(by G Waugh)
The very idea of a free-market economy is often conflated with the idea of true freedom an individual is supposed to enjoy. And the reason why we guys keep writing the about the ‘free-market’ all the time is because it is one most powerful idea that has wreaked the most havoc among millions of lives and livelihoods cutting across nations and continents during the last five decades or so. When one chooses to comment upon a particular contemporary issue such as rising incidence of cancer in a rather well-to-do society or that of increasing numbers of suicides among the student community, it is indispensable that he knows a thing or two about the influence of the free-market upon the society in question as to make a convincing case for himself.
When you look at the term ‘free-market’ it generally looks more like an economic jargon not necessarily of any importance to the general citizen. But there is nothing really esoteric about it and if you know what it really means, you will understand that it is something as basic or crucial as knowing math or traffic rules that help you lead a proper day-to-day life.
The term ‘free-market’ essentially means non-intervention of the state/government in the affairs of managing the market. So what does the market actually mean? The place for buying and selling of commodities which could be as wide ranging as fish, soap, electricity, education, health, labour and sometimes even justice. The case for a free-market, as you may have observed is often pitched for only by one particular class in the society and not certainly the others. The rich industrialist or his band of financial analysts often leads the campaign for the withdrawal of the government out of the spheres of his influence while adding a moral tinge to it by furthering it as the only panacea for all social and economic ills. He implores the non-interference of the government on the issues of prices he sets for his assiduously-built product in the market, on the terms and conditions of employment he sets for his workforce, on his capacity to expand beyond his current sphere of production as to branch out into other areas, etc.
In a liberal democracy such as ours, a democratically elected government in general, one that enjoys the mandate of the majority of the nation’s masses is naturally expected to provide for at least the basic essentials required for a fairly dignified existence of the individual. The government is thus, entitled to run schools, hospitals, transport and colleges aimed at lessening the costs of these barest essentials for citizens to procure. But the governments all over the world in order to encourage private initiative and entrepreneurship, took a minor retreat from all these areas and stood back to serve primarily as an active observer or arbiter making way for entrepreneurs and the commercial classes to take over the responsibilities of delivering these essentials to its citizens.
In other words, the government majorly funded and run by its poor and middle classes had decided to outsource most of its responsibilities to newer service providers, on the promise of better and efficient delivery of services. However, the role of the government was still supposed to be active in ways such as capping the prices of essential commodities, setting wage laws for the sale and acquisition of labour, enforcing safety laws for labourers at the workplace, implementation of regulated fee structures for students in schools and colleges and even laws guaranteeing protection of jobs from retrenchment. Governments that ran on these lines were installed all over the world post the Second World War across Europe and even in the newly liberated countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. These governments were called Welfare States that allowed and encouraged private initiative while preserving sufficient wherewithal to rein in on their profiteering tendencies in the very interest of the majority.
The creation of the Welfare State was accepted for a while even by the propertied classes as it managed to create enough purchasing power and infuse necessary demand for their manufactured commodities. The Welfare State also succeeded in creating a proper supply of skilled manpower for employment in the critical processes of commodity production. But as the scale of the businesses expanded and newer avenues of profiteering appeared on the horizon enabled by breakthroughs in technology, the so-called captains of industry were not happy to stay on a tight leash. This meant pushing for greater freedom to do business through removal of regulatory oversight over every aspect of their businesses.
This may seem a legitimate demand akin to those of writers and artists asking for removal of restrictions on the part of an overweening government over their rights to free speech and construction of healthy public opinion. And this analogy was precisely the one that the business classes made use of, accusing the government of inappropriate interventionism through enforcement of licensing regulations, outdated taxation practices that fleece enterprising businessmen, smothering innovation and efficiency all the while.
Before we venture further, let us remind ourselves that housing, health and education are sectors that are crucial for the growth of every individual and consequently that of the whole society and it is the bounden duty of a democratically elected, citizen-funded government to make these accessible to its patrons at the lowest possible costs regardless of who provides it and how. But in a context where these services have already indiscriminately been outsourced by the government, the only role that it could play at the most was that of an impartial arbiter who ensures proper provision of all these social goods by the private sector to the tax-paying citizen. And this role was what that was deeply contested by the business classes who demanded an outright abdication on the part of the government in order to create a ‘business-friendly’ climate that favours private initiative through unrestricted profiteering.
A government that no longer cares even a smidgen about its primal responsibilities towards its patron-citizens, one that demotes itself to the role of a powerless spectator even when millions of its tax-payers suffer from rising prices, shortage of commodities, malnutrition, lack of sanitation and hygiene, unemployment and poor working conditions, unaffordable costs of healthcare and education is the ideal government that a typical captain of industry wishes deeply for. A government that fattens itself at the expense of the taxpayer only to subordinate itself to the role of a facilitator or an agent of business is what is meant by popular slogans such as ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ echoed quite often by free-market evangelists.
A new class of economists and technocrats were conceived by the captains of American industry whose duty was to create new economic theories and standards that celebrated the virtues of economic freedom and unhindered consumerism as early as the 1960s. This new class was called the ‘Chicago Boys’ on account of their training at the Chicago University who were deployed to serve governments situated across the world especially amongst Third World countries. The newly invented theory called ‘neo-liberalism’ or the theory of the Free-Market denounced the regulatory tendencies of the State as ‘interventionist’ or ‘monopolist’ and hence termed them anathema to the basic idea of human freedom calling for an immediate end to this unacceptable tragedy. This theory was popularized across nations as the new gospel of liberation and people in Chile and Bolivia were chosen to be the first set of guinea-pigs for the experiment. The experiment naturally failed to revive the social and economic indices of these poor countries but succeeded in liberating the national resources and public infrastructure of these countries from the clutches of the government for the local and international big businesses to devour abundantly.
Having achieved their first success within less than a decade of implementing neo-liberal reforms by effectively pushing millions and millions of people into poverty, starvation and death, the Chicago School of economists were invited to embark on successive tours that included Ecuador, Thailand and newly liberated countries of the erstwhile Soviet Union. The free-market wherever it landed produced consistently horrible results and stories of poverty, destruction and social upheavals became almost ubiquitous. But the scale of losses of lives and livelihoods due to the neoliberal phenomenon is not the subject of this essay.
The question I want to raise here is purely from a moral standpoint – Is a democratically elected government that functions based on the financial and moral legitimacy bestowed on it by the working classes, morally entitled to shirk away from the responsibilities of providing basic services to its citizens? If the crucial question of how much time a worker must spend at the factory or how much must he be paid on a daily basis is to be decided by an ‘unknown’ market over which one has absolutely no control, how can such a society be even called ‘democratic’? When the government that is run by elected representatives of the people has no say in the exploitation and distribution of a nation’s precious resource such as minerals or even water, what basic purpose does such a government even try to serve? On what moral authority does such a government even instruct its citizens to pay their taxes? Why should a citizen pay for something which gives him nothing in return?
When a particular class of a society calls for de-nationalization of a natural resource, what it actually calls for is the exit of the tax-paying citizen from the privilege of managing or claiming it. When the delivery of social goods such as education, health, water and housing is no longer allowed to be part of the State’s domain, what it naturally means is a surrender of a vast amount of decision-making from the hands of the citizens to a well-to-do coterie of powerful individuals who, according to the rule-book of the free-market, cannot be held accountable for any lapse or pitfall on their part.
So the next time we see an economist or a captain of industry call for the exit of government from a particular sphere of economy, we must have no doubt as to how to interpret it. A call for privatization or de-regulation is nothing but an open call exhorting the citizen to surrender his hard-won right to rule over himself to the caller and pave the way for a modern-day autocracy. Even if such a system of political economy in the most unlikely case manages to lift people out of poverty and bring overall development, it has no right to call itself democratic or even morally legitimate.
Nikhil Ramankutty
August 23, 2020
All this presumes that ‘the State’ is a en effective representation of the interests of the citizenry. In my understanding and observation, and I’m more than willing to be corrected, it never is in practice. I appreciate the issues of power dynamics involved in letting ‘free’ individuals transact with each other with little restraint. I dare say it still produces better results than a predatory ‘State’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 23, 2020
A totally FREE market doesn’t work and isn’t even what the industry captains in the US really want or get. If this weren’t so, why would they lobby govt? Why would Big Oil and Big Auto lobby govt to block the development of electric cars until some Southwestern states began to offer incentives for them that Tesla could take advantage of and do what GM or Ford should have. The closest the world had to a full free market was the so called Gilded Age of the US and it resulted in the birth of Progressivism and also of terms like ‘Robber Baron’. A market picks winners and losers efficiently and too much of that efficiency is not conducive for social harmony.
But would a substantially nationalised and intervening state have been the alternative? I don’t think so and here, the US govt really needed to understand its role or where it COULD play a productive role better. As factories were moved overseas, taking jobs along with them, incentives should have been offered to set up software and other service industries in the so-called Rust Belt. The Great Lakes region is resource rich and offers vastly lower cost of living. That is, it COULD support a secondary tech hub given the right incentives. But no effort in this direction was made and mayors and Governors simply watched helplessly as once flourishing towns turned into wastelands. It has happened in some pockets too; Minneapolis reversed a degrowth trend in the 90s. Columbus is growing at a fairly rapid clip too.
Had the 1% only not seen even such efforts as wasteful expenditure, growth could have been spread more equitably across the US and you could have avoided the upheaval of today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theeversriram
August 23, 2020
I’m no one to say this, but I feel these kinds of overtly polarising posts shouldn’t be in this blog. We come to this blog to escape from work, right vs left, Hindu vs libtards, etc conversations that kill all discussions in other social media.
Mr. G Waugh, why not create another blog yourself or any other outlet?
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 24, 2020
The best thing about me writing something political is I get a lot of useful comments from you about which I learn a lot. I understand that no captain of industry shall favour a fully free market since that might end up detrimental to his own interest. The point of the article was to question how the idea of the free market itself is anathema to the principles of democracy and citizen participation for which we needed centuries to get there.
As we all know none of the countries follow the free market model but it doesn’t mean the model doesn’t exist at all, right? When you take an individual sector, you can see what model it follows. And if the sector is something directly linked to our natural resources, the scope for exploitation in a free market model is manifold and one has to admit, there is a serious lack of democracy out there, at least in that sector.
Same way Noam Chomsky used to vouch for worker management of factories. If workers cannot decide how many hours one must work, there is a serious lack of democracy in one’s life. Democracy after all doesn’t mean choosing your ruler once in five years alone. You need to have the right to decide how you work and there simply isn’t any method or discussion out there to get close to that, in a so called ‘free’ market model.
I just wanted all of us to forget for a moment the efficiency parameters of economic models and think whether any of the models in the truest spirit synchronises itself with the ideals of true democracy and is morally sound. In today’s age where we all obsessed with productivity and efficiency, the moral component is something I feel that is amiss most of the time. And most of the time I try to rake up that issue through my essays. And in a time when the covid pandemic peaks when almost the entire civil society is in a dormant state, the govt issues edicts to denationalize the whole country with abandon and I really want all of us to think about the free market idea and arrive at an informed opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 24, 2020
Your question at the end of your comment has its answer at the beginning. If Rangan decides to keep my essays away from infesting his blog, I will have to find a way to get my work posted somewhere else.
Also I don’t, if you may have seen my other essays, concentrate only on politics or economics. I have written about films and even evolution as well. Anyway thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
Eswar
August 24, 2020
You need to have the right to decide how you work and there simply isn’t any method or discussion out there to get close to that, in a so called ‘free’ market mode
It does exist. If you have an idea and if you have the skills to execute it, market it and trade those skills with something else, say money, then in a free market, you have the right to decide how you work. But if you do not want to or cannot do all of these, but want to trade only parts of it , say trade only your labour, then you don’t always have a say on your ways of working until you free yourself from the clutches of Money.
For example, if you are a successful self publishing author, then you have lot more control over not only your working hours but also your content, your pricing, profits etc. And what is that required to be able to produce your own content and exercise it in your own way? Individual Freedom. And that is why free market does not stand well when individuals do not have the right to exercise their freedom. And that is why the key requirement of a free market is the freedom of its people. So even in the world of self publishing if the government is going to own every word you type, then why would someone bother writing at all unless they are the beneficiaries of the censorship. For you and I to write, first we need freedom, and then a free market to trade what we write.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
August 24, 2020
Each party in power does the bare minimum it needs to form the govt the next year and that is subject to their appetite for power. Rest of the times, the govt is filling its own pockets. It isn’t a well-oiled machinery as one would hope it is. It is like the chain on a very old cycle that breaks down every now and then.
This essay also assumes that there are abundant amount of people who are selfless and work towards serving their constituency. That is simply not true.
As for privatisation, take for example the Railways. Govt does the bare minimum – ensure that it is functioning. But is it the most comfortable, is it the most clean, or is there even active efforts to make sure that ticket holders are given their comfort they bought for money (read general tickets climbing aboard on reserved coaches)?
Capitalism is a rat race but there’s good coming out of it almost always. Imagine if the Railways to be entirely privatised. Say Mukesh buys some zone and Anil buys some other zone. Now what is Mukesh and Anil’s purpose? To make the most money out of it and keep making it.
Where do their money come from? From the rail travellers like us. From the ensuing rat race between Mukesh and Anil to take as much money from us, they would have to make our comfort their goal. It’s a win-win situation. I as a customer get my money’s worth. The capitalist private company gets their share of the reward for satisfying me. Government’s role here would be to keep the competitiveness on and avoiding at all costs – an emergence of monotony.
Capitalism relies on money for a service/product offering. Government doesn’t rely on anything. Its pockets are deep. Government is a dream company. It doesn’t have to work to satisfy its customers at all, but it will still be raking in the moolah. This is the problem.
LikeLike
Madan
August 24, 2020
Amit Joki: Rail is a bad example because passenger rail is not very profitable barring exceptional circumstances like high population density in a relatively small country (Japan). Rail only works for the passenger when there are frequent and regular services but such services may require operating low load trips that make a loss too. The fundamental problem in rail is right of way. One train running on one track occupies that line completely through the duration of its journey. This does not happen in say a private run bus service because you can have as many of them operating at the same time as traffic conditions permit. Air conditioned, app based shuttles were flourishing in Mumbai before the lockdown. But if you give right of way to operate a train to an operator and it’s a badly needed service, the operator can price it high and harm customer satisfaction.
In India, the way to go is somewhat along the lines of what the govt is doing, which is to target high density routes and offer superfast trains to operate for private operators. Mumbai-Delhi for eg, even Bangalore-Chennai would be a good sector. You will not be able to do that in low price but high load sectors such as in the Eastern part of the country.
LikeLike
krishikari
August 25, 2020
@mr. jeeva I’m sure this is not an original question for you but have you thought about writing text books for schools or colleges?
Also I have no problem with anything BR chooses to publish here but I am also a bit curious about why all these educational pieces are appearing in this blog.
LikeLike
brangan
August 25, 2020
krishikari: The Reader’s Write In pieces are up the readers, and I just publish them so they offer some variety and engagement. I could restrict these pieces to entertainment, but even the readers here have different sides to them, no?
And I figure that if people don’t want to engage with a post, they can just ignore it.
Ideally, I’d like pieces on books and art and dance stuff, but people don’t seem to be sending in those 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 25, 2020
@krishikari I just send to Rangan whatever I feel is worth discussing and if he shares my view, he will post them here.
Do you feel bored or can I take your question as a compliment?
LikeLike
brangan
August 25, 2020
Jeeva: I don’t necessarily “share your views” (or anyone’s views). I would not presume to know much about communism, for instance, apart from the broad strokes.
But it’s a space for readers to express themselves and (hopefully) get a discussion going.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 25, 2020
@brangan I didn’t mean ‘sharing my view’ in the ideological sense of the word. I told I send whatever I feel is worth discussing to you and if share my view, you will post that. So I meant that if you share my view that ‘it is worth discussing’ you will post it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
August 25, 2020
@jeeva Please take it as a compliment, it was intended as such. I am not bored at all, I was just a bit curious. Also amazed at the range of subjects you write about.
@BR Ideally, I’d like pieces on books and art and dance stuff, but people don’t seem to be sending in those.
I sent you something, (tangentially connected to another piece here) lost in transit? Since I wrote it very un-confidently, I did not follow up till now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 25, 2020
Jeeva: Yes, of course. The ‘worth discussing’ aspect is what matters.
krishikari: Oh crap. Do send it again?
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 25, 2020
@krishikari Thanks a lot. The reason I pick some political subject or issue is because it might be too critical in today’s state of affairs and changing all our lives tremendously but most of us remain, according to me, strangely unaffected by it. Like say, the current agrarian crisis that was triggered by India’s neoliberalism but people think agriculture was gone because either the farmers were too naive or as though it were an inevitability. There are some good literature out there by Jayati Ghosh, CP Chandrasekar, P Sainath, Anand Teltumbde who have analysed this phenomena and given enough evidences to support the neoliberalism-agrarian crisis link. But it still has not entered into the arguments of educated people and I am deeply worried when a crisis is allowed to boil when we still have time to reverse it.
Same applies to other political issues like the free-market. One frustrating thing with most people is when I state some evidences in my essays of what happened in Chile, Bolivia, liberated countries from the USSR where the free-market played havoc and destroyed livelihoods, they don’t talk about it in their discussions here at all. Same happened when I wrote about America and Islamophobia, 99 percent of the discussions was about the nature and tenets of Islam and not about what was there in the article at all. I wasn’t making any generalized assumptions without any evidences. I was mentioning the incidents specifically and it was not out of some imagined conspiracy theory. But none of the incidents were talked about at all in the discussions. There are more than 150 comments for that essay but none of it talks about what is the subject of the essay. The subject was America’s involvement in today’s Islamophobia but people who were not happy with my views did not bother to contest the facts and say what they felt. They just wanted to discuss the nature of the religion and its ‘supposed’ tendencies to stir their followers to revolt which was not the subject of the essay at all.
Same applies to almost all of my political essays. After getting them posted and seeing the comments, I used to wonder why am I mentioning so many cases and names of authors and references to establish what I feel if no one is going to talk about them. I could simply have stated my assumptions and left and there would have been not much difference in the nature of the comments.
This is one reason I don’t join any discussion here. I used to reply whenever on a rare occasion people talk about what the facts in my article like you and some other people here do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 25, 2020
” but most of us remain, according to me, strangely unaffected by it.” – This could be because a lot of Indians are very pro-establishment. And a lot of Indians are also ardent Americophiles. Again, they probably were ardent Russophiles pre 1991, I wouldn’t know. But we are very adept at changing our stripes and adapting to the emergent reality, something we seem to prefer to discovering and formulating our own convictions about a subject. Considering the seemingly blissful state of nirvana our middle class seems to be in the midst of a pandemic-led economic carnage, does it surprise you that the subject of farmers’ plight would be met by nothing by abject apathy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
August 25, 2020
Same applies to almost all of my political essays. After getting them posted and seeing the comments, I used to wonder why am I mentioning so many cases and names of authors and references to establish what I feel if no one is going to talk about them.
One reason is, at least for me, some of these topics are not entirely new. I have discussed these topics many times in other forums. And most times it has been a futile discussion with most of us feeling even more stronger, about our world views, than before we had started
I have attempted to read few of your articles, but managed to finish only a couple. Just to be sure, it says a lot about me rather than your article. So please don’t take offence.
I prefer an article of this nature to exhibit some nuance, show the ideology that it is defending is vulnerable. It should talk at least something about what works in the ideology that it is opposing. Only then I find the article appealing and I am able to have a conversation. It is not very different to a relationship. Relationships works only when people in a relationship are willing to be vulnerable. Share their weakness. Listen. Appreciate the other person’s positives. It’s hard to have a relationship with someone who keeps boasting about themselves or constantly blames the other person without any introspection. Similarly if an article is all about defending or opposing an ideology, then to me it’s a propaganda that warrants no discussion. I am aware of my biases against left leaning articles but I feel similar about blindly right leaning articles as well.
I am sure all the people you quote are eminent scholars. But for every scholar you quote there is a scholar in the opposition camp who can refute it with his own truth. Then, who is right? What is the truth? Is there even one and if there is one, can we ever know it? And when we face the truth about these political topics, what should we do?
For me the truth is neither in only left or only right. I can understand a need for a welfare state but that does not mean no capitalism. I can understand why people want religion, want to preserve their culture but that doesn’t warrant fanaticism at the expense of others. I remember you quoting Jeyamohan’s pin thodarum nizhalin kural in your first essay, that you posted here. I haven’t read that title, but I find a lot of his essays in his blog written with a well rounded view that I described above. His views on Ayodhya, Vairamuthu, Sadhguru and the very recent one about religion and good governance: https://www.jeyamohan.in/137750/
An article of this nature is what makes me to reconsider my world view , warrants me to listen and discuss as opposed to say many of the essays in Mythili Sivaraman’s Haunted by Fire: Essays on Caste, Class, Exploitation and Emancipation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
August 26, 2020
krishikari: I hope it is the chronicles of your life in that amazing school with cheerleaders et al? 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sam
August 26, 2020
Agree completely with Eswar! I wish we would have thoughtful articles that understands the nuances of this very complex topic and understand history and not be one-sided a leftist ideological propaganda.
Btw, you’re confusing between forms of government and economic systems/ policies. You could’ve a democratically elected right leaning govt. voted by the public for its “small govt” principles and that govt. is ethically bound to carry out the “small govt.” policies that it ran on…
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 26, 2020
@eswar I agree most of my essays are bent on tearing the free market model of capitalism. But I don’t think I have ever tried to rid the world of capitalism and it’s influences. I just want to mention the following and close my argument.
1) I am a Marxist sympathizer and I have written about its merits only as long as it critiques the evils of capitalism. I am a great fan of the vision that it propounds, an utopian idea where everyone gets according to their needs and skills even if it is currently impracticable and nowhere near at sight. It needs only honesty to mention that the last century the world has been a better place to live in only because of capitalism that worked with a human face. Even now, the only model that seems to work is not communism/socialism but only a mixed economic model of capitalism, or The Welfare State (please don’t confuse this with Socialism since the Welfare model was devised by a pro-capitalist economist JM Keynes). I will go to any extent to fight this out with a full blooded communist who thinks only communism is the model that could work anytime.
2)My essays, if you think are pieces of propaganda then most of them must sing paeans to the achievements of communist countries and my full series “The Russian Revolution” should have been one. It certainly was not and I can vouch for that. Whenever I have spoken about an achievement in a communist country, I have ensured covering the other side as well. I did not do that with a view to look balanced and objective in the eyes of my readers. This is how I saw them and it would have been dishonesty on my part to ignore the failures of last century’s communist countries like China, Cambodia,etc. My series on Russia has spoken a lot about crimes and atrocities that happened in that empire and no communist of today will feel glad reading about my book.There is a separate chapter that meditates why Marxists and Fascists came together in orchestrating the worst crimes among humanity even if both of them are ideologically divergent. This is one of the reasons I haven’t even recommended the book to my father’s friends most of whom belong to the CPI(M).
3) My attraction towards Marxism is because of its ability to study history with a unique perspective (which may or may not appeal to you) which none of the right-wing intellectuals can hope to have. When I see the current world with a Marxist perspective, I am able to see the reason behind a lot of failings and tragedies and understand it better. To put it succinctly, Marxism is an absolute success when it comes to theory, a viewpoint even Jeyamohan has accepted. If you read some of his essays, you will get to know that he has read and understood history properly only with the help of Marxist tools and methods given to him by Indian Marxist historiographer DD Kosambi.
There are two reasons why I don’t buy the arguments of right-wing intellectuals- one, because their fundamentals, in my opinion are too flimsy and two, they belong to and represent only one class in society and are strongly financed by the rich who have so much to gain by polarising popular opinion in their favour. One example is the case of the Chicago Boys mentioned in the above essay who were funded, fostered and trained by American industrialists who did not want the Welfare Model to continue.
Another most important reason why I don’t want to give a ‘balanced’ view of the situation just like you say, by giving weightage to the other end of the spectrum, is because their arguments are the one that occupy almost every mainstream discussion. In today’s world, the dominant perspective is that of a right wing intellectual and the world does not need a Milton Friedman or Hayek or a Subramaniya Swamy to safeguard its foundations. The right wing is on an unstoppable ascent and left-wing opinions are getting marginalised and obliterated to say the least. When my not too-well read team-mate at office can easily give me a right-wing version of a current issue, why do I have to go and read Adam Smith?
So to sum up, I always think that for every rising dominant school of thought that gains maximum, unquestioned currency an alternative school of thought must stand and block its progress. So in today’s society I would like to belong to the opposition and tell people what they can’t listen amid the din of right-wing voices.
Something crucial that is often forgotten in today’s economic debates is the disillusionment of even well-meaning pro-business economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Jeff Sachs with models of neoliberalism which they thought would bring in overall prosperity only to be proved wrong later. These people have in fact come out heavily in support of restoring welfare measures and Stiglitz’s book The Discontents of Globalization and John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman are fine examples of how ruthless the free-market fundamentalists can really get in usurping the resources of the Third World. When the rest of the world is slowly thinking about how to relieve itself from neo-liberalism and pro-austerity forces, India is, on the contrary racing across to embrace the model with a bunch of supporters hailing and cheering the move blindly.
Before I conclude, another most important reason why I keep mentioning the views of eminent left-wing scholars and historians is because of the same thing, their voices do not come to occupy mainstream media space at all. For all their claims to freedom and democracy, the record of America and Western Europe over the Third World, Latin America and Africa has been too terrible to say the least. But none of their crimes get discussed among our mainstream forums and media and whenever they appear on a rare occasion, they easily get sidelined because they don’t gel well with the orientation of the current political discourse that is tilted heavily against the Left. If America can murder people in Iraq and Afghanistan through Predator devices located at Washington’s Pentagon just like you kill a character in a video-game at the comfort of your home and get away with impunity, what does it say about the integrity of right-wing intellectuals who think they save the world from ideas against freedom? How can I ever trust them?
I am a left-winger and I will remain so for as long as I can see. But I don’t agree at all when you say people know all the facts I have stated in my essays and have decided to brush my viewpoint taking an informed decision. May be you could be an exceptional person well conversant with what I am saying but the majority who don’t buy my views do not ignore my facts and argue against me for that purpose. They, as Madan say are pro-establishment and are not ready to ruminate over things that do not sit well with their pre-formed views.
@Eswar, thanks for giving me an opportunity to write something which I had always wanted to do like a disclaimer/preface and I might not reply for your comments you might offer to this. Please do not misunderstand me for I don’t think these are issues that could be settled properly by writing reams of text in an electronic forum. I don’t argue with my friends too unless I meet them directly. We both shall be typing essays and essays with our own well-informed ideas without a point of convergence and it might be of no use to each other. If I am paid for this, I would love to do this all day. Thanks once again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
krishikari
August 26, 2020
@amit oh yeah, and dedicated to to you only 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
August 26, 2020
Jeeva: Thanks. Just wanted to address a couple of your points.
It does not matter if a welfare state was designed by a free marketeer or not. In essence it is wealth distribution and there is some need for it even in a most capitalist society. Ken Livingstone, of the Labour Party, apparently nicked the idea for the London Congestion charge from Milton Friedman. While taxation is a very left policy, in theory, this one comes from Friedman. But in the London context it makes sense to me at least at a high level. London roads are very narrow. It makes sense to have less vehicles on the road, so people using it should pray for the externality. Now one can choose to debate this purely from a capitalist vs socialist point of view or strip of these labels and discuss purely from the impact of such a policy, it’s beneficiaries and victims. Over the years I have started preferring this over being wedded to an ideology. The ideological labels are for academics and politicians. For a common man, it’s what these policies do that matter. Does a life become any less valuable because it belongs to a leftist or rightist? Or a crime becomes any less because the perpetrator belongs to a certain ideology. The real world is so complex that one cannot slot every act within binary ideas. You mentioned the Agrarian crisis earlier. Agriculture is necessary because we need food on the table. But do we need as many farmers in the past to produce for today’s needs? If no, then many farmers have to move away from agriculture even if they don’t want to. And this is not just a problem of the agriculture industry. The Indian IT services sector can have a similar fate. I appreciate this is not a fair comparison and not all sectors including agriculture had enough time to adapt themselves to thrusting changes around them. So the moral responsibility, in my view, is to support people in these sectors to find other ways to survive instead of only relying on sectors like agriculture which may not be able to provide them a living anymore. But if we start with a premise that a certain sector like agriculture is sacred, then it becomes difficult to have any meaningful conversation. On top of that, obscuring the problem with ideological labels makes it impossible to discuss. Ironically isn’t it agriculture that laid the foundation for capitalism? Agriculture created excess. Excess resulted in division of labour. Then a feudal system. Contrast this with the hunter gatherers which, in theory, promoted sharing because it’s hard to get a kill. And they didn’t know of a way to preserve the kill. So they have to depend on each other for survival. But I am sure they would have figured out a way to be capitalistic at some point.
I don’t know what is your basis for saying right wing intellectuals have flimsy foundations. But if they represent one particular class, then can you not say the same for the left wing intellectuals as well? Is there even a group that represents everyone out there? And if the right wing is fostered by industrialists who are the patrons for the left wing intellectuals?
So to sum up, I always think that for every rising dominant school of thought that gains maximum, unquestioned currency an alternative school of thought must stand and block its progress..
In another century or two when the left takes over the world, the right will come back with vengeance reciting exactly what you said above. If you are doubtful re-read the comments in your Islamophobia post. You can see how a section who feel they didn’t have a voice so far is trying to give it back and make their voices heard. Unless this cycle is broken we are going to swing from left to right and then right to left and then back to right. That is exactly why it is so important to aim to provide a well rounded view – like Jeyamohan praising Marxist analysis and DD Kosambi but at the same time criticising Marxists politicians. Batting for Hinduism but still sees Hindutva as its destroyer.
I will end this with a favourite quote from Devdutt Pattanaik.
Modern academic discourse, rooted in Greek mythology, taught in universities around the world is shaped by doubt and argument, vi-vaad, where the truth shall prevail. Traditional Indian academic discourse, now completely sidelined even by ‘nationalists’, is shaped by faith and discussion, sam-vaad, where your truth shall inform my truth and my truth shall inform your truth, and thus both our truths shall expand towards infinity.
LikeLike
Sriram
August 27, 2020
Beautifully put by Eswar.
@G Waugh, your knowledge and writing skills are admirable but any one sided article will have a very limited audience and that too only those who agree with the ideology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 27, 2020
@eswar I have a lot of counter-arguments to your points but I don’t have the patience and time to type them in here. That’s why I told you trying to convince each other through comments and counter-arguments is a waste of time for both of us. For the past six years I have been doing this on Fb and whatsapp and what I found ultimately was the futility of the entire exercise. You can ask me why I am writing essays if I don’t favour arguments and counter-arguments. The purpose of essay-writing and that of commenting are totally different from each other but the former gives me some gratification which I don’t get from the latter. Thanks for your time though. If we come across a topic where we see eye to eye, may be we can talk with each other to join in the fun and that might be more rewarding and purposeful.
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
August 27, 2020
@sriram I never once complained that I am not getting enough audience here. I know I wil always be in the minority. I just spoke about the type of discussions my essays generate here.
Anyway thanks for the compliment.
LikeLike
Madan
August 27, 2020
” Unless this cycle is broken we are going to swing from left to right and then right to left and then back to right. ” – Well we did break this cycle, that’s what the Great Moderation was about and look what they did with the financial crisis. The adjustment you speak of, i.e. welfare or redistribution within a capitalist society, is exactly what did not take place in the US.
I will also juxtapose two events here to demonstrate how ‘wokeness’ works in the US context.
When Sanders was leading Biden in the Dem Primaries, it caused so much consternation for the wealthiest that Lloyd Blankfein said he would have to vote for Trump if Sanders became the nominee. Imagine feeling that threatened by higher taxes and health and education reforms.
When protests erupted across the US over the death of George Floyd, Jamie Dimon took a knee along side Nancy Pelosi in solidarity with the protesters. This would be admirable but for the fact that it is ONLY such symbolic gestures that a Dimon or Blanfein would support. They don’t even mind when the symbolism explodes into violence, rioting and looting because their own properties will never be touched by the anarchy and also because they know the violence will die down and is an ephemeral phenomenon.
That is, Blankfein or Dimon do not even mind far more radical tactics on the part of the Left just as long as no measures are carried from inside govt to change the structure of American society to be even slightly more equitable.
My point being centrism itself becomes a problem when (a) it is a doctrinaire centrism rejecting any even slightly economic left propositions as ‘Marxist’ or ‘socialist’ – note the derision from the right wing to some of Kejriwal’s measures which have been well received by the poor and working class in Delhi for an Indian example or (b) when the centrism is merely a shield to protect one’s wealth at any cost, even that of the long term deterioration of the very society that enabled wealth creation.
Thus, my takeaway from Jeeva’s articles is different in that even though I don’t agree with many or even most of the things he proposes, I think it is an important conversation and further that, unfortunately, the only way to drag centrists into being more flexible about left-of-centre economic solutions is to start off from a more radical negotiating point so that you meet somewhere in the middle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
August 27, 2020
Sriram: Thanks 🙂.
Jeeva: No worries. I am sure you have counter arguments. It’s not like this is the first time this topic is being discussed ever. I can understand the gratification part. But does the gratification come from merely getting it out in writing, which clears one’s mind, or it comes only when getting it out to an audience. I am merely curious. So you don’t necessarily have to answer.
Madan: I agree that centrism as a dogma is a problem of its own. I am happy to entertain an idea from either side depending on the context. The two points you mentioned about centrism are effectively true even if one is a leftist or rightist, no? In the sense people stick to one of these ideologies not necessarily because it is the best for the society but it’s to preserve their interests. And sometimes they are so dogmatic about their ideology, they would rather suffer and make others suffer instead of entertaining an marginal idea from the other camp to ease their life and others.
LikeLike
Madan
August 27, 2020
” The two points you mentioned about centrism are effectively true even if one is a leftist or rightist, no? ” – Sometimes even more true. I was just making the point that, yes, centrism has become a dogma of its own. If centrists also dig in their heels, the center cannot hold. That is what is happening today across the world. Populists have taken control because the centrists did not listen when they should have. Eventually, either the centrists will take back control or democracy will collapse; possibly, we will see either of the two events happening depending on the country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sriram
August 31, 2020
@Jeeva, i didn’t mean the views/likes/shares, i meant engaging with people who have alternate views. Anyways think there has been discussions on those points already so no need to duplicate the same.
Maybe unrelated, but riots in Sweden over Quran burning, this is the second time in less than a month where riots & violence have broken over social media posts. This has really made lot of people re-think on Islam & justified the mistrust that lot of people have for the religion.
Sadly not much people are talking about it & so called influencers on social media are quite on it, which is akin to implicit condonation.
And people are still wondering why right-wing sentiments are on the rise across the world?
LikeLike
Madan
August 31, 2020
“Sadly not much people are talking about it & so called influencers on social media are quite on it,” – You don’t say. Not a day goes by without somebody on social media talking about nobody talking about it. We can’t get in a word edgewise before the chorus of “nobody is saying anything” starts.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
September 11, 2020
Jeeva – this is an article you might like.
I believe in right wing economics and free markets ( while I am aware of their flaws). What is happening now is, even capitalist principles are going for a toss.
From the article.
” No, capitalism is now in a new, strange phase: Socialism for the very, very few (courtesy of central banks and governments catering to a tiny oligarchy) and stringent austerity, coupled with cruel competition in an environment of industrial, and technologically advanced, feudalism for almost everyone else”
LikeLiked by 1 person
TambiDude
September 11, 2020
“When Sanders was leading Biden in the Dem Primaries, it caused so much consternation for the wealthiest that Lloyd Blankfein said he would have to vote for Trump if Sanders became the nominee. Imagine feeling that threatened by higher taxes and health and education reforms.”
That is because Sanders and his protege AOC were talking about giving free education, free healthcare to all Americans which would not have been possible without someone paying for it. And those “someone” are the wealthiest.
Here is a famous quote of Margaret Thatcher
““The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.””
Frankly with third rate immigration coming from latin American countries and their 3rd rate attitude towards wealth creation, crackpots like AOC were bound to happen. They are the ones having wet dreams of free education, free healthcare etc.
LikeLike
Madan
November 28, 2020
I think this is a good place to share this post of mine because it is somewhat related. The closest we got to unfettered capitalism since the gilded age led us into the biggest crisis since the Great Depression.
LikeLike