A Cashless Society: a Future of our Own Making

Martin Mcallister asked:

The notion of a cashless society has been around for quite some time. The first mechanical cash dispenser was built by Luther George Simjian in 1939 and was installed in New York in 1939. However lack of customer adoption resulted in it being removed six months later.

The electronic cash machines we know today were invented a quarter-of-a-century later by Hampshire printing firm, De La Rue; the same company behind high-security paper and printing technologies used in the printing of bank notes. Actor Reg Varney from the popular 1960s TV sit-com ‘On The Buses’ was the first person to use the new cash machine, which was seen to be a strong guerrilla marketing tactic and designed to ensure public adoption of the electronic cash dispenser. As a result, the cashless society was born.

In recent times, the number of cashless alternatives has continued to grow. No longer confined to banks or building societies, cash machines can now be found everywhere; from petrol stations to pubs and there are also more credit and debit card options available than ever before. Furthermore, transactions such as salary payments and direct debits are performed by BACS (Banks automated clearing system), while e-commerce has gained almost worldwide acceptance.

In March 2000, ‘Confinity’, a palm-pilot payment and cryptography company merged with X.com, an Internet financial services company. This merger created the online payment service, PayPal, which was well-received by internet users, with its members being rewarded with $5 for every new member they referred. Before long, Paypal was adopted as the preferred payment method for the online auction site, eBay. Today PayPal boasts in excess of 123 million accounts and operates in 55 different markets, including China.

With such widespread adoption, PayPal can now be used to buy a wide variety of goods and services. Not only can it be used to buy and sell goods on eBay, but PayPal can also be used to reserve a hotel room online. In fact, some of the UK’s leading tour operators have started accepting PayPal transactions via their website. Google are also planning to launch Google Checkout, an online payment service which will further contribute towards the notion of a cashless society.

Nowadays, even teenagers are being targeted towards a cashless society, with a major credit card firm recently launching a prepayment card aimed at children. Although these cards are limited by the amount that their parents deposit onto the card, the scheme has seen a number of concerns raised by the National Consumer Council, who have warned that the cards will get children so used to spending money that isn’t theirs, they will find themselves hopelessly in debt once they are old enough to apply for a credit card. However, supporters of the scheme believe that the cards will familiarize children with using plastic to pay for purchases without spending too much.

It seems that a truly cashless society is inevitable. With recent technological innovations allowing for online banking, bill payments and money transfers, the notion of a cashless society seems to be closer than ever. However, as technology continues to evolve, peoples’ perceptions of a cashless society are getting closer to reality. Some people fear that a cashless society might have a detrimental effect on many of today’s civil liberties that we currently enjoy. For most people though, the advance towards a cashless society is wholeheartedly embraced.

A Civil Society Bill of Rights

Ian Wendt asked:

I reserve the right to be opinionated, to speak, to strongly hold ideas, ideals or ideologies, and to advocate them.

I reserve the right to make truth claims, to hold positions even if others may take offense. But I will not abuse others.

I reserve the right to be idealistic, optimistic, not cynical or jaded, nor comfortably relativistic or postmodern. Others are free to be any of these.

I reserve the right to believe in things for which there is more hope than evidence.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

I reserve the right to experiment with ideas that I am not sure about. I reserve the right to more strongly advocate ideas than I actually feel.

I reserve the right to change my mind as the world changes.

I reserve the right to hold ambiguous, complex and sometimes contradictory ideas or ideals in complicated circumstances. I have not figured everything out; I never will.

I reserve the right to advocate policies in one time or situation, and oppose similar policies in other times or situations, especially if those policies – upon testing them – turn out to be ineffective or damaging.

I reserve the right to compromise to achieve good, but not perfect, solutions to bad problems.

I reserve the right to hold ideas that do not fit orthodox ideological molds. I refuse to be defined by others’ categories or philosophies or terms.

I reserve the right to be a hypocrite – if what you mean by hypocrisy is to really believe in something and advocate it, but not always be able to live up to it.

I reserve the right to disagree with you, to disagree with my friends, to disagree with anyone (maybe even myself in part). I reserve the right to voice that disagreement openly, but respectfully, by speaking energetically, incisively, sometimes passionately, but not abusively.

I reserve the right to sometimes be silent – to not have an opinion or an answer, to not advocate a position, to not define myself, to not assert expertise. I am not obliged to weigh in on everything.

And I freely extend the same right to you.

***

Somewhere, sometime, someone decided that public debate and politics meant you had to assert you knew everything, that your worldview had to be simple, complete and perfectly ordered, and that everything your opponents thought and said was just spin and lies. Well the world is not simple, and my views on it are not simple either. I am passionate about some things, interested in many things, and often ambivalent or conflicted over other things. It is a shame that more of our public figures do not freely assert the right to change their minds, to disagree respectfully, to sometimes be wrong, or to sometimes be silent. Silence from pundits and politicians – wouldn’t that be a change!

This bill of rights is fundamentally about the purposes of civil society and civil discourse and public debate. You would probably write a slightly different set of rights for yourself in order to frame, develop and express your ideas. But that is exactly the point. We may all speak. By speaking and writing and publishing, we grapple with the world and its knotted problems. If the world’s problems were simple, then smart people would have solved them a long time ago. The world’s problems, conflicts and tragedies are fraught with ambiguity and differing perspectives.

The power of civil society is the democratic power of multitudes speaking, discussing, testing and trying ideas. As one set of policies proves itself less effective, we try others. Some of the proposed ideas, policies or solutions are bound to be wrong-headed, or foolish, or just not work. In that case I hope I will disagree. If they were my ideas, my speech, or my advocacy, then I take responsibility for them. Then I may admit I was wrong and change my mind. In many cases, we will simply have to disagree.

I reserve the right to have opinions and passionately advocate them, to believe in idealistic positions, to sometimes be wrong, to change my mind, to compromise, to disagree with others, and to sometimes be silent.

And I freely extend the same right to you.

Skepticism in Today’s Society

CD Mohatta asked:

The topic might have been more true in olden days when ignorance was bliss. It is not as relevant with todays society. Skepticism is a part of human nature and will always remain so. Suspicion and mistrust come either from lack of experience or from bad past experiences. It is often when something or someone fails to meet ones expectations or acts contrary to accepted belief that one develops a sense of suspicion or mistrust for all future activities.

Galileo, Copernicus proposed groundbreaking theories. What they said was totally contrary to the then prevailing belief. They were accused of heresy and mistreated. It is now we term them as experts who were simply ahead of their time. Today George Bush has declared war on Iraq, but without full support of the world. Being American President, he is supposed to be the most powerful man on earth. Even after clarifying his motives and goals, there are many theories and rumours about his real objectives of the war which range from US taking control of Iraq’s oil to taking control of the world.

If you take the field of journalism and news reporting, there is always a sense of mistrust in the minds of the people watching or reading the news. Very reputed and famous newspapers and channels have been accused and quite sometimes proved of giving biased reports and in a way influencing peoples beliefs. Politics has been time tested. There won’t be any country whose citizens believe their leaders and politicians are clean and god-men. No matter what happens in politics, people always try to know the background objectives of the politicians. This mistrust and suspicion comes from experiences through the ages and will no doubt remain in the future.

Similar things happen in the corporate business world. Enron, a multi billion dollar company 3-4 years back is now considered as a case study of how a business can collapse on falsely built ideals. The market experts who could not predict the Enron disaster are being chided by investors. Arthur Andersen, supposed to be the numero uno of accounting and consulting is now nowhere. The experts in lure of money manipulated papers and are now cooling their heels behind bars. In this scenario, common people start losing their faith in these big names. This has happened over the years everywhere.

It is because of misappropriations and bad deals by few people who give an entire industry a bad name. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will be remembered more for the scandals they indulged in. Talking about politicians, there are actually honest and morally upright guys who enter the field with a magnanimous thought of improving and uplifting society. Even their policies and decisions are taken apart by people to know what personal motives are hidden behind these honest faces. Even if an Olympic runner runs a superb race without any drugs, there are rumours thick and fast that banned steroids might be the case and so testing is necessary. One rotten mango spoils the whole lot or can we say- gives the whole lot a bad grade.

Failure of Muslim Societies

Nawaz asked:

It is necessary that we Muslims face up to the reality that the Islam that we profess, practise and preach today is not working. And has not worked for a long time. This is true both for our communal life as societies, and our personal lives as individuals. In Muslim countries and communities around the world there is no shortage of mosques and preachers; prayer and fasting are common, millions perform the Hajj every year. Yet most of these societies are rife with corruption and injustice; poverty and illiteracy prevail; sickness and malnutrition are common. It is not just a question of resources; those Muslim countries that are lucky enough to have oil or other natural resources may have avoided some of these problems but face other serious ones (which are also common throughout the Muslim world) : lack of individual freedom and human rights; deep economic and social class divisions; materialism and consumerism; the lower status of women; the alienation of youth, etc.

This failure of Muslim societies to solve internal problems has been matched by their failures to deal with external challenges. In the 19th and early 20th centuries they were unable to withstand the European colonial and imperial tide that swept over them. Today, they are not able to effectively resist the external political, economic and cultural pressures to which they are subject, nor have they been able to keep up and cope with the rapid technological changes occurring in the modern world. No Muslim society today, whatever its geography or history, can be pointed out as one where humanity has progressed, or as a model of how human beings should live. There has not been such a one for centuries.

Islam Then and Now

For its early adherents Islam was a set of simple ideas and beliefs relating to Allah Almighty, and the relationship of human beings to Allah. This overpowering vision transformed them, and led them to transform their world. The essence of the vision was awareness and belief in Allah, the creator and sustainer of the universe and the role that Allah ordered human beings to play in their world. This original Islam had no dogma no ritual no elaborate code of laws no special class of persons learned in the religion that guided and judged other believers; in short none of the elaborate structure that now passes for Islam. This superstructure did not exist in the early centuries of Islam. The problem we face is that Islam today is a complex and rigid structure, frozen in time, which overlays and obscures the original and essential message that Islam brought to humanity. Further complicating the issue is the emergence of a class of self-styled religious authorities and “guardians”, so that there is now a virtual priestly class in Islam where there was no place for one in its original version. What has happened to Islam is not unique; in fact this has been the trajectory followed by all the major religions. Each of them started off as a simple message of such power and relevance that it attracted significant numbers of adherents, whose lives were deeply affected and changed by their belief in this new vision. Over time these numbers grew greatly but also gradually the simple and original message was overlaid by dogma, ritual and hierarchical structures, directed and controlled by a priestly class (which usually allied itself to the secular authority in power in a mutually beneficial arrangement). Thus the revolutionary vision that gave birth to this transforming movement became a static & institutionalized religion. That is what has happened with Islam and it has become twisted shape of another religion.

