By Dr. Salam Al Rabadi
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.
Where 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?
It seems clear that 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:
·
Consolidate workers’ rights
and increase their earnings.
·
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:
·
The expansion of the size of
private capital and the disproportionate increase in the income of the rich. Where the gap between
them and the working class is very deep and there is difficulty in bridging
it.
·
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). This is a new capitalist elite
consisting of the richest capitalists and the richest workers (senior
employees).
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. 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
maximize economic and technological opportunities in a sustainable manner that
serves the interests of societies, particularly the most disadvantaged and
impoverished marginalized 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 political
reflection. The nature of the economic system is strongly influenced by
political strategies capable of radically changing the structure of markets.
This can help reduce these gaps and achieve equality, not to mention allowing
all classes to benefit from sustainable economic growth.
In
light of the above, it is clear that it is extremely dangerous for
economists and technocrats to treat sustainable development issues as if they
are unrelated to political ideas and the philosophy of governance, and as if
they are merely exercises in Applied economics and Econometrics. It is
time to change this logic and move towards combining and linking 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, based on the principle of critical
interaction with economic liberalism and technological development, we must
address the fundamental political dilemma, 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?
