Socialism of the Future / Future of Socialism

Veteran socialist leader, Kishan Patnaik, lamented that the young generation knew little about socialism - socialism of Soviet Union, China, etc., and the various positive or negative aspects of the ideology. In view of this, he said, a movement has to be built up to educate the youth about what socialism stood for. Patnaik elaborated on two explanations, which he described as important. One, socialism essentially was about equity/equality and that social and economic parity meant the existence of a socialist society. Two, the importance of control over capital, which actually belonged to the society, to the nation. In other words, society must have control over capital. These two features were important, universal in the sense that their existence was universal in this context, he added.

Patnaik stated his belief was that socialism would not only survive but also thrive in future, as people by then would have learnt to raise their voice for justice and equality. He said the notion that some nations were more suited for socialism than others was totally misplaced and, therefore, has to be given a bye. Patnaik said that some Marxist friends believed that socialism in Russia was not a successful experiment because it was a backward country of Europe. In their opinion, he added, an advanced country like Germany would have been a better place for the experiment. The socialist leaders said such an argument did not mean anything and it did not support a theory like Nepal was not a fit case for socialism since it was more backward than India in industrial terms.

In fact, Patnaik said, socialism and its policies were to be evolved in a way that suited all places and fructified in all types of soil. Only then it would be socialism in the true sense and only that way social equity could be ensured. For society’s control over material, there could always be struggles, in his opinion.

Third point he explained was the dimension of poverty. He challenged the argument that socialism was not suited to the countries like India and Nepal because they were poor nations and it was wrong to suggest that every citizen in such countries could not expect food, clothes, and a roof above the head. The socialist leader described such an argument as “inhuman.” He argued that there would be no space for a rich segment of society where all citizens were provided with basic requirements like food, clothes, and shelters over their head, provided the country did not subscribe to the capitalism.

“If any society ensures food, clothes, housing and primary education for every citizen and if that country is not an imperialist country, I do not think that country will have a rich class. It is the rich class that takes away this surplus value. Marx is right in proposing that the surplus value is taken away by the rich class. This leads to a class called below the poverty line segment. After providing these elementary necessities to each citizen, if you still have a rich class that means your country is exploiting or colonising some country. The point is that only exploitation can allow a rich class but there will be no rich class once socialism is in place,” the veteran socialist leader declared.

Patnaik agreed that in today’s world socialist terminology was pass and the best alternative to it was using the terms popular in democratic parlance. “If we deepen democracy, it will resemble socialism. For example, socialism will automatically happen if we make amendments to the Indian Constitution or for that matter to any country’s constitution saying that hunger and poverty will not be allowed and there will be all citizens’ right to livelihood and a constitutional right to employment, and a cap on accumulating wealth.

He criticised some people’s thirst for acquiring more and more wealth. As an answer to it, his argument was that if people knew how much they needed for their requirements of food, clothes, housing, etc, then it would be easier to know what unlimited prosperity meant. He lamented that whatever was brought to the market, was liable to become scarce leading to a feeling of getting more and more. This, he said, has to be resisted. Patnaik made a strong point in favour of austerity and categorically stated that such a practice was a primary requirement in socialism because it allowed their shares. However, he pointed out that austerity should not be in an extreme form to hamper the growth of human mind. He suggested making some norms or mantras for maintaining austerity.

“When we have accomplished austerity, we will have no fear of getting out of the WTO or the World Bank. Today, we are afraid of doing that because we fear loosing our extravagant lifestyle. Such a practice will also result in an creating appropriate atmosphere for socialism,” Patnaik concluded.

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