Socialists shout , cry and scream madly when not paid heed to. The entire concept of richness enrages them to the very core. BUT WHY? What is their problem, if others know how to struggle, make money and live lavish? Why are they so jealous? Is it because most of these people hardly witnessed the ways of sophisticated elites of the society from their childhood? I think so. These are people who are devoid of the knowledge as to, how powerful money is when it comes to speaking and influencing. After all most of them are offsprings of middle class mentality that witnessed the mother working hard to manage the chores of daily household while the father struggles all day to earn the bread for the night. At least now we know why they are jealous. It reminds them of their old days. They are afraid that someone else's childhood might repeat the same way. They are horrified visualising the infant growing up and getting slapped by his father because he demanded, that he too wants the same toy gun that his neighbourhood friend possesses, and said "The price does not matter dad. I want it. If he can have it, even i can". The dad frustrated with the knowledge, that poverty does not make much sense to this immature lad decides to slap him and end the issue there.
But does it really end there? Is the child satisfied with the answer? This other day people in my class asked a very basic and legitimate question. "Why should i pay my hard-earned cash for someone else?" But why should you be earning more than what you require to sustain the basics of your life when others are not delivered with the opportunity to earn even that much?
No one asked this for an answer. But why? When people talk about socialism passionately why do they shout? Why are they so pushy? Why do they try to forcefully impose their ideologies on others? Because they think from the heart and not from the brains. And any issue on which you think from your heart makes you emotional. Does the story of the child begging for a toy not make you emotional? Yes, if you are a capitalist even for you the answer to the previous question has to be yes as long as you are a human but you have enough "wisdom" to allow your brain take over.
The easiest way to sideline the concept of Socialism is by portraying China as a flawed model but why doesn't people realise that countries like USA has also been failures as examples of efficient capitalism. On the other hand we even have countries like the United Kingdom and their East India Company which propagated imperialism and introduced their rule by camouflaging it as Capitalism.
When Marx is referred to in this context and people claim that China has administrative flaws and that it is not the socialist idea which Marx invented. Capitalists shout that utopia cannot be achieved but only dreamt off. Taking this argument into consideration all that i would like to say is that, at least Socialism has Utopia for its goal and administrative problems and curtailment of liberty are the maximum side effects that it has. But when it comes to Capitalism the undefined goal whatever it may be cannot be achieved without unequal distribution of the factors of production and the maximum side effects, can be, that while some one gets fine chineese to dine on; the beggar outside the persons house might still be crying for just a bowl of rice. That’s all..........
Yes that’s all socialism asks-A bowl of rice for all and until everybody gets that same Chinese on their plates no Chinese for you too.
Now it is surely a matter of debate whether it is the socialists who are jealous? Or is it the capitalists who are insecure as they really love Chinese for a cuisine?
Saptarshi Banerjee
There might be a few spelling mistakes above. Please forgive me for that. I was so engrossed in what i wanted to convey that i did not even carefully edit it once. Anyway please feel free to share your thoughts on the above.
ReplyDeleteIn today's world we need Mixed Economy.....!!! There should be a balance, between socialism & capitalism,for the growth of the economy. Infrastructural development largely depends on the capitalism, but at the same time, socialism is required to create an equality among all the individuals. So it is useless to make an argument between these two..... we want both socialism & capitalism to stay side by side in our economy. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent with you Rithban. But the point is, it is not tough to bring up state of art technology and holistic development even with socialism being the regulating instrument. And I have always believed that wherever capitalism be encouraged to rise any bit, they forget their limits because all capitalists are guided by profit motive. And profit is the only thing they understand, even if others are dying of hunger.
ReplyDeleteLook at China for an example. After all they have a bigger population than us and yet they have better resource management. All that is required in socialism to be successfull is that the people leading the nation and involved in the public sector has to be sincere and honest. That will be enough.
Nice, real nice. But , the main problem that lies in the theory of socialism, is that it tries to attain proletariat supremacy(going by what Karl Marx said) and not absolute democracy. The problem with proletariat supremacy is, after coming to power, the proletariats no longer remain proletariats, and this results in something similar to dictatorship. The theories of communism and socialism sound really nice, but has any country actually found success by following only the socialistic path ? Russia was a failure, Cuba has ended in dictatorship(i dont really find logic behind Raul Castro's succession without a democratic election) China, well they're as much capitalists as the united states i'd say..how else would u explain the numerous human rights violations cases that are there against China ? Do you actually know how big a role u.s based companies have played in china's amazing developement. How can a communist country like china have a such a huge stock exchange in Shanghai? It goes against the ethics of communism alltogether.
ReplyDeleteTo sum up, all that i have to say is, socialism is definitely a better alternative to capitalism..but there are numerous flaws in the various theories of socialism..these need to be changed..absolute democracy is much needed..and not dictatorship of the proletariats.
I am in complete agreement with you when you say that both these systems have their own flaws and the flaw in socialism is that more often it leads to a dictatorship. Though I agree with you theoretically to this point, but where I disagree is how we perceive dictatorship. Is it enough to call Raul Castro's selection flawed just because he did not go through an election. For me as long as the collective interest of the mass is not being compromised with I personally am cool with it.
ReplyDeleteChavez can be called a dictator but has the dictator delivered what the common man wants is what i am trying to focus on here. As long as the answer to the above question is yes I dont mind the person's being dictatorial.
And again coming back to China, as you have already said that China has been a flawed model of socialism with huge stock exchanges boosting american dollars, but still they have been quite successful when it comes to resource distribution. In China most people have something rather than few having lot and most having nothing. That is where Chinese socialism has been able to win what it promised.
