clout are built on sand.
This dynamic of self-sufficiency and mastery which I am speaking of, was held deeply by American activist and polemicist, Malcolm X.
He posited that the black community, for example, should follow the example of other strong communities and stop seeking to be accepted by a general society that could not respect it, unless it's station in society rose.
By that he meant Blacks controlling what is produced and distributed within their own communities. Controlling academic institutions and structuring them in a way that serves their community. And ensuring that money circulates within their community more than once before it leaves.
In other words, there must be a material stake.
Another prime example is the historical middle class, which came about in the late middle ages. These were merchants, entrepreneurs, and small business owners who had found a way to largely free themselves from the grip of nobility, and separate themselves from the peasant class, enjoying a measure of wealth and independence.
From their position, they could negotiate and bargain with the nobility because they controlled something of value.
They built their own cities called the Bourgeois (French) or Burger (Dutch), and were known as burgers or bourgeoisie—“those who dwell in towns.”
When one has the means to move and shake things in his society outside of the halls of political power, the halls either befriend him, bend to his will, or pacify him with some measure of diplomacy.
It is money and influence that move the political needle.
Not grassroots activism. When one is able to contribute significantly in the economic realm…
Or when one is able to craft for themselves a livelihood that makes them self-sufficient and economically independent…
That is when they are taken seriously.
Such are those who truly command the policy maker’s attention.
And those who lack wealth, in other words those who lack the means to move and shake society in some measure, are discarded.
For wealth, even without political power, is another form of rule.
How come, you may ask?
Think: Men understand that it is unwise to provoke the spirit of a ruler. And the one who commands a means of production or distribution, and the ability to secure them, is the most capable of aiding any man, at times even more so than the actual ruler.
Politicians and princes are constrained by laws and customs.
But if the commander of wealth is a private citizen, his affairs are less scrutinized. He is under lesser surveillance, and is free to aid or associate with anyone whom he pleases without the charge of corruption or impropriety; nothing is committed to him of the public trust for him to violate. Since he is most capable of swiftly aiding his community and members of his society at large, he is last to be vexed.
Men will not excessively rouse him, knowing that in him there is no benefit in making an enemy, unless he himself is an antagonist, and conflict is deemed morally necessary.
A good example of the antagonist narrative is the labor movement of the 1800s and early 1900s, which sought to bring industrial titans like Carnegie and Rockefeller to heel.
Knowing still that the support or vote of the pauper is necessary, the politician will douse him in kisses, salutations and promises in bad faith.
He will employ myriad schemes to fool him. But once the support is secured, it ends there. In this, the politician is a chameleon to the pauper, but a peer (and sometimes foot soldier) for the wealthy.
According to James Baldwin, it was the leader of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad who once said, “No group of people have ever been respected, who lacked land.” With this I must agree.
Think the modern day Kurds of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Think the American black population during Jim Crow.
We see once again, the recurrent theme of something sizeable and material to control.
The ability of a man to disregard a ruler by reason of his own personal and financial stability and independence, is something that power finds it hard to stomach.
And this doesn't just apply to an individual, but also to a community.
It means he/they must be courted. And such a scenario gives him/them leverage.
I say again: It is not acceptance and endorsement from the political elite that brings political clout.
If the elite recognize you even though you have little to offer; that’s simply because you’re seen as a useful pawn in their game, and nothing more.
They see in you a compliant vessel ready to do their bidding for whatever price they deem appropriate.
The conclusion is that the pauper shouldn’t be so concerned with being socially accepted.
He is not a man of wealth (yet). He should know where he stands.
This is the beginning of his acceptance: the accumulation of resources.
In improving his lot, others will seek his acceptance.
Men often conflate wealth and success with virtue: this perception is the spirit of prestige.
Find my work here on Substack. Don’t forget to follow, so that you never miss a new article when it comes out. In short, I despise the Elite, along with the cultural stagnation, academic conformity, economic chaos, and social decay that they create or facilitate. I aspire to empower and equip the common man with the perspective and mindset to wrest back ownership of his life.