Marx and utopia

While speculating on the future of the left movement in the country, it is natural to remember Marx, the brilliant and angry oracle who was determined not just to understand history but to change it for justice and freedom. In the process, Marx gave to this world a way of analysing history that remains unique and powerful. Yet, the irony is that the greatest danger to Marxism has always been from those who claim to be Marxist. Even Marx recognised this possibility and at one time refused to call himself a Marxist.

Marx understood better than anyone the inherent tendency of a capitalist system to promote capital accumulation and increase its productive potential. But he saw in its structure the seeds of monopoly, the falling rate of profit of capitalists, increasing mechanisation, leading ultimately to polarisation in the economy between the capitalists and labour. This conflict would ultimately lead to the violent destruction of the capitalist system. It is a grand and striking narrative against capitalist exploitation and the economic oppression of his age. Marx called for the overthrow of the capitalist system and his first target was Britain. He did not think that Germany qualified for the revolution because factory workers then were only four percent of the population. He thought that France was a better candidate for revolution. Success in France would naturally have an effect in Germany. His prognosis, however, faced problems even during his lifetime, since worker’s wages were rising and the conflict between capital and labour, while theoretically attractive, was not leading to revolution.

Lenin, Stalin and Marxism

What happens after the overthrow of capitalism? On what principles will the economy and politics work to establish a socialist utopia? Here Marx was vague and had little guidance for his followers except to say that the new order will be an “association of free men” who will determine the way the economy is to function. In a way, Marx, the brilliant thinker and philosopher determined to change society within a revolutionary intellectual framework, was more like a mystic who would vaguely indicate the path to liberation and leave the rest for others to interpret and follow.

This is where Lenin entered the scene and defined how the new state is to be organised. Surprisingly, in his famous book The State and Revolution, Lenin concludes that all citizens become employees of one national state that would work according to the rules of accounting and control. In this scheme, the state controls the people, the party controls the state and the general secretary controls the party. Naturally, a structure of this nature veers towards a dictatorship since there are no legal countervailing institutions to challenge the misuse of authority in the name of the proletariat. Anyone who disagrees with the policies of the state is viewed as being against the party, the state and ultimately, the people.

Stalin’s regime in the 1930s was the high point of this thinking, when those who dared to question the leader even mildly were murdered for the sake of the revolution. By the mid 1930s, over two thirds of the Central Committee of the party had been executed. Similarly, in line with the thinking that private property was the chief obstacle in the evolution of a new socialist culture, millions of farmers, who had supported the revolution because they were promised bread and land, lost their lives in the process of collectivisation of agriculture, which was considered necessary to start a new industrial base. There were voices against these policies after the demise of Stalin but the system could not change its course and institute countervailing forces to challenge the excesses of the state. Over the years, it developed a ‘new class’ that benefitted from the one-party state and its members, who included the functionaries of the party and the bureaucracy, both economic and political, were  in no mood to give up their perks and privilege. Marxism became a veil for to justify a defensive structure against change and innovation and against a challenge to a statist mindset that viewed the people increasingly like commodities, whose main function was to follow the dictates of the party without any question. A new affluent middle class that was increasingly in contact with the rest of the world could not accept this logic.

Similarly, economic efficiency suffered because there was no built-in mechanism to propel technological innovation, which would be reflected in the sustained increase of labour productivity. Ultimately, the regime collapsed, not because of outside threats or interference but because it was alienated from its own people. The irony is that the analysis of worker alienation that Marx saw as an inherent feature imbedded in capitalist formation was in fact being reproduced in a state that declared its commitment to Marxism.

Maoism and Marxism

In China, the interpretation and application of Marxist doctrine took a different turn. The success of the Chinese revolution under Mao will certainly remain one of the truly great events of the 20th century. During the struggle, Mao promised a new democracy that would provide political space to intellectuals, nationalists, national capitalists and all other progressive elements in society.

However, once Mao was in power, the idea of a new democracy gave way to one-party rule that asserted the supremacy of the state and the party in both politics and economics. Under his leadership, Mao wanted a radical transformation of the Chinese economy and in this process, launched farm collectivisation and mass mobilisation for both agricultural and industrial development. This effort to create a new socialist man was a grand vision that led to the notion of “permanent revolution” culminating in the “great cultural revolution”. The idea was to purge the society of capitalist values, including the notion of private property. The dream was to establish a new socialist paradigm that would finally remove capitalist ethos and values from the social system.

Mao’s efforts almost destroyed the Chinese economy. Anyone who expressed doubt about the new policies were punished or banished to remote places to learn from the people. One such victim was Deng Xiaoping, who later led a dramatic transformation of the Chinese economy and laid the basis for sustained growth in income and output. The political implications of this transformation, which includes the growth of a new middle class along with an increase in income inequality and private ownership, have yet to be seen.

The crucial question

Now the question is: when the Maoists declare their intellectual allegiance to Chairman Mao of China, how do they see its relevance in Nepal? On the other hand, if they are now Dengists, do they have the intellectual integrity to openly admit it? The people expect an answer.

Lohani is a senior leader of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party