I am too old now to continue to believe that the name Hindu was for the first time given to us as one involving abuse, contempt and reproach by our Mohammedan invaders. Rather, I believe that our fall and degradation helped the fall of the word also, and perhaps a peep into the philological history of the word might prove that all the bad meanings that are now assigned to the word in the Persian lexicon were of a comparatively later origin, and an outcome of the fall of the Hindu nation. Long before the Mohammedan invasion, and perhaps long before the advent of the Prophet of Islam, we were known to the people of other countries as Hindus. If so, what did this name signify? Was it a tribal distinction? I say, no, because the Hindus were of many tribes. Was it a racial name? I again say, no, because the Persians of Iran too, belonged to the same race. Was it then a religious designation? Yes, partly religious no doubt, but mainly national, and in evidence I can produce a number of quotations from the productions of early Greek historians and Mohammedan writers.
We need to bring everyone along. We need to arrive at a society that is more equitable, not less. We need opportunity and prosperity, not for the few, but for the many. This requires political leadership. It requires a political system with legitimate institutions and processes where people have a say. That system has a name: Democracy.
Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly guided by the will of God, modern history has given us either heroes endowed with extraordinary, superhuman capacities, or simply men of very various kinds, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses. Instead of the former divinely appointed aims of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman nations, which ancient historians regarded as representing the progress of humanity, modern history has postulated its own aims—the welfare of the French, German, or English people, or, in its highest abstraction, the welfare and civilization of humanity in general, by which is usually meant that of the peoples occupying a small northwesterly portion of a large continent.
Left liberalism today in the Progressive People's Partyis organized uniformly as a parliamentary faction and as a party for all of Germany, was politically represented during the first 40 years after the establishment of the Reich by a majority of parties with different organizations and different programs. It developed with parliaments and in parliaments that were created from the same direction as democratic liberalism itself public life in Germany exerted a palpable influence even before the founding of the empire. But left-wing liberalism has only become a political phenomenon that can be grasped briefly and a uniformly acting factor in Germany since the existence of the Reich Parliament.
The political party system is an important component of modern democratic politics. What kind of political party system to adopt in a country is determined by the nature, national conditions and social development of that given country. The diversity of political party systems in different countries reflects the diversity of human civilizations.
Socialism is, however, something more than benevolence. It goes beyond mitigation of the suffering of individuals, and even beyond mere alleviation of the common lot of the crowd. It is not enough to be pitiful. The Socialist aims at something wider and deeper.
Megasthenes records the Hindu tradition prevailing in his time (B. C. E. 302) that during a period of 6042 years from the time of "Dionusos to Sandrokottos" a "republic was thrice established" in India.
without arming yourself with an exaggerated optimism, you can step off the main roads, withdraw to a great height, question yourself, look into yourself for the roots of our own malaise. We address ourselves to those not satisfied with the current society, to those who are thirsty for real life, for real activity and find only the artificial and the unreal around them.
Anarchy, the No-Government system of Socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economical and the political fields which characterise our century, and especially its second part.
Christ made no attempt to reconstruct society, and consequently the Individualism that he preached to man could be realised only through pain or in solitude. The ideals that we owe to Christ are the ideals of the man who abandons society entirely, or of the man who resists society absolutely. But man is naturally social.
Speaking generally, Communism is the ideal of human equality and brotherhood. It considers the exploitation of man by man as the source of all slavery and oppression. It holds that economic inequality leads to social injustice and is the enemy of moral and intellectual progress. Communism aims at a society where classes have been abolished as a result of common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It teaches that only in a classless, solidaric commonwealth can man enjoy liberty, peace and well-being.
If the Crown is the pivot in theory, in practice its functions are delegated to the British Cabinet, and indirectly to the British Parliament. The last has two separate aspects: it is a local parliament for the British isles, and an Imperial body acting as trustee for the Empire, This doctrine of trusteeship is historically correct, and it has the merit of exactly covering the existing practic