CAPITALISM — FORM & CONTENT (What is to be done?)

(Paper presented by Suresh Srivastava in the workshop ‘Capitalism Today’ organized at NRR research Center, Kondapur, Hyderabad; 26-29 December 2010. Session V on Day-3: Theme ‘What must the left and the progressive forces do?’)

Every thinker, before Marx, tried to interpret the world around and sermonised for individual well being but for Marx knowledge about the world around was of no use unless it can serve to make humankind happier. And Marx's this concern is as much valid today as it was and so is every concept of Marx. Marx, as he was, endowed with scientific temper, was capable of perceiving and comprehending form and content, without any parallax, of every microscopic or macroscopic phenomena. With his capabilities and acquired knowledge Marx was able to expose productive human labour as the foundation of human society and human exploitation as the root cause of all human miseries. His biggest contribution is that he laid bare the process of development of human society since its origin and the quantitative and qualitative changes it has gone through various stages in its development, and then he clearly identified the forces and the laws which cause the changes and conceptualised the framework for evolving strategies that could bring an end to human exploitation.

Howsoever philanthropic they might be, bourgeois thinkers, devoid of scientific temper, could not get rid of their class consciousness. In line with their class interests, from the very outset they have been doing extraneous efforts to denude Marxism of its philosophical foundation claiming that Marx himself rejected all philosophies. Orthodox Marxists, lacking scientific temper, also claimed that Marxism as a theory of political economy has nothing to do with philosophy. Marxism as @ lone crusader for emancipation of humanity has been facing multi-pronged attacks from philosophers, economists, political scientists and sociologists, unbridled from bourgeois camp and veiled from left camp. Modus operandi of detractors to render Marxism irrelevant is simple. Pick up any social phenomena and work backwards on its process of development, picking and choosing causes to prove that Marxism is not relevant in the changed times.

Marxism stripped of its philosophical content leads to right revisionism and left adventurism and that has been the distinguishing feature of entire post-independence period in the history of Indian communist movement. Taking a cue from great thinker and strategist Lenin, we must say ‘we can make no progress until we have completely put an end to this period.’

Two fundamental questions have been perplexing the left world. One ‘Is the disintegration of the USSR a failure of the very concept of Scientific Socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat?’ And the other ‘Is the process of liberalisation in China going to lead back to Capitalism?’ An answer in ‘Yes’ to any of the questions will prove correct the bourgeois contention that history has come to an end and Capitalism is the ultimate for human society till eternity. There is strong endeavour to arrive at the answer ‘Yes’, consciously by the bourgeois thinkers because of their ideological opposition to Marxism and obliviously by the left thinkers because of their dormant bourgeois consciousness. End of history means irrelevance of historical materialism necessitating revision of fundamentals of Marxism. I am sure savants here will be dealing with the economic, political and social aspects of these questions.

Theme for the present workshop is ‘Capitalism Today’ which has been divided into various segments to cover various stages of development of capitalism in different parts of the world. Great economists from academic world and otherwise will be covering different aspects of capitalism as it unfolded in different parts of the world. Out of many themes suggested by the conveners I choose to speak under the theme ‘What must the left and the progressive forces do?’ The question may appear different but in essence it is same that Lenin addressed more than a century ago as ‘What is to be done?’ And what about the nature of capitalism today - more appropriately the form and content of capitalism today. Is it or is it not, in its core content, same as it was when Lenin expounded it as imperialism a century ago or as what Marx had in mind when he conceptualised ultimate separation of the ownership of the capital from the production process in the form of joint-stock companies 150 years ago?

The manner in which people organise production of goods for satisfaction of their physical and socially recognised needs is the basis of all kinds of human relations and societies. With ever increasing knowledge of natural forces productivity of human labour- power has also been increasing. Increase in productivity and production led to small social 'groups integrating into larger groups but at the same time gave rise to division of labour into more and more subdivisions of skills. While in primitive societies people produced goods collectively for satisfaction of their needs, with increased productivity people started producing goods individually for exchange as commodities. And with this emerged a Class of:people who could live off other's labour.

For centuries philosophers and thinkers struggled to find answers to two fundamental questions. First is ‘What is that common element which determines and quantifies the equivalence of commodities in exchange with one another?’ And the other ‘If conscious will of the people is the basis of their organising and reorganising into societies then why people fail to organise themselves into societies where everyone is happy and no further reorganising is required?’ They all failed to find a satisfactory answer to both the questions because of their metaphysical approach, overlooking material basis of the: society and trying to find the basis in the human consciousness. Marx because of his materialist concept and dialectical approach was able to find satisfactory answers, to both the questions and many more other intriguing questions, in the material basis of the very existence of humans and society.

Human thought process works at both subconscious and conscious levels. Marx recognised human, as a species at the highest level of development in the animal world, which is capable of conceiving ideas and converting them into material form using natural resources and forces and this was the reason how this species could create tools and instruments of production. He characterised human society as an organic entity in which its constituent units, the human beings are interlaced in social plasma bound by their innate instinct of survival as a community.

Motivated by their instinct, people enter into social relations for producing material goods to fulfill their material needs for survival. Marx identified these relations as ‘relations of production’ and. because survival instinct works at subconscious level, Marx characterised them as independent of the conscious will of the people. People enter into conscious social relations also which are directly related to production and supply of material goods to satisfy their physical and socially recognised needs. Marx identified them as ‘material social relations’ and characterised them as superstructure developed on the basis of ‘relations of production.

After their physical and socially recognised material needs are fulfilled people strive to satisfy their mental and psychological requirements and enter into ‘ideological social relations’ to fulfil their social aspirations. If ‘ideological social relations’ constitute the consciousness of the society then ‘material social relations’ constitute the being of the society. ‘Material social relations’ are the content and ‘ideological social relations’ are the form of the socio-economic formation. With the growth of ‘material social relations’ increases social consciousness through which people are able to understand their material social relations and consciously do efforts to affect the desired changes.

Marx identified every society as a socio-economic formation each charaterised by its ‘material and ideological social relations’. As There is no inherent social contradiction within the productive forces there is no qualitative difference between different stages of development of productive forces. But with the exchange of commodities a class emerged whose interest in appropriation of surplus for personal benefit was antagonistic to the utilisation of the surplus for the benefit of the community. Thus evolved a new social relationship in the form of private ownership of means of production and appropriation of surplus. Marx was able to identify different modes of production based on the mechanism of ownership of means of production and appropriation of surplus. He characterised different societies as qualitatively different socio-economic formations based on their mode of production apropos property relations. Marx identified four modes of production in the human society hitherto.

Primitive Communal wherein there was no private ownership, everything was owned by the community.

Asiatic Society wherein instruments of labour were owned by the community but land as means of production was privately owned and appropriation of surplus was through consensus in the form of tributes and with the advent of private property it was beginning of disintegration of community.

Slave Society wherein means of production including human labour with body and soul were privately owned, community living disappeared and appropriation of surplus was through coercion instead of consensus.

Feudal Society wherein instruments of production were privately owned by farmers and artisans but land was still privately owned and a new class of traders started emerging which appropriated surplus through exchange of commodities which was with consensus as producer had direct control over his production. With new social consciousness a new commodity was invented which could be used as standard to compare value of all other commodities but whose value had no real relationship with its physical form except in the minds of the people.

Capitalist Society wherein, means of production are privately owned, labour has nothing to offer except his labour power and money as a commodity could multiply itself through purchase of labour power as a commodity. A new social consciousness was emerging with which labour power of the proletariat as commodity could be consumed by the capitalist for appropriating surplus without making any payment for the purchase and deferring payment for future. This could insulate the capital from any risk of loss. This contained the germ for the tendency of inflating the market with artificial demands and flooding the market with commodities even when there are no buyers. In case of collapse the loss could always be transferred to the masses. Marx predicted that in the ultimate the capital will be ensconced in its fortress leaving the management of the process of manufacturing to paid employees and ownership of means of production in the ownership of stock companies with wide based ownership. Capitalist will limit himself to the role of manipulation of capital for its multiplication through appropriation of surplus.

According to Marx Capitalist mode of production is self sustaining and self perpetuating and can continue forever causing unlimited miseries for humanity unless it is replaced forcibly by institutions created specifically for this purpose by the class which sees no need for bourgeois class. Marxism shows the path through which the process of emancipation can be hastened and Lenin showed how, with clear understanding of Marxism, it is possible to invade the fortress of capitalist mode of production and replace it with socialist mode of production. Lenin developed thetheory of ‘Democratic Centralism’ and designed the strategy on its basis and proved its efficacy through October revolution and which was further authenticated by Mao. Answer to the question ‘What must the left and the progressive forces do?’ is quite clear. They must clear all confusion about Marxist philosoaphy and ideology so that the vanguard for the required revolutionary change could be constituted based on Marxist ideology and theory of ‘Democratic Centralism’ which will guide the proletariat to complete the historical task which it is destined to complete for the emancipation of humanity.

Suresh Srivastava

 +919810128813

(Author is President of Society for SCIENCE)