Can the working class shape Indian democratic politics ?

Let us begin by paying homage to the labour leaders in whose

memory this annual lecture has been instituted. I have personally
had the honour of working with Com. A.D. Shastri, who was a leader
of my union CITU. He was a real fighter on behalf of the working
class. I pay homage to Brother A.P. Kulkarni, another indomitable
fighter on behalf of workers who left us last month. Two years back
this month, a great intellectual and national leader of the working
class Com. Govind Pansare was martyred by the bullets of communal
terrorists. And 71 years back today hundreds of patriotic workers
of Mumbai fell to the bullets of the British when they struck work and
came on the streets to support the Royal Indian Navy mutiny. Along
with them a young communist activist Com. Kamal Dhonde was also
martyred . Let us salute the memory of Com. Pansare , Com. Kamal
Dhonde and the hundreds of working class martyrs of February 22nd
1946.

DEMOCRACY

Can the working class shape politics ?

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels answer this question emphatically in

the affirmative in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, published in
1848.

In the ‘Manifesto’, they make a number of assertions- about

inevitable crisis in capitalism, that capitalism produces its own
gravedigger- the working class, that the working class needs its own
party - a communist party, and that as a first step , the working class
must win the battle for democracy.

The working class attempting to shape politics preceded Marx and

Engels. In the 1830’s, the working people of England, Scotland and
Wales were mobilizing en masse in what is called today the Chartist
movement , to make democratic political demands. In 1838 they
published the People's Charter , setting out the main aims of the
movement. Working men should be able to vote in parliamentary
elections , voting should be by secret ballot, workers should be
eligible to stand for election , property qualifications should be
abolished and MPs should be paid a salary.

The massive marches in support of these democratic demands were

sought to be suppressed and dispersed, resulting in fierce clashes,
arrests and jail terms for the leaders. One of the slogans of the
chartists, emblazoned on a banner of the Boiler makers, came from
the pen of the Roman writer Terence, a former slave himself, written
two thousand years earlier- “Humani Nihil Alienum”. Marx, when
asked his favorite maxim, also wrote the same words- Humani Nihil
Alienum. “Nothing human is alien to me.”

So we see that Marx and Engels were not the first assert a role for the
working class in democratic politics. This, the working class in
Britain did for itself. But three years before the ‘ Communist
Manifesto’, in 1845, Marx and Engels were the first to make an
assertion of a different kind.

This was a statement about the scope of science and the scientific
method.

SCIENCE

What do we mean by science ?

D.D. Kosambi gives an answer which is as profound as it is brief :

“Science is the cognition of necessity”

In the 5th century BC, the Greek materialist philosopher Democritus ,

with incredible foresight, writes: “Everything existing in the universe
is the fruit of chance and necessity”.

In his doctoral thesis of 1841, Marx chose to compare the philosophy

of Democritus with that of his follower Epicurus . For young Marx,
the problem was of finding a space for human activism. If everything
is determined by chance and necessity, then where is the space for
human freedom- for conscious human action ? In this early writing,
Marx, striving to keep a space open for activism, argues his
preference for Epicurus, though in terms that are distant from his
later Marxism. In 1841 Marx is not yet a Marxist.
The year 1845 is a milestone in the history of science. In this year
Marx and Engels asserted that changing society is a valid subject for
scientific investigation. The method for doing this they termed as “the
materialist conception of history”.

Neither Marx nor Engels were born as Marxists. They arrived at what
we today term ‘marxism’, through a process of activism, study and
criticism of contemporary philosophical trends , culminating in their
pathbreaking formulation of ‘a materialist conception of history’ in
two documents, the “Theses on Feuerbach” , and “The German
Ideology” in 1845.

“We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at
history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the
history of men.”

“ The history of nature, called natural science, does not concern us here;
but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole
ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this history or to a
complete abstraction from it. ”

In the history of science the idea of a ‘ materialist conception of

history’ (the science of history referred to in the previous paragraph)
does not begin with social science , but in the natural sciences. A
conception of biology as a historical science begins well before
Darwin (whose Origin of Species was published only in 1859 ). From
the preceding century it was being recognized that two sciences-
geology, and biology, could only be rationally understood as
historical sciences. The fossil record, where geology met biology ,
were the pages of a history book, with a strong thread of causation
linking the later pages of this book to the earlier ones.

By the early 19th century, through the works of geologists like James
Hutton and Charles Lyell, and biologists like Leclerc (Buffon) and
Lamarck, it was being asserted that all of nature had a history, that
this history could be understood, and that moreover, the human
species , as a biological species, was a product of this natural history.
The threads of necessity running through natural science in the form
of a natural history were becoming evident. Biological science was
taking shape as a program of cognizing this necessity.
But what about human activity and social history?

The Marxist breakthrough was to show how social change can be

incorporated into an agenda of rigorous science. Human social
history presents a new problem to science- how to incorporate
human consciousness, conscious human activity, the freedom to
choose and to act, into the edifice of science.

How can this freedom of choice be reconciled with the aspect of

necessity that is central to all scientific analysis ?

In the context of social change , necessity has two different aspects,

two different meanings. There is the realm of the subjective, the
desirable, necessity as human need, and there is the realm of the
objective, the inevitable, what necessarily must happen, what is
compelled by underlying circumstances. Marx’s brilliant “Theses on
Feuerbach” shows how both the subjective and the objective aspects
of necessity can be encompassed into a single, integral,
comprehensive and consistent world view.

In the very first thesis, Marx makes a number of assertions about

science ( rational materialism) . In science, theory and practice are
inseparable . Though science is objective, and conscious human
activity subjective, it is incorrect to pose ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ as
mutually exclusive opposites. In scientific practice, the two aspects
are merged.

“The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human

activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood
only as revolutionary practice.”

Feurbach ‘does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of

“practical-critical”, activity.’

“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human

thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man
must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power… of his thinking in
practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is
isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.”

All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to
mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the
comprehension of this practice.

Rational practice is simultaneously subjective and objective. Rational

practice (science) , is practical-critical activity. It is revolutionary.

Marx asserts that revolutionary activity is not an external add-on to

science- but a necessary consequence. Scientific practice, if it
remains critical, realistic, consistent and true to the values of science
necessarily becomes revolutionary.

Many years later, Engels expressed it thus: “… the more ruthlessly and
disinterestedly science proceeds the more it finds itself in harmony with
the interest and aspirations of the workers.”

With his ‘materialist conception of history’, Marx achieved what

Democritus had asserted two thousand three hundred years earlier.
Marx’s 1845 breakthrough, opened the path , for the first time in
human history, for all of reality, both natural and social, to become a
subject of rigorous scientific inquiry.

Lenin summarizes the two intertwined aspects of social necessity in

a single sentence :

“Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world but creates
it “

With all of reality becoming the subject of science, science itself

ceases to be a subject, and instead becomes a powerful and distinct
method for understanding and engaging with reality. Kosambi’s great
achievement was to give a definition of science which can properly
encompass this new comprehensive, universal role.
POLITICS

The strength of scientific theory lies in its predictive power. Within

twenty five years of the Manifesto, the Paris Commune of 1871 in
many ways appeared to be a confirmation of its predictions. Marx
and Engels considered the Paris commune to be the realization of the
first ‘worker’s state’ in human history. They studied it closely to
discover in it’s practice, general principles for the worker’s
movement. In the words of Marx :

"It was essentially a working class government, the product of the

producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last
discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of
man."

The writer C.L.R. James described the commune thus : “The Paris
Commune was first and foremost a democracy”. It was governed by a
body elected by universal suffrage. It was concerned with worker’s
rights. Night shift work was banned in bakeries. None of the
government functionaries was paid a wage more than that of a skilled
worker. Women played an active role in its defence. The Commune
lasted for 72 days after which it was suppressed by a bloodbath in
which tens of thousands of workers were killed.

Perhaps for the first time in history, the democratic demand for
“Universal suffrage” had been realized in practice, if only for two
months.

Only a year after the Commune, in his speech at the congress of the
International Working Men’s Association at the Hague in 1872, Marx
had this to say :

“The congress at The Hague has brought to maturity three important

points:

It has proclaimed the necessity for the working class to fight the old,
disintegrating society on political as well as social grounds; and we
congratulate ourselves that this resolution of the London Conference
will henceforth be in our Statutes.
In our midst there has been formed a group advocating the workers’
abstention from political action. We have considered it our duty to
declare how dangerous and fatal for our cause such principles appear
to be.

Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the
new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which
sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the
old Christians who neglected and despised politics.

But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are
everywhere the same.

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various

countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that
there are countries — such as America, England, and if I were more
familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland —
where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being
the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the
Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which
we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.”

Tactics may change according to time and place, but certain general
principles do not change- the working class must be politically active,
and not restrict itself to non-political organizations . It must have its
own party. It will prefer peaceful means, wherever these are
available, but when suppressed by force, it will defend itself, with
force, if necessary.

At the same time when Marx and Engels were becoming active in
Europe, important changes were taking place in India. In the second
half of the 19th century, modern capitalist production was just
commencing in India. A modern industrial working class beginning
to be formed . In 1853 the first railway connected Thane and
Mumbai. The first textile mill started functioning at Tardeo the next
year, in 1854. However, when the country erupted in the revolt
against the British rule in 1857, this industrial working class could
not play a significant role because it had hardly come into existence.
EQUALITY

At this time, in India, yet another stream of political change was being
born - a struggle for equality, for social change to abolish inequality
and discrimination. In 1848, Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule started
their first school for lower caste women. In the next two decades of
the eighteen fifties and sixties, the struggle against caste inequality
and for social equality grew steadily in strength .

On the other side of the world , the abolition of slavery in 1865

following the victory of the anti-slavery Union army, under the
political leadership of Abraham Lincoln, in the bloody American Civil
War, was hailed by democratic forces all over the world. Both Marx
and Phule were deeply impressed by Abraham Lincoln.

In a letter written by Marx to Lincoln in January 1865, Marx

articulates that as long as white workers tolerate racism in their
midst, they cannot emancipate themselves from their own
exploitation.

“While the workingmen, the true political power of the North, allowed
slavery to defile their own republic, ….. they were unable to attain the
true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their
struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off
by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of

Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so
the American anti-slavery war will do for the working classes. They
consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of
Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead the
country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained
race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

Phule dedicated his book ‘Gulamgiri’ “ To The good people of the

United States As a token of admiration for their
SUBLIME DISINTERESTED AND SELF-SACRIFICING
DEVOTION in the cause of Negro slavery; and with an earnest
desire that my countrymen will take their noble example as their
guide in the emancipation of their Sudra Brethren from the trammels
of Brahmin thraldom.”

In 1873, Phule formed the Satyashodhak Samaj to work in an

organized manner for the emancipation from caste domination. One
of Phule’s disciples, Narayan Meghaji Lokhande was among the first
to organize the modern industrial working class in India . Lokhande
was a mass leader and labour organizer. Along with the struggles
against caste domination and for equality, the fight for labour rights
was among the early struggles for democratic rights in India.
It is pointed out that the “Bombay Millhands Association” started by
Lokhande was not a trade union. While this may be true, there is no
doubt that what Lokhande initiated was a workers movement for
basic labour rights concerning working hours, rest periods, leave etc.
which later became rights under legislation like the Factories Acts .
Lokhande also worked actively for worker’s unity and communal
harmony during the communal riots of 1893. He ultimately fell victim
to plague in 1896, while working selflessly in plague relief activities.

By contrast the role of Lokmanya Tilak in the labour movement is not

without contradictions. Tilak opposed the first Factories Act, on the
grounds that it was an instrument of the British industrialists to
burden Indian manufacturers and render them uncompetitive. At the
same time, he worked actively among the workers to organise
nationalist resistance against the British, using the popular Ganpati
festival and giving it a ‘sarvajanik ‘ form, for this purpose. Tilak was
much revered by the workers for his militant and uncompromising
anti-British speeches and writings.

In 1908, we witness the first mass political uprising of the Indian

working class in the form of a six day strike by the Mumbai workers
cutting across all industries, to protest the sentence of six years
transportation against Tilak. Lakhs of workers came out on the
streets in July 1908 and fought pitched battles with bricks and stones
against British bullets. More than 200 were killed .

Lenin wrote about this uprising in the following words :

“But in India the street is beginning to stand up for its writers and
political leaders. The infamous sentence pronounced by the British
jackals on the Indian democrat Tilak—he was sentenced to a long term
of exile, ---this revenge against a democrat by the lackeys of the money-
bag evoked street demonstrations and a strike in Bombay. In India, too,
the proletariat has already developed to conscious political mass
struggle—and, that being the case, the Russian-style British regime in
India is doomed!

Much has been written about Tilak’s social conservatism. But what must
be understood is that his mind was not closed. His views were not static,
and were evolving due to his close involvement with the masses , in
particular with the labour movement. It has been pointed out that during
the 1893 Hindu –Muslim riots in Bombay, whereas Lokhande held both
communities responsible, and worked for communal harmony, Tilak in a
meeting at Pune, held the Muslims as responsible, though encouraged by
the British, and asked Hindus to retaliate. But after he returned to India in
1914 from 6 year prison sentence in Mandalay, Tilak became a votary of
Hindu-Muslim unity. His bail application in Mumbai High Court in 1916
was argued by young barrister Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Both Hindus and
Muslims crowded to hear him speak at mass meetings. On 1916, he
addressed a meeting at Bhiwandi, before a mainly Muslim crowd, in
which he was presented with a purse for Rs 5001. The Lucknow Pact
between the Muslim League and the Congress in December 1916, was
only possible because of the joint efforts of Tilak and Jinnah. Almost 100
years ago , at a mass meeting held in Godhra on 4th November 1917,
Gandhi, Tilak and Jinnah shared a common platform as the star speakers.

The epochmaking event of the 20th century is undoubtedly the October

revolution in Russia of November 7th 1917, and the establishment of a
socialist worker’s state thereafter in the USSR. Lokmanya Tilak was
deeply impressed by the 1917 Russian revolution. In 1918, he spent a
year in Britain while conducting a defamation case against Chirol.
According to reports of the British intelligence , Tilak was not interested
in sightseeing at London, but spent most of his time in the office of the
militant left wing paper “Daily Herald”, in discussions with leftist
leaders like Lansbury, Williams, , Hyndman and Saklatwala. The
intelligence reports record that in his speeches in England Tilak
repeatedly made laudatory references to the policies of the Bolshevik
party in Russia, and particularly to their international policy.

This year we are observing the 100th anniversary of the historic October
revolution. During our commemorations , it would be important to revisit
the Tilak archives to study more closely his writings and speeches in the
final chapter of his life..
SOCIALISM

After 1917, socialism was no longer a theoretical concept. It became a

practical reality in the USSR. It showed to the world, for the first time,
that basic needs for every citizen, housing, food security, universal free
education, free medical facilities was possible. At the same time when the
capitalist world was hit by severe unemployment, in socialist USSR,
unemployment was completely eliminated. The USSR showed that the
socialist worker’s state could defend itself against all attacks, though
sometimes at a great price.

Dr. Ambedkar wanted a socialist constitution for India. This is sharply

outlined in his monograph ‘States and Minorities’, published in early
1949 as a draft constitution for India. Here he proposes State socialism,
along with Parliamentary democracy, protected as a fundamental right. In
defence of this radical proposal, he writes :

The soul of Democracy is the doctrine of one man, one value.

Unfortunately, Democracy has attempted to give effect to this doctrine
only so far as the political structure is concerned by adopting the rule of
one man, one vote which is supposed to translate into fact the doctrine of
one man, one value. It has left the economic structure to take the shape
given to it by those who are in a position to mould it. This has happened
because Constitutional Lawyers ….have never advanced to the
conception that the Constitutional Law of Democracy must go beyond
Adult Suffrage and Fundamental Rights… (they) believed that the scope
and function of Constitutional Law was to prescribe the shape and form
of the political structure of society. They never realised that it was
equally essential to prescribe the shape and form of the economic
structure of society, if Democracy is to live up to its principle of one man,
one value.
Time has come to take a bold step and define both the economic structure
as well as the political structure of society by the Law of the Constitution.

The Constitution of India that was finally drafted with Dr. Ambedkar as
Chairman was a document of consensus and compromise. Many of Dr.
Ambedkar’s concerns about economic democracy found their place not
as fundamental rights but as Directive principles. The socialist concept of
a welfare state and public ownership of natural resources found
expression in articles 38 and 39. The right to work, education, health
facilities, a living wage, and social security in times of old age and
incapacitation in articles 41 to 43 A.

But on certain fundamental principles there was no compromise- such as

the principle of secularism, and freedom of religion. In States and
Minorities, these are expressed succinctly and unambiguously ;

The State shall not recognise any religion as State

religion…..Every religious association shall be free to regulate
and administer its affairs, within the limits of the laws
applicable to all.

The other basic principle on which Ambedkar refused to compromise was

the principle of one man, one vote irrespective of class, caste, creed or
gender.

Apart from being the leader of the fight against caste discrimination and
untouchability, Ambedkar was also an important labour leader . Of
course he had serious ideological differences with the red flag leaders.
These centered around the issue of methods and values in the political
struggle. Ambedkar also felt that the red flag unions neglected issues of
social inequality, neglected to pay attention to the elimination of caste
based exclusions within the workers such as existed in the textile mills.
Ambedkar had opposed the historic 1928 textile strike of the Girni
Kamgar Union. But in 1938, both Ambedkar and the communists came
together to organize a general strike against the Industrial Disputes Bill,
which sought to make strike illegal.

On one important issue there was no difference- the necessity of trade

unions to have a political agenda . In an address to workers Ambedkar
states :

"to protect purely trade union interests can not be the only reason, why
trade unions must enter politics. To confine your attention to trade
unionism is to mistake the immediate task for the ultimate goal; it is to
assure that slaving for others is a destiny which the labouring classes can
not escape. On the contrary, your aim should be to replace this system of
wage slavery by a system which will recognize the principles of liberty,
equality and fraternity. This means rebuilding of society.’
The Constitution of India confers democratic rights to citizens which
go well beyond what was demanded by the Chartists. All adult Indian
citizens have the right to vote. There are no property qualifications
on suffrage. Workers can stand for elections…

The working people in the unorganized and organized sectors

comprise the vast majority of Indian citizens. Why have they
repeatedly elected to power capitalist governments ? Why is it that
they have not yet voted to establish a working class government of
their own ? These are simple but basic questions that have to be
raised and examined scientifically.

THE REALM OF AFFLUENCE

Can the working class shape politics ?

The October revolution whose centenary we will observe this year is

of course a definite answer to that question. But if we ask it as a
scientific question we are compelled to ask more questions, for
example :

Why has there been no workers’ revolution in Europe or North

America thereafter ? Why is the working class party so weak in the
world’s most advanced capitalist nation ? Why did such a large
section of working people vote for a capitalist billionaire like Donald
Trump ?

The task for Marxism, understood as the scientific method, is not only
to analyse working class revolutions , but also to understand and
contend with conservatism in the working class.

An important development not anticipated in the Communist

manifesto is the development of what Eric Hobsbawm calls a ‘realm
of affluence’ in developed capitalism. Instead of the general
pauperization of the proletariat predicted by the Manifesto, what is
observed in these countries is the phenomenon of a large section of
the working class achieving a ‘middle class’ standard of living. Engels
uses the term “labour aristocracy’’ . Lenin argues that Imperialism
engenders “super profit” for the capitalist class of a nation, which in
turn allows giving the workers a petty bourgeois standard of living.
Baran and Sweezy in their analysis of ‘monopoly capital’ attribute
super profits to monopoly of the market by the big corporations.

I would like to examine the phenomenon of ‘the realm of affluence’ -

from a different angle.

INEFFICIENCY

There has been much talk about the ‘increase in GDP growth rate’
under neoliberal economic policies. This is attributed to a supposed
“greater economic efficiency” achieved due to these policies. In fact,
capitalist development is characterized by growing mechanization of
the production process . This results in a reduction of costs due to
increase in output per unit of labour employed.

However, if we calculate the output per unit of energy expended in

the production process, a different picture emerges, as the following
few examples show.

Which is more efficient- a handloom or a powerloom ? A handloom

weaver produces about 6-8 metres of cloth in a day. A powerloom
weaver produces about 72-80 metres of cloth in a day, tending four
looms . Each loom consumes about 5 kwh of electric energy.

The manual work humans perform can also be measured in units of

energy. A human can do manual work continuously over 8 hours
with a power output of about 30 watts . This means than in a day of
8-10 hours of manual labour, the human being can perform about
240-300 watt-hours of work. One manday thus is equivalent to ¼ to
1/3rd kwh of energy.

What the above figures indicate is that in handloom production about

20-25 metres of cloth is produced per kwh of energy expended . In
powerloom production, about 4 metres of cloth is produced per kwh
of energy expended (80 metres/20 kwh) . If we measure output per
unit of energy expended, powerloom is about five to six times less
efficient than handloom.

A similar comparison can be made between cycle transport and

motorcycle, or, in earth moving between manual digging and a
mechanized shovel. In each case, machine powered production
process is much less efficient than manual work , when we measure
output per unit of energy expended.

We can also compare the energy contents of food and fossil fuels by
converting kilocalories into kwh, as shown in the following table :

• Petrol 13 kwh/kg
• Diesel 13.3
• LPG 12.8
• Ethanol 8.5
• Methanol 5.5
• LNG 15
• Veg oil 10.5
• Cereals 4.2
• Coal 8.3

According to David Pimentel, each year the USA uses about 200
million tonnes of oil to produce and consume 100 million tonnes of
foodgrains . That is 2 kg of fossil fuels to produce and consume 1 kg
of food grains or about 6.5 kwh of fossil fuel energy to produce and
consume 1 kwh of food energy.

If the human digestive system could have digested hydrocarbons the

way it digests carbohydrates, it would be irrational to do capitalist
agriculture. Pumping and consuming hydrocarbons would be less
irrational .

The belief in capitalist efficiency is created because we measure cost

in financial terms. Finance is a social construct arising in the context
of exchange value . In financial terms, human-power energy is not
cheap . If we assume a minimum wage of Rs 400 per day, human-
power energy costs about Rs 1600 per kwh. By contrast, petrol costs
Rs 6 per kwh. Coal is even cheaper- about Rs 1.50 per kwh.
Electricity costs about Rs 5 per kwh.
In financial terms, human-power energy costs about 300 to 1000
times the cost of fossil fuel energy, and this is what capitalism is all
about, replacing human-power energy with ‘cheaper’ fossil fuel
energy through mechanization.

Why is fossil fuel cheap ? This is only because of an irrational pricing

convention. There is extensive literature on the subject of pricing of
non-renewable resources in capitalist economic theory, all
essentially based on a 1930 paper by Hoteling. Capitalistic pricing of
fossil fuels is based on the cost of extraction, refining and
transportation plus a profit mark-up. . This is as rational as fixing the
price of a bag of foodgrains in a godown as the cost of its
transportation from the godown to the point of use plus a profit
mark-up, say about five rupees for a 50 kg bag. With this method of
pricing it is cheaper to produce wheat by burning wheat in steam
engine tractors, rather than growing wheat with only manual labour.
Capitalist pricing of fossil fuels is irrational, and obscurantist,
because it obscures the real inefficiency of automotive machines
based on fossil fuels.

With this flawed and irrational method of costing it costs less money
per unit output to deploy machines rather than humans, though
energetically speaking, machines are generally less efficient than
humans. An important factor for both profit and super profit is this
contrived and notional ‘machine productivity’. A higher margin of
profit can be earned by producing at a money cost less than the
social average money cost of production, by replacing human labour
by machines.

Increasing mechanization and automation , which is at the core of

‘technological upgradation’, results in higher margin of profit in the
short run. It also lowers the average social money cost of production
in the longer run. This results in a constant lowering of the margin
of profit as more and more units mechanize their production process.
.
When we measure production costs in terms of energy, i.e. output
per kwh of energy expended, it turns out that capitalism is
intrinsically inefficient, perhaps the most inefficient mode of
production in human history. The ‘realm of affluence’ is based on “off
balance sheet creative accounting”, on fossil fuel energy subsidy, on
deprivation of our grandchildren and future generations of their
entitlement in the finite stock of non renewable resources of the
earth. The present ‘realm of affluence’ is thus predicated on a ‘realm
of scarcity and hunger’ for the future. If the previous calculations are
correct, and they can all be verified, capitalism is not freedom, as
ideologists like Milton Friedman have tried to argue . Capitalism is a
form of social vandalism based on obscurantist mumbo jumbo of
bourgeois economics , a rapacious trade off of our children’s survival
for the petty consumerism of the present.

How should fossil fuels be rationally priced ? Rational economics,

consistent with current scientific knowledge, demands an immediate
and total shift to renewable energy. In the transition period where
fossil fuels may be permitted for a limited amount of time,
hydrocarbons should be priced by law , at not less than the cost of
producing them from biomass, which itself is produced without
fossil fuel energy subsidy, i.e. organically and with only renewable
energy inputs. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this
lecture and will be discussed separately.

ESCAPISM

It will be unrealistic to expect that the capitalist system , which is

driven by a principle of profit maximization, will find a solution to its
intrinsic and fundamental inefficiency based on the fossil fuel energy
subsidy. Rather, it will continue to deny, delay or otherwise avoid
scientific audit of its mode of production. What remains to be seen is
the role of the scientific establishment . Will it continue to acquiesce
in the obscurantism of capitalist economics to avoid the
inconvenience of the subject under discussion ? Can real science
prevail against the prevalent escapism within the science
establishment ?

A section of ecological scientists and environmentalists will

undoubtedly endorse the calculations and conclusions of rational
audit. But this by itself will not suffice to put a stop to the
irrationality of capitalism. If the capitalist class will not do it, who
will lead the necessary shift to rational modernity ? Rational energy
policy today, a policy which does not compromise the survival of our
children and their children, necessitates ethical choices based on
scientific knowledge, a policy of scientific humanism.

Only the working class has the political clout to bring into being
alternate policy at this fundamental level. Capitalism means keeping
profits foremost . Socialism means keeping people foremost and
profits as secondary. Socialism is necessary for rational scientific
modernity . This implies that the working class and the scientific
intelligentsia have to work closely together.

ALTERNATIVES

There is a much more immediate reason pointing to the necessity of

an alternative to neoliberalism :

Events in the present point toward a stalled national economy . Over

the past two and a half years , employment has stagnated. Exports
have declined. Infrastructure projects are broke and bankrupt. Can
anybody deny that neoliberal economic policy in our country is deep
trouble in key sectors such as energy, electricity, ports, airports,
mining, telecommunications, real estate etc. Can anybody today
hide the fact that huge investments in these sectors have turned into
NPAs. Demonetization has further slowed down and paralysed the
economy. The IT sector is also heading for crisis. What lies ahead ? Is
recovery possible ? If not, is there an alternative to neoliberal
economics ?

What is the role of the Indian working class in the struggle for an
immediate alternative to the present neoliberal policies ?

The experience of the last twenty five years shows that resistance to
neo-liberalism is both possible and feasible. Nobody can deny that
working class resistance has been successful in stalling the so called
neoliberal reforms ( we prefer to call them the economic deforms) in
key sectors. In the early nineties only a few unions considered it
worthwhile to oppose the policy of liberalization, privatization and
globalization (LPG). Many major national unions were willing to
adjust to structural adjustment. But a few unions held firm. From
1990 till 2016 there were seventeen all-India general Strikes against
the deforms. Each strike resulted in growing confidence and unity of
the workers, putting pressure on non-participating unions from their
rank and file members.

In the last five years an all-in unity and consensus has been arrived at
involving all the major central trade unions on a common set of
demands, including stopping privatization, social security for the
unorganized sector, and withdrawal of proposed anti-worker labour
law amendments. In recent years the unorganized sector and
contract workers have joined the strikes. The historic Sept 2 strike
last year was supported by kisan organisations in many states. This
experience of united struggle, resulting in stalling economic deform
is an unique achievement of the Indian workers.

But what about the creation of a positive alternative ? Are there

alternative policies which are viable and feasible in the current
conjuncture ?

This question is best answered by looking at some concrete

examples. The first example is in the area of housing. Whether in
Mumbai, or in Delhi, the NPA crisis in the neoliberal real estate
market in the form of imposing towers of unsold luxury housing
flats is clearly visible . In addition, the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
is a non starter. As against 30 lakh units targeted each year, in its first
year the scheme could deliver less than 25,000 units .

By contrast, in Solapur, through the Com. Godutai Parulekar Sahakari

Gruh Prakalp, more than 10,000 beedi workers have each acquired a
decent house- 300 square feet , single floor cottage, with electricity,
water, and a self contained toilet. This project was possible without a
single rupee of aid or debt.

If Beedi workers can get decent housing in the present , why cannot
something similar happen for other workers ? Solapur is concrete
proof of the possibility, viability and sustainability of a left and
democratic, non-market alternative to Modinomics in the area of
housing.

Another example is the experience of the Left and Democratic Front

government in Kerala in revitalizing the state public sector
undertakings during its last tenure from 2007 till 2011. The
revitalization of the public sector is a key component of the
alternative policy. For revitalizing the public sector, the trade unions
will have to take issues of performance accountability on our agenda.

At a conceptual level there are alternatives in many sectors - Instead

of policy for encouraging elite consumption , a policy for
systematically fulfilling basic needs , like food, housing , health and
public transport. Instead of privatization of public lands, restoring of
the urban land ceiling Act and acquisition of privately held land for
public housing . In areas like electricity and energy instead of
deregulation, better regulation and progressive taxing of heavier
use. Instead of weakening of labour laws, strengthening legislation to
bring the unorganized sector into its purview ; instead of corporate
controlled markets in agriculture, food security and remunerative
prices to small farmers by procurement and distribution through the
public distribution system…

All the elements of the policy alternatives outlined above can be

implemented within the framework of the Indian constitution But
this will require the working class to go beyond trade union
struggles to intervene directly in the political sphere. The above
mentioned alternatives will not be possible without workers bringing
their own left and democratic government to power. What is
necessary for this to happen ?

MARXIST-LENINIST SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

It is instructive to read what Lenin writes on the subject of the

intervention of the working class in democratic politics in 1905 :

‘whoever wants to reach socialism by any other path than that of political
democracy will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and
reactionary both in the economic and political sense’.

In a chapter titled “The Working Class as Vanguard Fighter for

Democracy”, he writes :

Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from

without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the
sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from
which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of
relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the
sphere of the interrelations between all classes. For that reason, the reply
to the question as to what must be done to bring political knowledge to
the workers cannot be merely the answer with which, in the majority of
cases, the practical workers, especially those inclined towards
Economism, mostly content themselves, namely: ”To go among the
workers.“

To bring political knowledge to the workers the Social Democrats must

go among all classes of the population; they must dispatch units of their
army in all directions.

We deliberately select this blunt formula, we deliberately express

ourselves in this sharply simplified manner, not because we desire to
indulge in paradoxes, but in order to ”impel“ the Economists to a
realisation of their tasks which they unpardonably ignore, to suggest to
them strongly the difference between trade-unionist and Social-
Democratic politics, which they refuse to understand.

The principal thing, of course, is propaganda and agitation among all

strata of the people. The work of the West European Social-Democrat is
in this respect facilitated by the public meetings and rallies which all are
free to attend, and by the fact that in parliament he addresses the
representatives of all classes.

We have neither a parliament nor freedom of assembly; nevertheless, we

are able to arrange meetings of workers who desire to listen to a Social-
Democrat. We must also find ways and means of calling meetings of
representatives of all social classes that desire to listen to a democrat;
for he is no Social-Democrat who forgets in practice that ”the
Communists support every revolutionary movement“, that we are obliged
for that reason to expound and emphasise general democratic tasks
before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist
convictions. He is no Social-Democrat who forgets in practice his
obligation to be ahead of all in raising, accentuating, and solving every
general democratic question.

Let us revert to the question which is the title of my talk today :

“Can the working class shape Indian politics ?”

Taken as a scientific question, we have not yet arrived at answer.

Nevertheless, in the light of the preceding discussions, I would like to
make a proposition as a hypothesis, a scientific hypothesis, which
will have to be put to the test of practice.

This is that hypothesis – “The working class can shape Indian politics
only by taking its social democratic political tasks more seriously .”

Here we refer to social democracy – not in the sense of

contemporary European self styled social democratic parties,
commanded by the capitalist class, but in the sense of pre 1917
Marxist –Leninist social democratic workers’ politics , where a
working class party articulates and leads the general democratic
tasks .

As mentioned earlier, there have been significant advances in recent

years, such as the all-in unity arrived at between the major trade
unions in the country on the 12 point charter and the all India strike
struggles thereafter. But these are only trade union struggles. What
about the political sphere ? Can anybody claim that the working class
is properly and fully utilizing the democratic spaces provided by the
Indian constitution.

