The Rebel Road…

I know you’ve come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you’re only going to kill a man. – Ernesto Che Guevara

Abhijit (Ex-Marxist from India):

with 2 comments

Mr. Abhijit (Ex-Marxist) from India:

Socialism ensures government expenditure concentrated on education, infrastructure, health etc. Isn’t social security a sign of socialism, why do ppl forget it,

Firstly, I dont think any communist can forget that the provision of high quality public fascilities designed to cater to everyone (regardless of their religion, caste, creed, race, gender etc.) is the fundamental duty of a communist.

didn’t labour unions enjoyed more freedom in liberal democracy.

The short answer is, simply, no. I dont think labor unions enjoy(ed) more freedom in liberal democracy. There are many reasons i say this.

1) Liberal Democracy stems from the broader base of liberalism. Question becomes, ‘what is liberalism?’

The answer, according to Wikipedia, is: [b]Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[/b]

Furthermore, Wikipedia goes on to explain: [b]Broadly speaking, modern liberalism places the rights of the individual above the needs of the group.[/b]

So you see, in any event, Liberalism is defined as the protection of the ‘minority’ privileges over ‘majority’ rights.

So you must ask yourself – Who is the minority and who is the majority?

The answer is simple: The workers constitute numerical majority whereas the Capitalists constitute (an ever decreasing) minority

Now lets look at the concept of democracy. It is a fantastic concept. The concept of people voting and then a certain majority of the society choosing what is to be done – it comes as close to freedom of choice as we have been able to come yet (not to say that some superior system could not come up in the future).

But let us look at Bourgeois Democracy. What is it?
According to Chomsky, the format of democracy as it prevails within the Liberal countries is nothing more than a sham – an overglorified system of smokes and mirrors to deceive the voters into a false sense of security and political efficacy.

Chomsky says in his article: The Disconnect in US Democracy.

Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalising the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalised quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, “That’s politics.” But it isn’t. It’s only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole where it belongs.

Bush and Kerry can run because they’re funded by basically the same concentrations of private power. Both candidates understand that the election is supposed to stay away from issues. They are creatures of the public relations industry, which keeps the public out of the election process. The concentration is on what they call a candidate’s “qualities,” not policies. Is he a leader? A nice guy? Voters end up endorsing an image, not a platform.

Last month a Gallup poll asked Americans why they’re voting for either Bush or Kerry. From a multiple-choice list, a mere 6 percent of Bush voters and 13 percent of Kerry voters picked the candidates’ “agendas/ideas/ platforms/goals.” That’s how the political system prefers it. Often the issues that are most on people’s minds don’t enter at all clearly into the debate.

A new report by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, which regularly monitors American attitudes on international issues, illustrates the disconnect.

A considerable majority of Americans favour “working within the United Nations, even when it adopts policies that the United States does not like.” Most Americans also believe that “countries should have the right to go to war on their own only if they (have) strong evidence that they are in imminent danger of being attacked,” thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on “pre-emptive war.”

On Iraq, polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes show that a majority of Americans favour letting the UN take the lead in issues of security, reconstruction and political transition in that country. Last March, Spanish voters actually could vote on these matters.

It is notable that Americans hold these and similar views (say, on the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Protocol) in virtual isolation: They rarely hear them in campaign speeches, and probably regard them as idiosyncratic. At the same time the level of activism for social change may be higher than ever in the US. But it’s disorganised. Nobody knows what’s happening on the other side of town.

By contrast, consider the fundamentalist Christians. Earlier this month in Jerusalem, Pat Robertson said that he would start a third party if Bush and the Republicans waver in support for Israel. That’s a serious threat because he might be able to mobilise tens of millions of evangelical Christians who already form a significant political force, thanks to extensive work over decades on numerous issues, and with candidates at levels from school board to president.

The presidential race isn’t devoid of issue-oriented activism. During the primaries, before the main event fully gears up, candidates can raise issues and help organise popular support for them, thereby influencing campaigns to some extent. After the primaries, mere statements make a minimal impact without a significant organisation behind them.

The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so that centres of power can’t ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass roots and shaken the society to its core include the labour movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement, the women’s movement and others, cultivated by steady, dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years.

But you can’t ignore the elections. You should recognise that one of the two groups now contending for power happens to be extremist and dangerous, and has already caused plenty of trouble and could cause plenty more.

As for myself, I’ve taken the same position as in 2000. If you are in a swing state, you should vote to keep the worst guys out. If it’s another state, do what you feel is best. There are many considerations. Bush and his administration are publicly committed to dismantling and destroying whatever progressive legislation and social welfare has been won by popular struggles over the past century.

Internationally, they are calling for dominating the world by military force, including even the “ownership of space” to expand monitoring and first strike capabilities.

So in the election, sensible choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action. The main task is to create a genuinely responsive democratic culture, and that effort goes on before and after electoral extravaganzas, whatever their outcome.

This suggests that normal citizens of a liberal democracy do not have the right or opportunity to choose their ‘real’ representatives simply because they dont even KNOW the issues that should be addressed. Such issues are kept from them by virtue of many MANY methods that i dont really need to get into at the moment. Needless to say that media control and information control are ploys of the ruling class to gloss over the bitter truth.

Permit me to say that if the USA (the bastion of liberal democracy) had any REAL democracy, you would not have George W. Bush in office right now. lol.

How is this relevant to Trade Unions?
Well, you being an ex-marxist should know this better than me, perhaps.

In Communism, trade Unions are not just avenues of the short term realization of worker rights – they are methods or rather bodies of worker representation.

Please find a working understanding of the system provided by the following article written by my Comrade, Bhagat Singh (no, not THAT Bhagat Singh).

The Soviet Governance system:
By: Bhagat Singh.

In order to understand, and appreciate Soviet Socialist democracy ( and any “democracy” for that matter) it is imperative to understand the concept in the light of its evolution.
We will make an attempt towards answering ( in detail) all your criticisms of the Soviet model, relying heavily on the material provided in Pat Sloan’s “SOVIET DEMOCRACY”, and Sydney Webb’s book “Soviet Communism”. ( It is worthwhile to add that both these writers are NEITHER Communists, NOR were they from the former Soviet Union)

The most popular definition of democracy is as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The Greek city state has been cited time and again by historians as the birthplace of democracy. And yet, we find that in fact this was a democracy only for a narrow circle of the privileged, while the slaves who did the work of the community had no voice whatsoever in the making of the laws under which they toiled.

The classical example of democracy, was, then a democracy only for certain people. To describe the democracy of the Greek city state without pointing out that it could ONLY exist as a result of the toil of the slaves who had no political and hardly any civil rights falsifies the real history of the ORIGIN of democracy.

Democracy, then, from its origin, has not precluded the simultaneous existence of dictatorship. The essential question which must be asked, when social systems appear to include elements of both democracy and dictatorship is ” For whom is there democracy?”, and “Over whom is there a dictatorship”

Let us attempt to answer this question in the light of the Soviet constitution of 1918. The constitution describes the purpose of the soviet state as “the establishment of the dictatorship of the urban and rural workers, combined with the poor peasantry, to secure the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, and the establishment of socialism.”.

The urban and rural workers and the poor peasantry made up over 95% of the population of the Soviet Union, so that this DICTATORSHIP was to be a government by the vast majority of the population.

The Soviet state introduced universal suffrage for working citizens, without property or residential qualifications, and irrespective of sex (The first country in the world by the way to give women the right to vote), nationality or religion. The right to vote and to stand for election was made available to all such citizens from the age of eighteen upwards.

However, democracy has a few other important features which the Soviet model clearly shows:

Equality of Opportunity:

It is quite astonishing to find that many “intellectuals”, who are ardent supporters of “democracy”, almost always restrict democracy to the process of elections and politics, seldom realizing that a system cannot be truly democratic until and unless it is ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY democratic— in other words until and unless there is equality of opportunity. Did the Soviet Union have that?

Let us first have a look at the Soviet Education policy.

A first decree of the Soviet Government, adopted shortly after the seizure of power in 1917, dealt with education:

“Every genuinely democratic power must in the domain of education in a country where ignorance and illiteracy reign supreme, make its first aim the struggle against this darkness… it must introduce universal, obligatory ad free tuition for all.”

In pre-revolutionary Russia well over 80 percent of the adult population could not read or write. In less than 20 years, illiterately was wiped out completely. In the year before the Revolution the number of children attending school was round about 8 million, of whom only half a million received any secondary education. By 1934, the number of children attending school had reached 25 million— more than half the population of Great Britain and over THREE times the pre-revolutionary figure.

So far we have been considering equality of opportunity in the purely educational sphere. But equality of opportunity in the USSR extended far beyond the realms of education.

Perhaps another of the most interesting features of Soviet life was the close link which existed between all kinds of amateur and professional activities. In the Soviet factories and collective farms much of the leisure time of the people— and this leisure time was ample since the working day averaged less than 7 hours throughout Soviet industry— was spent on amateur activities such as dramatics, literature, sport photography, art and so on.

Equality of opportunity also extended to the domain of access to free health, and free entertainment.

The power of the trade unions

It is important to understand the fact that the power that the trade unions exercise on the state is directly reflective of the course of action that the state will take with regard to its policies.

In the constitution of the Soviet republic, adopted in 1918, freedom of association was guaranteed to all citizens.

The Soviet trade unions were represented on the management of the factories, and higher up on the boards of the State trusts. In each factory, the trade unions mobilized the workers for participation in management. They organized meetings to discuss the welfare of the workers and problems of production; and they ran a PRESS in which expression was given to the opinions of the workers.

Every year, in every Soviet enterprise, a collective agreement was signed up between the trade union and the administration. This agreement stated the obligations of the administration towards the workers in the form of cultural and other services, and also included detailed wage scales for the enterprise. The general principles underlying such wage scales were determined by the central committees of the unions in the various industries, in cooperation with the corresponding administrative State organization. In this way, once every year at least, every Soviet working man or woman, on every job, had the chance to participate in a general discussion of the existing wage-rates.

Freedom of Press
We find the following clause in the Constitution of 1918:

“To ensure for the workers effective liberty of opinion, the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic puts and end to the dependence of the Press upon capital; transfers to the working class and to the peasants all technical and material resources necessary for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books and other printed matter: and guarantees their UNOBSTRUCTED circulation throughout the country.”

The Soviet Government realized that freedom of the Press could only exist together with the ownership of the printing presses and the other means for publishing newspapers. Therefore, so long as the printing presses and stocks of paper were in the hands of the well to do ( Or in the hands of the Army in the case of Pakistan), there was only freedom of the Press for the elite. Effective freedom of the Press for the working masses could only be guaranteed by giving the ownership of the newspapers to working people. Hence the abolition of the private press in the early days of the revolution, its place being taken by the press of the people themselves, from their wall-newspapers in the factories to the newspapers of the soviet state itself.

The daily circulation of newspapers had increased from 2.7 million in 1913, to 36.4 million in 1934, and 66 million in 1937. We must also remember that there were THREE main newspapers in the Soviet Union ( the newspapers of the various factories had a circulation which was limited to the particular areas in which they operated or in particular industries): Izvestia, the organ of the Government; Pravda, the newspaper of the Party; and Trud, the paper of the trade unions.

On the freedom of the Press, I will quote an interesting piece of anecdotal evidence, given on page 100 of Pat Sloan’s book on the Soviet Union.:

“During the years of the first 5 year plan, the most harrowing stories appeared in our Press in Britain about the failure of one large Soviet factory after another to achieve the planned output. And to the confusion of the British reader, Soviet sources would usually be quoted as the basis for these stories. We would read how at Stalingrad for example, two tractors would come off the conveyor one day, thirty the next, then a hundred and then down to two again as some process in the production went wrong and held up the whole job.”

When we look more closely at the kind of facts which received such loud publicity at the time, we find that all these difficulties and disorders which accompanied the first 5 year plan were not necessarily peculiar to Soviet conditions, but operated in one form or the other in every new large industrial enterprise everywhere. The fundamental difference between such enterprises in the USSR and similar ones in capitalist countries was that in the Soviet Union every difficulty was publicized in the Press, whereas, in the conditions of capitalism, the same difficulties are completely hushed up.

What are Soviets

Early in the year 1905, the workers of the textile town of Ivanovo-Vosnesnk set up a committee to co-ordinate strike action and to force the employers to bargain collectively. This example was copied by other industries in Russia, and finally by ALL the workers with the establishment of their own councils or committees. These councils came to be known as the Soviets of Worker’s Delegates. In each case they consisted of elected delegates from the workers in the factories, led the struggle against the employers by organizing strikes, and put forward political demands for freedom of speech, the Press and assembly. They became a new form of municipal authority.

After the October revolution in 1917, there had come into being in Russia a new kind of State. In structure this new State corresponded to democratic organizations of working people all over the world. But whereas a trade union represents only the wage earners in PARTICULAR occupations, the Soviet state embraced all working citizens, in industry, on the land, and in the army.

The Soviet State was a democratic organization of the vast majority of the people. All working citizens, had the right to vote, and to stand for election without property or residential qualifications, so long as they reached eighteen years of age.

The local Soviets were simply councils of delegates, elected by the workers at their factory meetings, and by the peasants at meetings in the village. at these meetings the workers and peasants discussed the merits of various candidates, and then voted in the simplest and most straightforward way, by show of hands.

For areas larger than the town or village, such as counties, provinces and national territories covering a number of towns and villages, the supreme authority was a Congress of Soviets for that area, to which delegates were sent from all the local Soviets. Such Congresses elected their own Executive Committees, which carried on the work of government between Congresses.

For the Russian Soviet Republic as a whole the supreme authority was an All Russian Congress of Soviets. This was composed of representatives of town Soviets, on the basis of one deputy for every 25,000 electors, and representatives of provincial Congresses of Soviets, on the basis of one deputy for every 125,000 inhabitants.

Three outstanding features of the Soviet elections (Which Mr Aqeel has been told, through divine ordinance never existed in the Soviet Union) should here be mentioned.

First, all delegates to the Soviets, to Congresses, and members of Executive Committees were made subject to recall if their electors were dissatisfied with their work. In this way the permanency of every officials post depended on the agreement of his electors. Secondly, every elected delegate to any Soviet body was bound, not only to sit on the soviet as a committee member, but also to participate in the day -to -day work of the soviet. In this way, every member not only passed laws but was one of those responsible for carrying them out. There was thus no divorce between legislature and executive, between those who made the laws and those who enforced them.
Thirdly, a word must be said as to the nature of the elections. In the soviet state, the system of election was based on the desire to return to the organs of government those who were best suited to represent their fellows. At every election meeting a discussion took place on the work of the soviet authorities and general instructions were adopted as to the policy to be pursued in the future. Each delegate who was elected was instructed to pursue the policy agreed upon at the meeting. And at intervals he had to repot back to the electors on how he was carrying out this policy on the Soviet.

Members of the Soviets were delegates with a mandate from their electors and subject to recall if they did not carry out this mandate to the satisfaction of their supporters. This system stands in sharp contrast to the parliamentary system, where candidates come forward with a cut-and-dried statement of policy, the electors choose the program which they think they prefer, and the candidate who is returned then proceeds to carry it out or not, as the spirit moves him.

I hope that clarifies some of the misunderstandings you have on the subject.

In contrast communism seems very beautiful surfacially but it need someone to become Robin Hood, and it becomes very prone for dictatorship.

I don’t want to sound offensive, Abhijit, but it is extremely unlikely that anyone who claims to be an ex-marxist, who I assume took the time to read something on Marxism, could possibly say the above statement. I say this for two reasons:

You said: In contrast communism seems very beautiful surfacially but it need someone to become Robin Hood

This is wholly incorrect. Marxism, if anything, stands against such fruitless, short term ventures for emancipation. Indeed there is a great difference between the ‘class struggle’ and your concept of adventurism. One might lead to short term gains but that is usually at the cost of long term gains.

The class conflict, as any Marxist (ex or otherwise) knows is NOT a measure for equalizing WEALTH within society. It is a process which equalizes the OPPORTUNITIES within society for ALL INDIVIDUALS.

So I am sorry, but your understanding of Marxism on this point is incorrect.

You said: and it becomes very prone for dictatorship.

Ofcourse not. A communist system of governance is LESS prone to dictatorship than ANY liberal democracy. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) The Socialist Government system (and by extension a Communist Governance system), as you yourself admit, is categorized by its emphasis on social emancipation. This is carried out by emphasizing on education, health, security etc. You admit this yourself when you say: Socialism ensures government expenditure concentrated on education, infrastructure, health etc.

2) The governance system, itself, as described above emphasizes on public participation. Lets take the example of Cuba. The voter turnout in the last elections was 96 PERCENT!!!!!!!

Funny how the voter turn out in this ‘dictatorship’ is greater than most ‘liberal’ democracies. Lol.

Monsters like PolPot r born only because of this.

No my friend. People like Polpot are born because of revisionist tendencies when elegant systems are subverted. The first thing you need to realize is that the crimes of the Khamir Rouge are debatable (though no one is denying them).

You must realize that Cambodia was a country that was Carpet bombed like anything. It was a country where Air strikes were as common as rain. Did no one die in these bombings? Did no civilians get hurt in these air raids?
Piling ALL the deaths that occurred in Cambodia solely on the shoulders of the Khemer Rouge is not just incorrect – it is foolhardy.
Now that one realizes that these people were literally fighting for their lives it is not shocking that they would go over-board with the whole thing as well. Cambodia was a small country against an imperial power. The Khemer Rouge a small band of ‘communists’ against the USA. Ofcourse many MANY mistakes were made. That is why the Vietnamese Communist Party took the decision to move into Cambodia and put down the Khemer Rouge.

My point is simple: Monsters like Polpot are not the result of a flaw in the system – they are a result of certain material circumstances. By doing these acts Polpot went AGAINST communism – his acts do not REPRESENT communism.

N. Korea is busy in selling missiles to world while their ppl r starving,

There are two things I would like to say in this regard.

Firstly, You need to see a BBC Documentary called “Inside the Axis of Evil”. The documentary conclusively shows that the reports of the famine in North Korea are not just exaggerated but wholly false.

Secondly, North Korea is selling missile technology to those countries which have taken a stand against Imperialist Powers – countries like Iran, Syria etc.

Considering the Imperialist Agenda of violating the sovereignty of States (case in point: Iraq) what is so morally wrong in arming such countries and at the same time boosting one’s own economy?
You have been consuming too much Imperialist Propaganda, my Ex-Marxist Friend.

Kim Jing is living a lavish life

I don’t even need to answer that one. What I would like to do is to ask you to provide your source of information. As soon as you cite your source you wont need me to tell you how ‘valid’ It is.

ppl starved in Ukraine and Soviets sold grain in intl market to make liquid money

Could you kindly expand on this? I would like to know your entire thought process regarding this statement. I would also like your sources of information for the same. Thankyou.

isn’t it capitalsim?

No. This isn’t Capitalism. Firstly, I hold in contention the fact that this occurred. You are free to prove your case but I require your research on this point – I am in a habit of not accepting opinions at face value no matter who presents them. Nothing personal.

The reason I say this ISNT capitalism is because Capitalism is, within itself, a well-defined economic phenomenon related to the process of production. What you describe is the POST-PRODUCTION policies (allegedly) instituted by Soviet Union.

For a re-introduction to Marxist concepts please visit the following excellent resource:

Kulaks might be class oppressor but girls raped by Soviet soldiers in Baltic states weren’t class oppressors, muslims of Chechnya, Kazhakistan ethnic cleansed by Stalin weren’t class oppressors, so finally I prefered to change my side.


I see. Now I know EXACTLY which line you’re following. I have two questions for you – they are personal inquiries. They don’t have a bearing on the questions at hand.

1) Are you a Trotskyite?
2) Have you read a book named: “Another View of Stalin” by Ludo Martins?

If you haven’t read this book, then I must request that you run to the nearest book store and buy it QUICK!!!!!
You changed your side for the wrong reasons apparently and you don’t need me to tell you why. I would like you to read it for yourself in that book.

I’ll make it easier for you. You can get the online edition of this book HERE:
Another View of Stalin
By: Ludo Martins

But I’d love if comrades like u build a true classless society dreamt by Marx, I’ve no hopes from your Indian comrades, only thing they know is rowdism.

Abhijit, firstly, I would like to thank you for the support you express. I’ve read all your statements with great scrutiny and attention – and I respect them. I don’t necessarily agree with them (to be frank I don’t agree at all) but I certainly respect them. But I feel that you have been disillusioned for the wrong reasons. Now I know you are honest with yourself about everything – you probably wouldn’t have had any reason to become a Marxist at all if you didn’t want to help others around you and be honest with yourself at the same time. However let me tell you that the reasons you have presented have been clarified already.

We can discuss the matter further at any time you wish.

As for my Indian Comrades, I respect them greatly. I am no one to comment on what they choose to do or not do simply because I am not aware of the ground realities present in India. As you know, a Marxist only comments or works when he has an understanding of the objective material conditions – as I mentioned I am not aware. I will not try to defend anyone else here for now – though I am not saying that that might not change should I stumble onto relevant information regarding the matter. I will, however, invite some respected Indian Comrades to come and explain their stance on these statements as well.

I suuport socialst democracy like that in Scandinavian countries

Firstly, Abhijit, the Scandinavian countries are not ‘socialist democracies’. They are ‘SOCIAL Democracies’. There is a difference.

Wikipedia explains this difference thusly:

“Democratic socialism” versus “Social democracy”
Democratic socialism forms a distinct current of thought from social democracy, in that self-described democratic socialists still see themselves as working towards the establishment of a socialist society with a socialist economic system. Many separate parties calling themselves “social democrats” have sought to distance themselves from their democratic socialist counterparts. Naturally, there is some degree of overlap, and some self-professed democratic socialists remain associated with social democratic parties in an effort to render them more avowedly socialist.
In most cases, social democrats would settle for a medium between capitalism and socialism, while democratic socialists advocate absolute socialism and want to abolish capitalism through democratic means. In other cases, particular names are used solely by historical accident.
In general, there are two viewpoints regarding the relation between social democracy and democratic socialism. The first one claims that the democratic socialists are really left-wing social democrats rather than a different current. Many social democrats acknowledge their Marxist inheritance openly and social democrats debate politics in terms many more orthodox Marxists would recognise. The second viewpoint disagrees with this argumentation and claims that even though both the social democrats and the democratic socialists are in favour of “humanizing” capitalism, for the democratic socialists this is only a step towards building a socialist society. Hence, according to this second viewpoint, because the social democrats have abandoned the goal of building a socialist society, there is no basis for them to call themselves (democratic) socialists. With the recent centrist or Third Way reorientation of many social democratic parties around the world, social democrats seem to have distanced themselves more than ever from democratic socialism.

Scandinavian countries have, admittedly, achieved great strides in social emancipation. But can you say that the Scandinavian countries would have managed that if they had not instituted ‘welfare’ policies?
Certainly not.

Are ‘welfare’ policies socialist in nature?
They can be but it is not a necessary condition.

What is the test?
The test is, is being surplus value being extracted by certain members of the society where as the other members are not able to do so – in other words, are certain people getting ‘richer’ simply because they are more intimately related to the means of production where as the other members only sell their labor in order to get sustainance. Does this rule NOT apply to Scandinavian countries?
I think it does.

Have they done away with Capitalism?
Certainly not.
What have they done?
They have merely glossed over the problem by applying a bandaid on a mortal wound. Eventually the problem has to come up again.

just to mention Estonia and Poland had better HDI than Scandiniva b4 thired reich took over them but now look today, they r in completely different leauge. But I respectfully admit most harm to their backbone was done third reich but later communists did not fair much better.

I am somewhat confused. As far as I know the ‘third reich’ was a fascist organization headed by Nazi Germany. Granted that one of its predecessor organizations i.e National Socialist German Workers Party had the word ‘Socialist’ in it. Lol
But lets be serious, it was a Nazi Fascist organization. Changing a name doesn’t mean changing an ideology. I question the relevance of this example.

Anyway, I hope you take the time to read my reply and present your counter-reply. I also apologize in advance for taking some time in replying because I am in the process of organizing a number of protests these days so my time does not allow a lot of internet-time.

I also hope you don’t take any of my comments personally – I do not mean any disrespect.


Written by redtribution

August 26, 2007 at 10:48 am

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Your debates are truly amazing!! I will be a regular visitor to your blog from now on!!

    Aseem Naphade

    September 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm

  2. Very kind of you to say that Mr. Aseem. You are more than welcome to visit the blog – that is after all why it was created.

    Best Regards,
    Mobeen Chughtai.


    September 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: