According to a World
Bank Report (2008), the poorest 20% of world population consume only 1.5% of
resources, middle 60% consume 22% while the richest 20% consume more than 76%
of resources. This is the pathetic state of affairs we live in.
Inequality is a fact of life; society being an extension of individuals/ families, there would always be inequality in the society. As famously put by Karl Marx, there would always be two classes in the society- the Bourgeoisie (owners of resources) and Proletariat (workers). The control of resources makes the Bourgeoisie powerful and prosperous and the workers weak. The solution as suggested by Marx was a class-less society without private ownership of properties.
However, as evident from the
history of the world, this kind of a system based on socialism has failed. The
principal reason is that such a system kills the human motivation to excel and
thus results in inefficiency. On the other hand, we have also
seen the perils of capitalism. The same motivation that makes people efficient,
is also responsible for the greed and the unmindful exploitation of people and
the planet, which today challenges the very existence of humanity.
So, what is the way out?
The possible middle way can be achieved
through a two-prong strategy that balances good things of both the capitalist
and socialist systems, i.e. creating an
equitable structure within the capitalist system.
(1) The
Government needs to be highly proactive in empowering the poor (proletariat) and
making them efficient by enhancing their skills and expertise, i.e. their
intellectual resources need to be strengthened as the way to physical and
financial resources is through the intellectual resources. Appropriate
institutions need to be created to work for the education and training of the
sections of the society with very little physical and financial resources.These
institutions include educational/training institutions, financial institutions,
community based institutions, primary producers’ institutions and support
institutions; the legal structure of the institutions does not matter much,
they can function either under the government or private or civil society
domains. Another important factor is the creation of infrastructure that works
for the poor. So, the points
emphasized by Amartya Sen hold huge significance: invest in education, health
and other social overheads. The points have been appreciated by very few of the
countries of the world. This partially explains why there is so much poverty
and inequality in the world today.
(2) The
initiatives for the proletariat has to be funded through the taxes raised
from the Bourgeoisie class; so they cannot be discouraged in their endeavor in
any way. Appropriate policies those make their work easy have to be in place.
Monetary grants for this class have to be discouraged; in its place, economic
infrastructure needs to be created (like roads, communication network,
etc)
Moreover, an enabling environment
needs to be created for both the classes of the society. “Empowerment” has to
replace “Subsidies”. Empowering people means making them go up the income
ladder forever. On the other hand, subsidies make people complacent. The
beneficiaries of subsidies believe that there is a Government which will always
give them low-priced grain and they need not work hard to earn them. The
capitalist system is efficient because it motivates people to excel; the same
spirit is lost when the government extends mindless subsidies. Subsidies result
in large scale wastage too. There is nothing worse than a situation where
people are complacent and inefficient in a capitalist system.
But the political parties
everywhere would waste the hard earned money of its citizens on unnecessary
subsidies for their political benefits. It has been proved beyond doubt that
giving two pieces of bread to a poor man never solves their problem; they have
to be enabled to earn their bread. A strong and wise leader can see the flaw in
the socialist system and amend it by using the capitalist means.It requires
a vision and high political will.
