Struggle
India
____________________________________________________________
Dear friends,
In the Maoist view, bureaucrat capitalism is unique to
oppressed countries like India. Instilled and fostered by imperialism, it is
closely intertwined with feudalism and serves both imperialism and feudalism.
It acquires a monopoly character through state patronage, and the fortunes of
its various agents wax and wane in tune with the political clout they can
muster.
Bureaucrat capitalism is, most usually, considered
applicable to big capital only. Contrary to this, we think that it has a wider
field of operation. Its dynamics is seen throughout society, in every realm, be
it the economy, political system, social relations, culture or even the current
hot topic of corruption.
Preliminary observations indicate that the growth of
bureaucrat capitalism and the consequent, ongoing, restructuring of
semi-feudalism are spawning new forms of exploitation and domination. New modes
of exercising power and corresponding structures have emerged. It is this we
wish to probe in a specific field, namely at the level of the political
structure at the bottommost level of the state.
What are the factual data substantiating such
observations? How is the dialectics of removal/renovation seen in the
transformation of semi-feudalism manifested in them? What is the content and
form of political power exercised in such regions? What is the role played by
parliamentary political parties in mediating/manifesting these new modes of
political control? What is the role and function of panchayats, co-operatives
etc. in it? How is this integrated with overall governance and the state? What
are the challenges/opportunities all these pose before people’s movements?
Arriving at a comprehensive understanding of these
issues is no doubt a heavy task, made even more complex by the divergent
conditions of this vast country. Yet a beginning can be made by airing views
and engaging in debate. This is the inspiration for having a symposium on this
topic. Representative participation from different States and people’s
organisations will be of great help in getting acquainted with facets of the
issue, developing our knowledge about them, and thus being better equipped to
develop practice. We therefore hope you will join us to explore and debate, by
attending the symposium on
‘New Modes of Exercising Local Power’
at Kolkata.
on the 12th of November, 2011.
The exact venue and contact
information will be intimated later.
Awaiting your early reply,
with revolutionary greetings,
Contact: MN
Ravunni
MN Ravunni 09249713184 Acting
Secretary
Sukhendu
Sarkar 09163549272 Struggle India
This short comment follows from reading the two papers from Kerala and Bengal. The analysis here commits serious errors. The errors may be enlisted as follows.
ReplyDelete1) You are making a strong case of bureaucrat capitalism in relation to the farm sector long after it started contemplating to desert the farm sector. A successful desertion would imply a radical shift in the class configuration in the rural areas. The enemy which you identify today in Bengal and Kerala- PEASANT CAPITALISM- will simply collapse and you will find CORPORATE CAPITALISM replacing it. The desertion is very much on cards. It is on the immediate agenda of the comprodors. Trying to push FDI in retail is a case in point. Liberalization and bureaucrat capital do not go together. We are in an "era" of liberalization. The point is this. You will agree that the existence of the NOUVEAU FEUDAL CLASS is critically dependent on the bureaucrat capital. Once the former disappears, the latter will follow suit.
2) Following from the above is this. A serious disruption in the present class configuration in the countryside will give the revolutionaries an enormous opportunity to turn in to a revolutionary crisis. Your enemy class will find losing heavily both on account of its urban sources of income (retail trade in the main) and the landed source as well. A few among them may successfully come through it unscathed. But 90% of that class will stand to lose. In the event, it might choose to join you. Why foregoing such an opportunity?
3) Seen from the above backdrop, your theoretical frame- semi feudal and semi colonial- will prove to be not only facile but suicidal to the revolutionary cause. Revert to the nationality frame at the earliest so as to be able to address the larger cause of the largest number of sections/classes vis-a-vis comprodor-imperialist combine.
Wrapping it up, we would like to point to a few theoretical bits of interest as follows.
I) The bureaucrat capital held the countryside as the vast agrarian colony with an unmistakable objective of sub-serving the interests of the comprodors and their overseas masters. The feudal interest were never to be put on par with the interests of the dominant comprodor- imperial combine.
II) Holding the countryside as the vast colonial hang up has its own costs- political and economic. From the side of the comprodor interests, the huge subsidy burden is seen choking its own growth. From the political side, it is seen de-stabilising its core political bastion- the Delhi durbar. The agrarian colony nurtured and fed the the regional satraps. The green revolution undoubtedly gave rise to the nationality based regional political interests. Withdraw the bureaucrat capital, establish an all India as well as international market for agriculture produce, you will find regional parties sacked of their core political rational.
III) Sacked of the support of bureaucrat capital (comprodor/imperial combine capital indeed), the agrarian colony will come to an end. The farm sector will get decoupled from the industrial comprodor- imperial combines interest. The farm sector will be taken over by the multinational interests. In the event you have large scale industrial farming, which the Marxists might call as GROWTH OF CAPITALISM in agriculture. What we have today is small scale industrial farming. We will perhaps have large scale industrial farming tomorrow given the follies of revolutionaries.
In continuation of the above indeed-
ReplyDeleteA last word on the papers. The papers remind me of a document written by me still as a student as long back as in 1977. It was about my own village. The village witnessed a revolutionary upsurge in seventies. Simultaneously, green revolution was seen making a powerful mark too. The erstwhile feudal interests found sidelined in the very first flush of the Naxalbari awakening. The village soon came to be marked for its green revolution class configuration. Sooner than later, the mighty mass organization started breaking away on class lines. The rich found its way in to TDP. The BCs and SCs chose to join CPM. The parent party (ML led by CPR) was left with a small contingent of BC youth. My doc has foreseen the break up on class lines and advocated to take the SC as the core of the party even as BC is adjoined to it. The party did not heed to it. You are perhaps doing the same. It is good/ a basic requirement of a healthy class base of any revolutionary party. So far is so good. But the demands of revolution require us to locate the principal contradiction and identify the class forces willing to join you as part of the united front.