The seemingly contradictory ideologies of Marxism and peaceful development via secular or religious ethics (represented by the likes of Democracy and Gandhism), are the two extreme positions taken up by the divergent groups, who fall into faulted mindsets, for each one of them individually represents the splitting of the rational consciousness. This diversion symbolizes more dichotomy than which is apparent, and is another example of extremes being at loggerheads with each other.
Little must Karl Marx have known that one day his ‘ideology’ would spark ‘bloody’ revolutions across the world. But, in it’s hey days, Marxism was the order of the day of a large section of nations, including the formidable Soviet Union (erstwhile) along with giant China, and other significant countries of Eastern Europe and some other countries, here and there.
Marxism symbolized the ‘labours’ assertion’, it was anti-rich and anti-capitalist and dreamt of a proletariat revolution, which would wipe out the concentration of wealth in a few hands and would equally distribute it among all the people, culminating in the establishment of ‘a classless society’, whose chief hallmark would be, the control of working class over the institutions of society. Marxism predicted a ‘world revolution’ against the capitalists and ‘working class takeover’ of the world as a natural fallout of social evolution. Communism would ultimately destroy the last vestiges of medievalism – superstitions, feudalism, religion, among others. Marxism was essentially anti-religion and largely anti-God, and considered these as ‘the opium of masses’. It shirked the way of peace and slow but steady social evolution, but rather practised and glorified the path of massive social revolution, which included violence and bloodshed, as it was very right to ‘finish off’ the class enemies (the rich) violently.
There is another path – the more conventional one – the path of peaceful social reforms and change, which is represented chiefly by Democracy, but it also contains elements of religious ethics. After all, modern Democracy owes a lot to the Greek and Roman philosophers, who were deeply interested in religious and moral ethics, and their belief systems, can not be, at all divorced from religion.
This path can be said to represent an umbrella of various concepts, thinkings, set ups and ideolologies, which are for peaceful means of social change. This ‘dimension of thinking’ does not aspire for immediate or quick changes. It believes that drastic change may have serious repercussions and disastrous consequences. It feels that slowly but steadily man’s social evolution would graduate the human civilization to higher and higher levels. It is ready for this ‘long wait’.
In reality, both the ‘thinkings’ miss the essential point. We need change which is fast and all-encompassing, but at the same time, which is enduring and stable. We need the determination and commitment of Marxism, along with patience and perseverance of the peace-path movers. It is something like the situation of Indian National Congress, much before the independence. It was divided between the moderates and the extremists. Then Gandhi ji united them and forged a path which combined the best of two, and this method of struggle became a classic example, which the world emulates even today.
Thus there is a need for the combination of best of both. Democracy entails freedom of speech, expression, religion and living, which is a significant point to be adapted by all ‘right-minded’ governments. But at the same time, there should also be utmost care and concern for the common man, the poors, the weaker-sections and the vulnerables. Human civilization is unduly biased in favour of the rich, the powerful and the successful. This is an error of high order, which is so much a part and parcel of our thinkings and set-ups that we take it as a ‘natural way of the world.’
Thus democracy has to shirk it’s relative and often unintended ignorance of the common man. There is need for a true ‘government of the people’, which would deliver the weaker sections more than the rich, as they need that support. However emphasis on the poors does not mean complete exclusion of the rich. It has to be a fine balance. Help each one as much as they need it.
We need an aggressive evolution, which proceeds at a fast pace, and which is tough towards injustice, exploitation, and all forms of excesses, but this process should not make rulers very strong, who in turn become exploiters. Meritocracy is not the ultimate aim. What is needed is every one gets to utilize his or her subjective talent, which leads to maximum welfare.
You take the fearful shine of the red star (Marxism) and you mix it with the soothing ness of the white star (Democracy and the the peaceful methods), then you get what this blue planet (Earth) deserves – freedom with equality, and socialism with prosperity.
XXX
No comments:
Post a Comment