Marxism And The Individual -Written by - G Simirnov

Marxism And The Individual -Written by - G Simirnov

The study of the individuals is not just one of the aspects of Marxism- Leninism, but something much more than this. Marxist theory relating to the revolutionary reconstruction of society, and based on the objective laws of history, is nothing other than a scientifically based programme for the workingman’s freedom and the all-round development of the individual. Precisely for this reason, Marxist- Leninist studies on the individual are constantly under attack by bourgeois ideologists.

Again and again the critics of communism take the stance that Marxists, on the whole, have not paid enough attention to the problem of the individual, his freedom and creative activity. But there is little need for apology on this score since from the outset, a deep scientific conception of the individual was worked out by the founders of Marxism.

Karl Marx considers the individual, his nature, freedom and development as inseparably connected with society. The starting point of his analysis is not the individual, but society. According to Marxism the fundamental and motivating reasons for the actions of  the masses of nations, and the classes within them, are their economic interests. These two moments --- economic interests and belonging to a class, a social group --- finally determine the characteristic and behaviour of the masses and form the various social types of the individual. Based on the relations so formed, arise the different ideological motivations of people’s behaviour. From this follows Marx’s significant conclusions on man’s nature, a conclusion, which is of cardinal importance for historical materialism on the whole, as well as for the theory of the individual.

“Man ‘s nature is not abstract; a characteristic of a certain individual. Actually it is the totally of all the social relations”. And also “…the real spiritual richness of the individual entirely depends on the richness of his real relations.” With this understanding of man’s nature, is connected the idea of the revolutionary reconstruction of the world and the role of the educational factor.“If man’s character was formed by circumstances than it would be necessary to make the circumstances human.”In the process of reconstructing circumstances, i.e., the practical,revolutionary reorganisation of reality, a new individual is formedand more favourable condition for his existence and development created.Reorganisation of reality is in practices carried out by the masses, who having risen to the active and conscious creative work of history, form a definite type of individual. Thus Marxism-Leninism assesses the individual’s fate, his freedom and development, in close connection with the fate of the masses, classes, their economic, and social – political, and spiritual development.

Precisely for this reason Marx was able to substitute the cult of abstract man, which prevailed in all the previous philosophies, with the sciences of real people and their historical development. From Marx’s theory of the individual we take three moments which give visual and convincing proof of the scientific, revolutionary and deeply human nature of Marx’s study --- the problems of alienation, of freedom, and of the complete development of the individual.

It is incorrect to equate alienation with the process of conversion of labour into products. As long as there is production, there will be objectivisation of man’s abilities by himself, but labour’s alienation is an historical transient phenomenon: It appears together with the surplus product which is appropriated by the exploiting classes; the slave owners, the feudal lords and the capitalists, i.e., with the emergence of private property. Under conditions of property, the wealth formed and accumulated through the worker’s labour, becomes the tool of his exploitation, the material force which brings upon him all means of economic compulsion, political coercion, spiritual oppression and deception. Naturally “the worker approaches the product of his labour as someone else’s ….as he approaches  the world as the enemy standing against him.” But not only is the product of labour alienated. Production itself is an active alienation of man.

“Labour for the worker is something external not belonging to his nature…in his labour he does not affirm himself, but denies himself, feels not happy, but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and spiritual energy but wears out his physical nature and destroys his spiritual force. This is why the worker feels that he is himself only outside of working hours in the process of labour he feels he is estranged from himself. He is himself when he is not working, and when he works he is already not himself.

So the workers labour appears as his loss of himself. A worker approaches his own work as something not belonging to him. Alienation of the product and labour itself predetermines alienation of man from man. As man is alienated from the product of his labour, from his life’s activity, from his inherent social nature and therefore resists himself, so is this manifested in the mutual alienation of people. In the conditions of bourgeois society the worker’s labour and his product present themselves not as belonging to him but to the capitalist. This is why the relationship established between them is one of domination and submission with hostility and class struggle as the natural state of such relationship.

