You are here

The Revolution (of dignity) will not be noticed

"While the vast majority of people in poverty suffer quietly and with little protest, it is not safe to assume that everyone will react the same way. When in defence of family and friends, it is completely predictable that it should be only a matter of time until uprisings become sufficient to imperil an entire nation or region of the world. People with nothing have nothing to lose. Poverty was therefore deemed not only a moral catastrophe but also a time bomb waiting to explode"

Strange words perhaps, to find in a business plan. This however was not a conventional business; rather one which took a stand for human rights and a living wage. . It had argued that capitalism in its current form was insufficent, in failing to meet the needs of the  poorest.

"Dealing with poverty is nothing new. The question became ‘how does poverty still exist in a world with sufficient resources for a decent quality of life for everyone?’ The answer was that we have yet to develop any economic system capable redistributing finite resources in a way that everyone has at minimum enough for a decent life: food, decent housing, transportation, clothing, health care, and education. The problem has not been lack of resources, but adequate distribution of resources. Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine ever devised, yet it came up short with its classical, inherent profit-motive as being presumed to be the driving force. Under that presumption, all is good in the name of profit became the prevailing winds of international economies — thereby giving carte blanche to the notion that greed is good because it is what has driven capitalism. The 1996 paper merely took exception with the assumption that personal profit, greed, and the desire to amass as much money and property on a personal level as possible are inherent and therefore necessary aspects of any capitalist endeavour. While it is in fact very normal for that to be the case, it simply does not follow that it must be the case."

It was 2004,and within 7 years we saw the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall street erupt.

It all began in 1996 when the warning was first made to US President Bill Clinton, :

14. Manipulation of numbers, represented by currency/money, allows writing “new” money as needed.  There is no tangible asset, or anchor.  There are only numbers, managed by whomever might maneuver into position to do so.  Economics came to be based on numbers, rather than real human beings.

15. On that basis, capitalism trumped people and therefore trumped democracy.  Democracy is about people, who since Descartes are considered necessarily real, rather than numbers which are not necessarily real.  An imaginary construct, numbers, rule a real construct, people.  That arrangement allows for disposal of real human beings, in the name of the imaginary construct.

16. Capitalism nevertheless remains the most powerful economic system ever devised.  The problem is not with the construct.  The problem is with the output of the construct, wherein imaginary constructs – numbers, and currencies represented symbolically by numbers – are left to control real human beings to the material benefit of relatively few people and to the exclusion of many others.  Classical capitalism has reached equilibrium in this regard.  However, and consequently, many and growing numbers of human beings are excluded in the realm of finite resources hoarded by those most adept with manipulating numbers/currencies.

17. This is where we find ourselves at the advent of the third age of human civilization – the Information Age, following from the Agriculture Age and the Industrial Age.  We are for the first time in human history in position to take note of where we are and what we are doing to and with each other.  Or, not.

18. Modifying the output of capitalism is the only method available to resolving the problem of capitalism where numbers trumped people – at the hands of people trained toward profit represented only by numbers and currencies rather than human beings.  Profit rules, people are expendable commodities represented by numbers.  The solution, and only solution, is to modify that output, measuring profit in terms of real human beings instead of numbers.

19. We can choose to not reform capitalism, leave human beings to die from deprivation – where we are now – and understand that that puts people in self-defense mode.

20. When in self-defense mode, kill or be killed, there is no civilization at all.  It is the law of the jungle, where we started eons ago.  In that context, 'terrorism' will likely flourish because it is 'terrorism' only for the haves, not for the have-nots.  The have-nots already live in terror, as their existence is threatened by deprivation, and they have the right to fight back any way they can.

21. 'They' will fight back, and do.

Unwelcone and refused re-entry to the UK by the end of 2004, he'd find himself in the middle of a real revolution when the author returned to  Ukraine, to align with local anti-corruption activists.  A year earlier, unaware of the simmering revolt he'd made a challenge to Ukraine's government with an Op-Ed piece for the Kyiv Post.     

