(by G Waugh)
“The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and of mundane considerations ceases”
This was Karl Marx as early as the 1800s. Marx wanted to divest labour from its criticality in ensuring survival and its indispensability in the pursuits of acquiring one’s own basic requirements for a decent living. He was the first among human thinkers who fully appreciated the creative potential inherent in the human creature and imagined a society that holds no artificial barriers towards fully realizing it. He was the first one probably who was clearly able to distinguish between the purpose of existence of man and those of other living beings and trusted deeply in man’s capacity to transcend his earthly limitations towards attaining glorious heights. As many of us might have wondered quite often, after close to 40000 years of walking the earth, it is a shame to realize that man has still not been able to fix the pettiest and the most primal of all of his issues – survival. Marx believed strongly that man was actually made for better things and considered socio-political structures that kept him from fully exploring his creative side as grave injustices to be obliterated as quickly as possible.
***
To count, study, analyze and train oneself for greater things while growing up, only to end up obsessed with issues of survival all the time once you are done, why didman have to evolve from chimps and apes at the first place? Why did we have to grow a massively complicated network of neurons that store, process and analyze billions of bytes of information in our heads if all we are bound to do with it is to worry and brood over how to save our jobs and beat the next recession? Do any of us really spend millions of rupees on a home theatre set with woofers and voice control systems only to watch never-ending TV soaps that relentlessly infest our High-Definition televisions?
***
Marx keenly believed that man could attain this state of deserving glory only in a fully developed communist system. He was sure that technological advancements would one day take us to a level where man’s essential requirements are easily fulfilled by complete automation or with very minimal labour and all man had to do was to sit and pursue his favourite occupation. With this fantastic idea in mind, the eternal optimist Karl Marx wrote the following lines:
“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
The mere fact that most people consider these ideas as either too impractical or ridiculous even more than a century after Marx wrote these words, speaks volumes about how stunted the growth of human civilization has been ever since the beginning of man’s hitherto greatest achievement- the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. If critics of Marx are not willing to countenance his ‘utopian’ idea, it bears reminding that John Maynard Keynes, capitalism’s favourite child of the last century also bore visions along similar lines of a fifteen-hour work week where his grand-kids would spend the rest of their time doing what they really wanted to do.
***
It is of course, a great tragedy of the last century that movements that bore the name of Marx and occupied hegemonic political positions in various countries developed and imposed completely contrarian labour practices resembling conditions of barbaric slavery killing millions due to overwork and starvation. It is of course extremely difficult to separate Marxist theory that envisioned societies of maximum freedom – both social and economic and, Marxist practice that created brutal conditions totally unsuitable for human living bearing literally no resemblance to its founding tenets and successfully take an objective view of the Communist phenomenon. But this is not a place where I would want to meditate on these discrepancies and write a letter of apology on behalf of the Marxists.
***
When these questions arise of what would man do when divested of responsibilities to take care of himself as well as his family, people often tend to take a conservative opinion with a view to endorsing current economic structures and preserving the status quo. Some of them also would like to argue that artists deprived of preoccupations with regard to survival and economic well-being would create art of literally no emotional value. In a world where no artificial divisions and moral restrictions exist, someone like Imtiaz Ali would be thrown out of his job, finding virtually nothing to do. But this view is something that I would like to differ much from.
Pain, anger, poverty, losses all of which no doubt have given rise to beautiful works of art in the past and, freedom from all of them would to an extent throw obstacles in the process of creation for artists who generally thrive in conditions of misery. But the advantages of such an environment would, in many other ways be unquestionably rewarding. It needs no reminding to my lower and middle-class readers of the threatening conditions under which they were forced to abandon their favourite occupations in the past such as writing, painting, singing, dancing,etc. and of the tons and tons of unused potential that were laid to rot at the altars of survival. An artist untrammeled by issues of survival, rat-race and other forms of artificial competition would find no hindrances to the complete unleashing of his throbbing potential and bless the world with all his divine grace and glory.
But in a world where fifty hours of work a week is just not enough, mastery of one or two languages of programming is too common and unattractive, ownership of a two-bedroom apartment is not a matter of achievement at all and life without a weekend visit to malls and plazas is a crime, an appeal for freedom from survival battles is nothing but asking too, too much.
And in an age of cryptocurrencies and Artificial Intelligence, a throwback to age-old Marxist adages and cogitation with the purposes of human existence could amount to even accusations of heresy. But that’s the maximum an artist can do, when he is forced to write under duress trembling meekly all the while under the looming shadow of the ‘survival’ ogre.
Yajiv
July 15, 2020
“But in a world where fifty hours of work a week is just not enough, mastery of one or two languages of programming is too common and unattractive…”
Infosys ungala romba paduthitaanga pola 😉
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
July 15, 2020
@yajiv Epdi sir kandupudichinga? 😀
LikeLike
Prakash
July 15, 2020
Communism is good in theory. But whatever chances communists have had in governing they have not able to make it work in a practical way. Today’s capitalism is more of an oligarchy. I consider our country to be a democratic monarchy where people choose who their kings and queens are gonna be. Regarding fulfilling human potential, what about people who don’t have any artistic potential and are just simple folk. I believe socialism is ideal where in you make your own money but govt is comitted to provide for poor people.
LikeLike
Madan
July 16, 2020
To survive, you need food. Today, you work for a living to earn enough to feed yourself. In the past, you would have worked on the land. In the beginning, man had enough land vis-a-vis population to be self sufficient. This changed as population grew and man organised into tribes for safety and strength. The stronger tribes usurped more land and those with no capacity to control land at all became landless labourers.
The pathologies Marx observed were not new. They were just reinvented for industrial capitalism. But mercantilism had the same problems too, only worse. Large scale production required the creation of a consumer base to buy the products being manufactured in the factories. There was no such requirement in the mercantile age as production and consumption were both limited.
As a whole, the world has never been as prosperous as it has been in recent times. The root of the despair is in fact a wealth redistribution happening from working classes in the First World to the Third World resulting in the creation of a large middle class there. Marx would likely have celebrated this or if he would not have, his communist successors certainly would have. But this redistribution is in fact what has instigated the rise of far right movements in USA and, to a lesser extent, in Western Europe. This is the paradox of the way the modern world economy is organised. Maintaining the social contract of democratic socialism practiced in the post war years would have required Western powers to continue to not share the benefits thereof with the Third World. But the more they did, the more they impoverished their own. This is a very ‘high level’ analysis (corporate jargon for superficial) and investigating the differences between why this shift was less pronounced in continental Europe and more so in Britain and USA would require to get into more specific details.
As for the specific Indian situation, voting for Modi was actually the mark of a confident, even arrogant, electorate that decided the economy was now stable enough to handle it if the experiment went wrong. It’s not that the UPA2 coalition was phenomenally bad or unstable relative to previous coalitions. Anybody who saw the HDG-IKG mess would know it wasn’t. It’s that people decided these coalition govts were squandering India’s potential and bet on a strong leader to deliver. They also assumed that even if the bet went wrong, India was now resilient enough to handle it (whether that assumption was wrong). There was also the fading away from public memory of how bad the so-called stable govts of the past had been and how they had created more problems in trying to solve existing ones. But it has little to do with the creation of underlying conditions for a communist experiment.
In economic terms, the sheer poverty in India by itself ought to make them responsive to revolutions but that has not been the case and as Prakash says we have simply moved from monarchies inherited by birthright to those that are legitimized by elections. This idea is so deeply and unconsciously entrenched that during the Oxford debates on Modi in 2019, an Indian-born lady now settled in Britain referred to his mandate as the people wanting to have their own ‘raja’ (and she said this in a positive light, to be very clear).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeeva Pitchaimani
July 16, 2020
@Madan
You have written what eerily looks like my own analysis of Indian conditions. India’s obsession with strong rulers and admiration for them has caused so much untold damage to us. And the middle classes who overestimate their ability to elect the ‘perfect ruler’ and let the nation take up terrible experiments whose influence could not be overridden by clueless Indian left-wingers and trade unionists. People have so often turned their backs towards coalitionists and without developing sufficient political consciousness themselves have often entrusted despots and demagogues with an excess of power which have only been misused at their hands leading to even more ruin and instability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Altman
July 16, 2020
According to Yuval Noah Harari, the forager man before the Agricultural Revolution had a very gratifying life. Their food and nutrition came from a wide variety of sources as opposed to the peasants who only ate rice or wheat their whole life. They worked lesser hours and indulged in various creative endeavours.
The shift to agriculture had drastic effects on human body. Our bodies are built to climb trees, hunt and travel constantly instead of toiling in field under the Sun throughout the year. Though it has it’s advantages from an evolutionary perspective, one of it being the tremendous increase of population, it was miserable at an individual level. He even states we didn’t domesticate wheat, it domesticated us.
Regarding the modern working conditions, the Scandinavian countries have 4 days work week with numerous benefits but taxes are pretty high.
LikeLike
Madan
July 16, 2020
“the middle classes who overestimate their ability to elect the ‘perfect ruler’ and let the nation take up terrible experiments”
” People have so often turned their backs towards coalitionists and without developing sufficient political consciousness themselves have often entrusted despots and demagogues with an excess of power which have only been misused at their hands leading to even more ruin and instability.”
Word on both points. The first and last despot of India who could somewhat be trusted was Nehru because he had a democratic temperament though even he didn’t hesitate to send Balraj Sahni, Sahir Ludhianvi among others to prison under India’s own little documented episode of McCarthyism. But he did reach across the aisle and take opposition views on board and promoted AB Vajpayee a lot. After him, every prime minister given absolute power made an absolute mess.
We do not understand that the suffocating amorality of coalition compromise actually puts brakes on the ability of our inept politicians to make a mess and allows the economy to run itself. There is no rocket science behind why India had good growth in the 90s and the 00s. It was partly due to the spin offs of the worldwide great moderation resulting in a long, uninterrupted spell of growth but since we did not capture much of foreign trade during this period, it was actually much more on account of the economy running on its own. Not perfectly but at least with some of the benefits accruing to the masses. Even if poverty and joblessness in alarming numbers remained, at least there were no experiments like demo to make matters still worse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Altman
July 16, 2020
Most government employees here enjoy the utopian life of enough food and job security with pension envisioned by Marx. I’m not sure about the creativity aspect though.
LikeLike
Eswar
July 16, 2020
John Maynard Keynes, capitalism’s favourite child of the last century.
Is this sarcasm? I would have thought it was Hayek and not Keynes who was Capitalism’s favourite child.
—
I don’t think I got the gist of the essay. To answer just from the title: Survival is not an option, it is the essence of life. The grounding principle of any social contract should be, ideally, to establish this with a win-win situation. Live and let live. But then humans are probably not satisfied with just surviving. They want a greater purpose in life. They succumb to their emotions. They constantly compare themselves with everyone around them and rank themselves up and down. Kicking everyone below them and pulling down everyone above them. And justify these kicking and pulling with labels like Capitalism and Communism. Millions of rupees worth of home theatre is not required even if it is purposefully utilised to watch the likes of The Motorcycle Diaries. But if one places their worth only in owning a Home Theatre, then Capitalism is not entirely to blame. To force nature to stop seeding apples, because I can’t stop eating them is not a solution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jeeva Pitchaimani
July 16, 2020
‘millions of rupees’ into home theatre was a typo. Should have been thousands.
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
July 16, 2020
True. India did well in the initial years of neoliberalism in terms of economic growth because of its inherent potential created during its years under socialism. And the unprecedented economic growth trickled down to an extent as long as the potential remained unexhausted. We would have remained the same for a decade more had shock therapies like gst and demo not been applied to paralyse it. Now since the accumulation at the top of the pyramid has decreased, there is no trickle down at all and even the middle classes who were doing decently well are feeling the pinch. The poor are literally suffocating. Idhelam sonna sandaiku varuvanuga.. I am not going to comment anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jeeva Pitchaimani
July 16, 2020
Keynes saved capitalism for three more centuries only to give to Hayek who stripped it of all of its humane pretensions.
I don’t believe in the intrinsic nature of people to be liable to some bad tendencies and a different kind of social upbringing will definitely help create a completely new culture which could create refined reasonably selfless humans. Anyway I will stop arguing here.
LikeLike
Enigma
July 17, 2020
UPA II was actually a good government. India’s best PM, Dr. MM Singh, had greater freedom to operate what with the mad leftists out of the coalition. He was supported by business-friendly parties (NCP, SP, DMK), there was economic growth and relative peace. What a disastrous fuck-up it has been since then. Will Indians realise at least now that for econmic progress you would need social stability. Bring back the centrists – keep the mad rightists and leftists to the opposition benches.
LikeLiked by 4 people
vijay
July 17, 2020
Although, UPA 2 suddenly looks “good” if viewed comparatively or in hindsight.
DeMo was NaMo’s biggest screw-up definitely.
LikeLike