Private vs public enterprise

The recent takeover of 36 privatized public institutions has rekindled the age old debate on whether the country's economy should best be served by the private sector or the public sector. The neo-liberalist UNP will always argue that we should follow the examples set by the more advanced Western countries with their no holds barred liberalism while the socialist would insist on a more centralized management which they believe ushers in social justice and equitability.

This however is not a debate confined to Sri Lanka but has been raging in world social/economic parlance since the global civilization evolved sloughing off feudalism. People in the 'New World' realized the importance of generating capital and the value of entrepreneurship in creating further wealth and this prompted the likes of Adam Smith to theorize 'The Wealth of Nations'. And thus the era preceding feudalism became known as the 'Capitalist era'.

French revolution

The events that followed the French revolution however heralded a new thinking among people of the need for social justice and with that a new breed called 'sociologists' and a new doctrine called 'socialism' was born. The new doctrine placed emphasis on central planning and social cohesion as the way forward for human civilization. This brought about a 'capitalist block' and a 'socialist block' in world politics dividing the world on socio-economic philosophy in to two blocks of thinking.

These notions, though seemingly contradictory, are nevertheless targeted towards the common goal of social justice and their difference is only in emphasis. Capitalism was social justice against feudalism and communism, as argued by Marx, is social justice against capitalism. Yet the man being the insecure and aggressive 'being', always needed something to fight for and thus the capitalist earned the wreath of the communist for their 'wronged outlook' and vice versa. This resulted in years of 'cold wars' between super powers that embolden themselves as the guardians of one school of thought over the other.

The difference however, as mentioned essentially is on emphasis where capitalist system believes in the individual initiative and liberalism that accommodates such facilitation and the socialist believing in central controls to channels such initiative to common good at large. Thus, though the difference is only in emphasis the requirements of different facilitating social mechanics of the two systems has brought about a situation where one section advocates unbridled liberalism with 'more the merrier' concept against the rest who believe in a world system that controls in place consistent with the evolution of society, where individual liberties made way for social aspirations.

Over consumption

In a way they are both right and they are both wrong. Individual initiative has to be sustained and encouraged since it is an important part of development, individually and socially. But consumerism as the driving force of this initiative may mean over consumption and waste. Consumer they believe 'is the king' and if that be the case then wherein lies the Kingdom of God? Unqualified commercialism has replaced God, that denotes love justice and fair play, with the consumer who stands only for selfish and unlimited satisfaction. Consumerism in any case is a negative force and the world's over indulgence in it could eventually lead to the world being consumed. And we are already beginning to witness the consequences of enthroning the consumer. Man moved out of the jungle and formed into societies because jungle is where only the physically fit could survive. But today the society is being increasingly rendered into a concrete jungle of commercialism where only the economically fit would survive. In the modern world certain countries are so 'free' that their democratically elected governments are even 'free' of all encumbrances because the multinationals are doing their job for them.

Anti capitalist socialism

Thus we have protests in Wall Street alleging that 1 percent of the population owns 99 percent of wealth with the balance 1 percent available to the 99 percent rest. Further an analytical view of the works of scientist like Einstein and Newton will reveal that they were not driven by greed and consumerism but rather by a penchant for discovery and understanding.

On the other hand, the anti capitalist socialism believes that it is a vice to make profits. Profit is the net enrichment of the individual and society when an economic activity is performed and is the yield over and above the effort expended on the task. Thus it is a creation of wealth and therefore could not be a wise in a social advancement sense.

On the contrary it is the making of losses that leads to poverty that should be viewed as the vice, if at all. Central planning entails red tape and bureaucracy where judgments could be subjective. Communism advocates equity and has devised practices by yielding to those who aspire for equal division of earnings on unequal efforts expended. Thus communism contravenes the very principle of equity in its own initiation.

Thus we see that the ideal situation lies in a hybrid where the goodness and practicality of both the systems are compromised. Cooperative Society is a system that incorporates the positive features of both these systems and it is certainly a system that is worth a try.

If liberalism is all what people need then why do we have governments? On the other hand, if government is all that matters then every country would be equally developed with no consideration of people's initiatives.

Therefore these two systems need not be so competitive to exterminate one another but rather be only competitive enough to complement each other.

[email protected]