From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Failure of Socialism in Bangladesh
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:33:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.225645.18601@udel.edu> kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>In article <BzqBuy.248@news.udel.edu> khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman) writes:
>>In article <Bzq6IL.1pn@news.udel.edu> kazi@brahms.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:

...deleted...]
>>
>>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.  
>
>A very untenable extrapolation. I did not brand any/or all political,
>social or economic disception(s) as an exercise in futility. Except of
>course, the one dealing with the failure of socialism since, and I
>reiterate, it is a failed model. Furthermore, isn't the assumption

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
change your faith (!, because you seem to have a predetermined mind and
paradigm about socialist ideology).  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
very relevant and important to me and many others.  Since we can't agree on
a specific philosophy or religion to embrace, the best thing to do is not
to call someone else's ideology or belief right or wrong.  At least we can
learn to tolerate each others view. If socialism is a completely failed model
then why in this world millions of people upholding it so close to their hearts?
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)?  Why the Nepalese people have decided to vote for
the communists after the fall of Eastern Europe? Why the West Bengalis and 
Kerala people have been voting for the communists for decades?  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?  If you keep your mind open tofacts and figure then probably you will find an answer for yourself. 
>
>>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
>
>Maybe, I should have said fatally flawed? [That's a phrase that's wont

Interestingly enough that you could not name a political system superior
to socialism.  There is none.
>
>>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
>
>This is the essence of humanism, and not the sole preserve of 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.  This humanism is a
reality or integrated part of socialist ideology and merely a dream in a
capitalist society, including in the most developed capitalist society like
most people's dreamland America.  Any progressive American will agree to 
my view.

>
>>Politically, socialism favors and protects 
>>the interest of MAJORITY.  
>
>Who protects the interests of the minorities? That's one of the reason
>for my distaste for socialism. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". 
>Essentially, it is the imposition by brute force of the majority
>riding over the interests of all segments of society. Where then
>is the ideal of equality?

Protecting majority's interest is more humane than protecting minority's
(I don't mean religious minority) interest. All capitalists and oppressors
are given a chance to rectify themselves and to endorse the Dictatorship
od Proletariat after any revolution.  Bourgeoise are given a fair chance
to become equal with the rest of the mass.  They don't lose any dignity, 
unless they equate their mount of wealth to social dignity.o

>
>>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
>>What does that tell you?  Was Russia a political superpower before the 
>>October Revolution?  
>
>The Soviet Union might have been a military superpower, translating
>into political clout, but economic development did not reach the
>level it could have, given the human and material resources that

[stuff deleted]

>the Soviet Union ranked quite high in any scale. But, so does
>India. It's ranked 10th in economic output but in no number-juggling
>way can you call India an economic powerhouse.

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.

Yes for the same reason India can also be called an economic powerhouse.  It is
their population that makes every economic development diluted.
>
>>Was China a regional power before 1949?  I don't think so. 
>
>Again, military might should not be the yard-stick for the
>determination of a nation's development. Only in recent years

You need a very strong economy to become a military super power.  Whether
or not it is a right direction for a country is a different matter.  But
of course, military strength is a reflection of over all resourcefulness
of a country.  Besides, the USSR and China had to build up their military
strength to counter imperialism and to protect the first countries with
a very different ideology, which imperialist continuously tried to destroy.
Should not for socialism, what do you think the Chinese society with billion
people would look like today?  Worse than India probably.  But in today China
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.  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!!!!!!!!!!!
A sane economy is human economy, directed by human intelligence, to serve
humans - not only the rich humans.  A socialist economy does not leave the fate
of citizen to chance or to the control of essential foodstuffs to private greed.The market cannot be sane, because sanity is a human quality and the market has
no humanity whatever (Carl Cohen, Socialist Democracy: Social Ethics - Morality
and Social Ethics, 1987).

>I think we might reach an understanding if you define exactly what
>you mean by a class-less society. IMO, classes will exist in society,

What do you mean is different professions will remain in a socialist society.
But there will not be any antagonistic class difference.  A socialist society
uphold the philosophy and interests of its classless society.  Different professions are not indicators of different classes in a socialists society.  Why then
one wants to be a doctor while the other a worker.  It is their personal choice
to flourish their talents to the fullest in any direction one desires.  That
difference will not translate into economic gain as the case in a capitalist society, but will bring them different role to play in the development of the society.                        

>>They were a real rival of imperialist power.  
>
>And, themselves imperialists. Poland 1939, Hungary 1957, Czechoslovakia,
>Korea 1952, Indonesia mid 60's, Tibet, Afghanistan ad nauseum.

And I don't have a problem to call the former USSR a socio-imperialist.
>
>>>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. 

As I just explained in the previous paragraph, financial inequality in
a socialist society is very minimal.  One's chance to flourish to the
fullest extent at the cost of society is the reward of one's talent and
of course, the fame you bring for yourself and for your country by doing that.
See, we are used to use economic success as a yard-stick of reward.  In a socialist society that guarantees you with everything you need, why one would be or
should be so worried about money?

>>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.

See, you didn't have even an answer to the above.  Because, that is reality.

>>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.
>
>>>A toast to the end of communism. [Apologies, Khaleque ;-)]
>>
>>So, lets toast for the most humanitarian model to date and its
>>properity and revival in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
>
>That surely won't be socialism. :-)

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.

Khaleq