Arindam Chaudhuri on the philosophy of survival of the weakest

 

 

For long, economists have been blindly following Darwin’s “Survival of the fittest” theory as the maxim for the functioning of the capitalist economy. Th e problem is, however, they forget that the whole purpose of functioning of an economy is to move towards a more civilised form of existence. Civilisation has seen man moving out of the jungle and reach where he is today. Sadly, he has not yet been able to discard the rules of existence that he used to follow in the jungles.

Capitalism, from the very beginning, has been based on the principle of individualism and survival of the fi ttest. When Adam Smith had talked about man being rational and therefore trying to maximise his returns if left free in the market, he had also referred to the same principle. Th e rules of the capitalist market have always dictated to humans to compete with others and maximise their ‘benefi ts’ (read profi ts). Critics point out the fact that when left free in a market, an individual’s return is not only a function of his competence and eff orts (in terms of the number of hours he puts in), but also a function of his past accumulated wealth (on which he might have had no contribution). Based on the same argument, economists in India argued against MNCs entering India, as the survival of Indian companies is not only dependant on the quality of the products they produce, but also on how historically strong are the competitors.

Th ums Up, for example, was not only an example of a quality product, but also an example of great brand building. Perhaps it was India’s best ever example of an original brand name around which an identifi able brand personality had been built. All this came to nothing when a giant like Coca Cola entered the market – Th ums Up got sold off in one shot. One of the best Indian brand names today sells under the aegis of Coca Cola. Th ough nothing seems wrong per se in this case, this is the classic example of survival of the fi ttest. In a jungle, fi ttest refers to the strongest, or the one who can best adjust to the existing environenvironment; in an economy, fi ttest would refer to the richest. Th erefore, we see that the market economy has always helped the rich to grow richer at the cost of others.

Th is statement is authenticated by the fact that in the US, the top 5% and top 20% of the economy, who used to earn 15.5% and 41.1% of the total national income in 1973 were earning 17.9% and 44% of the total national income in 1989 respectively. Th e income earned by the lowest 20% of the US fell from 5.5% to 4.6% during the same period, while those of the lowest 4/5th of the economy fell down from 11.9% to 10.6%. Th e same applies to most of the other free market system countries.

Men are born equal. If given the same opportunities of health and education, their capacity to contribute would have become nearly equal; the only diff erence being in terms of IQ or combination of genes that they possess, which again has been now scientifi cally proven to be irrelevant in deciding anyone’s future, given similar upbringing and opportunities. It is the society that we have created where these opportunities are not equally distributed/ guaranteed, thereby leading to a diff erence between man and man.

Today, when some of us have reached such high standards of living, it is the right time to bring in some humanitarian aspects to the society we live in. Is it not true that we try to give the maximum comforts to the individual in our family who is paralysed or has some handicap? If such a family has the budget for just one air-conditioner, isn’t it most likely that it would be put in the room where the patient lies the whole day? Or is it that since the paralysed brother can’t contribute, he should not be given food to eat or other such basic necessities? Of course not. Th e fact is that when it comes to our families, Marxism is a part of our lives since we believe in giving according to one’s needs.

When an economy reaches a stage where the fi ttest can live well, even if their standard of living doesn’t grow rapidly, it is the duty of that economy to put its resources on the weakest and their survival. In our respective families, we all believe in communism, that is, to each according to his need. But when it comes to the nation, we want to follow just the opposite. By this, I am not insisting all economies should turn communist; but I surely am expecting them to incorporate this most human and natural rule of family existence in their nations, while they continue to operate in a free market. Survival of the fi ttest should no more be a concept of any importance in today’s civilised world.

Th e stronger nations of the world should start supporting the weaker nations of the world in a genuine manner, unlike what they do today, which is akin to pathetic. Th ink about it, in a global cross-country conference, a majority of these developed nations declined to contribute even 2% of their cross border revenues for the development of third world countries. Th e whole of Latin America and Africa combined doesn’t have a single permanent member on the UN Security Council; India, with a population of almost one billion, too does not enjoy the honour. Th e obsolete veto system and the abuse of the security council by the powerful nations is exalting a new colonialism within the UN. Th e UN was formed at the end of a monstrous war that had claimed some 10 million lives. More than twice the number of people killed during the secsecond world war today die of hunger and curable diseases every year while the UN brags of enabling world peace. Going further, rich countries enjoy a life expectancy of around 80 years, while poor countries of not even 45 years. And this precisely is what survival of the fi ttest has achieved. Don’t the people born in poor countries have a right to live beyond the age of 45? Th ese billions of lives are being brought to an end by rich countries simply for the sake of adding on a few more comforts to their already existing ones. How long shall we wait for this carnage to stop?

And fi nally a last word for the big Indian industrialists who might get worried reading all this. Th e success of our industries doesn’t actually depend on the kind of business strategies they have, neither on the latest jargon that they have adopted from their multinational consulting fi rms, nor on their exciting marketing and sales promotional schemes. Th e success of their companies depends on how vast is the market that the economy has been able to give them how much is the purchasing power of people in the country.

With “Survival of the Weakest” as the maxim, the people at the bottom level would get more purchasing power along with better health and education facilities, which would not only make a huge diff erence in the quality of human capital in the country, but would also satisfy the most important criteria for our growth, that is, they would become a part of the consuming market. Th e moneyed market will no longer comprise 100 million people, but of 1 billion people, because it is purchasing power and only purchasing power of the market that determines the long run growth of any economy, industry or company.

No marketing strategy can achieve the above market expansion. Th is is pure economics and no miracle. So, not only for the sake of humanity but also for the sake of their own long run interests, our industrialists, politicians, bureaucrats, civil society, and India as a whole, should support policies that benefi t the weaker section of the society and contribute towards its success. Let the weak survive... for once!