>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).
Another untenable assumption, Mr Khaleque: the so called predeterminism
of my mind. Whatever mindset I have achieved [and in no way it is set
in concrete] has been arrived at after sufficient ratiocination.
>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.
Agreed, but you seem to be labouring under the impression that
socialism is a "religion". A political system is cannot be free from
criticism of any sort. If the socialists can criticise competing
economic systems and call them wrong, isn't the reverse equally
justified. Socialism isn't a religion that I should be wary
about critcising the ills that I perceive. I can accept your
views, understand them, and tolerate them, but those views
cannot be immune from criticism.
>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)?
Yes, I have read the Time magazine quite diligently. One reason is
obviously due to the inability of the people to accept the hardships
that would be initially necessary to complete the reforms and
transform the socialistic economy into a market economy.
>Why the Nepalese people have decided to vote for
>the communists after the fall of Eastern Europe?
The Nepalese communist party aren't in power.
>Why the West Bengalis and
>Kerala people have been voting for the communists for decades?
Mainly because they have an interesting intersection of socialist
and capitalist economy. Private ownership is allowed allowing the
free reign of individual creativities.
>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?
The same reason as in Lithuania.
>If you keep your mind open tofacts and figure then probably you will find an answer for yourself.
My mind is quite open, Mr. Khaleque. And the answer that I have arrived
at isn't something that you would like.
Let me ask you a question in the same vein: What reason was there
for the collapse of the socialistic goverments across Europe and
Africa?
>Interestingly enough that you could not name a political system superior
>to socialism. There is none.
I would say most market economies in Europe follow a superior
system.
>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.
Show me one socialist society where this dream has been realized.
>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.
The United States should be no-one's model of an ideal political
system. It's just as flawed as a socialist one.
>>>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.
? Shouldn't a just society protect the interests of all?
>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.
From the indications that are coming out of the former Soviet Union
most of these ARE indicators of their economic development, but in
a negative sort of way. Of course, in a few prestige sectors sufficient
money were put in to make those sectors world class [such as their
space and weapon development programs]. But where technology
really matters, such as medical, basic scientific, industrial
technology, computer technology, the Soviet Union is years behind
most of the world. Even India is exporting Massively Parallel
Super-Computers to the Russian Republic. A quick perusal of scientific
journals asserts quite plainly how little the Soviet contribution
has been in proportion to it's perceived might.
..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.
Has China been able to do that?
*sarcasn on*
Human dignity in China? Tibet and Tian-an-Mien Square attests to the
existence of human dignity in China.
*sarcasm off*
And the current rapid growth in Chinese economy has been achieved through the
introduction of market economy.
>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!!!!!!!!!!!
Puhleeze. Just because I am critical of socialism, do not make me an
apologist for the US American economic system. Unbridled capitalism
is as evil as any economic philosophy ever to have emanated from
the human mind.
>>>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.
Duh?
>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.
for the umpteenth time, I am not a mouthpiece for absolute laissez-faire
economic system. Let history dictate which economic model ultimately
