Correspondence

THE PROBLEMS OF STAGISM AND THE QUESTION OF FRONTISM

2011-11-23T06:44:00.000-08:00

THE PROBLEMS OF STAGISM AND THE QUESTION OF FRONTISM

Davide Ferri

THE QUESTION OF STAGISM (ARTICLE PART I)

What is stagism?

Stagism (or two-stage theory) is that political doctrine arguing that a developing country with feudal or semi-feudal elements must first pass through a stage of bourgeois democracy before moving to an early Communist stage. Hence, stagism sees the achievement of Communism as a gradualist political process.

The aim of this article/pamphlet is to prove that unlike what most of Stagist Marxists maintain, it is absolutely necessary to take "with a pinch of salt" a gradualist praxis based on Marx's theory of history, which was in its turn based — as Marx more than once repeated — on the particular dialectical development of Western Capitalism.

It is not Correspondence [the organisation for which I initially wrote this article] to hold it; it is Karl Marx's doctrine itself to logically discourage Stagism, as proved by Marx's teachings.

Today, we live in a Capitalist world where the feudal mode of production has practically disappeared. On the other hand, we still find stagist Marxists, such as Maoists, Leninists, members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI(ML), CPI, "legal Marxists" etc. arguing for the necessity of Stagism in countries with semi-feudal characteristics. This article will not indulge in attacking the validity of the concept of semi-feudalism, though it may sound extremely ambiguous for a Marxist, especially in the South Asian context.

I will take the validity of semi-feudalism for granted so as to show that, even by assuming the correctness of it, a two-stage theory definitely remains an illogical concept.

It is sufficient to ponder upon dialectical materialism and Marx's Labour Theory of Value to logically realise how Marxism itself categorically falsifies the false consciousness and risky adventurism in the name of a Two-stage theory, still supported, for instance, by several Leninist and Maoist factions.

The problems of a support for Stagism are 2: philological/epistemological and logical.

The philological problem is a minor one, though it reflects a misreading of Marx's political economy and philosophical works which, if carefully analysed, conceptually falsify Stagism. The epistemologicalfallacy arises whenever one regards Stagist Leninism as a "a continuation of Marxism".

Again, a minor problem.

The logical problem — the major one — arise from a vulgarisation of the logical implications of dialectical materialism and Marx's Labour theory of Value. In my article Marxism-"Marxism" and Marxism-Leninism, among other things, I emphasised some of the economic problems of Stagism:

The War Communism scarcity, allegedly compelling Lenin to carry out the New Economic Policy (NEP) to give relief to impoverished peasants and to the economy in general, was not a negligible factor.

It is important to point out that the historical "necessity" of going through the phrase of Capitalism so as to boost the productive forces for Communism is nowhere advocated by Marx; who like Mr Preobrazhensky[2] (a victim of anti-bolshevik purges), reckoned that the development of productive forces in general was possible in Socialism only through Socialist praxis. It should be remembered that Socialism — though carrying the burden of the ghosts of the past — would a more economical and more equitable system vis-à-vis commodity production.

I shall return on the matter with an apposite article on the economic planning, which will outline possible methods for the achievement of little social waste and high social utility.

According to dialectical materialism as designated by Marx and Engels, it is a higher human product, in terms of development of superstructure, productive forces, consciousness and therefore income distribution. Building Communism with "State Capitalism" bears the huge opportunity cost of not building it with Socialism.

By the way, in regard to the concept of cost, the capitalist entrepreneur carries out a reduction of cost per commodity (through production mechanisation e.g.) once the value of total capital has been written-off. In Socialism, a cost per commodity reduction would occur whenever it is socially desirable, insofar as private profit is not there.

Capitalism, in general, has a very high social cost. In commodity production, whether in the form of "State commodity production", "Monopoly Capitalism" or "libertarian Capitalism", the private initiative and the private profit are the engine behind the social good.

Hence — within the narrow limits of the private sphere; where production for profit (and not needs realisation) rules — the economic potential opportunities of one society are lost, at least in terms of full employment, "planned" regulation of pollution, more equitable income distribution (therefore fair prices), lack of inflation and so on. The maximum production curve attainable in Capitalism e.g. does not reflect the maximum production attainable by human society, insofar as profit motive and private initiative hinder this goal, though it is socially desirable.

"Pure" Capitalism or State Capitalism, brings along a huge social waste. Commodities embodying use-values are stored in warehouses until the Capitalist does not realise a profit on them. Whenever sales realisation does not occur, for whatever reasons (say, falling rate of profit as a result of growing constant capital) part or the whole of these use-values goes to the devil.

Also, a Capitalist knowing that s/he is going to be displaced by a Socialist State or Communist community within few years or decades would operate in a unfriendly environment under the constant threat of seeing the usefulness of his/her investment fading away. This scenario would not compel him to produce efficiently.

Hence, as a Marxist I do not see Lenin's "historically necessary" State Capitalism as a gigantic step forward (just to recall his own words).

As a Lenin admittedly said, State Capitalism was a "gigantic step forward". Lenin, however, is conceptually wrong.

If, as Marxists, we have come to the logical conclusion, in political economy terms, that Socialised production — therefore Communism — is a superior mode of production compared to Commodity production, then invoking the need of supporting a Capitalist praxis will be an idealistic humbug.

Similarly, if we have come to the conclusion that a rational economic distributional planning is superior as compared to the non-rational Capitalist Market, then invoking the need of supporting a Capitalist praxis will be, again, an idealistic humbug.

Capitalism, with its anarchy of production, is definitely an inferiorsystem and can achieve a lower development of productive forces compared to Communism, for all the political economy reasons graspable through a Labour Theory of Value.

Wouldn't such a capitalist stage create more contradictions and be less workable than socialised production? Wouldn't the defence of private property — entailing bureaucratic counterattacks against angry workers property detractors — be a huge pro-bureaucracy contradiction

at the detriment of the coming of Communism?

I am convinced of the fact that — though a post-revolutionary area may find itself with elements deriving from an old pre-revolutionary social structures — Communistic practices such as collectivisation and, more generally, socialisation of production, should be implementedunconditionally; without a dialectically contradictory gradualist pro-Capitalist praxis, entailing all the negative consequences I will discuss in this article. Communists should start immediately working for Communism and the wage-labourers, rather than pro-Capitalist Gradualism and perhaps for the sake of bourgeois members in the Communist party. Reformism, of course, is more likely to be directly or indirectly asked by wage-labourers in the pre-revolutionary people.

Even a kid knows that wage-labourers' popular will is directed towards the complete renovation of a social structure in the post-revolutionary period. Any attempt to repress this "popular will" is to be historically categorisable as reactionary and dialectically contradictory; the party should not elevate itself over the vast majority people, that is to say, the wage-labourers; unless it wants to feed dialectical contradictions working against the coming of Communism, perhaps for the sake of a pro-Capitalist share of its membership.

I shall return on the matter later.

Marx's works, undoubtedly, help us shining a light on the logicalhumbug of Stagism, explicitly in logical terms and implicitly in epistemological terms.

The epistemological question, I repeat, is a minor question as previously discussed; insofar as we care about the logical Marxist truth and not about the Marxist "defence" of the person of Marx, or about "Marx the prophet".

However, this article — for the sake of philology too — aims at proving that Stagism can be falsified both in a logical and epistemological way.

If at this point of the article you are not interested to understand the philological critique of Stagism, you may conveniently skip the remaining part I and the whole part II; having a look at the question of Frontism/Trotskyism, the politico-economic problems of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism (or Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism) and the concluding remarks.

In epistemological/philological terms, a misunderstanding of Marx’s works leading to the wretched theory of Stagism was nothing new to Marx as well. In part I of this article I will post three excerpts from Marx's work that try to epistemologically and, more importantly,logically falsify the two-Stage theory.

The first is about the generalisation of Marx's theory of history. Marx, in a Russian journal, tries to logically correct the misunderstandings of Marxists.

Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction--she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people [bold added], whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) [bold added] [1]

The second excerpt shows that Marx insisted on falsifying the general vulgarisation of his own work. Marx attacks his critics who exploited this matter to categorise Marx’s praxis as inconsistent and quasi-fatalist:

My critic ... absolutely insists on transforming my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course fatally imposed on all peoples [bold added], whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves placed, in order to arrive at this economic formation which assures the greatest expansion of the productive forces of social labour . . . But success will never come with the master-key of a general historico-philosophical theory, whose supreme virtue consists in being supra-historical. [bold added] [2]

The third excerpt from Marx's works is regarding the specific dialectical development of Tsarist Russia. Both Marx and Engels argue in favour of the Russian form of socio-economic organisation and bluntly point out:

Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primitive common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development. [bold added] [3]

This excerpts were for the lovers of philological Marxism. I shall soon replace a philological/epistemological critique with a more important logical critique of Stagism, as approached by Maoism and Leninism.

A PREMISE ON THE SOUTH ASIAN QUESTION (ARTICLE PART II)

In broad terms, Maoism in the East India expresses e.g. the material scarcity of India's system of reproduction and accumulation of Capital; which is an objective reality, whether we see it with 'pure' Marxism or with Marxism with tons of dashes and attributes ahead.

The Maoists surely have their ideological limits, especially those related to the two-stage theory, the boss-friendly principle of new democracy, and a praxis which focuses on the 'form'; all concepts which are definitely debatable not only within the framework of 'philological Marxism' but also within the framework of the Labour theory of Value. I shall return later on the matter.

On the other hand, it must also be said that they represent a base to start a broader Marxist movement — insofar as they incorporate both bourgeois and working class elements. A democratic Marxist movement might also include certain genuine and non-dogmatic strata of the Maoist movement, with a late intellectual confrontation on Marxism, insofar as true Marxism is only one. Marxism is a 'whole': contradiction-less science for a contradiction-less system.

At present, a 'Marxist' fetishism towards an endless all-out anti-Maoist critique, leaving no space for an evaluation of its "proletarian" (tactical) potential, is not going to be either communicatively or 'historically' efficient. A Facebook-friendly Trotskyist rhetoric e.g. of 'wiping out the Maoists' excluding any collaboration, a praxis of 'no tactical compromise with pro-bureaucracy ideologies' and so on and so forth..are not going to take the genuine Marxist ideas to the Asian masses. Also, pre-made critiques of the likes of:

"We'll have our small vanguardist Trotskyist or Leninist party, we'll candidate ourselves with genuine ideas, then the masses will see we're the best and all will follow us"

are definitely 'airy-fairy', out of context and anti-dialectical.

C.de Paresh Chandra — as a dear friend and as a real Marxist — rightly reminds me all the time that 'the right thing said at the wrong time to the wrong people may no longer be the right thing', I fully agree with such a statement: it is definitely an aspect of a dialectical 'theory of truth'.It goes without saying that there must be an inter-marxist collaboration, with tactical compromises and principled rigour.

The October Revolution e.g. didn't drop from the sky, Vladimir Lenin did alliances in 1914 in a purely Marxist spirit of tactical compromises and principled rigour. On the other hand, I shall return later on how Lenin vulgarised the Marxist theory of praxis and how Leninists mistake in categorising Leninism as fully “Marxist”.

It is important to premise that Karl Marx — unlike what many leftists believe — explicitly advised to carry out tactical compromises, which may even sound as social democratic, in order to help the working class to rise above its condition of marginalisation, in case the conditions for a revolution are not mature. Marx suggested that the working class can and must ask for concession — even through parliamentary politics — whilst getting ready for a revolution e.g. by compelling petty-bourgeois governments to tax the surplus, to reduce corporate profitability and to sharpen the dialectical contradictions in favour of the working class revolution.[4] The reduction of corporate profitability in general should be a tactical goal for all the real Marxists, as also C.de Lebowitz points out in his interesting philological work “The Socialist Alternative” [5]. On the other hand, this tactical approach should not serve as an apology for the wretched "marxist" policy of pro-capitalist Stagism, whereby Communists should fight for the achievement of State Capitalism as an introductory phase for Communism; a phase necessary to develop the production relations and the productive forces allegedly in a more workable way as compared to socialised production, according to Leninists.

I shall point out later that whatever we may evince from a philologicalanalysis of Marx's works is that Communism can certainly grow "within Socialism and through Socialism", therefore through Socialist accumulation, without the need of making one historical step back to Capitalism. This can be evinced — and I shall discuss it later— from a logical critique of Stagism.

I will also discuss later how Marx called for a Socialist revolution in a "semi-feudal" Europe, without emphasising the need of achieving "first" the historical phase of Capitalism, of commodity production.

The letter to Marx by Vera Zasulich — a Bakunian Russian Anarchist converted to Marxism — is an importart testimony on how, even during Marx's times, philological misunderstandings of Marx's works represented a growing trend in Russia. The problem is that these philological misunderstanding fostered illogical conclusions.For the lovers of philology only, I will cite Vera Zasulich's letter to Marx regarding the philological understanding problems of the XIX century Russian Marksists to then post Marx's reply; so as to shine a light on the ever-growing ideological humbug on the matter too:

16 Feb. 1881,

Genève,

Rue de Lausanne, no. 49,

L’imprimerie polonaise.

Honoured Citizen,

You are not unaware that your Capital enjoys great popularity in Russia.

Although the edition has been confiscated, the few remaining copies are read and re-read by the mass of more or less educated people in our country; serious men are studying it. What you probably do not realise is the role which your Capital plays in our discussions on the agrarian question in Russia and our rural commune. You know better than anyone how urgent this question is in Russia. You know what Chernyshevskii thought of it. Our progressive literature— Otechestvennye Zapiski, for example—continues to develop his ideas. But in my view, it is a life-and-death question above all for our socialist party. In one way or another, even the personal fate of our revolutionary socialists depends upon your answer to the question. For there are only two possibilities. Either the rural commune, freed of exorbitant tax demands, payment to the nobility and arbitrary administration, is capable of developing in a socialist direction, that is, gradually organising its production and distribution on a collectivist basis. In that case, the revolutionary socialist must devote all his strength to the liberation and development of the commune. If, however, the commune is destined to perish, all that remains for the socialist, as such, is more or less ill-founded calculations as to how many decades it will take for the Russian peasant’s land to pass into the hands of the bourgeoisie, and how many centuries it will take for capitalism in Russia to reach something like the level of development already attained in Western Europe. [bold added] Their task will then be to conduct propaganda solely among the urban workers, while these workers will be continually drowned in the peasant mass which, following the dissolution of the commune, will be thrown on to the streets of the large towns in search of a wage. Nowadays, we often hear it said that the rural commune is an archaic form condemned to perish by history, scientific socialism and, in short, everything above debate. Those who preach such a view call themselves your disciples par excellence: ‘Marksists’.

Their strongest argument is often: ‘Marx said so.’

‘But how do you derive that from Capital?’ others object.

‘He does not discuss the agrarian question, and says nothing about Russia.’ [bold added] ‘He would have said as much if he had discussed our country,’ your disciples retort with perhaps a little too much temerity. So you will understand, Citizen, how interested we are in Your opinion. You would be doing us a very great favour if you were to set forth Your ideas on the possible fate of our rural commune, and on the theory that it is historically necessary for every country in the world to pass through all the phases of capitalist production.

In the name of my friends, I take the liberty to ask You, Citizen, to do us this favour. If time does not allow you to set forth Your ideas in a fairly detailed manner, then at least be so kind as to do this in the form of a letter that you would allow us to translate and publish in Russia.

With respectful greetings,

Vera Zassoulich

This excerpts is very important because it emphasises a very common fashion among leftists, that of saying "Marx said so" without venturing into a logical critique of an issue or even a serious philological critique (which, I repeat, is less important than a logical one).

Again, for the lovers of philology only, I will keep dealing with the philological issue by posting hereby Marx's reply.

Karl Marx then replied to Vera Zasulich with the following letter:

8 March 1881

41, Maitland Park Road, London N.W.

Dear Citizen,

A nervous complaint which has periodically affected me for the last ten years has prevented me from answering sooner your letter of 16 February. I regret that I am unable to give you a concise account for publication of the question which you did me the honour of raising. Some months ago, I already promised a text on the same subject to the St. Petersburg Committee [of the People’s Will organisation]. Still, I hope that a few lines will suffice to leave you in no doubt about the way in which my so-called theory has been misunderstood.

In analysing the genesis of capitalist production, I said:

At the heart of the capitalist system is a complete separation of…the

producer from the means of production…the expropriation of the

agricultural producers as the basis of the whole process. Only in England has it been accomplished in a radical manner…But all the other countries of Western Europe are following the same course. (Capital, French edition, p. 315.) The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe (bold added). The reason for this restriction is indicated in Ch.

XXXII: ‘Private property, founded upon personal labour…is supplanted by capitalist private property, which rests on exploitation of the labour of others, on wage-labour.’ (Loc. cit., p. 340.)

In the Western case, then, one form of private property is transformed into another form of private property. In the case of the Russian peasants, however, their communal property would have to be transformed into private property. The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune [bold added]. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.

I have the honour, dear Citizen, to remain

Yours sincerely,

Karl Marx [6]

Marx, as his works prove, was clearly a Communist revolutionary opposed to the Stage Theory; a policy advocated by non-orthodox Marxists today whose long-run political consequences might even end up giving reality to Capitalist reaction, the necessary bureaucratisation to balance the interests of Capital and Wage-Labour and growing party institutionalisation.

The need of defending "Marx" from a two-stage-theory-based vulgarrevisionism is not comparable to the need of dogmatically defending a deity. It is not about Marx the "person", the "guide", the "father of Scientific Socialism" it is merely about the fact that Marx's words makes sense. It is not for the sake of philology but for the sake of logic, on which Marx excels.

Communism can and must be achieved through Socialist policies according to Marxism, without the need of a risky adventurism within the vortex of Commodity Production, unless the historical conditions for a Socialist revolution are so desperate that is more advisable to postpone a revolutionary attempt to prevent a revolution's future from degenerating, with all probability, into Commodity production. If Socialism for itself is a higher historical phase as compared to all the modes of production that took place in human society — at least in qualitative and quantitative production and superstructure terms, as Marxist dialectics is supposed to prove — then “Capitalist praxis within Socialism” will be not only ridiculously dangerous but also inferior andinefficient for the achievement of Communism. I shall return later to the character of “pro-Communist” State Capitalism and some of its risks.

As remarked earlier, in case the workers' socioeconomic situation is too precarious or can be improved to have am efficient and sustainable praxis against Commodity production, a "revolution in permanence within Capitalism" [7] — recalling's Marx's concept and not Trotsky's — would certainly suffice to raise enough the standards of the proletariat. Life of Capital must be rendered impossible, even by asking perpetual concessions from petty-bourgeois governments that can damage big Capital.

This was the spirit of tactical Marxism.

Maoists and Leninists e.g. argue that a Communist gradualist revolution, passing by the historical vortex of Capitalism is necessary whenever an economy is supposed to be feudal or even "semi-feudal". This is a stance that strongly differs from that of Marx, though the ideas of Lenin and Mao are regarded by their followers as generally Marxist, "completely Marxist" and/or as a "continuation of Marxism". I won't go, due to the scope of this article, deep into analysing the inconsistency of their analysis and the entirety of the historical problems of Leninism and Maoism.

It is just important to recall for the moment that these people, whilst claiming to be "Marxists" or followers of a doctrine representing "the continuation of Marxism", neglect one important philological analysis of what all Marx pointed out in his "1850 address": the question of frontism/common front in general.

THE QUESTION OF FRONTISM, SOME REMARKS ON TROTSKYISM (ARTICLE PART III)

A common front is a form of struggle based on a tactical alliance between different groups in pursuit of a fight against a common enemy. Basically, its tactical motto is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

A commont front can be a "united front" and a "popular front".

A united front contains only proletarian elements, coming from different parties. The COMINTERN said on the matter, at its fourth congress:

The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie. Every action, for even the most trivial everyday demand, can lead to revolutionary awareness and revolutionary education; it is the experience of struggle that will convince workers of the inevitability of revolution and the historic importance of Communism.

It is particularly important when using the united front tactic to achieve not just agitational but also organisational results [bold added]. Every opportunity must be used to establish organisational footholds among the working masses themselves (factory committees, supervisory commissions made up of workers from all the different parties and unaligned workers, action committees, etc.).

The main aim of the united front tactic is to unify the working masses through agitation and organisation. The real success of the united front tactic depends on a movement “from below”, from the rank-and-file of the working masses. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which Communists must not refuse to have talks with the leaders of the hostile workers’ parties, providing the masses are always kept fully informed of the course of these talks [bold added]. During negotiations with these leaders the independence of the Communist Party and its agitation must not be circumscribed.[8]

A popular front, conversely, is a broad coalition containing both bourgeois and proletarian elements, coming from different parties. Trotsky e.g. spoke against a popular front, whilst advocating the necessity of a united front in case of a growing Fascist threat. This is the famous ending of Trotksy's "For a workers' united front against Fascism":

Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. [bold added] Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left! [9]

It is not surprising that nowadays Trotskyists keep boringly repeating the necessity of not coming to compromises, both before and after a revolution, in line with the indication of Trotsky, who was categoricallyagainst a popular front. Their revolutionary spirit fails to be Marxist with this uncompromising political approach, before a revolution.

Fascism is a determined particular mode of production, where — in very broad terms — monopoly Capital can achieve a primary role in the economy thanks to a neighbourly totalitarian bourgeois dictatorship, offering State credit and other privileges to the bourgeoisie. In the case e.g. of Nazi Germany, the pro-monopoly policy of preisfinanzierungallowed national Capitalists to make a fortune, at the cost of small Capital, of course.

Trotsky, on this particular tactics-related matter, could be attacked on the ground that at present a Liberal Capitalist society doesn’t need the bludgeon anymore to prove to the Marxists and to the masses that it has incorporated “Fascist” political elements within, from media brainwashing, to routine repressions of demonstrations, attempts of bribing trade unions, pro-monopoly laws and so on and so forth. Liberal Capitalist societies of West Europe and North America e.g. cannot be categorised as fascist but can incorporate certain fascist elements, at least in political terms. Hence, a Liberal society could be, in broad terms, a semi-fascist society.

Shouldn’t a united front come into existence against fascist elements in a virtually democratic bourgeois society?

This is, as far as I could verify so far, a question to which Trotskyists haven’t answered in a satisfactory way.

Now, what is necessary to discuss for the relevance of this article is not the contextual framework that may require the necessity of one of these two fronts (united or popular) but the temporal framework of their implementation.

Marx in fact, advocated the necessity of an interclass political collaboration in pursuit of political concessions in favour of the non-ruling working class. BEFORE the revolution. Trotskyism, by categorically refusing a popular front and repeating the only option of a united front (against pure Fascism), goes against the Marxist principle of pre-revolutionary interclass collaboration apt to achieve a better political environment.

Marx, who was neither a Social democrat nor a utopian socialist, says on the matter:

The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party, which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position. The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions, which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible [bold added]. [10]

According to Marx’s words, the working class e.g. could collaborate for short-run benefit with ex-proletarian parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the CPI(M), which now has Social Democratic/petty bourgeois elements within; as the pro-negotiation role of its huge trade union — the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) —proved, e.g. in the recent class struggle in Manesar, in the industrial peripheries of Delhi.

Trotskyists haven’t showed much willingness to collaborate with the embourgeoisement of the ex-Marxist-Leninist CPI (M), even if such collaboration would have been possible and desirable for the achievement of political concessions in favour of the working class. It should be emphasised that the CPI (M) — a party with both bourgeois and proletarian elements — has circa 867000 members (as of 2004) and has achieved 88,174,229 votes in 2009 India’s elections, that is to say, 21.15% of all the votes, an important result that has no equal in the developing capitalist world. The CPI(M), with all its reactionary limits and aftermaths of Marxist-Leninist goals, could grant important political concessions against big capital to the Indian non-ruling working class in its whole; while a praxis preparing the proletarians to the revolution could be carried out, e.g. by non-CPI(M) parties, groups and trade unions.

Yet, Indian intra-Communist movement split don’t allow such an environment of important political concessions for the working class. It should be pointed out that, as of 2005, India had circa 100 Leftist parties![11]

Trotskyism-style ideologies are not helping, in this scenario.

Its general anti-peasant rhetoric doesn’t help too. Trotskyists, on other hand, are right when they attack the two-stage theory, citing Marx’s words on the question. What the Trotskyists don’t grasp is the temporal relevance of their suggestions.

Before the revolution, an interclass collaboration in pursuit of important political concessions for the working class should be a goal for the Marxists.

After the revolution, Communism can be achieved within and through Socialism.

SOME PHILOLOGICAL AND POLITICO-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF MARXISM-LENINISM AND MAOISM (PART IV)

Marxist-Leninists and Maoists often call for the necessity of achieving State-Capitalism as an historical phase introducing Communism, instead of supporting a progressive mechanisation of agriculture through immediate collectivisation. This a stance that greatly differs from that of Marx.

Marx, in his Address of The Central Committee to the Communist League, gives very important pieces of advice on what is to be done for a revolution before, during and after the proletarian struggle.

In this regard, it is important to point out that first of all Marx makes it clear that Feudal/semi-Feudal countries like France, Germany couldcarry out Communist practices in a determined sector without calling for a Capitalist management of the sector in question. For the lovers of philology, it is important to point out that Marx, with this phrase, suggests the possibility of Socialist confiscation of feudal property and stresses the necessity of Communist productive relations:

They must demand that the conﬁscated feudal property remain

state property and be used for workers’ colonies,

cultivated collectively by the rural proletariat with all

the advantages of large-scale farming and where the

principle of common property will immediately

achieve a sound basis in the midst of the shaky

system of bourgeois property relations. Just as the

democrats ally themselves with the peasants, the workers must ally themselves with the rural proletariat [12]

At the same time Marx advised that workers — when not in praxis and having NOT conquered political power — to engage themselves in tactical "petty-bourgeois" politics and not to remain idle, waiting for Communism. [13]

This does NOT mean that a Communist Party, once in power, must go ahead towards State Capitalism with of an interclass impossible harmony for the sake, say, of the development of productive forces; which is, of course, necessary to achieve Communism. This is not Marxism, though such a praxis has been that of Marxist-Leninist parties, in the USSR too.

Paul Mattick brilliantly said in 1935 on the matter:

It is interesting to recall that the first decree of the Bolshevik government was directed against the wild, unauthorised expropriations of factories through the workers' councils. But these soviets were still stronger than the party apparatus) and they compelled Lenin to issue the decree for the nationalisation of all industrial enterprises. It was only under the pressure brought to bear by the workers that the Bolsheviks consented to this change in their own plans. Gradually, through the extension of state power, the influence of the soviets became weakened, until today they no longer serve more than decorative purposes.[14]

I am not going to start pinpointing all the political errors of Lenin’s regime, but I'd like to point out that I find very surprising and worth being noticed the attitude of Leninism towards the workers’ post-revolutionary enthusiasm. Despite the historical necessity of Communism was deeply felt in post-tsar Russia by the masses, Lenin tried to repress any Communist attempts on the part of the workers to chuck out the managers. It should be emphasised that Soviet Workers merely "controlled” [15] production without really owning the means of production; something that Marxism had never prescribed for a Socialist Country. Marx never talked about mere workers’ “supervision” of factories in which we still find managers and owners.

Under Lenin’s regime, workers’ attempts to take over private management have been suppressed under the pretext that private management was needed to boost the productive forces. I will cite at length Maurice Herbert Dobb’s words on the matter:

On February 14th 1918, an official announcement was issued that enterprises could not be taken over from their previous owners except by joint degree of Vesenkha and the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom). Again, on April 27th, local bodies were reminded that no confiscation of industrial plants was permissible without the authority of Vesenkha [The Supreme Soviet of the National Economy, ed.]; the reminder being issued “in view of the fact that local Soviets continue confiscation of enterprises without notifying Vesenkha”. But the instructions continued to be disobeyed; and efforts made by Vesenkha in the direction of centralisation met with considerable resistance. The case of a group of factories in the Urals, which the central authorities had decided to leave in private hands, was not untypical. The local factory committee, declaring that the attitude of the owners was provocative, announced their intention of taking over the factory. The Central Council of Trade Unions, sent a delegation from Moscow to dissuade them but without avail; and followed this by telegraphing instructions forbidding any action to be taken by the factory committee. To this telegram the only reply was a laconic report announcing the date on which the factory had been taken over on the authority of the local Soviet. Of individual firms that had been nationalised prior to July 1918 only about 100 were nationalised by decree of the centre, while over 400 had been nationalised on the initiative of local organisations.[16]

Despite the workers’ enthusiasm, Lenin’s regime did all to prevent this natural dialectical development from coming into existence, even before the official NEP policy of State Capitalism. This shines a veil of ambiguity on the efficacy of Leninism to which, in my opinion, Leninists haven’t answered in a satisfactory way.

This insistence on the maintenance of private property created no few problems for the USSR, wherein workers found themselves perpetually set out against Capitalists and vice versa, for the sake of a non-Marxist theory of development of productive forces.

While Lenin spoke of State Capitalism as a gigantic step forward [17], Marx suggested that Socialism itself can and should develop the productive forces after a revolution, though it may find itself with certain "elements" deriving from commodity production[18]. In philological terms, this doesn’t imply that Socialism must carry “the contradictions of Capital and Wage-Labour”.

Unlike Lenin, Karl Marx — though very disposed to tactical compromises in the pre-revolutionary period for the sake of a Capitalist overthrow — never spoke in favour of State Capitalism in the post-revolutionary period, and never explicitly suggested a stagist approach in any of his writing. Marx merely urged the working class to ask for tactical "concessions", within the framework of a revolutionary preparation for a Communist revolution. Marx advocated that even in the first phase of Communism, what is commonly called Socialism, ownership must be in the hands of the proletarians.[19]

This stance strongly differs from that of Leninism.

Furthermore, Marxism speaks in favour of revolutionary fervour, which is a dialectical force. Marx recommended:

They must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement isnot suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction. During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government. They must achieve these guarantees by force if necessary, and generally make sure that the new rulers commit themselves to all possible concessions and promises – the surest means of compromising them [bold added].[20]

Marx, hereby too, clearly appears as an anti-Leninist, as a real anti-capitalist revolutionary.

Briefly returning to the tactical question, it must be said that e.g. a Preobrazhensky-style policy of an all out non-support for peasantry, whether tactical or not, may not be desirable in the short-term for the contextual achievement of Communism in a country with a large majority of peasants. Though large peasants should be marginalised in the post-revolutionary period — as they represent a threat towards the middle and small peasantry as well as the urban proletariat that must no be underestimated — middle and small peasantry could begradually admitted in the ranks of the rural proletariat, therefore in the collectivised farms, centralised farms. This, however, must be seen in the light of the contextual factors in a post-revolutionary situation.

As for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism (or simply Maoism), it must be said that it also calls for the a-priori approach of State Capitalism, the praxis given by New Democracy, wherein Socialism is supposed to be achieved by Capitalists and Proletarians hand at hand; by means e.g. of the constitution of joint stock companies, the protection of private initiative in general etc. etc.

The risk of State Capitalism — where managers have a strong economic role and bureaucracy serves as a dialectically necessary balancing force between frustrated/disappointed Workers and Capitalists — is mainly that of bureaucratic degeneration, loss of revolutionary fervour and decline of soviet power. Leninism implicitly legitimised this dialectical degeneration, which is something, by the way, that Marx, intelligently, did not envision for a Communist society.

In Soviet Russia, State Capitalism contributed substantially to the increasing (and underestimated) power of kulaks, who Stalin decided to liquidate once the strikes and claims endangered the very survival of the Soviet Union. Stalin, who took power through the legal soviet framework, was the mere historical wretched product of a Leninist system, which — for whatever reasons we may pick up beyond the above-mentioned ones— contributed no little to promote dialectical economic and political contradictions, at least in the long run. Stalinism and its refusal to promote Soviet internationalisation would contribute no little to the growth of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union

Stalin's regime was, in a way, a direct dialectical continuation of Leninism. Whenever the Trotskyists easily attack Stalin's regime by labelling it as a "betrayal" of Leninism they should engage into an articulated political and economic explanation both on how Stalin could take power in a perfectly legal Leninist way and on which alternative could Stalin adopt in front of the rising power of striking kulaks. It must be remembered that, as I ponted out in my article on Marxism-"Marxism" and Marxism-Leninism, "Stalinism" is often a misused and overused term, both by Liberals and Communists.

For instance, whenever many Trotskyists categorise the entire history of the USSR as "Stalinist" they end up neglecting entire precious economic and political analysis not only on Leninism — which directly generated all this — but also on the different economic character of all those Soviet regimes from the rise to power of Kruscev to that of Gorbacev.

Kruscev e.g. emphasised profit more heavily than Stalin and the same time promoted the production principle, whereby bureaucrats could enrich themselves proportionally to the revenue of the decentralisedregion, which they were entitled to administer. This contributed no little to promote the rise of the new Russian Capitalist class, which would easily take power in a the 1990's. Returning to Maoism, Xue Muqiao bluntly says on the matter:

Could we start a socialist revolution immediately following victory in the democratic revolution? The answer wasn’t clear at the beginning. Half of the country had only just been liberated, and it would take two or three years to complete the agrarian reform, a task of the democratic revolution, in this vast region. When we did complete the agrarian reform, the peasants generally showed enthusiasm in expanding their individual economy while many poor peasants preferred to take the road of socialism. But we had no experience in organising the peasants on the basis of a Socialist collective economy. On the Marxist principle that socialism can only be built on the basis of large-scale socialised production, some people held that mechanisation must come before collectivisation in China’s agriculture. This view did not seem to apply to the conditions in China’s rural areas, where the cultivated land averaged three mu [1/15 of a hectare, Ed.] per capita and about a dozen mu per household, which were often divided into several patches. The small peasant economy showed a low labour productivity and was incapable of accumulating large funds. Without managing agriculture on a co-operative basis it was difficult to lay out large tracts of farmland or accumulate sufficient funds for mechanisation. [21]

Says Mao, whilst endorsing State Capitalism:

The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised [bold added] by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state. [Mao, On State Capitalism 1953]

The scope of this article, of course, doesn’t allow discussing in depth the general validity of the methods of Leninism and Maoism.

Was Stalinism a direct produce of Leninism? Why Trotsky, Lenin, nay, the Leninist regime in general remained passive and proved itself as non-internationalist and “peace promoting” in front of the growing threat of fascism in Europe?[22]

Was it a consequence of Lenin’s State Capitalism that required “peace” and coexistence with an outside world?

These are questions that will remain "specifically" unanswered, at least for the moment.

CONCLUSION (ARTICLE PART V)

All these doctrines — Trotskyism, Leninism, Maoism (Stalinism too) — do not represent a continuation of Marxism.

As previously discussed, human history has by no means witnessed Communism as intended by Marx, therefore with Socialist accumulation, grassroots democracy, efforts for an early collectivisation and for the immediate mechanisation of agriculture and so on and so forth.

At least in philological terms, we commit a mistake in regarding Lenin, Trotsky and Mao's opinions on the matter as a "continuation" of the Marxist concept of praxis; though this a minor question, relative to the vulgarisations of Marx's ideas and their communicative consequences.

It should be emphasised that in epistemological terms a continuation of Marxism must be a further development based on Marxist general premises regarded as true, and not a doctrine contradicting with the original premises.

Within this framework, a Marxist could paradoxically call him or herself "a Ricardian-Marxist" only because Marxism incorporates many elements of Ricardianism!

Leninism and Maoism e.g. by incorporating this non-Marxist stagist approach in their respective doctrines — on the ground of a philological misunderstanding of Marx's works — end up legitimising the contradictions of Capital and Wage-Labour; with all its anti-human consequences and extremely risky dialectical products (from the growth of bureaucracy to final capitalist overthrow).

Returning to the political problem of the Marxists today — which is the core of this article — it should be emphasised that nothing concrete e.g. can come out of tens of separate small Trotskyist factions that beyond boringly repeating the same anti-Stalinist/anti-Fascist mantras seldom take real actions through a real praxis, across the world. Nothing can be done with "living room liberal and non-liberal Marxists" too. Similarly, history is not going to advance of a single step by couching our arguments on the mere fear that Maoism might create a bureaucratic degenerated regime like the political horror of a Capitalism-producing Stalinism; a fear that anyway is certainly legitimate, no doubt about it.

In regard to the urban question, nothing can be done without a (genuine) Marxist reunification of the existing dialectically productive communist forces — through a popular or united front, with its historical limits — for the realisation of a (pure) Marxist Communist force, which may focus on the organisation and centralisation of workers' clubs for a pure Marxist post-Capitalist phase.

This process may require a movement to be constituted with tactical compromises, so as to involve the highest possible number of coscientised and non-coscientised workers and allow agitational and organisational preparation of the workers. This may entail an alliance between (pure) Marxists, Marxists Leninists, "Stalinists", Trotskyists and not only.

Recalling Marx's 1850 'Address' — a very relevant, blunt and important internationalist work — it must be pointed out that a participative revolution shall be carried out by the workers, who — 'organised and centralised' — will 'unify' the Marxist factions after accepting the best programme offered at the right historical moment, with the aim of internationalising the movement.

It goes without saying that without rural and urban proletariat's involvement in the political and economic praxis, what we risk is e.g. Castroism and Stalinism (on this I may certainly agree with some Trotskyist à la Bill Van Auken); doctrines that in general lacked a broad proletarian popular support. Once the workers' consciousness is ready and able to 'grasp' who is the real reactionary, the proletariat will be historically able to take the ultimate action against the mode of production; and reaction will be marginalised, in an environment with, of course, a lesser number of contradictions.

The relevance of this topic comes from the fact that at present, especially in the Indian urban centres, workers are extremely confuse on the idea of Socialism, also because of the CPI(M) and Communist Part of India (CPI) liberal humbug. Indian workers are currently abandoned to themselves, in the darkness created by the lack of a clear Communist programme, which may give them a direction for the most genuine Marxist praxis.

C.de Davide Ferri

B.A.Economics (Honours)

SRCC, Delhi University

Delhi, November 23, 2011

ENDNOTES:

[1] Karl Marx, Letter to the editor of the Russian paper Otetchestvennye Zapisky, 1877

[2] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Preface to Russia edition, 1882.

[3] From the second edition of Capital, cited from "Marx at the Millennium, Cyril Smith, ch.2, 1995"

[4] Karl Marx - Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

[5] Michael Lebowitz - The Socialist Alternative: Real human development

[6] Teodor Shanin (ed.), Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and ‘the Peripheries of Capitalism’ (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983),, pp. 98–9. taken from R. Sakwa, 1999, ch. 1

[7] As defined by Marx in the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

[8] 4th Congress of the Communist International, Theses on Comintern Tactics, 5 December 1922, retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/tactics.htm

[9] Leon Trotsky, "For a workers' united front against Fascism", December 1931.

[10] Karl Marx — The address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

[11] Retrieved from http://www.broadleft.org/in.htm

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid. Marx says:

We have seen how the next upsurge will bring the

democrats to power and how they will be forced to

propose more or less socialistic measures. it will be

asked what measures the workers are to propose in

reply. At the beginning, of course, the workers

cannot propose any directly communist measures.

But the following courses of action are possible:

1. They can force the democrats to make inroads

into as many areas of the existing social order as

possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and

so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise

themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the

concentration of as many productive forces as

possible – means of transport, factories, railways, etc.

– in the hands of the state.

2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to

their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case

act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner)

and transform these proposals into direct attacks on

private property. If, for instance, the petty

bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways

and factories, the workers must demand that these

railways and factories simply be conﬁscated by the

state without compensation as the property of

reactionaries. If the democrats propose a

proportional tax, then the workers must demand a

progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose

a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must

insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big

capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the

regulation of the state debt, then the workers must

demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the

workers will thus have to be adjusted according to

the measures and concessions of the democrats.

[14] Paul Mattick — The Lenin Legend, 1935

[15] V. Lenin — Draft Regulation on workers’ control (1917), retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/26.htm

[16] Maurice H. Dobb, Soviet Economic Development since 1917, page 90

[17] Ibid. page 91

[18] Karl Marx — Critique of the Gotha Programme

[19] Ibid.

[20] Karl Marx — The Address of The Central Committee to the Communist League

[21] Xue Muqiao — China’s socialist economy, page 3-4

[22] Paul Mattick says on the matter:

Lenin and Trotsky took pains to stem

the revolutionary forces of Europe. Peace throughout the world was

required in order to assure the building of state capitalism in Russia

under the auspices of the Bolsheviks. It was inadvisable to have this

peace disturbed either by way of war or new revolutions, for in

either case a country like Russia was sure to be drawn in.

Accordingly, Lenin imposed, through splitting and intrigue, a neo-

reformist course upon the labour movement of Western Europe, a

course which led to its total dissolution. It was with sharp words

indeed that Trotsky, with the approval of Lenin, turned on the

uprising in Central Germany (1921): "We must flatly say to the

German workers that we regard this philosophy of the offensive as

the greatest danger and in its practical application as the greatest

political crime."! And in another revolutionary situation, in 1923,

Trotsky declared to the correspondent of the Manchester Guardian,

again with the approval of Lenin: "We are of course interested in

the victory of the working classes, but it is not at all to our interest

to have the revolution break out in a Europe which is bled and

exhausted and to have the proletariat receive from the hands of the

bourgeoisie nothing but ruins. We are interested in the

maintenance of peace."! And ten years later, when Hitler seized

power, the Communist International did not move a finger to

prevent him. Trotsky is not only in error, but reveals a failure of

memory resulting no doubt from the loss of his uniform, when

today he characterises Stalin's failure to help the German

communists as a betrayal of the principles of Leninism. This

betrayal was constantly practised by Lenin, and by Trotsky himself.

But according to a dictum of Trotsky's, the important thing is of

course not what is done, but who does it.

[Paul Mattick — Lenin the legend, 1935]

Maruti Suzuki Employess Union - A Short Film

2011-09-14T11:25:00.000-07:00

MARX'S LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AND THE HUMBUG OF LIBERAL ACCOUNTANCY

2011-08-08T06:41:00.000-07:00

MARX'S LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AND THE HUMBUG OF LIBERAL ACCOUNTANCY (Davide Ferri)

MARX'S LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE AND THE HUMBUG OF LIBERAL THOUGHT

By Davide Ferri

Shri Ram College of Commerce,

Delhi University, India

October 2,2011

An article for the Journal "Radical Notes"

[the link is on the right column]

INTRODUCTION (ARTICLE PART I)

Karl Marx took for granted most of the Capitalist political economy of his time, precisely to prove that the very same Bourgeois economics — within the framework of its own intellectual poverty — hinted at the existence of human exploitation in commodity production, by means of the owner's appropriation of labour.

Classical economist David Ricardo — a staunch supporter of free trade — already developed a theory of value based on human labour. His theory saw the value of commodity as objectified by the labour necessary for the production of the same and that which is immediately necessary to its sale on the market (productive transportation e.g). Ricardo says on the matter:

[..] in estimating the exchangeable value of stockings, for example, we shall find that their value, comparatively with other things, depends on the total quantity of labour necessary to manufacture them, and bring them to market. [1]

This necessary labour is, for Ricardo, the source of all value.

Quite apart from his naiveté in supporting e.g. Say’s assumption whereby Supply of commodities is equal to the Demand of commodities[2] [3], Ricardo committed the big mistake of regarding the value of commodity as objectified exclusively by the necessary labour for its production, whilst neglecting the crucial demand-related factor of the buyers in his Labour theory of value (LTV), namely the desire of consumers.

Ricardo remarks:

If the quantity of labour realized in commodities, regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labour must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised, as every diminution must lower it [4]

Building a house e.g. may even involve the labour of tens of workers. On the other hand, with no demand, the value of the asset would be zero; no matter how much labour is reified in the house.

As Karl Marx points out, demand is a crucial element for a magnitude of value:

The product supplied is not useful in itself. It is the consumer who determines its utility. And even when its quality of being useful is admitted, it does not exclusively represent utility.[5]

Shifting away from the inconsistencies of David Ricardo's Labour Theory of Value (LTV), which inter alia legitimised the contradictions of Capital and Wage-labour, Karl Marx created his own LTV. He argued that the labour embodied in a commodity alone is not sufficient to generate value. For Marx, in fact, Labour must not be merely necessary but, in particular, must become socially necessary so to as give value to a determined commodity.

How?

This commodity, to be sold, must be desired, therefore it must have a use-value: that which satisfies human needs.

Within the framework of Marx’s analysis on Capital, the origin of this use-value lies in the production process, which presupposes exchange; where all the desire-related evaluations of buyers take place.

The measure in which people can satisfy their needs is not the produce of ‘ideas’ or evaluations, but the produce of something more “concrete”; which goes beyond the phantoms of the brain.

Exchange is the last process before the sales of commodities, through which the Capitalist makes a profit.

Hence use-values cannot “originate” in exchange.

Karl Marx made it clear that only human labour can give value to the commodity: living labour (that of the workers) and dead labour (e.g. past labour embodied in the means of production). [6]

Human labour involved in production is, for Marx, the ‘origin’ of value. The buyers, in desiring the commodity, purely express the social necessity of the labour necessary for the production of this commodity. Need alone, however, cannot give value to the commodity.

While the buyers’ need is essential for the realisation of commodities on the market, their profitable sale, human labour is the essential prerequisite for the existence of the commodities on a definite market. The commodities will be exchanged at a certain ‘magnitude’ reflecting a determined ‘quantitative worth’, only after use-values, objectified by commodities, have been created by human labour.

I shall return to the matter later.

As we may notice, Marx considered both production and exchange in his LTV, in the most absolute dialectical and scientific 'spirit'; logically starting his analyses from the material origin of value.

Marx emphasised the determinant demand-related factor to his LTV as well, that is to say, the social need, which is neglected in Ricardo's theory; therefore giving a sense of 'reality' to the concept of value.

Moreover, Marx applied many more corrections to all Ricardian economics— on theory of rent, profit, crises etc.— which will not be discussed here, for a matter of relevance.

In essence, for Marx “a socially necessary amount of labour” was necessarily the only generator of value in commodity production. I shall dwell upon this topic later, in a more detailed way.

THE CHANGE IN BOURGEOIS ECONOMICS

(ARTICLE PART II)

As soon as Marx popularised his concept of exploitation arising from unpaid average labour — thanks to the above-mentioned Labour theory of value— Bourgeois economics started faltering under the threat of the very same inconsistency of its apologetic theories. Classical economics, due its internal theoretical contradictions, 'had to change its mind' so as to survive in the realm of apologetic phantoms. Now that the mystery behind pauperisation, alienation and surplus appropriation was unravelled by Marx’s Labour Theory of Value, mainstream political economy had to hide the exploitation motive lying behind the capitalist process of reproduction; namely, lying behind a pure appropriation of labour on the part of the Capitalist (a process on which I shall return later). The Liberal labour-based approach à la Ricardo and Smith had to fall into oblivion if the consistency of mainstream political economy were to be maintained. This was undoubtedly politically motivated, insofar as the exploitation and alienation within the framework of production became more than clear with Marx's discovery of surplus value, an appropriation of exchange value.

The exchange value represents the ‘quantitative worth’ of one commodity and is determined by the homogeneous human labour embodied in it.[7] Marx showed that a commodity is something twofold: one entity having not only exchange-value but also use-value.

The use value — the value that satisfies human wants — is a necessary precondition for the existence of an exchange value, which has been already explained, in broad terms.

The latter simply reflects a market abstract evaluation allowed by production; wherein use-values are created. In fact, a commodity must, first of all, be needed and demanded to be exchanged at a certain monetary price or to be exchanged with other commodities. Strictly speaking, the exchange value does not always correspond to the commodity’s price, though the price may coincide with the exchange value. In fact, exchange value is not necessarily expressed in monetary terms, in the form of price. Even in Capitalism commodities may be traded in exchange for other commodities at a definite exchange value — corresponding to the quantity of human labour embodied in them, like in the case of capitalist countertrade (exchanging goods and services for other goods and services).

The commodities are all material expressions of some definite human (abstract) labour, which is equated in the market under the form of ‘exchange value’. Hence, the value of one commodity is the value of labour embodied in its production.

The natural matter acquired for free and used up for the production of one commodity does not give value to the commodity, insofar as no human labour is embodied in nature and no human labour concerned needs to be remunerated.

However, this does not mean that certain objects in nature don’t have use-value, that is, that value which satisfies human needs.

In fact, the source of all use-values in society is not human labour, as Lassalle (an old influential communist) wrongly thought, but also "nature".

Human labour in the realm of exchange is regarded ashomogenous insofar as, in commodity production, commodities are qualitatively equated. [8]

Why is labour considered as “abstract”?

Marx wrote “because abstraction is made from the deﬁnite usefulconcrete character of the labour contained in it[the commodity]”[9]

Within the framework of the abstractions made through the exchange, no personal quality of any workers is taken into account, as far as the value of commodity is concerned.

In fact, Capitalism reduced personal qualitative and quantitative labour to simple (quantitative) labour, that is, repetitive and alienating daily performances. Simple labour has become central due to the subordination of the labourer to machinery and the extreme division of labour. Using few words, in Capitalism “time is everything and man is nothing”, Marx would say.[10]

Personal quality cannot be taken into consideration insofar as commodity production made human labour monotonous and, in general, deprived with any subjective value.

The meritocratic “personal qualitative labour” — in broad terms, how much we boost up production with our creative and ingenious subjective qualities — is by no means considered in Capitalism, which merely has the appearance of a meritocratic system. Only the quantity of labour counts in commodity production, where alienation, repetition and boredom rules.

The sudden “change” in Bourgeois Economics started taking shape when Marx discovered the concept of surplus value; whereby that the owner appropriates quality-less (homogeneous) abstract labour with the realisation of one commodity's exchange value in the market.

The Capitalist — in employing the workers through a Capitalist market, where demand and supply of workers meet at an oscillating equilibrium point — buys the workers’ ability to work, namely, their labour power. The value of labour-power is that which is necessary to the maintenance of the basic needs [11] of a worker, the necessary condition on the basis of which s/he will work. A Capitalist would take more money as compared to the quantity of money advanced by her/him at the beginning of the production process, every time the sale of one of her/his commodity is realised.[12]

This surplus-creating process is given by M-C-M’:

money —> commodity —> (money + additional money).

Since money bears a determined quantitative worth expressed in labour terms; money cannot create money, as the old Mercantilist school used to think.

The source of surplus — insofar as dead and living labour are the only real inputs of production — must necessarily come from an attack on labour on the part of the Capitalist, who owns constant capital (machinery, tools etc.) and the workers’ ability to work.

This value appropriated by the Capitalist— the surplus value — is determined by the difference between the value of labour (the labour embodied in the commodity) and the value of labour-power (the labour necessary for the survival of one worker, his/her reproduction).

The value magnitude of the products of labour is determined by the socially necessary labour-time, that is to say, “the labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time” [13] [14]

Labour alone does not give value to one commodity. This labour must be socially necessary insofar as “[…] nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value”. [15]

The concept of socially necessary labour time can be understood with the equivalence of human labour in the following example: the fact that artisan takes, say, 10 hours to produce a chair while an industrial worker takes only 2 hours, doesn’t alter the exchange relations.

In monetary terms, the price of a chair (let’s keep in mind that we are assuming no personal quality involved in production) would not be altered. One consumer interested in buying a chair doesn’t care if the artisan takes many more hours as compared to the industrial worker; his/her demand is therefore not altered.

If the demand for chair is unchanged, the price will be the same; with the only difference that the artisan has taken much more time as compared to the industrial worker, with all the relative economic and social disadvantages, to realise his commodity on the market. More of his labour time will be embodied in the chair, yet this does not increase the price of the commodity in which his/her labour is embodied. It goes without saying that the concept of socially necessary labour time takes into consideration the technological and scientific development of one society and all its human negative and positive consequences on the workers.

Another important Marxian concept is the market price, quite different from that of exchange value.

The market price expresses the average amount of social labour necessary; while the natural price merely reflects the exchange value of one commodity as given by the balance between supply and demand of commodities embodying socially necessary labour.

Assuming supply and demand to balance each other, the market prices of commodities will be equal to their natural prices, their respective exchange values.

However, the demand for commodities is not always equivalent to their supply, and the oscillations of market prices depend on the fluctuations of supply and demand. Hence the market price can fall below the natural price or rise above it. Monopoly — which, in broad terms, implies scarcity of supply and abundance of demand — makes the market price rise over the exchange value, as Marx points out:

[...] apart from the effect of monopolies and some other modifications I must now pass by, all descriptions of commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values or natural prices [16]

The abstraction of exchange value, as already discussed, is necessary for the realisation of the commodities on the market.

Individual quality, unlike in previous modes of production where such an abstraction is not made (see in the case of primitive barter e.g.), has no more relevance in Capitalism.

The owner of the means of production in Capitalism — a non-worker — without adding a minimum amount of social use-value would exploit the worker — the only producer of social use-values — whose homogeneous abstract labour is available on the market; determining the magnitude of value.

Needless to say, the owner of the means of production (the boss) is part of the “surplus-appropriating class”, which is often called bourgeoisie. The worker — who suffers a labour theft from the boss, as previously discussed — is part of the proletarian class: a class that is forced to sell itself as wage-labour on the capitalist labour market; in order to survive.

Marx has been attacked on his dual notion of class, regarded as “reductive”. I would argue that Marx’s concept of class is by no means anachronistic and that the main "epistemological" problem is to be found among the sermons of (vulgar) Marxists and Liberals: not in Marx's works.

In fact, concept of "Class" cannot be detached from Marx's Labour Theory of Value. “Class” — in broad terms — defines the way value is distributed and appropriated in a determined mode of production. Ownership "alone", of course, is by no means sufficient to give a clear picture of the concept of class.

"Bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat" are certainly reductive terms.

By no accident, Marx with the former refers to "high bourgeoisie" whilst with petty bourgeoisie he refers to all those societal members who — in broad terms — are neither pure "wage-labourers" nor pure "capitalists", though appropriate a surplus value from labourers, as the shopkeeper does, for instance.

In fact, within the framework of distribution, the shopkeeper as an owner of small Capital (therefore of commodities such as the means of distribution and workers’ labour power) does not produce use-value.

However, the shopkeeper as a capitalist and a worker — assisting his/her own employees — partly produces use-value.

The value appropriated by the petty bourgeois shopkeeper is usually not sufficient to consistently accumulate Capital.

It is merely used up for the individual consumption of the petty bourgeois concerned.

By analysing the entire topic in economic terms, the fact that the petty-bourgeois political character may often reveal itself as reactionary for the sake of small Capital, as pro-capitalist, is an interesting separate matter; which won’t be discussed here for a matter of relevance.

What is central to our analysis is that the present-day class struggle, here in India and almost everywhere — just like in the second half of the XIX century — is still between Wage-Labour and Capital, no matter what these contradictions produced in terms of “societal sub-classes”; and will always be until Capitalism is in business. The choices to be made in a revolutionary struggle — whether in terms of tactical alliances between petty bourgeoisie and proletariat or the use of parliamentary means to achieve pro-proletarian goals — will not to be discussed here.

Returning to the definition of class in broad terms, it is important to remark that there is still widespread confusion on the notion of class composition; which often hinders the growth of class-consciousness. For the sake of clarity, it’s opportune to point out that singers, commercial workers, inexperienced journalists, IT sector trainees, call centre employees e.g. — independently from the fact that many of them may earn more (or less, like here in India) than 'industrial proletarians' — are all wage-labourers exploited by the Capitalist; insofar as they produce a surplus value for the sake of Capital. As wage-labourers, their interest is, of course, antithetical to that of Capital.[17]

The fact that many of these labourers are not enough conscientised on the matter and don’t take revolutionary action against Capital is a separate question. While the political problem of coscientisation is not topical to our economic analyses and won’t be discussed any further, the class-related topic will be analysed later — in detailed terms — by examining “the social character of productive and unproductive labour”.

In regard to class-biased sectarian considerations, the Keynesian school e.g. regards the Capitalist as a ‘value maker’ (as in the case of Joan Robinson’s analyses), therefore legitimising profit and the ownership of Capital in general.

Such school does not see the ownership of Capital as an historical contradiction, which uses up all its power to drive down wages and exposes both owners and wage-labourers to a never-ending destructive competition, which is especially destructive for the workers.

First of all, we must differentiate between “owner” — a non-worker who earns millions by virtue of owning (or having inherited ownership)— and the “supervisor”, whose supervising may be regarded as mental labour.

Marx, in mocking the figure of a capitalist “imploring for mercy”, outlines the difference:

Have I myself not worked? Have I not performed the labour of superintendence and of overlooking the spinner? And does not this labour, too, create value?"

His overlooker and his manager try to hide their smiles.[18]

Whether in Communism the role of the supervisor is going to fade away or not is actually not relevant to our discussion.

I would argue that the growing development of productive forces and the social character of Communism would probably do away with such an historical figure, unless contradictions arise in a way they did in the USSR. Yet, this needs further investigation.

Marx describes the workers’ precarious situation in a memorable fictional dialogue between the two 'human opposites' of Capitalism.

In such dialogue, one worker asserts that the entire owner’s constant capital (machine, tools etc.) would rot and rust without the workers’ contribution.

As a reply to the worker, the Capitalist points out that without the “role of the boss” no constant capital would be provided in production; implying that a relative profit therefore needs to be there as a “fair” remuneration for the boss (of course, at the detriment of wages).

At this point, the worker start explaining in details that the capitalist charges the labourers for utilising his constant capital while the workers don’t charge the capitalist for working on his machines and maintaining the value-maintaining power at the benefit of constant capital! [19]

Such value-maintaining power doesn’t cost the worker any extra labour; it’s a natural faculty of his contribution.

As the worker doesn’t charge the capitalist anything for the above-mentioned reasons, the Capitalist cannot claim to charge the workers’ for ‘providing constant Capital’ [20]

The value-maintaining power generated by labour is something that several Marxists and Social Democrats have not observed, not to mention Neoclassical, Keynesian economists. For instance, such concept gives further logic to the reason why Marx has always considered the role of labour as central, in his theory of value. Hence, human Labour — beyond being the sole source of use-value in society — is the sole source of capital maintenance without which, as previously discussed, capital would rot and rust.

We should remark that the moral character of the above-mentioned dialogue is still relevant today, insofar as ownership in itself' — leaving aside its non-human consequences — is still regarded as a 'value' by Bourgeois economics.

A lot has been done by Bourgeois economics to hide what Ricardo hinted at and what Marx took for granted to prove Capitalistic exploitation. A lot has been done to promote the idea of commodity fetishism, whereby any consideration on the ‘production-based origin of value’ is abandoned.

Neoclassical economists of the likes of Von Mises, Schumpeter, Bohm-Bawerk and Menger e.g. started asserting that the value of one commodity can be objectified merely by the consumer's need, the individual psychological evaluation or the personal 'desire' [21]

These queer economists started focusing merely on the demand side of commodity production.

Any evaluation on Labour — and with it its alienation and exploitation— fell into the oblivion in bourgeois textbooks. Bourgeois economists struggled a lot in intellectual terms to cover up the economic inconsistency of Ricardian Economists who ended up pointing out the centrality of labour in the value determination and who — unbeknown to them — at the same unmasked the immoral raison d'etre of Capitalism; which is based on the appropriation of unpaid labour by the boss!

As previously discussed, the boss has a class interest relative to his/her appropriation of human labour, where ‘class’ is defined by the way human labour is appropriated and distributed in a determined mode of production. Old Ricardianism unwillingly raised the entire question of the immoral character of Capitalism and its contradictions.

A PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE MARXIST THEORY OF TRUTH (PART III)

The concept of Dialectical Materialism — as envisioned by Friedrich Engels in particular — is the most relevant tool to understand the concept of class antagonism and an important premise for a Marxist approach to the concept of truth. Class antagonism not only defines the economic exploitation of Capitalism, but also helps to define the immoral character of all the apologies of commodity production.

Engels proved that nature— wherein entities are regarded as contradictions, insofar as they are in opposition to other entities —always witnesses the withering away of its systemic contradictions. He provides the example of the life-process of barley. One seed of barley, after growing due to external stimuli (negations), changes and is in itself negated, becoming a plant; which is something qualitatively different from the old seed from which it was generated. Towards the end of the life-process, the plant grows, flowers and produces something, which resembles the original form of the negation (the seed of barley). But it does not produce one unit of it: it produces many units.

At the end of the life-process, once the stalk dies after the seeds have ripened, there is a quantitative change as well as a qualitative one, insofar as nature obtains many seeds of barley with improved qualities. [22]

Marx applied Engels’ amazing scientific discovery to human nature, showing that in the early stages of human society, human beings were far from suffering the burden of societal orders and all the produce of class antagonism in general. In fact, human societal contradictions were absent; the only existing contradictions were those of human beings and Nature, which saw people perpetually struggling against their surrounding material scarcity.

Contradictions started growing in the early contradiction-less society. The reasons are many: production requirements with growing population, interpersonal contradictions, the evolving structure of the family, productivity of the soil assigned to certain individuals by the community etc. etc. The scope of this article won’t permit us to develop the subject further. As envisioned by Marx, Communism is but the abolition of all the existing contradictions, which brings back the human beings to their natural contradiction-less equilibrium, in which they were at one with themselves; in which no class antagonism could forbid people from receiving the full produce of their labour. On the other hand, the abolition of all existing contradictions does not mean to go back to the early stage of human society:

Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social -- i.e., human -- being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution[23]

Communism would simply be its ‘updated version’, qualitatively and quantitatively improved by the experience of centuries of development of productive forces (presence of advanced technology, political and social emancipation, more division of labour etc. etc.) and the return to the social essence of the human beings, which has been alienated, estranged, in Capitalism, as Marx emphasises:

In general, the proposition that man is estranged from his species-being means that each man is estranged from the others and that all are estranged from man's essence.[24]

As we may notice from the above-cited words, Marx — who, in broad terms, is neither a modernist nor a postmodernist but a dialectical materialist — DOES have an objective understanding of human nature, though, as he himself recognises, human nature is "shaped", modified, by the dynamics of a mode of production. What I personally argue is that an objective conception of human nature may be based on the objective categories of individual needs that all human beings share, irrespective of religions, beliefs, gender, systemic hindrances etc.

This epistemological approach based on "human needs" appears quite neglected by the Postmodern advocate of "multi-truths". In fact, there is only one method, one "truth", through which human and systemic contradictions — and with them all the anti-human consequences — are abolished; that is to say, Marxist thought and praxis.

Only Marxist thought and praxis is able abolish in the system, in the individuals, all those contradictions that undermine the realisation of natural and objective human needs. This realisation, the "essence" of human beings, is achieved only if our actions are positively dialectical.

Marx's care for the objective essence of human needs is observable in his postulation of the motto of Communism: from each according to his contribution, to each according to his needs.

Human contribution may even vary from person to person, due to various contextual and non-contextual constraints, human categories of needs to be satisfied do not vary. Marx would have been inconsistent in glorifying the "meritocratic" and individualistic approach of Socialism, in which everyone would be remunerated according to his/her work. In fact, man, according to Marx, is a social being and without contradictions, in Communism, would fully express his essence as a social being. I shall return on this later.

In this regard, it is important to emphasise that a multi-philosophical post-modern approach — whereby "we should incorporate in our philosophical understanding the "best" we can get from each philosophy"— is substantially inconsistent one. When these queer intellectuals advice to "take what's good and leave what's bed" from, say, Christianity, they would probably hint at, say, the Christian qualities of "Humanistic Love". In such case, the fallacy would lie in a linguistic confusion. Humanistic love for Christianity would be "CHRISTIAN humanist love" and not simply (genuine) humanistic love. Such concept would imply humanistic love as historically distorted by the Christian religion which sees, among other things, the repression of certain (genuine/natural) needs that everybody shares (see e.g. sexuality) due to the religious internal beliefs, considered as true, when they are actually a mere conviction of truth. In fact, these beliefs may often conflict with the gratification of our natural needs, from the most-pressing, least-gratifying ones to the least-pressing, most gratifying one (say need for protection, cognition, social belongingness, sexuality, esteem, creativity, self-actualisation etc.). The illogical character of such a postmodern philosophical "multi-approach" reaches its peak when the prerogatives of any idealist doctrine or religion e.g. are implicitly (and dogmatically) considered to be "non-conflicting" and therefore "natural", which is false; it is a mere idealistic assumption. The prerogatives of reactionary and philistine religions that undermine human essence don't bother the pious post-modern so much. Being implies the realisation of needs, the essence of a human being, this is what a simple, trivial. materialistic observation of human behaviour can easily prove. Everybody needs to eat, sleep, drink, esteem, belong, express his/her sexuality, self-realise in one's activity (from cognition to creativity, work etc.), feel protected etc. etc.

Yet religion and Capitalism e.g. have internal contradictions that strongly conflict with the natural realisation of needs.

The "multi-philosophical" post-modern approach starts faltering whenever we raise the question of "needs realisation". What I argue is that a moral theory of truth can be only a materialist one that sees the individual drive towards the realisation of his/her needs, first of all, as true, as observable and then sees the aim of realising people's needs as a moral necessity, insofar as the human beings are by nature all (true) social beings, not isolated self-sustaining animals. Hence a moral theory of truth that is not genuine, that is to say, a moral theory of truth that doesn't take into consideration the genuine personal drive towards the maximum qualitative and quantitative realisation of one's needs (all, including the social ones), is not a genuine materialist one, but an idealist one. Hence it is a false theory of moral truth.

Communism, with his lack of contradictions, aims at providing the economic and political bases for the achievement of the realisation of natural human needs, the entirety of people's needs, through the provision of socially necessary use-values, and therefore at implicitly validating a pro-genuineness theory of truth.

Bourgeois intellectuals, who still cannot grasp dialectics and its implication in human history and political economy — leaving aside morality — don't see Capital as a human contradiction.

They see the ruling mode of production — namely, Capitalism — as something eternal, value-free, something dropped from the sky as a 'gift' and as 'the best of all possible worlds', not as an historical and transitory produce; like the plant Engels was talking about in his scientific example on the Dialectics of Nature; the very same plant which would give rise to an entity whose resemblance would be that of an “improved” original form.

In broad terms, they don’t see Capitalism as a “plant” in the process of giving rise to something quantitatively and qualitatively superior to commodity production: something which suffered contradictions to abolish them and return to an “improved” original status.

Mainstream economists and philosophers see Capitalism as something 'natural' without any understanding how contradictions like Capital, or Feudal ownership e.g., are by no means 'human', insofar as they objectively don't favour the human essence, the objective nature of human needs: its full realisation in a status in which the human being is at one with him/herself, far from alienation and exploitation of labour.

In overvaluing bourgeois individuality and underestimating the role of societal contradictions, any of their moral evaluation remains confined within the narrow limits of Capitalist apology.

In fact, the common Bourgeois is afraid of Communism because he rightly fears his methods of economic immoral appropriation — namely rent, interest and/or profit — are going to end soon with the abolition of Capital and Wage-Labour; and therefore the rise of Communism.

In doing so, s/he fears his (bourgeois) individuality is going to end since exploitation — according to this historically “modified” queer individual —is not an anti-human element but an element composing his true 'individuality'. As Marx suggests, such a Bourgeois would regard himself as an individual, only insofar as he's a Bourgeois. Such an individual would not regard himself as a social being.[25]

For instance, Ricardo — unlike most of modern liberal economists — “perceived”, as an honest bourgeois, the conflict between Labour and Capital in commodity production.

His words on the effect of the introduction of machinery on the employment of workers are a clear testimony of this insightful, though limited, “consciousness”.

The great merit of Ricardo, according to Marx, has been of perceiving the connection between the quantitative worth of commodities (their exchange value) and the total labour-time necessary for their production.[26]

For Ricardo, profit is regarded as a uniform rate, which is proportional to the size of the capital advanced (and is still considered as a 'legitimate' deduction from the commodity’s monetary realisation). However, how can Ricardo attempt to analyse the effects of a uniform rate of profit on prices, asks Marx, when nowhere he attempts to define what determines the level of this (uniform, according to Ricardo) rate of profit? [27]

Leaving aside an analysis of his inconsistencies for the sake of clarity, it is important to point out that modern bourgeois economics hasn’t even reached the witty conclusions of Mr Ricardo. Modern economics can’t even see ‘antithetical interests’ in Capitalism. By not grasping the relevance of the concept of opposite/contradiction, as intended by Engels’ concept of Dialectics — it even ends up neglecting its own dynamics.

In fact, nowadays e.g. Industrial Capital has to pay the services of financial capital so as to boost investment — and therefore survive within competition — while our mode of production is pervaded by the growing sharpening of societal contradictions; not only those of Capital and Wage-Labour or those of Exchange-Value and Use-value, but also those of “Industrial Capital” and “Financial Capital”; whose relative interests clash with each other

THE ACADEMICALLY WIDESPREAD "SUBJECTIVE APPROACH" (ARTICLE PART IV)

Within Marx’s LTV we find a strongly objective approach.

Human labour is regarded as central, and the process of production is considered as a whole. Bourgeois economics, after receiving the intellectual blow from Marx’s LTV, started working on economic theories which radically shifted from Marx’s labour-based economic notions.

As previously discussed, the very notion of “labour” in general started appearing quite uncomfortable within the framework of the Liberal thought, which legitimises profit. By no accident, the neoclassical school decided to sway the attention from production to exchange through its pure price theory, at the same time hiding the attention from labour exploitation in the process of commodity production.

In fact, by focusing the attention exclusively on prices, neoclassical economics stopped inquiring the very nature of profit, as labour ceased to be the central object of economic inquiry.

Prices, according to the neoclassical economists, are determined by buyers’ utility evaluations, as objectified by the demand and supply of goods. They are explained by the scarcity of certain goods relative to the demand for them [28]

The marginal utility of a buyer— that is to say, the quantity of buyer’s utility gained (or lost) with an increase in consumption of one commodity unit— became central to the economic analyses of Bourgeois economics.

With the marginal utility theory, we don’t find any distinction between use-value and exchange value anymore.

Marxist economist Paul Mattick — who assiduously studies Neoclassical economics, as well as Keynesian economics — says on the matter:

The subjective value theory was discredited, first, by a theoretical refinement so excessive that it lost any visible connection with reality, and second, by the frank renunciation of the attempt to explain price by value. Joseph A. Schumpeter may be mentioned in connection with the first of these endeavours.

From the standpoint of the Austrian School, from which he came, the value of final products, or consumer goods, depends on their marginal utility for the consumer, while the marginal utility of intermediate products, such raw materials and machinery is derived by a process of imputation from the marginal utilities of the final goods.

(Ibid.)

As we may have noticed, neoclassical economists tried their best to remove 'labour' from their worthy theories of value, insofar as such factor of production stopped turning out to be cosy after Marx's discovery of Surplus value. Marginal utility theory provides the suitable example of this intellectual attempt; the finest theoretical apology of Capitalism; an economic system of chronic unemployment, cyclical crises, poverty, profit on health, slums, pollution etc. etc.

In intellectually doing away with the concepts of Capital and Wage-labour, which inherently defines ‘exploitation’, mainstream economics could give us the funniest explanations about the nature of profit.

Mr Walras simply didn’t bother to explain it. He directly classified profit as a component of the aggregate wages!

Nassau W. Senior showed more ‘restraint’ and justified profit by regarding as a (millionaire) “compensation for the sacrifice of the Capitalist’s abstention from consumption”; a sacrifice undergone in favour of Capital investment (undoubtedly not requested by anyone except the Bourgeoisie!).

By implicitly legitimising the inheritance of Capital and the dual contradiction of Capital and Wage-Labour — Mr Schumpeter e.g. regarded profit as a prize for entrepreneurial activity. It is the chief aim of entrepreneurial activity to maintain ‘value’ of existing investment. [29]

Of course, this is wrong.

This ‘value’ — as long as for value Schumpeter indicates ‘exchange-value’, the value form — is by no means maintained by ‘entrepreneurial activity’, but by the only creator of use-values, namely ‘human labour’. That of maintaining values in society in general, it is a natural faculty of the workers’ labour. Labour, as previously discussed, has a value-maintaining power. Without the employment of productive workers, no production and circulation of values would be possible; the machines of the Capitalist would rot and rust. The process of value formation must necessarily start from productive workers’ labour.

We shall return on the matter of “productivity” later, in more detailed terms.

Furthermore, it is important to remark that Mr Schumpeter (curiously enough) went as far as to remove 'supply' from his concept of equilibrium. The main worry of this queer economist, by no accident shared by most of the Austrian economists, is exchange. For him, there is no need to deeply analyse the concept of value; insofar as all the real relations of production are neglected. In line with the marginalist thought, Schumpeter recognises only prices. Whatever lies behind the realm of exchange is not a matter of concern for him. It deals with exchange as represented by a process magically dropped from the sky, not presupposing both production and exchange consumers’ evaluations: a gift of ‘God’. In fact, Schumpeter paradoxically regards all the relations lying outside the category of exchange relations as immaterial.[30]

In general, post-Ricardian mainstream economics has always remained confined within the narrow limits of exchange relations These “exchange relations” are just the ‘intellectual’ cell bars of this narrow-minded thought.

And the prison is called “subjective theory of value”.

During the second half of the XIX century on, the first most prominent subjective theories of value were formulated.

Liberal economics started asserting that to give value to one commodity was sufficient to crave it; as if by craving an electric guitar, it would materialise itself, ready to be played! [31]

An apple on a wild spontaneous tree e.g. may be 'craved' as much as we wish, but as soon as such an object is craved no “price tag” would appear, no exchange value in monetary form would take form. It would not occur simply because no human labour would be embodied in such an apple. The same goes for 'air', for instance. In fact, oxygen and the other chemical components of air are certainly desired, but desire alone is not sufficient to give air 'market value', Air is free because no socially necessary human labour is embodied in it.

However, investor-friendly economists à la Bohm-Bawerk have never bothered themselves much about investigating the source of value from the real genesis, from nature, namely from human labour. Basing his theories on the fact any production is merely for the sake of consumption and no investigation on production is needed in political economy, Mr Bohm-Bawerk e.g. proved himself unable of explaining the source of 'interest'. According to his theory, interest was neither stemming from a labour or capital, it appeared as a 'gift from heaven'.[32]

As we may notice, without any inquiry on the ‘origin’ of value and on dual notion of ‘value’, its real essence remains a ‘mystery’ for neoclassical economics; while exchange-value appears as a ‘spiritual’ construct. We already discussed that human labour alone is not sufficient to give value to one commodity.

On the other hand, Desire alone is not sufficient too.

It follows that — dialectically (or genetically) speaking, namely ‘from the genesis of the process of value creation’ — both the process of production and exchange must be taken into consideration.

The consumer — with his/her evaluation — realises the commodity price appropriated by the Capitalist, from which the value of labour-power, expressed in monetary terms, will be deducted for the realisation of profit.

In realising the commodity price in the market, the buyer realises his/her own need and therefore the ontological character of the commodity use-value; insofar as the commodities are socially recognised incarnations of homogenous human labour. [33]

By doing so the buyer indirectly asserts the use-values as values generated by labour, insofar as labour is an objective production process, it exists in the Real, and its supply allowed the existence of social exchange along with consumers' demand in the goods market. Yet the buyer is not necessarily aware of this implicit realisation, in making an exchange abstraction. [34]

By a-priori refusing to analyse the concept of value within the framework of the opposites of use-value and exchange-value, Bourgeois economics remains intellectually confuse with a vague abstract notion of ‘price’. In general, the lack of ‘dialectical thought’, the liberal intellectual distance from any philosophico-economic analysis based on “antithetical opposites” simply cannot shine a light on the nature of factors such as exploitation, crises, negative externalities, greed and unemployment, which are merely effects of determined Capitalistic opposites: like those of Capital/Wage-Labour, and Exchange-Value/Use-Value.

The same goes for the social democrats and, in general, the Keynesians, who — instead of desiring to abolish these contradictions —try to make harmony out of it through workers’ benefits, government spending etc. etc.; as if the worker in Capitalist could stop being a wage-labourer and the capitalist could stop being a millionaire in their system of equality.

These liberal comedy persona — far less frank than neoliberals explicitly enjoying commodity production — merely attempt to bribe the workers with wage benefits whilst urging them to go back working during every labour attempt of Capital overthrow, powered by their “Red” rhetoric of equality, freedom, democracy and justice.

With their lack of understanding of dialectics and political economy, not only they fail to realise about the liberal and pro-capitalist character of their own beliefs, but also they leave undisturbed that system not allowing the all-sector workers to receive the full produce of their own labour.

THE SOCIAL CHARACTER OF PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE LABOUR (ARTICLE PART V)

I will now deal with the general widespread confusion, within the framework of "Marxism" and Liberal economics, on the productive and unproductive character of labour. First of all, it is important to premise that unlike what is widely believed by Liberals Karl Marx never “neglected” the service sector in his theory of Value, whose economic analysis is fundamental to fully comprehend the differences between productive and unproductive labour. As Marx points out in Capital, exploitation is there in Capitalism, for the service sector as well.

For Marx, even commercial and immaterial workers (namely, those who contributes with mental labour) are regarded as wage-labourers, as long as they produce a surplus value for their boss.[35]

Though the term “labourer” or “worker” — widely used by communists, trade unions, social democrats etc. — may suggest “industrial worker” or “peasant”, it is used, at least by Marx, to refer to the wage-labourer; whose ability to work (labour-power) is sold at a wage determined by demand and supply of labour in the labour market.

Marx says on the matter:

A singer who sells her song for her own account is an unproductive labourer. But the same singer commissioned by an entrepreneur to sing in order to make money for him is a productive labourer; for she produces capital.[36]

Marx makes it clear that the materiality of the labour concerned by no means alters the entire issue. Service sector workers, for instance, suffer surplus appropriation just like industrial workers, irrespective of the fact the ‘source’ of value comes from real production of use-values (whether these satisfies ‘the stomach’ or ‘the mind’). Both material and immaterial workers may suffer surplus appropriation. We shouldn't fall in the narrow-minded credo whereby all those commodities and services, whose utility is far from the 'basic needs', are unproductive.

It goes without saying that with this kind of reasoning, we would also regard material production of commodities different from those necessary to subsistence as unproductive.

Unproductive is, in Marxian terms, what cannot directly produce Capital. It is important to remark that not necessarily all that human labour which lies outside the sphere of Capital is fully remunerated. In fact, human labour can also suffer an appropriation on the part of the State, for the sake of State Revenue. It would be interesting to analyse the entire question within the framework of the value appropriated by the State throughout the history of XX century “post-Capitalist” countries (e.g. Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, PRC etc.). For a matter of relevance, however, we will not discuss such a topic here.

On the question of State-employed labour Marx:

The pay [Sold] of the common soldier is also reduced to a minimum -- determined purely by the production costs necessary to procure him. But he exchanges the performance of his services not for capital, but for the revenue of the state. In bourgeois society itself, all exchange of personal services for revenue -- including labour for personal consumption, cooking, sewing etc., garden work etc., up to and including all of the unproductive classes, civil servants, physicians, lawyers, scholars etc. -- belongs under this rubric, within this category[37]

Shaikh e.g., in his well conceived book “Measuring the wealth of nations”, outlines that we can differentiate between production and nonproduction: two concepts, which are distinct from productive and unproductive labour.

These are his words on the matter, which I will cite at length:

Production activity uses up wealth to create new wealth (i.e., to achieve a production outcome). Personal consumption uses up wealth to maintain and reproduce the individual (a nonproduction outcome). In like manner, military, police, administrative, and trading activities use up wealth in the pursuit of protection, distribution, and administration (also nonproduction outcomes). The issue is not one of necessity, because all these activities are necessary, in some form or the other, for social reproduction (Beckerman 1968, pp. 27-8). Rather, the issue concerns the nature of the outcome; protection, distribution, and administration are really forms of social consumption, not production.[38]

Also:

It should be emphasized that the distinction being made is between production and nonproduction activities, not between goods and services. We shall see that a substantial portion of service activities (transportation, lodging, entertainment, repairs, etc.) will be classified under production, whereas others (wholesale/retail, financial services, legal services, advertising, military, civil service, etc.) will be classified as nonproduction activities.

The real distinction is between outcomes and output. All activity results in outcomes. Some outcomes are also outputs, directly adding to social wealth. But others preserve or circulate this wealth, or help maintain and administer the social structure in which it is embedded.[39]

The distinction between production and nonproduction is fundamental to lay down the bases of a realistic accountancy and inquire on the real nature of profit. It goes deep to the genesis of use-values.

Production is related to use-value while non-production is related to consumption.

Private distribution e.g. is necessary only to the Capitalist and does not represent production; it is something, which is necessary for the boss' personal consumption. Says Mr Shaikh on private distribution:

Transportation from the orange grove to the consumption region is therefore productive transportation, a completion of the process of the creation of an object of consumption - that is, a completion of the process of production. It is internal to the process of production. It is important to understand that not all transportation constitutes production activity. Some part of commodity transport may be internal to the distribution process itself. Suppose our oranges are produced in California to be sold in New York, but are stored in New Jersey because of cheaper warehouse facilities. As already noted, the transport from California to New York is the productive leg of the journey, because it changes the objective useful properties of the orange. The loop through New Jersey has no (positive) effect on the useful properties of the orange as an object of consumption,5 but it does improve those properties which affect the orange as an object of distribution. As such, this loop is internal to the distribution system. It therefore constitutes distributive transport of commodities, a nonproduction activity.

[Ibid. page 23-24]

We may regard nonproduction as a form of social consumption, hence, in line with Marx's concepts of productive labour and unproductive labour, as something, which does not imply creation of surplus value, but mere realisation of use-value. Hence, the nonproduction sector cannot suffer appropriation of use-value.

Shaikh's analysis is definitely in line with Marx's considerations on production (e.g. goods/services, transportation), nonproduction (e.g. capitalist consumption, police, fire department et cetera) and circulation of use-values (e.g. trade).

Further, Shaikh differentiates between primary sector and secondary sector:

Sectors (such as production and wholesale /retail trade), which are directly involved in the production and domestic realization of the total commodity product, will be called primary sectors. Those (such as finance, land rental and sales, and general government) involved in the subsequent recirculation of the value and money streams originating in the primary sectors will be called secondary sectors.

[Ibid. page 39]

Transportation e.g. is not circulation of value, but a means to realise the use-value on the market, at its socially necessary value. It goes without saying that without the labour involved in productive transportation e.g., a lesser amount of use-value would be realised.

Transportation labour e.g. is also by no means 'individually necessary' or, to use Marx's term in Capital volume III, for private service[40]. Workers in the transportation sector e.g. do add value to the commodity and are not to be categorised as workers within the framework of trade (which will be analysed later in a more detailed way).

I shall cite at length Marx’s very important lines about transportation regarded as productive activity and as an activity which is different from trade:

If the sailor, the carter etc. require only half a year of labour time to live a full year (if this is generally the proportion of labour necessary for subsistence), then the capitalist employs him for a whole year and pays him a half. By adding a whole years labour time to the value of the transported products, but paying only ", he gains a surplus value of 100% on necessary labour. The case is entirely the same as indirect production, and the original surplus value of the transported product can come about only because the workers are not paid for a part of the transportation time, because it is surplus time, time over and above the labour necessary for them to live. That an individual product might be made so much more expensive, owing to the transport costs, that it could not be sold -- on account of the disproportion between the value of the product and its surplus value as a transported product, a quality which becomes extinguished in it as soon as it has arrived at its destination-does not affect the matter. […]

The improvement of the means of transport and communication likewise falls into the category of the development of the productive forces generally. […]

If one imagines the same capital both producing and transporting, then both acts fall within direct production, and circulation as we have considered it so far, i.e. transformation into money as soon as the product has achieved its final form for consumption, would begin only when the product had been brought to its point of destination. This capitalists delayed return compared to that of another, who gets rid of his product on the spot, would resolve into another form of greater use of fixed capital, with which we are not yet concerned here. Whether A requires 100 thalers more for instrument, or whether he needs 100 thalers more in order to bring his product to its destination, to market, is the same thing. In both cases more fixed capital is used; more means of production, which is consumed in direct production. In this respect, then, no immanent case would be posited here; it would fall under the examination of the difference between fixed capital and circulating capital. [41]

Trade — the activity of buying and selling of commodities for the achievement of (commercial) profit —is something “socially necessary only to Capitalism”, and it is part of the primary sector, where production and circulation of use-values are involved. In fact, the function of trade — like that of credit — is that of speeding up the rhythm of production cycles of Industry.

Merchant’s capital — in doing this during a definite time period, say one year — allows the capitalist who pays its service to have more occasion of surplus appropriation. However, the commercial labour of trade is not production and does not add value to the commodities; it just represents circulation of use-values.[42]

It is important to keep in mind that transportation doesn’t fall under the category of trade, as previously discussed. One of Marx’s important analytical examples in Capital volume III provides the reason for this[43]

Leaving aside the catastrophic long-run consequences of the sharing of surplus value by trade and credit, we should point out that by means of these two categories— mere circulation activities —the Capitalist has to wait a lesser amount of time before selling his commodities and realising the profit on the market.

The commodities that once could be sold, say, in 5 months, now can be sold in 2-3 months, by means of the growing development of trade. Hence, in the meanwhile, the amount of investment — which, along with capitalist consumption stems from a part of the surplus value appropriated by the boss — has risen too, thanks to these circulation activities.

In this regard, it is important to remark that unlike what e.g. French classical economist J.B. Say thought e.g., there is always a time lag between purchase and sale of commodities, which creates not a few problems for the realisation of the Capitalist’s profit on the market.

Classical and Neoclassical economics — which shares the same conviction — are responsible for neglecting the time factor in production and exchange, which may explain, at least partially, crises, unemployment, speculation etc.

Marx’s LTV did not provide an equilibrium model in production and exchange of commodities simply for the fact that a real stable equilibrium will never be achieved in Capitalism. In a purely dialectical spirit, Marx understood that the contradictions inherent to Capitalism — fed by the time factor — may produce crises, unemployment, externalities etc. etc., which alter the system relations, by blows of value oscillations.

In commodity production, purchase and sale of commodities on the part of the Capitalist — for the sake of Capital reproduction and accumulation — are indeed separated; they are two distinct contradictions.

By neglecting the time factor and forgetting the real separation between these two processes, Bourgeois economics indirectly presupposes barter, where exchange value is glued to use-value and has not acquired an independent (bourgeois) form. In fact, in barter, objects are purchased for immediate wants and then sold again for the same reason. There, we find the unity between exchange-value and use-value; the latter is leitmotif of the system of production.

Marx says about it:

The separation and independence of the acts of purchase and sale is a general feature of the labour, which creates exchange-value, whereas in barter the exchange of one discrete use-value is directly tied to the exchange of another discrete use-value.[44]

Also:

The metaphysical equilibrium of purchases and sales is confined to the fact that every purchase is a sale and every sale a purchase, but this gives poor comfort to the possessors of commodities who unable to make a sale cannot accordingly make a purchase either.[45]

In barter, there is no profit maximisation logic; no logic of realising the commodity exchange-value on the market or a market price above the exchange-value (often called mark-up by vulgar economics).

The Capitalist is not interested in the use-values of the production factors he buys or their abilities to satisfy the social use-value. He is merely interested in the sale of the commodities produced for the sake of profit. The process of sale, needless to say, requires time, though in modern times trade and credit helps the speeding-up of production cycles. In a crisis the contradictions of purchase and sale manifest themselves in the most violent way through sudden and continual price fluctuations, as Marx points out discussing Ricardo’s naïve denial of possible occasions of overproduction in Capitalism:

If, for example, purchase and sale—or the metamorphosis of commodities—represent the unity of two processes, or rather the movement of one process through two opposite phases, and thus essentially the unity of the two phases, the movement is essentially just as much the separation of these two phases and their becoming independent of each other. Since, however, they belong together, the independence of the two correlated aspects can only show itself forcibly, as a destructive process. It is just the crisis in which they assert their unity, the unity of the different aspects. The independence which these two linked and complimentary phases assume in relation to each other is forcibly destroyed. Thus the crisis manifests the unity of the two phases that have become independent of each other. There would be no crisis without this inner unity of factors that are apparently indifferent to each other. But no, says the apologetic economist. Because there is this unity, there can be no crises. Which in turn means nothing but that the unity of contradictory factors excludes contradiction. [46]

We are not, here, going to investigate about all the possible matrices of crises, which may also arise from deferments in credit-related payments and, in particular, variations in market prices causing devastating effects due to the inefficient character of commodity production, as compared to socialised production[47]. We are here merely interested in outlining the inherent contradictions of Capitalism in general, as the reason of all the problems relative to crises, unemployment, externalities, price variations etc. In fact, socially necessary labour-time may be wasted in commodity production, insofar as some commodities suddenly become unsalable for a definite time period, namely momentarily useless, as Marx points out whilst talking about the occurrence of crises:

When speaking of the destruction of capital through crises, one must distinguish between two factors.

In so far as the reproduction process is checked and the labour-process is restricted or in some instances is completely stopped, real capital is destroyed. Machinery which is not used is not capital. Labour which is not exploited is equivalent to lost production. Raw material which lies unused is no capital. Buildings (also newly built machinery) which are either unused or remain unfinished, commodities which rot in warehouses— all this is destruction of capital. All this means that the process of reproduction is checked and that the existing means of production are not really used as means of production, are not put into operation. Thus their use-value and their exchange-value go to the devil.

Secondly, however, the destruction of capital through crises means the depreciation of values, which prevents them from later renewing their reproduction process as capital on the same scale. This is the ruinous effect of the fall in the prices of commodities. It does not cause the destruction of any use-values. What one loses, the other gains.[48]

From the above statement we may deduce both that capitalist crises are occasions for some Capitalist to despoil the wealth of other Capitalists, so as to concentrate (monopolise) production — and boosting profitability of his/her own Capital — and that many commodities suddenly become “temporarily useless”, while some are destined to rot. This clearly shows the parasitic character of Capitalism as one system for the sake of profit, insofar as wage constraints dialectically imposed by crises may reduce the demand for many commodities, despite the consumption of many of these may be still latent in many individuals.

The useless character of many goods during the occurrence of crises is in general not peculiar to exchange relations belonging to modes of production other than Capitalism. For instance, in Communism as envisioned by Marx— where production has become fully social after the overthrow Capitalist relations— there is no waste of socially necessary labour time. With this abolition of Capitalist contradictions, the contradiction between the search for exchange values (profit) and the satisfaction of use-values vanishes too. Similarly, in the case of barter e.g. there can be neither destruction of goods nor a violent depreciation of values due to overproduction, falls in market prices etc.

The destruction of goods, which are socially needed, is an exclusive parasitic outcome of Capitalism, as Marx remarks:

In a situation where men produce for themselves, there are indeed no crises, but neither is there capitalist production. Nor have we ever heard that the ancients, with their slave production ever knew crises, although individual producers among the ancients too, did go bankrupt. The first part of the alternative is nonsense. The second as well. A man who has produced, does not have the choice of selling or not selling. He must sell. In the crisis there arises the very situation in which he cannot sell or can only sell below the cost-price or must even sell at a positive loss[49]

Within the framework of Credit, the separation between money as a means of value (debtor-creditor obligations) and money as a means of payment can give rise to crises, with the oscillation of the value of commodities.

The general possibility of crisis is given in the process of metamorphosis of capital itself, and in two ways: in so far as money functions as means of circulation, [the possibility of crisis lies in] the separation of purchase and sale; and in so far as money functions as means of payment, it has two different aspects, it acts as measure of value and as realisation of value. These two aspects [may] become separated. If in the interval between them the value has changed, if the commodity at the moment of its sale is not worth what it was worth at the moment when money was acting as a measure of value and therefore as a measure of the reciprocal obligations, then the obligation cannot be met from the proceeds of the sale of the commodity, and therefore the whole series of transactions which retrogressively depend on this one transaction, cannot be settled. If even for only a limited period of time the commodity cannot be sold then, although its value has not altered, money cannot function as means of payment, since it must function as such in a definite given period of time. But as the same sum of money acts for a whole series of reciprocal transactions and obligations here, inability to pay occurs not only at one, but at many points, hence a crisis arises.[50]

If, for whatever reason, the commodity’s value changes during the interval between money at the time it acts as a measure of value and money at the time it acts as a measure of payment for the commodity concerned, a crisis in exchange arises.

Whatever the negative character of trade and credit in promoting crises may be, the workers employed by who owns the capital of such sectors are wage-labourers. It is important to remind the reader that commercial labour (that within the framework of trade) is wage-labour insofar as is exploited by the merchant who appropriates a surplus.

Merchants — as mere agents of circulation and bosses of commercial wage-labourers— are not like commercial employees: wage-labourers who would directly create social use value, like transportation workers, if Industrial Capital didn’t need Commercial Capital for the realisation of commodities on the market. Trade — as an activity of circulation — is nothing but what I may define as appropriation of appropriation of labour, weighing on productive Capital — the only creator of social surplus value.

Marx, as previously discussed, differentiates between unproductive and productive labour; the former regarded as 'a non-creator of surplus value for the sake of Capital', the latter as 'creator of surplus-value'.

The former does not create Capital, the latter does.

Unproductive doesn't necessarily mean individually necessary or for private service. What is unproductive can be both socially necessary and individually necessary/for private service.

For instance, an independent singer publishing media material in the public domain is a socially necessary worker, whereas an independent singer performing at a boss' gala party is worker employed for private service, employed thanks to the ‘theft of labour’ by the Capitalist.

The same goes for productive labour.

For instance, a servant and a sex worker working in the name of the glitz of a wealthy person and producing a surplus value for their relative boss would create surplus value for the boss while performing individually necessary labour. At the same time, productive labour can be socially necessary (industrial production, agricultural labour, transportation et cetera).

What I mean by individually necessary labour is labour which wouldn't be there if production was to be socialised and the contradictions of Capital and Wage-labour were to give rise to some dialectically higher mode of production, like Socialism or Communism. Individually necessary labour is labour employed for private service; producing a use-value, which is realised only thanks to the boss’ appropriation of surplus value.

For instance, capitalistic luxury consumption requires this form of labour.

Socialisation of production implies a society sufficiently far from dialectical contradictions, such as those of Capital and Wage-Labour; whose economic consequences negatively affect people's needs and people's tendencies whilst curbing a mature socially necessary production. It goes without saying the glitz of Mr Moneybags — which got constituted thanks to years of economic thefts — wouldn't take place in Communism, exclusively allowing the productive/unproductive workers involved in this luxury to employment to take place in socially necessary activities.

However, these are only moral evaluations made on the basis of the scientific character of Marx’s theory of value.

As Marx rightly points out:

For example, the service a singer renders to me satisﬁes my aesthetic need; but what I enjoy exists only in an activity inseparable from the singer himself, and as soon as his labour, the singing, is at an end, my enjoyment too is at an end. I enjoy the activity itself—its reverberation on my ear. These services themselves, like the commodities which I buy, may be necessary or may only seem necessary— for example, the service of a soldier or physician or lawyer; or they may be services which give me pleasure. But this makes no difference to their economic character[51]

In regard to socially necessary labour, Marx outlines that we can also differentiate between direct appropriation of surplus value and indirect appropriation of surplus value.

I will cite at length his noteworthy considerations on the matter:

Since the merchant, as a mere agent of circulation, produces neither value nor surplus-value (for the additional value which he adds to the commodities through his expenses resolves itself into an addition of previously existing values, although the question here poses itself, how he preserves this value of his constant capital?) it follows that the mercantile workers employed by him in these same functions cannot directly create surplus-value for him

[…] The relation of merchant's capital to surplus-value is different from that of industrial capital. The latter produces surplus-value by directly appropriating the unpaid labour of others. The former appropriates a portion of this surplus-value by having this portion transferred from industrial capital to itself. It is only through its function of realising values that merchant's capital acts as capital in the process of reproduction, and hence draws on the surplus-value produced by the total capital. The mass of the individual merchant's proﬁts depends on the mass of capital that he can apply in this process, and he can apply so much more of it in buying and selling, the more the unpaid labour of his clerks. The very function, by virtue of which the merchant ' s money becomes capital, is largely done through his employees. The unpaid labour of these clerks, while it does not create surplus-value, enables him to appropriate surplus-value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of proﬁt for him. Otherwise commerce could never be conducted on a large scale, capitalistically. Just as the labourer's unpaid labour directly creates surplus-value for productive capital, so the unpaid labour of the commercial wage-worker secures a share of this surplus-value for merchant's capital.[52]

Marx may be probably 'misinterpreted' when in the above-mentioned phrase he states “the unpaid labour of these clerks, while it does not create surplus-value, enables him [the merchant] to appropriate surplus-value”. Insofar as Marx has always considered production in social terms, as a whole, his consideration is fully dialectical as it analyses the process of Capital formation, starting from the very genesis.

With the above-mentioned remark, Marx has not suddenly “downgraded” to one physiocrat in terms of economic consciousness, to a queer economist regarding all the agricultural labour — whose realisation allows the rest of social production — as the only source of value. Commercial labour for Marx circulates use-value but at the same the surplus value stemming from it is a share drawing on pre-existing surplus value; it would never materialise itself without industrial production in general.

The wealthier the industrial production is, the greater the trade surplus. [53]

The surplus value appropriated from commercial labour is only a share of industrial surplus value. It doesn’t add any value to the final product. [54] In fact, circulation in itself is a mere redistribution of pre-existing use-values. As previously discussed, if Industrial Capital were big enough to deal with large-scale transportation as well, wage-labourers wouldn’t be employed by the Merchant’s capital and would be productively employed under the banner of Industrial Capital.

Shaikh drew his important analyses taking for granted the above-mentioned Marx's considerations contained in Capital volume III. One important thing, which can easily be grasped throughout Shaikh's work and less easily in Marx's Capital VOL III is that Neoclassical economy will always have an inherent problem of accountancy. In fact, neoclassical economics would always commit the mistake of counting 'social consumption' as 'production' by the weird notion that all socially necessary activities, barring personal consumption, realise a product.

Any market activity — if it is socially necessary — absurdly represents production for the neoclassical economist. This narrow-minded politically motivated notion allows the use-value related to parasitic forms of social consumption (such as royalties, rent et cetera) to be counted more than once in national accounts; insofar as this value is not considered to be stemming from a single source of use-value: productive labour!

For Neoclassical economics every marketable activity is regarded as productive and is erroneously to be accounted in the growth of wealth of society. Hence, every time pre-existing circulating value appears in a marketable activity, say in the form of rent, royalties etc. it is counted as newly produced value, adding up to the nation’s wealth! Hence, according to the IO (input-output) liberal accounts, a nation with innumerable parasitic economic activities would falsely appear as a prosperous nation, at least in figurative terms.

Further, Shaikh tries to show that in 'liberal accountancy' the profit-wage ratio results to be far from inferior as compared to the rate of surplus-value. By regarding any non-productive activity and trade activity as 'productive', this accountancy magic is created![55]With such input-output 'investor-friendly method', the orthodox accounting system even gives a “milder” image of Capitalist exploitation of productive workers, beyond providing an interestingly false vision of society’s wealth.

In this regard, Mr Shaikh analytically proves that:

S*/V* (Marxian accounting) >> P/W (Input-output method)

insofar as

S*/V* = Pp+Pt+[Wt+Mt]/Wp >> (Pp+Pt)/(Wp+Wt)

where:

S*/V* = rate of surplus value

P/W = profit-wage ratio

V*=variable capital

Pp = profit in the production sector

Pt= trading margin

Wt = wages in trade/circulation of use-values

Mt= constant capital in trade/circulation of use-values

Wp=wages in production sector

The image is analytically clear.

According to the Input-Output standards, the profit-wage ratio is calculated with no distinction between wages in the production sector and wages in trade. It follows that an amount of use-value produced in the production sector may be counted again as new wealth in the nonproduction and circulation sector!

While in the accounting system derived from Marx's LTV it clearly appears that transactions relative to nonproduction and circulation of use-values —namely profits in the production sector, profits in trade, wages in trade, constant capital employed in trade — draws value from the wages in production sector, liberal 'accountancy' merely dwells with a dull profit-wage ratio, which hides the real nature of exploitation. In essence, the profit-wage ratio in the first place cannot give us a clear image of the determination of a nation's wealth; in its turn determined by production of use-values. Furthermore, such measure does not shine a light on how some transactions of some sectors entirely weigh on the shoulders of productive labourers, the only creators of wealth in society.

The orthodox method of accountancy is, of course, merely analytical and not dialectical, insofar as it doesn’t start its theorisations from the genesis of the marketable activities; namely, social production. The method of Bourgeois economics remains ‘suspended’ in the realm of exchange without even objectifying any serious inquiry within the framework of the constraints of one society’s wealth, given by real production; from which all the use-values allowing the functioning of an economy arise.

It goes without saying that for the above-mentioned reasons and for hiding the nature of Capitalist’s profit, Bourgeois economics — beyond being politically motivated in hiding labour exploitation — also lacks scientific rigor in many of its theorisations formulated for the sake of Capitalist apology.

END OF THE ARTICLE

FOOTNOTES:

[1] David Ricardo — On the principles of political economy[1] and taxation, page 19

[2]Marx says on the matter:

Ricardo’s and similar types of reasoning are moreover based not only on the relation of purchase and sale, but also on that of demand and supply, which we have to examine only when considering the competition of capitals. As Mill says purchase is sale etc., therefore demand is supply and supply demand. But they also fall apart and can become independent of each other. At a given moment, the supply of all commodities can be greater than the demand for all commodities, since the demand for thegeneral commodity, money, exchange-value, is greater than the demand for all particular commodities, in other words the motive to turn the commodity into money, to realise its exchange-value, prevails over the motive to transform the commodity again into use-value.

If the relation of demand and supply is taken in a wider and more concrete sense, then it comprises the relation of production and consumption as well. Here again, theunity of these two phases, which does exist and which forcibly asserts itself during the crisis, must be seen as opposed to the separation and antagonism of these two phases, separation and antagonism which exist just as much, and are moreover typical of bourgeois production.

[Karl Marx — Theories of Surplus Value, VOL II, Ricardo’s Denial of General Over-production. Possibility of a Crisis Inherent in the Inner Contradictions of Commodity and Money]

[3] By endorsing this principle, Ricardo let the reader grasp that Capital should not fear any adventurist investment, insofar as ‘the demand would appear automatically with the expansion of production’. Marx clearly criticises both Say and Ricardo’s naïve concept of equilibrium more than once in Theories of Surplus Value VOL II, Ch. XVII.We shall return on the matter later, within the framework of contradictions in Capitalism (Note by Davide Ferri)

[4] David Ricardo — On the principles of political economy[4] and taxation. Page 5

[5] Karl Marx – Poverty of Philosophy, ch.1

[6] By turning his money into commodities that serve as the material elements of a new product, and as factors in the labour-process, by incorporating living labour with their dead substance, the capitalist at the same time converts value, i.e., past, materialised, and dead labour into capital, into value big with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies.

[Karl Marx — Capital VOL I, Ch. 7]

[7] Ibid, Ch. 1

[8] Karl Marx — Appendix to Capital, 1st German edition, 1867

[9] Ibid.

[10] If the mere quantity of labor functions as a measure of value regardless of quality, it presupposes that simple labor has become the pivot of industry. It presupposes that labor has been equalized by the subordination of man to the machine or by the extreme division of labor; that men are effaced by their labor; that the pendulum of the clock has become as accurate a measure of the relative activity of two workers as it is of the speed of two locomotives. Therefore, we should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing; he is, at the most, time's carcase. Quality no longer matters.

[Karl Marx — Poverty of Philosophy ch.1]

[11] It is very important to remark that the basic needs of one worker vary according to the societies in which they live and work. Human needs are objective factors but the personal need for their realisation varies according to cultural, ideological and social mores. The societal “basic needs” may include not only those relative to the worker’s vital subsistence but also higher needs relative to social belongingness, entertainment, self-realisation, protection, esteem etc. etc. with all the commodity requirements concerned. A psychological study based on behavioural empirical studies (e.g. Maslow, Wahba, etc.) on this matter goes now beyond the scope of our current investigation.

We should keep in mind that Marx was aware of the fact the value of labour power changes according to the society taken into account. He clearly emphasises the very same concept here:

His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed. In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element. Nevertheless, in a given country, at a given period, the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer is practically known. [Karl Marx — Capital VOL I, Ch.6]

[12] “The character and tendency of the process M-C-M, is therefore not due to any qualitative difference between its extremes, both being money, but solely to their quantitative difference. More money is withdrawn from circulation at the ﬁnish than was thrown into it at the start. The cotton that was bought for £100 is perhaps resold for £100 + £10 or £100. The exact form of this process is therefore M-C-M', where M' = M + delta M = the original sum advanced, plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call "surplus-value". The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital”. [Karl Marx — Capital VOL I, Ch. 04]

[13] Ibid. Ch.1

[14] In relation to the exchange value, the expression of Value, Marx says:

“As use-values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange-values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use-value. If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. […] Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour-power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are — Values. We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange-value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as deﬁned above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value.” [Ibid. Ch. 1]

[15] Ibid. Ch.1

[16] Karl Marx — Value, price and profit

[17] Marx talks about the separation of Capital and

Wage-Labour and its reciprocal antagonism many times and in many of his works, especially in Capital VOL III, Theories of Surplus Value VOL II (here within the framework of crises), Grundrisse etc…

[18] Karl Marx — Capital VOL I, Ch. 7

[19] "He [the labourer] will now say to the capitalist:

“Of these 5 lbs. of twist, say three-ﬁfths represent constant capital. They belong to you. Two-ﬁfths, that is, 2 lbs., represent my newly-added labour. Therefore you have to pay me the 2 lbs. So pay me the value of 2 lbs.” And thereby he would pocket not only the wages but also the proﬁt, in short, a sum of money equal to the quantity of labour newly added by him and materialised in the form of the 2 lbs.” “But,” says the capitalist, “have I not advanced the constant capital?”

“Well,” says the labourer, “you deduct the 3 lbs. for it, and pay me only 2.” “But,” insists the capitalist, “you couldn’t materialise your labour, you couldn’t spin, without my cotton and my spindles. You must pay extra for that.” “Well,” says the labourer, “the cotton would have rotted and the spindles rusted if I hadn’t used them for spinning. The 3 lbs. of yarn which you are deducting do represent, it is true, only the value of your cotton and spindles which were used up, and are therefore contained, in the 5 lbs. of yarn. But it is only my labour that has maintained the value of cotton and spindles unchanged, by using these means of production as means of production. I’m not charging you anything for this value-maintaining power of my labour, because it didn’t cost me any extra labour-time beyond the spinning itself, for which I get the 2 lbs. It’s natural faculty of my labour which costs me nothing, though it maintains the value of the constant capital. As I don’t charge you anything for it, you can’t charge me for not being able to spin without spindles and cotton. For without spinning, your spindles and cotton wouldn’t be worth a brass farthing.”

[Karl Marx — Theories of Surplus Value VOL I, On the Circulation of Money between Capitalist and

Labourer]

[20] Ibid.

[21] [Paul Mattick — Economic crisis and crisis theory]

[22] Let us take a grain of barley. Billions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture it undergoes a specific change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold. Species of grain change extremely slowly, and so the barley of today is almost the same as it-was a century ago. But if we take a plastic ornamental plant, for example a dahlia or an orchid, and treat the seed and the plant which grows from it according to the gardener's art, we get as a result of this negation of the negation not only more seeds, but also qualitatively improved seeds, which produce more beautiful flowers, and each repetition of this process, each fresh negation of the negation, enhances this process of perfection.

[Friedrich Engels — Anti-Duhring, XIII.

Dialectics. Negation of the negation]

[23] Karl Marx — Economic and philosophical manuscripts, Private property and Communism

[24] Ibid.. Estranged labour.

About the concept of “species-being” Marx, in the same chapter, says:

For in the first place labor, life activity, productive life itself, appears to man only as a means for the satisfaction of a need, the need to preserve physical existence. But productive life is species-life. It is life-producing life. The whole character of a species, its species-character, resides in the nature of its life activity, and free conscious activity constitutes the species-character of man. Life appears only as a means of life. The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct from that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity itself an object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he a species-being. Or, rather, he is a conscious being -- i.e., his own life is an object for him, only because he is a species-being. Only because of that is his activity free activity. Estranged labor reverses the relationship so that man, just because he is a conscious being, makes his life activity, his being [Wesen], a mere means for his existence.

[25]When the narrow-minded bourgeois says to the communists: by abolishing property, i.e., my existence as a capitalist, as a landed proprietor, as a factory-owner, and your existence as workers, you abolish my individuality and your own; by making it impossible for me to exploit you, the workers, to rake in my profit, interest or rent, you make it impossible for me to exist as an individual. — When, therefore, the bourgeois tells the communists: by abolishing my existence as a bourgeois, you abolish my existence as an individual; when thus he identifies himself as a bourgeois with himself as an individual, one must, at least, recognise his frankness and shamelessness. For the bourgeois it is actually the case, he believes himself to be an individual only insofar as he is a bourgeois

[Karl Marx — The German Ideology, Individuality]

[26] [Anwar Shaikh — “Marx’s Theory of Value and the Transformation problem” from the “Hidden Meaning of Things” page 117.]

[27] Ibid. page 117

[28] Paul Mattick — Economic crisis and crisis theory, Bourgeois economics. Ch. Bourgeois economics

[29] Joseph A. Schumpeter — Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Ch. VIII

[30] Market phenomena are one-sidedly regarded as mere 'economic quantities', and where possible they are expressed in mathematical equations. This tendency in modern theory is perhaps formulated most clearly in the works of Joseph Schumpeter. The process of production, as in fact all real relations in the economy, are excluded from analysis. In Schumpeter’s view the essence of economic relations consists of the relation 'between economic quantities', which is in fact reduced to the relation of exchange: all other relations between economic variables are neglected as being immaterial.

[Henrik Grossman: Marx, classical political economy and problems of dynamics part I]

[31] According to Ludwig von Mises, people’s needs are observable in their behavior, which requires no deeper investigation; they are to be taken as they are given

[Ibid. Ch. Bourgeois economics.]

[32] Ibid. Ch. Bourgeois economics

[33] Capital VOL I, ch. 3

[34] “Whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language”

[Karl Marx — Capital VOL I, Ch. 1]

[35] Karl Marx — Capital VOL III, Ch. 17

[36] Karl Marx – Theories of surplus value Vol I

[37] Karl Marx — Grundrisse, Surplus labour or surplus value becomes surplus capital. All determinants of capitalist

production now appear as results of (wage) labour itself. The realization process [Verwirklichungsprozess] of labour at the same time its de-realization process [Entwirklichungsprozess]

[38] Anwar Shaikh, Measuring the Wealth of Nations, page 2

[39] Ibid. page 2

[40] Karl Marx — Capital VOL III, ch. 17

[41] Karl Marx — Grundrisse, Exchange of labour for labour rests on the worker's propertylessness

[42] Karl Marx — Capital VOL III, ch. 17

[43] Suppose, the total industrial capital advanced in the course of the year = 720 c + 180 v = 900 (say million £), and that s' = 100%. The product therefore = 720 c + 180 v + 180s.

Let us call this product or the produced commodity-capital, C, whose value, or price of production (since both are identical for the totality of commodities) = 1,080, and the rate of proﬁt for the total social capital of 900 = 20%. These 20% are, according to our earlier analyses, the average rate of proﬁt, since the surplus-value is not calculated here on this or that capital of any particular composition, but on the total industrial capital of average composition. Thus, C = 1,080, and the rate of proﬁt = 20%

Let us now assume, however, that aside from these £900 of industrial capital, there are still £100 of merchant's capital, which shares in the proﬁt pro rata to its magnitude just as the former. According to our assumption, it is 1/10 of the total capital of 1,000. Therefore, it participates to the extent of 1/10 in the total surplus-value of 180, and thus secures a proﬁt of 18%. Actually, then, the proﬁt to be distributed among the other 1/10 of the total capital is only = 162, or on the capital of 900 likewise = 18%. Hence, the price at which C is sold by the owners of the industrial capital of 900 to the merchants = 720c + 180v + 162s = 1,062. If the dealer then adds the average proﬁt of 18% to his capital of 100, he sells the commodities at 1,062 + 18 = 1,080, i.e.,

at their price of production, or, from the standpoint of the total commodity-capital, at their value, although he makes his proﬁt only during and through the circulation process, and only from an excess of his selling price over his purchase price. Yet he does not sell the commodities above their value, or above their price of production, precisely because he has bought them from the industrial capitalist below their value, or below their price of production. Thus, merchant's capital enters the formation of the general rate of proﬁt as a determinant pro rata to its part in the total capital. Hence, if we say in the given case that the average rate of proﬁt = 18%, it would = 20%, if it were not that 1/10 of the total capital was merchant's capital and the general rate of proﬁt thereby lowered by 1/10 This leads to a closer and more comprehensive deﬁnition of the price of production. By price of production we mean, just as before, the price of a commodity = its costs (the value of the constant + variable capital contained in it) + the average proﬁt. But this average proﬁt is now determined differently. It is determined by the total proﬁt produced by the total productive capital; but not as calculated on the total productive capital alone, so that if this = 900, as assumed above, and the proﬁt = 180, then the average rate of proﬁt = 180/900 = 20%. But, rather, as calculated on the total

productive + merchant's capital, so that with 900 productive and 100 merchant's capital, the average rate of proﬁt = 180/1,000 = 18%. The price of production is, therefore = k (the costs) + 18, instead of k + 20.

The share of the total proﬁt falling to merchant's capital is thus included in the average rate of proﬁt.

[Karl Marx — Ibid. Ch.17]

[44] Karl Marx — Contribution to the critique of political economy, Ch. 2

[45] Ibid.

[46] Karl Marx — Theories of Surplus Value, VOL II, Ch. XVII, Ricardo’s Denial of General Over-production. Possibility of a Crisis Inherent in the Inner Contradictions of Commodity and Money

[47]Marx provides one interesting example of what Capitalist contradictions may produce in the form of crises:

If, therefore, through any circumstance or combination of circumstances, the market-prices of the commodities (of all or most of them, it makes no difference) fall far below their cost-prices, then reproduction of capital is curtailed as far as possible. Accumulation, however, stagnates even more Surplus-value amassed in the form of money (gold or notes) could only be transformed into capital at a loss. It therefore lies idle as a hoard in the banks or in the form of credit money, which in essence makes no difference at all. The same hold up could occur for the opposite reasons, if the real prerequisites of reproduction were missing (for instance if grain became more expensive or because not enough constant capital had been accumulated in kind). There occurs a stoppage in reproduction, and thus in the flow of circulation. Purchase and sale get bogged down and unemployed capital appears in the form of idle money. The same phenomenon (and this usually precedes crises) can appear when additional capital is produced at a very rapid rate and its reconversion into productive capital increases the demand for all the elements of the latter to such an extent that actual production cannot keep pace with it; this brings about a rise in the prices of all commodities, which enter into the formation of capital. In this case the rate of interest falls sharply, however much the profit may rise and this fall in the rate of interest then leads to the most risky speculative ventures. The interruption of the reproduction process leads to the decrease in variable capital, to a fall in wages and in the quantity of labour employed. This in turn reacts anew on prices and leads to their further fall.

[Karl Marx — Theories of Surplus Value, Ch. XVII, Crises]

[48] Ibid. Crises

[49] Ibid. Ch. XVII, Ricardo’s Denial of General Over-production. Possibility of a Crisis Inherent in the Inner Contradictions of Commodity and Money

[50] Ibid. Ch. XVII, On the forms of crisis

[51] Karl Marx — Theories of Surplus Value, Two Essentially Different Phases in the Exchange Between Capital and Labour

[52] Karl Marx – Capital VOL III, Ch. 17

[53] Ibid. Ch. 17

[54] Ibid. Ch. 17

[55] Anwar Shaikh — Measuring the Wealth of Nations, page 3

THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

2011-05-08T06:21:00.000-07:00

THE DEMISE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

Davide Ferri

US president Barack Obama announced that Al Qaeda leader

Osama Bin Laden was killed on Sunday during a Navy Seals

ground operation in Pakistan.

'Servant of Capital' Osama Bin Laden — undoubtedly one of the

most philistine symbols both of the decay of Islamic Bonapartist

Capitalism and the irrational 'backﬁre' of US imperialism — dies

at the age of 54, leaving behind many doubts to the 'liberal

analysts'; especially those on the alleged willingness of Pakistani

government, military forces and intelligence to provide the US

with a full 'inter-capitalist' collaboration in the 'War on Terror'.

The Saudi-born 'radical' had been nicely hiding for more than 3

years in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad — a hillside retreat

popular with retired paunchy Pakistani generals about two hours

north of Islamabad — wherein he could build a concrete

compound and even hire up private guards to be displayed on the

structure roof and the surrounding area:

all 'allegedly unbeknown' to Pakistani intelligence.

The typical military and political 'negligence' of the Pakistani

authorities — which emerged as particularly self-evident through

the recent events — is nothing new for the US intelligence, which

by no means trust its Asian ally in the War on Terror.

The same CIA director Leon Panetta e.g. bluntly stated that the

US did not intend to alert Pakistan for fear that the Pakistani

authorities might have blabbed out all to Bin Laden [1]

Beyond the rhetoric on the importance of such an operation which

is promptly seasoned with liberal intellectual deliria on justice and

the achievement of a safer world [2] — it must be said that Bin

Laden's death has little strategic importance for the US affairs, as

C.de Auken pointed out. [3]

Though Bin Laden's mere existence 'as a wicked bearded monster'

and his reactionary threatening video-messages kept on

legitimising the US-led War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq in

terms of propaganda, it is quite evident that the Al-Qaeda leader

did not play a crucial role in the opposition to the US occupation

in Afghanistan, despite the sheikh's rhetoric. [4]

It is also self-evident that his demise is not going to wipe out the

inherent problems of Islamic and Liberal Capitalism, as well as the

oppression and repression of all the material/immaterial workers

in Afghanistan and all the Middle East.

Within the framework of US foreign policies in the 'patriotic' 80's,

it must be said that Bin Laden's activity as a jihadist played an

active role in favour of American Capitalism during what is

historically known as 'the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan'.

The Soviet occupation — planned in 'help' of the Stalinist clique

of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan — deﬁnitely

marked the determination of the US to give the ﬁnal blow to an

already-crippled bureaucratic USSR, at least abroad.

Bin Laden greatly facilitated the US attempt to get the 'Soviet

bear' stuck into mud in Afghanistan, along with the contribute of

'less radical' Massoud and the jihadist clique of Hekmatyar.

For years, the US Reagan administration kept stirring the jihadist

mob against the (fake) socialists of Afghanistan and the Soviet

troops, surrounded by the usual inoffensive political passivity of

'Liberal' institutions and NGOs; which are so much loved by post-

Marxist apologists à la Negri and Hardt.

The United States administration would historically succeed in

hindering the geopolitical plans of the USSR.

It would do it by dint of coughing out millions of dollars for the

most reactionary anti-communist jihadists, whose practical

approach was known as remarkably violent, especially against the

women and petty bourgeois activities.

The Soviet Union, in its turn, would soon fall into the neo-liberal

abyss; especially thanks to the inherent contradictions of its

Stalinism, whose loyal representatives all of a sudden revealed

themselves as investor-friendly IMF friends in the 'happy' 90's.

As has been pointed out by Zuyara's words — which I will cite at

length — the active role of Pakistani and US authorities is

politically quite evident:

'Between 1980 and 1992 alone, more then 35,000 Islamic

fundamentalists from 43 Islamic countries joined the Afghan

mujaheedin. Pakistan had already given standing instructions to all its

embassies abroad to give visas with no questions asked to anyone

wanting to come and ﬁght in Afghanistan. Among the thousands of

foreign recruits, one was Osama bin Laden. […]

Bin Laden once admitted that: “to counter the revolution in Afghanistan,

the Saudi regime chose me as their representative in Pakistan and

Afghanistan. I recruited volunteers from many Arab and Muslim

countries who came to answer the call. I set up camps where Pakistanis,

Americans and British ofﬁcers trained these volunteers. America

supplied the weapons, the money came from the Saudis.' [5]

In this regard there are several sources, both Marxist and non-

Marxist [6][7] , which more or less shine a light on the current

political ambitions of Pakistan, the United States and International

Capital in general here in Central Asia; within the framework of

what is commonly known as the new Great Game, as the 'old one'

was already 'played' by British Capitalism against Tsarist Russia in

the same region in the XIX century).

After the killing of Afghani president Najibullah at the hand of

the Talibans — hanged to death with its genital parts stuffed into

his mouth — the growing inﬂuence of the jihadist movement in

Central Asia started revealing itself an unbearable burden for the

american imperialistic ambitions.

These puppets would slip out of control of the US authorities,

which would soon invade Afghanistan, that meantime had become

an Emirate on the footsteps of the ﬁrst millennium caliphates.

Soon after the events of 9/11, US president Bush authorised

'Operation Enduring Freedom', that is, the invasion by US, UK et

al of the then-Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with the excuse of

capturing Bin Laden, regarded as the mastermind behind 9/11

attack.

On the other hand, president Bush soon showed no interest in

insisting on Bin Laden's capture, as he even admittedly confessed

in an interview saying he was 'truly not that concerned' about the

whereabouts of the Al Qaeda leader [8]

The US authorities in December 2001 deﬁnitely knew that Bin

Laden was hiding along with Al Qaeda ﬁghters somewhere in the

Tora Bora caves complex at the border between Afghanistan and

Pakistan.

It should be noted that Bush administration — which authorised a

military operation against Al Qaeda in the same place commonly

known as the 'battle of Tora Bora' — surprisingly failed in

capturing the fundamentalist sheikh, allegedly 'by not deploying a

consistent number of troops'.

A Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora requested by US

Senator John Kerry showed that by deploying a high number of

US military forces both Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar

would have been easily killed in the operation. [9]

In this regard, the then US Secretary of Defence D.Rumsfeld

ambiguously commented at the time by saying that a larger

number of troops would have created resentment amongst the

Afghan population.[10]. Gen. T.R. Franks, even more ambiguously,

declined to comment on the matter though he pointed out the

uncertainty of Bin Laden's presence inside the Tora Bora caves

complex in the White mountains of Eastern Afghanistan. [11].

Leaving aside the rhetoric and non-rhetoric of the ofﬁcial

evidences:

wasn't Osama Bin Laden's capture one of the most important

propagandistic 'Ofﬁcial' excuses to invade the then Taliban-led

Emirate of Afghanistan after the 9/11 events?

Wasn't it the most efﬁcient excuse to go there and 'smoke him out

of his cave and get him eventually' as US president Bush would

have remarked in his cowboy-style rhetoric?

Despite the liberal boring circumlocutions of high ofﬁcials on the

matter, there is evidence of Bin Laden's presence in Tora Bora

complex in December 2001.

Dalton Fury e.g. — allegedly the ofﬁcer in command during the

battle Tora Bora — stated in one article "Our job was to go ﬁnd

him, capture or kill him, and we knew the writing on the wall was

to kill him because nobody wanted to bring Osama bin Laden

back to stand trial in the United States somewhere," [12]

Furthermore, Fury (who also wrote a book on the battle of Tora

Bora) stated that, as the ofﬁcer in command during the operation,

requested a land mines dropping on the mountain passes which

led to Pakistan — that is, on Bin Laden's escape route; but the

plan was disapproved for reasons Fury doesn't know. [13]

The US forces, attacking Al-Qaeda with fewer than 100 troops

committed to the area, literally failed to capture Bin Laden, who

then ﬂed to Pakistan.

It goes without saying that such events and evidences leaves plenty

of doubts on the nature of US-led and UN-backed invasion of

Afghanistan in the name of Bin Laden's capture for a safer world

and the War on Terror. If trapped within the analytical framework

of a liberal boring set of explanations, these events don't clarify the

US 'ofﬁcial' geopolitical intentions in general.

Now that Bin Laden has died — after years of relaxing absconding

in Pakistan at few steps from one of its most important military

academy — the average unconsciously-servile liberal journalist is

surely more than ever confuse about the aims of US and Pakistan,

after most of the western media supported the War on Terror,

whether indirectly or bluntly, for the entire 2000's.

Even a kid understands that Pakistani president Zardari's care for

underlining no responsibility in the raid against Bin Laden [14]

and at the same time his denial of any organisational negligence

[15] by Pakistani authorities give blunt hints about the deeply

rotten character of Pakistani Capitalism; both in terms of

corruption, as well as economic and political organisation.

However, though Bin Laden's demise represents little, many 'party'

reactions to his killing means a lot; as they undoubtedly shine a

light on the non-progressive and philistine political character of

certain factions of the likes of Hamas [16] et al in Palestine; which

put the entire struggle on 'ethnic', religious and postmodernist

matters.

It should also shine a light on the 'perceptive' aims of certain

European petty bourgeois 'socialists' and their worthy enjoyment

of 'useless', nay negative, support for Hamas, which is everyday

hindering the workers' struggle in the region by blows of post-

modern apology in the west and Bonapartist bigotry in the east.

Transcending all the liberal circumlocutions in regard to the

recent events — Bin Laden's demise is not going to have any

political consequence for the liberation of immaterial and material

workers in the Middle East.

Islamic and 'Liberal' Capital — from the vales of Chechnya to the

mountains of Swat — is not going to stop lengthening its tentacles

on the workers' surplus.

In this regard, we should acknowledge that the primary concerns

for US Capitalism are not the principles behind the War on Terror,

but the economic and political returns generated from this 'War' –

which has been material and ideal [17]

The anti-Islamic mood generated by the events of 9/11 and the

'patriotic upheaval' of European and American media certainly

contributed, in terms of popular consent, to a more friendly

environment for US imperialism.

The regime of Saddam Hussein, once the 'petty bourgeois

socialist' friend of the US, has been neutralised after the clique of

Paul Bremer, without too many concerns, took direct political and

economic control of Iraq by forming the Coalition Provisional

Authority.

This wouldn't have obviously occurred without the 'worthy' efforts

of the US-led coalition in the Second Gulf War, shamefully

disguised as 'War on Terror'.

In fact, it must be said that petty-bourgeois reactionary 'socialists'

à la Hussein in Iraq were certainly not the friends of the anti-

communist sheikh wanted by the US.[18]

The 'provisional' clique of Mr. Bremer — the 'US administrator of

Iraq' — in the process of Iraq's privatisation and commodiﬁcation,

nicely allowed American ﬁrms to cast their tentacles on the

national reconstruction [19], in a highly-devastated country where

lakhs [20] of innocent civilians died; not to mention the huge

'returns' of the American Capitalists achieved thanks to military

expenditure for howitzers, tanks, equipment etc. for the US-led

War on 'Terror'.

It must also be said that a friendly 'Washington man' of the likes

of Al Maliki — whose government hasn't certainly boasted

democratic pioneering — is definitely more convenient for stable oil

pricing policies in Mesopotamia.

Bin Laden dies with the growing weakening of Islamic investor-

friendly radicalism, which is nothing but a desperation sigh

produced by the rottenness of Islamic Capitalism.

Most of the workers of the middle east — though still unaware and

confuse by the liberal promises — are now merely choosing a less

Bonapartist direction.

We could witness such tendency in the last months in Egypt and

in most of the MENA region in general, where Bonapartist

capitalists like Ben Ali and Mubarak have been ousted through the

unprecedented social (liberal) uprisings.

On the other hand, in these areas the risk of philistine 'reaction' is

still high.

The clique behind the human face of Obama — who during the

Egyptian uprisings acted with the 'let-us-see-who-is-

gonna-come-to-the-top' strategy, typical of imperialism— is not going to

drop the support to reactionary Bonapartist Capitalists à la

Mubarak and Ben Ali.

By no accident the United States, whilst caring for the 'Libyan

human rights', they neglect those of Bahrain; wherein the US ﬁfth

ﬂeet is based and where the élite of Al-Khalifa keeps repressing

demonstrations and killing innocents.

But the liberals pretend not to see.

In their rhetoric of free trade, free choice and freedom, they only

'see' what and where they want to see by self-ﬂagellations of

cognitive assonance, just like Hilary Clinton proves it in the ﬂaunt

of her miserable opportunism, with phrases of the likes of "I am

impressed by the commitment that the government has to the

democratic path that Bahrain is walking on” [21]

The demise of Osama Bin Laden is not going to liberate the

working class, but undoubtedly will make the reactionary clique of

Obama sigh with relief, as the temporarily revived enthusiasm of

the common liberal American will make the crises, the

unemployment and the growing inequalities pass unobserved for a

while.

However, the economic factors — which determine the social ones

—weigh like a burden on people's consciousness and will sooner

or later make themselves felt.

The demise of Bin Laden will not liberate anyone, just like its

'social' consequences, though some idealist big professors in their

enjoyment of false consciousness — whether within the

framework of pure apology or post-Marxism — will surely not

grasp it.

As Marx would put it, the liberation is a material act, not a mental

or spiritual one [22]

Delhi, May 4, 2011

REFERENCES:

[1] Al Jazeera, CIA feared Pakistan would alert Bin Laden,

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/20115381148250187.

html, retrieved on May 4, 2011

[2] Al Jazeera, 'Obama says world safer without Bin Laden',

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/20115223517616

602.html, retrieved on May 4,2011

[3] Bill Van Auken, published on WSWS, “The killing of Osama

Bin Laden and the War on Terror”, May 3, 2011,

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m03.shtml retrieved on

May 4,2011

[4] Ibid

[5] D. Zayar, Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the hypocrisy of

American imperialism, published on In defence of Marxism,

Quetta, September 26,2001, http://www.marxist.com/afghanistan-

bin-laden-hypocrisy260901.htm retrieved on 4 May, 2011

[6] Something to be read, though to be taken obviously 'with a

pinch of Salt', is the work “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the

CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to

September 10, 2001”, of Steve Coll, 2004, Penguin Press

[7]See the Interview to Gary Schroen on Frontline posted june 20,

2006

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/schro

en.html retrieved on May 4, 2011

[8] “Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (long version)”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g, retrieved on May

4,2011

[9] Senate Report Explores 2001 Escape by bin Laden From

Afghan Mountains, New York Times, A version of this article

appeared in print on November 29, 2009, on page A20 of the New

York edition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29torabora.html,ret

rieved on May 4,2011

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Elite Ofﬁcer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt, CBS, ﬁrst published on

Oct. 5, 2008. It was updated on July 11, 2009.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main449493

7.shtml retrieved on May 4,2011

[13] Ibid.

[14] Al Jazeera, Zardari: Bin Laden raid not joint operation

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/20115321242394307.

html, retrieved on May 4,2011

[15] Osama bin Laden's Pakistan , Brahma Chellaney, published on

Al Jazeera

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152165937

513531.html, retrieved on May 4, 2011

[16] Noteworthy is that Hamas regards Bin Laden as an 'arab holy

warrior', Haaretz, “Hamas slams killing of 'holy warrior' Osama bin

Laden”, Published 14:27 02.05.11,

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-slams-

killing-of-holy-warrior-osama-bin-laden-1.359416 retrieved on May

4, 2011

[17] The Oil Factor, behind the war on Terror, Gerard Ungerman,

Audray Brohy, http://video.google.com/videoplay?

docid=1130731388742388243#

[18] Bill Van Auken, published on WSWS, “The killing of Osama

Bin Laden and the War on Terror”, May 3, 2011,

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m03.shtml retrieved on

May 4,2011

[19] The Oil Factor, behind the war on Terror, Gerard Ungerman,

Audray Brohy, http://video.google.com/videoplay?

docid=1130731388742388243#

[20] 'Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006', Iraq

Family Health Survey Study Group

N Engl J Med 2008; 358:484-493 January 31, 2008, retrieved on May

4, 2011

[21] The Guardian, Bahrain protests a worry for US and its ﬁfth

ﬂeet http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/bahrain-

protests-us-ﬁfth-ﬂeet, Thursday 17 February 2011 13.38 GMT,

retrieved on May 4, 2011

[22] Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1846

Deschooling Society

2010-09-07T08:07:00.000-07:00

School has become a fuzzy entity today. It is confused not only with education, which is a key mistake but also proposed as a solution to a wide spectrum of problems – vandalism, lack of 'culture', backwardness, an ability to read, write and count, lack of a sufficiently 'developed' personality, exploitation and poverty. It is invoked positively by a wide spectrum of people – on the Left as well as those on the Right, social reformers and university professors, the middle-classes and the corporates and even – sometimes most fanatically – by the poor (or more often, those who claim to speak on the behalf of the poor). Of some people, we say, “Oh! He's basically a good person”. School is like that – it is “basically good” and therefore, infinitely improvable. We need better teachers, better buildings, better books, a better curriculum, regular attendance, more money, more discipline, no, more freedom, more Science, easier English, less pressure. But school is good at heart.

To discuss school critically then, we must move away from all the meanings it has come to have and try to define it. Ivan Illich's definition of school as “the age-specific, teacher-related process requiring full-time attendance at an obligatory curriculum”[1] will do for now. The definition itself raises questions: Why only children? Is learning (at that age) a result of teaching? What is the effect of full-time attendance on students? Is one obligatory curriculum suitable for everybody?

Childhood appears natural to us now, it is even seen as a something of a right. Shantha Sinha, the chair-person of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights set up in 2007 has repeatedly said in her talks, essays and interviews while working for the now well-known MV Foundation (www.mvfindia.in) that all work is hazardous and harms the child. To quote:

The MVF model...regards every form of work done by children as child labour. It also asserts that in the rural Indian context there is no such thing as an idle non-school going child. Any child not in school will sooner than later is [sic] put to work. In this model there are thus only two categories of children, those who go to work viz. Child labourers and those who go to full time formal day school. This is the genesis of the MVF ‘non-negotiable’ that every child out of school is a child labourer.

MVF believes that every child has a right to childhood and an opportunity to develop to his/her full potential and that every form of work done by a child interferes with this right. Coupled with the understanding that only children who are full time students can be kept away from work it believes that the only way the child’s right to childhood can be fulfilled is by making the child a full time student. In the MVF model therefore, securing to a child his/her right to childhood, elimination of child labour and universalization of education are all a part of the same process.

George-Bush style, Sinha divides us into two camps – with her, or with the child exploiters. She does not even distinguish between work that may be useful, a “learning experience” as fashion has it and child labour. But whatever moral stands Sinha and her ilk may take, childhood like other institutions, has a history. And one that is closely intertwined with the emergence of capitalism, as Philippe Aries points out in Centuries of Childhood. It is in the increasingly industrial society of the last two centuries that the mass production of 'childhood' became feasible and came within the reach of the masses. This has led to a situation where people whose children do not get their 'right' to childhood feel short-changed; while those who have this 'right' also have the 'duty' to go to school (where they have none of the rights that adults have).

But the central question is: Is learning the result of teaching? This is the axiom of school and institutional wisdom continues to accept this axiom despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, most of us, including those who went to elite schools, know that we learnt little from our classes. Yet, because school is “basically good” (or because there seems to be no alternative), its near universal failure in achieving its aims is attributed to one or the other of the common excuses mentioned above.

In fact, even as “knowledge” is regularly invoked, both parents and children know that school has little to do with scholarship. Yet, the question of knowledge or scholarship must be faced. The argument is that in earlier times, there was less knowledge; now, there is so much. Surely, a child needs to be guided through this knowledge. Such a view either criticises the curriculum or the teachers. And yes, we must acknowledge that perhaps scholarship is not possible without some formal structuring; and it is true that universities are now, to some extent, the seats of scholarship even if they are inefficient and unequal. But like other institutions, the school and the university also have a history which, like childhood, is intimately linked with the advance of capitalism. The present form of the school and university in England (the form that India has adopted after independence), the United States and Germany is only some two centuries old.

In a society with greater community and less mobility, the skills that were required to perform a task were virtually unchanged from generation to generation; children learnt them from their parents in the course of their daily activities. There were “great inequalities in wealth, political power and other aspects of status but differences in the degree of autonomy in work were relatively minor, particularly when compared with what was to come”[2].

The school did not have much political power – either it prepared children for the still inconsequential civil service or for a career in the university. But as Illich points out, “...the university protected an individual's freedom of speech, but did not automatically convert his knowledge into wealth. To be a scholar in the Middle Ages meant to be poor, even a beggar.” The extension of capitalist production, particularly the factory system, undermined the role of the community as the major unit of both socialisation and production.

An ideal preparation for factory work was found in the social relations of school – in its emphasis on discipline, punctuality, acceptance of authority outside the family/community and accountability for one's work. The social relations of the school would replicate the social relations of the workplace and help young people adapt to the social division of labour. Moreover, because schooling was ostensibly open to all, one's position in society could be attributed to a lack of talent or application, instead of birth. This is not to say that the connection between mass education and capitalism is as simple portrayed here; nor to say that schools serve exactly the same functions now but simply to show that the modern school-university system comes more out of the needs of capitalism than to facilitate scholarship. The school and university in India today serve various functions – from indoctrination, to incarceration, to providing the middle-classes a justification for their own position and a ladder to climb just a little higher, a provider of ready labour for the corporates (though they are bad at this, as Ivar Berg pointed out even forty years ago; the corporates also regularly moan about the disconnect between the university and the industry), and here and there, more in print than in person now, as a place for the exchange of ideas and scholarship.

So, we question the very axiom on which school rests – that learning is the result of teaching. We must also see that scholarship exists in spite of the usual functioning of the university today and that the connection between schools and scholarship is tenuous.

But the axiom itself is a myth – the modern myth of unending consumption (that is, the more we consume, the better it is and there is no end to this consumption), that process inevitable produces something of value. School teaches us that instruction produces learning; the self-taught man or woman is discredited and non-professional activity is rendered suspect. All our activities then take the shape of client relationships to specialised institutions. We accept service in place of value. To quote Illich again, “medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety...the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence and creative endeavour are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of schools, hospitals and other agencies in question.” We can only demand our rights, not question them. The quantification of values means that we can only be short-changed, never betrayed.

[1] All quotes from Illich refer to Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich

[2] 'Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the Social Division of Labour' by Samuel Bowles

On the Worker’ Strike at RICO, Gurgaon

2010-09-07T08:02:00.000-07:00

A pamphlet by Correspondence.

Ajit Kumar Yadav, a worker in Rico Auto, Gurgaon was murdered by goons of the management. Four other workers were shot at and sixty others sustained injuries.

The management had been evading the workers’ demand to form a union for long. A month back sixteen workers were expelled in this regard and others (all 4,800 of them) were prohibited from working for engaging in ‘illegal activities’. Meanwhile, the management hired around 1,000 goons to prevent workers from coming back to work. In addition to this, the management’s goons, with the supervision of the police, brought around 300 workers from the unorganised sector to resume work in the factory. It should be noted here that these workers are not allowed to leave the premises of the factory and there are reports of torture by the goons. The workers sat in peaceful protest outside the main gate, demanding work and their unionisation. On 19^th October the goons attacked the protesting workers and murdered Ajit, shot at four others and injured sixty. In response to this, more than 1,00,000 workers from more than 150 factories in Gurgaon participated in the strike on 20^th October.

The Hindu reported the incident on the 19^th as ‘a clash between two groups of workers’. Such an explanation begs the question: Why should there be such solidarity amongst the workers if it was a ‘clash between two groups’? Furthermore, both The Hindu and The Times of India have lamented the fact that production has been affected. Whether it is the Maoist question or the incident at Rico, the media turns to the establishment to create a narrative. To understand this aspect of the media we need to locate its position as an industry in the capitalist system. There is a unity of logic that binds the media to the capitalist state. In times of need, notwithstanding their contradictions, all organs of the capitalist state come together as a whole.

This is nothing new. Workers have time and again asserted their right to determine their conditions of work. Workers’ agitation at the Honda factory in 2005 is not a separate incident. It comes from the same strain for self-determination. In Coimbatore, Pricol workers’ demand for the recognition of their unions is met with pressure from the management to withdraw from the road of struggle and sever ties with ‘Marxist-Leninist’/’Maoist’ forces. The unfortunate death of the Vice President of the Human Resources Development of Pricol Ltd in the workers’ agitation has led employers and sections of the corporate media to demand a ban on trade union struggles and advocate labour reforms to give employers a free hand. A single day’s tragic incident is now being deliberately sought to be used to prejudice public opinion against the Pricol workers and suppress the truth of the nearly one thousand days of their united and determined struggle. Similarly, in Gorakhpur three activists and one journalist have been arrested for participation in workers’ demands for implementing labour laws.

When we condemn the war against the Maoists, or express solidarity with people’s struggles anywhere, we see things through the prism of geo-political distance that separates us from them. True solidarity however will not exist unless we realize that though there is a distance separating us, and the forms of struggles that others engage in are not relevant to our own context, the larger questions raised are the same. The struggle for self-determination and true democracy is one of which all of us are a part. A tribal in Chattisgarh faces the state in its most brutal forms, and as we see here, so does the factory worker. And to push it further, the student confronts the same state, may be in a seemingly milder form. Even as the above mentioned events were unfolding elsewhere, a multi-party meeting was organized on 20^th October in North Campus to take up the issue of fee-hike in colleges. The struggle is to ensure that we have a say in the decisions that affect us and to make sure that no decision that goes against the students’ interests goes unchallenged. All these are moments of contradictions when the facade of equality and democracy that the state covers itself with is exposed as a facade and nothing more. At these moments it is our task to make sure that the state does not go unchallenged, and that we recognize that each challenge to the state is part of our own larger struggle.

The Art of Naming: Meditations on Queer Activism in Delhi

2009-12-07T08:51:00.000-08:00

This is another article published in the first issue of the magazine. Akhil Katyal, the author, has completed B.A. (H) English at Hindu College and M.A. English at St. Stephens College, both at Delhi University. Since early 2006, he has been a member of Nigah, a queer collective based in Delhi. He blogs at akhilkatyalpoetry.blogspot.com

…when words found mouths
when tongues wagged their way
into minds,
and each object shrank, suddenly,
to fit its own precise outline.

You could say
that was when the trouble started:

When things stepped into the cage
of a purpose I must have had
somewhere in my mind.

- Imtiaz Dharker, ‘Words find Mouths’

What is in the name: homosexual? If you say it again and again, homosexual, homosexual, homosexual and so on, it begins to sound like a creepy symptom. It is one of the bad habits of words to give way on the slightest bit of repetition. The word leaks out of itself on being repeated, becomes what it originally (!) was – the deceived one brought into the menacing contract of meaning making. Repetition is a paradox: it both consolidates and shatters. To repeat something is to validate it, confirm its thereness and give it a nod of approval; at the same time, repetition, for repetition’s sake has a sincere cheek; it kills the word with a master stroke: pulls it out of contingent frameworks and shows the ghastly madness of the name. The words straight, lesbian, gay, homosexual, MSM are names with the classic weaknesses of names; words which totter if they are not continuously and shamefacedly propped up by dense political, medico-legal or religious frameworks of conception that are consubstantial with their usage. Every name is a product of a particular framework. The name does not define; it is rather a variable within a hopelessly circular (infinitely repeatable!) process – that first gives the premises of naming and then performs the very act of naming based on these premises – and then smugly locates this whole process at the origin of things, before everything else, ala ‘I am gay’, ‘Are you a lesbian?’, ‘We are queer, we’re here, get used to it.’, exercises in definition making, processes of self-identification, loveable repetitions but not simply so!

I am not sentimental about LGBT activism (with about twenty years of a movement behind us in India, no one better be!) but I would be a part of all of it all the same, with an unforgiving self-irony and a constant clapping on one’s own head. Queer activism, here and now in Delhi, as I have lived through for the past three years, is composed of varied definitional excursions that are precisely that, definitional excursions, baggy monsters, simplifying technologies that take enormous and complicated raw material, lets say of the morass of human sexuality (itself a finished product of another technology of conceptualisation), and try to produce, indeed with success, finished products, peculiarly sexualised individuals, gay or straight. These are historical occurrences; contingent responses for a world that can only be dealt with strategic generalisations, with the steady repertoire of names, with banners asking for gay rights, hijra rights, lesbian rights, or with pleas composed of canny statistics. Queer activism in Delhi then, composed of a heterogeneous lot of organisations, collectives and individuals responds practically(!) to this situation of frameworks. For the current case that the Naz Foundation and Voices Against 377, a collective of several queer, child-rights, women and human rights groups, are fighting in the Delhi High Court against the anti-sodomy law, section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, we (the activists? I won’t dare choose to speak for everyone, though!) would present ourselves as minority legal subjects within the immediately available framework of the Indian legal system. Using the weapons at hand, we would shape ourselves strategically and then indulge in another process of self definition: legal State citizens, Indians, homosexuals et al. That some of us provisionally or really buy into such logics of articulate, if not artificial, self definitions and make them the markers of understanding ourselves for ourselves (in our personal diaries!), can not and should not be denied (because why not? we encounter another circular logic here, albeit of much socio-political significance!). Politics is a name for strategies; the desire for and the social process of change have to make use of available names, categories and obstructions and then plunge into a continuous process of remoulding these. We can not start (or end) with something that is already mutatis mutandis. Queer activism, as I have seen in process in Delhi, is the utopian process that deliberately excludes the possibility of a Utopia. It is a utopic process that finally understands the concept of Utopia (for it is only the concept we can possibly discuss; Greek ‘ou’ is ‘not’, topos is ‘place’, ‘utopia’ is a ‘noplace’, it does not exist!). The Utopia is the defeat of all that is utopian and not what we could and have always easily and non-rigorously believed in, that utopia is a the realisation of the utopic. The Utopia is implicit within the utopic; it does not follow it like a flower does a bud or like a child does a foetus.

The legal framework then becomes (pardon the repetition!) precisely that: a framework. The relationship of a framework of conceptualising people and that of the people’s processes of self-definition is a complicated one, like the contract of the name with the person that it names is a contingent and necessarily self-short-circuiting one. This is not to judge the process of naming as simply undesirable or desirable within activist agendas, to get caught in the enquiry of whether it is right or wrong. One of the editors of this magazine, Labanya, mailed me, saying ‘We'd be glad if you write a non-fiction piece on Sexuality, Identity and the Indian State (this is not the title of course, I'm not deciding anything for you). By this I mean that while writing through your subjective experience on what it is to be homosexual in India, you also make mention of Article 377 and it's practical/psychological impact on the everyday.’ Labanya would of course forgive me for quoting from her email, a text sent casually, an anticipatory text in preparation for more formal, definitive texts to follow (“I’m not deciding anything for you.”). It is of course not an act of misrecognition; she could not possibly have been off the mark by saying I could write about being ‘homosexual in India’. To narrate my subjective experience then would be a narration that would consolidate an essay on the homosexual in India, generalised from a grossly localised somewhere of myself and my everyday. The essay would be a point of departure and also the point of arrival, having traversed unrepentant the multiplicity of homosexual subjective (or subjective homosexual?) experiences available within the available ground-space of India. Acts of narration are thereby also acts of naming if they eddy around word clusters, points of identificatory gestures. To say that the concept of the name works contingently i.e. historically, that we circularly imagine them into being within certain points of history, is not to say that they are unreal or fantastical with no palpable effects (the provisional bridge between the editor and me was the common grounds of understanding, by which we imaginatively place each other, homosexual in India or young editor who I’d like to know more). This terrain of the imagined, with all its imports, can hardly be dispelled or easily demarcated from the real. There is no escaping the realities of the name (as if that was desired or possible; names are the basis of how we interact, it is how we generalize ourselves, names mark our presence even when we are absent, kill me, I’ll still be known by my name! The name is everything!) but it is possible for all of us to see what conditions make what names possible for which people within certain moments of history. I could call myself gay; have done that in the past, will do that in the future, but what are the stakes involved here; not the stakes of security, rather the stakes of the very process of finding and legitimating a name for oneself, queer for instance, or even Akhil. When and how does the fact that I love men, that I want to fuck them or get fucked by them, become a variable for what I – want to – call myself? When does the sex-bit get into the name-bit and how does this process work? When does desire become sexuality or sexual-orientation i.e. if it does exist prior to them? Queer activism considers that it is significant to resurrect the sex-bit within the name-bit. The heterosexual is the unmarked sexuality (treated conceptually), it is the presupposition, the grounds we took for granted. The heterosexual need not name himself; he is the beginning of things, he is unlimited dark space. The queer then appears as a name that queers; the sex-bit in the name-bit marks the alternative sexuality, the light from a chink. This marking is a politically indispensable process and politics rushes in my veins (another way to enter oneself, to access and define oneself!), so that I have no way to describe myself without names that do not already try and define something about me; otherwise they would be non-names (ideal, theoretically truly queer, stupid utopias!).

Queer activism is strategically played amidst this game of names. We commemorate the first gay protest in Delhi, the AIDS Behdbhav Virodhi Andolan’s public protest against police harassment of gay men, on the 11th of August, 1991, we co-memorate this event and its participants; collectively memorialize the first gay protest that then becomes (or threatens to become) our common undisputed history as stringed together through a certain name (they were gay, we are gay!). Names are these trajectories we carve for ourselves and others that are carved for us within the otherwise perversely multiple ways in which histories of individuals or a people can be drawn. One of the events that my queer collective Nigah (nazariya? nazar? a way of looking? a perspective? a name?) organised to mark this now historic date of August 11th was when we met at a particular venue at Cannought Place, made presentations about queer urban histories, talked about them, talked about personal experiences and all our first protests, loves, kisses, and then wore T-shirts that we had painted a day ago and walked around the inner circle of Cannought Place wearing those T-shirts with red roses in our hands (the first(?) public LGBT gatherings in Delhi used to happen on the terrace of the India Coffee House in CP; they used to keep a red-rose on the table as a clue, a locally acknowledged symbol; we chose to extend this curve of history, keep on a tradition, use their strategy of self-identification, use their name) and finally got together in Central Park and ended the evening with more songs and chats. The T-shirts we wore (see Figure. 1) on that day with slogans such as 377 Stinks, We’re Queer, We’re here, Get Used to it, Aadmi hoon Aadmi Se Pyaar Karta Hoon, Queer and Lovin It!, Aawaz Do Hum Anek Hain et. al. function like names; they form a visual vocabulary for self-identification within a dense public space like CP in Delhi. They want to disrupt the unmarked heterosexual space, dirty it and produce effects of alternative and strategic namings and spellings (new spells that we cast?). These names, as I have pig-headedly(?) tried to drive home the point, are not at the beginning or the end of things; they are caught in the mire, just like the people they seek to stain.

Failure, Consumerism and a Counter Strategy The IP College Protests: An Insider’s Diagnosis

2009-12-07T08:42:00.000-08:00

This article by Paresh Chandra was published in the first issue of our magazine.

Without the clause of class-consciousness that makes the connection between career and exploitation plain resistance becomes a perverse (the usual) form of consumerism, the commodity bought and consumed is “peace of mind” and the cost is a few days out in the sun.

The Protest in Perspective

Almost all theorists of our times have spoken of the trespass of consumerism in all spheres of modern existence; some may seem to like it while others may seem to dislike it, some may like it while others may dislike it, but they do not deny it. Instead of locating signs of this trespass on television or in the mall, which are typical instances used for the criticism of consumerist culture, one needs to spare a glance for what seems to lie at the opposite end of the line. Instead of regurgitating what we as part of this resistance have swallowed from books and essays, we must try something different; we have been walking on feet for too long, it is time to walk on our hands (as some like Slavoj Zizek have tried to do). The observer needs to observe and understand how resistance to consumerism changes into consumerism of resistance—like in all times one must not underestimate the stubbornness of capital, a system that has been able to survive for decades apparently in a moribund state surely has great capacity to integrate all resistance into its folds.

The following paragraph is a somewhat passionate report a propos the recent protests that followed an incident of sexual molestation of girls from Delhi University, published in a hypothetical daily.

A Sunday morning saw the future law keepers of the country participate in a private pogrom. A group of men who had come to that area to attend a police examination decided that they deserved to celebrate the end of exam by molesting a few hundred girls. Such ‘celebrations’ made the students angry and their souls rose against such injustice. The result was discerned in the series of protests in and around the university. A memorandum was brought that asked for the exam to be annulled. Various other demands were also on the list. Delegates visited the vice-chancellor, the commissioner of police, the NCW, the Home Ministry and even Arjun Singh. What went wrong then? If such was the anger in their hearts then why did it stop? And what came out of it? At least we tried—somebody replies; our hearts can be easier.

It would be stupid to explain the short-lived-ness of this agitation purely with reference to conditions specific to it. So before going into a discussion of those specificities I will try to locate the failure of this movement into what has become a tradition of failed protests—the easy acceptance of the failure of agitations that seem astonishingly effervescent to begin with is not uncommon these days. Did the massive anti-war demonstrations in New York and London stop the war in Iraq? An acquaintance of mine who returned from the US recently had me understand that many protests in the US take place on Sundays for matters of convenience. It is strange because these demonstrations supposedly signify a motion against the establishment and yet clearly the principal interests of both the establishment and resistance coincide—workdays and workday traffic cannot be interrupted. In this light the demonstrations were not failures at all, in fact both sides came out of it satisfied—it is a “strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance” [Zizek], to use Zizek’s words. “The protestors saved their beautiful souls”—they made it clear that they did not accept such attitude from the administration. It is a perverse (and the usual) form of consumerism, the commodity bought and consumed is “peace of mind” and the cost is a few days out in the sun. Such battles are fought not to change the world, but achieve a sense of satisfaction that I have done my part—and now that my conscience is at ease the world can go to hell. Every advertisement on televisions tells me that I am not a perfect person unless I consume that product; similarly “resistance” becomes a product advertised in politically correct classrooms.

In the last analysis the interests of the agitators and the administration were the same. During the IP College protests this fact came out in the open most blatantly when on one of the days of demonstrations the students from IP College became rather disconcerted on hearing a rumour that the college would be sealed if the protest continued. It might have been due to the highly institutionalised setup of that college that kept the students in a convent like state of innocent ignorance that they were unable to see through the joke. They were unable to realise that the fight was not between the college and the university; it was hard for them to perceive that the smaller as well as the larger entity were seats of the same central power that the students needed to fight. But more importantly, it became clear that the prospect of really shaking things up had never occurred to them.

At no point are such protests directed at the base of power; rather the people in power are accused of betraying their own professed principles. The protests in this case were directed against the “unsympathetic attitude of our vice-chancellor and our police”; as if the entire episode was an aberration and not the rule. A strange but expected conjecture entirely in observance of the customary practice of complaining about the ever-increasing number of “injustices” and not questioning the status quo. The “solution” that was proposed by the students—nullification of the exam—was more a form of appeasement than anything else. What if this demand had been met? Would that have led anywhere? It is a strange situation—if a movement like this fails in achieving the goals it sets then it gets buried, since all that could have been done is done and nothing came out of it. In future agitations of the sort, those who participated this time would opt out since they know that it would not work. If the demands are by any chance met, even then it gets buried. Mission accomplished. Either way the eventual result had to be the same, so in a fashion logical enough, the easier way was taken. It cannot be denied that each battle has its particular aims and large distant goals alone cannot keep things going, but the strange part is that since this battle was fought only to wear the armour and get a photo clicked, warriors returned home after the horn was sounded. Because of the lack of a larger anti-establishment perspective the demands became ends-in-themselves, incidental to the desire of putting up a show and effectively inconsequential to the agitators; the administration knew that they did not need to satisfy the former. The demands need not be met for in the act of putting forth demands the demanders had been satisfied.

That under all circumstances we stay a part of this system remains the single most important idea that governs our actions. It defines our interactions with the system, whether the interactions are friendly or antagonistic. What we observed above was that even those interactions, which are apparently antagonistic, are often undercut by“faithfulness” to the system. However the dialectical contrary of this understanding, which is that even when our interactions are on surface friendly, underlying it is a deep antagonism, escapes us. I will come to the nature of this antagonism at the end of the essay. Meanwhile I will move on to an analysis of the specificities of the protest that made it so short-lived.

A Digression and a Return

Jean-Paul Sartre differentiates between two modes of existence for an individual as a part of society. In one case persons perform roles that can be describe as being those of “we-subjects” while the in other case they can be described as “we-objects”. The role of persons as “we-subjects” corresponds to a way of associating with other people that Sartre calls “seriality”. Sartre uses the concept of seriality to describe circumstances in which a person’s relation to others is limited to a uniformity of behaviour and isolation otherwise [Jameson 238]. Each person models her/his mode of being after what s/he thinks is the mode of being of the Other, or individuals inhabiting society at large, but any real association with them is lacking as the others don’t really exist, except as a “vast optical illusion, a kind of collective hallucination projected out of individual solitude onto an imaginary being thought of as”public opinion” or simply “they”” [Jameson 239]—such a relation has no real meaning for individuals. For instance when one is in a theatre one feels a part of some sort of community (of viewers); however this feeling of community has no consequence for anyone, self or the other. The situation of those involved in the protest that is being analysed remained by and large a serial situation—being part of the demonstrations had no real consequence for an overwhelming majority of the people that included most of those who stood at the forefront. The aspect of conscience easing is included in this concept; for in this case too the person in question enters the demonstration to fulfil what s/he thinks is the duty of every responsible person—an idea that is defined once again by the clause of public-opinion. Here too then genuine association with others that is required for continued participation is lacking.

The second mode of existence, that as “we-objects” depends upon the formation of genuine groups to get over the helplessness of a serial situation. Such a group is formed only when “I feel myself become an object along with someone else under the look of such a “third” that I experience my being as a “we-object”; for then, in our mutual interdependency, in our shame and rage, our beings are somehow mingled in the yes of the onlooker, for whom we are somehow “the same”…” [Jameson]. How a group maintains its authentic existence (an existence of this mode i.e.) is not our concern here—but it comes into existence against some common enemy and is defined by the vision of the Other. On this occasion the common opponent eludes all concrete formulations and the concept stays limited to a faceless crowd. If this protest had been connected to a larger anti-establishment perspective it would have been easier to sustain, and the demands might have been formulated in a more fruitful manner. It is not strange to find that it was because of a few individuals who formed such a group that held such an anti-establishment that the movement survived for whatever length of time it survived.

(Revision: The larger question at stake in this entire episode was that of sexual harassment and gender and the shared identity that had to be interpreted in a manner to allow for the construction of an authentic group – that of students). This article is an attempt at analysing this protest and the reason behind its short-lived-ness. So the larger question of gender would be a pointless digression; it might also prove a question too large to cope with in an essay like this. When I call it a digression I refer to the fact that in this essay my attempt is to analyse the construction of authentic student groups. The fight against sexual harassment can also allow for the construction of such groups. Further on I will attempt to locate the identity of being anti-sexual harassment fighters in the scheme of things, but I feel the need to warn the reader that this attempt might seem half-hearted owing to its contingency as far as this article is concerned.

For now however this leaves us with the identity of being students. Many locate this identity in a vague notion of a shared journey through the realm of knowledge. Another popular perspective would place the experience of being students in the set of consumer experiences that constitutes modern existence; education being the commodity consumed. Both these notions and most others still remain stuck in definitions of persons as “we-subjects” and a genuine group identity (defined in opposition to something) is denied. I shall proceed to propose one possible definition of a student that could allow for the formation for a genuine group (this would take us to the idea that was left undeveloped at the end of the first section).

We as students are workers-in-making. This statement needs to be qualified for the understanding of who is a “worker” might be different for the reader and the writer of this article. “Worker” here refers to every person whose participation in production is as a wage earner. A worker is a person who owns no “means-of-production” and depends upon his “labour power” to earn his livelihood; in this sense a worker could be a factory “hand” earning a few hundreds a week or a CEO earning in millions or for that matter a college professor earning a few thousand. If this is the definition of a worker most students are workers-in-making. This agreed upon, it is not hard to see that the basis of an authentic student identity that will allow for the formation of genuine groups, genuine students’ organisations that is, will have to depend upon an understanding of the fact that our current relationship with the system remains one defined by class struggle; the aspect of our existence in the eye of the system that we oppose will be our existence as workers-to-be.

Another digression would allow us to look at the role of groups formed against sexual harassment or for that matter all sexuality/gender related questions. Duncan Foley says somewhere that there is never a “democracy of determinants”. In a capitalist society the system of class and the process of class struggle are the determinants that sit on top of the hierarchy of determinants. All other determinants (or structures of exploitation—for all societies till now have structured themselves so as to base themselves on exploitation) form the guard that surrounds this determinant. Race, gender, and caste—all of these are systems that capitalism uses to run its show. However it is important to note that capitalism does not depend upon these structures to reproduce itself. As a result whenever a stage is reached where these structures become hindrances to capitalism, they are questioned—which is not to say that feminist struggles are an offshoot of this tendency, but merely to suggest that the development of capitalism in its industrialized form facilitated, or made it relatively (when compared to earlier modes of production) easier for these struggles to be waged with great success.

All movements and all groups need a degree of self-reflexivity to maintain their revolutionary potential. At this point in history feminist movements need to understand the manner in which capitalism has been able to bottle the revolutionary potential of feminism in revolutionary moments that are past. To free this potential of the chains it has been bound by the fight against patriarchy and harassment made possible by the system of patriarchy needs to be combined with struggle against capitalism. If the power equation in society is decided on the ownership of means of production then the social location of the proletariat provides the proletarian identity a revolutionary potential that is unique among all identities. Our fight against sexual harassment and gender discrimination will become all the more potent if combined with our struggles as workers-to-be and subsequently workers.

In all circumstances a student, consciously or unconsciously understands this relation in whom s/he is bound to the system, what is lacking is the clause of class-consciousness that would make the connection between career and exploitation plain. In the above case, as in most cases this connection is not perceived and the result is submissiveness that exists under the facade of resistance. If and only if this submission is transformed into struggle, would any agitation succeed for the success of all agitations would lie in the manner in which they fit into the battle against the system. Until a vision of this larger battle informs our actions our attempts would be directed towards reform, and the discourse of reform is pointless in a system that cannot exist without inequity. The pointlessness of the demand of increasing police security in the campus, when the people who committed the crime were aspiring policemen is a remarkable instance of the uselessness of reform unconnected from a larger logic of struggle. A system that is defined on the leitmotif of profit cannot be reformed into being a “considerate” system—it can of course sell “consideration” in the market.

Bibliography

1. Žižek, Slavoj, Resistance Is Surrender,[ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/zize01_. html], accessed on 16th August, 2008
2. Jameson, Fredric, Marxism and Form, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1974

On Permanent Revolution

2009-12-03T04:57:00.000-08:00

An article published in the October 2008 issue of our magazine. The author, Kumarila, is a left political activist who has worked in various parts of India.

A basic task for a Marxist is to expose programmatic issues concerning revolutionary praxis today and to critically judge political conceptualizations and practice from this perspective. With this concern we reorient ourselves here towards Trotsky's theorization of ‘Permanent Revolution’ and judge its usefulness in informing our debates and practice. However, reading Trotsky’s classic works today would require a point of reference in the context and debates that produced them. Below we try to present a brief overview of this context so as to make available this reference point.

Like any social theory, a Marxist theory of social revolution must be analyzed in the context of objective conditions at the time of its theorization, but its correctness must be judged in terms of its potentiality to trace the tendencies and possibilities inherent in the historical evolution of existing social conditions. Its meaningfulness at the present stage too is determined by this potentiality, as only then would it enrich the conceptualization of present reality and guide our practice. This requires us to visualize societal transformation as a culmination of the contradictions inherent in the historico-logical process producing and reproducing a particular social structure.

Marx’s whole life work and his theoretical endeavors were towards the sole aim of unfolding the processes constituting capitalism and the catastrophic tendencies inherent in them, posing the possibility of a complete emancipation of humanity from class exploitation and oppression. Transcending capitalism requires a complete negation of its essence. Marx saw its eventual transcendence only in class struggle and conscious endeavours of the proletarian class - the only class capable of completely breaking away from the ‘prehistoric’ (or rather transhistoric) nostalgia that afflicts all the other classes. These conclusions were the result of his immense research in and a thorough critique of the political economy of capitalism. Although Marx was always conscious of the political transformations throughout the globe and was involved in vocalizing the evolving agenda of the working class politics, he was still striving towards a dialectical conceptualisation of capitalist reality, and its logical and historical processes.

During Marx's time, capitalism had just become politically triumphant with the 1848 revolutions, that too with enormous compromises. Marx found Germany and the rest of the Continental Europe still suffering “not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development.” (Marx, Capital Vol.1) The possibility of a wide-scale proletarian upsurge against the system was still not evident anywhere (Paris Commune of 1871 being the first experience), hence it was not possible for Marx or anyone at that time to pre-empt all the intricacies of the world revolution coordinating varied class experiences in the societies at various levels of capitalist development.

This is not to say that he did not have any theory of revolution at all, but it was still latent in his political economic researches. It is in this light that we can understand Lenin’s view that imperialism is the age of socialist revolutions, and during Marx’s time capitalism was still in a pre-imperialist phase. Marx’s writings starting from the Communist Manifesto to The Civil War in France, on Paris Commune etc must be studied as his reflections on the objective conditions and social changes that were effected by the French Revolution and the growth of industrial capitalism, culminating in the rise of industrial working class movement which first came into the forefront with the 1848 revolutions. Of course, Marx’s contributions in this regard were not simply historical “interpretations”; rather they established the theoretical foundation for revolutionary proletarian praxis directed towards “changing the world”. But Marx more than anybody else was aware that “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte) Hence, the circumstantial limitation imposed on the proletarian praxis at the time delimited its direction. This is true for all conceptual and practical aspects of revolutionary praxis of all ages. The same holds good for Lenin’s theory of imperialism or Trotsky’s “permanent revolution”.

It was in the struggle against Bernstein’s evolutionism at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth that the issue of the relationship between class-consciousness and the negation of capitalism became most prominent in the revolutionary discourse. Bernstein saw socialism as a result of the natural processes within capitalism, thus he rejected any revolutionary endeavor for building it. He was severely criticized by his comrades in the Second International, especially Kautsky and Plekhanov, who fore-grounded the issue of a conscious destruction of the capitalist system.

The radical bloc of social democracy led by Kautsky and Plekhanov did the groundwork for the future revolutionary critique of the Second International and social democracy found in the works of Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and others. These revolutionaries for the first time systematically confronted the issue of revolutionary agencies and the nature of revolution itself. One reason for this was essentially conjunctural, as capitalism was exhausting its capacity to reproduce itself after the crisis of 1890s. This state of moribundity leading to imperialist clashes and regimentation, to an upsurge in working class radicalism with the increasingly cohesive national liberation struggles in the colonies, made an eventual collapse of the world capitalist system seem sufficiently possible, forcing the revolutionaries to take the task of making this possibility a reality through insurrections, mass strikes, soviets and workers controls. The lassitude of the traditional working class parties in Europe and their accommodation in the political competition characterizing bourgeois liberal polity compelled the revolutionaries to polemicise against the legalist leadership of these parties, and sharpen the conceptual and practical tools simultaneously. The strategic and tactical formulations comprising the major theory/theories of revolution were the product of this burning time.

Till this period the Marxists always viewed proletarian politics in an international framework aiming towards an eventual destruction of world capitalism. It was not that they glossed over the local specificity, but they saw capitalism as a world system thriving on unevenness, hence the coordinated efforts of the revolutionaries all over the world were the only possible way of realizing socialism. The minimal tasks defined in a particular locus have to be coordinated to realize the maximal goal, their dialectical convergence being the only radical resolution of the crisis determining both. Their mechanical separation led to revisionism and scholasticism, evident in the Second International. This was the conclusion to which all the formidable critiques of the Second International came separately or together. This conceptual solidarity led to their eventual camaraderie whenever the situation demanded despite their mutual diatribes of many years, during the Zimmerwald Congress and the October Revolution. Trotsky recognized this when he said that by reissuing his 1905 work, Results and Prospects (where he for the first time tried to systematically deal with the theory of permanent revolution), in 1919 he “only desires to explain the theoretical principles which rendered it possible for him and other comrades, who for many years had stood outside the Bolshevik Party, to join their fate with the fate of that party at the beginning of 1917.”

The phrase ‘revolution in permanence’ was used first by Marx in his 1850 address to the CC of the Communist League. Marx took revolution to be continuous, an uninterrupted bottom-up negation of capitalism. He viewed capitalism not as any pure and even system, which many have endeavored to put in his mouth, but as essentially comprising of simultaneous existence of various levels of capitalist development even combined with pre-capitalist vestiges. Hence, anti-capitalist revolution cannot be achieved in installments, but continuously. But as noted earlier the circumstantial limitation delimited Marx’s reflections. He could provide the basic foundation for such conceptualization, but the task of its elaboration was left to future generations.

The concept of permanent revolution as understood by Trotsky was representative of the revolutionary spirit prevalent at that time, which recognized capitalism as a global system on the one hand (thus its negation had to be global too), while on the other it took into account the unevenness of capitalist development (thus necessitating the strategic-tactical formulations specific to locations). It is dialectical to the very core viewing revolution as a continuum embedding the particular in general and appearance in essence, with the latter necessarily getting represented through the former. It seeks to stress that the localized peasant struggles and the struggles of other classes and communities against their oppression and alienation can be successful only if they are articulated with and in the world proletarian struggle against capitalism. This becomes more and more true with the evermore intensification of capitalist accumulation that thrives on the continuous subsumption of living labour by capital (formally or actually).

With the introversion of the Russian Revolution as the world revolutionary situation subsided after the defeat of the German revolution, the Soviet Union became more and more isolated—being in power and creating firewalls around it became an existential problem leading to the petty bourgeois nationalist formulation of ‘socialism in one country’. Socialism in this framework was reduced to nationalization, cooperatives and planned economy. This reaction concurred with the nationalist introversion throughout the world due to the particular crisis that capitalism faced with the 1929 Great Crash. With direct colonialism becoming burdensome and unsustainable, the regime of capitalist accumulation demanded a reconstitution of national economies. In this situation, the world revolution lost its immediate appeal, as the ruling class everywhere found the nationalist shell of Keynesian/welfarist policies not only effective in refurbishing the capitalist economies, but sufficiently ideological too to contain the anti-systemic mobilizations through welfarism, full employment and doles. One finds a strong structural and ideological affinity between the political economic governance under ‘socialism in one country’ and Keynesianism, thus licensing the conceptualization of the Soviet economy as State/State-Monopoly Capitalism. But the scope of the hegemonic struggle between the bureaucratic/intermediate class/petty bourgeoisie and proletarian segments in the party and the state justified the notion of a ‘degenerated workers’ state’ of Trotsky.

Simultaneously, the fascist menace that capitalism nurtured to gather the fruits of reaction after the defeat of the European proletarian radicalism in the 1920s and pre-empt any further working class consolidation became a very dangerous option for global capitalism itself, as it began curbing the reconstruction of advanced economies devastated by the Great Crash. It was in this phase that the Comintern’s existentialist policy of the United Front was envisaged in their late attempt to counter fascism. This definitely provided a popular base for the Allied forces in the Second World War. This tactical formula when transformed accordingly and sustained was sufficiently corporatist and useful for bourgeois polity, as it could delay any radical resolution of the capitalist crisis co-opting the leadership of the working class in its service. And this was what the existential logic of socialism in one country led to in the Cold War phase—the Soviet Bloc in order to sustain its influence around the globe blunted the radical movements by nurturing collaborationist tendencies so that the ruling classes of the newly liberated countries were not alienated and did not fall in the lap of the Anglo-American bloc. Hence, the United Front was extended to the anti-imperialist struggle, quite contrary to Lenin’s conceptualization, thus disarming this struggle of its anti-systemic tenor. This trend of disarming the working class by preaching neo-corporatism got its ultimate representation in Khrushchev’s theory of peaceful coexistence.

Nonetheless the Soviet model was posed as a model for nationalist reconstruction in opposition to the liberal model sold by the Anglo-Americans and their agencies. This competition coupled with militarism marked the global polity in the post-World War II era. It is not to say that revolutionary situations did not arise during this phase. They definitely arose, but at the wake of no preparation and frequent betrayals by the unconfident ‘vanguards’ in the name of countering and curbing anarchism and adventurism, they were crushed easily but bloodily. Wherever radical upsurges really became successful they had to struggle against isolation and regimentation before getting recognition, as Cuba and Nicaragua. The existence of the Soviet bloc definitely was a boon for the ruling classes of the underdeveloped world as it allowed the latter to bargain in the world polity. But it acted as a hindrance in the radicalization of the movements against exploitation and oppression, as its own existential problems demanded stable support from the regimes there. This pragmatic requirement guided the officialisation of the formulaic Marxism (which DD Kosambi termed as OM - Official Marxism) that was nurtured to suit the exigencies of the Cold War. This brand of Marxism reified tactical notions and presented them as universally applicable laws and principles. Varieties of ‘democratic revolutions’ were conceptualized to explain the popular upsurges under the communist leadership. They not only explained the class limit of these upsurges, but more importantly they inhibit their transformation into an “uninterrupted revolution” under a proletarian leadership. These conceptualizations became weapons to contain working class radicalism, preaching class collaborationism and blunting the class offensive at crucial junctures as in Indonesia and Iran. The ‘stage theory’ of revolution is always defined in a nationalist framework, despite the lip service paid to proletarian internationalism. It mechanically dissociates anti-capitalist revolutionary politics from democratic struggles, which are essentially reformist. This deconstructs the uninterrupted revolutionary politics of the working class into discrete moments never allowing it to heighten itself onto a newer ‘stage’. And this is justified in the name of pragmatism and practicality.

In retrospect, the struggle between the dialectical conceptualization of permanent revolution (involving a continuum between maximal and minimal agenda of the working class movement) and that of socialism in one country is a struggle for ideological hegemony over the working class movement between the proletarians and national/petty bourgeoisie. This struggle has been going on right from the time of Marx and Engels, when they contested Proudhon, Lassalle and Bakunin. The importance of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution lies in its analytical ability to discern moments in revolutionary politics without reifying them. It takes revolution to be continuous.

Rereading Trotsky’s classic works on “permanent revolution” acquires a new meaning today with the collapse of “official Marxism”, on the one hand, and with capitalism being in a perpetual crisis, sustaining itself through the export of this crisis from one region to another, on the other. It provides a formidable departure point for a critical assimilation of revolutionary struggles dominated by the tendencies of which it was one of the first critiques. Furthermore, at the time when proletarian internationalism is evidently the only answer to capitalist globalization, the concept of permanent revolution provides us with a powerful tool to confront programmatic issues in coordinating local struggles and articulating them within the anti-capitalist struggle, which is intrinsically international.

The Media Question

2009-12-03T04:50:00.000-08:00

This pamphlet was co-written by Correspondence and the editors of Radical Notes. It is the 3rd pamphlet published by us.

Admittedly it has been an old problem with most movements, that they have treated the media only as a means to an end, ‘a way of making themselves heard,’ and so long as they got some coverage with the help of conscientious friends within the media, they were satisfied. The larger dynamics of the media, as a certain sort of work, in a certain sort of work place, with human agents who are workers here, has not been addressed. Newspapers and news channels should be and can be the strongest arms of a democratic society; they can make sure that the voice of the people finds representation. Though cliché, one has to point out how the media can raise difficult questions, but the onus is upon journalists as responsible citizens and in their capacity as workers to raise them.

The decidedly undemocratic tenor of mainstream newspapers and news channels, whose editorial bosses seem to be dummies through which the state on the one hand and multinational capital on the other preach their doctrines, is not merely a sign of the larger move away from democratic values, but also of the way in which journalism is becoming an alienated activity. Responsible journalism, bent upon bringing out the democratic truth languishes as the unholy nexus of the state and moneyed interest decides the ‘line’ of a newspaper. The inability of journalists to raise their voices against recent pay-cuts in houses like TOI is not unconnected from the destruction of democratic space within journalism and mass media. Both of these get subsumed in the large movement away from true democracy – maximization of profit that a few make, in the last analysis determines all these tendencies. That is to say that the general antipathy to democratic movements visible in the lack of honest media coverage and an anti-people, non-democratic shift in the Indian situation at large not only go hand in hand but are also born out of the same tendencies.

Where do we see all this? For one, in the highly disproportionate coverage of various people’s movements by mainstream media. For instance, the space/airtime given to non-violent movements like Narmada Bachao or in Tehri is negligible. The violent movements do manage to get their attention, but nonetheless they are covered very selectively. The struggles in the North East against AFSPA are barely covered. No true attempt to understand ULFA or LTTE is to be found in the mainstream, no attempt to go to the depths of the issue and to not simply report (and reinforce) the state’s position. While the many social activists who have done serious work in the North East, J&K, or Chattisgarh report the excesses and violence committed by the paramilitary, Special Police Officers or the Salwa Judum on innocents, it is only rarely, if ever, mentioned by the media. At the moment though, with the Maoists taking centre stage on the front pages of newspapers and on prime time news, one cannot complain on grounds of quantity. But on grounds of quality, there is a lot to be said.

It has been assumed that the Maoist movement is not a mass movement; it’s only a bunch of ‘outsiders’ imposing themselves upon hapless tribes. The absurdity of the ‘outsider’ clause becomes obvious if one spares a moment’s thought to the way in which they function. The nature and width of their activities could not have been made possible without mass support. This is not the place to substantiate this assertion. What one needs to recognize at the primary level is that this is an open question and needs to be treated as such. If it is an open question with many opinions, the least the media can do is give space to these opinions, and accept the complex nature of the issue. It might be pointed out that the debate shows on news-channels do bring in people of different opinions. However, a closer look at the dynamics of these shows will demonstrate how easily the biases of the mainstream hijack the entire debate. The newer, uncommon opinion cannot be expressed in the 10seconds given to the participants, unlike the hegemonic narrative that we are all so familiar with. This inability to say everything in the imposed time limit is read as the lack of substance in these new voices, and a consensus on the issue is ‘created’.

Arnab Goswami is a good example. He seems to have found answers to all questions posed by him on his show. Furthermore, his show is an exercise in forcing his moment of epiphany upon others. ‘Mr. Varavar Rao, is Kobad Gandhy an ideologue or a terrorist, ideologue or terrorist, yes or no?’ We need to move beyond these multiple choice questions – reality is more layered than the media’s projection of it. We can all do with some thinking, including our editor-in-chief. Arnabism is actually symbolic of the lack of depth, and the fear of depths that haunts the journalism of big news houses. Maoist violence is highlighted again and again, often with cheap melodrama (showing the lack of humanity implicit in this form of reporting) as if it exists in a vacuum. Such portrayal denudes an act of its nature as an utterance, which responds to a situation (possibly another violent act on the state’s part) and is informed by necessities of a spatio-temporal/socio-political position. In the same way the struggles for self-determination are seen solely as ‘separatism,’ (one could go out on a limb and suggest that the refusal to understand or explain Islamic violence, as something more than madness or blood-thirstiness is a sign of the same problem). Just touching the surface, there too a very small section of the surface, the mainstream media presents it to its consumers (for that is what passive reception is) as the entire reality, the sole and complete truth.

It needs to be understood, and this cannot be stated any other way, that the media is responsible for manufacturing consent for war. It has taken the state’s call for war forward by eliminating dissenting voices within. In addition to several other things, the majoritarian nature of the media poses serious questions about any semblance of internal democracy. We have to make a choice between pushing for greater democracy within and allowing ourselves to get subsumed in the state’s narrative. If we choose the latter then we need to question the idea of journalism being ‘free and fair’ and see it as an instrument in the hands of a few who hold power and seek to keep it in their hands.

It is not only that journalists should try and understand the crucial position they can occupy in the struggles of the people. It is important for them to place themselves within these struggles, for even if they try to ‘keep out,’ their attempt to exclude themselves becomes the shape of their inclusion. It is never somebody else’s fight, it is always our own. In the final analysis journalists are nothing but (whether high paid or low) workers working under the imposition of capital, continuously losing control over their own work, unable to determine the conditions of their own existence.

Campaign against War on People

2009-11-30T21:52:00.000-08:00

Campaign Against War on People is a collective of students' and workers' organisations active in Delhi University, including Correspondence.

The Indian government intends to deploy 100,000 troops – ostensibly against Maoist insurgents – in 7 states in central and eastern India, including Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh, a vast area inhabited by tribal groups. Forces withdrawn from Jammu and Kashmir (e.g. Rashtriya Rifles) and the Northeast are joining battalions of CRPF commandos, the ITBP, the CoBRA and the BSF, equipped with bomb trucks, bomb blankets, bomb baskets, and sophisticated new weaponry. Six IAF Mi-17 helicopters will provide air support to these ground forces, in which the IAF’s own special force, the Garuds, will participate. The actual strength of the intended targets of this massive action – the Maoist cadre – is believed to be no more than 20,000. Besides the dangers of any state offensive against any section of the people, the scale of the offensive suggests that the state is unable to distinguish the millions of tribals in this area from the Maoists, and has chosen the quick solution of war on the entire region. Several groups which are not Maoist – like the Vanvasi Chetna Ashram in Dantewada – have been clubbed with them and are being targeted. The basic question is, why is the state planning war against its most deprived, oppressed and impoverished populations?

Central India is rich in mineral wealth that is already being auctioned: Till September 2009, Rs 6,69,388 crore of investment had been pledged toward industry in the troubled areas—14 per cent of the total pledged investments in the country. All that stands between politicians/ big money bags and this wealth is the tribal people and their refusal to consent to their designs. Even constituent bodies of Indian state machinery acknowledge the gross failure of state in the tribal areas of the country in no uncertain terms. The Planning Commission Report on Social Discontent and Extremism, has clearly identified equity and justice issues relating to land, forced displacement and evictions, extreme poverty and social oppression, livelihood, malgovernance and police brutality as widespread in the region. The Approach Paper for the 11th Plan states:

Our practices regarding rehabilitation of those displaced from their land because of development projects are seriously deficient and are responsible for a growing perception of exclusion and marginalisation. The costs of displacement borne by our tribal population have been unduly high, and compensation has been tardy and inadequate, leading to serious unrest in many tribal regions. This discontent is likely to grow exponentially if the benefits from enforced land acquisition are seen accruing to private interests, or even to the state, at the cost of those displaced.

The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution grants tribals complete rights over their traditional land and forests and prohibits private companies from mining on their land. In spite of all this, in the name of fighting the Maoists the state – in blatant violation of Constitutional rights and against the recommendations of its own committees – is all set to evacuate the entire area of the tribals and ghettoise them by forcing them into ‘relief camps’, to allow free rein to big business. Instead of addressing the basic rights and needs of the tribals, the impatience of the state/big business in the face of the stiff resistance from them, is leading it to a full-scale war on people who are already fighting an everyday battle for livelihood and survival.

In the past as well the state has tried to crush all popular resistance, armed or not. It has repeatedly ignored and/or suppressed non-violent resistance, be it in Bhopal gas-victims or the ‘Narmada Bachao’ Andolan. Various human rights activists who have spoken out against its policies have also been targeted through draconian instruments like the Chhatisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005. It has also brutally assaulted protesters in Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh and Khammam and conducted military offensives in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh that have been seriously questioned. Now, along with an increasingly uncritical, elitist and complicit media, it is set on drumming up war hysteria to legitimise its own extra-Constitutional programs. The fact that it has either rejected or dismissed offers of talks and mediations – while hypocritically calling for them – indicates the extent to which it is invested in this war. The Central Government’s military offensive further dilutes the federal character of Indian democracy as it covertly shifts the maintenance of law and order off the state onto the centre list.

This war on the people also entails a further shrinking of already limited spaces for democratic dissent and articulation of pro people development paradigms. It opens the way for the state to act with force against any form of dissent or struggle. Any individual or organization protesting against the policies of the state can be labelled as a threat to ‘internal security’. To understand the politics and economics of the current state offensive, we urge people to look beyond the current hype being built by the government and pliable sections of the media. This indicates the emergence of a dangerous consensus towards a police state that will render the people and resources pliable to the demands of global capitalism and authoritarianism.

We call upon all progressive forces – students, teachers and workers – to resist the latest plan of the Indian government. Stop state violence against people.

Join our demand for a peaceful, egalitarian and secular society.

Contact:opposethehunters@gmail.com, stopwaroncitizens@gmail.com
Website: http://radicalnotes.com/journal/author/campaign-against-war-on-people/ Ph: 9899523722, 9910455993, 9718259201, 9818728298

Convention Against War on People, Dec 4, 2009

2009-11-30T21:35:00.000-08:00

INVITATION

Convention Against War On People
Venue: Speaker’s Hall, Constitution Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi
Date: 4 December 2009 (Friday) Time: 10 am—7 pm

Friends,

As you read this invite, Indian state’s ongoing war on people that began on the 1^st of November, will already complete several weeks. The body-count of the adivasis –the prime victims of the Indian government’s ‘hunt’– also started to mount. As per the sporadic news from the Ground Zero trickles in through the media, the casualty is escalating by each passing day, as grow the number of burnt villages, persons displaced, injured or arrested. We hear of battalions of CRPF, COBRA, C-60, Grey Hounds, ITBP, Anti-Naxal Task Force and a whole assortment of armed paramilitary and police forces stepping up their operation in Dandakaranya and adjoining regions, backed by air force helicopters and US intelligence satellites, commanded by army top brass. As reports are pouring in already thousands of adivasis have been displaced from their homes as the ruthless state repressive machine has let loose a reign of terror in these areas. The renewed offensive by the joint forces in Lalgarh too has left hundreds of protesting adivasis homeless. There is every possibility that the number of dead and injured people, along with the displaced and destroyed villages will only mount in the coming weeks, if the Indian government does not call for an immediate halt to this all-encompassing military offensive. As has been the case with nationality movements in Kashmir and the North East, the Indian state’s endeavour to find a ‘military solution’ through war will only endanger the lives and livelihood of lakhs of citizens.

Indian government has been preparing for this massive military operation for months, lining up nearly one lakh troops and arming them with sophisticated weapons, mobilising the air force for aerial strikes and involving the Indian army not only for training and logistical purposes, but for operational command and even active combat if required. There are also reports of US intelligence and security officials ‘advising’ the Indian government in conducting this war. As reported by the media, the entire forested regions of central and eastern India have been divided into seven Operating Areas, which the government wants to ‘clear’ within the next five years of all resistance, including that of the Maoists and other Naxalite organisations. An outlay of Rs.7300 crores has already been earmarked for this war.

None is in illusion as to the objectives of this war against the people. This war is being fought by the Indian government at the behest of the corporates and for their benefit, targeting the life and livelihood of the adivasis. The worldwide imperialist economy presently faces its most severe crisis after 1929. The military-industrial complex, which includes multinational and Indian big business interests, is looking for wars that have the potential to artificially generate the much-needed demand for their products in a crisis-ridden market. Moreover, both domestic and foreign corporations desperately want to lay their hands on the minerals worth billions of dollars deposited in the vast forest regions of central and eastern India. Once accessed, this can guarantee the corporations super-profits for several decades. Hundreds of agreements and MoUs that allow free plunder of people’s resources have already been concluded by mining corporations with the central and state governments. The corporations easily cleared all the legal hurdles between themselves and the natural resources. The only barrier that now stands between them and their prize is people’s resistance, whether unarmed or armed. From Nandigram to Niyamgiri, Lalgarh to Dandakaranya, Koraput to Kalinganagar, Dadri to Narayanpatna, people have refused to be mere victims of state-sponsored policies of Liberalisation-Privatisation-Globalisation (LPG) in the name of ‘development’. After trying all forceful measures from police repression to Salwa Judum which have failed to deter the people’s movements, the Indian government is now waging war not only against the Naxalite and Maoist movements which have been termed as the ‘biggest internal security threat’, but against all people’s movements that challenge its policies. By doing so, it not only is trying to bulldoze all kinds of dissenting voices and democratic rights, but is also aiming to exterminate the aspirations of the exploited and oppressed people for a better society, a life with dignity.

Forum Against war on People invites you to this All-India Convention which is an effort to examine the ongoing war on people in all its dimensions. More importantly, it seeks to become a strong voice of resistance against this war. We urge you to participate in the Convention and make it an occasion to collectively demand that the Indian government must immediately and unconditionally stop this war, waged in our name against our own people.

Inaugural Address: Prof. Randhir Singh (Retd. Political Science, DU)

Speakers

Justice AS Bains

BD Sharma

Vara Vara Rao (Revolutionary Poet)

PA Sebastian (CPDR, Maharashtra)

Prof. Jagmohan (AFDR, Punjab)

Arundhati Roy (Writer)

Bullu Bahan, (Chhattisgarh)

Madhuri (MP)

Prof. Amit Bhattacharyya

Ajit Bhuyan (Editor, Asomiya Pratidin)

Prashant Bhushan

Shashi Bhushan Pathak (PUCL Jharkhand)

Bernard D’Mello (Deputy Editor, EPW)

Lachit Bordoloi (MASS, Assam)

Dr. N Venuh (NPMHR)

Sudhir Patnaik (Lok Pakhya, Orissa)

Prof N K Bhattacharya (Jan Hastakshep)

Malem Ningthouja (CPDM, Manipur)

Harish Dhawan (PUDR)

Shamsher Singh Bisht (Uttarakhand Lok Vahini)

Lateef Mohd. Khan (Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee)

Gautam Navlakha

Kavita Krishnan (CPI-ML [Liberation])

Sheomangal Siddhantkar (CPI-ML [New Proletarian])

SS Mahal (CPI-ML [New Democracy])

SAR Geelani (CRPP)

GN Saibaba

Prof. Jagmohan Singh (Voices for Freedom)

Santosh Mahapatra (Orissa)

Arjun Prasad Singh (PDFI)

Dr. Animesh Das (IFTU)

Raminder Singh (NBS)

Alok (KYS)

PUCL

JNU Forum Against War on People

DU Campaign Against War on People Correspondence, Campaign Against War on People, Committee Against Violence On Women (CAVOW), Naga Students Union Delhi (NSUD), Navjawan Bharat Sabha (NBS), KRALOS, Krantikari Yuva Sanghathan (KYS), Manipur Students Association Delhi (MSAD), PDSU, PUCL, MKP, Campaign for Peace & Democracy Manipur (CPDM), DSU, CRPP, DGMF, People’s Front (PF), Mazdoor Ekta Manch (MEM), Left Democratic Teacher’s Front (LDTF), RDF, PDFI, CPI (ML) (Liberation), CPI (ML) (New Proletarian), Kashipur Solidarity Forum, Nari Mukti Sangh (NMS), Mehnatkash Majdoor Morcha (MMM), B D Sharma, Arundhati Roy, Tripta Wahi, Vijay Singh, Neshat Quaiser, Laltu and others