It is highly painful for me whenever I imagine that the poor babies are deprived of the milk which is drunk by the cats of the rich. This demonstrates a deep gap between rich and poor in our society. Moreover, human dignity is on the verge of erosion. Exploitation is rife among the rich. In other words, the poor labor twenty-four/seven and the fruits of their sweat go to the pockets of the rich. Perhaps, I can say that human beings have been changed into industrial robots that do not only lack value but also run until they drop. In free market, human is defined in the frame of material advantages such as a greedy and ego-centric animal who knows nothing about the virtue and moral values.

According to the capitalist, human beings are fundamentally greedy, ego-centric beings who can only be compelled to act with the promise of profit. This understanding has it that “free market” capitalism is a natural by-product of this greed, this social-Darwinist thirst for dominance and material extravagance, and that any system that ignores this essential “human nature” is doomed to corruption at the top and lethargy from the bottom.

The capitalist would argue that naked self interest in the form of overwhelming material greed is at its base, and to express this need, human beings naturally turn to exploitation. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the market-place” asserts the role of Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” and therefore without capitalism, without an organized system of exploitation based in rules, human life would be “nasty, brutish and short” as Hobbes asserted about life for pre-civilized humans. Yet it is believed that Hobbes’ morose understanding of human society falls into the same pitfall that the bourgeoisie’s self-serving analysis of human nature. Pre agricultural societies, in which society was organized in a primitive accumulation mode of production, were not nearly as “nasty, brutish and short” as Hobbes would have thought, according to both historical accounts and anthropological studies of modern hunter-gatherer tribes.

I believe that in order to be accepted into society and to have a chance to express their need for social production, human beings are often coerced into following the prevailing ideology in their society. The typical worker reaches a point in which, even if they are fully aware of the injustices they face in their social circumstances, they must make the choice between sacrificing their social relationships to oppose exploitation, or else prostrate themselves to the powers that be. Given these options, many retreat to more socially acceptable means of resistance, or worse, throw up their hands and submit to the hegemony of the capitalist class.

Workers are made to accept the capitalist system’s ends of extravagance and means of plunder not because they agree with these means and ends, not because they are greedy and savage, but because they are made to feel that they have no choice. If they stand up, they risk standing alone and if they dare to rebel against their boss or their government, they risk being socially and economically outcast and rendered unable to continue their social production. A parent will work long hours at minimum wage in order to support their children, enduring hardship and injustice every step of the way with little complaint for fear that they will lose their job. A worker in a colonized country will be deterred from anti-colonialist activity if they are made to think that rebellion on their part will cost the lives of their loved ones. Can we blame them for their weakness?

When given the choice between being alienated from their production at workplace and being able to maintain friendships and family relationships, or risking the inability to achieve either end, can we truly blame the victim of coercion under capitalism for conformity when they have so much to lose? To say yes is to demand that a human being cease to be human. The prevailing ideas in any age are those of the ruling class, and when that class rules both the social and economic destinies of those subjected to its power, it is expected that human beings would adapt their nature to this set of circumstances.

Capitalism instills in us the idea that war, greed, hatred, bigotry, are basic to human nature, have always existed, and will always exist. The “peaceable kingdom,” they say, is not achievable, but only an “ideal” because “we humans are naturally evil and only the rule of law keeps us from murdering each other.” Basic human values of goodness, fairness and community, they say, are only truly attainable in the afterlife, and only if we obey their rule of law in the here and now.

The fact is that we are all judged by the amount of wealth we are able to accumulate – something which is rife in our society. For working people, it is limited to the amount of wages we can get from our employer – every penny of which we must fight for.

Basically, if we are earning minimum wage, even though some of those jobs are the hardest, the most labor intensive, under the capitalist value system we are considered “minimal” humans. If we are unemployed, we have no worth and are forced to beg for a living, perhaps even through sitting on the street.

In our society, from the very first days of socialization under capitalism, children are measured against each other. They are measured by standardized tests, and assessed by how well they adapt to the profit-driven environment of capitalism.

I remember vividly when a friend of mine said that he could discern the cold treatment of his parents at home for having no job and money while his brothers are treated warmly for having job and brining home money.

We are not supposed to assess one’s value on the basis of their outcome whereas our religion values one on the basis of virtue and moral standards. Moreover, the government should adopt an effective mechanism to bridge the gap between rich and poor.