[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Thailand? You said? RE: Population
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Sanjeev Sabhlok wrote:
> 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.
North Korea calls itself The Democratic Republic of Korea. That doesn't
necessarily make it democratic.
> b) They all stole private property (nationalization) and prohibited
> private citizen initiative in many areas of econmic activity
In each one of the Princely states of India, the rulers, who by the way
would love your ideas of democracy, stole the property of farmers and
converted them to tenants. Revenue collectors of Nizam became Deshmukhs
and owners of hundreds of thousands of acres of land. After indpendence
they became legal owners of land they stole from peasants. Every one
of them made it difficult for individual farmers to make a living on
their own efforts. Does it make them socialist?
> 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.
The one example I completely agree with.
> 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
> own benefit.
Personal opinions. Vague accusations. Capitalists who think that poor
people are lazy, idiots or simply lower caste morons are no better.
> 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.
There are NO societies without protection of one thing or the other from
foreign competition or subsidizing one or the other internally.
For example, Japan protects rice farmers against cheaper imports.
Japan is hardly a socialist country. I would support internal production
of defense-related products. I would support protection of those
> 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
I gave you examples of people who became rich under a perfectly capitalist
model in the princely states. Regulating is not the only way to fraud.
There are people in Texas who make billions of Dollars on oil without ever
moving it from one place to another. Speculation is a perfectly pure
capitalistic tool to riches. Or are all rich people socialists?
> 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?