#in order to give him some experiences as a striker for the sake of future

[gxtzeizm]

all those long awaiting transfer window saga of kane to bayern....ended up that being rejected by spurs like....lmaooooo??

[yngwrthr]

“The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not exclude, of course, either separate agreements, or considerable concessions, especially in connection with the lower middle class and the peasantry. But the proletariat can only conclude these agreements after having gained possession of the apparatus of power, and having guaranteed to itself the possibility of independently deciding on which points to yield and on which to stand firm, in the interests of the general Socialist task.

Kautsky now repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat at the very outset, as the “tyranny of the minority over the majority.” That is, he discerns in the revolutionary regime of the proletariat those very features by which the honest Socialists of all countries invariably describe the dictatorship of the exploiters, albeit masked by the forms of democracy.

Abandoning the idea of a revolutionary dictatorship, Kautsky transforms the question of the conquest of power by the proletariat into a question of the conquest of a majority of votes by the Social-Democratic Party in one of the electoral campaigns of the future. Universal suffrage, according to the legal fiction of parliamentarism, expresses the will of the citizens of all classes in the nation, and, consequently, gives a possibility of attracting a majority to the side of Socialism. While the theoretical possibility has not been realized, the Socialist minority must submit to the bourgeois majority. This fetishism of the parliamentary majority represents a brutal repudiation, not only of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but of Marxism and of the revolution altogether. If, in principle, we are to subordinate Socialist policy to the parliamentary mystery of majority and minority, it follows that, in countries where formal democracy prevails, there is no place at all for the revolutionary struggle. If the majority elected on the basis of universal suffrage in Switzerland pass draconian legislation against strikers, or if the executive elected by the will of a formal majority in Northern America shoots workers, have the Swiss and American workers the “right” of protest by organizing a general strike? Obviously, no. The political strike is a form of extra-parliamentary pressure on the “national will,” as it has expressed itself through universal suffrage. True, Kautsky himself, apparently, is ashamed to go as far as the logic of his new position demands. Bound by some sort of remnant of the past, he is obliged to acknowledge the possibility of correcting universal suffrage by action. Parliamentary elections, at all events in principle, never took the place, in the eyes of the Social-Democrats, of the real class struggle, of its conflicts, repulses, attacks, revolts; they were considered merely as a contributory fact in this struggle, playing a greater part at one period, a smaller at another, and no part at all in the period of dictatorship.

In 1891, that is, not long before his death, Engels, as we just heard, obstinately defended the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only possible form of its control of the State. Kautsky himself more than once repeated this definition. Hence, by the way, we can see what an unworthy forgery is Kautsky’s present attempt to throw back the dictatorship of the proletariat at us as a purely Russian invention.

Who aims at the end cannot reject the means. The struggle must be carried on with such intensity as actually to guarantee the supremacy of the proletariat. If the Socialist revolution requires a dictatorship – ”the sole form in which the proletariat can achieve control of the State” – it follows that the dictatorship must be guaranteed at all cost.

To write a pamphlet about dictatorship one needs an ink-pot and a pile of paper, and possibly, in addition, a certain number of ideas in one’s head. But in order to establish and consolidate the dictatorship, one has to prevent the bourgeoisie from undermining the State power of the proletariat. Kautsky apparently thinks that this can be achieved by tearful pamphlets. But his own experience ought to have shown him that it is not sufficient to have lost all influence with the proletariat, to acquire influence with the bourgeoisie.

It is only possible to safeguard the supremacy of the working class by forcing the bourgeoisie accustomed to rule, to realize that it is too dangerous an undertaking for it to revolt against the dictatorship of the proletariat, to undermine it by conspiracies, sabotage, insurrections, or the calling in of foreign troops. The bourgeoisie, hurled from power, must be forced to obey. In what way? The priests used to terrify the people with future penalties. We have no such resources at our disposal. But even the priests’ hell never stood alone, but was always bracketed with the material fire of the Holy Inquisition, and with the scorpions of the democratic State. Is it possible that Kautsky is leaning to the idea that the bourgeoisie can be held down with the help of the categorical imperative, which in his last writings plays the part of the Holy Ghost? We, on our part, can only promise him our material assistance if he decides to equip a Kantian-humanitarian mission to the realms of Denikin and Kolchak. At all events, there he would have the possibility of convincing himself that the counter-revolutionaries are not naturally devoid of character, and that, thanks to their six years’ existence in the fire and smoke of war, their character has managed to become thoroughly hardened. Every White Guard has long ago acquired the simple truth that it is easier to hang a Communist to the branch of a tree than to convert him with a book of Kautsky’s. These gentlemen have no superstitious fear, either of the principles of democracy or of the flames of hell – the more so because the priests of the church and of official learning act in collusion with them, and pour their combined thunders exclusively on the heads of the Bolsheviks. The Russian White Guards resemble the German and all other White Guards in this respect – that they cannot be convinced or shamed, but only terrorized or crushed.

The man who repudiates terrorism in principle – i.e., repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The man who repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the Socialist revolution, and digs the grave of Socialism.

* * *

At the present time, Kautsky has no theory of the social revolution. Every time he tries to generalize his slanders against the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, he produces merely a réchauffé of the prejudices of Jaurèsism and Bernsteinism.

“The revolution of 1789,” writes Kautsky, “itself put an end to the most important causes which gave it its harsh and violent character, and prepared the way for milder forms of the future revolution.” (Page 140) [Translator’s Note – For convenience sake, the references throughout have been altered to fall in the English translation of Kautsky’s book. Mr. Kerridge’s translation, however, has not been adhered to.] Let us admit this, though to do so we have to forget the June days of 1848 and the horrors of the suppression of the Commune. Let us admit that the great revolution of the eighteenth century, which by measures of merciless terror destroyed the rule of absolutism, of feudalism, and of clericalism, really prepared the way for more peaceful and milder solutions of social problems. But, even if we admit this purely liberal standpoint, even here our accuser will prove to be completely in the wrong; for the Russian Revolution, which culminated in the dictatorship of the proletariat, began with just that work which was done in France at the end of the eighteenth century. Our forefathers, in centuries gone by, did not take the trouble to prepare the democractic way – by means of revolutionary terrorism – for milder manners in our revolution. The ethical mandarin, Kautsky, ought to take these circumstances into account, and accuse our forefathers, not us. Kautsky, however, seems to make a little concession in this direction. “True,” he says, “no man of insight could doubt that a military monarchy like the German, the Austrian, or the Russian could be overthrown only by violent methods. But in this connection there was always less thought” (amongst whom?) “of the bloody use of arms, and more of the working class weapon peculiar to the proletariat – the mass strike. And that a considerable portion of the proletariat, after seizing power, would again – as at the end of the eighteenth century – give vent to its rage and revenge in bloodshed could not be expected. This would have meant a complete negation of all progress.” (Page 147) As we see, the war and a series of revolutions were required to enable us to get a proper view of what was going on in reality in the heads of some of our most learned theoreticians. It turns out that Kautsky did not think that a Romanoff or a Hohenzollern could be put away by means of conversations; but at the same time he seriously imagined that a military monarchy could be overthrown by a general strike – i.e., by a peaceful demonstration of folded arms. In spite of the Russian revolution, and the world discussion of this question, Kautsky, it turns out, retains the anarcho-reformist view of the general strike. We might point out to him that, in the pages of its own journal, the Neue Zeit, it was explained twelve years ago that the general strike is only a mobilization of the proletariat and its setting up against its enemy, the State; but that the strike in itself cannot produce the solution of the problem, because it exhausts the forces of the proletariat sooner than those of its enemies, and this, sooner or later, forces the workers to return to the factories. The general strike acquires a decisive importance only as a preliminary to a conflict between the proletariat and the armed forces of the opposition – i.e., to the open revolutionary rising of the workers. Only by breaking the will of the armies thrown against it can the revolutionary class solve the problem of power – the root problem of every revolution. The general strike produces the mobilization of both sides, and gives the first serious estimate of the powers of resistance of the counterrevolution. But only in the further stages of the struggle, after the transition to the path of armed insurrection, can that bloody price be fixed which the revolutionary class has to pay for power. But that it will have to pay with blood, that, in the struggle for the conquest of power and for its consolidation, the proletariat will have not only to be killed, but also to kill – of this no serious revolutionary ever had any doubt. To announce that the existence of a determined life-and-death struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie “is a complete negation of all progress,” means simply that the heads of some of our most reverend theoreticians take the form of a camera-obscura, in which objects are represented upside down.

But, even when applied to more advanced and cultured countries with established democratic traditions, there is absolutely no proof of the justice of Kautsky’s historical argument. As a matter of fact, the argument itself is not new. Once upon a time the Revisionists gave it a character more based on principle. They strove to prove that the growth of proletarian organizations under democratic conditions guaranteed the gradual and imperceptible – reformist and evolutionary – transition to Socialist society – without general strikes and risings, without the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

[kalachand97-blog]

New Post has been published on Globeinfrom

New Post has been published on https://globeinform.com/gambhir-gaffe-is-sporting-spirit-a-history-now/

Gambhir Gaffe: Is sporting spirit a history now?

Srinagar: “Sports activities have to in no way be mixed with politics,” author George Orwell as soon as wrote in his iconic The wearing Spirit. He wrote the piece on the give up of the England go to by using the Russian soccer group Dynamo that noticed them play four suits against the English sides, maximum of them turning unpleasant with players coming to exchanging blows. In place of enhancing the Anglo-Soviet members of the family, it had a bad impact prompting Orwell to call for Sports to now not be considered as a remember of country wide satisfaction, but to be treated simply as it is.

Orwell’s declaration is in no way determined to be followed by way of carrying countries inside the contemporary instances. Sports activities have come to be extra of a trademark of the kingdom of political members of the family among countries. No faster there may be a diplomatic tiff between the nations, Sports exchanges are the primary casualty.

In struggle-ridden locations, Sports activities are used as a device to score political points, promote as an indicator of peace and what now not.

Sub-continent is a prototype of the way Sports exchanges are depending on political environment among the international locations, with neighbors India and Pakistan its protagonists.

A political imbroglio among the two arch-competitors brings Sports encounters to a standstill. Cricket- famous and most followed recreation in each the nations- receives stalled no faster there’s a tension between the neighbors. Post-2007, there has been no bilateral series between India and Pakistan and the latter’s cricketers are barred from taking part in the cash wealthy Indian most advantageous league.

For any authorities to score brownie factors, cricket encounters are stopped to delight the loads. For years, it’s been restricted to politicians and respective governments to take a choice on Sports exchanges in the days of heightened anxiety among India and Pakistan.

Whilst the governments hold to apply Sports activities as a manifestation of relationship with Pakistan and vice-versa, there’s a risky trend that has set in with cricketers now not shying away from expressing their views on something and the entirety: howsoever improper it may be. most of it is selective outrage lacking context and historic statistics. greater than something else it appears gamers are glad playing to the gallery.

The latest episode that stunned all the sane voices across the divide turned into Indian opener Gautam Gambhir’s latest statement that 100 ‘jihadis’ (examine Kashmiris) have to be killed for each slap on navy jawan. The left hander’s tweet came in reaction to a video in which a protester became hitting a CRPF jawan quickly after ceasing of bye-elections in a Budgam village.

Indian media didn’t waste a 2nd in projecting the authorities forces as sufferers without mentioning the killing of eight Kashmiris on the same day.

Gambhir and his former Indian teammate Virender Sehwag joined the refrain displaying their anger over the incident. Gambhir, now not behooving to a cricketer of his magnificence, got here up with the words that called for a bloodbath of Kashmiris.

“For every slap on my military’s Jawan lay down at least aa hundred jihadi lives. Whoever needs Azadi Depart NOW! Kashmir is ours. #kashmirbelongs2us,” tweeted Gambhir.

In Gambhir’s tumultuous tweet, there may be a prime caution. Sports activities and sportspersons alike are no longer bereft of giving an opinion on non-wearing subjects. Sehwag trolling Gurmehar Kaur-daughter of an ex-soldier- over her comment that ‘Pakistan didn’t kill her father, however warfare did’ become every other example of a sportsperson crossing the bounds of decency to delight most of the people.

in the apparel of nationalism and patriotism, the likes of Gambhir and Sehwag have buried the sporting spirit below the avalanche of their phrases that promote hatred and hegemony.

For a real Sports nerd the ultra-modern fashion is worrisome. Gambhir and Sehwag lecturing on political topics while not having a experience of different facet of the tale could set in an example for budding cricketers. The ones looking to emulate their cricketing performances will definitely be laid low with all. It would be tough to disclaim that during this day and age of net and social media, something these cricketers having a relating their followers. They follow them in letter and spirit: performances, mannerism and greater importantly mentality (picking their brains).

One might desire commonplace feel prevails and the tribe of Gambhir and Sehwag doesn’t get bigger and sportspersons protect the carrying spirit which seems a history in current instances.

An Unforgettable Day When the carrying Spirit Triumphed in Cricket Can we see anything noble occur inside the Sports & video games of these days? something that touches the coronary heart and remains with us, inspiring us to do similarly, While we will? I assume no. Lengthy, Lengthy ago, in the historical beyond, lie instances When Sports activities & video games have been played truly for the sake of the game itself. For pleasure. For the mental & physical exercise it offers. For honor. For a legitimate area in history. And as a token of those, an insignificant laurel wreath to hold because the prize. The prize intended a whole lot but had no cloth price! today, the Sports activities&video games arena is a miles cry from all that – gamers and athletes have became slick, viciously greedy and corrupt. Handiest winning counts, not often how. Prizes are terrific sums in cash or type that players like to stash away for a future of opulent residing; mere wreaths not suffice. One of the brilliant ‘talents’ of several pinnacle Sports-human beings nowadays appears to be the potential to inform lies coolly, without batting an eyelid even slightly. So much in order that one has come to view recreation file-breakers and Guinness Ebook entrants dubiously until all assessments have validated their achievements smooth. The situation has became extremely excessive-tech, mechanical and unpleasant – with numerous corrupt gamers doing their bit on the interior and rotten match fixers, making a bet men and dope peddlers on the out of doors.

So what is left for something noble at the Sports field? Something has took place to the famed and well-loved ‘sportsmanlike spirit’? That nature of large-hearted provide and take between Sports activities-humans that kept a game as a recreation, and by no means an unpleasant, bloodless battle? One to be won at any value, whether by hook or by means of crook?

I comply with cricket, the most famous world game outdoor the united states. Over the years, it too has lost its glamor and seen as a recreation of field and person. today, it’s miles One of the video games maximum rocked by scandals and corruption than any other within the international! Although outwardly performing to be so, today’s cricket isn’t controlled by using pure cricket enthusiasts alone. Big ‘control’ is exercised by a network of very quite positioned and influential people, from behind the scenes. Participants of this network ‘purchase out’ some cricketers by means of imparting to praise them with Something they ask for – astronomical sums of cash, intercourse, capsules, personal development inside the participant’s profession and so on. as soon as ‘sold’, these players change into mere stooges for their purchasers and may be made to carry out poorly or to perform nicely on the field in line with their consumer’s choices. So the outcome of a selected cricket healthy receives ‘fixed’ in advance. betting men and gamblers get concerned at this stage. Primarily based on ‘suggestions’ approximately fixed video games obtained from the patrons they do business with, they optimistically vicinity bets favoring the anticipated result. And needless to mention, they may be pretty successful almost all the time!

honestly, I used to be one of those that had been deeply troubled and distressed when I observed the rapid decline of the sport. It really is Whilst, the incident I’m approximately to narrate, befell, pretty all of the sudden. I did now not watch it live nor did I come to recognize of it except after many years of it’s taking place. but ever seeing that I did examine approximately it, it has left a long-lasting and beautiful influence on my thoughts. it is beauty hasn’t diminished with time and that i agree with it’ll remain evergreen in my memory. it is that second Whilst West Indian cricketer and captain, Courtney Walsh, regaled the arena with the aid of a first-rate sportsmanlike gesture inside the global Cup Cricket match of 1987.

West Indies have been gambling in opposition to Pakistan. The triumphing group would enter the semi-finals. Pakistan who have been batting second, as usual, have been in warm pursuit of victory, replying to a modest overall published via the West Indies in advance. Notwithstanding dropping wickets frequently, they were handling to attain at the specified run-fee. Sooner or later, Whilst it turned into time for the very last ball of the healthy to be bowled, they had been simply one run in the back of the West Indies! Two runs from the closing ball to win and one to attract stage!! any other end result might suggest defeat. One wicket in hand. Consider the anxiety within the minds of the players on the sphere. Specially of the Pakistanis who’ve recognized to be emotionally risky and vulnerable to violent and unsightly outbreaks of temper While losing. Walsh became the bowler of the remaining ball and facing him turned into Abdul Qadir. Saleem Jaffer, was on the non-striker’s give up. Walsh came in to bowl, but earlier than he released the ball, a fearful Jaffer had already streaked out of his crease in anticipation of his companions’ walking to his end after hitting the ball. Walsh observed that he was out of his crease and could have without difficulty stumped and got him out! but he didn’t. As although pronouncing jovially to Jaffer ‘Boy! Isn’t always that too much of a blunder to dedicate? but do not worry, I won’t tell absolutely everyone about it! I’m just going to hold it to myself’ he stopped and became back, sparing Jaffer that once. With Jaffer again at his crease, he came returned and bowled the remaining ball. Qadir hit it tough sufficient for the batting pair to cross the pitch twice – for two runs. And Pakistan won! (For individuals who would love to look at the movement, right here’s the YouTube video to view –> Courtney Walsh’s wearing act, 1987!. You may discover the above right on the cease of this 38-minute video. Role: 36/38 mins, approximately.)