ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Paresh ChattopadhyaySubscribe to Paresh Chattopadhyay

Marx, Market, Socialism-Setting the Record Straight

difficulty by the forecasters. CONCLUSIONS While it is welcome that an increasing number of serious researchers are taking up short-term forecasting through econometric or computable general equilibrium modelling, we find that foreign trade forecasts would require further development in the models to capture the policy changes in the area through appropriate indicators. At present, the focus of the models is on exchange rate and/or relative domestic/world prices at aggregate level. The DPC model in fact can study the effect of exchange rate changes only in terms of current account balance. The possibilities of strengthening the link between Indian model and the global models need to be explored further by the IEG-DSE and the NCAER models which have access to the latter. The need for disaggregated analysis in the models cannot be overemphasised. With the increasing importance of foreign trade as a means to integrate the Indian economy with the global economy, the effort would indeed be worthwhile, The more interesting results shown by Srinivasan's analysis reinforce this recommendation. To the extent export-import policy changes would remain important in the coming years in a low income developing country like India and noting that the policy objectives are a globally-oriented vibrant economy, sustained economic growth through access to inputs and capital goods at international prices, technological strength and efficiency of agriculture, industry and services thereby improving their competitive strength, and attainment of international expected standards and quality, the five- year and annual policy changes deserve due consideration in forecasting models covering exports and imports, [The views expressed in this paper are the author's personal views.] Marx, Market, Socialism Setting the Record Straight Paresh Chattopadhyay WE read with absorbing interest Nirmal Chandra's recent paper on 'Marx, Colonialism and the Market' (EPW, Vol XXXIII No 23). In this very well- written piece Chandra has, with his customary lucidity, mounted a sharp attack on the traditional as well as currently fashionable discourses on the 'benefits' of the much touted "globalisation" of capital. At the same time he has also forcefully argued in favour of the existence of market in socialism. We find here, in fact, a neat representation of what could be called the majoritarian trend in the post-Marx (Engles) 'Marxism', Admire as we always do his writings (and this piece makes no exception in this regard). we have to regretfully register our reservations concerning certain aspects of his paper It is the second part of his paper with which we deal here (not that we agree with everything he says in the first part) and there, again, our remarks concern exclusively his theoretical position, leaving aside his interesting treatment of the 'really (non) existing socialist' regimes starting with the USSR, Our analysis below centres on Chandra's two well-articulated positions: (i) Referring to the second section of the Communist Manifesto, Chandra first cites the paragraph where the Manifesto posits the "disappearance of buying and selling" in the "communist society." Next he cites an excerpt from the same section concerning the immediate "concrete measures" that the Manifesto lists to be undertaken by the 'proletariat organised as ruling class' (by the proletariat and not by the 'communists', contrary to Chandra's interpretation). Then writes Chandra; "I submit that the first excerpt on the abolition of buying and selling refers to what Marx in The Critique of the Gotha Programme calls the 'higher phase of communist society' .... But the second excerpt refers unmistakably to the first or lower phase of communism. For it is only at this stage, can capital be wrested

Communist Manifes to and Marxian Idea of Post-Capitalist Society

basic Marxian ideas concerning the type of society supposed to follow the demise of capitalism are contained in the Manifesto in a condensed form Accordingly, the first section offers an outline of what type of society the Manifesto envisages for the future as well as the conditions necessary for its appearance, while the second section relates these ideas to Marx's other texts.

Fascism, Socialism and the Left

Paresh Chattopadhyay While Aijaz Ahmad (EPW, June 1) gives a brilliant blow-by-blow account of the high parliamentary drama preceding the United Front's accession to power in the context of the rise of the communal variant of fascism in India and its striving towards gaining a parliamentary majority, he has dealt unevenly with three issues: consensus and nationalism; fascism; and bolshevism, commune and socialism. This paper focuses on these issues.

Marx s First Critique of Political Economy, 1844-1994

Economy, 1844-1994 Paresh Chattopadhyay This year marks 150th anniversary of Marx's first critique of political economy, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Even at this early stage of his critique Marx was profoundly aware that human emancipation cannot be a rapid, short process.

The (Ex)Soviet Economy-Towards a Reassessment of Contending Theses

Towards a Reassessment of Contending Theses Paresh Chattopadhyay This article reviews critically, from the point of view of Marx's fundamental materialist categories, four basic alternative approaches to characterising the Soviet economy as socialist, marked by public ownership of the means of production and central planning; as a transitional economy between capitalism and socialism; as a sui generis exploiting economy neither socialist nor capitalist; and as a capitalist economy based on the labourers' separation from the conditions of production.

Economic Content of Socialism in Lenin-Is It the Same as in Marx

Is It the Same as in Marx? Paresh Chattopadhyay In the following lines we propose to discuss critically how Lenin conceived of socialism as a new form of society and to what extent his concept of socialism could be considered Marxian. As the title of the paper indicates, we shall be concerned here basically with the economic content of socialism considered purely as a theoretical category. It should be emphasised that we are not concerned here with the (practical) policies Lenin pursued, before or after October 1917, towards the realisation of socialism. Ours is an exercise in pure theory In what follows, Section I summarises Lenin's main ideas on socialism's economic content, Section II examines these ideas in the light of Marx's writings on the subject, while Section III concludes the paper.

Indian Communists on the Crisis of Socialism

If the Central Committee of the CPI(M) insists that the 'transition between socialism and communism' which it posits in its recent document on developments in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and the 'transition between capitalism and communism9 which textually appears in Marx and Lenin are equivalent statements, then the only logical conclusion would be that in the eyes of the party socialism is the same as capitalism. Truly with such friends, socialism does not require enemies.

Which Socialism Is in Question

There is a curious convergence on the concept of 'socialism' among both those who defend 'socialism' and those who oppose it. This is reflected in the quasi-consensus of opinion that the recent developments in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in East Europe and in China reflect a crisis of 'socialism'. This paper argues that this supposition is unwarranted, that the way Marx conceived of socialism or a socialist society is exactly the opposite of what passes for 'socialism' among most of its defenders and opponents and that, consequently, the question of 'crisis' of socialism in the sense of Marx simply does not arise.

On Economic Crisis and Transition from Capitalism

On Economic Crisis and Transition from Capitalism Paresh Chattopadhyay SURENDRA J PATEL has honoured us by replying to our critique of his original paper (EPW, Vol 22, No 12). In what follows we shall first sum up his points of criticism of our position and then try to examine them in that order. In oider not to prolong the debate unnecessarily we shall, in our reply, basically confine ourselves to those issues which we had raised earlier and around which he has criticised our position. We shall leave aside rest of the issues, however important they are otherwise and however much we would have ordinarily liked to comment on them (those concerning, for example, the 'correspondence' between the forces and the relations of production, etc) According to Patel (1) we have incorrectly characterised his use of the term 'economic formation' as 'class-neutral', whereas his discussion of the term in the context of "broad historical epochs and particular economic and social structures" would prove the contrary, more so when "even Marx in his presentation ot historic evolution in the preface to the 'critique' did not mention the word 'class' " [1987 ; 519|.

Concerning Revolution in Third World

Concerning Revolution in Third World Paresh Chattopadhyay The contradictory historical experience of revolution in the third world, especially in Asia shows the following features: firstly, in order to lay the material foundation of socialism, the bourgeois democratic revolution had to be completed. But the task of destroying the pre-capitalist relations has entailed the generalisation of commodity production and of wage labour which have the tendency to perpetuate themselves; secondly, state power had to be captured if the immediate producers were to emancipate themselves and by the very nature of armed struggle against imperialism the old state machinery was destroyed. But the new state has not been a proletariat state; and, thirdly, nationalism proved a mighty weapon both to bring about a liquidation of the colonial domination as well as to create the broadest possible front against imperialist domination.

On Economic Crisis and Transition from Capitalism- A Marxian Approach

On Economic Crisis and Transition from Capitalism A Marxian Approach Paresh Chattopadhyay SURENDRA J PATEL's article Economic Crisis and the Transition from Capitalism' (EPW, March 29) is highly stimulating. With his usual clarity he has shown how the economic crisis which has been an integral part of capitalism has not meant an unmitigated evil for the world as a whole but, in fact, has been associated invariably with the spread of industrialisation far beyond its (original) sorting point. Particularly he has thrown interesting light on the linkage between this association and the emergence of what he calls the 'transitional economic formulations' between capitalism and socialism on a world scale. However, while appreciating the paper for all its qualities we would like to express our reservations on some crucial issues raised in the paper. They concern basically (a) Patel's categorisation of 'economic formation' and his characterisation of the 'transitional economic formation', (b) his treatment of 'socialism' particularly with reference to the USSR, (c) his approach to the question of 'economic crisis' in relation to what he considers to be the 'socialist countries'. In the discussion that follows we shall maintain the same order.1 Patel nowhere offers a precise meaning of the term 'economic formation' though it constitutes a central category of the paper. One thine, however, seems to be clear. From the way Patel uses it his 'economic formation', seemingly derived from Marx, seems to be quite different from the Marxian category of 'economic formation' (of soeeity) [Oeknomische Geseilschaftsformation).2 Patel's use of the terms seems to be completely class-neutral. That is, he seems to make complete abstraction of the specific situation of the immediate producers in relation to the conditions of production in the society in question. This is particularly clear in his distinction between 'capitalist' and 'intermediate' ('post-capitalist', 'pre- socialist') 'economic formations'. On the other hand we Know from Marx (and Engels) that it is the specific form of extraction of unpaid surplus labour from the immediate producers that distinguishes one 'economic formation' from another (when we are speaking of class societies). "Only the form in which this surplus labour is extorted (abgepresst wind) distinguishes one economic- social formation from another", writes Marx what is of crucial importance for characterising

On a Belated Apology for the Soviet Regime

On a Belated Apology for the Soviet Regime Paresh Chattopadhyay WHILE laying down the task for Andropov's successor (EPW, February 18) as well as his regime's critics (who include the "black intellectuals'' from the South and the (white) Marxists from the West) and mounting a well- deserved attack on Reagan, Kohl, Mitterand e tutti quanti (admonishing, in passing, the Chinese for "misreading Soviet power'') GPD has valiantly tried, at this late hour, to portray the 'developed socialist society' in conteur de rose. Though all praise for his valour and his remarkable capacity for drawing conclusions without any serious supporting demonstration we, as non-specialists, may be forgiven for making a few observations on his column.

Pages

Back to Top