Another sacred cow The Sanatani Hindus have their sacred cows.

The capitalists too have created their own to serve them for milking the society to their hearts content. In matters of socio-economic life in present day world such a sponsored sacred cow now is industrialisation and commercialisation as a panacea for all the ills the system has created. Now they have added to the list such supportive tools as Foreign Trade and Foreign Direct Investment and free access to market on a level field between unequals. The list charms many. In their quest for self-aggrandisement this mode is designed as a most effective way to control society to the aim of capitalist growth with a charm of assurance. At present there is hardly any challenge to the intentions of these modern day Hindus in the world. To be specific, industry as the pivot of development and growth has failed to deliver, despite repeated claim for the last four centuries. There is hardly any available industrialised country in the world that can claim freedom from want, hunger, unemployment and strife. No such nation is free from corruption, immorality and degradation of commons. Oppression of commoners through the instrumentality of state is still the rule. Let one not forget that industrialisation was made a holy cow in the hey-period of colonial possessions by the ruling powers. There is no hard evidence to prove that these nations or their merchant classes had some extra-ordinary prowess or intelligence to conquer colonies, except deceit and treachery as their weapons. The industrialised nations that flourish and shine were the result of only a calibrated system of internal and external expropriation of both men and material resources. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim for even growth under this mode and solution to problems of mass hunger and unemployment eluding these countries. This is the first truth that must be kept in mind when the question of a proper mode for development in modern times is discussed. It may be mentioned that Industry and industrialisation are distinct entities as an object of socio-economic life that needs to be distinguished while we scan the question for clarity; it is industrialisation of socio-economic life as a matter of campaign that is under scrutiny now. Unlike Gandhi, a space for machine/industry is not denied in the present day world. The denial is to the pivotal position or the driving role for industry in social-economic dispensation of a country. But one has to recognise that machine plays different roles for different set of situations in the socio-economic activities. For one set, machine helps to lighten the burden of physical labour and to raise the level of production while it displaces man and brings untold misery to humanity if the role is assigned to maximisation of profit for the owners of capital. Hence, the need for a more prudent and cautious approach in selecting the mode is required than what have been hither to. In this regard, let us unravel some of the blatant fallacies of the growth and development under industrial mode woven around to keep the faithful in mental servitude. Growth Pattern is not uni-linear One fallacy generally created is about the pattern of growth that it is singular when there are three well-known generically different patterns of growth, namely (a) Natural, (b) Linear and (c) Exponential. One German lady, Margrit Kennedy has explained it graphically thus: In this illustration Curve A represents a form of normal physical growth pattern that takes shape as in nature,

like our bodies follow, as well as those of plants and animals. It continues growth both qualitatively and quantitatively. Curve B represents a mechanical or linear growth pattern, e.g., more machines produce more goods as more coal produces more energy that comes to an end when the machines are stopped or coal gets stopped, which normally these do. Curve C represents an exponential growth pattern that is exactly opposite to curve A. Starting slowly in beginning, then rising vertically. Exponential growth in the physical realm usually ends with the death of the host and the organism on which it thrives. Industry, commerce and service industries, including speculative finance transactions, like share markets etc. belong to Curve B and Curve C type of growth pattern respectively, while agriculture, animal husbandry and allied activities belong to Curve A pattern. The experience of industrial, commercial and speculative activities worldwide confirms the narration. On comparative gain-loss study industry and commerce cannot provide the type of growth with stability that society requires in its zest for advancement. If one is not quite obdurate in approach, the next best pattern to choose for the society, more so for countries so populous as India and China, then leads one to agriculture as the next best and natural way of life with supportive industrial activities under strict neighbourhood community supervision with command over its resources. The alternative mode in development with agriculture as its pivot, based on family-labour and later community-labour, have to be fashioned in tune to the present requirements of society, but not for greed, duly buttressed continuously by scientific advancement. One cannot accept the notion so assiduously hammered continuously by vested interests for long that agriculture is a barren pattern to answer the call of a developing society or denudes it of scientific developments. The argument is not worth buying without scrutiny. The history of development in agriculture since early period belies this notion. It is a coloured opinion without any solid ground. Agriculture does not denude man of his creativity. It is unscientific to accuse it without a proper test. Secondly, the industrial mode creating over-production and shortage simultaneously creates material conditions essentially for strife in society; it cannot provide stability either. Instability and strife are its inherent characteristics, notwithstanding the change of mode in ownership over its means. Let one remember, the industrial mode provides exponential growth in production, where reversal is dangerous and forward move is disastrous. In such a scenario a fatal crash is inherent which society can hardly bear for its onward move. At a stage, industry essentially creates over-production in relation to its cost of production even in a low cost economy if run to capacity, necessitating external market with all evil consequences for tranquillity in trail for the common man within its own country as well as outside. The need for export-oriented economy arises out of such a dichotomy even in a state professing socialism as former USSR did face eventually. The element of planning may help keep its edges in check for a while. But the inherent law of such development resulting in uneven course, also found expression in the history of Soviet Union with 74 years of strenuous efforts to the contrary, when industrial mode essentially involved commodity production and capital formation, may be invisibly, notwithstanding wishes to the contrary!

The industrial mode is also incapable to satisfy the requirements of a whole society considering its cost-supply cycle. Wants remain constantly unfulfilled for commoners in spite of hard and honest physical labour, more so in a high cost economy. The race for gainful employment turns nightmare for them. It is true even for European countries where density of population is much less. Industrialisation then is a sheer fantasy in solving problems of the masses in such countries as populous as China and India. In case of Soviet Union this tragedy was averted for some time by resorting to reduction in working days and hours continuously, though pressure of population in relation to its resources was much less. Still that did not make the society richer in content. Here, one fact must be underlined that industrial mode is incapable to harness energies of masses to the full for its economic reasons. It essentially resorts to unproductive activities direct in proportion to its level of development in order to keep the extra productive population engaged, without caring a bit for social wastage and the debasing effect involved, by encouraging professions like tourism to prostitution. By terming these activities as services one can hide their odious face and odour for social acceptance. The capitalist class worldwide nonetheless is virulent in its campaign to put industrialisation as a precondition for growth and progress employing every means at its disposal, including manipulation of media and education. This serves its economic, political and social purpose best with a least price tag. It sets the individual actuated by self-interest in rat race to catch the moon in ones life span, which is a ready made guarantee for it to keep masses split perpetually and at each others throat. The full blown exercise by ruling minority to theorise the market forces as a fulcrum of prosperity, progress and efficiency, in fact is a fine tuned strategy to prop up this rat race, while keeping the majority of masses under its sway by such strife. It was a tragedy of sorts that proponents of a new society free from exploitation, wants and strife too should have adopted the same mode of development for a race they could not have won. The reasons were not compelling either. Much is made of one argument in favour of capitalism and its industrial mode that this will lead to the development of productive forces, including means of production and liquidation of feudal relations. But, the whole argument stems from a European understanding of history or as Europeans taught about it, that industry with capital at its base is superior to agriculture in development of productive forces. Here, there is also a skewed notion about what feudal relations denote in history, more so in India. Apart, the question is, what succour such developed productive forces and means of production by industrial mode can provide to ameliorate the condition of pauperised and disinherited people said to be the aim of welfare state or inversely help these people in struggle to overthrow this exploitative and debasing system? Another question arises: how much these productive forces, so developed during half a century in Independent India have gone beneficial to these half-fed, halfclad people or helped weakening the grip of capitalism-cum-feudalism over their lives? Situation in fact is in reverse. How much these productive forces and means of production so developed on the basis of rapid industrialisation during long 74 years in erstwhile Socialist Soviet Union with a communist party in lead and with no private property rights to individuals, could provide relative abundance and stability to that society? The answer is a disgusting no. These charming productive forces served more to strengthen and quicken the pace of expropriation rather than making lives of the masses qualitatively different, rational and purposeful.

The people thus are again in a highly iniquitous and stratified world that is in perpetual strife for reasons not necessary to survive or advance. As a consequence, the man who produces remains at the tail end of the spectrum deprived even of two square meals a day while the idle one at the top wallows in wealth by sheer manipulating the system at will. The whole state apparatus is a happy collaborator of the rich in this game of deceit whereas it initially was designed to provide physical security from evilsouls, invaders and plunderers with a nominal share in produce for the service. Though administrative and judicial structures promise equal treatment in law, in practice however, these are increasingly shedding their neutral posture when the state is going openly in favour of the resourceful and musclemen. The powerful is at the neck of less powerful to gain bigger share in the pound of flesh in the market of butchers, extolling the virtues of competition while at times the deprived ones are victims of both. If someone joins the ranks of butchers themselves, the system is happy to welcome. The deprived man winks in awe and thanks his fate for mere survival by chance. This situation has not come in a day. It is the outcome of a long journey. The present phase of structural transformation of global economy is a natural culmination of the path that began its journey with industrial revolution taking shape for historical reasons first in Britain, followed by other nations in Europe, with a common legacy of colonial expropriation. Mercantile capital had pushed them to plunder other lands with all underhand means at their command that one acquires from professions of ease, perhaps for want of strong community supervision in their social system. Indian situation had differed from European one in this respect that saved the day for it to some extant despite odds and the country did not embark on foreign jaunts for plunder as a path for advancement. Deceit, treachery, outright murders and armed invasions were the weapons of these European invaders for the trade. This was done all with single-minded zeal. They continued to flourish at the cost of millions after millions from subject lands loosing their hearth and homes. These traders drew upon the tremendous surpluses extracted heartlessly from colonised nations of the world with sheer force of a brute and treachery. Neither this was necessary, nor inevitable in terms of time. Humanity could easily have survived and progressed without this dark chapter in its history. But it did not. Reasons were specific. If Indians and Chinese did survive in history without this ruthlessness laced with treachery on other nations, the Europeans did not bring anything extra-ordinary to the richness of humanity either, except perpetual strife and debasement. Europeans brought untold humiliation and misery to their own populations along with death to millions after millions in occupied lands. Claims apart, bloodshed or violence as a method can never make one progressive and civilised, better than others. Still, they claimed both. It is true that European powers did succeed in subjugating the entire African, Australian, American and South Asian countries for long periods by such deceit and repression. In North America and Australia the whole indigenous populations were ruthlessly exterminated and foundation for new white nations of European origin was laid on this score. African and Indian slaves were yoked to produce wealth for these new settlers. Natural resources of the subject nations were ploughed in to grind the wheels of its industries with a captive market at hand in these lands of subjugation. Industrial mode necessarily produces individualism However, the worst that industrialisation heaps on a living society is the cult of individualism as a philosophy and way of life. This mode centring on industry and

commerce generates necessarily an insidious philosophy with individualism as its core that brings the very social fabric to ruin. Social man is sought to be turned into a selfish brute perpetually at the neck of his fellow beings the very next moment one feels powerful. Studies substantiate that it was industrial revolution, which had provided the material ground to fashion individualism as a systematic philosophy with individual, in contrast to his family and community as the focal point of interest. Industry needed an independent worker, free from all social, psychological/ emotional affiliations and family encumbrances for a concentrated production spiral to his or her best with least possible obligations in exchange. Its basic unit for production was crafted as a free individual, though in a chain combination, still an individual to contribute. With industrial mode, individualism is a necessary by-product. This society can hardly afford. Let us for a moment recollect here that mere stable property in private mode exercised collectively by family-labour earlier during pre-industrial phase could not give shape to individualism as a philosophy, different from the importance of individual in a community setting it had earlier. It is though true that individual interest had started taking shape much earlier in human history but it could not give birth to individualism prior to the growth of industrialcommercial nexus as the driving force for its growth. Neither this individualism withered away substantially in Soviet Union merely with the abolition of private property, having industrial mode at the centre of social production for long 74 years of experiment in socialist construction. Rather, individualism worked more perniciously even within the portals of communist party there and almost in all other so-called socialist countries without exception. This is emphasised not to plead in any manner for private property but to clear chaff from the grain and pinpoint the real culprit for this evil of individualism in society. Private property right had helped the trend to grow fast in this direction. Individualism as an insidious philosophy, necessarily generated by industrialcommercial paradigm of development has wrought the very social fabric to ruin. The process of dehumanisation has brought the society to its knees. Alienation of man has reached a stage of unbearable proportion to tolerate. It is nearly impossible for any one to justify the existence of these evil effects of the present day capital-based productive system in the society. Neither it is possible to bypass these evil effects in the long run, keeping the system intact. These effects can only be effaced by replacing the base and then releasing a sustained cultural counter move. With the passing of industrial capital in importance today into a highly atomised form of financial transactions, mainly speculative in nature, to gather highest possible returns at the earliest, individualism is bound to take a form of crash individualism, as is the situation in western societies while in other countries, including India it is raising its menacing head. This emerging situation strikes at the very root of social thinking and behaviour, playing havoc with social practice. Erstwhile socialist camp was found wanting in countering this new emerging trend since its material base with industrialisation at its core was conducive enough to such a growth of individualistic mindset. Despite laws to the contrary, it gave fillip to grab social property and misuse of ones position in hierarchy for self. Administrative measures are hardly its cure. In an atmosphere of intense insecurity as a result of scarcity-abundance duality, man normally turns hostile to his or her fellow beings for survival. It leaves the

society in perpetual strife as its social roots. There is hardly anything left to support a system that demolishes the very foundation of a just society and strikes as its social roots. In the circumstance, it is nearly impossible for anyone to justify the existence of these evil effects of the present capital-based productive system. Neither it is possible to bypass these effects in the long run, keeping the present system intact. With such parameters, the change in social relations based on a different set is the first requirement of the day, despite what happened to the experiment in reshaping these relations by the former Soviet camp during a better part of twentieth century or what Chinese and Vietnamese are doing in the name of socialism even today. This is the one lesson that can be ignored only at our common peril.