A RATIONAL CRITIQUE OF
MARXISM AND COMMUNISM - II
(SELECTIONS FROM THE BOOK:
'NEW ORIENTATION' BY M.N.ROY- CONTINUED)
1. "Political practice without a philosophy is a vulgar scramble for power." (Page – 18)
2. "Politics is a form of human activity, Human life must be guided by a philosophy. That philosophy may change from time to time. But there are certain values, certain principles, which transcend time and space. Other wise we shall have to lose faith in the progress of humanity. How can we judge that civilization is a progress of humanity? How can we judge that civilization is a progress from barbarism? There must be something common to barbarism and civilization. We can judge that this or that thing distinguishes civilization as a greater human endeavour, and therefore civilization is a progress from barbarism. Otherwise, there is no standard for measuring progress, and no ground to believe that civilization is better than barbarism.
Therefore, a philosophy, to be a guide for all forms of human action, must have some ethics, some morals, which must recognize certain things as permanent and abiding in humanity. And only a group of human beings be it a political party or any other kind of organization primarily moved by those abiding (and I should say even permanent, as permanent as humanity itself) values, can claim to be the maker of the future."(Pages – 18, 19)
3. "Without a philosophical revolution, no social revolution is possible. We shall have to remember that. We cannot make philosophical revolution by learning fallacious theories, sticking to exploded dogmas and running after false ideals."(Page – 19)
4. "I lay emphasis on the word Radicalism. I shall show that it is something different from Communism, Socialism or any other brand of "leftism". Otherwise, it would be a fraud to call ourselves Radical Democrats." (Page – 23)
5. "A group of people inspired by certain philosophical principles, by a certain view of life, logically has a distinctive approach to all problems of life, including politics, trade unionism, propaganda, agitation, and everything else. Radicalism is not revolutionary Nationalism, nor is it slightly heretical Communism. It is a distinctive philosophy." (Page – 24)
6. "The development of capitalist economy did not take the pattern set by Karl Marx; the modern State is too powerful to be overthrown as at the time of the French Revolution or of the Russian Revolution; the modern weapons and the modern technique of military operations have rendered the old technique of revolution - seizure of power through insurrection - impossible. That being so, if a radical reconstruction of society was still a historical necessity, there should be other methods of attaining the object; a new way, or new ways, of revolution must be discovered. Fanatically holding on to an untenable faith won't do. It is permissible for revolutionaries to be intelligent as well as indomitable."(Page – 35)
7. "Marxism is a philosophy; Communism is only a political practice - the means to an end. Neither of them is an ideal. Nevertheless, while Marxism has become a religion for its uncritical adherents, Communism is regarded by its votaries as a utopia. As long as one could only imagine about it, any skepticism about it might be dismissed either as irrelevant or prejudiced. Now it is no longer a matter of imagination. If we are Marxists, our ideas must be influenced by experience. There is the experience of the Soviet Union, and the record of the Communist Parties in other countries. That experience compels scepticism. The political practice of the Communist Parties is neither intelligent nor honest. The history of the Soviet Union makes one doubt whether Communism will lead to the ideal of freedom. I shall have more to say about the utopia of Communism. For the moment, the point is that our disapproval of the communist practice is not new. The error was to identify it with Marxism. The confusion about our attitude towards Marxism resulted from that error. On the other hand, our critical acceptance of Marxism seems to have created the belief that there is such a thing as pure Communism distinct from Communist practice. (Page – 44)
8. "They talk learnedly about historical determinism. What is that? It means that political events do not take place at random; they are caused. But that is a tautology. How are events caused? Whatever may be the origin of thoughts or ideas, any event presupposes some thought, and thought in its turn is influenced by being. Experience determines our thoughts and ideas, and these set the pattern of historical events. We started with certain ideas about revolution, and revolutionary practice; since then we have had some experience. In the light of those experience, we shall have continually to test our faith and our dogmas. That is Marxism, as I understand it. For me, Marxism is as I understand it, not as Palme-Dutt or Dimitroff, or even as Comrade Stalin teaches it. And that is how I understand it. If somebody disagrees, not with rational argument, but on the strength of authority, I should refer him to the highest authority - to comrade Marx himself (Page – 46)
9. "It is simple enough to quote scriptures. Marxism says that class antagonism has been the spring of all progress throughout history. Communism will establish a classless society. Thereupon, class antagonism will disappear. There is an obvious corollary to the assumption: with the disappearance of class antagonism the spring of progress will dry out, and the wagon of history get stuck in the morass of a utopia. It is a utopia, because there is no reason to believe that history is heading towards the disappearance of humanity. That calamity may happen, but not in the course of dialectic development which is theoretically endless. But the utopia of Communism promises only death. In a classless society, dialectics will cease to operate; history will come to a standstill and humanity will die out. This brand of what is called orthodox Communism or Marxism does not open up a vista of unlimited progress and freedom. It tells us that on such and such a day the world is going to die. I do not believe in horoscopes. Not even if it were cast by Marx himself." (Pages – 47, 48)
10. "I tell you, there is no Communism in the world today: Communism has become the most extreme form of Nationalism. We have not destroyed Communism. The Communists have done that. It is idle to owe allegiance to a lost cause, a discredited ideal, an exploded dream. Let us be realists, and find new ideals." ( Pages– 58, 59)
11. "Materialist philosophy does not exclude ideas, and the potentiality of ideas, As a matter of fact, ideas are the urge for all human activity, and all human progress. Materialism traces the origin of ideas to the physical being of man. They are not revealed; nor do they exist independently of our physical existence. But Materialism does not say that ideas have no more than a subsidiary place in the history of human progress. On the contrary, every great social or political movement was heralded by new ideas, which operated as the motive force of the movement. When these ideas exhaust all their possibilities and can no longer move men to great and heroic actions, the period of social and political development heralded by them comes to an end, and humanity begins to look out for newer ideas. New inspirations, new ideals, a new faith, in order to begin a new surge ahead. The over emphasis laid on the class character of ideas, the mechanical term "super structure", compelled Marxists to overlook the very fundamental principle of philosophy. Consequently, Marxism ceased to be a philosophy and became only a mere political practice; and political practice or a theory of political action or social revolution without a philosophical basis is bound to degenerate into pragmatism. As a matter of fact, some people in our country talk about Marxism as a technique of revolution!" ( Page – 78)
12. "Now, if Marxism, or the theory and ideology of the revolution of our time, is a creation of the proletariat, then we cannot explain how these ideas were formulated by Karl Marx at a time when the proletariat was still in its infancy. You will similarly see that the ideas and theories of the bourgeois revolution were developed by men long before the bourgeois revolution, long before the bourgeoisie had become a dominant social force. The ideologists of the bourgeois revolution lived in the atmosphere of feudal society, and themselves belonged to the feudal society. Many of them, subjectively, never broke away from the tradition of feudal culture. A man like Voltaire, for instance, subjectively was a reactionary, Then there is Balzac, a man whose contribution to the history of revolutionary thought is considerable; subjectively, he was a defender of feudal society, aristocratic culture and mediaeval traditions. Yet, nobody has done more to undermine the moral foundation of feudalism. Marx did not go to Moscow to learn his philosophy. He learned his philosophy from Hegel, who is said to be the philosopher of Fascism. How is it that the same Hegel gave birth to Marxism and also to the philosophy of Fascism? In order to understand the historical significance of these facts (there are many more), we shall have to abandon the dogma that ideas are mere super-structure built on established social relations. As against the dogma, the fact is that the so-called bourgeois ideology developed before the establishment of the bourgeois society; the so-called proletarian ideology (Marxism) also preceded the rise of the proletariat. I use the adjective "so called" because there is no such thing as bourgeois ideology or proletarian philosophy. Ideas are the common heritage of mankind. The idea and ideal of a new social order have to be conceived first; then, efforts for building it can begin. You cannot build a house without having an idea in your head. What sort of house do you want to build? A house requires a material foundation composed of bricks and stones and mortar, and it also requires an ideal picture in the brain of the architect. And that brain does not follow the foundation of the house. The brain of the architect precedes the house, just as Voltaire and Balzac preceded bourgeois society, and Karl Marx lived a hundred years before the age of proletarian revolution. Therefore, it is wrong to say that ideas and ideals have no place in Materialism. If that was true, then Materialism could not claim to be a philosophy. If Marxism was devoid of ideas, and spurned ideals, then, it could not inspire efforts for the building up of a new social order." (Pages – 78, 79)
13. "The triumph of Radical Democracy is the only hope of the world. Neither Communism nor the old-fashioned democracy can save it. Radical Democracy alone can save the world; therefore, the new faith of revolutionaries, the new hope of mankind must be found in the philosophy of Radicalism. To rescue Marxism from the rut of orthodoxy - call it revision, if you please, words don't frighten me - has become a historical necessity. Realization of the necessity sets us free; and only spiritually free men can lead the struggle for human freedom." (Pages – 82, 83)
(to be continued)
Visit: http://brightskerala.blogspot.com/
