'ED Has Been Weaponised', 'No, ED Was Terrorised' : Exchange In Supreme Court Plea Against Mamata Banerjee
Click below :-
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/ed-has-been-weaponised-no-ed-was-terrorised-exchange-in-supreme-court-plea-against-mamata-banerjee-523599
1 comment:
These are results for Why Leninism and Maoism failed after 7 and 3 decades though they claim to establish utopian societies? Leninism (1917–1991 in the Soviet Union) and Maoism (1949–1976/78 in China) failed to sustain their respective political systems as utopian, egalitarian societies primarily due to economic inefficiencies, the creation of a privileged bureaucratic class, authoritarian oppression, and the fundamental incompatibility of strict central planning with human incentives.
Despite claiming to liberate the working class, these systems often replaced old hierarchies with a new managerial party elite while failing to deliver on prosperity.
Economic and Political Weekly
Economic and Political Weekly
+1
Here are the primary reasons for their failure after roughly seven and three decades, respectively:
1. Structural Economic Failures (Central Planning)
Lack of Incentives and Price Signals: Command economies under both systems lacked market price signals, making efficient resource allocation impossible. The absence of private profit motives resulted in stagnation and low productivity.
Catastrophic Agricultural Policies: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (1958–1962) involved forced collectivization and irrational agricultural practices (e.g., backyard furnaces), leading to a famine that killed tens of millions.
Inefficiency in Innovation: While effective at rapid early industrialization (heavy industry), these models failed to transition to advanced, consumer-oriented economies, leading to chronic shortages of consumer
2. The Failure of Utopianism (Human Nature)
Coercion vs. Reality: Utopian goals were forced upon populations through violence rather than voluntary adoption, requiring constant, brutal police state control to maintain.
"New Class" Bureaucracy: The promise of an equal society was replaced by a rigid hierarchy. Party officials often enjoyed privileges, turning into a new oppressor class over the working class they claimed to represent.
Ideology over Expertise: Both Leninism and especially Maoism often favoured ideological loyalty ("red") over technical expertise ("expert"), causing massive inefficiencies in management and engineering.
3. Totalitarianism and Internal Instability
Purges and Terror: To sustain power, both systems required periodic violent purges (e.g., Stalin’s Great Terror, Mao's Cultural Revolution), which destroyed productive human capital, humiliated intellectuals, and created an atmosphere of fear.
Absolute Centralization: The excessive concentration of power led to poor decision-making at the top, which was then implemented blindly across the country, preventing local, efficient adjustments.
Ideological Rigidity: Maoist China and the Soviet Union often struggled to adapt to changing world conditions, with leaders adhering to dogma even as their economies collapsed. Specific Differences in Failure
Leninism (USSR): Lasted longer (approx. 70 years) but stagnated under a rigid bureaucracy that could not innovate, ultimately failing due to economic stagnation, unsustainable defense spending, and nationalist movements within the union.
Maoism (China): Failed faster (approx. 3 decades) due to extreme radicalism, such as the Cultural Revolution, which brought the country to the brink of collapse. Following Mao's death, leaders recognized the failure and shifted to market-based reforms under Deng Xiaoping to prevent total collapse. Ultimately, both systems proved that an attempt to force a "utopian" society through top-down, authoritarian control resulted in lower living standards and high human costs compared to more market-oriented societies.
Post a Comment