'Cap it' in capitalism?
Environmental alarm:
It is not uncommon these days to receive a mail which enlists some alarming statistics about environmental damage and tells about the horrors of an impending catastrophe. Generally these mails have a cynical tone and blame ‘us’ for being irresponsible. Some of us just neglect them but those of us who are aware about the seriousness of the issue and really concerned about the environment probably make a resolve to either ‘print only when necessary’ or ‘use paper bags instead of plastic’ or ‘change the old lighting devices to more energy efficient ones’ or some such thing which is generally also recommended at the end of these mails. Then we go back to work… to close more business, get a promotion or a commission which will allow us to buy a bigger car, or a bigger house or a bigger something? Well am not being sarcastic here, in fact I do the same. And I see no reason why anyone should sacrifice his or her personal desires/lifestyle for the whole of the remaining mankind and that too for a problem which is still, in a way only a ‘perceived one’ Again why aren’t the remaining 6 billion people not doing something about it!
Nevertheless, this whole environment talk has lead to the concept of ‘Sustainable living’ and some people have started taking pride in adopting some changes in their lifestyle that makes it ‘sustainable’..
.
The only way we know-:
When I try to reconcile this concept of ‘sustainability’ with the mainstream philosophy of life that is prevalent in the world, I immediately notice inconsistency (hope some others do too). Think about it, despite the recent economic slowdown which clearly originated out of the cradle of capitalism, we are reluctant to ascribe any ills to this ‘mainstream philosophy’. (The simple reason probably is, the only other option known to us has failed already and the failure has been more emphatic.) When material prosperity is the only aim, it is difficult to beat the capitalist philosophy.
Does it not mean…
The incentive of private profit is the strongest one.. any attempt to restrict private profit will lead to discouraging entrepreneurial drive, it will not elicit the best out of the talent pool. But when one consciously decides to allow unrestricted private profit without it having to have any relation with an individuals capability or needs or any such limiting parameter, one also endorses the disproportioning of wealth, which more often than not means that risk takers or entrepreneurs are allowed to extract profit out of other people’s efforts. Now when the whole concept of capitalism is driven by inequality, any attempts through governing authorities to limit the inequalities, being contrary to the underlying principle, are bound to be superficial. They can work only up to a level where the lowest layer of society is allowed to barely survive so as to contribute towards wealth creation for the highest class. And this appears to be an inherent flaw in the mechanism, notwithstanding the ability of wealth to influence regulatory bodies.
Even in the most evolved capitalistic societies it has been seen that wealth quickly gets divided disproportionately. (The 80-20 rule.) Leaving aside rare exceptions, the rich remain rich (or at least try to remain rich). The remaining population, which has to contribute towards making the rich richer, is therefore required to put in extra effort to lead even a normal life. Depending on capabilities, there might be changes in the constitution on personal or individual levels but the general rule of 80 -20 remains true.
This is the case when we consider a pure theoretical setup. In a real world where there are political boundaries, the inequality created by the capitalistic approach does not necessarily remain constrained to one nation. More often than not, the 20 % affluence remains concentrated in a handful of nations and poverty pervades most of others. Majority from the 20% do not even realize that the rewards they are enjoying are way beyond the value that they add to this world and comes at the cost of someone at some far off place having to sacrifice even their basic needs. Secondly, any entity that is attempting to make profits would rather focus on the demands of the 20 % who have the money than the demands of the remaining 80%. So maximum efforts at innovating and adding value are more likely to be directed towards the needs of the rich. A lot of effort also goes in creating ‘need’ within the affluent customer base which is not the most efficient way of utilizing resources if overall development of mankind is the aim. So in a purely capitalistic setup, ‘inequality’ is not only a necessity but also the driving force behind its success- if one can call it so. And this inequality is of an unstable nature because all the ‘have-nots’ are continuously exposed to the ‘need creating’ campaigns that make them crave for more.
The above argument is an attempt to point out a simple fact about the capitalistic approach. It need not necessarily be called a ‘flaw’ as a lot of arguments for and against can be advocated. But when we talk about sustainable living we must necessarily question the basic premise on which we approve of capitalism as the best way to go ahead. Far too much importance is laid on creation of material wealth in this philosophy. If that has to be so, can ‘sustainability’ ever become ‘sustainable’?
