Re: A refutation of Naveen's opinion

[Naveenkj@aol.com]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 8/20/00 12:24:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Cprakash@goplay.com writes:

<< ? In most of the cases the reply is "Bijli,SAdak, pani, skool" this
 remains at their core. they also want that their life be left alone
 for them to lead. i.e - "laissez faire". >>

Exactly!  They want the basic necessities that any community strives for, and
their cries to be "left alone" should certainly be addressed.  However, their
cries to be left alone by a bureaucratic government should not be dealt with
by installing a further bureaucratic system, one that they will have no
control over.  A system that makes its decisions in Geneva and in New York,
and decides what is best for them and what is best for its own economic
gains.  Throughout history, and this is the only way globalization can work,
corporate societies have led to further involvement by the police state to
disturb the livelihoods of its citizens.  To phrase it differently,
laissez-faire does not translate to more autonomy to local people but merely
more autonomy to corporations to function in whatever manner they choose.
Even if this meant destruction of environmental resources vital to the
survival of a local population, or acquisition of resources in an unfair
manner, etc.  When the indigenous people oppose such unfairness and
"exploitation", the police will be brought in to protect the interest of
corporations against the interests of the people.  Since clauses under the
WTO agreements guarantee safeguards for the foreign cartels.

As Vandana Shiva noted, "Globalization does mean "less government" for
regulation of business and commerce.  But less government for commerce and
corporations can go hand in hand with more government in the lives of
ordinary people.  As globalization allows increasing transfer of resources
from the public domain - either under the control of communities or that of
the state - discontent increases, leading to law and order problems.  In such
a situation, even a minimalist state restricted only to policing will become
enormously large and all pervasive, devouring much of the wealth of society
and intruding into every aspect of citizens' lives."

In another passage she adds, "Two million weavers in Andhra Pradesh lost
their livelihoods when free export of cotton was allowed, taking cotton
beyond the access of weavers.  200,000 producers of Bikaneri Bhujia (a
regional snack specialty) are threatened with the entry of PepsiCo in the
manufacture and marketing of Bikaneri Bhujia.  New power plants have been
established by bypassing the requirements of Environmental Impact Assessment.
 Deregulation does not imply an end to the state - it is a change in the
function of the state.  THe state is now exclusively an instrument of global
capital."
For you die-hard capitalists who might argue that Bikaneri Bhujia if not
preferred by the market should not survive, need to realize the unfair
capital available for PepsiCo to market its product against the local sellers
who are bound to perish in an unleveled playing field.  You also need to
realize the govt. support of corporations against the local business and
protectors of self-reliant local economies. If the middle class is to gain
from introduction of Pepsi Cola, it is the poor that will suffer the
consiquences of their livelihoods, their family businesses and only source of
incomes being destroyed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------