On Chacha-Bhateeja... And Civilization

The ToI has a piece titled “Inside the mind of Rahul Gandhi”, where it is said that “Rahul has an innate belief in the strength of rural India.”

He tours the villages.

There are lots of “votes” in rural India too.

But I believe in an urban India, and see the strengths of our urban people, who are the real “leaders” of our civilization. They are not made of the same stuff as the peasant.

India’s real challenge lies in making all the cities and towns functional and livable. This is a practical problem of the government. Touring the open fields of rural India will not solve this practical problem.

India also needs a “vision” of the future, a vision in the same sense that the Nehru-Gandhi ideology has a “vision” of self-sufficient village republics, a socialistic pattern of social equality, The State at the commanding heights of the economy, etc.

Bhateeja Rahul seems to be stuck in this rural vision.

How about 500 Hong Kongs – free-trading and self-governing CITIES?

How about thousands and thousands of satellite towns?

I hope you get my drift.

So much for the Bhateeja. Let us return to The Chacha, and the idea we were discussing yesterday – that growth is not a State Subject.

Growth (and decay) are natural phenomena. We see “economic growth” all around us: people are investing in improving their dwellings, small businesses are slowly expanding, bank balances are slowly rising, and so on.

My favourite story is of the peanut vendor who pushed a cart in a Delhi market in the 70s and is now the owner of a small namkeen shop in the same market.

This is economic growth. It happens because of production, saving and investment, because of private prudence.

It therefore follows that the best policy is to leave the management of all economic resources to prudent private management, under the laws of private property. This is Capitalism. The very opposite of Socialism.

Now, Chacha’s idea of “economic growth” goes something like this: he will tax the productive people, thereby reducing their investible capital, and spend it on the consumption needs of the poor – rice at 2 rupees a kilo and NREGA, etc. At the core of Chacha’s ideology lies the Principle of Capital Consumption. Chacha is in serious error. Economic growth can never result from these methods. On the contrary, capital consumption is the pathway to “de-civilization.” After all, the march of civilization has resulted in our ability to “make provision” for longer and longer periods – we even make provision for our grandchildren. Capital consumption is the very opposite. This is the path the USA is on. Ludwig von Mises warned about the effects of “de-civilization.” Hans-Hermann Hoppe still writes about it.

Yet, civilization is cities, not villages.

Both Chacha and Bhateeja are in serious error.

And what is “civilization”?

I just read Plato’s Symposium, about a drinking party in ancient Athens that was attended by Socrates, who is described as a “truth-loving eccentric.” It is the story of a great party, of heavy drinking, and superb conversation. This is civilization. It’s a Great Party. It has nothing to do with the life of peasants.

Cheers!