RATIONALISM AND COMMUNISM - XI

A Rational Critique of Marxism and Communism - XI

(Selections from the book:

Reason, Romanticism and Revolution: M. N. Roy)

1.   “Marx and Engels took over from Hegel much more than “the revolutionary side of his philosophy”. The dialectic process of history can never be independent of the dynamics of thought. Therefore, the founders of dialectical Materialism inherited from Hegel a considerable element of Idealism together with the dialectical method. The feat of having reversed Hegelian dialectics so as to manufacture Materialism out of Idealism was a figment of imagination. As a matter of fact, there is little of essential difference between Hegel’s idealistic conception of the evolutionary process of history and the Marxist doctrine of historical determinism. Hegel’s philosophy of history was essentially humanist. The dynamic concept of the Idea in dialectic relation to nature and history showed the escape out of the vicious circle of metaphysical speculations, and provided a basis for action with high ideals, for participation in the affairs of the secular world with the object of remaking it, and with the conviction that the thinking man had the power to do so”. (Pages: 376, 377) 

2.   “Rational Idealism, as distinct from theology and teleology, was logically bound to culminate in materialist monism; similarly, materialist philosophy must include recognition of the objective reality of ideas, with their own dynamics, if it is not to degenerate into vulgarity, or relapse into Newtonian natural philosophy, which makes room even for an anthropomorphic God”.(Page: 377) 

3.   “The philosophical foundation of Marxism (dialectical Materialism) was laid in the years preceding the publication of the communist Manifesto. During that period Marx, ably seconded by Engels, carried on a bitter controversy with the Young Hegelians and the philosophical Radicals who called themselves “German Socialists” – all disciples of Feuerbach. In that controversy, which has become an integral part of the Marxist system, its founders defended Hegel against all his pupils who represented the materialistic and naturalist tendencies in his system against his mystic Idealism. 

The implication of Hegel’s memorable reference to the French Revolution as the first effort of man to be guided by reason (*) was put in plain language by Heine. All the Hegelian Radicals – Young Hegelians and German Socialists – enthusiastically hailed the poet’s discovery of revolutionary implication of their master’s teachings. Heine declared: If we can weaken people’s faith in religions and traditions, we will make Germany a political force.” The spirit of the Renaissance at last challenged the deep-rooted influence of the Reformation in Germany. David Strauss, Feuerbach, the Baur brothers, Moses Hess. Gutzkow, Mundt, Karl Gruen, Czolbe and a whole host of radical thinkers followed Hegel’s lead. 

In the earlier years of his career until he chose to assume the role of the prophet of an inevitable revolution, Marx also belonged to that distinguished company. In those early days, he believed that an industrially and politically backward country like Germany in the middle of the nineteenth century could contribute nothing to the advance of European civilization except a philosophical understanding of human aspirations and historical processes, Yet, later on, he bitterly attacked the German Socialists exactly for holding this view.”(Pages: 384, 385) 

4.   “It was Feuerbach who first revolted against Hegelian idealism and blazed a new trail. He is generally recognized in the history of philosophy as the pioneer of the nineteenth century materialist revival. David Strauss shares the honour with him. Feuerbach was the first to reject the Hegelian conception of the dialectical process of history as the self- realisation of the Absolute Idea. Searching for the origin of idea, which undoubtedly was the motive power of history, Feuerbach located it in social anthropology. He came to the conclusion that physical nature preceded spirit; that thought was determined by being, “I do not generate the object from the thought, but the thought from the object’ and I hold that alone to be an object which has an existence beyond one’s own brain.” Feuerbach’s Philosophy of the Future, therefore, came to be known as dialectical Materialism as against the dialectical Idealism of Hegel. 

Though recognized as the founder of dialectical Materialism, Feuerbach would be more correctly described as an expounder of sensationalism of the eighteenth century tradition. He broadened the basis of sensibility by placing man in the context of nature as its integral part. In other words, he revived Humanism, and found the incentive in the Hegelian system. “The new philosophy makes man, including nature as the basis of man, the one universal and highest object of philosophy.” (Pages: 386, 387) 

5.   “Marx’s criticism of Feuerbach and his followers, as recorded in the unpublished manuscript now issued with the title “German Ideology”, is very fragmentary and incoherent. His only bias, at that time, (between 1844 and 1848), was to prove that Hegel was great and Karl Marx his only prophet; to deny that Socialism required any philosophical justification; and to disprove that there was any historical connection between the French Enlightenment and the post-Hegelian philosophical Radicalism. 

That is how Marx began his ideological war. His completely negative attitude to the positive outcome of the Hegelian era is remarkable because it betrays a woeful lack of historical sense. His failure to grasp the historical significance of the religious mode of thought is also surprising. Because of that defect in his historical sense, Marx was unable to appreciate the importance of religious criticism. Religion provided the moral sanction for the continuation of the political and social status quo. To undermine its authority, therefore, was a revolutionary act of fundamental significance. The Young Hegelians did that. But Marx failed to appreciate the revolutionary significance of their bold attack on religious tradition and ecclesiastical orthodoxy. He scornfully dismissed their endeavour, which was a precondition for the revolt against the established order incited by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. “The entire body of German philosophical criticism from Strauss to Striner is confined to criticism of religious conceptions.” [Karl Max, German Ideology] Undoubtedly, it was so, and therein lies the importance of the intellectual efforts of the Hegelian Radicals. In the tradition of the Renaissance, they raised the standard of a philosophical revolution, which was to create the ideological preconditions for political and social revolution. But Marx did not really believe that man was the maker of his destiny; his view of history and social evolution was essentially teleological, fatalistic. Therefore, he combated Feurbach’s Humanism disseminated by his followers who called themselves “true Socialists”, and developed by a succession of brilliant scientists.” (Pages: 389, 390) 

6.   “To fight philosophical Radicalism which approached the problems of political revolutions and social reconstruction from the humanist point of view, Marx was compelled to defend his French and English forerunners of Socialism, whom he later on ridiculed as utopians.”(Page: 391) 

7.   “Marx rejected Feuerbach’s humanist Materialism on the ground that it regarded man as an isolated individual. The criticism was entirely uncalled for. “The individual man by himself does not contain the nature of man in himself, either in himself as a moral or as a thinking being. The nature of man is contained only in the community, in the unity of man with man. Isolation is finiteness and limitation; community is freedom and finality.”[Feuerbach, Philosophie der Zukunft]. This is clear enough to prove that Feuerbach’s Humanism did not deny the necessity of organization; but being the logical outcome of man’s age long struggle for freedom, it would not subordinate the sovereign individual, the creator of the civilized society, to his creation, to an imaginary collective ego of the community. While Feuerbach really went further than Hegel, Marx took over his organic conception of society, which denies the possibility of individual freedom.”(Pages : 391, 392) 

8.   “The essence of religion is primitive rationalism; man creates gods as hypotheses for an explanation of natural phenomena. Because man is rational by nature, rationalism is the essence of man. To have discovered this real essence of man was a great advance in the struggle for freedom. The aggregate of social relations presupposes existence of individuals, who entered into relation. They did that because of their essence of rationality; obsessed with the Hegelian organic conception of society, Marx ignored the self-evident truth that society is an association of individuals. That obsession led him to take society as simply given, as if by Providence, and regard social relations as the ultimate reality. Social relations result from the activities of individuals constituting the society. Being human creations, they can be altered by man. Human will and human action are the primary factors of social existence.” (Page: 392) 

9.   “In its formative stage, Marxism was a defence of Hegelian Idealism as against the materialist naturalism which the Young Hegelians and the philosophical Radicals deduced from the system of the Master. The fascination for dialectics drove youthful Marx to reject the scientific naturalism of the eighteenth century as mechanical and unhistorical. The implication of his criticism was that the Enlightenment did not take a fatalistic view of history, but recognized the creative role of man.”(Page: 393) 

10.               “In his controversy with the Young Hegelians and the followers of Feuerbach, Marx allowed no place to mental activity in the process of social evolution; indeed not even in the process of development of man himself. “Man can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion, or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence – a step which is conditioned by their physical organization.” [Karl Max, German Ideology]. The brain indeed is a part of the physical organization; and sensation and perception can be explained as physical functions. But conceptual thought is a purely mental phenomenon, and it distinguishes the most primitive man from the highest animal. The discovery of fire might have been an accidental physical act without any thought. But subsequent application of fire for the purposes of the most primitive human existence presupposes mental activity. Therefore, even a nodding acquaintance with anthropology should not permit the assertion quoted above.” (Page : 393) 

11.               “On the authority of Hegelian Idealism, (#) Marx denied that there was anything stable in human nature, and asserted that human nature is the ensemble of social relations. “The eighteenth century idea of human nature was defective; traditionally, it was deduced from the doctrine of Natural Law; scientifically, it was based upon pre-Darwinian biology, which still believed in unchanging species, and the classical dictum natura non facet saltus. Marx not only rejected it, but also combated Darwinian gradualism, which contradicted his theory of revolution. The rejection of the eighteenth century belief in human nature thus was not brought about by a greater biological knowledge, but on the authority of Hegelian idealism. 

Marx found in Hegelian dialectics philosophical support for his theory of revolution. Therefore, dialectics became his sole criterion for judging all other philosophies; and dialectics is admittedly an idealistic conception. Revolutions are not brought about by men; they take place of necessity, that is to say, are predetermined. The dialectical Materialism of Marx, therefore, is Materialist only in name; dialectics being its cornerstone, it is essentially an idealistic system. No wonder that it disowned the heritage of the eighteenth century scientific naturalism and fought against the humanist Materialism of Feuerbach and his followers.”(Pages : 394, 395) 

12.               “Man, according to Marx, being a physical organization, his relation to matter is the relation of one material entity to other material entities. Where does consciousness and intelligence appear in the interaction of dead matter? In other words, what makes man different from a lump of dead matter? Begging all these crucial questions, which materialism must answer to be convincing, Marx simply takes man for granted as an elementary undefinable, as the “personification” of the Hegelian Absolute Idea.”(Page : 395) 

13.               “The “economic man”, whose appearance coincides with the production of his means of subsistence, may be nothing more than the ensemble of social relations. But the human species has a much older history, which vanishes in the background of the process of subhuman biological evolution. Marx entirely ignored that entire process of the becoming of man before he entered into social relations. Consequently, Marx knows nothing of the human nature which underlies the ensemble of social relations, and induces men to enter into those relations. 

That substratum of human nature is stable; otherwise the world of men could not be differentiated from the world of animals, ruled by the laws of the jungle. That rock bottom of human nature antedates the economic and political organization of society. The origin of mind is tobe traced in his physical and biological history. In that sense mental activities are determined in the earlier stages by physical existence and thereafter by social conditions. But the becoming of man involves the parallel process of mental and physical activities. The relation between the two is not that of causality, but of priority. From primitive consciousness mind evolves in the context of a biological organism. The latter being an organization of matter, the priority of being must be conceded to matter.

 Marx did not carry the analysis of mental phenomena far enough, beyond the dawn of social history. Therefore, on the one hand, his Materialism is dogmatic, unscientific and, on the other hand, the negation of a constant element in human nature leads to the negation of morality. Without the recognition of some permanent values, no ethics is possible. If they are not to be found in human nature, morality must have a transcendental sanction. The choice for Marxist Materialism, therefore, was between the negation of abiding moral values and relapse into religion. Theoretically, it chose the first, although in practice dogmatism eventually also put on it a stamp of religious fanaticism.” (Pages : 395, 396)

 Notes:-

1.    (*) “For the first time since the sun appeared in the heavens, and the planets began to revolve around it, man took up his stand as thinking animal and began to base his view of the world on reason” (Hegel).

“As a student, he shared with Schelling a highly critical attitude towards the political and ecclesiastical lassitude of his country and subscribed to the doctrine of liberty and reason. There is a story that after the battle of Jena, the two young enthusiasts, Schelling and Hegel, one morning went out to the neighbouring forest and danced around a “tree of liberty” which they had planted there”.(Pp-374, Pp-375, RRR) 

2.    (#) “There is nothing which is not an intermediate position between being and non-being.” (Hegel). (Pp-398, RRR)   

(to be continued)

Reason Romanticism and Revolution

M.N.Roy

Ajanta Books International,

L – UB, Jawahar Nagar,

Bungalow Road

Delhi - 110007

RATIONALISM AND COMMUNISM - X

A Rational Critique of Marxism and Communism - X

(Selected Passages from: "Anthology of M. N. Roy's

Writings: Essence of Royism")

1.    Marxism and Philosophy

 "Marxism revolutionizes philosophy itself. It sets new tasks to philosophy; previously philosophy has simply tried to explain the world, but in future it must point out the way to a reconstruction of the world". (Page:139)

 2.    Marxism - Intelligent Understanding

 "Its mechanical orthodox protagonists regard Marxism as the philosophy of the proletariat. If that was a correct appreciation of Marxism, if it was the ideology only of the proletarian revolution, Marxism would be of no immediate use for us in this country. We cannot take up that position, because our point of departure is acceptance of Marxism, and that is not a mechanical acceptance. We do not profess Marxism fanatically as converts to a new religion. Our profession is based upon an intelligent understanding. Therefore, we cannot be forced to the position where Marxism appears to have no practical application to the problems of the Indian revolution". (Page:139)

 3.    Two Pictures

 "In the capitalist society, the Marxian view would be that the proletariat is the only revolutionary class. But socially, we are not living in the twentieth century. We are living in an earlier epoch. Let us remember the fundamental principle of Marxism: Consciousness is determined by existence. In India, we are having our political being in the social atmosphere of the seventeenth or sixteenth century. Our political consciousness therefore, must be determined by that particular nature of our social being. The idea that the proletariat is the most revolutionary class cannot spontaneously grow in us; it can only be artificially cultivated. Because, our appreciation of the roles of the various social classes in contemporary India must be determined by their actual position. It would be completely un - Marxian to assert that in India today the proletariat is the most revolutionary class, and that the other classes cannot have any revolutionary role. That idea cannot enter in our mind in the scientific process of ideation; at best it is an idealistic proposition. Instead of looking at the thing as it is, and letting environments react on our consciousness, thereby determining the process of our thought, we would be cramping our mind with what we have read in books." (Page:142)

 4.    Philosophical Radicalism 

"What is called philosophical Radicalism, that is, the philosophy of the bourgeois revolution, was a revolutionary ideology in a social atmosphere which happens to be also our environment in India today. That being the case, it should not be difficult for us to reconcile our Marxist conscience with what is known as the philosophical Radicalism of the bourgeois revolution.

 Things must be connected directly. A certain mode of thought is liquidated by another mode of thought which immediately follows it. The religious mode of thought was liquidated by the rationalist mode of thought which resulted from a change in social environments brought about by the development of science. Today we know that bourgeois Radicalism was defective. It did not go very far. It had still some connection with the religious mode of thought, and ultimately became itself a form of religion. Even the modern idealist philosophy is only a form of rationalized religion. Nevertheless, it is equally true that philosophical Radicalism was the solvent for the religious mode of thought. It was the direct outcome of scientific knowledge and of the changes brought about by it in the social atmosphere, namely, the revolution in the process and means of production.

