Let Us Build a New India / SJP Political Resolution

Let Us Build a New India

( Political Resolution adopted at the National Conference of Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Varanasi, 11-12 June 2013)

The UPA Government recently celebrated the completion of its nine years. It was highlighted that this government has the distinction of the longest tenure since 1977.  If the period of Emergency is not counted in the tenure of Indira Gandhi(1966-77), soon Manmohan Singh will become the longest serving prime minister of  independent India after Jawahar Lal Nehru. It is an irony that the most corrupt and anti-people government of India is going to complete its second term and there has been no serious political challenge to it. It is also ironic that the person democratically ruling over the country for the second longest term is the one who does not have an independent personality or ideology, who has not been able to win a single direct election and who can not deliver a good speech in public meetings.  His Job is to implement policies of World Bank-IMF-USA in India. He can be reasonably called their agent.

This serious and pitiable state of affairs has arisen due to the decay of Indian politics. All the mainstream parties have become almost similar. There is not much difference in their policies, character and style of functioning. All of them are promoting the policies of capitalist globalization. The present political system has no real alternative. Not only BJP but other parties and leaders such as Nitish Kumar, Jaylalitha, Mayawati, Navin Patnaik, Akhilesh Yadav, Omar Abdullah have also disappointed the nation. The two personalities being projected as future prime minister of India, Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi, do not have any new vision. If elected, both will serve the interest of the business corporations and US imperialism, not the Indian people. Their development models are almost the same, the one which has already played havoc with the nation and its people. It is also clear that mere new blood in politics will not make any difference. What is needed is a new and radical vision, a leadership emerging from the people and dedicated to the people, and a mass movement for change.

Also needed is a new political culture and new style of functioning. Politics of existing mainstream parties is conducted from the top, it is detached and away from the people, and full with opportunism, dynasties and defection. It is devoid of any values or principles. These parties and their leaders use money, (mostly black money), muscle, caste and communalism to win elections. That is why the grip of capitalists and criminals over politics is increasing. It has become a vicious circle. Candidates spend crores of rupees in elections. When they get elected they try to earn many times more or favour those who have invested money in their elections. Elections have become a business and a gamble. Without breaking this vicious circle, Indian politics cannot deliver anything good. This vicious circle can be broken only with the mobilization of the masses, their organized power and big movements dedicated for change.

The great downfall of Indian Politics is indicated by a recent example. On the occasion of Parshuram Jayanti, all the political parties of Uttar Pradesh, the BSP, SP, BJP and Congress, organized grand Brahmin conferences. All the parties seemed to vie with each other to eulogize the Brahmin community. It is a pity, since BSP was originally established by Kanshiram as a movement against Brahminism and Manuism. Socialist Leader Ram Manohar Lohia was one of the chief exponents of the war against caste system.  

The newer parties are no different. Loksatta Party was formed recently by an ex-IAS officer. One of its candidates in the recent Karnataka Assembly election wrote against dalit reservation on his Facebook page. He also expressed his opposition to certain IPC sections which criminalized cruelty against women. Another candidate of the party expressed her fascination for RSS. A third candidate praised Narendra Modi in her Facebook update. When the updates became matter of embarrassment for the party, its president Dr Jayprakash Narayan removed the first candidate and asked the other two candidates to remove the objectionable contents from their Facebook profile. Thus merely bringing together different people with different ideas cannot create new politics. Rather a mutually consistent progressive ideology is required. No revolution can take place without an ideology.

Same is the case with the anti-corruption movement and the party emerging out of it. Corruption is a serious problem. But corruption is actually a symptom of a grave disease afflicting the society. We cannot treat a disease by merely treating its symptoms.  It is really surprising that the leaders and the exponents of the movement never felt it necessary to discuss and debate the roots of corruption. They did not organize even a single seminar on the issue. They are yet to take a clear stand on the issues of class and gender inequality, caste system, globalization or modern development model.

The Rise of the Middle Class

The rise of middle class is a matter of discussion these days. It is said that they will play a decisive role in Indian politics in coming days. The middle class has shown its strength in the anti-corruption movement and surge against 16 December gang rape incident in Delhi. Samajwadi Jan Parishad welcomes this new consciousness of the middle class. It indicates that the people are finally getting disillusioned with globalization. The crisis is getting so much widespread that even the middle class cannot remain silent and indifferent and they hit the streets.

SJP has maintained that a big revolutionary change cannot happen without the participation of the middle class. This class will be a source of many dedicated comrades and supporters. But few facts have to be kept in mind in this regard:

Firstly, the class that is labeled as middle class is actually not in the middle of the population. 75% of the country’s population lies below it. Hence statistically speaking, this middle class is actually a part of the upper class.

Secondly, it is a ‘virtual’ middle class and largely dependent on Internet for its mobilization. But 90% of Indian population is still outside the reach of Internet. The discussion on Internet has its own limitations. 95% of these discussions are in English. They are often full with caste and class prejudices. Still this new medium of communication has its own importance among the youth, and it should be used keeping in mind these limitations.

Thirdly, rise of middle class is mostly visible in the Metropolitan cities. Although the population of metropolitan cities has swelled considerably in recent times, but still it constitutes less than 10% of the country’s population. The conditions, circumstances and issues in the metropolitan areas, middle cities, small cities, towns, villages and tribal areas are quite different.

Only if the rising consciousness of the middle class aligns itself with the concerns and problems of farmers, workers, tribals, dalits and poor, it can serve as an agent of change. Today possibility of such a thing to happen is quite high but conscious effort is required. Further it is also clear that the major forces of change lie in the organization and struggles of the havenots, dalits, poor and other depressed classes. In absence of these forces the change will be incomplete and superficial.

Human Face of Globalization is not Possible

Recently UPA has started a chain of propaganda in the name of ‘Bharat Nirman’. It reminds us of a similar campaign of ‘India Shining’ by NDA government. Perhaps the UPA government is destined to a similar fate.

Central Government is projecting MNREGA, ICDS, Kasturba Kanya Vidyalayas and certain laws like Right to Education, Forest Rights Act, Right to Information Act, Domestic Violence Act and proposed Food Security Bill as its achievements. These programs and the laws may have achieved something. But even those who conceptualized and campaigned for them are getting disillusioned. This is indicated by the recent resignation of Aruna Roy from National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi. In fact, the problem is that the basic policies of the government are severely anti-people. The faulty development model combined with the capitalist globalization has promoted inequality, impoverishment, malnutrition, unemployment, inflation and displacement, besides destroying the environment. It has also taken the corruption to  a new height. The ill effects of the LPG policies are almost clear after the experience of the last two decades. Still the Government of India has refused to learn any lesson and is progressing on the suicidal path. To cover the ill effects of these policies and to give a human face to globalization such programs were launched. But the damage is so high that such small measures could provide no relief. It is very obvious that the capitalist globalization cannot have any human face.  Change in the basic policy of globalization is the only solution.

Capitalist Globalization and the development promoted by it is causing havoc to the lives of the people. The people are forced to struggle for their existence .Farmers are forced to commit suicide due to crisis in agriculture. People are fighting at Naiyamgiri, POSCO, Narmada Valley, Kundankulam, Lower Suktal,  Chutka, Manesar and many more places. The Governments are also supporting the companies to exploit the workers and crush them. The greatest evidence is the recent incident at Maruti Factory. The impact of so called labor reforms, outsourcing and contracting is that the real wages have actually decreased rather than increasing. The case of MNREGA is a typical example where the government itself is paying less than the statutory minimum wages. This is the real face of capitalism.

Ironically the ruling class of India which includes the leaders of the major national parties, bureaucrats and intellectuals are running after capitalism at such time when the countries lying at the top of the capitalism themselves are facing severe crises. The crisis that started in USA has now gripped Europe. Millions of people are protesting in these countries against the system. Innovative movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ are taking place. The Latin American countries that were once considered as backyard of USA are today protesting against globalization and American imperialism. The new experiments of socialism are taking place there. The important point here is that such changes are coming through ballot, not the bullet. Various ex-guerrilla leaders have today become elected members of the Government and are implementing policies in favor of the people. There may be some lacunas in the Latin American Model and due to differences in the circumstances, it cannot be replicated easily in other countries. But the important thing is that they raised new hopes and struggle for alternative to capitalism has gained new strength.

The Limitation of Democratic Revolutions

There were successful uprisings against dictators in Arab Countries like Tunisia and Egypt in recent times. But the newly elected government in Egypt is also clashing with the people. There has also been news of clash from Turkey. The most unfortunate condition prevails in South Africa where a number of mine workers were killed recently by the police. South Africa got its independence after a long struggle against apartheid.  But situation remained almost the same even after independence. Inequality, poverty and exploitation still prevail in South Africa.

The condition of Bangladesh is not very different. The factories manufacturing apparels for export are having accidents one after the other, killing hundreds and thousands of workers. The working conditions in these factories are very pathetic. In order to provide cheap goods to European countries and America the companies are involved in severe inhuman exploitation of the workers. In Bangladesh in the form of Sahbad Movement the Youth is rising against fundamentalist forces. They are demanding to put the convicts of 1971 Mukti Sangram to trial. But on the other side the common poor people of Bangladesh are showing support for Jamayte Islami. Awami Leag, the party in power in Bangladesh is like Indian National Congress of India. Both pretend to be a secular, but are surrounded by corruption and their economic policies are increasing the misery of the people.

Most of the South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Myanmar) is facing a similar dilemma. People fight for independence, they revolt against dictators, they remove anti-people governments, but still their miseries do not end. In such circumstances, they sometimes side with reactionary and fundamentalist forces.

In fact, democratic revolutions are important, and a step forward, but they are not enough. Along with these democratic revolutions,  the socio-economic structure and development model must also change. Then only the people will be liberated from misery and democracy will get stabilized.  To bring such a change the revolution has to fight against the forces of globalization and imperialism. The governments of Bangladesh, South Africa or India instead of opposing these forces act as their agents.

Socio-Religious Reform Movements

The rise of fundamentalism at the global level can also be seen in this context. When Western culture, capitalist globalisation and impearilism hurt the people, their identity and their culture, and progressive ideology and movements fail to provide a way out, then people seek refuge in religion and tradition. Fundamentalist forces use this opportunity .These forces are promoted by the vested interests, but it is also a failure of the progressive movements.

For a long time the leftist groups have criticized and rejected religion considering it reactionary. Something like religion is a need of the human society and its role is not always reactionary. Human beings cannot cut themselves from their tradition. That is why religion, tradition and culture should not be out rightly opposed, but their progressive elements and streams should be encouraged. An attempt is needed to purge them from hypocrisy, superstitions, obscurantism, communalism and inequalities.

 In other words, today there is a need for a socio- religious reform moment which will be part of the wider overall change.

Women and Caste    

  The incident of gang rape of a young lady in Delhi on 16 December 2012 gave rise to a new awareness on issues of crime against women and gender discrimination. Samajwadi Jan Parishad welcomes this. Perhaps for the first time women’s issues have become part of the mainstream discourse. But the feminist movement has to mobilize and involve women at the lower stratum of the society and join forces with the other movements of the poor and oppressed to carry forward this movement.

                 This is also true of the movements of Dalit and backward castes. Caste system is becoming more entrenched rather than weakening. Caste atrocities continue even today. The difference is that now depressed castes are organizing themselves (individually, rather than collectively) to bargain for electoral tickets and posts in governments or at best reservation for their caste. When such depressed caste leaders reach the top, they imitate Dvija leaders in amassing wealth, living a luxurious life, self-glorification and personality cult. Their style of functioning is no different.

 The original idea of Dalits, backwards, minorities, poor and women joining forces to break the stranglehold of the Brahminical system and the caste system has been lost somewhere. There is a need to revive it and to strengthen a holistic movement to build a new egalitarian society.

Language Question

 Samajwadi Jan Parishad supports the six months long agitation by Shyam Rudra Pathak to demand that the High Courts and the Supreme Court function in Indian languages. It is shameful that after 66 years of independence, a foreign language, language of our masters, is still ruling our country. The dominance of English has increased further in recent times. That is a cause of concern. Samajwadi Jan Parishad believes that English should be replaced by Indian languages, including those called dialects, the languages people really speak. Then only there will be true participation and empowerment of people and meaningful education.  There are many movements and campaigns for recognition and promotion of these local languages and dialects. SJP calls these groups to come together to strive to build a new India.

                 The privatization and commercialization of education, health and water has played havoc in the lives of the people. The opening of each and every aspect of our lives to the global market has caused grave problems and distortions. The IPL fixing scam is a recent example. Sports, education, knowledge, health, social service, religion, politics, nature, all are becoming victims of the forces of profiteering. People are fighting against them at various places and levels, but it is high time that they struggle jointly against the capitalist globalization.

The Time Is Now

Samajwadi Jan Parishad believes that this is a delicate and crucial moment for our country as well as the world. The crisis in capitalist civilization and the subsequent disillusionment has created an opportunity for working towards a new, better and egalitarian society. There are two important requirements for using this opportunity. One, clarity of thoughts and direction of the alternative. Due to the lack of the ideological clarity and a clear vision, many big movements have deviated from their goals and disintegrated.  Secondly, all people’s struggles, organizations, campaigns, groups and individuals should join together to build an all- India movement. They are agitating on different issues or campaigning or doing constructive work.  If they want their goals to be achieved, then they have to join forces to create a new system.

In the context of India, drawing inspiration from our independence movement, but at the same time going ahead of it, we have to launch another sort of independence movement, so that a new India can be built. This new India will be based on a new development model and values of equality, liberty, simplicity, democracy, diversity, plurality and decentralization. This struggle will necessarily be multi-dimensional, involve the participation of diverse groups at the grass root level, and will be broadly non-violent and democratic. Samajwadi Jan Parishad calls upon all patriotic and humanitarian individuals and groups to join together towards this goal.

Reflections on the SJP conference from Miriam Rose,Foil Vedanta,U.K

Reflections on the SJP conference from Miriam Rose, Foil Vedanta, UK.

Last week I attended the Samajwadi Jan Parishad biennial conference in Raj Ghat, Benares. I have been loosely connected to SJP for the last few years since we have been fighting the British Indian mining company Vedanta in London, where they are registered and supported by British institutions and banks. I had come to India on an emergency trip when the Supreme Court announced that gram sabhas in the Dongria villages would take the final decision on the proposed Niyamgiri mine. It was clear that this would be wide open to abuse and manipulation by the state and there was a call out to come and help monitor the process. I came from Odisha with my comrade Tilly to attend the meeting.

At the inaugural session I was asked to speak about our London group Foil Vedanta. I spoke about how Foil Vedanta formed from a group of grassroots activists who were fighting a variety of struggles against industry and neo-liberal policies. They are committed and unfunded activists from Trinidad, Iceland, India, Kenya, Israel and the UK who now live in or around London. As well as fighting their own struggles they come together as Foil Vedanta, feeling solidarity with those affected by this vicious mining company in India, Africa and elsewhere. We are an unfunded people's group fighting from our passion and sense of injustice. We do not work with NGOs and are adamant about that. They do not truly represent the people and their work only goes as far as their funding does. As a result their presence at the annual Vedanta AGM demonstration in London has dwindled to almost nothing in recent years.

We are in direct contact with communities affected by Vedanta across India, and now in Africa too, and respond immediately when violations occur or rallies happen, targeting the company and its supporters in London. We aim to make the struggles of those affected in India and Africa visible, not ourselves. We try to give direct and meaningful international solidarity in this way.

We also aim to link up isolated communities fighting Vedanta and similar struggles across India and worldwide- to share stories, tactics and resources and support each other. The grassroots to grassroots connection between localised struggles is so important and powerful.

I also stressed that we are not a single issue campaign, we also support like-minded struggles such as: Koodankulam, Lower Suktel dam, POSCO, the Tamil issue, Phulbari coal mine in Bangladesh, aluminium industry in Iceland, anti-smelter movement in Trinidad, and Alcoa struggle in Greenland. We also do cutting edge research on Vedanta and its supporters in London, and take part in academic debates on these issues. We are currently trying to get Vedanta de-listed from London Stock Exchange.

It is always hard to be white in Indian activist circles. People immediately think you are with an NGO, or are a well paid journalist or academic. They don't believe that people are full time unpaid activists in UK too. The news rarely covers our struggles, preferring a quote from Amnesty over direct actions of passionate activists.

After my speech people said they never knew people were fighting this way in the West. I answered that yes they are, but nothing like your Indian movements. Both myself, and my comrade Tilly who came to the conference have forged connections with Indian social movements because we find a level of commitment, integrity and ideological understanding which is rare in the West. I think this is partly because the injustice of 'development' and neoliberalism is directly felt by so many people here. It is a gut reaction to your personal experience. For many of us in the west our understanding is more intellectual and distant, so fewer of us break out of the false 'comfort' of the western materialist bubble and feel our rage at the inequitable nature of capitalism, and the horror stories of neo-colonialism.

Everyone we spoke to - from West Bengal, to Bihar, to Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Kerala - had incredible stories to share. Oriya farmers who had blockaded the Hirakud dam over diversion of water for industry, Bihari women smashing government liquor shops being pushed in their villages, struggles for fishing rights at Tawa reservoir, Madhya Pradesh, by those displaced by it 40 years ago, and of course our good friends in Odisha fighting hard at Niyamgiri and Sahara thermal power plant. The side story to all these great battles was one of financial hardship, police repression, imprisonment, family pressure, and family members being targeted by police and state. The reality of what it means to commit to working for the rights of oppressed people in India, gives me an ever deeper sense of respect for all those who sacrifice so much for this work.

As well as the grassroots stories, the political resolution and vision papers written by SJP's respected thinkers were so compelling and so astute in their analysis. I felt myself to be in the company of some truly revolutionary and brilliant people and wanted to soak as much of it in as possible. The mood of the conference felt joyful and full of fighting strength as we chanted and sang at the beginning and end of each session. I shared an old Pennsylvanian protest song too - about the devastation of coal mining in the 1950's - a process being repeated in India today. We don't sing or chant enough in our UK movements, and I am determined to change this - seeing from my experiences in India how important songs and poetry are to bring people together, to express our feelings of sadness, joy and defiance, and to energise ourselves.

The most overriding sense of the conference for me was the feeling of deep connection I felt to all of the participants. Though we come from different cultures, thousands of miles apart, there seemed to be an instant recognition and familiarity when our eyes met and we shared our stories. It felt like an implicit understanding that we are all committed to fighting injustice in this world, without funds, sometimes with difficult consequences, from our hearts. In the UK I very rarely find other activists who I really trust and respect, and I sometimes feel very isolated. Connecting with so many brilliant people at the Samajwadi Jan Parishad biennial felt like coming home, like being part of a big global activist family. For me this is so supportive and inspiring and will give me double the strength and energy to continue this work in the UK.

A heartfelt thank you to all our SJP comrades. Zindabad!

Only a total transformation can save the nation : Sunil , Vice President , Samajwadi Janaparishad

Press Statement

Only a total transformation can save the nation


Indian nation, while completing 10 years in the 21st century, is undergoing through many crises. It is marked with growing degeneration of politics, corruption reaching unprecedented heights, growing disparity, food crisis, growing unemployment, continuing large scale suicides of farmers and weavers, growing conflicts over natural resources (land, water, forest, minerals, fish, etc.), persisting and growing communal and ethnic conflicts, social tensions and the problems of terrorism and extremism. It is strange and tragic that in spite of a total failure in addressing and coping with these crises, the Indian rulers are boasting of becoming a superpower.

The roots of this decay, degeneration and crises are basically to be found in the departure and divergence from the ideals, policies and goals of the independence movement by the rulers of Independent India. Another point of departure came in 1991 when they further drifted away in the name of economic reforms and globalization.

The unprecedented growth in the volume and number of scams involving corruption, for example, is as much related to the policies of privatization, liberalization and deregulation as it is to the growing commercialization and monetization of Indian politics. Scandals and scams linked to Commonwealth games, Adarsh Housing Society in Mumbai, allocation of 2G telecom spectrum, allocation of land in Karnataka, etc. are only tip of the iceberg. The loot has been growing at all levels, as common Indians have been witnessing helplessly. It is an ugly face of unregulated and uncontrolled corporate capitalism. Growing hunger, malnutrition, unemployment, suicides, incidence of diseases etc are another face of it. Only an alternative socialist system with an alternative development model can save this nation. Samajwadi Jan Parishad calls for a democratic people’s movement for a total transformation of Indian society, polity and economy.

The problem of growing communal and ethnic tensions and intolerance can also be resolved only in such an alternative set-up. A respect for and recognition of diversity of language, culture and religious beliefs, an alternative development paradigm, and a decentralized governance system will be essential ingredients of this alternative system. The problems of Kashmir, North-East and Maoist violence have been aggravated by the use of military force, repressionary measures and misuse of power by central government. We also can not afford to ignore the fact that there can not be any military solution of the problems which are essentially political and systemic.

Recently, the historical fast by Ms. Irom Sharmila of Manipur has completed 10 years protesting against the repression and violation of human rights. It is a shame for our democracy. A nation of Gandhi does not have any concern and respect for Satayagraha and democratic means of protest. It is no surprise that people’s frustration is leading to violence and armed conflicts. It calls for an urgent need of democratic reforms. Plagued with high centralization of powers, huge gape between the people and the centres of power and growing use of money and muscle in politics, the current democratic set-up is unable to deliver the results. A radical decentralization, creation of direct democracy and other democratic reforms are the need of the hour.

Only with such radical transformation, we can build a new India, which will be able to fulfill the basic needs and aspirations of its people and solve the various crises. Only then it can again rise to the status of a global leader and guide (and not the superpower).

-Sunil
National Vice-President
Samajwadi Jan Parishad

November 26 , 2010.
Kannur ,Keralam.

Socialism of the New Century / Sunil

              Socialism of the New Century

                                          Sunil

[ Dear friends,
This is an article I prepared for a special issue of Janata weekly. Please read it and let me have your comments, criticism, suggestions etc. I will be happy if a fresh debate and discussion can be held on the issues and propositions laid out in this article. you may find some propositions too general or sweeping. some of them may need further elaboration and need to be substantiated further. There are limitations of a short essay. But I feel they are important and can't be rejected out-rightly. please forward it to others, if you feel so.
Yours sincerely,
Sunil ]

The tussle between capitalism and socialism as alternative visions of human society is not yet over. It is like the old fable of the race between a hare and a tortoise. At times one seems to be the winner. At other times the other seems to be leading. Capitalism is like the hare of the story. It looks fast, impressive and dynamic but after some time it is tired and resting with its own contradictions. In the end, we know it is the tortoise of socialism which will prevail. But that end is yet to be arrived at.

Capitalism looked supreme and unchallengeable in the latter decades of the past century. With the disintegration of USSR, reverting of China, Vietnam and many other communist countries to the path of capitalism, and downfall of social democracy in Europe, there was no challenge to capitalism. Thus ‘end of history’ was arrogantly announced. Market fundamentalism of Reagan and Thatcher varieties started ruling over the world. But soon many crises arrived. Ecological crisis with the dangers of climate change and global warming on the one hand, and the global financial crisis with the worst recession since the thirties on the other, shook the faith in the supremacy and immortality of capitalist civilization. Added to these were the growing crises of hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, violence and war. The number of hungry people in the world kept growing and crossed the figure of 100 cores in the first decade of the twenty first century i.e. every sixth person on the earth today remain underfed and starved. This is perhaps the biggest and the most glaring failure of capitalism. Even after more than two centuries of the industrial revolution and miraculous progress of science and technology, it is unable to fulfill even the most basic need of the humankind.

The twenty first century therefore started with new doubts about the supremacy, desirability and invincibility of capitalism. Search of alternatives began with new vigor. The word  ‘Socialism’ once again gained currency and became a talking point. But what kind of socialism? What does it mean? How is it different from what was experimented with in the last century which apparently failed ? There seems to be a lot of confusion.

In a way, we who want to change the world for a better tomorrow, are more fortunate than our predecessors in the last century. We have a longer history of capitalism before us to understand its functioning better. We also have the experiences of  communist–socialist experiments of the last century to learn from them. What are the main lessons? How do we look at them and analyze them ?  Are we wiser and more clear now ? Do we have better insights now?

Observations and Lessons from the Twentieth Century

We may note certain developments and lessons of the last century.

 1.    Capitalism did not transform the whole world in the way its supporters claimed and even Marx expected. Rather, it transformed the different parts of the world in different ways. To some, it brought prosperity, luxuries and high levels of consumption. To others, it has brought misery, hunger, poverty and unemployment. Capitalism has been kind and benevolent to one set of people but discriminating and destructive to another. The adverse effects of capitalism in large parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America did not prove to be transitional as expected, but have persisted, continued and deepened. The industrial revolution that took place in Western Europe and later in North America and Japan could not be repeated in other parts of the world. Even where the state actively helped and planned, industrialiasation could not take place to the extent of involving and employing a significant proportion of the population. That is true for USSR, China and India also. Even Marx was wrong when he saw in Western Europe the future mirror image of the rest of the world.

2.    Revolution  took place not in the most industrialized and capitalistically most developed countries of western Europe as was predicted by Marx, but in the countries that were relatively backward ( in capitalist  sense ) and less          industrialized. In countries like China, there was almost no industrial working class and it was totally a peasant revolution. This put a question mark on Marx’s expectation and prediction that industrial workers will be the ‘proletariat’ and the vanguard of the revolution.

3.    Trade Unions of organized / industrial workers everywhere developed a kind of economism and lost revolutionary zeal and urge for radical change. In the setting of most of the developing countries, their wages and salaries were much more than the rest of the population. They felt privileged and did not identify themselves with the  poor masses. A kind of ‘Labour aristocracy’ gradually developed in both rich and poor countries. The call of Marx and Engels for the workers of the world to write did not materialize. It has to be redefined and reformulated in the new context.

4.    Dictatorship of proletariat proved to be a misleading and dangerous concept that ultimately helped anti-socialist and opportunist elements. It arose from the mistaken belief that only industrial workers are capable of leading the revolution. Other sections of population such as peasants and artisans, not fully separated from their means of production, may have anti-revolutionary tendencies and at times may need to be disciplined to fall in line. This led to the enormous atrocities and repression on Russian peasantry in Stalin era. Such dictatorship and centralization of power was also necessary for the kind of industrialization (and military build up) the Soviet and Chinese rulers wanted to achieve requiring enormous level of capital accumulation and mobilization of resources. Another point to be noted is that violent revolutions have always led to some kind of dictatorship. Democracy could not be established after them.

5.    Private ownership of property was considered to be at the root of the evils of capitalism. But abolition of private property in communist countries did not do the (expected) trick. It was not sufficient for establishment of an egalitarian socialist society. One, there remained an attraction in the minds of the rulers for the kind of development achieved in western capitalist societies, and an attraction in the minds of the people for its consumerist life style. This proved to be a major source of weakness of communist regimes. The institution of property was abolished, but not the ‘Moha’ or attachment to the property and consumerism. Two, new hierarchies developed and the old ones (such as patriarchy) persisted. A surprising level of ethnic conflicts also emerged.

6.    The various experiments of social democracy in Europe, or mixed economy in countries like India, did not prove sustainable and suffered from many contradictions. A ‘welfare state’ without radically altering the basic structure of society and economy may not solve the problems and may not sustain for a long time.

7. The so-called ‘free trade’, attempts of industrialization and ‘export led growth’ in what are called ‘emerging economies’ such as China and India have brought new conflicts and crises. Many of them, at local, national and international level, relate to ‘Jal-Jungle-Jamin’ or minerals. In fact, for some time, natural resources have come to the centre stage. Major conflicts of the world relate to them. The impasse at WTO, for example, is mainly related to agriculture, a nature linked economic activity. Oil and natural gas are behind the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and threat to Iran. Peasant movements, movements against displacements, conflicts over land, water, oil and minerals etc. today make more news than workers’ strikes. Ecological problems of global warming and pollution are only one dimension of this crisis. Another equally important dimension (but ignored in the West-dominated discourse) is the continuous aggression against the people whose lives are still intimately linked to nature.

8. Imperialism did not come to an end with the independence of colonies after the Second World War. Rather it continued in neo-colonial forms through trade, aid and MNCs. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank (and similar banks for different continents), World Trade Organization etc. actively promote, help and sustain this imperialist unequal world order. It is also effectively helped by the military power of USA and its allied countries. The USSR and China also tried, though not very successfully, to imitate the imperialist military ways of USA.

9. Globalization is another phase of this imperialism. It is another name for removing all restrictions, and enhancing command of capital over resources of the world. Capitalism has an unending and ever-increasing lust for exploiting labour and extracting natural resources at world level. It cannot survive without that. The globalization of finance is just another mechanism of fulfilling their lust. The latest financial crisis of capitalism should be seen in this perspective. It is wrong to regard it essentially an internal crisis of USA and industrial capitalist camp, as some Marxist scholars have tries to do. (See for example, John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, ‘The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences’, Monthly Review Press, 2009).

10. The latest experiments of socialism are from Latin America which do not fit orthodox framework of the left. They have not abolished private property nor have they driven out MNCs. But they have attempted redistribution of land, tried to cut MNCs and big business to size, and increased state control of national resources and strategic industries. These regimes have come in conflict with organized sector workers and established trade unions, and have relied more on the support of poor people belonging to the informal sector. They have focussed on providing social services (education, health, ration etc.) to poor people and increased state budget significantly for them. They have opted for democracy and have successfully mobilized popular support for their reforms. Important experiments of local councils and workers’ management are also going on there. They have tense relations with USA. Natural resources, again, are at the root of this conflict and a rich endowment of oil, natural gas or minerals has proved a source of strength for them. An important development to note is about Cuba which has been forced, after the disintegration of USSR, to change its approach to modern technology and development. It has gone back from chemical to organic cultivations and from tractors to bullocks. This change has helped it in reducing its dependency and achieving self-sufficiency in food.

Analytical Implications and Insights  

The purpose of outlining these events, developments, tendencies and lessons is not just to prepare a list of them. It will be a futile exercise if we do not link, interconnect and integrate them in order to analyse them and enhance our theoretical understanding of capitalism and its possible alternatives. We have to see how they reflect on the existing theories and assumptions and what corrections are needed. Some of them were already hinted by various thinkers such as Gandhi, Lohia, Rosa Luxemburg, Andre Gunder Frank etc. and lately re-emphasized by Indian socialist thinkers like Sachchidanand Sinha, Kishen Pattanayak and Bagaram Tulpule. They are further confirmed by later developments. A new vision of socialism in the twenty first century can only be based on such an analysis and updating of our understanding.

One: One important source of misunderstanding has been the single minded focus on exploitation of workers in factories by their capitalist owners and regarding it as the main (or the only) source of surplus value. It was like Arjuna of Mahabharat who focussed only on the target of bird’s eye and did not see anything else. But the real dynamics of capitalism was never so simple. Another major source of surplus value, as pointed out by Lohia, has been the exploitation of colonial workers and peasants. Because of this exploitation, the workers of industrialized countries could get a share of it, albeit a small one and it became possible to postpone the conflict between workers and capitalists there indefinitely. Hence revolution did not take place there. This is also the factor behind labour aristocracy. Of course, Marx did take note of colonial plunder and loot and dwelt upon it in detail, but he did not integrate it into his analysis. It was like an after-effect of capitalism for him and not an integral and necessary element of it. One of his followers, Rosa Luxemburg, tried to draw attention towards this lacuna, but she remained mostly neglected and sidelined in the Marxist circles. Many of the Marx’s followers (like Paul Sweezy) still stick to this position that the main dynamic of capitalism is exploitation of workers within the capitalist society. But some Marxist economists from periphery like Andre Gunder Frank have, of course, challenged this orthodoxy.

Two: Another important source of surplus value and capital accumulation is nature, again noted by Marx but not given importance. From the beginning, the edifice of capitalism has been built on large scale loot and destruction of nature and natural resources. Displacement and deprivation of people whose life are linked with nature has accompanied it from the beginning. Marx noted it, but, alas, called it ‘primitive accumulation of capital’. But the adjective ‘primitive’ is misleading. The process has been continuously going out throughout the history of capitalism, in one form or the other, in one or the other parts of the world. It is not primitive or preliminary. It is still going on. Capitalism has fed on it. It cannot grow or survive without it. Some scholars have also pointed out that various forms of rent, and not profit, have been the main forms of surplus extraction in the history of capitalism (See Pranab Kanti Basu ‘Political Economy of Land Grab’. EPW, vol. XLII, no. 14, 2007). Elements of force, barbarism, domination and state supported monopoly have always been present behind the façade of the market.

The role of nature has also been neglected in the ‘labour theory of value’ propounded by Marx. While this theory rightly emphasized the role of labour in creation of value and wealth, it does not account for the contribution of nature. In fact, the present ecological crisis cannot be explained by sticking to labour theory of value.

Three: There are other forms of exploitation and hegemony such as patriarchy, race, Indian caste system, which jointly work with class and colonial exploitation. It was expected by both liberals and Marxists that Indian caste system, being a feudal institution, would gradually decline and die with the growth of capitalism, industrialization and modernization. It did not. Caste, class and patriarchy are interwoven and strengthen each other. It is erroneous to regard one of them as primary contradiction and others as ‘superstructure’. All have to be fought jointly and simultaneously. Moreover, blindly applying categories of  European history (such as feudalism) to the rest of the world may lead to misplaced assumptions, expectations and conclusions.

Four: Imperialism is not the last and the highest stage of capitalism as professed by Lenin. It is rather the first stage and an essential ingredient for the development of capitalism. Modern capitalist industrialization did not and cannot take place at any significant level without colonial or neo-colonial exploitation. Therefore, the option of modern industrialization is closed today for poor countries, unless one tries to build its own empire as China is currently trying to do.

It is futile to follow a similar path of industrialization and development in the non-industrial world. It will bring its own contradictions and crises. Colonial exploitation is so fundamental to modern industrialization that attempts to bring it about without external colonies have landed up creating internal colonies. But even they are not sufficient for it. It requires colonial or neo-colonial exploitation at global level, or at least a share of it. Internal colonies could sustain only a limited industrialization creating a few islands of development and prosperity in the vast ocean of poverty, misery and unemployment.

Industrial colonies can be of various kinds and are not necessarily geographical – backward and tribal regions, the countryside, agricultural sector, other primary sectors, the informal sector etc. Their relationship to the modern-urban-industrial sector of the economy is essentially a colonial one. The fact and concept of internal colony is also helpful in understanding many regional, ethnic and tribal conflicts of today.

This mutually reinforcing relationship between capitalism and colonialism-imperialism also implies that capitalism cannot grow (and cannot be looked at) in isolation within the boundaries of a single country. To use the phrase of Gunder Frank, ‘development’ in one part of the world is necessary linked to the ‘underdevelopment’ in large parts of the world. No underdeveloped country at the periphery can really develop unless it breaks away and frees itself from this capitalist-imperialist relationship.

Five: Modern economics teaches us that what is required for industrialization is capital and technology. Sometimes entrepreneurship is also added as a factor. It is argued that poor countries are lacking them and therefore they remain backward. Invitation to foreign capital and technology transfer will remove this lacuna. But the actual history showed that even that could not help many countries in transforming into industrial societies. Now, with growing conflicts, we get to know the industrialization also requires land, water, minerals and energy on a large scale. Such requirements and conflicts were earlier unnoticed because the adverse effects were outside the industrializing countries. The link was remote and not clear.

Actually, modern industrialization requires several things – (1) supply of raw materials at cheap rates, (2) large scale natural resources (land, water,

minerals, energy etc), free or at throw away price,(3) cheap food grain to keep the wages low, (4) cheap labour, (5) huge capital created by earlier exploitation and transfer of resources and (6) a large and growing market for its products. Many of these requirements go beyond the borders of a country. They are never fully met through pure market mechanism, though keeping terms of trade in favor of industries can be regarded as one. They are actually facilitated, subsidized and supported by the state, at times even police and military power. Displacing peasantry or other primary producers, as noted by Marx in the context of Enclosure movement in England of 16th and 17th century, serves two functions in the interest of industries. It makes land and raw material available on one hand, and provides cheap labour by creating reserve army of unemployed labour on the other. It is for these reasons that modern industrialization is necessarily linked to colonial (or neo-colonial or internal colonial) domination and exploitation.

Six: Modern industries are often justified, supported and promoted in the name of generating employment and removing unemployment. Followers of various political and ideological streams (except Gandhians and a few Lohiaites) have been holding this faith in modern industrialization. A model presented half a century ago by a western economist Arthur W. Lewis still dominates the economic discourse, which assumed that modern industrial sector will develop and absorb the surplus labour in agriculture. But this model ignores the historical fact that this surplus labour (i.e. unemployment) was precisely created by de-industrialization and destruction of traditional livelihood to support modern industries in other parts of the country or the world. Net effect of modern industries is not to create, but to destroy employment. It is more visible now with increasing mechanization, automation and modernization of industries.

It should also be noted that even industrial revolution did not solve the employment problem in Western Europe of those days. It was basically solved by large scale migration to the ‘new world’ and the other colonies. In India also, more than five decades of industrialization has been able to provide formal employment to not more than six percent of workforce of the country. How long will it take to provide respectable employment in industries to any significant proportion of the population? Isn’t it a mirage? Isn’t it a case of modern superstition?

Seven: A similar kind of blind faith is exhibited in case of technology. It is assumed that the technologies developed in western capitalist countries are suitable for the whole world, and everyone has to necessarily imitate and adopt them. Some kind of divineness and universality seems to be attached to modern technology and industrialization. Every country has to first go through capitalism and western kind of development. That will develop ‘productive forces’ and then only, it is argued, a transition to socialism can take place. (In this sense, development of capitalism was seen as a progressive event taking the country forward in the history). No one can bypass this stage. Even if countries like Russia and China have opted for communism, they have to go through the similar kind of industrialization. History of the rest of the world has to necessarily go the European way. A kind of historical determinism is behind this absurd, but persisting, faith. It is high time that it is reviewed, re-examined and corrected.

Eight: It is this kind of obsession with modern (western) technology, modern industrialization and modern development and its contradictions with equality and other socialist ideals that is mainly responsible for the failure of soviet and Chinese experiments of socialism. Most of the commentators have focused on and highlighted the fact of dictatorship, regimentation, development of ‘new class’ of bureaucrats, managers and party bosses etc. But these were not the fundamental reasons. They were only symptoms and by-product of a deeper disease that is, obsession with modern development and modern life style. But that could not be achieved without depressing and exploiting large sections of  the population. Hence came Stalinism. Lakhs of Russian peasants - the partners of revolution till the previous day – were killed, evicted, tortured and sent to Siberia or forced work in mines, railways or factories because they resisted forced levy of their products at low prices. Such tragedies are inherent in modern development, whether it is a capitalist or communist system. Alienation of workers, hierarchy and centralization of power are also inherent in modern industrial society. Any attempt to remove these evils has to look for alternative kind of industrialization and development.

Nine:  Democracy and socialism are inseparable and complimentary to each other. One is incomplete without the other. The phrase ‘democratic socialism” is a bit odd and the adjective is redundant, because there can not be an undemocratic socialism. Democracy is implied and necessary for any real socialism and vice versa. Perhaps it is used to differentiate and distance oneself from the communist regimes of USSR and China. But, as is clear now, they turned out to be neither socialist nor democratic.

Ten: An important element to make democracy and socialism real is decentralization of power, both in economic and political spheres. Small is not only beautiful, it is the only equitable, feasible and sustainable form of economic activity for a socialist society. To make democracy meaningful, it has to be brought to the grassroot, closer to the people, facilitating their active participation and empowerment. It should not be confused with the present Panchayati Raj in India, which is actually an extension of bureaucracy raj without curtailing the power of those at the top in any significant way.

It is also necessary to stress on self - reliance and localization for breaking away from the chains of imperial – colonial process at various levels. A respect for diversity (diverse cultures, languages, traditions and religions as well as bio–diversity ) is also a must for building a better world.

Eleven: Unlimited growth, unending wants, high level of consumption and labour–less luxurious life style are some of the goals that have been idealized, glamorized and glorified by modern civilization.  Private capitalists and corporations have promoted them through consumerist culture to boost their sales and profits. But even the communist rulers and intellectuals did not question these goals. There are at least three problems with them. One, This high consumption level cannot be available to the whole humanity. Rather it has been accompanied by growing disparity and deprivation of the  masses. Two,  even  where available and achievable , it has not made the life and society happier and healthier. It has brought its own distortions and social crises. Three,  it has brought the ecology and environment of the earth to the brink of disaster . The whole earth, for the first time, has become vulnerable for the luxuries of a few. It is estimated that if the whole population of the world is to achieve the US standard  of life, we shall need at least five earths.

Twelve: While the debate of violence v/s non violence is never-ending (it has become more a matter of faith than logic based on actual experience), it is a historical fact that long armed struggles, it successful, lead to centralized dictatorial regimes. It is natural because they have to organize themselves on military pattern where there is no scope for debate and differences. They are always amidst a war where obeying the commander without questioning is necessary. As Gandhi pointed out, means start influencing and determining the ends. Thus, democratic and broadly non-violent means suit the goal of socialism, although one should guard against co-option and dilution. The worlds of ‘radical’ and ‘violent’ should not be confused. Non-violent movements can also be quite radical and revolutionary.

New Face of Socialism

        With these observations and lessons from history, we can be now   surer and confident about how the Socialism will look like in the new century. It will certainly be not like state capitalism of USSR. No one would like to repeat the mistakes and horrors of the Stalin era. Nor will it be like ‘market socialism’ of Chinese variety, where socialist principles have disappeared and what has remained is a total subservience to world market added by one of the worst dictatorships of modern times. It will also not be the social democracy of Europe that has little relevance for the poor underdeveloped part of the world. Socialism cannot also be equated to mere nationalization and establishment of public sector in an otherwise capitalist setup, as we have seen its limitation and failure in India.

      Most of the leftists today reject all these past models of socialism, but they are not sure of what really ailed them? They are also not sure of what is the alternative path. There is a lot of discussion on forms of ownership and management. It is indeed important. But little attention is paid to the question of scale, technology, life style and development model, which have emerged as crucial factors. (See, for example , the recent took by Michael A. Lebowitz, ‘Build it Now : Socialism for the 21st Century’, Monthly Review Press, 2006 or a background note by Abhay Shukla prepared for a meeting on ‘Socialism in the 21st Century’, at Nagpur, in the last week of July 2010). The colonial question (with neo-colonial and internal colonial forms) also remains neglected and under-emphasized, and its full implications are not recognized.

It is clear now that socialism can be built only on an alternative model of development. We need radically different and alternative kind of industries, technology, life style and values than what have historically developed under capitalism. Small units, labor-intensive techniques, alternative energy, local management, respect for diversity and harmony with nature will be important elements of this development.

          The state of neglect and exploitation of agriculture and other primary sector activities should be reversed. Assisted by nature, they are the activities that really produce and create values. Industries only reshape and reform them. Services only circulate and redistribute the values created by agriculture and industry. But, while giving prime place to primary activities, we need vibrant industries too. The present state of total dominance of (and dependence on) agriculture in village life is, in fact, a distortion. It is a colonial legacy, continued after independence and intensified further.A significant part of the village population has to be diverted to industries. But those industries will be small unit, labour-intensive and mainly village based. Villages and small towns have to be again made centre of development. Mega-cities with large slums are unmanageable and unsustainable. Some of the highly developed urban civilizations like Indus Valley and Maya could not sustain themselves and disappeared. If we want to avoid the same fate, a kind of de-urbanisation has to be planned and promoted by providing employment, prosperity and basic facilities to villages.

         Dalit and women activists may not agree. They have a legitimate fear that they will never find an equal and respectable place in traditional village life. But then what is the option? Even after six decades of independence and planned development, large member of Dalits live in villages. In the cities, they are confined to slums. If we leave out reservations in jobs, which in any case can lift only a very small proportion of Dalit population and which are also now shrinking due to privatization, the place for Dalits in cities is only in slums and ill-paid informal jobs. At the time of independence, there were a number of factories in cities employing tens of thousands of workers such as textile mills of Mumbai. There was a hope that they would grow in number and Dalits and Shudras would get jobs in them and also a more egalitarian space. But even those hopes are shattered now. With growing mechanization, now there is no hope for providing respectable employment to Dalits and OBC in any significant number. There is no alternative but to struggle to transform the village society. Had Ambedkar been alive today, he would have perhaps reconsidered his call to Dalits to leave village. He would have certainly opposed the modern development and globalization which has destroyed village industry, handicrafts and traditional livelihoods affecting Dalits and Shudras the most.

          Moreover, villages in a socialist society will not be the same traditional village. Struggle to build a new society may get it transformed with less hierarchy, more equality and more freedom.

          Each village and its Gram Sabha should be given autonomy and full powers to run the village administration and decide about their daily life matters including ‘Jal-Jungle-Jamin’, but adequate legal protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights of every resident including those belonging to weaker sections should be ensured. Most of the powers of central and state governments should be transferred to a district level elected government along with village and town councils. State will perhaps never wither away, but it can be radically decentralized, democratized, cut to size, and brought closer to people. Direct democracy should replace present indirect and incomplete democracy in India whose failures are too apparent to be ignored.

         The dilemma of public vs. private sector cannot be resolved without reference to the question of model of development. There is a third alternative of ‘people’s sector’ meaning ownership and management by community, but that is possible only when the structure of economy is decentralized and the forces of consumerism (promoting greed and individualism) are effectively banned. (1) If there are very few large units and the economy is mostly dominated by cottage, mini and small units of industries and services, they can be allowed to remain in private hands with strict discouragement to the tendencies of concentration and monopoly. An upper limit can be fixed to income, salaries, wealth and property as is done in India in case of agricultural landholding. There will be certainly no place for MNCs and big corporations and their harmful advertisements in a new society. Large units, if unavoidable, can be managed by workers with society retaining overall control. We can learn a lot in this matter from ongoing experiments of co-management and co-operation in Latin America. (2) In case of agriculture, collective farms and state ownership of land is not advisable but cooperation in various forms is. Collective use and ownership of natural resources (other than land) should be promoted, and we can learn from already existing (but now threatened) traditional forms of them. Absentee land ownership should be banned and ‘land to the tiller’ should be the norm. It should be noted that equal distribution of agricultural land among all rural families in India would be a foolish act making landholdings very small and uneconomic. (It may be a different case in other countries where population density is low and there are big landlords owning thousands of acres of land). Existing inequality in Indian countryside, conflicts over land, and the problem of high attachment to land can be removed and resolved only by industrializing the countryside and diverting a significant part of rural population to non-agricultural occupations.

        After the experience of communism, we may not completely do away with market. It is also not necessary. Market may remain, but its powers should be taken away. It should serve as a servant of the society, and not the master. It should be controlled and guided in the interest of society. Markets should be more localized, competitive and equal. The poor countries of the world have to certainly break away from the present chain of intentional trade, investment and finance which is unequal, dominating, exploiting, crises-creating and a tool of imperialism. Trade and cooperation among the poor countries is preferable. ‘Exchange among the equals’ should be the guideline.

        But there should be no market and no business of certain things like water, education and health. Allowing market for them means limiting access to them to the rich and denying the poor. It is inhuman and barbaric. Even if we allow a limited inequality of income (Lohia suggested that the ratio of maximum to minimum income should not be more than 10:1), there should be no discrimination in case of education, health, food, nutrition etc. A minimum of basic necessities should be ensured for everyone. Society and the state (including local governments) have to take up that responsibility. Cuba can be a modal for this. Is has the best health service in the world, completely funded by the state. If a low-income, tiny island nation can do it, why not other countries?

       If there are multiple sources of domination and exploitation in a capitalist system, the struggle against it also has to be fought by heterogeneous and diverse forces jointly. Unorganized and informal workers, peasants, artisans, fisherman, cattle growers, tribals, Dalits coloured people, women, hawkers, displaced communities and such other victims of the system have to combine and fight together. It is not easy, but there is no other way. Because of this diversity and heterogeneity also, the struggle has to be democratic, participatory, non-dominating, broadly non-violent and with a collective leadership.

       These are some of the broad principles, guidelines and hints for building a socialist society in the new century which emerge from the past experience. All details need not be chalked out in advance and should be left to the people to decide in the course of the struggle and construction.

          ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’ were the ideals of French Revolution which inspired revolutionaries for last two centuries. Now in the twenty first century, other principles of decentralization, diversity, self-reliance, simple life and non-violence have to be added to them. And that will define the socialism of the new century.

                                                                           (email: sjpsunil@gmail.com)

                                             ___________________                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                       The author is the national vice-president of Samajwadi Jan Parishad and can be contacted at:

Postal address: Village & Post Kesla, Via: Itarsi, Dist: Hoshangabad, MP 461 111.

Phone: 094250 40452.

E-mail: sjpsunil@gmail.com