Thinking Indian democracy

Indian freedom struggle is a manifestation of the  misdeeds of British Rule and the quest for justice of millions of Indian.  The struggle for independence was not fought simply for national independence. The establishment of democracy in free India was an important aim of the freedom struggle. It was in view of this goal that is the essence of “constitution of India”. Among all the goals of Indian freedom struggle the establishment of democracy was the most important goal .

 

MacIver once said “Democracy is a form of Government that is never completely achieved … Democracy grows into its being”. It may take a long time before we say, Now India is a democracy in its real sense. Is anything left of that democracy today?  

Democracy means freedom and equality through rule of law. What is happening in India is the radicalization of right wing politics where the rule of law is violated. The voice of dissents is systematically killed. Criticism and Discussion require vigilance on the part of a citizen which in the worlds of J S Mill, is the price of democracy, in other words, Indian has a democracy lacking the spirit of democracy.

 

Judiciary is no more an indicator of a nation's political civilization. With the deep love of right wing political ideology judiciary has given its portative hands of people’s rights. We live in the time of majoritarian democracy. We lack a sense of responsibility particularly the side of the majority with reference to social equality. We can see “dictatorship under the grab of democracy”. Without social and economic equality and the sense of brotherhood that is the essence of Fraternity, Indian democracy may become only a care structure of bureaucratic government without any life in it.  

We are forgetting the teaching of Gandhi and Tagore who taught us 'culture of tolerance and acceptance'. we can see the attack on minorities everywhere. We lack compassion that is the keynote of the sense of fraternity to be fostered in Indian society. Politicization of religion led to the killing of compassion in the root of religion and without compassion there can be no religion. Even Srimad Bhagavata said “ Kamaya duhka taptanam praninam arti nasanam “ means the only desire that lingers in me is to wipe the tears of those that suffer from the anguish of pain .

If Indian democracy has to be the way of life it has to free from the majoritarian rule which is constructing “The other” .That is millions of minorities.

The idea of Local self-government has become insignificant with the Americanisation of Indian democracy. Centralization spells death of democracy, for it means power and initiative are taken away from the people and concentrated at the center. The whole project of decentralization of democracy (73rd and 74th amendments) are unfulfilled . The actualization of Gandhi's dream  is unfulfilled.  Besides this , The rise of  One-party rule  and insignificant opposition are dangerous for the democracy of India .

 

The objective of Independence seems to me incomplete. We can see the degradation of the idea of freedom from communalism, freedom from the unjust system of capitalism. Besides this,  The insignificant land reform , powerless state in terms of privatization , De-socialization of  Principal industries,  WTO effect on policies , in context of neo-liberal development . These are important considerations as far as the impartial  view of the development of democracy is concerned.  

With the rise of media constructed public opinion in terms of fake news and propaganda creates a culture of hate and fear. The narrow growth of cultural nationalism based on fake communitarian belief is to be seen as the emergence of Indian state which is based on the idea of uncommon citizenship. With the rise of the right, the great challenge is to act even to an intellectual without being anti-national.

We can see the differentiation between the discourse of patriotism and the discourse of nationalism.  One is based on love and  peace ,another one is based on fear and anger .Indian struggled for her political independence inspired by her belief in the means  of non-violence, ahimsa and won her freedom with goodwill of all nations. That is why  liberal democracy and cultural  tolerance are the whole mark of Indian democracy. Unity in diversity and diversity in unity are the principles of Indian democracy .

We  can see the missing  discourse of Idea of the nation of  swami vivekananda ,  Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore  that is the idea of Internationalism . History tells us Love based nations make Humanity and vice a versa.But fear based Nations do not make humanity .

 

I hope some day , perhaps in the not very distant future , Mahatma Gandhi , Bhagat singh , Bhim Rao Ambedker , subhash Chandra Bose , Jawaharlal Nehru , Jaya Prakash and Lohiya’s dream  may be fulfilled .

