Socialist Plan & Capitalist Game
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th Oct. 2014
The Socialist leaning political leaders are back at discussion & propagating their ‘plan’ (as in era of command economy). This is in run-up to ensuing elections in a large state and perceived weakening of the party in power their due to ‘investigations’ underneath; though the current target seem to be the ‘perceived openness’ of the central government, probably as a measure of warm up. This may be their play to align anti-government votes. The leaders have nearly always failed to present any wholesome coherent plan of running even a municipality, especially post demise of a leader in Bengal. Barring sundry utopia for individual cross sections, some of which do resonate with the masses like struggle to bring transparency is energy segment or taking up issues with Civil Aviation ministry, a coherent idea to run a state to health is almost always lacking. So, when in power their leadership are back to underhand dealings with the same business class just as any other political party, since simply too many grey areas persists in terms of policy gaps and human failings take over as a natural consequence. I absolutely fail to understand how push for industrialization in the later years of Bengal rule was materially different to working class from ‘openness’ being pushed to bring in foreign investment by the current regime. The masses hardly care who is employer as long as they get their wages and ‘profits’ flowing to either of the domestic or foreign exploiter are hardly differentiated, as long as welfare does not suffer or cultural barriers to work are not shockingly different.
What is definitely of academic curiosity is that the socialist in India have failed to push/ propagate the ‘game’ options (as in game theory, which represent competition) that would benefit masses as well as technology usage for benefit of masses, which they need to ponder upon and answer to their supporters. This is even as their counterparts in China have chosen to do so, and thus able to sustain their leadership even though their may be questions about their commitment to socialism and about leakages in their system. The socialist in India have not pushed private schools or hospitals receiving subsidized land in manner that maximizes land use and brings down charges to consumers while improving employment is a case in point. So is lack of initiative to exploit river for transportation and travel, which could have cut capital expenditure and improved employment and industry. Their push has been to unionize organized employment sectors and neglecting unorganized workers. This smacks of ‘crony socialism’ since socialism itself was based on inclusiveness and unity of the all the under privileged. Lack of plans or ideas or game options for the unorganized sector, which continued to increase in size much beyond the organized sector, has cost them heavily, since the organized sector almost completely lost the power to influence this sector in ways that would have benefited both segments, barring for the services sector. What ever social benefit programs were introduced to maintain the unorganized workers to rally them behind ‘plan’ and keep them in good humour, was lost due to leakages like Ration, MNREGA, Awas yojana, Aaganwadi etc.
The socialist with a comparative modern ideology could have easily embraced technology and identified with innovation (at least there were little ideological hang ups and Chinese rulers did the same; this is one view). But the Socialist in India persisted with almost every effort to dis-incentivize ‘profits’ as well as love for ‘over regulation or plan’ have kept innovators (including domestic innovators) away from them in India. Again their revival plan seems to be on upping ante with verbal tirade against openness to be likely followed by union activities in public sector to show presence and going back to singing ‘planned development’ which actually leaves the masses out. This is even as culturally India could have gained much more by pushing ‘game options’ than say China, possibly due to our relatively more vibrant ‘freedom of thoughts’ as well as tolerance/assimilation for competition and therefore culture for innovation. The Socialist leaders here loathe Chinese policies though their alternative to reach masses through their ‘plan’ is mired in corruption with almost no ideas as to how the same will be rooted out. Their leadership failing to take actions leads to thoughts that their ideas are nothing but a self serving exercise via corruption. While this article may seem to be in appreciation of Chinese line of thinking however, it may be noted that ‘game theory’ itself throws out different options to be pursued by different players and therefore no two players’ especially the large players can follow exactly the same path to prosperity since they need to select their options carefully basis their strengths which are more likely to be in diverse areas. Though competition in other areas is likely to be even more fierce while their remains potential for cooperation in other areas with complimentary strength.
The repeated surrender of Socialist in India to the so called Nehruvian model, which is basically looking to society as consisting of different segments; and then approaching the segments with a policy which might have a small impact. This seems simple extension of divide and rule or a monkey & cats model (in domestic cultural parlance) in the manner it has been pursued, which can be a political model but not an economic model, though author does not have any great appreciation of either history or politics. The GOP itself debunked this model when they found that smaller parties walked away with votes due Caste based ‘Rajneeti’ and initiated their grandiose Rights based approach by grouping all marginalized segments into a single group and granting them ‘rights’, which were seldom delivered in practice. The economic model followed by GOP for planned development which is Mahalanobis model is a mix of Game with planning as well as incorporates human judgments; though it ignored the people’s right as well ability to participate in game. During certain period of GOP rule, the people were expected to act as per ‘plan’; that is a period called the license raj. The industrial liberalization followed by Commerce liberalization restored a large part of freedoms, though not for agriculture, energy sector, mining etc. or in services like education & healthcare where government regulates grants or has its own shops, or freedom to change land usage etc. It therefore failed giving large swaths of people the ability to participate in evolving economic activity and maintained areas where economic activity is still regulated to the benefit of a few and detriment of others. Mis-allocation or Mis-distribution of resources and reliance on doles to keep those left out in good humour was the other highlights of the policy. Remodelling or Re-aligning economic activity to involve greater number of people to participate in economic activity in conjunctions with developments taking place in global economy seem to have been neglected or pursued in very limited way. And the game options almost always tend to punish such failures while they tend to reward those pursuing the ‘more correct options’ or playing better.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th Oct. 2014
The Socialist leaning political leaders are back at discussion & propagating their ‘plan’ (as in era of command economy). This is in run-up to ensuing elections in a large state and perceived weakening of the party in power their due to ‘investigations’ underneath; though the current target seem to be the ‘perceived openness’ of the central government, probably as a measure of warm up. This may be their play to align anti-government votes. The leaders have nearly always failed to present any wholesome coherent plan of running even a municipality, especially post demise of a leader in Bengal. Barring sundry utopia for individual cross sections, some of which do resonate with the masses like struggle to bring transparency is energy segment or taking up issues with Civil Aviation ministry, a coherent idea to run a state to health is almost always lacking. So, when in power their leadership are back to underhand dealings with the same business class just as any other political party, since simply too many grey areas persists in terms of policy gaps and human failings take over as a natural consequence. I absolutely fail to understand how push for industrialization in the later years of Bengal rule was materially different to working class from ‘openness’ being pushed to bring in foreign investment by the current regime. The masses hardly care who is employer as long as they get their wages and ‘profits’ flowing to either of the domestic or foreign exploiter are hardly differentiated, as long as welfare does not suffer or cultural barriers to work are not shockingly different.
What is definitely of academic curiosity is that the socialist in India have failed to push/ propagate the ‘game’ options (as in game theory, which represent competition) that would benefit masses as well as technology usage for benefit of masses, which they need to ponder upon and answer to their supporters. This is even as their counterparts in China have chosen to do so, and thus able to sustain their leadership even though their may be questions about their commitment to socialism and about leakages in their system. The socialist in India have not pushed private schools or hospitals receiving subsidized land in manner that maximizes land use and brings down charges to consumers while improving employment is a case in point. So is lack of initiative to exploit river for transportation and travel, which could have cut capital expenditure and improved employment and industry. Their push has been to unionize organized employment sectors and neglecting unorganized workers. This smacks of ‘crony socialism’ since socialism itself was based on inclusiveness and unity of the all the under privileged. Lack of plans or ideas or game options for the unorganized sector, which continued to increase in size much beyond the organized sector, has cost them heavily, since the organized sector almost completely lost the power to influence this sector in ways that would have benefited both segments, barring for the services sector. What ever social benefit programs were introduced to maintain the unorganized workers to rally them behind ‘plan’ and keep them in good humour, was lost due to leakages like Ration, MNREGA, Awas yojana, Aaganwadi etc.
The socialist with a comparative modern ideology could have easily embraced technology and identified with innovation (at least there were little ideological hang ups and Chinese rulers did the same; this is one view). But the Socialist in India persisted with almost every effort to dis-incentivize ‘profits’ as well as love for ‘over regulation or plan’ have kept innovators (including domestic innovators) away from them in India. Again their revival plan seems to be on upping ante with verbal tirade against openness to be likely followed by union activities in public sector to show presence and going back to singing ‘planned development’ which actually leaves the masses out. This is even as culturally India could have gained much more by pushing ‘game options’ than say China, possibly due to our relatively more vibrant ‘freedom of thoughts’ as well as tolerance/assimilation for competition and therefore culture for innovation. The Socialist leaders here loathe Chinese policies though their alternative to reach masses through their ‘plan’ is mired in corruption with almost no ideas as to how the same will be rooted out. Their leadership failing to take actions leads to thoughts that their ideas are nothing but a self serving exercise via corruption. While this article may seem to be in appreciation of Chinese line of thinking however, it may be noted that ‘game theory’ itself throws out different options to be pursued by different players and therefore no two players’ especially the large players can follow exactly the same path to prosperity since they need to select their options carefully basis their strengths which are more likely to be in diverse areas. Though competition in other areas is likely to be even more fierce while their remains potential for cooperation in other areas with complimentary strength.
The repeated surrender of Socialist in India to the so called Nehruvian model, which is basically looking to society as consisting of different segments; and then approaching the segments with a policy which might have a small impact. This seems simple extension of divide and rule or a monkey & cats model (in domestic cultural parlance) in the manner it has been pursued, which can be a political model but not an economic model, though author does not have any great appreciation of either history or politics. The GOP itself debunked this model when they found that smaller parties walked away with votes due Caste based ‘Rajneeti’ and initiated their grandiose Rights based approach by grouping all marginalized segments into a single group and granting them ‘rights’, which were seldom delivered in practice. The economic model followed by GOP for planned development which is Mahalanobis model is a mix of Game with planning as well as incorporates human judgments; though it ignored the people’s right as well ability to participate in game. During certain period of GOP rule, the people were expected to act as per ‘plan’; that is a period called the license raj. The industrial liberalization followed by Commerce liberalization restored a large part of freedoms, though not for agriculture, energy sector, mining etc. or in services like education & healthcare where government regulates grants or has its own shops, or freedom to change land usage etc. It therefore failed giving large swaths of people the ability to participate in evolving economic activity and maintained areas where economic activity is still regulated to the benefit of a few and detriment of others. Mis-allocation or Mis-distribution of resources and reliance on doles to keep those left out in good humour was the other highlights of the policy. Remodelling or Re-aligning economic activity to involve greater number of people to participate in economic activity in conjunctions with developments taking place in global economy seem to have been neglected or pursued in very limited way. And the game options almost always tend to punish such failures while they tend to reward those pursuing the ‘more correct options’ or playing better.