Communism is a religion that is inspired, directed and motivated by the Devil himself who has declared war against Almighty God.
Historian scholars have expounded that the idea of “communism” is 1/3rd practice and 2/3rd explanation. Marx looked at the world through a deeply historical point of view, for him, all historical progression was a result of conflict between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” While the groups making up the “haves” and “have-not” classes have changed over the millennia, the conflict has not. At the time of Marx’s writing, he termed the “have” group the bourgeois or capitalist class. These were the rich, the owners, the middle class, and the managers of society. The “have-not” class of laborers he termed the “proletariat.” In Marx’s historical view, the “have-not” class always triumphed over the “have” class to set up a new political and economic system.
Many right-wing and left-wing commentators use Socialism when they mean “state control” of a formerly private sector of the economy. This use is incorrect, “Socialism” is the name of the governmental form when the laborers rule and violently destroy all vestiges of capitalism. There is no such thing as the “creeping Socialism” that Glenn Beck and others mention regularly.
Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.
John F. Kennedy
To a true, died-in-the-wool socialist, programs that have been called out by the right as examples of creeping socialism, such as “healthcare reform, social security, and business regulation” are the complete opposite of Socialism. They believe that these programs are tricks that preserve the capitalist system by helping the workers ignore their poverty and low position in society. Indeed, they believe that these programs, by providing for the basic needs of society’s “have-nots,” increase the difficulty of making Socialism a reality.
Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.
The purpose of the Socialist state is to “violently” remove all remains of the capitalist system. When this has been accomplished in all nations around the world, the “need for government” will disappear, and according to Marx, it will “wither away.”
The resulting society is called Communism. Communism is first and foremost a utopia, everyone works in a job they love and are best suited for, for the simple love of the job and to provide for other members of the community. Each member of the community receives from the others everything they need, nothing more nothing less, there is no need for a government because everyone believes in the system and there is nothing to divide them. For Marx, all history was building toward this bright and beautiful “end of history.”
“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
The word “Progressive” has largely come to replace the politically charged term “liberal” in many political debates today. I personally welcome this change, as the term is very accurate in describing the left. The term itself originated in the early 1900s as a way to describe the mostly middle and upper class, urban, reform-minded individuals responding to the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism.
The Progressives were mostly upper and middle-class Americans who looked at both the problems of society and the rising popularity of violent Socialist ideology, and began to work both privately and through the government to address the problems. They instituted reforms that regulated working hours, child labor, protected consumers, and broke the power of monopolies.
Today’s India’s left follows in the tradition of the early 1900s progressive movement, and are therefore most accurately described as “Progressives”. Even the farthest members of the standard Indianleft cannot be called Socialist (because they do not wish for a violent overthrow of the capitalist system), they simply believe in the power of the government to counteract the power of business and improve the lives of lower-class countrymen.
Marxism contends that once a concerted assault is launched on private ownership, the private owners will be forced to hand over their entire capital, agricultural land, industries and all the means of exchange to the state. Once the entire capital, production, and exchange come into the hands of the State, private ownership will be eliminated automatically.
I personally feel that “texts” of the communist manifesto can not be read “word-by-word” in 2020 with the same meaning because as I have said the society is dynamic and changes are inevitable. Communism in the objective and so it must quite established that in due course of time it will relatively change itself because the idea in itself is “liberal”.
The Communists accused Dr. Ambedkar, who said that the Communist Manifesto is a must-read for the laboring classes, of weakening their movement, it only shows that they did not deem it necessary to even read Ambedkar. They expect the “Dalits to read Marx and to associate themselves with Marxism”, but they themselves neither want to read Ambedkar nor understand him. It is due to this attitude that the Communist movement has failed to strike roots in the country.
Dr. Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste is par with the Communist Manifesto because Dr. Ambedkar insisted on the annihilation of caste, without which, neither classes could come into existence nor caste struggle ensues.
Had Karl Marx been born in India and had written his famous treatise Das Capital sitting in India, he would have had to write it in an entirely different fashion.
Communism is the theory of the emancipation of the proletariat. If the proletariat is defined as a class that earns its living only through the sweat of its brow and not from profit accruing from accumulated capital, the lowered castes in India are definitely the proletariat. Friedrich Engels’ formulation that the proletariat is the class born of the industrial revolution that began in England towards the end of the last century does not apply to India, though it may be true of England, Germany, France or other nations of the industrialized West.
The Indian proletariat, ie the poor, laboring class, is born of the Varna system. The proletariat came into existence in India with the Varna system. It is not the product of any industrial revolution. It is a class that is proletariat by birth, which is lowered-caste by birth, in other words, a slave by birth.
The new social system envisaged by Marxism wants an end to private ownership of industry. It wants to build a society where the means of production are owned and employed by society as a whole and the fruits of labor are distributed among or shared by all with their consent.
In India, private ownership is a part of Manu’s justice system, which has been given the veneer of religion. Here, the history and concept of private ownership is quite different from how Marx and Engels saw them. In India, the Varna system gives the right to own and run industries and businesses only to the Vaishya caste or class. Thus, the centralization of capital is the gift of the Hindu economy, which, in turn, is the product of the Varna system — the soul of Hinduism. Unless the Varna system is obliterated, private ownership cannot be eliminated. That is probably why the Indian capitalists are doing everything they can to preserve and perpetuate the Varna system.
The third class, ie the workers, included the untouchables who were then sweeping roads, lifting garbage, toiling in the fields and factories and working as small-time artisans. In the communist rule, they would definitely get better wages and better housing but they would have no say in the administrative and military set up.
Telangana, the untouchable farm laborers fought shoulder to shoulder with the communists in snatching land from big landlords. Hundreds of untouchable laborers were killed in the struggle. But when it was time to divide the land, the upper-caste Communists told the Untouchables, “We will double your wages but you cannot be made owners of the land.”
Conservatives, Communist, Socialist everyone is owning the stakes in this society & society is going to affect noxiously or affirmatively but it will affect for sure. In Telangana, Socialists fought against the capitalist but communism in the 1940s was much absorbed with “wages” and the western idea of communism failed to understand the social structural problems which can never be issued in true spirit in India.
“The trouble with Communism is the “conservative” Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the “conservative” Christians.”
Conservatives did oppress the Indian “proletariat” with the varna system so would have been the “communist rule” if we would have been a communist state rather than a “welfare socialist state”.
Communists did not give any thought to reservations about a communist revolution. Even now, they are not ready to even consider them. Until the communists decide to attack the oldest imperialistic system in the world — the Chaturvarna system — and make annihilation of caste the mainstay of their movement, Indians can never even hope to see a revolution like the one that took place in China and Russia.
“The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”.
In India, Varna and caste differences would not allow the workers to unite, for here, the savarna workers had no chains to lose, and they had their privileges that they would not have liked to lose.
The country needs a lead and the question is who can give this lead. I venture to say that Labour is capable of giving to the country the lead it needs. Correct leadership, apart from other things, requires idealism and free thought. Idealism is possible for the Aristocracy, though free thought is not. Idealism and free thought are both possible for Labour. But neither idealism nor free thought is possible for the middle-class. The middle class does not possess the “liberality” of the Aristocracy, which is necessary to welcome and nourish an ideal. It does not possess the hunger for the New Order, which is the hope on which the laboring classes live.
Labour’s lead to India and Indians is to get into the fight and be united. The fruits of victory will be independence and a New Social Order. For such a victory all must fight. Then the fruits of victory will be the patrimony of all, and there will be none to deny the rights of a united India to share in that patrimony.
Labour’s creed is internationalism. Labour is interested in nationalism only because the wheels of democracy — such as representative parliaments, responsible executive, constitutional conventions, etc — work better in a community united by national sentiments. Nationalism to labor is only a means to an end. It is not an end in itself to which labor can agree to sacrifice what it regards as the most essential principles of life.
Marxism has the concept of “the dictatorship” of the proletariat so communists of this decade should respect the constitution more than “communist manifesto” and establish themselves through a “democracy” because, in the 1850s, Marx the pioneer of modern-day communism was writing against “imperialism” not state so communist should believe in India of democracy and government because “democratic socialism” is the modern-day communism.
All political societies get divided into two classes — the rulers and the ruled. This is evil. But the unfortunate part of it is that the division becomes stereotyped and stratified so much so that the rulers are always drawn from the ruling class and the class of the ruled never becomes the ruling class. It is because of this that parliamentary democracy has not fulfilled the hope it held out to the common man.
Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%.
This no sense means that communist of this era should wrangle for “dictatorship” because 51% is better than 1%.
You can get quite far in a democracy if you can convince a majority that they are victims of a minority, and that only you can protect them.
In India, demonizing few “institutions”, Political party and Ideologies are done so aggressively that institution is being vilified without “proof”, a political party without “facts” and ideologies with “knowledge”.
If Indian politics drama be understood in American Politics “Republican” who is in power in the US will never come back to power because the former president “Richard Nixon” was “impeached” who belonged to the “Republicans”.
We need to understand “political party” is ideologically based and the economic, political, legal state of the 1970s is not the same as in of 2020s.
The “democratic majority” believed that “demonetization” was a fair-move so did the “democratic majority” was convinced that “Indira Gandhi emergency was fair”.
Criticizing rather I would say “demonizing” a persona is itself an act of cowardly because criticizing “Indira Gandhi’s amendment” and vilifying her in the 2020s is not only “stupid” but also immature because in 1970s legal precedents where not much established and we were in a distorted state of “farrago” as in are we constitutional sovereignty as US Constitution or Parliamentary sovereignty like the UK.
Comparing Indira Gandhi’s tenure with Narendra Modi’s Rule is stupidity on its best because now we have established precedent and financial crisis which was a repercussion of “consecutive” war which “forced” Indira Gandhi to extend emergency but this financial crisis is subject to “Modi-mismanagement”.
Why am I criticizing demonetization when the “democratic majority” feels that to be fair? Because I am a communist? No. Because the same governing party is “dented in states, denied in states and is now being defeated in states”. I am absolutely sure that “democratic majority” is not in favor they are just not “in against”.
“If you can convince people that freedom is injustice, they will then believe that slavery is freedom.”
Right-wingers? Conservatives. They are an asset to society but “formalizing mob” on the name of class, religion, creed is a threat to “democracy”. Conservatives “majorly” preached “capitalism” and communist of 1900s, socialist of the 1960s, Liberals of 1990s and “Libatards” of 2020s are not against the “historical essence of art and culture” but we stand against the “practices’ which are not against religion because we have priests, fatwa,bhakts for that but against “stereotyped practice” against a class, creed, race on the name of “customary societal structure”.
I am a communist who believes in “democratic socialism”. Communism is not “anti-government” but anti-fascism. Communism in the 1850s was an”economic” policy but in the 2020s it shall be understood as a structural policy of a society.
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.”.
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.