According to Marx these are the main characteristics, which sum up the proletariat’s position under capitalism --- alienation of the product of labour, labour itself, and man. Of course since Marx’s time a lot has changed, but the essence of exploitation has not changed, the fact of alienation in bourgeois society remains. Moreover, according to the calculation of specialists, the portion of time for which an American labourer, for example works for the capitalist has increased from 40 to 66 per cent. In our time the object of exploitation is not only the worker’s physical ability, but also his mental ability. The most dangerous means of social alienation are the formation and accumulation of thermonuclear arms intended for the mass destruction of people, in the name of defending the capitalist’s necessary interests.

Marx related the overcoming of alienation to the liquidation of private ownership of the means of production, replacing it with social property, by means of revolution. Everything that has been achieved to date as a result of building a socialist society, convincingly confirms Marx’s theoretical foresight.However it is important to underline that the transformation of the means of production from private to social property does not automatically lead to a revolution in all production, social and political relations in people’s consciousness, leading to the immediate establishment of an all-round collective psychology. This takes place only gradually, in the complex and contradictory process of society’s reconstruction, in struggle and search. At the same time, as the example of the USSR and other socialist countries has shown, the strength of socialist property and the power of the people, are the firm basis for successful economic growth, and the development of a socialist type of life, culture and a high consciousness of the people.

It is no longer possible to refute the fact that due to the assertion of social property, society has changed into an association of free workers in which all the social wealth --- material and spiritual --- is used in the interests of all workers for the development of their abilities. Of course changing social needs, the conditions at the different stage of society’s development, bring about different changes in the distribution of national income in the interests of the economy’s progress between the strengthening of defence, the growth of culture, the satisfaction of social necessities and personal needs. But this distribution is always predetermined objectively by the people’s interests, the strengthening of their security, the defence of peace.

Naturally this distribution can be carried out for the better or worse; there may be serious mistakes and miscalculations. However it is important to underline that in the prevailing conditions, and the given distributional relations, there is no contradiction of interests of antagonistic classes, as when the exploiting classes appropriate the labour of the exploited. Problems and complications move to the plane of searching for the best methods of stimulation and distribution of production, better calculation of the quantity and quality of the labour performed, the variety of interests of the groups and the different members of the society.

It is today impossible not to acknowledge that in socialist conditions, for the workingman, labour is not only a means of life and a source ofpersonal welfare, but also work for the good of society and service to the people. From a source of alienation of man, labour changes into a factor of confirmation of the worker’s dignity, becomes a criterion of his social position and his prestige. Socialist workers drawn into the management of social work, which provides for their participation in state politics, are educated in the spirit of high civic responsibility. This removes man from the narrow circle of personal anxiety, to a wide world of social worries, gives rise to new forces and talents in him. Participation in common work are the strong wings which lift man.

In this way alienation as a social phenomenon, connected with the appropriation of the product of the hired worker’s labour by the capitalist, is eliminated under socialism. Of course, for the present, the consequences of an alienation which has been dominant for centuries, persist in the form of people not always regarding social property as their own collective property, but trying to illegally to use it with the aim of personal enrichment. This evil, which remains, is due to causes not yet eliminated, such as insufficient education, contact, etc.

However critics of Marxism or of the real socialism are found who affirm that as long as, under socialism a government exists which distributes the national income, inclusive of distribution of social necessities, appropriation of part of the worker’s product occurs and this, they say, is alienation. That is, the fact of a part of the common product being used for the satisfaction of common necessities (management, education, defence, etc.), is taken as alienation. The aim of similar affirmations is to blur the main differences between capitalism and socialism.To arrive at the correct position it is necessary to remember that alienation is an historical phenomenon connected with the private ownership of the means of production. It is also necessary to see the new, which appears under socialism. The main difference lies in the fact that here the expenditure for common necessities takes place in the interests of the people and not in the interests of the monopolies, especially the military industrial complex. In capitalist society there are no exploiters who can exclusively appropriate the fruits of everyone’s labour. Under socialism the principle from each according to his ability, to each according to his work, dominates. Different violations of this principle (misappropriate, parasitism, misuse, etc.), which are committed for various reasons, are social evils punishable by law. Common needs will always be there and if expenditure for

their satisfaction is acknowledged as alienation, then we return to the old theme-the ever – lasting nature of alienation.

At other times it is said that under socialism the worker does not always know what happens to the product of his labour. But the fact of alienation does not lie in this knowledge or ignorance. Under capitalism the worker may in fact know what happens to his product, and often knows that the product goes for the enrichment of the capitalist and continuation of the exploitation of his labour. We have said above that Marx interrelated the fate of the individual with the fate of the freedom of the masses. This in fact is why it is important to enumerate those changes, which have taken place in the individual’s character under socialism.

The individual as an individual carrier of social virtues is always the unity of the individual’s specific and common virtues. Naturally every individual cannot be characterised without disclosing his individual characteristic. But there is no individual without virtues. Therefore he cannot be understood without also understanding his common typical virtues. In other words, it is a question of two different ideas – the nation of the separate individual, and the notion of the social type of individual. Only the study of common for joining the common and the individual brings us to the sphere of objective laws, and the uncovering of laws is the essence and aim of scientific knowledge.

If we want, with scientific accuracy to discern what happens to the individual under socialism it is necessary first of all to characterize the common changes in the people’s consciousness, their virtues, and only on this basis judge the possibilities arising for individual development. Individual virtues are first and foremost realised in the limits of personal freedom, in the all-round development of the individual’s abilities and needs, and mainly in his creative work.

Marx, while giving the prognosis of man’s development in the condition of the new society, in fact mostly paid attention to the problems of freedom and the all round development of the human force, looking at the latter as the end in itself of the communist society.

Summing up all the changes in the objective position of the workers which take place under socialism, we can say that for the first time in history, the social characteristics common to all members of society assume paramount importance and not the state, national, religious or some other group features. This is manifested in the development of the feeling of collective and an international psychology, the striving to participate in the strengthening of the country with one’s labour and in the management of social work on a large scale among the people. In the typological structure of society besides the specific and group features of people, and side by side with them, appear the common features of the common social type of individual, the new man.

The socialist individual is the ideal individual, who grasps the aims and principles of communist ideology, which puts common interests above the individual interest. In the process of socialist transformation, the difficulties in educating and re-educating people in collectivism is clearly seen. The individual, private – ownership psychology is more alive in the consciousness of some people than was thought to be the case

earlier. To overcome this, more time and stronger measures are necessary.

The society could not allocate more resources for the development of education and the growth of material welfare and culture, then the international and internal circumstances permitted. Some errors in family and school education, in the application of social sanctions and encouragement, played a role in this. It is also necessary to take into account the fact of the capitalist world, which with out the help of different means, strives to support anti-social elements.

Anti-communists, with malicious joy, use the difficulties, which we face to prove that the presence of some problems refutes the fact of educating the new individual under socialism. For this they focus on the defects, while ignoring the very significant fact of the successful education of the overwhelming majority of the population in the spirit of socialism.

Marxism-Leninism states that the freedom of the individual worker is directly dependent on the liquidation of capitalist exploitation and private ownership of the means of production. Answering the critics’ reproach that communists want to destroy all property as the basis of personal freedom, Marx and Engels show that these accusations are in fact used to hide attempts to present a certain ‘freedom’ --- the freedom to exploit hired labour, freedom to develop the minority by suppressing the majority --- as the individual’s freedom in general. In their first programmatic document, the communists declare it is necessary to destroy the oppression of man by man. In place of the old society with classes and class antagonisms, will be a society, which is an association of workers, where the free development ofeach is the condition for the free development of all.

Two points need to be underlined in connection with what is stated above. The first one concerns Marx and Engels’ formulations. Sometimes it is misconstrued in this sense that society cannot be free until every person is granted freedom without restriction.

However, to reason thus means to learn towards anarchy. Every society has its prohibitions, its restrictions; in other words, defines its limits of freedom. Any attempt to hasten the realisation of the idea of freedom, in reality advocates tyranny and thus questions the very idea itself. From the content of the Manifesto of the Communist Party it is seen that Marx and Engels are not talking of any freedom but freedom from exploitation, freedom from class oppression, from class conflicts. In this sense society cannot be considered free till it replace capitalist exploitation with the free collaboration of all members of society.

Secondly, if the welfare and freedom of the capitalist individual is based on his property, and if for him freedom is equivalent to the freedom of possession of this property, freedom for exploitation of hired labour, then the welfare and freedom of the proletarian individual is freedom from exploitation collective possession of means of production, free creative self-assertion, development of his strength and ability. Naturally, for the proletariat the bourgeois formulation is not acceptable for it means for him no freedom. In the same way the bourgeois does not accept the formulation of the Manifesto because it means liquidation of the monopoly of bourgeois property and rights, and the freedom and the possibilities with it.

Even such theorising on the striving of each person to conserve his elementary rights ands freedoms even in the conditions of bourgeois society, frightens the imperialist bourgeois who fear losing their riches and privileges. Thus they to defend their interests deny the conditions of freedom for everyone else. In this lies the reason for the special attention of the bourgeoisie to the problem of the freedom of the individual, the reason for the partial criticism of Marxist theory and practices, the reason for the acute ideologicaltheoretical conflict between communist and bourgeois ideologies. But freedom as deliverance of the worker from capitalist exploitation, is only one, though the most important aspect of his freedom. It cannot be restricted by negative characteristics- freedom from something.

Freedom makes sense only when man is free not due to negative forces, to deliver him from something or the other, but due to positive forces, to show his real individuality. The results of socialist transformation are affirmed by the common radical interests of the social groups. Only when there is equality between people, mainly in their relation to the means of production, when they are united by common aims, thoughts, when their relationships are characterised by social, political and ideological unity- only then do the class barriers which restrict the individual’s freedom disappear, only then are formed favourable opportunities for the free expression of his strivings, and everyone’s participation in the management of social work. The alien forces, dominating over

people till then, now come under their control. As Engels wrote, this is a leap in humanity from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

Certainly this character of freedom, this organisation of freedom does not suit the capitalist, and they naturally fight against it for the freedom of the owners, the freedom of exploitation, for conserving their economic and political domination. But this is always done in the name of all the members of society. Anti-communists try to present Sovietology in the light that the sovereignty of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the communist system of education, leads to the loss of the freedom of the individual and its inimitable individual features, to changing it into a collective unit.

Regardless of these assertions, Soviet reality reveals itself differently in the spiritual life in the cities and villages, which already for the past ten years has been intensively and diversely developing on the basis of collection. This is accepted by many foreign observers. Socialism forms wide and ever increasing possibilities for the development of the worker’s creative activities, the initiative of millions of people, the development of their interests, abilities and needs.

The critics of real socialism, in the past few years, especially have been persistently contrasting real socialism with social democracy, a conception of ideological and political pluralism. Pluralism as it arose in bourgeois society is a complex and contradictory phenomenon. At first sight it appears to be a free interplay, a fight between political forces in which the one, which shows greater viability and activity wins. However, is it possible to remove from this account the fact that all economic strength, the punitive organs, armed forces, all means of mass information and propaganda are in the hands of the capitalists?

Clearly it is impossible, although the propagandists of bourgeois pluralism cavalierly bypass this situation. In condition of the growing political activity of the working class, the monopolist proclaims the pressure of the masses on political parties to be political pluralism, an attribute of contemporary democracy. It sees it, under the present correlation of class forces, as an effective means of retaining power in its own hands by, from time to time, allowing power to pas from one bourgeois party to another. Ideological and political pluralism is presented in bourgeois propaganda as the possibility for the expression of free desire by all thereby using it to cover up the political sovereignty of monopoly capital.

It is known that certain rights and freedoms, the possibilities of defending the interests of the workers through parliamentary forms included, were gained by the working class through its political parties. The importance of these possibilities should neither be underestimated nor exaggerated. They should not be reduced because the working class obtained its rights in bitter political struggles, and they make the subsequent struggles for its interests easier. They should not be exaggerated because the bourgeoisie supported by its economic and political strength, its ideological apparatus, its basic interests and constantly attacks the interests and rights of the working class.

However, history now knows another experience. This is the experience of the socialist countries, consisting of a union of political parties which represent the different strata of workers, with the communist, Marxist – Leninist party at its head, an experience tested in practice already for many years. Here the diverse interests of the workers are really represented by different political parties. But of course this pluralism is not at all what the reformists of socialism dream about. They want something in the spirit of bourgeois democracy.

In the Soviet Union a wide experience of the one-party system of government has been accumulated, where the Communist Party is the leading force of the society. This experience shows that within the limits of such a political organisation, a wide representation and calculation of the diverse interests, points of view, opinions of the workers is intensively carried out and the development of criticism and self-criticism is stimulated. Laws guarantee freedom of conscience and religion.

In other words, in a socialist society wide diverse activities, interests and strivings exist. But again this is not that pluralism about which our critics talk. They need a pluralism in political and ideological relations, which would perpetuate the bourgeois order. Such a pluralism in fact means suppressing the interests of the workers. “Any freedom – Lenin had said, - if it does not submit to the interests of the freedom of the worker from the oppression of capital, is a deception.”

Socialist society is not guaranteed against the encroachment by certain people on the safety of the members of the society, and on the common interest as a whole. But it cannot be indifferent to such encroachments. Application of compulsion a such cases is a necessary condition for the freedom of the society, a manifestation of the concern for the freedom of its members. Of course the society has a system of social prohibition, which are directed to the defence of the socialist already won. Anti – Soviet subversive activity, changing one’s native and, anti – Socialist propaganda, war propaganda, etc., are punished as serious crimes. Supported by the apparatus of compulsion and law and order, the socialist government ensures the protection of the rights and freedom of the individual.

Of course we cannot assert that all our problems are solved and we have reached the highest development of democracy and freedom. Both develop according to the increase in the material and spiritual possibilities, consolidation of the society’s political institutions. The Constitution of the USSR adopted in 1977 took a qualitative new step in the perfection of the principle and norms pertaining to the condition of the individual under socialism, his rights and freedom.

The Constitution guarantees the right to choose a profession, theright to protect health, the right to take part in the management of government or social, work, the right to introduce proposals in government organs and social organisations, to criticize shortcomings in work, and appeal to the court against the acts of officials. The personal rights and freedoms of the citizens have been considerably widened. Respect for the individual, protection of the rights and freedom of the citizens are stated in the principal law, as the duties of all government organs, social organisations and officials.

Norms for our morals, our rights, do not allow unceremonious invasion of personal relationships, friendship and love. Society educates its members to respect personal interests,tastes and opinions. If violation of these norms takes place they are, as a rule, condemned. Freedom of the individual is a boon not only for the individual. Freedom is a necessary condition for the subsequent progress of the socialist society and its development into a communist society. Growth of production, solution of social problems, rising standards of scientific and artistic creation, depend on the initiatives, qualifications, discussion of theoretical and practical, without criticism and self-criticism, there can be no successful movement forward. Socialist society is pre-occupied with the development of the diverse abilities, talents and inclinations of its members. Only

under these conditions, can the successful search for, and effective solution of the pressing problem be ensured.

Marx’s theory of the individual cannot be presented without considering the all round development of free man, of work. From the Manifesto of the Communist Party to Capital all Marx’s work is permeated with idea of the harmonic development of the individual. In Marxism the all round development of man’s abilities was first related to a real social need, not arbitrarily, but strictly scientifically. Examining the impact of the introduction of machinery in heavy industry, Marx in the first volume of Capital, came to the conclusion that the development of industry itself, like the question of life and death, raised the following situation: the high proportion of the population making up the reserve army of unemployed to be held in reserve to meet the changing needs of capital for purposes of exploitation, is replaced by the need of an all round suitability of the workers to meet the changing needs of production; i.e., the partial worker, a simple carrier of known partial social function, is replaced by an all round developed individual for whom the different social functions entail a change from one to another method of vital activity. In order words, due to the objective development of production, the necessity arises of replacing the partial workers with a worker capable of performing different types of production work. And if for the partial worker, functioning in production is only a means of maintaining his existence, for the all round developed individual participation in production is nothing other than a form of vital activity, an expression, a realisation of his human force, a realisation of self as an individual. This is the tendency of history.

Full realisation of this tendency is possible only after the accomplishment of the proletarian revolution and establishment of the social ownership of the means of production, on the basis of a planned economy, and a wide spread of education. As seen from what has been said above the Marxist – Leninist statement of the problem means that it is a question of the development not only of separate individual but also of all workers. All round development of the individual is not simply a humane idea but a real objective, historical, pressing need of society. To what extent can the problem of the all round development of the individual be counted as a practical problem of the present times?

On this question theoreticians hold different opinions. Some maintain that placing the problem of all round development of the individual on the agenda is still too early, as there is yet a large number of workers doing heavy non-mechanical work, and many other urgent problems exist which require a lot of energy and time. Further, as the necessary conditions for solving this problem are not present this is the work of the future. Others assert that in the present society, all the conditions for solving the problem of all round development of the individual have been created. Of course this question is not a simple one. Thought, research, discussions on this topic are natural. In our opinion, it is not possible to agree with the abstract, categoric assertion that all the conditions for the all round development of the individual have been created in Soviet society, nor with the denial of the possibility of the practical handling of this problem now. The point is that the development of modern production, its practical needs of mechanisation and automation, are exactly what call for raising the standards of the professional skill, activity and responsibility of the worker, the necessity of a combination of professions. All these demands can be met only be all rounded development of the individual having a rich culture and capable of combining the functions of a qualifies labourer with those of a social worker.

This is brought about by the planned organisations of the socialist economy and the government organisation of the work of preparing working cadres. Life in socialist society furnishes evidence that all round development of the individual to a certain extent is already a reality, and not only in one case. Many of our contemporaries – workers, farmers, intelligentsia, who have received a good education, professional preparedness and a many sided development in relation to culture are the new type of individual. They widely apply their knowledge and capabilities in production, participate in social work, and are interested in literature and art. It is hardly necessary to point out that these people are also infinitely different from each other, original, with their own weak and strong sides, their attachments and inclinations.

We have sufficient grounds therefore, for further progress in the all round development of man. This is brought about by the technical level of production, the qualifications of the working class and collective farmers, and a strong, scientific potential. In the present conditions, man’s working essence is expressed in obtaining high and many sided qualifications, ideological maturity, moral – political responsibilities which allow the individual, in the process of work and social activity, to realise his intellectual and moral possibilities, assert his dignity and thus sat “I”.

Thus the formation of the activity and responsibilities of the members of society is not simply one of the important problems, it is the most important, central problem of the Party and Government. In its solution lies the key to solving all other problems – industrial economic, social and educational. This is the pivot of all party politics. At a meeting with the voters of Kuibishevski region, Moscow, the late Comrade K U Chernenko said: “In reorganising the conditions of people’s life, it is necessary at the same time to do everything for their ideological and moral growth. It is clear that without a lot of work for the spiritual development of people, their socialist education cannot cope with the problems of perfecting mature socialism.”

The rise in the welfare of the Soviet people, the intensification of the economy renewal of its spheres, perfection of its management, reconstitution of its economic mechanisms, strengthening the self financing sources, improvement in the activity of the Soviets, Party organisations, the realisation of these and many other equally

important problem depends on the level of development of the initiatives and creativity of the working mass. As K U Chernenko states: The importance of what we call the human factor of economic progress does not decrease. In other words the importance of the knowledge, interests and  moods of the people.” It is from this point of view that the Party approaches the questions of distribution and encouragement,

strengthening discipline and law and order, carrying out school reforms, mastering Lenin’s style of work in all its diversity, increasing consent in the work of management organs, developing criticism and self-criticism.

The nature of socialism as a social formation is such that it can function and develop successfully only through the activities of the masses, only with a high level of activity of the masses. To whichever problem we turn – economic, law and order its socialist solution demands the conscientious participation of the masses, for it concerns their interests, depends on their unanimity, competence, and diligence. The question of mass activity in socialism is most  important in solving of the practical problems of the new society.

Lenin underlined that socialism was not built by orders from above but is the work of the people themselves. Only the experience of millions can give the order for organising a new life. That is why the leader of the revolution, from the very first days of the new social formation, searched for concrete ways of increasing this activity and saw in it the most important condition for the functioning and developing of socialist society. Thus we have all the grounds to assert that the scientific prognosis of Karl Marx, a result of the study of the real tendencies of capitalism, including the problem of development of the individual, is widely confirmed by life. Of course life is always more complex, diverse and contradictory than is seen in theoretical works. However, the formation of a truly socialist society convincingly demonstrates the truth of what was stated by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The present experience of socialism thus permits us to come to the conclusion:

socialism, and later communism, is that necessary social formation which is a stage that should apprehend and further build on the achievements of the material and spiritual culture of humanity, on the basis of which society should further develop.The accumulated experience show that the realisation of the advantages of socialism depends largely on the activity of the subjective factor, the rich culture of the members of the socialist society, on their common education and professional training. Now the efforts of our party and the Soviet Government are directed at the nurturing of these qualities in the individual, and the formation of favourable conditions for their further development.

Why I am an Atheist – By Bhagat Singh

Written: October 5–6, 1930

---

It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the existence of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have realized that after having known me for a little time only, some of them have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to be more than that. I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess.

I am known as a dictator among my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme skeptic. But this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these are two different things.

I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself to be in possession of Godly qualities, or he goes a step further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word.

In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it later in the essay. Here I wish to emphasize that I am not an atheist for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head.

Let us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favorite with some college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very careful in my behavior and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views.

It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up. In the Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics such that I grew skeptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.

Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the courage to openly declare him an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of his only book, ‘Bandi Jivan’ (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear reflection of his thoughts.

According to the prosecution, the ‘Revolutionary Leaflet’ which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to acquiesce in them.

In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.

Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that someday I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner.

My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader.

I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists. The ideas contained in Bakunin’s ‘God and State’ seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book ‘Common Sense’ by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.

In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their proposals. It was all humbug.

People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr. Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me convicted and hanged.

I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions.

After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant.

Man can find a strong support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the situation now.

First of all we all know what the judgment will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing.

If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realize the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.

You go against popular feelings; you criticize a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps back.

Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.

As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success depends on chance and circumstances.

Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.” Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, – lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.

It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticize every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyze and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.

Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.

Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:

1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.

2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, and the wicked.

One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?

Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.

You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyze how much this argument carries weight!

Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote (Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclair’s pamphlet ‘Profits of Religion’ – MIA transcriber) somewhere “only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.” The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.

I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper way. No more logic chopping! I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!

Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swami’s “Commonsense.” You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ All the later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilize nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.

Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.

You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.

As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colors of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.

Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows.

Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralization. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.

---