Macro-Models of Social and National Progress - Part III
Evolution of different models of progress was mainly because of the historical background of each societies and lack of tele-communications and direct contact between different societies, to have been affected by other societies.
NewsBharati 30-May-2022 10:00:30 AM
Total Views |
(The article is being continued)
Confucian Way
The Confucian social perceptions underwent considerable changes when Buddhism was later accepted by the Chinese overwhelmingly. Either the Confucian philosophy or the Buddhism is no longer the guiding principle of present-day Chinese society. The changeover to Marxian model of development, after the Chinese independence from the feudal order, almost destroyed all the old perceptions, including the Confucian one, in the latter half of the twentieth century. The Marxian model first destroyed the Confucian model almost completely. Now with change over to the western model of material progress, China has become almost similar to any other western nations in terms of material progress. Buddhism or Confucianism no more guides the progress of Chinese. These have been limited to individuals in their own limited lives. They are on the way to become the biggest economic power in the world, even superior to the western nations, with progress based on materialism only. Their progress is being measured currently by pure material progress only. It is liberal in economics as the west but it keeps political stranglehold as propounded by Marxism.
Marxian Model
There is no difference between the models of progress by the Marxian or the western models except that of the ownership of capital for material progress. That simple difference however results in dictatorship in adopting the Marxian model on the one hand and open, liberal, democratic order in adopting the western capitalistic model on the other. The western model believes that customer dictates materialistic production and consumption. Whereas the state decides the same in Marxian economies. In the western capitalistic society the capital may be held by any one freely, depending upon one’s own capacity, whereas it will be owned entirely by the state in the Marxian model. The Marxian experiment of over seven decades, using entire state power for its implementation, has miserably failed to progress any society anywhere in the world, without any exception. For all practical purposes it is a failed model of progress and is not likely to revive anywhere and any more. Except a small die-hard adherent to Marxian philosophy in some countries there are no other takers of this model for progress, even of the down-trodden. Even the Chinese have discarded it in preference to the western economic model.
But it has had great impact in enlightening the masses about their rightful claim for progress along with that of the capitalists in any open society. As a result the democratic governments became more conscious and active in social reforms for public welfare in reducing the stratification of capitalistic societies into haves and have-nots and make the society an egalitarian one, to the extent possible.
The open capitalistic society in the early industrial world disregarded the welfare of masses. But at the same time they became more democratic under the influence of many liberal thinkers. The democratic governments, for securing votes of masses, had to be more liberal in spending on social welfare and thereby reducing the gap between the haves and the have-nots. They had to transform themselves into all-inclusive model of progress. The need is to have the right balance between the two.
On the whole it is the material outlook that dominates the Marxian model with emphasis on scientific temper but controlled by the state almost in its entirety. It rejects religion and the spirituality outright and does not believe in it in any way. It is purely materialistic in its approach and has semblance with saint Charwak in India. It is purely atheist in behavior.
Western Materialistic Model
It is based on the overall perception of western societies since the rise of Greek and Roman civilizations and also on the Christian perceptions to some extent. Many things have gone into in making it purely a materialistic perception. The general harsh challenges of sustenance, particularly in north-western Europe, made them more organized and determined to conquer nature to solve the problems of sustenance to become happy. In the process they studied nature and developed science and there-from developed the technology to progress and thereby make life-styles much less harsh. It led to industrial revolution and that made them more and more materialistic in outlook. They believed in acquiring strength to secure progress and dominate rest of the world. The military and organized strength arising out of industrial revolution came in handy to colonization of many other societies, to the extent of even extermination of some of them and exploitation of the others for their own material prosperity, at the cost of the poor and weak in those colonies.
They brought-in information revolution and maintained their superiority over other societies/nations. By progress they mean only material progress in the form of consumption of more and more goods and services. Every effort is thus made to improve effectiveness and efficiency of production of goods and services to make them available to the maximum lot of masses and thereby ensure their progress and perhaps happiness. This is the model that is essentially being copied by almost all societies all over the world in securing material happiness, at least to some extent. The role of Christianity in these societies is continuously decreasing as they are becoming more and more atheist. Christianity has been thus limited to a matter of individual choice mainly. The western thinking by way of their government policies is on the one hand for manufacture and trading world over and, allowing everyone to try out one’s own future in this way. On the other hand they still clandestinely support Christian church (of any hue) to spread Christianity all over the world. In other words they mean progress on material front as well as on rigid religious front. The religious coercion is left to the pastors to implement.
In this model, one thing is certain that the psychological pressure on individual for material progress, is creating a variety of psychological disorders and that is a serious threat to social stability, peace and discipline. Another serious problem is the side effect on deteriorating earth’s ecological balance almost beyond repair. Hence it will not be possible to allow progress of all human population for long in this direction. How long such progress can continue? Inherent exploitation of a sizable section of society is it‘s another main drawback.
Another serious fall-out of this model is that all humans cannot have the material pleasures that this model offers. Firstly the earth does not have the resources to achieve it for all humans on the earth. The only alternative left is to exploit the rest of the vast majority. It has resulted in great power play and exploitation at the international level and the closeness of humanity achieved through scientific and technological achievements is thus getting misused for domination not of individuals but of societies as a whole on the weaker societies. It is not going to lead to peaceful, disciplined and harmonious human race for certain.
Confucian Way
Confucius was a Chinese philosopher and politician and not a proponent of any religion. He belonged to the period around fifth century before Christ. He believed in benevolence, love of humanity, moderation in all things, harmony with nature, duty and rules that define good relations and so on. His philosophy and belief system laid the foundation of Chinese culture and national spirit and therefore it became China’s handbook of governance. He felt that the society must be led only by intellectual, sober, knowledgeable and self-restrained persons for its peaceful progress. He wanted to evolve such people to create conditions for progress of all. He deliberated on the right path of progress for all by which individuals and the society shall develop discipline in families, in society and in governance. According to him peaceful social atmosphere was necessary for progress of all. In a way he was for humanitarian considerations, more close to the same as propounded by the Indians long ago. Governance by honest, selfless and well behaved people is the sure guarantee of progress for all, was prime guiding principle of his teachings. Nobody can dispute with it. Chinese society on the whole was very much influenced, and progressed to whatever extent, by Confucian philosophy for over a couple of thousand years.
The Confucian social perceptions underwent considerable changes when Buddhism was later accepted by the Chinese overwhelmingly. Either the Confucian philosophy or the Buddhism is no longer the guiding principle of present-day Chinese society. The changeover to Marxian model of development, after the Chinese independence from the feudal order, almost destroyed all the old perceptions, including the Confucian one, in the latter half of the twentieth century. The Marxian model first destroyed the Confucian model almost completely. Now with change over to the western model of material progress, China has become almost similar to any other western nations in terms of material progress. Buddhism or Confucianism no more guides the progress of Chinese. These have been limited to individuals in their own limited lives. They are on the way to become the biggest economic power in the world, even superior to the western nations, with progress based on materialism only. Their progress is being measured currently by pure material progress only. It is liberal in economics as the west but it keeps political stranglehold as propounded by Marxism.
Marxian Model
There is no difference between the models of progress by the Marxian or the western models except that of the ownership of capital for material progress. That simple difference however results in dictatorship in adopting the Marxian model on the one hand and open, liberal, democratic order in adopting the western capitalistic model on the other. The western model believes that customer dictates materialistic production and consumption. Whereas the state decides the same in Marxian economies. In the western capitalistic society the capital may be held by any one freely, depending upon one’s own capacity, whereas it will be owned entirely by the state in the Marxian model. The Marxian experiment of over seven decades, using entire state power for its implementation, has miserably failed to progress any society anywhere in the world, without any exception. For all practical purposes it is a failed model of progress and is not likely to revive anywhere and any more. Except a small die-hard adherent to Marxian philosophy in some countries there are no other takers of this model for progress, even of the down-trodden. Even the Chinese have discarded it in preference to the western economic model.
But it has had great impact in enlightening the masses about their rightful claim for progress along with that of the capitalists in any open society. As a result the democratic governments became more conscious and active in social reforms for public welfare in reducing the stratification of capitalistic societies into haves and have-nots and make the society an egalitarian one, to the extent possible.
The open capitalistic society in the early industrial world disregarded the welfare of masses. But at the same time they became more democratic under the influence of many liberal thinkers. The democratic governments, for securing votes of masses, had to be more liberal in spending on social welfare and thereby reducing the gap between the haves and the have-nots. They had to transform themselves into all-inclusive model of progress. The need is to have the right balance between the two.
On the whole it is the material outlook that dominates the Marxian model with emphasis on scientific temper but controlled by the state almost in its entirety. It rejects religion and the spirituality outright and does not believe in it in any way. It is purely materialistic in its approach and has semblance with saint Charwak in India. It is purely atheist in behavior.
Western Materialistic Model
It is based on the overall perception of western societies since the rise of Greek and Roman civilizations and also on the Christian perceptions to some extent. Many things have gone into in making it purely a materialistic perception. The general harsh challenges of sustenance, particularly in north-western Europe, made them more organized and determined to conquer nature to solve the problems of sustenance to become happy. In the process they studied nature and developed science and there-from developed the technology to progress and thereby make life-styles much less harsh. It led to industrial revolution and that made them more and more materialistic in outlook. They believed in acquiring strength to secure progress and dominate rest of the world. The military and organized strength arising out of industrial revolution came in handy to colonization of many other societies, to the extent of even extermination of some of them and exploitation of the others for their own material prosperity, at the cost of the poor and weak in those colonies.
They brought-in information revolution and maintained their superiority over other societies/nations. By progress they mean only material progress in the form of consumption of more and more goods and services. Every effort is thus made to improve effectiveness and efficiency of production of goods and services to make them available to the maximum lot of masses and thereby ensure their progress and perhaps happiness. This is the model that is essentially being copied by almost all societies all over the world in securing material happiness, at least to some extent. The role of Christianity in these societies is continuously decreasing as they are becoming more and more atheist. Christianity has been thus limited to a matter of individual choice mainly. The western thinking by way of their government policies is on the one hand for manufacture and trading world over and, allowing everyone to try out one’s own future in this way. On the other hand they still clandestinely support Christian church (of any hue) to spread Christianity all over the world. In other words they mean progress on material front as well as on rigid religious front. The religious coercion is left to the pastors to implement.
In this model, one thing is certain that the psychological pressure on individual for material progress, is creating a variety of psychological disorders and that is a serious threat to social stability, peace and discipline. Another serious problem is the side effect on deteriorating earth’s ecological balance almost beyond repair. Hence it will not be possible to allow progress of all human population for long in this direction. How long such progress can continue? Inherent exploitation of a sizable section of society is it‘s another main drawback.
Another serious fall-out of this model is that all humans cannot have the material pleasures that this model offers. Firstly the earth does not have the resources to achieve it for all humans on the earth. The only alternative left is to exploit the rest of the vast majority. It has resulted in great power play and exploitation at the international level and the closeness of humanity achieved through scientific and technological achievements is thus getting misused for domination not of individuals but of societies as a whole on the weaker societies. It is not going to lead to peaceful, disciplined and harmonious human race for certain.
The next part will be coming soon
Dr. R. H. Tupkary
Dr. R. H. Tupkary graduated in Met. Engg. from BHU in 1959. Later he completed M. Tech in 1963 and Ph. D. in 1966 from University of Melbourne. He taught at BHU and at VRCE Nagpur. He voluntarily retired in 1994 to become Managing Director of Marathi daily ‘Tarun Bharat’. As a professor at VRCE he was very active for over twenty years in the Nagpur University and was elected in almost all the bodies including the Executive Council over a period of total of twenty years. He was detained for twenty months during the 1975 Emergency. During that period he wrote a book on Steelmaking that made him famous all over the world. He was the founder Chairman of VNIT Nagpur. He is the recipient of ‘Binani Gold Medal’ of IIM and ‘Distinguished Metallurgist Award’ of SAIL. After retirement he has written a book titled ‘Organizational Intelligence’. His Marathi book ‘Vaidnyanik Drishtikonatun RSS’ received Behere award of Pune Marathi Granthalaya in 2005.