Success and failure

MIAMI – If a “have” laughs at a “have-not” and despises him, we say that the person is arrogant and not high-minded, even if he or she wears elevated shoes. If we see more and more people behave that badly, we can suspect that the whole thing is the product of a mass culture more than an individual instance.

We live in a system that, from the earliest years, teaches us values based on a competitive struggle for individual progress, so being kind, compassionate and supportive is almost a contrary value that few dare to practice.

In our public schools, the illustrated textbooks teach us to count not with oranges or tomatoes but with coins and bills. This way, our vision of the world tends to rely on the calculations that supposedly lead to a successful social life based on money.

It seems that the thing has to do with private property, but I want to turn the issue around and see if, besides the verb “to have,” we can analyze the verb “to be.”

To be selfish doesn’t make you rich, is not profitable and almost always ends up ruining your character and interpersonal relations. Even so, a “culture of greed” to promote consumption needs individuals that compete at all times.

One of the pillars of the market economy is competitiveness. The assumption is that everyone should compete and that their struggle generates economic growth. Karl Marx spoke about that struggle of opposites and the certain development it develops, but the apologists of capitalism, much more influenced by a Darwinism that’s adapted to the interests of the affluent classes, emphasized the success of the most capable individuals, reaching extremes such as the physical elimination of the less capable ones during the Nazi movement, when the powerful German capitalism fell into a crisis.

Competition among individuals is contrary to solidarity, and if the people keep to themselves, not only the labor unions and the mass groups are neutralized but also the labor classes become vulnerable. The result is that the poor people submerged in individualism will only have eyes to continue to compare themselves and compete with their comrades in misfortune, losing track of those who exploit those divisions.

The rich also compete, but never in an individual manner, rather, in economic blocks. Corporations, in a world of multinationals, increasingly become organisms not directed by a single capitalist but by an ensemble of professionals who work as a team against the rest of society.

Turn on the private TV, watch several commercials and you’ll see how people’s opinions are used to push the consumer into competition with his neighbor, work colleague, friends or relatives.

Success and failure are elevated to a category that’s absolute and superior to other existential questions. Naturally, lies are told with relation to the number of successful individuals, so that the majority will not be able to prosper in that race nor have the ability to understand that the system is bad.

Each one will blame himself in isolation as the only person responsible for the failure, while one percent of the citizenry, the rich people, will continue to profit from the collective efforts of a mass that urgently needs to become aware of its just leading role.