Socialism of the Future / Future of Socialism

Ajit Jha stressed the need for continuity in dialogue, as there was no alternative to it. The space for dialogue was always there, he added saying that it has to be seen how unity was evolved and how difference could be discussed and resolved by evaporating misunderstanding. There was no point in discussing those points that were hardly challenging. “If we are in a dialogue mode, we must know what others’ viewpoints are. What are their contexts, etc. The whole thing has to be understood in the right context and perspective. If this is not done, the dialogue will result in more acrimony and greater differences. The national freedom movement is one such example, except Gandhi,” he said. He said this resulted in suppression of the flowing energy of the freedom movement and did not show results it should have shown. Jha said it was good that several socialist believed that they have identified mistakes committed in the past. Now, it was up to them to think about the future. About the future’s socialism. Also, he added, the alternative have to be found out and implemented. There was no problem with the alternatives as they were like other theories in themselves. On the basis of such alternatives, a potent, viable socialist movement could be built upon.

Surendra Mohan:

The national convener of the Socialist Front Surendra Mohan said much was discussed in the meeting and would continue to be discussed in future so as to keep abreast with the different streams of socialism. He said that several groups were trying their best to take the socialist dialogue further and today it was very important to have a dialogue. “It is the dialogue only that creates a path even in the thick of differences. Also, we must contemplate on the question of unity, the unity of those who think alike but tread different paths. And there has to be some thinking on the reasons behind the differences,” he pointed out, adding that it would be unwise to discuss only points of agreement.

He said that many of the differences between the communists and the socialists had narrowed down over the years through the commitments shown by the latter to the cause of decentralization and reservation. He said that, the socialist party, including the present socialist party and the Sanyukta Socialist party had a tradition of being able to talk to the communist parties - whether CPI or CPI (M)- in an effort to come to decisions.

In 1991, when the socialist party, was no more the S.M. Joshi Foundation and the Adhikari Joshi Foundation had a meeting to discuss economic issues in Pune, in 1991 and later on in 1993, 1995 to which the general secretaries of the CPI and the CPI(M), were invited for a dialogue, but that did not happen. He said that it is important put these things on record for friends in the communist movement as well as the socialist movement, that that these interactions must continue. They have a history, they have a continuity and they have a future. Though there are differences a time has come when these differences must be resolved or, at least, an effort be made to see that they are resolved and work together.

For Hindi click here

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291