Daily Times

In the wake of my article on the Centenary of the Russian Revolution many friends have wanted me to express my views on the task and the role of the Left in current times.

Let me begin with by saying that from the legacy of Marx and Engels we must always value their humanism, their optimism that men and women can change their circumstances for the better, that nothing is ordained about the future, the future is an open territory and we can by our efforts change the direction of the present to make possible a better future for our coming generations.

Also, Marx and Engels taught us to always side with the weak and the downtrodden.

They believed — erroneously dare I say — that they had founded the science of society. They did not in the strict sense of what is science. What they proffered was a scathing critique of 19th century capitalism and industrialism. They devised a sophisticated method and methodology to analyse society in which the primacy of the economic base over the superstructure or state, law, culture and other facets of social life was assumed.

Historical materialism was a sophisticated framework for analysing western society’s evolution into different stages and modes of production but in their lifetime they were already aware of its limitations.

They found that historical materialism failed or was irrelevant to explain the type of society which had emerged in China and India and to explain to them they devised the Asiatic Mode of Production in which the basic argument was that the state was overwhelmingly dominant vis-a-vis society. Such an imbalance prevented the institution of private property emerging and along with it the necessary social classes locked into class struggle that would lead to dynamic change. That description of China and India is sound although nationalist Marxists have had emotional difficulty in accepting that assessment of Marx and Engels.

Historical materialism was a sophisticated framework for analysing society’s evolution into different stages and modes of production but in their lifetime Marx and Engels were already aware of its limitations

It was perfectly understandable that they identified social classes and class struggle as the motor of dynamic change in Western Europe although even there their framework was not always accurate in empirical terms.

Democratic Social Democracy and Revolutionary Communism — both offshoots from the writings of Marx and Engels played a very important and leading role in bringing about vast, dramatic and transformative changes in world politics and the economy. More so Revolutionary Communism and Lenin and his comrades were the harbingers of a movement which aimed at creating a new world order based on peace and solidarity, where war and nationalism would be abolished and a global community of working people would devise ways and means of sharing the limited natural resources in a rational and fair manner and through technology discover new ways of improving the life conditions of all human beings.

At the same time, for various reasons revolutionary Communism could not develop a workable theory of the post-capitalist state and failed to evolve an efficient economy which could keep citizens happy. In fact civil society and autonomous citizenry holding to account the state never could emerge in Communist societies.

People want to be free especially once their bellies are no longer empty and they are provided other basic securities. The Soviet Union did provide many civil freedoms but it and other one-party states could never accept dissent and political freedom.

On the other hand, capitalism has shown that it enjoys the nine lives of the cat and much more. Democracy and an open society have helped kept capitalist aggrandisement in check though from time to time the world is driven to the precipice by the Wall Street crashing and causing immense misery to common people.

The Contemporary Left must think afresh and widen the ambit of its outreach — the gender question, ethnic, religious and sectarian minorities, minorities with atypical sexual orientation, historically disadvantaged groups such as Dalits, Adivasis, aboriginal people in all parts of the world and other such categories previously subsumed or rather eclipsed by class and class struggle must be included in a rainbow alliance of oppressed people against tyranny, majoritarian democracy, militarism, nationalism, religious dogmatism, sectarian narrowness and the fact of capitalism still being the instrument through which the destiny of billions is decided, arbitrarily and selfishly, by a few.

Let love and not hatred bring us together. And it is most important to accept the individual as a complete unit entitled to freedom and autonomy. Marxists have tended to look upon individualism in negative, reductionist terms while themselves being super individualists with inflated egos and narcissist fixations about themselves. That contradiction is too glaring to ignore.

There is a fundamental philosophical question to be posed: is Marxism the ideology of conflict and divisions of humankind? One would imagine that the idea of class struggle and revolution seems to suggest that conflict represents Marxism’s core idea but my understanding is that Marx and Engels believed in the unity of humankind but considered it impossible as long as classes existed and capitalism called the shots. They wanted to liberate not only nations but also individuals from the fetters of economic, social and cultural oppression.

Individuals and minorities also have the right to believe in their religions, sects and cults but all enlightened governments have the right to undertake reforms and remove reactionary practices and customs. We must value greatly human rights which is a very special favour of American and French statesmen and stateswomen.

Despite huge strides towards liberation and emancipation we live in fear and suspicion. That is tragic. We must work towards peace between neighbours, regional peace and international peace. Let the territorial nation-state live out its historical role.

We must try to work towards a fairer and more peaceful world through first and foremost peaceful means. Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful civil disobedience is a valid and legitimate technique to call into question the status quo but one cannot make that an absolute precondition for our struggle. We should learn from all and everywhere.

I am sure the First Nations of the Americas — the pre-Columbian populations, the continent of Africa and our own Asian experience is rich in humanism and it is time to learn from those sources as well.

And we must learn to respect nature and love animals. For more than two thousand years at least we have brutalised not only human society but also waged a ruthless war on nature and animals.

There is a lot more to learn and only a truly internationalist movement of the progressive left can lead us towards a better world.

May I dare say that the Swedish balance between freedom and equality and between free enterprise and the state adopting measures to share wealth through taxation and other claims works better.

It is under threat from the neoliberal world order. That threat must be resisted by all decent people.

Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; Visiting Professor Government College University; and, Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He has written a number of books and won many awards, he can be reached on billumian@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, November 17^th 2017.