As manager of a branch office, I received a call one day from
my boss in head office. He informed me that he had received instructions
from the president of the company (who in turn was instructed by the board
of directors) to reduce management personnel in his section by 25%. I was
safe, he hastened to assure me, although my heart had already jumped to my
throat, but he had to decide immediately which ten people would be let go.
He wanted my opinion concerning his short-list. Although we were scattered
around different cities of the world, all the people concerned were, if not
intimate friends, at least friendly colleagues. I had no desire to share
the boss's anguish at having to decide. A quick calculation of my income,
which was far in excess of my needs, reduced by 25%, led me to make what
seemed to me to be a logical suggestion. Why not ask everyone if they would
voluntarily take a 25% cut? The result in company saving would be practically
the same. For us, the work was there and we were already lean in relation
to it. The reduction in personnel was dictated by purely financial considerations
and was instigated by a new Financial Director anxious to make a name for
himself. There was a long pause at the other end of the line as my superior
calculated his own reduction. Then he said that he doubted the idea would
be accepted higher up, but that he would consult and let me know. He called
back the same day to inform me that my suggestion had been seriously considered
at the highest level, that my interest was greatly appreciated, etc., but
that the idea had been rejected. The reason given was that a person was
considered to be worth what he earned and if we reduced management salaries
it would mean that we were all worth less, would be that much less motivated
and our production would be reduced accordingly. I told him that was absurd.
He agreed, but that's the way it was.
Although tax systems require us to cede a portion of
the "proceeds of our efforts" to the community, in the case of the rich as
individuals and corporate organizations it is a small portion and contributes
little or nothing towards the just distribution of wealth. Nor can it be taken
for granted that a graduated income tax system is intrinsically beneficial.
It is no secret that the wealth of the world is concentrated in the hands
of very few and that the majority of the human beings live either in poverty
or abject poverty. The capitalist prediction that an increase in production
will bring prosperity to all has been disproved by reality, just as the
Marxist prediction that a social utopia can be obtained by the worker state
expropriating the means of production (capital) and administering it has
been disproved by the same inexorable judge. Although it is true that the
populations of certain more favored countries of the "first world" have
benefited materially from increases in production, it is also true that
economic activities are no longer national, but world-wide. Therefore, while
Switzerland and Sweden prosper, Somalia and Guatemala suffer in inverse
proportion.
The "mixed" economy - part state owned, part privately
owned - seems only to incorporate the worst of both systems. The state is
eminently incapable of operating economically viable enterprises. As governments
are obliged to reduce losses, the tendency is towards privatization, thereby
strengthening the capitalist system and increasing the size of the gap between
rich and poor.
The principal argument in favor of capitalism is motivation.
The entrepreneur is motivated by profit. The manager is motivated by his
high salary, the worker by whatever he earns plus fear of losing his job.
But what if motivation is not merely a function of money
and greed? What, then, is the true motivation? In order to know, it is necessary
to also know something of human psychology, not the psychology derived from
the study of the behavior of rats, but from the observation of human beings
outside the laboratory. If we believe that the human being is the most developed
animal we are at a dead end and the carrot and stick Social Darwinists are
right. But if man is more than that, if he has a soul and spirit and is
capable of acting from motives which exceed those dictated by instinct,
then we are obviously on the wrong track when we suppose that he will react
to the same stimuli as a laboratory guinea pig. If some reader expects me
now to "prove" that man has a soul and/or spirit, I must disappoint him.
I cannot cite one single laboratory experiment that provides such proof.
Nor, however, can anyone prove the contrary. Neither intelligence nor education
can provide the answer, as there are many very intelligent, educated people
on both sides of the question. If their training and intellectual capacities
were decisive, they would all agree, but they don't.
Are we at an impasse? Not necessarily. In order to show
why, I will explain what I mean by "soul" and "spirit". The soul is that
part of the human being which feels and is conscious. I see a beautiful landscape
with my eyes, but the pleasure it brings me is felt by my soul. Inversely,
the pain I feel at the sight of starving children is also a function of
my soul. That another might not feel pain, but pleasure, or might even enjoy
torturing another human being, merely indicates that his soul has developed
differently; has taken an abnormal, sub-human or pathological path. Even
the physical pain felt as the result of receiving a blow is, in reality,
felt by the soul. (When consciousness is absent, there is no feeling.) Sensation
and consciousness are shared, to a lesser degree, by the animals, and if
our thesis is that there is a fundamental difference between them and human
beings, it is necessary to define this difference. The spirit in this context
is the immortal "I", or Self, of each individual. This individual Self not
only thinks, an attribute of man alone, but also intuits. Intuition is hard
to define and in any case has several meanings. Here I mean that unconscious
knowledge which dimly emerges into consciousness at dispersed, short-lived
intervals. It tells us that such things as soul and spirit exist and that
life has a far greater meaning than we have ever guessed. It is sparked
by a chance encounter, a piece of music, a poem, a book, a tree. For an
instant we are different, we know, we intuit; then it disappears like the
flame of a candle blown out by someone behind us.
Motivation is a function of soul and spirit. At the
soul level, I want recognition, decent working conditions and pay, the possibility
to share in decisions and organize my own activities, a friendly social
atmosphere. The spirit is more demanding. It wants to know the meaning of
my activities, it wants responsibility towards others. It wants to work
for others more than for myself. That these desires are unconscious does
not make them less real, only more difficult to realize.
This is an existential question. Some may agree that
intuition tells us that the above or something similar is true. Others may
reject such a assumption outright. But a third possibility also exists,
along the lines of Kiergegaard's
Either/Or. If my intuition tells
me nothing (or if I can't hear it), I should weigh the consequences of acting,
on the one hand, as though it were not true and on the other as if it were.
If I act according to a rejection of the spiritual nature of man I can,
if I dedicate some thought to my situation, only end in despair, for life
has no meaning and death is the end of the road. But if I act according
to the hypothesis that I have a spiritual nature, and that spirit is immortal,
it could have far-reaching consequences. It could even result in the conviction
that my Self is destined to reincarnate on the earth in order to continue
its development. In any case, it means that life has meaning and each of
us has a need to know, or at least intuit this meaning. And it means that
my neighbor or co-worker also has a spiritual nature and is striving for
the same development as myself. In this case, do I help him to develop his
Self and to take the first steps along the path to freedom -- or do I exploit
him?
If intuition finally convinces me of the reality of
the spirit, my motivation and perception of the motivation of others change
radically. No longer is it possible to believe that motivation is governed
exclusively by greed. The deeper human motivational needs are rather related
to the need to help others. If this sounds like hopelessly muddled idealism
unrelated to reality, I suggest that we try to envisage an expanded world
community in which the objective of work is to benefit others. (In fact,
this is the case if we consider that what one person or group of persons
produce, others consume.) The well-being of all would doubtless increase
immeasurably. The objection that man is intrinsically an egotist and would
never be able to put such an objective into practice is pre-judgmental.
It would at least have to be tried --despite all the known obstacles -- before
it can be judged impossible.
FTS