What happens if a frog and a rat are tied to the 2 ends of a rope? One pulls towards the lake and other pulls towards the land. This is Hegelian Dialectics. Everything is made out of opposing forces (the terms are “thesis” and “anti-thesis”). And eventually, they result in a state of equilibrium, (called “synthesis”). Now, the road it takes to reach the “synthesis” state varies from simple sighs to heads rolling under the guillotines.
Imagine you have a wall to paint. You want it white and your wife insists black. Lets say you give in to her with a sigh (here, your synthesis is ‘its good to be happy than to be right’). Now, what if this pattern repeats a 100 times? That’s when you start a revolution. Because you have been oppressed. Hehe, at 2AM, I can’t think of a better analogy. Anyways!
The French revolution was started by the oppressed to abolish Feudalism. Similarly, Capitalism created another social divide. Marx believed that the Hegelian synthesis state is where there is no divide and there is an equal distribution of wealth. And it would need another revolution to fix capitalism. His contemporaries couldn’t argue much against it. He had more disciples than Jesus and his theory ruled more than half the world then. But years down the line, such a revolution never came about in the west and Marx was tagged a failed prophet.
And the reasons why Marx failed hold good even today. Which is why I think there WILL NOT be any revolution to fix the great Indian divide also. So where did Marx fail? The Capitalism started making some positive adjustments. (I am not sure if this is because of the way Marx rattled it). Unlike Feudalism, it became a open system, fair to anyone who wants to be an entrepreneur. Massive industrialization also brought about prosperity to the so called proletariats. Hence everyone forgot about a revolution though the divide existed.
Now, in the new knowledge era, again, the divide is widening. Peasants, with their generations of hard work, can only dream of the homes and life style of the Gen Y kids. Everything became 10 times more expensive - real estate, food, clothes, transport, health care… but the lower class still earns the same pitiful much.
But still, the system is becoming much more open and fairer. It is Thomas Friedman’s Flat Flat World. I can run my business on the web from a remote obscure village and yet I can compete with giants of the scale of Apple and IBM. So what is the reason for me to rebel? I only need to get some skills. Besides, today’s families are a mixture of knowledge workers and service workers. So collectively, it is prosperity still.
Having said all this, I still believe that Marx’s synthesis state is yet to come. That is in the road map of the political systems evolution. May be his prediction of a revolution did not and will not happen.
Pardon my elementary knowledge on political science and economy. As usual, I would buy barrels of beer for any discussions on this topic.
Imagine you have a wall to paint. You want it white and your wife insists black. Lets say you give in to her with a sigh (here, your synthesis is ‘its good to be happy than to be right’). Now, what if this pattern repeats a 100 times? That’s when you start a revolution. Because you have been oppressed. Hehe, at 2AM, I can’t think of a better analogy. Anyways!
The French revolution was started by the oppressed to abolish Feudalism. Similarly, Capitalism created another social divide. Marx believed that the Hegelian synthesis state is where there is no divide and there is an equal distribution of wealth. And it would need another revolution to fix capitalism. His contemporaries couldn’t argue much against it. He had more disciples than Jesus and his theory ruled more than half the world then. But years down the line, such a revolution never came about in the west and Marx was tagged a failed prophet.
And the reasons why Marx failed hold good even today. Which is why I think there WILL NOT be any revolution to fix the great Indian divide also. So where did Marx fail? The Capitalism started making some positive adjustments. (I am not sure if this is because of the way Marx rattled it). Unlike Feudalism, it became a open system, fair to anyone who wants to be an entrepreneur. Massive industrialization also brought about prosperity to the so called proletariats. Hence everyone forgot about a revolution though the divide existed.
Now, in the new knowledge era, again, the divide is widening. Peasants, with their generations of hard work, can only dream of the homes and life style of the Gen Y kids. Everything became 10 times more expensive - real estate, food, clothes, transport, health care… but the lower class still earns the same pitiful much.
But still, the system is becoming much more open and fairer. It is Thomas Friedman’s Flat Flat World. I can run my business on the web from a remote obscure village and yet I can compete with giants of the scale of Apple and IBM. So what is the reason for me to rebel? I only need to get some skills. Besides, today’s families are a mixture of knowledge workers and service workers. So collectively, it is prosperity still.
Having said all this, I still believe that Marx’s synthesis state is yet to come. That is in the road map of the political systems evolution. May be his prediction of a revolution did not and will not happen.
Pardon my elementary knowledge on political science and economy. As usual, I would buy barrels of beer for any discussions on this topic.
hmm May be the revolution will not happen ? :)) So now no more reasoning for not coming back to India hahaha:) well you have narrated and connected well the current state. But again I am not an expert to discuss or comment :) But yes as a reader it is very good :)
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with Marx socialistic theories... but I don't think we can archive equilibrium with distribution of wealth... That's not a stable state considering human behavior. Marx would have known better.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Capitalism underlying principle is equilibrium or balancing of the various market forces. The same peasant or laborer you mentioned would demand a much higher pay and standard of living in a capitalistic market with higher demands than in markets with little or no demand. Supply vs Demand. The same equilibrium that you talk about.
I don't think India will get a revolution for a different reason. Some form of Capitalism is working for India. One of the advantages of Capitalism is speed. Capitalism does increase the divided between the rich and the poor. But it is the only system that produces very quick results... and India needs results right now.
Thanks Vino for encouraging.
ReplyDeleteAntony, what does capitalism thrive on? The human craving for material prosperity? And throughout history, has this not lead to the fear of losing power, scams, crimes, wars and misery? Yes, it also has brought speed in innovation and economical upgrading. But the important question is, has it produced a liberated and happy human kind? The answer may not be communism but is there something that helps? Thats our quest :)
Good observation Raja. I tend to agree with you. Here are some more observations from daily Hindu
ReplyDelete"A few eminent Indians tell us what they think are some of the significant achievements since Independence"
http://beta.thehindu.com/arts/magazine/article3735.ece?homepage=true