I am coming from a state/ region of India which is under communist rule for last 35 years. Starting from implementing land-reform to emphasizing small scale industries many pioneering initiatives were taken by communist parties. And, from own experience, like all other student of my state, I also got free education up to high school (10+2) level.
Though I have participated in a few informal discussions earlier, for me this is the formal academic introduction to Marxist theory; which I am sure will help me to understand/ analyze many initiatives/ decisions of communist governments/ institutions and the future possibilities of application of this theory.
It is interesting to notice that, more than 150 years after conceptualization; Marxist theory remained relevant and still considered as one of the core concepts in present day’s economy. The theory was written in the 2nd half of nineteenth century in the context of post-industrial revolution scenario of Europe; therefore as a non-European student of 21st century it is not an easy task for me to judge reasons and validity certain texts written by them. The theory may be repositioned and re-approached form perspective and crisis of post-WWII and globalized context of postcolonial world. Here, in order to know the Marxist theory better, I want to mention some of the questions came to my mind so far, while reading the theory.
According to Engels, bourgeoisie are the class of ‘big capitalist’. In today’s scenario, we have seen that intellectuals are often categorized as bourgeoisie. How so? Is it because they posses or sale intellectual property/patent? (Not every intellectual earn profit/ surplus profit form patent). Is an intellectual property is always a private property? Why and why not? What is dividing line between mental-laborer and intellectual bourgeoisie? Historically, we have seen many intellectuals left communist countries, are they pro-capitalist? / are they wrong?
Engels mentioned that a proletariat can be freed by abolishing competition. It seems competition here perceived in a negative connotation. What are the positive and negative consequences of abolishing competition (both physical and intellectual) from a society? If one argues that this move may create mediocre and help in establishing ‘the rule of mediocre’, is he /she wrong?
To discuss question 10 (the Principles of Communism) Engels created distinction between proletarian and communist movement; in his word- “proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement”. The word ‘more or less’ is used here. How a proletarian movement is different from a communist movement? What are the similarities and dissimilarities?
In present scenario, communist parties are taking part in democratic process. Should the voice of ‘majority’ be a basis of decision of a communist government (as it happened in mainstream democracy)? In the present globalized scenario, how a communist economy (often isolated like Cuba) may negotiate with mainstream capitalist economy? How communist parties should play their role when they participate in (multi-party multi-ideology set up) democratic process? (I am not mentioning the case of Cuba and China here).
Also we have noticed that, classic Marxist epistemology engaged itself in predicting social phenomena. And, the prediction was mainly based on economical factor and (unidirectional?) collective consciousness. In such context, how it is different from the earlier utopian socialism in respect of ‘dream of destruction of capitalist society’?
Engels emphasized on establishing ‘new social order’ through revolution and by development of Industry. Is it the only option? Can economy solely explain and justify all the social order/ phenomenon? What is the role of culture and ideology in transforming society? How can we evaluate ‘language movement’ of Bangladesh with this framework?
According to the recommended courses of revolution, one of the steps was “Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people”. Who will set criteria for identifying a rebel? Are these steps risk-free (in respect of justice and equality)? How far this ‘wealthy = rebel’ model is applicable in contemporary world (especially in case of China)?
While explaining the attitude of communism Engels used the word ‘mingle with each other’ in case of people of different nationality; and on the other hand used the word ‘disappearance’ in case of existing religion. Both of them, i.e. nation and religion are forms of institutions and often related to each other. Many countries are still represented in the name of some religion (e.g. Nepal is a Hindu country; Morocco is a Muslim country). How should we perceive disappearance of religion from a country maintaining geographical and other demographical feature unaffected?
Finally, I am interested to study indigenous people of India (and of other developing countries, if possible). These societies are mostly non-industrial and mostly agrarian. They are also marginalized and silenced owing to the prevailing ‘cast system’ of India. Therefore, I am interested to read how Marxist theory can be applicable in those contexts. Look forward to the next readings!
Though I have participated in a few informal discussions earlier, for me this is the formal academic introduction to Marxist theory; which I am sure will help me to understand/ analyze many initiatives/ decisions of communist governments/ institutions and the future possibilities of application of this theory.
It is interesting to notice that, more than 150 years after conceptualization; Marxist theory remained relevant and still considered as one of the core concepts in present day’s economy. The theory was written in the 2nd half of nineteenth century in the context of post-industrial revolution scenario of Europe; therefore as a non-European student of 21st century it is not an easy task for me to judge reasons and validity certain texts written by them. The theory may be repositioned and re-approached form perspective and crisis of post-WWII and globalized context of postcolonial world. Here, in order to know the Marxist theory better, I want to mention some of the questions came to my mind so far, while reading the theory.
According to Engels, bourgeoisie are the class of ‘big capitalist’. In today’s scenario, we have seen that intellectuals are often categorized as bourgeoisie. How so? Is it because they posses or sale intellectual property/patent? (Not every intellectual earn profit/ surplus profit form patent). Is an intellectual property is always a private property? Why and why not? What is dividing line between mental-laborer and intellectual bourgeoisie? Historically, we have seen many intellectuals left communist countries, are they pro-capitalist? / are they wrong?
Engels mentioned that a proletariat can be freed by abolishing competition. It seems competition here perceived in a negative connotation. What are the positive and negative consequences of abolishing competition (both physical and intellectual) from a society? If one argues that this move may create mediocre and help in establishing ‘the rule of mediocre’, is he /she wrong?
To discuss question 10 (the Principles of Communism) Engels created distinction between proletarian and communist movement; in his word- “proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement”. The word ‘more or less’ is used here. How a proletarian movement is different from a communist movement? What are the similarities and dissimilarities?
In present scenario, communist parties are taking part in democratic process. Should the voice of ‘majority’ be a basis of decision of a communist government (as it happened in mainstream democracy)? In the present globalized scenario, how a communist economy (often isolated like Cuba) may negotiate with mainstream capitalist economy? How communist parties should play their role when they participate in (multi-party multi-ideology set up) democratic process? (I am not mentioning the case of Cuba and China here).
Also we have noticed that, classic Marxist epistemology engaged itself in predicting social phenomena. And, the prediction was mainly based on economical factor and (unidirectional?) collective consciousness. In such context, how it is different from the earlier utopian socialism in respect of ‘dream of destruction of capitalist society’?
Engels emphasized on establishing ‘new social order’ through revolution and by development of Industry. Is it the only option? Can economy solely explain and justify all the social order/ phenomenon? What is the role of culture and ideology in transforming society? How can we evaluate ‘language movement’ of Bangladesh with this framework?
According to the recommended courses of revolution, one of the steps was “Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people”. Who will set criteria for identifying a rebel? Are these steps risk-free (in respect of justice and equality)? How far this ‘wealthy = rebel’ model is applicable in contemporary world (especially in case of China)?
While explaining the attitude of communism Engels used the word ‘mingle with each other’ in case of people of different nationality; and on the other hand used the word ‘disappearance’ in case of existing religion. Both of them, i.e. nation and religion are forms of institutions and often related to each other. Many countries are still represented in the name of some religion (e.g. Nepal is a Hindu country; Morocco is a Muslim country). How should we perceive disappearance of religion from a country maintaining geographical and other demographical feature unaffected?
Finally, I am interested to study indigenous people of India (and of other developing countries, if possible). These societies are mostly non-industrial and mostly agrarian. They are also marginalized and silenced owing to the prevailing ‘cast system’ of India. Therefore, I am interested to read how Marxist theory can be applicable in those contexts. Look forward to the next readings!
Comments