Religion is a unique human need. It is denounced from the right as a tool of the “weak” to extract maximum and, as argued by Nietzsche, undeserved advantage over the “strong”.1Â It is also denounced from the left; Lenin called organized religion an opiate of the masses. I politely disagree with both the eminent gentlemen mentioned above (though if forced to choose, Nietzsche makes a better case). This is not to deny that organized religion has never been abused. And, as is abundantly clear from the Soviet experiment, organized atheism is no friend of socialism either. I believe that I can be a devout Muslim or Christian or be an agnostic or an atheist and still believe in the simple philosophy of socialism.
In the era of communist Soviet Union, atheism became a pre-requisite of socialism, which itself became synonymous with Soviet style communism. This, I believe, was brought about by a concerted effort by the United States and its allies to equate socialism to godlessness2 and to the communist regime in Russia. Though how in the World anybody can associate Stalinism, with all its horrors, to be a regime of, for and by the working people is beyond me. This is precisely the reason that I do not hold in high esteem those socialists who defend Stalin and his policies. In my opinion, they are extremists; for extremists can be religious, secular or socialists. If Faiz belonged to that group of people then one cannot possibly support his political tendencies. But that of course does not detract from his status as, arguably, the best poet Urdu has seen to date. Clearly, the passion he felt for the “people” was genuine and the legacy he left will make sure that the pain he felt will be shared by the future generations.
Now on to how socialism (also known as workers’ rights or simply people’s rights) has been understood since well before the time that the Bolsheviks hijacked the workers’ revolution in Russia3 and turned it into one of the ugliest episodes in human history. Socialism is about drawing the boundary below which no human being should be allowed to slip. Socialism is not necessarily anti-rich, or against private ownership. It argues that every human being has some fundamental rights and it is the duty of society to provide these basic rights.4 So, why is implementing a principle, which seems so innocuous, so self-evident, is so difficult to achieve in the real World? Why do abject poverty and hunger exist right next to all the opulence? Why doesn’t society5 step in and to save the hungry, the ill and the dispossessed, when it clearly possesses the means to do so?
The answer lies in the power structure.6 The US constitution was setup by landowning White males to safeguard their interests. Did the founding fathers intend to give equal rights to the American Indian, the Black slave or even to the working White? No, no and no – the American system is designed to make sure that the interests of the upper class are defended by legislation (only rich people can get elected in Congress) and by the judicial process.7 In Pakistan, a far more blatant and insidious process is still at work. The large landowners keep their subjects in virtual bondage. These workers can never possibly get elected to even the kangaroo assemblies and courts of Pakistan. In the grips of this relentless system, should the “people” demand their rights? If the system is biased to the extent that justice is impossible, should the people take matters into their own hands? Do national interests and patriotic pride mean anything if one’s child is starving?
I’ll end by quoting a verse from the poet Shelley:
Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many – they are few.
________________________________
References and notes:
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, A Genealogy of Morals.
2 The phrase “One nation, under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance in that era.
3 Noam Chomsky, The Indispensable Chomsky.
4 It is irrelevant to this argument as to what these rights should be.
5 The word government would be a natural extrapolation of “society” but I prefer to use the more general term.
6 I will use the United States and Pakistan as examples – as these are the countries with which I am most familiar.
7 Among others see Howard Zinn’s “Peoples’ History of the United States”.
