Banner Advertiser

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda



Haj is pre-Islamic practice.  Spice caravans came to pray to Uzza and Manat in order to increase their sexual vigor.  Essentially, Haj was sex tourism from that point of view.  After conquering Mecca, the Prophet ordained pilgrimage compulsory for those who could afford.  This he did in the interest of the livelihood of the people of Mecca. 


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Hajj is not mandatory; it is recommended for once in a life-time to those who can afford.
 
Therefore, when someone does it multiple times, just because he/she can, it becomes redundant and useless visit. If someone thinks he/she can buy a seat in the heaven by going to Hajj multiple times, he/she is a fool. That's why I am counting how many times the 'Jana-Netri'  of one of the poorest countries in the world goes to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. I hope you understand my point now.
 

I could appreciate it more if Jana-Netri would send some poor people from the slum for Hajj with the money she spent for her own Hajj so many times. That would definitely accrue much more credits, in my view.
 
Why are you comparing Hajj with burglary/corruption? I don't understand your argument. Please clarify? These are two different issues. Isn't it?
 
I am amazed by thoughts of well literate people, like you, who are unable to think straight. You are mixing up ideas in order to defend your political leader. You should learn to criticize your leaders, when they do wrong. Otherwise, you will get bunch of garbage from them.
 
 
Jiten Roy



On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:21 PM, ANISUR RAHMAN <anisur.rahman1@btinternet.com> wrote:
 
Why are you wasting your time trying to find out the number of times Khaleda Zia performed Hajj? Are you tracking the number of times the (chief!) burglars burgling in Bangladesh? 


From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2013, 23:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda

 

When a political leader goes to a foreign country on a personal visit, it's usually part of a nefarious mission. Recently, wheelchair bound Mirza Fakrul went to Singapore; he is now bouncing on just fine; I lost track - how many times Madam Zia went to Singapore.
 
In my view, every year going to Mecca for Hajj is arrogance, if not sinister act, considering millions will never be able to go there even once in their lifetimes.    
 
Jiten Roy


On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:03 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
I'm thinking of the multiple times our political leaders go to KSA to perform Haj and umrah. The idea advertised is: more photo-ops at Haj the more religious, and more 'Muslim' you prove yourself to be. Especially memorable are pictures of Begum Khaleda Zia and Al Haj Falu wrapped in their ahrams and false piety.

"Muslims are required to perform Haj only once in their lifetime. Those who perform it repeatedly may actually be at sin, because they are crowding other Muslims who have paid their life's savings, and came from distant parts of the world to perform Haj. Just because they may be financially capable, and healthy, does not give them the right to do so. Why don t Muslims just follow Islam teachings?!" T. Tawfiq

Saudi Writer and Academic - Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi - writes an Op-Ed
today on his personal refelctions on Hujj that he pefromred this year.

URL Link:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20131022184225









__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete



Dr. Roy

One should not take all the names of the great leaders of socialism, from Marx to Mao, in one breath, though a book was written on that title decades ago.  Marx was a product of industrial revolution in the land formerly known as Great Britain.  He did not contribute to feudalism, as you wrote, he contributed against it.  Without October Revolution, there would be no Adult Franchise.  Lenin and Mao were the products of two world wars.  Without Stalin, the allied powers could not win in World War II.  And the imminent victory of socialism in China contributed greatly to decolonization of India and Africa.  Human history has not witnessed such great changes before Marx.  A white collar serf may occasionally lose identity and feel like his master, but truth is always on the other side.  Both the consumer and the creator of commodities are proletariat.  Capitalists are nothing but rarely essential parasites.

Anyway, plenty has been written on Marx, though most has forgotten his mentor friend Frederick Engels.  Even in Muktomona, Mr. Syed Aslam has posted "Marx in the Mirror of Globalization".  I hope it did not escape your notice.

Kamal Das


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Dr. Das,
 
How can I dare to throw stones at Karl Marx? We should be grateful to Marxism for its contributions in our feudalistic society.  All I said is – Marxism is an idealistic model, which could not be implemented as is in practice, and that was the reason for sprouting out various derivatives of it during the golden era of communism.

That does not mean, Marxism was all wrong. Being a scientist,  you know when a model has too many variables, it may not work as expected in practice. That's exactly the problem with any socio-economic model (Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.); just too many unpredictable social variables, some of which may not even be thought about in the model.
 
Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc. started socio-economical experimentations around the world using various derivatives; they all failed. That's the reality we all can accept without hesitation. I wish - at least one of those socio-economical experimentation worked, but – it did not.  You are right – we got the democratic system out of those socio-economical experimentation, and the credit goes to the Guru of communism, the Karl Marx.  
 
My point is not that; my point was – people still dream of a 'utopian Marxist society' in this day and age. I don't believe - it is feasible any longer. Time came and gone. It's too late for that dream. That's why I said – the dream of a utopian society is as real as the dream of heaven.
 
Now, how did I come up with such an arrogant statement?
 
 
I have two doubts – 1) the viability of the economic model of the Marxist utopian system and 2) complete loss of personal liberty under the utopian system. None of these factors is realistically accomplishable in this day and age. That does not mean we have to throw out Marxism altogether. 
 
The bottom line is - no theoretical socio-economic model is going to be perfect for all societies around the world. We have to come up with the regional hodgepodge model, out of the available theoretical models, that will work. Hope this will clarify my position on the topic.


On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:50 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dr. Roy

Please keep in mind that without Govt. intervention no system can work, be it capitalist or socialist.  Marx may not be correct in many aspects.  But other theoreticians are at best a footnote to him.  Without Marx and ensuing assorted social revolutions the present version of democracy & freedom(!) would be a far cry.  So don't throw stones at the Guru without comprehending him.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Mr. Ray,
 
Thank you for the reply. If you don't mind, please write a few sentences explaining how a utopian society, envisioned in the Marxism, could satisfy production Vs. demand relationship over the long-haul for millions of enlightened and free people? I am asking you this question because, I think, you are much more knowledgeable in this topic than me.
 
Also, I am curious to know – why people still believe in the validity of a utopian Marxist society in a modern free world. I have no explanation for it, except to think that - Marxism is a faith to them, much like religion. To me, the dream of a utopian Marxist society in the modern world is as good as a dream of heaven in the afterworld.
 
I know many people think that - Marxism would have worked if it was implemented as is. My question to them is - why Marxism was never tried in any country during the golden era of communism? I think – it is too idealistic to be implemented as is in a complex non-ideal society. That's why derivatives of it have been tried, but all failed.
 
Jiten Roy



On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:04 AM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Profesor Roy:
I respect your disagreement with Marxism, but your statement, "Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere.", is not at all true. Marxian principles or call them, Marxism, was distorted much more than applied and for that Lenin was responsible. Marxism was not applied anywhere excepting in Paris Commune and
I would request you to read Paresh Chattopadhyay's 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' Or at least, his' Two Approaches to Socialism: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky-
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/3/6/6736569/chattopadhyay_marx_vs_lenin_countdown.doc.

Regards,
Sankar Ray

Sankar Ray
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:23:28
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete
 

I understand how a Capitalist system satisfies Malthusian principle, but - do not know or understand how an ultra-liberal proletarian system can satisfy that principle. I believe Marxism ignores Malthusian principle, and that's the death-nail of the Communism.
 
If I am wrong, please correct me. I will be extremely delighted if someone can provide me a convincing short contrary explanation to my understanding of Marxism.
 
As you know, Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere. Therefore, implementation fault is not the cause for the failure of the Marxism around the world.
 
This situation is exactly similar to that of religion, where believers always blame implementation fault, not religion.
 
As you know, religion is here to establish peace on earth, but it failed miserably to accomplish the goal. It has been introduced various ways around the world also, but failed everywhere. Yet, diehard proponents of religion always blame the implementation fault for the failure of the religion. 
 
Jiten Roy


On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:01 PM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 

Marx for Christmas
 
Scholars around the world shall have a unique Christmas gift – The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism (OHC). The book, enriched with 35 papers, has been edited by Steve Smith, professor of history at the European University Institute in Florence and currently senior research fellow at the All Souls College, University of Oxford.

In the preface, 'Towards a Global History of Communism', Smith says ingenuously that, "Communism was the twentieth century's most idealistic political experiment, yet major Communist regimes evolved into some of that century's most bloody tyrannies. At the peak of its influence in the 1970s, states purporting to espouse Communist principles (Leave aside the question of whether they were in any genuine sense 'Communist') governed about a third of the world's landmass. Throughout the colonial, post-colonial and underdeveloped worlds millions viewed such states with sympathy for having apparently broken with the injustices and inequalities of capitalism and big-power politics."