Opposing Views of a Post-racial Society

Roland Laird asked:

After Barack Obama won the presidential election I found myself in conversations with White people who were beside themselves. In their minds the election of a Black president meant that we had truly entered Dr. King’s dream and America had become a nation where people are not “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  Somehow on November 4th we had become a so-called “post-racial society.”  But my Black friends and I are having none of it. We view the Obama Presidency as promising, but believe racism is alive and well and still a major factor in American life.

Now there’s no denying that a great deal of people, Black and White, are optimistic about the Obama Presidency. But I believe that the source of the respective optimism comes from different places.  For instance, here are two of the many text messages from Black friends that I received soon after Obama was projected as the winner of the election:

“Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Obama could run. Obama ran so we can fly.”

“They didn’t want to give us our 40 acres and a mule, so we took 50 states and a White House.”

I doubt White people were sending those types of text messages to one another on November 4th, and all joking aside both messages speak volumes about the way Black people perceive the “post-racial society.”

Meanwhile, I believe the reaction of fair-minded White people to the Obama election falls into one of two categories. Either they think, “Obama represents a new day, and it shows that racism is not a major factor in the everyday lives of Black people.” Or they believe that, “Obama’s election doesn’t mean the end of racism, but it does mean that Blacks and Whites can work more closely together to completely end racial injustice in American Society.”

Though the first thought is a noble one, it’s wildly naive.  On the other hand, I believe the second reaction to be an accurate assessment of things — as long as you take a 500 foot view. Things get messier, however, as you get to ground level.

Historically, from the Abolitionist movement of the 1800’s through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, there have been significant examples of Blacks and Whites working together to make America a fairer place, but those efforts dealt primarily within the legislative realm. The notion being that once Black people were given the same opportunities as White people, all would be peaches and cream. The Obama Presidency is actually the zenith of this line of thinking. Yet if you go to numerous low-income Black communities today there remain a myriad of problems.

The post-racial mindset that the Obama team seems to be projecting is that the problems befalling low-income Black communities needn’t be addressed as “race” problems. In his now famous “A More Perfect Union” speech, Obama said, “It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.”

I believe Obama’s speech was designed to be uplifting for the post-racial era and for the purposes of the campaign it was. The problem is it didn’t address the fact that Black people and White people have different narratives in America. If as Obama says, we want to invest in the education of black and brown and white children we have to acknowledge that culturally these children may have different needs.

Our book, Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African-Americans is a good primer on the struggles and victories of Black people in America and does so, I believe, without being divisive.  In our book we make mention of a gentleman named Carter G. Woodson author of The Mis-Education of The Negro. In this classic book published in 1933, Woodson maintains that Black children in America aren’t taught African American (then Negro) history and as such are educated solely in White culture and to be dependent on White people.  Now this is arguably an overgeneralization but Woodson’s book does resonate with many Black people and his book raises interesting questions. However, in the post-racial era, as posited by some, books like Woodson’s or “Breaking the Chains of Psychological Slavery” by Na’im Akbar may be pushed further to the margins because they could be deemed divisive or outdated. After all, “Obama is now President, you can do anything you want” is the post-racial mindset.

For me such a mindset is harmful.

A story: my wife Taneshia is the Executive Director of the Trenton Downtown Association and each year TDA celebrates Trenton, New Jersey’s storied history as the turning point of the Revolution War with an event called “Patriot’s Week”. This year, in acknowledgement of the pending Obama presidency, Taneshia commissioned four Black men, all dressed in colonial garb, to read the Declaration of Independence. It was a powerful image especially since at the time of the Revolution just like the rebel colonialists people of African descent also sought independence from their oppressors.  It was well received by those in attendance but Taneshia was asked by a covering media reporter, “Why did you choose to emphasize that all the readers were Black?” The reporter followed up by saying that we’re in a post-racial society and the Obama election was about our commonalities not our racial differences.

To me that demonstrates the paradox of the “post-racial era” thinking. Despite the sincere optimism many White people think it means that when we work together to solve some of societies daunting problems we no longer need to speak explicitly about race. Whereas to many Black people it means we can speak more openly about race and how we can use our experiences and narratives to turnaround many of the problems in our communities.

The next four years should tell us which perspective prevails.

Copyright © 2009 Roland Laird co-author of Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans

2012, 1484 and Other Apocalypses: the Dynamics of Society

Jo Hedesan asked:

Since the Apocalypse failed to occur in 2000, there is a new end of the world being prophesied: December 21, 2012. Apparently, the ancient Mayan calendar “reset” itself on this date, the end of a “Great Cycle” (1). As this date corresponds to a significant astronomical event, the Sun crossing the Equator of the Milky Way, expectations of a ‘new’ apocalypse are on the rise (2). In this context, what strikes me is how a prophecy that has been made more than one thousand years ago by an obscure culture is making headlines today. It made me think about the long lasting power of the millennial tradition in Western culture. Chances are, if nothing of note occurs on 21 December, the attention will be focused on 2060, the date Isaac Newton predicted for the apocalypse (3). Apocalyptic-millennial thinking is nothing new to the West: it has been pervasive for two thousand years or more, and no past ‘failed’ prediction impeded believers to move on to another apocalyptic date. To observe millennial thinking in process and its results, I’m going to briefly look at a “case study”: the Renaissance.

Before proceeding, perhaps it would be useful to differentiate between “apocalypse” and “millenarianism”. Apocalypse refers to the tragic events at the end of days: the emphasis is on catastrophe, suffering, dramatic events, portents and death. Millenarianism, on the other hand, is a belief in the transformation of the world into a better place. I see these as two sides of the same coin: apocalypse is the destructive aspect, and millenarianism the positive, constructive side. They do not have to occur together, but most often they do: a more or less dramatic change has to take place for the world to be transformed.

Let us then wind back to the early days of the Renaissance. The 1300s had already been obsessed with apocalypse and millennialism (4). Yet in the 1400s this fervor was pitched to a new height due to an astrological prophecy called the “great conjunction theory” drawn by an Arabic philosopher named Al-Kindi (5). Al-Kindi based his speculations on the astrological ‘great conjunctions’ between Jupiter and Saturn that occur typically from 20 to 20 years (the last Great Conjunction occurred, incidentally, on May 31, 2000). However, Al-Kindi connected this astrological fact to millennarist beliefs, arguing that once every few centuries major historical change would occur (6). This theory became quite a ‘popular culture’ phenomenon in the era, with famous astrologers like Roger Bacon and Johannes Kepler contributing to the debates. Thus, in 1484 the great conjunction became associated with major millennial and apocalyptic expectations (7,8). Columbus’ discovery of America in 1492 was apparently connected with such millennial beliefs (9). Renaissance itself, as a movement originating in Florence, cannot be divorced from apocalyptic thinking: Marsilio Ficino, the would-be theoretician of the Renaissance, continuously spoke of the coming ‘golden age’ (10).

1484 passed without an apocalypse, but astrologers later observed that it did mark an event with great consequence for Christianity: the birth of Martin Luther (11). In any case, the 1484 prophecies did not cease the apocalyptic vogue of the period: instead, astrologers moved on to another great conjunction, due in 1604 (as a side note, there was a supernova in 1572 that caused widespread apocalyptic predictions as well). In expectation of a major event, a great number of intellectuals of the period devoted themselves to discovering a ‘universal language’ (which came to be accepted as being that of mathematics) and a ‘universal science’ (12). While 1604 did not bring the apocalypse either, it had an impact on the intellectual life of Europe, causing a reformatory fervor. Science itself can attribute at least some of its growth to millennial expectations of the age (13, 14). It was in the framework of ‘millennarist science’ that Newton spent a great deal of his time trying to divine the end of the world.

As Landes observed, all scholarship on millennialism starts from the premise that all apocalyptic prophets have been wrong (15). That may be true from a black and white standpoint. Yet we can only think for a moment the impact that millennial and apocalyptic beliefs have on society. There is the dark side: believers like those of the Heaven’s Gate that committed mass-suicide in expectations of the apocalypse; but there is also a bright side, which encourages activism, soul-searching and positive social change. In the above story, we can see that astrological predictions of the apocalypse or millennium fostered, for instance, the cultural pursuits of the Renaissance, the scientific inquiries of the early modern Europe and enlightened monarchs. In the end, it is perhaps safe to say that millennial thinking has a definite impact on societies by speeding up their dynamic – for good and for bad consequences.

This has been just the beginning of a discussion that could delve into thousands of millennial movements; heavy books have been written on this topic and many more will be. It is certainly a fascinating topic that is linked to our aspirations at an individual and societal level. Whether we like it or not, this topic affects us profoundly. We may not believe that 2012 or 2060 or perhaps some scientific experiment gone wrong as the Large Hadron Collider will be the end of us, but the possible signs of catastrophe cannot fail to move us at a deeper level. What we do with that feeling is up to us – hopefully we can channel it in a positive direction.

References:

(1) Anonymous. 21 December 2012 – The Mayan Calendar End-Date. Online. Available at: http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/maya.htm. Accessed on 1 Dec 2008.

(12), (14) Barnes, R. (1988). Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

(5), (6), (7), (11) Culianu, I.P. (2003). Eros and Magic in the Renaissance. Bucharest: Polirom.

(4) Garin, E. (1990). Astrology in the Renaissance: the Zodiac of Life, trans. by Carolyn Jackson and June Allen. London: Arkana.

(10) Hedesan, D.G. (2008). Mercury and the Expectations of World Renewal in the Renaissance. Unpublished, Presented at Bi-Annual ASE Conference, Charleston, USA.

(9), (15) Landes, R. (2001). The Fruitful Error: Reconsidering Millennial Enthusiasm – Review of Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults and Millennial Beliefs through the Ages by Eugen Weber. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 32(1), pp. 89-98.

(13) Noble, D. (1997). The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. New York, Penguin.

