• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Discussion on Left"isms" & Relevance to India
#10
Not similar to Hinduism. Ahimsa is for certain people (yogis, sannyasins, and the like). Otherwise we believed in defense and fighting adharma.****

I meant ahimsa in the sense we don't fight, except in self-defense. We don't fight for wealth, power, land, whatever. We spread the ideals of peace and non-violence. So I guess we're saying the same thing with a difference in terminology, that's all.

That's why we had Kshatriyas and why even many villagers could fight in self-defense. For all Hindus to practise ahimsa, at a time when negotiations don't work and violence is brought to our very doorstep and threatens our families, is adharma of a very high order.*****

Fighting is for the military. If everybody cultivates the idea that he's fighting what you call adharma, they may even go so far as to rationalize murder, doing which law becomes immaterial. There will be chaos, no respect for law, because people will justify their actions under the pretext of 'fighting evil.' That's probably why ancient hindus restricted this dharma to a particular (kshatriya) class, in order to avoid chaos.

Please don't speak of Hinduism when you don't really know it (beyond having a Hindu name)******

I know a lot about Hinduism, and I find it very similar to the enlightened ideas of socialism such as equality, common ownership, welfare state etc. That's why I feel it imperative for Hindus and Socialists to get together and fight imperialist designs.

Where have I heard this before? That's right:
'It's either christoislamic hell or christoislamic heaven'. 'You're either for us or against us'. 'Dar-ul-harb or Dar-ul-Islam'. 'Capitalist or communist'. 'Fascist or communist'******

Even reputed capitalists like Reisman hold this view, that third-way economics is a myth, there are only two paths.

****Yes. And also look at the death tolls courtesy of Stalin and Mao.****

They were not leftist.

That is not secularism. Please study what the real meaning of secularism is.*****

Secularism is the separation of state and religion, NOT the total destruction of religion altogether. Religion will have no place in politics, that's all. Or, are you suggesting another version of secularism, which aims to root out all religion?

Also, since nazism is a kind of religion (as is communism), ought it to be respected***

The world recognizes Islam and Christianity as valid, genuine religions. The world doesn't recognize nazism as such. Even Germany doesn't and punishes neo-nazis. As a believer in democracy, we have to go by the voice of the majority. No other option. In countries like Italy and France, Hinduism is not recognized as a religion at all. Will you accept that, as you'd want the world to accept your view that Islam and Christianity are NOT religions??

Which Mahatma? Oh, Gandhi.*****

Is there another?<!--emo&Tongue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

In any case, I can think for myself and don't need to accept and/or follow everything that some respected person did and believed.*****

Even to think for yourself, you'll have to follow someone, one way or the other. Suppose you want evolve a new system of governance based on your 'free thinking', that must be based on the previous knowledge you've acquired as regards the different forms of governance. In other words, you do accept knowledge given to you by *someone else*, based on which you hope to evolve a new system. Which means, even your 'free thinking' involves following someone, or some book, whatever. To think otherwise is sheer arrogance.

conduct an unbiased experiment. Try it: if you keep repeating this statement of yours, will it come true?*****

I have no idea what you're talking about. Right-wing ideology has given the world wars, poverty, human rights abuse, and other forms of destruction. Only a socialist system of governance can be a suitable alternative. But it's NOT the socialism that you imagine it to be, that of Mao's or Lenin's. Nor, is it the Indian version of socialism, namely minority appeasement.

I'm not a confused leftist. I have the right to say what I want. And if I want to make fun of someone, then I will.****

You openly admit you're not averse to making fun of people. With such attitude, you have lost your moral right to fault Christians/Muslims for demeaning Hindus. They too could say what you just did, that they can make fun of any hindu they want.


But you are right about how leftism/communism is a belief.******

That's nothing more than verbal gymnastics.
  Reply


Messages In This Thread
A Discussion on Left&quot;isms&quot; &amp; Relevance to India - by Guest - 11-25-2006, 04:02 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)