Whose inclusive capitalism? Our poor are poor out of our poor thinking

MANILA: We men and women, when it comes to thinking about the poor, we have shown a very rich accumulation of the poverty of theory and practice. That's because since our thinking is cramped, therefore our priorities are wrong, our programs are incorrect, and our processes are erroneous.

I wasn't minding the ladies, and then it took a lady to stir me to action not simply thinking but writing again about the poor. Emma Batha of Thomson Reuters Foundation was that lady; she wrote the article "Ten laws that unashamedly discriminate against women" 14 February 2015, ph.news.yahoo.com):

(1)     Congo – A wife must obey her husband.

(2)     India – Sexual intercourse between husband and wife cannot be considered rape.

(3)     Iran – A man can marry an adopted daughter at the age of 13.

(4)     Kenya – Under Islam, all marriages are polygamous.

(5)     Lebanon – Rape is not a crime if the rapist marries his victim.

(6)     Malta – Kidnapping is not a crime if the kidnapper marries the woman.

(7)     Nigeria – Violence by a husband to correct a wife is lawful.

(8)     Russia – Women are barred from 456 jobs, including sailor and firefighter.

(9)     Saudi Arabia – Women are prohibited from driving.

(10) Yemen – A wife is subject to the husband's wishes.

Granting without conceding that half the world's population is women and they are all discriminated upon. If you look at Emma's list, the discrimination is not bad at all!

Now, look at the discrimination against half of the world's population, women included, 3 billion plus people, living on less than $2.50 a day (Anup Shah, 07 January 2013, globalissues.org). Poverty amidst plenty, now that's world-class discrimination! Think of the enormous sufferings. Very Rich amidst the Very Poor. Unforgivable. The women who protest gender discrimination, who protest the pro-life movement, are only interested in their bodies, not in their humanity, not in their family. The ladies protest too much!

Ladies, please empty your head of inferior thinking. You're important, but not that important. I mean, the welfare of the family is more important than your individual rights; the welfare of the village is more important than individual family rights.

Why do we continue to have the poor with us? Because we continue to have poor thinking, like we think of "sexual discrimination," which given the benefit of a doubt we can call a venial sin, by Roman Catholic standards. It is not found in the list of the Deadly Sins, or Cardinal Sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.

But Greed is listed, and so much greed explains so much poverty. "The American Dream" is greed romanticized. Gender discrimination is The American Dream sexualized, even if you're not American.

And "income inequality" is The American Dream camouflaged. Inequality is not the question; the gap between the rich and the poor is not the question – it is the symptom, not the cause of the disease of poverty. It stands to reason that equality will not cure the disease, only treat it.

"'Inclusive capitalism' is market agenda to ease income inequality," says Juan T Gatbonton (31 January 2015, manilatimes.net). Right, JT. You're just easing the inequality, not removing the cause. "Reducing inequality before it sets off social conflict is the great challenge for both governments and the market system." Twice right, JT. But it's still a palliative measure; you are not going to kill the big tree that gives the bad fruits if you do not strike at the roots.

No, JT, you're wrong in saying that the "rich-poor gap (is) the great issue of the twenty-first century" – it actually has been the issue since the time of Jesus, and even before. Did not Jesus say? "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24, NRSV). The rich have always followed Ayn Rand's decree on "The Virtue of Selfishness" and have never learned "The Virtue of Unselfishness." It is love that makes the world go round; it is greed that makes the world go crazy.

Do I mean that we will just have to rely on the mercy and compassion of the rich so that the poor we will not always have with us? No. Neither are we wise, as JT seems to suggest, to follow the German example:

In Germany, the state intervenes in the economy mainly to prevent the formation of monopolies or oligopolies. The state structures the economy, but does not dictate it. To prevent capital from overwhelming labor, government also seeks to build strong workers' associations and strong civil society. In sum, the "social market" seeks to combine the virtues of the market with those of the social welfare system. In recent years, German political foundations have sought to popularize the social market concept in the developing world.

JT also says, "In the United States, 'inclusive capitalism' has become the new political buzzword. It is a market-oriented economic agenda to ease rising income inequality." JT, you know the game – once a politician, always a politician. They play politics; they even play with words.

Instead of combining the best features of "inclusive capitalism" of the United States and the "social market" of Germany and complicating the already complicated, instead of restructuring government and building workers' unions, I dare say:

To emancipate the poor from poverty, we must empower civil society to pursue inclusive market capitalism.

Yes, inclusive market capitalism, my term, which is so much unlike the American or the German models or a combination. Truth to tell, I borrowed from the concept that is 5 years old and known as the "inclusive market-oriented development" or the IMOD concept of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), which is based in India. IMOD was developed and refined during the 15-year (2000-2014) servant leadership of the great Filipino servant leader William Dollente DAR as Director General. IMOD dictates that the poor be included in the active process of development, including and especially marketing, that the poor producers do the marketing themselves directly or through a group tied to a bank indirectly.

Learning from the IMOD, for my inclusive market capitalism, I found a vehicle that has been there in the Philippines since the passage of RA 9520 on 28 July 2008, which amended RA 6938 and made the group (almost) foolproof to manipulation by vested interests. The vehicle is the cooperative. RA 3938 is the Cooperative Code of the Philippines amended by RA 9520; with my idea of inclusive market capitalism, the Board of Directors of a coop is set up as representatives of various stakeholders following the model of the IMOD, I have called for the formation of inclusive cooperatives that I call the "Super Coops," with the Board composed of representatives from these sectors: public, private, philanthropic, professional, pro-science, priestly, and peasant (at least 3 representing the poor).

I must emphasize that my inclusive market capitalism is theoretically and practically different from the current American catchphrase inclusive capitalism that International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde describes thus (Dina Medland, 27 May 2014, forbes.com):

We must recognize that reducing inequality is not easy. Redistributive policies always produce winners and losers. Yet if we want capitalism to do its job – enabling as many people as possible to participate and benefit from the economy – then it needs to be more inclusive. That means addressing extreme income disparity.

Ms IMF, being mere inclusive is not enough. I repeat: My inclusive market capitalism is not reducing income inequality/disparity – it's eliminating income inequality/disparity. It's not the "inclusive growth" as described by Noynoy Aquino or as proposed by the National Economic & Development Authority (NEDA) – they're one and the same. The goal of inclusive growth is not poverty emancipation but merely poverty alleviation or poverty reduction. To emancipate is to set free; to alleviate is merely to "make the pain less intense or more bearable" (American Heritage Dictionary) and not remove it; to reduce is to merely decrease the quantity or quality and not terminate the pain.

Through inclusive cooperatives, the Super Coops, where the poor are members and are appropriately represented in the board, the marketing income goes back to the coop who represent the members, and not to the merchants who represent only themselves. You can be sure that it will always be a sellers' market; the producers will then get their just rewards, truly reaping from the sweat of their brow. Make the farmers the merchants themselves and they will be emancipated from poverty. Society will then be Rich-Rich.

And so I plead for the poor farmers:

Along the whole value chain, give the producers the values that belong to them. That is inclusive market capitalism with which, at last, we can practice The Virtue of Unselfishness. @