Moosa Sai Marx Tak

Moosa Sai Marx Tak (From Moses to Marx)
Marx and Engels devised the term scientific socialism for their political thought, and idealistic socialism for ‘old fashioned’ socialism, which encompassed the reformist plans which European thinkers offered from time to time. The plans had not been inferred from the conditions on the ground, but were a reflection of their subjective aspirations. Scientific socialism, on the other hand, was derived from, and logical conclusion of existing (Sibte uses the term Maroozi Hallat). Its principles of evolution had been derived from a deep study of the capitalist system.
Scientific socialism refers to a social system in which all means of production-land, minerals, factories, banks, trade-are collectively owned by the society, and the produce is distributed according to the qualitative worth of the work performed by physical and intellectual cadres.
Communism is the next stage of scientific socialism, under which means of production and the produce is so advanced that the measure of distribution is not worth, but need of the people.
Foes of socialism have tried to malign it by asserting that it does not allow any personal possessions. That is far from the truth. Socialism does not permit exploitation of labor for accumulation of wealth by individuals or groups, for example control over land, minerals, manufactories and finance. Private property is sacrosanct under the feudal and capitalist systems (and supported by all religions), where as the core (asaas) of socialism lies in abolition of such private ownership and transferring it to social ownership (state).
Private ownership has created so many social evils that public ownership is being promoted even in capitalist societies ( nationalization of essential services and welfare). Means of production were nationalized (in post WW II Europe) and Asian countries (though have backtracked at the behest of neo-cons).
The other private ownership pertains to items of personal use, like clothes, utensils, home, books, bicycle, radio (TV, computers) etc. Under a capitalist system, people do not have adequate quantities of items of personal use (even in rich societies)
. A socialist society, on the other hand aims to provide people with sufficient quantity of items of personal use.
There is no equivalence in people’s productive or inventive (takhleeqi) capacity, so the income of each and every one under a socialist system will not be the same.
Socialism does not repress individuality, in fact it encourages it. Only exploitation of labor for personal aggrandizement is proscribed.

Chap 1: Early Communism
Europeans ‘discovered’ America, and traveled to India in the early 15th CE. They gained great material wealth, and gained important knowledge and information. The general public was entranced by the stories of travelers, and though they contained more half truths and outright lies, than facts, the general public listen developed great interest in exploration of the world unknown to them, and the greed to acquire wealth.
The mind set induced Sir Thomas Moore to write his classic “Utopia”, which relates experiences of a fictitious sailor, who happened to land in a far off island, where people lived in a communist society.
The same instinct led the English novelist Daniel Defoe to pen “Robinson Crusoe”, and Swift to write “Gulliver’s Travels”.
During mid-17th CE Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau wrote on the concept of social contract (muahida umrani), which indicated that political scientists were greatly helped in their conjectures (Qayas ariyaan) by the conditions in Asia and America.
The discoveries of new instrument and technology in the nineteenth century led to new industries and new branches of sciences. Agents of industrialists went around the world seeking raw material. With advances in the mode of travel, academics and archeologists traveled to old seta of civilization like Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Mexico and Greece. They dug old sites, and found skeletons, statues, instruments hierolographs (Katbe), jewelry, and utensils. They could derive the knowledge of ancient history from the finds. They also found strange birds, four legged animals, fish, sea shells, insects, flowers and plants. The most valuable were the skeletons of animals which roamed the earth, millions of years ago, but were now extinct.
The knowledge culminated in the theory of Evolution, which shook religious beliefs (that the earth was only 6,000 years old) and people developed new insight into the origin of human kind.
The concept of evolution was not knew. The writings of Heraculates, Empodocles, and Aristotle do offer a vague (Dhundhla) concept of evolution. But the Greek concept of evolution ran on a ‘ladder’ pattern, the highest rung occupied by humans, then land animals, followed by sea animals, plants and on the lowest rung were rock and earth (Jamadiat), with no possibility of rise from one to another, and from ever discrete from each other.
The creationists (Suhf e Samavi) claimed that god had created the universe in six days, and there could never be a change in the creations. Christian clergy stated with utter confidence that the world was 6,000 years old, that Adam was the first human, who lived in the paradise, and tricked/tempted by the Satan, he ate an apple/wheat, and was expelled to the earth (Creation of Mankind-Robert Basalt).
The French scientist Jean Lamarck, was the first one the theory of evolution in 1809. He claimed that simple organs evolved out if non-organic (Ghair namiati) material, but higher animals have evolved out of simpler animals. He proved by the example of several animals and plants that continuous use of a part of the body strengthens it and increases its mass, for example heavy laborers have highly developed leg muscles, while sailors, bakers, butchers and carpenters have highly developed arm and shoulder muscles. Swamp birds like the crane have long necks, beaks and legs. Non use makes the organs redundant over time. These changes are inherited too. He, however, believed that plants and animals have an inherent instinct to develop into the higher level. Science was not free of meta-physics, yet. (ma badiul tabiaat).
But the definitive work on evolution was done by Charles Darwin (1809-82). The 50 years between Lamarck and Darwin and produced many scientists who proposed theories of evolution.
Darwin published his epoch making work “The Origin of Species” in 1959. it represented 28 years of investigations and analysis (tahqeeq wa tafteesh). Darwin had traveled the world for 5 years and had collected all kinds of birds, plants, shells, rocks and bone skeletons, and on his return had studied the methods horticulturists-animal culturists. (afzaidsh e nasl). He offered the principle of natural selection. The underlying cause of the changes was the change in weather and geographical conditions. The plants and animals which could adopt to the changes, survived, others became extinct.
Darwin theorized that the shape of animals and plants was not same from the beginning of time, but had changed over hundreds of millions of years.
Darwin explained ‘natural selection’ with reference to the techniques used to improve animals, plants and grain, which have resulted in increase, not only in quantity, but also quality of the species. The wheat, rice and barley, we consume today, were once the seeds of jungle grass.
Human being are no exception to this natural selection, and have evolved from their nearest evolutionary kin, the ‘monkeys’.
It did not remain too difficult to deduct from Darwin’s work that all live beings-plants, animals including humans, were not the creations of a ‘superior’ being but had evolved from inanimate material (namiati maadda).
Darwin’s work encouraged the academia to research ‘social’ evolution. In 1836, a French academic, Christian Thomas, assigned three stages to social evolution, based on
the derivation of instruments of production. In his view, humans of the first period made them from stone, wood and bones-the stone age. The nest was that of the use of metal, called the Bronze age. The third was Iron age, which continues to the day. This was an appropriate method to judge the status of development, as means of production determine human relations and societal structure.
The status of primitive human societies in the current age is akin to that of ice age animals to modern ones. Most of the societies did not adopt to changing conditions and disappeared like ancient animals did. But the study of remnants, existing in parts of Americas, Africa and South East Asia, indicate the mode of living of prehistoric man. Depending upon varying physical and geographic conditions, some subsist on wild fruit and vegetation, other are meat eaters, even man eaters, and still others keep animals and practice primitive agriculture. Some tribes are patriarchal, others matriarchal, some monogamous, others polygamous, or polyandrous. Most believe in magic and other superstitions. A few go around naked, others cover up with leaves and bark. They use stone, wood or bone equipment, and live the life of primitive socialism.
Humans have existed as such on this earth, for 1.6 million years, but anthropologic research indicates that they have always lived a communal life in units ranging from a family to a tribe or larger groups. Interdependence led to social consciousness.
Human innovations and inventions like language, use of fire, agriculture, poetry, music and craft do not have an individual inventor and have, of necessity, been the result of collective efforts.. The skills developed out of collective needs and desires.
Primitive society worked on the principles of ‘primitive’ communism. Arguably the oldest such tribe is the Tasaday, a group of 100 people ‘discovered’ in 1961, in the hills of Mindau Island of the Philippines. The area is covered with dense trees and vegetation and is difficult of access. They still live in the stone age. Their homestead is a 50ft wide and 30 ft deep cave, and they subsist on coconut and bamboo shoots. They have no agriculture, keep no animals, and have never eaten rice, wheat, maize, and are not aware of salt, sugar or tobacco. Though they live on an island, yet have never seen the sea.
They are entirely pacific, don’t have any arms, and their vocabulary does nor words for enemy, war, murder or evil. They have one word for good and beautiful which sounds like ‘mafion’. They do not follow any religion, and for art and craft, they have a bamboo musical instrument called “kobung”. They procure food together, and though have family units of parents and unmarried children, yet they all live together. They take joint decisions, and women and men have equal rights.
They are healthy, of short stature, and do not suffer from TB, Malaria or dental problems. (Time magazine NY 10/18/1971 and 6/30/1975).
Another primitive tribe is Wemang in Malayan forests and hills. They live in groups of 20-30, with huts spread over a wide area, and subsist on fruits and vegetation. They do have bow and arrow which they use to hunt birds, squirrels and rats.
Several such tribes live in Americas as well. One called ‘Paiute’ live in tents and subsist on hunting, and after a good hunting expedition, they celebrate with song and dance. Another Yokot lives in California. Ten to twelve families live together in big halls. After marriage, the husband moves with the wife’s family. Black foot live on Canadian-American border, hunting buffalo is their livelihood. They don’t have chiefs, but listen to the health and shrewd members of the tribe.
In Columbia South America, a tribe of fishermen, by the name of Nootka live on river banks, live together in groups on a 100, in huts built collectively.
Before the Russian revolution a tribe named Yokaghir lived in Siberia. They hunted (Bara Singha) and deer, and lived together.
In Nigeria, two tribes Yoruba and Boloki number about 2 million. They hunt, keep animals. Women do farming and make utensils. Land is joint property, and may not be sold or bought. Men hunt and look after animals.
The tribal chief is called Alorfin. If he gets sick, he commits suicide. If the tribe no longer wants him as chief, they harass him so much that he either runs away or commits suicide.
Eskimos, who live in snow laden plains of Canada and Finland are the most known practitioners of primitive communism. Though the tribes live hundreds of miles apart, they have strikingly similarities in language and culture. They are no more than about 55,000 and live on Seal and Beers hunting. They wear skin garments, live in skin tents or underground homes, do know the use of fire, but eat raw meat. They breed dogs and Reindeers (Bara Singha), and their wheel less vehicles (sledge) are pulled by reindeers too.
They do not have permanent chiefs of the tribe, but seek guidance from the intelligent and experienced among them. all property, is jointly owned (Columbia Encyclopedia 1968, 670).Greed and selfishness are deemed the biggest failings.
Stone age tribes live in the Indo-Pak subcontinent too. There are the Gond, Bheel, Santhal, Khasi, Mong and Pondae. They rub stones to get spark of fire, some do no farming, and live on fish and animal husbandry. Up to the first two decades of the 20th CE, people in the Frontier redistributed tribal land every 30 years.
An American Humanities professor spent many years in the 1950s among the Marri tribes of the Baluchistan. He published a book “The Social System of the Marri Baloch”. They live in small villages, every member of the tribe has equal rights on grazing grounds, water wells and streams. In some sections of the tribe, the land was still a joint holding, and it was redistributed every 15-20 years among all the males.
Gypsies (Khana Badosh) of the area are called Panda, the tribal chief is called Hilk Waja, and his wife is called Waja. They have a tent, called IIaq assigned to guests, and share all material belongings and produce of the land, and proceeds of the sale of animals and crops. They have a common kitchen, and eat together, and live like an extended family.
The idea of this discussion is not to idealize primitive communism, but the inference that definitely be drawn is that private ownership of means of production is not an eternal or sacred code of life, but is a product of division of labor, for which there was little scope in primitive communism.
With out division of labor, it was not possible to increase production. Development of society and increased demand due to increase of population necessitated division of labor. The inner contradictions of the primitive communist society also required transformation of means of production to private ownership.
Now the inner contradictions of the society are so deep, that with out reversion to social ownership of the means of production, these contradictions can not be resolved, nor can the human society develop further.

Chap 2: Remnants of the Shariah (Code) of Moses.
The book of Genesis says that when famine struck Palestine, Jacob (Yaqoob) took his eleven sons and their progeny to Egypt where his youngest son Joseph (Yusuf) was one the ministers of the Pharaoh. Joseph welcome them Though sheep herders (Galla Baan) by calling, he got the Pharaoh’s approval to resettle them in Jashn, a very fertile region of Egypt.
They flourished and in due course the descendents of the twelve sons of Jacob became the 12 tribes of Israel..
The tribes lived in /Egypt for 430 years (Exodus), but did not adopt Egyptian religion or mores. They carried on as animal herders, and followed their own religion, traditions sedulously. When their population grew to hundreds of thousands, they had to work as heavy laborers in Egyptian towns.
The rulers of Egypt did not appreciate their exclusivity, and were no longer kind to them. They started treating them like slaves, and robbed them of animals and made work without wages.
At this critical juncture Moses was born. He persuaded them to return to Palestine. Milk and honey flowed in the country, he told them. and the god Yahweh (Yehudah-Jehovah) had promised the land of Palestine. (book of Istesnaab). Ben Israel agreed and left with bag and baggage Exodus) in 12th BCE. They numbered about 600,000 at the time, but the belief in the academia is that they were no more than 40,000.
Ben Israel led the life of animal herders. Each tribe was a social and economic unit, led by a wise man as the chief, who set the rules which everyone had to obey. The chief took the responsibility of security of his people. All assets were the joint property of the whole tribe, and every individual had equal rights (Max Beer: Social Struggles in Antiquity London 1922; p 20).
The journey from Egypt to Palestine took 40 years. They had to pass through hot deserts, waterless and desolate, devoid of any greenery. They were desperate and moaned that they were better off as slaves in Egypt; they at least got to eat twice a day.
God took pity on them, and manna ‘man wa salvah’ rained on them (Exodus-16). Moses told them to take only what they needed…and not accumulate.
The inference of the story is the concept of tribal equality (masawat). If any one accumulated out of greed, his store rotted (Exodus-16b). They finally Canaan, and raised tents in the planes of Moab, across the river Jordan. And God told Moses to tell them “to occupy the land, and to distribute the land amongst yourselves through a lottery (Quraa)., giving more to the ones with larger family…”
That indicates that Ben Israel had passed the collective land ownership phase, but the egalitarian concept of more to larger families and transparency of division through a Quraa (lottery).
Moses collected them in a tent, and taught/explained the Shariah -?commandments to them over several days, not to flout the Shariah, not to worship any but Yahweh, give to charity, and look after widows and orphans, forgive loans every 7 years, don’t lust after your neighbor’s possessions, free any Latin man or woman slave in the seventh year, after they have served you for six years, but do let them go empty handed, appoint only the just as rulers and judges, don’t violate justice, don’t accept bribes or practice cronyism, you may accept one of you as a king, but let him not acquire many horses or wives and not let him accumulate gold and silver. He should follow Shariah. Don’t charge interest from Israelis, be kind to servants, and pay wages to laborers before the sun sets (In Islam, they have to be paid before the perspiration dries on their forehead, or so I am told).
An analysis of the economic instructions would indicate that Israelis had developed a class society and the concept of private property, even before they got to Canaan. Some of them, slaves of Egyptians till the other day had stated aspiring to kingship. The rich offered loans, but were not allowed to charge interest. There were slaves and their owners, though freedom after 7 years was mandatory.
Jehovah told them after they had captured Canaan, that they would not want for anything (Istisnaab).
But in a class ridden society all means of productions are in the control of a class. Under the system, an owner may treat his slave like another human, but can not give up his rights as an owner, or he would no longer be an owner. The landowner may not be cruel to his peasants, but can not distribute his land or he would not remain a landowner.
The core contradiction of the Moses Shariah is that it wants Ben Israel to live a happy and contented life, but legitimates class distinctions as well.
While the tribal leaders captured farms, orchards, cities, palaces, industries and markets, the ordinary Jew got only left over. In fact their plight got worse, because they lost the protection and equality of the tribe. Now every one was free to starve.
Tribal laws treated all equally. Now the rich were favored.
But the leaders always condemned injustice, and raised their voice for the down trodden. One was Aamoos bin Saheban, who openly criticized the rich for living it up, and warned them that if they did not give up the life of luxury, God will punish them. He gave a call, “gather together on the hills of Samaria, and observe the mayhem and cruelty…God declares that enemies will a siege on your country…and your palaces will be ravaged “ (Aamoos)”. And Josiah shouted on the top of his voice that, “Palestine is devoid of righteousness, affection and the fear of God. Bad mouthing, breach of trust, blood letting, stealing and dishonesty is the norm”. Josiah was of the view that the chiefs have sown mischief and they will reap bad character, and ate the fruits of lies. If they want to get out of … they should be follow the path of honesty, love and affection…” (Josiah 10-b).
And Micah was furious, “Oh Ben Yaqoob’s (Jacob’s progeny) tribal chiefs and rulers, you skin people, and pick the flesh off their bones…Jerusalem will be devastated (Micah 3-b).
Like the current rich, who think that God will be pleased with their ostentatious expenditure on religious ceremonies, the rich Jews felt that Jehovah will be pleased with their displays. But they did not know better. “ O’ rulers of Sodom, I have no use for… the sacrifice of you sheep, I am sick of the fat of your goats, and the blood of your bulls do not please me….refrain from evil acts, follow the straight path…help the victims of injustice, seek justice, listen to the wails of the orphans, support the widows, your chiefs are murderers…and seek bribes and riches…(Isaiah 1-b).
Jewish leaders were not, in principle against private property, but condemned the excesses of the system. They did not oppose kingship, but wanted the king to protect and guide the people. They favored traders, but wanted them to be honest. They did not ask the rich to distribute their wealth among the poor, but only to give some of it to charity. They did not oppose a class society, but only offered reforms to ameliorate the conditions of the poor.
This social unevenness led to the emergence of sect variously called ‘Hashaim-the silent ones, Isaiah-the practical ones, Binyamin-builders. In Greek, Latin and English they are termed Essene. Al Beruni (d-CE 1048) and Shahristani (d-CE 1153) called then cave dwellers (Mogharia). This sect adhered strictly to the principles of socialism, and tried to persuade others to do the same. According to Max Beer, this sect emerged in second century BCE. Three famed historians of the first century CE, Fallot (20 BCE-50CE), Josephus 37-95 CE), and Pliny the elder (23-79 CE) have documented eye witness account of the followers of the creed. Fallot was a Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, “Four thousand pious people lived in Palestine. They were called Essene. They avoided cities and lived in villages, because the cities were infested with ‘Fisq wa Fujoor’…
They were primarily agriculturists, though they followed other peaceful vocations too. They did not accumulate….they did not indulge in war, did not trade…no one was a slave, or an owner…they hated rulers…because they had given up on the natural faith…they preached love of god, love of righteousness and love of mankind, they owned property jointly…kept an open house…and looked after the old and the infirm”.
Josephus lauds them in similar terms.
They did participate in public affairs, and fiercely resisted when the Romans attacked Palestine.
There are a lot of conjectures about these people. Some aver that they adopted Pythagoras’s concept of socialism. Others thought that were influenced by Buddhist monks. But the prevailing opinion is that that they were only following ancient Jewish traditions. But their ideas could as well have been reinforced by Pythagoras and Buddha, as Palestine had trade relations with Greece, Italy and India.
The sect is not referred to in Palestinian history after the second CE.
They were not able to overturn the private property based Palestinian society. You can not wish away the riches and property of the ruling class. They have to be forced to give up the privileges by force, and the power to force them can be acquired only by the unity and social consciousness of the people. So their experiment at socialism died with them.
Between 1947 and 1952, some skin parchment were discovered in Qumran, on the western bank of the dead sea. The parchments are 2,000 years old, and throw light on the mode of living and belief systems of the socialist sect. Archeologists also dug out remains of the Cave peoples from the Qumran hills, which are situated only 20 miles from Jerusalem. This habitation was established about 135 BCE and lasted for about 200 years.
In the second century BCE, Palestine was under the control of the successors of Alexander the great. In the year 135 BCE when the king Harswanus forced the Jews of Jerusalem to adopt the Greek culture, the cave people had sought shelter in the hills of qomran. Their leader was called Al Sidduq-the truthful one. The people called themselves Sidduqi or Ben Sidduqi (T.M. Allegro-Dead Sea Scrolls, 1958).

Chap 3:Sparta’s Military Communism
Plutarch “ the second bold reform of Lai Kirgis was the redistribution of land. There was gross inequality in his time. Most people did not have even a small patch of land. Wealth had accumulated in the hands of a few…He persuaded the citizens to accept the cancellation of all old distributions of land…”
In ancient times, the Southern region of the Balkans was called Sparta. A people called the Dorians inhabited it. They were basically farmers. Athens was in the north of Sparta. Ionians lived there. The whole country was therefore called ‘Unaan’, and the people were called ‘Unani’. People of Athens were businessmen, and no body could compete with them in sea trade.
Ionians and Dorians were rivals and their respective states were in constant wars with each other.
Herodotus (484-425 BCE) was the first to refer to the social reforms of Sparta in his “History” (Chapter 1;p 37). “in the ancient times the worst government of all the regions of Greece was in Sparta. They did not hold any truck with strangers. But now it is very good”. Offering reasons for this surprising change, he attributes it to a distinguished citizen of Sparta, name Lai Kirgis. Kirgis once went to the Delphi temple. The chief priest revealed to him the methods of the system of governance. But Spartans claim that when Kirgis was appointed the advisor (Ataleeq) of his nephew Leonis, who was the king of Sparta, he borrowed the laws from Crete…in a way that no body could rescind them in the future. He also reorganized the army, and introduced collective ‘Langar Khana’ in the country.
Kirgis is semi-historical/mythological figure in Greek history. His date of birth or death are not known. Historians estimate that Kirgis was born 800-900BCE He is believed to have traveled to Egypt, Asia minor and even India. History does establish that he was the king’s counsel. Will Durant (The life of Greece;1939 p 77) asserts that the reforms were not the work of an individual, but owed their existence to the enactment of different rules and traditions that were already prevalent.
Kirgis divided the land into 39,000 equal parcels, and allotted them to peasants. He also tried to redistribute movable property like gold and silver, but did not succeed in that. He, however, proscribed the use of precious metals as currency, in stead introducing iron. At the same time he reduced the price of the metal so much that for 500 of the local currency required a full room to keep equivalent iron in. Gold and silver lost, thus lost considerable value.
Kirgis regulations required that all citizens eat together the same food in the Langar Khana. The food consisted of bread, cheese, wine, figs, vegetables and meat. Citizens were mandated to provision the Langar Khana, in equal measure, or else they would lose citizenship’s rights/privileges.
The political set up in Sparta was different from that of other city-states in Greece. It had two kings, with nearly equal powers. There was a consultative assembly which, including the two kings, had 30 members. The members had to over 60 years of age. The body was elected by all citizens, but only the elite could contest for membership.
In addition, there was city assembly, of which any citizen over the age of 30 could become a member. This assembly met at least once a month and appointed magistrates and ‘Mukhia’, decided on war and peace. On paper the assembly was all powerful, in practice, however, Mukhias ruled the roost. They could summon kings to their court, constituted the highest court, and administered law, order and security services.
Initially Sparta was constituted by five villages with a Mukhia in each, that led to the custom of keeping five of these personages in larger Sparta as well.
Not all residents enjoyed citizenship rights, which were exclusive to a few thousand Dorians. A large majority of the people were called ‘Helots’. These were the indigenous people or slaves. They served the citizens like unpaid laborers.
A strange custom was the annual murder (Qatl e Aam) of slaves. Rebellious and Khud Sar slaves, pointed out by informers, were targeted for mass killings.
Sparta was, as a matter of fact, ruled by armed gentry (Ashrafia). So the thrust of Kirgis’s reforms was on producing good soldiers. the gentry had transformed the whole country into a military cantonment. Citizens were trained to be healthy and strong, with no ideas in their head, except to follow rules.
Boys were taken away from homes at the age of 7, kept and brought up by the state in barracks till the age of 30. they were taught wrestling, swimming, riding, (teer aur naiza challana). To grow rough and tough, winter or summer, they had to sleep in the open on rough mats. They were flogged every year at the festival of Artemis, till the ground was tinted red with their blood. They were given scanty education, with no lessons in drama, poetry or art and literature.
Women, in contrast to the ones in Athens, were no delicate, home bound creatures. Girls competed with boys on equal terms. There was no stigma in conjugal relations with men who were not their husbands, the only requisite was production of healthy children. Professor Bury, “girls and boys, nearly in the nude, trained in gymnastics together… the4y remained chaste, but were ever ready to produce children if ordered to do so (J.B. Bury;A history of Greece, p 133, NY 1944).
New born children were deemed property of the state. Sick, weak or deformed infants were thrown off cliffs and killed. Plutarck says that Kirgis ridiculed Athenians that ,” they look after their horses and spend a lot to produce high bred animals, but keep their women locked up in their homes, so as to produce legitimate progeny, though they be weak and sick idiots.
The Sparta regime lasted nearly 200 years (560-380 BCE). They defeated Athenians innumerable times, but the loot (maal e ghanimat), offered only to a hundred families, only accentuated the class divide,. Sparta faded away.
In the 3rd BCE, one young member of the royal family named Agis, decided to revive Kirgis’s reforms. Max Beer has called him the ‘first communist martyr’.
When he ascended the throne in 240 BCE, he felt that it would be exceedingly difficult to excel other kings in pomp and show. I could, however, do better than them in simple living, and high mindedness and eclipse them by redistributing the land equally among the citizens.
He proposed to the assembly that all loans be forgiven, land be divided in 19,500 equal portions, 4,500 for citizens, and 15,000 for worthy indigenous people and resident foreigners, and revive eating in Langar Khana, as of old. He handed over all his, his mother’s and grandmother’s estates to the assembly.
This initiative of Agis was vociferously lauded by the young people, but led by the other king Leonidas, fiercely opposed by the elite and feudal landowners. The assembly and majority of Mukhias supported the other king.
Agis took refuge in the temple of Neptune, from where according to ancient tradition, no body could be arrested. But Agis was. When they clashes with class interest, laws of little consequence, even foot the people who promulgated the laws in the first place.
Agis was tried behind closed doors, and asked to recant. But he kept to his word, and was hanged. His mother and grand mother were subsequently murdered.
His son Cleominis ascended the throne five years after his death, and prevailed on the army to support him and forgave loans and distributed the land. But the rich and the landowners conspired with the king of Macedonia, and persuaded him to attack Sparta. Cleominis was defeated, and the administration of the country was handed over to the ruling class.
But the importance of the social experiment can be minimized. Plato called it an exemplary state, and wrote his “Republic” with Sparta in view.
A modern academic, Max Beer, also called it a communist system, though he conceded that, “ under their system, there was no communal sharing of wealth, not communist sharing of the means of production.
Equal distribution of land, forgiving loans and Langar Khana, are not the characteristics of socialism, rather they are those of tribal societies (George Thomson: Aeschylus and Athens p 426 London 1946.
Lapara:
The chain of islands in the north-west of Sicily is called Lapara.
In the 6th BCE, the Greek people of Lydia, a coastal state in Asia minor, were driven out of their land by the cruelty of their rulers, and migrated to Southern Italy, Sicily and Lapara. The indigenous people welcomed them with open arms.
The newcomers together with the native people, established a socialist mode of living. The experiment was very successful.
It would seem that the custom of redistribution of land, when inequality (masawat) had crept in was an ancient custom. But it also indicated that classes had crept in too, and had created class distinctions. People honored old traditions, at the same time they had adopted the system of private property, but did not to accept the consequence of class based relations.


Chap 4: Plato’s Elite (Ashrafia) Communism.
Plato (427-347 BCE), was the first thinker, who drafted a comprehensive plan for an exemplary society 2200 years ago. His work “The republic” is honored as the first socialist document. It is still held in great reverence by political scientists. Plato had made a deep study of the contemporary society and had concluded that, in order to develop a society based on justice (Adl wa Insaaf), elitist communism was essential.
2,500 years ago the Greek people were not confined to the current boundaries of the country. They were spread all over Asia Minor, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania, Sicily, Crete and the islands in the northern Mediterranean Sea. Some of the states were quite strong like Lydia in Asia Minor, Attica with its capital Athens, in central Greece and Sparta in southern Greece. People of Athens and Sparta looked down upon the Macedonians in the south.
Iran emerged as great power in the 6th BCE, and Emperors Korosh and Dara, (Darius) the great attacked Greek states, which joined to gather in a federation under the leadership of AS6thens.That in time evolved into an Empire.
Iran and Greece fought for 70 years (500 to 431 BCE). Iran was finally defeated. The Greek empire emerged as the greatest naval power.
The war gave a tremendous boost to Greek industry and commerce. Greek land was not very fertile any way, and the country had to import a lot of food. In exchange they exported olive oil, wool, and minerals.
During the long war, agricultural production diminished further. Big land owners turned the land to olive trees. Rural population took to the cities, and sought work in large manufactories, which had displaced the small craft work places. Small shop keepers became dependent on large owners, who sold goods at whatever price they decided, and employed whomsoever they liked. Prices rose an estimated 500% in 70 years. Athens became the leading center of international trade. But the plight of the poor got worse (Will Durant).
Not after cessation of hostilities between Greece and Iran, Sparta and Greece started a war which lasted 27 years (431-404 BCE) Athens eventually suffered a humiliating loss, and its foundations were shaken. Olive groves burned down to ashes, its navy was demolished, Sparta captured its silver mines, and an estimated 2/3rd of its citizens were killed.
Athens never recovered. Sparta inducted a government of the elite in Athens. It despised democracy. Led by Plato’s uncles Satyas and Carmedez, it killed 1500 democrats and exiled 5,000, confiscated assets of small tradesmen, took away liberty of expression, dissolved the assembly, and proscribed public speaking and meetings. They even proscribed teaching and learning.
But it did not last more than a year. Democrats rebelled and captured the government. But Athenian society was beyond redemption. But like gambling addicts, in order to recover their lost glory, they invaded Sicily and lost there too. Rebellions and conspiracies took their toll, and finally in 357 BCE, the empire broke up.
Alexander the great’s father, Phillips rose like tidal wave from Macedonia, and riding rough shod over the northern states, captured Athens in 338 BCE.
Greek democracy never recovered.
Athens society was divided into four classes. At the top were citizens. They had the right to vote, and elect the rulers, only they could join the army, and owned all the estates. On the second rung were ‘Metigs’. They were foreigners who had settled in Athens long ago. They were mainly tradesmen, and trued to enhance their status by marrying into the homes of citizens. Third in grade were free slaves. They ran small businesses or took jobs.
The lowest were the slaves, who worked the mines and factories and served in homes, constructed buildings, and ran the ships. They were sold and bought, and could even be rented. Even the poorest citizens had one or two slaves. The whole economy depended on their labor.
The gentle folk looked down upon labor. Plato’s contemporary Xenophon (430-355 BCE) writes with evident pride, “ civilized nations regard mechanical work as despicable, because that messes up the body…and that weakens the soul…and does not leave time for socialization”.
Free of the need to make a living, they spent their time in politics, oratory, philosophy, poetry, riding, swimming, military training, and entertaining.
Women were kept at home, so good looking boys were in high demand, and Socrates and Plato too were bisexual.
Athens was a democracy, but that was restricted to 43,000 male citizens, who lived all over the country, and could not travel long distances to attend the meetings several times a month, of the national assembly, leaving control to the 2,500-3,000 citizens who live in Athens.
The national assembly was the source (sar chashma) of political power. Every adult citizen was a member, and legislation. The members were compensated for attending.
In addition there was 500 member council, ten members drawn from each of the tribes which had founded the state for a year’s term. The council evaluated the laws presented in the assembly, and was in charge of the finance and audit of administrative and religious affairs. If the assembly was not able to meet for any reason, the council would look after administrative and foreign affairs as well, but they would be subject to the approval of the assembly.
The council and its staff met on a daily basis, and its president was chosen by lottery (Quraa) every day. The government had 9 departments. The heads of the departments were chosen by lottery (quraa) as well, but they had to seek a vote of confidence from the assembly, nine times a year. Other officers of the government were chosen the same way.
But the real governance was in the hands of the army (Pakistan), because the army chief and other commanders were elected by a vote in the assembly, and did not have any limit on tenure of office.
They did not have formal political parties at the time, but the citizens were divided in two groups. One was that of “Shurfaa”, the gentlefolk, who had ruled Athens for centuries, in alliance with industrialists, trades men and money men. They especially the (Shurfaa), gentle folk were militantly opposed to democracy, and were always busy in conspiracies favoring dictatorship or monarchy. The other group comprised of small traders, poor citizens and slaves, who supported democracy vigorously. The leaders of the latter group were skilled workers. Both groups had unions, but the first group’s union was much more powerful, and they did all they could to keep the wretched deprived of their rights. Every member of the first group, as a part of the initiation ceremony had to take an oath that he will remain a foe of the second group, and will do the best to hurt them in every way. (Politics-1310). Isocrates, a contemporary of Plato writes, “The rich had become so devoid of social consciousness, that they would dump their assets in the sea, rather than give them to the needy.
There was such anarchy, that the rich did not hesitate a moment in doing the worst for the safety of their power (Iqtidar). Under Solon’s constitution, bribery was punishable by death, but in Plato’s time, votes were freely bought and sold, and it was impossible to get appointed to key positions, including the ones in the military, without a hefty bribe. The process operated in the courts, where judgments were handed down in favor of the influential or those who paid a bribe. When people rebelled in protest, the military tried to crush the people with brutal force. That led to further unrest.
In 412 BCE, the people of Somoza island captured the government, killed 200 “umraa”, exiled another 400, and divided the land and assets among themselves. Similar rebellions broke out in Leontini and Corsairs. In 370 BCE, people of Argos took up arms, and killed 1200 rich people and confiscated their assets.
The thinkers and artists of Athens were not indifferent to or impartial to the depravity, and some openly declared that till such time the citizens of Athens would not give up their loot, they would not be able to drop their parasitic habits. Isocrates, the prominent teacher and orator of Athens (436-338 BCE), openly declared “ What we call the empire is a very big curse (Laanat), because its very nature is such that that any one associated with it loses his moral character. By keeping Athenian citizens subsist on (Khiraj), the imperialism (Samraaj) has messed up democratic process. Now since there was no more (khiraj) loot, the citizens want to live on government expense and appoint only those who promise more favors, to high positions ”.
The famous Sufi philosopher Devjohns, (412-323 BCE), also condemned inflation of wealth (irtikaaz), and luxurious living of the rich, openly. He regarded slavery as violation of justice. His teacher Antithenes was also opposed to private property, and not wanting to associate with the rich, taught poor neighborhood schools, and did not charge a tuition fee. Similarly, the famed dramatist Euripides (480-406 BCE) ridiculed the superstitions of the Athenians, and condemned (Mazammat) their gods.

He moaned the subject status of women, and propagated socialism (will Durant 414). He was tried for treason twice, but could not be sentenced, so was exiled at the age of 72.
Traditional philosophers talked of golden days when there was plenty, and no greed and sloth, but fellow feeling and love, and pleaded for reversion to nature. But the (Sahib e fahm) perceptive ones, asserted that one could not go back, and preached ‘communism’. But their communism did not encompass social ownership or freedom for slaves. All they wanted was forgiving of loans, and equal distribution of land among the farmers. They had adopted the color Red, as their revolutionary emblem (nishaan), Will Durant 482).
But the rich ( Sahib e sarwat)were not oblivious of their interests. The majority of Athenians were not literate, or familiar with intricacies (moshigafian) of philosophy and Hikmat. They funded and used dramatic presentations and plays of satire, which were offered under open skies, and were the passion of the people, to promote their interests. Aristophanes (448-388 BCE) was the most popular dramatist, and he like other pipers listened to the ones who paid him. He was also a very good artist.
Aristophanes discussed one or another social issue in his presentations, and whole heartedly ridiculed the thinkers (Danishvar). His plays mocking Socrates found great fame. In fact some historians would have it that Aristophanes’ dramas played a great role in misleading the youth and condemnation of Socrates to death.
In his plays, he made fun of peaceniks as well.
The most noteworthy, however, is the one in which he castigated communism with great flair (chabuk dasti), in the dramatic presentation, “Ecclesiazusai (Awam ki Majlis). The leading lady of this drama is Praxagora. She incites the women of Athens against the men. She avers (Shikayat karti hai) that men prefer the blood shed and mayhem of the battlefield, than the peaceful milieu (pur sukoon mahaol) of the household. Not to speak of consulting the women folk on matters of state, they don’t even talk to them politely (seedhai munh baat nahin karte hain). They spend all their time on outside their homes, in philandering (ayyashion mein). Their neglect (ghaflatoan) has caused anarchy in the country (Mulk ka nizaam darham, barham ho gaya hai). It was time that women took over.
Women agree with Praxagora, and led by her, they attend the national assembly dressed as a men. As women comprise the majority of the participants, Praxagora is elected the high ruler (Hakim e alaa). She declares. “ I want that all get a share in everything. All assets be equally shared, so there be no rich nor poor, nor any in want. From now on, no one have limitless land, and the no one will want of a piece of the earth for burial…I want facilities and employment equally for all. I will start off with making the land and currency the joint ownership of all. All movable property would be stored in government treasury and Godowns.
At this point her husband approaches her, and asks “suppose some one manages to hide a portion of his money and jewellery, and the state is not made aware of , would it not be rank (sarasar) dishonesty? But he had accumulated wealth with dishonest means, in the first place.
Praxagora responds that you are right, but the wealth would be useless for her. Her husband asks, ‘how come’. Because, she says “all the needs and desires of every human (Bashr) will be met. They will have all the bread, desserts, clothes, wine, fish and fruits they want. What would anyone would dishonestly hide any wealth?
At this her husband Billiparas asks “who will work in the farms and shops. Praxagora, disingenuously answers, “all hard labor will be done by the slaves. All you will have to do, when the shadows lengthen in the evening, will be to entertain yourself.
Aristophanes also made fun of communism in another drama, titled ‘Polos-wealth’ (played when Plato was 19 . He depicts that communism is about to expire because it is so poor. The arguments have an uncanny resemblance to the argument in Pakistan, that if communism to prevail, and ended poverty, who would be give charity to.
In the drama poverty tells Athenians, “ All your luxuries and comforts, in fact, your very life, are due to me. If no body worked, who would smelt iron ore, work on furnaces, build, dye, and ply the plough…”
This indicates that communism was talked about in Athens, before Plato wrote The Republic.
Plato was born at a time when Greek society has nearly descended to a low point. He belonged to a family of old rich, which looked down upon the new rich traders. The old families were of the opinion that the downfall of the country was due to the fact that government had been allowed to pass on to the hands of the Bazaaris.
Plato studied music, mathematics, rhetoric and other traditional subjects at the school. He was inclined to poetry and politics, and had not been able to decide which to follow when he met Socrates at the age of 20, and never could give up philosophy and Hikmat (?diplomacy).
He spent his youth in the disastrous milieu of the wars with Sparta. After the war government (Iqtidaar) came under the control of his kin, who offered him membership of the consultative council, but he declined. But a year later the democrats were overthrown, and fearing that links with the previous rulers might be detrimental to him, he fled Athens, and traveling through different cities, finally ended up in Egypt, where he completed studies of Mathematics and Astronomy. He then proceeded to Southern Italy, where he got the opportunity to join the gatherings of the pupils of Pythagoras.
Pythagoras (582-507 BCE) was the first pro-democracy thinker of Greece. He introduced the term philosophy, and had established a habitation of his followers in Croton, Southern Italy. They lived a ‘socialist’ life. Pythagoras tried to explain natural phenomenon with the interrelationship (bahami rishtae) of numbers, and the laws of music. He adhered to tanassukh and non-violence, and accorded equal status to men and women, and that the earth was round and in motion.
Plato was highly impressed by Pythagoras and “The Republic”, he wrote, “ the followers of Pythagoras venerated him, because he had established a society (muashra) worthy of respect…which distinguishes his followers even now”.
Plato left Italy for Sicily where Dyan, the adviser to the king Dionysus, befriended him. But the king got annoyed with Plato one day, and sold him as a slave. His friends, however, bought his freedom after a while. He retuned to Athens after twelve years of roaming around (saer wa sayahat), and established his renowned seminary “The Academy” and taught the progeny of the rich for forty years.
Plato got an opportunity to practice his political vies when Dionysus II, who was one of his and his friend Dyan’s great (Moataqid), adherent o ascended the throne of Sicily. He went back to Sicily, but it came to nothing as Dionysus had no affinity with the exemplary frame of a Philosopher king and perception of a just temperament (Munsif Mizaji).
Like in his other books, Plato speaks through the mouth of Socrates in “The Republic” too. It is difficult to distinguish between what he believed in himself, and what he was transmitting of the views of Socrates.
Plato states that once Socrates went to the Athens seaport to attend a religious festival. On his return, he came across his friend Polymarx and two of Plato’s brothers. PolyMarx persuaded him to spend the night with him, to watch the torch bearing procession of horses, which would pass through his town.
During the night Polymarx’s father and Socrates fell into conversation about old age and it veered into a discussion of justice. Some would say that justice consists in giving what was due (haq daar ko haq dena), others averred that doing good to your friends was justice, still others that guarding national interest was the real justice.
Socrates opined that it would be better to look for germs of justice in the character of society, rather than in the minds of individuals., because an individual is a bit of the whole (Fard bahar haalbarae kul ka ek juz hai).
When people agree with him, he invites them to see what happened to justice in urban society, and draws an sketch of the ‘golden’ time, when the cities had recently emerged, population was sparse, and city dweller had a profession like wood carpenter, iron monger, weaver, and builder. They produced goods for each other, and did not interfere with each other. All were happy, contented, no one was a king and none a beggar.
But the city dwellers sought delicious food, fine clothes, magnificent homes, silver and gold ornaments and cosmetic items. Skilled workmen migrated to cities, and buying and selling markets sprouted. Population and wealth grew apace and it became necessary to develop organized administration ( shaher ke nazm wa nasq ka masla utha) and the state emerged.
Plato claimed that five types of states had, henceforth, been experimented with, in Greece. First was gentry (Ashrafiya), second was Timocracy, third Oligarchy, fourth democracy and fifth was dictatorship. He thought that the first one was the most just, as the rulers were wise (daana), soldiers were brave, and their harmony and moderation among the citizens.
Timocracy prevailed in Crete and Sparta. Only the estate owners had the right to rule, in the ratio of their holdings.
Plato had the most experience of oligarchy, and disliked it intensely. Under the system, the rich ruled, and the pious were despised, and the divide between the rich and the poor grows. The two classes, rich and the poor, conspire against each other all the time.
But the democratic system was no more equitable (munsifana). It came about when the poor killed or exiled a few of their enemies, develop coalition with the rest by giving them a share in the state, usually through a lottery system (Quraa). But what he has described is not democracy. It was anarchy (niraaj).
And people get fed up of the mal-administration (bad intizami), a man of iron emerges (mard e ahan) emerges as the savior (nijaat dehenda), offers false promises and wins their loyalty by ( sabz baagh dikha ke). Socrates hates the system the worst.
At the request of his audience, Plato offers his vision of an exemplary (misaali) state.
Every state has three components, 1) the ruling class which is responsible for administration, 2) the military which protects from foreign invasion, and 3) farmers and skilled workers who produce necessities of daily life (zarooriat e zindagi). He would like the state to assure people that all were born out of the of earth’s womb (batan), but the gods had mixed gold in some (putla), silver in others, and iron/copper in the rest. The gold ones became the rulers, the silver ones the soldiers and others farmers and skilled workers. One must not interfere with the laws of nature, or the (misaali) state could not survive.
Plato thought that if the rulers and soldiers could be reformed, the reform of traders, skilled workers and farmer will naturally follow. The children of rulers and soldiers should be sequestrated in army like camps, and they should be trained by capable teachers in gymnastics, and for their mental development, they should be taught music.
Since private property is the basis of love of grandeur (hubbe jah), greed of power ( power for iqtidaar does not seem right), and self interest (zaati mafad), the two classes (rulers and soldiers) should not even own a house. They should allowed adequate compensation for their needs. They should live in cantonments, and eat together in Langar. They should be prohibited gold and silver.
In Plato’s view, security personnel (muhafiz) should work against ( sadd e baab)excessive wealth (ifrat e zar) and excessive poverty (ifrat e aflaas).
On common ownership of women and children, Plato asserts that women can do what men can, and therefore capable women should be trained the same way as capable men. They should be common wives of common husbands. We should encourage conjugal relations between such women and men as we between health animals to produce good genetic offspring. The children should be sent to official nurseries immediately after birth.
On how to establish this exemplary (misaali) state, Plato has just one proposal-a ruler becomes a philosopher or a philosopher becomes a ruler. He bases this proposal on the concept that social changes (samaji taghuraat) are wrought by a wise or perfect man (marde dana, or insaan e kamil).
Plato’s philosopher king and Nietzsche’s superman and Iqbal’s Marde Momin (perfect man) are adjectives for the same personage.
But we do not subscribe to this concept of history. While not belittling the contribution of historic figures, we believe that an individual is the product of society and his achievements are a reflection of the collective needs, desires and aspirations of the society.
Plato wanted to bring about social changes through individual effort. But social revolutions come about only when relations and instruments of production change.
The so called (nam o nihad) communism of Plato, is a carbon copy of Sparta’s military communism in which the productive sector, slaves, farmers and the literate (ahle harf) had no rights. In true communism, current or ancient reflects the collective strength and creative capability of the producing classes (paidavari tabqa).
Plato’s times were not conducive to an exemplary state (missali).
In his ‘Book of Laws’, which is of a much later authorship, he has amended his views somewhat, “the ideal state is the one in which …where there is social ownership…and instead of waiting for a philosopher king, he advises citizens to distribute all the assets in equal measure to all…”

Chap 5: Christian Socialism.
St Ambrose (339-397 CE)-“Duties of Priests 1-26, “Nature has procured all things for mutual (mushtarka) use of all humans…but greed has restricted them to a few”.
Jesus was born in the Palestinian city Bait ul laham (Bethlehem). His mother May lived in the city Nassiriah of Galilee province. She was engaged to Yusuf (Joseph) a carpenter. Palestine was at the time ruled by the emperor Caesar Augustus (63 BCE-14CE). He had divided Palestine into three provinces-Galilee, Yehudiah and Aturia.
The Romans did not interfere with the social and religious affairs of the Jews. Even the legal disputes were presented in the courts of the Jewish tribal leaders called the Kahans. The rich Jews and their religious leaders collaborated with the tribal chiefs. They were called ‘suddoki’. Being educated, they had a great imprint of roan culture. They opposed Jewish Liberation movements and were strong supporters of roman domination. They zealously celebrated Jewish traditions (rasm wo ravaj), but ignored the spirit of the teachings of Moses. The third group of the Jews was called ‘Banayin’ who had established communes and had no truck with Jewish society. The fourth was that of farmers and workers. They were put upon by Romans, as well as by Sudukis and Pharisees.
Another school of thought was founded by Zeno, that of ‘Rawaqi philosophy’. Zeno asserted that all things in the universe are a part of a unity, which is nature or Qudrat. Man ca live in peace (khair ki zindagi) when he is in harmony with it, and obeys its laws. Rawaqis lauded old tribal life style. To inhabit cities, conduct trade and promote industry and crafts causes man to veer away from the ideal (Bertrand russel-Philosophy-p277).
Rawaqi philosophy spread from Syria to Greece and thence to Rome. They lamented the passing of the time when riches and assets were not of much significance. Virgil (70-19 BCE), “there were no fences (barhain is not fence. It is elevated land boundary)…all things were owned jointly” Horace (65-8 BCE) also says, “People of the plains, who lived in tents were much happier and more contended than us…”
Another highly distinguished personage of the age was Seneca. He was Spanish, but had migrated to Rome in his childhood. He earned great name and fame as an orator. He was exiled by King Claudius, but allowed to return after eight years and appointer adviser (ataleeq) to prince Nero. He became the chief adviser when Nero ascended the throne. Eventually (Nero ka itaab nazil hua) and he was commanded to commit suicide.
Seneca wrote many books. Writing of the merits (ausaf) of ancient times, he says, “…when the concept of private property emerged, socialism expired. Early humans copied (taqleed) nature. When evil raised its head, kings became overbearing…why should I not deem the members of the society which did not have any poor, the most richly endowed”.
Jesus was brought up in this milieu. He was born in the home of a laborer, and had personal experience of cruelty (zulm) and poverty. During visits to Jerusalem, he had an opportunity of listening to the speeches (waaz) of Jewish priests. His favorite Ben Isaiah. Lucas, writing of his youth says, “He went to temple, and was given the book of Ben Isaiah. He opened it where it said, “god’s spirit in me, He has sent me to give the good news that I was the Messiah…to release prisoners, to restore sight to the blind…” (Lucas 4-16-19).
Jesus started preaching in his 30th year of age, and consoled the poor that, “god’s kingdom is yours…” (Lucas b6).
Devout Jews believed that the savior had arrived.. Jesus had twelve special disciples. The rank included a fishermen (Peters and Andrews), dyer (Lucas), leather worker (Shamoun).
The new creed was opposed to the rich. Jesus condemned them openly, “ you can not serve god and Mammon at the same time”. “Jesus told a rich man, “it is so difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, as it is easier for a camel to pass though the eye of a needle…” (Lucas 18). He castigated the ‘Fakih and Suddokis’, “watch the ‘Fakih, they go around in long and flowing dresses, and deem it their right to receive public adulations… and presiding over public functions. They seize the homes of widows and indulge in long prayer sessions for show”.
Jesus got only three years to preach his gospel. Thousands of Palestinians accepted his creed. Jewish tribal chiefs were apprehensive that if the ‘fitna’ was not stopped in its tracks, it would irretrievably hurt the class interest of Suddukis and Pharisees. They accused him of rebelling against the religion and the Roman Empire, and he was put on the cross.
Four of the chief disciples of Jesus compiled his teach8ngs-Mathews, Lucas (Luke), Yohanna and Mirqis. They are known as The New Testament.
Jesus does not oppose class distinctions, not does he advise redistribution of land to the wretched (dahqan) of the earth. He does not preach equality either. But he was sympathetic to the poor, the needy, the oppressed, and castigated the rich.
He served the poor day and night, and lived along with his disciples in huts, wore rough clothes, and ate like the poor did.
His disciples carried on in the same vein, after his crucification. Buddhist monks lived in the same fashion. Their communal life was based in a belief in socialism, but it was to protect the believers who had converted in spite of the Roman and Jewish oppression/aggression (tashadud)..
The disciples and followers lived a communal/socialist life for 300 years. (Ernest Bevan-quoted by Max Beer).
Justin the martyr (100-165 CE) crucified in Rome, “…we produce jointly, and distribute according to need”.
The priest Tertolian (150-230 CE) was of Italian origin, and preached in Libya, “ we have every thing in common, except the wife”.
There numerous other instances of the leading men of Christian faith advocating joint ownership of property and means of production.
St Augustine (354-430 CE) was a pupil of St Ambrose. He initially followed Mani. He says, “we get into litigation due to private property…we should stay away from it…”. But when North Africans, led by their priests, rebelled against the Christians nobles and feudal land owners, St Augustine supported the Roman empire and the Roman church.
For the first 400 years after Jesus, men of religion lived a simple life and despised riches. But as soon as the rich class and rulers of the Roman Empire accepted the faith, the Church changed its tune. The priests had now become rich themselves, and started living it up. The had condemned private property, now they called it a gift of God, and taught the people to be obedient and content with their lot. They started opposing all people’s movements for emancipation.
But the Christians continued to believe that Jesus will soon return, abolish cruelty and injustice (zulm and nainsafi), and establish the kingdom of God, which will last a 1000 years. That would be the millennium of justice.
The splendor of the Roman church and the sorry plight of the ordinary Christians led to religious movements, which preached socialism and Qalandarana life (among the Muslim this led to Sufi movements).
In mid 12th century CE, a religious sect emerged in South of France and North Italy. The founder of the sect was one Petreus Valdoos, a rich merchant of Lyons. He gave all his property to the poor, and started preaching. Soon he won thousands of adherents, especially among the small traders and weavers.
He ordained communal (ishtaraki), monk like life for the priests, but ordinary people were allowed to marry. They were strongly opposed to war and the military, and spent most of their time on teaching poor children. The Roman church did not approve of this socialist ( ishtaraki) organization, though the group had no inclination to leave the church. The Pope invaded attacked them in 1477 CE, and thousands of Valdoosis were killed.
In Britain, the movement of Dahqani ishtirakiat started in the 13th century CE, directed against the depredations of aristocrats and feudal landowners who had started the so called Enclosure of the Commons campaign, when they started enclosing common pasture-grazing land, excluding the farmers, so the enclosed land could be used for rearing sheep for the wool to be exported.
The farmers rebelled, broke the fences, and demanded that the pasture be returned to common use. The rebellion was crushed, but all was not lost. In the 14th century CE, intellectuals from Oxford university castigated the injustice as a negation of Christianity. They preached that, “communism was closest to a God fearing society (Max Beer-21).
Among these intellectuals, the most distinguished was John Wycliffe, a professor at Oxford, who later became a priest. He was a moderate communist, but his pupil john Paul excelled him. Paul went around inciting the peasants to rebel against the gentry. John Paul was hanged in 1381 CE.
About the same time, a sect emerged in Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. It leader was a priest John Huss. Huss was killed by being thrown into live fire on June 6, 1415 CE at the orders of the Roman Church and his writings were also burnt. They are called Tabooris, as their headquarters was in the city Taboor. They established a communist society and declared that the Christian millennium had started.
But their communism was that of consumers, and not that of producers of wealth.
Their socialist experiment was successfully run for 20 years. They were surrounded by German states, which would not tolerate them and invaded them in may, 1444 CE and killed 13,000 out of 18,000 Taboori soldiers. The Christian church had now become an Empire in itself. After a 1000 years, in reaction emerged the social and economic revolution starting in the 14th century CCE in Italian seaports, called the Reformation.. It spread to all over Europe. Though ostensibly religious, it was in actual fact a protest of the emerging capitalist system against the Church. It was led by a German priest, Martin Luther, and led to the protestant movement against Roman Catholicism.
But martin Luther and his supporters favored national states, led by kings or aristocrats. There were, though other movements in Europe, led by priests, which followed the original Christian teachings. Thy felt that the Roman church had betrayed the teachings of Jesus, and instead of supporting the poor, had themselves become oppressors. Leaders of this movement were Thomas Muenzer and John of Leyden. (check spellings in general). Thomas (1498-1525) had been an associate of martin Luther, but the latter had no sympathy with the sorry plight of the poor, so Muenzer split with Martin and joined the revolutionary movement of poor Germans.
Muenzer met a priest Nicholas stark during one f his proselytizing tours. Stark claimed that he had a revelation in his dreams that the day of judgment was near, so people should give up private property. Muenzer liked Stark’s warnings, and started preaching in the same vein, but the other priests did not like, and both had to flee the town.
Muenzer went to Prague, but had to leave that town too. He finally ended up in the town Istate in Germany, and broke with custom and started reciting the bible in its German translation, in stead of the original Latin. Muenzer was open minded and inclined to Sufism.
Some one put a local church near Istate to fire. People blamed Muenzer, and he was hauled before the local ruler. He denounced the ruling class.
A while later farmers in Western Germany rose in a series of rebellions. Frederick Engels in his book, “Dahqanoan ki Jang” comments “the worst time for leftist organization comes when they have to take over the government the class they represent is not ready….”.
Muenzer was, in all likelihood, aware of wide gap between his ideas and the reality on the ground, but he did not dissociate from the armed rebellion of the ‘Dahqans’. He led an army of 8,000 and faced a much larger army of the state rulers on May 16, 1525. 5,000 Dahqans were killed, Muenzer sustained severe head injuries, and was captured. His arms and legs were cut off and he was ground, alive, in a mill.
In the middle (where agriculture and agricultural mode of production dominated the industrial ones) and earlier ages, socialist movements had a heavy imprint of religion, because that was the age of social evolution, in which religion prevailed over intellectual and Jazbati fields. Teachers were priests or kahan (Rabbis), and science, politics, jurisprudence (fiqh) history and theology were all deemed different fields of religion. Shariah laws of Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islamic had the force of the constitution. In the age of slavery and feudalism, the critics of the ruling class, had of necessity, take the cover of religion. Still all the revolutionaries were condemned as anti-religion, by all the creeds.
Chap 6: Mazdaki movement.
Firdausi was the first to refer to Mazdak in Farsi poetry, and Iqbal the first one in Urdu literature.
During a drought Mazdak went to the king, and asked him in a parable to let the starving peasants to raid the stores of hoarders. The king agreed.
But when the security guards informed the king of the mayhem, he asked Mazdak, and Mazdak told him that he was acting according to king's agreement. The king did not have an answer.
A lot of people joined Mazdak after the incident, He advocate equal distribution of women, homes and all material things.
The king himself became his follower. But his crown prince Khusro repudiated the creed. He invited Mazdak to a 'manazra', which was loaded in favor of orthodoxy. .Mazdak, along with his main followers, was buried alive.
Iqbal has referred to Mazdak in his 'Iblees ki majlis e shoora'.`
Iqbal mentioned four social systems-the democratic/capitalist, socialist, fascist, Islamic.
Mazdak's writings had been destroyed by Zoroastrians, so they had to be inferred from the writings of his detractors.
The conditions were very bad due to the wars with Byzantines and the Hospitalists. Iran had to pay a lot to the Hospitalists as 'khiraj', and the ruling class was under the sway of Zoroastrian clergy.
Iran had an old established feudal system. Its two characteristics were centralization and Zoroastrian domination.
The king had to be from the royal clan. There were seven dominant clans, and even the king could not defy them. Only the clergy rivaled them in power. The clergy were very wealthy, and they had huge lands and estates which were assigned (waqf) to the temples. In addition, people offered (nazr, niaz and zakat). It was "a government with in a government" according to professor Christensen (translated by Dr Iqbal-Anjuman Taraqqia Urdu).The 'Mobids' had great influence in the court. they controlled administration and education. Their opinion was final in selection of the king. Like all medieval societies, Iran also had rigid lines of demarcation between classes. The ordinary people were not allowed to wear the kind of clothes and follow the pastimes of the the rich. No one could give up his hereditary vocation. If any one repudiated his Zoroastrian faith, his property was distributed among his relatives.
Peasants were worse off. They had no right to, and were not paid any wages.
During wars, they were forced to join the army and were not paid any salary or given other compensation.
Depending upon their income, men were allowed multiple wives, and they could marry sisters and other 'mehermat'. this kind of marriage had been customary in Iran and Egypt long before Zoroastrianism, and was much favored.
A man could loan his wife or slave girl to another person to help him make a living, with out the wife's permission- a wife and a slave had the same status. A child of this liaison belonged to the first husband.
The laws, in short, were meant to secure heredity and property.
Mani was born in 215 CE. He studied Zoroastrianism, Christianity and 'Irfaniat' and other religions. He traveled to India, and met Hindu and Buddhist religious leaders. He finally started preaching his own religion, and claimed to be 'Farqelaet', the one Jesus had prophesied. In a 'taranae e hamd, he says "I have come from Babylon to herald the message of truth to all".
Mani's religion was a compound of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. He borrowed the 'struggle between light and dark forces from Zoroastrians, trinity from Christians and 'tanasukh' from Buddhists. In his creed laid great emphasis on two classes, one the saintly people 'buzurgeda-wazeedgaan, the other the followers. The saintly people were akin to Buddhist monks, they were forbidden meat, vegetables and marriage and hoarding. They had to spend all their time on teaching and advising. The followers, 'neo shigaan' had no such restrictions.
Mani's religion found great popularity in Babylon and Iran. The king Shapur and his brothers, rulers of Babylon and Khurasan accepted the creed, as did his successor Hormuzd 1. But Behram 1, who succeeded Shapur reverted to Zoroastrianism. Behram 1 was extremely dissolute and depended on the priests for his survival. .he ordered Mani to a parley with the priests. Mani, naturally, lost the contest, he was skinned alive and his head was strung at the city gate of Gandeshapur in 267 CE. His followers were subjected to target killing.
One of his followers, Zardasht Naseer Khurgan, escaped to Rome and preached a little different creed there. Iranians called it 'Dareest Deenan', the religion of the good (khudai khair), and that the good God had overcome the bad one (khudai shar).
Two hundred years later, Mazdak raised the flag of the 'good God's' religion
Mazdak believed that the universe had thee elements-fire, water and earth, and different combinations of the three made up 'mudabbir e khair and muddabir e shar'. Khair had overcome shar, but not completely, and the struggle was continuing. the objective of evolution was to liberate light (noor) from darkness (zulmat).
Mudabbir e khair is, . the god of light (khudai e noor)who is enthroned in universe above (Alam e Bala). He has four powers at his service-discrimination (tameez), memory, wisdom and ecstasy (suroor). It was a carbon copy of the court of the Sassanian court, which was run by the chief priest (Mobidan e Mobid) 'Heer Bazan Heerbaz), Sipah Baz (army chief), and musician (Moseeqar-Ramish Gar).
Mazdak opposed war and blood shed, z\and like Mani, discouraged his followers from meat eating. ......he believed that all conflicts were due to wealth and women.(Sharistani).
He preached that god had created the means of life on earth to be shared equally by all. Wealth had, therefore, to be equally and forcibly redistributed.(Christensen ref to Ibne Tabreeq, Tibri, Talibi and Firdausi).
The Mazdaki movement gained increasing acceptance, and the emperor himself accepted Mazdak as his guide, and inducted such laws as lightened the burden of the people, and women got some liberty too.
The emperor Qabad wanted to get out of the stranglehold of the aristocracy, the courtiers and the clergy. But the combine was very powerful. They started intriguing against the emperor. They were finally able to depose and imprison him, and appointed his brother Jamasp as the emperor in 499 CE.
But Qabad escaped and took shelter with the Hospitalists, and married the king's daughter, and leading a Hospitalist army returned to Iran and recaptured his realm with out a fight.
But he had changed and used the tried and trusted method of public debate which Mazdak, like Mani before him, lost, and was killed on the spot along with his followers in 528 or 529 CE.
Two years later, Khusro Alusherwan ascended the throne and deprived Mazdakis of the protection of law, and destroyed them in the process. About nine hundred thousand Iranians are believed to have been killed in the campaign.
Detractors accuse Mazdak of socialization of women. but in the tribal age, the relationship of men and women as husband and wife did not exist, and this practice was followed even two thousand years ago in Sparta, and Plato in his 'Republic' advocates the practice. The practice of conjugal relations with mothers and sisters was actually the favored marriage among the Zoroastrians, and was followed among ancient races, for purity of race and lineage. The Mazdaki movement did not last very long but its influence did. Muslim historians called the Iranian opponents of the Umayyads and Abbasids, Mazdaki, like, not too long ago, all opponents of government were called communist in the USA (now called socialists).
Another offshoot was Khurammi, who helped Abu Muslim against the Umayyads. They became so powerful that armies had to be sent against them. the leader was finally tricked into captivity and killed by the Caliph Al-Mutassim publicly in his court.
In the Sassanian society, women were treated worse than slaves were. (take the sentence up).


Chap 7 Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia.
Among the men associated with the socialist traditions of the medieval times, Moore (1478-1535 CE) was the most acclaimed. From his childhood, he was fascinated by Greek literature, philosophy and theology. While still a student, he has written a paper lauding Plato's Republic. ...he went to Oxford university, and became a barrister at age eighteen.
In 1497, he met the famed humanist philosopher of Europe, Erasmus.
Moore rose through the ranks of deputy mayor of London, to Privy Counselor, to the speaker of the parliament, a minister and appointed prime minister by King Henry the 8th in 1529 CE.
But less than three years later, he fell out with the king, as the latter wanted to divorce Queen Catherine of Spain and marry Ann Boleyn, though the RC church did not allow divorce. the king, reckoning that if Moore were to support him the priests on whom Moore wielded great influence, would not oppose him so vigorously. .but Moore did not agree, and resigned from the office of PM.
The king accused him of bribery and imprisoned him in the Tower of London. Moore, however, stuck to his guns, and was eventually killed.
Moore's times were revolutionary. Europe was passing through renaissance and new ideas and discoveries were overwhelming the decadent medieval views practices.
Printing press was introduced in 1467 CE, publication in indigenous languages, introduction of public education, 'discovery' of Americas 1492, arrival of Vasco de Gama via Cape of Good Hope in Calicut in 1498 CE, ascendance of sea trade, inventions of Copernicus and. discoveries of Galileo and other scientists, the advancement of industry due to new equipment and innovations, the struggle between the Roman church and national states, academic work, the thirst of knowledge, the , the curiosity to delve in the unknown, the passion of traveling, it seemed that Europe was waking up from the slumber of centuries.
In Britain, the downfall of aristocrats had been initiated. A lot of them had fallen during the thirty year war between the Tudors and Lancasters. Henry the 8th was after the remnants, he wanted a strong central government and wanted to break the hold of the British deputies of the Roman Church, which held 'waqf' lands and owed allegiance to Rome. He established a Church of England, with himself as its new head.
Moore had close links with the trading class, and agreed with the king in his efforts to cut the aristocracy down to size, and promote the interests of the business class. Moore wrote a lot against aristocrats and landowners in his 'Utopia', but not word against the businessmen of London. Moore's mind set is reflection of the social needs of the nascent capitalist system, but there is a great impress of Plato and ancient Christian leaders on him too. He believes that exemplary justice, truth and humanism (misali insaf, sachai, insaan dosti) are the core values morality (ikhlaqi qadroan ka sarchshma). He claimed that if man were to give up selfishness, worked honestly, enough could be produced so no one would lack for sustenance. but that would be possible only if sources of wealth, especially land were socially owned and society run on socialist grounds.
Moore wrote most of the 'Utopia' in Antwerp, Belgium, which was the leading trading port at the time, and the book was written as a travelogue. He probably drew on the work of the famed sailor Amir Wispoochi, which was published in 1507 CE.
Wiapoochi had written about certain Indian tribes” they despised gold, pearls and jewellery...did not sell or purchase...had no kings or masters...lived in a socialist society...".
Another travelogue published at the time was that of Peter Martyr He had described what he saw in Western Islands (Cuba etc). Moore borrowed from that too, and his Utopia is more attractive than Plato's Republic.
Moore wrote the book in Latin and it soon achieved great popularity. but its English version could be published only sixteen years after Moore's death, as no one dare publish it in England while Henry the 8th was alive.
The book is the travelogue of an imaginary Portuguese sailor, Rafael Heath Coday, who had traveled to Americas with Wispoochi three times, but did not return the third time. In stead, he traveled through unknown lands, which were not shown on maps. Utopia was one of the lands.
Rafael came across Moore in Antwerp, and described the island where people lived a communistic style of life.
The story can be divided into two parts. In the first part Moore uses the medium of Rafael to survey the social maladies of the British society. In the second part, he gives details of the earthly paradise that Utopia is.
Rafael had lived in Britain too, and refers to death sentence as a punishment for stealing, yet the incidents only increased. He asserts that hanging could not reduce the number of thieves, but providing employment to the needy could. Where was the justice in forcing them to steal for bare sustenance, and then punish them with death.
In Rafael's view the second reason for thievery was the dissolute aristocrats and landowners of the country, who were served hand and foot by minions. when they died, the minions, having no skills, have to fall back to thievery.
He further averred that the wool trade adopted by the landowners, for which they dispossessed the peasants, who had no recourse but to steal. The wool trade made the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Unearned riches led to the social evils of excessive numbers of gambling houses, bars and houses of prostitution.
Karl Marx, referring to the dispossession says ""the capitalist system has started sprouting
(sarmayadari nizam ka ankhwa phootne laga tha) in the 14th and 15th century CE, but
but it really emerged only in the 16th century CE (konpalain nikli) The system was based on dispossession of peasants.
The system of serfdom had been eradicated in the 15th century CE, and the majority of farmers were independent holders. Next in number were peasant laborers who worked on the lands of aristocrats in their spare time. Both had grazing and wood cutting rights on the commonly owned land. In addition, there were state owned lands.
When the demand for lamb's wool exploded, the aristocrats and large landowners seized the common and state lands, put up boundary walls around the properties, and bred sheep. That created a great amount of wool, and also a great mass of unemployed peasants, who had no possessions except the toil of their labor, and became proletariat. they had no recourse but to spear far and wide to cities like London, Glasgow and provided an inexhaustible source of cheap labor".
Rafael continues "where the concept of private property prevailed, and humanity was measured in money, it would be nearly impossible to expect justice from the government, and for the people to be contended and affluent...in a society where all the means of creation of wealth were in the control of one class, social justice and equality would not be possible. Moore had comprehended this principle four hundred fifty years ago, but Islamic scholars still regarded private property as sacrosanct even in the twentieth century, and deluded people with fantasy of equality.
The island Utopia was situated in South America. It was originally inhabited by wild people, was conquered by the king Utopia, who introduced communism there. the country was run as a democratic federation.
The basic occupation was agriculture, and all women and men had to be well versed in it. Every one worked six hours a day and had to acquire another skill, besides agriculture.
At the time laborers worked twelve to fourteen hours a day in Britain, still there was not enough for every one. Rafael argues that in Britain, there were a lot of people who lived on others, "so many people associated with the priests and the church do no work, and add to them the aristocrats and their hangers on, and you will get the idea of how few are productive in the society”. Academics and research workers were awarded state scholarships.
All the rough and dirty work was done by prisoners, and immigrants (the USA could become a Utopia, if they allowed free entry to South Americans, Asians and Africans, in stead of just exploiting their labor).
People lived a simple life and wore simple clothes. Polygamy was not permitted. Boys and girl could view each other in the nude before the wedding, on the principle that when you buy a horse, you take off its 'zeen', belt to see if there are any blemishes, so why not inspect a person you are going to spend life with.
Education of children was greatly emphasized, and they were taught music, logic, geometry, and astronomy.
Utopians were open minded about religion, and did not impose their faith on each other. Some worshipped the sun or the moon and other stars, but believed there was one superior to all, they called Mithra. Rafael introduced Christianity to them, that Jesus also preached socialism. They did not practice austerity, starvation or strenuous exercises, but advocated pursuit of happiness and pleasure. They abhorred blood shed and wars.
Moore refers to the British C. Rafael retorts that there was a difference between the so called Commonwealth and Utopia. Utopia did not have any concept of private property.
The core principle of Plato's Republic was justice and fair play. But Moore knew that in a society established by the rich, justice would mean only security of law for the assets of the rich.
The rich develop new techniques and means of securing the ill gotten wealth, and paying the least to the poor for their labor, under cover of commonwealth, and give the tricks a legal legitimacy.
Moore's time was that of nascent development of capitalism. He advocated a centralized and powerful government which could protect the interests of the capitalist class, and secure peaceful atmosphere, as the capitalists are very sensitive to lawlessness.
Moore was for a centralized and strong government, but he knew that the so called national commonwealth was only a clever ruse/conspiracy for robbing the toil of the poor, and that the king, courtiers, officers of the state and the courts were all parts of the conspiracy. In order to rid the state of the evil, political equality had to go hand in hand with economic equality.
The other characteristic of capitalism was the contradiction between the urban and rural life. In medieval time, under the feudal system, the number and population of cities was not much, and villages were the core of economic life.
The capitalist system demolished this relationship. With industry, the cities flourished, and the center of gravity of economics moved to the cities.
The critical question remains that how would the socialist system be established, and who would do it.
The weakness of the Utopian system is that socialism was gifted by a king, and not achieved through the revolutionary struggle of the workers against the rich.
In the 16th century CE, there two currents of socialist thought, one the revolutionary one of Thomas Menezez, who had inherited the spirit of early Christian leaders.
The mantle of Menezez was inherited by Levelers, the left wing leaders of the French revolution, the Chartists of Britain and Karl Marx.
The other current followed Sparta, Lai Kirgis and Plato. The humanists of the medieval times were the middle link. Moore belonged to the group, which hated popular movements and revolution. they also despised the loot and luxury of the rich, and believed that it was not possible to establish an equitable society, with out depriving the class of its economic and political supremacy. But they could not see that socialism can not be established with out a workers revolution, and that workers were the vanguard of socialist revolution.

Chap 8-Bacon's materialism and Idealistic (khayali) Socialism

Materialism is the term used for autonomous existence of the universe ((wajood bil zaat). All existence, the, the moon, the earth, the sea and animals, trees, are external (kharij mein maujood hain), and are not a product of imagination, They have existed for hundreds of millions of years, for long before humans evolved, thus they could not have been created for humans.
Humans and their brain is also made up of matter and the concept of soul is also function of the brain and does not have any existence outside of the brain.
Matter is in constant motion and change, it is indestructible, though its form and shape change. Wood burns, becomes coal or ash, evaporates or gets absorbed in soil, but continues to exist all the same.
Idealism is a stark contrast of materialism. Idealism would have it that the universe is a reflection of our thought process.
the concept of materialism is as old as human consciousness. The oldest known materialistic philosophy is 'Wehwadi, Asurwadi or Tantric prevalent in the Indus valley before the Aryans arrived there, and is fleetingly referred to in "Rig Veda". The essence of Buddha's and Charavak thought is materialism. Some academics aver that the Greeks borrowed materialist philosophy from India.
Ancient Greek philosophers of Asia Minor though not those of Athens and Sparta, were materialists. most of the people of the region were associated with trades, and had close links with Egypt, Phoenicia (Lebanon), Babylon, Iran and India, and were influenced by people of multiple ideas and creeds. Unlike Athenians and Spartans, they were not narrow minded, had wide vision and were bold and innovative.
again, unlike Athenians and Spartans, they did not ponder over problems in isolation, but made objective decisions after observation on daily life and natural phenomenon. They did not seek divine inspiration or depend on gods and goddesses, like Plato or Aristotle did.
The founder of Greek materialist philosophy was a military engineer Talees (643-541 BCE) from the island Miletous. His ancestral home was Phoenicia, he had learned astrology from the Egyptians, and had been successful in arranging cessation of war between Lydia, a state of Asia Minor and Iran. He claimed that water was prime cause (sabab e oola) of all things, and the earth floated in it.
His contemporary, Anximander (611-547 BCE was also from the same island, and was the first to draw the map of the world. He, however, declared that water or any other element was not the prime cause, it was rather the limitless (la intiha-not happy with the term limitless), which is different from all elements In addition, there is eternal motion which created the universes (15-John Burnet-Early Greek Philosophy p 52 NY 1957).
Aximander's bold assertions re origin of animal species are astonishingly accurate "all animals emerged out of damp vapors and humans were, like all other animals, originally fish....(16-Plutarch translated by Burnet).. He had a nebulous idea of evolution 2500 years before Darwin.
foremost among them was Heraclites (535-470 BCE), often credited as the founder of Jadli materialism. He is believed to have written a book in three parts-first pertained to the universe, the second to politics and the third to theology. the book is extinct but more than 150 of his sayings have been quoted by other philosophers in their writings, for example:
-all existence is unity (maujudaat e Alam wahdat hain).
-this world which is the same for all, was not created by a god or a man.
The founder of the concept of Greek atomic philosophy was Democritus (460-370 BCE), Lenin called him the ablest spokesman of materialism in ancient times. He was a recluse, and he did not establish schools like Socrates and Plato did. He believed that the universe was made up of atoms, and atom was the prime cause of creation (maujoodat). the main points of his concept of atoms are:
-nothing can come out nothing (adaam)
-nothing happens accidentally, every event has a reason
-human brain is also formed of matter
ETC ( Frederick Lange: History of Materialism p17 London 1962
Francis Bacon is the founder of modern materialist philosophy and experimental science. He was elected to the parliament at the age of twenty three, and was soon elevated to the House of Lords. King James 1 appointed him the Attorney General and then PM, but three years later fired him on bribery charges. He spent the last five years of his life in academic work.
He published 'The Essays' in 1597 CE, ' Advancement of Knowledge' in 1605, 'Response to Aristotle' in 1620, and 'New Atlantis' a scientific Utopia in 1627.
He felt that humans should rid themselves of traditional concepts and prejudices which do not allow us to develop out intellectual faculties.
True knowledge could be acquired only after ridding ourselves of bad mental habits. Knowledge should be based on experimental truths.
Bacon's historic achievement is that he revived the ancient tradition of materialist philosophy.
He borrowed the term Atlantis from Greek mythology. Ancient Greeks believed that Atlantis was an island in the western seas, which had been submerged under water during an earthquake.
Levelers-The movement of:
The capitalists had started campaigning against the absolute monarchy during the reign of James 1 (1603-1625 CE). The campaign gained more strength when Charles 1 (1625-1649) ascended the throne. During this period certain revolutionary movements, like the levelers, also emerged. Levelers was the movement of the dispossessed farmers. their leaders w2ere cognizant of the apparent democratic posture of the capitalists, that the capitalists were spouting the slogans only to entice the people to their side. Their agenda was to establish rule of their class.
The levelers could never become a people’s movement, as they wanted to revive the ancient Christian brotherhood. One faction of the sect was called the Diggers. They would seize abandoned land and would start cultivating it.
They believed that land belonged to God, and no one could acquire it as private property. In their first manifesto they declared "The king is Satan and a murderer, the aristocrats are bastards...".
The most prominent leader of the Diggers was Winstanley. He felt that after the defeat of monarchists, and the emergence of democratic movements, conditions were favorable for Christian equality (masawat). He started getting revelations and believed that Jesus spoke to him,
He published a book "The Law of Freedom" in 1652, in which he offered a proposal of Commonwealth. (Max Beer-History of British Socialism".
-All land be handed over to farmers.
-people should be forgiven taxes and debts.
ETC.
Makariah's kingdom
Samuel Hartlib, a refugee from Poland, and a political thinker, wrote a book "Makariah's Kingdom" in 1641 CE., during the period the parliament and the Charles 1 were engaged in a grave tussle.
Hartlib was a learned man, a expert on agriculture who wielded great influence in certain circles of Britain, and favored democracy.
He wrote the book in the style of Plato, and dedicated it to the parliament.
Literally Makariah means blessings (barkat), and he had borrowed the term from the Utopia.
Hartlib's project was distinct from Moore's in that the ideal state had not been bestowed by a pious king, but required the consent of the people.
Seventeenth century England was a constitutional, in addition to being a scientific laboratory. The situation was still in flux, if they should retain a king, and if so what sort of powers should he have, what should be the criteria of membership of the parliament and what sort of relations should it have with the king, The period of Charles 1 was one of civil wars, that of Cromwell, of nominal democracy, and following him monarchy was restored, depicting stages of constitutional struggle.
Hartlib's book advocated a capitalist state, but with the provision that no group should be able to exercise absolute will,
During Cromwell's time a person named Harrington wrote a book "Oceana", published in 1656 and dedicated it to Cromwell. It was based on the character of Cromwell, but advocated that the hero, Megalasor had resigned at the height of his power. Cromwell, naturally did not like it and said "I am using this authority to keep the groups in the country at peace (Morten). The English Utopia p 75 London 1952).
Harrington thought that land was determined the social system, and suggested that no one should possess land worth more than two thousand pounds, and the custom of primogeniture should be abolished, giving equal share to all children, so the estates would dwindle in size.
He also proposed that members of the parliament and all the heads of the department be elected through a secret ballot, and one third of these office holders should resign every year.
Harrington's work became so popular that a political party of his adherents contested the 1659 parliamentary elections, and won ten seats.
Harrington’s influence gradually dwindled in Britain, but the number of his followers continued to rise in the USA and France. Two leading leaders of the war of independence of the USA, John Adams and James Oates were among his admirers, and there is heavy imprint of his views on the constitution of Massachusetts.

Chap 9: The Heralds of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution was a historic achievement and it transformed the political, economic, social and cultural life of many countries, near and far.
At the time, France was the predominant cultural power of Europe. Its code of dress, style of living, food, fashion and literature was copied every where.
The revolution demolished the three citadels of exploitation of the people-monarchy, feudalism and the clergy. It proudly displayed 'freedom, equality and brotherhood' on its banner.
But the agenda of the capitalists was at great variance with that of the people. The former took the slogans for the end of the privileges of feudal landowners, removal of restrictions on industry and trade, which did not permit capitalism to flourish. But it was historic event, nevertheless. Commenting on the 1648 revolution of Britain and the French one of Britain, Marx writes "The 1648 and 1779 revolutions were not just British or French , they were at the European level, and were the harbingers of a new European society. In the revolutions, the victors were capitalists over the feudal landowners, a new social system over the old one, nationalism over provincialism, unions (musaqibat) over the guild, division of property over primogeniture, small landowner's over domination of land by few, open mindedness over superstition, family over the false prestige of extended family, ((nam o namood)...they were the reflection of the needs of the time, not just those of Britain and France (Karl Marx Selected Works Vol 1 p 140 Moscow 1969).
But the revolutionary zeal and determination required for fulfillment of social needs revolutionary consciousness in the society. Lenin said that intellectual (Fikri) revolution has to precede social revolution. Open minded thinkers led the French revolution.
On the top of the list is the name of Jean Jacques Rousseau (b 1712 CE ), who is rightly called the prophet of the French revolution.
In 1750 CE, the Academy of de John announced a competition for a paper on “Have fine arts and science benefited mankind?”. He had read Plutarch’s “ the Mashaheer e Unan” and Spartans to Athenians and felt that fine arts and science created inequality. In any case he won the prize, and that launched his scholastic career.
In 1754, he published his second book “The Beginning of Inequality”. That depicted a passionate and idealistic view of history. Man was innocent, and the founder of civil society was the person who enclosed a piece of land. If some one had broken the fence, man would have been saved from so much mayhem.
Man proceeded to build huts and learned the use of fire. “As long as people worked alone, they remained free. As soon as they needed each other’s help and assistance, equality was lost…”.
Rousseau despised private property, the feudal system, the power of the clergy and inequality.
The most important work of Rousseau is “The Social Contract” which was published in 1762 CE. It was later dubbed the bible of the French revolution. But it was not an original concept. Hobbs and Locke had written on the issue before.
Hobbs (1588-1679 CE) claimed hat human society in its nascent natural stage did not have any government. Every one was equal, there was no concept of private property, the question of justice and injustice simply did not arise. But it was jungle law, no body was safe or secure. In order to obtain a measure of security they delegated supreme authority (Iqtidar e Aala) to a ruler. The other side of the coin was that every one had to obey the ruler, with out argument, otherwise anarchy would prevail.
Hobbs favored monarchy (Mulukiat), but did not accept the divine right of kings to the clergy.
John Locke also favored the social contract, but did not agree with Hobbs that the primitive society was in a state of ‘war’. On the contrary, he believed it was very peaceful. City government, however, arose to secure the assets of people. Locke thought only propertied people should be entitled to citizenship rights as the state was supposed to safeguard property and not people.
Locke was a true votary of capitalist democracy. America’s 1773 declaration of independence borrowed the initial words from Locke, and the constitution had a heavy imprint of his views.
The famed French writer Voltaire (1694-1778) was a great admirer of Locke.
The core of Rousseau’s book “Social contract” is, on the surface about individual liberty, but he is more interested in equality, for which he would sacrifice independence. He favored democracy, but of the type prevalent in ancient Greek city states. He termed capitalist democracy an elected gentry (Ashrafiat).The theme (Nazarya) of Social contract was the intellectual foundation of the class relations which arose out of the means of production under capitalism. Under the feudal system, landowner and the farmer did not have a contract; the owner could evict the farmer any time. In the industrial set up, on the other hand, there was apparent equality, the worker was not a serf, and the capitalist could not force him to work. The laborer could accept or reject the conditions of work offered by the capitalist; both were bound by the terms of the contract.
The dominance of machines in this period potentiated ‘mechanical materialism’. Scientists and philosophers, freely compared men with machines. Newton thought that the universe moved like a machine, and was governed by identical laws.
Few are familiar with his name now, but Mably (1709-1785) was very well known in the 18th Century CE, and twenty four volumes of his collected works were sold out in four editions in no time. He was highly impressed by ancient Greece, and wrote in the style of Plato. Like Rousseau, he admired the military socialism pf Sparta, and accepted Lai Girkis as his hero. According to him equality (masawat) of humans was one aspect of the laws of nature. Ownership of land spelled the end of socialist life. All the evils of society were due to private ownership. He did not believe personal profit was that big a motivation behind the progress of arts or sciences, and rhetorically asks if Plato or Socrates worked for personal gain. But like other idealist socialists, Mably too, ignores the historic role of the working class, and hopes that the state, which in itself is a class based organization will offer laws which will obviate greed and personal gain, reduce state expenses and taxes and conspicuous consumption will be proscribed. It was simplistic to expect the capitalist state to undermine its own interests.
But he did expose the social evils with vigor and passion.
He attributed the qualities of goodness to humans and in 1755 CE published a draft of “zabtai qudrat”-Regulations of Nature. He proposed that all ite4ms not for personal use be taken over by the state. Second, the Republic offer employment to all. And third, every one should serve the society according to his ability. Morelli, Mably and Rousseau did the ground work of the French revolution, but none of them was alive at the time. This honor went to their spiritual heir, Babeau (1760-1797).
He started his professional career as an employee of a newspaper, but quit his job when the revolution started and brought out a paper initially named ‘Freedom of the Press”. It was later renamed “People’s court”.
The French Revolution was hijacked by the capitalists. The slogan “Freedom, equality and fraternity’ turned out to be empty. Before the revolution, the king and aristocrats exploited the masses. Capitalists took over the role, after the revolution.
Babeau launched a campaign against the perfidy of the capitalist class, and exhorted the proletariat to resume the struggle and complete the process.
In 1795 CE, he was imprisoned. He was released after eight months, and organized a party of skilled workers, soldiers and enlightened capitalists. The government banned the organization and shut his paper down. He continued his activities secretly. The government was so frightened that it tried him on charges of treason and hanged him.
Babeau claimed that the government had sidelined (pas e pusht daal diya) the declaration of human rights which had been passed by the national assembly on august 26, 1789 CE, which had offered inalienable rights, which included the rights to freedom, property, security and writing and publication. It had declared that the people were the source (sar chashma) of power. The declaration had been included in the 1791 CE constitution as its preamble.
He asserted that there was an ongoing struggle between the starving masses and those who were responsible for the condition and that as far as the people were concerned, there was no revolution.
Babeau and his collaborators published numerous pamphlets and journals, the most acclaimed of which was the “Agenda of Equality”-Manshoor e Masawat. “We were born equal, and will live and die as equals…”(Alexander Grey p 107).
Babeau was the first thinker who recognized that a socialist society could not be established through theoretical plans nor could this historic change be brought by a god fearing ruler or a philosopher. Only a struggle of the working class can usher it in. Babeau can be accepted as a forerunner of Karl Marx.
The reason for the failure of Babeau was that true proletariat had not yet emerged in France. But they not prepared either to launch a people’s movement, and thought that secret activities and clandestine conspiracy of a few workers could serve the purpose.
Babeau’s movement lasted for long after his murder, and Karl Marx got in touch with them after his arrival in Paris. Most of the followers of Babeau joined his communist league.

Chap 10: Post French Revolution
Though the French Revolution was a bourgeoisie revolution, and it did not fulfill the expectations of the working class, yet its had far reaching consequences. In fact the first fifty years of the 19th century CE could be called the period (Ahed) of revolutions. Revolution broke out again in France, and Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Germany and nearly all other countries of Europe underwent Independence and democratic changes.
Socialism as a political and economic system was also much discussed, and produced such votaries as Saint Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. But most of them did not favor the class struggle of the toilers, nor did want to demolish the capitalist system and establish a socialist society through a workers revolution. They worked under the illusion that if the capitalist class were to be convinced with arguments based on reason, socialist society will follow automatically.
Saint Simon (1760-1825) was just sixteen when the American war of independence (1775-1783) broke out. France, an old rival of Britain, helped the freedom fighters wholeheartedly and a lot of French revolutionaries joined their American counterparts voluntarily. Saint Simon was among them.
He experienced a different world. There were no kings, courts or lazy aristocrats, nor the luxury loving priests and their holdings (Auqaf).. Every one, factory owners, shop keepers, workers and farmers, all worked hard. The political setting was democratic to a great extent. He either did not see the sale/purchase of black Negroes or their pitiable state in the cotton and tobacco farms or may be he did not think they were full human beings meriting his notice.
On return to France, he found the country in the throes of a revolution, and he welcomed it. He did not worry too much that his hereditary property had been confiscated. He made a lot of money in stocks and gambling, and was arrested for it.
During his prison term, he had a ‘revelation’ that god had chosen him for great service, and that he was Jesus reincarnate (Masseeh e Mauood).
He got married but got separated with in a year and sought shelter (kay saia mein panah lee) under the wing of Madame Steele (1766-1817 CE). While there he wrote his first book “Letters From Geneva”, published in 1801 CE.
He wrote many other essays on reconstruction of society on the foundations of science and industry. He was tried on charges of treason, but was acquitted.
According to his plans, society will be organized along three houses:
-House of creations (takhleeqat)
-house of criticism (tanqeehat)
-house of management (tanzeemat)
He advised that both capitalists and workers ought to be compensated, but not by empowering the working class, because they were not capable of solving their problems, but will have to be helped along by the cultured people.
Saint Simon’s proposals were nothing but wild dreams (Sheikh chilli kae mansoobae), that logical arguments could not persuade the capitalists to give up their political and economic privileges.
Robert Owen (1771-1858 CE), quit school at the age of seven, and started working in a village shop. At the age of ten he moved to London, and after working for a while, moved on to Manchester, which was, at the time, a great center of cotton and wool mills. He rose quickly through the ranks to become the manger of Drink Water cotton mills. After seven years of work, he bought a cotton mill in new Lanark, about twenty five miles from Glasgow, on the banks of river Clyde. It was a dissolute town, full of thieves, alcoholics and hoods.
Owen undertook the project to reform Lanark. He started schools for children in which, in addition to traditional teaching, instructions in music and dance were also given. He built neat homes for workers and organized games and entertainment for them too. Soon Lanark was transformed from a disreputable habitation to an exemplary one. Its reputation spread far and wide, and members of the parliament, social workers, and newsmen started visiting it. The British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, was so impressed that he referred to the place in his novel “Sybil” as “the men were well dressed…alcoholism was unknown and females ( jins e nazuk) had high morals”.
When their home circumstances improved, the performance of workers also did. Production and Owens’s income went up. His heart felt desire was that the whole world would emulate Lanark.
In the beginning of the 19th century CE, the plight of the British workers was very sorry. The dispossessed peasants, thinking that they were responsible for taking their living away, started trashing machines. In 1812 CE, machine destruction became punishable by death. In January 1813 alone, thirteen workers were hanged in the city of York.
Most of the workers in factories were women and children. They worked seventeen hours a day, and were paid much less than men were. The custom of fines was prevalent too. Owen reduced the working hours to ten a day, and stopped employing women and children. He also discontinued the practice of imposing fines. The production in his factories still increased.
In 1814, he circulated a letter “…the machines which are kept clean…function more efficiently…if you look after the live machines (humans), the results will be even better…”. Industrialists threw the letter in the dustbin.
But Owen was not a one to give in. In 1815 CE, he called a conference of industrialists in Scotland. The agenda was:
-request the government to reduce duty on imported cotton
- ameliorate the working condition of children in factories.
All agreed on the first, there was not a single supporter of the second.
Owen’s other argument was that because of increased productivity due to deployment of machines, the Bazaars were chock full of supplies, yet the people were as deprived as before. In the pre-machine period, there was a balance between the amount of produce and population. But between 1792-1817 CE, the proportion between the produce had increased to twelve times that of population. But the plight of the workers was, if anything, worse, and they had to survive on charity.
In Owen’s opinion, neither charity not relocation of the poor to Australia, Canada or other countries, was the solution. The unemployed have to be offered jobs first, so they are no longer a burden on the state. ‘Unity and Cooperative’ towns should be established, workers should be assisted in farming and industry, and they should, in due course, return the funds to the donors and government. He offered this proposal to a meeting of workers of London in August 1817CE. The workers turned it down.
In 1819 CE, he published a memorandum “ A Letter to Workers’, in which he pledged his cooperation to them, if they mended (kirdar durust karain) their character, but they rejected this overture.
Owen continued his struggle to get the wages of workers raised, arguing that it would enhance their power of purchase, and they will buy manufactured goods.
Britain was, at the time, passing through a financial, in addition to an economic crisis. Numerous banks failed, and the government had to print paper money. From this, Owen inferred that the responsibility for social evils rested equally on the currency speculation and unjust distribution of wealth. In his opinion profiteering was an essential component of Musabiqat. If one were to compare Musabiqat to war, profiteering could be compared to loot. He proposed that instead of currency, ‘Labor notes’ be issued.
`In 1832, he established a cooperative group by the name of Labor Exchange. Labor notes were printed for exchange, but the members inflated the labor put in products, and it failed.
Disheartened, Owen went to America, and bought an old community center, called Harmony for 30,000 pounds in Indiana from German settlers. This project failed too, and Owen went back to Britain-bankrupt.
Charles Fourier (1771-1837 CE)was the son of a clothier in France. He was reprimanded by his father for telling the truth about some fabric. He was stunned “in the church, the priest tells me to tell me the truth, but in the shop my father forces me to tell lies”.
Fournier published his first book in 1808CE.It is a ridiculous mix of reality and imagination (khayal Afrini). He claimed that the universe had been allotted a life span of 80,000 years, 40,000 for the rise, and 40,000 for the downfall. This kind of prediction had been made by the German philosopher Emmanuel Kant, based on the diminution of the temperature of the sun. a time will come when the sun will get quite cold and all life will become extinct.
Fourier wrote “Every person linked with industry is at odds with the rest of mankind. The minority in the society is leeching on the majority”. He was great supporter of women’s rights too and a severe critic of the trading class.
The core of Fourier’s thought is ‘passional attraction’. That, he asserts, makes things like looking after a new born, feeding it, cleaning it and losing sleep over it, a mother happy rather than disgusted.
Saint Simon wanted to run the world as a factory, Fourier as a cooperative hotel in which all residents would share work.
But he was staunchly opposed to class struggle and favored cooperation between them. He did not favor mass urbanization, and was against huge factories. And he wanted socialization of child care.
After the 1815 CE defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, reactionary forces regained dominance over Europe.
During the Napoleonic wars, British mechanical industry had developed a great deal, production had increased several fold and the population of industrial cities had grown tremendously; London from 95,000 in 1801 CE to 1450,000 in 1821 CE and the population of Liverpool, Manchester etc had doubled.
While capital was fast growing (sarmayae kay irtikaz ki raftar taez ho gai) the number of workers had grown a great deal too. And the rich grew richer, the poor poorer. Patrick Colquohon analyzed the figures and proved that workers were given only one sixth of what they produced. Five sixth went into the pockets of capitalists.
During this period Britain and the West experienced the first economic crisis of the capitalist system. The purchasing power of the people had not kept pace with the rate and quantity of production. Factories started shutting down and workers were laid off. (Compare with the current crisis, the part outsourcing and the tremendous amount of production in China, where workers are paid 80 cents an hour, with no extra pay for overtime, played).
Charles Hall (1740-1820), who was in historic terms, the first credible English socialist, grew up under these circumstances. He was a successful medical practitioner, and was consequently very aware of the trials and tribulations of the ordinary people. He used to visit poor people’s homes and offer them solace and financial help.
His contention was that society was divisible into two classes, the rich and the poor, which negated each other totally like the positive and the negative in algebra. The conditions the poor lived under were extremely miserable.
The secret of the overwhelming power of wealth was that it commanded the capacity to use human labor for its own good. This power exceeded that of the absolute rulers of medieval ages. Wealth commanded not just human labor, but also Muqanana, administration and the judiciary. He estimated that workers were offered only one tenth of their produce. He analyses the pitiable condition of the working class scientifically, and examines economic problems with principles of economics.
But he thinks in terms of agriculture, that if proletariat had land, they would not have such a weak position when bargaining with industrialists. If the latter did not agree to their conditions, they would at least not have starved to death. He did not comprehend that this was the very helplessness which was the foundation of the revolutionary character of the working class, which they did not have any assets, but their labor power.
He proposed two solutions. First that people be made to work only enough to fulfill their needs, and second, every one be paid full compensation for their work.
Charles Hall was not associated with labor movement, and his schemes could only grace pages of books.
William Thompson (1785-1833 CE) was prosperous landowner Britain. Search for truth and the passion for people’s welfare led him to the moralist philosophy of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832 CE), the ideology (nazarya) of labor of David Ricardo (1772-1823 CE) and the socialist movements of Robert Owen.
Bentham was the founder of the philosophy of profit (ifadiat). He asserted that all human acts were motivated by the desire for happiness (mussarat). Man works only for his personal interest. He contended that the capitalist, the worker, T\the landowner and the farmer shared the same self interest.
Ricardo observed that the measurement of the value of a product was related to the quantity of labor utilized in preparing it. Workers labor is an item of the bazaar. The question was how to measure its value. He offered “the value of labor was what he needed to live on and reproduce”.
Thompson’s socialist views are an interesting mix of the thoughts of the three thinkers. He expressed the views in his book (Inquiry Into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness”, published in 1824 CE.
He disagreed with Bentham who asserted that that it was the capitalist who created wealth, but felt that capitalists should get half of the profits, because they own the means of production-land, machines and factories. But profit is the surplus value which is produced in raw material due to labor. Machinery, raw material and wages can not value to themselves, it is labor which does it.
But the owner of the means of production should be compensated. The worker would say that the owner should be compensated for the wear and tear of his machinery and enough to live on comfortably. Once he is reassured of this way of distribution, he work more efficiently and harder, and this will accelerate the increase in wealth. If the capitalist gets all the surplus value, inequality will increase, and the capitalist will assume the role of a tyrant, happiness will cease to exist.
Thomas Hodgkins (1783-1829 CE) was an officer in British navy, but forcibly retired when he wrote a pamphlet against its administration.
He went on a voyage of the Continent and read up on Adam smith, Ricardo, Bentham and John Locke. In 1822, James mill got him a job as a reporter in a newspaper, and got close to the worker’s movement.
Workers had not yet got the right to form trade unions and the parliament was discussing abolition of the restrictions. Hodgkins came to the conclusion that the capitalists only wanted their class interest and there could be no harmony between the workers and capital.
In 1823, he launched the London Mechanics Institute and started teaching economics and philosophy to workers. He published his first book “Labor Defended Against Claims of Capital” in 1835 CE . Two years later he published a collection of his lectures under the title “Economics Made Easy” (Muashiat aam fehm). In 1832, he published “ A Comparison of the Natural and Artificial rights of Property”.
Like his contemporaries, he had come to the conclusion that workers wages are not commensurate to their work. He was producing at least ten times what he was doing two hundred years ago, but he was still paid the same, and if they ask for their rights, they are prosecuted. It is claimed that if the workers protest, capital would move to other countries. Economists like Malthus, James Mill and Mokolosh sang odes to the capitalists.
Hodgkins divided capital into circulatory and fixed types, the former is what is sold in markets, and the latter is machines, and equipment.
The capitalist pays the worker only enough to keep his body and soul together, with out which he could not function. Fixed assets make profit only when the worker uses them.
The society will not progress till such time as the capitalist is moved out of the way, and the laborer is fully compensated (Labor Defended).
John Grey (1799-1850 CE) started working for a whole seller at the age of fourteen. He sedulously studied the effects of the 1819-1920 CE economic crisis on the bazaars of London and came to the conclusion that “this system of trade was a negation of nature…production should not be the result of need, but should be the cause of need”.” Society is a natural reality as nature had created every one to work and share together…but the nonproductive components of the society-land owner and the capitalist loot four fifth of the produce.
He studied works of Owen too, and published “Lectures on Happiness of Man” in 1825 CE
The evils produced out of the misuse of the principles of exchange (usool e mubadila key ghalat istemal sey) create more intensive competition in the system. Under the capitalist system, limits on production are not set by machines, nor by people’s needs.
John Francis Bray was born in Washington DC on June 26, 1809 and went to Britain with his father at the age of thirteen. After school and college, he got a job in a newspaper as a compositor and studied the works of Robert Owen. He was also highly impressed by the views of Rousseau and like him thought that private property was the basic cause of all evils and oppressions.
Bray founded his ideas on four principles:
-All humans have the same basic needs like hunger and thirst.
-Every one should work as that was natural law.
-all humans should have equal rights.
-equal work should be compensated equally.
In 1838, he published his views in “Labor’s Wrongs and Labor’s Remedies”.
He was not happy with the trade union movement, as it had been able to get only a slight increase in wages. He felt that the solution lay in establishment of the collective ownership system of Robert Owen.
John Gordon Barbuny was Robert Owen’s pupil. Born in 1820, he had an opportunity to visit London in 1837 CE, met Robert Owen and other socialists and on return home, became an active member of the Chartist movement.
In 1840 CE, he went to Paris and claimed that during a meeting with a an eminent French personality, he was the first one to use the term communism (Martin). But martin thought that Barbuny was the first in Britain to use the term. Barbuny formed the “Communist Propaganda Society” in London in 1841 CE and declared the year as first year of the Communist calendar.
Barbuny probably met Kaba, the author of The Voyage of Acadia” in Paris. The book became very popular in the workers movement of Paris.
Kaba (1788-1856 CE) belonged to the Left wing of France, was elected to the French assembly in 1831 CE, participated in the 1832 CE revolution and was exiled in 1834 CE, and spent five years in London, where he met Owen.
Kaba had outlined an exemplary societ5ry based 9n the slogans of the French revolution. Like Owen he had the illusion that it would be possible to establish Acadia like communist habitations in America.
Barbuny participated in different communist movements, and in January, 1842, he brought out a journal called “Promithean”. It came out only four times.
In 1848, Barbuny went back to Paris, and this time he returned a priest.
In 1847, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published “The communist Manifesto” and that ended the age of idealistic socialism.

Chap 11:
Karl Marx was born on May 05, 1818 CE in the German city of Tryer. He was of Jewish descent. The area, in close proximity of the French border had had a great impact of the French revolutionary thought. At the end of the 18th century CE, Napoleon brought the area into his empire.
His father, Heinreich Marx hated Napoleon, but was an adherent of Emancipatory/Enlightenment movement (tahreek e khirad afroz) of France and had books of Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Leibniez, and Lessing and other enlightened thinkers in his library.
After the defeat of Napoleon, the reactionary forces gained the upper hand in Europe again. Foremost among these was these was the Austro-Hungarian empire presided over by the Prime minister Matterneich. Another was the Czarist Russia, and the British and the Prussian empires. Germany had not become one country yet, but was divided into thirty eight independent underdeveloped states, ruled by dukes and governed by their own border taxes and laws. That caused a great deal of difficulty in the transport of industrial goods. Prussia itself was divided into a North east under the sway of generals and big landowners, and the valley of the river Rhine, which was relatively more developed with an emerging capitalist class.
The agenda of the 1815 CE conference called by the reactionary powers was two fold, first to weaken France so much that she would not be able to raise her head again, and secondly to eradicate revolutionary movements forever.
The conference decided to restore the bourbon dynasty in France, seized all the possessions from the country, and ordained a confederation of the thirty states of Germany, under the leadership of Prussia. To curb all democratic movements, it was decided to place severe restrictions on all speech, writing, meetings and processions, formation of political parties/groups, press and publication and learning and teaching in the allied countries.
King William of Prussia had promised that after the defeat of Napoleon, democratic constitution will be offered. Using the excuse of the Vienna conference, he not only went back on his word, but also started using tyrannical measures (istibdadi kar ravaion pae utar aya).
Students of Jeena University were the first to raise their voice against this violation of a solemn pledge under an organization called ‘Bursohn Chaft’. The campaign was so popular that in no time, branches of the organization opened in sixteen other universities.
In October, 1817, the students called a conference with representatives from all over the country. It was very successful, but coincidentally there a few incidents of terrorism.
Matterneich, who hated democracy and constitutions, called a conference of the German states, and under his direction, the conference decided that:
-no German state would promulgate any democratic constitution
-University professors and students would be watched diligently
-every university would have official monitors (mohtasib).
-teachers with democratic tendencies would be dismissed.
-All students unions and groups will be banned
Subsequently many thinkers (danishwar), students, journalists and students were arrested, teachers sacked, and their leaders jailed.
In 1830, when there was another revolution in France and Charles 10 had to run away, Prussia was once again apprehensive that rebels might break out again in Germany. All political groups were proscribed and all public meetings strictly banned.
Enlightened academics (Danishwar) had no choice but to discuss political and social issues in philosophic terms. Engels contended that “The 19th century CE philosophic revolution in Germany played the historic role that industrial revolution in Britain and the Revolution did in France (Marx-Engels: Selected Works)
After school in his native city, in September, 1835, Marx was admitted in Bonn university and chose law and philosophy. He wrote poetry too.
While in Bonn, he got engaged to Jenny Fon West Falleen, the daughter of a high German official father and an Scottish mother of aristocratic origin. She could have married in her class, but chose to spend her life in gross poverty with a revolutionary.
Marx spent most of his time in studies, and all the time he could spare, in writing love poems to Jenny.
Criticizing his philosophic pursuits he wrote “ Marooza should be studied in its evolutionary context…” He was obviously greatly impressed by Hegel, who is regarded as the greatest philosopher of modern Europe. He studied in the Theology department of the Tobington university, and made Joshili speeches and sang revolutionary songs, when the French revolution broke out.
In 1801 CE, he joined the philosophy department of Jeena university, and took out a philosophy journal with Schilling. In 1807, he published his first book “Phenomenology of Spirit”. He Had to move to Nuremberg as Napoleon had invaded Jeena and wrote his second book “Science of Logic”.
The rise of reactionary thought in Europe affected Hegel to the extent that he became a fervent supporter of Istibdadi monarchy of Prussia. In 1818 CE, he was appointed chair of the department of philosophy in Berlin University and during the tenure, published the “Encyclopedia of Philosophy” and in 1820 CE, he expanded the “Phenomenology of Spirit” into the “Philosophy of Right-Haq” After his death, his pupils published his lectures “History of Philosophy”.
Hegel’s Philosophy:
The core (Mahwar) of Hegel’s system of thought is the concept of the Absolute idea, which according to him is the origin (Sarchashma) of all phenomenon of nature and social truths. He used the term ‘Geist’. The Absolute idea exists on its own (Wajood bil Zaat), and the essence/substance (jauhar)of the universe, it is absolute reason (Aqle kul), the one (Ahadiat), and eternity (Abadiat), in short the Absolute idea’ has all the adjectives (Sifaat) of God. It has many characters in common with the Sufi concepts of ‘Hama oast” and ‘Wahdatul Wajood’.
Absolute idea is a complex philosophical concept, as is the one of Absolute reason. (Hegel-History of Philosophy p 446 NY 1956)
The 18th century Enlightenment thinkers, including the idealist socialists, advocated the concept of reason, which negated belief and superstitions, privileges of the rich and nobility, the divine right of kings, feudal land ownership and decrepit/orthodox (daqyanoosi) thought and traditions. Reason favored open mindedness, science, industry, independence and equality (Masawaat), democracy. The dynamics (Harki and tawanai afreen usool) of the French revolution was reason. The first leader of the revolution, Robespierre said “Reason is our supreme spirit (Roohe Aala)…”(Reason and Revolution Herbert Marcos 3-NY 1954).
Hegel agreed that in human history it was the first time that man had learned to rely on his own mind and has analyzed realities of life with reason. In 1793, he wrote to Schilling “independence/freedom and reason will remain our guiding principles…the spiritual (Taqqadus) halo enveloping the men and gods who oppressed the earth (zameen par sitam dhane waley) has disappeared…”
For Hegel, reason is a reflection of the laws of motion of natural phenomenon (Mazahir e qudrat). (All that is, Is reasonable). The solar system works under a law, but the sun and the stars are not aware of it.
Soul is the exact opposite (Ain Zidd) of matter. The essence/substance of matter is attraction (kashsish), that of the soul is independence (Azaadi). Soul is a self sustaining reality., and this existence is termed self consciousness (Shaoor e Zaat).
The object and intention of universal history is acquisition of soul’s Absolute idea. (Please see page 257).
Hegel asserts that state is the final objective and the acquisition (tahseel) of freedom/independence. State is the divine concept (Uloohi Tasawwar), which appears on earth.
In spite of all his concepts of idealism, Hegel subscribes to the evolutionary ‘Amal’ in human history.
After Hegel’s death, his followers split into two caps, one that of reactionaries who tried to reconcile philosophy and religion and supported the Hegelian concept of state. The other was that of Young Hegelians, who rejected (Inhiraf) certain Christian beliefs and would utilize philosophy for reform of man and society.
Young Hegelians presented political issues in the guise of religion, as the government was suspicious of the activities of the group. The first book published in this context was that by David Strauss “The Life of the Messiah” in 1835 CE. It created a sensation, as it established in a highly scholarly fashion, that Jesus was a man, and all the miracles (Moajze) attributed to him by priests are concoctions. The dust had hardly settled on this controversy that Bruno Bayer claimed that there no historic evidence of his existence, and the Bible and the stories in it are the Tasneef of Christian Peshwas.
Lest they fall in the stranglehold of official Mohtasibs and priests, the questions were odder in a camouflaged way “ Are the Bible’s miracles the product of Ben Israel’s unconscious and traditional imagery (Fusoon Saazi), or the forgeries (jaal Sazian) of Christian Peshwas.
Marx did not want to get involved in intricacies (mo shigafion) of philosophy. He, in fact, wanted to define the role of philosophy in the wide world. He firmly believed that philosophy had the capacity to influence the dynamics of the world ( Marx-Collected Works p 433, Vol 1).
Marx completed his thesis in March, 1841 and got a degree from the university of Jeena in April of the year.
In his thesis Marx concluded that Hegelian philosophy was a great dream/illusion (Azeem Khwab), in which Man becomes God by Tahseel Zaat. It was true that philosophy had helped create an exemplary vision (misaali tasweer) of the universe, but it had to be harmonized with reality.

Chap 12: Marx’s practical life.
Marx started his practical life with journalism. He wanted to teach philosophy, but the person, Bruno Bayer, who had invited him to teach at Bonn university was himself sacked.
He eventually ended up in Bonn in July, 1841 and wrote his first political essay in January, 1842 CE, published in the magazine Arnold Rouge of Dresden. “The Most Recent directives of Censorship”. This was his first call to protest against individual freedom, and in favor of self-expression. He had condemned the new censorship rules and contended that only the government, which depends on officialdom, rather than the people, would enact such regulations against freedom of expression.
Marx gave the greatest importance to freedom of the press for self expression and self ( Izhar e zaat and tahseel e zaat) fulfillment. In his view freedom of the press was tahseel of freedom of the people. He felt that people’s criticism was the most honest censorship, and is conducive to free press.
He exposed the ‘open minded liberals’ of the opposition who had supported the freedom of the press in a half-hearted way, because they were not passionate about it. He asked “can any press which trades for profit call itself a free press?” They should make money to live on, not live to make money. A writer does not regard his creation as a means, but an objective in itself.
Marx went on to write five essays on “Laws of the jungle”, pertaining to village traditions like the right to cut wood from the jungle in Rhineland or to catch and sell wild birds. The capitalist system would not allow that , 150,000 cases were file against peasants and the members of the assembly also supported land owners.
Marx felt that he had not studied enough to comment on the French revolutionary tendencies, and decided to study the work of the German philosopher, Ludwig Feurbach (1804-1872) was initially an adherent of Hegel, but took up materialism. In 1841, he published “the
Soul of Christianity”. That caused a furor. In March, 1843 he published an essay, “The Reform of Philosophy” in Arnold rouge in Zurich. The work influenced Marx, Engels and other followers of Hegel. Fuerbach claimed that nature existed on its own, beyond philosophy. Marx admitted the influence in his “The Sacred Family” (Selections from Marx and Engels p603 Moscow 1968).
Fuerbach claimed that religion is an illusion (khwab) of human mind, but in these dreams/ illusions, we observe realities. But they have drawn on our imagination and desires (takhayyul aur khwahishon ka rang charha hota hai). So the absolute being is vision of the positive adjectives of human kind (Zaat e Mutlaq, jins e Bashar kae musbat ausaf ki khayali tasweer hai).
Awareness of the true nature of the proletariat revealed the secret to Marx that alienation from self is the product of Hegel’s imagination, but a bitter fact of life.
His next essay was “The Jewish question”, in response to Bruno Bayer’s 1843 essays that the Jews could not obtain political freedom with out getting out of the sway of religion. Marx elaborated on the difference between human freedom and political freedom.

The Jews did not have citizenship rights at the time.. The rich financiers and tradesmen among them had been given some amenities. In the third quarter of the 19th century CE, when Strauss, Bruno Bayer, Ludwig Fuerbach and other enlightened academics started criticizing Christianity, the Jews welcome the move as it had become a part of their creed, but when the same academics (danishwar) started criticizing the Jewish faith, they were highly offended.
Reviewing the role of the state and the relationship between the state and society, Marx observed that the modern state had emancipated itself from the stranglehold of religion. It had become secular, that as a state it followed no religion, but that did not, by any means mean that its citizens had no religion. The state had abolished the restriction of race, religion, financial worth, education or social/class status in voting rights. All had equal rights and were equal under law, but the state had retained the right to private property and the difference between the high and the low persisted. In fact the whole structure of the modern state was founded on a capitalist society. It declares the rights of man, but these rights do not offer freedom. Only property does it.
A society based on selfishness ,in practice, worships only money. He called it Jewry, as the word for Jewish and trade in German language is the same-Judentum.

Chap 13 Exile in Paris.
Paris was awash with revolutionary slogans. The king Charles the tenth, had been overthrown. Capitalists, financiers, and mine owners controlled the government The industry was developing fast. Marx defined the government as “The Joint stock company to loot the national wealth of France…the people had not gained even the right to vote”.
The working class rose many times, but faced defeat every time. Once again, in April, 1834 CE, they raised the banner of rebellion in Lyons, but it was brutally suppressed. In May, 1839 they rose under the great socialist leader Blanc, but were unsuccessful.
When Marx arrived in Paris, the successors of Babeau, Saint Simon and Fuerbach, Proudhan, Louis Blanc. Cobe and Lereaux had captured the imagination of the French people. Fuerbach had observed that “ it should be German brain and French heart, the brain will reform and the heart will usher in a revolution.
Paris had given shelter to the victimized revolutionaries of Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary and Russia.
In Paris Marx started preparing to publish a magazine named “Almanivi French Journal”, but the German secret police was aware of it and seized most of the copies at the German border. In it Marx had published two articles, one was “A Review of the Law of Philosophy of Hegel” and the other was “On the Jewish Question”.
He had discussed his point of view in the preface that “ our reformists are victims of mental paralysis. They do not have a firm sketch of the future…”
After Arnold rouge was shut down, Marx spent his time in studying the French Revolution and economics and communist literature. He studied Adam Smith, Ricardo, Macklosh, Frederick list and James mills. On economics, he wrote “ man establishes special relation with other men in social production. These relations are inevitable, and not controlled by human will…but at a certain stage of evolution production and material elements started colliding with traditional relations of production…changes in the economic foundations alter the structure of the society”.

Chap 14: the Philosophy of Alienation
Alienation is a an old psychological term. It means the loss distinctiveness
( tashakhush e zaat ka zian)of self. It is a mental state in which man disconnects with his society, culture and even with himself. It characteristic is the overwhelming sense of helplessness and Lachari (Urdu).
Post WW II, this condition obtained the status of an epidemic in the world, especially in the west and America. Its consequence was increasing incidents of loss of moral values, listlessness, depression, escapism, murder and suicides, violence, wayward sexuality, and loss of family cohesiveness. Marxist teachings became popular because even the capitalists started feeling that it was not mental illness, but greed and selfishness ingrained in the society that had deprived humanity of its core values.
The mayhem started when society divided into classes. Before this, there were no kings, every tribe was in the nature of an extended household. It had not advanced beyond the socialist stage of agriculture, fishing or cattle herding. Society was a unity. Gods and goddesses and religion had not made their appearances. Man evaluated the world on his daily experiences. He was unconsciously believed in Wahdatul Wajood, unity of existence.
But society divided into classes, there kings, the public, rulers and the ruled, slaves and owners and lines were drawn between them. This division was reflected in the belief systems too. God and the Universe creator and creation, were deemed separate from each other. God above became absolute authority (Qadir e Mutlaq) and Self Governing (Khud mukhtar). Unity of existence (Wajood ki Wahdat) was no more. Man was left with no choice but to obey god’s commandments and do good to please Him and that after death, he could be close to him. But this nearness could not become oneness (Wasl), because the creation could not become part of the creator.
But the Sufis did not accept this separation, and went on believing in unity of existence (wahdatul wajood). The argued that God was the noor-essence/illumination of the skies and the earth, and closer to us than our Shah rag-Carotid artery, how can we deem him to be separate from us, or the Universe. Mansur (a famous Mystic of medieval Baghdad) had shouted Anul Haq-I am God ( and was hanged for it). Man can suppress the self (tazkia e nafs), and submerge in God ( fana fi Allah) gradually. Under this concept, the difference between existence and non-existence (Adam aur wajood), outer and inner self (Zahir aur Batin), king and the beggar, poor and the rich, the conformist and the non-conformist (rind aur Parsa), believer and the infidel (Momin aur Kafir), even you and me, is obviated, at least in ideation.
The rulers and the clerics associated with them were cognizant of the implication of Wahdatul Wajood- oneness of existence, and the ruling establishment opposed it strenuously. But it has been the favorite topic of Urdu, Hindi, Farsi, Punjabi, Pushto and Sindhi poetry.
In the 18th century CE, when science developed in Europe and lifted the veil of mystery from the natural phenomenon, the relation between God, the Universe and humans were also discussed. Materialists ended the debate by contending that the universe and the humans were two different manifestations of matter and subject to the rules of motion and changes of matter. There was no supernatural involved in matter.
But idealists were not happy with that. They wanted to know if humans could pass through stages of consciousness of self (tahseel e Zaat) and become one with god.
In Germany, Goethe was the first to raise this questioning his dramatic presentation Faust, he is very learned and accomplished and wants to become limitless and all knowing like god, but is unsuccessful.
Kant agrees with Goethe, but tries to work out a compromise (Darmiani rasta). He thinks that half of the characteristics of humans are divine and the other half human. His personality is divided into two, his inner self is perfect, but the external shape is defective (Batin kamil hai aur zahir naqis).
Hegel did not accept the inner division (Dakhli sanviat) of Kant that God is an objective being besides man. He contended that god existed inside man.
Marx “ man lives on nature (ghair namiati nature) what distinguishes him from other animals is his conscious acts and creative effort (ba irada shaori amal aur takhleeqi mehnat), as though he was an immense power (alam saaz takat). During his creative work, he designs numerous material and non-material things (Maaddi aur ghair maaddi cheezain wazaa karta hai)-among the latter are-religion, family, state, law, art and science; among the former machines, factories etc. Arms, ears, eyes and brain are biological attributes. Production is a reflection of the enhancement (wasaat e zaat) of man’s self. (Mehnat ka Maarooz, insani zindagi ki marooziat hai).
But under the capitalist system, all his creations, appear alienated to him. (tamam ashia jin ka who khaliq hai, begaana hustian nazar aati hain).
Marx claims that in a capitalist society the system of alienation comprises labor, iktisaab, separation of capital and Land, exchange, competition, value put on some men and devaluation of others, hegemony, musabiqat, and organization (nizam e zar) of money.
According to Marx, the ‘economic reality’ of current times is that the toiler feels extremely alienated and distanced (moghairat) from his creations. The circle of alienation widens so much that he feels alienated with his kind and even his self.
This alienation starts during the process of production. In the capitalist mode of production, a toiler’s relation with his toil is that of alienation (Karl Marx: Capital vol 1 p 680). Man loses his humanness. He feels free only during his animal acts like eating or procreation. He was not self-governing even in the pre-capital mode of production, but in capitalistic mode, the helplessness has reached an extreme. With the invention of more and better automatic machines, he becomes a component of the machine.
In America and the West, functioning like automatons in large factories, workers suffer from ennui. This state has reached alarming proportions. Attempts are made to distract workers with piped music, and given bonuses for punctuality, and good performance.
The rate at which production and the influence of rulers increase, poverty of the toilers increases at the same pace.
Life becomes cheaper, as products become expensive. The worker becomes a slave of his creations. Workers do not utilize the mode of production, the mode uses them. (Capital vol 1 p 310).
Consumption has become an art form. The more one buys, the greater the profit of the capitalist, so need is created by radio, cinema, TV, and other media of communications. New fashions are launched, fashion shows are held. Stone idols used to be worshipped, now every shop has become a temple harboring idols.
The industrialist caters to even the most depraved tastes of the consumer, and incites his most unhealthy lust. (Marx correspondence p 141).
The essence (Asaas) of the current society is not on mutual cooperation, but on competition. “The produce of work does not belong to the worker, so the product becomes an alien power (Hareef takat), and becomes some one else’s property.
The alienation has increased so much that the toiler never comes across the capitalist, and works hundreds of miles away in his oil refineries, mines and rubber plantations. Even the relation that the slave had with his owner or the one the peasant had with his landowner, no longer exists between the worker and the capitalist.
Another victim of the capitalist society is ‘species’ life of humans, and on that depends his life activity. Man’s ‘species’ character is his self reliant, free and conscious effort. (ba akhtiar, azad aur shaori amal), and that distinguishes him from other animals. “Animals produce only what they need or their progeny do, but man creates collectively (kul jahti takhleeq). Animals produce under the compulsion of need, man produces to free himself of the needs or even when he or his family does not need them”.
The idealist predecessors of Marx deplored the concept of private property as the root of all evil. Marx disagrees. He contends that private ownership is in itself the consequence/function of alienation of labor.
Private ownership creates labor and capital. Currency is its most visible reflection. In the pre-capital stage, trade, markets and bazaars did exist, but the influence of the market was not so overwhelming, the use of currency was limited, people exchanged produce. Only the surplus produce (fazil hissa) was brought to the market. In the capitalist economy all produce is for sale, not for personal consumption, so the whole world has become a vast market, where love, labor, pen (writers, journalists, teachers), even the conscience are bought and sold (Marx collected correspondence).
Currency is alienated essence/substance (jauhar e beganna) of labor. It distorts man’s inner self (batini sakhsiat ko masq kar deta hai).
Money can buy anything. Its overwhelming power gives it the status of an absolute ruler (iss ki yeh afaqi takat isko qair e mutlaq bana deti hai).
Money is the highest value and quality, therefore, a person who has money is a person of the highest quality. He can buy accomplished person, so he is the most accomplished. Money is that universal power, which can turn all desires into reality, and reality into illusion.
Marx’s discourse on alienation indicates that his basic criticism of the capitalist system is that in the society of loss and gain, lust for money has become the sole objective of life and the essence/substance ( zaati jauhar) of man has been grievously wounded.
Marx does not believe that the level of wages is the ore issue. Even if wages were to be raised ten times, the capitalist system would persist. Even if you were to feed and clothe your slave the same as you do yourself, he would still remain a slave.
The core question is how to resolve the issue of self alienation and slavery of consumption. For that, according to Marx, communism would have to be inducted, and that requires the termination of the concept and practice of private ownership, not of items of personal use, but of the means of production, which create profit-assets, property, factories, mines, jungles and oil fields. But private ownership can be abolished only through a social revolution, not by idealistic theories. And history will perform this task.
Contended that communism was the next step in historic evolution. But it was not the last stage of human evolution. But in a communist society, man will. For the first time in history, will become a true ( and empowered) man. Total freedom of human personality was only possible under communism.

Chap 15
Fredrick Engels was born on November 28, 1820, in the Rhine province of Germany. His father was conservative, cruel and a bigot. Engels wanted to study economics and law, but his father forced him to work in his Manchester, England factory. That gave him an opportunity to observe the working condition of laborers.
He did mince his words when criticizing the king of Germany, who had reneged on his words to give a constitution to his people if they helped him defeat Napoleon.
At the time in Germany there was a campaign led by writers against the monarchical tyranny, known as Young Germany. Its leader was the famed poet Heine. Engels joined it. He wrote articles criticizing the orthodox (dakyanoosi) mind set of the country of his origin, the prejudices and social set up.
He got an opportunity to read David Strauss’s “Life of Jesus”. He used to attend lectures on philosophy and joined ‘young Hegelians’. But in his writings there was an imprint of the materialist philosophy of Fuerbach.
Commenting on the workers movement of Britain Engels observed that they were becoming aware of their collective potential, but their organization was defective. The Chartist were tardy in giving a lead, and were under the illusion that “revolution could be brought about by legal maneuvers.
The British working class were unaware of the socialist campaigns of France and Germany, and Engels wrote articles to remedy that deficiency in Robert Owens journal “The New Moral world”.
In May, 1843, Engels met the German communists, who were members of a secret group called ‘the league of justice’ who had fled to London.
During this period he wrote “A Critical Review of Economics”. In the paper, he had analyzed the mercantile and free trade systems, and how these had dismantled the unity of families, and how personal gain had overcome social values. But the new system was, however, better than the feudal system, because it took the society a step forwards.
Discussing Value Engels elaborates on Use-Value and Exchange Value and goes on to say that value is the term for the relationship between cost of production and profit (ifadiat) Profit is the foundation and exchange value is secondary.
Engels agrees that capital is accumulated labor. Production entails a) nature and b) human work. Labor is the source of wealth. But in the capitalist system, a chasm was created between production and laborer, and then made rivals (hareef) and laborer’s wage was made subject to market competition.
Hegemony will not end the curse of competition. According to Engels, the economic crises recurring which engulf the society every ten to fifteen years, are a definitive proof of the instability and bankruptcy of the capitalist system.

Chap 16 Initial writings of Marx and Engels.
“The holy Family was jointly written by them, but Engels had to leave for Germany after drafting the first 15-20 pages, and Marx enlarged it to some 300 pages.
Marx though disagreeing with it, admitted the historic importance of Proudhan’s work “What is Ownership”. that assets and poverty were linked (Lazim wa Malzoom). Bur Marx held that capital and labor were contradictions ( sarmaya aur mehnat ka ijtimaa Ziddain Jadliati hai). “Proletariat and capital are contradictions of each other, and in this context are a unity…”(Marx-Engels :Holy Family p 58 London 1957).
In the “holy Family” Marx contends that “the Propertied Class and Proletariat, both are a reflection of the alienation from self….”Marx would have it that the contradiction would produce a third aspect “As wealth and poverty are born together, so are the proletariat and capitalist classes, and the two classes will terminate together…”.
It is often argued that the proletariat has no social or political sense. But Marx asserts that the real issue is what is the true nature of proletariat. Its real objectives and historic character are revealed by its circumstances of life and the organization of the capitalist society.
Proletariat is not a silent spectator of the political and economic alienation. It is getting aware of the strenght of its collective power, and will be able to excise this alienation sooner or later.
Engels wrote his first book “The condition of the working Class in England”, published in the summer of 1845 CE. He wrote this book for the left wing of Germany so that they could be made aware of the conditions of industrial workers as they were the vanguard of the socialist movement. Britain was an apt choice as in no other country of Europe was capitalism so developed, and no where else was the number of proletariat so great.
Before the machine period, the traditional industry of Britain was making drapes. Drape makers lived in cities in the vicinity of villages, women made cotton or wool threads, men wove cloth and sold it in cities. Children helped them. They owned a bit of land, on which they grew vegetables and fruit trees they had their own homes and worked as long as they liked to. They regarded the local aristocrat as their natural leader, and sought his help as needed. They celebrated religious festivals with enthusiasm and attended the church services regularly. They did not think deeply or discuss politics, but enjoyed sports, dance and music. They were illiterate.
The industrial revolution in Britain arrived in the mid-eighteenth century CE and overhauled the whole set up. (mulk ki kaya plat di). In 1764, a draper James Harr in Lancashire invented the Jenny. Women traditionally made threads, but the new machines were too heavy for them to ply, so men had to do it. Production went up sixteen fold, but it wreaked havoc on the drapery trade. Plying the Jenny became an independent and permanent occupation, and since it paid more, the home industry died down, and the draper became a laborer.
During this period cotton mill was invented, steam engine in 1764, and foreign trade grew. Cotton, wool and silk factories came up in great profusion. Simultaneously coal and iron mines produced a great deal more. Utensils of tin, bronze, glass and china were made in great quantities. The whole country was intersected by canals, roads and railways. Movement of men and material was greatly facilitated. Marx “ The importance of this industrial revolution is the same for Britain as that of political revolution for France and the philosophical revolution in Germany. But the most important product of this revolution is proletariat” (iss sanaati taghayur e mahiat ka sab se aham nateeja).
This industrial revolution not only created greater means of production of wealth, but also a great increase in the population of industrial cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and other cities.
But man lost his individuality. Every one sought personal gain and alienated from the other. (Engels :Conditions of Working class in Britain p 57).
The living conditions of the working class that Engels quoted from the media and parliamentary reports were hair raising. “filthy, dark alleys with rotting garbage, broken down humid shacks, four to five families living in one room, no water or light, one meal a day if that, work 12-14 hours a day…conditions worse than those of slaves in medieval times”.
In a capitalist system, one class wants to do down another, and the working class gets the worst of the bargain. The capitalist does not want the workers to organize a union, while the workers want to.
The workers are left with only two choices, either to bow down, or to fight. Cities are a curse, but a blessing too because they offer an opportunity to unionize.
Unionization in Britain started in the second decade of the 19th Century CE.. Before that working class was a divided house, and capitalists took full advantage of it.
The unions had a limited scope yet, and could not effectively lead the class struggle. This function was performed by the Chartist movement. The movement had started during the period of the French Revolution, but it developed m0omentun only in 1835, when that year the General Working Men’s Association formed a committee under William Lowatt. The committee offered a point charter.
Engels observes “British socialists were peaceful folk and accepted the prevailing social system…they derided class struggle.
Analyzing the evolution on Hegel’s principles ( Hegel kae jadli tareeqai kar kae zavia sae), he came to the conclusion that the contradiction between the forces of production and relations of production will negate the system.

Chap 17: Construction of historic Materialism
Marx and Engels left for London in July, 1845, met union leaders and leftists and participated in a conference of Chartists and European political refugees. Engels and Marx enthusiastically endorsed the idea of forming an international revolutionary organization, which was organized in September of the year and was called “Fraternal Democrats”. Engels participated in the meeting and read a paper “National Festivals in London”, “The interests of the toilers of the world are identical”.
Marx observed that the substance of the existence of every society was its mode of production (Karl Marx Biography p 90 Moscow 1873). It was more important to elaborate on the human society from materialistic and historic point of view, than just to criticize capitalistic economics.
Man has been adding to and amending natural conditions due to his labor, skill and social needs. The first conditions of man’s existence is his survival. Idealists offered that ‘man can not live with bread alone’. Marx and Engels riposted that man can exist with out philosophy, religion, literature and music, but not with out food even for a week. He distinguished himself from animals, as soon as he started producing his own food. The very nature of man is formed by the material conditions, which determine his mode of production. Man has been struggling for thousands of years for survival. The other point is the satisfaction of primary needs. New needs arise. The third point is that man creates through the sexual act. The relation between woman and man is the first human relation. Creation of life results in dual relationship, the natural and social. Every specific mode of production is linked with specific mode of cooperation.
In addition, man has consciousness (shaoor) which is reflected in language, and that relates the humans to their surroundings. Animals do not establish creative relations with anything except their own species, but human consciousness (Shaoor) relates to creation.
Initially man was frightened of nature, and had not yet started molding it to his own needs. Animals and man both had herd consciousness, the difference between man and animals was that man had shaoor and animals had only jabbalat.
Depth and expansion (Wusaat) in herd consciousness arrived with the increase in population, production and necessities of life. And that creates new forms of division of labor.
Initial division was only sexual. Then came the tribal division of labor. Strong men hunted, women and old men did light work. But the real division emerged only when physical and mental labor were compartmentalized, one class engages in medicinal care, spirituality, and religious performance, and the other in physical work.
Then comes a time when forces of production, social relations and human consciousness (Shaoor) clash with each other, and that leads to contradictions in the society, and it finds resolution only through a social revolution. As forces of production develop further, old social relations become outdated and become obstacles in the way of social progress.
The analysis of the contradiction between forces and relations of production is the great achievement of Marx and Engels. They arrived at the conclusion, that economic relations were determined by forces of production.
Historians have traditionally ignored the materialistic foundations and history has been reduced to the achievements of kings and conquerors, or the story of religious strife. They transform cause to reason and the other way round (Illat ko malool aur malool ko illat bana detai hain). For example, in ancient times in India (even now) and Egypt caste system was strictly enforced and no one was allowed to change his hereditary vocation. It was a very crude (bhonda) system of division of labor, but the ruling class preserved it in their own interests. Egyptian Pharaohs referred to the commandments of their god Ra, and Indian rulers to the Ashloks of ‘Veds’ and the writings of Manu, to convince the ‘lower’ caste people that god had so ordained and it can not be changed.
The views of the ruling class dominate the views held by people, that is the people who control material forces, also control the minds of people. They also control medium and people involved in literary creation, education, curricula, media and writers. Revolutionary ideas cannot emerge if the revolutionary class did not exist.
In order to displace the ruling class, every emerging class tries to present its own interest as the interest of the whole society, and the victorious revolutionary class, initially, comes across as the representative of the entire society. When the capitalist class overthrew the feudal class in the French revolution, a certain number of the members of the working class were able to join the capitalist class. The base of every new class is therefore, wider than that of the preceding one.
The initial division of labor was between mental and physical labor, and its most prominent manifestation was the divided between the cities and villages.
Division of labor extends further when production and trade become separate professions. Merchants ship their goods to other cities and countries, and import and sell it in their own habitat. That led to many trade routes in medieval times like the silk route.
That was the period of commercial capital-the mercantile age. There sprung up numerous factories owned by merchants, in which skilled workers worked together. Hand driven machines were also invented. These workers were no longer independent operators. They were now laborers hired by owners.
The third age was that of industrial capital. It had steam and electricity driven automatic machines. Capital was controlled by a few hands, (sarmaya ka irtikaz chand hathoan mein tha). Industrial production increased astonishingly. The whole world became a market and full fledged capitalist class emerged.
“Capital devised (waza ki) world history for the first time, and made the entire mankind beholden to them for the satisfaction of their needs. The natural individuality of the nation states was overwhelmed.
In the capitalist age, conditions of life were limited to two fundamental shapes (bunyadi shaklain). First accumulated wealth which was the ultimate shape (shakl) of private ownership. by accumulated wealth Marx means machines and instruments. This terminology was used from Adam Smith to Ricardo to Sismondi. But value is added to them only by human labor. Second is the real labor of humans. But the collective potency of productive forces does not belong to all participants, but is restricted to private ownership of the capitalists.
The workers are left with only the relationship of labor with the productive forces. If the working class do not take over the productive forces, there very existence would be on line. This historic function would be performed by the proletariat.
Wage labor would be transformed into self governing labor and communism would be ushered in. but it is essential that the proletariat seize power by a revolution, restructure society (Selected Correspondence p 361). The political organization called the state would gradually be extinguished.
State:
In the current age, state is offered in every constitution as a sacred worshipful political body, which protects the interest of all its citizens regardless of creed, race, religion, language or color. It is impartial like family elders. Hegel calls it the zenith of self awareness Shaoor e Zaat.
In actual fact the factual state is very different from an exemplary one (misaali). It came into being to protect private ownership, has been performing this function and has been an instrument of oppression (Alai istibdaad). The ruling class acknowledges its collective interests in the structure of the state (German Ideology p 79-80)
Marx and Engels thought that in the capitalist system all social departments (idarae) are repressive and exploitative, and create alienation, which can be obliterated only in a communist society. History is witness that in every age, individual has been subservient to mode of production and restricted social relations. Under communism, a large component of instruments of production would be subservient to individuals. So far individual liberty is only available to the rulers or their collaborators. Conflict and competition (musabiqat aur muqabla) have become the dynamic (harki) elements of society.
The prerequisite of revolution is the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, which should be above national prejudices and its character be international.
Before launching a revolutionary party, Marx and Engels decoded to communicate with like minded people and in the beginning of 1846, they launched a “communist communications Committee” in Brussels. Paris was the largest center of socialist thought, so the committee sent Engels to the city to exchange views with them.
In the meanwhile Marx wrote a book “Poverty of Philosophy” in response to Proudhan’s (check spelling) “The Philosophy of Poverty”. Proudhan’s first book was “What is Ownership” and took the academia of Paris by storm, and he was soon counted among revolutionary thinkers.
On reaching Paris, Marx got in touch with him. He asked Proudhan to become the emissary of international movement in France. Bur Proudhan disagreed with Marx’s approach “ you are under the misapprehension that reform was not possible without a struggle or a revolution…I offer a different view that the economic activities of the society be arranged in such a way that the society which is deprived of wealth should be able to use it” (C. Gide: History of Economic Doctrines p327, 1964).
Marx defined Proudhan as a spokesperson of the philosophy and economics middle class. , that he could not comprehend the contradiction inherent in the capitalist system, nor the soul/essence of jadliat.
Explaining the Hegelian Jadliat, Marx states that Jadliat is the dynamic reflection (Harki ibarat) of the contradictory aspects of oneness (Hum Wajoodiat). Example Atom is a unity, but it has a positive aspect (Positive (proton), and a negative (electron). But they cannot exist with out each other. The same applies to the capitalist system, under which the capitalist and the proletariat are in constant conflict. During historical progress, bourgeoisie play its confrontational/competitive (Hareefana) role. The development of bourgeoisie is accompanied by corresponding development of proletariat. Under the capitalist system, relations of production have a dual role, one to produce wealth, the other to produce poverty.
This confrontational/competitive (Hareefaana) role produces new schools of thought even among the proponents of the capitalist system. One “the Friends of Mankind” lament the ‘bad’ aspects of the relations of production, condemn the mutual competition, advise the workers to work hard, produce fewer children and avoid moral failings. They advise the capitalists to run their mode of production along reasonable lines, and harbor/honor feeling for humanity.
The spokesmen of the proletariat, the socialists and communists, are not immune from diverse opinions. But till such time as the proletariat had not matured, they could be swayed by the idealist socialists. They only look at poverty, but the revolutionary face of poverty which would overwhelm the old social system. Proudhan suffered from this illusion.
Proudhan believed that formulas of economics were unalterable and eternal. One has only to remove the ‘bad’ aspects of society and all will be well.
Marx contends that the exchange system has not always been the same. Once upon a time, only surplus items were exchanged. Then came a time when not only surplus production, but all material production and artifacts were exchanged. Now the things which man once thought could not be bought and sold, like piety, love, faith, conscience, knowledge are bought and sold.
Ricardo answered the question of how value is created and how to measure it “The value of produce is determined by the amount of labor invested in production.
Marx established that the contradiction between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ of Proudhan is not money; contradiction is inherent in the capitalist system.

Chap 18: The Communist League and Communist Manifesto.
Engels had been in contact with the members of the justice League since 1843. they idealist socialists, but sincere people. Their most active branch was in London, though they had branches in Paris and Zurich too.
After forming the Communist Communication Committee, Marx invited left wing chartists as well as the justice league.
The first conference of the Justice League was held on June 03, 1847, in London Engels participated in the parleys, and due to his efforts, “The Communist League” was adopted as the new name in stead if Justice League, and the slogan “All Men are Brothers” to “workers of the world Unite”.
Engels introduced a resolution “confession of faith” which was the first socialist program. The League sent the “confessions of Faith” to all its branches. On his return to Paris, the document was extensively discussed, and Engels was asked to rewrite it. That document was called “the Principles of Communism” and that in fact was the first draft of the Communist Manifesto”.
The second congress of the Communist league was held in London from November 29, 1847. It was decided that “the objective of the League was to overthrow the bourgeoisie class and establish the rule of the proletariat, and induct a classless society with no private ownership. Marx forwarded this draft to London in late 1847. German edition of “The communist manifesto was published there in February 1848”. The manifesto is not simply an ideological platform. It is a declaration of war by the workers of the world.
In the preface, Marx and Engels wrote “ the capitalist system has not been always around in the world, but in a particular period of social evolution, it overcame the feudal system to seize power. It smashed the old values of brotherhood and welfare, and introduced ‘naked selfishness’ and ‘cash payment only’ in human relations. It has changed human freedom into a freedom devoid of conscience. It has transformed teachers, physicians, artists, poets and scientist into wage laborers. Even family relations have been so perverted (collected Works vol 1, p 111).
Steam and electric run machines were invented in the capitalist system, and enhanced the productive forces so much that. Communications and travel have also become much faster and easier, so that the whole world has become a unitary economy and an international bazaar. The capitalist makes claims of creating its very own culture and literature and of artifacts (masnooat ki eik alami tehzeeb aur alami adab paida karnae ke dawae bhi dawae karne laga hai) He can not survive with out constant changes and improvements in his instruments of production.
The number of proletariat keeps pace with the increase in capital. They have become items for sale as well and parts of machines.
With the increase in the he number of workers, their confidence in their strength has increased as well. They start struggling for their rights. And increasingly they become politically aware and conscious of the historic role of their class objectives and character (tabqe kae mansab wa kirdar).
In the past eras, the movements were of or on behalf of minorities, but the labor movement is that of the majority.
Certain sections of the society feel that it is not the workers, but the thieves, hoods , gangsters, robbers, beggars, and pick pockets are the revolutionaries. But Marx and Engels regard them as the rotten core, enemies of revolution and paid agents of the reactionary class.
Marx has discussed the issue of individual freedom at great length in “Philosophical Letters-Falsafiana Khutoot and “German Ideology” that capitalism was the biggest enemy of individuality ( infradait) and a person’s freedom.
Another criticism is that communism seizes private property. Marx and Engels retort that in the prevalent society, 90% of the people did not have any private property.
Private property is of two kinds; one items of daily use-food, utensils, furniture clothes, bicycles and cars. The other kind is what comes out of another person’s labor, like factories, banks, farms, mines, railways and ships.
It is claimed that if private ownership were to be abolished, all productive work would stop. If that were true, the bourgeoisie society would have long become extinct as the workers get very little and non-workers nearly all. All the major achievements of mankind, like inventions, discoveries, literary creations, philosophies, sculptures and paintings have not to the instinct of acquisition or greed.
Detractors of communism had given currency to the canard that women will also be made collective property. Marx and Engels came back “in actual fact the capitalist regards his wife as an instrument of production, so he equates them with the instruments of production that communist planned to socialize…women would actually gain the same status as man in a socialist society.
Marx and Engels have elaborated on feudal, middle class, bourgeoisie, and idealistic socialism, that all these types are a contradiction of proletarian socialism, and cause intense dissension the ranks of revolutionary movements. Feudal socialists actually want to restore the feudal system, and offer the slogans, down with capitalism, long live revolution, and if needed, they add the qualification religious into socialism (Bhutto).In early 19th century CE, the feudal class lost to the capitalist in Britain and France, they ostensibly supported (faked) the working class spewing hatred of the new rich, to entice the former. They participate in all the repressive activities against the workers.
Marx and Engels acknowledged the contribution of the idealists-Saint Simon, Fourier, and Robert Owen, but averred that socialism could not be established by following their path.

Chap 19: Revolutionary wave in Europe.
Soon after the publication of “The communist Manifest”, Paris, as usual, led the wave. On February 22 and 23, 1848 CE, workers and students demonstrated against the undemocratic acts of the government, and the troops could not control them. King Louis Philips had to give up the throne, and France once again became a republic.
On March 13, rebellion broke out in Vienna, and a powerful and cruel autocrat like Matternich had to run away after thirty nine years of absolute rule. On March 15, Hungary launched its revolution, and the same people rose in several German states. They put the palaces of aristocrats to torch and burnt mortgage and debt documents, refused to pay Lagaan and offer unpaid labor.
The emperor Frederick William was so frightened that he sacked the government and appointed a liberal politician from Rhineland as PM, sent the army back to barracks outside Berlin and promised elections to a constitutional assembly in a month, which were held and the assembly session started in Frankfurt on may 18. and on May 19, accepted the self government (khud mukhtari) of Bohemia (Czechoslovakia).On March 22, the people of the city of Milan sent the Austrian army packing and Venice also declared itself a republic.
France, in those days was ruled by the new rich. Steam driven factories were being set up, roads and railway tracks were being laid down, new buildings were going up, graft and bribery were in full swing, but workers had to work 18 hour days and unionization was not permitted. The PM Gizzo, had put most of the members of the assembly on salary, and the rest were given railway and tobacco contracts. It looked very much like the scene in current ‘developing countries’.
The opposition, to prove that the people were with them in asking for constitutional reforms, hosted a series of ‘reform feasts’. The largest one was to be held on February 22, in Paris. The government declared a ban on the assembly, but huge crowds of workers and students gathered, though the actual members of the opposition in the assembly were too frightened to do so. The government called in the National guard, but then refused to open fire on unarmed civilians, and joined in the slogans: Long Live Reforms, Down with Gizzo.
On February 24,Louis Philips gave up, and France was a republic once again.
To avoid the crowds in Berlin, king William had moved the seat of the assembly to the smallish and derelict town Frankfurt. In their paper Marx and Engels declared “ The German nation had achieved supreme authority (Iqtidaar e Aala) by a mass struggle in Berlin and Vienna, and had elected the constitutional assembly…it is, therefore, incumbent upon the assembly to boldly declare the supremacy of the people…”
The king dissolved the assembly on December 18. Rage and hatred against the king erupted in the country, and several rebellions broke out.

Chap 20: Marx and Engels on India.

Marx was in very poor financial condition. Two of his children died, with in two years, of lack of food and medicines.
The charter awarded to the East India Company under the 1833 CE India Act was to run out in 1853 CE, and the proponents and opponents of were hotly discussing the future of the company. During the twenty years, the company had illegitimately seized Sind, the Punjab and the frontier province. Reports of the company’s misdoings were circulating and had alienated a lot of the British people, and demanded the direct take over of India, by the British government. The government did not quite agree, but passed such rules as to bring India under its control indirectly.
In 1853 CE, Marx wrote several serial essays in The New York Daily Tribune, which exposed the malpractices, and the loot that British Imperialism had perpetrated on India.
In his book “German Ideology” (1845), Marx had already noted “ the caste system in India is a very crude form of division of labor, though some historians believe that the system was the cause of the division” (p 52). “The invention of a new machine leads to unemployment of innumerable Indian and Chinese handicraft workers” (p 60). And “the English capitalist inducts industrial revolution in Britain, and enslaves India”
(p 210).
But historically, it was Engels who first worked out the nature of Asian, especially Indian society and had actually pointed out the economic aspects (iqtisadi Asaas) of historical materialism. Marx admitted “You are aware of the fact that (compared to you), I reach conclusions very slowly and always follow in your foot steps” (Karl Marx: Ismehring p 333).
It is a strange coincidence that the day Marx sent his first article to The New York Tribune on may 24, 1853 CE, “ I have read a book. “The Historiography of Arabia” by a priest, Charles Foster. It says that the Jews were also Arab Bedouin tribes in whose so called sacred book is nothing but documents of religious and tribal traditions, and in the ancient times, the Arabs of the South West of the region were as civilized as the Egyptians and Ashuris.
Engels wrote to Marx “ the key to the East (economy) is non-ownership of land, but the question is that why the land did not go under feudal ownership? In my opinion the reason is the climate and the nature of the land, which is hot desert like, and only irrigation projects, which can only be sustained by a big organization or a provincial/central government. Governments in the east had only three government departments-finance, War and public works. The British kept the first two in place, but abolished the third one, which has resulted in gradual destruction of Indian agriculture. (After assuming full control, they did build the canal system in the Punjab and Sind and built rail tracks and roads for transport of raw material out, and industrial products into India). (Collected Letters p 99).
The view point expressed by Engels finds support in Indian history. The kings who promoted irrigation systems were successful.
The articles Marx and Engels wrote between 1853-1860 CE, in The New York Tribune, can be broadly divided into, 1-the social and economic conditions and the p0olicy of the British imperialism, 2-The 1857 War of Independence, 3-the economic crisis consequent upon the war.
In the first ones written in may and July, 1853, they raised the fundamental question as to why the Indian society had been ossified (Jamood) for thousands of years. Marx claimed that “the Indian society had no history, meaning that the society was not progressive (taraqqi pazeer), and its history was only an account of invasions…India may have witnessed upheavals in its political past, but its social conditions have not changed much from ancient times to the 19th century CE (Marx-Engels: On Colonialism Moscow p 35, 74,75, 81).
The reasons Marx offered for it were, 1-the agriculture system and 2-the self sufficient social system of the villages. Agriculture depended on the efficiency of the government, and Indian industry-cotton and silk were linked to agriculture.. The village was the axis (Mahwar) of industry. He quotes extensively from a British parliamentary report “before the advent/domination of the British, villages were self governing and self sufficient democracies. They had their own administrative functionaries and skilled workers. All were inextricably linked with the village, but “ we must not forget that these apparently harmless simple and attractive rural communities have functioned as the sold foundations of oppression (Mashriqi istibdadiat) in the East. They have restricted/confined human mind to small circles/scope, with the result that people have become unwitting victims of superstition, and slave to traditions….in these small habitations, the caste system and slavery have so infiltrated the body politic that man has become a slave rather than the master of natural conditions, and self serving (khud kar) social conditions have transformed into insuperable (na qabil e taghayyur) fate (ibid p 38).
Marx expressed these views 150 years ago, but the villages in the East (especially Pakistan) are still toxicated by the medieval fog. Most of the people still live in villages, and they are still in the grip of centuries old feudal system and traditions. They spend life in serving land owners, pirs and priests. Their leaders are the self same landowners and religious leaders. The villagers continue to be exploited in the name of tribe and religion. They are entrapped by Mazaar Parast, ganda-taveez, jhar phoonk, toane-totkae, so they never develop social/political consciousness.
Commenting on the objectives of the east India company, Marx goes on that it did not to ‘civilize’ the people, but to accumulate wealth, both individually and collectively.
The East India Company was formed on December 31, 1600, under a charter granted by Queen Elizabeth 1, that gave it exclusive right to trade in South Asia Britain, at the time, did not manufacture any thing which was worth exchanging for the spices, indigo, sugar or silk and cotton of India. The company had, therefore, been restricted to exporting gold and silver to the value of 30,000 pounds to pay for Indian imports.
The company had to face stiff competition from the Dutch, Portuguese and French companies in the market, but they had monopoly in the UK, and they raked in immense profits.
But when cotton and woolen mills started in the UK, British industrialists vehemently protested against the import of Indian fabric (parcha jat), as that material was far superior to the Indian product. The government responded by a parliamentary edict of 1697 CE under which wearing/selling clothes made of Indian, Iranian or Chinese silk to cotton fabric was proscribed under the threat of a 200 pound fine (ibid p 50).
Post Aurangzeb anarchy, and declaration of self government by Deccan, Karnatak, Mysore and Bengal gave an opportunity to the British to seize control of the coastal areas under the pretext of securing trade interests.
In the meanwhile, the British industrialists were trying to find markets for the large increase in production due to improved machines. East India company, which had hither to bought and sold Indian products, was now required to sell British products in India. That could not be done unless the British seized the industrial centers of India and destroyed the industry. Lord Clive managed to acquire political control over Bengal, Bihar, Karnatak and Deccan. Marx writes “During the seven year war (1756-1763), transformed the East India company from a trading organization into a regional military power…only a nominal amount of the loot that was transferred to Britain was trading profit… “
The Company now started importing only raw products, and exporting British finished goods. In 1780, the total of Britain’s export trade was worth 12.5 million pounds, out of which only 375,000 pounds worth went to India. In 1850, British export to India had gone up twenty five times to 8 million pounds. “First, Indian exports to Britain were proscribed, then Indian markets were flooded with duty free British goods” (ibid p 75).
With in a hundred years, starting with mid-eighteenth CE, the British controlled India from Peshawar in the north-west to Ras Kumari in south-east. They did not incorporate Indian states, they turned out to be the most faithful servants of the Empire (ibid p 75).
All the invaders before the British, except for Arabs-Aryans, Saka, Greek, Kushan, Turks and Moghals settled in India. They, no doubt, exploited the poor, but the wealth stayed and circulated in the country. The British, elevating it to an art form, looted at a scale, that plunderers like Nadir Shah Durrani and Ahmad Shah Abdali could only dream of. “ 17% of Indian finance is transferred to Britain as payment of British loans and profits of British firms, 66% is spent on the British army, and only 2 ¾% on reconstruction…” Marks comments “the depredations visited upon India by the British are radically different from the ones India experienced in the past…the civil wars, invasions and revolutions of the past affected only the surface…on the contrary England demolished the whole structure…India was cut off from its time haloed norms, mores and traditions (ibid p 79). The previous invaders had accepted the local culture and civilization…the British dismantled it…but signs of rejuvenation had started appearing (ibid p 84).
The essential element of revival was political unity, the level of which had not been obtained even during the time of Moghals. The other element was the advent of telegraph and railways. In addition, the British had to train the native soldiers in modern warfare, which they put to good use in 1857 CE. Further, there was no press or printing in India before the British (even as enlightened a ruler as Akbar declined the gift, saying that it would ruin the scribes).
In Marx’s opinion, the essential reason for social ossification (jamood) of the society, however, was the absence of private ownership of land and because of that farmers did not strive to improve production. The British introduced the feudal system in North, and serfdom (Raeeat dari) in the south.
The rulers needed clerks in government and private offices and courts of law. They opened schools and colleges in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, where the students obtained modern knowledge in sciences and arts and offices became conversant with the concepts of democracy, freedom and self government. They became conscious of their civic rights and learned the techniques of organizing and channeling (tashkeel wa tanzeem) of public opinion (ibid p 85).
The British a\gentry wanted to conquer India, while their traders wanted to loot it, despoil its industry and flood the local markets with their products. But a time arrived when the rulers began to realize that in order to enhance the loot, the productive capacity of the country had to increased. They, therefore, launched a program of irrigation, canals, railways (ibid p 86). The train will transport goods to ports, British contractors would get the contracts and make huge profits, British products would reach villages, railways would serve the ports and movement of the army would also be facilitated.
But that created a local industry to serve the routine and emergency needs of railways, and encouraged the creation of unrelated industry too. Railways would serve forerunners (pesh Khema) of modern industry in India (ibid p 87). Marx goes on “Indians must understand…they would not derive any benefit from machine based industry, till their own proletariat replaced the ruling class…but we must retain hope…the most oppressed among them are more enterprising than Italians…even though barely armed they stunned the British with their bravery…the country is an amalgam of all languages and religions…whose Jats are hard working (jafa kash ) as Germans…Brahmans vie with ancient Romans (ibid p 88).
In the second series of newspaper articles, they aver that ‘divide and rule’ was the tried and tested formula of the Romans. The East India did just that. Then the issue of security arose. Two hundred thousand soldiers led by 40,000 British officers were assigned to subdue 200 million Indians.
By training Indian soldiers, the British created circumstances favorable to their own destabilization as the capitalist does by inducting laborers into his factories. The 1857 was different from other rebellions in that :
-It was the first time that Indian soldiers had killed British officers.
-Hindus and Muslims had fought together.
-It was widespread.
Marx quotes the British leader of the opposition Benjamin Disraeli “it was not a military rebellion, bur a national revolution”.
The Indians lost because:
-Their central leadership was weak and incoherent.
-they did not have a collective/joint policy
-they conspired against each other
-they fought a defensive war, which allowed the British freedom of movement, and they did get reinforcement from the Punjab and Bombay
-they did not capture the ports of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, so help kept on coming from England.
The expenses of the company had sky rocketed due to the war, and when the British government cancelled the Company’s charter and incorporated India into the empire, it imposed the burden of debt on India. “The total value of the stock of the company was six million pounds. The government converted it into capital and increased the value of a 100 pound share to 200 pounds, and imposed a 5% interest. All this was levied on India as duty. This was besides the 50 million loan that the company had taken from the British government, which was also transferred to India”.
The East India Company shifted the burden of its expenses to the Indian public as a matter of routine. In 1805 CE, the amount of Indian ‘debt’ was 25.6 million pounds. In 1829 CE, it had gone up to 34 million, in 1850 CE to 47.1 million. One can estimate the sorry state of Indian finances, when one considers that its loan in 1858 CE was 60 million, while the total income of India in 1859 CE was only 24 million pounds, expenses were 37 million and a loan of 3 million which was paid on the loan of 60 million. In 1859, out of the total income of 24 million, 20 million was spent on the army.
The government had formed companies in Britain for construction of railways in India, with an authorized capital of 40 million pounds out of which the subscribed amount was only 9 million, but the interest had to be paid for the whole amount-2 million pounds by India every year.
Imperialism had three fundamental characteristics-seize colonies and grab their law material, sell its own industrial products in the colonies at jacked up prices and invest its surplus capital at high interest in underdeveloped countries to obtain high return.

Chap 21: The First international.
Marx and Engels regarded revolutionary ideas and revolutionary activities as Lazim wa Malzoom, inextricably linked with each other. They equated weapon of criticism and criticism of the weapon.
They ended the 1848 Communist Manifesto with “Workers of the World Unite”. But the number of industrial workers in the Europe and North America was small, and in France, Germany and Britain, they were not even allowed to form unions. Few heeded their call to unite.
But after 1848, there were several revolutions in Europe. The number of industrial workers had increased and they won the right to 10 hour work day. International conditions moved in a direction favorable to international organization of labor. The 1857 CE economic crisis, the civil war in America, and consequent decline in the cotton market in Britain and massive lay off of workers, the participation of 200 elected representatives in the London international exhibition and their fervent welcome by British workers, the armed rebellion in Poland and sympathies of the French and the British workers with them, and the workers demonstration in London in favor of Abraham Lincoln, because of which Britain dare not send its army to help the South, all nurtured the feeling of international brotherhood among the workers.

The First International, formally named “International working Men’s association” was established on September 28, 1864 in a huge gathering of British, French and German workers. The occasion for the gathering was to honor a good will delegation of French workers. The organizers had invited delegates the London based German, Italian and Swiss revolutionaries.
In the meeting it was decided that the first International congress would be held in Brussels in 1865 CE.
The English delegates to the committee to draft rules and regulations for the International who came from trade union ranks, wanted it to become an international trade union, and limit its activities to increase in wages, reduction in working hours and strikes . the French, who were swayed by Proudhan opposed even strikes. The Followers of La Salle favored state socialism. Italians and the Spanish followers of Mazzini were for anarchy (nirajiat), and aspired to dissolution of the state and world revolution.
Marx drafted rules on democratic principles and also wrote a declaration, which was a brief commentary on the workers movement spanning 1848-1864. He established the fact with statistics that though the industry had made unprecedented progress and export/import trade had grown a lot, “yet wealth and power stayed in the hands of the propertied class”.
Though the movements after the 1848 CE revolutions were brutally crushed, yet workers were able to win a ten hour workday and the campaign for mutual help gained great momentum. They also proved that with mutual help that large scale scientific mode of production can be successfully run with out the ruling class and it was the duty of the working class to seize political power and it was possible only if they had their own political party.
The committee accepted Marx’s draft of rules and the declaration unanimously. But that did not end the difference of opinion. The followers of La Salle and Proudhan insisted that the workers should not ask for raise in wages as the capitalists negated the raise by hiking prices up. Marx vehemently disagreed with this stance, and wrote a paper “Wages, prices and Profit”, establishing with statistics from the British government reports that the rise in workers wages, and that in price of consumer good did not have a reciprocal (Illat aur Mamool) relationship., and that the profit of the capitalist depends on the surplus value created by non payment of full wages to the workers-pay for five hours fir ten hour work.
The International garnered the support of millions of workers in Europe, but dissension among bourgeoisie states affected them adversely, as to serve their class interest, they appealed to chauvinistic and patriotic instinct of workers. The other problem was the extremism of the anarchists.
In the meanwhile, France lost the war with Germany, Louis Bonaparte had to give up the throne and the workers in Paris formed a communist government in March 1871 CE, fought with the army for two months, but were finally defeated.
The defeat of the Paris commune led to the disintegration of the International and in September 1873 CE, its head office was moved to Philadelphia in the USA but having run out of steam, it was dissolved in July 1876. but it had performed an unforgettable service to the workers movement.

Chap 22: Surplus Value and Capital

The tyranny of consumer goods (Ashia ka Jabr) on humans is the greatest tragedy of the capitalist system.
The first volume of “The Capital” was published in German language on September 14, 1867 in Hamburg. Marx’s first writing on capitalist economy was
“ Economic and Philosophical Makhtootat”, the second was “Wage Labor and Capital”. He had made 800 pages long ‘notes for himself’ which were published a hundred years after him as “Grundrisse”.
Marx ,in his “The Capital’ and earlier writings had stressed on the transitory nature of the capitalist system, that our society had passed through several evolutionary periods.
The difference between the creative work of animals and humans is that the latter function with will and the latter with instinct. Humans make a template first, then construct a creation, be it a novel, poem or the Taj Mahal.
Components of work are:
-Labor
-natural objects like land, wood, iron and cotton etc.
-Instruments/equipment.
Instruments have great historic value, as are they help identify social epochs-like stone, bronze and iron ages.
Marx has identified the characteristics of the creations of labor (Grundrisse p 83-99 London 1973):
-Creation is always referable to social conditions and that includes individual atonements like poetry, art and writing.
-Every new age determines the characteristics and legal relations of the ruling class.
-Production is not possible with out accumulated labor.
-The act of production is linked with consumption…
In short the produce provides consumables and determines its mode of use and the dynamics of its use.
“The objective of the capitalist is not only produces use value, but also commercial products…also surplus value” (ibid p 186).
Commodity refers to items which fulfill some need and are bought with money or exchanged for another commodity.
Use value is the measure for the utility of an item.
Exchange value is the measure for sale/purchase of commodity.
Scholars of economics like Adam smith and Ricardo have established that the common value in commodity is human labor, therefore, it determines the exchange value of commodity. Labor is measured by the time spent.
The capitalist invests money with a view to make more money. Marx calls the difference surplus value. Circulation of surplus value becomes capital.
The question arises as to how to measure the labor power value (Quat e mehnat ka taayyun kaisae ho). It can only be measured by the value of necessities of life
(The Capital p 181 Vol 1).
The profitability of any worker lies in his capacity to produce value more than his wages. Surplus value can not be produced with out surplus labor.
But where to get the initial capital from. The advocates of the capitalist system would have it that certain shrewd and far sighted persons save from their income and over time become owners of capital. But Marx exploded this myth. Capital can not accumulate by individual labor, it can be collected only by exploiting the labor of others. For example, hundreds of thousands of farmers were displaced from their lands and put to work in wool trade and trade companies looted the wealth of Asia, America and Africa (ibid p 710).
Giving the example of the loot of the East India company, Marx cites the case of Lord Clive and Lord Hastings that even the British parliament took notice of their graft, and robbery. In the nine years between 1757 and 1766 CE, the company and its employees made 6 million pounds as ‘gifts’. Between 750 and 760 CE the British traders enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans.
The trading companies of Portugal, Spain and Holland perpetrated similar atrocities.
White people hunted Red *Indians as animals and seized their land and mines. They forced black people into free labor. The loot of Genghis, Halaku, Taimur, Nadir Shah Durrani and Ahmad Shah Abdali, in comparison pale into insignificance.
The accumulation (irtikaz) of capital in Europe has gone through three stages.
-Displacement of peasants from land on a large scale for the benefit of the wool trade leading to the creation of the proletariat class and capital for trade, and after that the loot of Asia, Africa and America trade by companies, establishment of industrial factories and exploitation of surplus labor value into surplus value.
Women and children had to 18 hours a day, and lost consciousness due to fatigue.
The discovery of machine which produced several times more per hour than the older ones did, reduced the number of workers needed to run them. Hours of work could be reduced but at the same time, daily production could be increased.
Surplus value is easily explicable with reference to the foreign investment in underdeveloped countries. In Pakistan, for example, America, Britain, Germany and France have invested in several industrial concerns, because “Labor is cheap there” (outsourcing became an epidemic in 1990s on-For identical work, workers in the US had to be paid $ 28.00 per hour, in Mexico $ 8.00 an hour, in China 80 cents an hour, with no pay for overtime in the last named country).
The industrialist spends most of the profit that he obtains from surplus value produced by labor, on purchase of new machines and setting up new industries New machines change the balance the stationary worker (machine) and the mobile worker (human), in that the former works faster. That added to the number of the unemployed (refer to the % of unemployed in the USA).
The fundamental contradiction of the capitalist system is that the produce and means of production are in private ownership, and mode of production is socialist, that is workers toil together in factories and farms, while the produce belongs to a few people. Capital tends to gravitate towards irtikaz, hegemony and centralism. Capitalists, therefore, try to monopolize. About 200 families control the banks, insurance companies, oil wells, shipping companies, armament factories and airlines in America.
Science and technology have made such progress that if class interests were not to get in the way, a few hours a day work would produce enough for all the needs of all the people.

Chap 23: The Paris and After

Napoleon the third was a nephew of Emperor Napoleon. He was an unprincipled opportunist and would pose as the occasion required, as a democrat, socialist or an ardent Christian. In the 1848 election, he assured every class and group of his support. But as soon as he became the speaker of the assembly, he went back on his pledges and with the help of the army, he became the president of the republic. When the workers protested, he ordered the army to charge them with canon shells and 3,000 workers died and 15,000 were exiled. He abrogated the constitution and dissolved the assembly four years later and declared himself the king in 1852 CE. He indulged in ridiculous adventures; he appointed Austrian prince Maximillian as the king of Mexico, but Mexicans rebelled and beheaded Maximillian.
Democratic opposition grew in strength, he charmed them with promises of constitutional reforms, but before elections could be held, he arrested members of the International on the pretext of rebellion.
To regain his prestige, on July 19, 1870, he declared a war on Germany, but the French army after several defeats surrendered on September 02, 1870, the king was captured by the Germans and on September 04 France became a republic for the third time.
The new right wing government continued the war, but when on September 19 the invaders surrounded Paris, and the minister ran away and took refuge in the south of the country. Parisian workers, though they had no arms kept on resisting for four more months. The French government did not help them, in stead they kept on conspiring with the Germans.
The war ended on January 28, 1871. the ministers proceeded to Paris to sign a peace agreement, but wary of the mood of (mazdooroan ke tewar dekh kar) did not enter the city, and stayed at the Versailles palace fifteen miles out side the city. The agreement was signed on February 26. France was required to pay a billion dollars as war reparation with in three years, Alsace and Lorraine would be handed over to the Germans, and till the reparations were paid, a German army would stay in the country and France would pay its expenses.
The weak government of France was not overly ashamed of the humiliation and was only interested in disarming the workers of Paris. Parisians were apprehensive that with the help of the army, the reactionary elements might try to re-impose monarchy, as in 1852 CE, they had done for Napoleon III. Assembly sessions were to be held in Versailles. The assembly in stead of acknowledging the sacrifices of Parisians, mandated immediate payment of rates and rents, which had been put off during the siege of the city. All the able bodied Parisians joined the national guard and fought the Germans for four months. On March 17, the government sent troops under cover of the night, to disarm the national guard, but they guardsmen chased the soldiers away.
It was then that the Paris Commune was established.
Marx writes that on the morning of March 18, the whole city was resounding with “Long Live the Commune”. The city was plastered with posters exhorting the people and toilers to save the country from traitors and launch an armed rebellion. “…they had comprehended that it was their bounden duty and national right to seize the government” ( Civil War in France p 288 Moscow 1968).
Paris Commune was the revolutionary organization which was constituted by representatives from all the wards of the municipality. The majority was from the working class. Elections had been held on March 26, and on March 28, the Commune had taken over the government.
This was the first worker’s state. Though it lasted only seventy days and was limited to only one city, it established the fact that the working class had greater capacity to govern, and their administration and standard of justice was much higher than that of the elitist government.
On march 30, the commune cancelled the law of forced conscription into the army, abolished the department of the standing army, returned the assets mortgaged with the municipal government. On April 1, it was announced that no government servant or an official of the commune would get a salary higher than 500 Francs a month. On April 2, State was separated from the government. That released the education system from the grip of the clergy and all the property of the Church was seized. On April 5, the Guillotine was publicly torched. On April 12, the Napoleonic tower of victory which had been built out of melted canons, was demolished. On April 16, all the factories were handed over to trade union cooperatives. The employment office, which was run by the pimps of the police was handed over to municipal warders. All pawn and usury shops were closed down. all officials in judicial, educational and administrative departments would be elected by members of the relevant departments.
Paris was under siege. Detractors conducted a propaganda campaign that the commune was planning a disintegration of the country. But it was all lies. The commune wanted to establish similar structure in all the cities and villages, and they should representatives to Paris where the central commune would only be in charge of national and international affairs. The commune declared that “they wanted to preserve the unity solidarity (salimyat) ushered in by the revolution….”(C.D. Hazen: Europe since 1815 p 334 London 1923)
The commune warriors fought gallantly, but when the Germans released 250,000 French soldiers and handed them over to the Versailles government, the onslaught of may 21 was too much for them. But the workers did not surrender with out a fight, they engaged the army on streets and homes, but the army put all big buildings to torch. Paris surrendered on May 28. the government launched a genocide, 25,000 unarmed civilians were killed, 43,000 were arrested and 350,000 exiled.
The workers learned the lesson that the capitalists and their supporters the landowners, the aristocrats and the clergy would never willingly give up power, they would be able to take over only through an armed struggle, not through parliamentary elections.
Marx felt that the commune had committed the great error of fighting a defensive war…they were surrounded and lost links with the rest of the country, especially with the farmers and industrial workers.
A lot of revolutionaries took refuge in London from the oppression in France. The press in Britain launched a fierce anti Paris commune campaign. Engels wrote a book repudiating the misleading concepts about socialism being spewed by Duhring a professor of philosophy in Berlin University. Engels states that the real unity of the universe is its material nature (kainat ki haqiqi wahdat uss ki madiat hai-Engels Anti-Duhring p 37 Moscow 1962).
Drawing upon natural science and philosophy, he infers that every particle of the universe is in constant motion and change….Jadaliat (science of the laws of human society and dynamism of progressive thought (ibid p 37) These laws were first enunciated by Hegel.
The first law of Jadaliat dialectics is contradiction.
The contradictions of the current society is long-co-existence of capital and labor, wealth and poverty, private ownership of the means of production and social nature of production itself , alienation from self and communal life etc.
The second law is kamiati (quantitative) changes transforming into kaifiati (qualitative) changes at a high level. Engels gave examples from sciences and history. For instance Carbon is a material element, and has numerous compounds, like paraffin. Alcohol acid etc (ibid p 176).
The third law is negation of the negative. Take barley. If a seed falls on fertile land, it changes with heat and moisture, and eventually grows into plant. When the balian (shoots) are ripe, the plant dries up, and the whole cycle starts all over again.
If the gardener uses good seeds of flowers, not only there are more flowers, but the quality improves too.
Engels avers that out of the capitalist mode of production emerges private ownership, that is a negation of the past ownership, and it produces the proletariat, its own negation.
Three of the 19th century CE inventions had the greatest/revolutionary impact on the thought process of humans. First was the cell, second indestructibility of energy and the laws nuclear material of the atom (tawanai kae tahaffuz aur qalb e mahiat kae Qanoon), and the third was the theory of evolution.. the basic unit of all the biological bodies was a cell. In 1859, energy preservation and Qalbe Maheat laws were discovered., and established that nature is identified by movement of matter, and matter can never be destroyed.
In 1859, Darwin offered his theory of evolution.

Chap 24:Evening of Life

The French revolution was the spiritual mentor of Marx. Due to adverse financial conditions and incessant hard work, Marx had grown prematurely old. He had written “ notes on Indian History when his wife Jenny fell seriously sick with cancer of the liver and died on December 02, 18881.Marx was desolate. Then his daughter Jenny fell ill and died at the age of 38.
On March 14, when his maid went into his room about 2 pm, she found him semiconscious in his chair. She immediately went to Engels downstairs, but he died a
few minutes later and was buried on March 17, 1883, in High Gate Cemetery in London, next to the grave of his wife.
Engels died on August 05, 1895, and was cremated per his wishes.


The Beginning of the Capitalist system.

Marx commenting on the formative (tashkeeli daur) period of the capitalist system comments “a great number of workers under a capitalist in one place and at the same time and producing the same kind of consumer (bazaari) goods is historically and logically (mantiqi) a transitory stage of capitalist mode of production.
Before the capitalist period, feudal system was prevalent in Asia and Europe and everywhere else. Economy depended on agricultural production, on which serfs (kamerae), slaves and share-croppers (muzarae) worked. People were legally bound to the land, and were not allowed to adopt any other profession, nor could they change their habitat. They had to surrender half or three fourth of the crop to the state/aristocrats or landowners. Free labor and other taxes/gifts (jabri mahsoolat aur nazranae us par mustazad thai) were on top of that. The farmers were barely able to make ends meet. A few artisans like carpenters, ironsmiths, cobblers and potterers (kumhar) whose labor they exchanged for the produce, also lived in the villages lived in the villages. A few small shopkeepers offered items like salt, spices etc, which were not produced in the village. Currency was seldom used. The local aristocrat/landowner wielded administrative and judicial powers, and could legally sentence a person to hang.
In the cities, there were plenty of handymen and skilled workers like arms makers, barbers, builders, gold smiths, pottery makers, sculptors, tailors and drapers. They owned their own equipment, which could be used by one person at a time. All skilled workers had a few apprentices. All professions had their own guilds, whose rules and regulation had to be followed by all members. The artifacts were meant not for personal use, but for sale, to customers directly or to shopkeepers and traders, but the important point is that like the practice in the preceding age, under feudalism too, the farmer sold his surplus and the skilled worker his artifacts, to fulfill his personal needs and not for profit.
In the medieval times, only the money lenders (sahookar) to the traders had capital. The royal treasury could not be counted as capital as it was not used to generate profit.
As the demand for industrial products grew, traders hired workers with the same skill to work together in his work houses, (Moghal princes and aristocrats maintained their personal work houses, but the produce was for personal use, and not for sale in bazaars), reducing skilled workers to the status of wage laborers. Previously one person made up the whole item like a clock. Now one person made a spring another needles and so on, and they had their own instruments. Working as a team and division of labor augmented hourly production and profit in proportion.
Thus the first phase of capitalism, dubbed manufacturing/mercantile age, started. In this phase the trading class had artifacts made for accumulation of capital. That transformed the nature and consequences of relations of production. Now the only asset of skilled workers was their labor, which the trading class bought and utilized to enhance his capital. This mode of production flourished on a large scale in the northern cities of Italy in the 14th and 15th centuries CE.
The feudal stage threw up several magnificent empires in Asia, like the Abbasid, Moghal, Safavid in Iran and the Ottoman, and in the period industry and crafts, knowledge and learning, culture and arts, made great strides.
Just the reverse situation obtained in Europe, where from the 5th century CE on, the invasions of Huns and German tribes had wrought havoc on the Roman empire. The invaders established their own rule all over the place. The estates of Roman aristocrats were divided up among the crude tribal chiefs. The period between the 5th and 14th centuries CE is therefore dubbed the “Dark Ages”.
The other face of European feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church. Peter and Paul had started proselytizing the Christian faith there in the 1st Century CE. Both were executed on a cross, but the creed found favor among the slaves and the destitute.
In 312 CE, the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity ( he was on the point of defeat in a war with another king, saw the sign of cross on the horizon, was inspired, and vanquished the foe. One famous 20th century CE convert to Islam heard the Quran, while near drowning in a sea). Constantine declared Christianity the official faith. The church subsequently became a powerful and wealthy political force in Europe. It owned hundreds of thousands of acres of land and was in fact Europe’s largest landowner, and did not pay any taxes. Its farmers were treated as virtual slaves of the clergy. Further the serfs of the aristocrats had to hand over a tenth of their produce to the clergy. Priests were spread all over, looked after church property, and wielded great influence over the populace as they were the only literate ones.
The Roman Church was a greater foe of reform and social progress than even the illiterate aristocrats. All trebled at the very thought of the brutal (baheemana) punishments of the Church. At the slightest suspicion of a person’s faith, he/she was declared a sorcerer or innovative (biddat), was dismembered and burnt at the stake. Even the kings dare not interfere in the proceedings of Church courts.
In the medieval times (and in the current times in Pakistan and Arab satrapies) the church and the feudal system collaborated in common interest. Both were in favor of maintaining the agrarian system. The Pope and higher clergy came exclusively from the Italian aristocracy.
But the coastal cities of Northern Italy and adjacent villages had escaped the ravages of the Hun and Germans tribes. Venice, Florence, Geneva and Milan grew into prosperous trading centers run by self governing republics. The head of the state, the administrative council and municipal officers were all elected. Their economy was based on commerce and industry. They made great strides during the crusades (1195-1291 CE) The ostensible objective of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. In actual fact, it was economic control of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and hegemony over the sea trade of the Mediterranean. The Muslim and Christian troops engaged in fighting each other, and Italian opportunist gradually took over the trade of Accra, Sidon and Tyre. The traders of Venice did not spare their fellow Christens and in 1202 CE looted them in Constantinople and seized three fourth of the Byzantine Empire. Geneva captured the islands in Eastern Mediterranean. All trade, silk of Tripoli, Trabalas and Tyre, cotton of Armenia, glass works of Syria and the mines of Asia Minor fell into the hands of Italian traders.
The second mode of acquisition of wealth of these Italian traders was flesh trade. They brought thousands of young girls and boys from Palestine and North Africa and sold them in Europe. Commenting on this trade Hobson writes “the treasures of the East, gold hordes, slaves, the very profitable Eastern drapery, spices and other portable items started getting into Europe through the Italian traders and money men (sahookar). (J.A.Hobson: Evolution of Modern Capitalism p 10-11,London 1965).
Manufacturing age started in the Italian trading cities in the 14th Century CE. In Florence alone, 300 wool draperies employed 30,000 workers. Venice specialized in silk, embroidery and glass works. Geneva manufactured velvet and brocade. Marx would have it so “collective labor functioned as machines…”(The Capital vol 1, p 349, Moscow 1954 CE)
The trade and industry not only provided jobs to hundreds of thousands, but also affected other aspects of social life. Cities were exposed to means of leisure and luxury. Magnificent palaces rose, magnificent banquets were throw and they indulged in all kinds of pleasures of the palate and the flesh. They were also great patrons of art which helped a great deal in the renaissance of Italian culture- painters like Michelangelo, Leonardo de Vinci, Raphael, sculptors like Petrarch and romanticist Boccaccio, political scientist Machiavelli wielded great influence.
But the manufacturing age, though an advance on the feudal system, could not take production beyond a certain level. It could not break the hold of the guilds which were a great impediment in the way of increase in production. Laborers were greatly alienated from the guilds as the vast majority of them were unskilled and semi-skilled and were not allowed to form guilds, nor did they have rights of citizenship. In 1335, when these workers tried to form an association, their leader, Chinto Braunveni, along with nine of his followers, was hanged, and laborers were imported from outside the territories. In 1368, another rebellion was brutally crushed. Ten years later wool workers rebelled under the leadership of a man named Michael Reynaldo. As Will Durant would have it, the rebels overthrew the government and established “ a dictatorship if the proletariat “ (Will Durant: The Renaissance p 72, New York 1953 CE). The law against unionization was abrogated, laborers were awarded citizenship rights, wage laborers were given twelve years to pay back their debt, and interest rate was reduced.
But the traders took their revenge. They closed their shops, conspired with the landowners to stop the supply of grain, and incited the skilled workers against the unskilled ones. The unity between the workers fell victim to these machinations, and the Labor raj fell in 1382 CE.
Manufacturing reigned supreme in Italian states for a hundred years and spread to the larger cities of France, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Britain, in spite of the opposition of the feudal landowners and aristocrats.
But what hurt the manufacturing enterprise most, was the ‘discovery’ of sea routes to Amer8ica (Columbus 1491 CE) and Asia (Vasco de Gama going round the Cape of Hope to Kalicut in India). That, in due course, led to unprecedented loot, limitless accumulation of capital, and stupendous amounts of trading goods, and eventually political enslavement of American, Asian and Africans people and lands. “Armed assault and depredation of other regions, unequal trade terms and forced labor was the inevitable/unavoidable (na guzeer) condition of the development of European capitalism (Sombart: Modern Capitalism p 326, as noted by p 10 ibid).
The ‘discoveries’ of India and America transformed the condition of western Europe, and the center of gravity of industry, crafts and trade moved to coastal states of the Atlantic ocean. In 1600 CE The east India was formed under the charter granted by Elizabeth 1, with hegemony over trade to India and China, The Dutch Eat India company enjoyed similar hegemony over trade with Sri Lanka and Java.
Holland started the wool industry, and British landowners dispossessed their peasants to breed sheep. That developed capital, threw hundreds of thousands of farmers into the ranks of the unemployed, drove them to cities to look for jobs and created the proletariat class.
Rivalries broke out between the nations of Western Europe. Britain emerged the final victor.
In the 16th and 17th centuries CE, mining, glass, wool and armament industries of Britain grew tremendously. The production of raw material like iron and coal also grew apace, coal went up fourteen times between 1560 and 1660 CE, and constituted 4/5th of the whole European coal production. Bronze, tin, copper went up six to eight times and iron three times. Conflict was inevitable between the feudal and nascent capitalist mode of relations of production. The emerging capitalist class soon realized that with out political power, they would not be able to overcome the obstacles placed in the way of industry and commerce.
In the beginning of the 17th century CE, clashes started between king James 1 and the capitalists. That grew into a civil war in the time of Charles 1, and ended up in his beheading in 1649 CE. Political power moved into the hands of capitalists.
But the mode of production was still in its manufacturing phase and could not cope with the increasing international requirements of the capitalist class. For example, the East India company had to pay for Indian and Chinese products with silver bullion, because the British did not produce anything but wool which Indians and Chinese did not want. Britain did not produce cotton. This deficiency was overcome by the East India company’s seizure of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in 1757 and the colonists in America who made the black slaves work on cotton plantations.. Steam and electric run machines gained vital importance.
The essential difference a man and ,machine is that man can use only one instrument at a time and has to use his biological force to move it. A Machine, on the other hand, has many parts which can be moved by horse, oxen, water steam or electric power. From this perspective, the wind mill and ox driven press can be regarded as primitive machines.
True, that in the manufacturing age, water and wind driven mills did exist, but their scope was limited to river banks and high wind areas. They could not cope with the demands of the 18th century CE.
The chronology of important inventions is :
-Wyatt’s roller spinning machine- 1730CE
-Kay’s flying Shuttle-1738 CE
Paul’s Carding machine-1741 CE
-Hargrave’s Spinning Jenny-1764 CE
-Ark Wright’s spinning, Carding and Roving machine-1771 CE
-Crompton’s Jenny-1779 CE
-Cart’s Power Loom- 1785 CE
-Watt and Bolton’s Cotton Mill’ steam engine-1785 CE
the impact of these inventions on the cotton industry can be surmised by the statistics. In 1730, Britain imported 1.55 million pounds of cotton, in 1793 the figure went up to 35 million and after the invention of the steam driven railway engine by George Stevenson in 1830, it rose to 261.2 million pounds. During this period the East India company destroyed the 8indian drapery industry and Indian markets got clogged with the British cotton products.
Coal and Steam based automatic machines and engines began to be used in railway and sea ships. The industrial revolution in Britain was followed by America, France, Holland, Belgium and Germany. The production of raw material and industrial products went up several hundred fold.
Countries competed in the business of buying raw material cheap, and selling the finished product at high price. The capitalist system prevailed all over the world.

The Essential Characteristics of the capitalist System :
The most important is that the human labor lost the primacy it had during handiwork (dastkari) and manufacturing age, and was replaced by heavy machinery. The instruments of work were subservient to him. Now he had become a slave, nay a component of machines.
Capitalism was born out of feudalism. It resolved the contradiction inherent in feudalism, and elevated the act of production (paidawari amal aur paidawari rishtoan ko oonchi satah per tashkeel di)) and relations of production and structured them at a higher level. But there were certain preconditions, because of the absence of which capitalist system, and in spite of progress in the handicraft (dast kari) and manufacturing , did not prevail in the Indian subcontinent before the British domination.
The first prerequisite of capitalism is that there should be ‘free’ labor, that is free of the restrictions of the feudal legal and social bonds-slavery, unpaid work (begari), forced farm work (jabri kashtkari), gifts (nazrane) and other dues, guilds. Second is deprivation of means of acquiring income, (zarai daulat afrini sae mahroomi). In contrast with the feudal system, laborer has no land and no instruments of work (Alaat wa Auzar). He only has his labor, which he had to sell to the capitalist. The capitalist euphemistically calls this helplessness ‘freedom’.
But the capitalist is also dependent on the worker’s labor.
The third condition is the separation between political and economic authority (akhtiaraat). In the feudal age, the aristocrat and landowners were all powerful (Mukhtaar e Kul). in their estates. Under capitalism the relationship between the capitalist and the worker changed into a market relationship, the worker sells his labor, and the capitalist buys it. The capitalist has no legal rights except to get work out of the worker for a fixed time at a fixed wage. He can not make the worker do anything with out wages, nor demand gifts (nazrana), nor mete out physical punishment as the landowner could do in his time. All the administrative and legal authority passes on to the government, which though takes overall care ( bahaisait majmoi sarmayadar tabqe ki numaindigi toa karti hai) of the interests of the capitalist class, but does not allow the capitalist to take law in his own hands, for example if there is strike in a factory, law enforcement officials would go there at once to secure the assets of the capitalist, but law would not permit him to do so himself. This responsibility the political departments (siaysi idarae) have taken , freeing the capitalist of the responsibility of administration (nazm wa nasq).
The prerequisite is every product, agricultural or industrial, must be produced for sale. Before capitalism, the foundationational value of production was its use value. Only the surplus was sold in the market. Under capitalist the object of production is to create exchange value. The only interest a capitalist has in the use value of his product is that it increases his capital value. He, therefore, promotes the consumer mentality in any way he can.
In the beginning of capitalism, advertisements were not very common. But now they are the mainstay of sale, and advertising has become an independent industry. In America alone, the annual budget of advertising (in 1984) was sixty nine billion dollars-(find the current budget-2009). Customers are enticed by inventive techniques, new fashions are designed, and any one who is not dressed in the latest fashion is deemed uncouth. Besides clothes, furniture, household appliances, china, vehicles-all are frequently changed. People are persuaded to buy and keep on buying, on installments on credit, steal, accept bribe, but buy.
The fifth condition is the need for constant improvement in technology. The capitalist hires scientists and engineers to promote the quest, and spends billion on research.
Capitalistic system was a great social revolution which demolished the three columns of feudalism-monarchy, aristocracy and the clergy. But this revolution would not have been possible without a mental revolution.
This is made obvious by the fact that feudal values no longer satisfy people.
Martin Luther and Calvin rebelled against Catholicism, because of which half the Christian world became protestant. The invention of the printing press abolished the educational and spiritual hegemony of the Church. The clash between Aristotelian science and modern experimental science, the concept of the solar system offered by Copernicus, Kippler and Galileo and intense opposition by the church, Decart’s mechanical and questioning ( tashkeek) philosophy, Espinoza’s claim that man was free and self governing (khud Mukhtar) and that the object of knowledge was to subdue nature and improve human condition, Bacon’s Jihad against superstition, (istikhraji mantiq ki istiqrai mantiq sae takkar), Locke on the divine right of kings, writings of Rousseau and Montainge and the declaration that the people were source of all authority, Voltaire’s free thought, Derido, Adam smith and Ricardo’s economic concept, and attempts to equate capitalism with nature, Goethe, Schiller, Shelley, Balzac, Emile Zola, Byron and innumerable writers and thinkers transformed the mind set of the West.

-
-