- One possibility is that the Marxist theory of worker’s organisation is fundamentally correct — it was only applied wrongly in Russia.
- The other possibility is that there are fundamental weaknesses in Marxist theory.
Misapplication: The role of worker’s organisation in securing the welfare of the poor people of our country depends on the answer to the above question. If the collapse of Soviet Russia was due to misapplication of a correct theory then the people’s organisations have to be rebuilt again — correctly. If, however, the collapse was due to theoretical problems of Marxism then the very logic of people’s organisation will have to be re-examined. Member of the CPI-M politburo, Sitaram Yechury, has given four reasons for the collapse of Soviet Russia in an article in The Marxist.
The first alleged reason is that adequate attention was not given by the Russian leadership to development of a political consciousness among the working class. Marxist theory holds that the worker merges his individual consciousness with that of his class in the course of the revolutionary struggle. The working class then works in the interests of the whole society. The development of such collective consciousness is possible, however, only when the worker transcends his individual self-interests just as the bee surrenders her right to procreate to the Mother Bee in the interests of its species. The question then is this: under what conditions does individual consciousness merge into class consciousness?
One who has transcended his personal desires can merge his individual consciousness with that of his class. Psychologist Abraham Maslow says that the human mind has layers of desire which reside in the unconscious like the peels of an onion. A deeper desire manifests itself as soon as one desire is fulfilled. These desires have a natural progression. The ordinary person’s desire is to secure his material needs of survival such as food and clothing. A higher person desires accumulation of wealth. A still higher person wants to acquire power. The most evolved person — having fulfilled his desires of material consumption, wealth and power — wants love or unity with mankind. Such a person alone can truly merge his individual consciousness with that of his class. Lord Mahavir and Lord Buddha would be classic examples of such a merger of consciousness. The fulfilment of lower desires is the precondition for the development of class consciousness.
Consumption: This interplay of desires is ignored in Marxist theory. It is assumed that the worker can develop class consciousness without first fulfilling his desires of consumption, wealth and power. But that does not happen. Workers create a facade of class consciousness as long as it fulfils their personal ends. And they use the class organisations for fulfilling their personal desires when possible. This explains the lack of class consciousness among the industrial workers and functionaries of the Communist Party in Russia.
The second reason for the collapse of Soviet Russia given by Yechury is that the Gorbachev leadership gave undue importance to market economy. Instead of using the market as a tool for securing social objectives he dismantled socialism itself. But the question is, why did Gorbachev do this? Once again we have to go into the theory of human motivations. He who has strong desires of power alone becomes a “leader”. His focus is on acquiring power. He is less concerned with social good or bad. His motivation is not that of love. One cannot rely on such leaders to secure social good. The leaders have to be “forced” to work for securing social good by those having the motivation of love. Different temperaments are suited for the roles of “leader” and “controller”. We see this in the division of roles between Chandragupta and Chanakya or Shivaji and Samarath Ramdas. Marx, however, did not theorise this difference in motivations. He assumed that the leaders of the working class will somehow spontaneously become pro-people. The theoretical weakness of Marxism lies in the absence of separation of the two motivations and roles.
The third reason given by Yechury is that inner-party democracy became a casualty in Russia while centralism became strengthened. This problem too arises from the absence of division of roles. The motivation of the leader is to acquire power. He, therefore, persecutes those who dissent. A “loving leader” is contradiction in terms barring exceptions. The person will not become a leader if his desire of power has been fulfilled. He will not worry about social good if his desire is that of acquiring power. The fourth reason given by Yechury is that adequate attention was not given to the aspirations of the people. Participation of the people in the activities of the socialist state was not made at the appropriate time. For example, the imposition of Moscow-cantered rulers in East European countries ignored the workers of the local Communist Parties.
Gunpowder: The question, then, is why did the people not throw out the communist government just as they threw out Czar’s rule? The truth is that the common man never makes a revolution. Leaders of contending sides use the common man as gunpowder in their fights. The “people” invariably lose control of what starts off as a people’s movement. The leader determines how much participation to give to the people according to his personal compulsions. The participation of people is, therefore, contingent on the leadership of a loving person; or the control of the leader by a loving authority. Lenin had formulated precisely this idea by proposing that a distinction should be made between the “state” and the “party”. This was in the correct direction. But Lenin did not have a theory or method of determining the suitability of different persons for the two roles. Stalin took the reins of the state as well as the party into his own hands and that led to negation of people’s participation and collapse of the Soviet model.
Socialists should understand that the collapse of Soviet Russia took place due to the absence of a theory of individual motivation in Marxism. The strength of Marxism lies in its pro-poor orientation and its economic analysis of capitalism. Marxism should build upon these strengths and modify the model of governance proposed by Marx and Lenin in the light of experiences gained in the last hundred years. It is incorrect to attribute the collapse of Soviet Russia on improper implementation of theory. The theory itself has to be revisited. The author is former Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
No comments:
Post a Comment