Socialism and Capitalism and welfare state, our existing economic systems. The alternatives finally of which we do not find any alternatives. Communism, what did it do. Foisted on us a totalitarian government where finally could not just live with it. Took away the basic requirement of a Human being; freedom. I am not even delving into the camps and the absolute power which corrupted them so absolutely. But Free Market, Capitalism and its different avatar has also not been panacea exactly. Few people are getting richer and I do not disagree that it has had far better effect than communism but it has failed. Look at millions of suffering, poor people.
Actually both have failed. It’s just that Capitalism is an alternative which serves the purpose of many and is kept alive. So what is the alternative? And like all the time I have a problem I find the answers in Gandhian ways. Gandhi was no economist but he had a vision of it. We had Nehru taking us to the Fabian Socialism way with Modern Temples of India, which actually are Monstrosities of India. But Gandhi said that before jumping into any Technology see what it would do for you. I am not against technology, but technology with a context is important, not without context. Do not just Rush in Technology. See what impact it would have on employment. Capitalism tries to maximize the efficiency of the production of goods, basic necessities or luxury goods. Socialism tried was to maximize the production of capital goods, such as heavy machinery (premise was, that future generations could enjoy a plenitude of consumer goods). Both capitalist and socialist economies were based on technology-intensive rather than labor-intensive production. Gandhi proposed labour Intensive production. The aim was to make sure that full employment in economy. So that all can provide for their own necessities by their own efforts. “With dignity, without any charity.”
Gandhiji was not at all opposed to technology. He wanted a proper mix of technology-intensive and labor-intensive production, depending on the stage of economy and situation of employment and poverty. The decision makers need to ensure this mix. Ensure and decide on the amount of available resources vis a vis with the population increase of employable workers. This should be the driving force for all the decision including external trade.
He said that we should always strive for income and wealth equalization by providing productive meaningful work for everyone, even if the full use of the latest technology is postponed. After all, what is the benefit of being on the cutting edge of technology if it increases human misery?
The echo of this where Gandhi Ji’s thoughts are articulated in economic terms is “Schumachers” seminal work “Small is Beautiful” Economics as if people mattered. I leave it at that.
PS: I am not much of an economist and have written many things which I may have understood and may have remained from articles which I may have read. Please do enlighten me.
4 comments:
It all looks good on print..but i too have a few questions..
can there ever be income and wealth equalisation?
if yes, why and on what terms?
who is the decision maker? what are his qualifications? And i do not mean educational qualification..what qualifies him as a decision maker..
Who decides what is meaningful work and how is it provided? by whom..to whom?
who is the planner here? who is the implementor? and who is the worker?
How are we going to bridge the gap ?
Our constitition is based on equality..we all are equal so to say..but to bring that equality, we have to realise equity will play a very crucial role..how can we talk of qequality in society, ineconomics when the starting points are so different in this race? You cannot ask a blind, a lame guy to compete with guys who are strong, healthy, have the backing of the entire crowd and also have energy drinks in between..not to talk of the underhand tactics, and misuse of high performing substances..
my point is...do we still understand Gandhi? At his time, he was right..and most of his thoughts still sound so true..but, we have spoilt our world..the politics and ecomics of a welfare state where corruption reigns suprememe and honest dedicated policy makers ae as good as none..well..we need to debate that..yet again..
I'm no economist either..and i too have my questions..
PS: who's Co?
labour intensive can be meaningful in some particular industries and settings. Agriculture, hospitality etc still thrive on labour intensive model however with advances in technology many industries moved away from it. the factor of Economies of scale also operates in deciding the use of labour or technology.labour cost is variable and can be controlled however capital costs are fixed. so everything has its own pros and cons. therefore in an economy various factors decide such things when it comes to use. and moreover it also depends on the implementation, in fact a wise implementation. technology cannot bring human misery until its allowed to.
today computer education has become a must amongst most of the youngsters who want to start earning sooner in their careers in a competitive world. so people are also accepting and moving with that technology which was so new once upon a time.
but still at a basic level, in villages or slums if a distressed woman thinks of changing her life she starts with no technology putting her own efforts with local resources and that very much empowers her.
many watershed initiatives in india have started with whatever resources were available with the local people.
so its the wisdom and balance of the human mind; the mind can be of a policy maker, an economist or a layman. so as u say...technology with a context is important, and we shall decide the context.a context relevant to our nation and its diversity of resources.
comment 1: what does your comment convey ? ..may be by asking lots of questions, you have lost the meaning of what blog wants to convey...
No one needs to be economist to know abt the social structures... economics is study of how resources work at a given period of time... gandhian thought process can be a good tool to work as a derivative and tats what Schumacher has tried to do... however with time gap its adv isable not to follow in entirity the gandhian model but selecting points and coming to a more contemporary model....
the problem of any society , economy or group of people has always been the knowledge to know the " how much more is more " and lack os knowledge to tap potential resource(s)...
No one is required to lead create policy or make decisions... SARVE BHAVANGTU SUKHINA is an age old saying far before gandhi....
@Rishi,
True....maybe i lost the essence of the blog..as i still do not understand it..
i still am left with my questions..the answers i still have to find..and i always believed you need to learn economics in some or the other way, to understand and appreciate the social structures before trying to understand what imbalances, contradictions and hierarchies that exist..and according to me..you also need not be get a doctorate in economics to be an economist..the best of those i have met have barely been to school..
The prevalence of various schools of thought exist..at different times..in different forms..when we sit down and plan the economics of a country..of the world today, as i said..one-size-fits-all strategy would never work..
My questions pertained mostly to understand how we find a balance..how we set a direction..and how we think of equality when the starting points are so varied..and the system has become inherently corrupt..
As to my questions..they still remain..and hopefully i will get my answers..Marx, Gandhi, Stalin, Mao, Schumacher..i still have to study them to appreciate them..i still am not that well read..and very ashamed to say that too..
Post a Comment