The
long and rocky road to self-extermination: The inevitable decline, fall and demise
of Academic Marxism
Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Published in SSRN in July 2025, blogs, and youtube channels
Abstract
The
core objective of this paper is to show why academic Marxism, the intellectual
arm of Marxism and Marxist thought has hit an intellectual road block, and is
staring at a dead end. Our prognosis is that it is barely likely to survive in
its present form for another decade or two. We begin this paper by defining
what Marxism is and tracing its thought over the past one and a half centuries
or so including varieties and regional variants of Marxism and its common
criticisms. The success and failures of Marxism and communism are also likewise
probed and investigated. The sphere of influence of Marxism is also probed on
fields such as art, architecture, archeology, historiography, religious
studies, and cultural studies. We also
go on to show why Marxist thought is greatly fossilized and steeped in a
mid-nineteenth century mindset, and is unlikely to work in different contexts
and situations as it has limited validity and applicability. Many of the
failures of mainstream Marxism and Marxist thought also overflow and cascade
into academic Marxism too, and it is time to reassess all facets and aspects of
Marxism from their bootstraps. We also propose and examine alternative
approaches to replace various concepts and components of academic Marxism, and
link all our concepts with our previously published papers in a seamless,
integrated chain. As such we expect this paper to be an integral component of
our globalization movement, and it would not be difficult to understand or
figure out why.
Introduction
The
core objective of this paper is to show why academic Marxism, the intellectual
arm of Marxism and Marxist thought has hit an intellectual road block, and is
staring at a dead end. Our prognosis is that it is barely likely to survive in
its present form for another decade or two, regardless of whichever way it is
defined. We begin this paper by defining what Marxism is and tracing its
thought over the past one and a half centuries or so including varieties and
regional variants of Marxism and its common attendant criticisms. The success
and failures of Marxism and communism are also likewise thoroughly probed and
investigated, all things considered and put in place. The sphere of influence
of Marxism is also probed on fields such as art, architecture, archeology,
historiography, religious studies, and cultural studies. We also go on to show why Marxist thought is
greatly fossilized and steeped in a mid-nineteenth century mindset, and is
unlikely to work in different contexts and situations as it has limited
validity and applicability. Many of the failures of mainstream Marxism and
Marxist thought also overflow and cascade into academic Marxism too, and it is
time to reassess all facets and aspects of Marxism from their bootstraps. We
also propose and examine alternative approaches to replace various concepts and
components of academic Marxism, and link all our concepts with our previously
published papers in a seamless, integrated chain. As such we expect this paper
to be an integral component of our globalization movement, and it would not be
difficult to understand or figure out why. This is indeed because all our
papers are integrated in a seamless chain.
What is Marxism?
Let
us begin this paper by attempting to define what Marxism is. Simply defined and
crudely explained, Marxism
is an important, overarching and highly influential social, political, and
economic philosophy developed by the mid nineteenth century German thinker Karl
Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels, that was primarily focused on
analyzing the supposed negative impact and ill-effects of capitalism on society
and advocating for a transformation of capitalist societies to communist ones.
In sum, it promised and prophesized a utopian communist future across societies. Communist
philosophy and communist doctrine state that historical events are largely driven
and shaped by class struggle, with capitalism creating inherent and
perpetuating inequalities between the bourgeoisie (who are the owners of the
means of production) and the proletariat (who represent workers who produce
goods by their own blood, sweat and toil). We also then have the petit
bourgeoisie who are the slaves of the bourgeoisie, and the lumpen proletariat
who are represented by farmers and agricultural workers besides other non
mainstream and non-industrial workers. Marxism
prophesizes that this conflict will become so untenable that it will ultimately
lead to a revolution and the establishment of a classless, utopian, communist
society where the means of production are owned jointly by all the people. The term “Marxism” was first widely adopted and
popularized by the Marxist theorist Karl Kautsky, who considered himself an orthodox Marxist during the then ongoing dispute between Marx's orthodox. and revisionist followers. Kautsky's
revisionist rival the German politician Eduard Bernstein who challenged many core concepts of Marxism, also later
adopted the term, and so did many others. Others such as Engels and Paul
Lafargue also adopted Marxist theories to varying degrees, though
not completely. Marxism is also associated with sloganeering such as “Workers
of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains”, and many of
these were introduced and popularized by Karl Marx
Core concepts of Marxism
Let us now review
and evaluate the core concepts of Marxism. One of the more important concepts
of Marxism is historical Materialism. Marxism views history as a series of stages
characterized by different modes of production and class structures. It
emphasizes the role of economic factors in shaping society and driving
historical change. According to Karl Marx, all societies inevitably
progress through several distinct stages, with communism representing the
final, and the most ideal stage. These stages are as follows: primitive
communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally,
communism. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is a stateless and classless
society where the means of production are owned communally, and distributed
according to the individual’s need. Therefore, the axiom, “From each according
to his ability, to each according to his need”, applies. Marxism must also be
distinguished from communism as the latter is a relatively more practical
doctrine based on the principles of Marxism.
Karl Marx also identifies
class struggle as the engine of history, and the primary driver of social
and cultural change, with the
bourgeoisie and proletariat constantly in conflict with each other, and the
former oppressing the latter. Karl Marx
was also highly critical of capitalism, believing that it invariably and
inevitably led to exploitation and alienation of the masses and inequality in
society. Workers are alienated from their own labor and hard toil and the products
they produce as they are paid very little by the capitalists, and the surplus
value known as the profit is extracted by the capitalists, and retained by them. Karl
Marx predicted that the inherent contradictions intrinsic to the capitalistic
mode of production would lead to a revolution of the proletariat, who would overthrow
the capitalist system and establishing an idealistic communist society. In
such a society, Karl Marx envisaged, all class division would ultimately
disappear, and the state would become less powerful too as workers ran
corporations for mutual benefit and the greater common good. Karl Marx viewed
communism not just as an abstract theory, but a vital call to action that
brought about a revolution and a classless society which also abolished
inheritance and private property. Marxism also claims to provide a seamless
framework for understanding society, its deep and teleological history, and its
potential future, with a particular focus and emphasis on economic systems,
economic interactions, and class relations understood through the mechanism of
class struggle.
Marxism also assumes that the form
of economic organization, or mode of
production, influences all other social
phenomena, including broader social relations, political institutions, legal
systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social relations
and the economic system form a base and
superstructure, with the base constantly
determining the composition of the superstructure. Marx therefore spoke about
the relationship between the means of production, relations of
production, forces of production, and the mode of production, which happens in many ways. Marxism also interprets history as a series of
class struggles driven by economic factors and the relationship between the
means of production and the relations of production (how people organize to
produce goods), as also the constant friction between the toiling masses, the
elitist bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Therefore, Karl Marx saw class
relations and class struggles as the key and the defining feature of all of
human history. Marxist theory argues that capitalists extract surplus value
from the labor of workers, essentially profiting from the unpaid labor of the
proletariat. Marxism predicts that the inherent contradictions within
capitalism will eventually lead to a proletarian revolution that overthrows the
capitalist system. Following the revolution, Marxism envisions a
transitional phase called the "dictatorship of the proletariat,"
where the working class holds political power to dismantle the remnants of
capitalism. Ultimately, Marxism aims for a communist society, characterized
by a classless, stateless, and egalitarian social order where the means of
production are communally owned and resources are distributed based on
need. Profit would become a dirty word along with private property, and
the interests of the workers shall prevail; Thus, Marxism viewed capitalism as
a deficient system which only amplified and magnified corporate greed at the
expense of all other factors plaguing and bedeviling society.
As a
comprehensive school of thought and body of knowledge, Marxism has had a
profound and a deep-rooted impact on society and academia. It has deeply and
profoundly influenced many fields, including those as far apart and far
removed as anthropology, archaeology, art theory, criminology, cultural and social anthropology and cultural studies, economics, education, ethics, film theory, geography, historiography and historical method, literary studies
and criticism, media studies, philosophy, political science, political economy, psychology and psychoanalysis, science studies including scientific method and
epistemology, sociology, social studies, theatre, and urban architecture, development
and planning.
Karl Marx who was
the chief architect of Marxism and communism, was a German philosopher, thinker,
intellectual, author, economist, sociologist, and revolutionary
socialist. He is best known for his theories about capitalism and
communism, and his noteworthy works such as “The Communist Manifesto” (published
as a political pamphlet in 1848) and “Das Kapital” which have shaped
intellectual thought profoundly and deeply over the past one and a half
centuries. Marx was born in Trier, Prussia (now in Germany), on the fifth of May
1818. His father was a lawyer who converted from Judaism to Christianity. Therefore,
Marx was known for his Jewish heritage, though he sometimes despised Jews. Marx
studied law, philosophy and history at the University of Bonn and the
University of Berlin, and was also involved with the Young Hegelians, a group
of intellectuals who critiqued German society. Marx was also known for his
radical activism, and wrote extensively in newspapers and journals. He later
began his lifelong and deep-rooted collaboration with Friedrich Engels, another
affluent and wealthy German philosopher and revolutionary, whom he first met in
Paris in 1844, and continued to engage in political activism, participating in
the International Working Men's Association as well. Engels also supported
Marx financially, when the latter had financial difficulties, and could barely even make both ends meet.
History of Marxism
While
imperialist powers continued to dominate in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, not having been snuffed out until early in the twentieth century,
the industrial revolution changed many things, including the way people lived,
worked and played. The Industrial Revolution, comprising the First
Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution, was a period of global industry and economy transitioning towards more efficient and rapid
manufacturing processes. The industrial revolution first began in Great Britain around the year 1760, and
rapidly spread to continental Europe and later on to the United
States in the ensuing decades. The expansion of automation
and the capitalist industrial enterprise brought with it the growth of the
working class and magnification and amplification of class struggle between the
industrial management and the newly emerging large working class wherever
automation spread. Karl Marx was naturally struck by these anomalies, inconsistencies
and deficiencies, and wanted to improve the lot of the working class as he
wrote the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. However, Marx’s ideas did not
immediately gain widespread popularity or acceptance, and it took many years
before they took hold or root, and he was still bitterly opposed till the end
of his life by many sections of society.
The International
Workingmen's Association also sometimes referred to as the First
International, was a political international which aimed to unite different left-wing socialist, social democratic, communist groups
and trade unions that were based on
the working class and class struggle.
It was founded in 1864 in London, and its first congress was held in 1866 in Geneva.
This organization was subsequently dissolved a decade later in 1876. The
formation of the Second International in 1889 was yet another important milestone
in the struggle for the unity of the working class and took the accomplishments
of the first congress to an altogether new level. In 1891, the Social
Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Erfurt program, replacing the Gotha
program of 1875. The former adopted a more socialist view, and laid the ground
for socialism. The rapid rise of technology between 1880 and 1900 and its
percolation into all walks of daily life, with the attendant rise of the number
of factories, brought with it a heightened awareness of the dangers of the
capitalist mode of production. 1899 was
another turning point in socialism as the socialist leader Millerand became a
minister in a bourgeois government in France. The main breakthrough came in
Russia in 1917, as it abolished its monarchy and adopted communism as its form
of government.
Types of Marxism
While traditional
strands of Marxism as referred to as classical Marxism, several Marxist
concepts have been incorporated into a bewildering array of social theories,
leading to profound diversity of intellectual thought well within the
legitimate ambit, scope and purview of Marxist thought. This sometimes
led to widely varying set of mutually independent and mutually exclusive conclusions. Alongside
Marx's rabid and trenchant critique of capitalism, the
defining characteristics of Marxism have been stated to be "dialectical materialism" and
"historical materialism", though these terms were coined much later,
and well after Karl Marx's death in 1881, and their tenets have also been additionally
challenged by some other self-described Marxists in the decades that ensued. Key variations of Marxism have included Classical
Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Western Marxism, Libertarian Marxism, and Marxist
Feminism. These branches tend to differ somewhat in their interpretations
of Karl Marx's theories and their varying approaches to bringing about revolutionary and social change. The following
paragraph provides a basic and an elementary
explanation and overview of some key types of Marxism:
Classical Marxism
refers to the core ideas developed by Marx and Engels, focusing on historical
materialism, class struggle, the end of capitalism and the eventual transition of
capitalist societies to a communist society. Marxism-Leninism is a political
ideology developed by Lenin, and preeminent in the USSR, building upon the core
tenets of Marxism. It emphasizes the role of a vanguard party (which in
his view had to be a disciplined, centralized party) in leading the proletariat
to a communist revolution, and overthrowing the bourgeoisie. A specific interpretation of Marxism-Leninism associated with the nasty
and authoritarian Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, characterized by strong state
control and centralized planning. He killed millions at least indirectly, and
was notorious for his purges and gulags. Some such strands of thought were seen
in the beliefs of several Indian thinkers such as PN Haksar who molded, at
least in part, the late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian
streak. Of course, proponents of centralization and authoritarianism almost
always led nations and societies to disastrous consequences and results
regardless of the form in which they were applied. This is something many
ageing communists have yet to come to grips with.
Maoism was a variant of
Marxism developed by the Chinese leader Mao Zedong, emphasizing the role of the
peasantry in revolution and protracted people's war. In sum and in essence, it
was an attempt to develop Marxism with Chinese characteristics, to suit Chinese
agrarian conditions. Trotskyism was a peripheral and less influential theory
developed by Leon Trotsky, advocating for international revolution and opposing
Stalin's policies. The idea behind
Trotsky's approach was that in Russia the bourgeoisie would not carry out a comprehensive
revolution, and therefore, a different approach would be required. This
approach appears to have been supported by the Indian Marxist historian Romila
Thapar at some point. The French educated tyrant Pol Pot or
Saloth Sar wanted to punish the Cambodian middle class, and sent them to work
in the countryside, effectively evacuating the capital in the process – His
brand of Communism unleashed a wave of terror that lasted several years. This
killed, maimed or wounded millions and destroyed the economy as well. Even
people with spectacles were persecuted just like uniforms were made mandatory
for a while in Communist China, and people in North Korea required government
approved haircuts – The led to Biologist E.O. Wilson remarking that communism
was better suited to ants and bees, not humans. Most versions or variations of
Marxism and Communism eventually led to disastrous consequences, succeeding
neither economically or politically.
Western Marxism
with thinkers of the likes of Karl Korsch, Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, and
Louis Althusser, emphasized the class struggle more, while underplaying the
more economic ramifications of Marxism. Libertarian Marxism emphasized
the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism, and was vocally critical of state
socialism, advocating for worker self-management through measures such as
council communism, and autonomism. Marxist Feminism applied
Marxist analysis to the study of gender inequality, arguing that capitalism is
a key source of women's oppression. This was more of a
fringe and peripheral approach as mainstream Marxism ignored feminist rights
and issues central to developing nations, often ignoring them, or brushing them
under the carpet. Other schools of thought allied with Marxism have included Marxist Humanism, Orthodox Marxism, Austro-Marxism, and Analytical Marxism, each
of which sought to offer different interpretations and applications of Marxist
theory. We have covered the major types of
Marxism above, although there are indeed some more. The ongoing development
and interpretation of Marxist ideas continue to shape political and
intellectual discourse around the world, thought it is no longer a force to
reckon with, and has entered a deep and terminal phase of decline. Fabian
socialism represents a form of democratic socialism that advocates for social
change through gradual reform rather than revolutionary upheaval, and was first
developed by the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization founded in
1884. This approach was however associated with economic stagnation, and
eventually failed. Democratic socialism is a political and economic philosophy
that combines democracy with social ownership of the means of production,
emphasizing economic democracy and social justice while rejecting authoritarian
socialism and totalitarian communism. This approach was recommended by
the Indian thinker N Ram and others; it however came to be associated with
economic stagnation and failure.
In India, Nehruvian
socialism which was based on the Fabian socialist model with Indian
characteristics, also largely failed and was associated with what came to be
known as the Hindu rate of growth – more or less equal to the rate of
population growth which stood at between two and three per cent. It came to be associated
with shoddy products and the stagnation of technology as evidence by the Hindusthan
Ambassador and the Premier Padmini due to a lack of competition in the products
and services market. The rise of
globalization, and the rise of internet has eroded the sheen of socialism even
further, and India had no other option but to liberalize and open up its
markets in 1991.
While there have
been some successes of Marxism such as the Russian revolution of 1917, the
Chinese revolution of 1949, also known as the Chinese communist revolution,
many of which abolished monarchies and imperialism, there have been many criticisms
of Marxism most notably its tendency to perpetuate state power, and engender
chronic economic and technological stagnation. These allegations were also made
by the novelist George Orwell- noted for his literary works and masterpieces
1984, and the Animal farm. Intellectuals and academicians Stephane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth,
and others have made a scathing indictment of communism in a book entitled “The
black book of communism: Crimes, terror and repression” citing a long litany of political repression by communist governments,
including, but not limited to, genocides, summary
extrajudicial executions, deportations,
deaths in labor camps and famines
created through economic mismanagement. We also have had the excesses of Stalinism,
the excesses of Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, the evils of Chinese communism under
Mao, the failure of the Chinese great leap forward, and the Chinese Cultural
revolution. The opening up of the Chinese economy in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping
of course led to miraculous results, and did the opening up of the Indian
economy under Manmohan Singh and PV Narasimha Rao in 1991. We also had the fall
of the Berlin wall in 1989, and the collapse of communism throughout Eastern
Europe. The collapse of communism in Romania was particularly violent as it led
to the execution of the then communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. The collapse
of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev came a year later, in 1990, leaving Cuba
and North Korea as the only communist or strongly socialist holdouts, until the
reemergence of socialism in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and parts of Latin
America later. We have had the pink tide or a return to the left in many parts
of Latin America, though Venezuela by all or most accounts, has been a
veritable economic catastrophe or disaster.
What is Academic Marxism?
Academic Marxism is
an important branch, arm and leg of mainstream Marxist thought. Academic
Marxism refers to research, investigation and analysis of Marxist ideas
within the context of universities and scholarly research that seeks to boost
and advance Marxist ideas, ideals, and principles both directly and indirectly. Academic
Marxism involves studying Marxist concepts and ideas such as class struggle,
capitalism, and historical materialism within the context of academic
disciplines such as sociology, cultural anthropology, philosophy, political
science, and economics. Academic Marxism therefore
encompasses a critique of society through the lens of core Marxist concepts
such as class struggle and historical materialism, and analyses ways and means
to bring about meaningful changes in society either through peaceful or violent
revolutions. While some traditional
and conventional Marxists view academic Marxism as a valuable method for
understanding and critiquing society, others criticize it for being too detached
and far apart (also, overly idealistic) from the practical world or for failing
to account for actual real-world complexities and intricacies.
Key aspects of
Academic Marxism include a methodological approach, i.e. Academic Marxists
often use the underpinnings of Marxist theory as a framework for analyzing
social phenomena, examining power structures, power hierarchies, power
distribution patterns, and critiquing capitalist systems. There is also an
underlying focus on class struggle (between the elitist bourgeoisie, the
toiling masses and the proletariat) which appears as a recurrent theme
throughout. Another central theme is historical materialism which emphasizes
the role of material conditions and economic forces in shaping social and
political structures. Academic Marxism frequently critiques capitalism as
a system that perpetuates inequality and exploitation by the ruling class and
the bourgeoisie. Marxist ideas have significantly and foundationally influenced
many different academic fields, such as sociology, political science, social
and cultural anthropology, literary theory, and cultural studies. Academic
Marxism has also rested heavily on pithy aphorisms such as "The
philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to
change it", and “The real education of the masses can never be
separated from their independent political, and especially revolutionary,
struggle." These provided steam and ammunition to the discipline as a
whole.
Some common criticisms
of academic Marxism include allegations of detachment from real-world concerns and considerations Some notable critics of academic Marxism argue
that academic Marxism has become overly theoretical and disconnected in due
course from real-world complexities and does not seek out practical
solutions. We also have the idealism vs. materialism debate. There
are ongoing debates in academic as to whether Marxism should be treated as a
method of analysis or as a comprehensive theory of history and
society. Some critics suggest that academic Marxism overemphasizes class
conflict while neglecting other factors contributing to social inequality such
as gender equality and racism. In sum, it is rooted in mid-nineteenth century
concerns and considerations. There has also always been a concern that
academic Marxism had the tendency to morph into a rigid ideology, resistant to
alternative perspectives or empirical evidence. Examples of academic
Marxist thinkers have included Louis
Althusser (who worked on ideology and state apparatuses), David Harvey (who worked on
urban geography and economic issues), Antonio Gramsci, Raymond Williams, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, and Immanuel Wallerstein.
There are also –
dime a dozen - internal theoretical problems associated with academic Marxism.
For example, the core Marxist concept of the
labor theory of value, (Developed by Karl Marx based on earlier work carried
out by the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo) which posits that the value
of a commodity is determined solely and chiefly by the labor time involved in
its production to the exclusion of all other factors, has been by and large
rejected by most mainstream economists. Some critics also additionally argue
that academic Marxism has become overly and primarily focused on textual
analysis and historical interpretations of Marx's work, akin to some sort of a
cult following, and devoid and bereft of original thought or contributions, rather
than grappling with contemporary social and economic issues, the nature and
tenor of which have changed with the passage of time. Marxist thinkers and
scholars are also at times accused of reification. Reification is the process of treating an abstract concept, idea,
or relationship as if it were a concrete, tangible or physical entity. Critics of Marxism also point
out to a overly simplistic and deterministic view of class formation in Marxist
theory, as Marxists talk about unproven and non-tangible concepts such as the bourgeoisie,
elitist bourgeoisie, toiling masses and the proletariat. The class of
lumpenproiteriat was added later to represent agrarian and agricultural
workers.
There has also
been the rise of alternative theoretical and conceptual frameworks such as post-structuralism
and postmodernism,
though these are not directly in conflict with Marxism. Thinkers like Jean
Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, and Judith Butler have offered
alternative perspectives that greatly emphasize the importance of culture,
discourse, and identity as opposed to the primacy of economic determinism. Post-structuralism also challenges the idea of fixed and universal
meanings and emphasizes multivocality of interpretation. It also emphasizes and
stresses the power dynamics resident in language and discourse. This is also
known as deconstruction as proposed by Derrida. Postmodernism is an
important intellectual and cultural movement that emerged in the second half of
the twentieth century, and was generally highly skeptical of grand narratives,
objective truths, and universal principles preferring subjectivity and the
power of interpretation instead. All
these new schools of thought advanced by Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois
Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, and others, have made a dent on Marxist theory, and appear
to have diminished its importance somewhat, and failures
of Marxist-defined political movements such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, disillusionment with anti-capitalist
movements, and the emergence of nationalism over class consciousness have
further accelerated the process of perception of decline. While Marxism
continues to be studied and debated both in academia and non-academia, it no
longer holds the same preeminent position it once did in many countries and academic
disciplines. In sum, it is in gradual retreat and decline. Academic
Marxism will only decline gradually because unlike a political revolution, an
intellectual tradition will die out only after all its practitioners die out. This,
as a process, is bound to take some time.