Let me show you some facts.."Although the 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the Chinese government often uses the subversion of state power clause to imprison those who are critical of the government.Also, there is very heavy government involvement in the media, with most of the largest media organizations being run directly by the government.[citation needed] Chinese law forbids the advocacy of independence or self-determination for territories Beijing considers under its jurisdiction, as well as public challenge to the CCP's monopoly in ruling China. Thus references to democracy, the Free Tibet movement, Taiwan as an independent state, certain religious organizations and anything remotely questioning the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China are banned from use in publications and blocked on the Internet. PRC journalist He Qinglian in her 2004 book Media Control in China examined government controls on the Internet in China and on all media. Her book shows how PRC media controls rely on confidential guidance from the Communist Party propaganda department, intense monitoring, and punishment for violators rather than on pre-publication censorship."
ReplyDelete"Foreign internet search engines including Microsoft Live Search, Yahoo!, Google Search China have come under criticism for aiding in these practices, including banning the word "Democracy" from its chat rooms in China. Yahoo! in particular, stated that it will not protect the privacy and confidentiality of its Chinese customers from the authorities,and was criticised by Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders of having "taken on the role of censor."In October 2008, Citizen Lab revealed that TOM Online's Chinese-language Skype software filtered sensitive words and then logged these messages to a file on non-secure computer servers. Skype president Josh Silverman said it was "common knowledge" that TOM had "established procedures to... block instant messages containing certain words deemed offensive by the Chinese authorities.""
Heres some more-"Worker's rights and privacy are other contentious human rights issues in China. There have been several reports of core International Labor Organization conventions being denied to workers. One such report was released by the International Labor Rights Fund in October 2006 documenting minimum wage violations, long work hours, and inappropriate actions towards workers by management.[117] Workers cannot form their own unions in the workplace, only being able to join State-sanctioned ones. The extent to which these organizations can fight for the rights of Chinese workers is disputed."-Wikipedia.
Now think.. would u want these things in the country that u live in ? In India, demands like Gorkhaland become national issues..in China, the government silence the people..the Tibetan uprising is a good example.
Would u accept rules like 'one child' plan ? Lastly, if we were living in a country such as China, having this conversation wouldn't have been possible. I too vouch for socialism over capitalism, but not at the cost of democracy.
Subid............firstly i would like to apologise for being so late with my reply
ReplyDeletenow let me come to the text of your reply. Firstly i would want you to understand that though wikipedia is a good platform to start off with your initial readings and explorations of a subject it has no argumentative value as it is void of any authority.
What happens most of the time is you go and write something in wikipedia and the next day someone else(any random person) may just go and edit the data. so dont rely on wikipedia much.
Now as far as Gorkhaland becoming a national issue is concerned there are trwo sides to it...firstly it does highlight the kind of say a common indian has but on the other it encourages scope of irrelevant politicisation. Let the Gorkha leadership deal with the issue and West bengal government deal with the reply and if at all necessary the central government will surely step in.Do you seriously see any merit with BJP getting a scope to exploit the situation for their own political ambitions.
The "one child" plan according to me is a great concept as a principle though i do not agree completetly with it. see familly planning is of huge significance as that is the only way countries like India,China and Brazil can tackle social evil known as population explotion. And if you are aware, the governement has not really said none can give birthto more than one. there is reasonable classification and the plan is limited only within the urban boundaries. More importantly according to a new research survey majority of the chineese population actually does favour this idea. now the flaws come in when there is forced abortions and female infanticide, but then India as a socialist state may indulge into other methods of implementation for such plans. india necessarilly need not follow the chineese footsteps. Infact india does have similar plans with different methods of implementation. the government has prescribed famillies not to give birth to more than two children and if a familly gives birth to a third child the third child is recognised by the state as a citizen of the sovereign withouth certain securities that was made available to the previous ones.
and to respond to your last constructive i would like to tell you that yes probably there would have been limitaions on our freedom of expression as citizens of china but that is not a flaw of socialism...........marx never said that. that is an evil that communism comes with and there is a thin line between socialism and communism.
you can be a socialist without being a communist my friend. you can go to vote for person x from y party against the left alliances with a shirt put on, that has che on your chest............i want socialism in India, neither communism nor chineese principles and surely not prescriptions made by stalin. it needs to be a democracy with a socialistic touch.
Well, i agree with you on the fact that wikipedia has no arguementative value, but i can assure you of one fact that the word democracy is prohibited in China. I got this piece of information from a friend of my dad who recently visited the country. I personally dont have anything against China, but i just hate the fact that the Chinese government call themselves communists when they're just polished dictators. Authoritarianism is the term that goes well with their policies(just my opinion).
ReplyDeleteNow coming to the issue of Gorkhaland, i mentiond it to 'highlight the kind of say a common Indian has'. I definitely dont like a party such as BJP, or any other party for that matter, cashing in on the situation for their own benefit.
And for the rest of what you said, its exactly what i have been badgering on all this time about. Democracy with a socialistic touch is whats needed. Hardline communism has failed. Marx, Mao have all been misinterpreted so badly.And you know why that is ? Its because of just one sentence both of them stood by-'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It sounds nice, has romanticism in it, has a utopian feel. But the saddest part is, once it beomes true, the proletariats become nothing but bourgeoisie dictators.
About Che, dont you think he has just become a brand ? He has been commercialised man.They say its 'cool' to have Che on you, but ask them about what Che stood for, what he did, and most of them just stand blank.
Lastly, the biggest example of left failure is right in front of your eyes man, look at the state you live in. How else can you explain a woman such as Mamata Banerjee, who i gravely doubt is sane, single handedly fucking up the left front. I am a part of the Student Federation of India, but when i see the number of people who are in it just for their own benefits, all the blunders, all the corruption, i am really not left with anything to defend the left here. I am not sure where i am taking this, but i had a lot on my mind and needed to clear it. Thats about it, for now. :-)