P KESAVAN NAIR, KOLLAM: April 2011

Beyond Red

an apostate on communism

Beyond

Red

an apostate on communism

P Kesavan Nair

Beyond Red

P. Kesavan Nair

Published by Pagan Books

Pagan Books

ORA-20, Palace Ward

Thevally, Kollam - 9

Kerala, India

First Published by Pagan Books in 2010

Text type-set in CG Omega

& designed by Designer’s, Kollam.

Printed in India at

DC Printers (P) Ltd., Kottayam.

Price Rs. 195/-

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any

form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior

written permission of both the copyright owner and the

above-mentioned publisher of this book.

Contents
Foreword
1. Russell foretells 1
2. The truth of matter 13
3. Unscientific dialectics 29
4. Crisis and classical philosophy 45
5. Uncertainty in history 57
6. The disoriented economics 69
7. Is Marxism scientific? 89
8. The red religion 99
9. The new class 111
vi
Bibliography
123
Foreword
B
writer, was the greatest critic of communism. He
predicted the failure of Marxism even when its
opponents were awestruck at the euphoria it created.
Unlike some intellectuals, who were afraid of being
branded as anti-humanists on criticising Marxism, he
had the sense to see through the theory, practice,
propaganda and swearology of communism.
This book is an attempt, a long-needed one in
Indian context, where Marxists have been able to
suppress all honest analysis of their theory with
fundamentalist zeal, to look for theoretical grounds for
the failure of communism and its attendant cruelties.
Like many totalitarian traditions, both religious and
political, the only freedom communism gives others is
the freedom to praise it. This book, originally written in
Malayalam, looks at this ideology from many different
angles—historical, political, theoretical and economical.
It is not an exact translation of the book. It is rather a
remake of it. Lack of comprehensiveness may be its
ertrand Russell, the well-known philosopher and
viii
demerit. But, it is something which cannot be expected
in a small volume like this. The book begins with
Russell’s’ foreboding of communism and then tries to
explore the ideological bases of communism such as
dialectical materialism, historical materialism and
Marxian economics and politics. A separate chapter is
devoted to its truth claim. A study of Marxism done along
atavistic lines always takes us to its Judeo-Christian roots.
A perceptive study cannot but notice the fact that, along
with Fascism and Nazism, Marxism is a faith system.
Hence, the chapter ‘The Red Religion’. Finally, an attempt
is made to find the ultimate beneficiary of communism.
The real beneficiaries of it, like many other totalitarian
and millenarian systems, are a handful of intellectuals
and clever men who, while enjoying every pleasure of
power, indulge in double speak, partly, to protect their
positions and, partly, to assuage their guilty conscience.
A criticism of communism need not be an apology
for capitalism. Capitalist economy is finding itself
strangely caught in the mire of its own motivation-profit,
and, despite the paean of free market economy by
practising capitalists and rightist intellectuals, is,
ridiculously, looking for protectionist help from the state.
In this context, the need for finding out alternative ways
of economic life has become unavoidable. In India, we
have got the economics of Mahatma Gandhi. In the West
many like Schumacher have reminded us of the need
for an alternative economic system. This book is also a
hope in that direction. A holistic vision of life is the
driving force behind this book. For a message for this
book—if a book needs one— I would like to quote Paul
Johnson, the British philosopher and historian. “We
ix
Beyond Red
should place experience before theories and people
before ideologies’’.
Many, directly and indirectly, helped me to pen
this book. Intellectual recourse has been duly
acknowledged in the bibliography, but a few who
provoked this book into being with their cerebral
challenges would like to remain in the backdrop.
Though I am not naming them, my gratitude is always
due to them.
PKN
Foreword
x
Russell foretells
B
and mathematician of twentieth century
disagreed with communism until the very end
of his life. He is a safe intellectual launching pad among
the few for an enquiry into communism, as a theory
and a political system. History proved his substantiated
disagreements with communism right. His first critique
of communism appeared in 1896. His opposition to
communist governments was stronger than his dislike
for the theory on which they were based. His book
ertrand Russell, the famous writer, philosopher
The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism
his visit to Russia in 1920, most logically exposed the
great discrepancy between theory and practice of
Bolshevism. He prophesied that the Bolshevik
experiment would fail. His
born soon afterPortraits from Memory
contained the seminal essay ‘Why I am Not a
Communist’. The essay is set to discover answers to
two questions. Is Marxism true? Will its practice lead
us to greater happiness and peace? He concludes that
Marxism is not true and that it has given us only
miseries. The past history of communist governments
3
and movements has only supported this view.
Marxian concepts, which are based on dialectical
materialism and historical materialism, are increasingly
found to be incongruous with the philosophical
thoughts deriving from modern scientific enquiry. Marx
conceptualized dialectical materialism as something
governing the whole universe. To him, it was a force
controlling human history, independent of man’s will.
He gave it the same place as religions did to God.
Communists wrongly thought that dialectics was the
science of all sciences. Historical materialism, which
forms the basis of Marxist interpretation of history, too
is outdated. This history-jilted theory is the foundation
for the communist strategies and manipulations. Their
adherence to an unproven theory throughout history
is indeed fundamentalist.
Events throughout the Socialist Block have, time
and again, shown the wide gap between lexis and
praxis in communism. The fall of communist regimes
in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in Eastern
Europe is a good example of this. These incidents are
something fundamentally affecting Marxist theories.
Incidentally, Marxists themselves have insisted that
validity of a theory can be proven only through practice.
The collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern
Europe shows its lack of practicality. Capitalists too
accept the need for concord between theory and
practice in economic matters. If we want to make theory
and practice compatible, we need pre-planning based
on a definite theory, and also schemes and plans
ensuing from them. The relationship between theory
4
Beyond Red
and practice in Marxism is the same as a product and
it’s planning in capitalism. It is a process in which
communism and capitalism share things innerly. The
concept of utility upheld by communists in their
implementation of political theories becomes profit
motive in capitalism.
Whether in China, Russia or East Europe, the
practice of communism resulted in the absolutism of
party leaders and their personal gains. The communist
leaders wallowed in riches, corruption, pleasures and
squandering, Communism was, predictably,
institutionalized. China is now practising market
socialism. To put it simply, the economy is that of
capitalism while the political system is that of socialism.
In capitalism, monopolists control economy and
political system. Theoretically speaking, in Marxism,
it is the economic system that should determine the
political system. But, the Chinese Communist Party
talks about the determination of the economic system
by the political system! It is contradictions all the
way. No wonder, leaders of the Chinese Communist
Party run big businesses in China.
Lenin called imperialism the acme of
capitalism. As such, the main rivals of communists
should be the imperialists and they ritually single
out America as the arch imperialist. But, China has
been a friend of America on more than one count.
America gave China the status of Most Favoured
Nation. American capital has been in constant flow
into China. China has spread the red carpet for
many an American President. Under the banner of
5
Russell foretells
the Chinese Communist Party, capitalism is playing
its Chinese version in the country. It is wearing the
mask of communism there instead of its usual mask
of liberal democracy.
The much-trumpeted October Revolution in
Russia in 1917 was not a mass revolution. It was a
political coup by the Bolshevic Party under the
leadership of Lenin against the democratically elected
government of Kerensky at the end of the First World
War. Lenin and a group of standby intellectuals hailed
it as a proletarian revolution. By shortcut, later, Lenin
became the unquestionable leader of the international
Communist movement. After the Lenin era, Stalin
created the Commissar regime excelling the Tsarist rule
in totalitarianism, sacrificing even the old
revolutionaries. His behind–the-Iron-Curtain cruelties
beggar description. It is Nikita Khrushchev who dented
some peep-holes in the Iron Curtain by his confessional
speech at the end of the 20th party congress of the
Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU).
The real red terror became largely known to the
world only in 1980s. The writers and artists who were
daring enough to portray the ugliness of the communist
dictatorship were denounced as the enemies of the
proletariat. The 75–year old terror rule of the
Communist Party in Russia was broken not by external
enemies, but by the Russian people themselves. The
Lenin government also, which took over Russia, after
the Revolution, was a system for oppression. The
reign of Stalin, who succeded Lenin, saw the red
terror reaching its acme.
6
Beyond Red
In a democratic set up, the right to free
individual development is measured by the
maximum opportunities available for self–
improvement. With the advent of Stalin, the
individual ceased to be in Russia. Under
communism, individuals’ likes and dislikes,
individuality and value of human life came to be
considered taboos. The individual became a sacrificial
lamb for the establishment of proletarian dictatorship.
The reasons for these should be searched for in Marx’s
concept of revolution. Communism offered greater
possibilities for absolutism than any other political
ideology. Marx and Engels have written a lot about
the possibilities and technicalities of revolution. Marx
regarded Paris Commune as a good example of what
revolution could be. He perfected his lessons about
revolution in his meditations on Paris Commune. He
wanted to demolish the existing governments and build
not–to–be opposed governments in their stead, which
would pave the way for dictatorship of the proletariat.
Naturally, all those who got power in the name of
communism became matchless dictators. Neither
workers nor farmers had any say in their governments.
The ruling class in communist countries grew into an
elite one. Communism, in effect, meant a monolithic
state structure. Its monolithic nature was the outcome
of its ideology.
The communists propagated the idea that
dictatorship of the proletariat was democratic rule by
the majority. There has not been a single example of a
communist regime belonging to the majority people.
7
Russell Foretells
The apology tendered by CPSU at the collapse of
the Soviet Union is interesting to note here.
The concept of ‘all people’ shrank into the
proletariat. The Party became the Central Committee
and the Central Committee was dwarfed into the Polite
Bureau. The Polite Bureau virtually became the party
secretary. The foundation stone of all these was the
concept of proletarian dictatorship and the
centralization of democratic process. The centralization
of democracy resulted in the centralization of power
in the hands of the party secretary and the preferred
comrades. This move made the Party deeply
hierarchical. Whatever came from high on were
dictums inviolable. Those on the lower rungs of power
were slaves of those on the higher rungs.
All communist promises turned out to be tricks
and trickeries. Wherever communists came to power,
there they established oppressive regimes. Communist
states were essentially criminal institutions. Theirs was
a rule of lawlessness. They unleashed terror and human
lives became cheaper than ever. Common men became
their enemies. In Russia, between 1825 and 1917,
under the rule of Tsar, 6321 people were killed for
political reasons. In 1918, within two months of the
declaration of red terror by Lenin, 15000 people were
condemned to death. For three quarters of the last
centuries, this continued to be the trend. During 1932-
33, in the famine that followed the Collective Farming
Experiment, 6000000 people are assumed to have
perished. In the purgation process initiated by the Party,
7, 20,000 people lost their lives. The period between
8
Beyond Red
1934 and 1941 witnessed the imprisonment of
70,00,000 men in the slavery camps euphemistically
called ‘Gulags’. When Stalin died these ‘Gulags’ had
an estimated ‘catchment’ of 2.75 million people. All
the communist regimes were masochistically cruel
towards their own people and those regimes excelled
the capitalist state by far in cruelty.
The former Soviet Union covered one sixth of
the earth. It was underpopulated and rich in natural
resources. It was the granary of Europe during the reign
of Tsar. Though the communist regime was far ahead
in the production of military equipment, nuclear
research and space science, it lagged behind in the
fields of industrial production and agriculture. People
were impoverished. Daily bread became dear. The
whole nation had to, notoriously, be queuing up for
everything. In Russia, more than 20 million people
were into black marketing. Even those men who
refused only to be on the breadline were brutally
suppressed. Workers and farmers got only chains. The
new world promised never came.
Those who rallied under the red flag in China,
Cambodia, North Korea and East Europe also met with
the same fate. The ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China
resulted in the mass murder of people. About 10 million
people were killed including Lia Shavoch who was
the second man in the Party. Some people put the figure
at 30 million. What is intriguing is that both the killers
and the killed were mostly communists. Some figures
talk about the death of 40 million people due to the
failure of farming and scarcity of food during the Mao-
9
Russell Foretells
led ‘Great Leap Forward’. The world has yet to count
the number of people mowed down in Tiananmen
Square massacre. In Cambodia communism
wallowed in heaps of human skulls and skeletons
collected in the infamous Killing Fields, constituted
for the purpose of mass murder by the communist
autocrat Pole Pot. Three million people were its
victims. Red Terror ran amuck in East Europe and
North Korea too. People in those countries were
made miserable and pauperized.
Communists suppressed all ideas and opinions
that were not theirs. Many talented writers and scientists
fled Russia. In the name of ideological hegemony, they
hunted down scientific theories and the scientists
behind them. Two examples from genetics are enough.
CPSU repudiated Gregory Mendel who was the
exponent of genetics and declared that it was a pseudoscience.
As a result, Russia is one of the most backward
countries in genetics. Marx’s worship of Charles Darwin
and Stalin’s perverted view of genetics, and political
partialities prevalent among the Russian scientists were
responsible for this. The Communist Party contrived a
customized version of genetics. The Russian scientists,
Biov and Vavilov, who made a lot of contribution
towards genetics, had to undergo a lot of political
persecution during the time of Stalin. Biov was the
father of molecular biology in Russia. In 1930’s, Biov
went to another scientist VN Slepkov for learning
purposes. With this, Biov began to face hard times.
The brother of Slepkov was the friend of the Marxist
thinker, Bhukharin, who was deadly against Stalin.
For this single reason, the students of Slepkov were
10
Beyond Red
hunted down. Biov was arrested and exiled. He was
freed only when Krushchev came to power. Another
genius in genetics who had to face the music was
Vavilov. He was sent to a Siberian jail where he died.
His crime was that he had formed some genetic
principles of seeds on the basis of Mendel’s theory.
His experiments were not to the taste of the notorious
agricultural scientist T.D. Licenkov ,who was a
crony of Stalin. Licenkov misled Stalin into thinking
that the principles of Vavilov were anti-Marxist.
Under the cover of communist ideology, genetic
studies were removed from Soviet curricula and
books on the subject were confined to flames.
Genetics thus died out in Russia. Soviet Union had
to rue for it later. When agriculture sector all over
the world began to have abundance of food production
following the Green Revolution, Russia was being
shaken by the dry wind of scarcity. A country which
was rich in natural resources, had to depend upon even
India for food.
Marxism failed to take roots in West Europe
despite preexistence of allied thoughts. Marxism was
a continuity of Hegelian philosophy and Christian
tradition. In spite of it all, communism didn’t become
a force there. Though the political system prevalent in
the Western Europe was exploitative capitalism,
Communism could not spread there since the people
had enfranchisement and civic liberty. Neither could
communism make a head way in many countries with
highly developed capitalism. Russell says, “It was
poverty caused by imperialist exploitation that helped
communism to find a welcome in developing and
11
Russell Foretells
12
Russell Foretells
undeveloped countries”. It is poverty and hunger
that gave the ‘spectre’ of communism a chance to
move around. The only way to prevent it spread is
the eradication of poverty and deprivation. Russell’s
foreseeing was correct. Unfortunately, in India,
communism exported here became the opium of the
intellectuals. Here, they are hoodwinking the gullible
with its intoxication. Even intellectuals and writers
could not escape its stupefying power. Nehru’s eulogy
of communism subsequent to his visit to Russia provides
a sharp contrast to the skeptical and uncompromising
observations of an astute thinker like Russell.
The truth of matter
P
time. Philosophy, mainly scientific philosophy,
is related to the development and evolution of
science, especially physical science. Advances in
physics and technology also change the concepts of
matter, which can completely change our own view
of the world. Modern physics redrafted the classical
views about space, time, matter and cause-effect. A
new concept of matter was formed. Reflections of this
new view were felt in philosophy too. Many time-tested
philosophical assumptions were proved to be wrong.
The two main streams in philosophical thoughts
are idealism and materialism. Materialists claim that
what is primary is matter and that consciousness is only
secondary. On the other hand, idealists stand by the
primacy of consciousness.
According to materialism, the things seen around
us and all the phenomena are material and the cosmos,
the sun, the earth, and various geo-physical and social
phenomena are material. They exist independent of
hilosophy is the intellectual quintessence of its
15
the consciousness of the observer. Materials are made
up of matter. Such materials form things seen around
us. and matter of which they are made is eternal. It is
not something created. Neither is it something, which
came into being out of some other force. What we
used to call consciousness is a special quality of matter.
So far as materialism is concerned, everything is
material. This aspect of materialism is the continuation
of ancient Greek materialist philosophy and that of
European classical physics.
The word ‘philosophy’ is western. The word
prevalent in India is
very special way. It means ‘to see’, ‘to perceive’. It is
basically a perception transcending both the senses and
the mind. Western philosophy is intellectual. So to
apply this Western term to Indian
historically and theoretically correct. So Indians ‘seers’
in this sense cannot be equated with Socrates, Kant,
Hegel, Feuerbach and others. Indian
emphasize on the dual concepts of idealism and
materialism. So, subjectivity and objectivity, as
enunciated in western philosophical thoughts, are
unacceptable to the Indian way of thinking. It does not
approve of the division of the world into the spiritual
and the material. They are not divisible, either. Spirit
is the subtlest form of matter and matter is the grossest
form of spirit. Body and soul are not two different things.
They are two poles of the same essence. Body is the
perceptible end of spirit and spirit, the imperceptible
end of body. As such, what is called God and Nature
is not two different entities. There is no conflict between
God and Nature. Nature is the gross side of God and
darshana. This term is used in adarshanas is notdarshanas do not
16
Beyond Red
God, the subtle form of Nature. Nature itself in its subtle
dissolution becomes god. God itself becomes Nature
through gross manifestation. Nature is god manifest
and God, Nature unmanifest. It is a state of not being
dual. In the perception of Indian spirituality, man, God
and Nature are one and, hence, microcosm and
macrocosm are one.
The seed ideas of Western materialism can be
found in ancient Greek philosophy, the founders of
which were Thalus, Anaxmandir, and Anaximus.
Subsequently, Democritus tried to develop materialism
scientifically. The first Greek philosopher to introduce
atomic theory was Democritus. He opined that atoms
are the smallest indivisible particles of matter and that
they are inert and lazy entities moving in emptiness.
Everything in the world is made of atoms. Atoms
move because they are forced to, by some external
force. He brought into philosophy and science the
concepts of form and emptiness. According to Epicures,
another Greek materialist philosopher, everything in
the world including body, mind and soul are
constituted of atoms. He said atoms have different
shapes and mass. The Roman philosopher Lucritius,
who lived during the first century AD, developed
the Epicurean atomism further. Just until the
beginning of European Industrialism, Greek
materialism has not been able to exert considerable
pressure on philosophy.
The wave of the Industrial Revolution
materialist philosophy gave a boost. The compelling
force in the process was the developing classical
17
The truth of matter
physics. Classical physics was also essential for the
advancement of the political and the social system
of capitalism. The thoughts of philosophers like
Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, and
Spinoza acted as a catalyst for the advancement of
materialism. Newtonian physics and its concept of
matter also strengthened materialism. It led to a way
of materialistic thinking based on mechanical model
of the cosmos. All sciences and philosophical
thoughts, which, developed later in Europe, were
based on this Newtonian concept of a mechanical
world system. Everything in a Newtonian world
happens on a three-dimensional plane. To him, time
and space were absolute. He considered time and
space as separate dimensions. Just like Greek atomists,
Newton too regarded matter as inert. According to
Newtonian first law of motion, “every body remains
in its state of rest or in a uniform motion unless it is
compelled by an external force to change that state”.
He denied the fact that movement is the inherent
quality of matter. He also revived the Greek concept
that the whole cosmos was filled with ether. Newton
said that matter is hard, heavy and made of
indestructible particles. The concept of matter upheld
by both Greek atomists and Newton were the same.
The only difference between Democritus and Newton
was that Newton explained the force between atomic
particles. He called it gravitational force. Force and
matter are different. Both Newton and Greek atomists
failed to understand that motion is the inherent state
of matter and that both matter and force are not
differential. This mentality prevented us from exploring
18
Beyond Red
into the secrecy of matter.
Dialectical materialism is another branch of
materialism. This is the principle of communism;
communists call it modern and scientific. Marx
borrowed materialism from Feuerbach who was a
German philosopher. According to Feuerbach,
consciousness cannot exist outside and independently
of human body, because it is the quality of human
brain. In modem times, the kind of materialism, which
became most popular, is that of Marx and Engels. The
conspicuous ideological sources of Marxism were the
dialectics of Hegel, who was an idealist, and the
materialism of Feuerbach. Classical physics has also
influenced dialectical materialism. In his book,
Dialectics of Nature
following classical physics. Engels accepts the ether
concept of the Greek and that of Newton as such. To
accept the concept of ether means to say that the
velocity of light is not constant and that both time and
space are absolute. A cosmos where time and space
are absolute is unchangeable and motionless. The
strong influence of Newtonian physics is discernable
in dialectical materialism. In Newtonian dynamics,
force appears as opposite pairs; any force will have an
equal and opposite force and so has any action. In
Marxism too, opposites appear in such a way.
In the beginning of the 20th century, the world
famous Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernest Mach
questioned the materialist concept of matter. Mach
made it clear that the relationship between matter and
consciousness could not be explained in terms of
, we can see Engels blindly
19
The truth of matter
traditional materialism and dialectical materialism.
Einstein was guided by Mach in his formation of the
Theory of Relativity. The famous book
Empirio-criticism
arguments of Mach.
In this book, Lenin tries, in vain, to solve the
difference between the classical concept of matter and
that of modern physics. The Marxist intellectuals all
over the world hail it as a great work upholding and
effectively defending dialectical materialism. This work
contains Lenin’s philosophy of matter. “Matter is that
which exists independently of consciousness and
which is an objective reality reflected in
consciousness”. This definition develops matter into
an objective reality. Lenin’s concept of matter was a
simplification of the three-dimensional world perceived
by us. His definition of matter does not conform to the
concept of matter formulated by modern physics.
The Theory of Relativity and quantum physics
which emerged at the beginning of the 20th century
brought about revolutionary changes in science and
philosophy. It changed the inferences in science and
philosophy. It also changed the inferences and
conclusions of classical physics about time and space.
When Einstein established that both time and space
are relative in the place of the concept of separate time
and space, the concept of space-time continuum
emerged in science. World was proved to be fourdimensional.
It was something beyond the common
experience. The nucleus of the atom and the electrons
revolving around it were discovered. Nucleus was
Materialism andwas written by Lenin to refute the
20
Beyond Red
made of protons and neutrons, which were made of
quarks. Today, the number of sub-atomic particles is
above 200. The very expression of basic particles has
become irrelevant. The classical concept of
indivisibility of atom was proved wrong. The ‘intraatomic’
experiences defied the traditional materialism
and dialectical materialism. The base of the traditional
interpretation of matter was shaken. Both scientists and
philosophers are now convinced that the words ‘to
perceive, to know and to experience’ have deeper
meanings than we usually think.
The conclusion arrived at by Einstein following
his formulation of the Special Theory of Relativity in
1905 was that time and space are relative. Mass of
things increases when their velocity increases. When
the velocity increases, contraction in the direction of
motion and time slows down. The velocity of light is
constant. It does not change according to the speed of
the observer. The Theory of Relativity has proved that
there is no absolute time and that each observer has
got his own time. Einstein gave many examples for it
like the Twin Paradox, which may appear strange to
common logic. The famous equation E = mc
most noticeable outcome of his Special Theory of
Relativity. Just before the emergence of this equation,
scientists firmly believed in the duality of matter and
energy. This equation proved that matter and energy
are interchangeable. Due to the commonality of matter
and energy, mass of a thing will be increased by the
energy produced by its motion. A thing needs infinite
energy to reach the velocity of light. Einstein’s energymatter
equation has relevance not in physics alone. It
2 is the
21
The truth of matter
led us to a truth, which is capable of turning the
materialist philosophy upside down. It became clear
that matter is nothing but energy.
Our routine world is three-dimensional.
According to the Theory of Relativity, the real world is
a four-dimensional world of height, width, length and
time. That is, the world seen by us is the shadow of the
four-dimensional world. The Theory of Relativity says
that the observer has to travel as fast as light to know
the four-dimensional world. When an observer travels
as fast as light, his mass will become infinite and he
becomes a singularity. Singularity is a point at which
space-time curvature is infinite. Its density is also
infinite. Then, his body has zero size. Human body
cannot reach this condition. That means man cannot
see the real world. In singularity, past, present and
future become one. In that sense, singularity has no
yesterday, today or tomorrow. But, we take for granted
this three-dimensional world, which is really a shadow.
The age-long curiosity of man about atoms led
him to the exploration of the inner structure of atom.
Quantum physics shed new light on the inner world
of the atom. It disproved many of our traditional notions
about matter. The quantum revelations about matter
were not something, which could be confined to the
materialist ideas about matter. Quantum mechanics
deals with the motion of subatomic particles and the
core of quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty
Principle. The famous German scientist Heisenberg is
its exponent. According to his principle, the more
precisely we measure the position of a particle, the
22
Beyond Red
less precisely we can measure its speed. Time and
energy too are such a pair. Uncertainty is an
unavoidable characteristic of the cosmos. According
to quantum mechanics, particles are in quantum state,
that is, in a mixed state of time and space. Hence, the
laws of quantum mechanics are not those of certainty.
They are the laws of probability. In the micro-world,
the objective description of particles is not possible.
The materialistic concept of matter deriving from our
horse sense is irrelevant in a quantum world.
If we want to observe a gross thing, a beam of
light reflected by it has to fall on the eyes, the
information of which reaches our brain. Observation
of gross things does not pose much difficulty. But,
observing subtle things like the electron is difficult.
Because, if we try to observe an electron through
microscope, we have to face the impediment called
Crompton Effect. The photons from electro magnetic
radiation, with the help of which we try to observe the
electron, will collide with it. As a result, a portion of
energy emitting from the photon will be transmitted to
the electron. It has two consequences. First the photon
will lose a little energy. Hence, its frequency is reduced.
A red shift takes place. It is called Crompton refraction.
Second, the velocity of the electron increases slightly.
So, it will change its position from the first place. In
short, when we try to observe electrons using rays, the
attempt itself causes the electron to change its
position. It changes its nature. The very observation
changes the observed thing. Here, the very attempt
to find out truth becomes an obstacle to the enquiry.
The ultimate truth eludes our sense observation.
23
The truth of matter
Thus, the objective description of the world based
on classical physics and dialectical materialism
becomes meaningless. In the quantum world,
separation between the observer and the observed
is meaningless. Things at atomic level can be
understood only as relations between processes and
measurements. In quantum physics, structure is the
manifestation of processes. A particle in an atomic
structure is the result of a process. The end of the
chain reactions that take place at atomic level lies in
the consciousness of the observer. The process of
measuring affects our consciousness. Measurement
is a mutual process. In the atomic world, observation
is not possible without affecting things. Scientist is a
person involved in the act of observation and also a
person affecting the properties of the observed
things. According to the world famous American
physicist John Wheeler, the most important feature
of quantum physics is the participatory nature of
the observer. That is why he suggests that in the act
of observation the word ‘observer’ should be replaced
by ‘participator’.
The most revolutionary aspect of quantum
physics is the wave-particle nature of light. It is called
the wave-particle duality of light. This was established
by the famous Double-slit Experiment. This experiment
underlines the relationship between the observer and
the observed. We cannot say whether light is made of
particles or waves before we subject it to any
experiment. We get what we look for in the experiment.
In other words, light can be said to be made of
particles when it is observed as particles, and waves
24
Beyond Red
when it is observed as waves. Then only it becomes
real. All the observed things in the world from
extremely minute atoms to huge galaxies are made
of subatomic particle. Hence, nature and all things
in it are consciousness-dependent.
The particle-wave duality theory was
something capable of turning our concepts about
gross material things topsy-turvy. Particle is
something situated in a specific area. That is an
existence limited by space. But wave nature spreads
over both space and time. Hence, the particle means
the minutest constituent of matter. Matter is
quantified energy. The smallest unit of energy too is
the particle. Time and space becomes meaningful
when energy becomes matter. Particles are not in
reality matter but a time-space phenomenon looking
like matter. It is an energy pattern. Particles can be
defined as the gross form of energy. What is then
energy? In physics, energy is always identified with
some process or work. Energy is defined as the
capacity to do work. Particles move within the atomic
structure with near-velocity of light. They change from
energy to matter and vice versa. In this context, the
definition that energy is the capacity to do work is
relevant. The self-nature of work is motion. What is
here is mere motion. The being of an atom is the fast
motion of particles. According to quantum physics,
energy particles mean the space-time continuum for
motion. It is difficult to separate particles from process.
Matter is, in essence, a projection of the space-time
phenomenon. Space and time are relative. Whatever
relative is not eternal. So, particles are temporary
25
The truth of matter
phenomena, which come into being and then
disappear.
Science, which today explores into the subtle
world of atoms and subatomic particles with the help
of modern scientific equipment like particle accelerator,
is wonderstruck at the metaphysical qualities of matter.
It is particle physics, which developed during the
middle of the 20
that revealed the secrets of matter to us. When
subatomic particles collide in particle accelerators,
their mass becomes energy. In particle collision
experiments, the mass conservation rule of classical
physics is violated. But, the law of conservation of
energy has not been found violated in particle
collision. The best way to understand the relationship
between energy and matter is the particle collision
experiment. Experiments conducted in particle
physics have shown that mass is nothing but the
measurement of energy. On the basis of such
experiments, the mass of elementary particles is
measured in energy units. Particle collision
experiments have also made it clear that mass is not
something related to ‘matter-like things’. Scientists were
convinced that particles are not made of some basic
material and that they are energy packets. Particles
cannot be thought to be three-dimensional things like
a ball or a crystal of salt. They should be understood as
the fourth dimension of space-time continuum. Particles
are dynamic patterns of space-time. These dynamic
patterns or energy pockets are the base for the constant
atomic structures of matter. It is these structures, which
give solid form to matter. Thus, we come to know that
th century, as a branch of physics
26
Beyond Red
gross things are made of solid matter. At the macro
level, this feeling is essential and useful. But, at micro
level, matter has no structure. Atoms are made of
particles. But, particles are not matter. Inside the
atomic world, we do not come across matter. What
we see there is dynamic energy patterns constantly
changing from one form to another. It is an endless
dance of energy.
The world of subatomic particles is dynamic
and in a flux. The experiments conducted in particle
physics over the last decades have proven that all
particles can change into other particles and the
structure of particles is inconsistent. Particles are
created from and disappear into energy. Modern
physics compel us to think that matter is unreal and
that what is perceived as matter is energy flow in
the form of vibrations. All matter is nothing but the
transformation of energy flow. This new philosophy
rejects the concept of matter formulated by classical
physics and all materialist concepts of matter
deriving from it.
The Theory of Relativity and quantum physics
declare that matter is not objective. Matter cannot stand
independently of consciousness. Philosophically
speaking, knowledge must include ‘the knower’
beyond ‘the known’. In the language of modern
