In Quest of Alternative For Radical Shift

In Quest of Alternative
For Radical Shift

Gian Singh
Communism
Perceptions and Perspectives
In Search of Alternative
For Social Change
4
Searching Alternative
Published by:
Tehrik Publications
383/6 Fatehpuri Colony
Rohtak-124001, India
Rohtak, India: 2014
Circulation is the best price
Acknowledgement will be
appreciated, if used in any manner.
5 Searching Alternative
INDEX
Introduction 7-20
1. The Dream 21-24
2.. The Vision 25-36
3. The Philosophy 37-44
4. The Problem 45-70
5. The Present System 71-80
6. Fact File 81-102
7. Analysis of Events 103-108
8. Theory of
Revolution 109-122
9. The New Experiment 123-146
10. Communist Movement 147-186
11. Quest for Sustainable Future 187-196
10 Prologue 197-203
References 204
The first step is to penetrate the clouds of deceits and
distortion and learn the truth about the world, then to
organise and act to change it. That;s never been
impossible, and never been easy. It is not impossible now
and not easy either. There has rarely been a time in history
when that choice carried such dramatic human
consequences.
Noam Chomsky
In Lieu of
Introduction
This is a study about society, with its web of
relationships and its future. It is a society living in
twenty first century with all its attractions and
absurdities. The study also intends to meet certain myths
in the present day world deliberately built up to keep
status quo working and the failures to meet them
squarely so far, where status quo is not worth living
for heavy majority of populations all over. The living
experiences gained till now, especially in the immediate
past, make it essential to undertake this exercise in
the interest of social good.
There is no dearth of studies on society; it is an unending
stream. A lot has been written on communist movement
also; critical presentations are in heaps. The present
effort, however, is from a different perspective having
a different reference point and in one sense from a
partisan angle, differentiating people from the state
establishment and whom it serves like an obedient kin.
The harsh experience of recent history teaches not to
take concepts on authority, state and political party as
have been accepted so far. The concept of capturing
state power for revolution has done a great harm to
social science; every nasty manoeuvre for capturing or
holding authority stands legitimatised to disadvantage
8
of social good. To invest revolutionary character in
proletarian class was wrong based on false logic. So has
been a concept of dictatorship of proletariat damaging
to the cause of social change from capitalist juggernaut.
Conceptually, political party relates basically to the
interest of bourgeois class; it cannot work as instrument
of working population with its sinister principle of
democratic centralism. Theory built around these
concepts and formulations have proved disastrous to
the science of social change.
Secondly, there is no case in denying valuable studies
in the past, point is to relate things for a changed
situation when balance of forces have gone for a shift
with much to learn from past mistakes. For study, it is
not intended to go by stereotype studies from teachers
of bye-gone era blindly. For this study, it is recognised
that none can do justice to it unless present condition
is taken into account without blinkers.
We as society are driven at present for over a period
by a capital based mode of production and distribution,
which designed contending self-interests as its
motivating force to move ahead, bringing its own
corresponding cultural mould to dominate social relations
delivering a death blow in consequence to harmonious
way of life with nature, prevalent in previous family
farming mode. This shift proved disastrous.
In between, an effort was made by legions of well
meaning sociologists to correct course in early twentieth
century, though remaining attached to capital centred
mode intact, fought private ownership of means of
production describing it as the only evil in system, and
equating social ownership with state ownership, to
counter the contention that sanctifies private profit
for progress. This did not prove a sufficient course
correction in the model. For one, the State cannot be
equated with Society, unless one is determined to
commit hara kari (suicide).
To sum up, we, the people at present are living
essentially in a savage world of strife and unfulfilled
wants but of possibilities too for a better future. (We
here means minus rulers, donning various colours). Man,
including woman, stands devalued, dehumanised and
alienated in midst of material gains for few today.
Human society has reached a stage where both these
aspects of present impasse and inherent possibilities to
break road blocks require careful inquiry lest it loose
self assurance for a better future. After collapse of Soviet
experiment in 1991, disturbing factor in the situation is
lack of self confidence in a large section of dispirited
mass to look beyond the abounding myths that go to
colour vision and enslave our thinking faculty to keep
status quo intact. When occasional upstarts exploit this
desperation of masses, it celebrates illusions unbound.
An honest exercise to break the stranglehold of such
deadening burden must go green.
There is an irony of sorts: Those among us who aspire
to live by honest labour and with dignity are the hardest
to suffer at present. Children, elderly and those who
stand deprived of gainful pursuits have gone uncared
and unloved. It is a world of contradictions,
contradictions within contradictions, pulls and counter
pulls, unity of opposites, negation of negations, constant
10
tussle between differing interests and a constant urge
for lasting peace with nature. Still, it prides to call
itself modern, civilised and democratic, signifying rule
of rich over the people, claiming it as an advance from
past stage of slavery by feudal autocracy and patriarchy.
It is a reckless world where rule of powerful ordains
and cut-throat race for survival is made norm, where
animal instinct is sanctified as a prime mover to
progress and become rich while aam aadmi is asked to
happily accept position of a sacrificial goat in race of
wild, where development is made a word to
mesmerise.
There is another facet: dark alleys keep rays of hope
within. Possibilities for a better future though are not
easy to have unless the present is shaken off shoulders.
This present had started its journey with industrial
revolution that changed relations and culture drastically
between men and men (women included) for centuries
to come and brought in new organs of governance,
most deadly of them is modern state coupled with its
power of coercion and control over thinking faculty of
masses at will. The built in structures of an intrusive
state are working as agents of status quo, some with
deadly powers for hands-down obedience while others
busy in churning consent of the misled. Like every other
country, Indian situation is essentially same for people,
despite repeated claims, ad nauseam, of a high
democratic faith.
Now, in present democratic dispensation, man is
seemingly free but chained all around in a cobweb of
laws/regulations ordained by the state apparently for
an orderly obedience to power mad rich and
disobedience is unlawful in a society that rests on
perennial disorder. The overarching law of disorder is
where inequality reins, which cannot leave society
orderly for a moment. Law is enacted to protect
lawlessness and order is made to keep disorder intact,
while court is to provide legitimacy to illegitimate.
The nexus between profit oriented defence industry
and expansion oriented armed forces work upon each
other for mutual existence with Fight Against Terror
as a new alibi freshly crafted by executive, when a
previous ghost in communism turned meaningless after
collapse of the Soviets. This is how present set up is
breathing heavy over shoulders of the people. The
reason for this duplicity remains that it is a rule of
minority over majority with help of an elaborate system
of deception and coercion, using varied tools it has
devised.
It is a world where myths are galore; built and rebuilt,
to keep status quo safe for plunderers. It is a world of
lies and manufactured truths for the ruled to believe
in. Here legions of leaders and teachers are busy ever
who preach from past and present for future to keep
the flock in attendance, some spinning fancy stories at
times, working almost as soothsayers and living on
followers. The state regulates and administers an
elaborate system of inequalities, injustice, plunder. It
prepares this class of preachers to tune in with carrots/
rods. For the state, citizens are unruly urchins to
discipline, notwithstanding fancy theories about its
democratic faith.
If questions are asked about earlier set upwell, society
has moved ahead dispensing patriarchal community!
12
The questions are summarily dodged or narrated with
malice and disdain, only to serve justification for
bourgeois take over as a progressive march of history.
Unfortunately, by implication in bargain, vested interest
of bourgeoisie (trader) was made co-terminus with
interest of masses when this take over was described
as progressive without describing the loss it heaped on
them. The lost past is to be accepted as a period alone
of retrograde feudal lords and patriarchy to despise in
favour of these new savages and brutes.
In between, there came an experiment spanning almost
seven decades of twentieth century to rid present
society of these ills that had plagued it, with full theory
of liberation covering all aspects of life. The logic was
captivating. By then unjust and unequal society was
tired of armed conflict and hunger. The experiment
thus attracted much attention and support worldwide.
Later at a stage, it fell flat by 1991 mainly due to its
own faulty premises and follies in practice, not
confirming to social reality, on essentials to rebuild
society fresh. It failed to meet challenges thrown by a
capital-based industrial-commercial life and
corresponding culture. Instead, the experiment helped
to grow capitalist mode of production and distribution
within its womb nurturing its ills beneath. When
experiment fell finally for all to see, society was no
better. The labour of almost seven decades went waste
with hopes for liberation dashed to ground for a while,
breeding despondency in its wake. The ranks were
unaware what so-called communist /socialist leadership
has done to their biblical faith.
Everything was rotten in society before industrial
revolution, as per mythical script of these self-claimed
wise men. Industrial revolution abolished slavery and
ignorance, they say, bringing society to modern times.
And for progress some have to pay a price, dictum
goes in utter simplicity!! Obeying it, after a journey of
three centuries, 99 per cent are paying hard for benefit
of 1 per cent of population as in America (per-cent-age
varying with countries: in India it is 80:20), experience
so far testifies. It is increasingly becoming difficult even
for rulers to deny grim reality now.
Another disturbing aspect has emerged: the
unmistakable message of relevant social indicators is
that upward movement of social forces worldwide has
entered to a new low for over three decades. The first
decade of twenty-first century saw a frenzied effort
to debunk gullible and brute armed repression of dissent.
Technology and money power have additionally given
them new teeth. The regressive forces are on offensive
at present. Those who once worked for progress are in
disarray. The saga of heroic struggle by Vietnamese
against US invaders was the last pitched battle of this
series against colonial possession, oppression and
indignity that gave hope for a sustained struggle against
injustice and aggression. It itself stands betrayed by
fighters themselves after victory. A tragedy of sorts
indeed!
Twentieth century had witnessed two events that
proved decisive in effect. The collapse of former
socialist camp and its structures formalised in 1991
proved as game changer as October Revolution of 1917
in Russia had shape to a course of history that had
14
attracted changes in balance of forces. The events of
1991 provided opportunity to dark forces for moving
unchecked. The capitalist-imperialist countries re-
asserted their hegemony with much vigour and sought
by other means what they tried through two world
wars earlier. Alignment of forces has changed drastically
in their favour, at least for time being.
The forces inimical to a just social-political-economic,
cultural-ethical, administrative and moral order are in
hurry to consolidate and prey. Wasting no time, they
have taken steps in favour of corporate capital to
dominate both by military and non-military means and
secondly to de-steam commoners by making capital and
technology charming and invincible, by heavy dose
of cosmetics. Human labour is at discount, much less
than even inert labour. Efforts are afoot to portray
human labour as inconsequential. Machine with new
technologies is posed as the new saviour. As a result,
man is devalued and money is made central to
relationships in a market dominated world. This is a
new world of manipulators.
Keeping thinking faculty tight to their design is on
increase with active help of state, political
establishment, embedded academicians and the media.
The ruling classes in every country feel confident to
overawe disinherited humanity with technological
refinement and subjugate them with regulatory
mechanism duly buttressed by sophisticated military
hardware. The so-called class parties of all hues were
toeing same line of corporate capital, to the dismay of
commoners all over world; many changing colours over-
night to keep their shops going.
At this stage of capitalist growth by spurts and bouts
another disturbing feature has emerged: since the state
is most convenient with atomised individuals as its
citizens for easy control and to keep system immune
and safe from any potential challenge, crash
individualism is made out as a liberating pill for an
unsuspecting mass of people, especially women and
youths, charmed to drugs and uninhibited sex so that
institutions of community and family are demolished
in bargain as evils.
Family is posed as an inconvenient hurdle for a free
citizen to grow and its neighbourhood community as
relic of a past. Its social structures devised to provide
shelter at difficult times to the family and its community
are told to vanish from scene as anti-development.
There is no challenge to this scheming design worth
the name. Those who took pride once to champion for
human labour and dignity as central to human civilisation
and progress have by and large gone mute.
One fact is unmistakable. The state as an institution
world over has transformed into its new avatar. It is a
monster growing day by day like an octopus with the
web of laws more stringent to control with one alibi or
the other in a stream. How to explain this in this world
of democracy and freedom?
And those betrayed faith of struggling masses were the
leaders of every conceivable colour with whom people
had reposed faith mistakenly. The institution of political
parties played game on the masses. The creative energy
of the people and their initiative stood expropriated
with their power emasculated by this tribe of political
16
class in human history. Democracy was debased as
representative democracy running through the
institution of political parties has saved the day for
exploiters unchained.
For a while desperate people and those who believed
in human values of a just order had reposed faith in
communist/socialist parties to be different. The class
theory made these parties attractive to them. Millions
joined ranks for a better world. The betrayal, however,
by leadership of these so-called revolutionary formations
world over during these seven decades of experiment
in rebuilding society testified their basic characteristics
of a reliable tool in hands of capitalist order. These
formations compounded the tragedy manifold who
virtually worked for capitalist growth everywhere while
mouthing slogans against exploitation and expropriation
for believers to be duped. It is a sad story that these
parties too were as effective as bourgeois parties were
instrumental in destroying initiative and creativity of
masses that had gained wings after overthrow of
autocratic rulers in past with a liberating slogan of
equality, liberty and fraternity.
With collapse of Soviet and Chinese model of socialism/
communism in making, with numerous variants in many
other countries like Albania, Romania, Vietnam, Cuba
etc. and role of left formations, certain important
questions of theory and practice are up for reasonable
answer. That collapse did not make dehumanising
capitalist set up any more pleasing. Neither it was the
end of history; collapse signified fatal errors in
judgement and opened a window afresh to relook
certain important postulates of liberation struggle that
started taking shape in nineteenth century in answer to
degrading capitalist order. The agenda is still on table.
In India, situation has gone worse, despite potentialities
of a bright future. It is rich country with poor people,
deprived by crafty forces in command firstly a colonial
power and later by its native clone. The country had
gained freedom after a prolonged struggle against a
shameful chapter in its history, bearing humiliation of
degrading slavery and dehumanising expropriation for
two hundred years at the hands of British rulers.
The aroused aspirations of masses during freedom
struggle were an excellent force for execution. But it
was not to be. It did not suit new ruling masters. The
opportunity went squandered and people stood cheated.
The story of last seven decades of Independence is a
grim tale of slavery to the rich accompanied with
hunger, destitution and indignity for labouring masses
no less than the British rule had heaped. All ills of
capitalist-imperialist regime are welcome with glee to
them now.
The current phase of globalised economy is being
utilised to transfer ownership of national resources to
corporate capital with vigour, including land, water,
forest and minerals through an elaborate web of
machinations, brewing discontentment in the
disinherited mass. The corresponding rise in its armed
strength during this period is to the rule book of a
matured capitalist mode that speaks same tale of other
imperialist countries in world, having more relevance
to internal discontentment than external threats to its
existence. It is a deadly armed police state by now.
18
The globalised economy has brought sharp division in
ranks of working people. In Europe those who lost job
or opportunities for a batter wage are on streets fighting
for preservation, while in countries where western
countries have shifted manufacturing units in search of
low labour costs workers have turned mute and obedient
to their masters for their benevolence to hire them
on relatively better wages and other benefits. The dream
of international solidarity among workers has gone sore
again like it had during world wars previously shattering
wild hopes of classical revolutions in advanced
industrialised countries as a vista of liberation for the
world to enjoy.
While Government trembles in rage on any faint sign of
self management in exercise of direct democracy by
the people, it remains very accommodating to even
disgustingly depraved behaviour by any unruly section,
flaunting its democratic faith. Constitution is a
convenient book of reference at need but ruling
establishment looses no time to walk over it several
times a day to serve vested interests. It is ruling through
a legion of false gods and myths, duly laced with armed
force at command.
The ebb has set in, not because capitalist-imperialist
forces have grown younger or invincible. It is a haggard
entity of low morale. The present dispensation has not
gathered steam for a better future either. It cannot.
Capitalism is too dehumanising to retain vitality. For
this aspect alone it must be thrown away. The present
stage of hiatus, however, merely signifies a state of
disintegration and conceptual confusion among forces
of the struggling humanity desirous of change.
Nevertheless, the forces of change have to get on with
fresh parameters to guide where necessary. Nothing is
static; motion is the law of nature. Human society too
has the tendency to move ahead, unless driven to
regress. Let us try to find ways for a better world
without expropriation, living in dignity with each other
in an atmosphere of brotherhood and mutual trust,
cooperation, tranquillity and in peace. The agenda of
social change for a just and peaceful order is order of
the day.
This study is not intended to be a classic treatise of
academic value or style. It concentrates on dealing with
current issues of at hand to release dialogue and
discussion on questions of social change in light of
experiences so that the movement is out of old rut. It
is a document for the movement.
Theory for us is not a subject of conventional wisdom
to adorn but a guide to action and practice, a habitual
performance of principles. In the present study theory
has come under radar for fresh evaluation and for
normal exercise in renewal in light of past experiences
but never to decry teachers. The practice on theory in
the past is under study for fidelity and never to decry
ancestors on personal level. If somewhere harsh words
used in study have hurt anybody, we feel sorry for
unintentional pain.
The stinking garbage from failed attempts to transform
society for a better one is too heavy a legacy. It has to
be replaced with fresh approach to things. The outdated
postulates even from teachers in past may not keep us
stuck in tracks.
20
We propose to look at things afresh. The present study
may at places relate to our experiences rooted in India,
but it must relate to universal relevance. The vision
retains focus on common application.
Let us proceed to learn from failures....
Gian Singh
The Dream
We have redeemed hope in a cherished dream after
a long journey of desperation indeed. Yes, we dream
of bright future when present is not worth living in
with constant strife and tension. But it is a dream of
substance. Being wild is not its fibre. It is true that this
dream means to move away from present reality that
is cruel and painful. And this dream is also a strong
denouncement of what we are forced to live with
presently. One realisation, however, is overwhelming:
humanity is faced with a reality, which is a harsh price
peoples all over are paying for believing in cheats,
robbers and double-speak of a recent history as saviours.
We, of course, do not dream wild. Wild targets lead
society nowhere. Our aspirations are well within reach,
rather much earlier these could have been a bench
mark of reality, but for bad elements who are out to
live on others labour. It is not necessary that humanity
is placed in perpetual cruelty and uncertainty.
One fact of social life can be forcefully underlined:
humanity was not destined to suffer as at present; it is
entirely a man made tragedy of a trap contrived to
subserve sectarian interests of cheats and bad elements,
banking on muscles of an armed state. Before history
suffered a setback nearly four hundred years ago by
falling prey to a wild promise, man was never such
beastly in conduct to his compatriots as he can be today.
I
22
So, we, the peoples of all countries, do dream to live
in peace and live with dignity, where none would
deceive others on their labour. No one likes to starve
for no fault of one and die unloved and unwanted. Part
of it is the resolve to translate this dream; an immediate
agenda before humanity for translation into reality.
It is a reasonable case where honourable living in
harmony with nature and with fellow beings in
communitarian setting and in a congenial atmosphere
bearing trust, sharing, cooperation, brotherhood and
the right of self-management of ones community life
is fully feasible. In fact, it is a natural right with human
beings, usurped so far by cheats and double-speaks.
Yes, it is not the reality at present; it is still a universal
dream to attain. All round discrimination, indignity and
inequality rule that cannot be the basis of socio-
economic-political-cultural existence in any desirable
variant of democracy.
Certainly it is not the case that no one had aspired
ever for bright future before. Many strived many times
to translate a better future earlier; probably with serious
limitations in their times. A few of them were honest
experiments quite illogical and wishful without
understanding nature of their enemy, while others
proved blunders of high magnitude. A new effort has
to be made after evaluating current problems and taking
due cognizance of past efforts.
At present humanity is faced with an adversary force
that is crafty, deceitful and as cruel as cunning. It has
mastered this art of trickery and using perpetual fear
through a combination of armed power combined with
sophisticated methods for blunting thinking faculty of
people to keep them in mental and physical subjugation.
Surely, no one could doubt real intentions of the leading
force when it once propounded a captivating slogan,
Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, for a change in social,
economic and political relations, which it has translated
today into a virtual machine to keep hapless majority
everywhere under heels only to keep float the interests
of corporate capital. A butcher poses to be a saviour!
For almost four hundred years, it is a rule of capital
that made human society reel under unprecedented
agony, oppression and expropriation, under constant
strife and tension, but on principles like George Bernard
Shaw spoke of such souls as he described for Englishmen:
There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not
find Englishman doing it; but you will never find
Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on
principles: he fights you on patriotic principles, he robs
you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial
principles, but he bullies you on manly principles; he
supports his king on loyal principles and cuts off his
kings head on republican principles.
Yes, capitalist masters do everything on principles which
British represent in classic piety of gentlemen. They
invest to provide employment to hungry, they sell their
merchandise for keeping humanity satisfied as saviours
of Christian faith, they accept incentives on their
services from public exchequer to oblige tax payers!
So do our leaders in political establishments who sell
fake dreams, a field of their specialisation, in service
,
24
of these masters of principles. They can sell in
confidence any of their merchandise anywhere to varied
takers in any climate with humility at necessity-salesmen
of quality. It is a varied tribe which stands groomed,
rewarded and cultivated during times of youthful
performances but more in periods of serious challenge.
It is neither said on malice nor on hearsay but a result
of study.
There is no doubt that today Man stands devalued. In
his/her place, property/capital has been made a master
key to all relations at the cost of social values. To lead
a life has become a burden for majority of people;
many are pushed to unethical ways for survival. Even
womb of a woman has been turned into a paying industry
and female sexuality a highly profitable virtue that keeps
their industrial pursuits blooming amidst general down
slide. Still masters claim bringing prosperity and bliss in
modern way of life to humanity without parallel.
It is nobodys case that living in sin is an honourable
choice, but a tragic hole per force of this system for a
good number of people for survival; such a debasing
system is not worth tolerance any longer. No other
explanation is possible of any worth to keep it living.
Now is the time to have a purposive dream! And constant
efforts made to translate it to reality of hope.
The Vision
The Blind Spots
Pursuing a feasible dream needs to be translated in
reality, especially one which serves future of humanity.
That is the current agenda worth working for by all
those who love living a worthy present that is free
from squalor and indignity. A bright dream to fulfil.
Let us now start probing our issue with a question:
How to look at things; read the problems to their real
meanings and possible solution? My fresh student does
not answer. He is good at theorems but does not
understand philosophy that provides insight to probe
things in their varied dimensions. He is satisfied to
move around under illusion of a sponsored vision
unknowingly. Social sciences do not attract him
anymore, much less the philosophy as its good part. At
present he selects his subjects that are saleable in the
market like others in his circle and prides in
specialisation without bothering whom it benefits best
to turn personality of a man sectional and torn, while
getting some crumbs to his lap too in exchange. These
go to satisfy him with a notion of self negation in a
world of competition where unemployment reigns. He
finds no use for philosophy; where is the time to
deliberate or contest on right and wrong, he argues.
II
26
But, where is the need of destructive competition and
where has gone his time to analyse? Do you think the
world, or India is short of resources enough for
employment to all? He shrinks his shoulders in despair.
Clearly he has not given thought to such aspects of the
problem. Whom his theorems help, I ask. Again, he
remains silent. OK. This is one aspect of the problem.
Lack of interest in philosophy that made him blind to
realities apart, how he fell out with his parents who
did their best to finance his studies so far going out of
their means with faith in the best of his career, my
new student is not ready to open. What made him sick
and alone in the midst of a good package, he is dumb.
His sickly face frightens with sleepy eyes and negative
tendencies to hide after a short live-in relationship
broke; the charmed beauty was his colleague in the
same city of fortunes. He is from cyber city of all
modern gadgets to entertain. But the fleeting fortunes
do not smile on him any longer. Desperation brought
him for counselling lessons. Sad, indeed. This is another
side of the story that unfolds.
What is wrong with usual marriage? The estranged girl
student flares up in rage to my question. Her answer
stuns; why a girl has to be a machine for producing
children, she counters. Do you love your mother? Yes,
very much, more than my father and she loves me too.
The claim comes proudly, from a girl, who fell victim
to modern education with feminist flavour. Was your
mother a machine to produce you? She angrily keeps
silent. That was her mothers choice; perhaps the
answer from a modern girl would be, without realising
that the choice of an individual emanates from a given
milieu. Universities and colleges in the times of her
mother had not taken up the job of creating trained
cogs out of students for the market to serve corporate
capital engaged in earning maximum profit through high
tech industries at the debilitating cost of human society,
my girl student did not realise. The state did it for her
at the call of capital by changing the whole gamut of
educational system, as Indian government formalised
the change in the object of education under its New
Education Policy-1986, if told my both students are likely
to react and brand me a political enthusiast in a moment
spontaneously as if intuitively.
There is a reason: bereft of analytical capacity due to
lack of interest in philosophy of life as their guide, the
young generation today stand conditioned to a given
philosophy of rulers, mostly without their knowing it,
through universities and colleges, duly hammered by
constant blare from an embedded media at command.
Moreover, media-men/women too, being conditioned
themselves as products of the same education, work as
convinced enthusiasts to uphold values that go to serve
corporate capital and not the society they came from,
like any John Perkins of Confessions of an Economic
Hitman.
So, who changed the previous milieu of a mother to
new set of the defiant daughter and why, without their
knowing it or conscious consent? For both students this
explanation is philosophy, which does not interest them.
If it is explained that the question relates more to the
ups and downs in your own lives that affects their
mental faculties, both students may feign fatal
ignorance. This is another disturbing part of the issue.
28
Without clear vision, we then go by others without
examining motives/parameters involved and do not try
to know generally our surroundings we live in. This
makes us half blind to take things granted, while
remaining more concerned about specialised knowledge
good enough for saleability for mere survival or some
addition to riches of dubious value, while at the same
time moving with a sense of half-backed superiority
over our own specialisation. We do not remain realists,
but chasers of fleeting dreams/ mirages. This leaves a
big gap in life and ultimately turns society poorer and
the man a dud. The deficit ultimately tells upon both
individuals and the community we live in telling upon
the health of society. Who has made the situation slide
back in terms of overall social necessity? Again, there
is a long silence from both of them. Perhaps prudence
of the self dictates it!
Money begets money; and more money makes one mad
for it in a strange world where dog bites dog. My both
students take courage and express confidence that the
state regulation is a good remedy here to keep the
market going, keeping the dog at bay. When asked to
explain the rapid economic growth and rising graph of
crimes direct in proportion despite having a highly
centralised state structure during the last seven decades
of independence in India, the boy keeps mum, while
the girl seems ignorant. Both lack courage to analyse
their half-baked conviction and court tragedy of sorts.
There is another incident recently that throws ample
light on what we are faced to at present. A family
groomed its daughter well and she, like my students
above, dreamed high perhaps unaware of rules of the
game in a world of competitive market so let loose a
few decades earlier by adherents of globalisation as a
creed. Exercising her new consciousness of freedom,
she somehow reached Mumbai to try her luck in the
murky but glamorous field of films. Despite her physical
assets, she could not rise above the level of a small-
time actress and faced unemployment bouts off and
on. In the meantime, she was lucky to have an airman
buddy loving her who was soon posted outside.
However, she was desperate to be on the high screen
and tried to groom a film-journalist to help her in the
bid. At one point, her lover could smell presence of
someone with her while talking on phone at dead of
night and took a flight to reach the rented flat. In a
rage over betrayal of faith in love, the airman killed
both of them in bed, without him realising the bigger
tragedy involved in an episode behind a curtain that
drew a girl to a murky market. He could not reach the
real enemy to avenge, hidden in a much darker corner.
Hopeful on the weight of her assets, she tried to play
game of the market without understanding its
implications, particularly in her case that overflows with
supply, and where bigger fish swallows smaller one for
survival. The grim tragedy occurred where an ignorant
girl fell victim to the allurement of money and fame let
loose by a larger group of dubious forces for people
like her duly tutored of freedoms and rights of an
individual to choose in a wild web of the powerful.
This was not the case of a newly enlightened girl of
her fictitious right to choose her partner at will; it was
a case of finding her way in the blind alley of market
forces that took an innocent young life extinguished
30
ultimately in a useless pursuit of low value gamble. My
girl student sympathised with the female victim, while
the boy could not defend the journalist who was out to
exercise his position for sex as an individual liberated
by market economy, neither the airman who valued
faith in love rather than indulgence in available sex.
The boy surmised that Mumbai is a different world with
paradoxes. OK.
Another incident nearby from an area which prides in
its rich cultural heritage of a community feeling: on
18
th
September, 2009 the world woke up to a shocking
news of a frail girl student in University nearby who
killed her own full family of children, young and old
one by one at dead of night throttling them in induced
sleep by poison. She was removing them from her path
to remain free with her neighbourhood buddy in the
village and went to enjoy company in midst of dead
bodies lying around. While her dotting father was away
to earn for her studies, the girl remained busy learning
lessons to be bold on sex, sexuality and freedom of
choice.
My students stood stupefied for a while on grim details
of the happening so close. Both at face value stood
perplexed, but took it a case of individual degeneration.
They are as ignorant of a philosophy working behind
market as they are unaware about the philosophy of
life.
They are ignorant on another aspect: the situation
working behind these happenings is not a natural
outcome of infantile choice of individuals alone. It is
the net result of a definite cultural mould being pursued
laboriously of late by those who command governance
and worked upon citizens, young and old.
Total education system is designed on purpose to make
one poorer while another zone richer hinged on market
compulsions. And market in turn is controlled by the
requirements of the finance/corporate capital and its
owners. Alluring film-land to an aspiring girl and
university campus for a budding student of modernity
is doing the assigned job well. The recent spurt in sex
crime is not without reason when family, community
and its web of relationships are made irrelevant. In the
scheme of things these are common men/ women who
are commandeered to follow the laid rules ordained by
a patriarchal state establishment.
The sad story of all the unfortunate victims, however,
underlines a tragedy under estimation of these modern
cities of fortune. They fell for it and suffered. The
family of the Mumbai girl had not visualised perhaps
what is in store for their beloved daughter who had
set her foot in a wild world of market driven beasts.
The victim girl and the status drunk journalist were
propelled to chase wild goose, while old-fashioned
airman misunderstood this world of freedom in sex for
love. The lovers in village were seeking bliss in freedom
for self with no mind for others. My half-ignorant
students are no exception to a game of the rich; who
for the rest are intelligent enough for jobs assigned to
them under market mechanism.
Another big stakeholder in this big business of half
ignorance is the state machinery that is designed to
control/enslave the mass of followers in perpetuity to
32
serve masters of capital. The half ignorant students do
not understand this law of opposite interests and have
no incentive left to understand the particular philosophy
behind the market that is working constantly for this
deluge, while serving ultimately the forces inimical to
social good. This signifies though the level of success
the establishment has achieved in fulfilling a design. It
cannot be a fault of the half ignorant boy or the girl on
way to school; vision remains clouded due to deep
sponsored haze. Later in life, one will have less chance
to know the bluff behind living with a theorem centric
mind to guide.
Still, the first question remains. The answer starts with
the decision where one remains on side of the fence
that separates opposite interests consisting of traders
in darkness and the camp that relishes truth instead.
Those who do business in darkness and ignorance are
mortally afraid of those who cherish light and wisdom
to dominate. If one decides, in ignorance or by
deliberate choice, to be part of the ugly business and
joins the termite brigade out to crush society from
within and enjoys destruction of homogeneity in
community, it is a choice of self negation. The society,
which includes respective community and the family
where one learnt the art of taking first step ahead,
goes bust to the advantage of corporate capital. If one
decides to remain with kith and kin in turmoil around,
the forces of reason go gaga. In that case, one can see
problems from a point of view that helps to determine
the interests of your fellow beings. The other is a view
point of the ruling establishment. The grey area between
the two is very slippery at core. One has to be careful
to wade through the muddled waters for safe landing.
Here one categorical statement has to be made. The
state is never neutral in a divided society of opposite
interests or honest to some social contract theory. It
has already turned into an armed instrument in the hands
of capital to suppress/coerce the ruled as a distinct
category. By now all fine trappings to hide the reality
have fallen asunder. This is a bare truth.
My students are very hopeful on democracy, but have
little clarity what it signifies in the real world. They
are conscious on their right to adult suffrage and feel
free to exercise it for answerable governance. However,
both are pathetically patchy about its story of past 67
years in independent India on the point. When told to
correct on deficiency in knowledge, they agreed to
listen a bit on democracy for the present.
Concept of Democracy
Democracy is the outcome initially of equality, liberty,
fraternity slogan first in French bourgeois revolution.
It rests on the concept of individuality at its core to
facilitate emergence of trade, commerce and industry
independent of agricultural pursuits in community life,
perceiving individual as the founding block of a nation
to work as its market, effectively replacing family and
its neighbourhood community. Later, democracy was
invested with supremacy of people in governance when
another slogan was coined; government of the people,
by the people, for the people based on representative
character instead of participative democracy on self-
governance mode. This later version gave rise to
emergence of political parties as an instrument of
34
representative democracy to operate effectively.
Representative democracy was again asked to firm up
to constitutional form. Philosophically, the term
constitution refers to the idea that a government should
be legally limited in its powers and that its authority or
legitimacy depends on it observing such limitations.
Constitution or the state reversely cannot limit the
society to which it is answerable.
By now, both the state and its system of representative
democracy, as institutions of governance, have come
to be associated with a philosophy which has the
individual as its corner-stone, debunking family and its
community as worthless in matters governance; and
not without reason. The basic unit of governance in
Indian Constitution is the individual in place of family/
community. This core feature of conflict between the
two permeates their respective field of operation.
K. Marx once in May, 1842 underlined the lack of control
of the electorate over their representatives in
democracy once they are elected. He had argued that
freedom of press will make it possible for exercising
necessary control from below without which there could
be no true representation. That was in nineteenth
century. In present phase of corporate capital, media is
another capital based industry and operates in
subordination to its owners. The interests of capital
and media stand now fully converged leaving no scope
to serve the interests of people, though it enjoys a
relative freedom in their name.
The scope of independent/neutral media has gone
wrong. It is merely a carrier of sponsored news/views,
more or less to the detriment of peoples interest.
Hence, it is no longer a free vehicle of pressure in
hands of people categorised as the ruled. It is a drastic
change in situation since then. There remains no ground
for formulation from Marx to operate any longer as check
on unruly representatives in favour of people.
In present style of parliamentary democracy, political
parties without exception and their leadership are
meant to keep democratic aspirations in check and sub-
serve capital. Its growth story and the role this
institution of political parties has played in history to
debunk democracy will be taken up in detail a bit later
in the study.
To get a clear vision another facet recently added to
its philosophic kitty by rulers need be taken note. In
pursuance of New Education Policy-1986 Indian
government shifted emphasis on human development
as resource. Let it be noted that man is not labour
power alone; he/she is a unique product of nature with
extraordinary characteristics of a living organism
capable to shape social values. It is not open to anyone
to turn him/her into a resource for any other man to
use for sectional purposes and covert these
characteristics.
Human resource is a distinct category of input where
the question of human dignity is vanished and where
an individual worker remains merely a cog to produce.
If the ministry of human resource development (HRD)
includes education, it merely underlines a fact that role
of education is reduced to suit demands of corporate
capital; turning interests of corporate capital co-
36
terminus with social/ national interests, saying in a way
that corporate capital is India, India is corporate capital.
And the rulers did it surreptitiously and unilaterally
without any popular mandate. Later, through a crafted
media blitz they built public opinion for it, as per
usual tactics of rulers in the game of deception.
Here media played a nasty game; it utilised vehicle of
expression in its hands for a wrong purpose and to
advance a sectional interest. The media is another
handy but powerful tool in their hands to shape opinion,
in addition to what education performs. The rulers know
it. They are out to make both totally subservient to its
dictates. The masters meanwhile have sharpened their
skills in manipulating news/views to their advantage
and keep their business of ignorance bloom.
It is evident that to remain alert and free from
prejudice, one has to be equipped with a visionary
approach having a scientific bent of mind. The clear
vision of a conflict free society alone can be a guide to
wade through the dark alleys.
The Philosophy
The Guide
This section, in a way, is in continuation of previous
one relating to vision; philosophy though connotes
something more profound. So, before venturing into
defining the way one needs to look at things, it will be
appropriate if first it is realised what available
philosophies in main contend. Since people in general
have been made to think about philosophy as an abstract
subject for idlers, it scares busy bees.
In our context it is important to keep on track and
avoid any possibility of derailment. Useless pursuit of
abstracts for mere intellectual exercise or indulge in it
like entertainment is not our taste, neither relevant to
the subject of this appraisal. Let us then talk a little in
this section about philosophy and its role in life of
individuals as well as society, though a concerted effort
is on to discount importance of philosophy as something
dispensable or at best a subject to pursue at leisure.
It is a recent phenomenon; say around six decades in
India that philosophy is discounted and pushed as a
subject which stands detached from practical life. Those
who are behind it, intend to blunt thinking faculty of
people so that they do not invest energy in analysing
events and take sermons at face value without murmur.
This ensures status quo to survive without any serious
challenge to untruth.
III
38
In fact, it is philosophy that holds key to unravel the
hidden meaning to events and postulates as guide.
Simply said, philosophy embodies a system of thought
derived from practical life that human society lives
through and a logical presentation of some social values
and cherished ideals pertinent to progress in human
relations. Basically philosophy has two variants: one,
materialist philosophy and the other, idealist philosophy.
One rests on taking cognizance of physical nature while
the other links it to idea that is central to what exists.
Matter and Idea are made distinct categories that
respectively form basis of categorising philosophies. In
physics matter is a category that exists to change, can
be felt so, through our sense organs and can be known.
In philosophy, matter is an epistemological category; a
name given to certain distinct characteristics common
to things that exist. The force of motion in matter is
basically internal. These three defining principles or
characteristics of matter reflect in motion as:
1. Since matter exists in motion and in a state of
constant change, which defines that it is a struggle
basically between opposites within, leading to change
from quantitative to qualitative and vice-versa, from
simple to complex and vice-versa, lower to higher and
vice-versa
2. Motion has it in negation of negation
3. Motion in matter denotes Struggle and Unity of
Opposites
Idealist philosophy, Adhyatmvad in India, on the other
hand, is a system of thought that believes idea as central
to existence of universe and believes that some super-
natural power outside matter is the cause of its motion.
It has three variants in Indian idealist philosophy i.e
Aduvetwad, Duvetwad, Tretvad. One takes a single
element or force as source of origin that makes this
universe move, second takes two forces in combination
as source, while the third believes three basic elements
in combination as a basic source. Here, motion is subject
to outside force; much of it rests on faith that is not
subject to inquiry. Despite, various interpretations of
idealist philosophy have led to hundreds of variations
of faith worldwide leading to unresolved contests.
These two sets of philosophies have contradicting
elements as basis respectively to exist with nothing to
reconcile, except if at all, on peripheries. Twentieth
century saw sharp contest between these two sets of
philosophies for supremacy to interpret universe with
the help of armed states full of resources and power.
The armed power of those who claimed to work for
materialist philosophy for hegemony lost control of state
structure after over seven decades of last century and
those who are still in possession of armed state structure
having faith in idealist philosophy are desperate to claim
death for their rival, forgetting that basically it is a
struggle between two system of thought and not state
powers. Those who lost race are poor on state strength.
It is yet to be proved that materialist philosophy has
lost relevance, all because of losing an experiment/
practice on the strength of a lost armed state power.
The materialist philosophy is for life as it exists and
intends to exist. It is not, as is commonly made out, a
guide to mad race or craze for materialist possessions
40
and pursuit of wild consumerism.
Materialist philosophy does cognise idea as a force with
humanity on its onward march, yet not its original
progenitor. Idea itself is the product of a material
condition. It denies, however, that idea forms the base
that propels nature to move.
Idealist philosophy is for eternal salvation working hard
through cobwebs of material world. One is
communitarian in approach based on historical
materialism, which once became driving forces in search
of breaking status quo for social change in major part
of twentieth century. The other basically caters the
individual for salvation in eternal peace by breaking
grip of material world; it works on Individual as is its
main thrust for salvation.
Both philosophies have their respective social, cultural
modes and mores for smooth survival in commensurate
with defining principles of each and are made to change
prevalent traditions, customs to its requirement, may
or not with consent - mostly through contrived consent.
It is recognised that life without philosophy is like living
in a deep pool not knowing where to drift for the stair
up before losing breath. Philosophies are views to
interpret the world, past, present and future with an
explanation circumscribed by its context, as torchlight
is needed in darkness. These are not disposable as
worthless items of luxury, nor a decorative piece to
adorn. Philosophy has a practical value.
It may be underlined: Any specific philosophy emerges
out of concrete conditions of respective times as a
possible answer to problems humanity faces in its stride
to move ahead. Some may stick; others fall by side as
irrelevant in course of time. In a world of differing
interests, these give views to interpret and serve
humanity, giving reason for contending interpretations.
Nonetheless, all philosophies have one common
characteristic: these come, serve and changes with
times. Idle or abstract thoughts do not serve any one
and are useless for society to remain as guide.
So, to be sure, philosophy is not dreary theory or
something abstract material to know at ease. As part of
normal life, it gives insight to problems. Philosophy is
vision, to find ones own path, day or night. The clear
vision makes journey happy and fruitful. Without vision
or coloured one fatal accident is in store. To theorems,
philosophy provides guidelines for proper use.
Let us narrate: Philosophy of life is a social science
with a system of thought that makes things easier to
understand in their varied dimensions and goes to make
society richer in knowing things for good and bad,
legitimate or illegitimate, helpful or damaging. It helps
analytical process to understand side of your truth.
Philosophy gives that insight. A vision is created, which
empowers to walk through firewall.
If one attains capability to know things properly it may
do good in general but harms those who deal in darkness
and ignorance. Societys gain is their loss and their gain
is loss to society. Interests of each collide with interests
of the other. The law of opposite works like that.
The ideology of rulers is to rule and perpetuate it.
They create their own system of logic in the interests
of minority rule they serve and subdue the ruled with
42
as refined subterfuges as required, changing stances at
need. Since these rulers have to oversee market
economy for better operation in a world of un-equals
under industrial-commercial dispensation, they have
devised philosophy of individualism to run things
smoothly. Rational individual is the central figure for
it. It is a system of thought that goes for an atomised
society, totally dependent on state structure.
The state establishment under such dispensation uses
all its tools, including political establishment, to fulfil
its assigned task and simultaneously make individualism
attractive, despite deep pock marks, for gullible to
embrace whatever cost to society.
A particular philosophy working behind this law of
opposite interests is weaving through dark alleys of a
design in order to pepper out rough edges in course of
its operation. Myths are created, recreated constantly
with sharp eye on followers.
Principles of various hues are floated to keep faith in
the system intact. The theory of Fate is one such
principle. To turn man into a human resource for the
use of capital is another new invention in this game of
deception through the philosophy of plunder. The
inevitability of authority is another gem they have
created to make oppression essential. Many still explain
inequality as orderly and essential element in nature,
to justify injustice in human society.
Apart from media, professional academia spins fine for
the state to breathe easy. It helps in colouring vision of
the people in light of changing stance from the
leadership for keeping system kicking.
Today, speaking concretely, there is conflict of interest
between philosophy of life and philosophy of rulers
which is the philosophy of individualism to suit market
economy to flourish. Both of these work with their
distinctly corresponding cultural and social milieus for
smooth sail, while state works to keep society in tune
with its assigned task by its masters in economy.
Essentially, an industrial-commercial mode of
production-cum-distribution, that relies on market
operations, produce individualism hourly as a way of
life, as its labour-unit is an atomised, freely available
individual. It is a barren entity for the social milieu. To
keep flow in supply of requisite labour for these pursuits
family bonds are put on sacrificing block first and
academia dutifully advance new norms of behaviour
for young with fresh consciousness on individual rights.
The rationale behind current campaign unleashed
recently against patriarchy feudalist mindset and
conservative uncouth of rural areas by media, political
establishment and academia is to remove cultural
roadblock to serve liberalisation, privatisation and
globalisation push in India. This is done under a specific
philosophy of robbers by advancing individualism.
In contest with such philosophy of robbers, common
people must master its own. They cannot do without it
unless hara kari is the object or one has decided to
follow executioners in blind faith.
For a pulsating life it is imperative to master the
philosophy of life by all those who understand an old
but somewhat vague saying that man is social animal
in the first instance. Life cannot go without it.
44
Secondly, all those who are living with no illusions of
short cuts to wealth and fame must realise that their
own labour will stand by them in a social milieu. Wealth
is essentially theft of social assets.
Thirdly, people who value to live with dignity and
cherish human values as indispensable social asset have
to prefer adoption of a different way of life than
individualism. Here, the importance of philosophy to
cultivate clear vision for a useful life can be ignored by
dull heads at great peril, both collective and personal.
The Problem
The human-society does change as other objects in
nature do. It is similarly subject to law of motion.
Recognising that constant change in nature occurs in
slow or say normal and abrupt, i.e. fundamental form
per force its law, human society does go for change in
course of its function, while its own dynamics releases
forces that work at a point of time to affect its normal
rhythm for abrupt transformation. It is natural. School
students know it too.
If present stage in human relations, including that govern
socio-economic life, fulfils requirement of times the
level of contentment may also be normal requiring no
fundamental change in its course. If the level of
discontentment is beyond tolerance level, time for such
an abrupt change has arrived. This law of change
provides the cue to fathom what we are faced to, as a
barometer does to the temperature.
Let us then proceed to understand first what is the
present level of development in human society and
see the law that drives it, which necessarily must
generate its corresponding level of contentment/
discontentment in general affecting working people in
particularly, being its producer component of wealth
of nations? Normally, answer to this query will score
the problem.
IV
46
Presently, society is government by a law of
development that constantly generates inequality
between actual producers of goods who constitute
heavy majority of population and those who own means
of production through a system of overt and covert
expropriation, which is a microscopic minority. There
is no shortage of goods; problem is the distribution
through market mechanism where unequal ownership
over money predominates. Imbalance creates crisis of
its own make.
The overview by mere keen observation, without going
into detailed data here at the moment it is evident
that social life presently is beset with crisis of sorts.
Rulers most often too face crisis as a result of a system
they are presiding over.
But, our concern is basically for mass of the people
who are victims, all because they stand a ruled lot as a
distinct category and suffer. If it is not dismissed out-
rightly as a reading from negative approach, crisis is all
over pervasive and debilitating, beneath even
apparent tranquillity. It is much more painful than ever.
Peoples everywhere are made to live in constant turmoil,
intimidation of one sort or the other to maintain order
of inequality and tension eating at their nerves with
unusual regularity.
What is the source of this turmoil? Definitely, it is not
normal trajectory of growth in society to fulfil its needs
keeping compatibility with nature. To say it briefly,
source of turmoil is basically the craze to produce extra
for extracting maximum profit beyond what is normally
saleable. It is done by creating demand artificially
through outside interventions.
The circle is running constantly relying more and more
on inert labour i.e. using technological improvements
in machinery than human labour by a powerful minority
and who have cheated society on common resources
to become owners over means of production at cost of
people where state is in a happy nexus.
The mad race for expansion in demand to meet the
speed in production generates corresponding tension
and turmoil with periodic bouts of crash, crisis and
boom. This skewed model of production and distribution
has a law of uneven development giving rise to extreme
polarisation, leading to ever rising inequality with
squalor and deprivation for majority at one end while
a hopeless minority rules roost at another.
Let us take an example to explain. By claim, America is
a model capitalist state in the world, a first rate
economic power in so-called modern world following
capitalist system of production and distribution. It is
also first rate military power after Second World War
to guard and extend its interests worldwide.
Under a crisis of their own make, in powerful America
situation for rulers has gone so sore that they cannot
win an election after a term of four years if a war in
foreign land is not waged to give artificial boost to a
faltering economy and befool electorate on capabilities
of their leaders in turn.
America is rich and powerful, Americans are heady over
it. They are made to believe that their country is rich
because they are exceptional. If American government
occupies a foreign land or contrives possession of
resources from other lands, leaders win elections on
48
valour of a robber. The question remains: what is the
source of this economic power of America in the first
place to a claim of prosperity? Americans do not bother.
They are happy to get their pound of flesh.
America today is a damn polarised society; inequality
reigns as never before, a country of 1 versus 99; a
country of vast sea of producers at another end as wage-
slaves in the sense that to get regular supply of rations
for survival it must depend on good wishes of its
employer-masters or good will of creditors where law/
surveillance agencies constantly breathe heavy over
their shoulders day and night lest there is any break in
order that establishment has set in for protection of
these slave owners presiding over huge resources.
What American establishment thinks as right these slaves
are made to think right. This is short story of American
growth in its normal course under capitalist dispensation
rulers there one day had chosen for it.
And, direction America is fast heading to? After Second
World War, it has turned over to be head executioner
of resource rich countries for possession; a constant
source of turmoil and war. At the end of Soviet
experiment as a powerful rival, it is exceptionally brute
in action. This is America the pariah of capitalist order!
And other countries of similar credo/pedigree, they
too do not differ in substance. There is a crisis of faith
in social life all over. The urge for peace and
contentment has taken a strong beating. This is
cumulative result of their present path of pursuit.
The crisis, however, had not been always so. It is the
natural outcome of a deliberate system forced upon
human society. Its strength is in an armed state presiding
over this system that generates strife and social tension
perpetually. Its weakness lies in its womb. The present
crisis stems from its skewed structure in midst of
unprecedented accumulation of wealth and knowledge,
which has potentiality of providing a life of bliss.
However, concrete situation today necessarily leads to
a state of constant strife. This is mother of all problems.
So, nature of present day problems and philosophy that
may empower one to face the situation is the question.
Here at this point we desire to know the pathology of
problem in its various dimensions so that clarity is
reached about different aspects of a possible solution
and its objective trajectory underlined.
The social wealth is as usual on its growth trajectory,
while simultaneously increasing rate of deprivation is
multiplying social debility. Wealth in itself have not
and cannot solve the riddle, it is its cause under the
prevalent structure, which has come from a specific
project of a profit driven production system.
The masters of new type that gained foothold almost
three hundred years back raised the pitch and have
driven it to present stage. The cause lies here. Any
prognosis of social problems, which plague our life
today, can ignore it only at cost of objectivity and truth.
If ignored, it may not lead one anywhere near a solution.
The present is so complex that one is likely to grope in
dark without a valid reference point and method (may
be called philosophy) to understand it in a world of
myths woven around in abundance like its wealth.
Though present era took its first steps after a new
50
situation had emerged as a result of trade and trader
coming out free from agriculture as a free pursuit and
earning livelihood from deductions on sale of
commodities one dealt in, first by theft and later named
as a right, leading to primary accumulation of capital.
This led in course to industrial revolution to take over
as leading force for production, which turned relations
taking shape since primary accumulations in society to
upside down. The human society stood divided into
incompatible interests to contend. Since then, situation
has so emerged that individuals, barring few honourable
exceptions, stand conditioned to act and talk as
individual under influence of personal interest and how
this society of incompatible values affect each.
A short break came in November, 1917. It was thought
that as per law of motion a moment has arrived where
society requires a push in its course of development
for an abrupt (fundamental) change. The reading was
not wrong. The event though first occurred in Czarist
Russia, it heralded sweeping changes all over and
affected all walks of life, good or bad. Many described
it as beginning of a new era, as it could have, with
fresh experiment in social engineering that lasted for
over seven decades of twentieth century.
There was instant reaction to the event. Since October
Revolution of 1917 occurred in name of peasants and
workers with a claim of building a new society in their
lead, many quarters felt threatened. At first, chaos
started gripping and soon after nearly 14 countries
intervened to thwart the effort with help of internal
elements who were dislodged. After a protracted civil
war lasting almost three years the Soviets started to
take up the task with certain formulations to work upon
for building a new society of fresh relations. The
intentions enthused working population everywhere.
Till end of Second World War in 1945 the event of 1917
in Russia attracted wide attraction and received wide
appreciation, though legions of critiques denounced the
experiment as extravagant and regressive. Many
deprecated its theory and practice as violent in nature.
Later, for some reasons of succession to power in Soviet
Union, personality of Stalin came under serious attack
after his death, mainly from his close associates first
who succeeded him, terming him as despot and
murderer with debatable and untested charges. Since
charges came fast and thick from his associates as well
as adversaries alike, the heavy blitz of campaign stuck.
But, when some wise men of communist faith try to
describe disintegration of Soviet camp as collapse of
Stalinism, it boils down that the effort lacks a serious
exercise to analyse reasons underlying its collapse and
betray poor understanding of the science of dialectics.
To pass on the blame to one man for the collapse saves
part of theory and practice that went wrong wholly. It
may serve only those who wish to continue with such
old formulations pertaining to the science of social
change that lie under the collapsed experiment despite
heap of evidence pointing to it.
There is no place for personality cult in science, so in
social science. No one in serious study of social
movements for human progress can cultivate it. This
does not imply that individuals have no role in history;
role of individuals do influence the course, but social
52
change is more a question of processes that require
collective contribution in a chain. Here in this case, it
is theory of authority, accepted by teachers of
communist movement like F. Engels to Stalin and Mao
which has played the main mischief. The concept,
combined with concept of democratic centralism as
developed by a besieged communist leadership at one
point and continued throughout their rule of over
seventy years helped to perpetuate strange concept of
discipline under hierarchal structure that tragically
preached equality in theory. It was irony of sorts.
But the claim to bring fundamental shift in matters of
governance and redefining economic relations afresh
remained as distant a dream as ever, while alienation
of people continued as previously, nay, increased
manifold so much so that the people stood unmoved
when efforts were made to dismantle these relief
measures one by one, even in matters of governance.
The revolutionary proletariat in USSR remained totally
unconcerned and did not come forward to defend its
class power when coup leaders turned the so-called
state of peasants and workers in 1991 into a state of
capitalist development again. The alienation seemed
complete an unfailing feature of capitalist system.
With fall of Berlin wall it was clear that structures built
around for a new society had low foundations. The
whole Soviet camp collapsed while China was started
on move to dismantle since 1978 slowly. The whole
project in socialist reconstruction came down flat and
the experiment was declared closed. The disarray
simultaneously in leading forces everywhere, both ruling
as well as intending-to-be-ruling, facilitated ideological
confusion to rein in for a while. Francis Fukuyama and
his tribe jumped out to pronounce death sentence
immediately on the ideology of liberation itself. That
is a piece from recent history.
With collapse of the Soviet experiment, the
simultaneous disintegration of ruling communist parties
was a notable feature in the emerging situation.
Scrambling for power and opportunism exhibited by
so-called ruling communist leaders in changing colours
to suit their individual interests like in any other
bourgeois political formations was striking. It reflected
the growth of individualism within. No one so far has
questioned what gave rise to individualism while the
state structure was busy to build socialism?
The fall back of 1991 has affected all the continents. Its
reach was universal in impact. Philosophy of liberation
came under carping ridicule instantly. A different ideology
was put in practice, the philosophy of marauders that
soon changed the scene: American policy of aggression
went on spree with no contest. International relations
were redefined. Social security measures started
disappearing fast. Labour was put on discount. Family
and its neighbourhood community were put on
sacrificing block. Capital and wealth became central
to relations. Social values and morality became
irrelevant. Unearned income was turned into sacred
possession. All defining characteristics of trade and
commerce gripped the entire social life and individuals,
which previously stood despised. Individualism became
the cherished philosophy in the market, duly getting
support from media and academics.
54
Soon after 1991 event, imperialist countries were on
offensive to seize upon opportunity and tighten their
grip on world market and politics. The Uruguay Round
of negotiations for trade and tariff started silently,
without any mandate with the rulers, to pave way for
World Trade Organisation, replacing GATT in order to
build and consolidate one world market with American
hegemony. With the disappearance of this so-called
socialist market by 1991, the balance of forces had
shifted decisively in favour of corporate capital with
American hegemony, at least for the time being.
The world had gone through two wars for the sake of
redistributing the market among industrialised nations
and grabbing of natural resources to fuel their industrial
race; signifying the acute internal crisis in the
production/distribution system the capitalist class had
forged for itself with corresponding culture in
attendance based on individualism and national pride,
inviting consequential crisis in social relations. The
Second World War had paved way for emergence of a
so-called parallel socialist market with Russian hegemony
to the detriment of American aspirations. In terms of
market, world stood divided in two rival camps. Now
Western countries achieved through WTO and NATO with
a weakened UNO what they could not get by armed
strategy in two world wars.
In the changed situation, America needed an enemy to
consolidate its hold on its citizens as well as on other
partner countries to safeguard its interests. It had
inventing one in communism by 1948 to consolidate its
lead over the imperialist camp and depended heavily
on defence industries to provide both butter and muscle
in the game, while conjuring up national jingoism to
the extreme within. McCarthyism was its creed for long.
With elaborate propaganda blitz it helped American
corporate capital to consolidate world over and beat
mental faculty of American citizenry into extreme
individualism against communitarian way of life to the
sheer advantage of industrial commercial culture: Rulers
won and citizens lost. Citizenry everywhere had to
bear burden of this costly mad race between two sets
of armed rulers.
Now after 1991 when ghost in communism was gone,
America needed another enemy as an alibi to maintain
its ideological hegemony and keep its citizenry subdued
to forestall any challenge. It is now War Against Terror
to fill the gap that occurred in 1991. This way, WTO
and War against Terror are now weapons of convenience
in hands of expropriators to maintain rule of predatory
corporate capital with facility to stem potential threat
from citizens and recalcitrant countries.
At this stage development, capitalism has turned very
uneasy with its democratic pretensions. There is reason:
corporate capital cannot do with democracy intact. It
needs alibi occasionally to curb democratic rights of its
own citizens, so it creates one to suit circumstances as
it has done now with its rhetoric against terrorism.
In recent history, Hitler had done it with Reichstag fire
in Berlin on 27 February, 1933 and Bush junior
orchestrated with World Trade Centre fire in
Washington on 11 September, 2001. One was against
communists on the rise and the other is under way
against democratic pretentions.
56
It was not for nothing that rulers everywhere have taken
up so obediently War against Terror as a creed since
then and ambit of democratic rights of citizens curbed
in name of national security, while these very rulers
have happily conceded their sovereign rights to
American institutions for the sake of globalisation with
a perennial threat to national security at the hands of
American spy agencies! Almost all countries are now
subject of sabotage and terror activities which
previously had remained peaceful.
The present situation has come around despite
professing democratic faith in place. Tragedy, however,
crept stealthily from the beginning. Equality, Liberty,
Fraternity had proved a liberating slogan against
autocratic rule with divine right of the king in West
and paved way for the mercantile and industrial capital
to take root instead. The released energy of peoples
power was soon to be a fearful perspective for the
new class. The crafty slogan of government of the
people, by the people and for the people fooled them
into representative democracy instead as a practical
solution to the impracticable participatory (direct)
democracy, which it had meant.
The globalised economy with free market as its guide
started taking shape after 1991 with speed, much fanfare
and zeal. It left forces of expropriation unchecked for
speedy gains, dismantling old safeguards against uncouth
jaunts that made masses venerable to heavy costs with
no easy remedy available. It speeded the reign of
exploitation. Within two decades of its sway, corporate
capital has turned into an unruly monster fomenting a
state of constant strife and sectarian wars to keep
perpetuate its hold and subdue masses in obedience.
The rising inequality in America, strife, displacement,
spectre of pink slips and unemployment, constantly rising
prices of essential goods, unbearable cost of medical
care, high cost of education and vanishing civil rights
have left peoples gasping everywhere with no
immediate way out. All political parties and other civil
formations have gone to the side of rich and rogues.
Peoples stand alone and sidelined, left with no effective
voice against injustice. Discontentment among the
deprived is rising high now. Leaders are targets of
ridicule. All democratic and political institutions have
lost respect of people; a crisis of new kind indeed.
The protagonists of industrial-commercial mode, when
left with no alternative than to accept the ground
reality, resort to hedging and have the habit to hide
the cause. For example, to pose poverty as a problem,
devoid of reasonable entitlement, is an intellectual
trickery that people are fooled.
By harping merely on poverty virtually goes to side-
track attention from its cause. This in fact helps in
saving a system of expropriation that goes on to enrich
corporate houses. People are not poor; they are
deprived of fruit of their labour by legal and non-legal
trickery involving political/trade union leadership, sate
and capitalist class organisations.
Poverty again is relative, while expropriation of hard
labour is concrete in terms of ones entitlement. It is
undeniable that today poverty is defined by robbers
themselves at will, while expropriation is in-built with
58
the system of present production to keep inequality
intact, which again is important to keep health of
capitalist class to grow. This results in disturbance in
social harmony and tranquillity when working population
is made subject to good-wishes of the rich and good-
wishes are hard virtues to find in the commodity market!
With collapse of the Soviet and Chinese experiments
in social engineering, it was declared by its rival camp
that philosophy of liberation from capitalist slavery is
a sham. It has no future. The future lies with capitalist
mode. There was a flurry of activities to invest it with
new vigour and energy by forging some new tools with
a declaration that it signifies a new era of efficiency,
plenty and prosperity. Unfortunately for the proponents,
however, sooner than expected by them system proved
again and again to be terminally sick.
Events at international level so moved by last decade
of twentieth century that ecstasy ruled the jackals over
their prey by the time coup occurred in USSR, though
it was sick of its own make before collapsing. They
became almost mad with the grab, invited friends to
rejoice and were smart enough to sharpen their jaws
for the next jump. However, soon the grim story for
them started to unfold within a decade.
The collapse of Tiger economies in East and a bit later
depression like situation worldwide in all capitalist
countries after its leader in America suffered collapse
in its banking system around 2008 with the collapse of
Lehman Brothers. The administration had to provide a
massive injection of public money to save the system
of free economy. The burden of debt accumulated by
private banks was shifted to shoulders of masses.
The state immediately came to rescue of corporate
capital in spite of the claim by supportive economists
that it has no role to play in operation of a free economy.
With integrated economies of capitalist countries
profits are national entities, more to the kitty of
powerful ones among them, while the cost of crisis is
shared equally, more by junior economies. It led Noam
Chomsky to crisply sum up the reality of corporate jaunts
in a globalised economy with the remark:
The basic principle of modern state capitalism is that
cost and risk are socialised, while profit is privatised.
The massive increase in credit has turned into a massive
cesspool of debt. Despite talk of recovery crisis did
not subside and the talk proved a futile fiction advanced
to sooth troubled nerves to restore confidence in the
system. In USA corporate houses are awash with money
yet they do not invest in productive activity for lack
of confidence or incentives at public cost.
According to even IMF world economy is on the track
to grow merely a 2.9% which is about half to previous
level. It was a crisis of globalised economy where weak
is asked to share burden equally. Despite infusion of
heavy dose of public money, crisis is ruling the scene.
Similar is the position of Europe. The global nature of
crisis made it impossible to keep Europe immune from
the crisis that took America at tailspin.
Italy has lost 9% of its GDP since beginning of crisis and
Greece 25%. The launch of euro in 1999 was seen as
key to a golden era of peace, prosperity and European
60
integration but it took little time to face the reality of
failures and disintegration. Greece crisis found its echo
in euro and the European Union itself. Middle East is in
turmoil, while in most countries of Latin American
countries tagged to IMF and World Bank like South East
Asian and Indian scene are not better. They are feeling
the pinch of a globalised economy and are transferring
its cost to shoulders of respective population.
The report by Oxfam, titled Working For the Few,
published ahead of World Economic Forum (WEF) 2014
meet in Davos, details impact that widening inequality
is having in developed and developing nations.
Wealthy elites have co-opted political power to rig
the rules of the economic game, undermining
democracy and creating a world where the 85 richest
people own the wealth of half of the worlds
population, Oxfam claimed.
It further added that since the late 1970s, tax rates for
the richest have fallen in 29 of the 30 countries for
which data are available, meaning that in many places
the rich not only get more money but also pay less tax
on it. The report alleged that the richest individuals
and companies in the world hide trillions of dollars away
from the tax man in a web of tax havens around the
world. It is estimated that USD 21 trillion is held
unrecorded and off-shore, it said.
The reality of situation is too stark to ignore. Sins of
the system refuse to die silently. The dark forces of
skewed age are again on prowl, while peoples do nurture
hope of their destiny to win against sinners! Fukuyama
or no Fukuyama, history did not end.
That is the world after 1991.
The Indian Scene
It was time after 1991 for the Indian rulers also to take
turn: inheriting a bankrupt nation from marauding British
rulers in 1947, Nehru-led economics led it to consolidate
capitalist development at the cost of working people,
especially the peasantry. Learning its lesson in Korean
War, Indian played its card well taking help from both
Western block and Soviet camp to advance its task in
capitalist development.
In the changed situation after disintegration of Soviet
camp, Indian ruling circles found it opportune to take
the next stage in its onward journey with similar superb
dexterity to cling to American tail instead of an
independent course and surrendered its vast resources
at service of corporate capital in pursuit of its own
imperialist aspirations with American help. In 1991 its
march to capitalist growth reached a new stage of
consolidation. It took the plunge and shifted to
globalisation, privatisation and liberalisation in the
interest of corporate capital to flourish.
The worst Indian state could do to its faith in democracy
was how at the back of its citizens and its so-called
elected representative body the parliament it tagged
fate of the country to WTO under GATT proposals in
1994. It was to prove as a charter for more sinister
adoption of a neo-colonial regime clearly under the
hegemony of American model of growth with its
corresponding culture of loot and domination.
The agreement on agriculture (A o A) under its aegis as
62
integral part of international trade for first time at the
call of imperialist block turned out to be the turning
point and an open declaration for demise of family
farming in India despite strong opposition when the
issue came out in open. It was a shameless abdication
of obligation to its constituent citizens at worst.
Accordingly later, New Agriculture Policy-2000 by BJP
government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee changed the
very character of Indian agriculture to bring it in tune
with aspirations of corporate capital which so far the
state was doing secretly.
It was the UPA I under Manmohan Singh who had a
bilateral agreement on Nuclear energy with American
ruling dispensation in 2005 that surrendered agriculture
business also to their dictate. American ruling class
thereafter started dictating to Indian government for
changing its laws according to its trade interests when
obligation on suppliers in case of defective machinery
was made a legal bond.
With American dictation to scrape its Food Security
Act 2013 and forced its will under threat of trade bar
to drop it altogether under WTO negotiations now with
Modi Government of BJP the reality of abdication by
Manmohan Singh in 2005 came calling.
A new BJP government has taken over with Modi in
command. With it fresh pressure came from American
government to agree with Bali declaration and drop its
concerns on food security. The corporate media in India
was furious and launched a campaign asking its
government to drop the said law on food security and
bring its incompatible policies in tune with WTO
obligations. This is symbolic where Indian democracy
now has landed when interests of traders take
precedence to the concerns for its citizens.
Let us understand that Indian agriculture is not a barren
field incapable to feed its citizens. Position is in
reverse. If today after seventy years after colonial
governance came to end in 1947 its 80 per cent of
population needs Food Security Act it simply implies
that skewed policies of discrimination against agriculture
to turn it into capitalist agriculture and subserve
industrialisation spree are basic to this crisis that has
made people go hungry and turned insecure about food.
Arguments changed. Dreams were altered for the sake
of capital. Everything was put on notice for abrupt
change to the wish of dollars and sterling pounds.
Aspirations of freedom movement were buried. At a
time when the country was celebrating 50 years of its
freedom, for sake of trade interests of the community
his party represented, the then Prime Minister on behalf
of BJP advised: it is not wise to tease old wounds when
Amritsar citizens wanted apology from a visiting British
Queen to the city for crimes at Jalianwala bag mass
massacre by British General Dyer at Baisakhi day in
April, 1919. It was new low for the sake of foreign
money.
In the era of LPG, state came out openly for the capital.
Labour-power was devalued along with human values.
Money was made a master key of relations. Man stood
dehumanised. Self became dominant in conduct.
Everything was sought for market duly converted into
a commodity, including female sexuality, human
64
emotions and marital relations. New venues in female
sexuality are zero risk industries now.
The Indian media, as if on command, is going constantly
gaga for globalisation on one side, while at the same
time it continuously is whipping crash nationalism and
projecting grand agenda for the nation to become a
super-power hurriedly by itself and attain number two
position, if not the first by grace of America!
This modus operandi of media helped subtly the ruling
circles to justify its alignment with the number one
imperialist country with its dastardly crimes to humanity.
The policy of Globalisation and Liberalisation adopted
by it since 1991 has produced such a clumsy, but
powerful face of an embedded media in India as at
present. It is out to chisel public opinion in service of
constant strife and injustice in the country. Media is
acting as a fourth important pillar of the establishment
to serve corporate capital. Elections to 16th Lok Sabha
proved the final fall of a free press/media.
It is the short story of Indian journey during last seven
decades with last leg of twenty years of fast strides to
ruin of a dignified growth on its own talent.
There can hardly be any legitimate quarrel with such a
course India has adopted for growth if it satisfies the
aspirations of common men and women in the country.
History however testifies otherwise.
Firstly, urge to be a super-power, by definition, to
dominate others in economic, political and military
affairs with capitalist mode of production/ distribution
to earn maximum profit, goes against the rationale of
war for its own independence from British rulers. What
wrong then East India Company and the British capital
were doing to India with force of arms and cheating?
If India has a legitimate urge to become a super-power,
Britons cannot also be denied the same right
legitimately? If Indian Capital is doing good to other
countries, British Capital cannot be faulted on this
account? Such logic justifies illegitimate occupation of
other lands for grabbing resources and expropriation.
And if compulsion of LPG policies requires such conduct
under globalisation what is the morality of such an
undertaking by Indian government?
Secondly, what the present mode has done to common
masses within the country since 1947, with all fine
promises of justice and common good? Despite almost
seven decades at its command, country reels under filth
and disease. Heavy majority of its people go hungry or
half hungry daily. Delivery of justice is a nightmare.
People stood cheated. Around 1952, Nehru used to
banter opponents on the question of equity by arguing
that there was nothing to distribute before producing
enough. The slogan was to produce first in the fields
and factories before question of fair distribution is
raised. Though the newly adopted Constitution mandates
rulers to fashion government policies for equitable
distribution of gains in development, this question still
after 65 years has gone to winds and is conveniently
replaced with a theory of trickle-down! Production
remains the slogan still without equity and justice,
despite constitutional edict.
The banter on that day from Nehru served the capitalist
66
class well. In the name of raising production with legal
frames strongly to serve production it consolidated
its grip on economy and hence on national politics. Its
pace for expropriation also quickened unabated in the
first half century of production that made it worthy of
take off by 1991 to dream high and nurture imperialist
aspirations through the globalised economy at the cost
of working population. It stood cleverly cheated
consequently even of legitimate wage for survival in
the name of national pride.
What this growth in production means to commoners,
by the way? It proved a sheer robbery of their hard
labour. They did not receive due share in wages, what
to say in raised production. Abject poverty and
deprivation through crafty manoeuvre of economic tools
by the state in favour of capitalists is the result. They
stand literally robbed, starved and famished to bare
bones despite hard and honest labour during these past
seven decades and despite what the pius Constitution
promised them on this count.
Perhaps, the written promise and banter from the
supreme leader came as a deft design to keep famished
people silent over the impending injustice as a result
of chosen mode. One does not need elaborate data to
corroborate the fact that around 80 per cent of people
in India are forced to survive on less than 20 rupees a
day, when Ambanis, Adanis, Tatas, Jindals and the like
get more than thousand rupees per second without
shedding a drop of personal sweat by simply managing
an elaborate web of robbing/cheating the nation with
grace of state! Their accumulated wealth is a sufficient
proof of the loot. The misery of people tells a tale
eloquently -a testimony that Articles 38, 39 stood flouted
in letter and spirit both with impunity.
In their simplicity Indian people had believed the
message in banter from Nehru on that day. But it was
Nehru including his successors who did not keep promise
to people. Advantage went definitely to capitalist class.
Nehru on that day was not a dodo; he was intelligent
enough to understand what is meant by what. It was a
definite strategy to take the country along capitalist
mode by inventing timely clichs like socialistic pattern,
welfare state at one time and inclusive growth with
social justice at the other. For once, removal of poverty
became a captivating slogan.
The so-called communists in India, on the other hand,
proved to be sheer dodo; they worked like one, despite
vast readings of texts and carrying sufficient amount of
ego on this account. They miserably failed Indian masses
to educate them honestly. Their failure at crucial times,
as on that day Nehru surmised and Modi now, proved
devastating in real terms. The people believed them
and suffered unmistakeably for the fault or failure or
both of these leaders. It proved disastrous to the future
of the country in no small terms.
Let us hear advice from a prominent personality in 20th
century on this score:
1) To prevent capitalist growth and go for social
revolution ..is altogether reactionary.
2) Except through the growth of capitalism there
is no guarantee of victory over it.
68
3) Do not retard the development of capitalism but
accelerate it, forcing it to resort to more
civilised, technically higher methods of
capitalism... it suits the proletariat.
Please bear with us; the above postulates as matters of
advice are not from any communist-hater. It was no
one else but the great leader/teacher of communist
movement in twentieth century, the leader of Socialist
Revolution in Czarist Russia, Lenin who said so in these
terms quoted above to clear a crucial point under
reference on capitalist growth.
The leader was successful to convince his followers
worldwide on theory to follow the advice on clearing
roadblocks in way of capitalist growth first before any
effort is made to build socialism proper.
And communists of his faith believed it without applying
their brains. In India all shades of communists are
virtually slave to these teachings from the leader
without applying their thinking faculties to use.
Mouthing slogans in favour of socialism and revolution
their energies were spent in virtually clearing path for
ruthless capitalist growth here.
Following these Leninist teachings truly, If Indian
communists, sham or real in faith, are fighting semi-
feudalism as a creed since 1947 onward one need not
be surprised unnecessarily. If one finds them very touchy
on patriarchy, family bonds and community practices
like khap for the sake of freedom of choice in matters
sex, sexuality, same-gotra or same-village marriage and
love by young they have a faith to follow. If they are
fighting against conservative traditions and customs of
rural uncouth it is as per rule of progressive path they
are following in good faith. If one finds them decrying
family as an institution it is not beyond their logic of
social change. All these are perceived by them as
roadblocks in capitalist growth of Leninist dictums.
Unfortunately, by this time people, without realising
it, became victims of faith on these parties and leaders
who are charged to work mainly for capitalist growth.
For want of a coherent understanding on historical
growth of these political institutions under social system
of industrial culture, it was difficult for commoners to
realise inherent danger in depending on political parties
and leaders for solving their social issues.
By reasons of electoral politics, rulers since 1947 onward
have been promoting heaps of welfare schemes to keep
famished people bewitched to their pals, while these
schemes proved effective more in skirting away from
the real issue. Doles could not solve the problem rather
accentuated its pangs. As a result, hunger, disease and
starvation level subsistence for majority of citizens
persists doggedly with no solution in sight. It needs to
be stressed that it is not poverty which bedevils Indian
citizenry, it is expropriation of their honest labour;
poverty is its result. This makes fight against capitalism
relevant and important.
Fukuyama or no Fukuyama, history moves on. There is
no end of road even for ideology; neither philosophy
of life is uni-linear or irrelevant. It is kicking and alive,
despite soothsayers from the camp of adversaries.
In fact, these are the inherent flaws of capitalist growth
that guarantee the emergence of a counter philosophy
70
of life for the peoples. Their assertion for a dignified
life, for social peace and satisfaction is an outcome of
this objective condition that has emerged out of
capitalist system in search for deceit, expropriation
and intimidation.
The Present System
Philosophy of Robbery
Well said by one close observer: Fukuyama or no
Fukuyama, history moves on. There is no end of history
in sense Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama on the day was in a
hurry to predict with a claim to assure justice, equity
and tranquillity by liberal democracy of American vintage
at the collapse of Soviet camp and its system of
governance. He was unduly charmed of its advantage
over the socialist thought.
History has its own dynamics working with forces that
drives it, despite wishes of men like him. Philosophy
of life in a deeply fractured world cannot be uni-polar
either; Francis Fukuyama was too optimistic about future
of his benefactors and tried to mislead the world in
favour of capitalist philosophy of robbery and strife
which marvels with a drive to thrive at the cost of
others less drunk with power and pelf. Later, he himself
tried to wriggle out of ideological soup he was in on
matters of hopes and aspirations. The reality of life
was too harsh to ignore anymore; it works differently.
So much for soothsayers of false gods.
Fukuyama was not alone indulging in wild goose fantasies
but with a definite purpose at hand, many others like
him are in circuit. They theorise myths, half truths or
manufacture some to create ideological confusion so
V
72
that efforts to fathom stark realities go thwarted about
barbarity of present capital centred system based on
theory of personal profit as the driving force for
development, notwithstanding the fact that such a
course necessarily releases a violence inducing virus in
society through cut-throat completion and perpetual
strife in its trail. Fukuyama apparently evaded a stark
reality that he and his ilk sell wisdom and thrive in the
cause that is hardly honourable. It is a special tribe
that feeds evil forces on poisonous weeds. See a piece
from them:
At the modern stage, the ability to build up
material wealth at an accelerated rate on the basis
of front-ranking science and high-level techniques
and technology, and to distribute it fairly, and
through joint efforts to restore and protect the
resources necessary for mankinds survival acquires
decisive importance.
On its face, prescription is exceptional, fair and neutral
to be palatable for all. If looked a bit carefully, the
formulation is not as innocent as it appears; the syntax
used is purposive and thrust apparent. While it is
sufficiently emphatic on employing new technologies
that rests on labour displacement concept to accelerate
creation of wealth speedier, the way it pleads very
innocently and softly to continue old clich in the
distribution of fruits of labour is remarkable. Workmen,
as creators of wealth, were sanctioned fair wage over
sixty six years back by new rulers of free India, but
under an inbuilt myth of a right of owners of capital to
expropriate surplus only to accelerate accumulation of
capital in their hands a deliberate creation to justify
a definite capitalist norm for exploitation.
By the way, how capital reached the hands of these
people in the first instance? The claim, which
government has a state backing, for exclusive right on
surplus value created by others rests on the premise
that capital legitimately belongs to them? Since
investment ready capital is not a result of any honest
labour put by them in any production, naturally, it
remains possible only through expropriation of surplus
out of production done by their labour employed
through a right falsely backed by state or accumulated
through plain theft, robbery and thuggery. Primary
accumulation and savings have lost relevance in general
under sway of corporate capital that rules the roost
today; it is a fairy tale now. If one chooses not to
answer the query as to why it was felt necessary to
make capital primary requirement for growth and social
production, let him ponder over the source of capital
for investment then.
Bank money is public money and interest on it, is made
a valid charge for calculating cost which consumers
pay. What Ambani or Tata gets paid at fabulous rates
for their skills on managerial task, including fudging of
accounts, or mastery in handling bureaucrats and
political bosses as personal remuneration? Expenditure
on such pastime items as bribes for getting preferential
treatment or bypassing rules and regulation are
considered valid charge that is accounted expenditure.
Dividends on shareholders money is likewise charged
similarly. These are primarily the source of capital for
investment to spur industrialisation spree and
74
commercial enterprises. How, say Ambani or Tata came
in picture for instance, except through the grace of
state and allowed the right of expropriating surplus
production as masters of such expropriated or interest
bearing finance capital that stands charged from
consumers? Nonetheless, this is made legal as a right at
the cost of those who create wealth by their hard labour.
The system is designed in a way that greater the
production, heavier is the expropriation, which leads
to greater polarisation of society into rich and deprived,
giving inequality to rise daily and hourly. These
gentlemen, as wiseacres, so serve their masters to sell
such a philosophy of robbery but softly and politely by
pushing such trash as above quote illustrates!
At least workmen do know by experience of last sixty
six years what Indian government has been doing in
matters of fixing differential wage structure including
fair wage formula to keep them at starvation/beggars
level while at the same time giving push to some others
like Ambani to rise from rags to uncouth riches by sheer
manipulation of legality and legitimacy.
The Indian story about how governments made rich
class richer using administrative or legal methods makes
a fascinating reading, including one for cheating working
population, most shrewdly the peasantry, on question
of entitlement (details a bit later). And ground reality
what paymasters decide to pay actually a fair wage is
another grim tale. Factually, it is robber himself/herself
who decides liability of his/her action on this account.
These wise men/women did nothing extra-ordinary
except giving voice to what is in the interest of
capitalist class. What they said, as above, is the
philosophy of present system in vogue a robbers guide
to action. Such gems of wisdom do nothing except
disorientate efforts of people to know stark realities.
In fact, such people are warriors of a sharp war of
intellect on behalf of corporate capital.
Providing an intellectual cover to evil is doing no good
to society; it helps prolonging period of its agony. Bereft
of such intellectual cover, natural delivery of capital-
centred, market driven profit-seeking and strife
inducing system in pangs of deprivation and inequality
will necessarily induce also a consciousness to resist
injustice by its victims. Through such intellectual
intervention from this tribe of intellectuals the system
seeks stamina to prolong its octopus like grip on society.
Capitalism, is a philosophy of individual interests;
playing against each other in quest of self
aggrandisement at the cost of other, while collaborating
at times to defeat bigger ones in the game. Strife here
is perennial while collaboration is temporary, timely
and subject to terms of communality in interest. In
natural delivery, it produces perpetual strife, inequality,
unemployment/under employment, hunger, disease,
misery for working population and polarisation in social
formations. Through state intervention, however, the
characteristic output gets boost. In addition, this
induced delivery through surgical intervention or legal/
administrative measures this volatile system brings
death of family farming and disintegration of family
quickly on one hand and super riches for the masters of
capital and state on the other.
76
In a natural course of development other than capitalist
set up, it is fulfilment of human needs i.e. the sustenance
that provides fillip to move ahead constantly in harmony
with nature providing a base for peace, cooperation
and mutual trust. Human labour is centre of focus and
gains necessary skill to overcome hurdles, while
interaction, in course of activity with fellow citizens,
creates knowledge. Since the law of motion generates
continuously rising ambit of needs, society ever moves
from lower to higher stage of development. Luxury of
today turns into need next day, which guarantees
constant motivation for growth to newer heights.
The impetus, driving force for production under natural
mode is communality of interest for fulfilling needs that
go on increasing steadily. The trajectory of growth is
steadily upward as in a mathematical progression. The
rhythm of this growth requires labour input of the family
in common soliciting cooperation of other neighbouring
families for social good that includes fulfilment of
individual needs. It is living and sharing in common for
sustenance through centuries that has gone decisive in
shaping the nature of man/woman as defined ones
characteristics. These defining features of growth under
family farming by its nature could not and did not give
reason to be individualist or selfish. So, they did not.
With advent of capital centred industrial-commercial
mode, in contrast to natural mode, the focus shifted to
individual as its basic labour unit while gaining more
capital as driving force of enterprise that went to
reshape characteristic feature of labour as a freely
available individual. Individuality and self was made
ones characteristic feature through a sustained effort.
For availability of such an individual to fit in a new
culture in consonance was given a shape. Family and its
community became a hurdle and were subjected to
blows after blows to vacate space. Woman was tutored
to be as a free individual with freedom of choice and
master of her sexuality perfect atmosphere for free
availability of both male and female in open market of
labour and entertainment. It is short story where female
and male sexuality are made objects of entertainment
through a sustained ideological warfare with no sense
of regret and with no consideration of human dignity.
No doubt, this is the philosophy of corporate capital at
its current stage of development- a long way away
indeed from its earlier commitment to democratic
values of its younger age.
The motive behind investments for capitalist
enterprises is to gain profit and not generation of
employment, as is masqueraded to fool people at times.
Seeking profit predominates. Subdued employment and
uneven development go as outshoots. Market as a place
where to collect the profit, acts a regulator for
equilibrium between demand and supply subject to
manipulations by both for extra gains. Rather, with
labour displaying technologies the ambit of employment
decreases in productive enterprises and shifted either
to the reserve army of unemployed or to unproductive
tasks in service sector for greasing easy life style of
rich gentry at low cost. This mode necessarily generates
split personality of man, strife, periodic crisis,
alienation, shortages, hunger and disease and breaks
social bonds; family and its community are unwanted
categories for disposal.
78
Traversing such a course for about four hundred years,
capitalism has assumed the general form of imperialism
in the era of globalisation, privatisation and liberalisation
characteristically called corporate capital. Indian
capitalism worked tirelessly to strengthen itself quickly
in given situation and took a quantum jump in 1991.
With the help of state it grew in strength and now it is
an aspirant imperialist enterprise.
One fact is incontrovertible, capitalist system cannot
serve beneficially to both robbers and their victims.
Its wheels run like this ruthlessly and tirelessly. With its
capital-centred industrial-commercial culture of
competing individual interests makes capitalism more
furious that criminally dehumanises man. Without
robbery, cheating and deceit as its necessary tools
capitalism cannot move ahead.
Capitalism, as a system of production and distribution,
promises opportunity to all with fair play in a level
field to eliminate poverty by releasing creative energies
of man through the operation of market forces rather
than coercive methods of state. The promise is offered
as its main stay to bewitch.
In concert to the above, Capitalism, as a method of
governance, promised equality before the law and
framing policies with consent of people as its master
with regulations and regulatory mechanism in place.
So, democracy was its creed to propagate. The
practice, however, is the real test of fidelity that it
fails to pass. In the process, democracy by now has lost
its sheen for the masses in general and real face is too
dark to adore.
Regulations or regulatory mechanisms do not bind capital
for good behaviour; these are virtually meant to
deceive its victims into slumber one after the other or
enlarge number of beneficiaries in deals. When one set
is exposed or rendered to be useless another takes its
place to deceive for a while. This is the story world
over how rule of law works. Where and when the
plethora of laws has been able to control the rapacious
capital to remain human and civilised?
In India the phase of liberalism was ushered in by
denouncing and dismantling inspectors raj which was
there to enforce regulations for good behaviour,
otherwise there was no necessity for ruling circles to
frame legislations that sanctified inspectors in place to
assure good behaviour of rogues! In fact these inspectors
were there to smooth its affairs more in favour of rich
rather than the harassed labour.
Labour welfare legislations of that era are loaded heavily
in favour of employers. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
The Payment of Wages Act, 1948, The Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 and Trade Unions Act, 1926 can be cited as
good examples for corroboration. Labour Departments
have served more employers than the labour
everywhere.
With over two decades of liberalisation, Privatisatio,
Globalisation policies (as incendiary as LPG) in favour
of capital as against the labour markedly to help develop
capitalism to corporate level, the State (polity), or
Nation state as an institution now stands graduated to
be its hip adjunct without pretensions.
The inner crisis of prevailing capitalist system is
80
multifarious in effect. Its mode of production carries
with it reasons for constant stress and malfunction
leading to mismatch in production and distribution giving
rise to convulsions. It talks of equality but thrives on
inequality. It is hilarious on human rights but dehumanises
population it rules over with brutal organs of coercion
it monopolises. It flaunts about its rule of law but
maintains an elaborate order of illegitimacies/
immoralities to its advantage with help of its legislatures
and courts. It is never shy to preside over scams and
pamper corrupt at its need. It promises a world of plenty
but dispenses poverty and unemployment in plenty.
Capitalism professes the virtue of market forces to
release creativity and dispense justice but is never shy
to manipulate it for advantage of the rich and powerful.
Simply put, it does not have capacity to keep the whole
population satisfied of its wants. Majority of its citizens
has to be kept constantly in dire need of essentials and
frantic search for productive employment for reasons
of keeping its economy going.
After passing out a phase of its development, capitalism
promised a world of plenty in industrialisation spree.
For these years this mad race for industrialisation went
unchallenged. Claim apart, it is difficult to tell any single
country in world anywhere which is industrially
developed and is free from unemployment problem;
with no want and misery.
To hell, then, for such a barbarous mode to depend
upon for delivery, if one does not prefer to live in
constant delusion and depression.
Fact File
Despite promise for heaven, what masters of the current
situation have delivered in this period of three/four
hundred years or more is not promising even a decent
life in peace for 99 percent of all those populating
different continents, equivalent to a virtual hell of sorts.
Heavy majority of them stands alienated and deprived.
By its very nature capitalism is an organised system of
outright robbery of commons and human labour-power.
It cannot be otherwise. In its trajectory, the unfailing
idiom is: big fish eats smaller one for growth. The
ground reality speaks volumes about its anti-social
character basically. The available data of economies
amply belies this story of progress and stability in the
system with echo in political instability and turmoil in
these leading imperialist countries no less than others.
It is now widely admitted that we live in a world rife
with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions.
The disparity between the wealthy minority and the
billions living in suffocating deprivation is greater than
it has ever been. Worldwide it is estimated that the
wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global
household wealth. According to Wikipedia, As of May
2005, the three richest people in the world have assets
that exceed the combined gross domestic product of
the 47 countries with the last GDP, and The richest 2
VI
82
per cent of the world population own more than 51 per
cent of the global assets.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development states that income inequality first started
to rise in late 7 0s and early 80s in America and Britain
(and also in Israel). The ratio between the average
incomes of top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in
world increased from 7 8:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993.
One of consequences of this social-economic imbalance
is worldwide movement of people, from impoverished
communities with few employment opportunities, to a
rich or richer region or nation. The International
Organization for Migration estimates there to be over
105 million persons [excluding children] working in a
country other than their country of birth. Women make
up lions share of this army of workers, many of whom
are vulnerable to trafficking. The US State Department
states that up to 800,000 persons are trafficked every
year (although the figure is probably considerably
higher): 80 per cent of victims are women, of which
80 per cent are sold into the commercial sex industry -
particularly a product of commoditization of women
labour and her physical assets by capitalist economy.
For those with means they are cheap: on average, 90
dollars will buy you a human being, according to Free
the slaves. Migrant workers form an economic lifeline
for millions of families. In 2012 they sent, 406 billion
dollars in savings to their families in developing
countries, the World Bank reports. In a world of plenty
there are billions of people vulnerable to such pursuits
merely for survival. The vulnerable and exploited exist
because of an inherently unjust social-economic system,
which has caused extreme global inequality and built a
divided and fractured world society.
The state establishment everywhere is very alert in
hiding facts from people by falsifying data. Still, ground
reality is too stark to keep under wraps forever. Though
available hard data for developed or developing
industrial countries proves the rising scale in inequality,
let us take the leading imperialist one for scrutiny. An
American, Mr. Paul Buchett (paul@UsAgainstGreed.org)
has recently compiled a few facts this system has
produced (by grace of Nation of change 26 August 2013).
See, some filthy facts about the rich: First of all, who
are they in America the most industrialized country
and a model of self-claimed Western democracy? Mostly,
it is 1% of its population. But the top 2.5% has also
done quite well, increasing their inflation-
adjustedwealthby 75 percent from 1983 to 2009 while
average wealth went down for 80 percent of American
households. The rest of top 20% have been prosperous,
realizing a 32 percent gain in inflation-adjusted wealth
since 1983. The facts to follow are primarily about
richest 1%, with occasional dips into the groups
scrambling to make it to top.
As evidence of the extremes between very rich and
the rest of us, average household net worth for top 1%
in2009was almost$14 million, while the average
household net worth for bottom 47% was almostZERO.
For nearly half of America, average debt is about the
same as average asset ownership. The extremes are
just as filthy at global level.
84
Therichest 300persons on earth (about athirdof them
in U.S.) have more money than the poorest 3 billion
people. Out of all developed and undeveloped countries
with at least a quarter-million adults, U.S. has the 4th-
highest degree ofwealth inequalityin the world, trailing
only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon. In another alarming
testament to wealth at the top, richest 10% ownalmost
90 percentof stocks excluding pensions.
Consider what that means. The stock market has
historically risenthree times fasterthan the GDP itself.
Since recession, as U.S. economy hasrecovered,62
percentof the gain was due to growth in stock market,
which surged as much in four years as it did during
thegreatest bull market in historyfrom 1996 to 2000.
Many stock owners see a couple thousand dollars added
to their fortunes every time they go online. But thats
not enough for the very rich. Thanks in good part to
derivatives market,worlds wealthhas doubled in ten
years, from $113 trillion to $223 trillion, and is expected
to reach $330 trillion by 2017. The financial industry
has figured out how to double or triple its buying power
while most of the world has proportionately less.
If the richest 1% had taken the same percentage of
total U.S. income in2006as they did in 1980, they
would have takena trillion dollars lessout of the
economy. Instead theytripledtheir share of post-tax
income. And then they capturedALL the incomegains
in the first two years of post-recession recovery.
Two dependable sources provide pretty much the same
information.Barclaysreported that those with earnings
in the top 20% donated on average 1.3 percent of their
income, whereas those in the bottom 20% donated 3.2
percent. And according to New York Times, non-profit
Independent Sector found that households earning less
than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent
of their incomes, while those with earnings of more
than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent in donations.
In2012, three members of the Walton family each made
over $4 billion just from stocks and other investments.
So did Charles Koch, and David Koch, and Bill Gates,
and Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison, and Michael
Bloomberg, and Jeff Bezos. India just approved a
program to spend $4 billion a year tofeed 800
millionpeople. Half of Indian children under 5 are
malnourished.
Its not the obligation of any one of these individuals
to feed the world. The disgrace is in fact that our
unregulated capitalist system allows such outrageous
extremes to exist. Heres more to provoke outrage.
The400 richest Americansmade $200 billion in just one
year. Thats equivalent to the combined total of the
federalfood stamp,education, andhousingbudgets.
Even all that is not enough for the very rich. Abouttwo-
thirdsofnearly$1 trillionin individualtax
expenditures(tax subsidies from special deductions,
exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and
loopholes) goes to the top quintile of taxpayers. An
astounding75 percentof dividend and capital gain
subsidies go to the richest 1%.
And that doesnt include business subsidies, like
the$16.8billion per year in agricultural benefits paid
out to big companies and to wealthy individuals who
86
happen to have farms in their portfolios. The filthiest
fact, in terms of detestable extremes, is that much of
Congress wants tocut$4.35 a dayfood benefit to hungry
Americans,almost halfof them children, so that money
can keep flowing to the top.
Instead of investing in new ventures, new plants and
machinery big companies are borrowing huge amounts
at negligible rates of interest to buy back their own
shares. In nine months of 2013 alone $308 billion was
spent for this purpose in USA while unemployment
hovers around 7%. Trade deficit haunts it around $45
billion per month. Imports from China are down at
almost two-thirds.
Another story about America fromJeanna Smialek
onAug 7, 2014 states: The 1 percent in America is rich
beyond measure, depriving nations of billions in tax
revenue and obscuring shifts in global inequality.
Similarly, research conducted by European Central Bank
economist Philip Vermeulen and London School of
EconomicsGabriel Zucman show the wealth of super-
affluent hidden by tax shelters and non response to
questionnaires is undercounted. Correcting for similar
lapses in income data almost erases progress made from
1988 to 2008 in narrowing the gap between worlds
rich and poor, the World Bank research found.
We always suspected there was some low-balling of
top 1 percent, saidJoseph Stieglitz, a Nobel-prize
winning economist and author of The Price of
Inequality. Theres a growing sense that our system is
rigged and unfair. The richest of Americas rich the
top 0.1 percent with at least $20 million in net wealth
held 23.5 percent of all U.S. wealth in 2012 after
adding in estimates of how much was hidden in offshore
tax havens, said Zucman, a visiting scholar at the
University of California at Berkeley. Another facet of
this American grim reality is summed up in a quote:
. . in America, we have achieved the Orwellian
prediction - enslaved, the people have been
programmed to love their bondage and are left
to clutch only mirage-like images of freedom,
its fables and fictions. The new slaves are linked
together by vast electronic chains of television
that imprison not their bodies but their minds.
Their desires are programmed, their tastes
manipulated, their values set for them. said
Gerry Spence, in From Freedom to Slavery.
Thomas Piketty, author of bestseller Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, estimates that out of 7.2 billion
populations in world half is forced to survive on less
than $2 per day, which is standard poverty line from
World Bank. Most of it lives in India, China, Sub-Saharan
Africa where 45% lives on $1.25 per day in 2010.
Oxfam estimates that 1% of world population owns $110
trillion in wealth, which is 65 times of what half of the
population has. What half of world population i.e 3.6
billion have, only 85 people own.
See some other samples, in brief what countries that
went by industrial-commercial pursuits to achieve
prosperity has led them to situations similar to the
leading example of America. It will help to understand
true nature of the myth deliberately created to keep
capitalist road acceptable by the people for progress.
88
Germany adopted unprecedented dependence on
exports to escape worst of recent crisis triggered by
collapse of Lehan Brothers in 2008: in 2012 Germany
reached a record 44% of its GDP (euro 1.1 trillion) on
basis of holding back of real wages of German workers
at the same level of 1992. AsFT remarked: Germany
now has the highest proportion of low-paid workers
relative to national median income in western Europe.
One quarter of its workforce is on low income wages.
The temporary employees have trebled in ten years.
Britain once gained status of industrial workshop of
the world, though not by its own talent and resources.
Now it is on parasitic finance capital and services
simultaneously claiming recovery from impending
calamity of recent crisis. But the country has witnessed
most consistent fall in living standards in recent period
since 1860. For example, nearly 2 million children go to
school hungry every morning in industrially, commercially
developed Britain country that led the current fallacious
mode of modern growth to take roots. Result: common
Britons have come down from seventh cloud to earth,
harbouring now a feeling that something is rotten in
the establishment conjuring anti-elite sentiment.
BRICS Group of countries are also going through the
same features oh crisis in economy. China is
experiencing slowing down and so India. It is known
that China got muscles in growth of economy at the
cost of cheap labour made available to industrial-
commercial concerns. Japan is in no good health of
late. Japan is having a debt of 250% of GDP. Russian
economy depends largely on exports of Oil and Gas
with growth rate at 1%. Russia has now highest level
of wealth inequality in the world, having 110 billionaires
who own 35% of its wealth. Brazil experienced slow
down of its economy in 2011 and 2012.
Greece is having unemployment of 1.4 millions including
two out of three young people.
Portugal is suffering unemployment rate at a record
high of 16% with cut of public sector wages between
2% and 12% per worker in yearly budget of 2014.
Italy is on the brink with an accumulated debt of nearly
euro 2 trillion and over 3 million unemployed officially,
one million of them young between the age of 25 and
34 who lost jobs in a period of 3 years. In 2012 9 millions
were classified as poor of whom 4.4 million were living
in absolute poverty. Spain is suffering currently from
unemployment to the tune of nearly 27% of workforce
and debt burden approaching 100% of its GDP.
Income Inequality
Survey data on all the ultra-rich also undershoot, foiled
in part by small sample sizes, ECB researcher Vermeulen
writes in aJuly paper. The 1 percent held 35 percent
to 37 percent of wealth in 2010, exceeding the 34
percent indicated in the Federal Reserves Survey of
Consumer Finances, Vermeulen found in his paper.
A greater concentration of income and wealth at the
top could help explain why consumer spending has been
slow to rebound from recession that ended in June
2009, according to Stieglitz. Some of problems in the
performance of economic system are related to the
true degree of inequality, not the measured degree of
inequality, he said.
90
Since 18-month slump ended, the Bloomberg
IndustriesMass Merchant Index, which includes Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. and Dollar General, is up 80 percent, less
than 109 percent gain in theStandard & Poors 500
Index.Luxury retailers have flourished, as evidenced
by 254 percent surge in Bloomberg IndustriesGlobal
Luxury Goods Index, which includes companies such as
Coach Inc., Hermes International and Prada Spa. Jeffrey
Hollender, who is among wealthiest 1 percent in U.S.,
isnt surprised the worlds richest have even more than
currently estimated. The more money that you have,
easier it becomes to hide that and avoid taxes, said
Hollender, 59, co-founder of cleaning and personal-care
products company Seventh Generation Inc.
The measurement of assets for Europes super rich could
be even faultier, according to Zucman. About 10 percent
of their wealth is in offshore accounts compared with
4 percent in the U.S., he estimates in aMay paper.
Very rich people also have wealth in foundations and
holding companies that make calculations difficult, he
said. It is possible that some European countries, like
the U.K. in particular, are almost or even more
unequal than U.S., Zucman said, a contrast with
currentdatathat show they are more wealth-equal.
European surveys do less than U.S. surveys to counter
sampling bias and many miss the mark more, Vermeulen
found. For example, Austrias top 1 percent held as
much as 36 percent of that countrys wealth in 2013, if
adjusted with Forbes data. Thats 13 percentage points
more thanone survey estimatesuggests, which would
make Austria almost as unequal as the U.S.
Financial wealth held offshore costs the U.S.
government $36 billion in annual revenue from non-
payment of income, investment, inheritance and estate
taxes, according toZucmans paper. Thats enough to
buy lunch for every student in New York City public
schools for over a century. Europe is losing $75 billion.
There are potential implications for tax policy,
Zucman said. If inequalities are higher than we
thought, then maybe it can change views on the extent
to which marginal tax rates should be increased on top
incomes or the extent to which we should use other
tools, like a wealth tax.
Carl Robits, 34, sleeps on London Wall, one of the main
streets in the City, Londons financial district. Hes been
homeless for about 18 months after a medical discharge
fromRoyal Anglian Regiment Second Battalion. He was
part of Occupy London movement when it took over
Finsbury Square in 2011-2012. Since then, the systems
not any better, said Robits, who was back at Finsbury
Square last week. Theres too much bureaucracy. Unless
you have a drug or alcohol problem, youre not a high
priority. Im not being helped. Im not getting any form
of advice or direction.
The worldwide economy made some of biggest strides
in globalization between the fall of Berlin Wall and start
of past recession, causing living standards to improve
for millions of poor people, including in China and India.
The World Bank took a look and found there actually
was very little progress in reducing global inequality
once adjustments were made for possibly undercounting
the wealthy.
92
In contrast with unadjusted figures that show a drop in
disparity, World BanksGini coefficientmeasuring the
extent of income inequality barely budged during those
decades, according to preliminary adjustments by
economists Christoph Lakner andBranko Milanovic.
With a top heavy adjustment, the decrease in
inequality present when we use all other adjustments
almost entirely dissipates, they wrote in a December
paper. Thats surprising for a period when poverty was
falling sharply in World Bank data: number of people
living on less than $1.25 a day dropped to 1.22 billion
in 2010 from 1.91 billion in 1990 after adjusting for
inflation according to it.
In Independent India position is similarly as dismal where
economic and financial policies are tailored to favour
corporate capital. Following capitalist mode of
development it did not and could not produce socialist
pattern of society, despite open policy decision by
highest political leadership. The net result of this path
delivered what it was destined to produce. A latest
example published on 14.08.2014 speaks loud: According
to analysis by wealth research firm namely, Wealth-X
of countrys richest individuals 5 top richest individuals
led by neo-tycoon Mukesh Ambani have an estimated
net worth of $85.5 billion (about Rs. 5,23,897 crore)
amounting to 47.5% of Indias total billionaires wealth,
Ambani alone owns $24.4 billion (about Rs. 1,49,474
crore) in personal wealth. They have expropriated it
through their business in sectors like oil, gas, steel and
pharmaceuticals when consumers were made to pay
through their nose. On other hand a mother sells her
dear child for a few hundred rupees to ward off hunger.
On Aug 15, 1955 Prime Minister, P. Jawaharlal Nehru
exhorted when he said from the rampart of Red Fort:
It is very humiliating for any country to import
food. So everything else can wait but not
agriculture.
Despite, agriculture stood discriminated in terms of
support. Devender Sharma, an expert on agriculture
affairs commented recently on his blog thus : Farm
suicides began as a trickle around 1987 or so and since
then have taken a toll of nearly 3 lakh farmers in the
past 17 years. World Bank/IMF and the international
financial institutions began to propose that economic
growth can only take place when fewer people are left
in agriculture. In 1996, the World Development Report
of the World Bank suggested moving 400 million people,
equally to twice the combined population of UK, France
and Germany, from the rural to the urban areas in India
in the next 20 years i.e. by the year 2015.
The IMF/World Bank induced policy of support to
industrial-commercial ventures instead have led almost
the demise of support to agriculture that resulted in
human tragedy of sorts. In 2013-14, farmers produced
a record harvest of 264.4 million tonnes of food grains.
Production of oilseeds reached a record high of 34.5
million tonnes, a jump of 4.8 per cent. Maize production
increased by 8.52 per cent to reach a level of 24.2
million tonnes. Pulses production reached an all-time
high of 19.6 million tonnes, an increase of 7.10 per
cent over the previous year. Cotton production too
touched a record high. With such record production,
the nation should remain indebted to the virile and
94
hardworking farmers. But last year, in 2013-14, when
farm production recorded a quantum jump, agriculture
received Rs 19,307-crore from the annual budget kitty,
which is less than 1 per cent of the total budget outlay.
This year, only Rs 22,652- crore has been provided for
agriculture and cooperation departments.
Again outlay for agriculture remains less than 1 per cent
of total budget. The apathy towards agriculture
continues, although it grew at an impressive rate of
4.1 per cent in Eleventh Plan period (2007-8 and 2011-
12) it received a dismal support of Rs 1 lakh crore.
For a sector which directly and indirectly employs 60-
crore people, Rs 1 lakh crore outlay for five years is
peanuts. In 12 Plan period (2012-13 to 2017-18)
agriculture is projected to receive Rs 1.5 lakh crore.
Compare this with Rs 5.73 lakh crore tax exemptions
showered on industry in 2014-15 alone.
Since 2004-05, Industry has received tax concessions
(computed under revenue foregone in budget
documents) to the tune of Rs 36.5-lakh crores or Rs
1,100 crore per day for past 9 years. In fact, farmers
have disappeared from economic radar screen, Sharma
comments. Agriculture stands impoverished by
deliberate policy decisions by government that has led
rural economy to the verge of collapse.
The insidious expropriation of unorganised sector, mainly
family farming is truly criminal. To illustrate how system
was tailored to work and rob farming through a maze
of contrived policies the following points may suffice:
The first mischief was to categorise workmen into
organised and unorganised sectors for purposes of wage
determination. The organised sector comprises merely
8.5% of the total work force and rest is placed
unorganised.
1. The organised were further categorised into trade
wise workers for differential wage fixation.
2. Trade wise workers were further categorised as
highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled for
this purpose.
3. Unorganised work force was categorised as
agricultural and non-agricultural
4. Agricultural workmen were categorised as
ploughmen, head-loaders, herdsmen, etc
5. Non-agricultural workforce was then categorised
trade wise workers for wage determination.
Likewise, list goes on to keep workforce divided
and rob them by section wise handling of issues
arising of the discrimination so built around.
Different criteria were framed for organised and
unorganised sectors in matters of wage determination
and a highly discriminatory wage structure was
formalised. The worst sufferer was the farming sector.
The idea behind, perhaps, was to keep the majority of
workmen deprived of decent wage and create a middle
class comprising of organised sector as a shock absorber
to the system of expropriation for safe sailing. In bonus,
it keeps workmen/women and farmers divided as also
peasant movements fragmented.
Farming was clubbed with unorganised sector, where
working unit comprises labour-unit of two adults instead
of one as in organised sector against a family.
96
Farming was declared an unskilled job with the result
that for fixation of minimum wage rate under the
relevant Act agricultural labour got the last category of
least paid, while fixing minimum support price of
agricultural products family labour was accounted on
the scale the family is supposed to give to agricultural
labour! In the bargain, both stood robbed of a due wage
for the labour put in production.
In addition, family unit in farming sector was declared
arbitrarily consisting of three consumption units instead
of five as in the organised sector. Family labour was
counted for work-hours bureaucracy determines it spent
in farming operations for 156 days in a year through
this mechanism instead of 365 days. For rest days
farming family was deprived of even starvation wage.
Putting together all these subterfuges, farming was made
the worst looser. By such a mechanism rural sector was
deprived of even a living wage and drained it off the
additives it created by their labour to finance the
industrial-commercial sectors.
As a result, cities thrived and village economy collapsed
with hunger and wants lurking around. Agriculture thus
was made to subserve the interest of industry and trade.
1. As organised sector holds complete control on money
system in India and all centres of political and
administrative power belong to it, this elite club
has the last word on distribution of total national
product and takes advantage of its position in a
variety of ways.
2. The subterfuge is resorted while fixing relative value
of labour input made by different categories of
workmen/women in production by devising highly
discriminatory criteria for workers in arbitrarily
categorised sectors as organised and unorganised.
The level of discrimination is unexceptional:
The minimum wages being prescribed by governments
in different states and the centre through legislation
reflect deep-rooted bias of the decision-making power
elites exercise against workers in unorganised sectors.
The wage so fixed for a worker in unorganised sector
ranged between 5 to 10 rupees per day in 1986 for the
upkeep of worker family of three units i.e. 2 adults
and 2 minor children, when class iv employee in
organised sector was getting at least four times; perks
and service security for lifelong was extra bonus.
The central labour commissioner on 1.4.2004 notified a
minimum wage of rupees 97.80 per day for unskilled
workers in central undertakings and class iv regulars
were getting 4,721 per month as ordained by Fifth Pay
Commission and not less than rupees 10,000/ per month
under vi pay commission, while 77% of population was
living on rupees less than 20/ per day in 2004-05
according to report of Commission on Unorganised
workers headed by Arjun Sen Gupta. This disparity is
alarming between organised and unorganised sectors.
To summarise, farming is unskilled work in unorganised
sector where two adults, instead of one in other
avocations working for maintaining a family of 3 labour-
units accounted for 156 days labour in a year. Calculating
input costs for working out Minimum Support Price (MSP)
for agriculture products, thus heavily depressing
arbitrarily the actual income for a farming family. It
98
was to extract heavily labour-value out of farming that
was ploughed in for financing free industry and trade
sector. It spelt disaster for family farming and released
land for sale to the rich. See an example:
In 1990, the average wage for a farmer worked out at
a rate of rupees 10/- per family per day for 147 (now
156) days in a year. Later, rate was rupees 15/- in 1995,
rupees 35/- in 2007 and is around rupees 50/- at present,
while class iv employee gets 400/-, teacher 1000/-,
district collector no less than 2500 per day, while there
is no limit for corporate honchos, despite the compelling
difference in use-value of agriculture products for food
security of the nation. By one account nearly 7 lakh
crores of rupees are extracted on this account alone
from rural sector to finance the urban sector i.e one
crore per village per year in the country!
A report of CRISIL Research on January, 7, 2014 points
out: non-farm jobs to shrink by 25 pc in 7 years. It
estimates 12 million people may be forced to look for
low-quality, low productivity rural or agriculture jobs
over seven years, a reversal of old trend of migration
from farm to non-farm employment opportunities. Job
generation in the non-farm sector will slow down sharply
in the coming years. Employment outside agriculture is
expected to increase by only 38 million between 2011-
12 and 2018-19 compared with 52 million between 2004-
05 and 2011-12. Due to insufficient employment creation
in industry and services sectors, more workers will
become locked in the least productive and low-wage
agricultural sector or remain unemployed (emphasis
added). Around 12 million people will join farm work
force by 2018-19, compared to a decline of 37 million
in agriculture employment during 2004-05 and 2011-12.
We expect the Indian economy to expand at slower
pace of six per cent per year in FY 2013-19 from 8.5
per cent in FY 2005-12. GDP growth is driven increasingly
by less labour-intensive services such as financial, real
estate and business services (including IT-ITES). For eg,
in FY 2012, these services, with nearly 19 per cent share
in GDP, employed 3 out of 100 workers in economy,
said Dharmakirti Joshi, chief economist, CRISIL.
The great divide between Rural and Urban sectors in
India is widening. As per official data, which is almost
always skewed to buttress success of reform policies,
inequality is not narrowing between these sectors: In
1993-94, average monthly per capita expenditure was
Rs 281 in rural and Rs 458 in urban India. They rose,
respectively, to Rs 772 (+174 per cent) and Rs 1,472
(+221 per cent) in 2007-08, which means that gap
between urban and rural areas has jumped from 63 to
91 per cent. The gap diminished somewhat between
2007-08 and 2011-12, with rural MPCE reaching Rs 1,430
(+85 per cent) and urban MPCE rising to Rs 2,630 (+79
per cent), it remained more than 20 percentage points
higher than what it was in 1993-94, at 84 per cent.
The gap between rural and urban areas has become
particularly pronounced in states where cities have
boomed, like Karnataka, with the Bangalore
phenomenon, and where, the gap between rural and
urban MPCE has increased from 57 to 93.5 per cent.
The trickle-down theory stands fooled.
According to NSS 66th Round repot, Key Indicators of
Household Consumer Expenditure in India 2009-2010,
100
July 2009-June 2010, average Monthly Per Capita
Expenditure in 2009-10 was Rs 1054 in rural and Rs 1984
in urban India, that is, per capita expenditure level of
urban population was on an average 88% higher than
the rural. Its key findings were:
Average MPCE in 2009-10 was estimated as
Rs.1053.64 in rural India and Rs.1984.46 in urban
India. Thus the per capita expenditure level of the
urban population is about 88% higher than that of
the rural population.
The poorest 10% of Indias rural population had
an average MPCE of Rs.453. The poorest 10% of
the urban population had an average MPCE of
Rs.599.
The top 10% of the rural population, ranked by
MPCE, had an average MPCE of Rs.2517 about 5.6
times that of the bottom 10%. The top 10% of the
average MPCE of Rs.5863 about 9.8 times that of
the bottom 10%.
The top 10% of the urban population had an
average MPCE of Rs.5863 about 9.8 times that of
bottom 10%.
Furthermore, 40% of the rural population had MPCE
below Rs.800 while 60% had MPCE below Rs.1000.
In a report published in The Hindu on 29 November,
2013 Beyond the debate, govt. accepts 65% Indians
are poor. According to a CRRID survey, Chandigarh in
Punjab 98 per cent rural households are under debt.
Each household has an outstanding debt of Rs 4.79 lakh
or 96.73 per cent of its annual income.
Wealth has grown but mostly gone to the hands of super
rich. The report by Oxfam, titled Working For the
Few, published ahead of World Economic Forum (WEF)
2014 meet in Davos, said that in India, number of
billionaires increased tenfold in past decade, aided by
a highly regressive tax structure and wealthy exploiting
government connections, while spending on the poorest
remains remarkably low. The gap in incomes is 1:1000.
This gap is increasing with pace of development.
Despite claims from rulers everywhere for a bright
future under present dispensation, life for commoners
is hell for no fault of theirs, except that they believed
their tormentors. They promised honey but delivered
poison while continued to serve capitalist growth
instead clandestinely in the beginning but are doing it
openly since 1991 by narrating its liberating qualities.
It is beyond doubt that present mode of development
worldwide has led to accumulation of wealth at one
pole is at the same time accumulation of misery at the
opposite pole leading to constant turmoil, tension and
distress to mass of the people despite honest labour.
Skills too do not pay after a while. The machine works
like this to grind the targets fine and with speed. In
the midst of even a crisis of its own make, the rich get
richer and poor relatively getting poorer.
Credit Suisse in a recent report provides an interesting
contrast: 3.2 billion people control $98.7 trillion in
wealth amounting to 41 percent of the world wealth is
in the hands oh 0.7% of the population. At the other
extreme 3.2 billion people control a meet $ 7.3 trillion
meaning thereby that 68.7 percent of worlds adult
102
population control just 3% of its wealth.
Another report from the same source indicates increase
in the number of dollar millionaires between mid-2012
to mid- 2013. See a few cases for example:
Spain 402,000 +13.2%
Us 13,210,000 + 14.6%
France 2,210, 000 + 14.9%
Germany 1,730,000 +14.6%
China 1,120,000 +08.7%
It is a malaise of the system and makes little difference
here and there by personalities who drive.
The sterile system has stopped delivering honey even
to the capitalist class without tears. The crisis is on its
sleeves of its own make with least possibility of delivery
presently, except by accelerating the pace of
expropriation of the masses on hourly basis.
Despite promise for heaven, what masters of the current
situation have delivered in this period of four hundred
years or more is not promising even of a decent life in
peace for 99 percent of all those populating different
continents. Heavy majority of them stands alienated
and deprived. It is not a happy picture. It needs to be
changed and changed for better as earlier as possible.
Analysis of Events
And Issues
As noted earlier, human society about four hundred
years back took a hop to a set of different relationships
among fellow beings with new set of promises that
went stale and putrid by now. The pinch started biting
hard. Some wise men/women studied phenomenon,
felt worried and tried to redefine society afresh.
The human society since then is faced with two
incompatible streams of views how one should lead
life and with what type of relationship among ourselves.
As a result, some interesting but fundamental aspects
of human knowledge have emerged on this question.
The foregoing narrative has noted the main dominating
contention of a capital-centred industrial-commercial
mode of development in a market driven economy,
having its own specific theoretical approach to life.
And if said bluntly, in essence it is a philosophy of
outright bluff, deceit, robbery and falsification. The
other contending view of life remains vilified and today
stands largely distorted on various counts and reasons
of stupidity in practice.
The narrative leads one in no uncertain terms to
conclude that abrupt push/ fundamental change sought
VII
104
to be performed for rebuilding society faulted before
its collapse in 1991. After fall of Soviet camp,
adversaries alleged with renewed vigour that:
1) The communist philosophy itself is skewed
and unnatural; it goes againstthe very nature
of man and so utopian.
2) Communism turns man slave to big brother.
3) Individual is soul of society and its building
block. The task of the state establishment
is to facilitate development of ones
personality.
4) Nature rests on a principle where the fittest
survives and those weak are destined to give
way to the winner with no question asked.
5) Inequality is a norm in society which pushes
it forward.
6) Communist ideology kills the animal instinct
in man to struggle for the best and worker
turned into a lazy lizard. There is no incentive
for innovation and progress.
7) Communism is negation of democracy and
rests on violence which goes both against
the basic grain of human being.
8) Human society has moved forward and has
developed structure suitable like armed state
and institutions to exercise authority to
maintain order in society and check evil in
man.
9) It is capital that performs as the engine of
growth. By eliminating capital as its primary
means of production in society the communist
mode of social and economic structure seeks
to take human society back to stone-age.
Before going into these contentions to understand their
true worth a bit of recapitulation of events that went
to make November revolution of 1917 may be relevant.
In between, the crisis that broke in course around First
World War had found manifestation for an abrupt
change in Czarist Russia during 1917. The totality of
conditions then available there had triggered this
abrupt/fundamental push to rebuild society on the basis
of new relations, which took communist philosophy as
its guide giving birth to USSR.
In a short span of its march, despite lacerating wounds
of civil war and aggression to thwart its existence in
the initial stage, country moved fast to deliver a good
account with much needed relief to the struggling
people. The level of satisfaction was much better than
other models of industrialised nations and on their own
strength. It gave a good account in meeting Fascist
invasion during Second World War.
The hard earned victory gave shape to a distinct Soviet
camp of socialist economy as its leaders defined. The
communist philosophy got a shot in arm and attracted
millions to its fold. Humanity in colonised countries got
a boost to seek liberation from foreign rule, including
India, got freedom with a wish to shape their destiny
according their own talent and energy.
However, almost all countries which came out of
colonial fold took recourse basically to capitalist form
of development as in West, some under duress others
voluntarily, while few looked to USSR for guidance and
help. A new formation of such countries emerged as
non-aligned block seeking economic-political help from
106
both contending American as well as Soviet camps.
In both camps and the so-called non-aligned block they
followed a similar faith in industrial mode of
development, giving rise to individualism symbolic of
selfish faith as the guiding philosophy at base of this
economic mode seeking a life of plenty with
corresponding cultural milieu, though claims differed
on social plane and political postures in each.
That gave rise to reasons for tensions and local or
regional armed conflicts for possessions and market.
This is the summary of events when a push back came
down in 1991 to where it had started from. Market
driven capitalist mode of development was declared
openly restored. It gave occasion for capitalism to claim
victory of its philosophy and practice with a renewed
charge against communist philosophy on the mistaken
belief that it is its failure. In fact it is a failure of
industrial mode to reshape a society. Over two decades
of this phase, world is in midst of new bouts of one
step ahead and three steps back.
The present state of affairs where humanity, barring a
microscopic minority, stands cheated of their labour,
living constantly in indignity and inequality is face to
face with an ugly reality of a wretched mode of life
that dehumanises and alienates everywhere.
This gives reason to find an alternative for liberation
from this situation of frustration in favour of peace and
satisfying system of living a useful social life.
Meeting the charges
It was unhistorical to claim that man is actuated to act
in self interest. It may be true for present day man to
be selfish, who got now fully conditioned by a powerful
campaign under present philosophy of individualism
through strenuous efforts of a collaborating state.
There is nothing to suggest in history that man was
born selfish by nature; by nature human is social and
collective way of life is ones condition of existence.
The claim to the contrary in support of an ideology of
market economy is a concocted and patent lie.
The other premise in favour of capitalist mode to justify
inequality seeks to explain it as a feature in the very
nature of man, rhetorically recounting a simple tale to
fix simpletons that all fingers in hand are not equal
with man. But equally in rhetoric, man has two equal
legs and a mere limp in any does disturb the equilibrium
for walking straight is so conveniently ignored in
consideration by such wise men.
Let it not be ignored that unequal fingers in hand with
man have developed in course of human growth to
perform specific tasks while equal legs and equal eyes
with a healthy mind for keeping walking in equilibrium.
By resorting to such tricky and foolish etiology to keep
others confused one cannot reasonably justify inequality.
Man is not a junglee now. The theory that justifies
survival of the fittest is completely anti-thesis to social
existence of man and cannot be justified by any sane
standard of civilised behaviour. It negates the march
of history to modern concepts of human life. It is also
not true that in ones fight against inequality man turns
hyper active leading to progress. The logic is puerile.
To depict state as a pre-condition for existence of any
108
civilised society is travesty of history; society survived
a longer period without it. The state and other so-
called structures developed by minority to control
majority in check is the development of a specific
condition with specific motives. It cannot claim
perpetuity, unless one seeks to justify status quo.
It is also not true that capital is unfailing engine of
growth. To minimise the centrality of human labour as
the base of human progress, the force invested in
capital as an engine of growth is artificially created
under duress, to provide a legal alibi for expropriation
of fellow beings in a system of inequality and injustice.
Once the back up of armed state is removed the force
invested in capital against human labour-power remains
as inert as it was ever and totally infertile. Capital is a
medium thus was created to cheat the labour-power.
Human history testifies beyond any shadow of doubt
that man has developed a congenial social structure for
growth living and working in collectivity whose basic
building block is the family of closest possible
relationships as symbolic of communist principles in
miniature. Communist society may be the closest
proximate of this past heritage to move ahead.
The sad experience of present capital centred way of
life and misery it has inflicted upon humanity through
its industrial-commercial mode provide an unfailing
background for this hope in communism for society to
move ahead with confidence. The concocted stories
against it do not stand scrutiny of reasonable thought.
Theory of Revolution
Radical Change in Relations
Twentieth century saw a fierce contest between two
systems of thought called capitalism and communism
for supremacy. The first takes capital as central to
progress while the later views human being in a
communitarian setting as its point of interest. Capital
formation is not an object for the later.
The history of capitalist supremacy over society is hardly
of three hundred years. It is also a period of ruthless
colonial exploits and armed conflict for possession in
the interest of trade and industrial spree. Volume of
production has gone up, so misery too is increased.
The capitalist mode started facing challenge almost 150
years back from communist thought as a theory of
radical changes in relations, called in common parlance
as social change. The sway of capitalist mode over
lives of people came under attack far and wide mainly
for its expropriation and possession of resources.
Absurdities of system had pushed people everywhere
to seriously search for viable alternative and communist
philosophy explained by K. Marx was attracting them
worth experimenting with. Large section of working
people tried to understand contours of this philosophy.
VIII
110
Materialism Gave Vision
At a point of time capitalist relations in course of
development started pinching hard and urge for change
propelled men/women to know reality of things first.
It was materialist interpretation of universe in its
historical context that provided a vision for reordering
relations afresh when capitalism turned unbearable.
As discussed earlier, law of motion reasonably unfolded
by science i.e. physics provided a guide to understand
principles that govern materialism as a philosophy,
leading to realise the reality and how it is unfolding
presently. This philosophy with a mundane character
rooted to the ground came handy. The subjective
philosophy of idealism on the other hand keeps one
bound to faith, which may incidentally be knowable or
may not be; it cannot guide surely to reach the truth.
Communist ideology recognises material world (the
nature) as basic for understanding society and its
problems with due respect to the force of ideas in
present era that equip man to move ahead. It
differentiates idea from idealism which is a definite
system of belief.
It is known now that idea, the base of idealism, is
itself a product of material world. The growth story of
human race elaborates that at a definite point in time
it got equipped with a faculty to think having developed
a particular physical organ. With power of translation
human race decisively moved ahead of others in living
world. The science of society presents a definite route
map to know how human race has come to think and
interpret; the power of translation. According to it,
idea basically is the product of a particular matter at
growth that enabled human being to think. After coming
into being this particular capacity of humans to interpret,
the idea influences society in its course. Well reasoned
ideas guide society while fantasies do misguide it. Idea
thus is organically a part of material world.
The ideology of communism based on reason thus
recognises philosophy of idealism what it is worth as
something subjective and not of much help to know
reality around. Idealism has a history; it came into being
at a particular juncture of social development much
after human being came into being with its developed
thinking faculty. Coming into being ideas influence
material world though basic reason of motion remains
in inter play of its negative-positive forces inside.
While unravelling reality of material world and how
relations are working in social interaction at present,
communist philosophy advanced essential elements of
viable alternative. Broadly these are:
The primary contradiction between labour
and capital needs immediate resolution
The armed state of capital has to be over
turned and abolished with its superstructure
The state as organ of rule has to go
The commodity production must give place
to production of goods for fulfilling needs
Social ownership over means of production
must replace right of private property
The expropriation of surplus value added by
labour-power must vanish
112
It will be a new society where one gets
according to need and works according to
capacity passing through a stage where one
gets according to work while putting labour
according to capacity for social benefit
It will be a classless society
The proletariat is midwife to revolution and
works for abolishing classes
Essentially it will be a society free from expropriation,
oppression and indignity so as to replace the present
capitalist stranglehold.
Let us here recollect: The type of society we live in is
dominated by capital and effort is made to convert
everything into capital or commodity, even human
attributes. The inexorable law of this system in economy
is expropriation of living as well as inert labour to an
increasing scale hourly. This is done on the strength of
self-proclaimed right of private ownership over means
of production, including capital and present it as natural
inheritance, pushing producers - the working masses -
to a life of deprivation and relative misery, brutalising
man in process of a mad race for profit.
The natural corollary of this process leads to polarisation
between a minority of small numbers with huge wealth
at command and teeming millions in penury at the other
end. Millions stand condemned to hapless situation day
by day, in spite of intensified labour. In between, a
handful of them are sucked to its bosom and co-opted
as its ozone cover. The process of capitalist
development and distribution leaves producers of this
wealth - the workingmen to go hungry in trail and live
in relative penury. To keep it going the deprivation is
laced with an elaborate mechanism with some doles
and carrots in the first instance, while disinformation
and coercion go as its dependable instruments of state
to do dirty job for subduing the recalcitrant.
When capitalist society was pregnant for change on its
fundamentals, communists came on scene. The situation
had turned unbearable in the era of capitalism-
imperialism. For a change in society, however, a
different type of mass movement was to take shape
with its own fresh outlook, its own methodology and
had to forge its own instruments of struggle with its
distinct culture along with its mode of development to
follow in consonance with such an outlook.
Later half of nineteenth century, especially after
publication of the communist manifesto in 1848, events
charged workingmen with a fully realisable dream of a
society having no exploitation and oppression of man
by man. It promised withering away of state and where
one will get according to need, after a day of happy
labour, after passing through a short period of one
getting full according to labour put in for social
production. Was it a wishful? No one can claim that
such a phase is not desirable or unattainable. Apologists
for status quo apart, no sane person can doubt feasibility
of such a project with a bountiful nature and
resourcefulness of community ready to push for touching
the moon, provided stranglehold of regressive forces is
broken for good replaced by a harmonious set up instead!
The teachers of workingmen concluded by middle of
nineteenth century after going through a long process
114
of reading, engaging and delivery that present day
society is pregnant for change with peoples power as
its engine. They did not merely preach but started also
working for it. It was the beginning of a universal
communist movement, engaging teachers and their
followers belonging to various sections of society and
imbued with new ideas.
The Theory
The movement for radical change in relations over
throwing capitalist set up has communism as its ideology
with a definite system of thought and analysis. It is an
ideology of emancipation and empowerment that
emerged out of certain specific conditions of history.
It had a reason to come and a mission to achieve in
midst of painful turn in situation due to utter regressive
nature of capitalist system that had once come on stage
to build fraternal relations to deliver justice and
equality; delivering constant strife and tension instead.
The ideology of radical change in relations came out as
answer to ills of exploitation, oppression, inequality
and indignity. When emerged, it was not out of vacuum
or came out of the blue from some dreamers. It was as
a natural outcome at a particular juncture in contention
to theories of status quo philosophy of robbery of
commons and labour-power.
Communist theory thus was in answer to absurdities of
capitalist relations in production, distribution and socio-
political-cultural milieu these relations create in
consequence, when it did not or could not answer ills
of a fractured society. Communism as a new philosophy
tried to fathom the world from a realist angle.
The prevalent capitalist mode i.e. master-servant
relations of production and distribution, with individual
right of property in market place to contend had
emerged in its turn to answer certain ills of previous
feudal lord and serf relations of a type emerged mainly
in Western countries. Individualism came to be
recognised as its philosophy of life, while electoral
democracy as its political creed for governance to be
translated through parties on behalf of rulers and the
ruled. The whole thing was designed to give it long
life by containing mass energy on dotted lines that did
not work as smooth as planned all because of its own
inner contradictions.
To change the present evil for a better future, teachers
of wisdom then with a mind to translate events, studied
history of human development first describing savagery
of present capitalist dispensation and course open to
move ahead for delivery. The discourse guided the
struggle for bread and peace in early part of twentieth
century that gave ray of bright hope to commoners,
prima facie. People were tired of pains from present
system, eating into their nerves.
The study by teachers of workingmen underlined a fact
that under capitalist system, labour is replaced by capital
as fulcrum of production relations in society that ensures
expropriation of surplus value added by labour-power
spent in production process and taken away as profit
by owners of capital as also other means of production,
converting labour as a commodity while controlling the
distribution of goods through market mechanism. Profit
replaces fulfilment of need as the motive force of
production. Thus private profit turned society poorer,
116
pro rata. These processes as a whole tend to leave
society highly fractured into incompatible interests to
contend releasing forces of polarisation that breeds
concentration of capital with proportionate poverty of
the majority, giving rise to constant crisis, strife and
turmoil with no reliable solution within its ambit. In
the system, wage slavery is a new norm debunking
society to new indignities constantly. To maintain order
in disorder of capitalist system, state with standing army
of professionals was made inevitable for it to survive.
Communism was viewed as the answer to debasing
capitalism. Abolition of private property was first taken
as a solution with social ownership of means of
production where motive force of production will be
to fulfil needs of citizens while state withers away and
people manage their own affairs voluntarily and
habitually with abolition of commodity production.
Happy human labour by replacing capital as fulcrum of
production becomes creative and habitual giving way
to compatible interests for a harmonious society taking
over. Higher form of social-cultural relations replaces a
fractured society to life of bliss, harmony and peace.
It took a long ideological debate to concretise historical
experiences and formulate course of action by legions
of teachers on behalf of working masses led by K. Marx.
With emergence of communist ideology, humanity relied
for deliverance on well meaning leadership of
communist movement, though it faced fierce resistance
naturally from the entrenched forces of status quo.
The creed was international in approach with a slogan
Workers of the World, Unite. Later, they went to
form a common platform, called International
workingmen Association for dialogue, discussion and
expansion. Action was limited in scope.
Karl Marx among such teachers was a whole time
devotee to cause in dignity. He died in penury but
developed a system of thought rich in content fighting
against philosophy of poverty and poverty in philosophy
both. With his contribution, helped by his dependable
colleague in intellect, F. Engels, communist theory took
shape and a movement gained roots, influencing course
of society till better part of twentieth century. The
duo gave theory of liberation to an ailing society.
The picture was not that rosy. There were many teachers
of workingmen during the days of K. Marx and F. Engels
who had a different notion of emancipation. Unanimity
on theory and practice of movement could not be
reached in their times. Fabians, Anarchists, Nihilists to
Pacifists, joined later by Mensheviks to Narodniks had
their fields of contest. Stalwarts like Bernstein,
Plekhanov, Henderson, Kautsky, Wilhelm Liebknecht,
Bebel, later V.I. Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin
and many others explained things in their own wisdom.
However, on essence there was little to differ and role
of Marx was acknowledged. The theory of liberation
gained currency and attracted stalwarts from all corners.
Analysing capitalist mode of production Karl Marx held
that: all wealth has become industrial wealth, the
wealth of labour, and industry is accomplished labour,
just as the factory system is the perfected essence of
industry, that is labour, and just as industrial capital is
the accomplished objective form of private property.
118
(Economic and philosophic manuscripts, Coll. Works, vol.3, p. 293)
Again, he held that by investing labour-power the
producers add value to goods for sale, but in return get
wage much less than what is their creation. Thus surplus
value is expropriated on the notion of ownership over
means of production through capital. It leads to constant
deprivation in society for a large section of people
creating conditions of unrest and tension. This conflict
of interest between these two parts turns society in
turmoil. According to him, for getting rid of it proletariat
being the most deprived section will lead liberation
struggle for redemption.Marx-Engels assigned the
proletariat key role, as E. Mandel comments:
...because of a place it occupies in production
process and the capacity it possesses to acquire
talent for organisation and cohesion in action which
is incommensurable with that of any oppressed class
in the past.
The central political concept from Marx turns out to be
proletarian self-emancipation by holding state power
after overthrowing bourgeoisie and leading to a phase
when the state withers away.
The predominating view, however, holds that a
proletarian revolution can occur only when industrial
capitalism and a large class of proletarians also are
developed. This opinion still holds sway over Marxist
understanding of revolution. Lenin perfected it and
provided a theoretical base for seriously compromising
credentials of revolutionary praxis. In effect the above
premise opened a path to work in favour of capitalist
development in name of revolutionary change.
Apparently the view is based on the premises that:
(1) capitalist system of production with industry
and trade in lead has no alternative to depend
for taking society to new heights and is
progressive
(2) proletariat (wage-slave) class is invested with
unsurpassed revolutionary character
By now, this view on industrial-commercial capitalism
along with proletariat class has gained a determining
influence on theory and practice of revolutionary
movement, though veracity of these premises is based
on presumptive logic, debilitating in effect. The first
premise largely reflects a study of social mobility in
western world applied universally. Hence, wrong
prescription is made that proved fatal ultimately. For
the second, wage-slave class did not prove its capability.
By beginning of twentieth century Lenin from Russia
but stationed as immigrant in Europe keenly followed
Marxist movement emerging as a leader-teacher for
his native followers. He hammered that to translate it
on ground Communism was to pass through an
intermediary phase of socialism when incompatible
interests are to be eliminated through use of state
power in hands of proletariat. He was able to convince
his followers to seize political power in 1917.
The State
Lenin had taken over leadership of communist
movement in Czarist Russia and relentlessly advanced
his understanding of Marxism among his followers. Apart
from his famous treatise on Russian economy, he
120
laboriously dealt the important question of theory on
state and revolution that laid down the road map for
him to pursue immediately. He was forthright in holding
the state as an organised instrument of coercion in the
hands of one class to suppress the other class. He
convinced his followers that the primary task of
revolution is capturing of state power from the hands
of bourgeoisie to the hands of proletariat, which will
use it against the over thrown ruling class on force. To
emphasise the point he termed it as dictatorship of
proletariat and proceeded to act accordingly in pursuit
of building socialism in USSR.
The formulation on state by Lenin prescribes use of
violence for a cause. In effect, the theory glamorises
state power in the first instance to achieve a settled
object and secondly invests it with a quality for
achieving social production. If to believe a formulation
from Marx that proletarian is for self-emancipation,
primacy of peoples power as a moving force for social
change in relation stands seriously compromised by
formulation on state and revolution by Lenin.
State is invested with administrative authority backed
by armed strength as also with pelf and privileges which
are not available to common masses. This puts the rulers
in a class apart. By glamorising state the formulation in
effect condones politics of cheating, manipulating and
scheming by crafty leaders for gaining access to authority
in general and capturing or holding state power in
particular. The spectacle of political games played by
leaders even in communist parties like their brethren
in bourgeois parties or organisations world over and as
also in USSR and Peoples Republic of China has a base
in theory on state. The concept on withering away of
state in such conditions is totally misplaced.
Need of a Political Party
Lenin in pursuit of revolutionary politics had
concentrated on organisational issues. He developed
theory on organisation itself and prepared a good
number of followers agreeing on a necessity in reference
to core idea from Karl Marx himself on organising a
specific political party in Russia before a revolution
could be made, which later named itself Communist
to advance the cause, having a proletarian state at
command aimed to resolve the process of deprivation
as a fundamental question. The formation of communist
party came under a specific formulation on revolution
that posed it as a vanguard of proletarian class. It was
an intervention of a decisive type that affected its
course in long run, as the sad experience of conducting
experiment in USSR later testified.
Lenin led an ant-capitalist socialist revolution in 1917
and proceeded to form a federation of few nations,
called USSR having an agenda to build socialism on his
teachings. A grand experiment started. People rejoiced.
After staging a revolutionary event thus in October,
1917 for this purpose, Lenin turned iconic and drew a
large following in other countries also to conduct
communist movements. This gave reason to form the
Third International to conduct and coordinate efforts
of communist parties for purpose of staging revolutions
through capturing state power in respective countries
on similar lines, mutatis mutandis. The scheme worked
for a period and left a legacy of sorts, sometimes tragic.
122
This class of leaders started building a web of
organisational principles and crafted structures to suit
the new requirements of rule. In the process certain
myths came into being which later proved its undoing
too. In their zeal to stage world revolution Lenin
encouraged communist movement to take shape in
various countries of world. He and later Stalin as rulers
in USSR, sitting in Moscow, theorised and advised on
practice to communists in other countries through
writings on issues regularly with International as a
central authority to oversee affairs.
What Lenin theorised on question of a organisattion
however did not work so smoothly as visualised. When
Lenin took over with a specific agenda at hand on theory
and practice of communist movement, acrimonious
differences led to occasional splits and groupings. The
formulations from many quarters on theory and practice
of movement, its strategy and tactics differed. Many
like Bauer, Bukharin, Sukhanov, to Stalin, Trotsky,
Kamenev, Zinoviev, Smilga, Radek, Togliatti, Mao had
their contributions. Many other pygmies later like Liu
Shao Chi, Dieng Shao Ping, S A Dange, Ajay Ghosh,
Namboodripad, Shibdash Ghosh to name a few, brought
confusion more than light on how to conduct communist
movement for victory. A tragedy struck: Party line for
them became important to uphold than critically
examine issues at hand. Quotation mongering was a
result. The ideology started turning stale and routine.
In general, pygmies arose to leadership through
manipulations to be respected as theoreticians for
others to follow. The malady turned deep.
The New Experiment
Experiment: Achievements and Failures
After the event of a revolution in 1917, a unique
experiment on theory to build socialism, under
dictatorship of proletariat represented by Communist
Party of Soviet Union (Bolshevik) started with much
hope, zeal and planning. Later it collapsed for failures
and blunders of its own both on theory and practice.
Failures were not merely on part of individuals, but
signified something deep and profound which escaped
attention. No one questioned its rationale in terms of
communist ideals and took word from leaders as
reasonable enough with faith deep in them. The malady
reared its head later without much notice till recently.
It will be rewarding to see how this experiment unfolded
to test veracity of such formulations before a study is
done on communist movement.
The Experiment
With teachings from Lenin, RSLDP (B) could stage a
revolution in 1917 under his leadership for launching
a new experiment for rebuilding social relations and
production of goods afresh in USSR. Stalin till his death
in March 1953 stepped into its leadership after death
of his teacher in 1924. Earlier, Lenin had worked hard
IX
124
on Marxism and hammered certain formulations, some
mythical in content, which took the form of basic
principles to work with, few like:
1. In a class divided society where basic contradiction
between capital and labour dominates, proletariat as
a wage-earner and free from private property is alone
a revolutionary class that is capable of over-throwing
capitalism for social change and reconstruction through
rapid development of productive forces by attaining a
stage of plenty.
2. The state is basically an armed organ of violence by
one class against the other. To conduct change in
society, primary task of every revolution is to capture
state power.
3. Revolution needs a revolutionary party armed with
revolutionary theory to carry out the task. Such a
party is vanguard of proletarian class.
4. Socialist revolution pre-supposes dictatorship of
proletariat to vanquish bourgeois class and lead
reconstruction of socialism having social ownership over
means of production.
5. Instruments forged by one class to rule cannot serve
the other after taking over state power. To rule is a
class rule, which evolves a corresponding
superstructure, including morals and ethics.
6. Revolutionary party is based on and works with the
principle of democratic centralism and subscribes to
international solidarity.
7. For success in building socialism/communism
proletariat, through a process of elimination/absorption
has to establish its hegemony over other sections of
working population, which work with it as friends and
collaborators in conducting revolution.
8. After capturing of power by proletariat, the over-
thrown bourgeoisie turns ferocious to regaining it.
Hence proletarian state has to be more centralised
and fully alert in using it to curb enemies. Stalin
thereafter followed the prescription to new heights.
Apparently, such postulates by Lenin were extensions
of few basic principles in communist philosophy, crafted
to answer exigencies of times and questions raised by
rival organisations of various hues. In bitter contest
with rivals he was keen to mould RSLDP into a party of
his shade, distinguishing it on questions of fidelity to
revolutionary politics. For such extensions, his followers
named his logics as Leninism, which later was turned
like a creed in communist movement.
Drawing lessons from some of best mass struggles against
exploitation and oppression like Paris uprising a need
was made out by Lenin for an organised action to
advance cause of emancipation. There came a strong
plea from him for formation of a Communist Party as
vanguard of working class to wrest state power and
usher in a system ordained by philosophy on behalf of
deprived masses. Lenin laboured his best for moulding
communist movement in Czarist Russia on the basis of
these concepts, fighting opponents bitterly and turned
RSLDP (B) accordingly into a formidable force ready
for revolution on these lines. (Communist philosophy
by the time was termed Marxism or Marxist philosophy)
Following events keenly, Lenin equipped with such
concepts and myths led revolution when situation was
126
ripe in Czarist Russia passing through pangs of a World
War and when peace was the issue among people and
soldiers alike. Workingmen reposed faith in his
teachings, helping his party to move ahead for a
considerable time. Lenins view on revolution and
Marxism became prevalent.
This attracted unprecedented mass attention, support,
and appreciation. Mass energy released by it enthused
them in rebuilding nations. The working people in other
countries were on feet challenging the status quo. For
once, the ruled took that they are rulers themselves; a
myth of first order though soon busted.
October Socialist Revolution of 1917 later joined in by
peoples democracies to form a distinct camp for
economic-political common cause had come to
symbolise a dream to fruition. After Second World War,
communist movement got a shot in arm for popular
support. The imperialist camp was jittery and retaliated
by countering its influence through vilification and
physical encirclement. During cold war period it became
difficult for common man to determine what is right
and where fault lies between two contending camps as
accusations went thick and wild.
Thus came a unique experiment on the basis of this
philosophy in reordering society on new principles of
socio-economic existence after repudiating the old, at
least on theory. The party began building socialism in
one country surrounded by its adversaries with a hostile
faith to pursue though, there was a parallel opinion
within the movement that building socialism/
communism in one country is not possible to translate.
With this experiment a new hope took wings for
emancipation of human society with told and untold
sacrifices by millions. There was little doubt that initially
new experiment in reorganising socio-economic
relations enthused masses and provided a much required
relief. Russian society stood changed. Agrarian Russia
was transformed into an industrialised one swiftly. With
disappearance of family farming and onslaught of
industrial spree soon family as an institution of social
stability was also gone. Standard of living started taking
strides ahead for a while. Education and health services
took big jump for better. Social security was universal
and reassuring in reach. Housing problem was tackled
on priority. Low-cost economy proved a boom to social
peace. Crime rate came down appreciably. Impetus for
scientific development gave confidence to reach new
heights. Peoples Liberation Army (Red Army) came close
to working people and sense of a secured future took
its citizens on road to a life of peace and pride. It
provided a solid base for it to fight aggression from
inimical forces around with superb enthusiasm as was
evidenced during Second World War.
The communist parties in different countries laboured
to translate in their own way what philosophy of
workingmen seemingly ordained. A block of 17 countries
worked on the project known as socialist camp after
Second World War, while rival capitalist camp became
crazy about its own invincibility telling that the
communist philosophy itself was a faulty notion to
aspire. The contest between the two for attracting
adherents sharpened with no holds barred to gain
supremacy on strength of respective state resources,
128
much of the times truth becoming a victim.
However, experiment in USSR started facing problems
soon and relief proved a transitory relief and ills of
industrial culture gripped USSR underneath, despite
availability of a well equipped structure to handle
problems of contrary nature at hand.
After a period, people lost interest in raising level of
production, many parts of the federation felt neglected
and left out of real decision making process; handful of
leaders at top appropriated it for them. Despite vast
social security net and other benefits, level of
satisfaction went down drastically. Bureaucracy stood
entrenched and remained over bearing. People lost
initiative and alienation increased. Respect for
leadership was gone. Attachment with ruling party
remained for privileges. Everybody was for easy self.
Sycophancy ruled; only because power and pelf
prevailed a sure disease when state is adorned as
inevitable representing best the concept of authority
to work. Social deficit soared.
The structure started telling upon health of experiment
itself with a heavy bureaucracy on its shoulders and
lopsided development in hands. The features emanating
from working of first contradiction in modern society
between a state and citizens were visible prominently.
Apart from state apparatus, ruling party took form of a
monster. Fear of state power at every level was too
prominent to ignore. Power and privileges starkly
stared. Almost alike features emerged in China after a
period. The experiment lost steam and collapsed.
Collapse of Experiment
The unique experiment in rebuilding social relations in
USSR and later in China on principles of socialism defined
mainly by Lenin, later Stalin and Mao, had attracted a
large following, but was not to last later than 1991. It
ultimately did not work in favour of oppressed masses
and collapsed, giving rise to many questions of theory
and practice requiring straight answers from
practitioners of ideology and followers of postulates
that governed the new exercise in social relations.
When this camp disintegrated finally, dashing all hopes
of recovery by any last ditch battle, tremors over lost
labour and untold sacrifices are not mild to bear; though
it is not to say that this was the first defeat humanity
has suffered in history. This time, however, blow was
deadening in its first moment. Defeats, before the last
victory in 1917 were many. Even after this great victory
of 1917, defeats were several in other countries, like
Germany, France, Italy Austria etc. But blow this time
is stupendous in its effect. It is another matter if first
practitioners of this giant experiment faulted and later,
deviated soon to prove unworthy of the faith people,
rightly or wrongly had reposed in them. The experiment
was grand, so was the failure treacherous.
The failure of this experiment that lasted a span of
over seven decades gave a crude setback to efforts by
masses in freeing themselves from stranglehold of a
cruel capitalist state structure and wage slavery that
dehumanised social relations. Since we stand for this
fundamental change in relations, it is incumbent that a
critique is made of this failure, to take due lessons for
130
fresh efforts. The critique must encompass both theory
and practice as also contours of the dream.
The events that led this experiment of rebuilding society
on socialist relations of production and distribution with
compatible socio-cultural change to flounder by 1991
were as earth-shaking in effect, which have paved
way for capitalist-imperialist camp to consolidate and
claim invincibility. So, when the experiment collapsed
peoples around all continents stood traumatised and
disillusioned. The faith shattered. It was not an ordinary
failure; it was virtually an earth-shaking in effect.
We can thus underline the fact of recent history that
twentieth century was important for two opposite
earth-shaking events. The Revolution of 1917 gave a
shock to the old structure and force matters to chart a
fresh path for movement ahead. Likewise, the events
that led to its collapse by 1991 were as forceful in
effecting change in world situation. It forced balance
of forces to a new scale, nullifying gains of the first.
The collapse invited scathing criticism on issues of
fundamental importance while efforts were made
simultaneously to confuse issues involved by mainly
those forces which were inimical to the very idea of
experiment itself. It so muddled the atmosphere that
even friends could not make out where lies the fault
line. For a time, a sense of despondency took over
enthusiasm among activists worldwide. The leadership
of the movement failed not only cadres but masses
too. They skirted responsibility to clear questions
involved. Whatever came out from them was rubbish
and perfunctory, giving unnecessary space for more
confusion. People at large were left to draw their own
impressions under a shadow of propaganda blitz from
adversaries of philosophy and the new experiment.
The communist movement once claimed honesty of
purpose and ranks were used to be forthright in self-
criticism in owning even their own mistakes. This time
however leaders and cadres were found wanting with
the result that lessons from latest failure of seven
decades could not benefit them so far. Those who are
still working willy-nilly in different parties of communist
faith stand largely dissipated and exhausted with no
will to learn, playing with old jargons, usually without
understanding implications for present and the future.
The interest of working population in all countries
demands a dispassionate analysis of events and concepts
that had laced the experiment to its death so that right
conclusions can be drawn for a better future.
Reasons are many for this failure to occur. But, it is
important to mark first those which affected the very
direction and decided character of experiment to take
shape. These need be detailed for assurance to avoid a
similar fate and at the same time warn ranks in
movement to be free of pitfalls in theory and practice.
Reasons for Failure
A unique experiment in human history had started by a
well-meaning leadership of communist party in Russia
after winning civil war thrust on its head by over-
thrown forces of capital there. The effort in building
socialism was conducted by communists of Marxist
Leninist, Maoist or Ho-Chi-Minh faith. They were not
fools either. Some of brilliant brains had laboured hard
132
to sharpen their intellectual and organisational tools.
But tools remained tools. The experiment collapsed.
The point of surprise was that first experiment to build
socialism in history collapsed without a fight and so
easily. The termite within and woodpecker outside
worked in tandem. It was all well beyond any wild
expectations; at least for those who were bred with
an abiding faith in wisdom of communist leadership
backed by historicity of proletariat as a liberating force.
The adversaries of communist movement were in
ruptures virtually with collapse of experiment and lost
no time in declaring death of its philosophy with glee.
In fact, later events proved them wrong. There is hardly
any doubt that experiment in USSR and China collapsed
along with formulations these were toying with. By
1991 came only a formal announcement of this collapse.
Decades before collapse finally of this experiment in
building socialism, world communist movement had
started gasping at seams. It got moving downhill much
before the formal collapse of Soviet Union was
acknowledged. The communist movement had started
loosing stamina earlier, though major setbacks started
coming in around eighties of last century.
The collapse came, primarily, for its own follies in
theory and unchaste practice. There is hardly any doubt.
Some tried to fish in troubled waters was nothing
unusual in. Many of them were active since long to
give it a fatal push but USSR survived all such attempts
when relatively it was weak on all counts. Basic reason
for its survival then was mass support it enjoyed among
its citizens. They had a feeling to own the experiment
then. When it collapsed, this support was nowhere to
be seen. Total alienation of people was much in
evidence; they seemed happy over disappearance of a
brute, conspiring and corrupt system. Not a single voice
was heard to save it, no proletariat around to protest.
Ostensibly, all was not that fine when Soviet experiment
in human history had started taking shape. Something
wrong remained intact at the very base. May be, it
was not realized early. True, it was not easy for common
masses to detect fissure, given their level of experience
and wisdom on state matters that generally are kept
under wraps by all rulers in history, including followers
of Lenin. Secondly, they were not supposed to be
masters in organisational matters of a party formed in
secrecy and that advanced a claim for higher wisdom
with persons of extra-ordinary intellect at command.
Russian masses believed them in simplicity. Barring a
handful of soldiers, they were peasants who go by word
of mouth and repose faith in honest labour.
When collapse occurred for all to see and feel, so-
called socialist (or communist) system in USSR was found
completely rotten within. Surprisingly, quite another
entity of opposite type had taken full shape within its
very womb and delivered at an opportune moment
without much trouble in 1991. Crash individualism was
in command, almost in all fields of social life and
administration, including so-called Red Army having the
task of safeguarding a socialist state.
It may be marked that the project to reorder social
relations and method to produce goods for satisfy needs
was not uncalled for. Society in fact was crying for it.
134
No one denied ills of present society, neither any one
refuted basic principles of communist philosophy for
rebuilding society afresh on new relations which any
such project is bound to undertake in good faith. The
one in 1917 was fully in response to such concrete
conditions calling for overthrow of a diseased set up.
On the other hand conditions that gave rise to
emergence of communist Philosophy of Emancipation
and Empowerment of Masses have not disappeared yet,
rather, these dehumanising conditions have accentuated
with absurdities of capitalist relation gone berserk;
pangs and pains of a divided society for masses in general
and workingmen in particular are there to make life
hell. The masses as a ruled category live in alienation
and indignity while rulers have become more brute
and cunning. Expropriation has gone acute. Society
stands atomised and alienated, living in perpetual tension
and fear of the future.
By beginning of 21st century, society is still faced virtually
with those conditions that gave rise to this liberating
philosophy. This situation cannot merely be wished away
by cunning subterfuges. It is a challenge presently to be
met resolutely. Agenda still remains on table of humanity.
There is nothing on record to claim that this philosophy
of change has faulted on basic principles. The object
of liberation from a system of exploitation and
oppression is very much valid and principle of equality
very reasonable to obtain. None can contest these
contentions, not even diehard believers in capitalism
where market is a place for powerful to dominate and
jackals rule the roost in present disposition.
Reasons for failure of experiment, authored by Soviet
and Chinese camps during twentieth century, to distance
away from capitalism and build socialism as a way to
create a communist society, then lie somewhere else.
Let us look into the muddle on both sides of divide to
reach objective conclusions. For a viable alternative
to emerge against a decaying present, it is imperative
that past is analysed as to what went wrong and why.
What happened in socialist camp during course of
experiment for rebuilding society on communist lines
was a travesty of its basic principles to materialise and
life did not become less formidable. For reasons that
are numerous, International Communist movement
suffered wholly unexpected ignominy by last quarter
of twentieth century when people had pinned hopes
on it for liberation from capitalist onslaught.
Communists are known for their zeal to struggle for a
just cause in society everywhere, selflessly and
courageously. They made history. But they also made
history of blunders in thought and practice somewhere
nasty in conceiving and execution of the project. If
leaders failed to pin these failures and blunders, it is
for ranks to step in, leaving jargons out.
To sort out the matter in context, it is incumbent to
analyse fundamentals first. It is essential to mark true
nature of philosophy and what actually its essence is.
Otherwise, one is likely to be enmeshed in clichs of
orthodoxy found in abundance littered here/there and
everywhere. It has to be avoided to save from pitfalls,
which has been the tragedy so far.
For proper context to communist ideal a short recount
136
of capitalist relations at pain of repetition may be
helpful here: it necessarily entails expropriation and
tend to cause alienation in society. Indignity and
deprivation at large scale are its results. For private
gain, interests of society go bust despite web of
regulations, dehumanising man in this scheme. Crash
individualism as a necessary outcome of capitalist
relations leads to the demise of family and community
leading to a distracted personality solely dependent on
mercy of a socially junk state.
Communist ideology finds ways not only to meet these
absurdities but crafts a viable alternative to breath
happily. For reordering social relations a principle From
one according to capacity, to one according to needs
negates expropriation and alienation in society. To make
society free from stranglehold of state, self management
of its own affairs in communitarian setting is the law
worth working for. To earn peace and satisfaction is a
dream worth doing in dignity and not to earn riches by
expropriation, deceit and indignity unbound.
Unfortunately, experiment in the name of establishing
socialism by so-called communist parties of USSR and
China worked in a reverse direction ending instead in
developing capitalist relations with all absurdities in
abundance. It was not a surprise. How it happened?
Faulty Option: Industrial Mode
Let us examine. There cannot be more important cause
of failure to build new society after October revolution
in 1917 than wrong option it adopted for its mode of
production and distribution in socialist society for the
present and future. There is little doubt that both
economic life of society in countries of communist faith
and science of organisation for communist movement
failed to deliver what was desired.
The blunder of highest magnitude committed by
leadership of experiment related to production relations
it opted for progress. The Soviet and later Chinese
experiment could not or did not abandon the old capital
-centred industrial mode of production and market
oriented distribution to deal with economic issues at
hand for rebuilding society on socialist principles.
Individual being its labour unit the industrial mode
produced individualism as it was bound to do in its
course leading the experiment to collapse with all ills
and absurdities of capitalist system in bloom.
Lenin remained mesmerised with developing forces of
production rapidly. The experiment focussed primarily
on developing productive forces in speed for socialism
to succeed, to the exclusion of satisfaction. As a sure
symptom of capitalist relations, expropriation continued
where alienation surfaced after a while. Emphasis on
developing productive forces alone was a fatally
misplaced prescription that reaped failure at appropriate
time of its maturity. The leadership failed to devise an
appropriate mode for building socialism instead,
adopted the old to deliver new and courted disaster.
Despite claim, experiment in USSR remained rooted
within its past basically, except in matters of ownership
over means of production. The State replaced private
ownership over means of production with a mistaken
notion that it signifies social or community ownership.
It did not by any means.
138
The socialist state was projected as something
synonymous to the people in this case with whom it
has adversary relationship basically. That turned the
masses detached and complacent.
Oppression found place on many pretexts. Master-servant
relationship in production and distribution system did
not disappear as was desired in the blue print. As a
result, alienation and cynicism gripped common mass
of people everywhere. No scope was left for protest
and challenge in the name of proletarian democracy
while operating absurdities of democratic centralism,
closing doors for people that were still open to some
extent under previous dispensation. Harsh suppression
operated in name of safeguarding revolution.
Suffocation reigned, people suffered privation. The
very purpose of a movement for building socialism
evaporated in thin air with no fault of people.
This trickery could succeed only by sidetracking first
principal contradiction between state and the people
from their active attention. It is an admitted fact that
people stood alienated in USSR dispensation too, as
before. And alienation, within socialist society is a
symptom of a sure capital-based socio-economic
structure that generates it hourly but surely, like
individualism, in vision and approach.
Industrial mode v/s Agriculture
It will be rewarding if here itself a bit of attention is
paid to examine what industrial and agriculture mode
comparatively signify in context of social values.
For over seven decades in USSR and two decades till
1978 in China what socialism or Peoples Democracy
produced was capitalism through state patronage to
industrial-commercial pursuits which laid a strong base
for counter political revolution in restoring capitalist
relations on the strength of individualism that this mode
generated every moment of its journey. This could not
have happened without the leading role of so-called
communist leadership in such countries of socialist faith.
It was a tragedy of colossus magnitude that communist
leadership universally gave little importance to this side
of issue so far. The other reasons may have contributed
to failure of this experiment but have secondary value.
The leadership ignored to understand the dynamics of
family farming and that of industry. It erroneously put
a tag of feudalism on agriculture that helped to ignore
its nature in relation to social dynamics. Similarly,
leadership took note of production capacity of industry
while ignored its social dynamics. It did not distinguish
between dynamics of two and over rated progressive
nature of industry in relation to family farming on the
basis of partial and prejudiced rating of two.
Agriculture is a productive system that takes route in
mathematical progression, while industry goes in
geometrical form for its productive journey. One
provides stability in progress while the other suffers in
periodic ups and down. That defines difference between
two for society in its course of development.
Communist leadership failed to evaluate it properly with
devastating effect. It took note only of financial/
economic aspect of both, devoid of social debit/credit
of each to serious disadvantage of social progress.
Agriculture in its form of family farming may not have
140
produced in quantity what industry is capable of, it terms
of stability and quality industry cannot beat family
farming, neither it is sterile to fulfil needs of social value.
It is an irony of sorts that new state of proletariat in
Russia plunged whole hog to transform an agrarian
society to an industrial one hurriedly by opting a mode
that brewed social strife. Industry was placed in the
centre of development, while agriculture became
subservient to it. Simultaneously, farming also was
transformed from a family-labour based affair to a large-
scale industrial concern.
Wrong Prognosis
Apparently, experiment conducted in soviet camp
started with some premises built on wrong theory. It
involved prognosis of society to craft strategy and
tactics of revolution. The starting point relates to the
study of forces working in society and their relationship.
On certain aspects rot started here. The premise on
class was one, among many more that played truant.
The Class
According to Marxist analysis we live in a class society.
Under capitalist dispensation it is a society that rests
basically between bourgeoisie as master of capital and
working class as producer of goods.
Further, as master of capital it is the ruling class while
working class as victim of expropriation is charged to
work for changing this relationship between master and
servant to abolish exploitation. So far so good.
The project for social change was built on a premise
that as constituent part of working class, industrial
workers as wage-slave have nothing to loose but their
chains. Bereft of property proletariat as a homogenous
class is thus taken a leading force destined to work for
project change leading to socialism and then to
communism abolishing exploitation for good. Exercising
dictatorship of proletariat after capturing state
authority through its unfailing vanguard in communist
party proletariat offers self-emancipation.
The failed experiment in USSR of over 74 years, China
of 65 years, Vietnam of 38 years etc as also long lasting
experiences of communist movements in Germany,
Britain, Italy, France, as also America particularly and
other countries in general conclusively testify that this
proletariat class has completely failed to corroborate
the premise so laboriously built around. Premise was
built on false logic and wrongly assigned status of a
theory which worked havoc with the experiment.
Conceptually, proletariat class exists till bourgeoisie
lasts. One is a condition of existence for the other.
Proletariat class cannot be ruler; individuals may. The
moment a proletarian turns ruler, he/she ceases to be
proletariat by loosing the status of a wage slave.
The premise is also wrong to say that proletariat class
is a homogenous entity with singleness of purpose in
unity and hence cannot reasonably be depended upon
as a leading force of revolution including building of
socialism with such authority as dictatorship denotes.
Still it was done, courting disaster in chain.
The principle of dictatorship of proletariat laboriously
so built on a faulty premise is untenable as a reasonable
extension of communist philosophy. It rests on the
142
principle of representative democracy which goes
against ideology of communism. Still, as producer of
goods the whole working class is an unfailing victim of
expropriation at the hands of capitalist class, not merely
the industrial workers. The principle is a classical fallacy
built on presumptive logic to circumvent democracy in
the interest of rule: proletariat is made representative
of the working class while its vanguard is made
representative of proletariat class and few leaders are
taken representatives of this vanguard, who actually
rule through professional machinery!
To say that industrial workers exclusively has a status
of being revolutionary since it has gone bereft of private
property and a consciousness of exploitation, does not
stand scrutiny. Merely by owning means of production
or property does not make one reactionary unless a
servant is hired on wage. The issue of struggle is
expropriation and not owning property.
Farming under family labour, without hiring no wage
slave, cannot be termed a capitalist or feudal pursuit
by any logical standard. Leaving out this class of
producers from victims of capitalist order was no service
to the cause of socialism. This is the class which face
extinction at the hands of bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Primary Contradiction
In carrying out experiment leadership committed
another folly of great magnitude. It ignored completely
primary contradiction in modern day society between
the state and its people. It proved a fatal mistake. The
understanding of a modern state by leadership remained
outdated and faulty at the cost of experiment.
The state, operating even under leadership of a
communist party remains an armed instrument of rule
over people. In principle it is minority that needs a
state to rule over majority of population. The majority
does not need a state, whereas rule by minority cannot
serve the ruled for progress. Communist leadership
faulted to appraise it correctly and devise alternative
method of governance in consonance with requirements
of principles concerning socialism.
Dispersal of Family
Another myth did a colossal damage to the experiment.
Dissolution of family was a colossal blunder. Atomised
society is least competent to build socialism. As corollary
to first grade blunder with individualism in command,
dispersal of family rapidly laid solid ground for disaster
to occur, for which communist leadership worked
happily. Family is an informal institution working as
building block of social structure and its neighbourhood
community that could have provided society the
requisite stability. Alternatives were not to work.
Need of Political Party
Another blunder in this context was to depend on the
institution of a political party in building socialism. The
necessity of a political party was drawn in hurry and
clearly without much thought to the sordid history of
what gave reasons for its emergence and what it does
to the system as such. The teachers wrongly relied on
instrument of an alien origin. The communist parties
too did what a political instrument was invented to do
in history to turn democracy into a sham!
The political formation, named as communist party, did
144
same as was destined to perform in case of proletarian
democracy also. The teachers of emancipation theory
could not fathom correctly that by naming a political
formation as communist cannot change its base
character and hence its role.
There is a lesson : communist movement took a beating
more after a political party was to take its command
replacing peoples power as the element for social
change. New forms of organising peoples power in
consonance with principle of participatory democracy
were needed. The blunder was committed under a class-
party formulation instead, to uphold dictatorship of
proletariat. Practically, Communist Party took over the
people and leadership took over the party stifling
initiative and creativity of masses with deadly effect.
Old Structure
This experiment also faulted on another count. There
is an edict from Marx-Engels that the working class
cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state
machinery of a different class and wield it for its own
purposes. If revolution is understood as the most
radical rupture with traditional property relations it
involves a most radical rupture with traditional ideas
but with deep roots to sustain. It did not. For complete
overhaul, it was incumbent upon new forces to devise
their own methods and structures to serve the new
project. It is clear by now that a certain amount of
compromise was struck in Russia. They continued to
rely on forms and concepts in certain important respects
from old society quite for wrong reasons.
To quote a few: it continued to have faith in a regular
red army and professional bureaucracy both political
and administrative with concept of authority intact,
having few thousands directly inducted from the Czarist
regime, to serve as its oppressive organs, instead of
support from people. It proved another fatal infatuation.
The experiment produced few privileged souls as a by-
product of the system so built; leaders could expropriate
benefits and arrogate wisdom to themselves.
One thing can be said without hesitation, post-
factotum, that experiment in socialist building led by
former Soviet Union and also China failed to emerge as
something qualitatively fresh and different. The
experiment essentially failed to be revolutionary in
character with little benefit to social science of change
in comparison to labour put in and sacrifices made.
Fault-lines in Soviet experiment
With passing away of first-rankers, however legacy
worked to the advantage of upstarts and to the
disadvantage of masses. To depend on individual genius
proved so slippery in history again. The commoners
had no reason to doubt sincerity and wisdom of
leadership that had struggled hard for liberation struggle.
The level of their efforts to remain free in past from
overt or covert designs, conceit and arrogance attracted
the people. They believed their leaders thoroughly.
Thereafter, they believed their successors from the
organisation too with fatal consequences!
Ruling Communist Party of Soviet Union was found as a
typical picture of bourgeois organisation with intrigues
and a hive for self seekers. With their blessings
capitalism stood reborn there even without a birth pang,
146
except for a minor skirmish. What then accounts for
this sharp decline of the advanced vanguard and what
explains rise of old system within instead? The vanguard
itself was found completely degenerated.
Another folly of magnitude Soviet Union committed in
all probability was its unchaste hurry to compete with
capitalist world for industrial development of a foreign
frame. It drained its material and human resources. The
country was put on a course of suicide. It fell to the
bait of capitalist-imperialist frame to bite the dust,
whereas necessity was to give stability to new system
through a sustained development of men and material.
It ignored men and lost material race too. Same thing
happened in China with a similar crop to harvest.
Another example in post-1991 era: The duality of
opening floodgate of social crimes first, including
corruption, drug-trafficking and flesh trade as a corollary
to industrial commercial mode under socialist market
and then resorting to capital punishment to check rot
is a tragedy of same parentage in China and Vietnam
today. Corruption is like lubricant for capitalist system
to move around in the midst of regulatory mechanism
it has resorted in order to iron out conflicting interests
it lives in. Capital punishment cannot deter urge for
maximising accumulation under this system.
Communist Movement
A Self-Critique
Twentieth century saw not only the beginning and
collapse of a grand project in redefining social relations
led by mainly USSR and China so also rise and decline in
communist movement. Both, new experiment and
communist movement are organically linked with each
other having a single philosophy of life and thought,
though reasons for rise and fall of both are not same.
The experiment was to translate principles of theory
while communist movement is intended to create
ground for social change to occur in different countries.
The experiment was conducted by a leadership through
a state which declared itself as dictatorship of
proletariat with all essential elements of armed organ
of ruling elite. The movement was conducted by leaders
and ranks of communists believing their leaders.
The failure of this experiment does entail misreading
of communist philosophy on certain aspects and due to
blunders inherent in some specific formulations from
its leaders, while the ebb in communist movement set
in first due to wrong faith in concept of authority,
symbolised during the period of experiment by USSR
or China as also simultaneously by a substantial change
in correlation of forces due to shift in composition of
working populations in countries.
X
148
For both, leadership of communist parties betrayed the
trust and failed to uphold vitality in philosophy. The
loss to experiment and communist movement is great.
In fact, reliance on a communist party as instrument of
communist movement, as also of the experiment,
proved a devastating belief. Consequently, movement
remained infected with debilitating faults in conception
and practice. Working masses stood disarmed
ideologically, socially, culturally and organisationally in
front of a brutal enemy in state and capital.
Ailments and skewed principles
An objective critique of the communist movement is
called for to know what went wrong in its journey that
had roused high hopes and whether it can still has the
capacity to deliver or needs better alternative model
instead. Since it was communist ideology which had
imbibed the liberation movement to free society from
an utterly decaying capitalist mode, it may be rewarding
to find out if there existed any deficiency in its outlook
somewhere or whether the hope itself was misplaced.
Let us make a statement in the very beginning that
failings of communist movement are much deeper and
agonising; with some aspects which only insiders can
perceive to requisite extent, if obduracy is kept aside,
rhetoric left and necessity to learn from practice is
overwhelming. Let us, as humble communist
practitioners intervene, investigate and search answers
to such sticky questions in all sincerity, shedding bias
and preconceived notions of all hues.
We propose to do what is required in the circumstances
with utter honesty of purpose and with whatever little
knowledge of social relations we have gained through
the struggle. For us, no organisational interests to uphold
principles and safeguard formulations are supreme.
We are insiders; as part of the communist movement
we also have many sad experiences. Many questions of
theory and practice do trouble us. Not only leaders/
teachers at various levels, ranks too have gone stale in
matters of theory.
First Grade Blunder:
State as Instrument of Progress
The fatal blunder leadership after Marx committed,
more so during period of building socialism, was to
sidetrack first principal contradiction between people
at the state. It was a major blunder in theory. When
this contradiction was put under carpet, people suffered
from a blurred vision. In such a situation when state
comes into conflict with the ruled, which it generally
does, people tend to bear it. The state gets a lease of
life from such blurred vision in mistaken belief that its
action is for common good, when it is not. The ruled in
such a situation tend to take oppression as inevitable.
The first instinct to resist goes unattended. Moreover,
state structure in countries, which claimed these were
building socialism, did not reflect in any field that it
was transitory in nature, preparing to wither away.
The situation of believing in state as a benevolent
institution proved fatal in Soviet Union. It can happen
only when citizens are made blind on question of state
and its character. In USSR people were made to believe
150
that Soviet state is peoples state which it can never.
The nature of state is unfriendly to the ruled and citizens
in USSR were never its masters. It cannot be.
With Marxist faith in the strength and creativity of
masses, level of reliance on state structure to build
socialism by Lenin is inexplicable. It sapped energy of
masses. Lenin was for a ruthless state machine during
transitory stage of socialism. Among four major
contradictions that he enunciated to focus primary
attention of the movement during this era of
imperialism and proletarian revolution this first
principal contradiction of present day society curiously
did not find any place in his scheme of logic. The effort
to build socialism paid price for it.
It is worth remembering that state power in Russia as
elsewhere did never pass into hands of masses so
enjoined in a coined slogan for revolution i.e. All power
to Soviets. In the name of Soviets, again state power
passed into hands of a small number of people
representing communist party or trade unions. True, it
was in the name of workers, soldiers and peasants!
Yet, it was a replica of representative democracy and
a sure travesty of the slogan.
Perhaps, like all rulers in history, leadership in Soviet
Union disbelieved in efficacy of peoples power or
feared mass energy it was bound to release. In any
case, communist party acted against Marxist postulate.
On hindsight, it may be said that over-looking of this
primary contradiction in society certainly was one of
Lenins most devastating disservice to the science of
socialism as a tactician. He placed much of his heart on
service of a state structure to deliver during this phase
of socialist construction without any tangible check on
its fangs. Lenins postulate on so-called socialist state
as peoples state blinded reason against ruthless state
oppression not always justifiable, especially when it
was incumbent first to persuade some sections of
society, especially peasants on economic measures it
was taking. The whole democratic process remained
thwarted. People remained disarmed ideologically and
organisationally against might of state.
Likewise, Chinese leadership later put its heart on its
own capacity to handle state power while releasing
initially market forces in its economy. Such an
extraordinary belief in its own capacity, a subjective
factor, to handle state power to mould an objective
law of economic operation was something foolish to
believe. It in effect helped in restoring capitalism with
state help and revolution stood betrayed.
Governance:
Dictatorship of Proletariat
To handle state a concept in theory came for
dictatorship of proletariat till state withers away. Lenin
gave emphasis on it and made it a litmus test of fidelity
on revolutionary practice. The formulation however
proved futile. The dictatorship of proletariat completely
failed in eliminating bourgeoisie as a class in USSR during
almost 74 years of its uncouth operation.
The concept hides behind two wrongs and seeks to
justify its necessity with regulation by the party of
proletariat to invoke confidence in an instrument of
repression. It is a wrong theory to justify existence of
152
state as instrument of governance and building socialism
which this formulation seeks to do.
Firstly, to reaffirm confidence in state is good for rulers
but fatally bad for the ruled. Secondly, to invest in
state the role of benefactor through sponsoring
development projects with public money is not only
bad politics but it also provides legitimacy for another
channel to benefit capitalist class on public expense. It
will open another venue to rob Peter and pay Pal.
Thirdly, on both counts this justification is being utilised
by all parties of right to turn highly centralised state as
sacrosanct, necessary and inevitable for maintaining law
and order in society and promoting progress, while the
beneficiaries remain capitalist class.
The concept relating to dictatorship of proletariat is a
myth deliberately created to hide behind it for uncouth
exercise of unaccounted authority on a fallacious
premise of proletariat class being revolutionary. It merely
legitimises rule of communist party in its name replacing
self-governance by the people.
Party Replaced People
The second most important blunder in theory was
committed on question of organisation. Lenin as leader/
teacher of revolutionary politics advocated need for a
political party as an instrument for conducting
communist movement. Ideologically speaking, Marx had
propounded concept of peoples power workingmen
as moving force of history. Self-emancipation of
proletarian looses all meanings. He had developed an
abiding faith in their capacity to work for social change
with attributes like creativity and initiative in
abundance due to their working conditions. It got a
beating from a concept of political party as driving
force for social change instead for universal application.
Lenin did it first; later magnified manifold by others in
line taking a cue from Marxs uttering on Paris Commune
and perfecting the logic to turn it upside down. It proved
a big shift from the teacher on a vital question of
principle that muddled the exercise to a point of no
return. A political organisation tasked with handling
question of state power replaced people as driving force
of revolution/ social change and revolution reduced to
mere capture of state power; a master-stroke to
decompose the concept of socialist revolution indeed.
When the task is assigned to it for capturing state power
for a different class through revolution, as was ordained
by Lenin, unwittingly it is admitted that state as an
institution to rule over masses remain intact under
changed dispensation and political party will act its tool
to oppress the ruled. The communist party became the
party of rule over the people.
The role of masses was thus transferred to a party of
elites as self-proclaimed representative of proletariat
in the name of class approach. In consequence, Theory
stands changed and the Practice boiled down to outright
elitism where Party acts as something superior to the
working people themselves.
Where was the necessity to form a political party and
name it communist in conducting the movement? None,
to answer in short. Taking into account the difference
between organisation and political party as two formal
forms, it was wrong to go for a political party.
154
Despite features of choice added by Lenin to it, after
coming into being, a political party has its own dynamics
unfolded with its internal mechanism of structure and
disciplinary code of a formal type instrument. Imbued
with an object of capturing or sharing state power,
political party in operation is bound to affect internal
harmony and create bickering for hegemony giving rise
to self interests, killing ultimately the endowed aim
from outside of reordering social relations on
communitarian basis. This is what happened in USSR,
China, Vietnam, India, France, Germany, to name a few.
See another disturbing feature within these parties: it
was observed that with change of leadership in a ruling
communist party in USSR or China, especially after the
demise of Stalin and Mao respectively, shift in
ideological positions often occurred simultaneously that
started baffling cadres everywhere, while leadership
of communist parties elsewhere followed change in
policy as if meekly and obediently. There were no signs
of any critical appraisals of discarded positions and/or
freshly undertaken. Blindness reigned supreme, turning
such leadership staled in approach and practice.
The noticeable stink inside these parties grew
universally and at a speed, though many aspects of this
bad breath drew serious attention only after tragic
collapse of Soviet experiment by 1991 and China earlier.
It made us collate things afresh in proper sequence
thereafter. The state power where it ruled or power-
game played for capturing state apparatus corrupted in
intellect, culture and morals while Individual interests
laced their way of life with impunity.
Production Made Primary
For industrial spree, less said the better. Raising
production, ipso facto, is not progress. It cannot be.
Production must have an object to subserve; material
goods must satisfy social needs for harmony and peace.
To chase production in itself merely for capital
accumulation i.e. maximising profits breeds essentially
constant tension and conflict. This cannot subserve social
needs and hence be the object of growth.
To achieve higher level of production unnecessary faith
was placed on industrial mode of production in unchaste
copy of Adam Smith and Ricardo who were high priests
of unabashed capitalism and individual enterprise;
ignoring the aspect of stability to society that
industrialisation cannot provide, where speed is
essence. It forgot deliberately that so far development
in capitalist mode was dependent on internal as well as
external expropriation and deprivation of commons in
addition to surplus value as a matter of principle.
It surprises that how such a leadership could introduce,
so easily and without any dissenting voice a production
system in the country that in effect bred individualism
galore, as it was bound to do.
It is fairly known that individualism as a philosophy of
life is a product of industrial-commercial revolution and
Marxists contest it on logical grounds. The same self-
perpetuating and crafty leadership on the other hand
sought to fight individuality to attain uniformity instead
where it lost control over both. There were allegations
galore that dignity of man was suppressed, at times
ruthlessly, in the name of fighting individualism to an
156
extent of justifying even physical violence. Many times
individuality was mixed up with individualism to the
disadvantage of ranks. Times testified that this proved
a tragedy of proportions with no redeeming features.
Basically this European model of development had
emerged and flourished on large-scale internal and
external expropriation. It could not be otherwise in
Soviet Union, as also in other so-called socialist
countries, though direct external expropriation in their
case was not possible. After collapse many complained
about internal expropriation in USSR. Naturally, these
countries had to bear resultant effects of this model in
spite of the fact that means of production were in
command of state, with a powerful leadership and a
vast political army of cadres to direct and control.
Building socialism through economic principles of
capitalism on pretentious grounds led the movement
no-where. Still communist leadership world over has
not learnt anything from collapse of Soviet experiment.
Another query; how long commodity production will
last in a socialist superstructure and how to offset its
effect in social relations? How this dialectics will play
out in practice when, practically both socialist and
capitalist nation-states exist and national jingoism is
worked up off and on by rulers to seek mass support for
their actions against rivals?
There is no doubt that in course of their rule Soviet,
Chinese or Vietnamese leadership among others fell
prey to this jingoism in name of theory, where ranks in
their respective organisations went mute followers.
Failures Examined Inadequately
With collapse of socialist camp, many reasons were
advanced for mass consumption by failed leadership
according to respective perceptions. None however
looked into salient formulations of theory and practice
that failed to deliver, lest it demolish their own
credibility to lead. Many of them turned coats as per
flow of winds to safeguard their careers. Communists!
careers, corruption? Surprising indeed!
For example: There was no adequate explanation from
any quarter what was the source of huge wealth found
with hordes of leaders, including high ranking officers
in Red Army, in these countries of communist faith, if
individualism had not ruled social life and misuse of
authority did not occur there underneath.
To find such conduct in cultural degradation of individuals
amounts to clever diversion and skirting the issue. It
does not explain the cause of disease that made possible
for such a vide spread theft by a particular category of
people, when there was no legal right to hold private
property in USSR. The rot to rob public property during
a period after collapse of USSR raises a question on the
level of socialist consciousness generated during over
seven decades of proletarian dictatorship there. If
proletarian dictatorship survives on fear alone how it
is different from bourgeois dictatorship then?
Enigma: The Individualism
One cannot ignore the growth of individualism in the
womb of socialist society of their make in USSR, despite
dictatorship of proletariat working for seven decades
in that country with no right of private property.
158
One may say, it was a sheer riddle to find individualism
raging to that level in Soviet Union. China also could
not escape same tragedy and so in Vietnam. There is
no riddle however. The dependence on industrial mode
produce less scope for plenty to offset wants of people
and more of individualism from its womb, despite
ideological offensive for socialist philosophy to have
its sway. The said socialist experiment did produce
enough Individualism which provided single most solid
ground for capitalist relations to take over but could
not produce plenty of soap in these countries.
Individualism which found congenial ground to prosper
was most effective factor that killed the new
experiment and led to collapse of Soviet camp. But
leadership was at its best to avoid investigating it.
In effect, leadership successfully took recourse to such
pep talks that helped in putting off both substantive
issues from radar. What it did at its creative best resulted
in engaging communist/socialist cadres in peripheral
issues of insignificance. It beautifully saved the capitalist
mode from searching glare and its ugly character
remained out of reach for any serious challenge.
Responsibility for this post-collapse deliberate
ideological surrender to capitalism and its onslaught or
sheer shirking of leading role lies with socialist/
communist leadership. Ranks remained followers.
On question of organisation we may talk a bit more. It
was Lenin again who by making party a pre-condition
to revolution created a fetish of it that blunted creative
thinking difficult on it by leaders and ranks in communist
movement with fatal consequences.
Lenin and Question of Organisation
It needs be studied how certain myths communist
movement itself has built around questions of
organisation. It is important to realise how in course of
time difference between an organisation and a political
party was obliterated and ignored, deliberately.
True, importance of a formal type of organisation was
stressed earlier by Marx when he analysed failure of
Paris Commune and started making efforts along with
his compatriots to fill gap by organising First
International Workingmen Association.
Later, it was Lenin as a master strategist and tactician
in a tearing hurry to capture state power who had
charted his own course and gave shape to an under-
ground organisation for overthrow of Czarist autocracy
when he was confronting a plethora of problems working
with various types of people in revolutionary movement
of Russia then. In course of this struggle, he developed
a whole philosophy of organisation pertaining to
working class and termed it as an organisation of a new
type to stress its distinct features from older genre.
It is known that bourgeoisie as a ruling class felt
threatened of its own kin in democracy at a stage of its
development all because it had released mass energy
of colossal degree. To obviate the danger, it laboured
in converting it into representative form instead and
groomed a political party to control and regulate the
jinn, ensuring its own life safe from turmoil.
It is known in political theory that ruling bourgeoisie is
safe with representative democracy while working
masses need participative democracy where they can
160
utilise mass energy and creativity best for social
governance. History was ignored in hurry.
After adopting institution of political party of
representative character, Lenin proceeded to craft
cardinal principles of organisation for a communist party
termed one as democratic centralism with a single
centre of authority, a paid membership and a band of
professional revolutionaries forming its core, putting
it into an integrated whole. This reflected the spirit in
organisation of one other fundamental postulate he
laboriously elaborated as dictatorship of proletariat
to concretise the form of socialist revolution centring
around another postulate that made capturing sate
power a pre-condition to socialist construction by over
throwing the old order from state power. The whole
revolution was thus turned into a fight for state power
and then holding it tight in image of revolution.
Since communist party monopolised power after
revolution in 1917, on behalf of workers, soldiers and
peasants as the single representative of proletariat in
Russia, both postulates i.e. democratic centralism and
dictatorship of proletariat pertaining to different
categories happened to merge together and became
rooted in the system. The third element of party being
the vanguard of proletariat completed the juggernaut
that turned ruling leadership absolute in authority to
subdue people in the name of revolution. This proved
fatal in the long run for society as well as for a set up
devised to give it a fresh shape.
Lenin was not to live beyond January 1924. His
successors translated his postulates in a difficult situation
with much zeal, but without his dynamism. Lenins
words carried more weight afterwards than the spirit,
perhaps to bolster position of leading group against other
in struggle for supremacy within ruling junta. It led to
feuds, coups, violence and disintegration of structure.
What Lenin himself said about organisational principles,
let us turn to Congress of Third Communist International
that had adopted a resolution on organisation in 1921.
Lenin could appear for a brief period in Fourth Congress
next year of this International and denounced resolution
of 1921 in unequivocal terms. This is what Lenin in his
report to Congress on November 13, 1922 said about it:
At the Third Congress, in 1921, we adopted a
resolution on the organisational structure of the
communist parties and on the methods and content
of their activities. The resolution is an excellent one,
but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say,
everything in it is based on Russian conditions.
This is its good point, but it is also its failing. It is its
failing because I am sure that no foreigner can read
it. I have read it again before saying this. In the first
place, it is too long, containing fifty or more points.
Foreigners are not usually able to read such things.
Secondly, even if they read it, they will not
understand it because it is too Russian. Not because
it is written in Russian- it has been excellently
translated into all languages - but because it is
thoroughly imbued with the Russian spirit. And thirdly,
if by way of exception some foreigner does understand
it, he cannot carry it out. This is the third defect. I
have talked with a few of the foreigner delegates
and hopes to discuss matters in detail with a large
162
number of delegates from different countries during
the Congress, although I shall not take part in its
proceedings, for unfortunately it is impossible for me
to do that. I have the impression that we made a big
mistake with this resolution, namely that we blocked
our own road to further success. As I have said already,
the resolution is excellently drafted; I am prepared
to subscribe to every one of its fifty or more points.
But we have not learned how to present our Russian
experience to foreigners. All that was said in the
resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not
realise this, we shall be unable to move ahead. I
think that after five years of the Russian revolution
the most important thing for all of us, Russian and
foreign comrades alike, is to sit down and study. We
have only now obtained the opportunity to do so. I
do not know how long this opportunity will last. I do
not know for how long the capitalist powers will give
us the opportunity to study in peace. But we must
take advantage of every moment of respite from
fighting, from war, to study and to study from scratch.
The whole party and all strata of the population of
Russia prove this by their thirst for knowledge. This
striving to learn shows that our most important task
today is to study and study hard. Our foreign
comrades, too, must study. I do not mean that they
have to learn to read and write and to understand, as
we still have to do. There is a dispute as to whether
this concerns proletarian or bourgeois culture. I shall
leave that question open. But one thing is certain:
we have to begin by learning to read and write and
to understand what they read. Foreigners do not need
that. They need something more advanced: first of
all, among other things they must learn to understand
what we have written about organisational structure
of the communist parties and what the foreign
comrades have signed without reading and
understanding. This must be their first task. The
resolution must be carried out. It cannot be carried
out overnight; that is absolutely impossible. The
resolution is too Russian, it reflects Russian experience.
That is why it is quite unintelligible to foreigners and
they cannot be content with hanging it in a corner
like an icon and praying to it. Nothing will be achieved
that way. They must assimilate part of the Russian
experience. Just how that will be done, I do not
know... We are studying in the general sense. They
however, must study in the special sense, in order
that they really understand the organisation, structure,
method and content of revolutionary work. If they
do that, I am sure the prospects of the world
revolution will not be only good, but excellent.
Teaching Ignored
That did not happen. In all likelihood, Russian
compatriots did not heed the advice of their teacher
to study and avoid help in drafting resolutions for the
worldwide movement based on Russian spirit;
apparently foreigners also shirked study in a special
way as suggested by the leader to disadvantage of both.
This resolution is popularly known as Leninist principles
of party organisation in communist movement. Perhaps,
leadership following him later found much meaning in
his comment that resolution is excellent one and must
be carried out, casting aside his study that by adopting
this resolution we made a big mistake.
164
Despite admission of mistake by the teacher, followers
after him continued treading mistaken path faithfully
and are continuing till now. Lenin though was forthright
in his remarks on this Russian resolution by third
International and much concerned about averting
tragedy it implied. Still, it could not be averted.
The tragedy however unfolded when this resolution by
International with Russian spirit continued to remain a
touchstone of organisational fidelity with communists
worldwide. The same Russian spirit permeates almost
in all international formulations till collapse of the
experiment in Russia itself. No other variation was
allowed to enter the domain. Not much is known how
this happened to materialise despite warning from the
teacher himself of its ills.
These principles of organisation from Lenin are not
dependent on merely a particular resolution from third
international which he himself repudiated: his many
treatises advance the same in essence. How it then?
History is best answer. Let us study.
Myths around organisation
Principle of Democratic Centralism
The Bolshevik party under leadership of Lenin
successfully captured state power in Russia through
Socialist Revolution of 1917. The era of imperialism
and proletarian revolution inaugurated by this revolution
was dominated by a few concepts developed and
practised by communist parties chiselled as instruments
of change to over throw capitalism and build
socialism, guided mainly by Lenin. One was principle
of democratic centralism. It gained currency and
became central to any communist organisation.
Lenin distinguished his understanding of proletarian
democracy as superior to one prevalent bourgeois
democracy, but underlined it with emphasis on
centralism as its distinguishing trait. Proletarian
democracy emphatically was relegated to a partial role
only for proletarians to enjoy. Since bourgeoisie as a
class was to be eliminated as per scheme for proletarian
revolution to succeed, it was denied any right under
this new form of democracy. In between there remained
other sections of society, like family farmers who also
were by implication kept out of its purview, though
for some period these were designated as friends of
proletarians to be treated differently from enemy class.
Democracy Rests on Individual entity
Though Lenin worked zealously to distinguish proletarian
democracy from old bourgeoisie democracy, he could
not or did not foresee danger in its basic ingredient in
individualism. Democracy takes individual as its primary
object of concern, all because of its class origin in
industrial capital. Basically concept of democracy was
brought in to serve bourgeois class with individual rights
made sacrosanct. Socialist thought cannot afford to
borrow such a concept that goes contrary to its
principles as it did. No alternative in consonance with
principles of social cohesion under socialist thought was
conceived to replace individualist approach.
Similarly tragedy occurred on representative form of
democracy that had reduced the whole concept to a
sham. Happily representative form of democracy was
166
embraced. All power to soviets remained ineffective
to the last with highly centralised party at top with no
effective check from below.
All rulers in human history fear energies of the masses
most. Soviet rulers fared no better. Neither Chinese,
nor Vietnamese after revolution fared different. The
same is true of other so-called socialist countries. With
such concentration of authority in hands of a centralised
leadership, initiative and activism of rank and file in a
communist party is extinguished like-wise. In such a
condition, initiative of people is a far cry to expect.
People will remain lifeless mass where leaders rule.
In democracy, as a matter of principle, people are
supreme. Representative democracy ostensibly, was
brought in by bourgeoisie to manage its unwieldy mass
energy! But in practice it was designed to sideline power
of people and in its place representative was placed
above people to rule them basically with help of armed
machinery. Lenin fell for it, knowingly or unknowingly.
As a result, democracy was extinguished in Soviet
Union, what remained was absurd dictatorship over
the people, unaccounted and ruthless, manipulative and
unrepentant. In realm of political organisation, the
damage was much more pernicious. Alienation of people
from ruling party and the state there explains it.
Here, the representative virtually is replacing its
master, its creator - its class. Thus institution of
political party faithfully discharged its duty assigned to
it by history and paralysed peoples power to contain
effects of democracy to the dotted task. The story in
Soviet Union was not different.
The very idea of a party being vanguard is untenable.
To assume a sole representative character of a class
with so varied and at times conflicting interests even
within the industrial proletariat is a fallacy deliberately
created. The worst sufferers were working people
world over for no fault of theirs. They paid price for
believing in a wrong concept uncritically - a dangerous
path full of sludge leading surely to ruin.
In wielding state power, representative vanguard in
the shape of a communist party placed itself even above
class to be ruled by it with no check from its parent
source of power. It proved to be a farce in the name
of proletarian democracy as capitalist class did in case
of its own democracy. There was no clear cut break
from past to chart a new course.
Centralism is antithetic to communism and cannot be
justified on logic of consonance during its transitory
stage of socialism, if this stage is not defined something
hostile to a stateless stage of communism based on self-
management of civic affairs by citizens in communitarian
settings. The transitory stage of socialism is designed
to prepare for switch over to stateless communism.
Highly centralised state machinery under socialist stage
cannot graduate to discharge this duty to prepare for a
non-centralised and self-managed communist society
propounded by Marx and Engels.
This contradictory concept of centralism to communism
reflects more characteristics of industrial-commercial-
financial complex under capitalism and much nearer to
its nature. The tragedy was severe when it struck roots
in erstwhile Soviet Union as an industrialised state.
168
There was another folly. The principle of democratic
centralism contrived for a communist party by Lenin
was applied to all social-economic formations like mass
organisations, production process and in spheres of
social importance as also state structure. That stifled
whole social life with no safety valve to breath safe.
Dictatorship of Proletariat
It was another tragedy of sorts when dictatorship of
proletariat was equated with dictatorship of
communist party and party was equated with its
supreme leader in exchange! This ultimately threw up
a full crop of intellectual dwarfs in the movement and
bred clearly a pyramid like Brahmanical hierarchy in
operation with inbred arbitrariness. It created a class
division within organisation, leading to antagonism
breading confusion of worst kind and encouraged
isolation from masses, with octopus like bureaucracy
at top. The impregnable wall between leaders and the
led became a reality worse than one between citizens
and their elected representatives in parliamentary
political frame. If Leon Trotsky had labelled structure
in Soviet Union as bureaucratic socialism during course
of tiff with Stalin in his struggle for supremacy, the
fact that bureaucracy overpowered this experiment
with an iron grip does not loose relevance.
Second, if defining democratic centralism was good
enough, yet nowhere in world had it flowered as
postulated! One cannot find a single case of a communist
party where this principle worked as defined. It proved
a mirage, yet crafty enough for leadership to introduce
worst form of arbitrary conduct and justification for
high-handedness in practice.
Third, having a central object to capture state power
entailing vast privileges tagged along, communist party
easily turned into a cesspool of intrigues and
manipulations. It left two possibilities open for
explanation: one, individual interests predominated
within leadership of ruling party to enjoy privileges of
power attached with such organism as armed state;
second possibility is that an infantile infatuation for
using armed power of state establishment must have
turned too nasty with leaders playing truant with Lenins
own postulate about state. In both cases however,
communist philosophy remained the real victim.
The organisational principles based on democratic
centralism provide an easy route for leadership to
hammer party along their group-interests in name of
class and revolution cheating working people by sheer
regimentation. This proved fatal to the experiment.
Principle of Vanguard Party
Fourthly, it is presumed that self-proclaimed vanguard
party of proletariat represents the whole class and acts
on its behalf; even without proving its legitimacy
reasonably ever, to claim mystic support of a amorphous
class for its arbitrary conduct. It is a deliberate myth
created with much hard labour -perhaps to ride
roughshod over society with least accountability. This
myth of vanguard party helped to create arrogance in
cadres and leaders leading to alienation of worst kind.
Fifth, a class of parasitic professionals in politics is
created with an inflated arrogance of their infallibility,
superior knowledge and a false sense of sacrifice to
rule, with all evil influences to rub society at wrong
170
ends. It hardly helps to create a better man ready to
take over a communist society for self-management.
Sixth, operation of these so-called principles in
organisation leaves virtually its General Secretary of
the party at best a sole arbiter of social good with no
reasonable and reliable check whatsoever. The whole
centralised party-structure unfailingly creates an
emasculated band of paid professional politicians who
are supposed to exercise another myth in criticism
and self-criticism of their leaders to checkmate
possible distortions. It never worked anywhere what it
is supposed to deliver so far. The system groomed Lenin
to Stalin as also Beria, Khrushchev- Brezhnev,
Gorbachev, Yeltsin in Soviet Union and Mao to Deng in
China, while in Vietnam from Ho Chi Minh to much
little pygmies in other countries thereafter as arbiters
of social good with generations to suffer in the end. It
is like playing lottery drakes with future of society
that no serious activist would like to arbiter.
Seven, if once communist party is accepted as
repository of working class interest par excellence,
adage that best available is elected to post its
leadership then stands endowed with highest of
wisdom that go to make aristocracy rise at top and
followers meek enough to accept it perennially in
intellectual and also organisational sense. In such
circumstances, intellectual dwarfism observed of late
in communist movement world over is not a surprising
development. Discipline in this dispensation is used not
to smooth away rough edges but to curtail perceived
threats to leadership, even by violent methods.
Eighth, common accusation that leadership in a
communist party is self-perpetuating cannot be brushed
aside lightly with such absurd postulates in organisation.
Ninth, level of alienation people felt in Soviet Union
from such a leadership, as also of reluctance seen among
working masses to join ranks of communist parties was
quite visible during last years of its rule.
The concept of authority provides much needed grist
to principal of democratic centralism. The concept of
authority in a communist party need be scrutinised
afresh, totally rejecting iniquitous grades and privileges.
The communist parties world over following these
Leninist principles of organisation are surviving on
concept of authority in political field just as state does
in matters of governance. By now people stand
conditioned to their necessity debunking concept of
self-governance by community. It is tragic.
Indian Experience:
case of genuine communist party!
How leadership translates such formulations? The
example to illustrate must come from a self-proclaimed
genuine one, though other non-genuine like CPI,
CPI(M), CPI(ML) are almost similar in content. The case
of genuine among them will help to provide a better
insight into the way these gentlemen took theory and
communist movement as their hand maid with impunity.
One such so-called real communist party in India prides
that basing itself on the principle of democratic
centralism, the party, like human organism, has to be
a single organic whole of monolithic character...
172
developing a collective leadership concretely
personified and its democratic functioning on the basis
of centralism, both ideological and organisational the
former leading to the latter to take shape. It asks its
members to develop one process of thinking,
uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach and
singleness of purpose on matters covering all aspects
of life. At another level, party tells its members that
the process involves subordination of the individual
to the organisation, of the minority to the majority, of
the lower to the central committee of the party. These
are few gems of wisdom from this group.
Explaining that this is proletarian democracy emanating
from proletarian class outlook reflecting proletarian
way of life, that is, collective way of life... Party asks
subordination to be conscious, voluntary and happy.
This party teaches that interest of the party which is
interest of the toiling people in general and the working
class in particular should be placed above all other
interests. Party discipline should be observed unfailingly
and decisions of the leading bodies carried out strictly
and happily... identifying himself/herself with the
interest of the party, the class and the revolution.
Yes, identifying oneself with interest of party, class and
revolution is a unique demand in rhythmical way from
leaders for typical uniformity. There is no way for cadres
of party to go except what this party thinks about class
and revolution and how it defines these categories in
wisdom. As per this leadership, cause of revolution so
interpreted by it decides truth; facts may be created
accordingly. It is a demand for complete surrender to
leadership of this party, both on intellectual and
organisational grounds. It can breed nothing but dwarfs.
Unless one bestows leadership of this party with
supernatural powers of intellect and honesty of purpose,
views coming from it on affairs party, class and
revolution have to be accepted as nothing but truth.
Jargons apart, no one can beat this, perhaps to plead
for such a hideous Brahmanical hierarchy creating both
caste and class division at the same time in a genuine
communist party of sorts! There is no doubt that this
feat was achieved under this Leninist principle of
democratic centralism for a party organisation.
The leadership of this genuine communist organisation
is never tired to claim its contribution for higher
understanding of communist principles in Indian soil in
justification of its existence. The scrutiny, however,
of its past sixty and odd years is quite a revealing chapter
in this regard. It could better utilise common faith in
brahmanical order available in society at large for its
own version of democratic centralism to work with
ease and without much scrutiny by obedient cadres.
Tricky premise
An absurd premise was developed by this only
communist party that a revolutionary organisation has
to be modelled like a human organism. The premise,
wittingly or unwittingly justifies division of labour
between mental and physical labour, typically of
capitalist growth in economy giving rise to hierarchy.
It pushes artificial division between cadres and leaders
as a permanent fixture that falsifies Marxist
174
understanding of a just social order where eradication
of such division is a pre-requisite. The premise is based
on a socio-economic theory that copiously follow
western thought with division of labour as the highest
formation to ensure expertise and better production,
which capitalism contributes!
Why this principle is inevitable in a communist party?
It is not explained. Why you need physical and mental
labour separated in a communist organisation? No
answer. Since the postulate came from leader endowed
with superior capabilities only a great Brahmin can
obtain it! There is nothing in science to suggest that a
formal organisation that is a communist party can be
equated with a natural organism as human being.
For birth and later for their growth processes both in
human organism and a political formation are totally
different categories. To prescribe conditioning for one
process of thinking cannot but lead to worst
regimentation of thought in a party, kill creativity and
initiative in society to a level of fascist absurdity.
Pleading for developing collective leadership
concretely personified through an individual placed at
highest level in organisation is plainly a mine-sweeping
job for a supreme leader at top of organisation as an
embodiment of wisdom found only in brahmanical order
copious from Manuvadi social stratification in India.
On another aspect none can beat it. The leader teaches:
if a revolutionary fails to transform members of his
family into revolutionaries then his relations with them
should cease forever. This a fundamental issue. Again,
the revolutionary may feel pain if his beloved (or wife)
is not a comrade. But he knows...countless beloveds
will come, relieve him of his torment, fill his heart full
with love. And: those who cannot surrender his self,
love, affection, tenderness, family, his everything to
the party, can never be communists of first rank.
This is how study in a special way is carried to such
absurdities and theory is made, remade and broken.
One thing certainly can be said that this party falls much
too short on practice, while it is a very sad tale on
morals and conduct. With these principles, this party
has taken a fascist character in behaviour and social
practices with a Brahmanical hierarchy intact having
no respect to principles of its own make, when outright
lies are used as normal tricks in the game at need.
The Practice
Understanding goes that theory and practice must work
in concert with each other; practice has to serve theory
and theory must guide practice to remain in step with
theory. But it hardly worked like it in these parties
who remained busy in playing games of power. Most
often leadership exhibits capabilities in theorising
practice for followers to remain loyal. The practice
formulated and executed during this period both in realm
of state and political organisation in USSR, China and
others as vanguard of ruling class or classes is a good
indication how the system faulted.
It is incontestable that communists world over have
been valiant fighters for the social cause, more so they
stood firm to change social relations on new footing by
a collective effort. People depended on them for lead
176
and believed their words. They had earned credibility
over a long period for integrity, both organisational
and ideological. Selfless dedication to the cause and
fearless sacrifices from innumerable fighters had
become an illuminating history for young to emulate.
What peoples in different countries professing socialism
ultimately experienced in the last decade of twentieth
century is a sad story in betrayal by the very leadership
in command. Apart, in countries where capitalist
onslaught continues unabated and communist parties
professed fidelity to workingmen, experiences about
leadership were no different. No doubt that somewhere
something went terribly wrong.
It is noticed that while concretising many important
aspects of theory in search of easy and rapid short cuts
to build socialism communist leadership faulted seriously.
On practice the blunders are of no less magnitude.
For the first, let us cite a few examples. The split in
world communist movement and the emergence of its
two hostile blocks, one led by the big brother - Soviet
Union and the other by China, was a first serious blow
to its image of international solidarity and comradeship.
Narrow national interests worked to over-shadow the
principles instead. Hegemony got currency as an
accusation. The prestige earned by Soviet Union, as a
consistent harbinger of peace in the world and supporter
of independence struggles in colonial countries as also
victorious giant in the war against fascism stood badly
shaken. It emerged as a narrow nationalist state in search
of hegemony, while China contended on same plane.
It is an irony of sorts that Chinese leadership have not
only shed off international communist movement, but
turned inward for nationalist objectives alone, whereas
earlier it had claimed leadership of the international
communist movement as a genuine upholder of
principles in contest to CPSU! Almost similar was the
case with Vietnamese leadership, who were later found
lining up their young girls for presenting roses in search
of dollars to the same visiting Americans on their shores.
Here an important question arises: despite claim of
internationalist solidarity as an abiding principle in
communist movement what is the place for fidelity to
national cause and how both can co-exist simultaneously?
One unmistakable fact emerged that political class came
out as nothing different from its historical parentage in
the long run! The last ruling patriarch of CPSU, Michel
Gorbachev along with his ambitious wife celebrated
fulfilment of their life dream and the Soviet Camp was
declared dead by 1991. The ruling parties in countries
of soviet camp stood disbanded without tears. Poland
paved the way earlier on whims of a Pope claiming
affinity with polish nationality. Its trade union by the
name of Solidarity proved the disgracing force.
Chinese revolution had started moving to death much
earlier but with crafty jargons none protested against.
Those who had supported the system in USSR from
outside the ring were surprised to find billionaires
overnight in Moscow, including some commanders of
Red Army despite long campaign of 74 years for social
obligation. The ruling Political-Bureau was inhabited
by Berias, Brezhnovs, Yeltsins and the like. Gorbachevs
could easily find space in an organisation of new type.
178
Society in the old socialist camp reversed back with
vengeance with a corresponding structure to support.
The reversal brought back all those social relations that
breed strife, greed, manipulations and crime in tail. It
was brought about those who knew all about dark
features of capitalism in the past and present.
How people of USSR accepted this to happen in a society
that was in turmoil for long in quest of new initiatives
for social justice, is another aspect of the question.
How it came in a communist party of Lenin and Stalin
that such persons could invent a practice of offering
gifts to leaders and used it like a ladder to arise in
hierarchy? Who will explain as to how Yeltsin the
drunkard could sneak into its Political-Bureau who later
proved to be a stooge of America like none else. It is a
sad commentary on infallibility of organisational
principles of party sanctioned by none other than Lenin
and Stalin and the Third Communist International.
When a section among fighters for communism,
especially its leaders, turned as rulers in many countries,
people found them wanting on many important counts
as usual. Serious questions were raised on their conduct.
The ruled remained ruled in those countries. Over a
long period of observation and practice has given a
chance to see through what leaders in communist parties
preach and what they do in practice, barring a few
honourable exceptions whose dedication and honesty
of purpose is unimpeachable. In fact these exceptions
are the glittering stars that attract common mass to
the ideology like a magnet. Even best in bourgeois world
prove wanting in comparison to such examples in
communist movement. But these remain exceptions,
not the rule. The communist movement, however,
demands necessarily attributes of honesty of purpose
in thought and practice pervading all its ranks.
It was found that where ever communist leadership
was engaged in political-games to capture or share
power they were easy resorting to manipulations, mean
methods and shady deals like any other party not the
least compatible with declared principles it was
supposed to follow. Privileges associated with power
and pelf attracted these leaders no less than others
that created strong grounds for alienation within ranks.
Take another yardstick. Despite their claim to be
organisation of an opposite class to the capital, plight
today of communist or socialist parties of Marxist faith
world over without exception, again underlines their
inherent bourgeois characteristic. These parties are as
faction-ridden as any other infested by self-centred
careerists to gain status or grab pelf and power. This is
but a sure symptom of individualism working within
unabated to serve capitalist growth in society.
Organisational principles apart, communist or socialist
parties subscribing to Marxist ideology are as corrupt
and compromising as other parties of any other faith
today, but more regimented and closed. There is hardly
anything special to distinguish these entities other than
mere rhetoric on ideology and disciplinary faith.
In their zeal of being part of a vanguard, the leaders
easily slipped into a conceited lot with arrogance
unbound. They took it to themselves that what they
say is the only truth, how they look at things is right
and surely logical. The other opinion was equated with
180
betrayal; suspicion reigned supreme with manipulators
having a heyday, ultimately shutting out honest
intellectual regeneration. While in polemics with
adversaries, even Lenin paved way for a haughty style
that later developed into a hallmark of self-righteousness
and rude behaviour with the opponent, many times
with hollow reasoning. This ultimately belittled the role
of a man and human dignity became the easy victim.
The provision of inner-struggle in a communist party
propagated as a dependable mechanism for self-
correction and a sure anti-dot to miscarriage of just
conduct proved a virtual hoax. Nowhere, in no
communist party this mechanism ever proved effective
to check the rot or help correct a deviation in time.
Rather, there are instances in legion when those taken
in over the promise of inner-struggle had to pay heavy
price for their impudence in challenging established
leadership of the time even where party was not in
power. The case of ruling parties was despicable in
this regard and brought much bad name. Violence was
freely used to settle issues, branding any voice of dissent
as treason against state, inviting capital punishment at
will. Ultimately, provision for criticism and self-
criticism lost even its face value.
Central Committees or Polit-Bureaus of communist
parties, as highest organs of authority, were turned as
mere pack of hand-picked loyalists of ruling ones
including the Control Commission of Lenins type that
were supposed to balance arbitrary powers of C.C and
PBs. Spineless people entered these institutions of
authority; like Gorbachev, Yeltsin in abundance dotting
every party, genuine or otherwise!
If democracy was the word, how it happened then
that with a change of an individual in command effected
immediate change in these policy-making bodies too
clapping new leader all the time.
This happened in all communist parties world over
without exception. There was a case when Khrushchev
got a decision changed in his favour with active help
of an Army commander by keeping the entire Political-
Bureau hostage. He got rid of all inconvenient members
of Bureau and Central Committee immediately
thereafter, taking the country in his boot by capturing
total administrative machinery along with Red Army. It
cannot be explained, except as a treacherous game of
individualism manifesting sheer group politics.
With such conditions in a so-called communist party
there is nothing surprising to find that initiative and
activism of masses evaporated in all countries of socialist
camp. Non-ruling communist parties too habitually
behave with people as if these are doers and people
have simply to repose faith in them!
See another facet. Propaganda is important for
dissemination of information and help kindling
awareness. But mastering tricks in mis-information and
outright dis-information is a crime against humanity with
no justification whatsoever, more so if it is done utilising
extensive state resources. Ruling parties, including
communist parties did it unchecked. People were
manipulated to doctored truths. Stories abound when
falsehood was resorted to and truth suppressed only to
buttress a particular set of leaders with attributes he/
she had none. Arrogance of being vanguard have done
182
much damage when people are taken as mere tools to
be treated and educated by these superior humans.
Another facade of political parties is illustrated by what
these do in legislative chambers of present day set up.
They become happy collaborators in manipulating
legislative institutions to subdue people. The Indian story
is an eloquent testimony.
The accumulated dirt and moss in communist parties
world over was testimony enough to ill effects of this
principle of democratic centralism in practice. As a
result, this has sapped zeal out and left communist
movement gasping. The masses stood aside and
leadership remained content with their privileges as a
class; they surpassed bourgeois rulers in many cases and
corrupted such organisations to bones.
This is said to remind all those practitioners of
revolutionary ideology that there is nothing sacrosanct
about any postulate or formulation coming from any
authority whatsoever for today unless it satisfies the
test of objective truth without blinkers of past. It must
satisfy test today. So far, practice is laden with quotes
from this authority or the other to claim fidelity. This
led to sterile action generally with follies in trail that
has done more harm than clarity.
There is a qualitative change of reverse order in
situation after 1991 that demands creative approach to
problems of today. Exercise must begin with analysis
of what went wrong in Soviet and Chinese experiments.
What mars its further growth is skewed understanding
on certain features the communists harboured so far, in
a mistaken belief that what Lenin said about Russian
path is the path to revolution and revolutionary change
thereafter. One such understanding relates to question
of capturing state power that necessarily involves a
question of armed struggle as means to reach the object.
In this context the question of violence/non-violence
came up for contest. Communists were accused of
unalloyed faith in violence. Communist circles world
over contributed no less to confuse the issue by
propagating a saying that violence is the midwife to
revolutionary regeneration of society.
Perhaps Indian communists perforce focused this
formulation to combat the influence gained by a
question of non-violence vis--vis violence that
Mahatma Gandhi had raised to counter the rising
influence of revolutionary politics - quite an anathema
to Mahatma in the conflict between labour and capital.
Gandhi was for collaboration between the two,
propounding the concept of trusteeship. In fact, he
was deeply abhorrent to initiative of people; he wanted
their energy to be used but within a prescribed frame
of his own mark! And as a master tactician, he had
raised this issue of violence and non-violence to wean
away masses to his side of thinking.
When Bhagat Singh and his colleagues replied with
much ease and logic, they were ignored as urchins.
Unfortunately, there was none to contest the question
on theory after these urchins were removed from
the scene by execution in 1931.
May be Indian communists were right in using such idiom
to counter the ideological offensive from Mahatma.
Still the ultimate outfall of midwife argument proved
184
debilitating to the movement itself with much serious
ramifications, not visualised earlier by the authors. They
did not convincingly answer Gandhis poser on end
justifies means from them. And it proved a handy tool
in his hands to isolate revolutionary politics of those
times from the common man with a different psyche.
In addition, this midwife formulation in the long run
posed a dangerous mind-set to extol violence as a
matter of radical faith in routine, which has nothing to
do with revolutionary practice. Violence in such a milieu
tends to take routine character in dealing any and every
dissenting voice with a revolutionary fervour, even
within the organisations. Leadership did not counter
this to happen. And the movement had to pay a price
for this ideological failure of communist leadership.
The justification for violence is to capture state power
against a ferocious and armed adversary. Basic in logic
first is extolling the virtue of capturing state power;
violence then is justified in trail as a means to gain it
as the supreme object by a handful of enthusiastic
cadres. Later, violence gains importance to retain this
state power and ultimately it turns into a base of this
power that goes against the ruled mass, where
oppression and coercive methods get a veneer of
legitimacy! Centralised power then plays havoc in the
society. This has its own dynamics to operate, which
goes against the people ultimately.
History is witness to the fact that violence breeds
violence. It consumes human sensibilities. History is
witness that violence then ultimately devours its own
children. It blunts human qualities that are very basic
to a communist, if any swears to be one. In case of
basic change, with faith in strength and creativity of
people at large, the question of violence is a wrong
poser and turns non-relevant.
Butchers and murderers have different trajectory.
Murderer is different from a butcher. Murderer goes in
panic while butcher has a plan to achieve. One tends
to call names to butcher and legitimately too. But
butchers and hangmen do their job religiously, with
fervour and zeal taking the object in routine. May be
butchers are not bad. Normally, they are not. Still it
stinks. Murderer may have a cause -good or bad. One
has to be careful about understanding both.
Violence and non-violence go together as a matter of
philosophy. One exists with the other. If there is no
violence non-violence looses relevance; so it cannot
claim the status of a creed as Mahatma tried to assign
it with, like a devoted Jain. Violence cannot be a basis
of legitimate social existence, nor non-violence be its
mast to hang by. For a peaceful and contended life
other basic issues have to be addressed.
In matters of peoples movement the poser of non-
violence vis--vis violence is a non issue and a false
alarm. Even in criminal jurisprudence, violence in self
defence is no violence and is well recognised as
legitimate. In reverse, violence as a creed is not
acceptable in normal course of social life. Then why to
muddle the issue, if there is no hidden agenda? At
least this cannot be the yardstick to accept or reject
an ideology of social change. Much more goes to decide
merits or demerits of the same.
186
Another poser from Gandhi related to ends and means.
He charged Indian communists in course of independence
struggle of following a postulate that ends justify means
to isolate them from common masses who generally
were poor on philosophical issues involved. The poser
in fact involved a moral question for those who were
engaged in mass struggles for liberation.
Indian communists failed the test; they were trapped
and lost for want of philosophical clarity on the issue.
Gandhi and after him all his disciples took full advantage
and could put communists on wrong footing.
Simply put, means have to be in consonance with ends;
means do influence the outcome. Since the poser from
Mahatma related to a movement which involves
participants nurturing certain values of aspirations means
do influence their cultural mores too.
Naturally tactics of movement cannot and must not cross
the strategic aims in search of shortcuts. This is basic.
It is observed that leaders many times do commit wrongs
in this regard, search for shortcuts and badly damage
the object in consequence. Communist movement in
India has suffered much with such failures.
Morality and ethics in social relations have their own
force. True, these are not static categories for ever.
But to conduct affairs without having regard for
maintaining any standard of social behaviour and
transgressing ethical and moral values of times cannot
be justified on any account. Communists are people
who more than any other have a better sense of social
values and cannot act otherwise under false pretexts.
Quest For
Sustainable Future
The Perspective
My students opened up on question of a bright future:
both felt concerned and now have developed a common
desire for a better social order free from ills of the
present. Both like a life of peace and justice when
system works for equality, where no one is left with
propensity for oppressing the other on strength of muscle
power, does not possess extra means to exploit fellow
citizens, when one enjoys labour for social production
in common, has inclination to manage their own life
and nurture a will to stand against injustice. Society
needs a hope that can sustain, they agreed.
Faced with stark realities of the present, these young
souls have no stomach still for prioritising social
obligation, primarily for want of clarity about a utopia
and what is achievable on the ground. Both are
habitually prone to cultivate a wish but bother little to
think about what can be translated into a reality. They
are unaware so far how and when dynamics for social
change unfolds in real terms.
Yes, both agreed that ills of present day society for
common masses are worth a dustbin and should not
govern social life any longer, while the experiment to
get rid of these during present era proved futile. They
are no longer pessimist also about any effort to come
XI
188
out of this mess and do not find any reason that mistakes
committed in carrying out experiment by Soviet and/
or Chinese camps were inevitable. Both agree that
contours of a road map for a fully workable effort to
reorder social relations are within human reach.
The effort to free society from absurdities of capitalism
during twentieth century had in consequence freed
society of fatalism and gave good reasons to believe in
human efforts for social change, not depending upon
any super-natural power to intervene on its behalf.
Nonetheless, the last experiment instilled one common
theoretical belief still powerful in mass psyche in
leadership of political parties to depend upon for this
change to occur and it proved fatal to the project.
This lesson about leadership and its negative role in
social movements has still to sink down in consciousness
of the masses, including these students on highway of
their careers despite what failed experiment of building
socialism in twentieth century succinctly taught. It will
take time to absorb it in depth. At any rate, day to day
practice in pursuit of their adopted targets does not
allow them to be free from confusion on question of
leadership in social and individual life.
One killing argument from conscious keepers of capitalist
mode needs be debunked for what it is worth and
cleared of its support base. To provide theoretical basis
for capital centred system to prevail, logic of skeptics
still holds wide acceptance that the world is bust due
to laggards and diligent are few which have the capacity
to create heaven on earth, if their chains go. Lassie
faire is their pet theory in economics.
It ensures a system that keeps society perennially
fractured on false ground. Why basically a creative man
has gone laggard, in first place? If to admit such absurd
logic for a while, the reason is not explained. Capitalist
mode essentially creates alienation of producers of social
wealth. The apologists of capitalist mode do not want
to admit and desire to shift blame on workers/real
producers to discipline them on pain of penalty. In fact,
it is a game of wits to deceive society and keep it
chained to its mode on deceptive logic.
After 1991 the governments world over, democratic or
dictators have accepted this absurd logic and are out
to discipline laggards, with carrots and rods, in interest
of development that provides legitimacy to an argument
for making an oppressive armed state inevitable!
Provision for cash incentive for extra production apart
from better management techniques with various labour
laws in such a system merely ensures to turn man/woman
selfish in working for gain i.e. giving legitimacy to a
fanciful theory that human is basically greedy, which
he/she is not originally. There is hardly any doubt left
that with such fanciful theoretical support present
system is being kept afloat with no sound basis. It is a
completely torn cloth to hide under.
Man/woman basically is social and creative by nature.
If one is laggard or greedy and selfish one is made so by
vested interests, those who for wrong reasons happen
to control things in their own fashion. It does not provide
valid ground to continue the illegitimate in history and
has to be changed for good reasons now.
For any fresh effort to define contours of a workable
190
draft to replace the present dehumanising system,
however, one has to be free from past mistakes,
including the concept of Authority as also about a
Political Party in vogue today. Let us recollect, these
concepts were devised to serve a capital-based
industrial-commercial system of production and
distribution and cannot serve the one that is to replace
it, since first task is to find ways for state to wither
away as its primary contradiction today that governs
outworn social relations the society today is tired of.
A society free of expropriation and oppression of one
by another, needs a system of production and
distribution of wealth so produced among equals on a
rational basis that creates no tension in consequence,
fulfils need of all and ensures collective way of life.
Such a mode will have to be based necessarily where
labour unit does not remain a free individual engaged
on wage. The postulates that each works according to
capacity and gets according to work and then every
one works according to capacity and gets according to
need have to be modified accordingly where family
as its basic social unit replaces individual. To remain
free from both expropriation and tension, industrial-
commercial mode has to give place to family farming
mode instead as fulcrum of production and equitable
share in social wealth for sustenance in comfort.
There is a contest that industry alone has capacity to
take society on fast track of growth and its negative
effects are not beyond good management to keep
society free from unjust delivery and turmoil. To meet
needs of constantly growing population the rate of
production has to arise much beyond normal growth
level, which only industry can assure, argument goes.
Dispersal of family is a collateral damage that has to be
paid for a better life style, apologists of capitalism so
explain innocently.
The flip side of arguments in favour of exploitative
system is however too harsh to ignore. First, let us
realise the nature of two competitive modes for
comparative study.
Agriculture is by nature organic and develops in
mathematical progression rising constantly and steadily
providing stability to the system. Its mode depends on
collective labour generating corresponding web of
relationships to rely upon.
Industrial mode is by nature inorganic and develops in
geometrical progression rising by sharp curves providing
instability in return. Its mode depends on free individual
as its basic unit of labour atomising society to
unmanageable situation of disintegration and making
armed state a necessity to control and repress for order
in disorder. The motive force of production under this
mode depends on expropriation of surplus value on a
fallacious pretext for ownership over means of
production and generates corresponding relations of
conflict and tension perpetually, turning human labour
into a commodity for sale and purchase with wage
slavery as its necessary component. The whole process
makes the mode anti-social and undesired unless its
fangs are smashed and turn it into a fully harmless
instrument to fulfil its supplementary role for necessary
social production under community supervision.
192
The futuristic mode so to be crafted has to answer
basic questions of social harmony and peace while
meeting the rising needs of a population, borrowing no
elements of the discarded one. It must be a fresh
replacement altogether.
Before proceeding to define contours of a viable
alternative way to live to what humanity is suffering at
present, my students also agree recapitulating in nutshell
broad lessons that emerge out of our study so far. There
is no ambiguity to conclude:
1. That it is armed state power which makes present
system work in favour of capitalist relations to benefit
handful rich and against working population who
broadly constitute 99 per cent of population.
2. That basic interest of rulers, a microscopic minority
and the ruled that is a heavy majority, invariably
are under conflict against each other.
3. That representative democracy is the political
mechanism which is helping to sustain present
exploitative system, designed as a crude replacement
of participative democracy that was crux of equality,
liberty, fraternity once.
4. That family farming as fulcrum of village life with
family as its unit, survives on human labour having a
corresponding culture of brotherhood, sharing,
cooperation and peaceful co-existence.
5. That industrial/commercial pursuits as fulcrum of
city life is based on individual free labour with profit
as its motive force by expropriation of surplus value
added by human labour, having a corresponding
culture of self, exploitation, cheating, adulteration
and corruption. It creates constant tension and conflict
in life and is inimical to family and community life.
6. That social/family life of harmony and peace with
communality of interests suffers fatal blows from
individualism as a distinct philosophy of life which
industrial/commercial mode necessarily produces. It
turns man/woman into crash individuals as selfish
consumers to keep commodity market floating in the
interest of earning private/public profit to maximum.
7. Replacement of human labour by capital as centre
of activity, turning it into a master-key of relations,
has devalued man which society is suffering including
disappearance of family and human bonds.
8. That society stands fully divided into warring group
of interests and is the basic cause of constant conflict
that is destroying social cohesion unnecessarily.
9. That technological development to serve
maximisation of profit creates surplus production in
speed, correspondingly displacing human labour is
creating a situation of development with zero
employment which lately India has reached while
profits rise to new heights, turning to export oriented
growth where business flourish and rest of the
population relatively suffers from price rise,
unemployment, poverty and wants.
10. That armed state goes on to spend more on
armaments and prop defence industry in order to
survive, while resorting to curb freedom of
population day by day with one alibi or the other,
lest there is danger to this system of exploitation
from its disgruntled citizens.
194
11. Apart from disappearing of family, as a web of
compatible relationships, youth and females in
particular face a disturbing future under present
capitalist mode. It fears energy of first and wants
the other as a highly paying commodity for her
sexuality caring little about human dignity in turn.
12.That there is need to search for a viable
alternative way to live than what is available today.
The failed experiment during twentieth century
leaves a rich treasure of lessons to take into account
for building a fresh move. These lessons comprise:
I. Capital based industrial mode of production
is not compatible to socialist construction.
II. Family is the only reliable social/labour unit of
production and only available collective way of
life at present to depend upon. It must play its
role as a cohesive unit of social activism for social
change too.
III. Farming with allied pursuits is the only remaining
mode of production that need be fulcrum of
growth. Technological growth must serve to sustain
growth compatible with nature and lighten
unnecessary burden on human labour. Industry and
trade must serve to make life easy on equitable
terms, without ills of capitalism when production
does not depend on wage slavery.
IV. Participatory democracy must define every walk
of social-economic life. Peoples right to self-
management must be recognised and honoured fully
by all, including their right to set deviants on
course.
V. That proletariat does not possess characteristics
of a revolutionary force anymore which may have
interest in over-throwing capitalist relations. To
see liberating tendency in proletariat on account
of its wage slavery alone under capitalist mode
proved a fallacy. It is not a homogenous class either;
it suffers from conflicting interests within and has
an inherent tendency to suffer death with the
negation of capitalist mode.
VI. Proletariat, if it captures state power, will turn
into ruler to stand apart from the ruled. As ruler its
position takes a turn and does not remain a force
of peoples movement for socialism. Since a ruler
constantly perpetuates itself, interest of the ruled
suffers defeat.
VII. The peasant family faces sure death, especially
its communality of interest and way of life, under
onslaught of capitalist agriculture and has no
interest in keeping this mode alive.
VIII. The concept of authority/leadership need be
put to rest for good and the need for political
parties negated. The concept of dictatorship of
proletariat and democratic centralism go against
the very interest of socialist/communist
reconstruction.
IX. Commons, including land, forests, mines, water
resources must remain with community to manage
and utilised for fulfilling needs of constituent
families for a comfortable life. None of the families
can be denied a right of using these resources till
one is a constituent part of a settled community in
196
a common habitat.
X. Inter-family and/or inter community disputes
must be resolved by respective social practices on
common wisdom without any outside interference,
with a right to seek help as and when required on
established norms.
XI. Fraternal wisdom and cooperation must inform
social interaction, resource exchange and economic
relations with the neighbouring communities. Muscle
power and/or aggression have to be met with
common wisdom and resources not to possess but
to repel evil.
XII. Relationship between man/woman, have to
be respected on equitable norms. The social norms
on marriage etc have to be informed by traditions
and customs of respective communities/ families.
There cannot be any discrimination between male/
female; both are compatible to each other to live
in harmony.
Prologue
No society ever can stand injustice and oppression for
long, if it has to remain a living organism. Its essential
ingredients have to answer the call to maintain dynamism
of a requisite order for health and ensure renewal
normally of decaying ones.
If one is not prejudiced with a word, communism is
not a philosophy to be despised. One cannot brand a
philosophy unwanted for mistakes or even blunders of
its past practitioners. It is evident that those engaged
in experimenting in building socialist society had played
with theory on many accounts with false logic and
human society suffered.
The philosophy of communism is a call to fight against
injustice and expropriation, providing elementary
ingredients to craft a future free from tension and
disharmony. The formulations built by different
practitioners may or may not stand scrutiny of times.
That does not invalidate its basic premise.
My old and new students have reached a stage of crisis
in old beliefs and fear of the new, though they have
cultivated a desire for a bright future free from tension,
injustice and disharmony. They are no longer skeptics .
The uncertainty of the present, however, makes them
cautious about stepping aside for opting the new
XI
198
outright. They need to cultivate the truth for what it
is worth. This brings them to a state of study and
interaction for conviction on new ideas gained so far.
The primary question that requires clarity is the rise of
individualism in the midst of socialist thought during
heydays of these experiments and what processes led
to this result that wrung the death knell of building
socialism in these countries. It is disgusting to find that
not a single communist party was found free from the
scourge of individualism; where all were found busy in
catering to selfish interests of one sort or the other in
practice while chanting jargons of socialist theory day
and night. Similar was the position in society where
these parties ruled to usher in communist culture.
Apparently, it is inexplicable that socialist movement
led by communist parties will help produce individualism
in societies where they were ruling to reshape the
world afresh from absurdities of capitalism.
The communists, including stalwarts and their
formations completely failed to take note or just
ignored a bare fact of capital based industrial production
process that necessarily produces individualism as a
corresponding way of life and culture serving an
individual, all because its labour unit is the individual,
nurturing a primary relationship of wage against energy
so spent and giving way to all other relations in course
of time, somewhere leading to selfish individual of a
crash variety. This was the net result that experiment
in building socialism in USSR for over seven decades
produced. Less said the better about Peoples
Democratic Republic of China.
The agonising aspect remains that none took
responsibility either of this failure. In scheme of things,
responsibility squarely lies with leadership.
Leaders who have been in command of this movement,
still of whatever worth, are reluctant to provide any
reliable and convincing account of past failures of
peoples movement so far. The realisation on their part
is seriously lacking of what happened and why. May be
they are shy to face the truth or they are working still
under certain illusions woven around by them in the
past and have no courage to change tack. May be they
are victims of their own past. They failed the future.
Now, citing this failure, questions are raised on the
very raison d etre of need for such a change itself by
various forces. This is one part. Another facet of reality,
however, remains valid that capitalism is left with no
capacity to deliver. It is too destructive by nature. It
has to be over-turned if society is to survive.
In such a situation, one has to find out answer to a
query so that society can easily move out of this
quagmire. Since, followers of communist creed were
staunchest forces who worked with exceptional zeal,
grit and sacrifice for a bright future, it was incumbent
on them to clean their own house first.
When working with capital during the exercise to build
socialism, with capitalist world around, leaders could
not remain immune from its magnetic pull perhaps. They
themselves became its votaries finally and pulled powers
of state structure in its service by dubious means of
practical politics. One fact emerges: Once fresh and
quite energetic, peoples movement is in disarray -
200
both organisationally and in vision that needs energising.
For communist parties, in early phase of their existence,
ideology was their strength and dedication to principled
cause was superb with untold valour and sacrifices by
their cadres. If there is any comparison, only Sardar
Bhagat Singh and Chandershekhar Azad as an
organisational and ideological phenomenon surpassed
them in intellect, valour, dynamism, character and
dedication in India. None else fared better. Dedication
with self-denial was their hallmark that none could
surpass, except perhaps fanatics or hermits.
After the distressing events of 1990-91, situation in
previous Soviet camp took a speedy turn. With the lid
off, capitalism sprouted with full vigour immediately.
Everybody seemed happy to welcome the new avatar
with open arms. Definitely it was not the handwork of
one hour or one day. Many of its ills were found quite
ripe. Corruption in worst form became a known
phenomenon, more so in the leading cadres of ruling
party, administrative apparatus and more surprisingly
in the Red Army that was given the task to safeguard
revolution, at least in theory. Loot of public resources
was as rampant as anywhere. Imperial ambitions took
to wings. Love for imperialist America and American
culture was astounding. Situation in other countries of
socialist faith, more so in China and Vietnam had earlier
taken a turn for capitalist relations.
Adversaries rejoiced. They were in ruptures virtually.
Capitalist-imperialist forces started dominating rest of
the world to bring them all under their dictation. By
1994 new tools were brought in place, well forged to
serve imperial interests and economic domination was
thus assured in their favour. All nationalists in various
countries of allegiance capitulated with joy and fanfare,
even conceding good portions of sovereign rights to
super powers for a pie in world market!
Mass movement against injustice, oppression and
capitalist expropriation is at serious discount. Coercive
arm of state is furiously sharpened for which war
against terrorism is a new alibi forged. Democratic
rights of the people, once described sacrosanct, are
relegated to archives. Philosophical confusion is
continuously generated and middle class ambitions
fanned with intoxicants of various genres, including sex
and drugs are there in plenty to deaden nerves of the
young to obviate any challenge, present or future.
Corporate media is in place to do bidding. This is single-
minded achievement of victors after those events that
had declared old socialist camp dead.
After collapse of Soviet camp and winning over China
and Vietnam by 1991, the American camp acted swift
to recover lost ground after Second World War on
redistribution of world market for hegemony. General
Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) was revised with
Dunkel Proposals by pursuance, cajoling and arms-
twisting for an all comprehensive agreement on trade
and tariff, bringing agriculture in its ambit for the first
time with a fresh organisation named WTO.
Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG in
short that proved as inflammable) became a catchy
mantra for warding off its ever emerging problems but
opened fresh vistas of colonialism of new type working
202
within and outside national barriers through hyper active
financial capital under aegis of corporate houses
knowing no code of good and honest conduct.
Since 2008 system is facing again a down turn, shifting
its costs to shoulders of working populations
everywhere and relishing support from public
exchequers when profit is private and cost is public.
Capitalist world is in deep crisis again and gasping.
Remedies make it more prone to disaster. Globalisation
as an escape route could give little respite as two world
wars earlier failed to ameliorate ills but rather helped
to the rise of socialist camp instead as a parallel market
to compete. Packages from public exchequer for relief
are of little help. Public outcry against such loot is
getting shrill day by day. Search for a better alternative
is the current agenda today even before hesitant souls.
Representative democracy has gone bust; people have
grown skeptics of its efficacy. Political parties and their
leaders have lost relevance. With this emerging
situation at hand, ruling circles have invented NGO
sector to tide over this deficit as a parallel to the torn
cloth with liberal financial grants to corrupt the educated
but unemployed youths in all continents with an
elaborate ideological offensive against communist
philosophy with new zeal along side. The rusted
leadership of former socialist/ communist parties has
proved incapable to meet the challenge on this count.
Largely they remain victims to old clichs.
It is worth recapitulation here that events which
formally had announced the collapse of one time socialist
camp and simultaneous disintegration of so-called
communist parties world over, even with different
nomenclature, closed a chapter of innumerable
sacrifices and tremendous amount of labour put in by
working peoples of the world and their best sons and
daughters for a cause which once seemed just within
their reach. Surely, they were not chasing a mirage.
Neither, it was an unattainable wish. With solid base
the dream was attainable.
For the peoples, when basic tenets of philosophy are
valid, it is time to learn from the malady that has
afflicted the movement so that a tide may rise again
and human society is rid off the dark forces for a better
future. A totally fresh initiative is required so that
philosophy of liberation can regenerate to the level
required for answering new challenges. In the first
instance, efforts must be mounted to:
1. Stop corporatisation of agriculture and acquisition
of agricultural lands, including common resources.
2. Thwart capital intensive urbanisation spree.
3. Dismantle Principle of Eminent Domain and divest
authority with the state to acquire commons.
4. Save and reinvigorate family for its life of
relationships, mitigate influence of individualism.
5. Save village life and its core values of community
life from alien characteristics of urban values.
6. Mitigate influence of individualism on young.
7. Save unity of working people; read, enquire, deliberate
For this purpose khap practice is effective instrument
and must be regenerated to its core principles for
effective functioning.
204
References/Readings
1. State and Revolution, Lenin
2. Paris Commune, Marx
3. Poverty of Philosophy, K. Marx
4. Dialectics of Nature, F. Engels
5. Origin of Family, Private Property and State, F. Engels
6. Holy Family. K. Marx
7. Communist Manifesto, Marx-F. Engels
8.What is to be done, Lenin
9. Permanent Revolution, Leo Trotesky
10. Lenins Political Thought, N. Harding
11. Leninism and Permanent Revolution, K. Chattopadhay
12. On Organisational Question, R. Luxemburg
13. The Formation of Economic Thought of K. Marx, E.
Mandel
14. Reinterrogating the Classical Marxist Discourses of
Revolutionary Democracy, Soma Marik
15. On Opposition, J V Stalin
16. Lenins Last Struggle, M. Lewin
17. The Bolshevik Revolution, E. H. Carr
18. Confession of an Economic Hitman, J. Perkins
19. Interest and Inflation Free Economy, M. Kennedy
2o. Planning for Millions, Anand Awarup and Sulabha Brahme
21. Web of Poverty, Dr. B D Sharma
22. Hap- Perceptios and Perspectives, Gian Singh
23. Desh Hamara, Rah Hamari, JAS

In Quest of Alternative For Radical Shift

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

In Quest of Alternative For Radical Shift

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

In Quest of Alternative

For Radical Shift

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi