arunchemist
Time 2021-10-17 08:03:03Web Name: arunchemist
WebSite: http://arunchemist.blogspot.com
ID:205583
Keywords:
arunchemist,Description:
keywords: description: LabelsArticle taken from www.marxists.org(1)billioniers(1)by com.rajesh(1)class favortism of state(1)every child is spiecial(1)iit(1)post taken from forbes.com(1)Published in இளஞர மழககம Nov 2009(1)Ruined Education(1)Science to all(1)US statergic trap(1) Friday, December 4, 2009 அறவயலகக அளவகல நபல பரசஒவவர ஆணடம அகடபர மதம வரம பத அறவயல தறயல பலர ஆரவமடன எதரநககம சயத நரவ நடடல இரநத வளயகறத. அததன நபல பரசககன அறவபப. பதக கரததல நபல பரச எனபத அறவயலகக அளவகலக இரககம சழலல அறவயலகக நபல பரச ஒர அளவகல அலல எனற உறதயக மறககறர இநத ஆணட வதயயல தறயல நபல பரச பகரநத கணட மவரல ஒரவரன தர. வஙகடரமன ரமகரஷணன. தமழகததல கடலர மவடடததலளள சதமபரததல 1952ஆம ஆணட பறநத இவர பளளப படபப பரடவல தடஙக (இபபத வடதர எனற பயரமறறபபடடளளத இவவர கஜரததல உளளத) இளஙகல இயறபயல படபபன அஙகளள மகரஜ சயகரவ பலகலககழததல பயனறர. அதனபன அமரகக சனற ஒஹய பலகலயல உயரயல தறயல மனவர படடம பறறர.
எனனடம கர இலல! அதனல நன சககளல அலவலகம வரகறன என எளமயன சகரததல நனற பனனகககம இவர சயதளள ஆயவ வலய மகபபரயத. மனதன மதல பகடரய வர எலல உயரனஙகளன சலலககளளம இரககம ரபசம எனற ஒர பகத அவவயரனததறக தவயன பரததத (Proteins, Enzymes) தயரககம வலய சயகறத. ஒர உயரனததன வளரசச மதல உடலன பல சயலபடகளகக அடபபடயக அமவத பரதஙகள அனதத உயரகளலம உளள DNA மரபண தடர பனபறறத தன இநத ரபசமகள பரதஙகள வடவமககனறன. கணகளல கண இயலத நணநககயல (Microscope) மடடம பரகக இயலம. அளவல மகச சறதய இரககம சலலன ஒர மகச சறய அஙகம ரபசம. அவறறன அணகடடமபப மறறம அவ எவவற பரதஙகள உரவகககனறன எனற களவகக பரமயறசயல வடகணட தர. வஙகடரமன ரமகரஷணனகக நபல பரச வழஙகபபடடளளத. இககணடபடபப எவவற பயனளககம எனற களவகக பதல கறம இவர. பகடரய பனற நண உயரகளலம ரபசம உளளத. எனவ, அநத ரபசமகளன சயலபடட தட சயயம மரநதகள உரவகக பரதத தயரபப இடயற சயவதன மலம நய வளவககம பகடரயவ உயரழககச சயயலம. இதனல நயகள கடடபபடததலம எனகறர.
இவர இநதயர, தமழகததல பறநதவர என இஙகளள ஊடகஙகள பரமப பரடடம வலயல இவர இநதய அரசகக வககம கரகக கவனததறகரயத இநதப பரசகளல கவனம களளமல அடபபட அறவயல ஊககவககம வகயல இநதய அரச கலவகக நத ஒதகக வணடம எனபத!.
பல லடசம கடகள பனனடட நறவனஙகளகக வரசசலகயகவம சல லடசம கடகள கலவகக நத ஒதககயம, கலவயல தனயரமயதத ஊககவததம வரம ஆளம அரசகள இரககம வர ஒர ஏழக கடமபததல பறநத அரசக கலலரயல அறவயல பயனற கணட நபல பரச கனவ கணம ஒவவர மணவனன கனவம தககரயகக கணட தன இரககம. நபல பரச பறம எளமயன உதரணமன, பரசகள மல பறறலலத தர. வஙகடரமன ரமகரஷணன வரமபம சறநத தரமன அறவயல கலவ நம நடடல நலவ கச இரபபவனகக கலவ எனக கவம கலவயல தனயரமயதத நறததவம, தரமன கலவ கடககம அரச கலவச சலகள அதக அளவல நறவவம ஒறறமயடன உரதத கரலழபப வணடயளளத.
Email: zindhabhath@gmail.com
No comments: Labels:Published in இளஞர மழககம Nov 2009 Monday, July 6, 2009 Solar eclipse July22, 2009.The solar eclipse that will take place on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 will be a total eclipse of the Sun with a magnitude of 1.080 that will be visible from a narrow corridor through northern India, eastern Nepal, northern Bangladesh, Bhutan, the northern tip of Myanmar, central China and the Pacific Ocean, including the Ryukyu Islands, Marshall Islands and Kiribati. Totality will be visible in many cities such as Surat, Varanasi, Patna, Thimphu, Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, Hangzhou and Shanghai, as well as over the Three Gorges Dam. A partial eclipse will be seen from the much broader path of the Moon's penumbra, including most of South East Asia and north-eastern Oceania.
This solar eclipse is the longest total solar eclipse that will occur in the twenty-first century, and will not be surpassed in duration until June 13, 2132. Totality will last for up to 6 minutes and 39 seconds, with the maximum eclipse occurring in the ocean at 02:35:21 UTCabout 100 km south of the Bonin Islands, southeast of Japan. The North Iwo Jima island is the landmass with totality time closest to maximum.
The solar eclipse is a rare astronomical event of this century, at this juncture in several parts of India the superstitious ideas are common among people about the solar eclipse. They insists humans should not see eclipse, pragnent women will get handicapped child if they view it and food shouldn't be consumed during the eclipse. These fuedal ideas should be sharply condemed. Join with Tamilnadu Science Forum in propagating the truths about this eclipse and science in general. You can get solar eclipse viewer glasses at the price of Rs.5 per peice, one can also sell it once you get 100 peices for Rs.300. Use this chance to eradicate the supertitious evils from our society.
No comments: Labels:Science to all Friday, October 17, 2008 Dialectical Materialism and Modern ScienceJD Bernal
Published: Science and Society, Volume II, No. 1,Winter;1937;Transcribed: for marxists.org in May, 2002.ONE of the questions on which clarity of thinking is now most necessary is that of the relation between the methods of science and of Marxist philosophy. Although much has already been written on the subject, yet there is still an enormous amount of confusion and contradictory statement. It is widely felt outside Marxist circles that, whatever the economic and political value of Marxist teaching, its incursion into the field of science is unwarranted. This is most strongly felt in relation to natural science, but it extends also to the social sciences in so far asthese tend to imitate in their techniques the methods of natural science. Marxism is taken to be just another philosophic intrusion, adding nothing of importance and essentially superfluous in a region where the existing development of scientific method gives all the analysis which is necessary for the understanding of nature. Such an attitude, which has indeed been held by many who call themselves Marxists, implies at best a superficial view of Marxism and a lack of appreciation of its comprehensive nature. Much of this misunderstanding arises, particularly among those who have been trained in the English empirical tradition, from the fact that Marxist philosophy arose in part from Hegel and still retains a Hegelian terminology. The new direction which Marx gave to Hegelian philosophy and the solid material basis which he established for it are neither understood nor appreciated by those who are frightened by the phrases of "the transformation of quantity into quality" or "the negation of the negation." Those writers, on the other hand, who have attempted to remove from dialectic materialism its particular terminology generally also succeeded in removing the specific contributions which it has made to the understanding of the process of the universe and reduce it to a merely generalized application of normal scientific method. Now Marxism is not scientific method, nor is it in any sense an alternative method; it is at the same time more comprehensive and more advanced. Both the method of science as hitherto understood and the content of scientific discovery can be incorporated in the Marxist scheme. They need, however, to be criticized and extended. Marxism is no substitute for science, but because of its wider scope it can see the limitations of exiting methods and indicate where in the past these have been used in fields in which they have no competence. Further, it serves to complete the picture given by science by introducing into it a number of concepts and methods of working which have been, for historical and technical reasons, up till now foreign to it--and lastly to show science that its social function is not only contemplative but active. This is not to be taken to mean that Marxism is not science or that it is something which could be added on to science; or to set up an antithesis between Marxism and science. Marxism transforms science and gives it greater scope and significance, but we are not concerned here so much with this transformed Marxist science as with science as it is today.
One of the special features of Marx's work, which at first sight would seem to be an indication of the impossibility of the claims here advanced, was that he derived his analysis of the universe from the study of the development of human society. Human society is intrinsically more complex than any other part of nature, not only because it contains in itself all its complexities and more, but because its changes are more rapid and less regular. It is no accident that the sciences purporting to deal with it were the last to develop and are still the most unformed. Now science has proceeded almost axiomatically on the ground that the complicated is to be understood in terms of the simple and not vice versa. In doing so, however, especially in establishing those regularities which we know as scientific laws, it has necessarily deprived itself of the possibility of examining the type of phenomena that are not regular, particularly the appearance of novel elements in the universe. Now the rate of appearance of novelty is itself the function of the complexity of the phenomena. We have no reason to believe that the vibrations of electrons in an atom of hydrogen have been for the last 1010 years different from what they are observed to be now. The progress of science, beginning with physics and working upwards to biology, did rest on the tacit assumption which was that of Aristotle and Averroes, that everything in the universe had proceeded and did proceed by unvarying and eternal rules. Anything therefore which did not depend on such rules was ipso facto excluded from the realm of science. Human history, for instance, was considered, except by aberrant intellects like Vico, to be an art and not a science. Even the cosmic evolution of Laplace did not seriously shake this position, because in his scheme it took place only as the result of the rigid application of the eternal Newtonian laws of motion. It was this attitude in fact which prevented for many hundreds of years the acceptance of the intrinsically obvious theory of organic evolution. But the evolution of new forms in the living world still remained as it remains largely today, a matter of inference and not of direct observation. The bulk of biological work on evolution has been rather to establish its reality and map out its line of advance than to inquire as to why it occurs at all. It is in fact only in the phenomena of our own society that we are able to see the development of radically new things occurring under our eyes, and if we are to understand how new things are produced in the universe it can only be, in the first place through such a study.
The way in which thinkers have approached the problem of history has gone through very curious and significant changes. In early times history was considered first as a storehouse of nobility and tribal self-glorification, and then for its value in moral edification. The first theories of history were justifications of the ways of God with men. It gradually appeared to the rationalists of the eighteenth century that this was not good enough, that making Providence responsible for everything in fact explained nothing. But they were not able to put anything very satisfactory in its place. The degradation of mankind through the appearance of wealth, kings, and priests was only a repetition on another plane of the story of the Fall. The scientific historians of the nineteenth century preferred to have no theory of history at all, and it degenerated into a chronicling of events which ceased to have any justification except giving employment to its professors. This was not entirely mental laziness; it betrayed a half-conscious apprehension that if people inquired too closely into the forces of human development they might find things inimical to the existing order.
Being from the outset free from this fear, Marx was able to see more in history than a meaningless sequence of events or vague tendencies towards progress. It was clear to him that he was not dealing with a unitary movement towards some foredestined end, but with conflicts which were resulting in the creation of new forms. The initial difficulty however remained, that before anything adequate could be discovered about the laws of these movements the phenomena themselves had to be ordered and grouped. It was for this purpose that he used the philosophy of his youth, though in doing so he transformed the most essential parts of the Hegelian world concepts. Hegel had introduced a most valuable and convenient classification. He saw the world in a hierarchical order. In other words, he was aware that the progress from simplicity to complexity is not an undifferentiated increase but can be divided naturally into successive stages, each stage having a general mode of behavior of its own. Each element in the hierarchy includes all those below it and is included in all those above. But the Hegelian hierarchy, because it was one of pure thought, could have no true development in time. The different stages were eternal and instantaneous. Marx, by making his hierarchy material, made it at the same time dynamic and historical. Each higher stage had actually grown out of the lower stage, and the new qualities it possessed were a product of those of the lower stages and of their mode of coming together. Thus the classes of human society are not just stock assemblages of people occupying a certain level in a social ladder but are the product of a tribal organization destroyed and reformed by the development of economic relations which had arisen from the development of the tribal economy itself. The categories with which Marx dealt differ from those used in science in that they are incapable of complete isolation. They must always be considered in relation to their origin and to their future development.
Now as science itself has proceeded almost entirely by the method of isolation and precise definition of categories independent of time, the Marxist method of thinking has appeared loose and unscientific, or as most scientists would put it, metaphysical. Isolation in science however can only be achieved by a rigorous control of the circumstances of the experiment or application. Only when all the factors are known is scientific prediction, in the full sense, possible. Now it is quite clear that were new things are coming into the universe all the factors cannot be known, and therefore that the method of scientific isolation fails to deal with these new things. But from the human point of view it is as necessary to be able to deal with new things as with the regular order of nature. It is perfectly right to restrict the use of the scientific method as it exists to the latter, but it is wrong to imply that outside this regular order the human mind is helpless, that if something cannot be dealt with "scientifically" it cannot be dealt with rationally. The great contribution of Marxism is to extend the possibility of the understanding and control of phenomena to include those in which radically new things are happening. This can only be done, however, subject to certain necessary limitations. In the first place, the degree of prediction where new things are concerned can never be of the same order of exactitude as in the regular and isolated operations of science. Exact knowledge which has been looked on as an ideal is however not the only alternative to no knowledge at all. There are, of course, very large regions inside science itself where exact knowledge is impossible. The whole trend of modern physics has shown that it is hopeless to expect it in atomic phenomena. But there the difficulty is circumvented by relying on the exactness of the statistical knowledge of a large number of events, and abandoning any claim to prediction of particular events. The exact dates and locality of the critical changes, the wars and revolutions that affect human society, are also unpredictable, and as there is only one human society even statistical methods are not strictly applicable. Nevertheless, the instability of certain economic and political systems call be shown to be due to intrinsic factors, and their breakdown becomes, within a wide limit of years, inevitable.
There can be no question, even to those completely unaware of the methods by which these predictions are reached, that the Marxists have some way of analyzing the development of affairs that enables them to judge far in advance of "scientific" thinkers what the trend of social and economic development is to be. The uncritical acceptance of this, however, leads many into believing that Marxism is simply another Providential theology, that Marx had mapped the necessary lines of social and economic development which men willy nilly must follow. This is a complete misunderstanding: Marxist predictions are not the result of working out such a scheme of development. On the contrary, they emphasize the impossibility of doing this. What can be seen at any given moment is the composition of the economic and political forces of the time, their necessary struggle and the new conditions which will arise as a result of it. But beyond that we can only foresee a process which has not ended and will necessarily take on new and strictly unpredictable forms. Marxism is valuable as a method and a guide to action, not as a creed and a cosmogony.
The relevance of Marxism in the development of science is both theoretical and practical. It removes science from its imagined position of complete detachment and shows it as part, a critically important part, of economic and social development. The complete revolution of the history of science as the result of Marxist analysis, so brilliantly summarized in Professor Hogben's article in SCIENCE SOCIETY,[1] is one of the first results of this new attitude. But for Marxism understanding is inseparable from action, and the appreciation of the social position of science leads at once in a socialist country, such as the U.S.S.R., to the organic connection of scientific research with the development of socialized industry and human culture. The organization of science in capitalist countries has gradually molded itself in the service of big business, but because the process is not understood or appreciated its service is poor and incredibly wasteful. In any case production for profit can never develop the full potentialities of science except for destructive purposes. The Marxist understanding of science puts it in practice at the service of the community and at the same time makes science itself part of the cultural heritage of the whole people and not of an artificially selected minority.
