Those were the turbulent times. Soviet Union, which was thought to be epitomising an alternative to capitalism was crumbling. Mikhail Gorbachev, who many think brought in a sense of freedom in the country, was held captive, as a maverick in Boris Yeltsin rose to assume power. The iron curtain disappeared and the fragility of the Soviet land was exposed to a wider world.
Academic discourses were galore; explaining the possible reasons behind the demise of what was a dreamland to many. Dr Suman K Mukherjee, who taught us Economics at the St Xavier's College, in Kolkata, had a very simple explanation to the stream of events that overtook the whole world. "Capitalism survives as it is the natural extension of human behaviour", said Dr Mukherjee in a prophetic way during one of his lectures.
This statement was probably the most effective lesson I had on economics and whenever I think about the happenings around me, I keep that in mind. Capitalism, despite all its odds, has survived. It has adapted itself with the changing time and capital still continues to be the dominant determinant of global production and profitability.
If capitalism is the natural extension of human behaviour so are greed and a desire to accumulate wealth. Wealth accumulation can take place in various ways and for different reasons but the ultimate objective is profit, to ensure comfortable and better lives for those who matter - it could be self or near and dear ones - whatever form they might envisage.
Any discussion or discourse on the crisis of capitalism or any societal problem often points a finger towards greed, as if it was the root cause. I think it is over simplifying the complexities that modern life holds. Greed and favouritism are nothing new in the historical genealogy of society.
The desire to see her son Bharata on the throne of Ayodhya prompted Kaikeyi to blackmail Dasaratha and send Rama to the forest for 14 years.
It was the greed for power which prompted Duryodhana to play all the tricks in the world to keep the Pandavas away from the throne. There are many such examples all around the world to show that greed is very instinctive to most human being. Hermits are those who are not prone to such innate behaviour.
To blame an instinctive human behaviour for the plight of humanity is nothing short of escapism and would hinder any analysis of the problem in its right earnest.
Imagine a time bereft of greed. This would have meant the collapse of capitalism. People would have been without any entrepreneurial zeal and the world wouldn't have seen many of the scientific inventions and discoveries, which changed our lives. Greed may be associated with a negative connotation in the moral sphere but from an economic perspective it is the driving force behind any aspiration for a better life.
All comments are personal and have no bearing on others.
A new way of looking at the problem. But we need to know that the opposite nature of man is also instinctive, i.e. helping others to survive and fight together, try to make life better for others, etc. I think that the more the people realize the eternal values of society, the more we shall progress.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post Tirthankar da. While I do understand what you are trying to say, at the same time I am hesitating to dismiss systematic greed altogether as the root of our trouble. My personal opinion is that we need to distinguish between individual greed and systematic greed...the latter being much more than the sum of former. Systematic greed becomes and institution, a social norm and that what has probably engendered the current crisis. What the modern capitalist society has done is probably established systematic greed solidly as a norm. And that is why, tackling this crisis is suddenly so difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe greatest strength of a capitalist market led society is that it allows for forces of self correction within itself. However, the problem is that such corrections tend to take a long time to arrive, and in the process leads to a lot of pain and suffering of individuals who got caught up in the cycle for no fault of their own. Greed is instinctive, it is probably necessary but it also leads to a lot of short term decisions at all levels which can and do lead to crises, one that we are seeing right now. The correction cycle takes time to set in, leads to a lot of pain and probably destroys some strong institutional structures which have become embedded in the society (rightly or wrongly).
I do believe that such a system would do well with a hand guiding it with the long term view in mind. If not for anything else, just because individual greed is associated with both very strong positive and negative externalities...so too much or too little of it can have disastrous consequences. The question is how? Can we ever have something like a "greed regulator" in place?
Tirtha: With every passing day, I tend to agree with you more. Human beings are by natural choice the most greedy, the most cunning, the most ruthless and therefore the most successful among all species. So, what succeeds as a way of everyday living within human beings has to be the most greedy, most cunning and most ruthless way of life, calling it capitalism is just a linguistics choice. In reality, capitalism might have many gurus - from Smith to Keynes to Fukuyama -- but unlike Marxism it has no church. You can't in reality become or not-become a capitalist. You are born a capitalist -- no baptism is required and you live as a capitalist. So much like Hinduism, in certain senses. The two also have equally diverse shades.
ReplyDeleteWhile the notion of "Greed is good" is the driver of Wall Street (the movie and real life), I think it has few other dimensions along with simplification.
ReplyDeleteHuman nature is driven to excel and improve - that's a historical fact. However question is "for what?". I don't agree with money as a singular answer (as derivative of that is comfort and peace of mind).
Just step back a second and think about our childhood. Most of us come from regular middle class family where our parents probably earned just enough to ensure a "decent" living. The definition of "decent" has changed dramatically as we grew up and "excelled" in our lives. But fact remains - they were at least as much comfortable, peaceful and safe in those days than us today.
I think it's humane to try to excel - the path to excel is interesting for people coming from developing countries and the change is significant. So it can be equated with greed and money to some extent.
For people who grew up in developed countries, change is much less in any standard. For them it's individual drive that takes them to new innovation - leading to business.
I think the overarching factor is actually human inquisitiveness and in born intent to excel. That's the driver.
And probably that's where Marxism fails as it depends heavily on the demand - supply curve and profit. But that's probably a completely different discussion.