Wednesday, November 25, 2020
ഓട്ടൻതുള്ളൽ | നാടുണരുമ്പോൾ | പുകസ പാലക്കാട് | കലാമണ്ഡലം ശ്രീജ | സർഗാത്മക...
ഓട്ടൻതുള്ളൽ | നാടുണരുമ്പോൾ | പുകസ പാലക്കാട് | കലാമണ്ഡലം ശ്രീജ | സർഗാത്മക...
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What is the role of government?
by: John Bachtell
When Barack Obama was elected president, he stressed the history-making election victory was "not the change we seek but the opportunity to make that change." Being elected, it turns out, is only half the battle.
Once elected, officials must legislate and then it's up to the institutions of government to implement policy.
The role of government and its ability to make a difference in people's daily lives is not a question the progressive or democratic movement can take lightly. This question was at the heart of the health care reform battle.
Government is not a classless concept. Under capitalism, monopoly corporations dominate government policy and its institutions. U.S. capitalism has developed to such a stage that corporations and finance capital and government are fully integrated into the state. Marxists call it state-monopoly capitalism.
At the level of postal service, sanitation, water, fire, policy and emergency response - the question is not whether government or not. (Although there are battles of privatization and budget cuts.) But on issues big and small, the question is government for whom - Wall Street and multinational corporations or the people?
For 30 years the extreme right wing and Republicans have been doing every thing in their power to dismantle the part of government that addresses people's needs, and protects them from the worst corporate exploitation and discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
Grover Norquist, co-author of the Republican "Contract with America" famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
The Republicans carried out a strategy over the past 30 years of deliberately running up massive deficits to bankrupt government and force massive cuts in social spending and the elimination of social programs. The Tea Party movement and its ""Contract For America" is a logical extension of this.
At the same time Wall Street, and the Republican ultra right were obliterating corporate regulation and turning government into an instrument for unrestrained exploitation.
Even while the Republicans were calling for an end to big government, they were enriching the military corporations with exploding military budgets, subsidizing corporate profits, aiding outsourcing, bolstering government intrusion into privacy, wiretapping and stomping on basic constitutional rights.
We are entering a new era of potentially widespread reform, with a president who has a different attitude toward the role of government. It's complicated because the Obama administration reflects the coalition that elected him and there are pressures from all directions - powerful sections of monopoly capital vies with a labor-led mass people's coalition and movements to seek advantage.
Government is an arena of the class struggle. Whenever government actually serves the interests of people it is the result of bitterly fought battles. This is true at all levels, from federal government to local school councils.
The broad labor-led democratic movements will have to win power at neighborhood, city, state and federal levels to transform government to favor the multi-racial, multi-national people's interests. Those of us living in Chicago can attest to that. The election of Harold Washington as mayor initiated a brief era of unprecedented reform in city government that is being felt to this day.
One of the biggest hurdles in the health care reform fight was whether people had confidence government could administer health care. With the victory the battle now shifts to implementation.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the programs, have been without an administrator since October 2006. Obama is appointing Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor of pediatrics and health care policy at Harvard medical School, renowned for his efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of health care.
The health care law's implementation, plus the battle for the role of government, are issues in the fight to extend reform to the public option, Medicare buy-in or a single-payer system and so the current reform must succeed.
People are often of two minds when it comes to government. They appreciate social services and any protections from corporate exploitation, racial or gender discrimination. But people's faith in government has eroded in the face of the constant anti-government ultra-right ideological barrage, and the actions of the state itself. A recent Pew poll found a majority agreed the government is "so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."
Ineffective -- and repressive -- government also erodes confidence. The flood of big money into elections and lobbying, waste and corruption also turns off people. People become cynical when incompetent right wing ideologues are placed in positions of authority ruin and loot departments. The most notorious example is FEMA under "Heck-of-a-job" Brownie, who oversaw the disaster in New Orleans.And when government is repressive -- from Supreme Court decisions that take the side of corporations to political prisoners and witchhunts to police brutality and trampling on constitutional rights --those actions also erode confidence.
If we are to embark on an era of reform, the role of government and its ability to effectively serve the interests of the people will be at the heart of the battle.
Article courtesy: www.peoplesworld.org
by: John Bachtell
When Barack Obama was elected president, he stressed the history-making election victory was "not the change we seek but the opportunity to make that change." Being elected, it turns out, is only half the battle.Once elected, officials must legislate and then it's up to the institutions of government to implement policy.
The role of government and its ability to make a difference in people's daily lives is not a question the progressive or democratic movement can take lightly. This question was at the heart of the health care reform battle.
Government is not a classless concept. Under capitalism, monopoly corporations dominate government policy and its institutions. U.S. capitalism has developed to such a stage that corporations and finance capital and government are fully integrated into the state. Marxists call it state-monopoly capitalism.
At the level of postal service, sanitation, water, fire, policy and emergency response - the question is not whether government or not. (Although there are battles of privatization and budget cuts.) But on issues big and small, the question is government for whom - Wall Street and multinational corporations or the people?
For 30 years the extreme right wing and Republicans have been doing every thing in their power to dismantle the part of government that addresses people's needs, and protects them from the worst corporate exploitation and discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
Grover Norquist, co-author of the Republican "Contract with America" famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
The Republicans carried out a strategy over the past 30 years of deliberately running up massive deficits to bankrupt government and force massive cuts in social spending and the elimination of social programs. The Tea Party movement and its ""Contract For America" is a logical extension of this.
At the same time Wall Street, and the Republican ultra right were obliterating corporate regulation and turning government into an instrument for unrestrained exploitation.
Even while the Republicans were calling for an end to big government, they were enriching the military corporations with exploding military budgets, subsidizing corporate profits, aiding outsourcing, bolstering government intrusion into privacy, wiretapping and stomping on basic constitutional rights.
We are entering a new era of potentially widespread reform, with a president who has a different attitude toward the role of government. It's complicated because the Obama administration reflects the coalition that elected him and there are pressures from all directions - powerful sections of monopoly capital vies with a labor-led mass people's coalition and movements to seek advantage.
Government is an arena of the class struggle. Whenever government actually serves the interests of people it is the result of bitterly fought battles. This is true at all levels, from federal government to local school councils.
The broad labor-led democratic movements will have to win power at neighborhood, city, state and federal levels to transform government to favor the multi-racial, multi-national people's interests. Those of us living in Chicago can attest to that. The election of Harold Washington as mayor initiated a brief era of unprecedented reform in city government that is being felt to this day.
One of the biggest hurdles in the health care reform fight was whether people had confidence government could administer health care. With the victory the battle now shifts to implementation.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the programs, have been without an administrator since October 2006. Obama is appointing Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor of pediatrics and health care policy at Harvard medical School, renowned for his efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of health care.
The health care law's implementation, plus the battle for the role of government, are issues in the fight to extend reform to the public option, Medicare buy-in or a single-payer system and so the current reform must succeed.
People are often of two minds when it comes to government. They appreciate social services and any protections from corporate exploitation, racial or gender discrimination. But people's faith in government has eroded in the face of the constant anti-government ultra-right ideological barrage, and the actions of the state itself. A recent Pew poll found a majority agreed the government is "so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."
Ineffective -- and repressive -- government also erodes confidence. The flood of big money into elections and lobbying, waste and corruption also turns off people. People become cynical when incompetent right wing ideologues are placed in positions of authority ruin and loot departments. The most notorious example is FEMA under "Heck-of-a-job" Brownie, who oversaw the disaster in New Orleans.And when government is repressive -- from Supreme Court decisions that take the side of corporations to political prisoners and witchhunts to police brutality and trampling on constitutional rights --those actions also erode confidence.
If we are to embark on an era of reform, the role of government and its ability to effectively serve the interests of the people will be at the heart of the battle.
Article courtesy: www.peoplesworld.org
Limited government: good in 1787, a fraud today
by: Lou Incognito
by: Lou Incognito
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the passage of health care reform "not a baby step or half measure," but "a solid step forward." The AFL-CIO leader said that the reform measure "survived a $100 million lie and distortion campaign by Big Insurance to kill it, the same kind of scare tactics these groups have aimed at health care proposals for six decades." While labor saw health reform as a step toward single-payer Medicare for All, the "limited government" Republicans saw it differently. The GOP took to court its arguments that health care legislation 1) is unconstitutional, 2) is too costly, and 3) infringes on our freedoms. Despite the hypocritical "limited government" claims, the lawsuits are not only without merit, but also raised at taxpayer expense.
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the Industrial Revolution had not begun. Corporations were chartered and went out of existence when their assigned tasks were completed. Trade unionism was in its infancy, pollution was unknown, and health care was at a primitive stage. Rather than unemployment, there was a labor shortage. Also, the frontier was still open. As the Industrial Revolution developed, even Thomas Jefferson had to revise his thinking. Jefferson called for a limited government until he saw the harm in failing to restrict, and even eliminate, profit-seeking corporations. In 1816, he wrote about the growth of corporate power in England, "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
To shield "that aristocracy of monied corporations" from taxes and regulations, today's ultra-right Republican Party continues to use "limited government" against the nation's best interests. In particular, since there is no mention of health insurance in the Constitution, the GOP claims health care reform, the public option, and Medicare for All are unconstitutional. Even Medicare would be unconstitutional by current GOP standards. Such claims are historically and morally incorrect. An 1819 Supreme Court decision, authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, defined Congress's implied powers: That body (Congress) is to "perform the highest duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." Those words remain law.
Ultra-right Republicans advance a second, also fraudulent, argument for limited government (at taxpayer expense). They claim that the costs of health care and other social programs are too large and increase the federal deficit. What they are not telling us is that corporate waste alone would cover national health care without adding to the deficit, according to numerous government studies. The federal deficit would be eliminated if tax loopholes were eliminated and tax rates were so steeply progressive that Warren Buffett would have a tax rate that is not lower than his secretary's tax rate, as it is now, but many times higher.
Republican claims that federal programs mean loss of innovation are also hollow. The main researchers and innovators are paid by the federal government. In its 2008 platform the Republican Party admitted the contribution of the federal government: "We support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research. This commitment will maintain America's global competitiveness, advance innovative science that can lead to medical breakthroughs, and turn the tide against diseases affecting millions of Americans - diseases that account for the majority of our health care costs."
The third charge that the Republicans are bringing to court (at taxpayer expense) is that health care reform violates our freedoms. The new mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is "the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember," said South Carolina Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. He is among more than a dozen state attorneys general who have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the mandate unconstitutional because it is "an unprecedented encroachment" on the rights of individuals and the states by the federal government. However, he failed to mention the Republicans who have proposed health care mandates.
When the Nixon administration called for an employer mandate to provide health coverage for employees, there were no "violation of freedom" cries. In 1993, Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kan., sponsored a bill that would have required individuals to purchase health insurance. Mitt Romney, the Republican former presidential candidate and governor of Massachusetts, said mandates were in keeping with conservative ideology. Even the Heritage Foundation called individual mandates a "daring free-market reform."
Despite the bluster, the insurance purchase requirement would be unnecessary under single-payer Medicare for All.
If limited government were in force there would be no child labor laws, no anti-monopoly laws, no labor rights, no civil rights, and no women's rights - and be no traffic laws. People would be poisoned by contaminated food and unsafe medicine. There would be no environmental protection. The Republican governor of New Jersey cut taxes for the wealthy recently - that will cost the average New Jersey family a $1,700 local tax increase to preserve essential services. A vote for limited government is not a vote "most beneficial to the people."
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the Industrial Revolution had not begun. Corporations were chartered and went out of existence when their assigned tasks were completed. Trade unionism was in its infancy, pollution was unknown, and health care was at a primitive stage. Rather than unemployment, there was a labor shortage. Also, the frontier was still open. As the Industrial Revolution developed, even Thomas Jefferson had to revise his thinking. Jefferson called for a limited government until he saw the harm in failing to restrict, and even eliminate, profit-seeking corporations. In 1816, he wrote about the growth of corporate power in England, "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
To shield "that aristocracy of monied corporations" from taxes and regulations, today's ultra-right Republican Party continues to use "limited government" against the nation's best interests. In particular, since there is no mention of health insurance in the Constitution, the GOP claims health care reform, the public option, and Medicare for All are unconstitutional. Even Medicare would be unconstitutional by current GOP standards. Such claims are historically and morally incorrect. An 1819 Supreme Court decision, authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, defined Congress's implied powers: That body (Congress) is to "perform the highest duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." Those words remain law.
Ultra-right Republicans advance a second, also fraudulent, argument for limited government (at taxpayer expense). They claim that the costs of health care and other social programs are too large and increase the federal deficit. What they are not telling us is that corporate waste alone would cover national health care without adding to the deficit, according to numerous government studies. The federal deficit would be eliminated if tax loopholes were eliminated and tax rates were so steeply progressive that Warren Buffett would have a tax rate that is not lower than his secretary's tax rate, as it is now, but many times higher.
Republican claims that federal programs mean loss of innovation are also hollow. The main researchers and innovators are paid by the federal government. In its 2008 platform the Republican Party admitted the contribution of the federal government: "We support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research. This commitment will maintain America's global competitiveness, advance innovative science that can lead to medical breakthroughs, and turn the tide against diseases affecting millions of Americans - diseases that account for the majority of our health care costs."
The third charge that the Republicans are bringing to court (at taxpayer expense) is that health care reform violates our freedoms. The new mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is "the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember," said South Carolina Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. He is among more than a dozen state attorneys general who have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the mandate unconstitutional because it is "an unprecedented encroachment" on the rights of individuals and the states by the federal government. However, he failed to mention the Republicans who have proposed health care mandates.
When the Nixon administration called for an employer mandate to provide health coverage for employees, there were no "violation of freedom" cries. In 1993, Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kan., sponsored a bill that would have required individuals to purchase health insurance. Mitt Romney, the Republican former presidential candidate and governor of Massachusetts, said mandates were in keeping with conservative ideology. Even the Heritage Foundation called individual mandates a "daring free-market reform."
Despite the bluster, the insurance purchase requirement would be unnecessary under single-payer Medicare for All.
If limited government were in force there would be no child labor laws, no anti-monopoly laws, no labor rights, no civil rights, and no women's rights - and be no traffic laws. People would be poisoned by contaminated food and unsafe medicine. There would be no environmental protection. The Republican governor of New Jersey cut taxes for the wealthy recently - that will cost the average New Jersey family a $1,700 local tax increase to preserve essential services. A vote for limited government is not a vote "most beneficial to the people."
Article Courtesy: www.peoplesworld.org
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Communists must unite to provide solutions to the burning problems
Lal Singh (General Secretary, Communist Ghadar Party of India)
"Revenge-seeking is a narrow minded mentality that is causing great harm to the cause of the Indian communist movement", said Comrade Lal Singh, General Secretary of Communist Ghadar Party of India, addressing party members and supporters in different cities. These meetings have been held to discuss the state of the communist movement and the necessity to restore the unity of Indian communists.
Principled unity among communists is urgently needed today, as the working class faces heightened attacks on its livelihood and rights. The toiling masses of India are facing an aggressive big bourgeoisie that wants to race ahead of many other capitalist states and join the big league of imperialist powers of the world. At the base of this Indian imperialist strategy is the intensification of exploitation and plunder of the land and labour of the workers and peasants.
The second edition of Congress Party led government with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister has unleashed a campaign of state terror and repression in the name of wiping out terrorists, extremists and insurgents. This campaign is aimed at all communists and revolutionaries. It is aimed at all organisations and all sections of the people who are opposing the bourgeois offensive and fighting in defence of their livelihood and rights.
The situation calls for a mature and united response on the part of Indian communists. At such a time, for parties that call themselves communist to be organising street demonstrations against one another, fighting violently and killing each other's members and supporters, is to cause enormous damage to the name and cause of communism.
In the course of discussing the impact of the recent developments in Lalgarh, West Bengal, Comrade Lal Singh pointed out that communists must never lose sight of their main aim and target. Our main aim is to lead the working class in the struggle to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and establish the rule of those who toil. The aim of worker-peasant rule will be to carry out the transformation from capitalism to socialism, eliminating all forms of exploitation of one person by another. The ultimate goal is to build a classless communist society. The immediate actions of communists must be consistent with the strategic aims of the movement.
Communists cannot and must not become managers of bourgeois rule. A communist party must not merge with the existing state power. It must inspire, mobilise and enable the workers, peasants, women and youth to organise and fight to establish a new political order in which they, the toiling majority, are the rulers. at the same time, communists must not fall for the line of individual acts of terror as the means of bringing about revolution. Revolution is not brought about by individual heroes. It can only be brought about by millions of workers and peasants, acting as organised detachments of one mighty political force.
Factional infighting is an old disease in the Indian communist movement from its very inception in the 1920's. Within the central leadership of the communist party, different groups acted as factions, conspiring against each other and justifying it. They did not follow the principled method of taking the disagreement to higher forums for resolution through democratic discussion, up to and including the Congress of the party.
When major disagreements emerged in the undivided Communist Party of India in the 1960s, for instance, there were leaders who formed their own faction and acted as if the main enemy is the other faction, not the bourgeoisie in power. Once two factions start fighting each other as if this is the class struggle, the unity of the communist movement gets damaged and the working class and people suffer a setback as a result.
Revenge-seeking has been a by-product of these factional fights. Different factions have justified using whatever means possible to get back at the 'enemy' faction. They have justified collaborating with the bourgeois state, handing over names of rival party activists to the police, using the court to get opponents into trouble, as well as unleashing violence to crush the opponent. Defaming those who disagree by calling them class enemies, police informers or state agents has become a widespread practice in the communist movement. Killing members of a rival faction or party gets promoted as "just revenge" for "what they did to us". There is no end to such revenge seeking, which keeps the broad masses of people away from politics, and makes them suspicious and afraid of communists. Such infighting serves the ruling bourgeoisie to maintain its rule and keep the working class divided and politically impotent.
Comrade Lal Singh reiterated that there is one communist movement, not many. The working class needs one united communist party at its head, not many parties pulling in different directions.
Even though the communist movement is plagued with serious internal differences, we must never forget that in the eyes of the broad masses of workers and peasants, any party that has communist in its name and waves the red flag is communist. The action of any party or group that calls itself communist has an impact on all communists without exception. This creates a complex situation. Communists must respond to this situation by seeking to politically restore the unity of the movement, by sorting out the line and program around which we must unite and harmful tendencies that we must shed. We must reject and oppose the use of violence as a method of sorting out differences within the movement.
The real division that needs to become clear to all is the political division between those who want to preserve the existing state and those who want to put an end to it and begin afresh, with a new state of workers and peasants.
The times are calling on all communists to engage in serious discussion and debate cutting across party lines, on the political line and program around which the unity of communists must be forged today. If communists frankly express their thoughts and share their experience, listen to each other, and continue to discuss seriously and repeatedly, without striking arrogant postures or engaging in name calling, then we can collectively find the solution to the problem. This was the key message that emerged from the discussions.
Everyone who participated in these meetings left the hall in a deeply reflective mood, with a deeper appreciation of the challenging situation and the necessity to act with communist maturity and courage.
Article courtesy: www.cgpi.org
Lal Singh (General Secretary, Communist Ghadar Party of India)
"Revenge-seeking is a narrow minded mentality that is causing great harm to the cause of the Indian communist movement", said Comrade Lal Singh, General Secretary of Communist Ghadar Party of India, addressing party members and supporters in different cities. These meetings have been held to discuss the state of the communist movement and the necessity to restore the unity of Indian communists.
Principled unity among communists is urgently needed today, as the working class faces heightened attacks on its livelihood and rights. The toiling masses of India are facing an aggressive big bourgeoisie that wants to race ahead of many other capitalist states and join the big league of imperialist powers of the world. At the base of this Indian imperialist strategy is the intensification of exploitation and plunder of the land and labour of the workers and peasants.
The second edition of Congress Party led government with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister has unleashed a campaign of state terror and repression in the name of wiping out terrorists, extremists and insurgents. This campaign is aimed at all communists and revolutionaries. It is aimed at all organisations and all sections of the people who are opposing the bourgeois offensive and fighting in defence of their livelihood and rights.
The situation calls for a mature and united response on the part of Indian communists. At such a time, for parties that call themselves communist to be organising street demonstrations against one another, fighting violently and killing each other's members and supporters, is to cause enormous damage to the name and cause of communism.
In the course of discussing the impact of the recent developments in Lalgarh, West Bengal, Comrade Lal Singh pointed out that communists must never lose sight of their main aim and target. Our main aim is to lead the working class in the struggle to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and establish the rule of those who toil. The aim of worker-peasant rule will be to carry out the transformation from capitalism to socialism, eliminating all forms of exploitation of one person by another. The ultimate goal is to build a classless communist society. The immediate actions of communists must be consistent with the strategic aims of the movement.
Communists cannot and must not become managers of bourgeois rule. A communist party must not merge with the existing state power. It must inspire, mobilise and enable the workers, peasants, women and youth to organise and fight to establish a new political order in which they, the toiling majority, are the rulers. at the same time, communists must not fall for the line of individual acts of terror as the means of bringing about revolution. Revolution is not brought about by individual heroes. It can only be brought about by millions of workers and peasants, acting as organised detachments of one mighty political force.
Factional infighting is an old disease in the Indian communist movement from its very inception in the 1920's. Within the central leadership of the communist party, different groups acted as factions, conspiring against each other and justifying it. They did not follow the principled method of taking the disagreement to higher forums for resolution through democratic discussion, up to and including the Congress of the party.
When major disagreements emerged in the undivided Communist Party of India in the 1960s, for instance, there were leaders who formed their own faction and acted as if the main enemy is the other faction, not the bourgeoisie in power. Once two factions start fighting each other as if this is the class struggle, the unity of the communist movement gets damaged and the working class and people suffer a setback as a result.
Revenge-seeking has been a by-product of these factional fights. Different factions have justified using whatever means possible to get back at the 'enemy' faction. They have justified collaborating with the bourgeois state, handing over names of rival party activists to the police, using the court to get opponents into trouble, as well as unleashing violence to crush the opponent. Defaming those who disagree by calling them class enemies, police informers or state agents has become a widespread practice in the communist movement. Killing members of a rival faction or party gets promoted as "just revenge" for "what they did to us". There is no end to such revenge seeking, which keeps the broad masses of people away from politics, and makes them suspicious and afraid of communists. Such infighting serves the ruling bourgeoisie to maintain its rule and keep the working class divided and politically impotent.
Comrade Lal Singh reiterated that there is one communist movement, not many. The working class needs one united communist party at its head, not many parties pulling in different directions.
Even though the communist movement is plagued with serious internal differences, we must never forget that in the eyes of the broad masses of workers and peasants, any party that has communist in its name and waves the red flag is communist. The action of any party or group that calls itself communist has an impact on all communists without exception. This creates a complex situation. Communists must respond to this situation by seeking to politically restore the unity of the movement, by sorting out the line and program around which we must unite and harmful tendencies that we must shed. We must reject and oppose the use of violence as a method of sorting out differences within the movement.
The real division that needs to become clear to all is the political division between those who want to preserve the existing state and those who want to put an end to it and begin afresh, with a new state of workers and peasants.
The times are calling on all communists to engage in serious discussion and debate cutting across party lines, on the political line and program around which the unity of communists must be forged today. If communists frankly express their thoughts and share their experience, listen to each other, and continue to discuss seriously and repeatedly, without striking arrogant postures or engaging in name calling, then we can collectively find the solution to the problem. This was the key message that emerged from the discussions.
Everyone who participated in these meetings left the hall in a deeply reflective mood, with a deeper appreciation of the challenging situation and the necessity to act with communist maturity and courage.
Article courtesy: www.cgpi.org
Monday, March 15, 2010
Elitist Policies Hitting the Poor
By Balraj Mehta
The UPA Government's style of functioning is remarkable for its elitist and populist combination. The prices of essential commodities have been not only allowed to rise but the Government did nothing to curb it until it realised that things have gone too far, and that not to do something would pose a threat to its political-electoral interests. The adverse impact of even drought on agricultural production was treated with indifference with assurances that the government had piled up huge stocks of foodgrains, which will take care of supply and prices of farm commodities. Forward trading in agricultural commodities was not only allowed but applauded as a "reform" measure. When the Congress leadership realised that the opposition parties were making a political issue of food inflation, the first reaction was to blame it all on Agricultural Minister Sharad Pawar, who is only an alliance partner. When that too did not work to its advantage and the government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was attacked for its failure to control food inflation, a Chief Ministers' conference was convened to discuss the problem.
The conference saw an attempt to put the responsibility for food inflation on the state governments because agriculture comes under their jurisdiction under the Constitution. This was not wrong because supplies from buffer stocks of food grains for public distribution are held by the Central Government; nor were the needs of the states taken care of.
These was also default in respect of import of pulses and cooking oil which was required to check the rise in prices of these commodities in the domestic market. Tinkering with prices of sugar by the Central Government too had led to steep rise in its prices. The gross mismanagement of prices showed up so glaringly in the Chief Ministers' conference that Congress President, Sonia Gandhi was constrained to call for the Food Security Act to be brought up on the agenda to tackle food inflation.
The call for Food Security Act cannot be expected to make any impression as a measure to control food inflation. There has been further rise in prices of agricultural commodities in the wake of the chief ministers' conference and Gandhi's call for a food security act. T
his is only a populist move which can fructify only after a long time when the coming agricultural year will have to reckon with hopefully better irrigation facilities and rains in non–irrigated areas as well as rebuilding of a system which will ensure public distribution of food for vulnerable sections of the population in rural as well as urban areas.
The existing PDS is in a shambles. It will also take a long time for the Food Security Act to be passed in Parliament and to be notified before it can be implemented. It is not at all surprising that what the UPA government intends to do will not be able to tackle food inflation and ensure food security. It may not be out of context to take note of the Prime Minister's stand at the CM's conference on this problem.
The call for controlling hoarding and black market in foodgrains is without legal sanction and there are no regulations on private trade in foodgrains. On the contrary, the Union Government has been releasing large quantities of foodgrains from the buffer stock to private traders for open market sales while supplies to the States under the public distribution system have been inadequate.
The Prime Minister said: "I think our distribution system is hopelessly outdated, with the exception of a few states, and it needs a complete overhaul. The state governments should give focused attention to developing market intervention mechanisms which can act as a supplement to the public distribution system." He said there were adequate stocks of rice and wheat to maintain food security.
"The Rabi prospects are very encouraging. Post –monsoon rains have been good. All this augurs well for our ability to stabilise food prices at a reasonable level". He also urged the chief ministers to introspect why more attention is not being paid to highly cost–effective means of raising productivity and production.
What Dr. Manmohan Singh really said was that the need is to stabilise food prices at their present high level which is beyond the reach of not only those below the poverty line but also of the lower middle classes. Secondly, he made it clear that he will allow the market forces to function freely, which includes forward trading also side by side with the public distribution system.
Further he believes modernisation of Indian agriculture for increasing production and productivity lies with the latest research from developed countries, including the US. He did not say a word about increasing irrigation and land development as well as strengthening of domestic extension services for small farmers which have been grossly neglected in the last two decades.
The PM also ignored the clamour for fixing support prices of agricultural commodities at levels higher than what are determined on the basis of cost of production. But the UPA government has gone for reckless accommodation of populist pressure on farm prices. The spokesmen of rich farmers too have been encouraged to demand and secure prices which surpass even export prices in the global market. This has hurt the small farmers and farm workers who are struggling to eke out a bare existence.
Another critical issue in India's farm sector is the fall in its share of gross domestic product and incomes. The reform policy-makers are of the view that the fall in the share of agriculture in generating gross domestic product is a positive development in the structure of Indian economy! It is indeed the starting point for the Indian economy to become modern and India to become a player in the global order.
According to the 1991 census, however, there was already a movement of work force away from agriculture. The GDP share of agriculture in the last two decades of economic reform policy has already come down from about 25 per cent to 17.4 per cent in 1990-2000. It went down to 15.9 per cent in the next five years.
The change in the base year to calculate the structural change in the Indian economy to 2005, it is expected, may show some similar but bigger result in this direction. The fall in share of agriculture in GDP has, however, not led to the transfer of working people to urban industry and services which have been the focus of economic growth after India won political independence.
The result has been increasing poverty in rural areas even as a thin upper crust of skilled workers and professionals has won salaries and perks of global standards. The sharp structural imbalance of society is the cause of growing tensions – economic, social and political - and law and order problems which the ruling elite is now trying to curb with a heavy hand.
Article courtesy: New Age Weekly
By Balraj Mehta
The UPA Government's style of functioning is remarkable for its elitist and populist combination. The prices of essential commodities have been not only allowed to rise but the Government did nothing to curb it until it realised that things have gone too far, and that not to do something would pose a threat to its political-electoral interests. The adverse impact of even drought on agricultural production was treated with indifference with assurances that the government had piled up huge stocks of foodgrains, which will take care of supply and prices of farm commodities. Forward trading in agricultural commodities was not only allowed but applauded as a "reform" measure. When the Congress leadership realised that the opposition parties were making a political issue of food inflation, the first reaction was to blame it all on Agricultural Minister Sharad Pawar, who is only an alliance partner. When that too did not work to its advantage and the government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was attacked for its failure to control food inflation, a Chief Ministers' conference was convened to discuss the problem.
The conference saw an attempt to put the responsibility for food inflation on the state governments because agriculture comes under their jurisdiction under the Constitution. This was not wrong because supplies from buffer stocks of food grains for public distribution are held by the Central Government; nor were the needs of the states taken care of.
These was also default in respect of import of pulses and cooking oil which was required to check the rise in prices of these commodities in the domestic market. Tinkering with prices of sugar by the Central Government too had led to steep rise in its prices. The gross mismanagement of prices showed up so glaringly in the Chief Ministers' conference that Congress President, Sonia Gandhi was constrained to call for the Food Security Act to be brought up on the agenda to tackle food inflation.
The call for Food Security Act cannot be expected to make any impression as a measure to control food inflation. There has been further rise in prices of agricultural commodities in the wake of the chief ministers' conference and Gandhi's call for a food security act. T
his is only a populist move which can fructify only after a long time when the coming agricultural year will have to reckon with hopefully better irrigation facilities and rains in non–irrigated areas as well as rebuilding of a system which will ensure public distribution of food for vulnerable sections of the population in rural as well as urban areas.
The existing PDS is in a shambles. It will also take a long time for the Food Security Act to be passed in Parliament and to be notified before it can be implemented. It is not at all surprising that what the UPA government intends to do will not be able to tackle food inflation and ensure food security. It may not be out of context to take note of the Prime Minister's stand at the CM's conference on this problem.
The call for controlling hoarding and black market in foodgrains is without legal sanction and there are no regulations on private trade in foodgrains. On the contrary, the Union Government has been releasing large quantities of foodgrains from the buffer stock to private traders for open market sales while supplies to the States under the public distribution system have been inadequate.
The Prime Minister said: "I think our distribution system is hopelessly outdated, with the exception of a few states, and it needs a complete overhaul. The state governments should give focused attention to developing market intervention mechanisms which can act as a supplement to the public distribution system." He said there were adequate stocks of rice and wheat to maintain food security.
"The Rabi prospects are very encouraging. Post –monsoon rains have been good. All this augurs well for our ability to stabilise food prices at a reasonable level". He also urged the chief ministers to introspect why more attention is not being paid to highly cost–effective means of raising productivity and production.
What Dr. Manmohan Singh really said was that the need is to stabilise food prices at their present high level which is beyond the reach of not only those below the poverty line but also of the lower middle classes. Secondly, he made it clear that he will allow the market forces to function freely, which includes forward trading also side by side with the public distribution system.
Further he believes modernisation of Indian agriculture for increasing production and productivity lies with the latest research from developed countries, including the US. He did not say a word about increasing irrigation and land development as well as strengthening of domestic extension services for small farmers which have been grossly neglected in the last two decades.
The PM also ignored the clamour for fixing support prices of agricultural commodities at levels higher than what are determined on the basis of cost of production. But the UPA government has gone for reckless accommodation of populist pressure on farm prices. The spokesmen of rich farmers too have been encouraged to demand and secure prices which surpass even export prices in the global market. This has hurt the small farmers and farm workers who are struggling to eke out a bare existence.
Another critical issue in India's farm sector is the fall in its share of gross domestic product and incomes. The reform policy-makers are of the view that the fall in the share of agriculture in generating gross domestic product is a positive development in the structure of Indian economy! It is indeed the starting point for the Indian economy to become modern and India to become a player in the global order.
According to the 1991 census, however, there was already a movement of work force away from agriculture. The GDP share of agriculture in the last two decades of economic reform policy has already come down from about 25 per cent to 17.4 per cent in 1990-2000. It went down to 15.9 per cent in the next five years.
The change in the base year to calculate the structural change in the Indian economy to 2005, it is expected, may show some similar but bigger result in this direction. The fall in share of agriculture in GDP has, however, not led to the transfer of working people to urban industry and services which have been the focus of economic growth after India won political independence.
The result has been increasing poverty in rural areas even as a thin upper crust of skilled workers and professionals has won salaries and perks of global standards. The sharp structural imbalance of society is the cause of growing tensions – economic, social and political - and law and order problems which the ruling elite is now trying to curb with a heavy hand.
Article courtesy: New Age Weekly
IS THIS GUARANTEEING FOOD FOR ALL
A.B. Bardhan
The question of food security is being hotly discussed among wide circles of people. A series of national and international conferences, seminars and meetings convened by the Food and Agricultural Organisations (FAO) and other agencies are being held to find an answer to this question.
It is wellknown that a large section of people in India do not have regular access to food. Statisticians have calculated that 35 per cent of Indians are food insecure, and that nearly half of the world's hungry are in India. The issue of food security tops the agenda of all those who are genuinely concerned with the life of impoverished and hungry mass of people in our country, and who do not regard hunger and starvation among them a 'natural order' of things. Such people think government has an obligation to feed the hungry.
The concept of Food Security in simple terms means that everyone in the country should have sufficient food with the required nutritional value and at affordable prices. Sky rocketing prices of basic food items these days have made it difficult not only for the poor but even for sections of the middle class. Price and availability of food are interlinked.
The Government is proposing to legislate a Food Security Act which will make it legally binding to provide food for the people. It is reported that an Empowered Group of Ministers has been set up to formulate the scheme to be implemented under proposed act. The first and the most basic requirement of food security viz. increasing food productivity and production in a country with a growing population is however not being addressed.
Indian agriculture suffers from low productivity. Beside this there is a steady decline in the extent of land under food production. There is lack of incentives to the farmer who is the key player in producting the food that the country needs, in terms of cheap and subsidised inputs and remunerative prices for his ultimate produce. Instead, government is proposing to introduce a new pricing policy for fertilizers, of nutrient-based subsidy with an open maximum retail price (MRP), as a step towards total decontrol which will only raise the prices of fertilizers. It is already thinking of raising the prices of diesel and petrol. There is hardly any insurance against crop failures due to natural and other calamities. The implementation of land reforms has been very tardy in large areas of the country even after six decades of freedom. Rather than distributing land it is depriving farmers of fertile land under one plea or the other. There has been low pace of investment in agriculture for irrigation, for R&D, for improved seeds and so forth.
Recently there was an important meeting in Delhi to discuss how to feed the hungry growing population with climate change knocking at the door. The Norwegian Minister of Food and Agriculture, Mr. Lars Pedder Brekke who had come to attend this meeting had some very interesting observations to make in the course of an interview to Hindu daily. He observed, "The main instrument for global food security is national food production. Every country has an obligation to provide food for its own population. Trade alone cannot solve the fundamental challenges regarding hunger".
To that end he stated, Norway's farmers are heavily subsidized through a lengthy consultation process between government and farmers corporatives that takes place each year,−a policy instrument that is being rolled back under WTO liberalisation agreements "We know we will be challenged by international companies. They have patented their products and want to sell them in Norway", he said. "But who do you want to lead the market? Is it in the production around the country or is it in the hands of one big company" he asked.
It is not our intention to compare Norway with India. Conditions are vastly different, but the questions raised are very pertinent. One can ask similar questions with regard to food production and food security in India. We have to grow the food that we need, depending upon our Agriculture and not rely on food imports and the 'patented products' of one or more international companies.
For a country as big as India, with population already exceeding 120 crores, food sovereignty is extremely important. We cannot afford to be subjected to financial and political pressure. Food imports is a political question, besides being extremely costly. The main food exporting country, the USA, as we know uses food as a political weapon.
Let us see what the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGOM) is thinking of doing on the issue of food security. According to reports the EGOM is thinking of proposing that only families below the poverty line are to be provided with subsidized food under the food security act. Families Above the Poverty Line (APL) may not be included under the ambit of the proposed act. The argument is that this will reduce the burden on the exchequer. But this will be at the cost of providing food security to all Indians. It means there will be no legal binding to ensure food security for all.
It is calculated that funding subsidy to only 8.54 crore BPL families under the Planning Commission guidelines would entail a cost of Rs. 45,000 crores, while if 13.26 crore additional APL families are also included the total expenditure on subsidy would probably add upto Rs. 1,00,000 crores. (This figure appears to be on the high side only to terrify certain sections).
The government of course has no hesitation in giving tax exemptions or capping the rate of direct tax for corporates and individuals who are in the topmost income brackets which ultimately means foregoing a high figure of revenue income; or offering them a huge bail-out or of stimulus package in order to overcome a crisis of their own making. But it finds no resources when it comes to saving the poor, indigent and valunerable sections from hunger and starvation. This is nothing but a reflection of the class outlook of government.
Who are the poor and how many are to be identified as being below the poverty line?
The EGOM requires all states to adhere to the Planning Commission estimate of BPL families, viz. 27 per cent. This arbitrary, unscientific and unreal estimate is challenged by a number of Expert Committees set up by the very same government. Thus:
· The Suresh Tendulkar Committee has estimated the BPL populace at 38%.
· The Expert Committee headed by N.C. Saxena set up by the Ministry of Rural Development has put the figure at 50 per cent.
· The Arjun Sengupta report states that 77 per cent of Indian population lives on an average per capita consumption expenditure of Rs. 16 a day as in the year 2004-05.
Since then prices have soared and more people find it difficult to access the food that they need. Why then should the government ignore the findings of several expert committees and choose only the lowest estimate? Does this show a real political will to ensure food security for all our people or is it another example of an insincere and hypocritical attempt to dupe the common people?
In a situation where poverty prevails among very large sections of people the reasonable way is to implement an 'inclusive' scheme which brings all within its ambit rather than a scheme which excludes large sections. That is why the Left Parties are demanding a universal PDS which provides for distribution of essential commodities like wheat, rice, pulses, oil, sugar etc. at subsidised rate.
Under the proposed law on food security the government guarantees only 24kgs. of foodgrains at Rs.3 per kg. To the families Below Poverty Line. Even today the government is supplying 35kgs. per month at Rs.2 a kg. In some states, notably Kerala and Tamilnadu rice is being supplied at Rs.1 a kg, in addition to certain other essential commodities. Therefore the proposed act would amount to cutting the quantity that is already being supplied today and hiking the price. Is this the way to guarantee food security or actually the opposite?
It should be noted that for a BPL family of 5 members 25kg a month does not meet its entire needs. It has to purchase the balance in the open market at current price or forego it altogether and face hunger and starvation for some days in the month or manage somehow with its substitutes.
The task therefore is to bring down the prices as a part of ensuring food security. That is why the Left is calling for banning future trading and speculation in foodgrains, oilseeds etc. which enable big business and corporates to buy up and hoard stocks. It is quite untrue that future trading helps the farmers, many of whom are actually forced to resort to distress sales. At the same time dehoarding drive has to be launched with the cooperation of the people to unearth stocks. Stocks with the government have to be used for market intervention with a view to bring down the prices.
Trading in food under the WTO regime can upset the objective of a food security law. The present government is merrily indulging in the export and import of wheat, sugar and certain other items, with disastrous consequences.
Big business has however other ideas on the question of food security. They are pressing for a legislation of a different type, which will allow direct buying from farmers without the requirement of any license. They want to revamp the policy of fixing the minimum support price (MSP) and make it more market-oriented. They want future trading of wheat, rice, and corn as well as open export of these commodities to be allowed without any restriction. They demand the fertilizer industry to be decontrolled. They oppose the public distribution system, and as a substitute they talk of supplying foodgrains through vouchers to BPL families. On several matters government is succumbing to their pressure.
The battle therefore is between two policies: one, which ensures food security to our people through a universalized PDS system providing food at subsidized rates, and the other which guarantees profits to the capitalists and traders at the cost of the starving people.
Everyday promises are being held out to the aam admi. But there is no concrete action to back the promises. People have to move into action. Only this will ensure food security and not the promise of a legislation.
Article courtesy: New Age Weekly
The question of food security is being hotly discussed among wide circles of people. A series of national and international conferences, seminars and meetings convened by the Food and Agricultural Organisations (FAO) and other agencies are being held to find an answer to this question.
It is wellknown that a large section of people in India do not have regular access to food. Statisticians have calculated that 35 per cent of Indians are food insecure, and that nearly half of the world's hungry are in India. The issue of food security tops the agenda of all those who are genuinely concerned with the life of impoverished and hungry mass of people in our country, and who do not regard hunger and starvation among them a 'natural order' of things. Such people think government has an obligation to feed the hungry.
The concept of Food Security in simple terms means that everyone in the country should have sufficient food with the required nutritional value and at affordable prices. Sky rocketing prices of basic food items these days have made it difficult not only for the poor but even for sections of the middle class. Price and availability of food are interlinked.
The Government is proposing to legislate a Food Security Act which will make it legally binding to provide food for the people. It is reported that an Empowered Group of Ministers has been set up to formulate the scheme to be implemented under proposed act. The first and the most basic requirement of food security viz. increasing food productivity and production in a country with a growing population is however not being addressed.
Indian agriculture suffers from low productivity. Beside this there is a steady decline in the extent of land under food production. There is lack of incentives to the farmer who is the key player in producting the food that the country needs, in terms of cheap and subsidised inputs and remunerative prices for his ultimate produce. Instead, government is proposing to introduce a new pricing policy for fertilizers, of nutrient-based subsidy with an open maximum retail price (MRP), as a step towards total decontrol which will only raise the prices of fertilizers. It is already thinking of raising the prices of diesel and petrol. There is hardly any insurance against crop failures due to natural and other calamities. The implementation of land reforms has been very tardy in large areas of the country even after six decades of freedom. Rather than distributing land it is depriving farmers of fertile land under one plea or the other. There has been low pace of investment in agriculture for irrigation, for R&D, for improved seeds and so forth.
Recently there was an important meeting in Delhi to discuss how to feed the hungry growing population with climate change knocking at the door. The Norwegian Minister of Food and Agriculture, Mr. Lars Pedder Brekke who had come to attend this meeting had some very interesting observations to make in the course of an interview to Hindu daily. He observed, "The main instrument for global food security is national food production. Every country has an obligation to provide food for its own population. Trade alone cannot solve the fundamental challenges regarding hunger".
To that end he stated, Norway's farmers are heavily subsidized through a lengthy consultation process between government and farmers corporatives that takes place each year,−a policy instrument that is being rolled back under WTO liberalisation agreements "We know we will be challenged by international companies. They have patented their products and want to sell them in Norway", he said. "But who do you want to lead the market? Is it in the production around the country or is it in the hands of one big company" he asked.
It is not our intention to compare Norway with India. Conditions are vastly different, but the questions raised are very pertinent. One can ask similar questions with regard to food production and food security in India. We have to grow the food that we need, depending upon our Agriculture and not rely on food imports and the 'patented products' of one or more international companies.
For a country as big as India, with population already exceeding 120 crores, food sovereignty is extremely important. We cannot afford to be subjected to financial and political pressure. Food imports is a political question, besides being extremely costly. The main food exporting country, the USA, as we know uses food as a political weapon.
Let us see what the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGOM) is thinking of doing on the issue of food security. According to reports the EGOM is thinking of proposing that only families below the poverty line are to be provided with subsidized food under the food security act. Families Above the Poverty Line (APL) may not be included under the ambit of the proposed act. The argument is that this will reduce the burden on the exchequer. But this will be at the cost of providing food security to all Indians. It means there will be no legal binding to ensure food security for all.
It is calculated that funding subsidy to only 8.54 crore BPL families under the Planning Commission guidelines would entail a cost of Rs. 45,000 crores, while if 13.26 crore additional APL families are also included the total expenditure on subsidy would probably add upto Rs. 1,00,000 crores. (This figure appears to be on the high side only to terrify certain sections).
The government of course has no hesitation in giving tax exemptions or capping the rate of direct tax for corporates and individuals who are in the topmost income brackets which ultimately means foregoing a high figure of revenue income; or offering them a huge bail-out or of stimulus package in order to overcome a crisis of their own making. But it finds no resources when it comes to saving the poor, indigent and valunerable sections from hunger and starvation. This is nothing but a reflection of the class outlook of government.
Who are the poor and how many are to be identified as being below the poverty line?
The EGOM requires all states to adhere to the Planning Commission estimate of BPL families, viz. 27 per cent. This arbitrary, unscientific and unreal estimate is challenged by a number of Expert Committees set up by the very same government. Thus:
· The Suresh Tendulkar Committee has estimated the BPL populace at 38%.
· The Expert Committee headed by N.C. Saxena set up by the Ministry of Rural Development has put the figure at 50 per cent.
· The Arjun Sengupta report states that 77 per cent of Indian population lives on an average per capita consumption expenditure of Rs. 16 a day as in the year 2004-05.
Since then prices have soared and more people find it difficult to access the food that they need. Why then should the government ignore the findings of several expert committees and choose only the lowest estimate? Does this show a real political will to ensure food security for all our people or is it another example of an insincere and hypocritical attempt to dupe the common people?
In a situation where poverty prevails among very large sections of people the reasonable way is to implement an 'inclusive' scheme which brings all within its ambit rather than a scheme which excludes large sections. That is why the Left Parties are demanding a universal PDS which provides for distribution of essential commodities like wheat, rice, pulses, oil, sugar etc. at subsidised rate.
Under the proposed law on food security the government guarantees only 24kgs. of foodgrains at Rs.3 per kg. To the families Below Poverty Line. Even today the government is supplying 35kgs. per month at Rs.2 a kg. In some states, notably Kerala and Tamilnadu rice is being supplied at Rs.1 a kg, in addition to certain other essential commodities. Therefore the proposed act would amount to cutting the quantity that is already being supplied today and hiking the price. Is this the way to guarantee food security or actually the opposite?
It should be noted that for a BPL family of 5 members 25kg a month does not meet its entire needs. It has to purchase the balance in the open market at current price or forego it altogether and face hunger and starvation for some days in the month or manage somehow with its substitutes.
The task therefore is to bring down the prices as a part of ensuring food security. That is why the Left is calling for banning future trading and speculation in foodgrains, oilseeds etc. which enable big business and corporates to buy up and hoard stocks. It is quite untrue that future trading helps the farmers, many of whom are actually forced to resort to distress sales. At the same time dehoarding drive has to be launched with the cooperation of the people to unearth stocks. Stocks with the government have to be used for market intervention with a view to bring down the prices.
Trading in food under the WTO regime can upset the objective of a food security law. The present government is merrily indulging in the export and import of wheat, sugar and certain other items, with disastrous consequences.
Big business has however other ideas on the question of food security. They are pressing for a legislation of a different type, which will allow direct buying from farmers without the requirement of any license. They want to revamp the policy of fixing the minimum support price (MSP) and make it more market-oriented. They want future trading of wheat, rice, and corn as well as open export of these commodities to be allowed without any restriction. They demand the fertilizer industry to be decontrolled. They oppose the public distribution system, and as a substitute they talk of supplying foodgrains through vouchers to BPL families. On several matters government is succumbing to their pressure.
The battle therefore is between two policies: one, which ensures food security to our people through a universalized PDS system providing food at subsidized rates, and the other which guarantees profits to the capitalists and traders at the cost of the starving people.
Everyday promises are being held out to the aam admi. But there is no concrete action to back the promises. People have to move into action. Only this will ensure food security and not the promise of a legislation.
Article courtesy: New Age Weekly
Eight Rough and Random Thoughts on Socialism
By Sam Webb
(1) Socialism has its material roots in the inability of capitalism to solve humanity’s problems. Working people gravitate toward a radical critique of society out of necessity, out of a sense that the existing arrangements of society (people don’t necessarily call it capitalism) fail to fulfill their material and spiritual needs. It is no coincidence that around the time of the economic meltdown last fall, public opinion polls showed growing support for socialism.
I think this gravitation towards radical change is closely connected to the end of an era in which U.S. capitalism was relatively stable and provided reasonable economic security on the one hand and to the beginning of a new era – of uncertainty, instability, economic crises, and, not least, political possibility on the other.
Economic crises alone, however, do not prepare the soil for revolutionary change, though they’re important. The soil is prepared via the cumulative impact of a series of crises (economic, political, social, and moral), taking place over time, which erode people’s confidence in capitalism’s capacity to meet humanity’s needs and sustain life on our planet.
(2) Our vision of socialism is a work in progress. It is shaped by new economic conditions, new technologies (the internet) new dangers and challenges (global warming), new sensibilities (the desire for democracy) and new social forces (new social movements) as well the actual experience of countries trying to build socialism – positive and negative.
At the end of his life, Engels wrote (this was one of a series of letters Engels wrote to friends to undo a dogmatic interpretation of historical materialism on the part of young Marxists of his time), “To my mind, the ‘so called socialist society’ is not anything immutable. Like all social formations, it should be conceived in a state of flux and change.”
We should take this to heart. Our socialist vision should have a contemporary and dynamic feel; it should be rooted in today’s conditions.
Some will say that this means revising or throwing out Marxism’s principles and methodology. While that could be a danger, in my view the greater danger is to think that Marxism can stand still, rest self-satisfied, and repeat old formulas in the face of new developments and experience. Such “Marxism” is empty of meaning and irrelevant on the U.S. political scene.
Our task, therefore, is to further develop Marxism in a dialectical and historical spirit, with an eye to bringing everything in line with current realities, trends, and sensibilities. Such a critical posture means modifying and updating our concepts – of socialism, strategy, tactics, and more – in line with today’s realities.
(3) In the 20th century the Soviet Union became the universal model of socialism. This universalization came at a price – it narrowed down our ability to think creatively and “outside the box.”
Although we always noted the more favorable factors for socialism in our country (no encirclement by hostile powers, high level of economic development, democratic traditions, etc.), in many ways, we still clung to the Soviet model.
Such an approach can’t be laid on the doorstep of Marx or Lenin. Lenin on more than one occasion objected strongly to the idea of a universal path to and model of socialism. He insisted that socialism and the socialist road would vary from country to country.
Unfortunately, we failed to fully digest his views, in part because the Soviet Union was the first land of socialism and decisive in Hitler’s defeat in World War II, and in part because we had too rigid an understanding of Marxism and its laws (tendencies) of development.
The events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, however, compelled us to reexamine the notion of a universal socialist model. While further study is necessary, one thing is clear: there are no universal models and socialism in one or another country will succeed to the degree that it bears a deep imprint of that country’s history, politics, economics, customs, and culture.
If it has a “foreign” feel, people will reject it. Even where our vision includes general features that mirror other socialist societies (for example, public ownership of the means of production), these will be modified in the concrete process of constructing a new society.
Both successful and unsuccessful socialist revolutions offer lessons, but in no case can those experiences be uncritically imported into our context.
(4) The transition to socialism will mark an end to one stage of struggle and the beginning of a new one. In this stage, the struggle is to qualitatively expand and deepen economic security, working class and people’s democracy and unity, egalitarian relations (not leveling) in every sphere of life, and human freedom in both a collective and individual sense.
I don’t frame the matter in this way to replace the more traditional notion, in which the transition to socialism is distinguished by a revolutionary shift of class power from the capitalist class to the working class and democratic movement. What I want to do is to correct a one-sidedness in our thinking.
A transfer in class power – which will more likely be a series of contested moments during which qualitative changes in power relations in favor of the working class and its allies take place rather than “the great revolutionary/to the barricades day” – is absolutely necessary, but it is not a sufficient condition for a successful transition to and consolidation of socialism.
In fact, a singular emphasis on the question of class power (a means), at the expense of social processes and social aims (economic improvement in people’s lives, working class and people’s democracy, rough equality, and freedom and solidarity), can lead – did lead – to distortions in socialist societies.
Thus aims and processes have to be organically integrated into and accented at every phase of socialism’s development.
(5) Socialism’s essence isn’t reducible to property/ownership relations and across-the-board socialization. Although those are the structural foundations of socialist society, by themselves they don’t constitute socialism.
To put it differently, property/ownership relations and socialization of the means of production create only the possibility for a socialist society. But it fully develops only to the degree that working people exchange alienation and powerlessness for engagement, empowerment and full democratic participation.
In my view, working class initiative and a sense of real ownership of social property, a transformed socialist state, and society are as much the sinew of socialism as are legal ownership of the economy, structures of representation and power, and socialization. The latter without the former leaves socialism stillborn, while the former without the latter is idealism.
Lenin wrote,
“… socialism cannot be reduced to economics alone. A foundation – socialist production – is essential for the abolition of national oppression (in our context racial and national oppression), but this foundation must also carry a democratically organized state, a democratic army, etc. By transforming capitalism into socialism the proletariat (working class sw) creates the possibility of abolishing national oppression; the possibility becomes reality “only” – “only!” – with the establishment of full democracy in all spheres.” (my italics sw).
Note the weight that Lenin attaches to democracy in socialist society and working class initiative. Do we share his view? To a degree, but I would argue that a re-centering of the working class and people’s democracy at the core of our socialist vision is a necessary corrective.
(6) While the political leadership of communist, socialist and left parties and social movements is vital, in the past, our understanding of our leading role came close to substituting ourselves for the wide-ranging participation and leadership of masses of people and for a vibrant public space in which these same people gather, compare ideas, and take action.
Obviously, if this is so, we should go back to the drawing board. I did and this is what I came up with. Our role in coalition with a broader left will be to deepen our connections to the main organizations of working people, to find timely solutions to pressing problems (transformation and democratization of the state, reorganization of the economy, undoing centuries of inequality, resetting our international relations, global warming and more), to utilize a creative and critical Marxism to analyze concrete developments, to struggle for unity – working class, multi-racial, all people’s, and so forth, and to convey in everything we do a complete confidence in the creative capacities and desires of millions of people building a new society.
This last element latter was missing in some of the socialist countries of the 20th century, in no small part because the communists fell victim to a siege mentality, arising from encirclement and cold and hot war. As a result, there was a tendency to “circle the wagons” and turn the working class into a passive, and increasingly jaded observer of socialism, especially when the deeds and performance of communists didn’t match their ideals and ideological claims.
(7) The process of radical change is inevitably very messy; pure forms are only found in textbooks. Think of the major turning points in our nation’s history – every one was complex and contradictory, from the war for independence, to the Civil War, the Depression, the Civil Rights movement, and more.
The struggle for socialism will be complex too, and will bring a broad and diverse coalition with varied outlooks and interests into motion. And while we fight for the leadership of the multi-racial, multi-national working class in the coalition and for its deep imprint on the political process, we also search for strategic and tactical alliances. At times this dual task will cause tensions, sometimes strongly felt ones, but the resolution of these tensions is condition for radical change.
(8) The economic model of 21st century socialism should give priority to sustainability, not growth without limits. Socialist production can’t be narrowly focused on inputs and outputs, nor should purely quantitative criteria be used to measure efficiency and determine economic goals. New socialist production (and consumption) models are imperative. Both must economize on natural resources and protect the planet and its various ecological systems. The future of living things that inhabit this earth could depend on it.
That said, we cannot wait for socialism to address the dangers of climate change and environmental degradation. That must be done now. We are approaching tipping points which if reached will give global warming a momentum that human actions will have little or no control over.
Standing in the way, as you would guess, is right wing extremism and powerful global corporations – energy, military, and otherwise. And only a broad movement of the working class in close alliance with the African American, Mexican American and other oppressed peoples, women, youth, seniors other social movements, and some sections of business – big and small stands a ghost’s chance of defeating this entrenched and powerful political bloc and, in doing so, open a road to socialism.
Article courtesy: www.politicalaffairs.net
By Sam Webb
(1) Socialism has its material roots in the inability of capitalism to solve humanity’s problems. Working people gravitate toward a radical critique of society out of necessity, out of a sense that the existing arrangements of society (people don’t necessarily call it capitalism) fail to fulfill their material and spiritual needs. It is no coincidence that around the time of the economic meltdown last fall, public opinion polls showed growing support for socialism.
I think this gravitation towards radical change is closely connected to the end of an era in which U.S. capitalism was relatively stable and provided reasonable economic security on the one hand and to the beginning of a new era – of uncertainty, instability, economic crises, and, not least, political possibility on the other.
Economic crises alone, however, do not prepare the soil for revolutionary change, though they’re important. The soil is prepared via the cumulative impact of a series of crises (economic, political, social, and moral), taking place over time, which erode people’s confidence in capitalism’s capacity to meet humanity’s needs and sustain life on our planet.
(2) Our vision of socialism is a work in progress. It is shaped by new economic conditions, new technologies (the internet) new dangers and challenges (global warming), new sensibilities (the desire for democracy) and new social forces (new social movements) as well the actual experience of countries trying to build socialism – positive and negative.
At the end of his life, Engels wrote (this was one of a series of letters Engels wrote to friends to undo a dogmatic interpretation of historical materialism on the part of young Marxists of his time), “To my mind, the ‘so called socialist society’ is not anything immutable. Like all social formations, it should be conceived in a state of flux and change.”
We should take this to heart. Our socialist vision should have a contemporary and dynamic feel; it should be rooted in today’s conditions.
Some will say that this means revising or throwing out Marxism’s principles and methodology. While that could be a danger, in my view the greater danger is to think that Marxism can stand still, rest self-satisfied, and repeat old formulas in the face of new developments and experience. Such “Marxism” is empty of meaning and irrelevant on the U.S. political scene.
Our task, therefore, is to further develop Marxism in a dialectical and historical spirit, with an eye to bringing everything in line with current realities, trends, and sensibilities. Such a critical posture means modifying and updating our concepts – of socialism, strategy, tactics, and more – in line with today’s realities.
(3) In the 20th century the Soviet Union became the universal model of socialism. This universalization came at a price – it narrowed down our ability to think creatively and “outside the box.”
Although we always noted the more favorable factors for socialism in our country (no encirclement by hostile powers, high level of economic development, democratic traditions, etc.), in many ways, we still clung to the Soviet model.
Such an approach can’t be laid on the doorstep of Marx or Lenin. Lenin on more than one occasion objected strongly to the idea of a universal path to and model of socialism. He insisted that socialism and the socialist road would vary from country to country.
Unfortunately, we failed to fully digest his views, in part because the Soviet Union was the first land of socialism and decisive in Hitler’s defeat in World War II, and in part because we had too rigid an understanding of Marxism and its laws (tendencies) of development.
The events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, however, compelled us to reexamine the notion of a universal socialist model. While further study is necessary, one thing is clear: there are no universal models and socialism in one or another country will succeed to the degree that it bears a deep imprint of that country’s history, politics, economics, customs, and culture.
If it has a “foreign” feel, people will reject it. Even where our vision includes general features that mirror other socialist societies (for example, public ownership of the means of production), these will be modified in the concrete process of constructing a new society.
Both successful and unsuccessful socialist revolutions offer lessons, but in no case can those experiences be uncritically imported into our context.
(4) The transition to socialism will mark an end to one stage of struggle and the beginning of a new one. In this stage, the struggle is to qualitatively expand and deepen economic security, working class and people’s democracy and unity, egalitarian relations (not leveling) in every sphere of life, and human freedom in both a collective and individual sense.
I don’t frame the matter in this way to replace the more traditional notion, in which the transition to socialism is distinguished by a revolutionary shift of class power from the capitalist class to the working class and democratic movement. What I want to do is to correct a one-sidedness in our thinking.
A transfer in class power – which will more likely be a series of contested moments during which qualitative changes in power relations in favor of the working class and its allies take place rather than “the great revolutionary/to the barricades day” – is absolutely necessary, but it is not a sufficient condition for a successful transition to and consolidation of socialism.
In fact, a singular emphasis on the question of class power (a means), at the expense of social processes and social aims (economic improvement in people’s lives, working class and people’s democracy, rough equality, and freedom and solidarity), can lead – did lead – to distortions in socialist societies.
Thus aims and processes have to be organically integrated into and accented at every phase of socialism’s development.
(5) Socialism’s essence isn’t reducible to property/ownership relations and across-the-board socialization. Although those are the structural foundations of socialist society, by themselves they don’t constitute socialism.
To put it differently, property/ownership relations and socialization of the means of production create only the possibility for a socialist society. But it fully develops only to the degree that working people exchange alienation and powerlessness for engagement, empowerment and full democratic participation.
In my view, working class initiative and a sense of real ownership of social property, a transformed socialist state, and society are as much the sinew of socialism as are legal ownership of the economy, structures of representation and power, and socialization. The latter without the former leaves socialism stillborn, while the former without the latter is idealism.
Lenin wrote,
“… socialism cannot be reduced to economics alone. A foundation – socialist production – is essential for the abolition of national oppression (in our context racial and national oppression), but this foundation must also carry a democratically organized state, a democratic army, etc. By transforming capitalism into socialism the proletariat (working class sw) creates the possibility of abolishing national oppression; the possibility becomes reality “only” – “only!” – with the establishment of full democracy in all spheres.” (my italics sw).
Note the weight that Lenin attaches to democracy in socialist society and working class initiative. Do we share his view? To a degree, but I would argue that a re-centering of the working class and people’s democracy at the core of our socialist vision is a necessary corrective.
(6) While the political leadership of communist, socialist and left parties and social movements is vital, in the past, our understanding of our leading role came close to substituting ourselves for the wide-ranging participation and leadership of masses of people and for a vibrant public space in which these same people gather, compare ideas, and take action.
Obviously, if this is so, we should go back to the drawing board. I did and this is what I came up with. Our role in coalition with a broader left will be to deepen our connections to the main organizations of working people, to find timely solutions to pressing problems (transformation and democratization of the state, reorganization of the economy, undoing centuries of inequality, resetting our international relations, global warming and more), to utilize a creative and critical Marxism to analyze concrete developments, to struggle for unity – working class, multi-racial, all people’s, and so forth, and to convey in everything we do a complete confidence in the creative capacities and desires of millions of people building a new society.
This last element latter was missing in some of the socialist countries of the 20th century, in no small part because the communists fell victim to a siege mentality, arising from encirclement and cold and hot war. As a result, there was a tendency to “circle the wagons” and turn the working class into a passive, and increasingly jaded observer of socialism, especially when the deeds and performance of communists didn’t match their ideals and ideological claims.
(7) The process of radical change is inevitably very messy; pure forms are only found in textbooks. Think of the major turning points in our nation’s history – every one was complex and contradictory, from the war for independence, to the Civil War, the Depression, the Civil Rights movement, and more.
The struggle for socialism will be complex too, and will bring a broad and diverse coalition with varied outlooks and interests into motion. And while we fight for the leadership of the multi-racial, multi-national working class in the coalition and for its deep imprint on the political process, we also search for strategic and tactical alliances. At times this dual task will cause tensions, sometimes strongly felt ones, but the resolution of these tensions is condition for radical change.
(8) The economic model of 21st century socialism should give priority to sustainability, not growth without limits. Socialist production can’t be narrowly focused on inputs and outputs, nor should purely quantitative criteria be used to measure efficiency and determine economic goals. New socialist production (and consumption) models are imperative. Both must economize on natural resources and protect the planet and its various ecological systems. The future of living things that inhabit this earth could depend on it.
That said, we cannot wait for socialism to address the dangers of climate change and environmental degradation. That must be done now. We are approaching tipping points which if reached will give global warming a momentum that human actions will have little or no control over.
Standing in the way, as you would guess, is right wing extremism and powerful global corporations – energy, military, and otherwise. And only a broad movement of the working class in close alliance with the African American, Mexican American and other oppressed peoples, women, youth, seniors other social movements, and some sections of business – big and small stands a ghost’s chance of defeating this entrenched and powerful political bloc and, in doing so, open a road to socialism.
Article courtesy: www.politicalaffairs.net
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)