left re imagining

8/6/2019 Left Re Imagining

1/9

The Need for a New Socialist Vision

Prabir Purkayastha

Globally, the left has some common problems. It would be a partial view if we believe that the left

scenario in any country is largely driven by its internal dynamics. In the age of global media and

instant communication, the politics of the world is intertwined in different ways. A victory for the

Right in Europe, an advance for the Left in Latin America and the rise of fundamentalist forces indifferent parts of the world, all have an impact on each country and the left forces there.

The decline of the left forces in the world can individually be attributed to the specifics of that

country. Many of them win a few local or regional elections and then decline after some time. No

doubt, the proximate causes of their decline can be identified with the specificities of their national

situation. However, what we need to look at is the bigger picture. Is what is happening here

exclusive to some countries or are there similar trends elsewhere? If the left is not strong enough to

create a revolutionary situation, what happens if it wins regional and municipal elections? What is

the path of development that countries would need to follow which is significantly different from

the neo liberal agenda that still dominates the world? What is the left vision of a new socialist state,

different from the one that failed in Soviet Union and that seems to be failing in China?

I will briefly discuss the context within which we have to look at these issues and then examine in a

little more detail the changes in the sphere of production that distinguishes the 20th century from the

21st. I will then try and locate the debate on the new socialist vision in terms of these changes de

scaling and decentralising technology. Which makes today' vision different from the options

available in early 20th century Soviet Union. This socialist vision should not only be a template for a

new socialist society but also provide a trajectory for the left movement in different countries.

The Context of the Left Movement Today

Obviously, the decline of socialist countries, their disintegration in Russia and Eastern Europe, the

market driven socialism in China have had a traumatic effect on the left movement across theglobe. If we look at the post World War II scenario, socialism was advancing rapidly, the major

imperialist powers except the US were in decline. Liberation struggles backed by the socialist camp

were spreading across Asia and Africa. Today, not only has the socialist camp disintegrated, we have

a resurgent imperialism, which under the guise of globalisation is subjugating the economies of the

Third World.

A number of people argue that the socialist forces deviated from a correct socialist path soon after

the October revolution and there was no socialist project worth the name after that. For them, the

trauma is not of recent origin but dates back much further. The socialist states were not in this

view distortions of socialism but were states run by bureaucratic capital or state capital.

The problem with this view is that it is very Western in its location. The reality is that the even

with all its problems, the Soviet Union provided a huge impetus to the national liberation struggles

in the colonies. It did this in two ways one is the direct support it provided to forces of national

liberation. The second is providing an alternative post independence model to the colonised

nations. Independence was for securing independence for their entire people (except the

collaborating classes) and not just for their bourgeoisie. It was the socialist model as well the

evidence that under socialism an underdeveloped economy can emerge quickly as a relatively

developed one that provided the inspiration to many of the national liberation struggles. Since the

world was largely under colonial yoke, the role of a socialist Soviet Union has to be understood in

this context. Even today, the fall of Soviet Union has had an enormous negative impact on the ability

of third world countries to chart a relatively independent course.

In most countries in the world, the left has weakened considerably. From the powerful force that the


2/9

Communist Parties (CP's) were in many countries, they have become pale shadows of themselves.

The non CP left formations had believed that with the disintegration of the socialist camp, the

Communist parties would also disintegrate, leaving the left space open for them. This has not

happened and if we look at the left space today, for example in Europe, the decline of the CPs has

not lead to the emergence of new left formations to take their place. In Italy, it saw various

formations come together as the Rifondazone, which after some initial success, has again gone into

decline.

The Latin American scenario is probably the most interesting from a global left perspective. Latin

America was the first to fall under the neo liberal sway. Pinochets Chile was the laboratory where

its tools were first forged. Not surprisingly, it has been the first to emerge from the neo liberal thrall

Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina amongst others have seen major advances for the

left.

In Asia, while the CPs survived in many countries along with other left parties, the major CPs

outside the socialist countries that have still remained as important force in their countries are

Nepal, India, Philippines and Japan. In other countries, the left remains splintered and fragmented

wielding relatively less influence. In Palestine, the left could be a significant force, if the PFLP, PPPand DFLP come together in a united platform.

Africa, except for South Africa, Angola and Mozambique again remains a place where there are left

forces but not organised left parties. The left space is filled in these countries by church and NGOs,

who are the only ones that are allowed to operate openly.

Though the left forces world over is seen to be weaker than they were post World War II, it must be

seen that the left in numbers today are still significant. The anti War struggle before the Iraq

invasion saw huge numbers march in countries where we might think the left is insignificant. They

marched under the leadership of the old left of various hues, but nevertheless clearly identifiable as

left. What is missing there today is the ability to translate these numbers into sustained political

interventions, and this is primarily due to the weakening of organised political parties in the leftspectrum. It is this inability to transform its numbers into political intervention that brings out the

importance of organised political formations namely the left parties.

The belief that the decline of organised political parties does not matter runs counter to the

experience in different countries. Wherever there are no left parties, the polity is able to shift much

more towards the right. Amorphous left mass has much less striking capacity than organised left

parties.

State/Regional and Municipal Governments and the Left Movement

I have already argued the need for organised political parties as the basis of political intervention in

society. While struggles in all spheres is the obvious route any organised left party will take, it willstill have to address the vital question of how to capture state power. Does it stay out of electoral

politics and wait for a revolutionary national (or global) situation or does it also regard elections as

an arena of struggle? If it does, given the uneven development that is inevitable in the world, what

happens if it wins such elections?

There are a number of places that the Left forces had gained control of provincial or state

governments. In most of these, after a period, the left forces were unable to continue their hegemony

and lost to other forces. Most of these Governments had a number of innovative measures to their

credit but somewhere a strategic understanding of the role of these state governments in building a

larger left movement is missing and a more defensive mindset of how to continue in power became

the de facto sine qua non of their practice.

In India, the land reforms in Bengal and the Peoples Plan in Kerala are two important examples of


3/9

what the left has done which is completely different from other political parties. The recent reverses

in both these states show that it is not possible to continue the current course indefinitely. In Brazils

Rio Grande de Sul province and Porte Alegre, the town municipality, again participative peoples

planning was amongst the innovations that the left introduced. However, here also the left lost in Rio

Grande de Sul as well as in Porte Alegre.

The key issue here is how do we see those organs of state power, winning of which do not give the

left a means to make a decisive shift and yet give a salience within the bourgeois state. When the

Left came into what were called United Front Governments in 1967 and 1969 in Bengal, they were

still a minority within the UF. The UF Government was seen as an instrument of struggle. The Left

within the UF was able to advance land struggles significantly in this period. It was the sharpening

of the land struggles that saw the split within the UF and though the UF Governments fell as a

result, the left forces and the mass movements really grew through this process.

After the 1977 victory, the Left in Bengal faced a new scenario. They now had a dominant position

within the state Government and could craft its policies within the context of the centre state

relations in the country. It was no longer possible to confine the Government role of being an

instrument of struggle but also use it to provide relief to the people. The land reforms and landdistribution became the focal point of its immediate program and this is what built for the left in

Bengal long term support base. Its continuing electoral success was in a large measure due to the

land reforms.

The question that the left faced and will face is that providing relief to the people cannot be a long

term task. It works if it is seen as a transitory phenomenon. With the stagnation of the left

movement outside Bengal and Kerala, the problem then is what does the left do in such states? Does

it then see its agenda as one of providing some relief to the people as well as running a bourgeois

government a kind of capitalism with a human face or does it start thinking about an alternate

vision of development, which it tries then to implement? The left did not squarely address this issue

and instead, the left agenda became a kind of ad hoc reaction of providing relief within themeasures that the central government was proposing. As the centre shifted more and more to the

right and public investments dried up, it meant that even the left the state governments, in order to

industrialise, joined the race to provide more and more incentives to private capital to come to their

states.

Before we take the easy path of being critical of the left in state governments, let us recognise that

crafting an alternate vision of development within which the regional/provincial governments can

play some role is not an easy task. The easy ideological road that some of the anti globalisation

forces take is the neo Gandhian one of remaining a agrarian, subsistence economy only small

agro industries eschewing big industrial plants. In this view, the village economy should be the basic

economic unit and transformed only by infusion of micro technologies to be made self sustaining.

Any serious examination of this will show that this cannot address the problems of the people we

would need urbanisation and industries if we were to meet the needs of the people. The question

that we need to pose is whether there is an alternate path of industrialisation instead of an alternate

to industrialisation and what can the left in the state governments do to push such a path?

This is not only a challenge to the Indian left but also a global challenge. It is not only about what to

do within the boundaries of capital today but also about the socialist vision of the future. The

socialist economy cannot arise de novo from a capitalist one its genesis and its forms must lie

within the existing capitalist forms. The kind of organisation of production under socialism

therefore needs to be envisioned. If we are able to create this blue print of a socialist economy, then

the task of the placing the regional governments at the centre of this struggle for an alternate

trajectory can become meaningful. If not, then the left in state governments will run out of steam

once the relief agenda finishes. If the major task of the left is to help capitalist industrialisation, the


4/9

bickering and the self serving nature of a section within the left then becomes a natural

consequence. It is the lack of a unifying vision of the socialist economy beyond the ownership of

the means of production that today hampers the creation of an alternate vision of development.

The left in regional and other local governments in India and elsewhere, if they have to go beyond

providing some relief to the people, must therefore address the local governments role within the

context of this new socialist vision. This is not to argue for a kind of incremental view of reforming

the capitalist system. It is creating hegemony of this socialist vision over the capitalist one the

predatory and neo liberal globalisation that underlies todays capitalist vision. The political struggle

for socialism needs the instrument of regional/local governments to propagate this alternate vision

of society.

Obsolescence of Economies of Scale and its Implications for the Socialist Mode of Production

The debate within the left has touched on many aspects of the failure of the socialist states. To

many, it was a failure of the political formation that lead to the failure of the socialist states. To

others, it was their economies, which failed to stand up to competition from the more

technologically advanced capitalist countries. This article is not about the why the socialist states

failed. What I am raising is can we attract people to the left without addressing the question of whatkind of socialism do we want to build: whether we will build a new form of socialism or will we

recreate the old one? Without addressing this central question, we are unlikely to go forward.

I have already underlined the importance of a new socialist vision in the context of the left parties

and local governments. This to me is the central question confronting the left a new vision of

socialism that is distinct from the old one. This is not to argue that the old socialist vision was

wrong. It was limited as all visions are by its time and its place. The time was the early

twentieth century when technology was largely in the Fordian i paradigm of economies of scale. The

place was Soviet Union, large parts of which were emerging from feudal autocracy. To create a

socialist vision with the technology fix of early twentieth century is to miss the enormous

possibilities of a decentralisation and flexible forms of production today. This is what global capitalseeks to exploit, as it turns more and more away from productive forms of capital. If we look at

technology, the possibilities today of de scaling and therefore a co operative model of production

are immense.

This is not to argue that all production should or could be de centralised and de scaled. All that I am

pointing out is that industrialisation based on huge, vertically integrated factories are no longer valid

across a class of commodities. It may still be required in some specific sectors such as steel plants,

but not in all.

This vision of a de scaling technology is quite different from the neo Gandhian paradigm of petty

commodity production with low levels of productivity. Cutting edge technology no longer needslarge economies of scale as early twentieth century demanded and can dovetail advanced forms of

production with much smaller unit sizes.

The production systems today are changing rapidly from mass production of goods to mass

customisation of goods. Mass production, starting with the industrial revolution to the Fordian

paradigm, brought down cost while providing high quality. It achieved this using standardisation of

components and goods, economies of scale and quality control. However, it produced rigid

centralised production structures, large plants and eliminated lower level initiative and control over

production. It also eliminated diversity of the product. As Henry Ford was reported to have said,

"You can have any colour of car as long as it's black". The end user was willing to sacrifice variety

for quality and low cost.

The socialist system of production not only modelled the Fordian form of production, but also took

it to the next level. In this, the entire economy was treated as one unit of production and the system


5/9

as a whole optimised. While this had an obvious impact in reducing costs and making the economy

more efficient, it also created the problem that any change in this system became difficult to

introduce. It became a static optimisation model and lost the capability of introducing technology

change into the production system.

The changed technology regime todayii, permits an alternate way of production, which maintains

quality as well as produces goods at low costs. This is the direction we are moving today inmanufacturing systems. The production process is being de scaled and becoming more flexible.

This allows for a much greater diversity of products we enter what is called the era of mass

customisation people can ask for what they want without introducing high costs into the system.

With mass customisation, the economies of scale undergo a radical shift. With increasing product

differentiation and mass customisation, the conventional arguments in favour of economies of scale

no longer hold.

Earlier plants process or manufacturing were built on the basic economies of scale. Thus, the

bigger the plant, less the cost per unit of output, this was the basis of most plants design. This

resulted in huge plants that took a long time to come on stream and had very high capital costs. If

the technology and market demand held stable in this period, as also the input and output costs,increasing the size of the plant to bring down unit costs was the way to go. However, if any of these

factors changed, then the plants could be left with very large investments that generate low or even

negative returns.

