|
"The whole value of Marxism seems to me to be in its
absence of dogmatism, mode of approach, and in its attitude to action ...
The success or failure of the Russian social experiments
do not directly affect the validity of the Marxian theory."
-Jawaharlal Nehru,
Autobiography
Introduction
Occasional letters show that these essays (and the short story)
still continue to attract some readers. Re-publication has been undertaken
at their request in the hope that the demand is not restricted to those who
voiced it. At any rate, the journals of the first publication are not
readily accessible. Emendation, restricted to a minimum, was necessary
because proofs were generally not shown to the author by the periodicals
concerned. Substantial additions are given in square brackets. A note at
the end contains a reference to the original publication and, where
necessary, supplementary remarks to illustrate the main theme. Had the
analysis not stood the test of time, had an occasional passage, which first
read like an unlikely forecast of things to come, not been justified by the
event, there would have been no point in dragging these writings out of
their obscurity. The essential is the method followed, which is the method
of dialectical materialism, called Marxism after the genius who first
developed its theory and used it systematically as a tool.
Dialectical materialism holds that matter is primeval, and the
properties of matter are inexhaustible. Mind is an aspect of matter, being
a function of the brain. Ideas, therefore, are not primary phenomena, but
rather the reflection of material processes and changes upon human
consciousness which is itself a material process. Therefore, ideas are
formed ultimately out of human experience. Matter is not inert, but in a
constant state of interaction and change; it is a complex of processes
rather than an aggregate of things. In every stage, there resides an
inherent quality of challenge, an "inner contradiction", which
leads eventually to a negation (not necessarily unique) of that stage or
condition. The negation, quite naturally, is again negated, but this does
not mean a simple return to the original condition, rather to a totally
different level. There is thus a fundamental unity of opposites. Mere
change of quantity must eventually lead to a change of quality; quite
often, this is an abrupt change after the quantity reaches some critical
("nodal") value. Finally, life is a mode of existence of certain
forms of matter, particularly those containing organic compounds such as
proteins. Its characteristic mode of existence is that, to preserve its
special quality as living matter, it has to interact with a suitable
environment in a specific manner, at a certain minimum rate. Then, for
non-isolated complete organisms, there is normally an increase in numbers
(change of quantity) to a critical level. Non-living matter, on the
contrary, retains its characteristics best, the less it interacts with the
environment.
On the level of human society, the environment is furnished to a
considerable extent by the society itself. The rate and the quantity of
interaction with natural surroundings depend upon the instruments of
production, and the technique employed: food-gathering, the pastoral life,
agriculture, machine production. The distribution of the product among the
various members of society is a matter for the relations of production,
such as class division, ownership rights etc, whereof the forms are not
determined simply by the economic level, nor immediately by the tools, but
depend also upon the previous social history of the particular group of
men. However, the tools are basic; feudalism or a bourgeoisie is not
possible for stone- age people any more than is an atomic pile, or the
differential calculus. The progress of mankind, and its history, thus
depends upon the means of production, i.e. the actual tools and the
productive relationships. Society is held together by the bonds of
production. It is not the purpose here to prove these elementary principles
all over again, but rather to show how they can be and have been fruitfully
applied to a certain class of important problems. To remain a living
discipline, Marxism must continue to work successfully with newer
discoveries in science (including archaeology) and must yield new valid
results in history. Its importance lies not only in the interpretation of
the past, but as a guide to future action. By its correct use, men can make
their own history consciously rather than suffer it to be made as helpless
spectators or merely to study it after the event.
Certain opponents of Marxism dismiss it as an outworn economic
dogma based upon 19tb century prejudices Marxism never was a dogma. There
is no reason why its formulation in the 19tb century should make it
obsolete and wrong any more than the discoveries of Gauss, Faraday and
Darwin which have passed into the body of science. Those who sneer at its
19th century obsolescence cannot logically quote Mill, Burke and Herbert
Spencer with approval, nor pin their faith to the considerably older and
decidedly more obscure Bhagawad Gita. The defence generally
given is that the Gita and the Upanishads are
Indian; that foreign ideas like Marxism are objectionable This is generally
argued in English the foreign language common to educated Indians; and by
persons who live under a mode of production (the bourgeois system forcibly
introduced by the foreigner into India.) The objection,
therefore seems less to the foreign origin than to the ideas themselves
which might endanger class privilege. Marxism is said to be based upon
violence, upon the class-war in which the very best people do not believe
nowadays. They might as well proclaim that meteorology encourages storms by
predicting them. No Marxist work contains incitement to war and specious
arguments for senseless killing remotely comparable to those in the divine
Gila.
From the opposite direction, the Indian Official Marxist
(hereafter called OM) have not failed to
manifest their displeasure with, an interloper's views. These form a
decidedly mixed category indescribable because of rapidly shifting views
and even more rapid political permutations and combinations. Thc OM included at various times several factions of
the CPI, the Congress Socia1ists, the Royists and
numerous left splinter group. Their standard
objection has been that such writings are "controversial". If
consistently pressed this would also exclude the main work of Marx, Engels, Lenin, the best of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. The only successful way of dealing with
adverse views presented in all good faith is a careful, detailed, and
factual answer. The OM Marxism has too often consisted of theological
emphasis on the inviolable sanctity of the current party line, or
irrelevant quotations from the classics.
Marxism cannot, even on the grounds of political expediency or
party solidarity, be reduced to a rigid formalism like mathematics. Nor can
it be treated as a standard technique such as work on an automatic lathe.
The material, when it is present in human society, has endless variations;
the observer is himself part of the observed population, with which he
interacts strongly and reciprocally. This means that the successful
application of the theory needs the development of analytical power, the
ability to pick out the essential factors in a given situation. This cannot
be learned from books alone. The one way to learn it is by constant contact
with the major sections of the people. For an intellectual, this means at
least a few months spent in manual labour, to
earn his livelihood as a member of the working class; not as a superior
being, nor as a reformist, nor as a sentimental "progressive"
visitor to the slums. The experience gained from living with worker and
peasant, as one of them, has then to be consistently refreshed and
regularly evaluated in the light of one's reading. For those who are
prepared to do this, these essays might provide some encouragement, and
food for thought.
It is a great pleasure to thank the editors of the original
publications. My thanks are also due to Mrs. V. V. Bhagwat
and Mr. R. P. Nene for the trouble they have
taken over this edition.
Deccan Queen,
October
2, 1957
D.D. KOSAMBI
|