 The religious mode of thought still prevails in our country. The popular mind is still swayed, consciously or unconsciously, by religious prejudices. So much so, that even Marxism, somehow or other, has been transformed into a sort of religion. It is conceived as a creed or held as a faith. In the ideological field we have still to dissolve and liquidate the religious mode of thought. Before that is done, any other form of thought or any other philosophy will simply not be understood. Therefore, the intervening period of philosophical Radicalism must be there. It is the intervening link. There must be a connection between the past and the future." (Pages:143,144)

 5.    No Inevitability 

"Marxism knows no inevitability. The belief in inevitability is fatalism. Marxism knows only necessity. That which is determined takes place. But a thing or event is determined by a number of causes. Its fructification or its abortion may have been determined by some additional causes unknown to us. Therefore, nothing can be inevitable. Nowhere in Marxism is it asserted that Socialism becomes inevitable at a certain stage of social development. Marxism only says that at a stage of the evolution of society socialism becomes necessary for further development. If by some other reason any particular community has been doomed to disappear, the change to Socialism will not take place. There will be no further development, but disintegration. That has happened in history. Marxism does not allow the assertion that a similar tragedy will not happen again." (Page:144)

 6.    Our Inverted Projection

 "Only as Marxists we can be the representatives of the proletariat as well as of the bourgeoisie. Here the principle of identity is in operation. Marxism enables us to see that there are two relations in society: one of antagonism and the other of identity. At a later stage, there will be a conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But today, in the atmosphere of the sixteenth or seventeenth century’s social conditions, in which we are having our being, the actual identity is much greater than the would-be difference. Consequently, as Marxists, it becomes permissible for us to advocate a programme of social revolution which under normal conditions would mean the establishment of capitalist society.

 Marxism thus being a sort of inverted projection with us, we are the bearers of a light projected from the future, as far as our country is concerned. That appears to be a rather strange position. For us, as social beings, to be Marxists should appear anomalous. Because we are trying to apply Marxism to the problems of a time before Marx lived. In a sense for us, Marx is still to be born. How can we, then, call ourselves Marxists? We can do so only by differentiating Marxism from the personality of Karl Marx." (Page:144, 145)

 7.    French Revolution 

"The French Revolution was not an accident. It was not an isolated event. It was part of a whole process. The period of revolution, which culminated in the French Revolution, actually began as far back as the fourteenth century, even earlier. The germs of the bourgeois revolution, which undermined religion, as well as overthrew feudalism, sprouted in the Christian monasteries. The process continued for several hundred years before it broke out into momentous events which took place much earlier than the French Revolution. The latter generally believed to be the beginning of a period of mischievous events in Europe, was preceded by great revolutions in England as well as the American Revolution. England had experienced political revolution even earlier. The Magna Carta was the result of revolution. On the Continent of Europe, great revolutionary outbreaks had occurred during three hundred years before the process culminated in the French Revolution. The most outstanding among them were: the foundation of the Italian Republics; the heretical movement and uprising in central and eastern Europe; the Garman Peasant War; and the rise of the Dutch Republic." (Page:159,160)

 8.    Jacobinism 

"If we wish to find a historical analogy to the task set to ourselves, we should fix upon neither the Russian Revolution nor any other revolution of our time. We shall have to go further back and find our prototype in the Jacobins of the French Revolution. The Social foundation of the party we propose to organize is very analogous to that of the Jacobins. The leading cadre of our party will be to a very large extent come from the identical class. The Jacobins carried through the bourgeoisie revolution in the teeth of the opposition of the bourgeoisie. The representatives of the bourgeoisie, who had heralded the revolution, went over to the camp of counter-revolution, and the Jacobins carried it through against the feudal aristocracy as well as the big bourgeoisie. The relation of classes in contemporary India is somewhat analogous. But the analogy is bound to be incomplete. There is a difference of nearly two hundred years.

 For the ideology of Jacobinism, we must turn to the French    Materialists of the eighteenth century "the Physiocrats and the Encyclopedists" and they were the direct predecessors of Marxism in the line of philosophical ancestry. On the other hand, in Jacobinism, the rationalist philosophy culminated and exhausted itself. Jacobinism made a Goddess of reason; a religion was made of Rationalism. Rationalism played its role as a solvent of the religious mode of thought. But in Jacobinism, it exhausted all its possibilities and opened the way for the development of eighteenth century Materialism towards Marxism. Historically, in the philosophical sense, we in India today are standing in such a period of transition. We are very much influenced by the scientific mode of thinking. We are also attracted by the materialistic philosophy. But at the same time, as a whole, the people who will take part in this revolution, and even many of those who will constitute its leadership, may be attracted rather by Rationalism than by out and out Materialism." (Page:147,148)

 9.    Twentieth century Jacobinism 

"Another characteristic feature of the tendency we represent is that it is a tendency towards a direct development in the direction of socialist reconstruction of society. That tendency was there also in Jacobinism. It was represented by Baboeuf and his followers. They also were the product of that period of the French Revolution which was under the leadership of the Jacobins. But at that time, the tendency could not assert itself, because consciousness – the ideas and thoughts – had to be determined by the environments of the time. The bourgeoisie were afraid. They could not carry through the revolution. The petit-bourgeoisie, which at the time of the French Revolution included the working class just as is the case in India today, carried through the revolution. But once the revolution was carried through, it was the bourgeoisie who came into power. Nevertheless, the tendency to develop directly towards Socialism was there all the time, represented first by Baboeuf, and later on by Blanqui and others, and ultimately by the Paris Commune. The tendency did not disappear with the failure of Baboeuf. It manifested itself throughout the entire period of the French Revolution, and disappeared only with the fall of the Paris Commune.

     The Indian Revolution is taking place in an entirely different period of history, when the relation of classes on the world scale has completely changed, and the economic conditions and technological development necessary for the reconstruction of the world as a socialist society have been created. Therefore, once the revolution takes place in our time, though with a Jacobin ideology and with a Jocobinist programme, the tendency towards a direct development in Socialism, which was inherent in Jacobinism, will most probably prevail in our country. For all these reasons, I would suggest that our ideology, the ideology of the party which is to lead the Indian Revolution, be named Twentieth Century Jacobinism. I make the suggestion tentatively. It is made pending the formulation of some other name which may be more appropriate. Marxism applied to a bourgeois democratic revolution, Marxist theory applied in practice to the problems of the bourgeois democratic revolution, is Jacobinism. Therefore, Marxism applied to the social problems of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, to be solved in the atmosphere of the twentieth century, can be called Twentieth Century Jacobinism.

 An orthodox exposition of Marxism, of the Anglo-Saxon or German or Russian variety, will not help us, I want to make you understand this point; we have the privilege – history has given it to us – of not only carrying through a peculiar, a new and unprecedented type of revolution and create a new form of State opening up the possibility of a new line of development as transition to socialist society; we are also privileged to make some original contribution to what is known as Marxism. If we do not do that then we have no business to call ourselves Marxists.

 The point is that we are functioning in a very peculiar situation, living simultaneously in two periods of history. This peculiarity of our being must determine our thought, which therefore, cannot fit into any of the known patterns. We approach every problem from the point of view of a philosophy called Marxism. In my opinion, it is not a narrow philosophy of any particular class, but the quintessence of the entire process of human development. The result of our Marxist approach may, and I am inclined to believe that it is bound to be, an amplification of Marxism. Don't be hidebound in the belief that the whole truth has already been discovered, that the text should not be changed, and that we can only interpret it. That is scholasticism. Marxism is something entirely different.

 After all, Marxism is not a body of dogmas. It is rather a method. As such, it has a permanent abiding value; As a method of approach to all the problems, it holds good for all time and under all circumstances. The method is applicable to the problems of two thousand years ago, and will be equally valid for an approach to problems of two thousand years hence. But the formulas of Marxism or the peculiar prescriptions of Marxism may not be immutable, and may have to be changed from time to time." (Page:148,149,150) 

                                                                                        (to be continued)

Anthology of  M.N. Roy's Writings :

ESSENCE OF ROYISM

Compiled by G.D. Parikh

Nav Jagritisamaj Publication

J - 149, Lokmanya Nagar

Mahim,

Bombay - 400 016

(First Edition : December 1987)

RATIONALISM AND COMMUNISM - IX

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 19^th 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 19^th 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, 19^th and early 20^th 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, 2^nd Floor

Calcutta, 700 073.