We need a democracy where we should neither be the slaves of capitalism nor fundamentalism. People will be free to express their opinions. Let us replace “my’ with “our” then only we can end capitalism and begin socialism in the context of individual , society and state .

In the concluding remark, I would like to sayy if Indian democracy is really of the people, by the people and for the people , we all are responsible for this state of affairs. I think a nation is sure to die , when the main purpose of it  is hurt. In order to save it's purpose or in order to save the spirit of democracy we, have to inculcate constitutional morality .  we have to be critical towards the government, we have to be aware that we are the masters in democracy, we have the right to question our government for not adhering to certain principles in the constitution of India. We have to acknowledge the fact that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Let there be collective thinking in India and let us all help in the creation of real, working, living, democracy in our country  .

Understanding Reason

    Understanding Reason.

Philosophers are not able to connect religion to morality. Beliefs about god are unrelated to beliefs about what is good. There is no logical connection. The claim that facts lead to conclusions about what is good is called the naturalistic or is-ought fallacy. Reason is only able to address whether a claim that something in factual is true or false, not whether it is good or bad, right or wrong. Secularization arrived during the 17th century (30 Years War) and replaced morality with legality – not that moralists do not still examine motives and conscience. Morality is reduced to feelings, emotional assertions, and failed solutions like majority rules (utilitarianism) and practical reason (deontology). Some emotional expressions are related to legal injunctions and arguably to moral justifications. But, religion has for so long been criticized for its connection to evil (witness the present day fundamentalism of Islamism) that moral claims are merely their own preferences and have no logical connection to human nature or any universal way to live life. Terms like Merry Christmas refer more to one's religious preferences and beliefs in marriage, babies and love but also conceal prejudices historically related to this same religion to which others are sensitive. The concepts that words refer to have changed their meaning during history. Reason is limited and has been acknowledged as limited since Kant to determining what is factual and not to what is good, right, ethical or moral.

There are different degrees of truth: the truth mentioned here as what is out there is not something that you can know in its entirety or totality because the truth out there is truth in terms of everything that exists or can possibly exist. Truth at another level is truth that is actual: you may not observe it happening but you can observe its results or effects. A third kind of truth is empirical: you can know it and observe it and it may be expected of you to tell the truth. You know what that kind of truth is - it is something that is inside of you about something that happened, some event that you know about. But, the notion of truth out there as existing before you can know a bit of it is entirely unconscious or even outside of your awareness.

There is the question of god, gods, or ancestors that pervades our culture - culture as belief system and set of institutions and rituals. The key question is whether the monotheistic god is actually the supreme god. Cultures with several gods, polytheism, or ancestors, acknowledge that each deity is both good and evil, has strengths and weakness, but the monotheistic god has been posited as entirely ideal. Whichever religious belief-system that you are from or address, there is the issue of evil, or death, of unfairness or political instability. When Nietzsche calls us slaves, he must be referring to the attitude towards those laws which do not matter and which make no difference, that is, to the mere cultural beliefs and moods which have made moderns both criminal and/or paranoid.

What exactly is reason - standards of validity, evidence and justification? Self-preservation instinct?

Freud labors over this ad nauseum! For 30 years his basic duality-synthesis is Eros and self-preservation just like Darwin. Starting in 1920, he juxtaposes this opposition which involves several contradictions with the death instinct!

It is not clear then if the basic duality is Eros-Thanatos or self-preservation - Thanatos!

Is this actually reason as reasonable, as reason giving, as related to criteria of validity? Habermas contrasts power and validity and indicates instances where power illegitimately passes for validity. For example, inflicting pain or using anger often pass for reason - imperatives which must be addressed!

Freud, very intelligently, wrote about these puzzles of pain and anger in several articles on masochism. Firstly, he claims everyone is masochistic - it is the normal situation. Bye bye Bentham who posited reason as the distinction and judgment between pleasure and pain! But, not only are humans normally masochistic - taking pleasure in pain, whereas the sadists are perverts, but everyone is a moral masochist which is why laws, customs, traditions and new trends tend to work!

