Shibdas Ghosh
Source: Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI) (used with kind permission)
Date: June 18, 1960
First published: August 1982 (in Bengali)
HTML Markup: Mike B. for MIA, August 2007
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Address at a school of politics on 18 June 1960 on the occasion of the tenth annual conference of the West Bengal Krishak O Khetmajoor Federation in Bhatpara in the district of North 24 Parganas in West Bengal. It was first published in Bengali in book form in August 1982. The first English version appeared in book form in July 1984.
To accomplish its revolutionary task and win emancipation the proletariat needs most to know truth. The downtrodden and exploited masses need most to learn meticulously the laws of science and to pursue knowledge in all its spheres. This address to agricultural labourers and peasants at a school of politics is a brief analysis of the materialistic thinking in society and of social development in the light of Marxism. It brings out the fundamental difference between dialectical materialism and other philosophies and emphasizes how capitalism in its present decadent stage obstructs the progress of science and society.
Marxism is the only philosophy which can guide us correctly in our quest for truth. Since no philosophy or ideology other than Marxism can throw light to reveal truth comprehensively, we consider practice of Marxism a must and we accept Marxism as the philosophy of life. So we call ourselves Marxists.
The fundamental difference between Marxism and other existing philosophies is that, whereas, to know truth, all other philosophies rely mostly on the human intellect and the faculty of thinking or the thinking power of some philosopher or other as an individual, Marxism, on the contrary, accepts truth on the anvil of experiment, objective reality, history, scientific logic and reasoning. Marxism holds no knowledge correct and no truth established unless the same has been tested by experiments, verified by practice and historical experience, and derived by scientific logic and reasoning. So, to know truth we cannot depend solely upon an individual's power of thinking or intellect. Man's power of thinking and intelligence are no doubt required but truth has to be determined and realized only in the light of experience based on reality, scientific experiment and by reasoning. Thus, Marxism is based entirely on science. Since experimented truth is its basis, its entire structure rests on scientific experiment, verification and truth. It has not developed in any way on man's subjective thinking and analysis. In contrast to other philosophies which try to supersede science and negate scientific truth, depending as they do on subjective ideas and beliefs, Marxism bases itself on science, accepts scientific truth and is engaged in coordinating particular truths of sciences to arrive at general truths.
What do the other philosophies hold? The other philosophies hold that science can at best know the truths of particular domains, but the world around us is not fully comprehensible to science since science is silent on the supra-matter entity which, however, exists in their idea or imagination. So, the preceptors of these philosophies believe that it is not possible to get to know truth and all aspects of life with the help of science. How is it possible then to know truth? Well, according to these philosophies truth is attainable only through self-realization of an individual. It means, what is not possible to attain by science, which is but a product of collective human knowledge and experience, is attainable through self-realization of an individual genius. Marxism does not and cannot admit of such absurd propositions. On the contrary, Marxism holds that on the question of knowing truth science is far more powerful than the power of an individual. So, it is only rational to depend upon science rather than on the belief and self-realization of an individual. Herein lies a basic difference between Marxism and all other philosophies.
Marxism has another basic difference with other philosophies. So long all other philosophies have tried — how far they have succeeded is altogether a different question — to know truth and interpret it. Because, till the emergence of Marxism, the task of philosophy was only to know truth and interpret the world, i.e. the problems concerning the material world, life and society. Marxism is the only philosophy which, for the first time, has pointed out that simply to know is but meaningless. What is the use of just knowing, if we cannot apply the knowledge in practice? Marxism holds that the task of philosophy is not only to know and interpret the world but to change it as well. Naturally, while all other philosophies confine their tasks to interpreting the world, with Marxism the task is to know, interpret and correctly conceive the world, and also to help accelerate the process of change of this world.
Now, to understand Marxism we should have some general idea of the history of development of philosophy. Of course, it is not possible to deal with it in detail in a single class. I shall, however, try my best to dwell on the cardinal points.
At the outset, I like to mention one point. There is a basic difference between man and the animals. What is that?
Man has the ability to think, analyze and judge by dint of the special organization of the brain. The human species originated in this world with this characteristic. Animals have nervous sensation and are responsive to the external stimuli; but they do not have the power to think or analyze. The development of this particular organization and structure of the human brain has endowed man with the power of thinking. This has made him completely different from the animals. Animals are wholly subjugated by the laws of nature. No animals can get over their total subjugation by the natural laws, nor can they bring nature under control. As a result, they try to survive and do survive so long as allowed by nature. Attempt they can, but they survive or perish following the course of nature. But man's struggle for existence brought in a new feature: Man refused to remain wholly slave to the laws of nature. Man came to know, understand and harness the forces of nature in the course of building up civilization, culture and social life. Thus, man was organized in society, became a social being, and it is through a process of development and advancement of knowledge including science and with the advent of civilization and culture that man has reached the present stage. But this development of human civilization did not come about overnight. There is a long history behind it. Man was not always what we see him today. There was a time when man was not organized in society even. Like other animals, primitive man of the jungle was also completely slave to the natural laws. Little difference was there between man and animal then. The unique power of thinking which man alone possesses by virtue of his brain has made him distinctly different from the animals, so he is capable of getting to know and overcoming the forces of nature and environment and solving the problems confronting life. The primitive man at that very early stage, even with whatever little thinking power he possessed, realized that it was futile to try to live alone; he could not survive that way. Braving all the odds of nature for bare existence, collective living was a must. The first element of consciousness, even at its budding, which dawned on man with his urge for better living and engaged him in the struggle for existence against the hostile forces of nature surrounding him was this: We must unite to survive, we cannot live alone; we will have to struggle unitedly, and collectively we will have to try to survive. This was the first element of consciousness in human civilization. This was the basic consciousness underlying the human civilization. On this consciousness human society was built and man became a social being. That we are no more savage, we are all social beings — at its root lies the realization that we cannot live alone, and collectively we will have to survive, struggling collectively against the forces of nature. And through this collective struggle we can bring under control the forces of nature and use them for better living. The primitive man came to learn this through his practical experiences.
From what we have been able to learn about primitive man so far from the history of the tribes, the cave paintings, and the analysis of and research on ancient manuscripts, we find that the thinking of primitive man was materialistic, not idealistic. There was no sign or imprint of idealism on the thinking of primitive man. So, it is clear that the onward march of human society started with materialistic thinking. But later on, at a certain stage of development of human society, it could no longer remain only materialistic. Side by side with the materialistic thinking, the idealistic thinking appeared in society. And since then, the two trends of thinking, materialism and idealism — materialistic thinking and idealistic thinking — ran side by side in human society. Of course, there is a history behind the development of this idealistic thinking.
When, from the beginning, the thinking of primitive man was materialistic, the question arises: How could idealism or idealistic thinking develop in the human society? How can it be explained? What is the cause behind it? This is indeed a pertinent question.
In the idea of the primitive man there was not anything supernatural. Although man's idea of the natural forces was not clear, one thing was clear to him: the natural forces meant the forces of matter, nothing else. To him force as an entity was abstruse, either ominous or auspicious, but always a force of matter, that is the force of air, water, fire, stone, etc. Such was his idea of force. So, the primitive man's idea of force was materialistic, or in other words, the forces were but the forces of matter. Consider an example. A chunk of rock slid down, burying some people. Man used to take it to be an act of a physical force. Any student of science knows that physical force means, in science, the force of matter. Primitive man never considered force as something supernatural, supra-matter or non-matter entity. It was the force of the rolling stone that hit the people. It was to tame or control this force that primitive man started adoring it. This very primitive method of adoration done with a belief to propitiate or control the force of matter was nothing but 'magic'. This magic came into existence with the purpose of controlling and using the forces of nature. This is why magic is called the science of the primitive man. You should know, this science was not the science we know today; it was the science of primitive man. Why do I call it science? What is the function of science today? Science reveals the forces of matter, unveils the mysteries of nature, searches out the various laws, helps to grasp the mode of existence of matter. But primitive man tried to know and bring them under his control with the help of magic, because no other method was known to him. So, he used to think as he understood it, and did many things which seem meaningless in today's perspective. If you care a little, you will find that there are many magical recitals which carry no meaning at all. And the fun is that, with this at his command, primitive man fancied to control the forces of nature. The magic the primitive man resorted to in order to know, control or please, so to say, the natural forces — how far he succeeded is altogether different — in course of history, at a later stage got inseparably linked with worship of god or a supernatural force independent of matter, a non-material entity. Some anthropologists correctly observed that magic, a pseudo-science, which became obsolete with the development of genuine science, had left in its trail superstitious practices of various kinds.
When idealism, theism or the idea of god appeared in society, this magic gradually transformed into the mantras1 to worship god.
The earliest social group of man was the primal horde, the predecessor of a society, a clan society. What was the means of livelihood of the members of the clans? For long they lived on fruit-gathering and hunting. And they did all these collectively. Whatever they got, they shared among themselves, no matter whether by using physical force or not. The accumulation, preservation and augmentation of wealth was then impossible, since there was no such wealth or property in society. That was the period when stable property had not appeared in society — the property that could be preserved for use and be increased by employing others' labour. Man's livelihood was very simple at that stage.
I mentioned earlier that man got organized in society out of the objective necessity as he could not live and survive alone amidst the hostile forces of nature. So, men lived collectively, conducted hunting collectively, and this way they led their lives. The point was not that they shared equitably whatever they could gather by hunting, being guided by conscience or inspired by a sense of morality or ethics. Such wisdom and sense of ethics and morality were yet to appear in society. Man was then, so to say, less than human. He had many traits then in common with animals. Not to speak of the primitive stage, in the formative stage of clan society even, man was more or less like that. So he was, in a sense, beastly, his characteristics were akin to animals. Because of this savage nature, man used to get some share of food by grabbing and using physical force. This was the picture then. The mightier took by force the major share of what they had procured. The old, handicapped by age, and the invalid — they might be weak — still stole a chance to pick up a little, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The clan had not split even then — the clan character of society was not lost.
I am discussing all this only to show how erroneous are those who consider that greed is an eternal trait of man — it was always there, it will remain for ever; the inequality in society is the outcome of greed, and it is because of greed in man that society got riven into classes — the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. Many people think that it is human nature that one will always try to subdue others and miss no chance, and this is why there will always be some people who will prosper, and that inequality — the haves and the have-nots — will always be there in society. They tell this not from history but from their fanciful ideas. Otherwise they could have realized that it was not the base instincts that gave birth to inequality in society, rather it was the society built on inequality which gave birth to and helped sustain these base instincts in man. What I intend to emphasize and what we should keep in mind is that, even with animal instincts in them, primitive men lived collectively, the clans did not disintegrate. The class-divided society did not appear then, not to speak of the owning class and the working class. The primitive savage men were used to tussling among themselves, which bore resemblance to the street dogs fighting over crumbs of bread. They used to fight against each other and scrambled for food, yet society did not disintegrate and class division had not appeared. The owners, workers, traders, jotedars 2 middle peasants, landless peasants, etc., whom we witness today had not appeared then. How did then classes come into being?
Only with the appearance of stable property in society came the classes into existence. It is only when the productive system reached a stage creating conditions for the stable ownership of the means of production and bringing in its wake the condition for appropriation of others' labour and usurpation and augmentation of wealth that classes emerged in society. And what was that period? Broadly speaking, it was the period when cattle breeding and particularly agriculture, came into society, creating stable property. Man, moving in hordes, for hunting and food-gathering, suddenly came to notice, say, a mango tree to grow and bear the same fruit at the very place where the fruit-stone was previously thrown. This very fact struck his mind. He wondered that if the fruit-stone had brought on the tree, then sowing of seeds could beget trees and fruits! Of course to arrive at this conclusion it took man perhaps hundreds of years. And it was on this idea that tilling of land and cultivation were introduced in society one day.
So, at the primitive stage man lived in hordes and led a nomadic life. The whole society was then made of such nomadic groups. Nation, national boundary, tradition, etc., which we witness today could not be there at that time. What we call language was not born at that time. The articulation of primitive man was animal-like. At such a stage the agriculture, about which I was discussing, suddenly came up in society. The technique of cultivation became known to man. By collectively deforesting the land, fighting against wild animals, they made fallow land fit for cultivation.
So, it is obvious that with property yet to come, none was born as owner of the land. We should understand how false is the claim of the owners that the right to inherit property is a sacred one, coming down from the ancestors from time immemorial. We should also understand that there is a history behind their ancestors becoming owners of land. And that is a horrid history of deception, a terrible tale of persecution, a history of robbery, robbing of the toil of others by physical force and coercion. We should ourselves know and make others know, too, this history. The land which was made available and suitable for cultivation by collectively fighting against wild animals and the adverse forces of nature — the land, the fruit of collective labour, was usurped by a small section simply by sheer might. So, we find that a great change came about in the livelihood of man along with the invention of the means of cultivation and appearance of land as a stable means of production.
Unlike in the past, when man's livelihood was uncertain and his satisfaction of hunger depended entirely on hunting or the availability of fruits, etc., and for which he led a nomadic life, a break was now wrought. Because, land is such a means of production from which crops can be raised, reaped and consumed every year. So, no longer was there the necessity to roam about for bare existence. And what else did happen? Man became aware that he could be the owner of the land and get its fruits by employing the labour of others also. The mightier among them all realized that if they could somehow own the land, they could be owners of the produce and the right over the land would be theirs. Consequently, they could lead a sumptuous life. Why this mentality to deprive others? Because, by sharing equally with others, none could satisfy his minimum needs. That was a time when the sense of equality and justice had not appeared in society. How could one expect them to be the disciples of Gandhi and Buddha? Man was then in the stage of half-animals and his traits, too, were animal-like. That was why he could not think or act like that. The greatest concern of man in those days was to meet his own necessity. This objective necessity and its impact on life worked as the more powerful factor than that of any ideal. What was the objective reality? Not to speak of luxury, man could not even meet his minimal needs by sharing equitably what he could produce from the land, depending on the then productive system and his capacity to produce. If shared equally by all, a morsel of food a day and a piece of bark to cover body only could be managed by some groups for themselves, but not by all. Those who had not the implements for cultivation or enough land had to roam about elsewhere in search of food.
One point is very much relevant here. That is, man's need is always on the increase, it cannot remain static. This is quite natural. Because, on the one hand, population is growing, so is growing man's needs or his urge to lead a better life. There is no way to deny this truth. And in those days what man could produce was not sufficient to meet the growing needs. So, clashes and conflicts over sharing of the produce were a constant feature of the very little that could be had in that primitive condition of productive system. If, say, for argument's sake, from the dawn of civilization the conditions were such that production could increase keeping pace with the ever-growing needs of man, then the inclination to enjoy alone and deprive others could not have grown. Take an instance. Imagine we are seated in an open ground. The question of depriving others of the breeze does not arise at all. But, of course, there is competition over getting things like electric fans, airconditioners or motor cars; we are not all privileged to have these, even if we desire. The competition among us over having a motor car is there because of dearth of the same. How can all of us have a motor car? The question of purchasing power is also related to it. There is therefore competition, competition to increase one's purchasing power. We want to have these comforts by any means of livelihood, fair or unfair. So, this is a competition for comfort and luxury, and this tussle and conflict over power and position result in an attempt to overtake each other. Because, there is dearth of materials of comfort to meet our needs. But is there any conflict among us over enjoying natural air, or do we need to cheat or put down anybody for that? No, such a thing does not happen. All of us can enjoy it at our will, since air is there in plenty. Now if all the necessaries of life, whatever man needs for his sustenance, can be produced in plenty and made available to all, man's needs can be met only then. That is, along with abundance in production if the system of distribution be such that supply of materials can correspond with the growing human needs, then and then only this problem can be resolved once for all; there will not remain any longer the mentality to compete with or deprive others. But that is not a matter of joke. Not to speak of the primitive society, it is not possible even today.
Be that as it may, let us resume the discussion on the basic problems of primitive man. The crux of the matter was the contradiction between the growing human need and the dire paucity of production. So, conflict arose between man and man from the urge to satisfy the individual needs. The fallow lands that were made cultivable by the collective efforts of all — the mightier among them, now by applying might, became the owner of those lands. The chieftains, the warriors — the mightier among them — subdued and made slaves even those who enjoyed natural and equal rights and became their masters. By robbing the toils of the slaves they built up a world of 'comfort' and 'luxury' for themselves. Over and above, at this early stage when man led a nomadic life, roaming about from one place to another, clashes and conflicts broke out when two such groups met; those who lost the battle, being overpowered by the others, were made to toil more and became subjugated, or slaves. Following this process, emerged, in course of time, the slave masters and their private property as well. That means division of society into two classes, one comprising the handful of slave masters and the other the numerous slaves.
Then, what is the history of origin of the private property? Behind the origin of private property lie sheer injustice and coercion. The community property, through coercion and acts of sheer injustice, was transformed into private property. The natural wealth which was gathered by the collective labour for the satisfaction of the human needs, the land which was made available for cultivation through the arduous labour of all was transformed into the property of a few by sheer power of muscle and the rod. This force of coercion has made the right to private property sacrosanct, invoking laws since then.
So, this coercion lies not only at the root of the private property, it is also the foundation of the very order that protects the private property. Because, man would have hardly accepted anybody becoming slave master by might and force. So to make themselves acceptable as masters and their right to private property as sacred, they invoked laws, developed coercive instruments like the army and introduced their order in society. The state, administration, law and order, etc., which we witness today came into society in course of time. The central object of the state brought into being by the owners was to serve, protect and implement their own class interest. Thus we arrive at some important points. First, we come to know what state is. The state is an instrument of coercion in the hands of one class against the others. That is why the history of emergence of the state has become inseparably linked with the history of division of society into the classes. We have already discussed that in the primitive clan society there was no state. It emerged at that very stage of history when society for the first time became class divided, giving rise to the owning class and bringing in its wake the need to protect their interest — so did develop institutions like the police, military, judiciary and administration. This is the history behind the emergence of the state.
What a strange coincidence! Along with the emergence of the owning class came the idea of god, theism and idealism in society. In god the owners find their real friend in need. They never oppose but are always great devotees of god.
You have already heard that man's original thinking was materialist and it was bound to be so. Let me elaborate it a bit more. What is idea? How does man think? How does his thinking originate?
We know that the five sense organs — eye, ear, nose, tongue and skin — bring to us constantly the external world and make us acquainted with it. This external world or the universe exists independently of man's existence and consciousness. Well, the point is not that the external world exists, since we exist. For instance, this microphone or this tumbler will not cease to be here with our leaving this place; the matter is not that. This Bhatpara 3 will exist with all its tradition, even after my demise. So, the existence of this material world is independent of our own existence, our consciousness; nor is this material world an illusion. It is an objective reality which exists independently of us, independently of human consciousness. The external world is what we take it to be — such ideas are absolutely erroneous. We may think it to be anything, no matter how we fancy it, but the world is what it is.
For example, the electric energy — when it exists it exists with all its characteristics and laws. It exists without depending on our will; nor do its laws and characteristics depend on our will. That is to say, this external world — the objective reality — exists independently of human consciousness. If anybody asserts that the existence of this material world with all its qualities is dependent upon human consciousness, then he is either ignorant or is deliberately practising deception.
Let us come back to our original point. How does man think? Man has come to acquire this power of thinking because of the very composition and structure of his brain. The external world, existing independently of consciousness, is striking the human brain constantly through the sense organs and causing interaction. The special endowment of the human brain is its power of translation — that is, the power of thinking, analyzing, grasping and judging things. So it is due to the constant interaction of the external world through the sense organs with the human brain possessing this special power of translation that man can think, he can cognize. Therefore, matter is the origin of thinking. That means, we think, view and analyze the way the external world and the phenomena surrounding us strike our brain. Matter is not only what we perceive, the environment which is constantly striking our brain is also matter. Even the human brain we think with is composed of matter — composed of different organic compounds. So, matter is thinking, even providing ingredients for thinking, and it is through conflicts and contradictions of matter that consciousness and idea have developed. The primitive man was therefore bound to be materialistic.
Science was yet to develop at the time when society became class divided for the first time, creating the owning class, stable ownership and invoking law and order with one group of people at the helm. Science was then primitive — in the stage of magic, a 'pseudo science'. Man observed with awe and asked how fire burnt, rain fell, earth quaked, typhoon raged and how did originate man, how he was born and why men died. He searched for answers to all such questions but in vain. Why this sunrise and sunset at regular intervals, day after day, why this periodic change of seasons and ebb and tide, one following the other — such questions struck man's mind again and again. But man was yet to possess that instrument, the science, which could provide the answers.
A point struck the human brain, and that too at a time and surely not before, when the objective conditions were ripe for such an idea to arise in man's mind that was engaged in search of answers to all such 'whys'.
What was that idea? At a certain stage of development, man started thinking: How did come this order in society, how could society be so disciplined? Well, because there was one at the helm of society — the man entrusted with keeping law and order. As there is someone who conducts everything in society and so society runs in order, as there is a group of men who are the owners, the masters, and others accept them as such and follow the laws framed by the owners themselves, so there must be one, the Lord, the master of the universe who is conducting and guiding it. Thus, through this process of drawing analogy or drawing parallel between two different phenomena, that is semblance of logic, which man, guided by common sense, is so easily prone to as also generally used to, that the idea of god was born in man. This in fact provided the objective condition behind the emergence of the idea of god. And that was the objective condition when man observed that the slaves were governed and disciplined by the slave master, the owner or the king, and so there was order in society. Naturally, for this universe to run in order, there must be someone behind to guide it along.
So, from this we find that owing to lack of correct scientific knowledge in that period of infancy of science the idea of god emerged in society following the class division, the appearance of the owning class, and the imposition of their rule in society. After the emergence of the idea in society that there is a Lord or master of this universe, the rulers of society, the owning class started to use it in their class interest. From that period on, materialism and idealism or theism are running side by side in society.
Those who hold that man is the embodiment of god, his soul is the incarnation of the supreme soul and this is why man has engaged himself from his very birth in the quest for the supreme soul and in meditation of the almighty god are either ignorant of history or are taking refuge in fantasy. Do they know that from the dawn till a certain period of development of the human mind, for a long period of history, man did not contemplate god but all his thinking pertained solely to matter? It was matter that he wanted to know. What he wanted to know and have command upon and strive hard to control was matter. And the idea of god came in the wake of the private property.
I have already discussed how, after the division of society into classes and creation of the owners, and from the analogy of masters bringing discipline in society came the idea of god, who was supposed to be responsible for the orderly behaviour of this material world. So the then social conditions, the infancy of human thought and science, the primary stage and scarcity of production lay at the base of idealism and theism. Who or what did contemplate god? It was none but the human brain. The idea of god was the product of human brain. So it was not god that had created matter or the material world, nor did the idea of god or idealism emerge as the outcome of true knowledge, correct vision and higher human thought.
It was the human brain composed of matter and engaged in search for the mysteries of matter, which being unable to provide answers to all such questions at the primitive stage of development of science and drawing analogy by common sense from some such phenomena in society, that led man to think god as the master of the universe just as there was a master in society. This is why, later on, we find that kings were deemed to be the representatives of god. So, to fight against the king was deemed to be a revolt against god in the then shastraa 4 of all religions — barring some exceptions in the history. Sometimes in history, religion was utilized as a weapon in the struggle against oppression and injustice perpetrated by the slave masters, on the argument that, since in the kingdom of god all men were equal, the slave masters, by perpetrating oppression and injustice violated the divine concept of 'equality' and thereby went against religion. Instances are there of use of Christianity and Islamic religion in the struggle of the slaves against the slave masters. Barring some such exceptions, the owning class almost in all cases used religion in favour of their class rule and class exploitation. In consequence, the idea prevailed in society that to fight against the king, the representative of god, was impermissible. The progress of science and the idea of democracy and democratic right at a later period of history rooted out all these concepts from society. But that was long, long after — during the French Revolution.
When capitalism was born in the womb of feudalism, then prevailing all over the world, when the development of capitalism necessitated the abolition of serfdom and the overthrow of feudalism-absolutism for establishing liberty, fraternity and equality in society — barring which the development of production was impossible — cultivation of science and unfettered pursuit of knowledge were heralded in society. This marked the era of the beginning of the exact sciences and technology. Along with the advent of capitalism came the galloping progress of science. Till then the feudal system, the society based on absolutism, posed a serious hindrance to the development of science, obstructed the quest for truth and even went to the extent of gagging truth. Attempts were made to defend a structure of a philosophical system on fancy and fantasy. Since concepts like these provided a fertile ground for the monarchy to thrive, the kings and the feudal lords were all to patronise them. 'The king reigns the country, god the universe. The king is the representative of god, a god in the miniature. God himself bestowed upon the king the right to rule'. Such beliefs mostly reigned in society. Whence the king came, or the master — none searched for it in the past history of man and society.
Right from their birth, people found that the father of a king was a king; his grandfather too was. They thought, perhaps the almighty god had come down to the earth to bestow kingship upon them. This was their belief, so to say. After long, long years they forgot the horrid history of injustice, the cult of force and violence behind the emergence of private property, emergence of king and the kingship. Because that was the period in course of development of human history which was shrouded in darkness, leaving behind no record even. Whether the ancient manuscripts were yet in vogue is itself a subject of research till today. Naturally, when the idea of god emerged in society, the kings were taken for granted as the deputies of god. This is why I was telling that it was in the era of feudalism that the idealist philosophy grew and developed. The idealist philosophy was very much dominating in the period of slavery and feudalism. The materialist philosophy also ran side by side but it was staggering. The materialist philosophy, the philosophy of the proletariat, was itself, as though, a 'proletariat'. History reveals that the old hawks of society persecuted and even made the materialists outcast though there were many a genius among the materialists who stood against idealism and even had to pay dearly for it. Starved and outcast were they, as the monarchy did not back them up. But they did not budge an inch still.
Born in the womb of feudalism, capitalism brought in its wake new possibilities. What were they? First, the industrial development needed free workers. But in feudalism most of the men were serfs; they were tied to the land. The owners of the land made them serfs. So, unless the serfs could be freed from the hands of the feudal lords, from the shackles of their exploitation, unless they could be freed from the bondage of land and made free individually, how could then largescale industries be built up? Wherefrom could come the regular supply of labour? Secondly, for the development of largescale industries, the development of science and technology is a must, without which mining, navigation, transport system and, in a word, largescale industries could not be built up. The capitalist class felt a real urge and necessity for the industrial development that appeared in society. Capitalism was then in the stage of mercantile capitalism. In course of development of mercantile capitalism an urge for industrial capital and largescale industries grew and developed in society. The capitalists lent support to this urge in order to utilize it in their favour. The capitalist class represented the progressive section of the society who stood in revolt against all the old feudal ideas, sense of values, morality, ideology, philosophy, etc.
Art, literature, science — everything stepped into the new stage and exhorted: Break all that is rotten and old, welcome the fresh and new and find out the truth. Thus began the onward march of science. The monarchs and kings were all for stalling this march of science. And it was the bourgeoisie who stood as the champion of the cause of science. That is why, it was they who called Newton, the great scientist of the age, a great saint. He was no worshipper of god, he was a man of science who dedicated his whole life to the pursuit of science and the quest for scientific truth. Yet, the bourgeoisie called him a savant. Because, he performed a great task. We know that Newtonian science dealt a deadly blow to the feudal thoughts and ideas. What came as the truth out of Newtonian science was that the monarchs and kings were no representatives of god. It was all false to say that. As for the question whether god himself existed, there was great doubt. Nowhere in this material world his existence could be traced. Nobody knew where he existed. Newtonian science declared that it was only in human imagination and fantasy that god existed. And how could come his representative who himself was non-existent? This was how science rocked the very foundation of the old thoughts. This opened up the avenues to unleash war against the king, nothing stood any more in the way. What obstructs man most is the apprehension of sin and piety. The belief so long was that going against the king would condemn one to hell. The protagonists of shastras, the pundits of tols 5 and the priests of mosques, all of them preached that hell was the destiny of those who went against the king, for the king was the embodiment of god. The development of science shattered these ideas and beliefs. From the history of development of society it is therefore seen that in the epoch of rising capitalism there began anew a rising tide in the materialistic thoughts which once again opened the door to development of materialism. Science proclaimed its victory all around. The call rang: Engage yourself in the pursuit of science and epistemology, search out truth, critically examine whatever is logical, change yourself, get rid of the old ideas and stand up against injustice. This was the call of Renaissance, the call of the French Revolution. Everywhere, in every domain of philosophy, science, art and literature this call reverberated.
Now another point. The bourgeoisie were no doubt believers of materialism in their heyday, but that was not the kind of materialism the Marxists stand for. That materialism was alloyed with bits of idealism. For, it is known to all that there is a great difference between the concept of matter in dialectical materialism and the materialism that the bourgeoisie once upheld. The materialist concept of the bourgeoisie was not completely free from the influence of idealism. But even then it cannot be denied that their thoughts or outlook was essentially materialistic. Not only that, I have already told you that from the initial stage of the advent of capitalism till a long period the materialist concept exerted great influence on society, dealing a severe blow to the prevalent idealist thoughts. Their inclination was to science. The capitalist class then patronised the cultivation of scientific reasoning, logic and the method of judging everything on the basis of the new bourgeois sense of morality and ethics. Because, in order to build up the capitalist society, they had to wage a struggle against the then reactionary forces, against the monarchs and the serfdom. The serfs had to be made free. So, they raised the slogan of individuality, individual freedom. Fighting thus they laid the foundation of the parliamentary system we find today — they brought about the industrial development, development of production and advancement of capitalism. And for this they had to perform another task, and that was, they had to free each individual personally and make all equal at least in the eye of law. Though it is true that in that system man did not become completely free. Free from serfdom as they became, they were not free from bondage as such. They had been reduced to wage slaves. The serfs now becoming free from land and its slavery and bondage were reduced to wage slaves — slaves at mills and factories. How could it happen? It happened because, where else would they go and how could they earn livelihood? Although free from the bondage of the landlords, they had to run after the owners of mills and factories to eke out a bare existence. So, those whom the bourgeoisie had liberated were reduced to almost semislaves by the bourgeoisie themselves. That is, the workers were compelled to work on whatever wage was decided by the owners. Because, the inexorable law of capitalism was to create unemployment — the army of unemployed. Thus came the opportunity to engage cheap labour by the owners. The bourgeoisie, therefore, could not advance society much ahead. With the passage of time, the capitalist class lost their earlier fervour and became reactionary. That is, the bourgeoisie which in its heyday had laid emphasis on science and scientific pursuit, experimented truth, logic and reasoning — the same bourgeoisie turned their face away from science and scientific logic, and started patronising the idealist philosophy and idealist thoughts and thereby halted the progress of science later on when capitalism became moribund and reactionary, when the bourgeoisie as such represented the vested interest, losing its earlier revolutionary character. A situation arose when the bourgeoisie, after having established their own class rule and exploitation, could no more advance the society. Whatever little industrialization it could bring about, it was inviting crisis more, bringing about only deeper crisis.
It was the period when capitalism could not bring good to the people any more, could not show humanity the path of its emancipation, when it had nothing to offer excepting the curse of exploitation, and hence capitalism became a deadweight on the life of the people. See, how strange! The capitalist class which in the era of rising capitalism fought against feudalism-absolutism, narrow feudalist mental make-up and outlook, religious blindness and bigotry, fought against the idealist philosophy and tried to establish materialism, proclaimed the victorious march of science — the same capitalist class, at a later period, just like the vested interests, the feudal masters, became inclined towards idealism, turning away from materialist thinking. Now they are uttering the name of the almighty. It is they who have become the adherents of idealism today. They are all after creating the misconception about science by various means, it is they who preach that 'science is both a curse and a boon to the humanity'. But they cannot altogether discard science, because the capitalist industrial production has reached such a stage that for the technological development science has become indispensable to the bourgeoisie. So the capitalists are aiding science and its growth to the extent it serves their own class interest. This, in a sense, means impeding the growth of science. The bourgeoisie do not provide today the patronage and energy with which they stood by science in its onward march in the early period. On the contrary, they try to inhibit its growth, if possible. In the period of moribund capitalism the progress of science is threatening capitalism, inviting crisis more and more and disaster to its existence.
Why this crisis? This is no doubt a pertinent question. Capitalism which once advanced society and led the revolution against feudalism-absolutism with science as its instrument of struggle, devoted itself to the pursuit of truth, waged struggle against the old religious morals and values to establish new values of life based on the humanist ethics and morals and helped social progress — why that very capitalism, at a later period, is singing an opposite tune in all walks of life? It happened so because, despite all these, the bourgeoisie could not free labour from exploitation, from the grip and tentacles of exploitation by the owners. In a society based on private ownership over the means of production, the motive force of production is not just to earn profit, but the maximum profit. But the owners cannot earn this profit without exploiting the workers engaged in factories, without exploiting the people. And in this course the common people, deprived more and more, got pauperised and most of the owners, unable to withstand competition were reduced to, or continued to remain, small or petty owners on the one hand and, on the other, most of the social wealth got concentrated in the hands of a few owners. When such a situation arose in society in the course of development of capitalism, that is when capitalism was transformed into monopoly capitalism, its crisis deepened very much. What did it lead to? We must clearly understand the nature of the problem. You all know that whatever the need of the common people, the purchasing power falls short of their minimum need owing to capitalist exploitation. But due to the phenomenal development of science and technology the production or the productive capacity of society went up high. And consequently, there appeared the problem of overproduction in the capitalist system. What does overproduction really mean? That is, production far surpasses the demand in the market. Does this demand mean the real necessity of the people? Not at all. In a capitalist society this demand does not reflect the real necessity of the people, rather it reflects the purchasing capacity of the whole of the people of the society. When production runs far ahead of this demand, we call it overproduction. It is then that a crisis develops, and so comes down the axe of retrenchment. Thus grows the number of the unemployed and consequently newer and newer problems appear in the capitalist society. With the introduction of newer machines more and more workers get retrenched. The unemployed workers start agitations. Why really do the workers get unemployed? The unemployment is not due to new machines, nor is it due to the advancement of science. It is the society based on the motive force of maximization of profit that is really responsible for this problem of unemployment. The workers get retrenched because the capitalists utilize this new technology and the entire productive system is run in the interest of earning maximum profit by the capitalist class. But the capitalists conceal this fact, and in their bid to create a psychology against science they pose it as if science is responsible for unemployment. And due to ignorance and inability to grasp the real problem correctly, the common people quite often mistakenly consider science their enemy.
For instance, when a crane is installed, the workers quite often think that the crane is their enemy — they want to smash it. But why? Because, after the introduction of the crane, the number of workers engaged in loading and unloading had to be reduced, throwing some workers out of employment as the owners, prompted by the motive to earn maximum profit, could not afford to pay the idle workers. Just see, introduction of the crane reduced the labour cost and hence the cost of production, increasing the profit of the owners — but alas, the net result was retrenchment of workers and nothing else. Experiencing this, the worker thinks that it is the machine that has made him unemployed. This thinking is wrong. Because, it is not the machine that has made him unemployed. The machine is supposed to bring comfort to his life. Previously, he had to earn his bread, making hard labour, carrying heavy burden on his back and smeared with grease and dirt. But the machine enables him to do the same job sitting on a chair, pushing just a button. The machine can bring him this comfort, not unemployment. The worker got unemployed because the crane was being used in the interest of the owners, in the interest of their profits. The main object of the capitalist production is not to provide employment to people, nor bring comfort to their life with better machines, but to lower the cost of production and thereby earn maximum profit. The workers of all capitalist countries get retrenched simply because the production is run from the motive of maximization of profit. So the workers must understand that such a situation would not have arisen had production been run with the object of fulfilling the people's necessities and not for earning maximum profit by the capitalists. So the use of machines — to be more precise, use of science and technology — must be freed from capitalist exploitation, from the motive of earning maximum profit or, in other words, from the clutches of the capitalist class. If the workers can achieve this, then machines will bring comfort and happiness to their life. The inhuman labour they have to put in when there is no machine may not only be drastically reduced and production augmented but more comfort can be brought with the aid of machines. They will get more comfort, greater satisfaction and more happiness. So machines are not their enemies. Their enemy is capitalism. At the root of all the problems of society — the problem of overproduction, problem of retrenchment and unemployment, problem of price rise of essential commodities — lies the crisis-ridden capitalism. Since the main object of capitalism is maximization of profit by the capitalist class — so in a capitalist system, and quite often the capitalist class or the state run by it would rather dump away or destroy the surplus production, than sell the commodities to the poor people at cheaper prices. How strange! In the USA tons of cotton were once thrown into ocean, but were not sold to the people at cheaper rates. In our country, too, during the last world war, a number of jeeps and trucks were deliberately turned into junks and the scrap sold. Of course, some officers individually sold a jeep or two secretly at lower prices, but that is a different story. But why is it that surplus commodities were even destroyed, or thrown into the sea but still not sold in the market at cheaper prices? This was not done because, in that case, the running industries and trade would suffer. This the capitalist class could not afford to do. If the jeeps were sold at a cheaper price then how the industries of Tatas and Birlas6 would run? The Ford Company would go bankrupt! Who would pay more if one gets a jeep at a cheaper price? The owners would not sell their products without keeping a marginal profit or an amount of profit added to the cost of production. If the commodities surpass the demand of the purchasers who can afford to purchase at prices fixed by the owners, there results overproduction and this begets a crisis for them. Naturally, how can they afford to continue with advancement of science and technological development for more and more production when advancement of science and technological development pose, as if, a threat to its very existence? That is why they cannot afford to utilize the atomic energy to enhance production. When the use of electricity alone is bringing about the crisis of overproduction how can they afford to utilize atomic energy, bringing in its wake a great disaster? They are not therefore even using the electrical power everywhere, but are going back to use coal or some such kind of fuel. That is, they are not making full use of the electric power even, because if they do that then the productivity will become so high that production would go far ahead of the demand in the market. Capitalism has bled the common people white. So there are hardly people with the necessary purchasing capacity — those who are capable enough to purchase commodities at the market price. There is no dearth of manpower, no limit to needs. What, however, lacks is the purchasing power of the people. This is what we call the number one problem of capitalism.
The second problem is the problem of rationalization. The owners run mills and factories in the interest of earning profit. Certainly they do not do so with a benevolent purpose — to provide employment for livelihood and to eradicate the problem of unemployment. They own industries with a view to earning profit. If they find that the introduction of new machines lowers the cost and helps them earn more, they will not employ labour in excess of that required, resulting in further aggravation of the unemployment situation. This measure of rationalization is sure to lead to retrenchment of workers. Naturally, agitations will start and various slogans will be raised highlighting demands of the workers. This is quite obvious. How long can people be kept starving and simply fed on lectures? This is of course a problem to the capitalist class and their government. Judging from this angle, it is needless to say that science today is a curse for them. So, whatever little pursuit of science is there still in society, it is being used in the interest of profit and exploitation of the capitalist class. What is meant by socialist revolution or the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state machine that we advocate? It means emancipation — the emancipation of the workers and toiling people from the exploitation and oppression by the capitalist class — emancipation of art, science and literature, etc., from the profit making motive of the capitalists and, last but not the least, the emancipation of the womenfolk from patriarchal domination and subjugation. We need emancipation for all from all sorts of bondage and exploitation. The womenfolk need freedom from the bondage and drudgery of family life. There is now some sort of division of labour. Women are engaged in the household chores and men do the earning. Such has become the division of labour today in our country. By availing of the modern amenities provided by science in life and society, the families can be planned anew. A day may come when women, too, will be engaged in earning and, naturally, starting from the household chores to looking after the children and bringing them up in nurseries and kindergartens, everything will be equally shared by both men and women. It will be only then that women will be free from the drudgery and bondage of family life. But at present all these are of no avail. And what else? The womenfolk need emancipation from the economic domination and domination by menfolk. The emancipation of womanhood is indispensable for establishing a society based on equal rights and new relationship between man and woman on mutual respect and freedom of love.
That is why I was telling that the workers, peasants and other sections of the toiling people need emancipation from exploitation — economic, political and cultural. Science needs emancipation from the rule of capital. Our endeavour is for building up this struggle for socialism, for all-out emancipation — emancipation for all. So the struggle to establish socialism is a struggle not of the workers and peasants alone, it is a struggle of the womenfolk as well, a struggle of all sections of the toiling people. The struggle for establishing socialism is also a struggle to free science from the bondage of capitalism and to use it for the benefit of mankind. But the owning class, the vested interests, obstructs the progress of society. Because, amassing all wealth of society which they are doing today by depriving others, they can enjoy enough and lead a life of luxury. How can they wish to have a new society then? But those who are deprived and humiliated, who feel the pangs of starvation, it is they who feel most the necessity to overthrow this social system.
What do we witness today in the capitalist society? We find that the movements of the workers, peasants and the lower middle class people against capitalism are growing in strength so as to free science and the productive system from the motive of exploitation by capitalism to earn maximum profit and use them for the satisfaction of the social needs. The proletariat or, in other words, the toiling millions are engaged in establishing the social ownership in place of private ownership over the production system. That is why they want to smash the existing set-up. But the truth that science has unfolded to them so far has become inadequate for uninterrupted development of science and the productive system, necessitating the overthrow of the present system and building of a new one in its place. It is for this reason that they stand for the uninterruptible development of science, search for truth deeper and deeper, and pursuit of knowledge with which they can comprehend the world more and more. Let there be a continuous progress of science with the unveiling of truth more and more, let there be production in plenty at that, let people enjoy and satisfy their needs more, let the gift of science reach every doorstep — this is the urge and call of the proletariat. In a socialist society, since production is free from the motive of earning profit or of fulfilling the class interest of the owners, there is no overproduction. So they do not need to halt the progress of science. This is why the proletariat want to free science completely from the grip and tentacle of capitalism, but for this it is the proletariat who have to suffer most. It is the proletariat that abhor falsehood and are attached most to truth. It is the workers, the toiling millions whose longing for truth and quest for knowledge excels all. Because, bereft of knowledge, bereft of this instrument, man cannot throw light upon and unveil the unknown. All the falsehood and mysteries of socio-economic problems, the web of confusions and conspiracies laid by the capitalist class in the society can only be brought to light with the help of knowledge. The proletariat will have to kindle the flame of knowledge. And that flame, the light of knowledge, is kindled by science and science alone. So, in today's world, the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie, are the true devotees of science. The proletariat of today are greater adherents of science than the bourgeoisie in their heyday. This science does not connote only the technological aspects, but emphasizes more its epistemological aspect, man's faculty of thinking, mental make-up and outlook. Because, the mental make-up and outlook of the proletariat are themselves scientific. The mental make-up of the bourgeoisie developed in the earlier period in the superstructure of a society based and run on idealist thinking, and their world of science had to develop on it. And our urge, our eagerness for pursuit of modern science has grown in the present objective conditions and realities of life. As a result, for us the proletariat, the materialistic thinking has developed further, reaching a higher perfection. Dialectical materialism, which is the philosophical basis of Marxism, has grown and developed free from the influence of idealistic philosophy.
So, one point is clear that Marxism is not the only materialist philosophy in the world. Many materialist philosophies other than Marxism appeared not only in Europe but in our country, too. But there is a basic difference between dialectical materialism and other materialist philosophies. Excepting Marxism no other materialist philosophy is free from the influence of idealism. Although their basic tenet, the basic thought process or structure was materialistic, yet they could not be completely free from the influence of idealism. For these philosophies it was not possible to correctly know the scientific laws and the mysteries of this material world. They could not know them because science in those days had not developed to the stage necessary to enable man to get to know those laws. Till science attained a certain stage of development it was not possible for a genius even to know the general laws of development of the material world. It would be wrong to hold that it was possible for Marx alone to achieve this task because before him no genius of his stature was born in the world. This is no logic. It can be clearly understood that the then democratic thoughts and ideas, the humanist concepts of the bourgeoisie, coupled with the birth of the proletariat, the development of science paved the path for the emergence of the philosophy of Marxism. It was in this background that Marxism or dialectical materialism came into existence.
I have pointed out earlier that excepting Marxism all other materialist philosophies are in a sense idealistic. But why? Being unable to know truth comprehensively all other materialist philosophies, although materialistic in a sense, had been reduced to dogmas making truth eternal, unchangeable and operative within the rigid framework of subjectivity.
Though they believed in the objective existence of matter yet their ideas were subjective and not based on experimented truth. Just as the idea of god was untrue and hence fruitless, their concept of matter, too, being based on subjective and unchangeable ideas, was erroneous and lacked in creativity. Now, why do I call the concept of god false or fruitless? Because it has no bearing on the objective reality. It is untrue because it has no relation to the reality, and is ineffectual because nothing fruitful can be achieved with it. Say, for instance, I do not believe in almighty god but my idea about matter is untrue; then even without believing in god I may be an idealist. Just as belief in god or idealist concepts cannot attain anything positive like progress and development of society, it is not possible to achieve anything fruitful with the incorrect materialist concepts. This is why these materialist philosophies, in point of fact, are tantamount to idealism. To speak the truth, these are, as if, the outcome of blind faith or a rigid formula which they have made eternal. Just as the idealists make their belief in god absolute and build eternal and unchangeable ideas on good and bad, sense of morality and ethics basing themselves on the belief in god — or to put it more correctly, basing themselves on the idealist concepts — if any materialist philosophy, too, even without believing in god admits of unchangeable concepts and claims that 'all these will be there for ever', can it then reflect truth and reality? This sort of materialism, though denying god, is another name for idealism.
For this reason, Feuerbach in Europe and many other philosophers long before, including Charbak7 in our country, could not free themselves from the influence of idealism even as they propagated materialism. Although originally man's thinking was materialistic, yet idealism came into existence because of the failure to develop a correct and comprehensive idea about matter. I have already discussed that it was not possible for man to get a correct idea and knowledge about the host of questions confronting him in that period. So even though it was matter he desired to know and think about and even though the concept of supra-matter entity had not developed then, inasmuch as man's intellect, science and production were at such a backward level, that is, due to the limitations and weakness they suffered from, man's idea of matter and its laws were so poor and lagged so much behind that these could not reach nearer to truth. And in such an objective situation idealism was born and materialism was defeated in the hands of idealism.
Many materialists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century likewise committed many mistakes. They used to think that there was nothing like we call mind. It was a mere physiological action — an act of matter. Their idea of the mind was mechanical. They did not accept that the mind, too, as an entity acted on matter. They used to hold mind a product of physiological action only, that is, simply a physiological reaction without any mental faculty or intellect. As physical ailments tell upon the mental condition of a man, so also a man may become physically sick as a sequel to a mental disease — this they could not understand. They failed to take note of and understand that the mind too had a relative independence. No doubt, mind has no separate existence from the body, nor can mind be separated from the body. Both are related to each other. These are all true. But the mind has its own function and activities, its own distinctive features; and from that point of view it has an independent existence, even if relative, which we call the relative independence of mind. The materialists of the nineteenth century could not grasp this idea. Because, physiology and psychology as science were yet to develop or advance that much. The various mysteries of the living being which science today has revealed were not known. As a result, at that stage of development of science man could not understand the various aspects of the mind with its intricacies and activities. So, this led to many problems and confusions.
For instance, Feuerbach did not accept the existence of god; he rejected Hegel's absolute idea, too. He explained this material world from a materialist outlook. He admitted that the material world did change following the dialectical process. But what did he conclude ultimately? In case of mankind and the human society he propounded that there were some principles, some moral codes, some ethical tenets, that is to say, some human essence that was eternal. On the basis of the concept of humanism he declared some principles, ideals, morals as unchangeable and eternal. He argued that for the progress of mankind, for the change of society and its development these eternal principles were necessary. Feuerbach could not grasp the truth that along with the progress of society, confronting and in conformity with the objective necessities, ethics, morality and ideals change and these are bound to change. And since he failed to grasp it, he held morality and ethics eternal. Herein lies his departure from materialism. That the ideals have their birth and decay, that they change in consonance with human necessity and following the contradictions within society and the conflict and contradictions of the human mind with its environment could not be understood by Feuerbach.
So, an ideal, too, changes — it is dynamic. And in this dynamic everchanging world there is a definite process of change and development. Feuerbach denied this objective truth, even though he accepted the dialectical materialist outlook in interpreting this material world. As a result, even while preaching the materialist philosophy he became an idealist in reality.
Marx refuted Feuerbach and his humanism and propounded dialectical materialism as a complete and comprehensive philosophy, that is as a science of sciences — as a scientific process of thinking and analysis in conformity with the social sciences. Had he not committed that mistake, Feuerbach might have taken the position occupied by Marx in history, Feuerbach's name would have been associated with the glory and credit of the Marxist movement throughout the world. But it did not happen. Where Feuerbach made the mistake, where he made the slip, Marx did not. Marx could balance and correctly coordinate the whole thing. In this way he established the Marxist philosophy on a firm foundation of science and materialism.
So, what do we find? Right from the beginning of the class-divided society, both the idealist and the materialist thinking ran and developed side by side. The primitive idealism in course of development passed from one stage to another. At one time existence of thirtythree crores of deities was conceived in the Hindu religion. But in course of time it came to believe in monotheism — that is the existence of one god, that too the incorporeal absolute being, the Brahma. Not only that, today there are idealists who take refuge in scientific mysticism but do not believe in the conventional idea of god. Idealism, in course of development, has reached this stage. Now see how the materialist thought, too, developed. The primitive materialist thought, advancing gradually and advancing differently in different countries, reached the stage of mechanical materialism in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. I have already mentioned that the Newtonian physics, even though it helped science develop to a great extent, could not completely free the materialist thought from the influence of idealism because of some limitations and being unable to correctly comprehend the character of matter. As a result, mechanical materialism made its debut. But at a later period and as a result of further development of science on the basis of newer concepts of matter, in the background of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, more particularly following the contribution of Darwin in the field of biological sciences, the materialist philosophy has reached the present height of dialectical materialism, crossing over the mechanical stage.
So, in this way we have come to know about some general truths of this material world. Man wanted to know these truths, the general principles and the laws of development of the material world. From the beginning, the materialists, the idealists, all wanted to know and all tried to know these very truths. But through all their attempts they came to acquire, bit by bit, only a partial knowledge but not the whole truth, for which they took to fantasy. But dialectical materialism is the first philosophy which has come to know correctly, on the basis of scientific experiments, verifications, objective experience and experimented truths, what is the mode of existence of matter, the laws governing it, and how the world itself changes. None of the conclusions of dialectical materialism is derived from fanciful ideas. Its philosophical structure has been built on the basis of correlation, coordination and integration of scientifically verified truths derived through scientific experiments and verifications.
The general truths that develop by coordinating and integrating the particular truths or knowledges, derived experimentally in the different branches of science, namely physics, chemistry, mathematics, biological sciences, sociology and economics, form the basis of dialectical materialism. That is why dialectical materialism is itself a science. I want to elaborate a bit more on this point. What does physics do? Physics studies and deals with the physical aspects, the energies of matter. What is the function of chemistry? Chemistry studies and deals with the chemical aspects of matter, the laws governing the chemical reactions. In this way the different branches of science are trying to know in their own ways the different laws governing matter, its nature and character. What does dialectical materialism do, which I am calling a science? What does it study? Marxism or dialectical materialism studies the general laws of matter which the different disciplines of science, namely physics, chemistry, etc., study in their respective domains. In other words, Marxism or dialectical materialism studies the general laws which govern the entire activity of the material world. So, the different branches of science study and try to know the particular aspects of the material world, and dialectical materialism, by coordinating these particular truths, arrives at general truths — the general truths which govern, conduct and guide all the activities of the material world and science as well. So, the task of dialectical materialism is to arrive at these fundamental principles or general truths denying which this material world cannot exist or move about. Whereas the particular disciplines of science, say, physics and chemistry, study and govern particular laws and activities in the material world, dialectical materialism studies all the general laws of all these disciplines and thereby studies and governs all the basic laws of the material world. Thus dialectical materialism is the only philosophy based entirely on science and is the science itself. And herein lies the fundamental difference between dialectical materialism and all other philosophies.
We have come to a very definite conclusion from science and dialectical materialism. Nothing exists outside this material world. It is impossible for anyone to show any such thing, any entity existing outside this universe and unrelated to matter. I have already pointed out that even the concept or idea of god is wrong and erroneous but owing to absence of science worth its name, god had so long been conceived as the creator of this universe. But today science has proved that this wrong concept of god emerged in society in a particular given material condition. The mind or idea which many consider as supra-matter entity is in fact a product of matter. Science has established that mind is a particular function of the human brain. And we all know that this human brain is composed of matter, of material particles. The man who thinks of god, the very mind that conceives god does so with the help of an organ which is nothing but the human brain. And that human brain is composed of matter. So it is the human brain, i.e. matter that conceived god in a particular material condition — a condition which had the ground to make man confused. Today you have the experience as to how the capitalists, the unscrupulous politicians are trying to make people confused by dishing out false propaganda. Do you believe these? You all know, as we do, that these are not correct. But is it not a fact that by these propaganda some people get confused, they accept this falsehood as true? Because, even today there exists sufficient material condition to make people confused. So also it was the existence of an objective material condition, sufficient to make people confused, that gave birth to the concept of god. The point is not that god exists as an entity independent of the material world. Science has proved that whatever we observe is created out of matter, nothing exists outside matter. Matter is created out of matter — this material world, too, has come out of matter. So, we cannot think of anything or imagine anything outside matter, or independent of matter. Science has confirmed this truth through experiments.
So, we see that dialectical materialism did not grow overnight. There is a long history behind the development of Marxism or dialectical materialism. The materialistic thinking in society getting developed step by step with the advancement of science and the productive system, and through various changes of social system and getting enriched with accumulation of knowledge of human history, and on the basis of certain general truths and scientifically experimented and verified laws, Marxism or dialectical materialism has come into being. Its fundamental difference with other philosophies is that it is based on science and does not search for entities independent of matter, denying scientific facts and scientific truths. It does not accept the existence of an entity independent of matter, an entity which does not exist at all. According to dialectical materialism, the task of philosophy, the object of pursuit of knowledge is not only to know the world, nor merely to interpret it but to change it. Its task is to know, grasp and utilize the different laws underlying the very many changes occurring every moment in society, the various developments in society, and, by consciously applying them to influence and act on the process of change, accelerate it to change the world further, and further the course of progress of the already changed world.
This is in short the history of development of dialectical materialism. We will now dwell a little on a few aspects of dialectical materialism, on the present-day concepts of matter and the laws governing its changes.
According to dialectical materialism, the material world is the only truth. Everything is the creation of matter. This matter is universal matter — it has neither origin nor end. By universal matter I mean the entire category of matter comprised of each and all the particular forms of matter which is omnipresent and is the very basis of our matter concept. This matter is philosophical matter, it defines a philosophical category. None has created it — matter exists and exists by itself. So also exists the material world. This matter or the material world is everchanging. Every moment it is undergoing change and development. And this matter is dialectical matter. The characteristic of this material world is that there is an internal contradiction in each and every thing and everything is at the same time in an external contradiction with its environment. Each and everything is in the vortex of contradiction, both internal and external. This is how matter exists and this is its character. Matter is not inert, static, unchangeable or mechanical. Matter is dynamic, ever-changing and dialectical, that is it exists in both internal and external contradiction and this contradiction makes matter dynamic and everchanging. Matter is always in the process of change and development — it is dynamic, not static. Perceptible or not, everywhere and at every moment changes are taking place in this material world. Somewhere the rhythm of this change is fast, somewhere it is slow. The change of every moment is so slow that ordinarily it seems imperceptible. It may appear to us to be unchanging, remaining as it is. But in point of fact it is not so. It is never static. It is everchanging, everdynamic, at every moment and in every field. And in these changes we find some laws operating. What are these laws? Whatever changes are taking place and wherever in this world, in all the activities of matter and everywhere we see three basic principles operating. All the changes of matter are being guided by these three basic principles. What are these three basic principles?
From quantitative change to qualitative change and vice versa: The process of quantitative change, gradual change, evolutionary change proceeds to a nodal point, yielding place to a new thing. In every material particle changes are occurring at every moment. But through these changes the basic character of matter does not alter. Despite these changes of every moment, so long as the basic character of the thing does not change, we call these changes of every moment quantitative change. But whenever through these quantitative changes a situation arises when, say, the state of matter changes or a completely new thing is born, we call this change a qualitative change, a basic change, a revolutionary change, etc. There remains no doubt a continuity of this new matter with the old one, but since a completely basic change has taken place in the character or quality of matter there exists a break with the old, the past.
Time not permitting, I cannot dwell further on the principle of quantitative change to qualitative change and vice versa.
Unity of opposites: As there is continuous conflict and contradiction within matter we observe another feature of matter and that is, amidst these conflicts and contradictions, there is unity and identity of opposites. In other words, an aspect of unity exists within contradiction itself. Where the opposite forces are existing in contradiction, opposing each other, that is, the contradiction is antagonistic in nature; where one is trying to annihilate the other, they, too, in a specific condition and till the annihilation of one, exist in unity despite this antagonistic character of contradiction. Guided by this principle the change of every moment is taking place. This feature of unity even amidst antagonism exists in this change. This principle operates everywhere in this material world.
Negation of negation: Negation in course of development and development following negation — this is the law of development and growth in case of society, material world and every phenomenon. The material world is always in a process of change and development. How does this development take place? Continually negating self, negating its own existence, through the destruction of the old a new one is born. The new is born through constant annihilation of the old.
Through scientific experiments and verification we find that these three basic principles are guiding the laws and activities of the material world. I like to refer to another point. This contradiction, which I am discussing, is of two kinds — the antagonistic and the non-antagonistic contradiction. Where the main object of contradiction is to annihilate one another we call it antagonistic contradiction. The object of struggle between the workers and the owners is to subdue and overthrow one by the another. Again the object of contradiction between one worker and another is to win over one by another and to cement the unity among them. We call it a non-antagonistic contradiction. The main effect of contradiction in a working class party is self-criticism and thereby to strengthen the party itself, to make the party stronger by cementing its unity.
For want of time, I have to shorten this discussion on the three principles of dialectical materialism, that is the three basic principles of change of matter. Many among you have attended more elaborate discussions on many previous occasions. Moreover, the discussion I have just made here on Marxism and development of human society is also very elementary and in outline. There is hardly any scope today for dwelling on the various aspects of epistemology and the different discoveries of science in detail. Still you had better ask whatever questions you have to.
I conclude my brief discussion here today in this first session on the history of emergence of Marxism or dialectical materialism and development of human society.
1. Hymns.
2. Big landowners, i.e. rural bourgeoisie.
3. Place where this school of politics was held.
4. Scriptures.
5. Sanskrit schools.
6. Top Indian monopoly houses.
7. Charvak, a materialist philosopher of ancient India.