[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

cheesy distortions by Naveen - or was it a rotten Onion?



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Naveenkj@aol.com wrote:

> I think the principle of Democratic Socialism that I was advocating through
> the example of Cheese uttapam vs. Onion uttapam has been widely
misunderstood
> by many of you.  I do not believe in restricting peoples' freedoms.  If
> Prakash chooses to eat cheese uttapams that should be his prerogative.
> However, I was speaking on behalf of the onion uttapam sellers who should be
> given a fair chance to compete against the introduction of a new
commodity in
> an equal playing field.  By this I do not insist a ban on cheese uttapams
nor
> am I relegating the monopoly of the uttapam industry to onion uttapam
sellers
> exclusively.

Both Onion Uttapam and Democratic Socialism are not new.

> I think instead of viewing this issue on terms of uttapams, a better example
> of farm production might prove potent in expressing my point.  Soon after
> Indian Independence the introduction of Ford Food processing in India
> resulted in the destruction of the traditional methods of farming and
> instituting mechanized farming systems.  This led to the displacements of
> many farmers and rural communities.  High chemical use on these farmlands to
> produce crops not indigenous to the native soil also resulted in further
> destruction of the environment.  Moreover, the farming industry was utilized
> by these foreign cartels to produce crash crops not in producing the
> necessary food needed to feed the Indian population, even when chronic
hunger
> was on a steady rise and there was clear need for production of more food.
> Even when surplus food was produced they were often exported rather than
> serving the Indian hungry.  (Whatever happened to market economics?).

Indian farming was never market-oriented!!  The problems with farming lay
in the
oppressive PDS system which essentially discourages farmers to produce the
goods
that the market actually needs/wants.  Furthermore, Government intervention in
the so called "equal distribution" of land has led to technological
impotence in
this sector.

The demise of the Indian Farmer was due to a brain-dead socialist
Government and
not because of "any" market forces - simply because the Indian Farmer never
had a
chance to play in a free-market thanks to a system called PDS!!

> As it is the case with capitalism, the market does not respond to the
demands
> of
> everyone, it only bends to the demands of those with the most $$.

I wonder why farmers produced more Onions following an increase in a price of
this commodity.  The increase in production eventually brought the prices down
This has happened recently and many times in the past.  However, the
production
subsided following the Government's reluctance to promote interstate commerce,
etc.  The Government was more interested in keeping its control system intact.
To me, Government intervention is still the problem.

>  The bourgeoisie Indian elite gained through this measure, as big landowners
> and
> as consumers of Raymond Suits and Shirts, at the expense of poor farmers and
> local ecological destruction.
>

Nonsense!  You want to help the farmers?  Then let them sell for the highest
price out there in a free-market.  You remove the middle man like the PDS, the
Government, your Raymond Suits, and other cronies.  This is a classical
socialist
indoctrination - while pretending to speak for the poor farmers the brain-dead
socialist conveniently maneuvers around the obstacles that farmers face from
oppressive institutions like the PDS!

> Drastic changes such as this to the local economy and production values must
> be discussed in full detail with the local community and should only take
> place upon the approval of the autochthonous people.

There has been NO drastic change in the Indian Economy and much of the country
remains fully drenched in socialist dogma of a bygone era!

> Unfortunately through
> globalization decisions are being made by a group of elitists in Geneva
> without giving much attention to the social, political, and economic well
> being of these communities.  Their actions have thus far produced negative
> ramifications, and therefore should be stopped.

Wrong again!  Indian politicians were in total control of the so-called
"liberalization" process which has empowered global corporations at the
cost of
the local entreprenuer.  They still believes that an entreprenuer needs a
license
raj to invent wireless telephony or a farmer needs a middle man to sell his
crops
in the market - this is not liberalization, it is a cheesy distortion and they
chose to call it liberalization.  I don't think people in Geneva have
gotten to
the Indian people yet because the Government of India is doing quiet a good
job
of oppressing.

> I frequently see market economics and globalization floating around IPI as
> the Holy Grail for India's issues with poverty and chronic hunger.  How
wrong
> they are!

Indians, one day, will find the rightful place as "free" people.  Able to
produce
whatever we want and consumer whatever we want without the intervention of
PDS,
the Government, and the license raj!  It is a long, very long, struggle.

> How blatant it is to see the effects of capitalism: leading to further
poverty
> and malice and not equality and justice.  Economic democracy is the answer;
> hoping to bring economic justice.  Individualism should be marked with
> socialism.

An oxymoron!  Socialism has fouled by failing to distribute the power of
choice
and production to the people, by the people, and for the people!!  By this
very
definition, Socialism and Democracy are contradictions and are at odds with
each
other!

Furthermore, Socialism sought to concentrate the power among institutions like
the Government, PDS, and the license raj which led to the abuse of this power.
It has been a prescription for disaster from the beginning.

>  No, they are not contradictory terms. Individualism's respect for the
freedom
> and sanctity of an individual should be coupled with the same respect
given to
> others of the community.  When one interest of an individual, say the
desire to
> eat a cheese uttapam, conflicts the desires of the other 99% of the
population
> it must be made clear that the sanctity of those other individuals should
also
> be respected.  In which case there must exist a system that can
accommodate the
> need of ALL individuals

> and not simply those with high capital to invest (in the supply side), and
> those with high buying power (on the demand side).
>
> I hope I have cleared up my contentions quite a bit

Yes, you have made yourself quiet clear.  Thanks for revealing yourself so
openly.

> I welcome your constructive criticism.

Well, you have it there padre.

> Peace,
>

Naw, constructive confilct adds spice to life.  On with the struggle - freedom
for all!!

Sincerely,
Vamsi M.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------