Indian Marxist against Marx:
Two Ways of Revolution i.e. Annihilation of Caste or Advancement of Capitalism
Dinesh Kumar Ahirwar
Ph.D. on Thought of Dr Ambedkar and Mao Zedong
Original link to the article:
There are two ways of bringing about changes in the society i.e. idealist and materialist. First Idealist method was very effective before Industrial revolution while second materialist method became significant in post-industrial society. Bringing about changes through idealist method was proactive process of change whereas human agency actively engages with masses and advances the consciousness of the mind argued by Hegel. Buddha was the first example of social revolution in the backward society. The changes through materialist method happen with the advancement of material conditions of the society or mode of the production proposed by Marx. There is no third way of bringing about revolution except following the pragmatism in implementation of theory. Here, I am not going into the debate of which one is most effective and which method should people follow but certainly there are no other means other than two. If one makes a case for critical school as history moves through criticism then it has been rooted in Hegelian tradition. Let discuss the second first i.e. the materialist one then first one later. It was the method that let the material condition be advanced the social condition of the masses and their consciousness improves. This was method claimed to be a scientific method by Marx. Marxist should believe that let the capitalism get advanced and produce enough working class for strong communist base.
Since Indian Communist read Communist Manifesto and found proposition that Marx claimed capitalism is inevitable stage and would be followed by socialist revolution, took sleepless night, declared it primary enemy of the masses. To protect the Brahmanism from the assault of capital Marxist tried level best to stop capital coming in. Marx not only considers capitalism inevitable for the advancement of the productive forces but also the advancement of the social values or Hegelian consciousness to retain the socialist political structure in post-revolution. The socialism is not only the advanced means for production but also the advanced values system embodied in the mind of the people. If masses with feudal values had been mobilized for a communist revolution, they would have a dictatorship of the feudal forces, not the leadership of the working class. Indian communist neglected the social progress of the revolutionary masses through advancement of capitalism, get through the participation in the labour. Working class politics is the product of the Capitalism, however, it tries all means to stop the increasing its number by doing anti-capitalist politics. The working class movement suddenly antagonized with capitalism without having sufficient portion of working class from masses. The working class led by Marxist elite could have demanded the labour right than blocking the road of the capital to produce more working class for strengthening base. Marxist opposition to the capitalism was like axing themselves. The space for the working class movement created by the capitalism became the battle ground against imperialism itself having alliance with brutal feudal forces. It was an unholy alliance of the backward land relationship and industrial working class like Mao did in China. Marxists ensure that feudalism should recapture the progressive space created by the advancement of capitalism in urban areas.
The anti-imperialist struggle led by Indian communist never intended the revolution but to protect the traditional mode of the production called caste or Brahmanism. Caste would have been dismantled by the advancement of the capitalist mode of production but the 92% of the labour engage in the unorganized or non-capitalist sector. Stopping 92% unorganized working classes in the organized sector was nothing accept protecting caste system in India. The organized sector having the labour right with strong organization which can be mobilized for the progressive politics but why did Marxist blocked the path of the capitalism which could have produce more revolutionary labour by getting them into the organized sector? Blocking capitalism was blocking revolution by following the Marxist materialist method of progress of the society. Mao followed the pragmatist method did not relied only on the Marxist doctrine but found the way forward to take the masses ahead. Indian Marxists unlike Mao neither campaign against the Caste/Brahmanism nor allowed the capital to mature for successful working class movement. The purpose of Marxist was not to do revolution but fighting for just securing the interests of the few working classes which was fighting for the labour rights. Had Marxist been real revolutionary would have become pragmatist to accept the caste oppression as primary contradiction mobilize the masses in rage for revolution. It seems purpose of Indian Marxist never been to revolution than opposing the capitalism and imperialism. Mao who understood that scanty labour class would not be able to do revolution, then he focused on the peasantry which consist of ninety percent of the population while Indian Marxist were stick to the problem of the working class. Indian Marxists neither committed to the principle of Marxist orthodoxy or classical understanding of Marxism nor they followed the pragmatist method to implement their theory in Indian reality, except opposition to the imperialism and capitalism to protect the specific Indian mode of production. A simple logic of Marxism would tell you that politics of the working is not possible in a feudal society and feudal society would not allow any possible social change driving conclusion from dialectical materialism.
