The pipe dream of Socialism

When Sutanu Guru, in the Business & Economy titles his article, 'Modern Capitalism sucks', I'm not surprised. There are many a academics around the world who look at it the same way. Never mind, its the same capitalist system that allows them to publish their dissenting views. Were it those countries that practice forced socialism (read, communism) where they had expressed any dissenting views, I wonder what their fate would have been?

Capitalism has always been a target of those who enjoy the fruits of it the most.

Consider what Sutanu writes. 'And this ( the Bearn Stearns, James Cayne saga) made me think about the deepest flaw in modern day capitalism as an economic system that straddles virtually the whole world. In Capitalism, a David versus Goliath contest almost never throws up a surprise. Goliath always wins and David is always crushed...Since America started emerging as an economic powerhouse in the late 19th century there have been similar cases of the little guy being shafted while the big boys walk away with the booty that just listing them would fill a book...'

Is Sutanu right? Are the cases of unethical corporate behaviour restricted to only Capitalism as an economic system? What about cases where socialism prevails in its enforced form? How ethical are business practices out there? Do we a see a picture of business tranquility that translates in all round prosperity in places where socialism is practiced?

Conjuring such Utopian fantasies of tranquility and associating it with systems that have practiced socialism is nothing but a pipe dream. Sutanu ends his article by stating, 'And that's why Karl Marx and Che Guevara will always remain relevant for those who believe in justice and fair play'.

Can anything be more far from the truth?

Who was the real Che Guevera? Alvaro Vargas Llosa, writing in the article, 'The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand', states, 'No man is without some redeeming qualities. In the case of Che Guevara, those qualities may help us to measure the gulf that separates reality from myth. His honesty (well, partial honesty) meant that he left written testimony of his cruelties, including the really ugly, though not the ugliest, stuff. His courage—what Castro described as “his way, in every difficult and dangerous moment, of doing the most difficult and dangerous thing”—meant that he did not live to take full responsibility for Cuba’s hell. Myth can tell you as much about an era as truth. And so it is that thanks to Che’s own testimonials to his thoughts and his deeds, and thanks also to his premature departure, we may know exactly how deluded so many of our contemporaries are about so much...

In January 1957, as his diary from the Sierra Maestra indicates, Guevara shot Eutimio Guerra because he suspected him of passing on information: “I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain.... His belongings were now mine.” Later he shot Aristidio, a peasant who expressed the desire to leave whenever the rebels moved on. While he wondered whether this particular victim “was really guilty enough to deserve death,” he had no qualms about ordering the death of Echevarría, a brother of one of his comrades, because of unspecified crimes: “He had to pay the price.” At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture...'

Need anything more be said?

Make no mistake. The closest a nation can come to realising the Utopian ideals of Socialism is by embracing Capitalism whole heartedly. Sure there will be more of the Bear Stearns and James Cayne sagas in the future. Yet, the best bet of all round prosperity still remains Capitalism. If there is a better system any place else, I would be interested in knowing.

Also, read the article, 'The Cult of Che - Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries', by Paul Berman.