Check out a grafitti that i drew in facebook!

George Bush, Lenin and Neoliberalism

On 1st November 2007, speaking to an audience in Washington, George W Bush had likened Lenin to Osama bin Laden and Hitler. Understandably that drew sharp reactions from CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat. While both Osama bin Laden and Hitler have used religion for political mobilisation, Lenin suppressed religion in Russia in accordance with Marx’s maxim that “religion is the opium of the masses”.

“…Fascism virtually identified itself with an important element of Christianity. It considered religion as the manifestation of the deepest in man. It sought to defend and protect it. This view largely explains the cordial relations Mussolini had with the Pope. Extreme Nazism tried to create a state church but did not succeed much”
[V.R. Mehta, POLITICAL SCIENCE KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES, Textbook for Class XII, NCERT]

It is no secret that Osama is (or was!) profoundly anti-communist. So was Hitler. Then why did Bush care to liken Vladimir Lenin to Osama? Let us explore the possible justifications for such a remark by Bush:-

(1) One of the possible justifications for an analogy between Lenin and Osama is that both used violence to achieve political ends. However, such a justification is flawed because political movements (embodied in the personalities of Osama and Lenin) ought to be classified according to their respective ideologies rather than the means they adopt to realise their goals. Use of violence or of terrorism is just a means to achieve the ends, something that has been used not only by Osama and Lenin but also by many other political movements as well as nation states. Prof. Achin Vanaik, Head of Dept., Political Science, University of Delhi, in a lecture delivered in our college seminar hall on 7th November urged students to acknowledge the menace of ‘state-terrorism’ and categorically referred to USA, Israel and India being guilty of state terrorism. Also, while studying Lenin’s use of violence, it would be pertinent to bear in mind that the communist Russian state that Lenin created was rocked with the Civil War (1918-1920) and the intervention of Allied forces (of the First World War) in Russia against the Bolshevik government.

(2) Another possible justification for the likening of Lenin to Osama and Hitler is the alleged suppression of civil liberties in Soviet Union. However, suppression of civil liberties was also very visible during the McCarthy era (1940s to 1950s) of American politics in the name of anti-communism. Thus, the remarks of President Bush follow from more covert reasons rather than from any genuine historical/political reasoning.

Actually, since the end of the Second World War, there has been propaganda to portray communism and fascism (or Nazism) as similar and allies. The Non Aggression Pact (1939) between Germany and USSR is used as proof of covert alliance between communism and fascism, while the numerous pacts signed by Britain and France with Hitler in the 1930s are conveniently forgotten. Unfortunately, such kind of history writing is also gaining ground in India, especially since Hindu nationalists made an attempt to communalise school textbooks. The NCERT history textbook for class 12 that was introduced in 2003 and later removed by 2005 contained a chapter titled ‘Communism, totalitarianism and the Road to World War II’ which tried to convey that communism was as much responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War as was fascism! Such portrayal of communism and fascism as similar holds little water; fascism sought to promote and protect the interests of the middle class and supported institutions like the church, whereas communism has been very much against the middle class interests and religion. In the context of Bush’s remarks and also because we in India are much fed by the Western media, therefore a review of Lenin can be worth the effort.

Lenin remains one of the most influential thinkers in modern times. He added new dimensions to the existing Marxist thought. The pamphlet “What is to be Done” (1902) still remains one of the key treatises on mobilisation of workers. He made an important observation:

“…We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness…” [Lenin, ‘What is to be Done’ (1902) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm ]

Thus, Lenin doubted Marx’s claim that capitalism would inevitably lead to socialism through class action of the workers. Therefore, Lenin emphasised the need for a party that would educate the workers and guide them for their emancipation. Today almost all communist parties in different countries justify their very existence by Lenin’s ideas of the party.

In his day, Lenin was one of the most outstanding critics of the prevailing world economy dominated by monopoly capital and finance capital. Domination of ‘finance capital’ implied the transformation of bank capital into industrial capital, thereby transforming the bankers into capitalists. According to Lenin, “…The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry—such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of that concept…” [‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1916), Marxists Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm ] He explored the economics behind imperialism. For Lenin, the ‘social-chauvinism’, present in the advanced capitalist countries, which glorified colonisation, was not the main reason behind imperialism, but it was capitalism. And even the social-chauvinism that justified imperialism was not something exogenous, but actually a product of capitalism. Lenin, on analyzing Britain, detected the presence of ‘opportunism’ in the working class movement which led to increasing acceptance of imperialism. [refer to ‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1916), Marxists Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm ] This also explained as to why socialist movements were not successful in the highly industrialised countries, as against the predictions of Marx. Lenin provided five basic features of capitalism as follows:

“(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance…” [‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1916)]

Lenin concluded in the final chapter of ‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ “We have seen that in its economic essence imperialism is monopoly capitalism”. The following passage from a paper by Amiya Bagchi testifies the importance and influence of Lenin’s theory of imperialism:

“V.I. Lenin’s theory has so far been the most authoritative of all the theories put forward to explain the phenomenon of imperialism. For the same reason, it has been subjected to the greatest amount of sniping…” [Amiya K. Bagchi, Towards a Correct Reading of Lenin’s Theory, in ‘Lenin and Imperialism’ (edited by Prabhat Patnaik) (1986, Orient Longman)]

Also, Amiya Bagchi asserts that Lenin’s theory has as yet not lost its relevance, especially in the backdrop of rise of neoliberalism since 1970s. Neoliberalism basically refers to the revival of the faith in the efficiency and benignity of markets. Today’s neoliberalism promotes as much exploitation as imperialism did in Lenin’s times. Much similarity exists between the era of monopoly capital and today’s era of globalisation; the presence of finance capital has only got strengthened in world economy over the years. Therefore maligning Lenin can become quite handy for Bush (who may be considered to be an icon of neoliberalism), because a negative public image of Lenin can contribute towards a greater acceptance of neoliberalism.

Now let us briefly see how neoliberalism is akin to imperialism. The neo-liberal ideology today seeks to create a different king of imperialism through globalisation; the neo-liberal state is increasingly protecting only the interests of the bourgeois.

“…The so called “unipolar” world where all nation states “adjust” to the leading role of the US is in fact the coming into being of a surrogate global state to protect the interests of international finance capital…” [Prabhat Patnaik (2007), The State Under Neo-Liberalism, Social Scientist (Jan-Feb 2007)]

Also, the globalisation envisaged by neoliberalism does nothing to reduce the labour reserves of India and China. [Refer to Prabhat Patnaik (2007), Contemporary Imperialism and World's Labour Reserves, Social Scientist (May-June, 2007)]. Labour reserves or ‘the reserve army of the unemployed’ is an important prerequisite for capitalist exploitation. In India and china, growth has been largely export-oriented. While it is feasible for small countries to rely on exports for growth and for depletion of labour reserves, such a dependence on exports would yield little results in large countries like India and China. Because, reliance on export oriented growth requires constant upgradation of technology to retain international competitiveness. Thus increase in exports does not guarantee increase in employment, because upgradation in technology means more of labour saving techniques. Therefore, the need is to strengthen domestic demands since we cannot rely on exports totally. However neo-liberal ideology has a strong apathy for Govt. intervention.

Thus, we students need to unlearn the neo-liberal propaganda and frame our perceptions more objectively by studying different and conflicting viewpoints.

America's Place in History

5th March 2006

The Position America Will Receive When History of Our Age Would be written

No doubt, America is today's dominant power in world economy and world polity; consequently American policies affect virtually each and every nation of the world. The all-pervasive influence of America on the lives of billions all over the world, as we know, evokes extreme responses in both the extremes - hatred against America and admiration for its work - from different regions of the world. My sympathies lie with the people who criticise America; but in this article I shall refrain from indulging in U.S.-bashing. Instead, I shall present a dispassionate analysis, from the way of a historian, about what position and reverence the USA of today will receive when history would be written.

History is a witness that warring, sturdy and abrasive races have never been respected, they have only been feared. When Europeans write of their own history, then they use the most hideous and the most demonic of words to describe the races of Vikings, Huns, Goths and Mongols. All these four races were great military strengths in their own right - the Vikings repeatedly troubled England in middle ages; the Huns, under their fiery King 'ATTILA The Hun' brought ruin upon the Western Roman Empire in 5th century A.D. and reached the gates of Rome itself; the Goths (especially the Visigoths, under the leadership of Alaric The Goth) were a fiery people and were a constant trouble for the Roman Empire. The Mongols merit special attention because of their unparalleled savagery in warfare; they relished massacring citizens. The Mongols surprised their enemies with the sheer swiftness of their cavalry and therefore his enemies called Genghis Khan 'The Scourge of God'.

The military might of present day USA is comparable to the relative might of the Mongols in their own era; however more than military power, what matters is the attitude of the military or of the nation. It is well known that India was militarily very powerful during the times of Alexander and Selecus owing to the extensive use of war-elephants in Magadh (a powerful state in ancient India) and other north Indian armies. To testify this Jawaharlal Nehru, in his panoramic 'Discovery of India' wrote, "...Selecus Nikator obtained 500 of these war-elephants from India for his campaign against Antigonus in Asia Minor in 302 BC...these elephants were a decisive factor in the battle which ended in the death of Antigonus..." Also, in the same book Nehru has discussed about the high quality and fame of Indian "weapons of war, especially for the quality of her (India's) steel, her swords and daggers." Despite such a military prowess, no historian can ever accuse India of being an aggressive or savage people at any point of time in history. The reason is simple - for Indians, as a race were never abrasive, never eager to intimidate other peoples with her military power, in fact never proud of military might (it is quite a pertinent fact that traditional Indian folklore records and preserves more of those Kings who were embodiments of benevolence, justice, kindness, honesty, sacrifice than of those Kings who were mere conquerors - Asoka The Great is revered in India for he gave up violence; Harshvardhan is remembered for his knack of sacrifice and giving alms to the poor; Akbar is revered for his sense of religious tolerance). The major difference between Indian culture and American culture is the pride the latter takes in a pompous show of 'shock and awe' (recall, the 2003 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' of the US-Army or the Iraq War was described, by President Bush, in these very words of 'shock and awe'). To me, the contemporary America seems nearer to medieval Mongolian Empire than to India; but the Indian media is engrossed in a hypocritical campaign to project India and USA as natural allies in today's world.

True indeed it is a fact that cannot be denied, that American contribution to science and technology and to (potential) betterment of living standards is overwhelming, but what use is all this of if Americans cannot value and respect human life (especially if the human beings are not Americans)? It should not be a problem - especially for us Indians - to understand that the measure of a nation's greatness or benignity does not lie in what it does for its own people, but in the extent of its fair and honest dealing with other peoples (or nations). I am writing 'especially for Indians' because we Indians have been well accustomed to such kind of a thought - it was on these very grounds that (pre-1947) Indian leaders dismissed British contribution to parliamentary democracy as a farce for Britain denied that very right to her colonies and indulged in double standards. Similarly, American ideals of democracy, respect for human life and human rights remain confined to Americans only. A very analytical, yet short, article appeared in The Times of India, New Delhi, Friday, March 3, 2006 titled "Blood On His (Bush's) Hands"; by Peter Singer which accused American policy to be indifferent to civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article talks about one incident when "...(American) military forces... aimed a missile at a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border. Eighteen people were killed, among them five children. The target of the attack... was not among the dead..." According to the author, and rightly so, the more appalling fact is that Bush did not care to apologise for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it. Moreover, USA has as yet not apologised despite confirming that it shot down an Iranian civillian airline carrier (although mistakenly), killing 290 people on board. The list is endless... These, according to me, testify the fact that American culture is not benevolent or morally high-grounded but guided by 'enlightened self-interest', a term - however practical and good it may sound - that has been derided by our own Father of The Nation Gandhiji.

'Enlightened self-interest' as a phrase has become quite popular today when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh justifies pro-American leanings in India's foreign policy by declaring that India's foreign policy should be guided by 'enlightened self-interest'. It is not clear what the PM means by this term - anyhow, the term is open to many conflicting interpretations. Perhaps, the PM never thought it important to answer his critics and therefore gave an obscure answer, which betrays the obstinacy and self-righteous attitude of the Congress-led Government with respect to its foreign policy. Again, this policy is reflected when two reputed Congress-members-of-Parliament - Natwar Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar were removed from their ministries for the apparent reason that both these politicians weren't 'overtly pro-USA'; and in fact, Mani Shankar Aiyar was very keen to see the Iran Gas pipeline project take practical shape. Coming back to our discussion on 'enlightened self-interest', it is a concept that defines modern (or Western) civilization and makes it different from other ancient (or Oriental) civilizations by replacing the concept of 'true morality' (which was the basis for Ancient Indian and Chinese civilizations). The modern Western civilization is founded on 'materialism' from which have derived capitalism, industrialization, imperialism and 'neo-colonialism' more or less in the same chronological order. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the best critics of modern civilization, and to prove that it was firmly grounded on materialism, he brought out the fact that in modern civilization "...man was defined as a creature of infinite desires... the constant satisfaction of his apparently endless wants and the accumulation of wealth acquired moral legitimacy..." (Quoted from Bhikhu Parekh's book 'Gandhi's Political Philosophy', Macmillan, 1989).

Now, let us come back to the question as to what position would be accorded to present-day America when history of our time would be recorded? It is my firm belief, that in the distant future, when today's passions (which influence the contemporary observers and politicians) settle down, then it would be possible for a dispassionate analysis of USA's contributions. And at that time in distant future when the power of USA would get somewhat neutralised, people would not find much difference between the military might ('shock and awe') of (present day) USA with the military savagery of medieval Mongolia. People will scoff at American culture and values, for they lay embedded in self-interest, hypocrisy and double standards, quite the same way as Indians ridicule the contributions of Great Britain towards democracy and Parliament.

When history would be written, the self-righteous attitude of USA (which explains its self-arrogated role of 'International Policeman') would be equated to the nineteenth century colonial attitude of 'White Men's Burden' (which hypocritically legitimised Europeans' claims to colonial empires). Today, within fifty years of the start of the process of 'decolonisation' there is certain unanimity in condemning all the colonial beliefs and practices; therefore it is not unlikely to presume that history will never forgive USA for arrogating to itself the role of an international cop. During the colonial times, the colonial powers like Britain and France gave fantastic arguments and excuses to show that their colonial rule was benevolent and beneficent to all; but all such arguments have been well forgotten within a fifty years, and what remains in public memory is nothing but the cruelty and brutality of colonial rule. Going by such a trend, it is very likely that the reasons that the USA gives for invading (or liberating!) countries will soon be forgotten and people will only remember the savagery of the American military (recall Abu Ghraib).

Even with reference to American contribution to science and technology, America would be bitterly criticised because of the simple reason that while USA presses for free trade in the market for finished goods, the USA doesn't approve of free trading in input markets (inputs for production) - whether in free movement of labour from one countries to another or whether in free trading of technology between different countries. USA wants free trading only in the market for finished products for it is confident of its competitiveness in this market; on the other hand, USA is sure of its lack of competitiveness in the labour market, therefore its policy has been that of 'protectionism' with regard to USA's domestic labour market. In the matter of technology, USA wants it to be confined within USA so that USA does not lose out on the competitiveness it has acquired in the market for finished goods, consequently America is averse to the idea of free trading of technology. Thus, as history will record, we see that America's policies are guided only by self-interest not by morality or truth.

Today, some people in India are convinced that the pursuance of self-interest is 'nothing wrong'. But one thing these Indians forget is that the reason for which we Indians are able to take pride in Indian culture and ethos is not because India was very rich or India once possessed colonies in South East Asia. In fact, it is quite a remarkable fact that Indian tradition did not glorify the Chola Empire over S.E. Asia to the extent it glorified the humility in a mighty ruler like Ashoka. We are able to revere our past for the fact that our ancestors preserved a high degree of morality stressed on non-acquisitiveness. Gandhiji who helped the Indian masses to rediscover themselves reminded this fact to us. Apart from Gandhiji, a practical statesman like Jawaharlal Nehru also expressed his anguish against the prevalent 'opportunism' in politics, repeatedly in his writings. It would be a pity if we Indians of this age doubt the ideals of those two leaders who practically gave birth to present-day India, and instead emulate America and American ideals.