Comments section added now guys!.So indulge!
Had been to Nashville to visit i)Pillayar and ii) Pillayar in the making. (Vardha, madras pakkam poidaadha..Marina la karachuduvaanga!)
Had a longish talk with 2 ppl there about India stuff in general and govt machinary in particular. It couldnt get more interesting because 1 was a Govt employed Prof from Goa(law prof..a socialist somewhat)) and the other was a guy who'd been with Infy(financial division) whos' currently doing his MBA(pucca capitalist) . I triggered off the argument and watched the fun(or was it!) unfold. Our first target was the constitution..I tended to agree with the capitalist that the constituion in India was somwhat screwed up.I am a greenhorn in all this, so what..the constitution gives me the right to speak against it.(Long live the constitution.:)) The socialist has been teaching stuff like Civil law for sometime now and he defended the constiution so stoutly I wondered if i was mistaken. The capitalist (and mine) main grouse' were with stuff like Whats the President/Governer/ and other really powerless guys doing when they were nothing but a notch more than just puppets of the ruling govt.(I dint say puppets.the capitalist did!) He called them just "ribbon-cutting" guys. I felt myself siding with him because i have always wondered what a visionary like Abdul Kalam could do for teh country if he had power and what he is not able to do coz he is just the president and nothing more...He can visit school kids, tour the country, give inspring speeches on radio and Tv..But what more than that.?? The main stuff like making decisions on hte state of the country..He cant do much abt it, sadly..The socialist starte saying that the consti was absolutely right and that the concept of a President was that an elder statesman as the head of teh country(read powerless head) would be some sort of a moral thing to ppl more than anything else!! My point is that India today is like what the western world was sometime back..Morals and stuff have takena backseat when all that ppl want is economic development..I mean the number of professionals in India have increased and they are not the old "listening to an elder's advise" kind of ppl..They mind their business and get on..Atleast most ppl dont give two hoots for all this..Hence, if the Pres is supposed to be like a scoailly accpeted elder guy who ppl listen to (atleast this was supposed to tbe idea behind the creation of the post), then it was absolutely not flawless as it done in an age when this mite have been right but not so now. I am again speaking like a greenhorn here(forgive me) but even Karl Marx wrote his stuff thinking of a Utopian socirty in mind..At the risk of sounding immodest(he's a big guy!) THts where he went wrong - in not thinking practically..Mebbe, if all of us were programmed devices without any sort of significant evolutionary concepts inside us, Karl Marx' communism would've been great.
Its Charles Darwin vs. Karl Marx now. As regards my vote, Darwin has the edge.
But couple of thots from the socialist made me think. Erstwhile USSR, like say half a century ago, when it got free from Czars and other lords, was in a state of chaos. Food was not easy to get and the basic supplies to take care of a population were not easy to get. They had 2 choices,
1)survival of teh fittest(capitalism)-- hence, what is finally left out after the process would be truly at the upper spectrum of economic strength.
2)Communism(something for everybody).Consider the society as one and help provide in any limited means atleast to almost all.
Obviously, if 1 had been followed, it would have disastrous to millions while the most competent would get thru..If 2 is followed(which was, thouhg in a convolute form), the chaos would've died down atleast a bit and most ppl would've something )
My vote here goes for 2.
THe capitalist said even NewFoundland(USA) was in chaos in a manner not too different from USSR though there were no big feudal lord stuff here relatively..But they went for option 1(i asked him if he knew US went for 1 definitely and he said ofcourse but am not too convinced)..
He asked to compare US and USSR even when Soviet Union was at the peak of its powers..But US was better economically..USSR was mainly a power becuase of its arms power mainly..Economically, they were ok coz of ther natural resources like oil etc. But essentially, the communism which helped them sustain early years ultimately dint work coz the society was not utopian.
In hindsight, initial communism helped USSR sustain itself initially but then what..!Look at how china was 15 yrs go(when it was communist) and look at it now(truly capitalist)..That answers it in a nutshell as to which is better ultimately.Hence, obviosly capitalism is the ultimate solution bbut what before that..What, when a society is getting started up,..Would u want to reduce the disorder or heighten it and then allow it to die down..I am not able to decide in favor of either choice..If i am unemotional and look long-term, captialsm is ok.But , how can u stand looking at the filtering of the chaos using such a method, coz i mean we are emotional(atleast indians are!)
On the other hand, to salvage something for the moment(Which is something that i'd prefer given the circimstances), would mean turning socialist, ATLEAST initially.
The soclialist finally agreed that communism earlier on and then ultimately tkaing up capitalism is the best choice(China stayed communist too long but still is an example).But the change is not easily done.
Hence, if there arises a position wherein making the above possible is known to be difficult at the beginning itself and I am given only 2 choices, i would be in a terrible state of confusion. I am getting swayed either way.I had a look at the capitalist( unassuming yet authoritative in his opinion ) and the socialist(passionate in what he was saying and had almost somewhat close to utopian ideas). I have to decide.
I go with the capitalist.


Ravi