SUPRESSED
DESIRES?
(KOBADH GANDHY
ESSAY) –presented by Harsh Thakor
Quoting Chairman
Joma Sison on the views of Kobadh Gandhy "I have only a brief comment on
the text above the blackbox. The real problem is that in an oppressive and
exploitative society inequality and injustice make impossible for the exploited
classes the freedom and happiness that should be enjoyed by everyone or most
people and not only by the few exploiters who indulge in themselves in excess.
Why in the first place put freedom and happiness in conflict with equality and justice? All these four terms spell out the harmonious aspirations of the people. Why replace the class struggle with the imagined conflict of terms which are abstracted metaphysically under the guise of personal subjective wishes?"
Quoting Kobad Gandhy in an excerpt from interview on 'Question of Freedom of people and emancipation' Is this viewpoint positive? Not maligning or undermining Socialist ideology?
"If we are to seek the real cause for the failures of the socialist states, the search must be man-centric. Structures, economy, party etc. exist, after all, to serve man, not vice-versa.
The problem began from the very defining of one’s goals. If that itself was faulty, quite naturally the path taken was bumpy. The goal was defined as being equality and justice. And the primary task was to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
Were these then correct? On should our final goal have been towards freedom and happiness? By putting the goal as equality and justice, we miss the real target towards which man needs to aspire. No doubt, this could be an immediate first task; perhaps a minimalist first step. But, by restricting it to this, we are likely to fall into the trap of economic determinism, where the entire focus may be reduced to mere economic welfare and not the overall flourishing of man, nature and society.
On the contrary, if we see our goal as freedom and happiness, this would be more all-encompassing, wherein equality and justice would be just one aspect. Keeping this broader goal in mind, the nature of the economy would not be restricted to mere physical/economic welfare, but would seek to also create the material conditions to root out alienation, our negative values, our emotional distress, social injustice and environmental destruction from our lives. It would primarily seek a path for the full flowering of man and his/her individuality.
If we look at the two main socialist experiences, they were, to an extent, able to achieve the goal of economic justice. But, having once achieved the basic necessities of life for all, both societies reversed. Is it because once poverty was extinguished, man’s basic selfish nature came to the fore, bringing out his greed to acquire more and more for his personal gain? Is it then that this ‘human nature’ of selfishness and greed, ingrained over centuries, is unchangeable? This would seem the conclusion, looking at society generally today, and particularly the reversals in the socialist states!!
Whether that is so or not, we shall see later. The main point here is that when the main goal set is merely equality and justice, society was not reconstructed to rid it of alienation, the lack of freedom and other aspects that would carry the individual towards fulfillment and happiness. Nor was it effective in changing the basic value system, nor was the economy, polity etc. constructed in that direction. So, quite naturally, when man acquired the basic necessities and his senses evolved, if the society did not move in the direction of greater freedom and happiness (basing on a new set of values), it would spontaneously move towards seeking happiness in the form of pleasures as was the habit from the past, as also what was visible in the world around them.
And so it was withChina .
As they were unable to successfully imbibe the values of goodness, the masses
began treading the old path to happiness. Probably, after the revolution they
sought to bring about change too rapidly for which the people were not yet
mentally ready. This was both in the realm of the economy as also in the sphere
of people’s thinking. Obviously, people’s consciousness, having just emerged
from a backward feudal background, was not yet ripe to accept the commune-type organization
(without private property), nor the selfless values sought to be imposed during
the Cultural Revolution.
Just having acquired the basic necessities of life together with education for the first time in generations, and having so evolved their senses and desires, the natural trend was for greater and greater enjoyment of the newly acquired pleasures, not the rigid sense of duty that the Communist Party sought to impose. So, seeking to forcibly impose selfless values during the Cultural Revolution through the impetuous Red Guards, the cult of Mao, and labour camps (May 7th schools) only created an appearance of conforming to dictates, not real change within the bulk of the people.
Man cannot change his subconscious/conscious mind through imposition and force. It is only possible through a sense of awareness, voluntarily acquired through a deep understanding that positive values alone can take us on the path to genuine happiness, not the instant pleasures of the day acquired through the new-found wealth of the populace over a generation of socialist construction.
It is now obvious (in hindsight), that during the Cultural Revolution inChina ,
the bulk of the people merely suppressed their desires and wants in order to
conform to the hysteria whipped up. And, once the opportunity arose, with
Deng’s get-rich theory, the people’s suppressed desires/urges found a release
in the form of acceptance. So there was little resistance to the new policies
introduced by Deng. Not even the examples of Tachai and Taching (commune models
in agriculture and industry), nor the limited resistance in Shanghai could stem the surge of support to
Deng’s reversals. The rest, of course, is history as we witness in China today
with the billionaire ‘princelings’ dominating the Communist Party leadership
and its 80 million odd rank-and-file comprising a major share of a relatively
privileged middle class.
Yet, it is not that human nature is basically bad and unchangeable. No doubt man’s negative values, emotions etc. are very deeply embedded through conditioning over centuries, together with the strong impulses generated from our early childhood days. Yet, we have also seen that man’s thinking is not a fixed entity and the neuroplasticity of the mind allows change. In addition, we have also seen that the innate goodness in man has time-and-again sought to assert itself through history.
The lesson to be learnt from the Chinese experience is that in man the seed of goodness has been covered by layer upon layer of poisonous weeds and is therefore unable to bear fruit so easily. As long as these weeds remain, what grows is a decrepit, shriveled, ugly, half-dead plant. Mere economic gain, coupled with imposed duties and straitjacket boring lives, would create such individuals seeking the sunshine. And if the sun rising above the horizon is unable to bring the bright rays of a new dawn, it will necessarily bring the routine light of instant pleasures, money and the old world order. No doubt, these rays have raisedChina
from a dwarfed plant into a giant, but, in its wake, it has created more
shadows than light.
Why in the first place put freedom and happiness in conflict with equality and justice? All these four terms spell out the harmonious aspirations of the people. Why replace the class struggle with the imagined conflict of terms which are abstracted metaphysically under the guise of personal subjective wishes?"
Quoting Kobad Gandhy in an excerpt from interview on 'Question of Freedom of people and emancipation' Is this viewpoint positive? Not maligning or undermining Socialist ideology?
"If we are to seek the real cause for the failures of the socialist states, the search must be man-centric. Structures, economy, party etc. exist, after all, to serve man, not vice-versa.
The problem began from the very defining of one’s goals. If that itself was faulty, quite naturally the path taken was bumpy. The goal was defined as being equality and justice. And the primary task was to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
Were these then correct? On should our final goal have been towards freedom and happiness? By putting the goal as equality and justice, we miss the real target towards which man needs to aspire. No doubt, this could be an immediate first task; perhaps a minimalist first step. But, by restricting it to this, we are likely to fall into the trap of economic determinism, where the entire focus may be reduced to mere economic welfare and not the overall flourishing of man, nature and society.
On the contrary, if we see our goal as freedom and happiness, this would be more all-encompassing, wherein equality and justice would be just one aspect. Keeping this broader goal in mind, the nature of the economy would not be restricted to mere physical/economic welfare, but would seek to also create the material conditions to root out alienation, our negative values, our emotional distress, social injustice and environmental destruction from our lives. It would primarily seek a path for the full flowering of man and his/her individuality.
If we look at the two main socialist experiences, they were, to an extent, able to achieve the goal of economic justice. But, having once achieved the basic necessities of life for all, both societies reversed. Is it because once poverty was extinguished, man’s basic selfish nature came to the fore, bringing out his greed to acquire more and more for his personal gain? Is it then that this ‘human nature’ of selfishness and greed, ingrained over centuries, is unchangeable? This would seem the conclusion, looking at society generally today, and particularly the reversals in the socialist states!!
Whether that is so or not, we shall see later. The main point here is that when the main goal set is merely equality and justice, society was not reconstructed to rid it of alienation, the lack of freedom and other aspects that would carry the individual towards fulfillment and happiness. Nor was it effective in changing the basic value system, nor was the economy, polity etc. constructed in that direction. So, quite naturally, when man acquired the basic necessities and his senses evolved, if the society did not move in the direction of greater freedom and happiness (basing on a new set of values), it would spontaneously move towards seeking happiness in the form of pleasures as was the habit from the past, as also what was visible in the world around them.
And so it was with
Just having acquired the basic necessities of life together with education for the first time in generations, and having so evolved their senses and desires, the natural trend was for greater and greater enjoyment of the newly acquired pleasures, not the rigid sense of duty that the Communist Party sought to impose. So, seeking to forcibly impose selfless values during the Cultural Revolution through the impetuous Red Guards, the cult of Mao, and labour camps (May 7th schools) only created an appearance of conforming to dictates, not real change within the bulk of the people.
Man cannot change his subconscious/conscious mind through imposition and force. It is only possible through a sense of awareness, voluntarily acquired through a deep understanding that positive values alone can take us on the path to genuine happiness, not the instant pleasures of the day acquired through the new-found wealth of the populace over a generation of socialist construction.
It is now obvious (in hindsight), that during the Cultural Revolution in
Yet, it is not that human nature is basically bad and unchangeable. No doubt man’s negative values, emotions etc. are very deeply embedded through conditioning over centuries, together with the strong impulses generated from our early childhood days. Yet, we have also seen that man’s thinking is not a fixed entity and the neuroplasticity of the mind allows change. In addition, we have also seen that the innate goodness in man has time-and-again sought to assert itself through history.
The lesson to be learnt from the Chinese experience is that in man the seed of goodness has been covered by layer upon layer of poisonous weeds and is therefore unable to bear fruit so easily. As long as these weeds remain, what grows is a decrepit, shriveled, ugly, half-dead plant. Mere economic gain, coupled with imposed duties and straitjacket boring lives, would create such individuals seeking the sunshine. And if the sun rising above the horizon is unable to bring the bright rays of a new dawn, it will necessarily bring the routine light of instant pleasures, money and the old world order. No doubt, these rays have raised
If one is to seek a new dawn and acquire the sweet fruits from that latent seed of goodness, it is necessary to patiently and tirelessly clean off the layers of poisonous weeds. For this the effort has to be both internal and external. Internally it requires an awareness of what is positive and the voluntary desire to strive in that direction. Externally it would necessitate the creation of the most conducive environment—economic, political, social—to facilitate the change. No doubt both processes may take time due to the deep conditioning within us; but, given past experience, no short-cuts are likely to succeed.
So, to sum up, given this past experience, the direction of the search must be towards freedom and happiness and not confined to mere equality and justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment