People need to mark their dominance; that is the essence of highly unequal capitalism. If they can’t do so, if they aren’t allowed to be dominant, to be shown as being dominant, then the system cannot long be sustained.
Matt Stoller (quoted by Russell Brand) 2014
Cribb Comment: I am utterly opposed to limiting or bridling the excellence of achievement. If true excellence in a person is the driving force of a reward based system (and I actually agree with that approach), I would like to believe it would by default carry more balance, awareness, and understanding through its leaders for the whole of the given society than a system purely based on wealth accumulation/retention and dominance through tactics, maneuvers, and tricks expressly intended to usurp and stifle and bastardize most of those possessive or capable of true excellence. I have previously used “dominance” in the context of “excellence” in reference to the most supreme stabilizing entity within any given pack. But “dominance” seems to me to be more celebrated/associated in our society with the successful coups and ruthlessness of a scheming sociopath who is more a trickster than a entity of effort and accomplishment. I think the semantics and the mimicry are honestly what creates a lot of the assumed division and misunderstanding between those of character that would otherwise be true allies. Example – A veterinarian that I once worked for was a terrible, terrible DVM, but he presented and sold himself as the best professional DVM alive. His express goal was to make the easiest money possible without any true ethical concerns whatsoever. He is/was amazingly successful. He financially raped clients, he subjugated his staff, he killed patients, but he would claim and you would think he might have achieved success from being excellent. Nothing is further from the truth.
I do however understand that some successful people are ethical and purely reaping the benefits of their efforts and excellence.