The new old

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was but natural to have discarded this phrase in the deepest, most unlikely to be ever recalled corners of the brain. The mere fact that it has any, however far-fetched, relevance to the world today, in itself speaks of mankind's propensity to never learn from history.
"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries...unite!" - Frederick Engels.While Vladimir Putin may believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, his vision for a Eurasian Union, even only economic, is probably suspect for the old Soviet bloc. The failure of communism had more than a tinge of finality and those with living memories of the oppression are expected to digest any future entrée with a pinch of salt.
But fascinatingly, we may be faced with a "Black Swan"; this analogy has probably immortalised Nassim N. Taleb. Today's protesters do not comprise the surviving generations of communism and in the case of the West, may not all be the proletariat. And let's call a spade a spade, oppression whether tyrannical or financial is still oppression. What really is the difference between those who participated in the "Arab Spring" and those occupying the Wall Street, which unless quickly managed, may well turn into a "Western Winter"? Logically, provided with an appropriate living standard, the masses are not expected to revolt, be it a dictatorship or a democracy. In essence, discontent must always have an economic undercurrent!
The global support in over 60 cities, mostly in the West, to the Wall Street sit-in should be an eye opener. If the end result associated with achieving rich nation status is also revolts and demonstrations by 99%, than why bother, so ask the meek. Reminds you of the late Moin Akhter while goofing in the park and retorting in response to the stated benefit of hard work, "Tu abhi kya jhuk mar raha houn".
Unfortunately, two wrongs don't necessarily make a right; communism's failure and capitalism on life support have far-reaching consequences. Devoid of a solution, will the world revert to the 18th century era of might is right? The predicament, however, is more than complicated. If capitalism is an integral part of democracy and communism that of a communist state, than "might is right economics" traces its origin to Monarchy and the days of the Empire. Grievously wars are now fought with weapons of mass destruction. While one hopes that the world is wiser, one should remain cognisant that it is all about resources.
In order to remain focused, we ignore the question whether the failure of an economic system invariably suggests the failure of the associated political system? The Wealth of Nations, first published in 1776, conceived the invisible hand and argued that free markets were more productive and beneficial for societies. Selfish motives of the entrepreneurs were cited as the most efficient methodology to allocate resources. Over two centuries later, at the height of wealth creation, it transpires that selfishness is too strong an emotion to be trusted. After the subprime disaster and the euro debt crisis, Gordon Gekko should be wondering whether greed really is good.
The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, identified a class struggle predicting a proletariat revolution against the evils of capitalism. According to Karl Marx, labour alone could create value and the Bourgeois, therefore, were misappropriating from the poor. Consequently, communism was all about common ownership and classless society. Unfortunately, the managers were a class above and selfishness and greed interfered with resource allocation resulting in a proverbial black hole.
The Monarchs were also interested in allocation of resources. Problem was that in that world allocation was through war and conquest and all resources vested with the king. Interestingly, this system prevailed for the longest time in history. Doing the math above, capitalism is less than 200 years old and communism survived less than 100 years.
Even the welfare state has apparently failed in tackling greed and income inequalities, the workers of the world would rather not be beggars. It is depressing to admit that while technology has transited the world to an era, which was science fiction a few decades ago, the science of scarcity has yet to devise an optimal system for allocating resources.
It must appear a foregone conclusion that technology should come to the aid of science. Real time data and social media should assist in efficient allocation of resources and controlling greed. Maybe the solution is a Mighty King enforcing resource allocation through automated planning with limited property rights, China my dear Watson!
Nonetheless, it is beyond the objectives of this humble piece to criticise or support any economic system or to even consider originating another. Let the great minds solve the riddle of whether the old is new or the new is old. Our down to earth motives are to survive these times of adversity economically as well as physically. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. Sometimes it pays to follow the leaders. Sometimes fate just deals you aces. Fortunately for us, while we have experimented with socialism and capitalism, we never went past the primary classes in either. So if someone does change the system, we don't have to forget a lot!
But in the absence of a goalpost, how do we fortify ourselves, in the interim? Failure to do so would be fatal, but what can be done sans a credible strategy. Well, be clear of the objective irrespective of whatever "ism". Economics is all about resources. Wars are all about resources. Wealth is all about resources. Trade is all about resources. It is all about resources.
Accordingly, our survival lies in the optimal management of resources, even if in the short-term, flawless allocation remains elusive. Addressing income equalities is a significant government objective, but controlling waste is fundamental. We need to analyse and ask ourselves if we have devised ideal systems and processes to manage our precious resources.
Does our agricultural produce signify an optimal usage of scarce land and water? Are we optimising utilisation of extremely scarce energy resources? Are we doing enough to develop our mineral resources? Are we investing intelligently in our human resources? Is our lifestyle a waste of our resources? Are we misappropriating resources? Are our wants beyond our resources?
Such questions form part of numerous articles and debates in various forms. Nations of the world struggle so endlessly to control resources since beginning and will do so forever. "Waste not, want not" is probably the motto for this century. Populous support awaits the leadership, which rationalises resource utilisation, since new or old; it has always been about resources.