Fraternal economy
“All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with
reason and conscience
and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
United
Nations, The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 1.
1. An economic experience of many centuries
When someone enters a monastery of the
Benedictine tradition, in addition to joining a religious community he also
joins an economic community. This type of community could be called a production
and consumption cooperative.
And it works like this: the person who joins
is assigned a task, which does not exceed 6 hours a day.[1]
And fulfill this task enables the person to enjoy all the goods and services
that the monastery provides. It's that simple.
No money is needed inside the monastery:
work, production, goods and services are enough. And, as for the management
mode, it is a fraternal economy: in fact, the monks call each other “brothers”.
On the other hand, let´s remember that the
word "economics" refers originally to the family: in Greek "óikos" means "house" and
"nomos" means
"regulation": economics is the practical wisdom with which
‒especially the father of family but not only him‒ the activity of the house is
planned and regulated for the benefit of all its members.
And let´s remember that the "houses" of ancient times were also economic communities like the
monastery, and sometimes they were very numerous.[2]
2. An opportunity and its incalculable benefits
The question is: why could not this system
be applied on a global scale? Not only does there seem to be no economic
downside, but there would be many benefits. It doesn’t seem to be problematic, because the macroeconomic numbers
show that there is capacity to produce enough goods and
services to satisfy everyone.[3] And we can agree that the system we propose could boost production, as we will see below.
services to satisfy everyone.[3] And we can agree that the system we propose could boost production, as we will see below.
The benefits that could arise would be
varied. To begin with, no one would suffer from hunger or other material needs;
and we would all have our economic future
assured.
In addition, as the profit
motive would not make any sense ‒because there would be no need for money, nor
the possibility of accumulating it‒ then harmful effects of different types would
be eliminated, since we would act with
greater rationality and greater justice:
‒ Instead of keep preying on the planet to
obtain money, we would begin to take care of real goods: water, air, land,
jungles, animal species…[4]
‒ Instead of keep polluting the atmosphere
by multiplying the number of vehicles ‒which benefits the automobile, oil and
other industries‒ we could design an intelligent, comfortable and efficient
public transport system; besides accelerating the development and use of non-polluting
engines.[5]
‒ Instead of the abuse of chemicals to
obtain better yields in the production of cereals, vegetables, animals, etc.
‒chemicals that contaminate the earth and its products, and end up affecting
our health‒ we would dedicate to the production of natural foods.
‒ Instead of offering products or services
of mediocre (or bad) quality to lower costs, we would offer products and
services of good quality.[6]
‒ Instead of making the workers (and their environments)
take risks by exerting
them with excess work, urging them to do the work in less time, or not
providing them with the security elements to reduce costs, we would correct all
this.[7]
‒ We even generate greater risks. For
example: the need for energy that Japan has to compete makes it build atomic
power plants in a very risky area, vulnerable to earthquakes ("the Pacific
fire belt"). We have already seen the risk that was run with Fukuyima,
which could have been much more serious and not only for Japan: months after
the Japanese nuclear accident, Canada detected radioactive particles on its
coast. If we eliminate the competition factor that reaches extreme levels
("business is war"), we could redesign the entire energy system,
privileging the sustainability, safety and cleanliness of these sources.
‒ Instead of keep concentrating wealth more
and more, there would be more justice and solidarity in the world.[8]
Bear in mind that ‒according to the “Derecho a la alimentación” report cited in
note 3‒ in 2008 there were 24,000 deaths per day from causes related to hunger,
and 75% of them corresponded to children under five years of age. The mere number is atrocious. [9]
But given that human beings are not just a number but also that each of us has
a gift, we have the right to ask ourselves if any of those children ‒who didn’t
have the possibility of growing and developing‒ might have been the scientist
who would have discovered a vaccine that we need, or a source of clean and
sustainable energy ... or a better tenor than Pavarotti, or a better writer
than Borges, or ...
‒ Instead of maintaining "industrial
secrets" to profit from them, we would share the information, thus
enhancing our productive capacity and general welfare. For example: if the
scientists who work in the different pharmaceutical laboratories share their
knowledge, how much better the medicines could be!
‒ Instead of hiding the harmful effects that
some products can have to profit from their sale, we would seek to produce in a
way that is healthy for people and the planet ... thus improving the overall
quality of life, and also reducing health costs, by not having to attend to
people who were absurdly damaged.
‒ Instead of making computer or electronic
devices incompatible with each other in order to "retain" the
customer by force, we would seek the greatest compatibility, which would
enhance our communication, research, production, etc. capacity.
‒ The "programmed obsolescence"
would no longer make sense because our criterion would no longer be to profit
from a greater sale of products, but to reduce the (real) costs of production,
energy consumption, distribution, pollution and recycling.[10]
‒ Instead of unfair competition, purchase of
privileges or destructive attitudes we could have an environment of
collaboration, efficiency and development. And, as someone has said: in the
current system corruption is systemic, because officials who earn some thousands
make decisions that are worth many millions.[11]
‒ We would not attend absurd waste, such as
fruit harvests that are not collected because the harvest costs are higher than
what is obtained with the sale of that fruit.
‒ Other criminal absurdities: goods are
hoarded or destroyed to maintain or raise prices; and “mafias” control
situations like these... and kill to do it.
‒ We would also correct other absurdities to
which we have become accustomed, such as a footballer being a millionaire, while
a surgeon who saves lives or a teacher who opens minds can have unworthy
salaries.
‒ In the absence of money, the “markets of
death” such as drug trafficking Would find it difficult to exist.[12]
‒ We would not fear for our future or for
our welfare in old age because the accumulation of goods produced and shared would be more than enough and would
reach everyone.[13]
Some specialists argue that all the effort
of the Economy has as its sole purpose to ensure the future. But we see that
our system does not achieve it. A significant example: at the beginning of 2008
Iceland was first in a survey on socio-economic welfare; at the end of that
same year, Iceland was in default, because
of the well-known crisis; and at the beginning of 2009 his government resigned.
If a country cannot sustain its economic security for even a year, how much
less a company or a family![14]
3. An appropriate humanist education system
This can be accompanied by an educational
system that helps each person to identify their gift or capacity, and to develop
it. This would allow us
to follow our vocation at work, which is the most beneficial scenario for the person and for society.
For oneself, it is very pleasant to follow personal vocations at work; for the society, because who works like this,
offers the best products or services because he or she do it "from the
heart".
All this would create a society in which the
work would be creative, free and supportive; and in which there would be free
time to enjoy interpersonal bonds (friendship, love, family) and material and
immaterial goods (culture, art, sports, meditation, travel, etc.). For, as
somebody has said, there are (at least) three kinds of goods: material goods,
time and ties. And if the variable of material goods is excessively increased,
interpersonal links are lost or deteriorated and the time to enjoy each other
is reduced.[15]
4. Concrete issues
What is the concrete way to implement this?
One possibility is that - instead of the debit or credit card that many of us
have - there could be an electronic card that, when withdrawing goods or
requiring services in places similar to those we have now, that card will
simply indicate with a green light that the person is fulfilling the assigned
tasks, which gives him or her access to the goods and services that we all
produce ... as happens in the monastery.
How to prevent everyone from taking
everything they can? Firstly: why would they do it, if everything you need will also be there tomorrow? For example: why am I going to take 15 liters
of milk, if tomorrow (and last, and then) there will be fresh milk there for me
to drink it? Secondly: education for a social coexistence that suits us all.
Thirdly: sufficient controls so that abuses do not occur ... similar to those
we have now: when withdrawing from a place of sale, the recalled products are
passed through an electronic reader (as in the supermarket today) both to keep
the stock of the place updated , and to verify that the consumption is not
abusive.[16]
There are more concrete questions that can
be posed: I will present another reflection on this topic soon, imagining how the concrete life of the people
in this type of organization would be like.[17]
One of the fundamental questions is whether
there is room for some private property in this system. My answer is: yes (and
I explain it in the reflections to which I refer in note 17).
But the concrete issues are not the most
difficult: in the conclusion I will point to the real problems.
5. In case someone says that I do not know
anything about this...
“Thomas Kuhn, in his famous The structure of scientific revolutions,
wrote that «scientists, when faced with serious and prolonged anomalies, if they
begin to lose faith and take into account alternatives, do not renounce the
paradigm that it has led to the crisis». He added, quoting Harvey Lehman in Age and Achievement: «People who have
achieved fundamental inventions of a new paradigm, either have been very young
or have very recently come to the field whose paradigm they transform.»” [18]
And, if these ideas of mine seem too crazy,
it is good to know that there are economists who have unprecedented positions
on new situations: given the phenomenon of the robotization of work and the
consequent expulsion of human labor, there are economists (and other
specialists) who they are thinking of a universal assignment that allows
everyone to have what is convenient for a decent life ... assuming that "salary"
and "work" will no longer have the correlation we have always known
in the future.[19]
Conclusion
Naturally, a more efficient and fairer
economic system would not solve all human problems. But it would probably help
us to better identify that these big problems are not economic or political,
but ethical: selfishness, discrimination, envy, arrogance, greed...
Dante has written ‒ in his Inferno‒ that: “arrogance, envy and
greed are the three torches that burn in the breasts”.[20]
And Gandhi said: “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for
the greed of some.”
There are people who suffer from a serious
perceptive distortion: they believe that material goods will serve them to fill
the infinite void they have in their hearts. Already the Buddha enunciated in
his First Noble Truth that "life is dissatisfaction"... and he, who
was rich, was wise enough to abandon his riches and seek a solution elsewhere.
In all periods there were proposals for a
fairer, free and supportive society. But certain elements of our time
‒particularly the terminal environmental problems that everyone recognizes
(from Pope Francis to Stephen Hawking)‒ have an
urgency that they did not exist in other times, and that seems to impose the
dilemma: Utopia or Apocalypse.[21]
Prof. Dr. Jorge Fazzari
Website: Jorge Fazzari Blog
This same article #1 in Spanish: ECONOMÍA FRATERNA
Article #2 only in Spanish: ECONOMÍA FRATERNA, EN CONCRETO
Article #3 only in Spanish: ECONOMÍA FRATERNA: 3 HISTORIAS POSIBLES Y ALGO MÁS
[1] Of course, they do not work on
Sundays; and -in the monastery where I stayed- on Saturdays we worked only four
hours in the morning.