The direct application of Marxism to scientific research is still very ill understood. It is clear that the scientific method as explicitly taught, while valid in establishing connections between phenomena, offers in itself no way of arriving at those connections. This fact is conveniently slurred over in scientific literature. In every scientific paper the data are given, the arguments from the data to the conclusions, and the conclusions themselves. What is not given, in general, is how the investigator chose the problem and how he thought of deriving the conclusions, and when reasons are given they are very rarely those actually used in the research but rather the formalized version of what the procedure of an ideal rational man would be in the circumstances. The whole drive of scientific inquiry is left implicitly to be explained by the operations of genius or intuition. The scientist actually does think of the new things, and it is no one's business to inquire why he does. This is where dialectical materialism comes in. Its value is not merely critical, as is classical scientific method, but indicative. It points the way in which it may be useful to look for new solutions. It is able to do this because of its way of linking up different aspects of nature under its general categories. It is extremely difficult to give examples because of the complexity of all the processes of scientific discovery, but from my own experience I have found Marxist methods invaluable for arriving at new conceptions. In the theory of liquids, for instance, we have to deal with phenomena that are not resolvable into the reaction of a particle with a certain environing force field but are strictly collective phenomena in which we have to consider at the same time the behavior of every particle and their mutual relations. It will be possible, when some systematic mind has been able to work on the subject, to develop out of the Marxist analysis a number of common scientific modes with some indication of which should be invoked in different circumstances. Collective behavior will obviously be one of these, another will be what might be called nuclear phenomena where the beginning of anything from the crystal to a revolution depends on a local assemblage of peculiarly favorable circumstances which alone enable it to get through the critical stages before which it is too small to grow.
Marxism has still another connection with science, that of criticizing its philosophic bases and the implications which seem to arise from the internal development of science itself. Marx, Engels and Lenin were all deeply concerned with this question, and for Marxist scientists of our time, though they have been distracted by the immediate needs of the economic situation in the Soviet Union or by the political situation outside it, it still remains a task of the greatest importance. On the fringe of science, and to the layman indistinguishable from it, are the pronouncements which the scientist makes on questions which are felt to be of vital human interest--those of the origin and fate of the universe, the nature of life, the character and behavior of the human mind and of society. In nearly every case the exact analysis of the statements reveals them as having little factual content, and in most cases they represent the dressing up of old traditional metaphysical ideas in the language, though not in the sense, of modern discovery. Such conceptions can be ruthlessly exposed and criticized from the Marxist point of view, because they represent entirely illegitimate use of science. One particular method of argument which is extremely common nowadays is that which establishes the existence of the supernatural from our ignorance of the natural. It is just in those spheres of science where the least exact knowledge exists that the strongest attempts are made to use science to bolster up ancient superstitions. Fortunately, it is just in such places that Marxist methods of attack are most valid, because they are all places where new things are being produced and where isolation so common in scientific research most palpably breaks down. These were all questions to which Marx and Engels devoted particular attention, and the way in which they were able to anticipate the trends of discovery in these fields is a striking indication of the value of the dialectical method. The modern Marxists have before them far vaster and more complex problems than had the pioneers. It seems probable that in the face of them modern science may well reach an impasse comparable with that which overcame the science of classical times. It is for the Marxists to find new methods of thought, of scientific organization and material technique which will prevent this happening.
The four critical points of the modern world view of science are the basic concepts of physics, which are now indissolubly bound up with the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of human society and the fate of human civilization. In the first field it is more than ever clear that physics and astronomy are at present in an impasse. The contradictions between theory and observation in the field of cosmic rays, the expanding universe and the relation between fundamental physical units can no longer be obscured. Such contradictions are of course of enormous value to science, because out of the struggle to solve them will emerge some new and further-reaching generalizations, but until this happens no inferences can logically be made as to such ultimate questions; and even when it does, it can only be raising further and hitherto unglimpsed problems. Nevertheless, it is just this ignorance which is being used by the mystical physicists and astronomers to build a new creation myth. Just because the physicist cannot say, because the laws are not sufficiently well known, how the universe developed into its present state, they infer that it must have been created, as if this explanation did not raise enormously greater difficulties. From the Marxist point of view the problem of the origin of the universe in any ultimate sense is a pointless one. At any given stage the necessity of development of certain forms--stars, galaxies--may be derivable from the internal contradictions of some previous state, but there is no necessity to postulate either the eternal existence of a universe essentially like ours or a single ultimately primitive state. Indefinite regression of opposition and synthesis remains before us to explore.
The result of the progress of science in the last few centuries has been to progressively reduce the amount of work which the gods or God have had to do, but even yet the logical conclusion is not drawn. Evolution removed the necessity for special creation, but it is still considered that the Creator must have intervened to start the process off. Life appears as so qualitatively different from dead matter as to require some special act in its production. This problem again seems unreal to the Marxist, not that he denies the qualitative difference but that he sees in its origin just another example of that transformation of quantity to quality that is the characteristic of the appearance of new things. Life is sharply marked off from non-life, largely because its own operations effectively destroy the possibility of its continual recreation. In the primitive, lifeless world chemical substances were accumulated of the kind that cannot accumulate now because they would be consumed by the very life which their coming together in special circumstances brought into being. The practical scientists of today are learning to manipulate life as a whole and in parts very much as their predecessors of a hundred years ago were manipulating chemical substances. Life has ceased to be a mystery and has become a utility.
There yet remain the problems of man. The nineteenth century evolutionists certainly went too far in their demonstration that man was but a modified ape. The theologians were right in feeling that in this explanation something had been left out, but the soul which they postulated was again one of these mystical explanations which explain nothing. What Marx and Engels saw was the real qualitative difference between man and the animals was not the mere possession of a larger brain but the organization of human society; that human society was a category definitely different and higher than the animal species; that man in society represented a qualitatively new thing in the universe. The whole of modern anthropological and psychological research reinforces this conclusion: man is man-made, individually in the family, and socially through tradition and history, molded by his economic necessities and the means he has found to satisfy them.
Footnotes
[1] "Our Social Heritage" by Lancelot Hogben. Science Society, i, no. 2, 137-51.
Concentration of Production and Monopolies
Drawing on from English economist J.A. Hobson's Imperialism, Austrian Marxist Rudolf Hiferding's Finance Capital, Professor Herman Levy's Monopolies, Cartels and Trusts and numerous other statistical abstracts and reports, Lenin demonstrate the transformation of Capitalism at the end of 19th century and how this transformation is leading to the increasing domination of monopoly and finance capital. He presents a detailed statistics on the nature and extent of industrial production in Germany and United States of America and explain based on it how concentration of production is one of the most characteristic features of Capitalism. The concentration of production itself at a certain stage of its development leads straight to monopoly because few giant enterprises can arrive at an agreement in order to avoid competition thereby leading to monopoly. The transformation of competition into monopoly is one of the most important phenomena of modern capitalist economy. What is very significant in Lenin's presentation is that he has demonstrated how the concentration of production in large enterprises becomes even more dominant through the intervention of banks and money capital. In other words the emergence of 'monopoly' cannot be understood without the intervention of money capital and banks. To quote Lenin, "As we shall see, money capital and the banks make this superiority of a handful of the largest enterprises still more overwhelming, in the most literal sense of the word, i.e., millions of small, medium and even some big "proprietors" are in fact in complete subjection to some hundreds of millionaire financiers." No doubt concentration of production and free competition are one of the characteristic features of Capitalism but this concentration and free competition alone does not explain the emergence and domination of monopolies and financial capitalism. The emergence and domination of monopolies will make sense only with the intervention of banks and money capital. It was, in other words, the merger of banking capital and industrial capital that led to the ever-increasing domination of monopolies.
To what extent Capitalism of late 19th century and the first decade of 20th century different from 'old' capitalism of first three quarters of 19th century? Free competition and concentration of production was a material reality even during the first three quarters of 19th century. However the 'old' capitalism was devoid of monopolies and giant enterprises. This transformation of concentration of production under free competition into monopolies takes place only during the fag end of 19th century and becomes more obvious fact by early 20th century. How does this transformation take place? Drawing on from the works of Hilferding and Hans Heymann, Lenin explains that "combination" of production is a very important feature of Capitalism in its highest stage of development. The combination of production is but a grouping in a single enterprise of different branches of industry. 'Combined' enterprises are different from 'pure' enterprises. The combined enterprises extend control over both the product and the raw material required for the manufacture of the product. In other words the combined enterprises own 'manufacturing unit of product' as well as 'unit of raw materials' required for the manufacture of product. The 'pure' enterprises, on the other hand, own only the 'manufacturing unit of product'. There are various advantages for combined enterprises - it levels out the fluctuations in trade, secure stable rate of profit, room for technical improvements and ability to overcome serious economic depression. Thus, 'combination' system, also explain significantly the emergence of monopolies apart from the role of banks and money capital. The intervention of banks and money capital make the domination of 'combined' enterprises complete to the extent that they are unquestionable monopolies.
What prompted the emergence of 'combination' system? The European economic history of the last quarter of 19th century is a testimony to the emergence of cartels. The international industrial depression was a characteristic feature of European economy from 1860s to 1890s. It was during this industrial depression that attempts were made by the 'big' enterprises to come together to form 'combined' enterprises or 'cartels'. In the course of short period, cartels come to stay and have become one of the foundations of economic life. Thus for Lenin the following are the stages in the economic history of Europe when 'old' capitalism gave way for the 'new' phase:
"(1) 1860-70, the highest stage, the apex of development of free competition; monopoly is in the barely discernible, embryonic stage. (2) After the crisis of 1873, a lengthy period of development of cartels; but they are still the exception. They are not yet durable. They are still a transitory phenomenon. (3) The boom at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of 1900-03. Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism."
The Rhine-Westphalian Coal Syndicate, Standard Oil Company, United States Steel Corporation among others are the giant monopolies and also representative of cartels, a material reality of Capitalism at the turn of 20th century. Underlying reality was not only an immense progress in the socialization of production but also socialization of technical invention and improvement. However the benefit of this progress goes to the speculators. The giant monopolies formed cartels, forced the enterprises outside of them into forceful submission through adopting tough measures like stopping supplies of raw materials, control over labour industry, closing trade outlets, stopping deliveries, systematic price cutting, stopping credits and boycott.
However what is important in Lenin's understanding is that the latest phase of Capitalism represented by domination of monopolies and finance capital is not devoid of crisis. In other words, the unequal development of giant enterprises and cartels in different industries will bound to impact the other industries where monopolies and cartels are not yet a reality. This will result in economic crisis and depression. Drawing on from the work of Liefmann, Lenin explains how the extreme rapid rate of technical progress result in disparity between various spheres of national economy and which in turn lead to anarchy and crises.
Lenin conclude the first chapter by a word of caution that without understanding the role played by banks we shall only have a poor and incomplete understanding of the real power and significance of modern monopolies. In the next chapter Lenin deals with 'Banks and their New Role' which we shall continue soon.
Bank, Finance Capital and the Formation of Financial Oligarchy
Banks served as middlemen collecting money, and placing them at the disposal of Capitalists until the turn of 20th century. Just like the concentration of production under free competition leading to monopoly, the concentration of money capital in Banks leads to monopoly of banking establishments. The dialectics of capital at a certain point in the history of capitalism result in the formation of social relations where industrial capitalists and bankers merge. This new social relation under capitalism takes shape at the turn of 20th century where capitalism itself takes the form of finance capitalism. It is also a period represented by the transformation of capitalism into capitalist imperialism. Commenting on the transformation of banking establishments Lenin argued that this, "transformation of numerous middlemen into a handful of monopolists is one of the fundamental processes in the growth of capitalism into capitalist imperialism." When did this transformation of the role of banks take place? What are the underlying reasons for this transformation of banks from being middlemen to monopoly establishment?
Drawing on from Jeidels's work on the relationship of the German big banks to industry, Lenin shows that before 1890 there was hardly any relationships or connections existed between banks and industrial enterprises. When industrial policy of banks was advanced in 1897 i.e., decentralization of banking operations, there were signs of the changing role of banking establishments. However, it was the economic crisis of 1900 that enormously accelerated and intensified the process of concentration of industry and of banking for the first time transformed the connection with industry into the actual monopoly of the big banks.
Citing statistics from various sources concerning the huge deposits of money possessed by big banks in Germany (Deutsche Bank, Disconto-Gesellschaft), France (Credit Lyonnais, the Comptoir National, Societe Generale), Great Britain and United States of America (Rockfeller and Morgan), Lenin argues that these monopoly banks not only absorb but also virtually "annex" the small banks, savings banks and post-offices (which performed the role of banks) through "holding" system by way of purchasing and exchanging shares or credits. The huge deposits of money possessed by giant monopoly banks were capable of exercising influence over enterprises and syndicates as well. The advantage of possessing such a huge sum of money as deposits for monopoly banks is that they could assess the wealth of industrial capitalists and subordinate them at their will. Thus to quote Lenin, "When, however, this operation (of banks) grows to enormous dimensions we find that a handful of monopolists subordinate to their will all the operations, both commercial and industrial, of the whole of capitalist society; for they are enabledby means of their banking connections, their current accounts and other financial operationsfirst, to ascertain exactly the financial position of the various capitalists, then to control them, to influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering credits, and finally to entirely deprive them of capital, or permit them to increase their capital rapidly and to enormous dimensions, etc."
The growing complexity of the role of banks in terms of its multiplicity of operation is what made the industrial capitalists dependent on the banking establishments. Banks, by collecting enormous amount of capital, by running the current account for giant firms, gather fuller and detailed information about the economic position of its clients. The clients industrial capitalists in turn become dependents on banks. Banks too were more and more involved in industrial affairs. It was a relationship structured intimately through the dialectics of capital accumulation. This relationship is best represented in exchange of managerial force i.e., the appointment of bank directors to the Supervisory Boards of industrial and commercial enterprises, and vice versa.
The merging of banking and industrial capital results in the formation of not only financial capital and monopoly but also financial oligarchy. The 'holding system' not only increases the power of the monopolists or financial oligarchy but also enables them to resort to tricks to cheat the public because the chief holder of shares of principal companies were not legally accountable for the affairs of subsidiary companies. But what is holding system? The head of a concern control a principal company. The principal company in turn reigns over subsidiary companies (daughter companies) which in turn control still other subsidiary companies (grandchild companies). In other words by holding a mere forty percent of shares of the daughter and grandchild companies, the principal company can extend its 'sphere of influence', dominate and subordinate the affairs of industry. The heads of monopoly Banks and trusts constituted the financial oligarchy at whose hands finance capital was concentrated. This concentration of finance capital in the hands of the heads of monopoly banks and trusts results in their exercise of virtual monopoly in determining the prices, extending the sphere of influences, subordinating and annexing the firms. They exact enormous and ever-increasing profits from the floating of companies, issue of stock, state loans, in a word levies tribute upon the whole of the society. Lenin cites various examples from different countries concerning the domination of monopolists who constituted financial oligarchy in the affairs of industry and cheating public. The Spring Steel Company of Kassel in Germany involved in a scandal that resulted in the swindling of public money. Similarly monopoly foreign banks in Russia made enormous profits by investing in Russian soil and annexing the financial assets of smaller Russian banks. By issuing bonds through granting of loans to foreign countries, French banks gained enormous rate of profit. Big German Bank Disconto-Gesellschaft by series of interventions in the affairs of The Union Mining Company of Dortmund in the name of principal patron to the company, earned enormous profits out of reconstruction programme when company was held bankrupt. Speculation in land situated in suburbs is also a profitable operation of finance capital. The monopoly of banks merges with the monopoly of ground rent. One witnesses here a coming together of banking, industrial (transportation) and real estate business. A monopoly firm in reality controlled all three although it might appear that three separate firms are involved in different business.
Lenin argued that it is a characteristic feature of capitalism in general that the ownership of capital is separated from the application of capital to production. The rentier who lives entirely on income obtained from money capital, is separated from the entrepreneur and from all who are directly concerned with the management of capital. He also added an important fact that under imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, this separation between rentier who lives by income obtained from money capital and entrepreneur and managers of capital reaches vast proportions.
