commentary
The Communists and
the Building of Capitalism
Prabhat Patnaik
The conception of a communist
party being always concerned
exclusively and immediately with
the ushering in of socialism is
theoretically erroneous. Further,
to infer from the practical policies
of the state governments which
are an empirical matter, the
theoretical positions of the party,
is an inversion of reason.
Prabhat Patnaik (prabhatptnk@yahoo.co.in)
is at the Centre for Economic Studies and
Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi.
8 february 2, 2008   Economic & Political Weekly
D
oes the fact of communist-led state
governments operating within a
capitalist system and hence play-
ing host to private investment, necessarily
entail that the communists have abandoned
socialism? The media reactions to state-
ments by some West Bengal com­munist
leaders would suggest that the answer is a
clear “yes”. But this is a non-sequitur. It is
worth examining the issue theoretically,
even if it involves re­stating  certain bread-
and-butter theo­retical propositions.
A communist party is founded with the
objective of achieving socialism. Its raison
d’être is to struggle for the achievement of
this objective. But the achievement of so-
cialism requires a social revolution which
entails the substitution of private owner-
ship of the means of production by social
ownership, and of the bourgeois state that
defends such private ownership by an
alter­native proletarian state which is a
very different kind of state from all hith-
erto existing states, in the sense that it
must “wither away” over a period of time.
Since the conditions for such a social revo-
lution take time to mature, all communist
parties must work within the capitalist
system for long stretches of time, bringing
theory to the working class and helping it
through its struggles to prepare itself for
the task of leading this revolution.
All this however presupposes that the
democratic revolution, which the bour-
geoisie had led historically, has been more
or less completed, so that a socialist revolu-
tion has come on the agenda. But in societies
where the bourgeoisie appears late on the
scene, it proves singularly incapable of
completing the democratic revolution itself,
and instead makes common cause with
feudal and pre-bourgeois elements, since
it is afraid that any attack on pre-bourgeois
property could well encompass an attack
on bourgeois property as well. This com-
promise, which was evident in the case of
pre-revolutionary Russia, incorporates a
compromise with imperialism as well in
the context of third world societies.
People’s Democratic Revolution
The anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks
of the democratic revolution in such socie-
ties therefore cannot be completed by the
bourgeoisie but devolve upon the prole-
tariat which must carry the democratic
revolution to completion. Its key ally in
this democratic revolution is of course the
broad mass of the peasantry. This demo-
cratic revolution led by the working class
in alliance with the peasantry is called the
“people’s democratic revolution”, which
third world communists have traditionally
seen as the immediate historical task on
the agenda.
The people’s democratic revolution is a
rich and complex concept. Since it entails
a carrying forward of the democratic rev-
olution, i e, a completion by the proletariat
of the task that the bourgeoisie historically
had undertaken, its objective is to remove
the fetters upon the most thoroughgoing
bourgeois development; it creates there-
fore the conditions for the most vigorous
and the most broad-based capitalist deve­
lopment. At the same time, since it is the
proletariat that leads the people’s demo-
cratic revolution, it is not content only
to create the conditions for the most
thoroughgoing capitalist development,
and then sit back and watch capitalism
unfold in its full vigour; rather, it un-
leashes a historical process where the
people’s democratic revolution leads on to
the socialist revolution. Once the prole-
tariat has acquired a “subject” role, it does
not withdraw from that role; rather it
uses  that role to ensure that the people’s
demo­cratic revolution leads on to the
socialist revolution over a more or less
protracted period of time.
Two important points have to be noted
here: first, while the people’s democratic
revolution creates conditions for capital-
ist development, the nature of this capi-
talist development is different from the
capitalist development that would have
occurred otherwise. “Capitalist develop-
ment” is not a homogeneous term. There
is capitalism and capitalism. What was

developing in colonial India was capital-
ism; what the bourgeoisie leading the
freedom struggle wanted was capita­
lism;  what the Nehruvian development
strategy promoted was capitalism; what
neoliberalism is promoting today is capi-
talism; and what the working class will
create the conditions for, through the
people’s democratic revolution, is also
capitalism. So, to say that the people’s
democratic revolution is meant to create
conditions for the deve­lopment of capi-
talism is only a half-truth; it is meant to
create the conditions for the development
of capitalism that is dif­ferent from the
capitalism that would have developed
otherwise; it is meant to develop a capi-
talism that is the most thorough-going
and broad-based, a capitalism that is
based inter alia on radical land reforms
and a widening of the mass market.
Secondly, the struggle for creating the
conditions for the most thoroughgoing
and broad-based capitalist development,
which the proletariat has to lead in condi-
tions like ours, does not become an end in
itself; it leads on to the struggle for social-
ism. The continuity of this struggle was
expressed by Lenin in his Two Tactics in
the following words: “The proletariat must
carry the democratic revolution to com-
pletion, allying to itself the mass of the
peasantry in order to crush the autocracy’s
resistance by force and paralyse the bour-
geoisie’s instability. The proletariat must
accomplish the socialist revolution, allying
to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian
elements of the population, so as to crush
the bourgeoisie’s resistance by force and
paralyse the instability of the peasantry
and the petty bourgeoisie.” Precisely
because the consummation of the demo-
cratic revolution, the most thoroughgoing
attempt at building capitalism, cannot
occur in societies like ours under the
aegis of the bourgeoisie, precisely because
it can be carried out only under the aegis
of the proletariat, the struggle for such
development becomes integrated with
the struggle for socialism, leads on to the
struggle for socialism.
The Immediate Task
It follows then that the conception of a
communist party being always con­
cerned   exclusively and immediately with
Economic & Political Weekly  february 2, 2008
the ushering in of socialism is
theoretically erroneous. But that is not
all. While the people’s democratic revolu-
tion is on the historic agenda in our coun-
try, in the sense that in its absence the
democratic revolution would not only not
be carried forward, but would actually
witness retrogression (such as for in-
stance the reversal of land reforms, the
attenuation of bourgeois democracy, and
an even greater integration with imperi-
alism), it is by no means imminent. The
communists in other words have to work
within the capitalist system even as they
work for the maturing of the conditions
for the people’s democratic revolution,
let alone a socialist revolution. And this
work involves not just work in trade un-
ions, among the peasantry, on the vari-
ous mass fronts, and in the parliamentary
opposition, but also as leaders of state
gove­r n­ments in the three states where
they are powerful.
Work in the state governments is no
different from work elsewhere, though
the terrain of work is novel and the con-
ditions of work constrained by explicit
and specific provisions of the Constitu-
tion: its aim must also be to change the
correlation of class forces, to prepare the
conditions for the people’s democratic
revolution by fighting to carry forward
the democratic advance of the people and
against all slide-backs, retrogression,
and counter-revolutionary rolling back of
this advance.
In the case of the state governments
led by the communists, this requires a
correct policy towards the development
of the productive forces. This policy too
must be informed by the objective of cre-
ating the conditions for the people’s dem-
ocratic revolution, forging the class alli-
ance required for it, raising the level of
class consciousness, and strengthening
the proletariat as a revolutionary force.
Stagnation in the development of the
productive forces in these states in com-
parison to others, i e, stagnation that is
not systemic but specific to such states,
can damage this objective by restricting
employment generation, and alienating
the people from the communists (which
indeed is one reason why the capitalists
used deliberately to avoid investing in
these states earlier); on the other hand,
commentary
any development that, even while creat-
ing employment in some sectors, destroys
employment in others, including in agri-
culture through the alteration of the
land-use pattern, can also have a damag-
ing effect.
Likewise, while boycott by capitalists,
which amounts to an economic blockade
of communist-ruled states, can damage
the communists and hence the cause of
the democratic revolution, any acceding
to the demands of the capitalists that re-
sults in a hiatus between the basic classes
(i e, workers and peasants) and the party
can have an equally deleterious effect.
Avoiding these deleterious consequences,
striking a correct path based on an
all-round appreciation of the situation,
making use of investments by capitalists
even while not succumbing to their ex­
cessive demands, by taking advantage of
competition among them, and by build-
ing up the countervailing force of gove­
rnment investment, is not always easy.
The exact strategy in each case has to be
specifically determined. But the basic
criterion for deciding on the correct
course of action must be: does it
Open Review
Several international journals are moving
away from closed "Peer Review" of
research papers, towards an "Open Re-
view"  process. In open reviews anyone can
comment on a paper submitted for
publication. This will increase transpar-
ency in reviews as well as enhance par-
ticipation and involvement of the research
community.
epw occasionally posts a submission on its
web site and invites comments. Visitors to
the epw web site and readers of the journal
are encouraged to offer detailed comments.
epw will discuss the comments with the
author and a revised version will be processed
for publication.
Please visit the Open Review section on our
web site (www.epw.org.in) to read and
comment on the paper currently submitted
for Open Review.
9
commentary
con­t ribute towards an advance of the
democratic revolution?
Struggle on Many Fronts
While applying this criterion however it
is clear that there is no reason for shun-
ning capitalist investment, since within
the capitalist system in which the
com­munist-led governments are func-
tioning, the investible resources are by
definition concentrated in the hands of
the capitalists. Of course, such capitalist
investment must be treated with circum-
spection; it must not be allowed to thwart
the advance towards a people’s democrat-
ic revolution; and for that purpose the
communist-led state governments must
have a counterweight against the exces-
sive demands of capital; but shunning
such investment altogether can also be
equally damaging.
Such an understanding clearly does
not entail an abandonment of socialism,
or an acceptance of capitalism. It only
recognises the fact that the struggle for
carrying forward the democratic revolu-
10
tion, towards its ultimate goal of socialism,
has to be fought on many fronts, in
complex terrains, and in conditions not of
one’s choosing. While it is true that in
coping with this complexity, the ultimate
objective must not be lost sight of, a lack
of recognition of this complexity makes
the ultimate objective even more elusive
in practice.
Party and Government
The critics of the communists are also
wrong on a third count, quite apart from
their lack of understanding of the con-
cept of the people’s democratic revolu-
tion, and also of the complexity of the
work needed to create the conditions for
it. And this relates to a lack of distinction
between the government and the party.
Party-led govern­ments are not identical
with the party. The party embodies a
theory; a government per se does not,
even when led by the party. The party
works for a revolution; it works through
many channels including through head-
ing state governments. But just as there is
a difference between the party and its
front organisations, there is a difference
between the party and the governments
it leads, as indeed between these govern-
ments and the Party’s front organisa-
tions. These governments are formed in
accordance with the provisions of a Con-
stitution which in turn was framed as
scaffolding for the structure of a state led
by the bourgeoisie. Their practical posi-
tions on a number of issues cannot al-
ways be expected to be coterminus with
what the party’s theoretical understand-
ing dictates. To infer from the practical
policies of the state governments which
are an empirical matter, the theoretical
positions of the party, is an inversion of
reason.
There may be reservations about the
concrete policies of the communist-led
state governments in India, but these are
a separate matter; they must not be al-
lowed to cloud theoretical understand-
ing. On the contrary, theoretical clarity
is essential for assessing the validity of
such reservations.
february 2, 2008   Economic & Political Weekly