Latest news with #Communism
NDTV
8 hours ago
- Entertainment
- NDTV
Viral Labubu Doll Spotted At Karl Marx's Grave, Internet Erupts
Karl Marx wrote volumes warning the world about capitalism's ability to commodify everything: thought, art, labour, even identity. What the 'Father of Communism' likely never imagined was that one day, he himself would become part of the spectacle. This week, visitors to London's Highgate Cemetery spotted a Labubu plush toy placed on Marx's grave. Mass-produced, obsessively collected, and heavily marketed, Labubu is a product that represents late-stage consumerism. The 19th-century thinker who dreamed of a world without private property or profit now shared his grave with a wide-eyed doll, made by the same system he tried to fight all his life. — ladidai (@ladidaix) ???? see linkinbyeo (@ladidaix) July 22, 2025 The internet had a field day. A user on X exclaimed, "is that a f***ing labubu?" is that a fucking labubu — siggi ✡︎? (@SignsOfSiggi) July 22, 2025 "Who put a labubu there," a comment read. Who put a labubu there ???? — eri ♡ (@MeLlamoEri) July 22, 2025 A comment read, "Labubu could be one of the most anti-Marx things." Labubu could be one of the most anti-Marx things — Eleventeen Onety 1th (@11teen_onety1th) July 22, 2025 Someone wrote, "the concept of knowing there is currently a Labubu on Karl Marx's grave." the concept of knowing there is currently a labubu on karl marx's grave — helen (@helen) July 22, 2025 "Icon of modern consumerism on his grave he would have hated you," a user wrote. Icon of modern consumerism on his grave he would have hated you mfs — ray! (@stinkytotoro) July 22, 2025 Labubu is part of the Pop Mart universe, a collection of vinyl figures sold in blind boxes, where customers don't know what variant they will receive until they open it. Designed to manufacture desire through artificial scarcity, the toys have become status symbols in the world of Gen Z consumerism. Limited editions resell for hundreds, even thousands of dollars. The Labubu wasn't the only offering on Marx's grave. Alongside it were flowers, handwritten letters, and other tributes. One letter stood out. Written by a Chinese university student named Liu Yuhae, it showed deep gratitude for Karl Marx's work and its influence on contemporary socialist theory in China. "I have always wanted to write you a letter," Ms Yuhae began. "But when it came to actually writing, I found myself at a loss for words because there was so much I wanted to say." Ms Yuhae detailed her efforts to study Marx's works, from 'The Communist Manifesto' to 'The Critique of the Gotha Programme', expressing both awe and humility. "My study of both the principles and the original works of your theories is very limited and superficial... I hope that as my understanding continues to develop and deepen, I can get closer to you," she wrote. "I hope that at the end of my life, I will receive an invitation from you. It has always been my bong-cherished wish to cook potatoes for you everyday in the after life. I already look like a potato now," Ms Yuhae wrote. "In today's society, I still can't avoid being obsequious and senile. I hope that by the time we pass away our society will enable everyone to get rid of such flaws." She ended the letter saying, "There are so many things to say that I can't possibly express them all. So I'll stop here. If I can meet you in my dreams, I will talk to you in more detail. I believe that you can see me. I won't bother you any more. That's all for now."
News18
5 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Karna: The Evil Counsel Of A Jealous Master
Karna's disgraceful conduct on countless occasions is the earliest and perhaps the perfect case study in the theory and practice of Communism From his teenage years, Duryodhana had cultivated a Duṣṭa-traya — a Diabolical Triad comprising Śakuni, Duśyāsana, and Karna, which assisted his self-scripted drama of evil that ultimately ruined him and the Kaurava kingdom and the nation. This is akin to the sinister cabal surrounding Indira Gandhi whose depraved counsel wrecked India and culminated in her assassination and the genocide of Sikhs — all horrors of her own making. The parallel doesn't stop here. Karna's loyalty was a personal loyalty exclusively reserved for Duryodhana. For him, Duryodhana was Hastinapura, just as DK Barooah had infamously declared that India was Indira. The iconic Kannada litterateur, journalist and philosopher, DV Gundappa fleshes out Karna's innate character and the nature of his relationship with Duryodhana: 'When Karna was mocked and humiliated for being the son of a Sūta (charioteer in this case; in general, low birth), he was unable to find a convincing counter to it and had to swallow the indignity." Indignity bred inferiority within Karna, which in turn spawned a lifelong resentment against the whole world, in a manner of speaking. Duryodhana became the perfect vehicle to channelise this misguided bitterness. Unqualified servility to Duryodhana was an agreeable cost to pay for his unceasing war against the world. Karna's disgraceful conduct on countless occasions is the earliest and perhaps the perfect case study in the theory and practice of Communism. In its ideological scheme of things, you are not a true Communist if you don't first loathe yourself, and then loathe yourself for life. By extension, a self-loather is also a perpetual blame-hunter. Thus, if I am poor, neglected, disrespected and despised, it is always someone else's fault — that someone else is the invisible but the real entity called society. Every notable Communist ideologue from Karl Marx to today's Woke champions has invariably projected their personal pathologies as injuries done to them by society. In this context, one can recall Dr SL Bhyrappa's memorable reply when he was asked why he did not become a Communist, given his painful childhood and his struggling student life: 'The same society that treated me unkindly in those early days also gave me opportunities to study and become something. The same society continues to respect me as a writer. I should be grateful and not wage war against it." This is an obvious and rather straightforward truth that anyone can realise if they set aside their ego and self-pity and look inward. Thus, Karna's ego operated as a self-induced shame for being labelled as a Sūta. It blinded him to the existence of another stalwart, Vidura — one of the most profound characters in the Mahabharata. Vidura too, hailed from Karna's social strata and he held a place of great dignity in the court of Hastinapura. Two early episodes in the epic reveal how Karna, like Karl Marx, recasts his personal pathology as a war against the world. In the Vidurāgamana-Parva of the Adi-Parva, this is what Karna says about women in general but his real target is Draupadi: 'women think that it is desirable to possess more than one husband. Draupadi has attained that." In the same Parva, we notice Karna admitting that the Pandavas are intrinsically Dharmic and that Duryodhana cannot defeat them on the plane of Dharma. He gives a line by line rebuttal to Duryodhana's strategies to wreck the Pandava unity. In this portion of the Parva, Duryodhana operates from pure jealousy while Karna operates at a fouler level: he knows that the Pandavas are innately virtuous, yet he wants to deliberately injure them. For two basic reasons: One, to please Duryodhana, and two, to extract his personal vengeance against Draupadi. His sickening advice to Duryodhana is breathtaking for its sheer evil: 'Duryodhana! O Lord of the Earth! It is impossible to win against the Pandavas through Sāma, dāna, and bhēda. Victory is possible only through valour (Vikrama)." Here, Karna gives the honourable trait of valour to justify the launch of an unprovoked, Adharmic war to fulfil his itch for spite. We invoke Gundappa once again: '… Karna was bereft of the ability to distinguish between Dharma and Adharma in his loyalty towards his benefactor. Karna never felt the need to tell Duryodhana: 'this is good for you, this isn't." Indeed, more than anybody, Karna unerringly knew that wicked counsel would please his master. To be continued… (The author is the founder and chief editor, 'The Dharma Dispatch'. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views) view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Metro
6 days ago
- Politics
- Metro
Ragtag Zohran Mamdani protest likened to Netflix comedy sketch
A protest against New York City's controversial possible next mayor, Zohran Mamdani, got so bizarre it's been compared to a Netflix comedy sketch. Several dozen demonstrators waving USA, Israel and LGBTQ flags and Trump banners gathered on the steps of City Hall in Manhattan and chanted 'No Mamdani' on Tuesday. They sang the national anthem, some with their right hand over their heart, with total passion and opposition to Mamdani, who nabbed a decisive victory in the Democratic primary over former Governor Andrew Cuomo. The protesters shouted, 'We will not comply with Sharia law', referring to Islamic principles that govern life for Muslims. Mamdani, 33, a Democratic socialist and state assembly member, has been labeled a socialist and communist by conservatives and even been threatened by Republican President Donald Trump. NYC: Anti-Zohran Mamdani protesters sing National anthem outside of the City Hall. Group gathered to protest against Mamdani under flier 'No to Communism' at NYC City HallProtesters gathered on the steps of City Hall in Manhattan chanting "No Sharia Law" and "No Mamdani" in… — Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) July 14, 2025 Wake up to find news on your TV shows in your inbox every morning with Metro's TV Newsletter. Sign up to our newsletter and then select your show in the link we'll send you so we can get TV news tailored to you. One rally leader wearing a dark MAGA hat announced that Mamdani and his father 'are both anti-Semites, Communists who really hate America'. 'Like father like son, they pose a significant danger to the safety of New York City and America,' said the man in a speech shared on social media by an X user. 'I ask President Donald J Trump to revoke the citizenship of Zohran Mamdani and his father Mahmood Mamdani and have them removed from America as soon as possible.' 'Yeah!' reacted the crowd, which included Gays for Trump and came together under the banner, 'New Yorkers Say No to Communism'. One baffled Instagram user asked: 'Is this real? It genuinely feels like some sort of Tim Robinson sketch.' 'Paid actors, it's a psyop and they're not really that good at it either…' another user wrote. More Trending Another remarked: ''G*ys 4 Trump' has to be the funniest yet saddest oxymoron I've heard so far in my almost 30 years.' Zohran was born in Uganda and is a Shia Muslim who moved to the US at age 7 and became a naturalized American citizen in 2018. Trump has threatened to arrest Zohran and strip him of his citizenship if he blocks immigration raids in the city. On Wednesday, Zohran was praised by House Democrats after he attended a closed-door breakfast event hosted by firebrand socialist Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Washington, DC. Zohran remains the frontrunner, despite Cuomo relaunching his campaign for mayor. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Stranger Things season 5 releases first trailer and fans are already 'horrified' MORE: I tried an 'espresso lemonade' — can it match the beloved iced latte? MORE: TV newsreader jumps from seat after Israel missile strike blows up building behind her
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Marx unmasked: How Karl Marx's personal failings shaped a brutal, violent ideology
Understanding communism requires looking squarely at Marx himself. In him, we find the violent, exploitative, self-centred tendencies that would, under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, erupt into horrors on a global scale read more Advertisement Marx wasn't the philosopher-saint he has been made out to be. Representational image: REUTERS An ideology often mirrors its chief architect. Communism is a prime example. While many try to lay its atrocities at Joseph Stalin's feet, the seeds of violence, exploitation, and ruthlessness lie deep in the character of Karl Marx himself. Marx is often venerated as one of the greatest thinkers of modern times, the author of Das Kapital and co-author of The Communist Manifesto, whose ideas shaped the destinies of nations and ignited revolutions. Yet underneath this carefully curated myth lies the brutal reality of Marx—a life marked by personal violence, manipulative opportunism, moral inconsistency, reckless financial irresponsibility, and a shocking disregard for the welfare of even those closest to him. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A Taste for Violence and Domination Marx's private letters and political tactics reveal not just a theoretical acceptance of violence, but a genuine appetite for it. His wife Jenny pleaded early on: 'Please do not write with so much rancour and irritation.' It was a lifelong pattern. If author Paul Johnson is to be believed, Marx's editorial meetings were so loud with shouting they had to shut the windows to avoid alarming passersby. Johnson writes in Intellectuals, '…the rows were perpetual except in Brussels. In Paris his editorial meetings in the Rue des Moulins had to be held behind closed windows so that people outside could not hear the endless shouting.' Marx's quarrels were not random; they were often deliberate instruments of domination. From his days as a young radical, he sought to browbeat anyone who disagreed with him, starting with German philosopher Bruno Bauer and extending through nearly every political associate. The brother of Bauer once mocked Marx's volcanic rages in verse: 'Dark fellow from Trier in fury raging, / His evil fist is clenched, he roars interminably, / As though ten thousand devils had him by the hair.' More troubling still, Marx's political strategy consistently embraced violence and terror. In 1850, he distributed a 'Plan of Action' in Germany explicitly endorsing mob violence and 'popular vengeance against hated individuals or public buildings', urging revolutionaries not merely to condone but to lend such acts 'a helping hand'. Marx could even approve of assassination if it served the cause. When a failed attempt was made on Kaiser Wilhelm I's life in 1878, his fury was directed not at the crime but at the incompetence of the would-be assassin, heaping curses on the man for failing to carry out the deed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A Deeply Amoral Man Though Marx cloaked himself in moral earnestness, he dismissed morality itself as 'unscientific' and an obstacle to revolution. Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin insightfully remarked that Marx's zeal for the proletariat was tainted by personal vanity, observing, 'Marx does not believe in God, but he believes much in himself… His heart is not full of love but of bitterness.' This bitterness often played out through exploitation. It began early. His dying father lamented in 1838 that Marx, only four months into his law course, had already spent more than his father had earned all winter: 'You are now in the fourth month of your law course, and you have already spent 280 thalers.' Marx did not even attend his father's funeral. Instead, he turned his sights on his mother, pressuring her for more funds, justifying it on the grounds that the family was 'quite rich' and owed it to him to sustain his 'important work'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He neither pursued regular employment nor made any serious attempt to support his family. From the mid-1840s until Marx's death, Engels shouldered most of his financial burden. Yet when Engels' beloved companion Mary Burns died in 1863, Marx responded with a letter that offered the briefest acknowledgement of Engels' grief before briskly moving on to his real concern: requesting more money. If Marx's exploitation of Engels is legendary, equally telling is the way he treated his wife and daughters. The life of his wife was full of misery, largely the result of Marx's own making. 'Every day,' Marx himself conceded, 'my wife tells me she wishes she were lying in her grave.' Ironically, Marx, for all his egalitarian claims, took pride in his wife's aristocratic lineage. Johnson writes, 'Marx was proud of his wife's noble Scottish descent (he exaggerated it) and her position as the daughter of a baron and senior official in the Prussian government. Printed invitations to a ball which he issued in London in the 1860s refer to her as 'née von Westphalen'.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His treatment of his three daughters further underscores his hypocrisy. For all his radicalism, Marx denied them meaningful education and forbade them from pursuing careers. Instead, they were kept at home to play piano and paint watercolours—like any bourgeois daughters—ensuring they were unprepared to make independent lives. He even disapproved of their life partners, referring to one of them disparagingly as 'Negrillo' and 'The Gorilla' simply because he had some African ancestry. Squalor and Endless Debt Despite Engels' generous subsidies and both his own and his wife's family fortunes, Marx lived a life of poverty. His annual income never fell below £200—a more than decent sum at that time—yet his family's silverware, clothes, and even furniture frequently ended up in pawnshops. At one point, Marx was so impoverished he had only one pair of trousers and could alone leave the house. A Prussian police spy in 1850 reported in detail the Marx household's squalor: 'There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture. Everything is broken, tattered, and torn, with half an inch of dust over everything and the greatest disorder everywhere.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The report described the living room table piled with manuscripts, children's toys, dirty cups, pipes, tobacco, and rags. 'When you enter Marx's room smoke and tobacco fumes make your eyes water… Everything is dirty and covered with dust, so that to sit down becomes a hazardous business.' It was a scene of almost grotesque Bohemian decay. Johnson believes Marx's 'angry egoism' had physical as well as psychological roots. 'He led a peculiarly unhealthy life, took very little exercise, ate highly spiced food, often in large quantities, smoked heavily, [and] drank a lot, especially strong ale, and as a result had constant trouble with his liver. He rarely took baths or washed much at all. This, plus his unsuitable diet, may explain the veritable plague of boils from which he suffered for a quarter of a century. They increased his natural irritability and seem to have been at their worst while he was writing Capital.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It was at that time he bitterly joked to Engels, 'Whatever happens, I hope the bourgeoisie, as long as they exist, will have cause to remember my carbuncles.' Conclusion Marx's personal life, thus, was a microcosm of the ideology he birthed: violent rhetoric, personal manipulation, moral inconsistency, and relentless exploitation. He drained family and friends, lived in squalor while railing against bourgeois hypocrisy, and kept his own daughters under the very constraints he claimed to despise. Understanding communism requires looking squarely at Marx himself. In him, we find the violent, exploitative, self-centred tendencies that would, under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, erupt into horrors on a global scale. The real Marx wasn't the philosopher-saint he has been made out to be. He was everything but saintly and philosophical. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Zohran Mamdani says he's a socialist; Trump calls him a ‘communist lunatic' – What's the difference?
Zohran Kwame Mamdani seems to be sticking to the news – for all the relevant reasons. However, at this point, the 33-year-old member of the New York State Assembly and the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor is under the microscope – because the US President doesn't seem to get over his win in the Primary Election and move on from his milestone victory. And this 'obsession' has ignited an intense debate. Mamdani proudly identifies as a democratic socialist. He supports and advocates for policies like rent freezes, fare-free buses, publicly owned grocery stores, universal childcare, and higher taxes on the wealthy – key pointers of the idea of social democracy. But Donald Trump doesn't seem to agree with Mamdani's self-proclamation – at all. Rather, the US President has repeatedly slammed Mamdani as a '100% Communist Lunatic,' calling him a 'pure communist' and threatening to withhold federal funding or even deploy the federal government if Mamdani is elected. This stark contrast raises a critical question: What's the real difference between socialism and communism, and what's at stake in this high-stakes rhetorical battle over New York's next mayor? Moreover, these clashing narratives – between democratic socialism and alleged communism – raise some more vital questions: What exactly distinguishes the two ideologies? And why is Trump labeling Mamdani a communist when his policies are arguably far more moderate? Let's unpack. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Understanding Democratic Socialism Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that combines democratic governance with a commitment to social ownership or regulation of key sectors. In Mamdani's case, his focus is on expanding public services and reducing inequality, not dismantling the private economy. Key components include: Democratic governance: Preserving elections, multi-party systems, and political freedoms. Targeted public ownership or subsidization: Rent regulation, municipal grocery stores, public transit, childcare. Mixed economy: Encouraging private enterprise alongside robust public investment. Progressive taxation: Increasing revenue from corporations and millionaires to fund social programs. Mamdani sees democratic socialism as a path toward 'redistributed wealth and power…where necessities of life are rights.' His alignment with figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez places him squarely in the tradition of modern US democratic socialism, which emphasizes incremental reforms through democratic institutions. What is Communism, and why Mamdani isn't it Communism, as historically practiced in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and other one-party states, involves: Abolition of private property and transfer of all means of production to the state. Centralized, planned economy with no role for markets. Authoritarian, single-party rule, often repressing dissent. Mamdani is conspicuously not advocating any of these. To put it in a list, he does not support : Seizing private businesses or banning markets. Imposing a single-party regime or abolishing elections. Forcing price controls beyond regulated rents or pilot grocery stores. Anna Grzymala-Busse, Stanford University professor of international studies, wrote in an email to PolitiFact, as reported by Al Jazeera: 'Communism involves a centrally planned economy, with no market forces. Prices and quantities are set by a central government authority. There is no democratic political competition, and instead a single party rules the country,' clarifying that, Mamdani, 'is not calling for any of this. ' Democratic socialists explicitly reject authoritarianism and nationalization of the entire industry – components at the heart of classic communism. What's Mamdani's actual agenda in NYC Mamdani's policy platform prioritizes affordability and equity: Rent freezes and expanded rent stability, combating displacement. Fare-free public transit, echoing successful models like Kansas municipal buses. City-owned grocery pilots, to ensure fair access, intended to supplement, not replace, private grocery chains. Universal childcare, with state-funded support and family "baby baskets." Higher taxes on millionaires and corporations to support public programs. Progressive police reform, focusing on community policing and social services. These policy goals fall squarely within the tradition of European social democracy, and none of these proposals involves overturning fundamental capitalist structures or erasing private property – hallmarks of communism. Trump's Rhetoric: Scare tactics vs. substance Trump's attacks on Mamdani have been both forceful and persistent. He has labeled Mamdani a 'communist,' 'pure communist,' 'communist nutjob,' and '100% communist lunatic' across various platforms. Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds or stage federal takeovers if Mamdani pursues progressive policies. He has even suggested that Mamdani could face arrest, deportation, or have his citizenship stripped, despite being a naturalized citizen since 2018. These attacks reflect classic 'red-baiting,' which leverages fear of 'communism' to undermine dissenting views and portray them as extreme or authoritarian. In this way, Trump's approach is both inaccurate and misleading, yet strategic: it stirs fear, diverts attention from substantive policy discussions, and rallies conservative voters. The broader implications This conflict is about more than just labels; it reveals deeper dynamics in politics: Public confusion: Citizens may misinterpret real policy intentions, fearing authoritarian control instead of seeing efforts for increased services. Fear of socialism: Conservatives often equate democratic socialism with historical communism to incite alarm. This fear-mongering can enable political opponents to block policy reforms by branding them as 'communist.' Political signaling and polarization: Trump's rhetoric resonates with voters who are uneasy about so-called 'radical left' ideas. Labeling Mamdani as a communist may deepen societal divisions and distract from pressing issues such as housing and transit affordability. Democratic legitimacy: Attacking Mamdani's citizenship and threatening federal funds raises concerns among Democrats about undermining local self-governance. For NYC voters, Mamdani's campaign emphasizes trust in public provision for basic needs, while Trump's response exacerbates polarization and raises constitutional concerns regarding federal overreach. Clarity over confusion Understanding the substantive differences between these ideologies is crucial because: Voters deserve accurate information to evaluate policies based on their merits rather than on mischaracterizations. Democratic socialism seeks to reform rather than replace capitalism, advocating for public programs alongside private enterprise. Communism aims to completely overthrow capitalism, representing a radical and historically authoritarian transformation. Political discourse benefits from precise terminology, which ensures accountability and fosters constructive debate. Labeling Mamdani as a communist dilutes the meaning of both ideologies and fuels reactionary political strategies, for accurate ideological framing helps preserve a healthy democratic process. To sum it up… At its heart, this debate is illustrative of a larger battle over public understanding, democratic resilience, and ideological framing in American politics. Zohran Mamdani 's identification as a democratic socialist – championing expanded public services, affordability, and progressive taxation – differs sharply from communism, which entails total state control, abolishment of markets, and one-party rule. Trump's description of Mamdani as a 'communist lunatic' reflects a longstanding strategy of political hyperbole and fearmongering, not an accurate ideological assessment. Understanding these distinctions allows voters to engage critically with both policy substance and political rhetoric, while ensuring that democracy remains informed, not inflamed. 'Lunatic, Terrible-Looking': Trump Attacks NYC Muslim Mayor Hopeful Zohran Mamdani | Watch
