- The Critical Crisis of Capitalism and the Challenges of Alternative
One thing is clear that without grasping the successes and failures, perfections and imperfections, strengths and weaknesses of the proletarian revolutions of the Twentieth century; we cannot talk of providing an alternative to capitalism in the Twenty-first century. However, today, precisely this is being done. The world capitalism is going through an unprecedented serious crisis. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the monopoly capitalism still had not reached the saturation point. A large part of the world was still not completely under the hold of capital; the capital still was not entrenched in every joint of the colonial societies. From the 1940s to the 1970s, following the process of decolonization, independence of countries, resolution of the national question, and end of the Second World War; there have been certain fundamental changes in the structure, strategy and general modus-operandi of imperialism as a whole. Today, the dominance of finance capital is far greater than the times of Lenin; the capital has become more parasitic, speculative, unproductive, and moribund than ever before. The world capitalist system has become more hollow, enfeebled, and sick than ever before. Despite its all military might, imperialism is facing terrible upheaval owing to its internal crisis. In the age of Globalization, capitalism is neither left with the possibilities of productive investments, nor are there enough opportunities left for the gambling of finance capital. The structure of capitalism is reeling under the burden of over-production and abundance of capital. However, despite all this, capitalism will not be relegated to the background of history on its own. To assign it to the garbage bin of history, an agent, an active force is needed which has a clear-cut alternative to the entire capitalist economy, society, politics and culture.
There has been no other ideology except Marxism which has presented a scientific and feasible outline of the alternative to capitalism. Various ideologies which talked of making capitalism more humane and advocated some reforms and patch-work in it, came to the fore and soon each one of them faded into oblivion. With each passing day of the existence of capitalism, all such ideologies are displaying their irrelevance more clearly.
However, today the working class movement through out the world is suffering from deep-rooted crisis and there are many challenges confronting its revival. In most of those countries, which are going to be the storm-centres of the future proletarian revolutions, the Marxist Communist revolutionaries, instead of learning critically from the revolutions of the past, suffer from the mentality of blind imitation. Most among them want to repeat the new democratic revolution led by Mao in China, in their respective countries. In 1963, the Communist Party of China, while presenting its position on the international situation, had said that, generally, in the ‘Third World’ countries, which included countries under direct colonial rule and newly-independent countries with indirect imperialist control, new democratic revolution will take place because there are semi-feudal semi-colonial or colonial semi-feudal formations in these countries and the bourgeoisie, that have come to power in the newly-independent countries are generally agents of imperialism and will assume a compromising stance towards indigenous feudalism. This was the exposition of a general line whose correctness or incorrectness can be debated. At that time, there were, in fact, some countries which had a similar situation or a situation resembling this. However, question can be raised as to whether such condition prevailed in India at that time or not. However, whatever be the case, from then till the 1990s, when even the last surviving colony got its independence, many changes have occurred in the structure of entire world. The question of national liberation has been fully resolved; the world capitalism has entered the phase of Globalization; in the relatively less developed and developing countries, which are not imperialists, the ruling bourgeoisie is not playing the role of comprador bourgeoisie in any way; the capitalist mode of production is clearly the most effective and dominant mode of production in the social formations of these countries. Therefore, these countries are not semi-feudal semi-colonial countries. These are backward but capitalist countries where the bourgeoisie is neither national (since it shares nothing in common with the masses) nor comprador (since it is politically independent and in a multipolar world while being economically and technologically dependent on imperialism as a whole, it is not the agent of any single imperialist country). The bourgeoisies of these countries acts as the junior partner of imperialism and together with it, is engaged in imperialist-capitalist plunder of the people of its country. It is nowhere written in any book of Marxism that the bourgeoisie can either be imperialist or national or else comprador; however, in most of the ‘Third World’ countries which have the potentialities for a durable proletarian revolution, the Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries consider the new democratic revolution, protracted people’s war and semi-feudal semi-colonial analysis as a question of ideology, which, in fact, is the question of the program of revolution, which has to be repeatedly enriched, updated and revised by the revolutionaries with the changing circumstances. The turning of the question of program into that of ideology has obliged them to shut all doors against rethinking on this question and this dogmatic Marxism, instead of being a scientific instrument of analysis, has become an alternative to thinking for them! This is the biggest problem the communist movement throughout the world is facing today. Today, clearly it is necessary to break free from the shackles of the theory of new democratic revolution and undertake the concrete analysis of concrete conditions of one’s country. Without this, there can be no resolution to the crisis confronting the communist movement.
This problem is the internal problem of the communist movement. Besides this, the bourgeois media, cultural and intellectual tools too are continuously launching new attacks on Marxism, are trying to break Marxists from within, are producing motley crew of “radical” intellectuals with spontaneous motion through their hegemonic mechanism, who are consciously or unconsciously launching offensive against Marxism. In this age of information technology revolution, capitalism has deepened its psychological and cultural hegemony all the more through the means of TV, internet, etc. It is true that all these media provide an alternative to the revolutionary forces to subvert the hegemony of the bourgeois ideology (this is precisely the reason why the revisionist rulers of China have to block many websites, a few among these were propagating the ideas of Mao). However, today, due to their ideological immaturity, the communist revolutionary forces, in most of the cases are not in a position to subvert the ideological hegemony of capitalism! There is a need to build an entire revolutionary alternative media outside internet and TV too, which can continuously create obstacles and impediments in the whole process of production and reproduction of the bourgeois values and manufacturing of consent in favour of capitalism. In these terms, the revolutionary forces will have to erect the structure of their own alternative media. This subject cannot be dealt with in detail here.
- The “Challenge” of New Vagabond Philosophers to Marxism and their History and Geography
As an ideology, Marxism is facing no crisis. Whatever attacks are being made against Marxism, their names might be new, however, there is nothing new in their content. The “challenges” of postmodernism, post-structuralism, Orientalism, post-Orientalism, subalternism, etc have met their doom. In academic world too, today the talks of ‘return of Marxism’ is doing the rounds (though how much of it is Marxism, or something else, is a contentious issue!). At least, all ‘post- ‘ streams of thought are breathing their last in the state of comatose. However, there is a new current in form of speculative radical “philosophers” which is launching offensive against Marxism. It comprises of vagabond philosophers like Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Jacques Ranciére etc. It is not without reason that we are referring to them as speculative and vagabond. They are really vagabond and speculative! Most among these talk about a new kind of Communism! Such a Communism which would not be Marxist! They contend that Communism is an absolute truth, whose absolute journey is continuing since the ancient times and Plato, Rousseau, the Jacobins and Marxist Communism of the 20th century are different relative points in this absolute journey and now we have left these points behind; this absolute journey of Communism has made the party and the state irrelevant and has come ahead of it; though class is not deemed irrelevant, but nowhere in the writings of these gentlemen, “outdated” concepts like class, class character of state power are present (Mr. Badiou)! Instead of the bourgeoisie, they use the term ‘the rulers’, and instead of the proletariat, they use ‘the multitude’ with great liking and enthusiasm; they like to speak about ‘the commons’ instead of capital, production, etc. (Messrs. Negri and Hardt and Mr. Žižek too)! There are some who do not claim to go further than Marxist Communism and neither claim to accept it; nor do they say anything clear regarding the need for the state and the party; every year as a rule, they change their position on the dictatorship of the proletariat too, however, they do hold that the Marxist Communism of the 20th century culminated in a catastrophé/disaster and that there is a need for a new kind of Communism and then they sing the same song sung by Mr. Badiou and Messrs Negri and Hardt (Mr. Žižek)! Then there are a few who go on to add that the proletariat/oppressed class/subaltern classes does not need any leadership or party; they favour the ‘self-education’ of the oppressed and assert that today a more radical idea than Marxism is needed because Marxism itself is totalitarian, repressive and reductionist (Mr. Ranciére)! Besides, there are a few who have resolved to be the slayers of all kinds of universality and maintain that all talk of universality, absoluteness, generality is in fact repressive, therefore, we must whole-heartedly engage in safe-gaurding the fragments; that is say, concepts like class, concepts like unity/solidarity of the proletariat are repressive in themselves and thus we must celebrate the fragments (Ms. Judith Butler, Mr. Laclau and Mr. Mouffe)! And in the end, there are some who without smashing the state power, without establishing a new revolutionary state power, have scrawled ten to twelwe theses on accomplishing revolution (Mr. John Halloway)!
Perhaps, you might have understood why we call these “philosophers” speculative and vagabond philosophers. They do not have any axis! Without going into their intentions, let us discuss the key points of their thought. If one pays closer attention, one finds that their radical stance, their impassioned talk, and claims of favouring a new kind of revolution notwithstanding, their target is precisely those very concepts that constitute the revolutionary core of Marxism. For instance, concept of class, concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, concept of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the class, concept of capital, concept of alienation and exploitation, etc. These vagabond philosophers either negate these concepts, or else distort them. In order to understand their false philosophical deceptions, one must look at their philosophical and political source. In fact, the source of most of these is the same as that of the postmodernist streams of thought–that is say, the movement of 1968, whose centre was Paris. The intervention by the Soviet Social Imperialism in the Eastern Europe and the experiences of the people in the sham socialist countries of Eastern Europe became the cause of prejudices against Soviet Socialism in the 1960s. In Europe, and particularly in France, there were many such political and philosophical thinkers who had made their ideological beginning as Marxists, however, later due to the experiences of the Soviet Imperialism, they became disillusioned with Marxism, because they could not differentiate between the revolutionary Marxism and revisionism. In addition to it, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution too was going on in China, which many in Europe took as ‘revolution against the party’! All in all, the outcome was that these so-called ‘new philosophers’ began to think of the theory of the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat as the root cause of all evils. Some of these branding Marxism as totalitarian, repressive, etc moved towards postmodernism such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, etc. There were some who began to talk a new kind of Marxism! Most among these were influenced by Althusser, Alexander Kojéve, and Jacques Lacan and some were even Althusser’s students. Althusser adopted a compromising position on the revisionism of the French Communist Party and Soviet Revisionism which led to some of his students to be free from his influence, such as Jacques Ranciére, Etiénne Balibar, Foucault, etc. However, most of these took Althusser’s mistake for the mistake of Marxism itself. The postmodernism was born in this very crucible of philosophical confusions and illusions, along with the influences of Nietsche, Spengler, Daniel Bell, Raymond Aron, Rostow, etc. And the present-day philosophers whom we are referring to as vagabond and speculative philosophers, too, originated from the same confused Paris of 1968. In fact, after the failure of direct attacks of postmodernism, the philosophical nomadism of these speculative and vagabond philosophers have once again targeted the revolutionary core of Marxism, while at the same time feigning to oppose postmodernism. Their terminology is different; the shamelessness with which postmodernism boasted about the ultimate victory of capitalism, absence of any alternative, support for the politics of identity, etc. would be considered as farcical and ludicrous now. That is why these new vagabond philosophers have assumed the gesture of apparent anti-capitalism and they undertake “a new kind of criticism” of capitalism, which itself demands a separate discussion! Today, people across the world are taking to streets against capitalism. This is not the period of the early-1990s when defeatism and pessimism reigned everywhere. At that time, postmodernism could sing the threnody of ‘end’ blatantly. Now the fate of any ideology which attempts to do the same can easily be gauged. Therefore, the intellectual apparatus of capitalism has given rise to new kind of “philosophers” with its natural motion and some among them are being touted as “most entertaining thinker”, “greatest living thinker”, etc while some others are being cororated as “most innovative thinker of the generation”, and what not! However, as we have already seen, the target of these new “philosophers” is same as that of postmodernism, postcolonial theory, etc. in the 1990s and early 2000s–the revolutionary core of Marxism. Today, the philosophical vagrancy of these vagabond philosophers needs to be severely criticized and the real anti-people character of their ideas needs to be clarified. We need to understand the real intent and objective behind their entire jugglary of words.
The world needs a clear alternative in clear terms, which can be provided and which is possible too, provided that, the revolutionary forces across the world counter the challenges from within and without in a correct manner. The anti-capitalist movements going on in the world at present are suffering from anarchism, celebration of spontaneity, and different kinds of alien tendencies. People have participated in these movements spontaneously out their hatred and disdain for capitalism. However, this hatred for capitalism is not enough; sponteneity is not enough; in a sentence, one can say that, merely anti-capitalism is not enough. The revival of anarchism and Chomskyism which these movements are witnessing, would prove short-lived, rather one can say that it has already started to prove short-lived with the dispersion within these movements. Anarchism cannot provide any alternative. We must provide a clear and coherent revolutionary alternative. And for this the proletarian revolutionaries across the world must abandon the weaknesses, dogmatism, axis-less thinking and surrenderism present within themselves and face these challenges, standing firmly on the principles of Marxism, on the science of dialectical materialism. Without revolutionary ideology, revolutionary party and revolutionary movement, no revolution is possible. Today, the proletarian revolutionaries throughout the world must undertake preparations to build a new revolutionary party, while freeing themselves from their ideological weaknesses and dogmatic understanding of revolutionary programme. This is the only way to get rid of the crisis of the movement.
(Concluded)
February, 2012.
Leave a Reply