1. such measures will this section be allowed anywhere near such power structures? Only because they can do no harm to the ruling class a part of that section is allowed to enter these bodies; that also is a part of the game. That is the way to co-opt. Did they not co-opt Dr. Ambetkar at the most crucial time? Was not he the most disillusioned person? Becoming just members of the legislature can never say the downtrodden said, to be really or actually empowered. That is they can help for the emancipation of the downtrodden. That power is not one that can be used to serve the people. It is essentially usable only to control the people, particularly the so called rebellious downtrodden. The real issue then is concerned with the kind of power, which is decided by the kind of state. Those who talk so much of empowering the downtrodden seldom discuss this.
Power Masculine and Feminine
2. For want of a better or more suitable or apt word we can call the emancipatory kind of power the Feminine while the coercive one by the same token can be named the Masculine one. This is the Taoist concept. The Feminine has the innate character of yielding to win. This concept was well known to our saints. This is the way the tiny wins the mighty. It is not a threat to any. This is a non-coercive power. It is hence a fearless power. It cannot be challenged too. The opposite namely the Masculine one is the coercive power. It is hence feared and at the same time is one that will invariably be challenged sooner or later. It is this kind of powers that Marx and Engels saw in every kind of state. No wonder they demanded the destruction of that state and in its place build a new kind of state, which should be of the opposite kind. Which it should be a liberative power. It is comparable to a selfless being who only will love the other and only such a person will make himself redundant. Such a state only has the inherent quality to wither away.
Liberation of the oppressed
3. True liberation of the slave involves the liberation of the enslaver too. It is finally a change in the basic social relationship or the most fundamental relationship, which is the production relationship. Marx points out very clearly this when he states that ‘all the consequences are contained in the definition that the product is related to the producer in an inimical manner’. This should apply to any social situation where such an antagonistic production relationship is obtained. That means it should be changed. Hence freeing one section cannot be possible with out the other being freed in the very process. The master and slave relationship will remain until this unequal production relationship remains. The owning master class adopts every kind of measure including creating rules, ideology to political measures, educational institutions, technologies and every thing to see that this basic relationship is protected and perpetuated. Such a kind of relationship is taught as the most natural one if not sacred. That basically is the essence of ideology. To day this is taught as a rational and hence scientific fact.
4. The next very important question is whether the enslaved can achieve freedom mainly by the power of arms. In this respect Mao’s statements are the most misunderstood, distorted and misrepresented more so by the so-called followers. Every so-called revolutionary is very happy to quote a part of Mao’s statements, namely ‘power comes through the barrel of the gun’. Was that the last statement of Mao? Certainly not. It is the same Mao who said that weapons couldn’t determine the fate of man. Hence he declared ‘atom bomb is a paper tiger’. He added we could win the war against the Japanese imperialism ‘with millet and bullet’. How are we to understand these pronouncements of Mao who unquestionably will remain as one of the most original revolutionaries that mankind had witnessed? His great work ‘Peoples War’ is bound to an immortal manifesto. The central theme is in essence how the slave, the weak, can win the powerful master and win his freedom. Mao’s statement ‘atom bomb is a paper tiger’ is a normative idea. Atom bomb is terrible, he fully knew. He need not have known this simple truth from the Russians and Indian leader Nehru. In fact he made this statement while rejecting the advice of no less a person than Stalin after the explosion of the two atom bombs. We should know the logic behind such a view. That the atom bomb is terrible is one aspect. But if that were to be the whole the slave can never hope to get his freedom. Hence this mighty weapon has to be treated as a paper tiger. It looks terrible yet treat it as paper. Then only you will have the courage to face it. Lenin too in a very similar way characterised imperialism as ‘colossus yet with clay feet’. Both imperialism and atom bomb are expressions of immorality. They are not expressions of just. So they will be defeated by men and morality (Dharma). This is what is known in this land as ‘Darmam eva jayathe’. However, they can be defeated only, by those that work for a moral cause. If moral cause cannot win, the slave can never hope to get his freedom and man can never have freedom. Man will remain always the slave of material circumstances. He will be worse than a beast. Then his very idea of freedom will remain an illusion. In fact those who are feeling comfortable and happy by being slaves of wealth are really having illusory freedom. However they love such an illusion because it eminently satisfies their flesh. Hence they hate real freedom. However that they are really unfree can be clearly understood by the simple fact that they lock themselves to ‘protect’ them selves from their fellow beings! They are finally under the mercy of the police who can very easily blackmail them. ‘Man can take refuge only from his fellow creature’ wrote the sensitive poet. But now the very fellow creature is the greatest threat! Man lost his true freedom once he got split. It is this split that perhaps reflects in all the religions as the split between him and the god. Until this split vanishes real freedom will not be realised. That is the only reason why we find in the tribal societies where this split has not emerged, man appears freer than in the so-called civilised societies. So the observation that ‘man was born free and everywhere he is in chains’ contains an element of truth. It is now necessary to know as to when such a split will be eliminated and mankind will transcend the realm of slavery or necessity as Marx would call, and reach the realm of freedom and as to who will do this.
5. The slave will realise his freedom only when the slave owner accepts such a freedom. Hence that will be possible only when the slave owner realises that his very survival even as a physical being will not be possible unless he accepts such a freedom or he allows the slave to free himself which will also free him. In fact the developing situation is such that the very survival of mankind is threatened so that the bourgeois cannot exist as bourgeois. It is only such a crisis that is bound to compel him to yield to the inevitable. The proper reading of history does show the truth. When the oppressor is really threatened by a foreign power he does invite his slave, throws some concession to him to save himself and his possessions. Once the external threat vanishes the situation changes. However the day is fast approaching when the very survival as a physical being demands him to yield to the great demand of the slave. Clinging to the illusion will only wipe him out as well as his progeny out of existence. It is this kind of crisis that compels the oppressor to permit the slave or the oppressed to free himself and at the same time frees the oppressor too. It is the realisation of this great truth that makes the oppressor too to yield to the demand of the slave. It is now clearly indicated by the voice of S.O.S is coming from the other camp itself. Till yesterday the voice of freedom was only from the camp of the oppressed. It was for all practical purposes the challenging voice of the Pariah. It was the thunderbolt or the terrible voice of Yama to the Brahmin who had enough and spaces to live. Will he yield? Certainly not. He had still confidence in his world. So he did only punish the liberator. Further he did not believe in the least that the slave could be his liberator. Was not Christ crucified? However to day he has to see his own end if he were to cling to his pet illusion. The various humanist movements in the West really are not started by the oppressed. Some elements belonging to the class of oppressors have started to warn their own class of the impending disaster. The old prophecy of Marx and Engels seems to be better understood by these men and women. Did not Marx and Engels declare long back which were both a warning as well as a way out? They had said most emphatically either ‘overall reorganisation of the society at large or the ruining of the contending classes’.
6. Now the situation has arisen when the very survival of mankind will be possible only when mankind is prepared to work for genuine freedom based upon loving relationship not only amidst the people but also between man and the various forms of life. It is a pity that Marxism did not show the way because it did not extend the concept of freedom beyond the human sphere. Also it did not recognise the cognitive, creative and liberative role of love and loving service. It remained almost like the Gnana Marga the pride of the arrogant elite, the insignificant minority. That was the reason why Marxism of the west did not show the way for all its avowed noble aim to a new civilisation.
7. More than anything real freedom struggle demands a shift in philosophy which essentially in the area of epistemology. That is the most urgent task. Further the oppressed has to be the liberator. The future educator has to be educated, said Marx. Sooner the oppressed realises this truth the better for mankind. We can be sure that mankind will cross the hurdle and establish on this earth a great humanity of brother and sisterhood. However this is going to be the greatest and most trying revolution. Let us have no illusions at all about that. When compared to this the earlier revolutions were very simple. This one is going to be the most radical one. Man has to change his very life style and that is exactly the most difficult. He will have to develop a genuinely loving attitude towards nature and never look upon it as a thing that could be subdued and exploited at will. He will have to be the upholder of the great ideal of ‘Aparigraha’, a concept which will involve ‘production without possession’ a numinous notion mentioned by Bertrand Russel which means in practice a great reduction in ones personal needs which only can make this world a world of plenty. Only by adopting such an attitude he can also assure his survival as a species. Mao was correct when he declared that, ‘East wind blows over the West wind’. However the Western path particularly the modern one has created the greatest illusion particularly the modern science and the so-called advanced technology based on this science. Hence I would like to call this the age of illusion. However I am almost certain that with in the next hundred or two hundred years the fate of this mankind will be decided. If this Neo-Imperialism which can be characterised as the final form of the unlimited arrogance of man triumphs it will be the beginning of the death of mankind. Not surprisingly Mao called this the most fatal one. At that point this human species deserves extinction. By that time a powerful united front of both organic and inorganic nature would have been formed against this species. That will be the only way the remaining life could save it self. Neo-Imperialism is literally raping this Mother earth. She will turn into Kali to finish this debauch. Hence this Neo-Imperialism has to be defeated. That also is the reason why I am certain that it will be defeated. It is the great historic task of the oppressed. The rich voice of the alienated long back pointed out this truth. That voice was of compassion and love and not of jealousy or hatred or vendetta. That was the message of the great saint Nammalvar who was a black man, a member of the highly backward caste. He was called Maran and Kari and so on. Let us not forget that it was such a message that was responsible for the great social reform in the medieval period, which produces a Kabir, a Chaithanya and finally
8. The world of to day needs a far greater reform. It also is bound to be taken up, by the alienated. That is at the same timing the last great revolution a global one too. It has to succeed because if it fails mankind will be another extinct group. This revolution is the one that is for the truest liberation, which will abolish once and for all every kind of slavery. Without such a revolution all other measures cannot be even palliative but will be counter-productive. Hence while base that is where the minority and the untouchable and all get united. It is the ecological issue that will unite all. It will hence be the cause that will destroy all the barriers, because without destroying such barriers the life base cannot be saved. In short it is going to be the greatest freeing process, which also can assure this being the true happiness, and a fearless life, which only can be true basis of such happiness.
Why Marx Failed?
9. The goal of Marx was not unique. Only the Means Marx made the goal or aim appears not only really possible but historically necessary. And not just a dream or a Utopia, just the desire of good persons. However to day we have to admit that it is the Means that has become the greatest obstacle because the aim is not the unique discovery of Marx. What are the Means?
10. Marx insists on the Dialectical mode of analysis, one of the most difficult modes added to that he had a poor notion of the relationship between Life and Nature also
11. Of the interrelationship of living beings because of his almost uncritical acceptance of the Darwinian explanation of evolution.
12. The idea that the Industrial Working class will be the final liberator.
13. The idea that large scale industrial base as the necessary foundation of the new civilisation.
14. The limited Epistemology insisting on only one kind of Truth and correspondingly one mode of cognition.
15. The Non-Feminist – Gnana-Karma Marga rejecting the role of Love & Loving Service i.e. their cognitive and liberative role and the non-recognition of the inter-relation or the Dialectical relationship between Love and Freedom
16. No conception of the role or significance of voluntary rejection and reduction of personal needs in becoming free from the Object-Bondage though Marx is very much particular of it.
17. The forcible expropriation of property as the only means.
18. The limited understanding of Class-Struggle not as one that mainly aimed at purifying the person involved and free from the three kinds of Object-Bondage which can not but be based on the idea of loving service which means a clear shift to Kainkarya Marga.
19. Marx did not show the way whereby an illiterate “cook too can rule” as Lenin wanted. Lenin’s aim can never be realised by adapting to any kind of Gnana-Marga be it even Materialistic. For all practical purposes Marx was a Gnana-Margi. Of Love. One considers that it is the worst kind of basis of Object-Bondage or enslavement (Adi Sankara) while the other considers it as the true bias of Freedom or Free relationship because Freedom in the absence of any relationship is the Nirvikalpa-Samadi of Sankara So the real solution involving a Dialectical, no doubt a non-antagonistic relationship can be possible only when slavery itself is freedom! It is also a case where the opposites are identical. Hence Ramon Lull declares Love unites that are free and Frees that are united”. It is the method (Means) and not the goal (aim) of Marx that is unique – declared Lenin the Marxist. By his way of reading history Marx shows that the goal (Egalitarian Society) is not just a dream of some pious people but not merely a possibility but very much a necessary one. However it is not realised even by two of the greatest revolutionaries (Lenin & Mao). We should accept that the unique should be the absolute ‘Marx against Marxist’ wrote Jose Pe Miranda the liberation Theologist, but now we are compelled to say ‘Marx against Marx’. (Means against the end)
20. The demand of the most difficult method (tool) of analysis (dialectics) – compelled Lenin to create the political party, the vanguard, subordinating the working class to the dictates of the party – which finally was filled up with opportunist intellectuals - Even Mao could not finally prevent the domination of that kind of revisionists.
21. The idea of the large-scale industry as necessary base for the new egalitarian society and the working class as the final liberator.
Evaluation of Marx
22. Engel’s name was unknown to me when I was 27 yrs old. Hence my Marxism was very much an indigenous one. Very similar to that of Mao. If Mao could call himself a Marxist (disputed by many western Marxists-Stalinists as well as even by Bottomore who admits of his contribution to revolutionary theory), I can also call my self a Marxist. It is simply because of my background that I am still quite confident while those who had no roots or no respect for our heritage are to day totally disillusioned though they were inspired by no less a person than professor D.D.Kosambi. No doubt I am not at all surprised. Further the defeat of Marxism of Marx and Lenin was inherent in it. That is the reason why even the two of the greatest revolutionaries could not save the name of Marx.
23. In a similar way I could read about the German Greens (the first book) only the last year. So my appreciation of the ecological issue too is very much from my own personal experience. I found very little basis for a sound ecological approach in Marx. The very attitude of the official Marxist parties to this very important issue is sufficient. This is in a real way recognized by Smidt a student of Adorno (which you should know more) while he discuses the issue of Nature in Marx. Even the young Marx who did deal about alienation, estrangement and did say that nature is the external body of the human being with which this being should have a vital relationship never dealt of the true relationship of this being with nature; it is because Marx had almost uncritically accepted the Darwinian theory. -a kind of hostility with nature demanding, conquering, controlling and exploiting it. Trotsky also very candidly expounds this. Lenin too did not have any difference on this issue.
24. I am convinced that the Marxism of the west cannot be of any help to build the great peoples’ front against the most fatal (as Mao very rightly called it) neocolonialism led by Neofascism. Bush is the voice of it .It is also the voice of the most unlimited arrogance of the dominant Man (male) we can also understand finally that this kind of Marxism including its paradigm did really only aid the development of this kind of Imperialism though no doubt unwillingly and unintentionally on the part of the Marxists themselves. However the tragedy is that the Marxism of the west simply does not seem to recognize that. Further the liberating force cannot be the working class too. So Marx’s method and means including its economic goal (his brand of communism) were the obstacles against his great aim, which was after all an egalitarian society. In this respect the Gandhi a Gramarajya is the only way, it is not in any way a throwback. That was realized by no less a person that Prof.J.B.S.Haldane a brilliant scientist as well a Marxist while discussing the size of the living organism. Hence he came to the necessary conclusion that Gandhi and Marx should be blended. He also became an advocate of nonviolent biology.
25. Though Smidt did clearly recognize the lacuna in Marx he too did not correct the basic mistake because the
It is not surprising that Marx did not recognize the true liberator, simply because he did not recognize the most fundamental logic of freedom or free relationship because he does not go beyond that of production relation. Hence he demands just the change in it. Such a change has to be brought finally essentially by coercion, which the proletarian dictatorship was expected to do. Hence it cannot be by any ghost of imagination acceptable to the oppressor. The so-called proletarian dictatorship achieved no doubt shedding blood has withered out and the very name of Marx is erased out. Even the two of the greatest revolutionaries could not save his name.
26. We have to admit at this stage that Marx was not at all a feminist, he may not be an anti-feminist but he was certainly not a feminist, so also Lenin That can be clearly recognized once we see that both did not recognize the cognitive as well as the liberative and creative role of love and loving service.
27. Further Marx very much admired Shakespeare the anti-feminist, and a racist but could not show any great admiration to Oliver Goldsmith who was in a very real way the very opposite of Shakespeare .who wrote “Taming the shrew” and even in the Merchant of Venice the woman had to wear the male dress to appear as a lawyer and her name Portia is the term Pu Ru Sha (male in Sanskrit) modified .In his dramas most of the women are cruel. Their names too appropriately given like Regen, Gonneriel etc which are simple modifications of the term Dragon. The male who kills the partner is a black Moor.His name Othelo is a combination of Of The Low or even Hell. The partner also has the name Desdemona, that is a combination of the two terms des (the) and demon. In Tempest the island is the non-European world inhabited by cannibals (Calibon); fit only to be ruled as slaves and the magic-wand to day cannot but be modern science and all the technologies. On the contrary the great Irish artist Goldsmith unquestionably a humanist was a feminist .He had no national or racial prejudices. His sympathies were for the rural and he saw the virtues in simple lives of the apparently illiterate peasantry. No wonder he gave the titles like She stoops to conquer (a Taoist idea), Vicar of Wakefield (awakened village)‘, Deserted village, City Night Peace and National Prejudices. He was perhaps very much influenced by Laotse.
28. On the contrary Marx undoubtedly was very much a Euro centric who dubbed the non-European cultures as even semi barbaric. In his view civilization apparently starts only from
29. Mao is for urbanization. That is the way he conceives the resolution of the contradiction between the urban and the rural. That is realised by industrialising or mechanising agriculture the same is the approach of Lenin too. In this respect Gandhi is the very opposite of Marx and Lenin.
30. G sums it up in a pithy sentence when he states “industrialise and perish’ while the Marxists declare ‘industrialise or perish ’and that is also what Visvesvariah said. In this regard Prof.. B.S.Haldane, a brilliant scientist, at the same time a Marxist is in agreement with Gandhi. That was his mature position and he came to that conclusion while discussing the size of a living organism.
31. Years back the Mexican Liberation Theologist Jose Pe Miranda wrote ‘Marx against Marxists,’ His aim perhaps was to make Marx the first great Liberation Theologist. What ever may have been the attitude of Marx towards the deity Marx was in a way rephrasing the message of Christianity by declaring that the world belongs finally to the meek the underdog .It is hence no surprise when we hear from Hewlett Johnson the dean of Canterbury that Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism Marx gave the working class tremendous confidence. While the church promised the meek, only a heaven after death and thereby helped the oppressing class. Marx told the meek that history was on its side and its struggle for freedom was morally correct because it included the freedom of the oppressor also.
32. Estrangement or, alienation of man as Marx conceives is mainly due to the unequal and inimical production relation. In fact Marx writes’ all the consequences are due to the fact that the product is related to the producer in an inimical manner. Hence the solution is to change this fundamental production relation. This also is clearly brought out by Mao when he condemns the ‘theory of productive forces’ put forward by Deng, which also is the position of every kind of Stalinist as well as majority of Western Marxists. It also means that in his understanding of freedom M does not go beyond the economic relationship. Can the economic equality or the change in the production relation really bring about free relationship? Can that be the basis of real joy? No doubt inequality at the level of economic relationship if it were to be quite steep or if the production relationship is basically inimical there can be no happiness. However the beneficiary too will ever be afraid. So real joy cannot be there. The proletarian dictatorship by no means can be a liberating process because it cannot be a process of endearment or one of changing of the estranged relationship. It cannot be a freeing process because it is not based on any kind of loving relationship. Neither Marx nor Lenin could conceive that the freeing power is one of love, it means that the working class cannot liberate the oppressing owning class and it cannot develop in any sense any kind of loving relationship towards the exploiting antagonistic class which it is expected to liberate .It also means that the Woman only can help in this liberating process, only her dominance can be welcome by the male. That is the only kind of contradiction that can be resolved in a loving way. It also means that the appropriation of properties should be done very much voluntarily. That can be possible only when people realize that real freedom and happiness can be possible only when we reduce our needs. This is called Aparigraha and the Eastern saints very well knew it. Buddha very well brought this out. Is also is a big part of Gandhian – programme .It also means that the great as well as the final revolution has to be thoroughly a nonviolent one. Only such a revolution will produce the brave new world or within which there will no fear at all.
33. In this connection we have to understand the great significance of the contribution of Mao, also why he too failed to realize the new society or the thing that really blocked the path. It is also necessary to know where he stopped and what we have to do .At the same time it is very necessary to understand whether Mao could be an advocate of non-violent revolution because most of the admirers as well as the critics of Mao go on quoting his one and only pronouncement namely ‘power comes through the barrel of gun.’
34. Can Mao be in any way a supporter of the Gandhyian- approach? It appears that Mao told Mr.Menon the Indian ambassador that India produced only one revolutionary and that was Gandhi .We can be certain that Mao should have known about the Gandian way Lenin also had indicated his admiration of Gandhi .No doubt Gandhi would have appeared a paradox to many even to day he is so. Mao’s ‘Peoples War’, is really a feminist document on war. When I say so it may surprise many. That is beside the point. Let us not forget that it is Mao who fully recognizes the great importance of loving service, which is the foundation of the revolutionary war. Mao clearly recognizes that the enslaved will never free itself if weapons determine the fate of man. The central idea that underlies his theory is as to how the weak can win the strong. Hence he will very readily accept the Gandhian non-violent way.
What is to be a Marxist?
35. When even such a great revolutionary like Mao whose revolutionary credentials none disputes is not accepted as a Marxist by many we have to know the most salient criterion of Marxism. It also means that in the 20th century there could a revolutionary theory that need not be Marxist .Can we accept it? Lenin, who did reject two important conclusions of Marx, still called himself a Marxist and others accept him also as a Marxist. To justify he declared that Marxism is essentially a method and a guide to revolutionary practice. Further he added that it was the concrete study of the concrete conditions and not a dogma. But for such a rejection he could not have carried out the October revolution nor would have been the
36. Mao very much accepted Lenin’s definition that Marxism was a method and a guide to practice. How ever Mao really corrected the shortcoming in the method itself, which included the most important area namely the theory of knowledge (Epistemology) By doing so Mao really made a qualitative change. That is the reason why even many who unhesitatingly admit his revolutionary credentials do not accept him as a Marxist. Mao distinguishes two kinds of truths and correspondingly two kinds of method to understand them which any orthodox Marxist –Leninist would consider as a Kantian deviation and an impermissible crime .In fact for the same deviation done by the Mensheviks Lenin did not spare them. He accused them as anti revolutionaries. However no one can call Mao so. Further Mao also introduces the idea of Loving service and struggling against self, which is not there either in Marx or in Lenin. At this stage we can defiantly state that without such a change Mao could not have carried out such a great revolution in such a continent that too against such a big army that too with a good deal of support from the most powerful imperialism {U.S) Mao can be considered a Marxist only because it stands up to the most important Leninist criterion namely that it was guide to revolutionary practice that too in a very successful way. It is very true that Mao did improve the Marxist Epistemology. Further I have rejected the Marxist paradigm through Marx clearly status that his communist economic basis is not the goal. Hence it can only be a means to realise an egalitarian humane society. Yet the economic foundation is large-scale industry, which can never help in the evolution of an equalitarian society. Hence I have accepted the Gandhian notion, which was also the final opinion of Prof. Haldane a brilliant a biologist and a Marxist hence he came to the conclusion that Marxist and Gandhi should be blended. It is also in a way a rejection of urban bias, which quit strong in Marx. On the issue of need and clearly rejecting the Marxian position. Voluntary reduction and rejection of personal need are not in Marx hence Marxian way cannot help in the evolution of an egalitarian society free from jealousy, hatred, vendata, etc.,. Mean expropriation of private property cannot help in realising the cherished goal. The one thing I shared with Marx is regarding the aim of production it should not be for profit. It also means that there should be change in the production relationship, which is accepted by MAO. The idea that the industrial working class will make the great revolution is no more valid. I arrive at the conclusion that this great revolution of the future will be the task of Women for re-establishment of loving relationship at various levels which means harmonious relation ship with nature also. The idea that human freedom is by subjugating nature is not correct. Further freedom should transcend economical relationship. Love cannot but be the expression of a non-antagonist relationship where in two sides are complimentary. This is absent in Marxism of the west, which is reflected, in the tragic history of the C.P.S.U. I reject the idea of a sudden transition from the realm of necessity to that of freedom. If there were to be no freedom at all in the class societies we have to come to the upset conclusion that the greatest arts and other creations of man were contributions of unfree minds. Hence all I can say is that the areas of freedom get enlarged and new areas are added. So in what sense can I be a Marxist? Marx by rejecting some of the dominant, ruling ideas and by his own reading of history great confidence to be working people to act. Once again Lenin too by the great October revolution and the establishment of
THE MESSAGE
19th Century: Message from the urban west, Revolution in the rural east.
Message: Workers of all countries, unite, you lose nothing but your chains but a world to win. Force is the midwife of all governments.
20th 21st Centuries: The message from the rural east, revolution from urban west.
Message:
- Atom bomb is a paper tiger; love the cadres, love the people, serve the people, struggle against self; East wind blows over the west wind. (Mao Tse Tung).
- Nature can provide for your needs but not your greed. (Gandhi).
- Non-violence is the only way for survival, anything else will lead to ruin. (Abdul Gaffarkhan) Frontier Gandhi).
Warning: Stop raping the mother (earth) lest she will turn into a Kaali and finish you.
Universal Message: One who sees ones own self in every thing only sees the truth.
Universal symbol: Medona (mother earth) embracing the child (life) (message of eco-socialism).
Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao
37. It was Lenin that designed the Bolshivic Communist party, which was the instrument, based on the principles of dialectics. It had the cognitive principle inbuilt. It was expected to function both as the body and brain. However what was missing was the loving heart. That was not a surprising thing because in the epistemology of Marx there is no place for such a heart. The cognitive, creative and the liberative role of love and loving service was not at all recognised by European Enlightenment including the thought of Marx. In a way Rosa Luxamburg pointed out this defect or the limitation of the instrument. Yet the remarkable efficiency of the instrument effectively hid this very basic flaw or inadequacy of the instrument (Party organisation). However very soon its inadequacy was to be seen. Lenin was perhaps the first to see it. But even then Lenin saw the defect in the wielder of the instrument namely in Stalin whose incompetence Lenin realised. He was not reliable and trustworthy. Nor was Trotsky. So from all available evidences Lenin did not have any doubt regarding the competence of the instrument. In his hands the same instrument worked admirably. His was the golden touch. It did the most desirable things. However we can see that it did not behave in the same way while some others handled it. Hence the instrument for all practical purposes appeared a neutral one. The heart was outside the instrument; it was inside Lenin. It was not an integral part of the instrument. Hence it behaved badly when wielded by those whose hearts were not like that of Lenin. Hence Lenin wanted to see that Stalin was removed from the position of the party secretary. Trotsky was also a suspect. There was nothing comparable to a moral moiety inside this instrument, which would have prevented the instrument from being misused or abused. However it should be accepted that Lenin perhaps never suspected that there was any serious flaw or defect in the instrument. If such an instrument as Lenin forged could be a value-free one, any instrument of the brain-body combination should be value-free. That is exactly what people like Althusser and others want Marxism to be a value-free instrument. That is what they consider as the essential attribute of any thing that could be called a science too. They want that the heart or the moral side to be externally added to this instrument, which means in practice that, the wielders should be ethical Christians. It is such an approach that Althussar sees in Mao. I think that may not be very correct. That is the way that Althussar wants, an efficient instrument as well as a moral being that will use the instrument always properly and not otherwise. He does not want that the instrument to be hindered by any internal moral check which will come in the way of its efficiency. This is just an eclectic solution that almost all the positivists demand. We need not doubt their sincerity or honesty or the objective.
38. However our objection is fundamental. It is concerned with the nature of the instrument itself. The instrument’s ability to cognise the social truth is the issue in question. In this respect Mao has done a very important or essential change in the very instrument itself. It is indeed a very subtle one.
39. After Lenin no one had the courage to criticise and hence rectify the instrument. That is the situation to this date as far as the various communist parties are concerned. The one exception is the Chinese one and that was due to Mao. The flaw flows from the defect in the epistemology of Marx, Engels and all other Marxists except Mao. Finally heartless men who were also very clever could wield the heartless instrument; that is what they had to be, if they are part of the instrument. In fact the instrument will make them very clever it is its special quality. If one does not become clever or efficient the instrument will purge him out. If Trotsky had the effective control over the same instrument he would not have hesitated to use it to crush his adversaries using the same method that Stalin adopted. That was the only reason why Lenin did not want either of them at the top.
40. Marxist movement developed the intellectual ability. No wonder it did attract the best of the British intellectuals as Gordon Childe states. However the moral side, particularly amidst the party leaders, was the weakest point. Only it was the great and noble goal that really prevented the movement from degenerating into an inhuman Fascism. We have to admit Marxism was never an immoral philosophy in spite of the defect in its epistemology.
41. At this stage it is necessary to know the real contribution of Mao, which others have missed. Stalin did not see any flaw in the writings of Marx nor any thing like a defect in the instrument, which Lenin had forged. In fact his coming to the top and being there as an unquestionable leader in spite of his being never any extraordinary being was mainly because of the instrument that was forged by Lenin which no one after him could question. At no time any of the top party members of the C.P.S.U. had raised even in the mildest manner any possible defect in the party principles of the Bolshivic party that is the instrument. Even Trotsky after he left
42. Finally the organisation is a nexus of power relationship also. It binds two persons in a power relationship. Hence the minority can be subjected to a kind of unbearable tyranny. The minority is unable to free itself also. Its position will be worse than that of Hindu Brahmin’s wife! It will be worse than that of a Hindu too when the party is in power. Hence it can be said that the revolution eats its own children almost literally.
43. That the soviet communist party (Bolshivic) did not destroy the doubters and the critics when Lenin who created it was at the helm of affairs is another problem. However he himself had outlawed every kind of opposition calling every such group a faction. The distinction between every kind the opposing group and a faction was really very thin. For all practical purposes the distinction was totally obliterated during the time Stalin became the commander. But Mao allowed the two-line struggle and made it legitimate and said that it was natural. He added that by removing heads you couldn’t erase ideas. This was a pointed criticism of Stalin’s way.
44. The moment Lenin made his exit there was no one at command to check the man-eater, which freely moved inside the house. Any one could have become the man-eater. It was just incidental that Stalin became the man-eater. Will it not be repeated? It is bound to be so long as the fundamental defect is allowed and not removed. However to day the problem is solved in a quixotic way. There is no such Leninist party at all anywhere. Almost all the so-called communist parties have become social democratic parties, which have rejected the Leninist party structure and norms. It also means that all these parties have surrendered to the alien class promising it that they will never even think of a popular revolution.
Modern Science, Marxism & Human Freedom
From The Recent History
45. The true nature of this modern science got revealed most glaringly almost at the end of the Second World War, when many of the top German scientists wept when they heard of the two atom bombs. They did not weep for the sake of the innocent children of
Early Evaluation
46. At the early stage the true nature of this tool (science) was not fully appreciated even by the most critical thinkers. For example, even during the last phase of nineteenth century F. Engels wrote that modern science ‘alone has achieved a scientific systematic, all round development’. His only criticism was that it had not become dialectical in approach. Otherwise it was the most developed method not merely to grasp the truth of the reality but also to reshape it, hence the most eminent tool.
The Historical Background
47. We can say with confidence that modern science is the most specific product of the modern European culture. It arose with the decline of the moral power of the message of Christ. The Christian church after all had become very early a religion that had started justifying slavery. Its social philosophy was to quote Engels, ‘The social principles of Christianity have justified the slavery of antiquity, glorified the serfdom of the middle ages, preached the necessity to suppression of the oppressed class, declared the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for the original or other sins. It became sneaking and hypocritical’. It is in the context when Christ was denied by Christianity and Islam had compromised with slavery that the most conductive conditions arose for the emergence of the new kind of enslaving knowledge, that is modern science. This church was fully exposed by Baccaccio Goivanni (1313 –1375). The church used only the coercive power to suppress its critics. It preached one thing and practiced the opposite. We see that unbridled coercion of peoples to achieve the desired end was justified by Machiavelli (1469 – 1527). In the next century we find F. Bacon (another unscrupulous man expounding the same principle, which was the continuation of the same philosophy of the official Christianity. (1561 – 1626)
48. There is no doubt that there are two strands in Christianity. It is the instrumentalist strand of Christianity that permitted and justified slavery, No wonder at a later date this Christianity gladly served Imperialism. It is the specific product of the particular kind of slave society that arose in the west. It is a weapon designed for war and exploitation. During the peace period too this tool is used for a war on the industrial and trade fronts.
49. It was an epoch when the European Man, the burger had started his wars of conquests. Their kings and queens honoured the European pirates. The inoffensive peoples of the several continents were butchered with impunity and plundered as well as traded as slaves. To achieve this aim, modern science and its technologies admirably serve. The most important area was no doubt mechanics. No wonder this was the one that developed fast.
50. Finally
51. However if we examine, the necessary quality to become a competent or even a top scientist in any branch of physical sciences one need not be generous, upright, harmless free from anger, uncoveteous, tolerant, compassionate, lovable, charitable or even good to others. At the same time these following are no disqualifications. One can be a rascal, cutthroat, embezzler, liar, counterfeit, pilferer, inhuman, shameless pimp or prostitute. The most necessary qualifications are just cleverness, observant, careful in work, efficient, diligent and well informed in ones field of study. That is the reason why the great qualities of theses men and women were neither the cause not the consequence of their work in science. No wonder their world was a highly divided one. For all such scientists, the method of modern science was the most dependable one to understand the factual truth of this world but it had nothing to teach in terms of ethics. So for as ethics was concerned they sought the assistance of the holy books. Hence they would prefer to see that the method of this science appears value-free. This is also the position of the majority of the Marxists. Can we accept this position is the next question?
Truth and Truth – Seekers
52. Science if it were to be the best way to realise the truth how such a search should shape the seekers is the most legitimate question. Saints are also said to be seekers of truth. If so, should not this method make these seekers really into saints?
What is the actual situation?
53. At the very outset we should realise that the grammarian of this remarkable method Francis Bacon was himself one of the most unscrupulous characters in history. If it were to be so what should be our inference? Either the truth they seek or the method they employ or both have no intrinsic capacity to shape them into saints. That is exactly the fact. This was very clearly pointed out long back by no less a person than one of the greatest Atheists of the world namely Gouthama the Buddha. Let us hear him. Malunkyaputta, the would-be disciple asked Buddha ‘before I embrace your religion is it not necessary for me to know the truths of this world’ Buddha replied, ‘the truths of this world can never be exhausted. However the most important point is that these truths have no relevance at all to what I teach in my religion. Let me explain. A poisonous arrow shot a person; he was swooning. At that time he began to ask those gathered around him thus, please tell me as to who shot that arrow? Was it a male or a female, was the person tall or short, black or white belonged to this village or some other and so on. Buddha adds, even if correct answers were to be had for all these questions can they save him?’ They are absolutely irrelevant to the problem on hand. In this remarkable passage the greatest ancient Atheist has clearly and succinctly expounded the limits of this kind of science. E. Kant did not know such a dialogue. Nor Bergson’s intuition was a real answer to the problem on hand. Let us hear what the Indian culture has to say in this matter. We have here two deities representing knowledge, Visvakarma the Architect celestial and the white–robed goddess Saraswathy. Strangely the higher kind of knowledge is that of Saraswathy, the woman. The main issue here is while Saraswathy is worshipped, Viswakarma or Maya, the great engineer is not worshiped. Apparently this most useful and practical knowledge is not considered the superior one.
54. A very similar distinction is made in the Chinese culture too. The Chinese sage told the Mangolian conqueror that wealth could give comfort but not wisdom. The distinction is not known. Outside its methods any of this is either superstition or down–right nonsense. The ethical world, which is irrational to the shallow Empiricism of this science, is a strange world. Such notions like Sathyam Jayathe, Dharman Jayathe in the long run are simply meaningless for Empiricism. Modern science by claiming that it is a pursuit of a value-free impersonal knowledge finally can land us only in the
The Place of Evil in this kind of knowledge
55. Where are we to find the seed of this evil in this modern science is the next issue. Let us examine its unique method (Experimental method). The true nature of this unique method cannot be properly understood if we confine ourselves to the area of physical sciences. However the moment we enter the region of life sciences and that too zoology we can discover the area of evil. I had dissected a lot of animals never bothering whether my action was ethically correct or not. I happened to meet a German youth whose father was a Nazi and a doctor who had really butchered quite a number of Slavs and Jews all in the name of experiments. When I questioned this young German the justification of his father’s action he replied ‘my dear friend, we were taught that the Slavs and the Jews are subhuman. By using them as experimental material we can gain the necessary knowledge to save the supermen the Germans, which is what we were taught. However you have been mutilating as well as butchering many useful organisms. In what way you have any moral right to question my Nazi father, tell me’. Well, you know that I had no answer. However it opened my eyes. I saw clearly the seat of the evil of this modern science. Also I understood how many top German scientists could become inhuman Nazis.
56. In short it is this unique method that makes the practitioner really a heartless being. For this method of investigation or for this science nothing is sacred. All are profane. If you treat anything as sacred how can you multiple or callously butcher it? Such sentiments like pity, compassion, reverence for life etc., are all really so many obstacles to become an objective zoologist. You have hence to purge yourself of all these finer sentiments to become a real scientist of the present day. Is it not true for all branches of Modern science, be it chemistry, physics or even psychology? In short you have to raise yourself into being of ‘beyond good and evil’. That means you should become a fit candidate for the Fascist party. Only thing is that you neither knew of it. At best you should become a machine that can analyse and act without any emotional or ethical consideration as the banking servant Mr. Lorry who says to Ms. Mannet in the Tale of Two Cities ‘Miss I am a machine I have no sentiments’.
57. That is the reason why I am compelled to reject the thesis of Prof. J.D. Bernal when he says that modern science in its endeavor is Communism, on the contrary it can be very well Fascism. Fascism is not also anti–science, it is the most legitimate child of modern science. Of course many of the Marxists (shallow, no doubt) will not accept such a conclusion. That is beside the point.
58. Let us now pass on to the implied epistemology of this science as well as examine its serious limitation or defect if one may call it so. The epistemology of modern science at its best accepts only the Head (thinking) and hands (experimental verification). Marxists call this ‘Theory and practice’. All they can say is that theory without practice is empty & practice without theory is blind. That was what Stalin said. We know where it leads him. The Marxists epistemology, which rejects (at least so it claims) both Empiricism and Positivism and conceives of a dynamic active dialectical relationship between the knowing subject and the observed object. This is the highest possible development of modern science in the area of epistemology. Of late some of the Quantum physicists are just arriving at this position, a position clearly upheld by Marx and Engels even in the last century itself. Hence proper criticism of Marxist epistemology is enough .to understand the limitations of modern science as well as that of European enlightenment.
59. The main issue here is whether the method which appears to be adequate to understand as well as to release the energy packed in an atom is enough to understand life in general and human being in particular and to liberate the creative energy from them. Let us hear one of the great Marxist revolutionaries. He is none other than the Eastern Philosopher – revolutionary Mao. He is not satisfied with the Western Marxist epistemology, which is satisfied with head and hand. He adds the following instructions to the cadres.
60. ‘Love the people, serve the people and struggle against the self’. Why should he tell them so? In short essence it is an instruction in the field of epistemology. It appears that Mao the Marxist brings Ethics in the field of knowledge as though it has a cognitive role. However it is not seen in any of the Western school including that the Marx. Let us hear what Marx has to say about this phenomenon Love. When L. Feurbach the materialist, the teacher of Marx began toying with the idea of creating a new religion based on love, Marx and Engels scoffed and laughed at him. They never examined the possible reason for this attempt of L. Feurbach. That L. Feurbach could not clearly state his reason was due to the fact that he too had not recognised the cognitive role of love or its significance. It remains the same to this date so far as Western movement of Enlightenment, which includes Marxism too. The defect is found in all the sociological sciences too. No social science can tell us any thing really meaningful of life until it accepts in practice the cognitive role of love. Because this basic defect, to this date is not rectified there is no genuine socialist movement but only Social–Fascism. No wonder the Ongeys of Andamans have been sent to heaven all in the name of social justice and tribal welfare by the recommendation of our ‘socialistic: Scientific advisers’.
Cause of all the illusions and crimes
61. When Arjuna asks the Bhagwan Krishna the basic cause of illusion and crime the Bhagwan without any ambiguity and hesitation declares that it is caused by object–bondage and the worst kind of it is that of bondage to the Ahankar. One can easily kill ones own life, but it is not at all that easy to destroy ones false-ego. Can the modern science, the path of practical knowledge, destroy this false ego is the question. It not only cannot destroy it but on the contrary it actually inflates it. It really makes the practitioners highly self opinionated and arrogant. No wonder they cannot see the truth of life. This declaration is not only that of the Githacharyas, it is the conclusion of Marx too. Marx clearly connects object–bondage with lack of freedom of man at all levels (thinking and doing). Object–bondage chains you in every possible way. Freedom of thought is simply impossible until one is free from object – bondage. You should not get attached even to your pet notions and theories. Now the problem is to know the best way to free us. It is here that the great Eastern saints (Mao compares himself not surprisingly to the saints of China) have all said the same, namely love the people, serve them and that will destroy the false–ego and your will see the truth and be freed.
62. Hence love or more precisely loving service is not just an emotional bond. It is not also merely the best way or path to show us the truth but the safest as well as the easiest way to free us too. That it is a very big part of class–struggle is not at all understood by most including a big chunk of Marxists. The method of this modern science of the west is not the way to take us to that goal.
63. This limitation of Gnanamarga (even of the higher kind) was clearly pointed out to no less a person than to Adi Sankara by the remarkable women Bharathi when she told him that he understood nothing when he knew not love. After this encounter Sankara virtually abandoned his Gnanamarga as well as his Monism. He established the Saradapeet and not Brahmapeet, he sang the Bajagovindam and Soundarayalahari. Marxism of the West can be compared to a variety of Gnana–Marga. While modern science does not talk of the human freedom, Marx is serious of it. For Marx, knowledge has no meaning if it does not lead to freedom of man. In that sense Marx is also a Moksha–Margin like all our religious reformers. However his notion of human freedom is defective, which he shares with European enlightenment. That is the main reason why the Western democracy could not prevent the two of the worst kind of wars that mankind had suffered. This fact itself should be warning to the blind uncritical dogmatic Marxists. How did Marx understand human freedom? Was it in any way fundamentally different from that of Bacon the father of Modern Science?
64. Bacon believed that human freedom was based on the perpetually expanding area of enslavement and exploitation of nature. Hence in his view freedom of any small minority is to be based on the enslavement of the vast minority. Is this not the continuation of the slave – philosophy that arose in
65. Let us see how Marx differed from the earlier thinkers. Marx realised that freedom was indivisible. He saw that the product that man creates mediates the basic relationship between men. So the real freedom of man is determined by the actual relationship between the product and the producer. So Marx demands the abolition of the hostile, inimical relationship between the two, hence his demand to abolish exploiting kind of private property. In his view too freedom of man is to be based on the ever expanding control and hence enslavement of the non-human reality. So it could be said that Marx demands the abolition of slavery only to unleash the tremendous potential just to enslave the non-human reality. Marx in a real way continues Baconian thought. No wonder the slavery that he thought that he had shown the way to drive out through the front door rushed with a bang through the back door in all the countries, which claimed to have followed Marx. This is the culmination of every kind of man-centered humanism. Modern science even at best can never go beyond this. So it cannot show the true path of real human freedom. Man can really be free only when he establishes a truly harmonious, lovable, reciprocal relationship with nature. This was clearly understood by the ancients. It is clearly expressed in the Upanishadhadic statement 'Atmavat sarva butheshu yah pasyathi sa Pasyathi' (one who sees ones own self in every being only sees the truth). This was well known to the ancient Tamil saints as well as the Chinese Taoists. Only now the Deep–ecologists are coming to realise this profound truth. At that level it is no more a value–free positivist science but a value–based philosophy.
Human Freedom
66. The concept of freedom also is a paradox. Marx the dialectician knew it. However the dialectics of Marx appears to be one sided. It is for all purposes the male version of dialectics. Marx could not have known the feminine. The feminine version was well known to the eastern thinkers. No wonder Mao the eastern Marxist could develop the concept of the non-antagonistic contradiction a development from the feminine version of dialectics one that is absent both in Lenin and Stalin.
67. In the feminine version of freedom is based on the harmonious relationship is established between the two. It is achieved by yielding and going with the reality, which is invariably the mighty sign. It is called yielding to win. Joseph Needham very well brings out this notion in his studies of the ancient cultural area. In the Eastern cultural context reality is not conceived as an antagonist standing as a threat to life. The dominant thought in the West is just the opposite where the fundamental relationship between the reality and human life is conceived as hostile culminating in the notion of struggle for existence and survival of the fit, the Darwinian idea.
68. The harmonious relationship is expressed by two symbols one being the mother suckling the child and the other that of two lovers. Such a kind of symbolisation could have been the most natural one in the tropical context where nature was bounteous. However this situation can be destroyed by the indiscriminate action of man and then the situation will turn into one of antagonistic relationship. This is exactly what is now being witnessed by the anti-ecological pattern of industrialisation on a large scale. That this path is suicidal need not be unduly emphasised.
69. Freedom finally is the quality of the relationship between two beings that form the dialectical unity. However the two may not be in most cases equal. Inequality between the two in one way or the other is the norm. Then how to establish a happy harmonious and free relationship between such unequals is the real problem. The Western thought including Marxism has not shown the answer at all. The same issue is reflected as the inner party problem of the Marxist parties where the minority is asked to submit to the majority unconditionally. Can it be a free relationship? Was there a happy, harmonious, free relationship between the two sides is the real issue. Freedom is not a support less existence, as standing on ones own legs as Marx says at some point legs as Marx says at some point. When some pointed this to Mao it seems he said that if it is so do not make a big noise of it.
70. In the East (particularly in the South India where arose the great Bakthi movement of the Alvars and the Nayanars, most of them being non–brahmins and some of the greatest being, women and members of the schedule caste) clearly point out that free relationship can be built on relationship of unequals. It is of an enduring kind because this is the basic and most common relationship that is invariably obtained. No wonder the history of the Chinese communist party was very different from that of the
71. Finally the freedom of the Western kind including that of its dialectical version is based upon the enslavement of the non-human reality, which means a perpetual war on it. Another aspect of it is that it is based upon the dependable or reliable knowledge of it. It is only comparable to the knowledge that we learn of our enemy. We normally want to know the weakness of the enemy. Not the strength, which we cannot use. We are damn afraid of the hidden side, which is not only very big but also of immeasurable strength. If we really can build our freedom based on the unknown side of this reality it is bound to be of the most enduring kind. That is what the Bakthi movement shows. The West bases its freedom on the weaker foundation (the known side) and hence it is bound to collapse. Already the indications are clear.
72. This kind of free relationship of the baktha and the Bhagwan is called Prapathi or Saranagathi a concept developed by the Bakthi (prema) Marg, a concept almost unknown to the modern West. How can then the lower kind of Gnana–Marg (modern science) understand such a concept? Saranagathi is not at all any kind of a coercive or forced surrender of an impotent tiny creature to the mighty. It may appear so externally. Here the form the empirical observation hides the essence, the real truth. Free relationship is a reciprocal one wherein each longs for the other’s association and each achieves the fullness of life only in and through the other. (Identity in and through and because of difference) However the West could not conceive of such a kind of relationship between unequals. Even one of the most sensitive artists of the European culture, Oliver Goldsmith had to express the dominant notion of the West in the following words, ‘unequal combination always terminates into calamity disadvantageous to the weaker side’. Is this not enough to understand the truth of the West?
73. Equality between any two beings is almost impossible. Free relationship based on that is also a very rare phenomenon. Even if that impossibility is achieved it will have to be the most transient one. No wonder the West is still unable to establish free harmonious happy relationship with any, including no doubt with itself too. It is a society or a culture, which is under severe tension. It has not known to establish an easy relationship even with wealth. It is swinging between two extremes, (absolute freedom of abject slavery). The Marxists concept of self–determination suffers from the same. Prema Marga shows the easiest and the safest path. This is the lesson from the cultural history of this great land. Such an appreciation will show us the vision of free life based upon life promoting knowledge a corresponding technology and the social organisation.
Place of Modern Science in Society
74. No wonder C.G. Jung very rightly said ‘if science usurps the throne, it will lead to tyranny’. If this science and the technology of it do determine the normal life of the majority it will the beginning of the end of mankind. Already the clear indications are there to those that can see. But they are the people that lovingly serve the people or at least prepared to do so. It means that this poison should be contained as was done by Shiva who has that all–consuming Alakhala-Visha locked in his gullet. Who is this modern Shiva?. Anyhow such a Shiva cannot be the dominant section of the present day world.
ECCENTRIC IDEAS
75. The second phase of the second half of this century is witnessing a number of movements, which are no doubt emerging from the lands, which are really the lands of global exploiters. Such groups, which have started these movements, may have been primarily motivated for their own people’s security. Yet they are compelled gradually to see the bigger truth, unpalatable as it may be for many. The truth is that their very survival depends more that in one way on the survival of the peoples who are enslaved, exploited, devastated, and decimated by their own rulers. However such groups are not prepared as yet to start a real struggle against their own rulers who are the real cause of this great damage. They are not yet prepared to see that their real enemy is their own ruling people, and more so, their life style. Their life style is based essentially on the inordinate multiplication of abominable needs. If mankind has any chance of survival it is only possible if it consciously, deliberately and willingly takes such resolute steps as to reduce its needs and hence demands from nature too. The smallest minority which goes on babbling of population control, which only means the reduction of Asians and Africans, seldom talks about the reduction of its abominable needs.
76. Years back I read as a student of zoology that finally only the insects will survive and not the human beings. This conclusion was based on the remarkable adaptability of these organisms, but the real reason is elsewhere. The Entomologist classifies the insects into economically useful and harmful ones (no doubt from the standpoint of Man). He lists a very small number of insects as useful. The so-called harmful ones form quite a big list. Of late I began to reevaluate this notion.
77. Today I am compelled to reject this apparently very correct classification which most of our entomologists still find highly practical. My conclusion is that if you reduce your needs and hence demands from nature, what today appears as harmful may change in to useful ones. You may not know how such a change might take shape. However if you go on multiplying your needs what appears to be beneficial will turn into harmful ones. This can be more readily and easily observed. Many innocuous insects or apparently harmless ones within the last thirty years have become major pests. The list is day-by-day increasing without any indication of lessening. Hence it all depends upon your own activities, which are immoderate to say the least. If you multiply your needs you will become very soon an unwanted guest or a pest, on this planet. All nature both organic and inorganic will form a united front against you and finish you. This is inevitable. So, more than the increase of the population, the inordinate multiplication of the unnecessary needs of this minority is menacing this species. It is from such an understanding the new ecological awareness should emerge.
78. Let us now examine the general or the dominant attitude of the machine culture. Many call this term European culture the bourgeois culture. This term is no more useful to understand its true nature. It is essentially a machine–culture.
79. In a machine, an artifact, the human (social) contribution is the maximum. Not merely that, nature actually reduces its efficiency, finally incapacitating and destroying it. Hence the most natural attitude of the people who have become machine–dependent is to look at nature as hostile; that also is the message of Darwinism. This outlook was not seriously questioned by Marx too, though at a point Marx did talk of nature as the inorganic body of Man with which he had to be in continuous intercourse to survive. However there is no indication anywhere in his vast writings of the most essential and fundamental relationship between man and nature. Finally this finds its expression in the idea of the accidental origin of life. If life had arisen by an accident or as an event of improbability, it would never have survived at all. Life should have emerged in a context where its survival was very much assured. So its origin was not accidental. It is only when his own lopsided and over–industrialisation as well as his life–destroying activities are creating various kinds of uncontrollable pollution and destroying the very life–base, a section of the western Man has become a bit serious about Ecology and it is now raised to the level of a philosophy. That is good.
80. Secondly they are also realising the fact they cannot insulate and save themselves with the aid of this modern science and its technology. It is also absolutely uneconomical, however it is easier and highly economical to go to the other alternative, namely the protection of the life–base on this earth. However they are moving in this direction very hesitatingly. They will move deliberately and boldly in the proper direction only when they develop deep sympathy and love for the poorer sections of mankind. This is the crucial question. Unless and until they are moved by with such a compassion and love they will not be able to take necessary bold step of struggling against their own rulers. Their hesitancy is the reflection of their reluctance to lose their privileged position. There is still lurking in them the feeling of a superior race. They think that there is nothing to learn from the so-called lesser mortals. This lack of humility is still preventing them from marching ahead towards the land of freedom and genuine happiness. They should know the old Taoist saying that ‘the heaven makes those compassionate whom it wants to protect’. No wonder love the people, serve the people and struggle against self' wrote the Chinese Taoist–Marxists revolutionary Mao.
81. The philosophy of Capitalism at its best can only say ‘Let my own people be happy (Mamajanah Sukhino Bhavanthu). This is the limit of the notion of the ‘Promised People’. However ever expanding enslavement of the non-human reality. That is the Marx wanted this happiness and freedom of Mankind. Such a position is expressed in the aphorism 'Sarve janah sukhino bhvanthu’, however in the opinion of Marx it has to be built on the basic reason why his man–cantered humanism (Anthropocentric) too is finally self-defeating. So Marx’s words also have not shown the way to build a genuine ecology or a society based on sound ecological principles. However it is fully expressed in the Bakthi or Prema Marga of the Alwars and Nayanmars. In the nineteenth century this was clearly expressed by the great Saint Vallalar (Ramalingam).
82. This is the implied meaning of the Upanishadhic statement ‘Athmavat Sarva Bhutheshu yah pasyathi sa pasyathi’. One who sees ones own self in every being alone sees the truth. Strangely science shows the opposite, namely the difference but not the identity. The essence is totally hidden from our eyes. Modern science only shows the non-self (or anti-self) in all the others, which has led to the present crisis. Deep Ecology is now the path for the Western man to grasp the essential truth of the identity of the opposites. Till yesterday, he never showed the proper attitude and the necessary basic relationship namely love and compassion towards the non-human reality. This has lead to the crisis in Marxist movement too. The implied philosophy of the Tropical Agricultural culture is enshrined in the notion of Saranagathi that is Sweet Surrender or the loving relationship between the mighty (call it god or nature) and the puny
83. Ecological consciousness naturally leads to a radically distinct life style wherein it demands you too to contribute nurturing by nature. Such a lifestyle cannot hate manual work. Machines will be used in very selective spheres only. The economy will be a recycling one, never a throwaway ballpoint one. Life will not appear fast, but life will be more artistic. Until and unless this basic defect in Marxist epistemology is corrected, Socialist ecology cannot emerge, non-socialist geography.
MARXISM AND SCIENCE
‘Ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class’
Marx
84. Marx and Engels by subjecting every notion, idea, or theory to rigorous class analysis showed that no idea however abstract and universal it may appear can be free from the class prejudice. It will have the class stamp. It is of course fairly easy to establish this in the realm of theories concerned with politics, history, sociology anthropology, art and literature. However it is not that easy to discover that kind of ideological tilt in the area of physical sciences though they too cannot be free from such class slant or stamp at a different level. However the Marxists have not extended this general approach to the so-called physical sciences At that point the Marxists virtually become Positivists. This area of physical science, engineering and technologies has become the most forbidden territory for class analysis. This area appears almost above class prejudices. For instance when Stalin says that there cannot be a bourgeois class train nor a capitalist class machine he is clearly espousing a positivist, non-class and non-valuational approach towards physical sciences and technologies. His stand towards language too was very similar. In all these Mao is unquestionably differing from Stalin.
85. However if not the first attempt certainly a serious attempt was made by Christopher Caudwel to expose the unconscious class assumptions (ideological frame) embedded in the foundations of the several sciences, all of which were the products of the class society. Such an endeavour resulted in four works. (Studies in a dying culture, Further studies in a dying culture, Illusion and reality and Crisis in physics) His work particularly ‘dying in physics’ became the subject of serious debate amidst the Marxist scientists of Briton and the communist party members. Professor J.D. Bernal the renounced Marxist scientist of Briton as well as Maurice Cornforth the official Marxist philosopher of the communist party dismissed the work of Caudwel almost with contempt. At the same time they very much accepted the work of Jack.Lyndsay (Marxism and Sciences), which did not enter the forbidden territory. Even to day the situation is more or less remaining the same.
86. However there were also Marxists in
87. However this problem arose in a way at a later stage inside the
88. Though the criticism of the Gene theory was along the correct line it did not develop fully and thoroughly into social criticism, that is a criticism from the standpoint of people’s science. In fact the Soviet theoretician Prezent did not even envisage such a kind of proletarian science. This was and is the most fundamental weakness of the majority of the Marxists to this date.
89. When this issue came for a serious debate the communist party of the
90. The real issue is concerned with two kinds of knowledge and their social consequences. The two kinds of sciences will engender two kinds of societies. That is why we have to admit that modern science can never be an amorphous kind of knowledge. It is comparable to a crystallite with a specific structure, which will produce similar structure in the medium. Hence this modern science it’s technologies and the machines will invariably produce only a pyramidal, stratified society governed by a soulless authoritarian bureaucracy irrespective, which class rules. In fact this combination will work against the rule of the working class. That is the reason why in the so-called socialist world the power of the working class was very soon lost. Mao’s attempt to stem the tide came very late. His launching the great proletarian Cultural Revolution could not restore the rule of the working class, which was really established by the people’s war. The dominance of the elitist knowledge can never help in the evolution of an egalitarian society. It is the recognition of this truth that had prompted Deng Tsio Ping the arch Chinese Revisionist and the capitalist-roader to push with vengeance his reactionary Programme of modernisation at all costs. He knew very well as to what would consolidate the rule of the working people and what will consolidate the power of the capitalist class. If we believe in the warning words of Mao, we should understand that what is good to Deng & co can never be good to the working people. Deng’s certificate to modern science and high technology should be a enough warning to every class conscious worker of their true nature. Conversely the nature of the science too will very well be determined by the basic structure of the society in which it develops. It will also be so designed as to protect that social structure. This was obvious so far as the state was concerned. Hence Marx and Lenin demanded the destruction of that state and create in its place a very different one which will be the very opposite of that. This mistake of the Marxists regarding the evaluation of the modern science and its technologies has been the reason for such ideas like Islamic, Christian and Hindu sciences. The Marxists can never seriously criticise the absolutist concept of all these including that of Ethno-Science. However the single merit of all these notions is that all of them have questioned the amorphous nature of the modern science and its technologies.
91. From this it follows that there will be two kinds of educational methods as well as two kinds of syllabus. No wonder Mao took every effort to destroy the bourgeois class style of education and its class content as well as the method of academic education which will invariably produce the anti-red experts before whom the entire society made up of peasants and workers should bow and submit. In short they will always be at the receiving end like beggars, which will also be most pleasing to Imperialism. All those that advocate such an educational system are willy-nilly objectively agents of Imperialism. It is only from such a standpoint that we should evaluate every educational system. So the primary or even the most essential aim and hence the function of education in every class divided society ruled by the propertied class be it Feudal or capitalist is not so much to impart useful knowledge but to divide the society and make such a division appear most natural and hence acceptable particularly to the enslaved section so that it will not develop a mind and the will to revolt or even question the domination of the elite minority. Hence a class divided society produces its own seeds which will germinate only into a similar class divided society.’ So modern science, its technologies and its expert-producing educational system are all the specific seeds of this class divided society. You cannot use any of them as such to produce an egalitarian society. However abstract and universal or objective this science may appear because it is born from the womb of a particular class society it has to bear the stamp of that society. They are the genes or the templates of that society.
The Dialectics of Tools
92. A page from the history of modern Europe Here I am concerned mainly with the relationship of man (worker) with the machine. The class, which is intimately connected and concerned with the machines, the artifacts are no doubt the capitalist class. However it is also true that the worker in another sense even more concerned with the machine.
93. Because of the intimate relationship between the worker and the machine the capitalist is very much interested in the design of the machine. It is equally true of technology or the pattern of production. which is not the same as the mode of production. For example with the same mode of production there could be more than one pattern of production.
94. The power of the worker over the owner is in and through and because of the machine. This is due to the single fact that the owner cannot simply replace at his own sweet will and pleasure the worker. That is because every person cannot handle the machine. It needs trained persons, who not only operate the machine but also knows it know its several parts. Such was the situation during the early phase when the raising capitalist class actually invited the rural boys and girls to work in his workshop. At that time the machine was not at all an opaque one. The illiterate worker could become soon a skilled one. Further the capitalist needed the worker for more than one reason. The worker too at that stage became an ally of the capitalist. Both of them joined hands to fight against the feudal forces, which were supported by the clergy. However, the situation changed radically later. But the most radical change did not happen until recently. Such a change occurred only during the Second World War period.
95. With the development of information theory, servomechanism, automations electronics, integrated circuits and so on the new machines do not need the skilled workers at all. The information is programmed and it is inside the machine. It is a part of its body. The skill has for all intents and purposes are now an integral part of the machine. The worker for all intends and purposes become a miserable adjunct of the machine, just a button pusher. In such a situation the skill of the worker is no more necessary. The machine kills the skill. Anyhow the irony is that it is termed ‘user friendly’! The owner of the present day really wants such a machine. Secondly the worker is no more wanted as an ally. However the irony is that today the urban working class is more readily joining hands with the most counter-revolutionary capitalist class who is it’s mortal enemy. It is almost totally unconcerned about the colossal destruction and devastation that are being done in the rural areas, the cause of which is the capitalist class. Such devastation is the direct consequence of the kind of industrialisation done all in the name of development. The working class is almost totally unconcerned about it’s own liberation.
96. The modern machine really kills the fighting spirit and strength of the worker. In fact it is designed mainly for that purpose. It emasculates him, he becomes easily a replaceable component, is just a spare part most readily purchasable in the labour market of unemployed workers. This is exactly what Engels saw even at the end of the last century. This is also what Marx did point out in his brilliant analysis of alienated labour. The worker becomes timid his confidence is destroyed. Such a thing was done earlier by ideology. This was clear to Veblan too.
97. Modern machines and technologies are deliberately and clearly designed with specific aim. What could be such an aim? We should know it. The main aim is to make the working class an impotent one so that it will not be able to rebel. Let us clearly understand that they are not designed to increase the efficiency or just to speed up production as is often claimed by the non-class or the so-called value-free, objective evaluation of the pseudo Marxists. Certainly it is not at all to give the worker greater leisure or pleasure. Can that be the aim of the bloodsucking leaches and Vampires?
98. The main aim cannot but be the class aim. To have total control over the entire production process and through that over the emasculated working class is the main aim. It also means total control over the peoples of the former colonial world, which is made to accept such a production pattern as the only way for ‘advancement’.
99. Modern machines are designed primarily to kill the skill power of the working class and thereby make it impotent and drive in it fear in every possible way, so also the modern technology or the pattern of production. It is hence to destroy its confidence, a confidence which it got from the writings of Marx, Engels and the Great Russian revolution and later much more from the Chinese revolution. Once the class is demoralised it can be kept a slave permanently, which means it can be exploited at will in any way. It is the same with the peoples of the so-called third world or the peoples of the so-called undeveloped and underdeveloped or developing countries. Hence even in the absence of private property the working class can be exploited that too with any revolt by it. Such a situation is bound to emerge if the working class accepts such a machine and such a technology or the pattern of production, and corresponding educational method and that too in an alien language or one that cannot be easily understandable by it. It is at this point that we see the ‘theory of convergence’, which Kapitsa the great Soviet scientist became enamoured of.
100. Secondly the machine is also so designed that it will invariably produce a hierarchy. It is also biased against the worker. So he becomes the most easily replaceable part of it. It is because the bourgeois class of to day is not the one that we saw in the 15th or the 16th century. It is not any more a class that has to fight the church or the landed gentry or the feudal aristocracy and in many cases the kings also. When it was such a class it really needed the working class to help it in more than one way. The peasant boy or the girl who almost ran away from the rural area became the worker in the developing urban area. They were invariably illiterate. Now they had to work in the factory and as such had to learn the way to work on the machines. At least some if not all had to understand the work manual. In fact the capitalist had to see that this illiterate class gets some kind of an education. In a way it did liberate this, rural working masses in more than one way. The two became partners in spite of the antagonism inherent in the capitalist- worker relationship. It is at this stage that each side develops the other in a positive manner. The two jointly can exploit some other section and share the loot if it is possible. That is exactly what we see during the Imperialist phase. Hence the working class also can become fanatically nationalistic (jingoist) and finally fascist. It is not at all surprising. That is the reason why we cannot come to mechanical conclusion that the industrial working class will always be temperamentally anti-capitalist or revolutionary or fight for its own freedom or for socialism. Such an idea is static and totally unhistorical. Such an idea cannot explain the history of the last hundred years even tolerably.
101. During the early phase the Bourgeois for its own interest and advancement had to fight against the church and the feudal forces. So it had to destroy the ideology, which justified and thereby helped to protect the power and authority of such feudal forces. Hence it had to demystify and destroy that which was held sacred by the older powers. No wonder it demanded a new epistemology and a plebeian way or method to understand the truth. Bacon created it. It was aimed at destroying the prerogative of the aristocracy and the Catholic Church in particular. In a way in the historical context it was a popular epistemology. It was a democratic move. If demystification was the major aim of the raising Bourgeois class as well as that of modern science of that period mystification of every thing appears to be the aim of that class today. This reached almost a limit with Fascism and Nazism, which demanded the people to think with blood and hence demanded the abolition of reasoning mind. This kind of reaction was in a way a consequence of the sterile nature of the one-sided Gnanamarga, which had rejected all in the name of scientific attitude, had rejected the heart. It was in this context when a value was placed before the people who could be readily understood and it touched the emotional side. They were the nation and the great redeemer, the leader. It filled a kind of spiritual vacuum, which was created by the dominance of the soulless materialism, all in the name of scientific socialism, and Marxism. Existentialism showed the lapse in the Marxist movement and philosophy of that day, but it also did not offer the correct alternative. That was the effect of the dominance of Soviet Marxism, which for all intents and purposes was just a variety of mechanical Materialism. Stalin’s work cannot be a proper criticism of mechanical materialism. At the same time Trotsky was not in any way an answer either.
102. Now let us look into the unique feature of modern science, particularly the method of quantification, its mathematical side. Statistics is enough. If it is carelessly used it can easily and completely hide the truth. Truth will be made to appear as untruth and vice versa. Did not Euler use a similar trick to drive away Dederot from the court of Czarina? That is the easiest way to mystify. In most cases we finally believe only in the conclusions without knowing whether the tool used was proper or not. We have only faith in the honesty of the scientist. So reason in abandoned and once again faith becomes the basis of confidence. This is something like the ‘Apthavachana’. In the case of ‘Apthavachana’ the person who tells us something is invariably one who is interested in our welfare and whom we know and whose honesty we don’t question. However, it is not so in the above case where we do not know any thing about the scientist.
103. If on the contrary the method had made more and more people see the truth more easily we could call it the method of demystification. However, today in almost all the branches of science the even the normal spoken and easily understandable language has become the most unsuitable medium. So when scientists descend once again after their adventure into the unknown terrain, one which ordinary mortals can never enter and hence can never have any idea at all, and tell us anything, we have to simply accept them as unquestionable divine words. . Now we see how a tool because of the one-sided exaggeration has turned into its opposite just as too much of light make us blind or too much of Amrith can also turn it into Alakalavisha. So this method, which at an earlier period apparently was an instrument that demystified, now has become the best weapon in the hands of the ruling class to mystify even ordinary things. Instead of enlightening it is only stupefying, and benumbing the minds of the majority. - It is the modern black magic.
104. This tool finally declares that the mighty majority of people are idiots who can never know why a certain statement is true or false. It declares that the people even with normal faculties have no ability to know. Formerly this science claimed that we could know, understand the truth and questioned those who denied such a possibility for the so-called ordinary people. It also claimed that all people with normal faculties can use this tool and with great success. Now this very same science declares that our normal faculties cannot be relied upon. No wonder at this stage these scientists become the ardent devotees of the greatest Mayawadi Adi Sankara. These are the Neo-Brahmins. We are asked to put our faith in them and their Brahmins the un-understandable formulas and mathematics.
105. At an earlier period this science and its technology brought the reality nearer to the illiterate rustic boy. He was able to see, know and handle the things with confidence. In fact it gave him more confidence and boldness. He was introduced to a
106. At an earlier stage this science brought the scientists and the worker nearer and they were almost becoming partners. But today this science and hence this scientist is really the enemy of the worker. The scientist works to destroy even the native skill and drive the worker into despondency. He is now the most willing slave of the counter- revolutionary bourgeois class. He is now the enemy of the mighty majority of the people. So today here too it has turned into the opposite. Such is the dialectics of every kind of one-sided growth. North will turn into South! Science claiming to bring exactness by eliminating ambiguities and paradoxes demanded prose and logical correspondence to it. Today this prose is fast disappearing in the so called positive sciences and even in the non- exact or quasi-sciences the quantification method, often no doubt most indiscriminately used is driving away the natural language and even the limited language that is used to just to hide the truth by using euphemism. Truth is made the most in-accessible one. That this is a self-defeating exercise is a different issue.
107. What we have to realise is the fact that every attempt is made to mystify things, science a no exception. So too technology - After all these are tools. Now we should see that a tool could be so designed to achieve an end.
108. Machine is so designed that it is becoming an unknowable entity so far as the worker is concerned. So also with the majority of the people. It is now opaque. Added to it repairing or recycling is becoming an extinct process and mere replacement of chunks of last parts may be possible now. Spare parts are also becoming obsolete. This is the ball- point economy or throw- away- after-use economy, a thoroughly wasteful one. This has been forced to the greatest disadvantage on the poorer nations that are always kept at the receiving end. Even time-tested knowledge, as in the area of tropical agriculture is now discredited and is demanded to be thrown away being called obsolete, unscientific and hence inefficient.
109. Today all the artifacts that mediate between men can be so designed as to make it biased in favour of one and to the disadvantage of another. Such a bias is internalised, that is inbuilt. So, it cannot be used to establish a free relationship. Formally, merely by possessing the artifacts the alien relationship was maintained. Now even in the absence of such a possession an alien relationship could be achieved simply by designing the artifact. At the human level the same is achieved by making men and women spies, agents and pimps. So let us have no great expectations from the present day elite which also is behaving more often than not as robots with inbuilt information.
Lessons from Mao’s approach
110. If Mao had been an uncritical advocate of and modern technology and science his very name would never have been known at all. His very shrewd enemy Chiang would have finished him even before 1927. Actually Mao defeated on the battlefield the superior technology and the advanced science. It was possible because he had depended upon the conscious people who were organised in an egalitarian way wherein the human material became the decisive force and superior weapons and high technology could not determine the outcome. So the ‘theory of people’s war’ is the proletarian war. So it is not just a theory for the battle with guns and bombs. It is a very general theory, which shows the ways and means whereby man can always be at command over the material things as well as circumstances. It is the way to rest the initiative in human hands. However this method cannot be used against the people. It cannot be of any use for a war of aggression. A weak people mean peoples’ war as Mao clearly states to defeat the powerful enemy with poor weapons. So it is a clear case where high technology is defeated by low technology. It is the only way by which ordinary people can and should fight against the elite and keep the command in their hands. The ordinary people should not opt for the way, which will give all the advantage to the elite. So modern science, and high technology are not the weapons of the proletariat. Such weapons should never be allowed to determining factors. Science and technology do come under the category of ‘productive forces’. Deng and Co., in
111. What was the great aim of Mao during his last years when he conducted the great battle against revisionists who were backed by the elite and technocrats of
No comments:
Post a Comment