I'm contemplating and reflecting here upon what is known as devil to the very idea of development and progress. Socialism and Communism, you may call them two myths or two visions? Progress and development know how to prune what is unwanted and obnoxious, how to belittle and usurp, how to include to exclude, or how to exclude to include, for the sake of emancipatory hues and saturations, yes I'm talking about an ordinary story of a species who have disappeared from this planet though some of the country states have adopted a new version of conformist Socialism which appears as a pariah to many, reason being, its working is dangerous and perilsome for those who are propagating a development model which is development of few at the exclusion of many. Like Orwellian paradox, where all are equals, but a few are more equal than others.
Some commentators claim that Plato and Aristotle were socialist. Reason being, Plato was looking for an ideal State, a state which is often understood as Ram Rajya in Hindu mythological or for those who it as a historical tradition. I don't know the difference between them either. Some theologians claim Jesus as a socialist, some claim prophet Muhammad as a socialist. I don't know what they mean by this term. This term appeared in works of Saint Simon for the first time, then Owen, Fourier, and Prodhoun revolutionised it in their own way.
Socialism as a genus got it's various branches, starting with anarchism, syndicalism, anarcho communism, anarcho syndicalism, Democratic Socialism, Liberal Socialism, Fabian Socialism, and Gandhi Socialism, etc. Communism as a species comes out in middle after differences between Mikhail Kunanin- Karl Marx and Friedrich Angel conflict at First International. Only then The Communist Manifesto published by Marx and Angels. Mikhail Kunanin or P.J. Proudhon were supporting a view milder than Marx. Marx as a materialist was opposed to the very idea of Hegelian dialectical idealism. He believed that Bourgeois are not only expropriating wage labourers but taking the shares of proletariats, left them for nothing, crippling for survival. On the other hand, Mikhail Kunanin group was much moderate, asking to be conformist at the promise of reform.
Comments
Post a Comment