“It is even possible that our financial organizations, taking advantage of sundry narrow psychological skills, may find a way of keeping the arts and sciences tethered to the market, and of emasculating them of every hypothesis that would upset the profit – making mechanism.

(Lewis Mumford, in 1928 in ‘Whither Mankind’ PP.312)

OTHER SITES

As economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty and to accept increasing economic and cultural intrusions from one another. The United States insists that Japan restructure its retail distribution system (thus threatening to wipe out an entire social class of small shopkeepers along with the culture and family structure they represent). In return Japan insists that the United States put more money into savings, think long range, and restructure its education system. Such demands would have been deemed unacceptable invasions of sovereignty in the past.

The global competitive race will be won by the countries that complete their Third Wave transformation with the least amount of domestic dislocation and unrest.

(WAR AND ANTI – WAR, PP. 28, 29)

This is not the first time that ‘economic globalization’ is thought about. The unexpected advent of the collapse of the Soviet system has spurred the movement and the ‘once in a life time of the world chance, is greedily grasped by the capitalists and exploited to the full.

Even when the dialectics of communism versus capitalism was going on at full throttle, when the world and its leading economic thinkers themselves did not know which system would succeed or which one to choose, some economists voiced their genuine concern. Such an one was Lord Beveridge, K.C.B. (1879-1963). In 1931, he was asked by the Halley Stewart Trust to deliver a lecture on ‘The World’s Economic Crisis’. In his lecture, he analysed the then world economic situation and suggested some ways for ‘remedying world finance’. Here is what he said:

Go and tell all the Governments concerned to drop here and now the whole business of war debts and reparations. Those international obligations arising out of the war are just a continuation of war. They block the way to international co-operation, and are among the worst rigidities of our economic system. They have no moral sanction; they are not like other obligations. Psychologically and economically they are evil.

Second, you would go and tell all the Governments from me that they have to abolish tariffs, not of course suddenly, for that, in high tariff countries, would cause devastation, but under a scheme by which automatically year by year, throughout the world, all tariff walls would slowly sink back into the ground. With them would go all systems of export bounties, surtaxes and the rest, by which one country tries to get richer at the expense of other. One might need a twenty-year plan to allow time for the industry of each country to readjust itself and put the human race in a position to make the best of Nature’s gifts throughout the world…….. Abolition of war debts and reparations, scaling down to abolition of tariffs, proper organisation of insurance against unemployment…………

I should set up a Commission of four or five just and wise persons well skilled in economics to advise me.

To that Commission, however formed, I would give a double task. “First,” I should say, “work out for me a plan for stabilising the production of the world on a capitalistic basis, on the present basis of guiding production by prices.” That means, “Work out a plan for abolishing the anarchy of purchasing power, but keeping the liberty of production and exchange. Tell me how it can be done, what change it means in what we do now. Tell me, even if it means abolishing credit creation by banks altogether, going back to cash without credit superstructure at all, or means internationalising currency completely, ‘making the central bank of every country a subordinate branch of some great international institution.”

That is the first half of the Commission’s job. The second half is to give me a plan for stabilising production on a socialistic basis, a plan for guiding production directly by use, and not through the intermediary of prices. “Give me such a plan,” I would say, “if you can, even though it means abolishing individual wealth as well as individual poverty. But, and this is essential, you must show me that your second plan can be reconciled with progress and with freedom.” The Commissioners, of course, would visit Russia, and you would go with them, to do the miracle of making sure that they got at the truth.

If the Commissioners came back and said, “There is only one of these plans that we are sure will work, smoothly and freely and progressively,” of course I would have to choose that one, whichever of the two it was. But if each plan seemed equally workable, or each open to equal doubt, I would choose the capitalistic one for trial. For if the capitalistic plan does not work, at worst we get another crisis like the present, whereas if the socialistic plan does not work we may destroy things of more importance than economic welfare.

(MODERN ENGLISH PROSE, GUY BOAS, M.A. (p.no.221,222,223,224)

In its broad outline, the plan of Lord Beveridge has some good points and serious measures for remedying the present world crisis. But will it be possible to make the governments agree to a non-exploitative ‘contract of the international community’?

The first two suggestions may not be acceptable to the present G8 nations. The third is definitely something needed very badly by the world community – even allowing for its pitfalls and past failures. Every government is duty-bound to implement this measure of ‘insurance against unemployment’. All the insurance companies which vie with one another for easy profits should be made to implement it. Even subsidies to some extent could be given by the concerned governments. This will mitigate to some extent the present evils of aggressive economic globalization. The TNCs have a responsibility to protect the lives of the people who constitute their markets. Only if the people survive, there can be any market. Feed the goose at least, before taking its golden eggs or kill it outright out of greed.

The way to ‘abolish the anarchy of purchasing power while keeping the liberty of production and exchange’ as suggested by Lord Beveridge is yet to be discovered by the advocates of capitalistic system. The sooner it is discovered, the better it would be for the world, especially for the oppressed masses of under developed nations.

Again, his suggestion for a ‘plan for stabilising production on a socialistic basis, a plan for guiding production directly by use, and not through the intermediary of prices,’ is yet to be devised. The economists of the communist bloc should concentrate on this suggestion. The future of communism depends upon finding such a plan. What went wrong with the plan of production in USSR after the 1980s which was successfully going on till then from 1917? Did the system have any in – built, intrinsic flaws in it? Or was the failure due to overspending of the Russian government on the space-programme and foreign aid or on some other expenditure like the military budget? Can some one put his /her finger exactly on what went wrong? Unless this is found out and remedied, there is no use in talking ideally and ideologically about the future of socialist economy. Mere talk, however loud or idealistic will not do. This is an issue that determines the lives or deaths of billions of humans.

Or, after all these decades of dialectical opposition between the two systems of economy, has the world  reached a situation where a synthesis of the best points of the two can be worked out? The world is awaiting for such an economic system. After all, Marx is gone; Adam Smith is gone; but the masses of the world must live, at least survive though not wallow in luxury. Let us not forget the fact that neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx nor their supporters – none of them – wanted the world population to go hungry, let alone die of starvation. The lives of the people are more important than any ideology. Man is not for ideology; rather the ideology is meant for the welfare of man. All the trouble starts only when the roles are reversed, only when the priority is changed. Why not the economists of both the blocs, join together, for once, and think over a plan that would give bread to all of mankind? Egos and ideologies can be put aside for a few days for the welfare of mankind. This is not asking for too much. After all, the common ideal, the common denominator of both the systems is the same: food and employment for all. Then, why not work together for the common aim?

The socialistic plan has obviously failed for the time being. The capitalistic plan was able to withstand its failure only with its survival tactics of adapting itself to the situation, by absorbing into itself such measures as trade unions, the 8 hour/day-work, labour courts, standard wage – fixation, and other welfare and socialistic measures. It was certainly a compromise. It is quite unfortunate that these measures are peeled off and discarded one after another in the name of globalization.

Similarly, the Chinese government learnt, its lessons from the decline and fall of the USSR, and reading them rightly, has been compromising its strict ideological stance and taken over the market – economy into its communistic political set – up. A sort of give and take is accepted by both the blocs. Perhaps this will lead to a true science of economics, shorn of all prejudices and evils of ideologies. Perhaps the world is moving towards such an eclectic system of pure economics.

Let the robber barons have their limousines, jets and five-star living. No one here is green with envy. But please see to it before that that every human being is properly fed, clothed and have minimum shelter. This is the right order to reach the goal of prosperity. Food for all, employment for all-must be the motto of both capitalists and communists. Before fulfilling this universal need, if any one talks of technical precision of economic theories or ideological theories, he should be considered as a man of fantasy and an enemy to mankind. Only realistic goals born of constant touch with reality will save us-not greed or fantastic ideals.

Next Page

© Copyright Sowdambigai Publishers