Skip to main content

Where everyone fails


An example of the problem with Socialism


I often ask myself, why after Independence, has the Indian economy failed to realise its great potential?  There could be several factors but adoption of Marxist Socialistic models is the major culprit.  
____________________


An economics  professor was often confronted by a majority of his idealistic students. They insisted that Socialism was a a great equaliser, a system that worked, where no one will be rich nor poor. 
Socialism leads to declining performance
The professor said "Ok, let's conduct an experiment in this class on socialism. The experiment is that results would be averaged out and everyone will receive the same grade." 

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a 'B'. Naturally, the students who had studied hard were upset and the ones who had hardly studied at all were delighted.

As the second test rolled in, the hardworking students decided that they were not going to get an 'A', studied less, and the ones who had earlier studied little, studied even less. When the results came out everyone got an average grade of 'D'.


By the third test everyone failed. Now people started blaming others,  bickering started, and there was a lot of ill will. 

________________


Young people are often naive and idealistic. Therefore the theory of socialism as a provider of equality appeals to them.

However no matter how great an ideal, it cannot override basic human nature of seeking reward. Incentive drives effort, that is expectation of reward proportional to effort and output.

When the government or systems take away the reward, then there is no incentive to work leave alone work harder, innovate or improve. 

Results are always disappointing and will continue to decline, until they hit rock bottom and then great troubles erupt. 

Socialists, conveniently overlook the fact that wealth must be earned before it can be shared. 

One can always be generous with someone else wealth.  At first, Socialists take from the 'haves', the 'producers of wealth' who represent a smaller percentage of the population, and give to the 'have nots', the 'non producers' who represent the majority, thus making them happy.  

Due to a lack of incentive, performance and output decline continuously until the Socialistic system  finally collapses.  The only beneficiaries are corrupt officials and their associates.

India is not alone in having lost much of her wealth and vitality by shifting from community based Socialism to an imported  Marxist model of Socialism. Most nations pay a heavy price and eventually collapse. 

Socialism  has failed to deliver its promise, as is evident from the collapse of former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 
Greece and Venezuela are current glaring examples. 
China, North Korea and several Western European countries like Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain are likely to join the club of economies ruined by Socialism.

What then are the alternatives?
Unbridled Capitalism is probably a worse alternative but that is a subject for another article.

Comments

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…