"When I fed the poor they called me a saint,
when I asked why there were poor they called me a communist. "
H. House, Brazilian bishop.
Can be against charity? I am.
not think you can be against a person gets to eat with difficulty. The fundamental problem of begging is that it establishes a perverse relationship. He who has given much that has not something that you do not. It is a relationship of submission, dependence, rather than solidarity.
A relationship would be based on true solidarity both people are neither more nor less than what they need through mutual aid. Not occur to us to give our brothers or our parents a euro if they are in the street give them what they need in what is in our power to live with dignity [1]. What you need is a beggar some money to arrive the next day I live, but media access to ensure their livelihood with dignity.
Can you be against the 0.7%? I am.
not think you can be against the MDGs broadly. The problem is that, although imperceptible when defined with a broad brush, the Millennium Development Goals and the idea of \u200b\u200bhiding the same 0.7% perversion, but more subtle and cruel, if possible.
The left of the developed capitalist countries pay lip service to this idea of \u200b\u200b0.7%. But no one usually stop to read the fine print of that concept. I am the first, and I share this reflection taken from the master I did on Human Rights, Intercultural and Development.
usually not questioning words. When a concept is commonly used, uncritically adopt it as their own. We use it for our politically correct speech, not realizing that words speak louder than what they say.
Seven out of ten concepts in the social sciences have been developed in think tanks. We talked about developing countries, without realizing that these poor countries are often more in the process of development of underdevelopment, we talk about sustainable development, assuming that the unsustainable growth also merits the epithet of development; or alliance of civilizations (concept advocated unnoticed by Zapatero), as if the world's problems come from cultural clashes and conflicts not of objective interests. Brewing these concepts, the neoliberal supplanted our way of interpreting the world for us and ourselves.
Similarly, the idea of \u200b\u200b0.7% lies, not eradication of poverty, but to halve extreme poverty. This is, to eradicate poverty by half under the threshold of $ 1 per day based on the indicators of 1990. If you have a euro a day and have no access to land, to work, to housing, will be equally poor, but not enter in the computation of this 0.7%. That's not to say cynically, the UN is not even marked as target completely eradicate the extreme poverty, but reducing it to half, thus implicitly accepts that half of those who come into this concept will starve (even in the hypothetical If the objectives were met.)
And to make matters worse, the figures around the goal of 0.7% are massaged. In the calculation of aid to poor countries, rich countries tend to include not only they give in aid, but what they fail to collect. That is, if a poor country has a debt with Spain Spain knows it will not collect, Spain forgives the debt and included in the computation of development aid as if it had cooperated positively to the improvement of the country.
But that's not the worst. What is worse is that poor countries help rich countries' development, providing much more in the external debt than they receive in development aid. The debt is its support for its own development.
The only way to eradicate poverty (with no adjectives) is to build solidarity, reciprocal altruism, among all human beings forget the borders between human beings themselves create. Love is therefore the only possible recipe. And, as Frei Betto, "Socialism is the political form of love."
----------------
[1] divided societies classes set limits to this solidarity to accumulate more and more power in a small group of people: the family. Within the family there are relations of solidarity, of reciprocity. Your grandmother will not ask anything in exchange for an orange juice, because you want your good and want to take it (raw value in use). Outside this area, the exchange ratio is, and if you want a juice will have to pay, because it is a commodity (raw value change.) The Civil Code establishes the duty of food among family members, ie the legal duty to ensure your immediate family food, clothing and shelter. Out of there, get some life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment