My response to this article http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280234
Never has being boldly incorrect to the point of insanity ever been so popular. Claiming to be the voice of the millions, Arundathi Roy writes, with several references to communism and Karl Marx, that capitalism is a failure and that a conglomerate of businesses promoted areas such as media and education has biased our thinking and that capitalism has failed because our growth rate has fallen to of 6.9%. (something that would lead to the immediate removal of all Marxist writers if that growth rate was achieved anywhere in the West.)
She points that the reason India's growth has stalled is another proof of capitalism's unsustainable nature. She however fails to acknowledge the reason for this stalled growth is the lack of the very economic "reforms" she so passionately opposes. She has rubbished trickle down by taking the example of Antilla, Mukesh Amabani's house, saying that the money wasted on the house has helped nobody and has only deprived sleep of those around it. While Ms. Roy cannot be blamed for lack of economic knowledge, I do wish to educate her. Antilla wasn't built with money. It was built by workers who were paid to build it. It wasn't slavery. In fact, Ms. Roy doesn't seem to object the Bandra-Worli Sea link built out of taxpayer's money. With taxes of 33%, productive people have to effectively work for four months for the government without any choice of their own. But to her that is not exploitation. Exploitation is paying workers for their work and sustaining their livelihoods. To her, capitalism is a bad system because a rich men gets a house out of a poor man's labor without noticing how many jobs and how many livelihoods Mr. Ambani has created through his new house. It doesn't matter whether he lives in it. I don't care whether Ms. Roy lives in her house or not. Antilla is like any other house, Mr. Ambani can choose not to stay in it. It is his choice.
And that paradigm is reflected later on when Ms. Roy opposes sponsorship of social sciences and arts by large businesses. As a social science student, I see no reason why that is a bad thing. The more the funding, more people can study social sciences and help the society. When governments do it through universal public education, it is not objected to. Ms. Roy says these businesses bias academic thinking. But without the funding, there would be no thinking at all. And in any case, why shouldn't businesses use their own hard-earned money to fund talented artists and scientists when governments are expected to splurge other people's kitties on public education? I don't know how Ms. Roy can claim to be to the voice of the millions when she simultaneously wants to control how they choose to spend their money and for whom they should work for!
She says how bad companies controlling a variety of sectors is very, very bad for us. She says that companies like reliance could have a tagline: “You cannot live without us”. And she’s partly true, we cannot live without it. And that is precisely the reason we need it. Can she tell me how without RIL and like companies, would we get broadband services to publish anti-reform articles and rebuttals to them? Does she blame big Indian companies for expanding globally? For providing services to the whole world at affordable rates while providing Indians with jobs? If she does so, then I must admit that she doesn’t like humanity that much. She also bashes business-funded philanthropy even when they have no obligation to. I have no idea what Ms. Roy has tried to prove through his article other than promote her regular Marxist propaganda.
She has also made references to historical international events albeit only the bad parts. For example she criticizes “the Chicago Boys” for ending Allende’s regime without acknowledging the fact that their liberal economics is the reason Chile today has one of Latin America’s strongest economies and democracies. She certainly doesn’t want India to have a strong democracy for a strong democracy feeds upon capitalism. At the same time, I don’t think she wants to be reminded of how many people socialism in Russia has killed in the past, and how capitalism has resolved it.
Ms. Roy is not completely wrong nor is she unjustified in writing this article. She is a woman for whom I have the deepest regards. I share many of her views. I’m against crony capitalism. I’m against government trampling our civil rights. I basically agree with the OWS movement when it says that we don’t care if the rich are rich, but we don’t want them to buy our government. Without laws and regulations and numerous loopholes, the rich wouldn’t need to or be able to buy the government. She’s right when she says shopping and war cannot stimulate the economy. Tell that to the blood-thirsty Keynesians dominating the intelligentsia not free-market economists who oppose all wars and social benefits to stimulate consumption. The government is the problem, not capitalism. It has failed not capitalism. Capitalism is people serving people, it can never fail.
But her solutions will only make things worse. What we need is more capitalism, not less. This recession is a proof that capitalism is working, not that it has failed. Recession is capitalism’s response to bad governance. Recession is caused by the government and the market tries to correct it. India’s poverty has a history- India’s tryst with socialism. Capitalism is only trying to reverse it, not compound it. But please allow it do it, Ms. Roy.
No comments:
Post a Comment