Discussion on India, Gujarat and Modi, India’s new Prime Minister. Noise, smell and distractions never leave you in India. Peace is not easy, for people lack respect for properties and space of others. Gujarat was better than elsewhere in India but the credit of its relative success has been erroneously attributed to Modi. Huge contrast between rural and urban areas in India. Visitors often go to cities and believe India is changing. But most Indians live in villages. When Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, he expropriated properties of poor people to gave them to rich companies. But this is not capitalism. This is fascism. The financial bubble is huge in India. Modi is mostly a product of lobbying and publicity. He did not really change anything. He might even have been a drag on Gujarat. Modi threw away poor people from the cities, to make parks for the rich elite. Demolishing home of poor people and destroying their livelihood is not the free-market. Modi will do the same in the rest of India. This is not only immoral, it is also very simplistic and very dangerous. Indians lack a sense of justice and fairness, which reflects in India’s governance. Most Middle Class people rationalize expropriation of poor people’s properties. But then this also affects the rich. Indians are unhappy and would like to change, but without philosophical moorings they cannot decide what is the right course of action. You must visit India and spend time in rural places to really understand India. Modi is very crude in his speeches. This works on the masses. He understands nothing about economics and ethics. On the positive side, Madhusudan runs a three-month certificate course in Austrian Economics in India, a rare project for India. Bringing in the concept of individuality in India, where mostly people think in terms of their caste and religion.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • Statism in whatever form – communism, socialism, fascism, interventionism – is the creator and upholder of a two-class system of corruption: the politically-connected and those who are not politically-connected. It is tolerated because people have been indoctrinated by State-controlled ‘education’ and State-controlled media.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Jeffrey Tucker wrote in pertinent part “You can choose the socialist who wants to wreck the world in one way, or the fascist who wants to wreck the world in another way.” Since fascism is just another form of socialism, is Mr. Tucker arguing  “you can choose the socialist who wants to wreck the world in one way, or the socialist who wants to wreck the world in another way?

    Jump to Discussion Post 36 replies
  • Bureaucracy is an affliction of largeness in the business world even in a free market economy but the difference is that in a free market economy the inefficiencies caused by the bureaucracy will enable their competitors to flourish causing the bureaucratic firm to lose customers and, to have to downsize thus purging itself from bureaucracy, or fail. Intervention by the government always creates some barrier that in turn always creates some kind of bureaucracy somewhere. These are the seeds of fascism that are sown by socialism.

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • Where are the battle lines? Of course individuals can vote their conscience by choosing to boycott or choosing not to boycott. But in a fascist environment the propaganda of the government pressures people to act in a certain way. Can a representative of a company that provides valuable goods and services speak freely without fascist retaliation? A ‘mob rule’ boycott is really the blind imitation by the masses to the propaganda put out by the fascists.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • What happens to a politician as his or her power grows? First of all the desire to be a politician is necessarily a corruption of character. Rare as it is, there is an alternative way to be of service that is not ego-driven. A statesman is completely different from a politician. So, the starting point for the politician is already lustful and ego-driven. Success along this path does nothing but encourage the further depreciation of character. The keys to success in democracy – and one of the reasons democracy is so vile – are putting into place socialism and fascism. Lying and scheming are the necessary skills to accomplish these corrupt practices. As power grows in the hands of the politician they become more and more a two-fold persona. Sometimes it is in their interest to take a stance as a socialistic fascist to achieve maximum power and at other times it is in their interest to act in the manner of a fascistic socialist. And then as they rise through the ranks and become a well-known politician they have to show another side which is their side as an ordinary person, a husband or a wife, or as a ‘family man’ so to speak. These multiple personas contribute to the psychosis and is pushed along by the nature of the politician to be ego-driven. In that perverse state, ego-driven interpretation intensifies and stimulates an irresistable desire for more and more ego-driven interventionism. This is the same cycle as earlier but now it is more influential over their conscience and ultimately this leads to the lack of conscience. This explains their actions, such as bombing innocent people.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies