Whither Left

Whither Left

What I gained from the seminar is not easily quantifiable and I am not attempting to make an audit of it. What is given here is my reflection on a thread of discussion initiated by Zizek, the living Patriarch of Marxism presently.

Whither Left, a seminar conducted by Kochi Life (8-9, Jan, 2010)brought a new lease of energy to the think tanks of the Marxist elites. Zizek, probably the latest scholar of the leftist bandwagon put on a garb of an activist rather than a scholar in the discussions although scholarship was not in wanting in the deliberations. Zizek’s plea was to return ad fontes of the pure Marxist theories.

The practicality of the argument was in doubt ever since the attempt to establish communism by a revolution of the proletariat. The government that emerged did not quiet establish communism but only oligarchy of the party heavyweights. These are the old criticisms that Catholic Church levelled against Marxism in Rerum Novarum. Marxian theory was not any way the beginning of communist experiments. It is the early Christianity which tried that experiment and miserably failed over the span of perhaps one year and one chapter. Ref. Acts of the Apostles Chapter 4 and 5. The failure has happened to early Church and the later theoretical Marxists equally.

Why this failure of communism? A few thoughts are in place while thinking of this failure.

Primarily, that the left do not take into account the human being in action and considers only the human being in thought. The human being in action is a particular person with a name, an identity and a certain place in the web of social relationships. Marxism is almost afraid to consider the individual in the particular identity and gives him the garb of a proletariat or capitalist, devoid of any particularities. This abstract man of the class could be killed or saved because the action is occult, literary and abstract. From the abstract, the particular is non sequitur, in this case especially. The annihilation of one class is achieved only by a particular person of the communist ideology hating a person of the capitalist mental frame. This hatred even if it is christened in Marxist or any other ideological registries will have the same psychological contends of enmity. This hatred should remain as a permanent state of mind until a classless society is established. Fortunately, the human kind tends to slip away from a permanent state of mind such as hatred and regret hating others unless one is a mentally deranged. Hatred, murder, blood and gory excite even a deranged mind only temporarily. Expecting to keep such derangement as permanent state of mind is perhaps a little short of derangement itself.

Secondly, Marxism has an unspecified assumption that there is an extremely bad humankind, which is the capitalist and another benevolent proletariat who, for the time being engages in violence, at the end of the revolution and establishment of the classless society, can turn out to be altruistic to the once capitalist. A theory based on such an unscientific assumption is to be read as a fiction or as theory? This still baffles me. Utopia does better than this theory in all counts.

But the final object of Marxism has a lasting value, an ideal. Capitalism has no ideology and works by the natural inclinations of the human kind. It promotes the welfare of the self and not of the neighbour. It is based on the biological drive for self preservation. What Marxism proposes is an epikeic philosophy of the Bible although its means are objectionable. One has to overcome the self-preservation drive to take care of the neighbour. In spite of all the Christian orthodoxy the gospel still remains largely unpracticed. Even so is Marxism.

Now what is wrong with the Marxists In India?

The distance between the theory and praxis is at the centre of its failure. At this juncture of rethinking Marxism the analysis should focus on the praxis and not theory. Unfortunately, Zizek has gone the theoretical way. The return to the theory will again nullify the value of experience. The experience of applied communism was not available to Marx. Now, when it is available, that experience should dialogue with the theoretical Marxism, to make itself relevant. The experience of Marxism is different in India and Russia or elsewhere and therefore theorisation should be qualified by the area of its practice. The need for this qualified regional perspective of Marxism cannot be overemphasised. As an example the praxis of Marxism in India could be taken into consideration.

The radical ideology of Marxism, in India’s case, slipped into the framework of Democracy. Marxist parties have been ideology-lead political movements which provided alternatives for the capitalist parties in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura. But Marxism failed in identifying the right capitalist and directed the hatred to the middle and lower class peasants. In the experience of Kerala, having the labour force turned against its own class whose surplus profit is only the owner’s unaccounted labour, the petty farmers found it totally unprofitable to maintain their self-reliant agricultural processes. Thus when agriculture became unprofitable the petty farmers laid their land unutilised which the real capitalist grabbed later. By the time the party heavyweights who had argued for overthrowing the capitalist, mellowed down their theoretical orthodoxy and colluded with the neo capitalists forcing the petty farmers to run away from their land or to other ways of sustenance. Most of them having found a job outside Kerala and in many cases outside India, this class of the petty farmers manage to live a decent life. But the fall out of this unreflected Marxism is the conversion of the agricultural land into other purposes making the state largely depend on other states for food grains.

If communism is harping on rejuvenation at the global financial crisis on the basis of its near-victory during the depression in 1930ies, it is playing the wrong fiddle. Marxism is still not reflecting and theorising on the ground realities of its existence. This refusal to dialogue with the ground realities is making it more and more fossilised in the academic circles. If China has introduced theoretical Marxism in its curriculum, I am afraid communism is slowly migrating to universities absolutely insulated from praxis. Its total fall is not distant now.

Jijo K.P.

A curious crib

something interesting happened during this Christmas. I was invited to judge the Crib competition in a newly created parish, Panthackal, Mother Teresa Church. There were six of them registered for the competition. Two were grand creations, others were ordinary. There was one crib that I liked for the novelty it presented. The other judge seemed to be highly puritanistic and did not like this one I am talking about.

This one had interestingly two birth narratives. One in a manger and another in the middle of a concrete jungle. Jesus as an abandoned baby. The crib had been divided into two parts. One which did not have electricity and used only lamps for the light. I saw the boy lighting the torch at the entrance of this crib which had some likeness of Bethlehem. The other side was well lit with proper roads and well laid out lawns. The older Bethlehem had a little manger for Jesus with Mary, Joseph and the shepherds with the animals around. In the modern Bethlehem Jesus was an abandoned child in the middle of a lawn, no people not even animals around. In the background a posh hospital is made in a thermo coal replica. A star was found precariously suspended between the two birth narratives.

This crib had a lot of work done in the mind and others with the body. Somehow I left the crib with thoughts of Christmas that would have been, in streets of the cities, in the garbage pits and on the operation tables for abortion and many more nameless places where children are abandoned or killed before they are born.

Our Christmas has lost its content.......

The Biblical Binaries

mmmm Derrida is not my favourite philosopher. But for the joy of using his notorious binaries in reading the Bible I start using Derrida. I do not like Derrida not because of his obfuscation techniques in writing but because of his arrongance in the claim that deconstructing linguistic binaries is equal to deconstructing material boundaries. Inspite of all that Derrida said has anyone been able to look at the darkness and light as unitaries and not binaries? Has anyone been able to privilege night over day? sleep over work?

Another of his claims goes against common sense. Well he has no respect for common sense but only for the convoluted arguments that create ordinary understanding foolish. The master of deconstructing structures creates his own structres!!!! Well that claim was over speech and writing. Speech is privileged in theories because of presence!!!!!! what could be more wrong than this preliminary assumption of his? Speech is not privileged over writing but it is prior to writing historically. His claim is something like saying a typewriter is privileged over computer because the computer still uses the typewriter key pads. The type writer has no privilege than being prior to computer.

Well my intention is not to critique Derrida but to begin with that Biblical Analysis. The book of Genesis the first unwritten binary is about chaos/cosmos. When God began his creation ex nihilo or otherwise earth and heavens were in chaos. Creation was an act of cosmos..order. The second binary I already referred to the heavens and the earth. We find these binaries running into land and sea, light and darkness, day and night, living and non-living....The whole creation looks like a a process of creating boundaries of the binaries. Somehow recognizing binaries seem to be an important task in creation.

In many cases, the boundaries of the binaries are not clear. Perhaps night and day form one continuum that one cannot easily separate the boundaries. Sea and land... they have demarcations very clear. It is but important to recognize these oppositions, if not their boundaries to live life meaningfully. God emerges not like the fox to drink the blood of the warring binaries but as the master of these binaries. Creativity emerges in the interaction of these binaries. If everything were to be light would you see the beauty of the evening and the morning. If everyone is male species would you hear the laughter of a child? If all colours were to be white would you see the colours of the rainbow?

Beauty emerges in the interaction of the binaries..... God oversees the intermingling of the binaries.....

Happy New Year Why Not Get Vulnerable This Year?

It is a long time since the last blog. I am starting afresh in 2010. Last year did give a lot of joyful moments in life. I love sometime to stick to little little joys of every day life, not bothering about what happens to people around the world. In fact a lot of people do not care as to what happens around the world. This indifference is seen in the lack of exercising the voter's rights, not joining in the events of the neighborhood, not bothering about a friend who suffers and to the level of scuttling Copenhagen summits.

What is the New Year message? How about beecoming vulnerable. I know this is some freaky psychology. But there are things to learn from becoming vulnerable. I have personally tried to fortify myself from situations that will harm me. The easiest response to vulnerability is to run away. The next best is not to bother. The toughest is to go through the ordeal. I am not advocating that people should run into troubles or create troubles to get hurt. What I intend is that we should get involved in the joys and problems of others. A certain vulnerability is required to see injustice. A certain training should be given to ourselves to respond to situations of injustice, to act against violence.

Unless one becomes vulnerable to injustices, one grows with it and sometimes become part of the system like the creatures in the Pirates of the Caribbean. Injustice is highly subjective. Arguing about it with the philosophers will almost make you immobile to act in favour or against anyone. What I propose is that we develop a sense to fight against the act of injustice and not people. When injustice is associated to people counter violence and injustice will occur. What we need is a sense to feel the violence and injustice and not get used to them.

When people die as a result of violence most of us are numb not knowing how to react. There are always people who are close to the perpetrators of violence who refuse to speak even if they disagree with the violence. A support system among people should be created that fear is annihilated from persons who should refuse and give in to violence.

Perhaps violence happens in different ways next door. Only if we develop a sense to recognize them will we act about it. People of good will should gather to protect the victims of violence. The government agencies must be kept under the watch by the people of good will.

A non-violent way of responding to injustice was seen in the Pink Chuddy Movement. Ishant Shah was talking about such digital activism as a powerful popular movement. We found mobilisation large number of people on an issue through internet.

However, all popular movements are not targeted towards reduction of violence. One of such was found for 9/11 or 26/11. Some people decided to wear whites in comemoration of the tragedy. They became more a fashion parade and at best sympathy to the victims but not an act of defiance to violence.

People who enter into such resistance movements burn their fingers. The network is to protect such finger burning. I remember a much acclaimed poem called 'goggles' by Murukan Kattakkada. He laments that all of us have a cataract that we are not able to see well. We all need goggles. He says, once someone used goggles and he was stoned and crucified. Another man wore goggles and he was slapped and shot dead. Well we need not burn our fingers if we network.

So get vulnerable for the New Year. A Happy New Year to all