RE: a note on form; was: Suhrid Ganguly

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>]

Charu's view:
============
> There is a thread running through a number of posts here that assumes or
> seeks to justify the premise "All of India's ills are caused by
> socialism and the only solution is capitalism, the US system is ideal".

I see that we are basically trying to approach a common ground, but from
different directions. I don't think Charu is the only one who believes,
perhaps, that I thrash this concept of socialism too much. I even suspect
that Mitali "forever held her peace," on observing strong challenges being
thrown up to those who defend workers/ government functionaries as being
benevolent and the best caretakers of the poor mankind (why have
the poor in the first place?).

I think my arguments need to be re-defined. Let me summarize. I am sure
that summarizing these points will help me, at least: 

a) I do not claim anywhere that free markets (alias capitalism) are
perfect since the fundamental conditions operating in the world are
imperfect. Therefore we need always to check the operation of these
markets. Would you agree to that?

b) I find it very important to highlight that the behavior of individuals
in government is NOT charitable, or designed to promote the welfare of the
society. Both from my practical experience (as I am sure, that of others) 
and theory, it is clear that these individuals are also maximizing their
own welfare first. Do you agree with this?

c) The question then boils down to this: Who is a better judge of taking
the following decision for the production of a commodity Q (could be a
telephone, a sugar mill or any other productively useful asset):

	What is the socially optimum quantity of commodity Q to be
	produced and at what price should it sell?
	
Should a bunch of private individuals (you and I: i.e., markets) decide
upon this through their buying and selling decisions, or should I (assume
that I am the government) decide unilaterally in whatever manner I know
best (e.g., I could be benevolent, I could be taking decisions on the
basis of rent-seeking)?

You mention somewhere that you would like utilities to be provided by
private companies under the close supervision of government. Precisely my
solution. Let the private sector "do" and let the government "moderate"
and "supervise." So we agree here, so far?

d) What is the name of the economic system in which markets do the bulk of
the decision making process? Socialism or Capitalism? Obviously,
capitalism. Do we agree on this definition of the word, socialism?

e) What system do we have in India? As per none less than the Preamble of
our Constitution, we are a Socialistic Republic. The world socialism has
not been defined anywhere, but the influence of Fabian Socialism is
clearly wrought on India's past and present. This form of socialism is a
moderate version of the socialism of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, in which the private sector is allowed a primitive role but the 
government sector achieves "commanding heights." 

But do we want commanding heights by people who are not controlled by
forces of competition and supply and demand? Obvioulsly no.

f) When I say that socialism must go, I mean that 

	a) we must include in the Manifesto that the "word" must go
	   from our Constitution
	b) we must ensure that government contracts into its own shell,
	   of running defence, foreign affairs, infrastructure,
	   such other things, including control and checks on business.

The understanding that I think that socialism is at the root of all our
ills is not quite correct.  I do consider feudalism and casteism to be
playing a major role, too. But we have not covered these topics at length,
yet. On the economic front, the key culprit is of course socialism.

A large, actually, a very large part of our economic ills, including much
(not all) of the causes of corruption, will simply disappear as markets
are allowed to operate more freely and the government starts minding its
business, of supervising the building of cities, roads and ports, and
other non-economic things that are its primary business, such as national
reconciliation and law and order. Of course, there are many other causes
of corruption, primary being our electoral laws which are so hypocritic
that one wonders what is the sense in having these people frame such laws,
in the first place. Recognition of "reality" is the first step in
progress. Therefore we need to dramatically increase the limits for
electoral spending, and in fact, introduce state funding for parties that
fulfil certain strict criteria. But that is another topic, yet.

I see clearly that the arguments as framed by me need a lot of refinement
if I am not able to persuade Charu. I am not an ideologue. I am not
branding anyone as anything (MacCarthyism is not quite an appropriate
similie for the process of open debate that we are having here). I am
proposing for the Manifesto that we are hoping to write, that we get rid
of the word Socialistic from our Constitution. Even Nehru did not put in
that word. It required his completely misguided daughter to do that. 

Today, there are 5,000 private banks in the USA, with a few of them
approaching $1 trillion in assets. That is still not scaring the US
government to nationalize the banks recklessly as Indira had done in 1969
and 1981 (?). So what "private power" of corporations are we afraid of?
Why do we create these myths when no private person - not even the
Chairman of Compaq or Intel, sleeps in peace, secure in the fate of
tomorrow?

I do not consider the US to be prefect. In fact, it gained a lot from the
influence of Mahatma Gandhi and became much the better for it. I am saying
that we have to define and discover our own capitalism (i.e.,
non-socialism, if you like). But let us take the worst possible scenario.
We try hard and can only duplicate another USA in India. We fail to create
our own, even better capitalism or whatever. So what?

Even if India became only another USA, I would be much happier than I am
today. I don't know if I speak for others on this. But I do know I speak
for you, Charu, since you have chosen to park yourself here for many years
now, and you have voted with your "feet" as they say, in favor of an
economic system that is not called socialistic by any standard. I am sure
that I could attract you back to India if I said that you could get
uninterrupted power, clean roads, water, and air; continuous gas in your
kitchen, telephones for which you don't have to wait for years, nor pay
bribes to get repaired, and even the internet. If I could promise you
freedom and funds as a researcher, you would be in the seventh heaven.
Even half of these things would attract most of us back home. What to talk
of becoming another "full-fledged USA"! "Half-fledged" will do!

Let us achieve the worst case scenario, first, then. Let us make India
into another USA. Do we agree on this, at least? 

We will and can, of course, do better. But why do we need to argue further
about this "worst case"  scenario? (of course, we must continue to debate,
till we are very clear where we want to go, first ...)

Sanjeev