"I find myself totally disgusted. Have Ukrainians no spine, no dignity or pride? If I offend Ukrainians, tough! Get a grip and listen up.
There is no good reason for children to be starving and suffering in Ukraine. The only reason it happens is that Ukrainians are all wimps who are utterly helpless to do anything other than accept their ‘fate’ likes sheep. Kids starving? Yes, that’s just how it is, and nothing can be done about it. That seems to be the prevailing opinion.
In fact, something can be done about it, but Ukrainians – every single one of you – are unmotivated to do anything that does not immediately benefit yourself, your family and perhaps your friends. Sure, I know you feel bad about starving kids. You should feel bad. In fact, you should feel terrible."
 
In 2005, Russia's reaction to Ukraine breaking away from its sphere of influence had been economic pressures on fuel to which PM Tymoshenko responded to protect those most affected. This prompted a claim that she was 'Betraying a Revolution' from the neoliberal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
'Really Betraying a Revolution' was the authors response, via the medium  of Maidan's civic activists
 
"Elimination of graft and corruption, and raising the overall standard of living for ALL Ukrainians rather than a few insanely greedy oligarch clans, was the main underlying and implied reason for the Orange Revolution – at least from hundreds of people, activists and otherwise, I talked with on the ground during and after the Revolution.  Further, as director for any sort of peace institute, Mr. Aslund is obliged to review the connection between poverty and peace.  Peace does not and cannot exist for people in poverty, unless they are harshly suppressed by government or other forces.  Poverty is a horrible existence and lifestyle, and is bound to breed violence, not peace.
Therefore, it is appropriate to question, how, precisely, fulfilling the very things that the revolution was about constitutes “betrayal of a revolution.”  Betrayal would be to NOT take those actions."
 
In 2006, a direct challenge to the dark heart of capitalism came with the Death Camps for Children article which exposed profiteering actitvities within the system of institutional childcare.  It would describe a culture of NGOs being coopted into silence through fear. 
 
Opening up the reality of that situation resulted in threats against me and anyone else interfering with that system.  I came under direct assault by tax police, government’s primary enforcement arm if anyone steps out of line.  This is not a research activity where many, if any, other people dared to participate.  UNICEF was willfully blind to the matter because it was just too dangerous to bother to intercede  Powerful interests remained entrenched with enforcers to make it dangerous.  Jurists were correct, in my view.  It was more a mafia operation than anything else, aimed at misappropriation and laundering of large money.  That was perfectly congruent with how Ukraine operated before the revolution.  USAID wanted nothing to do with it, nor would they fund any organizations or activists who might try.  Some things could be done and some things could not be done.  Helping these children was something that could not be done.  So, I exposed it and made it the central focus and metric of Ukraine’s microeconomic development blueprint.  In that context, it was far more difficult to ignore, dismiss, or argue about.  For about six months, I really did not expect to survive.  Nevertheless, Ukraine’s government finally conceded the point and announced the opening of more than four hundred new treatment centers for children who were theretofore invisible under tight and deadly enforcement.”
 
The blueprint referred to above was a 'Marshall Plan for Ukraine which was first delivered to Ukraine's government and then published online when a hijack attempt seemed imminent.in August 2007.
 
“This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for “people-centered” economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine’s poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a “top-down” approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first — not secondarily, along the way or by the way. “
 
It was in February 2008, 6 months before the implosion of capitalism when we called on USAID, their embassy in Ukraine and the Council on Foreign Relations to support this alternative approach "where profits and/or aid money are put to use in investment vehicles with the singular purpose of helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people".
 
We called for their support for an anti-corrution network - It was disregarded in their response, to say there was no budget for handicapped and mentally retarderd children.
 

"By leaving people in poverty, at risk of their lives due to lack of basic living essentials, we have stepped across the boundary of civilization. We have conceded that these people do not matter, are not important. Allowing them to starve to death, freeze to death, die from deprivation, or simply shooting them, is in the end exactly the same thing. Inflicting or allowing poverty on a group of people or an entire country is a formula for disaster.

These points were made to the President of the United States near the end of 1996. They were heard, appreciated and acted upon, but unfortunately, were not able to be addressed fully and quickly due primarily to political inertia. By way of September 11, 2001 attacks on the US out of Afghanistan – on which the US and the former Soviet Union both inflicted havoc, destruction, and certainly poverty – I rest my case. The tragedy was proof of all I warned about, but, was no more tragedy than that left behind to a people in an far corner of the world whom we thought did not matter and whom we thought were less important than ourselves.

We were wrong."

US government took the disaster option.