Socialism in the 21st Century : Return to Sober Reality Social events do not conform to eras arbitrarily created by men. Still, for convenience, we may speculate in terms of centuries (allowing of course for inevitable overlaps). What the shape of “socialism� will be or rather should be in the 21st century will be decided by our response to the events and pulls and pressures of the preceding centuries. That response entails a strong act of volition and determination to shape the world as it should be rather than to allow it to drift effortlessly with the dominant current of the time. Though recognized by many that modern industrial civilization is lethal to man and nature, there is a kind of fatalism which denies any escape from it. Where do we socialists stand in the face of this situation? From the point of view of the socialist movement, the nineteenth century ushered in an age of ebullience hopes and dreams. It was in this century that we had many utopias, the anarchists the Marxists as also other shades of socialism which sought to harness state power to bring betterment to the lives of the working people – Lassalle in Germany and the Fabians in Britain. The sheet-anchor of their hope was the industrial revolution, which harnessed natural forces like water current, wind as also energy derived from coal and later oil to facilitate industrial production on massive scale, and railways and ocean transport over vast distances. It was natural to hope that with equitable distribution the massive production made possible with new technology could insure comfortable life to everyone, with moderate amount of labour. The road map of revolution was simple. With industrialization reaching a peak; the world will be polarized between a handful of capitalists and vast numbers of proletariat who will have nothing to lose but their chains, and will overthrow capitalism That was the Marxist view which became the dominant ethos of the working class movement in most parts of Europe, and gained a foot-hold also in non-industrial peasant economies in many parts of the world. This view of revolution envisaged two scenarios: (i) Revolution in highly
industrialized countries undertaken by the industrial workers themselves and (ii) revolution in the less industrialized countries taking place under the leadership of the industrial workers with the support of the land hungry impoverished peasants, hoping to seize land from their land-lord. In the first scenario, the workers would take over an already developed economy, with the sole task of bestowing the benefits of high production on the toiling and hitherto deprived people. In the second scenario, the working class would enlist the support of the peasantry, through confiscation of the land of the big land holders and encouraging the peasants to take possessions of the land thus appropriated. Curiously, the first scenario rarely got enacted. But the early part of the twentieth century saw the second scenario getting enacted in many parts of the world with the most successful enactment of the revolutionary drama in Russia; the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Russia at the time had a very small though developed industrial base. Then, thirty years later, a revolution succeeded in China with massive peasant participation. China had even smaller and comparatively backward industrial base. Then followed revolution in South East Asia in Vietnam and Cambodia, which had very little industrialization - with the support of the peasant inspired by nationalist sentiment against French and American imperialism. A new phenomenon of a party wedded to communism coming to power on the wave of nationalist sentiment without any significant industrial working class was taking place. In all these countries, where revolutions had taken place under the leader ship of communists – modern industries and industrial proletariat had very poor base or had only nominal presence. So the revolutionary scenario was made to stand on its head: i.e. ‘Communist power’ had to create the industries which would bring into existence an industrial working class. Now it was the task of the ruling communist elite & the socialist vanguard to create modern industries and the industrial proletariat. Faced with this
task they soon realized that building the structure and sustaining the function of modern industries need the same kind of exploitation of human and natural resources, which underlay the development of industrial capitalism. The original sin of “primitive accumulation” dogged as inexorably the process of industrialization under communist régime as it had the development of capitalism. The workers had to be forced as ,or even more ruthlessly to achieve the productive ends of the so called socialist society. The issue of regimenting the work force came to the fore in April 1920, during the Third Congress of Russian Trade Unions. It was a period when a process of militarization of labour had been going on. Mensheviks were opposed to it; But Trotsky, who had been the war commissar, defended the coercive process in industries. He said, “The whole history of mankind is the education of labour for higher production. It is not an easy task, as man is lazy and he has the right to be so. Even free labour was not productive in the beginning. It has become productive through social education. Every device was used for this education. In the beginning the capitalist drove out the peasants from their farm and took over their land. When the peasants showed reluctance to work in factories, the capitalists branded them with hot iron, hanged them or shot them. That is how the capitalists compelled them to take up productive work in factories. What is our method in this regard? They are not less variegated than those of the capitalists but they are more honest, clear and not corrupted by pretensions.” Trotsky was merely referring to the process of early capital formation to which Marx drew attention under the caption “Primitive Accumulation”, towards the end of the first volume of capital. What to Marx had appeared as a one time excess , “the original sin” to start the endless chain of industrial production, is infact a continuing process. The system of industrial production is characterized by emergent vortices, where ever industrial productions begin. Each of the vortices destroys natural and human life processes to churn and suck up the remnants from which industrial products
take shape. To make a little shining steel pin, iron ore must be dug up, most probably from a hilly terrain inhabited by peasants or tribals, coal from another place, probably a forested area, for the foundry, again causing destruction of forests and displacement of people. Where energy is obtained from hydel power, some rivers or stream is dammed up submerging vast areas of forests and human habitations. It is the story of modern factory products of every kind, whether of steel, copper or aluminum. Each item ultimately is soaked in the blood of people, and trail the destruction of natural habitat. The bigger the scale of production the larger the swathe of destruction left in its wake. This process is inescapable whether you carry it on for the glory of the fatherland or in the name of socialism. There is little wonder that ultimately the systems which called themselves socialist and those that are called free market economy or capitalism converged and melted into a uniform system of industrial production, with cut - throat competition and socio-economic hierarchy. But regimentation of labour to secure un-interrupted work in factories was only one part of the efforts to boost up industrial production. The aim of fast and un-interrupted industrial growth needed massive input of labour and assured supply of food to feed the labour force; and agricultural raw materials for the industries. This was achieved through collectivization of agriculture. Additionally vast numbers of peasants deprived of their land and livelihood during collectivization were forced to migrate to distant lands to provide work force for many construction works – such as roads and canals. Within two decades Soviet Union was transformed from a predominantly rural agricultural economy into an urban industrial economy. The need of sustaining a developed industrial economy in Italy and Germany were met through the creation of a so-called corporate state under Fascism. In these countries totalitarian militaristic states were openly expansionist in their aim. In the east a rising industrial power Japan had a similar aim which it called a search for a co-prosperity sphere. These nations
had to try their mettle against the sated industrial economies of Great Britain, France and Netherland which had earlier acquired large empires in Asia and Africa. The regimentation of life at home and expansion for raw materials and markets abroad dovetailed perfectly with the aspirations of a modern industrial economy. The USA had from the very beginning-with its rise as a nation – vast supplies of every thing needed for an industrial economy. The need for cheap labour, it met through captive African people who were made to work in cotton and tobacco plantations as slave labour. The emergence of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in recent years again point to a nexus between easy availability of essential minerals, fuels, agricultural raw materials and cheap labour, and fast industrial growth. As the days of the empires were over the old imperial i.e. the industrial nations were losing out in the race for faster rates of growth. There is a near stagnation in many of the old industrial nations. As against this BRICS nations were registering fast rates of growth of national income. China at one point registered as high as twelve percent annual rate of growth of its GDP. Even India at one point had reached 9 percent annual rate of growth. All the BRICS nations have their own internal colonies – providing everything – minerals, agricultural products and above all abundant cheap labour. The recent decline of growth rates in these countries shows that the capacity of the internal sources of supply is getting exhausted. India is trying desperately to seek sources of supply of minerals, and coal in other countries. For oil it had always depended on outside sources of supply. Its annual rate of growth slipping to around 5 percent reflects the constraint of vital supplies. For coal and iron ore it is trying to acquire sources in Australia, Africa, Indonesia and other parts of the world. Seeking more power it has embarked on building nuclear power projects, ignoring the danger it poses to the environment. Raising the height of Narmada Dam without proper rehabilitations of the former ousties and building tunnels and dams for hydel
power in eco-sensitive areas in Arunanchal Pradesh and other Himalayan areas point to this desperation. The Uttarakhand disaster in the aftermath of heavy rain in the recent past is ample testimony of the linkage between ‘development’ and disaster. Deforestation and numerous networks of tunnels for hydel power were the chief cause for the disaster. On the whole, as we look around, we find that inequality, craving for, uninterrupted supply of fuel and raw materials and consequential ecological destruction have emerged essential conditions of modern economic development, as we conceive it today. All these point to the fact that this economic development is not compatible with the ideals of a democratic and egalitarian society. The Triumph of Stalinist dictatorship in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of Fascism in Europe in the Third and the fourth decades of the twentieth century, or the triumph of authoritarian capitalist system in China just when it had the power and authority to move towards socialist equality, all point to the fact that modern industrial societies have potential of inequality and authoritarianism built in their structure and ethos. For a truly socialist society that is free and egalitarian, we need to build a new mode of economy and ethos. For this, perhaps, we will have to revive some of those features of life, vestiges of which could be found in primitive societies least touched by the cravings of modernism and destructive development. For this the new socialist movement will aim to protect and preserve earth’s eco-system. This inevitably demand the preservation of those primitive and peasant societies, which have resisted so far the aggression associated with modern industrial processes. Perhaps, agriculture which is based on recycling the inputs wholly organic will be resumed: thus restoring to nature what is drawn out from it. These few observations are just an attempt to make us aware of the enormity that surrounds us. Those may nudge us to have a fresh look at our tradition as a prelude to a new beginning. The old dream of an industrial utopia, has proved a deadly mirage
,leading to ends opposed to all that had been aspired by the socialist forefathers. For this end, we have to realize that we are only one of the myriads of living creatures on earth and would survive as a species only if we follow the rules of evolutionary game , i.e. adapt ourselves entirely to a life of companionship with all life forms surrounding us: the trees, the birds, the animals and even the bacteria without whose companionship we could not have survived. That demands a vastly extended world of fellowship and brotherhood – i.e. a brotherhood of all living things. That will inevitably add benignity to our relationship with other human beings that is the essence of socialism. Sachchidanand Sinha