Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 10:16pm
Are we serving the community or our ideology?
If a "responsible" mining company operating in a mountain community built a clinic and started providing healthcare services for the residents of its host community that have been deprived for a long time of these services mainly due to geographical factors and poor governance, why on earth do some individuals whom they called themselves as "development workers" are more concern on defining the act whether it is really a practice of Corporate Social Responsibility or a dole-out, a show, or merely a philanthropic act? Why on earth do they can still confidently conclude that business and human rights are diametrically opposed?
Why on earth does burning of mining companies' equipment and killing its people by the so called vanguard of the masses are justified means to a particular end? Why on earth do individuals we consistently see shouting in the street for some human rights abuses and violations committed by the state or by a certain corporation are silent in this kind of doing? Destroying properties and killing are both grave violations of human rights. Period. No need here of any Karl Marx's dictums or whatsoever.
Years ago, I got possessed also by some nihilistic ideologies. I used to see all things/realities then as product of conflicts arising between those who owns the means of production and who sells labour or between who owns the land and who tills it. Everything is chaotic and struggle leading to revolution is inevitable. Capitalism is evil. Capitalism will be collapsing eventually due to its destructive nature and Communism as a new system/order will be installed. Anything that would not fit into this kinf of mindset is a farce. I was doubtful of everything then. Sa salitang kanto pa para akong sabog na laging tamang hinala sa mga nangyayari dahil hindi nga ito naaayon sa ideyolohiyang pinaniniwalaan ko.
However, things changed. Society has changed. Capitalism has changed. So did I.
And this one particular wave of positive change within the Capitalist system which I'm pointing out is the birthing of CSR. For Bill Gates it's "Creative Capitalism."
CSR, though it has numerous names and definitions, is just all about doing business ethically and embracing responsibility for the company's actions and ensure a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. It is also a deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making and honouring of a tripple bottom line: people, planet, profit.
CSR is providing huge opportunity to address those issues and doubts we have in Capitalism. There is no Devine decree on what CSR is or how it should be done. Thus, we can continuously define and influence how it should be. WE MUST WELCOME CHANGE AS THE RULE BUT NOT AS OUR RULER.
Unfortunately, for the living armies of Marx and some slaves of nihilism, CSR is nothing but a "deodorant" of Capitalism (especially if it's being practiced in the mining industry). It is viewed as a phenomenon to be doubted and opposed rather than a kind of positive change which is happening within the system of Capitalism thus, an opportunity which must be siezed to advance the goal of development. Change brings opportunity.
Yes. There are still a lot of things to fix in Capitalism. However, there are also a lot of positive changes happening in this system that need to be appreciated and capitalized. This is one way of moving forward and living the very essence of "w-o-r-k-i-n-g" for development.
On the other hand, I know very well that CSR is not an all-encompassing reality yet in the entire gamut of socio-economic system.
However, to see all things as a problem because they don't fit in our ideology is like pursuing development the way Sisyphus is trying to bring a boulder up on a hill.
Tomorrow or in five year time surely things will change again and I would not think twice adjusting or changing as well the way i see things. Ideologies must do change.
So, what's my ideology now? Neo-Capitalism? Postmodernism? I don't know and I don't care defining it or changing it through time either. "Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change," Confucius said.
I do not serve any antediluvian ideology anymore but rather I serve the community and this country in its pursuit of development using human rights as my framework.
POSTSCRIPT:
Development for me is best discussed by Michael Todaro and that it is "a multidimensional process involving changes in structures, institutions, and attitudes as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of absolute poverty. Development must represent the entire gamut of changes by which an entire social system, tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory, and moves towards a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually ‘better’."
With this definition, it is very clear that the pursuit of development is not a mere choice between Capitalism and Communism or about supremacy of certain ideology. The challenge therefore for all of us in the field of development is to be open to change and come up with alternatives.
If a "responsible" mining company operating in a mountain community built a clinic and started providing healthcare services for the residents of its host community that have been deprived for a long time of these services mainly due to geographical factors and poor governance, why on earth do some individuals whom they called themselves as "development workers" are more concern on defining the act whether it is really a practice of Corporate Social Responsibility or a dole-out, a show, or merely a philanthropic act? Why on earth do they can still confidently conclude that business and human rights are diametrically opposed?
Why on earth does burning of mining companies' equipment and killing its people by the so called vanguard of the masses are justified means to a particular end? Why on earth do individuals we consistently see shouting in the street for some human rights abuses and violations committed by the state or by a certain corporation are silent in this kind of doing? Destroying properties and killing are both grave violations of human rights. Period. No need here of any Karl Marx's dictums or whatsoever.
Years ago, I got possessed also by some nihilistic ideologies. I used to see all things/realities then as product of conflicts arising between those who owns the means of production and who sells labour or between who owns the land and who tills it. Everything is chaotic and struggle leading to revolution is inevitable. Capitalism is evil. Capitalism will be collapsing eventually due to its destructive nature and Communism as a new system/order will be installed. Anything that would not fit into this kinf of mindset is a farce. I was doubtful of everything then. Sa salitang kanto pa para akong sabog na laging tamang hinala sa mga nangyayari dahil hindi nga ito naaayon sa ideyolohiyang pinaniniwalaan ko.
However, things changed. Society has changed. Capitalism has changed. So did I.
And this one particular wave of positive change within the Capitalist system which I'm pointing out is the birthing of CSR. For Bill Gates it's "Creative Capitalism."
CSR, though it has numerous names and definitions, is just all about doing business ethically and embracing responsibility for the company's actions and ensure a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. It is also a deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making and honouring of a tripple bottom line: people, planet, profit.
CSR is providing huge opportunity to address those issues and doubts we have in Capitalism. There is no Devine decree on what CSR is or how it should be done. Thus, we can continuously define and influence how it should be. WE MUST WELCOME CHANGE AS THE RULE BUT NOT AS OUR RULER.
Unfortunately, for the living armies of Marx and some slaves of nihilism, CSR is nothing but a "deodorant" of Capitalism (especially if it's being practiced in the mining industry). It is viewed as a phenomenon to be doubted and opposed rather than a kind of positive change which is happening within the system of Capitalism thus, an opportunity which must be siezed to advance the goal of development. Change brings opportunity.
Yes. There are still a lot of things to fix in Capitalism. However, there are also a lot of positive changes happening in this system that need to be appreciated and capitalized. This is one way of moving forward and living the very essence of "w-o-r-k-i-n-g" for development.
On the other hand, I know very well that CSR is not an all-encompassing reality yet in the entire gamut of socio-economic system.
However, to see all things as a problem because they don't fit in our ideology is like pursuing development the way Sisyphus is trying to bring a boulder up on a hill.
Tomorrow or in five year time surely things will change again and I would not think twice adjusting or changing as well the way i see things. Ideologies must do change.
So, what's my ideology now? Neo-Capitalism? Postmodernism? I don't know and I don't care defining it or changing it through time either. "Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change," Confucius said.
I do not serve any antediluvian ideology anymore but rather I serve the community and this country in its pursuit of development using human rights as my framework.
POSTSCRIPT:
Development for me is best discussed by Michael Todaro and that it is "a multidimensional process involving changes in structures, institutions, and attitudes as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of absolute poverty. Development must represent the entire gamut of changes by which an entire social system, tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory, and moves towards a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually ‘better’."
With this definition, it is very clear that the pursuit of development is not a mere choice between Capitalism and Communism or about supremacy of certain ideology. The challenge therefore for all of us in the field of development is to be open to change and come up with alternatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment