Income Instruction Form: Fill & Download for Free

As with most questions of this sort, it depends.Both Marxism and authoritarianism are fuzzy terms, used in such a mutually exclusive and contradictory fashion that they become drained of any real objective content. Thus, to make this question a bit more manageable, I’m going to focus on just a few different interpretations of what “Marxism” and “authoritarian” might mean.First, if you’re talking about Marxism as described by Marx and his followers through the Second International (i.e., before the start of WWI), then I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Karl Marx was critical of so-called “radical democrats” who thought that a formally democratic government would by itself guarantee freedom for all. In his brilliant Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, he demonstrated how the French Second Republic, at the time one of the most “democratic” countries in the world, decayed into the dictatorship of Louis Bonaparte. The Second Republic had been brought into being by an alliance between French capitalists and the French working class. But with the arrival of democracy, the French working class became more vocal in its demands, leading the French bourgeoisie to run into the safe embrace of Bonaparte’s authoritarianism. (That was a very cursory summary of Marx’s argument. The full version of Marx’s text, available for free online, is a much more nuanced and informative read.)This experience helped push Marx to flesh out the idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a phrase that does not appear in the Communist Manifesto or earlier writings. In fact, Marx only wrote in any detail about the concept near the end of his life, in his Critique of the Gotha Program. In that text, Marx was criticizing the political platform of the newly founded German Workers’ Party (DAP), a predecessor of the SPD (today the second-largest party in Germany). The German Workers Party advocated a gradual, “democratic,” transition to socialism, more or less along the lines of what’s happened in countries like Sweden or Norway.Marx attacked this program on the basis that it fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between state and society:First of all, according to II, the German Workers' party strives for "the free state".Free state — what is this?It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".The German Workers' party — at least if it adopts the program — shows that its socialist ideas are not even skin-deep; in that, instead of treating existing society (and this holds good for any future one) as the basis of the existing state (or of the future state in the case of future society), it treats the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical, and libertarian bases.DAP, in Marx’s view, made a fundamental error by assuming that one could imagine the political structure of the state independently from the society that serves as the state’s basis for existence. A society wrought by violent struggle between classes can never be more than superficially democratic. If a small minority owns the majority of the society’s wealth, they will ensure that democracy does not extend to their bank accounts, even if that means jettisoning democracy itself.And, in fact, Marx notes, there are already societies in existence that have a liberal democratic government, but they have their own forms of exploitation and oppression:Its political demands contain nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people's militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois People's party, of the League of Peace and Freedom. They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc. This sort of "state of the future" is a present-day state, although existing outside the "framework" of the German Empire.Remember, this is 1875, just two years before the end of Reconstruction in the United States crushed any semblance of racial democracy in the South and just a decade before Chicago police would gun down peaceful protesters in the street and execute seven labor activists after a police agent set off a bomb at a labor rally. Formal democracy does not a free society make.And, in fact, Marx’s biggest problem with the Gotha programme was that it was tainted by a “servile belief in the state” combined with a naive faith in the possibility for democratic transformation of that state. Marx even opposed public education on the grounds that the state should not be trusted with educating future generations!"Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school. Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a "state of the future"; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.But the whole program, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect's servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles; or rather it is a compromise between these two kinds of belief in miracles, both equally remote from socialism.Thus, any argument that Marx was a “statist” can seemingly be put to rest. Marx viewed the state as an instrument of social control, as the threat of force that maintained the capitalist class hierarchy. Under true communism, Marx argued, the state would just wither away.Of course, getting from the capitalist, state-controlled here-and-now to the stateless communist society is (obviously) easier said than done. It’s Marx’s solution to this problem that will give rise to accusations of authoritarianism:The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.Unfortunately, Marx does not elaborate at all what he means on this point. He moves on to giving more criticisms of the poor, befuddled DAP program. But we have some indications. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx offers a brief account of what a successful proletarian revolution would entail:We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.Marx allows that, in the beginning, the revolution will entail “despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production.” So if you’re a classical liberal, for whom protection of property is one of your top concerns, then you’re not going to like Marx. But, Marx notes, his qualm is not with property in general, but with property in its capitalist form:You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.In other words, property does not exist in a meaningful sense for the vast majority of society. This is true even in advanced capitalist societies of today; in fact, it is precisely what defines capitalism. Sure, you might own a house and a car (if you’re lucky), but that’s not what Marx means by property. He means ownership of capital — wealth that begets more wealth, such as factories, apartment buildings, huge tracts of land, et cetera. At best, most people might have a few stocks and bonds in their retirement accounts, but 90% of people aren’t factory owners or even small business owners.Given this, what do these “despotic inroads” actually entail?These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.Many of these measures have been implemented in some form or another in most developed countries today. Do the remaining ones, which mostly entail the centralization of economic production in the hands of the state, constitute authoritarianism? Well, it depends what you mean by authoritarianism. Is it authoritarianism when economic production is centralized in the hands of a few multinational corporations, who can fire employees for their political beliefs, close down factories and stores if workers try to organize, and pay their workers more or less whatever they choose?Or, to the contrary, would it be less authoritarian if industry were controlled by democratically appointed managers, charged with maximizing social welfare as opposed to maximizing short-term profits? I’ll leave that for you to decide.In any case, Marx sees this “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a but a temporary situation. As the economic base of society is transformed, the need for a powerful state will diminish.When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.And with that, the state will have “withered away.”You can dispute the feasibility of these ideas or argue that they will translate to authoritarianism in practice, but in his ideas, Marx is quite clear.This answer is already too long, otherwise I would address the ideas of Lenin, who elaborated on Marx’s concept of “dictatorship of the proletariat” more than any other Marxist thinker. To keep it brief, I will merely rest my case by suggesting that Lenin’s putative “authoritarian” tendencies have been exaggerated as well, though it is true that he was much more comfortable with authoritarian measures than Marx.

Greetings folks,SIP or Systematic Investment Plan is a method of investing in mutual funds. Under the SIP investment method, an investor picks a mutual fund scheme and decides to invest a certain fixed amount at fixed intervals. Investing in one scheme through small instalments over time (rather than with a large amount at once) is Systematic Investment Planning.For example: Mr. Anand wishes to invest ₹25,000 in a mutual fund, but does not have this amount ready to invest at the moment. Mr. Anand can invest ₹2,500 per month for the next 10 months, so the eventual total value of his investment will be ₹25,000. In this way, Mr. Anand has fulfilled his investment goal and also gained many benefits - such as Rupee Cost Averaging, budgeting, etc. (which are explained below). This method of investing a fixed amount over time for a particular goal through a particular mutual fund is called Systematic Investment Planning or SIP.How does SIP work?The simplest way to understand the basic workings of SIPs is to imagine a child and a piggy bank. The child ‘deposits’ a certain amount at certain intervals and before he knows it, the contents of the piggy bank have built up to a respectable amount.In the same way, a systematic investment plan deposits a certain amount of money, which could be as low as ₹500 or as high as the investor wishes, at certain fixed intervals of time, which could be a week, a month, an annual quarter, etc., and allows this amount to build up over time. The biggest difference between the piggy bank and the SIP, however, is the fact that SIPs don’t just keep the money aside for you, but also invest that money into profitable businesses and give you a share of the earnings. Also, with every periodic investment, the amount being reinvested keeps growing larger - which means that returns on the investments grow larger as well.It’s up to the investor to decide whether he/she wishes to receive these investment returns in a periodic format, or as a lump sum at the end of the SIP’s tenure, when the investment matures. Of course, the detailed workings of a systematic investment plan that invests in mutual funds are a bit more complex and they sometimes speak a different language, but understanding the different types of SIPs can help patient investors reap massive rewards.Why Invest in SIP?There are many reasons as to why investors prefer investing in mutual funds through SIP, the benefits of SIP are listed below:Rupee Cost Averaging: SIP investments facilitate a phenomenon called Rupee Cost Averaging. To understand it, let’s first see how mutual funds are purchased and held as investments with an example:In October 2018, Mr. Anand has ₹60,000 on hand to invest into a mutual fund scheme. He has two options: lump sum or SIP.Lump sum: He decides to invest it all at one go in October. He goes online, signs up with an online mutual fund investment platform and purchases ‘Units’ of a fund in exchange for his money. These ‘mutual fund units’ represent his ownership of the fund. Let’s assume the NAV in October is ‘200’ and Mr. Anand received 300 units for his ₹60,000 lump sum investment.SIP: In the same scenario where the NAV in October is ‘200’. Mr. Anand purchased 100 units for ₹20,000. In November, the NAV rose to ‘250’ and Mr. Anand’s next investment of ₹20,000 fetched him only 80 units - for the same price. In December, the NAV dropped to ‘100’ and his ₹20,000 gets him 200 units. So through SIPs, Mr. Anand’s ₹60,000 has bought him a total of 380 units only because of the fluctuating market.So, for ₹60,000 in total, Mr. Anand received 300 units through lump sum investing at a cost of Rs 200 per unit and 380 units through SIP at an average cost of Rs 157.9. Through SIP, Mr. Anand has the benefit of owning a greater number of fund units because of Rupee Cost Averaging. The cost of funds averaged over time, giving Mr. Anand more units for the same investment amount.In reality, the NAV of mutual fund schemes rises and drops on a daily basis, and savvy investors get ahead of the game and own more mutual fund units through planning their investments around NAV fluctuations. The NAV of all funds rises and drops based on the performance of its investments. ‘Mutual Fund Units’ represent an investor’s share of ownership in a particular fund and form the basis on which the mutual fund is traded with the investor. When the fund’s investments are doing well, the price of Units increases. This means that the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund has increased.Minimizes risk: Investing small amounts on a monthly basis rather than one large amount at once means that the investments can be stopped at any time the investor desires. In the rare and unfortunate event that a well-performing fund has a change in fund manager, or a risky investment doesn’t pan out well, or the fund displays below average returns for an extended time, the investor can simply stop investing. The SIP can simply be stopped and the investment can be to another well-performing fund to recoup any negative returns.Compounding: Earnings in a mutual fund scheme invested through SIP are added back to the investment itself, thus increasing its value. As subsequent investments are made through the course of the investment term, the total value is allowed to keep on growing by adding earnings to itself, to allow for greater growth.Budgeting: The importance of proper periodical financial planning cannot be understated. Many would-be investors earn more than enough to invest and multiply their wealth, but because of inadequate financial planning, don’t save enough to invest. Strict monthly budgeting can allow for huge amounts to be earned through investing very little. Systematic investment plans with standing instructions in one’s bank account can take the old saying ‘a penny saved is a penny earned’ to a whole new level.Financial discipline: By establishing that an investment has to be made every month, a person can establish financial discipline. This is nothing but being disciplined and attentive when handling one’s money - a trait that is, by and large, lacking in modern India. A typical salaried corporate employee between 25-30 years of age typically realises far too late that he/she regularly spends way too much on non-vital and largely unnecessary things. Once this realisation happens, more importance is given to saving and spending only on the essentials. With an SIP, a positive expense is listed as a recurring month-on-month investment. By allocating funds separately for this, the remaining income is divided among vital expenses in a planned and disciplined way.Convenience: There is no reason for investors to go out of their way to invest in SIPs. The amount is automatically deducted from the investor’s bank account at a particular date every month. Investors can also simply sign and submit post-dated cheques set at the required investment frequency to ensure that regular investments are being made.It is for these reasons, among many others, that the SIP investment route is preferred over the lump sum investment route.Hope this helps you!!

How should the Europeans deal with their new Islamic residents? Should they try and Europenize them and make them like a European, or should they allow and even support their difference and occasionally difficult to live-with civilization/culture ?The issue is not really simplistic. Assuming the question was asked in good faith.This question supposed a sort of multiculturalism crisis which increased after September 11th 2001 and the following events. Europeans citizens seem to be disorientated, increasingly linking a religion (Islam) with violence and anti-Western values and wrongly thinking that it poses a long-term threat to Europe so to conclude that Muslims cannot be good citizens. However the success of this process depends on the willingness to promote successful integration and participation of Muslim citizens and residents into European societies. An issue often treated by many people like shooting an arrow, then drawing a target around it so the attempt to understand that foreign population are doomed to failure.Bichara Khader, from Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain, Belgium wrote in Muslims in Europe: The Construction of a “Problem” - OpenMind from which I copy this quote:“Such a misunderstanding fuels dangerous Islamophobia, on the one hand, and radicalisation, on the other, This radicalism is not the result of failed integration, but rather local-global connections, which are linked to identity rupture and the exposure of young European Muslims to the unbearable images of destruction and violence in many Muslim countries, mainly those in the Middle East.” [1]Daniel Byman warned that:“The worst thing European countries could do would be to invite in hundreds of thousands of refugees in a fit of sympathy and then lose interest or become hostile, starving them of support and vilifying them politically, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”[2]As a Muslim, I would note few things:I believe no religion is inherently incompatible with economic and political institutions, I think many have heard of Islamic finance which is based on ethical principles in line with Islamic religious law, besides other conceptions related to Islamic traditions extending to different fields. In their Muslim countries, there were a system which is in the eyes of Muslims, unfair, creating wealth and stability, perhaps concentrated among a few of the political elites causing millions of desperate people who are seeking better education and health services, fair income distribution, freedom of expression and the right for a free opposition, in short, more humane conditions. Unfortunately, Western governments dealt with the autocracies, dictatorships and kingdoms also labeled as "moderates” and largely cooperate with them. The downfall of Muslims is a direct consequence of failing to faithfully follow Islamic injunctions: no justice, no prosperity.It is said that people who are too much alike cannot easily live together, and the same goes for cultures as well: Muslims forming a relatively self-closed community maintaining only the minimum necessary ties with the wider society, reflecting a behavior of mistrust (something was observed with European Jewish communities until the 19th century): the real conflict is that Muslims everywhere are now related to war, hatred and violent fundamentalism, denying from Islam the values it promotes in addition of misunderstanding of many concepts especially that of Jihad (found here War, Terrorism, and Peace in Islam, this site has dozen of great sources and references).The complete rupture between expectations dictated by these instructions and the reality lived by this community can be described in the following points: it obviously means not all Muslims represent Muslim communities.Verse 4:59 of the Holy Qur’an clearly precise that people must choose the most appropriate and suitable person to lead them. The Qu’ran then in turn exhorts those in authority to exercise justice. it promotes dialogue and consultation to decide matters fairly as illustrated in 42:39. Muslims in the early era of Islam had this sense of responsibility.Islamic teachings from the Qur’an strongly exhorts to absolute justice on more than one occasion (5:9, 6:153, 7:30), saying, “Allah loves the just” (49:10).But what about freedom? Those asserting that Islam restricts freedom are grossly mistaken, we are deceived by the oppressive political regimes in the Middle East who are also solely to blame.Muslims are only one part and a small part of problems rising in Europe. But periods of unrest and difficulties tend to fuel racism and intolerance, which is exactly what is happening now.Acording to Mark LeVine, associate professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and a Middle Eastern history specialist: [3]“Muslims in Europe are divided into the following categories:Assimilation: Muslims formed a success stories for their communities: They form a minority, even if some people consider that European secularism as non-neutral. This group makes up only a small percentage of Muslims in Europe.Integration. Large numbers of young people live peacefully in their host countries while retaining the cultural and religious traditions of their ancestral homelands. Their parents and families--often first-generation immigrants--still have a strong influence on them. Integration is perhaps best seen as mutual compromise, a process that requires mutual respect from all parties. This group is by far the largest one.The European-born children of the first generation immigrants have been educated in European schools, are more assertive than their parents, and speak Western languages fluently. At the same time, however, this second generation has experienced barriers to acceptance by European society, including widespread discrimination.Rebellion. Some Muslims keep western society at arm's length, refusing to intermarry or mix with Europeans. Living in segregated neighborhoods with the food, culture, music, and television of their home countries, "they're there [in Europe] but not there," says Shireen Hunter (http://www.csis.org/experts/4hunter.htm), director of the Islam Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Most of these Muslims are poor and live in crime-prone neighborhoods like the British council estates or the French “banlieues”. Experts say that some young Muslims grow alienated from both their parents' culture and the culture of Europe and seek a sense of community and identity in “conservative” Islam. A small percentage of these--including, perhaps, the four suspects in the London attacks--eventually embrace terrorism.”Ayub Hamid, in his answer to What's your opinion on the islamization of Europe?, commenting on cultural interactions, wrote:“If by Islamization you mean Muslims cultural practices influencing the European cultural practices, then keep in mind the dominant and ruling culture of the society has much more significant influence on the minority culture than the minority culture can ever influence the dominant one. So, even that claim is not founded on valid assumptions. Take the example of North America. The ruling Christian culture completely replaced the aboriginal culture. Also keep in mind that many cultural practices of Muslims are not Islamic practices; they are rather the practices that Muslims picked up from the dominant culture of the countries they were living in. For example, Muslims from India and Pakistan have adopted many Hindu practices or those from Africa have adopted many old African practices.”I believe, as statistics reveal, despite numerous differences varying from an European country to another explained by the measurements adapted by each country after the Second World War, that the simultaneous integration/assimilation is what is happening now among Muslims who are making up roughly 5% of total population in Europe,(number usually overestimated). But a complete “Europenization” cannot happen.Footnotes[1] Muslims in Europe: The Construction of a “Problem” - OpenMind[2] The Vicious Cycle of Muslim Immigration: Sympathy, Then Indifference, Then Hostility[3] Q&A: Islam and Europe