From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Failure of Socialism in Bangladesh
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.203618.29003@ms.uky.edu> achandra@nx06.mik.uky.edu (amitabh chandra) writes:
[deleted]
>> "unteneable?"  Just like yours, my beliefs are also based scientific and  
>>logical analyses and ratiocination. 
>
>I then fail to understand why that very "scientific and logical analyses" was   
>destroyed both at a theoretical and empirical level by a group of people known  
>as economists. It might interest you to note that Marxist economics is not  
>taught in any program of decent repute, because of two terribly naive  
>assumptions it is based on:

First of all the socialist theory is not destroyed by a group of economists as
you claim.  The theory is still valid and thriving all over the Third World.
Yes it is faced with some circumstantial difficulties in the Eastern Europe.
This failed experiment in the Eastern Europe is not a failure of socialism, as
I mentioned before, it is a failure of the misguided leadership in those 
countries, which actually proved the fact that revisionism can't succeed (the
Soviet socialist model was severely criticized by many Marxists all over the
world way before the fall of Eastern Europe (Read The New York Times of 
January 24, 1989, for example).

Your claim about the fact that Marxist Economy is not taught in ANY decent 
reputaed universities is just not true.  You simply don't know the curriculum
of all economics and political science department of the world.  Besides, what
you really mean by decent and reputed program is your personal favorite list.
>1) That humans beings can be systematically coerced into surrendering their  
>freedom for a higher degree of materialistic bliss. A related Marxist belief is  
>that human beings will recognize the good of the many over the good of the  
>few-- an assumption which contradicts more than 5000 years of recorded history.

Marxism doesn't advocate coering the working class into surrendering their
freedom for a higher degree of materialistic bliss.  It is the opposite.  It
teaches the majority to take control over the materilistic bliss that is
otherwise only a bliss for a few.  

Human beings who belong to the MANY will obviously recognize the good of the
many over the good of the few.  It is not an assumption of the history, it is
the fact.  What Marxism teaches is to have that understanding of the reality and
prepare the majority to take control over the production and profit that they
have been guarding for the few for so long.  Marxism teaches the proletariat
to understand the causes of their economic misery and correctly prepares them
to change their destinity by assuming the leadership role.

>2) The claim that  "through socialism the basic needs and common interests of  
>ALL the citizens are guaranteed and protected." (your quote). This statement  
>defies ALL rational economic logic, because it  is based on the assumption that  
>resources are not scarce. The advantage of a capitalistic system is that the  

Well, everyone knows the limitation of some resources, but at the same time
you can't undermine the unlimited capacity of human beings.  In a capitalist
society there is scarcity of resources, but their ownership is limited to a
few.  If you change the ownership patter, i.e., put it upside down then you can
meet those basic needs.  Obviously, by averaging the otherwise skewed resources you'll not be able to make everyone a millioniare, but certainly meet the basic
needs.  This not questionable, it is a proven fact.
>allocation of scare resources will be made in the market, through the  
>*voluntary* interaction of buyers and sellers. In your system, this allocation  
>would be made by a central authority whose allocative mechanism would be  
>inherently a priori and therefore *coercive*. You also ignore the fact that  
>with increased State intervention in all aspects of economic life, there  will  
>be a tremendous incentive for black markets to emerge, as well as people  
>offering officials bribes. But then, since you do not agree with me on point  
>(1), you would argue that all this will not happen. Let history be the answer  
>to that.

So you think that the scarce resources in a capitalist market is allocated 
thru voluntary interaction of buyers and sellers?  Nothing can be more wrong than this assumption.  Voluntary for sellers maybe - not buyers.  Capitalism relieson so called market economy.  The price asked or offered for raw materials
and finished products it leaves ENTIRELY to private parties.  The free market
system relies upon the wisdom and power of economic fairies that never did
exist.  The "voluntary" participation of sellers become very obvious when
their is a high demand for a product, say during a srike or war in a country.
The amount of supply or stock doen't regulate price during war or strike for
example, it is the ill intention and greed of seller that regulates (!) price
of comodities.  That is why we had to pay 100 Taka for 1 kg of salt in 1974
in Bangladesh (just to give one example to remind the nature of "free" market).
In a socialist society such madness is out of question.  State's lack of
intervention in such things in a capitalist society is not to make the economy
and market a "free" one, but to make it a bonanza for a "few" who actually
help the statemen to be there where they are.  Bribary or giving "gifts" is
an inherent element of a capitalist society, since the decision making organs
belong to a "few".  In a true socialist society there will not be any "State" -
the intrument of exploitation.  If have ever read Lenin's State and Revolution
you'd know it.
>> >>>>Politically, socialism favors and protects 
>> >>>>the interest of MAJORITY.  
>As someone once said : "Calling the mob the government, doesn't make things any  
>better."

And what do you mean by that?  Is the majority of a society mob?  A very corruptidea indeed.
>
>> 
>> 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
>> >
>> >>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.  
>Note: the essential keyword in your argument: "dream to...." Yes, all it ever  
>will be is a dream, because it is not rooted in fact. Economics is a dismal  
>science, but the one thing we don't do is to conceive of dreams which lead to  
>people earning less than $300 a year.

Please don't manipulate a statement so brutally to gain your end.  My 
statement clearly says that NO OTHER SOCIETY can even dream to meet the basic
needs of its all citizen, which is done in a socialist society.  The statement is still there, so is the reality.
>	If you start measuring the health of an economy by the unemployment  
>rate you are really not going to be too productive or competitive. Firms are  
>driven by one goal only-- profit maximization, if you force them to hire more  

You got this right.  The impetus for production in a capitalist society is
maximization of profit for the capitalists.  In a socialist society it is
distribution of profit or reinvestment of profit for well being of the whole
population.  There is no reason to believe that human intelligence must be less
energetic, or less inventive, when put to common service than serving private
ends.
>
>Zunaid writes:
>> >>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.
>> >
>You respond:
>> >Duh?
>The 'Duh?' might be answered if you read something like Evgeni Zamiatin's book  
>We (New York: Dutton, 1934). The entire book is a comment on "I" versus "We,"--  
>a point that you brought up. Read the book, I believe that you will be  
>impressed. BTW, Zamiatin was a Russian Communist, and he *knows* his  
>Marx-Engels reader. You might also want to consider looking at Hayek's "Law,  
>Legislation and Liberty," Friedman's "Free to Choose," Buchanan and Tullock's  
>"The Calculus of Consent," or anything by Ronald Coase. I believe all these  
>people have won the Nobel in Economic Science. To carry on this debate further  
>it is imperative that you read these books. I've read my Marx, Lenin and  
>Trotsky, and I have reached the opinions I have after years of deliberation. 

First of all you got the order of the above correspondence between Zunaid and
me wrong.  It proves that you really agree with me or my logic, but you don't
want to agree with me once you've identified me as your opponent thinker.
I can name a tons of book along the same line.  It really doen't help after
a certain point, because there are clearly two (at least) schools of thoughts,
which people like you and me belong to.  There is just no limboland.
>
>out on several occasions, how do you explin what is happening in Eastern  
>Europe? Or for that matter, even the liberalization in India?
>> >At present, all we can do is agree to disagree.

I have partly explained the causes of the fall of Eastern Europe earlier in
this posting and in many other posting previously.  There is no point repeating
the same thing again and over again.

>Cheers!
>Amitabh.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Amitabh Chandra	                | "I never forget a face, but 
>achandra@typhoon.berkeley.edu	|in your case I'll make an exception"
>achandra@occs.cs.oberlin.edu	|                     Groucho Marx
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism is nothing more than the general application of collective
intelligence (Carl Cohen).

We shall overcome.

Khaleq
Xref: sparky soc.culture.bangladesh:6944 soc.culture.indian:41634