File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9710, message 184


From: Dieter Dambiec <d.dambiec-AT-student.canberra.edu.au>
Subject: M-G: RE: M-TH: Re: Marx, Lenin & economic theory
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:25:01 +1000




-----Original Message-----
From:	Hugh Rodwell [SMTP:m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se]
Sent:	Monday, October 20, 1997 11:33 PM
To:	marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU; marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject:	M-TH: Re: Marx, Lenin & economic theory

For Marx the critique was a necessary step in the drive to sublate
(aufheben), that is  constructively destroy something inadequate, in this
case the capitalist mode of production and bourgeois society, by
incorporating the valid aspects of it into a more adequate whole on a
higher level.
[>] 
However, dialectical materialism of Marx is somewhat distorted when considered destruction and changes (thesis and antithesis, etc).

Marxists say that revolution is the only solution to capitalist exploitation. This is a positive idea. But the concepts of dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, the withering away of the state, proletariat dictatorship, classless society, etc., are defective ideas which can never be implemented. That is why the post-revolutionary stage in every communist country has suffered from turmoil and oppression. There is not a single country in the world which is established according to Marxist ideals.

      Gandhism is also defective. Instead of guaranteeing liberation from exploitation, it favours the interests of the exploiters, hence it is a negative philosophy. Liberation from exploitation is impossible when the exploiters themselves find shelter in the philosophy. The coexistence of the exploiters and the exploited can never lead to a society free from exploitation. No revolutionary organization can accept Gandhism as an ideal philosophy. If any organization does, then it will no longer be a revolutionary organization, and it will break apart within a short time. This is an historical inevitability. Thus, the revolutionary organization must adopt a positive philosophy which is without defects.

[>] 
Sarkar elaborates as follows:

      It is said that social movement is triadic: thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis. When a particular theory becomes
obsolete for the welfare of the society then an antithesis
is created against the prevalent thesis. After the clash and
cohesion among these two opposite forces, a resultant force
appears. This is called synthesis. Social welfare is only
possible in the phase of synthesis. The synthesis of a
particular age becomes thesis in the next phase.

      A particular socio-economic-political theory in its
synthetic phase may be beneficial for a particular era,
country or person, but if there is any change in time, place
and person, then that particular theory will no longer be
beneficial. The oppressed and suppressed souls and the
dejected and dissatisfied minds who were the victims of
social injustice will create an antithesis against the
synthesis of that era. Numerical strength and physical might
are not the only prerequisites for the emergence of
antithesis. If the victims are intellectuals and even if
they are in a hopeless minority, they can create an antithesis. The moment antithesis is
created, the previous theory will cease to be synthesis and
will become thesis for the next phase. In its second phase
antithesis to the new thesis will develop. This struggle
will continue until the emergence of the synthesis of the
second phase. Theoretically speaking, synthesis is not the
ultimate or final goal.

      According to PROUT (Progressive Utilization Theory), a
cyclic change is occurring. In an earlier age, only toiling
masses existed; there was then no human society, no
civilization. Even the family concept was conspicuously
absent. This Laborers' Age was followed by the Age of Warriors.
When the warriors neglected and
wounded the sentiments of the intelligentsia, out of
vengeance the intelligentsia created antithesis against the
thesis of the warriors. Out of this clash and cohesion, the
dawn of the Era of the Intellectuals appeared on the horizon
of this cyclic change.

      But the story of exploitation and suffering continues.
When the intelligentsia begin to oppress the middle class
(bourgeosie), the annoyed and angry middle class starts
crusading against the intellectuals and thus antithesis is
again created. When members of this once-offended middle
class become the exploiters, profiteers and black-marketeers
and begin to live on the life blood of others, then the
exploited, ragged and rebellious mankind launches a campaign to end the
domination of the middle class. This wheel of the social
cycle turns eternally in the history of mankind. According
to PROUT, this cyclic change will continue without any
pause.

      Welfare orientated and wholistic revolutionaries
will encourage and accelerate antithetical
movement against prevalent barbarity, injustice and
exploitation. In the phase of synthesis, they will take the
leadership of the society in their own hands. The synthetic
Age of Sadvipras can be maintained if there is adjustment
with time, place and person. The society will be governed by
the sadvipras. The synthetic structure of the society will
remain, though different eras will come and go. The Age of
the Laborer will come, but there will be no exploitation by
the laborers. The Age of the Warrior will come but there
will be no exploitation by the warriors because of the
synthetic order of the society.

    
      Thus the welfare of human society is not possible
through dialectical materialism. In a particular age, it may
prove beneficial for the well-being of human society and in
the very next age it will become the brute machinery of
exploitation and annihilation. PROUT is the only solution.
As PROUT accepts and recognizes the scope of change and
variation within the orbit of time, place and person, it
will always keep adjustment with the change in relativity.
The application of the principles and programs of PROUT in a
particular time, in a particular country and with a
particular person will always vary.


Not of course in any voluntaristic way, changing the world by
our will alone,

[>]  The reality though has been that in practice it was/is for the partycrats.

DD


     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005