To this day, I remain an ardent admirer of Arundhati Roy. Of late it could be regarded as a good development that she has started involving herself in analyzing the Maoist movement in India with a strong sympathetic perspective. The understanding of social development as such, which underlies her current engagement with the Maoist movement is not very different from the understanding that she had when she was actively engaged with the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and associated movements. She seems to have moved away from the strongly anti-Communist position that she had when she published the “God of small things”. But her worldview still remains one which tries to transcend the systemic formalities of Capitalism or Socialism or Communism. And all along she has remained a steadfast opponent of Fascism in its economic and cultural variants.
A recent line in an article in Outlook magazine by Arundhati Roy caught my attention. She advocates a kind of a system which transcends Capitalism and Communism and for that she draws inspiration from the Tribal system both in an economic, ecological and cultural sense. This is not a very novel idea because in development theory, the New Social Movements especially the ecological/green movements talk about a certain kind of a development trajectory which incorporates a localized system for production, distribution and exchange and with minimum interference with the ecological base.
Before we think of a rational alternative to the current system, we need to have a historical understanding of the evolution of society. Whether we believe in the Marxist worldview or we believe in any other worldviews, any scientific understanding of societal evolution cannot but have a linear connotation. This linear conceptualization can be embedded with a variety of non-linearities but over the course of thousands of years of historical evolution, a pattern can be deciphered which can be fitted into a linear framework.
In the beginning of recorded history, we have societies which depended on a tribal mode of production with its associated cultural and social systems. Then we have the emergence of settled agriculture. The associated surplus that this mode of production generated resulted in the first river valley civilizations. This era could be covered under the broad term of “Feudalism” though there are enormous pluralities within this system. Then we have the development of trade and commerce and the development of Capitalism and the emergence of the nation-states. This phase was, in a latter part characterized by the industrial revolution. There are different pockets of the world which may be operating within pre-capitalist relations of production as well as pre-capitalist cultural relations. But if, at circa 2010 AD, the world as a whole is located within the broad historical trajectory that has been discussed above, then we find that we are very much within a broad capitalistic framework in both an economic and a cultural sense.
Now coming back to the question of Maoist movements in India, no one with a semblance of humanism left within him/her (whether the humanism is of a bourgeoisie/socialist variety) can deny that the social issues that gave rise to the Maoist movement remain enormously valid. The only question that remains is whether the resistance offered by the Maoist movement to the exploitation that is very much happening in the areas under Maoist influence is justified from a moral and an ideological standpoint.
Most analyses of the Maoist movement are caught within a Violence-Non-violence kind of a moralizing dialectic. Within an exploitative, imperfect system that all of humanity is currently living, almost every where, there is a definite structural violence that is a part of the social fabric. Any kind of social change will necessarily involve an engagement with this structural violence and the extent of that violence is something that has to be decided within the realities of that context and the concrete possibilities of social change that exist within that context. This article does not propose to examine whether, within the geographical context in which Maoist influence is present, the violence of their resistance is justified or not. It does not also propose to examine the ideological underpinning of the Maoist movement. What it proposes to do is to examine a certain kind of a development alternative that seems to inform a considerable chunk of the current sympathizers of the Maoist movement, a foremost example of whom is Arundhati Roy.
Now, it is in order to recapitulate the brief story of that Hollywood blockbuster ‘Avtar’. The resistance to the human invaders by the tribal-like inhabitants of the planet “Pandorra” is definitely justified. But in the movie, there was a certain kind of a romanticization of the life of the inhabitants of the planet “Pandorra” wherein they were supposed to be in an idyllic state in harmony with god and nature which was getting disturbed by human invasion. The historical state of Pandorra is not linked with that in Earth and to that extent we can consider the planet Pandorra to be situated in an ahistorical context. So, a fictional planet situated in an ahistorical context provided the setting for resistance against a human -greed inspired invasion. And in this process, the hero switches sides for reasons to do with his own call of conscience and to do with an emotional attachment with an alien girl. While this story has enormous value in terms of freeing the spaces for our imagination and ensuring that our humane values remain intact, adapting it to a human context very much within planet earth will be to stretch the limits of science and logic.
There was a very much Avtar-inspired resistance to the acquisition of Vedanta of Niyamgiri hills in Orissa. This also could be included within the framework of the brand of resistance offered by Arundhati Roy. First let us examine this brand of resistance from a spatial-cultural point of view. If we think that “We” should not encroach on “Their” tribal land for the purpose of some industrialization or infrastructure project, then we preclude the possibility of viewing tribal and non-tribal people within an integrated development framework. We inadvertently end up imbuing the tribal people with a sense of “Other”ness which is counter to the common human thread running between tribals and the so-called “Mainstream” people. This kind of thinking is shockingly similar to the kind of fascist thinking of groups like the Shiv Sena which talk of “Our” Mumbai getting encroached by the “Alien” “others” from outside. It might sound unpalatable but both these strands of thinking rest on a “Us” vs “Them” kind of a worldview which is unacceptable because what we need is integration of people within the same kind of an inclusivistic framework and not further reinforcement of the existing cultural and other differences.
The second objection to this brand of resistance is from the viewpoint of history. When human societal development is situated within a historical context, the tribal mode of production and its associated cultural systems were suitable for an earlier era and not for the 21st century. No tribal child is going to remain within that system given a choice between that system and modernity. Off course the transition from the tribal to a modern way of life will be painful but any change, even if it’s a progressive change will be painful because change per se involves a certain element of pain. The only thing which has to be ensured is that this change has to be under the control of the people undergoing the change so that they don’t feel like having become the sudden victims of alien forces beyond their control.
Coming back to the brand of resistance offered by Arundhati Roy, it seems to contain within itself, an element of romanticization of the existing social relations, a kind of ‘Avtar’ization of the entire process of Resistance in the areas where struggle against change and industrialization is happening. Off course as a Post-Modernist might argue, a Tribal system has a lot to offer in terms of rectifying the anomalies of Capitalism. That is perfectly true and for that matter even a Feudal system might have something to offer in terms of countering the kind of amoral value systems fostered by market-driven capitalism. But it is one thing to talk about incorporating some progressive elements of an earlier era within the current system and another thing to talk about throwing the current development baby with the bathwater in favour of an anachronistic system.
Off course in the current trajectory of capitalist development, most of the so-called “Development” happens in an inhuman way in which the subaltern sections are forced to subsidize for the elites. So, there is no question of not resisting this kind of an anti-people development process. But resisting this development trajectory with a fictional systemic alterative may not be the right thing to do. The incisive analytical prowess of Arundhati Roy and her honest striving for humane solutions for our development problems will have a hugely better meaning if she informs her discourses with a scientific understanding of social change and a correct understanding of what could be a possible progressive culture.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
ARUNDHATI ROY AND THE ‘AVTAR’IZATION OF RESISTANCE
To this day, I remain an ardent admirer of Arundhati Roy. Of late it could be regarded as a good development that she has started involving herself in analyzing the Maoist movement in India with a strong sympathetic perspective. The understanding of social development as such, which underlies her current engagement with the Maoist movement is not very different from the understanding that she had when she was actively engaged with the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and associated movements. She seems to have moved away from the strongly anti-Communist position that she had when she published the “God of small things”. But her worldview still remains one which tries to transcend the systemic formalities of Capitalism or Socialism or Communism. And all along she has remained a steadfast opponent of Fascism in its economic and cultural variants.
A recent line in an article in Outlook magazine by Arundhati Roy caught my attention. She advocates a kind of a system which transcends Capitalism and Communism and for that she draws inspiration from the Tribal system both in an economic, ecological and cultural sense. This is not a very novel idea because in development theory, the New Social Movements especially the ecological/green movements talk about a certain kind of a development trajectory which incorporates a localized system for production, distribution and exchange and with minimum interference with the ecological base.
Before we think of a rational alternative to the current system, we need to have a historical understanding of the evolution of society. Whether we believe in the Marxist worldview or we believe in any other worldviews, any scientific understanding of societal evolution cannot but have a linear connotation. This linear conceptualization can be embedded with a variety of non-linearities but over the course of thousands of years of historical evolution, a pattern can be deciphered which can be fitted into a linear framework.