Export of Capital
The export of capital from advanced capitalist countries to the colonies and semi-colonies result out of enormous 'surplus of capital' accumulated through profits of monopolies. There could be no surplus of capital if capitalism could develop agriculture and raise the living standards of the masses. The fact that agriculture continued to lag behind industries and the majority of people everywhere were half-starved and poverty stricken even during at the turn of 20th century in advanced capitalist countries underscored the enormous profits gained by the capitalists who by unable to find 'suitable' avenues to multiply their profits decided to export capital to backward countries where land, labour and raw materials remained cheap. Lenin argued that both uneven development and a semi-starvation level of existence of the masses are a fundamental and inevitable condition which constitutes the basic premise of the capitalist mode of production. The export of capital reached enormous proportions at the turn of 20th century and even more enormous just before the outbreak of First World War. The colonial possessions of the metropolitan countries remained chief sphere of investment. Lenin argued that the export of capital influenced and greatly accelerated the development of capitalism in colonies and semi-colonies although it arrested a development in capital exporting countries. By granting loans to states, by investing the capital in colonies and semi-colonies, the metropolitan countries skimmed the cream. They forced the debtor country to purchase war materials, and ships or in other words the export of capital becomes a means of encouraging the export of commodities.
Division of the World among Capitalist Associations:
The consequence of the export of capital by advanced capitalist countries is the division of world among the capitalist associations the monopoly giants - namely the cartels, syndicates and trusts. They divide the market of the world by coming into agreement with each other. First cartels, syndicates and trusts were formed within advanced capitalist countries and they divide the home market among themselves thereby destroying the small scale production and force them into subjection in each of their respective countries. With further concentration of production and capital accumulation, the cartels, trusts and syndicates of each advanced capitalist countries enter into agreement with other monopoly giants of other advanced capitalist countries. The result is not only the formation of international cartels but also the division of the world market/world among them. What is interesting in Lenin's understanding is that this division of world market by international cartels does not preclude redivision among them if the relations of forces change as a result of uneven development, war, bankruptcy, etc.
Lenin cites various examples of international cartels, syndicates and trusts and how it became a material reality of early 20th century world. The concentration of electrical industry in Germany and United States of America led to an agreement between the two monopoly giants of each country resulting in the formation of an international cartel. The two monopoly giants in the electrical industry namely General Electric Co, America and General Electric Co, Germany concluded agreement in 1907 which led to division of world market among themselves thus avoiding competition between them. The world oil market was divided between two great financial groups Rockfeller's American Standard Oil Co and Rothschild and Nobel. The British Oil firms, Shell and Samuel backed by German Banks posed threat to American oil giants but it ended in failure because Rockfeller's oil firm had more capital and an excellent system of oil transportation and distribution. Similarly in the business of shipping, two monopoly firms in Germany Hamburg Amerika and the Norddeutscher Lloyd entered into agreement with American shipping giants International Mercantile Marine Co known as Morgon Trust in 1903. International Rail cartel was formed as early as 1884 with British, Belgian and German Rail manufacturers entering into an agreement. They divided the world market and decided not to compete with each other. Lenin cites other examples of cartels like International Zinc Syndicate and International Dynamite Trust which were formed to divide to world market and to avoid competition.
Lenin argued that the formation of international cartels reveal to what point capitalist monopolies have developed and the object of the struggle between the various capitalist associations. More importantly, he has underlined the importance of understanding the substance of struggle which is more important than the forms which might take various manifestations. By substance Lenin meant the class content of struggle i.e., the struggle for bourgeois hegemony of the world.
Thus to quote Lenin, "The epoch of the latest stage of capitalism shows us that certain relations between capitalist associations grow up, based on the economic division of the world; while parallel to and in connection with it, certain relations grow up between political alliances, between states, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the "struggle for spheres of influence".
Division of the World among the Great Powers
The advanced capitalist countries captured the colonies and divided the world among them completely at the turn of 20th century. However this division did not preclude redivision and in fact Lenin argued that repartitions are possible and inevitable. To quote Lenin, "For the first time the world is completely divided up, so that in the future only redivision is possible, i.e. territories can only pass from one "owner" to another, instead of passing ownerless territory to an "owner"". This colonial policy of the complete subjugation of the world by advanced capitalist countries was intimately connected with the latest stage in the development of capitalism that is imperialism where finance capital reigns supreme. However colonialism has long been a reality but what distinguishes the colonial policy of the latest phase of capitalism from earlier period is the process of intensification of colonial conquest and the struggle for the partitioning of the world. Drawing on from English economist J.A. Hobson's Imperialism Lenin argues that the period from 1884-1900 mark the epoch of intensified "expansion" of chief European states. Apart from Hobson, he derived statistics provided by the geographer A. Supan and Hubner's Geographical and Statistical Tables to underline the territorial division of the world by advanced capitalist countries at the turn of 20th century. How is the territorial division of the world linked with the domination of monopolist associations, the financial giants? The possession of colonies alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitors. The monopolies is said to have established once all the sources of raw materials are captured. However, Lenin argues that, more the capitalism is developed the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw material throughout the world, the more the desperate struggle for the acquisition of colonies. In other words, peace under the latest phase of capitalism is impossible and that struggle for redivision or repartition of the world is inevitable. The colonies also serve as fertile terrain for the advanced capitalist countries to employ monopoly methods to eliminate competition and to ensure supplies.
Defining Imperialism
According to Lenin, the definition of Imperialism must include five of its basic features. (1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high degree that is has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capita, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance (4) the formation of international monopolist associations which share the world among themselves (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
The definition of Lenin's imperialism sharply contradicted with that of Karl Kautsky, the principal Marxist theoretician of the Second International (from 1889 to 1914). According to Kautsky, Imperialism should not be regarded as a "phase" of stage of economy but as a policy, a definite policy "preferred" by finance capital. Kautsky argued that Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism and that it consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex all large areas of agrarian territory irrespective of what nations inhabit it. Lenin agreed that Imperialism is a striving for annexations but he only argued that it is incomplete because for him, politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction. For Lenin, unlike Kautsky, the characteristic feature of Imperialism is not industrial but finance capital. Lenin also denied Kautsky's argument that Imperialism is precisely that it strives only agrarian territories. After refuting Kautsky's theory of Imperialism Lenin ask the following question: What means other than war could there be under Capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of the colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?No comments: Labels:by com.rajesh,iit Saturday, September 20, 2008 Outsourcing the neo-evil
Tracking Outsourcing's Paradigm Shift-Robert Malone
Where Is The World's Cheapest Labor?
Global outsourcing has undergone a paradigm shift.
From a practice that once offered long-standing opportunity and significant cost advantage, outsourcing now holds greater risks and, as a result, requires more highly honed management tools.
Risks come in many flavors. They can be supplier interruptions that reduce procurement reliability, or difficulties with brand protection. They can even materialize as issues of intellectual property, an ever-emerging gray market that confuses supply lines and product-and-parts counterfeiters.
Businesses have moved toward outsourcing because of the emergence--and the appeal--of offerings from many rapidly developing nations. Opportunities abound for outsourcing call centers, software programming, manufacturing and other services, from human resources to Web design.
A company's motivation for outsourcing is simply to bolster its ability to face new market conditions successfully. These conditions drive businesses to increase their production, meet tougher demand, speed up the timing of new products and keep up with technology. But, most of all, these conditions pressure businesses to reduce their labor costs. To expedite these transactions, an intelligent and informed use of the Internet is a must. A vice president at Wachovia (nyse: WB - news - people ), Jon Watts, has said the instant that work travels outside a company's four walls, the potential for risk rises.
"Once you do a transaction and open yourself to the Internet, the ether of that Internet flows around the whole globe," he says. "The companies themselves are one layer removed from being able to control the transparency of what is happening."
And the risk doesn't stop there.
"The challenge in supply chains and outsourcing is, How do you begin to get a better handle on managing risk when you have interconnects among various groups," says Howard Kunreuther, a professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. "One weak link in the system can bring all the others down."
One of companies' biggest concerns today, Watts says, is the potential of a negative "brand impact" after any security breach. Gray market dealing and counterfeiting are a real menace to brands. Internal security by the outsourced suppliers isn't enough, he emphasizes, so external monitoring is a must.
In addition, global terrorism has made operating securely in some countries, like Iraq, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Sudan, excessively complex and costly. Less dramatic is the danger of a supplier's delivery of toxic toys, as well as dangerous furniture, health and medical products. To the embarrassment of many major companies, such as Mattel (nyse: MAT - news - people ), these problems have increased in this past year.
To be fair, the failures of outsourcing need to be seen in a context. Recent recalls of toys appear enormous, but in comparison with the overwhelming volume of toys produced via outsourcing, it is rather small; millions against billions. Recalls are not a reflection of outsourcing as a trade and business model so much as they are failures at secure communication, a lack of real-time processing data, sub-par proper manufacturing specifications, and faulty design and quality-control processes.
Thankfully, there are resources available to deal with risk and supply chain management. On the planning side, some of the players are Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ) and SAP (nyse: SAP - news - people ), as well as point solution companies like Ariba (nasdaq: ARBA - news - people ), Manhattan Associates (nasdaq: MANH - news - people ) and Sterling Commerce.
One company that focuses on supplier and brand risk in detail is New Momentum, whose CEO, Stu Clifton, has cited the importance of tracking the reams of data that pour in as a result of an outsourcing partnership.
"With the proliferation of counterfeit and gray market activity, today's manufacturers need to gain comprehensive visibility into the global, open market," he says. "And because they need to move quickly to stop the erosion of their brand and revenues, they need rapid access to information."
New Momentum uses an advanced technology platform from Microsoft that helps customers monitor and analyze brand protection matters, counterfeit parts and products, gray market buyers and sellers, and potential intellectual property infringements across a variety of open-market Internet sources. The information is presented in a dashboard that users can configure themselves, which allows them to see potential problems quickly.
As outsourcing's risks grow ever greater, the need for control by in-depth monitoring of supplier disruptions and gray market deviations is critical. If corporate brands, intellectual property and supply lines are to remain secure, data visibility in real time, or something close to it, becomes a necessity. The safety and security of a company's outsourcing practice depend on it.No comments: Labels:post taken from forbes.com Wednesday, July 16, 2008 Nuk-dealØ Why have the Left Parties withdrawn support to the UPAGovernment?
The Left Parties withdrew support from the Congress-led UPA Government on 9th July 2008. When the UPA Government hadcome into existence in 2004, the Left Parties had decided to provide outside support on the basis of its Common MinimumProgramme. The aim was to fight the communal forces and undo the damage that they had caused to the secular polity of India during their years in office. This required a set of interlinked policies to bring relief to the people, to protect India's integrity and to pursue an independent foreign policy. Yet rather than fulfilling the popular mandate, and addressing pressing concerns such as the skyrocketing prices of essential commodities, the Manmohan Singh Government preferred to expend its energy on pushing through the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Clearly it is more concerned about fulfilling its commitment to the Bush Administration than about meeting its commitment to the people of India. The Left Parties have been warning the UPA Government not to dilute the commitments made in the Common Minimum Programme. However, committed as it is to the neoliberal framework, the Government has been implementing policies through Cabinet decisions by-passing Parliament. The attempts to open up different sectors of the economy indiscriminately to foreign capital, the refusal to meet the agrarian distress, allowing backdoor entry of foreign capital into retail trade and the utter failure to implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee all these are proof that the Government is going back on the commitments made in the Common Minimum Programme. These policies favouring foreign and domestic big capital are closely linked to the subservience of the Government to US imperialism and its compromise of India's national sovereignty through the nuclear deal. 3 The nuclear deal is against India's vital interests. The Congressled Government has embraced a strategic alliance with the United States.. This dubious deal with President Bush is the centrepiece ofa number of agreements on military collaboration and concessions to US capital in various sectors including the financial sector, agriculture and retail trade. The nuclear deal will not provide India energy security. Instead, being anchored in a US law, the Hyde Act, it will hamper India's independent foreign policy andrestrict our strategic autonomy. The Manmohan Singh Government is guilty of gross violation of the Common Minimum Programme by pursuing a strategic alliance with the USA which is completely contrary to the commitment towards an independent foreign policy made in the CMP. The Left Parties cannot support such a course of action which is harmful for the people and which erodes the country's sovereignty.The UPA Government has consistently disregarded democratic opinion on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal: The Prime Minister gave assurances in Parliament in August 2006 on safeguarding India's interests in the nuclear deal. These were nullified by the Hyde Act passed by the United States'Congress in December 2006. Yet, the Prime Minister insisted on going ahead with the negotiations on the 123 Agreement despite strong opposition from the Left and other political circles. A substantial section of the scientists' community also opposed the deal. The Prime Minister has shown contempt for Parliament by disregarding the clear views of the majority as expressed in the debate in the two Houses of Parliament in December 2007. The Congress leadership has violated the understanding arrived at with the Left Parties in November 2007, wherein the outcome of the talks with the Secretariat of the IAEA was to be presented to the UPA-Left Committee on the Nuclear Deal. The Government refused to show the text of the IAEA Safeguard Agreement to the Left Parties for four months, thuspreventing the UPA-Left Committee from arriving at any 4 findings. The Prime Minister while on his way to the G-8 Summit in Japan announced that the Government will be going to the IAEA Board very soon. But till then he chose to keep the people of the country in the dark.
The Congress leadership had promised to ameliorate the condition of the aam admi. After four years of the UPA government, the people are groaning under an unprecedented price rise. The prices of rice, wheat, edible oil, pulses, vegetables and other essential commodities have all shot up. The Government has refused to heed the Left Parties' demands to check inflation. The UPA Government's policies are squarely responsible for the distressing spectacle of agrarian crisis, farmers' suicides, mass poverty, price rise and unemployment. This is in stark contrast to the obscene growth of billionaires and enrichment of the already superrich. The Congress-led UPA Government came into being with a mandate to fight the communal forces on the basis of alternative policies. However, the Congress-led UPA Government has failed to pursue alternative policies and has instead pursued policies rather similar to those of the erstwhile BJP-led Government. The Government has also compromised national sovereignty. The Congress-led Government is now determined to go ahead with a further rightward shift in both foreign and domestic policies. Thissituation can only provide fertile ground for the communal forces and undermine the secular cause. Since the Congress-led Government is willfully disregarding the Common Minimum Programme, the Left Parties had no choice but to withdraw support.
Ø Why does the UPA Government want the nuclear deal?
The Congress-led UPA Government believes that the best course for India's foreign policy is to become a junior partner of the US with the hope that the US will help India become a major world power. Manmohan Singh considers George Bush to be 5 "India's best friend" and has made commitments to him on the nuclear deal, along with various other agreements on security, defence and economic matters, which will firmly establish India as an US ally. The nuclear deal is the centrepiece of this strategic alliance. The US has become increasingly isolated in the world because of the aggressive militarism of the Bush Administration as seen in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the disastrous "war on terror". The Bush clique wants to convert this war on terror into a "clash of civilizations" and is busy whipping up Islamophobia in the name of this war. Bush has also lost credibility within his own country with the exposure of the lies, deceit and brutality of his regime. Manmohan Singh seeks to offer Bush his only foreign policy success: that of enlisting India as a newfound ally which will further US strategic interests in Asia and elsewhere.
Ø Why is the UPA Government in a hurry to go ahead withthe nuclear deal?
The tenure of the Bush Administration is coming to its end. The US Presidential elections are scheduled for November 2008 and the election campaign has already started. In order to finalise the nuclear deal a few steps are still required, which will take some time. Firstly, the Indian Government will have to conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Following this, the US will approach the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, a group of 45 member countries which tightly controls the supply of nuclear fuel and technology, to get an exemption enabling nuclear commerce withIndia. After this, the 123 Agreement will go to the US Congress for its approval. It is only after the US Congress approves the 123 Agreement that India and US can sign the agreement and conclude the nuclear deal. The role of the Indian Government will get over after concluding the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, after which it is the US which will pilot the deal through the subsequent stages. The timelines set by the Bush Administration for the Indian Government to conclude the IAEA Safeguards Agreement have been repeatedly upset because of the opposition to the nuclear deal within India. Whether the US Congress can finally approve the 123 Agreement before the end of the tenure of the Bush Administration is very doubtful. However, the BushAdministration wants to at least get the NSG waiver before its term ends, in order to present the deal as a fait accompli to the next US President. That would only be possible if India concludes the IAEA Safeguards Agreement by July-August 2008. Thus, it is to meet the requirement of the Bush Administration that the UPAGovernment is showing such hurry in going ahead with the nuclear deal. India's interests demand that the Government first build a broad political consensus in the country before entering into such a major international treaty which binds the country for the next 40 years. However, in his desperation to keep the commitmentsmade to George Bush, Manmohan Singh is going ahead with the 123 Agreement against all democratic norms and in violation to the assurances given in the UPA-Left Committee.
Ø Is the stand taken by the Left Parties consistent with theircommitment to secularism and keeping the communalforces out of power?
The Left Parties have always remained and will remain opposed to the communal forces led by the RSS-BJP. It is the Congress and the UPA which is deviating from the independent foreign policy of the country and adopting the foreign policy advocated by the RSS-BJP combine. The BJP is openly committed to a strategicalliance with the US. It was the BJP-led NDA Government which had initiated the negotiations with the Bush Administration for strategic relations because it shared the anti-Islamic world-view of the neoconservatives in the US. The RSS-BJP combine also talks about a US-Israel-India axis. The UPA Government, rather than reversing these policies of the BJP-led NDA Government, has moved ahead in the same direction. Aligning with the US through the nuclear deal amounts to accepting the foreign policy agenda set by the communal forces. This is why Manmohan Singh had appealed to former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee to support the deal in Parliament on 5th March 2008, calling him the "Bhishma Pitamah of Indian politics." Concerns for secularism were conveniently shelved while appealing to the BJP to support the deal. We do not see the communal agenda internationally and internally as two differentones. It is the UPA abandoning the path of an independent foreign policy that is paving the way for communal forces in the country. The Left Parties had provided outside support to the Congressled UPA Government since 2004 on the basis of the CMP in order to prevent the communal forces from capturing power. This, despite the fact that the Congress is the main rival of the Left Parties in places from which a majority of the Left MPs have been elected. It is the UPA Government which has disrupted the unity of the secular forces by pursuing a strategic partnership with theUS and adopting the foreign policy agenda of the communal forces. The UPA Government has failed to combat the communal forces in the last four years. Inflation and price rise, resulting from the neoliberal policies of the UPA Government, has helped the BJP and its allies in channelising people's discontent and coming to power in States like Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Punjab. The Congress Party has utterly failed to take on the communal Narendra Modi-led Government inGujarat and provide justice to the victims of the post-Godhra pogroms of 2002. Neither has action been taken on the Srikrishna Commission Report on Bombay riots by the Congress-led Government in Maharashtra. The Prevention of CommunalViolence Bill has not been enacted despite the UPA Government being in office for over four years. The recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report have also not been pursued effectively. Communal forces cannot be fought just on the basis of political manoeuvres. They can only be defeated through the pursuit of an alternative set of policies that mobilises and unites the people of the country. By bringing about a rightward shift in both foreign and domestic policies and willfully disregarding the Common Minimum Programme, it is the Congress-led UPA Governmentwhich is paving the way for the communal forces.
Ø What is the connection between the Hyde Act, the 123Agreement and the IAEA Safeguards Agreement?
The Hyde Act passed by the US Congress in December 2006 is the basis of the 123 Agreement with the US that enables civilian nuclear cooperation with India. The Hyde Act has made it clear that:
India must have a foreign policy congruent with that of theUS. India must align with the US against Iran. India cannot have a strategic fuel reserve greater than what isrequired for the immediate operation of its nuclear reactors. India can be put under sanctions again if it does not follow theconditions set out by the Hyde Act. India must submit its civilian nuclear programme to a regimeof perpetual IAEA safeguards. The President of the US must certify every year that India istoeing the US line. In case the US terminates its nuclear commerce with India, allother NSG countries would have to follow suit and this mustbe built within the NSG exemption given to India. No other country can start nuclear commerce with Indiabefore the US signs the 123 Agreement and this must also bebuilt into the NSG exemption to India. India must sign an additional protocol with IAEA after the123 Agreement is passed, which would be far more intrusivethan the current safeguards agreement. Access to technology for fuel reprocessing, fuel enrichment orheavy water production would not be allowed to India and nodual-use technology for these items would be allowed. Nuclear sanctions will be reimposed on India if it tests nuclearweapons in the future.In keeping with the Hyde Act, the 123 Agreement does not provide for guarantees of uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel and contains provisions whereby the US can terminate the agreement citing any reason. It is because of such provisions that there is a real risk of India becoming vulnerable to blackmail by the US in the future. For example, the US may threaten to terminate the 123 Agreement and put India back under nuclear sanctions in order to pressurize India to support an attack on Iran. In such a case,India's nuclear energy program based on imported reactors and fuel would immediately be crippled. However, the IAEA safeguards will still remain since the safeguards are for perpetuity. This would take away India's flexibility in using its own uranium resources.There is a significant difference between the previous IAEA agreements negotiated by India and the current IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Whereas on earlier occasions, the IAEA was brought in to oversee safeguards that were associated with nuclear agreements that had already been agreed to, the current Safeguards Agreement is a pre-condition to the conclusion of the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US.
Ø What are the major issues concerning the SafeguardsAgreement with the IAEA?
In the UPA-Left Committee, the UPA claimed that they should be allowed to proceed with the IAEA Safeguards Agreement which would incorporate assurances of uninterrupted fuel supplies and various other corrective measures which the Government had failed to secure in the 123 Agreement. The Left Parties were skeptical about these issues being resolved in the IAEA. After negotiating the Safeguards Agreement the UPA refused to show the text to the Left Parties. Without taking the Indian people intoconfidence, the UPA Government went ahead stealthily and submitted the text to the IAEA Board of Governors, belying the commitment made by the External Affairs Minister that the Government will proceed to the IAEA only if it wins the vote ofconfidence in Parliament. Since then the text of the Safeguards Agreement has become public. It is clear that the text was hidden from the Indian people in order to suppress the fact that India is about to bind its entire civilian nuclear energy programme into IAEA safeguards in perpetuity without getting concrete assurances regarding uninterrupted fuel supply, the right to build strategic reserves and the right to take corrective steps in case fuel supplies are stopped. India already has had the experience of the US suspendingnuclear fuel supplies to the Tarapur Atomic Power Station in 1983, reneging upon a thirty year contract signed in 1963. The key question therefore with respect to IAEA safeguards is: whether we have ensured that once India's civilian reactors go under safeguardsin perpetuity, the country would not be blackmailed by the withholding of nuclear fuel supplies as the United States did in Tarapur following Pokhran-I? The answer is clearly NO. The text of the Safeguards Agreement makes it clear that the repeated assurances made by the UPA Government in Parliament and outside on securing uninterrupted fuel supply assurances and strategic fuel reserves have not been fulfilled. Neither does theIAEA supply nuclear fuel nor does it have any obligation regarding fuel supplies or India's ability to build strategic reserves. The basic issue regarding the IAEA agreement is that the "corrective measures" that India can adopt in terms of withdrawing its nuclearreactors from IAEA safeguards, in the case of fuel supplies being stopped, is not spelt out in any meaningful terms in the text of the Agreement. There is only a vague mention of "corrective measures" in the Preamble of the IAEA agreement. Under the Hyde Act,IAEA safeguards are to be imposed on India's civilian nuclear facilities in perpetuity. The UPA government had repeatedly claimed that India would put its civilian reactors under safeguards under the strictly reciprocal condition of assured fuel supply. If fuelsupply was disrupted India would have the right to take corrective measures, including taking reactors out of IAEA safeguards. The UPA Government has failed to secure this reciprocity in the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As against the vagueness of the "corrective measures" figuring in the Preamble, what is spelt out clearly in the body of the agreement (Paragraph 32) is that India can withdraw any facility out of IAEA safeguards only if it strips it of all capability of producing nuclear energy that is, until all the facilities and material supplied to India under these safeguards are eitherreturned or consumed or no longer usable for any nuclear activity. This provision will not allow a single reactor to be taken out of safeguards even if nuclear fuel supply to India is disrupted. The UPA Government claims that the references to uninterrupted fuel supply, building strategic reserves and "corrective measures" contained in the Preamble of the Safeguards Agreement meets India's requirements and safeguards national interest. However, it is well established in international law that the Preamble of aninternational agreement cannot be used to create additional rights or obligations that are not contained in the clauses of the agreement. There are no corrective measures specified in the operative clauses of the agreement. The Left Parties had asked the UPA government to spell out the following vis-à-vis the IAEA Safeguards Agreement:
In case the US or other countries in the Nuclear SuppliersGroup renege on fuel supply assurances for imported reactors,will India have the ability to withdraw these reactors fromIAEA safeguards? If the US/NSG countries renege on fuel supply assurances, canwe withdraw our indigenous civilian reactors from IAEAsafeguards? If we have to bring nuclear fuel from the non-safeguardedpart of our nuclear programme for these reactors in case offuel supply assurances not being fulfilled, will we have the abilityto take it back again? What are the corrective steps India can take if fuel supplies areinterrupted by the US/NSG countries? What are the conditions that India must fulfill if the correctivesteps are to be put into operation?
These concerns have not been met by the unspecified "corrective measures" inserted in the Preamble of the Safeguards Agreement. For the facilities it proposes to put under IAEA safeguards, India will be treated as a Non-Nuclear Weapon State. India will not have any special rights in its safeguarded facilities. This directly contradicts the assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament that India would be recognized as a Nuclear Weapon State. Nuclear Weapon States, as defined in the NPT, have the right to take any facility out of safeguards, a right India will not have for the reactors it is offering to IAEA for safeguards. What are risks associated with the subsequent steps required to operationalise the nuclear deal? Once the text of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement is approved by the IAEA Board of Governors, the subsequent steps require no participation at all by the Government of India. It is the US Government that takes the next steps moving the NSG countries for the waiver and then placing the 123 Agreement before the US Congress. As far as India is concerned, the nuclear deal therefore goes into an auto-pilot mode once the IAEA Safeguards Agreement is sealed. The US has the responsibility of moving the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to modify its rules to permit nuclear commerce with India in the civilian nuclear energy sector. The 45-member NSG was created in the first place by the US specifically to isolate India after the nuclear explosions in 1974 (Pokhran-I) and deny it access to nuclear fuel and technology. Even if the Nuclear Suppliers Group lays down unacceptable conditions before granting a waiver for nuclear commerce with India, the IAEA Safeguards Agreement will remain and bind the country for the future. It is clear that the IAEA Safeguards Agreement does not address the fundamental problems in the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement. As a result of operationalising the nuclear deal, India will place its expensive imported reactors under perpetual IAEA safeguards and risk their permanent shutdown in case it fails to toe the US line on foreign policy issues. Thus going ahead with the Safeguards Agreement will be harmful to India's interests.
Ø Is it possible for India to get the NSG waiver through theUS and then reduce dependence upon the US by tradingwith countries like Russia and France?
The NSG granting more favourable terms to India than those offered by the US is ruled out since the Hyde Act clearly preempts such a possibility. In October 2007, the US Congress had asked the US Administration to ensure that the NSG waiver for India isstrictly in accordance with the Hyde Act provisions: (i) IAEA safeguards will be there in perpetuity, (ii) if one NSG member country terminates nuclear commerce with India, so will all others and (iii) no access for dual-use technologies will be provided toIndia. That the draft proposal already submitted by the US to the NSG incorporates these requirements is clear from press reports. Simply put, this implies that the US can re-impose its nuclear sanctions on India any time it wants, which will have to be followedby other NSG countries. Moreover, most of the existing sanctions on nuclear technology will continue and the waiver will only be for nuclear fuel and reactors. Therefore, there is no possibility for India to bank upon other NSG countries like Russia and Francefor nuclear supplies independent of the conditions imposed by the US.
Ø Will the Indo-US nuclear deal ensure India's energysecurity?
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal is not about India's energy security. India's energy security in the near future primarily lies in using indigenous energy resources such as coal and ensuring our energy supplies from West Asian countries like Iran and from CentralAsia. Augmenting indigenous coal production, investing in oil exploration and securing gas supplies through the Iran Gas Pipeline are much more important for India's energy security for the next 15-20 years than importing nuclear reactors and uranium. India's energy security certainly does not lie in buying billions of dollars of reactors from the moribund US nuclear industry, from which nobody is buying in the US. The crisis in India's power sector is the result of a systematic attempt by successive Governments to curb public investments, hoping to make high-cost private power more acceptable to thepeople. It is this starving of the power sector of investments that has produced the current crippling power shortages. The immediate need is to provide adequate outlays for the power sector and to embark on the quickest and cheapest way of eliminating the current electricity shortages while keeping all our options open. The nuclear deal is of no use in this since imported nuclear plants are not only much more expensive but also take muchlonger to build than coal-fired ones. Contrary to the propaganda unleashed by the Government that the nuclear deal would immediately solve the power shortagesin the country, the reality is that even if the order for imported reactors is placed the day the deal is finally signed, it will take at least 7-8 years from that date before any electricity is produced in these plants, going by international experience. As against this,coal-fired plants can be built in 3-4 years, i.e. we can build a coalfired plant in about half the time it takes to build a nuclear power plant. Gas fired plants can be built even faster. With the new strikes of natural gas in the Kaveri-Godavari Basin in Andhra Pradesh, gas for producing power quickly is an attractive option.
Ø What is the cost of nuclear power?
Nuclear power plants built with imported nuclear reactors will be three times as costly as coal-fired plants. Simply put, with the same amount of money we can install three coal-fired plants against one nuclear plant of the same capacity. Moreover, the cost of electricity from imported nuclear plants will be more than Rs. 5.00 per unit as against about Rs. 2.00 to Rs. 2.50 per unit from coal-fired plants. The Government claims that we can add 40,000 megawatts (MW) of nuclear power through imported reactors to ensureenergy security. This will cost Rs. 3.6 to 4 lakh crore, going by the minimum cost of nuclear power plants at $2000 per kilowatt. At least 100,000 MW of electricity can be generated through coalbased thermal power plants with the same investment. Moreover,if India can afford the amount of Rs. 4 lakh crore, then besides generating 40,000 MW of power through coal-based plants to ensure energy security, the money saved can also be used to wipe out illiteracy, provide free education and health for all and ensure universal food security. Therefore, the nuclear deal is not so much in India's interests than in the interests of the nuclear power industry in the US and elsewhere which is keen to sell nuclear reactors to India.No comments: Labels:US statergic trap Older PostsHomeSubscribe to:Posts (Atom)bhagat
revolutionary
TAGS:arunchemist
<<< Thank you for your visit >>>
Websites to related : Quiet Highway: Saga of a Gentlem
keywords:
description:
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
keywords:
description:
Skip to content Three Fish Partners Three Fish Partners Coming Soon! Ch
keywords:fishing in england, angling venues, fisheries for sale, where can I go fishing, places to go fishing, coarse fisheries, coarse fishing, game
hermes.net.au - contact with dom keywords:
description:Contact with an owner of hermes.net.au domain name.
keywords:
description:
skip to main | skip to sidebarWednesday, February 29, 2012Seriously Impulsive Blog SwapWhen I saw my IRL Best Friend, Sha
keywords:
description:
Store FrontAccountSearchProduct ListBasket ContentsCheckout Sign In
Order History
New ">EXCELLENT UPDATE ON NOW!!!We offer a w
keywords:
description:
Menù Prima Pagina Cronaca
keywords:
description:
Navigation Weddings Galleries Wedding Vendors News Advic
keywords:
description:
journal-archieves18 Subtitle
keywords:
description:
Classification of Living
Organisms HomeSeven Levels of Classification What i
Hot Websites