" In the second place, it is now pretty evident that the widespread circulation of revolutionary ideas on the desirability of abolishing the family has not by any means eliminated old-fashioned passions of love and jealousy." - The Jealousy  story that  follows would inspire a bollywood drama  :-

"A peasant left his village wife and began to live with a working woman in the town. The village wife kept coming and making scenes before the second wife, until the latter, irritated beyond endurance, poured benzine over her rival, set her on fire, and burned her to death. "

The marxist analysis is hillarious, but for the fact that it happened:
"Such elemental outbursts of jealousy are condemned by the Communists as 'relics of bourgeois prejudice"

The Marxist's who themselves went for the trap committed suicides also - They were not individuals any more.
"even Communist women have been known to commit suicide because their husbands'attentions were diverted elsewhere."

 Some foolish man decided that your familly and love are 'capitalism' - and then they would abolish familly, slander it. One could only be a slave of the state. In India, we respected these b****** for their development. They have taken over bengal, and a hell lot of intellectuals are brainwashed into it.

 The article was published in 1926. We have come a full circle .The family values are assaulted again...Feel good people are busy in slandering it.

A Nice article that throws a perspective on difference between the liberal and progressive. I approach the progressive little differently.

The article discusses that these are postulations, with real stories behind it. It is not like, if  one are not a so called "progressive" then progressive aught to lynch them in Times of India, levy  jijia  taxes for for benefit of less-than-modern people  being allowed beyond the  caves. Years of brand building into progressivism has passed. I didn't read before that  Bill Clinton had such a prominent role in converting  a lot of aspiring humans to progressives. Probably he was not in control.

From the Nazi days, Political violence is accepted by national socialists, it is considered inconsequential as long as the "end" is achieved through any means. The quest to power by the nationalists in nepal costs 10,000+ deaths.

The mystery is how this violence has been managed ?

A Branch of national socialists by name maoists have raised their ugly head in India, Miraculously the top editors , foreign NRIs have been sympathetic to it, a canadian organization has registered the website of CPIML. Initially every talked of it as a spontaneous revolutionary phenomena, some explained it as an inevitable happening of history...The sophistic pleasantry as explanation to erupting violence created a spectacle - People with power of explanation could chose convenience at times...

Mr Dhanu Pradhani  was murdered by the co called Maoists. That is not good news, because these criminals are often brutal in their executions, Pakisthani Army style. Then the Maoists issue a press release, which is in the news paper front page. The letter has the tone authority of god or prohet- It says it has "punished" Mr Dhanu Pradhani with death "penalty" for his alleged involvement in violence.  Even Swami Laxmanananda - a 80+ year hindu sanyasi was  "punished".  No more these are ideological prosecution. It alludes to Mr Pradhani being a  member of VHP - in the utopian world of socialist control, this is a crime equivalent of being an infidel. It accuses mr Pradhani of causing violence and signs of with an warning- the violent businessmen are warned to surrender in people's court, or else face "death penality" . The letter is silent on the daily slaughter that Maoists undertake.

The issue is simple :-  any body who was associated with organization of  hinduism has been targeted by the colonial supporting institutions since middle of 19th century. The hinduism resisted conversion, it resisted the communism and such ideological utopian  movements , thus it has been target of many of these fanatic groups. In 19th century, Monier Williams - a famous professor of Oxford, targeted the citadel of - what he called - "Brahminism". Last 10 years,  organized groups  like VHP have become focal  about the organizational aspect of hinduism. Organization Vs Organization - Maoists and missionaries have presence in traditional village areas with time tested methods of division and organization- They are countered by VHP in many areas where people practice a form religion that doesn't require organizational control and false promises of utopia. Mr Dhanu Pradhani  was working for VHP.

The letter is published in a congress backed Gandhian controlled news paper . How did this word by word threat and justification for violence get into the news paper as a press release in a neutral tone ?   To answer that question on how it got to the press, I check the influential people, whose spoiled kids have joined ideological leftist movements like naxalism, their disastrous fixation with grandness have regained influence - mostly  through corrupt and violent  means. And then there is the international support .  In a world where meal is not considered worthy and complete without two legged birds served, most useful gandhians with international connections have been the ones who managed to give a cover to the maoist violence using the gandhian brand. Their arguments have been discredited historical ideas of inevitability or some times moral exuberance created for public consumption.

  Mr Dhanu Pradhani was murdered as yet one more victim for the elusive end.  Gandhi is dead, he died decades ago. Organizations supposed to be based on non-violence didn't recognize the event, instead it published a justification for killing  and terrorist threats. The organization looks like a mayabi - same organizations - It was different when Gandhi was there, it is different when Gandhian imposters are in display.

"The Real implication of equal distribution is that each man shall have the wherewithal to supply all his natural needs and no more". No more part emphasized by me. Gandhi continues ..."If one man has a weal digestion and requires only a quarter of  a pound of flour for his bread and another needs a pound, both should be in a position to satisfy their wants"

  Gandhians...Top notch-  with european pals  counted as influential  Indians in 2000s for being gandhians - Top notch Gandhians have refuted this comprehensively towards  revolutionary rules as if the man couldn't decide his needs - in flour or health care.   But they are Gandhians because the idea that man needs flour according to his digestive power can be argued and changed a little, and then entire gandhian infrastructure could be used for propaganda . 

 For Gandhi living orthodox lifestyle, his needs were probably what he called "natural" and  understood to be well defined.  Gandhi with that perception, goes on to say - " To bring this ideal into being  the entire social order  has got to be reconstructed" -  Entire social order has to be reconstructed because Gandhi is confused with ill defined ideals of communism. The insensitivity noted. For him, these natural desires might be minor irritants for millions of  wannabe Mahatmas . Those barriers need to be removed, just as an industrial philosopher would have argued - using machines though.  The revolutionary has twisted the utility a little bit - If certain world health organizations can ask to force-feed eggs for nutrition- feeding eggs would be entirely un-gandhian - but he has a good shot at reorganization the society. This is the same insensitivity as noted few lines before.


   For Gandhi the so called natural desire might be a mere nuisance on path of Mahatmahood. He didn't get it. Man had natural desire to engineer one of the worst partitions - villages after villages were cleaned up, people were forced to migrate for natural nations, man had natural desire to loot lakhs of crores from Neheruvian public system leaving an entire country poor.Gandhian  Man had natural desire to sleep over with the propaganda mouthpieces when revolutionaries and un-gandhian desires were sweeping across , and finally man had natural desire for Mahatma-hood !

  Man had also a desire for Mahatma-hood. For Gandhi non-violence was a social attribute rather than blind faith of individual restraint. For many Mahatma's the individual Mahatma-hood is inferior to mass Mahatma-hood, Mass Mahatma-hood can be achieved by force feeding protein rich eggs to all vegetarians. This is an entirely non-gandhian act - But they go for it, just as Gandhi did before. The supposedly natural need now included two legged birds in everyday meal - entire un-gandhian again.


  Gandhi's alacrity in accepting this "ideal" of  early communism - of equal distribution - and blaming the society can be compared with Gandhi's instantaneous denunciation of traditional understanding of Ahimsa...There too he contempts the  understanding of Ahimsa by the "society" - though it seems Gandhi society was correct in understanding of Ahimsa and still need for a military. 





 

 

  The quest of intellectuals and mankind for material enlighten through skulls and shapes of so called "race"  has been little disappointing, because it has been deceptively imposed over the world from colonial europe and the mafia that ruled her. Every body has heard Gandhians opposing these racial formulations ( Haven't  you ?). Consequently I had a little complain and was drawn to focus of an old conversation between a local leader -  who believed in history and Risley 'Saheb' after his education from Bengal, and Mr Gandhi . Individually both of these have interpreted Bhagvat Geeta, but among themselves they were arguing about writings of certain "Mr Tonyson" to arrive at conclusions.  Importance of a  literary discussion on certain "Mr Tonyson"  is rather unexpected for satyagrahi and congressi activists,  but it is not surprising, considering the fight against  the imperial govt and radical intellectuals of the time.

