Socialists thought and Capitalism

 Some "socialists" believe that capitalism can exist without corruption. Therefore, they think that there are billionaire capitalists in China, but they are not corrupt. That is why China has "developed". 

While Pakistani capitalists are corrupt, the economy in Pakistan does not develop. If they are advised that despite being socialists you have to be intimidated by the "development" of capitalism, then what is wrong with giving examples of the "development" of American or British or German capitalism.

 The answer to these "socialists" is that no, it is not that the United States, Britain or Germany are better than China in "development". China has made more "progress" than that. China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty !!! In short, the alternative to capitalism that these "socialists" have for the development of Pakistan is that Pakistani capitalists, like Chinese capitalists, promote capitalism without corruption and, like Chinese capitalists, act as national capitalists. 

Develop the country on capitalist lines !!! These "revolutionaries" cannot imagine development without capitalism, and they label their capitalist alternative of development as "socialism."

The capitalist countries of America and Europe have not always been "imperialist". The capitalist yellow exploits the workers of his nation and when he accumulates enough capital from national exploitation to take it abroad then he exploits other countries. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that American and European capitalism originated from the exploitation of other countries. 

Second, long-time China now invests in other countries and exploits local workers. 

Third, no exploiter can be defended on the grounds that he exploits only the workers of his own nation and not of other countries. Fourth, China laid the groundwork for its development with American capital. American capital also included capital raised from the exploitation of other countries. Therefore, the basis of China's development also includes the element of exploitation of other countries.

When capitalism comes, so does corruption. Comrade Deng Xiaoping used to say that when you open a window, mosquitoes and flies come in from outside. Corruption is rampant in China, but the state is so strong that it can shoot them, whether they are capitalists, party workers or anyone else.

If the Chinese state were to shoot the corrupt, then "comrade" Deng Xiaoping should have wiped out all capitalists from China long ago. But if there are still capitalists in China, then either it is true that capitalism can survive without corruption or it is wrong to claim that those who cultivate in China are shot.

Britain and Secularism: Some Concerns (First Principle of Secularism)

I think Britain is a liberal country but it has not yet risen to the level of secular. The first basic principle of secularism is to keep religion separate from state institutions. So is Britain a secular country in this regard? My answer is, no! Britain can only be called a secular country if it adheres to the basic tenets of secularism. What are the reasons I object to the fact that Britain is not a secular country? Let's take a brief look.

1. The point is, the Queen of England, who is the head of the Church of England, is the head of the United Kingdom constitutionally, albeit metaphorically.

2. Religious education in UK state schools has the same meaning that religion is not separate from state institutions, whereas it should be. This means banning religious education in schools.

3. Providing places of worship in government buildings is also a negation of secularism, such as universities, local councils and even parliament and other government institutions.

4. There should be a ban on taking oath on the basis of religious books in the courts. Religious oaths are unnecessary when everything comes to light in the investigation.

5. Most religious people are praying in a park, on a road or sidewalk. Allowing religious rites in public places is against secular society, because this act of worship is offensive to many secular people like me. Therefore, public places should be kept free from these superstitions.

6. Religion is an individual matter. Worship should be limited to homes and places of worship.

7. Funding of places of worship in the UK is also a negation of secularism, which should be stopped immediately.

8. The state should revoke the existing licenses, instead of issuing more licenses to the hundreds of religious TV channels that are open. This business in the name of religion is against secular values.

Because secularism should not only advocate the separation of religion in political matters, but also the state should separate itself from the social and cultural affairs of religion. I am not saying that the state should oppress anyone, but I am insisting only that the state should completely separate itself from religion. I am sending a detailed letter to Parliament in the next few days to bring British society in line with the basic tenets of secularism.