Many people are becoming cynical to call rich celebrities on the Live 8 concerts for an end to poverty. I do not care about questioning the sincerity of people like Bob Geldof, in relation to alleviate Africa's woes. Call into question the intelligence of their strategy is something else entirely. Geldof called anarchists participating in the protests against the G8 "idiots". What a brilliant strategy has he?
criticism of what they are doing the rock star often tend to be accused of themselves as rich, the nature of their challenges and the means to achieve their goals. Does it matter how you earn and how they spend money. Even supporters of Live 8 took the time to think about it. One contributor, writing for the UK IMC did so, complaining about the hypocrisy of David Beckham, wage earner by performing millions in advertising for the products of slave factories, Nike and Adidas, who appeared at Live 8 to support "ending poverty".
Much more important is the misunderstanding of basic mechanisms of poverty prevailing among many liberals and incredibly naive about people, which they view this as a key figure in the fight against poverty, particularly from within government agencies and large corporations. Like all liberals, believers in the solution above, go "to the people who can change things", despite their historic tendency not to. Them, nor does the basic thing that probably people who benefit most from poverty, others are not the ones who will fight against it. They do not understand it either, as the instrumental function of human beings to fill the state and corporations. If you agree to work to eliminate poverty, then just because of that could otherwise benefit - new consumers opening up valuable new markets and labor force may be more attractive and more tractable.
One of the people, which we rock stars think they can "change things" because they are damn rich Bill Gates. It's so insanely wealthy that could afford to pay employees at Microsoft, and much more ease and customers - even though it would not be so rich that he could afford to give charitable donations. Why is Bill so willingly donate money to Africans suffering from AIDS, not people who work for him? Rock stars singing praises to the generosity of his soul seemed to buy their own guilt. They are so convinced of the cleansing power of the Act donating their wealth that is suspended above it, when they hear what Bill else do business in Africa. Gates, for example, spent $ 25,000,000 for research, whether the project would be the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the World Bank in Africa could not be imported genetically modified foods. Another 50 million U.S. dollars spent on the lobbying among African governments to loosen restrictions on food imports and to help U.S. food giants to dominate the African market.
How can diminish poverty imports of genetically modified food in Africa know about only some of the corporate food industry. It is surprising that rock stars are so stupid or believe that you first have a rich mizerům afford some money, so from that then they can give something.
But when you hear about the meeting U2 frontman, Bono, with Jeffrey Sachs, guru of neoliberal economics, they would tear up the alarm siren. Called Sachs plans mileniární Development Goals for the rock star seems to be what is on paper: a plan for creating wealth, jobs, education attainment. Whether But wherever he Sachs, helped introduce economic reforms, which only deepened the divide between rich and poor, and increased the percentage of the poor. Sachs, of course, all plans are hidden behind manipulative statistics, in which the rock star of course bearings. For people like Bono is probably the only important that the people could afford to pay 1,500 crowns per ticket on his recent concert in Poland.
Some commentators have concluded that a shadow player in the Live 8 concerts and marches "Make Poverty History" was itself the British Government and if this were true, would not be so shocking. The question remains: why Africa, why now? Africa's last great untouched consumer market? Africa is a potential market of labor? Rich figured that the consequences of war and refugee waves are too serious? Or all at once obsessed with humanitarian passion?
rich white people for a very long drawn development plans for Africa. The central role is usually played by trade and business, but such programs have historically brought difficult for someone outside the circle of colonial and corporate owners. Movement manifesto "Make Poverty History" points out that trade restrictions are one of the factors detrimental to African economies. It may be true, but if the economic wealth concentrated in few hands, then store all neuleví poverty. It is of course a lot of people who fully supports free trade with Africa, including all major oil companies, Citicorp Banking Corporation, Bank of America or the big chains stores like the Gap or K-Mart. They all see the benefits for business - but only for himself. As for the real fight against poverty, all pseudoekonomických theories lies in the Reagan era.
In Africa there are many people who constantly point out that economic theory, drawn from the rich world's first rescue of Africa, always ended by establishing a worse situation. In the fifties and sixties started to pour money into Africa for development programs and what is the situation today? In most regional poverty levels greatly increased. Few political figures have joined the two phenomena and realize what is still the same interests lie behind the alleged attempt to end poverty in Africa. Known exception is Jesse Jackson, who, after realizing the situation, withdrew its support for the complete liberalization of trade with Africa and began on the bill, "NAFTA for Africa" \u200b\u200b(NAFTA - A plan to create the North American Free Trade Agreement) as expressing the "laws recolonisation of Africa. "
economy does not benefit the people of the meaning of the gross amount of investment or trade, but only and only if the working people themselves use the results of their work. If you create social wealth, from which the mines, which have to reinvest and administer and others for their own interests, then there is no any improvement. Social wealth that people must manage themselves in their communities and use it to improve the quality of life for all. This fact does not invalidate-argued. No flow of investments, no sovereign debt relief - nothing this situation would never do not enter, though it may - and highly questionable - to bring minor improvements. Charity is only a flimsy bandage on a festering wound of capitalism.
Twenty years ago, appeared the same projects - such as Band Aid. Not doubting the intentions of millions of people who contributed their money and hoping they do a good thing. But how they see themselves rock stars, despite their initiatives against poverty, the situation does not improve, quite the contrary. You might think that the twenty years they provided a lesson that understanding, what have the honor and began to realize that the door pleading with governments and corporations are historically absolutely absurd. Or do you think the impact of social influence of gang rascal make decent people? I do not know, I really do not know. A rock star Sir Bob Geldof still has the audacity to call anarchists, protesters against the G8 meeting in Scotland idiots.
0 comments:
Post a Comment