WRT:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/49963

 Mr Ray's devotion to archaic theories of socialism is commendable but factual
mistakes need to be pointed out

[1] Scientific socialism: Again, this notion that historical materialism is
'scientific' has been rejected by Sir Karl Popper in 1934:

"(From Wiki)
  In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper attacks "historicism" and its
proponents, among whom (as well as Hegel) he identifies and singles out Plato
and Marx
— calling them all "enemies of the open society". The objection he
makes is that historicist positions, by claiming that there is an
inevitable and deterministic pattern to history, abrogate the democratic
responsibility of each one of us to make our own free contributions to the
evolution of society, and hence lead to totalitarianism."

Modern empiricists have clearly thrown out the idea of historicism as
scientific. Society as a mathematical system is too complex and chaotic to
predict in its ententirety.

 Marxist Historicism or the idea of transformation of society from Capitalism to
Socialism is better understood in post-structuralism rather than in empiricism.
New Historicist thinkers (Stephen Greenblat & Michael Foucoult) tend to take a
more nuanced view of power, seeing it not exclusively as class-related but
extending throughout society. This view derives primarily from Michel Foucault.
In its tendency to see society as consisting of texts relating to other texts,
with no 'fixed' literary value above and beyond the way specific societies read
them in specific situations,

[2] Fabian Socialism : This variant of socialism prapracticed British labor
party has no influence on American mind. Please note, in the view of
post-struralism, it is more wise
to analyze Socialism in America from its history and present crisis. Any
dicdiscussion of socialism in the context of empiricism (that is experience of
socialism in Britain can also be 'experience' of India and USA) is too limited
in practical sense.

[3]"about the $700 billion bail out for Lehman Brothers as 'socialism' "

-US Govt. didn't bail out Lehman Brothers-it filed bankruptcy. Serious mistake.

[4]"-- the liabilities of the American state will soar beyond $10 trillion"
-Another rubbish. Federal Govt. excercised extreme care in any take-over.
They have earned equity cheaply and therefore somsomewhereey need to pay.
In all take-overs, Congressional committee has oveoverseene issues of liability

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=auCiw0BP4Fyk

"Congressional Reaction
``Paulson has threaded the needle just right by taking
necessary action to stabilize U.S. financial markets while
minimizing the liability for taxpayers,'' Democratic Senator
Charles Schumer of New York, who heads the congressional Joint
Economic Committee, said in a statement. ``This plan will be met
with broad acceptance in Congress because it doesn't prejudge
the ultimate fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.''"
[5]It would turn the Federal Reserve Bank, which during the Greenspan era
was one of the main architects and cheerleaders of bubble economics
(hi-tech, stock market and, its latest version, housing) into a
publicly controlled institution.

>> If you have accused Fed for this mess-I would not have objected. We all know
how
Fed is responsible for this bubble. But claiming that Fed is not a publicly
controlled institution ( the comment said socialist measure means a public
institution would take control of Fed), means as nugatory as any public
institution in any democratic country is not a publicly controlled institution!

Fed came to existence through Federal reserve act of 1913.After being amended by
some 200 subsequent laws of Congress over the
nearly 100 years of its existence, the Federal Reserve Act remains as
one of the principal banking laws of the United States and
every time it has been amended by public pressure to accomodate desire of
democracy.
In the context of USA, desire of democracy might be a fooling term since it is
governed by the rich and the elites, but that is also true with any other
democracy in limited sense. Therefore that statement against Fed can not be
substantiated even if  Fed is responsible and historically it has played for the
rich and powerful and subsequently got ammended.

But that is being in a  democracy!

Hope, I have been able to remove some of the conjectural and factual errors in
your letter!

Thanks
Biplab