‘I hate you!’, cried the man, beating a bulldozer with a stick. ‘You stole my job! And of a thousand of my companions!’ The emotion is understandable, but you might as well tell gravity to go hang. Without technology, humanity would not survive one month. Like it, or hate it, we can’t do without. Technology is the brainchild of humanity and therefore not unnatural. But it must assist Nature, not try to destroy it. And, yes, even technology should assist justice, not ignore it. Science without ethics is a social sin.
This is true for economics as well. We have read an economic study (devoid of ethics, strictly ‘scientific’) concluding that illegal immigration is good for the economy. It keeps labor costs down. Especially when a few dramatic well-publicized ‘razzia’s’ rounding up a few ‘illegal aliens’ are held from time to time. Not too many, of course. We don’t want them all to flee. We need their cheap labor! Just enough to keep the fear factor high. And, of course, they must be kept illegal (no amnesty!), so that they’ll work for almost nothing. This will force labor prices for legal workers down.
Does not the word ‘razzia’ already remind you of Dr. Mengele? The person who published this study might as well have recommended to set up concentration camps for illegal’s. Which inevitably brings us to the U.S.-camp in Guantanamo, where prisoners have been held without trial for years. And, yes, tortured too! This is what capitalism will eventually lead to.
But, then, on this same island of Cuba, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of political prisoners, whose only crime was opposition against the socialist system. And some of them were tortured too. And the fear factor is kept high here too. Isn’t it obvious that we have to move forward to a third position? That we have to move away from the war between rich and poor? Basically that is what the U.S.-Cuba conflict is. A Cold War between rich and poor, the pot accusing the kettle he’s black. They’re both as guilty as hell.
Economics based on ethics
Don’t you think that justice will lead to peace? Of course, there is such a thing as social justice. If society is structured in such a way that it constantly marginalizes the masses, it should be re-structured. We accept as part of fair competition that when companies become too large, they should be broken up. Otherwise, they become abusive and monopolistic. The same principle applies to the concentration of economic power in society. When it becomes too acute, it becomes abusive and should be diffused. This is what Kelso saw and incorporated in his proposals.
Men are created equal. That’s why in a proper democracy the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few should be remedied and structurally avoided. This is precisely what Kelso proposed. But he devised his system in such a way that the rich would not be penalized, but instead the level of the poor be raised. Is a more just way thinkable? Will this not lead to peace?
We wanted to write about the errors of ‘social democracy’ in this article, but the pen has a mind of its own. Suffice it here to point out that social democracy is forever trying to mop up the floor, while leaving the tap (faucet) wide open. The bulldozer is the symbol of technology. Unless our angry man owns part of it, he will be forever condemned to beg for a living, i.e. beg for a part of the income generated by it. And the owner will always have the last word. As long as you are completely dependent on him, as long as you don’t own part of technology (the tap), you will be bought, intimidated, cajoled, outsourced or subjected to money power in other ways. And, if all fails, you can always be replaced by technology. You can protest or strike as much as you like (i.e. mop up the floor), if you don’t own, you will never be free. This should have been clear at least since WW-II and it is amazing how social democrats (and trade-unions) could have been blind for so long.