Another Proof of Marx's Folly: Cuba

[pmaitra]

OK, this is my favourite topic

IR is a disaster, IMHO. Hot topic of debate, there can be another 20 page thread on this, but frankly, you would be hard pressed to call it world class.

BHEL and BEML are behind the times. Ditto HAL. I mean, HAL? Come on!! Being an 'aspiring superpower', we should aim to compete with Boeing and Lockheed. Ditto with HAL.

Good you didn't say BPCL, HPCL, etc., what with all the adulteration and corruption and licences to goondas, etc.

SBI is not a 'disaster', but they sure provide pathetic service. Yet, I have taken my housing loan from one of SBIs associate banks. Which means, government does have its place, but not at the cost of suppressing private enterprise (which is what was happening pre-91).

You missed my point. Are you saying these are disasters?

IR is definitely not a disaster, at least after the kind of profit it has been posting lately. We also have a thread on that.

SBI-I opened an account in SBI and I did in HDFC, can't say the SBI experience was a very pleasant one, but yes, we must have national banks, I'll give you that.
HAL IS a disaster, the Tejas has no Indian radar and no Indian engine, the IAF has called it a 3.5++ Generation Aircraft.
Dhruv has only 10 % indigenuous components.

Sorry, I beg to differ. SBI is not a disaster, your personal experience notwithstanding.

About 10% Indian components, it has been well discussed that we need not domestically produce components that can be sourced cheaper from abroad. Again, not a sufficient cause to call it a disaster.

 

[Bangalorean]

You missed my point. Are you saying these are disasters?

IR is definitely not a disaster, at least after the kind of profit it has been posting lately. We also have a thread on that.

Maybe the definition of "disaster" is relative.

In all these decades after independence, how many kilometers of new track has IR laid? Has it really brought our cities closer? 24 hours for Bangalore-Mumbai!! In 2011, 65 years later!! That is so bad. I don't want to go into a rant on IR now, but even the most ardent IR supporter would be hard pressed to call it world class.

Anyway, my point is:

All these HALs and BEMLs and BHELs are fine, I am not against their existence. But I firmly believe that if given a level playing field, private organizations would have done a much better job. And in the process, also raised the level of the game for these PSUs.

In all cases, even if you say that these PSUs are not 'disasters', these have definitely under performed.

Like in banking. The Citibanks and ICICIs raised the bar in customer service, internet banking, etc. And the PSU banks incorporated many of these best practices and improved their own processes too.

Let the Mahindras and TATAs and others compete with HAL for delivery of weaponry to the Indian Armed Forces. Let there be a level playing field, and let the Army choose what it wants. Let the companies bid for stuff.

Let us not stifle private industry.

 

[pmaitra]

Maybe the definition of "disaster" is relative.

In all these decades after independence, how many kilometers of new track has IR laid? Has it really brought our cities closer? 24 hours for Bangalore-Mumbai!! In 2011, 65 years later!! That is so bad. I don't want to go into a rant on IR now, but even the most ardent IR supporter would be hard pressed to call it world class.

No, I am not saying IR is world class, except a few trains probably. I was countering that comment which said public sector is a disaster.

Anyway, my point is:

All these HALs and BEMLs and BHELs are fine, I am not against their existence. But I firmly believe that if given a level playing field, private organizations would have done a much better job. And in the process, also raised the level of the game for these PSUs.

In all cases, even if you say that these PSUs are not 'disasters', these have definitely under performed.

Like in banking. The Citibanks and ICICIs raised the bar in customer service, internet banking, etc. And the PSU banks incorporated many of these best practices and improved their own processes too.

Let the Mahindras and TATAs and others compete with HAL for delivery of weaponry to the Indian Armed Forces. Let there be a level playing field, and let the Army choose what it wants. Let the companies bid for stuff.

Let us not stifle private industry.

Never. I don't want to stifle private industry. I am firmly in favour of an even playing field. I am also firmly in favour of letting private companies participate in defense. No disagreement on that.

 

[asianobserve]

There are more capitalistic countries in the dumps today than socialistic ones.

But the ideology isn't entirely to blame for that.

Because there are so few Socialistic countries, you can count them with your fingers. But please don't include Sweden and Norway...

 

[asianobserve]

north korea is not communist it is a corrupt dictatorship. just like usa is a crony capitalist.

How convenient. North Korea maybe stuck with the Kims but its entire economic and political structure is modeled after Lenin's USSR (or Stalin and the rest of teh Soviet Premiers, or Mao) . That country is deeply "collectivist."

 

[pmaitra]

How convenient. North Korea maybe stuck with the Kims but its entire economic and political structure is modeled after Lenin's USSR (or Stalin and the rest of teh Soviet Premiers, or Mao) . That country is deeply "collectivist."

Yes it is true that North Korea us deeply collectivist, however, as The Messiah says, much of its woes are due to the corrupt dictatorship that collectivism.

 

[asianobserve]

In pure capitalism there are no regulations. It is free for all.

I hope you knew that ?

In general terms, capitalism is the economic system that succeeded feudalism. At the core of Capitalsim is ownership and the importance of individual freedom to control the means of production and profit from it.

There are varying sub-systems or models within this general framework, you have the extreme libertarians (usually referred to as leissez-faire or neo liberalism) on one end who believe that state should have no role in markets or economy (except very limited taxation), and on the other ned are those who spouse government intervention in market or econmy through regulations (Keynesians).

 

[asianobserve]

Yes it is true that North Korea us deeply collectivist, however, as The Messiah says, much of its woes are due to the corrupt dictatorship that collectivism.

The system is pretty much to blame. If North Koreans can only directly elect their leader through a democratic process then there will be no Kims to talk about, maybe the first KIm. If North Koreans are only allowed to own properties and control production or business by themselves, then maybe a lot of them are enterprising enough to establish competetive business that not only will give them profits but more importantly will employ a lot of their fellow North Koreans. What do you think?

 

[pmaitra]

The system is pretty much to blame. If North Koreans can only directly elect their leader through a democratic process then there will be no Kims to talk about, maybe the first KIm. If North Koreans are only allowed to own properties and control production or business by themselves, then maybe a lot of them are enterprising enough to establish competetive business that not only will give them profits but more importantly will employ a lot of their fellow North Koreans. What do you think?

Indeed, the state should allow for competitive progress and north Korea is not doing that.

Au contraire, the USSR always encouraged friendly competition between soviets, kolkhoz's, factories and research bureaux. They even had the concept of "5 year plan in 4 years." That is what sets North Korea apart from the USSR. So your statement that North Korea is based on the USSR is not entirely true.

 

[asianobserve]

Indeed, the state should allow for competitive progress and north Korea is not doing that.

Au contraire, the USSR always encouraged friendly competition between soviets, kolkhoz's, factories and research bureaux. They even had the concept of "5 year plan in 4 years." That is what sets North Korea apart from the USSR. So your statement that North Korea is based on the USSR is not entirely true.

What makes you think that there is no competition within North Korean communes? But the fact is that decades of collecgtive mismanagement and ineficiency (which is inherent in the system) has lead to the catasthropic economic condition they're now facing. Collectivism has simply wiped out their agriculture. Mind you, South Korea after the Korean war laso started out under a repressive dictatorship (by the military) until they embraced democracy in the 80's, and throught this time I don't think you could say that the South Koreans were immune from corruption (a lot of officials were very corrupt).

 

[asianobserve]

USA is not a capitalistic economy. According to experts from this thread they are a corporate economy.

And it is not semantics. capitalism = no regulations or protectism.

If US is not a Capitalist country then you my friend is not an Indian.

 

[pmaitra]

What makes you think that there is no competition within North Korean communes?

Lack of evidence does. You tell me, is there competition between communes in North Korea? Perhaps there is.

But the fact is that decades of collecgtive mismanagement and ineficiency (which is inherent in the system) has lead to the catasthropic economic condition they're now facing. Collectivism has simply wiped out their agriculture. Mind you, South Korea after the Korean war laso started out under a repressive dictatorship (by the military) until they embraced democracy in the 80's, and throught this time I don't think you could say that the South Koreans were immune from corruption (a lot of officials were very corrupt).

Collectivism is one Stalinist idea as implemented and North Korea could be similar or worse. We also had communism in India in a place I was born and raised. Communists did quite the opposite. They distributed land to the farmers instead of forcing them into collective farms. This was not based on the model of collectivism, but was implemented by communists nonetheless. What do you say about that?

 

[asianobserve]

Lack of evidence does. You tell me, is there competition between communes in North Korea? Perhaps there is.


Collectivism is one Stalinist idea as implemented and North Korea could be similar or worse. We also had communism in India in a place I was born and raised. Communists did quite the opposite. They distributed land to the farmers instead of forcing them into collective farms. This was not based on the model of collectivism, but was implemented by communists nonetheless. What do you say about that?

Just because the Government distributed lands to some group does not mean that there is already Socialism (Marx). The distribution maybe tied to land reform to pacify an otherwise restive rural population or the measure was pushed by the Communist Party (one of the multitude of parties in a democratic system). These land may have been sourced from large landholdings (with restitution to owners) or government lands. Either way the fact remains that the recipients became the individual (as opposed to collective) titled owners of this land. And going back to my earlier posts, property ownership is the hallmark of Capitalism (which Marx and Engels tried to do away in their manifesto).

