There is no ‘honour’ in killing

Friend Masadi and Mr. T you are both not following what HP said and little distorting.
Now feudalism is social sytem and at this time there is no other system specially present in Rural Sindh.
Fudal lord some protection and safety to landless peasants. Without his protection and financial support poor can not survive. He may not be ideal master but still he has some obligations mentally to these skillless hands. He offers some protection to women folk of peasants. Miscreants keep away and do not play bad evil plans on helpless peasants, hios women and their children. It is his proprty to him and he needs to protect his property.That adds protection for poor people. And because of fear bad people keep away. Not best system but better than no system. If there is new system to replace feudal system then it is preferable than no system. What skillless poor haris can do ?
It will catastrophe to attack system without other social system which can give some protection.
Most people forget that while sitting in cafes in Karachi Lahore and drinking liquior or cpoffee or tea. That is intelluctual satisfaction but no protection for peasants and famalies.
Also Capitalism is more refined system where there are big centers where people work and have huge productivity. Most farming is marginal and not much surplus wealth is produced in Farming.
Hope babus do not destroy system without which atleast give minimal protection.
I think animals even make right choice, a misused dog lives with man as man may be bad but atleast man sees he survuives.
Please understand what HP is saying. That is what I feelo he is saying. He can correct me.
Good day.

HP writes "Aggressive capitalism would not help end the feudalism without the kind of bloodshed that would follow the socialist type attacks of feudalism?"

I almost missed answering this, salam and greetings of peace my worthy friend. Aggressive capitalism has recently killed over a million in Iraq and its growing pains killed tens of millions during the 2nd WW. Socialist reform need not be bloody, they are bloody only when they try to Aggressively capitalize without concern for the people. In other words it is precisely your "solution" that causes the bloodshed, not to mention the fact that capitalism from its start has been inherently bloody, and I would even blame it for the bloodiness in the implemented from on top "communist" programs,

Thank you kindly for your time

TNI Masadi

Btw my worthy friend HP, capitalism and submitting to the status quo and letting the "invisible hand" take care of everything, even thought the elite regulate their affairs to split-hair perfection, is not the way to go and tells us that you are drifting to the wrong side of the equation. Did the CIA contact you for their services?

Have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

HP writes "where the state does not have the resources to practice state capitalism and dictatorial reforms..."

The state does not have to practice either state capitalism or dictatorial reform, what it does need to do is serve the people, and that can be done by legislation, cutting the budget of the military, incorporating military business and land and redistribution. Then you will see how many "resources" it comes up with, I have nothing against regulated (non blood sucking private capital), and I say NO to private capital when it involves selling the state to get it. Private capital relations have to be changed to trusteeship, where if they transgress it can be expropriated, otherwise private capital leads to self-stupification.

Thank you kindly for your time,
TNI Masadi

HP writes "Lets just forget the White men bogey and talk about how aggressive capitalism would not help end the feudalism without the kind of bloodshed that would follow the socialist type attacks of feudalism?"

Salam and greetings of peace my worthy friend. How is the weather where you are? Thandee hawain chal rahe hain ya nahi?

There is no bogey involved regarding the white man. You know what he has done to the world and is doing even today. Why this turnaround? To appease tahmad sahib?

Regarding feudalism, the natural trajectory in Europe was capitalism doing away with it because it was weakened. from that model we take its weakening through land reform, and set in place a managed economy with the bourgeoisie which in Europe used the peasants for their assault on the feudals, now assist the state in incorporating the bourgeoisie in this march to the future.

Have a nice day, and rest in peace on your bed that is!
TNI Masadi

HP writes "Land Reforms which really end feudal hold of the lands have been a failure every where."

Salam and greetings of peace my worthy friend. How goes this fine night in USA?

Land reforms in "theory" (if power is on your side) are a sure way out of feudalism. That is what "logic" dictates and that is what European history of feudalism has proven as well. Your examples try to link land reform with failure that was caused not by land reforms but by concomitant policies both of the Chinese and the Soviets. If it is implemented half heartedly or is made to fail does not mean that the logical theory of land reform is wrong. If it has not worked in various regions (due to their varying circumstances) does not at all mean that it cannot work in Pakistan. It has a LONG history going back to Roman times, and you sure as hell haven't exhausted all examples in proving that it has not work. Korea, Cuba and Japan are good examples of success.Even land reform in china worked before collectivization, as it would have in the Soviet Union w/o collectivization.

Asadi,

Lets just forget the White men bogey and talk about how aggressive capitalism would not help end the feudalism without the kind of bloodshed that would follow the socialist type attacks of feudalism?

Specifically in the case of Pakistan, where the state does not have the resources to practice state capitalism and dictatorial reforms,how changes can be made in the rural economy without the influx of private capital.

You are against the private capital and then you are against the feudal but you still wanna end the feudalism...tell me how on the earth can you accomplish that?

Asadi, I am not sure if you are serious here or just being contrarian as usual.

“The way the land reform is implemented is what will determine its success or failure, that is what they say but mean not what I mean because of their ulterior motive and that is what I had said.�

This defies logic. So far every example that we have is a failure but then you come up with excuses like the halfhearted efforts. This is completely non-serious. Provide citation where the land distribution succeeded positively as an agent of change in the society. How could anyone ensure that land reforms would be implemented correctly when the results are always 10 -15 years down the line? Most of the land reforms failed in eradicating feudalism. Where extreme measures were taken such as Russia and China and a few other places, the upheaval in the society lasted for a very long time.

Instead of generalizing, be specific and tell us how feudalism in Pakistan can be eliminated. Don’t just avoid the real subject under the pure garbage that you are writing such as halfhearted and how the reforms are implemented!

Land Reforms which really end feudal hold of the lands have been a failure every where. There are some limited success in Land reforms where the agrarian society was already in major decline due to wars. But those successes are not the answer for the problem in Pakistan.

Tahmed Land reforms in India has lots of material available on the net so there is no point in discussing that here. Here are two extracts for reference.

The major contributor to success in Indian Punjab was free electricity for agricultural needs and that led to abundance of water supply via the tube wells.

“indicate that inequalities have increased, rather than decreased.
The number of landless labor has gone up and the top ten percent
monopolizes more land now than in 1951. Meanwhile, the issue of land
reforms has over the years, either unconsciously faded from public
mind or deliberately been glossed over. Vested interests of the
landed elite and their powerful nexus with the political-bureaucratic
system have blocked meaningful land reforms and /or their earnest
implementation. The oppressed have either been co-opted with some
benefits, or further subjugated as the new focus on LPG has altered
government priorities and public perceptions. As a result, we are
today at a juncture where land, mostly for the urban, educated elite,
and who also happens to be the powerful decision-maker, has become
more a matter for housing, investment and infra-structure building.
In the bargain, the existence of land as a basis of livelihood -- for
subsistence, survival, social justice and human dignity has largely
been lost.�

“Rural land problems in India have not gone unnoticed. In the decades following Independence, many Indian states passed land reform laws aimed at broadening access to rural land. But these efforts—except for a few notable successes—were poorly designed and implemented. Measures aimed at taking significant land from larger landowners (with very little compensation) and strictly regulating the landlord-tenant relationship were difficult to administer and aroused strong opposition. They provided little relief to the rural poor and women and, in many cases, led to perverse results that stymied land access and rights for the poor. Until recently, these failures caused Indian policy-makers to conclude that land reform was not an answer to problems plaguing India's countryside.�

In addition, the white man does not want roti kapra and makan for the toiling "Third World" folk, he wants to suck their blood, and comparing the US with Latin America that was raped by the US, that grew its economy on the back of unpaid labor of the Africans whom it had converted to slaves by deceit, is disingenuous.

Ahmad sahib, have some shame, and have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

tahmed writes "
ZAB reneged in his promise of "roti, kapra, makan" by refusing to do land reforms"

He did not, you mean to tell me his power base in the rural areas in many cases controlled by the feudals would have just sat by and let him do it when the army and the bourgeoisie were already after his blood. The reality dictated that he maneuver slowly and he was indeed doing that but being boxed in from all sides....Why make land reform a populist agenda at all if he was not interested in implementing it. No the reality is more complex, only white man rules like King while talking about democracy, the people's leaders have to undo a structure first and that requires slow moving or hanging, and we know what occurred in ZAB's case

Have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

HP #50 I think you are mistaken on the results of land reforms in India - before partition, w. panjab was more productive than e. panjab. That situation held until there were land reforms in indian panjab (6 hectares max). That, plus good extension service schemes, led indian panjab to take the lead.

so it is incorrect to say that land reforms dont work.

also, if you look at the economic history of the US vs latin america, you will see that initially the two were at par economically. the US then moved forward after the mid 19th century due to small family farms in the US vs Hacienda economies (feudal estates) of s. america.

ZAB reneged in his promise of "roti, kapra, makan" by refusing to do land reforms (and an adviser he had brought in from abroad and who wanted to see land reforms take place resigned his job with ZAB as a result).

Rural sindh is not going to see improved conditions for the average sindhi unless land reforms are held. Dont look to zardari to have them though.

Hamid writes "the only cure for feudalism is capitalism which, in my simple mind, is that fairest system of all -"

Capitalism cannot and will not arise till feudalism is strong. Only when it became progressively weak in Europe did the bourgeoisie assault on the feudals yield any results.. There is nothing fair about capitalism which from the very start has walked side by side with racial prejudice and keeping the colored man/woman down and behind...

Thank you kindly for your time.

TNI Masadi

Hamid writes "the only cure for feudalism is capitalism which, in my simple mind, is that fairest system of all -"

Capitalism cannot and will not arise until feudalism is strong. Only when it became progressively weak in Europe did the bourgeoisie assault on the feudals yield any results.. There is nothing fair about capitalism which from the very start has walked side by side with racial prejudice and keeping the colored man/woman down and behind...

Thank you kindly for your time.

TNI Masadi

HP writes "I wrote that late last night and I did not have a chance to research it but cfr article mostly supports my conclusions and not yours."

HP sahib, salaam and greetings of peace to you my worthy friend. How goes this fine saturday in USA? Haal chaal? Roti chai pani? Tabiyat sehat.

Actually I wrote my response to you before I located that CFR article and I read it just to find out what the sophisticated conservatives who want to preserve the capitalist system at all cost were saying about it, and lo and behold they agree with my post and definitely not yours. The way the land reform is implemented is what will determine its success or failure, that is what they say but mean not what I mean because of their ulterior motive and that is what I had said. You on the other hand were using a very illogical conclusion saying in a very generalizing way that it has NEVER succeeded in the world and therefore is not feasible. That is a very unscientific and feudal apologetic stance to take. Even your comments show bias, read this :"The initial communist idea was to take over the land and distribute that amongst the landless. Soon they realized their folly and tried to bring the land control under the government and hired peasants to work in the collective farms."

So you assumed it was a folly before any results came through. The Soviets didn't realize their "folly" they thought that petty bourgeoisie would arise out of private ownership of land which would be a detriment to their so-called communist structure. That was no "folly" of land reforms my friend.....

You take it easy, and think clear about people's rights and freedom not American bs.

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

http://cruiserdeep.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/ift-sept-2008.pdf