(2) USA Today. (2007). Does Maya Calendar Predict 2012 Apocalypse? Online. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-27-maya-2012_n.htm . Accessed on 1 Dec 2008.

(8) Weinstein, D. (1958). Savonarola, Florence, and the Millenarian Tradition. Church History, 27 (4), pp. 291-305.

(3) Wikipedia. (2008). Isaac Newton’s Occult Studies. Online. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies. Accessed on 2 Dec 2008.

Islamic Society

Nawaz asked:

The social part of the Divine Revelation provides us with laws intended to guide the course of social evolution. Islam has developed a political Organization based on eternal principles of the Quran. Since these principles have their source not from any human intellect but delivered by Divine Wisdom, where men when obey them are obeying God but not any individual or system. In the Islamic society all men are equal in the eyes of the law. It is a community of free and equal persons, owing commitment to God and obeying His laws. But when analyze the scenario it comes up with another angle. We have seen that human being has two identities, the self and the body. The relationship between the two selves is close and intimate. But while the body is incessantly changing the self is getting stability. The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as conceived by Islam is eternal and reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of reality must reconcile in its life, the categories of permanence and change. It must possess eternal principles to regulate its collective life as a foothold in the world of perpetual change. But eternal principles, when they are understood to exclude all possibilities of change which according to the Quran is one of the greatest signs of God which tend to immobilize what is essentially mobile in its nature. The law laid down in the Quran is absolute and dynamic in nature to cater both permanence and change; None has the authority to make any change in these laws (6: 116)

What these permanent and eternal Laws do? It demarcates the boundary line of what is lawful “limits” in the terminology of the Quran which no one has the right to transgress. Within the boundary line, however we are free to frame such supplementary laws as the needs of the time require. These supplementary laws are of course subject to change and are to be enacted and revised by the representatives of the people “decide their affairs through mutual consultations and according to Divine Laws” (42: 38). While following the limits set by the Quranic laws, Islam upholds free and tolerant democratic activity. The Quran even leaves man free to devise his own consultative machinery. The form which consultations are to take will depend on the convenience of the people.

As regards the eternal and unalterable Law which sets a limit to the legislative activity of the Islamic democracy, the Muslim community (Ummah) is fully committed to it. It cannot break from its moorings. No one can claim the right to deviate from the laws laid down in the Quran for personal gains. We also cannot rule out the possibility that majority and unanimous decisions could be wrong. Such wrong decisions may not do much harm if they are not against the ethics of human respects. Social stability will be assured only if the legislature exercises its powers within the framework of permanent fundamental principles laid down by Quran. If this framework is rejected, it will cease to be an Islamic society. Within this permanent framework, change is not only permissible but advisable. The conditions of life are always changing and the constitution of the state and machinery of the government should also be revised and brought up to date. It is obvious that in such a system permanence and change are reconciled. The Islamic society is both stable and progressive. It rests on the firm foundation of eternal principles but men are free to create whatever superstructure they like on that foundation. To do good to others is an unalterable moral principle, but the way in which we can do well to others will depend on the particular circumstances of the time. The first cannot be left to the people but the second should be decided by them. We must bear in mind that progress is a change that brings the system nearer to perfection. It is change which is preserving the values achieved, includes them and raises them to a higher level.

The Tryanny of Experts (part Ii) – Experts and Civil Society

Ian Wendt asked:

Experts are valuable, necessary contributors to our diverse and specialized society. But they cannot and should not be used to constitute or replace civil society. Indeed, the idea that anyone can claim to be a civil society expert is troubling. Civil society needs to be composed of a broad and diverse array of people throughout our societies. The internet offers us an opportunity to radically expand civil society, to debate all of the ideas and ideologies that shape the world, and to publish our speech around the world. We cannot abandon this field to experts, particularly not the much vaunted experts of civil society.

What is an expert? Experts and expertise are usually recognized through degrees earned, publications, experience and notoriety. There are good reasons for each of these things. But each of them can also be troubling. If degrees and titles make experts, then we need to carefully, critically examine the curriculum, the quality, and the ideological biases of our degree offering institutions. If publications make experts, we need to be aware of the obscurity or audience of journals and the public and private funding sources for research. Experience is very valuable; but there are plenty of rich political donors who have become consular officials without a shred of expertise. Notoriety is the most troublesome of the signs and symbols of expertise. Famous experts are often assumed to be better experts – false. Famous people and celebrities often mistake themselves for experts and think we ought to care what their expert pronouncements are – really false! In addition, experts tend to congregate together and pat each other on the backs by awarding one another fellowships, grants, distinctions and prizes. The Ivy League is the country club of expertise. The longer you hang around, the more your expertise will be burnished, brightened and expanded by all of your expert pals who slap you on the back. Finally, success begets success. People who gain degrees, earn awards, grants and fellowships will earn more of them. If you have not broken into this club by the first year of graduate school, you are unlikely to join it later.

Civil Society Experts

A wide array of civil society experts are called in to analyze, explain and advocate prominent policy issues. From the scientist and the statistician, to the economist and the literature professor, to the historian and the constitutional lawyer, to the retired general and the retired ambassador; there is no shortage of experts to tell us how to think and act and vote in this complicated world of ours. Now we even have technocrats – those elite experts who blend modern technological training with state power to produce utopia in developing nations like China and Chile, well, eventually maybe. Then there are the experts who are not experts. Politicians and rich people, reporters and pollsters get tired of having to ask the experts or hire the experts or hunt around for someone with an advanced degree to advocate their position. So they step up to the mike themselves and are transformed into pundits. But in the end, none of these civil society experts provide us with civil society, or solutions to the problems we must work together to solve.

In the last generation we have seen the rise of a new expert – the technocrat. This is the ultimate melding of expertise with power. Now instead of simply elevating the powerful to power, we elevate (powerful) experts to power. Hey, I love meritocracy. But let us not confuse engineering, business or science degrees with the ability to lead nations and states. Scientists, engineers and CEOs are no better or worse than anyone else at voting with principle, debating important issues, or leading communities.

Perhaps most prominent among civil society experts are scientists and statisticians. Statistics is an important tool for making valid conclusions based on small data sets. But statistics is also undoubtedly the most commonly misused tool for lying in politics, the media and civil society. Next, scientists are specialized professionals who master specific tools and methods for investigating specific, narrow questions. They arrive at provisional, evidence-based answers to those questions. They do not claim to discern truth, morality, wisdom or sound public policy. If you hear a scientist claiming any of these latter findings, then you are listening to a person, who happens to hold a PhD, who also holds an opinion that may or may not be informed, effective, wise or true. Scientists and scientific research are also very expensive, and so they are paid by someone or other. The sources of funding do not determine scientific results, but they can reflect policy analysis and advocacy.

Social scientists form a lower tier of civil society experts. These can include – Political scientists: who analyze politics and may try to tell you how to vote. Economists: who analyze the economy and may try to predict the future (with predictable results). Sociologists: who may or may not perform experiments on small groups of people, then tell you what is wrong with your society and what to do about it. Historians: who analyze the past then complain that you do not know about your past and that everything you think you know about the past is wrong. Anthropologists: who used to study remote cultures and now study ritual in any culture and will tell you how your culture is oppressing some other culture. And so forth. In related fields, literary and cultural critics abound in English, foreign language, and comparative literature departments. Scholars of literature and the arts consider themselves the primary experts on culture, mediators of high culture, and interpreters of all discourse, rhetoric and cultural expression. As a historian myself, I love social scientists and scholars of the humanities. They are often passionately devoted to civil society. But that does not make them experts on civil society.

Lawyers, constitutional lawyers, and law school professors form another common array of civil society experts. These people are trained to think critically, to read and write carefully, and to debate with acumen and rhetorical skill. Lawyers are legal experts, and so if you have legal problems, they come highly recommended. But in other circumstances the society of lawyers tends to make communication incomprehensible, extremely expensive, combative, and fraught with hidden landmines (read any small print lately?). The central problem with trusting a lawyer-expert is that you can find a lawyer who will argue any position. They may believe passionately in it, or they may simply believe in the virtue of arguing for their client. In short, lawyers are useful people to pay to support your position; but that does not make them civil society experts.

Finally, former government officials and diplomats are ubiquitous civil society experts. Former domestic or foreign policy advisors-now pundits, former generals and military officers-now private contractors or military advisors, former ambassadors-now think tank fellows, former congressmen-now lobbyists, former spies-now novelists, former bureaucrats-now whistleblowers. These people may or may not have done effective service for their governments in the past. They may indeed have garnered very useful experience. But you may be sure that these particular civil society experts certainly cultivated well placed friends, political favors, and public notoriety. Listen to such experts with care.

Experts who aren’t

There are a variety of people who by virtue of their professions or positions voice their opinions and ideas with great authority – as if they should be listen to, believed and followed. Many of these experts are not experts at all.

First, politicians – Politicians are experts of campaigns and fund raising. They may be statesmen or stateswomen; they may be wise or principled; they may be experienced or expert in some field; but they are not necessarily any of these things. Generally, politicians (as politicians) are not experts. Elected government officials deserve respect on two levels. First, they have succeeded at communicating their ideas, marshalling personal and monetary support, and managing a campaign in order to attract democratic votes. This is a real achievement; but it does not make them a civil society expert. Second, successful politicians eventually accrue a great deal of experience in the halls of government. This is a mixed blessing in that these politicians have opportunities to contribute toward functioning governance and to help solve societal problems; but they just as frequently take those opportunities to perform bad governance, to fail to solve societal problems, and occasionally to become part of the problem. Few politicians are experts.

Rich people and celebrities – wealth, power and notoriety do not grant expertise. Celebrities are almost never experts and should not speak any louder than anyone else. Rich people are able to buy and broadcast louder speech, but it does not make them experts. (And then there is the stray expert who somehow gains celebrity. Expert-cum-celebrities sometimes deserve their notoriety. Some of them have gained celebrity through a lifetime of achievement crowned with high awards – Nobel Prizes, medals, honors, etc. These people mark an exception to the celebrity rule, but their celebrity is usually fleeting. How many Nobel Prize winners for the sciences can you name?)

Reporters and pundits – the press has become increasingly openly ideological. As the media has opened its ideological content, journalists, columnists, news analysts and pundits of all kinds have proliferated and expressed their opinions in ever increasing volume. Reporters and pundits are often widely informed by virtue of their interviews and reportage; they are also often very good rhetoriticians. Personally, I believe that open, honest, ideological expression by the press is much better than veiled or even unconscious bias contained in misleading headlines or buried ledes. But being published in print or being broadcast on cable does not make anyone an expert.

