M.N. Roy’s New Humanism Summarised and simplified by Vinod Jain 1.
Since the Communist Manifesto One hundred years have passed since the Communist Manifesto was issued to proclaim the age of proletarian revolution. Despite the prophetic confidence, it never came. The revolution started in one country, but did not spread. It lost its moral appeal of humanist romanticism. The manifesto declared the revolution will succeed. With this, human history would actually begin. Because earlier part would become pre-history, in which man had suffered in many kinds of bondages. This revolution would usher in the history of free mankind. This was an inspiring but erroneous hope. Consequences of the first world war made the proletarian revolution possible. But it also saw the growth of Fascism as the antithesis of Communism. The era of proletarian revolution as declared by the Communist Manifesto, was believed to have been inaugurated by the Russian Revolution. But instead of opening up an era of higher Civilization, it appeared to have closed the chapter. 2.
Inadequacy of current All thoughtful believers future, must lay bare the cause civilized world. First, the voice of
ideologies in humanity’s threatening the reason must be
raised. It should warn against orthodoxy and blind passion. The civilized world needs a new hope, a new ideal—a new philosophy. The ideas of democracy and dictatorship are mutually exclusive. They are based on conflicting philosophies. They have differing codes ethics and social behaviour. Humanist tradition inspired the idea of ‘social organisation as a harmony of voluntary individual efforts’. The idea of dictatorship is a negation of all the social and ethical values that liberate mankind. The Christian Church, the Holy Roman Empire, both lead to regimentation. Both are discredited. The idea of dictatorship is equally repugnant. Parliamentary democracy also has limitations which cannot be ignored. Under it civil liberties could be reduced to mere formalities. Democracy cannot control the executive. Between two elections a party having majority can assure dictatorial power. This is because this system is based on the ideas of Liberalism: freedom of the individual, doctrine of Laisser faire ; It places the individual in a helpless position. Taking advantage of parliamentary democracy, Fascist forces came to power in Europe the IInd World War, and can do so again. Therefore, democracy must outgrow a parliamentary democracy. The precious heritage of cultural values piled up since the dawn of civilisation provides a solid ground for a good structure of the future.
3. Degeneration of Communist Theory and Practice The era of proletarian revolution concluded with the capture of State power by the party of the proletariat in one country in 1917. this revolution was not according to the Marxian scheme. According to the model, it should have happened first in an industrial country like England, But it took place in a backwater of the modern world—Russia. It was a negation of the Marxist view. So, it was not, as expected, a signal for the world revolution. In fact the hope of revolution spreading to other countries disappeared by 1921. Marxist economic doctrines are all critical. Marx wrote about Capitalism to lay bare, its contradictions. Then he predicted that Capitalism would break down under its own internal contradictions. And that socialism would rise out the ruins of capitalism. Marx was merely a critic. He did not write even a word on the economies of socialism. Nor did he write anything about post-revolutionary political practice. He evaded the political issue by setting up the utopia of the state withering away. For economic inter-relations Marx relied on the anarchist ideal— “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Lenin called it a “useless slogan”. During this period in Russia political and economic practices have been purely pragmatic. These have nothing to do with Marxism or Communism. Not only has communism in practice been disappointing; the ideal itself has been put to
doubt by experience. The need of a new order was left widely. There was a furious searching of hearts. The non-proletarian periphery was alienated, weakening the communist movement. The Communist International, forged as the instrument of coming world revolution, was the first victim of the crisis. Being the only party in power, the Russian communists monopolised the leadership of the International. The Soviet Republic became a National State. The Russian experience proved that Socialism or Communism could be nothing more than State Capitalism. We must look beyond the deceptive ideal of Communism. We must have faith in human integrity and the creativeness of the human mind. The new order of social justice must concern itself with social technology and social engineering. It should reconcile freedom with planning, autonomy of the individual with the promotion of collective welfare and progress. 4.
Liberal Geneology of Marxism The Marxist analysis of capitalism has been confirmed. But the theory that capitalism will be automatically replaced by socialism has been proved wrong. The economic interpretation of history has proved to be baseless. Because a philosophy of history ignoring factors like forces of production, the dynamics of ideas, moral questions, cannot be a reliable guide for constructive social action. A new philosophy of history should show a way out of the crisis.
Marx was a passionate Humanist. With a burning faith in revolution, he was also a romantist. The idea of revolution is a romantic idea, because it believes in man’s power to remake the world in which he lives. His theory of revolution, therefore, had a moral appeal. It was as a moralist that Marx influenced history. Marx was an advocate of freedom. As a humanist he stood for the freedom of the individual. Liberalism influenced the economic doctrines of Marx. The labour theory of value is the basis of Marxian economics. It was inherited from Ricardo (a liberal). The theory of surplus value is deduced from this. Running counter to his own Humanist conviction, Marx, however rejected the liberating doctrine of individualism as a bourgeois abstraction. Marx rejected this under Hegel’s influence. In order to establish the dictum that might is right, Hegel rationalised immorality. The result is moral degeneration of the communist movement, which is, therefore, losing its appeal. Unable to outgrow Hegelian influence, owing to his fascination for dialectics, Marx broke away from his original moral Radicalism. 5.
Marxian Theory of Revolution That Surplus Value is the specific feature of Capitalism is a basic fallacy. A worker not getting full value of his labour, does not happen in the Capitalist system alone. Social progress always depends upon the fact that the entire product, at any time, is not consumed. The
margin can be called social surplus. It has always been the lever of all progress. A demand for the abolition of the surplus value will be impractical and suicidal. Social surplus will disappear if production of surplus value is stopped. Then the society will stagnate and break down. Many ancient civilizations disappeared where social surplus reduced. Marx is not asking for abolition of surplus value. He admits that under the socialist economic system social surplus will be produced. Which means the demand is not economic but moral. It is for social justice. He suggests that under socialism surplus value will be appropriate by the new ruling class—the proletariat. Experience shows surplus value is produced in the socialist economy of Russia. Otherwise rapid industrial expansion there cannot be explained. If production of surplus value represents exploitation of labour, then, labour is exploited also under socialism. Actually the exploitation there is more. The fallacious doctrine of surplus value led to the dogma of class struggle. Marx and his followers imagined class struggle throughout history until the dawn of civilization. That is why he said history of civilization was the history of class struggle. He did not notice that there was a cohesive tendency, which held society together. Otherwise it would have disintegrated. Marx is wrong about the role of the middle class in the Capitalist society. They remain a distinct social factor capable of influencing events.
Socialism is a middle-class ideology. They alone could conceive the possibility of a new order of social justice and harmony. They were capable of appreciating cultural and moral values as the positive outcome of human civilization. But Marxism alienated the middle-class. Lenin saw the mistake of ignoring the middle class. But would not admit it. There is no intellectual freedom in the communist movement. It is a new system of political domination, cultural regimentation and economic enslavement. Radical reconstruction of Society, remains a pressing need of our time. The movement for freedom must be inspired by the humanist spirit and cosmopolitan outlook. 6.
A New Political Philosophy Can Politics be rationalised? It is a difficult question, a controversial question. In order to say yes to this question: Rationalism will have to be differentiated from reason. Reason is a metaphysical concept. Marx’s explanation of Marxist Materialism is teleological. Teleology is a philosophical theory that all things in nature have a purpose and happen because of that. Marx means this when he says that if there is a successful revolution against capitalism, then the next step—i.e. socialism—will come about automatically. Nothing extra needs to be done to bring about socialism. Marx’s belief that this will happen due to reason, makes reason a mystical category. Mysticism is the belief that knowledge can be
gained by contemplation. Such a mystical category of reason cannot help us in taking our investigation or search further. Therefore, such an approach will have to be given up. Rationalism will have to be differentiated from such an idea of reason. The question is: where and how does politics relate with morality. It is necessary for revolutionary political practice to be guided by the dictum—the end justify the means? As we have seen earlier, the call for revolution is actually a call for social justice. That is the moral appeal of revolution. The answer to the question whether end can justify means, must be in the negative. It is very doubtful if a moral object can ever be attained by immoral means. In critical moments when larger issues are involved and greater things are at stake, some temporary compromise in behaviour may be permissible. But when practices against all ethical principles and traditional human values come to be regularly practiced by the revolutionary regime, the means defeat the end. Therefore, communist political practice has not taken the world, not even the working class, anywhere near a new order of freedom and social justice. On the contrary it has plunged the army of revolution—proletarian as well as non-proletarian—in an intellectual confusion, spiritual chaos, emotional frustration and a general demoralisation. To overcome this crisis, the fighters for a new world order must turn to the traditions of Humanism and moral Radicalism. [The term Radical here means: 1. supporting complete
political or social reform, 2. departing from tradition]. The inspiration for a new philosophy of revolution must be drawn from these sources. The nineteenth century Radicals [supporters of radical political or social reform], motivated by the humanist principle of individualism, realised the possibility of a secular rationalism and a rationalist ethics. They applied to the study of man and society the principles and methods of the physical sciences. Positive knowledge of nature—living as well as non-living—is so much greater today. Therefore, the Radical scientific approach to the problems of man’s life and interrelations is bound to be more successful now. Today we can begin with the following convictions: 1. that it is long since man emerged from the jungle of “pre-history”; 2. that social relations can be rationally harmonised, and; 3. that therefore, appreciation of moral values can be conciled with efforts for replacing the corrupt status quo by a new order of democratic freedom. Man has risen out of the background of a harmonious physical universe. Having evolved out of this background man is essentially rational and therefore moral. Therefore, a moral order will result from a rationally organised society. Morality emanates [comes or spreads out] from the rational desire for harmonious and mutually beneficial social relations. Man did not appear on the Earth out of nowhere. He rose out of the background of the physical Universe. This happened through a long process of biological evolution. Man’s connection with the Universe was never broken.
Man, with his mind, intelligence, will, remains an integral part of this physical Universe. Therefore, man’s being and becoming, his emotions, will, ideas are also real. This Universe is a law-governed system. The law-governed ness of the Universe is reflected in man in the form of rationality. This rationality in man is inborn, is natural, is innate. It is this inborn rationality in man that makes it possible for him to be moral. It is this naturally imbibed rationality in him that enables man to be moral. That is why he can be voluntarily, spontaneously moral. We can also say, rationality is the only sanction of morality. Morality is an appeal to the conscience. Conscience is the instinctive awareness of, and reaction to, environments. Conscience is nothing mystic or mysterious. It is a biological function. The innate rationality of man is the only guarantee of a harmonious order: because morality is a rational function. We may as well say morality is a function of rationality. Therefore, the purpose o all social endeavour should be to make man increasingly conscious of his innate rationality. We must reorganise our society etc. to make it better and moral. Any such effort must begin from the unit of society—from the root so to say. Any individual is such a unit. Any such effort to reorganise, must be preceded by the development of a new philosophy of revolution. Such an effort should be on the basis of the entire stock of human heritage. This may then be elaborated to formulate the principles of the practice of political action and economic
reconstruction. This whole action can be called Radicalism. Radicalism thinks in terms neither of nation; no of class. It’s concern is man. It conceives freedom as freedom of the individual. This philosophy can also be called New Humanism. New because it is Humanism enriched, reinforced and elaborated by scientific knowledge. It includes social experience gained during the centuries of modern civilization. Humanism is cosmopolitan. It does not run after the utopia of internationalism. Internationalism presupposes the existence of autonomous National States. The ideal of One World, or a World Government, is not compatible with the continuation of National States. A cosmopolitan commonwealth of free men and women is a possibility. It will be a spiritual community. It will not be limited by the boundaries of National States—Capitalist, fascist, communist or of any other kind. These National States will gradually disappear under the impact of Cosmopolitan Humanist. That is the Radical perspective of the future of mankind. 7.
Radical Democracy A new philosophy may try to give mankind a new hope and a new faith. It can do so if it strengthens the concept of freedom. It cannot do so if it depends on: 1. divergent ideological prejudices, 2. discordant doctrines, and 3. conflicting dogmas. The crisis facing the social organisations and political institutions is the greatest now. This crisis can be overcome by a
common standard of freedom. That alone can make a common effort possible. Man’s struggle for existence was successful. In order to satisfy his biological needs he triumphed over nature. For this to be had to constantly search for knowledge. The knowledge he gained enabled him to be progressively free from the tyranny of natural phenomena. Also from physical and social environments. Search for knowledge on a higher plane becomes quest for freedom. It involves intelligence and emotion. In modern society, for an individual to be free, it is not enough for him to enjoy economic sufficiency and security. He needs a social, psychological atmosphere, free from cultural regimentation. This should be such as to be helpful to the development of intellectual and other human potentialities. Actual measure of freedom available to the individual in future should, therefore, be much greater. Freedom is the progressive elimination of all the factors—physical, social, psychological— which obstruct the unfolding(opening) of man’s rational, moral and creative potentialities. A new world of freedom will not result automatically from an economic reorganisation of society. Nor does freedom necessary follow from the capture of political power by a party claiming to represent the oppressed and exploited classes. The abolition of private property, state ownership of the means of production, and planned economy do not by themselves end exploitation of labour, nor lead to an equal distribution of wealth. By
disregarding individual freedom on the pleas of taking the fullest advantage of technology, of efficiency and collective effort, planned economy defeats its own purpose. Dictatorship of any form, is excluded by the Radical Humanist perspective of social evolution. Politics cannot be divorced from ethics, because immoral means corrupt the end. The Soviet Union is an example. The practice of democracy in the West is equally disappointing. Democracy must revert back to the Humanist tradition. Formal parliamentarism must be replaced by actual democratic practice. Because in the former unscrupulous demagogues succeed and rule. Then intelligence, integrity, wisdom, moral excellence count for nothing. Without these values, the democratic way of life can never be realised. It is these values that can wean the unthinking world away from the appeal of dictatorship. Democratic practice should not be confined to periodic elections. Even if elections are by universal sufferage, and the executive is also elected, democracy will still remain a mere formality. Delegation of power, even for a limited period, stultifies(proves foolish) democracy. Conditions under which democracy can be possible must be created. The following must be stimulated among the people: Urge for freedom, the desire to rely upon themselves, to be the makers of their own destiny, the spirit of free thinking, and the will—never to submit to any external authority. A new Renaissance, based on rationalism, individualism and, cosmopolitan
Humanism, is essential for democracy to be realised. During the transition period, residuary powers should be vested in a Council of State representing men of science, intelligence, integrity, wisdom and moral excellence. Radicalism pre-supposes economic reorganisation of Society. It will guarantee a progressively rising standard of living. The economy of the new social order will be based on production for use and distribution on the basis of human needs. Its political organisation will exclude delegation of power. It will be based on the direct participation of the entire adult population through the People’s Committees. Education will be for all. Scientific and other creative activities will be promoted. The new society will be founded on reason and knowledge. It will be a planned society. Individual freedom will be the main objective of this planning. Politically, economically and culturally, it will be a democratic society. Such a democracy will be capable of defending itself. ***