Make greed history
Filed under: Babble
Number of comments: 
Number of trackbacks: 
Tagged with: So... it's come to my attention that today is Blog Action Day. Any blogger who wants to join in should write about poverty. Now what does that really mean? Let's take a look.
Poverty: The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
This brings up a fundamental question. Is there not enough for everyone on this planet? Do we have too many people living here for everyone to have a socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions? The answer: NO.
In my opinion, poverty is not a problem. It's not a problem at all. Instead, it's a symptom. The problem poverty is a symptom of?
Greed: A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed
There it is. A simple problem but no easy solution. Greed is a basic human trait which has probably been there since the dawn of humanity. Greed is everywhere. From small children refusing to share with other children to governments actively supporting greedy corporations over everything else. Got the money? You got the power. The power to buy whatever you want, including politicians that will work for your cause. Corruption isn't just a Third-World phenomenon. The fact that the word 'lobbyist' exists explains it all. Corruption all the same, only difference here is that it's legitimized and wearing an expensive suit.
The recent stock exchange crash is a classic example of the unlimited destructiveness of greed. A very, VERY small amount of people has managed to bring the entire world economy on the brink of collapse by letting greed dictate their actions. The greedy bastards got bailed out and got away with more money than you and I will ever spend in our lifetime. A lot of them even kept their job. No bonuses this year for the UK ones though, Mr. Brown said with a firm voice. That will teach them!
So what can we do about it?
Lately I've felt more and more frustrated about seeing the world plunging into a downward spiral without being able to really do something about it. The rich get richer, the poor get further pushed down with their face in the dirt and greed is still happily functioning as the driving force behind our environment going all to hell. I guess every individual feels powerless because let's face it, individually we can't really do anything. However, we can make an attempt to do our part by:
- voting for government representatives who DON'T put greedy corporations first. Vote with your heart, not with your wallet
- not buying anything from greedy corporations that are known to exploit people for profit
- trying to eliminate our dependency on oil (provided by greedy corporations and governments) by 'going green'
- buying Fair Trade products which will help poor economies develop
- and there's more...
The well known slogan Make poverty history is all wrong. It should really read:
Make greed history
I suspect we have a long, LONG way to go. Eradicating a fundamental flaw in human beings isn't gonna be easy. Let's hope we'll eventually get there.
At 15 October '08 - 15:08 Guilherme Zühlke O'Connor wrote:
At 16 October '08 - 16:34 Chris wrote:
Rich people who take advantage of poor people are bad people, for sure. But greed is only a small part of what makes them bad people. Plenty of rich people, who are greedy, still perform many humanitarian and charitable functions.
Doing away with greed ultimately enslaves us to leaders who say they can solve all our problems if we just give all of ourselves to them. No thanks.
In short, the alternative to greed is worse than greed itself. Now get to work and stop mucking around about poverty!
At 17 October '08 - 02:31 Marco wrote:
Also, I don’t think that being less greedy automatically means submission to leaders. I believe in freedom. Something we seem to have less and less of since the past few decades.
Let’s say I think there’s a balance between what one would call pure communism and the extreme capitalism that has now brought the world economy on the brink of collapse.
At 17 October '08 - 05:52 Guilherme Zühlke O'Connor wrote:
I see greed (at least in the context of Marco’s point) as something inherently more harmful that what you picture. What you call greed in your comment, I’d call ambition, and I don’t thing ambition is bad on itself, and I don’t see it is inherently about money either.
Greed on the other hand, is about getting more and more of, basically, money, monetizable stuff and power driven goals, is in bigger or smaller degrees, the attempt to become Citizen Kane.
Having said that, is not greed that keeps me going to work. Not me and not many people I know. I am driven by a certain amount of ambition and my ambition encompasses some financial reward as much as professional recognition, personal satisfaction and society improvement.
I wouldn’t speak having “greed” society improvement ambition, but I understand “ambitions” os society improvement.
Driving ambitions to sustainable and fair goals is definitely conceivable and good. And I’ll agree with your point and I don’t think it conflicts with Marco’s point. Sheer greed, on the other hand, I think is something we should simply get rid of.
At 21 October '08 - 10:58 Steve Gwynne wrote:
Without the active international consensus to create the necessary international political economy to make poverty history, the right to a reasonable standard of living will remain a function of money, wealth and affluence.
The current international order produces a hierarchy of rights-entitlement that cuts across global society and in effect makes the right to be spared poverty a matter of political and economic influence rather than a moral imperative. This sort of analysis is particularly relevant when assessing the usage of such concepts as ‘available resources’ and ‘progressive realisation. This is particularly the case when considering the amount of ‘available resources’ that are used to sustain a typical westernized economy compared to that of a third-world economy. This difference obviously favours westernized economies and contentiously to a degree which actually impoverishes third-world economies if the amount of ‘available resources’ is seen as limited in both an infinite sense and a finite sense. What I mean by this is that available resources are always subject to a finite amount whether in the long-term or short-term. In the long-term resources will inevitably run out and in the short-term, global society can only produce a finite level of resources at any one time. This in turn places emphasis on the proportion of resources that are being distributed to any set of individuals at any one time.
At present the way in which the concepts of ‘available resources’ and ‘progressive realisation’ are being interpreted and utilized largely helps to mitigate from such an emphasis, therefore, if the right to be spared poverty is to be truly realised, then the terms ‘available resources’ and ‘progressive realisation’ need to be modified. Firstly, any modification would have to be able to stop realism and conservatism from being able to exploit these concepts and secondly, any modification has to be able to imply and make imperative a fair distribution of resources based on need rather than want.
Into what the concepts of ‘available resources’ and ‘progressive realisation’ be modified obviously needs further debate but I think a good starting place for such a debate is to create a campaign entitled ‘Making Greed History’
Steve Gwynne
New Society Network
satoritree@yahoo.co.uk