From a M-L Party to the left of the CPM
(there are zillions of 'em, http://www.broadleft.org/in.htm )
http://www.peoplesmarch.com/publications/globalisation/chapter11.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=JAYATI+GHOSH+CPM
>...In fact to understand their real ideological position vis-à-vis
imperialism, it would be better to look at some of the positions of
pro-CPM theoreticians. A classic example is the recently published
book (Jan. 2002) on this very subject by C.P.Chandrasekhar and Jayati
Ghosh, entitled: The Market that Failed — A Decade of Neoliberal
Economic Reforms in India. This book is a classic example of the TINA
effect — i.e. there is no alternative to globalisation, only that it
should be given a human face.
So the book concludes with the Chapter "Redefining Reforms" and not reversing them. In this Chapter they start by saying "….. the effects of neoliberal reforms cannot be wished away in the terms of the greater degree of integration with world markets and external vulnerability that are now characteristic of the Indian economy". In other words they call on us to accept the horrors of imperialist globalisation, as "economic policy does not occur in a vacuum", and so seek mere adjustments within it. Yet, C.P.C. & J.G. claim to be Marxists, though their thinking differs little from that apologist of imperialism, Amartya Sen. But for all their good intentions to give it a human face, these gentlemen (and ladies) fail to realize that neither does "political policy occur in a vacuum". The aggressive politics of imperialist globalisation does not allow that "human face", as imperialist globalisation entails political (and economic) policy that grows from a crisis. And crisis-ridden economies do not allow for reforms and other such niceties hoped for by C.P.C. & J.G. What they fail to understand is that 'globalisation' is the AGGRESSIVE face of imperialism, not its liberal one. Anyhow, most of the suggestions in the book will barely benefit the people, they may, at best, give greater "manoeuvrability" to India's comprador big bourgeoisie.
What then do they propose as the "Economic Strategies for the next Decade"? First they maintain, "foreign finance capital that flows into the country needs to be regulated". The real question before any genuine Marxist is not merely the nature of flows, but the question whether dependence on foreign capital should be there or not. The question is whether foreign capital should be allowed to continuously rob this country or not; whether one has to put an end to capital flight or not. This is the moot question, if capital has to be made available at low cost for growth within the country. Foreign capital, with its thousands of threads attached, extracts its pound of flesh, and with it flows the blood of the Indian people. C.P.C. & J.G. live in blissful ignorance of this fact and would have us only look at the apparent low-cost of foreign capital. The fact is that foreign capital in backward countries extracts returns three to four fold more than what they extract from their home country. But the CPM and their ideologues see no need to put an end to such loot; they, at best, seek to reduce it by a fraction through 'regulating' it.
Next, while referring to trade and the market these CPM theoreticians repeatedly emphasise the importance of exports to develop the Indian market. In this they differ little from the neo-liberal economists; their only difference being that instead of "free trade", they call for "government promoted" trade. But, this difference is semantic. When the government exports wheat at below BPL rates is this "free trade"? When all Indian exports are heavily subsidized, is that "free trade". And whether free or "controlled" with the terms of trade heavily weighted against India, due to continuous devaluation of the rupee (and other factors), what real difference does it make whether it is "free" or government controlled? They go so far as to state: "Successful capitalist industrialization cannot occur in a context insulated from world markets, but requires consciously engaging those markets as part of the strategy of growth." This amounts to saying that no "industrialization" and "growth" is possible without promoting exports. Though they pay lip-service to extending the home market through land reforms, their emphasis is on exports for the industrialisation of the country. In fact the importance of land reforms is put primarily to create "social support for a strong state" and only secondarily to widen the home market. And, for this, the corrupt and autocratic Panchayat Raj of West Bengal is given as their ideal.
Even on the question of the reduction of subsidies to the poor, they defacto, support the existing tendency towards cuts, complaining of the "strains on the exchequer". Their bankruptcy has reached such depths that they merely repeat the same World Bank formula saying that the PDS (public distribution system) should be better targeted towards the poor. Their entire logic on this is no different from that of the neo-liberalists. Though they talk of "extending" the PDS, they say: "To keep the strain on the exchequer of such an extension of the PDS within reasonable limits, there should be an adjustment in the targeting system, towards the poor".
Firstly, the so-called "strains on the exchequer" come not from subsidies to the poor, but primarily the huge doles to big business, the excessive expenditure on corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and the gigantic non-productive expenditure on the police and military to create its fascist state. While these apologists of neo-liberalism conveniently ignore all these other expenditures, they grudge even the little being handed out to the poor, saying it should be better "targeted". Besides, the huge tax holidays for big business, the reductions in corporation tax, the massive reduction in taxes of the high income bracket, etc. are yet the other cause for the "strains on the exchequer" which our CPM theoreticians would rather not touch. Besides all this, there is, in addition, the estimated Rs 1 lakh crore of black money generated each year by the rich and the powerful, which faces no tax at all (nor do the FIIs, most of which are registered in the Mauritius tax-haven), but C.P.C. and J.G. would rather see the extra morsel squeezed out of the mouths of the poor, than call for demonetisation to tap this vast source of illegal funds in order not to add to the "strains on the exchequer".
All this trash of "strains on the exchequer", "cutting fiscal deficit", etc. etc. are nothing but the stock phrases of the neo-liberalists to push through their anti-people agenda of cutting subsidies and retrenching employees from the public sector. It is unfortunate that these 'Marxist' theoreticians should also fall prey to the same neo-liberal logic. Parhaps, this is their fate!
Overall, there is little to distinguish between the conclusions presented in this book and that of the imperialist sponsored neo-liberal economic reformers. Neither is there much difference in the economic policies of the West Bengal government and that of other State governments. Neither was there much difference between the economic policies of the UF government at the Centre, of which the CPI/CPM was a part, and that of the Congress(I) or the BJP-led NDA. Like the 'swadeshi' pretenders, their opposition is more often to pacify their rank-and-file and the masses under their influence, which have been badly hit by the policies of 'economic reforms'. There is no consistent opposition by any of these forces to imperialism.
While the saffron gang now conveniently defines 'swadeshi' as cultural nationalism to avoid any anti-imperialist activities and promote their Hindutva agenda, the CPI/CPM make out that self-reliance and anti-imperialism in this day-and-age of globalisation is utopian, impractical and out-dated. This latter argument too is borrowed from the imperialists, and is little different from their "End of History" thesis. The huge upsurge in the anti-globalisation movements in the world would itself disprove this argument, and it is the masses themselves that have brought it right back on the agenda for change.
For all their pretenses, in effect, both are nothing but unabashed apologists of neo-liberalism and globalisation. Though they may join in on some issues on a day-to-day basis, one has to beware of their role, which will eventually stab in the back all genuine anti-imperialist movements. As for all the other ruling-class parties, as already stated, they openly collaborate and make no pretenses about it.
iii) The NGO Factor <SNIP>
-- Michael Pugliese