Another
important, useful and interesting definition is the term zeitgeist. Crudely
explained and defined, this refers to the defining spirit or mood of a
particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time. The
term is thought to have originated from the same German word meaning “Ghost of
the period” or “the spirit of the age” and the term was widely used in German
philosophy over a century ago and Georg W. F. Hegel
is commonly thought to have brought it into general use in “The phenomenology
of the spirit” published in 1807, with further inputs from Goethe and Herder. Other
terms such as Volksgeist meaning "national
spirit" and Weltgeist meaning "world-spirit"
are also sometimes used. The Overton
Window, also sometimes and less commonly known as the window of discourse, represents
to the range of policies and ideas that are considered current in the public
discourse at a given point in time, and are widely debated and discussed. This
"window" may shift and change over time, as it inevitably and
invariably does, determining ideas that are considered mainstream and ideas
that are considered non-mainstream, peripheral or fringe. Marx would have
naturally based his ideas on contemporary concerns and considerations and would
not have been able to envision subsequent changes and happenings. We have
spoken about concepts such as aeternitism and omnimodism, but of course, these
are ore recent, and there is always an amount of risk or uncertainties involved
with predictions.
Eurocentrism
is the misleading and restrictive practice of viewing the world from a
European perspective or a European lens, generally placing European culture,
values, and history at the center and marginalizing or misrepresenting other
cultures which are often considered or seen to be peripheral and less important. Per
this perspective, European ideas and values are perceived to be the gold standard,
the universal yardstick or the measuring rod, or the even the single point of
reference. This perspective often leads to the belief or assumption that
European values are superior and must therefore be deemed universal and that
other cultures should always strive to follow or emulate them. Key aspects
of Eurocentrism therefore include the belief that Europe would always remain
the central shining star in the universal scheme of things, and that all other
cultures are fringe and unimportant. Eurocentrism provided an important moral,
philosophical and epistemological basis for colonialist expansion, and the
subjugation of “the other peoples” and was associated with pithy aphorisms such
as the white man’s burden, and the mission civilisatrice. The French in
particular, sought to transfer or impose French values on colonized French
people, particularly the French language and French haute couture. Even in the post-colonial era, Eurocentric
perspectives have not been completely eliminated in many fields, such as
education, media, popular culture, and the social sciences including
anthropology, sociology, and economics. Eurocentrism is also a permanent obstacle to intercultural understanding, as it
imposes artificial limits on the interpretation of cultural diversity. Karl
Marx would have been an unconscious victim of Eurocentrism, though it is to his
credit that he came up with concepts such as Asiatic modes of production, or the postulated
scheme of affairs in Asia. He did not get it entirely right, though, and
stumbled and faltered very badly.
Racism has been a
major and ongoing problem in many parts of the world, and even non-white
societies are completely free from it. Racism also refers to the belief that groups of humans possess
different cognitive attributes corresponding to inherited traits and that
humans can be subdivided based into neatly compartmentalized races with one
race or group of people being innately or inherently superior to the other.
Racism has also often taken on decidedly scientific overtones, and scientists
too have not been entirely free from racist prejudice or dogma. Scientific
racism, which is in large part baseless and unfounded stems mostly from nativism, xenophobia, group
segregation, hierarchical
ranking, and white supremacism. The idea
of race itself is mostly obsolete, though it was widely prevalent in Marx’s
day, and as such, he may not have been free from stereotypes and prejudices
which many have in turn moulded or shaped many of his ideas.
Many Enlightenment thinkers such as Francois
Bernier, Lord Kames, Robert Boyle, and Richard Bradley too were not entirely
free from such beliefs, (some later thinkers even supported eugenics) and
Mahatma Gandhi too once viewed blacks in derogatory terms. In addition many
Marxist thinkers stand accused of Islamoleftism,
a term coined by Pierre-André Taguieff in
2002 and by some British Trotskyites of
the Socialist Workers Party. This is because
Islam does not have a caste system. It also may have stemmed from the fact that
Marx was anti-Semitic, (He even published a pamphlet entitled “On the Jewish
question”) and the Islam stood in opposition to Judaism. Many scientists of the
day were empire loyalists,
and some researchers were even handmaidens of colonialists. The French
sociologist Lucien Levi Bruhl spoke about a primitive mentality which implied
non-whites could not do science, and we would still like to talk about the “Colonial
Marxist imperialist school of Indology” to this day. Many old notions have of
course stood convincingly falsified in the wake of the rise of Japan, the rise
of Asian tigers, and the rise of China. As far as the undisputable economic
rise of India since 1991 is concerned, Marxists are not evidently comfortable
with it because they see it as a rise of capitalism, and as a vindication of
capitalism of. They also see it as a dissipation of Eurocentric ideas, and in
this case, ideology takes precedence over everything else- Indian communists
were not even comfortable with India signing the Indo US nuclear deal in 2008,
even though it would have benefitted India immensely. Marxists are also not comfortable
with globalization, even though it greatly aided developing nations. Marxist
views are therefore riddled with obsolete contradictions.
We must also talk
about the decline of academic Marxism at this stage. Academic Marxism, as a
dominant theoretical framework, has experienced a steep and probably terminal
decline in influence within most fields of academia. This decline is commonly
attributed to a combination of several factors, such as theoretical problems
and contradictions, the rise of alternative theoretical perspectives, and the economic
failure of Communist nations. We must also do away with abstract
theorization, and adopt grounded theory instead. Theories must fit facts, and
not the other way around. We don’t also need over theorization for the most
part. Abstract theorization without proper collection of facts leads to bias
and prejudice invariably and inevitably. Abstract theorization without proper
collection of facts leads to theories with limited explanatory power. Abstract
theorization without proper collection of facts leads to flawed theories and
doomed theories. We need data-driven theorization. We need ethnography driven
theorization and we had stressed and emphasized this clearly in our work on anthropological
economics.
Abhijit Banerjee,
the Indian Nobel prize laureate too says the same thing. He has even founded
the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) with Esther Duflo and Sendhil
Mullainathan, to further the cause of evidence-based planning. Hypotheses are
different from conjectures; Hypotheses are different from hunches; Hypotheses
cannot be based on gut feel alone. We say this because we accuse Marx of
over-theorization. There are plenty of other economic alternatives to
laissez-faire capitalism, not just Marxism. We need trickle up and bottom up
development models for developing countries. Developing countries must chart
their own course and their own paths, away from the rigid molds of developed
nations. We need private enterprise, but we also need a semblance of job
stability and security. Hire and fire systems must be replaced by more benign
systems with better job training, and reasonable notice periods. We had written
about this extensively previously.
Countries also go
through Phugoid cycles, and we had developed this concept in our paper on
Anthropological Economics in 2020. Hubris leads to downfall. German mathematician
Oswald Spengler wrote about the decline of the west in works published in the
years 1918 and 1922. He may not have been right on all counts. The west is
still strong in many respects. According to Oswald Spengler, all societies
follow four distinct phases, birth, growth, maturity and death. There are
cultural identity based interpretation of events too, and we must draw our
readers attention to Samuel P Huntington’s work on the clash of civilizations,
a work that made him eternally famous. On
the other hand, Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis,
articulated in his 1989 essay and subsequent book, states that the progression
of human history, particularly the ideological struggle between different forms
of government, has reached its endpoint with the triumph of western democracy with no
room for regression or alternative scenarios.
Good theorization, but no rocksolid evidence or data backs it up. We must state
here that the future is only a set of possibilities, and predictions are
fraught with risks or uncertainties. Authors also want to become famous or hog
the limelight.
There are also
many other strands of overlapping thought, and different authors tend to think
differently. Gregory Possehl was a staunch believer in American exceptionalism,
and this led to hubris and intellectual arrogance. Witzel was loyal to the mid
nineteenth century school of Indology, causing him to stagnate and become blind
to realities. There is a clear and
unequivocal nexus between Indian Marxist historiography – also intellectualism,
and colonialism and imperialism. That is why we had called it the colonial
Marxist imperialist school of Indology. We may also use the term the colonial
Marxist imperialist school of historiography in this connection. Marxist
historians in India catastrophically and disastrously misinformed western
Indologists. Marxist historians relied heavily on obsolete historical models.
This was also because it partly suited them, or was in line with their
ideology.
Marxist
historians did not also give Indology a proper direction in post-independent
India. They failed to develop
interdisciplinary models. Ramachandra Guha even once called them silly, limited
one-sided and flawed. BR Ambedkar and Kancha Ilaiah also followed obsolete
historical models, and had a limited grasp of Hinduism, thereby succumbing to a
reductionist view of Hinduism centered on the caste system. The highly
left-leaning Indian Frontline Magazine is comprehensively outdated; it is stuck
in a decades old intellectual format. It even supports Dravidian nationalism
and jingoistic parochialism to some degree. It supports somewhat left-leaning
writers such as Audrey Truschke. With the decline of the Dravidian Indus valley
hypotheses, Dravidian nationalists- a strand the left unwittingly seems to have
a penchant for supporting, come up with new hypotheses with unfailing
regularity such as the “Keeladi is older than the Indus valley” hypotheses –
with scant and testable evidence. Such works are also targeted at a popular
audience, and not at a scholarly or an erudite audience, a disastrous recipe
for pseudoscience. This is not to say that the Indian right is not dangerous. The
fact that they are extremely dangerous is an altogether different matter.
We must always
remember and bear in mind the fact that the right is both reactionary and
non-reactionary; they have a different and a radical agenda to pursue
altogether. We have well-meaning activists such as Harsh Mander fighting for
the rights of Muslims in a Hindutva India; this is fine, but one must also
understand issues from a broader perspective; such as colonialism and its
impact on historiography and intellectualism, etc, and its snowball or domino
effects on other issues. We also have other left-leaning publications such as
Himal South Asia and Countercurrents; while their views as all views must be
respected always, it is necessary to maintain both balance and
comprehensiveness at all times. As we have always stated, one kind of bias
legitimizes every other kind of bias. The ideological left tends to encourage
the right even more as they led to intellectual polarization and the formation
of intellectual cul-de-sacs. We need to understand human psychology always, and
at all times. We need to understand culture at all times because humans live
and breathe culture, and are sentient beings. Suppression and obfuscation of
history is not the way. If anything, it only increases superstition and blind
faith even more because people then take recourse to Amar Chitra Katha’s and
other non-mainstream literature. People will assume anything, and lurch to the
right. Only objectivity and balance will erase the right in the long-run. Data-driven
approaches and objectives are the only way.
Academic Marxism
in the USA connotes the study and application of Marxist theory within the
context of American universities and American intellectual circles. While
never a dominant force in American academic in the manner it once was in
European academia, Marxism has nonetheless maintained a reasonably strong presence
in American social criticism for over a century, thereby influencing different
academic disciplines such as sociology, social and cultural anthropology,
economics, political science, and literature. While traditional or
classical Marxism was strong in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, the New Left movement of the 1960’s and the 1970’s
transformed into an eventual resurgence and revitalization of Marxist ideas,
particularly on college campuses, thereby greatly influencing student activism
and intellectual discourse. The New Left differed from the
"Old Left" by molding and realigning itself suitably to focus less on
traditional Marxist economic concerns like unionization and more on social and
cultural issues like civil rights, feminism, and anti-war movements. The
New Left greatly advocated individual freedom and liberties, social justice,
and challenged established power structures, though in a much more radical and
decentralized manner. However, the core
concepts of Marxism had already been jettisoned by the 1990’s combined with a
shift in political power away from communist countries. In the USA, the
Socialist Labor party was instrumental in promoting Marxist ideas along with
other influential people such as Daniel De Leon, Angela Davis, C. Wright Mills,
Leonard Abbott, Devere
Allen and others.
Marxism in India
has a long and a chequered history. The Communist Party of India is a political
party in India and was founded on December 26, 1925 at Cawnpore, now known as
Kanpur. Between 1946 and 1951, the Communist Party of India led militant
struggles such as the peasant revolt in Telangana, formerly a part of Andhra
Pradesh, organizing guerrilla warfare against feudal zamindars or landowners.
Marxism in India has been a significant intellectual and political force,
evolving from its initial integration with the nationalist movement to its role
in shaping various political parties and institutions. While Marxist-derived
ideas were influential in the early Congress party and among socialist
movements, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) emerged from a split within
the Communist Party of India, initially embracing armed revolution before
shifting towards parliamentary politics. Currently, Marxism in India is
represented by various groups, including the CPI(M) and the CPI(Maoist), the
latter advocating for a people's war to overthrow the government. Today, Marxism in India is represented by various
groups, including the CPI(M), which operates within the parliamentary
framework, and the CPI(Maoist), which advocates for armed
revolution. Marxist perspectives have significantly impacted the study of
Indian history, particularly regarding economic development, land ownership,
and class conflict. Marxist thought has permeated various institutions,
including universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, where it has been a
dominant paradigm. Marxist historiography was once strong, though
slowly declining. DN Jha, KM Shrimali, RS Sharma, Romila Thapar, etc were
stalwarts in Indian Marxist historiography. Marxist historians in India have
certain set characteristics. For example, they praise the Mauryan and Mughal
periods in Indian history and discount all other periods of Indian history.
Thus, Indian historiography is largely seen as a ding dong battle between the
left and the right.
Marxist
historiography, while still influential, faces several criticisms. These
include accusations of determinism, overemphasis on economic factors leading to
economic reductionism, over-simplistic class structures and class relations,
potential misrepresentation of history and historical events, and neglecting
the agency of individuals and non-economic factors in historical
development. It is teleological and deterministic and posits an origin of
history at the start of the revolutions of the proletariat. It creates or
induces a ripple effect, and its negative consequences metastasize.
Accusations of Islamoleftism, ideologically
driven discrimination between religions, and minority appeasement are rampant.
Marxist historiography prohibits winnowing the past for glory, and overlooks or
ignores a study of cultural factors. Additionally, its application has been
critiqued for potential biases and oversimplifications.
We have leveled a
large number of criticisms against Marxist historiography over the years, in
five different papers. Despite these criticisms, Marxist historiography remains
a significant and influential approach to historical analysis. Its focus
on social and economic structures, class conflict, and the dynamics of power
has profoundly shaped historical studies. However, it is important to
acknowledge and come to grips with its inherent limitations and counterbalance
it with other perspectives in order to ensure a more balanced and comprehensive
understanding of history. Marxists also do not understand issues from a
psychological perspective. They do not understand that humans will be human. Religion
cannot be wished away with a magic wand. It is tied to personal, social,
cultural, economic, and political functions. Religion is tied to identity
formation. All Marxist historians cannot however, be tarred with the same brush.
KM Shrimali and others have made a valiant effort to change with the times, and
have written extensively on religion. We
had proposed a new school of thought called twenty-first century school of
historiography. The core papers in this series were historiography by
objectives (which proposed a layered presentation of history and thirty-nine
core objectives), core principles of twenty-first century historiography, anthropological
historiography with a better integration of history with prehistory and
protohistory and forty nine additional objectives, qualified historiography to
deal with scenarios of unreliable historical narratives, and investigative
historiography. Given that the scope of these works is too vast to be
reproduced here, we request readers to read them in their entirety.
Marxism in
literary studies, sometimes also known as Marxist literary criticism, analyzes literature primarily through
the prism and lens of purely social and economic factors, greatly stressing and
emphasizing class struggle and revolutionary struggle. It views literary
works as reflections of the material conditions and ideological forces of their
time, rather than as aesthetic works, or objects of art to be cherished,
appreciated and enjoyed. This approach itself is highly reductionist and over-simplified,
and has been criticized many times, both from within and outside academia for
tedium and monotony of patterns. Marxist theory of
cultural change, though sometimes influential, faces many valid criticisms with
respect to its explanation of cultural and social change. These critiques
include accusations of sweeping and omnibus economic determinism, a gross
oversimplification of social structures, and neglecting or brushing under the
carpet many vital non-class forms of oppression like race and
gender. Additionally, some argue that Marxist theory struggles to account
for the complexities of contemporary culture, such as identity formation, the
role played by science and technology in the determination of economic
outcomes, and the impact of globalization. That is why we had proposed the
symbiotic approach to sociocultural change in many of our previously published
papers. Readers are requested to read them in its entirety as its scope is too
vast to present here.
As far as views
regarding religion are concerned there are allegations of subconscious
communialism, accusations of Islamoleftism, accusations of Hinduphobia which refers to a wide range and gamut of negative attitudes,
behaviors, and actions directed towards Hinduism or Hindus as alleged by Vamsee Juluri and others. There is also a tendency towards simplistic and naïve interpretation of religion,
as religion cannot be wished away with a magic wand, or brushed under the
carpet. There is also no attempt to reform religion
meaningfully and comprehensively, and views towards religion among a range of
scholars are utterly inconsistent, ranging from adulation to irrational
hostility. Thus, there is no institutional coherentism and no epistemic
coherentism.
Academic Marxism
has lost its bearings, anchor, moorings, sheen. It will decline further if alternative
paradigms are put in place. New contemporary theoretical frameworks are required
in a wdie array of the social sciences. We have been working tirelessly and
ceaselessly towards this for the past twenty years now A ten year old article
”Left out, left behind, left in between”
laments and bemoans the fact that Marxists are stuck in a time warp and a rut,
and cannot change with the times. The situation is still the same today. Since
they will not change, they will die a natural death. There is however a lack of alternative stream of thought in many disciplines
and fields of study. A lack of alternative stream of thought is a major issue. We
need to develop alternate theoretical frameworks quickly and rapidly. We also need
to integrate these tightly with post-colonialism and post-colonial frameworks A
large number of scholars from different parts of the world must bring this to
fruition, adopting a cross-cultural and an inter-disciplinary methodology. Only
they will they stand any chance of succeeding.
Approaches
to religious studies
A number of
divergent approaches and methodologies are used in religious studies, and we
present a few of them below. These may either be co-integrated, or applied in
isolation. Phenomenology has
been one of the most influential approaches to the study of religion in recent
times. The approach was developed by Edmund
Husserl, based on earlier work by GWF Hegel, and the former is considered
to be its founding father. Ninian Smart and Gerardus van der Leeuw further extended this approach to the field of religious studies.
One of the pillars of phenomenology is consciousness and the spirit, and
conscious or unconscious self-interpretation too, based on previously acquired
cultural or social knowledge, and interpretation mechanisms. Therefore, this
approach adopts a purely neutral and a non-speculative stance, and avoids
looking at issues from the point of view of the researcher. Functionalism, as it is applied to religious studies, is the
analysis of religions and their practitioners by analyzing the functions of
particular religious phenomena in relation to the cultural whole. The approach
was introduced by British anthropologist AR Radcliffe Brown, and has been extended by many other scholars ever
since. Symbolism as introduced by the American anthropologist Clifford
Geertz, studies religion with respect to the communicative symbols its uses and
produces. Structuralism was introduced by Claude
Levi Strauss, and is also sometimes employed in studies of religion. It is used
to identify patterns of thought, and the interrelationship between thought
processes.
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that was
developed by the nineteenth century German philosophers Karl Marx and to a somewhat lesser extent by
his mentor and sponsorer Friedrich Engels. Marxism provides a
critique of capitalism and talks about a constant struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It therefore, calls of the over throw of the
bourgeoisie, and the establishment of a classless society. This according to
Marx, would be a utopian paradise. A major criticism of Marx’s ideas is that it
is based on the situation existing in mid Nineteenth century Europe, and may
not have universal validity and universal applicability. This position and this
assertion is however contested by Marxists for whom the doctrine is a holy
grail, and is the solution to all of mankind’s and humanity’s woes. Marx saw
religion as an unnecessary evil, a sigh of an oppressed creature, an expression
of suffering, and as the opium of the masses. This unidirectional and highly
limited approach may have bred counter-reactions as well, as seen, witnessed
and observed by the rise of the far right in recent times. We will also argue
that honest and unbiased objectivity is the only way, and that this alone will
eventually, and in due course, eliminate the far right from the academic scene
and the academic spectrum.
Criticism
of religious studies
Many scholars, such as Timothy
Fitzgerald, Richard E. King, Jonathan Z.
Smith, Tomoko Masuzawa, Talal Asad, Geoffrey
A. Oddie, and Russell T. McCutcheon, have strongly criticized
religious studies as it is not subject perspective-driven and seeks to impose
the researchers views onto the people it aims to survey. Post-colonialists also
criticize religious studies as being agenda-driven and possessing a colonial
flavor and a colonial temperament that has largely not yet been got rid of. Religious
studies are often seen as being Christian-centric in orientation, and often
being hand in gloves with Christian missionaries and colonial expansionists.
This assertion may or may not be entirely correct that religious studies have
somewhat moved away from their colonial and Christian-centric past. Others
state that Christian norms, Christian views, and Christian value systems were
sought to be imposed on other Non-Christian societies. We also criticize and contest the tendency to
categorize academic religious studies. We believe that a researcher’s approach
must as far as possible, be self-contained, and lacking internal and external
contradictions. This is in spite of the fact that there are a variety of
approaches to study religion given its diverse historical origins. (Pals, 1996)
Indology has also not been entirely free from
its colonial baggage, and we have been proposing alternative approaches in the
recent past. We must mention this here given the fact that Indology includes
religious studies for the most part. We must all however agree, that to
Germany, Indology and India owe a great deal. A scientific study of India’s
past began in Germany long before Indians had the capability and the energy to
begin researching their past. However, as Douglas T. Mc Getchin points out
contrasting and comparing motives in Germany and England "Although I touch
here on the impact of German scholarship in modern India, it was ancient, not
modern India that was important for nineteenth-century German scholars. As
Kaushik Bagchi has argued, “Modern India and modern Indians did not really
interest [German Indologists]. Modern India and Indian antiquity were for these
scholars, two separate compartments. One was their professional interest of
job, and the other an object of curiosity that was related to their
professions, but not central to it. Modern Germans' representation of Ancient
India had a narcissist element, that is, it was informed by Germans' interest
in themselves rather than a genuine "other". German Sanskrit scholars
considered the ancient Aryans to be their own ancestors, so they portrayed them
in a bold and a favorable light. Albrecht Weber made it a point to divorce the
Ancient Aryans from their modern Indian descendants. "In this free
strength, this vigorous self-consciousness, a very different, and a far more
manly and noble, picture of the Indian in presented to us than that to which we
are accustomed from later times.”
Weber considered the enervating influence of
the new climate as the primary reason for the decline of the ancient people.
Muller's case shows that the lack of a direct German colonial presence on the
Indian subcontinent did not mean German Indology was free of Imperial and
colonial patterns of thinking and interests. AW Schlegel, described how 96
Germans would harvest the "intellectual treasures" of India even if
the English took the material goods'.” [Mc Getchin, 2010, 185] Max Muller often
spoke of a great Aryan brotherhood based on the sameness of blood and
encompassing both Europeans and Indians, which he felt would bode well for the
British Raj. Neville Chamberlain endorsed his views completely, but however
dropped Indians completely from the brotherhood. As Thomas R Trautmann states,
acknowledging the continuing legacy of colonialism “Speaking for myself, having
been awakened from my dogmatic slumbers and having gone back to the British
pioneers of Indology for a closer look, doing so has been a revelation for me,
filled with unexpected discovery. At the outset, it became very clear that most
the British Sanskritists, without any exception were empire loyalists and
scholars who took it for granted that there was a very close connection between
their scholarship and the British colonial adventure in India.” [Trautmann,
1999, 277]
As Edmund Leach also pointed out as recently
as in 1990, “The origin myth of British colonial imperialism helped the elite
administrators in the Indian Civil Service to see themselves as bringing ‘pure’
civilization to a country in which civilization of the most sophisticated, but
morally corrupt kind was nearly 6000 years old. Here I will only remark that
the hold of this myth on the British Middle-class imagination is so strong that
even today, 44 years after the death of Hitler and 43 years after the creation
of an independent India and Pakistan, the Aryan invasions of the second
millennium BC are 97 still treated as if they were an established fact of
history. This attitude fits well with the prejudices of the Nineteenth century
English and German scholars who were committed to maintaining a system of
sexual apartheid to separate the rulers from the ruled.” [Leach, 1990, 243]
Thus, modernizing Indology, and stripping it from the misdeeds and the
misadventures of the colonial past, will help it accomplish the ideals of this
paper greatly. The same observations may hold good for African studies as well,
though Indology and African studies must reach and attain the same level of
rigorous exactitude that characterizes Egyptian and Chinese studies.
Islamo-Leftism is a term
that is applied in political sciences and in sociology to describe the alleged unhealthy
or unsavoury political alliance between leftists and Islamists (and the
alleged dislike by Marxists both academic and non-academic to Judaism and
Zionism) due to similarity in ideology and temperament. The term is generally traced to Pierre-Andre Taguieff's 2002 book New
Judeophobia, and by some to Jean Marie Le Pen, though it has been widely used
and applied ever since in many different contexts. This approach may lead some
Marxists to whitewash crimes by Islamist radicals, and exaggerate the actions
promoted by Hindutva groups, however unsavoury they themselves may be. This
could be due to many reasons – to begin with, Islam is seen as being anti-west,
a position that suits the Marxist narrative greatly. Islam also does not have a
caste system, which Hinduism unfortunately does.
Characteristics of twenty-first century
religious studies
The following are the ideal characteristics
of twenty-first century religious studies from our perspective, and all other
pre-ideal scenarios must be eliminated in due course.
1. Objectivity
Religious studies is an academic and a scholarly
approach that must naturally live upto it’s expectation of being more objective
and academically sound than other methods of understanding and explaining religions.
Objectivity in scientific research occurs or is said to take place when there
are no personal biases or personal opinions involved in the process of
research. Scientists must always strive to reduce bias and subjectivity in
their output, which may arise when personal judgments and beliefs override
objective considerations. This is however, by no means always easy. The
underlying assumption of objectivity is the idea that truth exists
independently of an observation or investigation, and that the researcher
should not contaminate the truth. Also note that objectivity is indeed always
necessary to formulate an accurate explanation of how things work in the world,
and further downstream researcher would greatly benefit from it. However, poor
quality research would have an aggregate net negative downstream effect, and we
had introduced a concept called QEPIS (Quantification of the effects of poor or
Ideologically-driven scholarship) in our paper on Twenty-first century
historiography. Objectivity must be aggressively pursued not only in
quantitative research, but in qualitative research also. Some groups of
individuals particularly post-modernists have harped ad nauseum on the
subjectivity of interpretation. We cannot concur with this except in extreme
circumstances, such as where new and meaningful hypotheses are being
formulated. There is also a world of difference between objectivity and
objective-driven approaches. The latter refers to a fulfillment of the research
objectives of the study at hand, and must be accomplished nonetheless. This
alone would not however indicate that the research is objective. The idea of
objectivity is also linked to the idea of positivism which states that only
information gathered from real-world observations and real-world data is
reliable. Objectivity is must also eliminate all forms of cognitive biases such
as confirmation biases. Conformation bias, as proposed by the English
psychologist Peter Wilson, refers to selective processing of data; people
mentally process and accept data which confirms to their belief systems, and
reject almost everything else.
The idea of reliability means that the
research output is capable of being used by downstream researchers without any
further investigation or modification. Thus, the research must not have a
myopic outlook and must be able to envisage the downstream implications of his
research. This good research has an ampiliative quality to it, and begets
further good downstream research. Research reliability refers to the idea
whether research methods can reproduce the same results when experiments are
carried out repeatedly or multiple times. If research methods can produce
consistent results whenever the experiment is repeated, then the methods are
likely to be reliable and not influenced by any extraneous factors. Reliabilism
on the other hand, is the idea that scientific output is reliable only if it is
produced by a reliable process.
The idea of validly refers to how well a
scientific test or research activity actually measures what it seeks to
measure, or how well it reflects reality and real-world considerations. Validity
may also be categorized into internal validity and external validity. Internal
validity refers to the extent to which evidence is valid within the context of
a particular study. External validity on the other hand, refers to the extent
to which a claim is valid against external data or observations. It also refers
to whether the results of a study can be vetted or ratified against external
ideas or concepts. We may also refer to the theory of paradoxes here; any
theory, hypothesis or paradigm is effectively useless if it contains a large
number of internal and external paradoxes.
The concept of precision refers to how close
measurements of the same item are to one other. The idea of precision is
independent of the ideal of accuracy. This is because accuracy refers to how
close observations are to the widely accepted value. Therefore, it is possible
to be extremely precise without being very accurate, and vice versa. Both
precision and accuracy are required for science to be accepted as high-quality
science.
Accuracy refers to how well an observed value
tallies with a more widely accepted value. It may also sometimes refer to the
match between the sample population and target population. Accuracy must thus
be differentiated and distinguished from precision, and both these are
absolutely required for research to qualify as high-quality research. Both
accuracy and precision must be constantly measured and verified by a researcher
as a part of his study, and red flags raised whenever these are compromised. In
addition to precision and accuracy, data validity and reliability are also
necessary for research to be categorized as high-quality research.
Rigour refers to the quality of being
extremely thorough and careful. It also at times refers to the principle and characteristics
of following rules, regulations, processes and procedures in an extremely
thorough way, and communicating them effectively as well. Rigorous research is
also often accompanied by a thorough analysis and handling of data or
exceptions. Rigour does not always necessarily mean precision and accuracy, and
rigour does not necessarily guarantee us objectivity. However, rigour is an
important cog in the wheel and takes us closer to the truth. For example, the
Indian Marxist historian DN Jha was rigorous, but arguably not objective as he
was driven and motivated by ideology. These people can be given away by their
cherry-picking of data or one-sided and limited interpretation of data. The
same holds good of Hindutva proponents who often subscribe to victimhood
narrative, and cry out foul over alleged unfair play and discrimination. At the
same time, we also need consistency and epistemic coherentism at all times. We
also need institutional coherentism, and there must be no vacillation between
adulation and hate. There must be a consistency of purpose, and a consistency
of mission always. For other characteristics of good research, refer our paper
on “Advocating Output Criteria based Scientific and Research Methodologies: why
the Reliability of Scientific and Research Methods Must be Measured based on
Output Criteria and Attributes” published in 2023.
2. Interdisciplinary
approach
Religious studies draws
on many academic disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, psychology,
philosophy, and history of religion, and this key and essential characteristic
must be retained at all times. Multidisciplinary
research is a collaborative effort for research that involves a liaison between
experts belonging to different fields of study in order to solve complex problems
and develop comprehensive and wide ranging solutions. Multidisciplinary a
growing and a welcome trend in many fields, and may even involve researchers
from fields as far apart as the natural sciences, social sciences, (including
fields such as sociology, anthropology and linguistics) economics, among other
disciplines. Experts from different
disciplines may often work jointly or independently on a common research
problem and share common research goals as well. Different researchers may look
at a problem or an issue from their own perspective, and may therefore provide
fresh insights into the matter. One example of multidisciplinary research
is climate change research, in which experts from different fields and areas of
study such as environmental sciences, ecology, economics, and policy making
talk to each other, and cooperate and collaborate with each others to develop
new frameworks, paradigms, and workable solutions. Cross-disciplinary
research or inter disciplinary research is much broader and wider in scope, and
experts form often loosely interrelated areas of study talk to each other, and
collaborate with each other. Multidisciplinary research can lead to faster
scientific progress, potential breakthroughs, it is also the crying need of the
hour and day.
3. Historical
assessments
Religious studies
considers the history of religions, as well as current religious
developments. A historical approach is a way of studying and
interpreting the past to understand and explain the present and future. It
can be used in a variety of fields, including politics, literature, policy
analysis, and sociology. It can also be used to expose religious or show them
in scientific light. A historical approach must always be followed by the
researcher, often in combination with other approaches. We had also introduced
concepts such as the Dialogue between the past, present, and future (DPPF), and
deep historical analysis (DHA) in the past.
4. Analytical
approach
Religious studies compare and contrast
different religions and their traditions and practices to better understand and
analyze their impact on their followers and on the world in general. Religious
studies originated in nineteenth -century Europe when scholars began to
translate Hindu and Buddhist sacred texts into European languages. Therefore,
a researcher must possess some degree of analytical ability in order to carry
out his tasks. This is also extremely important that external help may not
always be readily available at hand.
5. Practicalism
and Pragmatism
The English term “practical” is widely used
in daily life, and has many practical connotations. The term “practical” means
the state of being concerned with the actual performance or execution of a
thought or idea to the benefit of certain groups of people or society in
general, rather than being limited to abstract or nonfigurative theories and
ideas. In cases where practicality is thoroughly and rigorously pursued,
theories and ideas are seamlessly and flawlessly linked to practical real-world
application. A practical idea is entirely feasible, and is like to succeed or
be effective in real-world circumstances. The term “practicalism” which we
propose to define and use here, means a dedication and devotion to practical
matters. However, we propose to use it in a slightly different connotation
here. Another closely related, though somewhat less commonly used term, is the
term practicality which means a concern for what is practical, or what works in
the real-world. All these words taken together, are also related to the school
of pragmatism in the philosophy of science; this school of thought is somewhat
similar to our own, but possesses and carries with it is own set of fundamental
weaknesses. Therefore, the following and the important, critical and imperative
characteristics of the term “practical”, though there may indeed be several
others:
1. Alignment with real-world problems rather
than indulging or dabbling in arcane, senseless or meaningless pursuits; 2.
Prioritization and time allocation according to the nature and importance of
real-world problems, in such a way that more pressing and urgent problems
concerning a society or culture, are given higher priority, and less crucial
concerns are given less priority; 3. Practical and workable solutions to real
world problems are conceptualized and adopted, rather that solutions that are
not really feasible or workable in the short-term and long-term; 4. Alignment
with cultural needs is extremely important. At the same time, alignment with cross-cultural
needs and cross-cultural dialogue and collaboration is also equally important,
since there are diverse cultures with diverse needs; 5. Eschewing abstract and
non-productive ideas, or relegating them to the background, and taking them up
only when time or resources permit; 6. Eschewing intellectual nerdism or
intellectual nerdiness and aloofness, and a general lack of purposefulness; 7.
An outside in approach is carried out at all times, or as far as practically
possible, as opposed to an inside out approach, so that real-world problems and
real-world problems alone are a springboard for further action; 8. Measuring
real-world applicability or connectedness and utility of proposed and executed
solutions as far as possible, through meaningful, workable, and efficient
metrics ; 9. An overall desire to do service to society must be at the heart of
scientific activity, and constitute its fundamental driving force; social
responsibility of scientists is prioritized over academic freedom. While there can
be some careerism, it must as far as possible, be subservient to the doctrine
and principle of service to society. 10. Consequently, there must also as far
as possible, very little to no hanky-panky and mischief in peer-reviews and
evaluation of third party ideas. Better science may also result if all the
concepts proposed by us all along, are scrupulously adhered to, and all parties
are committed to the welfare and well-being of society, and to high-quality
science.
6. Use
of uptodate historical models wherever necessary
Researchers must also adopt the usage of
uptodate historical models as far as possible. This is necessary particularly
in the case of highly multicultural societies such as India where an interplay
between cultures and religious traditions needs to be investigated and
understood. Alas, and unfortunately, the historical models used to study
ancient India are extremely outdated, and we have harped on this repeatedly.
This has hampered crucial and critical progress not only in Indology or Ancient
India studies, but in allied fields of study as well.
7. Service
of society and making society better
The religious scholar must also act in the service
of society and attempt to make society better. In sum, he must make the world a
better place to live in for its denizens and citizens as far as he has the
capability to do so. This can be done by eliminating religious strife and
religious misunderstanding, due to inaccurate and inconsistent research that
may in turn eliminate religious violence, hatred and bigotry as well. Religious
conflict is a disagreement or hostility between religious groups and may be
caused by a variety of factors, such constant as bickering, a desire for, or a
competition for political power, economic and non-economic resources, ethnic
rivalry and unhealthy competition, lack or absence of education and religious
fundamentalism. Better education can play a major role in eliminating
religious fundamentalism, and the academic and professional scholar can play a
major role here.
8. Modulating
the excesses of religion
The researcher and the academician can also
play a major role in modulating the excesses of religion, and reducing the role
played by religion in daily life. This can be done through the medium and
mechanism of better education for example, and we have dwelt on this, and on
similar allied issues extensively in our previous papers. Responsible and constrained criticism and
evaluation is also extremely necessary at all times, not one that is driven by
counter ideology or vested interests – people’s sensitivities must also be
borne in mind at all times, and as such must not be trampled upon. Researchers
must also contribute to religious thought as far as possible – they may either
seek to modulate the excesses and evils of religion, or channelize them in
modern and in less dangerous directions. Religious reform is another area where
professional researchers and professional scholars may contribute in liaison
with other experts and non-experts, though their contribution on this front is
admittedly rather limited.
9. No
nerdism and no ivory tower approaches
The noun nerd is used to
describe someone who is an expert in one particular area of study, but otherwise
generally lacks social skills, empathy, or an emotional quotient. He lacks the
ability to reach out to the world at large or connect with it due to this
aloofness, apathy or disinterest. An ivory tower is a place of privileged
seclusion where people disconnect themselves from the external world to dabble
in, or follow their own interests, usually esoteric ones. There must be No
nerdism and no ivory tower approaches at any cost, as it will distract scholars
and researchers from our core objectives. Many researchers unfortunately fall
into this category even today, as there are seldom fieldwork or ethnography
driven approaches in many fields of the social sciences.
10. No
rampant careerism
Careerism is the practice of
prioritizing career advancement and success over personal life or
ethics. It can also refer to the tendency to pursue power and prestige
outside of work performance. While some amount of careerism is practically
necessary, it must be minimized to the extent and to the degree possible.
Otherwise, a position of conflict of interest will invariably and inevitably
result, and the general direction of research activity may be lost. We also
need social responsibility over unbridled, no holds barred academic freedom,
however unpalatable this might be to a section of academic and professional
researchers, and we had also devoted and dedicated an entire paper to this
cause.
11. No
ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism in social
science and anthropology
refers to the process of applying one's own culture or ethnicity as
a frame of reference to judge other cultures, and their beliefs and practices, in
lieu of using the standards of the particular culture involved. This indirectly
implies that one’s own culture is innately and inherently superior to the other
culture in question. The researcher may therefore approach the other culture
condescendingly or superciliously, and this must be avoided at all times. There
must also be no ethnic rivalry, only mutual self-respect at all times, and
evaluation whether positive or negative, applied objectively. There must also be no racism or unhealthy
nationalism. Racism is prejudice
or active and applied discrimination by an individual or a group of people
against another individual or groups of people on the basis of their racial or
ethnic group, or is the belief that different races possess distinct but
unequal characteristics, talents, or qualities. Nationalism is an ideology
that promotes the idea that considerations pertaining to a nation and state
should be put above all other considerations.
12. Cross-cultural
research design
At the same time, cross-cultural research
design needs to be adopted both in theory and in praxis, and a wide variety of
individuals from different cultural backgrounds need to participate in research
design. Emic and etic perspectives also need to be elicited, and there could be
many different types of emic and etic perspectives such as typical emic or
etic, atypical emic or etic, representative emic or etic, and
non-representative emic or etic, as discussed in our previous papers. This is
of paramount importance if bias and prejudice are to be eliminated, and we have
dedicated an entire paper to this cause.
While we have still a long way to go, we had
proposed many new sociological concepts in the seventy odd papers we had
published in various journals over the years. We hope that these will go at
least some way in making the world a better place, through the medium of social
science. In this paper, we had proposed the ten canons or the ten commandments
of the think tank “Scholars and intellectuals for mankind” (SCHIMA), and as
such researchers and academicians must strive to bring them to fruition. To
reiterate, these would be as follows:
1. A complete and a total
separation of religion and state in all countries
and in all societies where this has not yet been achieved or accomplished.
2. Developing secular
constitutions that grant all human rights to citizens in countries where these
have not yet been implemented.
3. Universal education
for all groups and both genders, and being Up-to-date with latest pedagogical
techniques so that educational systems can be brought Up-to-date from time to
time.
4. Granting complete
religions freedom including freedom to practice, freedom to convert, and
freedom to non-religion.
5. Saying no to religious
inspired laws, and instituting and promulgating secular laws instead.
6. Taking steps to
promoting a scientific temper and a spirit of enquiry in society, by allowing
meaningful and productive debate, and improving education systems.
7. Phasing out religious
education and teaching universal human values instead.
8. Allowing free media –
There must be absolutely no censorship of internet and media.
9. Allowing complete freedom of speech and free and open discussion of
religion, and permitting constructive criticism of religion in various
platforms such as the media, and in universities.
10. Moving all nations towards democracy and democratically elected
governments in due course
We must fight to
gradually bring them into fruition. This can be done through collaborative and
concerted action by scholars, and by putting pressure on governments and
institutions over the next couple of decades. These alone can put the menace of
religious violence to a complete end, and once and for all. Researchers and
scholars of religion must also valiantly and heroically strive to bring these
into fruition. This will however, naturally merit and warrant a clean break
from old-fashioned, and hackneyed approaches and techniques to the study of
religion. At the same time, we must also
always bear in mind that humans will be humans; therefore, a psychological
perspective and emic and etmic perspectives are required, so that the role
played by religion in society can be gradually reduced with time.
The ten gods that failed
We now propose the idea “The various
Gods that failed” with respect to left-leaning thought. This is by no means any
form of witch-hunting or ad hominem attacks against individuals. These should
instead be viewed as healthy and constructive criticism aimed at bringing about
positive and meaningful change. These criticisms in fact should be the basis of
new intellectual thought patterns that must emerge in different parts of the
world. For the sake of convenience, we propose the “Ten Gods that failed”. We
can also call them the ten cardinal sins. For the sake of convenience and
brevity, we keep this section short and sweet. However, valid regress arguments
are indeed possible and will become self-evident to anyone who probes the issue
further and more deeply. These criticisms should become the launching pad and
the spring board to further creativity, analytical thought, new paradigms and
equations, and all other varied forms of intellectualism. The right wing is
also extremely dangerous in this regard, and as far as possible, we expose
right-wing positions too.
The God
that failed: Part One – Marxist economic praxis
Praxis
refers to a practice, and is opposed to theory. “The God that failed Part One”
as we call it (or the original God that failed). “The God that Failed” refers
to a collection of six essays published in 1949 by Louis Fischer, Arthur
Koestler, Andre Gide, Stephen Spender, Ignazio Silone, and Richard Wright (and
edited by Richard Crossman) denouncing Communism; these authors unequivocally
state that the doctrine of communism was an ideological disaster and an
economic failure to boot. This book as such exposes the authors’
disillusionment and disenchantment with communism. George Orwell (ne Eric
Blair) also expressed his disillusionment with communism in the books 1984 and
Animal Farm. The flight from the communist camp not only continued but also
accelerated by the 1990’s, and many communists not only became ex-communists,
but also anti-communists. Many other intellectuals and thinkers subsequently
referred to communism as a murderous and failed ideology. They not only
criticized it as an economic doctrine, but also criticized it on various other
grounds including its academic influence. Notable critics of communism have
included economists such as Friedrich Hayek
and Milton Friedman (They blame communism for economic stagnation), and other
writers such as Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth,
Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Margolin who have criticized it on
political grounds (They equate it with genocide and political
repression)
This is in
spite of the fact that Marxism had some successes; for example, Stalin
successfully industrialized a largely agricultural land through the mechanism
of centralized planning and five year plans. The USSR also came to be known as
a scientific superpower, and its accomplishment in certain fields such as space
exploration are highly impressive. Marxists however unfortunately, resort to
the over-simplification or the false dichotomy fallacy, and state that
Communism is the only solution for capitalism. Both are fuzzy and ambiguous
terms which also have a wide variety of connotations, and encompass multiple
sub-ideologies. We had also proposed alternatives to Marxist economic
doctrine such as Anthropological Economics, Social welfare schemes, and trickle
up models of development (along with local-specific economic development
models) in our papers. This should be the ultimate solution for most of our
woes, though some western thinkers may see it as developing countries focused
and oriented.
The God
that failed: Part two – Marxist Historiography
The
God that failed Part Two as we propose and see it, is a critique of Marxist
historiography from a Non Hindutva and Non Indian nationalist perspective. Of
course, Hindutva ideologues in India may have been fundamentally and
ideologically opposed to Marxist historiography, but they may have another
agenda to push. In India, left wing interpretations of history are referred to
as crimsonization, and right wing interpretations of history are referred to as
saffronization. Both have negative and pejorative connotations and
implications. We had originally proposed these terms in a paper on cross-cultural research design in 2023, and now extend it even further to
cover and include more Gods that failed. We had also discussed the severe
limitations, fallacies and logical absurdities of Marxist Historiography from a
scientific perspective. This is of extreme and urgent importance because
Marxist historians have been in clover for decades, and were on a high pedestal
and in total monopoly of the field in the decades ensuing India’s independence.
As such, and rather unfortunately too, they set no great store by objectivity.
Marxist historians have not followed inter-disciplinary approaches. They have
not reached out to Anthropologists, geneticists and other specialists. They
have not linked history with pre-history and proto-history. They have failed to
understand that a scientific view of history can raise scientific consciousness
and boost a scientific temper. They also
follow a materialistic conception of history and fail to understand or
appreciate the role played by culture in shaping society.
For
this, read our already published papers (1) Historiography by Objectives: A new
approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed
Twenty-First Century School of Historiography (This was published by us in
2015) (2) Enunciating the Core principles of Twenty-first Century
Historiography: Some additional extrapolations and inferences from our studies
and observations on Historiography (This was published by us in 2016) (3) Introducing
Anthropological Historiography as an integral component of Twenty-first Century
Historiography: The role played by Anthropological Historiography in the
attainment of long-term Anthropological goals and objectives (This was
published by us in 2018) (4) Presenting the art and the science of Qualified
Historiography: Anchoring history-writing in the event of uncertainty and
unreliability of narratives (This is a non-core and a peripheral paper and was
published by us in 2022) We had proposed 39 objectives of core twenty-first
Century historiography in these papers, along with 49 objectives of anthropological
historiography. We have also proposed various core principles of twenty-first
century historiography. We had also evaluated the performance of Marxist
historians against each of these objectives and principles. Thus, Indian
history is seen as a ding dong battle between the left and the right, and is
referred to as the battle of the
ideologies.
Some
left wing ideologues have established themselves in blind ideological
opposition to the right. For example, when Hindutva groups say or claim that
Hinduism is the oldest religion on earth, DN Jha states that Hinduism is the
youngest religion on earth. When Hindutva groups state that India had a hoary
and a glorious past, DN Jha states that India never had a golden age. This is
of course, a highly subjective statement. RS Sharma stated on flimsy grounds
that virtually nothing existed in the Gangetic plains before the Buddha; his
work was banned by the Jan Sangh, which was the political and ideological
predecessor to the BJP. Irfan Habib went on to state that nothing existed in
the Gangetic plains before the Islamic age. However, when they wish to
criticize Hinduism, they magically state that something existed in the Gangetic
plains before the Buddha. Marxist historiography is the fodder for Hindutva
reactionary right. It provides it with its purpose and reason for existence.
Weakening or eliminating the left particularly the far left, will solve many
problems, and lead to great progress in society, but we must remember that the
far right is far more venomous, and is capable of inflicting far greater damage
than the left. It can, and quite dangerously so, hijack the public
consciousness in a way that the left possibly cannot. We would eventually like
to see both the far-right and the far-left castigated as being extremely
dangerous to science, society, the education, and to objective scholarship, but
this must be based on rock solid scholarship. The left at least will disappear
entirely as they have seldom learnt from their own follies and blunders.
The God
that failed: Part three – Left-leaning Intellectualism
The
God that failed part three refers to the idea that Marxist intellectualism and
other present-day forms of intellectualism are highly limited and flawed,
particularly as applied in an Indian context. Intellectualism in other parts of
the world may have meaningfully taken off, and we bear no grudge, rancor or
ill-will towards them. The left-wing may have broadened its horizons greatly
outside India as also explained and highlighted in this paper, and this must be
appreciated and acknowledged; however, this has scarcely happened in India, and
they still seem overly pre-occupied with obsolete notions such as class
struggle, or harbor a desire to take India back to the Nehruvian era.
They
do not appreciate India’s successes in the last few decades because they see it
as a vindication of capitalism. They are also opposed to globalization which
has benefitted developing countries, They have not appeared to have helped the
rise of India and other developing countries; like old-school Marxists, they
have become an obstacle to their development. Do Marxist intellectuals in India care about
gender equality, human rights, child rights and abuse, drug trafficking,
substance abuse, global warming, sustainable development, prevalence or absence
of a scientific temper, trickle up economics, scientific historiography,
international peace and harmony? Do they care about universalisation
of education, pedagogical techniques, racism in science, Eurocentrism in
science, racism, apartheid (apart from a narrow focus based on the principles
of class struggle) and social duties of researchers? The answer is a
resounding and an unfortunate no. This is just a short list; Marxist intellectuals do not seem to care about
almost any issue facing the world or India today. We still lament the fact that
no broad or a viable and effective twenty-first century school of
Intellectualism has emerged in India and elsewhere. We are waiting eagerly and
patiently for it to emerge. All our papers may need to be read together,
and a new intellectualism driven by objectives, and relevance to present-day
needs must emerge. Intellectuals must actively identify problems that plague
the world, and seek solutions for them. They must connect with people
proactively instead of engaging in ivory-tower pursuits.
They
must strive to break down barriers that divide us humans, and whittle down
identities such as nationalistic identity and religious identity. Religious
identity from our perspective can only gradually become less strong as people
become more intellectually aware. There are no magic wands and no magic
formulas here. Another problem is that social science research techniques,
methods and paradigms (along with theories, hypotheses and concepts as well)
have not kept up with other fields of research. Social science research
techniques must also not be Eurocentric and must be derived through inductive
methods. They must be taught to students whenever and wherever necessary, and
the teaching of research strategies and research techniques must replace rote
learning. We have also spoken of intellectual revolutions, renaissances and
enlightenments in other parts of the world and these must fructify and
materialize as well so that science progresses holistically.
Marxist
intellectuals instead of playing a vital role here, have become a major
stumbling block to India’s development. Arundhati Roy has compared India to a
plane flying backwards. (sic!) She like her fellow comrades (have contributed
almost nothing to India economically or intellectually), but bash India in
front of the foreign media. Why? The Indian journalist Aakar Patel likewise
thinks India has been an economic failure since 1991, as also does Ashoka Mody.
The anti-India attitude of Indian intellectuals has been exposed by the
American sociologist Salvatore Babones too. What agenda do they have to push?
Do they have nothing meaningful to contribute? Political psychologist Ashish
Nandy and Meera Nanda (besides a host of other commentators) are also sometimes
associated with the left, besides virtually all Marxist historians. They have
failed to develop economic models or cultural and national integration models
suitable for India. They have let themselves be overtaken by events and have
rendered themselves obsolete without even realizing it. Whatever their merits,
achievements and accomplishments may be, one is reminded of Raymond Aron’s
statement “Marxism is the opium of intellectuals”. Some of their positions may
be ideologically-driven too. We have discussed the possible causes for their
aberrant behavior in our paper on “Extended identity theory.” The Indian right,
on the other hand, has no intellectualism to offer; it is only based on the
desire to boost sectarian pride, or is sometimes based on the inclination to
resurrect old religious values. We must therefore work towards the atrophy and
elimination of ideological cleavages gradually and eventually. We have our task
cut out, and must begin the process in right earnest before it is too late.
The God
that failed: Part four – Eradication of religion
Marxists may also support and adhere
to a flawed analysis of religion. The neologism Islamo-leftism and the term the
regressive left were coined by other researchers and are already in use. The
term regressive left was used by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and
other thinkers. Marx also had a disdain and contempt for Jews and their alleged
mercenary way of life, and even promoted and propagated anti-Semitism. Some
Indian Marxist historians also appear to have ideologically discriminated
between religions, but this must be necessarily proven through empirical
evidence.
In
the paper on historiography by objectives published way back in 2015, we had
classified approaches towards religion into three different categories from the
point of view of our approach. The first would be “The religious
fundamentalists approach” or an ideologically-driven discrimination between
religions as followed by the religious right in various contexts and
situations. This approach typically is accompanied by condescension or a
mindless criticism of other religions or religious traditions. The second
approach would be a secularists’ approach, who see all religions as being equal
and the path towards what they see as the same goal. This approach may have
been formulated to achieve a fair modicum of clinical unity between adherents
of various faiths in Indian and non-Indian contexts, but is logically
fallacious given that all religions are fundamentally unequal with respect to
their teachings, and fundamental postulates and concepts. This realization must
form the back bone of twenty-first century intellectualism.
However,
it must always be remembered and borne in mind that human beings are human
beings, and a humane touch is required while reforming religion of eliminating
the excesses of religious fundamentalism. Thus the principles and tenets of the
social sciences must also always been borne in mind. Leftists may have
symbolically burnt copies of the Manusmriti, but in spite of their avowed
anti-religious stance, did not reform religion in a meaningful way or critique
of criticize religion holistically or comprehensively. The third approach is
the critical analysis approach, and this approach calls for a critical and a
balanced and comprehensive analysis of all religions against the backdrop of
the twenty-first century requirements and exigencies, and encourages new areas
of critical hermeneutical study devoid and bereft of any religious or
ideological underpinnings. This must be done with a human touch, and is the
only logical and meaningful way forward. We look forward to new researchers and
scholars from across the world contribute to this field of study, and strive
towards eliminating the excesses of religion. Thus, the sway religion holds in
public life must gradually decline, and people must become truly secular and
scientifically literate and scientifically aware.
In
the USSR, there was an attempt to reduce the role played by religion and some
places of worship were even demolished, and properties owned by religious
authorities confiscated. Religious education was outlawed, and people were systematically
brainwashed into Communist ideology. There was also a government sponsored
program to convert people into atheism. In China, there were anti-religious
campaigns run before, during and after the Cultural Revolution. During the
Cultural Revolution, many antiquities were destroyed. In Tibet, many Buddhist
monasteries were pillaged, ransacked and destroyed. The persecution of Muslims
in the Xinjiang province of China (and Uyghurs and others) continues even to
this day. All these policies may not naturally have had the desired effect. The
role played by religion must be gradually diminished through better education
and better pedagogical techniques. This is the only workable way, and the only
viable path.
The God
that failed: Part five- Over-centralisation of power
Karl Marx did not envision a
post-capitalist society in detail. He only spoke about the excesses and evils
of capitalism (along with the exploitation of the labour class by the
capitalists) in his books such as “Das Kapital” and “The Communist
Manifesto”. His primary pithy epithet
was “from each according to his ability, and each according to his needs.’
Thus, Karl Marx’s intentions were indeed well-meaning. His work was primarily a
critique of the political economy as it existed at that time. He also spoke
about productive forces of the economy such as labour, and the social relations
with respect to production in his work. He believed that capitalism just like
primitive communism and feudalism would eventually disappear, and would be replaced
by a classless society. Marx called for the abolition of private property, and
believed that a worker-run society would give humans enough time to pursue
leisure activities such as fishing. Little may he have realized that communist
societies would morph into totalitarian dictatorships. In the former Soviet
Union everything was run by the state, and there was no space for personal
freedom or entrepreneurship. Over-centralization undoubtedly played a role in
its disintegration in 1991. In India, Indira Gandhi too led an over-centralized
administration where the principles of federalism were often compromised and
not rigidly adhered too. This led to mutiny, and calls for independence in the
Punjab and elsewhere in the early 1980’s. Many rebellions against
over-centralized rule were brutally suppressed, and there was a descending
vortex of violence. Pakistan disintegrated in 1991 due to the very same reason
(linguistic hegemony and discrimination too played a vital role), and Sri Lanka
edged towards civil war. This was however due to far-right organizations like
the Buddhist Bodu Bala Sena.
The God
that failed: Part six- Linguistic uniformity
Attempts at linguistic
homogenization, whether driven by the left or the right, are driven by
dangerous and unwarranted implications. In 1906, Mahatma Gandhi sought to make
Hindi the national language of India, but later changed his stance towards
Hindustani. Ambedkar and others thought Hindi should be the working official
language in Non-Hindi states as well. There were revolts against the imposition
of Hindi in several non-Hindi states particularly Tamil Nadu, where Dravidian
parties were strong, and Dravidian ideology prevailed. Some leaders like RV
Dhulekar, Purushottam Das Tandon, and others wanted an unreasonable form of a
linguistic uniformity, and fallaciously argued that only one language could
unite the nation. This observation was made by the Indian sociologist Andre
Beteille. While Indians must indeed learn each other’s languages, many nations
like Canada and Switzerland have promoted multilingualism and have thrived and
flourished .The USSR sought to impose linguistic hegemony on other cultural and
linguistic groups and faced their wrath instead. This may have been one of the
causes for its disintegration. In China, Putonghua was imposed as a
standardized dialect of Mandarin on speakers of other dialects. West Pakistan
sought to impose Urdu on East Pakistan and disintegrated in 1971. Sri Lanka
sought to discriminate against its Tamil minority through discriminatory
language policies, and was pushed towards civil war. Most of these nations
pursued not left-wing, but right-wing ideologies. However, there are
disadvantages associated with multilingualism, and one must always attempt to
strike a fine balance between the two.
This is only a high level overview; we have authored a total of three
papers on language and language dynamics. These papers almost explain
everything there is to know, and must be read in detail.
The God
that failed: Part seven – Family planning
India has had one of the world’s
oldest birth control programs, and this was launched way back in the year 1952.
By the 1960’s, it had become the world’s largest birth control program. The
inverted triangle symbol with the caption “We two, ours two” in English, Hindi
and in other Indian languages, had become an ubiquitous sign across India. In
1951, India had a total fertility rate of six children per woman; today, in
2023, it is two. Thus, the birth rate in India has fallen only slowly. Thus,
while birth rates have fallen sharply in the Southern, Western, Eastern regions
of India as well as the far north, birth rates in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar
remain high. In Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath launched a
new population control policy in 2021, and in Bihar, the Chief Minister Nitish
Kumar is focussing on girl’s education as a solution to the high birth rate. A
part of the problem is that India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru did
not focus on the universalization of elementary education due to the misplaced
fear that the economy would not be able to produce enough jobs (However, his
concern may have been partly right because the economy was then a command
economy, a centrally planned economy, and a Semi-Stalinist one).
Indian far right leaders often
exhort Hindus to produce more children and fear that Hindus would soon become a
minority. Sakshi Maharaj squarely blamed Muslims for population growth, and
called upon all communities to promote family planning; at times he even called
on Hindus to produce four kids. The Shankaracharya of Badrikashram, Shri Vasudevanand Saraswati, even went
on record saying that Hindus should have ten children. .However, this fear of a Muslim
takeover is absurd and misplaced. Muslims make up 14% of India’s population.
While the birth rate of Muslims is higher than that of Hindus (religion of
course plays a role in birth control) the percentage of Muslim population in
India will never cross the 18% mark, and the birth rate of Hindus and Muslims
is slowly and gradually converging.
Many Muslim nations have brought
down their birth rates examples being Iran, UAE and Qatar which are already
below replacement rate, and Bangladesh which is approximately at replacement
rate. Birth rates in Yemen and Afghanistan which were once among the highest in
the word, are now slowly decreasing. The Philippines and Iraq have largely
failed at birth control (they follow different religions) while Thailand and
Brazil have succeeded remarkably, along with the Indian state of Jammu and
Kashmir as latest trends indicate. All this goes on to demonstrate that there
are a wide variety of issues at play, and not religion alone. During the infamous
emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi between 1975 and 1977, there was forced
sterilization and birth control imposed by Sanjay Gandhi in North India. This
backfired horribly, and any talk of birth control became a taboo in those
regions. Even China’s birth control policy (its one child policy with
concomitant policies for infraction) had unintended consequences, and skewed
the sex ratio. It has largely been abandoned now. At the same time, there must
be no appetite and tolerance for the environmentally destructive policy of
pro-natalism which is sometimes promoted by the far-right. All these problems
also often stem from the non-formulation of India-specific or other
local-specific theoretical platforms and positions.
The world is as such in an advanced
stage of a demographic transition. The world’s TFR may reach the replacement
rate of 2.1 by the middle of the century (it is estimated at around 2.3 at
present), and the world population itself may stabilize before the end of the
century. We have come a long way since Margaret Sanger first advocated birth
control in the USA in the 1920’s. While ageing may present its own set of
problems, and the idea of a demographic dividend and demographic window may
indeed have its own set of merits, problems of ageing can be somewhat overcome
by measures like raising the retirement age, retraining and reskilling people,
and engaging the elderly more dynamically, gainfully, and productively. People
with less children also tend to raise their kids much better, and pay greater
attention not only to their education but also to their physical and emotional
needs. The benefits of a low birth rate far outweigh the benefits of a high
birth rate. Let us focus on the quality of human resources, not quantity. If
the birth rate falls to alarming levels, we can worry. Each nation must also
fix an ideal TFR, which in our view can be between 1.5 and 1.8 children per
woman. India is particularly vulnerable to global warming, most parts of Africa
are vulnerable to over-exploitation of resources. Hence, the ideal TFR in South
Asia and Africa needs to be much lower.
The God
that failed: Part eight- basis of nationalism
This is another God that failed. The
basis for nationalism and nationhood should of course be pluralism and
diversity merging towards a greater national whole, but this plurality and
diversity must confirm to national laws and all citizens must live in harmony.
Thus, the far right’s notions of homogeneity as sometimes argued by
primordialists and others, are utterly misplaced. M S Gowalkar also exhorted
Hindus to fight Muslims, Christians and Communists who were their internal
enemies, rather than the British. The penchant for over-centralization and the
belief in the need for a strong centre (which may have been required in the
early years of nationalism) may also be a misplaced one, and this encouraged
divisive elements and fissiparous tendencies. Hitler on the other hand, pursued
an aggressive definition of nationalism, (defined by territorial aggression)
and saw Austria, and parts of Poland as German territory. He infamously annexed
Austria in 1939 in violation of the Treaty of Versaiiles. Some radical
right-wing Hindu elements exhibit such tendencies too when the call for the
formation of a “pristine” Akhanda Bharat.
The God
that failed: Part nine- theological conception of God
Many
intellectuals still advocate old school atheism based on the definition of a
Christian idea of God, (and the natural dichotomy between the Christian idea of
a God and the obvious lack of evidence for it). However, this may be a gross
over-simplification, and there are a large number of cultural, sociological,
theological, metaphysical and scientific aspects involved in the debate. There
is also no standard definition of God, and it is not possible to deny the
existence of something without first defining what it is first. There is no
standard definition of atheism either, and a mild version only states that we
have no evidence for a supernatural entity exists. This is fine, but there are
also more dogmatic (and rabid) assertions of atheism which almost state that
anything that cannot be perceived by the senses does not exist. This is of
course also wrong. Atheism also provokes different reactions among Muslims and
Hindus than it does among Christians. We prefer the terms agnostic and
freethinker instead, and advocate the emergence of meaningful cross-cultural
debate. Deism is another option too, and the God without religion or religion
without God debate is another interesting Twenty-first century debate. On the
whole, the ill-effects of religion can only decline with better education, and
not the imposition of a counter-ideology such as rabid or dogmatic atheism
which makes adherents of various religions extremely wary and suspicious.
We
also invoke the saying “What one man calls God, another calls the laws of
physics.” This statement is famously attributed to the genius Nikola Tesla.
Most atheists are evolutionists, but this is much more than a simple battle
between adherents of evolution (which is of course undoubtedly and
unquestionably true) and non-adherents of evolution. Such atheists have not also
embraced social science research techniques and have not understood the fact
that religion cannot decline so easily. People have different mind-orientations,
and turn to religion and God for different reasons. Most only have a vague and
a basic understanding of science. Religion(s) and the philosophical idea of God
are also two different things. Dogmatic, half-baked assertions may though up
counter-reaction and may increase blind faith through the process of
self-reinforcing cognitive dissonance. In the recent past, the New Atheism
movement has emerged, and among its four horsemen include Richard Dawkins, Sam
Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Jerry Coyne is an avowed atheist and
anti-theist too, and he sees religion as a dangerous affair. These thinkers may
have a decidedly western-oriented outlook and tradition. Recent surveys in
Iran, Egypt and Turkey have shown that only a small percentage of the total
population identifies as atheist. We cannot imagine a scenario where the tables
will be overturned completely, and billions become atheists. Figures in the UK
and the USA are of course higher, though not significantly. One kind of a bias
always reinforces another kind of bias, and nobody wants to subscribe to a
half-baked or a deeply and fundamentally flawed assertion.
The God
that failed: Part ten- basis of rationalism
Similarly,
the rationalist movement may also need a reboot to bring it in line with our
philosophy and thinking and concepts such as “Cultural frame of reference” and
a “Cross-cultural frame of reference”. They have valiantly and heroically fought
superstition and blind faith in India and elsewhere, (examples being the
rationalist Abraham Kovvur and the Indian physicist H Narasimhaiah who
criticized belief in Godmen, and fought valiantly to expose them) but have
failed to understand the human psyche, human culture in different parts of the
world, and social science research techniques likewise. Many were western-mould
atheists. We wish them all the best in their variegated endeavours, but a
familiarity with social sciences research techniques would help too. What do we
have now? A resurgence of Godmen, religious strife, and new age movements around the world! This automatically
vindicates and justifies the basis for neo-centrism. Rational thought may
however be fostered though better education, pedagogical techniques and
technology, and we must make this happen gradually and eventually.
In
sum, many full-blown crises such as the Sri Lankan crisis of 1983- 2009, and
the multiple crises stemming from Indira Gandhi’s over-centralization and
authoritarianism such as the Punjab and the Assam crises may be traced to
Marxist tendencies in some form or the other which promoted authoritarianism.
We also had the notorious and infamous Indian emergency of 1975-76 which was
marked by an abuse of power. Socialism
and authoritarianism do also additionally always appear to go hand in hand, and
Marxists scupper all attempts towards democratic reform. Some Marxists also wax
eloquent about scientific communism, a concept that they scarcely define. The
author is reminded of a speech by a lady in the year 1985 when he was in his
higher secondary, where she parroted the benefits of scientific communism,
contrasting it with democracy – one is a political system and the other is an
economic system, and therefore cannot be directly compared. To reiterate there is a lack of alternative
streams or systems of thought in major academic disciplines. Lack of
alternative streams of thought is therefore a major and a constraining issue. We
need to develop alternate theoretical frameworks within and across academic
disciplines quickly and rapidly. We also need to integrate it seamlessly with
contemporary post-colonial thought. We need a new generation of thought leaders
who can work across cultures and disciplines, and can get the bigger picture always, both across space and time. This
must become one of the biggest endeavours of the twenty-first century, and must
become legions of though leaders immersed, engrossed and preoccupied.
Conclusion
The
core objective of this paper has been to show why academic Marxism, the
intellectual arm of Marxism and Marxist thought has hit an intellectual road
block, and is staring at an inevitable dead end. Our prognosis therefore was
that it is barely likely to survive in its present form for another decade or
two in whatever way defined. We aptly began this paper by defining what Marxism
was and then traced its thought over the past one and a half centuries or so
including varieties and regional variants of Marxism and its common criticisms.
The success and failures of Marxism and communism were also likewise probed and
investigated, all things considered. The sphere of influence of Marxism was also
probed on fields such as art, architecture, archeology, historiography,
religious studies, and cultural studies.
We also then went on to show why Marxist thought is greatly fossilized
and steeped in a mid-nineteenth century mindset, and is unlikely to work in
different contexts and situations as it had limited bandwidth, validity and
applicability. Many of the failures of mainstream Marxism and Marxist thought
also overflow and cascade into academic Marxism too, and we had argued that it was
time to reassess all facets and aspects of Marxism from their bootstraps. We
also proposed and examined alternative approaches to replace various concepts
and components of academic Marxism, and linked all our concepts with our
previously published papers in a seamless, and in an integrated chain. As such
we expect this paper to be an integral component of our globalization movement,
and it would not be difficult to understand or figure out why.
Gronow, Jukka. On the Formation of
Marxism: Karl Kautsky's Theory of Capitalism, the Marxism of the Second
International and Karl Marx's Critique of Political Economy. [2015]
Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2016.
Sperber, Jonathan. Karl Marx: A
Nineteenth-Century Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.
Walker, Frank Thomas. Karl Marx: a Bibliographic
and Political Biography. (bj.publications), 2009.
Meisner, Maurice
(January–March 1971). "Leninism and Maoism: Some Populist Perspectives on
Marxism-Leninism in China". The China Quarterly. 45 (45): 2–36
Pyzhikov, Aleksandr V.
(10 December 2014). "The Cult of Personality During the Khrushchev
Thaw". Russian Studies in History. 50 (3).
Basingstoke, England: Taylor & Francis: 11–27
Cooke, Chris, ed. (1998). Dictionary of
Historical Terms (2nd ed.). pp. 221–222, 305.
Pauwels, Jacques R. The Great
Class War 1914–1918. Formac Publishing Company Limited. p. 88.
Woolf, Daniel, ed. The Oxford History
of Historical Writing. 5 vols. (Oxford University Press, 2011–12)
Martin, Thomas R. Herodotus and Sima
Qian: The First Great Historians of Greece and China: A Brief History with
Documents (2009)
[36] Martin, Luther H., and Donald Wiebe. "Religious studies as a
scientific discipline: The persistence of a delusion." Journal of the
American Academy of Religion (2012)
Social Responsibility over Academic freedom:
Emphasizing Ethics and Codes of Conduct geared for a Scholar’s duties towards
science, society and the education system in Twenty-First Century Science,
Sujay Rao MandavilliIJISRT September 2022
Babones, S. (2018). The New Authoritarianism:
Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Barry Hindess
& Paul Q. Hirst, Pre-capitalist modes of production. London: Routledge,
1975.
Labels: Abhilasha: This is not utopia, Sujay Rao Mandavilli
