He was hit by a truck, the mechanic lost his life in Kurbin
'Registration in the May 14 elections'/ Berisha complains to the Electoral College about the decision of KAS
Accused of the kidnapping and murder of Jan Prenga, Appel leaves Festim Bexhdili in prison for life
He was arrested for taking bribes from citizens for properties, SPAK "debunks" the accusations against the Cadastre employee
Lushnja massacre, the appeal upholds the life imprisonment for Orges Bilbili and Anterio Kaloshi
Why am I not a communist?
This issue began to be considered by those who had a predisposition to engage in politics. It is more than clear why they do not ask if I am a member of the Agrarian Party or the National Democratic Party. Not being an agrarian does not mean defending certain ideas or certain life positions, but not being a communist means being anti-communist, and being anti-communist constitutes not only denial but also a certain creed.
Personally, this issue has eased me, I was asked not to argue with the communists, but to convince myself that I have never been like that, and I will never become a communist. I would have had it easier if I had been with them. I would have lived with the idea that I took an active part in correcting the world, I would have been convinced that I lived side by side with the poor against the rich, I would have known exactly how to determine my direction of judgment, what hatred and contempt. Instead, I feel myself tormented, empty-handed, revealed by every doctrine; unable to help humanity, I often do not even know how to keep my conscience clean. If my heart is with the poor, then why did I not become a communist.
-Yes, that is exactly why I am on the side of the poor.
* * *
I have seen the poverty of drastic proportions where everything around me is opposed. Wherever I have been I have left the palaces and observed the lives of the poor hurt by the humiliating position of the powerless witness. It is not enough to penetrate into the misery of people and feel it; you would have to live that kind of life. This rag-clad human poverty is not defended by any party; in these horrible nests where there is no nail to hang, no rag to lay, communism is directed to them from a harmless distance; for everything, he blames the social system; after two years, after twenty years the flag of the revolution will be raised and then ...
How so, after two years, after twenty years? Would you be able to calmly accept that there can be two winter months, two more weeks, two more days? The bourgeoisie, which can not or will not help them, is foreign to me, and so is communism, which instead of helping promises the flag of revolution. The goal of communism is to rule and not to save, in its flag is written the motto of power and not of aid. Misery, unemployment, and hunger for communism are not shamed, nor unbearable pain, but a gathering of dark forces, emerging from the edges of rage. "The social system is to blame for this." No, it is all our fault, do we all equally help human suffering, keeping our hands in our pockets, or extending the flag of revolution to the sky.
The poor do not constitute a social class. These are declassed people, derailed and disorganized, they can never approach the throne, and none of them can solemnly occupy it. The hungry do not want to rule, but to be satisfied, the one who runs the country in the face of poverty is indifferent; what matters is, what we humans feel. Poverty is neither a class nor an institution, but it is a misfortune, when I look around to seek human sensibility, I encounter the icy doctrine of class rule.
I am not a communist because the communist does not know the morality of helping and the feeling of suffering, therefore he propagandizes the creation of social order, different from the terrible stagnation created by poverty. If he agrees to help the unfortunate, it only happens on one condition at first they take power, and then the issue can affect the poor as well. Unfortunately, this conditional promise of help is not guaranteed. The poor do not make up the mass. Thousands of poor can not even share a piece of bread. The poor, the hungry, and the helpless are mostly lonely. Their lives have meaning only for them and are not related to the lives of others. This is a special case of disaster, though it resembles two drops of water with other disasters. Turning society upside down,
I do not feel myself an aristocrat, but I can not believe in the possibilities of the masses. One can seriously believe that the masses are capable of running the government, they can only be the means to an end; they also use them as human political material, even harsher and more ruthless than the members of the opposing parties themselves. In order to turn a man into a material, you have to process and shape him, and put on him a uniform of standard material or idea; unfortunately, you can not sew the concept uniform within half a year.
I would respect the communists very much if they had addressed the worker honestly saying: I need this from you ... this ... this ..., but I promise you nothing; you need me as a single, blind, as material as you were in the factory, you must be silent and listen, as you are doing now when everything has changed, you will remain the same; whether you will be better or worse we do not guarantee this; the new rule will not be to you even more precious, nor more charitable, but juster. ” I think most workers would think seriously after hearing the proposal made, it would be completely acceptable, even more, acceptable than the promises made to date. To feed the poor with promises means to steal it. He may live easier when he is shown fat geese on the branch, but practically and today, just like a hundred years ago, it is better to have an egg today than a chicken coop. Better fire in the hearth than a rooster on the roofs of palaces which are less than the people think, which they have not seen with the eyes of the forehead, but have seen with the eyes of the class consciousness; we with few exceptions are not rich people, but as a rule, this detail should be forgotten.
It is often said that the poor have nothing to lose, but in fact, it is the opposite, in any case, the poor risk more than all, if he were to lose something, it is the last toast of bread, with the toast of bread you can not experiment. No social change affects the minority, but it affects the majority, be it war, currency crisis, or something else, worse in this situation will be found the poor, that poverty has no proportions. The most hopeless are not the rich but the poor, try to overthrow the world and you will see who will devour the earth first.
