From: debchat@vax2.concordia.ca (DEB CHATTERJEE)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Marxism and Communist parties in India (# 1).
Keywords: Karl Marx, Freddie Engels, Kant, Hegel, Lenin, Stalin.
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:49:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Hello Netters:

  Many times I have wondered how Marxism could ever come to existence ! Was
 such a `theory' at all necessary ? How did Dr.Karl Marx conceive such a crazy
 idea ? What is the theoretical basis of such things ? How communists in India
 view Marxism ? The most important question: what if Marxism is proven to be
 a total garbage ? What if an alternative path (say X) could exist and confront
 the issues Marxists consider important, with a better approach ????? IMHO, I
 have felt that Communism is totally inappropriate in India - why ????? I will
 attempt to present my views, derived out my misfortune of living under the
 CPI(M) rule in West Bengal, and, my knowledge is limited within the territorial
 borders of my homeland India. 

- deb chatterjee
(a good samaritan)

P.S: If you have questions, please reply only thru' SCI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                         A Glimpse of Marxism
                        ======================

  The necessity of Communism seems to have originated from the fedual system
 that existed in the 16-17th century Europe. However, economists like Adam Smith
 and logicians like John Locke are the forerunners of Dr.Marx. The industrial
 revolution in Europe and the subsequent formation of the working class and 
 their rights concerned the bearded Karl Marx. The noble philosopher was a very
 prolific reader - as he had nothing better to do while in exile in England. The
 guy had read Thomas Moore's " Utopia " in detail. Then this fellow had a sudden
 vision: how can one form a `classless' society like the one Thomas Moore had
 described ? The formation of a classless society, as Marx sought to do, had the
 major objective in ending the economic strife of the then working class society
                                                      ==========================
 in Europe. (This working class definition is NO LONGER VALID TODAY.) Instead of
 =========  
 raising revolt against the social conditions at that time, trying to do 
 something more worthwhile, Marx (who was a total `gone case' - IMHO, suffered
 from gastro-intestinal problems) set out to propose a theory that will change
 the social structure. (THIS WAS A MAJOR FLAW!) Marx dreamt of a society that
     ================ 
 will eradicate the difference once for all between two humans. However, he
 realized that this is quite a arduous task, because he then will have to make
 a `discovery' of a class of natural laws that are anti-Evolution. This was the
 major hurdle, as changing the society meant a radical formulation of laws by
 blindly rejecting the existing ones. (Grapevine has that Marx one day went out
 to buy some cigars; the shopkeeper saw an angry-looking bearded man, and, could
 not recognize that this guy had a Ph.D ! He thought that Marx was a goon and
 threatned to report to the police ! However, Marx escaped the wrath of the
 shopkeeper, and, vowed to do something about it. He kept his promise.) Anyway,
 Marx read the work of Hegel and Kant. He could see some light! The two 
 philosophers (Kant and Hegel) belonged to the Age of Reason. 

 The Age of Reason in Europe began with Descartes and was risen to its height 
 with the pioneering work of Sir Isaac Newton. The age of reason made the major
 proposition, that everything in this world is governed by some laws which are
 ENTIRELY DETERMINISTIC in form. NOTHING can happen as " a stroke of Chance ".
 Chance was calculable. Pascal had introduced the science of probability, and,
 obviously the French gamblers took interest in that method - causing it to 
 develop. The deterministic nature of natural science, i.e, gravitation, optics,
 thermodynamics, electricity and magnetism, chemistry, biology showed that a
 whole slew of laws in Nature were deterministic. Everything went in a precise
 manner. The proponents of such a theory also postulated that since Nature was
 precise, humans, being a part of nature, must be governed by a whole set of
 laws that WILL ALSO BE DETERMINISTIC. Finding such a set of laws was the core
 of the problem. Many people gave up hope - till Dr.Kant came in.

 Dr.Kant, rejected any phenomena that in today's physics is known as "chaos". He
 observed that `mostof the phenomena' were predictable by what is called as
 " linear physics " - linear d.e. He implicitly made the conclusion that all 
 such phenomena were manifestations of the " cause and effect " relationship -
 in a LINEAR way. (This again depended on the physics of his time.) To that end,
 Kant put forward his arguments concerning philosophy/ metaphysics in his famous
 book: Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason). He makes
 theoretical conclusions about human behavior based on translations of physical
 laws into metaphysics. However unreadable that book by Kant may be, Kant can be
 considered honest since he accepts Divinity. He accepts human fate - something
 that Bertrand Russell also considered true. (Please go thru' Kant's book - it
 will be a test of your patience !!!!!). 

  Karl Marx found Kant's theory acceptable, but, since Kant had accepted the
 moral existence of God, the beards of Marx were all going to fall off !!!! (He
 would be deprived of the pleasure of plucking them off selectively when he was
 in an intellectual crisis.) Now he was in an identity crisis !!! What could he
 do ? Upon reading the treatise by Freddie Engels " Dialectics of Nature ", Marx
 was relieved. He could be free from mortal " danger " for some time !!! Now,
 what is dialectics ???? 

 Just as Newton's 2nd law, F=ma (constant mass), expresses quantitatively the
 cause and effect relation in particle dynamics, so, dialectics seeks to get a
 one-to-one relation between the effect(s) and its cause(s). Stated in a loose
                                                                         -----
 manner an effect Ef is expressed as:
 -----

   Ef=f(cause1,cause2, ......, cause n) - perhaps with an appropriate inverse.

 However the functional form is ASSUMED to be explicit. Such relations had been
 assumed and it meant that all HUMAN behavior were expressible as precise
 alternatives to the Divine Order. Marx argued, based on Engels' postulates that
 God did not exist. If he did, then he is too old and is dead. (I would suggest
 reading the book by Engels; look for the one edited by J.B.S Haldane.) In too
 short summary as this one, it is impossible to describe the principles of
 dialectic materialism. There are two kinds of materialism: historic and the
 dialectic. The process of argument in Engels philosophy runs thus: 

       thesis <==> anthesis ---> synthesis.

 This is a linear mode of argument - that ignores the " probablistic concept "
 in nature. Engels in his book, rejects all occult sciences, and, makes too
 superficial observations. I feel that he was a sick case. Engels is quite
 harsh upon people who believe that there could be deviants to his postulates -
 a typical characteristic of present-day Marxists. (I really wonder what that
 German (Engels) would have said about Sir Oliver Lodge's researches into the
 communication with the dead (necromancy) - i.e his son who died in the Boer
 war ??? Would Engels be able to apply his angry conjectures ?????? Sir Lodge
 was one of the foremost of electromagnetic wave propagation experts along with
 Heinrich Hertz. Thus, he was no fool. I am not advocating to abandon all reason
 and blindly follow occult science and religious strictures.) However the most
 arrogant nature of Engels shows that he is basically a fool of the highest
 order. (The only one who could match him in ignorance was Marx.) Marx knew that
 there existed many phenomena which were basically beyond his conception. But in
 order to satisfy his own ulterior motives, trying to create a " New World Order
 ", along the lines of the essay/ novel Utopia, Marx collaborated with Engels to
 write up "something" new. Marx is hypocrite at this point. He does not admit
 his own limitations. Marx is also not a person of literary talent. He keeps
 hammering the same idea over and over again - without any finesse. The whole
 content in his work is so goddamn boring (Das Kapital, I,II,III) in style, that
 one sees he has really indigested the whole economic theory as of his time.
 Nevertheless, Marx and Engels (godless imps !) contended that human beings,
 in order to be a member of a egalitarian society, must be viewed as a component
 of the dictates of a societal norms, that he and Engels set forth.

 (It is rumored that he re-read his thesis many times and then found out a lot
 of `holes'. Just imagine submitting a paper to J. of Applied Physics, and, then
 finding many fundamental mistakes ! In those days no peer review was there for
 Dr.Marx. To cover up his mistakes/ holes Marx declared in Communist Manifesto
 that existence conditions for such a society was totally utopian ! What a jerk!
 Thus one finds Communist Manifesto being revised many times.)

  Coming back to our original discussion, KarL Marx and Freddie Engels coined
 the word: " Dictatorship of the Proletariat ". The conditions under which the
 Proletariat comes to dictate have been, in the most nebulous manner, described
 by Marx and Engels. However, these two godless guys must be absolved of the 
 sins of killing people. They did not propose the Killing Machine - which is
 synomymous with Communism. That brilliant piece of "bloddy" work was drafted
 by Vlamidir Ignovich Lenin and his colleague Josef Stalin in the early part of
 this century in U.S.S.R.

  The two, politically ambitious Soviet persons were bloodthirsty hounds. (One 
 may not recognize the horrors of Communism by seeing "Dr.Zhivago" - David Lean.
 ) Lenin and Stalin, found that to overthrow Czar, they need to reconcile that
 there must be a philosophy which can provide a solid basis for taking arms. To
 that end, they found Karl Marx's theory along with his friend Freddie Engels
 very useful. So, Marx and Engels were imported to the Soviet Union. Marxism had
 taken its sadistic roots there. Stalin and Lenin (the latter to a lesser extent
 of course) found that it would be impossible to realize the conditions under
 which a Marxist society would exist if everybody were given democratic rights.
 Thus, the formation of the Soviet Union was done based on a set of behavorial
 rules, for its inhabitans wwere cloned as Marxist robots - which are more aptly
 realized as DARL (Developed Automated Robotic Lifeforms) systems. The Marxist
                   =         =         =       =  
 determinism predicted that citizens must be FORCED to accept the laws of the
 State, because otherwise the State is the supreme. The order of the Divinity
 was negated and all thoughts pertaining to the analysis of matter in a
 non-Marxist way was denied existence. (In fact Stephen Hawking and Roger
 Penrose - who worked on the mathematical theory of Big Bang, were denied any
 credit by the Soviet Union; this was because the " mathematics " of Hawking and
 Penrose showed that the Universe must have a begining and an end. They also
 interpreted their results (philosophically elsewhere (*)), to look up to the
 existence of the Almighty ! This was clearly in contradiction with the stupid
 Marxist theory - based on determinism. (*) [See: A Brief History of Time - 
 Stephen W.Hawking, London 1989]. (More bloody issues, outcomes of Leninist and
 Stalinist mode of interpretation of Marx's theory and consequences, will be
 discussed later in part 2 of this topic). Killer Stalin had personally killed
 many people of progressive minds during his regime. (Stalin daughter was in
 Canada - obviously where else - but I don't know what happened to her !!!).
 The slaughterhouse rationalized by Josef Stalin actually escalated all the
 arms deals in the mid-60's till destruction of missiles in the Bush era. (Bush
 must remember that that goddamn killer is very angry at him !!!! Astrologers 
 have predicted that the ghost of Stalin will visit the White House to have a 
 sip at the cup of tea, that must be prepared by Barbara Bush, and, discuss some
 matters of strategic importance, on the Halloween Day ! We'll wait till that 
 day comes ! What d'ya say folks ????)

 Now let's examine what was wrong with Marx's theory at least in a cavalier
 manner. 

 Marx's theory of social justice (Socialism), if implemented, rests on the
 basic fact that all men are equal. This basically denies all attributes of
 a human being. (Grapevine has that Marx was tempted to equate humans to a
 donkey, but, then he found that he was also a member of the human race, and,
 subsequently forgot what to write - as he was intoxicated.) For the basic
 postulate to work (as above), one must remember that no external changes must
 influence the Utopian society. In a progressive world how can this be possible?
 Marx and Engels both knew that answer, but, did not explicitly write it. The
 basic problem with which Marx started his work, is acceptable: suffering of
 the working class. But it's solution DOES NOT lie in the formation of an
 Utopian classless society. Instead of trying to solve what is necessary, Marx
 attempted to solve a whole slew of problems - by suggesting a set of rules that
 are basically retrogressive in nature. 

 The theory of dialectics of Kant, Hegel and Engels has a major flaw. Since, it
 rests on Newtonian physics, and ONLY that, progress of science has not affected
 the philosophy and as such it is basically archaic. Thus to claim that such a
 set of logical principles can solve most problems (as Marxists say) is most
 stupid and not acceptable. In fact it can solve problems ONLY where the changes
 in a society are very very small. Moreover with the advent of quantum mechanics
 the Marxist theory stands out naked in broad daylight. The once " infalliable "
 principle of determinsim is basically false as matter and energy (and thus
 Nature) have probabilistic counterparts. (Recall the Hisenberg's uncertainity
 and Louis de Broglie's duality prionciple in quantum/ wave mechanics from the
 book: Quantum Mechanics - L.I.Schiff). The metaphysical interpretation of such
 laws, as is obvious, begets the foolishly retained Marxist determinism by 
 adherents of Josef Stalin. To illustrate more, one need consider a very simple
 example from elementary expansion for e^(-x). 

  The function e^(-x) asymptotically touches the x-axis for x --> 0\0 (infty).
 Now, there exists several convergent (Taylor) series expansions for e^(-x).
 But they are only good approximations to e^(-x) for A FIXED VALUE OF x; beyond
 that value, the approximation ceases to be accurate. Thus, in the same light,
 Marx SHOULD HAVE REALIZED that his theories have limited validity. A good 
 scientist/ philosopher always points out his limitations. Marx did not do so.
 He chose to escape all accussations by saying: realization is " utopian ". 
 IMHO, THIS IS SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH ! IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT MARX IS A DISHONEST
 PERSON. Hegelian dialectics (written before the time of A.L.Cauchy) is simply
 devoid of the idea of analytic continuation. Kant is also ignorant of such an
 idea, although Bernhard Riemann seems to know this. Analytic continuation of
 a function defined by a contour integral permits its several approximations,
 as shown by Bernhard Riemann for hypergeometric function. Since Kant, Hegel 
 and Engels were stupid and pretentious, they chose or did not know about this
 fantastic concept. This concept, if interpreted dialectically, would lead to
 more wisdom: any man-made law has simply restricted range of validity and thus
 CANNOT be universal. These, in very brief, were flaws of the three jokers. In
 addition Engels is more responsible for negating the existence of Divinity as
 was accepted by Kant.

 The serious consequences of such a faulty theory will be discussed in Part 2. 

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> END OF PART 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<