సమాజం వసుదైకకుటుంబం నమూన. తాత్వికులు సమాజం తో మమేకమై వారి కాలచక్రపరిధిని దాటి ఆలోచించారు . సమాజానికి
నూతనమార్గాన్ని నిర్దేశించారు .
Chinta Ramamohan
"There are no facts, only interpretations."- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
అజ్ఞానపు టంధయుగంలొ ఆకలిలొ,ఆవేశంలో తెలియని ఏ తీవ్రశక్తులో నడిపిస్తే నడిచి మనుష్యులు అంతా తమప్రయోజకత్వం తామేభువికధినాధులమని స్థాపించిన సామ్రాజ్యాలునిర్మించిన క్రుత్రిమ చట్టాలు ఇతరేతర శక్తులు లేస్తే పడిపోయెను పెకమేడలై పరస్పరం సంఘర్షించినశక్తులతో చరిత్ర పుట్టెను.
***
నేను సైతం ప్రపంచానికి సమిధనొక్కటి ఆహుతిచ్చాను
నేను సైతం విశ్వ వ్రుష్టికి అశృఉవొక్కటి ధారవోసాను
నేను సైతం భువన ఘోషకు వెర్రి గొంతుక పిచ్చి మొసానూ
***
1.బుద్డుడు - (563 - 483 BC) భౌతికవాదం * (meterilisiom)
2.సోక్రటీస్ - నిన్నునీవు తెలుసుకో (469 - 399) BC* (method of arriving at truth )
3.స్పొర్టకస్ - (71 BC) తిరుగుబాటు * ( the first revolutionist in the history )
4.జీసస్ - మానవసంబంధాలు * (human relations )
5.వేమన - (1650 రాయలసీమ ) భావవిప్లవం * ( socialist )
6.కారల్ మార్క్స్ - (1818 - 1883) కమ్యూనిజం (చారిత్రిక గతి తార్కిక భౌతిక వాదం)
* (historicl dilectical meterialisom}
7.ఫ్రౌయిడ్ - (1856 - 1939) మనోవిశ్లేషణ (psychoanalysis)
8.లెనిన్ - కమ్యూనిజం (1872 - 1924) * పెట్టుబడిదారి విధానం యొక్క అంత్యదశ సామ్రాజ్యవాదం
* (the last refuge of capitalisum is imperialisom )
9.స్టాలిన్ - కమ్యూనిజం (1879 - 1953) *రాజ్యరహిత సమాజం( stateless country concept )
10.మావొ - (1893 - 1976) *కమ్యూనిజం( సాంస్కృతిక విప్లవం ) (cultural revolution)
1.బుద్డుడు - (563 - 483 BC) భౌతికవాదం * (meterilisiom)
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions.
Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
2.Socrates
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/socrates.html
3.స్పొర్టకస్ ( 71 BC )
అతడు ఓడిపోయాడు చనిపొయాడు క్రీస్తు కి పూర్వమే పుట్టాడు గిట్టాడు . కాని అతని పేరు చెప్తే దోపిడీదారులందరికీ బెదురు. ఎందుకా ? వారు శ్రామికవర్గాల జనాన్ని పందులకంటే హీనంగా చూస్తారు . కాని ఆజనాలు ఉగ్రనరసింహులు గా మారి విజృంభించగలరన్న సత్యాన్ని చరిత్రలో మొదటిసారిగా చెప్పినవాడు స్పోర్టకస్.
4.జీసస్ - మానవసంబంధాలు * (human relations )
మాటలకు, ప్రభోదాలకు,నీతి సూక్తులకు చరిత్ర గతినే మార్చేంత బలం ఉంటుందా? తప్పక ఉంటుంది. అన్నది యేసుప్రభువు జీవితాన్నిబట్టి తెలుస్తుంది. ఒకరోజున శిష్యులంతా తగవులాడుకొంటున్నారు.తమలోఎవరు గొప్ప? అన్నది తేల్చుకోవాలన్న వాళ్ళ ప్రయాస .వాళ్ళని ప్రభువు తనవద్దకు పిలిచి మీలోగొప్పవాడుగా,నాయకుడుగా ఉండగోరువారు ముందు మంచి పరిచారకుడుగా ఉండాలి.నేనుకూడా ఈ లోకానికి పరిచారంచెయుంచుకోడానికి రాలేదు,పరిచర్య చేయడానికే వచ్చానని ప్రభోదిచాడు.
34 యేసు తండ్రీ, వీరేమి చేయుచున్నారో వీరెరుగరు గనుక వీరిని క్షమించుమని చెప్పెను.
లూకా - Luke 23
16ఎవడును పాత బట్టకు క్రొత్తబట్ట మాసిక వేయడు; వేసినయెడల ఆ మాసిక బట్టను వెలితిపర చును చినుగు మరి ఎక్కువగును. 17మరియు పాత తిత్తు లలో క్రొత్త ద్రాక్షారసము పోయరు; పోసినయెడల తిత్తులు పిగిలి, ద్రాక్షారసము కారిపోవును, తిత్తులు పాడగును. అయితే క్రొత్త ద్రాక్షారసము క్రొత్త తిత్తులలో పోయుదురు, అప్పుడు ఆ రెండును చెడిపోక యుండునని చెప్పెను. మత్తయి - Matthew 9
----------------------------------------------------------
5.వేమన ( 1650 రాయలసీమ ) - భావ విప్లవం
తనకాలపు పరిధిలోనైనా సామాజిక చైతన్య దృష్టితో కవిత్వం చెప్పిన తొలి తెలుగు కవి వేమన్న. అదే దృష్టితో రచన చేస్తున్న ఈనాటి కవులు తమకన్నా పూర్వుల సంప్రదాయాన్ని తెలుసుకోటం ఆరోగ్యకరమే గాక అవసరమని కూడా భావిస్తున్నాం. వెనకటి మంచిని జీర్ణించుకొని కొత్త పరిస్థితులను గుర్తించి ముందు చూపుతో రచనలు చేయటం ఈనాటి రచయితల కర్తవ్యం.
తన కాలాన్ని మించి కొన్ని విషయాల్లో ముందుకు చూడగలిగిన కవిగా వేమన్నను మనం గౌరవించాలి. విగ్రహారాధనను వ్యతిరేకించాడు. శైవ వైష్ణవ మతాలవారి ఆర్భాటాలను, వారి దురాచారాలను, మోసాలను బట్టబయలు చేశాడు. చిలుక పలుకుల చదువులను విమర్శించాడు. కాకులకు పిండాలు పెట్టటం వంటి మూర్ఖాచారాలను తీవ్రంగా ఖండించాడు. శ్రమశక్తిలోనే సర్వమూ ఉన్నది అనేంత నిశిత పరిశీలన చెయ్యగలిగిన వేమన్న మామూలు కవికాడు, తనకాలపు చట్రంలో ఇమడని గొప్ప కవి.
వేమన్న రచనా మార్గంలో మూడు అంశాలు గుర్తించవచ్చు. 1.ప్రజలభాషలో ప్రచారంగా ఉన్న పదాలను, మాండలికాలను ప్రయోగించి ప్రజలకు సన్నిహితమైన రచన చెయ్యటం. 2.చెప్పదలచుకున్న భావాన్ని తగిన విస్తీర్ణంలోనే క్లుప్తంగా చెప్పటం. 3.ఊహలోనుంచికాక జీవితం నుంచి ఉపమానాలను ఏరుకోవటం. కవితా దృక్పథం విషయంలో మాత్రమే కాక రచనా విధానంలో కూడా వేమన్న ఆదర్శం నుంచి ఈనాటి కవులు నేర్చుకోవలసింది చాలా ఉందని దృఢంగా భావిస్తున్నాం.
- చేకూరి రామారావు
కుండ కుంభమన్న కొండ పర్వతమన్న నుప్పు లవణమన్న నొకటి కాదె భాష లిట్టె వేరు పరతత్వమొకటె విశ్వదాభిరామ వినురవేమ!
కుండ-కుంభము, కొండ-పర్వతం, ఉప్పు-లవణం అర్థమొకటే, భాషలు వేరైన పరతత్వమొకటే కదా!
భూమి నాది యనిన భూమి ఫక్కున నవ్వు దాన హీనుఁ జూచి ధనము నవ్వు కదన భీతుఁ జూచి కాలుఁడు నవ్వును విశ్వదాభిరామ వినురవేమ భూమిలోన బుట్టు భూసారమెల్లను తనువులోన బుట్టు తత్త్వమెల్ల శ్రమలోన బుట్టు సర్వంబు తానౌను విశ్వదాభిరామ వినురవేమ చంపదగిన శతృవు తనచేత చిక్కెనేని కీడు చేయరాదు పొసగ మేలు చేసి పొమ్మనుటే మేలు విశ్వదాభిరామ వినురవేమ
6.కారల్ మార్క్స్ ( 1818 - 1883 )
"తత్వవేత్తలు ప్రపంచాన్ని పరిపరి విధాల నిర్వచించారు. కావలసింది దాన్ని మార్చడం " .సోషలిస్టు విప్లవం తీసుకురాగలిగింది కార్మికవర్గం మాత్రమే.నడచిన చరిత్ర యావత్తు వర్గ పోరాటాల చరిత్రే.మానవాళిని దోపిడీనుండి విముక్తి చేసే కర్తవ్యానికి శ్రామికవర్గాన్ని సమాయత్తం చేయాలి ! పీడనను , ఆకలిమంటలను , యుధ్దాన్ని నిర్మూలించాలి .శతాబ్దాల క్రమంలో "పెట్టుబడి" ఎలాగుపడిందీ,పెంపొందిందీ కారల్ మార్క్స్వవర్ణించాడు. "నఖశిఖ పర్యంతం,దాని ప్రతి అణువు రుధిరంతో తడిసి " పుట్టిందన్నాడు .( దాస్ క్యాపిటల్ ) వ్యక్తిగత ఆస్తి ప్రసక్తిలేని సమాజంలో మాత్రమే దారిద్ర నిర్మూలన సాధ్యమని ఎంగెల్స్ సూత్రీకరించాడు.ఈనాటి పెట్టుబడిదారులు సమకూర్చుకున్న సంపదలు - బానిసలు యజమానులు లేదా ఫ్యూడల్ ప్రభువులు అర్ధబానిసల శ్రమను దోచుకొని గడించినదానికన్నా భిన్నమేంకాదు . ఈ రకరకాల దోపిడీల మధ్య వ్యత్యాసం తిఫలమివ్వకుండా శ్రమను కొల్లగొట్టే విధానంలో తేడా మాత్రమే .ఈనాటి బూర్జువా సమాజం లోగడ వున్న వాటికన్నా మెరుగైందేమీకాదు .అపార జనసందోహాన్ని అత్యల్పసంఖ్యాకులు దోచుకునేందుకు అవకాశమిస్తున్న మహా భీకర వ్యవస్థ ఇది .
7.ఫ్రౌయిడ్ - (1856 - 1939) మనోవిశ్లేషణ(psychoanalysis)
Sigmund Freud, (born May 6, 1856, Freiberg, Moravia, Austrian Empire—died Sept. 23, 1939, London, Eng.), Austrian neuropsychologist, founder of psychoanalysis, and one of the major intellectual figures of the 20th century. Trained in Vienna as a neurologist, Freud went to Paris in 1885 to study with Jean-Martin Charcot, whose work on hysteria led Freud to conclude that mental disorders might be caused purely by psychological rather than organic factors. Returning to Vienna (1886), Freud collaborated with the physician Josef Breuer (1842–1925) in further studies on hysteria, resulting in the development of some key psychoanalytic concepts and techniques, including free association, the unconscious, resistance (later defense mechanisms), and neurosis. In 1899 he published The Interpretation of Dreams, in which he analyzed the complex symbolic processes underlying dream formation: he proposed that dreams are the disguised expression of unconscious wishes. In his controversial Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), he delineated the complicated stages of psychosexual development (oral, anal, and phallic) and the formation of the Oedipus complex. During World War I, he wrote papers that clarified his understanding of the relations between the unconscious and conscious portions of the mind and the workings of the id, ego, and superego. Freud eventually applied his psychoanalytic insights to such diverse phenomena as jokes and slips of the tongue, ethnographic data, religion and mythology, and modern civilization. Works of note include Totem and Taboo (1913), Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), The Future of an Illusion (1927), and Civilization and Its Discontents (1930). Freud fled to England when the Nazis annexed Austria in 1938; he died shortly thereafter. Despite the relentless and often compelling challenges mounted against virtually all of his ideas, both in his lifetime and after, Freud has remained one of the most influential figures in contemporary thought.
8.LENIN
(Lenin the theory of imperialism)
( Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism )
NAME: Vladimir Lenin
OCCUPATION: Political Leader, Political Scientist, Journalist
BIRTH DATE: April 10, 1870
DEATH DATE: January 21, 1924
EDUCATION: Kazan University
PLACE OF BIRTH: Simbirsk, Russia
PLACE OF DEATH: Gorki, Russia
ORIGINALLY: Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov Vladimir Lenin founded the Russian Communist Party, led the Bolshevik Revolution and was the architect of the Soviet state. He was the posthumous source of “Leninism,” the doctrine codified and conjoined with Marx’s works by Lenin’s successors to form Marxism-Leninism, which became the Communist worldview. He has been regarded as the greatest revolutionary leader and thinker since Marx.
Lenin and the theory of imperialism
Thu, 19/03/2009 - 01:51
More than half a million children have died in Iraq since 1990 as a result of United Nations' sanctions. Millions are dying in Africa because of a lack of drugs to fight AIDS. Pro-independence supporters are shot dead in the streets in East Timor with arms sold to Indonesia under New Labour's ethical foreign policy. This is the world at the end of the twentieth century.
Marxists call the world system that has dominated this century imperialism. It was Vladimir Lenin who analysed developments within capitalism in his pamphlet, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, published in 1916. He sought to explain the causes of the first world war, which was then raging, as being rooted within the stage of development that capitalism had reached rather than as a result of the policies of governments or the "accidents" of history.
Lenin argued that twentieth century capitalism was no longer dominated by individual capitalists operating in a market ruled by free competition. Instead, there had been a massive growth in monopolies - huge corporations cornering the market and dominating it.
Monopolies were formed through the concentration of production in ever larger enterprises, through merger or buying up of competitors. This concentration often coincides with combination, that is the grouping together in a single enterprise of several different branches of industry e.g. a large steel plant that smelts iron ore, converts pig iron into steel, then rolls the steel into plate.
The endless push to maximise profit drives the capitalist to concentrate and combine, and so dominate more of the market. If a capitalist buys up or develop industries that provide raw materials or further processes products (combination) initial costs are cut so more profit is extracted from the finished goods. Once started this process is inexorable and the concentration of enterprises becomes so great that no competitors are left and the capitalist has a monopoly.
Lenin believed the end of free competition and its replacement with the rule of monopolies was largely completed by the beginning of the twentieth century. Yet it originated in the 1860s when free competition reached its peak. Capitalists began to see the advantages of monopolies and cartels (monopolists joining forces on an international basis - also known as trusts) to reap greater profits from the booms and survive the slumps.
After the relatively long boom at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of 1900-1903, monopolies and cartels were established as "one of the foundations of economic life". In the US in 1904, 1.1 per cent of businesses were responsible for half of all production.
Lenin wrote: "Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads right up to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation."
But while "production becomes social... appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few."
The privileged position of the monopolies leads to a greater and greater contradiction between their advanced development and the lack of development of other sections of industry. The drive for domination leads inevitably to conflict and crises.
The tendency to concentrate is also apparent within finance capital. The banks developed from being "middlemen" used by the capitalists into powerful monopolies themselves, controlling the money capital of businesses, large parts of the means of production and the sources of raw materials nationally and abroad. They achieved this by directly annexing other banks and making them into their branches and indirectly by acquiring holdings and shares in banks and businesses.
The last years of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth saw massive expansion in the network of banks, their rapid concentration and a huge growth in their turnover. By 1909 the three big Paris banks had 1,229 branches in France and the number of accounts of the Credit Lyonnais had risen from 28,535 in 1875 to 653,539 in 1912.
From carrying out technical operations the banks had come into their own, the enormous scale of their dealings meant, said Lenin, that "a handful of monopolists subordinate to their will all the operations both commercial and industrial, of the whole of capitalist society; for they obtain the opportunity – by means of their banking connections, their current accounts and other financial operations – first, to ascertain exactly the financial position of the various capitalists, then to control them, to influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering credits, and finally entirely determine their fate, determine their income, deprive them of capital, or permit them to increase their capital rapidly and to enormous dimensions etc."
They become the "common bookkeepers" of the whole capitalist class, organised and socialised in the same way as industry. Through the acquisition of shares and holdings in industry and through the appointment of bank and industry directors onto each others boards, the merging or union of the capital of industry and the banks progresses even further.
Added to this is the role of state officials and ex-state officials on the boards of banks and industry, creating a direct means for the banks and industry to gain political influence. By the turn of the century this process had resulted in domination of finance capital and the financial oligarchy that oversees it.
The dominance of the financial oligarchy also means the dominance of a handful of "financially powerful states". At the time Lenin was writing, the old capitalist countries of Britain and France and the new rapidly expanding capitalist countries of Germany and the United States owned 80 per cent of the worldâs finance capital between them.
These few rich countries accumulated capital in gigantic proportions and consequently sought means of making greater profits from this capital. Commodities had long been exported but the rise of finance capital saw the concurrent rise in the export of capital (loans and investment) itself both within undeveloped parts of Europe and the colonial world. The advantages are clear: profits are high because of the scarce capital already there, the cheap land and raw materials, and low wages of the workers. Money can be made from servicing loans, from commercial treaties, from requiring the debtor country to use your country for orders, contracts etc. And all the profits can be repatriated back to the imperialist country itself.
The imperialist nation states had by 1900 completed the seizure of all of the territories on the planet ö either directly by colonial rule or indirectly by tying countries into economic subservience while formally observing their independence (semi-colonies) as with Argentina, which was dominated by Britain because of the huge amount of British capital invested there.
Lenin argued that imperialism would not lead to stability but to increasing instability, and a greater tendency towards war and economic crises. The rival imperialist powers would fight over the division and re-division of the world. The history of the twentieth century has tragically proved him to be correct.
The division of the world was about obtaining profits, not promoting world harmony. The divisions were according to relative strength, resting on relative capital ö there was no virgin territory or market left, so instead of division, the cartels and imperialist nations would have to resort to re-division to increase their share, leading to instability and even war.
Overall Lenin predicted a tendency of the imperialist nations to become ever more parasitic on the rest of the world ö usurers, loan sharks, bullying less powerful nations to give up their goods and raw materials.
Despite their enormous power and influence "finance capital and the trusts do not diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various parts of the world economy". This creates massive contradictions and tensions around the globe, and for all the incredible advances in productive forces we have seen this century, imperialism has not even come close to solving those contradictions – as the 31 wars that took place last year alone prove.
Lenin's words, written during the first imperialist war are as true as ever: "what means other than war could there be under capitalism of removing the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and then division of colonies and "spheres of influence" for capital on the other?"
What does imperialism mean for the world working class? Exploitation, oppression and misery. Imperialism as an economic system relies on the exploitation of the non-imperialist world: colonies in Lenin's day, semi colonies today.
Imperialism also played a role in keeping the working class in the imperialist countries in check. As arch-imperialist Cecil Rhodes admitted in 1895:
"The Empire is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists."
In other words British bosses could deploy the greater profits made as a result of imperialism (super profits) to stop revolution at home. A section of the working class could be "bought off" (at least temporarily) with some of these super profits. As well as higher wages and better terms and conditions for this layer of workers ö the labour aristocracy ö improvements in sanitation, lighting and housing benefited the mass of workers.
