NationStates Jolt Archive

Haha...this is funny. Commies have been ruling the state of West Bengal in India for about 3 decades uninterrupted. That state is now lagging behind the southern and western states in development and now the new Chief Minister is saying that capitalism is the way to go.

You can see that he is not conceding fully but still latching on to silly arguments.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200801032128.htm
Captalism only way to industrialise Bengal: Buddhadeb

Kolkata (PTI): Capitalism was the only way to industrialise West Bengal although ;)socialism could have been a better alternative, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacherjee said on Thursday.

"The reality has forced us to accept capitalism as the only way to get funds for industries. It is simply impossible for the state to mobilise funds for industries and we have to depend on capitalism if our economy is to progress," Bhattacherjee, a CPI(M) Polit Bureau member, said.

"We are aware of the filth that is inherent in capitalism ;)but there is no other way at the moment. From where will the state get money for industries? Does the state government have money to set up steel plants?" he told a function to mark the 41st anniversary of CPIM) mouthpiece 'Ganashakti' here.

He said the most important issue which was being debated in the state and the country was whether industrialisation would be carried out on the basis of progress in agriculture.

His comment came at a time when his government's industrial roadmap for West Bengal has come under fire from CPI(M)'s allies in the ruling Left Front and the opposition as well.

Allies like the Forward Bloc and RSP have publicly criticised the Buddhadeb Bhattacherjee government saying that the way in which big business houses from the Tatas to the Indonesian Salim Group were entering West Bengal, "is a blemish on the state's Left tradition".

Old habits die hard I guess.

It is funny, though, that communists of this century generally tried to industrialize WITH communism though, because Marx himself made the case in his manifesto that a fully developed capitalist state, with sufficient industrial production, had to exist before a communist revolution can be carried out.

Czechoslovakia and Hungary, formerly the wealthy industrial parts of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, did prove him right on the economics of this point, as it was far better off then most of the communist states and was even with some poorer capitalist states, like Spain and Austria, in terms of GDP per capita, although it also proved him wrong, as the wealth slowly degenerated over time (this was still far poorer then Czechoslovakia had been prior to WWII, as it was one of the wealthiest countries in Europe at that time), and the very bourgeoise work ethic, education and ambition that had driven them to success in the first place also made them detest communism as a philosophy to steal from successful admirable poeple to benefit those who were perceived as disgusting losers. The result was that the minute the Soviets left, they threw out the communist government, but kept the universal health care plan.

It should be noted that this communist government was not installed by the will of Czechoslovakian citizens but by a treacherous campaign of terrorism by none other then Joseph Stalin himself in Prague, and Hungary rebelled against Soviet rule in one of the most violent and memorable episodes in the cold war.

In short, the successful communist state can exist, imposed by force, but what makes it successful will also make it short-lived, unstable and unhappy.

Is anyone going to try and refute what he says?

Nope

I think life refuted him.

Is anyone going to try and refute what he says?

sure.

that they apparently can't use the state to mobilize funds for industries (clearly and unambiguously false if meant to be taken generally rather than only in this specific instance, btw) in absolutely no way implies that you must therefore adopt a capitalist model. indeed, such a claim is, quite frankly, silly and shows an amazing lack of basic creativity, even if we forgive the apparent lack of knowledge of other proposed systems.

Is anyone going to try and refute what he says?
Bugger that.

sure.

that they apparently can't use the state to mobilize funds for industries (clearly and unambiguously false if meant to be taken generally rather than only in this specific instance, btw) in absolutely no way implies that you must therefore adopt a capitalist model. indeed, such a claim is, quite frankly, silly and shows an amazing lack of basic creativity, even if we forgive the apparent lack of knowledge of other proposed systems.

Right... so what model would you suggest they adopt?

He halfway sounds like Ayn Rand at times...

More accurately, capitalism is the only way to industrialize in a sustainable manner. Central planning can achieve extremely rapid development, but due to its focus on heavy industry, extensive growth, and difficulty keeping up with technological and productive improvements, it's difficult to achieve continued growth. Another problem is competitiveness; unless there is an inherent level of competition in the economy, these firms will be nowhere near the efficiency of their market counterparts and will not perform as well. The end result will likely be failure and job loss.

Economically, it makes sense; any system dependent on continued inputs of labor and capital will eventually stagnate and decline without increases in productivity and technology. This is due to a combination of factors, the most prominent being the marginal return on the aforementioned inputs, which declines considerably as they increase.

Right... so what model would you suggest they adopt?

depends on what they aim to do. at the very least there is no need to go running off to the fucking cappies when it is well established that many of the various co-op models are at least serviceable and retain some modicum of the animating force of socialism (and are typically more efficient than the standard cappie bullshit while doing so).

More accurately, capitalism is the only way to industrialize in a sustainable manner.

that seems like an awfully tall claim. shit, calling it just a way to do so is quite a bit of a stretch.

that seems like an awfully tall claim. shit, calling it just a way to do so is quite a bit of a stretch.

It's the only way currently proven to work. No other system has ever achieved the levels of income, quality of life, or personal development seen in modern market economies; that's not to say other systems can't or won't work, but right now that's the only surefire way to achieve a balanced, developed economy.

(clearly and unambiguously false if meant to be taken generally rather than only in this specific instance, btw)

Not only that, but it implies that either the capital doesn't exist for industrialization at all, or that it must come from elsewhere, in which case the problem is not the intrinsic nature of the economic system but the scope: in the context of global capitalism, an isolated attempt at socialist development is hopeless.

It's the only way currently proven to work.

Wait, you said "in a sustainable manner."

The jury is still out on that one. And even that's generous, considering that if the rest of the world industrializes the way the currently developed nations did, and similarly use up natural resources and pollute the world, we're all screwed.

Old habits die hard I guess.

It is funny, though, that communists of this century generally tried to industrialize WITH communism though, because Marx himself made the case in his manifesto that a fully developed capitalist state, with sufficient industrial production, had to exist before a communist revolution can be carried out.

Czechoslovakia and Hungary, formerly the wealthy industrial parts of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, did prove him right on the economics of this point, as it was far better off then most of the communist states and was even with some poorer capitalist states, like Spain and Austria, in terms of GDP per capita, although it also proved him wrong, as the wealth slowly degenerated over time (this was still far poorer then Czechoslovakia had been prior to WWII, as it was one of the wealthiest countries in Europe at that time), and the very bourgeoise work ethic, education and ambition that had driven them to success in the first place also made them detest communism as a philosophy to steal from successful admirable poeple to benefit those who were perceived as disgusting losers. The result was that the minute the Soviets left, they threw out the communist government, but kept the universal health care plan.

It should be noted that this communist government was not installed by the will of Czechoslovakian citizens but by a treacherous campaign of terrorism by none other then Joseph Stalin himself in Prague, and Hungary rebelled against Soviet rule in one of the most violent and memorable episodes in the cold war.

In short, the successful communist state can exist, imposed by force, but what makes it successful will also make it short-lived, unstable and unhappy.

Well, i would say Soviet russia managed pretty well to industrialize its country back in the days. Of course it would not hold because of the massive invest in weapons and armies. Wonder what would have happened, if you rule out west interference, if Soviet russia had used that money for something a bit more....productive? ;) Ah well, no im not a communist, i am a realist. People does not work the way marx thought. But it was a nice dream though. :P

It's the only way currently proven to work. No other system has ever achieved the levels of income, quality of life, or personal development seen in modern market economies; that's not to say other systems can't or won't work, but right now that's the only surefire way to achieve a balanced, developed economy.

i'll note that you dropped both the 'sustainable' and 'only' elements of what you said. at which point we agree, in broad outlines. though 'surefire' also seems a bit hard to believe. and i'm not sure how much i buy the 'quality of life' and 'personal development' things either. but certainly, capitalism has shown that it is a way to develop an economy that makes absolutely huge amounts of stuff.

The only thing that 'works' is responding to whatever circumstances you are at the current time. Inventing a system and then saying "we'll do this, forever. nothing can go wrong", is very over-optimistic.

Well, the problem is that just having machines isn't enough. The machines actually have to be doing something worthwhile, they actually have to be used efficiently. If they're not, they are likely to be a burden rather than something to improve living standards.

Because in capitalism investment in new productive capacity is decentralised, and the burden is carried by capitalists who are working for their own self-interest rather than bureaucrats who have all sorts of standard performance measures to live up to, it is likely that private investment in industry will be more productive than state investment and the various flows are more likely to react flexibly to changes in the situation.

So what he's saying makes a lot of sense. It's basically the same realisation Deng Xiaoping came to, and so far that's working, at least as far as industrialisation is concerned.

And that's not even mentioning that state socialism hasn't done India any favours in the past.

Well, there is nothing surprising in that. According to orthodox marxism, capitalism is next step after feodalism, and socialism only comes after capitalism. There is absolutely nothing in "orthodox" marxism saying that you can (or cannot) bypass the "capitalism" phase, and go directly from feodalism to socialism.

The other point is that it's very hard to be socialist in your little corner while the rest is capitalist. When the rest is capitalist, capitalists (owners of the capital) have a very strong power, and it is very hard to be against them. That doesn't mean in itself capitalism is superior to socialism, but it only means that capitalism is a totalitarian system: it tends to make impossible for other systems to coexist with it.