The Left is speaking from its own experience of cooperatives in Kerala where they have made them their pocket businesses killing all possibilities of genuine way of collective ownership and development. and i wonder what is this development meant for? To give basic amenities for all human beings, atleast? leave alone welfare of all beings!!! then if you displace and disposses one person for so called development, can it be called so?
is n't there enough wealth already in this world for all for basic needs? is n't that the unequal distribution or hoarding of resources/wealth the problem? On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:20 PM, C.K. Vishwanath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that in the era of hegemonic neo-liberal > globalisation process,these discussions are > important.Earlier models have been questioned. > 1.state vs private capital > here,private capital is becoming an assertive > position. > > > > > > I. Fat cats and the left rupture > > By : Vijay Prashad > http://www.himalmag.com/2008/january/spl_report_cpm_war.html > > > Rarely has there been such furore over something that > is so little > understood. Singur, north of Calcutta, and then > Nandigram, located in > Purbo Medinapur District of West Bengal, have become > the fault lines > in a number of explanatory narratives. For some, they > represent the > face of Left Front - mainly Communist Party of India > (Marxist) - > 'terror'. For others, wilful misunderstandings seem to > have opened the > door to the far right (the Trinamul Congress) and the > far left (the > Maoists and the Socialist Unity Centre of India). > Rigid positions have > made it impossible to hold a dialogue between those > who either > critically or uncritically defend the Left Front > government, and those > who oppose it vehemently. Rancour has become the order > of the day. > > >From the perspective of the broad left movement, this > is unfortunate. > It is for this reason that I signed a statement, along > with Noam > Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Walden Bello and others, to urge > reconciliation > among the left, since, as the declaration urged, "this > is not the time > for division when the basis for division no longer > appears to exist." > But perhaps the basis for division is more > foundational than we had > assumed. The rupture, the casus, is so deep that it is > impossible to > lay out the facts without challenge. Indeed, there are > few basic facts > that are currently agreed upon by both sides of the > Indian left, let > alone the capitalist media or the rightwing parties. > As such, in the > current context there is almost no hope that agreement > could be forged > on how to move forward. > > But what is the basis of this rupture? > Singur-Nandigram is the > conjuncture of a long-standing structural gulf within > the Indian left. > In the past, this tear was sutured mainly by > expediency. The > pestilential breath of Hindutva that spread across > North India during > the 1980s and 1990s suspended genuine debate within > the broad left. > Instead, all hands joined together to form a secular > chain around the > Bharatiya Janata Party; those hands only tightened as > the Sangh > Parivar consolidated power, first in the states and > then in New Delhi. > But, as Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Prabhat > Patnaik wrote in > a recent essay, "With the perceived decline in the > strength of the > communal fascist forces, a certain fracturing of the > anti-communal > coalition was inevitable and has happened." That the > BJP retains power > in Gujarat, home of its genocidal campaign, is not > sufficient to keep > the anti-communal coalition together. Some would > believe that Manmohan > Singh on the kursi (seat) is insurance enough against > the rise of > Hindutva on the national stage. > > Limits of PSPC > The structural gulf, of course, predates the current > crisis. Two > decades ago, two historic global experiments > floundered and then > collapsed. With the overwhelming debt crisis and the > rapid growth of > the power of finance capital, both the Third World > project (the > process led by the Non-Aligned Movement to create, > among other things, > a new international economic order) and the USSR-led > socialist > experiment dissolved. A triumphant capitalism > overwhelmed not only > institutions that had been built for a different > world, but also the > main ideological foundations of that world. Marxism > and dependency > theory, the sciences of socialism and Third World > nationalism, seemed > anachronistic in this new era. As the political > scientist Vivek > Chibber put it, not only did Marxism decline in Indian > studies, but > also "the very meaning of Left critique [changed]. > Class is just being > pushed out of the progressive milieu." > > Dependency theory and Marxism issued a challenge to > capitalism, by > arguing that its import into the former colonies would > increase rather > than decrease the inequality between the core advanced > capitalist > states and the periphery of other states. These > theories have not only > subsequently been eclipsed, but the very grounds of > the study of > political economy have been overcome by a new, > overwhelming emphasis > on culture and cultural studies. There is no doubt > that cultural > studies have shown us the limitations of dependency > theory and Marxism > in grasping the need to see how the working class, and > the nation, is > itself rife with fractures of gender, caste, tribe and > region. But > rather than offer itself as a supplement, or > engendering a new kind of > political economy, this new field of thinking - what > has been referred > to by Chibber as PSPC, for > post-structuralism/post-colonialism - has > simply occluded political economy. > > PSPC came up at a time when NGO politics consolidated > in India, and as > some important social movements germinated outside the > communist left. > These particularly included environmental movements > such as the > Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), which started around the > mid-1980s. > Post-structural/post-colonial thought and > non-government organisations > - what can be thought of as the 'post-modern left' - > diverged from the > communist left on two grounds. > > First, they disagreed with the communist approach to > the state. > Professor John Holloway's 2002 Change the World > without Taking Power > provides the best summary of this approach. It also > finds its Indian > face in the work of political scientist Aditya Nigam, > particularly in > his 2001 paper, "Radical Politics in the Times of > Globalization". > Holloway argues that the structure of the state is > compromised, and > should be avoided in favour of the "power of doing" - > of building > something in opposition to the capitalist world. > Classes and > revolutionary subjects are irrelevant to this > undertaking, since the > "pure eager revolutionary subject" must give way to a > "damaged > humanity" - that is to say, everyone has to > participate in the > recuperation of our estranged selves. > > Holloway championed the Mexican Zapatista movement in > the same way > that Nigam extolled the NBA and Kanshi Ram of the > Bahujan Samaj Party, > both of which he sees as post-nationalist - indeed, as > post-state. The > argument against state power is, of course, the mirror > image of the > neo-liberal position that says that the state should > be ignored in > place of the private sector, that the state is itself > the fount of > tyranny. On the other hand, the question from the > communist left is > not so much whether or not to use the state > institutions, but which > classes actually control the state and to what end the > state is > utilised. > > Second, and as a corollary to the first disagreement, > the ideology of > PSPC differs on the need to forge a development path. > Here there could > be agreement on both sides of the gulf, because there > is a robust > debate ongoing within the communist left on the > various paths to > development, on the way to engage finance capital. > Some are attracted > to the Shenzhen route, to the mimicry of the Chinese > idea of growth > above all else. Others are wary of this: even as they > recognise the > need to bring in investment and industrial growth, > they feel that > these must be channelled in a way that would benefit > the people, and > also avoid ecological disasters. > > No productive debate on development, including the > rights and wrongs > of Singur and Nandigram, can take place as long as the > first > disagreement about the state flourishes. But there is > a problem here > on its own terms. The lack of a common language > (dependency theory or > Marxism, which was the grammar of the Third World era) > means that > those who offer their own critiques of development > often come off as > though they do not have a plan for development of any > kind. The > refusal to 'sully' one's hands with development offers > as little > comfort to those who are dispossessed as does the > argument that > runaway growth will eventually produce equity. To > eschew state-led > sustainable development is to concede the terrain to > the powerful > social classes who are invested in private > corporate-led development. > PSPC's lack of political economy, and the NGO left's > lack of a > programme for the transformation of the world, tacitly > endorses the > politics of the fat cats. > > In India, the communist left has pushed the ruling > Congress coalition > against the wall on issues of the Indo-US nuclear deal > (and India's > subordinate role with the US) and the agrarian > question, notably the > Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the Scheduled > Tribes and other > Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest > Rights) Bill, which > has yet to be notified. But how far this challenge can > go, as the > rupture within the broad left widens, is hard to say. > > West Bengal Governor Gopal Gandhi, who earlier strong > words for the > state government, visited Nandigram in early December. > "Normality is > returning, but it is not an easy process," he said > while walking > around the area. "It will take a little time for the > trauma to > subside." The same cannot necessarily be said of the > place called the > left, where the wounds are fresh and the animosity > remains. > > > II. Aditya Nigam > Dec 31st, 2007 at 12:24 am > Thanks Ajit, for drawing my attention to this piece by > Vijay Prashad. > I had actually not seen it. It is, I must acknowledge, > refreshing in > its tone and seems to be open to some kind of genuine > debate. I > however, continue to have serious problems with the > kind of > unsubstantiated assertions that are presented as > self-evident truths > or 'knowledge', in Communist-Left circles. > > Take for example, the assertion about the state in > Prashad's article > (quite apart from insinuations that any critique of > the state can only > come from some version of neo-liberalism): > > "The argument against state power is, of course, the > mirror image of > the neo-liberal position that says that the state > should be ignored in > place of the private sector, that the state is itself > the fount of > tyranny." > > "To eschew state-led sustainable development is to > concede the terrain > to the powerful social classes who are invested in > private > corporate-led development. PSPC's lack of political > economy, and the > NGO left's lack of a programme for the transformation > of the world, > tacitly endorses the politics of the fat cats." > > Here we have the classic scenario. EITHER State OR > Private Sector: > there are and can be only these two possibilities and > if you are > opposed to one, you must be for the other. 'Private', > mind you, is > being made to work as a synonym for Capital and > capitalist, which is > far from the case. Even those whom Communists call > petty bourgeois are > often far from being capitalists. Neither by action > nor by instinct, > that is to say; their drive is not to accumulate. Such > private > entrepreneurship has existed for ages without giving > birth to capital > or capitalism. One need only read Marx's Capital, once > again on this, > in there is need for scriptural sanction. Such > property includes > peasant and artisanal property - and I am far from > believing, going by > our contemporary experience, that these forms are > obsolete. Second, in > Communist Left theory, all kinds of cooperatives are > also seen as > variations of private property. This is more by way of > definitional > fiat. Once you have laid down the rule that whatever > is not state, is > private/capital, then this proposition naturally > follows. However, > cooperative forms have not been tried out - except > when some > enterprise has reached a terminal stage. Only in some > parts of the > world and in some pockets do we have cooperative that > were set up not > to meet a crisis but as important forms - and they > seem to be > functioning pretty well. > So, in the first place, it is not clear, despite lot > of obfuscation on > this issue, that there are or can only be these two > types of property > ownership. > > Second, to respond to Prashad's assertion that "to > eschew state-led > sustainable development is to concede the terrain to > the powerful > social classes who are invested in private > corporate-led development," > I can only say that in the present day world, this is > being refuted > every day and every hour by practical experience. It > is only through > the state and thanks to the state that the land, > forests and water of > the world are being handed over to private corporate > capital. And it > matters NOT AT ALL who is in control of the state - > Communists (China, > Vietnam, West Bengal), or some kind of a Left Alliance > (Brazil, South > Africa) - all are complicit through the logic of the > state in this > cannibalization of the planet's resources, people and > what have you. > So, before somebody asserts the self-evident nature of > the virtues of > the state or evokes this fantasy of > state-as-resistance-to-capital, he > or she will have to do some very hard work. > Thanks again. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of > Blockbuster Total Access now > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