[2] The family of Jacob that arrived to
Egypt was about 70 people. And the "economic unit" that was the house
of my paternal grandfather in Calabria were almost self-sufficient: they only
had to buy salt and matches.
[3] For example: already since 2008 we
are able to produce food for 12,000 million people ... at that time we were not
even 7,000 million; and it is estimated that by the end of the century there
will be around 10 billion: see: www.derechoalimentación.org, the 2008 report: “Hacia una nueva gobernanza de la seguridad alimentaria”, p. 14. And if we put it in terms of
money, in an equitable distribution, each person would have more than 10,000
dollars a year, that is, a family of four would have about 41,000 dollars a
year: this is what comes from dividing the global gross product, by the world
population, according to 2016 data. If we compare it with the current situation,
it is all progress: on data from the World Bank, we know that "almost half
of humanity -some 3 billion people- live on $ 2.50 per day; and at least 80% of
the world's population lives on less than $10 per day.”: Shaohua Chen and
Martin Ravallion, The developing world is
poorer than we thought, but not less successful in the fight against poverty,
World Bank, August 2008 .
[4] When the mining companies that
extract gold contaminate the water with arsenic and cyanide, the inhabitants
oppose the obvious affirmation: "without gold we can live; but not without
the water”.
[5] A bus requires the place of two
cars and can has a seating capacity of about 30 people: instead of thirty cars
with one driver each ¬and thirty engines running‒ we would have only one engine
running and fifteen times more space on the streets.
[6] An age-old and universal ethical
rule is: "do not do to others what you do not want them to do with
you".
[7] A bus driver or truck driver who is
not rested and lucid can cause a tragedy; a worker who works in a hurry or
without security elements can die or be maimed for life.
[8] According to the UNU-WIDER report
on "The Global Distribution of Household Wealth (from 2006) in the year
2000, the richest 1% of the world's population accounted for 45% of the world's
wealth; according to Credit Suisse,
in 2015 that richest 1% went on to have more than 50% of the world's wealth;
that is, that 1% is richer than the other 99%. The data can be seen in: http://www.contexto.org/pdfs/WIDERdistribriqu.pdf (for WIDER) and http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/10/13/actualidad/1444760736_267255.html. (for the
Credit Suisse, in a report of the
newspaper El País with download link
of the full document in English, right there). And the Oxfam 2019 report indicates
that world's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%: 3800 million people:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report
[9] And the same happens today
(or worse). See on youtube: Esther Duflo:
Social experiments to fight poverty.
[10] By "real costs" I
understand the consumption of raw materials, energy, hours of work, etc. And
regarding the "programmed obsolescence", see the documentary of
Cosima Dannoritzer: Comprar, tirar, comprar. La historia secreta de la obsolescencia
programada. It is online at the site of the Radio y TV española
(rtve).
[11]
Hervé Kempf, Para salvar el planeta, salir del
capitalismo, Buenos Aires, Capital Intelectual, 2010, p.29 (original
version in French: Pour sauver le
planète, sortez du capitalisme, Editions du Seuil, 2009). In this text you will find many ideas similar to what I present,
especially in the diagnosis of the distortions and injustices of our current
system.
[12] It has been said that money from
criminal activities has permeated our financial system so much that if they were
withdrawn, the entire system would fall... consequently, at present, the system
makes us hostages or accomplices of these mafias. See the text quoted in the
previous note, in its pp. 33-35.
[13] When you enter a monastery, you
enjoy the goods of the community until the day you die, and the community
itself takes care of your elders.
[14] These data about Iceland can be
easily verified on the web.
[15] They are ideas and verifications of
Dr. Manfred Linz.
[16] A further objection that I have
been presented to this point is: and would not it be an interference in the
private life of people to see what and how much they consume? My answer is that
today we are much more controlled than we perceive, and without any benefit for
us. On the other hand, the control that I propose would only be activated in
the case of a manifest abuse in relation to the expected consumption of the
person or his family group (for example, in this case, instead of the green
light that I mentioned, a light would come on yellow, which would lead a
supervisor to ask a couple of discrete questions, because perhaps the person
can explain what looks like an excess: he is organizing an important party at
home, etc.).
[17] I have already written about this,
but it is only in Spanish (online in my blog): Jorge Fazzari Blog.
[18] These are the words of Jorge
Fontevecchia, in his editorial article “El agotamiento” in the Perfil newspaper, Buenos Aires, January
05, 2013.
[19] See: Rutger Bregman, Utopia
for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a
15-hour Workweek.
[20]
Dante, Divine Comedy, Inferno, VI,
74.
[21] See the book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History by Elizabeth
Kolbert. The author received the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction for the
book in 2015.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario