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.