Pollsters – the ultimate non-experts. These are people who are paid to ask a representative sample of regular people what they think, then to use statistics and their analytical powers to discern what everyone thinks. Well, polls can be interesting; they might even in some cases be beneficial to policy makers or civil society. But how any of this makes pollsters experts is beyond me. Nevertheless, pollsters have become increasingly common media experts who provide journalists and pundits with a window into the mind of the common woman on the street. Where is the expert here? Wizard of Oz, we see you behind your curtain!

Finally, there is the all too common spectacle of the expert parading in public who establishes their credibility by lambasting their field of expertise – the expert insider critic or expert whistleblower. Have you seen the accredited psychologist who attacks the field of therapy or psychoanalysis right before lathering their audiences with a thick layer of relationship advice? What of the conservative scholar (tenured) who bravely eviscerates academia from within? Or the anti-medicine MD? How about the government civil servant whose civil rights (and political views) were so trampled that he had to give hundreds of media interviews to show how reactionary the government is? We could multiply examples. These experts are remarkable because they attack the root of their expertise, while all the time utilizing the same expertise to convince us we ought to trust and listen to them. Most remarkably, the slickest exploiters of the expert-insider-critic shtick actually manage to make us trust them more than other experts, even as they savage the root of their expertise.

Your Civil Society

One of the major critiques of new media on the Internet is that it accumulates much noise and little substance – too much riff raff and too few experts. Wouldn’t it be better to gather quietly at the feet of wise experts, rather than sift through all of the shouting, competing voices in new media echo chambers? Oh, I have heard elderly reporters wax lyrical as they recalled the days when everyone listened to Cronkite and read the New York Times, because back then we knew that was the way it was. This common, elite meme argues that we actually need fewer media broadcasters, fewer experts, fewer points of view, and a lot fewer people speaking. But to the contrary, our civil society needs more people to be more engaged, to speak more openly, to broadcast their voices further, to test and debate more ideas, new ideas.

If Ideology Forum is to succeed in helping strengthen our civil society, together we need to enable a very wide range of people to thoughtfully engage one another about as many ideas and principles and movements and causes as possible. Doubtless, some will criticize saying that regular people – common internet users – lack the expertise to make newsworthy, publishable, original contributions to the big issues and debates that shape our world. In other words, ‘Shut up and listen to the columnists, pundits, politicians, professors, scientists – the experts.’ But civil society must be broad and inclusive; it ought to be active and democratic; the Internet makes that increasingly possible; and Ideology Forum strives to make that civil society real. We need more people to throw off the tyranny of experts and speak.

Relationship Hypotheses: Language and Society

Fatina Sarwar asked:

Posing the argument “our definitions of language and society are not independent: the definition of language includes in it a reference to society”(1), Ronald Wardhaugh (1986)in his book “An Introduction to Sociolonguistics” presents quadruple hypotheses proposed by different scholars involved in “the study of the relationship between language and society”(1) and “the various functions of language in society”(1) .The hypotheses are:

•Society influences the linguistic phenomenon.

•Linguistic phenomenon influences the society

•Society and language together dialectically influence the linguistic phenomenon.

•Society and language do not influence the linguistic phenomenon at all.

According to Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe (2003) a society is the “web of relationship and interactions among human beings” when a group of people stick together

bearing in their minds some common definite objectives of their survival. Hence, the fact

that society influences the linguistic phenomenon can not be thrown away. In a Bangla

novel “Kalpurush” (1985) by a famous Indian Bangla novelist Shamaresh Majumder

such influence of society over the linguistic behaviour of it is realistically pictured.

Getting mixed up with the rowdy and uncouth companies of the city-slum he had been

grown up in ,Arko, the central character of the novel shocks his cultured and educated

parents when he easily and non-hesitantly uses the Bangla slang like “nakrabaji”,

“shala”, “maal” etc. Again, when this Arko comes across with a member of the high class

of Calcutta’s urban society who said “fuck the time”, an objectionable slang in English,

he finds out that his educated parents know its meaning but are strongly unwilling to

explain it to him for its semantic extremity. Another woman belonging to Calcutta’s

upper class expresses amusing surprise in discovering Arko’s vocabulary of slang which

are semantically incomprehensible and thus intriguing to her but have a natural pragmatic

and semantic necessity to Arko. Therefore, it can be proved through many instances that

society shapes the pragmatic and semantic aspects of distinct linguistic emissions of the

people.

The second prevalent hypothesis expresses that linguistic behaviour shapes the

society. Sapir and Whorf, the two American anthropological linguists’ hypothesis

strongly advocates this view. This Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or Whorfian hypothesis asserts that a native language forms the society. Had there been no word like “prottutpannamatitto” in Bangla or “wit” in English the common semantic and pragmatic entity of both would be duly absent. The words and phrases like ‘fatafati’, ‘kachal’,

‘chera-bera’, ‘pechki’, ‘gutaguti’ etc. determine a definite society of young generation of

Bangla speakers.

The third hypothesis of the relationship between language and society proposes that

both the linguistic phenomenon and the social phenomenon influence the linguistic

behaviour in a “bi-directional” way. For the Bangla speakers the word “lungi” has a

socially semantic and pragmatic value in Bangla which would not have so for the

English speakers, as it is a linguistic identity of specific socio-cultural attire of the

context of Bangla speakers not of the English speakers.

The forth hypothesis reflects Noam Chomsky’ s asocial Universal Grammar

hypothesis .It proposes that language is an innate system of expression completely free

from the influence of either social or any other external linguistic factors. This is a

structural pre-composition of universal human language in the human minds that he

names as ‘competence’ which needs no external social influence to mature and to spread.

Society has no involvement with the springing up of the distinct basic Bangla syntactic

structure featuring subject-object-verb or SOV (ami bhat khai) which is, in a way,

reversed from the English one, subject-verb-object or SVO (I eat rice).

It is really arduous to determine which of the hypotheses is most acceptable to me

being an amateur sociolinguistics practitioner. However, as I find it unnatural to exclude

the influence of the society while singularly assenting the influence of language over the

linguistic phenomenon or the vice versa, I profess the third one to be most feasible

in the sociolingustic study of the relationship of language and society. Had there not been

any institute as society as the context of the linguistic interchange of the human race the

forth hypothesis could have been accountable. As the de facto is not so, I adhere to the

third hypothesis out of my own due discernment.

Bibliography

1.Majumder, Shamaresh.Kalpurush.Calcatta: Anando, 1985.

2.Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe.Microsoft Corporation, 2003 ed.

3.Richards, J.Platt, J. and Weber, H.Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics.

UK: Longman, 1985.

4.Wardhaugh, Ronald.An Introduction to Sociolinguisctis.Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Economic Justice and Democratization of Economy to Create Ideal Society

Prof Viswanathan asked:

Economic Justice and Democratization of Economy to create Ideal Society

By

Prof Viswanathan,

Director,

International Socio-Economic Research Bureau

(E Mail Id : economist@dataone.in)

DECLARATION OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

We, the people of all the countries, in harmony with the sovereignty of the Universal Justice hold these truths to be self-evident that every creator has inalienable ‘Right to Ownership’ on his creations and the Natural laws empowers the creators that only he should use his creations exclusively for the welfare and uplift of the human society as a whole, in which he is an inseparable member.

We declare with all judicial power derived from Natural laws that among all creations of man, his creation of capital alone has enormous ‘economic power’ capable of transforming all the socio-economic-political structures and reconstitute them to suit the aspirations of the owners of capital.

We further declare in unequivocal terms since the capital is created by the collective labor of the people as a whole it should be directly owned by the people and then only the people would secure equal ‘Economic power’ and requisite ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ with which they could establish an ‘Ideal Society’ in the way in which they desire.

In accordance with ‘Economic Justice’ when the capital is directly owned by the people, we declare that the people would naturally secure what we consider the best among the ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ like ‘Right to live’, ‘Right to work’, ‘Right to Economic Equality’, ‘Right to economic liberty’, ‘Right to Economic Security’, ‘Right to participate in the management’, ‘Right to capital creation’, ‘Right to live with fraternity’, and requisite ‘socio-economic-political rights to pursuit of decent happiness’

We further proclaim when the people secure the above mentioned ‘fundamental rights’ they would succeed ultimately to establish an Ideal Society or Just Society for which they were tirelessly striving in transforming one form of society into another since the dawn of civilization, and to execute their noble concept of ‘One World, One Government, and One Humanity’ and in the end the people would be victorious in choosing what form of ‘Economic System’ that would be the best of all other systems for the establishment of an Ideal Society for which they would secure all requisite authorities of Natural laws that bestow on them.

1. Emergence of Economic Systems:

Different economic systems had emerged on the horizon of the history of mankind whenever different kinds of ‘Capital Ownership’ sprang up. Especially capitalism and socialism emerged after industrial revolution on the determinant factor of ‘capital ownership’. Generally in all economic systems ‘the ownership of capital’ forms the ‘basic structure’ of a society on which the fabrics of super structure of society are determined. The super structure usually exhibits the qualitative fabrics of society such as religion, culture, education, laws, customs and conventions etc. which are determined according to the aspirations of the owners of capital. In short the social elements are dependent factors of capital ownership.

During the turbulent period of 1750s when Industrial Revolution burst upon the England and other European countries it introduced gigantic machines – a kind of capital – in the factory system of production of goods and services. It engulfed the mankind like huge deluge and tossed the world societies and changed each and every super structural elements of society in such a manner not to even to trace out their originality. We, the people, at that period were deeply perplexed and confused what to do as we were in the vicinity of utter economic ignorance.

2. Two Economic Affidavits:

During Industrial Revolution the economic environments in the factory system was not only in muddle but also demoralizing the societies. No one had any knowledge how the economy was operating and how should it be operated. Everyone was expecting for the worst to come. Whole Europe was plunged into utter ignorance. At that crucial period of time it was Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, published his famous book ‘An enquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations’ in 1776.

