Frankly speaking I have not heard any other quote so comprehensively describe philosophy as the aforementioned one by Marx. It is also a fact that Marx analyzed the dynamics of society and all the other aspects affecting it in a more comprehensive manner than anybody else. Where then can the main contention against communism be traced to? Is this really the redemption which is being so talked about in the present scenario of global crisis? Has the time come for the emancipation of proletariat from the shackles put on them by the bourgeoisie?In order to answer this question we will have to analyze the dialectics in action ourselves.

First and foremost the Marxian deduction and inference analyzed the problem in its natural perspective. The concept was that when the ruling class i.e the oppressors overdo their act , the resultant counteraction will weed out the very roots of that institution which is responsible for all the violation of individual freedom and rights, known as the state. The resultant society will be free of all sorts of tyrannies and curtailing of individual rights and freedom. What Marx had envisaged can be called as reasonable anarchy. A concept that can be further elaborated to even include the domain of that fundamental social unit and thus the bane of all human contentions known as the family. It is the primary unit which stems the feeling of being bound and thus drives us away from our natural pursuits and endeavors. In itself the Marxian aspect was a ideological revolution in itself as it dealt with the basic problems of human behavior considering and accounting for all the various factors that have an impact on it in one way or another. However, the one big fallacy came when Marx chose to ignore one of his own fundamental contentions that philosophers as well as writers are merely the mouthpiece of all that is transpiring. As soon as he decided to act or was coaxed into action he introduced an altogether new factor into the equation.

The whole point of active participation was to act as a catalyst during the stage of reaction. The oppressed had to be motivated and chided into action and the catalyst had to stay on to keep the reaction in equilibrium when it tilted too much in the favor of capitalists. It was at this stage that it was overdone. Consequently, instead of the desired result what emerged out was a counter oppression by the state, the one entity that Marx himself so detested. The socialist machinery emerging out of the violent interaction between the two social extremes became a magnalomous organism eating out the individual and grinding him between its screws and wedges. The state in its zeal to take the reins from those who controlled took the reins in its own hands and here began the anomaly to the very process which the expounder had envisaged. The state ate out the very unit on which it relied for its existence. Intuition and initiative were discouraged. Human ingenuity was not something that such a system could tolerate, as any such personal leaps were considered to be of a capitalistic nature and a hindrance in the strides meant for the society as a whole. The whole Marxian concept which was aimed at liberating the individual became the very tool to bind the units together on an unnatural basis. The artist , the thinker, the visionary had no place in such a system where all were envisaged as equals. The whole philosophy which was propagated as a direction for future evolution became a petty strategy for counter-action.

The chief culprits of such a scheme of things were, are and always will be those who are at the top, the classical dialectical order of things does not have a hierarchy as it seeks to do away with the same, however those who give directions are always susceptible to the greed for power. They decide on behalf of the people and herein lies the biggest paradox. How can a design meant to do away with the control of a few be controlled and directed by a few? When such few have the helm and that too where the setup is undemocratic it can lead to disastrous results , specifically when the few leading are devoid of the distinguishing traits of a true leader. They slow down the whole cycle of growth and development while murdering the desired process of social change at the same time. We find examples of this from history where similar Roman attempt gave birth to Caesar, the NSDAP led to the rise of Hitler and in Soviet Union Stalin acceded to the throne. As a transit phase in the ongoing chain reaction it is acceptable but when the status quo is sought to be maintained, the natural order goes down the drain. The impact is not only felt upon the transition or the individual but also upon whole sections of society who are ripped apart from their original culture and way of living to adopt a new way of living, the socialistic way of living. The one who was dying to run in the open fields, to smell the fresh air on the free meadows, to chew upon whichever leaf takes his fancy, was forced into stables where he was tied with ropes which let him graze only upon the common hay. The fields of few were eradicated in order for the landscape to be dotted with common pens. Those who had the keys to their gates controlled their fates. The subsequent actions of the followers undid the deed of the prophet.

The other flaw is of course one that stems from the former one. Marx being a fiercely freedom loving individual himself , resented all the attempts at dogmatization or acceptance without any logical explanation. The fact that he considered religion as the last hope of those who didn't understand the social processes or those who had no other way left, is testimony to the fact that what he thought of the illogical and irrational attempts to make people follow without providing a ground of reason. Those who professed his theory did exactly that. For them the name of Marx became synonymous to that of Prophet Muhammad who is incidentally also a victim of the same obnoxia of the mullahs. Whenever a principle or ideology is worked upon without reasonable forethoughts and deliberations the resultant is always contrary to the desired one. The spirit of Marxism was taken away by those who claimed to be Marxists.

Finally there is also another aspect and here my humble apologies to those who consider him all pervasive and omniscient , but the truth is that no one man can hold all the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle. However, vast be the scope and width of his vision it simply cannot cover and transcend every trench and crest. There are portions which did not take into account the recent developments and also like any other human he had his biases and shortcomings too. The previous contention raised also relates to this factor as well.

In conclusion it can be said that though it meant good it didn't turn out to be the best. It can just be a key ingredient for the recipe of the future but not the sole one. The recent debacle of capitalistic structures worldwide is a sign of the new things to come , of the future that beckons but the answer cannot just lie in a reaction long redundant and inadequate.