 

[pmaitra]

Just because the Government distributed lands to some group does not mean that there is already Socialism (Marx). The distribution maybe tied to land reform to pacify an otherwise restive rural population or the measure was pushed by the Communist Party (one of the multitude of parties in a democratic system). These land may have been sourced from large landholdings (with restitution to owners) or government lands. Either way the fact remains that the recipients became the individual (as opposed to collective) titled owners of this land. And going back to my earlier posts, property ownership is the hallmark of Capitalism (which Marx and Engels tried to do away in their manifesto).

Yes that was the idea. Shared resources and not privately owned by a few when there are many have-nots.

Marx wasn't the first to espouse this idea though. Think of the French Revolution and the reaction triggered by Antoinette's comment, "If they don't have bread, why don't they eat cake?"

Back to topic, would you say the policies followed by Cuba are responsible for the current state that it is in? Perhaps. But then, what went wrong with Haiti?

 

[asianobserve]

Yes that was the idea. Shared resources and not privately owned by a few when there are many have-nots.

Marx wasn't the first to espouse this idea though. Think of the French Revolution and the reaction triggered by Antoinette's comment, "If they don't have bread, why don't they eat cake?"

Back to topic, would you say the policies followed by Cuba are responsible for the current state that it is in? Perhaps. But then, what went wrong with Haiti?

Last time I read the French revolution only changed the political system of France from monarchy to a republic (democracy). I did not know it ushered in proto-Marxist collectivism...? Or maybe the literature was partly written in French that's why I did not get this fact straight. :shocked:

 

[amoy]

Always pros and cons for collective farming subj to different stages of social development and natural conditions. China is a typical example going through different phases. Primarily lands were distributed to individual households in CCP's land reform. But later during 1950-60s farmers were organized into mutual assitance teams and even communes for collective farming in an attempt to mobilize for collective projects like irrigation, use of cattles, and finally mechanization.

After Deng initiated reforms communes were dismantled in most areas and farmers resumed 'individual farming' on their tracts of land. At the very beginning farmers seemed very motivated as working on their own lands and being able to manage their own produces. But later on many problems were surfacing. Individual farmers are not able to sustain mechanisation on their small piece of lands, or promote use of fertilizer or improved varieties on a large scale. Public facilities like Irrigation projects, village schools, and clinics were malmanaged. Individual farmers are not able to do collective negotiation for pricing their grows in their favour or for land acquisition.

In China u'd find the 'richest' villages are those who stick to a 'collective' mode. On a scale of economy they've been able to build up village / township enterprises and get bank credit lines, but no so for individual farmers. That's why lots of 'peasant workers' flood to cities as small-scaled farming indeed doesn't pay off nowadays.

 

[pmaitra]

Last time I read the French revolution only changed the political system of France from monarchy to a republic (democracy). I did not know it ushered in proto-Marxist collectivism...? Or maybe the literature was partly written in French that's why I did not get this fact straight. :shocked:

Napoleon was no democrat. Yes that republic was short lived.

However, that is not the point. The point is Cuba. Please answer my question in post #214.

 

[asianobserve]

Always pros and cons for collective farming subj to different stages of social development and natural conditions. China is a typical example going through different phases. Primarily lands were distributed to individual households in CCP's land reform. But later during 1950-60s farmers were organized into mutual assitance teams and even communes for collective farming in an attempt to mobilize for collective projects like irrigation, use of cattles, and finally mechanization.

After Deng initiated reforms communes were dismantled in most areas and farmers resumed 'individual farming' on their tracts of land. At the very beginning farmers seemed very motivated as working on their own lands and being able to manage their own produces. But later on many problems were surfacing. Individual farmers are not able to sustain mechanisation on their small piece of lands, or promote use of fertilizer or improved varieties on a large scale. Public facilities like Irrigation projects, village schools, and clinics were malmanaged. Individual farmers are not able to do collective negotiation for pricing their grows in their favour or for land acquisition.

In China u'd find the 'richest' villages are those who stick to a 'collective' mode. On a scale of economy they've been able to build up village / township enterprises and get bank credit lines, but no so for individual farmers. That's why lots of 'peasant workers' flood to cities as small-scaled farming indeed doesn't pay off nowadays.

Marixsm is a flawed political and economic model. Even you Chinese (okay, Deng) know this. :thumb:

 

[asianobserve]

Napoleon was no democrat. Yes that republic was short lived.

Napoleon did not succeed the monarchy right away. The First French Republic was the successor.

However, that is not the point. The point is Cuba. Please answer my question in post #214.

I don't know how to find it.

 

[Bangalorean]

There are more capitalistic countries in the dumps today than socialistic ones.

But the ideology isn't entirely to blame for that.

But then, going by your own definition of capitalism, there is not a single nation in the world today, that is really "capitalist".