ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Capitalism for social justice

A few weeks ago, I attended a fundraiser to raise money for development work in India. The event, organised by a local organisation here in Seattle, is held every year, and in the past has raised a fair amount of money for several small projects. This is the first time I've attended this get-together, and I had a sufficiently good time to want to go again.

Moreover, I've decided that fundraisers, especially the ones with dinner thrown in, are quite a blast. For a few bucks, one gets to hang out with others who share our concerns, spend some time exchanging ideas, wolf down a wonderful meal, and generally feel good about oneself.

Fundraisers are also signposts on our economic vistas, and understanding that has been as much a marvellous experience to me as attending one. In the midst of a gathering of fairly prosperous people, and in the bustle of their humanity, I found myself re-learning the first rule of pragmatic social service, that without an attendant efficiency and ability, compassion can only go so far.

In these gatherings of people who give in cash and kind to address issues dear to them, we find the clearest sign of a viable social formula based on the idea that we ought to care about those who have less than we do. A fundraiser for socio-economic causes, in that sense, is a window, permitting us to grasp momentarily a world that otherwise eludes us. In its translation of economic power into social service, there is a quiet punch-line.

It is regrettable that the idealism of such thought is often relegated to the margins of the mainstream, or even dismissed entirely. If concern and compassion were reflected in our habits more frequently, then professors like Amartya Sen wouldn't be regarded as mere consciences in an otherwise self-centred world; instead their work would find greater patronage amongst larger sections of the population. Whereas now we reward welfare economists with a few deferential bows in mock sincerity, in a more egalitarian world we might see them to be the true pillars of our society.

Perhaps the flaw in such wishful thinking lies in its impracticality; at least we have apparently convinced ourselves of it. Much-maligned communism, for example, espouses exactly the same sentiment, vigorously voiced in the famous phrase -- from those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need. But in this age of resplendent capitalism, this isn't quite the thing to choose as the bedrock of economic thought, if the evidence of history is anything to go by. Why, even the egalitarians are convinced their socio-economic message is behind the times, and are rapidly retooling for a more individualistic society.

Nevertheless, the humanitarian impulse towards egalitarian societies persists, suggesting that despite the widespread capitalist organisation of the world, bettering our individual material selves must be tempered by a responsibility to those who are unable to do so. It isn't all new; people have recognised the power of free enterprise and economic choice in non-profit and non-greedy ventures for quite some time.

Ethical investing, for example, has caught some fair winds of late, and mutual funds dedicated to investing in socially responsible organisations have sprung up. Unsavoury lawsuits then bring with them not only the fear of legal retribution to those who ignore their civic responsibilities, but also the accompanying fall-off in investor support from such funds. It isn't clear how successfully such sentiment has ensured responsible behaviour among corporates, though.

Still, there are those who see that the ocean is just a lot of drops, and each one must count for something. The difference, perhaps, is that some people want to walk this path even if the journey is lonesome and the destination uncertain. It's hard to say why; the most oft-repeated explanation is that we are moved by the human qualities in us. When the government requires us to give a quarter of our wealth to support needy sections, we are naturally resentful, sometimes seeing the beneficiaries as bums who don't always merit such consideration. When the man in the mirror tells us to do the same thing, we feel inspired, proud to answer a glorious call to compassion. Same message, different bottle.

But if answering the human sentiment remains the sole basis for responsible behaviour, then those in need are doomed, for the small changes wrought by the concerned few haven't quite made the inroads towards equality we would like to see. Social justice, instead, must rely on the premise that those who find themselves drawn to its calling must also be able to compete in a world that doesn't always reward selflessness. By confidently steering the habits of the mainstream towards building a better world, we can accomplish far more than to shrug away the prevalent apathy.

Individual enterprise, largely identified in material terms, does move the world. Economic theories founded on this notion have found considerable acceptance, and it doesn't help to discount this truth. Instead, we might try to marshal our financial resources down a better road, so what while money continues to shape our world, through the societies we create with it, we find ourselves moved too.

This is the challenge, then -- to turn the abilities we possess into vehicles of change and opportunity, so that without relinquishing the material benefits that accrue from them, we might still take society forward. The super-complex algorithm you wrote last week, that accelerator you fine-tuned, the concert you gave, the genes you synthesised, these must be more than works of art and skill within those professions. They must become the tools of caring, so that at the pinnacles of our professional achievements, we also find our human selves to be enriched.

Clearly, this means that we must bring the virtues of competition and competence to a new frontier -- that of application to selfless causes. In a world where we are forced to compete to better our material lives, there is not much room for those who decry its foundations. We'd be better off ensuring that we can hold our own with the best of our professional peers; for power does flow from those who control wealth and opportunity. Wars on poverty or illiteracy, for all their egalitarian instincts and human sensibilities, are best waged by competent teachers, well-heeled and well-meaning institutions (including government) and the sheer force of our competitive interests.

Compassion and regard for others are fine human sentiments, and the competitive interest that society naturally fosters these days is not necessarily counter to them. Instead, the very qualities instilled in us by competition and self-interest can hone our abilities to ensure a measure of equality. Capitalism for social justice needn't be an oxymoron.

Ashwin Mahesh