“All money is essentially about trust, and once this trust is shaken there are repercussions.” Can you guess who said it?
You won’t, in all probability. That’s from an article written by Jayati Ghosh in the latest issue of the Frontline [June 15, 2012]. Ms Ghosh was writing about the imminent economic crisis that Europe and India will go through soon if they are not already going through it. One wouldn’t expect such wisdom from a journalistic periodical. Of course, Ms Ghosh is not a journalist by profession.
Money is simply a means, a tool, to be used for some objective. But the problem today is that money has become the objective, the only objective of human existence.
Can any human being be happy possessing a lot of money?
Imagine Robinson Crusoe on his island possessing a lot of money. Imagine him getting billions of dollars from his sunken ship or from anywhere. Would that money be of any use to him on the uninhabited island where he lived?
Money is simply a means, not an end. Money is meant to bring us certain necessities of life. The purpose of life is not amassing wealth. Wealth is just a tool for enhancing the quality of life.
Have we made wealth the end (the sole purpose) of life?
That’s what ‘liberalisation’ and ‘globalisation’ and all those –ations did.
Another article by C P Chandrasekhar in the same issue of the Frontline says, “… private expansion was clearly driven by measures of ‘liberalisation’ that relaxed constraints on the expansion of large capital.”
Large capitalists won in the system called globalisation/liberalisation/privatisation… The creators of the winning system win. Like the Brahmins won in India once upon a time. The Marxists won in Kerala once upon a time. The Hindutva vadis won in some parts of India in the recent past.
Who will win in the end?
Perhaps, no one.
But who will be happy and contented in the short life that we have on this planet? It won’t be the richest. Just as it wasn’t those who wielded religious hegemony in the pre-scientific days. Just as it wasn’t the socialists in the heyday of socialism before the US-manufactured liberalisation subsumed it.
Robinson Crusoe would have longed for a mate on his island. A friend, at least. When he did get one he was indeed happier than earlier.
What if Crusoe’s number of friends increased on the island? And each one of them tried to played out his selfish interests? Crusoe would have made a system in order to control the people, to bring them under his control.
What if Crusoe didn’t have the urge to keep everything under his control? What if he was interested in creating a community of people who would live in harmony together, loving one another, helping one another…? [Given the fact that Crusoe was an Englishman this is an idle conjecture.]
What if we could create a system which gives prominence to caring and sharing instead of amassing wealth (which anyway turns out to be useless even for the posterity as the posterity is only spoilt by too much of financial security)?
Can’t we change the system?