Aparna Sen'er "Jugaanto" - aarekjon'er comment
Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya
Aparna Sen-r natun film dekhlam: Juganta. Eto childishly self-indulgent
and overly pretentious film bahudin holo dekhini. Ghor badhajam-r boi.
Suruta bhalo, tarpor Anjan Dutta-r asahya antel types acting (plus or
gaan-o sahya korte hoeche, b********ke shule charano uchit), insufferable
storyline, tae ekta environment angle ante gie charie ekakar, plus
extremely bad eye for details (Anjan Datta mid 70s-e Lacoste T shirt aar
stone washed jeans porche) - sab milie jata. 2.5 ghantar boi, 1.5 ghanta
korle bhalo hoto. Needs merciless cutting and editing. Onek din bade eto
determinedly pseudo ekta boi dekhlam.
Srabani Banerjee
Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
>
> Aparna Sen-r natun film dekhlam: Juganta. Eto childishly self-indulgent
self-indulgent? kibhabe?
> and overly pretentious film bahudin holo dekhini. Ghor badhajam-r boi.
> Suruta bhalo, tarpor Anjan Dutta-r asahya antel types acting
bhalo/kharap acting hoy shunechhi,aNtel type acting manet ki?
naki bolte chaichhen choritro-ta aNtel?
(plus or
> gaan-o sahya korte hoeche, b********ke shule charano uchit),
:)
gaan thakatei apotti, naki onyo keu gaile cholto?
amar aboshyo baDite shobai o'rom heDe golay gaan gay bole byaparta besh
normal monet holo.
insufferable
> storyline,
storyline to jetuku achhe amar besh straighforward-i monet holo.
> tae ekta environment angle ante gie charie ekakar, plus
ye manet, amar shotti bolte ki chhoDano monet hoyni - shesh-er oi
beach-er puro sequence-ta baad dile.
> extremely bad eye for details (Anjan Datta mid 70s-e Lacoste T shirt aar
> stone washed jeans porche)
very true. er chaiteo kharap example achhe.
- sab milie jata. 2.5 ghantar boi, 1.5 ghanta
> korle bhalo hoto. Needs merciless cutting and editing. Onek din bade eto
> determinedly pseudo ekta boi dekhlam.
`pseudo ekta boi' manet ki? cinema-r content pseudo? kano pseudo?
Srabani
Sutapa Chattopadhyay
Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
>
> Aparna Sen-r natun film dekhlam: Juganta. Eto childishly self-indulgent
Not to mention Rupa Ganguli's nyakamo. Why did she need to cry
at the mention of gulf-war birds drowning in oil? A simple,
expression of sorrow would have done.
--
Sutapa Chattopadhyay
Arnab Gupta
Sutapa Chattopadhyay wrote:
Shottiyi to, kNadbe kyano ? Amar to mone hoi du:kho-o noi
raag dyakhalei aro bhalo hoto. Abar keu mone kortei paren
oi drishye ottohashyo heshe othatai `shwabhabik'! Kimba
aro keu boltei paaren kNede thik jotheshto bhashano holona!
`types acting'-er drishtikonti besh akorshoniyo lagchhe. `Boi'er
choritrogulo-ke niye alada korey bhabar jhamela nei,choritro onujayi
tader obhinoy kyamon shey proshno to ashbei na. Shobai aykadhare
`bolishtho', `nyaka', `aNtel', `komol', `pelob', `chhichkNaduney',
....je jyamonbhabey dekhtey chai aar ki...
Thanks,
Arnab.
Apratim Sarkar
Srabani Banerjee <BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
>insufferable
>> storyline,
>
>storyline to jetuku achhe amar besh straighforward-i monet holo.
Kimba simplistic. Ja hok, straightforward hole insufferable hobar
asubidhe kothaye?
>> korle bhalo hoto. Needs merciless cutting and editing. Onek din bade eto
>> determinedly pseudo ekta boi dekhlam.
>
>`pseudo ekta boi' manet ki? cinema-r content pseudo? kano pseudo?
Proyato Sibram Chakraborty adhunik kobita lekha'r ekta shortcut method
bolechhilen. Prothome ekti issue-centric khaborer kagoj bar korte hobe,
tarpor shetike kuti kuti kore chhNiRe akash'e uRiye dite hobe.
Tukrogulo jekhane jemon poRlo, kuriye ene collage baniye tar modhye
"kaste", "haturi", "kaker birjo", e dharaner kichhu katha chhaRiye
dilei fasclass ekti adhunik kobita neme jabe. Aparna Sen e'i
technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
>Srabani
Apratim.
--
Amai jodi dei tara noukati Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
Ami tabe shatshota dNaR aNati are my own and shouldn't be construed in
Pal tule di charte pNachta chhata any way to represent that of my employer.
Mithye ghure beRai na ko hate|
Srabani Banerjee
Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>
> Srabani Banerjee <BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
>
> >insufferable
> >> storyline,
> >
> >storyline to jetuku achhe amar besh straighforward-i monet holo.
>
> Kimba simplistic.
`simplistic' kano? kon byapar-take simplify kora hoyechhe
bole monet hoy?
Ja hok, straightforward hole insufferable hobar
> asubidhe kothaye?
oi storyline-tar khetre `insufferable' kotha-ta ektu strong monet holo,
tai bollam arki. tobe opinion niye torko chole na.
> >> korle bhalo hoto. Needs merciless cutting and editing. Onek din bade eto
> >> determinedly pseudo ekta boi dekhlam.
> >
> >`pseudo ekta boi' manet ki? cinema-r content pseudo? kano pseudo?
>
> Proyato Sibram Chakraborty adhunik kobita lekha'r ekta shortcut method
> bolechhilen. Prothome ekti issue-centric khaborer kagoj bar korte hobe,
> tarpor shetike kuti kuti kore chhNiRe akash'e uRiye dite hobe.
> Tukrogulo jekhane jemon poRlo, kuriye ene collage baniye tar modhye
> "kaste", "haturi", "kaker birjo", e dharaner kichhu katha chhaRiye
> dilei fasclass ekti adhunik kobita neme jabe.
:)
hobe hoyto, ami kobita-i bishesh bujhina, tar abar adhunik kobita.
Aparna Sen e'i
> technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
ei tuku bole chheDe dile cholbe? tumi-i na bolle je `Juganto'
dekhar por amar jetuku buddhi chhilo tao lop peyechhe? bujhiye
bolo ta'le. cinema to ar kobita noy, Juganto-te kothay apotti sheta
bolo. `kuriye ene collage' bananote? manet ekta linear plot thakle
bhalo hoto bolchho?
Srabani
Indranil
Sutapa Chattopadhyay (sut...@instinet.com) wrote:
: Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
: >
: > Aparna Sen-r natun film dekhlam: Juganta. Eto childishly self-indulgent
: > and overly pretentious film bahudin holo dekhini. Ghor badhajam-r boi.
: > Suruta bhalo, tarpor Anjan Dutta-r asahya antel types acting (plus or
: Not to mention Rupa Ganguli's nyakamo. Why did she need to cry
: at the mention of gulf-war birds drowning in oil? A simple,
: expression of sorrow would have done.
Hoyto mohila ektu aNtel achhen etai chhobite bolte chaichhilen
Aparna. Tobe shob miliye Probal-er bolishtho shwikaroktir shathe onek-ei
akmot. Oneke bhoye kichhu bolchhen na. Srabani-r camp-er lokera chokh
pakiye achhe.
IDG
Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya
Srabani Banerjee <BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
>>
>> Aparna Sen-r natun film dekhlam: Juganta. Eto childishly self-indulgent
>self-indulgent? kibhabe?
[rest deleted]
------------
Aager post-taa karaar par-e bhul-taa bujhechhilaam je etaa je aamaar
nijer comment noy setaa explicitly kothaa-o mention korini - aamaar
Kolkaataa-baasi bondhu-ke (aasole jaar comment) upor'er reply-taa paathiye or
further comment chaaoaa-y o nicher email-taa paathiyechhe - prosongoto ullekhyo
je o boi-melaa-y aagun laagaar somoy sashorir-e uposthit chhilo ebong almost
stampede theke baanchte oke biraat pandemonium'er maajhe gate bhenge berote
hoyechhilo, sei jonno-i hoyto mejaaj'er ei dashaa !
=====================================================================
boss, satyi katha bolte ki, icche nei, somoe-r katha to cherei dilam.
"Somskriti" nie kachkachani ekhon asahya lage - kolkata-e ektu sanskriti
kom hoe kaaj beshi hole bancha jeto. sundar udaharan book fair -
Derida-ke ni esechi, otoeb byabasthapana korar kono proyojon nei.
khali duto comment dite paris:
boitar ekta sequence-e Rupa Ganguli Anjan Datta-r lekha novel somondhe
bolbe je jinista thik danracche na, karon tumi ei charitrader bhalo kore
cheno na. Eta cinema-tar "environment angle" somondhe bhison projojya
mone hoeche - adbhut irony...
ekti udaharan, garite jete jete Rupa Ganguly hothat oil-slick-e atka
pakhider somondhe bole uthbe prae kando kando golae: "Accha, ora ki dos
korechilo, oder keno emon holo ?", bejae artificial mone hoechilo.
aar er madhye amake jaras na. karur bhalo lagle to bhaloi. boita cholle
bangla cinema kinchit poisa korbe.
Amitabha Bagchi
On 6 Feb 1997, Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>
> Proyato Sibram Chakraborty adhunik kobita lekha'r ekta shortcut method
> bolechhilen. Prothome ekti issue-centric khaborer kagoj bar korte hobe,
> tarpor shetike kuti kuti kore chhNiRe akash'e uRiye dite hobe.
> Tukrogulo jekhane jemon poRlo, kuriye ene collage baniye tar modhye
> "kaste", "haturi", "kaker birjo", e dharaner kichhu katha chhaRiye
> dilei fasclass ekti adhunik kobita neme jabe. Aparna Sen e'i
> technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
>
It is really unfortunate that even Bengali's have become so
de-intellectualised that they say things like this. Jugaanto may not be a
perfect film or even a great film but it is a sensitive and honest film
which makes a real effort to explore a complex set of issues. Shudhu
storyline diye hi bhalo boi hoi na. This is evident to the most simple
minded viewer, I think.
Amitabha Bagchi
Srabani Banerjee
Indranil-da likhechhe:
>
> Sutapa Chattopadhyay (sut...@instinet.com) wrote:
> : Probal Kumar Bhattacharjya wrote:
> : >
> : > Aparna Sen-r natun film dekhlam: Juganta. Eto childishly self-indulgent
> : > Suruta bhalo, tarpor Anjan Dutta-r asahya antel types acting (plus or
>
> : Not to mention Rupa Ganguli's nyakamo. Why did she need to cry
> : at the mention of gulf-war birds drowning in oil? A simple,
> : expression of sorrow would have done.
>
> Hoyto mohila ektu aNtel achhen etai chhobite bolte chaichhilen
> Aparna. Tobe shob miliye Probal-er bolishtho shwikaroktir shathe onek-ei
> akmot. Oneke bhoye kichhu bolchhen na.
tumi ki kore janle? tNara tomake bolechhen? tumi nirbhoy-e bole dite
paaro.
Srabani-r camp-er lokera chokh
> pakiye achhe.
`Srabani-r camp'??? shekhane kara achhen ektu haat tulben bhai?
Srabani
Apratim Sarkar
Srabani Banerjee <BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>> Kimba simplistic.
>
>`simplistic' kano? kon byapar-take simplify kora hoyechhe
>bole monet hoy?
E byapar'ta, Srabani, ekdom relative.
>Ja hok, straightforward hole insufferable hobar
>> asubidhe kothaye?
>
>oi storyline-tar khetre `insufferable' kotha-ta ektu strong monet holo,
>tai bollam arki.
Shubu'r biye'r gappo amar eki shange straightforward ebong insufferable
mone hoy. Tabe Juganto Shubu'r biye'r gapper ek kathi opore.
>tobe opinion niye torko chole na.
;-)
>> Proyato Sibram Chakraborty adhunik kobita lekha'r ekta shortcut method
>> bolechhilen. Prothome ekti issue-centric khaborer kagoj bar korte hobe,
>> tarpor shetike kuti kuti kore chhNiRe akash'e uRiye dite hobe.
>> Tukrogulo jekhane jemon poRlo, kuriye ene collage baniye tar modhye
>> "kaste", "haturi", "kaker birjo", e dharaner kichhu katha chhaRiye
>> dilei fasclass ekti adhunik kobita neme jabe.
>
>
>:)
>hobe hoyto, ami kobita-i bishesh bujhina, tar abar adhunik kobita.
Cinema bojho bolchho tabe? Adhunik cinema? :-)
>Aparna Sen e'i
>> technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
>
>ei tuku bole chheDe dile cholbe? tumi-i na bolle je `Juganto'
>dekhar por amar jetuku buddhi chhilo tao lop peyechhe?
Balai shat!
>bujhiye
>bolo ta'le. cinema to ar kobita noy, Juganto-te kothay apotti sheta
>bolo. `kuriye ene collage' bananote? manet ekta linear plot thakle
>bhalo hoto bolchho?
Apotti ki she to tomake bohubar bolechhi personal communication'e.
SCB'te onyo keu jante utsahi hole janabo. Ekta katha balo to,
Juganto to dekhlam tomar recommendation'e, kyano tomar bhalo
legechhe eta to ekhono bolle na? Proshno'ta Arnab'keo. Juganto
kyano bhalo cinema?
Apratim Sarkar
>> bolechhilen. Prothome ekti issue-centric khaborer kagoj bar korte hobe,
>> tarpor shetike kuti kuti kore chhNiRe akash'e uRiye dite hobe.
>> Tukrogulo jekhane jemon poRlo, kuriye ene collage baniye tar modhye
>> "kaste", "haturi", "kaker birjo", e dharaner kichhu katha chhaRiye
>> technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
>>
>
>de-intellectualised that they say things like this.
I agree that for de-intellectualised people, Juganto ekti dhap'r
film eta mone haowai swabhabik.
>Jugaanto may not be a
>perfect film or even a great film but it is a sensitive and honest film
>which makes a real effort to explore a complex set of issues. Shudhu
>storyline diye hi bhalo boi hoi na. This is evident to the most simple
>minded viewer, I think.
Agreed, again, je Juganto'te galpo nei, prochur "issue", jodiyo,
achhe.
>Amitabha Bagchi
Apratim Sarkar
dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
>Hoyto mohila ektu aNtel achhen etai chhobite bolte chaichhilen
>Aparna.
Kimba ektu nekushona. Anjan Datter character'ta besh gombhir aNtel
jodiyo. Upanyash'r sesh patate swagotokti likhe rakhe. Puro class
eight'r Joyce.
>IDG
Srabani Banerjee
Apratim likhechhe
> Srabani Banerjee <BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>
> >> Kimba simplistic.
> >
> >`simplistic' kano? kon byapar-take simplify kora hoyechhe
> >bole monet hoy?
>
> E byapar'ta, Srabani, ekdom relative.
tai? achchha, tai jodi hoy, tahole tomar kano simplistic monet hoy
sheta bolo. sheta-i to jante chailam.
> >Ja hok, straightforward hole insufferable hobar
> >> asubidhe kothaye?
> >
> >oi storyline-tar khetre `insufferable' kotha-ta ektu strong monet holo,
> >tai bollam arki.
>
> Shubu'r biye'r gappo amar eki shange straightforward ebong insufferable
> mone hoy. Tabe Juganto Shubu'r biye'r gapper ek kathi opore.
dekho, tomar kono chance nei jani, kintu ami ekta nemontonno paoar
kheen asha rakhi. baaje kotha bole sheta bheste dio na.
> >tobe opinion niye torko chole na.
>
> ;-)
>
> >> Proyato Sibram Chakraborty adhunik kobita lekha'r ekta shortcut method
> >> bolechhilen. Prothome ekti issue-centric khaborer kagoj bar korte hobe,
> >> tarpor shetike kuti kuti kore chhNiRe akash'e uRiye dite hobe.
> >> Tukrogulo jekhane jemon poRlo, kuriye ene collage baniye tar modhye
> >> "kaste", "haturi", "kaker birjo", e dharaner kichhu katha chhaRiye
> >> dilei fasclass ekti adhunik kobita neme jabe.
> >
> >
> >:)
> >hobe hoyto, ami kobita-i bishesh bujhina, tar abar adhunik kobita.
>
> Cinema bojho bolchho tabe? Adhunik cinema? :-)
adhunik cinema kaake bole Apratim?
> >Aparna Sen e'i
> >> technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
> >
> >ei tuku bole chheDe dile cholbe? tumi-i na bolle je `Juganto'
> >dekhar por amar jetuku buddhi chhilo tao lop peyechhe?
>
> Balai shat!
deny korchho?
> >bujhiye
> >bolo ta'le. cinema to ar kobita noy, Juganto-te kothay apotti sheta
> >bolo. `kuriye ene collage' bananote? manet ekta linear plot thakle
> >bhalo hoto bolchho?
>
> Apotti ki she to tomake bohubar bolechhi personal communication'e.
dekho bhai, personal communication ja bolechho tar theke to ekta
kotha-i bujhlam - je aNtel-der niye chhobi banale sheta tomar pochhondo
hobe na. ekhon-o ki tai bolchho?
> SCB'te onyo keu jante utsahi hole janabo. Ekta katha balo to,
> Juganto to dekhlam tomar recommendation'e, kyano tomar bhalo
> legechhe eta to ekhono bolle na?
:) kano, `recommendation'-er shomoy `personal communication'-e
bolechhilam to.
Proshno'ta Arnab'keo. Juganto
> kyano bhalo cinema?
kano Apratim? naach achhe, gaan achhe, prem achhe, phoshti-noshti achhe,
tomar ar ki chai?
Srabani
sayan bhattacharyya
Srabani Banerjee <BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Apratim likhechhe
>
>> Cinema bojho bolchho tabe? Adhunik cinema? :-)
>
>adhunik cinema kaake bole Apratim?
Isn't cinema, in and of itself, a modern art form? The cinema
is just over a hundred years old, and the first movies in the
real sense of the word (F.W. Griffith, early Eisenstein, Murnau
etc) date from the 10s and 20s of this century, a period which
also saw the rise of "modernism" in literature (e.g. Joyce, the
Russian symbolists like Blok and Mayakovsky etc) and in art (e.g.
Dada and Cubism). Thus in a real sense the cinema was a form
which was modernist ("adhunik") right from the moment of its
origin. There simply was NO pre-modern cinema.
Thus the phrase "adhunik cinema" as used as above seems rather
redundant and bizarre, as it implies a contrast to some kind of
pre-adhunik cinema, but no such beast exists.
Indranil
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: Shubu'r biye'r gappo amar eki shange straightforward ebong insufferable
: mone hoy. Tabe Juganto Shubu'r biye'r gapper ek kathi opore.
Tai Apra?
Naki nemontonno pabe na bole angur phol tok?
IDG
Indranil
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
Sayan tumi pher aNtlamo shuru korechho?
IDG
Indranil
Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Indranil-da likhechhe:
: > Hoyto mohila ektu aNtel achhen etai chhobite bolte chaichhilen
: > Aparna. Tobe shob miliye Probal-er bolishtho shwikaroktir shathe onek-ei
: > akmot. Oneke bhoye kichhu bolchhen na.
: tumi ki kore janle? tNara tomake bolechhen? tumi nirbhoy-e bole dite
: paaro.
K-k-kothata ami protyahar kore nichchhi.
: Srabani-r camp-er lokera chokh
: > pakiye achhe.
: `Srabani-r camp'??? shekhane kara achhen ektu haat tulben bhai?
Kon haat? Je duto pichhmoDa kore bNadha?
IDG
Apratim Sarkar
Shubhendu amake invite korbe na hotei pare na. Ami ki tomader
moto kalka jogi, shei 80's'r shuru'r theke oke moral support diye
ashchhi.
Apratim Sarkar
Aha korte dao, korte dao - context'ta bhabo.
bane...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
Indranil-da likhechhe:
>
> : > Hoyto mohila ektu aNtel achhen etai chhobite bolte chaichhilen
> : > Aparna. Tobe shob miliye Probal-er bolishtho shwikaroktir shathe onek-ei
> : > akmot. Oneke bhoye kichhu bolchhen na.
>
> : tumi ki kore janle? tNara tomake bolechhen? tumi nirbhoy-e bole dite
> : paaro.
>
> K-k-kothata ami protyahar kore nichchhi.
bhalo dhong shikhechho to!
> : Srabani-r camp-er lokera chokh
> : > pakiye achhe.
>
> : `Srabani-r camp'??? shekhane kara achhen ektu haat tulben bhai?
>
> Kon haat? Je duto pichhmoDa kore bNadha?
ei re! tumi ki bhabo shob camp-ei tomar camp-er niyom khate?
Srabani
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
sayan bhattacharyya
>On 6 Feb 1997, Apratim Sarkar wrote:
>>
>> technique'ti cinema'te niye eshechhen Juganto boiti'te.
I haven't seen this film, but if it is just the aspect of "collage" that
you are talking about, that is nothing new in cinema. Sergei Eisenstein
used this technique ("montage") to remarkable effect ("Battleship
Potemkin" dekhechhen?) , and many others have used it ever since.
sayan bhattacharyya
In article <5dqa6s$o...@news.bu.edu>, Indranil <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>
>Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
>korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
>arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
>kichhu bolo. Apra-Sayan-der cheye tomar kothar dam beshi.
I haven't seen this film and if you read carefully, you'll find that
I was commenting neither on "Juganto", nor on "Sen", but was
responding to the term "adhunik cinema" which some poster had used.
"Juganto" may or may not be a good film, but it had nothing to do
with my comment.
sayan bhattacharyya
>: In article <5dni2k$a...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
>: >Sayan tumi pher aNtlamo shuru korechho?
Ami to chirokal-i kore thaki | oTa borong Apratim-er kora baron aachhe --
Apurba-babu onake baron kore diyechhen ("aNtlamo" korle naki Apratim-er
alma mater-er opoman hoy) |
Apratim Sarkar
In article <5dqa6s$o...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
>O. Tahole thik achhe. Shekhetre tumi Juganto-ke utttor-adhunik bolle
>hoyto Sayan-Srabani-ra lufe nebe.
Na tumi context'ta bujhte bhul korchho.
>Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
>korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
>arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
>kichhu bolo.
Seconded.
>Apra-Sayan-der cheye tomar kothar dam beshi.
Sayan'o Juganta niye kichhu bolechhe naki? Uff, pari na to! Kothay
kothay? PoRte hochchhe ...
>IDG
sayan bhattacharyya
Amitabha Bagchi <bag...@hops.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>It is really unfortunate that even Bengali's have become so
>perfect film or even a great film but it is a sensitive and honest film
>which makes a real effort to explore a complex set of issues.
You have touched on an important point and I agree with your
first sentence.
First of all, I don't understand why is it that these people are
up in arms against "intellectualism". What is the problem
with using one's intellect? Just as athletic prowess is a human
capability, intelligence is also a human capability. Why should
using the intellect be worthy of ridicule? If someone uses one's
leg muscles to jog 15 miles, do we accuse that person of "legism"?
Yet if someone tries to use one's thinking power, he or she is
accused of "intellectualism", jeno chor-daye dhora poRechhe |
Of course, empty posturing, vacuous and pretentious display of
intellect and stupidity masquerading as wisdom are worthy of
contempt. But if any and every attempt to use one's intelligence,
to analyze and appreciate works of art, to solve problems, or
to understand society, even attempts undertaken in good faith,
invite charges of "intellectualism" and are ridiculed, that is
not a healthy sign. In particular, a refusal to use one's
intelligence directly plays into the hand of those who wield
hegemonic power in society and would rather not like that people
analyze, think, mentate and ask questions. One suspects that
the emperors of the market-place who stand to benefit from the
status quo are tacitly behind this "anti-intellectualist" drive
-- the danger is too great that the emperors' new clothes will
be seen through once too many people start thinking for themselves.
The emperors of the market-place cannot afford to let this happen,
naturally, and so their lackeys are so obsessive in their
"anti-intellectual" crusade !
sayan bhattacharyya
[NOTES
1) This is a LONG posting, completely irrelevant to s.c.b.
Read at your own risk.
2) Don't blame me for cluttering up the newsgroup. Blame Rajib Doogar.
He asked for it.
3) I will not post any further on this thread in the interest
of sticking to the scb charter.]
rajib doogar <rdo...@darwin.helios.nd.edu> wrote:
>While the last assertion
>excerpted from sayan's post is proof that he is definitely an
>intellectal, it also exemplifies why there may be good reason to
>dislike many displays of intellectual activity since they tend to
>produce fat headed, pompous and generally asinine and vacuous
>statements of which this excerpt is a choice specimen.
Unlike the anti-intellectualism that gets bandied around so
often in this newsgroup, Rajib's criticism of me above is
one which I can take in good spirit. Why? Because Rajiv has
argued his case cogently, and when he has criticized me above, he
has criticized me WITH SUBSTANCE, instead of with the snide remarks
that are usually made in this newsgroup in the name of
criticism, which are made without any reason or substance. I
applaud and welcome Rajib's comments.
>E.g. the so called intellectual activity consists of setting up
>generic whipping boys such as "emperors of the market place" associate
>
>Sayan conveniently brushes under the carpet the uncomfortable truth that
>the market while by no means perfect still does act as an aggregator
>of people's preferences --
Rajib misunderstands the connotation of what I meant by "emperors
of the market-place"; I urge him to note that I used the word
"market-place", not "market". The two are different, and this
could have immediately alerted him to the fact that it was not the
market as an abstract idea that economists concern themselves about,
that I was primarily referring to (although I admit that it WAS
present as a subtext to my comment, but only as a subtext). In
fact, my "emperors of the market-place" was almost a literal
translation of the well-known phrase "idola fori" (literally, idols
of the forum, or idols of the market-place -- recall that "forum" is
the literal Greek word for "market-place"). I invite Rajib to
look up "idola fori" in the dictionary, or in Fowler's Guide
to Modern English Usage, and I think this will make clear to
him what sense I intended.
Now for the subtext: yes, I agree with Rajib that the market does
indeed guarantee the people's will in a remarkably efficient
way under certain conditions (and Rajib will note that the market
will indeed play a significant role in the concrete proposals
for a communitarian society that I will submit below in response
to his request). Having said that, I believe that the market as
it exists now is a profoundly unfree market (read Rayak's book
"Not So Free to Choose"), and it is the authoritarian forces
of hegemonic institutions, usually of the State but increasingly
of transnational corporatism, that in many instances make it behave
the way it is. As for "people's preferences", surely Rajib
understands that preferences, like consent, can be manufactured
and the way social conditioning operates, again through hegemonic
institutions in society, to facilitate such conditioning.
>After ignoring all these useful attributes of markets, sayan has then
>in the past, blamed the market system for producing what he in
>high-minded euphoria terms junk (and thereby subtly elevates his
>tastes over that of the hoi-polloi) or more justifiably, social
>inequality.
Wrong. Sayan has not blamed the market system per se, but the distortions
in it introduced by the unequal playing field that players in the
market start out from.
>Questions for you sayan:
>
>The challenge is simple:
I accept the challenge.
>put forth a constructible system (in the
>sense of laying out the assumptions and then using those assumptions
>to derive logical implictions for the conduct of individuals within
>the system) that does NOT rely on everybody being a goody two shoes
>altruist to prevent social injstice while also preserving the ability
>to satisfy needs that you personally would find abhorrent. If such a
>system is constructible, more power to you, but you have not done so
>yet in spite of your profuse and hugely abstruse postings on the
>subject. As they say, it takes a system to beat a system, so tell me
>how your system would be better. Otherwise, live with it. It ain't
>perfect but its the best I (and you) got.
>
>go for it.
I will bite. I will go for it. (Yeah ! :-)) Don't blame me for
transgressing the scb charter, it's all Rajib's fault :-)
My vision has been shaped by the ideas of Peter Burns, a Jesuit
priest who is also a socialist and whose book is due to be published
shortly. Since I substantially agree with Burns in this matter,
I will reply to your question by letting Burns speak for himself
(this will also save me time). I am quoting Burns:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism 1 (Definition)
Short definition:
democratic socialism is that social system
that seeks to realize freedom, equality,
justice, and welfare on the basis of the
social ownership, democratic control, and
cooperative management of society's principal
means of production and principal public institutions
Longer elaboration:
A democratic socialist is one who seeks to build
a society that is marked by freedom, equality,
justice, cooperation, and solidarity, and in which
at least the minimum level of material welfare that
is the condition for the realization and fulfilment
of human individuality and sociality is made available
to all.
As means to these ends, the democratic socialist seeks
a socioeconomic system with the following characteristics:
1) the predominantly social and cooperative ownership of capital;
2) the predominantly democratic and cooperative self-management
of productive enterprises by their respective workforces;
3) the democratic planning of new investment, with the goal
of providing all able-bodied persons with meaningful employment
opportunities within a socially and environmentally sustainable
economic dynamic;
4) the regulation of the market in the public
interest (in those areas where the market is allowed to operate),
especially with a view to the protection of workers, consumers and
the natural environment, and the restriction of income inequalities
flowing from market processes to levels that fall short of those
that would generate persistent structural inequalities of power,
status, or wealth;
5) the adequate provision, as rights of citizenship,
of all basic human needs, including income, education,
health-care, and other services essential to human dignity;
6) the fostering in all public policies of an internationalist,
egalitarian, solidaristic, anti-racist and anti-sexist public
culture.
7) the broadest feasible levels of participation and accountability
in political debate, in the seeking of political office, and in the
exercize of political authority;
8) the effective guarantee of civil liberties and rights,
including freedom of speech and of the press, of assembly
and association, of conscience and religion, and the rights
relevant to fair legal process.
-- Peter Burns SJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism 2 (Basic Economic Structure)
This is an elaboration of the basic economic structure of a
society which would meet the definition contained in Socialism 1.
The democratic socialist society is one in which, though
they still operate, the market and the profit-motive
do not dominate social relations and exchanges. We need
to distinguish "market forces"--the atomistic, anarchic
determination of investment and the structure of
production for private profit by a privileged class--on
the one hand, from "market exchanges" on the other--the
use of flexible, non-centrally determined money prices as
a mechanism of distribution for a range of goods and
services, a source of information about costs, demand, and
as an incentive mechanism for efficient work. Socialism
requires the abolition of 'market forces' but can coexist
with the 'market exchanges'. My position would be,
therefore:
1. There should be planning of the *aggregate* level and broad
composition of *investment* by democratically accountable
public agencies, with the aim of ensuring full employment
and adequate productivity and infrastructure
improvements, but within a framework of long-term
commitment to ecological sustainability.
2. There should be a large nonmarket, public sector
for education, health care, social services, parks
and other leisure facilities, libraries, public transport,
etc., and an income-support system to ensure decent nutrition,
housing, etc for all those unable to support themselves
through employment, as well as a decent minimum income for
those who do.
3. Major industries in the transportation, energy, and
telecommunications sectors should be publicly owned, i.e.
central or local government should hold a portion of the stock,
with perhaps trade union pension funds, Social Security funds,
consumers and employees holding the rest. Individual enterprises
in other sectors should be worker self-managed but "socially"
owned, with various ownership rights disaggregated and
distributed between the workers, democratically accountable
investment banks, and local, state, and federal government. In
such worker controlled but socially owned enterprises, net
profits would go to the workforce, but their capital assets would
not be owned by the workforce, or alienable by them, and part of
the profits would be mandated as a depreciation fund to replace
worn out capital stock. New additional investment would be
funded by a tax on capital assets, which would be collected and
allocated by the investment banks, which themselves would be
self-managing enterprises, and the income of whose officials
would depend on how well they invested the funds at their
disposal, thus providing incentives for efficient investment
allocation. They would also be responsible for setting up new
worker-controlled enterprises in promising sectors of the
economy, and for winding up failing enterprises within their
portfolios in consultation with workforce and community leaders.
Local, state and federal governments would set the capital assets
tax rate, and could influence investment by adjusting the general
rates as well as by lowering the rate for specified sectors with
high social returns on investment, and increasing it for
specified sectors which impose high social costs. Government
would also provide a legal and regulatory framework governing the
investment banks' activities. In addition to these public
industries and the socially owned, worker-controlled enterprises,
both small private cooperatives (where the workers would have
full ownership rights to the capital) and self-employment would
also be permitted.
4. Where it operates, the market would be held in check by
regulation covering matters like workplace health and safety,
product safety, and environmental protection, and by a progressive
taxation system to finance the nonmarket sectors of the economy.
In this system, enterprises would have to produce and price their
products within the parameters laid down by the aggregate and
sectoral investment plans. Though plan and market would check and
balance each other, democratic politics would definitely be in command
through public control over investment and regulation of production
units, and the counterweight of the tax-financed nonmarket public
sectors.
Democratically accountable investment banks would monitor firms in
their portfolio, and would be required to appraise individual
investments not simply on the basis of individual enterprise
profitability, but using "social return" criteria to take care of
major externalities (e.g. pollution), monopoly power, and community
and local needs. Investment and production would not be
determined atomistically, but in a consciously coordinated way, with the
banks required to make public their investment plans, so that
the aggregate level and composition of investment could be assessed
and approved by independent public officials, with a view to warding
off recessionary or inflationary trends. But once the plans had been
set, enterprises would not be under centralized operational management
and control (unlike the Soviet Union), but would respond autonomously to
the pattern of demand that resulted from the interplay of plan and
market, with those responding effectively having the financial incentive
to do so, since net enterprise profits would go to the workforces of
each firm. But the tax and public provision systems would act as a
powerful redistributive mechanism to offset large inequalities. In any
case there would be no income merely from owning private capital, since
all net enterprise profits would be paid to the workforce. So that would
lessen inequalities in the first place. The system would operate
something like Swedish social democracy, only transformed into
socialism by the addition of public investment planning, socialized
ownership, and workers' self-management,
For how a model like this would work, and its many advantages over
both capitalism and total central planning, see D. Schweickart,
AGAINST CAPITALISM, Cambridge University Press, 1993. I am also
nearing completion of a book on how such a system would be an
apt secular mediation and realization of Catholic social teaching.
-- Peter Burns SJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism 3 (Some objections answered)
1. "The concept of social ownership is vague and
ambiguous"
The concept of social ownership is NOT vague or ambiguous.
The disaggregated rights and the manner of their distribution
can be spelled out quite precisely and embedded explicitly
in the positive law of a society adopting social ownership.
2. "Socialism leaves no room for the dynamism and innovation of
small businesses"
Restaurants, cafes, hair salons, garages, and other
small businesses would be privately owned or run as
private cooperatives because the owners would
standardly be workers in these cases and would be
paid on the basis of their being workers, not simply
owners. Businesses that grew to a predetermined size
would be converted to the self-managing socialized form
via a gradual process involving the issuance of dividend
bearing stock to the socially owned investment banks. The
workers would get the money from the issuance of the
stock, and the banks could use dividends to buy further
stock issues. Once the investment banks controlled enough
capital, the firm would convert to being worker-controlled
socialized enterprise, and cease to be a privately owned
cooperative.
3. "Socialism would damage entrepreneurship and
undermine the development of managerial talent"
All workers in a worker-controlled firm, including
entrepreneurial and managerial workers, would have a
collective right to the net profits once the capital
assets and other taxes had been deducted. Within each
firm the distribution of this surplus would be decided
by democratic vote (various types of democratic process
would apply depending on the size of firm). Workers
would have a strong incentive to keep good managers and
entrepreneurial talent within their own firms, since
this would benefit their short run income and long term
security. By competing for good managers and
entrepreneurial talent, worker-controlled firms would
ensure good financial incentives for such personnel,
but would also have an incentive not to pay the
outlandish remuneration which top executives often
receive under capitalism.
4. "Socialism would not be able to allocate
investment capital efficiently, since those making the
decisions would have no incentive to perform well."
Workers in the investment agencies would operate on a
similar basis to those in other worker-controlled
firms--they would receive the net profits of the
enterprise. The banks' income would derive from fees
for successful investment decisions. These fees would
be paid out of a publicly fixed difference between the
rates of capital assets tax paid by non-bank firms, and
the rates of capital assets tax paid by the banks
themselves. Poorly allocated investment funds would
mean the banks would have less ability to collect the
tax from non-bank enterprises to which they had
allocated funds. When the tax became too onerous
relative to the income of a firm (this could be
specified by a set formula), then the bank involved in
allocating investment to that firm would be penalized.
Thus, poor investment decisions would hurt bank
officials' income. But the bank officials would not be
owners of the capital funds they invested (just as with
most capitalist banks, mutual funds, pension funds,
insurance companies, etc.)
5. "Socialism would damage the process of market
competition without which there would be economic
stagnation"
In general there would be no barriers to entry or exit of
firms from a particular market, though planning would aim
at full employment in the aggregate. Any group of
workers could set up a firm if they managed to convince
an investment bank to supply them with capital. I.e.
workers would be free to hire capital at the prevailing
capital assets tax rate (just as current capitalist firms
are able to borrow capital at the prevailing interest
rate or to raise capital on the stock market), and thus
enter into competition with other worker-controlled
firms. But no-one's income would be derived simply from
owning capital, and the capital assets tax would not be
used, unlike interest and dividends, to support luxurious
consumption by a privileged minority class.
6. "There would be no incentive for individuals to
save under socialism"
Private savings would be used mostly for state insurance
schemes of various kinds including pensions, and for
financing housing and consumer loans. Some of the saving
would be mandatory (as in Social Security), but worker
could decide for themselves how much they wanted to save
for additional pension benefits, home insurance coverage,
etc. Workers pension funds could be partly invested in
the major publicly owned industries, such as energy
utilities, transportation, and telecommunications.
-- Peter Burns SJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
rajib doogar
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: First of all, I don't understand why is it that these people are
: up in arms against "intellectualism". What is the problem
: with using one's intellect? Just as athletic prowess is a human
ok.
: Of course, empty posturing, vacuous and pretentious display of
: intellect and stupidity masquerading as wisdom are worthy of
: contempt. But if any and every attempt to use one's intelligence,
ok but then ...
: The emperors of the market-place cannot afford to let this happen,
: naturally, and so their lackeys are so obsessive in their
: "anti-intellectual" crusade !
reminds me of the proposition that an intellectual is one whose
intellect resides in their lower jaw. While the last assertion
excerpted from sayan's post is proof that he is definitely an
intellectal, it also exemplifies why there may be good reason to
dislike many displays of intellectual activity since they tend to
produce fat headed, pompous and generally asinine and vacuous
statements of which this excerpt is a choice specimen.
E.g. the so called intellectual activity consists of setting up
generic whipping boys such as "emperors of the market place" associate
them with status quo (this part deleted for brevity) and then
ascribing all manner of anti-intellectual motives to them. Sayan
apllies labels that are meaningless: he conveniently forgets that in
any system, even in a communitarian paradigm, "conservative" forces
will exist -- the same charge of perpetuating the status quo can then
be applied to them. I am not even going to bring up the notion that
this phantasm of "emperors of the market place," whoever they might be
(but rumored to be known only to sayan by direct revelation from
wherever) exists not in reality but only in the surreal landscape of a
feverishly imaginative mind where reification is not only not a sin
but indeed a mark of great intellectual acuity.
