Saturday, February 17, 2018

Reading Anton Makarenko’s writing on Education and Family

While reading articles of Makarenko on education and upbringing of the children, many memories of people from our relatives, our friends and our own family strike on our conscious. Our own childhood come before our thoughts, and we try to find out how un-consciously a number of children are brought up and educated in our society where we had grown up, where we see so many crimes happening from inside the family to outside the society, where so many self-centric “educated” people are roaming around the streets and at elite workplaces in hunt for satisfying their ego. In such dangerous times it is an excellent article for every person who wants to understand the purpose of education, and also for all of us who try to give our attention to the education of whole society. This article will open a whole new window for our conscious understanding about the facts why so many children we have seen in our neighborhood, or at our relatives, who were not brought up as expected by their parents and family members.

Hindi Translation of the Book is available at Link: एक पुस्तक माता-पिता के लिए

There are total eight lectures available online on the below link. Here is the first article.
(All the highlights in the below article are done by readers.)
By Makarenko

The most important part of our lives is bringing up our children. They are the future citizens of our country and of the world. They will create history! Our children are the future fathers and mothers who will, in their turn, rear children. They must grow up to be good citizens and good fathers and mothers.
And this is not all -- our children are our old age -- if they are well brought up we will have a happy old age but if they are badly reared we will experience sorrow and tears. We will suffer before other people and before our country for our guilt.
Dear parents, above all remember the great importance of this matter of child-rearing and your responsibility for it...
Now let us turn our attention to some questions of general significance. First: to bring up a child correctly and normally is much easier than to re-educate him. It is really not as hard as some people seem to think. Any parent is capable of bringing up his children rightly -- if he really wants to. And what a joyful, pleasant, happy task it is! Re-education is a different matter. If you have done a bad job, been thoughtless, lazy or neglectful, much will have to be done over again, corrected. And this task requires more wisdom and patience than we find in every parent. So again, we advise you, parents, do your task well from the very beginning....
Parents must remember too, that in the pre-revolutionary family the father had great power; children lived completely under his will, there was no escape for them from parental authority and some fathers treated their children cruelly. In. our family the organization is very different. Our daughters do not have to wait for their fathers to find them a husband!
The feelings of the children rule. Obviously, if parents are to have influence now, they must find new methods, the old ones may no longer be used.
In the old-type family everyone belonged to some class and the son of a peasant was a peasant too, the son of a worker, a worker. Now a broad range of choice opens before our children. Their decisions need not be made according to the economic situation of the family but on the basis of their own capabilities and preparation. Both parents and children understand this. Under such conditions, parental decrees (फरमान) are impossible. Guiding must be done by wiser, more subtle and cautious means.
Our family is no longer a paternal one. Our women enjoy the same rights as men, mothers have rights equal with fathers. The Soviet family is a collective, not a group under one-man rule. Yet in this collective the parents have certain recognized rights. From whence do they derive them?
Now we do not deceive (झूठ बोलना) children. Although a family is a collective of equal members of society, children and parents differ from one another. Parents guide the family; the children are being brought up in it.
Parents must clearly understand that they are not the sole, uncontrolled bosses but must act as the older, responsible members of a collective. A clear concept of this will be very helpful in the task of bringing up children....
The structure of a family is important. This is, in the main, within our control. Even if a family has material problems, it should not limit itself to one child. An only child becomes the center of attention and receives more care than is normal or beneficial.... Often an only child becomes a real despot -- parents find that they have brought up an egoist whether they wanted to or not.
A large, well-organized family accustoms the children from infancy to mutual relationships, gives them opportunities to experience love and friendship in various forms between older and younger children. In such a family, children learn that necessary tasks cannot be carried out alone but must be done together. They experience life in a collective at every step, in play and work. This is essential for Soviet children. In bourgeois society it was less important because that society was constructed on egoistic principles...
Incomplete families, where the parents have separated, have an unhealthy influence on children's bringing up. The children may become the subject of dispute between parents who detest one another and do not hide this from their children. We advise parents who, for some reason, decide to separate to think first of all about the children, to hide their hatred and resolve conflicts tactfully. Parents who truly love their children will try to prevent their mutual differences from reaching a complete break so that their children will not be placed in this difficult situation. Obviously, if the father has left his family he cannot bring up his children. If his influence is bad, better forget him. That is the honest way to do. Of course, he must continue as before to carry his material responsibilities for the care of the children.....
Our next question is the matter of goals.
Some families never think about this. Parents just live beside their children and hope that things will take care of themselves. They have no goals, noprogram. Results, under such conditions, will be casual, haphazard. Parents are often surprised to find that their children have grown up badly... No one can do a job well unless he knows what he wants to accomplish. You must clearly understand your own desires. Do you want to bring up a true Soviet citizen, an energetic, honest, learned human being, one devoted to his country, to the revolution, work-loving, kind and courteous? Or do you want your child to be narrow-minded, greedy, cowardly, some kind of crafty little business man? Think this over carefully... Then you will see what mistakes you are making and what is the best path to follow.
Remember! You did not bring your son or daughter into the world for your own pleasure alone! And always remember that a future citizen is in your charge. If you fail, the grief will not be yours alone. The whole country will suffer. And do not brush this aside! Do not consider this a tiresome argument! If your factory turned out damaged goods you would be ashamed. Isn't it much more shameful for you to give your country a spoiled or bad human being?
Family affairs cannot be separated from the affairs of society. Your activities at home or at work are reflected in your family. They should see you as a politically, civic-minded person and not separate this image from their image of you as parent. Whatever happens in our country will reach them through your feelings and thoughts. They should know what makes you happy or sad, what is going on at your plant, what kind of community activity you are involved in. They should be proud of your successes and your service to society. This will not be healthy pride, however, if it is only pride in your good clothes, your automobile or your hunting rifle.
Your own conduct is decisive. You are constantly educating your child-- even when you are not with him. Your manner of dress, how you treat your friends or enemies, even what you laugh at -- read in the paper -- all this has great meaning for the child. You may not even be aware that your thoughts are affecting him in unseen ways -- a change in your voice...
If you are coarse or boastful (अशिष्टघमंडी) at home or -- much worse -- if you are insulting to mother, there is no use thinking about bringing up your children. You are already bringing them up badly and no advice will help you.
The parent's own self-discipline -- control at every step -- this is the most important method of bringing up children correctly.
We often meet parents who believe that some sort of clever prescription exists for bringing up children and that they must find it. In their opinion, if they find this prescription they may bring up work-loving people, honest citizens. If only they can get it into their hands they will be able to work miracles and their child will grow up rightly.
There are no such miracles. No prescription will help if the personality of the person rearing the child has great faults. First pay attention to these faults.
There are no pedagogic tricks. Unfortunately, some people believe in them. One thinks up punishments, another some kind of prize, a third plays the clown at home to amuse the children, a fourth bribe with promises.
Bringing up children requires a serious, simple and sincere attitude. -- Laziness, cynicism, frivolity will doom your work to failure. -- Tricks prevent parents from seeing the real tasks, confuse them and waste time.
And how many parents love to complain about lack of time! Of course it is a good thing to be with your children. It would be too bad if you did not see them often. But this does not mean that parents should never take their eyes off the children. This sort of thing develops passivity, accustoms children too much to adult society, may result in precocity. (Parents like to brag about precocity but later they find that they were wrong to do so.)
Of course a parent should know what his child is doing, where he is. But the child must have freedom so that he will be subject to a variety of influences. Don't think that he can be fenced off even from harmful or negative ones. For, in life, he will meet temptations, strange and evil people and circumstances. A hothouse upbringing will never develop the ability to withstand them and to struggle against them. ---
Children must have help and direction from time to time.. but this does not mean that they should be led by the hand... So for bringing up your child it is not more time that you need but correct use of the little time you have.
The essence of child rearing does not....consist in your conversations with the child, in direct effect on him, but rather in the organization of the family, of your own life and the life of the child. In this matter there are no trifles... Good organization consists in not brushing aside small details...These details of life act as an influence regularly, daily, hourly... To guide and organize life is your responsible task.
In summary:
Try to bring up your child correctly so that you will not have to re-educate him, which is much harder.
Remember that you are leading a new Soviet family. As far as possible achieve the right structure of the family.
Set yourself a goal and program for the task of up-bringing.
Remember that the child is not only your joy but a future citizen and that you answer to the country for him. Above all a good citizen yourself and carry your civic feeling family.
Make severe demands on your own behaviour.
No need of hunting for tricks and formulas. Be serious, simple and sincere. Guide the child but do not protect him from life.
The main thing in the work of bringing up children is the organization of family life with careful attention to details.

Monday, February 12, 2018

क्रान्तियों के बारे मे दोब्रूयोलोव और लेनिन के दो उद्धरण

"परिस्थितियां समाज में एक आवश्यकता को जन्म देती हैं। इस आवश्यकता को सब स्वीकार करते हैं, इस आवश्यकता की आम स्वीकृति के बाद यह जरूरी है कि वस्तुस्थिति में परिवर्तिन हो...।....चिन्तन मनन और वाद-विवाद के बाद क्रियाशीलता की श्रीगणेश होना चाहिये।... वर्षों से हमारे समाज ने क्या किया है? अब तक - कुछ नहीं।  उसने मनन-अध्ययन किया, विकसित हुआ, प्रवचनो को सुना, अपने विश्वासों के लिए संघर्ष के दौर में लगे आघातों पर सहानुभूति प्रकट की, कार्यक्षेत्र मे उतरने की तैयारी की, किन्तु किया कुछ नहीं! ढेर की ढेर सुन्दर भावनाओं-कल्पनाओं से लोगों के हृदय मस्तिष्क पट गए, समाज की वर्तमान व्यवस्था के बेतुकेपन और बेहूदगी का इतना पर्दाफाश किया गया कि पर्दाफाश करने के लिए कुछ रह ही नहीं गया। प्रतिवर्ष विशिष्ट, अपने-आप को 'चारों ओर की वास्तविकता से ऊंचा समझनेवाले', लोगों की संख्या बढ़ने लगी। ऐसा लगता था कि सीघ्र ही सब लोग वास्तविकता से ऊँचे उठ जायेंगे।...हमें ऐसे लोगों की आवश्यकता नहीं है।... हमें ऐसे लोगो की आवश्यकता है जो स्वयं हमें वास्तविकता को ऊंचा उठाना सिखायें, ताकि हम उसे उन संगत मानकों के स्तर पर ला सकें जिन्हें सब मानते और स्वीकार करते हैं।
- दोब्रूयोलोव (साहित्यिक आलोचक)
"जब 'निचले वर्ग' पुराने तरीको को मानने से इनकार कर देते हैं, और 'ऊपरी-वर्ग' पुराने तरीके बनाए रखने में असफल हो जाते हैं -सिर्फ तभी क्रांतियों की जीत होती है।" . . . "क्रांतियां मेहनतकश और शोषित जनता द्वारा राजनीतिक संघर्ष में भाग लेने वालों की संख्या का दस गुना, यहां तक कि सौ गुना तीव्रता से विकसित होने का परिणाम होती हैं।" 
- लेनिन (रूसी क्रांतिकारी)

Monday, February 5, 2018

दुनिया की सबसे बढ़ी युवा आबादी के भविष्य का सवाल

35 प्रतिशत नौजवानों (10 से 24 वर्ष) के साथ हमारा देश पूरी दुनिया के किसी भी और देश की तुलना में सर्वाधिक युवा है। यह युवा आबादी एक असीम शक्ति का भण्डार है, जो देश को वास्तव में एक सपनों का देश बनाने की क्षमता रखती है। लेकिन कुछ मुठ्ठीभर लोगों के लिये मुनाफा पैदा करने की हवश पर टिकी पूरी आर्थिक-राजनीतिक व्यवस्था मे नोजवानों की यह असीम ताकत कभी रोज़गार के लिये भटकते हुये निराशा और हताशा की शिकार हो रही है, तो कहीं देश में मौज़ूद आराजक तत्व इन नौजवानों को उनके रोज़गार के सवालों से ध्यान हटाने के लिये उन्माद फैलाने वाली एक भीड़ में तब्दील करने का काम कर रहे हैं।
पिछले कुछ दिनों से नेताओं के बयानों को सुने तो ऐसा आभास होता है कि जब देश के नौजवान सरकारों से रोज़गार देने की बाद करते हैं तो कोई नेता कह रहा है कि सरकार सभी को नौकरियाँ नहीं दे सकती, तो कोईता है कि यदि कोई व्यक्ति, जो कहीं भी रोजगार न मिलने के कारण मज़बूरी में अपना परिवार पालने के लिये सड़क पर ठेला लगाकर चाय या पकोड़े बेचने के लिये मज़बूर है, तो वह उसके लिये मुहैया रोज़गार माना जाना चाहिये है। पूरी दुनिया में किसी भी देश में कोई भी राजनेता जो जनता की माँगों का नेतृत्व करता है वह ऐसी परिस्थितियों में काम करने को रोज़गार नहीं मान सकता। पूँजीवादी विकास की वर्तमान अवस्था में एक तरफ टेक्नोलाजी और आटोमेशन की अनेक खोजें हो रही हैं (लेकिन यह खोजें हथियारो या समाज के मुठ्ठीभर ईलीटों के  मनोरंजन की पूर्ती के इर्द-गिर्द केन्द्रित हैं। एक रिपोर्ट के अनुसार पिछले साल देश में पैदा हुई 73 फीसदी सम्पत्ति देश की एक प्रतिशत आबादी के पास केन्द्रित हो गई।)और दूसरी तरफ आम मेहनतकश नौजवान रोजगार के आभाव में  सड़कों पर ठेले लगाने के लिये मज़बूर हैं। जबकि तकनीकि विकास समाज के हर व्यक्ति के जीवन को आरामदायक बनाने कि लिये होना चाहिये, लेकिन आज टेक्नोलाजी पूँजीवादी मुनाफें की हवश को शान्त करने का एक उपकरण मात्र बनकर रह गई है। जिसका परिणाम यह है कि जो नौजवान संगठित होकर अपने श्रम से बड़े-बड़ें कारखानों में विज्ञान और तकनीकि के नये-नये चमत्कार करने की क्षमता रखते हैं, नई खोजों और नये उपकरण बनाने की काबिलियत रखते हैं वो आज पूँजीवादी मुनाफा-केन्द्रित व्यस्था द्वारा जनित बेरोज़गारी के कारण ड़कों पर चाय और पकौड़ो की रेड़ी लगाने के लिये मज़बूर हैं या किसी ठेकेदार (इनमें मानशिक और शारिरिक दोनों प्रकार के काम निहित हैं) के मुनाफे के लिये औने-पाई की मज़दूरी पर काम करने के लिये मज़बूर हैं। इसे रोजगार नहीं बल्कि श्रम की लूट कहना ज्यादा सही है।
पिछले साल के आंकड़ों के अनुशार देश में कुल 140 लाख नौजवान 12वीं की परिक्षा में शामिल हुये थे। और हर साल यह संख्या बढ़ रही है। एक या दो साल बाद यह नौजवान काम की तलाश में होंगे, और हमें स्वयं से सवाल करना चाहिये कि क्या वर्तमान व्यवस्था जहाँ सारे सामाजिक उत्पादन के संसाधन और उपक्रमों को मुनाफ़ा कमाने के लिये निजी हाथों में सौंप दिया गया है,क्या वह हर साल काम की तलाश में श्रम के बाजार में आ रहे 1.4 करोड़  नौजवानों को रोज़गार देने की क्षमता रखती है।

Sunday, October 8, 2017

सोशल मीडिया और व्हाट्स-एप पर चलने वाली बहसों पर कुछ सवाल

सोशल मीडिया और इंटरनेट का विस्तार अपने चरम पर है। गाँवों और दूर-दराज़ के हर इलाके में इंटरनेट पहुँच रहा है, जहाँ बिजली नहीं है, रोज़गार नहीं है, चिकित्सा-व्यवस्था नहीं है, शिक्षा के लिये स्कूल नहीं है, दलितों के लिये समानता नहीं है, यातायात के साधन नहीं हैं, वहाँ भी इंटरनेट की सुविधा पहुँच चुकी है। सर्वाधिक ग़रीबों वाले एक पिछड़े पूँजीवादी देश में इंटरनेट को इतना विस्तार देने के पीछे नीतिज्ञों की मंशा का विष्लेशण अपने आप में स्वयं एक अलग विषय है। लेकिन इंटरनेट के साथ-साथ सोशल-मीडिया का जो विस्तार हो रहा है उसे समझने की आवश्यकता है।
सोशल मीडिया वैचारिक पेपोगेण्डा एक ऐसा माध्यम बन चुका है जो तथ्यों का विष्लेषण कर उसपर तर्क करने की विचारशक्ति को नहीं, बल्कि हर विचार पर आँख मूंद कर विश्वास करने की एक प्रवृत्ति को बढ़ावा देता है। फेसबुक, व्हाट्स-एप और ट्विटर पर व्यवस्थित रूप से अपने समर्थन में विचारों का प्रचार करने के लिये राजनीतिक पार्टियों द्वारा कम्पनियों को ठेके दिये जा रहे हैं। यह प्रचारक जन-विरोधी नीतियों के कड़वे जहर को आंशिक सत्य की चाशनी में लपेट कर जनता के बीच आम सहमति बनाने के लिये इस प्रकार प्रस्तुत करते हैं कि आम नागरिक वास्तविक सामाजिक परिस्थिति से विपरीत उनके फैलाये झूठ को ही सच मान लेता है। मीडिया रिपोर्टिंग का स्तर आज इतना गिर चुका है कि तथ्यों को तोड़ने-मरोड़ने के अलावा फेक-न्यूज के पूरे माफिया नेटवर्क आज मौज़ूद हैं, जो लोगों के बीच हिंसा भड़काने, उनका ध्यान मुख्य मुद्दों से भटकाने के लिये झूठी खबरें फैलाते हैं।
इस प्रचार का असर हम सोशल मीडिया पर अपने मित्र सूची के विचारों को पढ़ कर लगा सकते हैं। इस प्रचार का एक परिणाम तो यह है कि आँखें मूंद कर हर बात का समर्थन करने वाली एक पूरी पीढ़ी तैयार हो चुकी है। ध्यान से विश्लेषण करें तो सोशल मीडिया की हर बहस एक ऐसी व्यवस्था की कार्यप्रणाली को सुचारू रखने के संदर्भ हो रही है जो समाज के एक व्यापक हिस्से के सतत अमानवीय शोषण की नींव के ऊपर खड़ी है। जहाँ न्याय-प्रणाली, सरकारें, और सिद्धान्तकार ऐसे तर्क गढ़ने के काम में लगे हैं जिससे मेहनत करने वाली जनता का पूँजी द्वारा शोषण अनवतर चलाता रहे। जहाँ करोड़ों बेरोज़गार सड़कों पर काम की तलास में भटकने के लिये धकेले जाते रहें और सिद्धान्तकार व नेता आने वाले समय में उन्हें दिग्भ्रमित करने के लिये नये-नये सिद्धान्त गढ़ते रहें। वर्तमान व्यवस्था के अन्तर्गत विकास की हर एक ईंट मेहनत करने वालों की बर्बादी के नीव के ऊपर रखी जाती है और सच्चे अर्थों में सामरिक विकास सिर्फ इस व्यवस्था के पूरे आर्थिक ढाँचे को बदलने का बाद ही सम्भव है।
जनता के हालात बदलने के लिये शोषण पर खड़ी इस व्यवस्था को आमूलगामी रूप से बदलना एकमात्र विकल्प है और व्यवस्था को बदलने के लिये व्यवस्था की कार्यप्रणाली के समझना इसकी पहली  शर्त। अन्यथा किसी भी बहस का आत्म-तुष्टि के सिवाय और कोई औचित्य नहीं। यह भगत सिंह के शब्दों को संजीदगी से याद करने का समय है
"क्रांति से हमारा अभीप्रय है अन्याय पर आधारित मौजूदा समाज व्यवस्था में आमूल परिवर्तन। जब तक मनुष्य द्वारा मनुष्य का तथा एक राष्ट्र द्वारा दूसरे राष्ट्र का शोषण, जिसे साम्राज्यवाद कहते हैं, समाप्त नहीं कर दिया जाता तब तक मानवता को उसके क्लेशों से छुटकारा मिलना असम्भव है...।"
"प्रगति के समर्थक प्रत्येक व्यक्ति के लिए यह अनिवार्य है कि वह पुराने विश्वास से सम्बन्धित हर बात की आलोचना करे, उसमें अविश्वास करे और उसे चुनौती दे। निर्माण के लिए ध्वंस ज़रूरी ही नहीं, अनिवार्य है।", "यह लड़ाई तब तक चलती रहेगी जब तक कि शक्तिशाली व्यक्तियों ने (भारतीय) जनता और श्रमिकों की आय पर अपना एकाधिकार कर रखा है चाहे एसे व्यक्ति अंग्रेज पूँजीपति और अंग्रेज या सर्वथा भारतीय ही हों, उन्होंने आपस में मिलकर एक लूट जारी कर रखी है। चाहे शुद्ध भारतीय पूँजीपतियों द्वारा ही निर्धनों का खून चूसा जा रहा हो तो भी इस स्थिति में कोई अन्तर नहीं पड़ता।" (भगत सिंह के विचारों को विस्तृत रूप से समझने ले लिये देखें - भगतसिंह और उनके साथी क्रांतिकारियों के विचारों की सान पर . . .)

Sunday, September 10, 2017

द बुक थीफ़ (The Book Thief) फिल्म पर कुछ बातें

द बुक थीफ़ (The Book Thief)
इस फिल्म को देखते हुये कई विचार दिमाग में घूमते रहते हैं और हमारे आसपास घट रही घटनाओं पर सोचने के लिये विवश कर देती है। 2013 में बनीं फिल्म द बुक थीफ़ ब्रायन पर्सवल द्वारा निर्देशित एक अमेरिकी-जर्मन वार-ड्रामा फिल्म है जो 2005 में प्रकाशित मार्कस ज़ूसाक के उपन्यास द बुक थीफ पर आधारित है। इसमें मुख्य भूमिका निभाने वाले कलाकार हैं जिओफ्री रस, इमिली वाट्सन और सोफ़ी। फिल्म में एक लड़की लीसेल के माध्यम से नाजी जर्मनी के एक शहर के मोहल्ले में घट रहीं भयावह और तबाही की घटनाओं के बीच आम नागरिकों की जिन्दगी को दर्शाया गया है। यह फिल्म इतिहास के उस दौर को एक छोटी लड़की की नज़रों से दिखाती है जिसमें नाजियों की सोची समझी हिंसा, अत्याचार, ठण्डी-हत्याओं ने एक उन्मादी रूप ले लिया था जिसके तहत लाखों याहूदियों, कम्युनिस्टों, अपंग और बीमार बच्चों और महिलाओं को सत्ता की सुसंगठित हिंसा का शिकार बनाकर यातना-शिविरों में या गैस-चैम्बरों में मौत के घाट उतारा जा रहा था। और नाजी फासीवाद ने किस प्रकार देश-भक्ति के नाम पर पूरे समाज को एक ऐसे युद्ध में धकेल दिया था जहाँ हर एक तरफ हिंसा का उन्माद फैलाकर अल्पसंख्यकों और प्रगतिशील तबकों के बीच आलोचना की हर आवाज को दबाने के लिये सुसंगठित खौफ़ का माहौल पैदा कर दिया था।
आज जब पूरी दुनिया में एक बार फिर अन्ध-राष्ट्रभक्ति का उन्माद फैलाया जा रहा है, तो एक बार फिर पूरी दुनिया की मेहनतकश जनता के सामने फासीवादी अराजकता और पागलपन या समानता और भाईचारे के सिद्धान्तों को अपनाने का सवाल सामने खड़ा है, ऐसे में द बुक थीफ फिल्म एक संवेदनशील नज़रिया हमारे सामने रखती है।
फिल्म दिखाती है कि किस तरह नाज़ी फासिस्ट देश-भक्ति के नाम पर बहुसंख्यक जर्मन जनता की आम-सहमति को अपनी अतिवादी सामूहिक हत्याओं के समर्थन में ढालने के लिये मीडिया प्रपोगेण्डा और विरोधियों के खिलाफ़ अत्याचार का सहारा ले रहे थे और आलोचना करने वाली हर आवाज को कुचलने के लिये सेंसर लगा रहे थे, जिसके तहत वैचारिक लेखों और किताबों की होली जलाने के लिये बच्चों-नौजवानों को उकसाया जा रहा था, कलाकारों और पत्रकारों को डराया धमकाया जा रहा था और उनपर सेंसर लगाया जा रहा था या उनकी हत्यायें की जा रही थी। 
फिल्म के एक दृश्य में फासिस्ट सैनिक लोगों को इकठ्ठा करके उनके सामने कहता है, “शिक्षा, थियेटर, फिल्म और प्रेस देश के विशेष चरित्र को निर्धारित करने वाले स्तम्भ हैं। और इसी लिये हम आज रात स्वयं को बौद्धिक गन्दरी से मुक्त करने के लिये यहाँ इकठ्ठे हुये हैं।” (Education, Theater, film literature and press, these are the supporting pillars which shape the unique personality of our nation. And that is why we have gathered here tonight to free ourselves from any intellectual dirt.) इसके बाद फिल्म में किताबें जलाने का सीन दिखाया जाता है। यह तथ्य आज भी उतना ही सत्य है कि सत्ता में जो विचारधारा मौज़ूद होती है उस विचारधारा के प्रचार में पूरे मीडिया-तन्त्र और पूरे शिक्षा तन्त्र को ढाल दिया जाता है और उसके विरोध में उठने वाली हर आवाज की नृशंशक ढंग के कुचलने की पूरी कोशिश की जाती है।

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Reading A Poem of Bertolt Brecht in the Era of Glorification of Tanks

General your tank is a powerful vehicle.
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.
General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.
General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.
Bertolt Brecht

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Two Historical Quotations of Lenin on Women's Question

“We must root out the old slave-owner’s point of view.” - Lenin
“Unfortunately, we may still say of many of our comrades, ‘Scratch the Communist and a Philistine appears.’ To be sure, you have to scratch the sensitive spots, such as their mentality regarding womenCould there be any more palpable proof than the common sight of a man calmly watching a woman wear herself out with trivial, monotonous, strength- and time-consuming work, such as her housework, and watching her spirit shrinking, her mind growing dull, her heartbeat growing faint, and her will growing slack? It goes without saying that I am not referring to the bourgeois ladies who dump all housework and the care for their children on the hired help. What I say applies to the vast majority of women, including the wives of workers, even if these spend the day at the factory and earn money.”
“Very few husbands, not even the proletarians, think of how much they could lighten the burdens and worries of their wives, or relieve them entirely, if they lent a hand in this ‘women’s work’. But no, that would go against the ‘privilege and dignity of the husband’. He demands that he have rest and comfort. The domestic life of the woman is a daily sacrifice of self to a thousand insignificant trifles. The ancient rights of her husband, her lord and master, survive unnoticed. Objectively, his slave takes her revenge. Also in concealed form. Her backwardness and her lack of understanding for her husband’s revolutionary ideals act as a drag on his fighting spirit, on his determination to fight. They are like tiny worms, gnawing and undermining imperceptibly, slowly but surely. I know the life of the workers, and not only from books. . . We must root out the old slave-owner’s point of view. That is one of our political tasks, a task just as urgently necessary as the formation of a staff composed of comrades, men and women, with thorough theoretical and practical training for Party work among working women.”
"We are enlisting women to work in the economy, the administration, legislation and government. All courses and educational institutions are open to them, so that they can improve their professional and social training. We are organizing community kitchens and public dining-rooms, laundries and repair shops, crèches, kindergartens, children’s homes and educational institutions of every kind. In brief, we are quite in earnest about carrying out the requirements of our program to shift the functions of housekeeping and education from the individual household to society. Woman is thus being relieved from her old domestic slavery and all dependence on her husband. She is enabled to give her capabilities and inclinations full play in society. Children are offered better opportunities for their development than at home. We have the most progressive female labor legislation in the world, and it is enforced by authorized representatives of organized labor. We are establishing maternity homes, mother-and-child homes, mothers’ health centers, courses for infant and child care, exhibitions of mother and child care, and the like. We are making every effort to provide for needy and unemployed women.”
Reference: Lenin on the Women’s Question, Clara Zetkin,(An Interview with Lenin on the Woman Question)

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Selected Paragraphs of Karl Marx, Great Philosopher, Revolutionary and First Dialectical Materialist: On His Birth Day (5 May)

(Note: All emphasis is readers’. These paragraphs illustrate the real basis of religion. We can conclude ourselves why so many spiritual Gurus are taking birth every day. With the help of these short paragraphs we can also conclude the motive of many leaders and “scientists” who are trying their best to strengthen religious illusion among masses and new generations of the students. And motive of all this propaganda is very clear: They don’t want people to adapt a critical view towards their own misery and the society which is based on the inequality and theft.)

Paragraphs from “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right – Karl Marx”:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man– state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
Paragraphs from “Estranged Labour – Karl Marx”:
The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.
So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the less he can possess and the more he falls under the sway of his product, capital.
For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks objects. Whatever the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.
||XXIII/ Let us now look more closely at the objectification, at the production of the worker; and in it at theestrangement, the loss of the object, of his product.
The worker can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material on which his labor is realized, in which it is active, from which, and by means of which it produces.
In both respects, therefore, the worker becomes a servant of his object, first, in that he receives an object of labor, i.e., in that he receives work, and, secondly, in that he receives means of subsistence. This enables him to exist, first as a worker; and second, as a physical subject. The height of this servitude is that it is only as aworker that he can maintain himself as a physical subject and that it is only as a physical subject that he is a worker.
(According to the economic laws the estrangement of the worker in his object is expressed thus: the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes; the better formed his product, the more deformed becomes the worker; the more civilized his object, the more barbarous becomes the worker; the more powerful labor becomes, the more powerless becomes the worker; the more ingenious labor becomes, the less ingenious becomes the worker and the more he becomes nature’s slave.)
Political economy conceals the estrangement inherent in the nature of labor by not considering thedirect relationship between the worker (labor) and production. It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature; and the more universal man (or the animal) is, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art – his spiritual inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make palatable and digestible – so also in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganicbody – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.
In estranging from man (1) nature, and (2) himself, his own active functions, his life activity, estranged labor estranges the species from man. It changes for him the life of the species into a means of individual life. First it estranges the life of the species and individual life, and secondly it makes individual life in its abstract form the purpose of the life of the species, likewise in its abstract and estranged form.
For labor, life activity, productive life itself, appears to man in the first place merely as a means of satisfying a need – the need to maintain physical existence. Yet the productive life is the life of the species. It is life-engendering life. The whole character of a species, its species-character, is contained in the character of its life activity; and free, conscious activity is man’s species-character. Life itself appears only as a means to life.
The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity. Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. It is just because of this that he is a species-being. Or it is only because he is a species-being that he is a conscious being, i.e., that his own life is an object for him. Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labor reverses the relationship, so that it is just because man is a conscious being that he makes his life activity, his essential being, a mere means to his existence.
In creating a world of objects by his personal activity, in his work upon inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species-being, i.e., as a being that treats the species as his own essential being, or that treats itself as a species-being. Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty.
It is just in his work upon the objective world, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species-being. This production is his active species-life. Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labor tears from him his species-life, his real objectivity as a member of the species and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken from him.
Similarly, in degrading spontaneous, free activity to a means, estranged labor makes man’s species-life a means to his physical existence.
The consciousness which man has of his species is thus transformed by estrangement in such a way that species[-life] becomes for him a means.
Estranged labor turns thus:
Man’s species-being, both nature and his spiritual species-property, into a being alien to him, into a means of his individual existence. It estranges from man his own body, as well as external nature and his spiritual aspect, his human aspect.
An immediate consequence of the fact that man is estranged from the product of his labor, from his life activity, from his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confronts himself, he confronts the other man. What applies to a man’s relation to his work, to the product of his labor and to himself, also holds of a man’s relation to the other man, and to the other man’s labor and object of labor.
In fact, the proposition that man’s species-nature is estranged from him means that one man is estranged from the other, as each of them is from man’s essential nature.
The estrangement of man, and in fact every relationship in which man [stands] to himself, is realized and expressed only in the relationship in which a man stands to other men.
Hence within the relationship of estranged labor each man views the other in accordance with the standard and the relationship in which he finds himself as a worker.
Let us now see, further, how the concept of estranged, alienated labor must express and present itself in real life.
If the product of labor is alien to me, if it confronts me as an alien power, to whom, then, does it belong?
To a being other than myself.
Who is this being?
The gods? To be sure, in the earliest times the principal production (for example, the building of temples, etc., in Egypt, India and Mexico) appears to be in the service of the gods, and the product belongs to the gods. However, the gods on their own were never the lords of labor. No more was nature. And what a contradiction it would be if, the more man subjugated nature by his labor and the more the miracles of the gods were rendered superfluous by the miracles of industry, the more man were to renounce the joy of production and the enjoyment of the product to please these powers.

Popular Posts