Yet efforts to wipe out poverty, hunger are branded "socialist".
We are heading into days when even if the Pope speaks of social inequity and a more balanced distribution of wealth, he will be chastised as a the spokesperson for socialism. Never mind that the constitution including that of the United States of America promises "general welfare" of all its citizens.
Are we encouraging vested interests who have redefined capitalism to include just their privilage to beg at the doors of government (as if government owns its own money) to keep them alive after they have played around with their companies and proved their incompetence by driving them to bankruptcy. A point in case is much of the auto industry.
Let us not forget that there is a real threat of socialism only because we are failing to realise that social inequity is the the breeding ground for socialism. In that case the threat in the near future is real, unless we move fast. These are unusual times even for capitalism. Mass layoffs across countries and across continents does not do service to capitalism. Traditionally capitalists have been conservative and reinvested capital wisely in expansion, build institutions that so define America to the outside world.
Enron style capitalism needs to be stymed. As long as a larger swathes of people are making money, capitalism is safe.
Is it time for governments and corporations to look at the consequences of mass layoffs and failed corporations?. Is it time to ask corporations to incorporate fundamental duties in their corporate constitution?. Fundamental duties towards a small group of shareholders is making corporations shortsighted and as a consequence endangering democarcy and capitalism.
Many pundits have alreay started talking about a new face corporate social responsibility- one that moves beyond corporate donations. That's old hat. Perhaps Microsoft can provide a valuable lesson to the corporate world about the new meaning of corporate responsibility. La Microsoft may be over reaching for the narrower vision of many corporates but in looking at social responsibility - one must understand that even there, money can be made - albeit smaller margins.
Similarly, corporate responsibility for oil companies could be the care of our common heritage, the enviornment. Again - if you are innovative there is money to be made even there.
Perhaps corporate culture needs to change. Perhaps what's ailing is the insides of these great big corporations which are being run like oligarchies. Medicority and not boldness is being rewarded. Talent is not always easy to fit into the narrow confines of conventional structures. Perhaps we need mavericks at the top to undersatnd and encourage mavericks at the lower rungs of Corporate America. As of now, corporations like governments have started rewarding faithfulness to the boss rather than an institution.
Is socialism the punching board for people who have a vested interest in not talking about improving not just the lot of those that are at the lowest rungs of the social structure but the many talented employees finding themselves throttled to obescience to the always correct boss?. If yes then that clashes with the concept of democracy as enshrined in our democratic constitutions. In countries like Ireland and India there is something called the "Directive principles". And to quote (Wikipedia):
"The directive principles ensure that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by promoting a social order in which social, economic and political justice is informed in all institutions of life. Also, the State shall work towards reducing economic inequity."
It is high time we talk of constitutional "welfare " as enshrined in our constitutions. Checks and balances in the United States constitution is precisely to strike a balance between authority and liberty. Authority should not be narrowed down to just governmnet authority but to corporate, institutional, individual authority as well. The right of an individual within a State, a Corporation is what I'm talking about.
Individual liberty includes creation of a national fabric that does not create a set of differential opportunities, allowing some to succeed and impeding the success of others. That philosophy impedes the long term success of a nation.
Yet propping up failed institutions and corporations run by those very people who are whipping up passions about the resurgence of Obama type socialism - is being turned a blind eye to. Wonder why there is silence on this issue? Why in a capitalist society should the government prop up an institution that has failed and is crumbling? In my opinion any kind of intervention by the government is socialism.
How wonderful it is to be rich and yet this very wonder remains a far off dream for millions- nay billions! The question is not whether it is capitalism vs socialism. The question is how do we make present day capitalism, rich enough to spread like a fungus.
Poverty and hunger in the Third World/developing nations are almost always linked to an underdeveloped rule of law and the resulting rampant corruption. The most glaring example is in Equatorial Africa where seeds grow if they're simply thrown on the ground. Yet people starve.
ReplyDeleteI do understand that the colonial practices of the past led to instability in infant nations - but we're fifty years down the road from those days.
Is it the role of developed nations (US/Canada as an example) to force the rule of law on those nations so that social justice, food and economic opportunities flourish? The World Bank and IMF try to foster those situations where capitalism can take hold but they've had a dismal track record.
Feeding people isn't the answer. It's providing the opportunity for them to feed themselves that brings dignity and wealth. I'm simply not sure how to accomplish that given realities on the ground.
My dear friend poverty and hunger are moving beyond the third world and are in our backyard. In this blog Im talking more about the developed world than the developing. The developing world when left alone has its own little bright spots.
ReplyDeleteThose developing countries once were the richest countries of the world -- lets not go there. Yes I agree the governments of these countries are corrupt- but thats not the only reason they are poor.
Its just been a few months since the US demonstrated the absolute lack of resources not just at the common man's level but at the government level. Despite no money and huge deficits, the government started buying stakes-in private companies- if this is not socialism what is???? In a capitalsit society if the government buys stakes--of giant industries - how poor must the industrialist class of that country be OR how bad those companies must be that they have no buyers-- and thats why the government is buying them. My article is not about third world poverty but about the developed world and the threat of resurgence of socialism.
Had the government not bailed out the auto industry - imagine the chaos that would have prevailed in the US and Canada.However when third world countries during normal times(forget difficult times) try to adopt the kind of policies that the US is adopting right now, they are hounded by IMF and World Bank and are forced to adopt open market policies that thrust people further into poverty. They are isolated by being branded as socialists --what's happening now in the US?
You do not need to look far beyond Latin America.The very same policies that were so brutally demolished are being adopted Look at the US and see how people cannot even pay their own mortgages. Lets not even look at poverty in the third world. Thats a whole different issue.
And yes-- there is more charity in the devloped world than the developing-- the developing countries are so highly populated that they can't think of charity.