Many doctrines of yesteryear pundits and intellectuals,the enlightened men of the bygone centuries are still being interpreted and used to study the prevailing conditions,contemporary socio-economic scenarios,they are revered by intellectuals of this age and still bona fide for they were the prototypes.They heralded the growth and modernization of the society and ushered humanity into a new age of scientific enquiry, a new society free from the gasps of feudalism,the most prominent form of en masse exploitation in medieval Europe.
Well the doctrine on which I am going to throw some light is paradoxical in itself,it was bona fide and revered by many prominent economists and entrepreneurs of international repute and acclaim,the name of this economic doctrine is “The Invisible Hand”to know about any doctrine, to understand its conceptions it is important to know about its historical background and trace it back to the period of its inception.when we talk about this doctrine which was given by none other than the man hailed as the “Father of Modern economics”as well as the “cornerstone of the western free market economy”.
The man none other than the legendary economist of the 17th century Adam smith,a key figure in the Scottish enlightenment,the paragon of economics who still occupies the top echelon as the greatest economist.what we call today liberalization,and privatizations are subsequently a result of his writings.It would be apt to say his theories were an ideological inspirer and a model for the economic prosperity of western Europe which spearheaded mass scale production and free trade.Reduction of trade barriers across the globe was put forward by smith.
His magnum opus “Wealth of the nations”- a cause and enquiry is still a classic and one of the most read treatise on classical economics. Now lets take a glance on the” invisible hand”,name in itself is a metaphor.it is not a hand but a force,an invisible force,more precisely and in an more brave manner it simply tells about the self regulating nature of the market and maximum gain in a free market economy and also that the accumulation of wealth by the handful of few ,even if their aim is not philanthropy would eventually lead to the betterment of the society at large,as individual wealth and entrepreneurs generate jobs and employment for a large faction of the society it can be true if we talk about developed countries and the so called first world but if we talk about developing and under developed nations,the impoverished nations,nations where situation is always bellicose and civil strife is common place,it would be a total failure and would only lead those nations to abyss.the accumulation of wealth by the handful of few or what we can term oligarchy more specifically in the Russian perspective would increase disparity in the society and more exploitation of the masses, and the wealth which could otherwise be used for the betterment of the masses would be stored in the treasuries of the wealthy oligarchs(industrialists) who are intensively and instinctively profit driven and materialistic and doesn’t pay a heed to nation building and emancipation of the downtrodden,esp the case in the Indian perspective .India the 7th largest nation in terms of area and a home to 25% of humanity.The site of the oldest religion as well as the oldest civilization in the world,their is a huge disparity in India and rampant poverty and corruption forget about education,healthcare ,they are still a distant vision.Well ironically India is a home to many rich entrepreneurs and industrialists of the world and yet most of them except a handfull of few are reluctant to do anything other then accumulating wealth,store it and use it for themselves and their belligerents ,and display their might and power to world in a very ostenatious manner often by thier extravagant and pompous ceremonies and lavish parties and often bribing the government officials for the sake of their materialistic interests.
If society would have bennifited by the accumulation of wealth and by the personal ambitions and aspirations of a few Iif this statement was true India would have been the most happy and prosperous country in the world which unfortunately is not the case,this fails this doctrine,besides the competition which is the core ideology of capitalist free market ecconomy no doubt has given the consumers many alternatives but it many perils and negations,often this so called competition leads to exploitaion of people and many malpractices which are an inevitable branch of corruption and a flawed social order.
Take the case of west africa the place which has the largest diamond reserves in the world and many other equaly potent and rich minerals and natural resorces yet they live in utter poverty and and lead thier lives like mendicants without any hopes even hope of a life,no education,no civic ammenities,no healthcare and civil strife because of the avarice of big mncs ,they are more interested in the shining stones ie diamonds but not in the human lifes and basic humanity.and the ecconomic soothsayer and his anticipation that market regulates on its own and their should be know govt intervention on free trade and market considerably failed at the time of american subprime crisis when his invisible hand failed to ressurect the tumultous and collapsed ecconomy which were later saved by government interventions and injections of haughty american dollars and magnanimous bailouts to the extent of 2 trillion dollars on which varios commentators and jounalists satired that USA is now USSA(united states of socialist america)for its massive bailouts,govt interventions which were against her policy as well as against the doctrine of Adam smith.
The doctrine of Adam smith failed and karl marx was triumphant when he foresaw that free market would only lead to inexorable avarice and greed and a government intervention is required in all trades and commerce