Saturday, December 10, 2016

'Political' and 'economic' domains heteronomize human life

The abstract domain of the 'political' or the 'State' makes for progressively greater control over and heteronomy of human life. The same can be said about the abstract domain of the 'economic'.

The 'political' and 'economic' are imperial-colonial domains that parasitize or prey on the real domain of 'social' -- i.e. of 'society' or 'community' -- where human life is autonomous and without the coercive controls and micro-management characterizing the former two domains.

(Autonomy means freedom from external control or influence. Heteronomy means subjection to an external law or power. Autonomy and heteronomy are thus opposite of each other.)

The autonomy of the 'social' domain or 'society' means it runs on its own; it does not need the so called 'government'.

Anyone who believes that it's the 'government' that runs a 'society' is deluded even though the processes of the 'State' do contribute to progressive undermining of the autonomy of human communities, strengthening the impression as if everything is being run by, or is determined by, the 'government'.

The very idea of 'government' is part myth and part pretense.

'Governments' don't run 'societies'.

(A 'government' is more like a parasite that lives in the organism called 'society' and draws its sustenance from it, harming it in the process. Parasites don't 'run' the organisms in which they live. Also bear in mind that all people who are seen as making up the 'government' are also members of the 'society' that they purport to 'govern'.)

'Societies' function on their own; they don't need 'governing'.

All functionality in evidence of a human society comes from 'social' processes, not 'political' and 'economic' management, which, if anything, seems to contribute more to 'social' dysfunction rather than 'social' functionality.

Whatever 'social' functionality 'experts' attribute to the 'government' actually comes from 'social' processes and not from what gets labelled as 'political' and 'economic' manoeuvring.

So if people are born, brought up, and are running their lives normally, that's evidence of a functioning 'society' -- even where processes of the 'State' have greatly degraded the 'social' domain, thus atomizing and heteronomizing 'society'.

There is actually no such thing as 'polity' or 'economy'; there is only 'society'.

All human relations are essentially 'social' in nature, including those that get labelled as 'political' and 'economic'.

As I have said repeatedly in my blog posts, 'political' and its kindred domain of 'economic' are pure abstractions in that they exist only in the minds of the 'educated'.

The 'political' and 'economic' domains emanate from 500 years of Western colonialism and imperialism; they are always top-down in nature, looking down upon societies, and are used to justify and carry out the imperial-colonial agenda.

Flowing as they are from imperialist ends, the 'political' and 'economic' domains also have motivations and 'morality' widely at variance with motivation and morality of human communities.

In fact, the 'political' and 'economic' domains are used to bend, pervert or invalidate the morality of human communities.

The 'social' domain is not an abstraction. 'Society' is where human life is conceived, birthed, nurtured, sustained, and blossoms in all its glorious interdependence with others.

'Society' (or 'community') is where human life can be seen in its unabstracted state -- in its wholeness. This unabstracted state and wholeness can also be denoted by the term 'culture'.

Each human person bears out the existence of 'society' or 'community'.

So even an individual's existence is an evidence of 'society' or 'community' considering that no person exists in isolation or in absence of relation to others.

------

Monday, December 5, 2016

'Economy' is a fraud, but 'society' is real

Demonetisation reflects government's vacuity and shows that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has no clear understanding of the distinction between what passes off as the ('organised') 'economy' and mind-boggling number and variety of social transactions that are often mislabeled as the 'informal economy'.

This so called 'informal economy' is India's society itself -- 'society, not 'economy' -- and is the 'freest' and most 'competitive' possible, meeting people's myriad needs with value for money that the organised 'economy' can never give.

(One must bear in mind that what 'economists' call 'market' is nothing but 'social exchange', i.e. the set of all those transactions through which the society meets its needs.)

In contrast, what passes off as the organised 'economy' is a manipulated system and an exemplar of a lack of freedom and competition.

The inherent corruption of the so called organised 'economy' is underpinned by laws such as those that put a veil over the functioning of business entities called 'companies'.

Who is more competitive: a roadside food provider who is competing with myriad others in the vicinity and is attracting customers only by virtue of the quality of his fare or the McDonalds that needs prime real estate worth crores, expensive equipment, and yet delivers standardized fare (based mostly on recipes appropriated from the larger society or culture for free) at prices that exclude most people or deliver poor value for money?

So any attempt to push the 'society' to start behaving like the 'economy' is ill advised and misguided. It's the so called 'economy' which ought to start behaving like the 'society', and not the other way around.

Whereas 'society' exhibits great degree of freedom and autonomy (and what 'economists' call competition), the 'economy' needs constant support of the government to keep itself going.

While 'economy' pretends to be providing 'work' and 'employment' to people, it's actually the 'society' which not only makes people useful and capable, without discrimination, but also gives meaning to their lives.

No wonder, all 'economists' admit that it's the 'informal economy' -- their code word for 'society' -- which accounts for most 'workers' in India.

(As far as I am concerned, each member of a society is a 'worker' in their own right.)

India can run -- and run better -- with recession in the 'economy' or even without the so called 'economy'. But India cannot run without its 'society'.

No reason can be good enough for interfering with the functioning of 'society'.

Anything that restricts or interferes with the freedom and autonomy of the 'society' is bad.

Anand Ranganathan rips apart the fraud that the media has been perpetrating on the public

Here is a lovely article by Anand Ranganathan (who also works for News Laundry that I recently criticised in one of my blog-posts) on the cr...