Karl Marx is the philosopher who successfully floated communism in its present form. Although communist thoughts prevailed even before the advent of Marx, he successfully codified it with assertive sensitivity, adequate ammunition and an interpretable politico-economic dogmatic construction. Previous attempts by others to frame a dialectical structure to such thinking could only be seen as incipient. However, Marx, through the process, forced the learned world to believe that he indeed presented the world with “scientific” communism, which since then was known as Marxism.

Thus, Marxism had become the synonymous name of communism and, at times, the former is seen to have surpassed the message of the latter. People deeply attracted by this ideology take pride and solace in addressing it as Marxism instead of its original nomenclature of communism.

Class as the Marxian core

Marxism is a net product of the “class approach.” It is on the concept of class that the entire structure of Marxism is built. In other words, ‘class’ is the fundamental core of Marxism. Hence it could safely be said that Marxism is a ‘class-centric’ philosophy. It is a philosophy of the class with the proclaimed objective of achieving a classless society.

Karl Marx used the term ‘class’ in its most provoking sense of the term. He constructed the theory of communism on the foundation of the working-class movement which based itself on the class concept. The entire theory of the Marxian approach leaned on the concept of class. As a result, Marxism became a logical conclusion of the class approach and views everything only from the prism of class and class alone.

Marx was so much influenced and seized by the concept of ‘class’ that he went to the unscientific extent of declaring that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.”

This declaration is the most assertive, provocative, unscientific, and challenging utterance ever made by a philosopher. This is the one declaration which made Marxism unacceptable to the thinking world as there is no foundation for the statement. It is this declaration which made Marxism lien to class and the class approach. It also became the declaration that enabled Marx to acquire the concept of class, the class approach, class antagonism, class struggle and finally class annihilation. Furthermore, this is one declaration which reduced Marxism into a sordid structure of theoretical vengeance without sufficient epistemological ground.

Unfortunately. this declaration has turned out to be the most essential, integral and indispensable element of the Marxian ideology. The class concept is the sole and total source of energy for Marxism in the history of class struggle, although the history of society happens to be so wide and complex and far beyond the aspects elucidated in this theory.

Class is a fallacy!

I emphatically contend that there is nothing that could be termed as a ‘class’. The argument of a ‘class approach’ was a misconception of history through erroneous assessments and flawed analyses. 'Class' was created by the genius of Karl Marx, developed by his ego and adopted by the then predominant socio-political conditions.

This was exploited by power-greedy politicians surpassing geographical boundaries. Yet, it must be admitted that Marx without being a member of the “working class” sacrificed his life for the cause of the non-existent working class. Consequently, his life could be described as a homage to the so-called ‘working class’ for the “beatification” of class struggle.

But, then, what could be the possible reason for a useless homage of Marx to the non-existent class? The answer would be the egoistic constructs of Marxian thinking.

The very position and status of a man – be it either a worker or a farmer, an artisan or a teacher, a policeman or a soldier, an engineer or a doctor – does not either constantly hold or continuously bind him to any specific class. Human life is rather about a constantly evolving and transforming phenomenon that does not enable a permanent classification in a static stratum, or, time or space.  

Life is a process of movement, one that is marked by constant change, mutation and a larger metamorphosis. Life shall come to a grinding halt the moment change ceases to occur. Evolution is the fundamental nature of life. Ambition, position, status, dignity, distinction and such variables are always on a path of confrontation with evolution and change.

Change is a continuous process, whether hidden or open, whether mild or strong, whether partial or total, and hence any attempt to contain someone to any specific category or class shall only appear as artificial and absurd. Uncertainty is the basic essence of this vital process which deprives any attempt to create an artificial insemination of class formation.

The moment a line is drawn for the sake of segregation, in order to form a class, that very moment is overlapped or interrupted by any element or process of evolution and change. Hence, this process of progression negates the very formation of class crystallisation, and class becomes impossible for want of constant fundamental structures and characteristics.

The urge to climb up demolishes class permanency

If at all any perennial character is palpable in the phenomenon of evolution, it is indeed the committed inclination for change from lower class to higher class. Every promotion in employment is a direct step in the process of ‘class’ transformation. Put in another way, the urge to break out of the current ‘class’ and climb to the next available higher ‘class’ is an inherent social urge of human beings. This urge is so severe and indomitable that even an average human being is both ruthless and, at times, reckless.

This establishes the fact that even average humans never consciously try to continue in their existing class forever and are on a constant quest to improve his or her social position and well-being. It shall always be their endeavour to achieve things beyond their reach. This social fact has virtually torn away the concept of class theory as absolutely meaningless and irrelevant.

To achieve progress in life is one of the most outstanding instincts of human beings and any class approach is an open hindrance to this endeavour. Any small step to achieve further progress in life is, in fact, a giant leap for class transformation. And the instinct to change the status of life is the biggest antagonist of the class concept. This instinct, indeed, is never-ending.

A son of a farmer studying in the school is usually called a peasant boy indicating that he too belongs to the peasant class. I feel that the boy could be termed as one belonging to the student class but there, to my utter confusion, such a vital class is not available in the inventory. If that boy, after education, joins the armed forces as a subaltern, to which class shall we then legitimately engage him – peasant or sepoy, or as a soldier or working class?  

This could happen in any walk of life; interestingly, in civil life, it is expressively apparent and vehement. The life of Dhirubhai Ambani, for instance, is an apt testament to this unusual evolution surpassing all categories of class barricades. Ambani could not get an appropriate job in India and worked for a few years in Athens and came back to India in 1978 with a paltry sum of Rs.10,000. He then started his adventurous business endeavours which took him through various strata before he reached the ultimate top in wealth-based hierarchy. 

When personal inclination and social opportunity converge, the fate of any human being can change and transform in unpredictable ways.

The case of Swaraj Paul is equally fascinating, He originally went to the U.K. to treat his ailing daughter but lost her. Paul, though, did not return and instead started a small business in steel in the UK. Today. His quest for wealth, like in the case of Dhirubhai Ambani, took him through various class positions before reaching the top. In fact, Paul’s rise was so impressive and inspiring, even to the British that they accorded him the unusual title of ‘Lordship.’  

The present life of one of the descendants of Emperor Shajahan is all the more eye-opening. Shajahan was a Mughal Emperor who built one of the great wonders of the world, the Taj Mahal, in memory of his wife, Mumtaz. But what is the present condition of Shajahan’s descendants? It was reported that while one of them is pulling a cycle rickshaw in the streets of Meerut, some others are slum dwellers.

Is it not a wonderful case of extreme metamorphosis? To me, all such examples indicate just a key point – evolution and change.  

Buddha was a wonderful example of classlessness. His life was a conglomeration of many human shades – an emperor, a beggar, an enlightened mystic, and so on. Buddha is perhaps the best bet against the class approach. Even an outstanding protagonist of the class constructs shall become completely helpless in defining Buddha’s class identities even when the aura around him is removed for unbiased observation.

There is nothing unusual when an emperor becomes a beggar or a beggar reappears as a saint. Only those who are possessed with a prejudiced mind or overburdened with status quo considerations may fail to understand the beauty of this uncertainty, or rather, the evolution of life.

Change is the only constant

To be explained in a counter-narrative – the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of change(s). And the life of every individual is the total sum of innumerable changes spread over a period of his lifetime. The moment one ceases to change, the life too ends there.

This is not only the case with individuals; it is indeed applicable to societies and nations as well.

Change is the pulse of the life and history of any society in the history of the changes. However, Karl Marx went to the extent of terming history of the society as the history of class struggle. No doubt, Marx was an outstanding genius of all time. How can such a great philosopher err through such an erroneous observation?

The world is an ever-changing phenomenon. It revolves and rotates to ensure changes. We owe everything to these gigantic moves of the Earth for change. Yet, Marx voluntarily sacrificed his life for the cause of the working-class movement, without realising the futility of conceiving such a non-existential abstract.

No human class is out of choice

Voluntariness is a vital prerequisite for any ‘class’ formation. However, this is seen to be absent in the proclaimed class formations, including the so-called working class as well. One is starting a career as a worker not because of a conscious act or choice to be a worker or to be part of the working class.

The only conscious expression while becoming a worker is indeed to earn a livelihood. The moment he gets something better, he discards it with the same nonchalance with which a dirty torn dress is dumped. There is no sentiment nor any prick of consciousness while leaving the worn-out shirt for a better robe.

On the other hand, if somebody is continuously harnessed in blue it only indicates that opportunity did not appear before him. Hence, to segregate one section of the society, say the workers, and accord a special sacrosanct status to them is wrong and unproductive. The common ailment suffered by the society shall have its stamped imprints on all sections of the society and workers are in no way an exception. Furthermore, every human is possessed with almost all the shades of qualities which shall manifest as and when social opportunities appear before him.

Hence, man is beyond the scope of any form of static or rigid categorisation.

The driving force of every miser is to become wealthy. The miser amasses wealth not to spend it but to acquire more wealth to become much wealthier. The miser loves not life but wealth. This characteristic is acquired during the course of his life and makes him totally committed to this inclination alone irrespective of the nature of opportunities presented to him. Here too what we are witnessing is nothing but the meeting point of inclination with opportunity. The social theory is intact.

Greed is the basic quality of aristocracy. The indomitable and continuous urge to amass wealth is the driving force of greediness that finally makes an aristocrat. But here also it is purely individualistic and in no way collective. Hence, even an aristocrat cannot be seen as representing any class as such.

Society evolves in a manner where social status and positioning also transform constantly. The entire movement, as far as individuals are concerned, is unregulated, uncontrolled and spontaneous. No human either voluntarily chooses or selects a ‘class’. Even an ordinary attempt by a person to select a job voluntarily with a positive inclination does it only because of the social existence of opportunities which is, in turn, responsible for the formation of such inclination.

That is also the reason why governments or the political leaderships who run them are pressured to create social opportunities.

There are many aspects to life which one may be able to choose but not the ‘class’. Had there been scope for choice, the majority or even the whole members of a society would certainly have opted to become either aristocrats or the ruling class. It is precisely for this reason that rulers or the aristocratic classes indulged in ruthless suppression of rebellions by other sections vying for opportunity. The driving force behind the so-called aristocracy is nothing but naked greediness and preserving their club of elitism and opportunities.

Hence, it is a matter of foregone conclusion that class is involuntary in nature and suitability does not have any role in the formation of the so-called ‘class structure’. Anybody is fit enough for any role or position in society, and the quality one may need to have is passivity which is abundantly available even in ‘average’ humans.One may require only willpower to cross the current strata to go beyond it.

Because, man is essentially classless in nature!