About Socialism
Of all the fundamental factors on which socialism depends, the cooperative system is an important one. Unless the cooperatives come under the management of honest citizens, they cannot stand, and socialism will not succeed. So unless the moral, religious and educational standard of a large portion of the population is very high, we cannot expect to have truly able men and women as representatives, ministers, or directors of cooperatives. The dishonest managers or directors of the cooperative institutions will steal money, and the dishonest ministers will indirectly support the theft. If such malpractices continue, no cooperative institutions can be moulded, nor will true socialism ever see the light of day.
(P.R. SARKAR, Human Society II, 132)
Democratic Change
Revolution means a great change. In order to bring about such a change it is not inevitable that there will be killing and bloodshed. If the kśatriya-minded vikśubdha shúdras are in the majority, or are most influential, however, the revolution will indeed come about through bloody clashes. It cannot be unequivocally stated that a revolution can never be brought about through intellectual clash, without bloodshed – it is possible, if there are a large number of influential vipra-minded shúdras among the vikśubdha shúdras. But we cannot have much hope that this will be the case; so it has to be said that the liberation of the people generally involves bloodshed.
Some people claim that they will be able to bring about socialism or communism or the liberation of the people through democratic methods. Generally speaking, a welfare state is based on the same principles. They often say that England, France and some other democratic countries are progressing towards socialism. But I would ask, what is the use of tortoise-like progress such as this? Many countries which do not follow a democratic system have brought about the welfare of their population with greater speed than has Great Britain within a democratic structure, over a period of hundreds of years. In this situation speed is the most important factor.
Countries that exploited their colonies used to make efforts to promote the welfare of their population within the democratic structure, but if they had wanted to contribute to social welfare and had stayed outside the democratic framework, preferring instead the path of shúdra revolution, they would have progressed faster, and without exploiting any colonies. In fact, in a democratic structure the people´s progress is very slow. It cannot be called revolution; rather it is evolution, that is, gradual change.
If undeveloped countries avoid the path of revolution and choose the path of slow change, or deliberately ignore the defects in democratic socialism or in the concept of a welfare state, the welfare of their people will never be anything but castles in the air. In order to secure votes in a democratic structure, the assistance of thieves, thugs and other antisocial elements is required. These antisocial elements certainly do not support candidates selflessly. They expect that when their candidate becomes a minister he or she will then turn a blind eye to the antisocial behaviour of their supporters.
One of the most important basic features of socialism is cooperative bodies. Cooperative bodies cannot survive unless the state administration is run by honest citizens. Similarly, a socialistic state cannot survive unless the cooperative organizations are run by honest citizens. Hence if the public does not have a very high moral, spiritual and educational standard (an average standard or above average standard will not suffice), we cannot expect to find worthy people as representatives, as ministers, or as directors of cooperative bodies. Dishonest directors of cooperative institutions will steal money; dishonest ministers will indirectly support such activities; and weak-minded ministers will deliberately avoid looking into those activities out of fear of losing their ministerships, or in hopes of securing votes in the future. If such abuses continue, it will never be possible to build up cooperative institutions, corruption will never be flushed out of the courts and secretariats, and socialism will never be established.
It is extremely difficult, although not totally impossible, to attain the high moral standard necessary to establish socialism within a democratic structure. Thus while democratic socialism is theoretically not bad, we cannot hope that it will ever be possible in the real world.
(P.R. SAKRAR Shúdra Revolution and Sadvipra Society 1967)
Revolution means a great change. In order to bring about such a change it is not inevitable that there will be killing and bloodshed. If the kśatriya-minded vikśubdha shúdras are in the majority, or are most influential, however, the revolution will indeed come about through bloody clashes. It cannot be unequivocally stated that a revolution can never be brought about through intellectual clash, without bloodshed – it is possible, if there are a large number of influential vipra-minded shúdras among the vikśubdha shúdras. But we cannot have much hope that this will be the case; so it has to be said that the liberation of the people generally involves bloodshed.
Some people claim that they will be able to bring about socialism or communism or the liberation of the people through democratic methods. Generally speaking, a welfare state is based on the same principles. They often say that England, France and some other democratic countries are progressing towards socialism. But I would ask, what is the use of tortoise-like progress such as this? Many countries which do not follow a democratic system have brought about the welfare of their population with greater speed than has Great Britain within a democratic structure, over a period of hundreds of years. In this situation speed is the most important factor.
Countries that exploited their colonies used to make efforts to promote the welfare of their population within the democratic structure, but if they had wanted to contribute to social welfare and had stayed outside the democratic framework, preferring instead the path of shúdra revolution, they would have progressed faster, and without exploiting any colonies. In fact, in a democratic structure the people´s progress is very slow. It cannot be called revolution; rather it is evolution, that is, gradual change.
If undeveloped countries avoid the path of revolution and choose the path of slow change, or deliberately ignore the defects in democratic socialism or in the concept of a welfare state, the welfare of their people will never be anything but castles in the air. In order to secure votes in a democratic structure, the assistance of thieves, thugs and other antisocial elements is required. These antisocial elements certainly do not support candidates selflessly. They expect that when their candidate becomes a minister he or she will then turn a blind eye to the antisocial behaviour of their supporters.
One of the most important basic features of socialism is cooperative bodies. Cooperative bodies cannot survive unless the state administration is run by honest citizens. Similarly, a socialistic state cannot survive unless the cooperative organizations are run by honest citizens. Hence if the public does not have a very high moral, spiritual and educational standard (an average standard or above average standard will not suffice), we cannot expect to find worthy people as representatives, as ministers, or as directors of cooperative bodies. Dishonest directors of cooperative institutions will steal money; dishonest ministers will indirectly support such activities; and weak-minded ministers will deliberately avoid looking into those activities out of fear of losing their ministerships, or in hopes of securing votes in the future. If such abuses continue, it will never be possible to build up cooperative institutions, corruption will never be flushed out of the courts and secretariats, and socialism will never be established.
It is extremely difficult, although not totally impossible, to attain the high moral standard necessary to establish socialism within a democratic structure. Thus while democratic socialism is theoretically not bad, we cannot hope that it will ever be possible in the real world.
(P.R. SAKRAR Shúdra Revolution and Sadvipra Society 1967)
(P.R. SARKAR, Human Society II, 132)
P.R. SARKAR, 19 October 1959, Jamalpur - Discourses on Prout
Obstacles to Revolution
Besides this type of mentality, national and religious traditions also often thwart revolution. It is extremely difficult for kśatriya- and vipra-minded shúdras to go against such traditions, let alone shúdra-minded shúdras. People become averse to revolution due to the following ideas: “Whatever is fated will happen; does fighting accomplish anything?”; “Our days are somehow passing by, so why should we trouble ourselves?”; or incorrect interpretations of the niśkáma karmaváda [doctrine of desireless action] of the Giitá or other scriptures.
In fact, a subtle analysis will reveal that the policy of establishing a welfare state on a democratic base is also an obstacle to revolution; as are the ideals of Gandhism and the high-sounding theory of democratic socialism.
The Bhúdán movement is also a reactionary movement in this way. Although I have high regard for the founders of Gandhism and the Bhúdán movement – as men they are second to none – their philosophies are extremely harmful for poor people.
Some of the philosophical interpretations of janmántaraváda [the doctrine of transmigration of souls, or reincarnation] also oppose revolution; that is, they argue, “You are starving in this life because you committed many sins in your last life, so what is the point of launching a movement? Destiny cannot be changed.”
That is why I have said that kśatriya- and vipra-minded shúdras will bring about the people�s revolution. For this, these shúdras will have to be thoroughly prepared, suffer a lot and make great sacrifices. They will have to fight against opposing groups and doctrines.
P.R. SARKAR Shúdra Revolution and Sadvipra Society 1967
