Das draws a connection between corruption, widespread in Indian government, and “political pricing,” highlighting the example of Coal India as a state-owned and -operated company “that is the root cause of the nation’s coal troubles.” Das rightly contrasts competition and “increased choice” for working Indians with centralized government control and the problems that arise when politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to pick the winners in the economy at large.

Das’s claim — that the free market is not the enemy of poor and working class Indians — is fundamentally correct. So why do libertarians, the free market’s champions, have such a hard time persuading underprivileged groups and labor? Central to the problem is the vague and confused rhetoric surrounding discussions of economics, imprecisions of language that most of us fall into when using phrases like “the free market” and words like “capitalism.”

Still, Das’s choice for ambassador of freedom is rather odd and inapt. The new Prime Minister’s controversial positions hardly represent the principles of liberty and tolerance.  His conservative Hindu nationalist vision has been described as a “right-wing, authoritarian corporate state,” “closer to the model in China” than to a hypothetical libertarian paradise. Modi’s conception of “free market” means more of the same corporate favoritism, including, among other things, transferring land holdings from small farmers to corporate developments, all because “Modi wants to clear the way forward for business.”

When progressives uncritically accept the myth that we already have a free market today — that unbridled freedom of competition is in fact the problem — they play right into the hands of labor’s oppressors and exploiters. Big business wants an economic environment scoured of all competition, carefully sanitized and regulated for the benefit of a favored capitalist class.

By blaming free market competition, which they mistakenly claim already exists, for today’s injustices and inequalities, progressives abet the economic ruling class by preparing the ground for still more government intervention — the source of the problem in the first place. The state has always been a class instrument at its core, a coercive tool used to monopolize resources and capture markets, strangling genuine competition. If indeed the state has ever seemed to help the poor or workers, it has only done so on the margins, after systematically incapacitating them and ruling out possibilities of self-sufficiency.

Market anarchists belong to the political left because we favor social and economic justice and criticize capitalism as a system of privilege, one that essentially licenses theft. But as advocates of individual rights and free markets, we also recognize that such a system of privilege is a far cry from the kind of free society prescribed by legitimate libertarian principles, applied consistently.

When business conservatives talk about lowering taxes and opening the way for free enterprise, we must agree with them, but only in principle. The confusion emerges because the system they defend, corporate capitalism, with its gaping chasm between a few rich and multitudes of hopelessly poor, is simply not the product of a free market — and to contend that it amounts to the claim that today’s multinational corporate giants just won fair and square.

In truth, corporate capitalism as it exists is the bastard progeny of theft and enslavement, heir to all the historical systems of class rule and subjugation that have never existed without the state. Let us at last clear up the confusion: Today’s globalized corporate capitalism is not a free market. Not even close. It has relied upon state power at every turn to feather the nests of the power elite.

For India and the rest of the world, genuine freed markets — freed, that is, from the strangling grip of a small ruling class, are the way forward. But remember, as the beneficiaries of the existing system, businessmen and politicians are of course not its true advocates.

In trying to keep up with current news, I posted my commentary the same day the story was dated in the Times of India. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t do any background research.

The sources appeared as reliable as mainstream media can get. According to Wikipedia, the Press Trust of India involves more than 450 Indian newspapers, oversees Indian operations of the Associated Press and Reuters services, and has relations with many prominent international news organizations. The Times of India is the world’s largest selling English-language daily newspaper, and marketing research company ComScore reported that the Times has the world’s most-visited newspaper website. These organizations certainly have a lot invested in reputations for credible reporting.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied the Indian reports, stating among other things that it was “simply not true” that 34 warships would be sent as part of a security force (“Obama’s India trip clouded by election results and misinformation on cost,” Washington Post, November 4, 2010).

But the figure of 34 warships is not outside of rational belief. According to the website of the United States Seventh Fleet, the naval force operating in the region, the fleet has 60 to 70 ships assigned to it at any given time. And they aren’t exactly sitting in port all the time — Seventh Fleet units take part in as many as 100 exercises each year. Since the president is supposed to be the most important man in the world, it is not inconceivable — especially to those who’ve seen the assault rifles and riot shields brandished by police officers protecting national party conventions — that 34 ships would be deployed to support the presidential security force.

I certainly wouldn’t put it past the White House to mislead the public about the true amount of protection that very important people are provided out of the pockets of less-important people. This is, after all, the administration that delivers change in the form of more secrecy, more executive privilege, redefinition of withdrawal, and use of different military forces to police the world. But let’s assume that Gibbs is speaking closer to the truth than the Press Trust of India.

We still have the most powerful political leader in the world taking business executives abroad on a trip paid for by tax money. This leader commands a military with a $680 billion budget, nearly 300 warships, well over a million troops, and countless military and surveillance contractors. If that’s not elitism, what is? The point of my “White House Invades India” commentary, that the powerful generally do not want the rest of us asking what makes them so important, stands regardless of the specific figures.

Who are invited to political summits? People who have something to offer those with political power.

Who are invited to economic summits? Those who exercise decision making power over large sectors of the global economy, and those who can make the task more profitable for the right people.

After a decade of murderous terrorism in response to imperial ambition, unending wars bringing countless reports of shameful activity, documented police unaccountability, and economic downturns leaving many without homes and many without savings while houses sit empty and corporate dinosaurs continue to profit, shouldn’t we know better than to let things keep going the way they’re going?

When I write things that later appear to be wrong, I note the error and make a genuine effort to improve future output. Unfortunately, the authorities will not behave this way so long as they retain the ability to command. When bad things happen, they will likely say that if only the right people had more control over other peoples’ lives, things would turn out better. But of course!

President Obama is going to India with some corporate leaders. And he’s bringing an armada with him.

The Press Trust of India reports that jets, helicopters, more than 40 vehicles, and 34 US Warships, including an aircraft carrier, will be in the hands of the president’s guard force (“34 warships sent from US for Obama visit,” November 4). Over 800 hotel rooms have been booked for the occasion. American security personnel will number in the hundreds and Indian forces will be certainly be involved as well.

From the state’s point of view Obama ought to have protection on his visit. He’s the commander in chief of the most powerful military on the planet and, perhaps more importantly, a high-profile symbol of state power. But is it really a good thing for any person to have this kind of status in the first place?

While business executives often take serious security measures, the president is one person who is too important to mix among the people. The president is not quite an emperor residing in the Forbidden City, but his surroundings of armed forces and sanitized environments further separate him from society, leaving him mainly the company of elites he does business with.

But the Obama Armada is also a projection of state power. Just as a teleconference would not enable the same involvement with foreign leaders as a physical visit, a more modest security arrangement would send a different signal than the forces actually used. The world must know that America is a nation at war, and while the country is going through hard times the armed wing of the government can still make its presence felt in a big way. The president’s security will not be left to foreigners.

Who foots the bill for this political overkill? The taxpayers of the US and India will of course pay for a celebrated gathering of elites who are supposed to make decisions for the rest of us. The government will protect the important people by taking from you. And maybe we little people can make up for the environmental impact of 34 warships by living in the dark and driving less.

And how are Americans protected? Isn’t Obama in charge of the military that keeps us safe? The problem here is that the government is made of people who naturally protect their own interests first, and this does not always match the interests of the public in general. For example, aggressive foreign policies or occupations help breed resentment that sometimes explodes as terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. But in order to secure a position of global political leadership (i.e. protect the global influence of successful political leaders), the occupations must continue and deals must be cut with oppressive regimes. Those making the decisions command armored vehicles and warships, and those who are ordered to live by the decisions are allowed to support whichever faction of the elite seems to have the most in common with them.

Obama’s celebrity visit to India brings political power, military power, economic power, and cultural power. While contests among the powerful may vary in their friendliness or hostility, a frequently overriding belief is that it is better to share power than to lose it. Naturally power relations must remain in place, and if we little people knew our place we wouldn’t complain about how the powerful secure their place.