The bitter legacy of this exploitation of the colonies and semi-colonies is not only the enduring poverty and oppression that blights Africa, Latin America and Asia, but the racism that was used to ideologically justify the subjugation of millions upon millions of people. The beginning of the imperialist age saw a huge rise in rabid nationalism, militarism and the first anti-immigration laws.
None of this means that the workers of the imperialist heartlands are lost forever to the cause of socialism. Every crisis forces the capitalists to turn on the working class ö including the aristocracy of labour. Every struggle contains the potential for generating the solidarity and class consciousness that undermine all divisions inside the working class, including racism. And, because of the very nature of the imperialist system ö characterised by war and crisis, the likelihood for such struggles increases.
Indeed, here was the final element of Lenin's theory of imperialism ö namely that it opened up an epoch of wars and revolutions. He was right. The list of revolutions this century is enormous, stretching from Russia in 1905 to Indonesia in 1998. Those revolutions are as much a part of the imperialist epoch as war and economic crisis. And those revolutions hold the key to overthrowing the imperialist world order. The question becomes: can revolutionary socialists win leadership of the masses in order to push those revolutions towards a final victory against capitalism? For Lenin the age of imperialism made the need for revolutionary internationalism literally a matter of life and death for the workers of the world. And so it remains for us today
9.STALIN
(Stalin's Legacy of Statelessness)
Joseph Stalin (1879-1953)
Stalin's Legacy of Statelessness
ByArthur C. Helton. Arthur C. Helton, a lawyer, is director of migration programs at the Open Society Institute in New York.JUNE 5, 1996
The plight of southern Georgia's Meshketian minority illustrates the misery experienced by millions of displaced people in the former Soviet Union. Forcibly deported from Georgia to Central Asia by Joseph Stalin in 1944, they were subsequently evacuated from Uzbekistan by Soviet troops in 1989 when ethnic tension flared there. Today, hundreds of thousands of Meshketians reside unlawfully as "stateless persons" in other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, unable to secure basic rights despite the adoption of laws intended to protect them.
And the Meshketians are not alone. More than 9 million refugees, internally displaced persons, repatriates, deported peoples, ecological migrants, and others from across the former Soviet Union have been uprooted since 1989, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This figure does not include millions of others in the region who have migrated for economic reasons.
Moreover, about 70 million former Soviet citizens live beyond the borders of the country of their ethnic origin. At least 20 million ethnic Russians live outside the Russian Federation, and more than 26 million non-Russians live in Russia. Given these demographics, the potential for further dislocations in the region is immense. Although the majority of these people are unlikely to move suddenly, the conditions that give rise to dislocations, including armed conflicts, human rights violations such as ethnic cleansing, economic underdevelopment, environmental disasters, and general failures of governance are increasingly endemic in the region.
Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?
Clearly, a systematic effort by the international community is required to address this crisis. Representatives of 77 governments and 27 international organizations met in Geneva during May to formulate a strategy. But the program of action adopted at Geneva is a lackluster wish list of general objectives, minus concrete projects or specific legal obligations to help prevent forced migration.
It declares, for example, that commonwealth states are "encouraged" to sign international refugee treaties and "should facilitate" the repatriation of deported peoples, such as the Meshketians. By omitting concrete commitments, the international community misses an important opportunity to promote the development of open societies in the region - perhaps the best strategy to prevent future causes of forced migration.
One such lost opportunity is the conference's failure to design legal protections for the roughly 500,000 people displaced by war in Chechnya. Existing international-refugee treaties limit coverage to refugees who are abroad with a "well-founded" fear of individualized persecution upon return. But the magnitude and nature of displacements caused by various conflicts in the former Soviet Union demand a broader concept that addresses existing realities in post-Soviet Eurasia.
Western European and other states, reluctant to create openings for criticism of their own restrictive asylum regimes, opposed the inclusion of a broadened refugee definition in the కాన్ఫరెన్స్
10. మావో