I doubt anyone becomes a sadist - taking pleasure inflicting pain, without spending an inordinate amount of time in the masochistic position. However, pain is an important consideration concerning the nature of man.

Some of Nietzsche’s ideas were adopted by Freud, i.e. ‘id’ and “super-ego!” Freud is good about citing his sources, but Freud was also a scientist and details his literature searches, similar to Aristotle and the standard today.  Freud’s morality is not similar to Nietzsche’s nihilism or will to power, or transvaluation! Freud borrows little from him. Does the id and super-ego, or the unconscious, constitute reason? Structuralists might assert that the structure of our minds as effects of signifiers and under basic oppositional binary alternatives constitutes reason!

Fear is another puzzle. We all fear especially the low grade stressful annoying type, but the Stoic disposition, grin and bear it, stiff upper lip, courage and bravery, etc., are basic characteristics of human cultures. So, “reason” has I think countered the emotions! Alasdair MacIntyre points out that moral rules, and I would add certain laws, are precisely designed as constraints, as "painful" restrictions on pleasure seeking.

So, how is cognition related to the self?

I am wondering about why the term ‘cognition’ or ‘cognitive’ is often misunderstood as a substitute for the self or ego. Cognition comes from ‘cogito’ which Descartes posited as the part of our thinking substance from which body and sensation and feeling are differentiated (this is the key cognitive term). Cognition is the pure rational judging part of mind distinct from subjectivity!

Broughton (in Rieber and Salzinger 1980 "Psychology - Theoretical and Historical Perspectives) explains that not only did Descartes posit the body-mind dualism but also the subject-other dualism. The result is an objectification of subjectivity.

In terms of Eros, self-preservation and Thanatos, which all seem like subjective feelings with perhaps some problem-solving calculations, cognitive reflexivity jettisons subjectivity leaving only the cogito in relation to the world!

Does sympathy, compassion, and/or free will constitute reason?

Voluntarism is about free will, choice, effort, determination, etc. This angle is complicated by the problem of starting conditions: given the inequalities in the world, no amount of effort or determination will dent the social structures under which each is born. Maybe it’s luck but otherwise the social system and history are somewhat reified, progress is slow and relativism never goes away. But we should object to the gouging exploitation!

Biologically, emotions are neuropolitical like judgments. The heart is a pump, the emotions are not there, that is a metaphor!

Ego as in ego instincts or ego interests or ego functions is cognition - the split off part of the mind from the self, subjectivity and spontaneity. The objectivation of the ego, the cogito by cognition when differentiation splits mind into subject and object, suppresses the subject.

The critique of reason, its elaboration and explanation, its contrast with understanding emotions/feelings and beliefs, must take into consideration certain the differentiation of the mind or ego, and the problems of faiths and imagination, but reason will always address the issues of truth in reality and meaning or the significance of experience where standards of validity, evidence and justifications are necessary.

Reason is basically the same thing as discourse, language and communication. But, historically, reason has been narrowed from thinking and imagination in contrast to passion and emotion, down to motivation or cause, as in reason giving, or answering the 'why' question dialogically and reflectively. Today, reason is the basis for interaction that consists of standards of validity, evidence, and justification. Therefore, we can easily see that there is a problem of unreason or irrationality, etc.

Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' was a response to several strands of thought in the 18th Century. Hume's prioritization of passion or emotion over reason, reason as the slave of the passions, led to Hume's infamous Dangerous Dilemma where Reason's doubt-inducing mode destroys Hume's own final outcome of reason - that one should assent to reason's final decision. Reason however, for Hume, is essentially probable reason which leads to the problem of low probability reasons!

Kant responds to Hume's skepticism with a somewhat complicated argument that involves the nature of consciousness more than anything else, but Kant settles on the relevance of evidence which can broadly include argument, demonstration, perception, and other logical elements but essentially defends the Enlightenment's scientific thrust.

