Monday, January 26, 2015

Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-VII ... BY SRI BHAGWAT PRASAD RATH

    Society  changes.  Physical  environment  becomes  different.  Science  makes  new
discoveries and gifts new ideas to man kind. Socialists the world over churn the prevalent ideas
and  struggle  to  bring  new  theories  to  enrich  the  mental  geography  of  the  world.   One  such
socialist  group  is  in  America.  They  publish  the  magazine  ‘Analytical  Monthly  Review’.  In  the
September-2014  of  this  magazine  Fred  Magdoff’s  article  ‘Building  an  Ecologically  Sound  and
socially just Economy’ brings fresh air to the socialist fraternity.
  Environmental problems are ringing a warning bellfor humanity. We can ignore
it at our peril. To quote Fred Magdoff, ‘Not just  climate change, but also pollution of the air,
water, soil, and living organisms, the loss of biodiversity both aboveground and in the soil, the
extinction of species, and the overuse and misuse of both renewable and nonrenewable natural
resources.’ These issues plague the whole of humanity. Unemployment, inequality and poverty
should not be tolerated by any state. Economists plan for constant and perpetual growth. This
is not a sustainable proposition and must be abandoned.
The  Brundtland  Report  (UN-1987)  says  that  ‘development  is  that  which  meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.’
  To-day  illusive  money  is  ruling  the  world.  To  quote  from  the  book  Ecology
Economy,  ‘Money  has  come  to  exist  more  and  more  in  token  form-from  notes  to  electronic
trading. In relation to massive debt, the whole edifice of money stands increasingly revealed as
a colossal illusion. Phantom wealth is created through a phantom mountain of debt. Andrew
Simmas’  Ecological  Debt (2005)  contrasts  the  impossible,  un-repayable  financial  debts  that
Third World governments owe to First World banks with a different level of real debt owed by
the world’s financial elites to the regions whose resources they have plundered.
Felix Padel, Ajay Dandekar, Jeemol Unni
  ‘Since  the  bailout  of  banks  in  the  US  and  the  UK-starting  in  2008  with  massive
injections of government funds –something of the insanity our present world financial system is
based on has become increasingly visible. Could wedo things differently? Are we mortgaging
our earth to pay for a style of living that can only be sustained for a minority of humans, for a
brief period?’
  Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel- winner economist, is alarmed at the World Bank and IMF
imposed policies ruining the world, ‘Economics of the Fund-Bank kind is bad for many reasons.
It  is  intellectually  dishonest,  and  does  not  really benefit  countries  or  reduce  their  poverty;
profits  created  at  human  expense  can  be  seen  as  morally  bad,  specifically  bad  Karma.   The
destructive impact of escalating debt is the essence of bad economics.’
Ecology Economy
  Why  are  the  rulers  of  different  countries  accepting  these  wrong  policies?
Actually, democracy has crumbled in all most all countries of the world. In the US, one percent
of  people  are  deciding  the  policies  and  strategies  of  the  government.  (Stiglitz  says  that
American  democracy  is  “of  the  1%,  by  the  1%  and  for the  1  %”).  Both  the  Republicans  and
Democrats are controlled by the leading capital- owners, who are one percent of the public of
the US. In India the situation is not different.  The two leading parties, the BJP and Congress,
are  at  the  beck  and  call  of  corporation  powers.   The  people  of  the  democratic  countries  are
misled by the media owned and managed by the corporation elite.
‘Perpetual  growth’ is  the  formula  constantly  dinned  into  public  ears  by  the
media and the state -controlled economists.’
‘Does  the  world  need  more  growth,  as  mainstream  economists  and  politicians
continually  affirm,  or  a  planned  degrowth,  as  ecological  economists  advocate  (Martinez-Alier
2010; Simms and Johnson 2010)? Does it need a different kind of growth? If so, what, and how
could  his  be  managed?   Herman  Daly  points  out  the  logical  fallacy  in  models  of  economic
‘In  its  physical  dimensions  the  economy  is  an  open  subsystem  of  the  earth
ecosystem,  which  is  finite,  non-growing,  and  materially  closed.   As  the  economic  subsystem
grows  it  incorporates  an  ever  greater  proportion  of the  total  ecosystem  into  itself  and  must
reach a limit at 100 percent, if not before. Therefore its growth is not sustainable. The term
‘sustainable  growth’  when  applied  to  the  economy  is a  bad  oxymoron.   (Daly  and  Townsend
‘Rather,  it  (GDP  growth)  is  an  economic  system  that has  basic  internal  forcesespecially  the  profit  motive  and  competition  among  firms-that  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to
promote  exponential  growth  while  simultaneously  causing  massive  negative  social  and
ecological effects.’  Ecology Economy.
It is unfortunate that we forget that we are livingin an inter-dependant world.
‘All  living  beings  are  members  of  ecological  communities  bound  together  in  a  network  of
interdependencies. When this deep ecological perception becomes part of our daily awareness,
a radically new system of ethics emerges.’ Fritj of Capra: The Web of Life.
‘Non-violence’  is  considered  as  the  greatest  value  of  the  Yoga  system.   The
Mahabharata  places  non-violence at  a  higher  level  than  truth (Adiparba-  Kausika  Myth).
Violence shatters the web of life and disturbs the normal pace of nature.
Mining companies are making profit only because of state’s support.
‘Out  of  This  Earth  (Padel  and  Das  2010a:  373-95,  with  a  CBA  (cost-benefit
analysis) of Aluminium projects showed that making  alumina and Aluminium can only make a
profit  with  huge  subsidies  on  the  price  of  electricity,  water  and  transport,  and  by  excluding
pollution costs, etc. as ‘externalities’. Also, any mining makes a profit only if the basic cost of
ore is kept abysmally low-far lower than it should  be considering the huge environmental and
social  costs  involved.  Keeping  costs  and  prices  low is  what  cartels  are  about.’   Ecology
America’s top aluminium expert wrote: Aluminum making is dependent on vast
continuing  grants  of  low-cost  electricity….  (It)  is no  great  maker  of  employment,  uses  little
skilled labor, and adds little to the independent development of an area…. The US cannot any
longer  afford  to  make  aluminium  if  it  can  be  obtained  in  large  enough  quantities  an  on
favorable price terms from other sources. (Anderson 1951:21, cited in Padel and Das 2010a:
Stiglitz writes, ‘Resources should belong to the people and governments should
represent  the  people,  which  means  government  can’t  permit  the  appropriation  of  public
resources by the private sector….’(2011).
In  the  book  Power  and  Morality two  world-level  sociologists  Prof.  Pitirim  A.
Sorokin and Walter A. Lunden write, ‘When the morality and mentality of rulers and the ruled
are  measured  by  the  same  moral  and  mental  yardstick (and  not  by  the  double  standard
discussed above), then the rulers’ morality and minds appear to be marked by a much stronger
dualism-by  greater  mental  and  moral  schizophrenia  than  the  morality  and  mentality  of  the
members  of  the  ruled  populations.  The  moral  behaviour  of  ruling  groups  tends  to  be  more
criminal  and  sub-moral  than  that  of  the  ruled  strata  of  the  same  society.  The  greater,  more
absolute,  and  coercive  the  power  of  rulers,  political  leaders,  and  big  executives  of  business,
labour  and  other  organizations,  and  the  less  freely this  power  is  approved  by  the  ruled
population, the more corrupt and criminal such ruling groups and executives tend to be.
Morality and mentality of Rulers
Sorokin and lundenalso write in the book Power and morality:-
In  regard  to  the  captains  of  finance  and  wealth,  it was  said  long  ago  that  it  is
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of
God. The truth of this maxim is well confirmed by the experience of the past as well as by the
careful  histories  of  the  modern  big  fortunes  and  by the  biographies  of  recent  captains  of
industry  and  finance,  go-betweens,  and  some  labour  leaders.(1)  These  histories  and
biographies  show that  in recent times, just  as in the past, there are few, if any, big fortunes
amassed  without  crime,  just  as  there  are  few  captains  of  industry  and  finance,  and  few
powerful labour leaders that are free from criminalviolations of law and morality.
------Other Power elements: Criminality of captainsof finance and industry,
Labour Leaders and others.
Though  computer  scientists  have  discovered  that  nature  moves  in  a  particular
direction  to  produce  the  human  species  on  the  earth (Prof.  Stuart  Kuffman  calls  it  order  for
free), scientists generally accept the idea that man’s appearance on the earth is an accident.
Darwin made the greatest discovery of the 19
century but he gave competitionthe key role in
evolution. Male- dominated Euro- centric thinking  biased Darwin. The same bias guides many
leading scientists of the world. Scientists like Stephen jay Gold and Lewontin raised their voices
against scientists having the race bias but they too for got that we would be living in a world
free  from  wars  and  aggressive  nationalism,  had  female  intellect  directed  world  affairs.  Non-
violence  in  the  ambience  is  necessary  for  freedom  of  all  the  species  on  the  earth.  Man  went
against nature’s direction when he gave importance to violence.
In the News paper Hindu of December-28, 2014 Harsh  Mander write: - To draw
men into struggles against patriarchy, 1,200 activist from 94 countries converged in Delhi for a
conference titled  Men Engage. “Patriarchy and gender injustice remain defining  characteristics
of societies around the world with devastating effects on everyone’s daily life,” the conference
declared.   Patriarchy  constitutes  “immense  threats  to  human  wellbeing”  because  “no  matter
who we are, and no matter where we are in the world, these forces make our relationships less
fulfilling,  less  healthy  and  less  safe.   From  an  early  age,  they  introduce  suffering,  violence,
illness, hate and death within our families and communities. They strip us of our fundamental
human rights and hinder our ability to live a life with love, dignity, intimacy and mutual respect.
They hamper the development of our economies and keep our global society from flourishing.”
A landmark UNFPA study confirms how closely men andboys in India conform to
these domineering  models of masculinity. Ninety-three per cent men felt that  “to be a  man,
you  need  to  be  tough”;  60  per  cent  of  men  report  that  they  are  violent  with  their  intimate
partners. Nine in 10 men felt that a woman must obey her husband, and three in four that, in
family  matters, a man’s word should be final. Only15 per cent of men involve their wives in
making family decisions.
How  devastating  the  unholy  combination  between  capitalism  and  male
chauvinism can be, comes out in the book  Churning the Earth,  the Making of Global Indiaby
Aseem Shrivastava and Ashis Kothari.
The two authors went to an area which the Government wants to declare as SEZ
(special Economic Zone). An area of 25,000/- hectares will be in this SEZ. The state is displacing
the  farmers  of  number  of  a  villages  with  the  help  of  the  police  and  the  anti-social  elements
created and energized by the think tank of the reliance industry. In the words of Shrivastava
and Kothari:-
To  be  sure,  some  famers  (hedging  their  bets)  have  sold  a  part  of  their  land.
Others  have  made  distress  sales,  given  the  tough  economic  conditions.   But  they  have  not
been able to take advantage of the compensation money.  We asked a farmer in  Pelpa who
was attending a meeting of the village elders (known as taus) what he did with the money he
had received from Reliance. He responded that  he barely got to see the money. We  asked
whether Reliance had paid him. ‘Of course,’ he responded, ‘but the boys took it away.’
Why did you give them the money, we asked. His response caught us totally off
My  son  put  a  pistol  to  my  head  and  took  the  money  away.   This  is  becoming
quite common here. They (the boys and the young men) are only interested in three things:
gadi, daroo, bandook (cars, liquor and guns). Comewith me one evening after sundown to the
road which bisects the SEZ area. I will be able toshow you the line of new jeeps (SUVs) parked
along the road. Loud disco music blares out of thevehicles. The boys drink and make merry in
them  till  the  early  house  of  the  morning.   Our  bahu-betis  (daughters-in-law  and  daughters)
have stopped stepping out in the evening. It used to be very safe here. Now it isn’t. The boys
return  home  in  the  early  hours  of  the  morning,  sleep  till  the  afternoon,  and  in  the  evening
return  to  their  favourite  hideaway  to  repeat  the  routine.   How  many  months  will  Rs.22  lakh
last if it is being burnt at this rte?
The  farmer’s  wife  says,  ‘This  is  not  just  the  forced  takeover  of  our  land  and
ancestral  village,  it  is  also  the  decimation  of  our culture  and  roots.   Alcohol  was  always  a
problem in our villages. Now, with easy money, alcoholism is a daily nightmare. Men are out
of control. Domestic violence is all too common.  We do not belong to the city. And our own
village seems alien to us now. Hum toh kaheen ke nabin nabe (We belong nowhere now)…….
Rural  society  in  Haryana  is  in  a  state  of  moral  breakdown.   A  certain  despair
haunts people here. It is the despair of ‘traumatized communities that have lost control over
their fate………….’
Globalization  has  led  to  lumpenization  of  the  proletariat  and  the  elite  also.
Societies  are  becoming  atomized  as  well  as  herd  –  like.  Human  society  through  millions  of
years developed its intelligence and social abilities. Man lived in band societies. Human bands
consisted of about 148 members. Prof. Dunbar and his colleagues researched and came to the
conclusion that the volume of human mind was proportional to the number of members in a
band.   Gibbons  are  not  so  intelligent.  They  live  in bands  of  five  or  six.   Chimpanzees  live  in
bands  of  50  to  60  members.    They  are  more  intelligent  than  Gibbons.  Socialized  bands  of
humans was definitely the contribution of the females of society. Big bands of humans gave
them  safety  from  the  predatory  animals.  To-day,  within  decades,  we  are  under-  mining  our
heritage  of  millions  of  years.  We  are  going  in  a  reverse  direction  to  evolutionally  nature’s
intention  of  building  a  matricentric  socialist  society  because  we  (the  rulers  and  commoners)
are getting atomized and lumpenized at a fast pace.What to speak of band societies of 148
members? Even families consisting of a few members are breaking in different countries. Man
is  a  product  of  society.  Lumpenization  is  an  enemy  of  social  values.  To-day  economic
Globalization and lumpenization reinforce each other. Economic Globalization is also creating
ecological disturbance. How to prevent both is thequestion that cries for answer among the
social thinkers of the world.
(To be continued in Evolutionary (Science-Directed)Socialism: Part-VIII)
Bhagwat Prasad Rath,
3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
PIN- 765002, Odisha.
Phone No. 06856-235092
Cell No.-08895860598

Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-III.... BY SRI BHAGWAT PRASAD RATH

    Scientific outlook and attitude should guide the social, cultural, political, economic activities and knowledge systems of a socialist society. The law of fallibility accepted by science as its chief hallmark should guide the socialist society.  In the past, scholars made distinctions between social sciences and physical sciences.  No doubt laws discovered by different fields of knowledge are different to some extent. The laws of classical physical sciences   are different from the laws of bio-logical sciences.  But all the fields of knowledge should be governed by the scientific attitude which includes the law of fallibility.  The Buddha declared that his sayings should be subjected to the law of fallibility and the principle of rationality.  That his followers did not follow his advice is another matter. Religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism are based on belief alone. Religions which are expected to increase the reign of love and peace collide and bring ruin to humanity.  When rationality is guided by self interest or self-group interest, it creates havoc in society.  This sort of rationalism which boosted nationalism, imperialism, capitalism, racism and patriarchy has demonized large chunks of humanity and brought modem civilization, which is mostly the legacy of the West, to the brink of colossal disasters threatening the extinction of all the living species. Like the Greek Civilization, the Vedic civilization, too, believed in superstitions, racism, de-gradation of the women folk (patriarchy).  Sciences, which should help humanity, are at present endangering human life and happiness in the whole world. When a great scholar like Will Durant thinks that,  in spite of the world wars, humanity has advanced because less number of people died in the wars than were saved from fatal diseases because of the discoveries of science, it smells of European arrogance that places quantity at a higher  level  than values (Is Progress Real?). The elite of Germany were famous in many fields of knowledge including science and technology. Nobody can accuse them of not being rationalists. They were responsible for creating the most heinous and the worst murderous machine in the world. Einstein resigned from the membership of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. He wrote, ‘I gave as my reason for these steps (resignation) I did not wish to live in a country where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law, and freedom of speech and teaching ……..I also call upon all sensible people, who are still faithful to the ideals of civilization in peril, to do their utmost to prevent this mass-psychosis, which manifests itself in such terrible symptoms in Germany today, from spreading any further’.  Is this psychic distemper temporary and skin deep or has it   affected the European   psyche at deeper levels, lying dormant but flaring at times. Truman’s   decision to blow into dust two populous cities of Japan is also an example of this sick psyche.       
Carl Sagan writes in his book ‘The Demon-Haunted World’. ‘(Science) is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking……..Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves’.     

He again writes, ‘The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and disciplined.  This is central to its success.  Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions.  It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fit the facts.  It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything-new ideas and established wisdom.  This kind of thinking is also an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change’………….

‘One of the great commandments of science is ‘Mistrust arguments from authority’.   (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment). Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong, Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.  This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less- self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude. ‘

Einstein writes,  ‘For whereas formerly it was enough for a man to have freed himself to some extent from personal egotism to make him a valuable member of society, today he must also be required to overcome national and class egotism.  Only if he reaches those heights can he contribute toward improving the lot of humanity’.

Again he wrote, ‘Any social organism can become psychically distempered just as any individual can, especially in times of difficulty.  Nations usually survive these distempers.  I hope that healthy conditions will soon supervene in Germany ………..’

When Gandhi was asked to speak about European civilization, he said, ‘it is a good idea’.   
America exploded two atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and within seconds lacs of people became ash.  Today the US, the world leader in science and technology, is the most dangerous   war- mongering nation in the world.  The Middle East is a destabilized   region in to-day’s world. 

Noam Chomsky says, ‘If some Extraterrestrial species were compiling a history of Homo sapiens, they might well break their calendar into two eras: BNW (before nuclear weapons) and NEW (the nuclear weapons era).  NEW, of course, opened on August 6, 1945, the first day of the countdown to what may be the inglorious end of this strange species, which attained the intelligence to discover the effective means to destroy it self, but- so the evidence suggests-not the moral and intellectual capacity to control its worst instincts.’ (How Many Minutes to Midnight?).

In the essay ‘Approaching Socialism’ (Analytical Monthly Review: July to August-2005) Harry Magdoff and Fred Magdoff wrote ‘The variety of structure and organization of past civilizations is truly striking.  It was not so long ago- in the span of human existence-that the native peoples in North and South America had a very different consciousness than that imposed by the invasions and conquest of the European armies and settlers.  Thus Christopher  Columbus wrote after his first voyage to the West: “Nor have I been able to learn whether they held personal property, for it seemed to me that whatever one had, they all took shares of … They are so free with all they have that no one would believe it who has not seen it; of anything they possess, if it be asked of them , they never say no; on the contrary, they invite you to share it and show as much love as if their hearts went with it.”

The missionary du Tertre writes from the Caribbean in the 1650s, ‘they are all equal, without anyone recognizing any sort of superiority or any sort of servitude…. Neither is richer or poorer than his companion and all unanimously limit their desires to that which is useful and precisely necessary, and are contemptuous of all other things, superfluous things, as not being worthy to be possessed….” And Montaigne wrote of three Indians who were in France in the late sixteenth century.  They explained to him about the common Indian custom of dividing the people into halves, groups with special and separate duties for ritual or administrative reasons, such as the summer and winter people of the various North American tribes.  The Indians were struck by the two opposing groups in France.  “They had perceived there were men amongst us full gorged with all sorts of commodities and others, hunger-starved, and bare with need and poverties begged at their gates: and found it strange these moieties so needy could endure such an injustice, and they took not the others by the throat, or set fire on their house….”

‘We have briefly referred above to societies in which economics was subservient to social relations.  That changed dramatically in the evolution of capitalism as private property, money and trade for gain came to the forefront.  Social relations became but reflections of the dominating force of society’s capitalist economics instead of the reverse’.
(Approaching Socialism)

Indigenous communities teach us about the glory of human relations. The question that haunts humanity is what lies wrong with modern civilization. Have we the will and sufficient time to over come our psychic distempers?  Here we can discuss the topic human nature.    Human nature has not been constant in different countries and different ages.  Harry Magdoff & Fred Magdoff write, ‘…..the consciousness, behavior, habits, and values of humans can be so variable and are influenced by the history and culture that develops in a given society.  Not only has so - called human nature changed, the ideology surrounding the components of human nature has also changed dramatically. The glorification of making money, the sanctioning of all the actions necessary to do so, and the promotion of the needed human traits-“unnatural” and repugnant to Aristotle- is now the norm of capitalist societies. ’

What lies wrong with Indigenous communities is their lack of scientific outlook.  They have their shamans who believe in mysticism, miracles and in a number of deities who guide and guard their lives.  The Aztec society sacrificed human beings to propitiate their great God.   
The tribe of pueblo Indians in Mexico has won the admiration and wonder of the western thinkers. Einstein wrote:-    

‘Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe (pueblo Indians) has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in them a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.’
Religion and science: irreconcilable?

Pueblo Indian society is mercifully free from sexual jealousy. Unfortunately this society has become stagnant and lacks movement at the social and cultural level.   

Latin America has produced some of the best theoreticians of socialism in the world.  Regarding the urban areas of Latin America Kees Koonings and dirk Kruijt write in their book ‘Fractured Cities’.
‘The first issue and the starting point is the long-standing syndrome of urban poverty, inequality and social exclusion.  Although this has been part and parcel of Latin American patterns of urbanization over the past century or so, the new neo-liberal model that dominated the past two decades has intensified this pattern to a considerable degree.’

‘A second issue addressed throughout the book is the withdrawal (if not failure) of the (local) state, especially of its public security functions.  The widening of so-called governance voids and the un-rule of law is now acknowledged as an important element in the relationship between urban exclusion, insecurity and violence.  In many cases, the police and the judiciary are ineffective in dealing with crime and violence, or worse, are among the active protagonists.  This failure is partial or selective, however, roughly following a class colour divide; hence ‘state abandonment’ might be a more appropriate term.  As is clearly demonstrated by Elizabeth Leeds for Rio de Janeiro (in Chapter-2), Wil Pansters and Hector Castillo Berthier for Mexico City (in Chapter-3) and Roberto Briceno – Leon for Caracas (in Chapter-6), local official security forces are often ineffective owing to disorganization, lack of vision, political disputes or an overly militarized approach to law enforcement and public security.  In Rio de Janeiro and particularly in Medellin, the police have even been part of a veritable urban war.  As a result, in many Latin American cities, the police are highly distrusted and often seen as a threat by inhabitants of low-income neighborhoods.’ (Introduction: the Duality of Latin American Cityscapes). Can Latin America become a truly socialist country without a sea change in their urban areas?    Socialist thinkers of Latin America are proposing socialism based on protagonist democracy which is definitely an improvement in the socialist theory; but it does not solve all the problems that bedevil humanity.   

In India the vulnerable sections of the population, women, children and the aged people are being harassed.  This harassment increases from year to year.  Society becomes more and more nuclearized as days pass. In the American Society divorces are ruining families.  Children are becoming more and more anti –social from year to year.  Pornography and war-mongering have become the hall marks of American Society.

Scientists have rightly discarded the theory of gene – determinism but the theory of neural determinism (brain) can not be thrown away dismissively.  When certain areas of the brain are damaged due to accidents or otherwise, the personality changes completely.  Scientists have made the discovery that within the last twenty thousand years humans have lost 20% of their brains.  Prof. Robin Dunbar and his colleagues discovered that social evolution always precedes the increase of intelligence in the human brain.     

Amydale which is responsible for the violence in human nature is controlled by the prefrontal cortex only in the human specie. Mirror neurons which are responsible for empathy are not so many in other species.   This shows the direction in which evolution was moving. Nature wanted to produce a species which would make its task of the survival of all the species easier. Has human nature changed for the worse?  Has humanity abandoned the evolutionary path fixed for it by nature? The questions need answers from scholars.  

Scientists who simulated nature with in computers to study evolution that took place with in millions of years came to the conclusion that in evolution nature follows a particular method and evolution has also a particular aim.   
W. Daniel Hillis is a computer scientist; cofounder and chief scientist of Thinking Machines; corporation editor of several scientific journals. 

He wrote ‘The engineering process doesn’t work very well when it gets complicated.  We’re beginning to depend on computers that use a process very different from engineering- process (evolutionary process of nature) that allows us to produce things of much more complexity than we could with normal engineering’.   “Close to the Singularity”

‘I said to the Computer “Computer, would you please make a hundred million random sequences of instructions.  Now, execute all those random sequences of instructions, all those programs, and pick out the ones that come closest to what I wanted.”  In other words, I defined what I wanted to accomplish, not how to accomplish it.’

Einstein wrote ‘For the scientists, there is only “being”, but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil-in short, no goal’.
‘From this it might seem as if logical thinking were irrelevant for ethics, scientific statements of facts and relations, indeed, cannot produce ethical directives.’
Einstein’s question wasWhat is the origin of such ethical axioms? Are they arbitrary? Are they based on mere authority? Do they stem from experience of men and are they conditioned indirectly by such experiences?’
The Law of Science and The Laws of Ethics (Sane voices for a Disoriented Generation).  
From what the leading computer scientists have discovered by simulating evolution in side the computer, ethics does not seen to be an arbitrary system of knowledge. It seems Nature has chosen for us a system of ethics which we are violating at our peril. Scientist like Lynn Margulis, James Love lock, Fritjof Capra, Andrew Glikson (Earth and Paleo-climate scientist)   all have tried to discover the ethical part of Nature’s command to humanity.
The questions and the problems raised by Einstein also troubled J. Doyne Farmer who is a physicist, as well as a leading computer scientist, an internal professor at the Santa Fe Instite, USA.
J. Doyne Farmer wrote, ‘In the last half of this century, the view has emerged that life and consciousness are natural and inexorable outgrowths of the emergent and self-organizing properties of the physical world. This fundamental change in our view of consciousness and life gives us a new way of looking at ourselves and our beliefs, and of understanding how we fit into the universe.’
(The Second Law of Organization)
‘It seemed really important to know why we were here, and to understand the meaning of life.  It was upsetting to me that these question, which seemed to lie at the foundation of everything, didn’t have any good answers.  The easy solutions just didn’t fit.  My brief preadolescent foray into religion left me with nothing but the realization that people have a desperate need to understand these questions. ……….’  
Regarding the artificial world created in the computer, he said ‘It’s a symbiotic system, in which everything co-operates to make the metabolism work –the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  If normal replication is like monogamous sex, autocatalytic reproduction is like an orgy. We were interested in the logical possibility for this to happen – in an artificial world, simulated inside a computer, following chemical laws that were similar to those of the real world but vastly simplified to make the simulation possible.’ 
 The Second Law of Organization
‘The Paradox that immediately bothers everyone who learns about the second law is this: If systems tend to become more disordered, why, then, do we see so much order around us? Obviously there must be some thing else going on. In particular, it seems to conflict with our “creation myth”:  In the beginning, there was a big bang.  Suddenly a huge amount of energy was created, and the universe expanded to form particulars.  At first, things were totally chaotic, but somehow over the course of time complex structures began to form.  More complicated molecules, clouds of gas, stars, galaxies, planets, geological formations, oceans, autocatalytic metabolisms, life, intelligence, societies….’
‘And it’s important to stress that no one is saying the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, just that there is a contrapuntal process organizing things at a higher level…….’
‘Social evolution is different from biological evolution: it’s faster, it’s Lamarckian, and it makes even heavier use of altruism and cooperation than biological evolution does.  None of this was well understand at the time (Darwin’s and Einstein’s time)’
‘Many of us believe that self –organization is a general property - certainly of the universe……..’ 
Scientists became aware that the laws of the physical worlds are different from the laws of the living world.

Fritjof Capra was a physicist. He wrote in his book: - ‘The Web of Life’ ‘………..Physics has now lost its role as the science providing the most fundamental description of reality.  However, this is still not generally recognized today.  Scientists as well as non-scientists frequently retain the popular belief that ‘if you really want to know the ultimate explanation; you have to ask a physicist’, which is clearly a Cartesian fallacy.  Today, the paradigm shift in science, at its deepest level, implies a shift from physics to the life sciences’.
Deep Ecology- A New Paradigm.

Nobel Laureate, Erwin Schrodinger, a physicist, wrote a science classic ‘What is Life?  The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter.’ He wrote that the laws of Life Sciences are different from the laws of classical physics. The material world is governed by the second law of Thermo-Dynamics ‘the law of entropy’.  Accordingly   every order changes into disorder, all the heat contained in matter dissipates, all energy disappears leading to a dead world of matter.  In the birth of life and its progress, anti- entropy   triumphs, disorder leads to order, heat and energy go on increasing. He wrote ‘It is by avoiding the rapid decay into the inert state of ‘equilibrium’ that an organism appears so enigmatic…………..’ How does the living organism avoid decay?  The obvious answer is, by eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating. ………..’ (It feeds on ‘Negative Entropy’).

Christopher G. Langtion is a computer scientist; visiting professor at the Santa Fe ‘Institute, director of the institute’s artificial-life program; editor of the journal Artificial Life. He wrote:-
We don’t specify the selective criteria externally.  Rather, we let all the “Organisms” interact with one another, in the context of a dynamic environment, and the selective criteria simply emerge naturally.  To any one of these organisms, “nature,” in the computer, is the collective dynamics of the rest of the computerized organisms there.  When we allow this kind of interaction among the organisms- when we allow them to pose their own problems to one another – we see the emergence of a Nature with a capital “N” inside the computer, whose “nature” we can’t predict as it evolves through time.
‘If you look at the architecture of most of the complex systems in nature- immune systems, economies, countries, corporations, living cells- there’s no central controller in complete control of these systems.  There may be things that play a slightly centralized role, such as the nucleus in a cell, or a central government, but a great deal of the dynamics goes on autonomously.  In fact, many of the emergent properties that such systems get caught up in would probably not be possible if every thing had to be controlled by a centralized set of rules.  Nature has learned how to bring about organization without employing a central organizer, and the resulting organizations seem much more robust, adaptive, flexible, and innovative than those we build ourselves that rely on a central controller.’
A Dynamical Pattem

Stuart Kauffman is a biologist; professor of biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor at the Santa Fe Institute.  This highly –talented   Professor almost summarized the findings of the computer scientists who simulated the process of evolution in the computers    
He wrote, ‘Although Darwin presented natural selection as an external force, what we’re thinking of is organisms living in an environment that consists mostly of other organisms.  That means that for the past four billion years, evolution has brought forth organisms that successfully coevolved with one another.  Undoubtedly natural selection is part of the motor, but it’s also true that there is spontaneous order’. 
 Stuart Kauffman devised the phrase ‘ORDER FOR FREE’ to explain evolution.
To quote Kauffman, ‘But if there’s order for free then some of the order you see in organisms is not due to selection.  It is due to something somehow inherent n the building blocks.  If that’s right, it’s a profound shift, in a variety of ways.’ Using his ideas, he hoped to devise processes for making new genes. He said, ‘within five years, I hope we’ll be able to make vaccines to treat almost any disease you want, and do it rapidly.  We’re going to be able to make hundreds of new drugs.'   
All the computer scientists interested in evolution agree on one point.   Nature should be left free to move in the direction it chooses.   Socialism is a natural product and will prevail if we do not interfere in the work of nature. Matricentricism is nature’s choice. Matricentric values constitute the core of evolutionary socialism. We can not have true socialism if male-values dominate society.  The addition of a few needed patricentric values to the core matricentric values leads to creativity (Ashis Nandy: Self-Images Identity & Nationality). This is ideal for a development – oriented socialism. 
AS Kauffman says freedom is the base on which evolution stands.  Freedom is another word for non-violence. In a group no member can enjoy freedom if there is violence.  Violence leads to domination and domination leads to control. In the process of evolution order comes only if there is no controller.  Evolution is self- organizing and spontaneously leads to order.        
In the News paper Odisha Post (24.01.2012) there was an article titled “Male Sex Drive, the root of all evils”.  In that essay it is written, “The Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology claim that it is actually the male warrior instinct which has helped men evolve to be aggressive to outsiders (philosophical trans-actions of Royal Society ‘B’) ‘……. In contrast, women are naturally equipped with a ‘tend and befriend’ attitude, meaning they work to resolve conflicts peacefully in order to protect the children.’
We have interfered with the processes of nature.  The evils haunting human society are only because of our interference. Nature was using female brain as a motor of human evolution.  That led to a matricentric society where aggression and hierarchy were absent. Aggression and hierarchy are present in the male brain only, not the female brain. (The Male Brain by Louann Bridzendine, MD). Males and females enjoy equal status in matricentric societies.
In Frontier August 24-30/2014, Saral Sarkar writes in the essay ‘PC’s Critique of ‘Socialism’.
“Paresh Chattopadday (PC) is right in almost all points (Frontier, August 3-9, 2014).  The question that must now be asked is: Does it make any sense at all to still try to create socialist society that Marx and Engels had envisioned?..........  Also, PC’s awe-inspiring scholarship is of little use unless he presents his conclusion as to the question “What is to be done today”.
‘Drawing our attention to the book LIMITS TO GROWTH (1972), he calls for a paradigm shift in our thinking and activity.’
‘As for revolution, I would like to quote Walter Benjamin.  He wrote: “Marx says revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps it is entirely different.  Revolutions are perhaps the attempt of humanity travelling in a train to pull the emergency brake.”
If it was not true when Benjamin wrote this, it is true today.  In the same sense, another German author, Carl Amery, wrote in the general sense: ‘Political activists have till now tried to change the world in various ways.  The point however is to preserve it.’ 
What is to be done? Our task is to preserve the biosphere and change the world’.
(FRONTIER August 24-30, 2014).
 If it was not true when Benjamin wrote this, it is true today.  In the same sense, another German author, Carl Amery, wrote in the general sense: ‘Political activists have till now tried to change the world in various ways.  The point however is to preserve it.’ 
What is to be done? Our task is to preserve the biosphere and change the world’.
(PC’s Critique of ‘Socialism’:  FRONTIER for the month of August 24-30, 2014).
 Nature needs the existence of all organisms to act spontaneously.  Some may fade away without any interference by other organisms because they fail to find the proper ecological niche for their nourishment and existence.
Andrew Glikson is Earth and Paleo-climate scientist of Australian National University. He wrote:- 
‘A good death is often envisaged as a slipping away, in advanced age, surrounded by family.  In such circumstances, society goes on undiminished.  We can think of a good extinction in similar terms.  A species slowly flickers out, surrounded by newer, better adapted species.  This is not the kind of extinction that is occurring at present. .. These extinctions destabilize ecosystems in the way that such deaths destabilize society.’
Evolution of the Atmosphere, Fire and the Anthropceine Climate Event Horizon: Andrew Glikson.
 “If the bee disappeared of the face of the earth, man would be left four years to live”.  Nobel winner Maurice Maeterlinck ‘the Life of the Bee’ The Hindu young world 01.07.2014.
 (To be continued in Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-IV)

Bhagwat Prasad Rath,
3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
PIN- 765002, Odisha.
Phone No. 06856-235092
Cell No.-08895860598

Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-II... BY SRI BHAGWAT PRASAD RATH

    Albert Einstein wrote, ‘Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive culture, in which the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society.  It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate’.    

Fifty thousand years back humanity made the wrong choice in the mode of production. From that day the social, political, cultural and intellectual life process in general moved in the wrong predatory direction. (Refer Marx’s remarks in the first part of the essay) The evils that afflict the modern society can be traced to that day.  The society of gatherers was mainly dependent on females collecting food material (80% of the food consumed by the family) from nature.  The society was peaceful, contented and affluent.  Anthropologist Marshal Sahlin writes in his essay ‘The Original Affluent Society’:-“Bushmen who live in the Kalahari Desert enjoy a thing of natural plenty in the realm of every day useful things, apart from food and water … they had no sense of possessions.” Patricio Draper (Prof. of Anthropology New Mexico, University) writes in his essay in the Book ‘Toward an Anthropology of Woman’,  “ The point to be developed at some length is that in the hunting and gathering  context, women have a great deal of autonomy and influence.  Some of the contexts in which the evolutionarism is expressed will be described and certain features of the foraging life which promotes egalitarianism will be expressed… A similar degree of mobility for both sexes, the lack of rigidity in-sex-typing of many activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization, the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression, the small group size…”

Thus writes the anthropologist Peter Gray, ‘During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences.  Wherever they were found- in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles-these societies had many characteristics in common.  The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation.  The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands.  Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter gatherers.  In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making.  Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals’.

Again Peter Gray wrote, ‘If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren’t really there, or was a liar.  But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story.  There are some variations from culture to culture, of course, and not all of the cultures are quite as peaceful and fully egalitarian as others, but the generalities are the same.  One anthropologist after another has been amazed by the degree of equality, individual autonomy, indulgent treatment of children, cooperation and sharing in the hunter-gatherer culture that he or she studied.  When you read about “warlike primitive tribes,”  or about indigenous people who held slaves, or about tribal cultures with gross inequalities between men and women, you are not reading about band hunter-gatherers’.  (How hunter-gatherers maintained their egalitarian ways.)

Human beings are what they are because of their brains which is a product of the culture of the hunter-gatherer society. Our brain development came to a stop when the hunter-gatherer society was replaced by hunter society fifty thousand years ago.  Scientists say that research shows that within the last twenty thousand years we lost about 20 percent of our brain cells.

In spite of the research done by Robin Dunbar and his colleagues, exactly why we developed such large brains is a disputed subject. To quote from the book ‘Evolution and human behaviour’ written by John Cartwright, ‘The rapid growth of the human brain, which for about 1.5 million years remained at about 750 cm3 and then in the past 0.5 million years doubled to its present volume, has led some, such as Geoff Miller (1996), to suggest that a runaway sexual selection process must have been at work’ (Chapter: The Evolution of Brain Size).
 When John Cartwright wrote the words ‘disputed subject’, the book FEMALE BRAIN had not been written and thinkers had not made a deep study of the original Mahabharata known as JAYA containing one twelfth the size of the present Mahabharata. Both the books give sufficient evidence to prove that ‘sexual selection’ is the cause of human brain development.  Dunbar’s research also indirectly points at sexual selection because in forming big societies females play an important role. Males generally prefer solitary living (Orang Outang, lions), harem building (Gorilla) and forming groups with males only (Chimpanzee, the Greek warriors who were generally homo-sexual).

 Louann Brizendine, M.D. writes in the book THE FEMALE BRAIN, “This means that women are, on average, better at expressing emotions and remembering the details of emotional events. Men, by contrast, have two and a half times the brain space devoted to sexual drive as well as larger brain centers for action and aggression”. ‘……….Men also have larger processors in the core of the most primitive area of the brain, which registers fear and triggers aggression- the amygdale.  This is why some men can go from zero to a fistfight in a matter of seconds, while many women will try anything to defuse conflict ’.  

‘Women’s tendency to defuse conflicts was responsible for stopping male’s fights for women’s sexual favour 7 million years ago. In the case of other great apes, this type of role was not played by their women folk. About 3.6 million years ago, human species in the phase of Australopithecus Afarenses   only among the great apes had their teeth changed in shape to less- intimidating ones because of their non-use in male fights for the sexual favour of women folk.  As male -fights played no role in women’s sexual choice; men resorted to carrying presents of gathered fruits   to women.  Thus bio-pedalism occurred in the human species (Lovejoy)’.
‘That our mental instincts haven’t changed in millions of years may explain why women, worldwide, look for the same ideal qualities in a long-term mate, according to the evolutionary psychologist David buss.  For over five years, Buss studied the mate preferences of more than ten thousand individuals in thirty-seven cultures around the world-from West Germans and Taiwanese to Mbuti Pygmies and Aleut Eskimos.  He discovered that, in every culture, women are less concerned with a potential husband’s visual appeal and more interested in his material resources and social status…….. Nevertheless, he found that, in all thirty-seven cultures, females value these qualities in a mate much more than males do, regardless of the females own assets and earning capacity’.

In the Mahabharata, we come across many episodes where women want progeny from carrying and sharing males (Yogis).  Sulabha, a famous intellectual, adept in Samkhya philosophy, approached Janaka for   sexual favours.  Ganga approached the family of the saint kings of Santanu for marriage purpose.  Madhabi shunned kings and approached Rishi Galab to be her life mate.  

Madayanti, the wife of the famous Veda -mentioned king Sudas, established sexual relations with Rishi Vasista with the consent of her husband. Rishi Dirghatama became the father of king Vali’s children Anga, Banga, Kalinga, Brahma and Sumha with Vali’s consent.  There was no sexual jealousy among the males in that society.  R. S. Sarma writes in his book ‘Rethinking India’s past’ (Chapter- Rethinking the Past) that a sexually – free Aryan society still exists in India in Ladakh area. To quote him ‘A case of the presence of an Aryan tribe in Ladakh valley in Kashmir has been reported in the Times of India in Patna on 11 March 2006’.   It refers to an Aryan tribe living in three villages in the valley and suggests that they practiced agriculture.  They are presented as fair people with good eyes and noses.  Though their colour is not mentioned they seem to be white-skinned. They practiced polyandry and polygamy and kissed one another openly.  They are Buddhists by religion.  Under modern protests they gave up polyandry and open kissing’.  The Nair society in Kerala, till recently, was matricentric in character.  Nair women preferred to have children from Nambudri Brahmins rather than from their Nair warrior husbands.
The Hunter Gatherer period of human history was the golden period of human development.   It is better to call it ‘The Gatherer Period’ as man was not the hunter but the hunted in that period.  Predatory animals stopped hunting human beings when the discovery of fire and the formation of big- band men –women mixed societies of more than 100 individuals made human- hunting difficult for predatory animals. Whatever meat was available in that period was not because of hunting but scavenging.  Fifty thousand years ago when man improved the killer apparatus,   the hunter society came into being.  The Gatherers who were mainly from the women folk lost their importance.  They started choosing hunters, who were having high status in their societies, as their sex –mates.  
When man had reached the stage of Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) in the Pliocene era, the male - female body dimorphism was 1.7:  1, but, unlike Bonbons and Chimpanzees, the canine teeth of human- beings showed no male - female dimorphism.  This was because of sexual selection.  Initially human   society was not like Chimpanzee society but Bonbo (Dwarf Chimpanzee) society, peaceful and women –dominated.  In Bonbo society, women chose their sexual partners indiscriminately.  In the case of Human females, they chose their sexual partners amongst those who did not fight each other. Till to day, it is not the females who are responsible for our wars, but, our males.  
The female brain has tremendous unique aptitudes – outstanding verbal agility, the ability to connect deeply in friendship, a nearly psychic capacity to read faces and tone of voice for emotions and states of mind, and the ability to DEFUSE CONFLICT.

(What makes us women?: THE FEMALE BRAIN by Louann Brizendine, M.D.? )    

‘If you can read faces and voices, you can tell what an infant needs. You can predict what a bigger, more aggressive male is going to do.  And since you’re smaller, you probably need to band with other females to fend off attacks from a ticked off caveman-or cavemen…...If you’re girl, you’ve been programmed to make sure you keep social harmony’.

   The Birth Of The Female Brain:  THE FEMALE BRAIN.

            A Socialist society must be a Matricentric society. Matricentricism is a word coined by the great thinker Erich Fromm. It is different from matriarchy.  Like Patriarchy, Matriarchy leads to domination of the females in society.  In a matricentric society men and women enjoy equal power.  Matricentricism works only at the cultural level.   All the members of society have love for others. They give importance to the caring and sharing attitude.   Thus wrote Fritjof Capra in the book ‘Uncommon Wisdom’.  ‘It seems that at the very basis of our health problems lies a profound cultural imbalance, the overemphasis on yang, or masculine, values and attitudes.  I have found this cultural imbalance to form a consistent background to all problems of individual, social, and ecological health.  Whenever I explore a health problem in depth and try to get to the roots of things  I find myself coming back to this imbalance in our value system’. 
(The Big Sur Dialogues ).

In the past, there were two societies which were totally matricentric.  One was that of Israel in the pre-Biblical age.  The other was the society of pre-Vedic India. In these societies, religion had no role. We have clear evidence regarding the pre-Vedic Indian society. The Mahabharata in its earliest form JAYA contains a lot of information. Regarding Matricentricism and the Israel society Murray Bookchin writes in his book. ‘The Ecology of Freedom’: ‘The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy’.  In any case, some ten thousand years ago, in an area between the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean, nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers began to develop a crude system of horticulture and settle down in small villages, where they engaged in mixed farming………The development of horticulture, or gardening, was probably initiated by women.  Evidence for this belief comes from studies of mythology and from existing preliterate communities based on a hoe-gardening technology.  In this remote period of transition, when a sense of belonging to a relatively fixed social community  increasingly replaced a nomadic outlook, social life began to acquire entirely new unitary qualities that (to borrow a term devised by Erich Fromm) can best be called matricentric.  By using these terms, I do not wish to imply that women exercised any form of institutional sovereignty over men or achieved a commanding status in the management of society.  I merely mean that the community, in separating itself from a certain degree of dependence on game and migratory animals, began to shift its social imagery from the male hunter to the female food-gatherer, from the predator to the procreator, from the camp fire to the domestic hearth, from cultural traits associated with the father to those associated with the mother. The change in emphasis is primarily cultural, “Certainly ‘home and mother’ are written over every phase of Neolithic agriculture,” observes Lewis Mumford, “and not least over the new village centers, at least identifiable in the foundations of houses and graves,” ……..Today, one would want to replace some of Mumford’s words, such as his sweeping use of “agriculture”, which men were to extend beyond woman’s discovery of gardening into the mass production of food and animals.  We would want to confine “home and mother” to early phases of the Neolithic rather than “every phase”.  ……….

“……………If anything, women’s stature in inscribing her sensibilities and her hands on the beginning of human history has grown rather than diminished.  It was she who, unlike any other living creature, made the sharing of food a consistent communal activity and even a hospitable one that embraced the stranger, hence fostering sharing as a uniquely human desideratum.  Birds and mammals, to be sure, feed their young and exhibit extraordinary protectiveness on their behalf.  Among mammals, females provide and produce of their bodies in the form of milk and warmth.  But only woman was to make sharing a universally social phenomenon to the point where her young-as siblings, then male and female adults, and finally parents-became sharers irrespective of their sex and age.  It is she who turned sharing into a hallowed communal imperative, not merely an episodic or marginal feature”.

‘Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that women’s foraging activities helped awaken in humanity an innate sense of place, of oikos.  Her nurturing sensibility helped create not only the origins of society but literally the roots of civilization-a terrain the male has arrogantly claimed for himself.  Here “stake in civilization” was different from that of the predatory male: it was more domestic, more pacifying, and more caring.  Her sensibility ran deeper and was laden with more hope than the male’s, for she embodied in her very physical being mythology’s ancient message of a lost “golden age” and a fecund nature.  Yet ironically she has been with us all the time with a special genius and mystery; one whose potentialities have been brutally diminished but ever present as a voice of conscience in the bloody cauldron that men have claimed for their “civilization.”…………. ‘In the remains of early Neolithic villages, we often sense the existence of what was once a clearly peaceful society, strewn with symbols of the fecundity of life and the bounty of nature.  Although there is evidence of weapons, defensive palisades, and protective ditches, early horticulturists seem to have emphasized peaceful arts and sedentary pursuits.  Judging from the building sites and graves, there is little evidence, if any, that social inequality existed within these communities or that warfare marked the relationships between them’.

The crucial role in human evolution was played by women’s choice of caring and sharing males as sexual partners.  That this type of choice was prevalent in ancient India can be affirmed from the numerous episodes in the Mahabharata.  Probably this type of society developed and continued in Israel also. That the most intelligent men   and women of the ancient world lived in matricentric pre-Vedic India can be proved from the fact that the elite of the Mohenjodaro – Harappa society were free from any conception of God and any type of violence. There were no kings or priests in that society (archeology and the Mahabharata).

World history teaches us that war- loving societies have not produced good philosophers,   scientists or creative artists.  The two famous Greek cities were Athens and Sparta. Sparta produced only great warriors. Today Israel is one of the worst violent states in the world which has embraced aggressive nationalism of the Hitlerian variety.  A little more than twenty percent of the Nobel laureates in science are Jews.  Six million Jews live in America.  Eight million Jews live in Israel.  American Jew community produced one hundred twenty six Nobel laureates in science.  Israel Jews can claim only six Nobel laureates in science as their own. The military mentality of the Jews may have been partially responsible for this phenomena. Intelligence is a hereditary product.  We have seen, in the case of the peacock’s tail, how sexual selection can exert powerful force and bring about rapid change that flies in the face of natural selection. The credit for uncommon Jew intelligence goes fully to the Jew women folk of the past matricentric Jew society. They preferred caring and sharing males as sexual partners.   This led to the extra ordinary growth of intelligence in the Jew society.

Einstein says in the essay ‘IS THERE A JEWISH POINT OF VIEW?   ‘How strongly developed this sense of the sanctity of life is in the Jewish people is admirably illustrated by a little remark which Walter Rathenau once made to me in conversation:  “When a Jew says that he’s going hunting to amuse himself, he lies.”  The Jewish sense of the sanctity of life could not be more simply expressed.’

In India after the Aryans came, the people who built the Sindhu civilization left their lands and got scattered in many parts of India. Most of the Dravidians who constituted the Sindhu society went to the South. Later the elite of the Sindhu civilization became the Brahmin community. The present Tamil Brahmin society is steeped in superstitions. The caste system and untouchability (A horrible custom) that plague the whole of India are present in virulent forms in Tamil society also.  Tamil Brahmins constitute about 0.2 percent of the Indian population, yet they have produced the three Nobel laureates of India.  V. S. Ramachandran, a great world -level neurologist, Ramanujan, a great  genius in the field of Mathematics, Viswanath Anand, a world champion in the field of chess in the past and many other world-level scientists  and mathematicians are products of this  community.  Next to Tamil Brahmins, the Bengalis also produced some world -level figures in many fields.  Extra -ordinary persons like the Buddha and Gandhi are India’s great gifts to the world.  The presence of extra- ordinary intelligence (both social and general) in many communities in India is due to the legacy of the past matricentric societies. Women of the pre-Vedic past, chose caring and sharing males (Yogies) as their temporary or permanent sexual partners.   

The Sindhu civilization was an egalitarian one.    R. S. Vist, the archeologist who excavated Dholabira asserted that there is enough evidence regarding the fully egalitarian nature of Dholabira society. Socialists the world over should make a deep study of this civilization which gave the highest place of honour to the philosophers. Even in the Mouryan age, this system of highest status being given to the philosopher in society continued (Megasthenes and Arthasastra). The Greek philosophers dreamt of such a society run by philosopher -rulers but produced a highly in- egalitarian society.

In an essay of the news paper ‘Orissa Post (24.01.2012)’ named ‘Male Sex Drive, the root of all evils’  it is written, ‘The Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology  (Oxford) claim that it is actually the male warrior instinct which has helped men evolve to be aggressive to outsiders (Philosophical trans-actions of Royal Society ‘B’)…….In contrast, women are naturally equipped with a tend and befriend attitude, meaning they seek to resolve conflicts peacefully in order to protect the children, according to the researchers’.

In his essay ‘Self as a Political Concept’ (Self-Images, Identity and Nationality): Ashis Nandy writes ‘Among the hundreds of often non-cumulative studies which I came across then were certain running themes.  I shall crudely summarize ……I found that a large number of these studies mentioned that, as compared to the highly competent, the highly creative showed, if they were men, qualities more associated in the American Society with femininity……….’

How important matricentric values are for the development of humanity can be gauzed from the above two paragraphs.

(To be continued in Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-III)

Bhagwat Prasad Rath,
3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
PIN- 765002, Odisha.
Phone No. 06856-235092
Cell No.-08895860598