Singur in India showed clearly that Communism provides no alternative to the violence of free market Capitalism. We must look elsewhere.

Over the last few years, as I have looked for alternatives to the violence of free market capitalism, I have found no answers in communist ideas. Singur was (sadly) a reiteration of that conclusion - we need to look elsewhere. Singur was not a result of misguided policies of a communist state - it was the result of mechanisms that are core to communism.

I would like to elaborate why I think this failure is intrinsic to communism and why we need to look elsewhere for more just alternatives. Communism has claimed to distinguish itself from capitalism in terms of its economic organization as well as the role of the state.  In both cases, it is different in form but in fact, quite the same.

Economically, there has been much discussion on the problems with capitalism and with communism in terms of gaps between demand and supply and whether cost based on labor is more just or cost based on demand and supply - there is no need to replicate it here.  There is however another aspect that is addressed in neither of these theories or in most of their critiques.

A production society (which is transformed into a consumption society in the free market version) is based on increased production resulting in increasing economic growth. The growth of its society is closely tied to economic growth. Thus, irrespective of the version of the above theories that a society may follow, it will aim to grow by increasing production and controlling the economy.

A planned society – or a society based on Marxist ideas – believes that that value of commodities is based on its labor. Thus, it will control labor and deploy it in a fashion that maximizes production and thus maximizes economic growth. As a result, in addition to problems of hoarding and black markets, such societies have seen severe exploitation of labor. Ironic as it is, it is worth recognizing that it is the labor forces in free market or capitalistic societies that have ensured better working conditions, minimum wage, workers’ rights etc. In any case, such an organization of society within a production society is bound to be exploitative.

On the other hand, a free market society – or a capitalist society – believes that the value of a commodity is based on the desire people have for it. Thus, a society based on such an ideology will want to maximize economic growth and production through control of capital and its influence. All other aspects of society – human rights, ethics, etc – are secondary and only exist to the extent that they are enforced by other political forces. Such a society is also exploitative. To the extent that the state is focused on empowering itself and as a production society is committed to increasing its production based economy, it may choose not to enforce laws relating to human rights or the environment.

Indeed, it is ironic that while a planned economy based on value of labor seems more equal, in a production society, it becomes more overtly exploitative. On the other hand, a free market society with as much exploitation can present a face of greater choice and more equality. Presenting one as an alternative to another does not really solve the problem – nether can be the basis of a more human society. Neither, by itself, can build a society with less violence, more participative democracy or greater rights. In fact, a state-run planned economy can be more overtly intrusive and violent. After all, in planning the economy, the state directly controls both private labor and resources.

Gandhi would argue that the root cause of such violence is the building of production societies and this cannot be resolved by Marxists or capitalist theories of the value of commodities since the problem was not in the value of the product but in the commoditization. The violence of this production society is based on externalities – costs of production that the profit making entities do not pay for and are instead transferred to the larger society. This transfer could adversely affect this society’s livelihood, health, food security, ecology or combinations of these. Both communist and free market economies are based on growth through externalizing costs and that is exactly what we saw in Singur.

In fact, we have seen it elsewhere - in China for example where a peasant based revolution is now the home for rapid economic growth driven by externalizing costs of this growth on the peasant population. And we find that the state has a significant role to play in enforcing such externalization - as is true in free market communities as well.

In free market communities, it is argued, the state should have no role. In fact the state has a huge role - in ensuring that activities of these industries are not disrupted by those who are exploited. In communist nations, the state claims to be the provider of justice - economic, political and social justice. But perhaps the problems with this role were already visible in the disagreement between Marx and Prudhomme when the communists and the anarchists took different paths.

The communists argued that a strong state is necessary to take the people to this just land. This ethos played itself over and over again when communist leaders - Lenin, Mao, etc - argued time and again that anything goes to achieve this strength. Time and again human rights have been trampled in the name of a new just social order.

It is this same strength that the communist state in Bengal plans to build - through rapid economic growth and industrialization. Thus, while on one hand its leaders have argued for worker rights, displacement of people and the role of multinationals, it has been most proactive in inviting even companies like Walmart that many see as one of the most unethical, in building large SEZs and other projects that will displace people. This is no contradiction - it is consistent with the communist approach. Thus, while other caders perpetrating violence have been labeled fascists, communist comrades raping women are ensuring a new ust social order?  

This is not an anomaly of communism in Bengal - just like it is not an anomalous communist effort in China. Violence is part of communism - both in its economic plans as in its state. For our alternatives, then, we need to look elsewhere.

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
Party Games
Singur - The Truth about Subversion of Truth
The Two-Faced Communists
Tibetan Students Remember Tiananmen