Studies in a Dying
Culture
By Christopher
Caudwell
PPH (Rs. 35/-)
This is a book written over fifty years
ago. Today Its contents sound too I simplistic and ever smell of a Stalinist
version of Marxism with formalism abounding. For those who are familiar with
the basics of Marxist theory through Soviet primers or otherwise there is
nothing but I the good old lore.
And yet the book has to be read. It has
to be read if for no other reason than that It was written by a person who I
met his death in action at the young age of 29 in the Spanish Civil War. It has
to be read as it gives a classic view into the working of the minds of those
who tried to interpret the post World War I period I (before WW II) and took to
Marxism after the Great Depression of 1929.
Christopher Caudwell was undoubtedly an
audacious as well as a courageous man who symbolised the confluence of theory
and praxis. By the time he was 25 he had authored five textbooks on
aeronautics, 4 seven detective novels and some poems and short stories but all
his theoretical and ideological works were published posthumously. Among them
is the present 1 book.
Admittedly, the writer does not
qualitatively elevate Marxist theory like Gramsci and Lukas. The writer's
paradigm too is influenced by Stalinism or rather the virulent pamphleteerism
of Lenin. But while Stalinist and many other Soviet and Communist writers used
this paradigm to justify and consolidate a sort of 'degenerate workers' state',
Caudwell's is a sincere and well meaning attempt to 'Interpret the world in
order to change it'. His own life embodied a perfect dialectical, unity of
interpreting the world in order to change it and changing it in order to
interpret it. Caudwell was, of course, not alone. The present book is a
collection of five essays:
1. The Breath of Discontent: A Study In
Bourgeois Religion
2. Beauty: A study In Bourgeois Aesthetics
3. Men and Nature: A study In Bourgeois History
4. Consciousness: A study In Bourgeois psychology
5. Reality: A study In Bourgeois philosophy
Though all these are termed as studies,
they are actually critiques providing many interesting insights. With the
benefit of hindsight, one can of course get a disconcerting feeling of the
writer's overconfidence and determinism in his interpretation of Marxism. But
then it was not the fault of a single individual, but of an entire era.
What stands out is, above all, the huge
expanse of the writer's thought. His knowledge -and not just the 'dangerous
little knowledge' but his perceptive familiarity with a whole spectra of
specialised fields like anthropology, relativistic physics, aesthetics,
psychology, religion and philosophy is mind- boggling.
The second thing that strikes one is the
ability of the author to link all these. Despite concrete analysis of various
fields there is a strong invisible unifying thread running throughout the whole
book. For anybody wishing to study the basics of Marxism there can hardly be
anything more invigorating despite the heavy, polemical and didactic language.
Others more enlightened may discern points to debate and discuss.
ATTITUDE TO RELIGION:
Take religion, for instance. Caudwell
remarks that Christianity was distinct from other 'mystic' religions in that it
was 'this worldly' and talked of a heaven on this earth and not in another
world. He goes on to observe. against Fascism, therefore appears a United Front
of the proletariat supported by many Christians -the past and the future both
denying the outrageous present. In that struggle Ideology Is transferred and
religion. In the actual struggle. shedding its fantastic reality Is sucked into
material reality".
But what happens when Fascism takes on
the garb of religion? This is Important In the Indian context. Can there be a
United Front against it by religious people and communists, for instance? It Is
a peculiar situation wherein the communists are talking about mutual tolerance
and thus, in a way, preaching religion to believers and not so-really
believers. Why has religion- not organised religion but 'popular' religion not.
been able to protest against the onslaught of religious fanaticism much less
forge an alliance with communists and other secular sections? The initiative to
engage the truly religious people in a dialogue rests with the communists and
all efforts need to be made in that direction.
But how is that to be done, more so on
the practical level? These are imperative questions demanding ingenious
answers.
More over, how far can or should
communists go In accepting the various facets associated with religion? There
is the ever present danger of communalism utilising this to its advantage. For
instance In Punjab the communists- especially the Naxalite variety -propagated
Guru Gobind Singh as a militant rebel against oppression. That image has today
been hijacked by the Khalistan terrorlst. Perhaps we need to learn from 'liberation
theology' of Latin America where the church and communists came together
against dictatorships. There is a difference In the historical context, however
i.e. the ruling classes in those Latin American countries by and large did not
or do not wear a religious garb.
A FETISH AND A PARADOX:
Similarly in history Caudwell's remark
that in order to change reality history has to be studied and history can be
studied only by changing reality is Interesting. His foray into the mess of
bourgeois historiography is a gem of a piece. But his iron faith In the unique
aim of the working class (proletariat) needs to be debated in the light of the
stupendous advances In science and technology wherein a new class of
technological workers is being created, What are the characteristics of this
class and can It achieve socialism and play the role of a revolutionary class?
Why does Marx consider the proletariat as
a revolutionary class and assign It Its world historical role? There are three
main characteristics of this class because of which it Is a unique class on the
world historical scale. These are-
1) It is the most advanced contemporary
class in terms of productive forces (in Marx's time, that is)
2) It is an increasingly exploited class
living under excruciating conditions.
3) It is a highly socialised class both
at the abstract and the concrete levels.
The modern technological class seems to
satisfy only the first condition and half of the third one. No doubt that at
the level of abstract labour. It is highly socialised but the contradiction
between the socialised nature of labour and the private means of production
does not seem to be materialising. Rather it is playing the role of
collaborator with the ruling classes.
The exploitation factor again does not seem
to apply fully here. The wages of the modem technical worker are large enough
to regenerate a large amount of his labour-power. It Is not an Increasingly
exploited class, not at least in absolute terms.
Because of the increasingly 'atomised'
conditions of production the modern worker does not exhibit not the least
Important feature of a large number of wage -earners working under a
single-roof (i.e. socialisation at the concrete level. Hence it is not possible
to either socially organise them or to channelise them into direct political
action.
Thus the class which is most advanced in
terms of productive forces is not the socially most advanced class. This was a
historical coincidence during Marx's time, and like everything, had a transient
nature. No longer does the con-incidence hold true. The consumerist culture of
the so called middle classes is a glaring manifestation of this.
That raises a very important question
viz. What has to be the nature of socialism, if at all there is to be one?
It is indeed a pity that the class most
advanced socially is no longer the most advanced class in terms of technology.
With human beings increasingly pushed out of the actual production process and
being replaced by automation at least in the highly developed countries, this is
not really a remote possibility but a part of the unfolding reality.
Will this schism be overcome and the
historical mission of communism be achieved when Its material conditions have
been created by science but the conscious factor virtually decimated -or is
elimination the proper word? .
Bhupinder
April 1, 1991
NTC
