Thursday, October 16, 2014

Whoever has will be given more


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?




15 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those 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!

      Delete
    2. I 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!

      Delete
    3. Varieties are dwindling, Shesha. Now even the mystic's mind is focused on the latest luxury car!

      Delete
  2. Well 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But 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.

      Delete
  3. If 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It 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.

      Delete
  4. It'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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps it's no use blaming anyone, Namrata. Or there's no one to blame. It's the way the world is evolving.

      Delete
  5. I guess both speak about two different things, but at a different level we can draw a comparison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People 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.

      Delete
  6. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm delighted beyond your imagination, Amitabh, to see you here rather than at FB.

      You 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!?

      Delete
  7. 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