The merits of socialism and nationalism

[Crixx_Creww]

Can nationalism really bring us victory? (a la china in generals, baww)

And the merits of socialism instead of capitalism in a developing/small/island economy such as ours, grenada, so on so forth.

Thoughts and views please.                    

[silk]

Hmm ...tough one fella.  If by "us" you refering to trinidadians, nah !
I think (IMO) that nationalism in tnt is atmost shallow, and very, very temporary.  So we buss dey !

AS for socialism vs capitalism in the context of we caribbean islands  development.  hmmm...Hmmm. Boy this a hard one.   To be honest, naked honest, Capitalism drives development.....at a price.  Soooi suppose if what u want is just raw development, 20/20 biz, 1st world kinda thing, Capitalism.  
   Now i want to lean on the socialist side here, but for a few reasons.
1) It has failed e.g. the Soviet Union.
2) Socialism means a huge transition in the way people think, and changes in society.

Given the above ...i think socialism looks nice on paper, but mightn't actually work in we lil corner ah de globe.

Capitalism  :x    

This a heavy one fella.....bless !!!   i running away...

<--  forget all the GP he do ....                    

[PapaSmurf]

1) Mr. Martin George wrote a very enlightening article about Nationalism among Trinbagonians in last Sunday's Guardian. I think it will answer all questions on Nationalism in T&T

Can’t we all just get along?


These were the simple, yet poignantly powerful words echoed by Rodney King, in the aftermath of the racially-motivated attack on him in the USA by police officers.

Though not overtly stated, it also seems to be the underlying theme and concept behind the recently- publicised workings of the committee led by business titans Ken Gordon and Arthur Lok Jack, along with Tajmool Hosein, QC, and Dr Bhoe Tewarie.

They enunciated, what they propose to be certain principles of fairness, which they suggested should be taught, preached, publicised and inculcated as a set of core values in the society. The principles have since been published in the various newspapers, and are certainly concepts with which no right-thinking individual would ever want to disagree.

So what, then, is the problem? The problem actually manifests itself at the very meeting to publicly launch the idea, when one Ricardo Welch, in his agent provocateur, gladiator style, rose to ask the panel whether the signatories to the document really believed in the same principles of fairness set out therein.

He drew reference to Mr Sat Maharaj of the Maha Sabha, whose genuine belief in the principles he questioned, particularly in light of some recent unfortunate comments ascribed to Mr Maharaj in the Kalifa Logan debacle.

Mr Maharaj, in his typically belligerent mode, insisted in responding by saying that he had information that there were a couple of countries in Africa where they were seeking to ban football players who had Rastafarian or dreadlocked hairstyles.

His point was that Africans were against this also, so by a logical extension, his stance was not, therefore, discriminatory or racially-motivated.

Ricardo responded, and the only thing which saved the entire proceedings from becoming an all-out brawl was the svelte and effortlessly smooth diplomacy of that elder statesman Ken Gordon, who quickly poured oil on the troubled waters and smoothed things over so we could move on.

Radio rantings

We have in T&T, radio stations and talk show hosts who rant and rave, pushing the racially-charged buttons of a population already fired-up by the ethnic politics of the day, and nobody stops to think rationally or with mature deliberation before responding.

It is just accusations and counter-accusations flying left, right and centre, with everybody in a grouping of either Indians, Africans, Chinese, Syrians and so on.

Nobody is Trinidadian anymore, and I emphasise the point “Trinidadian,” because it seems that we can learn a lot from Tobago in this regard.

In Tobago, whether you are from Indian, Chinese, Syrian, African or Lebanese stock, it does not matter, because you are Tobagonian first and foremost. They do not see those differences and distinctions, because they have a more fundamental common bond in their Tobagonianness, and this serves as the glue which binds the society together.

Jamaica also has that deep-seated feeling of nationalism, where their Chinese, Indians, Africans and Syrians do not cling to these titles, but simply see themselves as Jamaicans plain and simple, who just happen to have different ethnic backgrounds, but for all intents and purposes they are all one people, Jamaicans.

They, therefore, like Tobagonians, do not have a race relations problem as we seem to be developing here in Trinidad, and one of the things we seem to be lacking in that regard is that sense of fierce national pride and passionate identifying with Trinidad.

Human beings need to identify with some larger body, group or organisation, and if there’s not that feeling of national spirit or national unity in our Trinidadianness, then people are going to find sub-groups with which to identify, and one of the most common sub-groups would be one with those of a similar ethnic origin such as yourself.

So nobody is Trinidadian anymore.

The challenge, therefore, for the Ken Gordon-led committee, and, indeed, for the nation as a whole, remains for us to find ways to rekindle that spirit of national unity and national pride, where we can become passionate once more about being Trinidadian and passionate and wildly fanatical about our country, so that we can all feel like this is our land, our place, whether rich or poor, strong or weak; this is our land, our Trinidad.

In the early, heady days of the NAR, we began to get that feeling, but it was quickly lost as the politicians themselves started segregating themselves back into groups.

So it is clear that such a renewed effort will never get off the ground without the support, guidance and direction from our political leaders, who must buy into these concepts and be willing to preach them and to practise what they preach and live it out on an everyday basis.

Because, no matter how much we theorise and philosophise, the politicians have a much more fundamental hold and sway over the population than any group or committee, however well-intentioned.

And if the politicians don’t get on board with these ideas and promote them, it should then be pretty obvious to the nation just exactly why we can’t all get along.                    

[Crixx_Creww]

Point duly noted about jamaica and their near fanatic/ zealous display of nationalism, maybe even rivling the greatest nationalistic state in the world, China.

This is not an excuse but an explanation as to why jamaica has been so successful in their nationalism.

The  population is not as cosmopolitan as it is in trindad.
They have largely only one cultural element in the country, and that is of the africans but it isnt seen as african culture but as jamaican culture and is embraced by all races of the land, which is HIGHLY commendable.
What isnt so commendable though, is their unwillingness to accept other cultures into their way of life. This has helped them maintain and embolden their nationalism, but makes them almost as isolationist as america (very bad).

The problem with nationalism succeeding in Trinidad, is that certain races/sects of our population believe that they have been too wronged for too long and seek some sort of remuneration for their plight and the plight of their ancestors.
       Although, i cant say that i dont support that view, I also realise that nationalism can never flourish in such devisiveness. Its not healthy for the nation as a whole, but may benefit the races/sects if they get what they please.

This is the problem, deal with the past in an attempt to seek justice, or,
Forget the past and grow together as a people.

If socialism were to be introduced into small nationalistic countries, with small but growing econimies, the benefits could be immense.

Corruption and the nasty nasty nasty tactics of the capitolists is the reason why socialism has failed before.

Socialism is not inherently evil as a certain capitalist state tries so hard to make it seem.

My evidence to support this, is states like sweden and a few other european countries, where the higher income brackets pay as much as 52% tax, and this has a very awe inspiring effect of pretty much leveling the income brackets.
The tax is used to maintain the country and provide free health care and a bunch of other things.

Heavy taxation may not work as well in the smaller countries, especially Trinidad, (men go real cuss for that). THats why socialism would work so very well.

Money management would become less of a problem, and transparency would reign.                    

[Bourbon_Ghost]

Now what u said is true....but i think don't think nationality is the issue here.
I believe socialism is the main issue. I mean for those who were born before 1990's
socialising wasn't so tough. I mean everyone had to get along with each other or is lixx passing like mad :-x.

"long ago parents"="run" :veryevil:

If we were "lets say impose such methods on ourselves in todays society" we as a region would be powerful and wealthy, despite our size.                    

[PapaSmurf]

I believe socialism is the main issue. I mean for those who were born before 1990's  
socialising wasn't so tough. I mean everyone had to get along with each other or is lixx passing like mad .  

Uhmmm, I don't think that is what Socialism means. You confuse socialising with Socialism. The former is any activity which entails the promotion of better communicable relationships amongst people. The latter is a poli-eco-social ideology highlighting the equal treatment for all people by the state, by changing the driving force in humanity from acquiring wealth to seeking more dignified ways to live for all of mankind.                    

[Bourbon_Ghost]

I know what it means Smurf no disrespect intended.
I was just being a little relative to the days of ....hmn...Dr. Eric Williams and the maturity and understanding of what needed to be done for the people                    

[DarthVader]

some facts about a socialist society
a socialist society is one of many advantages and many downfalls due to the way it is set up it is very prone to corruption which led to the fall of the USSR an the creation of communism on paper socialism is much better a society to capitalism due to the fact it is run to maintain the needs of the country and its people and not big business as does capitalism but due to the way a socialist countries population is given there needs and only that there is in our time mainly allot of social unrest and allot of negative views by other countries who are viewing it from the outside due to this fact for a socialist society to thrive u need to have a global society controlled by one government under a socialist government advancement is allot more rapid because the such is not held back by some big business and it is for the betterment of the said state as was seen in the USSR during the cold war this fact is why Russians were the first to space and also why the Americans were always seen needing to catch up with them even though the Americans would never admit it the reason why the USSR broke up even though it was in such a high developing society was because of the outside factors causing unrest and turmoil inside the borders of this country these were caused by differing views on freedom also causing this turmoil was the ruling government and its corrupted members

this is my veiws on socialism stay tuned for what i got to say about capatalism