A Discussion on Left"isms" & Relevance to India

11-24-2006, 10:51 PM

An open letter to the Administrators of India Discussion Forum

Hi ,

I live in India and as my name suggests I am a revolutionary Marxist.And i am also an Internationalist who thinks that all the man made invisible and imaginary borders that divide people must go. I believe in class struggle and one day the world wide revolution by proletarians to overthrow all the bourgeoisie's government all over the world is inevitable.

I am also an Atheist. I consider all religions are just opiums to people and must die out inherently. I do not endorse the view of the so called Secularism.

By saying that i am a Marxist i do not endorse the View of the communists parties of India(Marxist,Marxist-Leninist,Maoists). I consider they are all traitors to workers and peasants of India whom they claim to represent. I don't know why they have Communist in their names....

My point here is I am a male of 24 yrs of Age .I work as a computer salesman and i think that the communism based on the Marxist theory will be the only way out for people of the landmass called India. I am not an veteran Marxist but a learner. But my learning had came to a halt since i never discussed about my political views with anybody and i found this place through google search and registerd just some minutes before posting this one.My question is will my views will be discussed by the members of this board with criticisms which will be constructive and mutually usefull to every one or will I be considered as an unwelcome member or considered as a troll ?

i put forth that questions because of some bad experiences in other forums ??? pls reply to my post . i hope will get an positive reply thank you

11-24-2006, 11:33 PM

QUOTE(revolutionarymarxist @ Nov 24 2006, 10:51 PM)....I am not an veteran Marxist but a learner. But my learning had came to a halt since i never discussed about my political views with anybody and i found this place through google search and registerd just some minutes before posting this one.My question is will my views will be discussed by the members of this board with criticisms which will be constructive and mutually usefull to everyÂ one or will I be consideredÂ as an unwelcome member or considered as a troll ?

i put forth that questions because of some bad experiences in other forums ??? pls reply to my post . i hope will get an positive reply thank you
[right][snapback]61255[/snapback][/right]


Please find a copy of "The Road to Serfdom", by F. A. Hayek and digest it; Let the learning begin in earnest, that is if you really are sincere.

Bharatvarsh · 11-24-2006, 11:53 PM

QUOTEMy point here is I am a male of 24 yrs of Age .I work as a computer salesman and i think that the communism based on the Marxist theory will be the only way out for people of the landmass called India.
<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />

Ya right, man some people's minds are so fossilised, we saw how communism based on Marxist theory did in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, N.Korea, China etc.

Communism is worse than Nazism, the number of people that communists murdered in the name of their phony revolution is in the millions, monsters like Stalin and Mao are what communist theory has managed to produce, a communist is by definition a traitor to the nation.

No one takes communists seriously these days, they are a bunch of losers with fossilized brains and a failed ideology who had always been stooges to someone else.

11-25-2006, 01:04 AM

Comrade Lal,

Just the way you believe that 'man made invisible and imaginary borders that divide people must go' we too believe that there shouldn't be door on even your house and your bank account should be ours and ours should be.......let's leave that last part about our money, okay?

And we believe the class struggle by proletarians to overthrow all the bourgeoisie's government is restricted by people like you who sell computers and do not give it away for free. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /> Why are you using capitalistic tools like 'money' to keep our brothers and sisters away from internet and chat rooms and discussion forums where we can plan on the utopian red shangrila? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />

Meanwhile stick around and lurk and read as to people say/do in real world.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 11-25-2006, 03:00 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEI believe in class struggle and one day the world wide revolution by proletarians to overthrow all the bourgeoisie's government all over the world is inevitable. 
<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />

Before talking about the world, ask your commie brothers to try it in India and see what happens, they have been trying it for the last 50 years and all they managed is to get shot dead by Indian police and military.

They even got screwed over by Shiv Sena in Mumbai because at the end of the day the masses know that commies are traitors to the nation and that all their utopian rheotic is just a cover to help them get to power so that they can reduce everyone to serfdom and starvation like they did in almost every country they ever ruled.

Why are you selling computers then, shouldn't you be with the Naxals helping them overthrowing the bourgeoisie or are you too chicken to do that?

Commies are a bunch of parasites on the society and the nation, a bunch of freeloading bastards, they are like hardened prostitutes which is why they always manage to find a new master to serve every few years, a few years ago it was USSR, now it's China, they are examples of the lowest depths of degeneration that very few humans usually reach.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 11-25-2006, 10:47 AM by Husky.)

Com. Lal (post 137)
I suggest you study in northern Europe. In history classes, they teach communism very fairly - not like in the U.S. They teach the theory (the ideals, quite appealing on initial view) thoroughly and then how it has turned out in practice (total failure).
Then the history classes explain why their government systems are 'socialist' democracies instead: no revolutions, but parties voted into power who try to make sure there are no exceedingly poor people or exceedingly rich people, which is achieved through various taxation slabs. Called democratic 'socialism' - it seems to be quite unrelated to communism/socialism, actually - it works well in northern Europe, succeeding where communism has failed every nation that tried it.

Study each case of communism in history. You will realise there is a pattern: it does not work. Prosperous nations high in culture with insufficient equality end up as pauper nations devoid of culture with insufficient equality. People in communist countries become robots, they don't realise their lines reach back tens of thousands of years and so don't learn the valuable lessons and retain the knowledge pool of those tens of thousands of years.

Communism wants to wipe the slate of every nation it wants to grab clean (rewriting history is a part of that endeavour). It is arrogance at its highest. We do not live in a spatial nor temporal vaccuum, we have a history and must learn the good things and avoid the bad things of the past (not the 'good' and 'bad' things of the past as rewritten history teaches, though). Communism is a flawed system that imagines it's a whole system. It's like christoislamism, but unless you study a lot of history you will not know that.

Why does it fail? For one thing, because communism is unfeasible, for instance it relies on uniform human goodness and infallibility, and let's face it, that's an unrealisable ideal.
Communists are just another brand of non-realists.

Why did certain ancient societies in Africa and native American societies survive for tens of thousands of years in relative peace and not suffer want? Because they honed themselves from learning from past mistakes and from past wars and difficulties. They progressed naturally. No radical, upstart ideologies (until christoislamism and its child ideologies turned up).
Communism is a limited ideology that is a few decades old, has no sense of realism and although it has been tested a few times since its invention, it has failed miserably every time.
But if it were up to them, communists will still keep trying the ineffective anti-dote they have for thousands of years, and always be unsuccessful (and their attempts detrimental to natural society). Humans are an animal species, a monkey species in particular. Why don't you try out communism on chimpanzees and then if successful try it out on us again. (Hint: the ideology is unnatural wishful thinking which will never work because it horribly fails to understand human nature.)

Leave communism as a theory and try to realise utopia in some other way. Don't reinvent the wheel. You're not the first to have gone 'eureka' on reading communist theory. You're one in a long line of misguided, and ultimately to-be-disappointed individuals.
Instead, why don't you invent a more feasible, less violent, less destructive of the old ways, yet natural and harmonious means to improve the world and human society? A means that is hopefully realistic.
You'll find that the only viable ones are the ones that have/had been operating for tens of thousands in Asia, Africa and the Old Americas.

Communism (socialism/marxism/leninism/maoism) has been given a second chance, a third chance, ... , too many chances. Learn the lesson. There is a saying 'even a donkey does not bump twice against the same rock'. Time to come up with other alternatives or go back to time-tested ones.

11-25-2006, 12:35 PM

Hi All,

I too am a leftist, but I am more like the democrats in USA, rather than the communists in India. I believe in

#1 Secularism: every religion is respected (not hated and abused) with no appeasement of any kind.

#2 Socialism:

People have mistaken ideas that socialism is all about relinquishing money, and that we must give away computers for free etc. etc. This isn't right at all. In an ideal socialist society, there is common ownership of the means of production, so where's the question of giving this or that for free? But that's an ideal situation we haven't yet attained, hence the concept of money being a medium of exchange cannot be wished away. At the moment, our socialism should be turned toward improving workers' conditions, govt. control of large-scale industries so the wealth generated could be used for welfare schemes and social security, and so on.

#3 Democracy of the functional type, where not only elections but important decisions involve active participation of the people.

#4 World peace and harmony: Work toward disarmament, human rights, establishing a society of equals.

These are my beliefs as a leftist, and I do not see why it's anti-national, as most people seem to allege. It is rational and also quite similar to Hinduism, which propagates ahimsa. Besides, aside from left and right, there's nothing else, third-way economics is a farce. Hence, Indians must choose between the two, and in my view, left is certainly better. Look at the right-wing of USA and the damage they've done to the world. <!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' />

I really hope people could be mature about this, and NOT start abusing people who have different beliefs. There is simply no other alternative to leftist ideology, and even the Mahatma subscribed to it.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 11-25-2006, 02:01 PM by Husky.)

Regarding my own post 142:
the democratic socialism in Europe has nothing to do with what is known as communism/socialism.

Post 143:
QUOTEThese are my beliefs as a leftist, and I do not see why it's anti-national, as most people seem to allege. It is rational and also quite similar to Hinduism, which propagates ahimsa.Not similar to Hinduism. Ahimsa is for certain people (yogis, sannyasins, and the like). Otherwise we believed in defense and fighting adharma. That's why we had Kshatriyas and why even many villagers could fight in self-defense. For all Hindus to practise ahimsa, at a time when negotiations don't work and violence is brought to our very doorstep and threatens our families, is adharma of a very high order. Please don't speak of Hinduism when you don't really know it (beyond having a Hindu name).

QUOTEBesides, aside from left and right, there's nothing else, third-way economics is a farce. Hence, Indians must choose between the two, and in my view, left is certainly better.Where have I heard this before? That's right:
'It's either christoislamic hell or christoislamic heaven'. 'You're either for us or against us'. 'Dar-ul-harb or Dar-ul-Islam'. 'Capitalist or communist'. 'Fascist or communist'.
Sorry. My options are much greater. There's not just black and white, there is green, blue, red and infinitely more colours. I am sorry you are living in a monochrome world (not even the grey scale of the west where the western political systems have more than left and right).

QUOTELook at the right-wing of USA and the damage they've done to the world.Yes. And also look at the death tolls courtesy of Stalin and Mao. Mao and his idiotic plans were responsible for 100 million Chinese deaths. Also what I call serious damage. Hence left is beyond consideration too - don't complain, because I am using the same logic here.

QUOTESecularism: every religion is respected (not hated and abused) That is not secularism. Please study what the real meaning of secularism is. Also, since nazism is a kind of religion (as is communism), ought it to be respected?
Study other religions before making a blanket statement. Because you don't appear to know much about christianity and islam.

QUOTEThere is simply no other alternative to leftist ideology, and even the Mahatma subscribed to it.Which Mahatma? Oh, Gandhi. Even if it were true, he ain't god. In any case, I can think for myself and don't need to accept and/or follow everything that some respected person did and believed. Obviously it's hard for some others to think for themselves.

QUOTEThere is simply no other alternative to leftist ideology.I know communists believe that repetition of a non-fact turns it into a fact. But do what scientists do: conduct an unbiased experiment. Try it: if you keep repeating this statement of yours, will it come true?

QUOTEI really hope people could be mature about this, and NOT start abusing people who have different beliefs.I'm not a confused leftist. I have the right to say what I want. And if I want to make fun of someone, then I will. Not planning to yet, though.
But you are right about how leftism/communism is a belief.

11-25-2006, 01:12 PM

QUOTEI really hope people could be mature about this, and NOT start abusing people who have different beliefs. There is simply no other alternative to leftist ideology
Sure, we'll all be mature...
QUOTEThis isn't right at all. In an ideal socialist society, there is common ownership of the means of production, so where's the question of giving this or that for free? But that's an ideal situation we haven't yet attained, hence the concept of money being a medium of exchange cannot be wished away.
What was that again? Socialists did not enough time to create your utopia? You haven't attained the ideal situation yet, you say?
Common ownership of the means of production? Where have your ilk attained such a thing, and made a success out of it? And, how were you going to avoid the concept of money? By ration cards? Is that where you think we should be going?
QUOTEgovt. control of large-scale industries so the wealth generated could be used for welfare schemes and social security
Clearly, you haven't been in India for some time. Get off your daily dose of the dailykos and the DU, and take a look at your motherland, where uncontested socialism created a dystopia that India is only now recovering from.

11-25-2006, 04:02 PM

Not similar to Hinduism. Ahimsa is for certain people (yogis, sannyasins, and the like). Otherwise we believed in defense and fighting adharma.****

I meant ahimsa in the sense we don't fight, except in self-defense. We don't fight for wealth, power, land, whatever. We spread the ideals of peace and non-violence. So I guess we're saying the same thing with a difference in terminology, that's all.

That's why we had Kshatriyas and why even many villagers could fight in self-defense. For all Hindus to practise ahimsa, at a time when negotiations don't work and violence is brought to our very doorstep and threatens our families, is adharma of a very high order.*****

Fighting is for the military. If everybody cultivates the idea that he's fighting what you call adharma, they may even go so far as to rationalize murder, doing which law becomes immaterial. There will be chaos, no respect for law, because people will justify their actions under the pretext of 'fighting evil.' That's probably why ancient hindus restricted this dharma to a particular (kshatriya) class, in order to avoid chaos.

Please don't speak of Hinduism when you don't really know it (beyond having a Hindu name)******

I know a lot about Hinduism, and I find it very similar to the enlightened ideas of socialism such as equality, common ownership, welfare state etc. That's why I feel it imperative for Hindus and Socialists to get together and fight imperialist designs.

Where have I heard this before? That's right:
'It's either christoislamic hell or christoislamic heaven'. 'You're either for us or against us'. 'Dar-ul-harb or Dar-ul-Islam'. 'Capitalist or communist'. 'Fascist or communist'******

Even reputed capitalists like Reisman hold this view, that third-way economics is a myth, there are only two paths.

****Yes. And also look at the death tolls courtesy of Stalin and Mao.****

They were not leftist.

That is not secularism. Please study what the real meaning of secularism is.*****

Secularism is the separation of state and religion, NOT the total destruction of religion altogether. Religion will have no place in politics, that's all. Or, are you suggesting another version of secularism, which aims to root out all religion?

Also, since nazism is a kind of religion (as is communism), ought it to be respected***

The world recognizes Islam and Christianity as valid, genuine religions. The world doesn't recognize nazism as such. Even Germany doesn't and punishes neo-nazis. As a believer in democracy, we have to go by the voice of the majority. No other option. In countries like Italy and France, Hinduism is not recognized as a religion at all. Will you accept that, as you'd want the world to accept your view that Islam and Christianity are NOT religions??

Which Mahatma? Oh, Gandhi.*****

Is there another?<!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' />

In any case, I can think for myself and don't need to accept and/or follow everything that some respected person did and believed.*****

Even to think for yourself, you'll have to follow someone, one way or the other. Suppose you want evolve a new system of governance based on your 'free thinking', that must be based on the previous knowledge you've acquired as regards the different forms of governance. In other words, you do accept knowledge given to you by *someone else*, based on which you hope to evolve a new system. Which means, even your 'free thinking' involves following someone, or some book, whatever. To think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

conduct an unbiased experiment. Try it: if you keep repeating this statement of yours, will it come true?*****

I have no idea what you're talking about. Right-wing ideology has given the world wars, poverty, human rights abuse, and other forms of destruction. Only a socialist system of governance can be a suitable alternative. But it's NOT the socialism that you imagine it to be, that of Mao's or Lenin's. Nor, is it the Indian version of socialism, namely minority appeasement.

I'm not a confused leftist. I have the right to say what I want. And if I want to make fun of someone, then I will.****

You openly admit you're not averse to making fun of people. With such attitude, you have lost your moral right to fault Christians/Muslims for demeaning Hindus. They too could say what you just did, that they can make fun of any hindu they want.

But you are right about how leftism/communism is a belief.******

That's nothing more than verbal gymnastics.

11-25-2006, 04:27 PM

QUOTESocialists did not enough time to create your utopia? You haven't attained the ideal situation yet, you say?

You don't ask the same questions of a capitalist. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> Why?

QUOTECommon ownership of the means of production? Where have your ilk attained such a thing, and made a success out of it?

Rome wasn't built in a day. It will take time, particularly because it involves a lot of innovation. Again, you never ask these questions to a capitalist, who also has failed to deliver your utopia. Why these double standards?

QUOTE And, how were you going to avoid the concept of money? By ration cards? Is that where you think we should be going?

This is a common mistake made by people who aren't familiar with socialist economics. Money is not wealth. Whilst it's true that socialism believes in equitable distribution of wealth, money doesn't come under that category at all. Money is just a medium of exchange, so where's the question of getting rid of it? Even if you did, you'd have to replace it with another medium of exchange, such as barter system, or what else not.

The socialist idea is to focus on PROPER wealth generation, distribution and consumption, which involves the common ownership of the means of production. These means of production (and the produce itself) are called wealth. Equitable distribution depends on the concept of common ownership, implementing which 'wages' will lose meaning because there is no capitalist-worker relationship. Everything that comes from COOMOP will be treated as profits and shared amongst all workers. Money will then have its rightful place in the larger scheme of things. This avoids the inequality that often characterizes capitalism.

11-25-2006, 09:11 PM

QUOTEI too am a leftist, but I am more like the democrats in USA, rather than the communists in India. I believe in  <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

QUOTELook at the right-wing of USA and the damage they've done to the worldDo you know what democrats had done? Read history first before throwing words.
Start from Sudan, Afghanistan (creation of Taliban) and go back to 18th century.

QUOTERome wasn't built in a day.
Ya, it took 50 years of socialism to kill India's entrepreneurship. Finally, we came out of nonsense called socialism now for last 2.5 years we are back to same nonsense.

11-25-2006, 09:14 PM

Suresh:

So that we have a proper basis to discuss..

QUOTEOnly a socialist system of governance can be a suitable alternative. But it's NOT the socialism that you imagine it to be, that of Mao's or Lenin's. Nor, is it the Indian version of socialism, namely minority appeasement.

What exactly is 'socialism' that you define of. From what I know USSR was a "Soviet Socialist Republics". Per the book defination of socialism it's "property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control". It's not clear that what 'social control'; nor are there defined parameters to put such controls into practise; nor have we seen metrics to measure them or their success.

An example of socialist system would be government planners could dictate as to how much one produced or not and savvy socialists proponents like economist Oskar Lange contended that watching lines at retail stores was an indicator of what inventory levels should be. (Kinda like capitalist version of the legendary investor Peter Lynch stating that you ought to drive around the malls or K-Mart/Wal-Mart parking lot before buying it's stock).
Friedrich Hayek in his famous article The Use of Knowledge in Society debunked socialist economic models stating that central planners cannot replicate all decisions and calculations that private firms make in market system.

Who defines the PROPER in QUOTE"PROPER wealth generation, distribution and consumption, which involves the common ownership of the means of production"?
Do you have any working examples?

QUOTE Everything that comes from COOMOP will be treated as profits and shared amongst all workers.

In such a scenario, what incentive do you have to work as hard as you do when you could just be a lazy bumb like me since I'll be making as much as you do.

QUOTEAgain, you never ask these questions to a capitalist, who also has failed to deliver your utopia
Any listed companies promising utopia rather than shareholder value that you can name of? I'll short their stock once the market opens Monday morning.

and
QUOTEThat's why I feel it imperative for Hindus and Socialists to get together and fight imperialist designs.

Who exactly are these imperialist? And spell out their designs? America?
"The Americans couldn't destory Hanoi but we have destoryed our city by very low rents" - Vietnam's foreign minister Nguyen Co Thact in '89.

QUOTEAt the moment, our socialism should be turned toward improving workers' conditions, govt. control of large-scale industries so the wealth generated could be used for welfare schemes and social security, and so on.

Itâs called taxes â is this term foreign to socialists? Only creation of wealth can provide for schemes to defend or provide for those who need to be provided for.

Mudy: No attacks on democrats please - Taliban/Sudan different thread. And vishwas - no attack on daily dose of dailykos please <!--emo& Wink

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />

11-25-2006, 10:07 PM

The poor people are atract first by comunism .This is the comunist power.Such swit promises like equality for all,jobs for all,food for all.
Why capitalists countries as thoose from Latin America or Africa didnt succed develop the economy?
Are only 2 ways?Usualy the 3 th way is a combination of social and capitalist curents.

11-25-2006, 10:43 PM

<!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Nothing suceeds like sucess.
The thing of this is that socialist systems have failed.
Coming to India, many of the public sectors have failed as there is union of nonworking workers. Ministers control the unions and that is their interest in keeping these afloat.
India has a strong tradition of democracy and we need not borrow other systems which are alien to our land. We need to strengthen our Panchayati Democracy. Despite all the foreign assaults, nobody could ever subjugate the indomitable democratic will of Indian villager. And economic offenders have to be treated like any other criminal. VP Singh as Finance Minister of India did exactly this.

Bharatvarsh · 11-25-2006, 11:31 PM

QUOTEAgain, you never ask these questions to a capitalist, who also has failed to deliver your utopia. Why these double standards?
No capitalist promised me utopia and I don't expect utopia, only morons would expect utopia and complete equality in this world.

But I do know that despite all their predictions of gloom and doom for capitalistic countries like US they withstood everything and are the superpower's today while commie utopia's like USSR collapsed like a pack of cards, China has abandoned communism in everything but name, the only thing that commies delivered are massive famines and murder of millions and universal serfdom.

Hindus getting together with socialists, that has to be the biggest joke, these socialist jokers were the one's who made every effort to supress Hindu rights in collusion with Islamic jihadis and xtian missionaries, the record of Communists in India speaks for itself, spying for the British during the Quit India movement, supporting partition and accepting that Muslims are a nation (all the while claiming that all religions are opium of the masses) and then the same Muslims kicked them in their asses and sent them packing to India, after reaching here the traitorous dogs have gone back to their old ways including supporting China in the 1962 war.

11-26-2006, 12:31 PM

QUOTEWhat exactly is 'socialism' that you define of

Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Until communism-common ownership-is established, we must stick to state ownership of the means of production. Proletariats will form the state, which is why we call it 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

QUOTEAn example of socialist system would be government planners could dictate as to how much one produced

Not quite. I will explain this in detail.

Basis of production:

The state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies. For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon. Why so? Because production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. This, in effect, will guide a socialist economy.

All-round development:

One doesn't have to worry that the economy will 'stagnate' on account of this, because the law (in this case, diminishing marginal utility) will ensure that development takes place at the right speed. Another example to understand this. India lives in the villages. A socialist state would do well to invest in fertilisers, irrigation and such, than in fancy cars. The former, along with other measures, aims at equiping the villages, to make them prosperous and self-sufficient. This is the NEED in a country where 70% people are farmers and therefore, investment decisions must be based on this.

Once this is accomplished, the law of diminishing marginal utility will take us to the next step. What would a self-sufficient village do? It can become a center of production itself. Thus more wealth is generated. As you can see, there is no 'stagnation' once needs are fulfilled. The very fulfilment will take us to the next stage of development, and development in this case comes about naturally and step-by-step. Compare this with free market economies, where fancy cars and beggars exist side by side. This is the result of development based on greed.

QUOTE Only creation of wealth can provide for schemes to defend or provide for those who need to be provided for.


Yes, but wealth generation based on free market system will not provide for the needy. Here's why.

Dangers of free market system:

As a general rule, majority=mediocrity. Most people want freedom but not the responsibility that comes with it. Turn to India. Everybody wanted freedom, but was there any responsibility or accountability in this country once India became free? Even today, things haven't changed, so it's safe to conclude that most people prefer freedom minus responsibility.

If this attitude entends to economics, imagine the disasters. People will be free to produce anything, without care or concern. The rich man would rather invest and create more casinos, dance bars, fancy cars, electronic gadgets, because there's enormous profit. This is scenario A. He wouldn't invest in fertilisers, for a starving farmer isn't a good customer. Even if he does, the prices have to be too high for the poor (to account for his production costs), and this will put more pressure on the already starving farmer. This is B.

In short, either development and wealth generation will have to cater to the rich at the expense of the poor, as in scenario A; or, development comes at a heavy price, namely farming debts, suicide etc. All this in the name of freedom.

QUOTEItâs called taxes â is this term foreign to socialists? 

Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? This problem can be avoided in a socialist system.

QUOTEIn such a scenario, what incentive do you have to work as hard as you do when you could just be a lazy bumb like me since I'll be making as much as you do.

Wealth is proportionate to the work done. No work=no wealth. If no wealth is created, a 'lazy bumb' can make nothing, because there's no wealth to be shared. Therefore, wealth creation itself will be an incentive to work, because that's the thing to be shared. More labor=more you enjoy the fruits of labor.

QUOTEWho exactly are these imperialist? And spell out their designs? America? 

America has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. America has thousands of nuclear warheads while advising the world, including India, on disarmament. America has constantly interfered in other regions, Africa and S America, for instance. Armed rebels in Africa and destroyed nations like Liberia. Supports dictatorial regimes whenever it's convenient. Supports terrorists and terrorist groups whenever convenient. Do I have to go on and on, or you get the picture?

Most of you are living in USA or some western country, so you feel guilty about speaking about its atrocities. Also, most Indians feel inferior to westerners vis-a-vis skin color, development and so forth, which is why you love (or pretend) to ignore the obvious truth that the west is dangerous.

11-26-2006, 02:29 PM

QUOTE(suresh @ Nov 26 2006, 12:31 PM)Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Until communism-common ownership-is established, we must stick to state ownership of the means of production. Proletariats will form the state, which is why we call it 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' 
I take it you mean, that a communist system is the desired end-result for a socialist state. How do you propose to bring about common ownership of the means of production? By Ahimsa? What about those people who do not think Communism is the right way to go? What will happen to their means of production? Will they be confiscated "for the good of society"? Would that not be "himsa"?

QUOTE(suresh @ Nov 26 2006, 12:31 PM)The state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies. For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon. Why so? Because production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. This, in effect, will guide a socialist economy.

The big question is how?
How does the state adjudge the needs of the people? How does it trade-off the needs of one set of people, against the needs of another set? How does it set priorities between and among these? How does it know what are the needs of its people, and how does it know how great is this need? Does it conduct a survey? How does it know if people lied during the survey?

Basically how does it propose to know every individual's preference for a product or service, and how does it propose to measure it objectively, across crores of human beings?

QUOTEOne doesn't have to worry that the economy will 'stagnate' on account of this, because the law (in this case, diminishing marginal utility) will ensure that development takes place at the right speed.
....
Once this is accomplished, the law of diminishing marginal utility will take us to the next step. What would a self-sufficient village do? It can become a center of production itself. Thus more wealth is generated. As you can see, there is no 'stagnation' once needs are fulfilled.
Your explanation is missing several steps. Go ahead and explain to us (in baby steps) why you think the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility (which pertains to individual consumers of a product) will work miracles in a socialist economy, but not in a free-market economy.

Remember by the way, that the effects of the Law of DMU are visible in the free-market through the market price of a good. If the seller brings too many apples to the market, he is going to find out - from the low price he will get from the buyers. In a socialist economy, where quantity produced and price are set by a planner, how is the DMU going to make itself visible? As I said before, please explain in baby steps.

11-26-2006, 06:39 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /> QUOTE(suresh @ Nov 26 2006, 12:31 PM)
The state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies. For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon.
That's a very myopic view. u can't even imagine as to how much money v have saved by having our own space research. But for this, v would have been paying in big $$$ as this is also 1 of the needs of people.
So, the bottomline is I will like to do both. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' />
And if u have time, pl read this:
http://merinews.com
The spirit of enterpreneurship is what v lose when v go for borrowed ideaologies.

11-26-2006, 07:42 PM

QUOTEThe state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies.
Let me see.. Manmohan in Delhi or Kurananidhi in Chennai will decide what I need? Seems like communisim to me doesn't it?
Did you miss the paper by Hayek debunking central planners?

QUOTE For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon.
Which representative of "socialist government in India" exactly comes to your field and tills the land or scrubs the bullocks at the watering hole?
PM? CM? Mayor? IAS Officer? Practical solutions and answers please.

QUOTEBecause production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. 
I highly doubt that current govt of India has conspired to keep millions of hungry mouths hungry. So what you are saying about grand plans to eradicate hunger and poverty are in place under the current infrastructure.
Problem's with execution and implementation.

QUOTECompare this with free market economies, where fancy cars and beggars exist side by side. This is the result of development based on greed. 
History's shown that your form of govt has not put that beggar in the car but put that car driver on the street alongside with beggar. So yes, the playing field's been leveled for all. Before I forget, with your form of govt, the car's are usually impounded by 'state' in name of the motherland. Socialist Soviet Russia even had separate exclusive roads for those impounded cars driven by 'state'.

QUOTEThe rich man would rather invest and create more casinos, dance bars, fancy cars, electronic gadgets, because there's enormous profit. This is scenario A. He wouldn't invest in fertilisers, for a starving farmer isn't a good customer. Even if he does, the prices have to be too high for the poor (to account for his production costs), and this will put more pressure on the already starving farmer. This is B.

Sounds nice. But dosen't hold. "Rich" man invests in whatever that'll bring him higher rates of return. Even a "poor man" invests with same goal. To state anything otherwise is pure hogwash.
And your assumption that investing is industries producing fertilisers being less profitable than say in casions/cars is just plain naieve - I'll wager you don't invest in any stocks/markets.

Also, your basic assumption seems to me is that a 'rich man' is basically doing anything that he does to screw the 'poor man' - profits be damned. In free markets, market demand and competition for better goods and services at better prices will render your 'rich man' poor and make innovative and entrepeurial 'poor man' rich.
In real world even the poor farmer at end of day indulges in a bit of toddy and biddi and ain't nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that your socialist govt would be offended by such indulgences in past time of rich.

QUOTEIs evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? 
What's foreign to me is your assumption that I'm unaware of tax evasion.

QUOTEIs evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? This problem can be avoided in a socialist system
Err.. how? Details please.

QUOTEWealth is proportionate to the work done. No work=no wealth. If no wealth is created, a 'lazy bumb' can make nothing, because there's no wealth to be shared.
Not so fast. You argued that all are equal stakeholders and all wealth will be shared equally. Human nature's such that some work hard and some don't work at all. In a system of guaranteed entitlement, there's absolute no incentive for any one to work when freebies are offered to all without merit.

QUOTEMost of you are living in USA ..
The quote by Vietnamese foreign minister was obiviously lost on you...sorry.

All in all, "in theory", you could be right, but in thousands of years of human history, it's not worked nor will it ever. For the very reason you state - human greed.

Now, suresh, if you respond, please address practical issues with some facts, figures and references and not some ideal state that you might have in your mind. As vishwas points out - explain in 'baby steps' the implementation of your ideas.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?