Dinesh Kumar Ahirwar
Our latest YouTube video "Indian Novels in English" [Link]
Our latest YouTube video "Indian Novels in English" [Link]
Since, Marx said Religion is the opium of the masses, Marxist presumed to be an atheist while precondition of consuming Opium gets popularity within the circle of the comrades. It seems quite funny, but it implies that a mind cannot live without intoxication whether it is inebriation of the ideas or the Opium. It was not that Marx did not pay any attention to the cultural exploitation but orthodox was stick to the dialectical materialist method with mechanical application. Criticism came with the purpose of considering cultural exploitation with class oppression. The success story of the Lenin is different while Mao has a different story to tell. He was an influential iconoclast who stood for the complete destruction of the culture and religion. It is also true that it was impossible for the rise of the Mao has a revolutionary idea in the society without creating space by destroying part of the culture. He also tried to destroy culture even after the establishment of the communist revolution.
Marxist were criticized to consider cultural exploitation equally important to economic exploitation but they did reverse, they should have stood for creation of the egalitarian culture rather than defending and championing old feudal and religious culture. Present Marxist appears to be contradictory to the Marx and Mao. It is unfortunate that religion became the only mode of resistance of the International Marxists. A religion which opposes the modernity became the last refuge for Marxist in the 21st century. The feudal religious resistance to the capitalist modernity became the only pretext against the imperialism for International Marxist. Marxist support the religious fundamentalism and terrorism turn out to be a reactionary and it helped them to lose the support in the masses. The one of the primary reason behind the right-wing upsurge in the 21st century is that secular progressive intellectuals have not taken position against the religious orthodoxy while considering the progressive role of the capitalist modernity in the religious backward society. The Marxist position should have against the religion rather than supporting one of the single religious orthodoxy against all the liberals.
The success of the leaders like Mao where he declared “no Han chauvinism, no minorities’ fundamentalism.” It was an actual Marxist line by dealing with the religion. The resistance to the capitalist modernity does not make it progressive as long as it also automatically proved to be against the imperialist value expansion. The Rise of the right in the present global context is on the single reason emerges which gave food to revival the all religious forces across the world. The primary argument against the classical Marxist was that they did not consider culture as a form of the oppression except economic exploitation but Marxist who tried to understand the cultural oppression ironically became the champion of the oppressive culture itself.
The Marxist who sunk for being mechanical following the dialectics not necessarily materialism was interesting to know the fact that they having no experience of concrete reality. The black movement and Dalit movement were prominent criticism of the Marxist movement. Marxist falls into the trap of the multiculturalism as they tried to understand the movement against cultural practice or they were criticized for being blind to the cultural exploitation. It was a tragedy that they need to be an iconoclast but turn out to be the defender of the cultural and orthodox religious practices in the 21st century. They opposed the capitalist modernity without knowing the fact that the society which is antagonistic to the capitalist modernity would also not entertain the communist egalitarian ideas. The cultural and religious oppression is more barbaric than the working class exploitation under the imperialism need to be explored by the present leftists.
Marxists’ method to use the backward communities and religious communities against the advanced capitalist modernity inspired by the idea of ultimate truth to oppose imperialism and capitalism without giving even single thought to the qualitative difference between the feudal religious barbaric exploitative system. The capitalist exploitation is limited to only economic exploitation, but feudal exploitation is not just economic but cultural as well. The culture which is the product of the feudal mode of the production is more oppressive than the consumerist-capitalist culture in the present society. It was not a wise move to have support for the feudal forces who are opposed to the modernity. Traditional identities are suffering more without capitalist modernity than the assault of the Western modernity itself. The methodology of present Marxist to check imperialism and capitalism turned out to be a backlash with the rise of the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist right wing as a counter to the Muslim right wing, loose their own base across the world. The right-wing upsurge hampers the whole institutional structure of the UN and EU.
Rise of Christian Right, Hindu Right and Buddhist Right across the World is the backlash of Left- Progressive-Liberals Intellectual's support to Islamic Terrorism/Fundamentalism. These liberal Progressive Intellectuals did not support Liberal Muslims But orthodoxy, is the paradox which masses could not digest. Intellectuals supported Terrorism/Fundamentalism and Masses did vote people who were speaking against this hypocrisy of Intellectuals and appeasement of Muslim by these armchair Intellectuals. These Intellectuals are did not have any test of experience of tyranny of Muslim fundamentalism and Brahmanical Casteism, they took stand against the western-capitalist modernity. Capitalist modernity which is very much secular did not make any sense to these ivory tower intellectuals as detached from the masses and not real experience of the culture and its conflict with other cultural communities.
It is not only limited to the rise of the nationalism in the countries having a history of a long time of global capital but also the backward countries with underdeveloped capital. The capitalist countries turn out to be nationalist and protectionist while the Left position in the third world countries is protecting FDI inflow of capital. How can Trump, the president of the capitalist USA and Marxist leader of third world countries have same interest and a similar strategy of the welfare of the society make furious about the left strategy of opposing Capital expansion in the third world countries? Chinese president asked the US not to go for the protectionist mode and need to follow the Washington consensus. The Washington Consensus overnight turned out to be benefitting for China and India. Nationalist Trump wants to control capital flow from the US to Third world countries while communists want to block the same capital coming in third world countries manifest that both cannot have the same purpose sitting opposite in the game or Trump and Marxists cannot have the same hypothesis for the welfare of the weaker sections of the society.