Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  What the State or form of government should be like under socialism is a different question into which we need not go for the moment, although it is a very important matter.

  Having agreed as to the ideal of socialism, the next thing to decide is how one is to achieve it. Here socialists part company with each other, and there are many groups pointing different ways. Roughly they may be divided into two classes: (1) the slow-change, evolutionary groups, which believe in going ahead step by step and working through parliaments, like the British Labour Party and the Fabians; and (2) the revolutionary groups, which do not believe in achieving results through parliaments. These latter groups are mostly Marxist.

  The former evolutionary groups are now very small in number, and even those in England are weakening and the line dividing them from the Liberals and other non-socialist groups is thinning away. So Marxism might now be considered the general socialist creed. But among Marxists also there are two main divisions in Europe—there are the Russian communists on the one hand, and the old social democrats of Germany, Austria and elsewhere on the other—and between the two there is no love lost. These social democrats lost much of their old prestige by their failure to live up to their professions during the World War and afterwards. Many of their more ardent spirits have gone over to the communists, but they still control the great trade-union machines in western Europe. Communism, because of its success in Russia, is an advancing creed. In Europe and all over the world today it is the chief opponent of capitalism.

  What, then, is this Marxism? It is a way of interpreting history and politics and economics and human life and human desires. It is a theory as well as a call to action. It is a philosophy which has something to say about most of the activities of man’s life. It is an attempt at reducing human history, past, present and future, to a rigid logical system with something of the inevitability of fate or kismet about it. Whether life is so very logical, after all, and so dependent on hard-and-fast rules and systems does not seem very obvious, and many have doubted this. But Marx surveyed past history as a scientist and drew certain conclusions from it. He saw from the earliest days man struggling for a living; it was a struggle against Nature as well as against brother-man. Man worked to get food and the other necessities of life, and his methods of doing so gradually changed as time went on, and became more complex and advanced. These methods to produce the means of living were, according to Marx, the most important thing in man’s life and society’s life in every age. They dominated each period of history and influenced all activities and social relations of that period, and as they changed great historical and social changes followed them. To some extent we have traced the great effects of these changes in the course of these letters. For instance, when first agriculture was introduced, it made a vast difference. The wandering nomads settled down and villages and cities grew, and because of the greater yield of agriculture, there was a surplus left over, and population grew, and wealth and leisure, which gave rise to arts and handicrafts. Another obvious instance is the Industrial Revolution, when the introduction of big machinery for production made another tremendous difference. And there are many other instances.

  The methods of production at a certain period of history correspond to a definite stage in the growth of the people. In the course of this work of production, and as a consequence of it, men enter into definite relations with each other (such as barter, buying, selling, exchange and so on), which are conditioned by, and which correspond to their methods of production. These relations taken as a whole constitute the economic structure of society. And on this economic basis are built up the laws, politics, social customs, ideas and everything else. Therefore, according to this view of Marx as the methods of production change, the economic structure changes, and this is followed by a change in people’s ideas, laws, politics, etc.

  Marx also looked upon history as a record of struggles between different classes. “The history of all human society, past and present, has been the history of class struggles.” The class which controls the means of production is dominant. It exploits the labour of other classes and profits by it. Those who labour do not get the full value of their labour. They get just a part of it for bare necessaries, the rest, the surplus, goes to the exploiting class. So the exploiting class gets wealthier from this surplus value. The State and government are controlled by this class which controls production, and the first object of the State thus becomes one of protecting this governing class. “The State is an executive committee for managing the affairs of the governing class as a whole”, says Marx. Laws are made for this purpose, and people are led to believe by means of education, religion, and other methods, that the dominance of this class is just and natural. Every attempt is made to cover the class character of the government and the laws by these methods, so that the other classes that are being exploited may not find out the true state of affairs, and thus get dissatisfied. If any person does get dissatisfied and challenges this system, he is called an enemy of society and morality, and a subverter of old-established customs, and is crushed by the State.

  But in spite of all efforts, one class cannot remain permanently dominant. The very factors that gave it dominance now work against it. It had become the ruling and exploiting class because it controlled the then existing means of production. Now, as new methods of production arise, the new classes which control these come into prominence, and they refuse to be exploited. New ideas stir men; there is what might be called an ideological revolution which breaks the fetters of the old ideas and dogmas. And then there is a struggle between this rising class and the old class which clings hard to power. The new class inevitably wins, because it controls the economic power now, and the old class, having played its part in history, fades away.

  The victory of this new class is both political and economic; it symbolizes the triumph of the new methods of production. And from this follow changes in the whole fabric of society—new ideas, a new political structure, laws, customs, everything is affected. This new class becomes now the exploiting class to the classes under it, till in its turn it is displaced by one of them. So the struggle goes on, and must go on till there is no one class exploiting another.

  Only when classes disappear and there is only one class left will the struggle end, for then there will be no further opportunity for exploitation. This one class cannot exploit itself. Only then will there be equilibrium in society and full co-operation, instead of ceaseless struggle and competition, as at present. And the State’s chief business of coercion will no longer be required, for there will be no class to coerce, and so gradually the State itself will “wither away”, and thus the anarchist ideal will also be approached.

  So Marx looked upon history as a grand process of evolution by inevitable class struggles. With a wealth of detail and example he showed how this had taken place, in the past, how the feudal times had changed to the capitalist period with the coming of the big machine, and the feudal classes given place to the bourgeoisie. According to him, the last class struggle was taking place in our times between the bourgeoisie and the working class. Capitalism was itself producing and increasing the numbers and strength of this class, which would ultimately overwhelm it and establish the classless society and socialism.

  This view of looking at history which Marx explained was called the “materialist conception of history”. It was called “materialist” because it was not “idealist”, a word which was used a great deal in a special sense by philosophers in Marx’s day. The idea of evolution was becoming popular at the time. Darwin, as I have told you, established it in the popular mind so far as the origin and development of species were concerned. But this did not explain in any way human social relations. Some philosophers had tried to explain human progress by vague idealistic notions of the progress of the mind. Marx said that this was a wrong approach. Vague speculation in the air and idealism were, according to him, dangerous, as in this way people were likely to imagine all manner of things
which had no real basis in fact. He proceeded therefore in a scientific way, examining facts. Hence the word “materialist”.

  Marx constantly talks of exploitation and class struggles. Many of us become angry and excited at the injustice which we see around us. But, according to Marx, this is not a matter for anger or good virtuous advice. The exploitation is not the fault of the person exploiting. The dominance of one class over another has been the natural result of historical progress, and in due time gives place to another arrangement. If a person belonged to the dominant class, and as such exploited others, this was not a terrible sin for him. He was a part of a system, and it was absurd to call him unkind names. We are much too apt to forget this distinction between individuals and systems. India is under British imperialism, and we fight this imperialism with all our might. But the Englishmen who happen to support this system in India are not to blame. They are just little cogs in a huge machine, powerless to make any difference to its movement. In the same way, some of us may consider the zamindari system out of date and most harmful to the tenantry which is exploited terribly under it. But that again does not mean that the individual zamindar is to blame; so also the capitalists who are often blamed as exploiters. The fault always lies with the system, not with individuals.

  Marx did not preach class conflict. He showed that in fact it existed, and had always existed in some form or other. His object in writing Capital was “to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society”, and this uncovering disclosed these fierce conflicts between different classes in society. These conflicts are not always obvious as class struggles, because the dominant class always tries to hide its own class character. But when the existing order is threatened, then it throws away all pretence and its real character appears, and there is open warfare between the classes. Forms of democracy and ordinary laws and procedure all disappear when this happens. Instead of these class struggles being due to misunderstanding or the villainy of agitators, as some people say, they are inherent in society, and they actually increase with a better understanding of the conflict of interests.

  Let us compare this theory of Marx’s with existing conditions in India. The British Government has long claimed that its rule in India was based on justice and the good of the people of India, and there is no doubt that in the past many of our countrymen believed that there was some little truth in this claim. But now that this rule is seriously challenged by a great popular movement, its real character appears in all its crudity and nakedness, and anyone can see the reality of this imperialist exploitation resting on the bayonet. All the covering of gilded forms and soft words has been removed. Special ordinances and the suppression of the most ordinary rights of speech, meeting, the Press, become the ordinary laws and procedure of the country. The greater the challenge to existing authority, the more will this happen. So also when one class seriously threatens another. We can see this happening in our country today in the savage sentences given to the peasants and workers and those who work for them.

  Marx’s theory of history was thus of an ever-changing and advancing society. There was no fixity in it. It was a dynamic conception. And it marched on inevitably whatever might happen, one social order being replaced by another. But a social order only disappeared after it had run its course and grown to its fullest extent. When society grew beyond this, then it simply tore the clothes of the old order, which it had outgrown and which fettered it, and put on new and bigger garments.

  It was man’s destiny, according to Marx, to help in this grand historical process of development. All the previous stages had been passed. The last class struggle between the capitalist bourgeois society and the working class was now taking place. (This was, of course, in the advanced industrial countries where capitalism was fully developed. Other countries where capitalism was not developed were backward, and their struggles were therefore of a somewhat mixed and different character. But essentially even there some aspect of this struggle was taking place, as the world was becoming more and more inter-related.) Marx said that capitalism would have to face difficulty after difficulty, crisis after crisis, till it toppled over, because of its inherent want of equilibrium. It is more than sixty years since Marx wrote, and capitalism has had many a crisis since then. But far from ending, it has survived them, and has grown more powerful, except in Russia, where it exists no longer. But now, as I write, it seems to be grievously sick all over the world, and doctors shake their heads about its chances of recovery.

  It is said that capitalism managed to prolong its life to our day because of a factor which perhaps Marx did not fully consider. This was the exploitation of colonial empires by the industrial countries of the West. This gave fresh life and prosperity to it, at the expense, of course, of the poor countries so exploited.

  We condemn often enough the exploitation of the poor by the rich, of the worker by the capitalist, under present-day capitalism. This is no doubt a fact, not because of the fault of the capitalist, but because the system itself is based on such exploitation. At the same time let us not imagine that this is a new thing under capitalism. Exploitation has been the hard and invariable lot of the workers and the poor in past ages under all systems. Indeed, it can be said that, in spite of capitalist exploitation, they are better off today than during any past period. But that is not saying very much.

  The greatest modern exponent of Marxism has been Lenin. Not only did he expound it and explain it, but he lived up to it. And yet he has warned us not to consider Marxism as a dogma which cannot be varied. Convinced of the truth of its essence, he was not prepared to accept or apply its details everywhere unthinkingly. He tells us:

  In no sense do we regard the Marxist theory as something complete and unassailable. On the contrary, we are convinced that that theory is only the corner-stone of that science which socialists must advance in all directions if they do not wish to fall behind life. We think that it is especially necessary for Russian Socialists to undertake an independent study of the Marxist theory, for that theory gives only general guiding ideas, which can be applied differently in England, for instance, than in France, differently in France than in Germany, differently in Germany than in Russia.

  I have tried to tell you in this letter something about Marx’s theories, but I do not know if you can make much of this patchwork of mine, and whether it will convey any clear idea to you. It is well to know these theories, because they are moving vast masses of men and women today and they may be of help to us in our own country. A great nation, Russia, as well as the other parts of the Soviet Union, have made Marx their major prophet, and in the world’s great distress today many people in search of remedies look to him for possible inspiration.

  I shall finish up this letter by quoting some lines from the English poet Tennyson:

  The old order changeth yielding place to new,

  And God fulfils himself in many ways,

  Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

  135

  The Victorian Age in England

  February 22, 1933

  In my letters dealing with the growth of the socialistic idea I have pointed out to you that the English type of socialism was the most moderate of all. It was the least revolutionary of the ideologies then prevalent in Europe, and it looked forward to a very gradual and step-by-step change to better conditions. Sometimes, when trade was bad, and there was a depression and unemployment increased and wages fell and people suffered, then a revolutionary wave would rise even in England. But with the return of better conditions this would subside. This moderation of English thought during the nineteenth century was intimately connected with the prosperity of England, for prosperity and revolution have little in common. Revolution means a great change, and those who are fairly satisfied with existing conditions have no desire to rush into risky and rash adventures on the off-chance of bettering them.

  The nineteenth century was indeed the century of England’s greatness. The lead she had taken in the eig
hteenth century, by having the Industrial Revolution and building the new factories in advance of other countries, she maintained for the greater part of the nineteenth. She was, as I have said, the workshop of the world, and wealth poured into her from far countries. The exploitation of India and other colonial possessions gave her a rich and unceasing tribute and added greatly to her prestige. While changes took place in almost all the countries of Europe, England seemed to continue without any revolution, strong and solid as a rock. There were crises from time to time, but they were overcome by giving a few more people the vote. Meanwhile, as we have seen, in France republics and empires gave way to each other in rapid succession; in Italy a new nation arose uniting the whole peninsula after long ages of disunion; in Germany a new empire came into being. The smaller countries, like Belgium, Denmark, Greece, also changed in many ways. Austria, the seat still of the oldest dynasty in Europe, the Hapsburg, had been humbled repeatedly by France, Italy and Prussia. Only Russia, in the east, appeared unchanging, with the autocratic Tsar ruling like a Great Moghal. But Russia was very backward industrially and was a peasant nation; the breath of the new ideas and the new industry had not yet touched her.

  England’s wealth and empire and sea-power gave her a commanding position in Europe and the world. She was the leading nation, with her tentacles all over the world; The United States of America were still wrapped up in their own troubles and concerned more with their internal growth than with world affairs. Wonderful changes were taking place in methods of transport, making the world apparently smaller and more compact. These again helped England in tightening her hold on distant lands. In spite of all these changes England’s form of government remained the same: a constitutional monarch—that is, a ruler with little power, and a parliament supposed to be supreme. The parliament was at first elected by a handful of landowners and rich merchants, but more and more people were given the vote in the course of the century to ward off trouble, whenever a crisis arose.