Buharry,

With due respect, it is clear that you are just misrepresenting my views -
again and again. When i questioned you the last time why you keep attributing
views to me that i do not hold, i quizzed you along these lines:

1. Where i categorically condemned co-ops;
2. Where i said i'm opposed to PDOIS implementing these co-ops;
3. Where i've condemned state enterprise  - categorically?

To which you responded by quoting me along these lines:

<< Answer: "But PDOIS would have none of it. Instead, they are ready to wager
the
Gambia's economic future to tested and failed State contrived
collectivisation that even Lenin and Stalin in their infinite lunacy wouldn't
dare impose on Russians in this day and age. Perhaps, PDOIS takes its cue
from the stubborn-ness of the North Korean dictatorship to continue with the
same economic nonsense that continues to register zero economic growth and
abject poverty for the masses they have literally forced against their wills
into these State contrived cooperative societies. " >>

And:

<< Answer: "The current spate of the outbreak of the programmed fanatic virus
affirms
just what Krugman's government economist told him. Just when we thought that
decisively repudiated economics like State contrived agricultural
collectivisation is dead and buried, programmed fanatics are busy and
doggedly marketing the idea anew. And, be it noted, most of the economic
nonsense now being recycled anew has been dealt with comprehensively in an
earlier essay on PDOIS' economic agenda; and one would assume then that they
would at least have the decency to go back to the drawing board again to
reformulate and rethink policy. Rather, the party unabashedly brought to the
fore again the same economic nonsense i have earlier debunked effectively." >>

Yet, in response to your initial rejoinder to my original piece, i made my
position vis-a-vis cooperative economics very clear along these lines:

"Hamjatta: First, a disclaimer: i never said that cooperative societies are
un-profitable. There are, indeed, indications that they can be profitable.
Also, expressing my disquiet over cooperative societies doesn't in any way
mean that i'm opposed to them. Far from it. Liberals only become suspicious
of these things if they are State contrived and susceptible to pork barrel
politics. Free enterprise should be free from political control and nefarious
influences. Cooperative societies when they trade on liberal principles of
free and civil association, are something to be allowed breathing space and
or room to blossom."

Yet, these repetitive questions, which your postings invariably come
chock-a-block with, continue - as ever - to ignore this disclaimer. As i said
before, expressing disquiet or scepticism over the consequential or overall
impact of something is not the same as a categorical condemnation.
Disquietude or scepticism is not the same as categorical condemnation. More
to the point, virtually all the questions you raised in your last posting are
along the same degrees of misrepresenting my views. Needless to say that all
of your questions feed from this source of misrepresenting my views. And this
is not to mention the non sequitur arguments or questions you keep raising as
a result of such misrepresentation. Consider these examples:

<< 1. (a) Who carried out the rational disinterested study you talked about?
(b) Was it you?
(c) If it was you, can you truly say it was disinterested?
(d) Was it carried out on the PDOIS model or other communist or socialist
models such as the USSR, East Germany, North Korea etc.?
(e) How did you come to apply it to PDOIS? What criteria did you use? >>

Talk about misrepresenting views! When i made the point the point about 'a
rational disinterested study', i was stating the case that were this to be
case with PDOIS policies, are you going to recommend them refuse to
acknowledge such a disinterested rational inquiry and or its results? Nowhere
in my postings did i indicate stating that i carried out 'a rational
disinterested study' into PDOIS. Yet, you went right ahead to quiz me about
stuff that only someone who has not been reading me will continue to raise in
such a tautological manner. This is why you keep posing non sequitur
arguments and questions that continue to arise out of such misrepresentation.
Who talked about the USSR, North Korean and East German models?  I merely
wrote an essay stating what i argue to be the problem with PDOIS' economic
policy thrust, within the framework of present day Gambian conditions. The
point i raised about North Korea or Russia or juxtapose them alongside PDOIS
is to allude to their intransigence as a meeting point. I explained this very
clearly in my first comprehensive response to your piece. By the way, if you
really want to read a decisive, eloquent and effective repudiation of the
central tenets of socialism, and the dangers of State contrived
collectivisation or cooperatives, you might want to try reading Hayek's "The
Road to Serfdom". Now that is a classic rational disinterested enquiry into
socialism and makes the point loud and clear.

In my opinion, a debate is not just about condensing a posting with a
plethora of questions and expecting the other participants to keep answering
them as if you are the examiner and they are the examinee. This, i'm afraid,
is where we are heading right now. The tautological nature of your approach
is not helping matters. If you can rescue the debate from that pit, i'll
gladly engage you on any relevant issue - so long as i'm on this List.

All the best,

Hamjatta Kanteh

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>