Indian Marxist did not ally with Ambedkar or Hegelian method of social change, the alternative path. Since Marxists were blocking the maturing capitalism in Indian society naturally would have focused on the Hegelian method of change by allying with the movement of anti-caste lead by Ambedkar. What short of revolution they wanted to have when Indian Marxists neither were in favor of maturing condition for the development of working class movement nor engaging with the masses outside the purview of capitalist mode of production with caste question proved that their purpose was status quo than any change whether through Marxist or Hegelian Path. The areas which were unaffected from the capitalist influence or British Raj were living in the Dark Age without social and political movement was ideal situation for the Indian Marxist and Right Wing. There were no working class movement in the areas which were not ruled by the Company or British even though nature of the exploitation was extreme in comparison to the areas ruled by Company and Raj. Marxist did not support Ambedkar’s Hegelian version of the social change calling it as not materialist in nature while the blocked the road of capitalism/imperialism was also non materialist. Indian Marxist barricaded the revolution by blocking capitalism through materialism path as well as did not allying with idealist Ambedkarite’s path.
The only two of the social change has been discussed but the third way was about the methodology of doing changes. The third was shifting from dogma to pragma. Ambedkar tried to move with the purpose of having social and political change or batter place for the masses. If Marxists had been honest to Indian masses not only to the scanty working class would have moved from pure class analysis to link caste and class in the pre-Independence of India. But they did it only after observing that the masses are getting organized under the banner of the Ambedkar. Marxist attempt to include caste in the class was for dilution not for the revolution. It was not their theoretical wish but compulsion to support the reservation for backward classes in 1990s. Indian Marxists were doing working class politics in the selected areas wherever the working class to be found in the pre and post-independence. After the defeat of Imperialist British their first enemy became newly born Indian state. Newly born Indian state captured by the Congress elite with full control over resources. Without differentiating the state and society, communist first target was state not the society. Indian state was much better progressive than Indian society in terms of the recognizing the socially backward classes. An Untouchable has no space in the society while he has safeguards from the state. Leftist believed that ruling class using state machinery against the depressed section of the society without paying attention to that these sections has no space in the caste society. The reflection of Brahmanism in the state apparatus was reflection of the society not of state itself.
Marxist declared their war against Imperialism and ruling states, they searched their ally across the world. State is the imperialist tool to exploit the masses has been the only hypothesis for the twenty first century Marxist. Marxist starts supporting the forces which were not only against the capitalism but against modernity and liberal values to grow their numbers. For this purpose, Adivasi and Muslim were suitable as long as their hostility toward modernity. Intellectuals supported the feudal religious resistance to the capitalist modernity proved to be suicidal for the Muslim and Adivasis. The leftists support to the one conservative group sensitizes the other identities and they reaffirmed even though being liberal. It was the blunder by Marxist intellectuals without understanding that masses would not go for the advance stage resistance rather turn out to be conservative right wing. It is doubtful that whether Marxists were unaware about the backlash of these hurriedness of the revolution in the stage of pre-mature situation where masses supported right wing rather than the legendary of the social and democracy. The rise of the Hindu right wing in India is result of the failure of these ivory tower intellectuals. Marxist would argue that Rise of the Hindu Right wing is the nexus between corporates and Hindutva without paying attention to that RSS opposition to the capitalist modernity in the same way which Muslim fundamentalism opposed to Western modernity in the West Asia. BJP has strong corporate lobby while RSS represents conservative Hindutva. RSS opposition to the liberal values and capitalist modernity is very similar to the ISIS opposition to the Western values. If one further argues that Leftists were indirectly supporting to the RSS as long as it oppose the capitalist modernity and liberal values then leads not in the wrong direction to understand the immaturity of the Marxist intellectuals. Muslim fundamentalism is not a working class movement like RSS but of course oppose the capitalist modernity. ISIS opposition to the capitalist modernity was not revolutionary any time but Leftist supported that to grow the support against imperialism and capitalism. Is it possible to support RSS by Left as long as they are opposed to the liberal values like Anti-Romeo-Squad? Left supported the Muslim moral police to enslave the Muslim women indirectly supported the Hindutva Anti-Romeo-Squad to control the Indian women. Hindu Rashtra may soon become the reality with support of the national capitalists. The national capital would tolerate the Hindu tradition values like Patanjali. Patanjali is going to be leading company in the India. Leftist argument in favor of developing the national capitalist against international one by keeping in mind that it would not antagonize Brahmanical values. Communist parties of Muslim countries are against the growing fundamentalism in their masses, however, supported by Indian Maoist manifest their ignorance to the reality of the world. Without believing the conspiracy theory of Brahmanical Marxist that their support to ISIS would help them to bring Hindu right seems quite possible. I would like to ask them what qualify ISIS to be supported by Maoist then what disqualify RSS to be part of your revolution?
The scholarship from Left to Right declared 1857 revolt the first revolutionary act by the masses; forget that it would turn out to be a caw vigilant group after one hundred and fifty year later, seems that how primitive this resistance was in that point of time. The present cow vigilant groups are nothing but produced by the historiography of the nationalists and Leftists. Had 1857 revolt been as successful venture there would have been Hindus/Muslim monarchies in India with elimination of any progressive movement and politics for forever. Shameless intellectuals declared it as a first revolutionary attempt by masses against the capitalist exploitation without paying any attention to the backward outlook of the masses. Hundred years of the British Raj produced the secular democratic India which is now taking last breath for survival with the rival of the Hindutva.
Yet, Marxist successfully stopped communist revolution by keeping capital in the premature conditions in India as well as world. Now Hegel and Ambedkar remain only option to the revolution. It seems impossible to have even the liberal bourgeois state. Brahmanism Left is successful in its aim of collapse of the US imperialism but it is ended up with the Hindu Rashtra. The project of the Post- Colonial Theory is also accomplished with De-colonization complete with establishment of Ram Rajya. Hindutva is getting rid off colonial legacy and liberal bourgeois state. How can Marxist be so ignorant enough that without readiness of the masses for revolution, attack on the bourgeois state would now end up with Hindu Rashtra? Doing Anti-state politics in a backward feudal society would end up in the Hindu fascist state as long as revolutionary masses did not pay any attention to feudal values of the society. In a backward society, Hegelian social revolution would play revolutionary role while in a capitalist society materialist method would seems feasible.
The present articulation of the intellectuals is that there is a nexus between conservatives and new liberal. Following the basic logic disqualify to retain this position that liberal is not conservative and conservative not liberal. The intellectuals forget about the antagonism between liberals and conservatives in terms of the economy as well as in values. In case of India, BJP is the agent of the new liberal economic policies while RSS represents the conservative voice, the antagonism shrink within a party than going to the opposition Congress. Congress would have been the liberal agent while BJP remain a conservative Hindutva force but unfortunately Congress lost its ground. Now BJP opposition is not congress but RSS and RSS opposition is none other party than BJP itself.
If Ambedkarite could not defeat the Hindutva in 2019 election then Hegelian would remain with limited numbers while Marxists cease to exist in India. It was quite clear that strong imperialist USA would not have allowed Hindu Rashtra for certain reason, but nationalist Trump would welcome the Modi-Yogi. Collapse of the imperialism did not turn out to be with a revolutionary movement than ending with rise of right wing across the world. This did not happened in ignorance but with full conscious attempt by the intellectuals who had no experience of reality. The premature masses would not support the revolutionary struggle but would join Mandir-Masjid agitation started by Right Wings. If Marxist would like to say that advanced capitalist world can have a right wing assertion or new liberal world can have a conservative ally then they falsify the scientific claim of theory of Marxism. So now follow the Ambedkarite method of revolution in India as well as world.
How to Bring Socialism and Democracy through Ambedkar’s method needs separate note. Comments are most welcome.
 Hegelian Idealism and Marxian materialism.
 Historical Materialism is all about proving change through advancement of the mode of production in the particular historical phase.
 Buddhist tradition is also Critical tradition but academicians feel shame accepting Buddha before Hegel.
 Reshuffle in the feudal forces by the assault of the capital was declared the revolutionary movement by feudal values inclined Marxists, Lenin and Mao are safe from this adjustment.
 In Annihilation of Caste, Dr. Ambedkar questioned the Marxist or socialist that it is nothing except caste which crosses your path. Revolution would not happen without Annihilation of Caste. There two thing first one was doing campaign against caste and organizing masses or allowing capital to change traditional mode of production. But Leftist did not do any of two.