• Submitted by: manso
• Society
• 01 / 29 / 2011

---

Excerpts from "Without Fear of Wealth," an article in Palabra Nueva, the monthly publication of the Archdiocese of Havana. It was written by Orlando Márquez Hidalgo, spokesman for the Archdiocese, and deals with the lifting of restrictions on self-employment.

Self-employment will no longer be a synonym for defect or social parasitism,among other things, and that's not bad. But the fear of some and the skepticism of others arises when the former worry excessively and express alarm because the self-employed, the latter, can become "rich" and no longer be like the others, or like them.

We need to put aside our concerns, because it is difficult for someone to become rich selling pizzas, doing body work on a car, or giving English lessons. Maybe he'll earn more than a doctor but that self-employed worker (or small entrepreneur, as the case may be) is not responsible for the salary of a doctor or a teacher. And if he runs a "paladar" and earns more, much more than an athlete or an engineer, he should not be reproached for that.

The evil is not in wealth or poverty but in the way one lives those realities,and in the honesty and goodness that we imprint on our lives, be they rich or poor. While one can cast doubt on the origin of many riches, one should not
doubt the good origin of others or the good use given to them by some owners.

To oppose the "rich" man only because he's rich could originate in a wrong ideological conviction or simply in envy, among other causes, but in practice such opposition only provides one alternative: to put the rich man in a position contrary to the one he holds, or prevent the emergence of a successful private entrepreneur, and in this there are no gray areas because the antonym of rich is poor.

when somehow invoking punishment or casting suspicion on the newly rich man, we might be advocating, perhaps unwillingly, the primacy of the poor man and poverty. And, as demonstrated, that way we don't prevent theft, the illegal enrichment of some and therefore inequality, even though we all have the same ration card.

So, the idea should not be to punish the successful man and reward the less fortunate or inept man but to give equal opportunities to both. I do not believe that "to enrich oneself is glorious" (an idea attributed to Chinese reformer Deng Xiaoping) but I do believe that to seek, with honesty and transparency, a richer country is a necessity in this world.

If the conditions and resources for this exist, to aspire to less is a lamentable display of mediocrity. To impose ideological limits on individual ability or initiative is counterproductive to true progress. For our country to be richer, we need to create wealth.

The generation of wealth and the emergence of newly "rich" men could certainly represent a different ethical or legal challenge, but widespread poverty is no less challenging or dangerous for our society. And society will be safer when
the citizens have attained a standard of living in accord with their possibilities and aspirations, without prejudice of others.

The steps taken so far, and those spelled out in the Guidelines can lead us up a better road. But there will come a time when reality imposes new demands to which we'll have to respond (like now) decisively, such as accumulating and reproducing a greater national wealth.

Perhaps, then we'll need new guidelines or updates of the model.

Source: //miamiherald.typepad.com/