Good bye, Lenin!

A scepter is haunting Bengal - the scepter of Anti-Communism.

From Karl Marx Sarani (street) to Lenin Sarani, from Ho Chi Min Sarani to Gorky Sadan, the entire city of Calcutta now stands united in turning its back on the Communists who have ruled this land for 32 years. Their arrogance and hubris have led them to their defeat in the 15th Lok Sabha elections.

The pictures attached here remind me of those scenes that I have so often witnessed in the past. I wonder if these regular scenes from Kolkata streets will soon become only distant memories.

The Left Front has taken the support of Bengalis for granted for far too long. Calcuttans did not welcome Prakash Karat's narcissistic traits, his decision to pull out of UPA Government, his staunch opposition to the nuclear deal with US.

Left lost in all core Calcutta constituencies as well as the adjoining districts even as they tried to appeal to the urban voters by painting Mamata Banerjee as "anti-industrialization". However, the voters were more concerned with ensuring a 'stable, secular' Government at the center. They did not buy into Prakash Karat's wild daydreams about a Third front. Moreover, they did not take the unfair expulsion of a respected party veteran like Somnath Chatterjee very kindly.

There was clear anger against the Left party's stand at the center. For a state like Bengal that desperately seeks foreign investment found the Party's diatribe against capitalism quite hypocritical. They blame the CPM for ruining the industrial infrastructure of Bengal during their three decades of misrule as much more damaging than Mamata Banerjee's recent opposition to Tata Nano factory at Singur. As the scenes of violence in Nandigram and Singur flashed across the television screens, the socialism loving Bengalis could hardly believe what they saw and they never condoned the CPM for its brutal acts. These incidents of land-acquisition for industrialization also made the Left quite unpopular among the farmers and rural voters who have traditionally supported the Left. The farmer's fear of losing his land to the Government was turned into a frenzy by Trinamool and Congress, and thus they finally managed to snatch the rural voters away from the Left.

The Left also lost the support of another traditional vote-bank in their state- the Muslim voters. The corruption in Bengal police and mishandling of Rizwanur Rahman murder case, followed by the Sachar Report that mentioned that the Left had not done anything for the Muslims angered this vote-bank in Bengal. The Left leaning Bengali intelligentsia distanced themselves from CPM, and some even turned against them in fury. The combined effect was a resounding defeat for the CPM in Calcutta.

Moreover, Congress' Manmohan Singh was the perfect prime ministerial candidate - educated, honest and sophisticated, isn't that what the Bengalis had always sought for even in their homegrown apparatchiks? How could they turn down the appeal from this level-headed reformist to allow him attain a stable Government? Quite contrary to public opinion among non-Bengali Indians, CPM is not ruling the state merely by force, for three decades the Bengalis had voted them to power with full political awareness, and when the time came to teach the Communists a tough lesson, they didn't dither either.

Although the Bengalis have sent out an echoing threat to the Left parties in this election, they will still observe the leadership's response before deciding on their fate at the state level in 2011 Assembly elections.

The following paragraph from a newsource (dnaindia.com) summarizes some points aptly:

"In Orissa, the CPM rushed to join forces with the Biju Janata Dal the moment it snapped ties with the Bharatiya Janata Party. In Tamil Nadu it made common cause with Jayalalitha abandoning its 2004 partner the DMK without a clearly identifiable reason. In befriending Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh having attacked her over the years, the CPM converted itself into a party without either the squeamishness that bestowed some sort of distinction on it in the past or the scruples that underpinned its claims to be principled in politics. An electorate that is famously politically conscious viewed it all and has now delivered the thumbs down. But it is a clever verdict, because the change that Mamata Banerjee demands can only happen when the next state assembly elections are due in 2011."

But if the trend continues till 2011, it is almost certain that Bengal will soon cease to be the Leftist bastion and Calcutta will be able to rename its Lenin Sarani and Karl Marx Sarani to something that doesn't remind us of Moscow. It will then be the time to say "Good bye, Lenin!"

Notes on Democracy, Society, Individualism & Morality- Part (4)

(The following section is incomplete, but it provides the outline for the discussion that I intend to present here. It will be a continuation of the thoughts mentioned in the previous two posts. I will update this post over the next few days)

On Morality

Morality is the fancy of the rich and the burden of the poor.

I. Morality: Relative or Absolute?

II. Morality and Religion

"Religion is the opium of the masses"
- Karl Marx

III. Morality and the Society

Notes on Democracy, Society, Individualism & Morality- Part (3)

Individualism and Democracy

I. The Individualist and the Society

The latent desire for non-conformation to social rules has motivated individuals to express their individuality. This is because these norms and other socially acceptable standards are supposedly established by the tacit agreement of the majority, and for the greater common good, but it is hardly ever the case that an individual actually gets to explicitly provide his or her consent to such rules. Therefore individuals are reduced to insignificant components of an abstract higher order called society.

However, this definition of a society may be objectionable to some. A more traditional definition of society has been 'a group of individuals who voluntarily associate and cooperate for a particular aim and is usually delineated by cultural solidarity, social solidarity and cultural interdependence'. A closer look at this definition easily highlights the inherent problems. The first one arising in the concept of 'voluntary association' and the second one being related to the boundaries that 'delineate' societies. Let us discuss these briefly.

Speaking about civic societies (as opposed to clubs and fraternities) , it is rather absurd to think that individuals actually 'voluntarily' associate with their peers. Individuals do not get to choose the society, region or country of their birth, and therefore right from birth they become unwilling members of a society that preexisted them. The 'association' to this society arises from the need of individuals to depend on others to survive, and any such 'voluntary associations' are purely selfish by nature (i.e. human). Thus they are not interested in the real 'society' but are forced to be a part of it for their own benefit. This human psyche is reflected in the passivity of the role an average individual plays in the society. They rather conform to existing rules than openly challenge them. But their hidden disapproval of some of the aspects of the society find their way out by inspiring the individual to express his difference in opinion from the rest through manifestations of non-conformance. Thus, it may very well be argued that in reality societies are based on 'involuntary associations' rather than 'voluntary' ones, thus attacking the definition of the society at its core.

The second problem with the definition of society that I alluded to earlier comes from the lack of a clear conception of 'delineating' boundaries between societies. Firstly, the conception of such boundaries are subjective. Secondly, most individuals will identify themselves as members of different such societies based on different ideals and norms. For example, a person can identify himself/herself as a member of an ethnic society based on love for a shared history and culture, but at the same time may subscribe to a philosophical ideology of another society which are in direct conflict with the established beliefs and values of his/her ethnic society. This causes the individual to express his/her deviation from the social norms through non-conformation.

Unfortunately, such non-conformation mostly finds its assertion through materialistic expression, like in appearance, or more broadly, through personal tastes. This includes the human desire to establish individuality through materialistic objects like clothes, cars, mansions etc. The following sections will cite examples that show how such flawed notions of individualism unwittingly led people into the trap laid out by the capitalists of liberal democracies -the very socio-economic structure that these people were rebelling against. A true individualist should always strive to reject such materialistic conception of individualism and solely believe in the spiritual expression of non-conformance which can be achieved through the pursuit of art and rebellion against existing social norms using scientific objectivity.

II. Freud and the Unconscious

Freud realized that lurking beneath the calculated, rational behavior of human beings are dangerous desires and irrational impulses. Therefore Freud had felt that these irrational impulsiveness of human beings needed to repressed by encouraging or demanding certain level of social conformance. Freud's ideas were popularized in the US by his daughter, Anna Freud, and cousin, Edward Barneys. Inspired by Freud's thoughts, Edward Barney started Public Relations Offices for US corporations to help them appeal to these irrational desires of people to sell their products. To do so, knowledge of psychological behavior was used in advertisements. Psychologists helped consumerism to flourish. Thus man's desires were to overshadow their needs. The corporations appealed to the people's desires of materialistic possession and utilized automation to mass produce their items. Realizing the potential of these irrational impulses to cause immense devastation, especially in the wake of Nazi Germany's insanity, the US Government became concerned with using psychological techniques to manage and control the minds of its citizens to preserve their democracy.

III. Reich and Individualism

But the Freudian school of thoughts faced an unprecedented challenge in 1960 from a dissident group of psychologists who had been inspired by the ideas of Wilhelm Reich. Reich himself was a follower of Freud, but he fell out with the Freudian school over his belief that the inner human desires were not to be repressed but expressed openly. His fall out with Anna Freud led to his expulsion from the international body of psychoanalysts. But his ideas became popular again in 1960s when young people started to challenge the notion of conformance that the Government and corporations had so long encouraged. This led to the emergence of a new wave of 'individualism' in US where people wanted to be liberated from the clutches of the big corporations and Government control.

IV. The Trap of Capitalism

The sudden rebellion against the existing conventions and corporations initially befuddled the capitalists. Their existing strategies of psychological manipulation failed to appeal to these 'individualists' who were not eager to buy their mass produced items. Soon the corporations realized that Freud's psychoanalytic thoughts were still relevant as they could still appeal to the irrational impulses of the new individualists if they could make products tailored to their tastes. Although the individualists had some degree of difference in their tastes, they could still be grouped into a small number of groups. Thus if the companies made goods aimed for each of these groups, then these people will buy their products and still feel that they were purchasing goods that reflected their originality. With the technological progress it was easy for the corporations to incorporate changes in assembly line and bring more flexibility to create larger diversity in product ranges. Thus the individualists again became trapped in consumerism, the very idea they had tried to fight earlier. As I analyzed previously, the flaw was that these individualists were expressing their individuality through possession and fashion, i.e., through materialistic expression of their individuality as opposed to spiritual individualism.

V. Lessons from Previous Democracies

Freudian psychoanalytic techniques to influence the human mind was not limited to corporations only. The political parties in both US and UK used them in their strategies to win over the masses.

Reagan and Thatcher

Riding on the wave of this new desire of people to seek liberation from excessive Government control, Republicans in US and Tories in UK appealed to the people with the promises of less Government regulation. Ronald Reagan famously quoted "The Government is not the solution to the problem, the Government is the problem". Their appeals to people's individualism ensured their rise to power. The rise of individualism led people to become increasingly self-centered and they turned a blind eye to their social responsibilities. The Labor Party in Britain stuck to more socialist ideas of Government responsibility and failed to win over the voters.

Clinton and Blair

The Democrats during the campaign of Bill Clinton adopted the new technique of public relations in politics by organizing focus groups. In UK, Tony Blair's campaign adopted the same approach of rhetoric against the existing bureaucratic framework in public services. The idea was to set targets for Government bureaucrats to make them responsible to the public and in return provide incentives to them for providing better service. However, the result was that employees started to find loopholes in the laws to meet the targets, thus creating more harm than good, quite contrary to what Blair had expected. In US, Clinton failed to move ahead with his programs due to financial deficits inherited from the previous administration and was maligned by many false personal accusations. These issues were publicized to influence public psychology once again.

People's effort to embrace individualism has suffered in democratic societies as they fell victims to the traps set by corporations and Governments alike. Their misguided attempts at finding their individualism in materialistic manifestations led to these traps.

VI. Marx and Democracy

The concept of liberal democracies have never been accepted by Marx or his followers. This stems from their belief that democracies in capitalist societies are the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In such societies the all media are owned by bourgeoisie and the politicians as well as the Government is dependent on the funds from capitalists, thus effectively serving their cause instead of the commoners. Marx described parliamentary democracy as "deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament". This is not just a vitriolic statement against capitalism, for it is indeed true that politicians of democratic countries are indeed controlled by corporations. Even our 'independent' media are controlled by capitalist who take the political position depending on their affiliation to parties. The same criticism was voiced by Lenin when he remarked that such Democracies are "Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society". Marxists believe that true democracy should be the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, Marxists have been often criticized by the West who have claimed that their beliefs have been responsible for the rise of totalitarian regimes.

Notes on Democracy, Society, Individualism & Morality- Part (2)

Democracy and Social Order

I. The Rules of the Game

Simply put, Democracy is the rule of majority. Consequently, it is not necessarily the rule of truth and justice, although the way it has been traditionally presented to the masses, at least in the Western world, does not seem to make this crucial distinction. And even if they do, such views are deliberately repressed in favor of more optimistic ones. The last few years have even seen the forced export of democracy. Whether it has been the right approach is yet to be seen, but undoubtedly it has changed some lives -the lives of those who were oppressed by the earlier existing form of Governments. For example, the women in parts of Afghanistan are presumably better off with the removal of the Talibans. This point deserves more analysis. At the heart of democracy lies the concept of majority and minority, a chasm that is central to the very existence of a democracy. These factions can be based on Philosophies (Communists Vs Capitalists), Issues (Liberals Vs Conservatives), Religion, Race, Classes or even Language (eg. Sinhalese Vs Tamils in 1956). When an existing form of Government is forcibly replaced by a democratic framework, the roles of the majority and the minority may be reversed as well. However Democracy, by definition, requires that any such alteration in power be brought in by the masses themselves, and until such an alteration in power is realized, the existing majority act as the oppressor of the minority. The idea that a Democratic framework is the best and a viable solution for any country is perhaps a bit presumptuous or misguided. Its success as a form of Governance depend greatly on existing social and religious structures, as evidenced by the recent wars.

II. Social Order

The minority can rarely conform to the decision of the majority, and hence terms like 'freedom of speech' attain supreme importance. The minority can only grieve and protest till the next electoral season. Free speech is the channel through which the upset minority gets to discharge its anti-incumbency rhetoric, without it peaceful coexistence would undoubtedly be harder to achieve. The accumulation of anger would otherwise manifest itself though violence and anarchy. Whenever the Government in a Democratic framework tries to stifle the voice of the minority, clashes in ideology leaves the premises of Parliament and emerges in the open streets. In such circumstances, those citizens who had once voted the incumbent to power will withdraw their support, their desire to fight power will grow stronger and their inherent mob mentality will take over their law-abiding instincts. History has records of many such events.

But the chain of events do not always follow the above pattern. Sometimes the incumbent manages to hold on to the people's confidence in spite of all their wrong-doing and labels the minority voices as 'reactionary' or 'anarchists'. One effective tried and tested strategy of winning over the ignorant masses has been 'fear mongering'. Human beings are insecure by nature, as evidenced by their need to conjure up an invisible Supreme power who can protect them from dangers. Such insecurities manifest themselves in xenophobia, homophobia etc. Exploiting these insecurities has been at the heart of many political moves.

III. Demagoguery

Mencken described demagogues as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots". The cynic in him was astute in this observation. Falsifying ideas, demonizing opponents and other targets, melodrama and rhetoric are only some of the tools used by demagogues. Most parts of the world have witnessed the shrewdness of demagogues in appealing and motivating the masses. Europe saw the rise of Hilter and Mussolini, while India has more recently seen the rise of parties peddling Hindutva ideology that foments religious intolerance for gaining political power.

IV. The Role of Justice

An independent Judiciary is a principle tenet of Democracy. However such a system can hardly be realized if judges are appointed by the executive or legislature instead of an internal process within the judiciary. Partisan judges are in glaring contradiction with the principles of Democracy. The judiciary system in United States has been under criticism for similar reasons. The judiciary system is supposed to uphold the rights of the citizens, and especially that of the minorities, which it would fail to do without the impartiality expected of judges.

V. The Question of Rights

The rights that the citizens enjoy in a democracy are those that are permissible under the existing social and cultural norms of that country. Therefore individuals in a democracy are forced into accepting only a subset of human rights and be content with it. The majority (or the legislature) once again gets to decide which rights are to be included in that subset. Only an impartial judiciary can thwart any possibility of violating some fundamental human rights by a paranoid majority. However even the judiciary may be too weak in front of the zealot majority. We have witnessed abuse of power by the Government in many democratic nations. Sometimes the paranoia and suspicion leads to a growing number of enemies of their watch list and such developments are not only detrimental to foreign policy but also for the citizens. Even the citizens become the suspect, the paranoia turns inward and finds solace in labeling the minority as the enemy of the State. This can only end in widening the rift and self-destruction of the country. Governments have often suspected their opponents of colluding with enemies and branded any disgruntled citizen as disloyal, if not a terrorist. Nationalist sentiments are expected to be shown publicly at every opportunity and any criticism of the Government's functioning raises suspicion of being 'unpatriotic'. In such situations, the minority is often driven to fight for themselves. A Democracy that justifies all compromises on the human rights as a necessity for an effective response to the enemies fail to live up even to the already weak fundamentals of democracy on which their system is based.

Another trait of a Democracy that is weak is the recognition of the violation of human rights but unwillingness to act on them under the pretext of more important issues that need to be resolved. Often this more important issue comes in the form of a 'security threat'. Again 'patriotic' citizens are expected to compromise until the impending 'threat' is over- the underlying assumption being that mere 'existence' is more important than even the basic 'rights'. Thus often in democracies, ignorance trumps reason, fear trumps freedom, survival trumps happiness.

Notes on Democracy, Society, Individualism & Morality- Part (1)

Notes on Democracy

In The Republic, Plato expressed his belief in the idea of a philosopher King as the ideal form of Governance in the Utopian Kallipolis in the following words: "philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize". For Plato, other forms of Governments like Timocracy, Tyranny, Plutocracy and Democracy were not sustainable. However, there is much argument to be made against the very idea of a philosopher King that Plato espoused. Many philosophers have dismissed Plato's utopian idea as unrealistic, if not simply harmful. 20th century philosophers, like Sir Karl R. Popper have blamed the platonic idea for the rise of two of the most notorious political figures of the century, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini was also said to have been inspired by Platonic ideas. While these men exhibited strong leadership, they were all dedicated to wrong philosophies that have caused immense suffering to humanity. Even Plato himself failed to raise Dionysius II along the lines he had himself laid down for the development of a philosopher King. The lessons from history highlight the great risk of mistaking a ruthless tyrant for a benevolent philosopher King.

Timocracy, a Government formed by men of honor, also suffers from the risk of becoming corrupt and turning into an Oligarchy (Plutocracy) where the 'men of honor' are replaced by or are transformed into 'men of wealth' over time. This Plutocracy is probably the most dangerous form of Government that can exist. A single despotic monarch can be removed from power easily through a co-ordinated uprising of the masses, but a Plutocratic Government, consisting of the most wealthiest men, will have firmer roots that can run deep into both the politics and the economy of the State. It may be argued that it is this form of Government has existed and continue to exist in most parts of the world in the guise of democracy. However, in spite of the position and power that the ruling members of an Oligarchy enjoy, they are not immune to existential threats. Their biggest enemies are the class struggles. As the financial divide between the rich and the poor (the oppressor and the oppressed) increase, the tension gives rise to defiance, and eventually leads to violence against the rulers. In world history, the scepter of Communism has often haunted the Oligarchies and their Feudal predecessors. Class struggles lead to new social orders where the principle of equality becomes most dominant, and this usually leads to a more democratic framework for Governance.

But achieving a true democracy can be as hard as realzing the utopian concept of a philosopher King, if not harder. This is because raising a single child to develop into a philosopher King with the adequate knowledge may be easier than educating the entire mass to empower them with a sense of good judgment. One of the foremost requirement of Democracy is the participation of well-informed masses. It is the only way it can function effectively. Without it, Democracy attains the definition that Bernard Shaw provided for it: "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

However education is an expensive commodity and it demands dedication. The masses may never be able to grasp the true importance of education before being allowed to exercise their voting rights. And for politicians in many countries it may well be in their own interest to deprive the masses of this enlightenment, as doing so might hurt the attempts at realizing their own selfish goals. Moreover, even in a democratic environment, the minds of the people may be influenced, in fact controlled, by their potential rulers to vote in their favor. After all, psychoanalysis has revealed the irrational tendencies that lurks beneath the human skin, and that these forces if manipulated carefully can be used to mislead people. In another lesson from history, one should not forget that Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany in 1933 through a democratic process.

The biggest threat to democracy indeed lies in the irrationality of the unconscious human mind. A charismatic demagogue may win the minds of most citizens with passionate propaganda and fervent rhetorics that appeal to their inherent prejudices, fear and expectations. Only over time do such leaders expose their true despotic nature. The other threat to democracy comes from its fundamental structure itself -its ability to create partisanship. At the core of democracy lies the forced acceptance of the agenda of the majority by the minority. The resulting society with a split opinion can hardly function in a healthy way, and that too the majority may in fact be much misguided. If majority opinion were to decide the right and wrong, we would still be believing that the sun revolves around the earth or evolution is a hoax. The reason is not too difficult to grasp -if there are too many different voices in a room, most of which are loud and ignorant, then none of them can be clearly comprehended. This discussion brings out some of the inherent weaknesses of democracy that are often overlooked in modern societies. But arguably, it is one form of Government that has a better chance of success than the alternatives.

In the next post, I will discuss the impact of a democratic framework on the Society. As alluded to earlier, a democratic society is one where the minority is expected to bear with the agenda of the majority. This often leads to disagreement, dissent and, in extreme case, civil struggles. In this context, the concept of a society and its relation to the Individual will be discussed as well. In later posts, I will analyze the relation between an Individual and the larger democracy. In the last post of this series, I will focus on the concept of morality and its relation to the individual and the society.

To write or not to write...

I haven't written anything for quite sometime now and the reason being that I do not know where to start and how to say things without necessarily offending others, not that I have ever cared much about the latter. Over time I have either developed a narcissistic trait or else got to realize the insignificance of most of the people whom I meet. I observe how they interact, how they spend hours arguing over trivialities and how they find joy in banter. In reality, it is probably their behavior that is in fact human, all too human. But I cannot relate to them or their interests; for me their earthiness is not just disappointing but simply stifling. So I stand at my balcony every evening to look down at the overwhelming stream of humanity in the streets below. They all wear different clothes, carry themselves differently and scurry in different directions. Yet they do not appear as individuals. They are all unaware participants in a composition laid out by an unknown artist. Their only function is to serve as the basic element of a larger crowd. These are the ones that haven't been burdened with the realization of the horror of mortal existence. It is difficult to say whether I feel sorry or contempt for them, but I am only too happy to barricade myself against their encroachment into my life. Their vulgar ways and bigoted beliefs will be too poisonous and excruciating for me to bear. And maybe even their ignorance and blindness is contagious too. I cannot take a chance with that. I will either stand atop a tower and look down at them or go underground for ever. A self-imposed exile to the nether world is better than to be infected with their vices and their intellectual bankruptcy. But before you judge me, let me tell you that I did call out to them -more than once, but they couldn't hear me or perhaps they do not want to hear me. Or maybe I don't even speak their language. That is why I neither call out to them anymore nor scribble in this notebook. Alas, I could never figure out where to start, but my only consolation so far is that there is an end for sure.