A Dream that
comes true
Part -1
I had a dream that began when I
fell asleep last night. The dream lasted for many hours, and since I often wake
up late, it continued even in the bright daylight. In the dream, I visited the
site of Karl Marx's grave. To my astonishment, Marx awakened from his slumber
beneath the grave and appeared before me. He seemed to understand my confusion
and surprise, leaving me spellbound by this unexpected encounter. Gradually,
the atmosphere became more normal as he initiated a conversation with me. I
asked my first question, and this led to a long and engaging interaction
between us. The conversation unfolded as follows.
Me: What relevance do you have in
today's world? In your time, you explored society to uncover social laws of
motion, but nothing has really materialised until now.
Marx: You identify as a Marxist
in this present world. That is my relevance.
Me: But some people claim that
Marxism is merely a doctrine, a faith. Every faith in each era has its own
followers. Does that mean I am a doctrinaire? I'm not so sure.
Marx: What exactly makes you
doubt? If you are a doctrinaire, how can you also doubt your doctrine? Can
doubt and doctrine coexist?
Me: You emphasised that objective
reality shapes subjective reality. Your successful follower, Lenin, highlighted
vanguardism and the importance of subjective effort. However, both of you
acknowledged the two-way interaction between the two. Does this recognition
negate the determinism present in both views?
Marx: We both stressed the
interdependence of the subject and the object. It’s a matter of emphasis based
on the specific context. So why do you perceive determinism?
Me: You recognised the two sides
of reality: human labour and nature. Both aspects, when combined, constitute
our reality. You then identify that human labour changes nature, and this
altered nature impacts the relationship. You term this phenomenon
"metabolic drift." This metabolic drift is a continuous process
intertwined with the flow of time. Your concept emphasises the importance of
time in this context, with neither a clear beginning nor an end. However, you
introduced the idea that a radical change in social relations of production
could bring about an end. You proposed the concept of conscious effort, which
directs changes towards a desired outcome. This brings us to your philosophy,
known as the philosophy of praxis. What does this practice entail? You explored
this concept within a capitalist society while attempting to uncover the laws
of social change. However, your successful disciple, Mao, applied this concept
in a more backward society. Through real-world practice, we learn about and
transform the world. He summarised this idea with the phrase "From the
Masses to the Masses."
Marx: Why are you confused then? My
disciple did a new experiment.
Me: Exactly. There lies my confusion. Is Marxism an experimental science? The innovation marked classical Europe. The infrastructural construction spree marked the Italian Renaissance period. A vast body of literature based on binary logic has emerged. The protagonist, Dr Faust, epitomised the binary in the Renaissance play, the good versus the evil, and religion versus secularism. The self is always fashioned. Renaissance men are never born fully formed as self–renaissance people start to fashion their identity through conspicuous consumption. Exuberant multiculturalism and bravura consumerism. Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship illustrates the conflict between the end of the classical Renaissance period, characterised by innovation and infrastructure development, and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution during the Enlightenment. Did you, Mr Marx, give us a law of social motion that resolves the contradictions of industrial European society to transcend it? Is this the reason why you claim that you are a post-classical and post-enlightenment radical theoretician? However, I am still confused about how your philosophy of praxis fits into this narrative.
Now we stand face to face. I am a Marxist, but I remain confused, and you are Marx himself. We do not form any binary despite standing a distance apart due to the confused and uncertain state that needs to be resolved. In nature and society, you find all categories in binary opposition, which critics define as dualism. Is it true, Mr Marx? Like other Marxists, I refute the charge as your principal law is “unity of opposites”. This Hegelian concept confuses me because I immediately think of a magnet with a north and south pole. We can easily measure and map its influences using a simple tool like a compass. But what is happening in society, Mr Marx? Are we, the Marxists, not in a measurement crisis? What is actually the subject–object relationship? The answer should come from you to save Marxism and for radical social change.
