MARXIST PHILOSOPHY

We are living in a topsy-turvy world. An unprecedented turmoil has gripped us economically, politically, socially and morally. Galloping inflation, mounting unemployment, political instability, earth-shaking revolutions and people's heroic struggles as well as various brands of 'socialism' contradicting each other, increasing atrocities committed by the state, widespread bloodshed, degradation of moral values, break up of emotional family ties, recurring natural and man-made disasters, energy crisis, all-pervading corruption, unique scientific explorations and inventions coupled with the danger of nuclear and chemical warfare, rising international tensions, and so on—all these things are perplexing our mind. Why this universal turmoil? We try to jump into the whirlpool, but then seek refuge in fatalism, status-quo-ism. Sometimes it seems as if some mysterious forces are tearing apart our established order in vengeance; but at other times the same forces look generating hope for a better life.

Philosophy is commonly understood as something mysterious, something outside realm of our daily practical life, but simultaneously it is considered universally applicable also. In everyday life people often use philosophic aphorisms. In case some one dies prematurely, his relatives often say in consolation 'Who can stop the ever-moving chariot of destiny? Life and death, loss and gain, fame and infamy are all in the hand of all powerful destiny.” But time comes when mare fatalism does not work. Complex object conditions of life to have a bird's eye-view, but to get involved in those intricacies, solve complex problems and take decision. Like all other branches of knowledge, philosophy took shape in the process of solving practical problems of life. Therefore, questions like what is philosophy, how did it take shape, how can it be utilized in changing the society and the nature – are all every important to be dealt with.

Hence let us turn to our past – the last stage of savagery or the beginning of barbarity. Hunting then was the principal means of subsistence of our ancestors. Cultivation or animal husbandry was still not prevalent. What would have been their attitude towards nature at that time? They viewed Nature as it was. To go deep into the mysteries of Nature was beyond their bounds. To view Nature simply as it was, is called primitive materialist outlook. In ancient Greek philosophies and earlier Vedic mantras, we find glimpses of this outlook. Still today in certain parts of our globe, there are some tribes whose mode of living resembles those of our ancestors. At that time, they did not need any 'abstract thought', neither was it possible. Certainly they did cognise some of the mysteries of Nature, but that cognition by and large was spontaneous. They were still not confronted with the question of interrelation between matter and mind. Sooner or later, this question was bound to come and it came somewhat strangely. The primitive materialism was unable to solve this riddle.

At that time, human beings were still completely ignorant of the structure of their own bodies. They were not acquainted with the functioning of brain. Dreams often used to haunt their mind. In Upanishads, there is a story which reveals how dreams were a great anxiety for our ancestors. A king approached a great saint of that age with three questions; the first was “who does speak within us and remains active when we are asleep?” A bulk of Yajnvalkya's teachings consists of his analysis of dreams. So, under the stimulus of dream apparitions men came to believe that their thinking and sensation were not activities of their bodies, but of a distinct soul which inhabits the body and leaves it at death – from this time men have been driven to reflect about the relation between the soul and the outside world. If after death it took leave of the body and stayed on, there was no occasion to invent another distinct death for it. Thus arose the idea of its immortality.

“The common universal ignorance of what to do with this soul, once its existence had been accepted after death of the body, led in a general way to the tedious notion of personal immortality. In an exactly similar manner the first gods arose through the personification of nature forces.” To appease them prayer, magic, rituals, witchcraft, sacrifice etc. became the order of the day Religions gradually came into being and stabilised these rituals. With the intellectual development of men, finally out of all these gods, there arose one and exclusive god. The old materialism was thus negated by idealism.

Though these concepts did not correspond with objective realty, men came to such conclusions only to explain and solve problems of life. So, despite so many unscientific rituals they continued to carry out their efforts of controlling and remoulding Nature. On the one hand, they resorted to ghost worship and witchcraft to eliminate disease and on the other, continued to discover medicinal herbs. On the one hand they conducted yajnas and worships for rain but on the other continued to build canals and reservoirs to fight drought.

Thus, the question of the relation between thinking and being, the relation between spirit and nature, is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy. The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature, and therefore assumed world creation (by God or some 'Absolute Idea') in some form or other, comprised the camp of Idealism. The others who regarded nature as primary belong to the various schools of Materialism. The contradiction between Idealism and Materialism is the basic contradiction of philosophy and through this struggle the philosophy has developed.

Different philosophical systems played important roles in the development of human knowledge under different conditions. Any philosophy by (be it materialist or idealist, dialectical or metaphysical) can not be eugolised as 'progressive' or dubbed as 'reactionary' in an abstract manner. Of course, it is true that in any class society, philosophy being the expression of ideological superstructure, struggle between the two mutually exclusive philosophical ideas, is essentially a reflection of class struggles in society. Bearing these aspects in mind let us advance in our systematic and comprehensive study of philosophy.

We have already discussed how the fundamental question of philosophy did arise. But development of philosophy presupposes a situation in which a section of population is freed from necessary labour and has enough time to devote on art, science and philosophy etc. In the later part of primitive communism, with the invention of new means of production (copper etc.) and simultaneous division of labour, extension of exchange etc., production greatly developed and now the human labour power could produce more than was necessary for its maintenance. The means of maintaining additional units of labour power were present, likewise the means of employing them. Prisoners of war, who earlier were simply killed or adopted to the victor tribe, were allowed now to live as slaves and their labour was made use of. Thus the slavery was invented and it soon became the dominant mode of production in all such societies. Consequently a special class freed from actual labour come into being. “Without slavery no Greek state, no Greek art and science. We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised.” (Engels: Anti-Duhring)

Thus philosophy in various forms took shape only in the era of slavery in Greece, Iran, India, China etc. Here we will discuss Greek philosophy only because as Engels said : “The manifold forms of Greek philosophy contain in embryo, in the nascent state, almost all later modes of outlook on the world.” Greek philosophy is the first historical form of dialectical philosophy in which dialectics appears in its primitive, naive form. Since at that time (700 B.C. to 300 B.C), Greeks were not yet advanced enough to dissect, analyse nature; nature is still viewed as a whole, in general. For example, when we reflect on nature or history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless maze of connections and interactions, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. The primitive, naive but correct conception of world was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: “Everything is and also not, for everything is in flux, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.” Aristotle, another great Greek philosopher, had already investigated the most essential forms of dialectical thought. He is considered to be the father of logic and he made important contributions to all branches of knowledge.

Among Greek philosophers, there were both materialists and idealists; but here we are not going to discuss all the streams in Greek philosophy. We will confine our study to deal with the positive aspect of dialectical thought in Greek philosophy, and also with its drawbacks which enabled metaphysics to replace it.

Greek philosophy correctly presented the general description of Nature as a whole but it was not capable of analysing its individual component parts. To know these parts, it is necessary to detach them from their natural or historical connections and study every characteristic, action-reaction separately. This task should be accomplished by natural science and history. But Greeks lacked the necessary resources to accomplish these task. Herein lies the inadequacy of Greek philosophy, on account of which it had to yield later to other models of outlook on the world.

The beginning of the exact natural sciences were worked out first by the Greeks of Alexanderian Era (3rd century BC to 7th century AD) This era witnessed the rapid advance of mathematics (Euclid), mechanics (Archimedes), astronomy, anatomy, physiology, geography and other sciences. Later on, in the Middle Ages, it was further developed by the Arabs. Genuine natural science dates from the second half of the fifteenth country, and from then on during the last five hundred years it has advanced with ever-increasing rapidity.

But what was the basis of this development? The analysis of nature into its component individual parts, the division of the different natural processes and objects into definite classes, the study of the anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms—these were the fundamental conditions for the gigantic studies in our knowledge of nature. But this bequeathed the habit of observing natural objects and process in isolation, detached from general context; of observing them not in their motion but in their state of rest; not in their life, but in their death. And it begot the metaphysical way of thinking.

In the 16th century, English philosopher Bacon and in 17th century another English philosopher Locke transfered this metaphysical outlook from natural science to philosophy which occupied a prominent place uptill the end of 19th century (i.e. upto the period of Marx).

During 1000 years of Middle Ages in Europe religion had forced philosophy to lie in deep slumber. This period began with the murder of Hibatia (a famous woman mathematician of Alexanderia, Egypt, 415 AD), burning of libraries and banning the study of philosophy under statutory orders by Roman Empire. And this period ended with the advent of Renaissance (later half of fifteenth century) in Europe. Royalty, with the help of burghers of the towns broke the power of the feudal nobility and established the great monarchies, based essentially on nationality, within which the modern European states and modern bourgeois society came to development. And while the burghers and nobility were still fighting with one another, the German Peasent War pointed prophetically to the future class struggles, by bringing onto the stage not only the peasants in revolt, but behind them the beginnings of the modern proletariat with the red flag in their hands and the demand for common ownership of goods on their lips.

Italy rose to an undreamt flowing of art. In Italy, France and Germany a new literature arose. Shortly afterwards came the classical epoch of English and Spanish literature. Basis was led for world trade and transition from handicraft to manufacture which in its turn formed the starting point for modern industry. The dictatorship of Church over men's mind was shattered. Among the Latins a cheerful spirit of free thought, taken over from the Arabs and nourished by the newly discovered Greek philosophy—in the manuscripts saved from the fall of Byzantium—took root more and more which prepared the way for the materialism of the eighteenth century. It was the greatest progressive revolution that the mankind had so far experienced. It gave birth to great personages who can be regarded as founders of the modern rule of the bourgeoisie, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Machiavelli, Luther etc.

Natural science had to win in struggle its right of existence and it provided its martyrs in the revolution. Servetes and Giordano Bruno were burnt alive by the Inquisition (the Church court, which suppressed free investigation of nature as infidelity). But in spite of these persecutions, natural sciences continued to forge ahead. With the publication of the immortal work Copernicus (regarding solar system), natural science declared its independence from theology.

Antiquity had bequeathed Euclid and Ptolemic solar system, the Arabs had left behind the decimal notion, the beginnings of Algebra, the modern numerals and alchemy; the Chrstian Middle Ages nothing at all. In most fields a start had to be made from the very beginning. Of necessity, in this situation the most fundamental natural science, the mechanics of terrestrial and heavenly bodies, occupies first place. In this era Newton played a specific role in developing these branches of science and Descartes, Napier and Leibnietz made important contributions in mathematics. Kepler discovered the laws of planetary movement. Linnaeus made valuable discoveries in spheres of botany any zoology.

But this period is charaterized by a peculiar general outlook, the central point of which is the view of the absolute immutability of nature. In whatever way nature itself might have come into being, once present, it remained as it was as long as it continued to exist. That the planets and their sattelites were once set in motion by the mysterious “first impulse” and then they circled on and on. So “the five continents” of the present day had always existed, the species of plants and animals had been established once and for all and so and so. All changes, all developments in nature, were denied. Natural science, so revolutionary at the outset, suddenly found itself confronted by an out-and-out conservative nature. This was mechanical materialism which explained every change as change of place and accepted only quantitative changes.

In 1755, Kant, a German philosopher, launched first attack on this pertified outlook on nature. His “Nabular Hypothesis” shattered to pieces the theory of first impulse “The earth and the whole solar system appeared as something that had come into being in the course of time. Side by side, geology arose and pointed out not only the terrestrial strata formed one after another and deposited one after another, but also the shells and skeletons of extinct animals and the trunks, leaves and fruits of no longer existing plants contained in these strata. The decision had to be taken that not only the earth as a whole but also its present surface and the plants and animals living on it possessed a history in time.

Metaphysics, whose appearance was inevitable because of the particular stage of development of natural science, did play a positive role at a certain period. Considering the things in static and isolated fashion did facilitate their study to an extent. However, with the development of natural science, mentioned above, metaphysical outlook got serious blows. But due to the power of tradition, metaphysics continued to rule for some time. This can only be explained by the division of labour that had in the meantime become dominant in natural science, which more on less restricted each person to his specific sphere, there being only a few whom it did not role of a comprehensive view.

Three great discoveries of nineteenth century finally rang the death knoll of metaphysics and enabled our knowledge of the interconnection of natural processes to advance by leaps and bounds.

First, the discovery of cell as the unit of plant and animal. Through the multiplication and differentiation of cell the whole plant and animal body developes. The development and growth of all higher organisms is thus recognised to proceed according to a single general law. And as cell has the capacity of change, it is clear how organisms can change their species.

Second, the transformation of energy. All energies—mechanical, heat, light, electricity, magnetic and chemical—are only different forms of motion and can be transformed to one another.

Third, Darwin's theory of evolution. All living beings, including human beings, are the result of a long process of evolution from a few originally unicellular germs and that these germs have arisen through a chemical process from protein.

With these three great discoveries, now it was again possible to present nature in its totality, with all its interconnections and always changing component parts. Dialectics dethroned metaphysics from its supreme position.

Thus we again returned to the mode of outlook of the great founders of Greek philosophy. Only with the essential difference that what in the case of Greeks was a brilliant intuition is in our case the result of strictly scientific research in accordance with experience and hence also it emerges in much more definite and clear form. Subsequent modern discoveries of science—discovery of fundamental particles of atom, transformation of matter into energy (an another form of matter), recent theories on formation of universe, genetics, engineering, etc.—further confirm dialectics.

To quote Engels, “The science of thought is therefore like every other, a historical science, the science of the historical development of human thought. And this is of importance for the practical application of thought in empirical fields … …Formal logic itself has been the area of violent controversy from the time of Aristotle to the present day. And dialectics has so far been fairly closely investigated by only two thinkers —Aristotle and Hegel. But It is precisely dialectics that constitutes the most important form of thinking for present day natural sciences, for it alone offers the analogue for, and thereby the method of explaining, the evolutionary processes occurring in nature, interconnections, in general, and transitions from one field of investigation to another.”

(Old preface to Anti-Duhring)

Contrary to metaphysics and mechanical materialism, it was Hegel's (1770-1831) dialectical system which developed dialectics to a higher stage. For the first time Hegel presented nature, history and intellectual field as a continuous process and it was his greatest contribution. According to Hegelian dialectics the whole world is in ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change; and it also tried to discover those internal relations that can give all motions and developments the shape of a complete whole, but Hegel could not solve that problem because (i) as an individual he had his own limitations, (ii) in his era, natural science and science of society had not developed to such an extent as mentioned earlier (three discoveries), and (iii) he himself was an idealist. In his view, his ideas were not reflections of objective reality in human mind, but to the contrary even changing matter was itself the reflection of some “Absolute Idea”. Thus with this idealist concept, Hegel turned everything upside down.

Hegel presented laws of dialectics as merely 'laws of thinking'. In this form, these laws are superimposed on nature and history (instead of discovering them in these and developing them from these). So the objective world must correspond with this system of thought (which itself is the product of the development of human thought !)

But the true significance and the revolutionary character of the Hegelian philosophy lied in the fact that it once for all dealt the death blow to the finality of all products of human thought and action. For Hegel, truth lay now in the process of cognition itself, in the long historical development of Science which mounts from lower to ever higher levels of knowledge without ever reaching, by discovering so-called absolute truth, a point at which it could proceed no further, where it would have nothing more to do. This also holds good for history. A “perfect” society, a “perfect” state are things which can only exist in imagination. On the contrary, all successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the endless course of development of human society from lower to the higher. For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute and sacred.

But in Hegel, the views developed above are not so sharply delineated. They are a necessary conclusion from his method, but one which he never drew with such explicitness. And this indeed, for the simple reason that he was compelled to make a system, and, in accordance with traditional requirement, a system of philosophy must conclude with some sort of absolute truth. On this way, the whole dogmatic content of the Hegelian System is declared to be absolute truth, in contradiction to his dialectical method. Thus the revolutionary side is smothered beneath the overgrowth of the conservative side. And we find that his “Absolute Idea” is to be realised in a limited, moderate, indirect rule of the possessing classes suited to the petty-bourgeois German conditions of that time.

And while young Hegelians were busy in solving the idealism—materialism puzzle, came Feuerbach's 'Essence of Christianity'. With one blow it pulverised the contradiction and placed materialism on the throne again. He told that nature existed independently of all philosophy. It is the foundation upon which we human beings, ourselves product of nature, have grown up. The higher beings our religious fantasies have created are only the fantastic reflexion of our own essence. The spell was broken. All young Hegelians became Feuerbachians.

The course of evolution of Feuerbach is that of a Hegelan into a materialist—an evolution which at a definite stage necessitates a complete rupture with the idealist system of his predecessor. Feuerbach is a pure materialist. According to him matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. Though Hegel was an idealist and Feuerbach a materialist, both agreed on one point—both considered materialism of eighteenth century as mechanical, criticised this materialism and broke off their relations with this system.

Though three great discoveries in natural science were made during Feuerbach's life time, he was completely ignorant of them. He never understood the importance of applying materialism in the study of society, and in this respect he remained chained in idealist shackles. So, Feuerbach refused to take the responsibility of developing materialism in accordance with new discoveries in natural science and new developments in society.

But out of the dissolution of the Hegelian school, there developed still another tendency, the only one which has borne real fruit. This tendency is represented by Marxist philosophy. The separation from Hegelian philosophy was here also the result of a return to the materialist standpoint. But here the materialistic world outlook was taken really seriously for the first time and was carried through consistently—at least in its basic features — in all domains of knowledge concerned. Hegel was not simply pushed aside. On the contrary, one started out from his revolutionary side described above, from the dialectical method. But in its Hegelian form this method was unusable. Hence Hegelian ideological perversion was done away with. In this Marxist method, concepts are regarded as images of real things instead of of regarding the real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept. Thereby the dialectics of concept itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus dialectics of Hegel was turned upside down and placed upon its feet.

Thus arose dialectical materialist philosophy of Marx-Engels. Now we will discuss the main features of this dialectical materialism in three parts — dialectics, materialism and historical materialism.

Lenin, while pointing out weaknesses in the dialectical method adopted by Plekhanov, emphasised that the law of unity of opposites is the essence of dialectics. “Dialectics in proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects.” Later on, Mao Zedong in his brilliant essay. 'On contradiction' discussed this essence of dialectics in detail, systematically and comprehensively. So, while dealing with dialectics, we will concentrate on this essence, i.e., unity and struggle of opposites or contradictions.

1. Contradictions, i.e. mutually opposite aspects exist universally and in all processes, whether in nature, society or in human thought. Struggle of these opposites is the very cause of development of these processes. Engels said, “Motion itself is a contradiction”. For example :

In mathematics : + and — ; X and ÷

In electricity : positive and negative

In social science : new and old, advanced and backward, slaves and slave-owners, serfs and feudal lords, workers and capitalists.

In war : Offense and defense, advance and retreat.

In human thought : reality and uptopia.

etc. etc., i.e. in every thing and process, contradiction, i.e. unity and struggle of opposites exists from beginning to end. Therefore, contrary to a metaphysician's approach of 'yea, yea; nay, nay', dialectical method demands that whenever we study any object, phenomenon or process, we study both the mutually opposite aspects and their interrelation inherent in that object or phenomenon, and not only one aspect. For example, when we study our nation, we should study mutually opposite classes and class-relations in our nation. In case of class struggle, we should study both legal and illegal struggles, political struggles and armed struggles and their mutual relationships.

Since struggle of opposites is inherent in every object and phenomenon and since development and motion is struggle of opposites, dialectical method demands that every thing should be viewed as in constant motion, always changing, always coming into being and passing away. Metaphysics refuses to do so. Take the case of non-aligned movement. Twenty years ago when this movement was born, it was directed against US imperialism because at that time it was US imperialism which was aggressively threatening the sovereignty and independence of nations. During these years the whole international scene changed and is constantly changing; the relative position of imperialist powers and developing countries has also changed. Non-aligned movement is turning more and more against Soviet imperialism. Metaphysicians regard this as a deviation from the concept of non-alignment because it was originally aimed at US imperialism and it should remain so even today. But according to dialectics this change is natural corresponding to the change in circumstances.

Moreover, dialectics teaches us to analyse any development basically due to contradiction inherent in it. So if workers rebel in Poland, the basic cause can never be “foreign hands”, but it is basically the result of contradictions inherent in Polish society itself. Hence, the 'theory of external factors' betrays a metaphysical mode of thought.

2. It is true that contradiction is present in the process of development of all things, but it does not mean that the same contradiction permeates the process of development of each thing. If it be so then in the world only one type of thing would have remained, i.e. only one form of motion of matter. But we see different type of matters and processes. Each type of matter and process has its own particular contradiction, i.e. particular set of opposites, which differentiates it with other things and processes. Wheat and barley have different forms of contradictions inherent in them which explains for their difference in forms. Every branch of knowledge contains within itself its own particular contradiction which differentiates it from another branch of knowledge. For example : positive and negative numbers in mathematics, action and reaction in mechanics, positive and negative electricity, forces of production and relations of production, opposite classes in social science, idealism and materialism in philosophy etc. Each social system has its own particular contradiction. In salve society, between slaves and slave owners, in feudal society between serfs and landlords, in capitalists society between workers end capitalists. So contrary to metaphysics, dialectical method demands that we should not only study contradictions generally, but what is especially important, we should study this particular contradiction in any object and phenomenon, be it natural or social. When we study our nation, we should not only study this general contradiction but also the particular contradiction which differentiates it from other nations. We should not only study class struggles in general but also the particularity of class struggle in our country and we should not only study mass movements in general but also the particularity of each and every mass movement.

3. Recognition of particular contradiction does not mean that in every entity there is only one contradiction i.e., one particular contradiction. Dialectics teaches us that there may remain many contradictions in a single entity. As the number of contradictions increases in any entity, it develops from simple to complex. So, if in any given entity or process, there are more than one contradictions, there is necessarily one principal contradiction whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions. Through solving this principal contradiction, that matter, social system or process enters a new phase of development. So dialectical method demands that when studying any object or phenomenon, we should discover principal contradiction and solve it. Without this we will be lost in a fog. (On the questions of determining principal contradiction in society we shall discuss it in our chapter 'Historical Materialism.')

4. To solve a principal contradiction, it is necessary to study both of its mutually opposite aspects. According to dialectics, in any contradiction, i.e. in any pair of two mutually opposite aspects one is principal aspect and the other is secondary. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction. In any person there are both good and bad aspects. If good aspect is principal one, we call that person good. Despite the principal (dominant) position of one aspect the existence of secondary aspect shows the continuity of struggle, of motion. Under certain conditions, the two aspects of a contradiction interchange their place i.e., principal aspect becomes secondary and the secondary becomes principal one. Good man turns into bad one, brave into coward and a person coming from exploited class becomes exploiter. Here, the analysis of overall changing situation is necessary. It means not only the study of these two aspects of any contradiction separately, but also the study of its inter-relations with other contradictions, analysis of changes occurring in these interrelations and their resultant influence on the position of these two aspects. In other words, objects and phenomena should be studied in the light of their changing interrelations with other objects and phenomena and the resultant effect on their own position. Hence to understand the inter change of place by principal and secondary aspects of any contradiction the first thing is to study the objective overall situation.

So under certain conditions, the change occurs in the relative position change slowly, quantitatively. For example, in a person the proportion of good and bad aspects changes from 70 : 30, to 60 : 40. At this stage, the nature of that person does change but it is not felt apparently, i.e. still we call him good because good aspect is still principal. But in the process of development, the portion of good aspect undergoes a drastic change say, it becomes 30 : 70. Now quantitative change has turned into a qualitative change i.e. principal and secondary aspects have changed their place—secondary aspect has become principal and vice versa. The nature of man has also changed—from good it has now turned into bad one. This qualitative change is also called leap in the process of development. Metaphysics denies such leaps in the process of development. For it, all changes are mechanical, quantitative ones.

Hence, contrary to metaphysics, dialectical method demands that we should not only study general, particular and principal contradictions, but we should also investigate the two aspects of a contradiction. We should always analyse overall changing situation and its subsequent impact on these two aspects of a contradiction whether quantitative or qualitative. Therefore, a revolutionary party always analyses changing national and international situation and its impact on the two aspects of the contradiction (people versus ruling classes) and through this process always enriches or changes its line, policies or slogans. (By the way, it should be remembered that changes in two aspects of a contradiction again influence the overall situation).

In class struggle, turning of ruling classes into ruled ones and ruled classes into ruling ones is a qualitative change. But this is a protracted process and in the meantime quantitative changes in the relative position of rulers and ruled always occur. In the process of class struggle, autocratic political forces emerge from among ruling classes and the struggle of various sections of the masses turns against these forces. Now if revolutionary forces do not take into account this quantitative change in the relative position of two opposing aspects, do not enrich their policies and slogans to concentrate their struggle against this autocratic force and build up a broad-based people's united front, then they will not be able to lead the class struggle through to the end, i,e, they will not be able to facilitate the qualitative change. After Second world war, in Chinese revolution Mao Zedong also concentrated his struggle against four houses—Chiang Kaishek, T V Sung, H H Khung and Chen Lifu and hardliners among Kuomintang and forged a broad-based united front with all the peace-loving democratic forces.

So, dogmatism is completely antilogous to dialectical method.

5. Interchangeability of opposite aspects in a contradiction does not mean that the same principal and secondary aspects always interchange. It will mean that development of any object revolves around the same circle. According to dialectics, during struggle of opposites in any object, these opposing aspects transform themselves when the secondary aspect becomes principal one, a new object comes into being and with it comes new type of contradictions, i.e. new set of opposites. The old process ends and new one begins. The new process contains new contradictions and begins its own history of development of contradictions. Resolution of every contradiction is at the same time starting point of a new type of contradiction. For example, take the case of organising peasants. In this process, there are, various opposing aspects—on the one hand, peasants' desire for organisation to get their right on land and on the other landlords' resistance, unorganised life of peasants and the necessity for organisation etc. So the process of organising the unorganised peasantry is a protracted process during which, through resisting attacks of landlords and through overcoming their own anarchist ideas during struggle, peasants organise themselves and become owners of the land they uptil now used to till. Along with it, landlord class is exterminated. Thus in this process opposing aspects change their place—unorganised peasants get organised, landless peasants become landholders ruled peasants become rulers and on the other hand, ruler landlord class turns into ruled. Qualitative change occurs in the rural society. A new society emerges. Though in this new society, old contradictions, i.e. old sets of opposites remain upto a certain period, they gradually disappear. And with new society come new contradictions — contradictions between organised landholder peasants and backward condition of agriculture, ever-increasing demands of peasantry and scarcity of consumer goods and in new conditions, among peasants themselves, contradictions between new and old, between advanced and backward sections.

In class struggle, political struggle and armed struggle— these two aspects also change their place, sometimes the former becomes principal aspect and at other times the latter. But in this process of interchange, both the aspects transform themselves too. Hence the interchange also does not occur in a circular, repetitive manner. Every time these two aspects come before us with new characteristics. So, mechanical repetition of old type of armed struggle or old type of political struggle only betrays metaphysical mode of thought.

6. If during the process of development, old contradictions pass away and new contradictions emerge, if so many types of contradictions exist in Nature and society, can we solve all these contradictions in the same manner? certainly not. According to dialectics, qualitatively different type of contradictions can only be solved by qualitatively different methods. For instance, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved by the method of socialist revolution, the contradiction between great masses of the people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution, the contradiction between colonies and imperialism is resolved by the method of national revolutionary war, the contradiction between society and nature is resolved by the method of developing the productive forces etc. etc. So, to guide the process of social development, not only it is necessary to know various types of contradictions but it is also necessary to chalk out different methods to solve different types of contradictions—contradictions between people and enemy, contradictions among democratic forces, contradictions between proletarian vanguards and democratic forces etc. etc.

Here, we have discussed some of the salient features of dialectical method. In a nut-shell, as Lenin said, “The splitting in two of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence of dialectics.” So dialectical method is also expressed as “one divides into two.” This method is just opposite to the metaphysical method of “yea, yea; no, no”, either this or that. Due to this method, metaphysics is unable to explain so many changes occurring in our world, and to lead a revolutionary movement.

But in the camp of dialecticians, some do not give emphasis on “unity and struggle of opposites”. Precisely due to this Lenin emphasised on it while writing on Plekhanov's method. He also said, “In brief, dialectics can be defined as the unity of opposites. This grasps the karnel of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.” So Lenin emphsised not only on this doctrine but also emphasised on the necessity of further explaining and developing this doctrine. Thus Lenin approached this doctrine not metaphysically, but dialectically and therefore he emphasised the necessity to further explain and develop it. And this is precisely what Mao Zedong did in his “On Contradiction.” But naturally, the problem of explaining and developing this doctrine in our changing world did not end there.

Moreover, even among those who abide by the doctrine of unity and struggle of opposites, some emphasise on unity of opposites in such a manner that it turns into its opposite i.e. eclecticism. On unity and struggle of opposites, Mao Zedong says, “There are two states of motion in all things, that of relative rest and of that conspicuous change. Both are caused by the struggle between the two contradictory elements contained in a thing. When the thing is in the first state of motion, it is undergoing only quantitative and not qualitative change and consequently presents the outward appearance of being at rest. When the thing is in the second state of motion, the quantitative change of the first state has already reached a culminating point and gives rise to the dissolution of the thing as an entity and thereupon a qualitative change ensues, hence the appearance of a conspicuous change. Such unity, solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity, attraction etc., as we see in daily life, are all appearances of things in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution of unity, i.e. the destruction of this solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity and attraction, and the change of each into its opposite are all appearances of things in state of qualitative change, the transformation of one process into another. Things constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion, the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute.” Eclectics only know of first state of motion and therefore they are unable to resolve any contradiction.

1. Lenin said, “Development (or motion) is struggle of opposites.” According to materialist outlook, “Motion is the mode of existence of matter.” Motion in cosmic space, mechanical motion of smaller masses on the various celestial bodies, the vibration of molecules as heat or as electrical or magnetic currents, chemical decomposition and combination, organicalile — at each given moment each individual atom of matter in the world is in one or another of these forms of motion or in several forms at once. Hence, there is neither any “absolute soul” or “ubiquitous God” in this world, the world also did not need any “first impulse.” The whole universe is nothing but matter in motion.

Natural science tells us that when there were no living or human beings, then too, objective world existed. Hence, objective world exists independently of our consciousness. In the process of development from quantitative to qualitative change, living beings developed out of non-living beings and from living beings human race developed gradually. So the whole world including human brain is the result of dialectical development of matter. Brain itself is the highest development of matter. Hence consciousness is the product of matter.

Therefore, materialist outlook demands that we must proceed from objective reality, we must make concrete facts, unity and struggle of opposites inherent in a matter our starting point and should not act according to our subjective desires or borrowed formulas.

2. According to materialist outlook, between matter and consciousness, matter is primary and consciousness is secondary. Matter is that which acting upon our sense-organs produces sensations but which exists independently of our sense-organs or sensations. But through our sense-organs, we know only this or that form of matter because “pure matter” does not exist. Just as fruit exists only in forms of mangoes, apples, bananas etc. and 'pure fruit' does not exist at all. So matter is the generalised philosophical name of various forms of matter, in the same way as fruit is the generalised name of various forms of fruits (mangoes, apples, bananas etc).

Conciousness is the reflection of objective world in human mind. Its only source is material world. This is one aspect. The other aspect is : once consciousness emerges, it also influences matter. After we become conscious of any object, we also begin to transform it. Moreover, even when objective condition changes, consciousness does not die immediately, but it continues to influence the course of development of matter. After feudalism and capitalism are abolished, the objective basis of feudal and capitalist consciousness mainly ceases to exist, but inspite of this, feudal and bourgeois consciousness remain and act as a barrier in the development of society. In the same manner when a new objective condition arises, it gives birth to new consciousness which gives a new impetus to social development. Hence Marx said, “Idea becomes a material force when it is grasped by the masses.”

Hence materialist outlook tells us that we should not search out for “pure proletarians,” “pure peasants” or “pure intellectuals” because “pure proletariat” is a generalised name of various qualities found in individual members of proletariat class and the same is true for “pure peasants” and “pure intellectuals” also. Contrary to this, we should be competent in utilizing various worker, peasant and intellectual cadres according to their qualities and revolutionary Work is the generalised name of these works1. Similarly, “pure mass-movements” or “pure armed struggle” have also no concrete existence, but they are generalised names of various forms of mass movements and armed struggles. This is what we mean by correct handling of cadres and correct conduction of movements.

Second, during movements, we should not only constantly propagate new ideas emerging from these movements but we should carry on continuous struggle also against old ideas. Then only leap can be achieved objectively in the development of the movements.

Some people wander about in search of “pure cadres” and “pure movements” and therefore neither they become able to keep a single cadre, nor they become able to conduct any movement. They do not grasp the new ideas emerging from new objective developments and continue to repeat old stereotyped phrases. On the other hand, sometimes, in the name of new ideas, they refuse to recognise the 'objective existence' of old ideas and their 'objectively negative impact' on the development of the movement.

Correct utilisation of various types of forces in various types of movements according to concrete conditions and holding aloft the banner of new ideas by fighting against the objective existence of old ones — such is the characteristic of militant materialism.

3. According to materialist outlook, objective world is not something mysterious which cannot be cognised, but it is knowledgeable through practice. Human practice is continuously tearing the curtain of mystery apart.

During practice, men first acquire perceptual knowledge through their sense organs and then after synthesizing the data of perception by arranging, reconstructing them and thinking them over “men arrive at rational knowledge”. But the process of cognition does not end here. This is the first stage of cognition—the stage leading from objective matter to subjective consciousness, from existence to ideas. Whether or not one's consciousness or ideas do correctly reflect the objective reality is not yet proved at this stage. Then comes the second stage of the process of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to matter, from ideas back to existence. As practice is the sole criterion of truth, by repeating this process again and again we acquire correct, authentic knowledge. But since objective world is itself moving, it is imperative to enrich our knowledge from time to time – hence this process never ends.

On the authenticity of knowledge. Engels wrote: “If we were able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purpose into bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable 'thing-in-itself' … For three hundred years the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis … But when Leverrier, by means of data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this planet, the Copernican system was proved.”

Hence, practice is the source of all knowledge. To learn swimming, it is imperative to jump into the river. So about political struggle and armed struggle, only through repeated practice one can acquire correct knowledge; and mistakes committed in this period are the inevitable part of the process of acquiring knowledge. Hence, militant materialism inspires us to work, to involve in practice, to face storms and stresses; out of fear of occurring mistakes it never prevents us from doing work. Moreover, materialists, first of all, lay emphasis on concrete practical unity and exchange of experiences, while patients of idealist disease emphasise on abstract theory or formula and avoid exchange of experiences.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels applied dialectical method in studying history and analysed man's social life with materialist outlook, thereby giving birth to historical materialism. We will now discuss some of the salient features of historical materialism.

1. Contrary to idealism, historical materialism searches the cause of social development not in any “Universal Soul” or in any “supernatural force”, but in the material life of human beings. To live, men need food, clothes, dwellings, energy, etc.; and to acquire these things men must provide them. Production is the first historical act which separates human beings from the rest of animal world. To produce, they need means of production (ploughshare, machines etc). Means of production, human labour, skill and experience of labour (with which men produce)—all these things are called productive forces. But this is only one aspect of production. For production, for acquiring means of subsistence from nature, only productive forces are not enough. Only by establishing certain relationship among themselves, men can acquire means of livelihood from nature. This relationship among themselves may be of mutual co-operation or it may be of subordination of a section of population by the other. In the process of production, the relationship men establish among themselves is called production relations. For facilitating production, production relations must correspond with the productive forces. Productive forces and relations of production, together constitute the mode of production. Society changes due to change in the mode of production.

2. Contrary to metaphysics, historical materialism views this mode of production not as something static, immovable and permanent, but as something always changing and trans forming. In any mode of production, productive forces change first of all, and in the productive forces, at first means of production change. Hence, means of production are the most mobile factor in any mode of production. Organisation of labour is determined by the means of production. New productive forces demand change in production relations—they collide with the existing, old relations of production. And subsequently old relations of production are destroyed, and new relations of production are established to facilitate the growth of new productive forces. In world history, we find uptil now five modes of production, hence five social systems – primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism.

3. Contrary to metaphysics, historical materialism holds that productive forces also develop from quantity to quality, from lower to higher, and from simple to complex. In primitive age, men had only stone implements, so only as a collective unit (based on mutual co-operation) they would have been able to face the adverse conditions of nature and to make possible their bare subsistence. But in search of finer variety of stones (to make their stone implements more polished and pointed) they, in a process, discovered copper and other metals. Introduction of metals completely revolutionised their means of production and gradually their whole social life. Quantitative changes in their stone implements gradually led towards a qualitative leap. Quantitative changes in their means of production did not influence their existing relations of production to a great extent. But this qualitative leap in the means of production demanded completely new relations of production, if production was to be continued. This new means of production opened up new avenues for earning livelihood—some took to cultivation, some to metal works and handicrafts, some continued hunting etc. Division of labour stepped in, barter system of exchange began, and gradually private property developed. So, introduction of metals in the life of tribals completely disintegrated the old primitive communal life of these tribals. Production increased, some surplus production achieved and some means of production became surplus. Hence, to utilise these means of production to the fullest extent, it was necessary to establish new relations of production. It was done. So instead of being killed, the prisoners of inter-tribal wars were now employed in productive labour as slaves. Old production relation based on mutual cooperation was shattered and new production relation based on slavery was established.

4. In the process of developing means of production men do not invent new means of production consciously with an understanding of the forthcoming social changes that it may bring. They do so to solve their immediate necessities. Hence, means of production develop to an extent spontaneously, unknowingly. But only to an extent. When new productive forces fully develop under old relation of production new classes representing new productive forces emerge and with them emerge new ideas, new politics, new laws etc; in short new theories representing new productive forces. Then this new theory mobilises new classes and through conscious effort they overthrow old classes representing old relations of production. Herein lies the role of theory. Therefore, Lenin said, “without a revolutionary theory, there cannot be a revolutionary movement.”

In the words of Marx, “the sum total of production relations, the economic structure of society is the real base on which the whole legal and political superstructure rests and social consciousness conforms to them. The mode of production of material life generally determines social, political and intellectual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of man that determines his social being, but on the contrary, it is hrs social being that determines his consciousness. At a certain stage of development, material productive forces of society begin to collide with the existing relations of production—or to use legal terms—property relations under which the productive forces have so far developed. These relations become barrier in the development of productive forces. Then begins the era of social revolution. With change in economic base the whole superstructure more or less transforms after some time.” It is apparent that even after change in mode of production, economic base, old superstructure (old ideas, culture, habits) exists, upto a time and it obstructs the development of new mode of production. Hence, mode cf production determines superstructure and in turn this superstructure also influences mode of production.

In the present world, big bourgeoisie are owners of factories, means of production and they control production in pursuit of profit. When they begin to loose profit, they lock factories out; consequently thousands upon thousands of workers become unemployed, colossal destruction of productive forces occurs. Productive forces are colliding with the old relation of production i.e. the relation between capital and wage labour. As a result, it is the era of social revolution. Representative of new productive forces, the international proletariat is getting organised against world imperialism. Only new type of production relation, i.e. socialist production relation of common ownership over means of production can unleash the development of new productive forces.

Peasants want development of productive forces—to till larger tracts of land (rendered unproductive or under productive by landlords) by bringing them under their hold and to develop agriculture. But this attempt to develop productive forces collides with existing production relations. Only by abolishing landlords and the state protecting their interests can they be able to develop productive forces.

So, new means of production do not automatically change relations of production. Though these new means of production certainly erode the basis of old production relations, but without a social revolution they do not change qualitatively. Suppose, the old production relations are maintained and some new means of production are introduced from above to some extent, what will happen? Certainly, it will not unleash the development of productive forces. Instead, it will give birth to some new social formations—a new type of old classes will be observed. “Green Revolution” in India is its glaring proof.

Metaphysics refuses to study any production system as something inter-related to other production systems. So it is unable to explain some phenomenon occurring in that production system (such as, why India lacked infrastructural facilities for sustained agricultural growth, why imperialist agencies financed rural development or “green revolution” programme, why despite surplus production wheat is imported, etc.). Metaphysics is totally ignorant of these laws of motion governing a mode of production and of how under different historical conditions means of production react differently upon production relations, and due to this how changes occur in classes or social formations. They view classes or social formations in an ossified, stereotyped manner. These superficial metaphysical pundits see some factors in some parts of rural India and exclaim : “capitalism is flourishing in rural India.”

To further illustrate how in different historical conditions development takes different forms, let us take the example of the growth of capital :

First Historical Stage (17th Century to 18th Century): Discovery of India and America, birth of world market, increasing demand of commodities and as a result of it, rapid development of commodity production in Britain and France, journeymen and guild-masters in gradual process develop into capitalists. In the words of Marx, this is the true revolutionary path of the development of capitalism.

Second Historical Stage (19th Century) — Capitalism developed in Britain and France, a large number of countries were colonised by them, the cycle of capitalist crisis (overproduction) had already begun in these countries and there began the proletarian movement on a broad scale. Under these conditions the capital that developed in Germany and in Russia was allied with autocratic monarchies and was frightened with proletarian movement, hence it eroded feudalism very slowly and cautiously and was dependent on Britain and France in many respects. Under these circumstances, it was very difficult for a direct producer to turn into a capitalist. The character of this capital is conservative and for a long time it developed under the protection of autocratic monarchies.

Third Historical Stage (Latter half of 19th Century and 20th Century, Development of Capital in Colonies: In the eve of imperialism and later era of imperialism, the whole world had been divided among a few monopoly bourgeoisie. These monopoly bourgeoisie amassed immense capital, had virtual monopoly over the most sophisticated technology and managerial skills. They had marketing agencies worldwide and had control over sources of raw materials, and by that time export of capital was more important for them than export of commodities. Under these conditions capital was born in colonies. For capital, technical know-how, management, marketing and raw materials, these capitalists were dependent on imperialists. Growth in foreign capital was the primary condition for its own development. So, it was one more medium through which foreign capital grabbed surplus wealth of colonies. The same condition continues uptill now. The character of this type of capital emerged in colonies is essentially comprador.

Metaphysics sees the development of capital without taking into account the concrete historical conditions. So people suffering from this disease sometimes characterise the capital rising in colonies as revolutionary similar to British and French capital. Some others suffering from the same disease compare it with Russian and German capital, etc.

Here we have described the character of dominant (principal) section of capital under the three historical conditions. According to dialectics, along with this dominant, principal section there exists a secondary section in the process of development of capital too. In England, Tories and Whigs; in France, Giraundons and Jacobians; in Germany and Russia, conservatives and liberals; and in colonies, compradors and national bourgeoisie represented the two sections – the principal and secondary sections. Metaphysics notices only one aspect of the process of growth and development of capital, therefore it commits blunders in formulating line, policies and slogans.

In class society, every production system remains linked with a colonial system. For example, in ancient world, the Roman empire of slave-owners, the feudal empire of Greece, the various empires of Iran, India and China, and in the present world, the world imperialism of capital. Each colonial system has its own particularity which is determined by the mode of production prevalent in colonising countries. The source of colonial system is the mode of production based on exploitation, which has an inherent tendency of grabbing more and more surplus of one's own society as well as, in the process, of other nations. The colonial system has attained its highest form in imperialism, the highest form of capitalism. Neo-colonialism of now a days is the most sophisticated form of colonialism; a handful of international monopolists, without any direct rule, due to merely their unparalleled supremacy in capital, technology, managerial skills, marketing facilities etc. etc. siphon off almost the whole bulk of surplus of the backward and weaker nations throughout the world in an unprecedented manner. The tremendous productive forces of the entire world are utilised to create massive profits for the handful of monopolies, who in turn, whenever their enormous capital faces a crisis, throw the whole world in colossal destruction of labour power and wealth and even in the flames of world wars. Hence, imperialism has become the greatest barrier before the development of productive forces on the worldwide scale. In order to grab the surplus of the entire world, of all the countries, imperialism has kept alive semi-feudal production relations, the most backward and the most outdated ones. But parallelly it has brought along with it, its own opposite—the unity of international proletariat, the oppressed peoples and nations too.

6. Since historical materialism reveals the laws of motion of society, therefore, it inspires us to build society on the basis of these laws. If society develops due to the contradiction between new productive force and the old relations of production, between mutually warring classes and between old and new, then which production relation has become the barrier before the development of productive forces? This is the method of historical materialism for determining the principal contradiction in the society. On international scale, it is the imperialist production relation that has become the barrier before the development of new productive forces, hence the contradiction between imperialism and people of the world is the principal contradiction. But according to the dialectical method, in a given historical period, we must study the relative positions of various imperialist powers and should not regard them as a single entity. Hence, under concrete international situation, the contradiction between aggressive imperialist power and people of the world becomes the principal contradiction.

This method is also the method of determining the principal contradiction on national scale. If internationally, the principal contradiction is between imperialism and the people, it does not imply that in each and every country the same thing will hold good. Such a formulation betrays metaphysical method. When we say that the contradiction between imperialism and masses is the principal contradiction internationally, it is only the generalised form of various contradictions existing in different countries. So, the principal contradiction may vary from country to country. In any country, the principal contradiction is determined on the basis of the contradiction between relations of production and productive forces. In a country, where there is a direct military intervention, the intervening imperialist power is the main barrier to the development of productive forces. Hence, there the contradiction between that imperialist power and broad masses becomes the principal contradiction. But in those countries where there is no direct military intervention, some internal production relation exists as the direct barrier to the development of productive forces. Hence the contradiction between that production relation and broad masses becomes the principal contradiction. If more than one old production relations are direct barriers, then with the help of this dialectical method, we should find out the principal barrier. By solving this principal contradiction can only social development take a leap.

7. Uptill now in history, given the stage of production, labour for bare existence has claimed all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of the society. Therefore, the entire humanity does not come in a position of transforming and becoming master of nature by studing its laws. But modern industry, with its unprecedented productive capacity, has opened the new vistas of new possibilities before us. If modern industry is freed from the shackles of capitalist production relations and its tremendous productive capacity is released, then mankind will acquire its means of livelihood on a very short period of time, will become free from the troubles of daily life and will advance quite rapidly towards becoming the masters of nature. Modern industry has provided the material conditions for fulfilling this task. We have with us a history of complete process of development (from primitive communist mode of production to the creation of objective basis of a future higher form of communist mode of production). Not only that, the class that can free modern industry from the fetters of capitalist relations of production has already stepped on the stage also, i.e. the proletariat who emerged as an independent force in the middle of the last century. And since then proletariat has advanced much towards its cherished goal through October Revolution and Great Chinese Revolution. Although its course of advance is zig-zag one and it may well face certain setbacks, its advance from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom will continue unabated. “Necessity is blind only insofar as it is not understood. Freedom does not consist in an imaginary independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility which is thus given of systematically making them work towards definite ends. Freedom, therefore, consists in command over ourselves and over external nature, a command founded on knowledge of natural necessity. It is, therefore, necessarily a product of historical development.” With the dialectical and historical materialism as guiding philosophy, the proletariat is sure to realise the great mission of building a communist society, at which point, in the words of Engels : “It is only at this point that man finally separates in a certain sense from the animal kingdom and that he passes from animal conditions of existence to really human ones. ... The objective extraneous forces which have hitherto dominated history would pass under the control of man himself. It is only from this point that man will himself make his own history fully consciously. … ... It is humanity's leap from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom.”

Here we have presented some of the salient features of historical materialism. The main thing it teaches us is that economy is the basis on which the whole social edifice is built. So in our next book, we will discuss political economy.

INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

Though struggle between different trends of philosophy continued even after the new productive forces came at a standstill, but due to the lack of material basis, an objective catalyst, it more and more departed from the objective world and ultimately renounced the world as myth— 'Brahmsatyam Jaganmithya' (Brahm is the only truth, the world is false). And after that the Philosophy discontinued the march itself—of course through many turns and curves, through quite an interesting course. During 1000 BC to 1000 AD, the march of Indian philosophy, too, is the march of questionnaire, “When there was neither sat (being) nor asat (non-being); there was neither sky, nor the greater sky (vyom) away from it; which had engulfed them? And where? And protected by whom? Whether there was water depthless?” (Rigveda, Nasadiya Sukta, 10/129) to “Only Brahm is truth, the world is false” (Shankaracharya, 788-820 AD). During this period, in the debates of Indian philosophers dealing with the primordium of matter and consciousness and their mutual relation, the seeds of all modern philosophical trends are quite evident.

Later on, during the religious reformist movements of 15th and 16th centuries, these philosophical questions raised their heads again, but the lack of objective basis of new productive forces kept the entrance to modern era of philosophy locked. Still the close relations with Arabs (especially with Arab currents of knowledge, science and Islam), the peasant revolts and lack of centralised state power influenced the Indian mind to a great extent causing the emergence of many new religious sects and cults. During the British rule, the impact of western philosophy, the awakening of national consciousness throughout the country, the birth of modern Industry and proletariatitre-mendous nationwide revolutionary upsurge and after the Great October Revolution, the entrance of Marxism-Leninism in India have provided new dimensions to the Indian philosophy.

Entire Indian philosophy can roughly be divided into two parts : 1. Vedic and 2. Non-Vedic. Again Vedic philosophy (i.e. branches of philosophy owing allegiance to Vedas) consists six currents : (i) Mimansa (Earlier), (ii) Vedanta (Upanishadas or Uttar-Mimansa), (iii) Nyaya, (iv) Vaisheshik, (v) Yoga and (vi) Samkhya. Non-Vedic philosophical school can roughly be divided into three parts : (i) Lokayata or Charvak's materialist current, (ii) Jain's non-absolutism, (anekantvad) and (iii) Buddhist philosophy (non-materialist, impermanencist denial of permanent soul-substance, — abhautikvad-anityavadi-anatmavadi). In all these nine currents, we find the genesis of dialectics and materialism, though in a scattered manner.

One of the greatest obstacle in studying Indian philosophy is the lack of written history, the lack of materials in black and white. Entire contents of all philosophical schools, whether Vedic, Lokayata on Buddhist, were memorised and transferred to the successors on hereditary basis and could be recorded in black and white only after a very long run. Furthermore, different schools wrote them in different forms providing a scope for a lot of confusion. Evidently, to distinguish the original text or to arrange them according to historical periods becomes a quite complicated job. Of course, Modern scholars of the subject have done some valuable work in this field, still the task of scientific evaluation of Indian philosophy is incomplete yet.

1. Mimansa : Mimansa is based on Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda, Atharvaveda) which were versified part by part during 1200 BC to 600 BC according to Max Muller and during 1500 BC to 600 BC according to Radhakrishnan. But the period of Jamini, the compiler of Mimansa sutras (about 3000 in number) is supposed to be sometime between 200 BC to 200 AD. Initial Vedic mantras were versified in the period when Aryan tribes were under patriarchal system and its transition to class society was taking place. But slave system was not yet established completely. Therefore these verses contain the glimpses of their vanishing collective life and praises of their ancestors. Dreams had naturally raised the question of soul before them. During their production struggle, they had already felt the unparalleled importance of natural forces — fire, water, air etc. Therefore, they composed mantras and hymns to please the ancestral soul and to control the forces of nature. Their ideas were not yet completely disconnected with the objective world. Rather the main objective of their rituals (Yajna, worshipping, hymns and witchcraft) was to improve their actual living conditions. But the gradual development of social conditions wiped out this primitive materialist outlook and it was replaced by idealist contents. Thus the entire compilation represents initial idealism with scattered traces of primitive materialism. That is why, after the later development of class society, these two mutually opposite aspects of Vedas divided into two. On the one hand, these compilations served as the basis for mysticism of Upanishad based Vedanta, the highest development of Vedic Idealism. On the other hand, the materialist traces developed ultimately into the materialist treatise of Samkhya, compiled by Kapil (400 BC).

When Jaimini versified Mimansa Sutras, the Aryan society was already divided into four Varnas, new productive forces had developed and class-exploitation had taken a cruel form. For Jamini, words of Vedas were enternal and self-emergent. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Vedic rituals. Though he was an atheist and had no faith in any supernatural mystic force inconceivable by sense-organs, and in this respect he was a materialist, still this dedication to Vedic rituals led him to magnification of words (Vedic) and rituals (considered as creator unseen force by his followers). Thus he himself negated his materialism. Jamini was unable to escape from the effects of the historical circumstances in which he had compiled his sutras, therefore, he deprived shudras of the right to participate in Vedic rituals. Again, when new horizons of development had been opened up by the development of new productive forces, the repetition of rituals in their old form were but gross misuse of productive forces and social wealth (such sacrifices on a large scale in Yajnas etc.). Therefore, by opposing efforts to develop mysticism of Vedas into Upanishadic idealism only to restore Vedic rituals, Jamini and his followers played more, reactionary role in society than the Vedantic idealists despite all their materialistic aspects.

Chief commentators (bhashyakars) of Mimansa sutras are Shabar swamy (400 AD), Kumaril Bhatt (555 AD) and Prabhakar (disciple of Kumaril).

2. Vedanta : (700 BC-100 BC) Though the initial compilers of Vedanta (the end part of Vedas, Upanishads) were not completely isolated of actual objective life and Vedic rituals, still the main philosophy of Vedanta is idealism. Only the two chief Upanishads viz, Chhandogya (700 BC) and Brihadaranyak (600 BC) are more important from the point of view of philosophy and these were versified before Buddha. The main philosophers of Upanishads are Pravahan Jaibali (700-650 BC), Gautam or Uddalak Aruni (650 BC), Yajnavalkya (650 BC), Satyakam Jabal (650 BC) etc. The objective basis of this idealism was slave system, emergence of a class free from actual labour, who could take a leap into 'pure thinking'. Thus slaveowners served the class basis for this idealism. That is why, we notice the increasing role of Kshatriyas in Upanishads.

Nevertheless, this idealist system consists of many currents which can be divided into two parts : (a) Monists (Advaitvadi), who deny the existence of anything except the Almighty Brahm and (b) Dualists (Dvaitvadi), who inspite of accepting the primacy of Brahm, accept the existence of objective world. One of the chief advocates of the later current was Ramanuj.

Till then, intense class-division had already taken place in society. Therefore, they invented the theory of rebirth and put shudras in the category of dogs and boars. Thus the idealism of Upanishads served as the most nefarious ideological weapon of class exploitation.
The idealism of Upanishads touched its extreme in the monism of Shankaracharya, when the entire objective world was declared false.

3. Nyaya : Gautam (Akshpad) is supposed to be the compiler of Nyaya Sutra. The emergence of philosophy and struggle among its different currents as well as the philosophical debates followed by it led towards the birth of a new branch of knowledge—logic, which deals with the methods of discussion. In India, the initiation of logic as an independently branch of knowledge begins with Gautam's Nyaya sutras. Gautam accepts the existence of objective world quite independent of mind and in this respect he is nearer to Vaisheshik. But the central theme of Gautam is theory of knowledge which contains the signs of materialist outlook and dialectical method. According to him, to acquire the knowledge of anything, five things are essential—(a) object (b) external implements (c) sense-organs (d) mind and (e) the person who wants to acquire knowledge.

4. Vaisheshik : Founder of this philosophical trend was kanad. He accepts the existence of objective world independently of mind and considers atoms as foundation of the universe. According to him, there are nine fundamental elements—soil, air, fire, water, space, time, dimension, soul and mind. Atoms, are eternal and immortal. Each and every object consists of some common elements and simultaneously some particular elements which differentiate that element with other elements. Due to this proposition of particularity of things, his philosophy is called Vaisheshik (particularist). He accepts that every effect is the product of some inherent cause existing within the matter, but in some cases he also accepts the existence of some unseen causes.

Evidently, Vaisheshik was a materialist philosophy with limitations corresponding with contemporary objective conditions. Due to these limitations, it includes some non-matters (like soul) in the list of fundamental elements. Similarly it also accepted the existence of unseen causes in some cases. Due to these weaknesses it paved the way for idealist distortions of its own materialist system.

5. Yoga : The Yoga-sutra by Patanjali is aimed basically at achieving the state of extreme bliss by controlling desires through physico-mental discipline and by separating soul-substance from the external world after gaining control over the former. It should be kept in mind that till this time, productive forces were not so developed that the philosophers could think on the level of entire society; therefore, they were searching for a way to attain supreme joy individually. Yoga was a result of that search. For atheists, Yoga itself was the goal. For idealists, Yoga was a medium through which one would feel oneness with Brahm and this state of oneness was the state of extreme joy.

Thus, its first current depicts the extreme passive form of materialism. This is escapist materialism, while the other current is the extreme escapist form of idealism. From the point of views, of health Yoga may contain some positive aspects, but from the point of view of philosophy, it is pure and simple escapism.

6. Samkhya : Kapil was the founder of Samkhya—the materialist system diametrically opposed to the idealism of Upanishads in Vedic school. In Samkhya there is no room for god and Brahm. Matter itself is the fundamental element. Still Kapil could not grasp the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness. Therefore, he does accept the independent existence of consciousness, of course, as a secondary and passive element.

Among other materialist philosophers, Upanishads describe one Sayugwa Raikva who considered air as the fundamental element. Among pre-Buddhist philosophers, Ajit Keshkambali is remarkable, who considered four basic elements — soil, water, fire and air.

Vedic philosophical Schools reflect the social life of Aryans— their class-divided society.

7. Lokayata : Among Non-Vedic philosophical currents, Charvak's materialist current is the most popular and ancient. It is also called Lakayata. The name 'Lokayata' itself shows is popular form. All written materials on this philosophy have been destroyed. Hence, we know about this trend of philosophy only through the compositions of its opponents.

According to Lokayata, (a) There are four fundamental elements, viz. earth, water, fire and air. (b) The combination of these four elements in different proportions is responsible for the creation of all things, in the world, including even the consciousness. When betel, betel-nuts and lime are mixed we get scarlet colour, though none of these constituents bears scarlet colour. Similarly, the combination of earth, fire, water and air in a given proportion gives rise to consciousness, (c) Vedic rituals are nothing but cheating on the part of those who have neither intellect not physical strength, (d) Heaven, hell, rebirth etc. are all lies, (e) Lokayata accepts the existence of only those things which can be perceived. Perception is the only source of knowledge. Inference and testimony can not be relied upon.

It seems that reactionary classes, to defame this philosophy spread malicious propaganda against it and branded it as the philosophy which only advocates sensual pleasure seeking— “Yavatjivet sukhamjivet, rinamkritwa ghritam pibet.” However, by declaring that 'perception is the only proof of existence', Lokayata too restricted the sphere of knowledge.

The 6th century before Christ witnessed a turning point in Indian history. Slavery and Varna-system were almost completely established among Arayans inhabitating in northwest India but in eastern and southern parts of India non-Aryan races were still in their tribal stage and organised in Ganas (tribal republics). Even in newly established Aryan colonies in eastern India, they were in patriarchal tribal society or at most the slavery had just begun. Varna-sytem was still quite loose. In the meantime, widespread use of iron, exploring the great desposites of iron ore in the hills nearby Rajgir, navigation through Ganges, the development of trade etc. paved the way for development of productive forces and prepared the basis for feudalism. The Ganges-valley region of eastern India turned into the centre of development of new productive forces. Therefore it also became the birth place of new philosophical trends. Kuru-Panchal, where Vedas and Upanishads had emerged, no longer remained the centre of philosophy. Politically, this development expresed itself in new kingdoms like that of Magadha. The rulers of this kingdom were not the traditional kshatriyas but from among backward castes, even the shudras, e.g. Shishu Nag, Nanda dynasties. Jain and Buddha religions appeared in this objective condition. These religions adopted many ideals from infidel philosophers.

8. Vardhaman Mahavir (569-485 BC) was 24th and the last Tirthankar (the religious head of the sect) of Jains. He was opposed to Vedas and Vedic rituals, and was an atheist. However, he accepted the existence of soul. According to him, conscious and unconscious matter are the only two fundamental elements. These two are not created but eternal. Though they exist independently, yet they are inter related. In Jainist religion, out of the conscious matter holds primary position. According to Mahavir knowledge is relative and besides perception he also acknowledged inference and testimony in theory of knowledge. Our knowledge may be correct from one angle but wrong from another. A thing exists and simultaneously it does not. Through this dialectical method Mahavir carried forward the theory of knowledge to a position more advanced than one held by it in Lokayata. But in the name of relativism of knowledge, he became a victim of agnosticism when he said; “we can not get the total knowledge about matter. On the other hand, declaring that Thirthankars are “all-knowing” persons, he himself negated agnosticism and went to the other extreme, negating the theory of knowledge itself.

Jainists also stress on individual salvation. But they maintain that this salvation can not be obtained with the help of rituals, rather they demand right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. For right conduct they advocate five great exercitations — non-violence, truthfulness, not to take anything from anybody except what is lent to him, Brahmacharya (abstinence from sex) and Aparigraha. Out of these, non-violence is most important.

9. Gautain Buddha (563-483 BC) represented the highest development of dialectics in ancient India. Though dialectical device can be found in Upanishads, Vaisheshik, Lokayata and Jainist treatises too in a scattered manner, it is Buddhism which developed it to extreme. Buddha was atheist and he denied the existence of any permanent soul-substance, but was not a materialist either. He accepted the existence of soul, but maintained that it too undergoes changes and is not any permanent substance. He was opposed to Vedas and rituals. According to him, there are only four noble truths : (i) everything is suffering, (ii) Suffering has a cause, (iii) Suffering can be extinguished and (iv) there is a path leading to this extinction. According to him, the sole origin of suffering is thirst, and suffering can be extinguished if thirst is extinguished. To extinguish suffering he preached sacred eight-fold path : (i) right faith (ii) right resolve (iii) right speech (iv) right action (v) right effort (vii) right thought and (viii) right self-concentration. Right faith means denial of violence, not to commit theft, not practising libertinage and not telling a lie. Right resolve means non-injurious resolve, and right living means not to trade in arms, living beings, meat, liquors and poison.

Buddha's dialectics had been expressed as pratitya-samutpada (the dependent origination of objects). The whole world is in a state of continuous motion; a process, consisting of destruction of one object and origination of the other in place of the former, is continuously going on. But for Buddha this continuous process of destruction and origination is not any un-isolated process, but, on the contrary, an isolated process, and in reality this motion is cyclic one. A soul-substance separate from body does exist, but it does not resemble the permanent soul-substance of Upanishads, rather exists as an isolated current, (each destruction) followed by an origination and it continues even after the death of the body. Therefore Buddha confirmed rebirth also. According to him, Salvation (nirvana) means extinction of thirst (trishna) and after this stage the soul gets released from the compulsion of taking rebirth, and thus the soul achieves salvation. In addition to it Buddha did not negate the objective world, but he applied his pratitya samutpad upon objective world and soul both.

Afterwards, Buddhists too got divided into two camps : (a) Heenyana and (b) Mahayana; and each of these sects again divided into two other groups. They are, respectively, Vaibhashikas and Sautantrikas, and Madhyamikan and Yogacharins. Followers of Heenyana were more realists, while those of Mahayana were mainly idealists.

Nagarjun, the main leader of Madhymikans, declared: “There is nothing permanent in this world, each and every thing is transitory”, and on this basis he negated the objective world itself. He proposed, “There is nothing but a great void,” that is why his system is called Voidism also. Contrary to him yogacharins (Asang, Vasubandhu, Dignag, Dharmkirti and Shantirakshit), despite attributing primacy to ideas, accept the existence of objective world. Their ideas about theory of knowledge are materialist.

Buddhist philosophy dominated in repercussion to old corrupt slave system, despite all its impotency, because from very beginning it opposed Varna-system. In the later days, therefore, Indian philosophy developed through the theoretical battles between Vedic and Buddhist schools. After the fall of Mauryas, the feudal lords and kings picked up Vedic school most suitable for their purpose, still Buddhism could maintain its superiority. But till Guptas, Vedic current made necessary theoretical preparations, while Buddhism got much more influenced by Nagarjun's idealism, and gradually lost the support of the common folk. Therefore, when after Guptas, India got divided into numerous smaller statehoods again, Vedic school found a neat chance to overwhelm. Finally, Shankaracharya, to annihilate Buddhism with its own weapon, amalgamated Brahmvad of Upanishads with Voidism of Nagarjun, and reproduced Mayavad (the doctrine of illusion), which later served as the authoritative philosophy of the well-established, reactionary and stagnant Indian feudalism. This is why Shankaracharya, as well as all Advaitvadins are often called Buddhists in disguise.

Agnosticism : The agnostic's conception of nation is materialistic throughout. The entire world is, according to them, governed by law, and absolutely excludes the intervention of action from without. But, they add, we have no means either of ascertaining or of disproving the existence of some supreme being beyond the known universe. Agnostics admit that all our knowledge is based upon the information imported to us by our senses. But, they add, how do we know that our senses give us correct representation of the objects we perceive through them? Thus, as far as they claim to know anything they are materialists and in spheres about which they know nothing, they are idealists. According to them, one may correctly perceive the qualities of a thing, (i.e. its taste, colour, smell etc.), but can not correctly perceive by any sensible or mental process so as to grasp the thing-in-itself. Though this philosophy came into existence in 3rd and 4th centuries in Greece (Anecidemus), but it was Kant (1724-1804) and Hume (1711-76) who revived it. Positivists of later period developed this theory.

Positivism : In the decade of 1840, positivism came to being as a philosophical trend against French materialism and atheism. According to this trend, the main task of scientific thought is to collect facts acquired through “pure experience” and to generalise them. On the basis of knowledge acquired through our experience on sense-organs, we can not reach any philosophical conclusion whether objective world exists or not, whether matter is primary or secondary. They claim to introduce a third line in philosophy—neither materialist, nor idealist, but superior than both of them. August Comte, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russel are among the leading exponents of this philosophy, though in details they differ among themselves too.

Determinism : A form of vulgar mechanical materialism of 18th century. It was the period when modern natural science underwent its first phase of development. Naturally, science at that time was not in a position to explain the dynamic role of nature on the one hand, and could not break the shackles of religion on the other. An outlook thus evolved : Which ever way nature had been created, once created it is not going to change each of its objects have to play a pre-determined role and they can not evade it, rather they had been created to play this role alone. As Wolf has explained, rats have been created only to get devoured by cats, and cats have been created to devour rats. Similarly, this universe has been created, so that the creator may express his intellect. Obviously, this school preaches passivity and opposes all types of mobility forbidding people to try to bring any change in their social life.

Pragmatism : In early 20th century, it developed in USA by William James (1842-1910). For a pragmatist, the correctness of any 'ism', belief or theory depends on its effect upon the world, therefore, only effect and experience count importance. They show that since mere belief cures diseases and some people have experiences of gossiping with God, hence the existence of God cannot be challenged. On the other hand, the development of science cannot be ignored too, though certain phenomena could not be explained by it. Hence it could not be taken as completely based on reality. Therefor, it is better to depend upon bare practicability, should accept only that knowledge which can be proved as well as be tested as real, but should not depend on a knowledge based on mere logic. Thus they refute both idealism and materialism and pretend to open the third realistic school. In essence, this school is the new form of mechanical materialism. Its shrewd leanings towards idealism has made it popular among the 20th century imperialists.

Existentialism : A highly individualistic, anarchist philosophical school, whose chief exponent in the present era was Jean Paul-Sartre. It stands for unrestricted development of individual and oppoeses all types of social control and discipline. Since imperialism has ruined the private life of workers, it has destroyed the genuine privacy of general people, therefore, there is genuine aspiration for individual freedom among workers and general masses. So this school of philosophy gained popularity among European youth. But playing on this genuine aspiration, it advances an anarchist theory. Hence, it creates obstacles in building up an organised movement.

“CYCLE” IN PHILOSOPHY

Ancient : Democritus—Plato and Heraclitus's dialectics.

Renaissance : Descartes vs. Gossendi (Spinoza?)

Modern : Holbauch—Hegel (through Berkeley, Hume, Kant).

Hegel—Feuerbach—Marx.

MASSIVE intervention of the state, the financial institu­tions, both native and foreign, and of scores of non­governmental voluntary agencies has rendered the agrarian scene in Bihar very complex. New agrarian strategies coupled with parliamentary democracy have given rise to new classes out of the womb of old society, and has added a new political dimension to the old rigid social formation. A host of new problems cry for urgent solution on the theoretical plane. Through developing a network of study, investigation-analysis-solution at different levels, the Party is trying its utmost to perfect its programme, policies and tactics. For a careful observer, the present book will reveal that our successes are still at a very primary level.

Only a few red patches have appeared on the fields of ‘Green Revolution’ in Bihar. Through their exemplary tenacity, heroism and sacrifice, inexhaustible urge to learn and transform themselves, and unflinching loyalty to the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), the activists have achieved this much. To transform the whole of this ‘Green Revolution’ into a ‘Red Revolution’ is a world-historic task confronting the communists and revolutionary intelligentsia of India. If only our present endeavour, its successes and shortcomings, can encourage, or should we say provoke them to address themselves to the burning questions of Indian revolution with still greater seriousness, our purpose would be served.

Just as at the microlevel, warring factions of landlords, in their bid to achieve supremacy in the rural power-structure, strive to utilise the sufferings and grievances of the broad masses of the people, often with the help of agents among the people themselves, so at the macrolevel, too, various political parties and factions of the ruling classes try to use the people's movements in their scrambling for power and authority. And recent history is replete with instances where this has provided the first impetus to the awakening of the people; however, from this point onwards it must march on independently, otherwise it has nothing to gain but everything to lose.

The peasant struggle in Bihar is also facing a similar predicament. Forging a strong unity among the communist revolutionaries, winning over the middle strata of the peasantry and the democratic ranks of parties like the CPI and the Lok Dal, and skillfully utilising the contradictions among different political parties and factions so as to isolate the principal political adversary, the ruling Congress — these are the foremost political tasks that the movement must accomplish if it is to make any real advance. The survival of the movement depends much on a proper hand, ling of these aspects of practical politics, and no amount of rhetoric is going to stop the drenching of the movement in blood-bath. The latest massacre in Arwal is a stark reminder of this grim reality.

Strong prejudices, based on factional, group, caste, communal, political and individual loyalties, which have crystallised into a veritable ‘mountain stronghold mentality’ among various political forces, render every step in the arena of practical politics extremely difficult. But the mountains can be removed, what one needs is the tenacity of that ‘foolish old man’.

Meanwhile, blood continues to spill over the vast tracts of green fields in Bihar. ‘No civilised government can tolerate a parallel administration’, declare the state functionaries, giving a clear hint at many more Arwals to come. ‘No massacre can deter the peasants from building a civilised society’, retort the revolutionaries. Battle lines are clearly drawn and the war goes on.