CHAPTER TWENTY TWO
ECONOMICS
Economics
as a system is the tool of taxation which seeks to impose gubernatorial hegemony
without appearing as an instrument of dominance.
Apparently, it is an extraordinary
statement but, in fact, it is not. However, before I explain it, I must state
what is meant by economics. Unfortunately, nobody has so far put forward a
satisfactory definition of this subject since the days of Adam Smith, the father
of economics.
Scope of Economics
Ordinarily, economics refers to the
forces which determine prices of goods and services as well as prices of the
resources required to produce them. The process of production needs an
organization which systematizes the sequences of men, machines and land to make
them productive and creates a functioning market punctuated by a regular rhythm
of buyers and sellers seeking satisfaction of their needs. Prices cannot remain
absolute and come to be interrelated, thus forming a market mechanism which not
only indicates the interrelationship of prices but actually emerges as a social
system which begins to govern the way of life based on such questions whether
people are free to charge what they like, or should prices be controlled? As
prices are linked with wages and profits, should people have the discretion to
use their incomes the way they like or is it for the Big Brother to specify
whether they should spend their incomes on vodka or a house-purchase? Again, the
level of prices creates the problems of inflation and unemployment, giving the
dominant (the state) the commanding role to regulate the social rhythm of
society by imposition of taxes, monetary restraints and many other restrictions
such as minimum wages, rent controls, tariffs, budgetary measures, and so on.
Economics as the Material
Religion
In modern times, economics has
gained the status of a Material Religion which controls human way of life
through a mixture of viciousness and vivacity with the same vigour and vehemence
as did the divine religions such as Christianity and Islam. The social division
of the world into two camps - Socialist and Capitalist' each equipped with
lethal weapons and the readiness to use them, presents a threat of annihilation,
far beyond the means and imagination of the Crusaders.
The economic activity is mainly
directed to one end i.e. production of wealth to satisfy needs (wants) but
though air, sunlight etc are agents of satisfaction, they do not constitute
wealth in the economic sense because of their abundance. Economic goods or
wealth imply scarcity, and entail effort or sacrifice in their supply. It
requires a process of production based on the factors of labour, land capital
and enterprise. However, people do not produce for the sheer love of it they
produce to consume which entails distribution.
Theory of distribution
The theory of distribution, in the
first place, attempts to determine the prices of the factors of production, and
secondly, it tries to resolve the problem of distributive shares, that is,
proportionate distribution of national income among the factors of production.
As production and distribution are integrally related they form concern of a
single theory called "neoclassical theory" which states that incomes
are earned in the production of goods and services, the value of the productive
agent indicates its contribution to the total product, and the value of the
final output depends upon the marginal productivity of the productive factors
which are themselves subject to the law of supply and demand.
The Neoclassical theory advocates
the marginalist viewpoint. But there are many other theories which argue quite
differently about the allocation of rewards to the factors of production. For
example, Marxist theory states that economic wealth is created by labour only,
making distribution the major source of strife, and permanent class division the
cornerstone of human culture.
Economics, as tool of taxation
The gubernatorial urge of dominance
has brought economics within the magic circle of politics through the mechanism
of distribution which has become the greatest single source of mischief because
distribution is not distribution but redistribution, thus making economics a
tool of taxation which seeks to implement the gubernatorial ambitions by
plundering people. The state, which represents the gubernatorial will, acts as a
Robin Hood by pillaging the rich as the ambassador of care and compassion though
its real purpose is to bribe the masses for securing their votes to gain power.
All its acts resemble misdeeds of the Mafia, yet it ranks as the fountain of
legitimate authority, and the model of respectability. It is like achieving the
impossible, yet it has been done. How?
Economics and equity
The unachievable becomes achievable
when the end is made to justify the means. The state-depredation is legitimised
on the basis of "equity"; it ceases to mean moral justice because it
is projected as the principle which seeks to equalise everybody irrespective of
one's talent and devotion to hard work with a view to eradicating all economic
differences as applicable to the wise and fool, the righteous and vicious, the
patron and scrounger. To achieve this end, people are incessantly given
overdoses of social egalitarianism to make them forget all their social
responsibilities which require a sense of justice based on the tenet of
"first deserve and then desire". Thus ordinary folks, who suffer pangs
of hunger and ignorance are easily misled to believe that economics is all about
equal sharing of the national product irrespective of personal contribution.
This sharing is affected by the following means:
1. Equality of sharing is
proclaimed as the Divine Command i.e. a person claims to be the vicar of God and
declares that he has been sent by the Almighty to establish a regime
which must enable all men to hold property and women m common ownership.
2. Equality is proclaimed as the
way of life based on an economic dogma, enforceable by law.
3. Welfare theories are employed in
the name of social justice to secure equality through redistribution of wealth.
Now, let us look at these bases of
equal sharing, one by one:
1a. Equality as Divine Command (Mazdakite
Communism)
Iran, the fountain of many
religions, produced Mazdak in the late 5th Century A D. What he preached was an
offshoot of the Manichaean dualism resembling Gnosticism. To these tenets which
had been known to the Persians since the times of Zarathustra, Mazdak added his
own principles: the community of property and wives. He proclaimed himself to be
the Messenger of God who had sent him to preach that all men were born equal;
they all should hold everything equally and nobody had the right to possess
anything exclusively especially in the field of property and marriage. He
declared that the institutions of property and marriage were artificial and
ill-conceived, and therefore, all goods and women should belong to the communal
ownership.
King Kavadh I
The inherent fascination of this
doctrine attracted the have-nots and the sexually starved men in their droves.
Even the King Kavadh I (488-496 and 499-531) embraced this faith out of
political convenience. Neither he lacked women because his harems contained
hundreds of most beautiful concubines nor did he wish other people to have a
share in his property. It was a ruse for destroying the power of his nobles who
had persistently tried to unseat him. He wanted to weaken them by exposing their
wealth to popular plunder in the name of equality. This rising class of
communists led by the Prophet Mazdak, was happy to spare Kavadh I's property and
women as long as they could seize the property and women of his opponents, the
nobles. These holy looters happened to be the members of various guilds. In the
name of brotherhood, they pounced upon the most beautiful and delicate
mistresses of the nobles which they themselves had plundered when depriving the
weaker nations of their liberties. With these lovely creatures went diamonds and
rubies which adorned them, and also the lofty palaces that housed them The
nobles, used to pillaging others for "remedying" their faults, did not
fancy this medicine for themselves, and rose against their king. They deposed
Kavadh and imprisoned him in a dungeon, and raised his brother Djamasp to the
royal dignity. Kavadh, however, had the good fortune of escaping his captors and
regaining his crown with the help of the Ephthalites. This apparent royal
protector of communism, having secured his position, turned on the Prophet
Mazdak and his thousands of followers. He not only beheaded Mazdak but also
carried out carnage of his disciples.
Power of Iranian economic guilds
Why did Kavadh I indulge in the
massacre of his own people? It is because the labour force of his kingdom had
become very strong through an effective economic organization. This is clearly
demonstrated by the fact that the decrees of the council of state were no longer
held valid unless they were signed by the heads of the major guilds along with
the princes and prelates. In modern language, t was an act of union-bashing.
The "Veiled Prophet"
The natural principle of social
organization is hierarchical and not egalitarian; this is the reason that people
don't want to be equal but pine to surpass others Despite this fact, the precept
of equality has a great fascination for the man-in the street who is usually
happy with the routine life and doesn't like being bossed and pushed around.
Perhaps this is the reason that the ghost of equality reappeared in Persia
during 772 with the birth of Hashim al Muqanna - the "Veiled Prophet"
of Khurasan. He declared that he was God incarnate and the purpose of his
appearing in human form was to restore the communism of Mazdak to glorify the
tenet of equality. He grew so powerful that he defeated several royal armies and
ruled northern Persia for fourteen years. However, his luck ran out in 786 when
he was captured and killed. Strange though it may seem, the Persian communists
carried Surkh Alam, that is, the Red Flag, to demonstrate their identity. Though
Muqanna fell, the Red Flag kept fluttering. In 838, Babik al Khurrani repeated
history by declaring his prophethood to renew and enforce the principle of
equality in the name of God. The band of his followers is known as Muhammira,
i.e. the Reds. Their fanatic zeal showed superiority of courage and disdain of
death in every battle against the enemies of equality. They seized Azerbaijan
and held it for twenty two years. It is said that he slew no fewer than 255,500
imperial soldiers before he could be taken captive. At the behest of the Caliph
Mutasim, Babik's own executioner cut off his limbs one by one.
The Ismailites - Ibn Qaddah
The communal appeal of property and
women was hard to resist. Most communists who had survived the ravages of time
were attracted to Abdullah Ibn Qaddah who made himself the leader of the
Ismailites, a sect of Shi'ites. He sent missionaries throughout Islamdom to
preach the doctrine of the "Severers", and his appeal lay in the
initiation rites which the novices had to perform for entering the sect. Every
entrant had to take an absolute oath of secrecy and pledge to obey the
Grandmaster of the Order (Dai-d-Duat). The instructions bore similarity with the
Greek methods known as esoteric and exoteric, and the convert had to believe
that after passing through nine stages of initiation, the veil of ignorance
which separates man from God, would disappear, and taleem or the Occult
Doctrine, i.e. "God is All", revealed to him. The members of the sect
confided in one another
and nobody else, and thus formed a
society within a society 1 to protect their religious, political and commercial
interests. Survivors of the old communist movement sought membership of this
sect because it promised advent of a Mahdi or Redeemer who would lay the
foundation of a society based on the principle of equality, brotherly love and
justice.
Qarmat
Eventually this confraternity grew
so strong that it founded the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and North Africa. After
the death of Abdullah ibn Qaddah in 874, Hamdan Ibn Al-Ashrath, an Iraqi
peasant, also known as Qarmat, became the leader of this movement. It was a
strange form of mystical religion: it adopted an allegorical interpretation of
the Koran based on free thinking, advocated a communism of property and women,
preached universal equality and sought organization of workmen into guilds.
Communal ownership of property and women as well as allegorical interpretation
of the Koran against its wording are utterly un-lslamic, yet they called
themselves the true Moslems. These Qaramita (the Carmathians), as they came to
be known, established an independent state on the west coast of the Persian Gulf
and started raiding and pillaging the centres of Islam such as Syria up to the
gates of Damascus, sacked Basra and Kufa, and then in 930 plundered Mecca
itself, the pivot of Islam. They slew no fewer than 30,000 Moslems, loaded a
large train of camels and asses with the richest booty that Allah had allowed
His followers to amass in this holy city by murdering and looting the
unbelievers. The impiety of these so-called Moslems knew no bounds; they even
carried off the veil of Kaaba and the Blackstone! Eventually the excesses of
this communistic movement created a large body of dissenters who did not mind
sharing other people's property and women but their own. Though this sect was
weakened by the increasing number of deserters and their retaliatory measures,
it was never finally laid to rest. Instead, in the next century, it reappeared
as the Ismails of Alamut, the hashish-inspired assassins.
The Assassins
Hasan Ibn Al-Sabbah, the Ismaili
leader, seized the fortress of Alamut ("Eagle's Nest") about 1090.
This stronghold in northern Persia lay some 10,000 feet above the sea level.
From this geographically safe den of savagery, he declared a Holy War (Jehad)
against the opponents and persecutors of the Ismaili faith which was declared to
be the true Islam but, in fact, descended from the Persian Mazdakites, the
Sasanian communists. Nobody could join this sect unless he undertook to be a
Mujahid, i.e. Crusader against the antagonists of the Ismaili faith. Applying
the Koranic principle of salvation, Al-Sabbah assured his followers that those
who were willing to plunder and murder the unbelievers and thus add to the
numbers of their widows and orphans, would go to paradise where most beautiful
women (houries) awaited to carry out their commands of whatever nature. To make
sure that nobody could doubt his word, he built a paradise on earth. The
fascination of this fact has been a source of verve to many poets, painters and
novelists. What was it really all about?
1. The modern Masons are considered
an offshoot of this sect for these reasons.
Assassin's paradise
As-Sabbah, copying the Koranic
description of paradise, built a huge garden behind the walls of the castle. He
had also heard of the splendour of the Babylonian gardens whose fabulous beauty
has charmed the human mind throughout centuries. What he created was not only a
symposium of architectural grandeur and horticultural magic, but an emerald
meadow containing small streams of milk and honey, or at least this is what they
looked like. Ever-blooming and fructifying trees of all colours and shapes that
had been imported from the east and west, and meticulously arranged in
mind-boggling patterns, cast their dancing shadows on the most attractive and
delicate women in their prime, to give them the appearance of multicoloured
butterflies. Even more devastating were their deportment and manners of speech
which had been imparted to them with a great deal of pain and patience. Above
all, these nymphs possessed skill of dalliance, the ultimate of artistic
imagination. If we were to believe the eastern poets, the Devil would gladly
repent to qualify for just one of these dazzling dollies simmering with youth,
zest and carnal inspiration.
In fact, this paradise was the
training centre for loot and murder. There is no crime that was not taught in
this biggest brothel on earth where women and property equally belonged to all
faithfuls who had the good fortune of being there though only for a short while.
The more ruthless, atrocious and idiotic a follower, the greater his chances of
entering the communistic paradise because the purpose of this hoax was to create
a blind faith in the divine powers of their Master.
Method of entering paradise
The method of admission into the
paradise was absolutely stunning. Before entering, the candidate was served with
especially tasty hashish in a golden goblet. The more he drank of this nectar,
the more he wanted of it; the moment he fell under the unfailing attack of
stupefaction, he was carried inside the paradise. As the grip of torpor eased,
he found himself surrounded by exquisite beauties equipped with the art of
ravishment, and happily willing to catharise his repressed instincts with their
erotic sorcery. He was allowed an orgy of wine and women for about five days
after which he was again drugged with hashish and carried out of the paradise.
As he recovered his senses, the whole earth felt like a blazing hell and he
wanted to return to the paradise at any cost. This is when the crunch came: he
was told that the paradise was meant for the faithful who obeyed the Master
truly and absolutely. He was promised that if he took the oath of allegiance
sincerely and honestly and thought nothing of this secular life in carrying out
the command of the Master, he would receive the blessing of re-entering the
paradise much sooner than he thought. After taking an oath of loyalty, the
candidate ranked as a Fidai - the one who would live and die to obey the
commands of his master. This Sasanian communism in the guise of Islam, was a
secret fraternity with many grades of initiation, and a Grandmaster. Its purpose
was to promote the cause of its own members at the expense of non-members. As
Sabbah, during his thirty five years of reign, waged a campaign of murder
against the anticommunists (opponents of Ismailis) to such an extent that
monarchs in
both the east and west trembled in
their beds. It was eventually the murderous hand of Hulagu, the Mongol, who
captured Almut and other Assassins' centres and eliminated these lovers of
equality who always wanted to be more than equal themselves.
Ismaili leader, the Agha Khan, who
has enthusiastic adherents in Persia, Syria, India and Africa, is said to be a
scion of this Ismaili sect, and his followers, who are usually rich businessmen,
annually pay him a tenth of their revenues for his powers to accommodate them in
paradise!
Equality as economic dogma
Now, we come to the second part of
this enquiry, that is, how equality is demanded on the grounds of an economic
dogma enforceable by law.
Theory of needs
2a. Marxism provides a good
annotation of this fact. Marx was quite right in assuming that man has needs
which he must fulfill to survive. It requires means of production to satisfy
needs and the satisfaction of these needs opens the door to further needs. Thus
human activity becomes a struggle with nature which must provide man with the
means of satisfying his needs; these needs are not confined to eating, drinking
and protection against the cold and hot, but also entail development of man's
intellectual and artistic abilities. Through this struggle, he realises:
"all that is known as history is nothing but the process of creating man
through human labour, the becoming of nature for man. Man has thus evident and
irrefutable proof of his own creation by himself".
While the theory of needs cannot be
disputed, the basic thesis is vitiated by his overemphasis on the role of labour,
which mostly means physical labour and discounts the true value of intellectual
labour such as the work of a philosopher, scientist, politician, administrator,
inventor, etc.
Again, as man creates himself with
his own labour, there is no God. It is "an opium for people". This is
the reason that Marx believed in the disappearance of religion as society
progressed. Therefore, he seeks to substitute moral values with materialism.
He further stresses that in a
capital society which thrives on exploitation of labour, man cannot be free. He
becomes an alienated being, and this alienation is caused by the fact that his
product, which is the result of his labour, is estranged from him. Thus, usurped
labour (product) denies the fullness of concrete man. Therefore, man becomes
alien to himself. When this precept is carried to its logical conclusion'
private property becomes "the product of alienated labour".
Theory of surplus value
Basing his thesis on the analysis
of economic conditions of the 19th century England' he asserts that the wealth
of a capitalist society is acquired through "an enormous accumulation of
commodities". To draw attention to this viewpoint, he states how a
capitalist ploughs back his profit (which is the usurpation of labour's rights)
and how this repeated movement transforms itself into capital This
transformation, according to Marx, is facilitated by the fact that the
capitalist owns the means of production, including the labour power of the
worker. Thus he forges the theory of Surplus Value which briefly stated, is the
difference between the wages that a capitalist pays to the worker and what he
ought to pay him As capital is nothing but accumulated labour over a period of
time, the economic concepts such as rent, interest, profit, have no legitimate
identity of their own because they all come from labour.
Though Marx's critics usually say
unkind things about him, I shall confine this discussion to facts because I
believe that he was a great man and meant well but his vision was distorted by
his own circumstances:
a. Marx lived in extreme poverty
and painful misery, especially from 1850 to 1864. Creditors chased him
frequently and his children learnt to lie: "Mr Marx is not upstairs".
It was in 1850 that he was evicted along with his four small children, and their
belongings were seized. This event proved to be very tragic because it caused
the death of some of his children, notably his son Guido and daughter Franziska
for whose burial his wife ran frantically to borrow money for a coffin. He spent
six most miserable years as a tenant of two rooms in Soho where the Marx family
subsisted on bread and potatoes. Unfortunately, like most philosophers, he was
not very keen on earning his living. Instead of accepting some of the blame for
his sorrows, he imputed his pains of life entirely to the rich, and thought of
his son Guido's death: "a sacrifice to bourgeoise misery".
This contributed to his extreme
hatred for capitalism, and absolute patronage of labour.
Biblical rule of equality
b. Though his father Heinrich Marx
was baptised in the Evangelical Established Church, and Karl himself was
baptised at the age of six as a protestant, he was a man of Jewish descent which
is likely to leave an indelible mark on one's character owing to the doctrinaire
upbringing which change of faith may not eradicate. Being a learned man, he was
obviously familiar with the Biblical teachings as both a Jew and a Christian.
His idea of equality which sought distribution related to one's needs, and
contribution to one's capacity, emerges from Exodus 16: 15-18 which relates to
the conditions prevailing in the wilderness and requires every Jew to
gather manna or bread - an omer per person, "according to his eating"
or need. Those who flouted this rule, found that their gathering had been
equalised by the Lord and everybody ended up with one omer irrespective of how
much he or she collected.
This rule of eating according to
one's need, which was fixed by the Lord as one omer per person, was inviolable.
But this law applied to the conditions of emergency which prevailed in the
wilderness. Karl Marx remembered the rule of equality by divine command but
forgot its relevance to abnormal conditions. It is strange that he advocated,
man has needs which must be satisfied but failed to emphasise that needs vary
from individual to individual, and those who contribute more, usually have
greater needs and therefore cannot observe the rule of equality.
Marxist gospel of materialism
Because of these circumstances,
Marx's opinions became extreme. Thus, instead Of qualifying as an economist, he
ought to rank as a missionary who preached the gospel of materialism based on
the following considerations:
a. Family of man is based on
brotherhood but individuality has no place in it. Thus, his rhetoric of freedom
carries no clout at all.
b. As the Lord had the right to
determine individual needs of the Jews, the state is entitled to adopt
deterministic policy towards the people to decide what they should love and what
they should hate, what they should give up and what they should taste. Worse
still, they must think of themselves as monks and nuns and live a communal life
without any regard to individuality. Yet Marxism advocates materialism! This is
a contradiction in itself.
c. He believed that history is
nothing but a class-struggle. Yet he stressed that in a true communist society,
class-structure, along with law, will perish. According to his dialectical
reasoning, strife between the opposites is permanent, and thus communism cannot
keep itself alive without a struggle against capitalism.
Since a communist society is
deterministic, it cannot survive without a strict application of law and a
diabolical host of enforcers. It is nonsense to think that law will perish in a
totalitarian society.
d. In fact, Marxist communism is
not much different from the Sasanian communism because it advocates violence by
the proletariats against the capitalist for taking over their wealth, i.e. means
of production. Its concept of equality is based on plunder of the rich but once
the number of the wealthy has dwindled considerably, equality cannot be
maintained.
e. If there is wealth, there will
be someone to possess it. In a Marxist society, individual capitalists cease to
exist, but their place is taken over by the state capitalism which represents a
far more hideous situation.
f. The concept of ownership is the
foundation of individual security and liberty. Depriving people of this right is
an attempt to convert free men into slaves because it is only slaves who possess
nothing.
g. I cannot see how a system which
treats labour as the sole source of value, can qualify as an economic system.
Production is the goal of economic activity: no production, no consumption.
Though labour as a human element, is the most significant factor, as a
production agent it ranks next to the enterprise (entrepreneur). The relation of
entrepreneur to the other agents of production such as labour, land and capital
is the same as exists between a commander and soldiers. The latter may be great
guys in themselves but their fate in terms of defeat and victory depends upon
the magnitude of the commander's leadership. Whether a combination of labour,
land and capital will be profitable or source of bankruptcy, depends upon the
judgement and organizational ability of the entrepreneur. It is his skill which
produces profit, and it goes without saying, no matter how skilled and trained
the labour force, it cannot claim any reward in the absence of profit because
there is nothing to lay a claim upon. In economics, profit is the master word
which is more closely related to the entreprenurial skill than anything else.
However, it does not mean that labour, land and capital are irrelevant in
production. Of course, they are agents of production, but the magnitude of their
productivity, as already stated, depends upon the organizational efficiency of
the entrepreneur.
Karl Marx made the fundamental
mistake of overemphasizing the role of labour, thus turning his economic
doctrine into a social cult which wishes ill to the entrepreneur, the chief
producer of utilities. The sudden collapse of communist regimes in eastern
Europe like a house of cards, is due to this reason. Further, he tried to make
Marxism as the way of life enforceable by law. An economic doctrine is always
discretionary, because to be productive, its application is subject to revision,
retrial, and even reversion. Its purpose is to produce at the lowest possible
cost to serve mankind and not to dictate the human way of life to give itself
the power of a secular faith.
Capitalistic communism
3a. Finally, we can now discuss the
last pillar of economic equality whose propriety is asserted on the ground of
common welfare. Of course, it is the welfare of people that really counts in the
last analysis but one should remember that it is not only the poor who deserve
justice, the capable, the hard working and the rich are also human and
therefore, must be respected and rewarded according to their contributions to
the national economy. On the contrary, the welfare theories are founded on the
concept of redistribution of wealth which is a form of Robinhoodism, aimed at
persecuting the rich to please the poor for gubernatorial considerations. In
fact, it is nothing but Capitalistic Communism. This is a strange phrase. Allow
me to explain it:
Communism seeks to abolish the
institution of private property and claims that all national assets are held by
everybody in common. In fact, the theory of communal ownership is an illusion
because in a communist society nobody owns anything: everything belongs to the
state, though under the label of "People's Property". This type of
social system divides citizens into two groups: the powerful, and the powerless.
The first category commands all means of production including labour and thus
controls every movement of workers who are degraded to the status of a factor of
production .or being the supplier of labour. They carry the yoke of authority to
such an extent that they are not allowed to go abroad on holidays without state
permission and women may have to seek consent for having babies. Their wages are
arbitrarily fixed by the government, and the worker whose production is worth £50
may be paid only £10 thus, state usurping the ``surplus value" like a
capitalist. Worse still, money loses more or less all its value because a worker
is not allowed ownership of anything valuable such as a house or jewellery. Thus
his money cannot work for him and he practically becomes subject to 100~o
taxation. This is a symbol of slavery.
This brief description shows that a
modern communist regime reintroduces the old villeinage in the disguise of care,
compassion and welfare. The relationship between the powerful and powerless
turns out to be the same as between a rider and horse: the former commands and
the latter obeys.
Nature of welfare society
A welfare society, though run on
capitalistic lines, is no less extortionate and repressive than a committed
communist state. Why? Because it may raise taxes as high as 98%. The net result
is the same. People are allowed to earn as much as they like but they are not
permitted to keep any more than a communist state may allow. In a communist
country, people live in state houses, in a welfare society, half of them dwell
in council houses, and homes of the other half are mortgaged to banks and
building societies for lacking the means of buying them. A communist state
relies on the severity of its secret police but a welfare society depends upon
the excruciating skills of the tax-inspector whose money-extracting powers are
far greater and more effective than the Devil's art of mischief-making,
sin-creating and crime-disseminating. Brute force is the essence of a communist
society, whereas a capitalist society survives on hypocrisy. The former may
require a wrong-doer to face a firing squad but the latter exposes a taxpayer to
the rapacity of tax-gatherers who plunder him in the name of law and social
duty, and then leave him to die through chagrin, of his own free will! Again, a
communist land is usually run by one party and people are not allowed choice. On
the contrary, a capitalist state may offer a choice of several candidates
belonging to many political parties but their choice is deliberately confused by
the stunning party propaganda machine and people are made to vote as if they
were hypnotised.
A communist state owns all means of
production directly, but a welfare society which claims to be capitalistic owns
national means of production indirectly. How? Because through abject
taxation it takes away 98% of the share of national income and profits. In fact,
it does not concern itself with the headaches of keeping a cow; it simply claims
ownership of the milk. What an ingenious political philosophy it is! May be, now
it is clear what I mean by "Capitalistic Communism".
Even more exacerbating aspect of
the Capitalistic Communism, is its show of respectability It is as much based on
a dogma as is, say, Marxism. Its basis is the welfare principle which is
propounded through various jargons such as Ability-to-Pay or Least-Sacrifice
theory.
Ability-to-Pay
Ability-to-pay has some validity
during an emergency when everyone should do one's best to restore normal
conditions. Otherwise, it is an attempt to enforce brutality in the name of
beneficence, a ruse to practice cruelty in the disguise of compassion. It is
wrong to compel people to live at the apex of their ability as a rule of life.
Ease, leisure and relaxation constitute man's normal mode of living, whereas the
behaviour ``to be at best" though desirable, implies Psychological tension,
and even artifice. Let man be man under ordinary circumstances. If we do not
accept this proposition, then a worker is likely to be in greater trouble than a
capitalist because it means that we will have to devise a machine to assess the
productive ability of every worker for forcing him to yield his top performance
under all circumstances. It means that if he can weave two bolts of cloth a day
compared to the fellow-weaver who can produce only one bolt, he must do so
without expecting extra wage for the additional product because this is
the social interpretation of Ability-to-Pay or bear.
"Least-Sacrifice
theory"
Similarly, various kinds of
"sacrifice theories" are just intellectual exercises and carry no mark
of reality. Take for instance, the least sacrifice theory of A. C. Pigou, the
leading pupil of Alfred Marshall. For justifying progressive taxation, he
suggested:
1. Different people have about the
same level of satisfaction, that is, both A and B have similar appetities and
capacities of satisfaction. This hedonistic standard does not hold good when we
realise that one person may be happy to remain a soldier all his life whereas
another is not satisfied until he becomes a General or the Commander-in-Chief.
Does the same standard of satisfaction apply to a miser and a philanthropist, or
a virile person and a eunuch?
2. The more ingenious part of this
theory is based on the doctrine of Marginal Utility which states that the more
of a thing the less its satisfying power. More precisely, it means that every
additional unit of a commodity adds less and less to its satisfying power. After
the last satisfying unit which also happens to be the least satisfying, a
further addition in its quantity leads to disutility.
To explain this jargon, let me say
that I am thirsty. The first glass of milk shall have the most quenching power
compared to the second and third, and the fourth may cause disutility, that is,
act against its intended purpose of satisfying thirst and may harm me. From
this, it is argued that utility of money like the utility of, say, bread,
decreases with an increase in its supply. Since Marginal Utility refers to the
satisfying power of the last unit of consumption, i.e. the last morsel of food
in satisfying hunger, it is claimed that the utility of the last pound of a
millionaire is nil compared to the utility of the last pound of a labourer.
Therefore, robbing the rich is no robbery because it does not affect the utility
of their money and thus causes them little or no sacrifice; on the contrary, it
is socially held desirable because it increases the overall utility of the
community when the plundered wealth of the well-off is redistributed. Thus, they
believe that the last pound of an ordinary worker taken in taxation causes him a
good deal of sacrifice.
Analysis of marginal utility
In economics, utility means the
power of a thing to satisfy a want, irrespective of its usefulness or moral
desirability. Therefore, satisfying power of a commodity is associated more with
its multiety of uses than as a single commodity. Thus milk has much greater
utility than, say bread: one can turn milk into cream, butter, cheese, curd and
several other products. Its increased uses multiply its demand several times
over, augmenting its utility correspondingly. Thus, bread which has a
comparatively restricted use, is more subject to the law of Marginal Utility
than milk. On this principle, the satisfying power of money is unlimited owing
to its limitless uses - economic, political, social, religious, and so on. This
is the reason we do not meet a person who is ill because he has too much wealth.
In fact, the more money one possesses, the more one wants to have. Since it has
no disutility, it is not subject to the rule of Marginal Utility.
Again' the concept of Marginal
Utility is associated not only with its multiety of uses but also its
durability. Other things being equal, a strawberry has little utility compared
to a diamond because the former may last only a couple of days or a week but the
latter serves as a storehouse of value for ever. Thus, in terms of security and
value, contrary to the normal concept of Marginal Utility, its satisfying power
does not diminish but increases. One must realise that in terms of satisfaction'
possession of a diamond over a period of time is like consumption. Its utility
keeps increasing owing to its ever-soaring price. The satisfaction derived from
the possession of a diamond is eternal compared to the satisfaction derived from
the consumption of a strawberry which is ephemeral. Therefore, the theory of
Marginal Utility provides no justification for depriving the wealthy of their
wealth through a system of abject taxation, to make everybody equal.
Economics as a tool of taxation
I think that I have devoted
sufficient space to explain the significance of economic equality as compliance
to a divine command, as an ideological way of life, and as a welfare system.
Equality is sought through communal ownership of the means of production or the
redistribution of wealth. No matter, what method is used, the tool of execution
is always taxation - the abject taxation. Ordinarily, the purpose of production
is consumption which requires distribution. If distribution meant reward related
to effort, economics could be thought of as the science of producing utilities
(commodities) for satisfying needs, but distribution is used for political
motives which are realised through abject taxation. Since abject taxation is the
tool of dominance, economics begins to rank as an instrument of taxation. As
this is an extraordinary statement, I may explain it further with reference to
the role of taxation in modern economics.
Maybe the reader remembers, I
remarked that taxation is the greatest single source of evil; the feudal system
was invented to facilitate easy tax collection. Greek and Roman democracies
suffered demise owing to abject taxation; the Marxist system of Russia was held
together through an invisible method of 100~o taxation and the British lost
their glory through abject taxation. Why? Because dominance is the gubernatorial
dream which is realised through taxation. Since people do not like being
dominated, members of the gubernatorial class use taxation with such a refined
subtlety that it begins to look the most important prop of the society and thus
curse begins to appear as cure, beastliness puts on the mantle of beauty and
vice projects itself as virtue.
Now, let me state the role of
taxation in modern economics to justify the above remarks:
Economic activity is all about
making a living. However, some people make their living out of wages, some out
of profits and others out of rents or interest. Therefore, anything that may
raise the standard of living is loved by people; what particularly pleases them
is the increased liberty which automatically accompanies the material
amelioration. But this is something which is as annoying to the gubernator as
presence of a lamb is to a wolf or of a rat is to a cat. It is because less
liberty for people means more power for the gubernator. Therefore, he contrives
to regulate economic activity which is the jugular vein of every man, woman and
child. It is done through taxation but with extreme sophistication. The
gubernatorial ruse in this respect though completely dishonest, deserves
applause for its effectiveness: he turns democracy into taxocracy where people
are born as taxpayers, live as taxpayers and die as taxpayers; people are
legally presumed to be guilty of tax evasion and tax-gatherers are given
diabolical powers to treat them like dirt for maximising revenue but in the name
of law and duty. Yet through various ploys, people are encouraged to indulge in
economic activities without being allowed the reward of their risk and drudgery.
This most enigmatic operation is conducted through the mesmerising, alluring and
coaxing process of taxation, and it is all done in the name of social justice!
They clamour that liberty has no
meaning without economic equality. Therefore, in the name of social justice,
they want to make the unequal, equal without realising that it is foolish to
contradict the laws of nature which promote diversity and not uniformity. The
type of equality they demand is perversion of justice because it entails a good
deal of brute force to deflect things from their natural course. How do you make
a sparrow equal to an eagle? How can a monkey be given the status of man? How
can satan be treated as a saint? Is it justice to treat a traitor as a patriot
or a fool as a wiseman? Yet they have devised criteria of social justice in the
field of taxation:
Tax Classification
The first principle is the
"equity" test; it refers to impartiality of taxes in their
application, and therefore, means equal taxes on persons in like circumstances
and reasonably differentiated taxes on persons in unlike circumstances. To
achieve this end, people are converted into taxpayers who are made to wear the
straitjackets of classification according to wages, incomes, and gains for
assuring them impartial treatment. Effective rate structure is an example of
such classification: People may be subjected to progressive, proportional or
regressive taxation. This differentiation refers to the ratio of tax liability
to net income. Taxation is progressive when a person pays a greater percentage
as his income rises; it is proportional when tax rate is constant, and it is
regressive when percentage declines as income rises.
In fact, the concept of equity in
this context, as I have used all along, is coextensive with the economic
equality because modern taxes are designed to reduce economic inequalities.
Progressive taxation, thus, becomes the major tool for redistribution of wealth.
Karl Marx, Pigou and others have suggested this remedy for levelling down the
society. By such ruses, political rulers have transferred their burden of
financing the society to taxpayers. It is like a sea-captain expecting
passengers to steer the ship, a host expecting his guest to bring food for him
or a Nazi expecting a Jewish beauty queen to fall in love with him. Why? As I
will show in due course, it is the unalienable duty of the state to provide
finance from
its own sources for managing the
governmental affairs, otherwise it cannot protect and enhance the liberties of
the governed. Since taxation is as opposed to liberty as cold is to hot or
bright to bleak, a patriotic governor cannot spread the net of taxation around
people for his own convenience, under normal conditions. It is wrong that fiscal
policies should govern not only the income and expenditure of the state but also
manipulate the entire economy including savings, investments, trade, employment
and inflation. Under such circumstances, monetary mechanism plays a secondary
role to the fiscal policies which raise most of the revenue.
In a nutshell, economics is the
tool of taxation because even in a free economy, the state encourages people to
indulge in economic activity but deprives them of their material rewards through
taxation. Thus all economic theories and practices come to have only one
purpose, that is maximisation of taxation. Again, personal wealth is an
insurance of independence but through abject taxation people become dependent on
the state from education to health, and even sustenance. This is the true
gubernatorial aim, and is best achieved when people produce the most through
economic activity but keep the least through abject taxation.
Economics and Humanity
The subject of economics cannot be
understood properly unless examined in its broader human context. It is not just
study of man in relation to the comparatively scarce resources because resources
can be increased directly or indirectly to meet the human demands. Take land,
for example. Its supply has always been considered as fixed but its produce can
be increased considerably. A century or two ago, the world population stood at
about one billion but now it is touching the six billion mark, yet the cause of
famines is political and not lack of food supply.
Basis of Value
It certainly does not mean that
scarcity plays an unimportant part in fixing values. Unfortunately, its role has
been exaggerated because nothing has any value without reference to mankind. Is
gold or diamond worth anything without man? Do cake and pastry have any value to
the pigs? Does whisky or champagne mean anything to the fish? Even the light and
dark, sweet and bitter gain conceptual status in relation to man. Whatever is
there in the universe, is relevant to man who has needs which require to be
satisfied. If man has no needs, these things have no values. Thus, things
basically, have values in relation to man only and their magnitude rises and
falls according to the intensity of human needs which govern and may be governed
by the laws of supply and demand. Human need is the real creator of values and
the utility or satisfying power of commodities rank next to it. Even then
utility draws its legitimacy from needs because in the absence of needs
utilities serve no purpose.
Significance of Needs
Without needs, strange as it may
seem, man is not man, and the greater magnitude of needs gives man a
proportionately higher status as a being. This fact is well illustrated by the
technological progress which seeks to satisfy increased human needs: Since the
human race consists of billions of people, each having needs, there is naturally
going to be a struggle for acquiring things to satisfy individual needs, and
this struggle is not confined to scarcity; it relates both to the quantity and
quality of needs. Quantitatively, scarcity matters but qualitatively its
significance drops because satisfaction comes to be linked with a personas taste
which may be refined or vulgar, having an impact on production, and the way of
life.
Morality and Economics
Satisfaction of wants (needs) is
essential to human life but the method o, satisfying them is more vital to the
quality of human life. I can steal a loaf of bread to satisfy my hunger or I can
pay for it to avoid starvation. However, when I steal, it is wrong but when I
pay it is right. It means that method of satisfying a want has a direct bearing
on the magnitude of humanity. This concept of right and wrong or moral sense
which emanates from one's inner self, decides whether man is man or just the
higher form of animal. Since eternity is a concern of man, and not of animals,
morality is an integral part of economics though unfortunately, it has been
banished from its domain.
Free Economy, Law and
Institutions
The method of satisfying a want is
of paramount concern to the development of humanity. Primarily, it is a subject
of morality but even when it is divorced from the concept of economics, the free
economy cannot be run without the force of law and social institutions. The law
lays down what people can do legitimately by way of producing, trading, pricing,
storing, speculating, and so on. People are deterred from wrong-doing by the
fear of punishment. On the other hand, institutions grow up to protect certain
rights and duties peculiar to the spirit of the age. Feudalism is an example of
the past, and trade unionism is a significant instance of modern times. Both law
and institutions tend to be orthodox yet their reformatory and disciplinary
influence cannot be denied.
Laissez-faire
Free economy cannot be allowed to
deteriorate into laissez-faire which refers to the conditions where might
becomes right. it certainly needs some regulation by the government which has
the duty to look after the interest of all the people, and not of the business
community only. Whereas it guarantees that those who contribute the most, must
get the maximum rewards, it has also the duty to assure that the less fortunate
secure their human rights which essentially depend upon the fulfillment of the
basic needs. When I steal a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger, I commit an offence
which equally involves the society. Why? Because bread is the basic human need.
Since society is the extension of ego (individuality), it must provide for the
basic needs of its members though satisfaction of higher needs is an
individual's own responsibility. Why?
Provision of basic sustenance is
the law of nature in relation to living beings. Visualise the primitive man when
agriculture did not exist. All his basic needs, necessary to support life, were
provided by nature. Look at the human baby which is totally helpless at birth;
all its basic needs are provided by the parents. Every egg contains nourishment
for the survival of its offspring, and this fact equally applies at cellular
level of existence. It hardly needs mentioning that air, cater, sunshine etc.,
the basic ingredients of life, are free gifts of nature. Even the basic steps of
human progress are dependent upon the hidden treasures of nature such as coal,
oil, iron (ore) etc. These free gifts of nature form the basic part of economic
values but are always discounted. Before I continue this discussion, I ought to
explain what value is.
Concept of Value
Value is one of the greatest words
in economics. It refers to the power of exchange that one commodity has for
another. Price indicates the value in exchange as measured in terms of money.
Value guides the producer to adjust his supply to demand as expressed by the
level of prices; it also guides the consumer because a low value encourages
consumption and a high value depresses it. Even distribution is affected by
value though its role is said to be less satisfactory in determining the shares
of wages, profits, interest and rent.
Unearned basic reward
A productive process involves
services of the factors of production and each factor requires a reward for the
services rendered: labour must get wages, land is entitled to rent,
capital needs interest and enterprise demands profit. Whenever, we do something
we usually say: "Is it worth it?", thus meaning if the result is worth
the effort or risk. Value is another description of worth. Under conditions of
perfect competition, each factor will be rewarded according to its contribution.
Here we are talking about individual reward as applicable to a factor of
production; and we do not consider the unearned basic reward which each factor
of production gets but seldom enters valuation. To explain this point, I may
refer to my cotton shirt which I am wearing. A tiller somewhere ploughed the
land which is a gift of nature; its growing power is also a gift of nature, and
so is the supply of sunshine and moisture. Without these natural gifts, the
farmer will not dream of ploughing the piece of land and sowing the cotton
seeds. Of course, he works jolly hard and deserves a fair reward for himself but
he is certainly not exclusively entitled to that portion of reward which accrues
to him as a natural gift.
Though he may own the land which is
an accident, he has not created it. The land being a natural gift, belongs to
everybody. Therefore, he owes a part of his reward to the community after
receiving a fair value for his labour and other factors (assuming he is the
owner who also supplies the capital and enterprise). Thus, the true individual
value, that is, the value of each factor of production is the total value of the
product minus the value of the gifts of nature (sunshine, moisture etc.). Since
the value of the gifts of nature belongs to the community, I may refer to it as
the Communal Value.
What I have said above is not a
fairy tale. Just imagine that the land that the farmer tilled was barren. All
factors of production despite their best endeavours would have received no value
in return. He would have to build a greenhouse to create the climatic effect
which the nature had done for him free of charge This should illustrate the
value of natural gifts.
Division of labour
I am afraid that the story of my
cotton shirt is not confined to agriculture but extends to the industrial world
and beyond; the shirt I am wearing is the result of what is called division of
labour. The cotton that the farmer grew passed through many operations such as
ginning, weaving, dyeing, tailoring, retailing - not to speak of transportation
and the ingenuity involved in inventing and running the modes of transportation.
It simply shows that no one person
can create all utilities, that is, produce all the goods he needs. Assuming that
there were one or two persons in every 100 who could do so, what would happen to
the rest? Their way of living would be hardly any better than those of monkeys
and apes. Even those one or two per cent could perish owing to the most hateful
jealousy of their fellow-beings.
Economic interdependence
Obviously, the division of labour
is less an industrial contrivance and more a symbol of interdependence. This
interdependence which is an individual's weakness, forms not only the communal
strength but also serves as the fountain of civilisation by welding all humans
into a variegated whole. In economic terms, the interdependence creates values
which are way above the capacity of isolated individual efforts. Since
interdependence is the source of specialization, leading to the creation of
extra wealth, which carries an element of communal value owing to its social
nature, the community has a right to share in it.
This right springs from the fact
that interdependence is a natural phenomenon like air and sunlight. This rule of
valuation is compatible with the assumption that "provision of basic
sustenance is the law of nature in relation to living things".
Status of worker
An entrepreneur plays the leading
role in a process of production. He is the leader; labour, land and capital are
the led. Therefore, he is entitled to the profit or the lion's share of the
product. Without his ability to take risk, and organizational skill, the other
agents of production are likely to remain unemployed, and unvalued. Once he has
paid a fair share to the other factors he is legitimately entitled to keep the
rest and enjoy its fruit. However, though industrially, he is the prime factor,
socially, he is not. It is the labour or worker who commands this dignity. Why?
Worker, the entrepreneur
There are two reasons for it.
Firstly, humanity, at least 85% of it is composed of workers - the people who
live off the value of physical labour. Thus welfare of the wage-earners, ranks
the highest in the social hierarchy without despising and robbing the rich. Is
it really possible? Of course, it is. We can do so by making everybody well-off.
How? The answer to this question forms the part of the second reason. Simply
stated, it means raising the status of a worker to that of an entrepreneur, so
that in addition to wages, he can also have the reward which is due to
enterprise. It involves no violence or class struggle. In fact, it is a part of
the harmony that is the precondition of eternity. We can achieve these
conditions on the sound economic rule of competition. Allow me to develop this
theme:
Wage, unless related to
productivity, is a symbol of either repression or robbery: when an employer pays
a pittance to the worker instead of what he has earned, it is repression and
when workers gang up against the employer for an excessive wage without regard
to their productivity, it is robbery. This strife is the source of evil and
leads to the lopsided development of personality whereas eternity demands
harmonious evolution of one's potentialities.
Economics, morality and
after-life
The fact that eternity depends upon
one's character, and not grace or intercession, makes economics the most
relevant and significant subject in this context; it is because man is an
organism operated by needs, and economics concerns itself with satisfying them.
This is the reason that economics has ranked as material religion of mankind
throughout history. Not only various forms of communism have been respected and
defended by their followers with utmost vigour but the attraction of the
revealed religions such as Christianity and Islam has also been sustained by
their economic interpretations, especially, the concept of heaven where nobody
suffers pangs of poverty, and lives a life of extreme material luxury.
Man's material well-being exerts a
major influence on his moral integrity. A reasonably well-off person neither
needs stealing a loaf of bread to satisfy hunger nor is he liable to suffer pain
of disease for lacking the means of securing remedy. Once a person is able to
meet his basic material needs, he is in a position to indulge himself in moral
and spiritual pursuits. This is the reason that law of nature seeks to provide
free basic sustenance. It is a matter of common observation that the materially
better off nations are godly despite being atheistic but materially worse off
nations are profane despite their high-sounding slogans of divine love. The
reason for such attitudes is simple: the poor have just enough time to struggle
for a wage to fill their bellies; they do not have time to devote themselves to
the Lord practically; all their devotion is verbal, and that is only in return
for the Supposed promise of an economically trouble-free place called
"paradise" after this life.
Definition of economics
In view of these facts, I am
inclined to define economics as the science of improving manes material welfare
in relation to the available resources, without adversely affecting human
liberties.
I have already stated that all
factors of production are entitled to a fair return for the services rendered
and nobody's reward, including that of the entrepreneur, can be restricted out
of jealousy or other malevolent reasons. I do not have sufficient space at my
disposal to discuss values associated with the roles of all the agents of
production except labour. After all, this book is about eternity and does not
deal with economics exclusively.
Communal value
This is the law of nature that
basic sustenance shall be provided free to all living beings, and it is for this
reason that every individual value (return in exchange for the services
rendered) carries a concealed element of communal value emanating from the free
gifts of nature. The communal value equally arises as an obligation to the
community in return for the benefits that an individual naturally receives for
being a member of the society. Therefore, a worker has a duty of goodwill
towards his fellow-workers, and this is what forms the basis of workers
brotherhood. However, a golden theory is not sufficient to discharge fraternal
obligations. It is possible only when a worker gets a full wage for his effort.
A half-starved worker can only contribute misery to his fellow-workers, no
matter how much he cares about them. This gives special significance to:
a. the concept of wage, and
b. labour organisation
Fair wage
a. Economists have advanced many
theories of wages such as Subsistence Theory, Wages Fund Theory, Residual
Claimant Theory, Marginal Productivity Theory etc. to tackle the issue of wages.
However, the real question is the nature of wages. What is a wage?
Wage is the reward for labour that
a worker puts into a unit of production. Of course, its efficiency can be
improved or reduced by various factors such as type of machinery or automated
methods of production. In other words, the same amount of labour can produce
more or less according to the working conditions and may attract proportionately
higher or lower reward for the same amount of effort. Assuming conditions of
perfect competition, one may say that a worker has received the due wage, taking
all relevant factors into consideration. Has he, really?
A worker's body (including brain)
is the fountain of his labour, but human body, like any other mechanical body
such as a machine, depreciates as it operates. To make sure that it can be
replaced when it is no longer capable of making an economic contribution, the
entrepreneur creates a depreciation fund corresponding to the useful life span
of the machine, usually a period of five years. Thus through amortisation he
replaces the worn out assets.
Emaciation Factor
Man is also subject to wear and
tear, and I may call it Emaciation Factor which has not been acknowledged
sufficiently. Of course, the ageing process cannot be reversed but inclemencies
of old age can be softened. It is true that some workers are given pensions at
the end of their service but their pensions are contributory
Again. when such rewards are
claimed to be non-contributory, the payments are actually parts of wages which
have been cleverly reduced, and are released gradually over a long period of
time. These remarks equally apply to the provident funds and gratuities. Take
for Instance, state pensions which are cited as an emblem of the welfare state.
They all are paid for by the workers themselves, and employers' contributions
are essentially part of the reduced wages which should have been paid in the
first place. The state bathes in the fake glory of "welfare" because
it does not pay a shilling towards the whole process of care and compassion. It
plays the predatory role of Robin Hood in the disguise of redistributing wealth
whereas, in fact, it is an attempt to gratify the gubernatorial instincts of
sadistic pleasures.
Emaciation Factor refers to that
part of wage which is over and above the actual wage and is payable on account
of gradual emaciation of the worker. A peculiarity of the Emaciation Factor is,
that it is beyond the realm of negotiations, normally conducted for firing wages
and salaries. Wage
negotiations always carry an element of repression or robbery depending upon the
relative negotiating strength of employers and workers. Emaciation Factor is a
purely human problem in relation to economic needs and should be recognised and
tackled as such.
Having said that, now I may refer
back to the already discussed communal value which accrues from free natural
gifts. Since they are a contribution by nature for the benefit of the masses, an
entrepreneur has no right to pocket them. Workers must legitimately demand and
get them. Now, we realise that a worker is entitled to two sets of payment which
he has always been denied, namely:
1. payment for the natural gifts,
and
2. recompense for the Emaciation
Factor.
Since they both are out of the
domain of wages, they must have a natural claim on dividends which represent the
result of the combined effort of the agents of production Now, the question is,
how to determine the share of a worker in the dividends to satisfy his claim on
these two counts. One can think of several bases of computation but they all
will be a matter of opinion. I may, therefore, estimate them subjectively, and
say 5% on each count, that is, 10~o of the net dividend. The aggregate of
normal wage and 10% of the dividend is what I call a Fair Wage. This should
also be beneficial to the employer whose investments and profits will be
protected and augmented by the self-interests of the workers.
Trade Unions
b. Yet Fair Wage is not the full
wage. This fact prompts me to touch upon the second part of this discussion i.e.
labour organization, by which I mean the role of the trade unions in marshalling
the labour and its aims. A trade union is both a saviour and a savage; its
beneficence or malignance depends upon its goals and the way it achieves them.
Tolpuddle Martyrs
On the credit side, the trade union
movement has nearly wiped out the traces of slavery which lingered on by way of
discrimination based on income, property, social status and ancestry. It has
helped to restore human dignity by widening franchise, enhancing scope of
education, skill and liberties. Though its stupendous accomplishment has been
the consciousness of universal brotherhood - raising standards of earnings and
improving working conditions have been no mean achievements. The free, fierce
and fabulous spirit of the Tolpuddle Martyrs who defied suppressors of the
labour movement ranks as the industrial inspiration which has deflated
oppression and elevated the cause of workers' rights since 1834. The English can
be duly proud of those six Dorsetshire Labourers who set an example which was
admirably followed throughout the world.
On the debit side, the Unions'
hatred of the capitalist transported them from the land of reality to the realm
of fantasy. In Russia, as capitalism collapsed the unions transformed themselves
into "production agents", and thus became the instruments of economic
administration without playing any important role in determining wages and
working conditions. Their mania for dictatorship of the proletariats made them
oblivious of their commitment to human rights and the entire working population
of the Soviet Union fell victim to dictatorship of the KGB (state police).
As I shall explain shortly, the
true aim of a trade union is to raise the status of all its members to that of a
capitalist by making them rich and libertarian, and not communists by
brain-washing them with the meanest human vice called 'jealousy', which seeks to
bring down the highest to the lowest level without ever elevating the lowest to
the highest point. As England was the fountain of the Industrial Revolution, the
British trade union movement can legitimately claim to be the mother of the
Trade Unionism. The medieval craft guilds have only a faint resemblance with the
trade union movement, which is committed to improving the lot of its members not
only materially but also culturally and socially under the banner of
international brotherhood; the former were composed of master craftsmen who also
happened to be capitalists and employers.
The British trade unions though
deserve the honour of releasing British workers from the slavish conditions of
the 19th Century, they equally deserve the infamy of converting this country
from a world power into an insular island. Despite the fact that the union
leaders have always enjoyed high salaries and prestigious conditions of living
compared to those of their members, they have professed to be the champions of
equality which they have tried to enforce with the double-edged sword of union
power:
1. They have made indiscreet use of
the legitimate industrial weapon called "strike" to extract the last
penny out of their employers, thus, making industrial enterprise a rewardless
venture which became the main source of disinvestment.
2. Worse still, they played into
the hands of tax-gatherers. Their egalitarian zeal provoked them to raise Income
Tax to 98°70 through political action. This tax was in addition to many other
destructive taxes such as sales tax, inheritance tax and so on.
Soul Tax
The British trade unionist even
surpassed the Russian Tsar Peter I who invented Soul Tax by creating artificial
households to prevent tax evasion. The Soul Tax corresponded to a male peasant
of working age thus reducing him to an item on the tax roll. Its management and
collection was entrusted to the lords who actually treated them like serfs.
Strange as it may seem, the Russians precipitated serfdom in the 17th Century
when other European nations were struggling for individual freedom. Through his
power of tax-collection, the lord became the agent of the state, and the worker
lost his human dignity and ranked as the lordly chattel.
Invisible Tax
At the insistence of the trade
unions or labour movement, as abject taxation reached its apex, the art of
tax-collection rocketed in esteem. Politicians, legislators and judges all
ganged up against the affluent to make laws which treated taxpayers as born
crooks, swindlers and cheats who could be held guilty of tax-evasion by mere
presumption of guilt. This encouraged the tax-gatherers to invent the Invisible
Tax commonly known as Back Duty. It is supposed to be the amount of tax which
should have been paid in the past but was evaded. In fact, it is a figment of
the tax-gatherers imagination. He has found methods of raising spurious
assessments to collect extra revenue for the state and also advance his own
cause. Even in genuine cases of tax-evasion, the evader's tax bill is inflated
out of proportion by subtle methods of counting two and two as twenty two. In my
book "Taxation and Liberty", I calculated that the British
tax-gatherers had murdered one million taxpayers since the Second World War, for
collecting back duty but so great is the reverence for this Invisible Tax that
nobody has taken any notice of it!
Fallacy of unions
Where have the unions gone wrong?
They have blundered in adopting
capital-bashing as the goal of their movement and thus fallen victims to a
perpetual class-war under the influence of Marxism. Yet they claim to believe in
the unity and brotherhood of mankind! What is wrong with capitalism? Don't we
all want to be rich? Is there anyone who wants his children to suffer the pangs
of penury? Again, it is quite wrong to equate a capitalist with an extortionist.
He is someone who is materially resourceful, industrially and commercially
adroit, adventurous and activating. These qualities in themselves are adorable,
and not deplorable. It is laissez-faire which stigmatises the virtues of
capitalism and thus requires reformation and not elimination. Replacing
capitalism with antilibertarian ideologies is the greatest human folly, and
transferring it from individuals to the state for creating dictatorship of
proleteriats' is the most serious crime against mankind; the sudden collapse of
the communist regimes in eastern Europe is a congent proof of this fact: a
worker needs affluence with freedom; he does not want to be a well-fed dog with
a diamond carcanet around his neck. The only way to achieve this goal is by
making him a capitalist. Since a labourer, usually, does not have the ability to
realise this aim single-handed, it is the foremost duty of a trade union to seek
fulfillment of this dream through its collective strength and organizational
power.
Full Wage
With this background, I am now in a
position to explain the concept of Full Wage, the final goal of the labour
movement.
Difference between Fair Wage and
Full Wage
Wage is a barter for a labourer's
working ability. When it is paid, taking account of his productivity plus
communal value, that is, compensation for the natural element and the Emaciation
Factor, it is a fair wage. By doing so the entrepreneur has discharged his
obligation to the worker but the trade union leadership has not. Why? Because
irrespective of the wage level, a worker is subject to emaciation and the older
he gets the less secure he becomes owing to his impaired working ability. As a
labourer, he lives day to day and cannot save to secure his future against the
hazards of old age. It is not that he is stupid; it is because being a labourer
he is easy-going and lives in the present. This is his psychology, the essential
ingredient of his nature. Yet he needs greater security as the stallion of life
gallops on. It is the function of the trade unions to provide this security
which is a part of their professed responsibility of improving the earning
standards and working conditions of their members. This security can be made
available by the provision of productive assets only, and this is not possible
unless unions are prepared to adopt a capitalistic role. Thus difference
between Fair Wage and Full Wage is represented by lack of the financial
contribution towards its members that a trade union would have made were it an
entrepreneurial organization. Until such time that trade unions start owning
means of production to adopt the entrepreneurial role which gives them a
legitimate right to appropriate all profits for the benefit of their members,
they cannot provide the security which is more important to a worker than his
weekly wage irrespective of its size. As this security is synonymous with the
financial contribution emanating from the entrepreneurial role of unions, their
claim of stewardship depends upon the provision of this security. Non-provision
of this security means that they have not acted to the best of their ability. It
is especially true because a trade union leader is capable of running an
enterprise as efficiently as a capitalist. The mere fact that he is the chosen
head of a body of workers, shows that he has the qualities of leadership. As a
member of the union, he is trusted and respected by his fellow-members and thus
likely to be more effective as a business manager. With funds of the union
behind him and a greater guarantee of repayment - springing from the regular
contributions of the members, he is in a position to raise business finance more
easily than an ordinary businessman who is about to start an industrial or
commercial venture. However, if a union leader does not have the business acumen
himself, the union can hire professional managers like any enterprise.
