Save The Children India-Promotional Video

Route map to our office from kottakkal

Route map from kottakkal to our office

Why bring a child into this world? - A film by Unilever , VO by Shahrukh...

Karl Marx

Karl Marx is an outcome of Philosophical Radicals continuing rationalism and opposing the Romantics, he revived materialism for the ‘modern’ philosophers. As a successor of Hegel, he was the last of great system-builders these philosophers believed in a rational formula summing up processes of evolution.

Marx’s philosophy was useful for Western Europe, he had no bias towards them unlike Hegel’s German nationalism however the same could not be said for the East; he despised the Slavs. Marx was stimulated by the constant hope of social revolution, for him this was always going to be the eventual end. He was separated from other philosophers at the time as he held a scientific stance, appealing towards the significance of evidence.

Karl Marx’s economics represent the interests of the wage earner; their fire and passion are appropriate to a new revolutionary movement. This led him to write the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

The dialectical, for Marx, was a form of instrumentalism where all sensation or perception is the interaction between object and subject. Objects are the raw materials transformed when they are known. Marx sees knowledge as passive contemplation, unreal abstraction and the process that takes place is one of handling things i.e evidence. The truth – reality and power of thought- must be demonstrated but reality or non-reality is isolated from practice: scholastic philosophy.

Philosophers interpreted the world; the real task is to alter it.

Subject and object are in a continuous process of mutual adaptation which is never fully complete in a circular cycle. Marx denies the reality of sensation by British empiricists; he believed that ‘noticing’ implies activity of the object which is not possible. We only notice things as part of the process of acting with reference to them therefore any theory that leaves out action is a misleading abstraction.

Like Hegel, Marx believes that the world develops through the dialectical formula but disagrees on the motive force behind its development – this being Matter. The most important relation to matter for man is mode of production; this is when materialism becomes economics. Marx has a materialist conception of history in his politics, religion, philosophy and economics it expresses the mentality appropriate for the State. Technical considerations once again highlight the problem of universals.

One triad concerned Marx, this was: feudalism, capitalism, Socialism. Classes are the vehicles of the dialectic movement but the issue in this theory is it is too practical, confined purely to this world and man only. Marx is teleological in that history should progress into a better reality, a form of cosmic optimism.

Man is naturally a productive animal, according to Marx, and not a figure but a shaper of the landscape making tools and co-operating with raw facts and data. Capitalism is chaotic and will ensure revolution it advocates the drudgery of repetitive work. People begin to value things over each other; work is the loss of self it belongs to another and prevents development of the mind and body.

Communism was seen as a solution to capitalism – in the dialectic the bourgeoisie would be the thesis, the proletariat the antithesis and socialism would become the synthesis. Goods in a socialist society would be produced for use and not for profit with wealth being evenly distributed across the State. Socialism would then evaporate into the final stage of communism.

‘The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property’

Karl Marx-Alienated Labor

 Edit  0  11 …

Karl Marx - Alienated Labor

=

=

"If I express a feeling with a word, let us say, if I say "I love you," the word is meant to be an indication of the reality which exists within myself, the power of my loving. The word "love" is meant to be a symbol of the fact love, but as soon as it is spoken it tends to assume a life of its own, it becomes a reality. I am under the illusion that the saying of the word is the equivalent of the experience, and soon I say the word and feel nothing, except the thought of love which the word expresses. The alienation of language shows the whole complexity of alienation. Language is one of the most precious human achievements; to avoid alienation by not speaking would be foolish -- yet one must be always aware of the danger of the spoken word, that it threatens to substitute itself for the living experience. The same holds true for all other achievements of man; ideas, art, any kind of man-made objects. They are man's creations; they are valuable aids for life, yet each one of them is also a trap, a temptation to confuse life with things, experience with artifacts, feeling with surrender and submission.” (Fromm, and Bottomore 38).

---

Alienated Labor

Karl Marx philosophies were strongly based on equal rights for all of mankind. Marx believed that through the use of reason, we as a society could accomplish equality and work towards reaching our full potential and destiny as human beings. One thing that Marx’s believed was directly hindering the growth of humanity was what he referred to as alienated labor. Marx’s definition of alienated labor can be understood as “The process whereby the worker is made to feel foreign to the products of his/her own labor” (Felluga). This in most cases was experienced by the Proletariat class of people who were forced into enduring horrible working conditions in order to make their livings. The Proletariat class was filled with unfortunate and uneducated individuals who were packed into factories, poorly treated, and extremely underpaid. Worst to come of this situation was when the factory workers began to underbid each other for a day’s worth of work so they could support their own families. From one of his most famous works, The Communist Manifesto, Marx states that the Proletariat factory workers should unite and come together in order to better their overall working status. In a very famous quote Marx states that “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win” (Halsall). This statement refers to the workers uniting to form a union that could demand better pay and overall working conditions for the Proletariat workers. All of these factors put together are what lead to Marx’s definition of alienated labor.

Looking further in-depth into alienated labor, the worker is first alienated from the product of the labor. This feeling of alienation comes from a sense of forced labor because the individual is performing a task or developing a product that they themselves cannot afford. Their sweat and hard work is put into a product for someone else’s needs, and will not satisfy the wishes of the worker. The object that is being produced is actually serving to keep the factory worker in poverty, thus the individual is caught in a catch-22 situation where as their way of making a living is also hindering their own cause.

Next the alienation exists between the worker and the activity of labor. Because the task is ordered down upon the people of the Proletariat class by the wealthier Bourgeois class, it becomes a frightful task that is uninfluenced by the workers. The days begin to drag along as hours build in the efforts to increase efficiency, leading to a feeling of hatred toward the daily task. At this point in time the only way for the worker to find true relief is through satisfying their animalistic needs such as food, drink, and sex. Overall, this process leads to the dehumanization of the Proletariat factory workers.
After the alienation from the activity of labor, comes the alienation of the “Species Being”. This is the idea that the human essence is apparent through free, conscious activity. Human beings should be able to let their distinctiveness show through in their work. This includes differentiating themselves through imagination, intellect, and physical skills. But because the products of work started as natural objects that we then transformed through human essence we can then conclude that work objectifies the species life.

Lastly, the workers are subject to alienation amongst themselves as human beings. This style of alienation is produced through the competition between workers for wages, as well as management dictating the policies and procedures of the workplace. This workplace competition ties back into the idea of people fighting against each other while striving to support the needs of their own families. Once again this hinders the overall status of the entire Proletariat nation.

---

Criticisms of Alienated Labor

One criticism against Karl Marx’s view of alienated labor is that it’s normative basis renders it unscientific or useless for empirical research. This is believed to be true by those who see Marx’s work as a value preposition. This would be true if Marx had catered this work only toward his own beliefs. On the contrary, Marx’s idea of alienated labor is based upon historical examination and the study of what labor can be when it’s free of domination. For example, if someone was delegated the task of examination how actual labor falls short of the predictor, then the only way to achieve this task would be by using a comparative concept such as alienated labor (Schwalbe 21).

Another criticism against Marx’s theory of alienated labor is that since Marx’s considers alienated labor a permanent part of capitalism, than it is not really designed to be tested against reality. This point of view can be considered correct if referring to the capital labor process in theoretical terms. However, Marx’s idea of alienated labor stretches further beyond just its role among capitalism, but also to human relationships with nature, and human social relationships. The idea of human relationships with nature refers to what the people are actually doing and experiencing in their efforts to change nature. Human social relationships are explained as how creation and appropriation of value are organized. According to Schwalbe, “To speak of the capitalist labor process is to refer to the forcible appropriation of value by one class of individuals from another. To speak of productive activities under capitalism, is to refer to the mental and physical acts workers actually perform in creating objects with value.”

Lastly, another argument made against Marx’s and his idea of alienated labor is his perceived shiftiness around the issue. Marx has been accused of coming off as to much middle of the road, where one can see both sides of the argument being used. This has lead to many other philosophers concluding a great amount of confusion in Marx’s treatment of alienation. These issues can be cleared up by understanding that Marx’s thought exists as relations rather than distinguishing them as ontologically distinct. At different points in his argument Marx seems to shift meanings of alienation back and forth, but if paid close attention it can be noted that he is explaining the same ideas just through different views, extinguishing any prior allegations of shiftiness. Failure to understand these few issues is the main source of criticism toward Karl Marx and his theory of alienated labor.

---

Works Cited

Felluga, Dino. "Terms Used by Marxism." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Perdue University, 11/28/2003. Web. 15 May 2010. <http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/marxism/terms/>.

Fromm, Erich, and T.B. Bottomore. Marx's Concept of Man. New York, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. 38. Print.

Halsall, Paul. "Karl Marx: Scientific Socialism." Modern History Sourcebook. 1999. Web. 17 Mar 2010. <http://www.forham.edu/halsall/mod/marx-summary.html>.

Schwalbe, Michael. The psychosocial consequences of natural and alienated labor. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1986. 21-25. Print. 

Karl Marx’s theory of Alienation: A Critique

Karl Heinrich Marx, considered to be one of the most influential thinkers in human history, devoted his life to an academic pursuit- studying history through ages, observing what have been the underlying problems mankind has faced and coming out with a new framework which would provide solutions to these issues. A gigantic task indeed to undertake; a task that demands an intellectual command not just on the science of political philosophy and economics, but also history, society, law and almost everything that affects, or has affected in past, human lives.

When one looks at the extensive study that Marx, along with Engel, had put in his works-like the German Ideology and the Communist Manifesto, one comes across the expanse of his coverage and an equivalent depth of looking at individual issues. To criticize his theories as remarkably well as he expounded upon them, one needs to be of an equal, if not more, stature with a clarity and insight that’s conspicuously present all over his works.

However, it is possible to criticize by putting his works to test in the context of how the world has progressed thenceforth, and whether the current-day face of the world lies in accordance with his works and predictions. I, thereby, follow this course of analysis in this essay.

I would concentrate on the concept of Alienation which in part, forms the core foundation of his subsequent works. As Marx analyzes, under Capitalism, because of the inherent working conditions of laborers, alienation surrounds workers’ lives and leads to their exploitation. I briefly describe his notion of alienation and then analyze it from different perspectives and see if the solutions that Marx provides in the Communist Manifesto, would really succeed in combating this issue. I then, attempt to study how the current day societies are probably not as worse off as Marx had predicted, and hence, there might be something missing in his prognosis.

Alienation

In his writings throughout, Marx is found to be considering labor as not just another physical act, but a conscious one. Through labor, he believes, human beings, first of all, derive their subsistence and survival; secondly, establish a relationship with their productive powers and hence affirm themselves; and thirdly, form a connection with nature and realize that throughproductive labor, they can build upon the raw nature and use it in their lives. Thus, labor doesn’t merely remain a physical act, but also one that brings self-actualization.

When he compares the situations under feudal and capitalistic societies, he finds that unlike in the former where ‘what laborers produce not only has immediate use value to them but it affirms their relationship to themselves in their own productive powers’; production in the latter, to say the least, is sent to the medium of exchange called market and thus the product of labor is not for the laborer’s use but for someone else’s. Already, the means of production are under external ownership and hence this makes both the purpose and result of labor appear external to the worker. This, as he calls, is the worker’s alienation from the product. When the workers engage in such labor, they lose their ability to affirm their being and define their self-existence. In his words,

“the worker only feels himself outside his work and in his work, feels outside himself… as a result, he no longer feels to be freely active in any but his animal functions- eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling or in dressing up”

Thus, this is according to Marx, an alienation from productive activity, through which the worker’s life becomes animalistic in its look and feel. As the workers start engaging freely only in animalistic functions, there develops a hiatus between them and their species being. What distinguishes humans from animals, Marx believes, is their ability to think of themselves as conscious beings. And in capitalistic society, the worker, he says, ends up blurring this distinction. This is the alienation from species being. As the people are ‘compelled’ under capitalism to be isolated and pursue their private interests for personal gain, they enter into competition with each other, remaining no more ‘collective beings’. Also, the fact, that they make another class the beneficiary of the product of their labor, further separates them. This is the final type of alienation in Marx’s views, called alienation from fellow humans.

Now I’d attempt to analyze Marx’s take on this concept of alienation.

Marx’s first attack on alienation in capitalism is that what the workers produce is not their own but the capitalist’s. Receding back to the primitive feudal times where one produces what one uses or vice-versa cannot obviously be a pragmatic solution and neither Marx suggests it. In the Manifesto he talks of demands for the interim phase (i.e. before communism is fully attained) like abolishing private property rights, inheritance rights, bringing in state ownership, etc. Having state owned institutions might bring in some sense of ownership (even that becomes questionable in large population areas), but still, exchange (i.e. the product being sold into the market) would still be the ‘dominant social relation’ and hence, alienation from product would still exist.

The ownership issue, he suggests, should be tackled via bringing state ownership over property and resources. Now this is subject to debate as the states might turn into autocratic regimes or monopolistic economic giants, thereby harming the interests of other private players and small scale entrepreneurs. This would have its own implications. When he says,

“…as the means of production become the property of one class, they stand over and against the workers and are opposed to them as an alien thing”

it should be given a thought that would state owned institutions be any better? Given the enormous powers being granted to the proletariats, aren’t there chances that the state might become apathetic or ‘external’ to the public.

In the second kind of alienation (from productive activity), Marx says,

“…its (labor’s) alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like a plague”

When he talks of laborers, does he exclude all those people who are motivated for their jobs and enjoy doing it? Do artists, editors, doctors, teachers and all those professionals working under private firms, who are in their profession by choice and making respectable contributions to the society, not fall under his definition of laborers? Giving some benefit of doubt, and assuming that he did include these professions in his critique, and still felt labor to be detestable; would things be any better in Communistic regimes, which are rather infamous for having very less incentives to work? The state of West Bengal in India, has been under communism for many decades and has witnessed reduced industrial productivity, incessant worker demands eventually decreasing overall industrial development.

Going ahead in his criticism on alienation from productive labor, he says,

“…the worker’s activity converts into nothing more than a means to satisfy their external needs, so that the sole purpose of life becomes that of fulfilling material needs… Under these circumstances, the laborer can only understand work as springing from need and thus labors only to satisfy physical necessities. The worker comes to believe that the maintenance of individual existence is thus the single and solitary goal of their life activity.”

On one hand, Marx says in the materialistic theory of conception, that it is, and has always been, people’s first priority that they involve in economic activities to ensure food, clothing and shelter for themselves. On the other hand, he is disappointed to note that under capitalistic society, people end up in nothing but working for wages. Although, it is not that he negates the significance of non-economic activities, ideas, and consciousness, yet, if he believes that if the worker works just for the wage, then that deprives him of an ability to affirm his essence; that would imply that labor is the only means to affirm one’s essence being. Freely involving in labor might be a way to affirm oneself, but absence of it shouldn’t imply that the worker can’t undergo self-actualization.

This over-emphasis on labor is again visible when he says that,

“…in capitalism, productive activity (labor) is free only in those functions that workers share with animals such as eating, sleeping, drinking and procreating.”

In Marx’s analysis, there is a consistent neglecting of non-economic forces in society, like law, religion, politics, morality, art, etc. He has written on each of these issues as well, but ascribed them the status of a superstructure that stands on the foundation of economic activities. He does say that this superstructure is influenced by the foundation and the other way too. But then, if it’s both way round, what is the use of over emphasizing one and neglecting the other?

When Marx contends about the competition and how it separates people (who should actually be collective beings according to Marx) and forces them to lead private individualistic existence in capitalism, I wonder how he calls human beings collective beings. Throughout history, human beings have struggled and competed for anything and everything- whether those were kingdoms, properties, fortunes or even for the ones they loved. Human beings, by very nature, are competitive. Even at micro-scale, it has been competition that ultimately formed the basis of theory of survival of the fittest in evolutionary science. And this competition has brought the fittest and the best qualities out of human beings- whether in the fields of war, invention or arts.

Now, let’s look in further details how these concepts of alienation stand against the current scenario.

The free market economies of today allow for people holding shares in private institutions. The income and the profits of the company, hence theoretically, belong to common public, which is a shareholder. It can be said that the ownerships have defused among the common public instead of being shared among few.

The entrepreneurial ecosystem that is heavily encouraged today in capitalist societies provides opportunities to pursue one’s interests. Factors like capital that once used to be prerequisites for establishing businesses are no more so, since economies have liberalized and are open to foreign investments. Microcredit schemes, aimed at supporting rural youth entrepreneurs and innovative ideas (even in third world countries and frontier economies) have opened up vast avenues through which not only people can engage passionately in the work of their choice, but also end up giving back lot to their society. I wonder if the means to affirm one’s self are restricted to the labor that Marx believed in. The term labor has become much bigger now.

Even in case of laborers working under capitalists, it is important to note that the intellectual labor is (or is expected to be, if one is criticizing capitalism in general) also a part of the term labor. There is also a wide range of middle managers and coordinators who employ their skills, earn wages (depend upon the capitalist, in Marx’s words), relish their work and participate in other aspects of life- religion, arts, books to live a more holistic life. They don’t stop affirming themselves once they’re outside of work. Marx’s view, that the laborer under capitalist “mortifies his body and ruins his mind” doesn’t make much sense.

The capitalistic societies and free markets utilize the concept of demand and supply, a phenomenon which is competitive and provides incentives to those who work and in the right direction.

Ending note: On Communism

It is true that some of the most advanced capitalist countries today, suffer from vast poor-rich divide and lopsided distribution of wealth. The workers’ conditions under several capitalists are indeed poor. But then, there are also cases where the industries have healthy workers’ union and trade unions which engage in a dialogue of bargain with the capitalist. And communalism isn’t necessarily the path that those countries took.

Globalization had begun during the time of Marx. Even though some of the countries have suffered badly from this phenomenon, experts don’t suggest abolition of globalization as the solution. Dr. Joseph Stiglitz (former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank, Nobel Laureate Economics 2001) rather suggests that its fair implementation can undoubtedly result in equitable distribution of wealth across the world. Similarly, the problems that Marx finds under capitalism are not being better tackled by communist policies. Countries like Soviet Union, suffered collapse when they relied upon communism. There’s a reason why communism has failed to spread.

Communism is well intentioned in that it aims to achieve peaceful communities devoid of scope of exploitation. However, despite of these intentions, as the Economics Nobel Laureate (2005) Robert Aumann remarks about communism,

“It’s great to say– to each according to need, from each according to ability. All this is fine. But there’s just one problem- it doesn’t work.”

***

Related articles

• Karl Marx: Alienated Labor (laborstudiesqueens.wordpress.com)
• Karl Marx (megrosefisher.wordpress.com)

തിരൂരങ്ങാടി വിദ്യഭ്യാസ ജില്ല declared.

തിരൂരങ്ങാടി വിദ്യഭ്യാസ ജില്ല അനുവദിച്ച വിദ്യഭ്യാസ മന്ത്രിക്ക് അഭിനന്ദനങ്ങൾ .......
പുതിയ തീരുമാനത്തോടെ തിരൂർ ജില്ലയുടെ വേങ്ങര , താനൂർ , പരപ്പനങ്ങാടി ഉപജില്ലകൾ , തിരൂരങ്ങാടി വിദ്യഭ്യാസ ജില്ലയിൽ ഉൾപെടും ..ഇത്തരം ശ്ലാഗനീയമായ നടപടികൾ തുടർന്നും പ്രതീക്ഷികുന്നു .

This attempt should be favorably welcomed since it was a long demand of residents of thirurangadi, vengara and tanur region.

This action will mark a new feather on the educational map of Malappuram district.

- RED ARMY BOYZ

frame work for liberalism, marxism and feminism for delhi university first semester exam-2013

Framework for Liberalism:

1. Introduction: What is liberal political morality?
2. Methodology: a) Methodological Individualism
b)Ethical Individualism
c) Attitude towards change
3. Core principles of liberalism:
a) Individual Liberty
b) Moral equality
c) Moral autonomy
d) Toleration
e) Universality
f) Pluralism
g) Secularism
4. Variants of liberalism:
a) Classical liberalism
b) Welfare/Modern liberalism
c) Libertarianism
5. Major normative positions within liberalism
a) teleology: Utilitarian liberalism
b) deontology; Kantian/Rawlsian liberalism
c) Social Contractarianism
6. Critiques of liberalism:
a) Communitarian critique
b) Marxist Critique
c) Feminist Critique
7. Conclusions

Framework for Marxism:

1. Introduction to Marxism
2. The young Marx and the Old Marx: An epistemological break.
3. Theoretical influences on Marx's work: a) Rejection of Hegel and Idealist philosophy
b) Shift to materialism
4. Historical and Intellectual context of Marx's writings:
a) The Age of Scientific quest
b) The Concert of Europe
c) Industrial Revolution
5. Core Principles: a) Critique of Capitalism
b) Alienation
c) Economic Determinism
d) Dialectical Materialism
e) Materialistic Interpretation of History
f) Inevitability of class struggle
g) Vision of the Communist Society
6. Critiques of Marxism: a) Critiques from within Marxism
b) Liberal Critique
c) Feminist critiques
7. Conclusions

Framework for Feminism
1. Introduction: What is feminist political theory?
2. Feminism: As theory and as politics.
3. Feminist Methodology: a) Existence of Patriarchy
b)Feminist understanding of Sex/gender
c) The Personal is political or politicizing the personal
d) Gendering the theory
4. variants of feminism: a) Liberal feminism
b) Socialist feminism
c) Radical feminism
d) Difference feminism
5. Conclusions;

courtesy: sir kumar rahul- professor, RAMJAS collage, university of delhi

frame work for liberalism, marxism and feminism for delhi university first semester exam-2013

ആരാണ് അപരാധികൾ ???

ആരാണ് അപരാധികൾ ???

ആരാണ് അപരാധികൾ ???

സമുദായിക പ്രീണനം അതാത് സമുദായത്തിൽ പെട്ടവർക്ക് മാത്രം , അവകാശ പെട്ടതാണ് എന്ന ധ്വനിയാണ് മാധ്യമം പോലുള്ള മുസ്ലിം മുഖ്യധാരയെ നയിക്കുന്ന പത്രങ്ങൾ കാലങ്ങളായി മുന്നോട്ടു വെക്കുന്നത് . മുസ്ലിം ലീഗ് , ജമാഅത് ഇസ്ലാമി , എസ് ഡി പി ഐ , എന്നീ സംഘടനകൾ അല്ലാതെ മറ്റാരെങ്കിലും സാമുദായിക പ്രീണനം നടത്തിയാൽ , വലിയ അപരാദമാണ് .കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്‌ പ്രസ്ഥാനം എന്നും മത വിരുദ്ധമാണ് എന്ന തെറ്റായ സന്ദേശം നൽക്കുകയാണ്‌ ഇത്തരം മാധ്യമങ്ങൾ കാല കാലങ്ങളിലായി ചെയ്തു കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത് .

ജമാഅത് ഇസ്ലാമി പോലുളള സംഘടനകൾക്ക് എപ്പോ വേണമെങ്കിലും അടിസ്ഥാന ആശയത്തിൽ പോലും മാറ്റം വരുത്താം . അത് കാലാതീതമായ മാറ്റമായി, അടിവരയിടും. ഇത്തരത്തിൽ കാലത്തിനതീതമായ മാറ്റം കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്‌ പ്രസ്ഥാനം സ്വീകരിച്ചാൽ , കൊടിയ പാപമായി വരച്ചിടും . ഇവിടെയാണ്‌ ഇത്തരക്കാരുടെ ഇരട്ട താപ്പ് . തങ്ങൾ മാത്രമാണ് കാലത്തിൻറെ ശരി എന്ന് വരുത്തി തീർക്കാനുള്ള ഗൂഡ ശ്രമത്തിൻറെ ഭാഗമാണിത് . കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്‌ പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തെ സ്റ്റാലിന്റെ ഓർത്തഡോക്സ് നയങ്ങളിൽ കെട്ടി മുറുക്കുവാനാണ്, അത്തരക്കാരുടെ ശ്രമം .പാശ്ചാത്യ രാജ്യങ്ങളിൽ , neo-marxism പ്രസക്തി ആർജിക്കുന്നത്ത് മറച്ചു വെക്കുവാൻ ,ലോകമെമ്പാടും islamist -കൾ, കമ്മ്യൂണിസത്തെയും, മാർക്സിസത്തെയും കടന്നാക്രമിക്കുന്നതിൻറെ ഭാഗ മായി മാത്രമേ , മാധ്യമം പോലുള്ള പെറ്റി ഇസ്ലാമിസ്റ്റുകൾ കൊണ്ടാടുന്ന പത്രങ്ങൾ , കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്‌ പാർട്ടി യെ വിരുദ്ധതയുടെ മുന്നിൽ നിർത്തുന്നതിനെ കാണാനാവൂ .

11 / 9 / 2013 , സി.പി.എം മുഖ്യധാരയിലെ മുസ്ലിം , എന്ന മാധ്യമം പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച സി. ദാവൂദ് ൻറെ ലേഖനം മേൽ പറഞ ശ്രമങ്ങളുടെ ഭാഗമാണ്. ആര്‍എസ്എസും ജമാഅത്തെയും ഒരേ നാണയത്തിന്റെ രണ്ടുവശങ്ങള്‍, എന്ന് പിണറായി ഉന്നയിച്ച വിമർശനങ്ങൾക്ക് മറുപടി പറയാതെ , തീര്‍ത്തും കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ് വിരുദ്ധ ലേഖനം പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്കുകയാണ് മാധ്യമം ചെയ്തത്.മതവിശ്വാസമാണ് മനുഷ്യന്റെ ദേശീയത നിര്‍ണയിക്കുന്നതെന്ന് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്ന ഒരു കൂട്ടം , ഇസ്ലാമിസ്റ്റ് രാഷ്ട്രീയം നിർബന്ധമാക്കുന്നത് വഴി വെല്ലുവിളിക്കുന്നത് മനുഷ്യൻറെ യുക്തിയെയാണ്.സ്വതന്ത്രമായ രാഷ്ട്രീയ ചിന്തകളെ വെല്ലുവിളിക്കുകയാണ് ഇതുവഴി.ഇസ്ലാമിൻറെ രാഷ്ട്രീയ സംവിധാനം ബഹുസ്വര രാഷ്ട്രീയ (ഇന്ത്യ പോലുള്ള )വൈവിദ്യങ്ങളിലാണോ നടത്തപെട്ടിരുന്നത് ?

രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തെ വ്യക്തിയിൽ നിന്നും സമൂഹത്തിൽ നിന്നും കേവലമായ മത വാദങ്ങളിലേക്ക് തിരിച്ച് നടുന്ന വരെ തിരിച്ചറിയേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നു . രാമ രാജ്യത്തിനും , ഇസ്ലാമിസ്റ്റ് രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിനും ഒരേ വേരുകൾ തന്നെയാണ് . ഇസ്ലാമിസ്റ്റ് രാഷ്ട്രീയ വാദികൾ എന്ത് ന്യായീകരണത്തിൻറെ പേരിലാണ് ആർ എസ് എസ് ൻറെ രാമ രാജ്യത്തെ എതിർക്കുന്നത് ?ഇരുവരുടെയും വാദങ്ങൾക്ക് ഒരേ നാണയത്തിൻറെ രണ്ടു പുറങ്ങളല്ലേ..? ഇത്തരം ഗൂഡ ശ്രമങ്ങളെ ചെറുത്ത് തോൽപിക്കുകയെ നിർവാഹമുള്ളു .

-ashique ali t

www.ashiquealit.blogspot.com

GENDER PERSPECTIVES on MEDIA Bias

GENDER PERSPECTIVES on MEDIA Bias

GENDER PERSPECTIVES

Gender is a hot topic from the end of 19^th century. Media has involved in this issue greatly. The birth and rise of feminism was often boosted by media. They follow pro-liberal-feminist perspectives. It should be acknowledged,but at the same time we should regret about the way media portrays women. It is the media who made women a marketable commodity. Even their feminist perspective is a method of marketing.

With the coming of Advertisements, women’s were started using as a commodity. For descriptively, her beauty was marketed. They popularised their feminine nature. Media set up some social constrains,like women are feminine and weak in nature, she is emotional and sensitive, through the mediums of serials and films. Even in adds, they were portrayed like that. Her skin colour was marketed and her nudity too. They made out a beauty sense that nudity and semi nudity was beautiful and portrayed such attempts as modern and civilised. This marketing civilisation was further hanged by radical feminists. They were the one who contributed patriarchy at once and in the course of time, upon the need of time, they market the need. Now it is the era of feminism, tomorrow it may be something else. It is purely the the demand and supply needs of market being fulfilled. The good and bad, the normative approach was even slaughtered by media. They created normative ethics, upon the need of capitalists.

Not only the women body was marketed her emotions and feelings too was marketed. Women tears and emotions were of great demand. Even the sanity of love was pictured purely as sex. She was raped again and again in media.

If we ask the question, who feminised women? Its sure that your answer will root on media to some extent.

Media also holds a theory of fascism in its selection. You can only see, anglicised, foreign/high reputed educated personalities on screen, who are fair looking too.. this holds to some extent the theory of fascism. This is creating a superiority or elite class-dominance in media. You cannot find blacks in hot debates, you cannot find dalits in mainstream media, you cannot find back drown people of rural India on mainstream. There is an elite class-dominance on mainstream particularly on visual media's. Even mainstream media does not regard language as a function of topography. It always the Harvard model is preferred. This is a dangerous symptom.

source- www.ashiquealit.blogspot.com