A Discussion on Left"isms" & Relevance to India

[Guest]

Somewhat relevant here. I was reading a commentary by Acharya Rajneesh. He says:

First basic flaw in the foundation of marxist thought is this. It presumes that humanity is poor and hungary because someone else is rich and full. It assumes that had it not been for those filthy and hateable rich, everyone must have been able to live well. This is the most basic misunderstanding of a confused marxist mind.

Humanity is daridra by default, was daridra since beginning. Life was always a struggle when whole humanity was just a huge commune and whole earth was shared. There were no nations, no concept of personal ownership, even children were not personal. But humanity suffered from all the same challenges and more.

So the baseline situation of humanity is and always has been Daridrata. Then, some who had vision, and had a zeal and desire to break themselves away from that situation, worked themselves out of it. If some are rich today, it is largely because of their zeal and not because of having "looted the poor".

Second fundamental flaw is this. Marxism (and to large extent capitalism too) denies that anything exists in life beyond what the telescope of economics can see. everything in nature has to be simplified to the demands and supply. For a marxist mind, life is this gross body and its greatest needs are the mundane and basic needs alone. There are no greater potentials than fulfilling the bodily needs, there can be no greater calls of existence. One has to be 'useful' or 'productive' to justify one's existence. One can not just "exist" for existances own sake. No place for meditation, no scope for religiousness, no place for rising above the body and its needs. This denial of any higher existence is the second flaw in the understanding of life.

[ramana]

I think this interview in Ind Express is important to understand extreme Left world view. Shades of this view color the other leftists to liberals.

Ind Exp Interview with D. Bhattacharya CPIML

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->‘Only Buddhadeb can give away 1000 acres of fertile land’
Dipankar Bhattacharya at the EXPRESS

Posted online: Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST

<b>Dipankar Bhattacharya is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist),</b> which has had a bit of a late start on the Indian electoral scene. Seen as the ultra-Left, the party contested its first election in 1989 and sent its first MP, Rameshwar Prasad, the same year.

Starting out from the Indian Statistical Institute, Bhattacharya may have been thought of an unlikely candidate to take on the job he holds at present, but it was during the Emergency that he came into his own. <b>And since Bhattacharya took over from the legendary Vinod Mishra, his party has been trying to find a middle ground — from being at odds with the system to one that has now come to terms with parliamentary democracy. The CPIML today still claims to be, in his words, “the Left opposition to the Left”. </b>

Bhattacharya joined the Express team for lunch this week and candidly discussed what drives his party nearly 40 years after Naxalbari erupted in 1967, how the changes in Nepal have impacted his party and, most of all, what he feels about big brother CPM. Excerpts:

DIPANKAR BHATTACHARYA: I have just returned from our central committee meeting in Chennai and these are some of the things we discussed: In 2007, we are planning a big, countrywide campaign, which will be slightly different from the campaigns we usually have. One part of the campaign will deal with “burning issues” of the day — the question of SEZs, farmer suicides, atrocities on Dalits, exclusion of Muslims, the NREG, that is more on paper than on the ground.
These are issues that we have been involved with and have been campaigning on, very vigorously. <b>But next year, we will try and link it with history and history will become a matter of popular struggle, because history we believe is not to be treated as something of the past or settled. What India really means, what India’s national identity should be, is still a matter of debate in this country. Which is why I think the 150th anniversary of 1857 gives us an opportunity and it is also our duty to celebrate the glorious tradition of peoples’ revolt in this country, especially with all these new interpretations of 1857 coming up — like looking at 1857 through the prism of “clash of civilizations” and the post-9/11 kind of discourse.
We also have the centenary year of Bhagat Singh. And for us, the 40th anniversary of Naxalbari (May 25) is equally significant, as you have continuity — right from 1857 through Bhagat Singh to Naxalbari in the post-Independence era. Basically, the same tradition and glorious heritage of peoples’ revolts in this country. We are going to try and link the two things — the popular issues and the whole question of Indian history, and develop them into a new plank for a powerful peoples’ movement.</b>

In our own areas of strength like Bihar, Jharkhand and UP, the movement is growing, but recently, we have also seen growth in other states. In Punjab, for example. Similarly, in Andhra and Orissa, which have not been our strongholds, we are having a positive kind of growth. We have the land struggle growing on the Andhra-Orissa border, we have fisherfolk struggle around Chilka, which is a powerful movement, and has a big role for us to play.

<b>On the issue of SEZs, the kind of displacement we are seeing on a countrywide scale, there too we have a big movement waiting for us. </b>

Bihar has definitely entered a new period after 15 years of Lalu rule, but the recent by-elections show that people are not satisfied with Nitish Kumar, either. Beyond a small camp of upper-caste feudal forces, I don’t see any celebrations, any euphoria in Bihar. I think the conditions are still quite favorable for the rise of a third force — and the third force can only be the Left in Bihar and Jharkhand. This is where we would like to have greater cooperation with the so-called mainstream Left parties — but that has not yet happened.

Bengal too remains a bone of contention. Our stand is pretty simple: We want to confine Bengal to Bengal as far as possible. We know Bengal is not India and in the rest of India, wherever possible, we would like to have joint action.
Right now, we have only five MLAs in Bihar, one in Jharkhand. In Assam, where we had developed a sort of strong electoral base, we had to suffer a temporary setback. There was a split in the autonomous state movement, engineered by the BJP and there is also this whole phenomenon of militant state-sponsored outfits.
I feel that in the states where our party has some kind of mass presence, the state is particularly directing its energy against us. In Bihar, we find that even a local thanedar or DSP, SP tells us very clearly that either you have to behave like the CPI or CPM. If you want armed struggle then be like the PWG, set up by the Maoists. Don’t try and be propagators of a militant force of peoples’ movement within the mainstream political arena, they say. This message is very clear and we can see how at this juncture, the concept of democracy and democratic rights, constitutional rights and liberty all come to an end.

UNNI RAJEN SHANKER: For a party which believed in armed struggle, how’s the experience of working within the framework of parliamentary democracy? Has your party been able to make effective policy interventions?

I don’t know what you really mean by effective policy intervention, but we have been highlighting to the best of our ability the pressing issues that are now confronting the people, all those issues on which you now have some kind of legislations coming up. Like the NREG, an unorganised sector Bill, domestic violence legislation, etc. These are all issues that have been central and integral to our political agenda. I would like to believe that these legislations have got some connection with the actual movements on the ground.
So we have played some role, but the bigger role is to come because these legislations mean nothing unless they reach the people in need of them the most. I don’t expect to influence the policy discourse in this country overnight, because there is a definite policy orientation.

SEEMA CHISHTI: You will be marking 40 years of Naxalbari. Has there been any thinking or suggestion from your cadres for reforms from within? Have the events in Nepal and the line that the Maoists have now taken there impacted on your fundamental ideological beliefs?

The impact has been that it has corroborated our fundamental ideological belief. In Nepal, for 10 years they were involved in what they call “people’s war”, and now they are more into this arena of political initiatives. What they have achieved in Nepal is quite remarkable in the context of Nepal but I don’t see how one can draw any conclusion of universal significance. I don’t look at it from the point of view that since USSR collapsed and China is facing some ideological problems, we can automatically turn to Nepal and find the answer.
In the context of Nepal, I think what they have done is quite remarkable as it shows that it is possible to combine various forms of struggle. Even in this way, it is possible for people to come out on the streets in hundreds and thousands and dethrone a US-backed monarchy. Maybe for the Maoists in India, this shift has been a setback as they would have been happy if there were a linear culmination of the people’s war in Nepal, a continuation of the struggle the way it was rather than their coming into the parliamentary arena.
But for us, the important thing is this combination — they were involved in armed struggle when it was necessary and they have also shown the political vision and flexibility to come into politics and triggering the “political crisis” that led to the resetting of the political agenda in Nepal.

VRINDA GOPINATH: What has been your party’s experience in West Bengal?

We play a difficult role there. We constitute the Left opposition to a Left Front government. If we had not been there the BJP, Congress and TMC would have monopolised the whole opposition. But being the Left opposition is not an easy thing to do. Many good things like Operation Barga, Panchayati Raj and all the land reforms have taken place in the state. But now there is certainly a growing area where we are forced to confront the government.
This is what we have been doing and for which we are being badmouthed. It has been propagated that here is a party that considers the CPM to be the biggest enemy, a bigger enemy even than the BJP. But then that is just an occupational hazard that we have to face. We have been successful in keeping alive the peoples’ belief in the Left.
In the last election, you saw the CPM doing exceptionally well because for people there, it is the Left which can deliver. There is no Congress leader around who can do this. Only Buddhadeb Bhattacharya can go about giving away thousand acres of multi-crop land (to the Tatas in Singur). Pranab Mukherjee can’t, nor can Mamta Banerjee.

PAMELA PHILIPOSE: One of the criticisms of the Left parties has been that their class struggle does not take into account caste stratifications. How does your politics reflect the wisdom or the lack of it, on this?