3. Economic Affidavit of Adam Smith: In his book Adam Smith spelt out an ‘Economic Affidavit’ solemnly and sincerely that if we, the people, entrusted our capital to a few capitalists in the name of ‘Capitalism’ (Individualism), they would not only change even the sand into gold but also drive the mankind to march towards an ‘Ideal Society’ by modernizing production potentialities with the help of scientific technologies and division of labor. Completely ignoring the working class who constitutes the society, Adam Smith concentered and focused his interest on a few capitalists and advocated that they without the interference of State would accumulate wealth of nations with the help of division of labor using modern machines and assured that the few independent capitalists would moreover create a favorable climate for the establishment of Ideal Society by increasing production many folds. Adam Smith completely neglected the equitable distribution of wealth to the mass working class. He linked the establishment of an ideal society with the mass production but not equitable distribution of wealth. Thus he misguided the whole world convincingly and decisively for a long period during which the working class was thrown into appalling poverty and horrible living hood.

Ricardo and Malthus, drawing he thread of arguments from the wisdom of Adam Smith, eloquently presented their views in favor of a few capitalists and equally convinced the people to surrender their capital in the possession of capitalists who would solve all the socioeconomic problems of mankind. Thus when the people entrusted their capital in the hands of a few capitalists a ‘Capitalistic Mode of Production’ emerged with strong magnitudes in England and some other European countries. This capitalistic mode of production, shattering hitherto existing highly valuable cultures and customs of people, created a complex and conflicting, and highly demoralizing ‘Capitalistic Society’.

The newly emerged ‘capitalistic Society’ forced the social elements such as law, art, culture, customs, religion, education and other economic and political rights and liberties to work for the benefit and security of a few capitalists because on their welfare the welfare of mass working class was depending on. The capitalistic mode of production converted the ‘Right to live’ of mass working class into a dependent factor of the security of the capitalist class who owned the capital and modern factories. This was because if a capitalist collapsed with his factory, the livelihood of the workers working in that factory would also collapse. So all the social elements ranging from culture to human liberty had to work for the security of a few capitalists. Thus the Ideal Society which the people dreamt for long span of time became a myth and mirage. In the capitalistic mode of production the Ideal Society was meant by ‘Capitalistic Society’ representing a few capitalists.

4. Counter Economic Affidavit of Karl Marx:

Having abundant flow of sympathy on the exploited mass working class and endless stream of hatred on the capitalists who caused for the appalling poverty of workers the mentally and morally agitated Karl Marx and Engels declared a ‘Counter Affidavit’ in 1848 in their ‘Communist Manifesto’ and Karl Marx alone in 1867 in his magnum opus the Das Capital. In their counter affidavit they advocated that if We, the people, forfeited our capital from the few capitalists with the help of Bolsheviks (communists) and entrusted the capital in the hands of the ‘State’ under the control of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’, that the ‘State’ would lead us ‘Towards an Ideal Society’ and establish ‘One World’.* Believing their ‘Counter Affidavit’ word by word, in the October Revolution of 1917 we forfeited our capital from the few capitalists and handed over it to the trustworthy of the ‘State’. The State introduced a ‘Socialistic mode of production’ and on the basis of this, a fearful and subjugating ‘Socialistic Society’ emerged. The working class was engulfed with awe and fearsome and terribly perplexed on the outcome of the ‘Revolution’ and utterly disappointed for not even tracing any hope of achieving ‘Ideal Society’ which their Bolshevik masters promised during the ‘Revolution’.

__________________________________________________________________

*In the words of Karl Marx : “ In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe in its banners : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

— Marx(1875), pp 21-23

Karl Marx and Engels were not alive at that time of October Revolution. They were great champions for working class and ‘buts’ about it. They worried wept for working class, they suffered for working class, they sacrificed everything for the working class, and above all they were exiled, especially Karl Marx, from country to country for the cause of working class, and they really wanted to see the working class of all the countries in an ‘Ideal Society’. But the ‘October Revolution’ in Russia proved that their ‘Theory and Practice’ did not coordinate with each other and did not function in harmony. There was something wrong in the ‘Theory and practice’ which resulted in utter collapse of Socialism at the end process. What was the fault that penetrated for its collapse?

I have same streak of opinion in respect of Adam Smith and Malthus as well. I believe when they advocated that we, the people, should entrust our capital in the possession of few capitalists, they believed that the capitalists would not exploit the working class. But when their theories put into practice it was the selfish capitalists who manipulated their theories as convenient and convincing tools to exploit the mass working class. It was the capitalists who portrayed the theories in a darkest dark when they put them in practice because of their selfish motives. In other words there was unbridgeable disparity ( a deep wide chasm) between the theory and practice which the capitalists utilized it to fulfill their selfish motive of maximization of profit in exploiting the mass working class. What was the terrible fault that was penetrating here also?

Though the original proponents of capitalistic and socialistic theories were not enemies of working class, the executors of these theories, the capitalists on one hand and the ‘State’ on the other hand misled the working class for their selfish motives. The primary fault was that we, the people, instead of retaining the capital with us, separating ourselves into two diametrically opposite poles, surrendered our capital to a few capitalists in West European and North American countries and to ‘State’ in Russia, China and other East European countries.

The inherent contradictions that deeply and widely penetrated in the theories and practices of the two economic systems originated a fierce vicious spiral and exploded like a ‘Big Bang’ and scattered away violently but suddenly all the socio-economic problems throughout the world like inextinguishable fire balls. Instead of establishing an ‘Ideal Society’ these two systems, even after a prolonged period of experiments, have pushed the mankind at the verge of nuclear holocaust and wide spread day – to-day terrorism.

5. Democrism – People’s Direct Ownership of Capital:

As long as more than 200 years, Capitalism had left no avenues unexplored to establish an Ideal Society but disastrously collapsed during 1930s throughout the world due to the pressure of its own weight of self contradictions and brutal ambition of maximization of profit. On the same footing, Communism too after exerting all methods of cruel tortures (Stalin’s roughshod treatment of the kulaks) in the name of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’ for nearly 75 destroyed itself in 1992 in its own breeding place. As both the systems are now struggling for their own survival, they have now decided to end the ‘cold war’ between them. Since the both the systems pushed us into great disappointments and they did not effective economic techniques to solve our economic problems in accordance with ‘Economic Justice’, we, the people, hereby declare to forfeit our own capital both from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our direct ownership in peaceful manner or by force if necessity demands and create a ‘new economic system’ known as ‘Democrism’ on the basis of people’s Direct Ownership of Capital and we, further declare the Natural Laws have entrusted upon us all executive powers to do so as our birth right.

On the People’s Direct Ownership of Capital a just economic system known as ‘Democrism’ will in the world and it will provide us ‘Democratic Mode of Production’ which is an inevitable must for the establishment of an ‘Ideal or Just Society’. I venture to say in short,

“Capitalism is popular and popularly defective;

Socialism is destructive and destructively popular;

Democrism is justifiable and justifiably inevitable.”

Whatever race we relate to, whatever language we speak to, whatever color we cover to, whatever religion we follow to, whatever nation we belong to, we are always being influenced by justice and by its emphatic authority of supremacy. The laws may be in transient from time to time, and vary from country to country, but the concept of justice remains illuminant everywhere. We want justice, only the justice and nothing but the justice. Throughout the long passage of history we have honored justice; we have kept in high esteem the men of justice right from king Solomon to Gandhiji . We have unshakable faith that justice is perpetual and ever pervading. We have always fought for justice and it has united us without any discrimination. In his book ‘Anatomy of Liberty’, William O. Douglas, the Justice to the United States Supreme Court, says this truth in every respect as follows:

“The appetite for justice is indeed a cementing influence amon all races, whatever language they speak, whatever of their skin”

-Douglas,William O. “Anatomy of Liberty” (p: xxiv) : (1965)

The universal fact is that if there is justice there will be harmony and immortality. The scientific facts are immortal because they are based on experimental truths. On the other hand if the socio-economic-political principles want to be immortal they should based on justice, only the justice and nothing but justice and perhaps on natural justice. The capitalistic and socialistic principles lack application of justice and therefore they struggle vainly to solve our life problems and they are marching towards their last destiny – the inevitable grave yard. Keeping the above facts in mind I have with utmost care and concern formulated the economic principles on the natural justice in the name of ‘DEMOCRISM’ which will secure universal acceptability. The genesis of all natural justices is to uphold ‘People’s Direct Ownership of Capital’ for which we have to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the ‘State’. Why?

“People’s Direct Ownership of Capital : Why do we want?”

1. Denying the natural justice of ‘Right to live’ by Capitalism and Socialism: (Capital promotes and intensifies war)

We, the people of all the countries, unanimously **** intensely the wars which germinate in any form or for any cause. Naturally we are peace loving people. Despite our strong protests the wars have been fought all over the world and billions and billions of innocent people having no association with the war, have been brutally killed and massacred and the skeletons of these people have been heaped like mountains in graveyards. What cause underlies for these wars? The answer is simply one word – ‘the capital’. It is the ‘Ownership of Capital’ by a few capitalists or the ‘State’ that attributes for all kinds of war that negates one’s ‘Right to live’ in the name of patriotism in particular.

Let us for time being set aside the wars fought before Industrial Revolution. The factory system facilitated for the production of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that can be employed from the land, from the ocean and from the air. The whole world turned into open battle field for the nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, supersonic jets, various kinds of military rockets and the military satellites orbiting the earth. Whatever might be the causes of First and Second World Wars, but their consequences were horrible that pushed the mankind to the very verge of its extinction from the earth planet. Why?

Wars before and after Industrial Revolution: Before the industrialization the wars were fought on a particular battle fields and between two hostile warriors only. The range of destruction was very narrow and limited in coverage because the warriors used only spears and swords. The weapons were manufactured in cottage industries or by the warriors themselves. Natural boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans and great deserts prevented the enemies to enter into a independent country.

After industrial revolution, weapons of mass destruction were produced with the help of highly sophisticated technologies with help of huge capital in factories owned by a few capitalists and the ‘State’. The natural bounties disappeared and the whole world became open battle field. These weapons were maneuvered only by the highly skilled technocrats. The technocrats used these weapons on the common innocent people to terrorize the enemy-governments to surrender immediately. For example, in World War II USA used nuclear atom bombs to bombard on millions of Japanese civilians and terrorized the government to surrender without fighting in the battle field. Nowadays the battle fields are disappeared and the whole world has become open battle field in the face of mighty ballistic missiles and nuclear atom bombs. They can be produced only with the help of scientists and huge capital owned by the ‘State’ and a ‘few capitalists’. As long as the capital is owned by the ‘State’ and ‘few capitalists’ we cannot escape from nuclear holocaust. Originally Capital was created by the working class to assist them to increase their productivity of consumption goods. As soon as the capital went into the illegal ownership of ‘State’ and ‘Capitalists’ it was used for the production of mass destructive weapons. If we scrutinize the expenditure of the world governments we can detect that a large portion of government expenditure has been allocated for ‘military up gradation’ than for the ‘promotion of education’ and ‘elimination of poverty’.

2. ECONOMIC THEORY OF WAR :

Firstly “if the accumulation of destructive capital increases the temptation for war will increase and vice versa”. The destructive capital means the capital that is used for the production of destructive weapons used by military forces. Secondly the difference in economic ideology of a country prompts it to increase its military power to show its ideological success over the other country and spread its ideology over other countries through war. For example USA and Russia used war as a weapon to spread their capitalistic and socialistic ideologies over other countries. The pages of recent past history will illustrate the fact and also the reason for accumulation of nuclear weapons and other variety of scientific weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly on the globalization of world economy the capitalist rich countries invest huge volume of their excessive capital in poor and developing countries. In order to protect their huge capital from nationalization by the beneficiary countries a mighty military force is required by the investing countries. For instance the American war and threatening of war over Arabian countries to protect her huge capital invested in exploration of petrol and fuel industries. Now American capitalists are investing billion and billions of dollar in I T industries of India and other developing countries. The American capitalists believe that they can protect their capital by their country’s military power. If any country try to nationalize these industries it will result in war. Fourthly the over production of industrial goods by rich countries force them to dump their over production in poor countries through their military power.

Economic reason for two world wars : Virtually after Industrial Revolution in most of the European countries the capital was owned by a few individuals. Since the very aim of capitalism was ‘maximization of profit’ the workers were paid less and it resulted in deficiency of effective demand which caused for ‘over production’. These European countries occupied the poor countries by their military power and converted them as their ‘political colonies’ and with the concept of ‘Free Trade’, they dumped their over-production in the colonies and also exploited the wealth of the colonies. India was the notorious example for that.

With the help of exploited wealth these ‘mother countries’ strengthened mainly their military power. The safety and security of the other ‘Dictatorial European countries’ which had ‘State or less individual Ownership of Capital’ were in jeopardy and unprotected in front of the mighty capitalist countries. On detection of the geographical track these countries found that there were no countries in the world to occupy them as their colonies for exploitation in order to increase their wealth and thereby their military power. These lately wakened dictatorial countries sniffed the fact that their ‘political and military supremacy’ would be pulled down rapidly on the downward track. In order to surpass the supremacy of the Capitalistic European Countries the ‘Dictatorial European Countries, found no other alternative except ‘war’ on the Capitalistic European Countries and on their colonies all over the world. The ‘lust for supremacy’ over the other countries forced them to wage two world wars. Napoleon and ****** waged war against all of Europe because for the sake of supremacy.

Ayn Rand emphatically points out the genesis for the two world wars in his book ‘Capitalism’ as follows:

“……World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia,

who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by alliance of

‘Nazi’ Germany with the Soviet Russia and their attack on Polland” *

– Rand Ayn :“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” (New American Library-1967) p:37

In this nuclear age we witness a political and economic turbulence all over the world for a mad race for military equilibrium and economic supremacy. Both the Capitalism and Socialism have no blue-print to terminate the opportunity for Third World War. The rich capitalist and socialist countries want to become richer and richer by pushing the vast majority of poor countries to become poorer and poorer as per World Economic Reports. At present the silent turbulence boiling in the poor countries will burst into a Third World War which will be fought between the rich northern countries and the poor southern countries of the world and result in nuclear holocaust. That is why the USA is very keen on preventing the proliferation of nuclear technology among the southern countries using its military might. The only way left for the mankind to stop the flow of ever threatening danger of nuclear war is the execution of economic equality by rich countries in extending their helping hand to poor countries to pull them up from poverty and to reduce the economic imbalance between rich and poor. The capitalist countries will not permit the economic equality within and without but fight for upholding their economic supremacy which will be the ultimate cause for the Third World War.

We, the people, therefore, have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our ‘Direct Ownership’ to coordinate with the command of Natural Laws to save the mankind.

2.1. Consequences of World wars and destructive capital:

The First World War was fought between 1914 and 1918. During the span of 4 years the war was fought violently 120 million seconds. Nearly 48 million people (including soldiers) were dead and wounded.* In other words in every 10 seconds 4 people were killed either dead or wounded.

· Nehru, Jawaharlal : “Glimpses World History” : p.637

In the Second World War When the war was virtually approaching its end, on 6th August, 1945 an Atom bomb by name ‘Little Boy’ – a new war machine that the mankind hitherto never experienced – was dropped on Hiroshima. With in 10 seconds one million innocent people were killed. The first world war took 10 seconds to kill 4 people but the second world war, at its end, took 10 seconds to kill one million innocent people. The annihilation depends on the density of population of a city on which an atom bomb drops on. The Super Powers like USA and Russia, have now heaped in their arsenal million times more powerful atom bombs than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.

No doubt the atom bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were invented by the nuclear scientists. The billion dollar question is whether the scientists produced them with their bare hands or in cottage industries or in sophisticated industries created by huge capital. No capitalist will ever afford such huge capital for the production of weapons of mass destruction because their aim is always ‘maximization of profit’. Only the State can siphon huge capital for the production of atomic bombs only with the help scientists to threaten the other countries and to enjoy the status of ‘super powers’.

Though the atom bombs are the brain-children of atomic physicists the capital required to manufacture them is funded only by the governments secretly against the wishes of the people. As long as the capital is owned by the governments, irrespective of Socialist or Capitalist governments, they spend huge capital for the production of atom bombs in order to achieve military supremacy over other countries or to attain at least an equilibrium in military power. Extensively it is the hard-core radical politicians brain wash the people under the guise of ‘patriotism’, ‘National security’ and ‘National pride’ for the production of atom bombs and other ballistic weapons. Since most of the atomic scientists are the government scientists they have to produce atom bombs at the insistence of governments in the name of national security.

“In 1943 the Manhatten Project Laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, with

J.Robert Oppenheimer as its director, was assigned the task of developing an

atom bomb. The first test at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945, was an outstanding

success (the desert sand was fused to glass for hundreds of yards around the

the site). In August two atom bombs were dropped on Japan”.

“Hiroshima inaugurated not only a new age of science but a new kind of scientists

-the government servants whose knowledge and talent are an important part of the

national arsenal. Furthermore, the scientists were now much more conscious of their

social position and responsibilities. This was true in all advanced industrial countries,

put particularly in the United States and the Soviet Union. Presumably, Soviet

scientists were satisfied to follow the dictates of government leaders, but after World

War II, Oppenheimer and other American scientists entered into a great debate over

the human, political and social implications of atomic science and a profound searching of their own consciences. Oppenheimer resisted the building of the hydrogen bomb – a much more devastating weapon than the bombs used against Japan – in the early

1950’s, and he made important enemies. When Oppenheimer’s security clearance was

withdrawn in 1954, a great outcry from his colleagues expressed more than personal

indignation. The Frankenstein myth appeared to be true, and the monster had locked

the scientist out of his own laboratory. Certain branches of scientific research are not

only secret today, they are expensive secrets; the cyclotrons and reactors of the 1960’s

are far beyond the means of any university or other institution without government support”.*

( * – Cantor, Norman F. – “Western Civilization : Its Genesis and Destiny” III –1970; pp:528-529)

I can arrive two conclusions from deducing the above historical facts:

Firstly, we have to free the atomic scientists from the clutches of governments.

Secondly, we have to forfeit our capital from the hands of governments and to keep it under our own control and possession.

Unless we, the people, forfeit our own capital from the governments and restore ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’ we could not prevent the governments from the mad race for producing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ranging from AK-47 to atom bombs (of 20,000 megaton attack)

When we pay the tax-money to the governments, we intend tacitly that they would spend it to solve our poverty; but they do not do so. In a speech on April 16, 1953, President Eisenhower said :

Every gun is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed …

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities…… We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people…………

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…….”

Professor Dallas W. Smythe of Illinois said, “Billions for defense but not a cent for socialism. It is not socialism to have the government spend 50 billion dollars for weapons; it would be socialism if the government spent the same amount for education or for public works”.

When we entrusted our capital to the capitalist as well as the socialist governments we constituted a tacit ‘Economic Contract’ with governments. The first and foremost element of the ‘Economic Contract’ was that the governments should utilize our capital to solve our basic economic problems such as poverty, unemployment, economic disparity etc. But the governments in violation of the Economic Contract have spent our capital to destroy our own survival by engaging in the production of weapons- mass-destruction. The governments with the help of scientists produce variety of ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs and test them day in day out to display their scientific genius and military power to other governments. The accumulation of such deadly weapons have now pushed the mankind to the very verge of nuclear holocaust. We, the people of all the countries, therefore, want to recover our capital from the governments and to keep it under our own control and ownership to preserve a perpetual world peace, our birth right.

__________________________________________________________________________________

“Little Boy” is the nick name given to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It was Monday morning. Little Boy was dropped from the Enola Gay, one of the B-29 bombers that flew over Hiroshima on that day.

Little Boy

After being released, it took about a minute for Little Boy to reach the point of explosion. Little Boy exploded at approximately 8:15 a.m. (Japan Standard Time) when it reached an altitude of 2,000 ft above the building that is today called the “A-Bomb Dome.”

The July 24, 1995 issue of Newsweek writes:

“A bright light filled the plane,” wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. “We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud…boiling up, mushrooming.” For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. “Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!” exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets’s shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. “My God,” he asked himself, “what have we done?” (special report, “Hiroshima: August 6, 1945”)

note: Paul Tibbets was Colonel, not “Lt. Colonel,” when he was the pilot of the Enola ***.

The Little Boy generated an enormous amount of energy in terms of air pressure and heat. In addition, it generated a significant amount of radiation (Gamma ray and neutrons) that subsequently caused devastating human injuries.

The people who saw the Little Boy often say “We saw another sun in the sky when it exploded.” The heat and the light generated by the Little Boy were far stronger than bombs which they had seen before. When the heat wave reached ground level it burnt all before it including people.

