Posted on: May 11 2004

I think that there are a lot of misconceptions about many things in this debate on communism.

First of all, there is no connection between first world prosperity and third world poverty. In fact, even if you go to the times of the fabled Pharaohs, it is very much possible that the majority population were under terrible living conditions, even in Egypt.

Second, communist party is a very feudal organisation, and in feudal language areas, a sort of fountainhead of feudalism. It may be noted that communism sprouted only in feudal language nations, and never in an English nation.

Third, Karl Marx’s theory is, I feel, a very unsatisfactory one, from modern experience. In fact, I do have interacted with a lot of communist party members, many very rich, and a lot very poor. I don’t remember meeting anyone who has read any of Marx’s books, including Das Capital. Their general understanding of communism is that it is socialism. Maybe a bit forceful. And it is attractive, for everyone, until one asks them, how to account for their own wealth.

Fourth, most of Marx’s theories are very fanciful and of doubtful veracity. For example, the theory of value. Nowadays, a value of a thing has no connection with the number of persons who have worked to make it. For, better quality of products can be produced by machinery with much less workers and cost. Moreover, marketing tactics des

Fifth, the theory of dialectical materialism, Marx expounds to explain historical incidences, is a very funny one, and one can only view it with real reservations, as to find a real logical basis for it may test one’s logic.

And again, social relationships are not really based on labour; I believe it is more based on each language’s specific program. For example, the relationship between a worker and his boss in England is entirely at variance with that which exists between a similar group of persons in, say India.

And last, the attraction of communism came with the success of the Russian revolution. But that thing was not really a mass movement; instead it was just a very superb utilisation of opportunity by a group of politically ambitious persons. They used communism as the rallying point, as many others have used so many other emotionally inspiring themes to move the immobile masses.

Posted on: May 27 2004

I must say that even if China or even India become economic super powers, the same social stiffling that is visible that would continue.

And another thing, I need to clarify from my understanding is that Capitalism as understood in English nations is definitely very much different from the Capitalism that exists in many non-English nations, especially Asian nations. Actually, what is understood as Capitalism in these nations is only a metamorphosed form of ancient Asian feudalism. Even the term feudalism as understood in English is very much different from what is understood by the same term in Asian nations.