Prabhat Patnaik and Re-Envisioning Socialism:

Comments on his article in EPW of November 2007

By K Vijayachandran

Prabhat Patnaik endorses the overall vision on socialism that would emerge: But he insists that the precise mode and problems of transition must wait another occasion. He is inclined to endorse Lukac's view that, transition to socialism is likely to be long drawn-out, because transition from feudalism to capitalism had taken nearly three centuries. A friend of mine, an IT expert and an enthusiast in the application of Marxism, questions this hypothesis: It ignores the possible impact of the rapidly increasing speed of technological changes.

Facts around the rapidly increasing speed or acceleration of technology were dealt with extensively by several non-Marxian sociologists like the author of Future Shock. And, IT experts have come to believe in the so called Moore's Law, which had predicted doubling of the performance efficiency of electronic chips every two years. Questioning of Patnaik's hypothesis has, therefor, its inherent logic: After all, socialisation of material production on a large scale with the help of machines or modern technology, and the impact of technological changes on the society, were at the core of Marx's critique of Capital: Modes and problems of transition, therefor, need to be discussed not in the abstract, but in their specific technological context. The brief commentary, here, is based on such a belief, and a few other points of disagreements with Patanaik, regarding the facts on socialist experience as presented and theorised by him.

Use of machines for material processing and transportation of men and materials across the continents using steam engine and other energy conversion machines, had socialised the process of physical production to unprecedented levels, and at the same time enhanced by several fold, the physical productivity of mankind. Riding on what may be called the first industrial revolution, the bourgeoisie classes, all over the world, had created new nation states under their hegemony: However, they were incapable of developing a global political economy or an integrated and inter-dependant world thanks to the imperialist interregnum, as rightly theorised by Lenin. Even today, the first industrial revolution has not run its full course, but mankind is already experiencing the impact of a second industrial revolution, better known as Information Technology and Communication (IT&C) Revolution, which is socialising and globalising intellectual production to hitherto unprecedented scale, and enhancing by several fold the intellectual productivity of mankind. As early as in late fifties, even before the dawn of this second industrial revolution, Professor Galbraith had theorised that, mankind had developed enough of technologies, that could feed and sustain several times the then estimated world population of four billion (Affluent Society, 1958). One may take a view that, those were good enough technological conditions for the practice of socialism, and now the first and second industrial revolutions together have created a technological environment needed for the flowering of communism. Based on the experience of past couple of centuries, one may even theorise that, subjective or ideological factors continue to hold back humanity from taking the plunge in pursuit of socialism and communism.

Visions of an integrated and interdependent world of Perestroika days had an objective technological basis, but they failed to recognise the harsh reality of imperialism, working overtime to subvert socialism. With the down fall of socialist camp, capital which owns and control the means of production, material as well as intellectual, has come to occupy the central stage of global politics once again, taking imperialism to new heights of hegemony, exploitation and oppression. Re-envisioning of socialism need to be thought of, not in the abstract, but in this given historical context, when social and political contradictions are sharpening by the day with increasing momentum, and global capital and bourgeoisie classes or the imperialists are inventing newer and newer methods of bypassing and destroying democracy and democratic values. Their attempts to subvert the UN System and the insistence on substituting it with the IBRD-IMF-WTO trio, are proof enough for their lack of faith in democracy and equality of nationalities, an essential prerequisite for the orderly development of mankind.

The UN system, with its numerous international organizations (including the trio, IBRD-WTO-IMF) spanning nearly the entire spectrum of human endevour, is a post-Marxian development of great historic significance, which could hardly be ignored by Marxists. The two global wars, in quick succession, had stressed the need for a World Government, if humanity was to survive and benefit from the steadily accelerating technological developments. Bolshevik revolution had recognized the value of League of Nations as a new historical experience, despite its polemics with Trosky: Soviet Union itself was seen a a mini league of nations, that had liberated the numerous nationalities from centuries old Tsarist oppression, and creating a multinational state that was distinctly different from the old colonial type. Soviet Union could play a leading role in the constitution of UNO, not only as a winner in the second world war, but also as a multinational state with vast experience in managing cultural diversities of continental proportions and the inevitable emotional conflicts, triggered by that devastating war.

Formation of USSR, its heroic survival of the second global war under the proletarian leadership, and its peaceful dissolution, later, into the CIS, as well as the growth and development of UNO and the numerous international institutions created by it, including IBRD, IMF, WTO etc which are now under separate charters, are all important developments that are extremely relevant, while speculating on transition to socialism and global governance. Patnaik has missed this broad canvas while concluding: "The choice before us today, as it was at the time of Lenin and Luxnburg, is between socialism and barbarism, between a situation where a predatory imperialism remains locked in perennial combat with equally ruthless groups of terrorists, thus threatening the very survival of our civilisation, and one that produces both imperialism and its terrorist "other" is overthrown." This above formulation, along with his doubts expressed on the existence of a general crisis in capitalism, takes away the incentives for any meaningful discussion on 'the precise problems that would arise in the course of transition to socialism'.

'Imperialism which is in perennial combat with terrorism', according to Patnaik, 'is threatening our civilisation'; but he has refrained from defining the contours of this contemporary civilisation. He does not recognise the intensification of capitalist crisis due to imperialism trying to deepen its stranglehold over the peoples of the developing world, by making use of the rapid technological changes. Neither does he see the resistance against imperialist oppression and exploitation, put in by the two hundred or so nation states of the developing world. He makes no mention about the struggle by the peoples of developing countries against imperialism and their collaborators. Patnaik has not cared to look at the possibilities for joint initiatives of developing countries, regional as well as global, as in the very recent past, against imperialist exploitation and oppression. He rules out the possibility of intra-imperialist rivalry breaking out in any serious manner, based on an extremely unrealistic perception of global politics. Patnaik has constructed a world with imperialists and terrorists as the sole active players; that has nothing to do with the real world of ours. Such a perception has nothing to do with the basic formulations on the four principal contradictions of our epoch, as spelt out in the 1960 Moscow declaration by 61 communist parties: Most working class parties of the World, including the CPI(M), of which Patnaik is a member, hold them to be relevant even today, despite the disintegration of the USSR and the collapse of socialist camp. And, as Lenin had had prophesied: ....this one country, thanks to the Soviet power, has done so much that even if the Soviet power in Russia were to be crushed by world imperialism tomorrow, …it would still be found that Bolshevik tactics have brought enormous benefit to socialism and have assisted the growth of the invincible world revolution. (Lenin-Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky)

Patnaik has discussed, at length, issues related to democracy, organisational principles and democratic centralism, as practiced under 'old socialism'. Intention here is not challenging the numerous facts he had presented but to supplement them, which incidentally could lead to altogether different perceptions about 'old socialism'. He is right in complementing Lenin for suffering open dissent by Bucharin and others even during the most difficult post-revolutionary times....The question of silencing them through disciplinary action never arose. Such silencing of dissent was a later and altogether unwholesome development. This fact is of great relevance to the conduct of ideological polemics, within the Indian revolutionary movement, which on occasions degenerate into Pol Potism of the worst kind. However, it need to be noted that, the so called silencing of dissent had only started, several years after Lenin's death. There was a prolonged ideological and political struggle led by Stalin against the so called opposition within and outside the Bolshevik party, under much more difficult internal situation. It is only fair to concede that Stalin had continued with the democratic traditions of Lenin, under even more hostile environment. True, there were trials and executions: They were part of the then existing global culture which was tolerant even towards war and mass killings, universally abhorred today on simple moral grounds. However, inner party democracy and democratic centralism within the Bolshevik movement did not come to a dead-end, with the demise of Lenin: It has survived not only Stalin, but also several other General Secretaries of CPSU. Without that type of inner-party democracy, it would have been simply impossible for the Soviet Society to survive the hostile encirclement of imperialism and to register the great achievements of the Soviet Union in war and in peace.

In support of the hypothesis that, inner party democracy was alive and kicking within the CPSU even after Lenin, one may quote from Onikov (a CC Member of CPSU and staunch supporter of Perestroika), regarding inner party democracy in the party organisation of Moscow region: Up to 1940 there was not a single case at dozens of its [party of Moscow region] of a nominee for full or candidate membership of the regional or city party committee or the auditing commission being elected unanimously. It was a common practice then, especially in the 1920's, that some of the candidates were not elected. The first case when all nominees for full or candidate membership of the regional committee and the auditing committee were elected unanimously was reported in 1974; not a single nominee in the voting list was voted down. In 1976, the same happened at the city conference ( Onikov-Soviet Monthly, Socialism Principles Practice and Prospects-November 1989). It may be noted that, Onikov had assembled this data in order to discredit Brushnev & Co and not for supporting Stalin.

Rise and fall of Khrushchev are themselves sufficient proof for the healthy practice of democratic centralism within CPSU: Future historians are sure to make a more balanced view on the degeneration of democracy and democratic centralism within the CPSU, and may trace its beginnings to Khrushchev's revisionist reforms of 1961, implemented slowly but steadily by the intellectual classes of the Soviet Union, despite resistance put up by the working people. These reforms were intentioned to take away the political supervision of economic enterprises and to bring them under the bureaucratic care and control of the intelligentsia. This writer had experienced, in person, the debates on Ota Sik reforms in socialist Czechoslovakia during 1964-65; with engineers and other sections of intelligentsia on one side, supporting the reform and the workers and TU leaders opposing it at the grass root level. Heat of this debate was felt even at far off Tiruchirappalli, within the tiny Czechoslovak community that had come over to India, for setting up the boiler factory of BHEL. This conflict within Czechoslovak society was real and part of a democratic process within, and not a creation of 'Soviet Imperialism', as alleged at that time by the bourgeoisie media. Ota Sik reforms were later temporarily withdrawn and Dubcek, like Khrushchev, was forced to bow out under pressure from the working class.

