Funding Humanity!

Funding humanity is the most difficult financing possible. The product, i.e. “humanity”, is consumed the most by those who have no money to pay for it in cash and no wisdom to pay for it in kind. Those who have money don’t face any challenge of violation of their human existence because they have money to buy justice from courts, politicians, police, etc. It’s only rarely that the Haves protect humanity: most of the times, even while funding the so-called social issues, they ensure maintenance of status quo, in which, they retain power. But, of course, the pre-condition for “humanity” is the balance of power and elimination, or atleast marginalisation, of the Haves.

The role of money in maintenance of status quo is, I think, the most important one in the current paradigm, in which, capatalism has emerged as the ideology of choice — where the choice is between a bra and a panty for a prostitute while seducing clients. Thus, the funding of those who want to change the status quo and ensure justice for the sufferers is a hurculean task:

– First, the politicians disguise themselves as activists, therefore even those who want to take interest in funding “humanity” find it convenient to stay away from making capital commitments.
– Secondly, the volunteers, who are generally not very well-paid and also not very well initiated into activisms, turn out to be very poor workers, who fail to impress the prospective financiers about the sincerity of their objectives.
– Thirdly, the dual role of an entrepreneur and a manager in a single person or a small team restricts size and doesn’t allow for economies of scale, but the corporatisation of activism is not a solution either — especially after seeing IAC to AAP.
– Fourthly, not withstanding PILs, the access to justice is very difficult, especially because the Bench and the Bar are both flooded by right wingers for ages now.
– Fifthly, the conveneince of funding from the corporate gives an opportunity to the psuedo-activists to shine as make-up celebrities in corporate media appropriating the so very important media space — there is one lady who wears a broad bindi, a loud lipstick and an unstoppable blabber, and looks obnoxious.
– Sixthly, the product of “humanity” doesn’t offer any immediate gratification to the non-sufferers, so the paying consumers are far and few.
– Seventhly, the product of “humanity” is not even standardised: it means different things to different people in different contexts; so, it can’t even be traded on the bourses — though I think that, in a capatalist paradigm, the success of “humanity” as a product is umbically linked to its success in the markets.

I think the only way “humanity” can generate revenues in a capatalist system is by entering the markets, first randomly and then systematically. First randomly because systematic entry into the markets at the first go is next to impossible for the entry barriers are huge. Such an entry thus would be possible for “humanity” only by disguising itself as a recognised product or entity like a political party or a media house, but then these are the biggest threat to the product of “humanity” at the first place. For entering the markets, the understanding of the markets is vital. Markets comprise sellers and consumers; the more homogenious the product, the more perfect the markets, for the sellers and the consumers alike. So, the standardisation of the product of “humanity” or atleast its differentiation into well-comprehensible forms is the first pre-requisite for entering the markets; for example, the satisfaction of hunger can’t be so confusing as to leave scope for multiple intrepretations like calorie intake, nutrition, balanced diet, etc. It has to be as simple as “bread and butter” or “dal and roti”, and the product of “humanity” has to be intrepreted as such till “food for all” gets inherited and ceases to be an economic good. The second pre-requisite is the demand for the product. In supply-side economics, first the products are created and then sold to unwilling buyers. Unfortunately, all capatalism, including that of Keynes, is supply-side economics. But ironically there is no product more in need of supply-side economics than the product of “humanity”. This product ought to be advertised and re-advertised vehemenetly and creatively: direct marketing, street plays, social media, opinions, banners, radio jingles…and whatever else. The third pre-requisite is a distribution network. Fortunately or unfortunately, “humanity” is a product where each and every buyer is also a potential seller and vice versa. So, the supply chain is more ideological than material: an activist can potentially knock at any damn door, retrieve food and supply it to the consumer, i.e. a hungry person; he doesn’t need to create a well-networked supply chain management system. Last but not the least, every product has its utility; and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility should apply to “humanity” as well. However, the opportunity lies in the possibility of unlimited differentiation and stratification of the generic product of “humanity”; which applied clearly without confusion can actually out do the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility through continuous innovation.

Though, I agree, far easier would be to maintain the status quo by arranging funds from the Haves; and, if that’s the only approach possible — the activists would know it better — the product of “humanity”, not arms manufacturing or nuclear energy, is the first contender for 100% FDI.

©2015 Ankur Mutreja

About the Author

Ankur Mutreja
Ankur Mutreja is an advocate-cum-writer, and his blogs are amongst his modes of expression. He has also authored number of books, which can be downloaded from the links on the top menu.

Be the first to comment on "Funding Humanity!"

Trolls Welcomed :-)

%d bloggers like this: