薩古魯比外界想像中更左傾
| « 1 | < | > | 2 » |
Many who claim to be leftist feel only they should have freedom of speech, nobody else What left means is your life is not about yourself; your life is about the community. Written by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev | Updated: May 15, 2020 9:52:45 am Karnataka HC asks Sadhguru's foundation to disclose amount raised for initiative Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev I am far more “left” than people can imagine, but I am not crazy left, where you make sure people are left out of all development and all possibilities. My idea of left is a more fair and just administration. I say “more” because there is no such thing as an absolutely fair and just society. All we can create is a society where things are largely happening in a fair manner, and if people are not equal, at least they have equal opportunity. What left means is your life is not about yourself; your life is about the community. The Isha Yoga Center is a commune — in a way, it is a communist arrangement. Nobody is asking how much you have, your religion, caste, where you come from, who your father is. We will treat you like we treat everyone else. If you rise and show some special qualities, we will honour that as well. Communism means everyone is sharing and living together. For instance, you are willing to give away your phone to someone who does not have one, or at least share it with your neighbour because, after all, you are a party member. In the Yoga Center we do such things effortlessly. This is absolute left. But the people who claim they are “left” are not living like that. Many are just living in their own home, talking left philosophy. Their lifestyle, opinions and attitude do not show that they are left or liberal. One aspect of this is that they feel only they should have freedom of speech and nobody else. Liberal means whatever is in my heart I will speak, and you should listen and tell me what is wrong with it. You cannot point out one thing and just say, “No, I do not like it.” That will not work. If you believe that your opinion is much more sacred than the people’s will in a democratic society, then you have a fundamental problem. When a majority of the people elect a government, even if you do not personally like it, it is still your government. It is not someone else’s government. For me, this is India’s government and I will support it. Not because I am someone’s fan or because of any political ideology, but simply because I am a citizen of India. The country is offering a certain order, facilities and fundamentals for us to live and work. For that, I will abide by whatever the government says by law. You can vote against a Bill in Parliament, you can express what you think is wrong with it. If we have some concerns about a certain law, we can say, “this is our concern, please fix it”. But it is still the government’s choice whether they want to fix it or go ahead with it. So then you say: “I will take to the streets — my right to protest.” You have the right to protest for sure, but you do not have the right to disrupt even one citizen’s life. You have no right to block the road, cut off the water or electricity or whatever else. You must ask for permission, find an area, sit there and protest. The democratic process has enough proper platforms where you can protest. If you do not agree with the law, there is a court where you can go. If it is in any way illegal, it will get knocked down. But if it is legal and you still do not like it, you must strive hard to win the next election — that is the only way you can do it in a democratic country. Many people are not able to digest this simple fact. They do not have the necessary commitment to work for five years and somehow win the election next time. They just want to sit at home, wine and dine all their life but protest about everything that the government does. You cannot lose the election and pass the laws. If the losers want to pass laws and carry the trophy, it is not fair. This article appeared in the print edition of May 15, 2020, under the title ‘I am more left than you think’. The writer is founder, Isha Foundation. He was conferred the Padma Vibhushan by the Government of India in 2017 https://indianexpress.com/articl ... eft-than-you-think/ 薩古魯說，馬克思希望搞共產主義是好的，但方法錯了。 薩古魯說，馬克思或許知道很多經濟學知識，但他對人性不了解。 Sadhguru Quotes Communism is a way of thinking. Socialism is wimpy communism. When you don't have the courage to become a communist, you become a socialist. 薩古魯說，共產主義是一種思考方法。社會主義是弱的共產主義。當你沒有勇氣成為共產主義者的時候，你可以成為社會主義者。 | |||||
https://www.sadhguru.org https://isha.sadhguru.org https://www.ishayoga.org https://www.ishafoundation.org https://www.innerengineering.com https://ishataiwan.wordpress.com https://www.ishayoga.net 暫時到此為止 | |||||
嘩，中國共產黨真恐怖！ | |||||
嘩，中國共產黨真恐怖！ | |||||
| |||||
嘩，中國共產黨真恐怖！ 假的，假的！ | |||||
嘩，中國共產黨真恐怖！ 假的，假的！ | |||||
假的，假的！ | |||||
| |||||
嘩，中國共產黨真恐怖！ | |||||
嘩，中國共產黨真恐怖！ 一首來自德國中學生的中文合唱歌曲 | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
社會民主主義的歷史發展及其來源（2007年修訂版） 有人說社會民主主義(Social Democracy)只是社會主義理論中的其中一個支派。其實這是錯誤的。有學者指出社會民主主義雖然和社會主義有淵源，但它的思想來源可以溯源到十九世紀的英國的憲章主義，比社會主義的代表馬克思主義更早。社會民主主義和社會主義其實是兩個不同的政治理論派別。 在中國大陸，共產黨常常說研究社會主義，要研究馬（馬克思，Marx）、列（列寧，Lenin）、史（史大林，Stalin）、恩（恩格斯，Engels）及毛（毛澤東）五位大師的思想。其實列寧還算是繼承和發展馬克思主義，但史大林和毛澤東就對馬克思主義有所歪曲了。 至於鄧小平主義，則是表面上提高生產力，但實際上只是提高生產量，但並未大幅提高生產的效率和質量。而其維持一黨專政的壟斷地位和極權政治的統治，和市場化的經濟改革不相適應，二十年來，特別是1989年以後，造成了大量的問題，特別是政治體制不改革所造成的問題。 社會民主主義的歷史最早可以溯源到十九世紀的三十年代至四十年代的英國的憲章主義，經過一百六十年的發展才漸趨成熟。1989年德國的社會民主黨發表柏林綱領後，社會民主主義才告定型。其中伯恩斯坦可以說是社會民主主義的奠基人，但他卻只是芸芸社會民主主義的傑出人物中的其中一個。 二十世紀的社會民主主義的發展是向自由主義靠攏，因此現在歐洲所謂的"第三條路"是向社會民主主義及自由主義吸收營養。 英國的首相布萊爾說得很坦白："社會民主主義是徹底的修正主義(Revisionism)。"它是隨著時代的變遷和各地的情形的不同，以及社會的變化而不斷修正。正如資本主義在它的不斷發展中也不斷修正一樣，因此社會民主主義是很有生命力的政治思想。 在西方尚有民主社會主義(Democratic Socialism)一詞，民主社會主義和社會民主主義究竟有何不同？有沒有不同之處？我則不知道了。 要注意社會民主主義和社會主義民主是不同的。社會主義民主是共產黨提倡的民主，它的英語名詞應該是Socialist Democracy。 以下是以簡表的形式，列出社會民主主義的歷史發展： A. 萌芽期 (I) 萌芽期 (1) 十九世紀三十至四十年代的英國的憲章主義(English Chartism in 1830's-1840's) (2) 十九世紀四十年代的法國的路易布朗主義，一稱布朗基主義 (Blanquism, founded by Louis Blanqui) (II) 有了進一步發展 (3) 十九世紀五十至六十年代的法國的蒲魯東主義 (Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph) - not good (4) 十九世紀六十至七十年代的德國(普魯士，Prussia)的拉薩爾主義 (founded by Ferdinand Lasalle) (5) 十九世紀八十年代的英國的可能派及費邊社(費邊主義)(Fabianism) B. 發展期 (1) 十九世紀九十年代的德國的伯恩斯坦主義(Bernsteinism, Eduard Bernstein, 1850-1932)，伯恩斯坦的思想影響了二十世紀上半葉歐洲的社會黨的發展。這是社會民主主義出現第一次飛躍。 (2) 二十世紀初期的三項社會民主主義思潮 (a) 德國的考茨基主義(Kautskyism, Karl Kautsky, 1854-1938) (b) 英國的麥克唐納主義 (MacDonald's Doctrine) (c) 瑞典的漢斯新政 (refer to the new policy of the Prime Minister Per Albin Hasson) C. 成熟期 (1)二十世紀五十年代 (a) 社會主義國際(Socialist International)成立 (b) 1951年的法蘭克福宣言(Frankfurt Declaration) - 社會民主主義的第二次飛躍 (c) 1959年德國社會民主黨(German Social Democratic Party)的哥德斯堡綱領 (Godesburg Program) (2)1989年德國社會民主黨的基本綱領與柏林宣言(1989 Basic Programme and Berlin Declaration of SPD) (3)英國工黨的現代化改革先驅首相托尼．貝理雅(Tony Blair, 1997-2005)與他的顧問安東尼．吉登斯(Anthony Giddens) - 社會民主主義的第三次飛躍 (4)法國社會學家高茲(Andre Gorz)的生態社會主義理論 參考文獻： 1. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Author: Anthony Giddens) 2. Beyond Left and Right (Author: John Blundell, Brian Gosschalk, Publisher: London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1997) 3. 根據秦暉等人的文章而寫成此文 4. 根據文獻顯示，英國的左派比較傾向社會民主(Social Democracy)的名詞，而歐洲的左派則傾向民主社會主義(Democratic Socialism)的名詞。 Louis Auguste Blanqui (February 8, 1805 - January 1, 1881) was a French political activist. The theory of Blanquism is attributed to him. Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov (December 11, 1856 – May 30, 1918; Old Style: November 29, 1856 – May 17, 1918) was a Russian revolutionary and a Marxist theoretician. He was a founder of the Social-Democratic movement in Russia. | |||||
| |||||
我們可以不相信馬克思主義及共產主義，但不代表不要去認識馬克思主義及共產主義。所謂知己知彼，百戰不殆。 | |||||
瑜伽，好！Thanks 我十分推崇的一項運動和 meditation 平靜心靈的健康提升。 建議你放下其他，專心學習瑜伽Yoga，對你一定有很好的幫助！ . | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
基督教煽動黑暴的謊言，打人，破壞，賣國，媚洋的民主自由，不會支持！ 基督教國的亂命草菅人命，謊言，侵略，破壞，霸權，持勢凌人，幼稚的民主自由，不會支持！ 民主自由是和平共存，不是一面倒的暴力！ 一神專制更加冇民主自由，聽從一神教去破壞社會和諧与人人平等的不是自由民主， 只是一種自私的個人>【我】的貪婪，【我】想要這樣，【我】想要那樣，但有冇問過所有的人是否喜歡和同意他們這個【我】的所謂民主自由？ 如果任何一個自稱喜歡民主自由的人，首先要懂得尊重別人的民主，尊重別人的自由。 你喜歡媚洋，媚一神嗎？可以！ 可以去外國媚飽佢，拜飽佢，不要在中國土地上強迫愛中國的人一定要follow你去媚洋賣國，做外奴殖民和做一神教的奴才！ 冇人會阻你們，好行夾唔送！ 分別清楚了嗎？ . |
| « 1 | < | > | 2 » |