It has become the habit of the Marxian thinkers, after the disintegration of the red theoretical edifice and fall of the soviet empire and its associated kingdoms, to keep too much eloquence on the necessity of the protection of basic human rights and freedom in the civil society and democratic polity. They have suddenly become the self-proclaimed apostles of democracy to protect the right of the other to dissent with the authority and majority despite, they seldom recognized the role of the popular dissent in governance while they reined the kingdoms. They have no hesitation, even to claim that, they have been the redeemers of basic human rights, throughout the world, even though, they blindly supported the annihilation of the bourgeoisie, the enemies of the communists, in the communist kingdoms, for the sake of the party-interest because, they believe that no human rights can survive over the interest of the communist party. They also propagated that the real human rights, that is, the rights of the have-nots, are being protected only in a communist society.
The Soviet empire and its associated kingdoms never entertained the existence of multiparty system in the practice of statecraft because they believed that communist party is the only one correct political organization and all other political parties are the results of the incorrect forms of political activities and the primary function of such political parties is to exploit the have-nots. Since, according to communist faith, exploitation is the worst form of political activity then, it should be eradicated to establish socialism. Moreover, multiple political parties can be existed only in a class society and the class society always protects the class interest of the haves. It has been the unquestionable faith of the communists that; basic human rights cannot be protected in a class society driven by class-interests because, the class society is determined to protect the class interest of the ruling class. Naturally, they believe in the practice of monolithic ideology in statecraft which cannot entertain the right of the other to dissent with the only one correct political ideology. Hence, communism cannot provide space for any political party other than communist party.
Metaphysically, there is no space for God and religion in Marxism because, according to Marxist belief, the ultimate reality of the universe and life is matter and God is not the part of matter. They firmly believe that God and religion are the artificial creations of the bourgeoisie to exploit the have-nots. Hence, they should be banned in a socialist state
The practice of religious faith, in accordance with the choice of the conscience of people has been prohibited in communist society because, the metaphysical and epistemological structure of communism cannot provide space for God and religion in it. According to Marxian belief, God and religion have been used by the haves, in a class society, as the weapons to suppress the have-nots and as tools to exploit them. Hence, the tools of the exploitation must be eradicated as the first step to establish a socialist state craft. Naturally, a socialist society, a state of affair established at the end of the bloodshed class war, prior to the attainment of communism, cannot provide space for God and religion. Moreover, metaphysically, there is no space for God and religion in Marxism because, according to Marxist belief, the ultimate reality of the universe and life is matter and God is not the part of matter. They firmly believe that God and religion are the artificial creations of the bourgeoisie to exploit the have-nots. Hence, they should be banned in a socialist state.
They do not believe in independent media because, they think that every medium stands for the protection of the class interest of its owners. So, there is no meaning in the concept of free media because every medium works for the ruling class. Hence, they insist that the medium owned and operated by the communist party would be sufficient to protect the interest of the have-nots in socialist republic. As, communist party is the only one party which remains to protect the class interest of the proletariat, the multi-party system and free and fair elections are not necessary in socialist state. The communist party which rules the socialist republic cannot provide space for the rival ideologies in socialist republics because, such an act would be detrimental to the existence of the socialist republic. Therefore, they defined the freedom of expression as the right of the communists to act and speak for the protection of the class interest of the have nots. They believe that the so-called independent judiciary is a farce set up to protect the class interest of the haves denying justice to the have nots. Hence it is not necessary to protect such a system in socialist society.
Human rights in socialist republics have been reserved for those who subscribe the Marxian ideology. Those who subscribe ideology different from Marxism do not have the opportunity to exercise the basic human freedom in socialist republic due to philosophical reasons because, Marxian dialectics remains incapable to accept the right of the individual freedom to choose
The communist regime in the Soviet Union, East European states, Vietnam, Cuba, China etc. could never endorse the existence of multi-party oriented free and fair elections, the right of the citizen to lay faith in the religion of their conscience, the independent media that ensure the right of the common man to express their dissent with the authority and majority, independent judiciary to ensure justice to the human beings irrespective of their ideological belief. They blatantly deny the basic human rights to the haves because, according to their belief, haves should be annihilated in the primary stage of the communist revolution and those who are destined to be annihilated need not be provided with human rights. Hence, human rights in socialist republics have been reserved for those who subscribe the Marxian ideology. Those who subscribe ideology different from Marxism do not have the opportunity to exercise the basic human freedom in socialist republic due to philosophical reasons because, Marxian dialectics remains incapable to accept the right of the individual freedom to choose.
As, Marxism subscribes the Hegelian dialectics, it must admit the Hegelian dictum that freedom is necessity as part of the logical necessity. The Hegelian dictum describes freedom as the duty of the parts to obey the commands of the whole. According to their belief the whole is more than the sum-total of its parts. Hence, the whole is more real than the parts, that is, a part gets its meaning only within the frame of the whole. Therefore, the society, which is the whole consisting of individuals as parts, is more powerful than the individuals and the individuals can enjoy freedom only if they obey the commands of a whole. Naturally, individuals cannot exercise any force or intimidating action against the society because, any attempt to use force or intimidating action against the society by individuals amounts to self-destruction as, the individuals, being the parts of the whole, are protected by the society. It is a settled norm that, the redeemed cannot move against the redeemer because, even the idea of any move against the protector by the protected is an inconsistent concept. So, no individuals can go beyond the limit of the society. Hence, in this sense, the individuals are bound by the society. Such a society can never entertain freedom of the individuals and such social systems are known as closed societies. Marxism, as a system of thought, believes not in an open society, but it subscribes a monolithic closed society which is logically incapable to provide space for diversified thoughts.
Why the Marxian intellectuals and philanthropists conceive an open society as their enemy? Why they celebrated a mode of statecraft, which annihilated freedom of speech, freedom to practice a religion of the choice of the people, multiparty system in democratic polity, and independent judiciary? Why they projected such a closed society and draconian statecraft as the ideal form of governance? These questions, no doubt, deserve answers from the fans of Marxism though, they usually avoid answering the questions with contemptuous smile as, they think that they are in possession of a system of thought free from defects and those who asks questions to them are fools. If, they try to answer the questions, out of compulsion, they would try to terrorize the people asking questions, using technical terms which communicate nothing but confusion. Marxian epistemology believes in the Hegelian dialectical method that is resulted in the generation of monolithic knowledge system. The Hegelian dialectical method generates a knowledge system ends up in the idea of absolute which makes it logically incapable to accept pluralistic methods in knowledge generating process. According to Hegel, there can be only one form of true knowledge which has been considered as the absolute knowledge. Hence, Marxism believes that dialectical and historical materialism is the true form of knowledge. Further it believes that all other systems of thought and action are wrong and anything that is inconsistent with Marxism must be eliminated.
There are epistemological reasons to perceive open society as an enemy to people because, conflict, crisis, and necessary annihilation of the less powerful by the more powerful is immanent in the dialectical method as the dialectical method progresses through the conflict between the thesis and anti-thesis which results in the formation of synthesis. The synthesis, in turn, functions as a thesis and according to Hegelian belief, where there is a thesis there should be an anti-thesis and the process culminates in the formation of the absolute. According to Hegelian system that absolute is the ultimate reality because, Hegel believes that epistemologically, nobody and nothing can go beyond the absolute because, the absolute is the logical culmination of the knowing process. Since, by definition, it is the absolute which is the ultimate reality then, logically, it is not possible to accept anything other than the absolute as the correct form of knowledge and reality. Therefore, as Marxism accepts the Hegelian dialectics as a stream of knowing process, epistemologically, it is incapable to entertain the multiform methodology in the process of making knowledge and consequent valid systems of knowledge other than the dialectical materialism.
According to Marxian belief, violent conflict is immanent in class society. A class society means, a society that is divided by the people representing the haves and have-nots. The class conscience, the class character, and the class interest of each class is different from the other
Marxism believes in the existence of matter as the ultimate reality of this universe and life and Marxism accepts the definition given by science to describe the nature of matter. Materialism, as a stream of thought, is not the contribution of Marx because, Feuerbach, a German philosopher developed the theory of Materialism based on the philosophical contributions of the Greek masters. Marx observed that the theory of Materialism introduced by Feuerbach is logically in consistent because, the dynamic aspect of matter remains unexplained by the Feuerbachian theory of Materialism and he termed the theory of Feuerbach as mechanical materialism. Mechanical materialism is the theory which believes that, the ultimate reality of the universe is matter and that matter works like a machine. The mechanical theory of matter needs an external force as the prime mover to begin the process of momentum. The idea of the prime mover belittles the primacy of the matter and it is to be admitted that, there are matter and the prime mover as ultimate realities. Naturally, the Feuerbachian theory of materialism is not a logically sound argument because, if, there are matter and the prime mover as the realities then, it cannot be termed as materialism. Marx applied the Hegelian theory of dialectics on the materialism and described that, matter by nature is dynamic because, it functions on the basis of inherent dynamism. Hence, the dialectical materialism needs no prime mover apart from matter. Marx believed that, force is inherent matter. Hence, it does not need the external force to keep up momentum. Marx, further believed that, since, the ultimate reality of the universe and life is matter and that matter is dynamic by nature because, it functions based on the theory of dialectics then, dialectical materialism is the correct form of philosophy of nature and life.
Marx developed the theory of dialectical materialism to interpret the development of life elements, human beings, and every form of creations of men on earth apart from the material objects. Since, the ultimate reality of the universe is matter and that matter functions on the basis of the theory of dialectics then, everything in the nature must be one among the various forms of matter which functions based on the theory of dialectics. Naturally, human beings and their functions also must be the part of various forms of manifestations of matter. Therefore, the history created by man who, functions as thesis and nature as anti-thesis is nothing but the manifestation of matter which functions on the basis of dialectical method. He concluded that everything created by man is nothing but the manifestation of matter in many forms. He considered God and religion as the creatures of man; not man as the creature of God. Hence, he culminated his philosophy into the concept of Dialectical and Historical Materialism which, moves based on the theory of dialectics. Since, anything which moves on the basis of dialectics is dynamic then, the entire history created by man also must be dynamic. Marx applied his theory of dialectical, dynamic, and historical materialism to explain the process of the historical development of man and nature. Naturally, he had no other go but to apply the theory of dialectics in the forms of the development of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. Hence, he developed the theory of class struggle and the theory culminates in communism.
The practice of human rights believes not in conflicts; but in consensus; it believes not in the onslaught of the other by using weapons; but it believes in dialogues. Dialogue is a form of give and take relation and nobody gets the ultimate victory in a dialogue. It never believes in the annihilation of one by the other. It ensures the peaceful co-existence of one and all and such a context is logically and practically unimaginable in Marxian thought
According to Marxian belief, violent conflict is immanent in class society. A class society means, a society that is divided by the people representing the haves and have-nots. The class conscience, the class character, and the class interest of each class is different from the other. According to Marx, the haves and have-nots possess diametrically opposite class interests. Hence, these two classes are in constant war to get victory over the other. Marx further believed that, the have-nots as, they constitute the majority in terms of quantity, could physically eliminate the haves in the class-war and could celebrate victory over them by establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state of affair of the state craft, created by the proletarian revolution, at this stage, is known as socialism which would further move to the establishment of communism, a classless society. Marx foresees constant war, both internal and external, until the establishment of the communism. Since, this is the theoretical position of Marxism, it is not possible to have a compromise between the two basic classes. But as part of war strategy, the have-nots, if they do not have sufficient strength to defeat the haves, can enter into tactical agreement with the enemy, until the have-nots attain strength to defeat the enemy. Since, it is impossible to abstain from the class war in class society, according to Marxism, all members of the communist party, everywhere in the world, must engage in constant war against their enemy, in one form or the other, until they establish the communist rule
How, a system of thought that theoretically propagates conflict, crisis and destruction and practically endorses bloodshed violent revolution and physical annihilation of the enemy, can preach humanism, and protect human rights is question which should not be left unanswered. Marxism, as a system of thought and action cannot believe in non-violence as, it believes in class struggle and physical annihilation of one class by the other in constant class war. It is a system which believes in violent bloodshed revolution as the only path to lead communism, cannot protect human rights because, the practice of non-violence is the basic pre condition for the protection of human rights. The practice of human rights believes not in conflicts; but in consensus; it believes not in the onslaught of the other by using weapons; but it believes in dialogues. Dialogue is a form of give and take relation and nobody gets the ultimate victory in a dialogue. It never believes in the annihilation of one by the other. It ensures the peaceful co-existence of one and all and such a context is logically and practically unimaginable in Marxian thought.
