Question of Consciousness and Democracy — Debate Continued

I do believe this debate being carried on in the columns of Mainstream is very important given the setback in peoples’ movements worldwide and also in the socialist states. I will try and add my views to this. But I shall seek to posit the issue in the light of these reversale.

I read Anil Rajimwale’s (AR) article (“’Consciousness from Outside’ Debate: Certain Points†, Mainstream, June 22, 2013) with much interest. Unfortunately most of the other articles mentioned did not reach me in Tihar Jail. Also, being in jail I lack reference material. Yet I would like to intervene in the discussion as I have been focusing much of my studies in jail on related issues.

First, let me touch on the question of class consciousness. After that I will briefly take up the question of democracy, which I do believe is an issue interwoven with the question of consciouness itself.

Question of Class Consciousness

I think AR has presented most of the fundamentals regarding this issue. But, I feel, there is a need to build on these fundamentals in the light of past experience. He rightly takes Lenin’s approach towards class consciousness in What is to be Done as the starting point. Lenin’s definition there would lay down the basic approach. It would be worth quoting the entire paragraph, but as I do not have that book in jail, I can just state what he said from memory.

Here, Lenin says, class consciousness is only that which can respond to all forms of oppression—and not merely the economic exploitation of the masses by the bourgeoisie/rulers. In other words, the person should feel the pain of all forms of persecution of people whether it is political, social, religious etc. etc. In the Indian context it would quite obviously also entail caste oppression which takes its most horrific form against Dalits. To be indifferent to any form of atrocity, whatever its nature, detracts from one’s class consciousness.

Take honour killings like the recent example in Dharmapuri district (Tamil Nadu). Can we not but feel deep agony for the Vanniyar girl who lost both her father and loved one due to the hysteria whipped up by her caste leaders; and also for the Dalit boy who died and the hundreds of Dalit houses burnt down and looted by rampaging Vanniyar mobs? If I am a Marxist from the Vanniyar caste involved in, say, struggle against the local landlord, but because of my caste I am indifferent to this issue, could I really be said to have class consciousness? Ironically, it was once this same village (Naickankottai) that was the centre of the Maoist movement in that district, where, in the early 1980s, a huge martyrs’ column was built in the name of Appu and Balan, gathering material for it from every house in the region, irrespective of caste. Did Appu and Balan sacrifice their lives to witness such a state of affairs taking place under their very statue? That too, over four decades after their death!! Did those participating in the earlier struggles lose their caste identity or did they continue to carry this baggage with them?

So also what AR says, again quoting Lenin, that “class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without....†, is very true. My own experience of trade union struggles in Maharashtra also indicates the same. Even with militant trade union activities, the workers maintained their caste prejudices, patriarchal values etc. Let alone personal experience, even if one looks around the world, one finds class conscious working class movements only upto the time of World War II (and maybe a little later), as with the rising of the Russian, German (and other European), Chinese working class, as also some others. But, over the last half-century we have not seen any significant role of the working class in spite of the vast peoples’ movements. This needs to be given serious thought.

For this maybe we have to go beyond Lenin’s formulation; though continuing to use that as the basic. AR rightly says one has to take into consideration the latest in the STR (scientific and technological revolution). But this covers a very wide spectrum. What needs to be considered is what specifically in this has a bearing on the question of consciousness. This, I would think, entails two factors: first, the huge leaps in the sphere of psychology/neuro-science (since Lenin’s time), which has a direct bearing on our understanding of consciousness. Second, the enormous impact of the modern media (particularly TV and internet) on the consciousness of all. Here, I will only deal with the former, as the latter merely entails greater efforts to negate the negative impact that the media has on our mind.

When we turn to the study of the mind, though the discoveries are vast, I will touch only on two aspects: First, the role of the subconscious and its relationship with the conscious mind. Second, the recent discoveries indicating the neuro-plasticity of the mind, which, with specific effort, enables change in one’s mode of thinking.

But first, before considering these, let us delve deeper into Lenin’s definition. As already mentioned, he speaks that for a class-conscious person, one must respond to any and every form of oppression. But then surely to be able to do this, would it not require a definite mental make-up? Definitely, with the ideas of the prevalent system within me, like selfishness, greed, ego etc., this type of response would be unlikely, as I would only be concerned with how such events impact me. So, to be able to respond in that ‘class-conscious’ way it would entail a new/different mental make-up. This must necessarily mean the very opposite of those values mentioned above—that is, those of selflessness, modesty, simplicity, straightforwardness etc. These I have defined, in an earlier article in Mainstream, as the values of ‘goodness’. Without such values it would be difficult for a person to feel the pain from varied forms of oppression that others suffer.

So, in other words, acquiring the values of ‘goodness’ is intrinsically related to developing a class-conscious approach. The latter should not be seen in isolation from the former. Of course, mere ‘goodness’ does not of its own result in class consciousness. This would, in addition, entail an understanding as to where good values and negative values originate from and the consciousness of the need to struggle against these sources of oppression as well.

Unfortunately, often ‘class consciousness’ is merely interpreted as anger against the oppressors. No doubt, this may be a starting point. But for this there is no need for any deep understanding as the lakhs and lakhs of people, who have to face oppression, automatically evolve an anger against the immediate oppressor (except for those who are submissive). But for real ‘class consciousness’ there is need for a much deeper understanding as well as acquiring the new set of values.

So, for example, if I have a consciousness to oppose the existing exploitative system, but while doing so I adopt autocratic, selfish, mean etc. (that is, oppressive) behaviour in dealing with others, can it be said I have class consciousness? This would, at best, be half-baked ‘class consciousness’ (as I, myself, would be acting as an oppressor), at worst, it could entail a fascist outlook, specifically with a little power going to the head.

In essence therefore true class consciousness (as defined by Lenin) evolves from acquiring the values of goodness, together with a focus and direction to struggle against the root causes for the negative. And it was partly because such a consciousness was not deeply imbibed by Communist Parties/organisations, and more particularly their leaderships, that we witnessed the ‘Animal Farm Syndrome’ (tendency of power to corrupt people) all over the world.

Class consciousness, as generally understood, focuses on the class enemy outside, but not on the enemy within. It is seen more in the intellectual sense of an understanding of friends and enemies. Such understanding may be useful for tectics, strategy etc., but when we are dealing with human beings and their consciousness, such a clinical, intellectual approach misses the essence. There is also the need to simultaneously change the very microcosm of society—that is, man himself—to evolve that consciousness.

So, that brings us back to the question on how to effect the internal change within men. Let us, for this, take the two points regarding our understanding of psychology/mind—that is, subconscious and neuro-plasticity. The former indicates that changing oneself is no easy task as it entails eradicating the negative not merely in the conscious mind, but also at the subconscious level, to be really effective and long-lasting. The latter indicates that such a change is possible, but only through conscious, independent effort in this direction (it will not happen automatically).

No doubt social activists, Communists etc. sincerely seek change to alleviate the suffering of the masses. In the process they realise that they have to strive to acquire the qualities and values that are positive. Often they consider that as they are fighting injustice, their values automatically change to goodness. To some extent, this does happen, but more at the conscious level, which is, at best, superficial. The negative values (the values of the prevailing society), which have been acquired from our childhood days and strengthened by continuous bombardment by the atmosphere around us, as also the media, continue to be deeply embedded in our subconscious. Eradicating these is extremely difficult, and requires conscious effort. This negativity within us is like a cancerous growth which is difficult to contain. It requires potent and consistent medicine to eradicate it, or else it tends to spread and spread until it totally envelope and kills us (morally).

There is, therefore, among social activists, Communists etc. a continous battle going on, both in one’s conscious mind and also between the subconscious and conscious mind. The victory of goodness (new values) over badness (prevalent values) can only be said to be complete and relatively stable when our subconscious mind itself is changed in favour of goodness and is at ease with this change. It is only then can we say that we are becoming more class conscious and thereby able to feel the pain of all forms of oppression others face. But of course, even this is not permanent, and this internal struggle continues as long as we live.

So today, with the experiences of all the reversals in the peoples’ movements and socialist countries, coupled with our knowledge of the new discoveries in the sphere of psychology/mind, as also recognising the enormous impact of the media, it is no longer sufficient to say that class consciousness comes from “outside†the “working-class struggle†. It additionally comes from the values of goodness, acquired by a conscious policy and plan to change ourselves; which would, of course, run parallel to the political and other forms of struggle.

And only if there is a consistent effort in this direction would there be any hope of sustaining the class consciousness acquired. Otherwise one may continue the vicious circle of the twentieth century—struggle for change, development of a new power, degeneration of that power...

Now let us turn to the question of democracy.

Question of Democracy

What happens if the leadership betrays the revolution (as happened in the USSR, East Europe, China etc.) and there are no democratic institutions to counter/oppose those betrayals? The revolution collapses and the socialist system remains only in name. As this has happened again and again, past experience has shown that the democratic question is indeed important. Let alone this factor, a democratic environment is absolutely essential for the full flowering of a person and the development of his creativity. In an atmosphere of ‘coercion’, there is stifling of a person’s individuality, destruction of his/her creativity and, thereby, de facto, reducing the effectivity and capability not only of the individual but also of the organisation.

But here, I am not of the opinion that this is concerned primarily with issues like the structure of the party/organisation, nor such questions as that of the “organic intellectual†etc. It is more concerned with the question of the consciousness of the people who comprise the party/organisation, and more particularly its leadership.

If the leadership individuals are autocratic, egoistic, proud, power-hungry etc. and do not have the values of modesty, simplicity, selflessness etc., the party/organisation will lack democracy no matter what the structure, or whether they comprise middle-class intellectuals or “organic intellectuals†. If the value system of goodness is absent and negative values predominate, there is no scope for democracy. Structural aspects like multi-party democracy are no guarantee for real democracy. Also, though it may be important to draw in “organic intellectuals†, this too does not guarantee for sustaining a democratic movement.

As AR says, the presence and encouragement of dissent is an important criteria to assess the level of democracy in an organisation. Ofen elections are used to give a stamp of democracy. Many parties (for example, the Congress party) have internal elections to elect their leaders who are then ‘elected’ unopposed. Such democracy is a farce. Many do not even have this. True elections would entail far wider participation of the cadre in deciding the leadership.

So, true democratic structures and polity are achievable only when the individuals, and more particularly the leadership, are able to evolve as exemplary democrate in their behaviour—personal, political, social etc. And this is directly linked to their change in consciousness wherein they should be able to deeply imbibe the values of goodness. A democratic approach can only emanate from other values like modesty, humility etc. The former is a mere product of these latter values, it is inconceivable in their absence.