Latest news with #DasKapital
Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Love in the time of partisan politics: No, opposites don't attract
Whoever came up with the adage that 'opposites attract' clearly wasn't trying to date in a democracy. It's a theory best confined to magnets, where it's at least literally true. Sorry about the outburst. Perhaps it stems from my spectacular failure to match with someone who has actually read all 1,000 pages of Das Kapital — never mind that I barely made it through the first seven minutes of Karl Marx's ENTIRE Theory Explained in 48 Minutes on YouTube. Or maybe I'm still reeling from this weekend, when my mum insisted during lunch that she set me up with the daughter of someone from her power-walking gang. When I asked, 'Does she follow the news?' she snapped, 'That shouldn't matter.' I nearly let a fish bone take me out, just to end the conversation. The obsession with finding someone who thinks like me isn't about romanticising some grand union of love and politics — at this point, I might even settle for someone who thinks voting is hot. And I'm not disputing the fact that people tend to seek partners with similar political views — that's well documented across numerous studies and surveys; for example, as recently as April, an NBC News poll in the United States found that the partisan divide between Gen Z women (largely pro-Democrat) and Gen Z men (leaning Republican) is the widest of all generations. The real question, then, is: Why, in the pursuit of love, does this factor appear to be non-negotiable today, rather than just a bonus point? The truth is, if there's any life advice worth heeding over 'opposites attract,' it's the far less glamorous, but infinitely more reliable 'Be practical'. After all, socialism, liberalism, conservatism — these aren't just political theories taught in textbooks; they're perspectives (except apoliticism, which is supposedly a lack of interest in politics or political neutrality, but really, it's just what LinkedIn bros call a personality). Politics isn't just how I vote. It's how I interpret my world, and how I make sense of the people I let into it. Having a friend who disagrees with me on secularism in Political Philosophy class is one thing, but spending the rest of my life with someone who doesn't share a basic vision of the country we want our children to grow up in? That's not so simple. Can you imagine the endless squabbling? I'm just trying to eat rice and dal. She's mid-rant: 'You Leftists and your reservations ruined Saxena ji's son's medical dreams!' I chew, nod, and go, 'Yes, because god forbid we ask why 'merit' always looks like Saxena ji's son.' She can't resist: 'One Marxist book and now you think you're Che Guevara?' Even if we somehow managed to follow a strict 'no-politics' rule — no debates, no shouting matches, no Rumble in the Jungle — how comfortable would we really be knowing that our partner, the so-called love of our life, holds diametrically opposite ideas about society, justice, government, and humanity? About how people should be treated by the State? About whose lives matter, and whose don't? How do I look someone in the eye and say 'I love you' with full sincerity, knowing that they genuinely believe in a socialist world, the poor would be handed free iPhones? Can I really love someone who thinks like that? Isn't it more likely for those much-talked-about sparks to fly with someone who, too, has lost sleep over Donald Trump's return to power and teared up during Zohran Mamdani's celebratory speech? I'm not saying the world should be free of Conservatives and Liberals, and I hope they don't wish the same fate on us Leftists. As Hegel argued with his Dialectics, contradiction is essential; without it, there's no movement, no progress. Society needs an ideological back-and-forth to evolve. But in dating or marriage? That kind of contradiction isn't evolutionary, it's exhausting. Love is hard enough without having to argue the basics, like whether billionaires should exist or not (they shouldn't).
&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.
Scotsman
27-06-2025
- General
- Scotsman
Dear Library, thanks for a lifetime of enjoyment with books
I can't wait to pop into the National Library to see their new exhibition, Dear Library, which marks the library's 100th birthday. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Books and libraries have been an important part of my life from when I was a toddler. Today, I am lucky enough to live within a very short walking distance of my local library. The National Library is just down the road and with my library card, I can even go online and read glossy magazines to my heart's content. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Borrowing my fortnightly fix of books was rather more of a challenge growing up in rural south west Scotland, which is why my mother and I were delighted when a mobile library started in our area. She died very recently, peacefully in her bed, surrounded by books and some of my fondest memories of her are the times we spent together choosing books to read. We shared many of the same taste in authors, though she was rather taken aback when, as a rebellious 14-year-old, I came home with a copy of Das Kapital by Karl Marx. 'I think you will find it heavy-going,' she predicted. She was right. I don't remember getting past the first chapter. Catcher in the Rye was more my style. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Little did I dream when I was poring over Jean Plaidy's historical novels or losing myself in F Scott Fitzgerald's magical prose that one day I too would be an author. At the ripe old age of 60, I embarked on a new, (very) part-time career as a writer of non-fiction. My first book, published at the peak of the pandemic, tells the story of Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries. My husband and I spent six months living there in 2019, interviewing scores of people from the then Vice-President to a traditional midwife. The Spirit of Malawi was not a best seller and the book's research cost me far, far more than the modest royalties I received, but it was the proudest day of my life when it was published. And last year, I was privileged to co-edit The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht with my good friend, Lucy Hunter Blackburn. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Working on my kitchen table, we pulled together essays from more than 30 women telling the story of the five-year campaign to protect women's rights. To our huge surprise and delight, the book made the Sunday Times best seller list, and last month Lucy and I were pleased to be able to use proceeds from the book to support a charity working with women who are silenced elsewhere in the world. The Dear Library exhibition features books recommended by the public, as well as by famous authors including Ian Rankin and Val McDermid. Of course, I don't expect to see one of my books on display, not even the bestseller, but I am still very excited at the prospect of seeing which books were chosen. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If I had to pick the one book that changed my life, it would be The Secret Seven, the first in Enid Blyton's famous series about a group of kids who solve mysteries. And the worst book I have ever read? Das Kapital, of course.
Time of India
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Jayant Kripalani and Srijit Mukherji star in Kaushik Sen's theatrical reimagination
Karl Marx landed in Kolkata—not in body, but in a fiery spirit that firmly rejects being called a Marxist—in Marx in Soho , a sharp, thought-provoking adaptation of Howard Zinn's play. Reimagined by Kaushik Sen to reflect the city's evolving political landscape, the production is more than a revival; it's a reawakening of discourse, identity, and dissent. Sen expands the original monologue-based structure into an ensemble piece, introducing new characters and interwoven sociopolitical narratives. The dialogues are punchy, and the cast—energetic, acrobatic, and committed—drives the momentum. At the core is Marx's life with Jenny in Soho, filtered through fractured memories as he contends with the collapse of communism and the rise of capitalism—especially Kolkata's own shifting ideologies. Jayant Kripalani as Karl Marx Veteran thespian Jayant Kripalani plays Marx with weathered elegance and infectious vitality. He holds the audience with warmth, wit, and unflinching presence. Opposite him, filmmaker-actor Srijit Mukherji steps into the role of Lucifer with a goat-mask, a relaxed posture, and a devilish charisma. Post-interval, his presence upends the mood, provoking Marx—and the audience—into deeper introspection. Their crackling interplay mirrors Kolkata's contradictions: its radical history versus its neoliberal now. Performed for just two shows at GD Birla Sabhaghar, the production is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Shyamal Sen—Kaushik Sen's father—a towering figure in both theatre and critical thought. Sen's version of Lucifer, inspired by Goethe's Faust and Marx's Das Kapital , becomes a symbol of ideological tension. To him, this isn't just theatre—it's a provocation. A plea for collective hope. A moment where even Lucifer hesitates.
Business Recorder
22-05-2025
- Science
- Business Recorder
BOOK REVIEW: Breathing new life into Taqi's seminal work
The English translation of The Future of Civilization, originally penned in 1980 by distinguished scholar Syed Mohammad Taqi, is a remarkable literary achievement— masterfully rendered by his granddaughter, Sumera Naqvi. Over the course of three dedicated years, Sumera Naqvi has breathed new life into this profound work, making it accessible to a global audience while preserving the original script's intellectual rigor and poetic depth. Syed Mohammad Taqi himself was a prolific translator, having brought numerous seminal works of philosophy, economics, and science into Urdu. In addition to Das Kapital by Karl Marx, John Dewey's Democracy and Education, Alfred North Whitehead's The Aims of Education, and Sir James Jeans' The Mysterious Universe, he translated several other important works to enrich Urdu literature and academic discourse. His commitment to bridging cultural and linguistic divides is now beautifully reciprocated through Sumera Naqvi's meticulous translation of his own magnum opus. What sets this translation apart is its seamless flow and natural cadence—so much so that readers unfamiliar with the book's history would scarcely realize it is a translation. Sumera Naqvi's command over English, combined with her deep understanding of her grandfather's vision and philosophy, ensures that the text resonates as though originally composed in English. The clarity of expression, the elegance of prose, and the faithful conveyance of complex ideas all testify to her exceptional skill. I am sure that cultural differences played a significant role in shaping the translation process for Sumera Naqvi, presenting both challenges and opportunities as she worked to translate The Future of Civilization from Urdu into English. The original text is deeply embedded in South Asian cultural, religious, and historical contexts, which may be unfamiliar to many English-speaking readers. Sumera Naqvi had to carefully interpret and convey these references in a way that preserved their meaning without alienating readers unfamiliar with the cultural background. This often required adding subtle explanations or choosing equivalent concepts that resonate across cultures. Urdu, with its rich poetic tradition, contains idioms, metaphors, and expressions that do not have direct equivalents in English. She needed to find creative ways to translate these phrases so that the emotional and aesthetic impact remained intact, while ensuring clarity and natural flow in English. The book discusses Islamic civilization, philosophy, and religious symbolism extensively. Translating these ideas demanded sensitivity to avoid misinterpretation or oversimplification, especially since certain concepts carry layered meanings within the original cultural and religious framework. She had to balance fidelity to the source with accessibility for a diverse, potentially secular readership. The tone and rhetorical style of Urdu academic and philosophical writing can differ significantly from English conventions. Sumera Naqvi had to adapt the prose to meet the expectations of English-speaking readers while retaining the author's authoritative and reflective voice, ensuring the text felt both authentic and approachable. One of the key themes of the book is the universality of civilizational dialogue and shared human values. Her translation had to maintain the cultural specificity of the original work while highlighting its universal messages—striking a delicate balance between honouring the unique cultural identity of the source and making the ideas globally relevant. The translation not only preserves the intellectual essence of the original but also captures its emotional and cultural nuances. This delicate balance allows readers to fully engage with Syed Mohammad Taqi's timeless reflections on civilization, culture, and dialogue without the barriers often posed by translated texts. This translation is a testament to both the enduring relevance of Syed Mohammad Taqi's work and the remarkable talent of Sumera Naqvi as a translator. It stands as a bridge between generations, languages, and cultures—inviting a wider audience to partake in a vital conversation about the future of humanity. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
