INTRODUCTION
1. The following articles written between 1980 and 1990 are concerned with the inner party ideological struggle that took place inside the so-called Communist Party of India. In fact such a struggle tool place only inside the Tamil Nadu unit in which I was functioning. It should also be said that every attempt was made by the leadership to prevent such a struggle at the All India level. In fact I was prevented even to participate in the Calcutta conference of the Communist party Marxist after its formation. The Tamil Nadu leader who was also a member of the polit bureau of the party saw to it that I was not allowed to participate. Finally he saw that I was expelled from the party itself. That was not unexpected by me. This leader P.Ramamurthy (PR) was a conscious traitor of the working people who worked hand in glove with the enemy class. He was just another Dange inside the C.P.M.
2. To day it becomes necessary that the new generation of revolutionaries should know clearly the outcome of such an ideological struggle. Apart from the structure and norm of the revolutionary party, the main political issue was concerned with an objective evaluation of Neo colonialism which in a very real way is the very opposite of the older variety. Such a study involves a proper appreciation of its strategy and weapons.
3. The following articles are naturally dealing with Neo Colonialism and the ways and means to meet and finally defeat this most fatal kind of imperialism.
4. Even as early as early as 1954 when we saw that the Indian Communist party threw in to the waste paper basket the document (A foreign language is a foreigner’s language at all levels) explaining the proletarian stand on the language issue which was very much an important aspect of the rights of the various nationalities that formed this Indian Union, we naturally and very correctly came to the conclusion that the C.P.I. was not guided by the Marxist philosophy and it was not in any sense the party of the revolutionary proletariat. In fact it was not upholding the proletarian stand in any major issue.
5. Secondly we were also aware of the most fundamental criticism made by Professor. D.D. Kosambi on Mr. S.A. Dange in connection with the latter’s work ‘India primitive communism to slavery’. Professor Kosambi wrote that in order to defend Engels he had to deny Dange. Dange’s work was unquestionably a caricature of Engel’s work. Further the communist party too never bothered to examine Dange’s credentials as a Marxist. That it could not do so also was not in any way a surprise. That was precisely because none of its leaders could be called a Marxist. The leadership neither had the ability to teach nor the humility to learn. Further we also did not like the insolent manner Dange answered. Finally Kosambi called Dange a bourgeoisie peddler. Very soon (1955) we arrived at the conclusion that the Indian Communist party for all intents and purposes had abandoned the very idea of a popular revolution. It was just nominally a communist party. It is so to this date.
6. When I physically joined the CPI in Tamil Nadu (1960) I had the revelation of the bankruptcy of its leadership. The top leaders of the Tamil Nadu’s unit, which included a few National Council members as well, were the greatest strangers of Marxism. Added to that, none of its top members could be considered by any stretch of imagination a scientist of any repute. Further most of them had no roots at all in the culture of the land, which like China is also a millennial civilisation with a rich philosophical heritage. However we have to admit that at the lower levels we had a number of party cadres as well as sympathisers who were good communists who were prepared to work most dedicatedly and wholeheartedly and selflessly. They had almost a blind faith in the leadership. It was only because of them these third rate fellows and careerists who paraded and pretended as Marxists got elected to the assemblies and parliaments. Their sole qualification was that they could blabber some nonsense in English.
7. In this context I should cite one instance to expose the bankruptcy of the communist party leadership of India. When comrade A.K.Gopalan a very senior and a veteran mass leader of Kerala who was also a member of the parliament and a central committee member of the communist party Marxist (C.P.M.) was hospitalised at Vellore, I went to see him. In fact at that date I had been expelled from the communist party (Marxist). When I was expelled I was just a Taluk committee member. Comrade A.K. Gopalan also knew both these facts. When he saw me he was very glad and almost immediately said ‘comrade Nagarajan let us discuss politics’. I told him that I would not be the cause for the increase of his blood pressure. He smiled and replied that no such thing would happen and started to talk. His wife comrade Susila Gopalan was just an observer. Comrade AKG smiled and said that she will not participate in our discussion because she was a revisionist! At some stage in our talk I mentioned the name of E.M.S. Namboodripad who at that time was the Chief Minister of Kerala as well as the top person of the communist party Marxist, comrade AKG intervened and said ‘you see comrade, EMS is a Buddha’. I replied, ‘comrade AKG if I were to say that he is a traitor, you will stoutly deny, however if I were to say that you are a Buddoo (big fool) I am sure you will agree’. AKG simply burst out into laughter. His wife also smiled. AKG did not contradict me. Of course in my view comrade AKG was a very good communist.
8. The Marxism of the Indian Communist Party is not more than a few quotations from the scriptures invariable out of context. When the real struggle was started to build a new a genuine revolutionary party with the revolutionary programme and philosophy we were summarily expelled.
9. After the formation of the C.P.M. when we raised the issue of Neo colonialism, the very idea of Neo colonialism was an anathema to the leadership. Further when the same issue was raised such a discussion was abruptly put an end to by Charumujumdar the self proclaimed Maoist! When serious criticisms were about to be made against him and some of the Bengali ultra leftist adventurists, he came out with a great ‘internationalist’ declaration. He proclaimed that China’s Chairman (Mao) was India’s Chairman. Further to substantiate that India was simply semi colonial he declared that Indian industrialisation in 1968 should be treated as marginal. The biggest cat closed it most penetrating eyes and pronounced that the sun should set and hence the world should be in eternal darkness. All had to admit it because they are the inviolable decisive words of a Bengali!. Do they not claim that what Bengal thinks today, India can realise only decade later? So any one who questions all this nonsense could be immediately accused as an anti Maoist and it was enough to execute him. We all knew that in his own land the worst kind of revisionist Mr. Jothi Basu has been the life long emperor of the revolutionary Bengalis. Even to day all those who at one time or another followed him are simply incapable of becoming genuine Marxists that also means upholder of Mao’s thoughts. Mujumdar’ was one who went on working the biggest red flag to defeat the real red flags. The subsequent history, i.e., after 1969, can be summed up in a single sentence. The so-called revolutionaries who followed the Bengali adventurists have killed in more than one way more friends than the class enemies. Hence we can say we are to build anew the revolutionary party with a revolutionary programme.
10. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the overthrow of the ‘Communist Party’ of it there arose a new situation. However it cannot be in any way equated to a defeat of Marxism or the ultimate triumph of capitalism or that of the most inhuman and fatal variety of imperialism (neo-colonialism). In fact it was the CPSU that was actually the obstacle that prevented all these forty-five years the further development of Marxism, thereby assisted the international imperialism and neo colonialism.
11. However we should also clearly recognise the fact that no European critic of CPSU including no doubt Trotsky has shown the path of the egalitarian society. To day most of them have come to the firm conclusion that Marxian socialism is Utopian and all that we should aspire for is a kind of capitalism and a bourgeoisie democratic state. Abolition of private property is no more on the agenda. They want a living tiger with out the fangs and claws so that it will become a vegetarian and they can fondle with it.
12. Even as early as 1960 some of us had come to the conclusion that Marxism did not guide CPSU. So the disintegration of Soviet Union was neither a shock nor even a surprise for us. In fact to day the conditions are more favourable for the fresh development of Marxism as well as the revolutionary workers’ movement and anti imperialist struggle, which is absolutely necessary. This book is a contribution in that direction and if it helps in building such a movement it has achieved its aim.
FOREWORD
13. It is an honour to write the foreword to S.N. Nagarajan’s treatise on Marx and Marxism. Even as I say this I am conscious of not reflecting the full range of Nagarajan’s interests and the diversity of approaches with which he studies Marxism; all find a place in it. But that is the special appeal of Nagarajan, this truly remarkable ability to make connections which cross apace and time with an ease which leaves his listeners stranded, and I should confess, often overwhelmed. As an avid listener, again I should add one is invariably provoked into a state of confusion by Nagarajan’s leapfrogging; I have always been attracted by his attempts to read Marx in a new light. At the risk of oversimplification, to me the kernel of this book lies in making Marx, even more importantly Marxism, humane. I recall Nagarajan writing to me once – filling up an entire post card with his enviable calligraphy – that, if he were asked to explain ‘surplus value’ he would say “it is the material equivalent of alienation”. And he added, “But that will not satisfy the pundits”. I mention this only to illustrate the vigorous novelty with which Nagarajan view Marxism. Although his broad commitment to Marxism has remained unwavering over the years, he has never approved of being doctrinaire and equally he has stayed committed to ‘easternising’ Marxism if I may use a clumsy term.
14. One of the key issues for Nagarajan is a deep skepticism about the hegemony of science and technology. As he writes citing the Upanishads, “one who sees one’s own self in every being alone sees the truth. Strangely science shows the opposite, namely, the difference but not the identity. Again, he speaks of the notion of ‘Saranagathi which is sweet surrender or the loving relationship between the mighty (call it God or nature) and the puny man”. In his view evolution requires to be seen as a process, which bases itself as much upon compassion and co-operation as on competition. To him one of the lacunae in conventional reading of Marx, indeed in Marxism itself, is an uncritical reverence for science and technology and the absence of the element of love. It is for this reason that Nagarajan, criticism not withstanding, can write of Gandhi with empathy and of Mao. From this vantage point it is no big leap for him to speak of Ramanuja who, he argues, understood the feminine principle (prakriti) only because of his learning from the saintly Thiru Kachchi-Nambi who made him familiar with the Alwars. I cannot think of many who can, without being self-conscious of it, discuss the Alwars in the same breath as Marx. Nagarajan does and, given his prodigious reading, can tell us that it is the true indigenous tradition that teaches the intellectual to shake off the baneful influence of three kinds of arrogance – those arising from birth (caste), wealth and learning. He does not stop there but goes on to argue that “even the western Marxist concept of declassing does not deal so pointedly regarding intellectual arrogance” and the “worst obstacle that prevents us from knowing the truth is false ego or Ahankar”. He then takes us to the two roads to liberation, the Jnana Marga and the Bhakti Marga, the summit of the latter being Kainkarya Marga. While disclosing his identification with Kainkarya he finds common ground with Mao who declared, “Love the cadres, love the people, serve the people and struggle against self”. In some ways this is not an easy tract to digest. It requires that we abandon positions and be open to let love and service incorporate themselves into Marx, Mao and Lenin. Perhaps it does not add up to a full-fledged or full-blown thesis neatly argued. I am unable to say. However, no one can claim that Nagarajan has not influenced him, whether he speaks or writes.
15. One of the principal points that Nagarajan emphasises, I am tempted to call it a message, is the need to recognise the importance of love and loving service. This acquires the subordination of the self and of course the recognition of love. Nagarajan uses two examples to illustrate this. He refers to Sankara realising the limitations of the Jnana Marga and his turning to Bhakti. This meant, as Nagarajan puts it, recognizing Prakriti or the female principle in preference to Purusha or the male principle. And he further illustrates this by pointing out the Sankara finally established only a Sarada peetha, and not a Brahma peetha. The limitation of western thinking lies, in the author’s opinion, in an inability to realize the element of love and in a limited conception of freedom. As the author expresses the idea, in a loving relationship each of the partners becomes more than each due to their bonding. This alone can lead to the freest possible association such as, for instance, between Radha and Krishna. It leads to an absolutely free relationship between the Bhagawan (the absolute and mighty) and the Bhakta (relative and puny). In concrete terms it is the relationship between the people (mighty) and the power this confers on those who fight for them. Nagarajan’s point is that such power can never be used against the people.
16. There is much more than this in the book. We find a fascinating discussion of the limitations of western dialectics and how the ancient Chinese and the Indians had arrive at a much more complete understanding of dialectic principle and how this approach enabled Mao to orient Marxism to the culture and ethos of a society not contemplated by Marx and Lenin. Those delights, the readers should discover for themselves. But it is only fair to warn them that delightful and absorbing as the book is, it requires disciplined reading. Nagarajan is never easy to keep up with and this treatise is no exception. Let me end with an anecdote… I was discussing with him once some questions regarding cecentralisation. His reply was characteristic. “The relationship between the center and other units is like that between Bhagwan and Bhakta. Without Bhagwan there can no Bhakta. Similarly without Bhakta there can be no Hhagwan”. That Nagarajan at his best, adventurous, leaping from one culture to another, making connection, which would occur to few. Perhaps he can never found a system but no one who comes into contact with him can ever remain unaffected by his deep-rooted tolerance and his essential concern for humanity.
V.K. NATRAJ
Director
Madras Institute of Development of Studies
Chennai
Living Marx
17. ‘All the consequences are contained in the definition that the product is related to the producer in a hostile inimical manner. The point is to change it’.
Marx
18. Marx clearly indicates in this remarkable formulation the most fundamental cause of every kind of social problem. It can be the war with in the nation or between nations or between industries or finally at home. When your own activity, which results in one or the other product, turns against you nothing can be more tragic than that. It only means that you are compelled to be your own enemy. You are also unable to avoid such an activity. This is the situation with the worker who has to create the wealth, which turns against him/her. It is such a kind of relationship, namely the production relationship, which is alien. Hence the most fundamental aim cannot but be to abolish such a relationship and create in its place a harmonious one. That is the aim of the great revolution.
19. When Marx says that the immediate demand is ‘less hours of work and more wages’ we should know clearly the aim of such a demand. Does it mean that Marx wants the worker to be lazy or he wants him to cheat the capitalist? Is it finally an expression of a selfish demand? There are trade-union leaders in our country who say that the capitalists cheat the workers and hence the workers also could do so whenever there is a chance. Hence the demand! Was that the aim of Marx? It can never be so. The main aim is just to prevent the capitalist from becoming more powerful. The more surplus value is taken away from the working class the less the purchase power of the workers. It means more impoverishment. It also means that the political power of the capitalist will become more, to the detriment of the working people. To the same extent the worker becomes weaker and thereby loses his ability to fight. Apart from all that the work unquestionably is a dehumanising one; not at all relished by the worker. Hence this period has to be shortened, which only can give him more leisure so that it can be used for humane purposes, which very much include his political development and cultural one too.
20. Hence Marx is not simply interested in the production of wealth or the productive forces. Therefore the theory of productive forces put forward by the revisionists is highly reactionary though it also is unquestionably a materialistic proposition and certainly not an idealistic nonsense. So we should clearly know, that every kind of materialism need not be revolutionary. In the same way a simple denial of god also need not be a revolutionary notion. Many scoundrels including downright Fascists are Atheists, we cannot forget. Finally the idea expressed in this aphorism is true to all situations and to every society. Hence it cannot be out-dated.
‘All the illusions are due to object bondage’. –
Marx
21. This is the most fundamental truth that all the ancient saints had realised. Marx once again points out this truth to the modern European man who was running after wealth as though the possession of it was the basis of freedom and happiness. In fact at some point he clearly states that private property has made this man’s senses dull and so on. Marx does not ask this man to fight for wealth. That exactly is what the bourgeois is doing. Is he not struggling, fighting and warring for wealth? Can Marx also justify that? Certainly not. Then we should clearly know his aim. On the contrary he is demanding this man to fight against the domination of wealth. That is the basis and the path of freedom. That was very clear to Lenin. He clearly emphasises this aspect in his article ‘On Economism’. Hence Lenin wrote that within the confines of trade unionism the worker would become worse than the capitalist. He will not become a freedom fighter. However it is this economic side that is very much emphasised by many so called Marxists. No wonder they too are the slaves of the capitalist society and the advocates of the theory of productive forces which Mao very correctly called a reactionary theory. That also is one of the main reasons for the setback of this great emancipatory movement. Marx points out in his own remarkable manner that this domination of wealth is like the domination of the dead over the living. To day we see this in another area too. The laws applicable to the dead are accepted as the laws to explain the living too.
22. Marx points out that the object-bondage is the cause of un-freedom. Just as knowledge is the most fundamental prerequisite for freedom the lack of it or illusion is the cause of un-freedom. Only the freedom of the mind can grasp the truth too. If we are slaves of our own pet ideas, however attractive they may be, we cannot know the truth. Hence it is necessary that we should be detached. One should be free from ones false ego to be really detached. In our Indian tradition it is called being free from Ahankara. Marx, Lenin and Mao connect this freedom with class struggle. If we do not involve our selves in class struggle we cannot free our selves from the class prejudice, which means that we can neither understand the social truth nor the path of freedom. This was clearly appreciated by the Tamil saints. Particularly by the Vaishnava saints the Alvars. The great saint Thirukkottinambi clearly states that unless one frees oneself from the caste, wealth and intellectual arrogance one can neither understand the essential truth nor the way or the path of freedom.
23. Then arises the most important question as to how to free oneself from this kind of object-bondage. This is the most important problem faced by the contemporary emancipatory movement, the communist movement inspired by Marx. However it was this most fundamental teaching, one concerned with the basis or the logic of freedom that is almost totally ignored or neglected.
24. Finally to be free from object-bondage immediately involves also being free from the hankering of the flesh. When we yield to it we will not be able to be free from object-bondage. This was very well recognised by the ancient saints of this land. Conquering wealth or the object is directly related to the conquering of the flesh. We all have become familiar with the most normal condition where it is said that the ‘will is powerful while the flesh is weak’. Yielding to the flesh is the cause of every kind of sin. It is the permanent basis of revisionism. Hence Lenin said that revisionism is no sin. All that he meant was that it was not unnatural. However we should also know how men and women could free themselves most dependably or become masters of the flesh. The Monist Idealist Adi Sankara in fact criticises the dotage of this man over the flesh and wealth. That is the essence of his Moha-Mudgraha or Bajagovindam. The entire theme is concerned with the problem of object- bondage and the way to free oneself from it. However we should also know his solution. He sees every kind of relationship, which no doubt involves a contradiction, as a snare or a source of enslavement. So he demands the severance of every kind of relationship, which includes the relationship of the observer and the object of observation (subject-object relationship). It is only when this last contradiction is also resolved this being is said to reach the total liberation or Mukthi. This also is called the Jeevan-Mukthi. It is the state where this being is said to become Brahman. This is Sankara’s Nirvikalpa-Samadi.
25. The saints that come after Sankara reject this solution. They do not think that it is a real solution at all. While the vulgar materialist runs after the object and clings to it as though that is freedom the Advaiti runs away from the object. Both of them are really afraid of the object. In a similar way both are afraid of the flesh and senses also. The god of one is the devil of the other. It only means both of them do not show the way to conquer either the wealth or the flesh. What is elixir for one is the all-consuming poison for the other. However, it is not so for Marx. He realises that wealth can be elixir if only man or society can control or digest it. He found the clue in the quality of the relationship between man and his product. In this he was perfectly correct. So this man has to find out the most dependable way to control and conquer the wealth. That also involves the control of the flesh, which appears almost as an impossible task. Marx recognising the importance of this problem no wonder connects it with the problem of the aim of production, which is the most essential social activity. He demands that it should be for the social welfare or amelioration and never for profit. However such an aim demands also a change in the attitude of men and women. Can mere abolition of private property, which can be done by law or by some force change the attitude of man? Certainly not. There should be at the same time a protracted ideological drive coupled with economic reforms that will satisfy the essential needs of the people. If the people are deprived of their essential needs all talk of selflessness will only be hypocritical. The result will be counterproductive. What could be the best way to achieve the most desirable goal? Mao realised this very clearly. In fact the Chinese revolution brought forth this truth very clearly. That was also the one reason why Mao could not accept the western definition of freedom that stops with the ‘cognition of necessity’. Mere knowledge of necessity is not at all enough. It needs an act. It is also not enough if the act involves in the mere changing the external world. It should change men and women too in the desirable way. What kind of an act can change the quality of man and woman is the central issue. That alone will also be the most revolutionary act. It should be the most vital life-generating act too. Mao realising the limitation of the Western Marxist idea of freedom finally arrives at the position of Kainkarya-Marga and declares that the cadres should ‘love the cadres, love the people, serve the people, and struggle against self’. This was the great slogan during the period of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. This is also the underlying principle of people’s war. While discussing philosophy Mao very rightly states that by philosophy he means mainly epistemology. In fact he evaluates his own work in the following way. Many of his admirers often say that his most original contribution in the area of philosophy is his analysis of contradictions, which no doubt no other Marxist has done. It is unquestionably an original contribution. However Mao does not consider this as his most important work but considers the other one namely ‘where correct ideas come from’ as the most important work. It is the area of epistemology.
26. Mao by clearly distinguishing two kinds of truths was able to arrive at the correct position. Marx on the other hand following Bacon and Hegel rejected the idea of two kinds of truths. It means that he accepted only one kind of ‘theory of knowledge’ (epistemology). This was followed both by Engels and Lenin. That was the reason why Lenin accused the Mensheviks of Kantian deviation when they raised the issue of two kinds of truths.
27. Kant states that the religious truths were outside the scientific method. They could not be understood by the method that was enough to understand the truths of the so-called positive sciences. Marx and Engels thought that this was a great concession to the reactionary church and no wonder Lenin who followed Marx also rejected the idea of two kinds of truths. However this is clearly brought out by Buddha in his remarkable dialogue with his would be disciple Malunkyaputta. It is necessary to know as to how Mao solves this problem. If Mao had openly stated that there are two kinds of truths it would have been enough for Stalin of branding him as a Right Deviationist and in all probability and such an accusation coming at that time from the undisputed master would have been enough to remove Mao from the top position of the communist party of China that too at the most crucial period. In fact that was also the aim of Stalin. Let us see how Mao managed this very important problem. His method of distinction of the two kinds is that one kind can be understood by scientific experiments and in the production process, while the other only by involving in class struggle. Social truths like good and bad, right and wrong etc. can be understood only by involving in class struggle. Any amount of knowledge in chemistry or physics cannot be the qualification adequate to realise the moral truths. Mao did not bring in either the Kantian notion of transcendental truth or intuition and in that way clearly avoided the criticism of Kantian deviation. Yet in a subtle way established the fact of two kinds of truths, which to this date no Western Marxist dares to do. Mao the Eastern Marxist, thanks to his Taoist tradition, could correct the Western Marxism and thereby continue the spirit of Marxism. Mao’s epistemology can be rightly called the Kainkaryamarga, which is the only path that recognises the cognitive, creative and the liberative role of loving service. This is the way that can be easily and readily practiced by the working people. This also is the way to defeat the powerful experts too. At this stage it is necessary to have an idea of Mao’s appreciation of class struggle and how it differs from those of the majority of the Marxists.
Mao and class struggle.
28. Mao declares ‘do not forget class struggle’. What is the full meaning of this instruction? Does it only mean ‘power comes through the barrel of gun’? Such an idea is the poorest notion of class struggle. ‘Man cannot become good by being kept in cotton and wool, he has to fight against his own evil’, wrote J.B.S. Haldane the Marxist clearly bringing out the essential aspect of class struggle in this pithy sentence. Class struggle is no doubt intended to destroy the evil that is external. But the more important side is the destruction of the evil in us who involve in such a class struggle. At the same time it also cures a lot of people who are out side. Hence those who conduct the class struggle are like doctors who cure the diseased said Mao. It is a great purifying struggle. Hence its underlying slogan ‘love the cadres, love the people, serve the people, and struggle against self’. By making us perpetually empty and thereby selfless we can inspire the mass of people. and they become a tremendous force. It is not just the word but also the deed that can really inspire and release the slumbering energy. This is the basic or the fundamental difference between the Gnanamargi (Sankara and Marx) and a Kainkaryamargi (Vaishnava saint and Mao) both of them deal about object-bondage and the way to become free from it.
‘Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it.’ –
Marx
29. Most popular interpretation of this most famous aphorism is that the main purpose of philosophy is to show the way to change the world and not just interpret it in various ways. This kind of interpretation is quite acceptable to every kind of political activist or the practical scientist. Both of them are involved in changing the objective world. However, can that be the aim of philosophy or for that matter every philosopher? Certainly that need not be the aim of every philosopher.
30. To understand the meaning of this aphorism we should also know the aim and claim of Marx. Marx claims that his work particularly Historical Materialism is scientific. First of all he is criticising speculation, which do not reckon with the facts that are empirical. Secondly he is very much concerned with truth and the ways man cognises it. It is in this context that he gives the highest importance to practice wherein and whereby man manipulates or changes the objective world. He reshapes both the physical and social reality and only in this processes cognises the truth of the object too. He cannot understand the object by merely contemplating on it in a passive manner. Action forms the dialectical living link. So revolutionary act can only give the truth of the social reality. Hence Lenin and Mao insist that the party cadre should involve in class struggle. We should also know that Mao clarifies this Marxist proposition.
31. Marx wants us to realise that unlike phenomena, which are amenable for interpretations, scientific statements are not be amenable for interpretations. For example a formula like E=Mc2 can only be explained but it should not be amenable for interpretation. That is why no one will say what Einstein really meant by that. So Marx wants to establish a science of the society. Whether he succeeded in it or not is a different issue. I can say even at this stage that he did not. That is why we have in every country several groups each claiming to be true Marxist. Marx also for all practical purposes appears like another great religious reformer! That keeps the innocent followers in perpetual confusion. So these modern ‘Red priests’ have control over the laymen, a thing Marx wanted to put an end. Marx wanted that his words should not be amenable for interpretation, which means also misinterpretations. He knew how the so-called sacred writings or the divine words are variously interpreted, at times even one interpretation opposing another. Vedantha to Quron all are amenable for interpretation. Such are the Hermeneutics. Marx did not want that his writings should also meet the same fate. However we know to day that his work cannot be compared even to Biology. Regarding the scientific truths and the truths discovered in the area of engineering and technologies that are of great practical value; any person can understand them. Such a person can be a downright scoundrel. The so-called experts in this area need not be honest fellows at all. In fact the majority of them becomes mostly revisionists and reactionaries. However the Western Marxism remained very much like the Gnanamarga or elitist in character. This is recognised by no less a person than Lenin himself. Lenin at some stage says ‘it is more easy to be a materialist but most difficult to be a dialectician’. Hence Marxism also becomes the property of the elite and the working people have to be governed by the new elite, the modern Red Priests! The priests whom Marx decidedly wanted to drive out once again entered in to the very house of the workers as the Red Priests. It can only mean that no variety of Gnanamarga be it Idealist or Materialist can avoid the priest.
32. To avoid the middleman ‘the priest’ the most dependable way is to uphold the epistemology of the Kainkarya Marga. This was very clearly recognised by the Vaishnava saints of Tamil culture long back. Let us not forget the fact that the mighty majority of them were from the highly backward casts and some of them were from the untouchables. No wonder that they had to discover the most dependable way to free themselves from the clutches of the clever priests. Their voice was the rich voice of the alienated. Once again the same message emerges from the East. It is the revolutionary pathway clearly pointed out by Mao, which also is the foundation of people’s war. The power of the people’s liberation army is based upon its basic principle, which demands it ‘to love the people, serve the people whole-heartedly and gladly and struggle against self’.
33. Before Marx, Islam wanted to get rid of the priest-hood. No wonder the Jesuit Fr.Wetter called modern communism the twentieth century Islam! However Islam also did not succeed in this. It has also to be attributed to its lack of appreciation of the Kainkarya Marga, which only can help in destroying the hierarchy? Islamic world is also to day dominated by the priests who are the anointed interpreters of Holy Quron.
34. In the final analysis we cannot avoid the interpreter and interpretations. This kind of knowledge can never become any thing comparable to a positivist science. It will ever be a hermeneutic one amenable to interpretation. Then naturally arises the question as to how every ordinary person can readily understand the true meaning of the saying and the writings of these great revolutionaries. Only those men and women who whole-heartedly and gladly serve the people can easily and readily understand the true meaning .of their writings. It is also the most dependable way to avoid the cunning priests as well as the way to build an egalitarian society. It also is the way, which will permit the withering of the state.
35. The indications of such a trend was clearly visible at Yenan where Mao could put this way in to practice. No wonder the young British communist Rolph Fox writes in his book ‘Communism’ that Yenan was the path for the new civilisation.
‘Capital is man wholly lost to himself, labour is man lost to himself’ Marx.
36. Here Marx points out that the wealth or any of his creations is really another form of the same being ‘objectification of his essential powers’ as Marx would call it. Hence capital is Man. But he immediately asks as to what kind of man does it represent. Marx defines all the creations of man by such terms like externalisation, or objectification of man as essential powers of Man. Hence they represent this man. In the same way labour too represents man. Here also Marx asks the same question as to what kind of man labour represents. Finally capital-labour relationship is human relationship, no doubt an unequal relationship in which each represents one pole of the dialectical unity. Man has become split into two standing in antagonistic relationship. At the same time each produces the other. One cannot exist with out the other. In this relationship one represents the restless negative side and the other the self-satisfied positive side as Marx calls them. Because all the artifacts or all his creations are really the expressions of the person or the society that produces them the archaeologist is capable of understanding the life of the people that produced them. So capital is Man who wants every thing for him hence wholly lost to himself. He is not for any one. He is the embodiment of selfishness, selfishness incarnate. His hunger is insatiable. For such a being can there be kith or kin? All such words are empty. He cannot also be really patriotic. Did not the French revolutionary Marat say that for the bourgeois there is no nation and which ever is his market is his country, when defeat were to be advantageous he will without qualm or compunction betray the nation. So the capitalist also has no country. The man who is on the other pole of this dialectical unity has to live for the other being. That is his misfortune. The other, as his fortune, considers that. The misery of the one is the basis of the pleasure of the other. The unfreedom of the one appears as the freedom of the other. However both are interlocked. Both are expressions of the alienated situation. It is a divided humanity. Hence when one vanishes the other too has to. The worker has also no country.
37. So slavery like freedom is also indivisible. Can it be otherwise? However for the capitalist this unfreedom or the alienated situation appears as free life. He loves the illusion because such an illusion is pleasing to him as it satisfies most eminently his creaturely comforts. So no wonder that he jealously guards the alienated existence. He cannot face or bear the truth. He cannot liberate himself without liberating the other. Hence he cannot readily work for his liberation. True liberation will appear as loss of his freedom, a sacrifice and misfortune. The worker only because he lacks the wealth needs, association, friendship, companionship and love. These traits Marx saw in ample measure amidst the French workers. They joined together, smoked, drank, ate and loved to meet. However they too had no country. Yet we could find genuine patriotism only amidst them, which is used by the capitalist class for its class war, which are the most inhuman, and the wars between the nations, the Imperialist ones, and the most devastating wars.
-
38. The working class cannot liberate itself unless and until it liberates the entire society, which means that is has to liberate the enslaver too.
- Marx
-
39. Finally freedom is the quality of the relationship between any two. In short it is a kind of reciprocal relationship in which each fulfills itself in and through and because of the other. If we agree to this then we should understand that the slave could have no envy or Vendetta against the slave owner. In fact he is the real liberator. What is really destroyed is the inimical production relationship, which is the cause of all the worst consequences. That is what Marx says.
40. ‘History is nothing but Man cognising himself, loosing himself and regaining himself again and again’ Marx.
41. It will be obvious from the above proposition that Man could have realised his true nature or the essential truth of himself long back. What can be such a truth? It cannot but be that he is a part of this reality, which has become self-conscious, realised that it and the reality are the same. That exactly is the meaning of the Maha Vakya ‘Thath Thuam Asi’ or ‘That are Thou’, yet you are also different. Hence you are that yet you are also not that. Hence you are the cognising subject and that which includes you becomes the observed object. The relationship with the other is a dialectical one. Is this not also what is symbolised in the Linga, which is worshiped, by the Saivites? It is symbolic of the dialectical unity of the Male and the Female the Yin and Yan of the Chinese. However this truth is forgotten and the world appears as some thing other than him and one, which should be subjugated, controlled and exploited. It is the same amidst mankind too. Private property very much hides the essential truth, particularly his relationship with his fellow being or with his community. So he loses himself, says Marx. In the capitalistic society he loses himself in the commodity. He becomes a purchasable and saleable thing and that is Fetishism. He has to realise his true nature .It is only while realising his true nature that he starts the struggle to free himself. It is such a freeing process that is both the cause as well the consequence of the revolutionary movement.
. .
42. It also means that this Man did not realise his essence only after the Darwinian discovery. It means that the evolutionary theory is not at all necessary to understand the great truth. Hence to be a revolutionary one need not know the evolutionary theory. Secondly by being a believer in the Darwinian theory one need not be even a progressive that is why many who do accept the evolutionary theory are down right Fascists. Saint Guru Nanak who could not have been an advocate of any evolutionary theory was unquestionably a revolutionary of his day. Added to that he was a believer of divine creation, let us not forget.
43. When Marx was asked whether he had done any artistic creation he said that his work ‘Capital’ it self was a great piece of art. Unquestionably it is a great drama. When the screen goes up it opens with this Man fast vanishing in to the very product that he creates. He is brought under its domination. Before this mighty Jin he appears like a puny creature. He cringes before it. It is the greatest threat too. That is the tragedy so for as the capitalist is concerned. He is also unable to face the truth hence not prepared to work for his freedom. He is indeed happy to be a prisoner. He loves the illusion. He does every thing to hide the truth. Such is the tragedy of capitalism, not because of the absence of wealth but precisely because of its abundance. The finally delivery cannot but be done by the persecuted alienated section the wretched of this earth. Such a work cannot but be a great piece of art.
44. ‘Man makes himself’.
- Marx
45. If man were to be simply a creature of circumstances freedom is an illusion. Further there cannot be any act of crime or virtue. No one can either be punished or rewarded. This was brilliantly pointed out long back by no less a person than the great Atheist Gouthama Bhuddha to deny the almighty god who was held responsible for every thing. The idea that Man makes him-self is at the core of Marxism. However it does not mean that he can do any thing. There is an objective world consisting of both Nature as well as his society both of which not only open to him several possibilities but also at the same time set certain limitations. By his own work he can no doubt increase the possibilities or also reduce them. Hence in a real way man makes himself. He is the master of his own destiny. At the same time it has also another side. Such an attitude can very well make him arrogant. That will cause his ruin. At the same time if one accepts the opposite namely that he has no freedom and he is the victim of circumstances he could very well disown his responsibility of his act of crime and sin. This attitude is not the exclusive one of a person who believes in an all-powerful god. An Atheist who says that man is a creature of circumstances and says that all things are due to economic circumstances also is a fatalist. Both are really reactionaries. Hence an Atheist need not be in any way a progressive or a revolutionary.
46. Mao Tse Dung while criticising Lin Bio categorically states that he was not a genius and further adds that the masses, or the people makes history. He emphatically rejects the theory of genius. Our own saints when they declare that it is all Gods’ will, it is not an acceptance of any kind of fatalism. They did work that too most willingly and deliberately. They were very much involved in social work. They did not sit quiet. Their actions themselves are of enough proof that they did not submit to any kind of fatalism. If it were to be so how are we to understand their pronouncement, that it is finally Gods’ will, and not theirs. This is another case of ‘Transformational criticism’. If we substitute the term ‘masses or people’ for the term god the statement will become identical with that of Mao. It is also a denial of the theory of genius. Hence it is not at all any kind of fatalism or a blind faith in any all-powerful god who alone determines every thing or the virtual denial of freedom of man. Only because of his freedom, which means deliberate choice, this human can be accused of crime and punished, also can be rewarded for a virtuous deed. It is also because he has freedom that he can tell a lie as well as cognise the sublime truth, which no other animal can. That also is the reason why he can believe in a fantastic religion as well could become an Atheist. If he had no such freedom he would not have been in any way different from any other animal.
47. Finally this aphorism implies that this being should be a ‘Karma Yogi and a Gnana Yogi’ that is one who does his/or her work with out an iota of egoism. This is best achieved when one serves the other being with love, which means that this being is a Kainkarya Margi. That is exactly what Mao wants every communist to be. That also is the great aim of our noble heritage.
48. ‘Philosophical materialism simply means the recognition of an objective world independent of our thought’
- Lenin
49. Barring the extremely subjective idealistic Maya Vaada of the Advaitic Adi Sankara no one denied the reality of the external world. This was very clearly realised by all of our saints. It is clearly pointed out when they say ‘sun will not set or the world will not become dark when the cat closes its eyes’ In fact our saints have been most critical of the Mayavadin by saying that for the one who denies this reality and calls it an illusion there can be no ethics or morality and they become bugbear and nonsense. Philosophical materialism certainly is not Hedonism.
50. ‘Communism as such is not the aim or the goal. It is only an economic arrangement’. - Marx.
51. The aim of Marx is not just the creation of an economic arrangement. It is the optimum context for the full development of mankind, which is caught in the crisis created, by the very development of capitalism. The aim of Marx hence is the full flowering of this man’s potentials. It is from such a standpoint that he starts his criticism of capitalism, hence its full validity.
52. ‘The degree of emancipation of women is the natural measure of the general emancipation’. –
Marx
53. This is a very hoary idea. Even a thousand years back this was clearly realised. A Sanskrit aphorism says ‘where women are worshiped there the angels dance, where they are not worshipped nothing will come to fruition’. The freedom of the male is directly related to the other sex. When one sex is unfree the other too cannot. Unfortunately the great emancipatory movement to this date has been more male biased and that also is one of the reasons for its present crisis. In a way here too it will be the task of the woman to liberate the man. Hence the future revolution will be very much a struggle of women.
54. ‘Religious suffering is real suffering and a protest against real suffering’. –
Marx
55. Here Marx clearly differentiates the great saints from the priests who later invariably use the image and the name of the saints to hoodwink and thereby exploit the people the faithful followers. Marx did not consider for instance a Jesus or a Mohammed as imposters who invented a god to dupe the people. In fact his daughter Jenny, herself an atheist, standing by his side in the photo can be seen wearing a cross! Official Christianity is very different. Lenin also brings this out later when the revisionists and renegades using certain words of Marx and thereby claiming to be Marxists duped the European working class and thereby served the capitalist class and Imperialism. Hence Marx adds that when the saint undertakes a fasting his is real suffering it is not at all a hypocritical act. Secondly this act of suffering is the best form of protest that the saint undertakes on behalf of the suffering people. People too clearly and readily understand this. Of course such a form of protest can have effected only when the rulers have still at least a bit of humanity. It can have no effect on a Hitler. However we saw that the protest form of Gandhi did have an effect on Smutts who did support Aparthism only because he still felt that he was a Christian.
56. However this distinction, undoubtedly a very important one, was later on not adequately recognised by the communist movement and this only helped the enemy class. The best way to expose the hypocrisy of the priest is to use the words of the saint himself. The priest is the worst enemy of the saint, just as the revisionist is the worst enemy of the great revolutionaries. Ding is the bitterest enemy of Mao yet he called himself a communist. In fact Mao himself said that the revisionist will quote him in parts to justify their capitalist position but added that very soon the revolutionaries will take the other half of his words and the revisionists will not have peaceful sleep. That also was the reason why Lenin said that revisionism was no sin. He meant that it was also a natural development of the very movement, an aspect of the very dialectic of it. The revolutionaries are comparable to the saints while the revisionists are the priests and we cannot avoid them also. The struggle between the priests and the saints is unavoidable.
57. When the well-paid bank employees go on a hunger strike for more wages people will look at them only with contempt. Such an act cannot be considered by any stretch of imagination even in a small way a revolutionary protest.
58. ‘Marx had no personal enemy’.
Engles
59. So declared Engels. What can be the true significance of it is the issue. Bertrand Russel says that to recognise the truth of any philosophy one should have or approach it with a provisional sympathy. Any prejudice will make us blind and render us unable to discover the possible truth in it. The same should be said when we look at a person too. That will be very much so when we attempt to evaluate any. That means that we will not be objective or impersonal and dispassionate, disinterested and honest. To avoid our subjectivism we should not hate any. That is the precondition to be really objective and truthful.
60. ‘Marxism is invincible because it is true’.
- Lenin.
-
61. This is to say that only truth will win, no doubt in the long run or eventually. That is the only qualification that is absolutely necessary or essential for any philosophy to be invincible. This also is the ancient wisdom of this land, which says ‘Satyam eva jayathe’. However only the shallow Empiricist the so-called practical man who declares that end justifies the means treats it as nonsense. He sees only the immediate and cannot see the remote.
62. ‘Either overall reorganising the society at large or the ruining of the contending classes’. –
Marx
63. It is here that Marx continues the tradition. If you do not warn about the impending disaster or the ruination you cannot point out the seriousness of the situation. At the same time if you simply warn with out showing the way to solve, you are only demoralising the people and make them pessimistic and despondent. However if you are indicating the way with out pointing out the seriousness of the situation, you will not make the people work for the liberation. Hence every revolutionary thinker as well great social reformer will warn as well show the way too.
64. If the above propositions are false or out-dated only then Marx can become outdated or irrelevant. From all evidences, Marx is indeed the most relevant thinker for our contemporary world.
Marxism and the Indian tradition.
65. The several Indian philosophies or the Dharsanas or Margas can be classified as Absolute Monistic, Dualistic and qualified Monistic. Engels classified the modern European philosophies as Materialistic and Idealistic. That may be adequate or even a natural classification so for as the modern Western schools are concerned. However such a classification will be very unnatural so for as the Indian Dharsanas are concerned. Hence such a classification cannot tell much of the various schools of the Indian philosophy.
66. However we can compare Marxism to our philosophical tradition very well. That exactly is what we should do. Marxism is not Absolute Monism because it accepts duality with out accepting simple Dualism. Hence it accepts that every thing is a unity of the opposites. It is a Yin and Yan as the Chinese would put it. No wonder Mao, who quite familiar with the Taoist thought, could very easily grasp the dialectical notion of Marxism. Have we not here too some thing very similar? We have the notion of Prakrithi the Feminine and the Purusha the Masculine. They are united forming the unity of the opposites. That means that Marxism is a veriety of qualified (Visishta) Monism (Advaitha) neither the Advaitha of Sankara or the Dvaita of Madhva but a kind of Visishtadvaita. However it is Materialistic and denies a divine principle or any kind of a supernatural principle.
67. The second aspect of Marxism is that it is a variety of Materialism which means that it recognises that there is a world standing on its own right or independently whether one thinks of it or not. What kind of a world is a different matter. That is an issue. As we have already observed that barring the Mayavadin all the other Indian philosophers do admit that the world around us does exist and to that extent accept the materialistic position.
68. Now let us pass on to the aspect. Marx and following him both Lenin and Mao connect knowledge and that too social one with class struggle. Is this unknown in our tradition is the next question. Apart from ideological struggle and armed struggle Mao teaches that loving service to people is a very important part of class struggle. This may look strange. But once we realise the full significance of class struggle it will understand how serving the people wholeheartedly with love is a very important aspect of class struggle. Let us hear what Mao says in this context. Mao says ‘love the cadres, love the people, serve the people and struggle against self’. This is the essence of the proletarian epistemology. Class struggle is not only meant to change the external social reality but it is very much more to change the persons who involve themselves in it. That is the way this human being gets rid of the false ego, which makes this being the most arrogant and selfish being. Hence Mao connects very correctly serving the people with love and struggling with self. It is the most dependable way by which any one can purge out his /her evil. ‘One cannot become good by being kept in cotton and wool, one should purge ones own evil’ wrote Haldane the Marxist scientist. Mao the Eastern Marxist revolutionary shows the most dependable way, which even the most illiterate can practice with success.
69. In the Indian Tradition Tharka or logic is never accepted as a Marga while Gnana, Karma and Bakthi are accepted as Margas. Marxism particularly of the West can be compared to a variety of Gnana-Marga as well to a variety of Karma-Marga because it does insist on revolutionary work as the most important way to cognise the social truths. In fact Vinoba Bave the Sarvodaya leader compared Marx to a Maha-Muni but did not consider him as a Bakthi Yogi. We also know that the saints of India almost rejected Gnana in favour of Bakthi which finally culminated in the Kainkarya Marga expounded by the Vaishnavite Alvars of Tamil Nadu which demands selfless and loving service to the people This is very a big part of class struggle. The saint Thirukkottinambi who lived in the 12th century AD clearly states that to get rid of the three kinds of arrogance namely that of caste, of wealth and that of knowledge the upper caste man has to gladly serve the lower caste. Only such a service can destroy the rugged ego (Ahankar). That is exactly what the Eastern Marxist revolutionary Mao also demands from every revolutionary; Mao very clearly brings out the cognitive, creative and the liberative role of loving service. It is also the meaning of the proposition ‘it is by renouncing that one reaps a thousand fold’. By emptying oneself one really becomes a sustaining power and never a coercive one. This is the Feminine power as well as the generative one. It is this kind of power that cannot be challenged or threatened simply because it is not a threatening power and hence the most fearless power. It is the one that can make it self a redundant one indicating the way for a stateless condition. The People’s Liberation Army cannot hate the soldiers who are fighting them. Finally we can say that Marxism of Mao is comparable to an updated version of the Vaishnavism of the Alvars.
70. It is now necessary to know also how best we can use Marxism. Marxism is undoubtedly a very good tool if we know how to use it. Let us not forget the fact that Mao never bothered to know as to who created classes or whether the Aryans created castes. Such questions are very much academic and that will only lead to endless debates. Secondly Marxism cannot provide also final answers to such questions. If we demand final answers to such questions we are simply demanding the impossible. I would call them Impossiblists. There is another group of Impossiblists. This group will claim that Marxism will answer any thing and every thing. One demands the impossible while the other claims the impossible. They do not realise that Marxism is like any other tool. We know that we need scales to measure small quantities of chemicals as well as fuel. No fool will demand a chemical balance for weighing fuel. At the same time just because the scales that we use for weighing fuel is not capable for weighing chemicals we do not say that it is not scales nor useless. It is the same with Marxism.
71. The class approach can give us a very good idea of the kind of work we should take up. It can clearly point out the main adversary and also ways and means to build the united front. It can indicate the kind of future, which will develop and hence also show the strategy the people’s movement should adopt. Lenin and Mao used Marxism in that way. Of course they did not learn Marxism in the colleges. Further Marxism can be of real value only to those who love the people, serve them and struggle against their own ego, which is the only way to unleash the slumbering creative energy of the people. That is the reason why I say that these qualities are neither the cause nor the consequences of learning physics, chemistry or the most advanced engineering. That also is the reason why I say with confidence that Marxism is not a science as those that are taught in the schools and colleges. We should never forget class struggle. Marxism is a guide to practice and never a dogma. Concrete study of the concrete condition is the essence of Marxism. Finally to use it to achieve the best results one has to serve the people whole-heartedly with love for them. That also is the best way to destroy one’s rugged ego too. Only then one can see the truth and the path and the means.
72. We can see clearly that Marx is the most genuine continuer of the great tradition of the saints and only the enemy of the priest. No wonder Howlet Johnson the Dean of Canterbury did declare that Christianity (not that of the Vatican or of the present day Protestant groups of various denominations) is the grand mother of Bolshivism Lenin said that every communist should be like a saint. Mao too compared himself to an old saint of China. Hence we can say with confidence that Marx is the continuer of the great tradition of men like Buddha, Mahaveera, Lao Tse, Jesus, Mohammed, the Alvars, the Nayanmars, Basavesvara, Chithanya, Kabir and a Guru Nanak. That also is the reason why he will live until mankind survives.
Working class and freedom
73. While discussing about freedom we can find many that will readily declare that it can be indicated by the range of control that man has over the reality. If we take this as the criterion the capitalist society has developed a very high degree of freedom when compared to all other societies. However it can only be the prerogative of the minority and never can be enjoyed by the majority. The so-called socialists believe that the majority can enjoy such a freedom if the productive forces are socialised and are removed from the hands of private ownership. Such a change no doubt will engender a new kind interpersonal relationship involving no doubt a change in the production relationship. This is not simply a gift of the development of the productive forces. No doubt genuine Marxists invariably relate freedom with production relation and certainly never merely with development of the productive forces. Marx was quite aware of this. In fact he very clearly pointed out that under the conditions so alien production relationship the very fast development of the productive forces will endanger even the limited freedom of the working people or the majority of the people and that is the reason why he suggests that the workers should struggle for more wages and less hours of work. However this demand of Marx has been very much misunderstood even by many who profess to be Marxists. Hence many of them have been the most uncritical supporters of purely economic demands. This leads invariably to Economism, which opens the door for revisionism. Such an uncritical approach sooner or later opens the way for the theory of productive forces, which was very rightly condemned by Mao as reactionary. Hence the one sided notion that freedom is essentially dependent upon the level of the development of the productive forces is a non-class approach and hence anti Marxist and anti proletarian. Yet it also is a fact that Marx does admit that man’s control over nature is basically dependent upon development of the productive forces.
74. If this relationship were to be the true basis of freedom or unfreedom (slavery) the productive forces can affect, alter, change, distort and finally determine this natural relationship. However when the productive forces are not very much developed as in the case of earlier or the so-called primitive societies the most important determining factors of life in general or the relationship amidst the community will not be the productive forces. In such a situation if we find inequality it should be due to some other factors. Though in such primitive societies the inner freedom will be very high the range of freedom of such a social organisation will certainly be quite limited. Social inequalities could not have existed in these early societies, which we call the primitive communist stage. It is the ‘Garden of Eden’. Even in the animalistic or subhuman phase when men and women roamed naked and knew no shame we can see this kind free relationship.
75. Hence it is the total freedom or the quantitative or the measurable kind that is determined by the development of the productive forces. It is also the secondary and derivative one as well as the most easily observable and relative. It is this that, every person be it even an anti Marxist will readily accept as the measurable and hence proper measure of freedom. On the contrary if we accept the above analysis the real freedom is not the gift of the productive forces, because it is fundamentally the quality of the relationship between any two persons just as slavery too. Both slavery and free relationship affect reciprocally the individuals that are linked dialectically.
76. Now let us examine whether this human being will always struggle for freedom, which is concerned with the most fundamental human relationship. Can there be any situation, where and when this being not merely prefers but even enjoys and jealously guards’ slavery and emphatically rejects freedom? If we find such a situation or condition we can also clearly understand what kind of freedom is mostly desired by most in all the class societies. When material comforts are assured it may be even temporary this being will hate to lose them and will not work for real freedom that too when it realises that it may lose such comforts. At that point real freedom really becomes very costly. So vulgar materialism cannot accept real freedom! This being would prefer to be a fat dog in a den of a prostitute than be free in a thatched hut. Freedom for all practical purposes is unquestionably quite a costly thing. That is the reason why revisionism is so difficult to be defeated. That also was clearly understood by Lenin. Hence he said that revisionism is no sin; all that he meant by that was that it was just a natural development. That is the kind of cur’s life that most of the well paid so-called elite love to have particularly in this land, more so such wretched creatures who dote to settle in the so called advanced nations like U.S. where they are hated by the Blacks and treated with contempt by the White. They have accepted such a kind abject slavery only because they have thrown away the lost particle of shame to the winds. Hence free life, which is said to be the unique characteristic of human being, is not the one that is always the most, sought after or even desired by this being. That is the most single reason why revisionism is so dominating and genuine revolutionary and liberative movement is really so rare. It is so because it demands a lot, particularly from the leaders of such a movement. Freedom is never achieved by struggling merely for material gains or wealth but really by struggling only against the domination of wealth. However most of the Marxists have reduced this great struggle into one, which really makes man more and more enslaved. So the movement, which bears the name of Marx, is really anti-Marxist. Hence, the crisis in it. Hence only those that are not concerned of such material comforts are those potentially capable of fighting for real freedom. Hence Marx considered (apart from other equally important considerations) that the working class, which was capable of easily accepting such a kind of hard life, could carry out this liberative struggle. However we should also examine the changes that have happened in the life of the working class and the most natural effect of such changes on this class too. Hence it becomes necessary to examine as to what kind of working class will be capable of undertaking this stupendous task.
Marxism from our heritage
77. When Prof. Ragavachar (Former Professor and Head of the Department of Phylosophy of Mysore University) heard my version of Marxism told me that when you knock at the last door you would see that it is your own door. (A quotation from Tagore). I replied that Ulisis who went round the world could only appreciate the beauty of Ithecca while Thelamachus who stayed there itself could not. So by going around and opening many doors only I could appreciate the greatness of my own. The Prof. Simply smiled. Marx stood, Heine said, on theshoulders of the great thinkers of the ancient Greece and that was the basis of greatness too. Have we not a similar ancerstry? In fact the great thinkers of of the ancient Thamizh (Tamil) culture are even superior in several aspects to the Greek thinkers. The Southern Vaishnavism, the rich voice of the alienated showed the way of freedom even to the most arrogant Brahmin whom Marx compared to the great Greek. Thinkers. Hence the Brahmin bows most reverently his head in all the Vaishnavite temples where on his head are laid the feet (sandals or satari) of the greatest Alwar (Nammalwar, one from a very backward caste). Marx in our language is a Gnana Karma Margi, yet of a poorer kind, because he did not recognise the cognitive and the liberative of love and loving service which also means that he did not realise the best or even the only way to be free from abject bondage i.e. tha of Matter (wealth) that of Flesh (sensory, colour, caste) and that of the Devil (ego or Ahankar). He deals only with that of wealth. There too he did not show the3 way simply because he did not recognise the significance of voluntary reduction as well as rejectio of personal needs (Aparigraha). Mere expropriation of property cannot make any free from the abject bondage, it can more easily produce the opposite effect. Is it not the lesson of the last 85yers of experience? Marx no doubt opened the door so that the West could have a chance to see the ancient East which produced the remarkable thinkers like a Bhuddha and a Lao Tse. But that was not his intension; in fact it was very much the opposite. However it gave an opportunity for the East as well. Hence to day the “East wind could blow over the West wind”. Is it not the great message of the Eastern Marxist revolutionary Mao Tse Tung? By being kept in cotton and wool one cannot become good, one should purge ones own evil wrote Prof. Haldane the brilliant Marxist Biologist It can only be by involving oneself by serving with love, which also is the essence of class-struggle. This is in a way echoing the teachings of the Southern Vaishnavite Acharya Thirukotti-Nambi (12th Century) who tells the Brahmin the uppercaste fellow that he can see the truth and the way of freedom only by gladly serving the low caste with love. It was only because of such a kind of work to poorly equipped P.L.A (People’s Liberation Army) could defeat the bigger nd highly equipped army and liberate the entire China an unbelievable feat that too within just with in two years with out any external support. That also is the way to create the new men and women the necessary foundationof the new civilisation. The renowned Ghandhians like Pandit felt no wonder Yenan as the foundation of the new civilisation. Sundarlal, Kumarappa and Kichlu but also by the young communist of Britton Rolph Fox. No wonder Haldane came finally to the very sound conclusion that Marx and Ghandi should be blended. That is Eastern Marxism, a blending of Mao and Kumarappa, which is the way to avoid the shortcomings of both while preserving the essence.
PROLOGUE
UNIVERSAL LAW OF LOVE
And in the one arose Love, Love the first seed of the soul.
Rig Veda
Love unites that are free and frees that are united.
Ramon Lull
Friend, understand by Love
St. Kabir.
I follow the religion of Love wherever Love’s camel takes that is my religion and faith.
O marvel, a garden amidst flames
My heart has become capable of every form.
It is the pasture for gazelles and a convent
For the Christian monks
And a temple for idols and the pilgrim’s Kaaba
And the tablets of Torah and the Book of Quron
All that is left to us be tradition are mere words
It is for us to know what they mean
Ibn Al Arabi
One who knows not Love knows not life.
Sri Narayana Guru
78. Until and unless the Brahmin serves gladly the lowly with love he cannot hope to free himself from the three kinds of arrogance (Mukkurumbu) and hence cannot know the truth nor the way to liberate himself.
Teachings of Thirukkoti Nambi the Vaishnava Acharya
Love the cadres, love the people serve the people and struggle against self.
Mao Tse Tung
LAW OF JUSTICE
79. The working class cannot liberate it self until and unless it liberates the entire society which includes its opposite also.
Marx
80. How can a Brahmin be free when the Pariah is not? A Vaishnavite notion
81. All the illusions are due to object-bondage.
Marx.
82. What is that diabolical force that compels me to commit the sin while I am fully aware that it is an act of sin?
Arjuna
83. Inordinate desire or lust (Khama) vendetta or jealousy (Khrodha) and arrogance (Rajas) and above all the colossal ignorance (Avidhya) or the illusions are the forces.
Baghavand Gita
84. Imperialism is a colossus, yet with clay feet.
Lenin
85. Atom bomb is a paper tiger.
Mao Tse Tung
.
86. Man by unscrupulousness achieves what seems desirable.,
87. He defeats his enemies – but perishes at the root. (Old eastern wisdom)
The rich heritage continued
Some Misconceptions
88. In a subsequent article I shall deal about the basic flaw in Marx or the Marxism of the West, a flaw that is being removed in the Marxism of the East. Of course this latter side is the least known one. However at present I want to remove the most common misconceptions about Marx as well as of our own philosophies.
89. I am hence adding at the end an appreciation of a small book on Marxism written by me years back. (1965) ‘Marx is a hard–core materialist’ says the author. What does the author mean by this term? Marx was a philosophical materialist, in the same way our own great men like Mahaveera, Buddha, Ramanuja, and Madhava were. In fact in Tamil the word ‘Mai’ means both Truth and the Body. It only means that this body is not an illusion or Mythya. Mythyavada of Sankara is not the only philosophy of this land. All those that accept that there is a world outside the thinking brain or thought are all philosophical materialists. Materialism does not mean Hedonism only. Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Mao can be accused by any stretch of imagination of advocates of Hedonism. In fact they demand the working people to become Vairagya–Purushas. Any one who has read Lenin on Economism can very well understand that.
90. In fact after his encounter with the great woman Bharathi the wife of Mandanamisra, Sankara not only virtually renounced his absolute monism but also accepted the great Prakrithi (feminine principle) rejecting the supremacy of the Purusha (male principles). Not surprisingly he sang the Bhajagovindam (denial of the early iconoclastic notion of Aham Brahmosmi) and Soundaryalahari. He did not erect any Brahma-Peeta but only the Sharada–Peeta. He accepted the Bhakthi marg, understood that love demands an object. This version may not be relishable to the Masculinist followers of Sankara. Sankara’s Monism is practically an impossibility.
91. I don’t think that the followers of that kind of spiritual Monism eat and drink only the spirit. Most of them no doubt eat solid flesh and drink costly spirit. In fact the Vishistadwaitin condemns the Mythyavadin as one for whom morality and ethics become bugbear and nonsense. Further if you love only your own self you are the worst kind of narcissist or an egoist. Hence Madhava accused Sankara, as a Rakshasa–Vadi for whom there was no god. In fact Gandhi was never an iconoclast. Hence our saints would not have quarreled with Marx for his kind of Materialism. On the contrary they would have gladly agreed with him.
92. Let us now pass on to the issue of the individual and the community. The individual can never be an end. Just as the head or the hand however much they may appear important, can never be an end in themselves in the organism. They can only have a meaning in the living relationship. Outside, they are dead, fit either to be buried or burnt. That is why in every Sankalpa we say either Narayana preethyartam or Paramesvara preethyartam which means that our existence too has a meaning only in the context of a higher being, may be the God or the community. Secondly man can never live even for a short period outside his community. Hence the sensitive poet William Cowper says ‘society, friendship and love divinely bestowed upon man, Oh had I the wings of a dove how soon would I taste you again’. Once you realise the abject weakness of the human child you can easily understand the need of the society or the collective life for the very survival of the species.
93. It is this collective that appears as the transcendental reference in the materialistic view. Outside this collective this being cannot be a human being at all. Hence if this collective perishes the human species will perish. If anyone tries to destroy this collective life the collective will punish it. It is a self-imposed punishment to save itself. The realisation of this truth is the self–realisation of man and that is what Marx would term the true self–realisation. That kind of individualism, which is expounded by Bertrand Russell, is alien to the rich cultural heritage. Russell’s individualism is only a reflection of the competitive social order of the modern West.
94. Let us now pass on to the problem of violence. It is on record that Gandhi said that he wouldn’t hesitate to throw stones at the monkeys if they were to plunder his orchard. He did not abjure violence totally. Further that is not also the essence of Indian cultural tradition. Total non-violence is never the great ideal. It will only produce total violence.
95. However this culture has a clear appreciation of vise and virtue. It has two criteria. Gandhi was not unaware of them. Secondly there is no evidence that he rejected them either. He knew that he will commit a greater blunder if he avoided the small amount of violence where and when it was absolutely essential. Let me cite it from my own experience. I met once Sri. Arayar of Karnataka, one of the top Sarvodaya leaders. When he understood that I was some kind of an extremist in the communist movement he asked me the following question. ‘How can you justify killing and dacoity’? I had to accept the challenge. I asked ‘Please tell me how you justify the killing of Vaali by Rama that too when the former had done nothing against Rama? Secondly how do you justify the robbery done by Thirumangai Mannan and the destruction of the Jain and Buddha Vihara by this Alvar ’? He was silent. I myself started to answer. There can be only one way. The act should satisfy two criteria.
96. The actor should not have an iota of personal interest in the fruits of the act. (Karmayogy's attitude).
97. Such an act should be beneficial to all (Act of love of all Bakthiyogy). Not only that, it is the act which liberates the victim too. Sri Arayar smiled and said, ‘then you should bring Marxism in all our Indian languages’. It is comparable to the divine act. It can never be avoided. Gandhi knew this too. The evildoers like Kamsa, Sisupal, Ravana and others were finally happy to be released. That it the meaning of the act, too. That is the Indian tradition. However this is unknown to the West. Their understanding of evil and good either is a simple one like black and white or totally confusing as in the case of the most recent Western dialectics, which has reduced it to either expediency or class gain to just party advantage, finally reduced to sheer opportunism. When Western dialectics could not evolve the proper criteria it ended in either Fascism or Stalinism. The real solution is eluding the West.
98. Finally if we try to eschew the last particle of violence we will cause the maximum of violence. Such is the law of Dialectic. The Indian symbol of this phenomenon is that of Visha–Kanta, where the evil (Visha) is contained in the gullet of Shiva. It is not spit out. It is actually immunising the body. So instead of being totally avoided, it should be contained and thereby turned into an advantage to the body. It is like the phagocytes (white blood corpuscles) of our body. Western dialectics has no such a rich tradition as the Eastern has. Contrary to what Srivathsava believes Marx never aims at the good of the working class only. Marx clearly knew the great truth that freedom is indivisible. He wrote that the working class couldn’t free itself from the clutches of capital unless it freed the entire society, which hence should include the capitalist also, the latter being the anti–thesis. The working class had to die as a class, only then the classless society can be realised. Such notions are totally unknown to the shallow readers of Marx. Secondly there is no such inexorable law that will automatically one day free the workers and solve the historical problem. Had it been the view of Marx he would not have written so much nor exhorted the class, to do so much of sacrifice. He wrote that way just to give the necessary courage to the class just as Jambavan did in the case of Hanuman. In his opinion it was this class that had the need for that freedom as well as the potential to realise it.
99. Equality was not at all the aim of Marx. It should be realised that variety means inequality. Marx never wanted dull and monotonous uniformity, which is also a kind of leveling, or equalising. Rich flowering of the slumbering potentials is the aim of Marx, which is the very opposite of equality. But there will be identity but never uniformity. Those who know Indian classical music can well appreciate this. If one wants to build freedom or free relationship on the basis of equality it will never be possible. What is needed is fraternity. The rich tradition of the East knows that free relationship can be established between the mighty (infinite god) and the puny Baktha (finite) and that the power of the mighty will flow in to the tiny. That is achieved by the loving service. That also is the basis of the peoples’ war. Here too the remarkably free relationship is between the two that are not at all equal. But the power of the tiny over the mighty can never be of a coercive kind. This is the feminine kind of power. This is the relationship of the tiny gorilla force and the mighty masses of people. So free relationship does not demand equality at all. This was not known to Western dialectics.
100. Marx also never wanted the capitalists to be put to death. What was it that he wanted to be eliminated? To understand this we should know how he understood the basic cause of the human predicament. He saw the root of the evil in the basic relationship that was witnessed between the producer and the product. This, as he clearly saw, was alien and inimical. So he rightly concluded that all the consequences flow from this basic production relationship. Simple destruction of the capitalist will not in any way automatically eliminate this relationship. But on the contrary the elimination of this relationship releases both the worker and the capitalist. So it is this relationship that should be changed. Marx actually absolves the capitalist class of premeditated and willful crime against any. That is the way he reads the history.
101. Let us now look at the issue of trusteeship. Marx too wants a kind of trusteeship in the interim period, the period of proletarian dictatorship. He does not trust the capitalists’ class. Why this class cannot be such a trustee should be examined. It is not the wish of the class that finally decides the result. Given the facts of private property of the means of production, trade and competition in the market the consequences will be very different from what you desire. But that alone is not enough has become obvious from the recent history of the socialist countries.
An Unpopular or Eastern Marxist Approach
102. ‘The working class cannot achieve its freedom unless and until it liberates the entire society, which includes its opposite too’.
- Marx
103. ‘Society friendship and love divinely bestowed upon man’.
- W.Cowper.
104. When we discuss the problem of scheduled castes, backward castes, minorities and tribals and such poorer classes of people we are really discussing about the various kinds of oppression. It may be just economic or it could be both economic and social. When it is social economic will go with it. The final issue is concerned with the freedom of all these sections Freedom like its opposite un-freedom also involves the relationship of two. It is the quality of these relationships, which we can call either free or unfree. That was very clearly understood by Marx. Hence he says that freedom is indivisible.
105. It becomes at this stage necessary to have a clear idea of this concept of freedom. There are two views. One believes that a section if it were to be free it should be a master of someone else. The freedom of one is hence based on the un-freedom of the other. The American White man thinks that he is free only when he has some Black people as slaves. This was realised by no less a person than Lincoln. He also saw that the Negro felt that he was free only when he was not a slave of the white man. So for as Lincoln was concerned freedom was a very paradoxical notion. Like all great truths freedom too is a paradoxical one but not in the above sense. We shall see soon how this concept is paradoxical. However the above view of the white man is the dominant view of the West.
106. It starts from Fransis Bacon the so-called father of modern science. European Enlightenment also starts from him. With Bacon starts a break in the area of epistemology. It is a clear rejection of the earlier mode of thought. The last cry of the earlier mode was more or less that of Ramon Lull the Spanish mystic of 12th and 13th centuries. Bacon simply rejected the great truth of the Spanish mystic who says ‘Love unites that are free and frees that are united’ which means that loving relationship is the basis of free relationship. Whereas, the dominant view of the fourteenth century was just the opposite. This new philosophy, which starts with Bacon, finally culminates in the Darwinian explanation of evolution.
107. It is necessary at this stage to evaluate Darwinian explanation too. While evolution is a fact Darwinian explanation is not a fact. It is just an explanation. It can be wrong too. It is based on competition, elimination and selection where the weak eliminated and as such it appears as a law of nature. It is hence almost accepted as a law of nature, an inexorable logic of life, and a stubborn fact. If we tamely accept it as a natural law we find enough justification for the enslavement and exploitation of the weak. Such an explanation was what the expanding and enslaving European Imperialism wanted. In fact if we carefully examine we can clearly find that Darwinian explanation is more an ideological notion than an objective fact. In the Indian context the mighty majority of the elite irrespective whether they belong to one or the other end of political spectrum has accepted this explanation most uncritically. Hence questioning it will tantamount to blasphemy! Darwinian explanation influences the concept of efficiency too. Ruthless elimination of every obstruction is considered as the hallmark of efficiency. The weak has no place in the Darwinian amphitheater. Such traits like tolerance, compassion, sympathy and love have no place in it. They are considered as the expressions of the timid. And the weak, which do not deserve a place in the Darwinian world. Finally Darwinian explanation reaches its limit in Fascism and Nazism of Hitler in whose world there. Is no place for the weak and the meek. Hence in the Darwinian world enslavement of one section is not only justifiable but also will be considered the real basis of freedom of the other. This is the most fundamental value of the so-called European Enlightenment. No doubt there were voices of protest from the beginning. However all of them were defeated. It was precisely because the Catholic Church itself very much backed the monarchs who were indulging in slave trade and looting the poor people of other continents. It was the anti-Christ that was on the throne of Vatican. The situation has not very much changed to this date. Christ has been driven out of Christendom. No slave driver can really tolerate a Christ. Whether Catholic or Protestant all were backing European expansionism, hence could not defeat the Darwinian inhumanism. Bishop Wilberforce could not stand up to Thomas Huxley the bulldog of Darwin. Bernard Shaw was certainly not wrong when he declared that the last Christian died on the Cross.
108. Before Ramon Lull we see St. Fransis of Assissi and finally we see inside the last great protest movement namely the socialist and communist one the great rebel the Anarchist Prince Kropatkin who gave the high value to cooperation. Though Lenin was not accepting the philosophy of Kropatkin, still he had a very high regard for him and he died in Soviet Union a very highly honoured man. That was the limit of the protest movement. The crisis inside the socialist movement has to be very much related to the defeat of these protest movements and the dominance of the Darwinian ideology. Marx saw rather surprisingly in Darwinian explanation a natural scientific base for his theory of class struggle.
109. Let us now examine the aim of Marx and his approach. Marx wants to establish on this earth a humane society with free men and women. However his freedom is based on the ever-expanding control over the nonhuman reality so that it should be the eternal slave of mankind. At the same time Marx declares that freedom is indivisible. However this notion is only confined to the human society and does not extend to the nonhuman reality. Hence we do not see to this date any thing that could be called socialist ecology or geography. The slavery, which Marx very much wanted to drive out and thought that he had shown the way, too really rushed with the bang through the back door with vengeance. Marx too could not understand a Kabir or a Narayanaguru. St. Kabir showed the relevance of love when he said ‘friend understand by love’ while Sri Narayanaguru showed that at the very foundation of life was love when he declared that ‘one who knows not love knows not life’. Sri Narayanaguru simply rejects the Darwinian thesis. There can be no compromise between the social reformer Sri Narayanaguru and Darwin who for all practical purposes was objectively an apologist of Imperialism. No wonder Darwin did like to associate himself with Marx when the latter wrote to him indicating his desire to dedicate his magnum opus ‘Capital’ to him.
110. Finally the basis of highest efficiency which can be seen in the functioning of any living organism and which can never be equaled by any man-made organisation is unquestionably based upon loving reciprocal selfless relationship, which can be called the internal altruism, which was clearly understood by Sri. Narayanaguru, which prompted him to declare that love, was at the base of life. When this fundamental relationship is damaged all the problems start. However even here the dominant logic of efficiency as taught in our advanced institutions cannot accept the profound truth, which Sri Narayanaguru points out. Darwin drives out Sri Narayanaguru. The two cannot live in the same house.
111. What does this mean? Sri Narayanaguru has understood the converse law of the ‘law of entropy’ or the second law of thermodynamics. We can easily understand that efficiency is directly related to freedom, which is the basic relationship inside the every living organism. Hence it has to be based on loving relationship. The Catalan Mystic Ramon Lull also very well understood this. Hence any amount of study of the dynamics of the inanimate cannot bring out this truth. Hence Christopher Caudwel the most original Marxist thinker of England who died unfortunately very young suggested that there should be a converse law of the law of entropy, which is at the base of life. This idea was very much approved by Professor Hyman Levy and Professor J.B.S.Haldane. In fact Haldane went to the extent to say that Caudwel’s work crisis in physics was a quarry of ideas for generations to come.
112. If we base our politics on such a kind of philosophy as implied by Ramon Lull and Sri Narayanaguru we will have one kind of solution for the problem on hand. It also means that we have to reject the idea of the so-called Enlightenment, its notion of freedom, efficiency and the explanation of evolution. Added to that we have to reject its epistemology whether Positivism or Empiricism. At the same time we have to correct the Marxist epistemology by recognising the cognitive, creative and liberative role of love and loving service, which is absent in the ‘Theses on Feurbauch’ of Marx, which forms the epistemology of Marxism. The Eastern saint Thiru kotti Nambi (12th century A.D) had clearly recognised the cognitive role of loving service, so also St. Kabir. Finally this profound truth is realised by the great Eastern Marxist revolutionary Mao Tse Tung who asks the cadres to love the cadres, love the people, and serve the people and struggle against the Self. Such a notion would have been very much approved of by a Christian who accepts the notion ‘one who renounces reaps a thousand fold’ or by a Taoist who says ‘empty yourself and by that you become free and a creative force’. Only by emptying oneself one become selfless which is really the basis of loving relationship.
113. To realise the new philosophy in our Indian context it is absolutely necessary to update our own old philosophy. To do it is equally to free our selves from the colonial mind. The irony of it is that those in our great land who claim that they will lay down their life to save our sacred shrines and our great tradition are the worst slaves of modern West. They even do not know that the richest philosophy of this land is in Tamil. It is this that erupted as the Bakthi movement, which spreads throughout this continent in the medieval period. That was Southern Vaishnavism. It preached a philosophy of love and loving service. But our modern traditionalists on the contrary uphold a philosophy, which teaches hatred and vendetta or total indifference towards the sufferings of the millions, all in the name of Maya. In a similar way their approach towards the White was just jealousy coupled with grudging admiration. Their notion of freedom is also in no way different from that of the advocates of modern West.
114. In this context I have to say a few words about our rationalists as well as the Indian Marxists. We cannot but conclude that these are really shallow Positivists. These people think that this is a land of superstition and only modern science can liberate the mind of our people. Mr. Parmeswaran a ‘Marxist’ from Kerala told us that there would be devolution if there were to be no scientific revolution. He simply did not know the irrelevance of this kind scientific knowledge so for as social knowledge is concerned. Tons of this kind of scientific knowledge cannot make one ounce of wisdom. This truth was clearly brought out in the most illuminating dialogue between Buddha and his would be disciple Malunkyaputta. This was the problem of Imanual Kant too. However Positivism and Empiricism do not make this distinction.
115. Let me say a few words about this phenomenon of superstition. Aldous Huxley when he was a rationalist said that only this human being who looks backward and forward could utter such a nonsense that the ‘eclipse is caused by a serpent’. He added that it is more rational. The same Huxley along with Auden and Christopher Isherwood later became an ardent advocate of Vedantha joined Ramakrishna Mutt. They swung from one extreme to the other. This is the case with many uncritical Atheists as well. These men never could think that only man because of his ability for fantastic imagination, a thing which Lenin understood very well, could not merely conceive such an idea which no doubt is an absurd one but also the most abstract truth that E = Mc2. If one were to vanish by the same token the other too will. The same can be said of the majority of our Indian Marxists. All these men not only they believe but ask us also to believe that the Sun rose in this land only after the White man stepped here and educated us and taught the three Rs. (Reading. [W] Riting and [A] Rithematic) that was the great burden of the White man. For them Marxism cannot but be the most advanced thought of the West and as such it cannot but be taught by the Westerner. According to these slaves of the West all the advanced ideas or progressive ideas have to be imported from the modern West East in general and India in particular were the land of superstition all due to the cunning Brahmin priests! This is the attitude of the majority of the Rationalists as well. This is the dominant view of the arrogant Imperialist White man as well as that of the European socialists also. Who actually supported the colonial policy of their Imperial masters justifying such a policy that it was the only way to bring the advanced culture to the non-European peoples whom even the Marxists of Europe considered barbarians and semi-barbarians. The colonial mind is still very much there amidst our elite from one end to the other.
116. Here in our land it is such a section that forms the ruling elite. No wonder all has the same model of development, which also is the dominant model of the West. However it is also a fact that many thoughtful persons in the West have started to seriously criticise this dominant model of development which is really devastating the very life-base thereby threatening the very survival of man. However our planners are not prepared to see this bitter truth. What the White man could not do during his rule of two hundred years these ‘patriots’ have done in fifty years. The only person of this land who had decidedly refused such a model was Gandhi. One need not be a Gandhian to see the rationale behind his approach. Irrespective of their political colour their gurus are Ram Mohan Roy and Sir M. Visveswaraiyya. We can excuse these early men because they could not see the true nature of this modern science and the so-called high technologies that flow from them as well as the inhuman philosophy inherent in them. In the final resort they are the most eminent instruments to enslave and exploit the weak. Their use for bettering mankind’s life is very much marginal. However it is this side that is actually used to hide the truth about them causing no doubt the greatest illusion. Unless this tool is strictly controlled and its area well defined it can very well ruin the life of millions of innocent and inoffensive people. To day they are used to control the third world. Let us have no illusions. When Visveswaraiyya said ‘industrialise or perish’ Gandhi’s immediate reply was ‘industrialise and perish’. It appears that Gandhi had a better understanding of this modern science and the so-called advanced technology than Visvesvaraiyya.
117. It is with such a model of development that our planners are bent on solving the socio-economic problems of our land. In this attempt our so-called progressives may say that the phase is insufficient. We should, according to them, invite if need be any technology be it even foreign. If damages take place that should be treated as the unavoidable price we have to bear and pay for the sake of the ‘great future’. They are really not bothered about that future because they have made all arrangements for their even great grand children in the lands of their masters. They are here just carrying out the tasks assigned to them by their masters. They are the most faithful agents or willing slaves of modern imperialism. The ruling elite in this land is a bunch of traitors. Let us have no illusions at all.
118. In this context it is very necessary to have an objective evaluation of the Indian State as well as the nature of the ruling class. To say that we are having some kind of capitalism is to, totally miss the essential truth. We have to understand as to what kind of capitalism we are having here in our country. It is a counter revolutionary capitalism so also the state and the ruling class.
Neo-Colonialism
119. Neo-colonialism is most fatal, said Mao. I think that he was perfectly correct in characterising it so. However our Indian progressives as well as the great Sanathanists seldom mention such a thing. Let us not have any illusions about the Indian bourgeois. Any ghost of imagination to the early European bourgeois class, which fought the feudalism on the one hand and often the monarchs too, who was backed by the Catholic universal church, which was the Imperialism of that day, cannot compare it. It was revolutionary. It demanded democracy. It did to an extent arm the poor rural sections to fight the local feudalism also. It was about this class Marx and Engels praised in their immortal manifesto. But the Indian bourgeois class can never be compared to the early European one. To day it is a kind of beggar capitalist class. The industrialisation is pitted against the people and democracy. It is neither wanted nor acceptable to the majority of the people more so to the vast rural population. When people resist such industries that destroy the water, air, soil etc., with impunity, the police and army if necessary are employed to kill the people. If things move in this way for a decade or two we will witness here the China of the thirties which means gun boat policy will be the norm. The useless youth creation of the sterile education will be supplied guns and it will gladly shoot our rural people when they rise against these hazardous industries. Any way the problem of unemployment of the educated youth is solved' will be the tall claim of ‘peoples’ government, the biggest democracy of Asia.
120. Then naturally arises the question of the meaning of participating in or joining this government, which works for this counter revolutionary bourgeois class. It is a pity that the Indian Marxists never cared to study the concrete conditions in a concrete way. They have never gone beyond the old books in which this neocolonialism cannot be seen at all. Further what power is for, what it can be used and for what it cannot be used are the questions that we should raise and answer. Such questions do not exist in the textbooks will be the answer of our Indian Marxists. Our Marxist pundits do, not mention that there could be two kinds of powers, in any of the textbooks, so there cannot be such a question at all will be the answer. Marx and Engels conceived of the new state that of the proletarian dictatorship as the opposite of the bourgeois state. In short, it should be a liberative power, certainly not simply of coercive and aggressive in nature. That can be achieved only if the motto of such a state were to be ‘love the people, serve the people and struggle against self’. Further only such a state will wither out too. The other kind of state, which only aggrandises is aggressive and hence a coercive power will never wither away. However Marx and Engels could not show the way to build the new kind of state. By the same token they did not have any notion of the other kind of power. Within the Marxist movement only the Yenan phase in the Chinese context can be thought of as a state, which was having the ideal, which Marx and Engels hoped or expected to be the characteristic feature of the new state. No wonder the young British communist Ralph Fox thought that Yenan was the way for the new society. Several American sociologists too suggested that Mao had Yenan nostalgia or wanted to see that China becomes a dozen Yenans. It is also on record that Mao on several occasions referred to the Yenan phase with great enthusiasm and asked the young generation to learn from it. It is equally true that it was very soon forgotten and if we examine the years of struggle inside the Chinese communist party after 1954-55 we can discern that it was a great attempt to re-establish once again such a kind of state. However we should accept that Mao failed in this. Hence Marxists should learn from the Yenan experience also as to how it was defeated. That was the only state, which showed the way to wither away and make itself redundant. It was the most transparent one also. The people loved it because it was openly serving the people and thereby for all practical purposes emptying itself. It was a selfless state and thereby never a weight on them. The people did not feel it as a burden on the contrary it was the state that sustained the people. Hence it was not challenged.
Empowering the Downtrodden
Now a day a lot of people more particularly the so-called progressives talk day in and day out about empowering the downtrodden. Is it not necessary to know how it can be really achieved? Will it be possible if the entire legislature were to be filled up with members of the representatives of that section? Assuming that the top police officials are from the downtrodden can that be considered as empowering them? If the academic dons are from them can that step make them empowered? What they can do by becoming so is the crucial issue. Can the police officer belonging to the scheduled caste order to suppress the members of the upper caste when he finds that caste to have committed the most heinous crime against the scheduled caste? Can an academic don teach something that is detrimental to the ruling class? Can the legislators bring out any act that is even disadvantageous to the ruling section? If all these were to be really possible by
