The
Communist
Manifesto:
Globalisation,
the
Nation-State
and
Class Struggle
Prakash
Karat
During
the
observance
of
the
150th
anniversary
of
the
Communist
Manifesto
in
1998,
many
bourgeois
critics
were
struck
by
the
fact
that
the
Manifesto
foresaw
with
remarkable
clarity
how
a
globalised
capitalism
will
come
into
being.
Another
reason
why
the
Manifesto
commanded
attention
from
the
bourgeois
economists
and
thinkers
was
the
eruption
of
the
first
serious
crisis
in
the
world
capitalist
system
after
the
end
of
the
Soviet
Union.
Within
a
span
of
seven
years
after
world
capitalism
triumphantly
announced
the
demise
of
socialism,
the
vulnerabilities
and
the
predatory
nature
of
international
finance
capital
came
to
the
centre-stage.
The
1997-98
crisis
began
in
the
South
East
and
East
Asian
economies.
Japan,
the
most
powerful
economy
in
the
world
was
badly
affected.
This
was
followed
by
the
collapse
in
Russia
and
the
spreading
crisis
in
Brazil.
At
this
juncture,
the
United
States,
which
is
the
most
powerful
capitalist
country
in
the
world,
was
still
registering
growth.
Three
years
later,
by
mid-2000,
the
situation
altered.
After
a
prolonged
period
of
recovery,
the
United
States
is
now
in
recession.
With
the
United
States
and
Japan
simultaneously
in
recession,
the
world
economy
is
witnessing
a
serious
slump.
The
volatile
nature
of
international
finance
capital
under
the
imperialist-driven
globalisation
has
now
come
to
the
fore.
The
travails
of
Argentina
in
end
2001
graphically
illustrate
the
price
exacted
on
the
people
by
the
masters
of
international
finance.
Globalisation
and
Imperialism
While
the
Manifesto
dealt
with
the
global
capitalism
developing
in
the
nineteenth
century,
the
current
globalisation
offensive
of
imperialism
and
the
unprecedented
internationalisation
of
capitalism
and
its
mobilisation
poses
new
problems
for
the
working
class
movements
at
the
national
and
international
level.
The
capitalism
that
the
Manifesto
describes
has
a
startling
contemporaneity.
The
"globalised
capitalism"
existing
at
the
beginning
of
the
21st
century
was
envisaged
in
the
passages
dealing
with
the
spread
of
capitalist
relations
in
the
Manifesto.
“The
need
of
a
constantly
expanding
market
for
its
products
chases
the
bourgeoisie
over
the
whole
surface
of
the
globe.
It
must
nestle
everywhere,
settle
everywhere,
establish
connexions
everywhere.”
In
order
to
develop
Marxist
theory
and
practice
for
the
contemporary
times
based
on
the
historical
materialist
outlook,
it
is
necessary
first
of
all
to
be
grounded
in
the
seminal
analysis
by
Marx
and
Engels
of
capitalism
and
bourgeois
society;
the
next
step
is
to
pick
up
the
thread
of
development
of
world
capitalism
based
on
Lenin's
analysis
of
imperialism.
There
can
be
no
fight
back
against
globalisation
without
the
recognition
that
imperialism
is
an
ever-present
reality
in
the
contemporary
world.
It
is
only
those
who
accept
the
framework
of
"development"
set
out
by
the
IMF-World
Bank
of
globalisation
as
a
theory
of
universal
development
and
of
a
democratic
society
based
on
free
market
values
who
will
refuse
to
recognise
that
imperialism
has
become
more
exploitative,
deforming
and
destructive
in
its
impact
on
the
world.
While
the
analysis
of
capitalism
was
not
complete
in
the
Manifesto,
it
progresses
and
assumes
a
mature
form
in
Capital.
Subsequently
Lenin’s
Imperialism
opened
the
way
for
new
initiatives
for
the
Communist
movement.
The
developments
within
the
imperialist
structure
since
then,
particularly
the
growth
of
speculative
international
finance
capital
in
the
last
two
decades
of
this
century
is
a
major
concern
for
Marxist
theory
and
for
working
class
movements
around
the
globe.
The
Nation-State:
Arena
of
Class
Struggle
A
specific
problem
thrown
up
by
the
situation
is
the
role
of
the
nation-state
in
the
globalised
imperialist
system,
which
has
direct
implications
for
the
class
struggle.
There
has
been
an
erosion
of
the
sovereignty
of
nation-states
due
to
their
inability
to
exercise
regulatory
functions
when
faced
with
the
volatility
and
demands
of
speculative
finance
capital
that
moves
with
impunity
across
borders.
The
nature
of
this
type
of
finance
capital
and
its
phenomenal
growth
need
not
detain
us
here.
But
it
is
important
to
recognise
the
enormous
difficulties
such
flows
of
finance
capital
cause
for
nation-states
who
are
unable
to
prevent
its
predatory
inroads
or
to
counter
the
policies
it
imposes
through
the
IMF-World
Bank
and
the
World
Trade
Organisation.
The
question
is
whether
these
harmful
trends
can
be
fought
through
the
medium
of
the
nation-state
and
by
making
the
nation-state
the
centrepiece
for
class
struggles.
For
this,
a
proper
appreciation
of
the
nation-state
as
the
arena
of
class
struggle
is
required.
The
Communist
Manifesto
which
outlines
the
global
character
of
capitalist
operations,
at
the
same
time,
emphasises
the
importance
of
class
struggle
within
national
boundaries.
“Though
not
in
substance,
yet
in
form,
the
struggle
of
the
proletariat
with
the
bourgeoisie
is
at
first
a
national
struggle.
The
proletariat
of
each
country
must,
of
course,
first
of
all
settle
matters
with
its
own
bourgeoisie.”
One
hundred
and
fifty
years
later,
this
principle
is
still
valid,
despite
the
vastly
increased
internationalisation
of
capital.
In this context, it is important to understand the role of the ruling classes in the lesser-developed capitalist countries. The bourgeois-landlord classes in most of these countries have abandoned the quest for a relatively autonomous development of capitalism within their countries and embraced free-market prescriptions. The integration with the global order of international finance capital is seen as the only path for their class development in a world in which the Soviet Union is absent as a countervailing force. This, however, cannot be a permanent phenomenon. As the contradictions in the world capitalist system intensify, there will be shifts in the positions of the domestic ruling classes.
The
vulnerability
of
these
nation-states
in
the
face
of
international
capital
flows
is
substantial
but
it
should
not
be
exaggerated
to
the
point
of
helplessness.
The
orthodoxy
of
the
IMF-World
Bank
postulates
that
no
country
can
survive
and
develop
without
opening
up
to
free
capital
flows.
But
the
South-East
Asian
crisis
and
now
Argentina
illustrate,
above
all,
the
folly
of
such
unregulated
capital
flows.
It
also
illustrates
that
the
nation-state
is
the
only
instrument
available
to
regulate
the
depredations
of
finance
capital
and
to
put
this
on
the
agenda
of
international
forums.
For
example,
despite
the
Mahathir
regime
being
unabashedly
capitalist,
Malaysia
challenged
this
Fund-Bank
orthodoxy
by
imposing
capital
controls
during
the
1997-98
South-East
Asian
crisis.
Nationalism
and
Class
Struggle
The
nation-state
and
its
mechanisms
cannot
be
left
to
be
wielded
by
the
domestic
ruling
classes
to
implement
the
dictates
of
international
finance.
Both
for
the
immediate
protection
of
the
working
people
and
the
fight
against
imperialist
domination,
the
struggle
to
reorient
the
direction
of
the
state
must
be
waged
with
determination.
The
working
class
movement
must
take
the
leadership
of
the
entire
people
in
this
struggle.
This
is
what
is
implied
in
the
Manifesto
which
exhorts
the
working
class
to
“rise
to
be
the
leading
class
of
the
nation”
and
“constitute
itself
the
nation”,
if
it
is
to
acquire
political
supremacy.
The
increasing
weight
of
the
working
class-led
democratic
movement
against
imperialist
subjugation
would
bring
about
a
shift
in
the
national
correlation
of
forces
and
open
the
way
to
check
and
counter
the
pro-imperialist
shift
of
the
domestic
ruling
classes.
The
class
struggle
will
be
conducted
mainly
in
the
terrain
of
the
nation-state;
this
is
not
a
negation
of
internationalism.
The
imperialism
of
today
aggressively
seeks
to
suborn
the
nation-state
to
enforce
its
policies
rather
than
allow
the
state
to
act
on
the
priorities
of
the
domestic
classes
and
the
people.
Loss
of
sovereignty
of
the
nation
translates
directly
into
loss
of
sovereignty
for
the
people
and
their
rights.
The
sovereignty
of
the
people
is
expressed
through
democratic
institutions
that
represent
nation-states
and
their
people.
The
erosion
of
sovereignty
is
not
in
economic
terms
alone,
it
undermines
political
institutions
and
democracy
and
affects
people’s
rights
in
public
education,
health
and
social
security.
The
issue
in
India
is
precisely
this
at
present.
Among
the
third
world
countries,
India
has
a
relatively
more
developed
bourgeoisie
and
a
republican
constitution
which
underpins
a
defective
but
functioning
parliamentary
democracy.
The
“globalisation”
agenda,
which
was
embraced
by
the
Indian
ruling
classes
in
the
1990s,
has
opened
the
way
for
a
direct
attack
on
this
form
of
democracy.
While
it
is
axiomatic
that
the
Left
refuse
to
be
coopted
in
this
consensus
and
continues
to
build
resistance
to
imperialist
pressures,
the
real
alternative
cannot
be
presented
in
terms
of
economic
policy
changes
alone.
They
are
crucial
but
not
sufficient.
The
fight
for
sovereignty,
for
democracy
and
the
unity
of
the
people
has
to
have
a
political-ideological
component.
For
as
the
Manifesto
underlines,
“the
class
struggle
is
essentially
a
political
struggle”.
The
advance
of
Marxist
theory
and
practice
in
the
third
world
countries
depends
on
how
effectively
we
tackle
this
conjuncture
of
class
struggle
in
a
nation-state
with
a
dominant
imperialist-globalised
system.
The
Manifesto
while
correctly
foreseeing
the
triumphant
ascendancy
of
global
capitalism
was
over-optimistic
about
its
capacity
to
breakdown
national
barriers.
“National
differences
and
antagonisms
between
the
peoples
are
daily
more
and
more
vanishing,
owing
to
the
development
of
the
bourgeoisie,
to
freedom
of
commerce,
to
the
world
market,
to
uniformity,
to
in
the
mode
of
production…..”.
In
the
era
of
imperialism,
the
twentieth
century
witnessed
two
world
wars
originating
in
imperialist-driven
national
rivalries
and
host
of
national
conflicts
leading
to
mass
slaughter.
Evidently
the
rise
of
bourgeois
rule
exacerbates
national
rivalries
and
its
effects
carry
on
even
in
states
which
transit
from
capitalism.
Religious-Ethnic
Chauvinism:
At
present,
the
struggle
against
imperialism
is
impeded
and
complicated
by
a
host
of
ethnic-nationality-religious
problems
in
the
third
world
countries
and
the
former
socialist
states.
The
implantation
of
free-market
principles,
the
retreat
of
socialist
influence
and
the
impact
of
the
destructive
force
of
globalisation
in
the
social
and
cultural
spheres
have
stimulated
or
aggravated
ethnic-religious
identities
and
feelings.
The
rise
of
religious
sectarian
movements,
terrorism
and
ethnic-caste
conflicts
is
a
reactionary
response
to
the
current
crisis
faced
by
nation-states
and
multinational
states
in
all
parts
of
the
world.
Imperialism
has
the
capacity
to
accommodate
and
co-opt
such
forces.
US
imperialism
has
shown
itself
capable
in
South
Asia
of
collaborating
with
the
Taliban
in
Afghanistan
(in
1996-97);
with
the
Islamic
fundamentalists
in
Pakistan
(as
in
the
1980s)
and
the
Hindu
chauvinists
in
India
with
whom
they
have
forged
a
benign
relationship.
The
disruption
of
popular
unity,
due
to
the
chauvinist
and
undemocratic
attitude
of
the
ruling
classes
towards
the
minorities
and
because
of
the
rise
of
sectarian
forces
often
backed
by
imperialism,
has
to
be
countered
by
the
working
class
movement
and
the
Left.
The Left cannot aspire for national hegemony unless it doggedly builds a democratic movement which incorporates and guarantees the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Countering both the “big” and “little” chauvinisms is required if the working class has to head an anti-imperialist nationalism. The experience of the South Asian countries should lead to more emphasis by the Left on federalism and regional autonomy as one of the ways to deal with the democratic aspirations of the minorities and to counter separatism. Further, the struggle for democratic rights for the people is now partly reflected in the struggle for decentralisation of decision-making powers in the administrative and economic spheres.
Globalisation
and
Military
Power
The
Manifesto
lucidly
encapsulates
the
way
capitalism
develops
within
a
society
by
breaking
down
the
feudal
relations
and
externally
by
breaking
down
the
barriers
of
the
"barbarian
countries"
by
expanding
production
and
trade.
Notably
the
use
of
military
force
and
colonial
conquest
does
not
figure
in
the
Manifesto.
The
"heavy
artillery"
which
batters
down
all
barriers
is
the
"cheap
prices
of
commodities".
It
is
in
later
works
that
Marx
talked
about
the
colonial
regimes
founded
on
conquest,
pillage
and
loot
and
gives
vivid
accounts
of
the
British
colonial
depredations
in
India,
China
and
other
pre-capitalist
societies.
The
development
of
imperialism
only
heightened
the
use
of
military
force
and
the
development
of
weapons
of
mass
destruction.
The
20th
century
saw
more
people
killed
than
any
other
preceding
century.
The
use
of
military
force
to
uphold
the
imperial
order
has
now
evolved
to
a
new
stage
commensurate
with
the
new
offensive
under
the
imperialist-driven
globalisation.
An
important
feature
of
the
imperial
order
under
globalisation
is
the
increasing
reach
and
sophistication
of
military
power
exercised
by
its
leader,
the
United
States.
The
fashioning
of
the
new
military
doctrine
of
the
United
States
has
been
conditioned
by
two
factors,
the
dominance
of
the
US
economic
and
military
power
after
the
end
of
the
cold
war
and
the
growing
monopoly
over
the
use
of
high
technology
for
military
purposes.
The
United
States
maintains
and
develops
its
formidable
military
strength
for
a
global
role
which
has
three
aspects.
It
needs
the
military
machine
to
protect
and
maintain
the
imperialist
order.
Secondly,
its
overwhelming
strength
is
required
to
exercise
leadership
of
the
imperialist
bloc,
though
as
the
hegemony
it
has
a
partnership
with
other
imperialist
countries
particularly
Germany
and
Japan.
Finally,
it
targets
and
attacks
much
weaker
third
world
countries,
like
Iraq,
to
establish
its
credibility
and
reputation
as
a
global
superpower.
It
is
the
classic
use
of
force
as
example,
to
elicit
obedience
and
compliance.
The
US
military
power
has
not
been
reduced
with
the
end
of
the
Soviet
Union.
After
the
cold
war,
the
United
States
ruling
circles
had
to
invent
new
threats
to
its
imperial
interests.
The
concept
of
rogue
states
was
fashioned.
These
are
states
like
Iraq,
Iran
and
North
Korea
which
were
cited
as
potential
threats
to
the
United
States
and
its
strategic
interests.
In
order
to
make
the
threat
from
these
"rogue"
states
credible,
systematically
propaganda
was
unleashed
about
the
weapons
of
mass
destruction
which
they
can
make
and
wield.
In
the
new
world
order
set
out
by
the
United
States,
the
use
of
force
is
resorted
to
with
impunity.
Beginning
with
the
Gulf
War
in
1991,
the
military
strategy
of
the
United
States
unfolded.
The
78-day
bombing
of
Yugoslavia
is
a
prime
example
of
how
the
United
States
would
use
its
high-tech
weaponry
for
aerial
bombing,
missile
attacks
and
crippling
the
enemy's
defence
and
economic
infrastructure.
The
NATO
under
US
instigation
has
adopted
a
new
strategic
doctrine
which
sanctions
intervention
in
any
part
of
the
world
by
the
NATO
countries.
The
September
11
attacks
on
the
US
have
set
the
stage
for
a
new
offensive
under
the
guise
of
a
"war
against
terrorism".
The
war
on
Afghanistan
will
embolden
the
US-led
military
alliance
to
undertake
similar
adventures
against
recalcitrant
countries.
The
Pentagon
has
formulated
the
Joint
Vision
2020
which
spells
out
the
long-term
strategy
of
the
United
States
after
the
Bush
administration
took
over.
It
talks
of
"Full
Spectrum
Dominance"
i.e.
the
ability
of
the
US
forces
"operating
unilaterally
or
in
combination
with
multinational
and
interagency
partners
to
defeat
any
adversary
and
control
any
situation
across
the
full
range
of
military
operations.
The
document
states
"given
the
global
nature
of
our
interests
and
obligations,
the
United
States
must
maintain
its
overseas
presence
forces
and
the
ability
to
rapidly
project
power
worldwide
in
order
to
achieve
full
spectrum
dominance."
The
September
11
terrorist
attacks
in
the
United
States
has
given
the
US
ruling
circles
an
unprecedented
opportunity
to
put
in
practice
their
new
strategic
doctrine.
It
is
not
the
threat
of
terrorism
which
motivates
the
United
States
and
its
NATO
allies
to
bypass
the
United
Nations
and
international
norms
to
engage
in
brazen
military
aggression
around
the
world.
As
the
leader
of
the
imperialist
bloc,
the
United
States
is
constantly
seeking
to
cow
down
any
potential
opponent
or
threat
to
the
imperial
order
by
resort
to
force.
In
this
respect,
the
globalisation
of
the
21st
century
is
very
much
similar
to
the
use
of
military
force
by
the
colonial
powers
when
the
Manifesto
was
written
in
the
mid-nineteenth
century.
The
struggle
against
the
military
hegemony
of
the
US
and
the
fight
against
brazen
military
aggression
which
tramples
on
national
sovereignty
is
once
again
centred
on
the
nation-state.
The
basis
of
the
resistance
to
military
attacks
has
to
be
an
anti-imperialist
nationalism
which
mobilises
the
entire
people.
Saddam
Hussain
in
Iraq,
notwithstanding
his
repressive
regime,
has
survived
so
far
based
on
this
mobilisation.
Central
Role
of
Working
Class
All
efforts
to
negate
the
message
of
the
Manifesto
focus
on
the
centrality
accorded
to
the
working
class
in
the
revolutionary
transformation
of
society.
The
reverses
suffered
by
socialism
in
the
last
decade
have
only
reinforced
the
trend
which
seeks
to
revise
this
part
of
Marxist
theory.
Contrary
to
this
revisionism,
the
recent
experience
of
the
struggle
against
globalisation
provide
adequate
grounds
to
assert
the
central
role
of
the
working
class.
It
is
only
this
class
which
has
put
consistent
resistance
to
the
imperialist
offensive,
however,
defensive
in
nature.
The
French
workers
strike
of
1995,
the
heroic
month
long
general
strike
of
the
South
Korean
workers
in
1996,
the
three-day
strike
of
the
South
African
workers
against
privatisation
in
2000,
and
the
new,
incipient
forms
of
coordinated
trade
union
struggles
developing
in
Western
Europe
against
the
European
Union’s
pro-big
business
policies
confirm
the
pivotal
role
workers
will
play
in
the
coming
days.
The
new
phenomenon
of
mass
protests
against
globalisation
initiated
in
Seattle
in
1999
and
witnessed
most
recently
in
Genoa
during
the
G-8
Summit
in
2001
also
have
a
significant
participation
by
the
working
class
and
trade
unions.
The
working
class
today
is
neither
disappearing
nor
shrinking
in
size.
This
is
true
of
even
the
advanced
capitalist
countries.
But
the
composition
and
internal
structure
of
the
work-force
has
changed.
In
India,
the
differentiation
on
caste
and
ethnic
lines
persists
in
the
consciousness
of
workers.
Very
little
attention
has
been
paid
to
the
formation
of
class
consciousness
by
ideological
and
cultural
intervention
to
supplement
the
political-organisational
activities.
Apart
from
this,
what
is
of
great
import
for
the
trade
unions
and
the
working
class
movement
in
general
is
the
role
of
women
workers.
The
Manifesto
envisaged
the
growing
induction
of
women
into
the
industrial
work
force
“The
more
modern
industry
becomes
developed,
the
more
is
the
labour
of
men
superseded
by
that
of
women”.
Women
would
become
part
of
the
growing
proletariat
as
a
cheap
source
of
labour
power.
An
important
feature
of
the
capitalism
brought
about
by
the
imperialist-driven
globalisation
is
that
women
constitute
a
major
part
of
the
workforce
exploited
through
part
time
and
contract
work
with
low
wages.
The
same
phenomenon
is
seen
in
the
developing
countries.
In
India,
the
female
labour
force
amounts
to
127
million.
To
bring
this
female
work
force
which
is
low-paid
and
doubly
exploited
into
the
proletarian
movement
is
an
important
question.
Without
recognising
them
as
part
of
the
proletariat
and
organising
them,
the
advancement
of
the
trade
unions,
and
the
working
class
movement
developing
into
a
`national'
movement
is
not
possible.
The
Manifesto
has
a
compelling
appeal
as
it
is
not
an
abstract
analysis
of
capitalism
but
the
first
programmatic
call
for
a
social
revolution
relying
on
the
working
class
to
emancipate
humanity.
It
spells
out
the
need
for
organisation
of
the
working
class,
for
a
revolutionary
party.
It
is,
therefore,
the
starting
point
in
the
journey
traversed
so
far
to
develop
a
revolutionary
strategy
and
movement
against
the
depredations
of
capitalist
globalisation.
While
the
Manifesto
envisages
the
worldwide
movement
of
the
working
class
for
socialism,
it
pays
attention
to
the
contemporary
realities
of
each
country
and
the
last
section
deals
with
the
relations
between
the
Communists
and
other
political
parties
in
different
countries.
While
the
Manifesto
sets
out
the
main
aim
of
expropriating
capitalism
and
the
basic
approach
to
establishing
an
alternative
system,
it
also
points
out
that
"these
measures
will
of
course
be
different
in
different
countries".
The
Communist
Manifesto
has
an
enduring
relevance
in
these
times
of
imperialist
globalisation
and
the
false
propaganda
it
purveys.