A RATIONAL CRITIQUE OF
MARXISM AND COMMUNISM - IV
(Selections from the book:
"Beyond Communism" by M. N. Roy.)
1. Updating unavoidable
"Marx's Theses on Feuerbach should be good enough for our philosophical guidance. But by experience we have found out that those philosophical principles, formulated one hundred years ago, have been proved to be inadequate in the light of human knowledge acquired since then." (Pages – 24,25)
2. Ideological Statements as Propositions of pure thought
"In the realm of ideas, deductions can be made with mathematical certainty from logically sound premises. It is permissible to test the logical soundness of the premises; but after they have stood the test, deductions made from them are valid, not tentatively, but as conclusively established propositions, provided that the methodology of the process is not fallacious, and the deductions themselves are not self-contradictory." (Page – 36)
3. Beware of rigid blue prints of future society
"Only dogmatic defenders of the economic interpretation of history claim to be able to forecast exactly what will happen to humanity in future. I would sound a word of warning against that method of casting the horoscope of mankind. Experience of modern times has proved it to be unreliable. To have anything more than an approximate idea of the future being beyond the reach of human ingenuity, any picture of things to come must necessarily be of the nature of utopia." (Page – 35)
4. Materialism is a cosmological concept where as Economic Determinism is applicable only to society
"There seems to be some difference about materialist philosophy itself, I do not think that it can be identified with economic determinism. The latter is applicable only to society and even there it does not explain every aspect of social evolution. The former is a cosmological conception, applicable for explaining the entire scheme of nature, including society." (Pages – 36, 37)
5. Beware of Extravagant Empiricism
"I do not think that materialist philosophy justifies the economic interpretation of history. The quintessence of Materialist philosophy is monism. Economic determinism is a dualist conception; therefore, it cannot be deduced from Materialism; much less can the two be identified. The concept of causality must be freed from the fallacy of dualism, if determinism is to withstand the positivist onslaught. Causality must be conceived as a function of the physical and social processes, and proved to be so. If it implies two things, one acting upon the other, there is absolutely no escape from the extravagant empiricism of Bertrand Russell, for instance, who argues that, since nobody can ever see all the crows in the world, 'all crows are black'. We can defend the proposition against pan-empiricism only by proving that a certain biological organism, by virtue of its own structure, produces black feathers. So long as a bird is constructed as a crow is constructed, it must be black. Causality is not an empirical, but a logical concept. Economic determinism cannot be established either empirically or logically." (Pages – 41, 42)
6. Dialectics ceases to operate !!!
"A classless society will be stagnant. Because, according to Marxism, class struggle is the lever of all progress. In a classless society, the dialectics of history will cease to operate; progress will come to a standstill; humanity will die, Marxism, as understood and expounded by its dogmatic apostles as the last word of wisdom, the final truth, is thus not the philosophy of freedom, but a sentence of death for mankind. In theory, economic determinism logically leads to such an absurd conclusion. In practice, it becomes a negation of the Marxist utopia. The State does not wither away under Communism. Since the State, particularly as a dictatorship, is an instrument for the suppression of all forces discordant with the established order, its not withering away under Communism proves that economic relations do not constitute the whole of human life, or that even under Communism they are not equitable. In either case, the economic interpretation of history is proved to be false; and a scheme of political practice and social reconstruction elaborated with that false philosophical sanction, can no longer serve the purpose of the struggle for freedom." (Page – 42)
7. What is rationalism?
"The most acceptable definition should be that rationalism is accordance with reason. That is platitudinous. Verbal definitions usually suffer from that defect. The definition of this particular term immediately provokes another question: What is reason? Unless we can trace reason to the common denominator of monistic Materialism, rationalism has no meaning for me. I attach greater importance to meaning - than to verbal definition. Albertus Maguns, for example, was a great rationalist one of the greatest of all ages. But there is a world of difference between his rationalism and ours. Modern rationalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was essentially teleological. Reason was conceived as a metaphysical category or it remained veiled in mystery. It was not a personal idiosyncrasy of Robespierre to have raised Reason to the pedestal of a goddess; nor was it a perversity on the part of the Hibbertist members of the Convention to have a Parisian prostitute impersonate the deity of the Revolution. Unless reason is identified as inherent in physical nature, and its operations are brought within the reach of intelligence, rationalism is hardly to be differentiated from a sophisticated religion - a philosophical or scientific faith. Therefore, we are searching for the material content of the concept of reason.
In biology, we come up against such terms as instinct, intuition, impulse, etc. Are they all elementary indefinables? Are they just given a priori? Materialism knows no elementary indefinable. It reduces everything to the common denominator of the physical Universe, subject to its fundamental law. Not finding a rational explanation of reason - in biology, I go farther. The entire physical Universe is a determined process of becoming. Therefore, I identify reason with determinism in nature. All biological processes, including man's mental activities, take place in the context of the physical Universe, being integral parts thereof. So reason is a property of physical existence. It is neither metaphysical nor a mystic category." (Pages – 43, 44)
8. For an appropriate nomenclature
"Materialism has been so badly misinterpreted and vulgarized by its protagonists that, as soon as you say that you are a materialist, you are taken for a man without morals, without principles, a Jesuit and a cut-throat. From that point of view, the apprehension regarding the declaration of our adhesion to Materialism is quite well-founded, and if we modify the term, the apprehended reaction may be obviated. As regards the substitution of the term Materialism by another, I have been thinking about it for many years. Strictly speaking, the term has lost its meaning. It makes a wrong impression. But it has not been possible to find a more appropriate term. Terms like Monistic Naturalism or Physical Realism may be considered. But then we shall have to write an essay to make people understand. In the beginning, it may create more confusion. The communists will say we are dishonest, that we reject Materialism, but do not dare to say so. Others will think that we still remain materialists, but have not the courage to say so, and are only trying to insinuate ourselves into their favour." (Pages – 28, 29)
9. The Problem of Ethics
" My approach to the problem of ethics is also materialistic. I believe that not only is a materialist ethics possible, but that materialist morality is the noblest form of morality, because it enables man to be moral without debasing himself before imaginary super-human powers. Unless ethical concepts and moral values can be derived from the process of pre-human biological evolution, they cannot stand criticism except on the authority of God or some ad hoc metaphysical assumption. Either morality is inborn in us, or we are moral under the dictate of some external agency. You cannot have it both ways. If you reject the proposition that man is moral because he is rational, then, you have to reject morality, or you have to accept the morality of the priests and pundits. Morality is a kind of human conduct. If human beings are rational, there must be a connection between morality and rationalism. Morality is an appeal to conscience. But what is conscience? Here is another concept which has remained veiled in mystery even in modern rationalist moral philosophies. I conceive conscience as awareness of social responsibility. The sense of social responsibility does not necessarily run counter to individual freedom. On the contrary, it can easily be shown how it results from the urge for freedom. The struggle for existence, in the form of that urge in human beings, led to the foundation of society. Unless the relation was deliberately distorted, means should not defeat the end. Founded with the purpose of enabling its constituents to pursue the urge for freedom more successfully, society should not be an instrument for the suppression of freedom. The existence and continuation of society are conditional upon its individual members feeling their social responsibility, and discharging it loyally. In a rational system, social responsibility, therefore, is not antagonistic to individual freedom. If human beings become conscious of their essential rationality, the harmony of social responsibility, that is to say of respect for others' urge for freedom, with the freedom of each citizen would be automatically established. Let me illustrate what I mean.
If I started with the conviction that I was a member of society because, in cooperation with others moved by the same urge, I could develop my potentialities more successfully, social responsibility should be my natural impulse. I do not like anybody restricting my freedom; therefore I should willingly grant the same right to every other member of society. Consciousness of the urge for freedom is the decisive factor; once that is there, the respect of others' freedom naturally follows, and social responsibility is voluntarily undertaken by all. Imagine a community of people, everyone of them acting according to this conviction, and we shall have a moral society. It will be moral, because it is rational. Because I do not want any one to do any harm to me, I should not do any harm to others. This reciprocity is the foundation of society. In a rational society, appeal to conscience is not a mystic device for subordination to some metaphysical compulsion or divine coercion.
If we do not trace ethical sense to the rational instinct of man, then moral values become dogmatic propositions: somebody dictates them to us. The relativist attitude to morality is the natural reaction to dogmatic, irrational, coercive ethics. And moral relativity is immorality. As soon as you take a relativist attitude to morality, you take your stand on the declining plane of Jesuitism. Everything will be tested by result, and if the most immoral behavior will lead to a good result - good for you – you will say that it is moral. Therefore, if we want at all an ethics, we shall have to start from the proposition that there are such things as human values; and human values are eternal, in so far as humanity is eternal. The term eternal is not used in the physical sense. What is meant is that ethical concepts and moral values originated with homo sapiens; they have no super-human origin, nor any divine, transcendental sanction. Since all human urges can be traced back to pre-human biological evolution, morality also must ultimately be derived from that source. There was no class struggle in the pre-human world. Ethical behavior being of pre-human biological origin, moral values of the human world are universal. The humanist approach to history, the humanist philosophy, enables us to conceive of universal human values. Therefore, I place ethics in the context of the rational scheme of the physical Universe. A rational ethics is possible only as a part of materialist philosophy." (Pages – 46, 47, 48):
[to be continued]
Visit: http://brightskerala.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment