The activities carried out under the guise of Marxism in our society are baffling
In the modern economy, it is impossible to neatly classify individuals as either workers selling their labor or capitalists owning assets. A person can simultaneously be a worker and an owner or shift roles at different stages of life. Furthermore, Marx’s analysis fails to address the cultural, social, political, psychological, and other dimensions of human life beyond economics.
After witnessing the disconnect between the ideologies she advocated and the practices executed in its name, Karl Marx's youngest daughter, Eleanor Marx, decided to end her life. This tragic incident occurred in 1898. Frustrated by the hollowness in her relationships with her father, Karl Marx, his friend Friedrich Engels, her partner (not husband) Edward Aveling, other party comrades, and the laboring masses, she consumed poison at the age of 43.
Eleanor, known for her brilliance, talent, creativity, resilience, and sharp intellect, regarded herself as a dedicated advocate for the proletariat. Her tragic story of contradiction still resonates today. Modern Marxist advocates may not experience Eleanor's extreme despair, but they also struggle with the dissonance between Marx's ideals and the political activities conducted worldwide in his name, which are far from admirable.
How long will this paradox persist?
The activities carried out under the guise of Marxism in our society are baffling. The so-called communists present this as the supreme version of socialism. It is evident that socialism fails to address today’s issues, yet its trade continues unabated.
The manner in which socialism is marketed in Nepal’s electoral sphere may be unmatched elsewhere. The behaviour of political parties, particularly the Communist Party, and their leaders has little to do with Marxism. Yet, these parties market Marxism effectively, finding a willing audience. At first glance, this seems like deceit or fraud. But it isn’t. When both buyer and seller know the nature of the trade, it cannot be considered fraud. The parties know their ideology is not Marxism, and the voters understand this too.
On April 28, 2024, during the inauguration of the 'Nepal Investment Summit,' Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal identified himself as a proponent of liberal economic policies. He said, “Our unwavering commitment to liberal economic policies forms the foundation of a thriving and investor-friendly business environment.”
Although such speeches won’t attract foreign investment, adhering to the phrase “words are cheap,” he expressed these views. It didn’t matter that he was the chair of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) or that the constitution, achieved through the armed political campaign he led with around 17,000 lives lost, outlined a "socialist-oriented economy." He likely avoided mentioning socialism to prevent alienating foreign investors.
He did not expound on his party’s ideal—political systems with proletariat dictatorship, where means of production, such as land, labor, and capital, are collectively owned by the people, as Marx envisioned. Our clever prime minister wouldn’t make such mistakes.
The largest Communist Party, UML, takes an entirely different tone. Its leader, KP Sharma Oli, famously claimed on July 13, 2020, that Ram's birthplace lies slightly west of Birgunj in Thori. The events following this claim were even more amusing.
Following KP Sharma Oli's claim, nearly a year later, on the occasion of Ram Navami, idols of Ram, Sita, Lakshman, and Hanuman were installed in Ayodhyapuri Temple in Madi Municipality, Chitwan. First, these life-sized idols were specially worshipped at the Prime Minister's residence in Baluwatar. Then, after rituals and chanting at Pashupatinath Temple, a chariot procession commenced from Kathmandu, reaching Devghat in the evening.
Reminiscent of the chariot procession led by India’s staunch right-wing leader L.K. Advani, this "Shree Sita Ram Sobha Rath Yatra," led by the then Minister for Culture, Tourism, and Civil Aviation, Bhanu Bhakta Dhakal, reached Devghat. Here, the idols were bathed in the Gandaki River, worshipped, and ceremoniously dispatched to Madi by the Devghat Area Development Committee.
The fear of the COVID-19 pandemic was still prevalent. Thousands, including provincial heads, chief ministers, ministers, and MPs, participated in the event in Madi. Amidst chants of "Glory to Ram and Sita," Minister Dhakal claimed there was ample evidence proving Ram’s birth in Madi’s Ayodhyapuri and promised to build further physical infrastructure under a master plan.
These activities hardly align with Marxism that claims to stand on the foundation of dialectical materialism. However, observing the potential of religious nationalism as a lucrative market, it is clear that despite displaying Karl Marx’s name on their banners, the UML has leaned heavily toward such practices.
The Red Alert
KP Sharma Oli is the same individual who, on February 15, 2018, during his swearing-in as Prime Minister, refused to utter the word “God.” At the time, he took the oath of office in the name of "the people."
Across the globe, Marxist, socialist, nationalist, communist, and fascist parties, along with other collectivist ideologies, must dance to the tunes of popular appeal. This is because these ideologies cannot adequately identify, understand, or address the genuine challenges modern societies face. As a result, they continuously capitalize on trending agendas that resonate with the masses.
This trend was initiated by Marx himself. Supporters deify Marx. They consider him an unparalleled philosopher, a pioneering sociologist, an outstanding economist, a master politician, and an exceptional historian. They refuse to limit Marx to just another thinker among many. For them, his conclusions are beyond reproach.
Like the hymns of the Vedas or the great sayings of the Upanishads, many devotees follow Marx’s “great sayings” blindly, without the capacity or time to understand their underlying meanings. Repeating these sayings creates a cacophony that often overshadows the core issues.
One example lies in the field of philosophy. Marx once declared, “Hegel’s analyses were correct, but I stood them on their feet since they were originally standing on their head.”
Devotees chant this self-congratulatory statement like a mantra. Few attempt to understand who Hegel was, what his analysis entailed, how it was allegedly "upside down," and how Marx claimed to have corrected it.
To simplify: humans have long pondered questions like, “Who am I? What is my purpose? What is my relevance? What is happening around me, and why?” At least since the later stages of the nomadic era, such thinking had evolved.
All human civilizations have traditions of reasoning and debate. In discussions about creation, human existence, its relevance, and causality, Eastern traditions often emphasized invisible metaphysical elements, while Western traditions leaned toward tangible, physical ones.
In this continuum of thought, German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) used a dialectical method to assert that human consciousness determines one’s condition. Marx, on the other hand, argued that society is driven by the conflict of economic forces. Thus, Marx’s conclusion was termed dialectical materialism, whereas Hegel’s was called dialectical idealism.
Marx also introduced the concept of class struggle. In this context, his famous declaration is often quoted: “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to win!” This statement is from the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Friedrich Engels. The manifesto called for uprooting the capitalist system. The rationale behind this call was the division of society into two classes: the exploiting capitalists (bourgeoisie) and the exploited workers (proletariat). Even basic reasoning would expose this division as overly simplistic and factually inaccurate.
Even during Marx’s time, critics argued against this binary division. They contended that, rather than two groups, society was more accurately divided into three: a small, wealthy elite, an impoverished base, and a vast middle class in between. But Marx stubbornly clung to his division and later claimed that the middle class would eventually descend into the proletariat. His followers carried this belief forward.
Today, economists suggest there are six economic classes rather than two or three: the ultra-rich, rich, upper middle class, lower middle class, poor, and extremely poor. This broader classification, based on wealth, income, and consumption, seems more practical. Some economists even argue that economic classes should be divided into countless categories for precision.
Additionally, in the modern economy, it is impossible to neatly classify individuals as either workers selling their labor or capitalists owning assets. A person can simultaneously be a worker and an owner or shift roles at different stages of life. Furthermore, Marx’s analysis fails to address the cultural, social, political, psychological, and other dimensions of human life beyond economics.
How effective can it be to understand society's challenges solely through such rigid economic classifications?
We can only imagine.
New issues have emerged in society: racial discrimination, caste-based discrimination, gender inequality, economic disparities, rights of sexual minorities, rights of religious minorities, rights of people with disabilities, child rights, senior citizen rights, animal rights, environmental rights, and more.
Can solutions to these problems be found within the bourgeoisie-proletariat division?
Revolutionary Marxist analysis often fails to address such issues appropriately or lead toward solutions. Instead, it complicates and exacerbates these problems. Marx’s followers consider him a great economist. They repeatedly echo his famous statement that “capitalism digs its own grave.”
Marx based this claim on his surplus value theory, arguing that the capitalist system cannot sustain itself indefinitely. However, his followers mistakenly credit the surplus value theory to Marx as his invention, which is incorrect.
The discussion about how to determine the value of goods has existed in both Western and Eastern traditions since ancient times. In the West, Greek and Roman philosophers provided their perspectives on production and value determination. Similarly, in the East, thinkers like Shukra, Brihaspati, Yajnavalkya, and Kautilya presented their arguments regarding value determination.
In the mid-18th century, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith systematically discussed the means of production (land, labor, and capital) and the determination of the value of goods. Concepts like intrinsic value, cost value, fair value, and exchange value were not new. After reviewing these various notions, Smith concluded that labor is the real measure of exchange value for all goods.
Smith, often referred to as the father of capitalism, elaborated on this in his book ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’. The first chapter discusses labor division and specialization, while the fifth explores the concepts of cost and exchange value. Smith argued that since labor is the fundamental element of all wealth creation, the total sum of wages should represent the wealth of a nation. Therefore, he proposed increasing productivity through labor division and specialization. However, Smith’s analysis of value determination was not deemed complete. Shortly after, economist David Ricardo introduced the theory of comparative cost, linking the value of goods to international trade and market dynamics.
Both Smith and Ricardo’s theories were merely their interpretations. In practice, the cost of labor alone does not determine the value of goods. Numerous economists have since demonstrated that such analyses fail in the modern world.
Marx, however, firmly declared that value is determined solely by labor. He argued: “The amount of labor that goes into producing a good determines its value. However, the capitalist pays the worker less than this amount.”
For instance, if the production cost of a product is 500 currency units, the capitalist might pay the worker only 200 and keep 300 as profit. Here, the 300 currency units represent the surplus value of the product—the sole source of the capitalist’s profit. By underpaying workers, the capitalist increases their profit. Thus, Marx concluded that this unjust system could not endure indefinitely.
Using this surplus value theory as a foundation, Marx predicted that capitalism would collapse due to its internal contradictions, as production, exchange, consumption, savings, investment, and reproduction could not harmonize. While his prediction of capitalism's demise seemed grandiose, the foundation—the surplus value theory—was deeply flawed.
Marx’s followers often regard his ideas as ground breaking. For those unfamiliar with the history of thought, it might seem natural to assume this. However, what they fail to realize is that if all other thinkers besides Marx were dismissed, Marxism itself would become baseless and incomplete.
Concepts like dialectical materialism, class struggle, collectivism, labor value theory, and theories of social development neither began nor ended with Marx. Marx himself built upon and critiqued the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries to reach his conclusions.
In this process, The Communist Manifesto employs dramatic imagery. These images sometimes terrify young readers, sometimes exhilarate them, sometimes inspire hope, and sometimes cause despair. However, in most cases, they take readers far from ground realities. The manifesto reads more like the plot of a thriller film.
The text also extensively uses cunning linguistic devices, which have misled large numbers of people for significant periods. For instance, Marx simultaneously advocated increasing production to feed the hungry while dismissing labor division and specialization—a means to enhance productivity—as a bourgeois conspiracy.
This supposed conspiracy was called "alienation."
According to this theory, workers are estranged from the goods they produce, their labor, and their co-workers. This alienation reduces them to impersonal, detached, inert, and soulless entities. To the worker, existence itself becomes meaningless.
While bourgeois society claims individuals are free, capitalism creates a structure where one cannot do anything other than what the capitalist prescribes. The Communist Manifesto portrays this capitalist society as a return to the slavery of the feudal era, depicting a horrifying dystopia.
Marx simultaneously believed in atomism—the idea that the universe is composed of immutable atoms—and in perpetual conflict between opposing forces leading to inevitable change. Based on this belief, he formulated the law of historical materialism, claiming that society must follow a predetermined path.
According to Marx, this path leads from primitive communism to feudalism, then capitalism, socialism, and finally communism. In other words, the eternal law of dialectical materialism concludes with communism. Marx’s deterministic view, akin to the fatalism of ancient traditions, gained widespread acceptance. According to him, any depiction of society that deviates from this sequence results from “false consciousness.”
However, living entities are rarely static. Except for rare exceptions, human behavior is purpose-driven. While human character and behavior are generally predictable, they cannot be entirely forecasted with absolute certainty. This unpredictability can lead to unexpected outcomes—a possibility Marxists tend to ignore.
In summary, Marx successfully misled himself and a significant portion of the world’s population in the 20th century. However, Marx was not alone. Other socialists, too, became obstacles to human societal development. Even in The Communist Manifesto, Marx identifies five types of socialists. Since then, numerous individuals claiming the socialist label have emerged.
In India, socialism hindered progress for more than half a century; in China, for 30 years. In Nepal, nearly all political parties strive to present themselves as true socialists. However, whether genuine or counterfeit, socialism is not the best option for human development. The sooner we free ourselves from the illusion of socialism, the sooner we can embark on a path of progress.
In our society, there is no deep tradition of thoughtful discussion, understanding, and arriving at conclusions. When engaging in discussions, they must be based on solid facts and robust ideas. We need to learn what the world has thought, said, and done about a given topic.
If we succeed in doing this, we will soon rid ourselves of socialism. We won’t have to endure the extreme despair faced by Eleanor, Karl Marx's youngest daughter.
_20210926115209.jpg)
