[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Thailand? You said? RE: Population
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Sitaramayya Ari wrote:
> How did Pakistan and Bangladesh deserve inclusion in the socialist model?
> Besides running heavy industries under govt control, what did India do
> that is socialistic?
I think these issues were debated and described at length in some of the
earlier discussions. Please try to go through those debates, even if it is
a bit tedious.
However, to summarize my classifying these countries as socialistic:
a) They all followed the Fabian Socialistic model, publicly. In
the case of India, we call ourselves Socialistic in the first
line of our Constitution.
b) They all stole private property (nationalization) and prohibited
private citizen initiative in many areas of econmic activity
c) They all had and have planning models which attempt to "coordinate"
economic activity, centrally, a task, which as Hayek clearly
showed, is quite impossible in the absence of local
knowledge which only markets can provide.
d) Their intellegentsia are almost completely immersed in socialistic
thought, which primarily shows itself up when they suppose
themselves to possess the unique abilities to lecture to
our masses to cut down their children, to not come to cities,
to have biogas while they have gas and petroleum products,
and so on. The intelligentsia think that the "poor" are fools
who need to be told what to do, while they themselves can send
their children abroad to study and work. Many of the
same intelligentsia "use" the system clearly for their
e) Their old and aging industrialists (except JRD Tata the great
competitor), claim themselves to be infants for ever and
seek protection against ants like Singapore.
f) Political leaders in socialistic nations become surprisingly very
rich instantaneously, since they "regulate" the economy
and control all rents. I know of a chief minister in assam
who possessed so much wealth before he died a few years ago
while he actually started out life as a school teacher. He is
typical in all socialist nations. The case of the ruling dynasties
of India, and many of the Indian states, is too well known to bear
Well, that's enough for now. I have at least one full chapter on this in
my forthcoming book (I guess that will always be forthcoming and never
actually come, if I keep on replying to every message on this list!).
Actually, almost any of the above points would qualify these S.Asian
nations as socialistic. However, the bunch of these points surely does. Or
does it not?