Vedanta and Communism

Communism and Vedanta are poles apart, nay so antithetical, that a comparison between them appears inconceivable. One is regarded as a godless ideology and the other an intensely monistic creed; one is scientific and material and the other mystical and spiritual.

The seeming gulf between the two is due to the cleavage in their philosophic bases, between dialectical materialism on the one hand, and spiritual endeavour on the other. But modern science has bridged the gulf. Matter has ceased to be, in the ultimate analysis, a final permanent entity; it is just a form of energy. In spite of the vast progress in human knowledge, we are today acutely conscious of our appalling ignorance of the processes of the Universe, which impress us with their mysteriousness. The pure scientist is increasingly tending to be a mystic.

At the same time, from the practical standpoint, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Communism and the spiritual outlook. The Red Dean of Canterbury is a fervent Communist without ceasing to be a devout Christian. Nor are mysticism and the scientific outlook mutually incompatible. Sri Aurobindo was deeply spiritual and yet scientific.

In fact, on closer observation, we would find a certain identity in the objectives of Communism and Vedanta. The former aims at establishing an egaltarian society. Inequality arises from unequal distribution of wealth, leading to a class ridden society of haves and have-nots, and exploitation. This it seeks to eliminate, immediately, by collectivising the ownership and control of the means of production and eventually by organising society on the principle: “To each according to his need and from each according to his capacity.” This necessarily implies a submerging of individual personality in the mass consciousness.

Vedanta, on the other hand, emphasises the oneness of all life, animate as well as inanimate. It emphasises the ephemeral character and the consequent unreality of individual personality. Based on this philosophy of unity of existence, it inculcates an active morality of seeking in the good of all one’s own good, in feeling sympathetic pain in another’s suffering. By emphasizing the unreality of the material world, it arouses the consciousness of the futility of accumulating temporal goods, and cultivates detachment. Psychologically the cause of unhappiness is non-fulfillment of desires, collectively designated as trishna. Vedanta seeks to cure it by teaching renunciation and the having of as few desires as possible. Possessed with this outlook, the Vedantist has no self-consciousness or ego; he is just an amsaor part of the Universal Consciousness like any other individual or entity. To take according to his bare minimum needs and to give according to his capacity is an article of faith with him. He is incapable of exploiting anyone because he cannot be actuated by any profit motive inasmuch as, for him, there is neither any enduring self to enjoy nor any enduring gain to be obtained. The suffering inherent in exploitation is bound to pain him and arouse his compassion, as the exploited is no other than his own self. Inequality of wealth cannot arise because it is against his grain to accumulate wealth.

It would be evident from the foregoing that Communism seeks to find a solution of the world’s ills through a reconstruction of the economic structure of society without attempting to change the individual, who will continue to be no less fiercely acquisitive and selfish than a member of the capitalist set-up. It is not a part of his creed that he should voluntarily surrender his acquisitions, even when in excess of his needs, for the benefit of fellow human beings. He is not taught to limit the range of his desires. On the other hand, his ideal is to attain a better standard of living through satisfaction of a maximum number of desires, for which possession of material means is indispensable. Only, society is to be so organised as to prevent the individual from gaining control of the means of production and thereby exploiting others. There is thus in a Communist society a lack of harmony between the selfish purposes of the individual and the social purposes of the group. There is invariably a conflict between the State and the citizen, between the collective interests of society and the selfish interests of its units. The inevitable consequence is a constant state of tension and distrust and instability, which necessitates the use of force and violence by the State to curb selfish activity. That explains why the collectivisation of agriculture in Russia had to be carried out in blood.

Another important problem arising out of the cleavage between the social philosophy of the Communist group–from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs–and the selfish and material outlook of its individuals arising from the lack of belief in the spiritual unity of life, is that of incentives. While wants are infinite, capacity is limited. So long as man continues to be selfish, to consider himself as distinct from his fellow beings, he will not do any labour, the fruits of which would be enjoyed by someone else, particularly when “much necessary work must always remain disagreeable or at least painfully monotonous.”¹ The Communists recognise that even the wage system of equal pay for nominally equal work–which is distinctly short of the ideal of remuneration according to needs–was one of the main causes of low productivity of labour in the First Five Year Plan ofRussia. It bred inefficiency as it failed to distinguish between the good and the bad worker. The principle of differential remuneration depending on the quality and quantity of work done had to be accepted in the Second Five Year Plan as the indispensable incentive to productivity. And when each individual is guaranteed or assured by the State a distribution of wealth according to his needs, disinclination to labour in excess of the quantum necessary to escape the wrath ofthe State would be reinforced and the spur of self-interest would be weakened.

Marx had also predicted that when all class distinctions had been abolished, the State will wither away. If this were realized in the absence of external coercive authority and inner discipline, the tendency to shirk work and to appropriate the maximum for oneself will become more pronounced and threaten the foundations of the Communist Society. Rigid control of individual conduct becomes an unavoidable necessity if the instincts for power and possession are not sublimated. That is why we see the paradox of the State in a communistically organised society becoming highly centralised and powerful, and the hope that “the individual will become free if the State became the sole capitalist” ever remaining unfulfilled.

The Vedantist, however, seeks to achieve his ends by a reconstruction of society through reconstruction of the individual. Here is perfect identity in the interests of the group and its units. In all his activity, the individual is buoyed up bythe belief that, in serving others, he is serving himself. There is no conflict between wants and capacity because his needs are severely limited, while, at the same time, it is a cardinal principle with him to put forth his maximum effort, of his own volition. This automatically secures harmony between society and its units.

Ineffectiveness of spiritual beliefs among large masses of men, in spite of the fact that they zealously profess their religion, is a glaring fact. Vast numbers of men profess to be good Christians, Buddhists or Hindus, and yet, in their conduct towards their fellow beings, the professions are thrown to the winds. It must be recognised that human passions, the desire for power, the acquisitive instinct and, above all, human selfishness, are so powerful that even those most deeply imbued with the Vedantic faith fall prey to them. That is why the Buddha considered Ego as the greatest enemy against which he so vehemently and relentlessly discoursed. It is, therefore, desirable that society should be so organised as to serve as an insurance against men falling away from their path, or unscrupulous individuals flourishing at the expense of true Vedantists. In this context, the economic reorganisation of society on Communist lines–collective ownership of the means of production–is necessary. Communism without a philosophic discipline would, therefore, prove an unstable organisation given to violence and lacking the zealous support of its members. Likewise, a ‘Vedantic Society’ without favourable economic milieu, is likely to prove inane and sure to wither away by the blasts of deep rooted human selfishness. Salvation lies only in the integration of the two–of Communist economic organisation with Vedantic philosophy.

¹ Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom, p. 113.