Kalki is not coming.-I
Related to earlier post. Repeating the point as response to end note of confused's post
1. Appropriating Gandhi for free market is contradiction. For me, it is not possible to disconnect the means that Mahatma Gandhi employed with the goals he had in mind.Ideology of Bapu was highly altruist, to say the least, and it is with respect to this world view that he set out his paths and his methods .
Whereas the basic premise behind capitalism and free market is pursue of self interest. It is this as a guiding light that role of state as well as form of policy is defined. Therefore expectation of a Mahatma like figure evangelising about free markets is a paradox in itself.
Here I do not object only for the sake of the principle but for the reason that this expectation to me seems a fundamental flaw.
( Frog pointed out that a person can embrace free market for sake of altruism. However I do not think (I may be wrong) that free markets are a very attractive solution for an altruist. In all probability altruist will go for welfare state. Further for someone to spread the "gospel of free market" he must be convinced about primary importance of free market and not just as a system (not very efficient one at that) to deliver welfare.)
2. However the greater problem with this for me is social (or philosohipical).
By the very expectation that one person is going to take burden to reform the present rot, to me betrays another form of messianism.
More important than free market, more important than globalisation or capitalism is the question on what premises we want to base our society, our nation.
In my opinion the society which depends on some individual or some entity (i.e. state) for its welfare or progress can not succeed.
Dependency in any form can only breed intellectual feebleness. And it is from lack of ideas that a nation or a civilization wither away. I do not think (or to be more precise I do not know) that altruism can be done away with entirely.
However we should stress on individuals to be self-dependent. When I say self-dependent, I do not only mean that he should earn his own living but he should actively contemplate , explore and contribute ideas too. In other words he should also earn his own ideals and beliefs.
This misplaced expectation of salvation through an avataar, Kalki if you will, this faith in saviour is typical of all the religions (including Hinduism).
This is not characteristic of a strong society, these prophesies of mahdi are either psychological support for vanquished or mirage for ignorant.
The best way, the surest way to progress is for each one to be his own guiding light. Any society which expects someone else to wear crown of thrones for its salvation is bound to be disappointed. Let us not heap our crosses on someone else's shoulder, even God needs rest.
4 comments:
I do agree wholeheartedly with your point about messianism; waiting for such a person is surely a sign of intellectual feebleness.
But as regards the first : to what do you owe your relative preference for free market ( over welfare state ) to - for yourself to be rich or because you get pained by the poverty in India? In my case is certainly is the latter. I am afraid the free market might destroy many aspects of our culture which makes life for me more pleasant in India, but to feed everyone it is probably necessary.
Why do you say that an altruist would go for the welfare state? That implies either that altruists have poor thinking capability or that welfare state satisfies "greater good for greater number" or something like that.
Frog,
Frankly,I am not sure but I will try to answer.
First free markets ensure that each individual earns according to a combination of factor such as skill, labour, intelligence and job profile. Somehow I find it more pursuasive (or to coin a term socially stable strategy) than "from each according to his capability to each according to his need".
While adapting free markets in India will go a long way to eliminate poverty this will be owing to removal of restriction on industries. Free markets by themselves are not guarantee of poverty elimination.
Second s a little more involved.
I identify myself as cultural nationalist. This means I am interested in rejuvenation of Indic civilization. This means not only in economics, but also in arts, music literature, science and everything else.
For this two ingredients are crucial,
One willingness of Indian citizen to work for betterment instead of depending on others. (when I say betterment it is not limited to material, but also in field on ideas, in essence readiness to exlpore the uncharted territory).
Second The confidence and the pride in nation and fellow citizens. Civic sense follows from this.
To me introduction of free markets is a hope, a spark if you will, which can ignite Indians which at one time our freedom struggle did.
Regards
Doesn't that still mean that your support for free market is altruistic - being a corollary of your cultural nationalism which owes to your willingness to bring what you ( and I ) consider good onto Indian society?
Frog,
In a way yes , however I will put it like this.
For me free market is a minimum necessary condition for national resurgence. My identification with a certain set of people is because we happen to share the same nation.
For example I will prefer that poverty be eliminated from Africa also, but to me it is a very long term plan and not a priority for present generation of Indians.
I assume for altruist it will be just device for betterment of people, for him (again I assume) concept like nation doesn't enter into the question.
For libertarian (or individualist)a society based on self-interest is the end-all of everything.
Any of the above can be debated.
However what the point of my initial post and this one was if a society is to be based on self-interest (which is different from a push for self dependency), it is inherent contradictory to accept a Gandhian approach
Regards
PS. I think I will put my comments as a separate post. Thanks for the discussion :-)
Post a Comment