In the beginning of recorded history, we have societies which depended on a tribal mode of production with its associated cultural and social systems. Then we have the emergence of settled agriculture. The associated surplus that this mode of production generated resulted in the first river valley civilizations. This era could be covered under the broad term of “Feudalism” though there are enormous pluralities within this system. Then we have the development of trade and commerce and the development of Capitalism and the emergence of the nation-states. This phase was, in a latter part characterized by the industrial revolution. There are different pockets of the world which may be operating within pre-capitalist relations of production as well as pre-capitalist cultural relations. But if, at circa 2010 AD, the world as a whole is located within the broad historical trajectory that has been discussed above, then we find that we are very much within a broad capitalistic framework in both an economic and a cultural sense.
Now coming back to the question of Maoist movements in India, no one with a semblance of humanism left within him/her (whether the humanism is of a bourgeoisie/socialist variety) can deny that the social issues that gave rise to the Maoist movement remain enormously valid. The only question that remains is whether the resistance offered by the Maoist movement to the exploitation that is very much happening in the areas under Maoist influence is justified from a moral and an ideological standpoint.
Most analyses of the Maoist movement are caught within a Violence-Non-violence kind of a moralizing dialectic. Within an exploitative, imperfect system that all of humanity is currently living, almost every where, there is a definite structural violence that is a part of the social fabric. Any kind of social change will necessarily involve an engagement with this structural violence and the extent of that violence is something that has to be decided within the realities of that context and the concrete possibilities of social change that exist within that context. This article does not propose to examine whether, within the geographical context in which Maoist influence is present, the violence of their resistance is justified or not. It does not also propose to examine the ideological underpinning of the Maoist movement. What it proposes to do is to examine a certain kind of a development alternative that seems to inform a considerable chunk of the current sympathizers of the Maoist movement, a foremost example of whom is Arundhati Roy.
Now, it is in order to recapitulate the brief story of that Hollywood blockbuster ‘Avtar’. The resistance to the human invaders by the tribal-like inhabitants of the planet “Pandorra” is definitely justified. But in the movie, there was a certain kind of a romanticization of the life of the inhabitants of the planet “Pandorra” wherein they were supposed to be in an idyllic state in harmony with god and nature which was getting disturbed by human invasion. The historical state of Pandorra is not linked with that in Earth and to that extent we can consider the planet Pandorra to be situated in an ahistorical context. So, a fictional planet situated in an ahistorical context provided the setting for resistance against a human -greed inspired invasion. And in this process, the hero switches sides for reasons to do with his own call of conscience and to do with an emotional attachment with an alien girl. While this story has enormous value in terms of freeing the spaces for our imagination and ensuring that our humane values remain intact, adapting it to a human context very much within planet earth will be to stretch the limits of science and logic.
There was a very much Avtar-inspired resistance to the acquisition of Vedanta of Niyamgiri hills in Orissa. This also could be included within the framework of the brand of resistance offered by Arundhati Roy. First let us examine this brand of resistance from a spatial-cultural point of view. If we think that “We” should not encroach on “Their” tribal land for the purpose of some industrialization or infrastructure project, then we preclude the possibility of viewing tribal and non-tribal people within an integrated development framework. We inadvertently end up imbuing the tribal people with a sense of “Other”ness which is counter to the common human thread running between tribals and the so-called “Mainstream” people. This kind of thinking is shockingly similar to the kind of fascist thinking of groups like the Shiv Sena which talk of “Our” Mumbai getting encroached by the “Alien” “others” from outside. It might sound unpalatable but both these strands of thinking rest on a “Us” vs “Them” kind of a worldview which is unacceptable because what we need is integration of people within the same kind of an inclusivistic framework and not further reinforcement of the existing cultural and other differences.
The second objection to this brand of resistance is from the viewpoint of history. When human societal development is situated within a historical context, the tribal mode of production and its associated cultural systems were suitable for an earlier era and not for the 21st century. No tribal child is going to remain within that system given a choice between that system and modernity. Off course the transition from the tribal to a modern way of life will be painful but any change, even if it’s a progressive change will be painful because change per se involves a certain element of pain. The only thing which has to be ensured is that this change has to be under the control of the people undergoing the change so that they don’t feel like having become the sudden victims of alien forces beyond their control.
Coming back to the brand of resistance offered by Arundhati Roy, it seems to contain within itself, an element of romanticization of the existing social relations, a kind of ‘Avtar’ization of the entire process of Resistance in the areas where struggle against change and industrialization is happening. Off course as a Post-Modernist might argue, a Tribal system has a lot to offer in terms of rectifying the anomalies of Capitalism. That is perfectly true and for that matter even a Feudal system might have something to offer in terms of countering the kind of amoral value systems fostered by market-driven capitalism. But it is one thing to talk about incorporating some progressive elements of an earlier era within the current system and another thing to talk about throwing the current development baby with the bathwater in favour of an anachronistic system.
Off course in the current trajectory of capitalist development, most of the so-called “Development” happens in an inhuman way in which the subaltern sections are forced to subsidize for the elites. So, there is no question of not resisting this kind of an anti-people development process. But resisting this development trajectory with a fictional systemic alterative may not be the right thing to do. The incisive analytical prowess of Arundhati Roy and her honest striving for humane solutions for our development problems will have a hugely better meaning if she informs her discourses with a scientific understanding of social change and a correct understanding of what could be a possible progressive culture.
A recent line in an article in Outlook magazine by Arundhati Roy caught my attention. She advocates a kind of a system which transcends Capitalism and Communism and for that she draws inspiration from the Tribal system both in an economic, ecological and cultural sense. This is not a very novel idea because in development theory, the New Social Movements especially the ecological/green movements talk about a certain kind of a development trajectory which incorporates a localized system for production, distribution and exchange and with minimum interference with the ecological base.
Before we think of a rational alternative to the current system, we need to have a historical understanding of the evolution of society. Whether we believe in the Marxist worldview or we believe in any other worldviews, any scientific understanding of societal evolution cannot but have a linear connotation. This linear conceptualization can be embedded with a variety of non-linearities but over the course of thousands of years of historical evolution, a pattern can be deciphered which can be fitted into a linear framework.
In the beginning of recorded history, we have societies which depended on a tribal mode of production with its associated cultural and social systems. Then we have the emergence of settled agriculture. The associated surplus that this mode of production generated resulted in the first river valley civilizations. This era could be covered under the broad term of “Feudalism” though there are enormous pluralities within this system. Then we have the development of trade and commerce and the development of Capitalism and the emergence of the nation-states. This phase was, in a latter part characterized by the industrial revolution. There are different pockets of the world which may be operating within pre-capitalist relations of production as well as pre-capitalist cultural relations. But if, at circa 2010 AD, the world as a whole is located within the broad historical trajectory that has been discussed above, then we find that we are very much within a broad capitalistic framework in both an economic and a cultural sense.
Now coming back to the question of Maoist movements in India, no one with a semblance of humanism left within him/her (whether the humanism is of a bourgeoisie/socialist variety) can deny that the social issues that gave rise to the Maoist movement remain enormously valid. The only question that remains is whether the resistance offered by the Maoist movement to the exploitation that is very much happening in the areas under Maoist influence is justified from a moral and an ideological standpoint.
Most analyses of the Maoist movement are caught within a Violence-Non-violence kind of a moralizing dialectic. Within an exploitative, imperfect system that all of humanity is currently living, almost every where, there is a definite structural violence that is a part of the social fabric. Any kind of social change will necessarily involve an engagement with this structural violence and the extent of that violence is something that has to be decided within the realities of that context and the concrete possibilities of social change that exist within that context. This article does not propose to examine whether, within the geographical context in which Maoist influence is present, the violence of their resistance is justified or not. It does not also propose to examine the ideological underpinning of the Maoist movement. What it proposes to do is to examine a certain kind of a development alternative that seems to inform a considerable chunk of the current sympathizers of the Maoist movement, a foremost example of whom is Arundhati Roy.
Now, it is in order to recapitulate the brief story of that Hollywood blockbuster ‘Avtar’. The resistance to the human invaders by the tribal-like inhabitants of the planet “Pandorra” is definitely justified. But in the movie, there was a certain kind of a romanticization of the life of the inhabitants of the planet “Pandorra” wherein they were supposed to be in an idyllic state in harmony with god and nature which was getting disturbed by human invasion. The historical state of Pandorra is not linked with that in Earth and to that extent we can consider the planet Pandorra to be situated in an ahistorical context. So, a fictional planet situated in an ahistorical context provided the setting for resistance against a human -greed inspired invasion. And in this process, the hero switches sides for reasons to do with his own call of conscience and to do with an emotional attachment with an alien girl. While this story has enormous value in terms of freeing the spaces for our imagination and ensuring that our humane values remain intact, adapting it to a human context very much within planet earth will be to stretch the limits of science and logic.
There was a very much Avtar-inspired resistance to the acquisition of Vedanta of Niyamgiri hills in Orissa. This also could be included within the framework of the brand of resistance offered by Arundhati Roy. First let us examine this brand of resistance from a spatial-cultural point of view. If we think that “We” should not encroach on “Their” tribal land for the purpose of some industrialization or infrastructure project, then we preclude the possibility of viewing tribal and non-tribal people within an integrated development framework. We inadvertently end up imbuing the tribal people with a sense of “Other”ness which is counter to the common human thread running between tribals and the so-called “Mainstream” people. This kind of thinking is shockingly similar to the kind of fascist thinking of groups like the Shiv Sena which talk of “Our” Mumbai getting encroached by the “Alien” “others” from outside. It might sound unpalatable but both these strands of thinking rest on a “Us” vs “Them” kind of a worldview which is unacceptable because what we need is integration of people within the same kind of an inclusivistic framework and not further reinforcement of the existing cultural and other differences.
The second objection to this brand of resistance is from the viewpoint of history. When human societal development is situated within a historical context, the tribal mode of production and its associated cultural systems were suitable for an earlier era and not for the 21st century. No tribal child is going to remain within that system given a choice between that system and modernity. Off course the transition from the tribal to a modern way of life will be painful but any change, even if it’s a progressive change will be painful because change per se involves a certain element of pain. The only thing which has to be ensured is that this change has to be under the control of the people undergoing the change so that they don’t feel like having become the sudden victims of alien forces beyond their control.
Coming back to the brand of resistance offered by Arundhati Roy, it seems to contain within itself, an element of romanticization of the existing social relations, a kind of ‘Avtar’ization of the entire process of Resistance in the areas where struggle against change and industrialization is happening. Off course as a Post-Modernist might argue, a Tribal system has a lot to offer in terms of rectifying the anomalies of Capitalism. That is perfectly true and for that matter even a Feudal system might have something to offer in terms of countering the kind of amoral value systems fostered by market-driven capitalism. But it is one thing to talk about incorporating some progressive elements of an earlier era within the current system and another thing to talk about throwing the current development baby with the bathwater in favour of an anachronistic system.
Off course in the current trajectory of capitalist development, most of the so-called “Development” happens in an inhuman way in which the subaltern sections are forced to subsidize for the elites. So, there is no question of not resisting this kind of an anti-people development process. But resisting this development trajectory with a fictional systemic alterative may not be the right thing to do. The incisive analytical prowess of Arundhati Roy and her honest striving for humane solutions for our development problems will have a hugely better meaning if she informs her discourses with a scientific understanding of social change and a correct understanding of what could be a possible progressive culture.
Friday, December 3, 2010
REVOLUTION VS REVOLUTION – A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BOURGEOISIE DEMOCRATIC & SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONS
I have been thinking about this theme for the last year or so. The classical understanding of the great French revolution, the English revolution in the 17th century led by Oliver Cromwell and even the American freedom struggle are considered as “Bourgeoisie Democratic Revolutions”. Bourgeoisie revolutions are those kind of revolutions in which the nascent ‘Bourgeoisie’ as a class takes over power from the ruling feudal class. The head of the feudal classes is symbolized by the monarch. The “Bourgeoisie” at this stage is composed of the newly emergent class of merchants and industrialists and the feudal class is composed of the landlords using a comparatively primitive means of production. In contrast to the bourgeoisie democratic revolution, a Socialist revolution in a classical sense is supposed to take place in a country with the bourgeoisie as a ruling class and which has a capitalist mode of production and one in which the proletariat captures state political power and establishes its dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and the means of production is taken over by the state for the collective welfare.
Marx had predicted that the Socialist revolution would first happen in an advanced industrial country like Britain. And so how exactly do we explain the socialist revolution which happened in Russia led by the Bolshevik party and the revolution that happened in China led by the Chinese Communist party? The understanding of many Marxists is that in Russia, Lenin telescoped a bourgeoisie revolution and a socialist revolution in the Russian October revolution and that in China, Mao brought about a ‘New Democratic Revolution’ which was supposed to revolutionize the forces of production to such an extent that Chinese society will undergo a transformation to the socialist phase led by the Chinese communist party without undergoing the phase of Capitalism.
But the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet Union and in China makes us rethink the above mentioned explanations. Taking the case of the former Soviet Union, a section of the world’s Marxists believe that the collapse was caused by the emergence of a new bourgeoisie class which toppled the soviet system in 1989 and another section of the world’s Marxists believe that the soviet bourgeoisie emerged within the communist party and captured state power with the death of Stalin and it was symbolized by the emergence of Khrushchev and his clique in 1953.
But there could be a third explanation. And this was to do with the very nature of the socialist revolution that happened in 1917. In February 1917, the Menshevik party, which broadly represented the interests of the nascent Russian bourgeoisie captured power from the Russian Tsar and this is characterized as a kind of social change which resembles a bourgeoisie democratic revolution. And in October 1917, the Bolshevik party led by Lenin which represented the interests of the nascent Russian proletariat captured power from the Mensheviks and this was supposed to be a Socialist revolution. And the new Bolshevik state successfully fought a civil war against the feudal forces of the Tsar which were backed by many capitalist countries of Europe for their own narrow geo-political ends.
It has to be accepted by any sane and humane observer that what happened in 1917 in Russia was a momentous historical change that had a definite progressive character. One thing that emerges very clearly from this change is that the earlier feudal system was overthrown and a modern political, economical and cultural system took its place. Lenin interpreted the October revolution in terms of Marxist categories but could this be regarded as a socialist revolution even in the sense that Lenin and the progressive world in general interpreted it? I feel that the answer is in the negative.
One reason for this is that mere rhetoric or ideological interpretation or progressive terms don’t decide a historical phenomenon. A historical phenomenon has to be judged in the light of the concrete material conditions that define it. This is what the Marxist methodology teaches us. The nature of the class which wielded and consolidated its power in post-revolutionary Russia has to be understood. There is no question that it was none other than the Bolshevik Communist party and the soviet state apparatus. There are technical differences between the Communist party and the state apparatus but for the purpose of this analysis both could be conflated into one single entity. Since in terms of Leninist theory, the party is considered supreme over the state, henceforth this conflated entity is denoted as the “Communist party”.
Now it has to be examined in what ways the Russian Communist party differed from the bourgeoisie as a class. Before that it has to be examined as to whether the Russian Communist party could be considered as a “class” as such. A “Class” is defined as a section of society which is related in a particular way to the means of production. Thus, the Russian Communist party which centralised all control over the means of production in post-revolutionary Russia could definitely be regarded as a “Class”.
Now let us examine in what ways the Russian Communist party differed from the classical understanding of the bourgeoisie as a class. In very simple terms, the Bourgeoisie is the class which owns the means of economic production. The Russian Communist party did not “own” the means of production. Now, the term “ownership” has to be defined. Ownership over an asset includes the right to use, sell, prohibit or allow some other person from using it and the right to pass it on to the next generation. In a technical sense, the Russian Communist party did not have ownership over the means of production but for all practical purposes it had near-absolute control over the means of production and the labour force that worked on it.
The Communist party had a monopoly over state power and did not allow for any Montesquean separation of state power. And in the economic sphere, the bourgeoisie was not supposed to be there in Soviet Russia. But a deeper analysis could spell something else. In the realm of Political Economy, in a standard bourgeoisie democracy, there is a separation between the state and the bourgeoisie class. Marx thundered that the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie which is very much true. And in Russia, as we have already seen, the Communist party had near-absolute control over the means of production and the labour force that worked on it and a question arises as to in what essential sense it was different from the bourgeoisie as a class?. The answer emerges that there was only a technical difference between the communist party as a class and the bourgeoisie as a class.
Off course in 1917, in the immediate aftermath of the October revolution, this was not the case. The Bolshevik party really represented the Russian proletariat. But then in an industrially backward state like Tsarist Russia, where is the question of existence of the proletariat as a class?. There was only a nascent proletariat class as well as a nascent bourgeoisie class in 1917. What seems eminently plausible is that while the feudal nobility as class got itself decimated because of the tumultuous civil war after the Octobteh er revolution, only a part of the bourgeoisie class got itself liquidated in the process of the revolution but this part was a relatively minor part of the nascent bourgeoisie class. The major part of the nascent bourgeoisie class got itself assimilated into the communist party apparatus and it along with the other entrants and elements of the Communist party, started building and consolidating itself as the new and robust bourgeoisie class of Soviet Russia. This whole event was given an ideological interpretation using a Marxist epistemology.
This is not to question the moral character or the brilliance of a great human being like Lenin and all the other idealistic heroes of the Soviet revolution. While Lenin and his comrades himself might themselves have been under the genuine belief that it was a socialist revolution, the reality might have been something else. And the reality might have been that what happened in Russia in 1917 was not a socialist revolution in the Marxist sense but a bourgeoisie revolution in the Marxist sense. Just like the bourgeoisie democratic revolution in France in 1789 differed from the bourgeoisie democratic revolution of England of the seventeenth century or the bourgeoisie democratic revolution of America in 1776, the Russian October revolution was also a bourgeoisie democratic revolution with its own peculiarities. The same holds true for the Chinese revolution of 1949 which was also a a bourgeoisie democratic revolution with its own oriental peculiarities.
In the final analysis, Marxism was never implemented in practice in any country in any period. Different parts and countries of the world underwent different kinds of bourgeoisie democratic revolutions to change over their feudal systems to a capitalist system. This process is more or less complete in the current times and possibly one of the last such bourgeoisie democratic revolutions could be the Maoist inspired revolution in Nepal in 2006. Now we see that almost all countries of the world are operating very much within a capitalist framework. While Marxism survives as a robust methodology to understand reality and social change, the question remains as to whether it remains a robust prophecy.
Marx had predicted that the Socialist revolution would first happen in an advanced industrial country like Britain. And so how exactly do we explain the socialist revolution which happened in Russia led by the Bolshevik party and the revolution that happened in China led by the Chinese Communist party? The understanding of many Marxists is that in Russia, Lenin telescoped a bourgeoisie revolution and a socialist revolution in the Russian October revolution and that in China, Mao brought about a ‘New Democratic Revolution’ which was supposed to revolutionize the forces of production to such an extent that Chinese society will undergo a transformation to the socialist phase led by the Chinese communist party without undergoing the phase of Capitalism.
But the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet Union and in China makes us rethink the above mentioned explanations. Taking the case of the former Soviet Union, a section of the world’s Marxists believe that the collapse was caused by the emergence of a new bourgeoisie class which toppled the soviet system in 1989 and another section of the world’s Marxists believe that the soviet bourgeoisie emerged within the communist party and captured state power with the death of Stalin and it was symbolized by the emergence of Khrushchev and his clique in 1953.
But there could be a third explanation. And this was to do with the very nature of the socialist revolution that happened in 1917. In February 1917, the Menshevik party, which broadly represented the interests of the nascent Russian bourgeoisie captured power from the Russian Tsar and this is characterized as a kind of social change which resembles a bourgeoisie democratic revolution. And in October 1917, the Bolshevik party led by Lenin which represented the interests of the nascent Russian proletariat captured power from the Mensheviks and this was supposed to be a Socialist revolution. And the new Bolshevik state successfully fought a civil war against the feudal forces of the Tsar which were backed by many capitalist countries of Europe for their own narrow geo-political ends.
It has to be accepted by any sane and humane observer that what happened in 1917 in Russia was a momentous historical change that had a definite progressive character. One thing that emerges very clearly from this change is that the earlier feudal system was overthrown and a modern political, economical and cultural system took its place. Lenin interpreted the October revolution in terms of Marxist categories but could this be regarded as a socialist revolution even in the sense that Lenin and the progressive world in general interpreted it? I feel that the answer is in the negative.
One reason for this is that mere rhetoric or ideological interpretation or progressive terms don’t decide a historical phenomenon. A historical phenomenon has to be judged in the light of the concrete material conditions that define it. This is what the Marxist methodology teaches us. The nature of the class which wielded and consolidated its power in post-revolutionary Russia has to be understood. There is no question that it was none other than the Bolshevik Communist party and the soviet state apparatus. There are technical differences between the Communist party and the state apparatus but for the purpose of this analysis both could be conflated into one single entity. Since in terms of Leninist theory, the party is considered supreme over the state, henceforth this conflated entity is denoted as the “Communist party”.
Now it has to be examined in what ways the Russian Communist party differed from the bourgeoisie as a class. Before that it has to be examined as to whether the Russian Communist party could be considered as a “class” as such. A “Class” is defined as a section of society which is related in a particular way to the means of production. Thus, the Russian Communist party which centralised all control over the means of production in post-revolutionary Russia could definitely be regarded as a “Class”.
Now let us examine in what ways the Russian Communist party differed from the classical understanding of the bourgeoisie as a class. In very simple terms, the Bourgeoisie is the class which owns the means of economic production. The Russian Communist party did not “own” the means of production. Now, the term “ownership” has to be defined. Ownership over an asset includes the right to use, sell, prohibit or allow some other person from using it and the right to pass it on to the next generation. In a technical sense, the Russian Communist party did not have ownership over the means of production but for all practical purposes it had near-absolute control over the means of production and the labour force that worked on it.
The Communist party had a monopoly over state power and did not allow for any Montesquean separation of state power. And in the economic sphere, the bourgeoisie was not supposed to be there in Soviet Russia. But a deeper analysis could spell something else. In the realm of Political Economy, in a standard bourgeoisie democracy, there is a separation between the state and the bourgeoisie class. Marx thundered that the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie which is very much true. And in Russia, as we have already seen, the Communist party had near-absolute control over the means of production and the labour force that worked on it and a question arises as to in what essential sense it was different from the bourgeoisie as a class?. The answer emerges that there was only a technical difference between the communist party as a class and the bourgeoisie as a class.
Off course in 1917, in the immediate aftermath of the October revolution, this was not the case. The Bolshevik party really represented the Russian proletariat. But then in an industrially backward state like Tsarist Russia, where is the question of existence of the proletariat as a class?. There was only a nascent proletariat class as well as a nascent bourgeoisie class in 1917. What seems eminently plausible is that while the feudal nobility as class got itself decimated because of the tumultuous civil war after the Octobteh er revolution, only a part of the bourgeoisie class got itself liquidated in the process of the revolution but this part was a relatively minor part of the nascent bourgeoisie class. The major part of the nascent bourgeoisie class got itself assimilated into the communist party apparatus and it along with the other entrants and elements of the Communist party, started building and consolidating itself as the new and robust bourgeoisie class of Soviet Russia. This whole event was given an ideological interpretation using a Marxist epistemology.
This is not to question the moral character or the brilliance of a great human being like Lenin and all the other idealistic heroes of the Soviet revolution. While Lenin and his comrades himself might themselves have been under the genuine belief that it was a socialist revolution, the reality might have been something else. And the reality might have been that what happened in Russia in 1917 was not a socialist revolution in the Marxist sense but a bourgeoisie revolution in the Marxist sense. Just like the bourgeoisie democratic revolution in France in 1789 differed from the bourgeoisie democratic revolution of England of the seventeenth century or the bourgeoisie democratic revolution of America in 1776, the Russian October revolution was also a bourgeoisie democratic revolution with its own peculiarities. The same holds true for the Chinese revolution of 1949 which was also a a bourgeoisie democratic revolution with its own oriental peculiarities.
In the final analysis, Marxism was never implemented in practice in any country in any period. Different parts and countries of the world underwent different kinds of bourgeoisie democratic revolutions to change over their feudal systems to a capitalist system. This process is more or less complete in the current times and possibly one of the last such bourgeoisie democratic revolutions could be the Maoist inspired revolution in Nepal in 2006. Now we see that almost all countries of the world are operating very much within a capitalist framework. While Marxism survives as a robust methodology to understand reality and social change, the question remains as to whether it remains a robust prophecy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
