A RATIONAL CRITIQUE OF
MARXISM AND COMMUNISM - I
(SELECTED
PASSAGES FROM THE BOOK:
‘NEW ORIENTATION’ BY M.N.ROY)
1. Revolution and Radicalism
“Iconoclasm
is the fundamental spirit of revolution. But iconoclasts themselves often set
up new icons. The iconoclasts who went ahead of us destroyed old icons, but
have set up new ones. Since they are the high-priests of the new temple, they
do not want that their icons should be destroyed. But if we want to follow
their footsteps and act as revolutionaries, we shall have to pull down the new
icons. As revolutionaries, we claim the right to tear down their icons just as
they had to tear down older icons. That is the path of revolution, which we
must travel in quest of freedom. If your ideal is not freedom, but proletarian
dictatorship or closed system of Communism, then we must part company, for you
to lag behind, and others to march forward towards unexplored regions.’’(Page –
76)
2.
Radicalism and Marxism
“We need only remember the cardinal principle of the philosophy
we profess, viz. Marxism. Man is the maker of his destiny. But Marxism is not
conceived as a philosophy. It has been degraded to what is called “a
revolutionary technique” to be with the masses, at all cost. The man, however,
must differentiate himself from the masses before he can be the maker of his
destiny. To be radical is to grasp the matter by its root. Now, “the root of
mankind is man him self.” That is not my opinion. That is a quotation from
Marx, Intelligence, the ability to control emotion with reason, differentiates
man from the masses.
While not underestimating the importance of the role
emotion plays in human behavior, our political practice must be guided by
intelligence. There must be a clear understanding of what we are doing, and for
what we are doing, and for what purpose we are doing a particular thing. That
is the essence of scientific politics.” (Page – 17, 18)
3.
Need all critics be class enemies?
“Criticism
is neither rejection nor negation. All critics of Marxism are not necessarily
anti-Marxist. Marxism is not a system of dogmas; it knows no final and absolute
truth. Regarding experience as the only source of knowledge and truth, it is
bound to adjust itself continuously to unforeseen events and changing
circumstances. But every system of thought tends towards orthodoxy, which is a
sign of stagnation. Constant criticism is the guarantee against that danger.
Holding that thought is determined by being, Marxism admits not only the
possibility, but necessity, of self-development. Therefore, I cannot rule out
criticism. Indeed a critical Marxist is the conscience keeper of Marxism. Its
own critical nature guards the purity of Marxist thought. The Radical is a
Marxist in this sense, not as a blind believer. He accepts the positive
contributions of Marxism, in so far as they are not contradicted by subsequent
social experience and scientific knowledge, and inspired by the heretical and
iconoclastic spirit of that precious heritage, proposes to elaborate, enlarge
and enrich it. So, let there be no guilty conscience on account of our critical
view of Marxism. We should be proud of our intellectual honesty as well as the effort
to make some contribution to revolutionary theory and practice” (Page – 43, 44)
4.
What is Marxism?
“I do not regard Marxism as a methodology. You must
have noticed that I have always insisted on the view that Marxism is a
philosophy, something more than a system of economics, or a political theory,
or again a technique of revolution, as it is called by some, Indeed, it is more
than all that taken together. Primarily, it is a system of pure thought, a
philosophy, The intolerant orthodox may condemn this view as idealism; it may
be, and idealism may not be such a bad thing, after all. I do not stick to
Marxian methodology. I am concerned with its essential philosophical features,
and these again are to be seen in their historical setting. As a philosophy
Marxism is the outcome of the development of thought from the dawn of history;
therefore, it is the heritage of humanity; it is the ideological equipment
belonging to everybody fighting for a better world. Anything in Marxism that
cannot be reconciled with that appreciation of it, I reject.” (Page – 110, 111)
5.
The Indian Scenario
" In
our country, the bourgeoisie did not grow as a fully differentiated and
sufficiently large class. Therefore, we do not have a stereotyped articulate
capitalist society, for which the Marxist pattern of revolution was prepared.
In India, the classes are inbred, the vast bulk of the people being more or
less an amorphous mass. A monolithic party of the proletariat can have no
social basis. The ideology, programme and demands of any particular class
cannot rally the whole people. At the same time, a vast majority of the people
can be mobilized with a humanist appeal - a programme of political freedom,
social reconstruction and cultural progress, all palpably beneficial for most
men and women. That is possible. Because, Indian society is not a healthy
organism; it is diseased. It is based, on the one hand, on decomposed feudal
relations and, on the other, on weak, halting, capitalist relations. There is
no economic cement to hold it together, no economic cohesion. On the basis of
such a society, no stable State can be built. There could be a stable
imperialist State imposed from outside. That is now gone. The rising national
State will not be able to stabilize itself, because it will be confronted with
baffling economic problems and deep-seated social contradictions. Such an
unstable State can be pulled down easily, if the proper method is adopted.
Therefore, we are so very particular about the philosophy of our politics and
the structure of our party. It must be a party not of the economic man,
belonging either to the bourgeoisie or to the proletariat; it will be the party
of the moral man. Its appeal will be directed to human beings, not to classes.
Appeal to class interest goes over the head of the people, because classes are
not clearly differentiated; the proletariat is half-peasant; the peasantry is
half-feudal and largely proletarianised; the urban petit-bourgeoisie is
proletarianised, but not free from the feudal mentality. Capitalist and feudal
relations are inextricably interwoven. There is no sufficiently large group with
a common interest. Therefore, the appeal to revolt against the intolerable
conditions of life must be addressed to individual men and women, particularly
to those who are qualified to appreciate human values. A party of moral men,
moved by the ideal of human freedom, therefore, alone can be the instrument for
pulling down the Fascist State rising on the unstable foundation of a
disintegrated society. The type of the revolution will be determined by the
peculiarities of social conditions and cultural atmosphere; a new type of
revolution requires a new kind of party as its instrument. That is historical
determinism, which is the core of Marxist wisdom.” (Page – 132, 133)
6.
Should Marxists be averse to enriching Marxism?
“................ I may take the liberty of drawing your attention to an assertion
made while raising the question whether I was not revising Marxism. It is, that
Marxists have enriched Marxism by incorporating all the new scientific
knowledge gained since the days of Marx. I am afraid that is not true; the
discoveries of modern physics have rendered nineteenth century Materialism
completely untenable; yet, the Marxist pundits even to-day fight philosophical
criticism based on twentieth century physics by quoting scriptures from Engels’
Anti-Duhring, written nearly a hundred years ago. Anyhow, once you admit that
is permissible to adjust Marxian theory to human experience made since the days
of Karl Marx, then you will come to realize that everything I have said can be
fitted into the scheme of Marxism as a philosophy. If that cannot be done, then
we shall have to place all the works of Marx in the dusty archives, attaching
to them nothing more than historical value for to-day or for the future.” (Page
– 146)
7.
Twins of Irrationalism
“Both
Communism and Fascism stand for collectivism. The Communist collective ego is
the proletariat class; and the Fascist collective ego is the nation. Both
sacrifice the individual on the altar of the collective ego. It makes no
difference whether it is the class or the nation. That being the case, when
Communists establish a National State and become the prophets of patriotism,
their collective ego can hardly be distinguished from that of the Fascists. In
either case, it is totalitarian. So, the dividing line between Fascism and a
decadent Communism is very thin. If one is not very rigid about the philosophy
of life, does not insist on the purity of his ideas, and does not continually
subject his ideals to a searching criticism, without knowing it, any day he may
step over the borderline, to find himself in a peculiar company.” (Page – 94,
95)
8.
Man, the maker of his own destiny
“Communism
does not recognize the individual; his very existence is ruled out as an
abstraction. The theory is that the individual exists only as a part of the
collectivity. With this theory, communism breaks away from its philosophical
anchorage. It does not result from the fundamental philosophical principle of
Marxism, namely, being determines consciousness. Collective life is conditional
upon man’s consciousness of the existence of others, and his consciousness is
the result of this being. Social organization presupposes the existence of
individuals. Collective effort is the means to the end of man’s
self-expression, which is another name for freedom, Man must be there before he
can cooperate or collectivise with others. Marx was more explicit than the
above philosophical formula; he actually declared: “Man is the root of things.”
This liberating doctrine was formulated by Protagoras two and a half
millenniums ago, and has been the basic impetus for all social and cultural
progress ever since. The ancient Greek sage said “Main is the measure of
everything.” (Page -101)
9.
Negation of Freedom will not lead to a higher form
of Democracy
“The
new philosophy I plead for is Marxism, freed from the orthodoxy, from its
association with the new status quo.
To do that, we need only to realize that Marxism is not identical with
communism; the one is a philosophy, and as such, a statement of eternal truths;
the other is a political practice. If we hold high the flaming torch of
Marxism, understood as the sum total of the entire human heritage, the way
beyond Communism will be clearly visible. What is to be done concretely, is to
replace the economic man by the moral man, to realize that humanism is not
incompatible with the materialist philosophy. When I ask you to see beyond
Communism, to find a ray of hope penetrating the deep gloom of our time, I do
not suggest that the reorganization of society so as to eliminate the injustice
and inequalities of the old order is not necessary, It must take place; but the
pattern must change, as also the means of attaining it. The problem of
harmonizing planned economy with individual freedom should not baffle human
ingenuity. What is necessary is regarded only as the means for the attainment
of the goal of freedom. Once that is done, the vision of the ideal will serve
as a constant corrective for all aberrations in the practice of Communism. It
is also humanly possible to prevent that the individual citizen is swallowed up
by the Leviathan. Again, we need a faith: democracy is possible; only it must
outgrow the fetters of parliamentary formalism. On the other hand, we must
discard the fallacious doctrine that negation of democracy (dictatorship) will
lead to a higher democracy.” (Page – 105)
10.
For Marxism to be the Philosophy of the Future
“I do not want to be a bastard of Karl Marx. I want
to be his spiritual descendant. Only in that sense can Marxism be the
philosophy of the future and claim to be the only system of human thought which
defies the danger of dogmatism and can develop with the development of human
society. I conceive Marxism in that way, and therefore I call myself a Marxist,
even when I do not recognize the authority of Marxian scriptures and
scholasticism.” (Page 147, 148)
New
Orientation
M
N Roy
Ajantha
Publications (India)
Jawahar
Nagar
Delhi
11
00 07.
