Translate

Pages

Friday, May 15, 2020

Can We Give another Chance to an Alternative Economy?

On the one hand there's being sympathetic to people who have been displaced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, there's this belief that the over-consumption led economics that we have been forced to leave behind us by the ravaging virus, is unavoidable to prevent famine from hitting large swaths of population.

Quite the contrary! Very powerful people have it in their interest to make people believe that the most important way they help the economics to thrive is by consuming. Because consumption generates demand. And demand generates business and employment.

But this also makes millions of people hook themselves up helplessly to one monolithic system (which we so grandiosely call the global economy) and rest all their hopes and dreams on it never failing. And this starts the unending cycle of people scrambling hard to get away from the fringes of this system closer to its core. While there's no denying that this scrambling leads to high productivity and quality of output, that's not the complete picture. Please note the reason why we scramble so hard in the first place: Firstly, because we know that being in the fringes of this system is very bad for us, because it makes us vulnerable, helpless and pushes us to the brink of extinction. Secondly, because deep down there's this realisation that, by definition and design, a large majority of the population will be in the fringes, because the urgency to get out of those fringes is the basic engine that drives this system.
 
But there are certain invariants about this system:
  • It can generate wealth as no other system can.
  • It critically depends on creation of global super-specialists. These are the winners of this system. They are enormously rewarded with wealth and power. The overall efficiency of the system is entirely to the advantage of this very minuscule minority of the population, say R%.
  • One of the most towering achievements of this system is that R keeps getting smaller and smaller.
  • There simply aren't enough number of specialised jobs to employ to the entire human population. In fact, nowhere close. And there never will be.
  • The rest of the population is doomed to struggle fruitlessly to find a toehold in this system. The efficiency thus generated from the insecurity of these suckers leads to efficiency and productivity.
  • Whenever the system totters, not always from external forces (e.g. pandemics), but more often under its own weight (e.g. recessions, wars, terrorism, revolutions), the people at its fringes are washed away like ants. Nobody comes to know how many perished.
Therefore, the sufferings that are descending on our poorer brethren is not due to the pandemic, but is a result of the very structure that we have created. It's efficient on the one hand, and extremely fragile on the other. But most importantly, it's extremely unjust and unfair: those who drive it with their sweat and blood are the first ones to perish when crisis hits.

Alternatives do exist. But the reason why they don't get tried is not so much because they are unrealistic, unscalable, impractical or academic, but because the ones who decide the fate of so many people in the current system are also those who gain so disproportionately from this system, primarily by keeping millions -- billions -- on the brink of starvation. Why will they ever agree that anything else can work? Because no other system will allow them to appropriate such unrealistic shares of the commercial loot.

One such economic system that I have in mind would be rejected as plain regressive by most. I am no economist. So, I may not be able to articulate everything well and do I have elaborate arguments in defense of my ideas. Also, the whole idea may be trashed on the basis of the lack of clarity on how to get there from here. But anyway, it's my blog. I can at least write about it here.

Here are a few salient points of this economy:
  • It will be less 'advanced'. Technological advancement will definitely be slowed down.
  • It will be slower. Commercial activities will be far less. Many businesses which exist today will not exist or will be severely curtailed.
  • There may be some severe penalties to pay. Many advanced healthcare facilities will no more be there. Deaths from deadly diseases etc. will be harder to prevent.
  • It will be agrarian, artisan based economy. Megapolis economy will not exist.Government may play a role in ensuring that the above basic structure doesn't get compromised. In that sense, there will be similarity with socialism. But the Government will not be the owner of capital as in socialistic system.
  • Population mobility will be curtailed, because the probability of doing well in life will be comparable everywhere.
  • Scholarly pursuits will be done as an integral part of the agrarian, artisan sphere of life. On the one hand, education, research, art and culture should be closely associated to the needs of people. On the other, it should be kept away from becoming a recreational activity of the rich and privileged. The idea of scholarly independence must be rethought.
  • The idea will never be to banish hardships and manual labour from people's lives. Focus of progress will be empowerment, not emancipation from inconvenience.

 I don't claim all the above to be realistic. Particularly, there's something about the way humans are wired that it will be (and has been multiple times in the past) very difficult to set up an economic system similar to the above. Every attempt so far has succumbed to the baser human aptitude for greed, hunger for power and domination, sexual and material insatiability born out of ignorance and suffering.
Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds and elevated souls in history (e.g. Plato, Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Buddha, E.F.Schumacher etc.) have time and again thought about something in similar lines (no covert attempt here to gatecrash into that august party). So this idea is not all that silly. It can for sure act as a reference, a prototype to work towards. I would definitely want to think and read more about it.

2 comments:

Sambaran said...

Hi Sujit,

Your mastery of language ensures that your thoughts never miss the target. You communicated with no loss of clarity. HOWEVER, I disagree with most of what you have expressed. Please let me outline a few points of disagreement:
1. Gandhi is overrated. He had his strengths but had monumental drawbacks as well. I do not know enough about Buddha, Bhave, Plato or Schumacher to comment.
2. The monolithic system you talk about has been able to create more and more employment in the long run, even though in the short term it has disrupted livelihoods. Car revolution took away jobs of horse-cart-drivers, vets, horse-food-business owners etc. But in medium to long term gave back much more in the form of maintenance garages, showroom executives, driving school employees, etc.
3. The urgency to get out of fringes does not drive the system. It is the sacred greed of the intelligent business owner, who creates more solutions for the planet (of course for more profit), that drives the system.
4. A minuscule percentage gets 100x richer. The most laggard gets 5x richer. Inequality does increase but it is desirable progress.
5. Just like AI and robotics, there have been game-changing innovations in past. Think of steam engine and industrial age. At that time too, specialised jobs started giving humungous returns/salaries. Did the rest die away? They did not.
6. Poor migrants suffered not because of greedy industrialists. They suffered because of the inherent disadvantage of governmental functioning. Absence of free-market-competition breeds corruption and stagnation with unmatched ferocity.
7. How less advanced are you ready to go? Why or why not cave-dwelling? How will you draw the line of optimum technological 'regression'?
8. How will you decrease commercial activity? If there exists a set of willing customer and a willing seller, will you send in police to close the shop shutter after the seller did trade worth X? How will you draw the line for X?
9. What deaths are you ready to accept? Death due to stage 2 cancer? Death due to Dengue? Death due to cardiac arrest?
10. Can you give an example of research being a recreational activity of rich? Do you refer to the recreational toy called iPhone created by Apple?
11. How much hardship and manual labour to inject in people's lives? No washing machine? No ceiling fan? No LPG, burn leaves and wood instead? No uWave oven? No steel vessels? No stitched clothing? Who gets to draw the line? And where?

Sambaran said...

On a slightly related note, I found the following two blog posts very illuminating. It is by an economist named Atanu Dey.

https://deeshaa.org/2020/05/13/the-obvious-appeal-of-socialism-part-1/
https://deeshaa.org/2020/05/15/the-obvious-appeal-of-socialism-part-2/