Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this topic on other bookmarking websites.
In a survey, Russians have appreciated Soviet Communist system. It appears that the 'distant' always looks better.

http://rbth.ru/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html


Russians were united under the communist rule...and more importantly the communism practiced there was different to that of China and Korea which is far more severe. But there is an argument against Marxism too in that Karl Marx called it the ultimate and at the same time went on to say that change is inevitable in life ....So there is no ultimate anywhere since there is always change. Altough communism preaches equality, we know that there are some who are more equal ! :dry:

Pay no mind to those who talk behind your back, it simply means that you are two steps ahead !!!

Here I wish to add that there was also concept of 'communism' before Karl Marx. Plato also advocated 'communism' but that was far different. He had suggested that the 'political and intellectual class' should have 'common wives' and 'common children' This is known as 'communism of wives'. I have mentioned this in my article on Plato. He also did not favor personal property for the ruling class.
Also in Marxist view itself, the earliest period in human development was 'primitive communism' as there were no means of production, no individual ownership and no concept of individual marriage. The men folk would hunt and women look after internal matters and care of children of the whole tribe. Later feudal system based on land ownership and capitalism based on factory system evolved. Scientific socialism and communism are to follow.
Gandhiji's socialism is all about trusty ship, in which he advocated about equal distribution of wealth among all masses of society. It never come to true picture though.

http://mohanmekap.com/

Here I wish to add that there was also concept of 'communism' before Karl Marx. Plato also advocated 'communism' but that was far different. He had suggested that the 'political and intellectual class' should have 'common wives' and 'common children' This is known as 'communism of wives'. I have mentioned this in my article on Plato. He also did not favor personal property for the ruling class.
Also in Marxist view itself, the earliest period in human development was 'primitive communism' as there were no means of production, no individual ownership and no concept of individual marriage. The men folk would hunt and women look after internal matters and care of children of the whole tribe. Later feudal system based on land ownership and capitalism based on factory system evolved. Scientific socialism and communism are to follow.
Gandhiji's socialism is all about trusty ship, in which he advocated about equal distribution of wealth among all masses of society. It never come to true picture though.


By trusteeship, Gandhiji expected the industrialists to consider themselves not owner but trustee of people' wealth. But this was an unreasonable and impractical suggestion. In this context, let me refer to following article:

http://www.boddunan.com/articles/education/42-general/20813-relevance-of-gandhian-trusteeship-doctrine.html

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Thank you said by: mohan manohar
Here I wish to add that there was also concept of 'communism' before Karl Marx. Plato also advocated 'communism' but that was far different. He had suggested that the 'political and intellectual class' should have 'common wives' and 'common children' This is known as 'communism of wives'. I have mentioned this in my article on Plato. He also did not favor personal property for the ruling class.
Also in Marxist view itself, the earliest period in human development was 'primitive communism' as there were no means of production, no individual ownership and no concept of individual marriage. The men folk would hunt and women look after internal matters and care of children of the whole tribe. Later feudal system based on land ownership and capitalism based on factory system evolved. Scientific socialism and communism are to follow.
Gandhiji's socialism is all about trusty ship, in which he advocated about equal distribution of wealth among all masses of society. It never come to true picture though.


By trusteeship, Gandhiji expected the industrialists to consider themselves not owner but trustee of people' wealth. But this was an unreasonable and impractical suggestion. In this context, let me refer to following article:

http://www.boddunan.com/articles/education/42-general/20813-relevance-of-gandhian-trusteeship-doctrine.html
Thanks for this link, it is an imaginary concept which never materialized though, perhaps his intention is good but never worked out, if he would have rules all by himself as PM of India, he himself could have done that.

http://mohanmekap.com/

Thank you said by: Gulshan Kumar Ajmani
Friends whatever happened in the past, whether good or bad, is gone. We can learn from the past and do our present better. Thus present and future is very important for us. It is wastage of time to compare with the past or fight for the past.
In my opinion, the success of communism as a political thought depends upon supporting the majority communities of that state, China, North Korea are example, where as in India, Communists are playing the so called secular politics which is based on minority vote bank, this space has been acquired by right wing parties and for this Communism will never rise in India.


What is important is whether you can achieve what you profess. I feel that in North Korea, there is virtually no Communist Party. There is total personality cult of Kim Ul sung and now his son after former's death. Now even the 'word' communism is not used by them. The right wing parties in India also have made excessive adjustments with their ideology to stay in power. The BJP forgets Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, abolition of separate status for kashmir, uniform personal law and so on to stay in power. The 'secular' parties also create vote banks and indulge in caste politics. Comparatively, Indian Communists are more principled. simply coming to power is not an issue. communists can personal power just by merging with Congress. In U.P., a few C.P.I. leaders joined Samajvadi Party (for example Mitra Sen yadav) and reached position of power.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

Thank you said by: mohan manohar
In my opinion, the success of communism as a political thought depends upon supporting the majority communities of that state, China, North Korea are example, where as in India, Communists are playing the so called secular politics which is based on minority vote bank, this space has been acquired by right wing parties and for this Communism will never rise in India.


What is important is whether you can achieve what you profess. I feel that in North Korea, there is virtually no Communist Party. There is total personality cult of Kim Ul sung and now his son after former's death. Now even the 'word' communism is not used by them. The right wing parties in India also have made excessive adjustments with their ideology to stay in power. The BJP forgets Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, abolition of separate status for kashmir, uniform personal law and so on to stay in power. The 'secular' parties also create vote banks and indulge in caste politics. Comparatively, Indian Communists are more principled. simply coming to power is not an issue. communists can personal power just by merging with Congress. In U.P., a few C.P.I. leaders joined Samajvadi Party (for example Mitra Sen yadav) and reached position of power.
BJP is not Marxist, and in 1999, it is not BJP, but NDA comes to power, BJP has never ever comes to power on their own in the center, and that is why they have not able to implement their core agendas. From all these, they have declared temple if it is agreed by all communities, and what is wrong with abolitions of separate status to J&K, it will make India's case stronger in world front as the same state such as other 30 states of India. With uniform civil code, all Indian irrespective of religion will have to abide by Indian constitutional laws again it is not bad as in India, the Hindus have Hindus marriage act, Muslim have Muslim personal law board and Parsis have similar boards, and all these makes a complicated situation and this is bad for a healthy and mature democracy (67 years of republic) of India. But I still feel Communists in India, which have most scholars and they are very good in orative are doing wrong politics, they should have seen the trends of successful Marxists countries such as China and others to learn the tricks of majority, other wise they could have come to power much earlier.

http://mohanmekap.com/

In my opinion, the success of communism as a political thought depends upon supporting the majority communities of that state, China, North Korea are example, where as in India, Communists are playing the so called secular politics which is based on minority vote bank, this space has been acquired by right wing parties and for this Communism will never rise in India.


What is important is whether you can achieve what you profess. I feel that in North Korea, there is virtually no Communist Party. There is total personality cult of Kim Ul sung and now his son after former's death. Now even the 'word' communism is not used by them. The right wing parties in India also have made excessive adjustments with their ideology to stay in power. The BJP forgets Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, abolition of separate status for kashmir, uniform personal law and so on to stay in power. The 'secular' parties also create vote banks and indulge in caste politics. Comparatively, Indian Communists are more principled. simply coming to power is not an issue. communists can personal power just by merging with Congress. In U.P., a few C.P.I. leaders joined Samajvadi Party (for example Mitra Sen yadav) and reached position of power.
BJP is not Marxist, and in 1999, it is not BJP, but NDA comes to power, BJP has never ever comes to power on their own in the center, and that is why they have not able to implement their core agendas. From all these, they have declared temple if it is agreed by all communities, and what is wrong with abolitions of separate status to J&K, it will make India's case stronger in world front as the same state such as other 30 states of India. With uniform civil code, all Indian irrespective of religion will have to abide by Indian constitutional laws again it is not bad as in India, the Hindus have Hindus marriage act, Muslim have Muslim personal law board and Parsis have similar boards, and all these makes a complicated situation and this is bad for a healthy and mature democracy (67 years of republic) of India. But I still feel Communists in India, which have most scholars and they are very good in orative are doing wrong politics, they should have seen the trends of successful Marxists countries such as China and others to learn the tricks of majority, other wise they could have come to power much earlier.


That is difference between C.P.I. (M) and BJP. CPI (M) gave only outside support and refused even Prime minister post just because they did not have sufficient number to force their agenda. Could BJP also not give outside support as they could not carry out their agenda? This shows that Left is more principled in India. The Left never sought ministerial berths whereas even parties of two or three members got ministerial jobs. The Indian communists also could have taken easy route as suggested and got majority but then they would be making so many compromises that they would be Communist in name only.

Also, we need to appreciate that Communists in Russia, China and elsewhere came to power only through armed revolution. Indian Communists were first to come to power through parliamentary elections in Kerala. Later they got power in West Bengal and Tripura also. They have not developed personality cult, dynastic politics, corrupt practices like major parties, Congress and BJP.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

In my opinion, the success of communism as a political thought depends upon supporting the majority communities of that state, China, North Korea are example, where as in India, Communists are playing the so called secular politics which is based on minority vote bank, this space has been acquired by right wing parties and for this Communism will never rise in India.


What is important is whether you can achieve what you profess. I feel that in North Korea, there is virtually no Communist Party. There is total personality cult of Kim Ul sung and now his son after former's death. Now even the 'word' communism is not used by them. The right wing parties in India also have made excessive adjustments with their ideology to stay in power. The BJP forgets Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, abolition of separate status for kashmir, uniform personal law and so on to stay in power. The 'secular' parties also create vote banks and indulge in caste politics. Comparatively, Indian Communists are more principled. simply coming to power is not an issue. communists can personal power just by merging with Congress. In U.P., a few C.P.I. leaders joined Samajvadi Party (for example Mitra Sen yadav) and reached position of power.
BJP is not Marxist, and in 1999, it is not BJP, but NDA comes to power, BJP has never ever comes to power on their own in the center, and that is why they have not able to implement their core agendas. From all these, they have declared temple if it is agreed by all communities, and what is wrong with abolitions of separate status to J&K, it will make India's case stronger in world front as the same state such as other 30 states of India. With uniform civil code, all Indian irrespective of religion will have to abide by Indian constitutional laws again it is not bad as in India, the Hindus have Hindus marriage act, Muslim have Muslim personal law board and Parsis have similar boards, and all these makes a complicated situation and this is bad for a healthy and mature democracy (67 years of republic) of India. But I still feel Communists in India, which have most scholars and they are very good in orative are doing wrong politics, they should have seen the trends of successful Marxists countries such as China and others to learn the tricks of majority, other wise they could have come to power much earlier.


That is difference between C.P.I. (M) and BJP. CPI (M) gave only outside support and refused even Prime minister post just because they did not have sufficient number to force their agenda. Could BJP also not give outside support as they could not carry out their agenda? This shows that Left is more principled in India. The Left never sought ministerial berths whereas even parties of two or three members got ministerial jobs. The Indian communists also could have taken easy route as suggested and got majority but then they would be making so many compromises that they would be Communist in name only.

Also, we need to appreciate that Communists in Russia, China and elsewhere came to power only through armed revolution. Indian Communists were first to come to power through parliamentary elections in Kerala. Later they got power in West Bengal and Tripura also. They have not developed personality cult, dynastic politics, corrupt practices like major parties, Congress and BJP.
CPIM in its one session declared that it was their grave mistake of nor allowing Jwoti Basu in 1990s when VP singh become PM with outside support of BJP. They called it as their monumental mistakes. They lose the chance to grab the power.

http://mohanmekap.com/

In my opinion, the success of communism as a political thought depends upon supporting the majority communities of that state, China, North Korea are example, where as in India, Communists are playing the so called secular politics which is based on minority vote bank, this space has been acquired by right wing parties and for this Communism will never rise in India.


What is important is whether you can achieve what you profess. I feel that in North Korea, there is virtually no Communist Party. There is total personality cult of Kim Ul sung and now his son after former's death. Now even the 'word' communism is not used by them. The right wing parties in India also have made excessive adjustments with their ideology to stay in power. The BJP forgets Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, abolition of separate status for kashmir, uniform personal law and so on to stay in power. The 'secular' parties also create vote banks and indulge in caste politics. Comparatively, Indian Communists are more principled. simply coming to power is not an issue. communists can personal power just by merging with Congress. In U.P., a few C.P.I. leaders joined Samajvadi Party (for example Mitra Sen yadav) and reached position of power.
BJP is not Marxist, and in 1999, it is not BJP, but NDA comes to power, BJP has never ever comes to power on their own in the center, and that is why they have not able to implement their core agendas. From all these, they have declared temple if it is agreed by all communities, and what is wrong with abolitions of separate status to J&K, it will make India's case stronger in world front as the same state such as other 30 states of India. With uniform civil code, all Indian irrespective of religion will have to abide by Indian constitutional laws again it is not bad as in India, the Hindus have Hindus marriage act, Muslim have Muslim personal law board and Parsis have similar boards, and all these makes a complicated situation and this is bad for a healthy and mature democracy (67 years of republic) of India. But I still feel Communists in India, which have most scholars and they are very good in orative are doing wrong politics, they should have seen the trends of successful Marxists countries such as China and others to learn the tricks of majority, other wise they could have come to power much earlier.


That is difference between C.P.I. (M) and BJP. CPI (M) gave only outside support and refused even Prime minister post just because they did not have sufficient number to force their agenda. Could BJP also not give outside support as they could not carry out their agenda? This shows that Left is more principled in India. The Left never sought ministerial berths whereas even parties of two or three members got ministerial jobs. The Indian communists also could have taken easy route as suggested and got majority but then they would be making so many compromises that they would be Communist in name only.

Also, we need to appreciate that Communists in Russia, China and elsewhere came to power only through armed revolution. Indian Communists were first to come to power through parliamentary elections in Kerala. Later they got power in West Bengal and Tripura also. They have not developed personality cult, dynastic politics, corrupt practices like major parties, Congress and BJP.
CPIM in its one session declared that it was their grave mistake of nor allowing Jwoti Basu in 1990s when VP singh become PM with outside support of BJP. They called it as their monumental mistakes. They lose the chance to grab the power.


CPI(M) never considered this a mistake. But Jyoti Basu considered this as a mistake . However he did not disobey the party line. It is said that Jyoti Basu as well as Har Kishan singh Surjit then General secretary favored joining govt. but the majority in central council and politburo decided against joining government. It is policy of CPI(M) that unless they get sufficient numbers to get dominant rrole, they will not join government. This appears correct policy. Had Jyoti Basu been the P.M., his fate would be same as that of Deve gauda and Inder Kumar Gujaral.

G. K. Ajmani Tax consultant
http://gkajmani-mystraythoughts.blogspot.com/

You do not have permissions to reply to this topic.