Mukti Rijal

Dr Baburam Bhattarai's work titled Artha Rajnitik Bimarsha (Discourse on Political Economy) offers fascinating reading for those interested in the domain of ideology, philosophy and many more critical issues of present-day Nepal and the world. It comprises a collection of twenty-three articles written by Dr Bhattarai during contemporary times. These articles basically focus on critical issues bearing upon the political economy of contemporary Nepal. The articles reflect Dr Bhattarai's breadth and depth of critical grasp on political, economic, social and ideological issues.
They provide Dr Bhattarai's discursive views and multidisciplinary perspectives on such interesting themes ranging from Gandhi and Mao, Stephen Hawking, coronavirus and corruption virus, geopolitics, crony capitalism, alternative political forces, political parties' role and so on.
The contents of the articles show the clarity, cogency and precision with which Dr Bhattarai can present his ideas and perspectives. He possesses the intellectual rigour and competence to demystify, unravel and analyze complex philosophical - ideological expositions of our time.
His line of reasoning is systematic and factually rich. The articles clearly indicate that Dr Bhattarai has the erudite insight and knack to critically examine and even rebut the philosophical-ideological constructs that proclaim to be infallible, deterministic and final .
According to Dr Bhattarai, no political ideology has the monopoly of truth as both communism and neo-liberalism have failed to deliver and tackle the emergent social, economic and cultural problems of our time. Arthur Mc Ewan in his work titled Neo-liberalism or Democracy? Has echoed the similar views as he has argued that the neo-liberalism that dominated at the end of the century, the liberalism that prevailed in the early years of the century and the various forms of undemocratic statist policy including communism that held stage at times during the century – none has worked.
As I went on reading the articles on different themes with avid interest and attention, I came to notice how Dr Bhattarai has reinvented, evolved and transformed himself to challenge and demolish one's own long-held ideological assumptions and beliefs, of course, with support of substantial pieces of evidence and data. His conviction, boldness and courage to discard and amend some of the orthodox and obsolete communist ideas and postulates can be duly appreciated.
His determination to plunge into an uncharted political ideological terrain is something unconventional and adventurous in the political annals of the country. It indicates the progressive evolution and qualitative transformation in the thought process of an influential ideologue of Nepal who had held the top executive post as prime minister of the country. He has a distinctive status in the crowd of Nepalese politicians who keeps a tab on the changes and developments in the realm of knowledge and scientific innovations.
It exemplifies the way he can adapt his thoughts and ideas commensurate to evolving scientific knowledge and evidences. He seems to be alert and agile to stay relevant politically keeping himself abreast with changes and developments in the realm of knowledge and innovation.
In this regard, it is in order to quote Yuvan Noah Harai-one of the brilliant thinkers of our time, who says " If you try to hold on to some stable identity, job or world view you risk being left behind or irrelevant. To stay relevant- not just economically but above all socially- you will need the ability to constantly learn and to reinvent yourself." Though almost all articles in the book are undoubtedly worthy of reading and contemplation, the first article titled Karl Marx in Twenty-First Century interested me very much and has caught my attention .
Of course, Dr Bhattarai's articles of similar import had been published in the magazines and journals earlier too, this one looks more enriched, systematic and updated as it is marshaled with arsenals of latest data and evidences of our new epoch.
He maintains that Marx was a dynamic and progressive political philosopher and thinker. But he should not be circumscribed in the bind of an immutable dogma, idea or ism as this has done more damage than good to him. His was rather a methodology of inquiry into socio-economic system or phenomenon.
Marx is one of the unmistakable founders of modern social science. He conducted a scientific analysis of social and economic life. And he consistently adhered to a rigorous commitment to the honest empirical investigation of the facts. As affirmed by Dr Bhattarai in the article, Marx's writings have been so influential and powerful that it is hard to conceive of economics, political science, sociology and history without subscribing to him.
Bertrand Russell is more correct than anybody else as he writes " Karl Marx revived materialism because he gave it a new interpretation and connection with human history and human past in a unique way. For him, the driving force, in history, is man's relation to the matter of which the most important part is the mode of production or economic structure.
The superstructure, which includes, among others, politics, religions, art and philosophy is an outcome of the mode of production and distribution. According to Marx whole human history is the history of means of production and their concomitant relations of production and includes everything that furthers production.
Dr Bhattarai looks into various aspects of Marx's contribution in the field of dialectic materialism, matter and consciousness, relations between individual and society, personal property, the theory of surplus-value and so on.
However, he clearly outlines the limited if not flawed perspectives and approach of Marx that cannot be accepted in their entirety during the current times. Dr Bhattarai takes cues from developments in the field of information technology, biotechnology and artificial intelligence and concludes that the forces, the social structures and patterns that influence our lives are never quite as simple and reductive as Marxist class analysis based on historical and dialectical materialism suggests.
Likewise, the sweeping periodisation of history is also problematic because its universal application as claimed by Marx and some of his followers raises many questions. History has witnessed different stages in different regions and cultures. There may not be the sequences of five stages determined by Marx.
In fact, Marx had tried to explain the whole world through his allegedly Euro-centric empirical deductions, which was an erroneous intellectual endeavour. Due to its obsession with class relations and materialistic conception, Marxist historiography tends to reduce the significance of ideas in determining historical events. Some scholars like Fulbrook contend that Marx's views are self-contradictory regarding the primacy of matter or ideas.
In one context, he has a pure materialist saying, "it is not consciousness that determines being but on the contrary social being determines consciousness. He contradicts it and gives the impression as if he is also an idealist toeing to the line of Hegel saying the ruling ideas of the age are the ideas of the ruling class. Dr Bhattarai raises this issue in the article in an elaborate manner.
Similarly, problems, as discussed by Dr Bhattarai, can be found in the Marxian method of social stratification. Marx viewed social stratification based on the expropriation of material resources. By doing so, Marx discounts the peculiar social conditions and historical experiences of a society. Such application of strait-jacket ideology on different social conditions is some how misplaced.
It appears that Marx has ignored the history of leaders and great thinkers in shaping the human history. However, in reality such figures were influential. Seminal changes in history have been brought about due to an interplay between the actions of such men and the economic and social conditions of societies.
Ironically, no society perhaps glorified individual leaders like Stalin and Mao to the extent communist societies did in the past. Even Puspa Kamal Dahal Prachanda was hailed as a cult figure during the ten-year long Maoist insurgency in Nepal.
In fact, the history of the communist countries was often dictated by a small group of leaders who were endlessly glorified as cult figures .It was done in a manner that would not have been possible in any contemporary society.
Moreover, their faults and foible were overlooked. Another very strong criticism of the Marx, as highlighted by Dr Bhattarai too, has been that he ignored the role played by psychology in shaping the human destiny. Social psychologists have criticized Marx and his theory of economic determinism.
They even described Marx as terrible simplifier. Moreover, as prophesized by Marx, capitalism has not collapsed to give way to socialism . Markets have survived because wages have risen and profits have not declined even though economic inequality has increased in many capitalist societies.
Indeed, a society without competition, money, and private property has never materialized. The history of the 20th century suggests that communism in the sense of epistemological absolutism cannot exist and sustain.
In his article, Dr Bhattarai has conceptualized scientific humanism as the ruling idea of the new epoch. Humanism reposes tremendous faith in the human. In order to show the supremacy of humanity, humanism argues in the words of Jawahar Lal Nehru, "God we may deny, but what hope is there for us if we deny humanity and thus reduce everything to futility.
The concept of scientific humanism represents a synthesis between humanism and scientific spirit. However, there is a challenge to elaborate it and provide sufficient theoretical and practical foundation.

(Rijal, PhD, writes on contemporary political, economic and governance issues)