This article has been published in PakTeaHouse Blog at http://pakteahouse.net/2017/10/23/lecture-on-1917-russian-revolution-and-state-capitalism/
This blog is not
intended to “deliver” such a lecture but present an account of my observations
and intellectual discourse on the event which was organized by Inqilabi
Socialists Karachi in collaboration with Irtiqa Institute of Social Sciences on
Thursday October 19.
The speakers included
Dr Talat Ahmed who specializes in South Asian History, Islam, Women and Culture
at University of Edinburgh and Dr Riaz Ahmed who is an activist of
revolutionary politics and associated with University of Karachi.
The event had to be
started at 5pm but since I had certain commitments at my university, I reached
the place at around 6pm. I missed Dr. Riaz’s Speech on the subject but
fortunately I was able to listen to Dr. Talat. This was the first time I was at
Irtiqa institute and I found it very humble: No AC, a small shelf of books on
socialism, no interior design, normal classroom chairs, a microphone system
that needed maintenance. This seemed to be a place where intellectual dialogue
is focused, rather than the pomp and show at other liberal NGO funded café’s.
The audience was also more from the working class families with dominance of
Baloch, Sindhi and Pashtun ethnicities and it was a house full.
Dr. Talal is an avid
and emotional speaker who was bashing Stalin for destroying the whole soviet
revolution and derailing it from the ultimate purpose and therefore does not
represent the socialist ideals. She discussed how Lenin was the one who not
only implemented but also understood the correct ideas delivered by Marx,
angles, Trotsky and Luxemburg. It was at the time of Lenin that a truly
socialist society was established which had freedom of religion and the correct
wealth distribution model. However, Stalin destroyed all his opposition and
even got Trotsky killed and completely deviated from the international
socialist path.
After the Speech had
ended, there was an unusual thing that caught my attention. A bowl was floated
where the audience put in 10 or 20 rupees or maybe a 1000 Rupee note into it.
This was a kind of “Chanda” for the tea and biscuits that followed at the end
of the session.
The Q&A session
was also very interesting.
A person asked “After
brief successes in Russia and China, even if we bring such a revolution, it
might fail again?” To which Dr. Riaz first pointed out that yes the
socialist revolution did last just for 6 to 7 years during the regime of Lenin
but China never had such a socialist change. It was a militant force of Mao
which led to a regime change and it had nothing to do with the struggle of the
working or the peasant class. Therefore China cannot be taken as the face of
international socialism. Secondly, Stalin derailed the socialist struggle in
Russia. Furthermore, he said, there are possibilities of a future failure again
because the enemy i.e. state capitalism has now its roots all around the world
and extremely powerful and it will never give up its status. Even in these
tough situations, should we stop aspiring for a better world?
Another question posed
by someone in the audience stated “How much time will it take to bring such a
revolution, do we have a blueprint or a guided plan?” Dr. Talat responded by
first saying that revolutions do not have a timeframe but they do need an
organized group of cautious revolutionaries who are ready to grip the moment
and sail the wave of a crises. Crises and conflicts will continue to happen but
it is up to us to give it the right direction. She said, could anyone imagine
in Egypt in December 2010 that in Febraury 2011, the Mubarak regime will fall
after a massive wave of protests supported by the working class? She further
pointed out that the spark of revolution was not a local phenomena in Egypt,
but it happened somewhere in Tunisia. This adds another dimension to the
discourse that revolutions do not happen in isolations but have an
international dimension to it.
The third question was
regarding the role of students in bringing about such a revolution. Dr. Talat
emphasized that students are not the working class and therefore, according to
socialist theories and understanding, they cannot bring a revolution in
isolation. However, they do have the time and luxury to discuss ideas and
counter the capitalist narrative from an intellectual standpoint. They can lead
the workers and motivate them and stand with them to bring about such a change.
There ended the
Q&A session. I had so many questions in mind but we had to move the
discussion on to Tea.
So I was quick to
place my chair near Dr. Talat and present her with some of my understandings. I
asked her that the fancy idea of everyone being treated equally and live
happily sharing everything is very appealing but how do you intend to actually
do that. I mean, I asked her that wealth was circulated well amongst the
Muslims in Islamic rule especially during the reign of Umar bin abdul Aziz and
the examples of spain. She immediately jumped up with that the Islamic state
i.e. Daish and Taliban did this and that and I stopped her there. I said, if
Stalin does not represent socialism, then bad examples also do not represent
the Islamic political model. She agreed.
Then came the
difficult question i.e. “Do you believe in absolute equality” and she responded
with a “Yes ofcourse”. I said, “humans have intellectual, physical, economic
and emotional differences and isn’t it absolutely unnatural to actually EQUATE
them?” She did partially agree but then responded that economic disparity
creates conflicts and crises and eventually develops towards a capitalist
imperialist framework. I came up with “What if we restrict some forms of
ownership which creates such massive disparity rather than actually moving
towards economic equality which destroys human incentive towards progress. I
added with a sarcastic “Like in the times of ummad, abbasid and Ottoman
Caliphate” And She responded with, Yes I do regard those times which had
intellectual dialogues in the Muslim world which eventually lead to the
renaissances in Europe but they had pathetic conditions for women and very hard
towards separate ideas. I clarified that we had massive historical debates on
proof of God, logic, religion, metaphysics etc during the Muslim rule and isn’t
that a clear sign that caliphate does actually promote serious debate on ideas?
Moreover, the women were creating universities at that time!
She paused and then
said, I am a materialist and I do not believe in religion or God and therefore
I cannot accept such provisions as commandments. I said, then, if, suppose, you
believe in a creator then maybe Islamic rule is the natural and best thing one
can have. She said, I do not believe in such things and evolution is the
difference where we disagree. I thanked her for the nice discourse
and went on to meet another socialist friend in the same gathering.
Tanveer is an x-jaamti
and now a strong socialist. We always plan to sit for long hours for a full day
and night discussion session on these subjects but time and commitments had
always been unfavorable.
A brief discussion
started off with me asking “How do you intend to abolish ownership when it is
very natural even for my two year old kid to own her doll and not give it to
someone else? You are challenging the basic human natural disposition here” ,
He argued that it is the private ownership that has created class differences
and massive inequalities and chaos in the world. He further said, if there are
100 labors in the factory, then why the product is not collectively owned. The
ownership should be social.”
My response was:
Firstly, do you think your shirt, your car, your wallet, your watch and
everything in your private ownership is social, then it means I can live in
your room and use your car whenever I want? Is that what social ownership is?
Well this is absolutely unnatural and ridiculous. Secondly, if I designed the
factory, I payed every labor, its due wage for working to develop a product,
then how can he claim to a shareholder in profit or ownership? Thirdly, this
argument can only be correct regarding the discussion of the “due wage” and the
liberal position on labor conditions which promotes exploitation and have
created a new form of slavery in the world under the capitalist regimes.”
Before my tanveer
friend could respond, our discussion was broken up by another socialist friend
sajid sahib enthusiastically entered with “What model do you have against
socialism?” Tanveer was already in a hurry so he departed with a “Lets meet for
full 2 days and 2 nights for such a discourse”, I obliged.
“Sajid sahib the
problem is that Islamic model does not allow ownership of massive resources
like lands, minerals, petrol, Gas or those on which the community depends.
There are several hadiths and examples from the times of Caliphs to demonstrate
that. Then the taxation system is very limited to zakat, usher, custom and
jizya i.e. there are no sales tax, gst etc which means that the people will not
be looted of their private wealth by the state and they will have enough
purchasing power”, my answer to him when we went down from Irtiqa institute and
sat on a tea shop for an anda paratha.
Dr. Riaz contradicted
with a point that your islamist stuggle creates a division in the society which
actually does not help stand against the capitalist narrative fully. In
contrast to the socialist narrative which does not have any form of religious
or ethnic or nationalistic discrimination. I did agree with him on this point
but then again, in an islamist dominated country and propagating an islamist
political agenda, I believe standing up against oppression would enable a much
bigger response.
Secondly, the Islamic
political thought clearly does not discriminate the rights of non-Muslims in
anyway and treat them as its citizens. Examples from history clearly demonstrate
how the Muslim world was a safe heaven for jews and Christians and other
religions.
Amongst
us, at tea hotel was the ex-chairman of Department of Philosophy Dr. Zaheer ud
din Babar. I met him the first time and was amazed at his level of
understanding on the matters. He listened to our discussions quietly with only
a few inputs and sponsored the whole chai paratha for us.
We stood up to depart
and I was keen to have some more discussion with Dr. Zaheer sahib. Fortunately
enough, my house is in gulistan-e-jauhar and Dr. Zaheer needed a lift. I
immediately offered to drop him in my car to his home. The 15 minute discussion
with Dr. Zaheer in the car was one of the best learning experiences that I ever
had.
Here is an account of
our discussion that I remember. It should be very clear that these are not
exact his words but the things that I remembered from our discussion.
Me: Sir, are you a
socialist?
Dr Zaheer: No I am
not. I think the world has more to offer than Capitalist and Socialist
extremes.
Me: The concept of
absolute equality and abolishment of ownership is unnatural and impractical.
Dr. Zaheer: Yes, they
try to look at the human only from the economic perspective. This is wrong.
Humans are affected by much more than just means of productions. This is the
problem which is why creativity was destroyed in Russia when the state even
owned Art and Culture and the incentive to progress was lost. That cannot be a
pluralistic and thriving society.
Me: I sensed dogmatic
understanding of things when I talked to people at the event. Did you?
Dr. Zaheer: Yes, all
ideologues are dogmatic. That’s why philosophy is important
Me: Yes, but all are
not labeled as such except the Islamist one. But isn’t dogmatic understanding
very relevant for a person to actually give his time, money and life for a
cause? Else, a confused philosophy student cannot be a conscious revolutionary.
Dr. Zaheer: Yes, it’s
necessary, but people have their inclinations and responses to certain ideas.
Some have an inherent ability to be convinced on fix ideas while others do not.
Me: Is contradiction a
continuous reality as explained by the Marxists.
Dr. Zaheer: This is
Hegelian thought which started off with contradictions as a reality but
converging towards Idealism and absolute thought. But Marx and Engels believe
it to be a constant reality.
Me: Then there is no
truth according to them.
Dr. Zaheer: Truth is
based on Logic and Rationality.
Me: But Ghazali and
Iqbal believed in the creator and philosophically denied such truths.
Dr. Zaheer: Ghazali
and Iqbal were intuitionalists. But intuitions of a person can vary and
therefore it cannot be a universal truth for all.
Me: But logic has its
problems with propositions. If the propositions are incorrect, won’t the result
be incorrect? For instance, the premises “Table has four legs” and “Donkey has
four legs” will lead to “Table and donkey are the same”.
Dr. Zaheer: Wrong
premise will give wrong results, and sometimes right premise can also give
wrong results. The truth would be the right propositions giving the right
results and its very difficult to find.
I stopped the car as
we had arrived at his home. I was amazed at his intellectual dept and clarity
and have become his permanent fan. He is a wonderful conversationalist to sit
with to discuss the deepest ideas with great ease.
I never imagined that
I would learn so much from a gathering discussing something so contrary to my
beliefs and meet such wonderful people.
