Marxist Dialectical Materialism

[Arindam Banerjee]

In Hegelian dialectics (dialectics meaning a dialogue to find the truth through argument, as opposed to being didactic or emotional) there is the thesis, the anti-thesis and from understanding and debating in an objective manner, the discussion leads to synthesis which then becomes the new thesis. The thesis could be long or short - it is a series of statements relating to notions, just as its opposite, the anti-thesis. The implicit desire beyond all this is to produce a synthesis which is superior to the thesis - from the Hegel-Marx point of view, this is what must happen.

So it is that from the Marxist materialistic point of view, hunter-gatherers (who discovered and liked beer) became farmers; farmers became urbanised; city states were formed; empires grew up from them and disappeared; then feudalism took hold. With scientific discoveries, new lands were found and exploited with growing technology, leading to a moneyed class without land - the capitalists - who were as greedy and exploitative as possible in the name of competition. What with growing education and opportunity, the workers exploited by the capitalists would unite and break their chains, creating a socialist order. Religion, morality, loyalty, tradition, family values etc. were not values of much importance - rather a hindrance to progress, from the purely materialistic Marxist viewpoint.

However, in an online argument with some philosophers, several years, ago, I pointed out the flaw in the whole thing. It may be that the synthesis is worse than the thesis, but if we believe in dialectics then that may not be accepted. Indeed, a bad synthesis may be forced upon a cowed and subject population, ruled by thugs claiming to be Marxists. What is key to the success of dialectics is equality and good knowledge and wide experience. It may be that it starts off well in some areas, but with stagnation and corruption, lack of equality, etc. the slope will keep on going downhill.

In the Indian context, the problem for Marxists is twofold. Firstly Indian mentality, at its core, is not materialistic; it is spiritual. Death thus is not the end, for both Hindus and Muslims. And of course, other sects like Chtistians. Further, dialectics simply does not work with those committed to the didactic. The Vedic, Biblical and Koranic authorities are not subject to debate. While the proper scientific method is dialectic, and science has provided great advances, it cannot be extended to religion.

Religion thus is the chief enemy of the dialectical materialist. It is not amenable to dialectics of any sort - there is no argument with dogma, simply the decision, often enforced, to follow and to suffer if not. Besides, there is nothing scientific or rational about the dogmas of the Western religions based upon the Booka about the One True God, so a dialectic process can never be initiated. It is about believing, or else.

Any kind of autocracy is also inimical to the dialectical materialist, for autocracy implies a hierarchy where those at the top are always right, and not amenable for any discussion. So, the Marxist in India is not just against the brahmins representing religion, but also against the Rajahs and Maharajahs.

The emotional argument, whether of kindness, or relating to affiliation, also does not appeal to the dialectical materialist. A Bengali Marxist thinks in terms of cracking eggs to make omelettes. Meaning that priests and feudals must be exterminated for a healthy, rational society to happen.

Going by the record of Marxism in third world countries, and its failure in first world countries, one may perhaps hope that good sense may dawn upon its followers - that Marxist dialectical materialism, for all the appeal it has for the disadvantaged ane exploited, may work a lot better if it becomes a part of an overall thought process involving the refinement for both the emotional and didactic approaches. That is, a syntheis could be formed from adapting the best aspects of the dogma and emotion, with new advances. Dogma provides stability; emotion provides direction. Stability for a negative purpose is not desirable; nor is unbalanced emotion leading to wrong directions. A dialectic process, whether in the individual's mind, or a collective mind-speak as in free/unmoderated Usenet newsgroups, is thus crucial for establishing the worth of a stable system, and where it should go.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee