Analysts Rule The World

ANALYSTS RULE THE WORLD

(On an alien space-ship)
Alien 1: Sir, we have discovered a planet with life.
Alien 2: What! Really?
Alien 1: Yes. Its atmosphere is nitrogen + oxygen, its surface is covered mostly by water and it has carbon-based life-forms.
Alien 2: How many types of life-forms?
Alien 1: There are many. But one type is dominant.
Alien 2: Find out everything you can about them.
Alien 1: Yes, sir.

(Some time later)
Alien 1: Sir, their primary mode of information transmission is in audio-visual form by using electro-magnetic waves.
Alien 2: How do they receive this information?
Alien 1: Through some strange-looking boxes.
Alien 2: Is this important?
Alien 1: Very. They spend all their time looking at these boxes.
Alien 2: Excellent. Tap into those waves. Find out who are their rulers.
Alien 1: Yes, sir.

(Some time later)
Alien 1: Sir, their rulers are called 'analysts'.
Alien 2: What?
Alien 1: Yes. We did a frequency study of their transmissions. 99% of their transmissions contain the words "According to analysts", "Analysts say this", "Analysts say that", etc.
Alien 2: Are you sure about this?
Alien 1: We are 100% sure.
Alien 2: OK, locate these analysts immediately. We must talk to them soon as possible. I will inform the Emperor.
Alien 1: Yes, sir!

'Post-Industrial Society'

In 1971, French sociologist Alain Touraine wrote a book called Post-Industrial Society. He said that Western society after 1950 had entered a new stage of development – the 'post-industrial' stage. His thesis was:

Society	Dominant Sector of Economy	Dominant Factor of Production
1. Agricultural	Agriculture	Land
2. Industrial	Industry	Capital
3. 'Post-Industrial'	Services	Knowledge

In 1973, American sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book called Coming of Post-Industrial Society, and popularised this idea among English-speaking social scientists. And in 1980, American futurologist Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Third Wave, and popularised this idea among laymen across the world.

Is this thesis correct?

There are some differences between early industrial society (the West till 1950) and advanced industrial society (the West after 1950). But they are nothing compared to the differences between agricultural society and industrial society. Touraine, Bell, Toffler (and others) are 20th century Westerners who have never seen agricultural society. So they do not know the huge chasm that separates agricultural society and industrial society. They saw the minor differences between early industrial society and advanced industrial society, and jumped to the conclusion that the latter is a new stage of society. It is not. It is only the second sub-stage of industrial society.

So the term 'post-industrial' (and 'post-modern') is meaningless.

Dipankar Gupta: "Mistaken Modernity - India Between Worlds"

Dipankar Gupta was professor of sociology at JNU. A review of his "Mistaken Modernity: India Between Worlds" (2000):

Modernity

"Modernity has to do with attitudes, especially those that come into play in social relations. A modern society is one in which at least the following characteristics must be present:
- Dignity of the individual
- Adherence to universalistic norms
- Elevation of individual achievement over privileges of birth
- Accountability in public life."

This is a very narrow and selective definition of modernity. Modernity refers to the totality of the technology, economy, society, politics and culture that came into being after the Industrial Revolution. See Modernity: Technology, Economy, Society, Politics.

Modernisation

"Once these attributes are in place, it does not really matter if there is high-level technology. Generally speaking, technology (is a) consequence of the four characteristics of modernisation listed above, and (does not by itself) constitute modernity."

This is complete nonsense. The above characteristics are the features of an industrial society – which was the product of the Industrial Revolution. See The Techno-Economic Basis of Society.

India Today

"An analysis of contemporary India will reveal that while there has been a definite move from tradition, what we see around us is not yet modern. If the clock were to stop here, the final diagnosis should declare India as still unmodern."

Of course India is not yet modern. India began modernising properly only from 1991 onwards. See India's Modernisation. Today India can be said to be only 50% modern. See my Index of Modernisation. By the way, this delay in India's modernisation was due to Nehru's socialism – which Prof Gupta also believes in (see below).

