“Dimensions of Ambedkarism.”
Prof M.K.Dongre
Economic Thought and isms
1. Capitalism
Capitalism is the basic
economic system of the modern age. “It involves the method of enterprise
and a rational capitalistic establishment; and the spirit of capitalism
illustrates that attitude which seeks profit rationally and
systematically”, observes Max Weber. As defined by Hobson, it is the
organisation of business upon a large scale by an employer or company of
employers possessing an accumulated stock wherewith to acquire raw
materials and tools, and hire labour so as to produce an increased
quantity of wealth which shall constitute profit. From various
definitions of capitalism Dr. S.K. Srivastava concludes that,
“Capitalism or capitalist civilization is that stage in the development
of Industry and legal institutions in which the majority of workers find
themselves divorced from the ownership of the means of production in
such way as they become mere wage earners whose subsistence, security
and personal freedom depend upon capitalists who can be counted on
fingers, control the entire organisation of land, labour and machinery;
and undertake business and production purely from the point of view of
private gain”.1 Hence, the salient features of the capitalism are: (i)
Private property, (ii) Ownership of means of production, (iii) Economic
freedom,
(iv) Vital role of entrepreneur, and (v) Competition accompanied by
oligopoly. Mr. V.B. Singh lays stress on the motive of profit making and
points out the following characteristics of capitalism: (i) Profit
constitutes the motivating force for the advancement of economic
activities;
(ii) The profit realised is not controlled by the State or the public
bodies, but by individual entrepreneurs; and (iii) Profit is generally
invested in the production of wealth, so as to get further profits.2
Mainly because of this motive of profit making the capitalists, in the
words of Karl Marx, started misappropriating the ‘Surplus Value’
produced by the labour. It resulted in inequalities of income; division
of society into classes like rich and poor, employers and employees and
haves and have-nots; social unrest ; unemployment ; class-conflict
leading to class struggle and class-war ; cut-throat competition;
unplanned production; loss of moral values and trade cycle. Hence, there
emerged a socialistic thought which aimed at replacing capitalism by
limiting or abolishing private property; establishing collective
ownership on the means of production by way of nationalisation and by
establishing a class-less society based on equality and justice.
Marxism, which embodies Socialism and Communism, criticized and
described in detail the evils of capitalism and stood against it every
tooth and nail. Dr. Ambedkar’s Approach Dr. Ambedkar was a staunch
democrat and a committed socialist. He therefore agrees that the
‘have-nots’ are always exploited by the ‘haves’ and joins hands with
Karl Marx in overthrowing the supremacy of the ‘haves’. But, he does
not accept economic relationship as the be-all and end-all of human
life and thus rejects economic motive as the driving power behind all
human activity. Hence, the mis-appropriation of the Surplus Value
by the owners of private property cannot be the only reason of
exploitation. Dr. Ambedkar does not therefore believe in the abolition
of private property as the only remedy to bring an end to the
exploitation, poverty and sufferings of the have-nots. On the contrary,
he defends an individual’s right to private possession of wealth and
property and stands for a greater security of the individual’s economic
interests, with the help of state control. He believes in individual
liberty and wants the capitalists to co-operate with the state for the
betterment of economic and social affairs. He is opposed to the
annihilation of capitalists as it would be, in his opinion, an act of
violence. He believes in non-violent method of socio-economic change
without depriving anybody of his personal liberty may he be capitalist
or an owner of private property. But he maintains that the primary
function of a growing society is an effective check on economic
exploitation and therefore seeks “to eliminate the possibility of the
more powerful having the power to impose arbitrary restraints on the
less powerful withdrawing from the control he has over the economic life
of the people.3 Obviously, he is against the concentration of wealth in
a few hands and seeks to put “an obligation on the state to plan the
economic life of the people on the line which would lead to highest
point of productivity without closing every avenue to private
enterprise, and also provide for equitable distribution of wealth.” 4
State Intervention Dr. Ambedkar, though disagreed with Karl Marx and
defended an individual’s right to liberty and private property never
favoured capitalism as the best form of economic system. Being a
democrat he wants individual liberty through democracy and being a
socialist he wants social emancipation through socialism. F. M. Stern
wrote a book titled as ‘Classless Capitalism’ and tried to impress that
American Capitalism is not only classless but also democratic and thus
superior to the kind of capitalism known to the rest of the world. He
further observed that the “American Capitalism is dominated by two
seemingly unconnected movements; one is shrinking demand for human
labour per unit of production and the other is rapid expansion of the
market for the products of modern industry. These two movements must-and
in the final outcome do-balance each other.” Siding totally with the
capitalistic process he believed in market mechanism but did not favour
State intervention.5 Dr. Ambedkar
maintained that the State can prove itself an ideal agency to protect,
both democracy and socialism by resorting to timely intervention and
adequate controls. He says, “It is true that where the State
refrains from intervention what remains is liberty…..but this liberty is
liberty to landlords to increase rents, for capitalists to increase
hours of work and reduce rate of wages. This must be so. It cannot be
otherwise. For, in an economic system employing armies of workers,
producing goods en masse at regular intervals some one must make rules
so that workers will work and the wheels of industry run on. If the
State does not do it, the private employer will. Life otherwise become
impossible. In other words what is called liberty from the control of
the state is another name for the dictatorship of the private
employer.”6 He favours state intervention against capitalism but not to
the extent of communism. Dr. Ambedkar, as a practical democrat with
an ardent faith in a democratic way of life, has opposed monopoly and
dictatorship in its shape and form. He is against complete
nationalisation and state control of the economy. He advocates State
Socialism and state ownership in the fields of agriculutre, industry and
insurance with a view to see that the dictatorship and capitalism do
not stand in the way of democracy and socialism and their rapid success
in India. Land holding in India, according to Dr. Ambedkar, is not only a
matter of property but also a matter of social states. The traditional
village economy, based on agriculture, is the root cause of
socio-economic inequality and injustice. He therefore advocates
nationalisation of agricultural land with collective farming where
agriculture becomes a State Industry. Dr. Ambedkar is not opposed to the
private sector of the economy. He suggests that some spheres of
production, except in the basic industries, should be operated through
the state or through private enterprise or under both the state and
private control. He realizes that the private enterprise cannot bring
about rapid industrialization of Indian economy because of its motive of
maximum profit and absolute backwardness of the traditional village
economy of the country; and even if it attempts to industrialise the
economy, it would produce inequalities of wealth, exploitation of
workers and such other evils of capitalism.7 Hence, he is in favour of
nationalisation of basic and key industries only. So also he advocates
nationalisation of insurance with a view to give (i) greater security to
the individuals and (ii) adequate funds to the State for financing
economic plans. Thus, Dr. Ambedkar seeks to establish a balance between
State ownership and private enterprise. He is neither in the camp of
pure or Scientific Socialists or of the communists who advocate total
nationalisation and complete state monopoly, nor favours capitalism
which stands for free and un-controlled private enterprise. Dr.
Ambedkar wants “to retain Parliamentary Democracy and to prescribe the
state socialism by the law of the constitution, so that it will be
beyond the reach of Parliamentary majority to suspend, amend or abrogate
it”.8 Lord J.M. Keynes propounds a theory of state capitalism as
opposed to state socialism and wants the state to function within the
general requirements of the capitalist system. Thus, as regard to state
intervention in economic life of the people Dr. Ambedkar comes close to
Lord J. M. Keynes, but with a different attitude. Keynes propounded,
revised or reformed Capitalism whereas Dr. Ambedkar
advocated a new kind of State Socialism. Both are the reformers of
capitalist system; but when Keynes fundamentally remains a capitalist,
Ambedkar turns to be an individualist and socialist in his
socio-economic philosophy. This attitude towards human interest
brings Dr. Ambedkar very near to J.S. Mill who outlines a comprehensive
programme of social policy observes, Dr. D. R. Jatava.9 To Dr.
Ambedkar, Capitalism and Brahminism, an integral part of Hinduism, are
the twin enemies of Indian society as Brahminism is also based on
exploitation and inequality. In his attack on Hinduism Ambedkar comes
closer to Karl Marx who regards religion as the opium of the people and
wants to overthrow the supremacy of religion and capitalism.
Capitalism Versus Democracy Capitalism is said to have been changing and
capitalism today is not the classical capitalism of earlier times. But the profit-motive remains and its evil effects cannot be ignored.
Even in case of India the British Government did not stop the squeezing
of the masses by the landlords and exploitation of the labourers by the
capitalists, might be because of the fear of resistance and their own
ideology of capitalistic economy. Hence, to believe that capitalism will
be replaced by social outlook and socially oriented planning or to
effect reforms in capitalism will not bring any fruits. F. M. Stern
believes that American Capitalism is ‘Classless Capitalism’ without
which dignity and prosperity for all cannot be realized. He also talks
of ‘Democratic Capitalism’ based upon change and growth, strives to
expand production, to create new ideas, new wealth and greater property
for all; but, also admits that economic and social equality for all can
probably never be attained.10 Dr. Ambedkar said, “Those who are
living under the capitalistic form of industrial organization and under
the form of political organization called Parliamentary Democracy must
recognize the contradictions of their systems…..In politics equality and
in economics inequality.”
It is thus obvious that capitalism cannot sustain the democratic principle of equality; and democratic society cannot justify exploitation and inequality. How can there be fraternity and justice without equality? So also there is no trace of morality and ethics in the ideology of capitalism. Dr. Ambedkar therefore could never support capitalism in its shape and form.
