Desiree
Motorcycle Chair: 114,521 INR

Ok, after the perfect chair for a villain (Desirée, Business & Economy Issue 11 Aug-24 Aug), we didn’t think we would stumble across a zanier piece of furniture so soon. But, perhaps it is something about the killer wheel, which has inspired this motorcycle chair from Barmans Ltd. The comforting (oh yeah!) chair has got hot-red synthetic leather seats, a smashing printed eagle on the head rest, biker bags (to hold magazines?) and outrageously-real wheels pretending to be chair legs. Hey, why not throw in a free tattoo sitting, and a helmet too!

RM014 Perini Navi Cup: 11,622,418 INR

Richard Mille is a name to reckon with in the watch making arena. The marque ensures that the wearer is in possession of a watch that is technically superior to what many others aspire for. The Perini Navi Cup watch in particular is inspired by the magnificent yachts built to perfection by the Perini Navi of Viareggio, Italy. The case bears sailboat engravings; the crown, tourbillion and even the simplest of titanium screws are inspired by the subject of the sea. Technical innovations such as carbon nano fiber movement base plate, torque indicator and fast rotating barrel are other features that this masterpiece prides itself on. Despite the sailors’ theme, don’t go gifting it to one. You wouldn’t want him to be too engrossed admiring it, while the iceberg hits!

The Million Dollar Lure: 46,456,174 INR

Fishing is for grandpas… And in this case disgustingly rich grandpas!! This fishing lure (to catch what – a gold shark?) is encrusted with 1.36 kgs of 18-karat & 14-karat gold and platinum, 4,753 diamonds and rubies of 100 carats and measures around upto 12 inches. Retailed by MacDaddy, it sure wants you to put yourself up for adoption for this big (read rich) daddy.

2007 Mercedes-Benz G 55 AMG: 6,733,314 INR

It is the latest and smartest SUV to hit the floor. The extremely robust vehicle has a commanding Supercharged V8 engine roaring under its hood, an astonishing 500 bhp of horse power, bi-xenon headlamps, scratch resistant paint finish, and hold your breath, is based on nano-technology! If this dynamic SUV doesn’t sweep you off the floor, then the only reason could be that you are planning a novel - The Monk who sold his Mercedes SUV...

Great power requires even greater control
Intellectuals have a great responsibility in shaping the future of democracy

(column by Noam Chomsky, Professor, Massachusetts, Institute of Technology)

It is a challenging task to select a few themes from the remarkable range of the work and life of Edward Said. I will keep to two: The culture of empire, and the responsibility of intellectuals – or those whom we call “intellectuals” if they have the privilege and resources to enter the public arena. The phrase “responsibility of intellectuals” conceals a crucial ambiguity: It blurs the distinction between “ought” and “is.” In terms of “ought,” their responsibility should be exactly the same as that of any decent human being, though greater; privilege confers opportunity, and opportunity confers moral responsibility. We rightly condemn the obedient intellectuals of brutal and violent states for their “conformist subservience to those in power.” I am borrowing the phrase from Hans Morgenthau, a founder of international relations theory. Morgenthau was referring, however, not to the commissar class of the totalitarian enemy, but to Western intellectuals, whose crime is far greater, because they cannot plead fear but only cowardice and subordination to power.

He was actually describing what “is,” and not what “ought” to be. The history of intellectuals is written by intellectuals, so not surprisingly, they are portrayed as defenders of right and justice, upholding the highest values and confronting power and evil with admirable courage and integrity. The record reveals a rather different picture. The pattern of “conformist subservience” goes back to the earliest recorded history. It was the man who “corrupted the youth of Athens” with “false gods” who drank the hemlock, not those who worshipped the true gods of the doctrinal system. A large part of the Bible is devoted to people who condemned the crimes of state and immoral practices. They are called “prophets,” a dubious translation of an obscure word. In contemporary terms, they were “dissident intellectuals.” There is no need to review how they were treated; miserably, the norm for dissidents.

There were also intellectuals who were greatly respected in the era of the prophets; the flatterers at the court. The Gospels warn of “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.” The dogmas that uphold the nobility of state power are nearly unassailable, despite the occasional errors and failures that critics allow themselves to occasionally condemn. A prevailing truth was expressed by US President John Adams two centuries ago: “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.” That is the deep root of the combination of savagery and self righteousness that infects the imperial mentality – and in some measure, every structure of authority and domination. We can add that reverence for that great soul is the normal stance of intellectual elites, who regularly add that they should hold the levers of control, or at least be close by.

One common expression of this prevailing view is that there are two categories of intellectuals: The “technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals” – responsible, sober, constructive – and the “value-oriented intellectuals,” a sinister grouping who pose a threat to democracy as they “devote themselves to the derogation of leadership, the challenging of authority, and the unmasking of established institutions.” I am quoting from a 1975 study by the Trilateral Commission – liberal internationalists from the United States, Europe and Japan. They were reflecting on the “crisis of democracy” that developed in the 1960s, when normally passive and apathetic sectors of the population, called “the special interests,” sought to enter the political arena in order to advance their concerns. Those improper initiatives created what the study called a “crisis of democracy,” in which the proper functioning of the state was threatened by “excessive democracy.” To overcome this crisis, the special interests must be restored to their proper function as passive observers, so that the “technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals” can do their constructive work.

The disruptive special interests are women, the young, the elderly, workers, farmers, minorities, majorities – in short, the population. Only one specific interest is not mentioned in the study: The corporate sector. But that makes sense. The corporate sector represents the “national interest” and naturally, there can be no question that state power protects the national interest. The reactions to this dangerous civilizing and democratizing trend have set their stamp on the contemporary era. For those who want to understand what is likely to lie ahead, it is of prime importance to look closely at the long-standing principles that animate the decisions and actions of the powerful – in today’s world, primarily the United States. Though only one of three major power centers in economic and most other dimensions, it surpasses any power in history in its military dominance, which is rapidly expanding, and it can generally rely on the support of the second superpower, Europe, and Japan, which is the second largest industrial economy. There is a clear doctrine on the general contours of American foreign policy.

It reigns in Western journalism and almost all scholarship, even among critics of policies. The major theme is “American exceptionalism”: The thesis further elaborates that the United States is unlike other great powers that be, past and present, primarily because it has a “transcendent purpose”: “The establishment of equality in freedom in America,” and indeed throughout the world, since “the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become worldwide.” The version of the thesis I have just quoted is particularly interesting because of its source: Hans Morgenthau. But this quote is from the Kennedy years, before the Vietnam war erupted in full savagery. The previous quote was from 1970, when he had shifted to a more critical phase in his thinking.

Figures of the highest intelligence and moral integrity have championed the stance of “exceptionalism.” Consider John Stuart Mill’s classic essay, “A Few Words on Non-Intervention.” Mill raised the question whether England should intervene in the ugly world or keep to its own business and let the barbarians carry out their savagery. His conclusion, nuanced and complex, was that England should intervene, even though by doing so, it will endure the “obloquy” and abuse of Europeans, who will “seek base motives” because they cannot comprehend that England is “novelty in the world,” an angelic power that seeks nothing for itself and acts only for the best interests of others. Though England selflessly bears the cost of intervention on its own, it shares the benefits of its labors with the others equally. Exceptionalism seems to be close to universal.

I suspect if we had records from the life and times of the tyrannic Genghis Khan, we might find the same thing being followed. The operative principle has in fact been illustrated copiously throughout history: Policy conforms to expressed ideals if and only if it also conforms to interests. The term “interests” ironically does not refer to the interests of the American population, but to the “national interest” – the interests of the concentrations of power that dominate the society. In the article “Who Influences US Foreign Policy?,” published last year in the American Political Science Review, the authors find, unsurprisingly, that the major influence is “internationally oriented business corporations,” though there is also a secondary effect of “experts,” who, they point out, “may themselves be influenced by business.” Public opinion, in contrast, has “little or no significant effect on government officials.”

One will search in vain for any evidence of the superior understanding and abilities of those who have the major influence on policy formulation, apart from protecting their own interests. The great soul of power extends far beyond states, to every domain of life, from families to international affairs. And throughout, every form of authority and domination bears a severe burden of proof. It is not self-legitimizing. And when it cannot bear the burden, as is commonly the case, it should be dismantled. That has been the clear guiding theme of the anarchist movements from their modern origins, adopting many of the principles of classical liberalism. One of the healthiest recent developments in Europe, I think, along with the federal arrangements and increased fluidity that the European Union has brought, is the devolution of state power, with revival of traditional cultures and languages and a greater degree of regional autonomy.

These developments lead some to envision a future Europe that belongs to the regions, with state authority significantly decentralized. To strike a proper balance between citizenship and common purpose on the one hand, and communal autonomy and cultural variety on the other, is no simple matter, and questions of democratic control of institutions extend to other spheres of life too. Such questions should be high on the agenda of those people who don’t worship at the shrine of the great soul of power, people who seek to deliver the world from the destructive forces that now literally threaten survival itself and those who believe that a more civilized society can actually be envisioned and even brought into existence.

(End of Noam Chomsky column)