But Smith thinks "the Communist experiment was finished" in contrast to what a doyen among India's political theorists, Dr Randhir Singh, thinks: that the collapse of the once-mighty Soviet Union didn't mean the defeat of Marxism but the fall of 'official Marxism'. Small wonder then that Bloomberg News carried an opinion piece by George Magnus, captioned 'Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy'.

According to Magnus, "The spirit of Marx has risen from the grave amid the financial crisis and subsequent economic slump. ...Today's global economy bears some uncanny resemblances to the conditions he foresaw".

The most theoretically significant paper is written by Prof Paresh Chattopadhyay, an outstanding Marx scholar, 'Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on Communism'. Belonging to the Subcontinent and part of the teaching staff of the Department of Political Economy at Quebec University, Chattopadhyay is a member of the workshop (werkstatt) of the ongoing project of a 15-volume Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism under the sponsorship of Institut Fur Kritische Theorie, InkriT, Berlin.

Prof Chattopadhyay has the advantage of being comfortable with the French, Russian, German, Russian and Italian languages, something that helped him study the texts. After reading the first draft, Smith wrote candidly "Your erudition – across the range of Marx's writing and in various languages – is staggering and I learned a great deal that I didn't know before".

Among others who contributed to the invaluable treatise in the theoretical section on ideology – Marx and Engels in German Ideology warned the proletariat against ideologies and ideologues, arguing that "in all ideology, men and their circumstances appear upside down as in a camera obscura" – are Lars T Lih ('Lenin and Bolshevism'), Kevin McDermott ('Stalin and Stalinism') and Timothy Cheek 'Mao and Maoism').

Chattopadhyay takes up cudgels for the validity of Marx and his works, "The proletariat is the 'bad side' of the present society, and 'history moves by the bad side'", as Marx reminded Proudhon in 1847. Marx and Engels, he reminds, enunciated that the 'consciousness of the necessity of a profound revolution, the communist revolution, arises from this class itself'. Communism indeed is "the beginning, and not the end of human history".

But the top brass of Indian communist parties, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, and various Maoist groups of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and other so-called Marxist parties such as the Revolutionary Socialist Party of India have been lukewarm to the idea of this Oxford publication. The reasons are not difficult to guess.

Chattopadhyay is ranked among top Marxist scholars such as Maximilien Rubel, David Borisovich Riazanov (who discovered shelved texts like the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Holy Family, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Grundrisse), Anton Pannekoek, formulator of Council Communism, and Charles Bettelheim author of the four-volume Class Struggles in the USSR. Chattopadhyay has to his credit seminal works such as The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience and papers like 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' and 'Two Approaches to Socialist Revolution: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky'.

Agonising as it may seem to those generations that gravitated to Marx through Lenin's works, Lenin's distortions of Marx did considerable damage to the possibilities of a proletarian revolution. For instance, Marx never stated that socialism is the lower stage of communism, but conceived socialism, communism, republic of labour, cooperative society, society of free and associated producers as interchangeable and synonymous. Lenin's formulations – namely, 'socialist state' or 'commune state' are brazen deviations from the fundamentals of Marx and Engels.

"The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery", Marx categorically stated in theCritical Notes on the Article: The King of Prussia and Social Reform. Lenin himself stated in his The State and Revolution that state and freedom are mutually exclusive. Not only Chattopadhyay, but Cyril Smith, Marcello Musto and other Marxist scholars who studied Marx and Engels in the original have stated unhesitatingly that all the so-called socialist states were actually capitalist states.

The attraction of the upcoming book for scholars – particularly Marxist scholars not adhering to the Leninist tradition – is irresistible. The first task before them and prosperity is to present Marx in the Marxist way.

The writer is a Kolkata-basedcontributor. Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com


Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >



Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >








__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete




Dr. Das,
 
How can I dare to throw stones at Karl Marx? We should be grateful to Marxism for its contributions in our feudalistic society.  All I said is – Marxism is an idealistic model, which could not be implemented as is in practice, and that was the reason for sprouting out various derivatives of it during the golden era of communism.

That does not mean, Marxism was all wrong. Being a scientist,  you know when a model has too many variables, it may not work as expected in practice. That's exactly the problem with any socio-economic model (Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc.); just too many unpredictable social variables, some of which may not even be thought about in the model.
 
Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc. started socio-economical experimentations around the world using various derivatives; they all failed. That's the reality we all can accept without hesitation. I wish - at least one of those socio-economical experimentation worked, but – it did not.  You are right – we got the democratic system out of those socio-economical experimentation, and the credit goes to the Guru of communism, the Karl Marx.  
 
My point is not that; my point was – people still dream of a 'utopian Marxist society' in this day and age. I don't believe - it is feasible any longer. Time came and gone. It's too late for that dream. That's why I said – the dream of a utopian society is as real as the dream of heaven.
 
Now, how did I come up with such an arrogant statement?
 
 
I have two doubts – 1) the viability of the economic model of the Marxist utopian system and 2) complete loss of personal liberty under the utopian system. None of these factors is realistically accomplishable in this day and age. That does not mean we have to throw out Marxism altogether. 
 
The bottom line is - no theoretical socio-economic model is going to be perfect for all societies around the world. We have to come up with the regional hodgepodge model, out of the available theoretical models, that will work. Hope this will clarify my position on the topic.


On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:50 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dr. Roy

Please keep in mind that without Govt. intervention no system can work, be it capitalist or socialist.  Marx may not be correct in many aspects.  But other theoreticians are at best a footnote to him.  Without Marx and ensuing assorted social revolutions the present version of democracy & freedom(!) would be a far cry.  So don't throw stones at the Guru without comprehending him.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Mr. Ray,
 
Thank you for the reply. If you don't mind, please write a few sentences explaining how a utopian society, envisioned in the Marxism, could satisfy production Vs. demand relationship over the long-haul for millions of enlightened and free people? I am asking you this question because, I think, you are much more knowledgeable in this topic than me.
 
Also, I am curious to know – why people still believe in the validity of a utopian Marxist society in a modern free world. I have no explanation for it, except to think that - Marxism is a faith to them, much like religion. To me, the dream of a utopian Marxist society in the modern world is as good as a dream of heaven in the afterworld.
 
I know many people think that - Marxism would have worked if it was implemented as is. My question to them is - why Marxism was never tried in any country during the golden era of communism? I think – it is too idealistic to be implemented as is in a complex non-ideal society. That's why derivatives of it have been tried, but all failed.
 
Jiten Roy



On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:04 AM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Profesor Roy:
I respect your disagreement with Marxism, but your statement, "Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere.", is not at all true. Marxian principles or call them, Marxism, was distorted much more than applied and for that Lenin was responsible. Marxism was not applied anywhere excepting in Paris Commune and
I would request you to read Paresh Chattopadhyay's 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' Or at least, his' Two Approaches to Socialism: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky-
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/3/6/6736569/chattopadhyay_marx_vs_lenin_countdown.doc.

Regards,
Sankar Ray

Sankar Ray
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:23:28
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Read and delete
 

I understand how a Capitalist system satisfies Malthusian principle, but - do not know or understand how an ultra-liberal proletarian system can satisfy that principle. I believe Marxism ignores Malthusian principle, and that's the death-nail of the Communism.
 
If I am wrong, please correct me. I will be extremely delighted if someone can provide me a convincing short contrary explanation to my understanding of Marxism.
 
As you know, Marxism has been tried various ways around the world (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, etc.); it did not work anywhere. Therefore, implementation fault is not the cause for the failure of the Marxism around the world.
 
This situation is exactly similar to that of religion, where believers always blame implementation fault, not religion.
 
As you know, religion is here to establish peace on earth, but it failed miserably to accomplish the goal. It has been introduced various ways around the world also, but failed everywhere. Yet, diehard proponents of religion always blame the implementation fault for the failure of the religion. 
 
Jiten Roy


On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:01 PM, Sankar Kumar Ray <sankarray62@rediffmail.com> wrote:
 

Marx for Christmas
 
Scholars around the world shall have a unique Christmas gift – The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism (OHC). The book, enriched with 35 papers, has been edited by Steve Smith, professor of history at the European University Institute in Florence and currently senior research fellow at the All Souls College, University of Oxford.

In the preface, 'Towards a Global History of Communism', Smith says ingenuously that, "Communism was the twentieth century's most idealistic political experiment, yet major Communist regimes evolved into some of that century's most bloody tyrannies. At the peak of its influence in the 1970s, states purporting to espouse Communist principles (Leave aside the question of whether they were in any genuine sense 'Communist') governed about a third of the world's landmass. Throughout the colonial, post-colonial and underdeveloped worlds millions viewed such states with sympathy for having apparently broken with the injustices and inequalities of capitalism and big-power politics."

But Smith thinks "the Communist experiment was finished" in contrast to what a doyen among India's political theorists, Dr Randhir Singh, thinks: that the collapse of the once-mighty Soviet Union didn't mean the defeat of Marxism but the fall of 'official Marxism'. Small wonder then that Bloomberg News carried an opinion piece by George Magnus, captioned 'Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy'.

According to Magnus, "The spirit of Marx has risen from the grave amid the financial crisis and subsequent economic slump. ...Today's global economy bears some uncanny resemblances to the conditions he foresaw".

The most theoretically significant paper is written by Prof Paresh Chattopadhyay, an outstanding Marx scholar, 'Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on Communism'. Belonging to the Subcontinent and part of the teaching staff of the Department of Political Economy at Quebec University, Chattopadhyay is a member of the workshop (werkstatt) of the ongoing project of a 15-volume Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism under the sponsorship of Institut Fur Kritische Theorie, InkriT, Berlin.

Prof Chattopadhyay has the advantage of being comfortable with the French, Russian, German, Russian and Italian languages, something that helped him study the texts. After reading the first draft, Smith wrote candidly "Your erudition – across the range of Marx's writing and in various languages – is staggering and I learned a great deal that I didn't know before".

Among others who contributed to the invaluable treatise in the theoretical section on ideology – Marx and Engels in German Ideology warned the proletariat against ideologies and ideologues, arguing that "in all ideology, men and their circumstances appear upside down as in a camera obscura" – are Lars T Lih ('Lenin and Bolshevism'), Kevin McDermott ('Stalin and Stalinism') and Timothy Cheek 'Mao and Maoism').

Chattopadhyay takes up cudgels for the validity of Marx and his works, "The proletariat is the 'bad side' of the present society, and 'history moves by the bad side'", as Marx reminded Proudhon in 1847. Marx and Engels, he reminds, enunciated that the 'consciousness of the necessity of a profound revolution, the communist revolution, arises from this class itself'. Communism indeed is "the beginning, and not the end of human history".

But the top brass of Indian communist parties, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, and various Maoist groups of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and other so-called Marxist parties such as the Revolutionary Socialist Party of India have been lukewarm to the idea of this Oxford publication. The reasons are not difficult to guess.

Chattopadhyay is ranked among top Marxist scholars such as Maximilien Rubel, David Borisovich Riazanov (who discovered shelved texts like the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Holy Family, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Grundrisse), Anton Pannekoek, formulator of Council Communism, and Charles Bettelheim author of the four-volume Class Struggles in the USSR. Chattopadhyay has to his credit seminal works such as The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience and papers like 'Myth of Twentieth Century Socialism' and 'Two Approaches to Socialist Revolution: Marx Versus Lenin and Trotsky'.

Agonising as it may seem to those generations that gravitated to Marx through Lenin's works, Lenin's distortions of Marx did considerable damage to the possibilities of a proletarian revolution. For instance, Marx never stated that socialism is the lower stage of communism, but conceived socialism, communism, republic of labour, cooperative society, society of free and associated producers as interchangeable and synonymous. Lenin's formulations – namely, 'socialist state' or 'commune state' are brazen deviations from the fundamentals of Marx and Engels.

"The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery", Marx categorically stated in theCritical Notes on the Article: The King of Prussia and Social Reform. Lenin himself stated in his The State and Revolution that state and freedom are mutually exclusive. Not only Chattopadhyay, but Cyril Smith, Marcello Musto and other Marxist scholars who studied Marx and Engels in the original have stated unhesitatingly that all the so-called socialist states were actually capitalist states.

The attraction of the upcoming book for scholars – particularly Marxist scholars not adhering to the Leninist tradition – is irresistible. The first task before them and prosperity is to present Marx in the Marxist way.

The writer is a Kolkata-basedcontributor. Email: sankar.ray@gmail.com


Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >



Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
Know More >







__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda



"KINDLY stop talking about stuff you do not know."

Mr. Q. Rahman,

I know you are here to correct me; that's why I dared to write about Islam.

Anyway, I said Hajj is recommended for those who can afford.

It is hard for me to conceive that Hajj could be mandatory for all who can afford. How does someone know if he/she can afford to go for Hajj?

Just because you may have some extra savings one year, that should not mandate you to go for Hajj that year. How do you know what emergency may arise in future; you may lose your job or become injured. Don't you need some rainy day funds in the bank for such emergency, instead of spending it all for Hajj, and then suffer rest of the life? How much is enough savings for future? I don't know. Mandatory Hajj does not make sense to me, Mr. Rahman.

Can you help me understand who must go for Hajj?

Jiten Roy



On Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:20 PM, QR <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
 
Hajj is not mandatory; it is recommended for once in a life-time to those who can afford.


>>>>>>>> For every capable person (male and female with physical and financial capacity) it is 100% mandatory to perform hajj at least ONCE in a life time. Member Roy I do not expect to you (not Muslim person) to know this (Albeit most Bangladeshis know as it is very basic in Islam) know about Islam, KINDLY stop talking about stuff you do not know.

If you want to talk about political leaders, feel free.

If someone thinks he/she can buy a seat in the heaven by going to Hajj multiple times, he/she is a fool

>>>>>>>> It is mandatory to perform it ONCE and if someone does it more than once, it is just an option only. Not a requirement of Islam.

I could appreciate it more if Jana-Netri would send some poor people from the slum for Hajj with the money she spent for her own Hajj so many times. That would definitely accrue much more credits, in my view.

>>>>>>>>> Good point.

You should learn to criticize your leaders, when they do wrong. Otherwise, you will get bunch of garbage from them.

>>>>>>> Thank you for the reminder.

Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda

 
Hajj is not mandatory; it is recommended for once in a life-time to those who can afford.
 
Therefore, when someone does it multiple times, just because he/she can, it becomes redundant and useless visit. If someone thinks he/she can buy a seat in the heaven by going to Hajj multiple times, he/she is a fool. That's why I am counting how many times the 'Jana-Netri'  of one of the poorest countries in the world goes to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. I hope you understand my point now.
 

I could appreciate it more if Jana-Netri would send some poor people from the slum for Hajj with the money she spent for her own Hajj so many times. That would definitely accrue much more credits, in my view.
 
Why are you comparing Hajj with burglary/corruption? I don't understand your argument. Please clarify? These are two different issues. Isn't it?
 
I am amazed by thoughts of well literate people, like you, who are unable to think straight. You are mixing up ideas in order to defend your political leader. You should learn to criticize your leaders, when they do wrong. Otherwise, you will get bunch of garbage from them.
 
 
Jiten Roy



On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:21 PM, ANISUR RAHMAN <anisur.rahman1@btinternet.com> wrote:
 
Why are you wasting your time trying to find out the number of times Khaleda Zia performed Hajj? Are you tracking the number of times the (chief!) burglars burgling in Bangladesh? 


From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2013, 23:33
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Haj photo-ops of Khaleda

 

When a political leader goes to a foreign country on a personal visit, it's usually part of a nefarious mission. Recently, wheelchair bound Mirza Fakrul went to Singapore; he is now bouncing on just fine; I lost track - how many times Madam Zia went to Singapore.
 
In my view, every year going to Mecca for Hajj is arrogance, if not sinister act, considering millions will never be able to go there even once in their lifetimes.    
 
Jiten Roy


On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:03 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
I'm thinking of the multiple times our political leaders go to KSA to perform Haj and umrah. The idea advertised is: more photo-ops at Haj the more religious, and more 'Muslim' you prove yourself to be. Especially memorable are pictures of Begum Khaleda Zia and Al Haj Falu wrapped in their ahrams and false piety.

"Muslims are required to perform Haj only once in their lifetime. Those who perform it repeatedly may actually be at sin, because they are crowding other Muslims who have paid their life's savings, and came from distant parts of the world to perform Haj. Just because they may be financially capable, and healthy, does not give them the right to do so. Why don t Muslims just follow Islam teachings?!" T. Tawfiq

Saudi Writer and Academic - Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi - writes an Op-Ed
today on his personal refelctions on Hujj that he pefromred this year.

URL Link:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20131022184225










__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___