I find this a bit strange because if you read The Communist Manifesto, the first sentence says it is society that is divided into classes not the economy. But somehow, it is always believed that when you are talking about class, you are only talking about economic status or economic rights. So for us it is not a bit of gender, a bit of caste, a bit of economics and a bit of politics combined into a class struggle. I think when you are talking about class struggle, you are basically talking about a fundamental transformation in the polity and society, you want the oppressed to become the dominant or the decisive force.
COOMI KAPOOR: Can a party like yours be an electoral success with less than 12 MLAs all over India?

I think it can, the whole point is to prepare yourself for that kind of situation. There are new parties that have evolved, the electoral scene in India has been one of the most dynamic in the world. The parties that have made it big in the electoral arena are the ones that have been easily co-opted into the whole scheme of things.
Take the BSP, for example. The other day I was talking to some of their leaders. They said: “Ambedkar had gotten into too many things. He talked about land nationalisation and public sector, etc. Whereas we are single-minded about power. We also have our economic agenda but we are keeping it hidden. It will come to the fore only once we come to power.”
In the process, the BSP has managed to gain a captive Dalit base and an active aggressive upper-caste base. That probably gives it immediate electoral success, but it is confined to UP. If we, in the name of winning elections give up our struggles and ideology, we will be at loss. Then we will lose our USP, we will no longer be the CPIML. Why would then anyone come to us?

KAVITA CHOWDHURY: Do you think the uneasy memories of the Naxalbari movement in West Bengal prevent the common man from accepting your ideology?

I don’t think people are allergic to Naxalbari, neither are we dogmatic about Naxalbari. We are certainly not telling the people of Singur that “see we told you so”, that 40 years ago Naxalbari said this. So you first understand what Naxalbari is and then you will understand what happened in Singur. When we went there, we found that people were very receptive and they knew that here is a Left party that has been in the thick of land struggles and they probably found us more credible than Mamata Banerjee, going there and using all the rhetoric, all the talk of peasantry, land reform, etc.

MANINI CHATTERJEE: <b>How does the post-reforms China affect your worldview? </b>

China does not affect our worldview. What we find unique about China is that they are much more down-to-earth than the Soviet Union was. The one thing good about China is that they say they have a very elementary form of socialism, though there are certain policies we do not agree with. Where we would like China to be different is if they could have a more proactive political presence in the arena of global politics. Their multi-polarity is more an economic multi-polarity rather than a political one. If capitalism can have a wide range of models from Adam Smith to Tony Blair, why should socialism be confined to a single type of model?
As for West Bengal, the more we are able to stick to our role as a Left opposition the more we are able to strike some chord and resonance within the CPM. That is why they don’t want this to happen, that is why attacks on us take place. We have been particular about demarcating our distance from the Trinamool Congress, too.

VARGHESE K GEORGE: <b>It is said that China’s is a new form of capitalism or is it socialism gone wrong? </b>

This is what China is saying: “We are in a very elementary stage of socialism and building capitalism and we have a kind of socialist state.” But then you need to look at the kind of capitalism India has and the kind China has — they are able to exercise a greater degree of sovereignty in terms of their own planning and decision-making. That much you will have to grant to China, which we cannot grant to many other Third World country.
That is why I do not invest China with a lot of socialist theory. The Chinese kind of capitalism, the special kind of capitalism you see evolving there interests us. We consider them to be an ordinary socialist country, without adjectives.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Post 22 (Ramana):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But next year, we will try and link it with history and history will become a matter of popular struggle, because history we believe is not to be treated as something of the past or settled. What India really means, what India’s national identity should be, is still a matter of debate in this country. Which is why I think the 150th anniversary of 1857 gives us an opportunity and it is also our duty to celebrate the glorious tradition of peoples’ revolt in this country, especially with all these new interpretations of 1857 coming up — like looking at 1857 through the prism of “clash of civilizations” and the post-9/11 kind of discourse .<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is exactly the communist view of history: an extreme version of the christoislamic (and what had therefore long been the 'western') view of history. The past is no longer an objective list of what happened, when, by whom, and for what reasons as given by the historical characters themselves or by their biographers. But rather, history becomes what said communist or other twister thinks (should have) happened, when they want it to have happened, why they want it to have happened and how they wanted it to have happened or turned out. The <i>why</i> here is perhaps the most important, that's why the like the idea of 'new interpretations' and wish to look at it through the "prism of Clash of Civilizations and the post-9/11 discourse". (The attack on WTC of course had nothing to do with 1857, but it does to communists and others as they plan for it to serve their purpose in this case, whatever that may be.)
As to why it is that they want to look at history in a different way is because they have decided what the outcome of this new version of history should be. They're just reverse engineering from their goals of how the present should be viewed: changing history to suit what they want the present (and therefore the future) to be. They indicate it here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What India really means, what India’s national identity should be, is still a matter of debate in this country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They think India's identity is (or should be) a matter of debate, and they want to enter this - what they perceive to be a - debate, and tell us what the national identity should be. (How about they stuff their opinions where the sun don't shine?)

This is the christoislamic way: history only means something if it says something glorious about christoislamism. (For example, reading the early fathers of the church, all the early conquests for christ were made out to be the will of their gawd. As were the later ones. In islam too, pre-islamic Arabia was completely demonised, made to look so uncivilised so that it would always compare unfavourably to the hell brought on by islam.) And, communism being a christoislamic offspring does the same thing. And again, the case of 1857 is going to mean something to do them only because they have a plan to <i>make</i> it relevant to communism. Making it relevant by force-fitting, as usual.

None of these loser ideologies care anything for truth, they think of truth as a sockpuppet that they can put their hand into and move its mouth to speak whatever they want it to say. History is an 'open for all to grab and manoevre as you please' business. So all the frauds are jumping at the sockpuppet to be the one to control it. Communists, like the others, think it's first come, first served.
'History' as per the Christoislamic-communist ideologies should always be put in quotes, so everyone knows what a travesty it is.

[Guest]

via email..

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Brothers,

The alliances against us which we are supposed to be avoiding are
already there. We cannot avoid what is accomplished fact. So let's
get back to reality.

There are two things that we must understand: (1) that according to
the Shastras, the Himsa that is done in accordance with Dharma must
be regarded as Ahimsa. Righteous War (Dharma Yuddha) against
Adharma is enshrined in our Hindu Shastras and does not qualify as Himsa;
and (2) that it is imperative to understand the nature of the
Maoist enemy.

The Maoists are saying that the Capitalists are a confused lot. But
the truth of the matter is that the Maoists themselves are an even
more confused lot than the Capitalists. In fact, they don't even
know what they are talking about.

Mao said: "If you have not investigated a certain problem, you will
lose your right to speak on it." If this is the case, let us
investigate this myth called Communism.

Communism says it wants to create a society where all people are
equal. All right, so let's take a look at Russia and China. Are all
Russians and Chinese equal? No. Some are billionaires and others
have nothing to eat, just as in Capitalism.

Communism says it wants to create a society without money, where
people get what they need and nobody lacks anything. Is there such a
society in Russia and China? No. Money in Russia and China is as
important as in the Capitalist world.

Communism says that land is taken away from rich landowners and
given to the landless peasants. Mao himself promised this to the
masses. This is why the peasants supported his revolution in the
first place. But this is a typical Communist lie. The truth is that
Communism aims at abolishing all private property. Mao did indeed
imprison and execute millions of landowners and gave the land to the
poor. This made him popular with the masses. But as soon as he came
to power, he started implementing the true Communist policies.

First, he got groups of five or six families to join their farms
into a co-operative where land was worked collectively and the
income was shared. Second, he got a whole village to join a larger
co-operative. Third, he got several villages to join an even larger
co-operative. From there to State-owned land it was not far.

Before the peasants even understood what was happening, their land
was regarded as belonging not to each family as promised by Mao but
as property of the co-operative! The State-controlled co-operative,
of course, would keep most of the income for itself and invest it in
properties for the leadership and in industrialisation projects
outside the countryside. Instead of the peasants' hard-earned money
being put back into the villages, it invariably ended up elsewhere,
just as in pre-revolutionary times.

So, once again, farmers were reduced to poverty, this time not by
Feudalists, not by Capitalists but by Maoists themselves. Their
children were forced to go and work for peanut-wages in factories in
the town. By 1962, 30 million people died of starvation! It was only
in 1979 that the Maoist leadership began to dismantle co-operatives
and give some of the land back to the peasants.

Communism says that the more a society advances on the path of
Communism, the less power the State holds, the aim being to abolish
the State completely. Is there such a society in Russia or China or
any other Communist country? No. On the contrary, the more Communist
a country becomes, the more powerful the State becomes. In the end,
the State holds all the power and the people hold no power at all.
The State in Communist countries holds even more power than in
Capitalist ones. So it is all fantasy. It is all lies.

The fact is that Russia and China are giving up Communism, indeed,
they have given it up already because Communism, in practice, does
not work out and never will. Communism is not a progression from
Capitalism. It is just a scam. It is a delusional experiment by mad
intellectuals at the cost of the people.

All the countries that have tried out Communism are now reverting
back to Capitalism. Why? Because Capitalism may be cruel, unfair and
unjust, but at least it works better than Communism. Capitalism is a
failure in the sense that it has failed to provide justice and
equality for all people. But Communism is an even bigger failure.

The truth is that ordinary Maoists are very confused people. They
think that their lives are better under Communism. But they have
never lived in a Communist country, so how can they know? They don't
understand that their leaders promise them all kinds of things now.
But when the leaders come to power, then everything will change.

The  people will demand what was promised to them and the leaders will
not be able to deliver. Then the deportations and the mass murders
and the genocides will begin. The Maoist leaders will become the
new oppressors because they will not let go of power. So they will
ruthlessly put the people down.

Like in Russia and China, the Communist leaders will take all the
power and the people will have no power at all. They will have no
money, they will have no land, they will have no work, they will
have no food. Like in Russia and China, people will have to stand in
line all day waiting to buy bread or rice if they are lucky.

People will be completely powerless. They will have no guns to
defend themselves against the oppressive leaders. Their guns will be
taken away from them as soon as the leaders have come to power. The
leaders do not want any competition or challenge to their authority.

So they will demand complete submission to their rule.

This is very important to understand. When a Maoist has a gun, he
feels that he is somebody. He feels that he has power over other
people. This is a new experience for him. He gets high on power. He
goes around shooting landlords and officials and raping their wives,
daughters and sisters. This makes him feel important. He thinks
Maoism is the real thing, the real life for a man.

The Maoist thinks that when the revolution is over, he will keep his
Kalashnikov or his Enfield and retire on his State-provided farm.
That is what every Maoist dreams of. But he is only deluding
himself. In reality he is only a "useful idiot" (as the Communist
saying goes) in the power games of the Maoist leadership.

When the revolution is over and the "Feudalists" and "Capitalists"
have been liquidated, and his gun has been taken away from him,
then  the Maoist revolutionary is powerless. He is like a dog people
throw stones and sticks at and there is absolutely nothing he can do
about it. This is the true story of the Maoist. He is born like a dog, he
will have power for a few days or a few years and then he will live
and die like a dog again. When Mao's wife was arrested and put on
trial by the Communist Party, she said: "I was Mao's dog. I bit
whoever he asked me to bite". This is the truth.

Mao was a great revolutionary. He was a great fighter. He was a
great guerrilla leader. We must respect him for that. We can learn
a lot from him in this regard. But at the same time we must clearly
understand that he was a lousy economist. He didn't know what an
economy needs in order to work. He didn't understand what a country
needs to prosper.

In fact, apart from history, politics and revolutionary warfare,
Mao  didn't know much at all. And after the Revolution, he knew even
less. In the end, he was completely cut off from the people and
from the country. He was living in a big house with plenty of food and
everything he wanted. He married three or four times. Young village
girls were brought to him every day to keep him young. He lived
like a God on Earth. He had no idea what life was like for the people.
When he visited a village, the streets were repaired, the houses
were redecorated, people had new clothes and there was food
everywhere. After his visit, poverty and misery came back to the
same village.

Chin Peng, a Communist guerrilla leader in the 1940s, fought for
over twenty years to establish Communism in Malaya. He first fought
against the Japanese. When the Japanese were defeated, he fought
against the British. When the British were defeated, he didn't know
what to do. He said: "I have great experience of struggle, but not
how to build Socialism". He went back to the jungle.

The same applies to Mao, to Lenin, to Castro and to all Communist
revolutionaries. They are great fighters and great military
leaders.

But when the fighting is over, they all fail. Why? Because
Communism was invented by Karl Marx, a German/Dutch Jew, who was a
philosopher and a fantasist. He never had any experience of
Communism. He made it all up in his own mind.

Yes, there was poverty. Yes, there was suffering. Yes, there was
exploitation. Yes, there was injustice in European Capitalism as
there was in Russian and Chinese "Feudalism". And yes, something had
to be done about it. But the answer was not Communism. The answer
could not have been Communism simply because nobody knew what
Communism was. Karl Marx saw the German and French Revolutions of
1848 and 1871 and he thought that a Communist Revolution would solve
all the problems. But he only thought so.

Marx had no time to see Communism being put into practice. The
German and French Revolutions failed and he died in 1883, in
London,  the centre of the Capitalist and Imperialist world. What practical
experience of his own theories could he have had?

The first Communist Revolution where Communists actually took and
held power was in Russia, long after the death of Marx. When Lenin
himself staged his Russian Revolution in 1917, he had no idea what
he was doing. He was merely hoping that Marx's Communist theories
would work. The same happened to Mao who copied Lenin. Mao was an
intellectual kept by his hard-working peasant father. He had no
practical experience of Communism. The only experience he had was
of  guerrilla warfare.

What most people don't realise is that Mao's authority did not come
from his successful establishment of Communism in China but from his
guerrilla war against Japan. In this respect, he was just like Chin
Peng. Like Chin Peng, Lenin, and other Communist leaders, once the
war was over, the great Chairman Mao had no idea what to do.

The Chinese, of course, were not stupid. They soon realised that
Communism wasn't working as expected and tried to introduce
Capitalist measures to repair the damage Communism had done to the
economy. But with Mao and his wife in charge, this was not possible.
And because Mao was a powerful symbol of the Revolution and people
worshipped him like a God, no one dared touch him. As a result, the
people suffered for decades. The suffering of the Chinese, Tibetan
and other people affected by Maoism is beyond description.

When Mao finally died in 1976, he left China one of the poorest and
most backward countries on Earth, with a big Communist Party, a big
Communist Army, but no food to feed its people. Tens of millions of
people had died of starvation and Maoist China was importing food
from its Capitalist enemies. Mao's powerful wife was arrested and
tried for treason just a few weeks later. In the end she committed
suicide.

In 1979, three years after his death, China began to abolish the
Communist co-operative system. Peasants got some of their land
back.

In 1981, the Chinese Communist Party publicly criticised Mao for
his  policies. This was the end of Maoism in China. Ever since then, the
leadership has slowly introduced more and more Capitalist methods
back into the Chinese system and the semi-Capitalist Chinese
economy  is now enjoying unprecedented strength.

In "On Guerrilla Warfare", Lenin said: "It is unconditionally
requisite that history be investigated in order to discover the
conditions of environment, the state of the economic progress, the
political ideas that obtained, the national characteristics, customs
and degree of civilisation. " If this is so, why can not the Maoists
of today study the historical failure of Maoism in China before
they  even start their revolution elsewhere?

Unlike the Maoists, we have followed Lenin's advice and studied
history thoroughly. We have studied the teachings of Communism and
we have studied the results of these teachings on the ground. As a
result, we can now look at the Maoists of Nepal, India, South
America and other places and clearly understand what a confused lot
they are. They deliberately ignore history and desperately cling on
to the dreams of Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao and a string of other
deluded  political fantasists. A dream that cannot and never will find
fulfilment on this Earth.

Mao said that people should not read too many books. But he himself
read – and wrote – many books. Did he not want people to read his
books? Was he afraid that people would find out the truth? At any
rate, the books he read and believed in were books written by
fantasists who themselves believed the fantasies of others before
them. This is how Adharma works. It is a self-perpetuating,
destructive force that does not rest from doing evil until it is
defeated. Therefore, it is the duty of all right-believing people
to  wipe Adharma off the face of the Earth. The destruction of Maoism
is a good start.

...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[agnivayu]

Actually since Hinduism is not recognized in many western countries like France and Italy, or in many Islamic countries, maybe Hindus should reciprocate the favor in India.

Islam and Christianity are both part of the Abrahamic fascist aggressor brigade. They like to stick their noses in other people's land's and business. They will scream when they get bitten for their aggression. Neither of these Abhrahmic tyrants believe in tolerance. They will of course use tolerance as an excuse to expand their global dominance. Hinduism is the brick wall that stands in their way, the largest remaining ancient religion. History shows what life is like for minority religions when ChristoIslamic fascists take over.

Hindus in India should foster the natural hatred that Indian Xtian's and Muslims have for each other and watch them cancel each other's energy. In the religion of peace, Shia and Sunni are already murdering each other.










<!--QuoteBegin-suresh+Nov 25 2006, 04:02 PM-->QUOTE(suresh @ Nov 25 2006, 04:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not similar to Hinduism. Ahimsa is for certain people (yogis, sannyasins, and the like). Otherwise we believed in defense and fighting adharma.****


[right][snapback]61303[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

Where is the first poster.
He may have fooled everybody and tested.

Let him learn and contribute. There is half information and false information
about marxism in India. I have aome family members who are confused