WSF 2004, Mumbai
Socialism
Today
--
Challenges
Intervention
of
Sitaram
Yechury,
CPI(M)
Polit
Bureau
member,
at
the
panel
discussion
organised
by
the
Social
Scientist
and
Social
Science
Probings
in
the
World
Social
Forum,
2004,
Mumbai
on
17th
January.
Dear
Comrades
and
friends,
At
the
outset,
we
are
extremely
heartened
and
grateful
that
more
than
twenty
important
Communist
parties
of
the
world
--
from
the
socialist,
developed
and
developing
countries
--
are
participating
in
this
programme.
I
consider
it
both
an
honour
and
privilege
to
initiate
this
discussion.
I
would,
however,
choose
to
provoke
a
discussion!
On
the
basis
of
our
modest
efforts
in
India
and
based
on
our
experience,
I
wish
to
place
before
you
seven
points
in
the
nature
of
a
healthy
provocation!
1.
No
matter
what
we
may
think
about
the
actual
experience
of
socialism
in
the
past,
one
thing
is
undeniable.
It
was
the
first
time
in
human
history
that
a
society
had
come
into
being
not
spontaneously,
not
on
the
basis
of
the
spontaneous
movement
of
history
independent
of
human
will,
but
on
the
basis
of
human
conception.
Karl
Marx
had
remarked
in
Capital
that
the
difference
between
the
best
bee
and
the
worst
architect
is
that
the
architect,
unlike
the
bee,
erects
a
structure
in
the
mind
before
erecting
it
in
reality.
Socialism
is
the
first
structure
of
society
that
was
first
erected
in
the
mind
before
it
was
erected
in
reality.
True,
what
came
into
being
might
not
have
fully
corresponded
to
what
was
in
the
mind;
nonetheless
socialism,
even
as
it
existed,
was
the
first
non-spontaneously
evolved
mode
of
production
in
human
history.
Quite
apart
from
its
historical
significance
in
establishing
the
rule
of
the
hitherto
exploited
classes,
in
defeating
fascism,
in
enabling
the
oppressed
nations
to
liberate
themselves
from
imperialism
and
in
forcing
capitalism,
however
transiently,
to
adopt
welfare
state
measures,
this
aspect
of
socialism,
of
representing
the
first
grand
effort
of
mankind
to
transform
a
vision
into
reality,
must
never
be
lost
sight
of.
In
fact,
socialism
defined,
to
a
significant
extent,
the
contours
of
human
civilisational
advance
in
the
20th
century
and
left
an
inerasable
imprint
on
all
its
aspects.
Since
mankind
would
never
again
rest
content
leaving
its
fate
to
the
blind
forces
of
history,
the
victory
of
socialism,
not
necessarily
in
the
form
it
originally
appeared
in
but
may
be
in
some
other
form,
representing
a
vision
going
beyond
capitalism
towards
social
ownership,
is
assured
and
inevitable.
Through
all
our
present
travails
this
is
a
truth
we
must
never
lose
sight
of.
2.
Nonetheless
we
must
face
the
question:
why
did
socialism
collapse
over
large
parts
of
the
world?
The
usual
answer
to
this
question
focuses
on
the
defects
of
the
system
that
was
erected,
notably
the
extreme
centralization
of
power
in
the
socialist
societies,
which
were
characterized
by
a
dictatorship
of
the
Party
and
which
ultimately
ended
up
de-politicizing
the
working
class
to
a
significant
extent.
The
CPI(M)
had,
in
its
14th
Congress,
identified
four
areas
viz,
the
character
of
the
socialist
State;
the
content
of
socialist
democracy;
the
construction
of
the
socialist
economy;
and
inadequate
development
of
ideological
consciousness
amongst
the
people,
where
distortions
and
deviations
took
place
undermining
the
socialist
State.
There
is
of
course
much
truth
in
this.
But
this
answer
itself
has
to
be
located
within
a
historical
context,
and
that
context
was
provided
by
imperialism.
Imperialism
leading
to
uneven
development
kept
socialism
confined
only
to
countries
in
the
periphery
while
countries
in
the
metropolis,
belying
the
hopeful
anticipation
of
Marx
and
Engels
and
the
expectations
of
Lenin
and
his
comrades,
came
close
to,
but
never
succeeded
in,
achieving
the
breakthrough
to
a
socialist
revolution.
As
a
result,
socialism,
wherever
it
had
come
into
being,
remained
“encircled”
throughout
its
entire
brief
history,
resulting
in
an
ossification
of
the
centralized
bureaucratic
structure
from
which
there
was
no
escape
other
than
through
a
collapse
of
the
system
itself.
3.
There
is
an
additional
point
to
note.
Not
only
did
revolutions
not
happen
in
the
advanced
centres
of
capitalism
but
the
very
revolutionary
conjuncture
itself
passed.
The
Programme
of
the
Comintern
was
based
on
the
notion
of
a
“general
crisis
of
capitalism”
from
which
the
only
way
out
could
be
provided
by
a
transition
to
socialism.
All
of
us
recollect
the
meetings
of
1957
and
1960.
81
Communist
parties
in
a
declaration
asserted
in
1960
that
the
international
correlation
of
forces
shifted
decisively
in
socialism's
favour;
that
capitalism
is
incapable
of
developing
any
further;
that
socialism
is
irreversible
in
the
existing
socialist
countries
etc
etc.
In
retrospect,
it
is
clear
that
there
was
both
an
underestimation
of
capitalism
and
an
overestimation
of
socialism.
An
incorrect
estimation
that
had
grave
consequences
for
the
advance
of
the
socialist
cause.
Capitalism
restructured
itself
in
the
aftermath
of
the
Second
World
War,
through
Keynesian
demand
management
ushering
in
an
unprecedented
boom,
through
political
de-colonization
removing
the
moral
stigma
of
being
an
oppressor
of
other
nations
from
it,
and
through
the
diffusion
of
a
degree
of
development
to
certain
pockets
in
the
third
world,
such
as
East
Asia,
which
appeared
to
belie
the
Sixth
Congress
thesis
that
development
of
the
third
world
could
occur
only
through
socialism.
These
changes
together
with
the
experience
of
the
very
horrors
of
the
Second
World
War
contributed
to
the
passing
of
the
revolutionary
conjuncture
of
the
period
1913-1950.
While
we
have
a
renascent
imperialism
today
and
the
moral
stigma
associated
with
oppression
and
stagnation
is
once
again
beginning
to
adhere
to
capitalism,
portending
the
beginning
of
yet
another
possible
revolutionary
conjuncture,
the
fact
remains
that
this
would
not
be
a
return
to
the
earlier
conjuncture.
Lenin
always
teaches
us
that
concrete
analysis
of
concrete
conditions
is
the
living
essence
of
dialectics.
Just
as
he
authored
Leninism
as
Marxism
in
the
era
of
imperialism,
it
falls
on
our
collective
shoulders
to
define
the
contours
of
the
socialist
revolution
in
the
present
conjecture.
Therefore,
there
is
no
going
back.
We
can
stand
on
Lenin’s
shoulders
to
see
the
future
but
we
can
not
see
it
through
Lenin’s
eyes.
4.
Given
the
fact
of
uneven
development
under
imperialism
it
is
clear
that
the
transition
to
socialism
would
be
a
protracted
affair.
Likewise
given
the
reassertion
of
hegemony
of
imperialism
in
the
epoch
of
the
emergence
of
a
new
form
of
international
finance
capital,
it
is
clear
that
the
socialist
movement
must
be
engaged
above
all
in
an
anti-imperialist
struggle.
Indeed
the
chief
hallmark
of
the
socialist
movement
today
is
that
it
constitutes
the
most
consistent
fighter
against
imperialism,
since
it
alone
can
visualize
a
transcendence
of
capitalism
which
is
a
necessary
condition
for
the
transcendence
of
imperialism.
For,
Marx
has
irrefutably
proved
that
capitalism
can
never
survive
without
its
raison-d-etre,
i.e.,
exploitation
of
man
by
man
and
nation
by
nation.
To
those
who
spread
illusions
of
reforming
capitalism
(since
Bernstien)
and
to
those
who
parrot
the
TINA
(there
is
no
alternative
to
globalisation)
factor,
the
Communist
answer
can
only
be
that
the
alternative
to
TINA
is
SITA
--
socialism
is
the
alternative.
We
can
therefore
carry
the
struggle
for
socialism
forward
today
only
through
the
adoption
of
an
uncompromising
stand
against
imperialism.
This
is
our
historic
task
in
an
era
when
the
vileness
of
imperialist
predatoriness,
notwithstanding
all
high
phrases
about
“freedom”
and
“democracy”,
is
becoming
apparent
to
everyone
in
the
aftermath
of
the
war
on
Iraq.
5.
There
is
an
additional
point
to
consider.
The
reassertion
of
imperialist
hegemony
is
occurring
in
a
situation
of
the
ascendancy
of
international
finance
capital
in
a
new
form
which
has
the
effect
of
causing
deflation,
recession,
and
unemployment
everywhere.
In
other
words,
the
contemporary
imperialist
aggressiveness
is
the
other
side
of
the
same
coin
which
imposes
enormous
burdens
on
the
working
classes
in
the
advanced
capitalist
countries
in
the
form
of
unemployment
and
cuts
in
social
wage.
Imperialism
of
course
tries
to
pit
the
workers
in
the
advanced
countries
against
those
in
the
third
world
by
arguing
that
the
latter
are
snatching
jobs
away
from
the
former.
Nothing
could
be
further
from
the
truth.
It
is
the
world-wide
deflation
imposed
by
finance
capital
that
is
the
cause
of
unemployment
everywhere,
not
the
re-distribution
of
employment
from
one
section
of
workers
by
another.
An
anti-imperialist
struggle,
provided
it
can
make
this
point
clear
and
present
a
vision
for
improving
the
lot
of
mankind
as
a
whole,
embracing
the
working
class
and
other
exploited
classes
in
all
countries
--
developed,
developing
and
underdeveloped
--
can
acquire
world-wide
support
and
contribute
to
a
change
in
the
conjuncture.
6.
Of
course
the
precise
contours
of
what
a
future
socialist
society
would
look
like
still
need
to
be
drawn,
based
on
the
past
experience
of
socialism.
The
road
map
of
this
would
naturally
vary
from
country
to
country
depending
on
the
concrete
realities.
Each
one
of
us
has
this
historic
responsibility
to
discharge
in
our
respective
countries.
However,
the
task
of
advancing
the
anti-imperialist
struggle
world
wide
cannot
afford
to
wait.
Neither
can
it
wait
until
that
intellectual
task
of
evolving
a
coherent
and
comprehensive
revolutionary
theory
for
the
socialist
revolution
in
the
present
conjecture,
important
though
it
is,
is
completed.
7.
Finally,
let
us
confront
a
reality
squarely.
The
present
phase
of
capitalist
globalisation
is
simply
unsustainable.
This
is
precisely
because,
by
sharply
accentuating
economic
inequalities
--
between
countries
and
between
the
rich
and
poor
in
individual
countries
--
the
vast
majority
of
world's
population
are
increasingly
placed
beyond
market
operations
as
they
simply
lack
the
requisite
purchasing
power.
Imperialist
hegemonic
drive,
therefore,
will
increasingly
be
determined
by
military
aggressiveness.
Under
these
conditions,
as
Rosa
Luxembourg
said
earlier
and
as
Fidel
Castro
says
today,
the
choice
before
humanity's
future
is
between
socialism
or
barbarism.
Each
one
of
us,
working
in
tandem
with
our
domestic
revolutionary
goals,
will
have
to
work
for
integrating
the
worldwide
anti-globalisation
protests
with
the
global
anti-war
upsurge
into
a
mighty
anti-imperialist
movement.
This
requires,
simultaneously,
the
intensification
of
the
ideological
combat
within
these
movements
that
seek
to
obfuscate
socialism
as
the
only
alternative
available
to
humanity.
Come,
let
us,
together
rise
to
the
occasion.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.