The cruel joke of 3 decades of CPI (M) rule in WB

The title of this post has many connotations to argue.

But I suggest you to read first the worst and crud jokes of argument by JNU Professor Patnaik here. Sorry, it will be a big punishment to read the articles of these people in this blog!!

And then you must read the piece by Mr. Aadisht Khanna. It is very well argued piece and worth to read and ponder it!

To start with Khanna writes: 

• Professor Patnaik explains that one good thing the CPI(M) has going for it is that it's anti-imperialistic, and that it's the only anti-imperialistic party in India. I suppose that is important for people who are concerned about imperialism. Personally, I wish that they had concentrated a little less on anti-imperialism and a little more on the healthcare system in West Bengal. As things stand, they seem to have neglected healthcare to the extent that every Bengali with a mild cough and cold has left Bengal and come to Apollo Hospital in Greams Road, Chennai, for treatment. I was there this week and I was surrounded by Bengalis. It was like being at Eden Gardens, or Citibank, or Larsen and Toubro. Even the Apollo pharmacy's signboard was in Bengali, not Tamil. To read and hear Bengali in the home of divine classical Tamizh, Madras Bashai, and IITM Lingo is unexpected and alarming. But that's the price to be paid for anti-imperialism, I suppose. Such is life. 

• I can see Professor Patnaik right now in my mind's eye. He's striding up and down impassionedly, wagging his beard (somehow, I imagine him with a beard - I don't know if he actually has one or not), and yelling at some hapless students. 'You bloody fools! Stop paying attention to what you can see and hear! Empiricism is not the way to go!' Like Majikthise and Vroomfondel, Professor Prabhat demands a total absence of solid facts.

“Marxists are not against the market”-Really?

The following is from a news report published in The Hindu:

• Mr. Karat said that contrary to the misconception, “Marxists are not against the market,” or opposed to FDI. 
• “Our experience of building socialism has led us to understand that the market has a function even in a socialist order… and that if you eschew the market, or fail to integrate the market into a planned economy, as the Soviet Union did, you are in trouble,” he said.
• He cited the example of China, which had changed course in the 1970s to successfully build a socialist market economy that did not relinquish centralised planning. 
• The CPI (M) never said that it was opposed to foreign capital, he said. In fact, the party programme made a clear distinction between the positive impact of FDI inflows into productive activities and opening up sectors such as banking and insurance to speculative financial flows, Mr. Karat said. 
• “We must decide in which sectors we need the FDI and which sectors need to be regulated,” he said. 
• While India had survived the recession and was on target to achieve a GDP growth of 8.5 per cent, the question to be asked was whether this was the ideal type of growth that the country required and whether it was beneficial to the entire people, he said. 
• Focusing on GDP growth alone could provide a skewed and distorted picture of development when it benefited only the privileged few. “India, with the fastest rate of growth of dollar billionaires, now has some of the richest people in the world and also some of the poorest,” he said.

No doubt we all know from out own old days and the present day Chinese system of how the so called socialist market economy functions. The denial of basic right to express alone shows how shoddy the socialist market economic is. What Mr. Karat is trying to say is no surprise and in fact really they have no other option to escape other than the 2007-2009 financial crises examples.

Just see what he indeed said in another interview.

You also recently announced that Marxists are not against market and foreign direct investment (FDI). Does it not indicate a shift in the CPM’s policies towards capitalism?

• This is too complicated a topic. I was speaking to business houses in Chennai and they had asked me about my views. I tried to explain that Marxists are against the market. We have never been opposed to foreign capital but we must decide in which sectors we need FDI and which sectors need to be regulated.

And Sitaram Yechury said in his interview with BS:

• But our position is clear: restrictions must remain. We are in the favour of FDI only if it satisfies three conditions — augments existing production capacity, generates more employment and upgrades technologies. Apart from generating more employment, what other conditions will FDI in the retail trade be able to fulfil?

  

What want to summarize is simply a paragraph from an Internship paper of CCS, 2005.  

• “Political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI (M)) have changed their stance when in power and when in opposition and opposition (as well as public debate) is driven by partisan considerations rather that and effort to assess the merit of the policies. This is evident is the public posturing of Hindu right, left and centrist political parties like the Congress. The growing recognition of the importance of FDI resulted in a substantive policy package but and also the delegation of the same to a set of eminently dispensable bodies. This is indicative of a mood of promotion counterbalanced by a clear deference of responsibility.”

But the above para is appearing exactly same in the recently published paper. Really it is another scam!! Because the authors are different. The Internship paper of CCS was published in 2005 and the article published the same paper in a different journal just recently only.

Also see 1 2

Scrap that call by Chandra

It the murky mind if any one believes the below lines. Even they do turn to advocate in future as with out complete break from the dogmatic arguments.

“The CPI(M) argument is less profound and more pragmatic. It is a party that believes in progress and modernization”.

Read the full article here