‘A to Z’ of Marxism and ‘Fate’ of capitalism (4)


(This article is posted by: Shreepal Singh)

We come back to the ‘capitalist mode of production’.

Unless there is a new ‘mode of production’, no new social system (socialism or communism or any other one) can come into being. If a new social system is brought, or sought to be brought, by force by changing the ‘relations of the forces of production’, while the ‘mode of production’ is still the old one, such new social system would be an artificial one and would not last for long. And, a new mode of production can only be brought into existence only by the development of science and technology.

What is the state of the development of science and technology today, in so far as this development impacts the prevalent mode of production? We will consider now.

And, whether this scientific and technological development will transform the prevalent ‘capitalist mode of production’ into a new one, where still there will be ‘two classes’ forming the ‘forces of production’? We will consider.

What about the Marxist concept of `spiral evolution’, that is, the repetition of things (by the mechanism of thesis, antithesis and synthesis) at the ever higher level? What about another Marxist concept of a full circle from ‘primitive communism’ to ‘modern communism’? We will consider it at the appropriate stage..

‘A to Z’ of Marxism and ‘Fate’ of capitalism (1)


(This article is posted by: Shreepal Singh)

As rational beings, we humans always try to understand Nature in a reasoned manner. This rational attitude has given us endless streams of human thinking. It has given us many religions, spiritual visions, philosophies, ideologies and branches of modern science.

In their quest for knowing the reality of Nature, humans acquire knowledge.

Whatever we are today, is the outcome of the acquisition of the knowledge about this reality. What is the state of our knowledge about the reality today?

We have many religions, spiritual visions, philosophies, ideologies and branches of modern science, all competing for the place of the “correct” enunciation of the reality.

Unfortunately, these diverse religions, spiritual visions, philosophies, ideologies and branches of modern science do not agree on many things with each other while enunciating this reality.

The coveted place, the crown of the correct enunciation of the reality, is extremely narrow: it can accommodate only “one” title to the claim. The “truth or reality” can be only one.

Fortunately, lately the humanity has come to realize (by the discovery the theory of Relativity by Elbert Einstein) that the “reality” is not absolutely “one”; that the reality has relative values; that “all” relative values of the reality, which values differ with one another, are correct ones. This new realization of truth by humanity in modern times was not totally unknown to us in the past. Long back, it was said, “The truth is one; but wise people see it differently”.

The greatest advantage of the correct understanding of Nature is that with the aid of this knowledge, we can make deduction about the things, happenings or events that “will”, as against “may”, taken place in future. Having this advantage, we can re-engineer the future or get ready to face it in a prepared manner.

One thing that strikes one’s mind, while going through all these past attempts to understand and resolve conflicts, is that almost all religious sages, philosophers, intellectual thinkers and scientists talk of some kind of a “conflict of duality”.

Some of the examples of this duality are: Mara and Divine Forces (Buddhism); Satan and Angels (Christianity); Prakriti and Purusha (Sankhya philosophy of Hindus); Shaitan and Allah (Islam); Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda (Zend-Avesta); Evil and Good ( Ethics and Morality); Spirit and Matter (Western philosophies); Jagat/Maya and Brahma (Hindus); Thesis and Anti-Thesis in Dialectics of G. W. F. Hegel; and also Thesis and Anti-Thesis in Dialectics of Karl Marx;  Opposite Sexes (almost universally found in Nature); Electrons and Protons (in atoms); Matter and Anti-matter (in modern Physics); Centripetal and Centrifugal forces (in Nature); Gravity and anti-gravity (natural forces), etc.

It seems that these two elements inherent in Nature are opposite or antagonist to one another; still these opposite elements are complementary to one another; they create conflict with one another but make a harmonious balance to the whole structure.

In modern times, Hegel was the first person to formulate precisely the laws of this conflict of duality under the name Dialectics.

Marx was the first person to popularize Dialectics by putting its foundation on Matter and by showing that its principles governed the working of Nature.

%d bloggers like this: