- It should not come as a surprise that social and economic injustice is not an accident. It springs from the very nature of capitalism, now in its phase of globalization. When profit governs the day-to-day decisions of business, the effect on the ordinary person will inevitably be considered secondary. Policy cannot be governed by the profit motive and by love-thy-neighbor (or the rights of thy neighbor) at the same time. Under capitalism, the most that can be hoped for are a few compromises. These alleviate some misery, but those underprivileged millions whose rights are being abused are still among us, suffering (in growing numbers?).
- Let’s face it, Capitalism, even if attempts are made to modify and humanize it, is our way of economic life –and we are indoctrinated to it.
- The poorest are the same everywhere. They are poor primarily because their rights are not central to the political priorities of governments. They are prevented from translating their rights into effective demands or claims in the only terms that the market understands: the power of cash.
- The problem is that the institutions that create wealth are not neutral as to its distribution. The concept of market demand mocks poverty or plainly ignores it as the poor have very little purchasing power. Market demand should be substituted by a system that somehow sets national-consumption-and-production-targets-based-on-minimum-human-needs.
A spirit of ‘noblesse-oblige’ towards the poor is not enough. Development must be redefined as a selective attack on the worst forms of poverty.
Development must thus be measured as the level of rights achieved by the two poorest income quintiles.
- The Establishment is not those people who hold and exercise power as such. It is the people who create and sustain the-climate-of-assumptions-and-opinions-within-which-power-is-exercised by those who do hold it by election or appointment. The ruling class imposes its morality and puts it into practice in accordance with its historical class interests. Politics, science, morality, art and religion are all forms of ideology.
- Many people believe that the scientists’ psychic energy is so powerful it can transform all around it. The question is: How can this gathered energy confront the Pentagon, Exxon, IBM, Nestle or any other political or economic giant? What is missing, then, is an urgent political strategy for committed scientists.
- Our acceptance-of-the-established-ways has an important consequence: It leads to a belief that those with wealth and power –even if inherited–deserve their good fortune. If the rules are fair –and we seldom question that they are– those who make their way must deserve what they have amassed. But a corollary of the acceptance of good fortunes is the acceptance of bad fortune. A man who is poor deserves to be poor –he must not have tried hard enough; perhaps if he had worked harder, he might have inherited something. Abroad, Americans, for example, doubt that poor nations really deserve its assistance: They must not have tried hard enough or, had they looked harder, they might have found oil… This attitude towards the permanently poor is confused with the Americans’ attitude towards the temporarily afflicted, those faced with sudden disaster; few nations are generous as the USA. Yet, this generosity is only a natural extension of this same vision. Victims of disaster cannot be held responsible for their plight. This being so, any poor nation should not only be grateful, but permanently beholden to the donors for any aid, because it should be recognized that the receiving nation really does not deserve the money… But this is deadly wrong; charily cannot do the work of justice. The barriers of class, race, and ethnic prejudice and discrimination, along with political and economic naivete separate such an approach from reality.
- So, are we afraid of radical change? How can we reduce our fear –transform our cowardice? This, really, is a mystery that somebody has yet to figure out.
- Unless ideologically inclined, many of us are content to take life as it comes when things go reasonably well, preferring to evade the troublesome question of life’s purpose or meaning.
- As scientists, technicians, intellectuals and activists, we are restless, dissatisfied and often rightly critical, but often also urgently in need of a more radical ideology. (We are also doing quite nicely: we have a vested interest in the status quo). We prefer to emphasize morality and fundamental values and are good at exposing (and explaining away) unintended-consequences-of-well-meant-interventions. Such a position has evolved into an independent force (or non-force) threatening to give legitimacy to a situation where essential conditions are set by corporate elites, where great inequalities are rationalized and where democracy becomes an occasional, ritualistic gesture.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org