NEW CONCEPT OF SOCIALISM - A MIS-CONCEPTION

Mr Suresh Srivastava

(Paper presented at the Workshop at Hyderabad 27-30, December 2011)

(Author is President of Society for SOCIENCE and Chief Editor of Hindi journal ‘Marx Darshan’)

The themes for this workshop cover almost everything that can be imagined in political and economic activity of any society, but the way the workshop is structured, it appears to me that the organisers have in mind some kind of ‘Socialism’ which has not even been conceptualised yet - ‘What is the future? New concepts of Socialism’, still the workshop is embarking on the task of finding India’s path to Socialism. (Sic). With the kind of confusion prevalent all around the world about the scientific theory of dialectical materialism, | am not surprised at this metaphysical approach of designing the strategy without having clarity of objective. | think the idea of ‘India’s Path to Socialism’ is misleading as, the path in the absence of clear goal can neither be identified nor treaded. Hence in my paper | shall try to explore the only kind of Socialism which is, scientifically speaking, achievable and must be the objective here. Since | consider the clarity about concept of Socialism as the first step in defining the goal and the strategy, | have requested the organisers to let me present my paper at the outset.

Word Socialism has become more confusing than ambiguous. There are as many meanings and interpretations as there are users and occasions for this word. It is not surprising that in last 64 years the nation has stood still, with more than 40 outfits vouching by Marxism, Leninism, Trostskyism and Maoism and many more by Gandhiism, Lohiaism etc. etc. and each one struggling to usher in his kind of Socialism. Hence the need of the hour is to understand, conceptually, what is Socialism that conforms to objective reality and natural laws and hence could be the only kind of Socialism that can be achieved in reality and not just in imagination

1. MAN AND SOCIETY

History of about 60,000 years of development of human society is just a fraction compared to 35,00,000 (Thirty five lakh) plus years of evolution of human species on this earth which itself is a split fraction compared to the evolution of life on this planet originating some 100,00,00,000 (one hundred crore) years ago. Scientific community agrees that the evolution of all life form on this earth is a continuous and integrated process in spite of some apparent abrupt changes.

There are certain biological attributes like erect posture, opposable thumb, larynx capable of producing a very vast range of distinct sounds and brain capable of continuously generating new neural circuitry and processing information logically which make men different from other animal species. Because of difference in brain structure, human consciousness is qualitatively different from animal instinct and consists of sub-conscious and conscious aspects. Sub-conscious aspect is akin to animal instinct and is a phenomenon of processing of data perceived as experience and stored as memory, in the innate structure of the brain, for generating information to meet the innate urge for survival and procreation and is least affected by reasoning. Conscious aspect is a very complex phenomenon of processing not only perceived and stored data but also imaginary data created through logic and reasoning, for generating information to meet the material and social needs of the individual. This activity takes place in the ever evolving and developing structure of the brain, and depends both on stored data as well as current information being received from the surroundings.

Unlike animals men acquire their means of subsistence not only with their labour power alone but produce also, with instruments of labour. ‘They produce their means of subsistence depending upon first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and then have to reproduce them. This production makes its appearance only with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production. The satisfaction of the first need (the action of satisfying, and the instrument of satisfaction which has been acquired) leads to new needs.’ ‘They begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.’

‘The third circumstance which, from the very outset, enters into historical development, is that men, who daily remake their own life, begin to make other men, to propagate their kind: the relation between man and woman, parents and children, the family.’ The family, to begin with is the only social relationship. Then increased needs create new social relations and the increased population new needs.

‘The production of life, both of one's own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship : on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force”.’

Innate urge for survival and procreation works at sub-conscious level and is independent of the will of men. The need to satisfy this urge is both natural and social and acts as the force of cohesion between the monad - men, of the organic formation - society. Human society as a whole or in sub-sets is organism at the highest level of evolution which has consciousness but does not have a fixed physical structure. It dwells in the consciousness of its constituent humans. Individual constituents with urge to achieve specific goals and objectives are motivated to join into groups. Germ of the society came into being as soon as man wielded the instrument of labour to produce his means of survival. Genesis of society is the start of History of men. Thenceforth human consciousness and social consciousness have been developing simultaneously, integral to each other. History of the society is the History of men.

Human body as an organism is constituted by its body cells which originate as stem cells which in turn mature into specific body cells depending upon the need of the organism. A matured specific cell serves specific function throughout its life as a constituent of a specific body. On the other hand men as units of any social organism start identically but mature differently depending upon social conditions and on maturity may serve different functions at different times depending upon the need of different social formations. They not only serve different functions at different times but also serve different social formations at the same time. Or in other words a social formation may use different individuals at different times to suit its requirement. Thus a social group must be identified by its ideology - train of thoughts - reflected in its objectives and modus operandi but not by its constituent members.

2. SOCIOECONOMIC FORMATION AND CONSCIOUSNESS

Creation and sustenance of human life is both a natural and a social function at the same time. Men are constrained to cooperate by an innate urge for survival. While constituting a society men are bound together by ideas at subconscious level about which they are not aware. For a society there is no material physical bond between its constituent elements, its only an ideological bond. Conscious individuals with their material and social activities provide the material basis for the social formation.

With passage of time smaller groups - families migrated to various parts of the globe and settled in different locations. Depending upon the natural environment they developed materially and socially at different pace but in essence evolved and developed following the same course. Societies continued to grow in size with increasing population in limited geographical environment.

With passage of experience and knowledge from generation to generation, accumulated knowledge of the society, implanted in the collective consciousness of individual constituents, kept on growing. Basic motivation all the time was to improve the efficiency of human labour and to increase productivity. Division of labour increased productivity and increased productivity further increased division of labour. Increased productivity provided material goods not only for use but for exchange also. With improved means of transport and communication, exchange of goods started taking place not only with in the group in limited geographical space but across the borders also. With division of labour between mental and physical and exchange across boundaries, the stage was set for production of goods not for use but for exchange - for production of commodities, and for a whole gamut of activities related to production and distribution of commodities - Economic Activity. The society was divided into classes having antagonistic interests in appropriation of surplus produced. Society which at the time of its birth was a simple social formation residing in the consciousness of cooperating individuals, had now matured as a socioeconomic formation dwelling in the consciousness of individuals with antagonistic class interests in production and appropriation of surplus value. Individual consciousness at subconscious as well as at conscious level underwent a sea change.

Now raising of means of subsistence was not limited to production of material goods alone. It involved the activity of exchange of commodities also, and with that the interaction between different groups of producers and traders. Various social activities by different classes to influence the exchange of goods on favourable terms also became part of the human activity for creating and sustaining life. In the nascent stage of society what was a simple material productive activity, had become a complex activity of creating ideas also.

The struggle between classes culminated in one class having complete physical control over means of production, including control over the man providing labour power - the slave. Latent was the possibility of other classes which were prepared to give away physical control of labour power and means of labour and have ideological control over means of production for usurping socially produced surplus. However the basis for usurping surplus was, the right to ownership of means of production or the right to property. Basic character of a socioeconomic formation is identified by the relation of various contending groups to the means of production and distribution of products or the Mode of Production. As sub-sets various modes of production may co-exist with in a society but the form of the society is identified by the core content - the dominant mode of production, which in turn is determined by the hegemony of the class most dominant among the contending classes.

‘Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations.’ This whole constitutes the consciousness of the society consisting of Material Social Consciousness and Ideological Social Consciousness. In class divided society, each class has its own consciousness based upon its material foundation.

3. MATERIAL SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

A vast multitude of ideas pervades the society. ‘The single individual, who derives them through tradition and upbringing, may imagine that they form the real motives and the starting point of his activity’. His outlook about various aspects of nature and society is determined by his social environment. While he assimilates many ideas consciously, a large number of them is assimilated sub-consciously, particularly those which are directly related to his subsistence and economic interests.

Generally people believe that they have scientific temper, while the fact is that majority of them are receptive, unconsciously, without questioning, to a complex of ideas particularly those which are conducive to their subsistence. ‘The division of labour implies the possibility, nay the fact that intellectual and material activity -- enjoyment and labour, production and consumption -- devolve on different individuals’. Some individuals will support, subconsciously, social concepts and traditions upholding the perpetuity of the existing mode of production either because they are enjoying their material benefits or are accepting their deprivation as fait accompli. There will also be people who either because of their moral bearing feel alienated with the existing mode of production or because of their enlightenment are able to see the annihilative nature of the existing mode of production and will strive to replace it with a better mode of production.

In a class divided society different classes have differing interests in the existing mode of production. Classes which are able to appropriate surplus value for personal benefits, have class interest in the perpetuity of the existing mode and want the mode of production based on right to property to continue in one form or the other, while there are classes which are able to realize that surplus value is created through social labour and want a mode of production based on the social ownership of means of production and surplus value produced. All those ideas which relate to the material production and reside in the subconscious of people, constitute the Material Social Consciousness. All those ideas which relate to sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, views of life and creation of virtual reality work at ideological level and reside in the conscious and subconscious of people, constitute the Ideological Social Consciousness.

Material Social Consciousness is driven by productive forces and resides in the a  subconscious of the people, hence develops independent of the will of the people. Ideological Social Consciousness is related to creation of ideas and develops upon the Material Social Consciousness and productive forces as well as by conscious efforts of the people to materialise their imaginations, hence resides in the subconscious as well as conscious domain of the consciousness of the people. In a class divided society, Social Consciousness is also divided into Class Consciousness depending upon the interest of the particular class in the mode of production.

In any socioeconomic formation every class is continuously producing ideas which induce acceptability of its outlook towards the existing mode of production. People who ideologically support the views of a particular class, act as carrier to the consciousness of that particular class. Normally people do not have ideological clarity about various social aspects outside their specialisation. Out of ignorance they may be contributing to a mix of conflicting ideas, and acting as carrier of differing class consciousness. Hence the class consciousness has to be identified by its content of ideas - ideology, and not by the identity of the people promoting the ideas.

4. CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

At a stage of development production of material goods achieved a level where a producer could produce more than what he required to meet his needs. ‘We call "production of commodities" that economic phase where articles are produced not only for the use of the producers, but also for the purpose of exchange; that is, as commodities, not as use values. This phase extends from the first beginnings of production for exchange down to our present time; it attains its full development under capitalist production only, that is, under conditions where the capitalist, the owner of the means of production, employs, for wages, laborers, people deprived of all means of production except their own labor-power, and pockets the excess of the selling price of the products over his outlay. We divide the history of industrial production since the Middle Ages into three periods:

1 HANDICRAFT, small master craftsman with a few journeymen and apprentices, where each labourer produces a complete article;

2. MANUFACTURE, where greater numbers of workmen, grouped in one large establishment, produce the complete article on the principle of division of labor, each workman performing only one partial operation, so that the product is complete only after having passed successively through the hands of all;

3. MODERN INDUSTRY, where the product is produced by machinery driven by power, and where the work of the labourer is limited to superintending and correcting the performance of the mechanical agent.’

Production of material goods requires three components as means of production viz. objects of labour (natural and processed material), instruments of labour (tools and machinery) and labour power (human muscle power guided by mind and harnessed natural energy). Ownership and control of means of production determine the mode of production and nature of socioeconomic formation. Logically there can be four different socioeconomic formations. (a) A classless socioeconomic formation in which everyone works contributing labour power and all own collectively the objects of labour and instruments of labour, known as Primitive Communal Society or highly developed Communist Society. (b) A socioeconomic formation having a class of masters owning all the means of production including the slaves which is the other class contributing the labour power, known as Slave Society. (c) A socioeconomic formation having a class of feudal lords owning objects of labour, and instruments of labour and labour power being owned by the craftsman or the peasant contributing the labour power, known as Feudal Society. (d) A socioeconomic formation having a class of capitalists owning all the objects of labour and instruments of labour, and the other class of proletariat owning the labour power who are obliged to sell their labour power as a commodity for their own survival, known as Capitalist Society.

History shows existence of all the four socioeconomic formations. Last three formations can coexist and mutually cooperate as subsets of a larger society because all three are class societies in which the dominant idea is right to property and the class of possessors does not contribute labour power yet appropriates the surplus value produced by the producers. Still all three would be struggling for the hegemony and the core character of the larger society, that is the socioeconomic formation, will be determined by the basic character of the dominant class. But there is no possibility of mutual cooperation of the communist formation with the other three because of mutual exclusivity arising out of irreconcilable antagonism in the form of concept of right to property, and Developed Communist Society must supersede all other class societies for its own existence.

In a class divided society every class is vying for the control of means of production and for creation of socioeconomic formation for its manifestation and perpetuation. Material Social Consciousness is independent of the will of the people and is based on the material foundation of the society - means of production and relations of production. But the Ideological Social Consciousness which develops on material foundation as well as on Material Social Consciousness acts as the will of the class. Its endeavour is to modify and consolidate the mode of production most conducive for its perpetuity. For the propertied classes, most advanced and suitable mode of production is capitalist mode of production. In the initial stages the three different classes fought for three different formations - for Slavery based formation, for Feudal relation based formation and for bourgeois-proletariat relation based formation - and for hegemony but over a period Capitalism emerged as most advanced and progressive of the three formations.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic formation which is to be identified by its mode of production, that is production and distribution of commodities and not by the level of industrial development. In capitalist mode of production labour power is owned and supplied by the proletariat who does not own any other means of production. Objects of labour and means of labour are either owned by or mobilised by the bourgeois with the help of his capital - accumulated value of the surplus labour provided by the proletariat . For his own survival the proletariat is constrained to sell his labour power as a commodity to the bourgeois on the terms set by the latter. Since the bourgeois owns or mobilises the objects and instruments of labour and the labour power, he earns the right to own the articles produced. Out of the value produced in terms of the commodities, he pays out others for providing means of production including labour power and appropriates the surplus. Capitalism is a socioeconomic formation with highly developed social consciousness, and capital is the key component of this formation and consciousness, its elixir. Core character of capital is self aggrandisement through concentration. Constant endeavour of capitalism is to increase productivity, production and consumption of commodities to augment production and appropriation of surplus value. This is how the socioeconomic formation ensures its sustenance. In this process it resorts to unbridled exploitation of natural resources, renders millions of workers jobless to keep the wages at the lowest level, inflicts wars and destruction to consolidate its position and increase demands through reconstruction. As a natural law every living being does everything possible to protect and perpetuate its existence, and Capitalism also produces ideas conducive to the perpetuation of its mode of production to ensure its own survival. ‘The social function of the superstructure is to protect, fortify and develop its basis.’

‘Although, upon the whole, the bourgeoisie, in their struggle with the nobility, could claim to represent at the same time the interests of the different working-classes of that period, yet in every great bourgeois movement there were independent outbursts of that class which was the forerunner, more or less developed, of the modern proletariat.’ With the development of material conditions, the material social consciousness was also developing and it was becoming clear that all human miseries were man made and not God gifted and output of all social production must belong to the society as a whole. Only possible socioeconomic formation that could ensure such condition is a Communist Society. But Communism as a socioeconomic formation can not coexist with other socioeconomic formations, as both are mutually exclusive because of irreconcilable contradiction regarding ownership of means of production and appropriation of social production. Communism can supersede Capitalism or any other socioeconomic formation based on private appropriation of social product only with total annihilation of Capitalism or any other such formation.

To contain Communism, Capitalism promoted the concept of an imaginary socioeconomic formation called Socialism which appeared to be fulfilling aspirations of the working people and at the same time retaining the core character of Capitalism. ‘In its theoretical form, modern Socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the 18th century. Like every new theory, modern Socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts.’ The illusionary concept of socialism, which Marx and Engels called Utopian Socialism, was based on the philosophical ideas developed in France during French revolution of 1789 (attributed to Saint Simon and Charles Fourier) and industrial revolution and working class movement in Great Britain during late eighteenth and mid-nineteenth century (attributed to Robert Owen).

‘This historical situation also dominated the founders of socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalist production and the, crude class conditions corresponded crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure fantasies.’

‘The socialism of earlier days certainly criticised the existing capitalistic mode of production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and, therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. But for this it was necessary (1) to present the capitalistic method of production in its historical connection and its inevitability during a particular historical period, and therefore, also, to present its inevitable downfall; and (2) to lay bare its essential character, which was still a secret, as its critics had hitherto attacked its evil consequences rather than the process of the thing itself. This was done by the discovery of surplus-value. It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labour is the basis of the capitalist mode of production and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it, that even if the capitalist buys the labour-power of his labourer at its full value as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for; and that in the ultimate analysis this surplus value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up the constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of the possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist production and the production of capital were both explained.’ ‘These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value, we owe to Marx. With these discoveries socialism became a science. The next thing was to work out all its details and relations.’

‘The mode of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie, known, since Marx, as the capitalist mode of production, was incompatible with the feudal system. The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society, the kingdom of free. competition, of personal liberty, of the equality, before the law, of all commodity owners, of all the rest of the capitalist blessings. Thenceforward the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom. Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. ....._ now modern industry, in its more complete development, comes into collision with the-bounds within which the capitalistic mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class.’

‘To concentrate these scattered, limited means of production, to enlarge them, to turn them into the powerful levers of production of the present day — this was precisely the historic role of capitalist production and of its upholder, the bourgeoisie. In Part IV of Capital, Marx has explained in detail, how since the fifteenth century this has been historically worked out through the three phases of simple co-operation, manufacture and modern industry. But the bourgeoisie, as is also shown there, could not transform these puny means of production into mighty productive forces without transforming them, at the same time, from means of production of the individual into social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men. The spinning-wheel, the hand-loom, the blacksmith’s hammer, were replaced by the spinning machine, the power-loom, the steam-hammer; the individual workshop by the factory implying the co-operation of hundreds and thousands of workmen. In like manner, production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the products from individual to social products.’ ‘The factories working with the combined social forces of a collection of individuals produced their commodities far more cheaply than the individual small producers. Individual production succumbed in one department after another. Socialised production revolutionised all the old methods of production. But its revolutionary character was, at the same time, so little recognised that it was, on the contrary, introduced as a means of increasing and developing the production of commodities.’ It could not be recognised by the bourgeois thinkers that the mass scale production of commodities was not a relation between buyer and seller of commodities alone. It gave rise to a social relationship between the workers, the producers of surplus value across the world also. On this material foundation arose material social consciousness of the proletariat enabling it to understand that the class of possessors who are appropriating social surplus as individual profit, is in fact a parasite and for the benefit of the mankind has to be done away with. ‘When it arose, it found readymade, and made liberal use of, certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities: merchants’ capital, handicraft, wage-labour. Socialised production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities, it was 4 matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing, and were applied to its products as well.’

‘What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.’ ‘But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism.’ Socialism is the transition phase from Capitalism to Communism during which Ideological Social Consciousness of the proletariat enforces social ownership of means of production as well as social appropriation of the surplus value produced to create material conditions on which will develop material social consciousness and ideological social consciousness necessary for Communism. Prerequisite for Socialism is a’ theory, an ideological social consciousness, which can guide the proletariat to organise and lead all the working people to bring means of production and appropriation of surplus value under social ownership. Marxism is the ideological class consciousness of highly developed and enlightened proletariat which is historically destined to usher in a classless society. ‘According to Engels, socialism in its content is the product of new conceptions that necessarily arise at a definite stage of social development within the proletariat as a result of its material situation. But it creates its own specific scientific form (which distinguishes it from utopian socialism) by its link with German idealism, especially the philosophical system of Hegel.’ ‘Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.’

5. MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SOCIALISM AND MARXISM

Socialism is the social consciousness of the working class during transition from capitalism to communism. Socialist mode of production is based on the social ownership of means of production and appropriation of surplus value created. Change from private ownership and appropriation of surplus to social ownership and appropriation can not be instantaneous. During interim period feudal and capitalist mode of production will coexist with socialist mode of production, but the working class is powerful and well equipped to keep its hegemony and to create material conditions so that working class social consciousness could grow and eradicate bourgeois social consciousness.

Capitalism or Socialism must be identified with the mode of production. Their identification has nothing to do with the industrial development or with the development in the fields of science or changes in production technology, communication technology or information technology.

Marxism is the ideological social consciousness of highly developed and enlightened proletariat. It is based on true and correct understanding of nature and hence is capable of correctly conceptualising formations which could be truly materialised. Because it is based on correct understanding of laws of development of nature it is capable of correctly understanding and interpreting every phenomena in this universe including human society. And because of this it becomes a theory. It is

‘Material force can only be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses. Theory is capable of seizing the masses when it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp things by the root.’ ‘The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook.’

Any idea of “New Concept of Socialism” or “Revision of Marxism’ is ill founded, ill conceived and ill intentioned.

This paper does not mention the names of authors whose quotes are used so that readers could grasp the ideas without any bias. The quotes are within single quotation marks and have been taken from works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Karl Korsch and Doug Lorimer.

Suresh Srivastava

A-50, Sector 19, Noida

Cell : 9810128813