Sounded more like the Volkswirtschaft – the “national economy.”
Corporatism, not Capitalism.
Methinks the US is headed down a wrong path.
Ditto with the racist attacks on Indian students in Australia. This kind of xenophobia is antithetical to Capitalism – which always seeks to include “friendly strangers” into the overall order. Australia is a penal colony. It is an advanced, developed nation today only because of Capitalism. Yet is seems that the basic values of a free market order do not exist there. This is only because of a narrow “nationalistic” mindset, which breeds many politicians with anti-immigrant views – like Pauline Hanson, who made big news some years ago. Their counterparts in India are Raj Thuggeray’s MNS and the AASU – who are “sub-nationalistic.”
Funnily enough, I don’t think the history of the past, of ancient empires and kingdoms, tells of any instance of the politics of narrow identities overriding the broader economic interests of the community, which depended on including “friendly strangers” into the market order. In ancient Greece, for example, there existed the institution of xenos, or “guest-friend,” who escorted a foreigner around the city, and looked after his tradeables. In the Rajput principalities of Rajasthan, a similar function was performed by hereditary charans and bhats. Foreigners were viewed as a great resource – of new knowledge, products and processes. They were buyers; they were sellers. They were always welcome. Ancient market cities were full of many kinds of people: this is true of ancient Rome, Venice, the City of London, and also of Mecca.
The story of the Parsees, who came into Gujarat as refugees some centuries ago, and who are now India’s leading business community, and as “Indian” as anyone else, illustrates the point that people are a vital resource. They should never be turned away. This should be the watchword of modern Capitalism.
If western nations are moving away from true Capitalism, this is all the more reason why a country like India should champion its basic values. No one put its basic tenet across better than Adam Smith, who wrote:
Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and his capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.
This is the Capitalism to believe in.
Is it possible that the demise of GM is due to capitalism being worked to more than optimum level? In other words, capitalism has survived till now because there was no dearth of resources. There can no market, forget free market, if there are no more resources to convert into finished products and sell. Let's not be short-sighted. In the coming four decades, more and more automobile firms will cease to exist because fuel availability and pollution will be a major problem. Right now, if one views the GM situation from just the 'economic' point of view, one may be misled. The GM problem may be the beginning of the end of -- let me take a long, long shot -- capitalism. I feel one should bring in 'resources running out' while talking about capitalism.
ReplyDeletegreat post sauvik,
ReplyDeletei agree with you completely,
like biharis get attacked in Mumbai and Assam, now Indian students are being attacked in Australia.
its the same mindset that must be condemned and fought,
as for Obama he is history,
manuwant
Debby: All economic resources are scarce. If any resource becomes scarce, its price goes up - encouraging capitalists to look for alternatives. Thus, there is no permanent shortage of resources that can be predicted, which will end human society and capitalism.
ReplyDeleteJulian Simon's bet with Paul Ehrlich is worth noting in this context. Read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager