Articles excerpted from The Last Days of America,  Book by Prof. Arindam CHAUDHURI that focuses on growing degeneration of the American socio-economic set-up, the dangers of mindless imitation of the free market system and the innate strength of the Indian society

For long, economists have considered Darwin's theory of’ survival of the finest' the sole functional maxim for the capitalist economy. In the pro­cess, however, they have forgotten that the whole purpose of an economy is to move towards a more civilised form of existence. Civilisation has seen man moving out of the jungle to reach where he is today. Sadly, he has not yet been able to discard the jungle's rules of existence.

From its inception, capi­talism has been based on the principle of individualism and survival of the fittest. Economist Adam Smith's point that man, being ratio­nal, will try to maximise his returns if left free in the market, was also based on this principle of the product but also on the . The rules of the capitalist market want us to compete with others and maximize our benefits (read profits). But critics point out that, when left free in a mar­ket, an individual's return is not only a function of his competence and effort but also of his past accumulated wealth (in which he might have had no contribution).

Based on this argument, some economists in India don't want MNCs to enter the country as the survival of Indian companies is not only dependent on the quality of the product but also on the strength of the competitor. Let’s take the example of the soft drink Thums Up—perhaps India's best example of an original brand name around which had been built an identifiable brand per­sonality. The image of a free, live­ly and adventurous young man nicely coincided with the catch phrase Taste the Thunder'. But all this came to nought when Coca Cola entered the market. Thums Up was bought over. One of the best Indian brand names today sells under the aegis of Coca Cola. A classic case of capi­talist survival of the fittest'.

While in a jungle, the term 'fittest stands for physical strength, in an economy it denotes money power. The mar­ket economy has always helped the rich grow richer at the cost of others. In the USA. the top five and 20 per cent of the economy that used to earn 15.5 and 41.1 per cent of the total national income in 1973 were earning 17.9 and 44 percent in 1989. During the same period, the income of the lowest 20 per cent of the economy fell from 5.5 to 4.6 per cent and that of the even lower 4/5th of the economy plummeted from 11.9 to 10.6 percent.

I don't question the con­tribution of capitalism in making this world a better place. I only want to ask that after so many years of growth, in which capital­ism has reached its materialistic peak, why doesn't the system focus on the crucial and ever-widening gap between the rich i and the poor? Today, when the | rich already have five cars, can't j they slop for a while till the others j at least come up to a level where \ they don't have to die of hunger? ; All men are equal. Given the i same opportunities of health and I education, their capacity to conribute would be nearly equal, the only difference being in terms if IQ or genetic combinations.

But our society does not distribute or even guarantee these opportunities equally. Today when some of us have reached high standards of living, it is important that we bring in humanitarianism into our society Doesn’t a family try and provide maximum comfort to its invalid member? Or is it that since the invalid cannot contribute to the family, he should not be given even the basic facilities? If the former is more likely to happen than the latter, what does this indicate-survival of  the fittest or survival of the weakest?

When an economy reaches a stage where the fittest can live well even if their standard of liv­ing doesn't grow rapidly, it is the duty of that economy to use its resources for the weakest. In our families, we all believe in commu­nism, but when it comes to the nation, we want to follow just ^— the opposite. I am not insist­ing on all economies to turn communist, but I am expect­ing them to incorporate this most human and natural rule of family existence in their nations while they continue to operate in a free market.

According to analyst Peter ^— Drucker, today's American is already spending an average of 23 hours every week on social work. Let him lead the way in introduc­ing the concept of survival of the weakest. Strengthening the weak­er sections of the society need not be at the cost of the stronger. At worst, the rich may grow at a slower pace and their capacity to grow at a faster rate will be trans­ferred to the poor. Tomorrow, the world would be proud of this con­tribution from the richer sections.

The stronger nations of the world should start supporting the weaker nations. Not in the man­ner of today, where most affluent countries decline to contribute even 2 per cent of cross-border revenue for Third World develop­ment. The whole of Latin America and Africa combined doesn't have a single permanent member on the UN Security Council. Even India, with a popu­lation of almost one billion, does not enjoy that responsibility. The obsolete veto system and the abuse of the Security Council by the powerful nations is creating a new form of colonialism within the UN. More than twice the number killed in World War II die of hunger and curable dis­eases today while the UN brags about bringing peace to the world. The rich countries enjoy a life expectancy of around 80 years while the life expectancy in poor nations is a mere 45 years. This is what survival of the fittest has achieved.

Let us not be hypocrites. It's high time we redefine the basic rules of capitalist economy, and let us start by making 'survival of the weakest' the guiding force of the coming millennium.