>>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.
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
you are making that our discussions may not effect the people back
home another untenable one. I for one intend to use whatever
enlightenment I have garnered from discussions on SCB, [provided,
of course, they don't relate to flawed socialism :-)], to try to effect
some change on my return.
>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.
Maybe, I should have said fatally flawed? [That's a phrase that's wont
to make multiple rounds in the halls of Capitol Hill]. I agree that
there isn't one economic/political model that is devoid of flaws, but
with socialism the problems are PRACTICAL as well as theoretical.
>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?
This is the essence of humanism, and not the sole preserve of socialism.
>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?
>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.
Or else? :-)
>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
the Soviet Empire had access to. Just compare the parallel developments
of Germany and the Soviet Union. At the turn of the century, neither
were economic or political powers in the world, much less in Europe. Now,
Germany is an economic behemoth while the old Soviet Union lies
in economic ruins. Not because of the reforms being attempted now,
but because of the result of 7 decades of centralized planning.
Of course, in sheer volume [given the size and resources available],
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.
>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
has China translated a moribund economy into a dynamic one, and
that too with the introduction of market reforms that would
cause old Marx to turn in his grave.
>>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.
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,
that reflect the various niches that must be filled. One must have
teachers, or labourers, or administrators etc.. Each group comprise
a class, and in *MY* ideal economic model each class of people should
be given due rewards for the essential activities that they perform.
But whether one can legislate away the class bigotry is another
matter. This is not a problem with economic or social models per
se but with Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
>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.
The only case it has made in this world is a case for failure. Just
give me one example of a successful Marxist economy. Note the word
