Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2014 > STR and Mode of Information, Crisis in Modern Thought, Nature of Working (...)

Mainstream, VOL LII, No 8, February 15, 2014

STR and Mode of Information, Crisis in Modern Thought, Nature of Working Class

Monday 17 February 2014

COMMUNICATION

Recently, I had a chance to glimpse portions of a fascinating book by Anil Rajimwale under the title The Particle and Philosophy in Crisis: Towards a Mode of Information. I am yet to fully grasp its contents. But I was fascinated by the bold manner in which the author has tried to trace the development of the present capitalist society towards a ‘mode of information’ and the post-industrial phase, and also the crisis in philosophy.

Being a trade unionist and working among the workers, I am surprised that readers have chosen to ignore the new findings made by the author in philosophy, politics and even political economy. I am pleasantly shocked and amazed by his new findings in the field of theory of mode of production which contrasts with the subsequent mode of information. He is right in saying that the STR has deeply impacted our society and thought. The working class itself has changed, and its composition has undergone transformation so much so that it is a question whether it can be called so in the traditional way.

 Our trade union and working class leaders should study the problems, and I think Anil Rajimwale has raised many thought-provoking problems in his usual inimitable manner, and these are certainly controversial. I feel that questioning the very concept of mode of production is a bold step and has a far-reaching implication for the working class movement.

He has also raised the problems of philosophy being in crisis because of the quantum revolution and other discoveries. These are new problems that need thorough discussion and a relook at existing thoughts and concepts. I am not an expert in philosophy but I can definitely say, after consulting the volume, that new science needs to be studied and the concepts of old science given up.

A thorough discussion on the book is necessary, and I feel he has tried to develop many new and unprecedented concepts in mode of production and information, in dialectics, in philosophy, and, I dare say, he has tried to develop Marx and Lenin themselves to new levels.

I would like Mainstream to begin a discussion on these questions.

New Delhi T.R. Sharma