By Deepa Majumdar
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to do away with the Planning Commission. With this historic act India can say goodbye forever to Soviet era national plans and the Soviet conception of the economy … which some Marxists would suggest is state capitalism. A cynical realist would assert that the Marxist vision is unrealistic and would never work. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant perhaps, for there is a wholly different angle from which one can critique both state capitalism and the Marxist vision. State capitalism and Soviet style national plans do not work because these can be authoritarian, over-bureaucratic, negligent of international realities, fueled by resentment of economic success, and a form of covert materialism. The Marxist vision too is unlikely to succeed because it is corporeal and cynical in its vision of the economy and of human nature. In this age of the computer, the sheer scale of file-pushing that the Planning Commission conjures and other nightmares … the plight of bureaucrats who spend whole lifetimes pushing dusty files, the innovative entrepreneur (national or international) frustrated by red tape … all this makes American pragmatism and modern technology very attractive.
Yet, as History banishes from its pages the efforts of the Left, does this mean the Right wins? Does this mean that the capitalist is a hero, simply because he creates jobs, that instead of grudging work and complaining about exploitation, the worker should be grateful for his job, that the consumer can neglect the plight of the worker, simply because she creates his job, through the new demigod of the day … the almighty market? So long as people are still poor and children go to bed hungry … so long as workers are jeopardized in their workplaces, like the Bangladesh garment workers … so long as the economy teeters, divided severely between haves and have-nots … nobody should support the extremes of capitalism.
Yet another questions arises … These days it is popular to prefer a “hand up” to a “hand down.” This means that instead of a nanny government that gives people a “hand down” in the form of market interventions (subsidies, handouts, etc.), it should give people a “hand up” through the same market forces … by facilitating the private sector’s efforts at job creation. In short, we should harness the power of the Invisible Hand to enable people to help themselves. This viewpoint is untenable because it neglects the reality that in any society there will always be the poor, the dispossessed, and the truly helpless. Notwithstanding the power of the free enterprise model as an engine of economic growth, some people will always be outside the precincts of the market. The elderly, the disabled, the destitute, and the mentally ill cannot be helped through the market alone. A society ceases to be civilized if it does not have a safety net to help these people who cannot be helped by a “hand up.” For the dignity of society itself, they need a “hand down.” Besides, the tax payers who sacrifice by practicing such unintended benevolence reap spiritual benefits, for, as St. Francis of Assisi said: “It is in giving that we receive.” Such forms of “hand down” cannot be left to the auspices of family or religious and secular charities (NGOs etc.) alone, for the need of the needy cannot always be predicted. When calamity strikes, no responsible government can afford to depend on charity organizations alone.
Therefore at least a section of the government’s activities will have to focus on “hand down” … all the more in this day and age when the family is breaking up and many are left without support systems. This does not make the government a nanny, as the American Tea Party would suggest. This makes the government simply humane enough to combine “hand up” policies with those that are “hand down.” Nor does this mean a mixed economy of the sort we have already had in post independent India. For this does not combine socialist government policies with capitalist ones, but rather government funded development programs and charity wherever needed.
The free enterprise model looks lovely on Maple Street in small town America. First, it is culturally coherent, for this business model is America’s gift to the world. Second it is often practiced with the highest spirit of service … all the more commendable compared to the lassitude inherent in soviet style state capitalism … Third, it comes with common sense in the form of an enviable pragmatism … Above all, it comes with perfect honesty with respect to the laws of the land and the customer. In this context, the free enterprise model becomes a means of service. But when it morphs to the corporate behemoths of the world it becomes a profit devouring, money maddened monster that needs to be reined in through reasonable laws (national and international). Otherwise we end up with jungle capitalism.
Thus to blame is not the free enterprise model itself but rather how we use it. If used properly, with reasonable checks and balances, the same free enterprise model, alongside modern technology, can do wonders for the economy, both national and international. I have no name for this type of ideal market democracy that forges unintended bonds between the businessman, the consumer, and the worker, but with utmost fairness to the worker in particular. If we reined in our greed and practiced renunciation, the same free enterprise model and technology would be turned around to help the needy. Instead of the profit guzzling model we now have, we would have a “hand up” use of this business model. Government would then serve to facilitate the creativity of individuals and offer a safety net for those who need it. Inasmuch as human nature is uneven and will always be so, humanity will always be divided between those who are entrepreneurial and those who are workers. There is nothing wrong with this division of talents. What is wholly wrong is any exploitation of the worker and neglect of the poor.