Kant drastically restricts the human imagination to thinking that is logical and evident-based, thus he is one of the first to disrupt metaphysical systems of thought, namely religions and scientific thinking that is not based on evidence. Not to take any credit away from Voltaire, Spinoza and other Enlightenment thinkers like D'Alambert, the importance of proof as in mathematics and astronomy was an arguable point in the faith versus reason arguments of the 16th to 18th Centuries which saw the Reformation and the 3 major Democratic Revolutions: England, USA, and France.

Kant's reason however is separated from his ethics - the Critique of Practical Reason and the Categorical Imperative which can be loosely compared to the ancient Golden Rule. Although a pragmatic trend, what works, can be traced to Kant, so can a destructive reason, a reason of manipulation and domination, which can be traced back to the realpolitik of Machiavelli.

In the 20th century, several leftists attempted to analyze the history of reason because reason in their minds had been corrupted. Even if we equate reason with truth, truth is not necessarily ethical or moral as observed easily in the 30 Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and the Holocaust. This problem of truth and reason can be found in Lukacs 'Destruction of Reason,' Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics,' Marcuse's 'Reason and Revolution,' and in Gramsci's 'Prison Notebooks' in the concept hegemony. These notions of reason detected a split in reason between an excluding and repressing reason and a constituting reason that constructs objects and others! Notice that 'constituting reason' is an abstraction that refers to the construction of the object as in scientific object, or as in another person or group!

All of these ideas grew out of Marxism where Marx identified reason as a function of the mode of production or the position of the worker in the division of labor where reason operated not as a facilitating social mode of communication, but as exploitation, alienation, and appropriation. These ideas were further elaborated by Sartre where reason's negativity was no longer limited to the workplace but overwhelmed all social interaction where the other person was an obstacle, an object to be strategically manipulated. Strategic reason can be found elucidated in Jurgen Habermas's work, particularly, 'Theory of Communicative Action.

Habermas presents reason as communicative, as a practice of communication that differentiates interaction as communicative or as strategic, and he describes how to make this differentiation. Communicative Reason abides by 3 elements: truthfulness, normativity, and sincerity, whereas Strategic Reason is concealing and manipulative.

Reason, however, is today more complicated by several factors since Kant: Freud uncovered each person's unconsciousness or repressed experience which influences the person's behavior and expressions, particularly their level of anger or neurosis. Also, Freud made several important distinctions which deepens the definition of reason from linguistic interaction or f2f or discourse, to interpretation and reflection. Reason is therefore once removed from direct perception and reality into a reflective awareness. Also, Freud indicated that the distinction between perception and thinking, that is, conscious awareness and subconsciousness, is complex so that evidence is not simply observable. Today, we recognize evidence as statistical reality and therefore as somewhat of a nonconscious entity, that is, we are no longer immediately aware of reality and therefore intersubjectivity, measurement, and certain standards of judgment, or procedures, are necessary to evaluate events and behaviors.

The danger now is totalization: any claim that totalizes one's knowledge or understanding is criticisable and fallible. Recognition of this limitation harks back to Kant's Critique, but more importantly, is an inclusive and plural definition which recognizes intersubjectivity, statistical reality, and error.

Obervation of the democracy of America

Democracy is both a rational and an ethical practice. The value of inclusion is represented within democratic institutions more than any other form of political governance. Although democracy is valued especially by other democracies, two problems have emerged. The first problem is the rise of dictatorships, the most common political form today. Representation therefore is declining in relevance.


The second problem is the increasing degree of insurgency leading to Civil Wars and borders wars: examine African conflicts, Israeli conflicts, US-Mexican border, Korea, Pakistan, India, Syria, etc. This problem prompts alliance formation and counter-insurgency (COIN) arrangements between democracies, and often includes the states led by dictators, which are defended for the sake of stability, social and economic stability. Eisenhower defended US interventions with the excuse of mutual cooperation. Counter-insurgency policies are proliferating globally, for example, in the practices of militarization of police and the establishing of "low-intensity conflicts." Petreus rescaled the Iraqi debacle by reorganizing the tribal system which led to the formation of ISIL! The reason for the notion of "low-intensity" is to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, or biological and chemical weapons. If you don't think these are serious issues examine the international relations with N. Korea and Iran concerning nuclear weapons, Syria concerning chemical weapons (perhaps obtained from Iraq's Saddam Hussein who also used them, and the problem of epidemic outbreaks in Africa (Ebola) and Asia (Yemen - cholera). But, the response of democratic institutions like the UN both philanthropic and political has been slow. For example, for years the AIDS epidemic was denied and even after being recognized retroviral medicine was denied because it was not the cause for AIDS!.


The last 5 major wars involving the US: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan/Iraq could be represented by the Nixon Doctrine - albeit that the secrecy behind US involvement in African Wars has yet to be unmasked. This bears examining because all of the issues we face today, and faced throughout the 20th, were presented by Nixon's Doctrine. Nixon stated in 1969 that how the war would end in S. Vietnam would have a great impact. If the US were described as losing the war, then isolationist and non-intervention would increase in US foreign policy with possible disastrous outcomes for many other nations. This reference to the widely discredited Domino Theory recalls the memory of Hitler's campaign or Stalin's subsequent initiatives. Nixon pointed out that if the US withdrew and became isolationist, no other nation would be under the illusion that the US would step-in, perhaps not even in the case of a large-scale attack. He said, "If a country can't handle its internal security, it is scarcely capable of being saved." Kissinger decried the ‘insidious model effect’ of democratically elected persons who would not follow US directives for resource allocations and instead improve human rights practices!


Nixon addressed the media by presenting the Vietnamization program: the withdrawal of troops coincident with the turning over of the war to the South Vietnamese. This involved drastic steps putting the US in a state of emergency (think Carl Schmidt and Giorgio Agamben) and massive bombing. It should be no surprise that military policy directives at one level get reflected at other levels. Large scale bombing of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia was followed by frequent instances of mass murder on the ground in the attempt to identify infiltrators. This was clear after January 1973 when the US signed the Paris Peace Accords and the Khmer Rouge engaged in brutal repression, after the bombing of Kosovo in Sept 1995 followed by Serbs’ ethnic cleansing, and the murder of hundreds after the coup on Chile in 1975. The Nixon doctrine consisted of these kinds of contradictions during the paradoxical 'fighting with the intention of pulling out.' We see this today in Afghanistan/Iraq - the 2007 and 2010 surges represent temporary stays, and in the Korean stalemate. The Nixon doctrine promised to keep costs within limits and to alleviate concerns about an 'unending war' or 'forever war.' Aside form the significant problem of a permanent war footing, we should recognize that the US WWI intervention was because the war had gone on too long, the Vietnam intervention was initially to assist our ally, France, as was the Korean intervention. WWII and Afghanistan/Iraq could be said to be international responses to attacks against the US on US soil, but with the additional emphasis on rebuilding both the government and the infrastructures - by infrastructure I refer to things like buildings, plumbing and roads, and socio-political organization. This emphasis on regime change - Treaty of Versailles, post-WWII economic policies, is reflected in the Nixon Doctrine.






Developing the South Vietnamese' or Afghan or Iraqi capability to establish their own security was understood by Nixon to increase those nation's self-esteem, to deflate the antiwar protests in the US, and to bring the belligerent forces to the table. One important premise was that the US would continue to support S. Vietnam even after having withdrawn all forces. This plan was defeated however by the subsequent budget cuts to ordnance in support of South Vietnam. After the demise of South Vietnam, is it any wonder why the US continues to support Afghanistan/Iraq although the blunder of withdrawing in toto from Iraq and then having to re-enter without a skeleton force in place might be seen as a repetition of the Vietnamese quagmire - having left can we return? Obama’s solution to this problem was drone-warfare while ISIL started the 9 year Syrian Civil War including the 4 year Battle of Aleppo. Nixon wanted to reduce antiwar pressures at home, decrease the corruption of the South Vietnamese government/military, and ipresent to the enemy determined resolve to fight as long as necessary.

The key issue that the Nixon Doctrine turned on was control of appearances through the media. Nixon walked the tightrope of careful statements to the press about withdrawal and about staying the course. The 'credibility gap' that emerged was about the contradictory statements to the press and in private reassurances between leaders duly noted by many journalists. Nixon said, "We must trust each other." This same problem was reflected in the strong effort by the South Vietnamese and MACV to control journalist perceptions and communications. Isn't it obvious that the same dilemma is occurring during many conflicts today and around the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. For example, who understood any press reports or media explanations of the 2 Bosnian Wars, of the South Sudan crises or the African Civil Wars, of the Iraqi tribal arrangements or religious problems in forming a stable government, of international drug cartels, or the unrest and instability across the Magreb and Levant, of the nearly 80M migrants worldwide. Does the media present any explanations of the large scale migrations and refugee problem internationally? To what extent is the media unable or prevented from open discussion, and what effect does this have on violent conflicts?

False Abstraction

False Abstraction

Coins cannot exist as coins except as pocketed and owned; at the same time they imply an essential tendency to pass into the
pockets of other men : for a coin that could not issue
from the pocket would be a coin in name only, and not in
function. When it actually passes from one man's pocket
into another's, this circumstance, far from justifying us
in thinking the coin a separable thing, shows that all
men s pockets (when not empty and therefore, in function,
not pockets at all) are intrinsically related and, in a higher
sense, one and the same purse. Therefore, we may conclude,
it was not the sly transference of the coin from
my neighbor's pocket into mine that was the wrongful
abstraction, but only the false supposition that if the coin
was his it was not, by right of eminent domain, mine
also. A man, in so far as he is the possessor of coins, is
simply a pocket, and all pockets, in so far as there is
transferable coin in them, are one pocket together.

from 'The British Hegelians' by Santayana

Neoliberal Globalization

NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIZATION

Neoliberal: the current practice of laissez-faire, an economic stance stressing cutbacks in social services, stable currencies, and balanced budgets. Classical liberalism advocated governmental nonintervention and was pre-capitalist when workers were mobile and capital as the land was immobile. The switch here is that labor’s mobility is restricted by immigration laws and discrimination practices while capital is mobilized by technologies of financialization. But, the masses are still in motion while workforces compete across national borders causing a decreasing standard of living.

If we see anything in the past 50+ years, it is the tremendous mobility of labor, from migration to legal immigration to moving from state to state to moving into the cities where the jobs are, at the same time as immigration restrictions, housing shortages and mass incarceration. It is really unbelievable to see this whereas when I was younger, I did what I had to without any awareness of mass movements of labor. In the capitalist mode of production, labor is "free" as contrasted to precapitalist modes where the workers simply did not leave their land. If a person could not find work in the 17th-18th centuries and be starving, they were told to ‘get out’ which meant go to the US, or Australia, or a colony. Capitalism requires the moving of the workers from the rural areas to the cities, from poor nations to wealthier nations. Witness what is happening in China since 1978, where hundreds of millions of workers are being drawn into pre-built cities to work in manufacturing centers and the tremendous service industries supporting it.

There is no upward social mobility without educational credentials. Capitalism today requires intelligent, communicatively competent, literate workers, not to mention actual technical skills of some sort. There is class mobility, you can improve your class status, which is part of the freedom ideology, but the change will not be significant. I retired at 56 with a pension plus my saved earnings for many years. So, I know it can be done because at 18, I was broke and had nothing, no inheritance, and I knew nothing. At that time, I had also been a worker at several jobs: selling stationery, newspaper boy, switchboard operator, and a few other jobs which only gave me some spending money since my parents did not give me any money nor did they pay for any of my college education. Sometimes, I think people don't like me because they are jealous, but I worked hard every day for many years, so I can't sympathize with their emotions.

Anyway, the people in the lower middle and lower classes, over half the population, are manipulated by their desires. The managerial class is extremely small, like 10% just under 1%!! No one, or very few, has a big picture view of society or history. Everyone is directed by an ideology, perhaps even a set of delusions! Whether a crisis leads to a catastrophe or not, like WWI, is more a question of hope and chance, than rationality! But, what is the Middle East today? A huge catastrophe is happening.

The original meaning of 'free trade' was that the worker could leave their job and work elsewhere. This contrasted with the feudal modes of production and other precapitalist modes, like slavery. The serf and peasant or farmer were not free to move, they were anchored by tradition and contract to their land, like tenant farmers. As capitalism developed, the worker could leave their land and seek a job elsewhere, often in cities where there were many other jobs. This was the meaning of 'free trade.'

Then, this idea developed into entire businesses moving from one location to another or opening up a franchise. Free trade in this sense was opposed to protectionism or tariffs on imports or exports. But, tariffs are and have been very common; with the trade agreements since WWII inroads into protectionism have occurred.

Free trade was at its height in the mid-19th century as laissez-faire. Notice however that the three major wars of the 19th were fought over "free" labor: the US Civil War, the serf rebellions in Europe, and the Taiping Rebellion in China, at the same time as colonialism took root, e.g. UK's colonization of India, and the European colonization of Africa. So, 'free trade' was the focus of contestation back then, as trade agreements are today.

The world is not a free market. From currency exchange to trade agreements, there is a variety of import and export duties imposed on goods everywhere. The underlying point of trade agreements is to balance out each nation's natural strengths and weaknesses in the economic sense so that nations are not trying to produce goods that can be imported more cheaply from other states that can produce the transport them more economically.

Labor is mobile and can be transferred from one location to another whereas natural resources cannot be moved. So, the globalization movement searches for labor resources that maximize their profits and perhaps lower costs and prices of the goods. The problem occurs when producers of a good in one country are undersold by the same products being produced in another nation and even transported to the same locality. The competition between international goods and national goods, even with the import duties/quotas/restrictions, etc. wreaks havoc on local small-scale producers. Instead, those labor resources would shift to occupations that are more fruitful for the local people. Restructuring entire economies, markets, and local settings in terms of personal lives, housing, fertility intentions, or family formations, relationships, etc. have put much of the world in tension. This tension is expressed in non-compliance at workplaces and in people's personal lives.

Neoliberalism should be thought of as a macro-project directed from the top-down. There are several stakeholders in the trend towards restructuring the firm, the corporation, as international conglomerates where labor and productivity are dispersed. Corporations today own over one-half of the total wealth of the world! Not only should we consider the 'national models' where bureaucratic formal models of the firm undergo restructuring, like downsizing, and role flexibility, and diversification of labor sources, also, international models which involve navigating large capital investors, international institutions, trade agreements, and tax strategies.

The glitch in the top-down neoliberal models is that worker agency, or resistance, coupled to competition within markets, has made the globalization momentum slow down and forced neoliberal impulses to negotiate trade agreements which are not necessarily eliminations of protectionist policies, but a balancing of strengths and weaknesses which takes time to clear the markets and achieve a semblance of so-called equilibrium within each nation-people.

There is tension between parties, lobbyists, watchdogs, and governmental organizations, that represent classes of workers. Bureaucracies are composed of particular social classes whose relation to state power is always in transition as leadership and appointments change. Workers' informal lives, their housing, their fertility, and their mobility are precarious and vulnerable - neoliberal globalization has mobilized labor to move here and there as jobs open up and close down.

I have somewhat hastily put down a few general points on how the post- Covid19 scenario is likely to play out in the immediate and long-run around the world. I submit them below for your scrutiny and review.

1) Both state governments and private players will seek to enhance their capabilities in the fields of digital surveillance and security systems. There will be a marketing blitz claiming that surveillance apps played a major role in controlling the coronavirus pandemic and that this represents the future of healthcare. The military-industrial-digital complex will aggressively seek an opportunity for themselves in this crisis by installing themselves in healthcare systems around the world.

2) Neoliberalism as an ideology will face increased criticism and cynicism. Keynesian ideas will make a temporary comeback. It is more likely that many state governments including India will opt for a compromise between neoliberal and Keynesian approaches in their efforts to restart the economy, rather than altogether move away from the unsustainable growth model we currently follow. Global capital will seek a safe haven in India, besides other countries. In the coming days, it will be clear if our political leadership has enough foresight to not bite the bait that will come in the form of promised investment and new jobs. There will also be a temptation to print more money and pump it into the economy, but this will only further uproot the money economy from the natural economy of energy and matter.

3) Oil is still the most crucial commodity in the industrial system. But oil prices have tanked and demand is not likely to rise in the short-term. This may precipitate realignments in geopolitics, which we have to carefully observe.

4) The 21st century will most likely be a century of recurrent crises, relative scarcity, and economic contraction. The only long-term solution is to permanently step off the economic model that seeks to deliver greater prosperity for a few through the exploitation of natural ecosystems and the laboring masses. Countries must make use of the ongoing disruption to redesign their economies and make them resilient enough to weather future storms. For example, governments should not attempt to generate employment opportunities for the poor by investing in big-ticket infrastructure projects like airports and highways that cater to the needs of global capital. Rather, the most crucial infrastructure that needs to be build-up for the coming phase of economic contraction is a robust public health system. The test of resilience has to be applied at the most local levels.

5) Finally, economic resilience alone will not be sufficient for countries to emerge successfully out of the current and future crises. Social trust is fundamental to any effort at salvage and recovery. Societies lacking in such trust will respond to a crisis by scapegoating and fighting amongst each other, as seems to be the case in India. We must be vigilant as politicians will certainly seek to add further fuel to these flames.

Christopher H. Dawson, in "Dynamics of World History":

"Now it seems clear that it is impossible to have a purely 'practical' morality divorced from an interpretation of Reality. Such a morality would be mere social custom and essentially unprogressive. Progress springs very largely from the attempt to bring actual conditions and social habits into harmony with what are conceived as the laws or conditions of real life. The very conception of morality involves a duality or opposition between what 'is' and what 'ought to be.' Moreover from the very earliest conditions of primitive savagery up to the highest degree of intellectual culture, the ethical standard can be shown to be closely connected with some kind of world-view or conception of reality, whether that is embodied in a mythology, or a philosophy, or is vaguely implicit in the customs and beliefs of the society.

Now the great obstacle to the attainment of a purely rational system of ethics is simply our lack of knowledge of Reality. If we can accept some metaphysics of Absolute Being, then we shall quickly possess an absolute morality, as the Platonists did. But if we limit ourselves to positive and scientific knowledge of Reality, it is at once evident that we are limited to a little island of light in the middle of an ocean of darkness. Unfortunately, Herbert Spencer's attitude toward the Unknowable will not help us here, for the 'machina mundi' is a dynamic unity, and the part of it we know shares in the movement of the unknown whole. Most philosophies and religions have supposed that there is some kind of meaning or reason in the world process; though there are thinkers like Lucretius (and perhaps Bertrand Russell) who deny this, and yet try to fashion a kind of 'island' morality for reasonable humanity shipwrecked amidst the chaos of an irrational universe. Nevertheless the great majority of modern thinkers, in fact modern men, believe profoundly in the existence of progress, and not merely a progress of succession but a progress of improvement. 'Life moves on to ever higher and richer forms. Here is an adequate goal for moral effort! Here is justification of moral values! Here is a true foundation for a modern system of ethics!'

But from a purely rational point of view what does all this amount to? So far from explaining the problems of human existence, it adds fresh difficulties."