Skip to main content

The Curse of Socialism

My journey to understand began with the question, 'What has hobbled India's re-emergence as a great nation,   in spite of being re-independent for past 70 years?'
There are probably many reasons, but one dominating and disturbing cause is India's adoption of Western Socialism. An alien and foreign ideology sought to be imposed on India and all Indians.

We are often told that we are world's largest democracy. Actually we are the world's largest socialist democratic republic. So if our leaders have chosen socialism it must be good for us? Right? 
Wrong. No its not. Socialism is a curse not only for India but for the whole world.

Don't believe it? 

Lets start with, what is Socialism?


Socialism is a range of political, economic and social systems where everything is owned in common by all people, and supposedly everyone is equal. Everything will be owned by the state and its arms. 

Utopian it may sound, in reality it is extremely elitist. It involves a group of people who will appoint themselves and act as stewards. Some elites will grab power and will do the organising, others will simply do as they are told (they will be organised).

Some men who consider themselves as superior and know what is best for the masses will rule all other men who are considered weak. If a person is perceived to be against the leaders or even appear to disagree he or she will be eliminated (meaning tortured and killed). There is no scope of discussion, dissent nor redressal.
Socialism is a system where all men are equal, and some men more equal than others.


What has Socialism has given the world in a century.

In the 20th century, 145 million people were killed, by their own governments, all of them socialist regimes and 132 million deaths can be attributed to just 3 leaders or more appropriately 'mis-leaders'.

All of them came to power using legitimate democratic means within their society to reach the top position before the slaughter.

Other Socialist regimes where mass murders also took place are,

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
  ~ Vladimir Lenin                                                       ________________

How is Democracy indispensable to Socialism?

Give free choice to people, and every single time they will vote themselves into slavery to get maximum benefits from the State for doing nothing in return. 
Socialists shackle the minds and spirit of a people. They make them believe they are victims, promise these people to take care of them. Socialists in the beginning grant the people all sorts of privileges and benefits, and ask little or no responsibility in return. However when power has been seized, Socialists demand and enforce total obedience. 

Socialism promises to make everyone equal. It cannot make the poor rich so they make the rich poor. Everyone is equally miserable. 

Socialism cannot give anyone anything until they take it from someone else.  Socialism works by confiscating the wealth of the rich and give them to the poor, from producers to non producers. 
Presto! problem solved, as of now. 

What happens after redistribution is that there is nothing left to confiscate from the 'haves' to give to the 'have nots', is that the Socialists raise taxes. 

When the people and the producers cannot pay any more taxes, in India at its height it was 98% of income. Add to that the inevitable trouble caused by falling tax revenues, because all incentive to produce, be efficient and be innovative is lost. 

Socialists then resort to heavy and unsustainable borrowing, as can be seen in Europe and North America. Europe in particular has unserviceable levels of debt. **Greece has already failed, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal are the next likely to fail. In fact 19 of the 28 European Union countries are in deep and unsustainable debt.** 

The Socialist economies across the world are on the verge of collapse, for they are now learning that a good life has to be earned, not gifted by a Socialist government.

All monarchies eventually collapse and then become Democratic Republics, which in turn become socialist, then oligarchy, then dictatorships are born, which is again a type of monarchy. Then the cycle repeats.

This is what is seen across the world. Russia is a case in point, the oligarchs are now locked in a losing battle led by Putin the dictator, who has almost completely taken over much like the Tzars of old. Socialist China will, in my opinion, soon encounter radical and painful transformation because of the inevitable failure Socialism will cause, leading to its possible disintegration.

In India we have gone from democracy at the village level to highly centralised kingdoms and empires, then colonial rule. Indian leaders have adopted Western Socialism after independence in 1947.  

India too has adopted inappropriate philosophy of Socialism to become a total welfare State. We are now hurtling down a self destructive path. It is time to wean India and Indians off this 'opium of the masses' and abandon Socialism.

Failure to abandon Socialism as its practiced,  will be the death of Indian civilisation as we know it, and end of freedom of its people.  


This is the first article in a multi part series on the dangers from Socialism, Communism and unbridled Capitalism


  1. Very factual a revealing. In India it has some special edges. 1)Casteism and 2)Dynastism. All the top echelons of the Congress Party, Communist Party, Kaka_Pawars Nationalist Congress Party are packed with the High Caste Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. They do not like that an O B C like Modi has been elected by the Indians to be their Prime Minister. You will note that they attack Modi personally. But the wise Indian has seen through their ulterior motives and largely ignores them.Kaka_Pawar holds his "Public Meetings" in the marriage function halls and not on public grounds.Dynastism is obvious : Gandhi_Nehru for 5 generations like a Jagirdari,Abdullahs,Pawars, Pants and innumerable Singhs......


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Last thoughts and words of Emperor Aurangzeb

The 6th Mughal emperor of India, Aurangzeb was a brave but cruel man. While he was an excellent military leader, he was a weak administrator with poor understanding of economics. As a result he landed up being dependent on corrupt, fanatical people who only hungered for power and wealth.

Aurangzeb's lust for power was insatiable. In this quest he spared no one, imprisoning his own father, and slaughtering his brothers and nephews. He inherited an expanding empire which permitted him to rule the largest area of the Mughal empire's history, before he led it into decline. 

He felt that his actions had probably made him repugnant to the people and his legitimacy to rule would always be questioned. So he adopted a frugal life style and tried to be a good Muslim to appease the powerful clerics, soldiers, noblemen and the muslim public, which would allow him to rule effectively.

Like many other misguided men he came to believed that Islam meant only violent, subjugation and persecution.…

The Lopez Effect

Every now & then things get tough for a lot of organisations. This may be caused by technology, competition, recession or whatever. When the nasty stuff hits the fan, this is what typically happens at large organisations;

The CMD (Chairman & Managing Director) will call a meeting and scream and rant on how useless and lazy his entire management team is and how they have let the organisation's profitability slide. blah, blah, blah!!!!

The boss desperately searches for a scapegoat. Sometimes sacrificial lambs are found and a few heads roll and the situation only deteriorates because attacking people rather problems never helps. Sometimes the boss realises the truth, that there is no one individual or department or function that can be specifically blamed except the boss himself.

After venting his ire, the boss will issue a diktat to the management team. "I want my organisation to return to high profitability so this is what the team is going to do. I want you to reduce…

The Ghosts of 1962

Lest we forget the war of 1962.
Understanding the Chinese invasion of India and the aftermath.

In late 1940s two sleeping giants began to stir awake. 
Barring the gruesome partition, modern democratic India had a peaceful birth in 1947. Nehru the Indian prime minister therefore believed, power came from eloquence, amity and diplomacy. 

China (PRC) on the other hand had a very violent birth in 1949, hence Mao Tse-tung held the belief that power came from the barrel of a gun. 

Nehru fancied himself as becoming a world leader. He wanted India and China to partner together, to create a third pole that would not be aligned to either American led West Capitalistic block nor the Soviet led Communist block. In pursuit of this dream he stooped and pampered China to no end. He fawned over China and also rued that he did not have the type of committed cadre that Mao had.

This approach did not go down well with the Americans nor the Russians, who wanted to retain their global preeminence. They both wan…