From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Failure of Socialism in Bangladesh
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:35:22 GMT

In article <Bzq6IL.1pn@news.udel.edu> kazi@brahms.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>All this pedantic discourse on the failure of socialism in Bangladesh
>and elsewhere is futile. The failure of socialism can be attributed to
>one simple reason: Socialism as a political and economic model is
>severely flawed and impractical.

Wow!!! Discussing any political and social issuses that our country faces
might be pedantic and futile, for our discussions are not conveyed to
the people whose life is affected by those issues.  But I find it rather
overly simplistic to conclude that socialism as a political and economic
model is severly flawed and impractical.  Yes there are theoritical problems
with socialist model.  Then which political system and economic model is
flawless?  Socialist model may be flawed, but this is the best we have.  There
is no alternative model which can better serve the cause of a highly civilized
society where EVERYONE IS VALUED AS EQUAL.  It embraces all human beings based
on their human quality and merit - not based on the amount of wealth one posses,or based on color, creed, nationality, and geography.  Can you think of a more
civilized ideal or philosophy?  Politically, socialism favors and protects 
the interest of MAJORITY.  You're forgetting a basic fact that most of us
don't belong to that majority in our society, therefore, I understand it very
well that a person belonging to a bourgeois class has no interest to uphold
or support the interest of proletariat.  Why am I supporting?  I believe, 
a person from any class can go beoynd his/her own class character, especially
when someone understands injustice done by his/class to other classes.  It is
called declassed (rectified) person.  Economically, socialism has proven to
be able to climb from a backward feudal society to the very climax of economic
development by any standard - a super power status.  Just get basic facts about
the history of development of the former Soviet Union or China, or else.  What
does that tell you?  Was Russia a political superpower before the October Revolution?  Was China a regional power before 1949?  I don't think so. 
>
>The failure of rigid centralized economies attest quite well to this
>fact. 
>
>Furthermore, the Marxist jargons of "class less" society, "dictatorship
>of the proletariat" et al are simply Gobbelesian propaganda aimed at
>inculcating support from the disdvantaged segments of a society. 

The idea of a classless society is not ill-intended or propaganda.  It is 
the reality in a socialist society.  Why then the socialist model fail in USSR?
Just wait and see.  It is not failed, it is halted and paused.  Remember, socialism is only 70 year old and already made a case in this world.  They were
a real rival of imperialist power.  It is because of imperialist conspiracy that
a guy like Gorbachev or Yeltsin took over power and virtually destroyed the system.  The Soviet model was by no means a flawless socialist model to start with, especially it was more of a socio-imperialist country after the years of Lenin.
That is a different topic.
>
>In any society financial stratifications will exist, reflecting the
>varying degrees of abilities. A society that does not reward its
>members for their efficiency and ability is bound to break down or
>at least totter towards economic collapse. The economies of the
>ex-Soviet Block countries provide ample evidence to this. 
>
>While I do not call for free-wheeling laissez-faire capitalism, I
>believe that it is essential for individual enterprise and ability
>to be amply rewarded in any economic model. Of course, in my economic
>model I would expect state guarantees of minimum needs and social
>services, while freeing individuals to perform at their peek.

What did western type free society give to the former Soviet Republic?
Corruption, prostitution, bankrupcy, unemployment, homelessness etc.etc.,
none of these elements were present in the even flawed Soviet socialist
society.
>
>Maybe we need a twist to old Marx's "From each according to his
>abilities, to each according to his needs". I have taken some
>liberties and tweaked it to marginally reflect the Kazist Economic
>model": "From each according to one's abilities, to each according
>to one's needs AND abilities". :-)

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).

.
>
>A toast to the end of communism. [Apologies, Khaleque ;-)]
>
>Cheers,
>Zunaid

So, lets toast for the most humanitarian model to date and its
properity and revival in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.

Khaleq
>
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian