Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3517416
3517416
3517416
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist
ago the archaeologist Gordon Childe in the very title of his work, Man
Makes Himself, showed that production technology is after all
inseparable from ideas. Matter does not create technology; human
ideas, reflected in skill, dexterity, and science, create it. When
Maurice Dobb argues in his Studies in the Development of Capitalism
that the inventions which triggered the English Industrial Revolution
in the eighteenth century came not earlier, and only then, because the
surrounding economic circumstances were not favourable earlier, is he
not suggesting a reverse determination of 'forces of production'-the
supposedly material base-by social relationships?
Marx's view of historical development is clearly far more refined
and persuasive than a mere extension of materialist determination to
social evolution: 'Just as we cannot judge an individual by the opinion
he has of himself, so we cannot judge a period of social transformation
by its own consciousness.' This statement means that the intricacies of
the contemporary modes of production and social relationships could
not be seen in the earlier periods. Rather, they were always
misconceived. To Marx such misconceptions or imperfect perceptions set
limits to the growth of further ideas, or of action during the process of
transformation. When he said that 'ideas become a material force once
they have gripped the masses', he surely meant that consciousness once
generalised delimits the range of ideas of individuals and social
action. Religion, and race or community prejudices could colour class
struggles and shape their results (we can illustrate this from our own
history). What happened in the epoch of capitalism and as a
consequence of the simultaneous or attendant scientific revolution was
the creation of a possibility, re-realised in Marxism, of an
approximately closer perception of the mode of production and social
relationships with a view to a far more resolute guidance of the
'transformation' or social revolution. It is in this sense that the
achievement of the perception by the working class of the real
around it and the potentiality of its own revolutionary role-its
consciousness'-has been given such signal importance in Ma
practice. But this surely means that the role of ideas compared
earlier periods has been substantially enlarged: blind struggles
been replaced by sighted ones. Can we not go further and say that
has been a feature of human development, and that the bourge
which according to the Communist Manifesto had played s
'revolutionary role', was responsible for the previous enlargem
feel convinced that Marx believed that ideas would be atta
continuously greater importance in future. When he spoke of the f
as one where mankind marched 'from the realm of necessity t
realm of freedom', I feel convinced (in spite of Engels's unfortunate
on freedom' as the 'recognition of necessity') that Marx looked for
to ideas at last gaining ascendancy over matter, not by any spiritu
exercise, but by the abundance of material wealth which comm
would ultimately produce.
Since R.P. Dutt's India Today (1940/1946) there has been conside
writing on the Indian National Movement by Marxists. There ha
a recent detailed survey by E.M.S.Namboodiripad, A Histo
India's Freedom Struggle. It seems to me that there is now a ge
understanding that the National Movement was a united front
classes of the Indian people, the peasantry, other petty bourg
the bourgeoisie and the working class, to the exclusion of the
landowners and princes. The major nationalist organisation, the
National Congress, did not always reflect the united front, alth
as in the late 1930s it came very close to such a position.
It is, of course, important in the light of this understandin
review many harsh criticisms of the leaders of the Nation
Movement, which can be found in the documents of the Communist
Movement till before the Dutt-Bradley thesis of 1936 and occasionally
later. The correction of this attitude need not, however, mean that the
Communists or the other Left groups were incorrect in all the basic
positions they took, for example in 1942. An overwhelming
preoccupation with the 'errors' of the Left, as in the volume edited by
Professor Bipan Chandra, is unfortunate, since by this very
preoccupation, it belittles the achievements of the Left during the
National Movement and its contributions to it. After all, the creation of
the organised Kisan Movement and the trade unions was mainly the
handiwork of the Communists and their allies; and that cannot be
forgotten.
I would urge that we should treat the National Movement (which
was always larger than the Congress) as a common heritage. All
assessment of individuals playing roles in it must be tempered by the
realisation that they stood up in opposition to British rule. Dadabhoy
Naoroji spoke for the silent millions when he brought the poverty of
the Indian people and its removal as a major issue between Imperialism
and the Indian people. Gandhi succeeded in mobilising those
millions-though the forms of that mobilisation may have remained
limited. These were undying services to the cause of the Indian people.
Marxists should be on guard against efforts to treat these as illusory, or
insignificant, as in the writings of the Cambridge and Subaltern
schools, which, by the way, in effect, treat the Left also as part of the
elite leadership.
Today, the positive aspects of the National Movement, its
bourgeois-democratic values such as secularism, women's rights,
HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SOCIALISM