 |
| Source |
“Whoever has will be given more, and they
will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be
taken from them.” Jesus said that [Mathew 13:12].
Jesus was speaking about certain inner qualities, particularly the
ability to perceive and understand.
“The top one percent of
the wealthiest people on the planet own nearly fifty percent of the world's
assets while the bottom fifty percent of the global population combined own
less than one percent of the world's wealth,” says John Queally
quoting latest statistics.
Jesus
lived in a time when human societies were organised around religion and the
values and principles considered important by religion. We are living in a time when the societies
revolve round economy and economic considerations. But what Jesus said holds good even
today. Those who have are getting more
in our world too: the rich are getting richer.
And the poor are being eliminated.
When
Capitalism began its royal global march about a quarter of a century ago, its
professed objective was to create more
wealth for everyone. At that time 20% of the population rich countries
owned 80% of the wealth. Thanks to the success of the capitalist
system, the ratio continued to grow in favour of the privileged few so much so
that 1% people own 50% of the world’s wealth. Those who have were given more. And from those who did not have, whatever
little they had was also taken away. Or
it is being taken away. On that taking
away lies the foundation of capitalism.
Poverty
will be eliminated, promised the Bretton Woods Institutions which delivered
capitalism to the entire world on platters lined with loans and
regulations. Now poverty is being
successfully eliminated by eliminating the poor themselves.
The
classless society that Karl Marx envisaged is emerging slowly from the cleverly
contrived experiments in the capitalist laboratories in the West. That will be the only one class fit enough to
survive in the world of Darwinian struggles.
The population of even that class will continue to dwindle as time goes
by. A few will live life king size and
the rest will be trampled under the royal strides. Among those royal boots a few will be those of Indians. We, Indians, can feel proud
about ourselves. But will skeletons lying
under tombstones without epitaphs have feelings such as pride?
Well Matheikal, Jesus wasn't talking about money but ego. He wanted to convey that infinity equals zero in context of ego. Misery lies in duality. When duality dissolves, Bliss happens. There are only two ways to do away with duality, either become complete - there remains no one other than you or you remain no one i.e. there lies no 'I-sense' within you. "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them" is relevant in this context.
ReplyDeleteThose days are gone, Ravish. Who now cares for spiritual bliss and such things? Ego is admired today. The larger your ego, the more admirable you are. So what Jesus said has acquired a new meaning today. It works perfectly well in today's economy-driven, ego-driven world too!
DeleteI think there have been all varieties of people on earth- those with spiritual bend, those with egostic bend and the indifferent bunch. After the ages of standing perfectly high, empires fall in a no fraction of time; and after facing struggles for long, a poor becomes a millionaire! Though yes the world seen as a whole seems to be driven by capitalist-approach now-a-days!
DeleteVarieties are dwindling, Shesha. Now even the mystic's mind is focused on the latest luxury car!
DeleteWell Tomichand, didn't Pareto infamously argued this with his Pareto principle that it would not just relate to wealth but many other economic parameters as well? I liked your article.
ReplyDeleteBut will the Pareto principle be applicable now with the new ratio? I wonder. Maybe, yes. Because wealth determines a lot of things other than luxury or commodities that can be bought with it. It denotes power.
DeleteIf you see it this way it is again the question for survival for the fittest...those who acquired wealth had greater intellect, had greater shrewdness compared to the rest..Yes, agreed that they looted, murdered and all but then end justifies the means. It is the winner who makes the history.
ReplyDeleteIt has become a big game now, this survival of the FITTEST. See how our public sector is being divided among the private capitalists. Soon the whole of India will become private property whose price will go beyond the affordability of the ordinary people who will become extinct in a process that is slow enough to escape notice.
DeleteIt's Darwinian theory, applicable everywhere, in every aspect of life, I guess. I don't know whom to blame for this. Humans or human nature. I have always seen weaker being suppressed. This is happening I don't know since when. And yes, it is something to be ashamed about. Great article. I found it poetic at some points.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's no use blaming anyone, Namrata. Or there's no one to blame. It's the way the world is evolving.
DeletePeople speak according to the needs of the time and environment. Jesus lived in a time that was totally different from ours. Yet, interestingly, what he said in that context with a completely different meaning can be applied in our context too: ironically, of course.
ReplyDeleteI can feel that money is flowing to the tip of the pyramid.A rich is trying every means to get money from the poor. He also tries to get money from another rich. Then he gives the money away to someone richer than himself. But, I have also realized that since a decade ago,poor too have witnessed an increase in their standard. They can now afford food more easily than earlier. They face less social discrimination.I know the reason behind it is the technological advances in farming and the research going on in the field of science and humanities rather than the structure of the society. As gurcharan das wrote in his book, "The rich are getting richer,the poor too are getting richer." Could those advances have happened in a socialist society? A farmer grows food toiling all day so that he too could rise higher in the pyramid and become rich. Would he not become complacent and lazy in a socialist economy if he does not see his own profits, and would grow just enough food so that he can just feed his family? May be I am making it simpler. I do not know the answers but yes,such types of questions arise in the mind.The distribution of the wealth is a problem. But can capitalism exist without this distribution. If we observe closely,we all want to send money to the top of the pyramid. We all would want to book a suite in a hotel in Paris and buy a wine worth 20,000 dollars if we get 10 or 20 million dollars.If a rich person decides that he will not give money to someone richer than himself then the structure will break down. But the rich have got an understanding among each other. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
ReplyDeleteI'm delighted beyond your imagination, Amitabh, to see you here rather than at FB.
DeleteYou raise some brilliant points. Let me tell you something personal. I know hundreds of people personally who are farmers or engaged in occupations which give little in return for their hard labour. My post is primarily about such people. Because they are driven to desperation, to suicide.
They are not really getting richer, as Gurcharan Das or anybody else would like us to believe. They are still struggling to get their TVs connected to outdated pre-digital satellite connections given by the erstwhile system that managed a semblance of equality with its compromise between capitalism and socialism. Now we have a PM who will drive them all to suicide. He will remove poverty by eliminating the poor, I assure you.
He can't be blamed by your logic. He is swimming with the current. Well!?
I think this is one of the most unfortunate truths in the society Matheikal. The ones who have the most keep piling on while the unfortunate many keep facing the same brunt. It breathes of unfair practice each time. These will be the people in power who will influence the decisions which will have an impact on the comon man. It makes me feel that the common man is not at all involved in the rules or privileges that are made for him.. It is as if it is a non existent entity..
ReplyDelete