Bangladesh:  sectarianism is a terrible cancer in the society

(Bangladesh ASF)

Sectarianism has been a deadly disease in Bangladesh and India since time of immemorial. Thousands of men and women have fallen victim to this Sectarianism. Hindus have killed Muslims and Muslims have killed people of the Hindu community. Every time this riot has taken place, the politicians have been behind it. There was never a hand of a true religious saint or leaders.

Sectarianism means a kind of attitude. A person's attitude is defined as sectarian only when he is ready to oppose and harm another religious community and its members on the basis of belonging to a particular religious community. Individuals are secondary in this case, the main is wealth. Religious theory and ethics have to do with religiosity. There is the addition of sectarianism to the community. In other words, in the case of piety, one's own behavior and religion are more important. In the case of Sectarianism, a special kind of loyalty to one's own religious community is more important. Besides, true piety is the afterlife. The hope of his true reward in the Hereafter. The profit of sectarianism is in this world. Religiosity does not require opposition to others.

We must know what sectarianism is. Look. We are also victims. We have had riots in this country because of religious sectarianism. As a result of the riots, at one time undivided Bengal was divided (1947) into two parts, one part was annexed to Pakistan and the other to India. But did the riots stop? None of the two Bengals stopped.

Sectarianism did not end. In the end, we have broken the bond of religion-based nationalism and established an independent and sovereign Bangladesh in 1971. Even then, did sectarianism end?

No, it didn't. Not only the emotional sectarianism that has remained, but also the communal persecution has taken place. We are ashamed of the news of various persecutions of the minority Hindu community in many places since the 2001 general elections. Property grabbing, rape of women everything happened. So we must know how cruel, nasty and harmful the communal thing is. There is no reason not to know. I also know communalism. But I don't always notice what the matter is. I don't understand why this is happening. We are talking about religious communalism. Because of this sectarianism, people of two different religions hate each other. Hatred also breeds conflict. Bleeding occurs. As has happened in our country.

But in our country, people of different religions have been living together for ages. There was no clash between Hindu peasants and Muslim peasants. He did not want to overthrow each other. Hindu fishermen and Muslim fishermen have been fishing in the river together. The weavers are weaving looms. Ordinary people attended each other's religious ceremonies. The bells of the temple and the call to prayer of the mosque have merged. People have walked the same path, gone to the same market and traded, stayed under the same sky. He did not search for who is a Hindu or a Muslim, he did not sniff. So? Who created communalism? How was it made? Why?

Only the two middle classes on both sides - the Hindu middle class and the Muslim middle class. This started in the era of British imperialism. Before that there was community, but there was no communalism. During the British rule, the Hindu middle class was at least fifty years ahead of the emerging Muslim middle class in education and economic establishment. The Muslim middle class saw that the place was not so open, others had occupied it. The competition and rivalry between the two sides started. The occupants are from the Hindu community. The ruling British provoked both sides to escalate their feud. If the British gain, the quarrel will not be between the ruler and the ruler, it will be between the Hindus and the Muslims. Then divide and rule - this policy will be easier to implement.

There was a struggle for independence during the British rule. But Hindus and Muslims could not remain united in that struggle because of that communal conflict. Attempts were made to bring the two communities closer by resolving disputes in undivided Bengal. Chittaranjan Das advanced a bit. At his initiative an agreement was signed between the leaders of the two communities so that they agreed to share the job opportunities in half. This treaty was made in 1923, two years after which Chittaranjan passed away and needless to say that the treaty was not implemented at all, but the conflict between the two communities continued to grow, one riot after another and eventually Bengal was divided into two parts. The main reason is the conflict between the two middle classes, so that the British provocation worked very well. Sectarianism has come down from above. Didn't rise from the bottom up. After the death of Chittaranjan, free entry of all-India politics took place in Bengal. Both the Indian Congress and the Muslim League became very active. The Congress called itself secular, but in practice it was a Hindu-dominated institution. Gandhi himself was very secular, but he did not want to separate religion and politics, so the task of raising religious voices and fulfilling political objectives was not hindered at all. There were hardliner communal minded people in the Congress and they eventually became the main force, later they even assassinated Gandhi. The Muslim League, on the other hand, has developed as an institution of Muslims, with its leader Jinnah basing his politics on the doctrine of biracialism, meaning that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations in India. The politics of both the Congress and the League became communal politics. India was broken, Bengal was also torn in two, the main reason being that communal conflict and also the provocation of the British. But even then sectarianism did not end. Many hoped it would end. Because India became Hindu and Pakistan became Muslim. The dominance of the two communities in the two states is so strong that it was not at all possible that the minority community would be in conflict with the majority. In other words, the previous basis of sectarianism is no more. The conflict is over. But what is the reason that sectarianism is not over yet? The reason is material lust. To put it more clearly, greed for property. Property in this case means land, house, business-trade, job-job, opportunity-everything. The people of the majority community evicted the minorities and seized their property. In fact, this is the tyranny of the strong over the weak. The people of the strong, that is, the majority community, began to take away the property of the weak, that is, the minority community. The matter was looting, but a cover was given to it, it was religious. There are two advantages to religious cover. One. In this way the matter of looting can be arranged as a sacred duty. Two. It is also possible to create insanity in people by raising the issue of religion. We did not accept the state of Pakistan. We came out of his chains. Bangladesh has become independent. Bi nationalism has been abandoned. Religion-based nationalism has been replaced by language-based nationalism. But still sectarianism is not over. The reason for not being is nothing else,  that is the possession of the property. The minority Hindus are weak here, the majority  Muslims are therefore eager to seize their property. Not only Hindu property is being looted, but also Muslim property is going to the rich. But Hindu property is particularly vulnerable. First. Most Hindus are poor; Two. They are again low in number. Three. Religion can be used to occupy their property. Sectarianism is therefore not a matter of religion, it is a matter of religious businessmen. Religious traders continue to use religion to plunder freely during the British period, Pakistan period and even in the present period. That is why the end of sectarianism is not happening. The issue of sectarianism was understood. But the question is - what is the remedy? We need to look at the role of the state before looking for a remedy. During the British rule, the state incited communal strife. In the time of Pakistan, the state wanted to be considered as the enemy of Hindus and the independent state of Bangladesh cannot be said to be secular. This state was supposed to be secular. It has emerged as a secular state. But secularism is no longer in the constitution.

Americans are calling our state a Muslim state, we are not protesting. Not saying that our state is democratic. All citizens have equal rights here. The fact that we are not protesting means that those who rule us are not protesting. Neither of the two major parties is enthusiastic about it, neither party has the initiative to re-establish secularism in the constitution, but both parties are using religion politically. And they are our spokespersons everywhere.

Minorities do not feel safe. It is not a lie that their emigration is happening in silence. In our state, no citizen has security of life and livelihood. People from minority communities are particularly at risk. The main reason is the character of the state. We did not get the democratic state we dreamed of in 1971 and fought for. The biggest proof of this is the inequality of people here. The rich-poor inequality is the main one, the inequality between men and women is also clear and the old inequality between the majority and the minority has not ended.

We want to build a democratic federal society by abolishing the state. It is necessary to establish equal rights for all people irrespective of class, religion, gender and ethnicity. Otherwise, exploitation, plunder, communalism, oppression of nationalism will not end any disease. We will continue to suffer and the cable will weaken as we suffer. But how will the desired change in the character of the state? Through elections? He doesn't seem likely. Because one or the other of the two big parties will come to power in the election. Nationalists and capitalists will not want to change the character of the state, they will want to plunder the existing system intact. For that, it will be the duty of those who are humane and democratic to unite and move. There is no other way of liberation without movement.

We have to understand this. We have seen military rule, we have seen elections and we will see. Military government is illegitimate, elected government is legitimate. But the fate of the weak people does not change whether the government comes to power legally or illegally. One party goes to power through elections, another party leaves power. But the fate of the weak is not happy. So those who see the interests of the common man must be united. This is what the situation says. We need an overall social revolution.

Imperial power is not our friend; they are the enemy of the peasantry. They want to establish a chain in our society where people will be forced to sell themselves to imperialism, capitalists and feudalists will be in the hands of ordinary men and women. They want to bring people down to the level of animals.

If the communal power realizes their dream, it will be the defeat of the workers, peasants, small traders, poor people, men and women. They call for death what do they want to do for life? We want progress, freedom, justice, peace - can they give it? We want our resources to be in our country - but imperialism wants to take our resources. They want to make various excuses. None of them are our real enemies. They are also to blame for imperialism.

A kind of subtle conspiracy is going on. They want to steal our future. If we want to defeat them - we have to shed light on everything. In the name of religion, in the name of politics, in the name of democracy, all kinds of hypocrisy must end. We have to build our own future. The way of liberation must be found through the development of human life and not by killing people. I want Socialist enlightened people for a beautiful future.

The Game of Stateism and Capitalism

(BASF-Bangladesh Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation)

Last July, the Taliban were accused of killing Afghan comedian Nazar Mohammad and hanging him from a tree. On the night of September 28, popular folk singer Fawad Andarabi was taken out of his house and killed in public. He was a resident of Krishnabad village in Andrab district of Baghnan province of Afghanistan.

Since the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, progressive women, teachers, artists, journalists and players have fled Kabul and taken refuge in various parts of the world. Some of them have been forced to leave their families.

Arriving at a safe place, they told the media how terrible the situation is there. Absolutely what is meant by savage rule is going on. There is a plague of authoritarian regulations. Women are being treated with the most hostility.

As soon as women leave the house, severe punishment is coming down. They can't play. Can't go outside. Can't chat. Can't work. Singing has been banned there. Control has also been imposed on sports. Thousands of people have been fleeing the country since the Taliban took control of the Afghan capital, Kabul, on August 15. But a few times more people have left behind than those who get on the plane.

There were about 7,000 US troops and NATO troops inside the airport. They are in charge of security at the airport until August 31. But ultimate chaos is going on outside the airport. Taliban guards have tried to control the crowd, but to no avail. Occasionally these Taliban guards fired to control the crowd. But crowds increased. At least 20 local Afghans have been trampled to death outside the airport in the past few days. A suicide bomber killed at least 200 people.

After the Taliban's occupation of Kabul, it became clear that a darker chapter was beginning in Afghanistan. Initially, the Taliban demanded that girls be given freedom in accordance with Sharia law, but soon the Taliban's intentions became clear.

Seeing this situation, popular Afghan pop star Ariana Sayeed decided to leave the country. He was a very popular face in Afghanistan. One incident after another proves that Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is hundreds of yards away from art and music. Now those who are fleeing are living without breathing. And those who are in the country are spending their days in horrible fear.

Western countries, including the United States, are responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. When the Soviet Union forces were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1969, the Taliban were backed by the US military. At that time, China's position was also anti-Taliban.

After 32 years, the picture is just the opposite. Today's Taliban are backed by China, Pakistan and Russia. The Taliban retreated after the US and NATO forces entered Afghanistan in September 2001 in search of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and to establish a democratic government, following the destruction of the World Trade Center in a terrorist attack in the United States.

The United States, Germany, Britain, India and other countries have spent millions of dollars to develop the infrastructure of Taliban-free Afghanistan. After establishing a kind of democratic system of government, the US military has provided modern weapons and training to members of the Afghan army.

As long as the US military was on the side of the Afghan army, they fought the Taliban with courage. The Taliban have resurfaced at a rocket speed since former US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw troops from the country and the current President Joe Biden's administration implemented it, capturing one city and province after another.

Officials in the corrupt Afghan administration have so far inflated the size of the army with the intention of embezzling money. As a result, the Afghan army has never been able to fight the Taliban. No matter what is said, the Taliban have already begun to rule the jungle across Afghanistan. Various fatwas have been issued to force women to wear burqas and forbid them from going to work. Women are spending their time inside the house in fear.

It should be noted that the Western powers play a big role in the formation of various religious terrorist organizations including the Taliban and ISIS. Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban were initially formed with the support and cooperation of the United States. The United States sponsored them to undermine the role of the then-Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The US-backed terrorists demonstrated their strength in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers in the United States. After that, the so-called global security system seems to have been disrupted. This incident has a huge role behind the rise of this terrorism. In the name of suppressing terrorism, in the name of establishing democracy, the West has invaded first Afghanistan and then Iraq. The United States has launched an offensive in Afghanistan, accusing Osama bin Laden of harboring the Taliban and attacking US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But they have a vested interest in establishing their dominance over the mineral and oil resources of the Muslim world in Central Asia.

In the wake of this, the Islamic State, immersed in the mantra of opposition to 'Bush-imperialism', declared jihad against the West and Judeo-Christians in order to establish the so-called 'law of God'. Terror, bombings, and the killing of innocent people are part of the so-called jihad conducted by those recognized as righteous fighters.

The aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks seems to be still there. One attack after another is happening every day somewhere in the world. These include the war between Iraq and Syria in the Middle East, the violence of the Boko Haram terrorist group in northeastern Nigeria, Lashkar-e-Taiba in India and Pakistan, and the JMB, Jamaat, Ansarullah Bangla Team and other terrorist groups in Bangladesh.

The relationship between stateism, capitalism, fundamentalism, imperialism and fascism is close. There is no denying that it is the imperialists and fascists who have sheltered and indulged in fundamentalism.

Afghanistan is a shining example of what can happen to a country that supports or indulges in religious fundamentalism. Even in the current situation in Afghanistan, the world's most powerful countries are silent. China, Russia and Pakistan are trying to establish their power in Afghanistan instead of the United States by putting guns on the shoulders of the Taliban.

But in this situation, the United Nations, whose only purpose is to establish world peace, also has no role. On the contrary,  many terrorist organizations from around the world have come to Afghanistan. They have united. The fear remains that they will plan strong international terrorist activity with a larger goal.

Hardline religions always want to stop progress. They think of what they have achieved since the time of their prehistoric creation as THE eternal system. So they reject argument. Their science considers consciousness as an obstacle in their path. They do not tolerate free thought and expression. This is how religious fundamentalism is created.

One of the characteristics of all kinds of religious fundamentalism in the world is: opposition to women's freedom, polygamy of men, child marriage of women, ethnic division. All religions are affected by various reforms. Religious fundamentalism is always pulling us backwards, destroying humanity, tying our thoughts to a prehistoric concept.

The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan is not good news for human civilization. We have to be careful and aware. After such an example comes to the fore, the people of our country, political organizations, social organizations have to rise up. We must remember that our country Bangladesh is a fertile ground for religious fundamentalism. It is very easy to spread religious insanity in our country. The same fate could happen in our country as in Afghanistan. There is no such thing as an armed religious group like the Taliban. But if there is a fire in the next room, the  fire is bound to start in one’s own house as well.

It's a very bad time now. There is no Anarcho-communist society anywhere in Bangladesh yet. There are a small number of real anarchist communists. The number of stars in the sky today is very low. Now we are in a state of turmoil. It is very difficult to tell who is true and who is false. Who can say that our anarchist movement is growing day by day? Who cares about the truth?

If you are on all four sides, you can now see some enlightened pure anarchists. They can lead us to the social revolution of the future. They are walking on the bright path of communism. There is nothing more beautiful and glorious in the world than anarchism-communism.

This is a difficult path. It is a dangerous long run. We can lose our comrades; we can make a lot of mistakes. There may be a lot of opinions and walks along the way. When difficult times come, we may think of giving up. We must also remember that we will get what we want from communism. It's just a matter of time.

The fight for communism is a long-term fight. Big victories in small campaigns. There is nothing more creative and beautiful and more courageous than fighting for anarcho-communism. There is no bigger campaign than this.

We shall make history. We will live and die for Anarchism-communism. We want nothing more.

(landerinitalie)

I recently read the quote “Property is theft!” in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s book What is property? (1840, online English translation). After understanding where he was going, I skipped the middle part of the book because it was too legal and technical, although not too difficult and probably interesting. In the final chapters Proudhon points at how a society might look like without the institution of property (not te be confused with private possession or usage). Here, apparantly, he coins the word anarchism. He writes:

“Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.”

I thought this had quite a ring to it. It brought back memories from secondary school where I read very superficially about Proudhon, Kropotkin and anarchosyndicalism, mostly for the sake of having something provocative to say. But now, after all this time and after developing my political views intensively over the last couple of years, I was a bit amazed to find myself back at the beginning of this circle.

Shortly after bringing Pierre-Joseph back to the Antwerp library, I read an article about the problem of labor time duration and increasing emphasis on work throughout history by Olivier Pintelon in Apache Magazine. Just like Yuval Noah Harari in his book Sapiens (2011) and Rutger Bregman in Humankind (2020) it talks from the perspective on mankind’s development as a degeneration from a free and happy life as a hunter-gatherer to an oppressive, stressful society. Historians, archeologists, and sociologists agree more and more that in prehistoric ages our nomadic ancestors only ‘worked’ for a couple of hours a day and spent the rest on social, cultural, fun activities. The agricultural revolution seduced us with the appeal of stability, safety, and maybe even alcohol, but created inequality by introducing property for the first time. This is where I made the association with Proudhon.

Later on, during the industrial revolution, ownership of grounds, machinery, factories, and capital created even more inequality. In the meantime, man on average spent more and more time on labor. Reaching a boom with the so called feminist emancipation of the sixties. Now the average time of a household spent on labor practically doubled. I’m convinced that labour time is merely the characteristic of a system and not inherent to society or proper to an individual who is hard working or lazy.

These days a third revolution seems on its way. In one respect, it’s similar to the industrial revolution: automatisation and robotisation of labor. Just like the luddites opposed to the steam engines of the 19th century, some people warn against the dissapearing of jobs because of robots and algorithms. A guaranteed basic income still sounds like a good safeguard against poverty, even if you don’t believe, like statisticians say, that jobs will be lost. What’s more important: it gives us freedom.

This third revolution is also different, however, because it’s also a digitalisation. Not only robots are taking over tasks, but also artificial intelligence and algorithms. These are data-driven. How does data relate to ownership? Robots, machines, grounds are tangible property of an owner. Data, which is basically a massive collection of information, is currently in a grey area. Theoretically, data is owned by the individual who hands it over by thoughtlessly clicking agree on a website. That data, however, and the meta-data it produces is mined by algorithms, which is basically the property of nobody and free to be used by the person using the algorithm. Free to be sold without consent from the original individual. Some people want laws and applications to allow individuals to have ownership of their data. As weird as it sounds, I think it makes sense. Data is property in the sence that it says something about someone (a quality) and that it belongs to someone. The same could be said of intellectual property. Proudhon had no clue yet that concepts, images, and information would one day be reduced to property in the hands of a creator, buyer, or company. Even if you think privacy is not the real root of the problem, I don’t see the harm in protecting and taking control of our own data.

Regulations: the realisation of the Mind

In order to take back control and return to our blissful state of happiness people have created regulations through political action: the eight hour workday, sunday rest, payed leave, … aimed at limiting labor time in favor of free time. Some of these regulations are being shaken now that the gig economy is coming up. Certainly, more extensive regulation would create more equality and increase the quality of life for many. Also regulation of competition between individuals should be put to a stop. As Oliver Pintelon tells us in his article, in a certain African tribe there’s the tradition of “mocking the hunter’s meat”. This is a tradition aimed at preventing a succesful hunter from getting any ideas in his head that he’s better than someone else. In the 18th century, already, Immanuel Kant pointed out this innate tension in man between a drive to collaborate and a need be distinguished from the pack. We want to live in a society but also be an individual. We naturally work together, but we also want to compete. I guess either of these two drives can be reinforced by upbringing and by culture. In our individualistic, neoliberal culture, competition (somethings disguised as excellence) is glorified and egalitarianism despised.

I wonder whether competition could be the basis for war. I remember Bregman wrote about it, but I can’t remember much in detail. I do remember how most soldiers in a battle actually don’t fire at the enemy unless they’re drugged up or brainwashed. It goes against the fabric of our being. So why do wars start? Ego’s of rich people? I know the Greeks had a competitive or agonistic culture because it was famously expressed in sports and arts, like the Olympic Games. So why did they wage war? Honour? Or wealth and colonies?

Political regulations are just combatting the symptoms of a derailed system. They seem trivial to me in the light of mankind’s evolution towards a spiritually and politically lifeless society. For what is a society where work, however regulated, is central, and not life itself? It reminded me of Hegel’s theory of Mind. Laws are the objectification of the individual, subjective Mind: people say and write down what the rules of their society are. Beyond that, comes the Absolute Mind which reflects on the Objective Mind and contemplates the Mind in itself. Obviously, Hegel is talking about himself, the philosopher, as the epitome of everything here, but I can see his point, however obscured by the use of unnecessarily weird words. Philosophy contemplates the idea, God, the universe, or – in my humanistic version – mankind itself. There the Mind becomes free.

To put this a bit more concretely: (if I understand correctly,) in organising society, man is not yet free. He’s free when he doesn’t have to think about society anymore.

Property is theft

That brings me back to Proudhon. For him equality or property didn’t matter, but only freedom. That was for him the essence of anarchism. In a little collection of writings, I learned that Noam Chomsky also calls freedom the highest value in a society. He says it unites radical libertarianism and socialism.

Regardless whether we talk about material objects, money, a factory or a company, or intangible objects such as a piece of music or our date of birth, I’m convinced that ownership in general creates a distinction between the haves and the have nots. It creates inequality. And ultimately it creates oppression. No matter how much you regulate, the haves will keep finding ways to get more and exert illegitimate authority over the have nots. Proudhon wants to do away with property and ownership, except the ownership of the fruits of your labor. You can’t own the earth you cultivate, but you can own the fruit you harvest. I guess that also means you can own a house, or two, or a hundred, but not the ground it’s built on. I don’t quite grasp the full extent of where Proudhon wants to take this. I read on Wikipedia for instance that he tested the idea of a popular credit bank, but there it gets a bit too complicated for me.

People in our society are very attached to the concept of ownership. Everybody, rich or poor, wants to own two houses, three cars, and invest their salaries in shares and bonds. Saying ‘property is illegal’ will be hard to sell, although logically and morally it makes total sense. People don’t think logically and morally. The bottom line, however, if we adjust Proudhon’s conclusion slightly, is that it’s not right to make a profit from something you own, merely because you own it. Based on that, maybe we can try to think of regulations that are more acceptible, at least to the more radical parts of society. (Change always comes from the margins of society to the center.) For instance, you’re not allowed to charge more rent than is necessary for the upkeep of a house or appartment. You’re not allowed to charge or receive interest on a loan or investment. You’re not allowed to charge more for a book you print, than the actual cost to print it. I can see how it would make ownership a lot less interesting. Prices for houses might fall, banks would basically become professional vaults. We’ll still use money to exchange goods, because we can’t match all needs between people top down. (I can offer Dutch classes in return for food, clothes, beer, and toys for my kid, but it’s impossible to find the exact right matches ánd arrange a schedule for all these people.) And we’ll steep creating stuff, because people want stuff. Except now, the printer that prints your book will not be owned by a multinational, but by nobody. It’s use will be organised by a democratic cooperative. If you want it to be used for something else, then you join the cooperative and try to change it. Or something like that.

In an online article (also on Apache), Ben Caudron writes that it’s useluss to fuss about privacy as long as we don’t deal with the more fundamental profit driven capitalist system. I see his point. (Although we can also do both at the same time.) What would happen if it becomes illegal to make a profit from data ownership? Facebook, Google, Apple, and all the others would loose almost their complete source of income. They could charge people to pay for the cost of keeping the platforms up. They could even ask to use some data for advertising, as long as they don’t make a profit.

Would people still be motivated to enterprise? I think so, but not with the motive of profit. Would the economy keep growing? Maybe not, but it’s already at it’s highest point in history. I think we’re at a point where we don’t need to be afraid anymore of scarcity, as long as everything is organised (really) democratically. (Amartya Sen famously proved how the lack of democratic insitutions such as free speach is the main cause for famines.) I’d still go for a guaranteed basic income, albeit in the form of a negative income tax (which guarantees a minimal income for people that drop below a certain income).

After these logical propositions will be realised, the only question remaining will be: how do we learn to live (again)? Unlike the primitive nomad, we not only have games, sports and cooking, but we have arts and philosophy. Plenty of stuff to fill a life of free time.

(বি এ এস এফ)

বাংলাদেশের চা শ্রমিকরা ক্ষেতল্যান্ডের ওপর তাদের অধিকার রক্ষা এবং ভূমির অধিকার প্রতিষ্ঠার দাবিতে বিগত কয়েক বছর যাবৎ আন্দোলন কর্মসূচি চালিয়ে যাচ্ছে। এই আন্দোলন বাংলাদেশ এনার্কো সিন্ডিক্যালিস্ট ফেডারেশন - বি এ এস এফ সহ  দেশের সংবেদনশীল মানুষদের একটি বড় অংশকে স্পর্শ করেছে এবং অনেক প্রশ্নকে সামনে নিয়ে এসেছে। যেসব প্রশ্ন বহুকাল চাপা ছিল। যেমন আমরা প্রায়শ ভাবতে পছন্দ করি, চা শ্রমিকদের ভারতের বিভিন্ন অঞ্চল থেকে নিয়ে এসেছিল ব্রিটিশরা। তাই তারা এখানকার নয়। এটা অনেক সময় তাদের প্রতি বিদ্বেষ নয় শুধু, বরং সহমর্মিতা থেকেও বলা হয়। এটা যে তথ্য ও তত্ত্ব উভয় দিক থেকেই ভুল এবং এ ভাবনা যে তাদের অধিকারকে করুণায় পর্যবসিত করে_ আন্দোলনের সংগঠকরা কিন্তু এটা জোরের সঙ্গে সামনে এনেছেন এবং তারা এই ঐতিহাসিক সত্যটি দেখিয়ে দিচ্ছেন, তারা যখন আসছেন তখন ভিনদেশে নয়, নিজ দেশের অর্থাৎ ভারতেরই এক অঞ্চল থেকে অন্য অঞ্চলে তারা এসেছিলেন।

আরও সামনে নিয়ে এসেছে চা শ্রমিকদের অবিশ্বাস্য কম মজুরি, মধ্যযুগীয় কর্মপরিবেশ, দারিদ্র্য, শিক্ষা, স্বাস্থ্য, বাসস্থান আর অধিকারহীনতা, ভূমি অধিকার এবং ভূমি সম্পর্ক_ এসব অত্যন্ত প্রাথমিক কিন্তু জরুরি প্রশ্ন ছাড়াও চা শিল্পের বর্তমান ও ভবিষ্যৎ, এককালের শীর্ষ চা রফতানিকারক দেশের অবস্থান হারিয়ে আমদানিকারক দেশের তালিকায় প্রবেশ, চা শিল্পে পুঁজি প্রবাহের ঘাটতি, বিদেশি বা স্টার্লিং কোম্পানিগুলোর উৎপাদনে (পরিমাণ ও গুণগত মান) শীর্ষ অবস্থান বজায় রাখা, দেশি ব্যক্তিমালিকানাধীন কিংবা সরকার পরিচালিত কোম্পানিগুলোতে প্রয়োজনীয় বিনিয়োগ না হওয়া, বিদেশি নিম্নমানের চায়ের জন্য বাজার উন্মুক্ত করে দেওয়া, বিশেষ ইকোনমিক জোন কার স্বার্থে কিসের বিনিময়ে, কতটা ফলপ্রসূ, পার্শ্ববর্তী বিভিন্ন দেশ যারা এসব জোন আগে তৈরি করেছে তাদের অভিজ্ঞতা, আমাদের দেশে ইতিপূর্বে জনগণের জমি দখল করে অনুরূপ যেসব এলাকা গড়া হয়েছিল বিসিক ইত্যাদি সেসব প্রকল্পের বর্তমান হাল, ইকোনমিক জোন প্রতিষ্ঠার জন্য যেসব আইন প্রণয়ন করা হয়েছে সেসবের বৈশিষ্ট্য, সর্বোপরি গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্রে ক্ষমতার ওপর জনগণের মালিকানার প্রকৃতি ইত্যাদি।

আমরা জানি, হবিগঞ্জের চা শ্রমিকরা তাদের ক্ষেতল্যান্ড থেকে প্রস্তাবিত বিশেষ ইকোনমিক জোন প্রকৃত অকৃষি জমিতে সরিয়ে নেওয়ার দাবিতে গত ১৩ ডিসেম্বর থেকে টানা আন্দোলন চালিয়ে যাচ্ছেন। আন্দোলনের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে বাংলাদেশ ইকোনমিক জোন অথরিটি বা 'বেজা' সম্প্রতি বিভিন্ন দৈনিক পত্রিকায় 'হবিগঞ্জ অর্থনৈতিক অঞ্চল বাস্তবায়নে বাধা কার স্বার্থে' শীর্ষক বিজ্ঞাপন প্রকাশ করে। ওই বিজ্ঞাপন থেকেই এটা স্পষ্ট_ প্রধানমন্ত্রীর নির্দেশ আছে ক. 'কৃষিজমি, উপার্জনে ব্যবহৃত জমি এবং বসতভিটা' অর্থনৈতিক অঞ্চল স্থাপনের জন্য ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। খ. চান্দপুর চা বাগানের ৫১১ একর জমিতে ডানকান চা বাগান করেনি। গ. এই জমি চা শ্রমিকরা ফসল উৎপাদনের জন্য রেশনের বিনিময়ে ব্যবহার করত। ঘ. কিন্তু এটা কৃষিজমি ছিল না। এটা সরকারের রেকর্ড অনুযায়ী অকৃষি খাস হিসেবে ডানকানকে বরাদ্দ দেওয়া হয়েছিল।

ওপরে আলোচিত ৪টি স্বীকৃত পয়েন্টের একটি উত্তরই শুধু হবিগঞ্জের চা শ্রমিকরা তাদের আন্দোলনের মাধ্যমে দিয়ে যাচ্ছে। আর তা হলো, সরকারি খাস খতিয়ান হিসেবে যে অকৃষি জমি ডানকানকে ১৮৯০ সালে বরাদ্দ দেওয়া হয়েছিল, সেই অকৃষি খাস জমিকে ফসলি জমিতে রূপান্তরিত করেছে তাদের পূর্বসূরিরা ১২৫ বছর আগে। ১২৫ বছর যাবৎ ফসল ফলানো, প্রতি বছর বিঘাপ্রতি সাড়ে তিন মণ চাল অথবা আটার সমপরিমাণ রেশনের মূল্যে এই জমির দাম পরিশোধ করা হয়েছে বহু আগে। এত চড়া দামে মূল্য পরিশোধের পরও যদি এই খাস জমির মালিকানা সরকারেরই থাকে এবং ডানকান চুক্তিমতো জমি ব্যবহার না করায় যেহেতু আইন অনুযায়ী এই লিজ বাতিল করা হয়েছে, তাহলে ১৯৯৭ সালের খাস জমি বন্দোবস্ত আইন অনুযায়ী এই জমির স্থায়ী বন্দোবস্ত পাওয়ার অগ্রাধিকার রয়েছে চা শ্রমিকদের। কোনো যুক্তিতেই বেজা এই জমি বরাদ্দ পাওয়ার অধিকারী নয়।

প্রকৃতপক্ষে দেশের ভূমিনীতি, ভূমি সংরক্ষণ আইন-২০১৫ (খসড়া), সরকারের পরিকল্পনা, প্রধানমন্ত্রীর অঙ্গীকার ও নির্দেশনা এবং আন্দোলনকারীদের দাবির মধ্যে কোনো নীতিগত বিরোধ নেই। সব পক্ষই কৃষিজমিতে ইকোনমিক জোন স্থাপনের বিরুদ্ধে এবং অনাবাদী পতিত জমিতে তা স্থাপনের পক্ষে। দুর্ভাগ্যবশত এ রকম একটি মীমাংসিত বিষয়েই এখন হাজার হাজার চা শ্রমিককে আন্দোলন চালিয়ে যেতে হচ্ছে।

আমরা যাদের কাছ থেকে বিদ্যমান রাষ্ট্র কাঠামোটি পেয়েছি, সেই ব্রিটিশ আমলারা ছিলেন রাজকর্মচারী, আমরা ছিলাম প্রজা। রাজকর্মচারীদের কলমের দাগ-আঁক হাজার হাজার বা লাখ লাখ প্রজার জীবনপণ সংগ্রামের চেয়ে বড় ছিল। সেটাই আমলাতন্ত্রের বুনিয়াদির গোড়ার শিক্ষা। কিন্তু সেই আমলাতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র কাঠামোটির গণতান্ত্রিক রূপান্তরের জন্যই তো এ দেশের মানুষ ব্রিটিশদের খেদিয়েছে, পাকিস্তানিদের তাড়িয়েছে। বিগত ৪৫ বছর স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশেও বহু আন্দোলন-সংগ্রাম করেছে। কিন্তু যা লিখেছিল ব্রিটিশ, যা বহাল রেখেছে পাকিস্তান; বাংলাদেশেও সেটা বহাল থাকবে হুবহু? আমাদের দুর্ভাগ্যজনক অভিজ্ঞতা হলো, সরকারি বিভিন্ন ভুল ও অন্যায় সিদ্ধান্তের বিরুদ্ধে জনগণ হাজারো আবেদন-নিবেদন করে ব্যর্থ হয়ে যখন আন্দোলন-সংগ্রামের পথে নামতে বাধ্য হয়েছে, তখনি তাদের ওপর নেমে এসেছে ঔপনিবেশিক আমলের চাইতেও অনেক বেশি নির্মম নিপীড়ন। অনেক বেশি ক্ষয়ক্ষতির সম্মুখীন হতে হচ্ছে নাগরিকদের সামান্য দাবি-দাওয়া অর্জনে।

বিদ্যুৎ কর্মকর্তাদের অসততার বিরুদ্ধে কানসাট, বিদেশি কোম্পানির স্বার্থে পরিবেশ ধ্বংস করে উন্মুক্ত পদ্ধতিতে কয়লা উত্তোলনের সিদ্ধান্তের বিরুদ্ধে ফুলবাড়ী, বিমানবন্দর স্থাপনের নামে কৃষিজমি অধিগ্রহণের সিদ্ধান্তের বিরুদ্ধে মুন্সীগঞ্জের জনগণ বিরাট-বিপুল আন্দোলন করেছে। প্রতিটি ক্ষেত্রে আমাদের দুর্ভাগ্যজনক অভিজ্ঞতা হলো_ জনগণের ব্যাপক জানমালের ক্ষয়ক্ষতি, প্রশাসনের সঙ্গে জনগণের অকারণ বৈরিতা একটি ভয়াবহ মাত্রায় উপনীত হওয়ার পূর্ব পর্যন্ত সরকার এসব ক্ষেত্রে আমলা-অফিসার ও স্বার্থান্ব্বেষী মহলের পক্ষ নিয়ে হয় জনগণের বিপক্ষে অবতীর্ণ হয়, অথবা নির্মম নীরবতা পালন করে। অথচ একটি গণতান্ত্রিক ব্যবস্থায় যেখানে নাগরিকরাই রাষ্ট্রের সব ক্ষমতার মালিক, যেখানে সরকার ও আমলাতন্ত্র নাগরিকদের নিযুক্ত প্রতিনিধি এবং চাকরিজীবীমাত্র, সেখানে তা হওয়ার সুযোগ থাকার কথা নয়।

বি এ এস এফ মনে করে, দেশের উন্নয়ন তো নাগরিকদের জন্যই। সেখানে ভুক্তভোগী নাগরিকরা যখন ন্যায্য কোনো দাবি তোলেন, আন্দোলন করেন; আইন, সত্য ও কল্যাণের পক্ষে দাঁড়ান তখন তাতে কর্ণপাত করা হবে না কেন? অতীতের অভিজ্ঞতা থেকে শিক্ষা নিয়ে, বড় ধরনের ক্ষয়ক্ষতির আগেই চা শ্রমিক-জনতার সঙ্গে আলোচনার মাধ্যমে বিষয়টির শান্তিপূর্ণ, ন্যায্য, মানবিক ও টেকসই সমাধান করবে; নাকি আরেকটি ভয়াবহ বিপর্যয় ও দুর্যোগের পথে দীর্ঘদিনের অবহেলিত, লাঞ্ছিত, ভাগ্যহত চা শ্রমিকদের ঠেলে দেবে সেটা মালিক ও সরকারের পরবর্তী কর্মকাণ্ড দ্বারাই নির্ধারিত হবে।

শ্রমিক  শ্রেনীর ও তাদেঁর বিপ্লবী উদ্যোগ

(বি এ এস এফ)

আজকের চলমান দুনিয়ায় অর্থনীতি, রাষ্ট্র,  বুর্জোয়া রাজনীতি, এবং আন্তর্জাতিক সম্পর্কসহ সব কিছুই একটি বিপ্লবী পরিস্থিতিগত কারনে সামাজিক সঙ্কটের সৃষ্টি করেছে। একটি সর্বাত্মক সামাজিক পরিবর্তন এখন সময়ের দাবী। কিন্তু বিপ্লবের জন্য প্রধান বাঁধা হলো, কতিপয়  সর্বহারা শ্রেণীর সুবিধাবাদী চরিত্র, ক্ষুদে বুর্জোয়া শ্রেণীর বড় বুর্জোয়াদের সামনে কাপুরুষচিত মানসিকতা প্রদর্শন, এমনকি পুঁজিবাদের মৃত্যু যন্ত্রনাকালে ও তাঁদের বিশ্বাস ঘাতকতা করা নিত্য নৈমিত্যিক ঘটনা হয়ে উঠেছে।

বিপ্লবী লড়াই সংগ্রামে ভাটার টান থাকলে ও - এখন সব দেশেই সর্বহারা শ্রেণী গভীর অস্থিরতায় ভুগছে। কোটি কোটি জনতা বারবার বিপ্লবের পথে এগিয়ে এসেছেন । কিন্তু প্রতিবারই তারা তাদের নিজস্ব রক্ষণশীল মানসিকতা ও  আমলাতান্ত্রিক মেশিন দ্বারা অবরুদ্ধ হয়েছেন - বঞ্চিত হয়েছেন তাঁদের ন্যায্য পাওনা থেকে।

স্প্যানিশ সর্বহারা শ্রেণী ১৯৩১ সালের এপ্রিল থেকে নিজেদের হাতে ক্ষমতা গ্রহণ করে এবং সমাজের ভাগ্য নির্দেশের জন্য বীরত্বপূর্ণ প্রচেষ্টা চালিয়েছিলো। তবে, তাঁদের নিজস্ব দলগুলি (সোশ্যাল ডেমোক্রেট ও স্ট্যালিনিস্ট ) - তাদের নিজস্ব ধারায় বিপ্লবের বাঁধা হিসাবে কাজ করেছিল এবং ফলে, ফ্রাঙ্কোর বিজয় প্রস্তুত নিশ্চিত করে দেয় তারা। প্রান বিসর্জন দিতে হয় অগনিত লাড়াকো মানুষকে।

ফ্রান্সে, বিশেষ করে ১৯৩৬ সালের জুন মাসে "সর্বাত্মক" হরতালের বিশাল বিপ্লবী ঢেউ পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থাকে উৎখাতের জন্য সর্বহারা শ্রেণী আন্তরিক প্রস্তুতি গ্রহন করেছিলো। তবে, পপুলার ফ্রন্টের লেবেলের অধীনে নেতৃস্থানীয় সংগঠনগুলি ( তথাকথিত সমাজতান্ত্রিক ও স্ট্যালিনিস্ট)  সাময়িকভাবে হলেও বিপ্লবী ধারাকে সফল হতে বাঁধা প্রদান করে।

অন্যদিকে, আমেরিকায় আশ্চয্যজনকভাবে শ্রমিক শ্রেনী এক সর্বাত্মক আন্দোলন সংগ্রামের সূচনা করে নিজেদের অধিকার আদায়ের দ্বারপ্রান্তে উপনিত হয়। তবে, সি আই এর সৃষ্ট সংগঠন গুলো তাঁদের নব ইতিহাস গড়ার সকল স্বপ্ন নস্যাৎ করে দেয়। সি আই এর সৃষ্ট রাজনৈতিক দল গুলো ও জনগণের মাঝে সৃষ্ট বিপ্লবী চেতনাকে নষ্ট করার জন্য চাপ প্রয়োগের পাশাপাশি বিভ্রান্তিকর কাজে লিপ্ত হয়।

বুর্জোয়া নীতির পাশে কমিন্টার্নের সুনির্দিষ্ট কার্যক্রম, বিশ্বজুড়ে বিশেষ করে স্পেন, ফ্রান্স, মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র এবং অন্যান্য "গণতান্ত্রিক" দেশগুলিতে এর বিপরীতমুখী বিপ্লবী ভূমিকা, বিশ্ব সর্বহারার জন্য ব্যতিক্রমী পরিপূরক সমস্যা তৈরি করেছে। অক্টোবর বিপ্লবের ব্যানারে, "পিপলস ফ্রন্ট" দ্বারা  সমঝোতার রাজনীতির প্রচলন করে শ্রমিক শ্রেণীকে নপুংসকতার পথে ঠেলে দিয়ে ফ্যাসিবাদের রাস্তা পরিষ্কার করে দেয়।

একদিকে সাম্রাজ্যবাদ - অন্যদিকে ফ্যাসিবাদ: এগুলি সর্বহারা বিপ্লবের বিরুদ্ধে সংগ্রামে সাম্রাজ্যবাদের শেষ রাজনৈতিক হাতিয়ার। ঐতিহাসিক দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে দেখলে, বুঝা যায় এই দুটি হাতিয়ারই বেশ কার্যকরী। ফ্রান্সে ফ্রিজিয়ান ক্যাপের চিহ্নের অধীনে জার্মানিতে স্বস্তিকার চিহ্নের অধীনে পুঁজিবাদের ক্ষয় অব্যাহত রয়েছে। বুর্জোয়াদের উৎখাতের জন্য সর্বাত্মক চেষ্টা চালাতে হবে। যেন এরা পালিয়ে যাবার পথ খোঁজে না পায়।

পুঁজিবাদের ক্ষয়িষ্ণু ও বস্তুনিষ্ঠ অবস্থার দ্বারা জনসাধারণের এগিয়ে যাবার পথ নির্ধারিত হয়। এবং দ্বিতীয়ত, পুরনো শ্রমিক সংগঠনের বিশ্বাসঘাতক রাজনীতির দ্বারা ও তা ব্যাপক ভাবে প্রভাবিত হয়ে থাকে। এই কারণগুলির মধ্যে, প্রথমটি, অবশ্যই, একটি সিদ্ধান্তমূলক বিষয়: ইতিহাসের আইনগুলি আমলাতান্ত্রিক রীতিনীতির চেয়ে শক্তিশালী। সামাজিক বিশ্বাসঘাতকদের পদ্ধতি যতই ভিন্ন হোক না কেন-ব্লামের "সামাজিক" আইন থেকে শুরু করে স্ট্যালিনের বিচারিক কাঠামো পর্যন্ত-তারা সর্বহারা শ্রেণীর বিপ্লবী ইচ্ছা ভঙ্গ করতে কখনই সফল হবে না। সময়ের সাথে সাথে, ইতিহাসের চাকা আটকে রাখার তাদের মরিয়া প্রচেষ্টা জনসাধারণের কাছে আরও স্পষ্টভাবে দেখা দিবে যে সর্বহারা নেতৃত্বের সংকটই আজ মানবজাতির সংস্কৃতিতে এক মহা সংকট হয়ে উঠেছে, কেবলমাত্র সর্বপ্লাবী বিপ্লবী আন্তর্জাতিক আন্দোলন দ্বারা  তা সমাধান করা যেতে পারে।

The production of tea in Bangladesh began during the colonial period, in the 19th century. The first plantation was established in Malnicherra (Sylhet division) in 1854. Since then, the same feudal conditions have been imposed on tea pickers. Tea pickers are almost exclusively women who are employed for this grueling work, standing all day in sometimes suffocating conditions.

There are 167 tea plantations in Bangladesh, to which are added around 800 small farms. More than three quarters of tea production is carried out in the Sylhet division, in the north-east of the country, notably in Maulvibazar and Habiganj which benefits from a humid climate and slightly steep terrain.

While Bangladesh uses to be an exporting country until the years 1990, today tea production is not sufficient to cover local consumption, particularly due to the low productivity of aging plantations that are poorly maintained by the ownerso tea plantation.

Women tea pickers are arguably the most exploited and poorest of all working people in Bangladesh, earning the lowest wages of Bangladesh's 43 industrial sectors, according to Rajat Biswas, general secretary of the Maulvibazarregion of the Shangha union (BUTS).

In 2010, the government set the minimum daily wage at 45 Taka, or 44 euro cents per day! This had triggered an immediate strike and the minimum wage had been doubled to 99 Taka (0.98 euros / day). To avoid new uncontrolled strikes, the government and plantation owners then had the idea of creating a Joint Committee gathering together Workers and employers, named the Wage Board, and intended to promote social dialogue between representatives of employers and workers : Garden workers and owners sit every two years to agree on wages.

The Wage Board is appointed for 5 years, its members are appointed by the Government which chooses them from among the employers' and trade union organizations that are officially recognized as representative. It must propose a review of minimum wages every two years, and must send its recommendations to the government within 6 months after deliberation.

After many years of procrastination, the government ended up appointing the tea Industry Wage board in January 2019. The latter then set for the next two years the minimum wage between 116 and 120 Taka per day (between (€ 1.15 and € 1.19 per day.) Yet unions estimate that to live decently, this salary should be at least 300 Taka (2.97 euros) plus free accommodation and holiday leave equivalent to two months' salary.

As this recommendation expires in December 2020, the Wage board should have met in 2020 to set the new minimum wage. But the bosses took the excuse of the Corona for repeatedly postponing the Commission meeting. Finally, the Commission announced on June 13, 2021, 6 months late, that the minimum wage remained unchanged.

The Wage board also proposed to create an "apprentice" category with 110 taka as the daily pay, which is mainly a way of paying less for adolescents and young adults who work alongside their mothers during the picking season.

The Wage board rejected the principle of an automatic 5% annual increase - yet recommended by the government’s Minimum Wage Office! - denounced Gita Rani Kanu, president of the Forum of Women Tea Workers of Bangladesh.On the other hand, the Wage board recommended the interim sittings be held every three years instead of every 2 years!

Finally, if the Wage board recommended that employers setup one tube well or well for every 20 workers' families, it did not specify how employers should ensure that the water was drinkable, even though it is compulsory according to the Bangladesh Labor Act, 2006.

The Wage Board 's refusal to raise wages has sparked anger among workers. As RajdeoKairi, Cha Sramik (tea workers) of the Sangha union, says: “167 years have passed since the tea industry started in Bangladesh, but our daily wage is not even 167 Taka! " BASF, the AIT section in Bangladesh and particularly active in the Sylhet region, and the Bangladesh Tea Workers Union (BTWU) have demanded the cancellation of the draft minimum wage recommendation. They maintain the demand for a minimum of 300 daily Taka, as well as free housing and health care and two months of bonuses. Mobilizations are underway to denounce this agreement of shame.

This example shows once again that joint committees like the Wage Board, which bring together employers and workers to supposedly promote social dialogue, are useless for workers: joint committees are only useful for employers and for parasitic union bureaucrats. If workers want to achieve justice, they shall stop trusting official unions and joint committees and they can only rely on their own strength. It is only by consolidating their strength in the balance of power against the boss- and in particular using direct action strategy like the strike - that will enable workers to obtain their just demands.

Solidarity support to poor working people

Recently, (September,2021) Bangladesh AnarchoSyndicalist Federation - BASF provided solidarity assistances to one hundred fifty Tea plantation  poor working families  specially,  those who are lost their family members and profoundly infected by Covid-19. so far basf lost its 8 comrades by corona virus attack. at the moment they are getting  very low wage between 116 and 120 Taka per day (between (€ 1.15 and € 1.19 per day.) Although, Yet unions/BASF estimate that to live decently, this salary should be at least 300 Taka (2.97 euros) plus free accommodation and holiday leave equivalent to two months' salary.

it’s a common phenomenon that COVID-19 are NOT only killing people it is also destroying the livelihoods of working community. Many people lost their jobs and lives. A big number of families are lost their only earning member around us, they leave behind their jobless partners and children and elderly mother and father.

BASF at the beginning of Covid-19 attack distributed among 2000+ members hand washing soap, washable face masks among its poor working members, which was very useful for them.

BASF as a social progressive workers federation, working in the north eastern part of Bangladesh striving to change the whole structure of society through abolition of capitalism & stateism, All kinds of hierarchy and authoritative administration   and establish an autonomous federative society with people’s mandate to bring total peace, prosperity and full freedom of human spices.

BASF belive that Capitalism and Imperialism is the main causes of our problems, e.g. Heath, social, and politico-cultural problem and so forth. Which engulfed total humanity, Without Anarcho-socialism human will not be free. NOW, BASF act as torch bearer.

BASF strongly believe that Capitalism and Imperialism is an international ideology in  its nature, so our struggle must be as international in manner. so that BASF connected with other likeminded and same path walkers  organizations/groups/ and parties at global level. BASF connected with IWA-AIT/ASF etc.

Long Live Revolution! All powers to the People!

আমরা সমাজতন্ত্র কায়েমের সময় অতিক্রম করছি !

(বি এ এস এফ)

সামাজিক বিপ্লবে বিশ্বাসী লোক মাত্রই স্বীকার করবেন- চলমান বিশ্বরাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতিতে আজ ঐতিহাসিক ভাবে সর্বহারা শ্রেণী মারাত্মক নেতৃত্ব শূন্যতায় ভোগছে। পুঁজিবাদের অধীনে  যতটুকু পৌঁছানো যায়, সর্বহারা বিপ্লবের জন্য অর্থনৈতিক পূর্বশর্ত ইতিমধ্যেই তা সাফল্যের সর্বোচ্চ বিন্দুতে পৌঁছে গেছে। মানুষের হাতে যে পরিমান উৎপাদন সম্ভব তা এখন এক স্থিরস্তরে উপনিত হয়েছে। ইতিমধ্যে বস্তুগত উন্নয়নের ধারা ব্যাপক ভাবে বাঁধা গ্রস্থ হয়ে পড়েছে। পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থার অধীনে স্বাস্থ্যগত, সামাজিক, রাজনৈতিক ও অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কট সাধারন মানুষের জীবন প্রনালীকে বাধাগ্রস্থ করছে। নানা ভাবে বঞ্চিত হচ্ছে সাধারন মানুষ। ক্রমবর্ধমান বেকারত্ব, রাষ্ট্রীয় অর্থনীতিকে দুর্বল করছে এবং রাস্ট্রের অর্থনৈতিক সামগ্রীক ব্যবস্থাপনাকে প্রশ্নের মূখে ফেলছে। ফলে গণতান্ত্রিক শাসন ব্যবস্থা ফ্যাসিবাদি রূপে রূপান্তরিত হয়ে এক মারাত্মক দেউলিয়ত্বের উদ্ভব ঘটিয়েছে।

চলমান সঙ্কট থেকে ধনিক শ্রনী বা বুর্জোয়া চক্র নিজেরা শত চেষ্টা করেও তা থেকে মুক্তি পাচ্ছে না । তাই তাঁরা নিজেদের স্ব স্ব দেশে শেষ চেষ্টা হিসাবে ফ্যাসিবাদি শাসন ব্যবস্থার দিকে ঝুঁকে পড়ছে। নিজেদের সামনে এক মহা বিনাশী রাজনৈতিক-সামরিক- অর্থনৈতিক বিপর্যয় দেখেও নিজেরা চোখ বোজে আছে। ঐতিহাসিক ভাবে সুবিধা প্রাপ্ত যেমন- ব্রিটেন, ফ্রান্স, ও আমেরিকা ইত্যাদি দেশ সমূহ সাময়িক সময়ের জন্য নানা ভাবে বৈধ-অবৈধ উপায়ে অর্জিত সঞ্চিত সম্পদের উপর নির্ভর করে গনতান্ত্রিকতার বিলাসিতা প্রদর্শন করছে।  তবে,এই বিভ্রান্তিকর পরিস্থিতি স্থায়ী হবার কোন জো নেই। পরিবর্তন অনিবার্য।

নানা প্রকার নয়া চুক্তির নামে প্রহেলিকাময় ও বিভ্রান্তিকর ব্যবস্থা কেবল সেই সকল দেশে চলতে পারে যে দেশের সরকার ও বুর্জোয়া চক্র সমূহ নানা প্রক্রিয়ায় সম্পদের ব্যাপক সঞ্চয়ন ঘটাতে সক্ষম হয়েছে। নয়া চুক্তি দ্বারা যে মুক্তি মিলে না তা ফ্রান্সের পপুলার ফ্রন্টের রাজনীতি দিবালোকের মত করে সকলের সমনে স্পষ্ট করে তুলে ধরেছে।

চলমান সঙ্কট নিরসনে আন্তর্জাতিক সম্পর্ক স্থাপন ও খুব ভালো ফলাফল উপহার দিতে সক্ষম নয়। পুঁজিবাদের পারস্পরিক বিচ্ছেদ, বৈরিতা, সাম্রাজ্যবাদিদের বিরোধ নয়া নয়া সংকটের জন্ম দিচ্ছে সারা দুনিয়ায়। ইথোপিয়া, মধ্যপ্রাচ্য, মধ্য ইউরূপ, দক্ষিন এশিয়া এর জ্বলন্ত উদাহরন। বুর্জোয়ারা ও সাম্যক অবহিত আছে যে, তাঁদের চাপিয়ে দেয়া দাদাগিরি জাতি সমূহের পারস্পারিক দ্বন্দ্ব নিরসন না করে বরং তা আরও বাড়িয়ে দেয়। জন্ম দেয় নতুন নতুন যুদ্বের। নানা প্রকার উন্মাদনার। এই বুর্জোয়া শক্তি গুলো সঙ্ঘাত, সংঘর্ষ থামাতে প্রথম ও দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযোদ্বের পর আরও ভঙ্গুর হয়ে পড়েছে।

সাধারন ভাবে প্রায় সকলেই একটি কথা প্রায়স বলেন, ঐতিহাসিক ভাবে সমাজতন্ত্র কায়েম করার এখনো সময় হয়নি। সমজতন্ত্র বাস্তবায়নের বস্তুগত পরিস্থিতি এখনো সৃজন হয়নি। প্রকৃত সত্য হলো, সমাজতন্ত্র কায়েমের সময় অতিক্রম করছে। তা কায়েম না হওয়ার জন্য যে সকল আপদ-বিপদ মানব জাতির উপর আপতিত হবার কথা তাই হচ্ছে। মানুষ ক্ষতিগ্রস্থ হচ্ছে, অপমানিত হচ্ছে মানবজাতি। বলতে গেলে, আজ সমগ্র মানব জাতি বিলুপ্তির সম্মূখিন । পুঁজিবাদ আজ সর্বনাশা অজগরের মত দুনিয়াকে গিলে খাইতে চাইছে। সমাজতান্ত্রিক বিপ্লব ছাড়া ঐতিহাসিক বিপর্যয় থেকে মানবজাতি এবং আমাদের পরিবেশ প্রতিবেশকে সুরক্ষিত রাখা সম্ভব নয়। এমনকি মানুষের জীবন, স্বাস্থ্য ও সংস্কৃতি এক ভয়াবহ পরিস্থিতির সম্মোখিন হচ্ছে এবং  হতে থাকবে। মানুষের দায়িত্ব বিশেষ করে সমাজের আগ্রনী বাহিনী বা ভ্যানগার্ডের কর্তব্য হলো সেই ঐতিহাসিক দায়িত্ব পালনে এগিয়ে আসা। অর্থাৎ দুনিয়া জোড়ে সমাজতন্ত্র কায়েম করা এবং বিলয় ঘটানো পুঁজিবাদের। ইতিহাসের অনিবার্য বিপর্যয় থেকে মানব জাতিকে কেবল মাত্র একটি সফল সমাজতান্ত্রিক বিপ্লবই রক্ষা করতে পারে। আর সেই বিপ্লবের জন্য দরকার হলো – সর্বহারার বিপ্লবী নেতৃত্ব- সামগ্রীক ও বঞ্চিত মানুষের সম্মিলিত উদ্যোগ।

চলতি বছরের ১৩ জুন মজুরি বোর্ড চা শ্রমিকদের মজুরি ১১৭ থেকে ১২০ টাকা নির্ধারণ করে; এরপর থেকেই ক্ষোভ প্রকাশ করে আসছেন চা শ্রমিকরা।

চা চাষের ইতিহাস ১৬৭ বছর হলেও চা বাগানের শ্রমিকদের মজুরি এখন পর্যন্ত ১৬৭ টাকাও হয়নি। এরই মধ্যে দীর্ঘ ১১ বছর পর, ন্যূনতম মজুরি বোর্ড চা শ্রমিকদের জন্য খসড়া মজুরির সুপারিশকে চূড়ান্ত করেছে। তবে চা শ্রমিকরা এবং তাদের সংগঠনগুলো এই খসড়ার প্রতিবাদ করে বলেছেন যে, চা বাগান শ্রমিকদের জন্য মজুরি বোর্ডের দ্বারা নির্ধারিত দৈনিক মজুরি গ্রহণযোগ্য নয়। ন্যূনতম মজুরি বোর্ড চা শ্রমিকদের সুবিধাগুলো বাড়ানোর কথা বললেও এই গেজেটে তা হ্রাস করা হয়েছে।

চা-বাগান শিল্পের জন্য গঠিত নিম্নতম মজুরি হারের খসড়া সুপারিশ বাতিলের দাবি জানিয়েছে বি এ এস এফ  এবং  বাংলাদেশ চা শ্রমিক ইউনিয়ন। তাদের দাবি,  '২০১৯ সালের জানুয়ারী থেকে আমরা যেখানে ১১৭-১২০ টাকা মজুরি পাচ্ছি সেখানে সেই মজুরি পাওয়ার আড়াই বছর পর মজুরি বোর্ড আবার ১১৭-১২০ টাকা নির্ধারণ করে দিয়ে যে খসড়া প্রকাশ করেছে সেটা হাস্যকর এবং অগ্রহণযোগ্য'।

চলতি বছরের ১৩ জুন মজুরি বোর্ড চা শ্রমিকদের মজুরি ১১৭ থেকে ১২০ টাকা নির্ধারণ করে; এরপর থেকেই ক্ষোভ প্রকাশ করে আসছেন চা শ্রমিকরা।

চা শ্রমিক ইউনিয়ন জানায়, ২০১৯ সালের অক্টোবরে মজুরি বোর্ড গঠন করা হয়। ৬ মাসের ভেতর এই বোর্ডের রিপোর্ট করার কথা থাকলেও করোনা বা বিভিন্ন কারণে তা করেনি তারা। বর্তমানে প্রায় আড়াই বছর পর চলতি মাসের ১৩ তারিখ মজুরি বোর্ড তাদের খসড়া প্রকাশ করেছে যেখানে চা শ্রমিকদের দৈনিক মজুরি ১১৭ থেকে ১২০ টাকা নির্ধারণ করেছে। অথচ এই খসড়া প্রকাশের আগে ২০১৯ সালের জানুয়ারী থেকে চা শ্রমিকরা ১১৭ থেকে ১২০ টাকা পাচ্ছে । তাদের দাবি ছিল ৩০০ টাকা দৈনিক মজুরি।

২০২০ সালের ১৩ অক্টোবর চা-বাগানের মালিকপক্ষের সংগঠন বাংলাদেশ চা-সংসদের (বিটিএ) সঙ্গে চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়নের চুক্তি সম্পাদন হয় তার প্রেক্ষিতে ২০১৯ সালের ১ জানুয়ারি থেকে ১১৭ থেকে ১২০ টাকা দৈনিক মজুরি পাচ্ছেন চা শ্রমিকরা। তবে এই চুক্তির মেয়াদও প্রায় ৬ মাস অতিক্রম করেছে। প্রতি দুই বছরের জন্য এই চুক্তি মালিকপক্ষ ও শ্রমিকপক্ষের মধ্যে হয়ে থাকে। সর্বশেষ চুক্তির মেয়াদ শেষ হয়েছে ২০২০ সালের ৩১ ডিসেম্বর।  একে তো চুক্তি মেয়াদ অতিক্রম করে ৬ মাস চলে গেছে, তার ওপর যে মজুরি বোর্ডের প্রতি তাদের প্রত্যাশা ছিল ৩০০ টাকা দৈনিক মজুরি, বছরে ২ মাসের বেতন বোনাস হিসেবে দেবে, সেই মজুরি বোর্ডের খসড়ায় বর্তমান মজুরিকেই আবার সুপারিশ করায় তারা চরম হতাশায় পড়েছেন।

এর আগে ২০১০ সালে মজুরি বোর্ড দৈনিক মজুরি ৪৮ টাকা নির্ধারণ করে। এরপর থেকে মালিকপক্ষের সাথে প্রতি দুইবছর পর পর শ্রমিকদের যে চুক্তি হয়ে থাকে তার প্রেক্ষিতে বর্তমানে মজুরি ৪৮ টাকা থেকে ১১৭-১২০ টাকা হয়েছে। ২০১০ সালের দীর্ঘ  ১১ বছর পর, 'চা-বাগান' শিল্প খাতে ন্যূনতম মজুরি বোর্ড ২০২১ সালের ১৩ জুন একটি গেজেট আকারে খসড়া মজুরির সুপারিশ প্রকাশ করে তাতে বাড়েনি চা শ্রমিকদের দৈনিক মজুরি বা অন্যান্য সুযোগ সুবিধা।

চা–শ্রমিকের দৈনিক মজুরি ১২০ টাকার খসড়ায় আপত্তি

[ বাংলাদেশ এনার্কোসিন্ডিক্যালিস্ট ফেডারেশন- বিএ এস এফ সূদির্ঘ কাল থেকে চা প্রমিকদের ন্যায্য মজুরী আদায় ও অন্যান্য অধিকার নিয়ে কাজ করছে। বিএ এস এফ মনে করে চা প্রমিকদের দাবী দাওয়া মানবিক ভাবে সরকার ও চা বাগান মালিকদের বিবেচনা করা উচিৎ। দেশের অন্যান্য শ্রমিকগন যে হারে মজুরী পায় বা অন্যান্য সুযোগ সুবিধা পেয়ে থাকেন চা শ্রমিকগন তা থেকে নানা ভাবে বঞ্চিত। তাঁদের সকল প্রকার বঞ্চনার অবসান হোক। সম্প্রতি চা শ্রমিকদের মজুরী পুনঃ নির্ধান করা হয়েছে। যা একেবারে সন্তোষজনক নয়। তাই চা শ্রমিক সংগঠন সমূহ তা প্রত্যাখ্যান করে চা শ্রমিকদের দাবী অনুসারে কমপক্ষে ৩০০ টাকা মজুরী পুনঃ নির্ধারনের জন্য দাবী উত্থাপন করেছে।]

বাগানভেদে স্থায়ী চা–শ্রমিকের ন্যূনতম দৈনিক মজুরি হবে ১১৭-১২০ টাকা। তার বাইরে আবাসন, ভর্তুকি মূল্যে চাল বা আটা, বছরে দুটি উৎসব ভাতাসহ অন্য সুযোগ-সুবিধা পাবেন। আর শিক্ষানবিশ শ্রমিকের দৈনিক মজুরি ১১০ টাকা।

নিম্নতম মজুরি বোর্ড চা–বাগানশিল্পের শ্রমিকদের জন্য খসড়া মজুরির এই সুপারিশ চলতি মাসে চূড়ান্ত করেছে। তবে এই বোর্ডে
চা–বাগানশিল্পের শ্রমিকপক্ষের অস্থায়ী প্রতিনিধি রাম ভজন কৈরী খসড়া সুপারিশে আপত্তি জানিয়ে তাতে স্বাক্ষর দানে বিরত থাকেন। নিম্নতম মজুরি বোর্ডের চেয়ারম্যান সুলতান মাহমুদসহ অন্য চার সদস্য খসড়ায় স্বাক্ষর করেছেন। বর্তমানে খসড়ার ওপর লিখিতভাবে আপত্তি বা সুপারিশ গ্রহণ করছে বোর্ড।

জানতে চাইলে রাম ভজন কৈরী গতকাল প্রথম আলোক বলেন, ‘দুই বছর অন্তর চা–বাগানমালিক ও শ্রমিকপক্ষের মধ্যে চুক্তির ভিত্তিতে মজুরি সমন্বয় করা হয়। সেই চুক্তির ভিত্তিতেই গত বছর বাগানভেদে ১১৭-১২০ টাকা দৈনিক মজুরি নির্ধারণ করা হয়। মজুরি বোর্ডে আমরা জীবনধারণের জন্য প্রয়োজনীয় মজুরি হিসাব করে দৈনিক ৩০০ টাকা করার দাবি করেছিলাম। অন্যদিকে বার্ষিক দুই উৎসবের প্রতিটিতে মূল মজুরির সমান ভাতা দাবি করেছিলাম। সেটিও মানা হয়নি।’

বিষয়টি নিয়ে মালিকপক্ষের প্রতিনিধি তাহসীন আহমেদ চৌধুরীর সঙ্গে যোগাযোগ করা হলেও তাঁর বক্তব্য পাওয়া যায়নি।

খসড়া সুপারিশ অনুযায়ী, এ শ্রেণি এবং ক্যাটাগরি-১ চা–বাগানের স্থায়ী ও সাময়িক শ্রমিকের দৈনিক মজুরি হবে ১২০ টাকা। বি শ্রেণি এবং ক্যাটাগরি-২ চা–বাগানের শ্রমিকের দৈনিক মজুরি ১১৮ টাকা। আর সি শ্রেণি এবং ক্যাটাগরি-৩ চা–বাগানের শ্রমিকের দৈনিক মজুরি হবে ১১৭ টাকা। ওপরের গ্রেডের ইলেকট্রিশিয়ান, ড্রেসার, সরদার, মিস্ত্রি, লেদ অপারেটর, ধাই, পিয়নের মাসিক মজুরি ৬ হাজার ৬৫০ টাকা। অন্যদিকে কর্মচারীদের সর্বনিম্ন মজুরি ৭ হাজার ৫৪২ টাকা। তবে শিক্ষানবিশ কর্মচারীদের মজুরি ৭ হাজার টাকা। এ ক্ষেত্রে শিক্ষানবিশকাল ছয় মাস হলেও শ্রমিকদের বেলায় তা তিন মাস।

খসড়ায় বলা হয়েছে, সিলেট, মৌলভীবাজার ও হবিগঞ্জের যেসব বাগানে বছরে ১ লাখ ৮০ হাজার কেজি বা তার বেশি চা উৎপাদিত হয়, সেগুলো এ শ্রেণির অন্তর্ভুক্ত। ১ লাখ ৮ হাজার থেকে ১ লাখ ৮০ হাজার কেজি পর্যন্ত চা উৎপাদনকারী বাগান বি শ্রেণির। অন্যদিকে চট্টগ্রাম, রাঙামাটি ও অন্য জেলার যেসব বাগানে ১ লাখ ১৩ হাজার কেজি বা তার বেশি চা উৎপাদিত হয়, সেগুলোর ক্যাটাগরি-১। আর যেসব বাগানে ৪৫ হাজার থেকে ১ লাখ ১৩ হাজার কেজি চা উৎপাদিত হয়, সেগুলোর ক্যাটাগরি-২।

খসড়া সুপারিশ অনুযায়ী, তিন বছর পরপর মজুরি বিষয়টি চা–শ্রমিক ইউনিয়ন ও মালিকপক্ষের সংগঠন বাংলাদেশ চা সংসদ সমঝোতার ভিত্তিতে সিদ্ধান্ত নেবে। বাগানের ভেতরে শ্রমিকদের পরিবারভিত্তিক আবাসন সুবিধা আগের মতোই বহাল রাখতে হবে। শ্রমিকেরা প্রধান দুই উৎসবে এক মাসের মূল মজুরি দুই ভাগে পাবেন। তা ছাড়া প্রচলিত নিয়ম অনুযায়ী, শ্রমিকেরা ভর্তুকি মূল্যে চাল বা আটা পাবেন। চা-বাগানের বিক্রির দশমিক শূন্য ৩ শতাংশ অর্থ শ্রমিকেরা অংশগ্রহণভিত্তিক মুনাফার অংশ হিসেবে বছরে একবার করে পাবেন।

প্রসঙ্গত, ১৮৪০ সালে চট্টগ্রামে প্রথম চা চাষ শুরু হয়। সিলেটে বাণিজ্যিক চা-বাগান চালু হয় ১৮৫৮ সালে। বর্তমানে দেশে চা-বাগানের সংখ্যা ১৬৭। এসব বাগানে কাজ করেন ১ লাখ ৪০ হাজার শ্রমিক। ২০১০ সালের মজুরি বোর্ড শ্রমিকের দৈনিক মজুরি ৪৫ টাকা নির্ধারণ করেছিল।

সূত্রঃ প্রথম আলো

সিলেটের তারাপুর চা-বাগানে শ্রমিকদের বকেয়া বেতন পরিশোধসহ আন্দোলনরত চা শ্রমিকদের ৯ দফা দাবি মেনে নেওয়ার আহবান জানিয়েছে বি এ এস এফ সহ  বাংলাদেশ চা শ্রমিক ফেডারেশন।

আজ রোববার (২৩ মে) বাংলাদেশ চা শ্রমিক ফেডারেশনের কেন্দ্রীয় নেতৃবৃন্দ এবং বাংলাদেশ চা শ্রমিক ফেডারেশন সিলেট জেলার সভাপতি রত্না বসাক ও সাধারণ সম্পাদক হৃদয় ছত্রী এক বিবৃতিতে এই দাবি জানান।

বিবৃতিতে বলা হয়, সিলেটের তারাপুর চা-বাগানের শ্রমিকরা বকেয়া বেতন পরিশোধসহ বিভিন্ন দাবিতে কয়েকদিন থেকে আন্দোলন করে আসছেন। এর ধারাবাহিকতায় গত বোরবার (২২ মে) তারাপুর চা-বাগানে সকাল থেকে কর্মবিরতি ও বিক্ষোভ করেন শ্রমিকরা। ইতিমধ্যে আন্দোলনরত চা শ্রমিকরা ৯ দফা দাবিতে সিলেট জেলা প্রশাসকের কাছে স্মারকলিপি প্রদান করেছেন। বি এ এস এফ এর সদস্যগন আন্দোলনের সকল পর্যায়ে সক্রিয় অংশগ্রহন করেন।

বিবৃতিতে নেতৃবৃন্দ বলেন, এমনিতেই চা শ্রমিকরা মজুরি বৈষ্যমের মধ্যে আছেন। এর মধ্যে বেতন-ভাতা বন্ধ হয়ে গেলে যেমন চা শ্রমিকদের জীবন অচল হয়ে পরে তেমনি চা বাগানও অচল হয়ে যায়। তাই দ্রুত সময়ের মধ্যে বাগানের শ্রমিকদের বকেয়া বেতন পরিশোধের দাবি জানান নেতৃবৃন্দ।

১৪ দফা বৈঠকের পর চা-শ্রমিকদের মজুরি বাড়ল ১৮ টাকা

(বি এ এস এফ)

চা–শ্রমিকদের দৈনিক মজুরি ১৮ টাকা বৃদ্ধি পেয়ে ১২০ টাকা করা হয়েছে। চা-বাগান মালিকদের সংগঠন বাংলাদেশীয় চা-সংসদ ও বাংলাদেশ চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়নের মধ্যে মজুরি (বেতন) বৃদ্ধিসংক্রান্ত দ্বিপক্ষীয় নতুন চুক্তিতে এই মজুরি বাড়ানো হয়। আগের চুক্তির মেয়াদ শেষ হওয়ার ২১ মাস ১৫ দিন পর বৃহস্পতিবার (১৫ অক্টোবর,২০২০ ইং) এই চুক্তি সম্পাদন হয়।

বাংলাদেশ চা–বোর্ড ও চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়নের তথ্য অনুযায়ী, দেশে ১৬৭টি চা-বাগান আছে। এতে নিবন্ধিত শ্রমিকের সংখ্যা ৯৭ হাজার ৭০০ জন।

চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়ন ও চা-বাগান সূত্রে জানা গেছে, বাংলাদেশীয় চা-সংসদ ও বাংলাদেশ চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়নের মধ্যে দ্বিপক্ষীয় চুক্তির মেয়াদ শেষ হয়েছে ২০১৮ সালের ডিসেম্বরে। এরপর প্রথা অনুযায়ী নতুন চুক্তি হওয়ার কথা। দুই বছর পরপর দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে এই চুক্তি সম্পাদন হয়ে থাকে। সেই অনুযায়ী ২০১৯ সালের মার্চ মাস থেকে দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে নতুন চুক্তির বিষয়ে আলাপ-আলোচনা শুরু হয়। চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়নের পক্ষ থেকে তাদের চাহিদা বাংলাদেশীয় চা-সংসদের কাছে তুলে ধরা হয়েছে। এরপর দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে বিভিন্ন বৈঠকে দৈনিক মজুরি বৃদ্ধিসহ অন্যান্য সুযোগ-সুবিধা বৃদ্ধির বিষয়ে দর–কষাকষি চলেছে।

তবে কারোনাভাইরাস সংক্রমণ পরিস্থিতিতে আলোচনা পিছিয়ে পড়ে। সম্প্রতি আবার আলোচনা শুরু হয়। এদিকে চুক্তি বিলম্বিত হওয়ায় দুর্গাপূজার আগেই মজুরি বৃদ্ধি ও সে অনুযায়ী বেতন-বোনাস পরিশোধের দাবিতে চা-শ্রমিকেরা ৮ অক্টোবর থেকে বাগানে বাগানে আট দিন দুই ঘণ্টার কর্মবিরতি পালন ও মিছিল-সমাবেশ করেছেন। তারই একপর্যায়ে গত বৃহস্পতিবার দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে চুক্তি সম্পাদন হলো। নতুন চুক্তির বিষয়ে দুই পক্ষের মধ্যে ১৪ বার বৈঠক হয়েছে।

“যদিও শ্রমিকদের চাহিদামতো মজুরি বৃদ্ধি পায়নি। তারপরও করোনার সময়ে এই মজুরিতে শ্রমিকেরা মোটামুটি খুশিই আছে। আগামী ডিসেম্বরে এই চুক্তির মেয়াদ শেষ হবে। এরপর আগামী জানুয়ারি মাসে মালিকপক্ষের কাছে নতুন চার্টার ডিমান্ড দেওয়া হবে”।

-বিজয় হাজরা, চা-শ্রমিক নেতা ।

নতুন চুক্তি অনুযায়ী চা-শ্রমিকদের দৈনিক মজুরি করা হয়েছে ১২০ টাকা। আগে ছিল ১০২ টাকা। চুক্তি অনুযায়ী ২০১৯ সালের ১ জানুয়ারি থেকে এই মজুরি কার্যকর হবে। ২০১৯ সালের ১ জানুয়ারি থেকে ১৮ অক্টোবর (২০২০) পর্যন্ত বকেয়া মজুরি চার দফায় পরিশোধ করা হবে। নতুন মজুরি দেওয়া শুরু হবে আগামী সোমবার (১৯ অক্টোবর) থেকে। সামনে হিন্দুধর্মাবলম্বীদের প্রধান ধর্মীয় উৎসব শারদীয় দুর্গাপূজা থাকায় পূজার আগে প্রত্যেক শ্রমিককে বকেয়া টাকার মধ্যে তিন হাজার টাকা করে আগাম পরিশোধ করা হবে।

চুক্তিতে স্বাক্ষরকারীদের একজন বাংলাদেশ চা-শ্রমিক ইউনিয়ন কেন্দ্রীয় কমিটির সাংগঠনিক সম্পাদক ও ইউনিয়নের বালিশিরা ভ্যালির সভাপতি বিজয় হাজরা শুক্রবার প্রথম আলোকে বলেন, চুক্তির মেয়াদ শেষ হওয়ার পর ২০১৯ সালের মার্চ মাস থেকে দফায় দফায় ১৪ বার বৈঠক হয়েছে। শ্রমিকদের পক্ষ থেকে দৈনিক মজুরি ২০৪ টাকা করার দাবি ছিল। শেষ পর্যন্ত মালিকপক্ষ ১২০ টাকায় সম্মত হয়েছে। গতবারের চুক্তির চেয়ে ১৮ টাকা বৃদ্ধি পেয়েছে। তিনি জানান, আগামী এক সপ্তাহের মধ্যে আবারও দুই পক্ষের বৈঠকে আনুষঙ্গিক অন্যান্য বিষয় যুক্ত করে চুক্তি চূড়ান্ত করা হবে। পূজার আগে সব শ্রমিককে তিন হাজার টাকা করে অগ্রিম দেওয়া হবে। আগামী সোমবার থেকে পূজার আগেই এই টাকা দেওয়া হবে।

বিজয় হাজরা বলেন, ‘যদিও শ্রমিকদের চাহিদামতো মজুরি বৃদ্ধি পায়নি। তারপরও করোনার সময়ে এই মজুরিতে শ্রমিকেরা মোটামুটি খুশিই আছে। আগামী ডিসেম্বরে এই চুক্তির মেয়াদ শেষ হবে। এরপর আগামী জানুয়ারি মাসে মালিকপক্ষের কাছে নতুন চার্টার ডিমান্ড দেওয়া হবে।’

বি এ এস এফ এর সদস্যগন শ্রমিকদের বেতন বৃদ্বির লড়াই সংগ্রামের প্রতিটি স্তরে নিজেদের উল্লেখযোগ্য ভূমিকা পালন করে আসছে। পাশাপাশি সামাজিক পরিবর্তেনের জন্য কাজ করে যাচ্ছে। স্থানীয়, জাতীয় ও আন্তর্জাতিক পরিস্থিতিকে সামনে রেখে সময় উপযোগী ও কার্যকরী পরিকল্পনা নিয়ে এগিয়ে যাচ্ছে। বি এ আস এফ মনে করে, বর্তমানে যা হচ্ছে তা তাঁদের বৃহত্তর সামাজিক বিপ্লবের পরিকল্পনার আলোকেই হচ্ছে। কারো দ্বারা প্রভাবিত হয়ে নয় বাস্তবতার আলোকে কাজ করাই সময়ের দাবী। পুঁজিবাদ নয় – স্বাধীন সমাজতান্ত্রিক বিপ্লব ই সারা দুনিয়ার মানুষের মুক্তি আসতে পারে।

Covid-19: Washable Face Mask Distribution

বাংলাদেশ এনার্কো-সিন্ডিক্যালিস্ট ফেডারেশন- বি এ এস এফ আজ ১৮ ই সেপ্টেম্ভর, ২০২০ দরিদ্র চা শ্রমিকদের মাঝে covid-19 প্রতিরোধে “Mutual Aid” program এর আওতায় washable face mask বিতরন শুরু করেছে।

বিগত মার্চ মাস থেকে যখন কোভিড- ১৯ এর প্রাদুর্ভাব হয় তখন থেকেই সংগঠনের সকল শাখায় জনগণের মাঝে স্বাস্থ্য সচেতনতা সৃষ্টি, হাত ধৌত করনের জন্য সাবান বিতরন, মাস্ক বিতরন কার্যক্রম চালিয়ে এসেছে।

এবার one time মাস্কের পরিবর্তে বার বার ব্যবহার করা যায় এমন washable face mask বিতরন শুরু করেছে। এই পর্যায়ে ৩০০০ জনের মাঝে বিতরন করা হবে। পরে এর সংখ্যা আরও বাড়ানো হবে।

বি এ এস এফ মনে করে স্বাস্থ্য সুরক্ষা মানুষের একটি অতি দরকারী ও মৌলিক আধিকার। এটা বিচ্ছিন্ন ভাবে স্থায়ী সমাধান করা সম্ভব নয় । তাই এমন একটি স্ব-নিয়ন্ত্রিত, প্রকৃত গণতান্ত্রিক, জন আংশগ্রহন মূলক সমাজ বিনির্মান করা দরকার। যা সমাজ কর্তৃক সামাজের জন্য স্বাস্থ্য সমস্যা সহ সকল কার্যক্রম পরিচালিত ও নিয়ন্ত্রিত হবে। পুঁজিবাদ এবং রাস্ট্রের প্রভাব মুক্ত সমাজই কেবল সকল সমস্যার টেকসই সমাধান করতে পারে।

[Bangladesh Anarcho-Syndicist Federation-BASF has started distribution ‘washable face masks’ among poor tea plantation workers today, September 16, 2020 under the "Mutual Aid" program to prevent covid-19. Since the outbreak of Covid-19 from month of  March in Bangladesh , the organization has been conducting health education to creating awareness among the people in all BASF branches, distributing ‘soap’ for washing hands and distributing face masks. Now it has started distributing ‘washable face masks’ that can be used several times instead of one time masks. At this stage it will be distributed among 3000 people. Later its number will be further increased and cover more people.

The BASF believes that health care initiative is a very useful and fundamental human right. It is not possible to solve it permanently in isolated approach. So it is necessary to build such a self-regulated, truly democratic, participatory society. All activities including health issues for the society will be managed and controlled by the society. Only a society free from the influence of capitalism and the stateism can solve all problems sustainably.]

EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION

By  Elisée Reclus

THESE two words, Evolution and Revolution, closely resemble one  another, and yet they are constantly used in their social and political  sense as though their meaning were absolutely antagonistic. The word  Evolution, synonymous with gradual and continuous development in morals  and ideas, is brought forward in certain circles as though it were the  antithesis of that fearful word, Revolution, which implies changes more  or less sudden in their action, and entailing some sort of catastrophe.  And yet is it possible that a transformation can take place in ideas  without bringing about some abrupt displacements in the equilibrium of  life? Must not revolution necessarily follow evolution, as action  follows the desire to act? They are fundamentally one and the same  thing, differing only according to the time of their appearance. If, on  the one hand, we believe in the normal progress of ideas, and, on the  other, expect opposition, then, of necessity, we believe in external  shocks which change the form of society.

It is this which I am about to try to explain, not availing myself of  abstract terms, but appealing to the observation and experience of  every one, and employing only such arguments as are in common use. No  doubt I am one of persons known as "dreadful revolutionists;" for long  years I have belonged to the legally infamous society which calls itself  "The International Working Mens' Association," whose very name entails  upon all who assume membership the treatment of malefactors; finally, I  am amongst those who served that "execrable" Commune, "the detestation  of all respectable men." But however ferocious I may be, I shall know  how to place myself outside, or rather above my party, and to study the  present evolution and approaching revolution of the human race without  passion or personal bias. As we are amongst those whom the world  attacks, we have a right to demand to be amongst those whom it hears.

To begin with, we must clearly establish the fact, that if the word  evolution is willingly accepted by the very persons who look upon  revolutionists with horror, it is because they do not fully realise what  the term implies, for they would not have the thing at any price. They  speak well of progress in general, but they resent progress in any  particular direction. They consider that existing society, bad as it is,  and as they themselves acknowledge it to be, is worth preserving; it is  enough for them that it realises their own ideal of wealth, power or  comfort. As there are rich and poor, rulers and subjects, masters and  servants, Caesars to command the combat, and gladiators to go forth and  die, prudent men have only to place themselves on the side of the rich  and powerful, and to pay court to Caesar. Our beautiful society affords  them bread, money, place, and honour; what have they to complain of?  They persuade themselves without any difficulty that every one is as  well satisfied as they. In the eyes of a man who has just dined all the  world is well fed. Toying with his tooth-pick, he contemplates placidly  the miseries of the "vile multitude" of slaves. All is well; perdition  to the starveling whose moan disturbs his digestion! If society has from  his cradle provided for the wants and whims of the egotist, he can at  all events hope to win a place there by intrigue and flattery, by hard  work, or the favour of destiny. What does moral evolution matter to him?  To evolve a fortune is his one ambition!

But if the word evolution serves but to conceal a lie in the mouths  of those who most willingly pronounce it, it is a reality for  revolutionists; it is they who are the true evolutionists.

Escaping from all formulas, which to them have lost their meaning,  they seek for truth outside the teaching of the schools; they criticise  all that rulers call order, all that teachers call morality; they grow,  they develop, they live, and seek to communicate their life. What they  have learned they proclaim; what they know they desire to practise. The  existing state of things seems to them iniquitous, and they wish to  modify it in accordance with a new ideal of justice. It does not suffice  them to have freed their own minds, they wish to emancipate those of  others also, to liberate society from all servitude. Logical in their  evolution, they desire what their mind has conceived, and act upon their  desire.

Some years ago the official and courtly world of Europe was much in  the habit of repeating that Socialism had quite died out. A man who was  extremely capable in little matters and incapable in great ones, an  absurdly vain parvenu, who hated the people because he had risen  from amongst them, officially boasted that he had given Socialism its  death-blow. He believed that he had exterminated it in Paris, buried it  in the graves of Pere La Chaise. It is in New Caledonia at the  Antipodes, thought he, that the miserable remnant of what was once the  Socialist party is to be found. All his worthy friends in Europe  hastened to repeat the words of Monsieur Thiers, and everywhere they  were a song of triumph. As for the German Socialists, have we not the  Master of Masters to keep an eye upon them, the man at whose frown  Europe trembles? And the Russian Nihilists! Who and what are those  wretches?  Strange monsters, savages sprung from Huns and Bashkirs,  about whom the men of the civilised West have no need to concern  themselves!

Nevertheless the joy caused by the disappearance of Socialism was of  short duration. I do not know what unpleasant consciousness first  revealed to the Conservatives that some Socialists remained, and that  they were not so dead as the sinister old man had pretended. But now no  one can have any doubts as to their resurrection. Do not French workmen  at every meeting pronounce unanimously in favour of that appropriation  of the land and factories, which is already regarded as the point of  departure for the the new economic era? Is not England ringing with the  cry, "Nationalisation of the Land," and do not the great landowners  expect expropriation at the hands of the people? Do not political  parties seek to court Irish votes by promises of the confiscation of the  soil, by pledging themselves beforehand to an outrage upon the thrice  sacred rights of property? And in the United States have we not seen the  workers masters for a week of all the railways of Indiana, and of part  of those on the Atlantic sea-board? If they had understood the  situation, might not a great revolution have been accomplished almost  without a blow? And do not men, who are acquainted with Russia, know  that the peasants, one and all, claim the soil, the whole of the soil,  and wish to expel their lords?  Thus the evolution is taking place.  Socialism, or in other words, the army of individuals who desire to  change social conditions, has resumed its march. The moving mass is  pressing on, and now no government dare ignore its serried ranks. On the  contrary, the powers that be exaggerate its numbers, and attempt to  contend with it by absurd legislation and irritating interference. Fear  is an evil counsellor.

No doubt it may sometimes happen that all is perfectly quiet. On the  morrow of a massacre few men dare put themselves in the way of the  bullets. When a word, a gesture are punished with imprisonment, the men  who have courage to expose themselves to the danger are few and far  between. Those are rare who quietly accept the part of victim in a  cause, the triumph of which is as yet distant and even doubtful.  Everyone is not so heroic as the Russian Nihilists, who compose  manifestos in the very lair of their foes, and paste them on a wall  between two sentries. One should be very devoted oneself to find fault  with those who do not declare themselves Socialists, when their work,  that is to say the life of those dear to them, depends on the avowal.  But if all the oppressed have not the temprement of heroes, they feel  their sufferings none the less, and large numbers amongst them are  taking their own interests into serious consideration. In many a town  where there is not one organised Socialist group, all the workers  without exception are already more or less consciously Socialists;  instinctively they applaud a comrade who speaks to them of a social  state in which all the products of labour shall be in the hands of the  labourer. This instinct contains the germ of the future Revolution; for  from day to day it becomes more precise, transformed into distincter  consciousness. What the worker vaguely felt yesterday, he knows today,  and each new experience teaches him to know it better. And are not the  peasants, who cannot raise enough to keep body and soul together from  their morsel of ground, and the yet more numerous class who do not  possess a clod of their own, are not all these beginning to comprehend  that the soil ought to belong to the men who cultivate it? They have  always instinctively felt this, now they know it, and are preparing to  assert their claim in plain language.

This is the state of things; what will be the issue? Will not the  evolution which is taking place in the minds of the workers, i.e. of the  great masses, necessarily bring about a revolution; unless, indeed, the  defenders of privilege yield with a good grace to the pressure from  below? But history teaches us that they will do nothing of the sort. At  first sight it would appear so natural that a good understanding should  be established amongst men without a struggle. There is room for us all  on the broad bosom of the earth; it is rich enough to enable us all to  live in comfort. It can yeild sufficient harvests to provide all with  food; it produces enough fibrous plants to supply all with clothing; it  contains enough stone and clay for all to have houses. There is a place  for each of the brethren at the banquet of life. Such is the simple  economic fact.

What does it matter? say some. The rich will squander at their  pleasure as much of this ealth as suits them; the middle-men,  speculators and brokers of every description will manipulate the rest;  the armies will destroy a great deal, and the mass of the people will  have ahve the scraps that remain. "The poor we shall have always with  us," say the contented, quoting  a remark which, according to them, fell  from the lips of a God. We do not care whether their God wished some to  be miserable or not. We will re-create the world on a different  pattern! "No, there shall be no more poor! As all men need to be housed  and clothed and warmed and fed, let all have what is necessary, and none  be cold or hungry!" The terrible Socialists have no need of a God to  inspire these words; they are human, that is enough.

Thus two opposing societies exist amongst men. They are intermingled,  variously allied here and there by the people who do not know their own  minds, and advance only to retreat; but viewed from above, and taking  no account of uncertain and indifferent individuals who are swayed  hither and thither by fate like waves of the sea, it is certain that the  actual world is divided into two camps, those who desire to maintain  poverty, i.e. hunger for others, and those who demand comforts for all.  The forces in these two camps seem at first sight very unequal. The  supporters of existing society have boundless estates, incomes counted  by hundreds of thousands, all the powers of the State, with its armies  of officials, soldiers, policemen, magistrates, and a whole arsenal of  laws and ordinances. And what can the Socialists, the artificers of the  new society, oppose to all this organised force? Does it seem that they  can do nothing? Without money or troops they would indeed succumb if  they did not represent the evolution of ideas and of morality. They are  nothing, but they have the progress of human thought on their side. They  are borne along on the stream of the times.

The external form of society must alter in  correspondence with the impelling force within; there is no better  established historical fact. The sap makes the tree and gives it leaves  and flowers; the blood makes the man; the ideas make the society. And  yet there is not a conservative who does not lament that ideas and  morality, and all that goes to make up the deeper life of man, have been  modified since "the good old times." Is it not a necessary result of  the inner working of men's minds that social forms must change and a  proportionate revolution take place?

Let each ascertain from his own recollections the  changes in the methods of thought and action which have happened since  the middle of this century. Let us take, for example, the one capital  fact of the diminution of observance and respect. Go amongst great  personages: what have they to complain of? That they are treated like  other men. They no longer take precedence; people neglect to salute  them; less distinguished persons permit themselves to possess handsomer  furniture or finer horses; the wives of less wealthy men go more  sumptuously attired. And what is the complaint of the ordinary man or  woman of the middle-class? There are no more servants to be had, the  spirit of obedience is lost. Now the maid pretends to understand cooking  better than her mistress; she does not piously remain in one situation,  only too grateful for the hospitality accorded her; she changes her  place in consequence of the smallest disagreeable observation, or to  gain two shillings more wages. There are even countries where she asks  her mistress for a character in exchange for her own.

It is true, respect is departing; not the just  respect which attaches to an upright and devoted man, but that  despicable and shameful respect which follows wealth and office; that  slavish respect which gathers a crowd of loafers when a king passes, and  makes the lackeys and horses of a great man objects of admiration. And  not only is respect departing, but those who lay most claim to the  consideration of the rest, are the first to compromise their superhuman  character. In former days Asiatic sovereigns understood the art of  causing themselves to be adored. Their palaces were seen from afar;  their statues were erected everywhere; their edicts were read; but they  never showed themselves. The most familiar never addressed them but upon  their knees; from time to time a half-lifted veil parted to disclose  them as if by a lightning flash, and then as suddenly enfolded them once  more, leaving consternation in the hearts of all beholders. In those  days respect was profound enough to result in stupifaction: a dumb  messenger brought a silken cord to the condemned, and that sufficed,  even a gesture would have been superfluous. And now we see sovereigns  taking boxes by telegraph at the theatre to witness the performance of Orphee aux Enfers or The Grand Duchess of Gerolstein, that  is to say, taking part in the derision of all which used to be held  most worthy of respect- divinity and royalty! Which is the true  regicide, the man who kills a sovereign, doing him the honour to take  him as the representative of a whole society, or the monarch, who mocks  at himself by laughing at the Grand Duchess or General Boum ? He teaches  us at least that political power is a worm eaten institution. It has  retained its form, but the universal respect which gave it worth has  disappeared. It is nothing but an external scaffolding, the edifice  itself has ceased to exist.

Does not the spread of an education, which gives the  same conception of things to all, contribute to our progress towards  equality? If instruction were only to be obtained at school, governments  might still hope to hold the minds of men enslaved; but it is outside  the school that most knowledge is gained. It is picked up in the street,  in the workshop, before the booths of a fair, at the theatre, in  railway carriages, on steam boats, by gazing at new landscapes, by  visiting foreign towns. Almost every one travels now, either as a luxury  or a necessity. Not a meeting but people who have seen Russia,  Australia, or America may be found in it, and if travellers who have  changed continents are so frequently met with, there is, one may say, no  one who has not moved about sufficiently to have observed the contrast  between town and country, mountain and plain, earth and sea. The rich  travel more than the poor, it is true; but they generally travel  aimlessly; when they change countries they do not change surroundings,  they are always in a sense at home; the luxuries and enjoyments of hotel  life do not permit them to appreciate the essential differences between  country and country, people and people. The poor man, who comes into  collision with the difficulties of life without guide or cicerone, is  best qualified to observe and remember. And does not the great school  of the outer world exhibit the prodigies of human industry equally to  rich and poor, to those who have called these marvels into existence and  those who profit by them? The poverty-stricken outcast can see  railways, telegraphs, hydraulic rams, perforators, self-lighting  matches, as well as the man of power, and he is no less impressed by  them. Privilege has disappeared in the enjoyment of some of these grand  conquests of science. When he is conducting his locomotive through  space, doubling or slacking speed at his pleasure, does the  engine-driver believe himself the inferior of the sovereign shut up  behind him in a gilded railway-carriage, and trembling with the  knowledge that his life depends on a jet of steam, the shifting of a  lever, or a bomb of dynamite?

The sight of nature and the works of man, and  practical life, these form the college in which the true education of  contemporary society is obtained. Schools, properly so called, are  relatively much less important; yet they, too, have undergone their  evolution in the direction of equality. There was a time, and that not  very far distant, when the whole of education consisted in mere  formulas, mystic phrases, and texts from sacred books. Go into the  Mussel school opened beside the mosque. There you will see children  spending whole hours in spelling or reciting verses from the Koran. Go  into a school kept by Christian priests, Protestant or Catholic, and you  will hear silly hymns and absurd recitations. But even in these schools  the pressure from below has caused this dull routine to be varied with a  new sort of instruction; instead of nothing but formulas the teachers  now explain facts, point out analogies and trace the action of laws.  Whatever the commentaries with which the instructor accompanies his  lessons, the figures remain none the less incorruptible. Which education  will prevail? That according to which two and two make four, and  nothing is created out of nothing; or the odd education according to  which everything comes from nothing and three persons make only one?

The elementary school, it is true, is not all: it is  not enough to catch a glimpse of science, one should be able to apply it  in every direction. Therefore Socialistic evolution renders it  necessary that school should be a permanent institution for all men.  After receiving "general enlightenment" in a primary school, each ought  to be able to develop to the full such intellectual capacity as he may  possess, in a life which he has freely chosen. Meanwhile let not the  worker despair. Every great conquest of science ends by becoming public  property. Professional scientists are obliged to go through long ages of  research and hypothesis, they are obliged to struggle in the midst of  error and falsehood; but when the truth is gained at length, often in  spite of them, thanks to some despised revolutionists, it shines forth  clear and simple in all its brilliance. All understand it without an  effort: it seems as if it had always been known. Formerly learned men  fancied that the sky was a round dome, a metal roof-or better still-a  series of vaults, three, seven, nine, even thirteen, each with its  procession of stars, its distinct laws, its special regime and  its troops of angels and archangels to guard it! But since these tiers  of heavens, piled one upon the other, mentioned in the Bible and Talmud,  have been demolished, there is not a child who does not know that round  the earth is infinite and unconfined space. He hardly can be said to  learn this. It is a truth which henceforward forms a part of the  universal inheritance.

It is the same with all great acquisitions,  especially in morals and political economy. There was a time when the  great majority of men were born and lived as slaves, and had no other  ideal than a change of servitude. It never entered their heads that "one  man is as good as another." Now they have learnt it, and understand  that the virtual equality bestowed by evolution must be changed into  real equality, thanks to a revolution. Instructed by life, the workers  comprehend certain economic laws much better than even professional  economists. Is there a single workman who remains indifferent to the  question of progressive or proportional taxation, and who does not know  that all taxes fall on the poorest in the long run ? Is there a single  workman who does not know the terrible fatality of the "iron law," which  condemns him to receive nothing but a miserable pittance, just the  wage: that will prevent his dying of hunger during his work? Bitter  experience has caused him to know quite enough of this inevitable law of  political economy.

Thus, whatever be the source of information, all profit by it, and  the worker not less than the rest. Whether a discovery is made by a  bourgeois, a noble, or a plebeian, whether the learned man is Bernard  Palissy, Lord Bacon, or Baron Humboldt, the whole world will turn his  researches to account. Certainly the privileged classes would have liked  to retain the benefits of science for themselves, and leave ignorance  to the people, but henceforth their selfish desire cannot be fulfilled.  They find themselves in the case of the magician in "The Thousand and  One Nights," who unsealed a vase in which a genius had been shut up  asleep for ten thousand years. They would like to drive him back into  his retreat, to fasten him down under a triple seal, but they have lost  the words of the charm, and the genius is free for ever.

This freedom of the human will is now asserting itself in every  direction; it is preparing no small and partial revolutions, but one  universal Revolution. It is thoughout society as a whole, and every  branch of its activity, that changes are making ready. Conservatives are  not in the least mistaken when they speak in general terms of  Revolutionists as enemies of religion, the family and property. Yes;  Socialists do reject the authority of dogma and the intervention  of the  supernatural in nature, and, in this sense however earnest their  striving for the realisation of their ideal, they are the enemies of  religion. Yes; they do desire the suppression of the marriage market;  they desire that unions should be free, depending only on mutual  affection and respect for self and for the dignity of others, and, in  this sense, however loving and devoted to those whose lives are  associated with theirs, they are certainly the enemies of the legal  family. Yes; they do desire to put an end to the monopoly of land and  capital, and to restore them to all, and, in this sense, however glad  they may be to secure to every one the enjoyment of the fruits of the  earth, they are the enemies of property.

Thus the current of evolution, the incoming tide, is bearing us  onward towards a future radically different from existing conditions,  and it is vain to attempt to oppose obstacles to destiny. Religion, by  far the most solid of all dikes, has lost its strength: cracking on  every side, it leaks and totters, and cannot fail to be sooner or later  overthrown.

It is certain that contemporary evolution is taking place wholly  outside Christianity. There was a time when the word Christian, like  Catholic, had a universal signification, and was actually applied to a  world of brethren, sharing, to a certain extent, the same customs, the  same ideas, and a civilisation of the same nature. But are not the  pretensions of Christianity to be considered in our day as synonymous  with civilisation, absolutely unjustifiable? And when it is said of  England or Russia that their armies are about to carry Christianity and  civilisation into distant regions, is not the irony of the expression  obvious to every one? The garment of Christianity does not cover all the  peoples who by right of culture and industry form a part of  contemporary civilisation. The Parsees of Bombay, the Brahmins of  Benares eagerly welcome our science, but they are coldly polite to the  Christian Missionaries. The Japanese, though so prompt in imitating us,  take care not to accept our religion. As for the Chinese, they are much  too cunning and wary to allow themselves to be converted. "We have no  need of your priests," says an English poem written by a Chinese, "We  have no need of your priests. We have too many ourselves, both  long-haired and shaven. What we need is your arms and your science, to  fight you and expel you from our land, as the wind drives forth the  withered leaves!"

Thus Christianity does not nominally cover half the civilised world,  and even where it is supposed to be paramount, it must be sought out; it  is much more a form than a reality, and amongst those who are  apparently the most zealous, it is nothing but an ignoble hypocrisy.  Putting aside all whose Christianity consists merely in the sprinkling  of baptism or inscription on the parish register, how many individuals  are there whose daily life corresponds with the dogmas they profess, and  whose ideas are always, as they should be, those of another world?  Christians rendered honourable by their perfect sincerity may be sought  without marked success even in "Protestant Rome," a city, nevertheless,  of mighty traditions. At Geneva as at Oxford, as at all religious  centres, and everywhere else, the principal preoccupations are  non-ecclesiastical; they lean towards politics, or, more often still,  towards business. The principal representatives of so-called Christian  society are Jews, "the epoch's kings." And amongst those who devote  their lives to higher pursuits--science, art, poetry--how many, unless  forced to do so, occupy themselves with theology? Enter the University  of Geneva. At all the courses of lectures--medicine, natural history,  mathematics, even jurisprudence--you will find voluntary listeners; at  every tone except at those upon theology. The Christian religion is like  a snow-wreath melting in the sun: traces are visible here and there,  but beneath the streaks of dirty white the earth shows, already clear of  rime.

The religion which is thus becoming detached, like a garment, from  European civilisation, was extremely convenient for the explanation of  misery, injustice, and social inequality. It had one solution for  everything-miracles. A Supreme will had pre-ordained all things.  Injustice was an apparent evil, but it was preparing good tilings to  come. "God giveth sustenance to the young birds. He prepareth eternal  blessedness for the afflicted. Their misery below is but the harbinger  of felicity on high!" These things were ceaselessly repeated to the  oppressed as long as they believed them; but now such arguments have  lost all credence, and are no longer met with, except in the petty  literature of religious tracts.

What is to be done to replace the departing religion? As the worker  believes no longer ill miracles, can he perhaps be induced to believe in  lies? And so learned economists, academicians, merchants, and  financiers have contrived to introduce into science the bold proposition  that property and prosperity are always the reward of labour! It would  be scarcely decent to discuss such an assertion. When they pretend that  labour is the origin of fortune, economists know perfectly well that  they are not speaking the truth. They know as well as the Socialists  that wealth is not the product of personal labour, but of the labour of  others: they are not ignorant that the runs of luck on the Exchange and  the speculations which create great fortunes have no more connection  with labour than the exploits of brigands in the forests; they dare not  pretend that the individual who has five thousand pounds a day, just  what is required to support one hundred thousand persons like himself,  is distinguished from other men by an intelligence one hundred thousand  times above the average. It would be scandalous to discuss this sham  origin of social inequality. It would be to be a dupe, almost an  accomplice, to waste time over such hypocritical reasoning.

But arguments of another kind are brought forward, which have at  least the merit of not being based upon a lie. The right of the  strongest is now evoked against social claims. Darwin's theory, which  has lately made its appearance in the scientific world, is believed to  tell against us. And it is, in fact, the right of the strongest which  triumphs when fortune is monopolised. He who is materially the fittest,  the most wily, the most favoured by birth, education, and friends; he  who is best armed and confronted by the feeblest foe, has the greatest  chance of success; he is able better than the rest to erect a citadel,  from the summit of which he may look down on his unfortunate brethren.  Thus is determined the rude struggle of conflicting egoisms. Formerly  this blood-and-fire theory was not openly avowed; it would have appeared  too violent, and honied words were preferable. But the discoveries of  science relative to the struggle between species for existance and the  survival of the fittest, have permitted the advocates of force to  withdraw from their mode of expression all that seemed too insolent.  "See, they say, "it is an inevitable law! Thus decrees the fate of  mankind!"

We ought to congratulate ourselves that the question is thus  simplified, for it is so much the nearer to its solution. Force reigns,  say the advocates of social inequality! Yes, it is force which reigns!  proclaims modern industry louder and louder in its brutal perfection.  But may not the speech of economists and traders be taken up by  revolutionists? The law of the strongest will not always and necessarily  operate for the benefit of commerce. "Might surpasses right," said  Bismark, quoting from many others; but it is possible to make ready for  the day when might will be at the service of right. If it is true that  ideas of solidarity are spreading; if it is true that the conquests of  science end by penetrating the lowest strata; if it is true that truth  is becoming common property; if evolution towards justice is  taking place, will not the workers, who have at once the right and the  might, make use of both to bring about a revolution for the benefit of  all? What can isolated individuals, however strong in money,  intelligence, and cunning, do against associated masses?

In no modern revolution have the privileged classes been known to  fight their own battles. They always depend on armies of the poor, whom  they have taught what is called loyalty to the flag, and trained to what  is called "the maintenance of order." Five millions of men, without  counting the superior and inferior police, are employed in Europe in  this work. But these armies may become disorganised, they may call to  mind the nearness of their own past and future relations with the mass  of the people, and the hand which guides them may grow unsteady. Being  in great part drawn from the proletariat, they may become to bourgeois society what the barbarians in the pay of the Empire became to that of  Rome-an element of dissolution. History abounds in examples of the  frenzy which seizes upon those in power. When the miserable and  disinherited of the earth shall unite in their own interest, trade with  trade, nation with nation, race with race; when they shall fully awake  to their sufferings and their purpose, doubt not that an occasion will  assuredly present itself for the employment of their might in the  service of right; and powerful as may be the Master of those days, he  will be weak before the starving masses leagued against him. To the  great evolution now taking place will succeed the long expected, the  great revolution.

It will be salvation, and there is none other. For if capital retains  force on its side, we shall all be the slaves of its machinery, mere  bands connecting iron cogs with steel and iron shafts. If new spoils,  managed by partners only responsible to their cash books, are  ceaselessly added to the savings already amassed in bankers' coffers,  then it will be vain to cry for pity, no one will hear your complaints.  The tiger may renounce his victim, but bankers' books pronounce  judgments without appeal. From the terrible mechanism whose merciless  work is recorded in the figures on its silent pages, men and nations  come forth ground to powder. If capital carries the day, it will be time  to weep for our golden age; in that hour we may look behind us and see  like a dying light, love and joy and hope-all the earth has held of  sweet and good. Humanity will have ceased to live.

As for us, whom men call "the modern barbarians," our desire is  justice for all. Villains that we are, we claim for all that shall be  born, bread, liberty, and progress.

The economic basis determines social relations

Economic basis: The relations of production take a certain form in society. At a historical stage, relations of production form the economic system of society, forming the economic basis. Through this we distinguish between slave society, feudal society, capitalist society and socialist society.

Infrastructure: Without the economic basis of each social system, material value cannot be produced there, the productive forces of the society cannot be developed. If we consider the whole issue of production relations, we will see that the economic basis determines all other social relations. A superstructure that builds all social-relationships on an economic basis. This superstructure includes all political, legal, philosophical, ethical, religious and other opinions and ideas and their affiliated organizations and institutions. Such as- state, political party, legal-cultural-judicial-religious and more institutions.

The economic base-created infrastructure became an active force. It helps in building and strengthening the foundation of the economy. At present, the role of infrastructure related to the economic base is extensive. In the capitalist countries, the political superstructure plays a reactionary role because it protects the bourgeois economic base and the exploiting classes. But history shows that the destruction of the capitalist system is inevitable. The capitalist superstructure slows down social progress at one stage of development. It is a tool of global hegemonic monopolies. On the other hand, the socialist superstructure plays a progressive role and accelerates the development of production towards communism. It helps to improve the well-being of the people and improve their cultural values.

Economics as a social science studies production-relations in its complex interaction with productive forces and superstructure. Without understanding the subject of that interaction, the true nature of the relations of production and the economic basis of society will never be understood. Therefore, the capitalist relations of production cannot be analyzed without examining the deep contradictions between the productive forces of capitalism and the relations of production, without considering the types and methods of influence of the bourgeois state on the economic development of capitalism.

Method of production: There is a stage in the development of society. Each stage has its own productive force and its associated production-relationship. At a certain stage of historical development, the productive forces of society and the relations of production together form the mode of production. Every mode of production is built on the basis of ownership over the means of production. It is this ownership that fixes all the rules of production. It fixes the relationship of the working people with the means of production. So far, five modes of production have been observed in human society. Namely, the primitive communist mode of production and the slave-based, feudal, capitalist and socialist mode of production. In the trend of social development, these have taken place one after the other.

The connection of production materials with producers varies in different production methods. The predominance of private property-ownership in capitalism. In this case, the means of production is an oppressive force to the producer. In fact, capitalist production is based on the exploitation of wages and labor and its aim is only to plunder profits. On the other hand, the initial stage of communism is based on the social ownership of the means of production of socialism. There private ownership of the main tool of exploitation is abolished. As a result, the exploitation of human beings is stopped.

Classes: The relation of the producer to the means of production determines the classification of society. Class is a large part of the people between whom there are gaps, there are differences. Their place in social production is different, the relationship with the means of production is not the same. Their role in labor organization is different and their share of social resources is different. In a society exploited by the force of private ownership over the means of production, the exploiting classes usurp the fruits of the labor of other classes. In capitalist society the means of production are in the hands of the bourgeoisie, so they embezzle the fruits of the labor of the wage-workers. In a socialist society the means of production are owned by the working people and they produce in unison. In accordance with the labor given by suffering. As a result, there is no opportunity to exploit the labor of others. In this society, there is no place for human exploitation. This society is a society without exploitation.

Main classes in different modes of production: There are two main classes in the slave society, slaves and slave owners. In feudal society, landlords and feudal lords. In capitalist society, wage-workers and capitalists. In a socialist society, the working class and the cooperative peasantry live together, no one exploits anyone.

Topics of Economics Production and Consumption: Any product is produced for its use. Material value production keeps society alive. Production is to be non-stop. It can't stop for a day. Such as food, clothing, shelter and educational products.

Production is not an isolated verb. One thing is production and another is production, that's not the point. When the product is consumed, there is a need for re-production. Such material production is called reproduction process. Associated with this is the distribution, exchange and enjoyment of material values.

Production is for consumption by making a certain product. Production and consumption are the two beginning and the final stages of reproduction. There are two types of enjoyment. Productive consumption and personal consumption. If a product is used in a new production process, it is called productive consumption. Such as factory parts. Productive enjoyment is itself a production-process. If the product is used to meet the needs of the people, it is called personal consumption. Personal enjoyment is just enjoyment.

Production and consumption are closely intertwined. Production for consumption. Production creates the products of productive and personal consumption and precisely the quantity and structure of consumption. Production also gave rise to demand for new products, such as coal and oil, which were originally extracted from mines as fuel, but are now being used to produce chemicals as science and technology improve. In addition, modern vehicles are giving birth to improved roads. On production and consumption, Marx said, "Consumption is not without production, but production is not without consumption, because in that case production is useless."

There is a reciprocity between production and consumption on the one hand and conflict on the other. Guarantees against the exploitation-caused poverty and unemployment of capitalism. But even in socialism there is sometimes a conflict between production and consumption. But when conflict arises, planning brings equality between production and consumption. Basically the socialist economy is the planned economy. In socialism, when the production of consumer goods increases rapidly, it must be understood that the demand of the people has increased.

Distribution: Distribution is a matter between production and consumption. The material produced is distributed before consumption. The nature of the distribution of the products produced between different classes and social groups depends on the economic relations between the people engaged in production. Distribution is based on the ownership of the materials of production. In capitalism the owner of production is the bourgeois class, as a result of which the goods produced belong to the capitalist. So the distribution of these materials is aimed at ensuring higher profits for the capitalists and reducing the minimum wage of the workers. As a result, the working people in capitalism are constantly forced to wage a fierce struggle against wage-slavery to establish their rights.

In socialism, on the other hand, the situation is completely different. There is no capitalist. As a result, people work hard for themselves and for society. The materials produced there are distributed according to the quantity and quality of production work. That is why the material and cultural values ​​of the people continue to improve.

Some bourgeois economists claim that distribution is production-neutral, that is, distribution is not related to production. They say that equitable distribution is capable of curing all the diseases of capitalism. In reality, in capitalism, equitable distribution is impossible, because the mode of distribution cannot be changed without changing the mode of production. The leading role in the interrelationship between production and distribution is that of production. How the distribution will be according to the type of production. Therefore distribution is dependent on production. Again distribution has an effect on production. Distribution affects the division of social labor. For these reasons, distribution accelerates or slows down the development of production. In socialism, the distribution of work according to quantity and quality is the only equitable.

Exchange:

Exchange is the link between consumption and distribution. Exchange is mainly expressed in the form of exchange of work between the employees of an enterprise. There is a division of labor within the enterprise. E.g., worker-foreman-engineer or others. They all take part in the same production process together and are directly connected to each other during the process by exchanging various activities.

The exchange takes place in various forms in different enterprises, industries and in different economic regions of the country. Within the division of social labor, enterprises of different industries exchange labor materials, raw materials and other materials with each other. It is seen that the production of one product is carried out in one venture and completed in another.

The economic form or type of exchange is fixed by ownership over the means of production. Exchanges can be planned or spontaneous, and can take the form of barter, as in primitive groups. It can also take the form of barter, which is just one of the historical forms of barter.

The first exchange of goods took place in 6000 BC. Its ultimate development is in capitalism. With the advent of capitalism, human labor, the means of production and the consumption of personal goods began to be bought and sold. People's love also started to be sold. The exchange, marketing, circulation of goods encompasses every sphere of social life. In capitalism the production of goods has become social and the exchange is for profit.

In socialism, labor is not a product. Trade is in the service of the people. According to the work, the distribution policy of consumer goods is effective and that is to meet the material and cultural needs of the people. At a certain stage of the development of society, the productive forces will develop enormously. Then the material value will produce a lot. A very well-organized distribution system will be created. New people will come to the society. If these conditions are met, there will be no need for exchange in the society.

Production provides the object of exchange and plays a vital role in exchange. Again the object also has a strong effect on production. Market expansion or contraction encourages or limits the possibility of increasing production. It thus forms a close link between exchange, production and consumption.

Continuity of the stages of reproduction: Production is the material value created by man for the existence and development of human society. This production does not stop once. This is because the distribution, exchange and consumption of the product is repeated. Distribution, exchange and enjoyment are one of the episodes of reproduction.

Distribution is what associates the product with consumption after it has been produced. That is, distribution makes the product in the hands of the consumer to meet its utility. It happens on the basis of production relations. In the case of production, where private ownership predominates, the capitalist benefits and the worker as a producer is exploited. The question of reproduction arises as the distribution leads the object to consumption. So the distribution is an episode of reproduction.

Consumption is the use of material values ​​created in the process of production to meet the various needs of human beings. Enjoyment is the final stage of the reproduction process. Consumption is determined on the basis of production-relationship.

The production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material values ​​are seen by some bourgeois economists as separate episodes. They see consumption as just the use of the product. They think that the speed of the production process is determined by eternal natural laws. In the light of that idea, they claim, production and consumption cannot be considered a matter of economics, the business of economics is only about distribution and exchange. Class interests work behind such demands of bourgeois economists. By separating the episodes of reproduction, bourgeois economists want to hide the sharp contradictions of capitalist relations of production and paint a false picture of the development of bourgeois society. But we have seen that the mode of production is at the root of the existence of any society. The production, distribution, exchange and enjoyment of material values ​​are not isolated matters. The unity of these forms the system of production relations in the society and therefore everything is a matter of economics.