India’s Path to Socialism - Base Paper for discussion

Anil Rajimwale

Introduction

Momentous changes have gripped the world in the last.2 to 3 decades in all the fields, leading to fresh debates on the nature of democracy, socialism, market technology, environment and other questions.

The most important event has been the so-called new industrial (a misnomer) or the scientific and technological revolution (STR) and the ICR or the information and communication revolution. They have begun a new era in world history and impact every other field of society.

Collapse of socialist regimes in the USSR and the eastern Europe in the early 1990s raised several new issues and reopened many others. They put question marks on several concepts thought to have been settled by history. Nature of socialism, of how to build a new society and how not to, the state, bureaucracy and party, role of parties and classes, of democracy and dissent, freedom of mass media, freedom expression, rights of the masses and many other questions posed themselves afresh in the context of socialism.

Questions related with the ownership means of production and communications and of new productive forces have to be posed afresh and solved in a different environment.  

It is clear that the era of older types of revolutions has passed and new features have emerged.

Concept of socialism itself needs certain reworking.

A new working class is coming into being and the old concepts about it have to be given up. The nature of imperialism has to be re-thought.

STR and ICR need thorough study. The world in fact is passing through giant structural and consciousness-related changes, churning the whole world and Indian society. Nothing existing remains intact and the new is being created every moment.

We are truly fortunate to be living through and be witness to such extraordinary transformations.

Socialism and level of means of production

It has to noted that despite its undoubted and incontestable achievements, socialist countries including the USSR basically failed to carry our and assimilate the STR and the ICR. They failed to make necessary structural social changes and to raise socialism to new levels. It is mainly the western advanced capitalist societies that raised the productive and communicative forces to the level of STR, and continue developing them.

The new socialism has to be seen in this context.

Laws of historical materialism apply to the socialist societies also, and any attempt to bypass or violate them only leads to crisis and collapse. That is what has happened there, and this basically is the problem that still affects the existing countries of socialist orientation like China, Vietnam, Cuba and others, In the context of future of socialism in India, these aspects will be crucial.

Socialism and democracy in 21st Century

Our very first seminar discussed “Socialism in the 21st century”, and covered several aspects of democracy. STR and several others.

It is clear that the future socialism will be qualitatively different. It is also clear that it cannot be isolated from democracy at all. .Socialism means widest possible democracy and development of democratic institutions. But in practice, many violations of democracy, dissent, right to expression, and of human rights took place. The theory of socialism is yet to properly assimilate spirit of democracy and yet to evolve satisfactory institutions to reflect people's will. The theory and practice of socialism is also yet to satisfactorily develop a really working class state. The ruling communist parties are still hesitating to really hand over full power to the people. In this connection, the amendments to the party constitution by 1958 CPI congress held in Amritsar and the discussions around them were great contribution.

All this is not to take anything away from the achievements of the socialist countries, but history shows that a proper combination of socialism and democracy is yet to take place. That includes multi-party system and expression of conflicting views and not their suppression. This is the hallmark of the 21° century, when the STR/ICR are accelerating. Of course, party-based democracy and opinions will have different forms in different countries. But there is no more any place for one party- or one-leader- domination.

DEMOCRATIC AND SOCIALIST REVOLUTION IN INDIA

While discussing the future of socialism in India, these questions will have to be taken into account. It cannot be the case that we fight for democratic rights in our country, yet violate the same under socialism or support the suppression of democracy in ‘existing socialism’.

In India we have a powerful and deep-rooted democratic system and institutions, of course with all its drawbacks and deficiencies. But it is precisely because of that we fight for improvement of parliamentary mass democratic institutions, and not for their dismantling. In this sense, we go far beyond the traditional interpretation on Marxism of the destruction or smashing of the state machinery. We certainly create a new state by improving the existing one by and through continuous and general shift in the balance of forces within the existing state. This is the crux of the democratic revolution in India in the present day world and Indian scenario.

Struggle for democracy has been the part and parcel of India’s struggle for freedom and in the post-independence India. Struggle for democratic rights is an inalienable part of the prolonged process of democratic revolution in India.

The Communist and the left movements initially was torn and tensionised by the interpretation of and the attitude to the Indian state and the ruling capitalist class or the bourgeoisie. It has taken them a long time to develop clear and dependable attitude, and the debate still continues, though unfortunately in a more muted form. Out of these debates and controversies arose the. ultra-left, sectarian and Maoist positions, which sought to impose a revolution against the whole of bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, against the whole of owning classes, in the face of the realities.

The Stalinist and Maoist attempts were to deny any progressive role to the sections of the bourgeoisie that later came to be grouped under the broad category of the ‘national bourgeoisie’. That helped the anti-democratic tendencies and progressive potentialities of non-working class various groups and classes.

Indian situation

India presents an unparalleled opportunity for Marxism, communism and the broader left. The first general elections (1952) itself proved that the Communist Party had great opportunity for growth and development. India presented a case where anti-Communism was and is very weak; people generally accept the Communists and are sympathetic to the Marxist ideology. In 1952, the CPI emerged as the second largest and the main opposition party, and later played a great constructive role in building new India. It would undoubtedly have emerged as a massive opposition party, had it not committed ‘harakiri’ under the BTR Line of 1948-50. The party and the movement was smashed, not by the enemies, but by the self-destructive course followed by the Communists: themselves. They failed to read the situation correctly, declared the independence a hoax and failed to apply Marxist method dialectically. There are great lessons to be learnt from the follies of that period even today.

India today has a strong parliamentary system, open press and media, widespread democratic rights, legal system of parties and organizations and struggles, and .a- systematic structure of democratic polity going down to the village panchayat levels,

In other words, we have all the tools and institutions of democratic and socialist revolutions. we  India is the only country in the world to have given the rights of universal franchise to all the adults on one stroke of the pen on 26 January 1950, irrespective of class, caste, gender, educational, economic and other considerations. This is unprecedented in world history, and it is playing a crucial role in the Indian revolution. To miss this reality is to miss the most important characteristic of the Indian situation.

These democratic rights were won in the course of prolonged people’s movements, of which the Communists were the most active segments.

Lefts and democrats as constructive force

A revolutionary, left or a communist party has traditionally been associated with the ‘overthrow’ of the existing political order, with violence and force. Willy-nilly, right or wrong, this is the impression created by traditions of movements. Both the leaders as well as the masses have unconsciously come to look upon revolutionaries.as ‘destroyers’.

Unfortunately, this attitude has done immense harm to the people’s movement and to the cause of socialism. After independence, a situation arose in our country, which showed that the democratic content of our politics and of the future democratic revolution is very high. We had to destroy colonial and feudal vestiges and build an independent economy and a democratic polity. Without fulfilling these tasks, we could not advance and protect our freedom.

Thus, the revolutionary, democratic and the left forces had to discharge constructive tasks rather than destructive. This is a new and unprecedented role for these forces, particularly for the Communist movement. They also form the basis for the ongoing and the future democratic revolution. .

New situation

Thus, here was new situation, qualitatively different from the situation described by classical Marxism. The problem for the revolutionary forces is how to play a constructive and positive role as the builders of the society and nation, even while fighting for the people’s rights, a complicated and dialectical, though a pleasant role. The problem is can they rebuild and reconstruct a ‘bourgeois’ or a ‘capitalist’ society along democratic lines, and thus create conditions for a future democratic revolution by deepening the process?

The left and revolutionary forces took quite some time to come to grips with the problems; and even while some sections assimilated and came to grips with new situation, several other sections continued to practice old understanding of so-called ’revolution’, for which they took China or Russia as the guiding example.

International and national political life and socio-economic events proved otherwise: they showed that there were tremendous democratic and revolutionary potentials in the new situation. Worldwide, the progressive forces were advancing. Within the country many interesting and important events were’ taking place, emphasizing a need for a creative updating of theory of Marxism.

For the first time in India and only second time in the world, a Communist ministry came to power in a state, in Kerala in 1957. The left and the Communists were as surprised as the opponents! How was it possible?! Obviously something wrong with the theory! And it needed revision, The successes of the progressive, left and democratic forces were many. They dominated the Parliament and most of the assemblies till 1967. Subsequently too, the parliamentary electoral system brought about changes in the country’s political map. Various parties came to power. The left and democratic forces came to power in several states. The rightwing reaction had been kept to the margins of the political of India till 1967. But later too, the left made substantial gains. Controversies over path to socialism

Obviously these developments did not fit in with the classical and traditional understanding of Marxism. Controversies erupted in the international and national working class movements over paths, forms and ways of transition to democracy and socialism, over the stages of revolution and so on.

It was here that Maoism emerged as the disruptive force in the revolutionary movement. Soon the movement came under the ultra-revolutionary utopian ideas of Maoism, accompanied by great self-destruction. The highly destructive Maoist movement of ‘from great leap forward’ to the consequent ‘great famine’ played havoc with Chinese Communism. To cover up the failures in China and to impose Chinese domination of international movement and the world, Chinese style armed revolution was presented as the only path of revolution. All who did not agree became ‘rightists’, revisionists’ and ‘running dog of imperialism’.

The ‘great leap forward’ soon gave way to the so-called ‘cultural revolution’ and then to complete sway of highly centralized Maoist dictatorship and disruption. Anarchist Maoism broke with any kind of scientific method.

In India, controversies were already taking place regarding the role and place of various classes, including the national bourgeoisie, the peaceful and non-peaceful path of revolution, the nature of socialism, usefulness or uselessness of the parliamentary institutions, the role and place of public sector and so on. The controversies led to various views and programs of revolution, dividing the working class movement. Behind it all was the failure on the part of a major section to recognize the changes and new possibilities of democratic and socialist revolution. The issues included whether to expand the broad democratic front or to restrict it,

Narrow fossilised understanding refused to see that India had achieved considerable capitalist industrial development and that Indian agricultural had become more or less free from feudalism. Indian bourgeoisie was not comprador in nature, but was industrial, based on both state and private sectors, with both the non-monopoly as well as the monopoly sectors having developed. The ultra-revolutionaries refused to see this and consequently tried to impose a self-defeating interpretation which in essence was a throwback to the pre-war world situation. 

Here it would be appropriate to recall the deep study made by Lenin on the development of capitalism in Russia including in its agriculture. He had running debates with the Russian anarchists known as the Narodniks, whom he roundly and sharply criticized for their peasant socialism. There is much similarity between the anarchists of Marx’s time and the Narodniks of Russia. One should learn from Lenin’s methods and from his theory of democratic revolution. One can also learn a lot from the Roy-Lenin controversy. Subsequently, Stalin and Mao again and again sought to impose their narrow concepts on the working class movement. Their understanding sought to restrict the united front and to repeatedly declare that most of the national bourgeoisie ‘had gone over to imperialism’: This resulted in an erroneous attitude to Gandhi, Nehru, and towards the growing danger of world fascism. Georgi Dimitrov played a great role in correcting these distortions.

It was a serious mistake in post-independence India to regard important progressive sections of non-working classes, particularly industrial anti-imperialist peace-loving strata of the bourgeoisie as lackeys of imperialism, ‘gone over to imperialism’. These narrow sectarian concepts are time to time sought to be re-invented in various forms even now, doing a great damage to the democratic movement.

India’s socio-economic structure

India’s economy is built around a powerful public sector. This is a characteristic feature of the country’s socio-economic and political life. The main economic, political and ideological battles in independent India have been fought around this question. There took place sharp struggles between the forces of progress and reaction on public sector, nationalization, privy purses, building of heavy machinery and heavy industry. The dialectics of the struggle between the forces of progress and reaction has been the distinguishing feature of the post-independence India. The forces belonging to the extreme rightwing and extreme leftwing have consistently opposed these policies, and were supported by world imperialism led by the US. The elimination of feudalism and colonialism also had been on the main agenda of this struggle. .

These two extreme forces consistently opposed the policies of public sector, for example.

Struggle against growth of monopoly houses became an inseparable part of this struggle because the capitalist path of development followed. after freedom was contradictory: it contributed to India’s growth a5 an economic power, to its industrialization and modernization. At the same time it led to a concentration of wealth and a growth of poverty and unemployment, price rise ete. India today

India today is a powerful economy with a high growth rate. It would be a mistake not to recognize this fact. It is a great achievement for a country once backward and colonial. India today is no more an ‘aid-seeking’ country. The contradiction is that within the high growth rates, the distribution favours the capitalist class more; therefore a battle for a reorganization of the distribution system in the democratic direction has to be waged. This is part and parcel of the democratic revolution in India.

It plays a strong role in the world economy. India, in alliance with Brazil, China, Russia and South Africa (the BRICS countries), is helping create a strong counter-balance to world imperialism. The growth rates of all these countries much higher than those of the advanced capitalist countries. Groupings like the BRICS, SCC, IBSA ete are taking a more independent and challenging role vis-a-vis the advanced industrialized countries. These countries constitute no less than 40% of world economy. Even an independent currency of the developing countries is being visualized.

Threat of LPG: liberalization, privatization and globalization .

The policies under the garb of ‘globalisation’ are in fact a cover for the American strategy to bring the developing and other countries under its influence through various means. The US imperialism is using market mechanism to control the economies of other countries for its own purpose.

The US has advanced its own interpretation of globalization. It does not mean that we shy away from internationalization, which in fact is also an objective process, But imperialism is using these processes for its own purposes. It only means that the developing nations and the revolutionary and democratic forces should advance their own interpretation and demands of globalization (internationalization) and an increased access to and share in the market.

Market per se is not bad or wrong; it is part and parcel of the modern economy, and the common people badly need it. Otherwise where would, for example, the farmers ete sell their products?  What is needed is the democratization of the world and Indian market. So, India, and other developing countries are no more the once backward, dependent colonial- feudal countries. They are much advanced so as to challenge world imperialism. What is needed is the further democratization and a shift towards left and democratic policies to strengthen these policies.

The struggle against the LPG is part and parcel of these policies of world domination. They are at the same time the struggle to protect India’s economy, particularly its public sector. It is around and based upon public sector that the further growth is possible.

It does not mean at all that there should be no privatization or globalization or the entry of the foreign private capital. They will definitely be needed in selective areas because every country cannot produce everything. But it has to be done without compromising nation’s basic policies of self-reliance and economic independence.

Nature of Indian bourgeoisie

Its nature is contradictory, It has grown out of India’s freedom movement. Therefore, basically it is anti-imperialist, anti-colonial. Its policies and course of independent economic system have inherent anti-imperialist nature. It is still mainly based upon a powerful public sector, despite certain amount of disinvestment. A vast small and medium scale private industrial and economic sector has grown around and based upon it. Thus the public/state sector continues to be the core of the Indian economy.

At the same time, strong monopoly and financial sections have also grown and have come to considerably influence the Indian economy. Many compromises with finance and big foreign  capital are being made, threatening the country’s economic interest. But they cannot be called surrender; they are compromises which should be opposed.

India has recently opposed and come into conflict with the western economic policies including in the WTO. It has also opposed western political policies, as evident from positions in the UN and elsewhere. Its policies on Iran and Syria are more firm than many of other countries including even some socialist countries.

Monopolisation has led to corporatisation, and this is a big threat. It shows the present phase of development of monopoly and finance capital.

At the same time, Indian non-monopoly producers and entrepreneurs nave made serious inroads into the national and international markets, and their conflict with imperialism ‘and big capital is increasing.

STR and changing composition of Indian society; nature of the working class

The Indian society is undergoing rapid socio-economic and structural transformations, which need to be analysed properly. They have a direct bearing on the strategy and tactics of the struggle for transformation of the Indian society. These changes are part and parcel of the world-wide changes.

There is a rapid growth of urbanization as an objective process. Old sections are going away and new ones are fast emerging. India has almost become an urban society or is about to become. In coming years almost two-thirds of the society will become urban.  New sections are emerging and the working class itself is not what it was some decades ago. It will be wrong to presume that today’s working class is the same old classical type. Much has changed since the times of Marx and Lenin.

Old industrial areas and industries are rapidly disappearing and new ones are emerging, which can hardly be called ‘industrial’. This is one of the major reasons for the loss of political bases of the progressive forces.

In place of the old industries, new industrial ones are appearing. Growth of service and electronics is a new particular feature.

Electronic and service sector workers operating with computers and therefore with information are distinguishing feature of India social and economic scene. The left, TU and the communist movement has failed to address them. We can see the new working sections full of young operatives here in the ‘High tech city’ itself. It is wrong to suggest that we should be dealing only with the ‘working class’, as if nothing has changed in the last few decades. One of major reasons for the collapse of the socialist regimes is this shift in the structure of the working class/ people. There developed a big gulf between the ruling classes, bureaucracies and the parties in the socialist countries and the new and young working sections. It was not just a gulf but also a hostility between them. Computerisation and development of the electronics as the new productive forces evoked a hostile reaction from the ruling socialist regimes/parties and from the left in general in our own country. This went against the laws of historical materialism.

The information worker is a new entrant in the world history, and is yet to be analysed and understood. It is a pity that scientific theory is still to come out with a historical analysis and study.

Information and new electronics ‘industries’ (the word should be used with reservations) are rapidly bringing about a change in the socio-economic landscape of the country. Giant urban megacities, conglomerates, ultra-massive concentrations of work-places, housing areas, populations, information, service and productive centres and so on are becoming the ‘in thing? all over the world as well as in India. They can only be counted in multimillions. This is not just a quantitative change: it leads to a qualitative change in the strategy and tactics of the democratic forces. ! New middle ‘classes’ or sections are fast emerging, which do not fit in with the classical scientific concepts. Therefore, scientific materialist dialectics has to be applied to analyse and comprehend them,

:

The new middle sections are characterized by certain new features. They are close to consumer society ana activities. They are centres of many policy making and dissemination activities, and thus deeply influence social consciousness. They are increasingly strict consumers with stricter yardsticks, which positively affect the productive and distributive/service cycles. They are carriers of electronic information and technology. They are also the carriers of post-industrial and postmodern ideas and activities.

Information has entered the society and economy in a big way, or rather information has become a crucial part of the present society. It is fast spreading. Therefore, only that socio-political organization will survive which grapples successfully with modern and postmodern information, The middle sections increasingly include what has generally been called the working class and continue to be called that way. So, the ‘working people’ include, generally, the middle class. It is a modern (and postmodern) consumer ‘class’ or stratum, which is affecting the present economy and society in unprecedented and unforeseen way. One feels that the left is ignoring this reality. And therefore one also feels that the new features of socialism and of the transition to it are not being worked out properly. The consumer as a social stratum has to be taken into account for social transformation, as is being done to an extent in the Latin American countries.

Working masses are in the forefront of the social activities and protests. They are not the traditional working classes, though the latter continue to be important.

Thus, there is a shift from the productive worker to the information and service worker and the consumers, whether one likes it or not, As soon as one says consumer’, a different picture emerges with a negative connotation. That won’t help scientific analyses.

The middle class is the vehicle of both progressive and reactionary ideas and activities.

All the other classes and the sections are undergoing huge changes including the peasants, farmers, agricultural labourers, students, youths, women, petty bourgeoisie, artisans, etc. New sections of programmers, computer technicians, engineers and so on are emerging, and rapidly at that, leaving us hardly time to analyse/study.

The modern peasants/farmers/rural people do not want remain/live in the rural areas. Once they get a ‘wind’ of the urban conglomerates, they try every means to come and settle in such areas. This is in addition to the usual economic reasons.,  But here it would be a mistake to reduce these phenomena down only to the economic reasons, which of course continue to operate. But the ‘cultural’ features are increasingly playing deep and decisive role in the shift and migration of the people. Suppose somebody has a big property in the village or small rural town, Even he/she/they will try to shift to the urban giants, or will try to have at least ‘one foot’ in the massive city. The rural youths once having come to the cities do not want to go back to the rural areas, come what may, generally speaking.

Therefore, culture in this and all the other fields and areas is playing a novel role. In turn, the rural and semi-rural areas are being urbanized and modernized. They want to be like the cities. That applies to all the ways of lifestyles. Electronic communication here plays a decisive role. That is why the cultural and socio-linguistic ‘texts’ and interaction are playing such. deep-going role, creating a terrain and base of conflict of ideas in their struggle to go forward.

India has changed decisively in the last one to two decades. Youths and information are proving decisive for India’s transformation.

Mass consumerism in positive sense has spread rapidly. Even those living in the jhuggis, hutments and small tenements want to go up the ladder in the way others are doing. That indicates their direction of development, both in the subjective and the objective senses. People want a democratization of society and betterment of their life. The democratic forces have to find out how this can be done. But here the old perspectives and methods will not work.

STR has sharply increased the role of small proprietors and producers. New technologies, driven by electronics, have caused a reversal in the trend of development of tools and machines, their nature and size. The size of the means/tools/apparatuses of production and communication are decreasing and they are becoming, and this is a crucial development totally ignored by theorists  and leaders. Today it is possible to produce wide range of commodities in a small space in a short time with smaller investments with simple machines, generally electronic. This is one reason why a large section of the workers and employees favour ‘full and final’ and ‘voluntary’ agreements in order to set up small business and to make small investments.

This is also one of the reasons of the proliferation of business, manufacture and workshops of latest types.

Massive centralized factories and industries are fast becoming a thing of th past.  The urban areas and conglomerates are getting reorganized accordingly.  

Democracy and social transformation 

The role of democracy has increased as never before. Some trends within the left continue to disregard the great importance of democracy and democratic institutions for revolution. There are other trends, which though accept parliamentary democracy, yet do not entirely believe in its far- reaching political role. Their attention is diverted by its deficiencies. These trends only helps right reactionary and fascist forces. The left must fully assimilate democracy and democratic spirit and methods.  Besides, the internal structure and practice of many parties are undemocratic. Several trends continue to be hampered by Stalinist methods or their survivals. 

Today we are living in an age of information and technological revolution. As such the role of media and other electronic means has enhanced the need for democracy. Information reaches the people very fast, forming their consciousness in no time. And at the same time, this consciousness is changing rapidly. Thus the competition for ideas and ideologies has become very tough and sharp.

Electronic information cuts through the state, nation, classes and parties very easily. It is a truly global and transparent force. Information is fast gaining ground, is acquiring supremacy over production, so much so that the very concept of the mode of production and its primacy is under question now.

Ideology is the prism through which people see and are shown the reality of the society. Quite often ideology is a distorted reflection of reality, and in that case a garbled rightwing or extreme leftwing interpretation is possible. For example, there is quite a confusion on the term ‘civil society’, otherwise rich words full of positive content, but which have recently been much misused,

Communication revolution has to be assimilated and used by the leftwing and progressive forces to be in the forefront of the social and political struggles. At the same time, they have to be more tolerant to the views of others, particularly those-who are critical of many left practices. Had this been the case, the disaster in Bengal could have been avoided. Warning bells were ringing for quite some time but the dominant left leaderships ignored, even pooh-poohed them. Now only they are talking some sense, but still the solutions posed are totally inadequate. It should be remembered that in Bengal it was a political defeat, a serious aspect.

Vast sections of the middle classes and progressive bourgeoisie will be participating in the prolonged process of democratic social shifts that is taking place and will increase in speed. Non- corporate non-imperialist bourgeoisie are very important force of social transformation. Particularly the small and medium producers have a crucial role to play. Along with the workers, peasants, small artisans, electronic worker-engineers, executives etc, these sections form a-vast democratic social united front of transformation.

Problems before the left: issues and mass base

There is a disjoint between the masses and the left:

The left has great contribution to its credit. Its contribution, particularly of the communists, cannot be equaled. Their role, struggle and contributions are unforgettable. But in the current phase that alone does not help.

The question is why is the left so restricted? Why is the gap between the left and the people, particularly the youth, so big? Why is not able to take advantages of the countywide  people are constantly favorable situation to become a powerful all-pervasive influential force? People are constantly asking these questions.

These questions cannot be wished away and the answers are not simple. It has to be clearly seen that the left and revolutionary forces are still working with the old and outdated ideas. In particular the left has failed to read the new youth and the new worker/employee. The left including the communists have failed to read the historic significance of the STR/ICR. It should be clearly pointed out that there is only a small or virtually no left presence in the modern mega-cities. There was a time when the revolutionary and working class movement was very strong in the big industrial centres. But today they are nearly absent in city after city. One cannot hope to- build a powerful democratic and revolutionary movement without a strong presence in modern and ultra-modern conglomerates. The left is totally absent in the modern middle class residential areas and housing societies. Why? This is a crucial question. After all there must be some reasons for this. In Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Bangalore, Nagpur, Bhopal, Shimla and so on the left is very weak, even non-existent. Even in Kolkata its presence is weak and receding. The aspect needs very serious introspection. It is the key to the future. Where will be the left, say, a decade hence? They cannot hope to regain with the present bent of mind; the need a serious reorientation. Overall, the left and democratic forces, particularly the left are getting reduced in the same  proportion as the cities are: growing fast. There is hardly a city where the radical revolutionary  movement is strong. Why? What is the answer? Even if the number of the left is stationary, fast growth of the cities is making it smaller in proportion. The great contributions of the past are no compensation for the situation.

The answer simply is that the left has totally neglected the phenomenon of the rapid urbanization of the society and of the growth of the modern cities. It is these cities which going to be the nerve- centres of the future. It has neglected concrete study of new developments.  Let us remind that these are not the times of Marx and Lenin, when industrial working class had substantial concentrations in a sea of rural population, even in the advanced capitalist countries. It was easier to organize the working class and the peasantry on certain simple and clear-cut slogans, rendered simpler and even simplistic with the passing of time.

Things are not so simple today, but the situation is full of potentials. What is needed is a scientific dialectical analysis. There has been a sea-change in the situation. And that change is the following. There is no more an industrial working class of any substantial size in these cities. These mega-cities and urban giant conglomerates are no more industrial centres where working class can be organized relatively easily. They are unlike the cities of the past, even the recent past. They are different kind of places now: the nerve centres of information, policy-making and dissemination, cultural and ideological-political cauldron of unprecedented proportions, centres of new modes of production and information, the very points where computer-based transformations are taking place at break-neck speeds, many of them being giant financial, service, information communication and transport centres, and so on. The future of society is now shifting to the giant mega-cities, and this crucial point the left and Marxist theory and practice are missing. Consequently, they are losing and lagging behind fast.

Therefore, first of all, it is the theory that needs updating.

Marxism has always been the most advanced and developed theory, the very frontier of thought, analysis and forecast. Marx was Marx because he thought to the very limits of the horizon of his times and even beyond. The same was true of Lenin. The science of dialectical materialism thinks much beyond the present and makes scientific anticipations.

Unfortunately, the present phase of Marxism is lagging behind times and is unable to come to grips with the fast-moving events. Many claiming to be Marxists seem defeated and resigned in the face of the rapid changes in the wake of the STR/ICR and the collapse of the major socialist regimes. This is because they do not want to see the reality which does not fit in with their 10  traditionally held concepts. They are not prepared to reorient themselves and are not ready the answer the questions, meet the new problems. They are afraid of changing the traditionally-held notions and formulations, which apply no more. They hold Marxism to be sacrosanct, a set of ‘sacred’ and fixed, unchanging principles, which one should hold on to fast, even if the world may have changed.

They do not want to see any change because that threatens their own notions of ‘socialism’, ‘Marxism’, ‘revolution’ and so on. They may repeat: *Marxism is not a dogma but a guide to action”, but in reality they treat Marxism as a set of fossilized principles and theories, to be repeated by rote with repeated references to Marx and Lenin. In fact, Marx himself would have given up many or most of his own theories in today’s conditions.

Marxism today has to change upgrade drastically in order to understand and interpret the world (and India). It is a great failure of the existing or traditional Marxism that it could not anticipate the STR, the problems in the USSR and the east European countries, the emergence of world market, the growing role of India and other developing countries, the rapid change in productive forces and production base, the new role of electronic communication etc,

Therefore, we will not be able to understand the present realities in India and the world through the prism of traditional Marxism unless we take theory to qualitatively higher levels.

The new sections of the society are devoid of history, generally speaking, and are detached from mass movements, though their own kind of movements are coming into being. The left have no contacts with the new sections of Indian society, youth and young workers in particular. It is the new that the left and democratic movement has to catch up with and understand. But it is precisely these sections that the movement is missing. Many in our country just ignore the new sections by labeling them as ‘consumerist’ and such other. This won’t help.

The Marxist and left movement and theory cannot thrive and develop based on backward sections and backward realities; following Marx, they must base themselves on what is new in our country and the world. The middle classes/sections must become an important centre of theory and practice. The youth and women and the computer/electronics employees and scientists must become the centre of attention. Cinema, fashion, arts, culture etc must become the points of analyses and activities. The movement adopts a ‘purist’ position: we are superior and pure; you are dirty! So we won’t include you in the movement. We should ask how many residential areas in this country have left, communist and revolutionary influence, and why not? And in that case how can one hope to build people’s movement and bring them out as the transformatory forces? The left is missing virtually from the mass media. There is not a single nation-wide daily newspaper, not to talk of a TV channel, in this country. So why talk of ‘revolution’?!

Considerable sections of the left still suffer from ‘leftwing infantile disorder’ in this second decade of 21 century! They have learnt nothing from history. Maoism and anarchism in form of Naxalism still oppose the very concept of parliamentary democracy, which is deep rooted in our country. This is atrocious and monstrous, and shows extreme poverty of theory and philosophy, which is also expressed in a failure to assimilate the new everywhere.

Civil society

India has a growing civil society, and in our country it is very complicated and convoluted. The term ‘civil society’ has recently got prominence in the media; in fact it has become a fashion deprived of its scientific content. In the process it has been highly distorted and misused. It has been distorted to keep out certain sections like the working class, peasantry, lower middle class and other working sections. This is a typical rightwing attempt to distort politics and sociology. The concept of civil society was originally developed by Marx and other Marxist thinkers in a scientific manner. Gramsci, Lukacs and Althusser, as also many other scholars have made singular contribution to the concept, particularly in the context of the developed industrialised countries. There always has been debate as to the insufficient development of civil society in the socialist countries.

India is one of those societies which have a rich and varied civil societal structures. Media, press, social and religious structures/organizations, mass people’s organizations of the working people, both traditional as well as the modern, caste and religious organizations, structures and activities of the mass of the working people play a crucial role in this context. 

With the development of capitalism one of the positive developments has been the emergence and growth of the new fields of the civil society. This field has shown a lot of vigour and activity. Media has become a crucial element of the civil society. With the emergence of the new middle strata, the civil society has acquired new importance.

The left has shown, to an extent, certain indifferent attitude to the role of the civil society. As result the rightwing and extreme leftwing forces have tried to spread anarchist solutions to the society’s problems. The solutions are disruptive of the democratic process and structures.  The working masses have to be restored their rightful place in civil society in the movement for a new democratic society.

Culture, caste and religion

These are areas overlapping the civil society and a correct approach needs to be worked out. For example, there is much scope for reorientation of attitude to religion. Struggle against communalism should not be taken to a trenchant criticism of religion. This criticism has to be taken up at another, philosophical, level. Indian culture is very rich and the heritage should be imparted a secular and progressive direction. Unfortunately, the rightwing has been allowed to get away with lot of distortion of heritage and personalities. Caste and casteism need to be tackled very carefully, without surrendering to divisive and obscurantist ideas,  A major reorientation towards cultural question is needed, particularly on religion. Let it be clear that the paper does not advocate an adoption of religious and non-scientific ideas. Science and scientific ideas have to be propagated.

Religions have to be respected and their progressive role at certain junctures should become part of ideological battles. Struggle for preservation of secular heritage and for secularism is a form of historical bloc of democratic forces. Reaction should not be allowed to break this fabric. Some in the left do not realize this.

Need to develop political theory

India presents a rich source of theorisation of society, economy and politics. Without developing political theory, the progressive and scientific Marxist movement certainly cannot go ahead, This has been the hallmark and heritage of Marx and Lenin. Unfortunately, today’s Marxists only seem to mouth certain Marxist formulas, and in fact do not try to develop Marxism and scientific theory. Many leaders and movements simply refuse to have anything to do with theory, saying, “you do not have to be scholar!” or ‘work among masses and become bookworms!’ or “not theory but practice!” etc. These are typical populist, anarchaist and Maoist approaches, which encourage ‘poverty of philosophy’, as if theory is antithetical to and enemy of practice, and as if one can work among the masses without a sound theory.

These gentlemen forget that Marx, Engels and Lenin, as also other Marxist non-Marxist intellectual giants wrote hundreds of volumes of theory, and that is not final; we have to continue the work of theory. That was not for the fun of it. Marx and Lenin, by implication, if we follow the advice of these so-called ‘among the masses friends’ (Indian Narodniks!), must have been fools and senseless persons to have devoted (‘wasted”!) their valuable time in the libraries and in developing theory. Let us remind such friends of the profound works such as End of Classical German Philosophy by Engels, Poverty of Philosophy by Marx, Materialism and Empirio- Criticism by Lenin, Modern Prince and Prison Notebooks by Gramsci, United Front by Dimitrov, and giant theoretical works by Trotsky, Plekhanov, Bernstein, Kautsky, Labriola, Togliatti, Rosa Luxemburg and a whole galaxy of Marxist and scientific theoreticians.

There simply can’t a real people’s movement, not to talk of revolution, without a rich theory.

In our own country, one cannot forget Ajoy Ghosh, SA Dange, PC Joshi, EMS, Sardesai, Kosambi, C Achyutha Menon, Romila Thapar, Rahul, Acharya Naredra Dev, M Singaravelu, Mohit Sen, Bhowani Sen, NE Balaram, C Rajeswara Rao, Sundarayya, Ravi Narayan Reddy, and a host of others; the list is very long! They developed new aspects of theory in our own conditions. 

Nehru’s ideas developed a ‘Nehruvian’ vision and era.

One can’t ignore the great role played by the so-called ‘non’-Marxist theorists and thinkers. Swami Vivekanand, Periyar, Sri Sri, Rajwade, Ambedkar, Gandhi, Nehru and so on have made singular contributions to reveal the truth behind the mechanics of the Indian society,  Much was written in India after the post-second world war events and after elections in Kerala, Bengal and elsewhere. First communist victory in 1957 in Kerala, land reforms in Kerala led by Achyutha Menon, documents of Amritsar congress of 1958 with provision for opposition parties under socialism and giving up of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat and many other events have enriched scientific political concepts.

Yet much remains to be done, and one feels that there is a slackening of the efforts to develop political, ideological and other kinds of theory. The concept of democratic revolution needs serious work. Events in India point to a bright future, but that needs theoretical abstractions of the highest order. The STR/ICR have opened a whole new world to be understood and worked out first of all  theoretically. : :

One feels that much theoretical abstractions could have been developed out of the Bengal and other experiences, and this has not been done. Indian civil society provides a rich source for thought process and generalizations. Indian political events, processes and structures are yet to be explained at the level of theory. This is a rich source for Marxism.  

Indraji Gupta and Chaturanan Misra were the first central Communist ministers ever, but nothing has been written about this historic experience

Therefore, ‘developing arid upgrading political theory is major risk before democratic, progressive and revolutionary forces.

Broadest democratic cooperation a historic bloc: the only alternative

In today conditions, the broadest possible democratic cooperation is the best path to social transformation. India is a multi-layered and multi-faceted society. Its special structure and terrain is very rich. Its civil society is very vibrant.

India has an active and democratic political system. There are a large number of political parties and organisations which vie for political space and are in constant and open conflict, The democratic political system has often thwarted the attempts at installation of rightwing dictatorships as well as infantile ultra-left adventures. Democratic, progressive and left ideas are  quite common and acceptable. . It is a mistake to underestimate the mass democratic potentials of the Indian society and polity. Such an underestimation lets the initiative slip to the disruptive forces. Often the gap left open by the progressive forces has been sought to be filled by the casteist, communal, separatist, regional and terrorist forces.

India is the most deeply and widely democratic among all the developing countries, and can even contest with some of the advanced capitalist countries in this field. Therefore, democracy is a great effective weapon in the hands of the people, as is evidenced by the post-independence events and political and other events.

The democratic unity or common action and program cannot be limited on any pretext. In today’s world and Indian conditions, we need the broadest possible common action on common issues.

United front should be the way of life today.

Restriction of concentration of wealth, and weakening the hold of the corporates and imperialists are the most important tasks. Wide sections of producers, entrepreneurs, industrialists and businessmen have direct or inherent Opposition to such a domination. Small and medium capitalist owners have an important role to play, in particular in the context of the STR.

Workers, peasants, middle sections, intellectuals and medium, small and petty producers and the national bourgeoisie are the inalienable part of this wide front of struggle for democratization on way to socialism.

Experience of Latin America .

Latin American events have brought out several new features in world situation, an we have to learn from them:

New and very broad sections of the society have taken part in the changes in Latin American countries. They are not traditional workers; they are new workers and employees, house-wives (e.g. in Chile), middle entrepreneurs, information workers, youths and women have taken on new role.

The events there have shown that despite friendship with Cuba, their revolutions are quite different from that in Cuba. The army and the state have taken the side of the revolutionary and democratic forces. The path taken is that of step by step democratization of the society and economy. FDI and private capital have been assigned an important role, and liberalization is being followed selectively, and not rejected outright.

The state and economic structures are being democratized step by step for the democratization of the society. Vehicle for all these developments are parliamentary institutions, which are playing a crucial role. This is in contrast to Cuba-type experience. The times of armed struggle are more or less past. 

Most of these features apply to India too.

Democratic revolution in India

We have more or less already described the basic features of the Indian situation. Today, there is far greater possibilities of involving the widest sections of classes and masses including working people and sections of capitalist and middle élasses/strata in democratic transformations. A historic bloc of all these forces is possible.

The institutions of transformation are open, legal and parliamentary, and supported by mass people’s actions they can become effective means of change. Media plays a crucial role. Obviously, this is a prolonged process in the course of which change in balance of forces and continuous power shifts can take place within the existing society and polity, leading to the emergence of new social structures strengthening democracy and paving the way for socialism.

It is unfortunate that there some political trends who refuse to accept the new realities, Even among those who accept a parliamentary path, there are attempts to restrict the secular and democratic front, and narrow interpretations are advanced in the name of ‘left front’. In fact, the left should become a rallying centre of All the secular and anti-fascist forces, otherwise it has no meaningful role in the society and loses its rightful and responsible place. There are powerful and broad democratic forces in the various bourgeois parties and organizations and all over the society, and they need to be mobilized, not ignored.

Is politics becoming postmodern?

If the society is making transition to some kind of post-industrial configuration, then our thought process is certainly acquiring certain features which can be called ‘post-modern’. Let it be clear that the term here is used differently, and not necessarily in the sense that the post-modernists themselves use it.

This question needs a detailed study and discussion/debate. Electronics and computer-based production and dissemination of ideas are rapidly bringing about a change in the nature of democracy, thought process and the individual. The new technology has rendered the state, classes, parties, nations/countries and ideologies more transparent and porous: the electronic communication cuts across these traditional institutions and structures. The centralized imperialist states and institutions themselves are today facing crisis because of this. Earlier the centralized bureaucratic socialist regimes collapsed mainly because of the impact of electronics revolution. They could not anticipate and come to terms with the new technological revolution, which could not become a productive force there, and thus the regimes became a hurdle in their path.

Today, the powerful advanced imperialist countries are facing threat from new technology and are not able properly to utilize them.

Today, the role of the individual has increased and the ‘subject’ or the active element is being formed in new ways. Thus, along with other questions, new philosophical ones are being posed. The subject-object relation has acquired new dimensions.  Many of the results of the STR have to be assimilated by all the parties and classes of democratic camp. The differences in the economic and foreign policies of many of the parties and countries are narrowing. Parties from left to the centre are following varieties of more liberal policies, as evidenced in Latin America, India, China, Europe, etc. even in our own Bengal and Kerala. Though not all these steps are justified, there is an underlying thread which accords with the STR and demands of world market, and therefore demands a non-monopoly market oriented, consumer oriented solution. Though the state sector remains and should remain strong, there is felt a need for certain modification in its role.

The role of the institution of party is itself undergoing changes, and they more a vehicle to resolve current problems of the people and formulate policies of immediate consequences. Parties with long-term visions must correlate the present with the future.

The state and the nation today does not represent just the interests of this or that party. or class, but increasingly those of most of the classes and masses. In this sense the state is no more an organ of just a class, to be overthrown violently or otherwise. The state today becomes a medium through which the socio-economic transformations are to be brought about. It is a vehicle of modern and postmodern, post-industrial change.

He relation of the parties and government to the state has undergone big changes.

Capitalism is unable fully to utilize the latest productive and information forces. Therefore, a serious shift in balance of power is needed, The question of reorganization of distribution, more than production, becomes more important. Late capitalism is quite late on several counts, even in the advanced nations. :

A postmodern political shift becomes imperative. Politics has to do wits powershift at all levels. Therefore, when ones talks of politics today, it means a change and shift in every major and minor structure of the social fabric.

Here, the ‘postmodern’ comes into play, and that needs to be grasped in order to negotiate the future. For today it is not enough to talk of the present and the near future, it is essential to think of and anticipate the distant future, which due to electronic nature of the means at our disposal, proves to be not very distant. We have to anticipate the future in terms of the rapid present and  Rapid change is the hallmark of the present day world. This needs to be grasped. In the age of STR and post industrial change, the future quickly becomes present.

Issues affecting humanity: beyond class

New problems have arisen affecting the whole of humanity and going beyond the class confines. The issues relate with environment, technology, state, market, information/communication and several others. Here the class approach is not enough, and a holistic approach has to be evolved. For example, environmental disaster involves a reorientation of the strategies of development.

We are really entering a post-industrial world with novel problems and novel solutions. We need to take theory to qualitatively higher levels in transition to anew society.