Whose World Is It Anyway? - II
In my last post, I wrote about the containment of information. Almost all the mainstream newspapers are very eclectic in choosing what to publish and what to hide. And one can’t really blame them also. All they are trying to do is to maximize their profits, which is of course their primary concern otherwise they will soon be out of the business.
Nowadays, you can find people espousing socialism and you can find people arguing in favor of capitalism. I am going to do neither. Rather, I will try to compare what Noam Chomsky has said in his book, Understanding Power, with what would Ayn Rand have said on those issues. Noam Chomsky has severely denounced the USA for its attacks on much weaker countries like Vietnam, Libya or North Korea, to name a few. He has also criticized it for its imperialistic, highly monopolistic and world-economy distorting market tactics or its trade policies, in a subtler term. He has also presented an incisive analysis of its foreign policy, which was pursued zealously, earlier on the grounds of anti-communist propaganda and now on the pretext of exterminating terrorism from the world, but somehow the ulterior motives have always been the economic gain. Now, when you attack somebody, there are basically two reasons for doing that – firstly that you want to prove your supremacy over the other and secondly, that by winning over the other you can plunder it of its resources. And more often than not, when you have regained supremacy over the other, even then you end up stripping the other of its resources. In either case, one is guided by his greed for the economic rewards and in my opinion, this is the one & only plausible explanation for any war be it a one-day battle or a hundred-years war.
One of the tenets of Objectivism theory propounded by Ayn Rand is that no individual & no group have the moral right to initiate the use of force against others. Force is permissible only in retaliation & only against those who have initiated its use. Considering each country to be an individual, in this context, she would have clearly demonstrated her disgust with the US attacks because after the end of the WWII, almost all the US attacks on other countries have been preemptive rather than reactionary. In Understanding Democracy, Noam Chomsky has said that the foreign policy of the US or for that matter any country, is largely governed by the interests of the top mega-corporations of the world and the super rich, who comprise just 1% of the world population. The trade practices followed today in general are so distortionary that the rich are becoming rich and the poor are becoming poorer. He has proposed to keep experimenting with new forms of economic models that will help in minimizing the gap between the rich and the poor. But, when you look closely, any economic model that proposes to do so runs the danger of antagonizing the rich and prospering the poor, which more or less rests on the socialist principle – ‘From each according to his capability and to each according to his needs’. And this is what is in complete contradiction to what Ayn Rand has argued in her book, Atlas Shrugged. According to her, if I have the resources and I mobilize them and hire some people to create some manufacturing or a services firm and then it goes on to become very successful and I move into that top income bracket, someone could easily argue that my riches are the result of the exploitation of my employees but that will be untrue. Because in the first place, it was I who had enough sense and foresight and decided to invest and in the process if some profits start trickling in, nobody especially the government has the legal or the moral right to partake a share in it. Now, this would seem to be rather ridiculous in today’s world. The simultaneous involvement of the government, the people and the market forces make it too complex for anyone or any organization to come out unscathed and proclaim that his/its money does not have the slightest trail of any government intervention or subsidies. Not surprisingly, if there is anyone who is really getting benefited through government subsidies are the rich and not the poor. As a matter of fact, if someone is getting rich someone has to get poor. And if everyone became rich, who would do all the work!!
I think that the subject I am discussing here is just interminable and to an extent pointless. At the end of the day what does matter is to make money, and help others also make it. If you can also be happy with whatever you make for yourself, there is nothing like it.
Nowadays, you can find people espousing socialism and you can find people arguing in favor of capitalism. I am going to do neither. Rather, I will try to compare what Noam Chomsky has said in his book, Understanding Power, with what would Ayn Rand have said on those issues. Noam Chomsky has severely denounced the USA for its attacks on much weaker countries like Vietnam, Libya or North Korea, to name a few. He has also criticized it for its imperialistic, highly monopolistic and world-economy distorting market tactics or its trade policies, in a subtler term. He has also presented an incisive analysis of its foreign policy, which was pursued zealously, earlier on the grounds of anti-communist propaganda and now on the pretext of exterminating terrorism from the world, but somehow the ulterior motives have always been the economic gain. Now, when you attack somebody, there are basically two reasons for doing that – firstly that you want to prove your supremacy over the other and secondly, that by winning over the other you can plunder it of its resources. And more often than not, when you have regained supremacy over the other, even then you end up stripping the other of its resources. In either case, one is guided by his greed for the economic rewards and in my opinion, this is the one & only plausible explanation for any war be it a one-day battle or a hundred-years war.
One of the tenets of Objectivism theory propounded by Ayn Rand is that no individual & no group have the moral right to initiate the use of force against others. Force is permissible only in retaliation & only against those who have initiated its use. Considering each country to be an individual, in this context, she would have clearly demonstrated her disgust with the US attacks because after the end of the WWII, almost all the US attacks on other countries have been preemptive rather than reactionary. In Understanding Democracy, Noam Chomsky has said that the foreign policy of the US or for that matter any country, is largely governed by the interests of the top mega-corporations of the world and the super rich, who comprise just 1% of the world population. The trade practices followed today in general are so distortionary that the rich are becoming rich and the poor are becoming poorer. He has proposed to keep experimenting with new forms of economic models that will help in minimizing the gap between the rich and the poor. But, when you look closely, any economic model that proposes to do so runs the danger of antagonizing the rich and prospering the poor, which more or less rests on the socialist principle – ‘From each according to his capability and to each according to his needs’. And this is what is in complete contradiction to what Ayn Rand has argued in her book, Atlas Shrugged. According to her, if I have the resources and I mobilize them and hire some people to create some manufacturing or a services firm and then it goes on to become very successful and I move into that top income bracket, someone could easily argue that my riches are the result of the exploitation of my employees but that will be untrue. Because in the first place, it was I who had enough sense and foresight and decided to invest and in the process if some profits start trickling in, nobody especially the government has the legal or the moral right to partake a share in it. Now, this would seem to be rather ridiculous in today’s world. The simultaneous involvement of the government, the people and the market forces make it too complex for anyone or any organization to come out unscathed and proclaim that his/its money does not have the slightest trail of any government intervention or subsidies. Not surprisingly, if there is anyone who is really getting benefited through government subsidies are the rich and not the poor. As a matter of fact, if someone is getting rich someone has to get poor. And if everyone became rich, who would do all the work!!
I think that the subject I am discussing here is just interminable and to an extent pointless. At the end of the day what does matter is to make money, and help others also make it. If you can also be happy with whatever you make for yourself, there is nothing like it.
Au revoir
posted by Ankur Shanker @ 11:05 PM
2 Comments:
Development is not a zero sum game. It's not necessary that if one man becomes richer another becomes more poor. Well he may be comparatively more poor but thats not the same thing. As far as doing all the work is concerned, you do not find cheap domestic help in europe or America. Does that help?
Hi Ankur! u r certainly right that development is not a zero sum game. Also, the definition of getting richer or poorer changes with ur perception. When I said that,"And if everyone became rich, who would do all the work!!", I didnot particularly point towards the domestic work and neither did I want to. Domestic work is something that u do irrespective of the fact that u hapen to be rich or poor. What I actually meant was the grind that u go through in your office even if that is to ur liking but the fact is that u have to! Say, if you were a millionaire, would you still be working for someone else? Rather you would spend ur time in doing something that interests u most, then that thing can either be dometic chores or painting or still better traveling around the world!!
Post a Comment
<< Home