Political Thought, Capital And The Concept Of Sustainable Work

 

By Dr. Salam Al Rabadi

         Global political, economic and technological changes raise many question marks about the problematic relationship between the world of work, sustainable development and capital. For example, the reality of the agricultural economy is dependent on investments in vast lands and technological innovations that are controlled by transnational corporations, that is, it is the process of gradual abolition of the agricultural production system, whereby the farmer loses his social, cultural and economic identity as a producer and as a worker, to turn into a mere consumer. This fact begs the following question: 

Will the development of the economy and technology lead to the realization of the societal sustainable development?

         In principle, the broad concept of work is not limited to the job, but rather goes beyond it to deepen the connection to the concept of sustainable work based on expanding job opportunities policies and preserving workers' rights and welfare. This is in order to have the ability to face the challenges associated with the dialectic of the gap between capital and workers, as doubts are increasing regarding the possibility of achieving equality and social justice. Based on this, it is no longer acceptable to deal with the reality of the labor market crises from the standpoint of rejection based on ideological considerations only, without having a practical vision. Where, nowadays, it is clear that what most worries the market forces is their having to define their position on a socially sustainable global project.

         In this context, there are labor and social movements that have an impact and work to confront the domination of the capitalist system and create a state of relative independence from the forces of capital. For example, the ongoing negotiations within the World Trade Organization(WTO) regarding granting workers of developing countries greater freedom of movement in the markets of developed countries can be considered a positive step in terms of:

1. Consolidate workers' rights and increase their earnings.
2. Rebalance between capital and the world of work. 

        Although no strategic alternative has been crystallized up to this moment that can compete with the pattern political and economic capitalist style, but we can say that the margin of movement available to society is always much wider than that available to the economy. The economic influence in the formation and adaptation of society is logical and highly effective, but it certainly cannot determine it. Thus, societies can be rebuilt according to a sustainable political and economic vision that, at a minimum, is capable of answering questions revolving around the dialectic of : 

Why are there so many ideas about how to distribute income and not about how to achieve it?

         In this context, even if we decided to bypass the dialectic of how to generate income and try to adopt the thesis of income distribution, we cannot ignore the problematic of modern inequality based on: 

1-     Expanding the size of private capital and disproportionately increasing the income of the rich. The gap between them and the working class is very deep and there is difficulty in bridging it.

2-       Systemic inequality "Homoploutia". Where we are now noticing the expansion of the segment of wealthy capitalists and high-wage workers (such as CEOs, financial analysts, doctors, athletes, celebrities, people who inherited a lot of assets...etc). It is a new capitalist elite which is among the richest capitalists and the richest workers as well. 

        Logically, these gaps are not likely to be easily reduced as a result of developments in artificial intelligence that lead to a reduction in labor and an increase in the accumulated share of capital. And if the only solution to these gaps  lies in a more equitable distribution of private capital by increasing tax rates or committing to raising the rate of employment of the labor force, but practically there is no tangible movement in this direction, whether in the developed or emerging economy. This fact raises question marks about: 

How is it politically possible to make the most of economic opportunities, progress and technology in a way that draws attention to the interest of disadvantaged communities and groups?

               The basic challenges lie in how to sift the rich and confront the gaps that characterize economies, here it is necessary to recognize that poverty will not be eradicated without the presence of political thought, as the nature of the market is strongly affected by political strategies, which can radically change the structure of markets in a way that can allow filling those gaps and achieving equality, not to mention enabling all classes to benefit from sustainable economic growth.

        In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that the dealing of economists and technocrats with issues of sustainable development on the basis that they have nothing to do with political ideas and the philosophy of governance, as if these issues are nothing more than exercises in applied and econometric economics, is a very dangerous matter.

It is time to change this logic and move towards combining and linking political thought and political philosophy with economic and financial thought. It is in order for countries to become more productive in terms of the quality of human sustainable societies rather than the development of things, numbers and data.

        In sum, and based on the principle of critical interaction with economic liberalism and technological development, the basic political problematic must be raised, which is based on the following question:

How can the actual existence of poverty and inequality be combated instead of hiding behind dry financial data and statistics pointing to the alleged benefits of economic growth and technological development?