No More Hiroshimas Anywhere, Ever

BAhmed #73

Capital is generated through the hard work of people as well as Capital generates Capital.

But it is the production of goods and trade which can lead to the reversal of situation.

Western world is going to impose terms and condition to its advantage. While if we can start some production of goods and trade among third world countrie to provide basic necessaities, it can work as a starting point to not only provide better living condition for our people within our means, but as a leverage against the North.

It is a maamoth task.

But given the dynamism of people in our country, I think we should strive to get our fair share.

Slow painstaking task.

In response to krashid (Reply # 71)
Dear Rashid:

I must apologize for being very casual in my previous post to you. Let me explain in relatively plain English.

Some of Marx’s well-known works (like Capital, Vols. 1-3) are replete with abstract concepts. An abstract concept, or an abstraction, isolates in thought a one-sided or partial aspect of an object. What we abstract from are the many other aspects which together constitute concrete objects such as people, economies, nations, institutions, activities and so on.

The notion of the capitalist mode of production is an abstraction in Marx’s prolematic. Capitalist social formation, on the other hand, is a relatively concrete concept/object. The concept of concrete objects does not merely concern whatever exists but draws attention to the fact that objects are usually constituted by a combination of diverse elements or forces.

The abstract space of Marxian analysis contains relations of economic domination. French Marxist scholar Lefebvre maintains that the essential spatial contradiction of society is the confrontation between abstract space (or the externalization of economic and political practices originating from the capitalist class and the state) and social space (or the space of use values that is produced by the complex interaction of all classes in the pursuit of everyday life). Hence, the creation of a common market of Third World Countries (if at all possible) may be justified as a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Lefebvre argues that the state is a framework for the exercise of power. The state can act, and most often does act, in the interests of capital, but it can also pursue its own interests, which tend to strengthen the hold of the nation-state framework on society. The state, however, plays a contradictory role. The state may favor or work against the working class or factions of capital, but its complicity in the production of abstract space tends to negate the social space that supports everyday life and the reproduction of its social relations.

In view of the growing power of capital globally, what chances are there that nation-states may develop a strong alliance and strengthen their social space (which in relative terms would tantamount to the weakening of the social space of economically advanced countries)?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bd #69

I agree with you.

Constitutionally it is good to devolve power locally and to provinces.

But keeping the political parties out to me is going to complicate the already bad political scene in Pakistan where new forces will compete with already established ones leading to further fragmentation of our society.

Involving the political parties in this exercise would be better. If not political parties should be allowed with framework of non party election (what happened in 1986 elections in Karachi).

I will repeat Quaid-e-Azam words that even if they give a lame Pakistan, I will accept it.

I will post later on the advantages to Islamic parties. Shortly they will benefit and Large parties will loose some ground.

BAhmed!

First of all I admit that your post is little beyond my comprehension. Can you put easily.

In my view, this century, was a century of Nationalism. Where people of third world countries break the shackles of colonialism. Although, many names have been utilized and many philosophies propagated like Communism, Islam, Pure Nationalism, but ultimately it was the desire of people to determine their own destiny.

The countries with pragmatic leadership in the long run did better, like China, India, Iran than countries where infighting continued and became fundamentalist like Russia, Nigeria etc.

I am more prone to accept the philosophy of TWC acting as a unit for the betterment of their people, rather than any particular mode of production. The example of China is again relevant where they threw away the old dogma of pure Communism with pragmatism.

Only the genius of Bhutto could grasp at a time and practically to work for it. (Incidentally I was very much Anti-Bhutto along with rest of Karachiites (herd mentality) when he was in power).

With the technological revolution what the world is going to take shape, I don`t know. But two points should be kept in mind.

1- People are primary importance. Meaning benefit to the largest number of people.

2- Independence or liberty of individual is very important.

In response to bd (Reply # 69)
Dear bd and Other Chowkwallas:
Let us not start a discussion on devolution on this board. I have submitted a brief article on devolution, only today.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal and Rashid

Good points, I agree.

On an slightly unrelated note, what do you think about the devolution principles as enumerated by the CE? do you think that his basis of regenerating political institutions from the grass-roots has a chance to succeed? without the political parties involvement, do you think that the religious based parties will have a stronger grip? or would personalities and work ethic/experience be more important?

The other question which I have is, what happens after 2002 when Musharaff gives up the gaddi?

Cheers

bd

In response to krashid (Reply # 67)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: ``Whether it is Capitalist mode of production or not, the first priority of TWC is its people.``
Comment: The notion of capitalist mode of production (a la Marx) is an abstract concept. Capitalist social formation, however, rests close to concrete reality. It is important that we distinguish between the abstract notions and concrete reality. Marxian problematic stresses the duality of abstract and concrete.
Furthermore, the logic of capitalism prioritizes exchange value derived through various profit maximization strategies. Are exchange and use values mutually exclusive categories? Under capitalism, some sort of profit maximization (and thus exploitation)is necessary. In addition, capitalism reproduces itself through not only production but the sale of various goods and services and dealing with its inner contradictions. This is a lesson that Soviet Union had failed to understand and/or neglect. Have China, India, and several other countries learnt much from the follies of Soviet Union?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bd #66

I think I have been unable to convey my point.

I am not talking about Capitalist mode of production for development of society is bad.

The point I am emphasizing is that it should be seen in a Nationalistic content and not left at the mercy of International Capitalist/Imperialist. (I am using term in reference to Lenin, and in reference to Monopoly).

Referring back again to China, when there was no unity of purpose and country was divided into warlords, the Capitalist from Japan and West turned it into a colony. When Communists ultimately succeded and with resolve and later with pragmatism, they have turned the country into the point where it is now.

Whether it is Capitalist mode of production or not, the first priority of TWC is its people.

Given the power of Capital (concentrated in West), they can interfere in our system in such a way that there is one way benefit.

Compare Iran with other Arab countries. Although because of its high population Iran is at disadvantage and because of American embargo, that is doubled. But the resources of Iran are rightly put in the infrastructure building, like education, transport etc which is going to benefit Iranian people in the long run and with time and pragmatism they are going to reap the benefit. As you can see that Nehru`s policies of education, is giving dividend till now and by opening up the economy slightly it is advancing. ( I can tell you that in my field that common Indian have made their family self sufficient due to this.). Compare this to Nigeria, where Capitalist have a hold for one way benefit.

Also, I have pointed out in my post that Capitalist, have been forced to apply compassion (socialist theory of state providing education, old age benefit etc) to stem the tide of Communism in past and not out of compassion.

There is an island under American sovereigninty where the workers from South East Asia work in very adverse circumstances and since they cannot vote, it does not affect American Government.

Simply put, what I believe is that Capitalist by necessity, are going to sell their products to increasing population, to sustain. As a third world countries although we should not negate the benefit of it to our people, but our outlook should be to invest in our people and be strong in that.

Rashid #64

You are correct, i am pointing at capitalism with compassion. You have to be pragmatic in understanding that capitalism given full flow, will not cater for the weak and poor of the society. Which is the reason why certain services and only certain services should be under the control of the government. Defence, Healthcare, universal education (schooling), foreign relations, etc. etc.

As for cost cutting exercises, Rashid, I understand the downsides of cost cutting exercises. Unfortunately, competition has this unfortunate tendency of leaving people behind in the prosperity stakes. Since you are in the USA, you yourself would have noted the problem of structural employment. Have you ever wondered why we, in the south Asian countries, never have structural unemployment, only seasonal unemployment?. Structural unemployment, simply speaking, is defined as people who have been unemployed for over 2 years. Seasonal unemployment, on the other hand is due to the vagaries of physical work, as for agricultural workers or contract workers. That is the ``welfare dependency`` aspect which is missing in our countries. The reason for that is simple, we simply cannot afford a welfare state and it actually is each man for himself. Our extended family system does help, but not to that extent. Therein you see pure forms of capitalism.

Your point about the Chinese is well taken. Deng`s motto, lets get rich, totally changed the orientation of that economy. The state sector is getting slowly dismantled (with its consequently problems), but they are trying to create an economy which is single party driven - capitalistic in nature, hopefully trying to ride the capitalistic storm out and avoiding the USSR`s example. Within a single generation, the whole country has been turned into a different country, specially trying to get rid of the excesses of the cultural revolution.

Rashid, I tend to disagree with the ``self - dependence bit`` with reference to china. China has realised that you cannot be self sufficient in everything in a single economy, specially when the rest of the world is getting connected and integrated. If you look at China`s accession to the WTO and its negotiations, the various trading partners opened up China so much that it will have major problems satisfying the requirements. In short, it will have to dismantle the remaining vestiges of the public sector and other regulatory hurdles. Notwithstanding all the arguments made against the WTO, once you dig down into the arguments, you will find that they are all either untrue, or lacking in fact, or are protecting national interests. In fact, it has been proven that when you reduce trade boundaries and treat everybody equally, the country actually gains and the consumer gains even more.

When you say capitalists, it tends to create an impression of a separate group of people with a distinct agenda. Unfortunately, its not as simple as that, The world has recognized that competition is here to stay, given scarce resources, people and products have to be more efficient. As for Nehru, the fact that he insisted on a scientific and engineering educational framework helped. On the other hand, if you study the first Indian Industrial plan, you would see the problem. Nehru`s orientation was socialistic, and he wanted to drag India into the industrial age by industrialisation. If you look at the list of strategic industries, you will be amazed. With the sheer amount of raw materials, labour and markets available in India, you wonder why industrialisation didn`t pick up more than what it has right now. Instead of concentrating on the infrastructure, health and primary education, unproductive investments in industries created monopolies and tied up scarce capital. While Nehru is being congratulated for the education business, he and his compatriots turned India down the socialist path (with the best of interests mind you) with all the consequent issues.

On your last point, I somehow suspect whether this Hindutva creation has a chance of succeeding, given the economic progress being made, anyway, lets see, its a bad situation right now, we have seen the repurcussions of letting the religious genie out of the bottle in too many countries.

Cheers

bd

Urstruly #62

You are welcome, we will not take it offline, and this rather calm discussion group is fascinating, and nobody has mentioned Kashmir even ONCE! Dont sell yourself short, dear Urstruly, mistry`s are very necessary indeed. You can bring common sense and a clear cut outlook on this discussion.

Bilal Saheb, #61

You are very correct indeed, an excellent point in terms of spatial expansion in terms of geography. If I understood you correctly, capitalism exists on the basis of expanding its boundaries all the time. I agree completely, and I would comment right after I dealt with the ``crisis prone`` bit. I would rather term it as a chaotic system, which is forever evolving, with dips and troughs. Needless to say, having a chaotic system in place, the initial conditions are extremely important (specially when you consider our countries), but the constant mutation or crisis which happens is a function of the lack of smoothness in the markets (due to taxes, capital controls, and what have you). When the geographical limits are reached by outside capital, they tend to billow inside and break these boundaries down. This actually rejuvenates ``stale`` capital and has certain side effects, so to say, for example, say South Asia had to lower its tariffs on, say textiles.

That immediately will have a drastic effect on the whole mass of antiquated textile mills, distribution systems and raw material suppliers, not to mention the labour. The other type of effect would be that the consumers will get a better / different quality at a different price (not higher or lower, but different). If the national industries get their act together, then they can react better, if not they are subsumed and the entire industry is lost. For example, the jute industry in Bangladesh and India. Crisis like this act like shocks against the ``inertia of rest`` syndrome in our countries. Given the profit maximisation motive, it allows utmost flexibility to entrepreneurs, labour and resources to react or proact as and how they wish as long as profit is maximised. Space is bounded, but economic space is not bounded, because space assumes that the elements are constant after a certain period of time or geographical spread. Firstly, economic space is multi-dimensional, and secondly, technological and process improvements keep on re-defining the economic space, and finally, market changes to the regulatory environment shape existing dimensions and create new ones. Lets take an example by using the simple example of a razor. One may think that the number of people involved in shaving activities is relatively constant with only the new adults being the new market, therefore the space is bounded. Its not really as simple as that. For example, we have examples of shaving implements starting from straight razors to the Mach 3. When the Mach 3 was introduced, it cannibalised sales from the existing market, but the technological innovation caused ripples across the ``shaving`` dimension and across most of the related raw material industries (primarily the special steel sector), at one stroke, the top end of the shaving market was redefined. The whole market has now been reshaped, the space re-drawn and dimensions re-jigged. Given this constant innovation, space is not a constant per se` but a living space, forever changing.

I do take your point about the geographical landscape being unevenly developed AND strongly differentiated, and that allows capitalism free flow, since capitalism, by its very definition, hates to be kept out of markets. Logically speaking, that would mean that there is an end to the expansion capabilities, but due to the technical and process innovation and regulatory changes, the economic space keeps on getting modified, hence falling into a cycle. As you can see, I am not ignoring the spatial aspects of capitalism, in fact, it is to be encouraged at all costs, since prosperity of humans depends on a significant degree on the ability to grow.

To steer the topic gently back to the original discussion, nuclear weapons, nationalism, boundaries, taxes, governments are the impediments to free trade and profit maximisation. Fortunately or unfortunately, there will always be a tension between these ``meta`` factors and macro/micro economics, but on the whole, I firmly believe that economic prosperity will reduce the need for nuclear weapons.

Sincerely

bd

bd #

Your points are well taken.

What you are pointing as Capitalist with compassion.

(I am not economist, so please take my words in a political sense).

If you remember the Capitalism in last century, and the poor condition of workers in Europe and America, the compassion factor was missing. People sweating in factory for 18 hours a day just to be able minimally to survive.

As Maxim Gorky wrote in Mother:

a worker at the age of 28 sick with T.B said that the mill owner has taken away all the energies of his youth, so that the mill owner can buy a pot of gold for his concubine.

The bad time on Capitalism arise when the revolution in Russia started and Communist movement started to spread in other parts of world. So it was not for compassion, that Capitalist suddendly decided, to abandon their profit. If you see that FDR, and Atelly in US and UK announced it in 1940`s.

And more the threat of Communism increased, more compassioante the Capitalist countries became.

Apart from China, which is a big hindrance now, I don`t see any real threat to Capitalist economy.

If you are viewing the recent events, you will be aware of cost cutting measures, by Capitalist like mergers, laying off decreasing people`s dependence on Government funds and other cost cutting measures. (I work in a rural Hispanic area and I know that with good times with economy in such a boom, if people are living like this. If the times are little hard, people will be in much worse condition).

Now as I have alluded to before, that Capital does not means Capital, but power and absolute Capital means absolute power.

On a different note. Although, you have to say, that China has to adopt Capitalist mode of production. But the reason of its economy for me is self dependence.

Because, for the same reasons you are giving, maximizing profit, Capitalist will not like or want self sufficient economies emerging, who can challenge them. Its manifestation is seen in the actions all over the world by Capitalist Countries.

Although, some are loathing Nehru, for backward economy of India. But isn`t it the Nehru, whose investment in Education and Institutes are bearing fruit for India, now.

If it was left to Capitalist, would Indian people had a chance.

I am pretty sure Capitalist will be very happy at the situation in India, with multiple divisions and weakening of Nationalistic forces (Hinduvta is very disastrous for India in long run and is not Nationalistic but forced as nationalit). In appropriate time they will be making inroads to maximize their profit without much resistance.

Just ramblings.

Bilal Saheb #58

I am sorry for the delay in answering your comment. Actually, my research specialisation was in financial markets and financial economics, hence my reference to Batra. While I do share your doubts about the viability and reliability on economic forecasting, I found Batra`s thesis fascinating more from the viewpoint of Sarkar`s Law. I am personally doubtful about the viability of long term economic models (On the other hand, real options theory in financial economics do offer a fascinating way of judging long term investments such as power stations etc.). There are just too few data points to draw meaningful comparisons or models, and these mostly dont stand up post sample or when the assumptions are relaxed. Considering that I work in the financial markets, I have to judge models with a very simple rule, do they make money?. Unfortunately, they dont, but do offer broad guidelines. Thank you for the reference, I will make it a point to look it up.

Coming back to these broad guidelines, Sarkar suggests that the transformation of society from teacher led to soldier led to business led to worker led and back to teacher led and this is fascinating. That instinctively appealed to me as a concept to explain societal movements on a broader scale. Do you have any other references on this kind of social theory?

Sincerely

bd

RE: BD, Bilal and Rashid

I have been following your discussion for a while and found it to be a great learning experience. I would really appreacite if you dont take this discussion off of this thread yet-it is invaluable.

Being a ``mistery`` by profession I wont be able to contribute much but I am a good listener.

Thanks

In response to bd (Reply # 59)

Dear bd:

Thank you for sharing your personal, academic, and other background with me. I wish to make a few additional comment for your consideration.

I treat capitalism as a necessarily growth oriented, technologically dynamic, and crisis prone system. Marxian scholars have paid considerable attention upon an understanding of capitalist crisis. One of the ways capital can temporarily and in part surmount crisis of overaccumulation of capital (particularly idle productive capacity and unemployed labor power) is through geographical expansion. This is what David Harvey calls the “spatial fix” to capitalism’s contradictions. No study of capitalism ever makes much sense if it neglects the spatial component of capitalist development and its consequences. Remember that space is bounded and the resulting geographical landscape is not only unevenly developed but strongly differentiated.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Urstruly 57

Why you are reminding me of my grey hairs which have become grey early. Sir.

I forgot the name of person, but if you remember the mass suicide in Jonestown. There are evidences according to a documentary, that CIA or some other agency was very interested in him. Because it was for them emperiment in mind control. And as far as my meagre knowledge goes, they are very interested in experiments to control mind.

There is no way out. Once the accumulation of Capital is sufficient and money concentrated in few hands. As a group or class, they will be able to manipulate practically everything and we will acting like a robots in a very predictable fashion.

Particularly, if the voice of dissent or a different voice has no means to express itself, except by himself.

I have not seen but heard about a movie of Charlie Chaplain where in the end he acted strangely because he was as much a machine as the machines (or something of sort).

I don`t think this is going to happen. Because, I think it is not God`s wisdom. The knowledge and technology and continuous strive has its survival advantage over lethargy and acceptance of status quo. And with the expansion of knowledge and technology, the power is going to be distributed more equitably. But its price is continuous struggle, rather than accepting status quo.

Just think about the actions taken against Microsoft with full Government force under many garbs. My opinion is fuzzy, but I think growth of microsoft, would have changed the current power structure of American Business and Government. But this technological revolution I think is going to expand the knowledge base and increase in scattering of power.

Just ramblings.

Don`t remind me of my grey hair.

The last line was a joke not serious.

Bilal and Rashid,

I am combining your questions in one response here, since Bilal sahib is asking a macro justification while Rashid sahib is commenting on the ``dark`` side of capitalism. I wish I could have given my background, that could have explained quite a lot behind my statements, but as you would appreciate, I fear that it will compromise my independence and objectivity behind my statements and comments on chowk. Lets just say that I have experience of military duties, entrepreneurship, rigorous academic studies and very extensive international financial markets including personal work experience in more than 40 countries. My love for my country took me through many areas (including various religions), trying to find the best way to ``help`` my country, and I have come to the following conclusions (wrongly or rightly).

1. Man is essentially greedy and self - centred.

2. For man to care about his fellow man, some third party motivation/compulsion is required. That third party can be religion, money (greed). If you want to go philosophical, its fear and / or desire which drives man.

3. Man has a fantastic capability to surprise you by being extremely cruel as well as becoming extremely altruistic.

4. The first 2 conclusions operate independently of time, or of social units more than an individual, family, neighbourhood, city/town/village, state, country, continent.

Bilal Sahib, I will not bore you with the economic theories behind political systems or economic systems. Simply speaking, in an ideal world, profit maximisation is in equilibrium between the forces of demand/supply/price, given the other equilibrium between raw materials, labour and services. Profit will be maximised given the above mentioned equilibrium constraints and this has worked quite successfully across the world and within our countries as well. Other economic systems, like socialism break this relationship down. This introduces a inconsistency within the system. Governments, by virtue of being a monopoly, is a very inefficient distributor of resources. Consequently, the cost of production, the cost of distribution and the cost to the consumer does not have any relationship at all within a socialist system, simply because this relationship starts to include extraneous factors.

Let me give an example, say a government has a public sector enterprise making a consumer good - say bread (dont laugh, India has a huge public sector company making bread - dont ask why). The stated objective, of making the bread at a cost effective price is submerged or overshadowed by labour, capital and raw material objectives. Consequently, the massive dislocation of resources does nobody any good. Given a reasonably free market, capitalism works for its stated objective to provide goods at equilibrium prices, wages and capital. This again as been observed all over the world, and there is no reason why this will not continue. This allows the satisfaction of conclusion #1. For provision of natural monopoly services such as electricity, travel, education, healthcare etc., private enterprise combined with a strong and effective regulatory regime is preferable to total government control (re Canada, united kingdom and the host of countries in Europe and Asia).

