"In moral accounting, First World's the debtor"
By Professor Robert Jensen
April 16, 2000

As the protests in the streets of Washington, DC, unfold on Sunday at the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank meeting, the focus will be on
complex fiscal and monetary policy questions. But the underlying struggle is
over more basic questions:
 

What is an economy for, and what does it mean to be a human being in the
modern world?
 

Is an economy simply a system and set of institutions to maximize production
no matter what the cost to people and the planet? Or should the goal of an
economy be to create conditions under which free human beings can tap their
creative potential and work collectively to fashion a sustainable world?
 

Is money the only measure of value, or does real wealth come from the living
capital of the planet?
 

Do we judge an economy solely on market values? Or do solidarity, compassion
and love have a place -- not just in our families and intimate lives, but in
public as well, in the way we collectively define ourselves?
 

These issues arose when a political colleague and I recently debated two
business school professors on the question of corporate responsibility.
During the discussion, I talked about the sadness that I so often feel
living in a society in which such human values are not only marginalized but
mocked because they are inconsistent with the demands of the economy. The
most vulnerable -- the poor, children, the aged, the sick -- suffer most
from this state of affairs. But we all suffer because the conception of
human nature inherent in our economy is so debased.
 

Make no mistake: The view of human nature that underlies corporate
capitalism is inhumane and anti-human. We are told that people will respond
only to crass self-interest and greed, and hence our economic institutions
are built on that notion. Then, when people often do act on self-interest
and greed in a system that rewards such behavior, we are told, " look at
how greedy people are."

It is our task not to accept such facile logic, to reject former British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's famous dictate "There is no alternative.?"
There are, of course, alternatives. There is nothing natural or inevitable
about capitalism and its underlying assertions about human nature.
 

We all have experienced situations in which we put aside crass calculations
about self-interest and acted out of a sense of solidarity, an understanding
that to be fully human means meaningful connection with others. We also all
have been, at some time, selfish and greedy. Both are part of human nature.
The question is, do we build institutions that encourage our capacity for
kindness or for cruelty?
 

An economy is the product of human choices. By definition, we can choose
differently. For example, we can choose to eliminate IMF and World Bank
lending policies that undercut education, health and social services in the
developing world in order to maximize profits in the developed world. We can
simply abandon these ?tructural adjustment?policies, which adjust the
lives of ordinary people downward.
 

We can realize that a minimal sense of justice means the First World must
forgive the debt it has imposed on the Third World and begin to talk about a
real moral accounting for colonialism through the First World paying
reparations.
 

And, when our collective moral imagination has developed enough, we can
begin to design a world in which corporations are not allowed to trample
over people in pursuit of profits.
 

That world may not be as far away as we think. After our business school
debate, an MBA student came up to me and thanked us for being willing to
speak before a group that was so hostile to our message.
"I don't agree with everything you said, and I am going to go into
 business,"he told me. Then his voice wavered a bit, and he said, "But what
you said touched me."

That moment -- a connection between two people, standing in a building
constructed to teach people to honor greed -- touched me as well. It was a
reminder of those other values, of the possibility of alternatives. The only
question is whether together we have the courage to create them.
 

Jensen is a professor in the Department of Journalism at the University of
Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. Other
writings are available online at
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance.