कार्ल माक्र्स र कम्युनिष्ट घोषणापत्र (द कम्युनिष्ट मेनिफेस्टो)

- June 13, 2017

नेपालमा मार्कस्बाद नयाँ कुरो होइन । कम्युनिष्ट शब्दसँग पनि प्राय नेपाली परिचित नै छन् । लगभग–लगभग नेपाली समाजवादी आन्दोलन जत्तिकै पुरानो इतिहास बोकेको नेपाली कम्युनिष्ट आन्दोलनमा लागेकाले आजका दिनसम्म आएर सात पटक प्रधानमन्त्रीत्व गरिसकेका छन् भने अझ धेरै पटकका सरकारमा सहभागी भइसकेको छ । २०२८ सालको झापा आन्दोलन पछि त्यस्तै प्रकृतिको १० वर्ष त जनयुद्ध नै पनि नेपाली जनताले देखि सकेका छन् । तर त्यति पुरानो इतिहास बोकेको कम्युनिष्ट आन्दोलनको खास सिद्धान्त के हो त भन्ने कुरामा म अझै अलमलमा थिएँ । नेपाली समाजमा पनि कम्युनिष्टका विरोधमा कांग्रेसीले धेरै ‘गलत’ कुरा फैलाएको भन्ने चर्चा आउँछ । त्यसैले सहि के हो भनेर खोज्न कम्युनिष्ट सिद्धान्तका जन्मदाता कार्ल माक्र्सद्वारा रचित कम्युनिष्ट घोषणा पत्र पढि हेर्ने मन भयो । यो घोषण पत्रले कम्युनिष्ट आन्दोलनको आवश्यकता र निर्देशक सिद्धान्त समावेश गरेको छ । धेरै भाषामा अनुवादित यो पुस्तकको अंग्रेजी संस्करणमा भएका केहि कुराहरु यहाँ उल्लेख गर्न खोजेको छु ।

बुर्जुवा र सर्वहारा शब्द माओवादी जनयुद्धका क्रममा धेरै चर्चामा आए । तिनको अर्थ कतिले थाहा पाए कतिले त्यसलाई कम्युनिष्टले प्रयोग गर्ने जटिल शब्दावलीहरुकै रुपमा लिए । कार्ल माक्र्सद्वारा लिखित घोषणा पत्रमा सामन्ती अथवा जमिन्दारहरुको अस्त पछि उदय भएको मध्यम वर्गीय परिवारलाई बुर्जुवा भनिएको देखिन्छ । सानो तिनो पूँजी भएका व्यक्तिहरुलाई बुर्जुवा र तिनीहरुसँग श्रम बेच्ने श्रमिक वर्गलाई सर्वहारा भनिएको छ । यी बुर्जुवा र सर्वहाराबीच शोषक र शोसितका रुपमा स्थापित नयाँ सम्बन्धले यी दुई वर्गालाई एक अर्काका शत्रु वर्गको रुपमा स्थापित गरेको छ ।

बुर्जवाहरुले उत्पादनको साधनहरुमा गरेको सुधारका कारण जस्तै बर्बर समाजमा पनि यसको अनुकरण हुनुले बुर्जुवा संस्कृति व्यापक हुँदै जान्छ । संचारको साधनहरुमा भएको सुधारले यसस्तो सभ्यताको विस्तारमा ठूलो टेवा प्रदान गर्छ । तर धेरै उद्योग र धेरै व्यापारकै कारण यो सभ्यता बेलाबेला संकटमा पर्छ । सामन्तीलाई परास्त गरेको हतियार नै अब बुर्जुवावर्ग तिर तेर्सिन्छ र तिनलाई तयार पार्ने काम श्रमिक वर्गले गर्छन् । वर्ग संघर्षको अवस्था सृजनाको संक्षिप्त विकासक्रमलाई माक्र्सले यसरी व्यक्त गरेका छन् ।

माक्र्स लेख्छन्, बुर्जुवा समाजमा यस्तो अवस्था सृजना हुन्छ जहाँ पूँजी निर्माणको अनुपात सँगै काम पाए सम्म मात्रै बाँच्न सक्ने र पूँजीको सिमान्त वृद्धिमा योगदान दिन सक्ने अवस्थामा मात्रै तिनले काम पाउने वर्गको निर्माण हुन जान्छ । यो अलि जटिल अवस्था हो । यसले एउटा वर्ग धनी रहि रहने र अर्को उठ्न नसक्ने समाजको परिकल्पना गरेको छ । यस्तो समाजमा अन्तहीन वर्ग संघर्ष चलि रहने देखिन्छ ।

यही समाजको वैकल्पिक समाजको रुपमा कम्युनिष्ट सत्तालाई माक्र्सले अघि सारेका छन् । उनको विचारमा कम्युनिष्ट सत्ताका दश विशेषताहरु यस्ता हुनुपर्दछः

व्यक्तिगत सम्पत्तिको उन्मोलन, भारी प्रगतिशील कर,
अंशको अधिकारको उन्मोलन,
विद्रोही र प्रवासीको सम्पति जफत गर्ने,
राष्ट्रिय बैंक र राष्ट्रिय पूँजी मार्फत जम्मा धनको केन्द्रिकरण र सरकारको एकाधिकार स्थापना,
यातायात र संचारका को केन्द्रिकरण
राज्यको स्वामित्वमा रहेका कारखाना र उत्पादनका साधनहरुको विस्तार, खेरा गएको भूमीमा खेती र माटोको गुणस्तर सुधारका कामहरु योजना अनुसार गर्ने,
विशेष गरी कृषिको लागी औद्योगिक सेनाको स्थापना,
कृषि र उद्योगको सामीप्य बढाउँदै लैजाने, देश व्यापीरुपमा जनसंख्याको समान वितरण कायम गरेर गाउँ र शहरको भिन्नता कम गर्दै लैजाने,
वालवालिका लागी सार्वजनिक विद्यालयहरुमा निःशुल्क शिक्षाको व्यवस्था, वाल श्रमको उन्मोलन र शिक्षालाई औद्योगिक उत्पादनसँग जोडेर लैजाने

यससँगसँगै माक्र्सले श्रमिक वर्गहरुमाझ एक मात्रै दल हुने कुराले निर्दलीय व्यवस्थाको समेत पक्षपाती भएर देखिएका छन् । कम्युनिष्टहरुले श्रमिक वर्गको समस्यालाई एउटै समस्याको रुपमा लिने र त्यसका लागी भएको पार्टिका विरुद्धमा अर्को पार्टी नखोल्ने भन्ने कुरा घोषणा पत्रमा समावेश छ ।

सर्वाहारासँग (श्रमिकवर्गसँग) हार्नका लागी दासताको साङ्ला मात्रै छन् तर जित्नको लागी सारा संसार छ भन्ने उद्गारका साथ घोषणापत्र टुङ्गयाइएको छ ।

अहिलेका युरोपका विकसित मुलुकमा समाजवादी व्यवस्था लागु छ । पुस्तकमा केहि युराेपियन देशहरूकाे समाजवादी व्यवस्थाका बारेमा समेत चर्चा गरिएकाे छ । जर्मनीकाे समाजवादकाे उच्च प्रशंशा गरिएकाे छ । नेपालमा पनि विपिले यही समाजवादको वकालत गरेका हुन् ।

धेरै पहिले एक अर्थशास्त्रका प्राध्यापकले कालोपाटीमा सिधा रेखा तानेर त्यसका दुई पुछारमा कम्युनिजम र क्यापिटलिजम(पूँजीबाद) भनेर लेखेका थिए । सोही रेखाको बीचामा आएर उनले समाजवाद भनि लेखेका थिए । ‘कम्युनिजम्मा उत्पादनका साधनमा सरकारी नियन्त्रण हुन्छ भने पूँजीवादमा सरकारको कम भन्दा कम हस्तक्षेप हुन्छ । समाजवाद बीचको व्यवस्था हो ।’ त्यही परिभाषा सबै भन्दा सरल लाग्यो ।

व्यक्तिबाट खोसेर उत्पादनका साधन श्रोत सबै राज्यको जिम्मा लगाउँदा न्यायोचित विकास हुन्छ भन्ने आधारभूत अवधारण स्वैर कल्पना मात्रै हो । राज्यको नियन्त्रणमा जाने भनेको देशको ढुङ्गा, माटो, हिमाल, पहाडको नियन्त्रणमा जाने भनिएको होइन शासकहरुकै नियन्त्रण्मा जाने भनिएको हो । यसरी कसैलाई सवै तिरबाट सर्वशक्तिमान बनाउँदा पनि उसले आफ्ना स्वार्थको अधीनमा आएर काम गर्दैन बरु जनहितकै लागी खटिन्छ भन्नु एक आदर्श मानवको परिकल्पना गर्नु हो । आधुनिक समाजले त्यस्तो मान्दैन । सर्व शक्तिमान बनाउँदा मान्छे निरंकुश हुन्छ र मनमानी गर्छ भन्ने मान्छ । जस्तो उत्तर कोरियाका शाशकले आफूलाई मन नपर्ने जो कोहिलाई पनि आफूखूशी आरोप लगाएर मार्न सक्छन् ।

त्यसैले सबै राजनीतिक सिद्धान्तका असल गुणहरु समावेश गरेर बीचको बाटो अवलम्बन गर्नु नै देशको र जनताको भलाई हुन्छ भन्ने बुझाइ पुस्तक पढि सक्दा मनमा आयो ।

केहि उद्धरणहरुः

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with clash antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our poch, the epoch of the bourgeoise, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. "

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commmodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. "

"For many decade pass the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the condition for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of the rule. It is to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity-- the epidemic of over production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of monetary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce."

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the mean who are to wield those weapons-- the modern working class --the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the flutations of the market.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being prung into the air.

The communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould, the proletarian movement.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois privte property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing the appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation. It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have goven to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acauire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based ? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanisihing of capital.

Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in sbustitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy top wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase te total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by mean of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessiate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
Neverthless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Aboliton of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.
In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes should take up cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.
The socialist bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting thereform. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.
Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the one seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.