Where do we want to go? :

M. Vijaya Kumar

The Indian Left in decline

The performance of the Left in India leaves much to be desired. They have tragically failed to adopt themselves to the changing paradigm and whenever they talk of a change, they inevitably end up at the wrong end of history. The dismal performance is not confined to electoral arena only. What is crucial is that in the area of mass struggles, we find a serious lack of sustained movement to uphold the interests of the toiling masses. Many of the struggles have become token in character, often failing to bring out any tangible result. They fail to inspire the vast majority of the masses, who remain disinterested onlookers, devoid of any involvement or even curiosity. The slogans express popular demands in a general way, without being concrete and realistic. With this stereotyped pattern, the movement assumes the form of seasonal campaigns.

The loss of credibility is due to two main traits that have crept into the functioning of the Left Parties in the last two decades. One is economic reductioninsm, and the other is the forging of opportunistic alliances, both blurring the distinction between the Left and other bourgeoisie parties.

Alternative political discourse

New methods should be evolved to ensure better growth. There is a serious. and urgent need to build a strong force of revolutionary Left, based on principles of common program, mutual tolerance and shared goals.

There is an urgent need to evolve a credible and effective alternative political course, if the Left has to remain relevant. "Empericism", as Com. Prabhat Patnaik terms it, "is far more worrying than electoral defeats." He says: "What distinguishes a communist party is not that it does not “soil its hands” with mundane, empirical, everyday politics (that would be barren ultra-Leftism), but that its process of engagement even with politics at this level is imbricated by its project of transcending capitalism, informed by a consciousness of what Lukacs (1924) had called “the actuality of the revolution”. To be animated by the “actuality of the revolution™ does not mean to believe that the revolution is around the corner; it only means that the engagement with the “small change of politics” is on the basis of a theory that spans the entire distance between quotidienne politics and the project of transcending capitalism. If this theory linking the “here and now” to the overall project of transcendence is absent from the praxis engaged in “here and now”, then we have a process of empiricisation of the movement."

As is sadly acknowledged by the Left leaders themselves, many of the alliances forged by them with bourgeoisie and regional parties have only resulted in a shrinking of the left presence in elected bodies. The basic reason is that we have given a go by to the concept of popular fronts, where by communists have to build alliances with other like minded forces to further the interests of the toiling masses and ultimately emerge as a credible alternative. What is resorted to is forging of opportunistic alliances, hopping from one group to another to get more seats to contest, and ending up with a blank face in the end, with a poor tally. There are absolutely no principles involved.

The importance of ideology

The left movement has to evolve a coherent ideological discource that is in synchronism with the basic realities of India, such as the changing economic situation, class antagonisms and caste, regional, ethnic and communal identities. In the pre-independence period and immediately after, the CPL was preoccupied with debates whether to follow Soviet or Chinese model of revolution. It is surprising that not enough attention was paid to the question of evolving an Indian path to revolution. In the period after Emergency, the Left leadership was siezed by the problems of ‘here and now’, slowly relegating themselves to the position where, now it is fashionable to say that: "the revolution is nowhere near in the immediate future. We have to organise our cadre to fight for better quality of life under capitalism and learn to survive in the electoral politics. If more jobs are to be created, there should be more industries and we have to support measures that can encourage Indian and foreign capitalists to set up industries. For that land is required and it is inevitable that some peasants have to lose their land." As this line of argument had matured into a full blown ideology, the distinction between the bourgeoisie parties and the Left has been erased to a large extent. The CPI (M) leaders in the then Left ruled states are obsessed with economic growth at any cost — even at the risk of dispossessing the rural poor. And this has alienated the poor rural masses from the Left Parties and ultimately led to the downfall.

A new vision

A new vision, a new World View has to be created. In order to set up the goal of achieving that we have to answer some basic questions:

1. What do we want?

2. Where do we want to go?

3. Which way should we follow?

To answer the first question, it is not enough to say that ‘we want to build socialism. It begs a new question, "what kind of socialism? The kind of socialism that was sought to be built in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Or the previous attempts in China or the new model being followed there and in Vietnam now? The answer is obvious. As dialectical materialists, we cannot afford to delude ourselves into believing that socio-economic models will remain static. The models of the previous century no are longer relevant today. A socialist society of the 2Ist century has to necessarily have the following minimum qualifications, if it has to serve its intended purpose of ending exploitation and building a just society:

1. Full and overall development of all human beings.

2. Breaking the logic of capitalism and build in its place, a protoganistic society of free individuals.

3. A society that is based on substantiative democracy, built from the bottom to the top.

4. A sustainable civilization that preserves the environment and could pass on a better world to its successive generations.

To work for such a society, fundamentally requires that we first unlearn some of our established conceptions and beliefs.

Breaking the ‘Logic of Capitalism":

Central to the concept of building 21st Century Socialism is the pre-requisite of breaking the logic of capitalism. .

As Michael Lebowitz points out: "In capitalism, the logic of capital dominates; and that logic goes counter to the needs of human beings for their own development. In capitalism, the goals of production are the goals of capital for profits. For capital, human beings and nature are just means to that goal. The logic of capital, in fact, is the enemy of the logic of human development.”

The alternative is a society based upon love and solidarity, upon our unity as a human family, “the unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men” (Marx)."

It is understood that growth of capital is central to capitalist development and it goes against human interest. The argument that capitalist industrial growth’ is a precondition for development is not only erroneous, but goes against Marx's views on human development. Unbridled neoliberal capitalist growth leads to high disparities in incomes, high unemployment and human misery. Uncontrolled growth of urban agglomerations leads to clogging of cities and destruction of rural livelihoods. Exchange and consumption of more and more commodities is what sustains this endless cycle of neoliberal profit making whirlpool.

Hence breaking the logic of capital in order to replace it with an economy of co-operative producers, where goods are produced and consumed to satsify human needs is an absolute necessity. This answers the second question.

Characteristics of Socialism of the future:

The fight for socialism as well as the experiments at building an anti-capitalist and thence a socialist society can follow different paths in different countries. In Latin America, we find varied experiences in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries now embarking on a path away from neo-liberal world order.

The second lesson is that the centralized control and command structure seen in ex-Soviet and East-European Socialist states is outdated. We have to realize that this complex and complicated human society can not be planned and controlled from a single control center, with the help of bureaucracy.

Three: Socialism cannot be imposed from above. It has to be built from the bottom, with the active participation of the working people. As Rosa Luxemberg once said, ‘the working class has a right to commit its own mistakes and learn from it.” They should be guided to experiment, learn and change course based on their experience.

Four: As Istvan Mészaros, in ‘The Challenge of Sustainable Development and the Culture of Substantive Equality’, says that “if development in the future is not sustainable development, there will be no significant development at all, no matter how badly needed; that is, the pursuit of sustainable development is inseparable from the progressive realization of substantive equality.” As John Bellamy Foster says, “Today the transition to socialism and the transition to an ecological society are one.” The transition from capitalism to socialism is the most difficult problem of socialist theory and practice. As he argued, the human relation to nature lies at the heart of the transition to socialism. The goal should be to address the most pressing individual and collective requirements of the society related in particular to physiological needs and hence raising directly the question of the human relation to nature. This is the absolute precondition of the creation of a sustainable society. Por sustainability means being really in control of the vital social, economic, and cultural processes through which human beings not merely survive but can also find fulfillment, in accordance with the designs which they set themselves, instead of being at the mercy of unpredictable natural forces and quasi-natural socio-economic determinations. The root problem of socialism goes much deeper. The transition to socialism is possible only through a revolutionizing practice that revolutionizes human beings themselves. The only way to accomplish this is by altering our human metabolism with nature, along with our human-social relations, transcending both the alienation of nature and of humanity.

Five: As the experience in Soviet Union teaches us, only an active participation of the masses

from the ground level ie., at the factory, basti or gram sabha to the highest national decision making bodies have to be active and conscious in their efforts at building an anti-capitalist society that could progressively inch towards building socialism. The working class and its vanguard party have to constantly shield themselves from the sabotage of bureaucracy and the rise of a new ruling class of apparatchiks that will ultimately take over and derail the revolution. The experiments in Venezuela to counter the sabotage of bureaucracy by promoting communal councils vested with constitutional authority is a case in point.

Six: A socialism of the future has to be profoundly democratic. If you want to build a truly democratic society, it automatically follows that the vanguard party that is supposed to lead the masses towards a revolutionary change has to be all the more democratic in true letter and spirit.

Seven: We need to recognize, too, that socialism is not the worship of technology — in the form of immense factories, mines, and collective farms to capture presumed economies of scale. Rather, we must acknowledge that small enterprises may both permit greater democratic control from below (thus developing the capacities of the producers) and also may better preserve an environment which can serve the needs of people. We can learn the lessons from the experiences of the 20" Century. We know now that the desire to develop a good society for people is not sufficient - you have to be prepared to break with the logic of capital in order to build a better world

Eight: Socialism is not simple growth of factories and other infrastructure. More importantly, it is building a new socialist human being. A commitment to the egalitarian, universal development of humanity is fundamental to Marx. For Che, socialism means the all round development of human beings. In Marx’s words, “a society of free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth” (Grundrisse).

Nine: In the words of John Bellamy Foster, “The goal here is to address the most pressing individual and collective requirements of the society related in particular to physiological needs and hence raising directly the question of the human relation to nature. This is the absolute precondition of the creation of a sustainable society.”

Ten: A break with the logic of capital is possible with the concept of ‘endogenous development”. where communities of producers and communities of consumers come together in localized groups and voluntarily produce and consume what is required by the community, dislodging the logic of capital. It is not an easy task as capital attacks through different means and a diverse range of institutions. Rather than a focus upon the development of productive forces, Lebowitz stresses the centrality of human beings and the development of the institutions which permit them to transform themselves.

Eleven: The traditional belief that large industries are going to create large scale employment and secondary employment indirectly and thus spur the development of the surrounding region is outdated. Today, large industries are highly automated and employment generation is highly disproportional to the capital investment. What is needed is a stress in localized and highly dispersed production centers, under community control and management, employing highly sophisticated technology. It is pertinent to note here that days of ‘appropriate’ technology also are gone.

Twelve: There are no short cuts and diversions in the journey towards socialism. As Mészaros emphasizes, “in the complex dialectic of production-distribution-consumption, no one part can stand alone - it is necessary to radically restructure the whole of these relations. Consequently, we will be only defeating our purpose, if we leave production relations and distribution to the mercy of market forces

Thirteen: Socialist  societies have to achieve a higher level of economic, social and technological   development as compared to capitalism, if they have to survive and prosper.

Fourteen: At the core of this new combination are three characteristics, what Hugo Chavez had called the “Elementary Triangle of Socialism”: (a) social ownership of the means of production, which is a basis for (b) social production organized by workers in order to (c) satisfy communal needs and communal purposes.

Fifteen: The knowledge needed to build and sustain an alternative society, a society based upon human bonds, is necessarily “democratic, participatory and protagonistic.” Knowledge, built on the community basis to satisfy social needs will be corner stone of a future socialist society. Such a society can be called a “Socialist Knowledge Society”.

Conclusion

The Left in India have very little window of opportunity left open for them to correct their course and make a whole hearted effort at evolving a credible alternative policy to take the country to socialism. Otherwise, only darkness looms before us. In the end, | would like to stress that a fight against inequality goes nowhere unless you have a clear vision and goal. As Lebowitz stressed, “If you don’t know where to go, no road will take you there.”

References:

The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism? by Michael A. Lebowitz, Monthly Review, Feb 2009

Commodity Fetishism, Sustainable Development, and Marx's Capital, By David S. Pena, Political Affairs. 14-11- 2007

Istvan Mészaros, The Structural Crisis of Capital. Monthly Review Press 2010, Istvan Mészaros, The Challenge and Burden of Historical Time: Socialism in the Twenty-First Century. Monthly Review Press 2008

The Battlefields Chosen by Contemporary Imperialism: Conditions for an Effective Response from the South by Samir Amin, MR Zine, 06-02-2010 :

The revitalisation of the fight for socialism by M. Vijaya Kumar, All India Workshop on “Marxism in the

Contemporary World”, December 21-24", 2009, NRR Research Center, Hyderabad.

marlavk@yahoo.com