One sort of assumes that philosophers tend to be down on the wealthy. You know 'Easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than for the wealthy to enter Heaven' and all that. It is, therefore, surprising that ANY philosopher can be in favor of wealth, more especially from India where anything to do with the world at large is supposed to be considered illusory. (AND, yes, I have differed with the identification of 'Maya' with 'Illusion' in the past, if you really want to know. In 'Theory of Maya - Is it all illusion?')
Tiru flies in the face of all philosophers when he says this:
Payanmaram ullur pazhuthattraal selvam nayanudaiyaan kan padin - Tirukkural
Wealth in the hands of the benevolent is akin to a fruitful tree in the middle of a town - Loose Translation
Tiru, here, means that such wealth shall be useful to everyone in society much like the fruits of such a tree are available to everyone in town. Of course, his were more benevolent times. So much so that the idea of a powerful man building a wall around such a tree and claiming it as his own never even crossed his mind while THAT is the first thing that crosses ours. (IF, of course, there is no intent of cutting down the tree and building a shopping complex there!)
The truth, though, is that most people in the world do not really understand the meaning of wealth. I mean, you talk of wealth and people immediately think in terms of yachts, private jets, million-dollar mansions and the like. True, all those ARE possible uses of wealth, but do you stop to think a step further?
The wealthy also have need to invest their surpluses, right? Now where exactly they invest those surpluses would depend on their morality, no? I mean, you could have people who invest in exploitative companies chasing huge returns or, on the opposite end, in what are social impact investing. (Yes, they could also put their money into charity but, at the moment, I was discussing INVESTING the money, meaning that they intend to earn a return from that money.)
AND, you see, ownership of shares or land etc. is also wealth. IF you have a company owner who takes good care of all stakeholders - employees, shareholders, lenders, customers and community - you would say that wealth in HIS hands is better than the same company's ownership being transferred to a less responsible consortium.
Benevolence, as in Tiru's words, need not necessarily mean that the person distributes largesse from out of his wealth. Even a responsible handling of wealth could well count as benevolence and wealth in such hands is of more use to society than otherwise. (One needs mention that if those benevolent hands are also capable hands, which create more value addition THEN the case for such wealth is inviolable.)
Of course, it would be icing on the cake if that person exhibits true benevolence by way of also doing charity.
Tiru, thus, does not seem like he is a blind votary of Communism! Before you start redistributing wealth in Society, he would have you check on whether the wealth is doing more good where it is!
