RED DIARY

I R e s i s t , t h e r e f o r e I E x i s t

« Naghma-e-Zakhm-e-Dil: Songs of the Wounded Hearts

Victimising labour »

Moosa Sai Marx Tak (From Moses to Marx)

Preface and Chapter 1

Moosa se Marx Tak is one the best known writings of the South Asian
Marxist and public intellectual, Syed Sibte Hasan. Sibte Hasan remained
steadfast in his commitment towards Marxism-Leninism through out his
life and contributed enormously in the revolutionary struggle through his
pen. For many decades, Moosa se Marx Tak was the fundamental guiding
texts for the activists and students of the Leftist politics of Pakistan.
Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to present the preface and the first
chapter of this authoritative text translated by Syed Ehtisham (with minor
editorial changes) at the Red Diary:

Preface

Marx and Engels devised the term scientific socialism for their political
thought, and idealistic socialism for ‘old fashioned’ socialism, which
encompassed the reformist plans which European thinkers offered from
time to time. The plans had not been inferred from the conditions on the
ground, but were a reflection of their subjective aspirations. Scientific
socialism, on the other hand, was derived from, and logical conclusion of
existing objective conditions (maroozi hallat). Its principles of evolution
had been derived from a deep study of the capitalist system.

Scientific socialism refers to a social system in which all means of

production-land, minerals, factories, banks, trade-are collectively owned
by the society, and the produce is distributed according to the qualitative
worth of the work performed by physical and intellectual cadres.

Communism is the next stage of scientific socialism, under which means

of production and the produce is so advanced that the measure of
distribution is not worth, but need of the people.

Foes of socialism have tried to malign it by asserting that it does not

allow any personal possessions. That is far from the truth. Socialism does
not permit exploitation of labor for accumulation of wealth by individuals
or groups, for example control over land, minerals, manufactories and
finance. Private property is sacrosanct under the feudal and capitalist
systems (and supported by all religions), where as the foundations of
socialism lie in abolition of such private ownership and transferring it to
social ownership.

Private ownership has created so many social evils that public ownership
is being promoted even in capitalist societies (nationalization of essential
services and welfare). Means of production were nationalized (in the post-
WW II Europe) and Asian countries.

The other private ownership pertains to items of personal use, like

clothes, utensils, home, books, bicycle, radio, etc. Under a capitalist
system, people do not have adequate quantities of items of personal use
(even in rich societies). A socialist society, on the other hand aims to
provide people with sufficient quantity of items of personal use. There is
no equivalence in people’s productive or inventive capacity, so the income
of each and every one under a socialist system will not be the same.

Socialism does not repress individuality, in fact it encourages it. Only

exploitation of labor for personal aggrandizement is proscribed.

Chapter 1: Early Communism

Europeans ‘discovered’ America, and traveled to India in the early 15th

CE. They gained great material wealth, and gained important knowledge
and information. The general public was entranced by the stories of
travelers, and though they contained more half truths and outright lies
than facts, the general public listened to them and developed great
interest in exploration of the world unknown to them and the greed to
acquire wealth.

This mind set induced Sir Thomas Moore to write his classic work
“Utopia”, which relates experiences of a fictitious sailor, who happened to
land in a far off island, where people lived in a communist society. The
same instinct led the English novelist Daniel Defoe to pen “Robinson
Crusoe”, and Swift to write “Gulliver’s Travels”.

During mid-17th CE Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau wrote on the concept of

social contract, which indicated that political scientists were greatly
helped in their conjectures by the conditions in Asia and America.

The discoveries of new instrument and technology in the nineteenth

century led to new industries and new branches of sciences. Agents of
industrialists went around the world seeking raw material. With advances
in the mode of travel, academics and archeologists traveled to the sites of
old civilizations like Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Mexico and Greece. They
dug old sites, and found skeletons, statues, instruments, hieroglyphs,
jewelry, and utensils.

They could derive the knowledge of ancient history from the finds. They
also found strange birds, four legged animals, fish, sea shells, insects,
flowers and plants. The most valuable were the skeletons of animals
which roamed the earth millions of years ago but were now extinct.

The knowledge culminated in the theory of evolution, which shook the

religious beliefs and people developed new insight into the origin of
humankind.

The concept of evolution was not new. The writings of Heraclites,

Empedocles, and Aristotle do offer a blurred concept of evolution.
However, the Greek concept of evolution ran on a ‘ladder’ pattern: the
highest rung occupied by humans, then land animals, followed by sea
animals, plants and on the lowest rung was rock and earth, with no
possibility of rise from one to another, and forever discrete from each
other.

The creationists claimed that god had created the universe in six days,
and there could never be a change in the creations. Christian clergy
stated with utter confidence that the world was 6,000 years old, that
Adam was the first human, who lived in the paradise, and tricked and
tempted by the Satan, he ate apple/wheat, and was expelled to the earth
(See Creation of Mankind by Robert Basalt).

The French scientist Jean Lamarck, was the first one to present the
theory of evolution in 1809. He claimed that simple organs evolved out of
non-organic material, but higher animals have evolved out of simpler
animals. He proved by the example of several animals and plants that
continuous use of a part of the body strengthens it and increases its
mass, for example heavy laborers have highly developed leg muscles,
while sailors, bakers, butchers and carpenters have highly developed arm
and shoulder muscles. Swamp birds like the crane have long necks, beaks
and legs. Non use makes the organs redundant over time. These changes
are inherited too. He, however, believed that plants and animals have an
inherent instinct to develop into the higher level. Science was not free of
meta-physics, yet.

However, the definitive work on evolution was done by Charles Darwin

(1809-82). The 50 years between Lamarck and Darwin and produced
many scientists who proposed theories of evolution.

Darwin published his epoch making work “The Origin of Species” in 1959.
It represented 28 years of investigations and analysis. Darwin had
traveled the world for 5 years and had collected all kinds of birds, plants,
shells, rocks and bone skeletons and on his return had studied the
methods of horticulturists and animal culturists. He offered the principle
of natural selection. The underlying cause of the changes was the change
in weather and geographical conditions. The plants and animals which
could adapt to the changes survived and others became extinct. Darwin
theorized that the shape of animals and plants was not same from the
beginning of time, but had changed over hundreds of millions of years.

Darwin explained ‘natural selection’ with reference to the techniques used

to improve animals, plants and grain, which have resulted in increase not
only in quantity but also the quality of the species. The wheat, rice and
barley, we consume today were once the seeds of jungle grass.

Human being are no exception to this natural selection and have evolved
from their nearest evolutionary kin, the apes. It did not remain too
difficult to deduct from Darwin’s work that all live beings — plants,
animals including humans — were not the creations of a ‘superior’ being
but had evolved from inanimate matter.

Darwin’s work encouraged the academia to research ‘social’ evolution. In

1836, a French academic, Christian Thomas, assigned three stages to
social evolution, based on the derivation of instruments of production. In
his view, humans of the first period, Stone Age, made their instruments
of production from stone, wood and bones. The next stage, which
included of the use of metal, was known as the Bronze Age. The third was
Iron Age, which continues to the day. This was an appropriate method to
judge the status of development, as means of production determine
human relations and societal structure.
The status of primitive human societies in the current age is akin to that
of ice age animals to modern ones. Most of the societies did not adapt to
changing conditions and disappeared like ancient animals did. But the
study of remnants, existing in parts of Americas, Africa and South East
Asia, indicate the mode of living of prehistoric man. Depending upon
varying physical and geographic conditions, some subsist on wild fruit and
vegetation, other are meat eaters, even man eaters, and still others keep
animals and practice primitive agriculture. Some tribes are patriarchal,
others matriarchal, some monogamous, others polygamous, or
polyandrous. Most believe in magic and other superstitions. A few go
around naked; others cover up with leaves and bark. They use stone,
wood or bone equipment, and live the life of primitive socialism.
Humans have existed as such on this earth, for 1.6 million years, but
anthropologic research indicates that they have always lived a communal
life in units ranging from a family to a tribe or larger groups.
Interdependence led to social consciousness.

Human innovations and inventions like language, use of iron, agriculture,

poetry, music and craft do not have an individual inventor and have, of
necessity, been the result of collective efforts. The skills developed out of
collective needs and desires.

Primitive society worked on the principles of ‘primitive’ communism.

Arguably the oldest such tribe is the Tasaday, a group of 100 people
‘discovered’ in 1961, in the hills of Mindau Island of the Philippines. The
area is covered with dense trees and vegetation and is difficult of access.
They still live in the Stone Age. Their homestead is a 50ft wide and 30 ft
deep cave, and they subsist on coconut and bamboo shoots. They have
no agriculture, keep no animals, and have never eaten rice, wheat,
maize, and are not aware of salt, sugar or tobacco. Though they live on
an island, yet have never seen the sea.

They are entirely passive, don’t have any arms, and their vocabulary does
nor words for enemy, war, murder or evil. They have one word for good
and beautiful which sounds like ‘mafion’. They do not follow any religion,
and for art and craft, they have a bamboo musical instrument called
“kobung”. They procure food together and though they have family units
of parents and unmarried children, yet all live together. They take joint
decisions, and women and men have equal rights.

They are healthy, of short stature, and do not suffer from tuberculosis,
malaria or dental problems (Time Magazine, NY 10/18/1971 and
6/30/1975). Another primitive tribe is Wemang in Malayan forests and
hills. They live in groups of 20-30, with huts spread over a wide area, and
subsist on fruits and vegetation. They do have bow and arrow with which
they use to hunt birds, squirrels and rats.

Several such tribes live in Americas as well. One called ‘Paiute’ live in
tents and subsist on hunting and after a good hunting expedition, they
celebrate with song and dance. Another Yokut lives in California. Ten to
twelve families live together in big halls. After marriage, the husband
moves with the wife’s family. Black foot live on Canadian-American
border, hunting buffalo is their livelihood. They don’t have chiefs but
listen to the health and shrewd members of the tribe.

In Columbia, South America, a tribe of fishermen by the name of Nootka

live on river banks live together in groups of 100 in huts built collectively.
Before the Russian revolution a tribe named Yokaghir lived in Siberia.
They hunted reindeer and lived together.

In Nigeria, two tribes Yoruba and Boloki number about 2 million. They
hunt and keep animals. Women do farming and make utensils. Land is
joint property and may not be sold or bought. Men hunt and look after
animals. The tribal chief is called Alorfin. If he gets sick, he commits
suicide. If the tribe no longer wants him as chief, they harass him so
much that he either runs away or commits suicide.

Eskimos, who live in snow laden plains of Canada and Finland, are the
most known practitioners of primitive communism. Though the tribes live
hundreds of miles apart, they have strikingly similarities in language and
culture. They are no more than about 55,000 and live on Seal and Beers
hunting. They wear skin garments, live in skin tents or underground
homes, do know the use of fire, but eat raw meat. They breed dogs and
Reindeers, and their sledges are pulled by reindeers too.

They do not have permanent chiefs of the tribe, but seek guidance from
the intelligent and experienced among them. All property is jointly owned
(Columbia Encyclopedia 1968, 670). Greed and selfishness are deemed
the biggest failings.

Stone Age tribes live in the Indo-Pak subcontinent too. There are the
Gond, Bheel, Santhal, Khasi, Mong and Pondae. They rub stones to get
spark of fire, some do no farming, and live on fish and animal husbandry.
Up to the first two decades of the 20th CE, people in the Frontier
redistributed tribal land every 30 years.

An American Humanities professor spent many years in the 1950s among

the Marri tribes of the Baluchistan. He published a book “The Social
System of the Marri Baloch”. They live in small villages; every member of
the tribe has equal rights on grazing grounds, water wells and streams. In
some sections of the tribe, the land was still a joint holding, and it was
redistributed every 15-20 years among all the males.

Gypsies of the area are called Panda, the tribal chief is called Hilk Waja,
and his wife is called Waja. They have a tent, called IIaq assigned to
guests, and share all material belongings and produce of the land, and
proceeds of the sale of animals and crops. They have a common kitchen,
eat together and live like an extended family.

The idea of this discussion is not to idealize primitive communism but the
inference that definitely be drawn is that private ownership of means of
production is not an eternal or sacred code of life, but is a product of
division of labor for which there was little scope in primitive communism.

Without division of labor, it was not possible to increase production.

Development of society and increased demand due to increase of
population necessitated division of labor. The inner contradictions of the
primitive communist society also required transformation of means of
production to private ownership.

Now the inner contradictions of the society are so deep, that without
reversion to social ownership of the means of production, these
contradictions can not be resolved nor can the human society develop
further.

Advertisements
 REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

 Twitter  Facebook  Reddit

Like

Be the first to like this.

Related

Marx Shrugged: A biography of Study of Marxism

Introduction Friedrich Engels In "Communist
In "Communist In "Communist Movement"
Movement" Movement"

This entry was posted on June 9, 2009 at 7:18 am and is filed under Books &
Authors, Marxism with tags Balochistan, Communism, Darwin, Engels,
History, Karl Marx, Moore, Moosa se Marx Tak, primitive communism,
Progressive Writers Association, Socialism, Syed Sibte Hasan. You can follow
any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Moosa Sai Marx Tak (From Moses

to Marx)”
kazimalam Says:
June 9, 2009 at 9:48 am

Moosa Se Marx Tak is a classic book — a concise account of the

development of socialist theory over centuries. Sibte Hasan wrote it in an
exemplary language. I congratulate Syed Ehtisham for translating its first
chapter into English — and hope more chapters will follow.

Note for Umer: Please correct the spelling of the translator’s name in the
post.

Reply

From Moses To Marx – A Tribute To The Great Sibte-

Hassan « Pak Tea House Says:
August 12, 2009 at 11:08 am

[…] FROM THE RED DIARY […]

Reply
 Leave a Reply

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more,Create
including
a free how to or
website control
blog atcookies, see here: Cookie Policy
WordPress.com.

Close and accept