The basic principle of human rights is that everything in the universe has the natural right to exist as it is. Earlier, the euro-centric thought and practice, which prevailed as the mainstream thinking pattern for centuries all over the world, accepted the anthropocentric concept of human rights. The anthropocentric concept of human rights believed that, man has got the unfettered right to exploit nature because, man was the measure of all things, in accordance with its faith. Now, the pattern of thought has been changed due to the emergence of eco-philosophy as a prominent claim to know to understand nature and man. So, the human rights do not mean the right of the human beings to exist in and exploit the nature to satisfy their need and greed, but to live as one among the many in the universe recognizing the role of the other in ensuring the existence of the universe. At present, the euro-centric exponents of wisdom have been forced to extend the denotation of the meaning of the right to live, which is the fundamental human right, to the non-human beings also. They admit that, nobody can protect human rights without protecting the right to live of one and all. According to theoretical faith and practice, a Marxist if, he/she lays his/her faith in dialectical and historical materialism, is in capable to protect the life of all because, by faith and temperament, a Marxist must annihilate the class enemy whenever he/she gets a chance to slay them at any time, as long as she/he lives in a class society. It is a foregone conclusion that constant class struggle is immanent in a class society. How is it possible to protect human rights when, one constantly engages in annihilating the class enemy? The communists cannot protect the human rights of all; they can protect only rights of the proletariat in class society; that too by annihilating the enemies.
The Marxist fraternity have the habit of making a false claim that they are determined to protect the life and property of the people, irrespective of the class distinctions in a democratic polity. It, really, is a big lie. A Marxist, by faith and as per the oath, he/she has taken at time of his/her enrolment as a party cadre, cannot protect the life of a person belong to the rival class without violating the party interest. It is a mandatory custom that, a party cadre must voluntarily take an oath that, he/she must slay the class enemy whenever he/she gets a chance to do so. A person who breaches the oath and acts against the interest of the party, violating the code of conduct of the party and retaining the party membership, is known as a traitor. According to the Marxist penal code, capital punishment is the minimum that a traitor can expect from the party court of law. Nobody, till date, has been punished for the protection of the human rights violating the party interest because, nobody ever dared to protect the human rights violating the code of conduct of the party. Moreover, a member of the communist party cannot protect the private property because, no communist can lay faith in the ownership of private property as, the abolition of private property is the primary duty of a communist. Therefore, the claim of the communist party men as the protectors of the life and property of human beings is a false claim because, no communist can be the protector of private property. Hence, a communist cannot be a human right activist and human rights are not safe in the hands of the communists.
The communists in India, used to make another claim that they are the protectors of democratic polity and they further pretend that democracy would not have been protected in India if the communist movement was not active. This claim is devoid of facts and it remains as the monument of utter lie habitually propagated by the communists in India. The basic doctrine of democracy is that, democracy and violence cannot go together. Democracy can be practiced only in a society which believes in peaceful co-existence of one and many. Rule of law must control a democratic society. Moreover, democracy believes dialogue, consensus, and co-operation while communism believes in violence, conflict, and destruction. Democracy believes in the co-existence of plurality of ideas and actions while communism preaches for the monolithic existence of its ideology and one class of people. Democracy believes that, universe is a multitude and the co-existence of one and many is the mode of life and law of the universe. The communism, on the contrary, believes in the annihilation of the rival classes of people for the establishment of socialist state. There must be ideological pluralism and practice of various forms of life patterns in a democratic set up. The right of the other to dissent with the authority and majority are the ways of life in democracy while, the establishment of one ideology, one form of governance, and only one practice of life are the essential features of communism. Therefore, a communist cannot be a democrat and the concept democracy is inconsistent with communist ideology. This is the specific reason for the existence of the monolithic structure of polity and the practice of one-party rule in communist countries.
Naturally, there is no space for the practice of free-media activity in a communist regime because, communism does not believe in pluralism and the freedom of the individuals to choose something which they like in idea action. The media activities emerge only in a society which entertains the role of multiple ideology and multiple patterns of life. A communist, by faith believes that the communist ideology is the only one relevant and scientific theory available on earth and all other ideologies are unscientific and impractical. Hence, communists believe that all ideologies other than communism must be eradicated because, they further believe that everything unscientific and impractical must be eliminated for the sake of the scientific growth of the society. According to Marxist faith, any effort to propagate an ideology contrary to communism has been considered as an act to eradicate communism and any act to eradicate communism should be opposed with tooth and nail by a communist. Hence, free media activity cannot be permitted in a socialist state. Moreover, the monolithic ideological structure of Marxism makes it logically incapable to accept the role of the media to dissent with the authority of the ideology and the majority decision of the proletariat. The right to express dissent has been considered as the act of declaration of war against the communist regime and ideology. So, a communist cannot, theoretically and practically, accept the role of free media in communist society.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) recently, appreciated the growth and development of China as a socialist state, in one of the resolutions the party approved to present in the forthcoming party congress to be held in Kannore, the citadel of communism in India. They equally appreciated the policies of the Chinese government banning the practice religions of the choice of the people, free media activity, free and fair election, independent judiciary, and human right activities
Since, party is the ultimate authority on law and justice then, there is no need of any judicial system alien to the party to provide justice to the people who subscribe Marxian ideology. The communists believe that the party cannot go wrong. So, the decision of the party on every matter would be true and correct in a context. The party reserves justice to the members of the party and the proletariats in a socialist society and the communists think that, the haves do not deserve justice in a class society, as they are the abode of injustice in society. The justice delivered in a class society, by the so-called independent judiciary, is nothing but the injustice awarded to the have-nots by the haves because, the communists think that, the system of judiciary itself has been designed and established to protect the class interest of the haves and for the exploitation of the have-nots. Therefore, the primary duty of the have-nots is to eradicate the existing judiciary prelude to the establishment of the proletariat rule and thereafter, the proletarian government would protect the class interest of the have-nots eliminating the haves. Hence, the communists do not lay faith in bourgeoise judiciary and they want to establish the party-judicial system which ensures, justice exclusively, to the have-nots. Therefore, there is no space for the so-called independent judiciary in communist theory and practice and according to them it is not the law of the land that guarantees justice but the dictum of the party which provides justice to those who deserve it. Theoretically and practically, it is evident that, the communists cannot entertain free judiciary. They may speak too much on the role of free judiciary in a civil society without having an iota of faith in the free and fair judiciary.
Since, there is no provision to punish a hypocrite in the Indian Penal Code, no communist can be punished for obfuscation. It is a known fact that there is no space for religion and God in dialectical and historical materialism. But the communists in India propagate that they are the protectors of God and religion in a democratic polity. They even claim that, they are ready to sacrifice their life for the protection of God and religion of the minorities in India. How is it logically possible for an ideology, which believes that God and religion are the tools of oppression designed, established, and used by the haves to protect their class-interest, to preserve the same instead of eradicating them? The communist ideology believe that the primary duty of a communist is to destroy all the establishments and institutions possessed and controlled by the haves as, the first step, for the establishment of socialist state after the bloodshed revolution. The communist parties all over the world have done this job, in a meticulous manner, in all communist countries. They either demolished or remodeled all the places of worship whenever, they got a chance to do so and banned the religious practice in countries where they could establish socialist states. Since, this is the state of affair of the communist ideology and practice then, the claim of the party and its exponents that, they are the true protectors of God and religion is nothing but a false claim and it testifies the notorious communist hypocrisy.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) recently, appreciated the growth and development of China as a socialist state, in one of the resolutions the party approved to present in the forthcoming party congress to be held in Kannore, the citadel of communism in India. They equally appreciated the policies of the Chinese government banning the practice religions of the choice of the people, free media activity, free and fair election, independent judiciary, and human right activities. The CPM thinks that a communist government is theoretically and practically incapable to afford to those bourgeoise-luxuries of democracy in a socialist state. So, the communist regime, all over the world, have accepted the absence of bourgeoise-luxuries as the hall marks of communist rule. The CPIM whole heartedly appreciates the communist dogmas of negation of the democratic rights. Then, the question is why they endorse the negation of basic democratic rights in communist countries and bat for more and more liberal democratic rights in the democratic polities where they have little stake in public life? Take the case of India. Their presence in India is less than three percent of the total electorate in the last parliament election. They could get only three members of Lok Sabha and among the three, two members are from the Tamil Nadu, that too they got at the mercy of DMK because, their vote share in Tamil Nadu is less than one percent. But they bat for liberal democracy in India as part of the war tactics they adopt in a society where they have no vital role to play. They are waiting for a chance to do the class war. 22/01/22.
Dr.K S Radhakrishnan (academic, writer, and orator)
Discussion about this post