From Marx to Mao to Jintao

Re: #13 allah001 & quin #7:

Dear allah001:

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't think I’m knowledgeable enough to answer your question regarding Nixon’s geopolitical maneuvering while opening up with China. I presume there will be some consideration of that too. Maybe someone else on Chowk could offer views on that particular issue.

Anyhow, I am positively delighted to read “Interact #7 by quin� who has raised a very logical and valid question. “… how historical materialism is being turned on its head�. I think that kind of assertion is certainly questionable if not speculative. That is a topic for full length article.

Due to time constraints, I don’t know when but I might write something on this topic in the future. Meanwhile, I would most welcome if quin writes about it because I admire his insight and wisdom in many intellectual disciplines.

Regards,

Tahir

Re: # 30
Is it right you dont really care in communism of Work according to capacity wage according to means crudely put


"4. Capitalist society, which Marx described as a huge progress over the previous systems.........



5. Communist Society, in which everyone will contribute according to one’s ability and will receive according to one’s needs. In such a society, there will be no need for a state and so, the state shall wither away"





"The idea is to go from Ancient /Feudal society to CAPITALISM"you contend


"In doing so, they have also shown that dictatorship of the proletariat precedes rather than succeeds Capitalism"

This is logical b/c each system is selfishness motivated.

WHY would capitalist even though he /she has arrived at it though natural evolution of Ancient /feudal society give up capitalism ?

Will capitalism compel & cause dictatorship of porletariat.Never

.I think it age old example of Chicken & Egg.

Its not Putting the case on its head

precedes or follows is 'dil ko behlane ke liye ghalib ye khyal accha hai .'

Chinese show in marketiing .public relation is meaning less as hype (too much of it )

Second dictatorship of proleteriat never happened .USA will never let it happen

The nixon visit and Kissinger false promise to Yahya can be seen in this light

.Of course i am Biased AGAINST usa's filthy capitalism

& its attemt to consider 'proleteriate threat 'greater than Islamic jehadist terrorism

.After all 'non proleteriate' Saudi princes, Rich muslims are friend and never Proleteriate even if he/she is Christian

Re: # 33

and then to Anna DMK ..LOL

India's decline can of course be traced to the fact that we went from Chanakya to Jawaharlal Nehru!

#29 Posted by dost_mittar

right, I agree and that is why I said they are more of a misnomer now. Today both these terms reflect the degree of social orientation of economy.

The terms socialist or capitalist for economy were always incorrect. You simply can not have either totally state owned or individual owned economy. Any complex hierarchy needs distribution of role/resources and as individuals are at the end of this hierarchy and state at root; you will always have some roles/resources at root and some at other levels, including organizations/companies/individuals.

So both terms define a far fetched idea that is not practical (that is why you can not even define properly what socialism or capitalism is).

Eventually, it is always the responsibility of state to bring social development as well as economic development for society. The whole idea of state or politics is to manage these two. You can be as innovative as you want when you try to manage these two aspects of development of society, depending upon the intellectual level of your society. In an ideal world you want a bottom-up approach, where people elect organizations and state-machinery to get things done.

What socialism or capitalism do is to create a mind-set of psychology. Again in future you will need much more refined concepts that these to create a conducive environment to manage people. People don't understand but the idea of different castes like Brahman, Kshtriya blah blah was also the same. It was to create a state that manages itself with little bit of central authority.

The biggest problem with the definition of state is that you need people to represent state and its authority. You don't have robots or super-computers to do that till now:-).

BJ:

Majumdar has already given the right answer; it was not one or the other but both.

I could even give you an example from our own country: most Hindu and Sikh refugees arrived penniless to India from Pakistan but within a decade were able to rehabilitate themselves because of their human capital which also included a good work ethic and high level of energy.

majumdar:

JLN was in the best position to play the strong authoritarian role played by Mao in China. He was considered the uncrowned king of India; had a complete control over the Centre and State governments through his Congress chieftains.

Unfortunately, the state under him neglected the very things that the state is best equipped to do - improve literacy, health and economic infrastructure like roads and power and frittered his energies on building heavy industries in India and non-alignment movement abroad.

...But that's another story.

pinku:

I do not know of any economy that is "pure capitalism" or "pure socialism", with the possible exception of North Korea. Most economies today are mixed-economies and some of the so-called capitalist economies also have a large state component. For example, in the US, the state takes more than a third of the GDP in taxes which it then partly uses to fund various social schemes.

The key point to remember is that the economy grows best in a market set-up but you need the state to provide a safety net for those who lose out under market forces.

Beej bhayya,

It was a mix of both. American protection did allow them to focus resources away from defence but remember they were already a very advanced country even before WW-II. After all they did bomb Pearl Harbour half an ocean away using their own technology! WW-II may have destroyed their factories but not (much of) the human resources that went into it. Ditto with Germany.

Regards

Re: # 23

[Japan was able to progress fast after the War, but the social revolution that made it possible had already taken place in Japan by an authoritarian regime in Japan in decades preceding the War.]

IMHO, it was the American protection (military wise) which enabled Japan to focus all its resources at development without sinking much of it in defense. The rest must be attributed to the hard work and tenacity of its population. The Chinese (initially) wasted a lot of resources on the military, hence remained behind.

DM sahib,

Mao would have transformed the society in less than a generation.

Can Hindoos produce a Mao. Or a Hindoo Mao seize power in India.

Btw, had JLN and more importantly Indira not mismanaged India for so long, the differential between India and China would have been much lower.

Regards

Excellent article,

In the long run both socialism and capitalism work against state. Socialism overrides all other objectives by making the means to be an end. So unless you have visionary statesman a socialist state will remain where it is or will become unmanageable over long time. Capitalism conflicts with any other objective by making social objectives to be individual's objective (I/my-family is rich/secure etc etc). Here you get powerful people who consider themselves as whole of society instead of looking at the society as a whole. In the long run it will always divide society in haves and have-nots and will become un-manageable.

So neither extraordinary concern for equality in case of socialism or advancement in case of capitalism is self sufficient. Both of them need a state to keep things manageable. China was able to see this thing because it had both the example of Capitalist and Socialist states before it. also, it had people who really cared for their nation (irrespective of how much they cared for themselves).

India is a capitalist state with socialist objectives, if you don't disturb it from outside, it will keep on improving itself over a long time but with slow pace. So individual's in India are surviving on capitalism, on hard competition, but they seem to work against social equality most of the time, but the state itself seems to take socialist views most of the time. That is the whole idea of state, it should be for the whole society, while individuals define their own -ism for living. This is most natural atmospehere for society to grow. However, once you have powerful companies, powerful people who are not so wel intentioned towards social goals, such a state may become a puppet of powerful individuals. This can not happen in India for long time to come because of its very diverse and complex society. So as long as India as a state survives, then in all probability (even if it is ruled by worst possible politicians), it will force people to work towards overall social objectives (meaning, it will make growing 300 million middle class to work for themselves and in part for upliftment of 1.1 billion people as well).


In short neither socialism nor capitalism are synonymous of state or are themselves that important. A nation can be neither socialist nor capitalist and can still have a very progressive yet equal society. Both socialism and Capitalism are miused terms to represent a preference for a set of vague social-objectives (vague because equality is not that well defined nor progress is that well defined).

Nikhat, Tahir, zeemax, Urstruly and jayp:

Thank you all for your comments.

BJ:

Marx was a great humanist. His problem was that he wanted to create a Utopia, which ignored human nature and the powerful motivation provided by greed and fear in the free enterprise societies, something which is not present in a communist society. Yes, Japan was able to progress fast after the War, but the social revolution that made it possible had already taken place in Japan by an authoritarian regime in Japan in decades preceding the War.

quin#7:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do not agree with some of your comments, though.

I got the information about inadequate compensation form interviews of the victims themselves by Canadian journalists; it may still be on CBC TV's website.

Regarding the arrangement, I thought it was appropriate to frame the issue in the context of the proletarian abodes being destroyed under what is theoretically still a dictatorship of the proletariat. But I agree that others may view it differently.

"Marx never said that his theory is the final word. He always insisted on life’s transcendence over any theory. His real contribution is to inspire people to search for real answers to their problems and to rise up to change the fate of their lot. As life always presents unique problems at every turn, as Marx always realized, people will always find unique solutions at every turn. Any attempt to stick to any theory for ever as an unchanging word is the Achilles heel of human kind. It is not Marx's historical materialism which seems to be turned on its head, but its 19th century interpretation. And really the argument can be made that it is not 'turning on its head' but its enrichment"

I have never come across these kind of statements in my readings. Would it be possible for you to give any quotation from Marx on this subject? Thanks.

tahmed saheb#5:

Yes, I agree with you that communism is not the necessary ingredient, but the regimentation of the society and an authoritarian regime, in my opinion, is necessary if a country is to achieve social revolution and reduce the time period in which to achieve it. South Korea did it and so did, Lee Kuan Yiew, although at a much smaller scale than China.

By contrast, Raja Ram Mohan Roy started the reform movement among Hindus over two hundred years ago, Gandhi called sweepers and scanvegers harijans (special children of God) and lived among them and India outlawed caste system and use of communal appeal in elections several decades ago; still these problems are still far from resolved; a Mao would have transformed the society in less than a generation.