Monday, June 27, 2005

moral of story.

I'm not yet decided on journalism as a career because I don't want to write the sort of stuff I read in the papers. Would it be a betrayal of conscience (it's back in fashion to have one, isn't it) or the only way to satisfy it?

Huh moment of the year? Social conservatives in the NYT pointing to Nazi Germany and Russia and other such places and talking about how leftism naturally progresses to fascism. Hello, did you not get the memo that says - SO DOES CONSERVATISM, KTHXBAI.

Leftism, rightism and centrism have theoretically nothing to do with the off-phenomenon of fascism. Extremism is the only position that is in any way logically connected to totalitarianism. (although I think the anarch-capitalists disagree?)

Sheesh. The New York Times needs to get opinions that are a little less stuffed up their own bums.


  1. well, the NYT uses that precedent because it's happened before. The great fascists of our time namely Hitler, Mussolini et al were all socialists before wthey became facists. there is a link. I've tried to do some work on it. Also, Advani's speech writer Sudheendra Kularni used to be a communist. CPM fellow. went to russia and got disillusioned. He then went on to embrace the Hindutva agenda. while extremism is the root cause. there is a small relation between the two.

  2. Yeah, Hitler even carried out his solutions (final or otherwise, ick) under the name of socialism - or didn't he? But since that sort of fascism is clearly linked to militarism, which is globally a right-winger priority - I mean, there's logic on both sides.

    There's no denying that socialism has been a humongous failure in the Western world. In hindsight, I think we can see why that was always going to happen. I just think globalised media has made the path to leftism easier. A sort of answerable autonomy thing. Not that the US (right-wing and highly conservative) is having any of that.

  3. Great to hear from u! Must admit the significance of your chosen name eludes me. Mail me yur co-ordinates at I hear u r starting a magazine... a non-profit?

  4. "There's no denying that socialism has been a humongous failure in the Western world. In hindsight, I think we can see why that was always going to happen."

    I dont agree with you there.
    In a neo marxist state there is always a danger of dictatorship of proletariat turning into the dictatorship of the "representative of proles",But Stalinist state is'nt the only possible form of govt which can function within the parameters of socialism. There are models of eco-political systems such as social democracies .Welfare states have worked eg. Finland for instance. liberating the economy did not work for chile and it had to return to mixed economic policies.nor did it work in east europe. Cuba inspite of all its poverty and immigration issues boasts of a health care system better than most countries in the world.I can go and on here.

    Kausha,the fact that Hitler and Mussolini pretended to be socialists has little to do with socialism or their personal beliefs regarding socialism and more with the popularity of the term among the masses.For that matter even mulayam singh yadav(the darling of saharaas and ambanis) claims to be a lefist.(samajwadi=socialism)

    As you've rightly put it Authorotarianism and socialism might not be a rare combination to find but we have had plenty of examples of right wing authorotarians starting with george bush.

  5. Pratlet, I totally agree with you, and thanks muchly for the Finland example et al. As you may have guessed, my squabble wasn't so much with the welfare state model and others of its ilk, which always had a progressive viewpoint in the first place, but with the extremist socialism that has caused the collapse of a bipolar Western world. Or am I going out on a limb here?

    In view of today's world I would say the danger from right wing authoritarianism is much more immediate and potentially devastating than any other form of ideology. Call it my pinkoism.

  6. Just write. Fuck all opinions.

  7. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. Clearly I don't use the word 'fuck' enough to be considered worthy of an opinion.

  8. That perhaps one of the best descriptions I have seen of NYT :-)

    Good luck - whereever you have found gainful (whats that?) employment!

  9. great piece sup.
    also greatly enjoyed and mostly agreed with The Prat's comments...

    the problem with a socialist government is that delaicate balance between the thesis and the anti thesis (pardon the terms)
    for if in government, that naturally makes the socialist govt the thesis, and its workers are, theoretically entrusted with the task of playing the opposition. of course this never happens.
    also im talking in broad terms, not even about the bardhans and surjeets of the world, nor the stalins.
    an instance is kerala, where the CPM (or is it CPI, well one of them, anyways...) started this factory called Dinesh Beedi... it was a great model of worker oriented, labour intensive, cooperative manufacturing. and it used gto be profitable, until now.
    but the same party also owns, corporate style, the swank offices of Kairali TV, a popular mallu channel. this channel is no different from any other corporate channel, 'bourgeois' as the party would have characterised them.
    so where do we draw the line between the two? the balance?
    EMS has written this essay titled Government & Revolution, but i am yet to see an english copy of the same.

    [sorry, frustration at a decidedly non socialist set up - the place where i work - caused this long angst ridden comment. bear with me.]