Sayan conveniently brushes under the carpet the uncomfortable truth that
the market while by no means perfect still does act as an aggregator
of people's preferences -- more so than any committee composed of a
strict subset of any communitarian population might hope to do apart
from very special cases of unanimity of preferences, simply by
providing extreme decentralization of decision making.
After ignoring all these useful attributes of markets, sayan has then
in the past, blamed the market system for producing what he in
high-minded euphoria terms junk (and thereby subtly elevates his
tastes over that of the hoi-polloi) or more justifiably, social
inequality.
Questions for you sayan:
What precisely is wrong with a market system that *your* alternative
will fix? In particular, a) how will you make it incentive compatible
for them has power to not screw over them that does not? and b) sans
a thought police, how will you ensure that "junk" does not get
produced even if that is what people want: e.g. if I want to watch
Geraldo and so do all my buddies from Joe-Six-Pack Univ. how will your
system satisfy or fail to satisfy my needs?
The challenge is simple: put forth a constructible system (in the
sense of laying out the assumptions and then using those assumptions
to derive logical implictions for the conduct of individuals within
the system) that does NOT rely on everybody being a goody two shoes
altruist to prevent social injstice while also preserving the ability
to satisfy needs that you personally would find abhorrent. If such a
system is constructible, more power to you, but you have not done so
yet in spite of your profuse and hugely abstruse postings on the
subject. As they say, it takes a system to beat a system, so tell me
how your system would be better. Otherwise, live with it. It ain't
perfect but its the best I (and you) got.
go for it.
rajib
--
Rajib Doogar http://www.nd.edu/~rdoogar
375 College of Business Administration
University of Notre Dame Ph: (219) 631 6499
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0339 Fax: (219) 631 5255
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Think as I think," said a man, "or you are abominably wicked: You are a
toad." And after I had thought of it, I said, "I will, then, be a toad."
-- Stephen Crane
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rajib doogar
sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: [NOTES
:
: 1) This is a LONG posting, completely irrelevant to s.c.b.
: Read at your own risk.
I am not sure why -- if an abstract tirade on intellectualism is
proper, then surely, the construction of a system in which true
intellectuals can flourish is also proper for scb.
: 2) Don't blame me for cluttering up the newsgroup. Blame Rajib Doogar.
: He asked for it.
those that want to blame will blame since you posted it (your
response) not I. also I didn't start this thread (nor did you but you
did choose to respond and post your message on scb too). however, if
my goading you be a criminal violation of scb charter, then I proudly
say "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa." I personally think
this discussion, if it stays understandable and doesn't go off into
abstruse word-smithery, may be perfectly appropriate for the group.
there are a lot of intellectuals who read this group, so why not?
this is an issue which we will both examine using examples from our
lives and experiences and I will definitely use Bengal (or what I know
of it anyway) as a filter and as a test-bed for this
gedankenexperiment, so why not? I could give more reasons but between
one and two I think I have covered both bases: audience interest and
relevance to Bengal. So there it is.
: 3) I will not post any further on this thread in the interest
: of sticking to the scb charter.]
Agreed. shouldn't intrude on unwilling people's bandwidth.
Sayan: You have made a long post and I hope that it will be
entertaining and educational. I'm not going to reply to it right now
off the top because I really want to try and understand afresh your
perspective and I have classes to run to. So I am going to save it,
read it and then reply over the weekend -- meanwhile do post the
preferred mode of public discourse and the appropriate group -- maybe
alt.india.progressive or whatever it is called (I'll look it up but
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.)
And everybody else, in the same spirit as sayan, if this was a waste of
your time, my apologies.
back to browse mode till the next itch comes along ...
rajib
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com
I guess nobody would be interested in maligning individuals with a
sensible intellect , who exercise their intelligence and power of thought
and analysis for non-nefarious purposes. However, as you rightly pointed
out Sayan-da,pretentious display of intellectual prowess is contemptible.
With a casual glance at every facet of out quotidien existence, we ae
sure to find a sample of such stupendous ignorance masquerading as
profoundly wise. This uncalled for display of intellectuality ( AaNtlami)
is amply evident in people discussing the sculpture of Rodin, or art of
Picasso, or the soul of Pete Seegar's music without an iota of knowledge
in these fields.Moreover,these AaNtels enjoy participating in
inconsequential and unwise debates and discussions on topics with little
or no relevance in their lives. It's these exercises in futility that
characterize these epitomes of hollow intellectualism and hence are
,undoubtedly,objects of ridicules from laymen in every walk of life.
Of course, if one derives immense pleasure in delving into these abstract
phenomena and topics,one is welcome to imbibe their ethereal charm.But
engaging in a pretentious act of intellectual evaluations of these topics
and phenomena, with the underlying shallowness of a reef, to impress the
rank and file is most unwelcome. And, with a few honourable exceptions,
most AaNtels do fall into this stereotypic category of tomfoolery and
pretention.
The lack of analysis and thoughts is a nemesis to human civilization,-
not just because it generates puppets or plays decisively into the
"sinister" plots of imperialists , as you would like to have us believe
Sayan-da, but because it curtails brusquely the progress of the frontiers
of knowledge and evolution. Unfortunately,such awkward display of hollow
intellectualism definitely is nothing better,- probably far worse.
-Apurba Krishna Sircar
"I can resist everything but Temptation" -oscar Wilde
In article <5drgoh$1i6$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) wrote:
>
> Amitabha Bagchi <bag...@hops.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >It is really unfortunate that even Bengali's have become so
> >de-intellectualised that they say things like this. Jugaanto may not be a
> >perfect film or even a great film but it is a sensitive and honest film
> >which makes a real effort to explore a complex set of issues.
>
> You have touched on an important point and I agree with your
> first sentence.
>
> First of all, I don't understand why is it that these people are
> up in arms against "intellectualism". What is the problem
> with using one's intellect? Just as athletic prowess is a human
> capability, intelligence is also a human capability. Why should
> using the intellect be worthy of ridicule? If someone uses one's
> leg muscles to jog 15 miles, do we accuse that person of "legism"?
> Yet if someone tries to use one's thinking power, he or she is
> accused of "intellectualism", jeno chor-daye dhora poRechhe |
>
> Of course, empty posturing, vacuous and pretentious display of
> intellect and stupidity masquerading as wisdom are worthy of
> contempt. But if any and every attempt to use one's intelligence,
> to analyze and appreciate works of art, to solve problems, or
> to understand society, even attempts undertaken in good faith,
> invite charges of "intellectualism" and are ridiculed, that is
> not a healthy sign. In particular, a refusal to use one's
> intelligence directly plays into the hand of those who wield
> hegemonic power in society and would rather not like that people
> analyze, think, mentate and ask questions. One suspects that
> the emperors of the market-place who stand to benefit from the
> status quo are tacitly behind this "anti-intellectualist" drive
> -- the danger is too great that the emperors' new clothes will
> be seen through once too many people start thinking for themselves.
> The emperors of the market-place cannot afford to let this happen,
> naturally, and so their lackeys are so obsessive in their
> "anti-intellectual" crusade !
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
rajib doogar
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com wrote:
: I guess nobody would be interested in maligning individuals with a
: sensible intellect , who exercise their intelligence and power of thought
: and analysis for non-nefarious purposes. However, as you rightly pointed
: out Sayan-da,pretentious display of intellectual prowess is contemptible.
what would constitute a non-nefarious purpose? how does discussing
Rodin constitute nefarious activity?
: With a casual glance at every facet of out quotidien existence, we ae
>> ota quotidian hole aaro upojukto hoto
: sure to find a sample of such stupendous ignorance masquerading as
: profoundly wise. This uncalled for display of intellectuality ( AaNtlami)
quotidian mane jodio "everyday" kora jay, shadharonto ei shabdoTi
mundane'er poorjyyaobachi rupe byabohar kora hoy. kintu everyday
ebong mundane'r modhye ekTa shukkho bhed royecche. ta aapni ki
everyday bolte cheyecchen na ki mundane? karon amar everyday life'e
Rodin alochona koraTa hole-o hoite paare, kintu amar mundane life'e
ekkebarei hoy na. tai ignoranceTa stupendous hok aar jayi hok, aapni
kon jiboner kotha ingit korcchen doya kore dhoriye deben? Amar
sthulo-buddhite je everyday are mundane ek noy.
: is amply evident in people discussing the sculpture of Rodin, or art of
: Picasso, or the soul of Pete Seegar's music without an iota of knowledge
: in these fields.Moreover,these AaNtels enjoy participating in
isn't is antel to presume that oe must know Rabindranath's family
history including the layout of Jorasanko and Santiniketan by heart
before saying "Mairi, shotyi tini gurudeb!" after reading oi aashe..
Picasso ke dekhe "mairi kon theker gyanja Tenecchilo re?" proshno
koraTa ki nitantoi impermissible? Seegar'er gaan bhalo lagte hole ki
IU's conservatory theke Ph.D. laagbe? Jodi uttor dyan "Na, moTey
laagbe na." Tahole apnar ei uktir orthoTa ektu sposhTo kore deben?
cchoto cchoto shobde. mairi amar mathaTa cchoto ki na, ghilu'r boddo
obhab, ja ache taar opor ayato Taan poDecche idaning je aar kuliye
uthTe paarcchi na.
: inconsequential and unwise debates and discussions on topics with little
: or no relevance in their lives. It's these exercises in futility that
: characterize these epitomes of hollow intellectualism and hence are
: ,undoubtedly,objects of ridicules from laymen in every walk of life.
which this isn't of course. not with all the judgements about unwise
and useless etc.. What exactly is "useful" anyway? and of course
laymen cannot have judgments and even worse would be a layman with
intellectual ambitions. wow!!! phaTaphaTi. buser TikiT kaTte'o M.A.
lagbe dekcchi.
:
: Of course, if one derives immense pleasure in delving into these abstract
: phenomena and topics,one is welcome to imbibe their ethereal charm.But
: engaging in a pretentious act of intellectual evaluations of these topics
: and phenomena, with the underlying shallowness of a reef, to impress the
: rank and file is most unwelcome. And, with a few honourable exceptions,
: most AaNtels do fall into this stereotypic category of tomfoolery and
: pretention.
and using 50 cent words where 2 cent words will do is not eh? what
precisely is your definition of pretention though? using language as
a barrier to clear expression is obviously not within that purview.
btw: reefs can be quite deep you know.
: The lack of analysis and thoughts is a nemesis to human civilization,-
: not just because it generates puppets or plays decisively into the
: "sinister" plots of imperialists , as you would like to have us believe
: Sayan-da, but because it curtails brusquely the progress of the frontiers
: of knowledge and evolution. Unfortunately,such awkward display of hollow
gyanjale gyan baDe na jantam, kintu ekkebare Darwin'ke-o maat kora jay
jantam na. Tansen gaan geye deepak jaliye diten shuinecchilam kintu
apnar aDDay je taar theke beshi kyaramat royecche moshai. apnader
theke aashte paarle hoto.
: intellectualism definitely is nothing better,- probably far worse.
mool uktiTa je ki, ebong sheTake eto phenalen kyano jodi bujhiye dyan,
kritogNyo hobo.
sheshaangshe kritogNyota shikar kore ni: jomiyecchaen bhalo moshai.
loDe jaan, emon roshalo jinish peDe aapni ebong aaro duekjone, jamon
dhorun mukhujje moshay taNr coolie choritro bishleshon prostut kore,
bohudin pore scbke jagiye tulecchen. dirghojibi ebong bohupholi hon
apanara, e anonder dhara'e jyano kono byaghat na ghoTe.
:
: -Apurba Krishna Sircar
: "I can resist everything but Temptation" -oscar Wilde
and apparently you cannot resist rushing in where ...
cheers,
Indranil
bane...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu wrote:
: Indranil-da likhechhe:
: > K-k-kothata ami protyahar kore nichchhi.
: bhalo dhong shikhechho to!
Ch-ch-chote jeo na please.
: > : Srabani-r camp-er lokera chokh
: > : > pakiye achhe.
: > : `Srabani-r camp'??? shekhane kara achhen ektu haat tulben bhai?
: > Kon haat? Je duto pichhmoDa kore bNadha?
: ei re! tumi ki bhabo shob camp-ei tomar camp-er niyom khate?
Kom bole phellam naki? Tahole ki tomar camp-e dhoka matro-i, "Yeh haath
mujhe de de Thakur!" bole tumi du-haate khanda niye ...?
Thak ar bollam na.
Valentine's Day-r din ki korchho?
IDG
Indranil
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: In article <5dniku$a...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
: >Tai Apra?
: >Naki nemontonno pabe na bole angur phol tok?
: Shubhendu amake invite korbe na hotei pare na. Ami ki tomader
: moto kalka jogi, shei 80's'r shuru'r theke oke moral support diye
: ashchhi.
Amio shei bhoy-i korechhilam. Orokom moral support pele shadharon loker
nervous breakdown hoye jete pare. Nehat Shubu-babu "average Joe" non.
Tumi onar kill-file theke berote parle borong Boston-e ekbar nemontonno
kore age khaiye dao.
IDG
Indranil
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: >O. Tahole thik achhe. Shekhetre tumi Juganto-ke utttor-adhunik bolle
: >hoyto Sayan-Srabani-ra lufe nebe.
: Na tumi context'ta bujhte bhul korchho.
Kano? Kano? Bujhiye bolo ektu.
: >Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
: >korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
: >arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
: >kichhu bolo.
: Seconded.
: >Apra-Sayan-der cheye tomar kothar dam beshi.
: Sayan'o Juganta niye kichhu bolechhe naki? Uff, pari na to! Kothay
: kothay? PoRte hochchhe ...
Ota pre-emptive strike niyechhilam ar ki. Cinema-ta na dekhe bolbe ki
kore? E to ar Mondragon noy je keu dekhe eshe bhul dhorte parbe na!
IDG
Indranil
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: In article <5dqa6s$o...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
: >Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
: >korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
: >arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
: >kichhu bolo.
: Seconded.
Apra, tomar ki mone hoy Srabani "Juganto"-r kono choritrer shathe
nijeke identify korchhe?
IDG
Srabani Banerjee
Indranil-da likhechhe:
> : > K-k-kothata ami protyahar kore nichchhi.
>
> : bhalo dhong shikhechho to!
>
> Ch-ch-chote jeo na please.
better and better. kothay shikhle?
> : > : Srabani-r camp-er lokera chokh
> : > : > pakiye achhe.
>
> : > : `Srabani-r camp'??? shekhane kara achhen ektu haat tulben bhai?
>
> : > Kon haat? Je duto pichhmoDa kore bNadha?
>
> : ei re! tumi ki bhabo shob camp-ei tomar camp-er niyom khate?
>
> Kom bole phellam naki? Tahole ki tomar camp-e dhoka matro-i, "Yeh haath
> mujhe de de Thakur!" bole tumi du-haate khanda niye ...?
>
> Thak ar bollam na.
kano?
> Valentine's Day-r din ki korchho?
shunlam baDir kachhe ekta theatre-e `Kama Sutra' release korchhe.
tomra ki korchho?
Srabani
Srabani Banerjee
Indranil-da likhechhe:
dhyat! ta ki kore hobe? ami ki naachte pari naki?
tobe oi cinema-r `gombheer aNtel'-er moto lok kintu onek dekhechhi.
tNara Gunther Grass ar John Irving poDen.
Srabani
Indranil
: > Apra, tomar ki mone hoy Srabani "Juganto"-r kono choritrer shathe
: > nijeke identify korchhe?
: dhyat! ta ki kore hobe? ami ki naachte pari naki?
Shekhar cheshta korechhile to akshomoy! Kono shupto bashona thakle bolo
Sambit-er cinemay chance kore dite pari.
: tobe oi cinema-r `gombheer aNtel'-er moto lok kintu onek dekhechhi.
: tNara Gunther Grass ar John Irving poDen.
Gunther Grass ke? Unio thriller lekhen naki?
IDG
Anindya Ghoshal
Indranil (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: O. Tahole thik achhe. Shekhetre tumi Juganto-ke utttor-adhunik bolle
: hoyto Sayan-Srabani-ra lufe nebe.
: Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
: korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
: arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
: kichhu bolo. Apra-Sayan-der cheye tomar kothar dam beshi.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Columbini Ms. Monet-er kotha ki karone Sir Oracle ba Commune-nibashir
kothar chaite more expensive ?? Manet taki clear korben Indranil Babu? ;-)
: IDG
rgds
Anindya ;-)
--
email address: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu
Life is a series of stochastic errors.
Anindya Ghoshal
rajib doogar (rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
: sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
Please carry on the discussion.. it is enligtening. I personally don't
see why it can't be done on SCB especially when such a topic is deeply
relevant to the current Bengali society. A constructive dialogue between
socialism and free market capitalism should be done as the conflict
between these two economic forces are going
to affect cross-section of Bengalis in the coming decades..I think such
a discussion is highly relevant to SCB.
rgds,
Anindo
Indranil
Anindya Ghoshal (agho...@eng2.uconn.edu) wrote:
: Indranil (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: Columbini Ms. Monet-er kotha ki karone Sir Oracle ba Commune-nibashir
: kothar chaite more expensive ?? Manet taki clear korben Indranil Babu? ;-)
Apra ar Sayan dujonei pray-i baje boke. Srabani-ke apni kokhono phaltu
bokte shunechhen?
IDG
c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu
Srabani likhechhe :
> shunlam baDir kachhe ekta theatre-e `Kama Sutra' release korchhe.
Kamon dekhle?
> Srabani
Chaitali
c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu
In article <5e6n40$k...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
agho...@eng2.uconn.edu (Anindya Ghoshal) wrote:
> Life is a series of stochastic errors.
How about : Life is a series of stochastic truths?:-)
Apratim Sarkar
Indranil (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: : >Tai Apra?
: : >Naki nemontonno pabe na bole angur phol tok?
: : Shubhendu amake invite korbe na hotei pare na. Ami ki tomader
: : moto kalka jogi, shei 80's'r shuru'r theke oke moral support diye
: : ashchhi.
: Amio shei bhoy-i korechhilam. Orokom moral support pele shadharon loker
: nervous breakdown hoye jete pare. Nehat Shubu-babu "average Joe" non.
Nyangtar abar batparer bhoy, Indranil!
: Tumi onar kill-file theke berote parle borong Boston-e ekbar nemontonno
: kore age khaiye dao.
Shob poRe, IDG, shob poRe ...
: IDG
Apratim.
Apratim Sarkar
Indranil (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: Apra ar Sayan dujonei pray-i baje boke.
Abey!?
: Srabani-ke apni kokhono phaltu
: bokte shunechhen?
Srabani chalu maal. Defend korte parbe na emon kichchhu bole na.
Juganta'r byapare keno bhalo cinema bollo ekbaro? Hajar onyo post
korbe e thread'e kintu o line'e na. :-)
: IDG
Apratim.
Apratim Sarkar
: : >O. Tahole thik achhe. Shekhetre tumi Juganto-ke utttor-adhunik bolle
: : >hoyto Sayan-Srabani-ra lufe nebe.
: : Na tumi context'ta bujhte bhul korchho.
: Kano? Kano? Bujhiye bolo ektu.
Tomake gopone bolbo. Public forum'e bolle Sayan'r mone lagbe bole
Srabani bolte baron korechhe.
: : >Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
: : >korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
: : >arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
: : >kichhu bolo.
: : Seconded.
: : >Apra-Sayan-der cheye tomar kothar dam beshi.
: : Sayan'o Juganta niye kichhu bolechhe naki? Uff, pari na to! Kothay
: : kothay? PoRte hochchhe ...
: Ota pre-emptive strike niyechhilam ar ki. Cinema-ta na dekhe bolbe ki
: kore? E to ar Mondragon noy je keu dekhe eshe bhul dhorte parbe na!
Mondragon'r probability'r limit'ta Suprakash kore diyechhe Stirling
lagiye, actually oder h/w chhilo, ja hok pore dekhabo ...
: IDG
Apratim.
PS: Kam Sutro dekhle?
Apratim Sarkar
Indranil (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
: : In article <5dqa6s$o...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil) writes:
: : >Ami cinemata dekhi ni akhono. Tai khub mon diye alochonata onushoron
: : >korchhi. Jara cinemata-ke bhalo bolchhe/bolchhen tara kano bhalo e niye
: : >arektu guchhiye na bolle kintu akpeshe dharona hoye jabe. Srabani tumi
: : >kichhu bolo.
: : Seconded.
: Apra, tomar ki mone hoy Srabani "Juganto"-r kono choritrer shathe
: nijeke identify korchhe?
Main character'gulo eto boka je SCB'r purono dujon public chhaRa
ar karur kotha mone ante parchhi na jara identify korte paren.
Srabani ki side character'r shonge identify korbe? Mone hoy na.
: IDG
Apratim.
Indranil
Deja News-e khNuje paoa Srabani-r lekha:
-----------------------------
Indranil-da likhechhe:
> : > K-k-kothata ami protyahar kore nichchhi.
>
> : bhalo dhong shikhechho to!
>
> Ch-ch-chote jeo na please.
better and better. kothay shikhle?
------------------------------
B-b-b-b-babar kachhe.
-----------------------------
[..]
> Valentine's Day-r din ki korchho?
shunlam baDir kachhe ekta theatre-e `Kama Sutra' release korchhe.
tomra ki korchho?
-----------------------------
Dhonyo, dhonyo! Shikhkhoniyo chhobi hote pare.
Amra tomader niye golpo kore katiye dilam.
IDG
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com
In article <8562187...@dejanews.com>,
c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu wrote:
>
> In article <5e6n40$k...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
> agho...@eng2.uconn.edu (Anindya Ghoshal) wrote:
>
> > Life is a series of stochastic errors.
>
> How about : Life is a series of stochastic truths?:-)
Just a small mistake though,- should be "stochastic right decisions", I
guess.
-Apurba Krishna Sircar
"I can resist everything but Temptations" -Oscar Wilde
Srabani Banerjee
Indranil-da likhechhe:
> :
> : >
> : > Apra, tomar ki mone hoy Srabani "Juganto"-r kono choritrer shathe
> : > nijeke identify korchhe?
>
>
> Shekhar cheshta korechhile to akshomoy!
ki kore janle? tumi to ar amader school-e nach shekhate na.
Kono shupto bashona thakle bolo
> Sambit-er cinemay chance kore dite pari.
rokkhe koro!
bashona thakleo tomar recommendation-e ki ar kaaj hoto?
> : tobe oi cinema-r `gombheer aNtel'-er moto lok kintu onek dekhechhi.
> : tNara Gunther Grass ar John Irving poDen.
>
> Gunther Grass ke? Unio thriller lekhen naki?
ami janina - tomar protibeshi bhodrolok janen bodhoy.
Srabani
c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu
In article <8562929...@dejanews.com>,
asi...@atrmail2.attmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <8562187...@dejanews.com>,
> c0ba...@capella.physics.louisville.edu wrote:
> >
> > In article <5e6n40$k...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
> > agho...@eng2.uconn.edu (Anindya Ghoshal) wrote:
> >
> > > Life is a series of stochastic errors.
> >
> > How about : Life is a series of stochastic truths?:-)
>
> Just a small mistake though,- should be "stochastic right decisions", I
> guess.
Jibon shombondhe amar dharonateyo apni bhul dhorchhen? Aar to pari na:-(
Tayo ki bhagyi "I guess" kothata likhechen.
> -Apurba Krishna Sircar
Snehasis Ganguly
Anindya Ghoshal (agho...@eng2.uconn.edu) wrote:
: rajib doogar (rdo...@wood.helios.nd.edu) wrote:
: : sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: Please carry on the discussion.. it is enligtening. I personally don't
: see why it can't be done on SCB especially when such a topic is deeply
: relevant to the current Bengali society. A constructive dialogue between
: socialism and free market capitalism should be done as the conflict
: between these two economic forces are going
: to affect cross-section of Bengalis in the coming decades..I think such
: a discussion is highly relevant to SCB.
: rgds,
: Anindo
Dang Xiangpong's china started liberalizing a few years
back. It has removed poverty a lot, yet there is a hugh
gap between rich and poor there. Like a typical Capitalistic
society, a large number of Chinese are desperately unto
making money. However, there are others who couldn't
face the competition and lost their jobs[A similar
thing happened to sheep farmers in New Zeland].
Can we really conclude anything from this conflict.
The real question is, to what extent Dariwinism should
be implemented?
sayan bhattacharyya
rajib doogar <rdo...@darwin.helios.nd.edu> wrote:
>
>The challenge is simple: put forth a constructible system (in the
>sense of laying out the assumptions and then using those assumptions
>to derive logical implictions for the conduct of individuals within
>the system) that does NOT rely on everybody being a goody two shoes
>altruist to prevent social injstice while also preserving the ability
>to satisfy needs that you personally would find abhorrent.
>As they say, it takes a system to beat a system, so tell me
>how your system would be better.
>
>go for it.
>
>rajib
I accept the challenge.
My vision has been shaped by the ideas of Peter Burns, a Jesuit
priest who is also a socialist and whose book is due to be published
shortly. Since I substantially agree with Burns in this matter,
I will reply to your question by letting Burns speak for himself
(this will also save me time). I am quoting Burns:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism 1 (Definition)
Short definition:
democratic socialism is that social system
that seeks to realize freedom, equality,
justice, and welfare on the basis of the
social ownership, democratic control, and
cooperative management of society's principal
means of production and principal public institutions
Longer elaboration:
A democratic socialist is one who seeks to build
a society that is marked by freedom, equality,
justice, cooperation, and solidarity, and in which
at least the minimum level of material welfare that
is the condition for the realization and fulfilment
of human individuality and sociality is made available
to all.
As means to these ends, the democratic socialist seeks
a socioeconomic system with the following characteristics:
1) the predominantly social and cooperative ownership of capital;
2) the predominantly democratic and cooperative self-management
of productive enterprises by their respective workforces;
3) the democratic planning of new investment, with the goal
of providing all able-bodied persons with meaningful employment
opportunities within a socially and environmentally sustainable
economic dynamic;
4) the regulation of the market in the public
interest (in those areas where the market is allowed to operate),
especially with a view to the protection of workers, consumers and
the natural environment, and the restriction of income inequalities
flowing from market processes to levels that fall short of those
that would generate persistent structural inequalities of power,
status, or wealth;
5) the adequate provision, as rights of citizenship,
of all basic human needs, including income, education,
health-care, and other services essential to human dignity;
6) the fostering in all public policies of an internationalist,
egalitarian, solidaristic, anti-racist and anti-sexist public
culture.
7) the broadest feasible levels of participation and accountability
in political debate, in the seeking of political office, and in the
exercize of political authority;
8) the effective guarantee of civil liberties and rights,
including freedom of speech and of the press, of assembly
and association, of conscience and religion, and the rights
relevant to fair legal process.
-- Peter Burns SJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism 2 (Basic Economic Structure)
This is an elaboration of the basic economic structure of a
society which would meet the definition contained in Socialism 1.
The democratic socialist society is one in which, though
they still operate, the market and the profit-motive
do not dominate social relations and exchanges. We need
to distinguish "market forces"--the atomistic, anarchic
determination of investment and the structure of
production for private profit by a privileged class--on
the one hand, from "market exchanges" on the other--the
use of flexible, non-centrally determined money prices as
a mechanism of distribution for a range of goods and
services, a source of information about costs, demand, and
as an incentive mechanism for efficient work. Socialism
requires the abolition of 'market forces' but can coexist
with the 'market exchanges'. My position would be,
therefore:
1. There should be planning of the *aggregate* level and broad
composition of *investment* by democratically accountable
public agencies, with the aim of ensuring full employment
and adequate productivity and infrastructure
improvements, but within a framework of long-term
commitment to ecological sustainability.
2. There should be a large nonmarket, public sector
for education, health care, social services, parks
and other leisure facilities, libraries, public transport,
etc., and an income-support system to ensure decent nutrition,
housing, etc for all those unable to support themselves
through employment, as well as a decent minimum income for
those who do.
3. Major industries in the transportation, energy, and
telecommunications sectors should be publicly owned, i.e.
central or local government should hold a portion of the stock,
with perhaps trade union pension funds, Social Security funds,
consumers and employees holding the rest. Individual enterprises
in other sectors should be worker self-managed but "socially"
owned, with various ownership rights disaggregated and
distributed between the workers, democratically accountable
investment banks, and local, state, and federal government. In
such worker controlled but socially owned enterprises, net
profits would go to the workforce, but their capital assets would
not be owned by the workforce, or alienable by them, and part of
the profits would be mandated as a depreciation fund to replace
worn out capital stock. New additional investment would be
funded by a tax on capital assets, which would be collected and
allocated by the investment banks, which themselves would be
self-managing enterprises, and the income of whose officials
would depend on how well they invested the funds at their
disposal, thus providing incentives for efficient investment
allocation. They would also be responsible for setting up new
worker-controlled enterprises in promising sectors of the
economy, and for winding up failing enterprises within their
portfolios in consultation with workforce and community leaders.
Local, state and federal governments would set the capital assets
tax rate, and could influence investment by adjusting the general
rates as well as by lowering the rate for specified sectors with
high social returns on investment, and increasing it for
specified sectors which impose high social costs. Government
would also provide a legal and regulatory framework governing the
investment banks' activities. In addition to these public
industries and the socially owned, worker-controlled enterprises,
both small private cooperatives (where the workers would have
full ownership rights to the capital) and self-employment would
also be permitted.
4. Where it operates, the market would be held in check by
regulation covering matters like workplace health and safety,
product safety, and environmental protection, and by a progressive
taxation system to finance the nonmarket sectors of the economy.
In this system, enterprises would have to produce and price their
products within the parameters laid down by the aggregate and
sectoral investment plans. Though plan and market would check and
balance each other, democratic politics would definitely be in command
through public control over investment and regulation of production
units, and the counterweight of the tax-financed nonmarket public
sectors.
Democratically accountable investment banks would monitor firms in
their portfolio, and would be required to appraise individual
investments not simply on the basis of individual enterprise
profitability, but using "social return" criteria to take care of
major externalities (e.g. pollution), monopoly power, and community
and local needs. Investment and production would not be
determined atomistically, but in a consciously coordinated way, with the
banks required to make public their investment plans, so that
the aggregate level and composition of investment could be assessed
and approved by independent public officials, with a view to warding
off recessionary or inflationary trends. But once the plans had been
set, enterprises would not be under centralized operational management
and control (unlike the Soviet Union), but would respond autonomously to
the pattern of demand that resulted from the interplay of plan and
market, with those responding effectively having the financial incentive
to do so, since net enterprise profits would go to the workforces of
each firm. But the tax and public provision systems would act as a
powerful redistributive mechanism to offset large inequalities. In any
case there would be no income merely from owning private capital, since
all net enterprise profits would be paid to the workforce. So that would
lessen inequalities in the first place. The system would operate
something like Swedish social democracy, only transformed into
socialism by the addition of public investment planning, socialized
ownership, and workers' self-management,
For how a model like this would work, and its many advantages over
both capitalism and total central planning, see D. Schweickart,
AGAINST CAPITALISM, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
-- Peter Burns SJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism 3 (Some objections answered)
1. "The concept of social ownership is vague and
ambiguous"
The concept of social ownership is NOT vague or ambiguous.
The disaggregated rights and the manner of their distribution
can be spelled out quite precisely and embedded explicitly
in the positive law of a society adopting social ownership.
2. "Socialism leaves no room for the dynamism and innovation of
small businesses"
Restaurants, cafes, hair salons, garages, and other
small businesses would be privately owned or run as
private cooperatives because the owners would
standardly be workers in these cases and would be
paid on the basis of their being workers, not simply
owners. Businesses that grew to a predetermined size
would be converted to the self-managing socialized form
via a gradual process involving the issuance of dividend
bearing stock to the socially owned investment banks. The
workers would get the money from the issuance of the
stock, and the banks could use dividends to buy further
stock issues. Once the investment banks controlled enough
capital, the firm would convert to being worker-controlled
socialized enterprise, and cease to be a privately owned
cooperative.
3. "Socialism would damage entrepreneurship and
undermine the development of managerial talent"
All workers in a worker-controlled firm, including
entrepreneurial and managerial workers, would have a
collective right to the net profits once the capital
assets and other taxes had been deducted. Within each
firm the distribution of this surplus would be decided
by democratic vote (various types of democratic process
would apply depending on the size of firm). Workers
would have a strong incentive to keep good managers and
entrepreneurial talent within their own firms, since
this would benefit their short run income and long term
security. By competing for good managers and
entrepreneurial talent, worker-controlled firms would
ensure good financial incentives for such personnel,
but would also have an incentive not to pay the
outlandish remuneration which top executives often
receive under capitalism.
4. "Socialism would not be able to allocate
investment capital efficiently, since those making the
decisions would have no incentive to perform well."
Workers in the investment agencies would operate on a
similar basis to those in other worker-controlled
firms--they would receive the net profits of the
enterprise. The banks' income would derive from fees
for successful investment decisions. These fees would
be paid out of a publicly fixed difference between the
rates of capital assets tax paid by non-bank firms, and
the rates of capital assets tax paid by the banks
themselves. Poorly allocated investment funds would
mean the banks would have less ability to collect the
tax from non-bank enterprises to which they had
allocated funds. When the tax became too onerous
relative to the income of a firm (this could be
specified by a set formula), then the bank involved in
allocating investment to that firm would be penalized.
Thus, poor investment decisions would hurt bank
officials' income. But the bank officials would not be
owners of the capital funds they invested (just as with
most capitalist banks, mutual funds, pension funds,
insurance companies, etc.)
5. "Socialism would damage the process of market
competition without which there would be economic
stagnation"
In general there would be no barriers to entry or exit of
firms from a particular market, though planning would aim
at full employment in the aggregate. Any group of
workers could set up a firm if they managed to convince
an investment bank to supply them with capital. I.e.
workers would be free to hire capital at the prevailing
capital assets tax rate (just as current capitalist firms
are able to borrow capital at the prevailing interest
rate or to raise capital on the stock market), and thus
enter into competition with other worker-controlled
firms. But no-one's income would be derived simply from
owning capital, and the capital assets tax would not be
used, unlike interest and dividends, to support luxurious
consumption by a privileged minority class.
6. "There would be no incentive for individuals to
save under socialism"
Private savings would be used mostly for state insurance
schemes of various kinds including pensions, and for
financing housing and consumer loans. Some of the saving
would be mandatory (as in Social Security), but worker
could decide for themselves how much they wanted to save
for additional pension benefits, home insurance coverage,
etc. Workers pension funds could be partly invested in
the major publicly owned industries, such as energy
utilities, transportation, and telecommunications.
-- Peter Burns SJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Snehasis Ganguly
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@bu.edu) wrote:
: : : >Tai Apra?
: : : >Naki nemontonno pabe na bole angur phol tok?
: : : Shubhendu amake invite korbe na hotei pare na. Ami ki tomader
: : : moto kalka jogi, shei 80's'r shuru'r theke oke moral support diye
: : : ashchhi.
: : Amio shei bhoy-i korechhilam. Orokom moral support pele shadharon loker
: : nervous breakdown hoye jete pare. Nehat Shubu-babu "average Joe" non.
: Nyangtar abar batparer bhoy, Indranil!
: : Tumi onar kill-file theke berote parle borong Boston-e ekbar nemontonno
: : kore age khaiye dao.
: Shob poRe, IDG, shob poRe ...
: : IDG
: Apratim.
Shubur biyetya kolkatai January mashe hocche|
Oi somoi Ja kolkaotar pollution, shubur nijoswo
britanto theke mone holo niswas newaa mushkil,
1 hath durer jinish dekha jaina|
Eiyrokom obosthai O nijer koneke chinte parbe to?
Anindya Ghoshal
Apratim Sarkar (asa...@bu.edu) wrote:
: : IDG
: Apratim.
: PS: Kam Sutro dekhle?
ekhono aapnara kam-sutro dekben dekben korchen??? naa moshai aapnader dhara
kicchu hobe naa..kobe practise-ta korben noile??
A ;-)
--
email address: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu
Life is a series of stochastic errors.
Anindya Ghoshal
Indranil (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
: : Columbini Ms. Monet-er kotha ki karone Sir Oracle ba Commune-nibashir
: : kothar chaite more expensive ?? Manet taki clear korben Indranil Babu? ;-)
: Apra ar Sayan dujonei pray-i baje boke. Srabani-ke apni kokhono phaltu
: bokte shunechhen?
Aapnar birudde jodi Apra ar Sayan gender discrimination-er civil suit niye
aashe aami oder hoye shakki debo...!!
: IDG
Indranil
: > Shekhar cheshta korechhile to akshomoy!
: ki kore janle? tumi to ar amader school-e nach shekhate na.
Ki kore janle? Tumi to amake akhono dakhoni.
: Kono shupto bashona thakle bolo
: > Sambit-er cinemay chance kore dite pari.
: rokkhe koro!
: bashona thakleo tomar recommendation-e ki ar kaaj hoto?
Boston-e ekta audition dite parbe?
IDG
Srabani Banerjee
Indranil-da likhechhe:
>
> : > Shekhar cheshta korechhile to akshomoy!
>
> : ki kore janle? tumi to ar amader school-e nach shekhate na.
>
> Ki kore janle? Tumi to amake akhono dakhoni.
she abar ki? nijer homepage-e chhobi rekhe URL-ta amake ke pathalo tobe?
ar anyway, amader headmistress-ke to dekhoni. Onar bhoy-e school-er
trishimanay tomar moto chyangDa-der tiki-tao dekha jeto na.
[...]
Srabani
Indranil
Srabani Banerjee (BANE...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Indranil-da likhechhe:
: > : > Shekhar cheshta korechhile to akshomoy!
: >
: > : ki kore janle? tumi to ar amader school-e nach shekhate na.
: >
: > Ki kore janle? Tumi to amake akhono dakhoni.
: she abar ki? nijer homepage-e chhobi rekhe URL-ta amake ke pathalo tobe?
Nijer nacher didmoni-ke ato shohoje bhule gele? Amar prothom chhobita
dekhe bolle "Hitler", tai to moner dukhkhe nokol chhobi ... jak she
kotha.
Tumi kintu prothome nach shikhtei chaite. Pore kichhu dNepo meyer
influence-e eshe motobaad palte phelle. Akhon dakho, tara kothay ar tumi
kothay!
: ar anyway, amader headmistress-ke to dekhoni. Onar bhoy-e school-er
: trishimanay tomar moto chyangDa-der tiki-tao dekha jeto na.
Ore baba, she ki ar mone nei? Third period theke sixth period porjonto
headmistress golap niye gater shamne dNaDiye hele dule chheleder
hatchhani diye dakten. Jake Apratim-ra bole "seductio ad
absurdum". ChyangDa to durer kotha ekta hawker porjonto bhoye she shomoy
o-dhar maDato na!
Smriti shototoi shukher ...
IDG