science, in the act of observation, there is inviolable
relationship between the observer and the observed.
Observation and determination cannot be separated.
27
The truth of matter
Unscientific
dialectics
D
Marxism. Marx used dialectics as a means to
explain materialism. It is a collection of
unscientific and nonsensical concepts. The old and
etymological meaning of the word ‘dialectics’ is ‘the
art of rhetoric’ or ‘polemics’. The roots of Marxian
dialectics can be traced to the ancient Greek dialectics.
All the weak points of Greek dialectical thinking can
be found in Marxian dialectics too. Dialectics began
from the ancient Greek philosophic concept that, in
order to comprehend something, its opposite too is
needed. It evolved out of the thinking of Greek
philosophers like Heraclitus, Anaximander, and
Anaximenus. The modern practitioner of this dialectics
was the German philosopher Hegel. He stood for the
attainment of ‘absolute idea’ through the synthesis
emerging out of the conflict of thesis and anti-thesis of
ideas. He based dialectics on ideas. He subjected to
cogitation the continuing changes in the word of ideas.
He believed that progress lay in such changes in ideas.
Marx applied Hegelian type of dialectics to materialism.
ialectical materialism is the philosophy of
31
The three Laws of dialectics are; the Law of the
Interpenetration of Opposites, the Law of the
Transformation of Quantity into Quality and the Law of
Negation of the Negation. The idea of the unity and
struggle of the opposites and that of the negation of the
negation were introduced by Heraclitus. It was
Anaximander who introduced the prototype of the
Theory of the Transformation of Quantity into Quality.
Furthering the second principle of the theory,
Anaximander introduced condensation theory.
According to it, the sun, the moon and the stars are
formed by various degrees of gasification of air. Many
of the philosophical arguements raised by Hegel, the
modern guru of dialectics and Marx who succeeded him,
can be seen under the same labels in Greek philosophy.
There have been two concepts about motion from
the ancient times. One concept was that motion is
intrinsic to matter and the other one was that it was
induced. The concept that gained coin in Western
philosophy was the latter. The reason for it was the
influence of Greek philosopher Aristotle. He was the
first one to define motion in the world. According to
Aristotelian physics, things would move so long as some
external force is exerted on them. It means that motion
is not an intrinsic property of matter. He conceptualized
that the revolution of the planets and the sun was God –
induced. The Aristotelian concept of motion is still
influential in Western philosophy.
The next person, who tried to scientifically define
motion, was Isaac Newton. He defined matter as inert.
He said we need an external force to make a stationary
32
Beyond Red
thing move and also to bring a moving thing to a
standstill. He refused to accept motion as an intrinsic
property of matter. He claimed that it was God who put
the whole cosmos in motion. This attitude strongly
influenced dualism in Western philosophy. The concept
of motion upheld by both the Western idealists and the
materialists was the same, that is, the non-intrinsic nature
of motion in matter. But, in Asian philosophical systems
like Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism, motion is
considered an in-built property of matter. According to
Vedanta, the cosmos is dynamic and always in a flux.
Since everything is in motion, the Indian seers called
the whole cosmos including the Earth
jagath. The word
jagath
cosmos, atoms to huge galaxies are in self-motion.
Interestingly, the modern physics supports the Asiatic
view on motion. The Theory of Relativity and quantum
physics support it. They made it clear that motion is an
intrinsic quality of matter and that it is the shape of its
existence.
According to dialectical materialism, motion is
caused by conflicts originating from the interaction of
things and also their opposites. This definition about
motion is not logical. The dialectics, which claims there
is nothing in the world which is not in motion, also
says that motion is caused by conflicts of the opposites.
This is self-contradictory. If there should be conflict
between the opposites, there should already be motion.
From where does it arise? How does it originate?
Dialectical materialists do not explain it. Likewise, if
we say motion is dialectical, that means everything
and every process in the world is dialectical. If opposites
means ever-changing and ever-moving. In the
33
Unscientific dialectics
are universal, in every process there should be two
opposites. This is not true. Even linear motion is not
dialectical. There are no objective opposites in it. If we
say motion is the existential quality of matter and it is
caused by dialectics, then behind every pair of opposites,
there should be another one or two pairs of causative
opposites .Thus, the opposites will increase
geometrically. It is violative of horse sense. If there are
any opposites in dynamics, they are not in motion, but
in equilibrium. It is something against dialectics. Even
there, they are not Marxian opposites. For example,
when the angle between two vectors is 180
them opposites. But, dialecticians wrongly claim that
motion is dialectical.
The Marxists text books portray electricity as the
unity and struggle of negative and positive charges. The
relationship between positive and negative charges is
not conflictory. When we say that positive and negative
charges are the opposites, we are describing their
behaviour and motional directions in an electric field.
These opposites do not imply anything like ‘oppose’,
‘destroy’, submit, ‘avoid’ etc.
Besides, dialecticians describe the atom as the
opposites of positive and negative electricity. But, they
have not been able to explain the opposite of the electron.
Neither have they been able to explain the opposite
forces inside the nucleus of an atom. The dialecticians
oversimplify the atomic structure. Another example cited
by those believing in dialectical materialism in Marxist
text books is magnetism. They claim the north and south
poles in a magnet are opposites and that the relationship
o, we call
34
Beyond Red
between them is dialectical. Since magnetic poles are
activated by the movement of electrons, we cannot say
the reason for magnetism is the conflict and unity
between poles and that they are in conflict and unity at
the one and the same time. Even if the poles in a magnet
are opposites, they should have a unitary and conflictory
relationship at one and the same time. If polar attraction
is the unity in magnetism, their repulsion should be
taken as conflict. But opposite poles do not repel each
other in magnetism. On the other hand, they attract each
other, resulting in mutually complementary, not
exclusory relationship.
Engels’
the basic text of dialectical materialism by the Marxists.
In it, he tries, in vain, to find an opposite force to
gravitational attraction. But, gravity is universal. It is of
attractive nature in the whole cosmos. If it should be
of binary nature, there should be a gravitational
repulsion. The very fact that gravity is attractive
everywhere refutes the claim that dialectics is universal.
The force between the earth and the sun is that of
attraction. The sun and the earth attract each other.
Engels regarded potential energy and kinetic energy,
light and darkness etc. as oppositional binaries. There
is no process of repulsion between potential and kinetic
energy. They are the two different forms of the same
energy. Light and darkness are not opposites, since
darkness is created by the absence of light. Nobody
can really see darkness; we can see only light. So the
difference between them is only subjective.
Engels in his
Dialectics of Nature is considered to beDialectics of Nature makes yet
35
Unscientific dialectics
another vain attempt to explain chemical science in
dialectical terms. It is a ridiculous attempt. For example,
the explanation that, when there is a unitary
relationship, oxygen and hydrogen combine to form
water and that when there is conflictory relationship,
water divides into oxygen and hydrogen, is not
sensible. Engels claims that the combination and the
division of chemical elements are opposites. This
chemical process explained in the light of atomic
theory, refutes any dialectical qualities in it. Such
chemical combination and division are not dialectical.
We do not need dialectics to explain the process in
which two things combine to form a third one.
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is not dialectical.
The Marxist claim that the Theory of Relativity supports
dialectical materialism is non-sensical. The Theory of
Relativity is not dialectical. For example, Marxists try
to define the theory as the dualistic relationship
between the constant velocity of light and the relative
velocity of other things. For them to be dualistic and
in oppositional relationship, they should be both
absolute and relative. Then only, the Theory of
Relativity can be called dialectical. But, dialectics
negates all absolute truths. So, relativity cannot be
considered the opposite of the absolute. The Theory
of Relativity, which considers both time and space as
relative, is not about relativity. Its basic concept is that
the velocity of light will be constant in the whole
universe. That both time and space are relative is only
one of the conclusions of the theory. According to
Herman Minkovsky, who was the teacher of Albert
Einstein, the Theory of Relativity is about the absolute.
36
Beyond Red
There are no dialectical relationships in its concepts
about ‘dual paradox’, slowing of time, space–time
continuum etc. Neither is there anything dialectical in
quantum physics. The particle–wave nature of matter
and radiation has been used by Marxists to claim that
quantum physic is dialectical. It is wrong to portray the
particle and the wave as opposites. They have no
characteristics of the opposites in dialectics. Particles
and waves occur only logically since they avoid/replace
each other. But, mathematically, they are equal. In
quantum physics, particle-wave duality is explained in
mathematical terms. We do not create mental images
for mathematical equations. Wave is not the opposite
of particle. Particles and waves are complementary
properties of matter. Quantum physics uses both
particle and wave concepts to describe matter at micro
level. According to Neils Bohr’s complementary
principle, a thing would not have both wave and
particle nature at one and the same time and that they
show one of the property contextually. According to
the theory, both the particle and the wave are
complementary description of a reality. Hence
opposites are one. They are not objective. Dialectical
thinking, which discovered objective opposites in
classical physics, saw only logical opposites/paradoxes,
in quantum physics too. The dialecticians’ insistence
that the opposites should be objective stops here. It is
nonsensical to apply dialectics in the case of particles.
We cannot do that even in the simple properties of
particles.
In nuclear physics, electron is the opposite
particle of positron, and that of proton is anti-proton.
37
Unscientific dialectics
Dialectics, which regards proton as the opposite of
electron is forced to view the positron too as the
opposite of the electron. It is undecided and
meaningless. There is no dialectical process in science
as claimed by Marxism. The rules formed by scientists
are not dialectical. So, they do not give any evidence
to support dialectics. Sartre’s opinion is that nature is
only non-evidentially dialectical.
Marxism meaninglessly categorizes dialectics
into main dialectics, unimportant dialectics, dialectics
which are oppositional, external dialectics and internal
dialectics. There is no point in thinking one is better
than the other one. There is no such dialectics in nature.
Dividing dialectics into external and internal ones is
confusing. The idea that, in certain circumstances, one
of the opposite sides of a phenomenon will form its
own opposite is not applicable anywhere in nature.
The idea that struggle is more important and decisive
than cooperation is not found either in organic or in
inorganic world. In organic world, metabolism and
catabolism, hereditary and congenial environment are
not opposites. If metabolism and catabolism are in
struggle, life cannot exist. Creatures are in cooperation
and co-evolution through congenial characteristics
acquired genetically. There is no struggle in evolution.
The Law of the Transformation of Quantity into
Quality in dialectics, which says that quantity becomes
quality, is unscientific and unreasonable. Properties are
the result of the internal structure of a thing.
Measurements related to a thing are the mathematical
information about it. The aspects of evolutionary nature
38
Beyond Red
of structure are felt in the form of properties. Since inner
structures are of evolutionary nature, the difference
between quantity and quality is only subjective. This
rule in dialectics states that the change in quantity, when
it reaches a certain state, causes changes in quality. Since
quality is seeing quantity in gross form, this law is mere
periphrasis. Right from the time of Heraclitus, those
who believe in The Law of Transformation of
Quantity into Quality have quoted the example of
water. Water is, in normal state, liquid. If it is frozen
to 0
o Celsius, it becomes ice. If boiled above 100o
Celsius, water becomes steam. According to
dialectics, there will be changes in the chemical
properties of water in proportion to the changing heat.
Marxists use this even as an example of revolution.
In the liquid, solid and gaseous state, water does not
change its chemical properties. Liquid, solid and
gaseous states of water are mutually attainable. They
are only differences in state. The similarity between
the Periodic Law which states that the qualities of
chemical elements are the result of the repetitions of
their atomic weight and the Law of Transformation
of Quality are merely superficial. Because, the
change in atomic weight and the changes in
chemical properties are simultaneous. The Law of
Transformation of Quality is a distorted imitation
of chemical laws. When energy changes from one form
into another, properties change without affecting
quantity. Properties are not dualistic. The Law of
Transformation of Quality cannot be applied either in
organic or in inorganic world.
The third law of dialectics is the Negation of
39
Unscientific dialectics
Negation. This theory has nothing to do with reality. It
is an unscientific concept. In dialectical materialism
reason for motion and growth is the struggle
between opposites inbuilt in material things. The
dialecticians think that, in a pair of opposites, one
will get strengthened and the older one weakened
during the course of struggle. The emergence of the
new replacing the old is called negation by them. In
this new thing/force too, there will be opposites/
pairs, which will be responsible for its growth. This
is their supposition. One of those opposites/pairs will
try to sustain the existing thing, while the other one
will be striving for the emergence of a newer and
stronger thing. The dialecticians think that it will
occur. So this will negate the earlier negation. This
is the negation of negation. This law divides
transformation into phases. A phase is negated by
another phase coming after it. But it does not mean
more than the thing that one phase turns into
another. The Marxist textbooks use the example of
seeds and plants to uphold this theory. But it is quite
unsuitable. The change from tree to seed and then
from seed to tree is mere repetitive and cyclic. There
is no negation of negation in any changes taking
place in nature.
In philosophy, common concepts are called
categories. Marxist scholars claim that there are
dialectical relationships between the categories in
Marxism. But, there is no scientific evidence for it.
Such categories in dialectical materialism derive from
some wrong concepts. The main concepts in
dialectical materialism are the concrete and the abstract,
40
Beyond Red
content and form and cause and effect etc. What can be
imagined as having shape is concrete. That which lacks
such shape is abstract. In dialectics, concrete and abstract
are in dialectical relationship. In dialectics, the concrete
is the synthesis of many abstract things. Marxists believe
that the concrete and the abstract are dualistic on the
basis that the concrete is conceived in opposition to the
abstract and vice versa. We can say that they are different
and not opposites. In physical sense, the concrete will
not become the abstract, and the abstract, the concrete.
The relative differences in physical world are conceived
as opposites.
In dialectics, the totality of a thing or process, and
its components are called content. The way these
contents are arranged is called form. For example, if
we take an atom, protons, neutrons and their motion,
transformations, energy transmission, are together
called its content. The nucleus and electron with
different orbits is its form. In ordinary language, the
matter contained in things is called content. To say
that content and form are dualistic violate common
sense and is also confusing.
In Marxian concepts, the components of a thing,
its aspects and relations are its properties. In that sense,
form too is a property. Two propositions of a single thing
cannot be dualistic. As such, contents and form cannot
be in oppositional relations. Dialectics conceives the
metabolic and catabolic processes of life as content and
the organs responsible for it as form. Likewise, in
Marxism, productive forces are conceived as the content
of the social processes and production relations as their
41
Unscientific dialectics
form. Dialectics categorizes the same thing into content
and form. The claim that out of these opposites, content
matters more has no meaning whatsoever. There is no
form without content and no content without form. If
form and content are the two sides responsible for the
unity of a thing, how can we say that they are opposites?
We can say that both content and form change. But,
form does not block the development of content. The
opposition between content and form of a thing is like
that between the left and right hands of a man. To give
another example, it is like the relationship between the
rubber content and the spherical shape of a rubber ball.
One of the most important enquiries in philosophy
is about cause and effect. In philosophy, a thing which
creates, or stirs another phenomenon is called the cause
and what results from that is called the effect. Relationship
is the emergence of two things for the creation of a thing.
Just like in other Marxian categories, in cause and effect
relationship too, Marxists place more emphasis on
cause. Dialectics says that the relationship between
cause and effect is dualistic. It is not right to say cause
and effect are not dualistic by any means. The main
feature of the relationship between cause and effect is
in chronological order. The so-called cause will have to
precede the effect. Effect cannot precede or synchronize
with cause. It always follows cause. Cause and effect
phenomenon cannot be separated from chronological
order. There is no cause and effect relation in scientific
equations. Simultaneous processes cannot be cause and
effect of each other. For example quantum mechanics
made it clear that intra-atomic phenomena cannot be
explained through cause and effect relationship. The
42
Beyond Red
motion of subatomic particles can be explained only in
terms of probabilities. The cause and effect relationship
at micro level is not consistent with the cause and the
effect in dialectics.
But Marx and Engels tried to project dialectical
materialism as the science of sciences. They also tried
to find dialectical relationships in mathematics, astrophysics,
physics, chemistry and biology. They claimed
that they found a dialectical solution for every
theoretical problem in nature and science. The
ideologues in the Soviet Communist Party claimed that
Lenin found an eternal solution in his book
Materialism and Emperio
by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. They went to the
extent of befooling the public with their claim that,
but for Marxism, there would not have been either the
Theory of Relativity or quantum physics. So far as the
Marxist ideologues were concerned, Lenin was a
philosopher who understood the Theory of Relativity
more than Einstein and quantum physics more than Max
Planck. To think that dialectics is applicable in all
branches of science is an idiotic thought because nature
does not produce any dialectical laws. We do not need
the glossary of dialectics to explain physical things and
phenomena. To follow the champions of dialectical
materialism, which has nothing to do with reality, is
the very negation of scientific spirit which Marxists are
supposed to be upholding.
Dialectical-criticism to every issue raised
43
Unscientific dialectics
Crisis and classical
philosophy
C
and economic systems evolving out of the
European Industrial Revolution. Both systems
uphold the motto of Industrial revolution ‘Supremacy
over nature’. The ideological sources of these twin
systems are the western classical, scientific and
philosophical thoughts, which have developed from
17th century onwards. Basically, the production and
consumerist patterns in both philosophies are the same.
Materialism became strong with the growth of
capitalism and communism.
In western classical physics and philosophy,
nature and man, mind and body are separate. They
presented a picture of endless conflict between man
and nature. They also declared that only the
knowledge, which is capable of increasing material
riches, is valid. Science was only a means to gain
supremacy over nature. The materialistic thinking grew
in strength through Bacon, Rene Descartes, Galileo,
and Marx within three centuries and began to have a
apitalism and communism are twin political
47
global impact. But, by the beginning of 20th century,
the ignorance of the classical thinkers, who stood for
the exploitation of nature, began to be questioned by
thoughtful scientists and philosophers. It was clear that
nature and man couldn’t be confined within the
structured western classical thoughts.
Galileo can be considered the originator of
classical science. It is he who linked scientific
experiment to mathematical language. He believed that
nature could be mathematically explained and that
there was nothing in the world that did not come within
the scope of mathematics. Galileo gave importance to
measuring weight, volume, number and motion of
things. Weight and measurement became the
fundamental characteristics of science right from the
time of Galileo. The shape, color and, taste and smell
of things generally became extraneous to scientific
experiments. Galileo’s stand was that only the
measurable qualities of matter should be included
within the scope of scientific experiments. Though his
stand helped the development of science, it, in another
way, affected the search for truth adversely. The study
about matter was confined to its measurable qualities
only. All those qualities of matter, which were not
measurable, were excluded from scientific enquiry.
Consciousness, intelligence, mind, thoughts and
feelings were outside the scientific enquiry. If we just
look at the past history of the scientific revolution, it
can be discerned that, science gave emphasis to
measuring, weighing and numbering material things.
Galileo’s mathematical concept of nature influenced
science considerably.
48
Beyond Red
When Galileo was conducting experiments in
Italy, Francis Bacon was inventing new experimental
methods in England. Bacon tried to establish that his
inductive method based on observation was better than
the Aristotelian deductive method. Baconian method
changed the very direction of scientific enquiry and
completely altered its character. He maintained,
“Nature is to be raped and enslaved and persecuted to
get the secrets out of her”. Bacon got this perverse
attitude from the witch trials of his time. He, as Attorney
General to James I, had to witness witch-trials. His
attitude towards women was the same as that towards
nature. Accordingly, the western classical philosophy,
which followed the footsteps of Bacon, became antinature
and anti-woman. The pagan Greeks and
Romans, who were the forefathers of Europeans,
considered the Earth a goddess. This tradition sustained
itself up to the 16th century. But, Bacon and succeeding
western philosophers gave up this divine concept of
nature.
Rene Descartes is one of the important
philosophers who shaped western philosophical
thoughts. He is called the father of classical western
philosophy. He gave new shape and form to the
western philosophy. Just like Galileo, he too thought
that the language of nature is mathematical. The key
to the secrets of nature was, to him, mathematics. He
formulated analytical geometry by combining algebra
and geometry. His mathematical genius was reflected
in philosophy. His book
his mathematical philosophy. Western scholars
consider this an introduction to western classical
Discourse on Method reflects
49
Crisis and classical philosophy
science and philosophy. He introduced both in classical
science and philosophy mathematical logic or
rationalistic inductive method. The first question he
raised was; “am I distinct from my body?” The
answer to this question was that body and mind are
two different things. He declared, “I think, therefore
I am”, i.e. ‘I’ is the mind in human beings. He
equated consciousness with mind and thought. To
him, both body and mind are in endless conflict. This
philosophical view of Descartes is known as the
Cartesian dichotomy. It brought into science and
philosophy opposites like body and mind, objectivity
and subjectivity.
Reductionism came into existence in Western
philosophy following this Cartesian view. It’s a belief
that anything or any phenomenon in the world can be
explained by studying the characteristic of its
constituents. For example, if we know the geometry of
a single area of the earth, we can know its total
geometry. To understand any complex system, what
we have to do is to analyze its parts. Reductionism, to
comprehend the stuff, of which the cosmos is made,
divides it into matter, elements, molecules and atoms
and finally into particles. If what we get last is particles,
they conclude that the universe is made of particles.
But, modern science does most agree with this. Neither
carbon nor hydrogen, the constituents of sugar,
possesses the sweetness of it. Sugar is sweet. Nature
cannot be fully understood either through analysis or
synthesis. Accordingly, in modern scientific
philosophy, the characteristics of the part are
determined by the whole.
50
Beyond Red
Descartes compared the cosmos to a machine.
He believed that the function of the cosmos is in
accordance with the arrangement of its parts. In his
lifetime, the best model of machinery was clock. He
regarded animals as clocks having springs and teethed
wheels. He compared human bodily functions to
levers, mechanical movement and hydraulic pressure.
He said “ We see man-made clocks fountains and mills.
They can move in various positions. I cannot see any
difference between the machines made by a craftsman
and various things created by nature”. Instead of an
idea of organic wholeness of the cosmos, Descartes
put forward an idea of a machine -like universe. The
Cartesian view of the universe did away with all the
social and cultural taboos against exploitation of nature.
It gave philosophical justification for the brutal
exploitation of natural resources. It was essential for
the advancement of capitalism. Scientific knowledge
became a tool for man to make himself the master and
owner of nature.
It was Isaac Newton who made Cartesian
viewpoint an established one. Newton was not just a
scientist. He was a philosopher, lawyer and historian.
He fused together the ideas of Copernicus, Kepler,
Bacon, Galileo, and Descartes. Compared to his coeval
scientists, his knowledge of mathematics was
uncommon. He discovered differential calculus to
explain the motion of solid things. He formulated a
general law of motion combining the laws of motion
postulated by Galileo, and Kepler. He applied these
laws of motion to all things in the galaxy. He came to
know that the power, which makes the sun attract the
51
Crisis and classical philosophy
earth towards it, is the same as the one which causes
an apple to fall on to the earth. Thus, he formulated
the law of gravity with the help of mathematics. When
it was possible to explain gravity in terms of
mathematical language, the scientific community
accepted the Newtonian view of the cosmos. The
Newtonian cosmos was a big machine run in
accordance with mathematical laws. The model of the
universe postulated by Newton gave strength to the
mechanistic view of the cosmos. He compared the
world to a clock in his
world has to be compared to a clock. The cosmos is a
clock wound by the hands of God. There was a time
when things from big stars to small particles stood
motionless in great emptiness of the outer space. God
gave the first push and life in the cosmos. With that,
ended the responsibility of God. From then onwards,
the cosmos and things in it began to move in
accordance with clear laws. Nothing unexpected
happens there. Everything is predetermined. Thus,
nature began to work with clock-like precision.
In 18th and 19th centuries, Newtonian physics
and its mechanistic view of the cosmos continued its
triumphant march. John Dalton’s atomic theory, which
changed the history of chemistry, was based on
Newtonian physics. William Harvey’s theory of blood
circulation too derived inspiration from the mechanistic
view. He regarded each organ of human body as
various parts of a machine. He compared the heart to
a pump. The chemical scientist, Anthony Lavosiar
opined that respiration was a certain type of oxidization.
The belief that metabolic processes could be explained
Principia Mathematica. The
52
Beyond Red
in terms of physics and chemistry became strong.
Western medicine studied human body in accordance
with cellular biology and biochemistry. It believed that
any damage to human body could be repaired by
surgery and chemical treatment. The famous doctor,
George Engels said that human body is a machine and
that disease is a breakdown in the machine and that
the duty of the doctor is to repair it. But, doctors did
not realize that diseases could be linked to the mind
of the patients and also to the social and environmental
conditions in which they live. As a result, a system of
medicine, which gave more importance to the disease
than the patient developed in the West. The Freudian
psychological theories too came under the influence
of the Newton view.
Newtonian physics had its influence on
Humanities too. European intellectuals were virtually
intoxicated with it. The famous philosopher, John Locke
introduced the Atomistic Theory of Human Society.
He compared the individual, the basic component of
human society, to an atom. Locke tried to explain the
proportion of the society in the same way as the
chemical scientists described the proportion of
molecules and atoms. He reduced man to the status of
atoms. He compared social phenomena to chemical
reactions and the interpersonal relations to attractive
and repulsive forces in the universe. Another
philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, declared in his book
Leviathan
in the society. Newtonian physics crept into economics
and politics. Sir William Petty, who was the friend of
Newton wrote the book
that each person is in struggle with the otherPolitical Arithmatick on the
53
Crisis and classical philosophy
basis of the perspectives of Cartesian and Newtonian
philosophy. It is Sir William Petty who introduced the
concept of labour value for the first time. Adam Smith
and Recardo got this theory from Sir William Petty.
Marxian concept of surplus value was the continuation
of the Labour Value Theory. Historical determinism is
the outcome of the scientific determinism of Newtonian
physics. Marxist theory of historical materialism is
indebted to the concept of historical determinism.
The mass production system brought about by
the Industrial Revolution made the hither-to production
concepts topsy-turvy. The industrial worker was
reduced to the status of a machine. His personal and
social relationships became meaningless. Workers
were alienated from their own products and labour.
Both man and society became machine-like. Families,
societies, industry and commerce were all built upon
the mechanical view of society. Newtonian metaphors
can be found in the administrative terms like state
machinery. Newtonian mechanical view won over all
political, economic and social systems. All systems
were centralized. In capitalism and communism,
governments were like the main spring in a clock,
which set in motion other parts. In both systems, power
and money are extremely centralized. In capitalism and
communist parties, those on the highest ladder of the
hierarchy enjoy absolute power. Words like liberal
democracy, democratic centralization are mere ruse
to conceal this centralization of power. The liberal
democratic system in capitalism is, though seemingly
egalitarian, indirectly, a cruel system to perpetuate
exploitation. The democratic centralization of power
54
Beyond Red
in socialist countries, which stood for equality, ended
up in totalitarianism and absolutism.
The mass production system followed in
capitalism and communism has led to the depletion
of both organic and inorganic natural resources.
Capitalism can survive only if it indulges in mass
production through creating and pandering to endless
desires. Communism too wants to mass-produce things.
Both capitalism and communism have the same model
of development. Both capitalists and communists think
that natural resources are endless and that they have
to be exploited. Though seemingly opposed to
capitalism, communism is another branch of the mode
of production ensuing from the Industrial Revolution.
What communists upholds against the profit-seeking
consumerism of capitalism is another consumerist
culture endorsing ever-increasing wanting. In reality
both capitalism and communism share consumerist
mentality equally.
The new philosophy emerging out of new physics
questions the very veracity of the western classical
thoughts. The new thought considers nature an organic
whole. It considers both body and mind indivisible. It
has compelled us to give up the classical thinking that
the observed things are independent of the
consciousness of the observer. A new awareness is
growing among scientists and philosophers. Biology
has gone beyond the frontiers of materialism. Genetics
is refusing to be tied down to Chemistry. Modern
psychology has started talking about the vast plane of
consciousness beyond the Freudian unconscious.
55
Crisis and classical philosophy
56
Beyond Red
Modern medicine has become ready to abandon the
concept that body and mind are separate. New social,
economic and political systems based on holistic
thinking, have begun to rise. Actually, the alternative
to capitalism and communism will have to spring from
such ways of thinking.
Uncertainty in
history
H
by Marxists to interpret history wrong.
Historical materialism was formed out of
dialectical materialism. It came into existence through
the evolutionary development of classical physics and
philosophy. Classical physics and its philosophy
believed in determinism and mechanical nature of the
world. Historical materialism claims that there are
deterministic rules, which control human history. The
writings of Marx and Engels were written according to
this claim. As such, evolution from capitalism to
communism is inevitability. But, the present
developments show that it is not possible to build up a
socialist and communist society based on historical
materialism.
The laws of motion discovered and formulated
by Isaac Newton about 300 year ago laid the
foundations of classical mechanics. His laws of
motion were deterministic. The success of Newtonian
physics forced all other material sciences and
istory has proven historical materialism used
59
Humanities to accept determinism. All physical
phenomena were explained in accordance with
Newton’s mechanical laws. It helped scientists to
explain things from chemical bonding of atoms to
natural attraction of planets. These laws governing
the universe were considered unchangeable. It is
these laws, which became the foundations of the
mechanistic view of the world and determinism.
Newton compared the cosmos to a gigantic machine.
Newton claimed that whatever happens in it has a
deterministic reason and that out of them occur
deterministic effects.
Accordingly, if we know the time and place of
a thing in the universe, we can easily predict its
future place and time. For example, if we know the
time and position of the present movement of the
Earth in the solar system, we can precisely predict
where and when it will be in, say, six months. The
discoveries in astronomy during that period also
buttressed up Newtonian determinism. Edmond
Halley, who was Newton’s friend and a scientist,
discovered, while going through astronomical data,
in the light of Newtonian mechanics, that, there is a
comet which appeared repeatedly in every 75 years
and that it would appear again in 1758. As predicted
by Halley, the comet, which was later named after
him, appeared again. With this, determinism of
Newtonian physics reached its apogee.
The French mathematician Laplace, excited by
the success of Newtonian physics, put forward scientific
determinism in the 19th Century. He argued that
60
Beyond Red
there was nothing unclear or uncertain in the
cosmos. He believed in the complete deducibility of
the world. He claimed that everything in the cosmos
could be predicted in accordance with Newtonian
physics. Laplace, thus, tried to perfect Newtonian
physics. His theory of the solar system was based
upon the Newtonian laws. He also studied all the
phenomena related to gravity. The tremendous
success Newtonian physics had in explaining things
in astronomy led to its being used to explain other
phenomena. In the wake of the success of
Newtonian physics, almost all scientists in 19th
century believed that the whole cosmos worked in
accordance with the Newtonian laws. They regarded
the Newtonian laws as the basic laws underlying
Nature. Laplace went a step further than others. He
claimed that even human behaviour could be
scientifically predicted using scientific determinism.
The philosophy, which evolved out of Laplace’s
scientific determinism, influenced all fields of
knowledge. People like Adam Smith and Ricardo, who
wrote their economics in conformity with the free
economy of capitalism and also Karl Marx, who
considered history deterministic, came under its
influence. One of the basic sources of Marxian
historical materialism is determinism. At the very
beginning of 19th century, doubt had arisen about
the veracity of the determinism of Newtonian
physics. Newtonian model of the universe was a
simplified one. The conundrum of three planets in
planetary movement in the solar system was a muchdebated
one. It was not possible to predict the
61
Uncertainty in history
behaviour of three planets and the sun in the distant
future in accordance with the Newtonian concept
of universal gravity. In the case of one planet, it was
possible. If we take the example of, say, the Earth,
the Jupiter and the Sun, we cannot say correctly how
the movement of the Jupiter will influence that of
the Earth. Henry Poincare, a nineteenth century
mathematician, observed that the deductibility of the
Newtonian theory of gravity went wrong when all
the planets and satellites in the solar system moved,
attracting one another disturbingly. But, his
observations did not catch the attention of
astronomers for a long time. Neither could
Newtonian physics explain the laws of
thermodynamics formulated in connection with the
then- invented steam engines. Besides, the findings
by Maxwell about electrodynamics didn’t follow the
laws of determinism. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
too was inconsistent with the deterministic
principles.
The uncertainty of the universe disturbed great
scientists like Einstein. His famous dictum that ‘God
does not play dice’ reflects this completely. He believed
uncertainty in the universe was of temporary nature.
He tried to prove that particles are subject to
determinism and that they have precise and
determinable speed and velocity. But, the ‘quantum’
behaviour of the light proved the Uncertainty Principle
true. The Hidden Variable Theory was one formulated
by Einstein to overcome the principles of uncertainty.
Though the scientific community, mesmerized by the
intellectual achievements of Einstein, accepted the
62
Beyond Red
theory, later it was proved that the theory did not
go well with physical reality. The EPR experiment
was intellectually and theoretically proposed by
Einstein to refute the Uncertainty Principle.
Following the advancement of technology, the
particle physicist John Bell in the middle of the 1960’s
conducted this experiment successfully. The result
was not what Einstein had expected. The experiment
proved that Nature followed the quantum principles,
which were not amenable to common sense. The
Uncertainty Principle made it clear that even God
cannot determine the speed and velocity of particles.
In the last century, another challenge against
determinism arose from the Chaos Theory. It was
one of the intellectual revolutions of the mid - 20th
century. The theory became a reality with the
introduction of digital computers in the 1960’s. Chaos
pervades the whole universe. In some systems, chaos
is the unpredictable action, which, depending upon
its initial state may appear or disappear. The boiling
of water is an example. If we place a cork in the
water, it will move here and there. We cannot predict
in which direction it will move. But in an artificially
created phase, the order behind the movement of
the cork will unfold. The hallmark of the chaos is
the concealing order. The Theory of Chaos has
influenced physics, engineering, biology, medicine,
economics, politics, sociology, linguistics, and
philosophy. It demolishes the claim of the classical
physics that there can be precise predictions. The theory
implies that if there is a slight change in the initial
condition of a thing or system, it may cause far-reaching
63
Uncertainty in history
changes in its future behavior. It is found in nonlinear
systems. ‘Linear’ means here ‘proportionate’.
For example, take the distance a thing covers at a
constant speed in direct proportion to the time it
takes to cover the distance. The graph, which links
both distance and time, is on a straight line. All the
phenomena in the world are non-linear. The
bouncing of playing balls, the movement of
pendulum, which were considered linear in
Newtonian physics, are, in reality, found to be
showing non–linearity. A non–linear clock may
work unpredictably and without any order.
According to the Theory of Chaos, a slight change
caused to a particle’s position and velocity may bring
about big changes. In 1980, Lawrence, who is the one
of the greatest climatologists in MIT proved that any
slight movement in the atmosphere could create great
repercussions. He called this phenomenon ‘Butterfly
Effect’. If a group of butterflies in Kerala flap their wings,
it may cause changes in the climate in New Delhi.
Even a small disturbance can be a factor decisive in
controlling weather conditions. In this network of
interconnectedness, any small change taking place,
somewhere can have its chain reaction somewhere
else. What is problematic about this is that the
phenomenon cannot be repeated. The incidents caused
by the flapping of wings by the butterflies next time,
will be different. But, they will still have effect on the
climate. That’s why weather forecasts are so
undependable. Chaos is an area where complete
predictability is impossible.
64
Beyond Red
Historical determinism is an outcome of
scientific determinism. Marx’s historical materialism
is based on historical determinism. Marx tried to
tabularize history with a mechanical and determined
nature of a train timetable. Marxist concept of
historical determinism has been proved to be idiotic
dogmatism. What is Marxian concept of history? In
human history, productive forces and, and
production relations have been in constant conflict
and productive forces are always growing. They
need changes in production relations. When the
existing production relations in the society create
impediments to productive forces, the former will
break down and, in the stead of old production
relations, new ones helpful to productive forces will
emerge. This will result in new social relations. That
is how social system like primitive communism,
slavery, feudalism and capitalism emerged one by
one. Capitalism witnessed progress, which was
unprecedented. Now its growth is impeded. So a
new social set up called communism has to arise.
That is inevitability. This is Marx’s theory of
historical inevitability. According to his theory,
proletarian revolution was imminent in Britain and
Germany where capitalism was highly advanced.
But, revolution took place in Tsarist Russia, which
was industrially the least advanced. The October
Revolution of 1917 was not a mass revolution; it was
a coup in which a group of disgruntled soldiers and
65
Uncertainty in history
a small group of revolutionaries usurped power from
Tsar.
It had no continuity or any historical
evolutionary nature of Marxian concept of history.
It brought in state ownership of property under the
aegis of Communist Party in the place of the
degenerate private ownership of property in the
Tsarist Russia. Finally, the whole property in Russia
went into the hands of the communists. Under the
communists in Russia, nationalization of property
did not take place. The property not only didn’t get
nationalized in effect but it became centralized as
well. Property became alien to the society. The whole
production means in the nation were nationalized
and centralized. That became the basis for the
centralization of power. The centralization of power
in Russia led to fascism. A large of number of people
had no say in the government. The old feudal system
changed into a new one led by the party lords.
The communists could gain power in China
and Eastern European countries not as a result of
any historical evolution. At the end of World War,
East European countries were militarily taken over
by Russia. They established communism there.
China was a feudal country with no possibility of
any large-scale proletarian presence. By the end of
1980’s, communism disappeared from many eastern
European countries and Russia. The present China
66
Beyond Red
67
Uncertainty in history
is politically communist and economically
capitalistic. The socialization of property or power
has not taken place in China. According to Marxian
ideals, a theory has to prove itself through practice.
Then, these developments show the failure of his own
pet theory.
The experiences in Russia and European
countries and the so-called remaining communist
countries have shown that historical determinism
stands completely rejected. Upholding historical
materialism, when it signally failed to stand the test
of time, is standing in the way of social progress.
The fact that Marxist theory of inevitability of
revolution has fallen flat rankles in the mind of
Marxist intellectuals. Obsessive prophets of a
redundant theory are mere impractical dogmatists.
The disoriented
economics
M
anti-nature and detrimental to the existence
of human race. Economics is a social science
dealing with the production of wealth, its distribution
and transaction. Western economics developed
within the confines of western classical physics. As
a result, modern economics failed to view
environmental, economic, and social problems
organically. Economics didn’t take into account the
relationship between man and other beings. Economists
say man progressed through his relentless struggle
against nature and that it is his duty to exploit nature
itself. Marx went a step further and wrote. “All the
philosophers have, hitherto, interpreted nature. Our
aim is to change it”. The attitude reflected in
Marxism is the same as the capitalistic view that we
have to rob nature for our benefit even if it means
destroying the rhythm of nature. Both capitalist and
communist economists believe that increase in
productive forces implies the need for excess
odern economic theories, by and large, are
71
production. In both economic systems, the criterion
to measure the standard of life is annual
consumption of goods. Their motto is to increase
consumption through increase in production.
In both capitalist and communist countries
consumerism increased. Marx didn’t differentiate needs
from greed. Craze for consumption of goods, was the
same in capitalist and communist countries. They failed
to discern the danger behind the concept of maximum
consumption. A good example is the production of
energy. They are simply interested in how to maximize
the energy production. The source does not matter.
They are not worried about whether they are renewable
or not. Their only aim is maximum production. Modern
economists’ aim of increasing production and
consumerism has resulted in social inequality, inflation,
unemployment, concentration of wealth, energy crises,
and environmental catastrophes.
Modern economics failed to imbibe the holistic
vision brought about by the revolutionary changes in
modern scientific philosophy. The economic principles
of both capitalism and communism have not been able
to rid themselves of the influence of classical
economics. They are based on materialism,
development and competition. They promoted avarice,
selfishness, and conflicts in the society. They threw to
winds all sense of morality.
Old economic system had regarded nature as
divine. It stood against usury and also ensured
reasonable pricing of products. Black-marketeering and
hoarding were traditionally considered unrighteous.
72
Beyond Red
Those who were involved in black-market and
hoarding were severely punished. The production
system of the time gave importance to social needs.
The total needs of the society were taken care of by
the participation of the whole community. Food,
clothes, house and other things had only utility value.
The phenomenon of market began in the 17th
century England. Then it spread globally. The global
market is a modern version. Transition of goods was
prevalent even the in the Stone Age.
Until the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, market was a place only for the local
transaction of goods. Commerce had a divinity of
its own. There was no monetary transaction. Metal
coins were used only for taxation.
The advance in production as a result of the
Industrial Revolution also increased the desire for
greater profit. Property meant something solid in one
way or other. A man’s property was calculated on the
basis of the land or gold he owned. Material property
became the measuring rod in a man’s life, and
materialism became rampant in the society. In industry
and commerce, dishonesty increased. New social,
economic, and cultural institutions came into existence
in conformity with the new industrial and commercial
environments. New theories on production,
distribution, transition, monetary transactions, were
formulated. Profit and profiteering, which is the
hallmark of capitalism, became rampant in society. The
Catholic and the Protestant Churches in Europe gave
silent permission to the advancement of capitalism.
73
The disoriented economics
The European culture became anti-environmental
and male-centered
Modern economics was born against this
backdrop and it is only three hundred years old. It
began in Britain. It was Sir William Petty, a close friend
of Newton, a musician and Professor of Anatomy at
Oxford, who laid the foundations of modern
economics. His famous book on economics
Arithmetic
Newtonian views. It was Petty who introduced the
Theory of Value of Labour. He established that the value
of a product is worth the labour needed to produce it.
John Locke strengthened the base of Sir William Petty’s
economics. Locke introduced Atomistic Theory of
Human Society. Locke also tried to introduce Newton’s
Atomic Theory into the world of economics. In Locke’s
opinion, the price of a product depends upon demand
and supply. The price will be varying according to the
changes in demand and supply. There is no certainty
that value and price will be the same at a particular
moment.
If price is greater than value, the production of a
particular product will increase and its price will
decrease and vice versa. In the long run, it will become
equal to the average value. Supply and demand theory
was consistent with Newtonian physics. Petty and
Locke tried to make economics, which is a social
science, a pure science like physics and mathematics.
It divorced economics from its social relevance.
The book
and written by the Scottish economist Adam Smith
Politicalwas written on the basis of Cartesian andWealth of Nation published in 1776
74
Beyond Red
accelerated the tempo of the capitalist economic
system. It was this book, which gave market
economy its philosophical base. It inspired the
Industrial Revolution in Britain. Adam Smith
describes in detail how the wealth of a nation
increases and is distributed. Smith made it clear that
the base of production is human labour and natural
resources, and that the wealth of a nation depends
upon the productivity of its people. He emphasized
the need for introducing large-scale machines to
enhance production. He also explained that market
is an invisible thing and that it protects the interests
of producers and consumers and it causes increase
in the production. Instead of consumption meeting
production, it will be the other way round, he says.
He tries to substantiate that it is the free market that
determines the price as result of the equilibrium of
demand and supply. Smith’s economic theories were
based on the equilibrium, motion and objectivity of
Newtonian physics. He justified the capitalists
amassing capital, since it is needed to enhance
production. His theories were congenial to the
unlimited exploitation of natural resources and
exploitation of the workers.
At the beginning of 19th century, economist
David Ricardo compiled all the economic theories
existing thereunto. He was a multimillionaire
stockbroker. The work that influenced him most was
The Wealth of Nation
that economic growth would be stunted at a certain
stage due to the limited nature of the land and also
due to the increase in the cost of production of food.
by Adam Smith. He predicted
75
The disoriented economics
He further developed the economic theories of Sir
William Petty and Adam Smith. His theories are
responsible for the growth of capitalist market. He
also reasoned that it was natural that there should
be the rich and the poor. His economics was one
which justified the 19th century colonial expansion
and exploitation by the western powers.
The two types of economics, which came into
existence after Ricardian economics, were welfare
economics and utopian economics. Their aim was to
reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots
through social welfare activities and legislation.
Utopians set up factories and mills on cooperative basis,
offering workers less hours of work, higher wages,
insurance and scope for entertainment and
accommodation. They gave importance to moral,
spiritual, and artistic values of workers. But, their
experiment was a failure. The failure was, according
to Marx, due to the incongruity of their plan with the
socio-economic conditions of the society. Marx was
indebted to the Utopians for his ideas. Interestingly,
many of the economic, social and environmental
policies introduced by the welfare and utopian
economists still have relevance.
Karl Marx predicted that the collapse of
capitalism was inevitable and that socialist order would
evolve out of such a collapse. It was a mere prophesy.
Basically, the economics of capitalism and communism
are the same. All Marxist thoughts are a continuation
of western classical philosophy, economics and
political science. Marxian economics was founded on
76
Beyond Red
the economic theories of Adam smith, Ricardo and
Robert Owen. Marx was reputedly thorough with Adam
Smith’s
that Marx learnt many things about capitalism,
which were responsible for the plight of the
proletariat. The source for the Marxist concept of
alienation of labour also is derived from this book.
The Theory of Surplus Value–the process of value
changing into price–is from the theories developed
by Adam Smith. It was Ricardo who formulated the
proto-type of Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value. In
Marxist economics, there is a great difference in the
value of labour power and labour. The value of
labour is the money a labourer needs for him and
his family to live in accordance with the average
standard of life. It is that price that capitalists give
to workers by way of wages. Marx called the
difference between value of labour power and the
value of the actual labour surplus value. Capitalists
collect the surplus value and turn a part of the
surplus value into capital in order to create further
surplus value. Marx came to believe that the
contemporary trouble with capitalism is the taking
away of surplus value. He also believed that finally
capitalism itself would collapse. Marxists think that
the theory of surplus value of Karl Marx is an eternal
truth. When new scientific technology is applied to
production and labour becomes mental, The Theory
of Surplus value will not stand as such. The role of
land, labour, capital and other things in production
has changed. Nature plays an immense role in capital
production. Surplus value cannot be created without
The Wealth of Nation. It was from this book
77
The disoriented economics
natural resources. When he calculated the value of
a product, Marx did not take into consideration the
value of natural resources. According to Marxism,
production relationships will change when
productive forces change. Every social system has
got its own production relations. It was assumed that
the present day capitalist production relation will
change and a socialist production relation will come
in its place, which will change into communist mode
of production, that is, productive forces will be
increasing resulting in the increase in production.
Marx came to this conclusion due to his false belief
that man and Nature are separate and that natural
resources are limitless. Marxist thoughts are related
to the thinking system of Simon Furier. The concept
of Proletarian dictatorship has been borrowed from
the French thinker Babeuf. The slogan ‘workers of
the whole world unite’ comes from Karl Shaper. Even
the word communism does not belong to Marx. This
word was first used by the followers of Robert Owen,
who was a utopian socialist.
During the world slump from 1929-1933, in
order to bail out capitalist social system, John Maynard
Keynes, a British economist, introduced some new
economic theories. Keynes’ economic theories
justified overproduction. He stood for the continuous
growth of production and overproduction and the
consumption needed for it. In his opinion, the greater
the production of wealth, the more will be the benefit
of the poor. He claimed that the rich would be forced
to spend the wealth amassed by them which would
benefit the poor. When wealth increases materially,
78
Beyond Red
a part of it will trickle down to the poor whether the
rich like it or not. Thus, the gap between the rich
and the poor will be narrowed down. So, he opined
that the process should not be blocked until then.
Modern capitalist governments give scriptural
sanctimony to such Keynesian concepts. Almost all
capitalist economists are the followers of Keynes. But
experiences show that his economic theories are
wrong. In the last century the gap between the poor
and the rich countries and that between the poor and
the rich has increased. In 1960, the average per capita
income of 20% of the richest people of the world was
30 times greater than that of 20% of poorest in the
world population. By 1997, it increased 86 times.
Inequality almost doubled. The wealth of world’s 3
richest men is greater than that of the total income of
35% of world’s poorest countries. The proportion of
the poor men to the rich people is staggering. If the
2% of wealth of rich men is spent, that is enough to
meet the expenses needed to provide primary
education to all the students of the world. The real aim
of capitalist economists including Keynes is to make
the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The economics of capitalism and communism
have unusual similarities. They aim at technological
and economic development. The lust for universal
economic development and growth is stronger in
communism and capitalism than in any other ideology.
One of the greatest problems facing the world is the
discrepancy between unlimited wants and limited
resources. We cannot make a limited thing an unlimited
79
The disoriented economics
one. Modern economics of all hues try to make what
is finite infinite. It has been proven that since natural
resources are limited, uncontrolled and unlimited
production is not possible. This attitude of unlimited
production is one philosophically inspired by
Newton’s views. If we want to achieve the
communist goal of ‘to each according to his needs’,
productive forces have to increase indefinitely. Both
the capitalist and communist economists believe in
the infinite possibilities of science and technology.
The developmental attitude of America and the
former USSR was the same. Both show unnecessary
interest in large-scale production. They were growthintoxicated.
Economic growth is important for
progress. But, development at any cost is anti-nature.
There should be a dynamic equilibrium between
growth and depletion. Production and consumption
must be consonant with Nature. The serious impact
of continuous development and growth has begun
to be felt on our planet. The sources of natural
resources are fast getting depleted.
The world famous geologist King Hubert in
1950 presented data on the depletion of natural
resources. Both capitalist and socialist economists
derisively called him a mad man. He studied the
relationship between the production of nonrenewable
resources and their depletion worldwide.
In his opinion, the production of petroleum will peak
by the end of 20th century and it will, gradually,
decrease and peter out. The production of coal will
stop by the end of 21st century. There will be a time
when natural gases, ores, forest and fish and even
80
Beyond Red
oxygen will be depleted. Even if we discover an
alternative to fossil-based fuels, it will not stop the
depletion of the latter. Our present-day reckless
development will destroy the sources of metal, food,
oxygen and ozone which are necessary for our
survival. If the overexploitation of water continues
at this rate by the middle of this century, sources of
potable water will be dried out. Future wars will be
fought for water.
The history of the latter half of the last century
was something that justified the stand and the
warnings of Hubert. Those who thought seriously
about man and nature became convinced about the
perils of the developmental model introduced by
communism and capitalism. In 1972, the group called
The ‘Club of Rome’ published a study entitled ‘the
Limits to Growth’. Rulers in capitalist and communist
countries ignored it. The first World Congress to
discuss the deteriorating environmental condition
was held in 1972 in Stockholm. Though it took many
decisions, capitalist and communist countries refused
to heed to the imminent doom. The Environmental
Summit held in Nairobi in 1982 pointed out the fast
deteriorating condition of the world. It took better
decisions and dispersed. Yet, the capitalist and the
communist blocks continued their assault on nature.
Nature’s revenges too became more intense. Even
the mainstream scientists had to acknowledge
problems like global warming, changes in climate
and holes in ozone layers as real phenomena. They
were forced to acknowledge that development will
be impeded if the lustful exploitation of natural
81
The disoriented economics
resources is going on. Thus, in 1992, a world Earth
Summit was held in Rio di Generio. But, the
resolutions of the Summit were countermanded by
America. Developed capitalist countries have not
done much for the protection of the world
environment. The Summit for Sustainable
Development was held in Johannes Burge in 2002.
This gave enough indications that if we did not solve
world ecological crisis, the very existence of human
race would be in trouble.
Another crisis crying for world attention is
population explosion. The increase in population will
result in the depletion of natural resources. The
problems of population cannot be solved by continuous
growth of economic development. The present annual
rate of world population is 1.9%. So, world population
will be doubled every forty years. World population
will be 12 billions in 2045. In 2085, it will double. If
population increases at the present rate, man will stand
shoulder to shoulder in 2600. Though the countries
have become aware of the dangers of overpopulation,
they have not been able to reach a consensus on how
to bring it to zero level. There are biological, social,
economic and psychological reasons for it. The best
way to reduce population growth is to increase the
standard of living globally. The present global growth
of population is uncontrolled and unbalanced.
Population is growing uncontrollably in
undeveloped and developing countries. The social
backwardness caused by the colonial exploitation is
one of the reasons for it. Even now, these countries
82
Beyond Red
are being subjected to cruel exploitation by developed
countries. Their poverty, deprivation and ecological
crises can be remedied only by global economic
justice. For this, we need redistribution of global
wealth. But the profits-seeking developed countries
are against it. The Marxist economists have adopted
a negative attitude towards population growth.
Communists theoretically oppose Malthusian theory
of population growth. Both Marx and Lenin rejected
Malthus’ theory.
The economic systems, which depend
excessively on energy and natural resources, are capitalintensive.
They are not labour-centric. Natural
resources are extracted from Nature. The more
mechanized it is, the more it reduces employment
opportunities. Labour will be substituted by capital.
The economic system which is centred around energy
and natural resources is an inflated one. It will not create
wealth in the long run. It is detrimental to the society
and the environment. The best example is capitalcentered
farming,. Naturally, it has to be mechanized.
It will consume more energy. In order to increase
agricultural production, a lot of chemical fertilizers,
pesticides have to be used. It may give temporary
increase in agricultural production. But, it will gradually
destroy fertility of the land and biological diversity. It
also reduces role of labour. The chemical fertilizers
and pesticides used for agriculture come back to us
through food and other ways putting our health in
danger. Gradually, such farming will do away with
farming itself.
83
The disoriented economics
Capitalism and communism are overconfident
about the limitless possibilities of science and
technology. They are mad about it and think that
political, economic and ecological problems can be
solved through scientific technology. Rulers think
energy crises can be tided over through the
dangerous nuclear technology and international
differences, through nuclear bombs. But, such
technological solutions are endangering local and
global ecosystems. The technologists dream of
nestling on other planets to stay the nights if our
present ecosystem is endangered. Their craze for
science and technology makes them think technology
is the panacea for everything. It is because of the
influence of the classical philosophical thought that
science is an absolute truth.
In 20th century, capitalism developed into
colonialism and imperialism. The history of capitalism
is one of wars. The wars and brutal genocide indulged
in by the imperialist forces are endless. In the Second
World War alone, 50 million people were killed and
an equal number maimed. The Persian Gulf is, now,
aflame with wars for petrol. The main culprit for
ecological disasters and poverty are the imperialist
forces, whether economic, political or religious.
Imperialism is, globally, putting in jeopardy
economic, food, health, and ecological and social
safety of common man. It can also stand in the way of
individual development. Imperialism of any type can
be instrumental in the destruction of indigenous
cultures. The culture of capitalism is basically
84
Beyond Red
consumerist. It has won over all other cultures
globally. Communism which was introduced as the
alternative to capitalism was in effect state
capitalism. What was implemented in the former
Soviet Union is the utility theory of capitalism.
Communist rule, which lasted for 75 years, brought
about indescribable ecological disasters like
Chernobyl nuclear disaster and drying up of the
Aral Sea. The social condition in Russia was pitiable.
The Soviet Union at the end of communist rule was
one plagued with social evils like bureaucrat
corruption, black market, and helplessness of people,
increased mortality, infant deaths, alcoholism,
prostitution and drug abuse. Poverty, famine and social
inequalities were rampant in Russia.
In China, the state is being fast made capitalist in
the guise of communism. One of the slogans put
forward by the Chinese Communist party is ‘to make
money is a holy act’. China is simply trying to outsmart
America in production, as once the Soviet Union tried
to do. To them the political cat of any hue is welcome,
as long as it catches rats. The red cat has long ceased
to be a necessity. The gaps between the haves and
have-nots is widening in China. In the world labour
market, Chinese workmen are the least paid. The
number of people flowing into towns in search of jobs
is increasing in China. Things, like jobs, food health
system and education do not come under fundamental
rights. The ecological condition of the country too is
mind-shattering. Almost all important rivers are polluted
with chemical and organic waste. The culture growing
and being encouraged in China is capitalist. Other
85
The disoriented economics
socialist countries like Cuba and Vietnam are highly
undeveloped. The condition of North Korea is the
worst. The common man is suffering under the yoke
of totalitarianism combined with poverty there while
the ruling men are running after the pomp of nuclear
and missile technology.
The economic ideas developed and upheld by
the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi offer an alternative
to the dehumanizing economics of capitalism and
communism. Gandhian economic thoughts are based
on Indian philosophy. It is quite different from the
economics based on production and consumption.
Gandhiji said, in this world, there is enough to satisfy
everyone’s needs but not enough to satisfy a single
man’s greed. His economic view is that development
should be based on renewable natural resources. In
Gandhian economics, both power and planning are
decentralized. Development is carried out with the
cooperation of people. It is an economics giving
importance to humanitarianism. The world famous
thinkers like Schumacher, Fukuoka, Rachel Carson,
Fritjof Capra have put forward an alternate economic
system to the modern economics. Most of their
economic thoughts are based on Buddhist philosophy.
Schumacher’s
philosophy. Natural resources are fast exhausted. If the
present trend continues, they won’t last longer. Instead
of big industrial units, we should have efficient smallscale
units. Science and technology should aim at
providing machines and technology suitable for such
units. Large-scale production responsible for
Small is Beautiful reflects this
86
Beyond Red
87
The disoriented economics
unemployment should be avoided as far as possible.
Production can be sustainable only if all are
employed. This is how social inequality can be
reduced. The new technology should be eco-friendly.
Anti-nature technology should be eschewed.
Natural resources should be used only in such a way
that their depletion will be made up by natural
process. Thus, a system which has got an organic
relationship with nature and man needs to be
established. Maximum quality life through least
consumption and proper living are its characteristics.
The perceptions of Fukuoka, Capra, Schumacher and
thinkers like them are consistent with Gandhian
economic thoughts. They all consider nature and
man indivisible. Only a kind of postmodern
economics with an organic view of nature and man,
as perceived in Indian philosophy, and which will
emerge as an alternative to the dualistic modern
economics and which will consider Nature divine,
can save humanity.
Is Marxism scientific?
I
historical materialism are called scientific. Like the
19
theory scientific. He believed that the laws of
dialectical materialism govern nature. He considered
it a compendium of eternal laws. Marx, who
declared that the only thing, which does not change,
is change itself, tried to confine his thoughts within
the radius of dialectical materialism. As a result,
Marxism became a condensed belief system. Lenin
claimed that Marxism is scientific, true and eternal.
The word ‘science’ is a much-misunderstood
one. Many people think that science is something
absolutely true. When we place the word science
before any field of activity, that field becomes a
universally accepted one. For example, we usually
talk of scientific farming, investigation, socialism and
cookery etc. As if by magic, they are considered to
be without blemishes. But, modern science does not
give such infallibility to science. By science, what is
n Marxist textbooks, dialectical materialism andth century thinkers, Marx too wanted to call his
91
meant is the knowledge about matter and various
physical phenomena. It is observing things,
classifying them and also explaining things on the
basis of those observations, and formulating
principles and theories for them, and predicting
about new things and phenomena on the basis of
earlier theories. Scientists also modify them in the
light of new discoveries. Scientists conduct new
searches with the aid of scientific equipment like
telescope, microscope, spectroscope, particle
accelerator and computers. Scientific enquiry is
external .It forges ahead studying external things and
analyzing them. That is an endless process. It was
Francis Bacon, the 17th century British writer and
thinker, who, for the first time, told about how a
scientist should examine and find out natural laws.
According to his theory, scientists formulate a
hypothesis or common principle on the basis of the
data collected through observation. They explain them
systematically. Thus, it becomes a scientific theory.
Anybody can determine its scientificality through later
experimentations and observations. This new accretion
to the existing scientific knowledge is valid only if it
conforms to the earlier time-tested scientific laws. If it
is disproved by earlier laws, it is discarded and the
new ones accepted. This method of formation of a
specific rule through observation and applying them
to all future possibilities is called inductive method by
Francis Bacon. During the same period, the French
mathematician, Rene Descartes presented the theory
of mathematical logic. It is another method of scientist
enquiry. He was of the opinion that all sciences are
92
Beyond Red
precise and certain, clear and evidential knowledge.
They are fully knowable and doubtless. The
experimental method introduced by Isaac Newton
combing inductive method and mathematical logic
became the basis for the later development of Eurocentric
scientific enquiry and discoveries and
inventions. According to this method, if a hypothesis
yields the same result even after repeated experiments,
that hypothesis is given the status of a theory. The
classical physicist regarded such theories, which
evolved out of repeated experiments as absolute truth.
For examples, the laws of Newton were thought to be
unchangeable. Until the very end of the 19th century,
nobody dared to question the infallibility of the term
scientific. But, the meaning of the word scientific in
20th century differs from that in 19th century. Both
the Theory of Relativity and quantum physics proved
the concept of absolute truth wrong.
The scientist who talked most vehemently
against the infallibility of science in the last century
was the Austrian thinker and scientist Karl Raimond
Popper. His contribution to the philosophy of science
is great. He said scientific laws are not unchangeable.
