[Aringnar Anna, then student of the Pachaiyappa’s
College, wrote this article in the College Magazine in 1933]
MEET a Soviet citizen and ask him what is the meaning
of all the noise that he makes - why, seek Stalin himself and put him the same
question. “Oh! It is a mighty world revolution against capitalism! Damn it! We
crushed it. Yet we want to wipe it out of the face of the earth” would Stalin or
the Soviet thunder forth.
Communism is Leninism; Leninism is applied Marxism.
Arm chair critics may brand Marx as a dreamy politician and destructive
economist. Some considered him as revolution personified. To the ‘Proletarian
world’, however, he is a demi God. His works, ‘Capital’ and ‘Communist
Manifesto’ are the two testaments to the proletarian. The melody of Marx was so
sweet, so nice, and so hope-giving that the labourer became crazy when he heard
and reheard it. It made him a devil of course, but in the course of his
devilish dance, he did vanquish the demon of capitalism.
Karl Marx was not a proletariat. In fact the English
Fabian Society tried to brand him bourgeois, son of a rich Jewish lawyer of
Germany. Marx had facilities for a sound education. His susceptible mind had
been greatly unimpressed by the cunning, cruelty and ambition of the capitalist
class. He brought to light horrible yet sober facts about the evils of
capitalism. Just as Jean Jacques Rousseau’s winged doctrines of
Equality--Liberty--Fraternity--so also Marx’s ‘Capital’ supplied the theory of
Surplus value’ which forms the backbone of Socialism of various types. Marx did
not get reputation for nothing.
Labour is the chief source of production of wealth.
Without recognizing the fact, the capitalist robs the labourers, forces him to
live in slums, and dictates him to be content with a very small shared in a
shilling according to Marx. “Capitalists are human parasite vultures who live
upon the flesh of the labourers’, said Karl Marx in his piping voice.
Accumulation of wealth and the subsequent utilization of the same by rich capitalists
are not an increase in the National Dividend, for the same could satisfy more
intense wants of the labourer and thus could be better utilized. But the ratio
of distribution is unjustly proportioned.
That Capitalism is the apotheosis of civilization is
the dogma of some. They argue that since Capitalist gives employment to the
labourer, he helps society substantially. So a capitalist is not a human
parasite but a benefactor and capitalism should not be concerned but ought to
be welcomed. Any elementary book on economic will tell us that Land, labour;
Capital and Organization are the four agents of production. It is true to say
that Capital is as necessary for production, as labour is. But the problem is
which of these deserves more consideration. A labourer works hard but the
direction comes from the Capitalist. Whether the concern gets profit or not, a
labourer gets his wages and never cares for either the prosperity of the
Capitalist or the comfort of the consumer. Whereas, the Capitalist spends
sleepless nights in devising plans, and determining the nature and quantity of
the demand that is likely to arise. Failure means to him not only a risk of
parting with his capital, but also a good-bye to honour. A failure means an
‘I.P.’ and it is by no means a decent degree. So when through his efforts, the
Capitalist gets profit he demands a greater share in it. Or, when the
Capitalist is not capable of ‘brainwork’, he hires the services of a ‘D.Com’
and shares the profit with that organizer.
Bearded Bernard Shaw of ‘Apple cart fame shattered the
first argument. Want you the praise the Capitalist? Say you that since he gives
employment to the labourer he ought to be honoured? It is bunkum: A motor
driver by killing a man gives ample opportunity to the departments of police
and Judiciary not to mention his great service to sensation spreaders’. Why,
then should we not raise a marble stature in his honour?” questions the dramatist.
In fact Capitalists give employment, but never enjoyment to the labourers. They
make life a bed of thorns.
The Socialists, as Dr.Marshall points out, were men
who had felt intensely and who knew something about the hidden spring of human
action of which the economist took an account. Buried among their wild
rhapsodies, says the same author, there were shrewd observations and pregnant
suggestions from which philosophers and economists had much to learn. In the
Parliament, in the press and the pulpit, the spirit of humanity, of erring
suffering humanity was to be found. Careful diagnosis will show that in the
womb of our modern society, slumbers the awfully bad child of revolution, ready
for its birth. When Karl Marx, the illustrious theorist of the proletariat’;
said the private property in Capital was both the result of past spoliation and
a means of continuing the same upon the wider scale, he was only epitomizing
the cries of the oppressed Robert Owen, a century before Marx, who thundered forth
that what the Capitalist calls ‘Profits’ and which economists try to defend was
the fundamental cause for all kinds of economic and social ills. Justice
demands, a faith consideration and adaptation of at least some of these non
aggressive and salient facts.
Capital is essential, but not Capitalism, Even Capital
is, to quote Parson ‘Labour stored up’, the division of society into rich and
poor is the root cause for all the subsequent evils. Are we not witnessing--the
spectacle of poverty amidst plenty? Is it right for a fashionable young
bachelor to spend lots upon ‘suits’ in continental hotels, and upon Parisian
beauties, while a widow works hard do bring up six naughty children-getting for
her labour less than a shilling per week? Do we not realize that the very
structure of society is hollow, unsound and inhuman? Then why should we shirk
to find solace in the socialist doctrine? Industrial organization of the
Capitalists. is nothing but outrageous robbery? Given proper facilities, and
allowed to move in a good atmosphere, Tom and Harry could manage things as well
as Jones or Smith, for human nature is greatly modified by environment.
Honey and milk run abundantly because of his labour,
‘Iron kings’ and ‘Lace queens’ are having a ‘tête-à-tête’ in a fashionable
night club and the labourer witnesses the ‘tete-tete of his hungry children and
bony wife. This kind of intensified capitalism gave birth to socialism. The
literary prophets first revolutionized the mind of the labourer. Passing from
the cold and calm realm of speculation, the socialist theories, found a place
in a revolutionary realm. The proletariat agitated. Lenin came! From out of the
womb of agitation, was born the naughty child of revolution. Powers which were
passionately stirred, when unchained caused a revolutionary eruption. Law
became impotent. ‘Necessity knows no law’ said Niebutin, and it became only too
true.
Angered by hunger, oppressed by tyranny, the
proletarian rose with irresistible force; down came capitalism, and the flag of
the labourer was planted.
The period of ‘smoke and blood’ passed away. The prior
of construction came. With equal force, did he launch socialism. The process of
socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange and
exchange was adopted. The spirit of brotherhood and goodwill was set up as the
ideal. The motto of St.Paul ‘He that will not work, shall not eat’ was applied.
Plato’s visualization became practicable. The Russians are not making a new
pilgrim’s progress to a land, where all would be happy, and all would be
equals.
But the world brands the Russian as a savage; his
methods are condemned and his policy is mocked at. Till recently America
refused to take Russian timber on the ground that their production involved
forced labour. The leading capitalistic nations find an absence of Christian
ethics in everything Russian. But why all this accusation? Socialists allow no
illegal marriage, they recognize the right of divorce, give economic basis to
every individual, and look to labour as a dignified method of living. Palaces
and pleasure-seats of plutocrats are kept wide open for the enjoyment of the
labourers. The educational side of socialism won the approval of no less a
person that Dr. Tagore. Then what need is there, for accusing that system? Is
it because the communists drove out idle lords and extravagant ladies? Is it
because they adopted certain cruel methods during the war with capitalism?
Time is the great healer and it would certainly modify
things. Anarchy being a negation of all laws could not remain permanent and
since socialism stands today firmly, it is not anarchism as some suppose it to
be. Paul Vinogradoff, a moderate, assures us that “they (Russians) will throw
the whole weight of their influence in the scale of international pacification
and justice”.
The socialistic idea is not Russian in origin. The
Fabian society was started in London and Marx spends his last years by the side
of the Thames. The presence of the I.L. Party, the various labourer organizations,
and strikes go to prove that the labourer of today is not content with his lot.
Without spending years in condemning Communistic methods, the Capitalistic
countries, if they try to solve the labour problem, by extending State control
over branches of industry, by suppressing ‘red -tapism’ by recognizing the
potentialities of labourers, they would not only get the laudation from
labourers, but could found a paradise upon this earth. Moscow Mob Parade, with
all its grain facts in worthy of study, and is a veritable warning to humanity
at large, and more than that, it is capable of yielding morals of no mean
order.
No comments:
Post a Comment