HISTORICAL OPPORTUNITY - About the necessity to create a new global socio-economic model

Text by: G. Piettra
Translation into English: M. Berazategui

This article is about the necessity and importance of the creation and implementation, as soon as posible, of a new socio-economic model that has as only aim Men in all its dimensions.

Introduction:
• Economic liberalism has evolved during the time until reaching unacceptable limits. In the current context of global crisis, it´s more than evident that an enormous change is needed as soon as possible.
• On the other side, the communist left. During the time, it has been proved that it has not worked either. If someone cannot clearly see it after the events triggered since the Berlin Wall fall twenty years ago, you only have to go to Cuba to realize it does not work, that it is not enough, and that an urgent change is needed.
• The european democratic socialisms, generally related to “center-left” or “center-right”, have not achieved avoiding or mitigating the effects of the last crisis.
• Men can not stay indifferent to the terrible impacts of the crisis. It is imperative to determine clear and concrete actions to avoid this to happen again in the coming years. Once more, we are running the risk that nothing is done, or that what it is done it is not sufficient with the probability of suffering a similar problem in the medium term.
• It has been years since Men is talking about globalization, but He still try to solve global crisis with local measures or insufficient, product of the agreement of only some countries.
• Current international institutions are insufficient, archaic, manipulated, not representatives, not resolutive. It is high time to create real global institutions, strong ones, capable to provide real solutions to problems of this size and weight.
• People are tired of being manipulated. People are tried to be convinced as if they were kids, about a poor and simplified reality: left and right, good and evil or vice versa.
• The creation of a new third socio-economic model, different to what is already known, is needed. A model that respects the human being in all its dimensions, not partially. A model that has as the center Men welfare and the whole society in general, and that at the same time has into account the abilities, motivations, and individual efforts of each person.
• This new model should be “center-center”. It should come up from a social movement at big scale. Impregnating all corners of society in order to overcome the barriers to change imposed by the current holders of power (as of today, always related to Left and Right).
• This model should have as a pillar the value of Justice. Not only the justice as a social and moral value, but also applied to all layers of society until reaching each individual.
• This Justice should take into account the individual effort. This effort should not be seen as an isolated parameter, and it will be a key factor while establishing dignity and equality.
• Men have demonstrated through history that He is capable of the most complex things, of the most beautiful dreams, impossible ones “a priori”. A “New Renaissance” that has Men as the absolute center of the system is something achievable and possible. It only depends on the will to change from us all.
• Cuba’s transition is approaching irrevocably. Cuban people will have to recover everything they do not have as of today, in all aspects. Its current model is not sustainable within time for various reasons. It is a nice moment to start preparing the transition. Cuba could be a good moment to start with the basics of this new model.


¿Who am I?
To start, I guess that if you have read until this line, you could be thinking that the introduction is a little bit bizarre. Maybe, but the truth is that I would define myself as a common man. So common, that I have started by this summary fearing that If I had put it at the end, you hadn´t read nothing of this article.
Fortunately my parents could pay me studies. I am not a personality, nor I have any credentials to generate interest. I am not a writer, nor economist, nor journalist, nor politician, nor philosopher, nor sociologist. I have done my secondary school and university in catholic institutes; nevertheless, I have never been baptized. My religion is the tolerance and the respect to all the tolerant people who respect the others.

I have the chance to work (today this is not something minor) in an important multinational company with a medium responsibility. I work for a good company. I like my job.

I do not read more than six or seven books a year. I have started to think about writing this article while I was in Cuba where at the same time I was reading the book “Be like the river that flows” by Paulo Coelho (book that I recommend to whoever I can). There I read William´s Blake sentence in the first page.

I am not for the Left, not for the Right. I would define myself as a person from the Center. Life has taught me that in the majority of the cases, extremes are not good.

I firmly believe in the research of equilibrium and fair balance of things.

I define myself as a realistic person. Not a big dreamer nor utopian. I have never had the vocation to be popular nor to change the world.

I have had along my life, the possibility of travelling frequently (for personal and professional reasons, I am used to travel three times a year) and living in various countries. I have lived several crisis, some of them very close, others a little bit far: petroleum crisis in the 70s, Asiatic dragons crisis, latin-american crisis, some European countries crisis, etc.

I have more than one nationality. This allows me to move easily. I have learnt so much from people of other places and countries, that when I am asked if I have the feeling not to belong to anywhere, I answer that I belong to all of them at the same time. Every day that goes by, it is harder for me to understand people who underestimate what it is coming from “outside” or who places always local things in detriment of things coming from other places. I cannot be more in accord with Pio Baroja´s sentence when he said that “nationalism is an illness that is cured travelling”.

I apologize if someone feels annoyed about my affirmation that I am a common man. I am aware that a few people in the world have access to everything that I mention, but the reality is that this is the way I feel, one person in the bunch, like many others. I am simply in front of my computer writing what I think. I am sure that many people have similar concerns regarding the situation we are currently living.


¿Why do I write this?
As I mentioned above, the idea of writing this came up when I was in holidays in Cuba. I was supposed to be having a rest and relaxing after a tough year at work, but I could not quitting thinking about another thing: The world wide crisis and Cuban reality made me felt a sensation of contained impotence that I have never experienced before.

What moves me to write this is the big deception that I feel about the events we are living nowadays. I am disappointed about the people representing us, about people that is excersing the power, about the intellectuals.

Paradoxically or not, this deception generates me some motivation. I think the situation is so clear and evident, that we just have to wake up from this hibernation and get started.

My dream would be that we could all start to open our eyes in a kind of chain until the most competent people are capable of creating a new socio-economic model at world wide level that has as center and aim to the human being in all its dimensions, and that reaches action people that are able to implement it.

I know that this article will be underestimated by many people. I am sure that I will be repudiated by the defenders of the communism and as well by the defenders of free market. The reality is that I do not write this to please people, nor to irritate. My aim is to wake up sleeping consciences, ask the intellectuals, talented and action people that could really improve the situation, to do it. To reach people who think that these ideas are too basic, absurd, or innocent, and ask them to create much better ideas.

Where are we going as human beings and as society? Why do we have to give for granted that no other model better than the current one exists, that it is not possible to create a new one? Why do we have to accept that cyclical crisis are going to happen every some time, and that it is something almost normal?

It is clear that the proposed change would have costs and that would take time, but I am sure that if something is not done quickly, social costs will continue growing in the medium/long term.

Of course that I will accept criticism about this article. In fact, I would like to encourage it. On the other hand, something that I cannot not accept (It have always been hard for me) is non-constructive critic. I think that critic should come together with a proposal to improve things, otherwise there is no point nor its worth to criticize. It is hard for me as well to accept indifference about this topic. Indifference to a situation like this one that impacts all the human beings, could only be associated to insensitivity, cowardice, or lack of vision. About the “impossibility of achieving this”, I can only be firm: Who is going to tell me that we are able to clone a lamb, to fly to the space, to send satellites to Mars and that we are not able to improve our society? I strongly refuse to believe that it is impossible.

There have been dreamers that starting from nothing, believing in their instincts, were able to change things, to leave a legacy in the history of the world. We can agree or not with the value of their legacy, but we can not deny that people (only to mention some examples that quickly come to my mind) like Aristotle, Galileo Galilei, Christopher Columbus, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Gandhi, Luther King, and a wide etcetera, were flesh-bone people who could follow their dreams and to alter the reality of that moment, changing the path of things, with their thoughts, books, actions. Is it that we are lacking of this kind of leaders nowadays?

At the same time, I feel hope about this moment as I think it is historical and unique. An opportunity to improve things that we cannot miss. I hope not to be the only one who is feeling that we are very close to an inevitable inflection point.


To whom this is written?
In first place, I felt the obligation to write it for me. I owed this to myself. Maybe it will not be read far away from my family and some friends.

Now, if you allow me to dream a bit, I would like that everybody in the world could read this article: The economists, sociologists, politicians, and all people that could generate a new way where our society could live better and be more equal.

I would like this to be read by everybody in the power and with change ability, as well as for the people who have some responsibility and that through their decisions in their shops, companies, institutions, could influence in the research of a fair and men-centered society.

I do not consider that it is necessary to wait for the change to come from the “above”, imposed. When taking decisions at our level, we can as well generate change as well as a trend.


Current situation (or at least my perception about it):
Social movements from Right and Left have always considered the Center through history as something for shy or coward people that in the name of the research of equilibrium, never changed anything. Of course that I do not agree with these premises. It is from the inside that I affirm that a deep reform of high impact is needed.

Reality is much richer than some people want to present it to us. There are lots of nuances that the simplifications of the existing models have reached to an extreme, that have been finishing by forgetting fundamental aspects of the human dimension and its dignity. The communism have not had into account that we are not all the same. This vision is not only not negative, but exactly all the way round. It is to recognize that human nature provides infinite personalities, individualities, ways of being. We do not all have the same motivations, not everybody wants to do the same efforts, nor the same will, nor likes, nor the same abilities.

On the other hand, the economic liberalism has been deforming itself until reaching a situation where the way has been lost. The current system has not its aim to serve Men, but it has change to be the other way round. Currently it is difficult not to feel like a small part serving to the huge mechanism of the system. Is it possible that we do not still see this? Is it possible that if we do see it clearly we are not able to raise the hand, ask, to demand, to change? Men is working and suffering the cyclical consequences of the “invisible hand”. This hand, apart from being invisible, seems to be unpolluted, non-guilty, to be beyond the justice. If its consequences are good, then they are attributed to it. This is not happening when the consequences are bad, as they seem to be “natural adjustments of an anomalous auto-generated situation”. It has not name nor last name. It is called: invisible hand, system, etc. Some people associate it, in a biased way, to the “imperialism” to assign all the guilt to the United States and take advantage to demonize its presidents.

Now that there are “green shoots”, tension has reduced. People tends to forget with the pass of time, to continue, to turn out the page (natural mechanisms of human nature), but we all have to ask ourselves which measures are being taken or will be taken to avoid this to happen again. If we do not do something, we will not be able to complain when the next crisis arrives, as it will be exactly what we deserve. This crisis, in spite of its magnitude, will pass someday. After the real suffering of lots of common people, better times will come, but this is not a reason to avoid start working right now seriously, with tenacity to avoid these things to continue happening or at least not to happen this way. It would be unforgivable.

When I started to write this article, people responsible of the crisis where there, receiving their salaries and obscene bonus, while the governments have been facilitating money to the banks (that have generated the problem due to a bad management and lack of responsibility) to avoid real economy bankruptcy.

It seems now that some measures will be taken to avoid this to happen. Fine, but we should not be let ourselves be cheated, the topic of their salaries is only a tiny part of the tip of the iceberg that this problem is representing. Is it my impression or the cycles of the crisis are shorter and more repetitive?

The risk analysts, audit firms, nothing have said about the risk that financial entities where running. How is this possible? Which is the value added and the business objective of these companies then?

Markets are auto-regulated, would say a defender of the Free Market. Are we going to seriously continue supporting this sentence? It would be of a tremendous irresponsibility. The economic and social costs product of this auto-regulations are evident. People without job, without any economic support, depressed, with psychological aid needs, poverty, hanger, backwardness, etc, etc, etc.

Competence is good in principle, and it should be encouraged. It improves the quality, services, professionals, but markets should differentiate the origin of the competitiveness while rewarding.

Lastly, competence seems to only be a synonym of price reduction. Ruthless competition in some industries forces to reduce cost “at all costs”. Near-shoring, off-shoring, delocalization, all these words were new only some years ago. Now it has been some time since we are living with these concepts and we see (or “suffer” would say a customer, as well as the employees of the companies that delocalize while they juggle to keep the same quality and service levels). In some cases, there have been seen even the delocalization of something that had already been previously delocalized.

These actions generate job loses in the local companies, in their suppliers and in the suppliers of the suppliers.

The research of generating efficiencies and reduce costs, is something legitimate and it improves competence but it should be differentiated what is being achieved through improvements and process optimization, materials, research and development; from what is “apparently” achieved through decisions that impact the people working in this companies (lay-offs to decrease fixed costs, moving “cost centers” from one country to another one cheaper, etc). It is not the same. The differences and the impacts are quite different for everyone, for the society in general and it is not possible nor fair that is not correctly perceived as of today.

Companies should focus in the research of competitiveness through the improvements that I mention in first place. Governments should reward them somehow. The Market and the Stock exchange as well. These improvements take time and efforts and are related to more solid sustainability , more enduring in time, related to a long term plan.

Unfortunately nowadays, we see more about the other kind of optimization. It is much simpler to announce a big lay-off. It is done at a stroke. It has a swift impact in the results of the company and the current financial markets rewards it. Shares go up, shareholders are happy. Shareholders seem to be a kind of cold and calculating “being”, almost a machine, with no relationship to moral values. Lastly I have been asking to myself if they are real people. Or maybe they are people that belong to a kind of human being that can live away from all type of human and social matters as the ones I am raising.

About the company (or part of the company) delocalization to more economic countries, where materials and salaries are lower, I think many times they are done product of a swift measures without being really deeply analyzed, or maybe they do are analyzed but due to the pressure from top management, there is not enough courage to talk about hidden costs that these movements generally imply. Costs related to quality and service decrease. The majority of times, in the example of a delocalization, the decrease is not related to the lack of abilities (education, training, etc) of the new hosting country; it is about reductions produced by the extreme standardization of processes in order to be able to do this movements. Other reductions are logical as for example the ones produced by the language differences, time zones, etc.

These costs are generally hidden, not measured, but apart from having an immediate impact in the people and society of the “delocalized” country, it tends to have an impact as well in the customers satisfaction who buy these products and services, as well as for the employees that remain, who have now to make additional efforts, generally not recognized as it should, to try to keep the service levels. This makes that the employees suffer a higher wear, making shorter the cycles of an employee in the same job, increasing the job attrition and reducing the motivation, productivity and loyalty to the company. The economic results produced by the delocalization can be perceived in the short term (whenever things have been performed more or less fine). It will probably take some time until the hidden costs will emerge and come to light.

Where are the limits? Who analyzes the hidden costs of all these actions? The message seems to be: Someone else will fix it in the future, in the meantime costs are being reduced, the value of the share goes up in the short term (being lucky it can hold until the next crisis arrives) and the top executives receive their bonus.
Today lots of companies are worried about making consumers know they are “ecologic” or “green”. Huge marketing campaigns to demonstrate consumers that the company cares about the environment. Many institutions and even the consumers reward this responsibility making the choice while buying. I see that it is nice that people cares about it and reward the companies that recycle and that take care of dolphins and whales, but I wonder if it isn´t more important that consumers and institutions (Governments, financial markets, etc) reward the companies that take care of their employees, the people, people that we know, who are in the end our neighbors, friends, relatives, etc.

Who regulates the bonus of the executives? Why aren´t the bonus regulated to be based on the long term results or depending on the benefits that bring to the society? I am not only talking about economic benefits, but as well to social benefits through employment, better products, services and in general all the actions that have to do with growing the corporate social responsibility that companies should have.

Nowadays, lots of companies have a green light to fire people. Many times people are not made redundant to reduce the economic negative results, but to keep the positive results from the previous year. The perversion of the system is so, that financial markets reward this kind of decisions. In some cases, the employee salaries are reduced “in order to avoid massive lay-offs”. These measures are taken indefinitely, without re-establishing the previous salaries if situation improves. At the same time, it has been proven that these companies make redundant after a while, benefiting from cheaper lay-offs or to use those savings to leverage some other investment that will bring benefits afterwards (that the employees will not be participated with). What disappoints me the most, is the fact that when I talk to other executives in other multinational companies, they take all this for granted, and they perceive it as logical and/or normal.
At university, professors used to talk me about the social role of the companies, that their first objective was to survive (like company, with its employees, inside the society) and that the top executive responsible, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had the objective to take care about the Customers (letter “C” of CEO), Employees (letter “E”) and Options (Shareholders, stockholders). Today, I doubt about all this. Letter “E” seems to be absent. Reality hits tough.

Top executives move to achieve concrete objectives. The most important way these objectives are being measured (and the base of the executive bonus afterwards) is how much the value of the share is increased. All their decisions will have as supreme aim to achieve this objective. All the rest of the objectives remain in the background. When executives talk about the vision and mission of the companies they drive, they tend to include the customer care. Lots of companies measure the level of satisfaction of their customers. There are ways to measure their employee satisfaction as well. But do not let us cheat, none of these two last ones decides really the “big portion” of their bonus. Which motivation have the executives, beyond the personal values they might have, to take care of their employees? Reality is showing that this is not working really well during the last decades. When executives fire thousands of people with the objective of reducing fixed costs, they look for increasing the benefits, increasing the value of the share in the short term and receive their bonus. Make people redundant, rewards. Under the current system, not to fire people, would call into question their management, and this would damage directly their greedy pockets. This reality will remain like this until these actions are not penalized somehow buy the stock markets, governments and/or consumers.

On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that labor unions and Left in general have never been able to counteract these measures. Of course that it is not easy, but I think that lots of times their incompetence is heavier while searching for a middling equality, that do not convince. Lot of people does not feel represented by the labor unions. Their speeches are generally archaic, unrealistic, they tend to equalize everything under the same low level, equally for everyone, for the ones that have made an effort as wells for the ones who did not, instead of looking for the excellence and the justice for the ones that really deserve it product of their own determination. Unions perceive the companies and its executives as enemies. They have a zero-sum negotiation method. Speeches from the past.
While evaluating this crisis, it has to be mentioned as well the inefficacity of the international institutions (United Nations, Inter-American Development Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, G8, G12, G20, etc). I understand that at the moment of their creation they might have generated hope as their objectives had sense and were promising. Decades later, their decisions are partial, incomplete, and their aim is to benefit to only a few. I guess that this might be due to the voting systems and the way they are controlled. This way, they will never be able to solve global problems like the ones we are currently facing.

Another example of inefficacity would be the situation of Africa, where I will not extend myself as it is known by the majority of the people. It is shameful that as human beings we are still allowing this situation to continue. Of course that there are people (individuals and companies, groups, non-governmental association initiatives) that help. These initiatives have a very important value, but unfortunately they are not enough, and from my point of view, they will never solve the very root cause of the problem.


New Model:
As I was saying before, Men is capable of create, improve and surmount itself, and this is a good moment to start all over again. It is necessary that debate currents are generated so as that people could arrive into conclusions that could generate a model which is completely to the service of Men, in all its dimensions. I am talking about a “new” model because the ones we know as of today are only partial models.

The existing models simplify so much human reality that a part (or big part) of it is left aside. This new model should have an integral approach of human dimension. It should take into account everybody in general, and at the same time the particularities that people have, something inherent in human nature. Each of us has motivations, aspirations, intelligence, skills, emotional abilities, certain approach to effort, etc. etc.

In this new model, for example, work should be a mean, not an aim. The corporate social responsibility of companies seems to be every day more watered down, and this fact seems to be (wrongly) accepted by people in general. People would expect that the normality is that all companies should see this as an obligation to respect, without waiting for any regulation to come from external agents, but unfortunately we know that this does not work like this.

The creation of this model would not be an easy task, as the people in charge of the power will not want to change, as this would mean precisely the lose of this power. I think this is the root cause why the center does not achieve to go beyond what we know today. On one side we find the power of the private companies and on the other, the power of the labor unions. It is undeniable that, in different grades, they both have power and influence. A change to the Center would make that both of them would lose a part (maybe a big part) of their power, therefore the motivation to change is very low or inexistent. It is important that the Center gets the power, or break or decrease the power of the ones that are holding it today. From my perspective, the most legitimate way to win this power is that the Center represents correctly the interests of Men, in a way that power will come from people and will be supported by everyone. This is the way that power of today leaders could decrease in order to allow change to happen.

Of course that I do not think to be correct person to create this model, but in the coming lines I mention a couple of points that at least this model should include:
Center philosophy - A New Renaissance?

If my rusty knowledge about history does not betray me, I remember the Renaissance as the movement that gave back to Men, through the anthropocentrism and humanism, the leading role that had been lost during the obscurantism of Middle Age.

I have searched for these terms in Wikipedia founding the following:

Anthropocentrism (from Greek: άνθρωπος, anthropos, "human being"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.

It is the doctrine that make humans to be the measure of all things, its nature and welfare, are the principles of judgment to be assessed towards other beings and the world organization as a whole.

Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality.

In a broad sense, it is call humanism to the individual and collective feeling of a civilization in which prominently highlights the admiration, exaltation and praise of the human figure and Men, understood not as a male figure, but as a human race where the culture, sports and arts flourish and all human endeavor becomes transcendent. Its goal is to exalt the human dignity.

I guess that conditions prevailing by the end of the Middle Age might have created the bases for change. The intellectuals at that time should have defined this new way of thinking, knowing how to transmit to the rest of common people until it became something normal, influencing the whole society in general, the organizations, politicians, academies, streets (or “university of life” as someone would say), etc.

When I read both definitions, I think that what is expressed should the normality, a common thing at this point of the History. All the evolution and achievements of humanity should have as purposes: men welfare, the human being, humanity.

What I describe makes me think and feel that we have forgot about this fundamental aspect. That we have started up a complex “machinery” that increases its speed everyday and that we are not able to control anymore.

I recognize that making a parallelism between the situation that caused the Renaissance and today is a bit bizarre, but I truly think that it is necessary a change that gives back to Men what is from Men. It is needed that we return to a situation where the human being is the parameter of everything and to exalt human dignity.

While the obscurantism existed, I guess that some people imagined that the change that came a posteriori was something impossible. If six hundred years ago they could do make the change, why we are not going to be able to do it again?

I wonder why, despite many writers and intellectuals for the Center, this way of understanding things have not been able to transcend enough. Maybe because it has only remained in theoretical levels, with a complex language or not appealing enough for common people, who is the one that needs to live it, promote it, make it part of the society in order that later on, political parties promote this ideas in their political platforms, speeches and decisions. It would be interesting to investigate how all this process took place between Middle Age and Renaissance to be able to understand how things could be done now.

I am sure that refined people might be surprised about everything I am writing and they could affirm that this Center ideas exist since decades, but I, as a common man, was not aware enough, and I am sure that the big majority of people neither. It is common people who then go to vote and as they do not have other alternatives they are stuck in the bipartisanship model, on one side the Right, on the other the Left. The strongest parties take advantage of this, as the Center is not strong enough, they adjust to the extremes in times of elections in order to differentiate themselves from the other party.

When I was almost finishing writing this article and I only had to review it and put things in order, I found my self compelled to re-do this paragraph and the following in order to include the following anecdote:

A week ago, a friend of mine asked me if I could go by a bookshop that it near home, as he had reserved there a book for his father. At home, I thought about having a look to it, it was called: “La política en el Laberinto, salidas por la izquierda” (“The politics in the Maze, gateways by the Left”) by Justo Zambrana. As I had to hand it out to my friend the following day, I have applied speed reading so I immediately guessed that it was a blink from my friend who had been listening to me about my disappointments about current situations that I express in this article and that he wanted to give me the book as a gift. Unfortunately this did not happen like that, I had to give it to him the following afternoon. Many of things that Justo Zambrana mentions have some relationship with some of the things that I mention. Of course that I don not have his studies nor his knowledge nor the skills to write like him, but this relieved me a bit somehow as I acknowledged that there were already people writing about these matters. The book is very interesting and I recommend reading it (I will buy it and read with the tranquility that I could not assign in my first read). The author confirms to have written it from the Left, but at a certain moment, I think that the topics he treats are not from the Left, nor Right, nor Center. I would say that it simply belongs to common sense. I think that it would not be a bad thing if Men stop classifying everything only through the existing and known parameters.

What worries me it that this book has been written in 2003, so it seems that all his warnings were not listened nor taken into account. No one finally read it? Why nothing has been done?

In this book it is also mentioned about a person called Giddens, that as far as I understood, who proposed the creation of the radical Center (in his book “The third way”). I will buy as well his books and I will read them carefully (in internet I have found another book from this author that seems to be interesting: “Beyond the Left and the Right”). If all that I am writing is at least similar to what had already been already warned by prepared people years ago, how is it possible that nothing has been done? When it will be done? What are we waiting for? Why these proposals are not leading the way or at least further explored?

It is high time for this to occur. To stop with simplified reality, poor, manipulated and extremist. It is high time to generate (or to reinforce if they already exist) Center philosophical currents that harshly criticize current reality and that promotes the need of change, the necessity to go back to a model that has as center and aim Men in all its dimensions.


Political Parties:
Why politics from the Center? My first answer would say, why not? Haven´t we had already enough examples from Left and Right?

I do not feel represented by any political extreme, not even when they tend somehow to the center. When the public opinion attacks a little bit or when elections approach, it is “necessary to send clear messages that differentiate us from the opposite party” and it seems to be here where parties turn a bit more to the right or to the left.

People even exalt in elections time some of the factions by defending them, but many times the truth is that they recognize there are things from the faction they support that they do not completely agree or that are not fully convinced. Lot of people goes disenchanted to the ballot box, with the feeling that they are voting the “less bad” candidate, not the best one.

From these philosophic currents, political parties and action people should emerge. Why it seems that there are only a few political parties in the world that follows Giddens´ ideas? I think that big power centers or power groups (for example, companies on one side, related with the Right, and the labor unions on the other side, related to the Left) exert a big pressure, which from my point of view, is neutralized generating no benefits or of zero-sum, that do not allow these kind of ideas to evolve, as it is not convenient for them. Left needs Right and vice-versa. None of both factions is willing that a third one appears. Is this lack of courage? Is it lack of persistence? Maybe it is a bit of both ones, among other factors.

Is it true when it is said that the Center does not win as it always tends to positions of understanding and with a conciliation approach, or does not seduce the masses as it looks for a flat and boring equilibrium? Maybe yes. I think that this statement might influence, but it is high moment to show that this is not a feature that prevents the passion in the hunt of very concrete objectives and the ability to spread this passion to other people.

It is important that the Center gains the place that belongs to it. It is worth to try it, even at least to contribute with more richness in this world of nuances.


Necessity of the globalization of the welfare:
After the First World War, while many countries were trying to implement the Marxist-Leninist ideas (until the Soviet Union was conformed), in other countries there were a big increase in the adoption of free market policies until the 30s crisis made evident the problems that could appear if this model was followed, emerging at that time ideas that talked about “re-establishing the fundamental equilibriums” (J.M.Keynes).

After the Second World War, the differences between the Left and the Right continued and were increased until the world was divided in lately two (Iron curtain, Berlin wall, etc). At that moment international institutions were created (UN, etc) looking for: “keep the justice… international right… social progress”. During the Cold war, the debate of the role and involvement of the State continued and in some countries, especially in Europe, socio-democratic policies of welfare, influenced by Keynes´ ideas, were implemented.

During the decades of 60s, 70s, 80s, several European states were looking for ensuring the provision of social guarantees to all inhabitants of their countries. Some examples are the German “Welfare State”, English “Welfare State”, “Gaullism” in France with its “Dirigisme” (interesting concept as in principle, looked for encouraging initiatives of public interest without falling in State interventionism), Nordic countries, etc.

Apparently, lot of the leaders that implemented these kind of policies, are framed within the Center ideas or related to the “Third way” (that as I was saying before, it is something that I will read soon). It seems that these models used to have/ have a very local scope, national. I understand that several of them had a success that it is worthy to be mentioned in terms of social improvements, but it is clear that starting the 90s, with the evolution of the globalization, all these good ideas and policies became insufficient. In the globalization the king model is the economic liberalism, that have produced that national or local measures in the welfare states are incomplete, incompetent to prevent nor revert situations of crisis in other parts of the globe. For some examples, it could be mentioned the current situation of United Kingdom economy, through Gordon Brown as the successor of Tony Blair´s policies or Spanish economy of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose social achievements during his first mandate have been widely admired, but it is now evident that they are insufficient to tackle a crisis like this and to revert the country situation.

Is it that maybe the Center does not have enough strength? Is it for internal or external factors? Or maybe due to the fact that maybe there are lots or too many centers? Is it possible a unified center? Is it worth to try it?

The center I am talking about goes beyond the economic policies. It has to do with a whole culture, with a philosophy, with a way of thinking. It does not apply to politics and leaders only. It goes beyond all confines. It applies to all decisions taken by entrepreneurs and managers. It applies to all employees at work and outside the work. It is a practical philosophy where Men are always the center and finality of things while taking decisions and acting.
It is necessary that a renewed model of welfare state has global vision. Economy intervention of the State in countries, have caused many times the ruin of competitiveness of the industries at local level. It is not about this, but about creating a kind of dirigisme coordinated at global level where the States are able to manage the economies in a way that possible excesses of the system could be avoided (or at least swiftly corrected) whenever there is a deviation from its unique aim, being at the service of Men.

This dirigisme should have a univocal world wide definition in its basics. This definition should be agreed at global level.


Global Institutions:
I consider that it is not possible to delay the creation of these entities anymore. Entities that should have real power and should be recognized by all countries, in order to take decisions with a global vision, respected and executed by everyone.

People tell me that these institutions are already created. My answer is determined: No, they are not created yet. To change current institutions so as they achieve the needed objectives would mean changing them so much, that the only thing they would keep is their name.

The key success factor of these entities will lie on the fact of having fair and wide election and voting systems (where absolutely everyone is represented), with real voting power. And that the decisions taken by them are executed without delay and respected by all.

These entities should be able to organize and coordinate topics of high importance. At least they should cover global regulation about: Economy, Peace and Security, Justice and Control.

I think that in this sense, European Union institutions (example: European Parliament, European Central Bank, etc) would be an example at a lower scale, and still with a lot to develop, that is showing more pros than cons (it is clear that the perfect model does not exist and will never exist, but it is important to tend to it, always) in terms of the ability of having institutions representing many countries that have among them a huge cultural diversity. I think this is an accurate example, as Europe is a small continent regarding the geographical extension, but where exists, at the same time, a big richness of different cultures, of ways of thinking and the vision about the world.
Even talking about the same country, differences can be huge (someone who had the chance to visit countries like Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland, will know what I am talking about). People from southern Italy are different from the ones in the north, but between both they conform to one country. At the same time, Italians have differences with people from other countries of the European Union but this is not preventing that Italians are part of it. If this is feasible at these levels, from lowest to highest, why it will not be possible at a world wide scale?

I imagine that at the beginning, European richest and most powerful countries tried to take the helm of the enterprise to its own benefit, but I think that with the time they correctly understood the aims of this new “community” and all this have been polished in a way that a respectable, decent and balanced and pretty representative system has been achieved. The system by popular election, might not be perfect, but has clearly demonstrated to be the best one and the fairest as of today.

In this paragraph I´ve been referring to practical and tangible topics. I am not pretending to talk about a feeling of “globe belonging” in order to compare it with the feeling of being European that takes for granted the belonging to the European Union. It would be a utopia to start thinking about changes in this regard in the current context, with all the realities that are pending to be urgently improved.
Of course that the project of the European Union has not been easy and they still have a lot to do, but I think it is the right path. I think that if it has been possible to do it for Europe, it is possible to design something similar at a global scale.


Equilibrium between richness and effort to obtain it:
This equilibrium will exist if the rewards are related in a fair way to the importance of the results and the effort to obtain them. If one of these two components is missing, the equilibrium will be broken and injustice will exist.

The enrichment without effort or the effort without enrichment generates dissatisfaction situations in people (even though both extremes occur within the most perfect normality and legality).

Exaggerating a bit, it could be said that historically the Right has always been horrified by any limitation to the richness and on the other side, Left has always been claiming for richness for everyone. But in both cases, a few times the variable “effort” has been taken into account as it should. It is something not very convenient for none of the factions.

Many things have been said about the “effort” concept. I think that in the majority of the cases, results would not exist if it were not due to the effort of one or several people. It seems that all our model, system, philosophy are focused in obtaining a result. Said this, it seems that it is then correct to affirm, by logic, that if we reward someone for its results, we are rewarding him for the effort. I do not agree with this really. If we think a little bit we will be able to recall hundreds of examples of people that have made exhausting efforts and due to the fact that they have not achieved the expected results, they have not obtained the reward, and on the other hand, I am sure that we know as well the enrichment of some people with a minimum effort. From my perspective, these situations create inequality.

These inequalities could be deeply decreased if our rewarding systems were based, not only in the results, but as well in the efforts made in order to achieve them. This would apply to everything: personal enterprises, companies, salaries, service fees, taxes, etc. etc. etc.

To give an example, when talking about a salary, I believe it is an excellent idea that whenever possible, salaries are related to the achievement of concrete objectives (objectives that are obviously measurable in quantity, quality, time, and that are achievable). This makes people tend to excellence and the improvement of things. Lots of companies have already implemented this in their salary packages. But this can not be the sole parameter. Of course that someone would immediately mention the need of taking into account the competences of people (studies, abilities, skills, etc). I totally agree. But effort is still missing in this equation. Lets imagine an extreme situation (but It can really occur in a company): a junior Sales representative has just been assigned a customer that traditionally did not buy, and from one day to another, without having the sales representative doing much (only being in the right moment to get the assignment of this customer) the client sends an important purchase order that enlarges the sales rep. pockets due to the sales commissions, overachieving by far his sales quota, while at the same time a colleague of him, an experienced sales rep., with huge commercial skills, in spite of having done tremendous efforts visiting all his complex customers, could achieve only the 80% of his quota. His salary will most probably be lower than the first example. This situation is more than accepted in the sales world. “It´s part of the rules”, “sales reps are paid by the revenue, bigger the revenue, bigger the company results”, would say the Sales manager as well as the other Sales reps. Now the question is: Is this the fairest way to reward? I don´t think so. I consider there is room for improvement. Effort has not been taken into account. I am not talking about a utopian effort. In this case I am talking about a real effort that can be as well profitable. Probably the actions of the experienced sales rep. will bring future purchase orders from these customers. We hope that this Sales rep continues to have these accounts still assigned to him, otherwise the sales commissions will be taken away by the new sales rep assigned.

Some people tells me about extra hours payment. I agree that this is a good thing to have, but being accurate, making more hours does not exactly mean to make bigger efforts to achieve the objectives. It is fair to recognize that some companies pay bonus based on their performance, generally in an annual base. This would be indeed similar to what I am trying to explain here, as these bonuses tend to have the efforts into account.

I think this is only an example, but that this concept applies to different sectors, industries, companies, etc. Maybe in some cases it will no be easy to visualize it or the way to apply it might be not so clear, but I definitely believe that the “effort” about thinking about new and better ways to reward and to tend to equality is worth.

I consider as well that reward to the effort made at the beginning of the value added chain, should have enough relationship with the rewards to the efforts and results obtained at the end of the chain. Otherwise, injustice and inequality will be generated. This should apply as well to the different industrial sectors (primary, secondary, tertiary).

I mean, lets imagine the production of an outfit at global level. Is there any relationship between the efforts and rewards perceived by the people that sow and harvest the cotton, with the effort and reward for the one who makes up the clothes, with the effort and reward for the ones who makes up the garment, with the effort and reward for the company that attaches the brand or logo to be sell it afterwards?. Is it different the effort made by the laborer who spends the whole day in the cotton field than the effort made by someone at the end of the chain? Is it fair that, talking about people in all cases, these differences on the recognition of the effort when talking about the same value chain? My questions are sincere and without second intentions. Definitely, I think that we all have to ask more to ourselves, like we used to do when children. It seems that the more we get old, the more conformist we become and we finally end-up by accepting and giving for granted things that do not resist even the analysis of a kid.

The same questions apply to all industrial sectors where I would challenge if the efforts to obtain the Raw materials in the primary sector are correctly recognized and if they keep a balanced relationship with the obtained rewards of the following sectors of the value chain.

From my perspective, the inclusion of the effort should be taken into account for all kind of rewards. In tax laws for example. If someone obtained a profit of 5.000 dollars in a determined country, will have to pay a percentage of that amount as tax. But has this percentage a relationship with the effort to obtain that profit? The answer from a tax expert would confirm that it has (for example if the amount has been won in the lottery, the percentage of the tax will be in the majority of the cases higher than if the profit comes from the work effort of a person). Anyway, I think that there is still a lot to do. In many cases the percentage of the tax is the same while the effort to obtain the same amount is pretty different.

It is a typical said from previous generations the fact that is important to make efforts. I think that in the economic world, the effort for the effort itself has no sense. All effort should be recognized in all ways, and this should obviously include the economical aspect.

From my point of view, the fact of not taking into account the efforts of the people, are one of the causes that generates the insane egoism of the current era and creates injustices and inequalities hard to solve. For example, has it been taken into account the chain of efforts while paying the multimillionaire and obscene bonuses to the ones that are responsible of triggering this crisis?


Other ideas:
Below I mention a series of ideas that could be somehow related to the new model to be created. Lots of them could be of global implementation as well locally in the countries. I think they would tend to improve or cover certain deficiencies that prevents to reach equilibrium and the right measure of things.


Transparency control organization:
The lack of transparence existing nowadays is an undeniable reality. The increasing complexity of the System, processes and science, make all the control methods to be near the obsolescence, or at least incomplete or insufficient. Without transparency, it is not possible to create a fair equilibrium.

There should be a control organization with an independent and real power. At the same level as the Administrative power, Justice or Legislative. It is important not to be below the rest in order that its power can be real an independent. The organization should be able to audit all the other powers, institutions, entities, companies, no matter if they are public or private.

Today we listen to things like having government organizations being audited by private companies. If we recall Enron affair, we will conclude that it is not a guarantee either.

On the other hand, the improvements on the information technology has eased the flow of information in real time in a way that was unthinkable not many years ago. This is clearly and advantage and a great opportunity. This transparency control organization should establish the minimum requirements to have information about people, companies (public or private) that are eligible of the need of transparency.

Some of these processes are already known by everyone (income statement, etc). Some others will have to be created. With the existing ones is not enough, there is lot of work to do.

It will be important that the infringements to these processes have according punishments or penalties.

Information should be public. It should be accessible by everyone. For example, why do we only have information about the companies in the Stock Market? I do not think that the confidentiality and data privacy law should be broken, but I consider that there is lot of information that should be public, available and easily accessible by everyone.

Transparency should be a subject at school and universities. A consciousness should be created. We all should be able to read, understand and verify the information produced by this organization.

Even though this organization could apply to only one country, I think it is imperative that it exists at global institution level. Global Justice should generate norms to avoid excesses or imprudence of different sectors or industries that could lead to the crisis like the one we are living. The global transparency control organization should include among its attributions, the follow-up of the pursuit of these norms, to raise the hand in case of deviations and to execute the sanctions in coordination with the global Justice organization.


Encouragement of Public/Private Joint Ventures:
The vast majority of the companies we know are private or public, according to the origin of the capital received in order to create it. There are as well the public-private joint ventures where the contributions come from both, public and private sources.

I do not know how many of these joint ventures there are in the world and I have never read the social statute of a company like this, but a priori it seems that a company like this, with an intelligent and equilibrated statute could take the advantages of the benefits of a private company (agility, orientation to customer, to the improvement, to the search of benefits, etc) and the public company (stability of the employees, social responsibility of a company within the society, equilibrated distribution of the income, etc).

I am not talking about the origin of the capital or its purely technical aspects that implies the fact of being joint venture and not a purely private or public one. I am meaning for example to the existence of a fairer distribution of the income, to an appropriate distribution of the dividends to ensure a re-investment of the benefits that directly impacts our society.

I guess that a key factor would be the way these companies are regulated. For example by having equilibrium in their decision making system, their executive election (for example not to be influenced by the changes of mandate of political parties).

I understand there are many companies like this in the world, but wouldn´t it be better to have more of them? Isn´t it better to improve them even more?

This kind of companies should be encouraged by the governments that should promote their creation and sustainability (for example through tax deductions, etc).
At the same time, I believe that there are certain sectors where due to their industry dynamics, it might not be convenient other type of company that the private or the public only.


Public/Private Joint Venture NGO:
These non-governmental organizations (NGO) could be created at national or international level (as public-private joint venture organizations). As said before, NGOs do not solve the problems from the roots, but it is clear that their objectives and actions tend to improve the world we are living in, not only to beat the poverty in the third world countries. A local organization that helps to integrate foreigners to the welcoming country or that promotes a cultural interchange, or that foments a certain culture, make the difference.

These organizations should be managed by professional and competent people. They should generate results (I am not talking about economic results) that should be controlled and audited as well.

In relationship with the effort and merit topic, this could be an example, an opportunity for unemployed people that are getting the minimum of the unemployment benefit, could have access to a higher unemployment benefit if this person works in one of these NGOs depending on their likes, competences, and needs. This would be advantageous for the unemployed who would earn more money, as well as for the NGO that would increase its working capacity, and of course good for the society.



Cuba:
To walk in the street of La Habana while imagining its houses, buildings and little palaces at the time when they were inaugurated, produces a series of strong sensations which are contradictory at the same time. The mental image would reveal a luxury and a beauty, especially if we include the sunset of the bay, would be very difficult to describe with words and it is something I have personally never seen in any of my visits to other countries. One can conclude that it could be a place very difficult to imitate or to improve. Current reality easily brings the other side, as the majority of these buildings are almost in destruction conditions.

Despite this and many other problems, Cuban people are proud of belonging to this nation and they never lose their smile. Basically all the people that I have talked to, have admitted the ruinous situation of the economy and the difficulty to live under these conditions. I had the opportunity to interact with people, to ask. These chats have made me feel a deep respect for this nation, for this people.

The majority of the people that I have talked to, agreed that until year 1989, the Cuban “socialism” worked very well. The constant goods supply from the Soviet Union was very promising and nothing made people think that things could change. When the Berlin wall fell and the supply disappeared, problems started, forcing the government to create a socialism sui generis where the Marxist-Leninist ideas started to change owing to the new reality, bringing some out of tune but obliged approaches to capitalism, as for example the relationships with foreigner hotels that have forced strange and contradictory speeches from the Cuban government that was trying to improve at all costs its treasury.

Cuban people do not reach the end of the month with the welfare provided by the government, that is why the level of moonlighting and vividness of Cubans is incredibly high. There exists a parallel economy, product of the creativity taken to an extreme, that Castro brothers can not do anything different than allowing it.
Otherwise, the weak régime would disappear in a matter of days due to people riots.

One can have a presentiment that Cuban transition is coming. Fidel Castro and his brother Raul will leave this world someday, like all of us. All planet has expectations about what is going to have when that moment arrives.

Fidel once said that history would absolve him. I think people could even understand the reasons of the revolution and the roots of his ideas, if Fidel were now able to understand that it is the unique and irrevocable moment to accept the need of the end of the régime and to give, while being alive, the first steps that will open the path to change. Until today, there have never been given the conditions that currently exist for this to happen. The situation of the regime cannot be worse, Fidel´s health is weak. Barack Obama seems to be the most competent person and open-minded, since the North-American blockade took place, to facilitate a transition.

Fifty years of revolution and blockade are more than enough. From my point of view changes will soon arrive. But it would be sad that Cuba is “north-Americanized” again as in the past (savage capitalism, casinos, the fun of “easy life”, etc). The change should come from the own Cubans. It will take time and will need the effort and work from everyone. They will have to solve many things, especially about social and economic topics as well as for legal issues.

How could a Center politic be born if Cuba had never had it? It should start now. It is the first thing that the regime should do: To allow diversity of thought, freedom of thought. To allow the arrival of books, without censorship. The arrival of Right-thinkers, Left-thinkers, and Center-thinkers. That articles like this one could freely circulate, as well as the books (for example Giddens´ books) and other authors who do not share the current ideas of the regime. Then it would be the Cuban people who will decide the model to follow, but for this it is necessary to count with all the options and possibilities.

I hope it is not necessary to go again for extremes and excesses: the ones of the Cuban society in the 1950s and the current ones. Everything is to be changed and improved. Probably this is a good time to start implementing in Cuba, in whole or in part, the basis of the new model. Cuban people must regain their full rights. They may be assisted by the international community, but changes must come from the inside. They, themselves, must generate and mature the new thinking and take action in a democratic way.


Acknowledgments:
Thank you for your time and interest for having reached until here, whatever your position on the text is. All reflections you have about this article are welcome.

In the event that you agree, in the whole or partially, with the things I say, I dare to ask you to comment on those ideas, your ideas, with the people close to you, colleagues and friends. In order to change things, these ideas need to travel, to expand, to enter in every house, every corner of the world.

If you agree very little on this article or you think it's bad or deplorable, I dare to ask you if you are happy with the world we live in. I invite you to improve these ideas. I suppose that at least we partially agree that the current situation must be improved. All your creativity, knowledge and intelligence will be needed to achieve it. The indifference should not be an option, there is a lot at stake.