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

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

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

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

Brinda Karat's speech in the Rajya Sabha on Women's Reservation Bill.

Brinda Karat's evocative gratitude to the struggles by grassroots women's organisations was very apt. Please download her speech in the Rajya Sabha from the 2 pdf files beolw:

http://www.pragoti.org/sites/default/files/15.00pmTo16.00pm.pdf

http://www.pragoti.org/sites/default/files/16.00pmTo17.00pm.pdf

Courtesy: www.progoti.org

Why be Afraid of Being called a ‘Feminist’?
Prasenjit Bose




Prasenjit Bose writes on 'Feminism' and the landmark Women's Reservation Bill, passed in the Rajya Sabha on 9th March 2010.

“Though I am supporting the bill, I am not a feminist”: Union Railway Minister
(Economic Times, 10th march 2010)

The passage of the constitution amendment bill to introduce 33% reservation for women in parliament and state assemblies in the Rajya Sabha is a progressive and substantive step towards the political empowerment of women in India. The fact that it has taken nearly a decade and a half for this legislation, since its introduction, to be passed in the upper house of parliament stands testimony to the stubborn opposition against it from various quarters. There is no point singling out the “Yadav troika” or the “social justice lobby” for opposing this legislation. It is well known that a big section of male parliamentarians cutting across party lines; who have never held less than 87% seats in the parliament since the first general elections of independent India; have been all along providing covert (sometimes even overt) support to the prominent and vocal opponents of this bill. In essence, the opposition is from all those who want to preserve the status quo. Therefore the real roadblock before the bill is patriarchal ideology; not individual parties or leaders. It is important to underscore this point at this juncture, because the political battle to enact this progressive legislation has only been half won so far. It cannot become a law until the Lok Sabha passes it and at least 15 state assemblies endorse this constitutional amendment.

Idea Whose Time Has Come

Much has been said about the desirability of women’s reservation in Indian legislatures. It is undeniable that not only will it empower women by increasing their political representation but also open up substantial space for gender issues in the political sphere. This is very essential given the unequal status of women in our society. Almost six decades of overwhelming male domination in legislatures has ensured that gender equality, as envisaged in the Indian constitution, still remains a far cry. Not only have women continued to be denied equal rights in land, property, access to education and jobs, but violence against women in myriad forms, from female foeticide and domestic violence, to dowry and honour killings, to sexual harassment, continues to be a part of our daily existence. If we are serious about reversing these retrograde trends, we have to accept the centrality of women’s empowerment in all spheres – social, economic, cultural and political.

Among the myriad discrimination against and denial of equal rights to women, the political one is crucial. Patriarchy never had problems in accepting a woman as a political leader or even a head of the state; the history of India, indeed South Asia, is replete with such examples. But whether in intent or in action, that never really challenged the status quo. In contrast, 33% reservation for women in legislatures will not only amount to a trifle change in the status quo; it has the potential to fundamentally alter the political landscape and challenge existing power relations in society. That is why the patriarchal opposition to a constitutionally mandated floor of 33% representation in legislatures is so steep. But this is also the reason why this opposition has to be comprehensively defeated. The experience of women’s reservation in village panchayats and other local bodies have already shown the positive spin offs of greater public participation by women, not only in terms of advancing social justice but also in terms of greater efficacy of public policy. This process needs to be furthered, especially at the highest level of decision-making and governance. In the 15th Loksabha, out of 543 MPs, only 59 are women (10.8%). This status quo is unacceptable, not only from the point of view of women, but the society as a whole. Women’s reservation in legislatures is an idea whose time has surely come.

Political Opponents

The opposition to the women’s reservation bill today is couched in three distinct but inter-related threads. Let us consider them by turns. The most vocal and steadfast opponents of the bill within the political class have termed it as anti-OBC, anti-dalit and anti-Muslim. They have demanded sub-quotas for women from these categories. These demands, either raised together or in parts, amount to pitting one deprived section of society against another in order to jettison women’s reservations altogether. While there are perfectly just grounds for OBC reservations in education and jobs due to historical discrimination, there has not been any significant demand for OBC reservation in legislatures. Even the SP or the RJD have not demanded this so far because given their proportion in population, OBCs are fairly represented in the political sphere. In case the seats held by OBC MPs or MLAs get reserved for women, there is no reason why OBC women cannot get elected from those constituencies. In fact, the proportion of OBC women MPs in total women MPs in the 14th Lok Sabha was slightly higher than the proportion of OBC MPs in total MPs. While their socio-economic backwardness is undeniable, OBCs cannot be considered as politically or electorally marginalized communities in today’s context.

As far as dalits and adivasis are concerned, the constitutionally mandated SC/ST reservation in parliament and state assemblies already exists and 33% reservation for women will only amount to reserving one third of SC/ST reserved seats for SC/ST women. This will substantially increase the number of SC/ST women in legislatures from the current levels; for instance to at least 40 SC/ST women MPs in parliament from the current number of 17. The argument made by the BSP that this increase in the proportion of SC/ST women be brought about not by reserving one third of existing SC/ST seats but by increasing the SC/ST quota itself beyond the constitutionally mandated 22.5%, is not very convincing. If more women have to be adequately accommodated in parliament and assemblies, then men belonging to all castes and communities, including those belonging to the socially deprived sections, have to make some way for the women of their castes and communities. After all, gender discrimination and oppression cuts across all castes, communities and class. To suggest that the principle of positive discrimination in favour of women is acceptable for everybody else but not for my caste or community is neither a logically tenable nor an ethically sound position.

The situation vis-à-vis Muslims does merit a more sympathetic consideration. The number of Muslim MPs in the 15th Loksabha is a mere 28 (5%), down from 34 in the 14th Loksabha. This is certainly way below the proportion of Muslims in Indian population (13.4%). There is no doubt that this gross under-representation of Muslims in parliament and several state assemblies, needs to be redressed. However, reservation for Muslims on a religious basis is still an unsettled question within the framework of the Indian constitution. The Ranganath Mishra Commission recommendations have surely opened the issue, as far as minority reservations in education and jobs are concerned. Given the past interpretations of secularism by the judiciary, the implementation of the Ranganath Mishra Commission may well require a constitutional amendment. In fact, the existing socio-economic condition of the Muslim minorities, as brought out clearly by the Sachar Committee findings, merits a serious reconsideration of the received notions of secularism and social justice. Can the secular basis of the state remain secure if the largest religious minority continues to remain a victim of systemic discrimination and socio-economic deprivation after sixty years of independence? It is imperative that the Congress led Government at the Centre initiates a result-oriented debate on this vital issue without any further delay. It is inexplicable why the Central Government took over two years to table the Ranganath Commission report in parliament after its submission and that too without any action taken report.

Having said so, however, it makes little sense for those genuinely fighting to ensure social justice for the Muslims to oppose the constitution amendment for women’s reservation because it does not reserve seats for Muslim women. That amounts to pitting the legitimate demand for greater Muslim representation against another equally legitimate step to enhance women’s participation. This will only work towards narrowing the support for greater Muslim representation in legislatures. India’s neighbouring countries with a majority of Muslim population, like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, already have constitutionally mandated quota for women in their national legislatures. In fact the positive experience of those countries following greater women’s participation in legislatures, especially for their women, have strengthened and inspired the forces in favour of women’s reservation in India.

While women’s reservation in the present form may or may not increase the participation of Muslim women in legislatures, it is certainly not going to make matters any worse for the Muslim minorities. Opposing the women’s reservation bill in the name of Muslim quota would be entirely unwarranted, since it amounts to postponing the issue of women’s reservation on which there is a political consensus today – after 14 years of debate no political party says they are opposed to women’s reservation per se – till a consensus emerges on the issue of Muslim reservation, which will obviously take more time. If anything, a broad based consensus on a constitution amendment in favour of the women’s reservation bill today can only facilitate a similar consensus on Muslim reservation tomorrow. And when that happens, 33% of those seats will also get reserved for Muslim women.

Liberal Cynics

Apart from the political opposition to the constitution amendment, there are opponents in the liberal intelligentsia, who are berating the bill in televised discussions and news columns. Some are of course conceptually on the same page as far as women’s reservation is concerned, but are opposed to the specific provisions of the bill, like reserving 33% of the existing 543 seats rather than applying quota on an increased number of constituencies in the Loksabha so as to protect the existing seats of male MPs. Some continue to maintain that mandated quotas in the candidate lists of political parties would have been a better and non-controversial option. What has particularly miffed some commentators is the provision that the 33% women’s quota seats would change every five years so that in fifteen years every constituency in the country is covered. This, it has been argued, would imply existing male MPs losing their right to contest in constituencies, which they have “nurtured” for years.

In its long and arduous journey through the two parliamentary committees – the first one a joint select committee chaired by the late Communist leader Geeta Mukherjee and second time the parliamentary standing committee on law and justice – the merits and demerits of all these options and suggestions were thoroughly debated. In fact, very few legislations in the history of independent India have been scrutinized so meticulously for fourteen long years. All options other than what is contained in the present legislation were found to be inferior. For instance, reserving candidate lists of political parties would never guarantee a minimum threshold of elected women MPs in the first past the post system; it would merely ensure a minimum number of contestants. International experience shows that the countries which have opted for women’s quota in candidate lists under the first past the post system, continue to have much lower representation of women in their legislatures; the situation does not change much because it is difficult for female candidates to win against their male counterparts. Increasing the number of seats of parliament, to the extent of protecting all the existing seats of male MPs would amount to increasing the number of seats to over 720. An increase of such magnitude in the number of constituencies for the parliament and state assemblies, would not only make the elections and the democratic process logistically unwieldy and prohibitively expensive, it would also lead to the construction of new buildings for parliament and state assemblies in order to accommodate more women!

The upshot is that all these proposals which are being parroted today, which sought to accommodate the concerns of women’s representation while keeping the status quo of overwhelming male domination intact, were debated threadbare and found to be infeasible. Those who are shedding tears about existing male MPs/candidates losing their “nurtured” constituencies, are of course being quite candid. But they are missing the whole point about this legislation. The fact that this legislation will break the status quo, if implemented, does not amount to any argument against the legislation. The problem is with the status quo itself, since it has been unfair to women, who comprise half of our population and electorate. Therefore this legislation explicitly seeks to break that status quo; but does so in a fair manner, where all existing male MPs/candidates have to make way for a woman MP sometime or the other over the next three elections. And any male MP/candidate can return to contest in his “nurtured” constituency after a gap of one election. Thus, on the one hand it does not take away the right from any male MP/candidate to contest in his preferred constituency in perpetuity. On the other hand, it creates concrete possibilities for the growth of political activism of women across all constituencies of the country. Anyone who sincerely wishes to see greater participation of women in politics and enhanced number of women elected representatives will easily see that the present legislation is the best among all the options available.

Then of course, there are the skeptics, who consider greater women’s participation or representation in politics to be at best symbolic, and perhaps entirely meaningless. Not surprisingly, this opinion is not openly articulated in the political circles. Some successful women in the media and the corporate world have, however, become the most articulate proponents of this view. Their arguments amount to saying the following: ‘Look at us. We have succeeded in the men’s world without any quota. So why do women need quota to be successful in politics?’

This sounds typical of all those who are opposed to any positive discrimination, particularly reservations. There exists, for instance, a number of successful dalit or OBC professionals, who either out of conviction or compulsion, oppose reservations, confusing their own subjective experience which may have been marked by certain privileges or sheer good fortune for the objective social conditions of the large majority of SCs or OBCs. But in the case of those successful women opposing reservation for women in legislatures, there is a specificity. They seem to believe that a display of cynicism towards the political process and insensitivity towards gender discrimination in particular, reflects virtuosity. Being a professionally successful woman in a world dominated by men is certainly commendable; but that does not automatically make someone gender sensitive or alive to the problems and concerns of women. In fact women in politics, almost without exception and cutting across political lines, are supporters of women’s reservation because their own experience, however brief, must have shown them the enormous difficulty to sustain activism and compete successfully in a patriarchal setting.

Afraid of ‘Feminist’ Tag?

Why are some of the more successful women not sympathetic to the aspirations of the women in politics for some positive discrimination in their favour? Patriarchy, after all, is an ideology and it operates at complex levels. This indeed makes life difficult for women, even for those who have become successful in a world dominated by men. This difficulty is best captured in the Union Railway Minister’s comment made on the day the women’s reservation bill was passed in the upper house: “Though I am supporting the bill, I am not a feminist”. It can be assumed safely that nobody asked the Minister whether she is a feminist. Yet she asserts that she is not one. Are all the other parties and individuals supporting the bill feminists? Surely not.

The BJP, which provided crucial support to the bill and whose suave leader in the upper house forcefully argued in favour of women’s rights during the debate, has never disowned the manuvadi ideology of the RSS, which considers women as naturally inferior to men. We have not forgotten the glorification of Sati under the BJP rule in Rajasthan, the rape of innocent Muslim women during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat or the continued hooliganism of the Sangh Parivar outfits on Valentine’s day. The Congress President has been rightly hailed for her determined role in pushing the legislation within her Party and cajoling the Central Government to take a firm stand. Yet, why she preferred her son to be the heir apparent over her daughter, without any tested basis of political acumen, organisational performance or mass acceptance, is anybody’s guess. Even the Communists, with an enviable record in fighting for women’s rights since the days of freedom struggle, took well over six decades of existence to elect the first woman into their central leadership. The biggest contingent of the Left, the CPI (M), took longer. And even today, misogynist critics have not got tired of shamelessly alleging how women are promoted within the Left because of influential husbands rather than their own capabilities and contributions.

The long and the short of it is that no political party functioning within the Indian political system or elsewhere, can claim to be totally immune from the vestiges of patriarchy. Their ideological standpoint, however, in terms of whether they are programmatically committed to women’s empowerment and emancipation or not, is what counts, along with their political positions and day to day practice. And if a political party, or any individual for that matter, is committed to gender equality and women’s empowerment, why prevaricate on the women’s reservation bill for the fear of being called a ‘feminist’?

Article courtesy: www.pragoti.org

Is this a socialist moment?
By Sam Webb

Is this a socialist moment? I hear this question when I travel. So here is the answer I usually give when asked at public meetings. It depends on how we understand a “socialist moment.” If it means that the American people in their majority are insisting on a socialism transformation of society, there is little evidence for it. People are angry and frustrated; they want change; they are ready to struggle for jobs and relief, health care, public education, housing assistance and so on. But are they demanding a system change, a socialist society? Not yet. To say otherwise seems like a stretch to me.

If, however, what is meant is that many more people are ready to give socialism a hearing, not reject it out of hand, then I would say, “Yes, this is a ‘socialist moment’.” This is no small thing. It wasn’t that long ago that socialism didn’t have much currency among broad sections of the American people. It was considered a failed model, undemocratic and worse, a bankrupt idea - something best consigned to history.

In fact, the ideologues of capitalism thought they had buried the socialist idea once and for all, but to their chagrin the genie is once again out of the bottle, thanks in large measure to the conditions buffeting the domestic and world economy. It is not economic determinism to say that force of economic circumstance and the crisis of everyday living for tens of millions is shaping and reshaping mass thinking, although in contradictory ways.

Communists and socialists should welcome the rebirth of this dialogue on socialism and eagerly participate in it. Like everything else our vision of socialism needs to adjust to new conditions (economic crisis) and challenges (economic and environmental sustainability, nuclear disarmament, world poverty and inequality) as well as examine the experience of socialism in the 20th century.

After all, there are no universal models into which every country fits. The cloth of socialist experience is a beautiful weave of many colors and threads, not a drab monotonous gray. Each country fashions a socialism that bears a deep imprint of its own history, politics, economics and culture.

The experience of successful and unsuccessful socialist revolutions and societies has to be filtered carefully into our national context. In no case can those experiences be uncritically and simplistically imported.

As Gus Hall, the former leader of the Communist Party USA, said on many occasions, “We are for Bill of Rights Socialism,” referring to our nation’s Bill of Rights, which in his view would be preserved and expanded upon in a socialist society in the United States.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/

Can Capitalism Last?, An Interview with Daniel Rubin
By Political Affairs

Editor's note: Daniel Rubin is the author of several works on Marxist theory. Can Capitalism Last? is available through International Publishers. Rubin is a member of the education commission of the Communist Party USA. Join the CPUSA here.

PA: What inspired your new book, Can Capitalism Last?

DANIEL RUBIN: For years I have been leading study groups and teaching classes on Marxism, and the books that were used for that purpose became very, very dated, and they were not based on the US experience. For instance there was Emile Burns’ (a British Marxist) “What is Marxism?” and its revision. The Soviets put out a book of 600 pages in 1960 that covered all areas of Marxism. Most of their books after that were either on dialectical materialism, historical materialism, or political economy. We haven’t had, to my knowledge, a book of this kind written by a US Marxist in recent years. You would have to go back to the 1920s, maybe the early 30s.

I wanted to have something that would be useful in answering the question, “What is Marxism?,” a book that would be useful for classes, study groups and schools, and also for those who wanted to answer that question by reading on their own, and hopefully to some extent reaching those who might just be curious about Marxism. So this is the effort that I made, with quite a few revisions from what had been used before in sequence and in subject matter, along with some updating of a number of theoretical questions that, with the demise of Stalin and the Soviet Union, needed updating.

PA: In our country, there is a tendency in the media, and among politicians and ideologues of all kinds, to conflate democracy with capitalism, and to use the two terms interchangeably? How do you respond to that?

RUBIN: We have to look today, especially with recent developments, at who it is that advances the cause of expanding democracy – democracy in all its dimensions, not only political democracy but also economic democracy and equality, and overcoming the growing gap between the rich and the poor and working people – and who it is that moves things in the other direction. I follow the position in the book that the ultra-right section of the transnational monopolies has been a growing source of limitation of democracy in every aspect of life. You can characterize the Bush government as an increasingly conservative and authoritarian regime.

Actually, in his book “Imperialism,” Lenin predicted that with the merger of banking capital and industrial capital into finance capital, there would be a growing tendency over time toward reaction in the political sphere, and that has happened here since the 1970s with the development of the political dominance of the ultra-right or reactionary sector of capital. So if you look who moves in one direction and who moves in the other, then the upholders of capitalism and the people in charge of capitalism move in a direction against democracy, and it is the popular sections of the population, the working class, the nationally oppressed, women, and youth, who move things in the other direction. And they have succeeded in taking a step forward with the election of the Obama administration, and we can now see a process of the gradual expansion of democracy. That is how I would respond to the question of capitalism and democracy being linked. In a lot of ways it’s just the opposite, in terms of the forces that move things one way or the other.

PA: Some pro-capitalist ideologues in the political center might grant your points about the ultra-right. Yes, the Bush administration moved us in an authoritarian direction. But they might also follow that up by saying that at least capitalism provides a social space for democratic movements, and that socialism doesn't allow those democratic movements to flourish. How do you respond to that kind of comeback?

RUBIN: First of all, that’s a definition that limits democracy to political democracy and not to economic democracy – the question of control over production, the distribution of wealth, and so on. That’s one aspect. Another is that we will see how far the center forces of capitalism will go in responding to mass pressure to expand democratic rights in the political sphere and in all other spheres. In the political sphere, there is the question of outward forms of democracy, but when you examine it there are great limitations. Michael Bloomberg, for instance, has billions of dollars at his disposal to buy the mayoralty of New York City, and working people have very little financing to respond to that.

Now, in relation to socialism, I think that socialism like everything else changes and develops, from the earliest examples under unfavorable conditions, to when we come to the question of socialism in the United States. Here I think many factors will be different that will make for much wider democracy, both political democracy and economic democracy. You won’t have, for instance, the question of outside intervention in US affairs. Even within the US, the prospects for capitalism that far down the road of history will be very limited. The economic level will be much much higher in terms of the forces of production, and education levels will also be much higher. Therefore, I think that as socialism moves through history in different socioeconomic settings, there will be an expansion in the democratic sphere, along with what I think have been pretty good examples in the economic sphere.

PA: Turning to the economic side of the question, in Can Capitalism Last?, you describe and explain the fundamental building blocks, characteristics and relations of capitalism. What bearing does that basic description have on the specifics of the current economic crisis we are in?

RUBIN: I do have a section in the book on financialization. Actually, the book was written two summers ago. If I were to start now, I would probably start with the current economic situation and the Obama administration. I believe that there is a very big relationship in terms of understanding the fundamentals of capitalism and what is happening now, and what the prospects are for momentary solutions and longer-term solutions further down the road.

The Marxist theory of economic cycles, which I deal with in the book, starts from some of the basic building blocks of Marxist economics. One is that under capitalism there is private ownership of the means of production, and that in itself produces anarchy, that is, it is produced by the lack of knowledge of one set of capitalists of what other capitalists are doing, and by an inability to plan in an economy that is getting ever more interconnected, an economy that needs knowledge and interdependence. That is one of the building blocks.

Another is the labor theory of value, which explains how capitalists are able to extract surplus value and turn it into profit. Once you have that basic understanding, then you move on to the efforts of the capitalists constantly to maximize their profits. That can be done basically in terms of one class as a whole being pitted against another class as a whole, and greater profits can only be achieved by greater exploitation of the working class.

Now if you put those two things together in the theory of economic crisis, you come up with something that is inherent in the capitalist system, namely that capitalists, each pushing for maximum profits, will, starting in the recovery phase of the cycle, go at it overboard, not knowing what the others are doing, and trying to gain a greater share of the market, until a point is reached where clearly whatever they are producing is beyond the capacity of consumers to consume. At that point you get into the crisis phase.

You also have to look at how the major developments in capitalism have influenced the economic cycle. The imperialist stage – monopoly capitalism – brings together a world market. It brings together not only a market based on material commodities, which are overproduced and underconsumed, but it also brings forms of capitalist investment that create certain changes and deeper crises in a world that is increasingly interdependent.

That is when, within the framework of monopoly capitalism, you move into the phase of state monopoly capitalism, which involves the state intervening both to help maximize profits, but also at times to ameliorate social conditions, as we saw in the Great Depression in the US with the New Deal.

Next comes globalization, where you have much greater interdependence in the world market, and therefore greater synchronization when a crisis does break out, although you also have the possibility that in the world market, before there is a full crisis, prosperity in one section of the world can offset problems in another, which can change the shape of the cycle and postpone things.

Then you come to financialization. A major feature of financialization is that commodity production of material goods, and even of immaterial goods, becomes less and less important to the financial sector of the capitalist economy. Today, for instance, on top of the crisis in construction and housing and the relative over-production because of the endless seeking of maximum profit and the anarchy of production, you also have all these financial instruments that are being traded back and forth for the purpose of maximizing profit in an anarchistic situation. Sooner or later that comes to a point where the production of these financial products is also out of line with their possible consumption. The result is an even more complex and highly-centralized collapse of the capitalist system in the crisis phase of the cycle.

These things have, as indicated very briefly here, produced changes in the cycle, it is still basically the same underlying causes that the fundamentals of Marxist economics and political economy show, although they are more complicated and made worse when you have the financialization of everything.

PA: Just to follow up on that a little bit. If a lot of people think that the maximization of profits is a good thing – greed is another term used sometimes – because it creates technological development and jobs and things like that. What is the motive force behind socialism that makes it a better system than capitalism?

RUBIN: That is a very big and complicated question. One answer is that in a socialist system there are no capitalists seeking private profit. In socialism, the law of development is that the people seek to maximize the benefits of the system for the benefit of society and for the economy in particular. I would say that you can combine elements of competition with that, but competition within bounds. We are seeing the use of competition in various countries that say they are constructing socialism. Then it gets related to the political organization of society, whether the desires of the basic masses of people for a better life are fully reflected in the decisions which are made by the governmental organs.

There are many varieties of public ownership that are possible. We used to think that the epitome of public ownership was national state property, but you can also have public ownership at the city level. You can have combinations of public and private ownership at various levels, and through that make use of some of the things that capitalism has, yet still have, as the main thing, a socially-decided plan about what is the best way to move forward for the benefit of society as a whole, a process of decision-making not influenced by those who seek to gain huge private profits by doing things that are not for the benefit of the people as a whole, but only for their own benefit.

PA: One of the things you do in your book is to refer to Marxism as “Marxist methodology.” By that term you are distinguishing, I think, between a traditional view of Marxism as a set of rules or a set of beliefs, a system that has to be followed step-by-step, otherwise you are not a Marxist. Could you talk a little about that?

RUBIN: Well, I think that a sound understanding of Marxism has always been that it is, on the one hand, a system that can embrace all of human activity and knowledge, but yet is an open system. It was never a system that was put to use as perfected, as final. Lenin’s concept, of course, was that our knowledge of the real world around us is absolute in the sense that it is knowledge of something that exists. It is not just a matter of sense perceptions or something given to us by a non-understandable higher authority.

On the other hand, his conception was that it was all relative as well, that we are constantly able to gain greater and greater knowledge of that reality, without any limit whatsoever, and that we can therefore learn that earlier propositions were false and did not correspond to objective reality. So we can make corrections, as well as take in all kinds of new developments and new discoveries, and so on.

I think that in many hands Marxism got distorted and was defined actually as being a science. All of Marxism was viewed as a science. Of course, Engels sometimes used that phraseology, a “science of society,” but also he used the phrase a “guide to action,” which is not a rigid thing, and he used that phrase repeatedly. So we have objective reality and objective processes, such as in the laws of social development as a whole, and we do claim that the political economy of capitalism contains laws. But when you come to the theory of socialist revolution, how you go about actually making a revolution, and strategy and tactics, you have the problem of Stalin and others having defined all of Marxism as being a science, and then whatever the "greatest scientist," namely Stalin, said was correct.

We now need to talk about strategy and tactics, which guides the policies of the Communists and Marxists for moving forward. I would also say that other democratic forces have their own strategies. They have a different approach to what strategy and tactics are, but these things do have flexibility, especially tactics. It is not a science, where if you know the right answer everybody should accept that and understand it. There is a lot of experimentation in tactics, and there is a lot that is gained from experience. It is not a matter of scientific law. In this way, I think that Marxism today is much more of an open system that has to be creative in its essence and reject rigid formulas.

PA: That leads me to my final question. Toward the end of the book you discuss the Communist Party and its role. Could you synthesize that a little bit for us. What is the role of the Communist Party and why is it needed?

RUBIN: There have been changes, as I have indicated, in defining what Marxism is. Today we see it as a system of ideas and ideology that corresponds to the interests of the working class. There are aspects to it that do contain laws of social development and political economy. But there is also much more to it that is theory, and the theory of socialist revolution contains two areas especially. One is strategy and tactics, which contain principles drawn from experience as well as communist theory.

The need for a Communist Party starts from the party's experience in struggle and the theoretical work that has been done. The masses of workers, in the struggle for their needs and in the spontaneous class struggle, can and do learn a lot. They become more trade-union conscious, and trade-union consciousness is the beginning of class consciousness. They can also become more class conscious. But from that experience alone, they cannot learn the laws of social development. That is why we need a Communist Party, because it embodies these things. And when the Communist Party has a close relationship with the working class movement it can play a very big role in influencing and helping it move forward without any big difficulties, detours or defeats.

Then there is the question of what has happened in life, in practice. I would argue that Marxist theory has been confirmed in life, which includes the changes Marxism itself has undergone. This suggests that there is a sound theory, and that you do need a Communist Party, a mass Communist Party, to help win socialism. Once having established working class power, led by the working class in alliance with other class and social forces, you are then able to go forward and not make any big mistakes, because you know something about the economy and the laws of social development that you cannot just simply learn from daily life and daily experience.

I would argue that life has confirmed this theory and that there are no examples yet of Marxist theory of the need for and role of the Communist Party being violated. I also think that developments in Venezuela and other Latin American countries, where there is now a renewed study of Marxism within the left-wing movements, will result in the merger of parties or development into a Communist Party that plays a leading role in these countries as well.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8591/

Thousands march to save public education
by: Marilyn Bechtel

Hundreds of thousands of students, parents, faculty, campus workers and community supporters demonstrated in California and around the country March 4 in a massive protest to save public education.

http://peoplesworld.org/

Some Notes on Poverty and the Responsibility of Government

By Frank Chapman

Over a decade ago Victor Perlo wrote, in his definitive work on Economics of Racism, that: “Poverty is a fully logical feature of capitalism, more completely than in earlier exploitative societies…” Why “more completely”? Because under capitalism the labor power of the worker is subject to the vicissitudes of the market like any other commodity. By and large workers have no right to be employed at a livable wage that would allow them to subsist above the poverty level.

With the era of deregulation, ushered in by President Reagan and the ultra right, there was also deindustrialization that created rust bowls throughout the industrial heartland of our country. Massive movements of capital further aggravated uneven, regional economic development patterns that led to the creation of new pockets of poverty and unprecedented urban deterioration in formerly industrial areas. The plant closings of basic industries brought about a dramatic decrease of the tax base for city governments thus leading to the closing of public schools, hospitals and cut backs in municipal services. Whole working class neighborhoods, in areas like Detroit, were turned into ghost towns of dilapidated buildings. In every major city one encountered untold numbers of abandoned buildings in virtually every block.

Looking at these regions today (after nearly 40 years of trade liberalization, corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and globalization) over 25 percent of the nation’s counties per-capita income is half the national average. Today the number of counties falling below the national average in terms of per-capita income is increasing; and of course so is unemployment, depressed wages and growing dependency on government transfer payments. Particularly hit by this economic distress are areas located in the major industrial centers, in timber, agricultural, mineral and energy resources and regions of the Deep South, the eastern coal belt and along our borders.

The U.S. Census Bureau released in November, 2009 a report on poverty, healthcare insurance and unemployment. This report covers the period the period 2007-2008 and makes the following points:

That there are 39,108,422 people living in poverty in the United States. States with the largest cities are of course the hardest hit. E.g. California has 4,781,201, New York 2,595,816, Florida 2,375,225, Ohio 1,489,314, Pennsylvania 1,454,240, Michigan 1,402,738 and Georgia 1,388,959 people living in dire poverty.

13,240,870 people who live in poverty are under 18. Also living in poverty are 8,549,526 who are five to 17 years old and 4,369,698 who are under the age of five.

Many of those who live in poverty are without health insurance, and this is particularly true of the unemployed. From 2007-2008 health insurance increased to 10.8 percent and 21.3 million persons for non-Hispanic Whites from 10.4 percent and 20.5 million persons in 2007. There was 7.3 million uninsured African Americans in 2008 which was a decrease from 8.1 million in 2007. From 2007-2008 the number of Whites uninsured remained at about 14.6 million. This gives a total of 43.2 million uninsured men, women and children. It is estimated that about 46,000 will die this year because they can’t afford to buy health insurance.

Unemployment just dropped below 10 percent but for African Americans over 20 years of age its up by 17.6 percent. Representative Chellie Pingree, Maine’s First District Democrat made this comment: “…Instead of bailing out the big banks and Wall Street firms that got us into this mess, we need to focus on the small businesses that actually create jobs in this country. I was pleased that the President last week proposed redirecting money from the TARP program toward community banks to make it easier for them to lend businesses. But there is much more that needs to be done to create jobs…across the country.” (Portland News Center, Feb. 1, 2010).

These conditions cry out for a peoples full employment program. Otherwise poverty will increase and working class families will sink deeper and deeper into the mire of social misery. We are not a nation of small shop keepers so while getting the banks to release loans to small businesses will create some jobs it will fall far short of the kind of massive government funded jobs creation programs needed. Dean Baker, director of the Center for Economic Policy correctly noted that we have an unemployment crisis “…because billionaire investors are able to buy their way into and control the public debate…” (See PW article “It’s an unemployment crisis, not a deficit crisis,” by John Wojcik, Feb. 10, 2010.)

In the last eight years we have seen one of the most massive transfers of wealth from the working masses to the wealthy few in the history of our country, consequently economic reforms must be focused on jobs and job creation as well as instituting anti-trust measures and bringing an end to the rule of the Wall Street barons.

Courtesy: www.politicalaffairs.net

LIES ARE GREEN

Workers left out in the cold.
A cold that blows
from the mouths of our Corporate-Aristocracy,
diamond studded crowns
shimmering sick light
trying to blind the truth.
Wages are the pawns Corporate-dictators
sacrifice in the name of competition--
who can compete with slave wages...
Workers in solidarity:
the blade that will cut
our chains. We will wrap them
around corporate greed,
strangle its lying life away,
ring out the wealth we create,
enough to set everyone's table.

--David Centorbi

Courtesy: www.politicalaffairs.net

Farmers, Muslims had no faith left
By Jayati Ghosh

It is beyond doubt the general elections of 2009 have delivered a severe blow to the Left parties. Of course, it was always likely that the Left would come down from its historically high tally of 61 seats in the previous Lok Sabha elections, especially as these came overwhelmingly from only two states. But the extent of the decline in Left seats, to less than half the previous figure, nevertheless comes as a shock.

What is particularly disturbing is the performance in the two previous Left strongholds of West Bengal and Kerala. What explains this sharp deterioration?

This is a crucial question, since if the Left is to recover and grow again, as well as spread its message to other parts of the country, it is important to draw the right lessons from this defeat and to change strategy accordingly.

The lessons are likely to be different in the two states. Most people would agree that the Kerala state government is reasonably popular, and chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan certainly continues to command very high approval ratings. But the margins of victory and defeat have always been relatively small and the state has a history of consecutively shifting both Lok Sabha and Assembly victories across the two major fronts.

So even a small shift in vote percentage can cause very large shifts in the seats won or lost, and this is likely to have been the case in this election. Having said that, it is also likely that the widespread perceptions of factionalism within the main party in the Left Front, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), made people uneasy and harmed the front electorally.

The rather rigid attitude towards alliances with some smaller parties in Kerala before this particular election also did not help.
In West Bengal the picture is more disturbing. There is clear evidence of vote shifts against the ruling Left Front, and this message from the electorate cannot be ignored but must be addressed. The Left Front has ruled the state for more than three decades, providing not only stability but also many extremely positive measures for the improvement of conditions of life of ordinary people: not just the crucial land reforms that were the most extensive of any state government in the last 30 years, but the pioneering moves towards decentralisation and providing more powers to locally elected bodies.

However, in the past few years the state government of West Bengal, through its own actions or its inability to get its message across, has contributed to some loss of goodwill among the people. Three factors that have contributed to this and which must be recognised and addressed are:

The sense of alienation among the peasantry in the face of the events at Singur and Nandigram and the inability of the government to adequately justify its actions to the people or even to publicise its continuing land distribution programme;

The perceptions of discrimination among the Muslim community, even among those who have earlier been consistent Left supporters;

The feeling that the government has been more heavily influenced by the bureaucracy rather than responding to — and engaging with — the actual cadre of the parties, bright and highly committed people who have given their lives towards working for socialism and for the ideals of the Left.

To these negatives must be added some errors of omission, in terms of positive policy interventions that have not been sufficiently utilised or developed. The most important of these is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which was brought about by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government largely because of insistent pressure from the Left at the national level.
It is worth noting that the states in which the parties of ruling state governments have been successful in this election are those in which the NREGA has been implemented extensively and with some enthusiasm: Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Orissa.

In West Bengal there has been much less success in NREGA implementation and this is clearly a necessary and high priority task for the Left Front government. Another critical area of public intervention that requires urgent attention is the Public Distribution System (PDS) for food, which needs to be revamped, extended and strengthened in the state.

While this election result is a major setback, it can also be turned into an opportunity for Left revival and expansion, not only in these two states but across the country.

The clear result in Tripura has been little noticed, but it speaks extremely well of the solid support and popularity of the Left Front government in that state.

In other states where the Left has won seats or got many votes, it reflects the long and committed struggles of the local cadre on issues that are fundamental to the core support of these parties: land, livelihood, conditions of living and social equality. If these features are strengthened, this adversity can be turned into a stimulus for positive transformation and future growth of the Left movement in India.


Article courtesy: The Asian Age

More Indians Are “Poor” Now
C P Chandrasekhar

THE incidence of poverty, we are now being officially told, is much higher than the government has been claiming thus far. The Suresh Tendulkar committee, set up by the Planning Commission, has argued that a little more than 37 per cent of Indians live in poverty as compared with the officially estimated 27.5 per cent. The new figure is bound to further stretch the tiresome debate on poverty, in which the issues involved have been clear for some time now. However, the government, which is yet to formally announce acceptance of the new figures and the new method of poverty estimation, does not seem too displeased with the report. In all likelihood, the report’s recommendations would be accepted. Thus, from a political economy perspective, the more interesting question relates to the motivation behind the government’s decision to consider revising its poverty estimates, especially since it has been maximising the political mileage it gets from the decline in poverty incidence indicated by estimates based on the current methodology.

A favourable answer would attribute the revision to the recognition that the earlier method was delivering faulty figures. In the never-ending dispute on the extent of poverty in the country, it has been increasingly accepted that the official estimates were erring on the lower side. There were indeed a few who used the National Accounts Statistics to argue that the National Sample Survey figures on expenditure tended to underestimate consumption and overestimate poverty in the country. But they were an unrecognised minority. For the rest, the problem was that the NSS figures on calorific intake per person, on which poverty estimates were ostensibly anchored, pointed to a significantly higher proportion of poverty than the estimates obtained by adjusting for inflation a set of 1973-74 nominal expenditure figures that were seen as adequate to deliver an average per capita per day calorie intake of 2400 calories in rural areas and 2100 calories in urban areas.

TIGHT ROPEWALK

However, these attempts at obfuscating the issue were challenged by the fact that the nominal expenditure of those who were seen as being at or below the poverty line was embarrassingly low in the rural areas, where it stood at Rs 356.30 per month or around Rs 12 per day in 2004-05. What is more, the National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector pointed out that, going by the consumer expenditure data, 78 per cent of Indians were forced to manage with Rs 20 or less per day — an expenditure figure which to many was low enough to identify three fourths of the population as living in poverty.

Whether the Tendulkar committee was expressly set up to deal with this anomaly or not, it was clear from the outset that it could not go with the low figures of poverty incidence that the government had been citing routinely for the last decade or more. But the committee was walking a tight rope, since the options in terms of method and sources of data were indeed limited. If it opted for a method which used the direct calorie intake figures available from the NSS reports on consumer expenditure, the proportion of the population below the poverty line would have risen sharply at least in some states, inviting criticism from those who would use the sheer size of the increase to question its validity. On the other hand, if it anchored its estimates on the 1973-74 poverty lines and merely played with the conventionally used price indices, it would be stuck with embarrassingly low poverty incidence estimates.

Having thus defended the nominal 2004-05 poverty line for urban areas, the committee has decided to use this nominal figure as the anchor for estimating a rural poverty line. This it does by arriving at a purchasing power parity (PPP) equivalent of this figure for rural areas, or a nominal expenditure figure that would allow the same basket to be consumed in rural areas after taking account of rural-urban price differentials. The net result of these exercises is a new set of poverty lines for 2004-05 — Rs 446.68 for rural areas and Rs 578.80 for urban areas per capita per month — and a new set of poverty incidence figures that are more or less the same for 2004-05 in urban areas but higher at 41.8 per cent as compared with 28.3 per cent in rural areas.

TOWING GOVT LINE

These figures sound more “reasonable” in terms of magnitude, even though they are derived from an ostensibly “estimated” but unanchored nominal poverty line for urban areas for 2004-05. But what accounts for the fact that the government is accepting them without much protest?

The explanation seems to lie outside the issue of methodology of estimation. Poverty incidence figures matter now not merely because they reveal how many are marginalised in an India seen as “emerging” onto the world stage. They also matter because they provide the numbers of people to whom government schemes of various kinds aimed at addressing the worst forms of deprivation are to be “targeted.” Most social protection and poverty alleviation schemes are directed at the below the poverty line (BPOL) population, in a misguided effort at obtaining more bang for the rupee. If targeting is in fashion, a reasonable estimate of those who deserve the benefit of these schemes is necessary. That was what the earlier poverty estimate was not providing.

Moreover, if the number of those targeted is kept small because of an inappropriate poverty incidence estimate, the social legitimacy the government seeks through these schemes would not be garnered. In practice, therefore, the numbers identified as BPL for implementing government sponsored schemes were much higher than those seen as below the poverty line as per the official poverty incidence figures.

In fact, a report prepared by former Planning Commission member N C Saxena at the behest of the rural development ministry argued that the proportion of the population below the poverty line should be closer to 50 per cent, without specifying a clear method to arrive at that figure. This arbitrariness was obviously discomfiting. It also opened doors to poverty incidence figures that would require budgetary outlays for targeted schemes that would trouble a fiscally conservative government.

Thus, since it has managed to legitimise targeting, a method that delivers a middling poverty figure suits the government. Especially because “even though the suggested new methodology gives a higher estimate of rural headcount ratio at the all-India level for 2004-05, the extent of poverty reduction in comparable percentage point decline between 1993-94 and 2004-05 is not different from that inferred using the old methodology.” This also deals with the embarrassment of those who have to compute and put out poverty incidence figures. The result is a cosy convergence in the views of the Tendulkar committee and the government in which the poor are by no means left any better.

Article courtesy: People's Democracy