From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Failure of Socialism in Bangladesh
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:54:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.202235.11816@news.clarkson.edu> haque@sunray.ece.clarkson.edu writes:
>In article IG9@news.udel.edu, khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec21.193237.10554@news.clarkson.edu> haque@sunray.ece.clarkson.edu writes:
>
[deleted...]
>> was much stronger, especially among the Univ. students.  All of us know that
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
>> wining election doesn't reflect the organizational strength.
>
>Election results indeed doesn't reflect organizational strength. If you consider 
>the persons who were elected with leftist tickets, you will see that most of 
>them were elected because of their local popularity, not because of their 
>political agenda. Shahjahan Shiraj, Rashed Khan Menon, Towaha etc do get 
>elected from their respective constituencies in a manner similar to the election 
>of Salahuddin Kader Chowdhury or late Sabur Khan. You have correctly pointed 
>out that the popularity of the leftists were mostly among the Univ. students and 

I agree partly that a candidate have to have local popularity in order to
win an election.  But their popularity came because of their organizational
activities and their closeness to the people.  It is true for leftists and
fundamentalists.  That also shows that ideology alone is not enough to win
public support.  A person can make a difference.  Awami League's Mujib was
such a personality, BNP's Zia, Russia's Lenin, or China's Mao.  You have to havequalified leaders to get your message accross.  So, the leftists that you named
they are popular in their areas not only because they are good people (because
there are many good people who can't even get his family's vote), they are
also good organizer.  In their areas they have articulated their message to the
public very effectively.


>that's why they couldn't make a statement outside University politics. The 
>example of JSD only establishes my point that the lack of foresight of the leaders 

Actually this is not true.  Most of the leftist parties have a strong Trade
Union base at Mills and Factories, and Peasent Organizations that are
stronger than what they have at the Univ.  This evidence reenforces my
arguments that there are numerous reasons why socialists did not prosper the waythey could or had the potential for.  The reasons are: fragmentation among
themselves, rise in fundamentalism in the region, fall of communism, absence of
real socialist groups (I emphasise on this and I know that it is almost impossible to discuss this topic in this posting), Awami League's embracing of socialism in BAKSAL program and therefore spoling the ground for other leftists (as I
mentioned about Red flag being destroyed by Red flags), Muslim's strong affinitytowards religion (Bengalis have a long history of leftists struggle, but 
predominantly Hindu occupied West Bengal has a very successful Left-oriented
Govt. for the last 15 years), therefore have a tendency to distance themselves
from anything that seems lack religion such as socialism, dance and songs etc.
Please contemplate the reasons I listed.  I know it is not a complete list.

>was the reason for the failure of socialism. In early 70's, JSD was a strong 
>political force. Then look at them in the early eighties (before the fall of the 
>eastern europe). What do we see! They are divided, fight among themselves and 
>without a direction. Why? Because people like Rob and Jalil and S A Khan were 
>their leaders. Fall of JSD had nothing to do with europe!  

I personally think that the JSD's failure lies in its character.  It was a
split offspring of revelion Awami Leaguers.  In their attitude, activities,
action plans, analyses of political issues, they were just another side of
Awami Leauge coin.  They were bound to disintigrate, at least didn't have a
destinity to last as a socialist party.  Its leaders like Major Jalil admitted
that he didn't know what the word socialism meant (what a shame to provoke
so many young people and to inspire them to die in the name of socialism, yet
not to know what they really stood for).
> 
>Again you justified my points. I argued that communists and Mullahs are just the 
>two faces of a coin. As long as the leftists don't realize that Marxism isn't a 
>religion, there is no hope for them. Muslims believe that Islam is complete and 
>timeless and the socialists in Bangladesh look at their "own" Marxism with same 
>attitude. Do you think it's right to consider one's own brand of Marxism as the 
>complete and the final one, which is beyond any question and challenge? Isn't 
>this the mentality shown by our leftist leaders? And I attribute the major reason 


No sir, it doesn't justify your point.  Communism has a basic code of ethics andphilosophic base, which are eternal.  These are the facts that societies are
class-divided and one class exploit the other for their own good.  This class-
struggle is the impetus for the development of socities from primative society
to feudalism to capitalism to imperialism to a most humanitarian society called
socialism, which shouldn't have any class division and where everyone has a 
right to the production and benefit.  The same class (such as proletariat) all
over the world have the same interest as does any other class.  Therefore, regardless of their color, origin, race, or religion all proletariat should unite to
overthrow the rich ruling class.  Thse are eternally true philosophy.  In this 
regard one can say that communism is more than a political plan it can be
considered as eternal ethics or philosophy or maybe religion of working class.
As per as its evolution goes there was always one and there should be one.
See, that's why not only Marx but also Lenin and even Mao can be considered
an extension of Marx's original idea outlined in Das Capital.  Lenin and Mao's
contribution were to outline a stratigy and tactics that were suitable for
a particular society with a certain background of rituals, culture, and 
economic development, etc. etc.  Along the same line of thinking Castro was
right for his country and we will need one or group of such philosophers for 
our society, if we have to choose socialism as a veneguard of working class.


>of their failure to this factor. They have to understand that Marxism isn't a 
>static theory but an evolving one which has evolved in more than one dirction 
>and one has to find one's own interpretaion appropriate for a certain place, 
>certain time.
>
I think I just answer to your above point in the previous paragraph.

> You can't have both together.  It's like saying that some-one is a Muslim-Hindu
>> and Christian at the same time.  Whether or we like it is a different thing,
>> but religion and real communism can't go hand in hand.
>
>Being a Muslim-Hindu and a Christian (to that list you can add Budhhism and any 
>other religion as well) is probably not that out of the line. Many people who 
>consider themselves to be follower of the humanitarianism can be labelled like 
>that.

It is becoming a long one so let's put the relevence of religion to real
socialism for the future discussion.  All I can say is these two things are
in contradiction with each other.  Socialism itself, at least in theory, can
be the most humanitarian religion one can think of.  Now, I know that many will
jump on this argument saying what is the model of real socialism? It is such
a complicated question and there are so many debates going on, so I don't think
we can solve everything in one posting.
>
>Religion and communism has gone together in the South America. What about the 
>Churches in Nicaragua and other places who believed in Liberation Theology? 
>One of the reasons that communists were popular in the south America was that 
>they had been endorsed by the church. Sandanista govt. had more than one 
>priests in their cabinet.

Yeah, but where in south America you find a socialist society.  Nicaragua?
Look what happened to them.  Did they succeed as a socialist society?  I
don't think so.
>
>Why do you think that communists HAVE to be aethists? Is it because Marx said so?

Because they can't coexist.  Oil can't mix with water.  I don't want to argue
as to if one HAS to be atheist in order to be a communist, but I can
tell you that one absolutely HAVE to be secular and humanitarian in order
to make socialism succeed.  There is no other way.  Remember, a Muslim
worker is equally explited by his lord as does a Hindu worker or else.  Religion divide people, while the whole idea of socialism is to unite everyone based
on class character or interest, not based on color or caste etc.
 
Khaleq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------A non-socialist society is much better than a hybrid-socilist society, for the
later has already spoiled the ground for a real socialist society (not a qoute,
my belief)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh