From: achandra@nx06.mik.uky.edu (amitabh chandra)
Subject: Re: Failure of Socialism in Bangladesh
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:36:18 GMT

In article <Bzu3oB.85t@news.udel.edu> khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame  
Khalequzzaman) writes:
> 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  
>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:
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.
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  
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.


> >>>>Politically, socialism favors and protects 
> >>>>the interest of MAJORITY.  
As someone once said : "Calling the mob the government, doesn't make things any  
better."


> 
> 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.  
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.
	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  
people than is optimal, they will no longer be maximizing profits. You need to  
maximize those profits if you want people to buy your products. If you don't,  
then see what happens to intensely protectionist nations like India, or even  
the U.S., after the Smoot-Hartley Act of 1934.



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. 

> >>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.
A little a'priori, dogmatic reasoning here, don't you think? As Zunaid pointed  
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.
Amen.

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