For the average working-class person, classical music and the works of Shakespeare possess no relevance- as they make no sense. The workers are not conditioned to understand or appreciate these middle-class entities. Shakespeare and middle-class music have evolved out of the socio-economic privilege that is the cultural accumulation of the Bourgeoisie. In reality, this Bourgeois culture should not possess any meaning or relevance for the Proletariat. This is a body of pointless words and sounds imbued with a 'speciality' that only its creators can understand. The irony is that part of the profit generated by the labour of the Proletariat - and stolen by the Bourgeoisie - has provided the detached foundation of these exclusive cultural expression. Who cares 'What light through yonder window breaks?' Where is the food, clothing, medical care and housing in Mozart of Beethoven? The Bourgeoisie, of course, already possess these things and do not need to campaign to achieve these things again. The Bourgeoisie has accumulated the cream of Proletariat profit - kept the toilers completely impoverished - and built its opulent lifestyles upon the bones of the workers. Nice words and melodious notes do not free the mind of the workers from the oppression of the predatory capitalist system. The Bourgeoisie is free in the sense that it is dominant in the exploitative System it invented. The workers are subordinate. Being subordinate - the workers are forced to exist in a manner that sees the mind and body continuously oppressed. This encourages both inner and outer conflict and ensure emotional, psychological and physical violence rules the roost - not nice words or pleasant sounding musical notes. There are two ways forward. One is to reject the working-class and fully align with Bourgeois culture (and give-up any notion of Revolution). The second direction is to overthrow the Bourgeois System - and for the workers to sieze control of the means of production.
0 Comments
Oliver Cromwell abolished the absolute monarchy that ruled Britain for centuries (in one form or another) in 1649 - and it was NEVER reinstated! What was established in its place was a 'Constitutional' monarchy allowed by Act of Parliament - and institution that is more 'theatre' than institute of governance - and which possesses NO real power (as it is legally and lawfully 'subordinate' to the Will of Parliament). This makes perfect sense - as this marks how the Bourgeoisie (or the 'middle-class') usurped political power from the Aristocracy - even though King Charles I made the valid point that as all the power of the British State resided in his personage (and his personage alone) - Parliament did NOT possess the legal right to a) try him, or b) inflict any sentence upon him. King Charles I, from the perspective of the aristocracy - retained ALL the power of the State in his personage which was represented only by his Will! In other words, his word was law. This arrangement was formulated centuries before by aggressive groups that simply assumed political dominance over the populace - and then enforced this dominance with arbitrary 'violence' termed 'justice'. Added to this dominance was the equally false assumption that this situation was 'Willed' by a God concept - and was therefore beyond dispute or alteration! Any attempt at altering this situation was viewed as contradicting the divine Will of God! This explains why Cromwell, although a very devout Christian, nevertheless, believed that the State enforcement of a religion (any religion) was wrong because it was 'evil'! He changed the definition of 'God', 'State' and 'Religion' - and he did this by fundamentally changing the relationship between these three distinct entities. As this was the case, Parliament pulled the legal rug from beneath the King Charles I feet, leaving him no legal or lawful defence following his complete military defeat. What is interesting is that NOTHING changed with the so-called 'Restoration'! Cromwell's basic re-definition of these relations stayed in place (empowering and justifying the Bourgeois seizure of political power) and still form the dominant legal framework today - despite a superficial legal fiction that gives the false impression that a 'Constitutional' monarch is the same as an 'Absolute' monarch - an assumption that is an obvious absurdity! If the British Crown today attempted to exercise any type of political power - Parliament would immediately 'abolish' it. If this is the case, what is the point of the British Crown? As an institution it signals which class the Bourgeoisie politically favours (that is, the 'Aristocracy' it overthrew) and which class it does not favour (the Proletariat - or that class which comprised the soldiers in the Parliamentarian 'New Model Army')! Although Cromwell's political orientation was the exact opposite - when his influence was overthrown in 1660 - the emerging Bourgeoisie abandoned its support (and promises made) to the ordinary masses that had fought and died for its cause - and instead switched its allegiance to the class it had fought against! By continuously supporting the aristocracy over the workers - the workers (although numerically superior) are politically the least powerful and are unable to influence society in their own favour.
The suffering this man unleashed upon humanity has been intense, ongoing and ever-increasing! Like Khrushchev before him, he was an arch 'Trotskyite' who manoeuvred his way into the position of 'General Secretary' of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - and was even 'President' of the Soviet Union between 1990-1991 - whilst he oversaw the final destruction of the then 74-year-old Workers' State! The US, UK and EU flooded the post-Soviet space with perpetuators of religious extremism, fascism and free market economics - a process which has saw ‘minority’ Neo-Nazi (and Neo-Fascist) fringe groups brought to mainstream power in the Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, etc! Although modern Russia is now a poverty-stricken, capitalist country suffering from the fascistic-leanings associated with Pan-Slavism, the Russian State has at least seen fit to unleash its military (the successor to the Soviet Red Army) upon its Ukrainian neighbours to combat the Neo-Nazi ‘Euro-Maidan’ regime which was illegally brought to power in 2014 by the US Obama Administration! The Americans have chosen Neo-Nazism as its primary foreign policy tool as it remains staunchly ‘anti-Russian’ in both its early anti-Bolshevik ‘Mein Kampf’ phase – and in its later post-1945 ‘Soviet crushing’ of Nazi Germany phase! This despicable fascist regime has subsequently been further armed, financed and politically supported by the US, UK and EU – with its military being primed for a major push into the territory of West Russia (advancing the cause of ‘NATO’ in the process)! In reaction, the people of the Crimea voted to leave the Ukraine and join Russia – whilst a number of left-leaning ‘Republics’ were declared throughout East Ukraine – all stating their secession from the Ukraine, their self-determination and their eventual intention of merging with Russia! Although the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi ‘Nationalist’ Battalions were used to ruthlessly destroy a number of these ‘Republics’ - two managed to hold-out for the full eight-years – namely Lugansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region. A UN Report states that between 2014-2022 the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi ‘Nationalist’ Battalions killed between 10,000-15,000 men, women and children in the breakaway region, maiming a further 50,000 people! As a consequence, the military actions of Russia are entirely legal - as Russia is coming to the aid of a population that has declared its ‘independence’ and which has ‘requested’ such assistance! Of course, it is ironic that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are also the successors of the Soviet Red Army, and that the Ukraine is the area that suffered the most during Nazi Germany’s invasion of the USSR between 1941-1945 (killing around 41 million Soviet citizens). Indeed, the USSR took care to build as many defensive areas as possible throughout the Ukraine without openly effecting the quality of life for the local population, in an effort to ‘protect’ the population of the USSR from the threat posed by a NATO ground and air assault! Today, whilst the Neo-Nazi Ukrainians flaunt their Swastikas and their unbridled Western support – Russia abounds with working-class dereliction, racism, religious extremism and religious stupidity, homophobia and an intellectual and cultural poverty that has taken just 31-years to instil into their minds and bodies! Russian people in general are as ‘nationalistic’ as the Ukrainians they are fighting, and the Donbass inhabitants they are liberating! This fact underlies the power of the betrayal that the man pictured at the top of this article unleashed on the people of the USSR! A people that just 31-years ago viewed themselves as being ‘united’ and part of the ‘International Working Class’ - now view themselves as a ‘separate’ and ‘distinct’ (superior ‘Slavic’) race which hates all non-Russians and views the political left-wing of Europe and America (a political left-wing the USSR helped to nurture and grow throughout the 20th century) as being some type of ‘liberal’ conspiracy designed to import homosexuality (which modern Russians incorrectly associate with paedophilia) into Russia as a means to deprive Russia of its natural manliness! All this bourgeoise greed, hatred and delusion had been educated out of the minds and bodies of the citizens of the USSR through their Soviet (Marxist-Leninist) education – but in just 31-years of the bourgeoisie throughout the post-Soviet space taking back control of the means of production – nationalism, racism, hatred and discrimination are the new norms! The capitalist West may criticise the war between Russia and the Ukraine – but behind the scenes the Western leaders will be happy! The capitalist division of labour is nothing less than the division of the working class! When groups of limited self-interest form that possess no underlying and unifying base – then conflict and competitiveness are the inevitable result! When the working class is divided and fighting itself for the petty control of land – then it is too busy to ‘unite’ and form ‘Socialist’ groups that could effectively challenge the status quo! Surely, this is the greatest achievement of the man pictured at the top of this article – who lived just long enough after the collapse of the Soviet Union he engineered to see its constituent people start the processes of killing one another!
This film reminded me of Logan’s Run, the Matrix and Gattaca (with undertones of Minority Report), Filming occurred between October and December, 2000, and was completed well before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center during September, 2001. However, the finished film was not released until 2002 and in the post-911 war-mongering climate in the US – was a monumental cinema and financial failure. Perhaps the central theme of ordinary people rising-up against an oppressive regime did not go down too well with the Bush Administration as it was priming the American population to mindlessly follow its orders to (illegally) invade Afghanistan (and Iraq) in retaliation for 911 – without either country having anything to do with the terrorist attack itself. It is stated that Berlin was chosen for its fascistic architecture – and areas of run-down East Germany – with the produces careful not to mention that the former ‘Socialist’ East German State was ‘devastated’ with the re-introduction of predatory capitalism and that in just ten years, large areas became economically run-down and inundated with neo-Nazi movements whilst being abandoned by the unified ‘German’ State - bereft of financial aid and vital resources, etc. In other words, it was the predatory capitalism of the US that destroyed the infrastructure of East Germany – and not (Marxist-Leninist) ‘Socialism’ that had over-thrown Nazism and carefully re-built the country in the wake of Hitler’s death in 1945! Of course, the ‘Ministry of State Security’ or ‘Stasi’ (1950-19990) was responsible law and order and (from 1952) intelligence and counter-intelligence – for the State of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Its main tasks were to guard the German people from infiltration by US predatory capitalism – and arrest, try and imprison any East German nationals still holding ‘Nazi’ viewpoints. The US packaged this move as a human rights violation and started various media campaigns to have these people released. With the collapse of East Germany in 1999, all these former Nazis were released to great fanfare – and they immediately set about exercising their newly found ‘capitalist’ freedom by re-establishing a vast network of neo-Nazi organisations that still exist and function today! This is the background to the ‘decrepit’ areas the producers of this film claim they used in the former East Germany.
Furthermore, the producers feature images of Joseph Stalin – the ‘elected’ General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – and Saddam Hussein. The former fought Hitler’s fascism to protect the West with the Soviet Union losing around 41 million men, women and children, whilst Saddam Hussein was to be blamed by the Bush Administration (falsely) for being behind 911! An odd choice for so-called ‘deficient’ leaders as both were victims of the capitalist system! The producers also churn-out footage of the 1989 ‘Tiananmen Square’ Incident in China which was revealed in 2011 as a media hoax by Wikileaks - perpetuated by the US and UK media during a time before the internet and when very few people possessed the ability to verify at source what they were being told to ‘think’ by their respective governments! Although many suggest this film is a re-hash of Orwell’s 1984, the situation is a little more complex. George Orwell, as a Trotskyite, was tasked by the UK government to agitate against the Soviet Union through the medium of literature. Orwell’s books are not very well written, but they exist in virtually every school throughout the Western (capitalist) world! His books entitled ‘1984’, and Animal Farm’ are designed to psychologically ‘inoculate’ the minds of young children born within the capitalist system against forming any thoughts in support of ‘Socialism.’ As Orwell recognises the urge toward ‘creativity’ the only distraction his fiction allows is a dalliance with Trotskyism which serves the purpose of directing the individuals straight back into the arms of predatory capitalism! In this regard, Orwell’s misleading and poorly written works serve a similar purpose to the drug ‘Prozium’ found in this film. Whereas Orwell’s work ‘suppresses’ any thoughts in support of ‘Socialism’ - ‘Prozium II’ is a drug administered to all citizens of Libria which is used to ‘suppress’ all ‘emotion.’ The point of this is that the Council which runs Libria has decided that ‘feeling emotion’ is the reason humanity ‘goes to war’, and therefore if ‘emotion’ is stopped – all ‘war’ will cease (as does ‘resistance’ to authority). Orwell suppresses ‘Socialism’ (thus allowing the capitalist system to function normally – which includes raging war), whilst ‘Prozium’ allows for a society to function ‘free’ of warfare although under a totalitarian government (capitalism in decline). As religion is linked to ‘faith’, and given that ‘faith’ is premised upon ‘emotion’ - in an emotionless society, there is no need or inclination for religion to exist. Instead, secular ‘Clerics’ are trained to defend the State against anyone who ‘feels’ emotion. To do this they become expert in advanced martial arts – both armed and unarmed – and are empowered to be judge, jury and executioner. Their job is to destroy anyone who ‘feels’ and eradicate any material signs of culture produce by ‘feeling’ individuals. Every citizen is obligated to take their dose of ‘Prozium’ every day so as to prevent any feelings developing. Not to do this constitutes a ‘sense crime’ which is punishable by immediate death. Prozium creates an ‘unfeeling’ society that lives in the ‘eternal moment,’ That is to say, all citizens of Libria physically exist in the existential moment. This sounds very similar to the Japanese Zen ideology developed in Japan post 1868 (following the Meiji Restoration), which developed to its peak during the 1930s. This was a fascistic distortion of Chinese Ch’an that sort to ‘eradicate’ all human feeling and create a population that only lives in the present moment and possessed no moral qualms in ‘killing’ anyone who opposes the will of the State. To do this, the Japanese State had to ‘abandon’ all Buddhist morality and ethical behaviour and the Buddhist Establishment had to conform. This created an appreciation of the present moment that forgets the past and has no thought of the future whilst being completely ‘amoral’ due to its lack of contextualising emotion. This type of Japanese Zen conditioned millions of Japanese people to mindlessly obey a hierarchical government and kill anyone who opposed its objectives. Not only this, but after WWII, many so-called Japanese Zen masters then transmitted this type of ‘amoral’ Zen to the West where it has become known as ‘International Zen’, even though this type of thinking has been abandoned by most ethnic Japanese people who have reverted back to a more civilised and humane type of Buddhist practice. Clerics in Librium act very much like the Samurai of ancient Japan and the Kempeitai, of fascist Imperial Japan – as they are empowered to kill anyone who deviates from the accepted norms of society. To achieve this the Clerics have developed a deadly ‘Gun Kata’ - which is a set of movements using fire-arms which has been mathematically calculated to kill as many people in the shortest space of time, in such an efficient manner that exposes the Cleric to the least damage. Nikunja Vihari Banerjee (1897-1982) was much respected as an 'original thinker' as a professional academic employed by Delhi University. I first came across his work through his book entitled 'The Dhammapada' (which appears to have been posthumously published in 1989). My academic background in the UK is in 'Spiritual Metaphysics' - which means I specialise in the study of the history, culture, philosophy and political thought associated with religious movements and their impact upon the material environment. As a 'non-theist' I do not subscribe to any theistic path even though it is my duty to understand 'what' and 'how' each particular school of thought operates in an objective and non-judgemental manner. This is why I was interested in the work of NV Banerjee, as he too also seemed to share an interest in Marxist ideology and its relation to Buddhist thought. As part of my broader political activities, my function is to persuade and reassure religious groupings about the importance of their siding with the rigours of a Socialist Revolution (Marxist-Leninist) and their contributing to the building of a 'Communist' society!
I have found the work of VN Banerjee to be naïve, deficient and sometimes reminiscent of ‘Trotskyesque’ distortions of the truth! His work on the Dhammapada is arbitrary and shockingly moribund – as he even gets the Pali title incorrect! The term ‘Dhammapada’ literally translates as ‘Truthful Path’ - with ‘pada’ said to imply a ‘foot taking a step’, etc. VN Banerjee opts for translating ‘pada’ as ‘sayings’ - whilst completely negating the intended symbolism contained within this typically ‘Buddhist’ notion. This error is compounded when just a few pages on VN Banerjee admits that the Pali word ‘apadam’ actually means ‘trackless’ (as in ‘no footsteps’ are present)! He then continuously asserts that everything stated within Buddhism is evident within Christianity – whilst further suggesting that the Dhammapada has been ‘polluted’ by the very ‘theistic’ elements found in other religions! This observation is incorrect. The Dhammapada represents the diversity of the Buddha’s teaching even at the point of his death – when his community of monks certainly did not all agree on what ‘was’ and ‘was not’ said by the Buddha. Whilst pointlessly re-arranging the order of the 423 aphorisms which comprise the Dhammapada – VN Banerjee makes the only factual comments in the entire book when he observes that the Pali term ‘citta’ (mind) as used by the Buddha does not imply a ‘consciousness’ acting in opposition to ‘matter’ - but is rather a mind-concept which is itself a form of rarefied matter (an awareness ‘this side’ of matter). He also asserts that the Dhammapada – with its emphasis upon ‘right action’ as juxtaposed to ‘wrong action’ - probably aligns the Dhammapada Sutta with the Vinaya Discipline. Even so, and despite describing the thinking of Early Buddhism as ‘naive realism’, VN Banerjee fails to mention that the peculiarly ‘modern’ thought of the Buddha may well have preceded the Greeks and perhaps even influenced that development (particularly if the Buddha lived around 500-years earlier than many Western scholars assume). Another area of contention, is VN Banerjee’s equating of Buddhist ‘emptiness’ (sunyata) with ‘nihilism’ - an allegation clearly refuted by the historical Buddha at numerous times through his lifetime. Buddhist philosophy, regardless of school, rejects the extreme notions of ‘eternalism’ and ‘nihilism’ as flawed view of reality. In this regard, VN Banerjee’s viewpoint that the ‘Vijnanavada’ trend of thought within Mahayana Buddhism represents ‘subjective idealism’ denotes a Western-derived disregard for the correct interpretation of Buddhist ideology. Even the founders of the Yogacara (‘Yoga-practice’) School confirm that they agree with the Buddha that the ‘mind’ (citta) is ‘impermanent’ and is comprised of the forever fluctuating ‘five aggregates’. This being the case, nothing ‘permanent’ or ‘long-lasting’ can arise from ‘consciousness’ or ‘conscious-awareness’ of the external, material world. Human perception DOES NOT generate the material objects it senses in the external environment (as if ‘sensing’ is an act of ‘creation’) – but merely ‘registers’ that these objects are a) present and b) the qualities and characteristics of said objects. The ‘Vijnanavada’ therefore, emphasises that the pathway toward ‘Enlightenment’ is primarily through the mind (and secondarily through a disciplined body) - with an onus upon the rarefied arrangement of matter from which consciousness arises, manifests and eventually returns. None of this VN Banerjee ‘sees’, ‘understands’ or ‘acknowledges.’ VN Banerjee’s assessment of the Dhammapada is pointless as it is obvious that he possesses no genuine knowledge regarding the Buddhist teachings. This is why his book on the subject represents an exercise in futility. This brings me to VN Banerjee’s other book under consideration – namely his ‘Buddhism and Marxism – A Study in Humanism’ (1978). Again, this is a thorough (and probably ‘deliberate’) misreading of the work of Classical Marx, as contrary to the claims of VN Banerjee, Marx mentions throughout his work that human existence is a continuous interconnection between the ‘material world’ and the ‘conscious’ mind. This is obvious from a study of the ‘Theses of Feuerbach’ by Karl Marx – and numerous other works such as the ‘German Ideology’, etc. Throughout the Paris Manuscripts, for example, this idea is explored over and over again. Despite this very real acknowledgement of ‘consciousness’ - VN Banerjee writes that Marx possesses no teaching on consciousness and as a consequence, has evolved a thoroughly ‘materialist’ ideology. This is VN Banerjee falling into the trap of ‘Metaphysical Materialism’ that has been soundly rejected by all Marxist thinkers. Like the Buddha, Marx acknowledged that material reality is permanently entwined and integrated with humanity’s conscious striving to apprehend the environment for survival purposes. This being the case, it is interesting that VN Banerjee claims that both Buddhism and Marxism have ‘failed’ to save humanity from its self-imposed suffering. How would he know? What is his objective framework of reference? The reality is that Marxism and Buddhism are alike in many ways and I suspect that VN Banerjee is busy representing the Western (capitalist) view of reality which attacks and denigrates any opposition to its dominance. This is why he has targeted ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Marxism’ in his work, because he knows that in this instance East and West are in full accord and that this alliance must be broken and discredited at its source. The problem haunting VN Banerjee is that he does not appear to possess enough knowledge of either subject to ‘pull-off’ his mission’s objective! He has no idea that Marx and Engels learned about Buddhism from their friend Karl Koppen, that both Marx and Engels praised Buddhist philosophy (equating it to the thinking associated with the Classical Greek World) - or that Marx once practiced the ‘emptying the mind’ meditation practice of Early Buddhism when recuperating his health whilst resting by the sea. My own research suggests that the Buddha’s theory of ‘Dependent Origination’ (as the ‘Chain of ‘Becoming’) equates philosophically with Marx’s theory of ‘Historical Materialism’ - suggesting that Marx may well have been influenced by the underlying thinking of Buddhist ideology – albeit modified for the contemporary, Western world. To finish with, I would like to reject VN Banerjee’s assertion that Marxism sanctifies violence. Both Marx and Buddha defined a ‘false consciousness’ as comprising of an ‘inverted’ (habitual) mind-set which interprets the chain of events involving material processes as being the ‘wrong way around’, or ‘back to front’, etc. To remedy this, the Buddha changes the way the interior of the mind interprets the outer world – whilst Marx advocates the changing of the outer world as a means to change the functionality of the inner world. The bourgeois, capitalist system – which VN Banerjee undoubtedly represents – inflicts a continuous policy of psychological and physical violence against the working-class as a means to keep the masses firmly in their place and performing their task of generating profit from their labour. When the workers attempt to ‘resist’ this continuous level of inner and outer violence inflicted upon them – the controlling bourgeoisie ‘intensifies’ its violent actions and issues the accompanying propaganda statements that it is the oppressed workers who are being ‘violent’ and the bourgeoisie they are attacking are the ‘victims’. This is a classic example of an ‘inverted’ reality. This is the preferred interpretation of reality for the bourgeoisie (as it hides their true objectives) - but its logic is entirely ‘back to front’! Therefore, contrary to the ridiculous assertion of VN Banerjee that ‘Marxism is violent’ - it is the bourgeois status quo that routinely uses violence against the masses. All that Marx added to this interpretation is that the ‘working-class has a right to defend itself from these attacks!’ The ability for the working-class to defend itself is a legal right as it pre-supposes an already existing physical threat to safety that must be ‘resisted’ if survival is to be assured! Again, with VN Banerjee ‘blaming the victim’ as he expertly does throughout his work – this Is yet another clear example of his ‘inverted’ thinking and instinctive support for the bourgeoisie and their system of predatory capitalism! Although VN Banerjee’s assessment of the work of Karl Marx is deficient in my opinion, as it lacks many of the basic insights that most bourgeois academics take as granted even if they are instinctively opposed to Socialism. In this regard, VN Banerjee privileges Western (bourgeois) thinking as if he were a ‘White’ European who has settled in India and established a curious and inquisitive colony! He is, in this instance, an Asian mouth expressing a distinctly ‘Eurocentric’ attitude! In this regard, VN Banerjee appears to reflect that other victim of European colonisation – Hu Shih – who as a youth was taken from China as a punitive measure against Chinese resistance to Western invasion, and quite literally ‘brain-washed’ into rejecting ALL Sinocentric-thinking and into adopting as his own opinion the implicit attitude that ALL Asian thinking is ‘deficient’, ‘inferior’ and ‘sub-standard’ when compared to ALL forms of bourgeois ‘Western’ thinking (that is not ‘Marxist’ or sympathetic to ‘Marxism’). Hu Shih was the product of (Western) bourgeois social engineering as he grew-up to instinctively support ALL Eurocentric attitudes, assessments and interpretations, and give the false impression that Eurocentric imperialism was both morally ‘right’ and spiritually and physically ‘good’ for the minds and bodies of the Asian people – an attitude that directly opposes the views of Karl Marx! For the Western (bourgeois) world to succeed in its project of ‘wiping-out’ an ‘independent’ Asia that can stand alone in its opposition to any and all Western hegemony! Through people like VN Banerjee quite naturally allowing himself to be influenced by the Western system – he is assisting the passive colonisation process that ‘inverts’ the Marxist project of ‘exposing’ it at every turn! This ‘inverts’ Marxist ideology and gives the false impression that Marxism is the ‘illness’ rather than the ‘medicine’! The irony is that VN Banerjee’s translation of the Dhammapada Sutta does have merit when compared with the others available (generated by scholars sympathetic to the Buddhist world-view). He provides the Pali text in both the Devanagari and Roman script. This follows the Western tradition of presenting the original Pali text in (Western) phonetic transliteration – whilst presenting an Indian alphabet, so that certain scholars can check the accuracy with the original ‘source’ material. The Dhammapada Sutta is organised to inform the average reader in ancient India of the Buddha’s path from ignorance to ‘Enlightenment’ - and from the ‘mind’ being the central-point of where the training is carried-out once the physical body is suitably ‘disciplined.’ Once the experiences of everyday life are explained and dealt with – then the chapters traverse toward the ‘Enlightened’ state as a ‘monk’, an ‘Arahant’ and a ‘Brahmin’, etc. This is by no means an unusual organisation for a Buddhist text in the Pali tradition – and yet VN Banerjee states that he ‘sees no reason’ for this structure! This is similar in dereliction of opinion to VN Banerjee stating that Marxism is a ‘religion’ when in fact Marx firmly ‘rejected’ the ‘inverted’ thinking that underlies ALL theistic religiosity. This aligns with the usual bourgeois disinformation that says Marxism ‘rejects’ religion and is atheist – whilst simultaneously asserting that Marxism is a ‘secular’ ideology that ‘mimics’ all aspects of established religion whilst denying the validity of the theistic construct. Again, this assertion makes no logical sense. The religionists – according to Marx – construct images and patterns that exist ‘nowhere’ than within the psychic fabric from which they emerge, and then ‘mistake’ these images and patterns as independently ‘existing’ in the external universe (free of any connection to the mind that creates them). Established religions then construct powerful political and physical structures designed to control society and privilege the Church! None of it is ‘true’ as its entire edifice is premised upon a false theory of reality. This thinking is ‘inverted’ because a fallacious ‘thought in the head’ is mistaken for a real ‘structure in the external world.’ As Marx advocates ‘material’ science over religious ‘superstition’, the only ‘truth’ worth knowing is that of the correct, scientific understanding of the material universe, and the results of this reflected in the mind as cultivated patterns of thought manifestation. Therefore, a ‘non-inverted’ mind-set according to Marx is the consequence of the scientific analysis of the environment and the ‘correct’ corresponding thought patterns that are ‘conditioned’ into the thinking mind as a consequence. Marxism, by logical definition, therefore, cannot be truthfully referred to as a ‘religion’ in any sense of the word. Marx rejects the inverted thinking that defines a) religious thinking, and b) the maniacal search for profit that defines the bourgeois system of predatory capitalism. The point missed by VN Banerjee is that modern manifestations of established religiosity fully support the predatory capitalist status quo and its liberal political structure – as such an arrangement privileges and maintains the Church in its dominant and anti-working-class position. Marx supports the working-class seizing the means of production and depriving the bourgeois system and its religious structures of ALL political power and influence – this is why Marx ‘rejects’ the inverted thinking that defines the bourgeois system and its religious structures. The Buddha, oddly enough, also defines ‘delusion’ as an ‘inverted’ mind-set which is polluted by a false duality that misinterprets the external world and generates suffering-inducing (internal) mind-states that are riddled with the three-taints of greed, hatred and delusion, etc. For Marx and Buddha – it is the ‘removal’ of this inverted mind-set through education which sets humanity on the path of true peace, tranquillity and freedom from suffering. Communist ideology firmly rejects ‘terrorism’ or unwarranted violence as the vast majority of the victims of such violence are invariably the working-class! Whenever terrorists attack the bourgeois system – it is the bodies of the working-class that are torn asunder by bourgeois weaponry! Furthermore, overtime the bourgeois punish the working-class through systems of education that ‘brain-wash’ working-class children into unquestionably accepting their own exploitation at the hands of the bourgeois as being ‘normal’ and being ‘beyond’ any reforming or alteration. Again, VN Banerjee applies his ‘inverted’ thinking by falsely stating that it is Marxism which is inherently ‘violent’ - when in fact the truth is the other way around! Whereas Marxism rejects the inherent violence of the bourgeoisie – it is VN Banerjee who is using his expertise to ‘blame the victim.’ |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|