Comments on: Why are we instinctively socialist?

By: mathu

mathu — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:35:23 +0000

i accept with ur ideas

By: mathu

mathu — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:34:01 +0000

what u hav said is very wrong………..???

By: seven_times_six

seven_times_six — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

But you cannot discount certain innate human tendencies which tend towards the protectionist socialist side. Thus, only a little nudge is required for all to see red.

a. Humanity has always felt the need for a central authority. [This is true even in organized sections of the animal/insect kingdom]
The idea of a benevolent governing polity which shall bestow prosperity on people is almost in our genes I sometimes think.

b. For a decentralized capitalist system to work, a certain level of technology and a system of consructing capital from various assets is required. All this is fairly recent – in the last few centuries. Thus, it is not a “gut” thing to the common man whereas a regulated system is.

c. The benefits of a capitalist system are non-intuitive. The broken window fallacy, the pitfalls from government regulation – all these are not obvious at all.

d. Sometimes, the goal itself is different for some ardent socialists. They view forced societal equality above affluence and progress. So in their view, socialism IS better than capitalism inspite of all the benefits one might state.

By: Ravikiran

Ravikiran — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Yes I agree. I wanted to cover all that before I got carried away by Nehru bashing.

By: Nilu

Nilu — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Ravi,
Nehru alone cannot be held responsible for the blunders of 60′s. He sure was a moron, but just another moron – and not “the” moron.

The society’s maturity was thus. And as always, the political outcome was a mere product of it’s circumstances.

Point out one country in a similar situtaion adopting anything to the right or north of what India did.

By: Yazad

Yazad — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Nilu,

Two countires: South Korea and Taiwan.

Both were worse off than India on any indicator — social or economic in 1950. Look at them now.

By: shrikanthk

shrikanthk — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Hi ravi,
I guess you are getting carried away.One shouldn’t overlook the fact that
Socialism and Welfare economics were very fashionable during the 60′s.Britain was a socialist country then.Even in the US,the democratic govts of the 60′s were quasi-socialist.
Moreover, Nehru died as early as 1964.One should blame his successors for not taking corrective
measures.After all, China’s reform process started only in 1979 and the growth in S.Korea has come about only in the past 2 decades!

By: Nilu

Nilu — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Yazad,
Can South Korea or Taiwan be compared with India?

They had a largely single ethnicity, small geography and not much threat of break away. Moreover they had the American backing, a strong millitary shield.

Though Socialism would not put an end to the problems of such demands for independence – it’s logical for those morons’ to have thought the way they did.

Please point out nations in similar if not identical situations .

Lets talk Brazil, Argentina, China, even France to an extent, Mexico.

By: swami

swami — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Ravikiran Ji,
a) If Nehru was alive in 1991 as a retired politician, would he have supported the economic liberalization initiated by Manmohan Singh and co.?

b) If Nehru was alive today, would he agree with the economic path that India is taking today?

By: Prashant P Kothari

Prashant P Kothari — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I agree with you and Spontaneous Order, for the most part.. and while I think your fisking of Nehru is justfied, it does tend to distract from your main point