Monday, January 26, 2009

The Communists and the Building of Capitalism : Prabhat Patnaik

The conception of a communist party being always concerned exclusively and immediately with the ushering in of socialism is theoretically erroneous. Further, 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.

Does the fact of communist-led state governments operating within a capitalist system and hence playing
host to private investment, necessarily entail that the communists have abandoned socialism? The media reactions to statements
by some West Bengal communist
leaders would suggest that the answer is a clear “yes”. But this is a non-sequitur. It is worth examining the issue theoretically, even if it involves restating
certain bread-and-butter theoretical
propositions.

A communist party is founded with the objective of achieving socialism. Its raison d’ĂȘtre 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 task of leading this revolution.

All this however presupposes that the democratic revolution, which the bourgeoisie
had led historically, 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 a compromise with imperialism as well in the context of third world societies.

People’s Democratic Rrevolution

The anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks of the democratic revolution in such societies
therefore cannot be completed by the bourgeoisie 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 third world communists have traditionally seen as the immediate historical task 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 thoroughgoing 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 thoroughgoing 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 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 neoliberalism 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 thoroughgoing 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 thoroughgoing 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.

The Immediate Task

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. But that is not all. 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 they are 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 communists, 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 these 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 communists (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 communist-ruled states, can damage the communists 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?

Struggle on Many Fronts

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
communist-
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 communist-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 recognises 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 one’s 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.

Party and Government

The critics of the communists 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 organisations, there is a difference between the party and the governments it leads, as indeed between these governments
and the Party’s front organisations.
These governments are formed in accordance with the provisions of a Constitution
which in turn was framed as 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 coterminus 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.

There may be reservations about the concrete policies of the communist-led state governments in India, but these are a separate matter; they must not be allowed
to cloud theoretical understanding.
On the contrary, theoretical clarity is essential for assessing the validity of such reservations.

Prabhat Patnaik is at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi, and is a leading Marxist economist.

Courtesy: EPW February 2, 2008

No comments: