EASTERN MARXISM
S.N. Nagarajan
The chapter of the West is closed. The last pages were those of Marx and Lenin. Now that chapter has come to a close. Should that mean that we should join the neo-liberals and accept some so-called benign kind of capitalism? Never! Capitalism is only the way to the graveyard. The mighty majority of every kind of socialist, Marxian and non Marxian, has become disillusioned. Two of the greatest revolutionaries who accepted Marx and whose credentials cannot be questioned even by their enemies could not save the name of Marx. His economic plan did not show the way for any egalitarian order. That can only mean that the way or the means or the method Marx indicated has some basic flaw in it. Even Mao who corrected the basic flaw could not solve the theoretical issue. The riddle (of history), as Marx claimed, is not yet solved. Unless you go beyond Marx and Lenin, you cannot find the way for establishing an egalitarian order. If you do not discover the way for such a new culture, the result will certainly be ruinous. There can be no escape. That was clear to Marx when he declared, “either overall reorganisation of the society at large or the ruining of the contending classes.”
Prof. J.B.S. Haldane said before 1963 that Gandhi and Marx should be blended. Gandhi also told Saklatwala, a communist MP in England, that in the end we meet. By this Gandhi, a self-proclaimed anarchist, declared that his vision of the future was also an egalitarian society, and he added that he differed from the communists only on the question of Means, which should include the economic foundation also. In fact, Marx himself clearly says that the economic foundation is not the goal, which means that his aim is also the new humanity of free beings – the brave new world of new men and women, free from any kind of internal fear. It is in a way the Christian dream, the heaven on earth. Hence Howlet Johnson, the Red Dean of Canterbury could say, “Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” In a similar way the Mexican Liberation theologian (Jose Pe Miranda) actually attempts to portray Marx as the first liberation theologian (Marx against Marxists).
In a very essential way Marx re-echoes the great message of Christ, which was almost misinterpreted by the Church. The Christian message is that finally the world belongs to the meek. The meek can easily represent the working class. However, the Church promised the heaven not on this earth, but after death! So the revolutionary message of Christ was turned into a reactionary one. It was used to protect exploiting private property. In this way Christianity could be used to serve the exploiters.
Capitalism is inherently throughout eco-destructive. It cannot solve in any way the ecological question. It is resulting in the extinction of species. We are raping Mother Earth. She will turn into a Kali and finish us to protect her other children (animals and plants). Occidental rationalist demystification of reality has led only to control of Nature. The fundamental optimism of Marx and Engels is simply refuted. Their assumptions are false. The relation between Man and Nature as opposite and the idea of struggle and control will only lead to the consolidation of the very class system they (Marxists) want to destroy; it will only strengthen the apparatus of oppression (Weber).
The ecological debate of the 1970s provided a chance to extend Marxist theory and practice to make it up-to-date, but it did not happen. The European Left has not become a part of the ecological movement. The issue being the developmental paradigm (the Marxist obsession), the revolutionary Left has purely an abstract concern about the ecological issue. Within the traditional Marxist thought the ecological issue is merely an after-thought which is forgotten when other questions are dealt with. In their debate on the issue of the future society (in the New Left Review) Mandel and Alex Nove did not pay any attention to the ecological question. The ecological question has become a symbol for general dissatisfaction with the model of development. The question presents us with the need for a new model of eco-socialism. It demands new thinking on the part of the Left. To their great credit the Greens have posed the question. There is no systematic theory of Nature and we can understand why at this stage a principled unity of the Reds, Greens and Feminists is not possible.
Capitalism of any kind cannot solve the human problem. It will have to be eco-destructive. You can never have eco-friendly capitalism. Hence it cannot be allowed. However, Marxist or non-Marxist socialism which is expected to be built on a heavy industrial base with the help of modern science and its technologies can never help in creating any kind of egalitarian society. The defeat of Marx was inherent in the socialist programme as suggested by Marx himself. So we have to admit that the means proposed by Marx are against the end, the end being an egalitarian society or the new humanity. It is now necessary to examine the Means that could not help in creating socialism. Let us examine how Gandhi, the anarchist, differs in this respect. Gandhi’s vision is Grama Rajya. It is not at all based on any kind of heavy industry. It is very much a self-reliant, recycling rural economy – no doubt free from untouchability. The main thing is individual needs are reduced to essentials and this is done voluntarily. Gandhi insists that without such an approach the new world is simply impossible. Such an attitude is the only one that can help in saving the life basis.
In this context we should have a clear idea of the most important difference or differences between the Marxists and Gandhi. Gandhi connects man’s freedom as well as good qualities with the act of voluntary reduction of personal needs, called Aparigraha. Such an approach can only lay the foundation of the new humane, brave, fearless society. He says, “Industrialise and Perish”, whereas all the Marxists as well as the other socialists declare, “Industrialise or Perish!” It did not mean that Gandhi was totally against industries and machines. He had very clear notions of them. Where we cannot but use machinery then only we should. This would have been called walking on two legs by Mao. It is also very much related to the energy problem.
An egalitarian society cannot be realised if hard energy becomes the dominant or determining aspect. Soft energy only can be really eco-friendly. Gandhi rightly observed that “Nature can satisfy our needs but not our greed.” Such an approach alone can prevent minority control. Real freedom is possible only when we reduce our personal needs. The idea of multiplication and satisfaction of needs can never help in the evolution of any kind of an egalitarian society. Marx did not recognise this very fundamental truth. Hence his way failed. It had to. Marx and Marxists believe that multiplication of needs can be met by the development of technologies. They also think only such a satisfaction can also make people less selfish or less greedy!
Such an approach cannot make people free from object bondage. The western socialist programme can only be heavily urban biased because it is based on the foundation of heavy industries and because of this it will also be eco-destructive. It will soon exhaust the non renewable fuels and will have to opt for atomic hard energy. There can be no chance of decentralisation and hence no chance for the rule of the majority. It will be the dictatorship of the minority using a coercive state apparatus.
Marx finally demands high degree of intellectual equipment from the rulers. So his aim of working class rule cannot be possible. This problem is solved by Lenin by his idea of vanguard which was the communist party. Such an organisation above the class is not there in the writings of Marx.
We should know the basic defect in the understanding of Marx himself to understand the seriously defective approach of Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists and Maoists towards the most important and vital issue of the life base – the ecological question. This defect can be clearly seen in his non-recognition of the cognitive, creative and liberating role of love and loving service in his epistemology or ontology. The relation between Man and Nature (non-human) is essentially hostile. This is also found in the understanding of Darwin whose work (theory of natural selection) Marx almost uncritically accepted. In Darwin’s explanation of the origin of the various species of animals, Marx claims that he found the objective scientific basis for his thesis of class struggle in human history or social evolution and finally he concludes that the riddle of history is solved. It means we should evaluate Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In the final analysis Darwin’s explanation is based on the notion of competition, elimination and selection where the fit survive and all the weaker beings are eliminated. The roles of cooperation and altruistic association are treated as marginal and apparently have no role in organic evolution.
This is also the most fundamental idea of Neo Darwinism which also says that mutations are random changes and evolution is essentially opportunistic. Darwin claims that one of the ideas that inspired him was that of Malthus (Essay on Population). However, he admits that if altruism were to be selectively advantageous to the species his theory would be wrong. Perhaps Marx did not know about this observation of Darwin. When Feuerbach began to toy with the idea of creating a religion based on love because he perhaps felt deeply that atheism would create a kind of spiritual vacuum among the people and Marx and Engels came to know about this, they simply chided him by saying he had abandoned politics and refused to examine the reasons behind his endeavour.
Marx just demands a change in the production relationship from a hostile and inimical one to a harmonious one, which is equated with a free relationship. He does not see freedom or free relationship beyond economic relationship. Perhaps any kind of inequality is inimical to free relationship for him. Free relationship can be really enduring only when it transcends equality because in reality inequality of one kind or another is the norm. Haldane, the Marxist biologist, fully realising this wrote, “Inequality of Man.” In our great tradition, the relationship between the infinite mighty and the relative puny or tiny there could be free relationship if it were to be based on love.
Marx in our language is a Gnana-Karma Margi, yet of a poorer kind because he did not recognise the cognitive and liberationist role of love and loving service which also means that he did not realise the best or even the only way to be free from the object bondage about which he is quite concerned. Marx does not deal with the three kinds of object bondage, i.e., of Matter (wealth) that of Flesh (sensory, colour, caste) and that of the Devil (ego or ahankar). He deals with only that of wealth. There too he did not show the way simply because he did not recognise the significance of voluntary reduction as well as rejection of personal needs (Aparigraha). Mere expropriation of property cannot make anyone free from object bondage; it can more easily produce the opposite effect. Is this not the lesson of the last 85 years of experience?
No wonder that Haldane came finally to the very sound conclusion that Marx and Gandhi should be blended. That is Eastern Marxism, a blending of Mao and Kumarappa which is the way to avoid the shortcomings of both while preserving the essence.
[Extracts from S.N. Nagarajan’s Letter to Somashekar, 2002, under the title The Summing Up....]