Rejecting the Dialectic of Western Materialism

I would caution very strongly against applying such categories as "Capitalist", "Socialist",
"Liberal", or even "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" to anything within the Indian system. Not just
because they are foreign, but because the very assumptions from which these classifications
derive are completely disjointed from an Indian worldview.

For example, there is a pernicious idea that the traditional Vaishya Dharma, or the relationship of
Indian mercantile classes to wealth, is essentially "capitalist." This could not be further from the
truth. "Capitalism" is a form of sophistry developed by the apologist Adam Smith to
philosophically justify the accumulation of wealth as a natural outcome of Protestant work ethic,
in the face of pre-existing memes in Western thought that glorified poverty. Socialism is a
response to Capitalism that re-establishes the glorification of poverty without the earlier tone of
overt religiosity. This entire back-and-forth proceeds across a playing field whose geography is
dictated by the contours of Western Materialism. The precepts of Western Materialism
themselves could not be further removed from the way in which Vaishya Dharma regards the
concepts of wealth and prosperity.

Indian Vaishya Dharma is nothing at all like Capitalism, because in our view, the accumulation
of wealth is itself a task consonant with divinity; there is no sophistry required, and nothing to
apologize for. To cast one thing in the mold of the other, is like asking Pt. Bhimsen Joshi to sing
Raga Maalkauns in "F sharp minor, allegro moderato". It's meaningless.

It's well known that Hindu civilization produced a nation with a quarter of global GDP share,
even as late as the 1750s when Islamist colonialism and plunder had shafted us for a thousand
years ( I wonder what the figure would have been in Skanda Gupta's day.) History as written by
Abrahamic Materialists will attribute this simply to the fact that India was blessed with natural
resources and a convenient location on many trade routes; meanwhile, it will characterize the
Indian people themselves as lazy and detached from worldly reality, as opposed to the hard-
working Europeans whose enterprising spirit made them colonial masters of the planet.

The truth, of course, is that Indians have always had a civilizational sense of what constitutes
a healthy relationship with artha. It is one of the purusharthas, an aim of human existence whose
fulfillment enhances an individual's proximity to the supreme. Artha-shastra, or economics, is the
science of managing God-given resources, and hence an entirely noble pursuit. The idea of
wealth as an abstraction of these resources is a concept sparked by divine inspiration, and wealth
itself a manifestation of divinity. Some observers correctly allude to this when they mention that
Lakshmi is worshiped in India, but it would be entirely wrong to conclude that such traditions
have anything to do with "capitalism."

While this view of artha is what continues to inform many Indian businesspersons and business
families as they go about their work today, it is not what defines any discussion of economics at
the social or political levels... not even, sadly to say, in India. Those discussions are completely
overwhelmed by the Neo-Abrahamic worldview of wealth, wherein an imposed dialectic of
"development vs. social justice", "capitalism vs. socialism", "rich vs. poor" underlies any
argument made by *both* sides of the debate.

I say "Neo-Abrahamic" here because to give credit where it is due, the original Abrahamics-- the
Jews-- have always had a healthier relationship with the concept of wealth, much more like our
own albeit with different philosophical grounding. Together with the fact that Jews don't engage
in predatory conversion, this trait is a saving grace of their civilization which will make the
Hebrews quite possible for Indic civilization to co-exist and even cooperate with, in the long run.

With Christianity, Islamism and Marxism, the very notion of wealth has been twisted into
something so vastly different that it is quite incompatible with the way India has traditionally
regarded prosperity, and the way in which we need to regard it once more in order to achieve
success on our own terms.

Beginning with Christianity, a new dialectic of Western Materialism was imposed upon all
social, political and historical narrative. By controlling this underlying dialectic, religious
institutions in Christianity and Islam assured their own supremacy over the debate at both ends,
and positioned themselves as ultimate arbiters of justice between the opposing camps. Later on,
the youngest of the Abrahamic spawn... Marxism... may have done away with "God", but it still
held on to this fundamental philosophical mother-lode from which both "Capitalism" and
"Socialism" sprang, under the name of "Dialectical Materialism". That's how powerful it is, as a
lever for the control of historical narrative... and therefore, of history itself.

So what are the principles of this dialectic, and how are they incompatible with Vaishya
Dharma?

1) The Transference of Responsibility:

In the Indian view, karma ensures that ultimately, every individual is responsible for his or her
own actions. For this reason, the accumulation of wealth, the pursuit of Vaishya-dharma, the
generation of artha are noble pursuits as long as they are conducted as all good work must be;
i.e., without falling prey to the egotistical temptations of raaga (craving) or dvesha (repulsion.)

Karma has no place in the neo-Abrahamic worldview; for, if individuals were to be considered
ultimately responsible for their own actions, how could any institution claim a privileged
position as the authoritative narrator of history (including the authentication of specific "divine
interventions")? Also, what need would there be for messiahs, prophets and revelations if
individuals were capable of achieving their own salvation?

For this reason, Western Materialism transfers the "responsibility" for sins to the object of
raaga/dvesha... wealth itself... from those who succumb to these foibles. Hence, "money is the
root of all evil." Hence, Jesus "threw out the money changers from the temple".

In the final analysis, the promise that the power-brokers of Neo-Abrahamism hold out is that of
"salvation" by an external "saviour". The Christian Judgment Day, its Muslim equivalent, and
the Marxist revolution to bring about a "stateless society" are all manifestations of this empty
promise... follow us, and we will bring about change, because there is no way you can hope to
save your puny selves. Individual responsibility has at best a limited temporal role (to live a life
free of doctrinally-mandated "sins") , and no ultimate role at all. The Transference of
Responsibility is therefore fundamental to all Neo-Abrahamic doctrine, and in its economic
form, manifests as Western Materialism.

2) The Fetishization of Poverty:

The concept of the "beautiful poor" is something that the Church, the Ulema and the Marxists
have always held out to less deprived classes as a romanticized ideal of the human condition.
This can be observed in century after century of cultural references from the neo-Abrahmic
world, such as in literature or poetry, wherein the poor are invariably romanticized as somehow
"noble", "simple", "honest", "good" and otherwise characterized by an idyllic homogeneity.

From the Christian point of view, the "beautiful poor" represent an opportunity for the "haves" to
achieve salvation through that most insidious of socio-economic processes: "charity". The rich
were told that to go to heaven, they had to give money away to the poor: Jesus even spoke some
sage words about how it was easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man
to enter heaven (this has to be one of the worst mixed metaphors in the literature of Western
civilization, but anyway.)

Charity, as defined in Neo-Abrahamic doctrine, is a terrible thing for any society. It isn't the
same thing as upliftment; in fact, it is the enemy of upliftment. When pursued for its own sake ...
as the power-brokers of neo-Abrahamic civilizations have invariably mandated... Charity fosters
dependency, and ensures the need for more Charity in turn, generation after generation. The
power-brokers of Neo-Abrahamism, be they Church, Mullahs or Socialist Parties, are the only
real beneficiaries of Charity. They alone retain the power to grant approval, salvation or
absolution to the "haves" who hand over their wealth to the "have-nots". It is through their
agency alone that the mechanics of Charity must be implemented.

Everyone from the early Christians to the modern Left has needed a "beautiful poor" as the
objectified focus for their programs of "charity". It is integral to all of their schemes that the
poor be kept poor for exactly this purpose.

Consider what Aatish Tasseer has said about Arundhati Roy in this regard:

" I dont think shes a friend of the poor at all. She would like to doom them to a permanent state
of picturesque poverty. They are beautiful to herthe poorbeautiful, benign and faceless. And
that is exactly how she wants them to stay. Let me say also that it is not the poor who animate
her politics. Oh, no! The people who get her into the streets are the new middle classes. This
class, still among the most fragile in India, people who have newly emerged from the most dire
conditions, are despicable to her. She mocks their clothes; their trouble with English; she hates
their ambitions; when India wins the cricket and she sees them celebrating, her skin crawls; she
wants, more than anything, to do these people down. And it is her overwhelming hatred of them
that allows her to be a friend of movements that are seemingly far apart. The jihadists, the
Maoists, the Kashmir movement, the anti-development peopletheyre all her friends. Anyone
who can prove a credible threat to the future of India is a friend of that woman. I would go so far
as to say she has a prurient fascination with the enemies of India. And where do they love her?
In Pakistan, and in the faculty rooms of Europe and America. No surprise there.

Also, this business of pretending shes a lone voice in the wilderness. What rubbish! At least
have the good grace to admit that not one thing she says is provocative or new; it is perfectly
banal. And we know how well the universities Europe and America reward this bogus cant!"

Because they fetishize poverty, and use Charity as a mechanism to reinforce their own power...
the power-brokers of Neo-Abrahamism are fundamentally against upliftment. Of all social
classes, they hate the rising middle class the most.

3) The Absolution from Guilt:

The Fetishization of Poverty is one side of the Western Materialist coin, facing the poor; on its
other side is the promise of Absolution from Guilt, offered by neo-Abrahamic power brokers to
the rich.

By maintaining a "beautiful poor" class, the neo-Abrahamics are able to justify Socialism. By
offering Absolution from Guilt, the neo-Abrahamics relieve Capitalists of any qualms they may
feel about the accumulation of wealth, and yet maintain a philosophical environment in which
people who become wealthy automatically feel guilt that needs to be absolved. Invariably, the
process by which the rich are offered Absolution involves the same old scam... some form of
Charity... in which neo-Abrahamic power-brokers always play a central and privileged role.

In Vaishya-Dharma a clear distinction is made; it is not money, but raaga/dvesha that is the
wellspring of adharma. Wealth itself will not make you evil simply by possessing it. In Western
Materialism, wealth itself carries a taint; yet, that taint can be removed by the intercession of
neo-Abrahamic institutions on behalf of a doctrinally-mandated "saviour."

This is what turns Capitalism into essentially a justification for greed... a means to accumulate
wealth with as much dvesha as you like, as immorally as you wish... because the Church, Ulema
or Party will absolve you of that guilt ultimately. It is this strange, self-perpetuating cycle of guilt
and justification that has enabled the West to countenance colonialism, imperialism, slavery, and
genocide as acceptable methods of material expansion. In Neo-Abrahamism, there is no need for
personal responsibility in your pursuit of artha because, no matter how much suffering you cause
to others in acquiring it, you will eventually be absolved by the intercession of an external
"saviour." The only caveat is that you must "keep the faith"... i.e., admit the supremacy of the
neo-Abrahamic power brokerage concerned.

*****

The entire dialectic of Western Materialism, then, is rooted in philosophical assumptions that
have no basis whatsoever in Indic thought. This is why it is not simply meaningless, but
dangerous for us to transplant notions of "right", "left", "liberal", "conservative", "socialist" and
"capitalist" into considerations of Indian society, politics and economics. If we internalize this
nonsense, we are implicitly granting credence to the very streams of thought whose adherents
pillaged our prosperity for a thousand years.

A debate premised on Western Materialism is exactly what has spawned the "pro-poor" sophistry
that the Indian National Congress government instrumentalizes as a justification for its platform
of plunder. Our insistence on buying into the terminology of this debate ultimately condemns us
to what is known, with infinite irony, as a "Hindu Rate of Growth".

http://indospheric.blogspot.in/2013/03/rejecting-dialectic-of-western.html