Go to The Effulgence Within
- Add a comment
- Go to The Different Brands of Communist Ideologies
Shamaji
Bahut badhia hai apki soch. Dhanyavad 
posted by
anib
on August 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: in reply to GMs comment.
You ae so right with comments with added perspectives. 
posted by
anib
on August 10, 2018 at 11:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Hi, yeh Zindagi ki raftar hum se bhi tez hai....kya guzr raha hai...hum ki waqt pata nahin.I was a Political science student at college but all that is left behind...the theories, policies, revolutions & wars....the basic truth is the acquisition of Power...I feel how you use the power you have (in a political situation) is most important...it should serve a collective purpose or welfare.
पर आज दुनिया में परिवार के दो सदस्य एक ही टी वी चैनल नहीं देखते तो और बात ही क्या है....too many options, opinions.....jai ho!!
posted by
shamasehar
on August 9, 2018 at 2:57 AM
| link to this | reply
I think traditional communism and socialism will always fail, for two primary reasons. First because they are atheist, and do not recognize the true nature of God, spirit, and karmic law. There are spiritual and karmic reasons that some people are "more fortunate" than others. Those who are more fortunate, should willingly share more. And many do that. Those who do not, will be punished for their lack of generousity, in spiritual and karmic ways, in this life or the next. It is not up to the state to take that role.
Second, communism and socialism will always fail, not just because of the greed of the rich, but more because of the greed of the lazy. The lazy folks will not do their share of the work, but they will still be supported by the state, finding all manner of excuses why they cannot work, and having more babies all the while. Plus, they have no incentive to try harder, while they are receiving welfare from the state.
Hmmmm, wait, that is going on in America right now! Ergo, we already have strong components of a socialist state, which have embedded themselves within our democratic republic. Let us hope the socialists do not get stronger, or they will destroy our republic and our founding principles of freedom, as they have already done in many places in America.
posted by
GoldenMean
on August 8, 2018 at 6:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Corbin,
Thank you and I will read it...
I enjoy your in depth posts....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 8, 2018 at 3:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin,
May I thank you for your interested close reading of my write. You are really correct that Marx was no pacifist. Couldn't be. I used the word 'non-violent' not in the sense you mean, but that his was comparitively a different brand of, call it, 'extremism'. And as is their won't, the wonts of all revolutionaries in history, you'll find them hinged on the borders of lunacy. Such deprived people rise generally, from average or middle-class or even poor families, and accidentally hit upon a pot of gold and become obsessed (whch they feel 'blessed') and become victims of megalomania. They consider secularism their religion. Perhaps, if you were to read my immediate previous article, Greene's The Power and the Glory, you'll find some answers to questions you raised here. My point was directed at another angle. It was the US Ambassador Kirkpartrck's wierd sense of Service, the Chrstistian ideal. As I said there that spiritual poverty will remain always, though food may be in plenty in democracy, but this system, too, has its own ills. Corruption becomes rampant because there is hardly any fear of severe punishment. I could just go on and on but accept my gratitude that you painstakingly made your point very clear.
posted by
anib
on August 8, 2018 at 1:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Oh, Ababro, this post is filled with so much to discuss. I really enjoyed contemplating all you have presented to us here. One small point, Christianity to me semns to encompass more than merely serving the poor. I'll take the bait, we could all be equal financially but those who could not show kindness, who are boastful, liars, you name it, would not be Christian followers. So it's all more than a fight for monetary equality. But this you know. Great post.
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on August 8, 2018 at 12:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Re:
Remember "Animal Farm"?
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 7, 2018 at 12:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Trotskyites, I think I don't really know much about the philosophical notions here. Will have to read more.
For me, Karl Marx was the idealist that it is difficult to argue against, but that sadly the self aggrandizement and greed of the masses would never come to accept.
As for Stalin, in my heart he will forever more remain, as do other dictators too many to list, nothing more than an evil greedy Monster.
Actually I agree with Communism in its purest form. A society that shares everything equally between them, those with more abilities to work and earn and learn, ensuring that those that cannot;... enjoy the same privileges as themselves.
In reality it just won't work... maybe for a short while amongst a small group of peoples but we are full of vanity, greed; the seven deadly sins.
posted by
Kabu
on August 7, 2018 at 10:07 AM
| link to this | reply
This is a very good read....but I have to disagree about the "gentleness" of Marx. He may not have held the gun, but he supported it's use if it accomplished his overall goal......
Dr. Samuel Gregg wrote about Marx.....
Marx's ideas and actions were a major catalyst for the death of somewhere between 85 and 100 million people from 1918 until 1991.
That butcher’s list doesn’t include the destroyed economies, burnt churches, or the systematic use of mass imprisonment, torture and state terrorism by Marxist activists and regimes who regarded Marx and Marxist ideology as providing fundamental legitimacy for their actions.
When confronted with these brutal historical facts, the standard response from contemporary apologists for Marx is that he was “misunderstood,” or that he would have had nothing to do with monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, or Pol Pot. Marx, we’re told, was actually a humanist who raised his voice like an Old Testament Prophet in an appeal for justice amidst the dreadful conditions of nineteenth-century industrial Europe.
But Marx wasn’t interested in things like justice or questions of good and evil......He was, after all, a philosophical materialist.
Marx didn’t believe that morality had a real existence of its own.
To remove, however, any shadow of a doubt that Marx himself had no misgivings whatsoever about terrorist tactics, let’s consider a short editorial penned by Marx when the Prussian government suppressed the Cologne newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung of which he was Editor-in-Chief in May 1849. Having argued that this action was entirely to be expected given the threat posed by his newspaper to the established order, Marx unambiguously reaffirmed
there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
As if to ensure that his readers got the point, Marx immediately and chillingly added: “Is that clear, gentlemen?”
*********
Marx gave a speech in London referring to the brutal actions, with Engles at his side......
"Far from opposing the so-called excesses—instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated—the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction."
He definately wasn't a pacifist, but a realist believing that "the ends justify the means".
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 7, 2018 at 4:38 AM
| link to this | reply