Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete

Prof. Das's strong positive remark on Marx is thought provoking. Marx was both a philosopher and an economist and probably not a Marxist himself. 

We have seen numerous modern economic theories and they are still evolving every day. None of them is perfect. There are many schools of economic thought. This year's Nobel in economic science is an example of how two diagonally opposite views can be awarded at the same time under the same brackets. 

Making a big deal about failure of Marx is mostly ideological and political. I don't think the honest and big economists trash him the way as we lay people do. 

Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' Theory is worshipped widely. But as Prof. Das has mentioned, you cannot leave every thing up to the control of the business organizations, and they need rules and regulations to follow, which many term as the black hand of the government. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Dr. Das,

 

How can I dare to throw stones at Karl Marx? We should be grateful to Marxism for its contributions in our feudalistic society.  All I said is – Marxism is an idealistic model, which could not be implemented as is in practice, and that was the reason for sprouting out various derivatives of it during the golden era of communism.

That does not mean, Marxism was all wrong. Being a scientist,  you know when a model has too many variables, it may not work as expected in practice. That's exactly the problem with any socio-economic model (Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.); just too many unpredictable social variables, some of which may not even be thought about in the model.

 

Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc. started socio-economical experimentations around the world using various derivatives; they all failed. That's the reality we all can accept without hesitation. I wish - at least one of those socio-economical experimentation worked, but – it did not.  You are right – we got the democratic system out of those socio-economical experimentation, and the credit goes to the Guru of communism, the Karl Marx.  

 

My point is not that; my point was – people still dream of a 'utopian Marxist society' in this day and age. I don't believe - it is feasible any longer. Time came and gone. It's too late for that dream. That's why I said – the dream of a utopian society is as real as the dream of heaven.

 

Now, how did I come up with such an arrogant statement?

 

 

I have two doubts – 1) the viability of the economic model of the Marxist utopian system and 2) complete loss of personal liberty under the utopian system. None of these factors is realistically accomplishable in this day and age. That does not mean we have to throw out Marxism altogether. 

 

The bottom line is - no theoretical socio-economic model is going to be perfect for all societies around the world. We have to come up with the regional hodgepodge model, out of the available theoretical models, that will work. Hope this will clarify my position on the topic.

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:50 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Dr. Roy

Please keep in mind that without Govt. intervention no system can work, be it capitalist or socialist.  Marx may not be correct in many aspects.  But other theoreticians are at best a footnote to him.  Without Marx and ensuing assorted social revolutions the present version of democracy & freedom(!) would be a far cry.  So don't throw stones at the Guru without comprehending him.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Mr. Ray,

 

Thank you for the reply. If you don't mind, please write a few sentences explaining how a utopian society, envisioned in the Marxism, could satisfy production Vs. demand relationship over the long-haul for millions of enlightened and free people? I am asking you this question because, I think, you are much more knowledgeable in this topic than me.

 

Also, I am curious to know – why people still believe in the validity of a utopian Marxist society in a modern free world. I have no explanation for it, except to think that - Marxism is a faith to them, much like religion. To me, the dream of a utopian Marxist society in the modern world is as good as a dream of heaven in the afterworld.

 

I know many people think that - Marxism would have worked if it was implemented as is. My question to them is - why Marxism was never tried in any country during the golden era of communism? I think – it is too idealistic to be implemented as is in a complex non-ideal society. That's why derivatives of it have been tried, but all failed.

 

Jiten Roy

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:04 AM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:

 

Dear Profesor Roy:
I respect your disagreement with Marxism, but your statement, "Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere.", is not at all true. Marxian principles or call them, Marxism, was distorted much more than applied and for that Lenin was responsible. Marxism was not applied anywhere excepting in Paris Commune and
I would request you to read Paresh Chattopadhyay's 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' Or at least, his' Two Approaches to Socialism: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky-http://www.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/3/6/6736569/chattopadhyay_marx_vs_lenin_countdown.doc.

Regards,

Sankar Ray

Sankar Ray
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:23:28
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete
 

I understand how a Capitalist system satisfies Malthusian principle, but - do not know or understand how an ultra-liberal proletarian system can satisfy that principle. I believe Marxism ignores Malthusian principle, and that's the death-nail of the Communism.

 

If I am wrong, please correct me. I will be extremely delighted if someone can provide me a convincing short contrary explanation to my understanding of Marxism.

 

As you know, Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere. Therefore, implementation fault is not the cause for the failure of the Marxism around the world.

 

This situation is exactly similar to that of religion, where believers always blame implementation fault, not religion.

 

As you know, religion is here to establish peace on earth, but it failed miserably to accomplish the goal. It has been introduced various ways around the world also, but failed everywhere. Yet, diehard proponents of religion always blame the implementation fault for the failure of the religion. 

 

Jiten Roy

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:01 PM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:

 

Marx for Christmas