Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

BJ Wischman Mr. Pearson Social Justice 24.April.

2013 Relation of Social Structure and Injustice As evidenced by the progression of Capitalist countries through the course of modern history, it appears as if societies cycle between two phases of Capitalism; the first being a period of industrial acceleration, and then followed by a second period of social re-stabilization to adapt to the changes brought by former. Both parts of this cycle are essential to the other for the success of the system, and therefore any nation's economy based on it to safely push forward and either update and maintain a current economical stance or to work to catch up and establish a more advantageous stance in relation to its competition in the global economy, an economy which is currently based on Capitalism. The notion of competition within Capitalism is intensified by the uncertainty of success brought on by the challenge of balancing the relationship between the aspect of risk versus reward inside of Capitalism. By nature, the leaders of this system are discovered by the principle of natural selection within Capitalism, because only the strongest and smartest have the ability enforce what they view as the ideal approach to maximize the advantages of Capitalism, which is key in setting the foundation for the developing economy in their nation. Their success in doing so is directly related to the success of the nation, which is measured

based on its relative position to other countries, usually quantified in measurements relating to the total production power of the nation, be it a weighted value of currencies, actual production count, etc. A major positive and, oddly enough, an equally negative aspect of Capitalism, and all other economical systems, is a degree of reliance on human nature. On the positive side, Capitalism promotes economical growth of a country by placing the incentive of personal growth to stimulate personal growth through competition, which perpetuates a continual fight for the top spot and in theory, compounds on itself, causing infinite growth of the collective. However, on the flip side, human nature can spoil the system of Capitalism initially, as the elite minority have nearly pure control over the majority from an economical standpoint, who they can either treat fairly, or, completely exploit, the latter always being the case, evidenced by the history of developed Capitalist countries. This causes a period of in-elasticity between social classes, which is self-defeating of the system until an outside force, usually the central government, comes to work out the kink and balance the power in favor of the proletariat, which is essentially powerless without it. To maximize its potential and perpetuate the success, Capitalism requires a Democratic government that takes into account the concerns of both the elite and the proletariat and establishes a middle ground between the two parties, put into proportion by majority vote, in the hopes of maximizing production power by limiting social problems. However, until an outside force works to optimize the situation, assuming it does so in a

manner that balances the interests of the two parties so they willingly function as one unit or even has the power and efficacy to do so at all, those at the bottom are at the nearly complete mercy of the elite, which history has proven time and time again to be unsuitable, because the elite end up utterly abusing the majority by denying their human dignity, and subjecting them to inhumane conditions in lieu of profit and economical expansion. This side effect of Capitalism is especially present in India today, more so than other developing nations, because Indian society is still largely influenced by its foundational roots in Hinduism, namely the notoriously stringent caste system it instates. This means that, not only are the impoverished majority already set back by intrinsic economical injustices such as low wages, unfair working hours, and inhumane working conditions caused by social imbalance in the initial stages of Capitalism, but are also set back by an inability to move up the social ladder through a superior work ethic and political tactics like their counterparts in other countries due to the prevalence of the discriminatory strictness of the Hindu caste system. As stated previously, Capitalism requires a Democratic government to work to promote equal opportunity as best as possible and unify the elite and the proletariat by counteracting the aspect of selfishness in human nature. However, in India, it seems as if this initial stage of Capitalism will never be surpassed, because the efforts and anti-discrimination legislation passed by the central government of India are simply swamped by the prevalence of the caste system, which has been ingrained into the mindset of Indian

society as a whole for thousands of years. Personally, it seems as if that there is no simple, peaceful solution to remedy the inequalities brought on by the ingrained idea of inelastic castes. To me, it seems that the only way for the prospect of economic equality to be attained for the impoverished majority is for them to initiate a social revolution to topple over the ingrained mindset and force equality through protest and violence. Even so, this possibility is slowly dwindling into becoming an exercise of futility as time progresses, because the majority is continually pushed down by rising costs of, and therefore affordability of new technological advancements that the elite can use to suppress them. My only question is, why is this injustice only used as an example by egregiously over-zealous parents to convince their children to do better in school and gain marketable skills, as opposed to failing and becoming imminently replaceable by a cheaper counterpart due to the abuses by his employers, rather than correcting the injustice? It would be extremely difficult, sure, however, doesn't it make more sense to both correct a social injustice and strengthening industry as a whole by insuring quality in one swoop by filling positions with people who have competed passionately and deemed the best of the best for that vocation, rather than filling it with someone who may or may not be passionate about said position and not maximize the potential of that position, simply because of cost?

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi