The bone up on the history of communism, we can avow, communism gave no succour to the working class. But those claimed ?socialist-benefits? spawned by the communist were enjoyed by some other class of people, we can call them ?new class?. We have this new class in the present communist parties too.
The interest of this new class is the interest of the party. Marxism is the philosophy and its politicised form of labour-class. But it was formulated and developed not by them. The originators and exponents of Marxism are from wealthy-class. They hail from bourgeois philosophic legacy. Marx and Angels have no exemption. Marx was the son of a wealthy lawyer. Marx married to a princess. Angels was an industrialist of Manchester.
In Russia the communist government was not led by workers or labours. When a new set-up was formed after revolution the bureaucrats under the Tsar also tiptoed inside. In the political leadership also pro-Tsar were there. They filched the key positions in the government. To those in the prime posts of party, army and intelligence had high emoluments, big official houses, palatial vehicles, international travel facility, right to foreign goods and free provisions. The notorious was bureaucracy in Russia. Which was just similar to that of Tsar. The lessons learned from the revolution textbook was not adapted in Russia. The same administrative legacy of Tsar continued. Bureaucracy triumphed in party also.
China is no exception. The party and government leaderships are in the grip of bureaucrats and technocrats. In corruption and bribery, the World Bank reports, China is at the top. India has only third place. Today in China rich and wealthy people are common. Most of them are relatives of party/government leaders. There is no bar to any wealthy people to have enrolled in the party. The affairs of all other communist countries are the very same. The ?classless-society? begotten by Marx was not popped up in anywhere in the world.
Upper-class intelligentsia are the rabble-rousers in every social system. When they are deprived of cozy posts and accommodations they bring forth with new theories, and thesis, with neo-rational disguise. Karl Marx is a typical example. When he was in Born University he was ?Hegelian?. They criticise the traditional beliefs and philosophies of German. German rulers did not like it. Hegelians are banned in universities. Then Hegelians formed another organisations due to their cowardice to resist the rulers. Marx also went to the new format. They daub their notions to the labour class. The labourers were not brought in to the leadership; but the philosophies and ideas were smeared.
These kind of phenomena could be found in our freedom fighter movement also. A section of middle class or upper class intelligentsia were the leaders of right and left wings. Those were the ones who did not get proper placement in the mainstream of national freedom freight movement. Those leftists later transmuted to communists. Communist party originated combating the non-corporation movement of Gandhiji. When compared to the stalwarts of freedom fighter movement like Tilak, Gokhale, Gandhiji, Nehru, Boss, Patel, JP, Azad, Lala Lajpat Rai, Rajaji the communist leaders M.N. Roy, Abani Mukherji, Musafir Ahammed and S.A. Dange are only pigmies. Communist party leaders did not have the scholar, generosity or simplicity of the national freedom freight mentors.
Those who led the communist party and the left in Kerala hailed from the feudalistic intelligentsia. EMS belonged to one of the richest feudalist family. Those communist leaders did not have the recognition as that of the freedom movement leaders of Malabar.
After the revolution a group of intelligentsia led by Lenin came to power in Soviet Union. In the political affairs of that country the labourers and the ordinary people have no role. The labour class shrank to party, party reduced to its leadership, and then the leader alone. Leadership became a caucus. By running of time a ?new class? of elites compressing intelligent party leaders and bureaucrats, were the real capitalist of Soviet society. Majority of wealth came to their hand. The life of the majority, the labourers and farmers was wretched. Labour-class did not come to power there. The democracy of ?exploited-majority? did not established there; a minority of exploiters ruled. They were cunning intelligentsia. Despite the Marx'stheory, it was not due to the defeat of feudalists here the feudalism disappeared. It was not due to the defeat of the owners, here slavery ended. But in the fight between feudalists and the labourers, and the slaves and their owners a new class of capitalists emerged out. In the fight between capitalists and the working class, not the working class, but a yet another ?new class? succeeded. This rise of ?new class? was witnessed in Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, and other communist countries. Marx'spropagation of all-time success to ?class war? and ?labour-class-totalitarianism? was never established.
It is the style of production, not the class-war which replaces one social order to another. Both the capitalism and communism relied on the unending possibilities of technologies. The duo'saim is for maximum production and consumption. In both the systems production style is basically one and the same: based on technologies. In that sense the moving-force behind communist society is science and technology. But this technology depends upon intelligence. Intelligence is the basic of exploitation. ?The haves are exploiting the have-nots? theory, is not fully correct. ?Those having intelligence exploits those having no intelligence?, is to be asserted vividly and to be corrected. The capitalist becomes capitalist not only due to the capital but due to their shrewdness also. Because of this Mahatmaji said: ?The capitalists have not only money but canny also.? Since the leaders of socialist countries are more sneaky and intelligent they could suppress the people there. Those ?new class? to whom the Marxism is loyal actually is the intelligentsia. Socialist governments worked in the interest of those ?new class?. They did not protect the interests of labour class or farmers. Even in socialism the poor has his bread in his sweat.
[Shri Kesavan Nair concludes the books, saying that ?Even in socialism, koranu (the poor), kanji (rice soup?a common simple food of Kerala), kumpilil (kumpil is a spoon like object made out of the leaf of jack-fruit tree to feed kanji. In the sense ?the cheapest spoon thanne (that'sall). Hence he gave the picture of two kumpil as the cover of the book.]
(Concluded)
(Translated by Jayapradeep Viswanath)
(The translator is a practising lawyer in Kerala High Court and Editor of ?Neethi? Magazine and can be contacted at jayapradeepv@gmail.com jayapradeepv@yahoo.com, jayapradeepv@rediff.com)
