Dialectical Materialism and Democracy

Social advancement is the triadic blending of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

When a particular theory or thesis loses its competence and power to effect the collective welfare, an antithesis is created against the prevalent theory.

As a result of clash and cohesion between these two opposing forces a resultant is created, and this resultant is called synthesis.

Is it true that the welfare of society is only possible in the stage of synthesis?

When those who have the duty and responsibility for materializing social welfare neglect minorities or the people in general, the synthesis of a particular age transforms itself into the thesis of the next age.

The underlying principles that are relevant to the question of social justice are: the universe is a moving phenomenon, like a moving panorama; everything in this empirical world has its roots in relativity.

Everything is moving within the orbit of time, space and person.

In the stage of synthesis, a particular social, economic and political theory may be beneficial in a particular place or to a particular group.

But this is no guarantee that the same theory will prove equally beneficial with changes in time, space and person.

In changed circumstances, oppressed people put up an antithesis against the synthesis of that period.

Numerical majority and physical might are not the sole prerequisites for the emergence of an antithesis.

If the oppressed are an intellectual group, then no matter how few their numbers, they can put up an antithesis.

As soon as the antithesis is created the former ideology ceases to be a synthesis. It becomes the thesis in the next phase.

So, in the second phase, an antithesis will again emerge against that very thesis. In this phase, as long as a synthesis does not emerge, unabated struggle will continue.

Theoretically, synthesis is not the absolute factor, the final clash or the last word, for thesis, antithesis and synthesis take place within the bounds of relativity.

According to PROUT, changes take place in a cyclic order.

In some past era, the toiling masses were dominant.

Back then, there was no human society or civilization. Even the concept of the family was almost non-existent.

Such a period was called the Shúdra era.

After this Shúdra era came the Kśatriya era, or the age of the warriors.

As a result of clash and cohesion, the dawn of the Vipra era became discernible on the horizon of the social cycle.

When the warriors, those with Herculean strength, started ignoring and hurting the sentiments of the Vipras or intellectuals, the Vipras evolved an antithesis against the thesis of the Kśatriya era out of vindictiveness and revenge.

But the saga of exploitation and suffering knew no end.

When the Vipras started an offensive against the bourgeois class, the dissatisfied and disgruntled bourgeoisie launched a crusade against the thesis of the Vipra age.

When the once disgruntled classes began to engage in exploitation, profiteering and black marketeering, thriving off the life blood of others, then the exploited, oppressed and rebellious people started a bloody revolution for the destruction of the bourgeois class.

Such movement of the social cycle will never cease, will never stop. Sadvipras or spiritual revolutionaries will inspire and mobilize the crusading human spirit against barbarity, injustice and rapacity and help accelerate the speed of antithetical social movement.

Afterwards, during the stage of synthesis, they will take the leadership of society into their own hands.

If proper adjustments are maintained with time, space and person, the Sadvipra inspired synthetic age will be permanent.

In a society governed and administered by these Sadvipras, the synthetic structure of society will remain intact, although different eras may come and go.

The Shúdra era will come but there will be no exploitation by the Shúdras. The Kśatriya era will come, but exploitation by the Kśatriyas will not be possible because of the synthetic order prevailing in society.

Only Sadvipras can constantly maintain proper adjustment with time, space and person.

Those who propagate materialist philosophies, but are are morally and spiritually conscious, are quite incapable of constantly maintaining such proper adjustments, for all changes take place within the purview of relativity.

Those who have accepted the Supreme Entity as their goal – those who really believe in universal humanism and reflect universalism in the fullest measure – are alone capable of constantly maintaining proper adjustment, for under the influence of a spiritual ideal their temperaments become great and benevolent.

Due to their benevolent idealism and mental development they naturally look upon all with love and affection. They can never do any injustice in any particular era or to an particular individual.

Sadvipra society is both the aspiration and demand of oppressed humanity; dialectical materialism is fundamentally wrong and defective.

In all countries and at all times, Sadvipras must wait until the emergence of an antithesis against any particular thesis.

So long as an antithesis has not evolved, Sadvipras will go on working throughout the world to bring about the psychological background for the antithesis of the next phase.

The moment the auspicious dawn of renaissance or synthesis comes, Sadvipras will take the reins of the leadership of society into their own hands.

The welfare of society is not possible through dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism may be suitable and appropriate for the well-being of human society in a certain age, but in the very next era it may prove to be a brutal instrument of exploitation and destruction.

Prout is the only solution, for it recognizes and accepts the necessity of changes in time, space and person. It will go on constantly maintaining ratio.

The policies and programmes of Prout formulated for a particular era, for a particular place and for particular people will not remain fixed in new conditions and will adjust with changes in time, space and person. Such are the fundamental principles advocated by Prout.

Thus, dialectical materialism cannot do any good for human society and may only have some use for a particular era, time or person.

Demoracy

Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people.

After the Shúdra era power passed into the hands of tribal chiefs. In time, the clan leaders became feudal kings.

The theory of democracy was born out of feelings of revolt against the tyranny of the monarchy exercised by these feudal kings.

The history of democracy is very ancient. It originated during the Licchavii Dynasty in ancient India. Being so ancient, it is not surprising that democracy has some defects.

In a democracy, do people have the requisite education and consciousness to judge what is right or what is wrong, what they should do or what they should not do?

Does the power of understanding and judgement come as soon as one attains a prescribed age?

Is age the yardstick of wisdom and education?

Alas, this happens to be the accepted fact!

If those who talk big about the democratic system read the history of the Licchavii Royal Dynasty they would learn that in those days not everyone had voting rights.

Only the Licchavii leaders, not the people in general, could exercise and enjoy adult franchise.