Economics

"In this era (of globalisation), trade unions have been laid low and, along with it, the emphasis on production and producers as the main planks of economic thought and policy making. In their place, the consumer has stepped in and has become pivotal in all calculations.
Thus in the age when production was central, technologies entered only if they first cleared national barriers regarding what will be produced. Today, consumers get the first preference and any obstruction, in getting these goods and services across to them is anathema to the ideology of globalisation. In the age of globalisation, the consumer is king while the producer has been put out to pasture.
In other words, economic policies today tend to centre on what consumers want. It is no longer material if this brings about unemployment, greater economic dependency or lack of trade union privileges. These issues mattered a great deal in the age of internationalisation, which was production-centric."

Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, two halves of the same process. How can there be any production without consumption? What is the use of producing goods for which there is no demand? Prof Gupta should stick to sociology, and leave economics alone (but then, he has gotten his sociology also wrong). To talk about production vs consumption is meaningless. His real argument here is socialism vs capitalism.

Socialism

"(Before globalisation,) national well-being and economic sovereignty were critical issues then that could not be ignored; indeed, these had to be kept up front in any policy formulation. This approach quite logically favoured planned and centralised development in which workers' rights, wages, wage goods and production conditions were critical considerations. Therefore, if the long-term interest of the nation meant that cars of a certain kind, or colour televisions, would not be produced because that might jeopardise a country's economic self-reliance, then that was that.
Economic restrictions and trade policies that earlier determined what will be produced, and how, are now looked at with distaste."

Here Prof Gupta openly makes the case for socialism. These are exactly the policies that kept India poor for 40 years – and delayed India's modernisation (an issue he is so worked up over).

Tradition

"The encumbrances of tradition permanently debased large numbers of people who were locked in an unyielding social hierarchy. There was no such thing as a universal law in traditional India, leaving subjects completely at the whim of their superiors. People suffered untold misery because of the accident of their birth.
Anyone who has seen how tradition has shackled the poor, or how it has tormented Hindu widows, will not have the slightest hesitation in welcoming modernity with all its stated drawbacks."

Tradition is the way of life of agricultural society, and modernity is the way of life of industrial society. Agricultural society was an unequal society all over the world – not just in India. Even Western society was like this before the Industrial Revolution.

Feudalism

"Much of the recent spate of murders and mayhem is only a bold reassertion of traditional Indian culture. Women and underlings must always be subservient, or else. Those wielding positions of power are not accountable to anyone. Children, especially boys, are supposed to run amok all their lives, more so if they come from privileged homes.
To hold modernity responsible for the grisly incidents of urban violence perpetrated by political brats, or to blame westernisation for the molestation of women in hotel discotheques, only corroborates what we Indians hate to admit: that our traditional culture is deeply flawed at its core."

These perversions are not "tradition", but feudalism – which was the product of 1000 years of Islamic and British rule. See India: Ancient, Medieval, Modern Periods. It is not Hindu tradition that is "deeply flawed at its core", but Islamic+British feudalism – which sadly still survives in India today.

It is Prof Gupta who is mistaken about modernity (and many other things), not India.

Industrialisation/Modernisation: Definition

What is industrialisation/modernisation? What is its definition?

Industrialisation/modernisation = Increasing output by using technology (in agriculture, industry and services – in that order).

This is the core/heart/essence of industrialisation or modernisation.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Economic Development"):

"A broader view of industrialisation is more relevant to economic development. In this sense, industrialisation is the application of modern science, technology and management to the task of raising the productivity of resources – not only in the manufacturing sector but in the economy as a whole, including the agricultural sector."

Modernisation, Westernisation and India

Ref: Modernity – The Modern/Industrial Age

Q: What is Westernisation?
A: Westernisation is the adoption of Western culture by a society. (1)

There are different civilisations* in the world. Each civilisation has its own culture. Westernisation happens when a society adopts the culture of the Western civilisation (=Europe+America).

Q: What is modernisation?

Early man was a hunter-gatherer. He lived a primitive/tribal way of life. 12,000 years ago (10,000 BC) he invented agriculture. This invention led to the birth of villages, cities, writing and trade. This is what we call civilisation. The earliest civilisations were Sumeria, Egypt, India and China. Later other civilisations developed.

About 200 years ago, another revolution happened. Man invented engines, machines, factories, railway and telegraph. This was the Industrial Revolution. It took place first in the Western civilisation (1775–1850). Later it started spreading to other civilisations.

So, what is modernisation?

A: Modernisation refers to the changes in technology, economy, society, politics and culture that take place due to industrialisation.
That is, modernisation refers to the technological, economic, social, political and cultural changes that occur as a consequence of industrialisation. (2)

Look at definitions (1) and (2). They are different. Modernisation and Westernisation are two different things.

*The major civilisations of the world are:
1. India
2. China
3. The West
4. Islam
5. Africa

Waves of Modernisation/Industrialisation

Different parts of the world have modernised/industrialised at different times. These are the three major "waves" of industrialisation/modernisation:

Period	Years	Region	Countries
1. 19th century	1800–1900	the West	Europe, America, Japan
2. Post-World War 2	1950–1990	East Asia	Japan*, Korea, Taiwan
3. 21st century	c1980–	Asia	China (1979–), India (1991–)

*Japan had to industrialise a second time as it was bombed back to the stone age in World War 2.

The Greatest Men/Leaders of the 20th Century

Who were the greatest men/leaders of the 20th century? For better or worse, these were the men who shaped the world of the 20th century:

1. Vladimir Lenin
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Winston Churchill
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Joseph Stalin
6. Mohandas Gandhi
7. Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru
8. Mao Zedong
9. Deng Xiaoping
10. Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan

1. Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924)
- For creating a new political and economic system, and imposing it over a sixth of the world's area.
- For creating a system that eventually covered a third of mankind, and lasted for seventy years.

2. Adolf Hitler (1889–1945)
- For starting the most destructive war in human history.
- For taking hatred, cruelty and barbarism to depths never seen before.

3. Winston Churchill (1874–1965)
- For standing alone in the war against Fascism.
- For his inspiring leadership of his country in the fight against Fascism.

4. Franklin Roosevelt (1882–1945)
- For his courageous leadership of the fight against Fascism.
- For saving capitalism and economic freedom from the Great Depression.

5. Joseph Stalin (1878–1953)
- For defeating Fascism with his brave and patriotic people.
- For turning his country into an industrial giant and the world's second superpower.

6. Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948)
- For defeating the world's largest empire, and freeing the world's second largest country.
- For his saintly leadership of history's only non-violent freedom struggle.

7. Vallabhbhai Patel (1875–1950) and Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964)
- For uniting the world's second largest country from 565 pieces.
- For helping it survive as a united, stable and peaceful democracy.

8. Mao Zedong (1893–1976)
- For bringing the world's largest country under Communism.
- For being the supreme leader of a fifth of mankind for thirty years.

9. Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997)
- For bringing a fifth of humanity into the Modern Age.
- For building the second most powerful nation in the world.

10. Mikhail Gorbachev (1931– ) and Ronald Reagan (1911–2004)
- For ending the Cold War with their vision and statesmanship.
- For bringing an end to Communism with his glasnost and perestroika.

Here is TIME magazine's list of the 20th century's "greatest leaders and revolutionaries".

Eric Hobsbawm: History of the Modern World

British historian Eric Hobsbawm has written a two-part (four-volume) history of the modern world:

A. 19th century

1. Age of Revolution: 1789–1848

2. Age of Capital: 1848–1875

3. Age of Empire: 1875–1914

B. 20th century

4. Age of Extremes: 1914–1991

Special thanks to Pub (Deepak B) for lending me these books.

Modern Technology, Economic, Political and Social Systems

Reference: Modernity - The Modern or Industrial Age

System	Agricultural Age	Industrial Age
Technology*	Agriculture	Industry
Economic system	Feudalism	Capitalism
Political system	Monarchy	Democracy
Social system	Caste	Class

*By technology I mean the production system.

India's Role in the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain during 1775–1850. It gave birth to modern industry – a new system of production based on machines and factories. For the Industrial Revolution to happen, three things were needed:

1. Capital – to build the machines and factories
2. Raw materials – to produce the goods in the factories
3. Market – to sell the manufactured goods

All three were needed in large amounts for the Industrial Revolution to kick off:

1. Capital: After the Industrial Revolution started, the huge profits it generated could provide the capital for further industrialisation. That is, the process could become self-sustaining. But how was the process to begin in the first place? Where could such a large amount of money be got from?

2. Raw materials: The Industrial Revolution needed vast amounts of raw materials at cheap prices. Where were they to be got from?

3. Market: Finally, a vast captive market was needed to sell the manufactured goods at a handsome profit. Where was it to be found?

The first country to answer these three questions would be the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. In the second half of the 18th century, one country did find the answer to these three questions: Britain. And its answer was India.

On 23 June 1757, the English East India Company defeated Siraj-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Bengal, in the Battle of Plassey. The British thus became masters of east India (Bengal, Bihar, Orissa) – a prosperous region with a flourishing agriculture, industry and trade.

The East India Company started collecting revenue from this region and sending it to Britain. This provided the capital. It also started seizing raw cotton from the cotton farmers and sending it to Britain. This provided the raw material. Finally, it brought the manufactured textiles from Britain into India – without any duties or tariffs – and sold them here. This was their free market.

Thus India provided all the three ingredients of Britain's Industrial Revolution: capital, raw materials and market.

It is not a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution began less than 20 years after the British conquest of east India. Nor is it a coincidence that the engine of Britain's Industrial Revolution was its textile industry. Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the world's number one textile manufacturer and exporter. When you have conquered a country, what better industry to enter and dominate, than the industry dominated by the country you now rule – and whose economy you now control?

Subsequently, of course, Britain conquered the whole of India, thus giving it more capital, more raw materials and a larger market – which helped to accelerate its Industrial Revolution. Needless to say, India's economy was devastated in this process.

Thus the Industrial Revolution was built on the grave of the Indian economy. The Industrial Revolution was made in Britain, but it was funded by India (against her will).

The Industrial Revolution gave birth to the Industrial Age, or the Modern Age. Thus, though the Modern Age was inaugurated in Britain, the real driving force behind it was India.

That was the role of India in the Industrial Revolution (and consequently, the birth of the Modern Age).

Thus Britain did not "make India modern". The truth is the other way around. It was India that helped Britain to become modern.

The Three Stages of the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution occurred in three stages:

1. Agricultural revolution (1700 – 1800)
2. Industrial revolution (1800 – 1950)
3. Services revolution (1950 – )

Usually when people use the term "Industrial Revolution" they mean only the "industrial" part of the Revolution (the second/middle part). But the above version give a more complete picture.

The Industrial Revolution marked the transition from the Agricultural/Traditional Age to the Industrial/Modern Age. So people jump to the conclusion that modernisation means industrialisation. Though industrialisation forms the core of modernisation, it is not its only component. As seen above, the agricultural revolution is a pre-condition for industrialisation.

Literacy Rate: India and Other Countries

Here are the literacy rates of India and some other countries:

Country	Literacy Rate
India	66%
Brazil	90%
Indonesia	92%
China	93%
Russia	99%
Japan	99%
France	99%
Germany	99%
Britain	99%
America	99%

Source: United Nations Development Program Report (2009)

Per Capita Income (PPP): India and Other Countries

Here are the per capita incomes (PPP) of India and some other countries:

Country	Per Capita Income (PPP)
India	$ 3,100
Indonesia	$ 4,000
China	$ 6,600
Brazil	$ 10,200
Russia	$ 15,100
Japan	$ 32,600
France	$ 32,800
Germany	$ 34,100
Britain	$ 35,200
America	$ 46,400

Data from CIA's The World Factbook
PPP = purchasing power parity

Marx: The Modern/Industrial Age and Modernity

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the first chapter of "The Communist Manifesto" (1848):

1. On the Modern/Industrial Age:

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves. In the Middle Ages (we have) feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs.

The modern capitalist society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. Our epoch, the epoch of the capitalist class, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms.

Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production*. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, modern industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern capitalist.

The capitalist class, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

2. On the nature of modernity:

Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the capitalist epoch from all earlier ones.

All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify.

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

*The Industrial Revolution

Degree of Urbanisation: India and Other Countries

Q: How much of India is urban?
A: 30%

Here are some countries and their degree of urbanisation:

Country	Urban Population
India	30%
China	43%
Indonesia	52%
Japan	66%
Russia	73%
Germany	74%
France	77%
America	82%
Brazil	86%
Britain	90%

Data from CIA's The World Factbook. The definition of "urban" is different for different countries.

Max Weber: The Iron Cage of Capitalism

Max Weber on the iron cage of capitalism in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905):

The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilised coal is burnt. In Baxter's view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the "saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment". But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.

Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. Today the spirit of religious asceticism – whether finally, who knows? – has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one's calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs. Where the fulfillment of the calling cannot directly be related to the highest spiritual and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it need not be felt simply as economic compulsion, the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at all. In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport.

No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanised petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilisation never before achieved."

Degree of Industrialisation: India and Other Countries

How do we measure to what extent a country is industrialised? There is no economic indicator called "degree of industrialisation". A rough substitute would be the percentage of the population that is employed in the industry and services sectors (as against agriculture). Taking this as a measure, here are some countries and their "degree of industrialisation":

Country	Degree of Industrialisation
India	48%
China	60%
America	99%
Britain	98%
Germany	97%
France	96%
Japan	95%
Russia	90%
Brazil	80%
Indonesia	57%

Data from CIA's "The World Factbook".

Alvin Toffler on the Modern World/Age

Alvin Toffler on the modern world/age in "The Third Wave" (1980):

Until now the human race has undergone two great waves of change, each one largely obliterating earlier cultures or civilisations and replacing them with ways of life inconceivable to those who came before. The First Wave of change – the agricultural revolution – took thousands of years to play itself out. The Second Wave – the rise of industrial civilisation – took a mere three hundred years.
(First chapter)

Some historians may take issue with the way this book divides civilisation into only three parts: a First Wave agricultural phase, a Second Wave industrial phase, and a Third Wave phase now beginning.
(Introduction)

A new civilisation is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it.
(First line of the book)

Modernity: The Modern or Industrial Age

To understand modernity correctly, we must understand the implications of the Industrial Revolution (1775-1850):

1. The Industrial Revolution, which took place in 18th century England, gave birth to machines and factories (modern industry).

2. The Industrial Revolution was not merely a technological, or economic, change. It brought about political, and cultural, changes as well. Indeed, it changed society itself.

3. The Industrial Revolution was a fundamental change in how man produces goods, or satisfies his wants. The last time such a fundamental change occurred was when agriculture was invented – around 10,000 BC (12,000 years ago).

4. Whenever there is such a fundamental change in how man produces goods, it is not just technology or economy that changes, but also politics and culture. Indeed, society itself changes.

5. The Industrial Revolution was such a change. (That's why it's called "Revolution")

6. The Industrial Revolution marked the end of the Agricultural Age, which lasted for 12,000 years, and the beginning of a new Age in the history of mankind: the Industrial Age.

7. Each Age is defined by its own technology, economy, politics and culture (T-E-P-C) – in the broadest sense. Just as the Agricultural Age had a certain T-E-P-C, similarly the Industrial Age also has its own T-E-P-C.

8. The Industrial Revolution may have occurred first in the West, but it was not a Western development. It was a human development. That is, it concerns the whole of mankind, not just Europe.

9. Just as agriculture began first in Sumeria (around 10,000 BC) and then spread to other ancient civilisations (Egypt, India, China), similarly, modern industry began first in Europe and then spread/is spreading to other civilisations (first to America and Japan, now to China and India).

10. In modern industry, production is more. That is, wealth created is more. So an industrial society has more wealth than a non-industrialised society. Wealth means economic strength. Thus an industrialised society is stronger than a non-industrialised society. Therefore we have to industrialise.

Notes:

1. The term 'modern industry' is used to distinguish it from the earlier 'cottage industry' where manufacturing was done by artisans and craftsmen in their homes and workshops, using simple tools.

6. The terms 'Agricultural' and 'Industrial' are used in a relative sense – to denote which sector dominates the economy (in value of total output) and society (in population employed).

8. Due to certain geographical and historical factors, the Industrial Revolution happened to take place first in Europe, that's all.

The Best Books about the Modern World

The best books to understand today's world:

Society, Technology, Economy
1. The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 – Eric Hobsbawm (1962)*
2. The Third Wave – Alvin Toffler (1980)

Culture, Religion
1. The Clash of Civilisations – Samuel Huntington (1996)
2. The Lexus and the Olive Tree – Thomas Friedman (1999)

Politics
1. The End of History – Francis Fukuyama (1992)
2. The Future of Freedom – Fareed Zakaria (2003)

Based on my limited reading, these are the definitive books about the modern world.

*I have not yet read this book.