The strong wind generated by the bomb destroyed most of the houses and buildings within a 1.5 miles radius. When the wind reached the mountains, it was reflected and again hit the people in the city center. The wind generated by Little Boy caused the most serious damage to the city and people.

The radiation generated by the bomb caused long-term problems to those affected. Many people died within the first few months and many more in subsequent years because of radiation exposure. Some people had genetic problems which sometimes resulted in having malformed babies or being unable to have children.

It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000.

The A-Bombs used over Japan; Little Boy (left) and Fat Man (right)

Just three days after the bomb was dropped to Hiroshima, the second atomic bomb called “Fat Man” was dropped to Nagasaki. Though the amount of energy generated by the bomb dropped to Nagasaki was significantly larger than that of the Little Boy, the damage given to the city was slighter than that given to Hiroshima due to the geographic structure of the city. It is estimated that approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year because of the bombing.

We strongly believe that the world must learn about weapons of total destruction. We hope that the information presented here will help you understand the pain and devastation that nuclear weapons can cause. We don’t want you to just feel sorry for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war inflicted untold pain and suffering on many people in Asia and the Pacific. Rather we want you to work with us to ensure that all of us can live in a safe world.

We hope this document helps you understand what it was, what it means and what we have to do.

____________________________________________________________________

2.2 The cause for dropping atom-bomb on Japan:

There are two theories for dropping atom bomb on Japan. The first is to take retaliation on Japan for its attack on Pearl Harbor. The second is to prevent Socialist Russia to capture Japan. The first theory do not sound reasonable because :

Hitler committed ******* on 30th April, 1945. Immediately on 7th May the Germans agreed to unconditional surrender. Moreover Mussolini and his mistress were killed on April by anti-Fascist Italian partisans. Japan’s position was now completely helpless, and the emperor supported a party in the Japanese government that wished to seek a negotiated peace. The second world war was more or less approaching to its end.

The second theory sounds well because :

On 16th July 1945 President Harry S. Truman – who had assumed office on Roosevelt’s death on 12th April, – was informed that an atom bomb had been successfully tested in New Mexico. The U.S. military found that no other weapon was so awful in destructive power as that of the atom bomb.

At the same time the military forces of Socialist Russia were rapidly advancing towards Japan – the border country of Socialist Russia – to capture it.

The Capitalist America was now in great distress that the Socialist Russia would not only capture Japan but also convert it a Socialist state. To uphold its supremacy America thought that it had no other choice except to execute two things:

1. to prevent immediately the invasion of Socialist Russia on Japan;

2. Instead, it had to capture Japan without sacrificing any more lives of American soldiers in the invasion of Japan.

In order to fulfill the above aims, the Capitalist America was left with only one option that was to use the awful new weapon – the atom bomb – on the civilians to force Japan to immediate surrender. Persuaded by the military strategy, Truman decided to use the bomb and it was dropped on the Japanese city Hiroshima on 6th August, 1945. About 80,000 civilians were killed immediately. Nearly 200,000 died later of radiation or were maimed for life.On the sudden turn of events, Soviet Russia sensed that Japan would go out its hand though it was within its reach. So two days later, on 8th August, Russia declared war on Japan and crossed the Manchurian frontier as the Japanese army remained committed to a fight to the finish.

Since there was a race for supremacy between Socialist Russia and Capitalist America to capture Japan and moreover Russian army crossed the Manchurian frontier, the Capitalist America was forced to act swiftly. So, a second atom bomb – Fat Man – was dropped on Nagasaki on 9th August, 1945 by Capitalist America. Nearly 70,000 civilians died immediately. The following day the Japanese government offered to surrender. On 14th August the terms laid down at Potsdam were accepted and the Second World War was over.

The truth is still solid and sound that the atom bombs were dropped on Japanese cities not because Japan would succeed in the second World War but because the governments of Capitalist America and Socialist Russia were arrogantly desirous to show their supremacy over the other as their economic systems were quite contradictory with each other. Both Capitalism and Communism wanted to prove that it was their system that ultimately led the Second World War towards victory. This ideological conflict between the America and Russia, at the end of the war, resulted in nuclear holocaust of Japan.

There is no assurance to the people of all countries that another nuclear war will not burst out due to the ideological conflicts between the countries or to show their supremacy or for some other reasons the time will decide. Not only America and Russia but all the nuclear countries do not now wish either to destroy all their nuclear weapons or dismantle the industries which produce such weapons of mass destruction. Under these circumstances and ground realities how can we believe and console ourselves that yet another nuclear war will not threaten mankind and cause to vanish the very existence of mankind on the earth. So, we, the people of all the countries, declare to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the State and to keep it with ourselves. When we have ‘direct ownership of capital’ we will not allow our capital for the production of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.

3. Economic Justice in jeopardy and in peril:

When we handed over our capital to a few capitalists, we were under strong presumption, that they would in certain sense, solve at least our basic problems of poverty and unemployment. On the contrary, since the very basic aim of capitalists is ‘maximization of profit’ they execute all kinds of nefarious designs to exploit the laborers and treat them like other business commodities. So with the enrichment of new technologies the capitalists always intend to replace the workers or minimize the labor force by sophisticated machines. The capitalists never show any interest to promote the economic justice in solving the human problems like poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, unequal distribution of income and wealth etc.

But now the capitalists in some way or other have promoted the welfare of society only by way of promoting their own self interest. In other words if and only if the capitalists are assured that their self interest would be promoted then alone they will allow the betterment of welfare of other members of society. The welfare of huge majority of society is always considered to be a ‘dependent factor of a few capitalists’ in the system of private ownership of capital.

In other words the Welfare of Society (WoS) operates as ‘function of Interest of Capitalists (IoC)’. We can write it as

WoS = f(IoC) ……………. 1

The Interest of Capitalists, in turn, depends on their ‘Maximization of Profit (Max o P). So the equation becomes

IoC = f(Max o P) ……………. 2

The Maximization of Profit (Max o P) by the capitalists results in the ‘Exploitation of Working class’ (EoW). It may written as

Max o P = f(EoW) ……………. 3

The Exploitation of Working class (EoW) creates ‘Maldistribution of National Income’ (Md o NI).

EoW = f(Md o NI) …………….. 4

The degree of maldistribution of national income exposes how the workers are exploited in a country. Generally speaking in most of the countries the top 10% of population enjoys 80% of the national wealth and only just 20% of national wealth is distributed to a vast majority of 90% of population. The maldistribution of national income has always kept the vast majority of people to suffer with low purchasing power and in due course it results in over production. Due to over production the producers are forced to reduce their volume of production and level of employment. On finding the disequilibrium that the goods are not consumed at the rate at which they are produced the producers are forced to close their industries. The very aim of capitalists, the maximization of profit, not only crushes them but also the whole society. Therefore, the private ownership of capital will be dangerous to the whole society and the national capital capital should be equally distributed among the people for the welfare of the mankind. So, Betrand Russel says:

“Private ownership of land and capital is not defensible on the groundsof justice or on the grounds that is economical way of producing what the community needs”

— Russel, Bertrand : “Political Ideals” (p ; 35)

Equally the Marxian theory of “State Ownership of Capital” lacks perfection and threatens human rights. Marxian theory is formed on adamant and inflexible principle and it will not coordinate with the changing world conditions. It preaches a kind of ‘economic fundamentalism’ which wants the elements of society to remain in rigidity for ever. So Loucks rightly states:

“Errors in the theoretical of Marxian thought are so serious and so basic that they cannot be corrected by interpreting or modernizing Marx not can they be considered superficial”

Loucks : “Comparative Economic Systems” ( p : 166)4.

Poverty in the midst of plenty:

We, the people of all the countries, have accumulated capital more than enough and the goods that could be produced with the help of that capital is more than adequate to eradicate poverty in the world. The statistics of “World Development Report – 1991” substantiate that if we distribute the goods produced equally among the people of all the countries, each one would receive the goods approximately worth of Rs.300 per day, which is more than enough for one’s needs. But in contrary with this fact, two third of world population is now subjected to appalling poverty and suffering with hunger and various diseases for want of adequate notorious food.

The poverty prevails not only between the countries but also within the countries irrespective of whether the country is developed or developing. As there is darkness below the burning candle so is the poverty even in the affluent society due to maldistribution of income and wealth. John Meynard Keynes criticizes the capitalistic system with this ever prevailing paradoxical element of “poverty in the midst of plenty”. Since the capitalism do not know how to distribute income and wealth equally among the people, the capitalists have no moral right or legal right to keep our capital with themselves. They have to honestly return us our capital and we know how to solve our problems under ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’.5.

Absence of Right to Live:

Throughout the length and breadth of the world we can notice the youth both in rural and urban areas bearing great agony in their eyes, having no value for their education are wandering desperately on the streets in seeking employment. The unemployment has pushed them to strip away their dignity, self respect and equal status among others not only in the society but also in their own family. Everywhere they are treated as insignificant trivial and above all less than a human being. In the economic systems, both in capitalism and socialism, they feel that they have deprived of the possession of ‘Right to Live’ at all.

6. Origin of terrorism and economic crimes:

It is partly true that unemployment generates economic insecurity among the youth. But by and large it victimizes the youth an easy prey to drug addiction, trafficking, terrorism, and other socio-economic evils.

The universal accepted fact is that capitalism cannot solve unemployment. The function of capitalism is such that if we want to adhere with capitalism we have to live with unemployment at certain level. The advocates of capitalism have now proved that full-employment in capitalism is only a myth and mirage. Hence as long as capitalism is prevailing in the world, so long as the socio-economic evils will also be pervading in the world as its by products and they will be deteriorating all the well-nurtured cultural fabrics of society. If we want capitalism, we have to learn to live with terrorism and other socio-economic evils.

7. Economic Equality is a Mirage :

It is evident throughout the world, the economic inequality among the people not only within the country but also between the countries is going on widening with an accelerated momentum. In 1982 the per capita income of developed countries in average was 42 times more than that of developing countries like India and China, but the gap was still widening 56 times in 1989. As the gap is going on increasing the poor countries are becoming still poorer and rich countries are more richer. It is natural not only among the people but also among the countries to develop strong feeling of jealousy and hatred, and an impression of inferiority complex and a sentiment of economic slavery. In the complex and confused modern economic systems, the concept and reality of ‘economic equality’ is rushing over beyond the orbit of one’s reach. In this context, our strategic fiscal and monetary policies are reducing to be insignificant to face the challenges. Hence Jawaharlal Nehru rightly blames the capitalistic system of economy for the economic equality:

“Normally speaking it may be said that the forces of a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich, the richer and the poor, the poorer, and thus increase the gap between them”

– Nehru, Jawaharlal : “The Years of Power” (1960) p;294

It would be faulty conclusion that the economic inequality is inseparable function of capitalism alone; even in communist countries we can notice wide economic disparities among the people. Prof.P.T.Baur states:

“….. But there are evident wide differences in income in communist countries after decades of communist rule. And in Soviet Union (a country often thought to be dedicated to the removal of economic differences), the differences in income and living standards are quite as pronounced as in some market oriented societies and this after more than half a century of mass coercion”.*

-* Baur, P.T. : “The Grail of Equality”

The economic equality is one the three basic necessities of ‘Equality, Liberty and Fraternity’ for the establishment of an Ideal Society. But neither capitalism nor communism do not know any effective economic technique to ensure us ‘economic equality’. Hence I venture to say it is futile to allow our capital to remain in possession of some individual capitalists or the State.

8. No Right to Work :

Invariably the ‘Declaration of Independence’ of all the countries proclaim that man has ‘Right to Live’. On the introduction of ‘Division of Labor’ in the modern production system, no one can produce all the goods that require even to lead a very simple life, or a single whole commodity one needs.

On the Division of Labor, everyone is trained to produce only a part of a commodity for which he can receive his wage and with which he has to buy the necessary goods in the market to lead his life. Since a man cannot produce whatever he wants to live, his ‘Right to Live’ solely depends upon his ‘Right to Work’. But no Constitution of any country is powerful enough to provide ‘Right to Work’ as one of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ because the economic systems that the countries pursue are basically defective and incompetent to face the economic challenges. In the absence of ‘Right to Work’ irrespective of what kind of economic system a country follows, the employers never consider man as a man and not even as a commodity. On the other hand they treat man as a ‘rental commodity’ that can be engaged by paying wages as ‘rent’. The defect of economic systems have reduced man and humiliated him as mean and ignoble thing. With full of depression in heart, P.A.Samuelson exhibits the real condition of man as follows:

Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by law

to be capitalized. A man is not even free sell himself; he must rent himself at a wage” *

-* Samuelson, P.A. : “Economics” (p : 52)

9.Absence of Stable Just Price :

Universally in all economic systems – whether it is market oriented economy or State controlled economy – the prices in the market are behaving erratically and disorderly. Especially the prices of consumption goods of poor people are always enhancing. But the income of poor people is not increasing as much as the increment of price of their consumption goods. Consequently this economic phenomenon is horribly crushing the purchasing power of the poor. Hence the fact is universally accepted that ‘the poor people are born in poverty, live in poverty and die in poverty’ Whenever the governments declare that they have contained or reduced the rate of inflation it seems always to the benefit of the rich. The economic systems, existing now, do not know any economic techniques to sustain a just price level at stable for the welfare of the vast majority poor.

10. Injustice to Working Class:

In Jerusalem I heard the Israeli Supreme Court say : “It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted than that one innocent person be convicted”.

This legal justice should not be confined only to the courts of justice but it should be equally extended to govern both the economic justice and economic systems. The economic systems, on the contrary, conveniently permit the economic criminals to escape from punishment and in turn punish the innocent workers who perform their social duty.

The utmost duty of a worker is to produce socially needed goods and services only; but it is not the duty of the worker to bear the responsibility whether the goods and services he produced are sold out. On the other hand it is the duty of the consumers to buy the goods and services that are produced for their consumption at a just price and at the rate at which the goods and services are produced for them.

On the contrary, the consumers, as a whole, behave in the market, guided by their erratic psychological factors, create time lags in purchasing the goods that are produced for their consumption and sometimes neglect the goods to buy at all. These negative and duly non-responsive factors affect the economy severely and ultimately result in the stagnation of goods in the markets. Due to the stagnation of goods in the market an equal volume of goods stagnated are not produced in the subsequent round of production. On the reduction of production of goods the workers who have fulfilled ‘the production – duty’ of the economy, have to lose their employment. The unemployment of a worker not only affects his ‘Right to Live’ but also of the whole family that depends on him. The unemployment of a worker ruins the education of his children, their future ambition in life and their morality and social dignity and their future economic security.

The present economic systems are not competent and efficient enough to secure and save the “Right to live” of the workers who have honestly accomplished their ‘production-duty’ of the economy.

To strengthen my argument I like to quote the words of Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson :

It is true, with adequate organization there need be no unemployment … There is always something useful that can be done even with a man’s bare hands”*

*– Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “Economic Philosophy” (p : 114)

Joan Robinson too finds fault on the economic systems for wide range of unemployment; in other words, the economic systems that we pursue now are the primary reasons for the failure to provide “Right to Live” to the workers throughout the world. In the present economic systems and economic conditions ‘employment’ and ‘Right to Live’ are synonymous or just the same.

What is the basic cause, today, throughout the world, for billions of youth are crushed by the burden of unemployment? It is the cause :

“Every person, only up to the standard of education and technical training that the society has offered to him, can produce socially needed goods with his bare hands or with the help of small and simple capital that he can afford by himself and thus create ‘self-employment’ opportunities and secure right to live by himself. The creation of self-employment creates an expectation in the mind of the of the worker that the society i.e. the consumers should behave with a sense of ‘economic responsibility’ by consuming the goods at the rate at which he produces, at a reasonable price to sustain the livelihood of the worker. But every self-employed youth knows that the ‘economic responsibility’ is absolutely lacking in the minds of consumers. What is deeply rooted in the minds of unemployed youth is ‘a fear about the future’ that the consumers or the society that he belongs to would not perpetually and automatically accept the goods at a reasonable price that he produces by ‘self-employment’. The ‘fear about the future’ in the minds of the youth who wants to venture in ‘self-employment’ is reasonably justifiable. Due to ‘fear on the future’ the unemployed youth are not venturing in self-employment competing with the highly sophisticated industries. It is then whose fault if the youth are unemployed? The present economic systems have no economic techniques or ‘action programs’ to evacuate the ‘fear of the future’ in the minds of the unemployed youth and to induce ‘economic responsibility’ in the minds of society to save the ‘self-employed’ youth from the competition of well-organized industries.

I have to point out it is the fault of the economic systems for the cause of unemployment and moreover I wish to state that the capitalists and equally the governments should not lay blame on the ‘fate’ of the youth for their unemployment. On the other hand the capitalists and the governments are persistently blame the fate of the youth and try to escape from their ‘economic responsibility’. So we have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the them and retain it with ourselves as we know perfectly well how to solve our unemployment and other economic problems.

11.Economic Gambles:

The basic intention leading for the invention of money is it should be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ in buying and selling goods and services. On the contrary, our present economic systems have invariably paved way for the money not only to be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ but also at a large extent as a ‘Medium of Economic Gambles’ throwing away the honesty and morality of societies to the winds. The multi-millionaires, today, have idly and futilely invested billions and billions of money in the stock markets as a medium of gambles uprooting the very noble function of money. The electronic media and the news papers extensively propagating the stock market indices for the benefit of the rich gamblers, the economic criminals, who want to earn quick and easy money with out shedding even a drop of sweat. The present economic systems have accepted this kind of economic gambles without any shyness.

In addition, in the cradles of civilization, especially in the places of sports and games like cricket stadium, Tennis courts, Football grounds, Boxing arenas billions and billions of money are set into circulation as a ‘medium of gambles’. With the help of the ‘capital-power’ the capitalists today have vigorously transformed the noble arts, skillful sports, beautiful games and wonderful cultures into easy-money-earning centers instead of promoting these symbols of civilization. The capitalists in the name of ‘promoters’ have developed strong hatred not only in the minds of ‘players’ but also in the minds of ‘audience’. This kind of economic gambles is now rapidly spreading like dangerous virus in all four corners of the world. For example, the ‘Statesman’ in its 10th October 1978 issue states as follows :

“Britain is a gambling nation. Nearly 94 percent of population indulge in an occasional flutter on races, at the gambling tables, on foot-ball pools or on a variety of other sports. 39 percent of all Britons are habitual gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and other sports”. Instead of producing socially needed goods and services and creating employment opportunities, the capitalists are utilizing ‘our capital’ for economic gambles extensively and demoralizing our long cherished cultures and civilizations throughout the world.

The capitalists now adopt a new business strategy to exploit the consumers : ‘First kill the civilization and then sell the goods’. The capitalists know the consumers will become a easy prey for sexual exposition. So they in all their advertisements use ‘women in half ***** beauty’ to enchant consumers to buy their commodities. We know the capitalists are misusing ‘our capital’ to ‘sexually assault’ the consumers to maximize their profit at the cost of cultural destruction and spreading demoralization. With deep mental agony I like to state that millions of young women have now turned as *********** as a source of employment and the International Labor Organization (ILO) now recommends to accept prostitution as ‘flesh industry’ which contributes reasonable amount of foreign exchange for many countries.

12.Class distinction and failure of economic machinery :

In lieu of promoting fraternity among the people the present economic systems create various class distinctions such as 1. proletariat and capitalist, 2. consumer and producer, 3. savers and investors. The class distinction between proletariat and capitalist is always underlying at the bottom of strikes, lock outs and innumerable industrial disputes. The class distinction between ‘consumers and producers’ is attributable for the failure of determination of ‘just price’ in the market and for uneven distribution of goods among the people. The class distinction between ‘savers and investors’ is harmfully preventing the requisite acquisition of investment to eradicate poverty and unemployment expeditiously in the world. The present economic systems are full of contradictions without which they can not function. Our capital in the possession of few capitalists and the State is the root cause for all class distinctions. Once the capital comes under the ‘direct ownership of people’ all the class distinctions will disappear

13.Maximization of profit destroys morality of society:

In the present economic systems the industries project their ‘volume of profit’ as the ‘balance of judgment’ of their determination of ‘industrial success’ The industry which earns more profit is considered to be more successful. The mental attitude forces the capitalists even to destroy the natural environment extensively in order to produce goods cheaply. With the sole aim of maximization of profit, the capitalists have no even an iota of concern over the future welfare