He refuted the claim that what is scientific is
infallible. In his opinion, to say that something is
scientific is to mean that it can go wrong at any
moment. Even established laws, which have not
been proved wrong for a long time, are not absolute
truths. He pointed out that the infallibility of science
is an old story. He called this Falsification Theory.
Acceptance of a scientific theory is only
93
Is marxism scientific?
temporary. It can be proven wrong at any moment, even
if it has survived experimentations previously. Again,
even when a theory is proved to be true a thousand times,
it cannot be held to be something absolute. What makes
the scientific different from what is non-scientific is this
tendency of science. Only those things that could be
proved wrong have the right to be called scientific.
Falsification is the hallmark of science. What is
unscientific has not such a fate.
Practically, a new theory is formulated on the basis
of the extension of an old theory. For example, when
the motion of the Mercury was observed, it was found
to be differing from the prediction made on the basis of
the Newtonian laws. It was also observed that its motion
was in consonance with Einstein’s principles. This gave
Einstein’s principles a boost. The epochal experiment
conducted by G. Michelson and Morley shattered the
whole Newtonian principles. It proved the constancy
of the velocity of light. It was against the Newtonian
laws. For this single reason, scientists were forced to
reformulate the whole physical laws.
The history of science tells that the superstructure
of science is not built upon any absolute truth. A scientific
theory, like anything else, has limitations.What is special
about modern science is that it recognizes this fact.
Science cannot take into consideration all
interconnections while formulating a theory. It usually
takes into account only important interconnections. In
Newtonian physics, the resistance of air is not generally
considered. In particle physics, the impact of gravity is
not considered. This is how scientific experiments are
94
Beyond Red
conducted. They move from one general model to
another. Einstein’s laws were more advanced than
those of Newton. Two objects which are in relative
motion can be described by the laws of both Newton
and Einstein. But, Einstein’s principles are more
accurate. Many long-established scientific principles
had to be modified in the course of science. The most
famous among them is the concept of ether. Modern
physics virtually began by rejecting the concept of
ether. What resulted in the rejection of the concept
of the ether was the disagreement prevalent among
the scientists about the nature of light. We take
sunlight for granted. But, how it travels to earth was
mysterious; common men were not interested in
such matters. But, scientists had to find out the
answer. They raised many a doubt. In reality, the
search for finding out the nature of light went a long
way in the emergence of modern physics.
In the middle of the 19th century, Michael
Faraday and Clack Maxwell developed the electromagnetic
theory. They made it clear that light is an
electro-magnetic field moving through space in
waves. Maxwell’s approach predicted the nature of
light precisely. It was better than the Newtonian
concept. But, even Maxwell could not answer some
questions properly. If light is electromagnetic waves,
how can it travel through empty space? In our
experience, and also according to the wave theory,
waves need a medium to travel through. When
waves move through water, they disturb it and make
it move up and down producing waves. Sound waves
also need air or something as medium. But, light travels
95
Is marxism scientific?
through empty space. What is the medium, which
vibrates when light travels through? This question led to
the formulation of the concept of ether by some scientists.
They were of the opinion that the whole world was filled
with the invisible medium called ether. Light travels
through this medium. They attributed many imaginary
qualities to ether. For example, ether is a thing weightless
and elastic. Water waves disappeared due to friction.
But, light does not cease to be while traveling. So, they
thought that ether was a frictionless thing with complete
elasticity. The belief that light cannot travel without the
aid of a medium was a deep-rooted one until the end of
19th century.
It was Albert Einstein who categorically declared
that there is no such a thing as ether. He further said
that light was by itself a physical phenomenon and that
it did not need a medium for transmission. It does not
need a medium to move through, because it is not only
a wave, but also a particle. It was made clear that light
can travel through space since it was both waves and
particles. When it was established that light is both
particles and waves, the old concept of ether was given
up. We cannot deny the possibility of Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity too being declared inaccurate in future. Every
new scientific principle was a bettering of the old one.
Every new law takes us further into the secrets of the
universe. Modern physics makes it clear that not only
scientific laws but also scientific experiments are mere
approximations.
Many scientific explanations formulated to
describe a phenomenon have been falsified and given
96
Beyond Red
up on examination. Those explanations, which survive
experiments one by one, are more universally accepted.
In a sense, science is a series of such speculated
explanations and their rejections. The truth is that there
is no theory, which will survive all experiments for all
the time and which will never be rejected.
Marxism, as such, is not a science but a belief
system. If it were a science, it would have undergone
changes. If we examine its history of 150 years, it can
be seen that neither its principles nor its categories have
changed.
Nobody has changed its hypotheses.
Epistemologically too, Marxian principles are
mechanical and incomplete. To put it in other words,
Marxism is a mere ‘ism’. It can instill insane and blind
belief in its adherents simply because it is an ‘ism’.
Science is an open thought, and a continuation of
thought. If thought is dynamic, it will lead to new
thoughts. If it is stationary, it becomes old. ‘Ism’ is not
a flowing thing. It is motionless like stagnant water.
No new thought is possible in an ‘ism’. Scientific
thoughts always change. Every new thought will be
better than the old one. Communism, which is the
political system of Marxism, had to face a crisis in Russia
and East European countries, simply because it was an
‘ism’. To say that communism which evolved out of
the physical conditions of the world which prevailed
150 years ago, is completely true even today, is
unscientific and unreasonable. To think that we can
build up a political system on it is a mere illusion.
97
Is marxism scientific?
The red religion
I
intelligent clue to the answer can be found in the
subtle observation of the famous Indian writer and
political commentator, OV Vijayan. He once wrote.
“Marxism is a western thought. It is a continuation of
western classical thought. Though atheistic, Marxism
is a branch of Judeo-Christian culture. Marx is a
f Marxism is not a science, then what is it? An
Charvaka
Judeo-Christian culture”. Russell called Marxism a
Christian heresy. In his opinion, communists’ belief in
the dictatorship of the proletariat is a superstition. He
regarded Marxism as a religion based on materialism.
Marxism is the belief system of the communists.
Communists quote Marx and Engels to explain
anything and everything. As far as communists are
concerned, dialectical materialism is the ultimate
principle–something which is absolutely true. They
follow it just like a religious faith. They have been trying
to impose it on others. Just like the Judaic religions,
communism too is intrinsically intolerant towards other
(a traditional name for an atheist in India) of
101
belief or philosophic systems.
Both in childhood and adulthood, Marx had been
influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and rituals. This
influence is reflected throughout his writings. Many of
his linguistic expressions have been taken from Jewish
and Christian scriptures, in which he was well-versed.
He cannot be, naturally, blamed for it. Nobody can
live and think in an intellectual vacuum. Every thinker
is indebted to old and contemporary ones. Ideas are
the continuation of what is old. That is something
unavoidable. Karl Marx was born in a wealthy Jewish
family. His father was an advocate. Germany was
notorious for its anti-Jewish stand. Jews had been barred
from employment in Prussia. In order to escape the
ban, Marx’s father adopted Protestantism. In 1824, he
baptized all of his six children. Marx’s adolescent
poetry and essays were fraught with Jewish and
Christian imagery. His collection of poetry
Poems
Marx was making a secular version of Judeo-
Christian concepts. He uses almost all concepts found
in Christian theology. Such Christian concepts as the
Advent of Christ, revelations, chosen people, last
judgement, the Kingdom of God and martyrdom are
reborn in his writings. Anybody having any touch with
the communist movements cannot but feel those things.
In communism, the proletariat are the chosen people
and the leaders of the various communist movements
are the messiahs. They believe that those party messiahs
will build heaven for them. In that sense, Lenin, Stalin
and Mao are messiahs and prophets. Some
Savageis an example.
102
Beyond Red
pronouncements by Karl Marx resemble those of the
Talmud and the Bible. “History is the history of class
wars”. “Philosophers have only interpreted the world”
“Let the rulers be shocked by the communist
revolution”. The language of the Semitic religions is
revelatory in nature. It is supposed to be something
straight from God, which is, to the believers, the
ultimate truth. Just like that, dialectical materialism was
the ultimate truth for Marx. It was equal to God’s laws.
This accounts for the revelatory ring in Marx’s language.
Both Judaic religions and communism believe
in determinism. So, the followers have no right to
question their belief systems. Since Judaic religions
depend upon predeterminism and communism on the
determinism of dialectical materialism, in Christianity,
the second coming of Christ and, in Communism, a
classless society is inevitable. The structure of
communist movements is similar to that of the Christian
Church, especially the Roman Catholic Church. The
structure of both is monolithic. The reality is that
monolithic nature of the Church and communism result
from their philosophic similarities. Power in both
systems is centralized. If all power is centered around
the Pope in the Catholic Church, it is centred around
the party secretary in communist parties.
There is similarity between the activities of
Christian missionaries and those of communists. The
party has got full-time workers just as the Church has
its priests and nuns with life-time commitment to
conversional missionary work. The communists show
the same zeal to spread their ideology, as the
103
The red religion
missionaries do to propagate Christianity. To the
followers, the Bible and the Manifesto are infallible.
Conversion to communism is the same as religious
conversion. In both cases, you have to disown your
past and believe either in the Bible or dialectical
materialism, as the case may be.
The Church believes that you need martyrs to
build the Kingdom of God, whilst the Communist Party
needs them to establish a classless society. For both,
martyrs are essential and immortal. They exhort their
followers to embrace martyrdom and to convert others
to their causes. Such people as have been ready to
sacrifice their lives are eulogized as martyrs. Just like
the Judaic religions, the communist party too has its
own scapegoats .No other party in the world has been
as lavish as the communist party in sending their
followers to martyrdom. The Church has approved
violence for achieving the Kingdom of God, while
communists have done the same to bring out
revolutions. The communist preceptors exhort their
followers not to brook those devils blocking the way
to socialism. They think those not subscribing to
Marxism have to be forcibly made to do it. The mass
murders that took place in the countries where
communists came to power are reminiscent of mass
murders in crusades and jihads intended to cleanse
the society of non-conforming and ideologically
differing elements. Even their own leaders, who dared
to deviate from the ‘true’ path, were branded as
‘reactionaries’ and butchered as in the schismatic and
internecine wars fought among the Muslims and the
Christians. They claim that they are the liberators of
104
Beyond Red
humanity. Prototype of this liberation concept lies
in Judeo-Christian culture. Liberation concept of
Judaic religions is different from that of Indian
religions. The Jewish spirit behind Marxism can be
found in the form of his revelatory statements about
the inevitability of revolution. To Marx, revolution
is the destruction of the government run by a
minority of the capitalists, and establishment of the
proletarian dictatorship. The chosen people are
raised from the lower social position to the highest.
If the Jews’ is the Kingdom of God, Marx’s is a
communist state. In communism, dialectical
materialism replaces Jehovah. To Karl Marx, the chosen
people are the western proletariat. The traditional
Jewish revelations are conspicuously discernable in the
masquerade called Marxism. Russell aptly observes
that, as St. Augustine induced Jewish structure into
Christianity, so Marx structured communism along
Jewish lines. He wants us to discern the similarity
between communism and Judaism through the
following comparisons; Jehovah-dialectical
materialism, messiah-Marx, chosen peopleproletarians,
the Church-communist party, second
coming-revolution, hell – punishment for criticism,
kingdom of God – communist society. These
similarities can be further extended; saints - top
party leaders, martyrs – party men killed or
sacrificed, holy days – martyr’s day, celebrations –
party celebrations, excommunication - expulsion
from the party, holy scripts- writings of Marx and
Engels, priests- party leaders, blasphemy- criticizing
Marx and the party, Christian denominations-
105
The red religion
various communist parties, devil- misinterpreters of
Marxism.
If we carefully look at the political rituals of
the communist party, we can see that they are mere
repetitions of the Judeo-Christian rituals. Some
mausoleums built for communist leaders in some
countries remind us of primitive Judeo-Christian
traditions.
Marxism, which was severely critical of
Christianity, had the same basic structure as
Christianity. They differ only in contents. Though
Marxism is, thematically, opposed to religion, it can
evoke and satisfy the same primitive religious
inspirations in its adherents as are found in the Judaic
religions through its structural and ideological
similarity.
Revelatory religions have two sides – faith based
on theology and emotion sustaining it. The above
glossary used to pinpoint the characteristics of Judaic
religions, show belief as content and emotion as the
driving force. The respect evoked in the party towards
Marx is the same awe believers have towards Jehovah.
Communists hate those who criticize Marx and his ‘ism’
with the same hatred as the adherents of Judaic religions
have toward the deniers of their God . Christianity has
many denominational divisions. Similarly, Marxism has
Russian, Chinese and East European versions and also
communist groups mutually contending in the name
of political puritanism.
According to revelatory religions, God’s reality
is revealed only to true believers. Those, who
106
Beyond Red
misinterpret Marxism, are like the followers of Satan who
are out to lead the believers in Marxism astray from the
true path. Religions have benefited priests most, just as
the party has benefited the leaders. Both the priests and
the communists leaders have control over material things
to their advantage.
Christianity became the official religion of Europe
when Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity out of
political compulsions and appointed himself as the Pope.
It is mainly he who made Christianity an organized force.
Thus, the whole Europe was forcibly christianized.
Constantine virtually became a Caesar-Pope, both the
religious and the secular head of Europe. Christianity
began to control the secular affairs of the people. It
insisted that man should interact with God only through
the Church. The Church also declared that no ruler who
refused to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Church
had the right to hold power. By about 18th Century, it
was the Church that had controlled all that is political,
economic and cultural in Europe. Christianity, under the
guise of spirituality, pervaded the material life of man.
As for Marxism, it played the reverse role. Communism,
when it came to power through the October Revolution
of 1917, instead of confining itself to the political and
economic aspects of Russian people, unnecessarily
interfered in the inner life of the people. In other countries
too, communism preyed on the religious life of the
people. History proved that communism couldn’t
continue to interfere in the religious life of the people
for long. In the countries where communists brought
about revolutions, concealing their material mentality,
they could not impose it on the spiritual life of people in
107
The red religion
the post-revolutionary days. Developments in Russia and
elsewhere bear witness to this.
Though communism structurally resembles
Judaism and Christianity, it has no ethics of its own.
Even revelatory religions, in spite of their theologicallyinduced
intolerance, are based on the principles of their
own sense of righteousness, mostly borrowed from the
ethics prevalent in the respective societies in which
they originated. Religions have made their contribution
for building human civilization by their emphasis on
truth, love, renunciation etc, though much blood has
been shed in their name following the rise of theology
and propagation. But, Marx’s way was one of negating
not just God, but the whole ethical way of living. To
him, the first principle was matter. His philosophy said
only matter and body were true. He portrayed the
concept of God and ethics as products of materiality
of the world. Marx did not uphold the value of truth
and love. To him, morality is the by-product of
economic structures of a society. Neither does he
believe that great qualities like love, cooperation,
courage, honesty etc have any permanence in human
character. So he rejected spirituality. Communists’
repudiation of ethics and morality resulted in power
hunger, cheating, deception, and violence being the
hallmark of communist experiments. For the very
reason, communism could not realize its dream
anywhere. Besides, it stood in the way of knowledge,
seeking and searching for truth. Communists believe that
ends justify the means.
Marx was ignorant about the non-Judaic religions.
108
Beyond Red
Hence, his thoughts do not encompass Chinese or Indian
religions. He had only contempt for the Vedas and
Vedantic philosophy. He described Indian seers as fakirs
fumbling the word
imagery are quite western and Judeo-Christian. The first
image in the Communist Manifesto is from European
sorcery- that of a spectre. Manifesto begins with the
sentence “A spectre has been haunting Europe–the
spectre of communism. The Pope, the Tsar, Meternick
and French radicals are compared to exorcists. Spectre
has been a standard metaphor of western literature right
from the Middle Ages. ‘Haunting’ taken from sorcery is,
again, a theme in western writings.
Just like the religious heads, Marx too was
intolerant towards his opponents. He would say to
those who dared to criticize him. “I will annihilate you”
He insisted that the search for truth, knowledge and
reason, should be in accordance with his method. His
theories did not evolve out of his personal experiences.
His works including
comfort of the British Museum. He had no direct
interaction with workers, capitalists, and feudal lords.
In the words of the famous, British thinker and historian,
Paul Johnson, Marx had not set his foot even once in a
factory, mine or some other production institutions.
All his works were not based on observation, but were
intellectual. There have been criticisms against the
statistical data used in
not up-to-date, but compiled 30 years earlier. Evidences
to this effect had attracted the attention of scholars at
Cambridge in 1880 itself. Marx wrote his works falsely
thinking that dialectical materialism is an absolute truth.
brahma. Marxian metaphors andDas Capital were written in theDas Capital. The data used were
109
The red religion
110
Beyond Red
As a result, Marx presented his belief not from the point
of view of a scientist but from that of a theologian.
Consequently, Marxism came to be evolved into a mere
belief system.
The new class
I
communists came to power, it can be seen that
working class has not benefited from power.
Ultimately, the beneficiaries of the so-called communist
system were a new group. This new group has risen to
power all over the world in communist parties which
have gained power or are likely to get power.
This new group can be called the new class. The
real class interests protected in communist system are
those of this class. Though Marxism is supposed to be
a philosophy based on proletarian rule, what it created
in reality is not something proletarian.
The makers and the interpreters of Marxism were
from the wealthy class. They were the inheritors of their
own bourgeoisie tradition. Karl Marx’s father was an
advocate born in a rich Prussian Jewish family. Marx
married Jenny West Falon, who belonged to the
princely class. His companion, Frederic Engels was an
industrialist in Manchester. Almost all well-known
communist leaders all over the world belonged to either
f we examine the history of the countries where
113
rich families or the upper middle class families.
The post-revolutionary government in Russia
was not proletarian. When the new system was
established in Russia, the bureaucrats, who were the
servants of Tsarist regime sneaked into it in disguise.
Even among the top party leaders, there were the
erstwhile supporters of Tsar. They occupied key
positions in the government. This new class, who
held various positions in the Party, military and
secret service, got big houses, cars and undertook
foreign trips, and got subsidized foreign goods from
state-run stores. The most fattened bureaucracy the
world had ever seen belonged to Russia. As was in
the Tsarist Russia, so was in the communist Russia.
What transpired in Russia was not anything taught
in the textbooks of the Revolution.
The communist government in Russia followed
the same conventions of Tsarist regime. Even the Soviet
Communist Party was infected with bureaucratic
misrule. Things are not different in China too.
Bureaucrats and technocrats control both the Party and
the State in China. In the case of corruption and bribery,
China excels all other countries. The number of rich
men and capitalists is on the increase in China. Many
of them belong to the party or the ruling class. There is
no membership restriction for capitalists in the Chinese
Communist Party. The condition in other communist
countries too was almost the same. In all countries with
communist presence, the power is in the hands of this
new class.
The socialist concept of governance has opened
114
Beyond Red
up endless roles for this new class. The smooth
running of the government needs scientists,
intellectuals and technicians. Naturally, jobs, which
require special skills, will require intellectuals. Giving
equal wages to workers, engineers and managers is
not practical even in socialism. Actually it can be
seen imprinted in the basic principles of socialism.
There is a tinge of inequality in the very socialist
principle of ‘each according to his ability’. It is clear
that people, who are skilled and have special
knowledge and abilities, will have to be paid more
in any form of economy. That is, a technician will
always get more wages than a worker. In the old
Soviet Union, there were great differences in the
wages paid to common workers and technicians.
According to statistics published in 1970, a factory
worker was paid 200 rubles while a technician, 8000
rubles per month. The socialist slogan of ‘each
according to his ability’ was a clever way of
protecting the interests of technologists, technocrats
and intellectuals.
The classless society visualized by Karl Marx was
not realized any where in the world. Hence, we lack
data on a communist society. Even in communism,
equality is impractical. According to Marx, communism
means ‘from each according to his means and to each
according to his needs.’ For the realization of this,
means of production have to be enhanced limitlessly.
Marx thought that, once productive forces were freed
from the shackles of capitalism, they would increase
more and more. He conceived no end to it. Neither
did he prescribe any radical change from capitalist way
115
The new class
of production. He believed in the infinite possibilities
of science and technology. The limited nature of natural
resources and world ecological crisis have clearly
proven that such limitless development is not
possible.
It is not possible to give such luxuries to all
people without endangering life on the earth. Even
if it is possible, there will be still problems with the
nature of wants of people. The needs of a
management expert are different from those of a
worker. His needs will be greater. If a worker needs
a hammer and spanners, a management expert will
need a computer, a library and such other things.
Communism is an envy-free dream heaven where
some people will be satisfied with lesser needs and
others with greater ones. In the Soviet Union, before
its fall, every member of the Polite Bureau had two
palaces – one for the summer vacation and the other
for the winter vacation and these palaces were
provided with luxury cars and servants. They were
protected by the military. These things show that
the advantages of socialism and communism
benefited party leaders, technologists and
intellectuals more than anyone else.
It is the upper class intellectuals who create
problems in all societies and social movements. When
they are denied power and positions they give form to
new social movements under the guise of social
progress. Karl Marx, the prophet of communism is a
very good example. He was a follower of Hegel when
he was a student at Bonn University. Hegelian thinkers
116
Beyond Red
criticized the traditional German philosophy and
beliefs, which displeased the German authorities. The
authorities banned the German Hegelians from
occupying positions in universities. They fired the
Hegelian thinker Bruno Bover from the University
of Bonn. The Hegelians protested against it. They
formed a new organization. Marx became an active
member of this organization. Marx and other
Hegelians put forth a new progressive Hegelian
Theory. Those developments created problems for
Marx who wanted to join as a teacher in the
University of Bonn. This exasperated his opposition
to the German Government. But, like other
Hegelians, he was not strong enough to oppose the
state directly. That is how they chose proletarians
as a force to put into practice their theories. It does
not mean that they made the workers part of their
movement. They were simply discovering the muscle
power in the working class. Thus, in its very
formative period, Marxism was centred around the
subtle interests of the new class called upper class
intellectuals.
Even in our national movement, such
tendencies emerged. During our Freedom Struggle,
both the rightist and the leftist movements were led
by intellectuals. They were the people left out in the
national main stream. The leftist intellectuals later
became communists. The communist party virtually
came into being in India by the leftist opposition to
the Civil Disobedient Movement led by Mahatma
Gandhi. Leaders like Lokamanya Tilak,
Gopalakrishna Ghokhale, Mahatma Gandhi,
117
The new class
Jawarlal Nehru, Subash Chandra Bose, Sardar
Dallabhai Patel, Jaya Prakash Narayanan, Abdul
Kalam Azad, Lala Rajpat Rai and Rajaji were
gigantic figures in the Indian Freedom Movement.
When compared with them, communist leaders like
M N Roy, Abani Mukharji, Musafar Ahammad, S A
Dange, Shinkaravelu Chettiyar were mere pigmies.
None of these communist leaders was as scholarly,
magnanimous humane or democratic as our national
leaders. In the state of Kerala where communism
is, still, a nostalgic force , the communist party was
mostly led by intellectuals from feudal class. E M S
was born in Elamkulam Mana, which was one of
the richest feudal Brahmin families in Kerala.
Communist leaders in Malabar province like E M S
or K. Damodharan had none of the respectability
enjoyed by the Nationalist leaders like C. Shankaran
Nair, M P Govinda Menon, Abdul Rahman Sahib,
K P Kesava Menon and Kelappaji. In Tranvancore,
communist leaders never enjoyed the mass support
national leaders like Pattom Thanu Pillai, C Kesavan
and T.M. Varghese had. It was when the feudal
intellectuals and leaders in the National Movement
felt left out that they decided to form the communist
party and leftist movements in India. They began
their political career questioning Gandhiji and the
National Movement. One of the first works by EMS
was
ideology.
Socialism purports to liberate productive forces
from bourgeois social relationship. Both capitalism and
communism aim at large scale production. In order to
Gandhi and Gandhism opposing Gandhian
118
Beyond Red
maximize production in socialist order, the state
needs intellectuals, comprising brilliant scientists,
and technologists. Lenin’s first socialist step was to
bring around bourgeoisie experts to socialist side. All
leaders in the countries where communist
revolutions took place belonged to the upper class.
In Russia, Lenin picked up and trained intellectuals,
who were professionally interested in politics. Even
now, in socialist countries, the leadership is provided
by intellectuals who were political careerists. In
almost all communist countries, communist parties
were led by intellectuals. Though communist parties
claim to be workers party, the workers have never
had much say in the leadership of the parties, with
their having only a doted presence. Today, Indian
communist parties too are led by such intellectuals.
In capitalism too intellectuals have much
importance. But, this fact is acknowledged by the
capitalists. Under capitalism the capital of joint stock
companies is accumulated through shares. Capitalists
become administrators of others’ capital. Executives
working in multinational corporations and big
industries are too intellectuals. Ordinary workers
cannot even imagine their salary and perks. The policy
decisions in capitalist countries are heavily influenced
by monopoly companies and their experts. In capitalist
governments too key positions are occupied by
professionals and intellectuals. Intellectuals in India
from industrial and commercial institutions offer a good
example. Professional intellectuals have crept into the
leadership of almost all national parties. They are not
the people who have come to occupy party positions
119
The new class
through any people’s struggle. Neither have they any
touch with the common man’s life.
It may be noted that in the post-revolutionary
Russia, the power was usurped and held by a handful
of intellectuals led by Lenin. Neither common men
nor the proletariat had any say in the government. The
proletariat was only figuratively described as the
vanguard of the mass movement for a classless
society. As observed earlier, the proletariat practically
shrank into the party and the party into the Polite
Bureau and the Polite Bureau into the party secretary.
The whole leadership became mere a coterie around
the party leader. Eventually, a new class of clever
party leaders, intellectuals and bureaucrats emerged.
They became the new owners in the Soviet Union.
The workers and farmers who formed the majority
of population were in trouble. The proletariat did
not come to power there. Democracy by the
oppressed workers did not materialize. The power
was usurped by a minority of political exploiters.
They were mostly the clever intellectuals. At no time
in history have the oppressed people come to powers
as a result of social changes. According to Marxism,
five stages of social evolution are primitive
communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and
socialism. Each of these contains its own internal
contradictions. The class war in slavery is between
slaves and their owners. In capitalism, capitalists and
workers fight each other. Marx claims that, hitherto,
the history of the world has been the history of class
struggles. But, in the history of the world working
class they have not been victorious in class war.
120
Beyond Red
Slavery was replaced by feudalism, not because
slaves were successful in the class war. Likewise,
feudalism was replaced by capitalism, not because
in the struggle between feudal lords and serfs, serfs
became victorious. So there is no guarantee of the
proletariat winning the class war against capitalists.
When the struggle between slaves and masters was
over, a new class called feudal lords emerged and
replaced both slaves and their masters. Feudalism was
replaced by capitalism when a new force called
capitalists emerged. In the struggle between
proletarians and capitalists, those who will emerge
successful will not be the working class, but a new
class.
It is the rise of this new class which we saw in
the erstwhile Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
In a sense, Marx himself has predicted this in the
Introduction to the Communist Manifesto that the class
struggle will result in the complete reorganization of
the society or the common destruction of the struggling
classes. When he says those classes fighting each other
will perish, it means the disappearance of both classes.
But he fondly believed that in the case of the proletariat,
this law would not work and that the working class
would be ultimately successful. But, it was not realized;
nowhere in the world was the dictatorship of the
proletariat materialized. The so-called proletarian
regimes were not proletarian, but party dictatorship. It
was a political oligarchy by a small minority of party
leaders. A new class was assuming totalitarian power
for the supposed benefit of the working class. Such
regimes in the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe
121
The new class
collapsed due to its internal contradictions. This is
what is happening in existing communist countries.
The replacement of one social order by another
is not due to any class struggle, but the changes in the
mode of production. Both capitalism and communism
believe in the endless possibilities of science and
technology. Basically, the mode of production in
capitalism and communism is the same. It is
determined by modern science and technology. The
driving force is scientific technology. It depends
upon human intelligence. Intelligence is the base for
all kinds of exploitation. So, the dictum that the haves
exploit the have-nots is not completely true. It has
to be corrected thus; the intelligent exploit the
unintelligent. Capitalists have become capitalists, not
on the strength of capital alone. He also has
cleverness. That’s why Mahatma Gandhi said
“Capitalists have not only wealth but also
cleverness”. The leaders in the socialist countries
could suppress the people, because they were as a
class more intelligent and clever. In reality, the proleft
intellectuals are this new class. Socialist regimes
have always been run in the interest of this new class.
They did not protect the interests of either working
class or farmers. In socialism too, ‘a few spoonfuls’
have been the lot of the poor.
122
Beyond Red
Bibliography
Sri Aurobindo
of Research New Delhi, 1972.
Russell, Bertrand
Bolshevism,
_______
London, 1956.
Bhom, David
York, 1987.
Engels
Moscow, 1986.
Capra, Frijof
_______
Publishers India, New Delhi, 2002.
_______
York, 1996.
King, Hubert M
York, 1974.
Marx, Engels,
On Materialism, The Mother’s InstituteThe Practice and Theory ofAlien and Unwin London, 1956.Portrait from Memory, Alien and Unwin,Science order Creativity, Bantam NewDialetics of Nature, Progress Publication,The Turning Point Flemingo, 1983.The Hidden Connection, HarperCollinsThe Web of Life, Anchoor/Doubleday, NewWorld Energy Resources, Bantam NewManifesto of the Communist Party
125
Mcevoy J.P.
2004.
Rao, Mukunda
Belief,
Soloman, Norman
1996
Popper, Karl
London, 1969.
Osho
Pocket Books, New Delhi, 1997.
Erwin, Schrodinger
Humanism Canto, 1996.
Schumacher E.F.
London, 1975.
Jhonson, Paul.
2006.
Introducing Quantum Theory, Icon Books,Interpreting UG; The other side ofPenguin India, 1997.Judaism, Oxford University Press,Logic of Scientific Discovery, HutchinsonVedanta The Supreme Knowledge, DiamondNature and the Creek, Science andSmall is Beautiful, Harper and Row,Intellctuals, HarperPerennial, London,UNDP Human Development Report
1999, Oxford
Marxist-Leninist Philosophy,
Moscow
Progress Publishers,What is Dialectical Materialism,
Moscow.
Progress Publishers,What is Historical Materialism,
Moscow.
Books in Malayalam
Idamaruku.
Atheist Publications, New Delhi, 1987.
OV Vijayan.
Kottayam, 1988.
Progress Publishers,Yahudhamadham, Kristhumatham, IndianVarghasamaram, swatham, Current Books,
126
Beyond Red
M R Chandrasekhar.
Communism; chila thiruthalukal,
Kala Veekshanam Books, Kozhikodu, 1999.
Swami Nirmalanda Giri.
bhoudhikasathravum
Kochi, 2008.
Dr. R. Gopimani.
Books, Kottayam, 2002.
George K. Alex.
sindhantham, prayogam
V C Sreejan.
2004.
Adyamikathayum, Vidya Prakashan Samithy,Pakidakalikkunna daivam, CurrentHaritharashtriyam; charithram, D.C. Books, Kottayam, 2004.Prathivadhangal, Current Books, Thrissur,
126
Bibliography

P KESAVAN NAIR, KOLLAM

Thursday, April 21, 2011

P KESAVAN NAIR, KOLLAM: Quantum Theory and Vedanta philosophy

Quantum Theory and Vedanta philosophy

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

P KESAVAN NAIR, KOLLAM: Liberate Cuba from communism

Liberate Cuba from communism

Sunday, April 17, 2011

P KESAVAN NAIR, KOLLAM: End corruption Indian constitution should be modif...

End corruption Indian constitution should be modified

Saturday, April 16, 2011

CPI(M) is on the horns of a dilemma

Friday, April 15, 2011