කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය ...... අවශ්‍ය ද ? why communism?

[Nihal Ananda]

සාමාන්‍යයෙන් මේ කාලයේ ...... communist වචනය , කොහෙත්ම අහන්නට දකින්නට ලැබෙන්නේ නැත ....!

ලංකාවේ වාම පක්ෂ කණ්ඩායම් පුද්ගලයන් .... 'සමාජවාදය' වචනය ,  කතාවක දිත් මඟ හැරීමට ප්‍රවේසම් වෙති !!

ලියා ඇති තැනක් දකින්නට ඇත්නම් ..... ඒ 18 වන ශත වර්ෂයේ Karl Marx ගේ ලියවිල්ලකින් උපුටා ගත දෙයක් විය යුතුය.

 

එවැනි කාලයක ,  ... වර්තමාන ලෝක තත්වයද  විග්‍රහ කරමින්,  කොමියුනිස්ට් වාදය අද තත්වයන්ට  අදාළ වන්නේ කෙසේදැයි  .......

2020 වර්ෂයේ දී ,කෙනෙක්  ලියන්නේ නම්  ....එය තරමක්  මවිතයට කරුණකි.  

මේ එවැනි ලිපියකින්  කොටසකි .....ලියා ඇත්තේ Slavoj Zizek ය.

තවත් පුදුමයට පත් වන කාරණයක් නම් ....'ලංකාවේ රාවණා ' ගැන ද සඳහනක් තිබීමයි...!

So..... why communism?

............

Signs abound that our global situation calls increasingly for such a standpoint. Apologists of the existing order like to point out that the dream of socialism is over, that every attempt to realize it turned out to be a nightmare (just look at what goes on in Venezuela!). However, at the same time, signs of panic grow everywhere: how are we to deal with global warming, with the threat of total digital control over our lives, with the influx of refugees? In short, with the effects and consequences of this same triumph of global capitalism? There is no surprise here: when capitalism wins, its antagonisms explode.

On the one hand, signs of anti-Enlightenment madness multiply everywhere. In Koszalin, a city in northern Poland, three Catholic priests have burned books they say promote sorcery, including one of the Harry Potter novels, in a ceremony they photographed and posted on Facebook: they carried the books in a large basket from inside a church to a stone area outside, where the books were set alight as prayers were said and a small group of people looked on.1 An isolated incident, yes – but if we put it together with other similar incidents, a clear anti-Enlightenment pattern emerges. 

For example, at the 106th Indian Science Congress in Punjab (in January 2019), local scientists made a series of claims, among them: Kauravas were born with the help of stem cell and test tube technologies; Lord Rama used “astras” and “shastras,” while Lord Vishnu sent a Sudarshan Chakra to chase targets. This shows that the science of guided missiles was present in India thousands of years ago; that Ravana didn’t just have the Pushpaka Vimana, but had 24 types of aircraft and airports in Lanka; that theoretical physics (including the contributions of Newton and Einstein) is totally wrong, gravitational waves will be renamed “Narendra Modi Waves,” and the gravitational lensing effect will be renamed the “Hashvardhan Effect”; that Lord Brahma discovered the existence of dinosaurs on earth and mentioned it in the Vedas.2 

This is also a way to fight the remnants of Western colonialism, and the book burning in Poland can be viewed as a way to fight Western commercialized consumerism. The conjunction of these two examples, one from Hindu India and the other from Christian Europe, demonstrates that we are dealing with a global phenomenon.

While we are sinking deeper and deeper into this madness (which coexists easily with a thriving global market), the real crisis is approaching. In January 2019, an international team of scientists proposed “a diet it says can improve health while ensuring sustainable food production to reduce further damage to the planet. The ‘planetary health diet’ is based on cutting red meat and sugar consumption in half and upping intake of fruits, vegetables and nuts.”3 

We are talking about a radical reorganization of our entire food production and distribution – so how to do it? “The report suggests five strategies to ensure people can change their diets and not harm the planet in doing so: incentivizing people to eat healthier, shifting global production toward varied crops, intensifying agriculture sustainably, stricter rules around the governing of oceans and lands, and reducing food waste.” 

OK, but, again, how can this be achieved? Is it not clear that a strong global agency is needed with the power to coordinate such measures? And is not such an agency pointing in the direction of what we once called “communism”? And does the same not hold for other threats to our survival as humans? Is the same global agency not needed also to deal with the problem of exploding numbers of refugees and immigrants, with the problem of digital control over our lives ?4

Communist interventions are needed because our fate is not yet decided – not in the simple sense that we have a choice, but in a more radical sense of choosing one’s own fate. According to the standard view, the past is fixed, what happened happened, it cannot be undone, and the future is open, it depends on unpredictable contingencies. What we should propose here is a reversal of this standard view: the past is open to retroactive reinterpretations, while the future is closed since we live in a determinist universe. This doesn’t mean that we cannot change the future; it just means that, in order to change our future we should first (not “understand” but) change our past, reinterpret it in such a way that opens up toward a different future from the one implied by the predominant vision of the past.

Will there be a new world war? 

The answer can only be a paradoxical one. If there is to be a new war, it will be a necessary one. This is how history works – through weird reversals as described by Jean-Pierre Dupuy: “If an outstanding event takes place, a catastrophe, for example, it could not not have taken place; nonetheless, insofar as it did not take place, it is not inevitable. It is thus the event’s actualization – the fact that it takes place – which retroactively creates its necessity.”5 

And exactly the same holds for a new global war: once the conflict explodes (between the US and Iran, between China and Taiwan), it will appear inevitable, that is to say, we will automatically read the past that led to it as a series of causes that necessarily caused the explosion. If it does not happen, we will read it in the same way that today we read the Cold War – as a series of dangerous moments where the catastrophe was avoided because both sides were aware of the deadly consequences of a global conflict. (So we have today many interpreters who claim that there never was an actual danger of World War III during the Cold War years, that both sides were just playing with fire.) It is at this deeper level that communist interventions are needed.

Jürgen Habermas is often described as the state philosopher of the German (European even) liberal Left – no wonder, then, that about two decades ago, the conservative Spanish Prime Minister, José Mariá Aznar, even formally proposed that Habermas be declared the Spanish (and European) state philosopher (on account of Habermas’s idea of constitutional patriotism, a patriotism grounded in emancipatory values embedded in a constitution rather than in one’s own ethnic roots). While disagreeing with Habermas on many points, I always found the role he was not afraid to play – that of a critical supporter of, participant in even, power – honorable and necessary, a more-than-welcome retreat from basically irresponsible “politics at a distance.”

The majority of Leftist thought in recent decades got caught in the trap of oppositionalism: it adopts as self-evident the claim that true politics is only possible at a distance from the state and its apparatuses – the moment an agent immerses itself fully into state apparatuses and procedures (like parliamentary party politics), the authentic political dimension is lost. (From this standpoint, the Bolshevik triumph – taking power in Russia in October 1917 – appears also as their self-betrayal.) But is there not in such a stance an indelible aspect of avoiding responsibility? 

Withdrawal into non-participation in power is also a positive act, since one is aware that somebody else will have to do it, and the dirtiest thing is to leave to another the dirty job and then, after the job is done, accuse this other of unprincipled opportunism. (Among others, Eamon de Valera did this when he let Michael Collins do the “dirty” negotiations with the British, which led to the Free Irish State, and then, after profiting himself from it, accusing him of treason.) An authentic political agent is never afraid to take power and assume responsibility for what is going on, without resorting to excuses (“unfortunate circumstances,” “enemy plots,” or whatever). Therein resides Lenin’s greatness: after taking power, he knew the Bolsheviks found themselves in an impossible situation (with no conditions for an actual “construction of socialism”), but he persisted in it, trying to make the best out of a total deadlock.

The true dimension of a revolution is not to be found in the ecstatic moments of its climax (one million people chanting in the main square …); one should rather focus on how the change is felt in everyday life when things return to normal. This is why Trotsky lost against Stalin: after Lenin’s death, the population of the Soviet Union was slowly emerging from 10 years of hell (World War I, civil war) with untold suffering, and people longed for a return to some kind of normalcy. This is what Stalin offered them, while Trotsky, with his permanent revolution, promised them just more social upheaval and suffering.

Perhaps, then, instead of the increasingly boring variations on the topic of “distance from the state,” what we need today are honest state philosophers, philosophers who are not afraid to dirty their hands in fighting for a different state. Apropos homosexuality, Oscar Wilde cited “the love that dare not speak its name” – what we need today is a Left that dares to speak its name, not a Left that shamefully covers up its core with some cultural fig leaf. And this name is communism.

-Slavoj  Zizek 

................................................................................................................................................

වමේ පක්ෂ රාජයට ,රාජ්‍ය බලයට සම්බන්ධ වීම පිළිබඳව .... ඉහත අදහස් ....

ලංකාවේ 1964 සමසමාජ පක්ෂ /කොමියුනිස්ට් පක්ෂ , සිරිමා බණ්ඩාරනායක ශ්‍රීලනිප රජයට  ,...

2003 (?) දී ජවිපෙ , චන්ද්‍රිකා /ශ්‍රීලනිප රජයට ....

සම්බන්ධ වීමේ භූමිකාව  සමඟ විග්‍රහ කරන්නේ කෙසේද ? 

[Nihal Ananda]

Karl Marx ගේ අදහස් ලියවිලි ....අවුරුදු 200 ට පසු, අද සමාජයටත් අදාල වේද ?

මෙය ... කාලයෙන් කාලයට, තැන් තැන්වල කතා කරන විවාද සම්පපන්න මාතෘකාවකි !

පහත ලිපියේ  slavoj Zizek , මේ ගැන .... කෙලින්ම පැහැදිලිව  කතා කරයි. 

Marx ට 'වැරදුනු තැන්',.....'ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කල යුතු තැන්' ද ඔහු පෙන්වා දෙයි  ...!

 

ඔහු කතා කරන කරුණු අතර .....

#අද ගෝලීය  සමාජයේ ප්‍රධාන ප්‍රතිවිරෝධතා සමහරක්  ...,(Marx ට කිසි ලෙසකින්වත් අනුමාන කල නොහැකි වූ ...)  

# ජාතික රාජ්‍යයන්ට ගේ සීමාවෙන් එහා ... විශ්වීයත්වය , විශ්වීය විසඳුම් ආයතන වල අවශ්‍යතාවය 

#socialism  Communism  පිලිබඳ Marx ගේ අර්ථ දැක්වීම් ,ඒවායේ සීමිත බව 

#රුසියාව චීනය socialism ක්‍රියාත්මක කල ආකාරය, යහපත් අයහපත් ලක්ෂණ

#culture  යනු කුමක්ද ? 

# 'රජය' පිලිබඳ සංකල්පය, රජය පැවතිය යුතුද ? අහෝසි විය යුතු ද ? 

#නියෝජිත ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය ,ලිබරල් ආණ්ඩු සංකල්පය, වර්තමානයේ අදාළ වේද  ?

#'රජයේ ආකාරය' කෙසේ විය යුතු ද ?

200 Years After: 

Is Marx Alive, Dead, or a Living Dead?

The question of the continuing relevance of Marx’s work in our era of global capitalism has to be answered in a properly dialectical way: not only is Marx’s critique of political economy, his outline of the capitalist dynamics, still fully actual; one should even take a step further and claim that it is only today, with global capitalism, that, to put it in Hegelese, reality arrived at its notion. However, a properly dialectical reversal intervenes here: at this very moment of full actuality, the limitation has to appear, the moment of triumph is that of defeat; after overcoming external obstacles, the new threat comes from within, signaling immanent inconsistency. When reality fully reaches up to its notion, this notion itself has to be transformed. Therein resides the properly dialectical paradox: Marx was not simply wrong, he was often right, but more literally than he himself expected to be.

For example, Marx couldn’t have imagined that the capitalist dynamics of dissolving all particular identities would, in addition, affect ethnic and sexual identities: sexual “one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible,” and, concerning sexual practices, “all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned,” so that capitalism tends to replace the standard normative heterosexuality with a proliferation of unstable shifting identities and/or orientations. Today’s celebration of “minorities” and “marginals” is the predominant majority position – even alt-Rightists who complain about the terror of liberal political correctness present themselves as protectors of an endangered minority. Or take those critics of patriarchy who attack it as if it were still a hegemonic position, ignoring what Marx and Engels wrote more than 150 years ago, in the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto: “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.” What becomes of patriarchal family values when a child can sue his parents for neglect and abuse, i.e., when family and parenthood itself are de jure reduced to a temporary and dissolvable contract between independent individuals?

.................

.............................

Perhaps this is why “culture” is emerging as the central life-world category. With regard to religion, we no longer “really believe,” we just follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores as part of the respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong (nonbelieving Jews obeying kosher rules “out of respect for tradition”). “I do not really believe in it, it is just part of my culture” seems to be the predominant mode of the displaced belief, characteristic of our times. “Culture” is the name for all those things we practice without really believing in them, without taking them very seriously. This is why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians,” as anticultural, as a threat to culture – they dare to take seriously their beliefs. The cynical era in which we live would have no surprises for Marx.

Marx’s theories are thus not simply alive: Marx is a living dead whose ghost continues to haunt us – and the only way to keep him alive is to focus on those of his insights that are today more true than in his own time, especially his call for universality of the emancipatory struggle. The universality to be asserted today is not a form of humanism, but the universality of the (class) struggle: more than ever, global capital has to be countered by global resistance. One should therefore insist on the difference between class struggle and other struggles (anti-racist, feminist, etc.) which aim at a peaceful coexistence of different groups and whose ultimate expression is identity politics. With class struggle, there is no identity politics: the opposing class has to be destroyed, and we ourselves should, in this same move, disappear as a class. The best concise definition of fascism is: the extension of identity politics onto the domain of class struggle. The basic fascist idea is that of the class piece: each class should be recognized in its specific identity and, in this way, its dignity will be safeguarded and antagonism between classes avoided. Class antagonism is here treated in the same way as the tension between different races: classes are accepted as a quasi-natural fact of life, not as something to be left behind.

The status of Marx as a living dead demands that we are also critical of the Marxist legacy – there should be no sacred cows here. Just two interconnected examples should suffice here. According to the standard Marxist dogma, the passage from capitalism to communism will proceed in two phases, the “lower” and the “higher.” In the lower phase (sometimes called “socialism”), the law of value will still hold:

[T]he individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another…. 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!2

[2. Karl Marx, Capital, Volume One. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm.]

The standard critique of this distinction is that, while the “lower stage” can somehow be imagined and managed, the “higher stage” (full communism) is a dangerous utopia. This critique seems justified by the fact that the really-existing socialist regimes were caught in endless debates about what stage they are in, introducing subdivisions; for example, at some point, in the late Soviet Union, the opinion prevailed that they were already above mere “socialism,” although not yet in full “communism” – they were in the “lower stage of the higher stage.” But a surprise awaits us here: the temptation in many socialist countries was to jump over the “lower stage” and proclaim that, in spite of the material poverty (or, at a deeper level, precisely on account of it), we can directly enter communism. 

During the Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s, Chinese communists decided that China should bypass socialism and directly enter communism. They referred to Marx’s famous formula of communism: “From everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs!” The catch was the reading given to it in order to legitimize the total militarization of life in agricultural communes: the Party cadre who commands a commune knows what every farmer is able to do, so he sets the plan and specifies the individuals’ obligations according to their abilities; he also knows what farmers really need for survival and organizes accordingly the distribution of food and other life provisions. The condition of militarized extreme poverty thus becomes the actualization of communism, and, of course, it is not sufficient to claim that such a reading falsifies a noble idea – one should rather notice how it lies dormant in it as a possibility. 

The paradox is thus that we begin with the shared poverty of “war communism,” then, when things get better, we progress/regress to “socialism” in which ideally, of course, everybody is paid according to his/her contribution, and … and, at the end, we return to capitalism (as in China today), confirming the old saying that communism is a detour from capitalism to capitalism. 

What these complications attest to is that the true utopia is that of the “lower stage” in which the law of value still holds, but in a “just” way, so that every worker gets his/her due – an impossible dream of “just” social exchange where money-fetish is replaced by non-fetishized simple certificates. And we are at a similar point today: the threat of looming apocalypses (ecological, digital, social) compels us to abandon the socialist dream of “just” capitalism and to envisage more radical “communist” measures.

So how should we imagine communism? In Capital III, Marx renounced his earlier utopian vision of communism as a state in which the opposition between necessity and freedom, between necessity and work, will disappear, and insisted that, in every society, the distinction between the realm of necessity (Reich der Notwendigkeit) and the realm of freedom (Reich der Freiheit) will persist; the realm of our free playful activities will always have to be sustained by the realm of work necessary for society’s continuous reproduction:

" The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite ".3

[3. Quoted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-III.pdf. ]

This line of thought has to be rejected; what makes it suspicious is precisely its self-evident commonsense character. We should take the risk of reversing the relationship between the two realms: it is only through the discipline of work that we can regain our true freedom, while as spontaneous consumers we are caught in the necessity of our natural propensities. The infamous words at the entrance to Auschwitz, “Arbeit macht frei,” are thus true – which doesn’t mean that we are coming close to Nazism but simply that the Nazis took over this motto with cruel irony.

To be a communist today means that one is not afraid to draw such radical conclusions, also with regard to one of the most sensitive claims of the Marxist theory, the idea of the “withering away” of the state power. Do we need governments? 

This question is deeply ambiguous. It can be read as an offshoot of the radical leftwing idea that government (state power) is in itself a form of alienation or oppression, and that we should work toward abolishing it and building a society of some kind of direct democracy. Or it can be read in a less radical liberal way: in our complex societies we need some regulating agency, but we should keep it under tight control, making it serve the interests of those who invest their votes (if not money) into it. Both views are dangerously wrong.

As for the idea of a self-transparent organization of society that would preclude political “alienation” (state apparatuses, institutionalized rules of political life, legal order, police, etc.), is the basic experience of the end of really-existing socialism not precisely the resigned acceptance of the fact that society is a complex network of “subsystems,” which is why a certain level of “alienation” is constitutive of social life, so that a totally self-transparent society is a utopia with totalitarian potentials. 

It is no wonder that today’s practices of “direct democracy,” from favelas to the “postindustrial” digital culture (do the descriptions of the new “tribal” communities of computer hackers not often evoke the logic of council democracy?) all have to rely on a state apparatus – i.e., their survival relies on a thick texture of “alienated” institutional mechanisms: where do electricity and water come from? Who guarantees the rule of law? To whom do we turn for healthcare? Etc., etc. The more a community is self-ruling, the more this network has to function smoothly and invisibly. Maybe we should change the goal of emancipatory struggles from overcoming alienation to enforcing the right kind of alienation: how to achieve a smooth functioning of “alienated” (invisible) social mechanisms that sustain the space of “non-alienated” communities?

Should we then adopt the more modest traditional liberal notion of representative power? Citizens transfer (part of) their power onto the state, but under precise conditions: power is constrained by law, limited to very precise conditions of its exercise, since the people remain the ultimate source of sovereignty and can repeal power if they decide so to do. In short, the state with its power is the minor partner in a contract that the major partner (the people) can at any point repeal or change, basically in the same way each of us can change the contractor who takes care of our waste or our health. However, the moment one takes a close look at an actual state power edifice, one can easily detect an implicit but unmistakable signal: “Forget about our limitations – ultimately, we can do whatever we want with you!” This excess is not a contingent supplement spoiling the purity of power but its necessary constituent – without it, without the threat of arbitrary omnipotence, state power is not a true power, it loses its authority.

So it’s not that we need the state to regulate our affairs and, unfortunately, have to buy its authoritarian underside as a necessary price – we need precisely and maybe even primarily this authoritarian underside. As Kierkegaard put it, to claim that I believe in Christ because I was convinced by the good reasons for Christianity is a blasphemy – in order to understand reasons for Christianity I should already believe. It’s the same with love: I cannot say that I love a woman because of her features – to see her features as beautiful, I should already be in love. And it’s the same with every authority, from paternal to that of the state.

The basic problem is thus: how to invent a different mode of passivity of the majority, how to cope with the unavoidable alienation of political life. This alienation has to be taken at its strongest, as the excess constitutive of the functioning of an actual power, overlooked by liberalism as well as by Leftist proponents of direct democracy.

-Slavoj  Zizek 

Notes

1. Karl Marx, Capital, Volume One. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm.

2. Quoted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm.

3. Quoted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-III.pdf.

[Nihal Ananda]

පහත  නිර්මාල් ගේ සටහන ..... සහ ඉහත zizek  ගේ පළමු ලිපියේ (why communism ? )

Global agency , Universalism ....සංකල්ප හා සසඳා බලන්න 

යම් සමානත්වයක් දැකිය හැකියි.

දේශපාලන දැක්මක් ලෙස ජාතිය යල්පැන ගොස් ඇත!!!

==============================

වර්තමානයේ මනුෂ්‍ය වර්ගයා මුහුණ දෙන දේශපාලන ගැටලු සඳහා ජාතිය ට හෝ ජාතික රාජ්‍යයට ඵලදායී පිළිතුරු සැපයීමට නුපුළුවන. ජාතිය ජනයාට ආකර්ශනීය දේශපාලන පරිකල්පනයක් වී තිබියදීත්, ජාතික රාජ්‍යය ලොව පුරා ජනතා ස්වාධිපත්‍යය සංවිධානය කරන නෛතික-දේශපාලන රාමුව වී තිබියදීත් ජාතික රාජ්‍ය යේ පැවැත්ම ඛාදනය කරන විවිධ පාරජාතික බලවේග ක්‍රියාත්මක වේ. ඒවාට අභියෝග කිරීමට කිසිඳු ජාතිකවාදී තන්ත්‍රයකට මූලික වශයෙන් හැකියාව ලැබී නැත. ඒවාට අභියෝග කිරීමට කිසියම් ශක්තියක් යම් ජාතික රාජ්‍යයකට ලැබී ඇත්නම් (උදා. චීනය) ඒ ඒවායේ ආර්ථික හා ගෝලීය භූ දේශපාලනය තුළ අත් පත් කරගෙන ඇති ශක්තිය විනා ජාතිය පදනම් කරගත් ශක්තියක් නොවේ. දුර්වල ජාතික රාජ්‍යයන්ට ඒ හැකියාව ලබා ගත නොහැක.

මේ නිසා අද පවත්වා දේශපාලන විකල්පය වන්නේ ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණයකි. කොහොමත් වර්තමානයේ ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණයක් ඇත. කෝවිඩ් වසංගතය තුළ ලෝක සෞඛ්‍ය සංවිධානය ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණය සම්බන්ධයෙන් වැදගත් කාර්යයක් ඉෂ්ට කරයි. මේ ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම පවත්නා ගෝළිය ආණ්ඩුකරණයේ පැවැත්ම ජාතික රාජ්‍යය නමැති ව්‍යාජය විසින් දෘෂ්ටිවාදීමය වශයෙන් ආවරණය කරයි. සියළුම වර්ගයේ ඊනියා ජාතික චින්තනයන්ට හැකි වී ඇත්තේ මේ දෘෂ්ටිවාදී ආවරණය මත (ලංකාවේ නම්) දුටුගැමුණුගේ, රාවණාගේ, කැප්පෙටිපොලගේ බිතු සිතුවම් ඇඳීම පමණි.

අද අවශ්‍ය වන්නේ පහළම ප්‍රජාවන් බලගන්වන්නා වූ ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණයකි.

නැෂනල් වෙනුවට ලෝකල් සහ ග්ලෝබල් යන මාන දෙක ඒකාබද්ධ කරන (ග්ලෝකල්) දේශපාලන මාවතකි.

[Nihal Ananda]

Foretelling the End of Capitalism: Intellectual Misadventures since Karl Marx 

by Francesco Boldizzoni 

Intellectuals since the Industrial Revolution have been obsessed with whether, when, and why capitalism will collapse. This riveting account of two centuries of failed forecasts of doom reveals the key to capitalism’s durability. 

Prophecies about the end of capitalism are as old as capitalism itself. None have come true. Yet, whether out of hope or fear, we keep looking for harbingers of doom. In Foretelling the End of Capitalism, Francesco Boldizzoni gets to the root of the human need to imagine a different and better world and offers a compelling solution to the puzzle of why capitalism has been able to survive so many shocks and setbacks.

Capitalism entered the twenty-first century triumphant, its communist rival consigned to the past. But the Great Recession and worsening inequality have undermined faith in its stability and revived questions about its long-term prospects. Is capitalism on its way out? If so, what might replace it? And if it does endure, how will it cope with future social and environmental crises and the inevitable costs of creative destruction? 

Boldizzoni shows that these and other questions have stood at the heart of much analysis and speculation from the early socialists and Karl Marx to the Occupy Movement. Capitalism has survived predictions of its demise not, as many think, because of its economic efficiency or any intrinsic virtues of markets but because it is ingrained in the hierarchical and individualistic structure of modern Western societies. 

Foretelling the End of Capitalism takes us on a fascinating journey through two centuries of unfulfilled prophecies. An intellectual tour de force and a plea for political action, it will change our understanding of the economic system that determines the fabric of our lives.

Francesco Boldizzoni is Professor of Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the author of two books about economic and intellectual history, The Poverty of Clio: Resurrecting Economic History and Means and Ends: The Idea of Capital in the West, 1500–1970.  

[Nihal Ananda]

ඉහත නිර්මාල් ගෙන් සටහනට තවත් එකතුවක් ,නිර්මාල් ගෙන්ම  .....

[Zizek  ගේ ලිපියේ ....  global  agency  සංකල්ප තේරුම් ගැනීමට , මෙය ආධාර වේ. ]

ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණයක අවශ්‍යතාවය

==============================================

ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණයක අවශ්‍යතාවය පිළිබද මා පළ කළ සටහනට ප්‍රතිචාර දක්වන බොහෝ දෙනෙක් ඊට ප්‍රතිචාර දක්වන්නේ දැනට තිබෙන ගෝලීය වල ව්‍යුහයන්හී ක්‍රියාකාරිත්වය පිළිබද අත්දැකීම් ඇසුරෙන්. මෙය නරකම දෙයක් නෙවෙයි. නමුත් මම මගේ සටහන ලිව්වෙ ඒ විවේචන පිළිබද නොදැනුවත්ව නෙවෙයි. මගේ ප්‍රශ්නය තමයි දැනට මනුෂ්‍ය වර්ගයා මුහුණ දෙන දේශපාලන අභියෝග හමුවේ ගෝලීය දැක්මක් අවශ්‍ය නොවේද යන්න. එවැන්නක් අවශ්‍ය නම් අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම අපිට සිද්ධ වෙනව අවසානයේදී ගෝලීය ආණ්ඩුකරණයක් පිළිබදව හිතන්න. ඒ ගැන හිතන්න පටන්ගන්න පළමු මොහොතෙම දැනට තිබෙන ගෝලීය බල ව්‍යුහවල ක්‍රියාකාරිත්වයේ නිෂේධාත්මක අත්දැකීම මත පදනම්ව මේ ගෝලීය ප්‍රවේශය ම ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කිරීම මම හිතන්නේ කිසිම තේරුමක් නැති දෙයක්. මුළින්ම ඇසිය යුත්තේ ගෝලීය ප්‍රවේශයක් අවශ්‍යද නැද්ද කියන එක. දැන් තිබෙන ගෝලීය බල ව්‍යුහ ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙන්නේ බලවත් ජාතික රාජ්‍යවල මෙහෙයවීම යටතේ. ඇසිය යුතු ප්‍රශ්නය තමයි මේ තත්වය වෙනස් කළ යුතු ද, වෙනස් කළ හැකි ද කියන එක.

අපිට මේ ප්‍රශ්නය සාකච්ඡා කරන්න වෙන්නේ ගෝලීය ප්‍රවේශයක අවශ්‍ය තාවය තුළ විතරක් නෙවෙයි, දැනට තියෙන මූළික දේශපාලන අභියෝග ජය ගැනීමට ජාතික රාජ්‍යය මෙන්ම දේශපාලන දැක්මක් ලෙස ජාතිකවාදයන්ද අසමත් වී ඇති තත්වය ද තුළයි.

ඊළගට තියෙන ප්‍රශ්නය තමයි ගෝලීය දැක්මක් තුළ සංයුක්ත ප්‍රජාවන් ගේ මැදිහත් වීම සහතික කරන්නේ කෙසේද කියන එක. මේක අභියෝගයක් තමයි. නමුත් මම හිතන්නෙ ඉදිරියට මේ අභියෝගයට මුහුණ පෑම හැර අපිට වෙන දේශපාලන මාවතක් නැහැ. අද කොහොමත් මනුෂ්‍ය මුහුණ දෙන තීරණාත්මක ගැටලු සදහා විසදුම් ඉදිරිපත්වෙන්නෙ ජාතික රාමුව ඇතුලෙ ජාතික බලවේග විසින් නෙවෙයි ගෝලීය සංස්ථාපිතය මත අධිකාරිත්වයක් ඇති බලවේග විසින්. ඒ නිසා කොහොමත් ගෝලීය දැක්මක් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටිනව කියන්නෙ මගේ බොහෝ විවේචකයො යෝජනා කරන විදිහට දැනට තියෙන් ගෝලීය සංස්ථාපිතය යුක්ති සහගත් කිරීම නෙවෙයි.

ඊට පරස්පරව එය ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කිරීම සහ දුර්වල කිරීම.

[Nihal Ananda]

Foreword: Why Communism Today?

Slavoj Žižek

Towards the end of September 2014, after declaring war on Islamic State, President Obama gave an interview to 60 Minutes in which he tried to explain the rules of the US engagement: ‘When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don’t call Beijing, they don’t call Moscow. They call us. That’s always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation.’ This holds also for environmental and humanitarian disasters: ‘When there’s a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who’s helping the Philippines deal with that situation. When there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge helping Haiti rebuild. That’s how we roll. That’s what makes us Americans.’

In mid October, however, Obama himself made a call to Tehran, sending a secret letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in which he suggested a broader rapprochement between the United States and Iran based on their shared interest in combating Islamic State militants. Not only did Iran reject the offer, but when the news of the letter reached the wider public, the US Republicans denounced it as a ridiculous gesture of self-humiliation that can only strengthen Iran’s arrogant view of the United States as a superpower in decline. That is how the United States rolls, effectively: acting alone in a multi-centric world, they more and more accumulate wars and lose the peace, doing the dirty job for others: for China and Russia, who have their own problems with Islamists, and even for Iran – the final result of the invasion of Iraq was to deliver Iraq to the political control of Iran. (The United States got caught in this process already in Afghanistan where their help to the fighters against the Soviet occupations gave birth to the Taliban.)

The ultimate source of these problems is the changed role of the United States in the global economy. An economic cycle is coming to an end, a cycle which began in the early 1970s, the time that saw the birth of what Yanis Varoufakis calls the ‘Global Minotaur’ – the monstrous engine that was running the world economy from the early 1980s to 2008. The late 1960s and the early 1970s were not just times of oil crisis and stagflation; Nixon’s decision to abandon the gold standard for the US dollar was the sign of a much more radical shift in the basic functioning of the capitalist system. By the end of the 1960s, the US economy was no longer able to continue the recycling of its surpluses to Europe and Asia: its surpluses had turned into deficits. In 1971, the US government responded to this decline with an audacious strategic move: instead of tackling the nation’s burgeoning deficits, it decided to do the opposite, to boost deficits. And who would pay for them? The rest of the world! How? By means of a permanent transfer of capital that rushed ceaselessly across the two great oceans to finance America’s deficits: the United States has to suck up $1 billion each day flowing in from other nations to finance its domestic consumption, and is thereby the universal Keynesian consumer that keeps the world economy running. This influx relies on a complex economic mechanism: the United States is ‘trusted’ as the safe and stable centre, so that all others, from the oil-producing Arab countries to Western Europe and Japan, and now even the Chinese, invest their surplus profits in the United States. Since this ‘trust’ is primarily ideological and military, not economic, the problem for the United States is how to justify its imperial role – it requires a permanent state of war, in which it can offer itself as the universal protector of all other ‘normal’ (not ‘rogue’) states.

However, even before it has fully established itself, this world-system based on the primacy of the US dollar as the universal currency is breaking down and is being replaced by … what? This is what the ongoing tensions are about. The ‘American century’ is over, and we are witnessing the gradual formation of multiple centres of global capitalism – the United States, Europe, China, maybe Latin America, each of them standing for capitalism with a specific twist: the United States for neoliberal capitalism; Europe for what remains of the welfare state; China for ‘Asian Values’ (authoritarian) capitalism; Latin America for populist capitalism. In this world, the old and new superpowers are testing each other, trying to impose their own version of global rules, experimenting with them through proxies – which, of course, are other small nations and states.

The present situation thus bears an uncanny resemblance to that around 1900, when the hegemony of the British Empire was questioned by new rising powers, especially Germany, which wanted their piece of the colonial cake, and the Balkans was one of the locations of their confrontation. Today, the role of the British Empire is played by the United States, the new rising superpowers are Russia and China, and our Balkans is the Middle East. It is the same old battle for geopolitical influence: Moscow hears calls not only from the United States, but also from Georgia and Ukraine; maybe it will start hearing voices from the Baltic states.

There is another unexpected parallel with the situation before the outbreak of World War I: in recent months, the media have continually warned of the threat of World War III. Headlines such as ‘The Russian Air Force’s Super Weapon: Beware the PAK-FA Stealth Fighter’ or ‘Russia Is Ready for Shooting War, Will Likely Win Looming Nuclear Showdown with US’ have abounded; at least once a week, Putin makes a statement seen as a provocation to the West, and a notable Western statesman or Nato figure warns against Russian imperialist ambitions; Russia expresses concerns about being contained by Nato, while Russia’s neighbours fear Russian invasion – and so on. The very worried tone of these warnings seems to heighten the tension, exactly as in the decades before 1914. And in both cases the same superstitious mechanism is at work: that talking about it will prevent it from happening. We know about the danger, but we don’t believe it can really happen – and that is why it can happen. That is to say, even if we don’t really believe it can happen, we are all getting ready for it – and these actual preparations, largely ignored by the mainstream media, are mostly reported in marginal media:

America is on a war footing. While [a] World War Three Scenario has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than ten years, military action against Russia is now contemplated at an ‘operational level’ … We are not dealing with a ‘Cold War’. None of the safeguards of the Cold War era prevail … The adoption of a major piece of legislation by the US House of Representatives on December 4 [2014] (H. Res. 758) would provide (pending a vote in the Senate) a de facto green light to the US president and commander in chief to initiate – without congressional approval – a process of military confrontation with Russia. Global security is at stake. This historic vote – which potentially could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide – has received virtually no media coverage. A total media blackout prevails … On December 3, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation announced the inauguration of a new military–political entity which would take over in the case of war. Russia is launching a new national defense facility, which is meant to monitor threats to national security in peacetime, but would take control of the entire country in case of war.1

What further complicates matters is that the competing new and old superpowers are joined by a third factor: the radicalized fundamentalist movements in the Third World which oppose all of them but are prone to make strategic pacts with some of them. No wonder our predicament is getting more and more obscure: Who is who in the ongoing conflicts? How to choose between Assad and ISIS in Syria? Between ISIS and Iran? Such obscurity – not to mention the rise of drones and other arms systems that promise a clean, high-tech war without casualties (on our side) – gives a boost to military spending and makes the prospect of war more appealing.

If the basic underlying axiom of the Cold War was the axiom of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), the axiom of today’s War on Terror seems to be the opposite one, that of NUTS (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection): the idea that, by means of a surgical strike, one can destroy the enemy’s nuclear capacities while an anti-missile shield protects us from a counter-strike. More precisely, the United States adopts a differential strategy: it acts as if it continues to trust the MAD logic in its relations with Russia and China, while it is tempted to practice NUTS with Iran and North Korea. The paradoxical mechanism of MAD inverts the logic of the ‘self-realizing prophecy’ into a ‘self-stultifying intention’: the very fact that each side can be sure that, should it decide to launch a nuclear attack on the other side, the other side will respond with full destructive force, guarantees that no side will start a war. The logic of NUTS is, on the contrary, that the enemy can be forced to disarm if it is assured that we can strike at him without risking a counter-attack. The very fact that two directly contradictory strategies are mobilized simultaneously by the same superpower bears witness to the phantasmatic character of this entire reasoning.

How to stop our slide into this vortex? The first step is to leave behind all the pseudo-rational talk of the ‘strategic risks’ that we have to assume, as well as the notion of historical time as a linear process of evolution in which, at each moment, we have to choose between different options of action. We have to accept the threat as our fate: it is not just a question of avoiding risks and making the right choices within the global situation; the true threat resides in the situation in its entirety, in our ‘fate’. If we continue to ‘roll on’ the way we are now, we are doomed, no matter how carefully we proceed. So the solution is not to be very careful and avoid risky acts – in acting like this, we fully participate in the logic that leads to catastrophe. The solution is to become fully aware of the explosive set of interconnections that makes the entire situation dangerous. Once we have achieved this, we should be able to embark on the long and difficult work of changing the coordinates of the entire situation. Nothing less will do.

Nothing less than a new communist project.

 

[Nihal Ananda]

EDITED BY :  ALEX TAEK-GWANG LEE AND SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK

Editors’ Note

This book is a collection of speeches and interventions that were presented at the Idea of Communism Conference in Seoul, 24 September–2 October 2013. 

The pursuit of communism has a long history throughout the Asian region. For countries like North and South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and China, the passage to a form of ‘modernity’ is even unthinkable without this history. The struggle between communism and anti-communism still defines the region’s politics. The anti-communism once employed during the Cold War era, especially in South Korea, has not yet faded away, and is still used for attacking the left in many Asian countries. In this sense, Asia is a lively location for discussing the idea of communism from a non-Western perspective and evaluating whether the idea is universal; or, instead, whether it is to be defined by its regional situation, or by its historical or temporal moment or movement(s). 

The idea of communism, as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek conceive it, involves the global struggle towards absolute equality. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, was chosen as the conference venue because here the idea of communism is once again in the air, re-insinuating the excluded passion for the real into the struggle for independence, justice and rights, into the seamless reality of global capitalism. 

The Korean peninsula is divided into two regimes, the North being an ‘actually existing’ communist country and the South, on the contrary, a highly developed capitalist country. But a conference such as this could never take place in the North, any more than in China. How should we read this apparent paradox? 

Here, in summary form, we have the history of communism’s development: the negation of communism = anti-communism, and then the liberal negation of anti-communism (negation of the negation) = anti-anti-communism. But what of communism itself? As the authors in this collection all agree, today one should face up squarely to the legacy of anti-communism, and also to its future, and to the political and intellectual oppression of the idea of communism. Crucially, however, the alternative to such oppression is nothing so negative as anti-anti-communism in the Asian context. 

The contributors to this volume intervene on many issues relating to the reassessment or reaffirmation of the idea of communism in light of the various political experiments found across Asia and elsewhere.

[Nihal Ananda]

Melvin Capital Lost 53% in January, Hurt by GameStop and Other Bets

Citadel, its partners and Point72 took losses from their investment in the hedge fund

https://www.wsj.com/articles/melvin-capital-lost-53-in-january-hurt-by-gamestop-and-other-bets-11612103117?fbclid=IwAR2P-xs-clNpsvV0xxAjr12e-eRkmYv1lj5aGtJhN4ENGZyYDSyKY42J0mQ

[Nihal Ananda]

Why Marx’s Capital Still Matters

AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID HARVEY

Q :    You’re trained as a geographer, and for you Marx’s account of capitalism is fundamentally about dealing with problems of space and time. Money and credit are ways that these problems are solved. Explain why these two axes of space and time are so critical.

Prof . David Harvey

A : For instance, the interest rate is about discounting into the future. And borrowing is about foreclosing on the future. Debt is a claim on future production. So the future is foreclosed on, because we’ve got to pay our debts. Ask any student who owes $200,000: their future is foreclosed, because they’ve got to pay off that debt. This foreclosure of the future is a terribly important part of what Capital is about.

The space stuff comes in because as you start to expand, there’s always the possibility that if you can’t expand in a given space, you take your capital and go into another space. For instance, Britain was producing a lot of surplus capital in the nineteenth century, so a lot of it was flowing to North America, some through Latin America, some to South Africa. So there’s a geographical aspect to this.

The expansion of the system is about getting what I call “spatial fixes.” You’ve got a problem: you’ve got excess capital. What are you going to do with it? Well, you have a spatial fix, which means you go out and build something somewhere else in the world. If you have an “unsettled” continent like North America in the nineteenth century, then there’s vast amounts of place you can expand into. But now North America has been pretty much covered.

The spatial reorganization is not simply about expansion. It’s also about reconstruction. We get deindustrialization in the United States and Europe, and then the reconfiguration of an area through urban redevelopment, so that cotton mills in Massachusetts get turned into condominiums.

We’re running out of both space and time right now. That’s one of the big problems of contemporary capitalism.

Q : You talked about the future being foreclosed upon. That term is very applicable when it comes to debt on homes, obviously.

DH

That’s why I think the term “foreclosure” is very interesting. Millions of people lost their houses in the crash. Their future was foreclosed upon. But at the same time, the debt economy has not gone away. You would’ve thought that after 2007-8 there would’ve been a pause in debt creation. But actually, what you see is a huge debt increase.

Contemporary capitalism is increasingly loading us down with debt. That should concern all of us. How is it going to be repaid? And by what means? And are we going to end up with more and more money creation, which then has nowhere to go except speculation and asset values?

That’s when we start actually building things for people to invest in, not for people to live in. One of the most amazing things about contemporary China, for instance, is that there are whole cities that have been built and not yet lived in. Yet people have bought them, because it’s a good investment.

.......................................

What do you think of universal basic income schemes?

DH

In Silicon Valley, they want a universal basic income so people will have enough money to pay for Netflix, and that’s it. What kind of world is that? Talk about a dystopia. Universal basic income is one thing, the problem is Silicon Valley and those people who are monopolizing the means of communication and entertainment.

Universal basic income at some point might be on the agenda, but I don’t put it at the top of my political priorities. In fact, there are aspects of it that have highly negative possibilities, as the Silicon Valley model suggests..........

..................................

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/karl-marx-capital-david-harvey?fbclid=IwAR2T3IBcytzZDJ2phYSByaUYkfITp6q6HxnalLUCT_HTUAvtnAuZdK-cUeE

[Nihal Ananda]

කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදයේ මූලධර්ම හතර – ඇලේන් බදියූ

...............................

අප අවසන් වරට සාකච්ඡා කරමින් සිටියේ නැවතත් දේශපාලනය වෙත ප්‍රවිෂ්ට වීම සඳහා අප මූලික වශයෙන් අප වෙතම උපායමාර්ගික දැක්මක් ලබා දිය යුතු වන බවයි. මෙයින් අදහස් වන්නේ අප විසින් සැබෑ තෝරා ගැනීමක් සඳහා අපට ඉඩ ලබා දෙන ලෙස දේශපාලනය බෙදා වෙන්කිරීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය වේ. මේ සඳහා අපට විවිධ නම් යෝජනා කළ හැකි බව ඇත්තකි. නමුත් මවිසින් ‘කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය’ නම් දූෂිත වචනය මෙයට යෝජනා කරනා බව සමහරවිට ඔබ මේ වනවිටත් අසා තිබෙනවා කියා සිතමි.

පසුගිය සියවසේ සංකීර්ණ දේශපාලන අත්දැකීම් වලින් මෙම දූෂණය වීම සිදු වූ බව අපි දනිමු. නමුත් නමක් කියන්නේ, නමක් පමණි. ඔබට අවශ්‍යනම් මේ සඳහා වෙනත් නමක් යෝජනා කිරීමට හැකි ය. නමුත් මේ පැරණි සහ දූෂිත වචනයේ තිබෙන ප්‍රාථමික අර්ථය තුළ වැදගත් යමක් තවමත් ඉතිරිව තිබේ. මේ ප්‍රාථමික අර්ථය ගොඩ නැගී තිබෙන්නේ කරුණු එහෙමත් නැතිනම් මූලධර්ම හතරක් මත පදනම්වයි. උපායමාර්ගික දැක්මවල්දෙකකින් සමන්විත නව දේශපාලන අවකාශයක් නිපදවීම සඳහා මෙම මූලධර්ම හතර අපට ලබා දෙන්නේ ඉමහත් උපකාරයකි. කෙතරම් ප්‍රශ්න තිබුනද මේ වචනය අප තබා ගත යුතුයැයි කියා මා යෝජනා කරන්නේ මෙම නිසාය. මොනවද මේ මූලධර්ම හතර?

කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය නම් වචනය පදනම් වන පළමු මූලධර්මය වන්නේ සමාජ සංවිධානයේ පදනම ලෙස පුද්ගලික දේපළ සහ එමගින් ඇති කරන බිහිසුණු අසමානතාවයන් ගැනීම අනිවාර්ය නොවේ යන්නයි. මෙය අනිවාර්ය නොවන බව සාධනය කරනා සීමා සහිත පර්යේෂණ සංවිධානය කිරීම අපට කළ හැකි වේ. එවැනි දේ සිදු කිරීම අද දවසේ ඉතාම වැදගත් දෙයකි. පුද්ගලික දේපළ ගොඩ නැගීම වෙනුවට සාමූහික පැවැත්මක් පිළිබඳ විශ්වාසය ඇති කළ හැක්කේ මේ ආකාරයෙන් පමණි. මේ වචනය මගින් යෝජනා කරනා පළමු මූලධර්මය වන්නේ ද මෙයයි. පුද්ගලික දේපළ සහ ඒ හා බැඳුනු බිහිසුණු අසමානතාවයන් යනු මිනිසත් බව ඇතිවීමේ නීතිය නොවන බව එහි මූලික අදහසයි.

දෙවැනි මූලධර්මය වන්නේ වැඩකරන්නන්, ඔවුන් කරනා වැඩ අනුව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨ වැඩ – බුද්ධිමය ශ්‍රමය, කලාත්මක නිෂ්පාදන බිහි කිරීම, ආණ්ඩුකරණය ආදී ලෙස – සහ සාමාන්‍ය වැඩ – නුපුහුණු ශ්‍රමිකයන්, කම්කරුවන් ආදී ලෙස – කොටස් දෙකකට බෙදීම අනිවාර්ය නොවන බවයි. විශේෂයෙන්ම බුද්ධිමය ශ්‍රමය සහ කායික ශ්‍රමය අතර තිබෙනා වෙනස මකා දැමිය යුතු වේ. මිනිසාගේ ශ්‍රමය සම්බන්ධයෙන් මෙවැනි ආකාරයේ බෙදීමක් ඇති කිරීමට කිසිදු ආකාරයක දාර්ශනික පදනමක් නොමැත. එනිසා මෙය ඉතා පැහැදිළිවම දේශපාලනික බෙදීමකි. මෙය තමයි කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය කියන වචනයේ තිබෙනා දෙවැනි වැදගත් ප්‍රාථමික අර්ථය.

තුන්වැනි මූලධර්මය වන්නේ මිනිස් වර්ගයා ජාතික, වාර්ගික, ලිංගික ආදී සීමාවන්ගෙන් වෙන්ව පැවතීම අනිවාර්ය නොවීමයි. සමානාත්මතාවය ඇති විය යුත්තේ වෙනස්කම් අතරණි, වෙනස්කම් විනිවිදිමිණි. වෙනස්කම් යනු සමානාත්මතාවයට බාධාවක් විය යුතු දෙයක් නොවේ.මේ ලෝකයේ වෙනස්කම් තිබෙනා නිසා සමානාත්මතාවය ඇති කිරීම කිසිදා කළ නොහැකි වේ යන්න අප ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කළ යුතුය. සමානාත්මතාවය යනු සියලු දෙනා එකම ආකෘතියකට – අච්චුවකට – දමා, සියලු වෙනස්කම් මකා දැමීම නොවේ. කිසි සේත් නැත. ඒ වෙනුවට, එමගින් අදහස් කරන්නේ මේ සියලු වෙනස්කම් අභිමුවේ පවා මිනිසුන් අතර ඇති රැඩිකල් සමානාත්මතාවය පිළිගැනීමයි – එය තහවුරු කිරීමට හැකි වන ලෙස සමාජය සංවිධානය කිරීමයි. කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය නම් වචනය මගින් ප්‍රකාශ කර සිටිනා තුන්වැනි වැදගත් මූලධර්මය වන්නේ මෙයයි.

බොහෝ දෙනෙකු දන්නා පරිදි මෙහි තිබෙනා අවසාන මූලධර්මය වන්නේ රාජ්‍යයේ පැවැත්ම අනිවාර්ය නොවනා බව පිළිගැනීමයි. එනම්, සිවිල් සමාජයෙන් වෙන් වුණු, ආයුධ සන්නද්ධ බලයක ආකෘතිය ගත් රාජ්‍යයක පැවැත්ම අනිවාර්ය නොවන බවයි. මෙයින් අදහස් කරන්නේ සමාජ සංවිධානයේ මූලික පසුබිම් කරුණු සහතික කරනා පරිපාලන යාන්ත්‍රණයක් අවශ්‍ය නොවන බව නොවේ. නමුත් රාජ්‍යය යනු හුදු මෙවැනි යාන්ත්‍රණයක් නොවන බව අපි දනිමු. එය ස්වායත්ත පැවැත්මකි. එය පවතින්නේ අප වෙනුවෙන් නොව, අප පවතින්නේ එය වෙනුවෙනි. මිනිසාගේ ජෛවීය ජීවිතය මුළුමනින් පාලනය කිරීම එහි අරමුණ වේ. කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය නම් වචනයේ අවසාන මූලධර්මය මගින් අපට කියා සිටින්නේ මෙන්න මේ රාජ්‍යයයේ පැවැත්ම අනිවාර්යතාවයක් නොවනා බවයි.

කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය නම් මේ ඉපැරණි සහ බොහෝ දෙනෙකු විසින් ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කරනු ලබන වචනය වෙනුවෙන් මා පෙනී සිටින්නේ මේ නිසාය. මෙම වචනය භාවිතා කිරීම මගින් අපට ලබා දෙන වාසිය කුමක්ද යන්න මෙම මූලධර්ම හතර මගින් සම්පිණ්ඩනය කරයි:

• පුද්ගලික දෙපළට එරෙහිව සාමූහිකවාදය
• විශේෂඥකරණය වෙනුවට බහුකාර්ය කම්කරුවන්
• ආවෘත විවධත්වය වෙනුවට සංයුක්ත විශ්වීයත්වය
• අවසන් වශයෙන්, රාජ්‍යය වෙනුවට නිදහස් සංවිධානගත වීම

මේවා මූලධර්ම මිස වැඩසටහන් නොවන බව මතක තබා ගැනීම වැදගත් වේ. නමුත් මේ මූලධර්ම මත සිට අපට සෑම දේශපාලන වැඩසටහනක්ම, තීරණයක්ම, දේශපාලන පක්ෂයක්ම, අදහසක්ම මැන බැලීමේ හැකියාව ලැබේ. මේ මූලධර්ම හතර මගින් අපට ලබා දෙන්නේ දෘෂ්ඨිකෝණයකි. නිදර්ශනයක් ලෙස කිසියම් තීරණයක් මේ මූලධර්ම දෙසට වර්තනය වී ඇති බව පැහැදිළි වන්නේනම් එය යහපත් තීරණයක් ලෙස නම් කිරීමේ හැකියාව තිබේ. අනෙක් අතට කිසියම් තීරණයක් ඉතා පැහැදිළිව මෙම මූලධර්ම වලට විරුද්ධ වන්නේනම් එය වැරදි තීරණයක් බව අපට පැවසිය හැකිය. එමගින් අපට දේශපාලන අවකාශය තුළ විනිශ්චයන් ලබා දීමට අවශ්‍ය මූලධර්මයක් හමු වන අතර එය විකල්ප උපායමාර්ගික දැක්මක් ගොඩනැංවීම සඳහා උපයෝගී කර ගත හැකි වේ...........

.............................................

https://bavaweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදයේ-ප්%E2%80%8Dරා/?fbclid=IwAR3ApXgTpw76CeioAeGlDVZDsNSGJ9Masj8d1mCAyj6tgto7b3jDdfQ7ZfY

[Nihal Ananda]

...................................

මුලික නිදහස සහ රුසියානු විප්ලවය

මුලික ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී අයිතීන් ඔක්තෝබර් විප්ලවයෙන් පසුව අහෝසි වීම ගැන රෝසා ලක්සේම්බර්ග් දැඩි විවේචනයක් ලෙනින්ට සහ බෝල්ෂෙවික් වරුන්ට එරෙහිව දැඩි විවේචනයන් ඉදිරි පත් කලාය. මේවා කම්කරු පන්තිය විසින් දිනාගත් අයිතිවාසිකම් බවත්, ඒවා අහෝසි කිරීම ජනතාවගේ නිදහස බුක්ති විඳීම කෙරෙහි දැඩි ලෙස බල පාන බවත් රෝසා විසින් පෙන්වා දුනි. ඇය පෙන්වා දුන් පරිදි නිදහස ආණ්ඩුවේ ආධාර කරුවන්ට පමණි. අනික් අය ප්‍රමාණයෙන් කොතෙක් වුවත් කිසිම නිදහසක් නැත. නිදහස යනු සුවිශේෂ වූ නිදහසක් වන්නේ වෙනස් ආකාරයන්ට සිතන්නන්ටය යයි ඇය තර්ක ක ලාය. මෙය යුක්තිය පිළබඳ කුමන හෝ උන්නතිකාමී වූ සංකල්පයක් නිසා නොව දේශපාලන නිදහසෙහි අංග සම්පුර්න පවිත්‍රකරණය රඳා පවතින්නේ මේ මුලික ලක්ෂණයේ වන අතර ම නිදහස සුවිශේෂවූ වරප්‍රසාදයක් වන විට එහි සපලදායකත්වය නැතිව යන බව රෝසා තව දුරටත් පෙන්වා දුන්නාය(Russian Revolution, 1918).

ඇය මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් දීර්ඝ ලෙස කරුණු දැක් වූ අතර මෙය උපුටා දැක්වීම මෙහිදී පලදායක බව මම කලපන් කරමි.

'ආඥාවන් ෆැක්ටරි ඕවර්සියවරුන්ගේ ආඥාදායක බලය,අමානුෂික දඩ,ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රම මගින් පාලනය කිරීම මේ සියල්ල සහනකයන් නොවේ.මහජන ජීවිතය පිලිබඳ පාසැල නැවත උත්පාදනය කිරීමේ එකම මග ඉතාමත් අසීමිත පුළුල් ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය සහ මහජන මතය වෙයි.

ත්‍රස්තය මගින් කරන පාලනයක් ආත්මවිශ්වාසය නැති බංග කරන බව රෝසා යලි යලිත් කියා සිටි. මහා මැතිවරණ නොමැතිව පුවත් පත් සහ රැස්වීමේ නිදහස නොමැතිව නිලධාරිවාදය,මතයන්ගේ නිදහස් අරගලයක් නොමැතිව සෑම මහජන ආයතනයකම ජීවිතය මරණයට පත් වෙයි.

ජීවිතය හුදු ආකාරයක් පමණක් බවට පත්වෙයි.මහජන ජීවිතය ක්‍රමානුකුලව නින්දට වැටෙයි.පක්ෂයේ ශක්ති සම්පන්න නායකයන් දුසිම් ගණනක් විසින් සහ අසීමිත අත් දැකීම් ඇත්තන් විසින් පාලනයට මග පෙන්වයි.

රෝසා ගේ මේ පැහැදිලි කිරීම් වල දීඝ කාලින ප්‍රතිපලය මෙන්ම සෝවියට් සංගමයේ කඩා වැටීම කෙරෙහි එය ජනතාවට කොතරම් දුරට බලපාන්නට ඇත්දැයි අප සිතා බැලිය යුතුය.

මධ්‍යගතවාදයට එරෙහිවීම

රෝසා බෝල්ෂෙවික් පක්ෂයේ මධ්‍යගත භාවය කෙරෙහි දැක්වුයේ දැඩි විවේචනාත්මක ආකල්පයකි. මෙය විටෙක ජැකොබින්වාදයේ ආකෘතියක අනතුරක් ලෙසද තවත් විටෙක බ්ලැන්න්කුවාදී කුමන්තර්ණයක් පිලිපැනීමක් වීමේ අනතුර ඇය විටින් විට ලෙනින්ට විරුද්ධ චෝදනාවක් ලෙස ඉදිරි පත් කලාය.ඇත්තටම ඇය විසින් මෙය යම්කිසි දිනක සර්වාධිකාරයක් දක්වා වවර්ධනය විය හැකි බවට අනතුරු හැඟ වුයේ නැති වුවද සෝවියට් සංගමය බිඳ වැටීම කෙරෙහි ඓතිහාසික පරීක්ෂාවකදී ඇයගේ පල කල බිය සාධාරණය. මධ්‍යම කාරක සභාව පහල සාමාජිකයන් මෙන්ම ප්‍රාදේශීය පක්ෂ ශාඛා සමිති පිලිබදව හිමි කරගෙන සිටි ආඥා දායක ස්වරුපයේ බල පෑම රෝසගේ විවේචනයට ලක් විය. මෙයට පිලියමක් වශයෙන් රෝසා ඉදිරිපත් කල මුලෝපය වුයේ 'සමස්ත වැඩවර්ජනය'යි.විෂයමුලික තත්වයන්ගේ පහල වීම නිසා කම්කරු පන්තිය විප්ලවය නිරායාසයෙන්(spontaneous ) ඉදිරියට ගෙන යනු ඇති බව රෝසා ප්‍රකශ කලේ 1905 රුසියානු විප්ලවය අධ්‍යනය කිරීමත් සමගිනි. ලෙනින්ට ප්‍රති විරුදධව ඇය ඉදිරිපත කල මුලෝපාය දැඩි පක්ෂ ව්‍යුහයක් පිලිබදව රෝසා අඩු අවධාරණයක් දෙමින් අරගලය තුලින් නායකත්වය බිහිවෙනු ඇති බව ප්‍රකාශ කලය.

.............................

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1389036614783822&id=100010324903568

[Nihal Ananda]

‘Rosa Luxemburg: 

The Biography’ by J. P. Nettl

As an advocate of social democracy and individual responsibility, Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) remains the most eminent representative of the revolutionary socialist tradition. She was a radical activist who was willing to go to prison for her beliefs, including her protest of the First World War. This volume provides a representative sampling of Luxemburg’s essential writings, many of which have been rarely anthologized. Her examination of capitalist “globalization” in her era, the destructive dynamics of nationalism, and other topics are joined with hard-hitting political analyses, discussions of labor movement strategy, intimate prison letters, and passionate revolutionary appeals. Among the selections are “Rebuilding the International,” “What Are the Leaders Doing?” and excerpts from “The Accumulation of Capital—An Anti-Critique.”

Luxemburg’s powerful impact on the twentieth century is documented in the accompanying essays, which draw readers into the “discussions” that leading intellectuals and activists have had with this vibrant thinker. Included are essays by Luise Kautsky, Lelio Basso, Raya Dunayevskaya, Paul Le Blanc, Andrew Nye, and Claire Cohen. These writers engage Luxemburg’s life and work in ways that enrich our understanding of her ideas and advance our thinking on issues that concerned her. This volume will benefit readers with its rich and continuing collective evaluation of this passionate revolutionary’s life and thought.

J. P. Nettl (1926–1968) was a historian best known for his two-volume biography of Rosa Luxemburg, which The New York Times described as a classic work that did full justice to her political activity, context, theoretical contributions, and personality.

https://www.versobooks.com/books/2837-rosa-luxemburg

[Nihal Ananda]

TRUE ....!
but..... david Harvey called it !!

[Nihal Ananda]

ඇමෙරිකාවේ New York  නගරයේ මිනිස්සුන්ට ..... අන්ධ කයිප්පු කැවිලා ද ?

(අන්තිම වාක්‍යයත් බලන්න ....)

Thursday, April 1, 2021

Lenin's bronze statue to be erected in Manhattan, New York City mayor confirms

\

A 16 feet tall bronze statue of Vladimir Lenin will be erected in Manhattan's Union Square, NYC mayor Bill de Blasio confirmed in a press release today.

The effigy was made in 1934 in Leningrad and was acquired in 1992 by a Ukrainian American businessman following an auction in Berlin.

"The city of New York is proud and pleased to honor the legendary leader of the 1917 October Revolution and founder of the first workers' state in the world, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin", reads a statement by the mayor's office, adding that "despite the fierce reaction by anti-communist and right-wing organizations and groups, the statue will be unveiled in a ceremony on May 1, 2021". 

In recent opinion poll conducted by NBC News, 58 per cent of New Yorkers expressed positive views over the erection of Lenin's statue while only 12 percent disapproved the idea. The remaining 30 per cent said they don't even know who Vladimir Lenin is. 

[Nihal Ananda]

It is Vladimir Lenin's birthday. He was born today in 1870.

Bertrand Russell's view about Lenin ................

"Soon after my arrival in Moscow I had an hour's conversation with Lenin in English, which he speaks fairly well. An interpreter was present, but his services were scarcely required. Lenin's room is very bare; it contains a big desk, some maps on the walls, two book-cases, and one comfortable chair for visitors in addition to two or three hard chairs. It is obvious that he has no love of luxury or even comfort. He is very friendly, and apparently simple, entirely without a trace of hauteur. If one met him without knowing who he was, one would not guess that he is possessed of great power or even that he is in any way eminent. I have never met a personage so destitute of selfimportance. He looks at his visitors very closely, and screws up one eye, which seems to increase alarmingly the penetrating power of the other. He laughs a great deal; at first his laugh seems merely friendly and jolly, but gradually I came to feel it rather grim. He is dictatorial, calm, incapable of fear, extraordinarily devoid of self-seeking, an embodied theory. The materialist conception of history, one feels, is his life-blood. He resembles a professor in his desire to have the theory understood and in his fury with those who misunderstand or disagree, as also in his love of expounding, I got the impression that he despises a great many people and is an intellectual aristocrat."

: Practice and Theory of the Bolshevism

( Bertrand Russell )

[Nihal Ananda]

[ haven't heard /read a better statement of 'value" ......]

′′ The devaluation of the human world grows in direct reason

of the world's valuation of things "

~ Karl Marx (1818 – 1883)

203 years ago, born in 1818

#KarlMarx

[Nishantha Kamaladasa]

මේ සටහනින් නගා ඇති ප්‍රශ්න ‌වලට අපේ සහෝදරවරුන්ගේ උත්තර මොනවා ද?

ඉකොනොමැට්ටාගේ බොජුන්හල : ශ්‍රමය සූරාකෑම වෙනුවෙන් සමාජවාදය! (economatta.blogspot.com)

Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant

0714 480240, 011 2776421 (Residence)

If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link below

www.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com

.

[Nishantha Kamaladasa]

කොමියුනිස්ට් වාදය අවශ්‍ය ද යන්නට උත්තර කියුබාවෙන් සොයන කෙනෙකුට මග හැරිය නොහැකි අල්ජසීරා වීඩියෝව මෙතැනින්.

🇨🇺 Cuba: The Times are Changing | People & Power - YouTube

🇨🇺 Cuba: The Times are Changing | People & Power

Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant

0714 480240, 011 2776421 (Residence)

If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link below

www.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indraka/659534591.318590.1621000267422%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[Amarasiri Gunawardena]

කොමියුනිස්ට් චීනයට පැන්ඩමික් මාස්ක් ඇත. කැපිටලිස්ට් ඇමෙරිකාවට මිග් සහ යුද්ධායුද ඇත..!

https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca

DAG

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indraka/157130190.487878.1621080653722%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Nihal Ananda]

මේ විදියට Tax ගහලා ආණ්ඩුව....., ආදායම් උපදවන මිනිස්සුන්ගේ/ කොම්නිපැනිවල, සල්ලි වැඩි වැඩියෙන් එක්කහු කර ගන්න එක හරි ද ?

[Dharmapala Gunawardena]

හරිබව ඕකෙම පෙන්නල තියෙනව කොමෙන්ටුවෙ. ටැක්ස් එක්කිරීම සහ එම පන්ගුවේ යෙදීමත් වැදගත් සාධකයක් ජනයාට!  

DAG

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indraka/CAD7ocS0N77%2By-wL0wmHOVz0vQekbh8iYj2%3DtanGWZBP9YSzE1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nishantha Kamaladasa]

මිලියන 2 ක දිග මිනිස් අත්වැලක්

(20+) Facebook

Log in or sign up to view See posts, photos and more on Facebook.

Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant

0714 480240, 011 2776421 (Residence)

If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link below

www.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indraka/CAHAjjAQwyHRRX9AVaODvmpAo7Uit7YCVaWY42T4nTPqXqHw3oQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nishantha Kamaladasa]

උතුරු කොරියාවට අත නොතබනු.

North Korea Bans Leather Coats To Stop Citizens Emulating Kim's Fashion–Report (newsweek.com)

North Korea bans leather coats to stop citizens emulating Kim's fashion–... The coats are recognized in the hermit kingdom as "a symbol of power," a source told Radio Free Asia

[simont...@optusnet.com.au]

Dear Kamale,

I am curious to know if this news clip passes at least the first filter of Socrates’s Triple Filter test? (https://exploringyourmind.com/socrates-triple-filter-test/)

---

Email sent using Optus Webmail

[Nishantha Kamaladasa]

Do you have any counter evidence?

Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant

0714 480240, 011 2776421 (Residence)

If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link below

www.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indraka/d0bd3e6dc88d914782ce6312ca4273b491350b68%40webmail.optusnet.com.au

.

[simont...@optusnet.com.au]

Dear Kamale,

I was really surprised to see this response from an experienced Management consultant like you.

See the following hypothetical story.

I called Arambe & told him “Nissanka is a very bad man. He has stolen money from various people”

Then Arambe asked me “how do you know if that is true? Do you have evidence to prove that?

I replied “Do you have evidence to counter my allegation?”

(Apologies to Arambe & Nissanka for taking for this role play without your permission)

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

ind...@googlegroups.com

To:

"ind...@googlegroups.com" <ind...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Fri, 3 Dec 2021 01:31:26 +0000 (UTC)

Subject:

Re: [indraka] Re: කොමියුනිස්ට්වාදය ...... අවශ්‍ය ද ? why communism?

Do you have any counter evidence?

Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant

0714 480240, 011 2776421 (Residence)

If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link below

www.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com

[Nishantha Kamaladasa]

Dear Supem

Thank you for educating me. I will make a note of your advice for future reference. 

In defense of what I have done I should say this, of course, with the anticipation of further corrections. 

The news I shared appeared in Newsweek, a reputed magazine (I know that this reputation could go either way). Therefore I thought it should be either blatantly false or hilariously true. In either case, I thought it is worthwhile to share it with my good old leftists friends. 

If it is false they could rise against this conspiracy and if it is true they could review the situation in North Korea and try to draw learning points.

Sorry about my caption; probably that would have been changed a bit. But for provoking thought I used it.

Thanks again for the spirited disclosure about my weaknesses. It is a learning opportunity, I like to embrace.

Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant

0714 480240, 011 2776421 (Residence)

If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link below

www.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indraka/a2147bd4fa741a2463bb590e3de0d332fc764d85%40webmail.optusnet.com.au

.

[simont...@optusnet.com.au]

I would like see the view of others on the suggestion in the following article , especially from Kamale (since during your involvement in Management consultancy, probably would have seen the lack of knowledge of professionals in this area?).

We had a subject in the final year Eng exam “Engineers in Society”. That was the most difficult subject for most of us. I think it was due to a couple of reasons.

1.  This was an alien subject to the students who had learnt only Maths & Physics/ Chemistry. Students with ICMA background could do well in this.

2.  Language barrier: This was a common factor for all the subjects but had a lesser impact in learning technical subjects.

In nutshell, it was not serving much to improve our knowledge in this area (at least in my opinion).

Is this subject being made more effective these days in Engineering degree? Hera (with the feedback from your daughters) & Keerthi  (being in the Eng academia) would be able share some views.

Importance of Teaching Capitalism In Schools

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/importance-of-teaching-capitalism-in-schools/

 Following is an excerpt from the article.

 

So why should kids in Sri Lanka learn about Capitalism, Stock market, trading etc.? Because it teaches them about the benefit of inventions and creations. It teaches them about company valuations, it teaches them about how to create wealth, expand tax base and build infrastructure. It teaches them what drives kids in rich nations to invent and build new products and services. It teaches them how rich countries have amassed massive wealth and remains rich, how their products dominate the world. It also teaches them

In other words, the rich capitalist nations offer massive financial incentives for inventions through their capital markets.

In my opinion, starting form Grade 10, every child no matter what discipline they lean at school, should have a dedicated period for this subject