Spectrum of ownership

The tone of Vijay Prashad’s article on the ‘left rupture’ (January) is refreshing, and seems to be open to genuine debate. But I have serious problems with the kind of unsubstantiated assertions that are presented as self-evident truths in communist-left circles. Take, for example, Prashad’s assertion that “To eschew state-led sustainable development is to concede the terrain to the powerful social classes who are invested in private corporate-led development.” Here we have a classic ‘either-or’ scenario: supposedly there are only two options, the state or the private sector. If you are opposed to one, you must be for the other.

Mind you, Prashad here is making ‘private’ work as a synonym for capital and capitalist, which in fact is a false conflation. Even those whom communists call the ‘petty bourgeois’ are often far from being capitalists – their drive is not to accumulate. Private entrepreneurship existed for ages, after all, without giving birth to capital or capitalism. In addition, according to communist-left theory, cooperatives of all kind are likewise seen as variations of private property. Once you have laid down the rule that whatever is not state is private/capital, then this proposition naturally follows. However, cooperative forms have not really been tried out, except when some enterprise has reached a terminal stage. Only in a few parts of the world do cooperatives exist that were set up not to meet a crisis but rather as important forms in and of themselves – and, by and large, they seem to be functioning pretty well. So, in the first place, it is far from clear that there can only be these two types of property ownership. Second, with regard to Prashad’s assertion that “to eschew state-led sustainable development is to concede the terrain to the powerful social classes who are invested in private corporate-led development”, I can only say that this is being refuted every day by practical experience. It is only through the state that the land, forests and water of the world are being handed over to private corporate capital. And it does not matter who is in control of the state – communists (China, Vietnam, West Bengal), or some kind of a left alliance (Brazil, South Africa). In the end, all are complicit, through the logic of the state, in the cannibalisation of the planet’s resources, people and all else. So, before somebody asserts the ‘self-evident’ nature of the virtues of the state, or evokes this fantasy of state-as-resistance-to-capital, he or she will have to do some very hard work.

Aditya Nigam
Delhi

(I’d like to thank Ajit for bringing my attention to the article on the Kafila website.)

Fulfil the agreement

Your December commentary “Country out on a limb” rightly illustrated that the high hopes of the Nepali people had once again been betrayed with the suspension of the Constituent Assembly polls. But, better late than never: it is laudable that the major parties have reached a new agreement to hold the election in mid-April. The 23-point agreement, reached on 23 December, seems to have significantly eased the parties’ discrepancies, while also indicating an important flexibility from both the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

Despite their obfuscation, the Maoists still deserve some benefit of the doubt, given their incessant ‘determination’ to head towards the Constituent Assembly polls since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in November 2005. Still, the new situation will certainly test their true devotion to those polls – and, moreover, their ultimate intention. Will the people finally experience the long-awaited, desperately sought election? Will this event finally be allowed to open a door to cure the major ailments of Nepal?

Amit Pyakurel
Kathmandu

Too much Gandhi

In your January issue, a reader cannot help but wonder how, in not less than three articles, the name of Mohandas K Gandhi was invoked – and, more importantly, why this was so. In all three instances, the name was given a clear ‘ethical’ tinge, as if the act of pointing to his name was an inescapable reference point. In a more mundane sense, is alluding to Gandhi a way of bolstering an argument, or escaping from it?

G Narasimha Raghavan
Coimbatore

Laboured left

Congratulations on your January issue, especially the speed with which you caught up with the Benazir Bhutto issue. In particular, the series of articles on the Left Front government in West Bengal did much to hot up the debate. That said, however, Vijay Prashad’s piece is based on a laboured argument. People such as Prashad should realise that the more the Communist Party of India (Marxist) chases events instead of envisioning the future, the more its opportunistic conversion from the ‘red’ to the ‘pink’ to the ‘lighter-than-pink’ will push the party towards ideological decay.

Sankar Ray
Calcutta

The middle mag

I have been gaining greater admiration for Himal’s impartial and timely discussion on topics relevant to Southasia as a whole. Of particular importance is how your coverage has been able to focus on current topics with a mix of academics and reality. This is an important balancing act: most publications seem to be either extremely academic or are completely without an academic base. The former mostly goes misunderstood by the masses, whereas the latter is ignored by the policy body and state-craftsmen. Articles published in Himal, however, are able to strike a certain equilibrium in this regard, consequentially reaching a larger population, creating acute debates and informing society.

Chinthaka Perera
Singapore