FEUDALISM - CAPITALISM - IMPERIALISM IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT . BY COM. ALOKE MUKHERJEE.

FEUDALISM – CAPITALISM – IMPERIALISM IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT.

BY COM.ALOKE MUKHERJEE. (published in 'CLASS STRUGGLE' Organ of the Central Committee of CPI(ML) June, 2015 issue.)

Of late among the Marxist- Leninist circles, a notion has developed that the Indian society is no more a semi-feudal and semi- colonial society. A change has taken place in Indian society, especially in rural India in the mode of production. For some people, due to the prevalence of capitalist mode of production we can no longer call it a semi-feudal society. To some people, who are much closer to the reality feels that some changes have taken place, but that cannot be defines as capitalist development, but it is a transitional phase. True, that the both sides have tried to study the changes that have taken place in the Indian society since sixties of last century. It is also true they are serious enough to ponder over the changes that have taken place. But with all respect to them it is found that the changes have over awed their method of looking at much, in cases at all importance to the inter connectivity and inter relationship between imperialism, the objects empirically in a superficial manner. They have looked at the society in partial manner without giving comprador bureaucratic capital and feudalism. Moreover, they have not given proper attention to the role of imperialism in the changes that have taken place in agrarian India. Even they have forgotten how even in the British period a process of “erosion and retention” of feudalism

was carried on, but overall feudal mode did not change. It must be emphasized that there can be no semi-feudalism, so far as the social system is concerned. That is one of the reasons, all most all the Marxist-Leninists till a few years ago felt that there were two basic contradictions - feudalism verses broad masses, and imperialism verses the people of India. So basically the crux of the problem is that whether the changes have ushered in a new mode of production or not and if not what the changes signify, what is its relationship with imperialism, why do we call the society semi-feudal and semi-colonial and other relevant issues?

Whether A New Mode of Production has Developed?

Most of those who feel that new mode of production has come into existence or in the ‘transitional phase' argue that there has been a commodification of agrarian product on a substantial scale.They simply forget that commodity production was there in slave society, in feudal society proper,even in ancient India. Marx had himself pointed out:

“In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodity, and therefore conversion of men into producers of commodities holds a subordinate place, which however increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution” (Capital Vol.1,p.33)

Some may argue that “yes, that is what we are talking about, the approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution”. But in that case, we will have to take cover into Marx again :

“No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individual in performance of their labour, appear at all events as their mutual personal relations and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labor” (Capital Vol.1,P.82)

For the sake of briefness we are not going into details, but what Marx has shown in the old mode of production in Europe, is still prevalent in India. One of the most common example is the prevalence of caste system in India and the role it plays in social relations and individual performance of labor.

But the problem that is confronted in the issue of mode of production really becomes complex and real one when the use of machinery in agricultural as well as artisan’s field is taken into serious study. Because in this case, the problem cannot be understood in its real depth until and unless we take imperialism and its hold in a country, in this case in India, seriously.

Here too let us start with quoting Marx:

“long before the period of modern industry, co-operation and concentration of the instruments of labor in the hands of few, gave rise, in numerous countries where these methods were applied in agriculture, to great, sudden and forceful revolutions in the modes of production, and consequently in the conditions of existence and the means of employment of rural populations. But this context at first takes place more between the large and the small landed proprietors, than between capital and wage laborer, on the other hand, when the laborers are displaced by the instruments of labour, by sheep, horses etc, in this case force is directly resorted to in the first instance as the prelude to the industrial revolution. The laborers are first driven from the land, and then come the sheep. Land grabbing on a great scale, such as was perpetrated in England, is the first step in creating a field for establishment of agriculture on a great scale. Hence this subversion of agriculture puts on, at first, more the appearance of a political revolution”

“The instrument of labor, when it takes the form of a machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman himself. The self expansion of the capital by means of machinery is then forward directly proportional to the number of work people, whose means of livelihood have been destroyed by the machinery. The whole system of capitalist production is based on the fact that the workman sells his labor power as a commodity. Division of labor specializes this labor power, by reducing it to skill in handling a particular tool become the work of a machine, then with the use value, the exchange value too, of the workman’s labour power vanishes ...” (Capital. Vol.1,p.405-06)

Begging pardon for such extensive quotation let us look into the objective reality in India. Here,too, gradually, machinery such as tractors and power tillers are being introduced more and more. It is also true the number of wage laborers is increasing in rural India. But one primary aspect of grabbing of land nu large landed proprietors is not found. Even though the central government is adamant to pass a legislation for acquisition of agricultural land for infrastructural development, large scale of forest lands are being handed over to big bourgeoisie for mineral extraction. But concentration of agricultural land to big proper tiers are not happening. One may raise as an argument the ‘contract farming’ in large areas by foreign and domestic big capitalists. But that agriculture is done more as commercial activity of those capitalists to gain control over the raw materials for their industries than developing a capitalist mode. It is more a semblance with the indigo planters forcing the peasants to cultivate indigo in Eastern India.

But is it not true that a large section of peasants and agricultural laborers are being forced out of the agrarian sector to find out livelihood elsewhere? Have we not seen large scale migration of agricultural laborers of southern and western India to act as masons and helpers to masons and other menial work abroad? At the same time, from eastern and north eastern India the laborers are

moving towards those places not to fill in the agricultural labor sector but work of those people who are going to middle east and other places?

So what actually happening in the agrarian scenario as well as mode of production? In the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, it is a fact that so long as a country cannot get itself freed from the shackles of imperialism, development of independent capital is nearly impossible. There might be some exceptions here and there, but even they are not allowed to function for long and forced to be brought under the control of finance capital of imperialism. But such development itself creates a complex situation. The discussion of those complexities is related very much to the appearance and essence of the changes in agrarian system and how far can we call it capitalist mode’ or ‘transitional form’ meaning transition towards capitalist mode of production.

Imperialism in Agricultural and Industrial Development of India :

We will have to be very brief in discussing this issue. Such brevity may not always be the soul of wisdom, rather sometimes it rises questions on the wisdom of the author. But that risk has to be taken here because it is not a book, but seminar paper.

Initially, imperialism treated its colonies as suppliers of cheap raw materials and cheap labor. In the case of countries like India, it was market for its finished goods also. British rulers in its colonial phase, found that the caste based society can easily be ruled if a section of the upper castes, who were very powerful, can be brought under the control of British Raj and an wedge is driven between the two great religious communities in India. So they developed a new type of

feudal lords through permanent settlement, Ryotwari and Mahalwari systems. Such an arrangement helped them a lot to get hold of cheap sources of raw materials and cheap labor, The more the capitalism in Britain developed into imperialist phase, the more need of exporting not only finished goods, but also finance capital became urgent. In this effort they did two things at a time.. 

Firstly,they themselves invested directly, at the same time, from among the commercial traders who were hand in glove with them to expand their commerce and trade were allowed to invest in industries. The British helped them not only with funds from the banks but also with technical know how by selling their obsolete machineries to them. Thus a dependent feudal class and a comprador capital developed. The feudal character of the society helped imperialism not only to gain control over cheap raw materials and cheap labour, but also to driven wedge between different communities and castes in the country. Moreover, it destroyed indigenous development of capital and also development of knowledge. Thus not only economically but also politically and culturally the Indian society was placed under imperialism and feudalism.

But with the passage of time rural masses of the people started revolting against the feudal lords.At the same time, during the World War II, British imperialism found that certain development of industry was necessary, but the feudal bondage was an impediment. They opted for certain reforms on land. Floud Commission Report advised some changes in the zamindari system. But by the time it could be enforced British had to give up their direct rule in India. After 1947, imperialism remained there, but it changed its form instead of direct colonial rule, neo colonial method was adopted. Moreover, in India, not only the British, but also other imperialist masters started contending for neo colonial possession.

In this situation, zamindari abolition and ceiling laws were enacted. This did not mean change of feudal exploitation. It was only a method of eroding a part to retain the basic character. From then on many changes have taken place. It is true that concentration of land into a few hands changed a lot from 1947 to 1960's to present time.

But imperialism as a moribund capitalism faces crises one after another. During 1960's it felt that it needed entry into the agrarian sector. It had to sell its commodities there. The needed market for fertilizers, pesticides, high yielding seeds etc. At first they started with certain pilot projects like Intensive Area Development Programme (IADP) in certain selected areas such as Bardhaman district in West Bengal, Godavari and Krishna Delta in AP, Kaveri Delta in TN etc.But the land owners with their feudal character were not very much interested in increasing yield. So another spate of ceiling laws and operation Barga was taken resort to. This is another step of ‘erosion and retention’ method applied by the imperialist hucksters. Any in-depth analysis of operation Barga, which is exhibited as a great step forward in land reforms will prove this. By this, the ruling classes assured that the possessors of land will get a substantial share of yield, the producer bargadar will have to part with that portion of produce to landlord. Only change was that if he is recorded the landlord cannot evict him. What was the need for such a reform?

The sharecropper would be allowed to get loan against his recorded land to buy fertilisers, HYV seeds. Pesticides etc. Very soon, a change was brought in not in the mode of production, but in the production itself. All most all the agricultural products paddy, wheat, potato, cotton, tomatoes etc. were that of HYV seeds. The HYV seeds needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides. To get water pump sets came into the market.. This design helped imperialists to gain stronghold over the agricultural activities. Soon tractors were introduced. Some cases there were power tillers.

This created a two fold change. Agriculture became more dependent on imperialist industrial products and more and more laborers were needed for the agricultural activities at the outset. So not only the land holders but also the peasants as well as laborers at first greeted it. But when tractors and power tillers were introduced need of agricultural laborers reduced.

One can easily find without much change in relations of production, changes have taken place. As a result, dichotomies have appeared. In areas where the method of agrarian activities changed earlier, at first had increase in agricultural laborers, but after few years it reduced, and agricultural laborers had to take other labouring activities. Since the industrial capital has not developed, they had to go for artisan works like masonry or tertiary areas like rickshaw pulling or auto driving etc.

Secondly, in rural areas a section of the people are grown who advances loans to peasant producers at a very high interest rates, and the loaned amount and interest is to be paid in kind.with produce. The same people are in most cases traders of fertilisers, pesticides and even tractors and power tillers in some cases, and in many cases they are owners of tractors which are rented out on hourly basis. The same section in many cases are connected with the ruling parties in the states. As a result, they are also controllers of MNREGA work and many other related things that are important for the livelihoods of the people. They have land holdings, but to the limits of ceiling laws. As a whole, their exploitation has an extra economic portion which is not capitalist, we can call them bureaucratic feudal, since they have developed as a class almost all over India. They are conduits for imperialist agribusiness.

Thus it is clear that in the rural areas changes have taken place. But due to stranglehold of imperialism these changes cannot change the mode of production. True, the big landlords have reduced to a great extent, but in the same areas they still exists.

But mode of production has not changed to capitalism, with the new capitalistic instruments, the mode is still pre-capitalist. Since certain changes have taken place people call it as semi-feudal,because of its feudalistic character.. We should also be clear that there can be no semi-feudalism,just as there can be no semi- colonialism. As feudalism cannot act in its proper economic, political

and cultural systemic manner, the way it present itself under imperialism is semi feudal. This is why in our effort to find out the principal contradiction we formulate that it is between the alliance of imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism on one side and broad masses of people on the other.

Those who talk about the transitional phase are not clear about transition between whom. Whenever we call something as a transitional phase, we always try to point out between which two points the transition is being discussed. In the presence of imperialism such transition is almost impossible.Because may allow comprador capital to develop, but it cannot allow development of capital in agriculture, Because through their finance capital they can control comprador bureaucratic capital,but it is impossible to control millions of millions of peasant holders if they can develop as capitalists. The suicides of cotton growing peasants in Marathwada and AP, potato growers in West Bengal show that dream of agrarian capitalism cannot be achieved without a revolutionary change. A real land reform as well as freeing agriculture from imperialist shackles is the need of the hour.