9. AGAINST ECONOMIC DETERMINISM "OF" MARX - A TRIBUTE TO MARX AND AMBEDKAR, AND TO KISHTAIH SARU
THE DISPASSIONATE EVALUATION OF DOMINANT AND POWERFUL ECONOMIC TRENDS AS EVENTUAL AND EVEN AS SO POWERFUL AS BEYOND BEING DEFINED BY HUMAN WILL AND WISH.
THE DISPASSIONATE EVALUATION OF DOMINANT AND POWERFUL ECONOMIC TRENDS AS EVENTUAL AND EVEN AS SO POWERFUL AS BEYOND BEING DEFINED BY HUMAN WILL AND WISH DOESNOT APPEAR RIGHT ANYMORE.
AFTER ALL THEY, HOW INTENSELY ECONOMIC AND HOW STRONG AND POWERFUL THEY MAY BE, ARE SOCIAL PHENOMENAE AND NOT ANY NATURAL PHENOMENA. ATTRIBUTING , WHICH IS PERFECTLY RIGHT IN CASE OF NATURAL PHENOMENAE, A DOMAIN TO THIS SOCIAL PHENOMENA, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A DECISIVE HUMAN CONTROL AND, AS A MATTER OF FACT TO ANY SOCIAL PHENOMENA IS A SIGN OF SELF DEGRADATION OR A HYPOCRACY OR AN INNOCENT BLUNDER. ALL ECONOMIC TRENDS, HOW IMMINENT THEY MAY APPEAR, OR JUST MATTERS THAT ARE FORCED AHEAD BY ONE OR THE OTHER SECTION / GROUP / CLASS OF THE SOCIETY.
IF NOT, SAY IF IT IS ARGUED AS NOT SO, THEN HOW CAN ONE EXPLAIN THE CLEAVAGE, IN THE CONTEXT OF ANY NEW ECONOMIC TREND, IN THE SOCIETY INTO TO MUTUALLY OPPOSED GROUPS / FORCES ON SUCH TREND. FURTHER, HOW CAN ONE EXPLAIN, THE REAL ACTION, OVERT AND COVERT, FERVENT AND, IF CAN MUSTER SUFFICIENT MUSCULAR POWER, DECISIVE, OF THESE TWO GROUPS ON EVERY SUCH OCCASION. WHAT IS THE END RESULT OF ALL SUCH CONFLICTS? DEFEAT OF EITHER OF THE SIDES. OR, A COMPROMISE.
THEN ANY NEW ECONOMIC PROPOSAL OF CONFLICTING INTEREST NEEDS TO HAVE BEEN FIRST CONCEIVED BY EITHER OF THE SIDES. THEN IT IS HAULED EVERYTIME BY THE INTERESTED SIDE. WHO WINS IS, TO BE MODEST, ALWAYS HAS BEEN A MATTER OF IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE MASCULAR STRENGTHS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAN ANY HISTORICAL IMMINENCY.
THIS MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT IN ALL SOCIAL CHANGES – BE IT ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, CULTURAL, ETC., IT IS THE HUMAN VISION AND ACTION THAT IS DECISIVE THAN THE ATTRACTIVELY PHRASED FORCES OF PRODUCTION, WHICH, HOWEVER, ARE LONG BACK REDUCED TO IMPLEMENTS OF PRODUCTION - THE PASSIVE HISTORICAL FORCES.
THEN, CAN SUCH AN OBSERVATION BE PASSIVE NOT TO COMMENT ON THE ORIGINS OF THE NOTION OF DICISIVENESS OF FORCES OF IMPLEMENTS IN THE THEORY OF IMMINENCE? HONESTLY CAN NOT.WITH LOTS OF PAIN ( OUT OF FOOLISH SENTIMENT ) AND ALSO JOY AND HAPPINESS ( OUT OF WISE SENTIMENT ) IT IS BEING NOTED THAT THE TRAITS ARE IN MARX’S OVER EMPHASIS ON HISTORICAL STAGES BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL STRENGTHS OF THE SOCIETY. THIS IS AN OFFSHOOT, OF COURSE NOT OF ANY BRILLIANCE, BUT OF THE CONTINUED HUMILIATION IN THIS “ERA [!] OF GLOBALISATION AND MODERNISATION” IN THE FACE OF ITS DEVASTATING EFFECT ON THE DALIT LIFE AND THE RECURRENCE OF THE HARSH OPINIONS OF ITS IMMINENCE – EVEN BY MANY AMONG THE DALITS AND THE DALIT MARXISTS.
THIS IS A TRIBUTE, FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE HEART, TO, BOTH THE PHILOSOPHERS AND VISIONARIES OF THE DOWNTRODDEN – MARX AND AMBEDKER.
THE DISPASSIONATE EVALUATION OF DOMINANT AND POWERFUL ECONOMIC TRENDS AS EVENTUAL AND EVEN AS SO POWERFUL AS BEYOND BEING DEFINED BY HUMAN WILL AND WISH DOESNOT APPEAR RIGHT ANYMORE.
AFTER ALL THEY, HOW INTENSELY ECONOMIC AND HOW STRONG AND POWERFUL THEY MAY BE, ARE SOCIAL PHENOMENAE AND NOT ANY NATURAL PHENOMENA. ATTRIBUTING , WHICH IS PERFECTLY RIGHT IN CASE OF NATURAL PHENOMENAE, A DOMAIN TO THIS SOCIAL PHENOMENA, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A DECISIVE HUMAN CONTROL AND, AS A MATTER OF FACT TO ANY SOCIAL PHENOMENA IS A SIGN OF SELF DEGRADATION OR A HYPOCRACY OR AN INNOCENT BLUNDER. ALL ECONOMIC TRENDS, HOW IMMINENT THEY MAY APPEAR, OR JUST MATTERS THAT ARE FORCED AHEAD BY ONE OR THE OTHER SECTION / GROUP / CLASS OF THE SOCIETY.
IF NOT, SAY IF IT IS ARGUED AS NOT SO, THEN HOW CAN ONE EXPLAIN THE CLEAVAGE, IN THE CONTEXT OF ANY NEW ECONOMIC TREND, IN THE SOCIETY INTO TO MUTUALLY OPPOSED GROUPS / FORCES ON SUCH TREND. FURTHER, HOW CAN ONE EXPLAIN, THE REAL ACTION, OVERT AND COVERT, FERVENT AND, IF CAN MUSTER SUFFICIENT MUSCULAR POWER, DECISIVE, OF THESE TWO GROUPS ON EVERY SUCH OCCASION. WHAT IS THE END RESULT OF ALL SUCH CONFLICTS? DEFEAT OF EITHER OF THE SIDES. OR, A COMPROMISE.
THEN ANY NEW ECONOMIC PROPOSAL OF CONFLICTING INTEREST NEEDS TO HAVE BEEN FIRST CONCEIVED BY EITHER OF THE SIDES. THEN IT IS HAULED EVERYTIME BY THE INTERESTED SIDE. WHO WINS IS, TO BE MODEST, ALWAYS HAS BEEN A MATTER OF IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE MASCULAR STRENGTHS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAN ANY HISTORICAL IMMINENCY.
THIS MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT IN ALL SOCIAL CHANGES – BE IT ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, CULTURAL, ETC., IT IS THE HUMAN VISION AND ACTION THAT IS DECISIVE THAN THE ATTRACTIVELY PHRASED FORCES OF PRODUCTION, WHICH, HOWEVER, ARE LONG BACK REDUCED TO IMPLEMENTS OF PRODUCTION - THE PASSIVE HISTORICAL FORCES.
THEN, CAN SUCH AN OBSERVATION BE PASSIVE NOT TO COMMENT ON THE ORIGINS OF THE NOTION OF DICISIVENESS OF FORCES OF IMPLEMENTS IN THE THEORY OF IMMINENCE? HONESTLY CAN NOT.WITH LOTS OF PAIN ( OUT OF FOOLISH SENTIMENT ) AND ALSO JOY AND HAPPINESS ( OUT OF WISE SENTIMENT ) IT IS BEING NOTED THAT THE TRAITS ARE IN MARX’S OVER EMPHASIS ON HISTORICAL STAGES BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL STRENGTHS OF THE SOCIETY. THIS IS AN OFFSHOOT, OF COURSE NOT OF ANY BRILLIANCE, BUT OF THE CONTINUED HUMILIATION IN THIS “ERA [!] OF GLOBALISATION AND MODERNISATION” IN THE FACE OF ITS DEVASTATING EFFECT ON THE DALIT LIFE AND THE RECURRENCE OF THE HARSH OPINIONS OF ITS IMMINENCE – EVEN BY MANY AMONG THE DALITS AND THE DALIT MARXISTS.
THIS IS A TRIBUTE, FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE HEART, TO, BOTH THE PHILOSOPHERS AND VISIONARIES OF THE DOWNTRODDEN – MARX AND AMBEDKER.
posted by Sampath Kumar Thulasi @ 11:29 PM
0 comments
