Correct question begets correct answer

Asking the correct questions can give the correct answers .A lot of din and pandemonium is created these days exhorting people to usher in a 'Socialist  Revolution .' But the phrase 'Socialist Revolution' means different things to different people even to the extent that, there are as many number of Socialisms as the number of its proponents . Inspite of beating the drum about 'an alternative narrative' , 'a new paradigm' etc many of the proponents are not able to give much details and nuances about what the 'alternative narrative ' and the 'new paradigm' .
  A) In defence to their inability to give out much details , the logic given out is that there are no readymade and all weather solutions to the problems and that problems need to be accessed based on the time period and region where the change is to be usherd in to provide the nitty gritties of the new paradigm .The same is a valid fact, but the same doesn't mean that there can't be and there shouldn't be planning and working out of the fine details (based on the specific time period and specific region ) of what ought to happen once the 'socialist revolution' is usherd in .

   B)Another aspect that is put forward is that it is not possible to preconceive and predict with  perfection and absolute certainty  about the course of action that is to be taken . The same also a fact worth reckoning but that cannot by any stretch of imagination made to propose that planning is not possible .To juxtapose prediction with planning is a logical folly . Planning ,preconception and conceptualisation of the alternative path forward should be made to the maximum extent possible (of cours,e with the disclaimer regarding the assumptions made and the possibilities of errors) based on the historical experiences (and the information derived from the same) available as on date and by taking into consideration the specific context of the time period and the region . The effectiveness of the plan can be judged and should be judged during the course of execution(praxis / practice) of the same and the outcomes achieved shall be compared with the desired outcomes and new inferences and course corrections ought to be made in the future course and the same shall proceed all along .

C)Some others put forward the argument that knowledge comes through practice and experience and the fine details can evolve only in the course of action . That knowledge doesn't arise from contemplation , meditation and speculation alone is true, and ,on the contrary knowledge is created based on the observations made based on the past  experiences obtained from the course of action (practice/ praxis) and verifying the reproducibility and replaceability of the the knowledge and making the necessary updations and modifications in the future and the process goes on and infinitum .But it is to be taken note of the fact that for a particular generation to start a course of action the knowledge available can be obtained only from past experiences ,and not to draw the correct inferences and conclusions based on the observations made on the past observation through the 'scientific method'  (the scientific method is stressed ) is again a flawed way of decision making .

D) The argument that discussions ,debates and other activities regarding the alternative path is just a delaying tactic and that it just tries to postpone sine die the inevitable course of action by stressing too muçh on' interpreting the world'  rather than on 'changing the world ' are ignoring the Scientific method which is characterized by a)
Identification of the objective of study , b) observations of relevant facts based on past experienceand practice  c) drawing primary inferences from the observations made (hypothesis) d) Verification of the applicability and the validity of the hypothesis in varying conditions and making the necessary updations to the hypothesis based on the verification e) Establishment of the Scientific theory based on the above steps .It is this scientific method that has helped mankind to accomplish what it has achieved so far . The same is applicable for the argument that efforts in finalising the future path of action before hand is futile .Those who are enamoured and infatuated  by the idea of equality and justice and are in the urge to usher in the socialist revolution shall keep in mind that by ignoring the Scientific method and directly plunging into action may lead to a situation where the protagonists end up in rocking the boat of the very revolution (abrupt qualitative change) they try to bring forth and will further make life miserable for the very same people for whom they vouch to fight for .

The following are some train of thoughts that are enumerated in interrogative form for the proponents of the Socialist Revolution to reflect upon and to bring before public domain their views on the same so that the inquisitive and uninitiated individuals can get an idea of the same .These train of thoughts or queries are not exhaustive and complete .All others are encouraged to add further aspects for which they feel that clarification is required from the proponents of the socialist revolution

1) Will there be any change in the production process in the Socialist Stage and in the Capitalist mode
2) Will the pace of automation and Mechanisation increased in the Socialist stage
3)Will the intrest of the micro , small , medium
enterprises and the peasents with small land holdings be protected in the Socialist Stage .Or will the pace of proliterisation of the aforementioned group of people along with all those who are involved in self employment be accelerated in the socialist stage .
4) Will there be private ownership in the Socialist Stage
5) Will there be any change in the state machinery and its control in the Socialist stage and in Capitalism
6) The focus in the Socialist stage will be on the enhancement of production or will the thrust be in distribution and distributive justice
8)Will there be any change in the level of the individual worker, with respect to the working conditions and standard of living in the socialist stage and the Capitalism
9) What will be the intent of production in socialism ,will it be profit through exchage or will it be the production for use (In other words will commodity production hold sway in Socialist Stage)
10) Will the Percentage of population engaged in agriculture increase in the Socialist stage or will it get reduced
11) Will the pace of urbanisation increase in the socialist stage or will it get reduced .
12) Can the welfare policies that are implemented in the advanced nations (Scandinavia ,Canada typical examples) be part of the Socialist stage .In other words how the socialist state  differs from the welfare states of the aforementioned nations
13) Will labour intensive production techniques be promoted in socialism or will capital intensive production techniques be promoted

14) Will global rate of return on capital have any significance in the Socialist stage
15) The policy of taxing the rich and wealthy for helping the toiling masses be a policy paradigm in the socialist stage
16) What will be the primary focus of government expenditure in the socialist stage will it be on infrastructure build up like roads ,bridges ,rail network ,ports ,powerplants ,local and long distance transport networks or will it be on social sector spending like education , health care etc
17) Will there be tarifs and duties for trans national trade  in the socialist stage
18) Will there be restrictions on the investment from outside the geographical boundaries of the nation state in the socialist stage
19) Will there be freedom of religion during the socialist stage
20) Will the relationship between other nations based on moral ,ethical and ideological doctrine or will it be based on the economic interests (trade ,commerce , investment)of the people of the nation

21) What will be the extent to which the freedom of expression (including the freedom of press) will be permitted in the socialist stage

Anoop Nobert

Understanding fundamental of Marxism

Dear Naren,

You may not agree that classical political economy, is predominantly occupied only with the directly intended social effects of human actions connected with production and exchange. But if you see objectively, all around in public or private discourses issues are prices, wages, tariffs, investment policies, maritime rights, strategies for coalitions and domination in regions having natural resources and their exploitation, GDP and equitable distribution etc, all related directly or indirectly with production and distribution of goods and services. 

When one wants to judge someone or something correctly, one needs to be objective and keep his prejudices aside. If you want to study Marxism scientifically you need to pay attention to the idea being expressed irrespective of who is the person expressing the idea. Since Marxism is a philosophy to begin with and is termed as scientific world outlook by all those who have tried to understand it, I shall be using text and ideas of such people but without giving their names, lest prejudice for a name may affect your objectivity. You judge yourself whether the string of ideas fits into your scientific outlook or not. If we agree on an idea we accept it and move on. If we disagree on an idea we dissect it into smaller strings and follow the same rule of accepting if agreed, if not, further dissect and discuss in parts. 

There  is  no  royal  road  to  science,  and  only  those  who do not  dread the fatiguing  climb of  its  steep paths  have  a chance  of  gaining  its  luminous summits.

Just because it is a living philosophy with innumerable concrete applications, its full power and importance can only be gradually understood, when we see it applied to history, science, or whatever field of study interests us most. For this reason a reader whose concern lies primarily in the political or economic field will come back to his main interest a better dialectical materialist, and therefore a clearer-sighted politician or economist, after studying how Marx and Engels applied Dialectics to Nature.

If your interest does not lie in political field, don't try to understand Marxism through political discussions. Trie to understand how dialectics of nature apply to your field of interest and see whether you get better concurrence between your preconceptions and results of practice. May be you are following the Dialectical analysis without realising it. Need is to apply it consciously so that you become conversant with the dialects which will help you not only in correctly understanding Marxism, but also in getting better concurrence in not only in your field of interest but in every other field also.

Marx had a very open minded approach to everything which he expressed thus, ‘Every  opinion  based  on  scientific  criticism  I  welcome.  As  to  prejudices  of  so-called  public opinion,  to  which  I  have  never  made  concessions,  now  as  aforetime  the  maxim  of  the  great Florentine  is mine:   ―Segui  il  tuo corso,  e lascia  dir  le genti.‖   [Follow  your  own course, and let  people talk  –  paraphrased  from  Dante]’   

What makes living organisms different from non-living ones? Two basic characteristics, first the former take material from surroundings to preserve own body since birth till death and second they procreate their own replica before they die. Natural scientists agree that life evolved on earth from non living matter some 3.7 billion years ago as single cell organism and after a series of evolutionary process man evolved from ape some 3.5 million years ago. 

Hand in hand with the development of the brain went the development of its most immediate instruments - the sense organs. Just as the gradual development of speech is inevitably accompanied by a corresponding refinement of the organ of hearing, so the development of the brain as a whole is accompanied by a refinement of all the senses.

This further development did not reach its conclusion when man finally became distinct from the monkey, but, on the whole, continued to make powerful progress, varying in degree and direction among different peoples and at different times, and here and there even interrupted by a local or temporary regression. This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the one hand, and has been guided along more definite directions on the other hand, owing to a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, viz. society.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The production of life, both of one's own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship.  By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force”.

The  old  economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when  they  likened them  to the laws of  physics  and chemistry. A more thorough analysis  of  phenomena  shows  that  social  organisms differ  among themselves  as  fundamentally  as  plants or  animals.

When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers which -- consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often unconsciously -- lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation. To ascertain the driving causes which here in the minds of acting masses and their leaders -- to so-called great men -- are reflected as conscious motives, clearly or unclearly, directly or in an ideological, even glorified, form -- is the only path which can put us on the track of the laws holding sway both in history as a whole, and at particular periods and in particular lands. Everything which sets men in motion must go through their minds; but what form it will take in the mind will depend very much upon the circumstances.

With  the varying  degree  of  development  of  productive power, social  conditions  and  the  laws governing  them  vary  too. Whilst  Marx  sets himself the  task  of  following  and explaining  from  this point  of  view the  economic system established by  the  sway  of  capital, he  is  only  formulating, in a strictly  scientific manner, the  aim  that  every  accurate investigation  into  economic life must  have. The  scientific value of  such  an inquiry  lies in  the  disclosing  of  the special  laws that  regulate  the  origin, existence, development, death  of  a given social  organism and its  replacement  by  another  and higher  one.

The  value-form,  whose  fully  developed shape  is  the  money-form,  is  very  elementary  and  simple.  Nevertheless,  the  human  mind  has  for more  than  2,000  years  sought  in  vain  to  get  to  the  bottom  of  it  all,  whilst  on  the  other  hand,  to  the successful  analysis  of  much  more  composite  and  complex  forms,  there  has  been  at  least  an approximation.  Why?  Because  the  body,  as  an  organic  whole,  is  more  easy  of  study  [discernible because its size being within the capabilities of human senses] than  are  the cells  of  that  body.  In  the  analysis  of  economic  forms,  moreover,  neither  microscopes  nor chemical  reagents are of  use. The force of  abstraction  must  replace both. But  in bourgeois  society, the commodity-form  of  the product  of  labour  –  or  value-form  of  the commodity  –  is the economic cell-form.  To  the  superficial  observer,  the  analysis  of  these  forms  seems  to  turn  upon  minutiae.  It does  in  fact  deal  with  minutiae,  but  they  are  of  the  same  order  as  those  dealt  with  in  microscopic anatomy.

As  early  as  1871,  N.  Sieber,  Professor  of  Political Economy  in  the  University  of  Kiev,  in  his  work  ‘David  Ricardo‘s  Theory  of  Value  and  of Capital’,  referred  to  Marx’  theory  of  value,  of  money  and  of  capital,  as  in  its  fundamentals  a necessary  sequel  to  the  teaching  of  Smith  and  Ricardo. This is why I asked you to analyse and understand your self, ‘what is value’ before you embark upon understanding Marxism as political economy - the science of human society. And you must understand the Dialectical relationship between ‘being and consciousness’ before you embark upon understanding Marxism as Philosophy - the science of human thoughts and ideas.

Looking forward to your reaction

With warm regards

Suresh

20 March, 2019