Continued from Previous Page

Even in feminism, feminism of the working class, feminism of the middle class and the intellectuals have been continuing in two special ways. Feminists have been proving and confirming for several decades that Marxism is basically a theory and practice dominated by patriarchal ideologies. By not considering women’s labor, labor power, and production in discussions of the added value of capital labor capitalism and economics in Marxism remained half a science. It can be said according to the formulation of feminists that it has become a half-truth. Moreover, science, technology, achievements of scientists, inventions, gains and benefits achieved with management skills are basically the added value of the working class in Marxism. This is a misconception. From this mistaken opinion, since everything is the creation of the workers and everything should belong to the workers, they came to the formulation of a labor dictatorship. In fact, the industrial revolution was accelerated by the inventions made by scientists. As innovations have been made in many fields, many ranks and categories like engineers, scientists, workers, managers have been increasing in the construction of systems in all fields.

The discovery of electricity, the discovery of radio waves, the discovery of photography, and the discovery of cinema led millions of people to new fields. These are all different, skilled services, industries and marketing approaches than the textile mill workers who came first. The labor power of the ploughmen is greater with plough shares. The labor force of those who dig and plough with tractor and JCB is less. The result is more. All this result is not the result of the worker; it has a great contribution from the inventions of scientists. This is called intellectual property in recent times. All the inventions of science and technology belong to the entire humanity. Therefore, having created enough wealth for the employment of workers and the development of living standards, the rest of the surplus value and surplus wealth should belong to the human society. The same is the contribution of experts and scientists. Therefore, the argument that all the wealth is only created by workers is invalid. The argument of working-class dictatorship based on it is also invalid. It can be seen here that if a company runs in profits, it is due to the workers and if there is a loss, it is due to the lack of ownership. It is something like the profit is mine and the loss is yours. The importance of management skills is evident here. 

Earlier, Brahmins were respected as Bhusuras, equal to God, as God is Mantradhinam, Mantra is Brahmandhinam, Brahman is Mamadevata. Society is led by the working-class leadership. Working class consciousness is working class leadership. Therefore, the working-class party is defined as the working class as Brahman or Mamadevata.  They said that there is no working-class revolution without a working-class party. In this way, the party is said to be the working class as the Brahmin and God have become heroes in a logical order.

So, what is the need to bring the real working class into leadership? Whoever comes from Marxism mantras become Marxists, working class and working-class leadership, just as the Brahmin who got the mantras through Marxism ideology, consciousness and practice becomes equal to God and God. The roots of the educated, petty- bourgeois people coming from the rich classes and the upper castes to talk that they are the working class and that they are the leadership of the working class are in the formulation that God is mantra, mantra is Brahman, Brahman is Mother Goddess. Therefore, Lenin’s definition of the working-class party and its workers has become the principle of God’s control. It is because of this formulation that no matter what class they come from, no matter what kind of life they lead, Marxist mantras come, so they are all worshiped as Marxist gods. Party supremacy should be in all spheres, centralized democratic leadership i.e. Brahmin or Mama Deva, as the unquestionable supreme authority that dictates, defines and defines various and they feel a level of dominance in nests and compartments. They command others to submit to it and respect their status. Herein lies the roots of the arrogant display of Marxists’ ideological discourse. These are related to landlordism, thought policing and police third degrees. They are said to have changed the form and essence of Marxism. But their form and essence are hegemony. A place that alienates all but is not separate.

In Lenin’s book ‘Revolutionary Revolution’, when the question of what to do with the existing government employees after the revolution came, it was said that they should be trained in the Bolshevik spirit. I must have read the book ‘Kingdom Revolution’ at least 50 times. Even after the revolution, they are the employees, they are the teachers, they are in all the fields, then what did the people do the revolution for, just to come to power in the name of the party leaders and the working class? I thought so. Why leave the government job and do movements. I thought seriously. Is it only few people who understood this ‘Rajyam Viplavam’ book so deeply. It is not easy to understand. Those who leave their existing jobs and work at lower levels without any leadership can understand its pain and suffering. Noting the error in Lenin’s opinion, I wrote an article that when the revolution came in Nepal, everyone who worked in the revolution should be given government jobs, policemen, soldiers, and laborers and given skills training in all fields. Why did Lenin make that formulation? The reason why he did it was that he also came from such educated and intellectual class. So, he made such a suggestion. If he came from the working class, the first generation of educated people, if he came from the first generation of intellectuals, there was no possibility of making that formulation.

Priority was given to making new generations, from new generations, leaving aside the existing employees and teachers. The Bolsheviks encouraged the old to take voluntary retirement and work in other areas of life and leisure. Because Lenin did not come from the working class, he came from the educated and intelligentsia, after the revolution, he spoke of the dictatorship of the working class, neglected the workers, prioritized the educated and intellectuals in the fields that were available at that time, led the story, and took up new structures. In the same order, as two generations passed, they pushed the working class back and rose into all fields as capitalists, bureaucrats, politicians, and working-class leaders, and eventually the workers removed the feelings of priority and dominance and came back to a mixed economy in the name of public welfare. This is how the middle-class intellectuals came to power. Over time, the working classes pushed it back and established their state power. This is what happened in China, even through Mao. It is strange that Mao insists that there is no class in itself, class for others. Because philanthropy in China and Asian countries, Buddhism and other religions also promoted philanthropy as a great human value.  Mao, who came from such a heritage, said that there is no class for others. In other words, Mao also turned the revolution in favor of the interests of the middle class educated and intellectuals and established their leadership.

Mao said a great thing. He said that in order to mobilize a movement to change a village one must study hundred years of history. But the three generations of those who circulate as this working class are brothers, sisters, blood relations, friendship relations, attachments, classmates, colleagues, etc. are kept hidden. They take care. In this way, they hide all the factors that affect their class nature and try to look like working class consciousness.

How to declass from that class and to what extent it happened to decast?   So, what should be checked to certify as decast and declassed? Who should check? Are they from the same petty- bourgeois section who beat their own cans by calling themselves the working class and Marxists? 

Or the ones those in agricultural and cottage industry societies for centuries, in the forces of production, or the owners of that day? Or the working-class activists from the classes of producers, servants, the oppressed and the ruling classes? Who should check?

At present, for decades in India, the educated petty bourgeoisie, rich farmers, landlords, and those from the middle class have been dominant as the leadership of the working class, and they themselves have been deciding who is the working-class consciousness, who is decast and declassed, and what it means to be decast and declassed.  In this way, those who came from the sections that have experienced the lion’s share in the domination of the petty-bourgeoisie, royalist, agrarian societies, cottage industries and production relations continue to circulate as the working class and as the leadership of Marxism. In this way, the real working class, the real rulers and the oppressed classes are being prevented from growing into the leadership of the working class by standing in the way and closing the doors. Something like when you cannot ask someone to leave, create a situation that is untenable for them to stay. Whatever they say, they insist that it is alien ideology, empiricism, and self-centeredness. That is why they are excelling in other fields except working class consciousness organizations and movements and are not being allowed to grow as the leaders of the working class who direct those fields except as flag bearers and activists.

Since the time of Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phule, for 160 years, there have been continuous movements with the consciousness of the working class. In literature, in stories, in novels, in films, neither the level of those movements nor the level of leadership of the Left camp parties that led them were depicted. Why did this happen? If all the left- wing writers like Prem Chand and Kishan Chander wrote about the working-class people, why are they not seen in literature, art and cinema? Stories and novels about Singareni coal mine workers did not come into light until the workers themselves became conscious and wrote about the working class themselves.

No matter how much those coming from upper caste petty bourgeoisie say that they are working class consciousness, their roots and limitations are in the class related to the caste they were born and brought up in, the job they are currently working in, the life they are experiencing and living. That is why, instead of writing about the workers, they are writing as a fiction about their friends, grandchildren, great-grand-children, daughters, neighbors, relatives and acquaintances by only responding to them. Therefore, they are Marxists in words, petty bourgeois in deeds and life. They have become a hindrance to the growth of real working-class leadership in all spheres. Therefore, it is inevitable that pro-people, true working-class consciousness should come forward in other forms by questioning and opposing those who circulate in the name of Left Camp and the left ideology that they use as their weapons.

Who are the leaders of those movements? How do they work?

How their hundreds of years of heritage class natures and developments continue?  It is inevitable to oppose the circulation of working class and Left Camp leaders without examining their roots. The more it expands, the more it means that the real working class is emerging as a working class. As much class struggle and ideological struggle is done against the petty bourgeoisie who have been dominant in the relations of production for centuries; social justice, social change and leadership position will be possible for the petty bourgeoisie who came from the production sectors, from the oppressed classes and the working class.

Kinetic Logic - Kinetic Philosophy  

Gati means motion. Kinetics is the process of intuiting and uncovering the nature of movement, mutual effects, nature, and thus changing patterns in things, society, and human relationships. The translation of kinetic logic to dialectics (is it correct, kindly check) does not give the correct meaning. Translated as ‘Gati Tattva’is correct. Teaching and sensing the motion of the respective objects is kinetic philosophy. When it is extracted from nature, it is called kinetic logical materialism, and when it examines the processes of social evolution, it is called historical materialism.

The program to bring out those movements and to implement them presently is called Marxism strategy, moves and program. Also known as Ambedkarism’s strategy, moves and programme. Kinetic logic is to find out the principles of motion and the order of evolution in an object, society, production relations and human relations. Moreover, to extract and analyze according to kinetic logic and its principles is like a juggler putting a rabbit in a hole and taking out the rabbit again saying that he changed a man into rabbit. 

This is what you thought but it is not a revelation of the contradictions in the object, the unity between the contra-dictions, their clash, evolutionary and qualitative changes.  Kinetic logic is the discovery of patterns of motion in their nature. 

Kinetics basically means to find out and extract the true nature of the object and then taking programs according to their preferences. In this calculation, the nature of the object should be seen as the same for everyone. Manifested in various ways means that the object has different sides and patterns of motion. So, they are all different aspects of that object. If all of them are combined, it is possible to know the complete sequence of motion of the object.

Metaphysics is called so, because the nature of motions and sequences in an object by breaking their interrelationships and examination.  When examined in their mutual natures, in the movement of mutual relations, in the unity of opposites, in their conflict, it is called dialectics.

For example, the Greek philosopher Zeno made a discussion. An arrow is always motionless at any given fraction of second during its journey. That is why he said that the arrow is not moving. 24 frames are fixed in a film reel. At 24 frames per second, they appear to be moving. The entire film seems to move with static frames like this. This is how Geno’s proposition that the arrow is not moving should be understood. Time is missing in this. Breaking each second apart will cause the arrow not to move. The film reel frames are not moving. This can be called metaphysics. This formulation was arrived at due to the severing of the relationship between time and space. 

It is true that the arrow moves if the relationship between the space and time is established. This is kinetic logic. i.e. understanding motion sequences.

Lenin wrote a word in his philosophical notebooks. While studying Hegel’s kinetic logic... “However, it is said that Marx wrote Capital applying Hegel’s kinetic theory to political economy. From this calculation, Lenin opined that if one reads Capital without understanding Hegel’s kinetic logic, no one will understand it after 50 years.

What did Hegel say in kinetic logic? Applying it to political economy and analyzing how Marx wrote Capital, analyzing and researching Capital, and balancing them both only would be understanding Marx and Capital.

When human relations, production relations, social and political relations, natural developments are separated from their interrelationships, they arrive at the metaphysical argument that the arrow does not move (like the frames of a movie reel). Buddha said that objects change in mutual relations. This is known as ‘Pratitya Samutpada’. Kinetic logic in Buddhism examines multiple causes and relationships rather than a single cause.

It is not Marxism to say that according to Marxism this should be done and that should be done. Those who say so are not Marxists. Engels repeated this saying over and over again. It means that such people consider motions as inert and inert.

Society is not inert. Many human relationships keep continuing. They are constantly in motion and mutually influencing each other and are changing.   When they are conceived in the order of those motions and relations, it becomes dynamism and would result into extraction of the principles of primordial motions. Engels insisted on this study.

These are fundamental elements of the dynamic philosophy of Marxism. If these are known and discovered through direct knowledge from time to time in the present, it becomes kinetic philosophy. When added with the proposition that the working class will lead to a socialist system by creating some programs accordingly, it becomes a political program of Marxism.

Investment, Labor, Value Added:

Capital, labor, surplus value is also a theory of know-ledge.  Accumulation from the past is investment. All indirect knowledge is accumulated by human society with its practice and thought. Thus, investment is the accumulation, wealth, savings of the surplus value of erstwhile labor power of human society. It participates in the creation of surplus value along with existing labor force. Labor power is the thing of present. Investment is the thing of past. Indirect knowledge is a thing of the past. Direct knowledge, direct practice is the thing of present. No new knowledge or additional knowledge can be created as ‘added value’ without the laborious effort of direct practice.

Implicit knowledge is the accumulation, investment of knowledge acquired by Society.   

It has to be said that Marx’s basic research on investment, about accumulation of past knowledge and adding it to labor power and investment is wrong if additional knowledge is not generated.  

Both physical labor and mental labor are part of physical labor. 

Therefore, the knowledge investment of the principles of social nature movement written by achieving morphism, with the accumulation of knowledge investment, using physical intellectual labor power, when practical direct knowledge is carried forward additional knowledge as value must be generated continuously.

Only then is it concluded that the labor-power of the worker is fundamental in the creation of surplus value.

Marxism is an investment of knowledge. When they work on it with their hard work and practice, additional knowledge and new knowledge will come from that hard work as an additional value.

 It should contribute its share to the reinvestment.

Many people use the word category very often. They add the word “class” and speak and write as Classes, class perspective, oppressed classes, exploited classes, working class, capitalist class, landed class. Those who limit themselves to the word class are just babbling Marxism. Those who say this is ‘wrong’ as per Marxism and ‘right’ as per Marxism are not Marxists. This is just babbling. Engels himself emphasized this point.

Marx and Engels were great human beings. They wanted the world to grow into a socialist society without exploitation. Continued with high ideals. They made some proposals from time to time in terms of strategies and moves in the design of programs. Some people focused only on these and did not study the original basic propositions. Basic propositions need to be understood following principles and theories. Marx and Engels studied German philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Fuerba in philosophy and adopted what was suitable for them.

Sublation negation:

Negation is taken from Hegel. Hegel makes two points. The first is negation, and the second is sublation. The old goes and the new comes is negation. As mentioned earlier, the old exists and new would also exist is sublation. Marx and Engels forgot to adopt this second point. A tree exists and its seeds will grow into trees again. There are grandfathers, fathers, grandmothers, grandmothers, sons, daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Four generations live together. In the evolution of nature, unlike the negation of human evolution, the old remains and the new is born and continues. Over time the tree dries up. People die. Their DNA, the DNA of the plants, continues in the form of descendants, in the form of seeds. During the period of Marx, Engels, the DNA continuum was not discovered. They preferred negation. According to Hegel, the continuation of both the old and the new can be observed in the simultaneous continuation from the tribal societies to the modern societies. Marx and Engels defined social structure as classes. In this sense, Arthasastra is restructured in “Capital”.  The tenets of arthashastra were examined and analyzed during the very strong reconstruction. 

These theories have been put into practice, and some works are being done in a new formulation. When they are put back into practice, many experiences arise. New formulations will come from them. Old ones are re-evaluated from time to time. Thus, the Soviet Union and China entered into a democratic and mixed economic system. First, they said ‘one-party dictatorship’. Everything should be under the government. It was called nationalization and socialism. Having found the mistakes and with experiences after some time, China must have put forward the slogan ‘let some people be rich first’. 

Thus, by the encouragement of private industrialists and the industrial sector of the 13 countries of the Soviet Union and China with 1.5 billion population continued democratic governance with limited democratic approach. 

Thus, they have gained many direct experiences in the administration of one-party dictatorship, one party administration and working-class dictatorship. Many new formulations were made from it. After independence, India has been following a mixed economy system in two ways, private industrial sector and government owned industrial sector.  Now 13 countries of Soviet Russia, including China, have taken a turn with these administrative systems and limited democratic systems. Some of these inexperienced Marxists who cannot accept these policies, some parties do not recognize the eriences of those countries and hold old theories and formulations as if they have more experience than them and oppose the current policies. Thus, some Marxists are not ready to accept the knowledge of direct experiences and their consequences. Thus, by wanting to keep and practice the ideas and theories said by Marx and Engels, they are changing them to the level of religion. Engels, Mao, and Marx took the basic points of Engels and molded them into National Socialists for the liberation of their nation and their people. Thus, observing the conditions in their countries, they made movements suitable for them. Those respective national movements can be called Russian national movement and Chinese national movement. For that, they adopted some points of Marx and Engels. After that, they again followed their own experiences and turned to new approaches and moved forward like that.

In 1985, Russia split into 13 countries. The campaign slogan ‘Glasnasty Peristroica’ was put forward. On the other hand, Dunkel’s proposals and the GATT agreement came forward as part of global trade and commercial agreements. The countries of the world have accepted these and following.  Starting from 1985 and starting from 1990, the countries of the world are going through the phase of globalization, privatization, liberalization (Liberalization, Privatization, Globalization - LPG). Now the whole world is following this LPG phase. Structures, agreements, activities, relations between countries like World Bank, United Nations, World Health Organization, Brexit, T-20, SAARC are continuing. ‘What are the fundamentals of Marxism at this stage?’ and ‘What are the programs?’ are to be examined separately. Many fundamental principles of Marxism are very valuable. The programs and slogans given from time to time and the formulations made in favor of it become outdated. Lenin said “Friend! Theories and formulations become outdated. The tree of life is constantly blooming green.”

Forces of production – means of production

Relations of Production – Caste Category Negotiations 

The term category is a judgment in an evolution. A commentary.  They are discussed with the terms like ‘forces of production, means of production, relations of production, labor power, investment, surplus value, relations of distribution, hegemony, alienation, exploitation’. Accordingly, while discussing the relations of production in India, Marx stated that the rural self- sustenance economy in India had continued. It continued to be the foundation of the caste system. Let me discuss this in Marxist terms.

The forces of production in India for centuries were Shudras, Atishudras and tribals. The means of production are theirs.  Production relations in the Rural Society continued as mutually self-sustaining. Varna system, caste system, karma, reincarnation theories and practices have been determining the relations of production, distribution system and its ownership. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, never took part in production. They claimed Lion’s share of should belong to them and directed that the above three varnas to be served by Shudras and Atishudras.

As the foundation of Varna caste systems…:

In this way, the caste system continues to alienate and exploit the production. So caste system, varna system, karma, reincarnation ideologies, ownership of relations of production and dominance as a practical consequence create categories. Thus, caste and caste system are the mother which creates categories out of relations of production.  And a category is its child. Thus the relationship between caste and class is the relationship between mother and child.  The caste gives birth to category.

The word class is a judgment that emerges in the final sequence of social relations and relations of production. To talk about judgment without knowing the order is to talk without knowing the subject. So those who discuss with the word ‘class’ do not know the concepts of capital, forces of production, relations of production, means of production, surplus value, distributor of production, alienation, exploitation and domination in Marxism.  It can be accepted that those who debate these terms may know some extent of Marxism. Moreover, it can be said that those who discuss with the words class and class perspective are using that word to only say what they want to say, and that they do not want real Marxism. The word ‘class’ in the discussion of caste problem, caste differences, caste discrimination, abolition of caste and relations of production means that they have no under-standing of Marxism, especially Marxist political semantics.

Therefore, those who try to preface the discussion of caste with the word class are basically those who act as if they know and do not know A, B, C and D of Marxism.

Marxism, Capital holds that the forces of production, means of production, relations of production, surplus value, distribution and alienation determine social relations. But relations of production are of two types. One is production of relations that work with nature and natural resources. The second is reproductive relationships of two human beings. Caste has been determining these two relationships for centuries. Category is a term limited only to relations of production. Caste has two meanings and has an order. Thus, caste refers to two things while category refers to only one thing. Marxism had to examine separately the reproductive relations of human beings, i.e. male and female relations, family system, child rearing, patriarchal and patriarchal social relations, and the consequences. Caste has been examining and prescribing both simultaneously. Thus, category is only an interpretation. Caste is indeed an ongoing aspect of life, practice, relations of production and relations of reproduction. It is discussed as the rich and the poor. And it is not discussed in the terminology of Marxism. The ruling class, the ruled class and the exploiting class are the way they are discussed in Marxism.

Many people who talk about caste and class say that class is important. They feel that there is no category perspective in the discussion of caste problem. Those who discuss whether it is caste or class, or those who talk about caste class society, should necessarily know how the word category is formed and in what sense it is used. 

To oppose the issue of caste, those who oppose to recognize its importance use and the term category to argue.

Fundamentals of Marxist Political Economics

    1.   Forces of production

    2.   Means of production

    3.   Production relations

    4.   Development of science and technology

    5.   Manpower

    6.   Added value

    7.   Sender, Dominion (Ownership) 

    8.   Alienation

    9.   Extortion

  10.   Kingdom

These are the basic concepts and words used by Marx and Engels in their analysis of capitalist industrial societies in the text Capital Investment. It is explained how sects are finally formed in the evolution of these. Due to the formation of sects, it was felt that class struggle was necessary. For that, they gathered the contradictions in many fields and the unity between the contradictions to support their argument. Emphasized the need for class struggle. Lenin described the unity in contradiction and the universality of contradiction as:-

    1.   +, -, Differential, Integral in Mathematics

    2.   Action in mechanics, reaction

    3.   Positive electricity, negative electricity in physics

    4.   Combination, Fission of Molecules in Chemistry

    5.   Class Struggle in Sociology 

Two contradictions are mentioned in the first four points above. It is said that in sociology there is only one aspect which is class struggle instead of two aspects. Mao also mentioned it as it is but left out the second point.

It is agreed that there is unity and conflict in conflict. According to that, in sociology there are two aspects namely unity between classes and struggle between classes. There should be both class struggle and unity of classes. The second point is not left just like that. Marxists define that all history is the history of class struggles. They were not concerned about unity among communities. History exists only if there is a class struggle. That is, wars and conflicts are history. The coexistence of human society is not history. Thus, they prioritized class struggles for co-existence and left the ultimate goal of co-existence and its priority. Some agreements are reached when workers, industrialists, after a class struggle. According to those agreements, the workers work together with the industrialists. Government employees and teachers also mobilize for their demands. They go on Strikes. Agreements are made. Both parties will accept those agreements and work together. It is an ongoing union between employer, workers and employees. Coexistence of all.  They put forward some more demands and movements for coexistence.  

Therefore, both unity and conflict exist in all spheres. Class struggle is not alone in the social sphere. If it is said so, then the fundamental formula that there are two opposites in one object becomes void.

Marxism could not apply its formulation to the social spheres itself. Neither in historical materialism nor in the struggles of the working class, apart from the class struggle, the discussion of unity between classes, their history, their evolution and their importance is not recognized. Has Ranganayakamma read such fundamentals, noticed, discussed? No.

From Marx and Engel to Mao, continued to apply the philosophical discussion about ‘Thing in Itself’, ‘Thing for itself’ to the class.  Mao vehemently argued that there is only class in itself, class for itself and no class for others.  Jean Paul Satre also said that there is being in itself and being for oneself but not being for others. Engels discusses this discussion of the possibility of an object becoming a Thing for Us.  But he never said that there will be a class for others. Buddha emphasized altruism. People like Kalidasa opined that the human body is for serving others and the body is for fulfilling of dharma. Charity should be done. But he said that it is possible only when this body is a tool.  Altruism is supreme among human values, culture and human relations. This philanthropic practice, emphasized from the Buddha to today, if translated into philosophical terms, becomes Class for Others. Class for Others is a noble practice of philanthropy and humanitarian culture. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao were not born in the working class. Did not grow as working class. Mark, Lenin and Mao belonged to the petty bourgeoisie. Engels himself was an industrialist with a textile mill. With the profits from the textile mill, Marx edited Capital and other books and published them under his editorship. By all means he extended co-operation by sheltering Birla Gandhi, the owner of a cloth mill in India.

Due to the belief of Class for Others in Marx and Engels, because of humane values of helping others, culture and practice of philanthropy, they stood on the side of the working class which was not theirs and worked hard for them. This is not possible without class for others and philanthropy. 

Lenin’s formula that if someone works with working class consciousness, they can become working class is also possible through the practice of class for others and philanthropy. Otherwise, there is no chance for anyone else to circulate as a working class except the workers. Did Ranganayakamma discuss class in itself, class for self, class for others? Did she know there was such a thing? No... Not known.

It was discovered by the time of Marx and Engels that there are electrons and protons in an object. With its support it is theorized that there will be both unity and conflict in the social sphere. But in 1937, it was discovered that there is a third element called neutron in addition to electron and proton. It was learned that there are many other elements besides the neutron. When taken from science and applied to social sciences and fields, Marxism should support that there are three elements in the social field namely unity, conflict, neutrality, struggle between classes, unity between classes and neutrality between classes. Also, Einstein’s discovery of the speed of light and the theory of relativity should be applied in social sciences and social fields. It follows science and backs up truths. But neither in Marxist political economics nor in social sciences did they add these truths and create new concepts and theories in accordance with the newly discovered truths. They were not enriched. The above two elements will be enriched and will be like what is given below:-

    1.   +, - = in mathematics

    2.   In mechanics action, reaction, action beyond reaction

    3.   Physics Positive, Negative, Neutral, Electron, Proton, Neutron

    4.   Combination, fission, status co, stability of molecules in chemistry

    5.   Unity, conflict, neutrality, unity between classes, struggle between classes, neutrality between classes in sociology.

Thus, many examples can be given that two elements are also three elements in motion, in contrast, in particular, in universal.

    1.   Past                    Present               Future

    2.   Past Tense in      Present Tense    Future Tense
          Language

    3.   Solid state           Liquid State      Airy state, invisible 
                                                              state period

    4.   Place                  Time                  Existence, consciousness

    5.   I                         You                    He

    6.   First Person        Second Person   Third Person

    7.   Birth                   Death                 Life

    8.   Action                Reaction            Inertia, Stability

    9.   Best                    Medium             Low

  10.   Wrong                Yes                    Relativity

  11.   Illusion               Imagination       Reality

  12.   Mindy                 Bodily                Karma

  13.   Governing Body                           Oppressed class Middle Class

  14.   Inevitability        Coincidence       Passion, Interest

  15.   Particular           All particulars     Universal

  16.   In himself           For himself        Himself for others

It can be observed that there are three elements in many sciences and fields. It has been said that Marxism is made up of the scientific aspects of the natural sciences and social sciences. Science is constantly evolving. New practices, experiences and theories are constantly emerging in social sciences. The development of science is causing changes in production relations and human relations. Many changes in strategy and tactics were inevitable. For example, after the invention of aircraft and bombs, the forts and their structures became useless. Therefore, the strategy, tactics, programs and military structure of the war changed. Also, every innovation is contributing to changes in the social sector in many aspects. In Marxism, this science is updated only when it grows and incorporates the effects and consequences of innovations into the social sciences. Otherwise, the views and strategic moves that have stopped in those olden times of science will continue.

Nothing is permanent. Everything is impermanent, everything is subject to change. The movements of self, self for self and self for others change in relation to each other. In Marxism, it is thought that there is a thing in itself, a thing for itself. Although Engels said that a thing can be changed into a thing for itself, Mao emphasized that there is only class in itself, class for itself and no class for others. Buddhism and humanism emphasize mutual beneficence and altruism. Benevolence means class for others, mutual benefit means mutual aid and cooperation between groups and ranks. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and others ignored the human values, culture and perspective of mutual benefit and altruism. They were concerned with Unity between opposites, conflict is evolutionary, qualitative change, negation only. They have applied it to the society mechanically.

According to the principle of the unity of opposites, if there were no slaves, there would be no slave owners. So, if it exists, that exists. Pratitya Samutpada discusses that if it perishes, that perishes. Marxism also deals with negation. There is no Hitlerism without Marxism and Leninism. Without the socialism of Marxism, there is no National Socialism of Hitler. Because it exists, the other exists. Working class socialist governments named Marxist Marxism and other factions came into leadership in the name of working-class leadership. The Dictatorship continued. Finally, the state socialism was also abandoned, and the private capitalist industrial system was brought forward. As if the earth 

is round, they turned back to private capitalism and mixed economy. But, in the political field, the multi-party system was suppressed and the dictatorship continued. Consequently, the leadership of the working-class party lost its basic spirit and became the leadership of the respective leaders. However, still based on them, they are trying to come to power in their name. Engels finally said a word. What we have written in our whole life, in short, we have only said that we should uncover the motion patterns in the respective object, society and problem. Apart from that, they did not ask to apply the principles formulated by them and say that such motions exist.

By saying that anyone can become the working class and the leadership of the working class with this consciousness, they came to power and became dictators. While these developments took place in Buddhism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism centuries later, Marxism and Socialism could not continue beyond a few decades. Selfishness dominated and they and their relatives evolved into industrialists. The ambition to build an ideal world socialism with the sacrifices of billions of people collapsed within a few decades after coming to power. Even though the non-working-class people disguise themselves as the working class and seize power and call it Marxism, in practice they become bourgeois and industrialists, and in practice Marxism and socialism are collapsing. The question “Is it necessary for millions of people to make sacrifices and martyrdom with movements and armed struggles for such an evolution?” spread among the people.