India 'Maoist' bomb blast kills 15 police- March 27 2012

[janon]

---

---

Why do some Indians hate her? She is on point with many issues. I had only one issue with her when she tried to say Kashmir should be given up, which blew the top of my lid considering how many good folks died for that pirce of land.

WHY Indians hate her is irrelevant to my post. It is a fact that most Indians on this forum hate her, and that chinese member was trying to take advantage of that to avoid accepting the fact that he didn't have a proper reply to give.

Speaking for myself, I don't hate people for their opinions, but I strongly disagree with them. And just like you disagree with her on Kashmir, I disagree with her statements about maoists.

[FairAndUnbiased]

So I take it you can't answer the question, since you gave a thoughtless, irrelevant, one line flaim bait.

The question was how did maoism help to build better submarines, which was the bizzare claim you made. You can't answer it, so instead you start a flaim bait about arundhati roy because you know most indians on this forum hate her, so praising her is the best way to divert attention from the question you can't answer.

Nice try, but I won't take that bait.

ok, you want to know?

you can't build submarines in a poor country without directing vast assets from disparate sources into this project. that is not possible in your system. of course, an authoritarian government need not be maoist, and being authoritarian isn't enough, but why particularly maoism?

1. economic nationalism. Mao was a firm believer in that everything China had MUST be indigenous to the point of cutting off foreign trade. that means that the burden of achievement is on the native scientists and engineers alone, and there's no shortcuts.

2. command economics. This ensures that the scientists and engineers WILL get the resources they need, even if it starves other parts of the economy.

3. large labor and capital pool. this means a bigger pool of savings to draw on without significantly negatively impacting living standards.

4. experience in heavy industry. Many things in industry cannot be designed from the ground up but need preexisting knowledge and experience. China had this due to Mao's industrialization drive in the 50's with Soviet help.

5. military nationalism. This is the motivator. Many countries with the above have no motivation to build a nuke sub.

[itaskol]

RIP to victims. even I dont like indian so much.
this is absolutely terrorism action.

[fateh71]

Maoism also led to a higher life expectancy than South Korea during Mao's administration and higher literacy than India today (40 years later). Don't forget nuclear submarines (India still does not have an operational one) and hydrogen bombs acquired before even France, while India still uses puny fission weapons.

If India had Maoism maybe you would be at the stage China is in today, in about 40 years.

At the cost of cultural revolution and great leap forward!!!

Thanks but no thanks. China is not the ONLY country on earth that made progress, we can look for some other role model. In the meantime ask you best friends pakistan and north korea to implement the model, we don't need it in india as there is no popular support. Otherwise maoists would simply contest elections and come to power... duh!

At topic - RIP to the martyrs. We will win this for you in the end. We are not a nation to be ruled by maoists thugs with an iron fist. We are free and free we shall remain.

[FairAndUnbiased]

At the cost of cultural revolution and great leap forward!!!

Thanks but no thanks. China is not the ONLY country on earth that made progress, we can look for some other role model. In the meantime ask you best friends pakistan and north korea to implement the model, we don't need it in india as there is no popular support. Otherwise maoists would simply contest elections and come to power... duh!

At topic - RIP to the martyrs. We will win this for you in the end. We are not a nation to be ruled by maoists thugs with an iron fist. We are free and free we shall remain.

you're free? Don't you see that's what they want you to think. BJP, Congress, they're all the same damn thing. They all are friends with elite military, police, bankers and corporations like Reliance, Wipro, Infosys, Tata and Jindal. They're all friends with the multinationals coming to India to buy your coal and iron ore.

[The enlightened]

you're free? Don't you see that's what they want you to think. BJP, Congress, they're all the same damn thing. They all are friends with elite military, police, bankers and corporations like Reliance, Wipro, Infosys, Tata and Jindal. They're all friends with the multinationals coming to India to buy your coal and iron ore.

This is epic
We are being preached about freedom by a chinese

[janon]

My replies in red. And in black at the end.

ok, you want to know?

you can't build submarines in a poor country without directing vast assets from disparate sources into this project. that is not possible in your system. of course, an authoritarian government need not be maoist, and being authoritarian isn't enough, but why particularly maoism?

1. economic nationalism. Mao was a firm believer in that everything China had MUST be indigenous to the point of cutting off foreign trade. that means that the burden of achievement is on the native scientists and engineers alone, and there's no shortcuts.

Maoism had nothing to do with that. Russia too had the same policy in defense, as did USA, that they will manufacture all defence products in house. Until the recent mistral warship deal, Russia has never purchased anything (defense related) from abroad. Nothing unique to maoism.And by the way, China has purchased far more from abroad than the Soviet Union and the USA put together. (And so has India.)

2. command economics. This ensures that the scientists and engineers WILL get the resources they need, even if it starves other parts of the economy.

Command economics is not a prerequisite for succesfully building submarines, and is in fact a hindrance. The USA has the very opposite of command economics, and yet built better submarines than china. And the magic of free market economics is that it does this WITHOUT starving other parts of the economy, and in most cases, ADDING to the other parts of the economy.

3. large labor and capital pool. this means a bigger pool of savings to draw on without significantly negatively impacting living standards.

Large labor pool is NOT because of mao's ideals. That is dependent on the population of the country. China happened to be a big country, as is India. And this point has nothing in particular to do with submarines or nuclear weapons anyway.

4. experience in heavy industry. Many things in industry cannot be designed from the ground up but need preexisting knowledge and experience. China had this due to Mao's industrialization drive in the 50's with Soviet help.

Again, industrialisation is not due to maoism in particular. It may have been mao who started industrialisation in China because he was the head, but that does not mean it stems from maoist ideology. The industrial revolution happened much before mao or even karl marx was born. Capitalist countries are in general much more industrialised than the non capitalist countries. And china's industrialisation has only INCREASED after mao's regime ended, and mao's policies were wisely ditched.

5. military nationalism. This is the motivator. Many countries with the above have no motivation to build a nuke sub.

There are many, many countries which have military nationalism, even more than chinese (say north koreans). None of them have made a sub, or anywhere close to it. Countries like India, USA, France etc where military nationalism is almost non existent HAVE made subs. Countries like sweden where militarism is almost an ugly word, and recruitment ads only show the military doing humanitarian works, have produced fine combat planes and stealth frigates that China can't match in quality. So don't pretend that military nationalism is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for that.

Hence my earlier statement that the ability to produce submarines or nuclear weapons is dependent on scientific ability alone, and not on political ideologies.

You will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that India's maoists would help us build submarines or create industrial excellence - which is what you first claimed. Because at the moment they can't anything beyond bows and arrows by themselves, and they are the main reason why parts of India are not conducible to industrial growth.

And by the way you do realise, don't you, that your own country ditched maoism and decided to go the free market way in economics, and has only grown stronger for it? That China is a serious economic powerhouse today after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping? That if mao was still in power, you probably wouldn't be reading these dissenting voices against him at all?

[FairAndUnbiased]

My replies in red. And in black at the end.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]

Hence my earlier statement that the ability to produce submarines or nuclear weapons is dependent on scientific ability alone, and not on political ideologies.

You will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that India's maoists would help us build submarines or make industrial excellence - which is what you first claimed. Because at the moment they can't anything beyond bows and arrows by themselves, and they are the main reason why parts of India are not conducible to industrail growth.

wrong; free market capitalism has NEVER allowed a poor country to become a rich one after the 1st wave. People say "South Korea", well, in South Korea there's the chaebols, which are giant conglomerates who are either puppets of government, or the government is puppets of the chaebols. President Lee Myeong Bok is a former Hyundai chairman. The presidents before him were all connected to the chaebols or the military or both (like Park Chung Hee and Chung Doo Hwan). People also say "Singapore" and well, in Singapore, the government owns 60% of the economy. Not exactly free market capitalism.

For countries poor in 1930, the ones who embraced IMF advise the most, ended up the poorest. Argentina, for one.

And no, Sweden does not produce better frigates and combat planes than China does. You can look up all the relevant numbers.

[abhishekgoel80]

Just read Arundhati Roy. She is the smartest Indian alive today.

Great observation...... You are the smartest chinese alive today

[janon]

---

---

wrong; free market capitalism has NEVER allowed a poor country to become a rich one after the 1st wave. People say "South Korea", well, in South Korea there's the chaebols, which are giant conglomerates who are either puppets of government, or the government is puppets of the chaebols. President Lee Myeong Bok is a former Hyundai chairman. The presidents before him were all connected to the chaebols or the military or both (like Park Chung Hee and Chung Doo Hwan). People also say "Singapore" and well, in Singapore, the government owns 60% of the economy. Not exactly free market capitalism.

For countries poor in 1930, the ones who embraced IMF advise the most, ended up the poorest. Argentina, for one.

And no, Sweden does not produce better frigates and combat planes than China does. You can look up all the relevant numbers.

That wasn't the point at all, whether free markets help reduce poverty or not. The original question was how maoism helps build better submarines. Don't bring in straw man topics.

About the last sentence: I specifically said, "in quality", not in numbers. Please tell me if china under mao or since has produced anything like the drakken or viggen or gripen in each of their times. And if china has anything like the visby class corvettes (ok, its a corvette, not a frigate - the point still stands). All these came from a country where militarism is almost a dirty thing, and has an avoved non military approach to nationalism, cutting across political spectrum. Hence rendering your 5th point in the above list completely hollow.