Midway review - Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine

As I delve deeper into Klein's rantings about the Chicago school agenda on how the capitalist systems undermines democracy by  concentrating power into the hands of the rich, which impoverishing rest of the citizens, I was suddenly struck by a revelation that Klein is constantly avoiding. By giving examples of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Poland, South Africa and China Klein repeatedly concludes that the Chicago schoool capitalist system supports autocracy and oligarchy.She asserts that Friedman propagates the use of shock therapy for complete & swift application of the free-market theory in any given system, which in turn leads to large scale privatization of industries / basic infrastructure and concentrates power in the hands of the rich few, while also inreasing their monetary power.

Luckily, at the same time I'm also reading Narayana Murthy's Better India, better world - a capitalist's perspective of India's change from a socialist to a capitalist (controlled) market. He too, supports the principle of free-market theory, but strongly supports the importance of philantrophy at the same time.

After comparing both approaches / descriptions, I realized that it is a particular thought of capitalism (namely, the Chicago school) that Klein is so stubbornly opposing. She goes on to say that the Chicago school thought has penetrated IMF, World Bank, etc and hence is being implemented the world over. It becomes clear that she is confusing the political agenda with the economic one. While both go hand in hand,the idea that an economic agenda can destroy democracy cannot be concluded. In each case, the leaders have willingly chosen to go with the free-market theory because it empowers & enriches them at the cost of other citizens. This is a glaring example of a high-level corruption and not that of free-market theory. Klein fails to conclude that the Chicago school theory encourages corruption instead of providing actual free-market movement. 

The idea of free-markets is democratization of the economy - providing power to the people to conduct business, choose products & services in a competitive market, and encourage a global competition instead of restricting the market to local products. In each of Klein's examples, the market has promoted foreign investors at the cost of local ones, leading to large scale unemployment and capital & resource flight from the host country to the investors. Many countries, especially India & (to an extent) China have provided examples of a balanced outlook. While foreign investors are free to invest (in certain sectors), they are not free to take the profits to their own country. The profits must be re-invested in the host country, or there should be a technology transfer. Technology transfer is the more lucrative & important aspect of inviting foreigners. Most or all of the countries taken by Klein for the study are third world nations lacking technologies to use their resources or increase quality of living. 

It is only logical to invitie global leaders (corporations) to invest in their country & provide technology transfer that will allow the host country to introduce its own services. If a free-market economy is not established, the end result will be like India's telephone system before 1991, so distraught with stone-age technology & lack of management understanding that it was impossible to think of more advanced servies like internet. However, as the foreign investment was opened up, India is now a thriving telecom market with the cheapest service offerings (compared to anywhere in the world), and the rates keep falling every year. Also, all companies find it lucrative to introduce the latest technologies  as there is a large consumer base ready to use those. They are currently held back only due to a lacksidal government attitude. The more important fact is the telecom revolution has empowered all individuals from all walks of life without discrimination - anybody from a vegetable vendor or taxi driver to a professional can buy a cell phone service complete with internet, fax, etc to start working & connecting -thus increasing his or her business prospects exponentially. I see this at work daily as my father works from the ease of our home, compared to 3-4 years earlier when he had to run about the whole day connecting with various people. I also see it in my own office where emails are the fastest way to send & receive drawings, get opinion from experts and send changes to the site, without moving from my seat!

I do believe Klein's hypothesis that the Chicago school interpretation of free-market economics has led to large-scale corruption. But to draw an analogy that the free-market theory itself is at fault is not an acceptable conclusion. conclusion. While i have not yet read the entire book and hope that the conclusion doesn't go the way most of the book is, I think the book could really be a misplaced attack on a theory instead of its proponent. Moreover, if the book intends to attack a proponent, it does not deserve critical acclaim, since it is the theory that matters not a single school of thought. Klein would have done better to show the positive side of the free-market theory that Chicago school approach lacks. All said & done,Kleins's book is an important eye-opener in the recent global events and the resultant depression that we are facing. I have been lucky to be provided with such thought provoking reads by Mufaaaza in the line of Chomsky, Economic Hitman & Klein. 

