Socialist mindset destroyed Pakistan in the 1970s

[ziaulislam]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1140051846155324

 

[ziaulislam]

Pakistan output was more than malaysia indonesia and Thailand combined

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Its about people mentality, religious motivation i-e "1 mard -e-Mujahid =10 kafir", stories of Angles coming from sky and underestimating enemy.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

As many know I am full on PTI supporter but I find this blame the 'socialism' on Pakistan's present malaise too simplistic and does not quite explain the reasons. Although I can understand why it makes for good political speach where cut and dry rendtions work.

Indeed I would argue that had Pakistan got full dose of socialism in 1970s, Pakistan would have been a rip roaring economy today. Surprised? Think of ...

 

[Jf Thunder]

Bhutto just wanted power
more power than anyone else
in that process he destroyed everything

 

[Indus Pakistan]

in that process he destroyed everything

That is too simple. Bhutto did far less damage then Gen. Zia. Had Bhutto remained in power sans Gen. Zia's coup, Pakistan would have been at a better place today.

Socialism can be beneficial to uncooked societies like Pakistan. You can see having communism on steriods shoved down the mouth of the Chinese society during 1950s, 60s, 70s did it much good. Look where China is today. I would even argue look at India which was more left leaning then Pakistan during 1950s, 60s, 70s.

 

[WaLeEdK2]

As many know I am full on PTI supporter but I find this blame the 'socialism' on Pakistan's present malaise too simplistic and does not quite explain the reasons. Although I can understand why it makes for good political speach where cut and dry rendtions work.

Indeed I would argue that had Pakistan got full dose of socialism in 1970s, Pakistan would have been a rip roaring economy today. Surprised? Think of ...

View attachment 546320

Mao was not so much interested in China making money but was more interested in the cultural aspects of China, which was evident in his cultural revolution. When he died the Chinese began to really begin their focus on money making. They found out without money you can’t do anything. That’s why they opened up their economy. The current economic status of China today is due to the reformists within the CPC.

 

[m52k85]

This should be a no brainer, open enterprise creates wealth most efficiently, any attempt to disrupt this makes the economy work sub-optimally. Where optimality is defined is overall wealth maximization (note: doesnt encompass wealth distribution). This is the equation governing the 'real world'. However this equation has unwanted consequences, selfish behavior being the most profound. Our religion attempts (as I believer I should say 'does') solve this by introducing exogenous variables into the equation, namely reward in the 'after-world' that incentivise not only redistribution (charity) but also allocating resources to production as opposed to consumption (saadi zindagi).

Case in point: Abdur-rehman Ibn Auf, Usman bin Affan (Radi Allahu Anhuma), they were never told you should not have so much, instead they 'chose' to give.

 

[Jf Thunder]

That is too simple. Bhutto did far less damage then Gen. Zia. Had Bhutto remained in power sans Gen. Zia's coup, Pakistan would have been at a better place today.

Socialism can be beneficial to uncooked societies like Pakistan. You can see having communism on steriods shoved down the mouth of the Chinese society during 1950s, 60s, 70s did it much good. Look where China is today. I would even argue look at India which was more left leaning then Pakistan during 1950s, 60s, 70s.

the Pakistan during the Ayub Era was at its peak
nothing compares to that time
Bhutto would have further ruined and God forbid even broken more of Pakistan

Gen Zia ruined Pakistan in a totally different way.

 

[nahtanbob]

As many know I am full on PTI supporter but I find this blame the 'socialism' on Pakistan's present malaise too simplistic and does not quite explain the reasons. Although I can understand why it makes for good political speach where cut and dry rendtions work.

Indeed I would argue that had Pakistan got full dose of socialism in 1970s, Pakistan would have been a rip roaring economy today. Surprised? Think of ...

View attachment 546320

socialism has never worked on the economic front. Period.

you can argue social reforms might work - breaking feudal estates, putting clergy in their place, better access to primary education and healthcare. I see no evidence of it in pakistan

 

[313ghazi]

socialism has never worked on the economic front. Period.

you can argue social reforms might work - breaking feudal estates, putting clergy in their place, better access to primary education and healthcare. I see no evidence of it in pakistan

It's because we paid lip service to it, especially during the Bhutto period who used it as a means to settle old scores.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Bhutto would have further ruined

Less then Gen. Zia. You know there is some speculation with weight that Bhutto was bumped with US approval. Gen. Zia and Washington were real cool with each other.

God forbid even broken more of Pakistan

Rubbish. Assumption based on what may I ask? Don't bother mentioning Bangla. That was a event writ in geography and WP refusal to be ruled by East Pakistan from 1947. These were issues beyond Bhutto.

* And Bhutto at his worse was better then Gen. Zia.

socialism has never worked on the economic front.

I agree. But.

you can argue social reforms might work - breaking feudal estates, putting clergy in their place, better access to primary education and healthcare.

Bingo. Socialism is next to useless if not destructive to deveoped polities like in Europe. But in un-reformed, religio-feudal, socially trapped societies that you see in most of the developing world, socialism can do wonders. Reforms that drive toward equality by entirely wiping out fedudal order, traditional culture, breaks class order and creates a reformed society after destroying the older order can lay the foundation for a successful capitalist driven society. China, Vietnam are good examples. Even India profited from having milder form under Nehru as that laid the seeds of future progress.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Rubbish. Assumption based on what may I ask? Don't bother mentioning Bangla. That was a even writ in geography and WP refusal to be ruled by East Pakistan. These were issues beyond Bhutto.

* And Bhutto at his worse was better then Gen. Zia.

the brutal way in which he tried to quell the PNA
Bhutto would do anything to stay in power
just like he broke away EP to become PM

 

[Indus Pakistan]

the brutal way in which he tried to quell the PNA

And Gen. Zia was even more brutal. Frankly Bhutto was too soft on PNA. By having Bhutto removed and placing the savage Zia in power USA cleared the chessboard to rape Pakistan's a*ss for the next 11 years as cheap cannon fodder against Soviet Union. After having raped Pakistan USA left in 1990, duly sanctioning the country. The ramifications of that period still play out in Pakistan.

Bhutto would do anything to stay in power

More then Altaf bhai? More then Gen. Zia?

just like he broke away EP to become PM

I already covered that. It was WP that refused to give Banglas their due. Would you accept Bengali as national language and Dhaka as capital?

 

[Kambojaric]

Blaming socialism is taking the easy way out. The problem was quite simply a lack of good leadership. Socialism in its different forms has been implemented successfully in some parts of the world and caused chaos in others. The difference is in the leadership. Bhutto was a feudal landlord. Feudal elites can hardly ever be expected to engage in genuine societal reform willingly. He was a great talker however and people bought his stance.