Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 19:00:11 -0600
From: rahul-AT-hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Rahul Mahajan)
Subject: Re: What kind of Communism?


Barkley Rosser:

Well, after all that obnoxious introduction, I have a
>point.  What about the Keralan Communist Party as a model?
>Kerala under their rule has achieved very high educational
>levels and high life expectancy, even for a very poor state
>in a poor country, social outcomes comparable to those in Cuba.
>But they have done so without getting on AI's naughty list,
>without a Cult of Personality, without throwing opponents in jail or
>executing them, or any of the rest of that stuff that various
>people on this list seem to think is just great.  So, is this
>a good model or what?


What has been achieved in Kerala is admirable, considering it is one of the
poorer states in one of the poorest countries in the world. The infant
mortality rate is 17 per thousand, which is slightly lower than that among
black people in the U.S. (compared to an Indian average of 79), for
example. However, it's not Communism or socialism or even market socialism.
It's just an example of what can be done when the ruling party actually
manages to carry out what used to be considered to be the minimal reformist
program one would require in India, or in  most of the Third World. Land
reform, for example, is not only not socialist, it was done far better by
the violently anti-communist Taiwan and South Korea than by the "socialist"
Indian state. Kerala still has rich and poor, and the poor still have
minimal representation. The difference is merely that the poor have access
to health care, education, and enough low-price food for subsistence.

Of course, there's no way there could ever be "socialism in one province,"
so perhaps the communists in Kerala could not have achieved more no matter
what. However, just wait and watch as the quality of life in Kerala is
rolled back under the New World Order.

Rahul Mahajan




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------