I am responding to Carl Mullers recent article in The Island.

Muller’s argument against Karl Marx’s life-style and the life-style of Marx‘s disciples is hackneyed and reminds me of similar arguments raised by some people as well as some leaders of the privileged classes.

The fact that the leadership of the socialist movement includes members of the boureosie is ample proof of the fact that even basic education was denied to the unprivileged working classes during the ‘Laisse fair’ period when democracy was in its infancy. Social development has taken vast strides in the wake of democratic reforms, which sociologists and historians attribute to the left movement, the products of mass education.

There is nothing wrong for an enligntened member or the bourgoise to continue his life - style which has open his life - style since his childhood, before he advocate or fights for social justice. One’s life style is an external aspect of a character. What matters is the conviction. If an out and out bourgeoise gentleman joins a left party with the conviction or realizing social justice, its nothing but natural that he continues with the trappings of the life style which ne/she is used to. Muller is under the misconception, socialism is synonymous with austerity. An egalitarian society provides opportunities for people to live in reasonable comfort. So it is height of folly to expect socialists by conviction who were born to bourgoise ramifies to lead austere lives, when socialists do not advocate austerity even for the liberated working class unless circumstances require it to be so.

Of course, it is immoral for fighters for social justice to lead extravagant lives. But Karl Marx did not belong to that category. He was the humanist par excellent who sacrificed a brilliant career for the sake of the oppressed.

A socialist leader is not a permit. A person with a socialist conviction is at liberty to make sacrifices at his/per own free will. In the case of Karl Marx, it is clear that ne had sacrified his career and faced untold hardships. The fact that he was not able to shed some trappings of Douryouse life style does not in anyway devalue the greatness of the man who was the hero of the millennium and the only academic whose works triggered social changes. Further, what we value in Karl Marx are his works that illumined the path to an egalatarian society. All political activists who fought for social reforms - not necessarily for socialism were inspired by his idealism.

I emphasize that it is the conviction and the outcome of an activist’s role, and the changes brought in its train that go into the annals of history, not the life style which is an external factor. I wonder why Carl Mullers has fail to notice that Karl Marx and his wife, chose to sacrifice their career and face hardships when they could have led a luxury life if they had chosen to safeguard the rights of the bourgeois.

Those of Carl Muller’s ilk cannot see the sty in one’s own eye, neutralised by the establishment to the point of being a catspaw - scribe pen - pushing his way in acquiescence, of the status quo in distinct contrast to a real man like Robert Owen or Friedrich Engels who had no pretense about living their own life - styles despite making enormous sacrifices for the sake of the working class at the same time.

C. A. Lenin Divakara
Matara