25.2.1999 The biological processes that lead to the evolution of Homo Sapience – the present human species- have taken millions and millions of years. However, the social evolution tht took place even during the palaelithic period was much faster and after the neolithic revolution and invention of agriculture it became increasingly so. Still, even up to the medieval period and during the early phases of industrial revolution and capitalism the social evolution process has been an involuntary – not consciously planned one. True, for more than two thousands and years individual thinkers have been consciously dreaming and planning for social relations and processes radically different what was existing during their own times. The result was the variety of religious and philosophies and corresponding social organization. One of the most fundamental and revolutionary thinkers and planners among them was Karl Marx. His teachings and philosophy led to the formation of a “socialist world” in the twentieth century. Capitalism which evolved spontaneously too became a consciously planned social evolution process. After the collapse of the first socialist experiments, during late eighties of the 20th century capitalism become a “centrally directed” market society. The culmination of the Uruguay rounds of GATT negotiations in the formation of WTO strengthening of IMF and World Bank and concepts like TRIPS, TRIMS, MAI etc. are symptoms of a highly centralised global society that is being consciously planned under the capitalistic ideology. Since no socialism exists today, we can “label” the present global society as capitalistic. But this is not a sustainable project. This capitalistic evolution, as designed now, cannot continue for long. Reasons are many. The early socialist experiments cannot be repeated, obviously. So, a new, a post capitalistic period, a new discontinuity in social evolution has to be consciously thought of and implemented. SAMVADAM 1.Every individual living being- bacteria to human has two aspects the individual or internal self and the collective and external self. The biological phenomenon of life – its tendency to resist death and procreate is essentially individual or internal in character. But it cannot exist with out relating to the external- the environment for food, emembers of same species for procreation. The individual/internal self is incontradiction with the collective/external self- but cannot exist without it. Human evolution witnesses increasingly “conscious” regulation of this conflict between individual and collective selves. Many animal species which have failed in the resolution of this conflict have become extinct. The fate of human species might not be different but for the fact that the evolution of “consciousness” offers the possibility of consciously resolving these conflicts, if material circumstances allow it. Possibility does not mean probability or certainty but offers scope for conscious action. The success of this conscious action, ultimately, depends on the material circumstances. However, even these circumstances can be changed through conscious action and is not an independently given one. “DISRIBUTION ACCORDING TO NEEDS” WHAT DID MARX MEAN? It is not possible to ask Marx – and it is futile- even if he answers only a few hear it- others hear only interpretation. One cannot escape interpretation. it may be argued that Marx defined needs not according to the capitalists’ understanding of the workers need, but on the workers’ understanding of their own needs- in fact each one’s understanding of his own needs. But does this mean that there ae no limits put to them? That needs multiply exponentially and all of them can be – has to be satisfied under communism- or did he envisage an asymptotic tailing off of needs, under changed circumstances when “production of needs” is not a social necessity. Perhaps it may not be possible to give a categorical answer to this question. All that can be told is that if Marx meant exponentially or even linearly rising needs, that is unattainable. If the felt needs stabilises asymptotically, it is possible to envisage such a society. Further this may not be a totally shared consciousness of the society- but collectively imposed by a majority (as different from a minority). This would mean the existence of enforcing mechanism –State which cannot wither away. A stateless state for the world is inconceivable. BYPASSING THE DEBATE ABOUT COMMUNISM The debate about the nature of communism is yet unresolved- whether limitless needs can be satisfied? Whether state can wither away? Whether the entire humanity has to go over to Communism enmasse- or whether a spatially evolutionary transition is possible? These are important questions and must be debated. But simultaneously struggles have to be organized to: -make life better for the suffering majority -to reduce differences between haves and have nots. Even for this certain premises are required. These premises could be : (a) It is neither possible nor desirable to increase consumption endlessly. Some needs are self limiting. Others are expansive. The later will have to be collectively limited. (b) The absolute consumption levels of a vast majority has to increase, and that of the rest has to be reduced. (c) The term “productive forces” can be applied to a small community, a country or humanity as a whole. It is not the nature of productive forces that limit its spread- the law, the enforcement mechanism, the army- all are important in this. There is nothing objectively preventing the universalisation of productive forces. Under these condition it is possible and desirable to reduce inequalities, to improve the absolute levels of the majority, even without being necessary bound to the concepts of abundance and statelessness. We have to device appropriate forms of struggle to achieve this. It is not imperative.
Posted on: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:04:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015