Karl Marx stands today as one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented thinkers of all times. People have twirled and twisted his ideals since the time they were first published in communist manifesto in 1848. Today, his true legacy may not be fully appreciated and, less so, properly comprehended, but many have shared his visions - knowing or unknowing. One of them is Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Bangladeshi Grameen Bank, who vanguards Marxism in its true spirit.
Marx visualised the history of all hitherto existing societies as the history of class struggles. The two camps in this struggle manifest themselves variously in different eras as the freeman and the slave, or as the patrician and the plebeian, or in Marx's own semantics, the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The struggle is ongoing, what changes is its nature due to emergence of new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle and of course, new times. That's about it? No. Thats as good as mocking one of the most original thinkers of all times.
To quote Hal Draper "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike." Everyone has interpreted Marxism in way they understood it, or more emphatically, in the way it suited them. So we have may versions doing rounds - Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and libertarian Marxism. Then what's Marxism truly? The essence lies in contrasting the alienated nature of the labour class under capitalism with its developed nature in cooperative production. Anything else, like atheism, is not core area of Marxism (came about because the same person wrote 'On the Jewish Question' that had some critical references to judaism and Christianity.). His prediction of fall of capitalism was no wishful thinking of a dreamer, but was based on an analysis of history of means of production.
Marx had also outlined a humanist aspect of communism and a good deal of influence of philosophies of Ludwig Feuerbach is evident here. Who a person is, depends on where and when he is — social context takes precedence over innate behaviour of the individual -adaptability of human nature. But its not unidirectional and it is human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour " and the capacity to transform nature as "labour power".
“ A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. ” — (Capital, Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1)
Within every society, the mode of production changes, and that Europe had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production in first half of 19th century. Also, Marx believed that the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production (as is today, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). For Marx this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure is a major source of social disruption and conflict.
Present day is very different from what it was 150-175 years ago. And yet, present day is so similar to what it was then. Scratch the surface and you will hardly find any reason to refute Marx's class struggles theory. [Reminds me of how ancient Rome at the time of Julius Caesar was so similar to India of today (my Roman history is not so good but basing my analysis on the HBO Series on 'Rome'). But thats a separate issue, fodder for another blog.]
Capitalism, imperialism, power balancing pacts, monopoly by few countries are all as potent today as they were then- only form has changed, not the substance. And so, humanist values of Marx is as relevant today as it ever was. And where do we find these, not in the Paul Volckers and Alan Greenspans, but the Jeffrey Sachs and Muhammad Yunuses. The growing developed-developing paradigm, more commonly in literature as the ever widening north-south divide, is a result of these and anyone attempting to fight this divide or bridge this gulf is torch bearer of true Marxism in present world. Muhammad Yunus should rank as one of the foremost, if not the foremost, among them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ranjit, there are many merits in Marx and his analysis of the society and social change but the fact remains that he was over deterministic on economic causes. Contrary to Marx there are people who used religion to empower poor. Gandhi, vivekanand or jesus can be called ‘right wingers’ but they worked for the poor all the same. (daridra narayan and ‘meek shall inherit the earth’ and stuff). What younus is doing can also be rationalized from the perspective of welfare society, or judio-chritian belief system with inherent pro-poor bias, or Catholicism, or Gandhi and vivekanand. In doing so we will serve the poor and at the same time avoid the ‘marxist’ pitfall of falling into ideological battles which serves no-one.
Please forgive me for saying so but what marx needs is a peaceful burial and no reinterpretation which can again resurrect him. If we want to do something for the poor we can do so very easily by following Gandhi or vivekanand without polarizing society into haves and have nots.
@gautam
The Indian concept of secularism is a little different from the western one. They prefer apathy towards religion, rather than our view of eqaulity of status and oppurtunity. And so, they donot prefer using religion even for developmental economics.
The class struggle has been exiisting ever since society is (you are an authority on this :) ) and Marx just acknowledged it. Animosity towards Marx is more of a legacy from cold war era (US didn't mind joining hands with Soviet Union to counter Hitler) and as I said, Stalin was no true Marxist. So you see, there are layers of misconception.
Rather than peaceful burial, Marxism is rising like phoenix. Chavez and Morales are painting whole of Latin America red.
But going by your comment reminds me of an Al Pacino dialogue from Scarface (yet again :) )
"Hey, so I fuck Castro, what's it to
you? You a Communist or something?
How would you like it they tell you
all the time what to think, what to
do, you wanna be like a sheep, like
everybody else. Baa baa?"
Pacino rocks!! It seems u can decode all life funda by going thru Pacino dialogues.
I recognise the difference in the conception of secularism in europe and india. thats why i again oppose marx. here religion is more a way of life( S.C. et al). religion can be used for dev. economics and regulation of social behaviour and stuff. its not just opium for the masses.
whats rising in latin america i not marxism but pro-native people, pro-state, pro-people or anti-america governments. in our romanticism we term them marxists. marx and chavez is like chalk and cheese. chavez and castro and morales are totally pro-state. they can be called socialists but not communists or marxists. marx talks about real democracy and withering of state. thsi latin america phenomenon is more a reaction against MNCs and governmentts which compromise sovereignity in front of IMF or the US. Blah blah blah....
But yes, pacino rocks...keep me posted scarface and pacino.
Mishra, whatever you have wrote is very correct, actually I don't think anybody should
arrive at any other conclusion, if observing dispassionately.
To me, it's a manifestation that you have shed many of our biases, imposed on us unknowingly
by the very societal-structure in which we grow.
Few reasons why Marx might have been misrepresented all these decades can be due to the fact that,
people have hardly studied the relevenat literature(how many of our friends have done it firsthand?)
and and even less, have understood it(it's no mean job to comprehend Marx).
Other reson which prevents us from seeing the objective reality is our own selfishness.
That we are essentially selfish is in no doubt, and how this fact precludes us from being objective needs some explanation,
even though it's clear to me, probably, a wordsmith is needed to formulate this.
And, whoever said Marx needs a decent burial should have buried herself already, that too very deep indeed,
since that's the only honouarable thing to do for an intellectual 'ant' vis-a-vis an intellectual goliath.
Correct Sachin. And I also feel many people mis-interpret Marx only in the settings in which he lived. On face of it, Marx may be talking about capitalism. But today, when human resources and knowledge (intellectual) resources are more critical than capital resources, the Marxist 'class struggle' also comes to fore. I may be off-mark but all these WTO rounds failing, TRIPS issues etc.may also be viewed in light of that.
This juxtaposition of the new class struggle with the TRIPS and multilateral agreements etc is a novel idea, needs serious consideration.
Post a Comment