Posted via email from sandylief

Bureaucracy - the unaccountable public service?

In the last post I was arguing the existence of public accountability in government services. However, there is one large hindrance to the same- bureaucracy. It is a parallel system (gifted by the ingenious Brits) of government, that provided the elites with a just escape from accountability while staying in the system. The elites proved that while democracy is a good way of empowering voters, they also chided the inability of elected representatives to handle specific tasks / concepts / policies. Thus they promoted the rise of the experts, who were capable of "aiding" the elected representatives in governing the nation by providing expert advise, micro-managing daily affairs & policies, etc. These experts or bureaucrats were selected by a so called competitive exam system, but had no accountability whatsoever to the voters. While the elected representatives came & went, the bureaucrats became the true bearers of power influencing the policies (depending on their interpersonal skills).

The government /voters did try to create a barrier by providing compulsory transfers every few years, change of posts, etc etc. However, the voters failed to realize that it was a larger nexus - while the bureaucrats had different individual views, their common minimum policy was to maintain power within the bureaucracy & ensure increasing profits for their kind. They did not shirk from providing carrots to the politicians by giving them a taste of wealth that could be acquired from the public position of power. While the politicians were re-elected or thrown out based on their performance, the bureaucrats who were elites formerly, were able to forward their agenda without much deterrence from the public. They are, today, the true elites & power-bearers, deciding the fate of everyone from the rich to the poor, while enriching themselves limitlessly....

One has to only imagine a public system in their absenoe, or one where the bureaucrats are also elected / directly accountable to understand that the fear of being removed from their position completely can be the only deterrent to their power & money games. Accountability is a great threat to the responsible, but the public has been denied the right to use it on the largest control group - the bureaucrats... Time we changed this?

Posted via email from sandylief

Bureaucrat- capitalist nexus

A day after the election results, I was sitting with my dad & watching the events unfold on the TV when he remarked: " Why do we need two set of people to do the same thing?" I asked him what he meant & he replied:"Well, there is this national highway development program for example. There is one set of govt employees / bureaucrats who sit in NHAI & similar & decide which roads to develop & so on. Then they dole out these lucrative earning opportunities to (so to say) the lowest bidders (namely the contractors). The contractors then construct these roads. Earlier, in the 60s & 70s, the govt used to build the roads by directly employing labour, thus guaranteeing proper wages to the lowest workers while ensuring quality. Then, as corruption increased, the babus formed a nexus with the material suppliers & supplied sub-standard materials to the roads. As a result the roads were no longer reliable. The govt suddenly decided that it was incapable of building roads & should divest itself of this responsibility. Thus were the road contractors born. Earlier, they provided quality as they had a name to keep & the roads were fine again. But the babus formed another nexus with the contractors & again the quality suffered. Now, we are in the third phase where the government passes on the build-operate-transfer/own rights to contractors & they are free to do what they like. Initially, this worked too, as the contractors owned the roads & collected toll. So they maintained the stretches well. Again, the babus have formed a nexus, and the roads (even expressways) are back to the poor lamentable conditions. The rot has set in, and there is no further hope unless we remove the roots of the rot first!"

I took the opportunity to compare this to Klein's description of events in South American countries during the 1970s. A small problem was magnified hugely by private capital hungry for resources & sources of exponential earning to show that the then current system didn't work. They kept proposing free market policies privatizing all forms of services, and earning enormous profits from the same, while the general condition continued to deteriorate.

In the same manner, as just one example of such a policy, private capital in our country has kept insisting the govt is unable to develop & maintain quality roads by itself, freeing the entire operation from the government step-by-step, ultimately owning the roads, bullying people to pay toll even as the quality of roads deteriorates to earlier (or worse) levels. Put this example to comparison in other policies like power, air transport, water works, urban infrastructure, etc etc & you get the point. The whole aim of the exercise is to keep fooling the public into believing that the govt is incapable of doing things itself & private capital / corporations are the only answer to quality development. As each small step fails, another more radical alternative is presented as a hope. If this continues, we will effectively privatize all our essential services to no end, & lose whatever control we have over our basic rights as citizens.

While I am not a supporter of leftist / socialist policies i do not believe that democracy entails complete corporatocracy. Certain basic services / rights have to be ensured by the government & the best (though less efficient) way of doing it is for the government to control the production & distribution of these services. Private capital is not answerable to the public & in effect creates oligarchy, since essential services are not liable to competition. While grossly inefficient, the government machinery is atleast answerable to the voters & thus (marginally) in their control. 

This raises an important question regarding bureaucracy, which i shall discuss in the next post.

Posted via email from sandylief

Corporatocracy v/s democracy

I have been reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. She talks about corporatocracy a la Milton Friedman & its impact on the world. The American policies that have allowed free reign of private capital around the world have led to the collapse & deterioration of many countries around the world. I have been exposed to the idea with Chomsky's writings, although he never used the term or explained the concept in the book I read. However, subsequent reads of Klein & Confessions of an economic hitman brought home the idea that private capital is dangerously bent on gaining profits from the crisis in other nations. In a worse turnaround, private capital creates crises to be able to generate new profits. 

Its a very interesting case for India too, while Klein's book does not mention India except a short sentence on Tsunami. Since the last 5 years we have turned socialists again, introducing public funded policies that seek to resdistribute taxes earned by the govt to the poor through farm loan waivers, NREGA and the likes. However saintly it may look, the government is still guilty of misguiding the general public: the largest amount of tax comes fromt the middle classes & not the exceptionally rich. While they pay a good amount of personal tax, most of their wealth lies in corporations which are cross-subsidized by the government through various tax-waivers, import-export subsidies, SEZ system (the largest tax break system in our country to date), etc. If one is to even calculate off-hand, it is easy to notice that the amount of revenue the government loses (& in effect subsidizes) from corporations is many times more than what it doles out towards pro-poor policies. 

So, is this just a way of covering up the corporatist agenda? The earlier government (NDA) wasn't even covering up - they were blatantly doling out subsidies to the rich while ignoring the poor. However, whether the former or latter, the middle class takes the burden of financing most of this powerplay. In the end, its about our money as taxpayers, that the government conviniently pushes across various spectrums, leaving us high & dry.

This is just the first in a series of posts, where i wish to explore the concepts of corporatocracy, democracy & the status of our country within the same.

Posted via email from sandylief

Movie: Letters from Iwo Jima

It was my first night at the movie club that Anuj hosts, and we were to see the screening of "Letters from Iwo Jima" - a movie about the American- Japanese battle for a small island in the Pacific during the second world war. The movie, produced in 2006 (along with its sequel The Flags of our Fathers) by Clint Eastwood won many awards. Here is my review of the same:

I believe that Letters from Iwo Jima is not a war movie. It is a dual charactersketch of two personalities - a general who has lived in the US before the war, & a baker dragged into the war due to conscription. The director has taken a conscious decision to not show the actual battle along with tactics. Instead, he concentrates on the mindset of the Japanese soldiers, their life and the state in which they struggle to protect the island. It also provides one important insight into the imperial Japanese society, pushing its subjects into desperate situations beyond its own control. The social fabric which hails patriotism above all else overlooks the discomfort and breaking morale of the commoners. That, I believe is the most important lesson of the movie. The letters that the baker hides at the end of the battle talk about a general's thoughts of US to his children, the baker's continued longing for his wife in the backdrop of an impending suicidal battle. Important dialogues show how the Japanese army discounts American technological prowess & ends up losing its infantry to arrogance, ignorance and misguided sense of patriotism. The very idea of committing harakiri instead of retreating to one's base & providing much needed manpower seems untactful - a strong statement about a medieval army facing a modern battle. 

The alchemy in my life...

When i was a kid, i thought i was a dreamer.... so, i used to imagine a hundred million things & draw some of them.... then i came to rigid formal teaching & discovered im good at math & science. So, i took up math & science... when i faced the boards i found hundreds better than me.. then i thought atleast i drew better, and had some sense of imagination... so i joined architecture... there i found hundreds better at sketching & imagination... i found i have a better appreciation for planning, so i took up a job in planning... i found many better than me... i realized i appreciated environment & nature much more... so i took up landscape... & there i found nature lovers more fanatical than me, environmentalists more obsessed than me... so im back here, wondering what is it i am good at...

Now, i think im a better dreamer than anything else... conjuring up the future (imagined) before my eyes... well, i will find another hundreds better at that too....

but the truth is, there are hundreds better than me at any one given thing...its the combination of some math, some science, some imagination, some bit of drawing, some bit of environmental attitude that makes me - ME

am i upto my own expectations? do i value myself? do i believe in myself? well, the answer can only come when i go back to the roots... the alchemist found the treasure back where he started... & i must go back to my dreaming... combined with my experiences in math, science, imagination, architecture et al, ... maybe ill realize what niche i have...where i excel... and what i can contribute to the world....

happy journey to myself!!!!

oh ps: i absolutely adore to travel.. there may be others better,but i havent yet found anyone as hell-bent on exploring even when not having slept in last 24 hours (apropos my trip to mt abu...)

Posted via email from sandylief

Er.. that marriage thing....

I've seen people choosing their own partner & living with them their whole life & I've seen others choosing their own & having flings the next year onwards..

I've seen people getting into arranged marriages & living happily ever after, & I've seen too many not feeling alive ever after....

As you can understand, I'm quite undecided on which bench I should sit.. but there is one positive thing about arranged marriages that I may have discovered. & it reflects not just the marriage & social customs, but also the general state of mind of individuals in the society. The first group wants freedom & chooses their own, the second gives that to their families to choose. Now the arranged marriage system is a good web of checks & balances, not withstanding the fact that I have seen it fail more times, but then success stories are too common & hence are never mouthed.. every successful arranged marriage is yet another good marriage, but a disastrous one is an agenda for the freedom of choice group.

Anyways, the discussion being about checks & balances - the family keeps the web tightly knit, with frequent gatherings & festivals allowing the couple to feel needed everywhere & keep close to each other in the first year. Then onwards, each family takes care of the newlyweds, with economic & social extensions of their own family, thus tightening the web. In the end, we have about 3 loosely nuclear families moving together. If any one of the newlyweds wavers, the bonds around are a moral deterrent, as well as physical when needed.

Now, I have always kept wondering why is this needed? Which brings us to the state of mind question. While most of us want freedom of choice, is every individual in the society qualified enough to make his or her decisions? I do believe in freedom for every individual as the cornerstone for liberty, but most examples in society are that of irresponsible use of the freedom... How do we bring about a balance. I would like to believe that such informal checks & balances systems are helpful. The state can only make blanket laws for everyone, since we have not been able to achieve a personalized democracy - different for every individual according to need. Blanket laws are necessary for some but oppressive for most, or helpful to most but deterring for some. There is no single right way in a country of a billion plus people. Hence, it is necessary to understand the concept of formal v/s informal, legal v/s social laws / customs. Somewhere, this leads me (for now, & to be honest - quite grudgingly) to believe that our system of personal laws (separate for each community - rephrased culture) is better than having a single national law. It may unite us, but narrow our freedoms & tear apart our social fabric.

Posted via email from sandylief

Next is what Mr Prime Minister?

I've been reading A better India, a better world by Narayana Murthy. In one of his articles written on 15 August 2007, he outlines eight outstanding achievements of India: green revolution, white revolution, space programme, telecommunications, nuclear programme, economic changes (1991), IT revolution and Independant media. I mentally arranged some of these into our nation's decadal achievements or lets say 10 year unintended & unplanned achievements! Now, I haven't researched the actual dates, so kindly ignore the precision. I am trying to get a jist of the direction of our movement. So here goes:

1. 50s & probably halfway 60s we were abysmally socialist, trying to develop resources & mega-infrastructure for water, power & transport.

2. halfway 60s & 70s was the green revolution that made us food independant (mostly we weren't self sufficient till after Indira Gandhi's time, but the revolution was happening fast around this time & problems of logistics were higher than problems of actual production)

3. 70s & 80s was the white revolution that made us a self-sufficient milk country, even one of the largest exporters. It was also the advent of telecommunications & large scale space technology

4. 90s was ofcourse the financial revolution, delivering us from socialism to capitalism....

Mr Murthy stresses that each of these needed a visionary: Be it Mr Swaminathan Iyer or Verghese Kurien or Mr Sam Pitroda... a single individuals or a group of individuals have struggled to lead the programmes. Well, we all know there are teams of people struggling to work on schedule behind each leader / visionary, but the vision is necessary for development. Now, to go on....

5. (this is beyond Mr Murthy's words) i believe 2000s is about infrastructure rather than IT. Yes, IT is there, but its a global changemaker, not just limited to India. & it wouldnt have happened if we had not put satellites into space or spruced up our antiquated communications. The 2000s is a continuing legacy of improving urban & rural infrastructure - urban development programmes under JNNURM, rural development & gram sadak yojnas, the cellphone which is the single largest impact on Indian economy - larger than all of Sam Pitroda's infrastructure since it has empowered every subziwallah & rickshaw wallah to better deliver his / her services.

But this is all ongoing & has been set into a cycle. Not a single political party has outlined the vision for the next 10 years. Now I have hardly any qualifications to direct anywhere, but if I were to choose, I would choose sustainability over anything else...

The global environment is dying (although for no fault of our own.. even today the US is the largest polluter, even though China uses a full 50% of global resources today, the US is still in denial) and we are bearing the burden of the western development. We should regulate ourselves before we are down on our knees begging for the last drop of oil.. So who should be our role model: Suzlon wind power, the public transport system promoters, solar power engineers at TERI? well i wouldnt care who is the visionary as long as somebody does take up the axe and chop every inefficient technology out of the country.

We need development that does not cost us our precious resources, wildlife, flora, the pristine beauty of nature, our culture (i.e. our traditional technologies, items, handicrafts, etc) sustainability does not mean just energy efficiency- it also means skillset efficiency. If we can make the best pashimino shawls (one part of India), why should we manufacture stupid jeans for half the world.. well we may do that, since there's too many of us, but why put pashimino to extinction... it sells like hotcakes & we should encourage it.. It should not be ONLY the government's job to do so, we need visionaries who are futurists too - what will sell (since we are capitalists now) in future needs to be understood today & thats where our next 10 year plans will come from..

Any answers our future prime ministers??

Insanity, stupidity - a communal perspective

Day before yesterday I saw a shocking incident... Now, I've seen Hindu Muslim riots before my eyes, and I've seen Godhra happen. But I would attribute those to mob mentalities in general. I have only heard, but never seen racisim / communalism happen before my eyes.

So I was standing at a traffic signal on IIM Junction, Ahmedabad and a rickshaw with a Muslim driver drew up beside me. A guy got down from it (in his fifties perhaps) & blatantly refused to pay the rickshaw driver!!! In addition, he started hurling abuses saying: " I won't let you enter Vastrapur again... I am a Kathiawadi, I will kill you..." and all this with hundreds of expletives in between. The rickshaw walla (in his sixties or seventies) was bold enough to give back verbally.

But there's more... The passenger started hitting the rickshaw wallah!!!! He smacked him 4-5 times while the rickshaw wallah kicked about trying to loosen the guy's grip. A few people tried to get the passenger away, but the signal had gone green & vehicles started moving about... I was too shocked to move, but left the scene as everyone around was honking like crazy.

Sadly, neither me (shamefully), nor the cops (who were hardly 10m away & watching), nor others around stood up for the rickshaw wallah. I experience tremendous shame as i confess witnessing this shameful act in front of my eyes without doing anything about it...

Are we even humans? Is this the way to treat a fellow human being? Are we taught this, or learn this somewhere? What drives us to this? It is all so stupifying.....

Posted via email from sandylief