Communism ....Socialism .......Capitalism.....Totalitarianism

Communism ....Socialism .......Capitalism.....Totalitarianism
Do you think I have written the words randomly or there is something in the sequence of writing? From the very beginning when I actually started reading articles and novels (January, 2009) I was confused about these terms (frankly speaking almost all the words ending with -isms), their usage, meaning and the context. At some places they presented themselves to be similar and at some places different. When I came across the baffling words formed on the basis of person or time I got screwed.
Words like Stalinism, Nazism, Feudalism, Marxism, Leninism etc. Have meanings depending on thoughts and working strategies of individuals like Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Hitler and conditions prevailing at that time like Feud system in 8th century in Europe.
However words like Communism, Socialism, Capitalism and Totalitarianism were given by people at the time they were being followed or implemented in a region they became so effective and so widely used that they are still used widely. 
Totalitarianism, the word came into existence in 1920s when in Italy a practice called Fascism was being followed by Mussolini. Here the ideology of the state has influence if not power over all its citizens as well as resources. The head of the state is the head of every aspect be it social, economic, cultural or political. And the head of the state is a charismatic leader like Mussolini, Stalin or Hitler. It can never be compared with dictatorship or monarchy. In monarchy we have one ruler where in the worst condition, when some power goes to a few snobbish people the exploitation of the oppressed part of the society begins like we saw in India in 19th century and before.
Crisis and competition is the mother of almost everything we have today in our hands, so is the Capitalism. It has nothing to do with politics or ruling regime, it is an economic and social jewel which adorned the world in 14th century, a period of crisis. The clash between the landowners and producers accompanied with famines and droughts led to the development of Mercantilism which had less to do with production ,resources, land and more to deal with transportation. This killed the landlords and they then to survive and retain their control started a system which we named later as “Capitalism “. Then or now it is the best system ever evolved if we consider economics and development of a nation in terms of wealth. High efficiency, free trade, abolition of subsidies, low inflation and customer control of prices as a result of healthy competition are some of the good aspects of it.
But as yin yang is unquestionably exists everywhere. Capitalism has some yin which with time got amplified in such a manner that it gave birth to greatest evils ever for the society like slavery, oligarchy, imperialism, social inequality and highly partial distribution of wealth and hence power. It actually eclipsed the earth with time in an insidious manner. Bigger capitalists (countries) took over smaller ones with some agreements which at the time of talks never seemed perfidious.
Then there came activists like Marx, Engels and Lenin who came up with a concept called communism. However this is not against or opposite to Capitalism it is assumed so by many people because it came into existence only to abrogate the evils of capitalism. As it is said “if modification seems to be arduous erase the existing and start from the scratch” communism advocated something like that. Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization.  
Definitions, similarities and differences between socialism and communism are always confusing not because they have never been defined or researched but because different societies have tried different types of both concepts in myriad forms. To have proper knowledge we still have options like taking the words of the great people who gave birth to these or to follow what majority speaks. 
I am going to put some of the best ones I got from Wikipedia, wisegeek and many others. 
Socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism; it is a transitional period that has features of both the society of yesterday (capitalism) and tomorrow (communism) because it will inherit the world capitalism has left it. Socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.
The other difference is DEEDS Vs NEEDS
Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS." Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. However, socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.
As Communists people advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism and I see communism as the ultimate aim of everyone’s existence in this world. Once people realize that hurting others or system in turn will hurt themselves the world becomes communist totally. Great men advocate socialism as much as they can, not to avoid communism, it's not that we've given up on building a house; we just realize there is a need for a sturdy foundation first. 

Now I think you can say why have I written the first line in that sequence? The words like Stalinism, Marxism, Nazism, Leninism, Fascism, Syndicalism, Liberalism and many others are still topics of debate because of the lack of evidences and some confusing authors. Well will come up with these as soon as possible........

Happy Reading 

PHILOSOPHY.....MY LOVE.....
Two unbelievable ways of looking at human life struck my mind yesterday.....
How life would have been if human being had a lifespan of 20-30 years rather than what we have now ... right from the ancient civilizations to modern era ..... the scenario would have been completely like chalk n cheese ................
If science says (with proper proofs) world will vanish in 1 month ,how would world react ? what everyone (think about urself too) will run for??

Things or questions like this which cannot be answered comes under a branch called philosophy and philosophy is the place where we answer questions unanswered by logics or science...once a question is answered it no more remains in philosophy. So what the hell philosophy is ???
Hehe philosophy is a chatroom where ppl discuss questions and answers and those Q and A remains in philosophy until it gets answered wid proper logic and proofs or by some great person (may be wrong)
one best example i came across recently is heliocentric Vs geocentric concepts of universe. Geocentric concept was given by Ptolemy and Aristotle which says earth to b the centre of the universe, but when astronomers like Galileo proved sun to b the centre , the heliocentric concept replaced geocentric concept. Heliocentric was proved to b right but geocentric was never proved to b wrong and still is a matter of debate so subject wise speaking the geocentric remained in philosophy as it is debatable and heliocentric moved to science.
 So philosophy is a kind of connecting tunnel between illogical theories with concepts just to satisfy man’s queries and logical theories with concepts to satisfy the theories itself .Anything we know today as science or logic has always been evolved from philosophy either to contradict or to support the philosophical texts.
Many scientist used the questions raised by philosophy and did extensive research to answer them scientifically not only by arguments...thus philosophy in a way is a reservoir to get research areas.

Many Questions raised by Metaphysics (cosmology) like, What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary? What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? Are still unanswered and are fields of research.
What is the measuring unit of beauty or art??do we say Aish is 9B ,Bips is 7B ,Tajmahal is 100B ........
What is the measuring unit of enjoyment??do we say i enjoyed his party 10E and her only 7E..... 
NO !!!!!
Philosophy has got a great solution for these under its branch called “AESTHETICS” here it explains this using the term relativism which says there is nothing called absolute in this world , everything is relative and the beauty of the concept is such that it proves judgement also to be relative (we hang sm1 only if he has murder charges, we sentence rapist for 10 years and a thief for 1 year only because we consider rape relatively harsh ).
The very famous Chinese symbol of yin-yang adheres to the concept of dualism and is well contradicted by the concept of materialism and the strangest thing is that both the contradictory theories are the branches of same branch of philosophy called “philosophy of mind” .Two contrary bodies in the same room ....fighting....hey philosophy itself is all about fighting .....(chatroom )
Dualism says everything can be divided into two parts good –bad ,body-mind etc. and they always live together and can never have its identity alone .materialism says matter is the only reality there is only body and things like mind , ethics , spirituality does not exist in reality.
I know all about the heliocentric concept but I don’t believe sun to b the centre.
I don’t know about the heliocentric concept but I believe sun to b the centre.
the first statement seems to be funny or wrong but the second one seems to b a possible thing.This difference between the truth , belief and justification is discussed in “EPISTEMOLOGY” also called “knowing the knowledge”
The other branches are also great and quite interesting like “LOGIC”(haha wondering ,yes this illogical subject has a branch called logic) ,”ETHICS”,”PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE” and “POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY”...they have many topics of discussions which becomes sizzling on the tunes of the happenings in the world....

HAPPY READING  

Serial Success............requires........

SERIAL SUCCESS.................
In this economic slowdown one of the most heard proverbs is “Rich gets richer n poor get poorer” Why ??What is d reason behind this slope inclined in so biased way ??However nature loves symmetry isn’t this phenomenon a part of nature??
Here m nt going to demonstrate the economic aspects and reasons of this rather i shall go in a bit philosophical way..............
succinctly , the economic explanation is like “because for poor money is a thing for day-to-day survival n they have nothing called saving they become mere spender and due to slowdown the source gets scanty. For them there is nothing called future there is only present when n where they r there to spend more than they earn ” ....so poor get poorer.
Whereas for rich slowdown is an opportunity when n where they are there to purchase things(shares,commodities) at their lowest prices n sell them in future when the prosperity cycle comes into action again.......getting richer
But what when there is no slowdown......then also the proverb is unconditionally true......Why???
What i get is somewhat philosophical. I think it to b a kind of flow , a force whose origin is the force itself.
It works like Gravitational Force which is stated “Gravitational force is a force which is because of gravity and which depends on mass.”  
For rich it is like people are addicted to earn more and more money and for poor it is like they are used to live in scarce situations. The more you win the more you want to win and similarly the more you lose more you are deflected towards failures.

I see photographs of Roger Federar daily in the newspapers having racket in his hand n crying like a king exulting after winning a battle having sword of victory in his hand. He wins again and again n fails seldom because he has tasted the flag of success and he has become so addicted to that taste that he tries his best n as usual best try of any human being indubitably gives best results...he wins wins and wins to b at the top
I see people around me who always get first in anything they participate in whatever b the cause , whatever b the excuse given by others or even them , they win.
there are always ppl who work hard like winners or even more than them bt seldom get chance to b at the top. they can b second ,third or something else but not the first..I see this thing as an ART ..Being at the top of the list undoubtedly entails hard work bt der is smthing else and that is BELIEF and ADDICTION.....Like serial killers they become serial winners because they are addicted to winning and they love the feel that they get when they win and to have that feel they do anything required or even more than required......

I read somewhere in NDA prospectus “being a good soldier is skill , labour ,devotion and dedication while being the leader is simply an ART ..Do you have the ART??”
Yes actually being at the pinnacle requires nothing like B.Tech, MBA and IAS..All it requires is confidence .as we can see in our politicians. They do not have any degrees and if they have they do not need them at all for being at those positions.
I remember the lines of Kanshi Ram (founder BSP) "When I first met Mayawati and asked her about her ambition in life, she said she wanted to be a DM (district magistrate). But I told her I will make you CM (chief minister) one day and then you will have DMs dancing to your tune."
when see became CM he said “Dekho maine bina degree k tumhe rani bana diya”It was all because he saw that confidence in her and had firm belief on his decision that he with her can do wonders and they did ......