It is natural that, class contradictions and class perceptions do not disappear even after long years of building socialism. Overlooking these social realities, while reforming or re-designing of systems of governance or management of economic enterprises, are sure to end up as fatal mistakes. Bolshevik revolution had established a system of governance and management of public institutions based on grass root level democracy, where the working people, their collectives and trade unions had played the key role, and not necessarily the intellectual classes and traditional bureaucracy. Even special schools and evening classes were opened, during Stalin's time, for training up ordinary workers and their children to take up key occupations within a short time. Special Universities were opened for ending, within a short time, the monopoly hold of aristocracy over intellectual occupations. This sort of built-in class bias in the management of street-level public institutions and human resources development had naturally attracted criticism and opposition from intellectual classes, reflections of which could be seen in the literary works of Pasternak, Sozhinistin and several others. Reforms by Ota Sik, Khrushchev and Gorbachev had a common objective: end of grass root level democracy and politics. Gorbachev had finally succeeded in banning politics from work places: By that time even party organisations at the higher levels were brought under the control of intellectual classes, as indirectly conceded by Patnaik: a person could become the general secretary of the CPSU without believing in socialism!

Legally enforceable guarantees on right to work and related fundamental rights had naturally reinforced the practice of grass-root level democracy in socialist countries,. Workers exercised their right to criticise not only their immediate supervisors, but even the managers of economic enterprises, who were legally bound to discuss all aspects of production planning, including questions of quality, productivity improvements and compensation packages, with the trade unions and in the shop floor level joint management committees. Industrial democracy, as practiced today in Western Europe, came into existence as an inevitable response to the shop-floor democracy practiced, extensively in East European countries, next door. For example, joint stock companies of West Germany were brought under legal compulsion to constitute joint management boards with equal representation for the workers and the Board of Directors elected by the shareholders and these laws continue to be valid even today. Enterprises managers in West Europe are legally obliged to consult trade unions not only on policy issues but also to share with them complete information on business performance. As West Europe tried to copy the principles of participative management and industrial democracy, that were widely practised in the socialist block, Japan was inspired by the massive voluntary movement of innovators and inventors, jointly organised by workers and technologists on the shop floor and then coordinated as part of the socialist initiative at the national level. During the post-war years, these voluntary movements originating from the shop floors of Soviet Union were widely adopted by East European countries: They were then re-christened as Quality Circles (QC) in Japan, under the guidance of Professor Deming of the Harvard University.

Management theorists and market economists in the payrolls of the bourgeoisie could be hardly expected to confess on the lessons they had learnt from the great socialist experiments in governance and enterprises management. Nevertheless, it is quite legitimate to conclude that, unlike in USA, monopoly capitalism in Western Europe and Japan had adopted, in large measure, the enterprises management methods developed by Soviet Union and other socialist countries, that were based on grass root level democracy. And, contrary to the false propaganda by imperialists and bourgeoisie intellectuals, Science and Technology in Soviet Union and the socialist block had experienced quantum jumps, thanks to these democratic methods of management, that could draw heavily from the creativity of people, who were liberated from the yoke of capitalist oppression. Debates on the relative roles of democracy and bureaucracy in enterprises management and economic management in socialist countries were grossly one-sided in the past, and continue to be ill-informed: Theories and perceptions on convergence by Galbreath did not find supporters on either side of the ideological divide, thanks to the ideological blinkers and rigidities of the cold war environment. The essay on Re-envisioning of Socialism cannot claim to be an exemption from this general trend.

Patnaik had commented that, old socialism, especially in its later years, had appealed to the self interests of the workers and not to their social commitments: Old socialism depoliticised the workers. Our vision of the socialism of the future must entail a resurrection of politics, a perennial engagement with the politics on the part of the working class, which will also provide the answer to the problem of work motivation in socialist societies. He is right when he insists that, this cannot be ensured by adopting a religious approach to Marxism. Nevertheless, the question need to be asked and honestly answered: Who, at what point of time, and which forces within or outside the socialist societies, had depoliticised the workers and how?

Re-envisioning of socialism demands not only the right answers to these vital questions, but also a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing globalisation under the impact of the second industrial revolution, and of the international organisations that have already come into existence within and outside of the UNO, as well as their potential role in a future system of global governance. Discourses, that neglect these objective realities, are not only un-Marxian but also counterproductive.

28.04.2008