[Reader-list] Prof Prabhat Patnaik's aticle on the socialist path of development and WB Govt.

[prakash ray]

Dear all,

The recent remarks by CPI(M) leaders on the socialist path of development
and Bengal Government's policies have provided one more opportunity to the
media and the anti-left elements to attack  the party  and the Bengal Govt.
I would like to share an article by Prof  Prabhat Patnaik on the issue (
http://www.pragoti.org/pragoti/news_detail.php?news_id=519).

Regards,
Prakash

The CPI(M) and the Building of Capitalism
--Prabhat Patnaik

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.


(http://www.pragoti.org/pragoti/news_detail.php?news_id=519)