A Rational Critique of Marxism and
Communism - IX
(Selected Passages from the book:
“Humanism, Revivalism and the
Indian Heritage”
by M. N. Roy)
1.
“History teaches us that no great change in
political institutions, in legal systems and economic organizations is possible
before the community requiring such a social revolution undergoes what can be
called a philosophical revolution. An impending revolution is heralded by the
more forward-looking spirits, who realize the necessity of a change and also
have the courage to challenge the moral sanction of the established social
order. In other words, a change in the mental outlook of a sufficiently large
number of members of a community is the precondition for a successful and
constructive change in the material conditions of life.
The ideal of freedom, for instance, is as old as
mankind. But through the ages, it was conceived differently according to the
intellectual atmosphere and cultural pattern of a given period. Its sanction
was derived, now from religion, then from metaphysical speculations: in certain
times. It was a transcendental concept, in others a moral principle. As human
knowledge grows, mental horizons broaden, new visions of freedom rise before
our mind. A new vision of freedom transcends the limitations of the established
social order; the new concept cannot be fitted into its cultural pattern. Then
it becomes necessary to challenge the sanctions of the established social
order, be they religious, transcendental, metaphysical or moral, according to
the preconceived notions of religion, metaphysics and morality of the period.
The spread of such a critical attitude towards
traditional values – established forms of thought, venerable beliefs and blind
faiths is called a philosophical revolution: it heralds a change in the
mentality of mankind. It is learned from history that in the successive stages
of human evolution, changes in the social, economic and political conditions of
mankind were heralded by such philosophical revolutions; whenever the standard
of philosophical revolution raised by the pioneers of a new era attracted a
sufficiently large number of members of a community. It also experienced a
social revolution; social relations, economic systems and political
institutions were overhauled so as to expand the frontiers of freedom, to give
greater scope to human creativeness.” (Pages : 10,11)
2.
“But the philosophical revolution which will prepare
the ground for the social revolution cannot be brought about by people
engrossed in the present politics. It is the task of men who refuse to
participate in the vulgar scramble for power, and would try to raise political
practice on a moral level. Their efforts will create the Renaissance movement,
a humanist movement, which will think in terms of the rise, progress and welfare
of man. The main function of the movement will be to awaken in man, in as many
men as possible, the urge for freedom, That is a work of education of
enlightenment. At present, we are still in the stage of educating the
educators, to create a sufficiently large number of them, we shall have the
help of modern science. Our old culture and scriptures won’t help us in that
task. It is only in the light of modern science that we can show that man has
unlimited potentialities of development. It is in that light that God is
revealed as a creation of man. It is in the power of the creator to destroy his
creation or recreate it. Only this belief, this confidence, can awaken in man
the urge for freedom and the zeal to work for his freedom. And this confidence
is created by modern scientific knowledge.” (Pages : 20, 21)
3.
“History must be studied scientifically, and
historical research should also be guided by philosophy. There is a philosophy
of history. Indeed, true historians are philosophers. One of the leading philosophers
of our time, I mean Croce, has gone a step further and said that historians are
poets. I do not know if that is true. Personally, I am afraid of these
distinctions. I am interested in history as well as in philosophy. But I am
certainly not a poet. I am even inclined to think that we must discard the
poetic element in our approach to history, because it may lead us to depicting
things of the past more beautifully than they really were.”(Page : 26)
4.
“The fundamental principle of the philosophy of history
is humanist. History is the record of man’s evolution. Man’s evolution out of
his biological background is not a part of history proper. History is very
largely social history. It records the events of man’s life as a social being.
There is a very large gap between the appearance of homo sapiens, the appearance of the human species, and the origin
of society. That is a very long period, which has to be counted in terms of
geological time. Events taking place during that period generated the driving forces
of social evolution. The investigation into the earliest stages of social
evolution belongs to anthropology, the science of man. How did man as an
anthropological phenomenon develop before he became a social being? Then
follows the development of particular groups of men: how a herd of homo sapiens, a herd of biological
beings who were removed from other animals, but not yet quite human, develop
into an organized unit called society? Instincts, intuition and such other
mystic human properties grew in the context of the process of biological
evolution during that period of the early history of mankind, which may be
called the prehistoric period. It is quite evident that, unless we understand
the mechanism of the mysterious forces called instincts and intuition, it will
not be possible for us to understand how events took place in history as they
did and not otherwise.
In order to dig out the roots of human society, we
need not only to study anthropology; we shall have to beyond: to study biology
and geology. In the opposite direction, anthropology throws light in the dark
corners of psychology, and the latter merges into physiology. That leads us to
an understanding of the entire structure of the human body and the various
branches of science which have developed from the understanding of the human
organism, including the brain, the seat of thinking and all the properties
which distinguish man from the lower animals.”(Pages : 27, 28)
5.
“The crucial point in the philosophy of history is:
What are the forces which primarily motivate the social actions of mankind?
Social action being the spring, the motive force of history. In the middle of
the 19th century, there was a divergence of opinion on this point. A
comprehensive philosophy of history was for the first time elaborated by Hegel.
He declared that the history of civilization ultimately was the history of
philosophy. As an idealist philosopher, he held that the ability to think being
the most distinctive human feature, ideas were the prime motive of history. As
against the Hegelian idealistic interpretation of history, there were other
views which all referred to Vico’s theory that history is created by man. If
history was created by man, but there is no underlying motive common in all
human action, history would be a chaos, and it would not be possible to explain
why history has taken the course it did.
Various scholars carried on researches to find out
the prime motive of human action. One of them was Karl Marx: he offered a
philosophy of history as against Hegel’s idealist conception. He came to the
conclusion that man’s activities, his behavior and actions, were determined by the tools with which
he earned his livelihood. His reasoning was as follows: Like all other animals,
man also is primarily engaged in a struggle for existence. He separates himself
from the lower biological forms by the ability to create tools, which
supplement the efforts of his limbs in his quest for food and the struggle
against nature. The ability to manufacture tools being the distinctive feature
of man, human history is determined by the kind of tools made by man at any
given time. The evolution of the means of production explains human history.
In the 19th century, scientific thought
was based on the generally accepted principle that nothing was to be taken for
granted. Scepticism was the prevailing spirit. Hegel’s view was largely
rejected: and the Marxist interpretation of history developed and prevailed in
various shades. Ultimately, it came to be more or less generally accepted in
the later, 19th and early 20th centuries.”(Pages : 28,29)
6.
“Historical research must be guided by the totality
of scientific knowledge, which throws light on the dark corners of the process
of mental evolution, thus explaining the social and individual behavior of man
from the dawn of history. We must have a coherent view of the development of
Indian thought before we can undertake a fruitful study of Indian history.
The behavior of mankind and its social condition in
prehistoric times will have to be deduced logically from what is known about
its thought. Hegel was not right when he said that a World Spirit was operating
through man. But it is true that after all ideas, man’s thought, are the
incentive of human action. Any physical action is preceded by a movement in
man’s brain. What appear to be automatic actions are not exceptions. Even when
you will step out of this hall, go down the stairs and walk on the streets, the
movements of your limbs will be preceded by the will to do so. You may not be
conscious of the mental act: it will take place. In this sense. Hegel is
sounder. But on the other hand, Marxian economic determinism is an important
pointer.
You cannot simply take man for granted. You have to
explain man also: why man established society? Why society established a
political organization? Why this took the forms we know? These question can be
answered to a certain extent by the materialist interpretation of history, that
the material conditions of life, to a large extent, influence man’s thought and
thereby his action.
But Karl Marx committed the same mistake for which
he criticized Hegel. His premise was dogmatic. Therefore, the conclusions
deduced from it were fallacious. It is true that the ability to make tools and
use them separates man from the pre-human animals. But what enables man to make
tools? Man’s mind differentiates him from that of the ape before he can invent
the first tool. Karl Marx forgot that the brain also is a tool, and man
differentiated himself from his animal ancestors and invented the device of
mechanical ways of solving the problems of his life, only when man’s brain was
differentiated from the brain of the pre-human species. In other words, the
idealistic interpretation of history goes a little further than the economic
interpretation. Therefore, historical research should not be restricted by any
dogmatic premises.”(Pages : 35,36)
7.
“There is one school which considers civilization as
the basis of culture. It defines culture as the process of the development of
what is called the finer human attributes. From that is deduced that, unless
the physical existence of the human being, meaning the social circumstances and
material civilization under which men live, have attained a certain level of
comfort and amenities, it is not possible for them to develop the finer sides
of human existence.
This theory of culture logically follows from the
doctrine of economic determinism in history. There is a good deal to be said in
favour of that view, although a quite powerful criticism can also be leveled
against it. The obvious objection is that people who are considered not to be
civilized may have very distinctive forms of culture. There are primitive
cultures. If we distinguish the two, saying that culture is the measure of the
individual development of man, and civilization the measure of his social
development, the two may be harmonized. But in that sense, we cannot draw a
relation of historical sequence. Certain types of culture developed before
mankind entered the stage of civilization. On the other hand, a highly civilized people has opportunities
of developing higher forms of culture. In discussing our cultural heritage,
this point is not always borne in mind.”(Pages : 38, 39)
8.
“Ever since antiquity, European culture developed as
part of church. The conclusion that we can deduce from this fact is that, at
some stage of development, every group of people, no matter where they live,
necessarily thinks in terms of religion. That is to say, the entire
intellectual and emotional history of any people during a certain period of its
development is influenced by the religious mode of thought. Later on, the
religious mode of thought becomes inadequate. Within the framework of that mode
of thought, human intelligence, will and emotions find no further scope.
Consequently, human genius, which had previously created the religious mode of
thought, created a new mode of thought. That new mode of thought was the
scientific mode of thought, which has dominated European intellectual history
ever since the time of the Renaissance.”(Page : 40)
9.
“A critical
history of the development of religion reveals the fact that religion originated
in the ignorance of man. The primitive man’s inability to explain natural
phenomena in terms of nature, without going beyond the limits of nature,
compelled him to assume super-human beings as the prime movers of various
natural phenomena. Those assumed natural forces eventually came to be the gods
of natural religion. The polytheism of natural religion was subsequently
replaced by monotheistic religions.
One specific feature of the history of Hinduism is
that Vedic polytheism was never rejected in favour of a monotheistic religion.
The idea of a Supreme Being as a Super-God was conceived. But the conception
lacked uniformity. The religious thought in ancient India developed from
polytheism to pantheism. The concept of a personal God, as in Islam or Christianity
or Judaism, is absent in Hinduism. The Avatars are not personal Gods. They are
incarnations of some divine force which is impersonal. The Hindu conception of
the Supreme Being was never personified. It logically led to pantheism, which
identified the entire existence with God.” (Pages : 50, 51)
10.
“As a matter of fact, the concern for the physical
aspects of life is fundamental, common to all human beings. Religion originated
in it. The urge to explain the various natural phenomena induced man to assume
the existence of super-natural forces. In course of time, scientific knowledge
enabled him to dispense with ad hoc
assumptions which constituted the basis of religion. Consequently, the
psychological necessity of religion disappeared: the foundation of the
religious mode of thought was blasted. This happened in Europe several hundred
years ago. The concern of European mankind reverted to the original human
nature, that is, concern with the world in which he lived, concern with his
power as a human being to acquire greater and greater knowledge and derive
greater and greater power from this knowledge, power for still greater
conquests of nature. That is the way of modern thought. It is clear to see that
it is not a peculiarity of a particular race or people, but results from the
ability of man to explain natural phenomena no longer by assuming super-natural
forces, but in the light of ever expanding knowledge of nature.”(Pages : 55,56)
11.
“Materialism does not preclude the appreciation of
what is called the higher aspects of human life. It only maintains that all the
so-called spiritual aspects of man’s life do not transcend this world, but are
inherent in man as a biological being. In proportion as man develops
intellectually, his knowledge broadens, the higher values inherent in man, the
capacity of taking interest in other things than the physical existence, the
cultivation of finer sentiments, arts, science, etc, become more and more
possible. But the uninformed criticism of Materialism is that, believing
himself only slightly differentiated from lower animals, man is concerned only
with eating and drinking, and consequently degrades himself morally and
spiritually. The corollary to this unfair and unfounded criticism is that
modern thought being materialist, India must eschew it if she wants to preserve
her spiritual integrity.” (Pages:56, 57)
12.
“Scientific knowledge shows that man’s mind is
capable of overcoming all his various limitations; and it is only in the light
of scientific knowledge that the concept of spiritual liberation ceases to be a
fantasy and becomes a real experience. It is not necessary to wait indefinitely
for spiritual liberation by the grace of God or in consequence of some mystic
experience. Spiritual liberation can be attained by discarding the various
notions and prejudices which have weighed down the human spirit since time
immemorial. It is within the reach of man: he can attain it by his own efforts.
That is the essence of modern thought. If Hinduism does not make room for that,
we must say that it has ceased to be something useful and elevating for human
life. It has become a bondage, and the sooner we get rid of it the
better.”(Page:59)
13.
“Everybody who calls himself a Communist also claims
to be a Democrat. That is a very dangerous idea, and we shall have to be on our
guard against it. Totalitarianism is a danger, whether of the Left or of the
Right.”(Page : 61)
14.
“Religious revivalism in India and similar countries
becomes an ally of Fascism because here the religion which is to be revived is
of a positively reactionary character, a system of thinking, a system of
beliefs, a system of values which once upon a time might have been of social
usefulness, may even have been necessary for human existence, but today has
ceased to be so. As a matter of fact, today it cannot be fitted into the
pattern of human existence at all.
Therefore, Fascism in India need not – and I believe
it will not take the shape and form it took in Western Europe, Perhaps this
will become clear if we begin with a definition of Fascism. It has been defined
in various ways. The definition which is fashionable among the most vociferous
anti-fascists is that Fascism is the politics of monopoly capitalism or of the
bourgeoisie in the period of decay. Fascism in Europe might be described like
this, to a certain extent. But even there it will not be the whole of its
content, because Fascism particularly German Fascism, had very deep cultural
and philosophical roots. It could not be simply regarded as merely political
fanaticism or an economic theory.
Fascism in Europe could be described as the negation
of Democracy, a negation of all the values of modern civilization. From that it
would be deduced that Fascism is really a revival of mediaevalism, a revival of
mediaevalism on the background of all the results of the technological
development of modern science. In our country, Fascism is exclusively a revival
of mediaevalism, and as religion is the central point of mediaeval life and
culture, Fascism in India, and the fascist danger in India, is associated with
religious revivalism.”(Page : 62, 63)
15.
“Dictatorship presupposes a predisposition on the
part of people to accept a totalitarian rule. The experience in Europe
corroborates this conclusion. Fascism succeeded in Italy and in Germany, and
some other of the more culturally backward countries of Europe; but it did not
make any headway in Britain or the other
leading democratic countries. Even when France and other West-European
countries were overwhelmed by the armed forces of International Fascism,
Fascism could not take root there. As soon as the foreign factor was
eliminated, Fascism ceased to be a force in those countries.”(Page : 63)
16.
“There can be a non-violent Fascism. It can be a
popular Fascism in the sense that there will be no popular resistance to it,
and yet society can be regimented in all walks of life. In fact, the
intellectual and cultural life of our country is already to a large extent
regimented. It is a voluntary regimentation, and it results from the
traditional mentality of accepting authority without questioning.
A people predisposed to accept some divine or
supernatural authority as Mentor of life on this earth will also be very prone
to be submissive to any authority of this earth. This kind of mentality can be
galvanized by a movement of religious revivalism, which in our country is
sailing under the colours of a cultural movement. For instance, the R.S.S. will
not admit that it is a religious revivalist movement. They call it a cultural
revivalism. But in mediaeval times, culture and religion were so closely
associated that a revival of mediaeval culture necessarily means revival of
religion. Therefore, the anti-fascist movement, or any movement for resisting
the growth of Fascism, will also have to take a different form, to meet the
danger.”(Page : 64)
17.
“You must be aware that there is a very popular
movement on the basis of the teachings of number of “modern saints”. This
movement is composed of educated people. They are not advocating a religion
without God and without Revelation, as their European counter-parts are doing.
As a matter of fact, mysticism which is the rationalized form of religion, and
which is very popular among our intellectuals, in the last analysis relies
precisely on a kind of revelation. This revelation may not be the revelation of
a Prophet or a Seer, but a revelation believed to be within the reach of every
single individual. It means that reason, spirit of enquiry, quest for
knowledge, are subordinated to a faith; that knowledge, science and all the
conquests of man during the last four or five hundred years, are inferior as
human values to what one can find in himself in an imaginary moment of
beatitude, a state believed to be sublime, though impossible to understand, explain
and know.
As far as I know, it seems that this kind of
neo-mysticism or pseudo-scientific religion is gaining ground among the
literary people of our country. It is almost of the same order as the
popularity of dogmatic Marxism among another group of intellectuals in our
country. Thus, the literary life of India seems to be getting polarized between
dogmatic Marxism and cultural reaction.
Consequently, there must be room for a “Third Force”
in the literary and cultural life of our country. The rise of this third force
alone will be able to resist the danger of cultural reaction and Fascism, on
the one side, and of dogmatic Marxism, on the other. The attention of those who
are getting alarmed by the possibility of a rise of dictatorship in our country
is generally directed towards the Left, against the anticipated danger of a
dictatorship coming from the Left. But if you analyse the relation of political
forces in our country, you will see that, if India is going to have a
dictatorship, it is not so likely to be a communist dictatorship as a fascist
dictatorship.
That need not mean that we shall have Storm-Troops
or mass massacres, because all these things are not necessary in our country.
The vast bulk of the people are so deeply predisposed to accept any authority,
so eager to be regimented, so afraid of the hardship of thinking for
themselves, that, if and when, for whatever reasons-political or economic – any
party or group of politicians will find it necessary to establish a dictatorial
regime, they will be able to do so with as much popular support as they care to
whip up. Since Fascism can be established in our country with popular support,
since we can practice one of the fantastic ideas of Lenin, namely, a democratic
dictatorship, Fascism is clearly a very insidious danger.”(Pages : 65, 66)
(to be
continued)
Humanism, Revivalism and The Indian
Heritage
M.N.Roy
Renaissance Publishers
Private Limited
15, Bankim Chatterjee
Street
Coffee House, 2nd
Floor
Calcutta, 700 073.
