>>Ok, but displacement of whom? For whom this displacement takes place? They are exiling the poor majority for the favor of a very micro minority. Its benefits will get by the rich and all the difficulties and troubles should be bear by the downtrodden classes.
This takes us back to the basics of production. Let us take the case of the basic necessities of the people - Food, clothing and shelter. To produce food, say paddy, you need tractors. To transport the food grains, you need trucks. To produce tractors/trucks you need the industrial units. For clothing, you need mills like Gwalior Rayons. To produce shelter, you need cement, bricks, steel etc. You need to produce even those in the industrial units.
Of course, all these industries are owned by the rich. To the person who sees things superficially, these industries are benefitting only the rich. So what happens if all the poor cling to their properties and do not move so that these industries can come in? The machinaries required for production will not be produced. Then the production of food, clothing and shelter will fall. That'll increase their price making them unreachable to the poor. The result is that the society will become much poorer.
You can take any such industry and analyze who are the beneficiaries. Take software industry for example. What are the softwares used for? To automate the production and make it more efficient, there by enhancing it by leaps and bounds. So what is the effect? Because of the enhanced production, the commodities become cheaper making them affordable to the common man. So, ultimately who are the beneficiaries? Is it just industrialists like Bill Gates, Tata, Reliance etc? No, the entire society.
>>Are you living outside of our governmental experiences? From which government you are expecting this? What was our experience with the Cochin airport victims? Have you known about any types of struggles they have been conducted? Our mainstream political parties and media disregarded their issue with a condemnable impudence. When they started their struggle for getting their rights, who did blame them as lazy, don't like to work but struggle only?
I never said that our government is a perfect one. If the government is violating our rights then we have to fight against the govt. If the govt is acquiring anybody's property without compensating properly, then what the govt is doing is nothing but plunder. That's what I said in the previous posting that people have every right to fight for deserving compensation, but not against displacement.
>>No one denies that there is an inner instinct of self-love in the man. But the question is how can the inner instinct of self-love be directed in a proper manner? Which way will bring the social peace to the communitycz
Capitalism unfastens all ties on an individual and let him to do anything which brings him any type of benefit. It teaches him he has not any responsibility on the society. You are trying to theorize these vulgar thoughts in the name of individualism.
This is not right. Capitalism allows an individual to do anything which brings him any type of benefit as long as it doesn't encroach into anyone else's rights. The way capitalism directs self-interest in a proper manner is by promoting trade for mutual benefit. When I buy clothes from Raymonds, the Raymond factory owners make profit. At the same time I enhance my materialistic well being. This is called trade for mutual benefit. In this trade, both Raymonds and I got benefitted. On the contrary, if I robbed cloths from Raymond, I gained, but Raymonds lost. The same way if Raymonds robbed me of money then Raymonds gained but I lost. Both these are Win-lose scenarios and both are anti-capitalist activities.
>>As I said, there is an instinct of self-love in him, but it is not a license to trampling society's rights. On the contrary, this inner instinct must be lead along the right path.
As I said, capitalism doesn't support making gains by trampling others rights. The self-interest is directed towards working for mutual benefit. When I work for a capitalistic company, the company is not doing any favor to me by giving me a job. They employ me because of my productivity. The same way, I'm not working for them for charity. I work because of the salary that they pay me and the job satisfaction that I get out of the work.
>>Ok, but here, in capitalistic hells, not the real profit makers enjoy the fruits of labor. But a micro minority exploits their skills and gives them a very insignificant part of their huge profit which gained because of hard efforts of these labors. So there is no freedom to enjoy the fruits of “his own" efforts in capitalism. But only cheating and exploitation there because “man is individualistic in nature and the distribution of the wealth equally is contrary to his natural behavior"!
This is not true. In a capitalist company, no one forces anyone to work for them. The moment one feels that he's getting exploited, he can quit. And if he has the capability, then he can start his own company and compete with the parent company. So there's no exploitation. I work with a software company. The company is selling the software that we develop for millions of dollars. So, am I getting exploited? No. Because, development is only one part of it. The main thing is the credibility of the product vendor. The customers will buy the software from my company, because of the company's credibility. The moment I feel that I'm being exploited, I'm free to quit and start my own company. The same applies to every one.
>>To bring equality, if the expropriation is obligatory, it should be done. I don't mean the mathematical equality but there will not be any human being unable to fulfill his fundamental needs (food, treatment, home, education……………..)
This is the point that I've already answered. Assume that one person produces 10 measures of rice, second one produces 1 measure and the third person produces nothing. Assume that each person requires 3 measures of rice to fulfill his fundamental needs. Then you'll expropriate 5 measures of rice from the first guy and give 2 to the second guy and 3 to the third guy. Now the first guy has put in effort equivalent of 10 measures of rice, but he's getting only 5. That reduces the incentive of the first guy to produce 10. So eventually he produces lesser, say 9. Meanwhile the second guy sees that if he produces 1 then the govt gives him 2. So if he produces lesser, the balance will be compensated by the govt. So even he starts producing lesser, say 1/2 measures of rice. So now more rice has to be expropriated from the first guy. ie, he produces 9 and you expropriate 5 1/2 leaving him only 3 1/2 measures.
This vicious circle will continue until the society is totally impoverished and finally this system will collapse.
>>What was my question?
You are answering for what?
I said that there is no equality in opportunities to get education in our country. This is clearly opposite to our constitution. You only underline that there will not be equality in wealth!
Dude, these are all interconnected. Where does the funds for the free education come from? From the tax collected from the productive citizens. If you don't allow the industries to come, the opportunity for the citizens to work productively reduces. Proportionately, the tax collected also reduces. Proportionately, the funds for free education also reduces. Then how can there be equality in opportunities?
>>Yes, now, with us there is a terrible inequality in wealth distribution. Besides this there is no equality in opportunities in different sectors. This situation should be changed or not?
Answered just above.
>>Have you ever read our constitution? It begins with:
“We, the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic"
Your statement is a strong evidence to consider you as a seditionist and rebel to our country. There is no different between one who challenge the secularism or democracy and one who challenge the socialism. Socialism is one of the foundation stones of our constitution like secularism or democracy. So parliament denied to an appeal to remove the word "socialism" from the constitution. I think the appealer was ridiculing our development culture. Is this not sympathetically to turn every importance of the state to the micro minority rich class in a “socialist" country!!??
Hello... we are not living in a fascist society. I'm constructively criticizing certain irrational aspects of our original constitution. Not waging any gurella war. I have my freedom of expression. Any body is free to challenge my points logically. If I'm convinced, I'll accept it. Else I'll reject it. The question is not whether it is the secularism that is challenged or socialism. The question is whether the arguments of the appealer makes sense.
For a sustainable development culture, the basic requirement is a rational mind and the humility to accept mistakes and correct them rather than clinging to the mistakes by appealing to the nationalistic sentiments. And so far in any of my postings, I've never appealed to the sympathy factor. I've only appealed to logic/rationality.