Article 18
The Freedom and Responsibility to be Human - Part 3
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyright, W. Krossa)

Unlimited Individual Control of Wealth

Of the approximately 6 billion people on earth, 4.5 billion earn on average only $1,000 per year. 1.3 billion people earn less than a dollar a day. Another 900 million people are unemployed. Of these immiserated billions, approximately one billion are too poor to obtain enough food to meet their daily nutritional requirements. By any definition they are starving. Another two billion live in conditions described as deplorable. And the situation and numbers of these people are only getting worse. In the words of one UN official, their situation is going from inequitable to inhuman.

In stark contrast to this disenfranchised majority, the world's 400 plus billionaires own more assets than the bottom 50% of the earth's population. If you consider that in many other countries assets and resources are also controlled by relatively small groups of wealthy elites who may not be billionaires, then those elites and the billionaires probably own more assets than the majority of the world's population. The harsh reality is that a few thousand people control more resources than billions of other human beings. Even in supposedly democratic societies like the United States, the top one percent of the population now owns 32 percent of the wealth of the entire country. The richest man in America now has as much wealth as the poorest 100 million people in the country.

There is something profoundly wrong with a world in which between 10-14 million children under 5 years of age die every year for want of pennies worth of common medicines while small elites live in great wealth.

The above sample of statistics reflect the outcome of a practice that has been more destructive to human community and to the world environment than perhaps any other human practice. That practice is the unlimited personal control of resources or wealth.

Unlimited control of resources is simply the modern and refined expression of the ancient animal drive to possess and control resources for survival. This ancient drive of aggressive greed, like many other animal drives, has been institutionalized and legitimized throughout human civilization in human created ideologies to the extent that it has now earned a validated and respected place in contemporary human society.

Over the millennia since domestication and especially in the past few centuries, this drive that was once banned as shamefully evil, has now become highly honored as the epitome of human success and social status. We refer to it respectfully with terms like achievement, prosperity, wealth, making it, and, of course, success. But in terms of emerging humanity it is merely animal domination and greed and it is, perhaps more than anything else, destroying our communities, our environment, and our humanity.

It should also be said that the basic trend of capitalism to encourage individuals to control more and more material good undermines and eventually destroys the supreme values that the West claims to hold- freedom and equality. As an elite few move up social strata through the operation of competition toward more opportunity and freedom, claiming ever more resources on the way up, there is a consequential loss of opportunity and resources in lower social strata and hence an inevitable loss of freedom and equality. This trend of disenfranchisement of lower strata majorities is fundamental to capitalism.

In the above statements, we are saying very plainly that the root cause of poverty is the aggressive greed of the few.

Limited Good

In the traditional communities all of us descended from, there existed customs of community ownership of resources. Even in some later forms of community where resources were increasingly owned by the few (i.e. feudalism), all community members still had access to various community resources for their livelihood and well-being.

There was a common belief in previous centuries which kept pressure on traditional communities to maintain more open access to and more equitable distribution of community resources such as land. This was the belief in limited good or limited resources.

This belief held to the idea that there was a fixed or limited amount of any resource available to the community. If some members took more of any given resource than they needed, then others in the community would suffer loss, as there were limited amounts available to the whole community.

Consequently, social pressure was maintained on community members to not personally hoard more than they needed for their comfortable survival (16). The result was a fairly equitable distribution of material resources among community members and fairly low levels of consumption of resources. This practice led to lower individual impact on local environments. Interestingly, from the viewpoint of contemporary consumer society such low levels of consumption are considered underdevelopment and therefore a negative state. It is something to be "developed" out of. The ideal to be developed toward is now unlimited consumerism.

The common Western complaint about the above community pressure to share is that such pressure destroys the initiative of individuals to improve their situation and it therefore keeps everyone in the community at lower levels of development. Of course, the standard of development used for evaluating such societies is based on the Western view of mainly technological development and resource amassment which does little to account for human development, social development, and environmental protection.

The real tragedy of the current worldwide drive toward economic development is that people in many so-called underdeveloped areas are made to feel bad about their cultures and lifestyles because in comparison with the West they are not developed in terms of wealth or resources accumulation. These other cultures may have rich social values and traditions and be very advanced in terms of community responsibility and relating as truly human, but when compared to the technological wizardry and consumption levels of the West they are found wanting, stigmatized as poor, and therefore in need of developing according the Western pattern.

One widely accepted economic model even describes the stages all nations must pass through in order to move from the negative condition of underdevelopment to the positive condition of full development. The model defines underdevelopment as low consumption and development as large-scale mass consumption. People busy working, saving, and buying consumer goods is held forth as the ultimate goal for human society. Such competitive consumerism is now widely accepted as the epitome of social development for human societies. What a tragic deception and detour for the human race.

One of the widespread assumptions held by societies committed to competitive consumerism is that a lifestyle of busy consumer goods amassment is evidence of human well-being and health in an ever growing, ever increasing economy. We condemn as underdeveloped and even lazy those in less developed areas who do not frantically and aggressively pursue consumer goods and wealth amassment as we do. But our lower consumption neighbors often work far less than we do, have more leisure time, and make far less environmental impact. People less enslaved to the pursuit of material goods often have more time for human relationships and community enjoyment which is the essence of truly human life. Our mad lemming-like pursuit of wealth leaves little time for relationships or the development of our humanity. We have less time for each other or for community and we consider that a healthy lifestyle? Most of us are simply too busy in the pursuit of wealth to actually live human lives.

Rather than becoming more developed societies, we who are enslaved to the pursuit of consumerism are in a tragic historical detour, wasting our lives on perishable goods, and they are all perishable. So-called less developed peoples may actually be more developed in other important social areas. This is not an effort to glamorize poverty which is a degrading and dehumanizing condition but neither should we glamorize the ideology of unrestrained Western consumerism which is destroying Western communities and societies. Our modern levels of development are also destroying our beautiful world. Even though our economies are growing are we really progressing as human beings?

Interesting in this regard is that our national accounting notes almost exclusively consumption in the commonly used GDP growth figures. Such accounting is of limited use in tracking environmental or social impacts and costs. In a real sense our current accounting tracks mainly our greed and selfishness. It does not account for the development of humanity or human community, things which may actually progress in so-called less developed areas. In the midst of the mad rush of consumerism let us not forget what real human progress is all about.

We are not decrying all economic development nor arguing that technology itself is somehow evil. Nor is all consumption bad. But we just want to caution, as many others have, the unquestioning enslavement to unrestrained economic growth and excessive consumption which have become the dominant ideals in modern globalized societies.

Other avenues, aside from financial status or material gain, provided opportunities for members of traditional societies to express their uniqueness or find honor in the community. For instance, special skills in settling disputes would gain members prestige among their peers in the community social system. Skill at hunting would grant an opportunity to lead people during hunting forays. But these leadership opportunities did not become permanent offices of power or control over others or over community resources.

The only way to get ahead in traditional societies, in the Western material sense, was to break free of community restraints such as the shame engendered when resources were personally hoarded. Individuals wanting to hoard would subject themselves to community shame and often experience complete ostracism from community relationships (17).

Traditional communities also managed to foster cooperation and sharing far more than our so-called advanced technological societies are doing today. In such traditional societies there was far more personal exchange and anthropological research confirms that this personal contact appears to encourage the human elements of cooperation and sharing (18). The growing impersonal exchange of technological societies appears to be encouraging more selfish behavior. Researchers state that in the less personal exchange of modern market economies people are losing the instinct to share. These researchers encourage people to expose themselves to more cooperative behavior in order to recover the instinct to cooperate and share.

Losing Community

A more widespread movement of breaking free of traditional community restraints was encouraged by the emergence of ideas and practices which, though present previously, began to emerge on a larger scale in human societies only a few centuries ago. One of these ideas and practices was the private or individual ownership of property. Private ownership of property has emerged as a major societal trend quite recently in human history, only some 400-500 years ago. It does not reflect a long term community value or practice of humanity (19).

The belief and practice of holding private property has been taken too seriously for far too long. People are willing to kill and die for property. Wars are often fought over property disputes. Something which should serve to enhance human and community well-being and something which should be held loosely as we pass through life, is now an object of human greed and thereby often leads to the destruction of relationships and communities.

The authors of Poverty And Economic Justice have some useful comments on the issue of private property. They argue that from biblical revelation we are instructed that we are stewards, not owners, of everything we have in life. We are also told not to pamper our appetites or vanity, but we are commanded to share impartially what we find in life and after having done so we are not to boast (William Godwin, "Of Population", p.26).

The Oxford Conference then makes some helpful distinctions between different types of private property. They state that "All human property rights are relative and contingent only, in virtue of the dependence of man upon God as the giver of all wealth and as the creator of man's capacities to develop the resources of nature. This fundamental Christian conviction must express itself both in the idea of stewardship or trusteeship and in the willingness of the Christian to examine accumulations of property in light of their social consequences... It should further be affirmed that individual property rights must never be maintained or exercised without regard to their social consequences or without regard to the contribution which the community makes in the production of wealth" (In Poverty And Economic Justice, p.83).

"It is very important to make clear distinctions between various forms of property. The property which consists in personal possessions for use, such as the home, has behind it a clearer moral justification than property in the means of production and in land which gives the owners power over other persons. All property which represents social power stands in special need of moral scrutiny, since power to determine the lives of others is the crucial point in any scheme of justice. The question must always be asked whether this is the kind of power which can be brought under adequate social control or whether it is of the type which by its very nature escapes and evades social control. Industrial property in particular encourages the concentration of power, for it gives the owner control over both the place and the instruments of labor and thus leaves the worker powerless so far as property relations are concerned" (Ibid, p.83).

"Property in land on a large scale may represent a similar power over those who are forced to rent it for livelihood... On the other hand property in land which does not extend beyond the capacity of one family to cultivate- the small freehold which determines (or used to) a large part of the agriculture of the Western world- belongs to a unique category... there is a special justification for this type of property, since it gives freedom to perform a social function without the interference of capricious power and without the exercise of power over others" (Ibid, p.84).

And finally from the above book, "Excessive private property leads to an economic system of subjugation... people have a natural right to private property...(but) a piece of land measuring a thousand square miles can not be natural private property" (Ibid, p.97).

In this regard, we also remember the comment of one professor who stated in relation to the extreme poverty in Latin America and the consequent squatting of poor people on large estates, "One man's right to survival must come before another man's right to private property".

In noting the above arguments we are not arguing against private property. Even in so-called egalitarian traditional societies of the ancient past there was private property. People owned their own houses, animals, and other private items. But livelihood resources such as public land tended to be shared more equitably amongst community members.

Interestingly, even in our modern societies with strong traditions of private property values, many citizens are excluded from holding private property because of elite and corporate ownership of many public resources related to people's livelihood. Most of us have very little control now over these things essential to our lives and well-being. Consequently, we have, for instance, historically unprecedented levels of joblessness.

So let us be clear we are not arguing against all private property but against those forms that allow the few to control the resources essential to the livelihood of others. This then leads to domination and control of the powerless majority by the powerholding few. Therefore, we are arguing for more equal access by the average person to public resources now held by wealthy elites, corporations and central governments.

The emerging practice of holding private property was eventually joined and supported several centuries later by Adam Smith's historically pivotal idea of self-interest. Smith argued that each individual should pursue their own interests in economic terms and somehow the greater good of all would magically emerge. Specifically, the greater good of society would emerge under the invisible guiding hand of the free market. This was to become the new determining god.

Smith believed that the individually and competitively oriented laws of economy were an extension of divine moral laws which would regulate and adjust the competing interests of different classes of society (Poverty And Economic Justice, p.13). John D. Rockefeller held the same view and actually preached the following in Sunday School; "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest... The American Beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it (trampling and eliminating the many for the success of the few). This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God" (Ibid, p.181). Rockefeller used this as justification for an absolutely uncontrolled laissez-faire economic system and it is said "this ideology justified the criminal rapacity of those who rose to the top of the industrial heap, defining them as naturally superior... but at the same time it also required that those at the bottom of the heap be labeled as patently unfit- a label based solely on their position in society. According to the law of natural selection, they should be, in Spencer's judgment, eliminated. 'The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them and make room for better'" (Ibid, p.182).

"It is important not to delude ourselves into thinking that (the above) ideological monstrosities were constructed by monsters. They were not; they are not. They are developed through a process that shows every sign of being valid scholarship, complete with tables of numbers, copious footnotes, and scientific terminology" (Ibid, p.182).

Adam Smith's idea of promoting self-interest over the greater good of the community merged with other complicating factors which have had immeasurable impact in terms of the destruction of true human communities and the devastation of earth's resources. Smith did not foresee, for instance, the huge increases in global population and the explosion of intense, unlimited greed that would possess individuals freed from all community restraints.

You could say that Smith popularized greed and made it socially acceptable. Under Smith's influence it became a widely accepted and even honored social value. Greed was no longer a shameful and stigmatized thing, but was actually viewed as useful for advancing the greater good of society. Defendants of Smith argue that this is not what Smith intended to say, but it is how he has been understood at the street level.

The modern bumper sticker form of Smith's philosophy states "He who has the most toys when he dies, wins". We all vote in support of this ideology with our dollars, earning and buying all we can. Someone once said, "Lets go shopping" is the new defining statement of insanity. They were correct.

Instead of maintaining and encouraging a sense of responsibility for others and the greater good and a sense of community responsibility, emerging capitalism appealed to human motivation through a new intensified focus on money and wealth or resource accumulation. This new appeal to material goods as the reward for study and productivity development was an appeal to the worst in human nature- greed and selfishness. It has led us to an intensely selfish and individualized pre-occupation with material gain which can never satisfy the deepest needs of the human self. This has to be viewed as a tragic detour for humanity and human development. Vital to the success of any community or group is the self-sacrifice of its members or the denial of personal interest as a sole guiding ethic.

Unlimited personal gain has now become perhaps the central value of the modern world culture. Adam Smith's "Each man for himself" has become the driving force of free enterprise capitalism. The continued pursuit of this relatively new ideal in human society will ensure the destruction of human community and the world environment. It has produced a state of denial in many societies, caught up in economic development and growth, that can only be compared to a form of mass insanity.

Smith's emphasis on each pursuing his own gain also contributed to the society wide emergence of an intense individual selfishness in modern human cultures. This intense form of individualism has become a central and very damaging concern in Western cultures in particular. We, as human beings, emerged to be community oriented- to find our consciousness at its healthiest in community relationships and in living responsibly for the greater good of all. The modern pre-occupation with individual achievement and individual security or success is damaging in the extreme to the healthy consciousness of living for the good of the whole group, of all humanity.

Everyone seeking their own personal interests has only led to the neglect of community, devastation of natural resources, and a loss of interest in the greater good of earth and humanity. An intense focus on personal gain does not lead to improvement of the greater good as if by magic. You can not improve something by employing destructive methods.

Most important is the fact that a focus on intense self-interest or selfishness undermines and destroys freedom and equality which are the primary values of human society and the fundamental elements of true human nature.

We agree with capitalists who argue that we need to encourage diversity, creativity, and innovation. But we would argue, do so within a strong community orientation. Reward for performance should have more emphasis on the greater good of our community, not on individual monetary gain or resource amassment. Cooperation, instead of competition, should become the dominant value that leads us to work and live for the whole earth and for humanity as a whole. We need to end the narrow focus on me, my band, my company, or even my nation.

Daniel Goleman argues that a deeply embedded individualism is a particularly Western trait and is related to the economic system of the Western nations. He says, "(cross-cultural) studies suggest that the nature of individualism has been changing toward a greater emphasis on raw self-interest, and that the rise of individualism goes hand in hand with economic growth" ("The rise of individualism: a most Western trait" in Vancouver Sun, Jan. 5, 1991, D4).

Other non-western societies which are more community oriented, "have among the lowest rates of homicide, suicide, juvenile delinquency, divorce, child abuse and alcoholism. They also tend to have lower economic productivity, though as countries like Japan become more affluent, they also tend to become more individualistic" (Ibid, p.D4).

Goleman notes that community oriented cultures make up about 70% of the world's population and therefore the Western assumption about the universals of human behavior actually apply to only a minority of people. He quotes another researcher who states that the values that are most important in the West, e.g. individual winning, are least important worldwide.

Peter Boothroyd has noted the damaging consequences that have followed the loss of community in emerging individually oriented capitalist society. He says' "The price we have paid for the material progress, personal liberty, and cosmopolitanism enjoyed in (modern society) is a deep sense of aloneness, anxiety, and impotence. This sense comes from the realization that ultimately only we or our immediate family cares about our economic fate, that our lives have no meaning outside that which we invest in them, that by pursuing our individual interests we are collectively destroying the planet, and that we have virtually no power to manage our territory and economy" ('Community Development: The Missing Link in Welfare Policy' in Ideology, Development, and Social Welfare: Canadian Perspectives, p.105).

The disintegration of traditional community which followed the wider introduction of the above ideas and practices of individually oriented consumerism has occurred in all human societies. It has led to the practice of unlimited individual control of resources which has resulted in relatively small percentages of elite citizens controlling the vast bulk of resources and wealth in most societies around the world. This trend is intensifying everywhere in the world today and resulting in the immiseration of increasingly enormous numbers of human beings.

Over the past 25 years the share of income controlled by the richest 20 percent of the world's population has grown from 70 percent to 83 percent. At the same time, the share of income received by the poorest 20 percent of the world's population has shrunk from 2.3 percent to 1.5 percent. Also, those of us comprising the 25 percent of the world's population in the developed northern countries now consume 75 percent of the world's energy output and use 90 percent of the world's cars. We also consume the vast majority of many of the other products, resources, and services of the world economy. According to Bill McKibben, we North Americans consume on average 40 to 50 times as much as a person born in the Third World (20). Welcome to the competitive world of free enterprise capitalism.

The Spread of Western Values

The disintegration of community which inevitably occurs under the values of free enterprise capitalism is an overwhelming process swamping every corner of the earth today. Studies of traditional societies have shown that when communities open up to the economic values of the modern world economy, with its emphasis on aggressively gaining control of resources and consumer goods, then traditional values of egalitarian sharing soon drop by the wayside (21).

This has been noted graphically in one Pacific island where the consumer lifestyle has relatively recently taken over as a supreme value (Chris Morgan ). In this society, only a few families hold inheritance rights to land, but traditional values of love prompted them to previously allow nonlandowning families to use their land to satisfy basic needs. The result has been, until recently, a fairly equitable distribution of material resources.

Then, only a few decades ago, modern consumer society values began to enter that traditional area. The drive to possess more began to spread like wildfire among the people of the island. The families with inheritance rights to land saw that they could grow new cash crops and thereby purchase more consumer goods.

Consequently, the traditional value of love and sharing soon dried up and the nonlandowning families were denied use of the land of others for obtaining their basic needs. The landowning families decided to use all of their land to gain more income to buy more consumer goods. Those people who lost access to or control over basic resources were then forced to migrate to urban areas to try to find employment. Many became unemployed slum dwellers.

That once fairly egalitarian society has now begun the trend toward social differentiation that has shaped all societies adopting values of unrestrained consumerism and unlimited control of resources by the few. Consequently, large majorities in these societies suffer from diminished well-being and they struggle to survive without access to resources essential to their well-being. Often, these disenfranchised people are forced to use important basic stock resources in order to survive.

The loss of community values, community sharing, and the sense of responsibility toward community which emerged with capitalism also resulted in something unheard of in previous world history- the growth of an entire class of people known as the poor or unemployed. There have long been poor people in most societies, but never as entire and growing sections of societies (22).

A New View of Sustainable Development

Fortunately, there is a new form of belief in limited good emerging, couched in more informed views of natural resources. This new view states the now widely recognized fact that there are strict biological limits to all resources essential to life. Through the popularization of the idea of sustainable development it has become widely accepted that we are obligated to use these resources in a more sustainable manner. There is limited land, water, air, forests, minerals and other key resources.

The earth also has systems or cycles which can only bear limited impacts or they may become seriously altered or even dangerously threatened. These cycles include water, carbon, nitrogen, and other elements.

Our economies are embedded in environments with strictly limited resources available for human use. Unfortunately, contemporary economic growth ideology refuses to acknowledge any such limits. This economic ideology continues to effectively gut the idea of sustainable development by relegating it to a mere adorning position in its insane and unstoppable drive toward continued unlimited growth and consumption.

Bill Rees says nature imposes strict biological limits to growth. In reference to the concept of 'sustainable development' he says, "That much debated concept does not mean- as some would have it- that we can maintain our current economic system... Our economy requires continuous growth, and as presently structured, this is based on the 'liquidation of our natural assets'. Humanity today consumes more of nature's goods and services than are produced by the world's ecosystems, threatening a global crisis..." (Garwin Wilson, "Profile" in UBC Reports, July 16,1992).

"Rees points out that the signs are everywhere: the collapse of once abundant fisheries, the depletion of agricultural soils, disappearing forests, desertification, the thinning of the ozone layer...'These are all symptoms of the same problem- overconsumption by excessive human populations'" (Ibid).

Inspite of the obviously strict limits imposed by natural resources, you still hear economists, politicians, and others arguing that all that is needed to solve disparity, poverty, and unemployment is to get economies growing. This is expressed in the dated myth that by increasing the pie everyone can get a share or a larger portion of wealth. Another version of this myth talks about a rising tide floating all ships. In this ideology, it is still argued that all can enjoy prosperity and affluence. Endless economic growth becomes the answer to all problems of disparity and poverty. Warnock says that discoveries of fuel reserves and advances in technology have led to the creation of the myth of limitlessness that now dominates economic ideology. This has led to humans exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth (The Politics of Hunger, p.35).

Rees says in this regard, "Economic growth has long been the principal instrument of social policy in capitalist societies. The promise of an ever-increasing economic pie holds out hope that even the poor will eventually get an adequate share. The expectation of a better future therefore reduces popular pressure for policies aimed at more equitable distribution of income" (Bill Rees, The Ecological Basis For Sustainable Development In The Fraser Basin, p.458).

But it is simply not possible to continue to grow and to be sustainable at the same time. With limited resources and widespread evidence of many key resources already suffering overdevelopment and exhaustion, growth and sustainability have become mutually exclusive realities. This is especially clear in the light of the new definition of sustainability.

Natural Capital

A new economic theory (23) is arguing that every generation must pass on to each succeeding generation undiminished stocks of natural capital. Natural capital being the stocks of soil, water, plantlife, wildlife, wilderness systems, and all other resources in any given area of the earth.

Every year through photosynthesis and consequent biological growth there is an addition to the basic natural stocks in every area. The new economics of sustainability argues that this annual addition to the basic stocks may be consumed by the present generation, but the basic stocks of all resources should be passed on undiminished to the next generation. It is the right of every generation to receive undiminished stocks of natural capital from the previous generation.

It should also be pointed out here that the only real production occurring on earth is that of photosynthesis. All other supposed production is really consumption.

Based on the above definition of sustainability, it has been estimated that if North American levels of average consumption are the standard for human life, then earth can only sustainably support somewhere between 500 million to two billion people. Others have stated the same point in saying that to support current levels of consumption by the human race, we need at least two more earth's.

However, if much lower levels of consumption were adopted by everyone, then the earth could sustainably support far more people. Estimates range into the tens of billions of people. But other problems emerge with such huge numbers of people. As Garret Hardin said, "The optimum number of people is not as large as the maximum the earth can support" (James Lovelock, GAIA, p.122).

The important point to note here is that there are sufficient resources for all of earth's inhabitants to live decently and still protect stock resources for future generations. But there are several critical issues to deal with before such a sustainable lifestyle could become a reality. For one, people consuming more than they need would have to make radical cut backs in consumption and relinquish control of excessive resources. Then, there would have to be some mechanism for ensuring that all members of our societies receive a more equitable share of the annual addition to basic stocks of resources. This will involve more equal access to and control over the decision making processes that govern the use of all resources. Resolving these issues satisfactorily may be the only way to peace and sustainable development in the future.

In resolving issues of access to and use of resources, western levels of consumption can not serve as a standard as they are simply too extravagant and destructive for everyone to attain to. Some demanding such high standards of living, denies others their basic needs and opportunities. Such hoarding and use of excessive amounts of earth's resources by some of the earth's population in part explains the diminished resources and opportunities for the other 4.5 billion who earn on average only $1,000 per year.

Southern nations are correct in arguing that the root problem of environmental degradation and poverty is not too much population but rather it is the excessive consumption and hoarding by wealthy Northern populations.

Instead of urging constant limitless growth, Warnock argues that we need to push for a steady state economy. This means that we "attempt to hold constant all the earth's capital stock. Instead of an emphasis on the exponential increase in the quantity of goods, there must be a shift to the quality of life. A steady-state economy means maintaining all life at some desired, sufficient level by production: but at the same time there must be the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy" (The Politics of Poverty, p.38).

Few Winners, Many Losers

The key issue in a world of increasing population and increasingly limited resources, is who controls access to and opportunity to use those resources. Currently, it is a relatively small percentage of elite citizens in most states who control the best land and other income generating resources, housing, food, health opportunities, recreational opportunities and many other life enhancing opportunities and resources.

This is exactly why Leviatan argued that those higher in societal hierarchies enjoy better mental and physical health than the vast majority of citizens existing in the lower strata of our societies (24).

The disproportionate affluence and well-being of the elite members of contemporary societies is based on their controlling far more resources than they need for their own comfortable survival. Such control provides them opportunities and resources that enhance their well-being in ways not available to most other members of society. The control of resources by the few robs many others of opportunities for access to those same resources necessary for their own survival and dignity as human beings. Equality and freedom are then effectively undermined and social instability becomes a real threat.

There are also simple health issues related to the inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Studies have conclusively shown that poorer people have shorter life spans and suffer a wide variety of illnesses and other afflictions than more well off people.

In response to the growing inequities of the current world economic system, wealthier nations and individuals continue to offer the popular myth which promotes the hope that in a free enterprise system anyone can make it and become wealthy. But the nasty historical reality of free enterprise systems has been that often an aggressive few gain control of most of the resources necessary for the rest to make it and this makes the freedom in free enterprise just another fiction of contemporary economic and state mythmaking. Free enterprise has provided little real freedom for the vast bulk of humanity who do not aggressively join the fiercely competitive struggle for control of resources.

Also, there is the point that very few people are born into wealthy families which gives an advantage in terms of education and a headstart in control over resources necessary to be successful. No amount of effort by most poor people can overcome some of these inherited advantages.

But even more importantly, there are simply not enough basic resources to support everyone making it in terms of North American standards of material success. Earth can not sustainably support such levels of consumption for all people. While some may win, most will lose.

In this regard, we once heard a wealthy entertainer publicly chide people that if they only had the will then they could all be successful like himself. He seemed blissfully unaware of the fact that of the some 60,000 members of the actor's guild in his city, only some 3,000 worked full-time and only a fraction of those were successful like himself.

These same ratios tend to apply everywhere in life. Of the some 500,000 kids at various levels of training for hockey in Canada, only a few hundred will make it to the National Hockey League and success. There simply are not enough higher level positions for everyone interested.

It is nothing short of cruelty for successful people to try to inspire others with their own success when such success is only available to a few of the most aggressive, naturally endowed, and lucky. To say anyone can achieve the same success is to feed discouragement and self-blame for failure in many people. There is room at the privileged top for only a tiny fraction of the human race.

It is a well-known fact regarding the myth of entrepreneurism that fully 80% of all new businesses fail within the first 5 years of their existence. Of the remaining 20% that survive, only a tiny fraction become so-called success stories. The majority just survive.

William Ryan also speaks to this issue of success for only the few in saying, "A study of unskilled and semi-skilled workers in an automobile plant showed that the workers blamed themselves for their lack of promotion in rank during their working life rather than the system within which the operated, even though there was opportunity for advancement for only a handful out of the total number of workers, and even though factories are generally places of very limited chance for personal advancement. Both of these instances illustrate the power of social myths and ideologies. So firmly does the myth of success by individual efforts rule over our minds that we pay tribute to it even in the face of facts over which we have little or no control... The 'blaming the victim' syndrome... offers further evidence of the myth's power. It is difficult for members of our society who have 'made it' by hard work, use of opportunity, intelligent planning and preparation to understand how others can not do so as well. The unsuccessful are held to be at fault in some way" (William Ryan in Poverty And Economic Justice, p.173).

"One can not look at the data on who are the poor without sensing that many are poor because of events beyond their control. Over a third of the 35 million poor (in America) are children whose misfortune arises out of the chance assignment to poor parents" (Robert Lampman in Poverty And Economic Justice, p.228).

Aside from the above, many people simply do not want to join the aggressively competitive struggle to get ahead. They do not want to compete with others to face win/lose outcomes. They do not want to use aggression to beat others for jobs, income, position, and other life benefits. Many just want to do their work, pay their bills, have some security, and enjoy life without the intense pressure of competition. As one lady said, "I just want to put in my 40 hours, collect my pay, and go home". But such relaxed enjoyment of life is becoming a lost dream in a world where only a small competitive elite will have good jobs while the vast majority will become marginalized workers if employed at all. Some have said that soon only about 20% of the population of modern societies will be needed to meet the needs of all members. The rest will simply not be needed. Others have also said that in the near future, only 20% of jobs will pay decently. The rest will offer only marginalized or low income employment. It will take serious aggression to gain entry to the elite minority.

The contemporary ideology of free enterprise capitalism has argued for leaving the market alone and the market will take care human needs. This is based on Adam Smith's archaic argument that the market, if left alone, would work for the good of all. In its purest form, this ideology argues for no intervention at all. But historically in the purer surges of this ideology, such as in the US during the Reagan years, people in the top income strata gained much more wealth while lower strata citizens lost in terms of wealth gains. The more you move toward purer forms of free enterprise capitalism, the more it appears to benefit the elite few while lower class majorities are disenfranchised.

What are the market forces that are supposed to work for the good of all? Primarily, they are aggressive competition (also expressed as competitive efficiency or survival of the fittest) and unlimited self-interest (unlimited personal control of resources or greed). These are forces and drives of brutal animal reality and existence and they have resulted in possessiveness of wealth in formerly unheard of extremes. How is it possible for brutally competitive forces to produce human outcomes or outcomes that serve the greater good of all human beings? It is simply impossible.

We are seeing the outcome of market forces in the insane levels of inequality found in all societies around the earth today. It is evident in the 400 billionaires who control more wealth than the bottom half of the world's population. It is evident in the 1.3 billion extreme poor who earn less than a dollar a day. It is also evident in the next 2 billion who live in conditions described as inhuman. Free market forces have led to the most extreme and grotesque inequity in the history of humanity.

Letting free market forces of aggressive competition and unlimited individual control of resources solve economic and other social problems is in some ways an obviously insane argument. It is the same as arguing that if we still lived among dangerously wild animals, then we should let the forces of nature work, even if it means slaughter of us all. No, in such a situation we would take steps to insure the safety of the human community and protect the rights of each other. It would only be common sense to do so. Why do we not apply the same common sense to brutal forms of economic activity?

I would suspect that early advocates of Adam Smith's ideas saw the potential for unlimited personal possession of resources and allowed their greed to overwhelm common sense and sense of obligation to the greater good. As a consequence of their ideology and policies, we have no contemporary limits on greed and possessiveness.

We have in the following centuries built an amazing array of social institutions and systems of law to support individual competition and gain and to protect gains made. Even though some 13 million children under 5 years of age die every year for want of pennies worth of medicine, we hardly even wince. Most of us continue to make excuses that it is not free enterprise forces that cause such suffering, but it must be the fault of the poor. Blame the victim. They must be lazy or not motivated enough. Or perhaps they do not have the correct free market institutions and laws.

Even George Soros, often considered the ultimate capitalist, has warned of the dangers of inequality which are inevitable in free enterprise capitalism. In an article entitled 'The Capitalist Threat', he says, "I contend that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction- from excessive individualism. Too much competition and too little cooperation can cause intolerable inequities and instability...Insofar as there is a dominant belief in our society today, it is a belief in the magic of the marketplace. The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. Unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system...is liable to break down"(25).

He continues, "By taking the conditions of supply and demand as given and declaring government intervention the ultimate evil, laissez-faire ideology has effectively banished income or wealth redistribution...It claims that if redistribution causes inefficiencies and distortions, the problem can be solved by eliminating redistribution...Wealth does accumulate in the hands of its owners, and if there is no mechanism for redistribution, the inequities can become intolerable. 'Money is like muck', said Francis Bacon, 'not good except it be spread'. Francis Bacon was a profound economist"(26).

And finally from Soros, "The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest...In any case, there is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilized society...The point I want to make is that cooperation is as much a part of the system as competition, and the slogan 'survival of the fittest' distorts this fact"(27).

Helena Cronin has also argued that "Our species has been faced with unprecedented inequalities ever since agriculture enabled us to hoard resources. But in recent years the game has increasingly become winner-take-all. From the world's chess champion to the leading libel lawyer, the few places at the top command almost all the status; and, as rewards rise, the gap between top and bottom grows" (28).

The inevitable inequality of free enterprise capitalism can be clearly seen in the fact that in America "The average chief executive officer of a large company now earns 200 times more than the average worker, up from a 40-fold difference in the 70s" (Nancy Gibbs, "The Paradox of Prosperity" in TIME, Jan. 5, 1998, p.64). We also see the inevitable inequality of free enterprise capitalism in the fact, noted earlier, that the world's 400 billionaires now have more assets than the bottom 50% of the world's population. On top of this, the social contract, the social safety net for those at the bottom is disappearing under pressure to make economic systems more competitive.

Another writer has stated that "America has more children living in poverty than any other industrialized nation; the gap between the incomes of the top 10 percent of Americans and the 10 percent at the bottom is wider than in any other industrialized country. In 1995, 41 million Americans lacked any health care, and 36.4 million were living in poverty" (Tom Sandborn. 1998. Rage In The USA in Review of Books in the Vancouver Sun, Mar. 14, p.C7).

In an enlightening look at how the poverty level is decided in America, John Swarz argues that taking into account the necessary expenses required today for a minimally decent living would require raising the poverty level (for a family of four) from $15,000 a year to $25,000 (US) a year ("The Hidden Side of the Clinton Economy" in The Atlantic Monthly, October 1998, p.18-21). This means that 65 million Americans (25%), not just 38 million (17%) are below the poverty line. The 10 million workers who earn less than $7 an hour and the 4 million part-time workers should be added to the 7 million officially unemployed, bringing the total to 21 million. These people are not earning enough to support a minimally decent standard of living for households with children.

It is also revealing of the nature of free enterprise capitalism in America that, as we noted before, the richest man in the country now has more wealth than the poorest 100 million people in the country.

Canada, voted by the United Nations as the most livable place in the world, fares no better. A Center For Social Justice study found that inequality is steadily and significantly increasing in Canada. In 1973, 60% of families were found to be earning between $25,000- 65,000 a year. Now only 40% of families are found in that category. Poverty is eroding the middles class. People are working harder and longer but earning less income.

Also, as further evidence of the growing inequality, the top 10% of Canadian families earned 21 times the poorest families in 1973. Today, that top 10% has incomes that are 314 times higher than the poorest families (BCTV report, Oct. 22, 1998 and MACLEANS, Nov. 2, 1998, p.69).

There is nothing ennobling about a competitive economic system. It can be very dehumanizing for those under its influence. When it is argued that a competitive environment makes markets and resource allocation more efficient, we need to ask for whose benefit? Clearly the aggressive and power-hungry few gain most benefit. Competition inevitably leads to increasing control of resources by the few and loss of control of basic resources for survival by the growing majority. This trend has been fundamental to the history of private property and capitalism.

As we have seen before, competition is a very elitist principle and practice. Encouraging people to climb hierarchies for the best positions and benefits results in a minority gaining the most and a majority becoming disenfranchised. That is the very nature of hierarchical existence.

We might add that little doses of cooperation around the edges of our brutal economic systems do not mitigate the nasty effects of these systems. Such efforts at cooperation are simply overwhelmed by the dominance of competition everywhere. Cooperation and competition are too often mutually exclusive realities.

Our Responsibility To Shape The Future

Free enterprise capitalism by its very nature can not support the emergence and development of humanity or human values. This form of economic ideology orients people toward intense self-interest and competition which effectively precludes and destroys any expression of cooperation or sharing except in only token ways. By its very nature free enterprise capitalism operates to smother and destroy the human spirit.

Schumacher, the economist, stated regarding capitalism that any system based on selfishness as a central operating principle is corrupt at heart and destined to fail (30). Encouraging selfishness, as in capitalism, is to effectively negate and destroy the expression and development of true humanity as cooperative and oriented to sharing. In a system that is essentially selfish and competitive, little doses of cooperation here and there are simply not enough. As we noted above, these ad hoc expressions of humanity are too often overwhelmed by the surrounding competitive environment. What is needed is radical change toward systems oriented to more cooperation and sharing. And may we be clear that we are not arguing for communism as an alternative. Human creativity can find far more humane alternatives than those posed by the old cold war bipolarism.

Also, free enterprise does not generate freedom except for the elite few who control resources, opportunities, and decision making processes governing resources. These people are free to have personal control, choice, and responsibility for their own lives and destinies. It is a freedom that they are very hesitant to grant to others.

To speak of free markets is in one sense to use an oxymoron. Competition and greed do not lead to freedom. By empowering the aggressive few, modern markets lead increasingly to enslavement of the majority.

Using the term 'freedom' does not automatically ensure that freedom will then exist in the system claiming this term. Too often freedom in Western free enterprise has been used to coerce weaker regions in the world to open up their areas so that massive Western corporations can enter and freely have their own way with local populations and resources. This has often destroyed local companies that simply do not have the resources or expertise to stand up to the Western free enterprise juggernaut.

Remember that during the colonial period the British were great advocates of free trade. Their use of freedom in this regard meant banning local production so British products could dominate local markets in other regions of the world (note India and the textile trade as an example).

Do not let someone using a term like freedom lull you into accepting that they really advocate genuine freedom. People have perpetuated the worst abuses against others while using the loftiest terms representing the most honored values.

Often those who are the strongest advocates of some ideology such as free market capitalism, can suddenly turn most hypocritical if the ideology threatens to harm them in some way. Note the following insightful look at US capitalism in a recent Newsweek:

"The collapse and rescue of the biggest hedge fund in the United States shows how dangerous preaching can be. For 15 months, as financial markets in country after country collapsed like straw huts in a typhoon, the United States lectured the rest of the world about the evils of crony capitalism- of bailing out rich, connected insiders while letting everyone else suffer. US officials and financiers talked about letting market forces allocate capital for maximum efficiency. Thai peasants, Korean steelworkers and Moscow pensioners may suffer horribly as their local economies and currencies collapse- but we solemnly told them that was a cost they had to pay for the greater good of the world. Capital should be free to flow to the places where it gets the highest and best use. Cronyism bad. Capitalism good" ("What Goes Around", Oct. 12, 1998, p.32).

"Then came the imminent collapse of Long-Term Capital Management LP, the quintessential member of The Club, with rich fat-cat investors and rich hotshot connected managers. Faster than you can say 'bailout', crony capitalism US style raised its ugly head- the New York branch of the Federal Reserve Board orchestrated a $3.65 billion rescue by 14 banks and brokerage houses. John Meriwether and the rest of the guys who ran the fund onto the rocks got to keep their jobs" (Ibid).

In terms of our responsibility to be human and the direction of evolution, we need to remind ourselves that we have the power and the choice to determine our own destiny. The future direction of evolution is not predetermined according to fixed laws that humanity must bow submissively to, not even so-called economic laws. We have the power to take evolution in new directions.

We should remember what we noted in chapter 3 about the possible origin of competition among the earliest life forms some 3 billion years ago. Becoming competitive was simply one choice from among other possible options. Cooperation is equally feasible as an operating principle for survival and social relationships.

This places great responsibility on human beings to act humanly and thereby ensure that true humanity continues to emerge and progress. Current evolutionary drives which are given great value and prominence in human culture and institutions will eventually destroy the earth and humanity with it. We refer to the especially dangerous aggressive drive of competition. This drive to dominate and hoard resources leads to the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of few people which then forces the disenfranchised majority to use important stock resources for their survival. This is leading to the breakdown of many systems important for the survival of life on earth. It also leads inevitably to the insanity of war.

We as members of society are responsible to move our societies and their institutions in more humane directions. We must not irresponsibly sit by and fatalistically hope that market forces will somehow produce a truly human society. They will not and can not produce something truly human. Modern markets and their forces are all oriented to competition and greed which destroy true humanity and true human relating. Capitalist markets can not produce something human through the operation of inhuman forces.

Rather than tinker around the edges of the contemporary economic system with ad hoc reform measures, we need to start all over again with more humane economic systems. In a truly human system we must focus first on human needs and truly human development and relating, and then shape economic policies to meet these needs. The problem with the current system is that it starts with market principles and then bends humanity (in often destructive ways) to fit these laws of economics.

A further point to note, in regard to the argument that creating more wealth is the answer to poverty and inequity, is that creating wealth requires the use of physical resources to make products. The contemporary Baby Boom generation has already taken far more resources than is sustainable for earth and thereby robbed future generations of basic resources belonging to them. Much of our contemporary wealth creation is built on resources already stolen from future generations. We have already gone well beyond using the annual gains to stock resources and used up much of the natural capital that belongs to our children's generation. What appeared to be the creating of wealth in the present was really the theft of resources from future generations. The free enterprise call to create more wealth does not consider such intergenerational equity let alone current equity issues worldwide. It is true, as Warnock says, that "The logic of the liberal view of economic man is clear. People pursue their own immediate self-interest. The goal is to maximize personal well-being right now, today. There can be no concern for future generations" (The Politics of Poverty, p.43).

And what about inter-species equity? Human beings through the gluttonous madness of contemporary free enterprise consume vast resources necessary for the survival of plants, animals, birds, and all wildlife.

The strict biological limits imposed by earth's environmental systems ensure the eventual collapse of any economic system based on limitless growth. For this reason alone we argue that free enterprise capitalism can not continue to manage human economic activity.

It therefore seems irresponsible to recommend, as political leaders and economists still do, that all that is necessary for everyone to enjoy wealth and affluence is to get economies growing. Growth ideology is irresponsible in the light of depleting critical resources such as soil, water, and quality air. It borders on insanity in the light of an abused and already overdeveloped environment.

This is the tragedy of free enterprise capitalism. In the individually focused struggle for material success there are few winners and many losers. Free competition, or more accurately, unrestrained greed, has only resulted in the domination and control of many important resources by the relatively few aggressive people in most societies. With limited resources available, this has made survival, well-being, and dignity impossible for the remaining majority.

But it is not only the very wealthy who practice unlimited control of resources. Those of us in the middle class of wealthy nations- the 24 percent of the earth's population in the wealthy northern nations- also have more than we need for a decent level of survival and therefore we are part of the overall disenfranchising of others who lack basic resources.

Aside from the above mentioned equity issues, there is the fact that resources are not distributed equally over the face of the earth. Fairness demands that there be some sort redistribution across nation state boundaries, boundaries which are often very arbitrary anyway.

Greed Impacting Others

We noted earlier that the few controlling too much often forces others to cut into basic regional stocks for their survival. These basic stocks belong to future generations.

As an example, I am reminded of the huge Dole and Del Monte pineapple plantations in the southern Philippines. They occupy some of the best farming land of the island of Mindanao. But they grow crops mainly for export to North America and other countries. In that way, North Americans are using some of the best farming resources of another country along with the already extensive resources of their own countries.

Rees calls this appropriating the carrying capacity or basic stocks of natural resources of other areas through trade.

Consequently, local farmers in Mindanao are forced to move up steep slopes and cut valuable basic stocks of rainforest in order to find land to farm for their own survival. They are forced to destroy basic regional natural capital stocks that belong to future generations because someone else controls the land they could use for their own survival. This pattern of control of excessive resources by the few, which then forces others to destroy basic stocks of natural capital, is repeated all over the earth. There is also the issue of lost freedom and dignity for these people who have little or no control over their own regional resources.

Unlimited worldwide trade enables people to use other region's basic resources with no sense of the damage caused by such use because of the distance involved. We buy products from all over the globe, often unaware of the devastating impact our purchases have on distant places. Trade is a useful enterprise, but it can get destructively out of hand. It would be wise for all of us to learn to live more on local resources and accept the limits imposed by those resources. Worldwide trade has contributed to people losing the sense of community and community limits.

Learning to live more on local resources should induce greater concern among local people regarding the levels of consumption necessary in order to properly care for those resources. Earth would have a better chance for healthy survival if all people were to have more access to and control over their local and regional resources.

Taking Back Control

The only way to break the destructive grip of contemporary greed and also to grant genuine dignity to the dispossessed is for people at the bottom to demand more control of resources and opportunities in their own communities and regions.

This is the only way to thoroughly correct the grotesque inequities that exist around resource control and use. Managing elites are able to take more than their fair share of resources and opportunities mainly because they are in control of the decision making processes governing resource use and allocation.

This is not an argument for strict equality in allotment of resources nor is it an argument for equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is a meaningless concept in modern economic systems where the aggressive few control most of the resources. Equality of opportunity is also meaningless because equality of access to information simply does not exist.

Interestingly, in the current worldwide frenzy of consumption and greed you no longer hear much about straightforward equality as a social ideal. There has been a subtle shift now to this new buzz word or phrase commonly expressed as 'equality of opportunity'. This may be due to the realization that strict material equality will only impinge on the few getting more. It will hold back unlimited gain for the aggressively competitive. Genuine equality is perhaps only meaningful now for those in the lower strata of our societies.

Howard Wachtel has said that "The objective of liberal social policy is equal opportunity- a random distribution of poverty... The radical challenge goes as follows: if you start from a position of inequality and treat everyone equally, you end up with continued inequality. Thus the need to create equality in fact rather than in opportunities" (in Poverty And Economic Justice, p.205).

More important for developing humanity is the need to maintain equality of access to and equality of control over basic resources. It is more of an argument for maintaining equal access to decision making processes over resources. To put it another way, the important thing for true human existence is not strict material equality but more power and control equality. This has often been done in a community context through the use of land banks or other community resource trusts (31). These are one way of achieving more equal access and control for all members of a community. Of course, there is always the problem of mini-tyrants emerging even within communities to take control and these people must always be guarded against.

If some of you genuinely desire to become true advocates for human rights and if you want to deal thoroughly and properly with poverty and environmental issues, then help people to gain full personal and local control over all of their resources and the decision making processes necessary for their survival. Local and personal control of resources and decision making processes are at the heart of many poverty and environmental issues.

In this regard, it is also useful to remind ourselves that governments and powerful or wealthy elites do not own our countries and their resources. We are all owners of these regions and their resources. Every citizen is an owner of the country they reside in and has the right to demand and take back full control over all of the resources and all of the decision making processes governing resources in their areas. And infrequent voting is not the way to accomplish this.

The development of technology has now made it possible to open up decision making processes that affect the public and to build in fast response mechanisms of monitoring, accountability, and recall in order to give citizens better control over vital resources and issues such as resource use and allocation. Maintaining secrecy around such processes in the manner that many governments currently do only allows elites to misappropriate benefits for themselves and to waste public resources. Also, there is the moral question of the right of elites to maintain secrecy over resources and issues that belong to all citizens and which affect the well-being of every citizen.

There is also the problem of backlash against decisions coming out of secret processes with little or no input from the public. Political elites just do not understand that people will not support decisions which they do not feel are their own. Secret political processes are therefore very inefficient in terms of time and resources wasted. Such processes often fail to become implemented due to the fact that people will refuse to support that which they had little or no part in deciding. Secrecy destroys people's sense of control and they will refuse to support the outcomes of such political processes, as they rightly should.

Note George Will's comment on bureaucratic secrecy and superiority. He says, "Obviously some governmental secrecy is necessary... However, most secrecy is not necessary, and an iron law of institutions guarantees that the ratio of unnecessary to necessary secrecy increases steadily. It does because bureaucracies steeped in the culture of secrecy come to regard secrets as property to be hoarded and bartered in dealings with rival bureaucracies that are doing the same thing. Bureaucracies use secrecy to increase what Max Weber called 'the superiority of the professionally informed'. Bureaucracies, Weber noted, relish superiority relative to poorly informed publics and parliaments" ("Secrect And Stupidity" in Newsweek, Oct. 12, 1998, p.94).

If every citizen is to gain full security and a greater sense of control over their personal destiny, then it is imperative that they take back full control of their countries and regions from governing elites. And the primarily important thing in regaining control is local control of decision making processes which govern resource use.

Fortunately, the current deepening crisis in free market capitalism is providing an excellent opportunity to challenge the basic beliefs of this brutal system and to move toward a more human system of managing economic activity. Waldon Bello has said that in regard to Asia, the neoclassical orthodox approaches were given sufficient opportunity to work but have failed disastrously ("Breaking With The Faith" in Far Eastern Economic Review, Sept. 24, 1998). He argues that the theory of the benefits of globalization via free markets was, as is true of most ideologies, simply faith parading as science. The failure of free market capitalism is in Bello's opinion due to the arrogance of its proponents and their lack of connection to real people, real troubles and real fears.

In reaction to the failures of free market capitalism, various countries are now starting to move toward economic strategies that focus more on local self-sufficiency and local control. This, says Bello, means greater pressure on governments for redistribution of assets and income. "The new political economy may be embedded in religious or secular discourse and language... Its coherence is likely to rest less on considerations of narrow efficiency than on stated ethical priority given to community solidarity and security" (Ibid). Most importantly, the new economic order is unlikely to be imposed from above, but is likely, says Bello, to be forged in social and political struggles originating from the bottom.

The failure of competitive capitalism in much of the world is not due to the lack of the so-called necessary fundamental institutions (in the view of Western economists) such as Western-style banks, stock exchanges, Western systems of law, etc. No, there are deeper cultural issues behind the failure of capitalism such as the fundamental Eastern/Western difference of views regarding community and individualism. As Daniel Goleman has stated, "The new cross-cultural studies are confirming what many observers have long noticed: that the cardinal North American virtues of self-reliance and individualism are at odds with those of most non-Western cultures" ("The rise of individualism: a most Western trait" in Vancouver Sun, Jan. 5, 1991, p. D4).

We can see this illustrated in the current conflict over what to do about Japan's worst recession in the postwar period. Most Western economists and the IMF are urging Japan to let debt-ridden banks and companies collapse. With this abandonment of less competitive companies, unemployment will rise, but this is seen as necessary to improve efficiency. However, Japan, like many other Asian countries, is hesitant to do this out of concern for workers and the greater society. They are not yet into the ruthless competition which discards people wholesale as inefficient. The financial editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review said recently that "Tokyo's distrust of the concept that there are winners and losers in economic life, and that the distinction between them ought to be on the basis of market principles, is echoed in the rest of Asia" ("Rethinking Asia, FEER, Oct. 15, 1998).

The conflict between Asia and the West over economic policy is at heart an issue of community versus individual or private benefit. It is also an issue of cooperation versus competition. These fundamental differences in viewing economic issues is at the heart of many of the conflicts between the West and the East.

In another article Enzio von Pfeil says that "Thought must be given to whether Asians are capable of accepting competition, the essence of capitalism. Competition means confrontation, and that isn't the 'Asian way'... Striking is the tendency of Asians to belong to groups... some of Asia's greatest philosophers- Confucius, Han Fei and Xun Zi- all propagated the concept of behaving 'properly' within a group. Confucius wrote that to improve the world, the individual must improve... the family" ("Rethinking Asia" in Far Eastern Economic Review, Oct. 1, 1998).

"Asians view companies as families... harmony commands a premium in Asia... The Asians' whole thought process is governed more by intuition than by (at least from a Westerner's stance) 'rational' thought. One reason is that intuition governs harmonious behavior. Another is that Asians see themselves as part of a larger group and don't differentiate between its needs and their own... Its clear that Western capitalism clashes with deep, perhaps subconscious, Asian structures" (Ibid).

In making these points about Eastern societies and companies, we are fully aware of the Western charges that many Asian companies and governments are failing due to corruption and cronyism. This is too simplistic a charge to level against Eastern companies, however, as anthropological studies have shown that what the West views as corruption, measured by Western standards, is often the operation of cultural differences. In many Asian countries, a person who gains a bureaucratic position often feels obligated to help his extended family members through his new position. I am not excusing such behavior (especilly where elite powerholders hoard massive fortunes), but simply saying that we condemn without understanding the complex dynamics of different forms of cultural relating. Also, we often practice the same in the West, helping friends and relatives wherever we can in terms of employment and other benefits and opportunities. We have all heard the maxim, "Its not what you know, its who you know".

As we noted above, during the current worldwide economic crisis (1998), Western economists in particular are lamenting the lack of better regulations or systems of law to govern the world economy. They are arguing that if we only had, for instance, a better regulated world banking system, then we could avoid crises like the present one we are enduring. We also need more openness, they claim.

It will be a real tragedy if such tinkering around the edges is all that comes from analyzing the contemporary mess we are in. We need to look much deeper at root issues that govern the way the current economic system operates. I am thinking of Schumacher's statement in "Small is Beautiful" that any system that encourages selfishness as a basic operating principle is corrupt at heart and destined to fail. It is essentially an inhuman system.

It is not just Asian community-oriented culture that capitalism is not suited to. Capitalism is simply not suited to true humanity or truly human relating. We as human beings are designed to cooperate, not compete. We are designed to relate as equals, not to be dominated by one another. And resource amassment by aggressive individuals inevitably leads to domination of those left out. We are also designed as human beings to share in community with all others, not to possess things for ourselves.

It may be that the big industrialism/capitalism party is coming to an end. As one professor said, "We have seen communism fail, now we will see capitalism collapse". It has been one of humanity's most excessive binges of greed and unlimited consumption. While there may yet be a few decades of growth left to squeeze out of capitalism, an economic system based on endless growth can not continue to operate within earth's environmental systems which all have strict biological limits to growth.

The levels of consumption and success in free enterprise capitalism- the American dream- are simply too high for all people to attain to. Earth can sustain only some 1 billion people at such high levels of consumption. To allow and encourage some people to strive for such affluence has only destroyed freedom and equality for all, as an aggressive few take the resources belonging to everyone else.

Further, capitalism has been too destructive to world cultures. It has destroyed the community orientation so necessary to true human society. It is this orientation toward community that provides people with a true sense of security, hope, and love. Loss of community has resulted in unprecedented levels of depression, alienation, insecurity, instability, crime, and other social pathologies in contemporary human societies.

Inspite of great pressure to adopt capitalism worldwide, some 70% of the world's population still holds to community oriented values, while only 30% have opted for an excessive emphasis on individual achievement and personal success. An economic system serving the interests of an aggressive minority does not work for the rest.

Ultimately, capitalism will fail because it is simply not human. With its insane focus on greed, competition, wealth amassment and domination of others, it destroys human relating and development. It destroys humanity.

It is no longer enough to tinker around the edges in an effort to improve the system with better laws or institutions. We need to face the heart of the problem of capitalism which is its destructive inhumanity. We need radical change to a much more human system.

Again, in stating the need for a new system, we are aware of Albert Nolan's point that a new system can become just as oppressive as the old systems it replaces unless there is radical change in the hearts of people and the way they treat each other. "It is a matter of reaching down to the root cause of all oppression and domination: man's lack of compassion" (Jesus Before Christianity, p.95).

Back to Community

Peter Boothroyd has done an excellent job of tracing the historical movement of modern societies away from traditional community toward modern urban, individually oriented social orders. He argues effectively for a return to a more community oriented society or a society where governing power is based in communities. He states that "Canada's history, like that of other countries, has been a process of transforming a (traditional community oriented society) into a (modern urban and individually oriented society). The process has included the development of state welfare as an antidote to the breakdown of old systems of mutual support and local control of resources and behavior. Social policy debates along the right/left continuum have focused on the appropriate role and forms of state control in general, and welfare in particular, without considering the potential of communities to contribute to the management, production, and distribution functions of society".

"Though the values of (modern society) are deeply embedded in our economy, culture and politics, (modern society's) ability to deliver on its promises is beginning to be questioned. The alternative to (modern society) is not a return to (traditional community). The prospect is unthinkable now that we have tasted individual freedom on the one hand and are aware of our global interconnections on the other. The alternative to (modern society) is community in nontraditional forms, community that is planned, open..."

Boothroyd argues for more local and community control of resources and behavior. He states that "The overarching question may come to be seen as this: what is the potential for community replacing both state power and market greed as the basis for social order and meeting human needs?" (Community Development: The Missing Link in Welfare Policy, p.130-131 for above three paragraphs).

In order to move widely and effectively in the direction of more local and personal control of resources, it may be necessary to reintroduce social attitudes which incorporate ideas such as limited resources and the destructiveness of unlimited personal control of resources- greed.

It would also not hurt to reintroduce the shame and stigma once widely associated with greed. Instead of honoring the wealthy as successful models to be emulated, communities need to expose those engaging in the unlimited individual control of resources as shameful examples of greed which leads to the destruction of communities and natural resource stocks. It was only a few centuries ago that such things as making interest from others was banned in society as not only shameful, but evil (32).

While stopping such practices should never be accomplished by force, it can be done by the use of proper community shame and a proper sense of humanity.

Instead of encouraging people to find their identity and success in financial or consumer good status, communities also need to promote other more humanizing and community enhancing avenues for creative expression of humanity. As in traditional communities, alternative avenues may involve prestige for skills used to contribute to building healthy communities. Surely love and sharing should be the priority values to be honored by all communities.

We have been taught for so long now that we deserve to be rewarded with material goods according to the level of our investment in study and the scaled nature of our occupation that we unthinkingly accept such ideas of material reward as basic human rights. The argument is made that the more a person studies, the more income they should receive. This alone will motivate people to put up with the costly programs of study necessary to achieve certain occupations. The medical profession is a common example used here.

But this trend to excessively reward certain elite occupations has contributed to social inequality, social distortion, and the loss of freedom that inequality inevitably brings. We now value certain occupations out of all connection to reality. For instance, farming is valued at the bottom of social occupation scales and receives little material reward but who would not support the contention that farming is the most important activity on the planet. Every thing else depends for survival on this one activity. Also, the crucially important demand for a clean and healthy environment is unquestioned, but why then is garbage or waste removal valued at the bottom of social strata scales? Who sets the social status of different occupations and why does the public allow for the excessive valuation (and hence excessive rewards) of some occupations over others? And what about rewarding work in ways that do not lead to inequality and loss of freedom for others.

Bowie and Simon have argued that "Economic rewards seem less important in certain countries, e.g. Sweden, and psychological investigations might show other ways of inciting high productive capacity. We already know that job satisfaction is extremely important as a motivating device... most people enjoy their job and that is an extremely important boost to incentive... nonmonetary incentives can be effective as the cooperative programs of Scandinavian countries illustrate. Nonmonetary incentives may play an even larger role in the future" (in Poverty And Economic Justice, p.145, 151).

Also, in regard to this conventional wisdom about receiving reward for work we need to remember the radically subversive teaching of Jesus on God's free generosity. Jesus told many parables about people contributing various amounts and types of work but receiving the same reward. He offended the selfish preoccupation with personal material gain according to personal effort by urging a new practice of generously giving each person what they needed irregardless of their contribution. Such is the nature of God's egalitarian generosity. This was a generosity so scandalous that it has never been considered as a serious alternative to contemporary greed. One thinker has rephrased Jesus' teaching on human generosity in the little saying "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

Albert Nolan has said the following regarding Jesus' teaching on the laborers in the vineyard. "The laborers who have done 'a heavy days work in all the heat' complain because others have received the same wages for working only one hour. It seems to be so unfair and unjust, in fact so unethical. But this is not so. One denarius is a just wage for a day's work and that is what they had agreed upon. But the employer, like God, had been moved with compassion for the unemployed he found in the market place, and out of a genuine concern for them and their families he had employed them for the rest of the day and paid them a wage which was not proportionate to the work done but proportionate to their needs and the needs of their families. Those who had worked all day do not share the employer's compassion for the others and therefore they complain. Their 'justice', like the 'justice' of the Zealots and Pharisees, is loveless. They envy the good fortune of others and, like Jonah, they regret God's compassion and generosity towards others" (Jesus Before Christianity, p.97).

Borg states the same in saying that "Jesus speaks of God as one who 'sends rain upon the just and the unjust' without thought of reward or punishment.... In the story of the vineyard owner who pays all the workers the same amount regardless of how long or how hard they have worked, the hearers are invited to enter a world in which everybody receives what they need. The workers who complain are the voice of the old world, the world of conventional wisdom, and the vineyard owner's response to them is striking, "Do you begrudge my generosity?' The parable invites the hearers to consider that God is like this, and not like the God of requirements and reward" (Marcus Borg. 1994. Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time, p.83). God is gracious and compassionate, and not a rigid judge enforcing a life style of requirements and strict reward according to effort and achievement. Such thinking is so subversive to modern conventional wisdom and practice that it is dismissed as nonsense.

 

 From the series 'Taking The Vertical Out Of God'
copyrighted material. Contact Us