PART II OF THE POLITICAL ORGANISATIONAL REPORT

CPI(M)’s Approach On Certain Policy Matters --- IV

 Sitaram Yechury

AS noted earlier, the very process of capital accumulation in the era of globalisation takes a new turn. Generally, big capital can grow in one of the two ways: either by setting up new productive enterprises or by buying up existing small capitals or small and petty producers or by simply expropriating them. The latter is the route of centralisation of capital when big capital takes the place of several small capitals. However, during the course of primitive accumulation of capital, small and petty producers are simply expropriated by large capital and their assets taken over for virtually nothing.

ECONOMIC RECOLONISATION

In the era of globalisation, when the conditions imposed by international finance capital, as noted earlier, restrict the expansion of domestic markets and reduce the purchasing power in the hands of the people at large, growth, through setting up new productive enterprises, plays a secondary role. This is simply because the capacity to “buy” the new products produced by such enterprises constantly declines for the vast majority of world’s population. International finance capital seeks to expand its profits primarily through the expropriation of small capitals or petty producers. In a sense, this represents a throwback in time to the stage of nascent capitalism which was marked by ruthless primitive accumulation of capital. 

  Grabbing public sector property at throwaway prices is a prime example of such expropriation. Further, to facilitate this process, the state withdraws not only from meeting its social obligations to the people but also from the sphere of production.   Margaret Thatcher put this famously by stating, “it is not the business of the government to be in business.” Globalisation, therefore, coerces independent nation states to privatise common property, natural resources, mineral wealth and scarce endowments like land and water. The phenomena of agri-business grabbing land, of water resources being privatised, of oil and natural gas and other mineral resources being handed back to the multinational corporations are all examples of such primitive accumulation of capital which is carried out in the name of “development.” This, in plain terms, is nothing else but a gigantic process of plunder and loot. 

Decolonisation, in general, had meant above all recapturing of control by the newly independent countries over their own resources from the big companies of the colonial powers. In India, this was reflected in the establishment of the public sector and the nationalisation of the financial sector, oil, coal industries etc. Under globalisation, not only does this process get reversed but a whole new set of items are added to the list of resources over which MNCs seek to acquire control for a “song.” This is nothing else but the process of the economic recolonisation of the third world countries that we spoke of earlier.

LOGIC OF BUILDING PUBLIC SECTOR

It is in this background that the defence of our public sector must be understood.  The CPI(M) never had any illusions that the public sector constitutes the “socialist component” of the Indian economy. On the contrary, the public sector in India was consciously built by the bourgeois-landlord ruling classes to provide the basic infrastructure for advancing the capitalist path of development in independent India. In fact, the suggestion that the government of independent India must establish the public sector, first came from the leading Indian business houses, way back in 1944. This was articulated in the “Bombay Plan” announced the same year. 

Their logic was simple. First, they did not possess the required capital to build the necessary economic infrastructure. Secondly, even if they had the required resources, they did not want this locked up in gigantic projects that do not yield quick handsome profits. The state had to do this job. The CPI(M) Programme notes: “The public sector was developed in heavy industries and infrastructure as the private sector was not in a position to provide the required resources for such huge projects. The building of these public undertakings helped therefore to a certain extent to industrialise the economy and to overcome the abject dependence on the imperialist monopolies.”

On the basis of the infrastructure created by the public sector, the private capitalist sector grew to amass massive profits and consequent capital accumulation. The assets of the 22 largest Indian monopoly houses grew from Rs 312.63 crore in 1957 to Rs 1,58,004.72 crore in 1997, which is a fifty-fold increase! The private sector, which was once not in a position to undertake the building of huge projects, is now clamouring to employ its accumulated capital; it too (in addition to the pressures of international capital under globalisation) is demanding the privatisation of the public sector.

CPI(M) STAND ON PUBLIC SECTOR

Under these circumstances, the Political Organisational Report of the 18th CPI(M) congress notes that “the public sector continues to remain a bulwark against all efforts to undermine India’s economic sovereignty under globalisation. The CPI(M)’s defence of the public sector, in the era of globalisation, thus, must be seen in this context of protecting India’s economic sovereignty.” 

While articulating the defence of the public sector in the era of globalisation, the CPI(M) is conscious of the fact that the composition of the public sector is not homogenous, as also, not free from innumerable problems. With this in mind, the Political Organisational Report characterises the public sector into four different categories: a) giant profit-making units in the core and strategic sectors usually referred to as navaratnas; b) medium size profit making public sector units; c) loss making but potentially viable units; and d) unviable and or chronically loss making units.

The first two categories must remain in the public sector and any erosion of their equity must be resisted. In addition, those public sector enterprises, or undertakings, which are engaged in research and development activities must be protected and strengthened as these significantly contribute to the strengthening of our economic sovereignty. Further, public sector enterprises that serve a social purpose such as those in public utilities and public services must be protected and strengthened.

While doing so, the CPI(M) advocates the reforming of the public sector in order to further strengthen it in accordance with its programmatic understanding: “Strengthen public sector industries through modernisation, democratisation, freeing from bureaucratic controls and corruption, fixing strict accountability, ensuring workers participation in management and making it competitive so that it can occupy a commanding position in the economy.”

As regarding the second and third categories, the Political Organisational Report suggests the following: “As far as the third category is concerned, all efforts must be made for the revival of such units. Similarly, all efforts for the revival of the fourth category must first be made. If such efforts do not succeed, then other options may be considered, including joint sector, or, in the final eventuality the disposal of these units. Under all circumstances, the interests of the workers must be protected. In cases where the terms of the sell off or closure of units are weighted against the workers, we should lead or support the struggle of the workers for a more equitable package.  These decisions, however, must be taken with the full confidence of the workers and the management by the government.  The same approach must be undertaken by the state governments in relation to state public sector undertakings.”

It is precisely on the basis of such an understanding that the CPI(M)-led Left Front government in West Bengal is reforming the public sector in the state. The bourgeois media and the “liberalisation pundits” engage in a calumnious disinformation campaign seeking to project that the CPI(M) has two distinct and different  approaches to economic reforms --- one in West Bengal and another in Delhi. On the contrary, the CPI(M) has a consistent and reasoned approach that guides the entire Party as outlined above. In this context, it must be borne in mind that there are two types of public sector units (PSUs) in the country: one owned by the central government or central PSUs and the other owned by the states or state PSUs.  The latter consists mainly of such units which the state took over when the private sector turned them “sick” in order to protect the interests of the workers and the industry (for example, jute mills). Many sick state PSUs are being revived in Bengal. When this is absolutely impossible, then and only then, on the basis of the above guidelines the necessary measures are taken.

The struggle for the defence and the strengthening of the public sector constitutes an important element in mobilising all patriotic Indian people in defence of our economic sovereignty. This is, therefore, one of the focal points of popular mobilisation. The current impasse with the UPA government on the issue of disinvestment in BHEL is an integral part of the CPI(M)’s overall struggle against imperialist globalisation and its direct impact on undermining India’s public sector.  The big struggles of the working class and the people in the defence of the public sector will have to be further strengthened. The growth of the strength of the popular movement on this issue will greatly contribute to strengthening the struggles against globalisation and its efforts to economically recolonise India. 

 (To Be Continued)