Advice to Communists: Should the Left become Social Democratic?
On a television channel on counting day, the panellists discussing the assembly election results were asked to offer advice to the Left, which had lost both the large states it ruled, one of them quite massively, on how it should reform itself for a future resurrection. The overwhelming opinion among them was that it should forget Lenin, and, as the anchor explicated, become ‘social democratic’. The Left I suppose should be obliged to the panellists for being so concerned about its future; the question is: should it follow their advice and become ‘social democratic’?
The central difference between social democracy and communism is the latter’s acceptance of the category of imperialism; other differences derive from it. Indeed, the basic split in the Second International on the attitude to the First World War arose from a difference in perspectives on imperialism. On one side were those social democrats who supported their respective countries’ war efforts since they did not see it as an ‘imperialist war’; on the other side were those who not only were unwilling to do so, as they saw the war as an ‘imperialist war’ through which ‘their’ respective monopoly bourgeoisies were trying to grab more ‘economic territory’, but wanted the ‘imperialist war’ to be turned into a ‘civil war’ for the overthrow of the monopoly capitalist order, which made workers of one country fight fellow workers of another across the trenches. (A third position between these two, which tried to reconcile these irreconcilable positions, gradually lost relevance.)
The second group of social democrats split from the parent parties to form communist parties, and they included not only Lenin but also Rosa Luxemburg, who, notwithstanding her many differences with Lenin, attended the founding congress of the German communist party a fortnight before her murder. This underscores the centrality of the question of imperialism to the communist position vis-à-vis the social democrats. And bound up with this question is the case for system-transcendence: if capitalism can be made into a peaceful, non-imperialist, non-aggressive system, as the social democrats believed it could, then it can also be made ‘humane’, and any pressing need for its transcendence by socialism disappears.
Advising the communists to become social democrats amounts, therefore, to asking them to abandon not only their basic objective of socialism, but also their persistent opposition to imperialism; indeed, one panellist on the aforementioned TV show explicitly asked the communists to forget about ‘imperialism’.
The proximate difference between the communists and the bulk of the NGOs, including some highly progressive ones which are associated with the World Social Forum, relates precisely to imperialism. Opposition to the Iraq war or to American interventions, which many progressive NGOs would express, does not necessarily mean accepting the concept of imperialism (even when the material interests underlying such interventions are recognized), since one can still see these as episodic events. The communists see imperialism not as a set of episodes, but as an entire order that springs from the nature of capitalism itself.
Even those who see only episodes of imperialism have missed, alas, certain glaring recent episodes, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden which violated all norms of international conduct. One country sent in troops to attack a target in another sovereign nation, without so much as a ‘by your leave’; murdered an unarmed man, who was offering no resistance, in front of his family; took his body away; and dumped it into the sea. Osama may have been a villain, but what is at issue here is, first, the act of aggression against a sovereign country; and second, the ethical and legal questionability of the act of killing a person without a trial, which even the Nazi mass murderers were not denied. And yet, while Fidel Castro and Noam Chomsky have raised their voices on these questions, there has been a virtual silence over them in our country, as indeed there has been over the Nato bombing of Libya, which is in violation of international law (no matter how dictatorial Muammar Gaddafi may be).
There are no doubt fewer takers for the concept of imperialism today than was the case in the colonial era, when the imperial order was palpable. In particular, the much-hyped gross domestic product growth rates of China and India give the impression today that the earlier asymmetry between a first and a third world, implicit in the concept of imperialism, is disappearing, and that the latter is emerging as a replica of the former. This supposed replication, however, is obviously untrue: despite high growth, the working population in India and China continues to consist predominantly of peasants (including the landless) and petty producers, pushed even deeper into distress by such growth. Besides, this so-called levelling of differences across nations has strengthened, and not weakened, the position of first world capital. Much of China’s export growth, for instance, which sustains its high growth, is accounted for by American corporations locating plants in China to export back to their home economy. The capitals of these and other ‘emerging economies’ too have grown stronger, but only by integrating themselves with metropolitan capital to the detriment of their own people. Hence, the concept of imperialism has not lost importance either in its sociological aspect (capitalism encroaching upon pre-capitalist producers) or in its spatial aspect (capital from the metropolis imposing an order where it expropriates for itself resources and primary commodities from all over the world).
But isn’t obtaining resources from outside in lieu of one’s own products what ‘trade’ is all about? Why should ‘trade’ be called ‘expropriation’? This is because underlying what appears as normal ‘trade’ is a complex mechanism which deliberately compresses demand by the working people of the third world to ‘release’ exhaustible resources, and commodities producible only by the limited tropical land-mass, for the use of metropolitan capital. In colonial times, such compression was through taxation by the colonial regime, and the ‘draining away’ without any quid pro quo of the commodity counterpart of such tax revenue. Nowadays, such compression is through a variety of neo-liberal measures, all of which restrict purchasing power in the hands of the working people.
Such compression, the essence of imperialism, arises in turn from an asymmetry: these resources and commodities are either not producible at all or cannot be produced in sufficient quantities within the metropolitan countries, but the goods and services produced in the metropolis can, given time and appropriate arrangements, always be produced in third-world economies.
Communist practice must derive from theory, whose only test is correctness and not vote-catching capacity. Their forgetting ‘imperialism’, as the panellists advised them to do, will not only make them indistinguishable from others and hence historically irrelevant, but also leave the resistance to imperialism, which is bound to occur anyway, to terrorists, religious fundamentalists, and the Osama bin Ladens.
The reform they must undertake is not to abandon the concept of ‘imperialism’, but the very opposite, that is, to be even more firm in adhering to it. They must be even more vigilant that the basic classes whose interests they seek to defend — namely the workers, the peasants, the agricultural labourers — are provided relief rather than distress (through encroachments by imperialism and domestic corporate interests). And for this they must ensure space within the party for debate, discussion and dissent, so that it becomes a thriving hub of intellectual activity, rather than a monolithic entity where a decision taken at the behest of some local satrap or bureaucrat in a Left-ruled state is defended, as revolutionary duty, by its members and sympathizers all over the country.
It may be asked: isn’t this what being ‘social democratic’ means? The answer is ‘no’. Rosa Luxemburg rejected social democracy and, along with Karl Liebknecht, was murdered by troops under a social democratic government; and she believed in no monoliths. Nor did Lenin. When the besieged and beleaguered revolutionary government under him signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, over the objections of Bukharin and others, they brought out a theoretical journal, Kommunist, to attack the treaty, which the Bolshevik government or the party did not proscribe even in those times. Greater space for dissent within the party is not synonymous with ‘social democracy’. The advice to communists to become social democrats, therefore, though well-meant, reflects only the Indian elite’s own ‘adjustment’ with imperialism and distance from the working people.
Printer-friendly versionVideos from Newsclick
- Angelina Jolie's Mastectomy: Patenting Genes is Patenting a Discovery
- Pakistan Elections: Regional Mandate- A Threat or an Opportunity
- India's External Balance Deficit: Impending Macro-Economic Crisis
- Prison Reforms needed - not a Sanaullah for a Sarabjit
- Fighting for their land; two farmers in the West Bank
Recent comments
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
TPC’s Murder: Questions that Remain after One Year
-
Small Savings Schemes in India and the Saradha Scam
-
Small Savings Schemes in India and the Saradha Scam
Comments
The theoretical underpinnings
The theoretical underpinnings of Com. Patnaik's arguments are throughly solid, as always. But I would respectfully question the practical applicability of his arguments to CPIM as a political party. For starters, the article states that policy should derive from theory, not from its vote catching ability. I am afraid, as a political party committed to parliamentary democracy, the latter will have to be a key consideration if we want to remain relevant politically. Second, our strategy will have to take into consideration the existing economic-political realities both at home and globally (i.e., unrivaled dominance of the neo-liberal set-up) and our own limited political strength. Painful as it is to accept, we currently are not in a position to fundamentally alter this reality in the medium term. It therefore follows that, as an elected state government, we will have to work within this stifling political-economic framework. I believe the medium term strategy should be focussed on how we can alleviate the suffering of the poor within what is admittedly a inherently flawed system. I believe we all would agree there is tremendous scope here - as can be seen from the Chinese example of lifting of hundreds of millions out poverty in the last two decades. This was achieved through a strategic co-operation with the Western capitalists which necessarily meant keeping the anti-imperialism agenda in the backburner.
I think the LF govt in WB and the right ideas in terms of reorienting their economic policies - but as it turns out, were done in by arrogance of leaders at the ground level. Lets get on with the task of poverty alleviation for now, lets keep the battle against imperialism for another day.
shifting from the fundamental understandings
the essay brilliantly portrays the call of the time, and perhaps we, while mentioning 'the Chinese way', forget that CPC lead a revolution and captured the power through a long battle against imperialists and the comprador-national bourgeoisie nexus of China, but we never had had the scope or condition ,in India, to follow these basic steps before riding the 'industrial horsepower' so we must stop running astray cause that leads to 'economism' and 'relief politics' not the class politics we are historical bequeathed to take in.
DEAR LENIN DAS: PLEASE SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS
your Russian namesake would have been deeply pained at your painstaking attempt to defend social democracy. Let us start with where you end: "I think the LF govt in WB and the right ideas in terms of reorienting their economic policies - but as it turns out, were done in by arrogance of leaders at the ground level. Lets get on with the task of poverty alleviation for now, lets keep the battle against imperialism for another day." There are two basic problems with this assertion; first your lack of ability to see the obvious connection between "right ideas" to "reorient economic policies" and the "arrogance of leaders at the ground level". Second, your unsubstantiated and off the cuff pitting of the "task of poverty alleviation" vis-a-vis the "battle against imperialism".
These arguments are not unique though; the first has been made ad nauseam by opportunistic party leaders who are quick to put the blame on the cadres/local leaders. This demonisation of CPM cadres - a favorite pastime of the corporate media - is very reprehensible at a time when hundreds of them have been butchered by the rightwing thugs of the Trinamul and Maoists. The higher leadership - busy as they were in "reorienting economic policies" have not found much time to even visit their families. "Arrogance" did not originate from the cadres/local leaders. The "arrogance" originated from the very top, with statements like "we are 235, they are 30 - how can they stop industrialisation"; "women will show their backside to Mamata Banerjee and Medha Patekar if they oppose land acquisition" etc. This "arrogance", or more precisely humbug, was a result of an erroneous political line and developmental perspective which wanted to childishly mimic the Chinese model in West Bengal. The results are there for all to see.
As for your second argument, which was famously made by Amartya Sen after the 2009 loksabha elections, it is classically social-democratic. The problem with such a perspective is its inherent hypocrisy. The Congress has been trying to "alleviate" poverty in India for the past 60 years! Yet the numbers of the poor and hungry has kept rising. Why do you think it is so? The Communists do not fight for "poverty alleviation" but to put an end to poverty. That is why it fights imperialism, as a system, which perpetuates poverty and inequality. If one stands for poverty "alleviation" but does not want to fight imperialism, why not join Sonia Gandhi's NAC rather than wasting time in the CPM?
As for your critique of Prabhat Patnaik is concerned, it stems out of monumental ignorance. You should know that he was a member of the LDF government in Kerala, which unlike in West Bengal, focussed on alternative policies and turned out to be more successful in vote-catching as well. The "Bengal" line, to which you seem to subscribe, is not only wrong for theoretical reasons but is also an electoral disaster. For the likes of you, whose foolhardy "arrogance" always come in the way of seeing ground realities, i will remind what my Chinese namesake had said long ago:"SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS".
Let me begin by agreeing with
Let me begin by agreeing with what you said in the second paragraph. I meant something similar when I said "arrogance at the ground level". I admit I could have been clearer. Yes, there was a great amount of arrogance and highhandedness shown by the state-level leadership, I will not deny that. But I still maintain that they had the "right idea".
You mention the failure of the congress in alleivating poverty over the last 6 decades - but that is just a reflection of the corruption and ineffeciency of the congress party. I hope you would agree that the communist party is a complete contrast to the Congress - a committed cadre and a strong, effecient and honest leadership sincerely commited to the poor. And we have seen in China what such an organization can do - the FACT is that hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The FACT also is this was acheived within the confines of a neo-liberal economic framework.
As a political organization which seeks political and administrative power, we cannot formulate our policies divorced from economic-political realities. Explaining to the poor that their economic hardhsip is a direct consequence of the global capitalist-imperialist structure, while true, is not going to solve their poverty. One cannot ask them to wait indefinitely for this exploitative structure is dismantled. Yes, we were able to revolutionize the agricultural sector in WB and that has paid amazing returns in economic terms to the state. But, that revolution has run its course and we cannot simply rest on those laurels. The only way by which we can make the next big progress in poverty alleviation is through employment generation in the industrial sector. Does anyone here disagree with this basic argument that industrialization is the only real viable ecomnomic alternative from here on? If you do agree, then it should be painfully obvious that given the very limited economic resources of a state government, the only option is to go for private investment. If you disagree with either of the above arguments, please come up with alternative viable policies that communist government should implement. When I said, lets keep the fight against imperialism for another day, I simply meant that we will have to co-operate with the capiatist-imperialist forces, not fight them, to acheive our medium term goals of lifting the masses out of poverty.
A few posts mentioned the kerala model as an alternative. But if you look a little deeper, you will realize that the model is not replicable either in WB, or any other large state. The Kerala economy has a few key features which result in industrialization not being an imperative - A)its agriculture has a large cash crop component which has significantly higher economic returns B) a thriving tourism industry and C) most importantly, a large proportion ( about 25%?) of the workforce work outside the state with a significant portion of it in Middle East (i.e.e well paying jobs in rupee terms). Given the above, unemployment and industrialization are not pressing concerns in the state. The situation in WB is completely different - I reiterate, the only option there to remove unemployment is to go in for priavte capital led industrialization.
confused about ideas
you seem to be thoroughly confused about ideas - especially about what is "right" and what is "left". you seem to think that poverty has continued to dog Indian society only because of corruption and malpractices of ruling parties like the Congress and BJP. manmohan singh also thinks so, and therefore he talks of improving "delivery systems". you are as wrong as him, because poverty is perpetuated by a capitalist social system and aggravated by neoliberal policies pursued by the government. you can reduce poverty by rolling back neoliberal policies and pursuing welfare policies. but in order to banish poverty, you have to overthrow the capitalist system.
you also seem to be taken in by the Chinese "model". the Chinese system is as much mired in corruption as the Indian system. that is why they have to punish very high ranking officials from time to time in order to maintain public legitimacy. china has been successful in lifting the "hundreds of millions" out of poverty because it made a revolution in 1949, established a socialist state, implemented land reforms, pursued welfare policies etc. The Dengist reforms did not dismantle all these positive things of the Mao era. Under the policy of opening up, which China has followed for 30 years, poverty and inequality has increased not decreased. Even the ruling party in China admits this in their official documents. you are deliberately painting a false picture, much like the neoliberals, that China has alleviated poverty through neoliberal reforms.
your defence of the "right ideas" of the left front and the demarcation from the situation in Kerala is the most pathetic. you are deliberately ignoring the Kerala experience of PSU revival, which was an important pillar of alternative policies pursued in Kerala. Why could not the same be implemented in west bengal? why did the left front have to offer so much concessions to TATA for that small car plant? why couldn't it negotiate with the TATA like the LDF government did on the Smart City project, seeking stakes for the government? why could not the left front come up with a land acquisition policy which satisfies the aspirations of the small land owners? why are you covering up for these failures?
the major problem with your line of thinking is that you have got confused with the basics of Marxism and Communist ideology. the tasks before a Communist party is to always fight against capitalism and try to build alternatives to capitalism. your TINA argument - "I reiterate, the only option there to remove unemployment is to go in for priavte capital led industrialization" - is an article of faith. such dogmatism has already damaged the left front in bengal. and listening to the likes of you would make that damage irreparable.
Com. Mao, you argue with
Com. Mao, you argue with passion and conviction, but unfortunately have this habit of dismissing facts which contradict your outlook as false, articles of faith and such like. Further, for all the bluster, you have not come out with a viable policy alternatives that the CPIM can adopt.
To say that China has not been able to reduce poverty substantially through the last three decades of capitalist economic policies is a laughable. There are a lot of things wrong with the Chinese system, but to simply deny that people's living standards have gone up substantially is ridiculous, and ironically, contrary to your on advice to seek truth from facts.
Second,I have already told you why the Kerala model is not replicable in WB or other Indian states. Yes, many sick industries were revived and kudos to the government for the same. But, let us not pretend that it was done a massive scale and created significant levels of employment. Due to factors listed out in the previous post, industrialization and unemployment are not major issues in Kerala. But in WB, with a burgeoning population, people can no longer live off agriculture alone. Employment opportunities for the poor, perforce has to come from industrialization. And the sad reality is that a state government has very limited economic resources to usher in industries on its own - please see the writing on the wall, or as you like to say, get truth from facts.
Your accusation that I am trying to cover up the failures of com. Buddha's government is unfortunate and baseless. I have already stated that mistakes were made in implementation of the policies - and as an organization, we have done well to learn our lessons from these mistakes. So we need to have a more transparent and people-friendly land acquisition policy in place. But it really baffles me when you use that as an argument to say that the industrialization policy of the party's state unit itself was wrong. Please come up with more sensible arguments to oppose the industrialization policy.
Lastly, you ridicule my TINA argument as an article of faith. But then please come with what you think are viable policies that the left front should adopt when it comes back to power in WB to meet the economic aspirations of the people - trust me, I would be absolutely delighted if we can get such viable policies which are in-line with Marxist principles. However, one cannot run a government merely by espousing principles that abolishing capitalism would remove poverty like you do (obviously, we all believe in that, so dont take me amiss) - we need to show results on the ground.
Like all bourgeoisie
Like all bourgeoisie ideologues, you are ill informed about China. Serious study of the Chinese situation would have told you about the actual picture of living standards, poverty, inequality, etc. in China. Only imbeciles like you can laugh at poverty and suffering of fellow human beings. Even the Chinese Communist Party do not laugh at them but tries to address those through policies, to some extent. Please spend some time reading the official and unofficial development literature on China rather than wasting time making sectarian interventions.
I am sure whatever alternative i suggest for west bengal, you will say it is not applicable there. the kerala alternative is specific to kerala. the tripura alternative is specific to tripura. the cuba alternative is specific to cuba. the venezuela alternative is specific to venezuela. the bolivia alternative is specific to bolivia...and so on. the only alternative that you find relevant to west bengal is the chinese one - as your own repeated invocations of that country show. it is indeed ironical, that you are asking me to seek truth from facts after burying your head like an ostrich under the chinese sands. you are failing to realise that this erroneous standpoint, which had influenced many in the Left Front has gone for a toss: it has been decisively rejected by the people of West Bengal in the assembly elections. that is the biggest fact from which truth needs to be sought.
I maintain that the basic problem with your argument is TINA: that is your ideological standpoint and not Marxism or Communism. You believe in capitalism and have no intention to challenge it theoretically or practically. I do not consider you to be a Marxist to join issue with you on Marxist terms. My purpose is to expose the likes of you, who poses as progressives but furthers a neoliberal agenda within the Left.
when arguments fail, abuse
when arguments fail, abuse begin. You never had any coherent arguments to begin with anyway. You have conveniently sidestepped the questions that I have raised by indulging in empty rhetoric. It would only be too easy for me to give it back to you in your own coin - but I am neither interested in stooping to that level nor bring down the standard of debate in this esteemed website.
let the readers judge the
let the readers judge the arguments and counter-arguments on their merits. i have or have not been as abusive as you are. be a bit more circumspect about paying people back in the same coin - some people tried that in bengal and got heaps of coins hurled back at them by the people.
Treading a Leftist agenda - all the time, everytime, always
The capitalist economic policies aggressively pursued by the Chinese govt. under the name of the "Socialist Market Economy" is merely a programme of promoting and burgeoning "State Sponsored Capitalism" by making flagrant concessions & compromises with the global imperialist order. The Chinese leadership through its' capitalistic economic policies has created such a socio-political order in which the contradiction between the PRC & the global imperialism if translated in terms of the Marxist Class concept then it simply comes out to be the contradiction between the Chinese National bourgeoisie and global imperialism, and not at all the contradiction between the Chinese people (Chinese Working class) and the imperialism. And hence the Chinese socio-economic-political order is rapidly breeding and replicating all the nastiest ills common to the capitalist society.
Comrade Mao Biswas' sharp and sensible interventions in the wake of the massive fiasco of the Left in the recently concluded assembly elections is most relevant and valid as the main reason of the debacle of the Left is due to its' appalling deviation from a genuine Leftist agenda clearly evident from its' anti-toiling people industrialization & land-acquisition policies. The position of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has always been that any policy-matter whether that's correct or wrong can be solely determined by the democratic judgment and participation of the Toiling people. And the democratic decision of the majority of the labouring population since the 2007 has been consistently stressing that they consider the pro-capitalist mode of industrialization through the land-acquisition policy as outrightly anti-people. And hence the Left has been reduced from a overwhelming 50% majority in 2006 to 41% in 2011. This reduction in 9% basically comprises of a massive majority of the rural,semi-urban,urban toiling class population. The only viable alternative to the massacring pro-capitalist industrialization & economic policy should be the pro-working class policies which is the only Leftist agenda. And for more expertised details and guidance of adhering firmly to the Leftist agenda and policies, the future LF & LDF governments must appoint enlightened scholars and intellects of Comrades Ashok Mitra & Prabhat Patnaik for their unbridled genuine counsel,advice and guidance. As of now, that's the only meaningful and sensible alternative for treading a Leftist agenda.
In support of Com. Mao Biswas' analysis of the present state of pathetic affairs in China there has been a very interesting news item in THE HINDU newspaper of MAY 27, 2011, Friday (page 14) the caption of which reads as - "In China, explosions stir debate" [ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/article2052873.ece ].
Sincerely ever,
Kuntal Chatterjee
@lenin das
What all you are saying makes sense. My only question is why do you need the CPI M at all then? The Congress can very well take care of your concerns. NREGA, Debt Waiver etc. etc. I also think we should refrain from singing "the constraints of neo-liberalism" song on every occasion. The Kerala experience should be used to learn what all can be done even within this limited set up. And finally i do not know of any Communist Party in the history of the world which had to suffer losses only because of the arrogance of some leaders and not any political problems like you are saying. Let us not behave like ostriches. That can be the biggest service we can do.
I think Mr. Das failed to
I think Mr. Das failed to understand that a Communist Party does not go into election by resorting to vote catching ability, such doing things we normally call gimmicks; rather it derives its strength as well support from the people by deriving its policy from it's ideology! The pint which we need to understand is that whether Communist ideology is pro-people or not! If it is then why to look for vote catching gimmicks, and if it is not, then better leave it altogether!
@com.das
1. The kind of importance that you are attaching to parliamentary politics is termed in CPI(M)'s Rectification document as "parliamentary deviation". It is noted as a "reformist deviation". The reformism lies in misplacing the causality: ideological politics determining electoral politics or electoral politics determining ideological politics. The second one is reformism.
2. Within the current system for a third world country, poverty alleviation to any significant level and for a prolonged period of time is only possible through tweaking the poverty line, as happening in India. Even the kind of capitalist development that the capitalist metropolis have achieved cannot be replicated in the third world. However, this understanding can only come through reading the theory of imperialism. Without such understanding of imperialism, all suggestions will lead towards social democracy. However, this is not to say giving relief to the people within the system is not possible. But distinction between 'relief' and 'alternative' should not be blurred. That would be another right-deviation.
3. Arrogance of leaders at whatever level also has a class politics behind it. It is a question of political line and class outlook. But most importantly, to put the electoral reverses in West Bengal entirely on 'arrogance' while praising for 'right ideas' on economic policies is not only a wrong analysis but also insulting the intelligence of WB voters.
4. As mentioned by Prabhat Patnaik himself, the position that you have taken and that the CPI(M) should take is "irreconcilable". In the following period, the Party will surely not take a social democratic path. The indications are clear from Com. Prakash's recent article "A Long & Arduous Struggle Ahead". As com.Prakash says, the Party will mobilise people on the issues of workers and peasants, will oppose neoliberal economic policies, fight for secularism and defend national sovereignty.
It is time to arouse people in defense of the CPI(M), the Left Front and the socio-economic gains made in West Bengal in the last 34 years.
Thanks for this...
... but by the very definition of "social democracy" given by Com. Prabhat, the valourisation of "national interest" by the CPI(M) is nothing but crass social democracy. As is the slogan, "Development is class struggle" which the Yeltsins of Bengal gave. It is very instructive that those who pursued the neoliberal line in Bengal continued unhindered in the politbureau while someone like VS, who despite everything remains a revolutionary, was thrown out of the PB and almost denied even a chance to contest the recent election. The instances are numerous but where is the space to even mutter a silent disagreement within party structures?
@Aniket da
1. Whatever "national interest" the CPI(M) talks of is not contradictory to its class politics and it is said particularly in the context of imperialism. Both of these observations do not point out adherence to "crass social democracy".
2. We have not seen any social democratic party opposing to imperialist agendas like the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, opposing tooth and nail neoliberal economic policies (state government of West Bengal opposing FRBM Act, New Pension scheme etc).
Along with all of your criticisms, I believe these things should also be mentioned. It is necessary to consolidate ideological position and reverse the deviations along these positive lines, more on these positive lines.
patnaik and cpi(m)
Mr. Aniket Alam: you seem to make a small mistake in identifying Com Prabhat Patnaik's opinion as the CPI (M)'s opinion. Com Patnaik is an intellectual and is free to think and write in his own terms. Being a democratic party, the CPI (M), I expect, would respect such opinions freely aired.
Also, Com Patnaik writes: "Greater space for dissent within the party is not synonymous with ‘social democracy’." Here, Com Patnaik is asking for greater space for dissent within the party. He, unconsciously, does not seem to recognize that his own opinions often form "dissent", and such freedom has always been granted to people like him. As you may remember, Com Prakash Karat had written an article disagreeing with Prabhat patnaik, Prabir Purkayasta and Javeed Alam on democratic centralism. All of that, for me, is a sure sign of greater democratic space for dissent within the party. That is why we have learnt that democratic centralism has to be practiced in its spirit, and not as a set of laws.
Sorry for the digression, if any.
Antony, Kochi.
fight against imperialism & LPG onslaughts must go together
Comrade Patnaik's brilliant article has vehemently brought to the fore the most pertinent issue of fighting the Neo-liberal policies of globalisation as an essential component of fighting the global imperialism tooth-and-nail. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) being the vanguard of Proleteriat movement in India, at the national plane has been consistently fighting against the aggressive capitalism's LPG regime which has been imposed upon and carried persistently under the stewardship and diktats of the global imperialism. Nevertheless the state governments that it used to deliver had committed some very flawed and erroneous industrial policy which has repeatedly caused massive electoral setbacks and debacles since 2007 - because the wrong industrial policies continuously pursued by the Left Front governments had it's severe impact on the agricultural sector too, and as a result it caused a massive erosion of the support-base of the Left which comprises of the very Basic Classes that the Left in general and the CPI(Marxist) in particular represents. Now why it shall be termed as a wrong Industrial policy? Wrong in what sense? The answer is that the Industrial policy had been a flawed one from the perspective of the Communist ideology. Why so? Because since 2001 it oriented it's policies on providing undue concessions and reliefs to the corporates and monopoly business houses, and even on occasions succumbed to the demands of the corporate conglomerates, and even persisted with those despite it's severe electoral defeats and reverses thus unwilling to learn it's grave mistakes from a class angle. It had been an outright wrong policy straightforwardly simply because the Party could not understand that even under the Left ruled states where the land distribution policy had been carried out with utmost sincerity by the successive LF governments and when the remnants of the feudal establishments are rapidly getting transformed into capitalistic mode under the rampant lumpenism of neo-liberal globalised economy, and when the back of the rural poor have got pushed onto the wall out of this aggressive capitalist onslaught, at that period the Industrial policy advocated by the acquisition of the single-cropping or multi-cropping lands will just create a negative impact on the minds of the rural population to such a severe dimension that they will view the propounders of those policies simply as invaders trying to encroach upon their lands just by hook or by crook. Moreover simply by providing the monetary benefits to the rural population much more than the market price of those pieces of lands would not serve any purpose to the peasants unless a job gets legally guaranteed upon to at-least one member from each and every household of those farming population, and if that situation unfortunately doesn't occur for any rural family then that will ultimately push that peasant household towards the brink of a disaster and spell doom for that particular family. Henceforth the Left Front government in general and the CPI(Marxist) in particular had been viewed upon as an invader and encroacher of farming lands amongst a section of the rural population. The opposition's nefarious misinformation campaigns contributed immensely to the evolution of such a terrible situation as those occurred in Nandigram and Singur. And this is the background which caused the massive erosion of the support base of the Left which represents the most basic classes that the Left stands unequivocally for. This is crystal-clearly evident from the severe defeats of the Left and the CPI(Marxist) since 2007.
Comrade Patnaik being always a brilliant Marxist-Leninist Teacher as ever, has correctly reminded us and the CPI(Marxist) unambiguously that the fight against the global imperialism and the Imperialist sponsored neo-liberal economic policies must go hand-in-hand together at every levels so that the cumulative protests,agitations,movements against those perpetrators shall give severe jolts to the entire capitalist infrastructure from top-to-bottom and vice-versa.
Sincerely ever,
Kuntal Chatterjee
kuntalchatterjee2k5@gmail.com
Bhilainagar, (C.G.), Pin - 490006.
09993846425.
Addendum
Comrade Patnaik's timely article has gained relevance even more during this grave hour of crisis for the Working Class' revolutionary movement led by the CPI(Marxist) and the Left Democratic Front. If we seriously concentrate on imbibing and implementing the essential theories contained in the article into praxis, most particularly in the wake of the severe erosion of the support base of the CPI(Marxist) and the entire Left that has been evidently reflected in the successive electoral struggles continuing since 2007, then the following conclusions can be drawn from the article :-
1. There can be no ambiguity,uncertainty and doubtfulness in the ideological & political will and struggles of the Communist Party to fight determinedly against the corporate monopoply business conglomerates even while leading the state governments and organising,implementing its' Economic policy framework that will obviously incorporate the industrial & agricultural policy directives. The CPI(Marxist) must have to recognize and identify that a determinedly dogged struggle against the monopoly business corporations is an integral and inherent part-and-parcel of the movements organised against agressive Capitalism and the global imperialist sponsored neo-liberal economic regime. For fighting against the global imperialism tooth and nail, it's absolutely necessary that the Working Class' revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party must have to wage a determined struggle against all the tentacles of the global imperialism. As a result, the Party led state governments must have to chalk out an alternative path for the industrial investments in the provinces in which it shall strictly never succumb to the whims and pre-conditions laid down by the monopoly business conglomerates. The industrial policy of the Communist Party led Left front governments shall have to be directed solely for providing benefits and job opportunities to the lower and economically distressing strata of the society which shall include the urban and the rural labouring class and the lower middle class. Unfortunately these already pronounced policy matters had been seriously breached by the Left Front government in West Bengal that ultimately resulted in the erosion of its' massive support base comprising of the most basic classes which it essentially represents, spreaded across the urban,semi-urban and rural areas. This petty-bourgeoisie reformist deviation had been evident quite clearly from the following instances :-
A. During the election campaign of the 2006 assembly polls in West Bengal, the Left under the leadership of the CPI(Marxist) had gone aggressively for all-out industrialization programme even to the extent of blurring the differentiation between the capitalist-imperialist sponsored industrialization and a Left alternative model of industrialization strategy. All monopoly corporations had been cordially invited and given a "red carpet welcome" at their own whims and pre-conditions to invest in the province. When asked upon, the outgoing beleaguered and defeated Chief Minister retorted that while residing under a Capitalist social framework and constitution he is bound to implement the capitalist model of industrial investments. And immediately after achieving a decisive mandate nearing 50% of the popular support in the 2006 elections when the Left Front government began to implement its' already spelt industrialization policy with an all out effort, during a meeting with the Indonesian business tycoon Salem whose hands had been red with the massacre of thousands of Indonesian Communists in the 1960s, the outgoing Chief Minister who is also a Polit Bureau member of the CPI(Marxist) commented shockingly to the dismay of many Communists all over the world that the rendezvous with the industrialist Salem was the most memorable day of his life.
B. The CPI(Marxist) had also censored Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee for his idiotic remark in a business meet in 2008 saying,"unfortunately I belong to a party that supports working class' strikes".
2. The support of the rural population constituted the essential and committed support base for the CPI(Marxist) as the CPI(Marxist) despite of facing all tortures,fascist terror,adversities had stood ever-dedicatedly for the upliftment of the rural agricultural workers thus helping them getting constituted as an united class during the stormy days of the land distribution movement. This rural support base helped it to win 7 successive elections with a comprehensive mandate all through-out these 34 years of being in power of a provincial government. The Party needs to essentially introspect that what was the need and compulsion for going into such a callous and hasty industrialization policy that essentially involved the land acquisition of the fertile single-cropping & multi-cropping lands of the poor rural population without even taking them into confidence through the long-term mobilisation of its' frontal organizations as the AIKS & Agricultural Workers' Union essentially involving a patient hearing,campaigning,convincing through innumerable small meetings and other campaigning,convincing mechanisms that would have covered a wide majority of the rural peasantry? Even the Party needed to discuss thoroughly this essential matter that involved the livelihood of its' essential basic class from top-to-bottom of it's organizational structure, even by convening a plenum and putting this essential issue into vote all throughout the entire organizational structure of the Party. This would have been a brilliant instance of inner-party democracy with all it's centralism preserved within the vanguard of the Working people - the one and only Communist Party of India(Marxist). But instead the Left Front leadership led by the CPI(Marxist) relied too much on administrative machinery and even coercion on a few instances that greatly tarnished the image,prestige and even character of the Left Front in general and the CPI(Marxist) in particular.
3. Some Comrades keep on stressing that the arrogance of the cadres and leadership led to such a disaster for the CPI(Marxist). While this has been true that many alien and even corrupt tendencies and practices had intruded into the Party through-out these 34 years of being in power of a provincial administration, and even the enemy class-values had been dragged and imported into the Party by the enemy-class people such as the promoters and some businessmen, how much small miniscule they be within the Party. On the other hand the Party leadership had been stressing repeatedly against these poisonous tendencies and corrupt class-values getting intruded within the Party and even corroding some levels of the leadership as well. And hence a consistent and continuous rectification programme has been in place since 1995, which got more importance for its' thorough and all-out implementation after the 19th Party congress of the CPI(Marxist) held at Coimbatore from March 29 to April 3, 2008. Despite of all these relevantly concerning facts, it also must be kept in mind that with the help of a sincerely committed,firm-charactered,class-conscious and ever-dedicated cadre-base and leadership the CPI(Marxist) in West Bengal had become victorious in the 2006 assembly elections with a thumping majority attaining nearly 50% of the total votes polled. With the same set of the ever-dedicated & committed cadre-base and leadership the CPI(Marxist) went into the electoral struggle in the 2008,2009,2011 and faced humiliating drubbing. It's simply a non-sense logic that within a span of just 2 years the once ever-dedicated,sincere-most,committed cadre-base and leadership got plunged into the lowest-depths of hostile arrogance. Hence this rationale simply doesn't hold good while singling out the most important factors responsible for the debacle of the Party and the Left as a whole.
The main reason for the embarrassing debacle for the Party and the Left Front as a whole is just because it deviated massively and grossly from all it's class based political and ideological programmes.
Sincerely ever,
Kuntal Chatterjee
kuntalchatterjee2k5@gmail.com
Bhilainagar, (C.G.), Pin - 490006.
09993846425.
No compromise with imperialism
There can be honest differences on the understanding of present day imperialism and the working class revolution on the basis of facts . To suggest otherwise would be suicidal theoreticism. But to compromise with imperialism or dilute the working class character of the party under whatever pretext would be to opt out of the struggle for socialism itself.
Correct is indeed mightier than successful
I am a minion who is thoroughly incapable of commenting on the words coming out of the pen of Dr. Prabhat Patnayak. At best i can give a five rating and step aside in deference.
After reading the article here i believe more in what i feel about him. I think no political party can become successful in the long run if it loses the sight of fact that " the only test is correctness and not vote catching capacity". People of Indian in one after another elections have been demonstrating that those who lose are incorrect in their position. If a party has to win it has to be correct in its popular perception which is formed by right conduct than by tricks.
Communists have to be more correct than others since their mission is not short term but long term and their correctness has to be derived from theory first. They might have lost election in West Bengal but they have not lost the ground forever. They have come here to stay. The good thing that has resulted from this defeat of Left in West Bengal is that now it has a viable opposition in West Bengal in Trinmool that will ever keep the Left on its toes to pursue correctness in personal conduct of its cadre than indulge in high handedness with those very people whose interests they claim to represent. Although how the left will solve the puzzle of interference of party in governemt and administrative matters if again it comes to power is yet to be seen. This very factor caused lots of discontent among all in West Bengal.
Here i have a question to ask whether we can really club the peasants, the landless labourers and the industrial workers as the same class? Isn't there a fundamentally antagonistic relationship among them. the present row over land acquisition is essentially in the interest of farmers and against the interests of workers whether landless or industrial.
Sincere reply to the social-democratic reformist view-points
Comrade Patnaiks' pertinent article has gained wide relevance amidst Left and Progressive circles most particularly during this grave hour of reactionary onslaughts when the Left has been massively trounced upon and has reached to the verge of a politically irrelevant force simply for it's persisting with the petty bourgeoisie reformist policies in its' very own bastion. A wide range of repercussions are being generated both in favour & against Com. Patnaik's timely outstanding article. The article is just like catching the pulse in order to diagnose the actual disease. The splendid article holds an invaluable asset to all Comrades who are well acquainted with the grass-root level circumstances. Those basic concrete ground-level situations can be listed as follows :-
1. The LF govt. led by the CPI(Marxist) in WB had inarguably carried out some genuinely leftist programmes for both urban and rural toiling classes which enhanced its' prestige & leftist character immensely to an unparallel dimension. Alongwith this, the Party leadership organised regular Party classes and other forums to educate the masses that for the complete elimination & eradication of the poverty and miseries of all kinds its' mandatory to overthrow this capitalist social system inherently based on exploitation of labour. But the utter negligency in implementing all these policy matters and party education programmes began during the second half of the 1990s. Moreover, the new industrialization policy of the WB LF govt. of 1994 had been wrongly viewed & implemented in a completely deviated manner eversince the year 2000-2001 which showed tremendous signs of social-democratic reformist tendencies. There was a simmering discontent and debates within the Party and mass organizations itself. Party Comrades were at immense pains to convince the masses at various levels that how the industrialization policy of the WB LF govt. was different and pro-working class oriented when it was acting on similar lines as that of the capitalist Central govts. Party Comrades were often hurled with realistic queries that at the central level the CPI(Marxist) advocated pro-Working class' policies as its' in opposition, but at the provincial level the LF govt. followed a pro-capitalist line. More frequently there were severe disagreements between the CITU and the LF govt. Even the more, the outgoing beleaguered CM had difficult times in unconvincingly clarifying that how and in what way his govt. was following a Leftist programme. The over-enthusiasm of the former WB CM for the massive but hastily managed capitalistic mode of industrialization was so palpable and flagrant that even in the Party meets he used to stress a purely social-democratic agenda that when the Left in Latin America has been following a resurgence and revival mode by compromising with the imperialist globalised economic order then lots of lessons need to be learnt from those & the "socialist market economy" concept in China by the Communists all over the world, and in that context he quite often used to quote that socialism in the era of imperialist globalised economy is just like traversing an untreaded path and hence under the newer evolving circumstances of the domination of imperialist & aggressive capitalist world order the Left must have to adjust itself by making concessions and compromises with the imperialist world order in order to bring new investments of transnational monopoly conglomerates into the state. The oppressive SEZ concept giving way for the rampant imperialist capital to be pumped into the state had been blatantly taken care of without even guaranteeing the basic democratic rights of the working class. And all these were being blindly followed just to find a hold amongst the urban educated middle class population comprising of the bulk of the effervescent young generation. The Party leadership completely neglected the interests of the toiling,labouring classes, which are its' backbone and base, both in rural and urban areas during that suffocating period of 2004 to 2007. Under those turbulent circumstances the shameful incident of Nandigram occurred which just sprayed hateful blots into the otherwise glorious command of the Left. All these deviations of severe nature allowed the reactionaries of both the right and ultra-left spectrum funded by their imperialist masters under a common umbrella. If the concept of private capital investment is the TINA factor for the LF govt. in WB then why didn't it go forward pressingly with the nandigram,singur,nayachar projects despite of all adversities? Why the Party and Left ha been singing songs of its' blunders,mistakes and high-handedness attached with the policy of industrialization by acquisition of lands from the small land-owners in the rural areas? No left supporter with a little-bit of common sense will ever believe that the characters of the leaders and cadres of the Party has massively stooped down to the extent of derogatory criminal arrogance from the victory of 2006 to the repeated thrashings of 2008 to 2011.
2. All Party Comrades will very well know that how the Party leadership criticized and gave stern and covert warnings to the state-level leadership for making it indirectly but squarely responsible for the nandigram like painful incidents and instructed the state party to make a full-stop to all kinds of SEZ and land-acquisition projects and programmes - as those nastiest activities were projecting the Party to the category of "capitalist invaders" before the common masses. [ 19th Congress Pol.-Org Report, Part-II : On Left-led govts. The Experience & their role in the present situation, April 2008].
3. Comrade Biman Basu in one of his statements while reviewing the massive drubbing in a meeting at the Purulia District CPI(Marxist) Office commented that the Party leadership has completely failed to understand and recognize that the extent of alienation & isolation of the Party from the common masses and Toiling population has become so much massive that its' earlier considered most-reliable organizational machinery even terribly failed to report properly about the actual grass-root level situation and gauge the tangible mentality of the people as those have lost the inherent connection with the common masses. [source Aajkaal - a leftist bengali newspaper]. And any Comrade working in the grass-root level situation will better know that the connection of the organization with the masses gets detached massively as a ground-level manifestation of its' wrong policies which are basically anti-people , and that can not be attributed merely to the arrogant hostile behaviours of a few handful of members of such a big family as the CPI(Marxist).
Sincerely ever,
Kuntal Chatterjee
can the socialist-marketers ever fight against imperialism?
Professor Prabhat Patnaik's brilliant article is relevant not just for the Indian Communists, but also for the Communists all over the globe. The pertinent article has been a scathing arsenal of Ideological correctness against the trends and tendencies those amount to deviations of both the reformist and sectarian forms. The article once again stresses the basic fundamental fact that Imperialism must have to be fought both in actions and spirits, and not merely in boastful words. If Imperialism is to be sincerely fought against, then an uncompromising struggle against the monopoly corporate capital (both national & international finance capital) must have to be waged and ushered upon, in both theory and praxis. The thought-provoking article also seriously questions the ideological integrity of those people who doesn't fail to boast of the so-called "Socialist" China's frictional disagreements with the Imperialist nations as the manifestations of the inherent contradictions between Socialism and Imperialism. But even the Chinese government doesn't claim itself to be purely Socialist, rather it brags itself to belong to the category of Socialist-Market Economy. Moreover, can the present regime in PRC really claim itself to possess any trait of Socialism - the regime which represses it's unprivileged population in howsoever limited instances and form that be? I modestly urge all my Comrades to read this article on the present state of dismal affairs in the PRC, published in THE HINDU newspaper on the 29th of May,2011, whose caption reads as - "Rising land conflicts stir concerns in rural China" -
[ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/article2058760.ece ].
Sincerely ever,
Kuntal Chatterjee.
in an honest pursuit of our failure,defeat and debacle
A most relevant article that can help the CPI(Marxist) to trace out and determine the reasons and causes of its' recent political and organisational debacle, and help the Party to rectify its' serious ills and grave errors.
http://www.aajkaal.net/archive/cat.php?hidd_cat_id=6
It has been written by Comrade Azizul Haque who in the recent times has been a consistent supporter of the CPI(Marxist)'s Ideology and politics, and is also known for his balanced assessment and criticisms of the policies pursued by the CPI(Marxist). The article has been published in the Leftist Bengali Newspaper "Aajkaal" on the 11th June,2011.
We shall try to translate the same article in English later on for the benefit of our non-bengali readers and Comrades.
Comradely Greetings.
Kuntal Chatterjee.
Impression about the article
This is a very encouraging article from Prabhat Patnaik. An effort to upheld Leninism, Bolshevism. However, CPI, CPIM, CPIML(s) brand of parties have little to do with those ideas and so do with Prabhat Patnaik. I wish a scholar like Prabhat Patnaik takes up the case even more seriously and establish revolutionary Marxism renewed through the experience of last century. Congratulations Pragoti for uploading the article and circulating through different social-networking sites.