Closing the Circle: Article on Revolution in Frontier, August 2012
Closing the Circle
I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps
Introduction
The word revolution came to acquire a new political usage from the late eighteenth
century. Prior to that, it referred to the circular or elliptical movement of
the celestial bodies, more specifically, to the completion of such a rotation. In
English history, for example, it did not refer to the civil wars and political
upheavals associated with Oliver Cromwell; but to the restoration of the
monarchy in 1660 and the installation of a protestant monarch in the so-called Glorious
Revolution of 1688. It was only with the American and French revolutions of the
late eighteenth century, that revolution
began to signify an overhaul of a social and political system. Even here, the
leaders active in the beginning appealed for a return to an order of things
that had been sullied by despotic monarchs – they used nostalgic language, they
sought a restoration.
However, the war of independence and the storming of the Bastille launched a flow of events that overthrew the earlier usages, along with the despotism that was the immediate target. Revolution began its new semantic journey, into the political vocabulary of modern protest and the aspirations of the oppressed. It retains its geometric usage, as in the number of revolutions per minute of mechanical rotors, but in the political realm, it evokes not a circle but a straight line, a pathway to a freedom and a better life.
However, the war of independence and the storming of the Bastille launched a flow of events that overthrew the earlier usages, along with the despotism that was the immediate target. Revolution began its new semantic journey, into the political vocabulary of modern protest and the aspirations of the oppressed. It retains its geometric usage, as in the number of revolutions per minute of mechanical rotors, but in the political realm, it evokes not a circle but a straight line, a pathway to a freedom and a better life.
In the nineteenth century the French Revolution became the archetypal model for an all-round transformation of the social and political order. It became the political embodiment of the Enlightenment ideals of the liberation of the human spirit and the sovereignty of reason. It proclaimed the freedom of the intellect from theological tutelage and the overthrow of the Divine Right of Kings as a principle of state legitimacy. The modernist project was best envisioned in Marquis de Condorcet’s Outlines of an historical view of the progress of the human mind, a veritable manifesto of Reason. (1) Ironically, in 1794, his exercise of the right to free speech in defence of political moderation was to cost him his life. Equally ironic is the habitual citation of
The Law of Progress
The late eighteenth century
was the period when the idea of history took its modern form. Its new essence
was the idea that History was the story of Progress. Gradually the entire
vocabulary covering human aspirations towards freedom, justice and social emancipation
was overtaken by an organicist concept of history, akin to the evolution of a
living organism. This tendency was strengthened with the advent of Darwin
One offshoot of biological evolutionism was Social-Darwinism. The British philosopher Herbert Spencer coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ in the 1860’s to refer toDarwin Darwin
One offshoot of biological evolutionism was Social-Darwinism. The British philosopher Herbert Spencer coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ in the 1860’s to refer to
Organicist
concepts became a means of demonstrating the law-governed nature of reality. History
was now deemed to contain the seeds of progress regardless of the thoughts and
motives of humans engrossed in their welter of activities. Kant described these
activities as ‘melancholy haphazardness’. Hegel described the long sequence of
bloody conflicts as a “panorama of sin and suffering.” But, he said “even regarding History as the slaughter-bench at which the
happiness of peoples, the wisdom of States, and the virtue of individuals have
been victimized - the question involuntarily arises - to what principle, to
what final aim these enormous sacrifices have been offered.” (3) He went on: “The sole aim of philosophical inquiry is to eliminate the contingent…We
must bring to history the belief and conviction that the realm of the will is
not at the mercy of contingency. That world history is governed by an ultimate
design, that it is a rational process - whose rationality is not that of a
particular subject, but a divine and absolute reason. The time has now surely come for us to comprehend even so rich a
product of creative reason as world history. The aim of human cognition is to
understand that the intentions of eternal wisdom are accomplished not only in
the natural world, but also in the realm of the [spirit] which is actively
present in the world. From this point of view our investigation can be seen
as a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God.”(emphasis added) (4)
Theodicy is a fascinating concept, and it is
significant that Hegel used it to describe his investigations. It can be
defined as the doctrinal vindication of (otherwise inexplicable) evil in terms
of divine providence. In other words, it points to God’s plan to squeeze Good
out of Evil. There are many kinds of theodicy; and paradoxically, some are
secular in orientation. It is evident that radicals of all kinds (including
messianic nationalists) are attracted to this idea, even if they are unfamiliar
with the term itself. In the case of secular theodiceans, God’s role is taken
by History, which justifies evil deeds performed by the cadre of whichever
party is supposedly leading us to the pre-determined goal.
In their philosophical compulsion to make sense of the turmoil of centuries, both Kant and Hegel attempted to discern reason at work in the passage of time. Ultimately, Time brought about reasonable changes in human behaviour and institutions. History as the unfolding of the Spirit was seen to be the bearer of these already-present positive tendencies. Just as the seed contained the tree in potentio, so did the seed of historical time contain the tree of ultimate reconciliation. Thus Hegel: “nothing else will come out but what was already there.” (This was another way of saying that there is nothing new under the sun). Thus did Hegel develop his grand philosophical system, the attempt at a complete speech, wherein reason gave an account of itself without recourse to an external ground.
In their philosophical compulsion to make sense of the turmoil of centuries, both Kant and Hegel attempted to discern reason at work in the passage of time. Ultimately, Time brought about reasonable changes in human behaviour and institutions. History as the unfolding of the Spirit was seen to be the bearer of these already-present positive tendencies. Just as the seed contained the tree in potentio, so did the seed of historical time contain the tree of ultimate reconciliation. Thus Hegel: “nothing else will come out but what was already there.” (This was another way of saying that there is nothing new under the sun). Thus did Hegel develop his grand philosophical system, the attempt at a complete speech, wherein reason gave an account of itself without recourse to an external ground.
However, whereas Hegel saw the
present as the organic outcome (‘ultimate design’) of the past, Marx and the
revolutionary tradition turned history into the arena for the future emancipation of the proletariat. In
its revolutionary avatar, politics became conflated with History. As a result
the revolutionary tradition began to measure itself and its activities with the
stages of historical development that were deemed to be built in to the history
of all countries. No theory of politics was required, because all political
questions were subsumed under the rubric of the Transition. Crucial issues such
as the nature, form and legitimacy of political representation, the so-called
sovereign Will of the People or Proletariat; the requirements of law and
justice; the separation of powers; the phenomenological (rather than tactical)
understanding of violence and its relation to politics; and the ideals of freedom
and democracy and their implications for workers, were set aside in the face of
the imminent Revolution, preparation for which took precedence over all else.
Revolutionary activity
Revolutionary activities in India
Given the fact that real life always tends to fall short of tall claims and utopian ideologies, sooner or later its cadre tends to become conformist or cynical. They raise questions of bureaucratism and dogmatism - most of the time this indicates a preference for a slightly different set of dogmas - and the party splits. A new vanguard is set up with the same broad organizational and doctrinal beliefs as the old one, and with some minor changes in the title of the party. Apart from doctrinal issues, the dominant narrative in such splits is that of betrayal. The old leadership is deemed to have betrayed the revolutionary path, and the new entity represents the apparent recuperation of genuine revolutionary forces for the benefit of the People. Thereafter the pattern is repeated in a new cycle.
Given the fact that real life always tends to fall short of tall claims and utopian ideologies, sooner or later its cadre tends to become conformist or cynical. They raise questions of bureaucratism and dogmatism - most of the time this indicates a preference for a slightly different set of dogmas - and the party splits. A new vanguard is set up with the same broad organizational and doctrinal beliefs as the old one, and with some minor changes in the title of the party. Apart from doctrinal issues, the dominant narrative in such splits is that of betrayal. The old leadership is deemed to have betrayed the revolutionary path, and the new entity represents the apparent recuperation of genuine revolutionary forces for the benefit of the People. Thereafter the pattern is repeated in a new cycle.
This cyclical vacillation
also happens with regard to the status of armed struggle in the activity of
revolutionaries. In 1948-50 the CPI converted the Telengana movement into all
all-out insurrection against the Nehru government, and launched what Mohit Sen
referred to ‘Naxalism without the Naxalites’. In the face of repeated setbacks,
a CPI delegation went to Moscow
A fresh attempt at organizing armed revolution began in 1969. After the first year there was a crisis, as Charu’s line did not seem to be working even where it was faithfully carried out, as in Midnapur. The leadership sent a senior comrade toChina Rome Dacca Peking ) and he returned with news of the Chinese Party’s sharp
criticisms of Charu’s annihilation line. The CPC was also believed to have
criticized the slogan China’s Chairman is
our Chairman. (5)
A fresh attempt at organizing armed revolution began in 1969. After the first year there was a crisis, as Charu’s line did not seem to be working even where it was faithfully carried out, as in Midnapur. The leadership sent a senior comrade to
Around 1971, splits appeared once
more on bureaucratism and points of dogma. The really big political and moral
crisis was the Chinese defence of Pakistan Pakistan USSR
After a while some very revolutionary comrades denounced as traitors those taking part in peaceful agitations, and re-started the armed struggle. And so on. Now there are signs that yet again, comrades waging People’s War are having second thoughts. Am I the only person to get the impression that revolutionaries are going around in circles?
After a while some very revolutionary comrades denounced as traitors those taking part in peaceful agitations, and re-started the armed struggle. And so on. Now there are signs that yet again, comrades waging People’s War are having second thoughts. Am I the only person to get the impression that revolutionaries are going around in circles?
Revolutionary habits
Let us now consider some of the long-standing habits of revolutionary
behaviour. At the philosophical level, I have already referred to the
implications of reducing political questions to historical ones. At the level
of political conduct, the most striking of these habits are as follows:
The tendency to invest politics with the aura of a permanent moral
crusade
The search for heretics, the unmasking of enemies disguised as comrades
(aasteen ka saanp)
The hatred of hypocrisy, the habit of being permanently on guard against
hypocrites
The habit of sneering at everyone outside our circle (the use of wit as
substitute for wisdom)
The insistence on doctrinal purification as a prerequisite for joint action
The belief that there is only one ‘correct’ course of action in any
situation
The incursion into political speech of personal attacks (ad hominem remarks)
The imputation of base motives as an explanation for ideological
disagreement
The citation of superior knowledge and sincere intentions as proof of
our Goodness
The claim that our deeds cannot be judged by our peers, but only by
future generations
The claim that if we are being cruel, it is only a means of being
(Historically) kind
The conviction that collateral damage is only something our Enemies do,
not us
The conviction that since we ourselves are very worthy, everyone else
must be worthless
The idea that radical rhetoric establishes one’s commitment to the public good; and
that -
The
more violent the proposed solution, the more admirable the character of its
proponent
The
tendency to enjoy victim status, whilst overlooking the plight of those whom we
victimise
Let
us examine these habits a little more closely. One broadly held assumption is
that the analysis of the socio-economic situation suggests its own determinate
activity – that is, the Correct Analysis points to the Correct Line. But the problem
is that we have no independent means of verifying a correct analysis. In fact
we can’t even agree on the standards that might help us distinguish a correct analysis
from an incorrect one. If antagonists in an argument cannot agree on what might
(hypothetically) lead them towards agreement, then there is no likelihood of
their ever agreeing on anything. Speech becomes equivalent to silence. Actually
they are doomed to disagreement, given the other problem (which is a logical
precursor to the first one). This problem is that ‘scientific’ revolutionaries tend
to insist that all truth is class truth. (8) This view is akin to Nietzsche’s perspectival view of truth, because it
contains an infinite regression: any depiction of the reality of truth can also
be described as a class truth.
With
such an attitude, no objective statement may be made about anything at all. Once
the tension between subject and object is abolished and only the Subject
remains, all theories become interpretations. (This is regardless of whether
the Subject in question is the solitary bourgeois individual or the equally
solitary Politburo of the Party, contemplating History on behalf of the working
class). Furthermore, we are left with no means of discriminating between
historical events and accounts of those events. We may believe anything we like
about the Russian revolution, Stalinism, Nazism, the wars of the past century, the
fate of the USSR, the emergence of Chinese capitalism etc., because “all truth
is class truth”, our Party is the true vanguard of the Class, and anyone who
has a different historical account is a class enemy, QED. In fact the very
appearance of a different account is proof of the arrival of an enemy. For a
long time now, scientific revolutionaries have contributed to the destruction
of the very idea of objectivity. George Orwell wrote about all this more than
six decades ago – but then he was an enemy, was he not?
To
return to the assumption that the Correct Analysis points to the Correct Line:
is this an accurate description of revolutionary decision-making? Might it not
be the case that this or that analysis is deployed as a means of justifying a line
we have already chosen for some other reason altogether? Understanding these habits requires psychological
insights. In her book On Revolution, Hannah
Arendt discusses Maximilien Robespierre’s obsession with hypocrisy and virtue,
and his conversion of politics into a limitless moral pursuit. She cites R.R.
Palmer: “The hunt for hypocrites is boundless and can produce nothing but
demoralization.” For Robespierre, patriotism was a thing of the heart, and that
made it impossible to distinguish between true and false patriots. All actions
became suspect because the virtuous leaders were always on the look- out for
hypocritical motives. But motives are never so transparent, even to their
owners. Making the purity of motives into a touchstone for participation in democratic
politics is a recipe for disintegration. “Robespierre carried the conflicts of
the soul… into politics, where they became murderous because they were
insoluble.” (9)
Outside the circle
Where does all this leave us? We do need a rejuvenated politics, one
that pays regard to the old social-democratic ideals of rendering the process
of production amenable to popular control; a more democratic daily life, and a
more secure life for women and children. (10) We also need to re-think the modernist stance of looking upon nature as a zone
fit for technological conquest by humans. The range of problems facing humanity,
not just in South Asia but the whole world, is
staggering. All these things are well-known and need no recounting. At issue are
the thoughts and practices with which those who see themselves as socialists,
engage with these problems.
The continual recourse to ad hominem argument and the search for
base motives has become a habit with leftists. Such destructive forms of speech
were always in use by communalists. Whatever you said that sounded disagreeable
to me was because you were a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, etc. All ideas were
reduced to a sign of your identity, a symptom of some kind of mental disease
that you inherited along with your DNA. This replacement of ideas by
accusations is destroying the autonomy of thought. Communists were fond of
saying “your ideas reflect your class character”. (Mostly it was
petty-bourgeois leftists denouncing the class character of other
petty-bourgeois leftists). Nowadays we have regular references to someone’s
caste as a reason for dismissing their ideas.
Ad hominem methods have become the norm in public debate, which is another way of saying debate has come to an end. The reason is obvious - this is a double-edged sword. Every inconvenient view may now be dismissed on the ground that the person uttering it is a bad person by definition, and/or is incapable of thinking except in stereotypes. The very point of speaking is lost. We may as well remain silent.
Ad hominem methods have become the norm in public debate, which is another way of saying debate has come to an end. The reason is obvious - this is a double-edged sword. Every inconvenient view may now be dismissed on the ground that the person uttering it is a bad person by definition, and/or is incapable of thinking except in stereotypes. The very point of speaking is lost. We may as well remain silent.
The favourite norm of communication
among revolutionaries is the polemical style. They
are forever denouncing and sneering at others. Coupled with their congenital
vanguardism, this style sabotages conversation before it can even begin. The
sooner it is discarded, the better it will be for the comrades themselves, not
to mention the general public. The assumption that doctrinal purity is a prerequisite
for political action; implies that complete agreement is (a) possible (b)
necessary. Is this true? I think not. The comrades’ disregard for vast numbers
of concerned persons who are neither Marxists nor materialists, is just a
means of isolating themselves. This isolation is not offset by their sense of
superiority – fewer people are listening to their ideas anyway. They look increasingly
like an archipelago of exotic religious cults, whose jargon and solutions are
of no practical significance.
Thus, the idea that a socialist movement needs to overthrow or capture something, is one among many fanciful assumptions. It needs to be set aside, along with the expectation of an apocalyptic confrontation. More respect and attention needs to be paid to quotidian activity related to livelihood, human rights and justice. Socialists need to invent modes of organisational practice that allow for autonomy of thought as well as for concerted action across a much broader range of popular and working class movements than has hitherto been attempted.
Thus, the idea that a socialist movement needs to overthrow or capture something, is one among many fanciful assumptions. It needs to be set aside, along with the expectation of an apocalyptic confrontation. More respect and attention needs to be paid to quotidian activity related to livelihood, human rights and justice. Socialists need to invent modes of organisational practice that allow for autonomy of thought as well as for concerted action across a much broader range of popular and working class movements than has hitherto been attempted.
And finally,
they need to give up the fascination with violence and martyrdom. Karl Marx’s
unfortunate choice of gynecological metaphors has had a sorry effect upon the
leftist intellect. The tendency for violence to become a force in itself becomes more
obvious with each passing day. The stamina of private armies and vigilante
groups in India
Modern politics plays with the psychology of delayed gratification, a form
of mental manipulation essential to the capitalist system. This is the market
fundamentalists’ version of prayer. One consequence of this psychic condition
is “the peculiar restlessness and dispersion of our modern consciousness” noted
by Hegel. Whereas sadness and happiness are part of the normal rhythm of life,
the leaders of revolutionary enterprises (and that includes the capitalist
revolution) constantly tell us to accept sadness today in order to be happy
tomorrow. (11) Advocates
of the Bright Future busy themselves in drawing and re-drawing instructions on
how we may arrive there. (12) Nowadays these bubbles of stimulated euphoria are bursting at a faster pace
than before. It would be better for us to define our political projects along
more practical lines, learn to speak with moderation, and act to bring about
reforms that we wish to see - in howsoever modest dimensions they can be
achieved.
Towards the end of his famous essay The
Rebel, Albert Camus remarked that “calculated revolution” prefers “an abstract
concept of man to a man of flesh and blood.” Forgetting its own generous
origins, it denies existence and puts resentment in the place of love. Real
generosity towards the future said Camus, “lies in giving all to the present”.
It is time to step outside the kaalchakra
and begin afresh. Who knows? We could surprise ourselves, and something truly
novel might yet transpire.
Hamse mut poochcho kaise
Mandir tootaa sapno ka
Logon ki baat nahin hai..
Yeh kissa hai apno ka
******************
References
(1) The text of which is available here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1669&Itemid=27
(2) One example of the extrapolation of natural law
into human history is Narendra Modi’s citation of Newtons Gujarat post the
Godhra incident in 2002. Another is Rajiv Gandhi’s 1984 metaphor about the
earth shaking when great trees are uprooted. The earthquake metaphor has also
been used by pro-RSS commentators talking about 2002.
(3) G.W.F Hegel; The
Philosophy of History; Dover New
York
(4) G.W.F. Hegel. Introduction to the lectures on the
philosophy of world history, CUP, 1975. pp 28, 42
(5) In the late 1960’s young Naxalite comrades would proclaim their
revolutionary ardour by adopting extreme postures over trivial things, such as
insisting that Mao be referred to not as Comrade but as Chairman. The greater
the degree of mindless adoration you professed for Mao
Tsetung, the more revolutionary you were proven to be. This tendency persists
today in the social networking media, where the high degree of outrage being
vented indicates the presence of lots of revolutionary zeal. Maybe revolution
is around the corner, as it was forty years ago. When the first phase was over, one unknown Calcuttan
caught sight of the wall-slogan Cheener Chairman Amader Chairman, and wrote
beneath it this riposte: Aar Japaaner Raja
Amader Raja
(6) An account of
the Bangladesh
(7) I have discussed the hold of militarism upon the
Indian revolutionary tradition in an article entitled A Hard Rain Falling
(EPW, July 14, 2012 ); which
may be read here: http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2012/06/hard-rain-falling-on-death-of-tp.html
(8) A closer look at this issue is contained in my essay Permanent Spring,
in Seminar # 607. It may be read here: http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2011/10/maoism-and-philosophy-of-insurrection.html
(9) Hannah Arendt, On Revolution; Penguin
Books, 1979; p 97
(10) These issues are addressed in a collective
document issued in May 2011 calling for a rejuvenated left-wing politics: http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2011/11/end-of-left-in-india.html
(12) It is this
kind of pipe-dream that resulted in the joke current in the last years of the USSR
*********************
Original url:
CPI Maoist Politburo Response NB: Here is an example of debate amongst revolutionaries. The response of the Maoist leaders is most instructive. As usual, criticism on basic issues is the work of an enemy, and Panda is an evil & malevolent person. "This coward ran away leaving the revolutionary movement instead of sincerely realizing and rectifying his mistakes like a true proletarian revolutionary... His 16-page letter is full of rotten lies, distortions and twisting of facts and there is not an iota of truth in them whatsoever. They were hurled with the most awful intention of liquidation and destruction of revolutionary movement..The list of Mr. Panda’s filthy and foul-smelling allegations is long ...He is displaying more faith than the master to kowtow before the ruling classes and is surpassing the enemy foul propaganda in uttering lies...Panda is resorting to the age-old cheap ‘divide and rule’ tactic of the British colonialists and the Indian ruling classes.."