    The late  repetition of  of non-violence as moral guideline,  out of nowhere -often appeared incoherent.  It appeared to be challenged by original arguments that could reveal any realization of the subject. The Gandhians of 2000s  didn't  present a single argument to remember when the direct action maoists and marxists challenged a moral argument by unleashing violence. Instead,  most gandhians were behaving as if addicted to moral superiority - Most of them were searching for new ways to get there, finding new allies, sometimes sharing spoils of the 'progressive' order. The addiction to sort of a  moral superiority and expectation of patronization may give understanding into mundane Gandhi - valiant by most standards- but not in a shallow way defined by intellectuals and accepted by Gandhi-Bhakt-opportunists and impostors.

•    The non-violence was not a new concept to India - it was known  as having some sort of  moral order. Gandhi didn't create this word Ahmnisa, as the strong association of the word with his name may imply.
• Many Gandhians have been vegetarians, obviously none have alleged that as a group they haven't been bombers carrying AK47.  But their silence to renewed anarchist and revolutionary ideas and co-operation with that, just mean that they understood non-violence at best in the traditional Indian silent expanses of peace and wisdom- non-violence having certain space in stack of Indian morality.
• If  Gandhians in 2000 didn't understand non-violence enough to distinguish it from revolutionary politics, Gandhi could possibly have observed the same in his own days - That Gandhians didn't understand non-violent very well. Gandhi was never jingoistic about Gandhians, in fact he had advised dissolution of the congress Party.
• It is observable that gandhians have a habit of  showing off their austerity while presiding thousands crores and sometimes  throwing obdurate tantrums...If these people had an argument against non-violence, couldn't they observe the inherent violence in  anarchist and marxist revolutionary ideas ? Instead they mostly joined and were very comfortable with the anarchists to drive an imperial argument against the Brahmin . Needless to say, the Brahmins who gave up water containers to hold beer bottles, the  intellectual mind or the maoist mantle were merely joining the revolutionary order.

     Tortuous moral arguments for justification of another vagueness asides -   Isn't it obvious that  Gandhians of 2000 were drilled in moral supremacy of non-violence rather than any extraordinary appreciation or understanding of the same ?

Consequently :

• Wasn't it obvious that the  non-violent is a moral political platform of Gandhi, drilled into the masses to inoculate them against perceived or impeding political  "violence" , rather than non-violence some sort of revelation ?
• Why did then Gandhi considered it necessary to drill  this moral superior platform of  non-violence among largely nationalist masses, while poster Gandhians have many times been  ignorant, some opportunist  and some anglicized  ?

   Was there at all a very urgent need for Gandhi to get  into this platform of non-violence , even at the cost of mopla massacre and subsequent hair raising violence against hindus in kolkatta, and cleaning up of Pakisthan and Bangaladesh - as well violence against muslims?  Observing the the world events, the enemies of Gandhi, their tricks of violent revolution -could it be possible that non-violence was an intellectual ideological antique to  oppose more than one well equipped enemies of Bharat ?

    Incidentally India has largely avoided the violent revolutions of maoism and stalinism - except in a couple of places. Is it incidental at all ?  Perhaps  leftist revolutionary involvement in muslim instigation to violence is as obvious - both in PLO, in blaming Jagmohan, or as left leaning writer  Mr Pankaj Mishra did in a British news paper  - to support the propaganda of revolutionaries of Chatisingpora who just massacred an entire village during Bill Clinton's visit to India. Was the leftist revolutionaries finding a way out of gandhian non-violence through all these years using muslims?

   Today the question of non-violence is probably dead for remnants of Gandhian organization- Many Gandhian old men and women  found new opportunities at  pension age - they accept invitation of revolutionary politics to share the spoils . Perhaps some opportunists remained as Gandhians to fool younger generations away from the sharp political arguments of Gandhi against  violent revolutions and an ossified historical world of "poverty of philosophy"...

  However, the question of understanding the need of non-violence as a political platform  in the era of stalinist revolutions may be a valid one.

• Satyagraha - The truth - that Gandhians supposed to be fighting in  an organizational structure has been the source of most of deceptions perpetrated on unsuspecting  Indian population.  Aided by state power, these people convinced the goodness - a goodness that was awarded as the truth. Once the grand became equivalent to mundane, it  "changed" - Changing with the "times" - with new power - meaning opportunism was  was grounded as the new truth. This is rather costly.
• In the political worlds, some pretended to have conquered politics for all.  Actually they had compromised. In the grab of human goodness, the gandhians managed to make some awfully uncompetitive lot. Large swathes of people were neutralized from criticizing pre-colonial formulations and anything western. In decades, the colonial analytics was back - western academics abd educated Indians were back to talking about aryan colonization and greed of business class castes - the opposition by the native scholar by then has become  feeble and almost non-existent. Native tradition of scholarship has been close to be destroyed by tradition of "good" feeling.

Ahimsa in Gandhi's words :

" Somehow or other the wrong belief has taken possesion of us that Ahminsa is pre-eminently a weapon for Individuals and its use should, therefore , be limited to that sphere" - MK Gandhi.

    Gandhi acknowledges Ahminsa is not his own invention - He says a wrong belief has taken our  possession.

"In fact this is not the case", Gandhi continues ..."Ahimsa is definitely an attribute of society. To convince people of this truth is at once my effort and my experient "

     Gandhi continues his argument against "amazing discoveries in the field of violence", and asserts- "But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of non-violence. The history of religion is full of such examples".

It is doubtful whether wrong belief has taken our possession or it was an unfortunate rhetoric that has become a lot costly to the people who had respect for non-violent as a doctrine at a personal level. India has an army since independence, so does other countries...Any trust in hostile neigbours has added more hostility and defeats. The revolutionary maoists have gained spectacularly in Nepal and poised to gain significant influence in India. Further, that Ahimsa as a social attribute, rather than certain religious - religious affiliated attribute  is not correct. Indians generally had army, and were non vegetarians except many religious restrictions.

 

• Facade of political Ahimsa however helped to avoid a Stalinist revolution in India
• Ahimsa was some sort of intellectual argument to blunt the british and christian attack
• Ahimsa has been a costly political tool, it rendered hindus intellectually helpless when serious instigation of muslims happened ( possibly at the instance of revolutionary ideologues using a wine drinking secularist - Jinnah). It rendered hindus intellectually helpless to govern themselves in face of any serious attack - they only mastered the art of disowning humility towards boastful.

The Progressive - it is a new wrapper  placed, perhaps on an age old world view that has discredited itself. The new label has almost succeeded in making a new truth...the brand has  become the new interest  in many minds.

In this Ny Times by  Paul Krugman  article  the supposedly progressive agenda is considered as greater taxes on people earning $250,000 or more. Subsidies in health care is also considered 'progressive'.  I should be indifferent, but I doubt if the story is misleading, coming, unfortunately  from an acknowledged author.

 Mr Krugman says, "the belief that greed is always good"  - helped create the banking crisis “greedy” . This sounds more like a counter-faith infatuation  at enlightenment than  any analysis.

         Mr Krugman however, is a Nobel prize winning economist.  It is entirely  possible that he is talking of those complex technical  and  organizational assumptions on the maximizing profit or stuff like that....So greed could mean assumption of maximizing share holders value...It could mean another assumption - some arcane banking theory unknown to ordinary...Validity of these theories are not the issue.  "Greed" -however  is a pedestrian in stack of morality,  it is easily understood to be denounced by the masses, so the question is what is getting denounced as  greed ?

   Is it working class greed that created the banking crisis ? Is it greed of political manipulators ? Is it greed of brokers in govt ? No. The implicit meaning is "greed" of the amorphous rich. It is difficult to think the nobel laurate is not talking  with at least one postulation of  economics in his mind, but the  words are indistinguishable from arguments of class warfare. Greedy for bigger recognition ?

 The left out question is greed of the poor, should the poor be acting according to their greedy interests ? In previous article, leftist revolutionary  che-guavera says poor working class should sacrifice for the state. An article   "Progressivism's Achilles Heel"  mentions of how the some  denounce rich people who vote their interests as “greedy” and celebrate limousine liberals who vote against their own interests as heroes.  and middle class should “vote their interests,” by which they mean vote for the most government goodies.

  It could be sensible  to interpret Krugman's greed as interest, which is more of an economic term. Taxation is done on extra wealth, the poor receive the  distribution of public funds - which could be the reason the "greed" of the poor is not subject of discussion of Krugman.

  Conversely, the "greed" argument could be intentional, to make a class based  moral  argument . This  could be real basis of so called progressive assertion. If it is, then the argument of compassionate health care may be concealing more than it exposes :

In context of India :

  Such economoral sounding arguments  are  basically arguments against maximizing economic utility, however they operate on utility like formulations. Gross additions are done to utility, for example, the utility could be constructed as a function of a variable and a minimum base. The minimum base could be the healthcare - to be universally  ensured by the govt. The variable could be improved upon govt or individual or farm's discretion. In past we have had govt in in business of most of capital goods except some companies. The govt had become corrupt, and when it collapsed to manage the bankrupt industries, fortunately the privatization salvaged it to some extent. In the last UPA govt, tamilnad ministers took away almost hundred times more funds allocated to Road development to their state - It is like some got 20 crores, some got thousands of govt funding.So called progressives are proved to be more dumb in exposing these cases compared to their dumbness in such vases before they were progressives. When Bengal ministers had power, they electrified their state and had local trains running decades earlier than some of the neighboring states. These are the essentials, the minimum constants that could be included in the "moralitarian" function !

       It is gross because health care wouldn't be the only parameter..a corrupted and greedy economist in delhi could  use lure of a paper presentation invitation from cambridge   to force other common minimums for purpose of cultural revolution. They could  twist the definition of health care such as to force feed non-vegetarian food with pseudo nationalistic purposes. They could claim families are not providing enough utility on the minimums, whereby the govt could appoint rough thugs to create social structures based on political party affiliation. The emotional and  arbitrary utilatirian argument disguised as a moral one makes this argument  more cryptic and potent .

   Therefore,  what is passed as a moral argument could be turned to immoral ones. A decent person should be able live without bribing the corrupted govt officials and socialist thugs. The govt shouldn't pretend to monopolize a sector, it may just help people it wants to help.

Globarlabor is an informative website, I don't appreciate the unions very much -Partly the unions are thugs for greater machines. But the website has a lot of information by a brilliant analyst, and professor and it is precise about the unions context .

Money and education - Here is 50 million initial grant that is at center of a political campaign controversy:

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-right-cant-get-it-right-about-ayers.html

 Fifty million in the hands of  "social justice"  based objective and identity views, and we got a political movement, a president - for schools failing grades and "teacher bashing"

 We have those councils in India, none I know took part in these "democratic" stuff implemented by the leftists - But i know the ridiculous stuff - in one school, an MD was put in the education meeting with an illiterate - The MD lived by education, the illiterate lived his profession. Now the local council required that they work together to create strategy. If it is so easy to work together, why the revolutionary lives in such a secretive organization, where the master revolutionary never would disclose  source  to the peasant class slave revolutionary  ? Of course the schools are worse than they were.


But to admit to the "teacher bashing" (in the words of one Chicago teachers' union activist) character of the Annenberg Challenge grant program would mean admitting that both the right and opportunistic liberals like Obama have their reasons for allying with authoritarian figures like Bill Ayers. 

--
 Steve has a great paper on Che :

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1022180

 To many, who after speaking superior  english,  have argued as if there is no thoughts in the supposed rational and historical world with simple undergraduate management and economic assumptions, the above paper can be a different opinion.

 Pshycopaths have imagines contracts between the state and individual. These are complex concepts, when in hand of the revolutionary, the so called individual - the entity will be subjected to whims of the idiotic leaders. The paper describes the thugs mind...how to make a collective where labours should sacrifice themselves , how a totalitarian state would deal with individuals, where individuals would be sacrificed to the will of politicians.

 The chinese state can prosecute the labour- they will send military. But tatas can't. There will be maoist opposition to it. Unfortunately there are so many corrupted professors, and intellectuals in the newspaper, who wouldn;t write about it.