Discourse on
economics in a different light:
The glory of thought and activity
by Professor A. D. P. Kalansuriya, D. Litt.,

Mahinda Chinthana: people-focused development
|
The crisis in our economic life is a phenomenon brought about by
'bind' adoption of theories propagated by the theorists in the West
pertaining to Economics - proper. However, associated with our present
economy not only are new vistas but also are hopelessness and anguish
entwined with disharmony, discord and conflict.
"Mahinda Chintanaya", however opens up one of the vistas for us in
this area of thought and activity. It correctly notes, to my
understanding "a political economy which deals with political nature of
economic concerns" comprising right direction.
The conception, hence, makes explicit the dictum "correct politics is
also correct economics." It simply means a possible fall in direction of
the economic theory practised in the Industrial West and Japan. As well
as the one practised by Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga's period,
specially at her latter period in Sri Lanka.
This point needs unpacking. By implication, this is a paradigm -
shift away from full-fledged market-oriented open economy or the lion's
den which is sanctified in the Industrial West and Japan. For instance,
"economics" and "politics" are categories that enwraped in different
"forms of life" according to the language game of Western liberal
democracy.

Rural housing

Agricultural industries

Rural road development
|
Apart from it, at present, it has brought about a dead-end where
progressive human thought is dried up pertaining to supply with novel
but morally fitting fountain heads of moral inspiration. Economics as an
academic discipline is not an exception. Western media, with high
propagandist mood, repeat this view point to drive home it as Hobson's
choice for the people at large in the International community.
This brainchild of Western liberalism's chain of reasoning logically
multiplies needs and enthrones profit. The massified milieux, thereby,
continue to exaggerate false set of values side by side with moral
quality associated with humanity.
Philosophers, sociologists, social reformers, intellectuals, etc..
continue researching into this twentieth century - malady of man and
woman which is no more a mystery. Certainly, it finds its way into the
new millennium also.
The concept of "False set of values" not only alienated groups in
milieux and caused conflict but also negated all concerns relating to
humanity at large. The projected "golden mansion" by the open economy is
yet to be shown as a "house of cards." Slowly but gradually this idea
now has gained ground among liberal intellectuals in South Asia and
Latin America. A few young Westerners also make acquaintance of it,
casually.
Political economy
It is noted that "correct politics is also correct economics." The
paradigm entwined with here is the logical implication of "healing human
persons who are battered by the economic crisis created by open -
economic theories originated in the Industrial West."
This point is elaborated as follows: There is an expressive
distinction between "Economics" and "Physics," though not shown clearly
and explicitly yet. Economics, in its widest sense, is a social science
whose nature and scope are different from those of Physics.
However, because of the prestige accorded to economists especially in
political arena and financial all markets in the Industrial West and
Japan, "discourse of open economy" has successful in formulating and
propagating false theories on economics asscientific [George Soros, Open
Society, 2000, Perseus Books Group, New York, pp. 38-57] There is only
scientific guise here and genuine scientific laws of Physics are
inoperative.
In short, an imitation of a science is the case. On the other hand,
aspects of human behaviour are not governed by timelessly valid eternal
laws and their logical implications are logically inappropriate.
The failure to distinguish between "social science" and "physical
science" together with categorizing the former away from the latter
would have solved one half of intricately intertwined theoretical issues
in Economics.
For some reasons, unknown, this has not happened. The point can be
elaborated as follows: What Sir Issac Newton, Albert Einstein and Werner
Heisenberg thought or said or wrote did not influence reality. Yet in
social sciences, what is thought or said or wrote by the social
scientists impinge on reality.
For instance, though base metal cannot be turned into gold by
incantation, people can get rich in financial markets and powerful in
politics by propounding false theories of speculation. Once the
difference between physical sciences and social sciences is made known
in this way, the illusory nature of the discourse of open - market
system can also be conceived.
Yet again, the following exposition of the difference is significant,
is some sense. For the open - market economists, "perfect competition,"
"equilibrium," "self-correction of markets," "capacity for self -
adjustments with recurrent economic crisis" are timelessly valid laws in
economics. Without these timelessly valid laws, Economics does not
operate for their brand of economists.
They simply cannot imagine Economics without these self-imposed "a
priori" laws and their logical implications. Apart from it, economic
prosperity and happiness of human persons cannot also be accomplished,
without these timelessly valid laws in operation in the society.
In short, economic affairs in a given society are not subject to
irresistible natural laws similar to those in physics. This sanctified
view reigns, though positive but radical alterations are apparent, at
present.
The argument of the adherents of the discourse of open-economy is
increasingly unacceptable all the more so because contemporary Physics
whose nucleus being the concept of probability, rejects irresistible
natural laws.
That is "probability" and "irresistibility of natural laws" is
logically inconsistent concepts within the parameter of contemporary
Physics. The argument of the open - economy theorists hence is invalid.
The invalidity here is two-faceted.
Firstly, it is logically inconsistent to enthrone Physics as
accepting timelessly valid natural laws, when in fact it rejecting
certainties and one-one correlations in phenomenal sequences is the
case. That is, "probability" and "laws of chance" have replaced these
certainties.
An enthronement of recipes of Physics by the open-market economists
in the Industrial West and Japan not only is incorrect but is also
misleading. And hence need to be rejected. The other facet of the
enthronement relates to the high honour being erroneously conferred on
economists by politicians, statesmen and administrators of the modern
State.
This error has to be corrected very early and the economists have to
be dethroned and be assigned the locus to which they naturally belong.
This appears to be the radiant feature of the political economy
intricately intertwined in the celebrated Mahinda Chintanaya.
The "political" aspect brings in politicians, statesmen,
administrators, academics and intellectuals together with other experts
and "economy" aspect brings in economists. To me, this makes explicit a
paradigm-shift. In it there is neither enthronement nor dethronement. It
is truly a genuine idea, yet wonderfully fruitful in its simplicity.
Besides, arid theories of Economics that hurt the moral well-being of
the people at large are immoral. Its contrary is very clear. That is:
Theories of Economics that uplift the moral well-being of the people at
large is moral.
The recipe of our argument focusing the logical context must be
evident now. This is mind-expanding all the more so because of ethics -
orientation given to economics-proper in Mahinda Chintanaya. In this
sense, activity is concerned not so much with amassing wealth by
niggardly sick craving as with satisfying basic needs alone, if not
complete prosperity and happiness with a moral touch.
Satisfying these needs amount to therapy and healing which are not
the concepts enveloped in market-oriented economics in the Industrial
West and Japan. Yet again, the market-orientation is plagued with (i)
privately owning and privately controlling the means of production, (ii)
profit motive, (iii) the malady of multiplying unnecessary and excessive
needs, (iv) enlisting the support of the State through its greater
capacity, etc.
Envisaged in Mahinda Chintanaya, however is a kind of "political
economy" that ought to come into play with interrelationships, political
activism and economic discourse. Dr. Douglass North, Noble laureate in
Economics, 1993, is recalled. Dr, North says that "the political system
ultimately shapes the economic institutions."
In the open - economics in the Industrial West and in Japan are
professionally managed work - places characteristic of hiring and firing
of employees. The "form of life" in the proposed economic pattern in
Mahinda Chintanaya comprises no such evils. Such purposes as "hiring of
employees" and "firing of employees" have no locus in this lexicon.
Both the employed and the employer pursue the purpose of fostering
and prospering. This is innovatory as the guiding norm being sufficiency
and not excess. The emphasis is an intricately interlaced human nucleus
comprising knowledge, understanding, emotion and will of human persons
in polity.
"Modern production" and its effect
The expected result is not best persons but best is persons.
Therefore, while the theory of open market economics brings-forth
hopelessness and anguish, the proposed political economy in Mahinda
Chintanaya is entwined with partnership bringing forth hope and radiant
vistas for the Sri Lanka people.
But, then, should "modern production" change its norm from "excess"
to "sufficiency"? Is not it U-turn in modern production which
bringsforth a serious collapse and thereafter misery, hopelessness and
pain? These issues are answered optimistically by enveloping themselves
within the precincts of Mahinda Chintanaya as follows:
"Modern production" is an exceedingly elastic concept which can give
very different renderings in different contexts. The discourse on
open-market economy in the Industrial West and Japan notes the concept
of "modern production" along with that of "profit".
This is indisputable. Nevertheless, what is enveloped in this
discourse is a mode of production with a political guideline which, in
this discourse is a mode of production with a political guideline which,
in the main, respects imperatives of social use entwined with limited
needs in contrast with "greed" and "sick craving". A change of strategy
and attitude is implied. Following are the derivatives:
1. The production of wealth for social use instead of excessive
individual profit and indulgence;
2. avoid gauging of an individual by his/her economic might alone;
3. a given society's phenomenon of greatness and political maturity
is to be gauged in terms of peace and prosperity of its people at large
alone;
4. happiness and prosperity as emancipatory goals;
5. beaming satisfaction of the employer/employee alike is to be
accomplished with by a psychological reawakening at the work place;
6. employer - employee relationship is to be brought up to a new
paradigm by introduction of a new value namely partnership by diligence;
7. no hoarding and stockpiling for jacking up prices in the business
place.
The economic order entwined with Mahinda Chintanaya is so conceived
characteristically. Its sole purpose is but to sustain better and
happier life and not profit alone. Human persons have basic requirements
for food, clothing, shelter and medicine.
They cannot live without them, and so they engage in economic
activities that meet these needs toward sustenance of life. Those
societies engulfed by open - economic policies, world over, project the
sole aim as profit - making alone. More precisely, things are produced
solely in order to make profits.
Items which fall outside the area of profit, do not find a place in
production-lines, whatever the social significance of these items are
for human prosperity and happiness at large. Norms of such a mode of
production are intertwined consistently, yet surely unethical and
vicious in form and character.
The barometer of prosperous and happy life is not consistency, any
way.
Large scale attempts are made in open-market economies, world over,
to conceal profit through advertising in the media emphasizing the
notion of service. However, its unethically is characteristically
displayed repeatedly, when the reality of service to the customer takes
the note, namely, "if no profits, no service also." This is an issue
about motivation, what ought our motivation be? This should be
reformulated as follows for better rendering:
"Which progressive direction should this motivation take, ethically?
This is much large issue all the more so because we are, now in the
threshold of order or disorder in a given society. Order or disorder in
a society, characteristically does not depend on something which falls
from the skies or rises from the earth spontaneously.
It is determined, primarily, by the temperament if human persons in a
given society. An order in a society is assured, only and only of human
persons are influenced by private consideration of what is good for
oneself in general away from what is good for oneself.
Should one were to be motivated by profit alone, and profit for
oneself alone, finds the market oriented mode of production structured
logically on profit. This is a vicious mode of production entwined with
vicious motivation indeed.
It yields to vicious consequences, dreaded one being the temptation
to manipulate any means to accomplish with one's task. Logically
speaking, by way of a new and progressive value system encompassing
economic theory also Mahinda Chintanaya envisages a more genuine and
enduring ideal of public purpose and individual aspirations.
What is envisioned is best in persons rather than best human persons.
In case the motive force is the acquisition of wealth by fair means or
foul means or both means, upsurge of crime, lawlessness, violence,
hopelessness, fear, etc... is not a matter for surprise. The attendant
evils are diminished, should the motive force of the society were
changed.
Yet again, "charity" is a non-ethical notion in the value -
orientation enveloped in the discourse of open-market mode of
production. It is a progressive one in a mode of production which
enthrones "public purpose". "Charity" is immoral in the former value
system all the more so because it is a permanent fixture.
That is to say, the continued existence of a group of people or some
percentage of people in a given society depends on others for bare
necessities; then the market-oriented value system is degrading to the
recipients of charity and corruptive of the self-righteous givers.
There is something vicious in this system which is unwelcome. A
significant version of this contention enveloped in the open-market mode
of production is as follows: Should market-orientation is to be viable,
it is indispensable that a certain percentage (say, generally, 7%) of
workers being unemployed at any one time. When look at it in human
terms, this is an evil attitude. Mahinda Chintanaya does not enthrone
this phenomenon, rightly.
Means and ends: Economic systems
The concept of "means and ends" in modes of production is noted here.
Granted that there are basic needs called "ends" which all human persons
seek to meet and also fulfil. Nevertheless, the key issue pertains to
how best these are accomplished with.
The keynote is but means towards accomplishing with this task.
Pertaining to "means", two alternatives are about: (i) individualistic
approach and (ii) humane approach. According to (i) above, the economic
ends are to be accomplished with solely by the individual through his
own efforts, working by and for himself.
Theoretically, the individual has complete freedom to achieve his
economic goals in any way he pleases best or sees fit. According to (ii)
above, the economic ends are fulfilled by working together jointly in
family-like manner. It may also be noted as "extended family
co-prosperity."
A set group planning is logically entwined with here. That planning
is a prerequisite for accomplishing these social which are primary for
prosperity and happiness. More precisely, the endeavours are to get the
necessities of life accomplished. This humane norm is enthroned in
Mahinda Chintanaya.
The ultimate social ends of any economic theory is, undoubtedly,
prosperity and happiness of human persons. Yet when it comes to how best
they are to be accomplished with, the market - oriented Economic
discourse and partnership - oriented Economic discourse in Mahinda
Chintanaya are at cross - purposes.
The former discourse in the Industrial West and Japan endorses
atomistic view of the individual as an independent as well as a
self-dependent unit. Both a - social and anti-social elements are
logically contained in it: hence the kernel is competition. It is
'competition' in this economic - talk which bringsforth a different
value -orientation in which charity begins to play a permanent role.
It logically paves way for devaluation of at least 7% of human
persons (men and women) who are genuine workers but made redundant.
According to the openmarket oriented discourse, they are not human
persons but dehumanized cargo.
Though 'charity' in general is 'virtue' now, it has taken a dramatic
turn to be 'evil'. Same is the case with 'bigness', a virtue. For
instance, in large open - market - oriented economic systems,
'competition' is logically intertwined with large scale ventures
inclusive of big business, big factories, big electrical systems, big
communication systems etc.
In such a context, the individual becomes a hapless victim of those
gigantic and impersonal enterprises and syndicates. The latest being
joint ventures and mergers. The key aim being to offset competition from
other sources and accomplish with monopoly in global markets for one's
products alone.
Put it briefly, the one and one only aim being simply profits and
profits alone. The conceptual base of this discourse perhaps may be
might via mergers." All in all, "bigness" is at once working as "virtue"
as well as "vice." The intricately interlaced "virtue" is "profitability
through streamlined efficiency."
It is also "vice" all the more so because where "bigness" operates,
the individual finds himself 'sandwiched' between gigantic forces,
namely, "virtue" and "vice" which not only are outside him but are also
beyond his control. It evokes aggressiveness which logically ends up in
sorrow-laden conflict.
Paradoxically, embraces here are the discourse(s) on globalism, post
- liberalism and the logic of the World Trade Organization. The
progressive economic concepts in Mahinda Chintanaya, clearly and
brilliantly dethrone all these outrageously erroneous discourses in the
context of Sri Lanka in the new millennium.
(The writer is the former Professor of Philosophy,
University of Peradeniya and SAARC Professor of Philosophy (1999-2000),
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India) |