In a stable technological regime, technology changes that fundamentally altered costs were rare.

However, the changes in 20th century have not only been explosive, the graph continues to climb.

This has altered the fundamental equation between plant size and economies of scale. If technology

changes rapidly, the large plants that have been built cannot compete in terms of costs with those

built using the newer innovation. Therefore, under a regime of rapid technological change,

economies of scale will not hold.

Large plants either manufacturing or process plants tend to have rigid production structures.They are large fixed structure plants producing only a specific set of goods from a specific set of

inputs. In a fixed structure plant the flow of the process is fixed and cannot be changed. This allows

the economies of scale to be fully exercised. Instead of building large plants, a flexible production

system that may have lower economies of scale but adapt better to new conditions. The flexible

production systems of this kind require a variable plant structure that can be re-configured

depending on the product mix. The re-configuring demands a versatile control and automation

systems in order to maintain plant efficiencies and quality. With this, it is possible to de-scale the

plants and operate at much lower break-even points as a variety of products can be made from the

same basic plant.

From flexible manufacturing to flexible process industries, all production systems that are plasticand capable of reconfiguring of the process. This means replacing the Fordian paradigm that has

ruled the industrial world we are today in the age of de scaling plants with agile flexible systems.

If we look at how earlier production systems were structured, they were strongly hierarchic. This of

course melded very will with the needs of global capital. The centralisation of capital demanded

also centralisation of production. However, with the potential of de centralised production as

outlined above, we find that capital is actually moving away from such centralised structures of

production. Their control over technology (innovation), markets (brand name) and capital is what

gives them the control over production. That explains why capital is quite happy to outsource the

actual production anywhere in the world as they can retain control over the above three.


6/9

These systems do not function in a hierarchical environment due to the fact that too muchinformation will have to be processed by a central decision maker. There is the argument that such

production systems are more akin to biological systems. For example, in the human body, a T cell

will attack bacteria independent of brain commands. The brain handles overall respiratory and

motor functions, but leaves the mission critical details to holons.

The figure above shows the difference between hierarchical and holonic systems. In a hierarchy, a

"boss" or supervisor assigns tasks to "workers." Those workers have little or no decision making

authority and cannot act independent of the boss. In a holonic system, an "agent" initiates

"negotiations" with other agents who act independently, but co operate with each other. More

activities take place at lower level functions.

The question we need to ask is what is the implications of the new structure of production for thesocialist project? The argument advanced here is that in a new socialist vision, we need to see how

production will be structured. This is to move away from the question of ownership of the means of

production as the central one in the socialist project and focus on the actual organisation of

production. If production can be de scaled and decentralised, the possibility that a body of

producers could co operatively work to meet the needs of the people is then feasible. A much

smaller unit of production also allows for a much greater autonomy at the level of the unit of

production. It allows for plans to emerge not as centralised, top down plans of production for the

entire economy but plans to emerge as bottom up peoples plans (or workers plans).

This is not argue that every bit of the planning process should be bottom up. There can be larger

societal or economic goals set by the society outside of this planning process. However, actualising

such goals and working out how they are met can be done within the process outlined above.

The above schema of a different system of production is not worked in an abstract form. It is based

on what is already happening as a part of the current capitalist mode of production. As we have

discussed earlier, the new forms of production have already present in some embryonic form for a

new system of production to be built with such forms.

Such a view of the production system also allows the transitional left governments regional, local

or national also to articulate the requirements of the new form of production. It provides a view of

production which is different from the current form of capitalist production and also provides a

trajectory to such a form. The struggle for hegemony can then be fought within the various levels ofproduction.

The other issue under socialism that needs to be addressed is how does peoples' ownership of the

HIERARCHIC

WorkerWorkerWorkers

Boss

Agent Dialog

Agent

Agent Agent Agent

Tasks Assignments

PEER-TO-PEER


7/9

means of production express itself. Earlier, this meant government ownership. Is it possible to think

of ownership of the factories by workers or the people not as centralised government ownership but

express this in other ways? The Soviets were the earliest form of this expression under socialism and

still remains an alternative to government ownership.

How would we plan for such a socialist economy? The simplest planning model is to consider the

entire economy as one large model and try and optimise this model. This was what socialist

planning did and created the command economy. A future socialist economy could conceivably

create plans with different units of production working together collaboratively a participative

planning from below. The Kerala/Porto Alegre model of peoples plan could then be a possible way

for such future socialist states to plan.

Technology and Innovation in the Production Process

It may be argued that while the above may be a possible way for a socialist production to work, how

will it allow for technology innovation to change the production processes? How do we ensure that

the system as a whole will not ossify as there may not be an incentive to introduce innovation within

the system. If there is a period of competition between the new socialist states and the existing

capitalist ones, will the socialist states survive competition better than they did earlier?

Interestingly enough, there is a parallel discourseiii taking place within the left on science,

technology and democratising science. The purpose here is not to duplicate this discourse but

merely bring out some of its central concerns.

Some of the questions that have been raised are:

Do we have new possibilities today for alternate structures of creating knowledge and

innovation?

Is it possible to expand the notion of commons to help such processes develop?

How appropriate are the current structures of science to meet the needs of society and thepeople?

How can we democratise science not only for the scientific community but also to give the

people the right to control the directions of scientific enquiry

For technology and innovation to take place, we have to focus on the production of innovation and

not get limited to looking at capitals' control over innovation by controlling reproduction (patents,

copyright, etc.). The key question for us is how can production and reproduction of innovation

happen in a socialist system?

A bottom up approach of production automatically removes the barrier to technological change that

existed within the centralised system. But it will not also automatically generate innovation. Forinnovation to happen, there must be structures that promote innovation. Of course, the university or

public scientific institutions are the key to such innovation structures being available to society for

innovation to take place. However, we have moved forward from the availability of such structures to

open, collaborative ways that science and technology is being done today.

Today, the information technology sector has shown that new technologies and methodologies can

be developed by cooperative communities. It may be argued that this sector is unique in that the

reproduction costs of the artefacts the software are relatively low. However, the question

needs to be posed whether it is possible to design such approaches for other areas such as, say, the

life sciences? Is it possible to have new ways of establishing creative commons, in which new

technologies and methodologies are developed by cooperative communities? Increasingly, free andopen source movements are already advancing the cause of knowledge as commons and this

provides a natural trajectory for future development of technology and science. The socialisation of


8/9

intellectual labour is visible through this commons movement and this is the new way innovation is

already taking place.

Back to the Futre

The organisation of production and creation of knowledge are not only part of a larger socialist

vision but also the terrain of struggle today. If the left forces can reorient their vision away from the

20th century Fordian paradigm to a new way of looking at future production systems, it will providea basis of struggle today. It will help the left local and regional governments to meld their vision of

a socialist future with the existing struggles today. The re imagining the future therefore lies not

only at the heart of the socialist project, but should also provide a trajectory towards achieving it.

It is neither the intention here nor the claim that this article provides such a vision. What I want to

underline is that without the left resolving some of these issues, not only will it fail to gather new

forces, but will also fail to continue in its current trajectory. The setback to the left will continue

unless it addresses the central issues of a new socialist vision and how it perceives its trajectory.

This is not only an issue confronting the left in India alone, but also a truly global challenge.

There is a belief amongst some sections that there is no need for organised left parties today and a

diffused global civil society can fight global capital. The problem with this position is that diffused

movements cannot constitute alternatives in any real sense, as they have to confront finally the well

organised, coercive instruments of the state. It is only organised political parties that can address the

question of state power.

It is only through organised movements locally, regionally and nationally can we confront the

state. The organised movements here have to work with similar movements elsewhere to provide

global resistance. Global capital cannot be fought only locally, or defeated locally. Instead, a global

vision, a global network encompassing local, national and global resistances is the way forward.

There is no need for a new international but there is a need for a network of global left forces

coming together to fight global capital. It is this larger re organisation that the left will have toaddress.

What the left needs to do today is to believe that its numbers are much larger than within its

organised fold. It needs to build a set of coalitions that will give it much greater intervention in the

policy issues, while building its organisation for the future. It needs to rework its basic socialist

vision. It needs to see its current challenge as an opportunity to re examine and rework its current

agenda. It is a long and arduous path. But why should we believe making history was ever going to

be easy? Or without its ups and downs?


9/9

i A number of other writers have identified the form socialist production system as Fordian., though I have not

footnoted them here. My argument, as distinct from theirs, is that at that time, the possibility of alternate forms of

production did not really exist.

ii A more detailed account of this can be found in Prabir Purkayastha, Technology: Breaking the Cycle, IBSA

Summit / Academic Seminar, 2006.

iii A initiative was taken in 2009 to meet in Belem before the World Social Forum. This was the Science and

Democracy meet. The issue of knowledge as commons and new ways of developing knowledge was one of the issues

in focus here.

left re imagining

Documents