How to act in this case. Personally, I do not pay much attention to the word "development", I think that "need" is the only thing in the world that can not be developed, but only to grow chaotically. In no way can the issue of the poor be resolved by the establishment of a new social system, if they are generally to be helped, then it must be started from the moment. The question is, does today's society have sufficient moral opportunities to help the poor; the communists say - "no". Behold, here we are separated from them. I do not try to claim that there are many infallible people in our social community, but in each of the members of society there are doses of honesty and I think that after many thoughts and sermons we can talk about lasting justice. According to communist doctrine, the consensus is completely unachievable; of course, communism is characterized by distrust of the humanism of the majority, but I will talk about this below. Our society was not destroyed when enterprises were set up to help the unemployed, the elderly, and the sick; I do not think that enough has been done, but, as for them, as for me, it matters, because the possibility of help was applied, these enterprises were set up and functioned realistically without waiting for the glorious moment, when the flag of revolution would be unfurled in the sky. To believe that solving the problem of poverty is the task of today and not of the future social system means to be anti-communist. To believe that the piece of bread, the warmth of the fire today, is more important than the revolution after 20 years means possessing an anti-communist temperament.
* * *
The strangest and most inhuman feature of communism is the incomparable darkness it spreads. If a motorcyclist crushes a deaf old woman- this is an indication of system rot; if the hand of a worker is damaged by the lathing wheel, then, it is the bourgeoisie that broke that poor hand, with a bloodthirsty pleasure. All those who for one reason or another did not become communists are terribly evil, their hearts are defiled, even withered; in all society today you can find nothing good; everything that exists is worthless.
Jerry Belker wrote in one of his ballads "in your heart, deep down, I found hatred, poor thing". Hatred is a terrible word, but surprisingly it is not true at all. Deep in the bottom of the poor soul, you can also discover joy. The worker near the lathe often jokes more than the director or manufacturer, the quarryman laughs more than the architect or owner; or if anyone in the house sings, it is the maid who washes the floor and not the lady. The so-called proletarian is more inclined to the joyful, to the infantile perception of the world: communist pessimism and black hatred are artificial and by no means pure. The importation of eternal darkness has been called "revolutionary education of the masses" or "strengthening of class consciousness." To the poor, whom nature has given very little, in this way,
The communist climate is inhospitable and inhuman: for it, there are no intermediate temperatures between bourgeois coal and revolutionary fire, and the proletarian is not allowed to choose calmly and with pleasure to who it should be dedicated. There is no lunch or dinner in the world: either the disgusting food of sludge or the greed of the capitalist. There is no love: but the sexual corruption of the rulers and the immense multiplication of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie inhales the odor of its own decomposition, while the proletariat, the odor of tuberculous decay. I do not know whether journalists and writers have realized that the view of the world is so meaningless, or are consciously lying; it is clear to me that the naive and inexperienced man, such as the proletarian in general, lives in the perverted world. You have to destroy this world from its foundations. But since this world is only a fixation, it would be necessary to destroy this rotten fixation perhaps even by the way of revolution; in this way though alarmed I would attend. Of course, in our quagmire of shame, there is plenty of suffering, there is adversity, so there is very little pleasure and joy. I hope I personally can not imagine the world in shades of pink, but when it comes in contact with the impenetrable darkness of tragic communism, I have to angrily utter the words of protest: it is not true, the world looks completely different to me! I have encountered very few people who would not deserve even given poverty in this bulb of hope of salvation. There are very few people to whom the reasonable God would pour fire and sulfur. There are more mediocrities in the world than bad ones, but there are enough sympathies and beliefs, respect, and goodwill to help, not to leave humanity without hope.
I do not believe in the perfection of man today and tomorrow; neither peaceful development nor revolution, nor even the complete extinction of the human race, will turn the world into a paradise. If we could somehow gather the good that is in each of us, sinful creatures, I believe we could create a world much more charming than it is today. You could say this is a rotten philanthropist, but I really belong to those idiots who love a man just because he is human.
There is no difficulty in asserting, that the forest is black; but every tree in the forest is not entirely black, it is at once black and green, for this is ordinary pine and spruce. It is easy to assert that society is ugly, but try to find in it completely ugly people? Try to judge the world without banal simplifications, then from your principles will not remain even grace. The premise of communism is the hypocritical ignorance of life. If anyone says he hates the Germans, I would advise him to live among them and then ask him if he really hates the German lady of the house, would he like to slaughter the German salesman of sweets, or to strangle the old Teutonic woman who sold matches. One of the most immoral qualities of humanity is the tendency to generalize instead of judging the reality that should replace it. From communist newspapers you will learn nothing about the world except that it is nothing, that is worthless to man.
Hatred, ignorance, and principled disbelief constitute the spiritual world of communism; we can also determine the diagnosis; we are dealing with a pathological case of negativity. When individualism merges with the mass, then, it turns into an epidemic, though that would not be positive. Stop even for a minute near a beggar on the street corner; notice which of the passers-by draws out of his pocket an alms for him; seven out of ten are people on the brink of poverty; the other three are female. Given these conditions, the communist concludes that the bourgeoisie has no heart; I come to the other conclusion, more joyful, that the proletariat has a wider heart and is more inclined toward empathy, love, and self-sacrifice. Communism with its hatred and class rage will turn a man into savagery;
The world today does not need hatred, but goodwill, harmony, cooperation, and moreover generosity, and a good moral climate; I think even a little love and generosity are capable of doing wonders. I defend the world today, not because it is the new world of the rich, but because it is the world of the poor and, moreover, the world of those who stand between the oppression of capital and the class hatred of the proletariat, of those who hold and preserve the greatest of the moral values of mankind. I do not know thousands of rich people closely and for this, I can not judge them, but I have judged that class, which is called bourgeois because I have been rebuked for a rotten pessimism. Therefore to some extent, I have the right to protect those for whom I am allowed not to close my eyes to their defects and shortcomings. The proletariat can not replace this class, but it can, to some extent, merge with it. Proletarian culture does not exist, no matter how shrewd the aesthetic programs designed by them. Just as there is no pure ethnographic, aristocratic, and religious culture; everything that remains in the culture is related to the so-called intelligence middle classes. If the proletariat would seek the right to participate in the development of this tradition, and if it would declare, "Well, I take responsibility for the world today and direct all the values it possesses" - then it's worth applauding; but if communism blindly advances you like an unnecessary pheasant, destroying everything called bourgeois culture, then forgive me,
* * *
I have said that real poverty is not an institution, but it is a disaster. No matter how hard you try to change all the rules, you will not be able to prevent them, which brings misfortune, disease, suffering from hunger and colds, and the need for help. Whatever you say, fighting disasters is a moral debt, not a social one. The language of communism is ruthless, it does not accept values such as empathy, kindness, help, and human solidarity, it firmly asserts that sentimentality is not characteristic of it. To me this is even worse because I am sentimental, like any maid, like any fool, like any regular man, only hooligans and demagogues are not sentimental. Without sentimental reasons, you can not give relatives a glass of water; rational causes do not push you,
* * *
Finally, there is the problem of violence. I am not the old woman who starts making the cross when she hears the word "violence"; I must admit that I would willingly hit the man who talks nonsense, or lies, but this does not happen because I do not have the strength, or I am weak enough to defend myself. As you can see, I am not quarrelsome, but if the bourgeoisie declares that it will hang the proletarians, I will immediately run to the aid of the one who will be hanged. The regular man can not support those who threaten, who calls for shootings and hangings, who divide human society into two groups, the group of supporters of social transformations and those who break the usual laws of morality.
I am called a "relativist", and the heavy weight of intellectual guilt seems to fall on me: I try to understand everything, I dig into all the sciences and kinds of literature up to the tales of the negroes, and with a certain mystical joy, I discover that having a bit of patience we can find understanding with all people, regardless of skin color and belief. Apparently, there is a general human logic such as love, humor, optimism, and the desire to eat with taste, as well as many, many other things without which, you can not exist. And lo and behold, sometimes I am terrified because I can not understand the communists; I feel the ideals of communism, but I can not understand their methods. Sometimes it seems to me that they speak in foreign languages incomprehensible to me, while their thought is subject to other laws. If a people believes, that people in some way have to put up with each other, while the other thinks they should eat each other friend, this, of course, constitutes an essential change, but by no means principled; but behold, if the communists think that in some circumstances, people should be hanged and shot, this is no more serious matter than suppressing the bugs, this I can not understand at all even if they explain it to me in my own language. I get a terrible impression of chaos, and I'm afraid we will never agree. I have not lost faith, there are moral and rational thoughts through which man should know man. The method of communism is the general attempt to create international misunderstandings. This is the tendency to divide humanity into separate parts that have nothing to do with each other and that do not understand each other. What is good on the one hand cannot be good on the other, just as people on both sides are not equal in physical and moral terms.
You are releasing me, the most fanatical communist. If he does not eliminate me instead I will hope to discuss many issues with him, certainly not those related to communism. Communism in principle refuses to discuss and approve those who think differently about those things that do not belong to communism; try talking to communists about spleen functions; they will immediately explain to you that this is bourgeois science, just as it is bourgeois poetry, bourgeois romance, bourgeois humanism, etc. You will find the strength of conviction for every little thing in the communists in a superhuman way, but their reasoning is so convincing that they do not focus on denial. These may not be beliefs at all, but only ritual descriptions and, finally, simple craftsmanship.
I really feel sorry for these proletarians who are hermetically separated from the civilized world and they compensate you with the seductive prospect of the next revolution. Communism has established a cordon between them, it is you, the communist intellectuals, who stand between this colored barrier and all the cultural values that have been prepared for them and for others to come. But there is still hope for the blue world and if there is no room for it among you, it will fly over your heads descending straight from the sky.
I feel comfortable that I could say something, but that's not all. It seems to me as if I confessed, that I do not belong to any party, my discussion of communism is a matter of conviction, a matter of my conscience.
* Translated by: RUDINA XHUVANI