The grounded processes in India (Via Sunny Narang)

(via Sunny Narang)

The ONLY thing Demonetisation Process has confirmed for me , is that Indian Governing Elites are amongst the worst in the World when it concerns implementation .

For that is when the roll-out on the messy , complex soil and waters has to be thought out in detail.

Process , Process , Process .

I have always looked at the Socialist Vision of Centralized Authority when Big Input-Output Tables are made and every raw-material and finished product is accounted for , as the foundation of the Cybernetic Big Brother Controlled Societies , which the many Big Data and Powerful States and Corporations now desire .  

The Marxist visionaries who imagined these Mathematical Utopias , also wanted colonies on Mars as far back as 1908 ! 

That system failed miserably in Soviet Union and China recapitulated , very smartly to become a new hybrid State and Politburo-Linked-Capitalist State .

No Babu sitting in a Planning Commission , or Neta lording over his minions ever think or feels for the antyodaya , or last-woman , actually not even for the "salariat" or those living on fixed salaries or wages . And the real onground processes of their lives and work. 

And the System theory analysts or abstract social-scientists who think for the Sarkaar are even worse , as they want the messy mixed-up reality to be structured within their numbers !

In the world all that you have going for you is your net-worth in assets , and in socialist inspired societies the political-bureaucratic "New Class" as Milovan Djilas described them , with their Sarkari networks and privileges .

In traditional societies we also have kin, caste , clan networks . 

In India we have a "Chaat" of all three systems . Net-Worth , Sarkaari and Jati . 

They intersect in many different ways , now also including an Educational and Media based power on the basis of your Degree or Public Success on Access . You may not have Net-Worth like Ambani , Sarkaari Power like a DM , Jati power like Mulayam Singh , but have public ear like Chetan Bhagats and Anna Hazare for their different audiences.

Then there has always been in India , the unique Swami/Baba/Sufi Auliyas/Guru Power , that can rarely be inherited , and new ones emerge in every generation . Aka Sadhguru, Sri Sri , Sathya Sai Baba , Ramakrishna Paramhansa , Kabir , Namdev , Salim Chishti , Nizamuddin Auliya et al.

So in India we have these Five effective Elites . The Small Top.

Neta-Babu-Sarkaar 

Dhanna-Seth

Jati-Pradhaan

Pothi and Public-ke-Dil ke Raja-Raani ,

Allah-Bhagwan-Ke-Bande

There are just below these elites the Professionals and the Skilled Ones . The Large Middle.

The Armed Forces , the Engineers who run the systems , the Doctors , the multiple skills needed to run an economy and a nation-state . From karigars to supervisors , coaches to farmers . The artisans , the small service providers . 

Under them the Unskilled Ones . The Largest Bottom of the Pyramid. 

Among all of the Five effective elites , the one with the least "Job-Security" is actually the Neta in the Sarkaari System .

Unlike Chinese Socialism , there are no guarantees of next 5 years again .

So there can never be a vision beyond 5 years . And you need to do quick-fix solutions , as elections are happening all the time , in states or byes !

Where is the space and time to build teams that can think-plan-deliver-implement to last detail ?

Earlier under the Nehru-Congress we were busy trying to be a mix of Soviet Union and Europe , then later Japan and America after 1991 , now China is the model .

Not a single Indian Sarkaar has ever imagined or envisioned an Indian Model .

Gandhi was limited by his Utopian Villages , but he was completed rooted in Indian reality.

The Dhanna-Seths have a mixed record as many have tried indigenisation and built businesses on local skills , our craft based Moradabad , Diamond, Textiles , Leather , Jewelry , Crafts are some of the top export earners and world class producers .

The 1990's and the Software , Pharma Dhanna-Seths has broken new grounds . 

The Jati-Pradhaan are rooted in India , but have done little innovation , and second-generation like Akhilesh Yadav in his early 40's is showing much promise.  

The Pothi Elites or what I call the Padha-Likha are amongst the worst offenders as they are mostly conditioned by their US and EU university elites with below-zero imagination rooted in India . The Left is beyond repair as they live and debate in non-existent histories which both China , Russia , Cuba , Venezuela or Vietnam have wiped out. 

And the Public Ke Dil ke Raja-Raani have again a mixed blessings like Anna Hazare and Arundhati Roys . 

And the final elites the Bhagwan and Allah ke Bande again are mixed with Sadhguru and Sri Sri creating new innovative spaces for spirit and community , along with Ramdev Baba like enterprise in Swadeshi (Even if its not Organic or Pure !) .

So in India the ones to really blame for all our messes is the Indian Intellectual Classes along with the Political-Bureaucratic Classes at the Top of the Pyramid Blame Allotment !

What we need is an Indian imagination and vision , that looks around for best-practise in similar realities and builds both ground-up and inspires top-down , both engaging with each other .

I only see possibility in few Dhanna-Seths , Public-Ke-Dil ke Raja Rani , Jati-Pradhans and Allah and Bhagwan ke Bande getting together and working out the Process. Process.Process . 

With nourishing and mentoring Professionals that understand the detailing .

Lets for the moment leave out the majority of the Intellectual Classes and Politician-Bureaucrats , unless the very very few among them , maybe 1% are willing to realize their ultimate mediocrity and jump ship.

And we all have to understand deeply , where all our so-called political, economic concepts come from and what cultures, ideologies , idea and process histories are embedded in them.

We are now in the middle of The Great Churn , when everything of the last few hundred years from Liberty, Equality, Fraternity to Development and Progress is open to question with multiple social , economic , political, spiritual crises . 

The last people to leave the thinking to, are the Ideologically-blinded-intellectuals and the Sarkaari Mediocrity .

In economics, an input–output model is a quantitative economic technique that represents the interdependencies between different branches of a national economy or different regional economies.

The model depicts inter-industry relationships within an economy, showing how output from one industrial sector may become an input to another industrial sector. In the inter-industry matrix, column entries typically represent inputs to an industrial sector, while row entries represent outputs from a given sector. This format therefore shows how dependent each sector is on every other sector, both as a customer of outputs from other sectors and as a supplier of inputs. Each column of the input–output matrix shows the monetary value of inputs to each sector and each row represents the value of each sector's outputs.​

Alexander Bogdanov has been credited with originating the concept in a report delivered to the All Russia Conference on the Scientific Organisation of Labour and Production Processes, in January 1921.This approach was also developed by L. N. Kritsman and T. F. Remington has argued that their work provided a link between Quesnay's tableau économique and the subsequent contributions by Vladimir Groman and Vladimir Bazarov to Gosplan's method of material balance planning.

The input-output model is one of the major conceptual models for a socialist planned economy. This model involves the direct determination of physical quantities to be produced in each industry, which is used to formulate a consistent economic plan of resource allocation. This method of planning is contrasted with price-directed Lange-model socialism and Soviet-style material balance planning.

In the economy of the Soviet Union, planning was conducted using the method of material balances up until the country's dissolution. The method of material balances was first developed in the 1930s during the Soviet Union's rapid industrialization drive. Input-output planning was never adopted because the material balance system had become entrenched in the Soviet economy, and input-output planning was shunned for ideological reasons. As a result, the benefits of consistent and detailed planning through input-output analysis was never realized in the Soviet-type economies.

Despite the clear ability of the input-output model to depict and analyze the dependence of one industry or sector on another, Leontief and others never managed to introduce the full spectrum of dependency relations in a market economy.

Wassily Leontief (1906–1999) is credited with developing this type of analysis and earned the Nobel Prize in Economics for his development of this model.

Wassily Wassilyevich Leontief (Russian: Васи́лий Васи́льевич Лео́нтьев; August 5, 1906 – February 5, 1999), was an American economist of half Russian-Jewish descent notable for his research on how changes in one economic sector may affect other sectors. Leontief won the Nobel Committee's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1973, and three of his doctoral students have also been awarded the prize (Paul Samuelson 1970, Robert Solow 1987, Vernon L. Smith 2002).

Leontief earned the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on input-output tables. Input-output tables analyze the process by which inputs from one industry produce outputs for consumption or for inputs for another industry. With the input-output table, one can estimate the change in demand for inputs resulting from a change in production of the final good. The analysis assumes that input proportions are fixed; thus the use of input-output analysis is limited to rough approximations rather than prediction. Input-output was novel and inspired large-scale empirical work; in 2010 its iterative method was recognized as an early intellectual precursor to Google's PageRank.

François Quesnay (French: [fʁɑ̃swa kɛnɛ]; June 4, 1694 – December 16, 1774) was a French economist of the Physiocratic school. He is known for publishing the "Tableau économique" (Economic Table) in 1758, which provided the foundations of the ideas of the Physiocrats.

This was perhaps the first work attempting to describe the workings of the economy in an analytical way, and as such can be viewed as one of the first important contributions to economic thought. His Le Despotisme de la Chine, written in 1767, describes Chinese politics and society, and his own political support for constitutional Oriental despotism.

Quesnay is known for his writings on Chinese politics and society. His book Le Despotisme de la Chine, written in 1767, describes his views of the Chinese imperial system.

He was supportive of the meritocratic concept of giving scholars political power, without the cumbersome aristocracy that characterized French politics, and the importance of agriculture to the welfare of a nation. The phrase laissez-faire, coined by fellow Physiocrat Vincent de Gournay, is postulated to have come from Quesnay's writings on China.

 Gregory Blue writes that Quesnay "praised China as a constitutional despotism and openly advocated the adoption of Chinese institutions, including a standardized system of taxation and universal education."

 Blue speculates that this may have influenced the 1793 establishment of the Permanent Settlement in Bengal by the British Empire.Quesnay's interests in Orientalism has also been a source of criticism. Carol Blum, in her book Strength in Numbers on 18th century France, labels Quesnay an "apologist for Oriental despotism."

The State Planning Committee, commonly known as Gosplan (Russian: Госпла́н, pronounced [ɡɐsˈplan]), was the agency responsible for central economic planning in the Soviet Union. Established in 1921 and remaining in existence until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Gosplan had as its main task the creation and administration of a series of five-year plans governing the economy of the USSR.

 

Alexander Aleksandrovich Bogdanov (Russian: Алекса́ндр Алекса́ндрович Богда́нов; born Alyaksandr Malinovsky, Belarusian: Алякса́ндр Алякса́ндравіч Маліно́ўскі) (22 August 1873 [O.S. 10 August] – 7 April 1928) was a Russian and Soviet physician, philosopher, science fiction writer, and revolutionary of Belarusian ethnicity.

He was a key figure in the early history of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, being one of its co-founders and a rival to Vladimir Lenin until being expelled in 1909. In the first decade of the Soviet Union, he was an influential opponent of the government from a Marxist perspective. Bogdanov received training in medicine and psychiatry.

 His scientific interests ranged from the universal systems theory to the possibility of human rejuvenation through blood transfusion. He invented an original philosophy called “tectology,” now regarded as a forerunner of systems theory. He was also an economist, culture theorist, science fiction writer, and political activist.

In 1908, Bogdanov published the novel Red Star, about a utopia set on Mars. In it, he made predictions about future scientific and social developments. His utopia also dealt with feminist themes, which would become more common in later utopian science fiction, e.g., the two sexes becoming virtually identical in the future, or women escaping "domestic slavery" (one reason for physical changes) and being free to pursue relationships with the same freedom as men, without stigma. Other notable differences between the utopia of Red Star and present day society include workers having total control over their working hours, as well as more subtle differences in social behavior such as conversations being patiently "set at the level of the person with whom they were speaking and with understanding for his personality although it might very much differ from their own". The novel also gave a detailed description of blood transfusion in the Martian society.

From 1913 until 1922, Bogdanov immersed himself in the writing of a lengthy philosophical treatise of original ideas, Tectology: Universal Organization Science. Tectology anticipated many basic ideas of Systems Analysis, later explored by Cybernetics and Bogdanov attributed some of his ideas on the development of a monistic system to Ludwig Noire. 

In Tectology, Bogdanov proposed to unify all social, biological, and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and by seeking the organizational principles that underlie all systems. His three volume book anticipated many ideas later popularized by Norbert Wiener in Cybernetics and Ludwig von Bertalanffy in General Systems Theory. 

Both Wiener and von Bertalanffy may have read the German translation of Tectology, published in 1928. In Russia, Vladimir Lenin (and later Joseph Stalin) considered Bogdanov's natural philosophy an ideological threat to dialectic materialism. The rediscovery of Tectology occurred only in the 1970s.