From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Failure of Socialism in Bangladesh
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:28:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.055237.702@udel.edu> kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>In article <BzqsFz.30J@news.udel.edu> khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.225645.18601@udel.edu> kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>>>>
>>We have a basic difference in philosophy and priority. There is nothing
>>wrong about it.  That's way it is.  I know that I will not be able to
>
>Another untenable assumption, Mr Khaleque: the so called predeterminism
>of my mind. Whatever mindset I have achieved [and in no way it is set 
>in concrete] has been arrived at after sufficient ratiocination.  

Let's not get personal, please.  Don't you agree that we have very different
philosophic understanding about politics, society, and priority?  Isn't
clear from each of our posting that we don't agree?  Then why do you call it
"unteneable?"  Just like yours, my beliefs are also based scientific and logicalanalyses and ratiocination. 
>
>>The entire World is divided into
>>various groups of people with varied beliefs, priority, and philosophy.  What
>>seems absolutely pedantic, futite, or redundant to you or some other people is
>
>Agreed, but you seem to be labouring under the impression that 
>socialism is a "religion". A political system is cannot be free from

Again, name calling?  Let's try to defend our beliefs with facts and LOGIC.
I personally think that there are some elements of "Humanitarian Religion" in
socialist ideals.  It is the religion of working class.  It has a moral codes
of ethics.  One doesn't have to worship it, but certainly can embrace it to 
heart to widen one's horizon beyond one's religion (I mean the way you
want to understand the word religion, i.e., Islam, Hinduism, etc....).  And
I don't think there is anything wrong to criticize irrational of obsolete
religious elements.  And you certainly have seen me criticizing many aspects
of a socialist ideology or socialist rulers in my previous posting.

>>Why the Lithuanian people have voted the communists into power after a failed (!experiment with western-style democracy or free economy (please read the Time
>>magazine of Dec. 7, 1992)?  
>
>Yes, I have read the Time magazine quite diligently. One reason is
>obviously due to the inability of the people to accept the hardships
>that would be initially necessary to complete the reforms and
>transform the socialistic economy into a market economy.

See, that's how we disagree on philosophy.  When I brought up some concrete
facts then all you say that you have a different interpretation.  You,
however, didn't care to back up any of your claims with facts or examples.
Because, all you've to always say to counter my argument is "I disagree" or
"It is not this way at all".  The truth and facts however remain there for
other readers.  If Lithuanian people don't want to accept hardship, why then
they stood up before rolling Russian tanks and forcefully overthrew the 
socialist regimes.  They are the one who lived in a socialist society, then
divorced it, then remarried again.  Do you you they have forgotten the socialistmisery so quickly that they have decided to embrace it back.  Do you think any
sensible person will buy this logic.  How many of Bangladeshis for example
will like to go back to Pakistani or Pakistani style stratocracy after 21
years?  The reason why I think the Lithuanians and other former Soviet
Republics are trying to go back to socialism is very obvious and simple:
They are over with the Capitalists infatuation, HONEYMOON IS OVER; and the
experience of capitalist harshship and reality is not that all rosy or
exhilarating.  They can't afford to pay the bill while they are unemployed.
>
>>Why the Nepalese people have decided to vote for
>>the communists after the fall of Eastern Europe? 
>
>The Nepalese communist party aren't in power.

That's what I knew last that they have formed some sort of coalition.  I maybe
wrong; but I am not wrong about their rising popularity though.  Why the
struggle of Shining Path in Peru continues so strongly?
>
>>Why the West Bengalis and 
>>Kerala people have been voting for the communists for decades?  
>
>Mainly because they have an interesting intersection of socialist
>and capitalist economy. Private ownership is allowed allowing the
>free reign of individual creativities.

Yes.  But they are marching in the right direction under the banner of 
socialism.  In fact this mixed economy is an integral part of any
socialist society, which has just started its mission to establish
socialism.  This is exactly what Lenin prescribed and exercised for Russia
following the Revolution under his NEP Program.
>
>>Why the 
>>communists are becoming so popular (as the Time Magazine of Dec 7, 1992 puts it)again in Russia and elsewhere in the former USSR?  
>
>The same reason as in Lithuania. 

I hope have given my analyses of the event in Lithuania, which applies to
Russia and elsewhere.  90% of people in those countries never lived below
poverty (in fact no one did under 70 years of socialism) as they did today.
>
>>If you keep your mind open tofacts and figure then probably you will find an answer for yourself. 

I think the logic that I put in my writings along with examples and facts will
be able to incline you towards accepting the truth without reservation.
>
>Let me ask you a question in the same vein: What reason was there
>for the collapse of the socialistic goverments across Europe and
>Africa?