RESISTANCE

Take elections to the local bodies, state assemblies, and parliament.

As someone who has participated actively in many election campaign
in the last 40 years I think it can be legitimately said , that with few
exceptions, for us it is a case of : “Too little , too late”. We certainly do
not take elections as seriously as the capitalist parties do. In those
few exceptions , where there are better preparations, as in Solapur ,
the working class has succeeded in electing it‘s own.

As neoliberalism slides into crisis, there are desperate attempts made

by the right wing political forces to curtail democratic rights. The
efforts to curtail workers rights by labour law amendments, to take
away the legal rights of farmers, adivasis and dalits to protect their
livelihoods and lands , the moves to use hoodlum and state violence
to suppress protest , to suppress students rights in JNU and other
universities, the blatant misuse of corporate media to promote
pseudo-nationalism, are all part of a comprehensive right wing
authoritarian programme in India . It is also equally true that these
efforts have met with vigorous resistance from workers, farmers,
adivasis, dalits, students, artists and scientists, and have not
succeeded in their objective. In fact, the resistance from the student
and teachers community, and the resistance from the united
movement of workers, farmers, dalits and adivasis have not only
countered the attack, but in doing so they have actually expanded the
public space for democratic activity. A vigorous struggle lies ahead
not only to defend democratic rights and space, but also to use these
rights and space to extend and strengthen social democratic politics.
SECULARISM

The bedrock of rightwing politics all over the world is communal and
divisive ideology. Working class politics is opposed to communal
politics on the fundamental ground of defending the basis of its
strength- it’s class unity. Trade unions are intrinsically secular
organizations. This innate secularism of the working class is mixed
with cultural communal influence in the consciousness of workers.
But through conscious and pro-active secular cultural and
educational activity, not just within its ranks, but reaching to the
public , the working class can become a secular warrior in the
democratic struggle against pseudo-nationalist communalism. The
struggle for secularism and equality are of paramount importance to
social democratic politics in India today, which necessitates a full
fledged discussion. It is essential for an electoral breakthrough for
the working class.

Though our constitution is by no means socialist , there are ample

democratic spaces and provisions in it to strengthen the basis for a
future democratic socialist India. With all its contradictions, our
constitution is an important instrument for the emancipation of the
working people. If we are still far from that goal, the problem is not
with the constitution, but with the insufficiency of our efforts to
better use its democratic space.

The working class is well placed to play a greater role in the

democratic struggles of the present. Today, in its trade union
struggles, it is realizing the necessity to go beyond its narrow self
interest, to take up the issues of contract workers and unorganized
sector. A broader consciousness is essential for the working class to
play its historic role in shaping Indian politics. Its innate class unity
is a microcosm for the unity of the country. This innate class unity is
also a sound basis for defending secularism, and defeating
communalism. In an article written for the Hindi paper Kirti , titled
“Sampradayik Dange aur Unka Elaj “, Bhagat Singh commends the
Hindu and Muslim workers of Kolkata for unitedly coming out to
oppose communal riots. What is both necessary and possible is a
conscious and organized effort to build the social democratic
consciousness of the working people. As Lenin cautions us- this will
not happen spontaneously.

IN CONCLUSION

I would like to summarize the conclusions that we have arrived at in

the preceding arguments :

 Capitalism is no longer tenable, either in practice , nor in

theory.
 It is necessary to replace it by socialism, as early as possible
 This replacement necessitates the kind of political change
which cannot be led by the capitalist class or a capitalist party.
 This change must be effected by the working people, i.e. the
workers, farmers and middle classes and and a party/ parties
representing these classes.
 Trade unions are necessary, but not sufficient. Working class
must go beyond trade-unionism and understand the necessity
for working class politics.
 Working class politics is more than trade union politics, or
even politics of the working class. It requires work in all
classes.
 Working class must lead the democratic struggles of all classes,
for defending and extending the values of our constitution-
equality , democracy, secularism.
 There is ample space in our constitution and opportunity in
the social situation today to take up the above responsibility
vigorously and seriously.
 Real alternatives exist
 We have to take the electoral work more seriously.
 Working class cannot fulfill the above tasks on its own, without
active cooperation with scientific and democratic intellectual
workers in the fields of research, education and media.

I would like to conclude with some words from Com. Jyoti Basu, one
of the tallest leaders of working class politics in India while
addressing the Indian Society of Labour Economics :
“As a trade unionist myself I can vouch for the fact that the working
class needs the academic support of bodies such as this. They do not
have to be overtly partisan in any sense. All they have to do is honest
academic work, and objective scientific research free of prejudices.
Scientific honesty is an ally of the working class….”

22nd February 2017.

Thanks :
 Com. Purushottam Tripathi, for assistance with research.
 Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies, Parel.
 Colleagues at Mumbai Shramik Sangh,CITU.
 Centre for Labour Studies, Asiatic Society of Mumbai.