SOLIDARITY

There is no true peace
without fairness, truth, justice and solidarity.
Pope John Paul II

Perhaps, all that is needed
to open roads for solidarity in the world
is the cooperation of just one more person.
Kurt Kauter

I am convinced that today’s consumer society,
blinded by the market, will be replaced by another
which shall be characterized by the transcendental fact
that social justice and solidarity cannot be neglected.
Rene Geronimo Favaloro

One of the cruel facets of nature is that it does not like the weak. In general, nature’s logic is that the strong survive and the weak perish. Whatever romantic advocates of universal pacifism might say, the truth is that the panther will still prey on gazelles and we ourselves will continue slaughtering calves and lambs for our barbecues. It may not be a very kind aspect of Mother Nature, but she has an indisputable predilection for excellence: she gets quite expediently rid of the useless, the deformed, the degenerate and she promotes quite powerfully the strong, the healthy, and the well-built. Probably, we should not exaggerate this in Darwinian terms, but the fact can be observed directly. Only those who have deliberately decided to shut their eyes do not see it, and only those who have deliberately decided to shut down their minds try to explain it away.

In spite of this, as everybody knows, good old Mother Nature has her paradoxes. For example, many times she rewards cowards with survival. Bravery can become anti-selective in biological terms. Brave people are exposed to shorter lives, therefore, statistically they may mate fewer times than the cowardly. Darwin could never explain why we did not become a species of frightened weaklings.

On the other hand, nature has also had the whim of allowing the existence of beings whose role in the general context I have never been able to fully understand. Can anyone tell me what role in nature do flies, mosquitoes and snakes have? Alright, I know: flies and mosquitoes are what frogs feed on. But then: what is the point of frogs? OK, frogs are eaten by snakes. But then and again: what is the purpose of snakes? This is a small and eternal debate I have with my environmentalist friends, but as far as I am concerned a swamp doesn’t get more beautiful or more useful due to frogs that eat mosquitoes and snakes that eat frogs. I accept it as the fickleness of Mother Nature and I trust she knows what she is doing. But, quite honestly, it really does not move my heart at all.

However it may be, there is one thing that holds true: in biological terms, human beings are among the most extraordinary and complex creatures on Earth.

And they are also among the most dangerous ones.

Oceans of ink and mountains of paper have been used to debate on whether man is “good” or “evil”. The controversy between the anthropological optimism of Rousseau and the anthropological pessimism of Hobbes is by no means over; even though today the politically correct standpoint – at least officially – is optimism. Honestly, I think that man’s inherent goodness or evil is not – or at least should not be – an anthropological discussion, nor even a “philosophical” one in its usually understood terms. Because, essentially, it is a metaphysical question, and ultimately, a theological issue.

I could not really say if man is good or evil by nature. What I do know is that man is a dangerous animal.

We are dangerous. More than ten thousand years of History prove that we are capable of killing, slitting throats and exterminating our own species; and that is something no other creature has done nor does. We are the only ones capable of killing just for the sake of it and without this constituting an exceptional and occasional behaviour observed only in some statistically irrelevant cases of other species. Murdering, burning, plundering, raping are inherent to our historical behaviour. We devastate our environment and build artificial environments that alter the planet’s ecological balance. In a few years, we have been capable of annihilating what nature took millions to build. We empty lakes to irrigate our crops and we create other lakes where there were none to power our hydroelectric dams. We love God but we are capable of executing others who love Him differently, or under another name. The West has even seen the massacre between people who loved the same God with the same name.

Human beings are dangerous animals. Let them loose and they will end up committing atrocities beyond imagination. I do not know – honestly: I really do not know – if man is good but does not know how to behave, or is essentially evil and can only be redeemed by a higher instance. Be as it may, the proven fact is that man needs limits; man needs structures for orientation and support. Without limits man goes astray and gets lost. If I had to design a socio-political system for man, I would bet neither on his kindness nor or on his evilness. I would be glad to settle for a system that keeps his dangerousness at bay.

However, just like nature has its whims, so does man. The same being capable of committing all those atrocities so morbidly collected in our History books is also capable of building cathedrals, composing symphonies, writing poetry, painting beautiful landscapes, performing music, reflecting upon himself, developing geometries in several dimensions, exploring the secrets of the atom, diving into genetics to investigate the bricks life uses to build itself, running hospitals to take care of the sick and even do charity to help those in need. Sometimes, the truly incomprehensible thing is that the being I have just described is the same being we were just referring to.

Man is a dangerous creature but, fortunately enough, there is a noble side to him: man is capable of being supportive. Undoubtedly, man is a living contradiction. Put him in front of another member of the species and you will never know if he is going to kill him or help him. In historical and statistical terms the chances are almost 50-50. But, in any case, the good news is that there is at least a 50% on which it is worth to risk a bet.

I honestly admit that this coexistence of opposites in man bewilders me. Beyond the realm of religion I would not be able to find either explanation nor remedy for it. But, staying on profane ground, I would say that a fairly efficient approach to this ambivalence may be found in the structures and limits just mentioned, that can contain and hold the individual, thus allowing for the development – or at least the expression – of his nobler side.

There are probably few more dangerous things than a group of frightened human beings, or a group of people who feel threatened. When man feels insecure and at risk, he is capable of the most incredibly stupid and savage things in order to achieve a sense of power that makes him feel more secure. Now, take that same group of savage human beings and organize them into a socio-political and economical system with solid structures, clear relationships, a well defined chain-of-command and a set of strict but fair laws. Add to it an effective and efficient administration and that same group is capable of surprising the whole world with its achievements and successes. Please don’t think I am making this up. Something quite similar happened when Rome was invaded by the barbarians. The original barbarians burned and plundered Rome. Their descendants built Gothic cathedrals over most of Europe.

The key to this resides in those internal relationships that enable life in common. Just as a well established association multiplies the real possibilities of individuals – giving them a greater scope of real freedom –  a well organized social organization with strong foundations increases the scope of security. Not only does it reduce risks and minimize or eliminate threats, but – and this is perhaps even more essential – it reduces considerably the overall perception of risk. In other words: a good socio-political organization not only offers better security but it also offers a better feeling about security.

In this environment solidarity can grow and develop. Otherwise, it would only arise seldom and exceptionally in certain times of crisis, and only among very few people.

Solidarity is not an obligation of the rich towards the poor. Pushing the argument a bit further, I would even dare to say that solidarity has nothing to do with wealth or poverty. Sometimes the rich are caring among themselves and many times the poor are caring among themselves. Solidarity is the ability that we have to help others and to know how to accept the help of others. Even though many fail to understand it: solidarity is also a two-way road. Not only do you have to know how to give. You also have to know how to receive.

We have a long standing tradition consistent with the idea of the powerful being able to command but under the condition of protecting those who obey and of aiding those in need. However, this does not justify a merely passive attitude by those protected and aided. Today the general idea seems to be that the rich have an obligation to help the poor and the rulers have the duty to yield before any whim of the crowd. As a result, the poor end up believing that they have a right to receive aid in idleness and, consequently, the masses feel they have a right to demand any nonsense promised by a demagogue.

And this is wrong. This is not how solidarity works. The protection received creates a duty of loyalty and the aid received creates a duty of reciprocity. He who is not loyal to the one who protects him does not deserve being protected, and he who is not willing to help those who help him does not deserve being helped.

Solidarity is not about receiving without giving anything in return. It is true that the one who gives has to give without speculating about what he may receive in return. A speculative gift is not solidarity, but a bribe. Precisely because solidarity is selfless, precisely that is why it creates a duty for those who receive it. Without this reciprocity solidarity becomes a charity which will do nothing but encourage the parasitism of the useless, the bums and the free-riders.

This currently popular and widespread thesis of the rich having an obligation to help the poor is based on false arguments. Explicitly or implicitly, the arguments of lachrymose humanitarianism or demagogic populism claim that the rich owe their wealth to an allegedly undeserved “luck”, be it by sheer chance or by some mysterious heavenly “election”. And when it is not so, it is directly assumed that the rich have made their fortunes through money-laundering or its equivalent.

Of course, it is not a question of being naive and trying to defend that which cannot be defended. As we have already seen, considering the current system of punishment and reward that prevails in our societies, these assumptions become not so unreasonable in a good number of cases. However, it would still mean  distorting the very essence of the issue to make high sounding speeches about solidarity on these grounds. Be it only because this line of thought conceals very poorly its prime motivation which is none other than envy. In the same way, most of those who so vociferously claim for justice, disguise very poorly their thirst for revenge.

Unfortunately, it is true and we have to admit that in our socio-political system selfishness and greed are better rewarded than nobleness and rectitude. Today, a smart and skilful individual who at the same time is inconsiderate, opportunist, arrogant and cruel has ten times better chances of becoming rich than an individual with opposite values. That is also why, in general, the wealth of a person is not considered proportional to his merits. To put it differently: many believe that rich people do not deserve being rich and, somehow, this is then used to justify envy.

There would be at least two things to note about this. First of all, we should define the term “rich”. Because it happens to be that some envious pygmies do not only consider great tycoons as “rich” – some of whom would be unable to stand a thorough audit – but they put in the same bag all those who do not happen to live in a shack. There are a great number of people who own some property, who live relatively well and look “rich” in the eyes of certain political activists. But those same activists take great care never to acknowledge that these people have what they possess because they have broken their backs working over a whole lifetime. And even if such an individual does not have the strict morals of a Benedictine monk, this does not mean that his possessions are not worth the work, the dedication and the perseverance invested in earning them. In any case, we would have to see how strict the morality of the envious who criticize him actually is.

Secondly, I believe we should learn to differentiate among those who impose, support and maintain an unfair social order, from those who day-by-day only do their best to survive, earn a living and eventually thrive in this essentially iniquitous system. We should be able to better distinguish between those who impose the rules of the game from those who only sat down at the table to play. Let’s admit at least that not everyone has the calling to be a revolutionary; just like not everyone has the capacity of being a revolutionary.

Be it as it may, solidarity is not the virtue of the Robin Hoods of Society. Beyond the justice and injustice of the system in which we live, solidarity is a behaviour we can all take on by helping those in need, and helping those who help us. A relationship of solidarity is not a relationship where one who has much gives to one who has little; it is a relationship where everyone gives what he can. The powerful will give protection and the weak will return loyalty. The rich man will give the opportunities he can build and the poor man will seize them to overcome his poverty with his work and showing gratitude in return. And you can always lend a hand to those who help others.

Let us help those who need us. Let us help those who help us, and let us help those who help others.

Essentially, solidarity is just that.

And it’s not that hard to do.