| It
could be just wishful thinking; or it could be a malicious
attempt to spread confusion about the CPI(M); or it
could be sheer ignorance about the rudiments of the
CPI(M)’s theoretical understanding among the current
generation of journalists, unlike those of an earlier
generation; but, whatever the reason, the inference
drawn by several of them from a remark of Jyoti Basu
about having to work within the capitalist system, a
remark which in itself was neither novel nor exceptionable,
that the CPI(M) had abandoned socialism, was really
quite breath-taking. But since this remark has given
rise to some confusion even among Party sympathizers
and well-wishers, it is worth making an effort to clarify
certain basic issues.
Those claiming on the basis of the West Bengal government’s
acceptance of private investment (which Jyoti Basu’s
remark had defended) that the CPI(M) has abandoned socialism,
are wrong on at least three counts: they do not distinguish
between socialist and people’s democratic revolutions;
they do not distinguish between working within a system
and working not to transcend the system; and they do
not distinguish between the Party and Party-led governments.
Let us look at each of these distinctions seriatim.
A Communist Party is founded with the objective of achieving
socialism. Its raison d’etre is to struggle for the
achievement of this objective. But the achievement of
socialism requires a social revolution which entails
the substitution of private ownership of the means of
production by social ownership, and of the bourgeois
State that defends such private ownership by an alternative
proletarian State which is a very different kind of
State from all hitherto existing States, in the sense
that it must "wither away" over a period of
time. Since the conditions for such a social revolution
take time to mature, all Communist Parties must work
within the capitalist system for long stretches of time,
bringing theory to the working class and helping it
through its struggles to prepare itself for the historic
task of leading this revolution.
All this however presupposes that the democratic revolution
which the bourgeoisie had led historically led, has
been more or less completed, so that a socialist revolution
has come on the agenda. But in societies where the bourgeoisie
appears late on the scene, it proves singularly incapable
of completing the democratic revolution itself, and
instead makes common cause with feudal and pre-bourgeois
elements, since it is afraid that any attack on pre-bourgeois
property could well encompass an attack on bourgeois
property as well. This compromise which was evident
in the case of pre-revolutionary Russia incorporates,
in the context of third world societies, a compromise
with imperialism as well.
The anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks of the democratic
revolution in such societies therefore cannot be completed
by the bourgeoisie which is historically unequal to
the task, but devolve upon the proletariat which must
carry the democratic revolution to completion. Its key
ally in this democratic revolution is of course the
broad mass of the peasantry. This democratic revolution
led by the working class in alliance with the peasantry
is called the "people's democratic revolution"
which, according to the CPI(M)’s programme is the historic
task immediately on the agenda.
The people’s democratic revolution is a rich and complex
concept. Since it entails a carrying forward of the
democratic revolution, i.e. a completion by the proletariat
of the task that the bourgeoisie historically had undertaken,
its objective is to remove the fetters upon the most
thorough-going bourgeois development; it creates therefore
the conditions for the most vigorous and the most broad-based
capitalist development. At the same time, since it is
the proletariat that leads the people’s democratic revolution,
it is not content only to create the conditions for
the most thorough-going capitalist development, and
then sit back and watch capitalism unfold in its full
vigour; rather, it unleashes a historical process where
the people’s democratic revolution leads on to the socialist
revolution. Once the proletariat has acquired a "subject"
role, it does not withdraw from that role; rather it
uses that role to ensure that the people’s democratic
revolution leads on to the socialist revolution over
a more or less protracted period of time.
Two very important points have to be noted here: first,
while the people’s democratic revolution creates conditions
for capitalist development, the nature of this capitalist
development is different from the capitalist development
that would have occurred otherwise. "Capitalist
development" is not a homogeneous term. There is
capitalism and capitalism. What was developing in colonial
India was capitalism; what the bourgeoisie leading the
freedom struggle wanted was capitalism; what the Nehruvian
development strategy promoted was capitalism; what neo-liberalism
is promoting today is capitalism; and what the working
class will create the conditions for, through the people’s
democratic revolution, is also capitalism. So, to say
that the people's democratic revolution is meant to
create conditions for the development of capitalism
is only a half-truth; it is meant to create the conditions
for the development of capitalism that is different
from the capitalism that would have developed otherwise;
it is meant to develop a capitalism that is the most
thorough-going and broad-based, a capitalism that is
based inter alia on radical land reforms and a widening
of the mass market.
Secondly, the struggle for creating the conditions for
the most thorough-going and broad-based capitalist development,
which the proletariat has to lead in conditions like
ours, does not become an end in itself; it leads on
to the struggle for socialism. The continuity of this
struggle was expressed by Lenin in his Two Tactics in
the following words. "The proletariat must carry
the democratic revolution to completion, allying to
itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush the
autocracy's resistance by force and paralyse the bourgeoisie’s
instability. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist
revolution, allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian
elements of the population, so as to crush the bourgeoisie's
resistance by force and paralyse the instability of
the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie.” Precisely
because the consummation of the democratic revolution,
the most thorough-going attempt at building capitalism,
cannot occur in societies like ours under the aegis
of the bourgeoisie, precisely because it can be carried
out only under the aegis of the proletariat, the struggle
for such development becomes integrated with the struggle
for socialism, leads on to the struggle for socialism.
It follows then that the conception of a Communist Party
being always concerned exclusively and immediately with
the ushering in of socialism is theoretically erroneous.
Let us now move to the second error of those claiming
that the CPI(M) has abandoned socialism.
While the people’s democratic revolution is on the historic
agenda in our country, in the sense that in its absence
the democratic revolution would not only not be carried
forward, but would actually witness retrogression (such
as for instance the reversal of land reforms, the attenuation
of bourgeois democracy, and an even greater integration
with imperialism), it is by no means imminent. The Communists
in other words have to work within the capitalist system
even as they work for the maturing of the conditions
for the people’s democratic revolution, let alone a
socialist revolution. And this work involves not just
work in trade unions, among the peasantry, on the various
mass fronts, and in the parliamentary opposition, but
also as leaders of state governments in the three states
where the Party is powerful.
Work in the state governments is no different from work
elsewhere, though the terrain of work is novel and the
conditions of work constrained by explicit and specific
provisions of the Constitution: its aim must also be
to change the correlation of class forces, to prepare
the conditions for the people’s democratic revolution
by fighting to carry forward the democratic advance
of the people and against all slide-backs, retrogression,
and counter-revolutionary rolling back of this advance.
In the case of the state governments led by the Party,
this requires a correct policy towards the development
of the productive forces. This policy too must be informed
by the objective of creating the conditions for the
people’s democratic revolution, forging the class alliance
required for it, raising the level of class consciousness,
and strengthening the proletariat as a revolutionary
force. Stagnation in the development of the productive
forces in the Left-ruled states in comparison to others,
i.e. stagnation that is not systemic but specific to
such states, can damage this objective by restricting
employment generation, and alienating the people from
the Party (which indeed is one reason why the capitalists
used deliberately to avoid investing in these states
earlier); on the other hand, any development that, even
while creating employment in some sectors, destroys
employment in others, including in agriculture through
the alteration of the land-use pattern, can also have
a damaging effect.
Likewise, while boycott by capitalists, which amounts
to an economic blockade of Left-ruled states, can damage
the Party and hence the cause of the democratic revolution,
any acceding to the demands of the capitalists that
results in a hiatus between the basic classes (i.e.
workers and peasants) and the Party can have an equally
deleterious effect. Avoiding these deleterious consequences,
striking a correct path based on an all-round appreciation
of the situation, making use of investments by capitalists
even while not succumbing to their excessive demands,
by taking advantage of competition among them, and by
building up the countervailing force of government investment,
is not always easy. The exact strategy in each case
has to be specifically determined. But the basic criterion
for deciding on the correct course of action must be:
does it contribute towards an advance of the democratic
revolution?
While applying this criterion however it is clear that
there is no reason for shunning capitalist investment,
since within the capitalist system in which the Party-led
governments are functioning, the investible resources
are by definition concentrated in the hands of the capitalists.
Of course, such capitalist investment must be treated
with circumspection; it must not be allowed to thwart
the advance towards a people’s democratic revolution;
and for that purpose the Party-led state governments
must have a counterweight against the excessive demands
of capital; but shunning such investment altogether
can also be equally damaging.
Such an understanding clearly does not entail an abandonment
of socialism, or an acceptance of capitalism. It only
recognizes the fact that the struggle for carrying forward
the democratic revolution, towards its ultimate goal
of socialism, has to be fought on many fronts, in complex
terrains, and in conditions not of our choosing. While
it is true that in coping with this complexity, the
ultimate objective must not be lost sight of, a lack
of recognition of this complexity makes the ultimate
objective even more elusive in practice.
The critics of the Party are also wrong on a third count,
quite apart from their lack of understanding of the
concept of the people’s democratic revolution, and also
of the complexity of the work needed to create the conditions
for it. And this relates to a lack of distinction between
the government and the Party. Party-led governments
are not identical with the Party. The Party embodies
a theory; a government per se does not, even when led
by the Party. The Party works for a revolution; it works
through many channels including through heading state
governments. But just as there is a difference between
the Party and its front organizations, there is
a difference between the Party and the governments it
leads, as indeed between these governments and the Party’s
front organizations. These governments are formed
in accordance with the provisions of a Constitution
which in turn was framed as a scaffolding for the structure
of a State led by the bourgeoisie. Their practical positions
on a number of issues cannot always be expected to be
co-terminus with what the Party’s theoretical understanding
dictates. To infer from the practical policies of the
state governments which are an empirical matter, the
theoretical positions of the Party, is an inversion
of reason.
Negotiating the complexities of the Indian revolution
requires serious and intense debates and discussions,
but a precondition for that is to get certain basic
issues out of the way.
|
