youth herald: Day of global Occupy protests gets underway

youth herald: Day of global Occupy protests gets underway: msnbc.com staff and news service reports @msnbc.com People of the world urged to 'rise up' and 'claim their rights and demand a true democr...

‘OCCUPY WALL STREET’

Confronting the Malefactors

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?

Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment — not more tax cuts — to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, for example — who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans — was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare.”

But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.[The Hindu 8/10/2011}

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: സമരം സർഗാത്മകമാവുമ്പോൾ

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: സമരം സർഗാത്മകമാവുമ്പോൾ: അതെ, ഓക്കുപ്പൈ വാൾസ്ട്രീറ്റ് സമരം ജനകോടികളുടെ മനസ്സുകളെ കീഴടക്കിക്കഴിഞ്ഞു.. സമരങ്ങളെ ജനങ്ങൾ നെഞ്ചേറ്റുമ്പോൾ അവ ജനകീയ ഉത്സവങ്ങളായി മാറുന്നതെങ...

Anti Globalisation Struggles

‘OCCUPY WALL STREET’

GREAT PEOPLES STRIKES THE WALL OF THE EMPORER

“Anyone with eyes open knows that the gangsterism of Wall Street -- financial institutions generally -- has caused severe damage to the people of the United States (and the world). And should also know that it has been doing so increasingly for over 30 years, as their power in the economy has radically increased, and with it their political power. That has set in motion a vicious cycle that has concentrated immense wealth, and with it political power, in a tiny sector of the population, a fraction of 1%, while the rest increasingly become what is sometimes called "a precariat" -- seeking to survive in a precarious existence. They also carry out these ugly activities with almost complete impunity -- not only too big to fail, but also "too big to jail." The courageous and honorable protests underway in Wall Street should serve to bring this calamity to public attention, and to lead to dedicated efforts to overcome it and set the society on a more healthy course”…Noam Chomsky

"So its really about the courage to ask questions which we don’t have the available answers for." … Naomi Klein

THE award-winning journalist and author Naomi Klein, who came to New York to participate in and address the Occupy Wall Street encampment. Her best-selling book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," focuses in part on Chile, where the shock doctrine produced world changing events after Augusto Pinochet’s coup in 1973. One of the biggest transformations of his dictatorship was to privatize education. Now, almost 40 years later students are protesting in the streets. We speak with Klein about the student’s demands, and what they feel is broken with the Chilean educational system. She also dismisses the critique that the related Occupy Wall Street protest lacks a clear set of demands. "What the demands should be to effect a system this pervasive and complex are by no means clear," Klein says. "So its really about the courage to ask questions which we don’t have the available answers for." She adds that the Tea Party and political parties have failed to offer their own reasonable alternatives. "It’s a great irony in an economic crisis created by deregulation, privatization, and corporate rule, that the solutions to the crisis become further destruction of the public sphere and more deregulation," Klein says…. DEMOCRACY NOW

“It’s the Makings of a U.S. Autumn Responding to the Arab Spring….” Cornel West

"It’s impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street into one demand, or two demands. We’re talking about a democratic awakening," said Dr. Cornel West when he spoke with Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman during a visit Tuesday night to the Occupy Wall Street encampment. Some critics have expressed frustration at the protest’s lack of a clear and unified message. But the Princeton University professor emphasized that "you’re talking about raising political consciousness so it spills over all parts of the country, so people can begin to see what’s going on through a set of different lens, and then you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be. Because in the end we’re really talking about what Martin King would call a revolution: A transfer of power from oligarchs to everyday people of all colors. And that is a step by step process." Dr. West also called on President Obama to apologize for calling on members of the Congressional Black Caucus to “stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying” when unemployment among African Americans has reached record highs and two of five Black children live in poverty. …DEMOCRACY NOW

“RESULT OF SOCIALIZING LOSSES AND PRIVATISING GAINS” --

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz showed up at “Occupy Wall Street” this week to show his support for the protest and clearly outline what he sees as the worst crimes of the American financial sector.

In a brief speech amplified by an “echo chamber” of protesters (who shouted Stiglitz’s own words as a group because they’re banned from using megaphones), the Colombia University professor said that Wall Street had become wealthy by “socializing losses and privatizing gain,” calling it a scheme that’s “not capitalism.”

“After the bubble broke, they continued in their way of disobeying the law, in a sense. Throwing people out of their houses, even in some cases when they didn’t owe money…

“We bailed out the banks with an understanding that there would be a restoration of lending. All there was was a restoration of bonuses. Unless we deal with the anti-competitive practices with the reckless vending and speculative behavior, with the anti-competitive practices, unless we restore demand to the function it should serve, we won’t have a robust recovery.” JOSEPH STIGLITZ {DEMOCRACY NOW}

CORNEL WEST

[ Professor of religion and African American studies at Princeton University and the author of numerous books on race.]

ADDRESSING THE WALL STREET PROTESTERS

There is a sweet spirit in this place. I hope you can feel the love and inspiration...Of those Sly Stone called every day people... Who take a stand with great courage...

And compassion... Because we oppose... The greed of Wall Street oligarchs... And corporate plutocrats... Who squeeze the democratic juices...

Out of this country... And other places around the world...I am so blessed to be here... You got me spiritually break-dancing on the way here...

Because when you bring folks together... Of all colors... And all cultures... And all Genders...And all sexual orientations... elite will tremble in their boots... Yeah...

And we will send a message... That this is the U.S. fall... Responding to the Arab Spring...And it’s going to hit Chicago... And Los Angeles... And Phoenix, Arizona...

And A-Town, itself... Moving on to Detroit... We going to hit Appalachia...We going to hit the reservations with our red brothers and sisters...

And Martin Luther King Jr. will smile from the grave... And say, we moving step by step...And say, we moving step by step... For what he called a revolution...

And don’t be afraid to say revolution... Because we want a transfer of power...We want a transfer of power...From the oligarchs... To ordinary citizens...

To ordinary citizens... Beginning with the poor children of all colors... And the orphans and the widows... And the elderly... And the working folk...

That we connect the prison-industrial complex... With the military-industrial complex...With the Wall Street oligarchy complex... And the corporate-media complex...

So, I want to thank you and it’s a blessing to be a small part of this magnificent gathering.This is the general assembly, consecrated by your witness and your body and your mind.

Yeah. God bless you. God bless you. God bless you.

future of the left

Contemporary Challenges Befor the Left

Challenges and Possibilities for Building Socialism of the 21st Century

A PANEL discussion on ‘20 years after the fall of USSR: Contemporary Challenges before the Left’ was organised by web magazine Newsclick on September 24, 2011 at the Constitution Club, New Delhi. The panelists included Professor Aijaz Ahmad, Professor Prabhat Patnaik and CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat. From Newsclick, Prabir Purkayastha convened the discussion and laid out the objective and significance of the theme under discussion.

Professor Aijaz Ahmad began by saying that the theme of discussion makes us discuss two topics, firstly the consequences of the collapse of the USSR and secondly the contemporary reality of ‘here and now’ and the task is to draw out the correlations between these two. Underlining the importance of the existence of socialist bloc or Warsaw pact countries as a support for national liberation movements and to maintain the balance of forces in the UNSC, Ahmed highlighted the consequences of the fall of USSR, some of which would have been inconceivable earlier even as the neo-liberal project had started in the 70s itself. He also explained how the collapse has led to the profusion of anti-communist ideologies from millenarianism of different types -- Rightwing Populism to Anarchism-reformism-postmodernism. He also explained how the collapse has effected the intensification of the savage war on the gains made by working classes, dissolution of the social welfare gains in Europe and abrogation of national sovereignty. Stressing the need for the Left to reflect on the character of the capitalism of our times, he emphasised that the contemporary capitalism has exhausted its capacity to create employment and further expand the industrial proletariat. He further underlined the relevance of the worker-peasant alliance in overwhelmingly agrarian societies and multi-class alliances.

Emphasising the growing threat of rising neo-fascism, AIjaz pointed out the alarming possibility of functionally fascist regimes coming into being in the western world. While applauding the wave of demonstrations against neo-liberal policies and autocracies, Aijaz Ahmed added a note of caution saying that if the socialist intellectual becomes too optimistic it runs the risk of succumbing to crass populisms. He concluded by saying that even though the capitalism is beset with crises and the discontent of the people is manifested in popular protests, without an authentic movement of the Left, a better future cannot be realised.

Professor Prabhat Patnaik started by saying that in the collapse of USSR also there is a confirmation, in a way, of Marx’s fundamental insights, albeit ironic. Firstly, the essential component of philosophical materialism is that there is no necessary coincidence between intention and outcome; this is borne out by huge expectations that could be seen at the time of collapse and its actual devastating effects on the Russian economy and society. Secondly, the collapse has also proved that there is no halfway house between capitalism and socialism and thirdly the reality of imperialism and the relevance of the analytical category of imperialism has been strongly emphasised by the fact that even when the challenge of socialist camp is withdrawn still the imperialism very much exists. He further underlined the necessity of making the qualitative shift from being trapped in history to transcending history to achieve socialism and the role of conscious intervention in the form of political praxis. Adding that there would be pitfalls in this process he explained the predicament of USSR of building socialism in a capitalist world and highlighted the lessons to be learnt from this experience. Explaining how this predicament led to the ‘closure of political arena’ for focusing on material development, Patnaik highlighted the problem of depoliticisation of working class in USSR. Saying that dictatorship of Party coupled with growth and armed might did not prove enough to cope with the imperialist onslaught, he underscored the necessity of ‘politicisation of the masses’ for the survival of socialist project.

Prabhat Patnaik pointed out that today we are facing not one but two crises, namely recession and also the food crisis. Both are the result of the hegemony of finance capital. He further stated that the State being hegemonised by finance capital has become a part of the immanence of the system, which further intensifies the crisis. On an optimistic note he added that this prolonged crisis opens up the possibility of revolutions as the contemporary times are reminiscent of the phase of revolutionary upsurge from 1914-50, the period which was also beset with the crises of capitalism. However, he added that each phase of the revolutionary upsurge must have its own forms of struggle and own agenda. In lieu of conclusion, Patnaik laid out the contours of such an agenda which Left must devise for the largest sections of the society. Firstly, it must entail defending beside working class, large masses of petty producers and peasants from the onslaught of neo-liberal policies, secondly anti-imperialism has to be a major component of this agenda and the struggle against imperialism would also entail the struggle against our own big bourgeoisie which is collaborating with imperialism and thirdly this agenda must have the project of modernity as an important component which involves the struggle for equality and political democracy, which has the potential to strike a blow at the oppressive and hierarchical systems such as caste. As a closing remark he underscored the significance of Marxism's struggle in the realm of theory and called upon the students to have a taste for theory.

Prakash Karat discussed the role of the Left today in the framework of the imperialism of today and the prospects for socialism in 21 century and spelt out the challenges and emerging possibilities. Saying that undoubtedly imperialism has become more aggressive and even reckless in the absence of USSR and the socialist project in retreat, he stressed on emerging resistance across the world to imperialist globalisation and the disastrous impact of neo-liberal policies. Discussing the crisis of social democracy in Europe as the social democratic parties have embraced neo-liberal policies and accepted the hegemony of NATO, Karat explained this predicament in terms of the shift away from anti-imperialism and stressed that for the reconstitution of the Left, the cardinal principle is the recognition of and struggle against Imperialism. Analysing the popular protests and struggles in Europe, he underlined the fact that these protests can only be effective if there is an organised Left political force and working class movement. He took the example of Greece where a communist party with substantial mass base and a strong trade union exist and thus the radical demand of giving up Euro is voiced strongly in the popular protests. Without belittling the defensive struggles waged across Europe he said that it needs to be kept in mind that in the absence of a political agency no new headway can be made. He also pointed this out in case of Egypt and Tunisia where the working class ferment has been the bedrock of mass upsurge. Prakash Karat underlining the progressive aspects of the popular protests in Arab world , categorically stated that whatever happens in Egypt one thing is certain that there is no going back to the earlier order. Karat also underlined the necessity of learning from the experiments in Latin America, especially in Venezuela and Bolivia, where the possibilities for socialism are being explored.

Taking the discussion of building socialism in current situation forward, Karat stated that there is no going back to the socialism of 20th century and in many aspects the socialism of the 21st century will be different from its 20th century counterpart. Stressing that one has to see the socialism of the 20th century as a product of a specific historical conjuncture, he underlined the necessity of deciding upon the aspects of 20th century socialism which need to be carried forward and ones to be discarded. However, he made it clear that this decision is to be based on the relevance or irrelevance of these aspects and not on any moral or political judgment. Karat clearly stated that in the vision for socialism, working class cannot be written off as a vast mass of wage labourers still exists in spite of the restructuring of labour process. Taking a cue from Lenin, he pointed out that within proletariat many sections exist and as the big sections are out of the formal industrial sector, new ways of organisation have to be devised and trade unions are trying to come to terms with this challenge. Highlighting the necessity for keeping the concrete situation in mind, he added that if CPI(M) escaped from the dismantling effects of the collapse of USSR (unlike many communist parties, especially in Europe) it was because we were aware of its imperfections. He also underlined significance of CPI(M)'s engagement with parliamentary democracy. While concluding Karat emphasised three issues as those of vital importance to the struggle for building socialism, namely anti-imperialism, struggle against Indian bourgeoisie, which is growingly collaborating with imperialism, and the struggle for social justice.

Peoples Democracy

who cares..?

The Poverty Of Estimates

By Devinder Sharma

26 September, 2011
Ground Reality

Everyone seems upset. Ironically, more upset with the definition of the poverty line and the criteria that has now become the butt of a national joke, are the economists and of course some members of the high-profile National Advisory Council. They have been doing the rounds of the TV channels expressing dismay at the threshold of what Planning Commission constitutes as the poverty line.

I was amused watching them express their concerns. In many ways it is like shedding crocodile tears. Amused because these were the same people who were either responsible for drafting the poverty line or were in a way the silent spectators. They had never challenged the 'below the poverty line' (BPL) criteria. Perhaps by remaining quiet or turning a blind eye to the gross injustice being perpetuated by the planners on country's vast army of poor and downtrodden, these economists stood to gain. I see no other reason why the entire community of economists had silently been using the same fraudulent BPL norms that they now find fault with (believe it or not, some of the most distinguished names are associated with the formulation of the poverty line).

This is what constitutes conspiracy of silence.

I have no hesitation in saying that the entire controversy following the questioning of the BPL norms by the Supreme Court has actually brought the economist class into disgrace. For nearly 50 years, they had not only prepared but also backed a bogus poverty estimate. They went on using the same useless poverty estimates into all their economic analysis. I wonder with such a faulty foundation what kind of analysis these economists must have produced. How reliable is their analysis, perhaps we will get to know provided the Supreme Court now gets into questioning the merits of the econometric analysis (that uses the poverty data) has been churned out in volumes over the years.

I have also keenly followed many of the quick news analysis that many economists and others have written. This was expected. The best way to overcome your guilt is to paint a picture that show how pained you are now to know that Planning Commission's poverty line for urban areas is Rs 31/day and Rs 25/day for the rural areas. If you are earning more than this, you are above the poverty line. In reality, this estimate is nothing but a revised estimate based on the current prices. Otherwise, Tendulkar committee had earlier drawn a line of Rs 19 per day for the urban areas and Rs 14 for the rural areas. The parameters that go into defining this BPL criteria remain the same. (Spend Rs 32 a day? Govt says you can't be poor Times of India Sept 21, 2011 http://bit.ly/qMWYRc).

In an interesting piece Playing with numbers, and lives (Indian Express, Sept 23, 2011) Rajya Sabha MP Brinda Karat writes: "The National Advisory Council, headed by Sonia Gandhi, had in its draft also included a clause that 'identification will be based on the criteria notified by the Central government'. One wonders whether the veteran activists who were part of the drafting committee in NAC were unaware of the poverty line which at the stage of their drafting was even lower than the Rs 26 line they are so articulately criticising today." She is referring to the public outcry being made by Aruna Roy, Jean Derez and N C Saxena.

I have always considered India's poverty line to be actually a starvation line. For over a decade now, I have been questioning the wisdom of fixing a stringent poverty line in which you can't even feed a dog. How can a human being survive in that amount? But believe me, none of the economists or NAC members (I am not sure of there is an exception) ever stood up to pose the same questions. They were very happy following the poverty prescription laid out. They obviously stood the gain by not questioning the poverty norms.

I have been asked as to what I think should be the way to determine real poverty. You can read what I had to say when the NAC came up with what I consider is yet another faulty path to removing hunger (Path to hell they say is paved with good intentions.http://bit.ly/iB2HDj). I also draw your attention to another article How to keep poverty low http://bit.ly/o60BsA. In my opinion, what India needs is not one poverty line. We need two lines: Poverty Line (what Arjun Sengupta committee worked out at 77 per cent population unable to spend more than Rs 20 a day), and an Antyodaya Line comprising 37.2 per cent of the population (which incidentally is the present poverty line).

the Hippocratic capitalism

Hypocrisy Of The ‘Poverty Line’: Seven Times
Below The Stipulated Minimum wage!

By Peoples Union for Democratic Rights

26 September, 2011
PUDR wishes to draw public attention to the recent controversy where Planning Commission informed the Supreme Court that anyone earning more than Rs 32 in urban and Rs 26 in rural areas per day is considered above the poverty line. Article 43 of India’s Constitution lays down that “(t)he state shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities”. India’s low ranking in major human development indices and the fact that an overwhelming majority of the population continue to be denied this conceptualisation of what would be considered a “fair wage”, raises disturbing questions with regard to the official standpoint on poverty.

In 1957 at the 15th Indian Labour Conference (ILC) moves were made towards setting down norms for fixing Minimum Wage, a euphemism for a “living wage.’’ The 15th ILC recommended that in the first place the standard working class family should be taken to mean husband, wife and two children below the age of 14 yrs. Second, minimum food requirement should be calculated on the basis of 2700 calories daily per adult man, 2160 for woman and 1620 for the child. Further clothing requirement of 72 yards for a family per annum would be added while housing allowance corresponding to the minimum area provided for under the governments industrial housing schemes. Lastly fuel, lighting and other items of expenditure should constitute 20 percent of the total Minimum Wage.

While the Government did not accept these recommendations, Supreme Court approved these norms through its judgement in the case of U.Unichoyi v. State of Kerala (AIR 1962 SC 12) and thereby acquiring the force of law behind it. The apex court through its judgement in Workmen v. Reptakos Brett & Co Ltd (AIR 1992 SC 504) added a sixth norm – 25 percent of the total Minimum Wage was supposed to cover children’s education, medical treatment, recreation etc. The Court observed that these six norms would be nothing more than Minimum Wage at “subsistence level” which the workers must get “at all times and under all circumstances”.

Adherence to the six norms, let alone the five norms laid down by the 15th ILC, has been followed in breach. As a "living wage", at current wage rates declared under Minimum Wage Act, comes to Rs 247 per day for unskilled. Rs 32 touted by the Planning Commission as "below poverty line" is less than seven times the Minimum Wage which itself is a "subsistence wage". Thus Minimum Wage is seven times that of BPL rate. What this implies is that mass of our people are being robbed of their right to life by artificial constructions of poverty line. PUDR reiterates that the letter and spirit of Article 43 which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy be the basis for providing basic requirement to all citizens of India so that their right to a life of dignity and liberty can be ensured.

Harish Dhawan and Paramjeet Singh
Secretaries PUDR

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: GLORIOUS STRUGGLE IN MARUTI SUZUKI

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: GLORIOUS STRUGGLE IN MARUTI SUZUKI: Has Manesar Become Suzukiland? IN the midst of the ongoing industrial unrest, caused by premeditated provocative actions by Maruti Suzuki ...

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: തൊഴിലില്ലായ്മ മൂര്‍ഛിക്കുന്നു

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: തൊഴിലില്ലായ്മ മൂര്‍ഛിക്കുന്നു: സാമ്രാജ്യത്വ ആഗോളവല്‍ക്കരണ അജണ്ടയുടെ ഭാഗമായി ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ പുത്തന്‍ സാമ്പത്തിക ഉദാരവല്‍ക്കരണനയങ്ങള്‍ നടപ്പാക്കപ്പെട്ടു തുടങ്ങിയിട്ട് രണ്ട് പതി...

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: പുതിയ പെന്‍ഷന്‍ പദ്ധതി ഭീകരമായ പകല്‍ക്കൊള്ള

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: പുതിയ പെന്‍ഷന്‍ പദ്ധതി ഭീകരമായ പകല്‍ക്കൊള്ള: തങ്ങളുടെ സാമ്പത്തിക പ്രതിസന്ധിക്ക് പരിഹാരം കാണുന്നതിന് തൊഴിലാളികളുടെ ചോര ഊറ്റിയെടുക്കാന്‍ നവഉദാരവല്‍ക്കരണ സര്‍ക്കാരുകള്‍ പലവിധത്തില്‍ ഗൂഢാലോ...

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: The Union Cabinet gets healthier

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: The Union Cabinet gets healthier: The worse off the poor become, the healthier our Ministers get. Air India might not be doing as well we'd like it to. But the braveheart wh...

: ഹിന്ദി ബെല്‍റ്റില്‍ ഇടതുപക്ഷമുണ്ടോ?A.R.Sindhu

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: ഹിന്ദി ബെല്‍റ്റില്‍ ഇടതുപക്ഷമുണ്ടോ?: കേന്ദ്രസര്‍ക്കാറിന്റെ വാര്‍ഷിക വ്യാവസായിക സ്ഥിതിവിവരകണക്കുകള്‍ പറയുന്നത് സംഘടിത നിര്‍മ്മാണ മേഖലില്‍ ഉല്‍പ്പാദന മൂല്യവര്‍ദ്ധനവിലെ കൂലിവിഹിതം ...

: എന്തുകൊണ്ട് ഇടതുപക്ഷം?Dr.Prabhath Patnaik

വര്‍ക്കേഴ്സ് ഫോറം: എന്തുകൊണ്ട് ഇടതുപക്ഷം?: ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ജനാധിപത്യം തന്നെ ഒരു 'സാമൂഹ്യപരിവര്‍ത്തനത്തി'ന്റെ ഉല്‍പ്പന്നമാണ് കുറച്ചു കാലമായി ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ സുപ്രധാനമായ ഒരു മാറ്റം സംഭവിച്ചുകൊണ...

KARAL MARX WAS RIGHT

Nouriel Roubini, the Man Who Predicted the 2008 Crisis: Marx Was Right, Capitalism Could Destroy Itself

Posted by Brandon Callahan on Aug 13 2011. Filed under Featured News, Politics.

The man that predicted the 2008 crisis, economist Nouriel Roubini, believes that the chance of us experiencing a return to recession is over 50%, and the next two to three months will be decisive for the direction for the world economy.

Currently, the economy is affected by reduced consumption, especially due to reluctance of firms to make new employment and investment to give an impulse to the economy, and almost nothing can be done to improve the situation, said economist Nouriel Roubini in an interview for the Wall Street Journal.

“To deal with large debt you should spend less in both the public and private sectors, to save more, and reduce overtime. Also, to avoid a second recession, bank policies should be more relaxed”, said Roubini.

“There is too much debt, in the private sector and the government. You can’t get out of debt except by saving, by strong economic growth or the dangerous method of inflation”, says Roubini. “But if consumption of population and businesses does not restart , then the risk is to remain in recession”.

“Business does not help the economy, because there are risks. They do not invest because there is excess capacity, not hiring because there is not sufficient demand. Here is the paradox: if you do not hire workers, there is insufficient income for workers, there is not sufficient consumer confidence, there is not enough consumption, there is not enough final demand”, says Roubini.

Capitalism can destroy itself

“The capitalist system is about to enter into a destructive loop, in which each tries to save from, without care for the general interest”, says Roubini.
“In the last 2-3 years the situation has worsened. We had a massive redistribution of income from labor market to capital, from wages to profits, the inequality in income and wealth has increased. The tendency of businesses to spend is reduced than the one of population and companies can afford to save more than the population. Redistribution of income and wealth make the lack of aggregate demand even worse.

Karl Marx was right, at some time, capitalism can destroy itself. You can’t move income from work to capital without having an excess of capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. This is what happens. We thought that markets work, but they don’t. It is a destructive process”, says the economist, who added that, although we’re not at this stage, the risk of a new recession is over 50%.

Bush to blame for the situation of U.S.

The economist believes that blame for the current financial situation of the country lies with George W. Bush. ”When Obama came to power, he inherited a huge budget deficit”, says the economist. “When Bush took over the country, the U.S. had a surplus of $300 billion. How did this happen?

We have reduced taxes in 2001-2003, we spent money on two wars lost just from the beginning, the spending has doubled, we provided benefits and have neglected the supervision of banking system that caused the biggest financial crisis. So there were five factors that have led from a large surplus to a huge deficit. Do not blame Obama. U.S. economic sustainability was destroyed before his coming”, says Roubini.

Riots like those in London could happen anywhere

Roubini argues that the riots as they were in London, can break in any country. “They started in the Middle East because of poverty, unemployment, but the same dissatisfaction exists in Israel and the United Kingdom. These inequalities, the lack of jobs and income, and lack of economic growth can lead to social and political instability in any country. Even in China, where the economy is slowing down and inequality increases. And in the U.S. as well”, Roubini believes.

Economists believe that austerity measures will push the countries even deeper in recession, including Britain, France and USA, which have not yet lost access to markets, but there is immense pressure. Roubini’s short-term solution is to encourage economy through higher deficits, and, for medium and long term, a strategy that promises to reduce indebtedness, as the economy enters a growth cycle.

Roubini keeps his money in cash

The well-known economist prefers to keep his money in cash and avoid risky assets, as he advises his customers. He believes that gold is good investment in times of economic uncertainty, especially because it is an antidote to inflation, although he sees limited risk in this direction.

Short URL: http://www.dailypressdot.com/?p=3251

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

The Left in Decline By: Prabhat Patnaik

Vol XLVI No.29 July 16, 2011

Empiricisation or the pursuit of a political praxis that is uninformed by the project of transcending capitalism was ultimately responsible for the defeat of the CPI(M) in West Bengal. It is this empiricisation that is far more worrying than the electiondefeat itself.In a period when many have abandoned the concept of imperialism, the CPI(M) remains steadfast in its adherence to this concept; as long as the concept and the project remain valid, the historical relevance of the party remains unimpaired. But if the party does not arrest the process of empiricisation it has been experiencing and finally ends up accepting the hegemony of bourgeois theory, then it will get supplanted by some other communist formation subscribing to a theoretical position similar to what it has today.

[Non-incriminating thanks are due to Rajendra Prasad, Akeel Bilgrami, Utsa Patnaik, C P Chandrasekhar, Jayati Ghosh and Nishad Patnaik all of whom were kind enough to read through and comment upon an earlier draft of this paper.]

[Prabhat Patnaik (prabhatptnk@yahoo.co.in) recently retired from the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.]

It is ironical that the very process that has brought about the decline of the CPI(M) is being suggested by many as the panacea for its revival. I shall call this process which has caused the decline, a process of “empiricisation”, by which I mean the pursuit of a political praxis that is uninformed by the project of transcending capitalism. Of course the ripening of a revolutionary situation occurs only sporadically. For long stretches of time therefore the political praxis to be pursued appears mundane and pedestrian, and consti­tutes what B T Ranadive used to call “the small change of politics”. But even “the small change of politics” for a communist party must be informed by the project of transcending capitalism, and when this does not occur we have only “the small change of politics” per se, i e, empiricisation. This process of empiricisation, which is ultimately responsible also for the election defeat in West Bengal, is far more worrying for any Left sympathiser than the election defeat itself, for an election defeat may well get reversed the next time around, but it is much more difficult to reverse a process of empiricisation. Since a necessary condition for a reversal of empiricisation is an awareness of its occurring, I shall concern myself here with a discussion of this process. This may also help to prevent further deliberate empiricisation in a desperate bid for rejuvenation.

What distinguishes a communist party is not that it does not “soil its hands” with mundane, empirical, everyday politics (that would be barren ultra-Leftism), but that its process of engagement even with politics at this level is imbricated by its project of transcending capitalism, informed by a consciousness of what Lukacs (1924) had called “the actuality of the revo­lution”. To be animated by the “actuality of the revolution” does not mean to believe that the revolution is around the corner; it only means that the engagement with the “small change of politics” is on the basis of a theory that spans the entire distance b­etween quotidienne politics and the project of transcending capitalism. If this theory linking the “here and now” to the overall project of transcendence is absent from the praxis engaged in “here and now”, then we have a process of empiricisation of the movement.

Four Tendencies Arising from Empiricisation

Such empiricisation in the context of our polity gives rise to at least four kinds of tendencies: first, it gives rise to the range of “sins” attributed to the party by its opponents, and even mentioned in the self-critical documents of the party itself as afflicting it at various levels, such as c­areerism, “satrapism”, bureaucratism, and bossism at local level. Second, it gives rise to a tendency to “adjust” to given situations to prevent losses, instead of carrying it forward as a part of revolutionary praxis. This in turn entails a process of alienation of the party from the “basic classes” that it is supposed to struggle for, viz, the workers, peasants, agricultural labourers, and the rural poor. The “party’s interests” are seen in isolation from, and as being d­istinct from, the interests of the basic classes, and for the defence of the “party’s i­nterests” immediate, “here and now” measures are thought of and resorted to, which may well diverge from the interests of the basic classes. Third, empiricisation leads to a shrinking of the distance between the communist party and the other political formations.

All this has been visible for some time now, including especially in West Bengal where the alienation of the CPI(M) from the basic classes (especially the peasantry) led to its electoral defeat after 34 years of Left Front rule. But the fourth feature of empiricisation, a basic one, is that it tends to produce further empiricisation, giving rise to a dialectic. And if the process is a­llowed to continue unchecked, then it leads eventually to the party’s being hegemonised by the ideology of capitalism, to its rejection of the concept of imperialism which underlay the original split in the Second International and the very formation of the communist movement, and to a virtual disappearance of the difference between the communists and other political formations. At that point, even if the communists (or whatever other name they choose to call themselves by, at that date) win elections and form governments on their own, it makes little substantive difference either to the project of transcendence of capitalism or even to the conditions of the basic classes.

Two caveats are in order here. First, the CPI(M), though launched on this process of empiricisation, is still far from any such dire scenario. Its empiricisation therefore must not be overstressed. The very fact that it pulled out its support from the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, even though such pulling out damaged its “party interests” in an immediate sense, and evoked criticism even from its self-confessed well-wishers like Amartya Sen, shows paradoxically the degree to which it still remains free of empiricisation. The point is not whether it handled the entire episode of the nuclear deal well; it certainly did not. But the point is that on an issue which it perceived as being linked to imperialist hegemony over the country, it did not put any “party interest” above what it saw as the class interests of the “basic classes”. This fact underscores the extent of its freedom from empiricisation. Likewise the fact that at this very moment, thousands of party cadre in West Bengal are facing the most severe repression for the “sin” of remaining committed to the cause that the party stands for, underscores the vitality of the party. The fact that this vitality has not been snapped as yet by going too far down the road of empiricisation.

Second, this process of empiricisation is, if anything, even more pronounced in the case of the other segments of the Left, especially those who claim to be to the left of the CPI(M). Some of them have even gone to the extent of joining the “anti-­corruption” movement of Anna Hazare which epistemologically substitutes itself for “the people” (and does not just theoretically argue for positions which it perceives to be in the people’s ­interests), without any mandate from the latter; and claims superiority over the body which does actually have, under the terms of the Constitution, mandate from the people, namely Parliament; and thereby undermines the democratic ­order to push to the forefront a “chosen few”. (The Maoists no doubt are a separate category; but, chasing a will-o’-the-wisp in the jungles of central India, they have taken themselves, paradoxically, out of any mainstream a­nti-imperialist revolutionary project.)

2

The question that naturally arises is: why did such empiricisation occur in the ranks of the Left, and in particular of the CPI(M)? Some would argue that this is an inevitable outcome of parliamentary politics, but that is a complete non sequitur. Revolutionary politics, as Lenin always emphasised, thrives best when the revolutionary forces have complete freedom of operation, which is why bourgeois formations are forever trying to roll back the freedom of operation, that comes with parliamentary democracy, for the political formations that speak for “basic classes”. The role of the Left therefore, far from shunning parliamentary democracy, must be both to participate in its institutions and to struggle for a deepening of their democratic content. This has been so much a part of Marxist understanding that no less a revolutionary than Rosa Luxemburg had actually wanted her party to participate in the parliamentary elections in Germany, and had not been in favour of the Spartacist uprising (though Karl Liebknecht had been); but she had been outvoted and had consequently led the uprising along with Liebknecht, in the course of which both were murdered.

To see empiricisation as the inevitable outcome of participating in parliamentary politics not only lacks theoretical validity, but represents a form of fetishism. Karl Marx in Capital had talked of “commodity fetishism”, where social relations were perceived as relations between things, and the origin of surplus value was located in some mystical properties of the things constituting means of production. Here we have a situation where mystical powers are being attributed to parliamentary institutions per se.

Revisionist Theoretical Understanding

One obvious cause for such empiricisation that Marxist theory has always emphasised is of course the development of a r­evisionist theoretical understanding. The material basis of such a development has also been much discussed in the Marxist literature, and has been typically located in the fact that a section of the working class becomes a beneficiary of the fruits of imperialist exploitation.

In Margarethe Von Trotta’s 1986 film Rosa Luxemburg there is a telling scene that captures the tendency towards empiricisation. The e­ntire social democratic leadership of G­ermany is sitting around a lunch table and Karl Kautsky tells Rosa Luxemburg, who was then engaged, along with Clara Zetkin and Franz Mehring, in a struggle to uphold the revolutionary tradition of the party: “Rosa, why don’t you ­involve yourself more in the women’s question?” The unspoken part of Kautsky’s question obviously is: “why do you bother about issues of imperialism and revolution?” We have here a double empiricisation: the “women’s question” is sought to be empiricisd by being detached from the overall revolutionary movement, and an outstanding revolutionary is being asked to submerge herself in something that is so detached from the revolutionary movement.

But when there is no obvious change in the theoretical understanding of a party, and no obvious material basis, of the sort emphasised by Lenin and others (viz, the improved material condition of a section of the “basic classes” made possible through the “super-exploitation” of o­thers), that could be adduced as causing such a change in theoretical understanding, then the phenomenon of empiricisation still r­emains to be explained. One circumstance that does induce such empiricisation is when the popular movement reaches a plateau, when it stagnates. Stagnation gives rise to the apprehension that there may be a slideback; to prevent such a slideback all sorts of temporary expedients are resorted to which mark the beginning of empiricisation, but such empiricisation contributes further to the stagnation of the movement, causing further r­esort to empiricisation, and thereby setting up, as mentioned e­arlier, a dialectic of empiricisation.

Such a dialectic is illustrated by a story about Czechoslovakia in 1968. During the “Prague Spring”, when Alexander Dubcek’s group was having discussions with the representatives of the Soviet Union (prior to Dubcek’s removal by the Soviets), they pointed out that “Prague Spring” should not be blighted since it would have a remarkable impact on the Left movement in western Europe. To this the Soviet representatives’ reply was: “Don’t talk nonsense, there is no possibility of any expansion of the Left in western Europe!”.¹ Dubcek’s removal certainly eliminated any residual possibility of an expansion of the Left in western Europe. The process of empiricisation in the Soviet Union was itself a response to the stagnation of the Left in western Europe, and it consisted in consolidating its hold on whatever it controlled in eastern Europe without “risking” any “Prague Springs”. But this served precisely to reinforce further the stagnation of the Left in western Europe.

CPI(M)’s Situation

The CPI(M) has been in a somewhat similar situation. Its strength has remained confined to just a few regions of the country. In these regions too the base it has was created through struggles undertaken during the 1930s and the 1940s, and though there has been a subsequent expansion of this base (otherwise it would not have got the massive electoral support it did in the three states it ruled), that expansion has also reached a plateau. Its primary response to this stagnation has been to consolidate, the way it sees best, what it already has; and this fact itself has contributed to its stagnation. For instance, its attempt to pursue “industrialisation” in West Bengal in a bid to consolidate itself there by preventing possible middle class alienation from it, which it sees as essential in a context where the party is not growing elsewhere, has actually also stood in the way of the party’s growth elsewhere. Its capacity to take up peasant struggles against land alienation, which is the principal issue of struggle all over the country at present, has been hamstrung by its loss of credibility because of incidents like Singur.

But while stagnation may tend to induce empiricisation, both stagnation and empiricisation cannot be dissociated from the broader international context within which the CPI(M) has had to operate. The collapse of the Soviet Union has dealt a massive blow to the socialist project; and even though the CPI(M), as a disciplined party, has not suffered in terms of an erosion in its ranks, the damage to the core of its inner convictions is undeniable. The natural tendency has been to repose faith in China despite all misgivings about the trajectory it is following; and the remarkable economic “success” of China has bolstered such faith. In the process, however, the party which once had the courage to take on ideologically both the Soviet U­nion and China, because, respectively, of their Right and Left deviations, has been remarkably reticent in expressing any rese­r­­vations in public (notwithstanding per­vasive private reservations) about China’s development from a socialist perspective. What is more, China’s apparent “success” has created a tendency within the party for accepting economic policies, such as providing incentives to corporate capital in states where it is in power, which would have been anathema some years ago. I­ndeed, within the overall context of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most potent factor behind the empiricisation of the party has been the influence of the C­hinese example.

3

There has been an additional factor at work as well. And this relates to the fact that in communist literature, the question “what after land reforms?” has not received as satisfactory an answer as it requires. Lenin’s classic formulation in Two Tactics of Social Democracy which had been written in the Russian context but had provided the theoretical foundation for communist practice in the 20th century in countries, where the bourgeoisie arrived late on the historical scene, ran as follows:

The proletariat must carry the democratic revolution to completion, allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush the autocracy’s resistance by force and paralyse the bourgeoisie’s instability. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, allying to itself the mass of the semi-­proletarian elements of the population, so as to crush the bourgeoisie’s resistance by force and paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie (1977, 494).

While the first part of the statement was clearly understood and implemented by third world communist revolutionary movements, the transition from the first to the second, when it should occur, what should be the correlation of class forces to be aimed at, what in particular should be the attitude of the socialist revolution to the peasantry, remained vexed questions. From the episode of collectivisation in the Soviet Union (even if one accepts that there was no alternative to it at the time because of kulak resistance) to the Great Leap Forward in China (even if one believes that the problem with the Great Leap was not that it was conceptually wrong but that its timing turned out to be unfortunate), this second stage of the transition is where problems have arisen, derailing, in each instance, the entire s­ocialist project.

What after Agrarian Reforms?

If this problem, of how do we follow up the initial breakthrough by way of carrying forward the democratic revolution through agrarian reforms, has vexed the communist revolutionary project, it has by no means been absent even in cases like India where the Left has led state governments within an overall bourgeois order. Since the proletariat proper, consisting of production workers in the modern sector of the economy, has typically been too small in such states, the slogan of industrialisation, even on the basis of reliance on large private corporate capital, has tended to gather momentum, and this in turn has given rise, at the conceptual level, to a “stage theory”: let us follow up land reforms by developing capitalism first, and at the next stage we shall think of socialism.

A stage theory, however, is a direct theoretical expression of the process of empiricisation. This may appear odd at first sight: many would even consider the Marxist theory of history itself to be an example of “stage theory”. But this is erroneous, since Marxism does not just describe “stages” or divide history into different stages corresponding to different modes of production but seeks to explain the d­ynamics of history, the transition, if at all, from one stage to another.²

More pertinently, it may be thought that the project of building capitalism does after all link the “here and now” to the revolution, since it is sustained by a perception of the revolution. But this is wrong: the building of capitalism requires a suppression of the basic classes, while the transcendence of capitalism requires an activation of the basic classes. The presumption behind a stage theory approach, if it is adopted by the communists therefore, is that at some point the very same party which presides over the suppression of the basic classes will suddenly and mysteriously start doing the exact opposite, and that the basic classes will follow it in either case, which is absurd. The party that presides over the building of capitalism will end up being no different from standard bourgeois parties; notwithstanding its lip service to the revolution therefore, building capitalism, like what any other bourgeois party tries to do, is an instance of empiricisation.

Forces Pushing Empiricisation

It follows that there are powerful forces in the current situation that push the Left t­owards empiricisation. The Left has to resist this push; it has to overcome empiricisation if the socialist project is to be carried forward. It must not only carry out struggles on the burning issues of the day wherever it can, undeterred by the empiricisation-dictated tactics of defending Left-led state governments whom such struggles may embarrass or threaten, but it must, even while running such state governments, ensure to the best of its ability that new ways are always innovated to advance the interests of the basic classes, to improve their material conditions so that their capacity to resist increases. All this is not easy, but the Left has to come to terms with this problem; and I believe, based on my reading of the Kerala LDF experience, that it is possible for the Left to come to terms with it.

4

What it must not do, however, is to pay heed to the friendly advice that is emanating from many quarters that it should get further empiricised in order to improve its position. There are two kinds of suggestions that have typically been advanced. The first states that the Left should b­ecome “social-democratic”, by which presumably is meant a dropping of its concept of imperialism, and hence by inference, an acceptance of the view that a humane society, which does not oppress other countries and peoples, is compatible with capitalism. This first suggestion amounts in short to asking the Left to abandon its entire transformational project.

Abandon the Basic Classes?

Now, if imperialism as a category did not actually exist, and was a mere figment of the Left’s imagination, the adherence to which was preventing the Left from fighting for the interests of the basic classes, then this advice would make eminent sense. But such advice is offered, not on the basis of any argument that imperialism does not exist, but on the grounds that the Left would “grow” if it abandoned such baggage. This is nothing else but empiricisation: it amounts to saying that to serve its own “party interests” the Left should abandon the interests of the basic classes it is supposed to represent, who are everywhere getting squeezed by the neo-liberal policies imposed by inter­national finance capital which constitutes the core of contemporary imperialism. This would amount in short to a self-­obliterating act on the part of the Left as Left, no matter what electoral dividends it brings in its wake.

The second suggestion talks of an Indian Left outside of the large communist parties, which together with progressive civil society groups that are taking up ­particular local issues in various parts of the country, can constitute an “Indian New Left” that can carry forward popular move­ments. Some versions of it visualise the inclusion of communists other than the CPI(M) in such a coalition; others may be “generous” enough to include even the CPI(M) provided it drops some of its s­pecific characteristics. Now, a common feature of virtually all such groups that are supposed to constitute the core of the ­so-called “Indian New Left” is that they do not accept the category of imperialism. They may recognise and be opposed to specific “imperialist” acts like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, or the bombing of Libya, but they do not see ­imperialism as a structural characteristic of capitalism.

The practical necessity for the transcendence of capitalism has been argued over the last hundred years on the basis of this structural characteristic of capitalism. A theoretical abandonment of this concept, for which, I repeat, no argument has been advanced, is tantamount to an abandonment of the project of transcending capitalism. It entails being incorporated within the system, fighting no doubt on behalf of the people on specific issues, but leaving its overall structure intact. It amounts, even in theory, to fighting merely for reforms within capitalism, and not for socialism.

Question of Capitalism vs Socialism

It may of course be thought that socialism is a pie in the sky, while fighting for reforms is a concrete means for improving the conditions of the people. For instance a movement for the advancement of the dalits, or for improving the condition of women can achieve much, without necessarily getting embroiled in questions of capitalism versus socialism. But this is an erroneous impression. Any improvement in the condition of rural women or any d­ecisive blow against the caste system requires a breaking up of the old pre-capitalist “community”. Capitalism historically had done precisely that in its metropolitan base and the socialist project entailed the coming into being of a new “community” that is voluntarily entered into and is based on the position of individuals, ­uprooted from their original habitats, in the new production process that comes into being. But capitalism in our country, notwithstanding its apparently vigorous development, is failing precisely to break the old “community” because of its incapacity to absorb the individuals uprooted from their traditional habitats into a new proletariat, thanks to the phenomenon of “jobless growth”. This is the reason high growth rates coexist with khap panchayats; and as long as institutions like khap panchayats exist, the fetters upon the social advance of dalits or women will remain strong, which is why capitalism versus socialism remains as v­ital a question today as it ever was.³

Everybody, of course, is free to choose his or her political praxis and some may choose to be reformists without any ­pro­ject of transcending capitalism. But this, according to Marxist theory is erroneous praxis, not because one is ordained to desire socialism, but because no amount of fight for reforms can possibly make capitalism into a humane society, a proposition whose invalidity to my mind has not yet been established.

In a period when large numbers of people have abandoned the concept of imperialism, from “paid hirelings” of finance capital, to many western Marxists, to ­“official” spokesmen in China, to even third world intellectuals in countries like India, who willy-nilly are dazzled by the so-called high growth rates that have brought palpable benefits to the middle class, the CPI(M) remains steadfast in its adherence to this concept and hence to the entire project of transcendence, intellectually built around it by Lenin and others. As long as the concept and the project remain valid, the historical relevance of the CPI(M) remains unimpaired. And if perchance the party does not arrest the pro­cess of empiricisation it has been experiencing, and finally ends up accepting the hegemony of bourgeois theory, then it will get supplanted by some other communist formation subscribing to a theoretical p­osition similar to what it has today. But no coalition of reformist forces, no matter how well-meaning and serious, can possibly replace the communists as defenders of the interests of the basic classes. All this however does not preclude their working together on common issues.

Notes

1 This was narrated by an exiled member of Dubcek’s team at a meeting of the Tawney Group (of Left faculty members) in Cambridge, UK, in the early 1970s where I had been present.

2 For a critique of stage theory from a Marxist perspective, see the review of W W Rostow’s book The Stages of Economic Growth by Baran and Hobsbawm (1961).

3 For an elaboration of this argument see Patnaik (2011).

References

Baran, P A and E J Hobsbawm (1961): “The Stages of Economic Growth”, Kyklos, May.

Lenin, V I (1977): Selected Works (in Three Volumes), Volume 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers).

Lukacs, Georg (1924): Lenin: A Study of the Unity of His Thought, re-published by New Left Books, London, 1970.

Patnaik, P (2011): “Globalisation and Social Progress”, Social Scientist, January-February.

‘PEOPLE AGAINST GLOBALISATTION’{PAG} - A WEAPON FOR AGITATIONS- CROSSING 10 YEARS OF EXISTENCE

PEOPLE AGAINST GLOBALISATION (PAG) STARTED AS A LEAFLET OF 4 PAGES IN AUGUST 1999 FROM Calicut city. NOW crossing 10 YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE.. INITIALLY with no cover price, From 2002 onwards, [18^th issue] it became a 16 page magazine with a price of Rs. 5/-

IN SEPT. 2001, PAG’s First special issue in Book Form “Agolavalkaranathinte Oru Dashabdam”{a decade of globalization} was published. Even without a distribution network,only through Deshabimani Book Houses and direct sales at the state conferences venues of left trade unions, more than 5000 copies distributed.. Next year our 2^nd special Issue Kathunnathu arude chithayanu”{whose funeral pyre is burning} Part 2 of the issue “a decade of globalization” was also published. [more than 6000 copies distributed..}

By this time, PAG became an active participant in the anti imperialist struggles in Kerala through its heart breaking campaign materials..Chintha Weekly [official organ of CPIM in Kerala] and Com. P. Govindapillai, the veteran Marxist ideologue praised PAG as an “ANTI IMPERIALIST ROAR”..

After the Gujarath communal riots we published our 3^rd special in December 2002 titled as ”Janathipathyathil facisathinu Oru Muriyundu”..{There is a Room for Fascism in Democracy} widely circulated and accepted by the people of Kerala as a a weapon for the fight against communalism, 10000 copies were distributed...

In 2003 December, a special Book dealing with privatization of education, and Water in Kerala was published. It was titled as “chavittiyarakkan kuninju kodukkunna keralam”

In Dec. 2004 a special book on Chinese socialism” Chainayil Smabhavikkunnathu” {What is going on in China..} was published. It was our 5^th Anniversary Issue.

In 2006 at the eve of Loksabha election PAG published its 6th^th special Book “Irul moodunna Indiayilude”{a journey through the darkening India} It was appreciated as the best ever campaign material for the General election.. More than 6000 copies distributed.. In 2007 December, our 7^th special Book was published. Titled as “Jalayudham Murukunnu”{water war is on}, a complete and comprehensive text on water privatization in our world..

In 2008 December, PAG’s 8^th special Book “ Socialisathinte Varthamanam, bhavi..”[The present and future of socialism} a collection of articles of Dr. Prabhath Patnaik, was published.

In 2009 March, 9^th special book “ Irupathionnam noottandil Indian Thozhilai Vargam”{Indian working class in 21^st Century} was published. It was a detailed study of the condition of Indian working class, the pathetic picture of unorganized labour, agricultural workers, child labour, with special reference to the condition of women workers all over India. The Book was released by Com. K.N. Ravindranath, CITU State President, at Calicut.

In 2009 November.. PAG’s 10^th special Book “NAVALIBERALISM THAKARUMBOL EDATHUPAKASHAM ENTHU CHEYYANAM” {The Duty Of Left at the Time of Neoliberal Crisis.} was published , a collection of articles and interviews from Veteran Socialists Dr. SAMEER AMEEN and Dr. PRABHATH PATNAIK. More than 5000 COPIES distributed..

In 2009 December, PAG published its 11^th special Book “ Bhoomafiya .. Asian Karar.. Keralam Pidayunnu”{The Land Mafia and Asian Agreement .. Kerala FLUTTERRS}The book contains two interviews with Dr. K.N. Harilal..{Member, Planning Board, GOVT. OF KERALA } 3 editions in six months.

In 2010 January, our 12^th special Book a collection of articles written by Dr. M.K. Pandhe.., titled as ” Navalibaralism thakarumbool thozhilali varga kadamakal”{The Role of Working class at the time of Neoliberal crisis} was released at the State Conference of CITU , held at Trissur. The book was released by Com. M.M. Lawrence , General Secretary, CITU Kerala State Committee.

Again in March 2010 our 13^th special “Socialisathinte Innale Innu”[The Past &Present of Socialism} a collection of articles from various left ideologues like Com. EMS, Ijas Ahammed , Albert Einstian, Sitaram Yechury, Dr. K.N. Panikker etc. was published. Lastly in 2010 August..PAG published its 14^th special Book, “Swathwarashtreeyam, Rashtriya Islam, Maoism .. Oru Edathupaksha Vayana..”{Identity Politics, Political Islam,Maoism .. a Left Reading} was also published.. It was a detailed study on Identity politics and post Marxism.. It contains an interview with Dr. Sunil. P. Elayidam,{writer, Sr.Lecturer, Sree Sankaracharya University, Kalady}, and a detailed Interview with Dr. James Petra’s, veteran Sociologist and left ideologue, another interview with Dr. Sameer Ameen, one of the greatest sociologist and left ideologue of our times , & an article by Dr. Prabhath Patnaik.,one of the greatest Economists and Marxists of our times. The Book was released at a function held at Calicut on 15^th August 2010, by Com. A.K. Padmanabhan, All India President, CITU .

During this 10 years, we have published 70 monthly issues providing antiglobalisation campaign materials in all spheres of life.. It included the reports of antiglobalization Struggles world over & the ill effects of imperialist globalization in every walk of human life. Of course the campaign materials in a Marxist perspective. Today PAG is accepted as a true campaigner against imperialist globalization, and a true comrade of working class, in Kerala, with its small resources and firm left political convictions we believe.

It was started with the initiative of a small group of comrades from Kerala State General Insurance Employees Union at Calicut {named as “People Against Globalization”} under the leadership of Com. Ajayan,K (now the president of KSGIEU} in the year 1999..

ITS UNIQUENESS LIES IN ITS anti imperialist political commitments, its agitating language and its touching presentation, statistical supplementation, visionary interference on social issues , liberal on criticisms and in short its amateurism. PAG is not the brain child of any individual. On the other hand it is a natural product of anti imperialist struggles of All India Insurance Employees Association and other left trade Unions.

CITU All India President, Com. A.K.Padmanabhan, while releasing its last special book, remarked that “PAG has a special role in the history of left trade union movements in Kerala , and it was proved by its own ten years of existence, being accepted as a tool and campaigner against imperialism. Being a reader from its 1^st issue onwards, I would like to announce that the relentless struggle for its existence and visionary interference is proving that.. so PAG deserve our wholehearted help for its existence..”

We have around 2000 Annual subscribers and sell nearly 600 copies every month through DESHABIMANI Book Houses all over Kerala. Now PAG single copy is priced as Rs. 10/-{ Annual subscription is Rs. 100/-}

The 10^th anniversary of PAG is on now. The last 5 Special books were published to commemorate its 10th years of existence. In this series we wish to publish 5 more special Books before February 2011. To conclude the 10^th anniversary, KSGIEU & PAG workers have planned the following programmes.

1. To publish a Suvenir [Smaranika}, covering the activities of 10 years.

2. To conduct an All India Seminar on the Relevance of Marxism, at Calicut

3. A 2 day Workshop of Left Journalist and Editors of the House Magazines of Sister Trade Unions and Service Organizations in Kerala,

at Ernakulam during the month of January 2011.

Ajayan.K.

Editor/Convenor PAG,

Narmada, Karuvisserry,

Calicut.10, Kerala.

PH.9496134401

Email. pag.ajayan@gmail.com

Email. peopleagainstglobalisation@gmail.com