The final nail in the coffin of socialism and bouquet in the arms of capitalism is that this greed / selfishness of man is best captured in the form of a strict meritocracy. If you wanted to look at an example, just look at India, as Rashid Sahib mentioned, who would have ever thought that India will take off at 6-8% growth after 1990?, its the same for Pakistan as well but the political situation and lack of institutions make it difficult. That is a different argument and no place here. But I am a firm believer in our people. If the shackles of corruption are dropped and a good capitalist framework given to our people, they will rock the world. In case you doubt that, I would just point to the millions of South Asians who generally perform excellently once they are outside our countries. Meritocracy usually exists extremely poorly with utopia and socialism, hence my distrust. I would prefer to work with what we have and what we are, then assume what we dont and work from there, building on sand, so to say, make the greed, selfishness and meritocracy work for our countries.

With respect to conclusion #2, the third party compulsion to make an individual man care for his fellow man. This is where the government, NGO, faith based organisations should and do step in. This includes societal facilities, starting from defence of the realm to provision of elementary, primary and secondary education to make citizens functionally literate (that`s all), universal health care and caring for the aged (difficult and contentious one). I again point to the UK, Canada and Europe for examples of such frameworks, similar organisational structures also exist in South Asia) There is a fine balance between a government managing social responsibilities and using resources efficiently/effectively but it can be met. I personally doubt and fear faith based organisations, simply because monetary compulsions can be managed, religious based compulsions have a nasty habit of devouring good intentions and shooting off into unknown directions (mainly because of conclusion #1). I hope, Bilal Sahib, I have managed to explain why I think that the capitalist model with a strong social conscience is the best possible framework for the development of our countries. I have no problem with people maximising their profits, subject to the equilibrium conditions mentioned above and a strong institutional framework.

Rashid, you have raised some very very interesting points, I dont know whether I would be able to explain it satisfactorily, in any case, here goes.

1. In a capitalistic meritocratic society, every man is a common man. Every man has certain disadvantages and certain opportunities. What should NOT happen is that the disadvantages should be put on you deliberately, that is wrong and I condemn it strongly. With a good rule of law, this problem should be avoided. People will always be poor and people will always be rich, expecting everybody to be equal is an utopia which I have no belief in, plus it violates the law of nature and laws of physics. Your point of wealth sticking to one class is a misnomer, Rashid Sahib, these classes are artificial classes, and they keep on breaking down over time, new classes emerge and so on and so forth. I take your point about built in racism in USA in 1993, but could I give you the counter example? if I am not wrong, the entire south Asian ethnic group is overall the richest in USA?, even more than the whites? do you see my point here? given free flow of ideas and a meritocratic society, people do rise up above their class/station. Just like you and Bilal Sahib, education, jumping at opportunities, etc. all drive people to succeed.

2. Rashid, as for the defence of the country. This is going to be contentious, but here we are. People in defence forces are there because of 1. its just a job and there are no others, 2. they have a religio/nationalistic drive, 3. it educates them for free (short service commissions), 4. it allows them to legally kill. Except for the points 1 and 3, there is no economic consideration involved at all. So, even within a capitalistic society, the defence forces can be formed and people join up. That is an entirely different dimension to the capitalistic/socialistic discussion.

3. As for the rest of your points, I totally agree, resource investment in war industries is logically if not economically correct, but as you said, that is what is real and happening in the world. We have to manage around it. My hope is that given freedom to trade in a capitalistic meritocratic society, the incidences of war will reduce (for example, for more than 400 years France, England and Germany or their ancestors fought to the death, now they are in economic and political brotherhood in just a matter of 10-15 years post WW2. We have to get the greed and self-centeredness of man to work for us instead of against us.

I do realise the above sounds extremely cold blooded, too black and white and extremist. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost patience with egalitarian ideas of utopia and decided, if you cannot beat them, work with them and gradually turn them around. I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely

bd

my email address is beady@visto.com, in case you want to take this offline :)