footnotes2marx

Singur Nandigram - some new questions

2007-02-17T02:18:00.000+05:30

First, let me comment that it feels good to come back after hibernation. It's been a very eventful year, and I had to discontinue this blog. I feel much better being able to write again.

Much has happened in India, esp. over the land-acquisition protest movements in West Bengal. Singur- Nandigram has changed Indian politics quite a bit, and there seems to be a well orchestrated and well-planned "Anti-SEZ" movement emerging.
I will not go through the facts of the movement, they have a good blog to the Singur Movement. But there are some important facts emerging which raises many questions.

(1) The land protest movement have been led by Trinamool Congress (TMC) under Mamata Banerjee. TMC by character is largely an opportunist party and has a long history of shifting allegiances to better electoral prospects. I doubt whether it has any policy of opposing SEZ's and in my opinion it would continue to do so, so long it embarasses it's opponent - the CPI(M). So, what will be Mamata Banerjee's role if her party came to power in either the state or the centre? Will she be truthful to her cause? That remains to be seen.

(2) The second question is about the left radicals. Small left parties and groups of various shades -starting from the SUCI, the PDS, the CPI(ML) Liberation, CPI(ML) -Kanu Sanyal, CPI(ML) New Democracy, Mazdoor Kranti Parishad and CPI(Maoist) have played some role in this movement. Some had accepted Mamata's Leadership and some haven't? What is the outlook of these small left parties? Do they aspire something greater from this movement? Can they put forward a alternate model of industrial development. Or would their role be limited to leading sporadic protests and infighting amongst themselves as to who would want credit for the show. There are newsreports that as expected TMC has started playing these groups one against the other, individuals against other individuals and in the process re-established it's leadership over the movement. It could be a nice case study to learn how big powers want to dominate - the ruling party -CPI(M) wants to dominate the administration, without giving a damn to what the other parties in the ruling coalition -CPI, Forward Bloc, and RSP feel about its agenda. TMC wants to dominate the opposition space. Both seem to be very happy and ideological moorings have taken a backseat.

(3) The rise of Jamiat-I-Ulema-I Hind is ominous. First, it shows how fundamentalist and communal organizations have large fan following in their own hinterland. Second, the Jamiat's dominance will surely encourage the BJP as fundamentalists on both grow bolder and stronger together -citing the rise of the other as a threat to its own kin. Any organization -right or left has the liberty to participate and lead a popular struggle. But politics is all about dominance - the more the left radicals cede power to the fundamentalists-there is a possibility that the cause would be hijacked and after some period of metamorphosis will be converted into a sectarian cause. The Jamait has already started a propaganda that Muslim farmers have been victimized by the CPI(M), and it is a known fact that irrepective of how deprecated CPI(M) has become over its leftist ideology, it has not victimized any particular religious group. Farmers have been victimized -whether Hindus and Muslims, and it is a shame that Jamait is making it murky. Worse the left radicals are encouraging it and initiating dialogue with it. My poser to the left radical parties - if you wouldn't join hands with the BJP, why would you do it with the Jamait?

(4) Prakash Karat's article defending his party and government has largely been ignored by the mainstream as well as the leftist media. I would say it is an "explosive" article. Com. Karat agrees that West Bengal should have a liberalized capitalist economy, and the task of his party is to advance its economic progress (read capitalist progress). He defends his argument stating that in a quasi-federal structure like India, the state donot have much choice. Since CPI(M) claims to have a revolutionary agenda, is it not surprising that for 25 years our comrades have been advancing the liberal capital cause? I like this game of hop skip and jump - Marxism, Revisionism, Liberalism. Already to our CPI(M) comrades, Mahasweta Devi, Sumit Sarkar, Medha Patkar, Arundhati Roy have become outsiders and Mr. Ratan Tata has become an "insider"? I wouldn't be surprised if Com. Karat & Yechury hope to chair a session in the World Economic Forum. Inquilab "Murdabad", CPI(M) Zindabad!!

Maoist Legacy in West Bengal

2006-04-10T11:52:00.000+05:30

Sometime back I had read an interesting article on the legacy of Maoists in West Bengal. It was written in 2004 by a lady from London School of Economics called Henrike Donner. Dr. Donner is a well known social anthroplogist and her article deals with the social influence of the maoists in the Post-Naxalbari period. It might be interesting to note that the Maoists have become increasingly popular in West Bengal since the early 2000s, and the influence of the newly formed CPI-Maoist party (formed by the merger of the erstwhile CPI(ML)-People's War and Maoist Communist Centre is gaining ground in the districts of West Midnapur, Birbhum, Bankura, Purulia and Bardhhaman (Burdwan).

Here's the article for the reader:

www.lse.ac.uk/collections/asiaResearchCentre/ pdf/LegacyOfMaoistsInWestBengalByHDonner.doc

(Note: Please copy & paste the above link in your browser window to read the document).

Being a sociologist, Ms. Donner has elaborated on the social context and not the political context of why Maoists are becoming resurgent once again. I would want to comment on the political context some other time. As of now if I were to summarize my immediate thoughts on the areas which Ms. Donner missed out or de-emphasized, these would be as follows :

(1) Indian society is still feudal in pockets--esp. in rural Bengal. Although some Marxist theorists agrue that the existence of landless wage agricultural labourers and marginal farmers mean that capitalism is prevalent, I feel feudalism has its remnants still deep rooted esp. in culture and the way of life of people in the villages of West Bengal. Let us appreciate the fact that feudalism is a complicated social concept--and just the ability of a few people to trade labour for wages, does not necessarily mean the feudalism has given way to capitalism completely. Rural bengal, according to my understanding is " pro-capital", where capitalism is trying to make an entry but feudalism still looms large. So ,if I were to "jargonize" it , I would say rural West Bengal is "semi-feudal" and "pro-capital".

(2) Capitalistic development in West Bengal has limited itself to the pockets of Kolkata-Hoogly industrial belt, Asansol-Durgapur region and the tea estates in North Bengal. The social relations of many other places esp in rural bengal have remain semi-feudal (or pro-capital) and the Maoist parties have better interpretation and analysis of these conditions than CPI or CPI(M). Their party programs are better suited to serve of the people of these conditions

(3) Globalization has have deep effects on the Bengali middle class--while it has created opportunities for one portion--a significant section has remained untouched or if I may , have been left behind.

(4) CPI(M) led Left Front has not completed the land reforms in West Bengal, as they proudly proclaim. While it is true that land was re-distributed, many owners of the newly gained small holdings have been forced to mortgage their lands to the erstwhile landlords for "working capital". So technically , while the small farmers are still the legal owners of their land, in all reality they are not so. They cannot decide--what to produce and how much to produce. Further, since the middlemen have not been removed from the agricultural supply chain of "farm produce to market" --the condition of farmers haven't improved much. It can be safely stated that the Land Reforms in West Bengal is a sham, at best partial.

(5) CPI(M) has followed a theory of "uniformity but mediocracy" particularly in the areas of education , health care and other public affairs. I don't know if there is any Marxist interpretation which suggests the extending social benefits mean drastically reducing the quality of benefits. So while the education and healthcare instituions have brought more people under their reach and have remained largely affordable--the quality of the services provided is far from being commendable. So, rural Bengal has not benefitted qualitatively (although quantitatively, more Bengalis have been brought into the job market) and urban Bengal has lost out. The trend in the late 1990s was an exodus of a large number of upper middle class students from Bengal to some south & west Indian states in search of employable educational qualification. This section of people in particular were becoming strong opponents of the Left Front. To arrest the trend, the CPI(M) led Left Front has 'opened up' the educational sector-- leaving it to the mercy of the private entrepenuers to exploit. So , surprisingly , a Marxist party misinterprets the problem and mismanages it. While it could have actively intervened to improve the quality of education and healthcare--it chose to let loose private capital to tackle the problem. Thus it has further isolated the 'have-nots' from the main stream & from the institutes of higher education.

(6) The problem of bureacratic red tape , official dom (called "babudom" in Indian socicontexts) coupled with a completely politicized police has further added to the problem. There has been emergence of a new "class" in West Bengal , which has used political clout as its only assest to gain prominence. This class aided by the unholy nexus of corrupt Party office bearers-Promters-Police and sarkari babus have created a new social division within West Bengal--the new "elite". While traditional Marxist texts do not recognize the existence of such a class--history has shown that such a social division had gained prominence under the CPSU in Soviet Union and also the CPC in China. I must comment abeit with great regret, that the state of Bengal has almost withered away- but only to the Party in power. Both have become quite synonymous. However, the state has not withered into communism by any means.

(7) Quite paradoxically, the left front rule has largely benefitted the petty & middle bourgeiosie
section in West Bengal. A significant portion of the middle bourgeioisie in Bengal are settlers from outside--namely the Marwaris and Gujratis. This class is largely national in interest and not quite comprador in nature, and the CPI(M) led ideology of "fending off imperialism" but giving dollops to the local bourgeiosie has benefitted them immensely. They had the party as their protector, and they survived the onslaught of the big corporations and foreign capital--and continued their anti-worker policies with ease. Most of these industrialists paid neither any attention to any technological or managerial improvement to meet modern-day market competition, not did they do anything to benefit the condition of the workers employed by them. The state run government organizations have long been managed by people with vested interests or party cronies who cared less about running these instituitions well and more about making individual and unethical profits. More importantly, many of these organizations were managed very poorly and intentionally made sick, so that the state government could wash their hands of it and sell it off to private management or liquidate it . This has significantly hurt the organized working class. So, the CPI(M) led party is steadily losing support of the working class--esp. the unionized ones to the more radical left and the Maoists.

However, it must be pointed out in this context, that the CPI(M) has retained significant support amongst the unorganized working class--it has been successful to create more opportunities in the small scale services sector--and has a steady following amongst the workers in this sector. It is this section of people in urban Bengal--providers of small scale services and utilities in the field of retail, transportation, household work etc who have remained the loyal supporters of CPI(M) till date. CPI(M) has managed to keep them protected from any significant competition from the organized big bourgeioisie. It has also managed to contain any significant real estate price escalation, kept the cost of living under control, and managed to contain any largescale civil unrest. This has endeared it to some sections of the petty bourgeoisie and proleteriat.

We'll get to analyse the political dimensions of the problem sometime later including the problems with the Maosists. Frankly I don't think that they have the potential to "organize" any revolution unless they undergo a significant shift in their political strategy and tactics and show better understanding of the Indian socio-political environment. Having said that, Maoists are well placed to create civil unrest ...esp. in rural Bengal with large support from the masses--but I doubt whether they have the capability, as of date, to steer it towards a revolution.

But till then, do enjoy Dr. Donner's article. I think it is very well written. Never before have I read such apt and unique anlaysis of the traits of Maoist movement in West Bengal and the perspectives she brought up have been quite refreshing for a change.

Paris Protests--a beackon light

2006-04-05T12:14:00.000+05:30

Recently, France has been rocked with protests from students and workers regarding the new controversial law pushed through by Prime Minister Villepin. It suggests that the companies can 'hire and fire' the youth workers more easily.
http://www.voanews.com/english/Controversial-Law-Causes-Political-Unrest-in-France.cfm

However the protests are more than they show. The new law may be an immediate cause , but not the root cause for the movement. The protests are mainly against the constant attempts to tear away and dismantle the welfare state and pursuing unbridled globalized capitalism. I recently read a good analysis of the French protests by an Ameriacn Professor-Richard Wolff.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff310306.html

Mr. Wolff is quite impressive in his analysis of the protests and how it is serving as a beacon light for similar protests all over the world. However, the cynic in me suggests that these protests will not reach far.We have been witnessing serious and large movements all over the world against big bourgeiosie induced globalization. However, most of them are falling short of the desired objective.

We still do not have answers to some key questions:
(1) What is the 'way out' for a nation -job losses to the low cost developing countries by trying to maintaining wages for its workers or adopting a 'hire and fire' policy and reduction in wages and benefits for its workers?
(2) What is the alternative to a globalized world with free flowing information and capital? Is it the Soviet style 'iron curtain' and simple 'protectionist' measures? Let us not forget, that protectionist measures are sometime counterproductive too.

We need to envision a new strategy to fight this big burgeiosie induced globalization with working class induced gloablization. While Marxist theories will lead the path, a new approach needs to be followed. What if allowing big burgeoisie to leverage low cost labour by shifting bases of production, we had a more globalized working class--where there would be a uniform benchmarking for skill sets and workers possessing that particular skill sets would be paid the same, irrespective of their country of origin or race ? What if attempts were made to realign currency exchange rates according to a purchase power parity? Note while I initiate the concept of same wages --I don't do so in abosolute terms, but in relative terms of the PPP (Purchase Power Parity) of the nations. Well , these are very initial & top of the mind thoughts and would need a lot of research to understand if they are viable. But surely the existing system is not the answer and neither does the old theories provide for the answers.

Having said the above, I hope the leaders of the Paris movements and their supporters world wide are asking these questions. I would think that the time has come to reinvigorate an international body like the International as existed in the early twentieth century. We need a real alternative to the IMFs and Worldbanks of the world. We need a globalized body of trade union workers, student activists, women activists , environment activists and the like. The World Social Forum is a good start, but we are yet to see any concrete alternatives coming out of it so far. To me the opposition to globalization and neo-liberalism is far more scattered and divided than the proponents of it. Too many cooks are spoiling the broth--quite literally so.

Bourgeoisie indulge in Marxmania!

2006-04-04T22:17:00.000+05:30

From the Communist Manifesto: "By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and the employers of wage labor."

Obviously these would be the people who would hate Marx and Marxists the most. However, strange as it seems Marx has become "fashionable" for the capitalists--who are heaping praises on him , while rejecting communism.

Take a look at the following:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1530250,00.html

But why is this bewildering development. Part of the answer lies in the above commentary itself:

The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns that the herd instinct of capital-owners such as himself must be controlled before they trample everyone else underfoot. 'Marx and Engels gave a very good analysis of the capitalist system 150 years ago, better in some ways, I must say, than the equilibrium theory of classical economics,' he writes. 'The main reason why their dire predictions did not come true was because of countervailing political interventions in democratic countries. Unfortunately we are once again in danger of drawing the wrong conclusions from the lessons of history. This time the danger comes not from communism but from market fundamentalism.

Capitalist thinkers have acknowledged there is a problem and crisis with capitalism today. So they are looking at new safety valves and measures. Marx, the proponent of a revolution against capitalism is being used as a safety valve icon--to safeguard the interests of capitalism and make it ever-perpetuating.

Marx had already lamented that if reformists of his times used his theories to propagate reform and reject revolution then he was not a Marxist. Imagine,what Marx would have done now--I am sure he would have burned his own writings.

The onus is on the true belivers of Marx to understand & implement the ideas of Marx correctly to augment the communist revolution and not to postpone it.

Marx and Us..#1

2006-04-01T01:07:00.000+05:30

I've started a new series called Marx and Us. I would attempt to take snippets from Marxist theory and examine their relevance in the current scenario. I feel that it is as important to review the basic tenets of Marxism , as it is to apply leftist interpretation to review any present ocuurance.

Here goes part # 1 of the series. It starts from the very basics indeed.

(1) Capitalism, Bourgeoisie and Proleteriat:
According to Karl Marx, a a capitalist mode of production developed in Europe when labor itself became a commodity — when peasants became free to sell their own labor-power, and needed to do so because they no longer possessed their own land or tools necessary to produce. People sell their labor-power when they accept compensation in return for whatever work they do in a given period of time (in other words, they are not selling the product of their labor, but their capacity to work). In return for selling their labor power they receive money, which allows them to survive. Prior to capitalism, markets existed in Europe where producers and merchants bought and sold commodities. Those who must sell their labor power to live are "proleterians." The person who buys the labor power, generally someone who does own the land and technology to produce, is a "capitalist" or "bourgeois." (Marx considered this an objective description of capitalism, distinct from any one of a variety of ideological claims of or about capitalism). The proletarians inevitably outnumber the capitalists.

Surplus Value =Output Costs - Input Costs. Input Cost includes the cost of human labour. So Suplus value is derived from surplus human labour. In marketing and finance text books of today , following is represented as :

Profit (often Income)= Revenue from Sales - Cost of production and other expenses. So, what we call as Profits ( or Profits before taxes) are nothing but surplus value.

Note: Marx did distinguish between industrial capitalists and merchant capitalists...we will revisit these differences some other time

(2) Capitalism has a "lifecycle":

Well as most products have a "lifecycle", so does capitalism. (Remember the bell shaped curve, as shown in school text books?). Capitalism has its own peak and trough. The capitalist mode of production is capable of tremendous growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. Marx considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of production. But Marx argued that capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx understood that during such a crisis the price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy. Marx believed that this cycle of growth, collapse, and growth would be punctuated by increasingly severe crises. Moreover, he believed that the long-term consequence of this process was necessarily the enrichment and empowerment of the capitalist class and the impoverishment of the proletariat.

(3) Marxist Revolution:

Marx believed that were the proletariat to seize the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of production less vulnerable to periodic crises. In general, Marx thought that peaceful negotiation of this problem was impracticable, and that a massive, well-organized and violent revolution would in general be required, because the ruling class would not give up power without violence. He theorized that to establish the socialist system, a dictatorship of the proletariat - a period where the needs of the working-class, not of capital, will be the common deciding factor - must be created on a temporary basis. Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat

Well I divided the fundamentals of Marxism into the above three divisions on purpose. If we notice carefully the first two constructs are very much valid in the present world. The differences bewteen the "rich man" and the "poor man" is increasig day by day..and it is no fluke that the rich man always belong to the bourgeios class and ther poor man to the proleterait. Call it Marx's extraordinary analytical genius and the bad fate of mankind--the rich have always been the ones wh have usurped the means of production and made others to work for them, accumulating wealth out of the latter's surplus labour to generate profits.

On the other hand , the gradual shifting of economies--say, from the old manufacturing economy to the new service economy or the knowledge economy only goes on to prove Marx's second aspect. Let us not forget, how capitalists invested in iron and steel companies and automobile companies that employed huge number of blue collar workers. But when the profit per unit of car decreased, most of the capitalists repatriated their profits into new technologies--say Information Technology, Telecommunication etc. Today, the IT sector is any capitalist's golden goose. But a quick look at it shows that how billing rates have fallen and how IT salaries are on the decline or at least plateauing out. Very soon the capitalists will move on to newer sectors to Biotechnology and what not. Capitalism will try to save itself on new grounds --either in new technological paradigms or new grounds (read new markets). I hope you, my reader, will largely agree with me till now.

Once we are in agreement that capitalist mode of production will face crisis in one sector and shift to another to save itself--we are indirectly agreeing that the revolution , as Marx saw it , is in the offing. Pl. don't raise an eyebrow over this statement of mine. When capitalists exit one sector they leave behind a badly bruised masses from the working class, who are left to rot--as they cannot reinvent themselves and learn to cope with the new technological paradigms so easily. A miner cannot become a mechanic in the assembly line of a car factory. A car mechanic cannot become an software developer, overnight. Each time, large number of people are left behind by capitalists,the seeds of the revolution is already sown. To orchestrate a revolution one needs will, and such will comes out of anger , rejection of the existing social system and fraternal feelings towards another struggling person. Then why is there no revelution happening? What is lacking today is a proper strategy and technique is educate the left behind masses about the perils of capitalism, and helping them to graduate to unite with other left behinds from different countries and industrial sectors and jointly orchestrate a revolution. There is also a need to counter the recent theories of capitalism and the way they always put safety valves onto it just to save itself. Unless one has a solid strategy, one cannot hold the bulls by the horns. And that's what Marxists have been doing till date.

Will discuss some limitations of modern day Indian communists in my next blog.

Till then have a good day..and do send your comments.
Charvaka Acharya

Post script: There are some self styled socialist thinkers and cronies of capitalism who cannot counter basic Marxist tenets. All they do is to point out that the USSR failed, so Marxism doesn't hold true. It is true that USSR failed, but one needs to understand that the point when it failed it was no longer a state for the working masses. It degenerated into a largely one party dominated state capitalist and social imperialist state. The Chinese communist party has also invented its own brand of capitalism. Deng XioPing had put it very bluntly : "It doesn't matter what colour a cat is as long as it catches mice." Surely, Deng wanted to create a section of bourgeiosie who are products of the CPC and controlled most resources in the name of state control. Both the Soviet and the Chinese parties talked of reforms which are more to the right than to the left. Marx once said of such "reform hungry" self styled Marxists who were on the verge of denouncing the revolutionary aspect of Marxism, that if the trash they doled out was Marxism..then "I'm not a Marxist".

"Catch a man a fish, you can sell it to him.Teach him how to fish and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity."-Karl Marx

Capital Account Convertability

2006-03-28T09:15:00.000+05:30

Technically, this is not my first blog. I've written blogs many a times before. However this is my first post on footnotes2marx. However, I must confess that it's been a year and a half before I have writen any political commentary ..so my articulation might have become a little rusty. However, I'm confident that my analysis has become more mature (just as vintage wine), so that gives me the confidence to hit the keyboard once again!!

In , India PM Singh has announced his desire to introduce full capital account convertibility. The whole world knows Manmohan Singh as an erudite person and an economist par excellence. Then why is the same person doing the same mistakes that created the Asian financial crises not too long ago--whether countries like Thailand and Malyasia almost went to the dogs? What has he learnt from their crises and also that of Argentina , Russia and many other places in the world?

Ok , demystifying the economic jargon--what exactly is capital account convertibility? Put simply, you can transform the rupees you hold into dollars or euro (or any other currency) at your free sweet will. Is there anything wrong, you might ask? Not when you are converting your hard earned Rs. 20K into dollars--but something goes wrong when the "hot money" flows in like the tsunami waters.

"Hot money" refers to the large amount of foreign capital (say billions of dollars) which flow into the country as "portfolio investment" (read money pumped into the stock market). This is an age old trick of the large western investors. Pump in huge amount of money--and artificially jack up the markets. The sensex goes up , up and away. And then suddenly (with some concerted mainpulation amongst the large investors), these investors pull out (sell everything) and move out--just in flash.

Well, our large FII friends made a lot of profits. But the stock markets always are a zero-sum game. You don't make profit unless somebody bears the loss. So when these large FIIs sell out--the ordinary retail investor--our "desi bhaiya" (with a little greed) bears losses. Millions of small investors lose money, and as a ripple effect the entire economy comes down with a thud.

Does PM Singh not know that? Oh yes , he does. Then why does he do all that. Elementary, dear Watson--he represents his class interests, that of the big bourgeoisie who funds him into that chair. He may be the leader of Indian masses, but his loyalty is tied to the classes.

So long for today.

And before I forget, do send your brickbats and bouquets (read comments).
Regards,
Charvaka Acharya

Read more:
Against my views:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/03/30/stories/2004033000180800.htm

For my views:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/03/27/stories/2004032700030800.htm