It is such a big topic to discuss in a single posting.  Let's keep it
for the future.  The major reasons are: deviation from original socialist
theory preached by Marx-Angels-Lenin-Mao, the class character of the leadership,
western propaganda (it is extremly strong and effective in the west), initial
phenomenal development under socialism that transformed the poor class into
middle class who don't need socilism as their philososhy any more (which to
my view is a inherent flaw or even can call a success of a socialist society).

>
>>Interestingly enough that you could not name a political system superior
>>to socialism.  There is none.
>
>I would say most market economies in Europe follow a superior
>system.

I am glad that at least you've given some concrete example in you posting
finally.  We can discuss the flaws of European economy some other time.
They have been superior for a long time.  Besides, they don't have to spend
an enormous portion of their budget for military build up, which the socialist
countries had to do to protect their system as I explained it in a earlier 
posting.  What those countries have actually a watered down version of 
socialism, social democracy.  They even call it Europen socialsm.  Again
I think most of those countries are in the right direction with a strong
socialist politics in their societies; and sooner or later they will have
to march towards socialism.
>
>>Of course this is humanism.  But you know that you don't find this humanism
>>anywhere else in this world but in a socialist society.  

The definition of humanism is varied.  Through socialism the basic needs and 
common interests of ALL the citizens are guaranteed and protected.  This
is a real HUMANISM to me.  They live for all, not just for one.  The
differtence between your and my openion is "I" and "WE" respectively.

>
>The United States should be no-one's model of an ideal political
>system. It's just as flawed as a socialist one.
>
>>>>Politically, socialism favors and protects 
>>>>the interest of MAJORITY.  
>
>? Shouldn't a just society protect the interests of all?

Yes.  Then do we protect the interest of looters in a society.  The definition
of looters is different, again!!!
>
>>Again, you can go and look up simple statistics on the developments, yes
>>economic development, of Russia since the Revolution.  Their education
>>system, medical facilities, housing (all of which were virtually free),
>>industry, tecnology, space program, etc. are indicators of economic development.
>
>From the indications that are coming out of the former Soviet Union
>most of these ARE indicators of their economic development, but in
>a negative sort of way. Of course, in a few prestige sectors sufficient

Guarantee of basic needs for all is not a negative indicator of a economy.
If so, let it be so.  All countries in the Third World will be more than happy
to live with this negative indicators, if they get a chance.

>Super-Computers to the Russian Republic. A quick perusal of scientific


It is a matter of priority.  Socialist society want to guarantee job for
its all citizens.  That's the reason why they don't put emphasis in
automation of admistration, production, etc., so that they don't have
brutally lay off human beings to protect their computers.  Think about putting
computers in all offices in Bangladesh, for example.  What do you envison?
Almost all clerks, peons, etc. etc. will lose job immediately.  Where should
those millions of family should go?
>..Deleted]
>
>>all the basic necessities are met for all her billion people.  No other
>>society can even dream to provide housing, education, medicare, jobs, security,
>>and human dignity for all its people.  
>
>Has China been able to do that? 


>
>*sarcasn on*
>Human dignity in China? Tibet and Tian-an-Mien Square attests to the 
>existence of human dignity in China. 
>*sarcasm off*
>
>And the current rapid growth in Chinese economy has been achieved through the
>introduction of market economy.
>
>>No capitalist country (I emphasize).
>>What do you see in the champion of capitalists country called America?  Hunger
>>and homelessness are rampant in the midst of plenty.  What a shame!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Puhleeze. Just because I am critical of socialism, do not make me an
>apologist for the US American economic system. Unbridled capitalism
>is as evil as any economic philosophy ever to have emanated from
>the human mind.
>
>>>>It is not Kazist model.  It is a socialist model.  First part of your
>>>>qoute defines a communist society defined by Marx and second part (what
>>>>you think is yours) reflects a socialist society's model (without the word
>>>>"needs" in it).
>>>
>>>It IS a Kazist Model since I insist that the word "needs" be present.
>>>In essence I am speaking for a market economy with the State providing
>>>both a glass ceiling and a safety-net.
>>
>>Needs and abilities are not in conformity to be a model.  If one has to get
>>by needs and he/she doesn't need any ability, because regardless of ability
>>needs are met.
>
>Duh?
>
>>Historical development of society dictates the inevitabily of a socialist
>>phase of development all over the world.  Capitalism is inheritantly
>>flawed and inhumane and bound to collapse.
>
>for the umpteenth time, I am not a mouthpiece for absolute laissez-faire
>economic system. Let history dictate which economic model ultimately
>is able to provide the best for human society.
>
>At present, all we can do is agree to disagree.
>
>- Zunaid Kazi
>  kazi@cis.udel.edu
>


Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:7087 soc.culture.pakistan:18791