In this column titled The Classless Philosophy, Sasi Pazhavila undertakes an extensive critique of Karl Marx’s elucidations on the myriad manifestations of ‘class’. The column is extracted from a book of the same name that Sasi Pazhavila published in multiple languages more than a decade ago.
In this fifth part of The Classless Philosophy, the author contends that Karl Marx had gravely erred in treating ‘exploitation’ as the sole evil in human society and hype it as the underlying driver of human struggle, which too, he branded as the ‘class’ struggle. Sasi Pazhavila rejects this proposition by exploring the extensive dimensions of the need versus greed binary in order to contend that greed remains the fundamental basis for human struggles, conflicts and aspirations.
Images Courtesy: Red and Black Notes, Marxism-Leninism Today, ANU Archives, The Internationalists, Prophets of Profit
Exploitation is the biggest evil of the society, affirmed Karl Marx.
Marx had qualified exploitation to such as extent that it became the central theme of his ideology around which every other aspect revolved. This is an extreme qualification which seldom reflects reality. Furthermore, he failed to realise that changes in the society are so sweeping and hence any permanent gradation of evil category is irrelevant. The moment you place something as the most serious evil, something else assumes that position and pushes the former one aside. This phenomenon repeats itself as per the style and mode of the society.
What at best a philosopher can do safely is to shortlist all those possible evils and exhort his followers to desist from those general evils. Even then, there is a risk of seeing a few may become subsequently irrelevant.
A classic example is the phenomenon of untouchability – one of the most horrible evils in human society. The phenomenon is no longer relevant as it has disappeared on account of the socio-political development and transformations in India. Still, we are confronted with serious evils such as religious competitions and communal-caste binaries. Somehow, at some point of time, we have lost our rich heritage of tolerance, universal brother hood and love. Competitive communalism and casteism are two sides of the same coin with the former being worse than exploitation of workers by capitalists.
My contention is that the rankings of evil also undergo changes as per the socio-political conditions existing in any given society. There is no permanency to it.
Apartheid was one of the biggest evils of our times. But that too lost the relevance due to its abolition in South Africa, where it was practiced. At the same time, racial discrimination is till dominantly in existence, even in many advanced societies and cultures, which could be compared with casteism in India.
Corruption is also one of the biggest evils of society, and a global phenomenon. All others ills recede and collapse before the evil impact of corruption, in all its dimensions, in society. As the very word suggests, corruption can crumble any stem or system. Is corruption then the biggest evil of all? However, corruption is an evil only as long as it exists. The moment it disappears before political will, it shall no longer remain a social issue.
Needless to say, everything undergoes change and evil as well.
Greed as the foundational evil
What about greed, then? I think it is the most intangible and irresistible desire which is acting as a fountain head of all evils. Greediness to the root cause of all other evils. Exploitation, untouchability, religious competitions, communalism, casteism, apartheid, racial discrimination and corruption germinate from greed like its satellites.
Greed is the master misdemeanour of all evils, and has played havoc in humans and their social lives from time immemorial. The central theme even in the Puranas is nothing but naked greed. But one should be prepared to accept that changing time may change the equation of priorities.
What about unemployment? Is it not a social evil? I think the seriousness and dimensions of acute unemployment is something severe than is the exploitation of workers by capitalists. Unemployment deprives the canvas to draw what one learnt, and turns a dynamic society into a barren land of non-opportunities.
A society should be a place of social opportunities and happenings. Instead, many societies have transformed into scattered or segregated dwellings of the people, if not physically. Scattered people seldom emerge as a performing society. In such societies, not only will there be a dearth of new opportunities, but even existing ones may wither away. But the heartening thing to note is that people, with or without knowing this fact, are slowly leaving the habit of scattered dwelling and steadily entering into collective dwelling and its social reflections.
We have to blame our political system for the majority of our social ills and evils. Are not poverty and hunger the most serious and dangerous evil of the society? I think poverty surpasses all other evils and ills of the society. What is the reason for poverty and hunger? Unemployment and lack of opportunities are the reasons for the poverty and hunger. Creation of employment opportunities can be ensured only through discharging the responsibilities towards societies by sheer political will power.
I have elaborately explained various types of evils that haunt the society. Almost all of those evils are dangers that shall become particularly potent when singularly confronting society as a social problem. The moment such a situation dissipates, the impact of that evil may also diminish, completely or with the potential to reappear.
But it is not fair on the part of philosopher to raise just one as the solely responsible factor for social disharmony. Marx did that mistake. To him, exploitation is the root cause of all disharmony of the society. That is why he observed everything through the ‘class’ concept: every rectification through class struggle, every attempt through class polarisation and every effort through class annihilation to achieve a classless society.
How can a class-centric regime achieve classlessness?
A class-centric regime can ensure only class continuity. The moment the class regime collapses, class continuity ends and a anti-class situation stages a comeback. Communists had ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) for a pretty long period of 75 years. We all were given to understand that as long as they ruled the Soviet Union, they had no Bourgeois; but the moment they left the scene, there emerged a Bourgeois.
Where were they for the long 75 years? How could this miracle happen all of a sudden on a fine morning? All those who had reappeared as Bourgeoisie are invariably either part of or related to Soviet governing class in way or other, or involved in the helm of affairs in one way or other.
What did it indicate? Rather, what did not it first indicate? It did indicate that the much-acclaimed dictatorship of the Proletariat was not a class rule in itself. It was also just like any other ‘accusable’ regime which used to entertain both corruption and nepotism. Hence, we much admit that corruption and nepotism were so powerful evils which may even nullify the class concept and the class approach, leave alone class struggle.
Then, where was the class? What was its distinction and how was it be differentiated with other follies of that era?
History of all struggle is between need and greed
I think I have reasonably deliberated on the subject of evils and should once again return to my resolute belief that the fountain head of all evils is greed and its naked onslaught. Hence, if we ought to aspire for a ‘clean’ society, it should be our political endeavour to contain greediness in any form or kind. We need to contain greed for social harmony and economic development. The imperative, hence, is what I would describe as ‘Needism’.
To me, the biggest struggle in the society is by and between need and greed. History is the authentic record to vindicate this interpretation. History has invariably shown us that there can be only two intrinsic variables in any struggle - one is greed and the other is need.
There could be occasions where greed directly entangles with greed and similarly need with need. Still, the variables continue to confine to only greed and need. By partially borrowing the famous Marxian idiom, we could safely say that history of all hitherto existing society in the history of struggle is by and between greed and need.
It is possible that Marxist historians might seek to conflate the need and greed binary to claim that Marx’s articulation of class struggle also suggested the struggle between need and greed when he talked about the exploiter and the exploited.
In contrast, I will not seek to substitute “exploiter” with ‘greed’ or “exploited” with ‘need’ as both are different constructs in both content and message. As mentioned in my previous column, even a worker could be an exploiter and a capitalist can be exploited too. I do not subscribe any class connection either to a worker or to a capitalist. As affirmed in the previous column, I earnestly hold the view that class orientation cannot be attributed to any man or to any of his actions.
Man is essentially beyond any class categorisation. Man is beyond the scope of any sort of classification. Marxism, on the other hand, is a well-developed theory of classification, which thoroughly perfected itself with the cunning art of bifurcation and segregation – something that is unparalleled and unique which Marxism alone can proudly claim.
I completely reject this Marxian approach.
To Marx, “history of society,” to be short, is the story of “class struggle.” I consider it as an expression of verbosity of unusual audacity. However, since this declaration, the history of political thoughts is the testimony to the Marxian influence. Thus, the study of Marxism has become an indispensable part of the study of political science. (That is the case with Philosophy and Economics also. Marxian thoughts have tremendous influence in three important branches of social sciences, vis., Philosophy, Political Science and Economics. In a sense, he interlinks these three branches in such an inseparable manner which shall enable us to call it as Marxism.)
However, I do not think it is possible to find scientific reasoning for every human act. Yet Marxism exhibits unusual scientific pretensions which is boring in nature and provoking in substance. Often all men are not in scientific temper; and that could be one of the reasons why even the most outstanding scientists find solace in faith.
Hence, when we sit to evaluate man, every aspect of his behaviour will have to be taken for consideration. Many never bother to look into these aspects and instead proceeds to bifurcate mankind into broad categories of exploited and exploiter, which is, at best, divisive.
Intricacies of the need-greed binaries
The consistent and ceaseless effort of any average human is to seize the next available level of life for him/her and his/her dependents. To acquire that, he/she may adopt any known method. The effort to elevate to the next level of life is, in fact, the driving force which provides both progress and prosperity in the society.
That is why it must be admitted that the right to private property should not be taken away. We should not do anything which may either directly or indirectly discourage development. Marxism drains out that very spirit of development. However, unregulated social conditions shall definitely disturb peaceful co-existence and serene environment. Encouraging and facilitating private enterprise and possessions does not mean the social system ending up promoting greediness; on the other hand, it must be contained.
We do not generally bother or object when a manual labourer aspires to become a muster roll worker. We are prepared to consider it as usual social act. That is exactly one approach with the attempt of the worker to become an employee, an employee as a supervisor, a supervisor an officer, an officer as a manager, and a manager as an entrepreneur or an eventual capitalist. As the aspirational ladder stretches further up, the capitalist can aspire to be a ruler, the ruler can progress to an aristocrat, who in turn, could attempt to be king and eventually an emperor.
On the other hand, can anyone imagine a situation, with tranquillity, an attempt of the labourer to become an emperor. One shall become restless at that very imagination itself. Even this mere suggestion itself shall invite strong condemnation and wide protest. Why?
That is because we all are basically possessing a prejudiced mind of status quo. We are prepared to accept promotion of a person to his/her next stage of the social ladder. However, we cannot accept the eventuality of him/her galloping to the top of the ladder. This is the mindset of the ordinary people.
What then about revolutionaries – the extra-ordinary people who want to incite change in the society by force? Still worse! They wish to see a worker to continue as a worker for life and to accommodate him there in perpetual harness as an exclusive class – the working class.
We do not see any symptom of greediness in the desire of a labourer to become a worker. Nor do we find anything unusual on the part of a king to become an emperor. In fact, secretly, many may nurture dreams of coronation of the king as an emperor. That is the case with any one step upward conversion in between a labourer and emperor.
However, when a labourer or an employee nurture the desire to become either an emperor or a king, our mental sanity will collapse. We shall without hesitation name such desire as naked greediness. I totally beg to differ with this behaviour. To me, the desire for a ruler to become a king and a labourer to become a king is one of the same. Either both desires are to be condemned or both condoned.
People who are interested in welcoming changes should be prepared for sweeping changes also. Why to have a vacuum or barrier in between?
A healthy society must have necessary built-in systems to discourage hereditary occupations. Be it in politics or specialised professions, hereditary occupation is a social tragedy because it tends to avoid social changes which will consequently ensure social stagnation. That is why I emphatically state that a ruler’s son could become anything other than a ruler. It must be applied to all possible fields and domains.
A society that promotes hereditary occupation not only is afraid of change but is bound to contaminate itself. Hereditary occupation is a negative social system of reprehensible nature which deliberately prevents change, and, instead, imposes cruel destiny.
Hereditary political occupation, unlike general hereditary occupation, shall sow greediness of irresistible proportions which will slowly and steadily spread to the entire arenas of the society. Hence, a healthy society must have a system to ensure that at least the son of the beggar should not become a beggar and one of the required conditions to achieve that admirable social standard is to incorporate in the statute book that a son (or a daughter or any of such first relation category) of a ruler is forbidden to become a ruler. This act alone can do away with political greediness.
An ideal society should not have any slot for either an obnoxious beggar or an obeisant emperor. To me, both the beggar and emperor (king) are hallmarks of stagnation and an irrevocable statis. The revolutions of the 21st century should, therefore, start from the porticos of kingdoms and end in the street of the beggar. Society that protects the king and kingdom is, in turn, protecting perpetual beggary.
Both these extremes must be done away with and man must be allowed to become anything in between, and he shall become anything at any time. This is the imperativeness of the political movement which I term as Needism.
It is not impossible to provide a definition to history in one sentence – say – history is the authentic records of the past. Of course, like this one liner definition, there could be innumerable versions of innumerable people. However, it is beyond my sense of comprehension to see how Marx could reduce the history of society into one contestable idiom – “history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle...?”
I only wish how nice and conceivable it would have been had he said – history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggle by and between need and greed.