How Free Markets and Capitalism Can Radically Transform Eelam
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
Eelam has long been suffocated in its growth by the democratic socialism which has been both forced upon it and willingly embraced. From the calls of Chelvanayakam to the proclamations of Prabhakaran, the political philosophy that has been accepted as the best path forward for the country has been socialism. While there are myriad variants that encompass socialism, there are fundamental aspects of the political philosophy that remain constant. The primary aspect that differentiates it from capitalism is its insistence on the public ownership of the means of production. This distinction leads to the other fundamentals, namely, centralized planning and an emphasis on equality of outcome. While the ideas espoused within the socialist philosophy may sound attractive, they have proven— in every country that has adopted socialist policies— destructive and tyrannical.
There has never been a successful socialist state due to the reality that the philosophy limits both economic growth and individual freedom. Instead of relying on what Adam Smith described as “The Invisible Hand” of the markets, socialists attempt to centralize the planning and functioning of the entire economy. While attempting to create an equality of outcome through this method, the centralized planners rise to gain the most power and status within society, discounting their claims of erasing class. The pervasiveness of socialism within Eelam has limited entrepreneurship, the growth of wealth, the freedom of press, institutions such as private universities, and investments from the diaspora. Additionally, the issue of property rights comes into direct conflict with socialism; there is perhaps no better example of this than the Sri Lankan government’s power to nationalize a private business—or even industry. Not only does this disincentivize individuals within the country from aspiring to build wealth, but it also sends a clear message to the diaspora and the international community that any investment within the country is not protected and can be seized by the government.
Given the failed nature of socialism within the country, as evidenced by the lack of prosperity and opportunities to create prosperity, Eelam must shift to adopt free markets and embrace capitalism. The potential for this to radically transform the country is clear. The two greatest examples of this are seen within the rise of China and India; both countries suffered economically for decades before enacting policies that freed up the market to individuals—resulting in a tremendous amount of growth and international trade. Given the way in which individuals from Eelam have thrived in multiple countries that offer the benefits of capitalism, it is evident that it is not a lack of education and work ethic that is causing the country to remain stagnant and impoverished.
By observing the failures of socialism within the country’s history and around the world, Eelam must recognize its need to change. While capitalism does produce inequality, the system also produces unparalleled levels of wealth and opportunity; instead of prioritizing equality of outcome, the nation must shift toward a view of equality of opportunity. This shift requires an understanding of the innate differences and choices that individuals both have and make which affect their success. By understanding that individuals—as described by Fyodor Dostoyevsky—are not piano keys and that they exhibit a vast difference of ability, interests, and choices, the freedom opened up by free markets can be utilized in the most effective way possible.
Finally, one of the most common critiques of the capitalist system is that it disregards the lower classes. While inequality is certainly an issue that must be constantly addressed in accordance with the circumstances, there has been no proof that socialist policies have ever worked in ameliorating the plight of the poor. However, the wealth that is generated from private industry serves as the mechanism through which the poor are given more opportunities and greater amounts of charity than in any other form of political economy. Thus, it is not only a practical motivation that compels the country to change, but an ethical and moral imperative.