Marxists: Victims of the Semitic fallacy
By M.S.N. Menon
RELIGIONS can turn some men into beasts. Marxism is a religion. It has turned many men into beasts—Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to mention a few.
Karl Marx was a Jew. He was Jewish in his inflexible views, Jewish in his hatred of the bourgeoisie and Jewish in his uncompromising character. In short, he was truly in the Semitic tradition.
Like his rabbi ancestors, says Northcote Parkinson, Marx saw the world as a place of conflict between good and evil, between labour and capital, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Thus, Marx did it all over again—he divided mankind into two enemy camps, just as Christianity and Islam had done before. Result? The Second World War and the Cold War.
Semitic religions are said to be revealed. By how many gods—one, two or three—we do not know. The holy books speak in contradictory voices. One speaks in favour of non-violence, another in favour of violence. But each is declared to be true and infallible. How? Because, they say, the books were divinely inspired. This is the Semitic fallacy. And Marxism is a victim of this fallacy. It too was claimed to be infallible by its followers.
In contrast, Hinduism is a quest for truth. It has complete freedom of enquiry. Hindus do not believe in the ‘infallibility’ of any doctrine or in the ‘last words’ or in the ‘last prophet’.
If the communist movement failed to attract even ten per cent of the Indian population, one can well understand. The poor refused to put their trust in its promises. What is more, Marxism was a product of European experience. It need not be relevant to us.
Indian could have highlighted the ethical part of Marxism and rejected its violence. But Indian communists were small men—Lilliputs. They could not have asserted their views. They had no idea that Marxism belonged to the Semitic tradition, utterly alien to the Hindu ethos.
The communist movement naturally failed to attract the best men from among the Hindus (not one communist came up to the stature of a Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Gandhi or Nehru). Why? Because Marxism with its emphasis on violence was utterly alien to the Indian ethos. What was more, India had seen the calamitous result of the mindless violence of the Muslims for six long centuries in India. And how could the Hindus have accepted a faith that sought to split their ranks, when they were face to face with a new hostile force—imperialism?
Having rejected the past of India as ‘mumbo-jumbo’, the Indian communists ceased to be Indians. But did they take roots in European civilisation? They did not. They dismissed it as ‘bourgeois filth’. So, the Indian communist was and is a rootless creature, who pretends to be a world citizen.
They admit today that they committed great ‘blunders’. But that is what Christianity too admits—that it had committed many great blunders (only Islam refuses to do so.) So, what happend to the ‘infallibility’ of their doctrines?
The Russian communists had no experience in building a socialist society. But they believed in the infallibility of Marx and Lenin. In fact, they were over-bearing, over-confident and impatient with dissenters. It was all a repetition of early Christianity and Islam. The Russian people paid the highest price in history for these follies. And when Gorbachev launched his glasnost and perestroika, he knew even less how to unscramble the rotten system, not to speak of reconstructing it in freedom. Again, the people paid a high price. In all, they lost a century, and about 50 million people. Was anything in the world worth this price? Even if Russia had taken to the capitalist road, it would have become one of the greatest economic powers in the world. And that without paying any price. But Marxism exacted a heavy price from very many peoples and nations.
Who was at fault? First of all, the Semitic legacy of Europe. The unfailing faith in the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ reminds us of Mohammed’s words: “My community can never err.” That workers could be the larger part of the cause for the debacle of communism everywhere could never enter the head of the communists. It was the same with the pioneers of Christianity and Islam. They could never believe that their faith could pass into the hands of evil men. And when the evil men took them over and started their tyranny, they took the silence of the majority as approval of their tyranny.
Marxists made other mistakes: they believed that men work for the public good. They do not. Men work for their personal advancement. Marxists believe that capitalists are parasites. But it is their sacrifice which helped the early capital formation.
Gandhi never believed in systems. In fact, he was an enemy of systems. Systems create false faith. He put his entire faith in the human potential—in man's ability to transform himself to a higher being.
Yes, we can transform the world. But before that, we must transform men. Only on the foundation of human worth can we build a good society.
RELIGIONS can turn some men into beasts. Marxism is a religion. It has turned many men into beasts—Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to mention a few.
Karl Marx was a Jew. He was Jewish in his inflexible views, Jewish in his hatred of the bourgeoisie and Jewish in his uncompromising character. In short, he was truly in the Semitic tradition.
Like his rabbi ancestors, says Northcote Parkinson, Marx saw the world as a place of conflict between good and evil, between labour and capital, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Thus, Marx did it all over again—he divided mankind into two enemy camps, just as Christianity and Islam had done before. Result? The Second World War and the Cold War.
Semitic religions are said to be revealed. By how many gods—one, two or three—we do not know. The holy books speak in contradictory voices. One speaks in favour of non-violence, another in favour of violence. But each is declared to be true and infallible. How? Because, they say, the books were divinely inspired. This is the Semitic fallacy. And Marxism is a victim of this fallacy. It too was claimed to be infallible by its followers.
In contrast, Hinduism is a quest for truth. It has complete freedom of enquiry. Hindus do not believe in the ‘infallibility’ of any doctrine or in the ‘last words’ or in the ‘last prophet’.
If the communist movement failed to attract even ten per cent of the Indian population, one can well understand. The poor refused to put their trust in its promises. What is more, Marxism was a product of European experience. It need not be relevant to us.
Indian could have highlighted the ethical part of Marxism and rejected its violence. But Indian communists were small men—Lilliputs. They could not have asserted their views. They had no idea that Marxism belonged to the Semitic tradition, utterly alien to the Hindu ethos.
The communist movement naturally failed to attract the best men from among the Hindus (not one communist came up to the stature of a Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Gandhi or Nehru). Why? Because Marxism with its emphasis on violence was utterly alien to the Indian ethos. What was more, India had seen the calamitous result of the mindless violence of the Muslims for six long centuries in India. And how could the Hindus have accepted a faith that sought to split their ranks, when they were face to face with a new hostile force—imperialism?
Having rejected the past of India as ‘mumbo-jumbo’, the Indian communists ceased to be Indians. But did they take roots in European civilisation? They did not. They dismissed it as ‘bourgeois filth’. So, the Indian communist was and is a rootless creature, who pretends to be a world citizen.
They admit today that they committed great ‘blunders’. But that is what Christianity too admits—that it had committed many great blunders (only Islam refuses to do so.) So, what happend to the ‘infallibility’ of their doctrines?
The Russian communists had no experience in building a socialist society. But they believed in the infallibility of Marx and Lenin. In fact, they were over-bearing, over-confident and impatient with dissenters. It was all a repetition of early Christianity and Islam. The Russian people paid the highest price in history for these follies. And when Gorbachev launched his glasnost and perestroika, he knew even less how to unscramble the rotten system, not to speak of reconstructing it in freedom. Again, the people paid a high price. In all, they lost a century, and about 50 million people. Was anything in the world worth this price? Even if Russia had taken to the capitalist road, it would have become one of the greatest economic powers in the world. And that without paying any price. But Marxism exacted a heavy price from very many peoples and nations.
Who was at fault? First of all, the Semitic legacy of Europe. The unfailing faith in the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ reminds us of Mohammed’s words: “My community can never err.” That workers could be the larger part of the cause for the debacle of communism everywhere could never enter the head of the communists. It was the same with the pioneers of Christianity and Islam. They could never believe that their faith could pass into the hands of evil men. And when the evil men took them over and started their tyranny, they took the silence of the majority as approval of their tyranny.
Marxists made other mistakes: they believed that men work for the public good. They do not. Men work for their personal advancement. Marxists believe that capitalists are parasites. But it is their sacrifice which helped the early capital formation.
Gandhi never believed in systems. In fact, he was an enemy of systems. Systems create false faith. He put his entire faith in the human potential—in man's ability to transform himself to a higher being.
Yes, we can transform the world. But before that, we must transform men. Only on the foundation of human worth can we build a good society.
Labels: Marxism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home