Pin It

MEET a Soviet citizen and ask him what is the meaning of all the noise that he makes - why, seek Stalin himself and put him the same question. “Oh! it is a mighty world revolution against capitalism! Damn it! We crushed it. Yet we want to wipe it out of the face of the earth” would Stalin or the Soviet thunder forth.

anna at 1934Communism is Leninism; Leninism is applied Marxism. Arm chair critics may brand Marx as a dreamy politician and destructive economist. Some considered him as revolution personified. To the ‘Proletarian world’, however, he is a demi God. His works, ‘Capital’ and ‘Communist Manifesto’ are the two testaments to the proletarian. The melody of Marx, was so sweet, so nice, so hope-giving that the labourer became crazy when he heard and reheard it. It made him a devil of course, but in the course of his devilish dance, he did vanquish the demon of capitalism.

Karl Marx was not a proletariat. In fact the English Fabian Society tried to brand him bourgeois, son of a rich Jewish lawyer of Rhenist Germany. Marx had facilities for a sound education. His susceptible mind had been greatly impressed by the cunning cruelty and ambition of the capitalist class. He brought to light horrible yet sober facts about the evils of capitalism. Just as Jean Jacpues Rousseau’s winged doctrines of Equality--Liberty--Fraternity--so also Marx’s ‘Capital’ supplied the theory of Surplus value’ which forms the backbone of Socialism of various types. Marx did not get reputation for nothing.

Labour is the chief source of production of wealth. Without recognizing the fact, the Capitalist robs the labourers, forces him to live in slums, and dictates him to be content with a very small share in a shilling according to Marx. “Capitalists are human parasite vultures who live upon the flesh of the labourers’, said Karl Marx in his piping voice. Accumulation of wealth and the subsequent utilization of the same by rich capitalists, are not an increase in the National Dividend, for the same could satisfy more intense wants of the labourer and thus could be better utilized. But the ratio of distribution is unjustly proportioned.

That Capitalism is the apotheosis of civilization is the doing of some. They argue that since Capitalist gives employment to the labourer, he helps society substantially. So a capitalist is not a human parasite but a benefactor and capitalism should not be concerned but ought to be welcomed. Any elementary book on economic will tell us that Land, labour, Capital and Organization are the four agents of production. It is true to say that Capital is as necessary for production, as labour is. But the problem is which of these deserves more consideration. A labourer works hard but the direction comes from the Capitalist. Whether the concern gets profit or not, a labourer gets his annas and never cares for either the prosperity of the Capitalist or the comfort of the consumer, whereas, the Capitalist spends sleepless nights in devising plans, and determining the nature and quantity of the demand that is likely to arise. Failure means to him not only a risk of parting with his capital, but also a good-bye to honour. A failure means an ‘I.P.’ and it is by no means a decent degree. So when through his efforts, the Capitalist gets profit he demands a greater share in it. Or, when the Capitalist is not capable of ‘brainwork’, he hires the services of a ‘D.Com’ and shares the profit with that organizer.

Bearded Bernard Shaw of ‘Apple Cart’ fame shattered the first argument. Want you to praise the Capitalist? Say you that since he gives employment to the labourer he ought to be honoured? It is bunkum: A motor driver by killing a man gives ample opportunity to the departments of police and Judiciary not to mention his great service to sensation spreaders’. Why, then should we not raise a marble statue in his honour?” Questions the dramatist. In fact, Capitalists give employment, but never enjoyment to the labourers. They make life a bed of thorns.

The Socialists, as Dr.Marshall points out, were men who had felt tensely and who knew something about the hidden spring of human action of which the economist took an account. Buried among their wild rhapsodies, says the same author, there were shrewd observations and pregnant suggestions from which philosophers and economists had much to learn. In the Parliament, in the press and the pulpit, the spirit of humanity, of erring suffering humanity was to be found. Careful diagnosis will show that in the womb of our modern society, slumbers the awfully bad child of the revolution, ready for its birth. When Karl Marx, the illustrious theorist of the proletariat’; said the private property in Capital was both the result of past spoliation and a means of continuing the same upon the wider scale, he was only epitomizing the cries of the oppressed Robert Owen, a century before Marx, who thundered forth that what the Capitalist calls ‘Profits’ and which economists try to defend was the fundamental cause for all kinds of economic and social ills. Justice demands a faith consideration and adaptation of at least some of these non-aggressive and salient facts.

Capital is essential, but not Capitalism, Even Capital is, to quote Panson ‘Labour stored up’, the division of society into rich and poor is the root cause for all the subsequent evils. Are we into witnessing--the spectacle of poverty amidst plenty? Is it right for a fashionable young bachelor to spend lots upon ‘suits’ in continental hotels, and upon Parisian beauties, while a widow works hard to bring up six naughty children-getting for her labour less than a shilling per week? Do we not realize that the very structure of society is hollow, unsound and inhuman? Then why should we shirk to find solace in the socialist doctrine? The industrial organization of the Capitalists is nothing but outrageous robbery. Given proper facilities, and allowed to move in a good atmosphere, Tom and Harry could manage things as well as Jones or Smith, for human nature is greatly modified by the environment.

Honey and milk run abundantly because of his labour, ‘Iron-kings’ and ‘Lace-queens’ are having a ‘tete-a-tete’ in a fashionable night club and the labourer witnesses the ‘tete-tete of his hungry children and bony wife. This kind of intensified capitalism gave birth to socialism. The literary prophets first revolutionized the mind of the labourer. Passing from the cold and calm realm of speculation, the socialist theories, found a place in a revolutionary realm. The proletariat agitated. Lenin came! From out of the womb of agitation, was born the naughty child of the revolution. Powers which were passionately stirred, when unchained, caused a revolutionary eruption. Law became impotent. ‘Necessity knows no law’ said Niebutin, and it became only too true.

Angered by hunger, oppressed by tyranny, the proletarian rose with irresistible force; down came capitalism, and the flag of the labourer was planted.

The period of ‘smoke and blood’ passed away. The prior of construction came. With equal force, did he launch socialism. The process of socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange was adopted. The spirit of brotherhood and goodwill was set up as the ideal. The motto of St.Paul ‘He that will not work, shall not eat’ was applied. Plato’s visualization became practicable. The Russians are now making a new pilgrim’s progress to land, where all would be happy, and all would be equals.

But the world brands the Russian as a savage; his methods are condemned and his policy is mocked at. Till recently America refused to take Russian timber on the ground that their production involved forced labour. The leading capitalistic nations find an absence of Christian ethics in everything Russian. But, why all this accusation? Socialists allow no illegal marriage. They recognize the right of divorce, give economic basis to every individual, and look to labour as a dignified method of living. Palaces and pleasure-seats of plutocrats are kept wide open for the enjoyment of the labourers. The educational side of socialism won the approval of no less a person than Dr. Tagore. Then what need is there, for accusing that system? Is it because the communists drove out idle lords and extravagant ladies? Is it because they adopted certain cruel methods during the wait with capitalism?

Time is the great healer and it would certainly modify things. Anarchy being a negation of all laws could not remain permanent and since socialism stands today firmly, it is not anarchism as some suppose it to be. Paul Vinogradoff, a moderate, assures us that “they (Russians) will throw the whole weight of their influence in the scale of international pacification and justice”.

The socialistic idea is not Russian in origin. The Fabian society was started in London and Marx spend his last years by the side of the Thames. The presence of the I.L. Party, the various labourer organizations, and strikes go to prove that the labourer of today is not content with his lot. Without spending years in condemning Communistic methods, the Capitalistic countries, if they try to solve the labour problem, by extending State control over branches of industry, by suppressing ‘red-tapism’ by recognizing the potentialities of labourers, they would not only get the laudation from labourers, but could found a paradise upon this earth. Moscow Mob Parade, with all its grain facts is worthy of study, and is a veritable warning to humanity at large, and more than that, it is capable of yielding morals of no mean order.

(This is the first article written by Perarignar Anna, When he was a student of the Panchaiyappa’s College, in 1933, which was published in the College Magazine)


 You can send your articles to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Pin It

Add comment


Security code
Refresh