People's Democracy

MORE than eight decades have elapsed since the world-shaking November Revolution took place in 1917. During this span, capitalism has undergone profound changes nationally and globally, more so in the post-war period. This was particularly obvious from its deep systemic crisis in the late 1960s.

There is not much argument about the capitalist nature of the organisation that has been put in place. That this organisation has taken a global form is also not disputed. In fact, this is the defining characteristic of the epochal shift that has occurred. But the question of the significance and meaning of these changes remains, and also the question whether globalisation is a qualitatively new phenomenon or just another phase in the historical process of imperialist expansion.

This is the period when the first socialist state of the world collapsed. The short period between 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, and the collapse of the Soviet socialist state in 1991 represents a period, though very brief, which has added an unthinkably profound dimension to this change.

Be that as it may, it is possible to identify in the history of capitalism a series of long waves, each of which is associated with a protracted period of crisis in the condition of capitalist accumulation and a subsequent restructuring of the whole system. The last of the waves beginning after the November Revolution extended roughly upto the 1970s.

Lenin wrote his famous book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism in the period of the inter-imperialist World War I for division and redivision of the world among "capitalist associations." Monopoly capital was "the economic essence" of capitalism at the stage.

Since then, particularly after the World War II, a much profounder shift took place in the international power relationships in the capitalist world with the "growing inability of the old imperialist nations to hold their own in the face of the American quest for expanded influence and power" and "the assertion of American supremacy in the ‘free’ world implying the reduction of Britain and France (not to speak of Belgium, Holland and Portugal) to the states of junior partners of American imperialism" (Paul Baran, The Political Economy of Growth, Monthly Review Press, 1957).

Now at the beginning of another millennium, the world economy is certainly getting increasingly dominated by the US. The dominant view in the 1980s and early 1990s was of a world of "global corporations" that transcended national boundaries --- what some called a global village and others referred to as interdependent states linked by international corporations. An analysis of the composition of global economy, however, demonstrates that the US multinationals are far more dominant and are becoming more so over time. It has been proved that the ideas of a ‘bipolar’ or ‘tripolar’ world, of a more diversified world economy based on the emergence of the Asian miracle economies, were a mirage. Despite some weak manifestations of inter-imperialist rivalry between the US, European Union and Japan, real inter-imperialist clashes are not much evident. Thus the idea of a European counterweight to US power, anchored in a resurgent and united German economy, is nowhere evident.

In fact, the present world economic dispensation, known as imperialist globalisation, has led to an enhanced power of US corporations to exploit others and enrich themselves and their chief executive officers to an unprecedented degree. This globalisation has thus led to an ascendancy of US imperialism in all spheres --- economic, political and military.

The "big push towards globalisation" was both political and economic. Politically, the "big push" since the 1960s was the result of a dramatic shift in political power away from leftist, popular and nationalist regimes, towards right-wing governments that bowed to US imperialist globalisation. In social terms, "the push" resulted from the weakening and at some places retreat of trade unions and the declining influence of the working class, lower middle class and peasantry. The ascendancy of the social classes --- the capitalists and their hangers-on engaged in international networks of capital and trade, particularly the finance sector --- set the stage for the globalist counter-revolution. What began in certain third world countries like Chile and Mexico spread more or less throughout the world.

Under US hegemony, capitalism took advantage of not only the "failures" or "crisis" of the leftist regimes; it vigorously intervened to bring about the outcome it wanted. Its active role was massive in scope and involved direct military interventions, ideological-cultural invasions, arms race, political alliances with Vatican, and so-called philanthropic foundations serving the imperialist interests. In Latin America, pro-US reactionary capitalist classes thrived under the violent military regimes that destroyed the opposition, making hundreds of thousands their victims. In Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere in Africa, millions were killed in surrogate wars that destroyed the possibility of independent development. The Reagan regime started an arms race to economically weaken the USSR that had to respond for survival. In Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland, the Vatican played a decisive role and the CIA poured funds into Solidarity’s coffers. Billionaire speculator George Soros poured in millions of dollars to cultivate Czech, Hungarian and Polish ‘intellectuals’ who later became ardent pro-capitalist, pro-NATO politicos.

The net effect of the undisputed ascendancy of the new globalist capitalist class was to weaken public control on capitalist exploitation of resources, markets and labour, and the hand-over of important levers of accumulation in the mineral, financial and manufacturing fields to private investors. The powerful role of the nation-state in holding down wages and slashing social programmes liberated immense funds for private enrichment of the native monopoly capitalists who saw prospects for further enrichment in imperialist globalisation. The nation-state lost its independent decision making capacity and became an essential political tool in spreading the globalist message. Imperialist regimes, influential in the IMF and World Bank and later in WTO, conditioned loans and credits on so-called "economic reforms," thus imposing a uniform globalist policy of unpopular and anti-labour structural adjustment policies (SAP). The capitalist class extended its sway over national patrimony through privatisation and deregulation. The nation-states’ pro-imperialist policies were essential elements in the "big push" towards globalisation.

A related phenomenon was the weakening of the welfare state under whose mediation, labour had been able, almost for a quarter century, to extract concessions whose cumulative cost was an unacceptable burden to capital. By reproducing wage-capital relations through overseas investments at sites of productions, with lower costs, the capitalist class created a global labour market that bloated profit margins and applied downward pressure on the local labour markets. Thus globalisation ruptured the post-World War II capital-labour equilibrium in favour of the capitalist class.

Where does the ongoing technological revolution fit into the picture of the political and economic determinants of globalisation? The technological revolution has obviously a very important and enormous contributory role, but it is definitely subordinate to the political and economic determinants. These innovations themselves are based on state-sponsored or subsidised research, later transferred to the private sector.

It would, however, be wrong to deny the multiple uses of high-tech in reshaping labour and consumer patterns, in communication, etc. At the institutional level, the use of high-tech is more adaptive to the globalist class and gives it even more power of domination and exploitation.

In today’s world, the unchallenged political and military dominance of US imperialism emanates from corporate dominance. In this phase of capitalist development, of imperialist globalisation, the USA’s unchallenged economic, political and military hegemony is the most important element in world history. The decade following the USSR’s demise in 1991 witnessed a fast growth of deadly US imperialism.

A survey of the world’s biggest companies based on market capitalisation, (Financial Times, January 8, 1999) showed that of the 500 biggest companies in the world, the US account for 244, Japan 46 and Germany 23. Even if we aggregate all of Europe, the total number of such giant companies comes to 173, still far less than the figure for the US. It is clear that European and not Japanese capitalism is the main competitor of the US in the world market. The rise of US economic power and the decline of Japan in 1998 was manifest in the increasing number of US firms in the top 500, up from 222 to 244, and the precipitate decline of Japanese firms from 71 to 46. This tendency further accentuated later as US MNCs bought a large number of Japanese, Korean, Thai and other firms.

If we look at the largest 25 firms, whose capitalisation exceeds 86 billion dollars, the concentration of US economic power is even clearer. Over 70 per cent are American, 26 European and 4 Japanese. If we look at the top 100 companies, 61 per cent are American, 33 European and only 2 per cent are Japanese. Thus the US has re-emerged as the overwhelming economic power. By eliminating smaller companies through mergers and acquisitions, the large US-based companies are likely to play a still bigger role in this process of concentration and centralisation of capital.

It is this concentration and centralisation of capital by the US-based MNCs that gives economic, political and military dominance to US imperialism that has assumed a formidable hegemonic role, making the European imperialist countries the camp followers of the big brother.

The recent international developments --- military devastation of Iraq, Yugoslavia and now Afghanistan, where NATO allies acted as more or less willing accomplices --- confirm this trend in world development.

Capitalist exploitation has never been smooth. From the very beginning, it generated resistance. Marx defined the proletariat as the gravediggers of capitalism. This prognosis is perhaps far sharper today than ever before. The direct producers being deprived of their means of production, the huge army of the unemployed, the growing informal and casual sectors of work, the impoverished peasants and other marginalised people, and the shrinking industrial working class which is highly repressed and exploited --- these are the merciless effects of imperialist globalisation, creating a veritable opposition to it. Worldwide resistance of these exploited classes is growing.

Apart from the use of electoral means for expressing opposition, extra-parliamentary action has been widespread and effective in limiting and even blocking the application of globalist policies. Whatever anti-globalist opposition is there in the legislatures, plays only a minor part in this resistanc. For, globalist policies continue to be applied by executive decree and/or through globalist influence over the legislatures. The influence of globalisation and the theory of its inevitability are so powerful that many former opposition groups have turned to electoral policies. Participating in electoral politics and entering political office, even many traditional Left parties have stopped opposing globalisation and accepted its postulates.

As a result, most of the affected groups have turned towards extra-parliamentary actions. Examples are: repeated general strikes in France, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, South Korea, South Africa, and in India; land occupations in Brazil, Paraguay, El Salvador, Mexico, Columbia and Guatemala; urban revolts in Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Argentina; and guerrilla movements in Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Zaire, etc. Extra-parliamentary actions have become the chosen form of opposition because of the impotence or cooperation of many of the elected parties.

A shared characteristic of these groups is that they all start as movements to defend the rights and interests threatened by globalist ruling classes. Opposition to loss of employment, privatisation of public enterprises or cuts in social security programmes, to erosions in living standards, pension plans or public education or medical facilities is the initial point of confrontation. These movements respond to the globalist appropriation of new sources of profit and to cost reduction. Within this common defence of people’s past gains, some of the movements went on an offensive and sought to achieve basic pro-people changes --- the peasant movement of Chiapas, Mexico; the landless workers’ movement (MST) in Brazil; the revolutionary peasant movement in Columbia and of cocoa farmers in Chapare, Bolivia, etc.

There is an incipient but growing anti-globalisation and even anti-capitalist consciousness among the mass movements currently engaged in defensive struggles. Moreover, a new internationalism in the workers’ movement is also evident from the anti-globalisation upsurge that began in Seattle in November 1999, up to Genoa in June 2001.

However, opposition is uneven from continent to continent, from country to country. Opposition in Europe, in particular France, is obviously more advanced than in the US; far more advanced in Brazil and Mexico than in Peru and Chile; more advanced in India than in many Asian countries. The level of struggle in a country depends on the level of political awareness, the tradition of struggle, the internal structure of mass organisations and the insurgent agencies of the opposition.

The groups opposing globalisation are in search for an alternative today. But they are not as yet clear on this score. Though we hold that socialism is the only alternative to capitalist exploitation, others are not yet clear about it or may even disagree with our contention. Particularly after the Soviet debacle, the doubts harboured by some of these groups about socialism have further deepened. Yet the fact of the opposition these groups are putting to globalisation has to be taken note of. A silver lining regarding this search is that some of the movements are now getting inclined towards socialism. "Back to Marx" is gradually becoming a popular slogan. A more vigorous revolutionary struggle may help achieve clarity on this issue.

Here the ideal and spirit of November Revolution become relevant. In the present international context of vicious and most aggressive form of imperialism, particularly US imperialism, its political and military might, and the subservience of the bourgeois or bourgeois-landlord governments in various nation-states to US imperialism, one may well ask whether a socialist revolution is a real possibility.

The questions being asked are: Can the power of giant global corporations be challenged within a particular country or does it require concerted action across countries? Can alternative forms of communication with a working class perspective countermand the ideological power of the Euro-American and indigenous monopoly-owned mass media and the sway of its propaganda over the masses? Can a new revolutionary subject be created?

A common question is: In a world situation where there is no more the mighty USSR that could challenge the imperialist might and lend assistance to revolutionary struggles, is a successful revolution at all possible? A deeper look into the previous imperialist expansions and successful working-class and popular revolutions can help us find the answer.

To date, socialist revolutions or experiments have been products of wars waged by workers and other oppressed people in imperialist countries or by colonial or semi-colonial people. The Paris Commune was an outgrowth of the Franco-German war of 1870-71. While the Paris Commune lasted only a few months, its organisation, conduct and even its mistakes helped both Marx and Lenin in perfecting the revolutionary theory. The First World War for imperialist conquests by military means, which spelt millions of deaths, population displacement, hunger and destruction, saw socialist revolutions taking place in Hungary, Bavaria, Finland and Russia, though none survived except the Great November Revolution of Russia.

In the inter-war period there was a resurgence of imperialism. But the ensuing conflicts and conquests unleashed a powerful new wave of popular anti-imperialist movements in the war-ravaged and hyper-exploited countries like China, Indochina and Korea.

All these revolutions succeeded with Communist Parties at the head of the revolutionary struggle. In Vietnam that waged an epic war against French and US imperialism, the US employed an estimated 5,00,000 troops. But the revolution succeeded despite unparalleled US bombing and destruction. Cuba, a country just 90 miles from the US coast, successfully accomplished a revolution and is defending it despite the US game of conspiracy, terrorism, counter-revolutionary moves, assassination bids and a severe economic blockade. All these revolutions successfully continued their onward march despite formidable imperialist interventions. The USSR did not materially help any of these revolutions in their initial stages; its support to them was more ideological and logistical. But, after these revolutions, the USSR gave these countries unstinted help in building socialism.

India, with over a hundred crore people today, is one of the most exploited and suffering countries in the present international capitalist dispensation. Our ruling classes’ pursuit of imperialist globalisation for more than a decade is fast leading to deindustrialisation and pauparisation of this vast country.

Imperialist globalisation leads to two types of reactions --- one, to frustration, surrenderism, the ‘inevitability’ ("there is no alternative") syndrome. The other reaction is of uncompromising opposition and militant mass struggle to block or halt this ferociously exploitative globalisation.

Another reaction of a different category, seen worldwide, is the moulding of this discontent into religious fundamentalism, separatism and ethnic strifes. This very dangerous reaction is very much apparent in India too.

Marx’s theory of revolution and its application, the November Revolution, teach determined and organised opposition to capitalist exploitation and imperialist hegemony. Marxism also stresses the need of creating widespread mass awareness and developing mass struggles to that end.

The updated programme of CPI(M) puts forward the task of effecting a People’s Democratic Revolution with socialism as its goal. The cause of Indian revolution will much depend upon the conscious and determined revolutionary work of the communists. It is a hard task because of India’s social composition, geographical, ethnic, religious and caste diversities.

Those in India who have firm faith in the Marxist revolutionary ideal and in the objective of a People’s Democratic Revolution are historically enjoined to take up the challenge of forging revolutionary opposition to this rapacious capitalist exploitation and imperialist diktat.

There is no doubt that Marxism gave a scientific basis to the oppressed people’s class hatred and class struggle against their exploiters. Fired with their class hatred against the oppressors, and guided by the revolutionary ideology, our toiling people have to march forward with all subjective and organisational preparations. Objective conditions for revolutionary struggle are maturing. More and more sections who are victims of the present system, are likely to join the struggle. Capitalism may be extremely reckless; imperialism may be deadly. But they can be defeated by a people fired with the spirit of the November Revolution. And the lead has to be taken by the communists.