At 14:13 28/10/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote:
>Be careful taking Marx's writings on India at face value. These writings
>were part of an effort to undermine Henry Carey, who was an important
>figure at the NY Tribune and how was a major influence on Duhring. Carey
>emphasized that everything English was bad. Marx countered that the
>British were helping India develop. I wrote about this in my Marx's
>Crises Theory.
__________
I think you are trying to find an easy way out for Marx. Marx's writing on
India is definitely problematic. After saying things like,
"There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by
the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and infinitely more
intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before", he goes on to
conclude:
"But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfill its
destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If
not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious
tool of history in bringing about that revolution.
Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient
world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of
history, to exclaim with Goethe: [Should this torture then torment us Since
it brings us greater pleasure? Were not through the rule of Timur Souls
devoured without measure?]."
This is a serious problem with teleological theory of history, as well as
the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the teleological theory of
history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism
is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes
against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny.
A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name
of history and human destiny. Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd
and 11th Thesis on Feuerbach). It asserts that it would prove the
correctness of the theory by practice. If the practice involves crime
against humanity then that must be committed to prove the truthfulness of
the theory (both Paul and Jim should take a note of it). That's why I think
the Gandhian concern for compatibility between means and end is important.
On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not:
It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a
'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of
stagnating nature of Indian society. The theory of Asiatic Mode of
Production was a poorly designed theory to achieve this end. He relies on
Bernier's travel accounts for his information about India and the idea that
there was no private property in land (By the way Bernier's travel accounts
were used by Adam Smith, James Mill, J.S. Mill, etc., and I think Hegel as
well). Bernier's accounts are quite superfecial and incorrect has been
argued by many Indian Medieval historians. So this aspect of Marx's thesis
does not hold much water. I'm sure Ricardo disagrees.
Cheers, ajit sinha
