Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[ Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 02 April 2017: ' I wish British socialists would NOT fail to take cognisance … ' ] ' We hold that socialism ( or communism, the same thing ) can only come into being when a majority want it, i.e. it depends on majority political action,but you are never going to get a majority behave as you propose. ' [ ALB's comment dated 27/03/2017 ] I'd like to substitute the expressions ' a majority ' and ' majority political action ' in the above quote with respectively ' the majority of the politically active section of the working people ' and ' the political action of the majority of the politically active section of the working people '. Nevertheless, it seems to be the main argument against my position. It seems to be implied that were it NOT for the fact that you're not assured of success in persuading the ' majority ' in question to consent to make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living your life principle, you would not say NO to my proposal. Thus, it also seems implied that your opposition to my position is NOT premised on any communist principle but on pure pragmatism. I'm NOT in principle opposed to pragmatism that prescribes a realistic approach to a problem and happens to be very helpful and effective to find right answers to many problems. Nevertheless, in this case, pragmatism advocates recognising, knowingly, a non-communist or a pseudo-communist as a true communist, and so not only is it outright unacceptable, on ethical grounds, it also adds up to damn bankruptcy of principle which is most likely to encourage silly opportunism. And, as I see it, it happens to be premised on the principle that end justifies means. I wish to be the last man to approve of such a principle as the one that practically gives its seal of approval to any ways and any actions— stealing, robbery, bribery, killing, massacre. terror tactics, etc, etc, if you mean them to achieve a goal that appears great and big. I view such policies as outright unbecoming of communists as communists, as I view them, are superior to all non-communists, and I don't think communists need in order to achieve their goal, have recourse to such silly, loathsome stuff that inspires disrespect and detestation for them. Communists oughtn't to fail to see the glaring lesson of silly travesties, in the name of communist revolution, of Bolsheviks and Maoists. The ignominious failure of the world communist movement in the last century is a glaring proof of the fact that silly pragmatism based on moral bankruptcy and policies like ' end justifies means ' do not assure success.
Would like to add the following text to my comment dated 01 April 2017.I wish British socialists would NOT fail to take cognisance of the following two points.( 1 ) There exists an irreconcilable contradiction between your matrimonial mission and your communist mission. By your matrimonial mission, I mean your duties and obligations towards your wife, supposing you're a man, and children, and your matrtimonial ( or familial ) duties and obligations are, in my view, ensuring the social and financial security and well-being as well as a decent lifestyle of your family members each and decent upbringing of the kids and decent livelihood of the grown-up kids. Nevertheless, the brute and inescapable truth is men are pitifully defficient in their capacity and calibre they need be possessed of in order to make a worthy husband or a worthy father. A man is NOT a lion of a man. An individual's capacity is too limited to make him match up to his matrimonial mission. That means it's impossible for a guy to accomplish fully and duly, even if he uses up all his money, time, and energy for this purpose, his matrimonial mission just because it happens to exceed his capability. This holds true for 99 per cent of world's manhood ( i.e. all those men that do NOT belong to the 1 per cent that possess at least as much wealth as all the rest do together ). Therefore, the brute and inescapable truth is a guy ( one of the 99 per cent ) can't have any spare time or wealth for the accomplishment of his communist mission. I feel the irreconcilability of the contradiction between a guy's matrimonial mission and his mission in life he must accomplish as a communist ought to be clear as day to the sensible now.( 2 ) A communist's mission in life essentially includes leading a healthy and meaningful life ( which necessarily includes a decent lifestyle in harmony with communist ethics ) too. Because communism is fundamentally opposed to asceticism, and because a communist must show the benighted, vulgar millions of the born poor and deprived that are used to leading an existence befitting beasts of burden what the healthy and meaningful living means and thus interest them in communism and communist revolution, a communist's mode of living must be healthy and meaningful.
I'd like to add the following few words to my comment made on 31March 2017 in reply to ALB's comment ( dated 27/03/2017 ).I said I expect a true communist to lead a decent lifestyle that will be healthy and meaningful too, and I wish it would be an example for the born poor and vulgar millions who I wish weould be inspired and interested in communism by it. Therefore, I wish a communist's mission in life would include leading a healthy and meaningful life ( such a lifestyle has to be decent necessarily ). You may justifiably question the practicability of this proposition in a capitalist world. So far as I'm concerned, I don't believe it's possible for the overwhelming majority of the working people in the present world. Nevertheless, I don't think this fact forms good-enough grounds for abandoning the Principle of healthy and meaningful living outright and indulging in silly luxuries such as drugs, drinks, gambling, matrimony, et cetera. There truly exists NO good reason why the sensible fail to see the basic distinction between a meal ( both the decent one and the poor man's dish ), medicine, clothes, shoes, a house, a car, a PC, books, pens, songs, dance, drama, etc and drugs, drinks, gambling, etc. The former group consist of stuff you need, some of which form the bare necessities that you must be able to afford just to stay alive while the rest are meant to add some meaning, beauty, decency, dignity, and delight to your existence and thus make your living not only worth living but befit a human, the only being that happens to be superior to all non-human beings. On the other hand, drugs, drinks, matrimony etc are stuff that you don't at all need to live unless you're incurably addicted to such silly stuff. I think communists are sensible people, and so I wish communists would make the Principle of healthy and meaningful living their life principle and try their utmost to remain true to it. I also wish communists would awake to its significance. A communist, by my view, must appreciate that their way of living, like their words and actions, ought to be inspirational for the benighted millions, the born poor and deprived, that sweat blood, like beasts of burden, to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life.
jondwhite's comment ( dated 31/03/2017 ): ' Prakash what do you think of 'safer spaces', 'virtue signaling' and Marx's personal life as a communist. ' Dear jondwhite, I've got no idea of what you mean by ' " safer spaces" ' and " virtue signaling " '. I'd like you to elaborate a little on these terms. I do not know much about Marx's personal life, nor do I feel interested in it right now. I'm interested in his works ( the theory of communism, materialistic conception of history, etc ). As far as I know, Marx married two times and fathered some children. His second marriage was preceded by the famous work, Capital Volume I, by him. Therefore, I view his 2nd marriage with outright disapproval because it was fully mature Marx who did it, something the theory of communism is fundamentally opposed to, knowingly.
' Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ? ' [ ALB made this comment ( on 27/03/2017 ) to counter my view : ' Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ? ' [1] He also quoted, in this regard, my view that ' [v]isiting brothels with a view to gratifying your desire ' has got the full approval of the Principle of healthy and meaningful living. [2] ] My dear friend, I feel I should thank you for pointing to a serious limitation of my views, the apparent conflict between the two views referred to above. I must admit that I was not aware of it before you brought it to my notice. I consider it serious and think it ought to be addressed duly. Nevertheless, I think we're agreed on this point that some limitations does NOT necessarily make a thesis or theory outright invalid or useless. It's silly to prescribe beheading someone in order to cure them of their headache, isn't it ? The statement [1] was meant to throw light on the obvious conflict between the mission of marriage ( i.e. your matrimonial duties and obligations ) and a true communist's mission in life. I don't think it necessarily means that by my view, a true communist must give up food and drink or decent food, healthy drink, and decent lifestyle to lead ' an ascetic ' life and die ' an ascetic '. Communism is fundamentally opposed to asceticism or self-abnegation. But, I think it does NOT mean that communism is for silly, wasteful indulgence in stuff like drugs, drinks ( alcoholic ), matrimony, etc. Nor does a decent lifestyle means a sumptuous lifestyle of the super-rich as a decent meal does NOT mean a sumptuous meal in a sumptuous restaurant or hotel meant for the 1 per cent or the 80-85 guys known as super-rich. I expect a communist to lead an exemplary lifestyle the benighted and vulgar millions of the born poor that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries for the enjoyment of the born rich and the born super-rich that live a sumptuous lifestyle that they watch sillily as beasts of burden do while they lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life are supposed to watch and learn from what decent and meaningful living means.
There was NO trick, sir. I'm new to this forum. I really did not know that anyone is free to write anything they like in a private message using this website. I sent private messages as I didn't know it's objectionable. My private messages contained the same content as what I posted in this thread in response to the comments on my post. Then, according to your judgment, I'm in the wrong. OK, I must keep it in mind.
Exploitation, corruption, production and exchange of commodities, money, easy money, black money, usury, division of society into rich and poor, the coexistence of fabulously healthy few alongside of millions sunk in abject poverty as well as stealing, robbery, swindling, etc, etc are also centuries old. So many customs, costumes, fashions, traditions, and superstitions ( e.g. suttee, racism, gender inequality, etc ), lingos ( Sanskrit, Latin, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, etc ), species ( dinosaurs, mammoths, etc ), ancient slavery, medieval serfdom, barons, monarchs, peasants, etc, etc, so many things are either things of the past or verging on extinction to prove the thesis that perpetual change is the law of nature true. Maybe people ' using Opium, Marihuana, and coca leaves for centuries ' will continue doing so to prove it wrong. Maybe the Dark Ages did NOT precede the Enlightenment. Maybe capitalism did NOT follow feudalism and will exist for ever to prove, to the delight of some ' socialists ', that the materialistic conception of history is plain nonsensical, a load of rubbish.
Dear all, I feel I should bring to your notice the following message made by Tim Kilgallon. I received it in response to a comment by me. Copies of both by comment and Kilgallon's are presented below. You may access them by clicking on this link too : https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/messages/view/3783#new . I'd like to know how you view it. Participants: Tim Kilgallon and Prakash RP Prakash RP29/03/2017 – 2:41pm' … the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ? Tim Kilgallon29/03/2017 – 7:14pmNewListen bonny ladi dont need to justify my political beliefs to you. I'm a communist/socialist not a bloody monk. If you don't want to drink alcohol, smoke of gamble, feel free to make these choices. Do NOT DARE to tell me how to live my life. Now piss off you stupid sexist clown.
The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING does NOT approve of asceticism or anything like the Gandhian principle of plain living. On the contrary, The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING stands for a lifestyle that is decent and full of ease and luxury. Nevertheless, The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING disapproves outright of everything, hedonism included, that does NOT fit in with it. And I believe only communism ( scientific socialism ) can create a social environment conducive to leading a healthy and meaningful existence. The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING does NOT preach ' a gospel of want and scarcity '. The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING is NOT opposed to dance, drama, poetry, painting, music, games and sports, etc, etc, i.e. things that happen to be NOT unhealthy and NOT silly. Nevertheless, the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING is outright opposed to ' " penurious thrift, and self-denial " ' just because such things are senseless and useless. The ' limitation of births ' appears to be a good cause deserving to be backed by all the sensible because our planet earth happens to be, as we all know, a limited place with limited space and limited resources for so many life forms, and because ours is a capitalist world. In a capitalist world, procreation is the basest and the most despicable act, as the sensible view it, because by your indulgence in the luxury of procreation, you knowingly brought your children in a class-ridden, unequal world, and so it's you, and you alone, that happens to be to blame for the disgusting fact that your children were born poor and underprivileged to toil as beasts of burden do and to be exploited by the born rich and privileged who live, before their silly eyes, a fabulous lifestyle while the born poor and underprivileged, your own children included, who sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries, lead a hard and humble existence themselves. The sensible view this very fact, namely the fact that the fact that in a class-ridden, unequal society, the poor and underprivileged millions were born poor and underprivileged to work hard and to be exploited by the born rich and privileged few is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and privileged were born rich and privileged is NOT attributable to any good or creditable acts or achievements of theirs, as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , a most heinous social evil. Communists must fight to the finish with a view to ridding humanity of this evil. But procreation in the present world of ours is meant to contribute to this great social evil, the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , and for this reason, a communist's indulgence in the luxury of marriage or procreation adds up to a heinous act, a disgusting hypocrisy. Nevertheless, the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING approves of viewing yourself as ' " a citizen of the world. " '
' … the no booze idea gets the thumbs down from us. 'You're also free, I think, to give the thumbs down to the no-drugs idea or the no-bribes idea. You're free to give the thumbs down to ideas like no-sexism, no-racism, etc as well, just as you're free to give your thumbs down to the NO-CLASSES, the NO-PRIVATE-PROPERTY, or even the NO-EXPLOITATION-of-man-by-man idea, aren't you ? But, sir, are you a communist ? Could you clarify what led you to believe that you're communist ?
' It is up to an individual to smoke or not smoke, or to drink or not to drink is up to the individual also. ' You don't mean that it is up to an individual who's also a communist, professedly, to squander or not to squander money on drugs or drinks as well, do you ? Nor do you mean, I think, that acts like drinking, taking drugs and bribes, do not clash with the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING, hence not unbecoming of a true communist, do you ?
Correct me if I'm wrong. ' Socialism and ethics are two separate things. ' As I see it, this wise observation is in line with observations like ' medicine and ethics are two separate things ', ' professionalism and ethics are two separate things ', ' politics and ethics are two separate things ', ' statesmanship and ethics are two separate things ', ' government and ethics are two separate things ', ' capitalism and ethics are two separate things ' as well as ' love and ethics are two separate things ', et cetera, et cetera, and all of them are equally true. But, of course, you don't want me to take them as premises for conclusions like ' there exists NOTHING called socialist ethics, and so NO acts* socialists indulge in are unethical from the socialistic point of view, do you ? You don't want us to draw from them the conclusion that there exists NOTHING called medical ethics or political ethics, and so NO acts medicos or politicians perform deserve to be reckoned wrong, do you ? And of course, you don't mean that because ' a socialist movement that leaves the basis of the class struggle may be anything else [ other than socialism ] ', whatever a socialist does or enjoys to their heart's content are OK ? * such as gambling, drinking, taking drugs and bribes, rape, gang rape, stealing, smuggling, swindling, hoarding black money, et cetera, et cetera
You don't want me to take it to mean that the Principle of healthy and meaningful living and all objections to anything ( smoking, drinking, gambling, raping, gang raping, trafficking in dames and drugs, butchering innocent people as terrorists do, et cetera, et cetera, anything and everything humans take part and pleasure in ) on the grounds that they do NOT fit in with the Principle of healthy and meaningful living add up to ' Moral issues of the Churches and priests of the left ', and so they deserve to be discarded outright, do you ?
[ This is the 3rd part of my reply to ALB's comment dated 23 March 2017. ]And did you ever care to think over the point that if socialism approves of the membership of those silly spineless people that seem to be unable, like Lenin, Mao, Leninists, and Maoists, to stay alive without the stuff like matrimony, the same way as a drug addict must take drugs in order to survive, the distinctions between scientific socialism ( i.e. communism ) and democratic socialism just disappears ? How would you differentiate a communist and a democratic socialist, I wonder. Just because matrimony and private property are inseparable, both historically and logically, if you approve of one of them, you canNOT, by any sound logic, refuse to approve of the other. And further, private property forms the basis matrimony is resting on. You canNOT make an edifice stay erect without its foundation, can you ? Approving of the stuff like private property implies approving of the division of society into the propertied class and the non-propertied class, RIGHT ? This is certain to lead to the approval of the exploitation of the non-propertied millions by the propertied few simply because in a class-ridden, unequal society, the non-propertied millions must consent to being EXPLOITED by the propertied in order to survive. The non-propertied must sell their LABOUR POWER, the only saleable stuff ( commodity ) they're in possession of to the propertied, i.e. the capitalists, the only people that own the capital needed to purchase their labour power and thus earn some money they need to buy the bare necessities of life for the SURVIVAL of themselves and their nearest and dearest ones, OK ? Thus, it ought to be clear as day now to the sensible that the approval of matrimony means, in turn, the approving of private property, the exploitation of man by man, the wage slavery, the production and exchange of commodities, the concentration of wealth at one pole accompanied by the impoverishment of millions at the other, et cetera, et cetera. Furthermore, there still remains the IRRECONCILABLE contradiction between yourself as a husband and as a father of your kids and yourself as the member of the communist party. As the husband and as the father of your kids, you're bound to spend all of your time and earnings to ensure the social and financial security and decent lifestyle of your spouse and children and decent upbringing of your children, et cetera, i.e. to discharge your matrimonial and familial duties and obligations. Nevertheless, as a communist, you have to spend all your time and money on COMMUNIST missions you must accomplish, RIGHT ?
This is the 2nd part of my reply to ALB's comment dated 23 March 2017. In the first part of my reply, I pointed to the fact that a veggie diet or a non-veggie diet happens to be something indispensable to life, and so it cannot be bracketed with smoking, drinking, gambling, taking drugs or the luxury of matrimony, NONE of which is not only something you need to live or something that has got anything meaningful you can expect to derive from it but something that deserves to be viewed as harmless. I also tried to bring home to you the fact that because communism is FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to matrimony, if you approve of someone's indulgence, as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao disgustingly relished such things, in the luxury of matrimony, there really happens to exist NO good reason why you should disapprove of their indulgence in stuff like smoking, drinking, gambling, or giving and taking bribes as well as a most important point, namely the fact that a communist party is NOT just any political party just as a communist canNOT be regarded as just any political activist. I also brought to your notice the fact that there truly exists NO justification for someone's infantile whim, such as that of a drug addict or someone addicted to matrimony or family life, to want, like kids, to play the make-believe that they're communists, and for this reason a true communist party cannot approve of such silly acts. ' … should members be expelled if they get marries ? Should we refuse to admit new members who are married? I don't think so. ' May I ask you why you ' don't think so ' ? May I ask you what meaningful purpose those silly ' members ' with nasty taste, so silly that they have yet to awake to the simple truth that it makes sense and becomes humans, beings superior to all other beings, to live a healthy and meaningful life, and so nasty their taste is that they find NOTHING wrong with their indulgence in something as obnoxious as matrimony. something that happens to be the second most odious thing whereas the most odious stuff to my eyes happens to be the act of killing a girl after gang raping her, has served thus far, and what meaningful purpose you expect them to serve in the future ? It passes my comprehension why such unenlightened people as those silly ' members ' should fancy themselves as communists, and why a true communist party should oblige them by recognising them, people that it knows are NOT communists, as true communist. My dear friend, did you ever before thought over all these points ?In regard to matrimony, I'd like you NOT to fail to take cognisance of the following points. ( 1 ) Matrimony has got NO merits. ( 2 ) Matrimony, true or a travesty of it, happens to be FUNDAMENTALLY antifeminine.( 3 ) Half the sky ( i.e. the entire womanhood ) have got NOTHING truly meaningful to derive from matrimony. ( 4 ) A man is NOT a lion of a man. ( I define a lion of a man as a guy with capacity to make a worthy husband, and by a worthy hubby, I mean a guy with capacity he need be possessed of in order to be able to fully and properly discharge his matrimonial duties and obligations, i.e. to ensure the financial and social security as well as a dcent lifestyle of all his family members and to ensure decent upbringing of all his kids, et cetera. ) ( 5 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in an individual's life. ( 6 ) Matrimony performs NO meaningful role in society or the State. ( 7 ) All advanced civilisations along with some backward ones like India recognise and respect relationships outside of marriages and fruits of such relationships as ' natural children ' or ' biological children ', et cetera.