It is wrong to rob others.
Bargaining power has the same value to a union leader as talons have to a
falcon, a beak to a vulture or paws to a wolf. Being the head of a workers'
organization, a union leader is expected to be rational, cultured and prudent,
but in practice he is as much a predator as a robber or a wolf because instead
of running his union on the principle of a productive concern, he waits for the
employer or entrepreneur to make a profit and then snatches it with the brute
force of restrictive practices and industrial strikes. It is like stealing
someone else's milk rather than keeping one's own cow. It does not mean that
strikes or restrictive practices are illegitimate tools of the union; they are
undesirable and should be used in the last resort only.
Function of unions
A worker is entitled to a full wage
and the function of unions is to realise this ideal How can this be done?
1. To start with, the
entrepreneurial goal must be the stated aim of a union.
2. Secondly, the law of the land
must lay down that the entire union property belongs to its members according to
their individual contributions. Again, the rights and obligations of worker to
worker, worker to union and union to worker, must be distinctly stated.
a. When a worker leaves his
employment, the union must be legally bound to purchase his shares from him. If
he wants to join another firm or factory, he must be required to buy a certain
number of shares with cash or on credit.
3. The rights and obligations of
workers to unions and unions to workers must be clearly stated. It means that
the democratic decisions of the workers are binding on the union. It also
implies that the verdicts of the union-executive are binding on the workers
unless there is a written procedure which allows the workers to override the
decisions of their leaders.
4. The mutual rights and
obligations of the unions and employers must be laid down distinctly, and each
side must be legally responsible for its actions.
a. There must be a conciliatory
machinery to solve industrial disputes. Arbitration should be carried out by
outsiders and ought to be binding on all parties.
5. Obviously, a union enterprise
cannot be set up like an ordinary concern. Its members will have to buy the
shares of the existing factory or firm for which they work. They must have the
legal right to buy a controlling share in the concern. However, the small
employers must be immune to compulsory take-over bids by the workers. An
employer, for example, must employ, say, one hundred workers before they are
entitled to make a bid for the business.
a. Ideally, the State must
contribute to the union purchases over a period of time, that is, the State
contributing pound for pound or in some other ratio for a limited period, and
once the union has built up a certain stake, say 25°70, the workers providing
the further finance themselves exclusively.
b. Unions can borrow from banks
like any businessman, each worker paying his share of the debt.
There are many other ways of
financing business projects. In this context, however' what is more important is
the considerably widened scope of unions.
6 The main purpose of a union is to
minimise fears of insecurity arising from unemployment' sickness and death, and
to maximise the benefits of economic security by way of providing education,
training and creative facilities. It means that the unions must build hospitals,
schools, colleges, universities, technical stitutes, gymnasia and all those
"goodies" which they expect from the taxpayer.
a. It is the responsibility of the
unions to secure conditions of full employment help their members with housing,
pay unemployment and sickness benefits and offer them life-pensions on
retirement.
b. Of course, small unions may not
be able to carry out these obligations on their own. They should have working
arrangements with other unions at district, provincial and national levels.
Again, it may not be possible for some unions to be entrepreneurial. They can
serve their members by securing fair wage for them, and laying brotherly claims
on their more successful cousins. What is this brotherly claim? It is none other
than the communal value which accrues to a worker from "natural gifts"
and "Emaciation factor". It's lowest value is 10%. The successful
entrepreneurial unions must pay 10010 of their net profit to their less
fortunate bretheren as a symbol of brotherly love to reduce hardship.
Private entrepreneur.
I must state here that I do not
preach the doctrine of abolishing individual enterprise in any legitimate form.
No matter how strong the unions entrepreneurial success, there will always be
non-union enterprises which the unions must respect as lawful competitors.
Polarity is the law of nature; without it, organisation is bound to suffer
deterioration, but the polarity must be genuine, that is constructive, and not
destructive.
Farming cooperatives
7. However, treatment of land ought
to differ from an industrial concern because land is the gift of nature. Its
private ownership creates dreadful problems of social discrimination and
injustice. Again, through inheritance, it fragments into small holdings which
become economically disasterous. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh furnish good
examples of this fact.
By land, I mean the agricultural
land only and not industrial, commercial or housing land. It must belong to the
community but under the custodianship of the state which must lease it to the
farming cooperatives at nominal rents. All plant, machinery, stock, buildings
etc. belong to the members of the cooperative individually and collectively. The
cooperatives must be given legal security of tenure and must be constitutionally
protected from the corruptive influence and bullying attitudes of the state of
finials. The cooperatives must rank as farming unions with similar functions as
industrial unions. Ecological conditions may demand the nationalization of land
on environmental grounds before long.
Previously, I stated that unions
have played an effective role in abolishing the servile conditions of the 19th
Century. On the other hand, the blame for creating modern totalitarian states
such as the Russian and Chinese which reduce citizens to the life of serfs, also
fall upon them. This happened because they played into the hands of the
politicians by becoming their economic instrument: once a union assumes the
status of an economic unit in its own right with major responsibilities towards
its members, it is likely to resist political pressures, and maintain its
members' standards of living and liberties. One must remember at all times that
it is possible only when a union can guarantee Full Wage to its members by
acting as an enterprising concern. That is, it keeps the profits of its labour
through its Own enterprise, and not by robbing the other entrepreneurs.
Trade union as a political
blessing
I am not an advocate of anarchy,
yet I believe that power belongs to the people who delegate it to their
political representatives. Since nobody wants to be ruled like a slave, people
transfer just enough power to their elected rulers according to the already
stated principle: "Marginal Utility of People's Power". However, a
politician loves power a hundred times more than Romeo loved Juliet but he will
not die for Juliet; he will kill her a hundred times to gain power. With this
mania goes his superb ingenuity of administering poison as panacea, and vice
versa. Equipped with a miraculous smile which seals the lips of every
complainant, he has the power to make people feel certain when they must be
dubious and feel mirthful when they ought to be miserable. Of course, a good
politician is a god but godly politicians are rare. Most of them are predators
of layman's liberties because less power for people means more power for the
politicians. Since unions are responsible for the welfare of their members who
are lay people, it is the fundamental duty of unions to act as breakwaters
against the unruly waves of the politician's ambitions. In this context, a trade
union ranks as the most reverential institution of the society because it plays
the role of pluralism, that is, it clips the wings of the state eagle which
restlessly soars higher and higher to reach the pinnacle of absolute power. Thus
unions' entrepreneurial role provides security to the whole society by economic
and administrative decentralization.
Honouring a union leader
This is, indeed, a great social
achievement which makes a union leader the focal point of reverence and entitles
him to a salary and honours commensurate with his great office; a union leader
having a following of, say, one million members surely deserves a salary of one
million pounds (sterling) per annum. Is an annual contribution of £1 per head
really a big burden to carry? At retirement, he should be given a title by the
state to acknowledge his value and services to the community, and the union must
offer him a good pension.
Redistribution of wealth
The state gains absolute power
through its multeity of functions. That is, the greater responsibility it
assumes, the more power it wants. Redistribution of wealth serves as its major
and effective weapon. If the string of its duties stretches from birth to
burial, it secures the commanding position to claim all or most of the national
wealth. But when unions take over the function of looking after their members'
then they need all their money, and the state cannot argue for redistributing
wealth which is the most evil gubernatorial mechanism of transferring power from
people to rulers. In fact, it is the principle of redistribution which turns
economics into the maid of taxation.
Who should pay taxes?
I have already stated that it is
not for people to pay taxes to the state; it is for the state to pay taxes to
the people. Stated more simply, it means that under normal circumstances the
state must find all its finance through its own efforts to run the business of
government as well as meeting its obligations to the people Since this is an
unusual statement, the reader is entitled to an explanation:
Grants and aids
What I have just said is compatible
with history. At least, in the European countries, rulers used to appeal to
their subjects for financial help in times of social and political emergencies.
Response of the ruled when materlalised, was called "grant" or
"aid". It shows two things:
a. Tax was, originally, payable in
a national emergency only, and
b. it was not a command of the
ruler to the ruled but an appeal for a favour.
Taxocracy and Taxicution
However modern taxation has assumed
an entirely different role; it has become an imposition; taxes are collected
under the threat of penalty and imprisonment without promise of any return
performance by the state. This increased authority of tax-collection has
corrupted the minds of the rulers and their agents; this fact is fully expressed
by the laws of taxation and the way they are enforced under the label of duty
and justice. The modern democracy has degenerated into a taxocracy where people
are born as taxpayers, live as taxpayers and die as taxpayers, and the act of
tax-gathering has become synonymous with taxicution, that is, the art of
murdering lawfully and subtly those taxpayers who are not prepared to be robbed
by the state-gangsters known as tax-inspectors. This is what turns a government
into a Mafia organization. Having enumerated its evil methods and misdeeds in
"Taxation and Liberty", I need not dwell on the satanic aspect of
taxation here.
Paternal role of rulers
Throughout human history, the role
of the ruler has always been held as paternal by the people. It means that the
subjects expected fatherly care of their suzerain and wanted to be treated with
affection and dignity. The concept of paternity touched its apex when people
thought of their king as a god with divine powers. They bestowed this most
reverential dignity on him in the strict belief that he would lead them to
heaven where fear of hunger, disease and death did not exist.
Altruism
This concept of paternity is quite
compatible with the birth of a human baby; it arrives into the world totally
helpless; it neither possesses the sources of subsistence nor the ability
to use them. It is always for the parents to struggle - and struggle hard to
provide their baby with the best, even at the point of giving up their own
comforts. Biologists have noted this point and they call it ``Altruism"
which forms the foundation stone of humanity. Altruism is even more needed in
the relationship of the ruler and the ruled. It is evident that the relationship
between the ruler and the ruled as a tax-gatherer and taxpayer is unnatural and
the most sordid. Thus a government has no right to levy taxes on its subjects
under normal conditions; its legitimacy is governed by special or exceptional
circumstances only.
Abolition of taxation
Lovers of taxation have advanced a
hundred-and-one reasons for taxation. The roost important is: how will
government meet its social and administrative Obligations without tax revenue?
The nature of this argument is
puerile. Of course, government like everybody else, must have money to run its
affairs, but why does it have to come from taxation? Everybody else earns his
keep, and so should the state In fact, it is in a better position to do so but
it does not, because governing is the greatest source of enjoyment when it is
synonymous with commanding, when it becomes a laborious and tedious task, it
loses its delights which emanate from turning, twisting and torturing others.
Sadistic pleasure, which is another description of such delights, is an integral
part of the gubernatorial authority and rests mainly on abject taxation and the
most sordid methods of collection. Until such time that abject taxation such as
Income Tax and Value Added Tax, are abolished government will continue to be
more a tool of vice and less an instrument of virtue because freedom from
financial worries gives people at the helm of the state too much time to devise
and pursue schemes of self-aggrandisement and sadistic pleasures. Thus virtuous
government is not possible without a keen will and the ability to earn money for
financing itself. How can it be done? I made detailed suggestions in
"Taxation and Liberty" to this effect but they were in the British
context. Though they are equally applicable to all cultures, I may endeavour to
say just a word or two about them:
1. First of all, the state must be
governed by a written constitution which must lay down categorically, that
taxation is unlawful except in an emergency.
2. When abnormal conditions
prevail, their probable duration must be estimated and declared in no uncertain
terms. For example, Income Tax was introduced in England during 1799 as a
temporary War Tax to fight Napoleon. Now, after two centuries, it is still
prevalent in Britain yet the tax-collector is audacious enough to call it an
annual tax! It is automatically renewed every year. What an ingenuity it is!
VAT
Even indirect taxation is a source
of evil in a virtuous society because it produces similar servile conditions as
the direct taxation. Take Value Added Tax, for example. It was introduced in
Britain on the pretext of simplicity. The fact is that it is not only complex
but also an ambassador of slavery. Let me state the corruptive and tyrannical
effect of taxation with reference to England:
Trimoda Necessita
In old England, there prevailed the
custom of Trimoda Necessita which consisted of three compulsory services; one of
them was bridge-building. As time went by rulers used this custom as the law to
force all able-bodied people for rendering ree services to the King. As a result
of the armed revolt in 1215, King John Conceded in clause 23 of the Magna Carta:
'No vill or individual shall be
compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old are
legally bound to do so".
In modern times "who from of
old are legally bound to do so" must mean "who are paid to do so"
yet every businessman in Britain is compulsorily required to collect Value Added
Tax free of charge whether he likes it or not. This is certainly the resurgence
of old serfdom but in the name of public duty. VAT in Britian is an
unconstitutional tax, yet people pay it to save their skins.
Magna Carta and Amercements
In a taxocracy i.e. the tax-ridden
society where taxation sounds the most sacred word, taxes may not be imposed or
demanded openly yet they are collected stealthily by the gubernatorial authority
of the law and tax-collector. Previously, I mentioned Back Duty or the Invisible
Tax. It is amazing how it is demanded and exaggerated through a string of penal
devices beyond the imagination of Lucifer. The Magna Carta in clause 20, says:
"A free man shall not be
amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the
offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its
gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving
his stock-in-trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way saving his
means of livelihood .. and none of aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except
by the oath of good men of neighbourhood".
This law is ridiculed with such an
impunity in Britain that the law itself has become the major source of crime
(and sin) through what is called "In-depth Investigation".
3. Even in an emergency, the
government in its capacity as the executive, must have no power to levy taxes on
people without the consent of the Second Chamber. Such a chamber introduces
polarity in the system of government and ensures that power does not contract
into one organ of the state. The constitution of the United States provides a
fine example of this fact: the President i.e. the Executive has no power to levy
taxes directly. The executive power is counterbalanced by the authority of the
Congress which is further split into Senate and House of Representatives.
4. Taxation has a temporary
validity under exceptional circumstances only. The tax-suggestions that I
made in "Taxation and Liberty" formed part of an emergency but the
message was misunderstood. I stand for the complete abolition of abject
taxation such as Income Tax and VAT. However, as we live in a practical world,
one has to realise that there may be room for indirect taxation depending upon
the social and economic conditions of a society but even then it will be
accepted as a necessary evil and the incidence of its mischief shall be
controlled constitutionally with great vigour. Its rate cannot be more than 10%
and must be collected at the point of sale and not as VAT. The good government
is the one which lives of its own without imposing any taxes at all. The more
a government relies on taxation, the more evil it becomes.
5. There is a pithy English maxim:
"penny saved is penny earned''. To be able to conduct itself responsibly,
the state must trim its expenditure. For example, offering sound education free
of charge, is a duty of the state but giving grants for board and lodge is not.
The state must reduce its functions and enable people to look after themselves;
it is only the sick, the old and the needy who should form the focus of its care
and compassion. Once the union entrepreneurial culture is established, the bulk
of the state-responsibility is taken over by the workers themselves.
a. Most of the money comes from
trade, industry and the like. The state must undertake commercial enterprise
like all other business concerns to make profit but its enterprise must be
limited - say, no greater than one-third of the total national economy, and must
be controlled constitutionally. Any appreciable increase in the state share of
the economic activity is likely to lead to totalitarianism.
One can say "why one-third,
and why not half?" It is only a convenient guess work; 50% state ownership
seems too high for the comfort of the libertarian. Once workers have accepted
the responsibility of self-care, limited enterprise on the suggested lines must
produce abundant revenue to manage the state affairs and its welfare obligations
to the people.
It can be said that as an efficient
business seeks to expand, it means that stateenterprise should also be allowed
to multiply itself. No, this is not what I have in my mind. The lay-bodies
constitutionally set up for assessing the size of the state-enterprise, must
force the state to sell its extra assets to individuals or corporate bodies. The
state must give a part of the sale proceeds to its workers as shares in its
undertakings, as well as grants to workers in the union-enterprises, and spend
the rest on general welfare of the people. Such periodic sales of the extra
state assets will enable the state to keep expanding without transgressing its
allotted boundaries.
Yet there is another difficulty in
assessing the share of the state-enterprise i.e. how to determine when the exact
limit has been reached. It may be calculated with reference to its contribution
to the gross national product, its absorption of investment resources or the
productive employment it has engendered.
Since the state is deemed to act in
the public interest, it has the right to choose certain industries exclusively
on the grounds of profitability, social care, national interest and even
convenience. However, exclusiveness does not imply monopoly profits:
state-enterprise shall be subjected to the same standards of efficiency as
applicable to private concerns, and such tests shall be carried out by people's
representatives especially elected for this purpose. The state-industries shall
enjoy neither legal immunities nor any preferential status compared to private
enterprise.
Chief obligation of the state
Finally, why should state finance
its governmental affairs from its own economic effort?
The answer lies in the fact that
liberty is the most sacred and the most precious thing of all. When people
accept the governmental yoke of authority, they lose a part of their
independence in return for something. What is this "something"? This
"something" is relief from fear of injustice, fear of hunger, fear of
disease fear of ignorance and fear of old age. People want the state to
alleviate these fears and provide them with security. This is the noblest task
for the state to accomplish, but cannot be done without sincerity. The
government which solves this problem through progressive taxation is dishonest,
a thief and a tyrant because taxation is not only a form of pillage but also the
major source of political corruption. Since a noble aim requires noble means of
accomplishment, a good government cannot pass the buck on to the taxpayers to
discharge its responsibilities. It is not for the taxpayers to relieve
hunger, disease and ignorance; this Is the basic obligation of the state which
it must discharge with the utmost integrity. However, helping one's
fellow-beings is the moral obligation of an individual, and no value is greater
than philanthropy. Piety, the secret of eternity, is another description of love
for mankind. An individual is at his best when he voluntarily spends his wealth
to alleviate social misery.
I think that in a book like this,
one cannot devote any more space to the subject of taxation and economics.
Whatever I have said is by way of suggestions and their validity depends upon
experimentation. However, human society cannot be made righteous without
abolishing taxation, especially the abject taxation because civilisation has
come to rest on the strife between tax-gatherer and taxpayer. Again,
class-struggle has also been made the basic doctrine of economics. Thus mutual
friction and mistrust have become the social pillars. By turning worker into an
entrepreneur and depriving the state of its taxing power one can hope to
eliminate abrasion between worker and capitalist on the one hand, and
tax-gatherer and taxpayer on the other. This is the only way to replace discord
with harmony which forms the corner stone of spiritual development leading to
Godhead.
Significance of harmony
Harmony is a must not only for a
serene and rational social order which is absolutely essential for the formation
of souls but is also the chief trait of a soul itself. This serves as the
cohesive power of souls to unite themselves into Godhead; it is very much like
the gravitational attraction which binds things together to create order in the
universe.
Spiritual life Is an integral
part of physical existence, and this fact Is well illustrated by the mechanism
of the human body which automatically creates the mind. This is exactly the
relationship between a harmonious social order and the expected spiritual order,
which is likely to arise
out of the former. For better understanding of this point, I may add another
chapter: `'Mysticism", which should throw more light on the subject.
| 
Previous
Chapter
