Thursday, December 20, 2007

*THE LEFT AND ITS "INTELLECTUAL" DETRACTORS : PRABHAT PATNAIK

http://www.pragoti.org/pragoti/news_detail.php?news_id=431&sessionid=

*THE LEFT AND ITS "INTELLECTUAL" DETRACTORS : PRABHAT PATNAIK *

With normalcy returning to Nandigram, and with the heat generated over it in
intellectual circles somewhat subsiding, it is time for us to ask the
question: why did so many intellectuals suddenly turn against the Party with
such amazing fury on this issue?

This question is important because joining issue with them on the basis of
facts on the specificities of Nandigram, which is what we have been doing
till now, is not enough. It is not enough for instance to underscore the
fact, implicitly or explicitly denied by virtually all of them, that
thousands of poor people were driven out of their homes into refugee camps
for the only "crime" of being CPI(M) supporters; it is not enough to argue
against them that there was no semblance of an excuse for keeping Nandigram
out of bounds for these refugees and for the civil administration even after
the Left Front government had categorically declared that no chemical hub
would be built there; it is not enough to point out that the so-called
"re-occupation" of Nandigram in November was an act of desperation which
followed the failure of every other effort at restoring normalcy and
bringing the refugees back to their homes. All these facts and arguments
have been advanced at length, and are by now passé. But the phenomenon of
several intellectuals who till yesterday were with the Left in fighting
communal fascism but have now turned against it requires serious analysis.

There is no gainsaying that the Left Front government made serious mistakes
in handling the Nandigram issue; and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya has said so in
as many words. But disagreement with the LF over this could have taken the
form of friendly criticism, articles, and open letters, and not of such
outright hostility that even put the LF on a par with communal fascism.
Likewise disagreements over the LF's industrialization policy could have
been aired in a manner that had none of the ferocity which has been recently
displayed. Differences with the LF, even basic differences, therefore cannot
suffice as an explanation of what we have just witnessed.

Likewise, the fact that most of these intellectuals are in any case strongly
anti-organized Left, especially anti-Communist (and in particular
anti-CPI(M)), belonging as they do to the erstwhile "socialist" groups, to
NGOs, to the ranks of Naxalite sympathizers, to the community of "Free
Thinkers", and to various shades of "populism", would not suffice as an
explanation. After all, despite this basic hostility to the organized Left,
they did make common cause with it on several issues till recently. Why is
it suddenly so different now?

The context clearly has changed. With the perceived decline in the strength
of the communal fascist forces, a certain fracturing of the anti-communal
coalition was inevitable and has happened, and this no doubt provides the
setting in which it becomes possible for these intellectuals to express in
the open the hostility which they might have felt all along against the
Left. Indeed, this perceived weakening of the BJP may even encourage
attempts, on the part of intellectuals hostile to the Left but aligned to it
earlier owing to the pressure of circumstances, at establishing a sort of
intellectual hegemony over society at large at the expense of the Left. But
while the recession of the communal fascist threat certainly creates the
condition for these intellectuals to come out openly against the Left, the
manner of their coming out cannot be explained only by this fact. It
indicates something more serious, namely the process of destruction of
politics that the phenomenon of globalization has unleashed.

The crux of political praxis consists at any time in distinguishing between
two camps: the camp of the "people" and camp hostile to the interests of
"the people". This distinction in turn is based on an analysis of the
prevailing contradictions, and the identification of the principal
contradiction, on the basis of which the composition of the class alliance
that constitutes the camp of "the people" is determined. And corresponding
to this constellation of classes, there is a certain constellation of
political forces among whom relations have to be forged. It is obvious that
the relationship between the political forces representing the classes that
constitute the camp of the people at any time, and the nature of criticism
among these forces, must be different from the relationship and criticism
across camps. Not to distinguish between the camps, not to distinguish
between alternative constellations of political forces, but to club them
together on the basis of the identical nature of their presumed moral
trespasses, is to withdraw from politics. What is striking about the
attitude of the intellectuals arrayed against the organized Left at present
is their complete withdrawal from the realm of political praxis to a realm
of messianic moralism.

Such messianic moralism is not just politically counter-productive. The
withdrawal from the realm of politics that it signifies, strengthens
politically the camp of the "enemies of the people". (In India for instance
the attack inspired by messianic moralism that has been launched on the
organized Left at a time when the latter is in the forefront of an extremely
crucial but difficult struggle against the attempt of imperialism to make
India its strategic ally, weakens that struggle, and thereby plays into the
hands of imperialism). But messianic moralism, quite apart from its palpable
political consequences, is smug, self-righteous, self-adulatory, and, above
all, empty. An attitude that does not distinguish between types of violence,
between the different episodes of violence, that condemns all violence with
equal abhorrence, that places on a footing of equality all presumed
perpetrators of violence, amounts in fact to a condemnation of nothing. To
say that all are equally bad is not even morally meaningful.

This messianic moralism, this withdrawal from politics, is based
fundamentally on a disdain of politics, of the messy world of politics,
which is far from being peopled by angels. It constitutes therefore a mirror
image of the very phenomenon that it seeks to resist, namely the "cult of
development" spawned by neo-liberalism. Manmohan Singh says: politics is
filthy; rise above politics; detach "development" from politics. The
anti-Left intellectuals say: politics is filthy; rise above politics; detach
the struggle against "development" from politics.

This disdain for politics, this contempt for the political process, is what
characterizes substantial sections of the middle class in India today. It is
visible in the absolute opposition of the students of elite institutions to
the legislation on reservations passed unanimously by parliament. It is
visible in the persistent resort to the judicial process to overturn
decisions of legislatures, and the exhortations to the judiciary to act as a
body superior to the elected representatives of the people. This middle
class contempt for politics and politicians is apparent in the rise of
movements like "Youth For Equality" that make no secret of it and whose
avowed aim is to combat "affirmative action" which they consider to be the
handiwork of "opportunist" politicians.

The rise of messianic moralism is a part of the same trend, which is nothing
else but a process of "destruction of politics". Middle class moralism
upholds causes, not programmes. It flits from cause to cause. And it
apotheosizes the absence of systematic political alliances. Some may call it
"post-modern politics", but it amounts to a negation of politics.

Messianic moralism always has a seductive appeal for intellectuals. To avoid
systematic partisanship, to stand above the messy world of politics, to
pronounce judgements on issues from Olympian moral heights, and to be
applauded for one's presumed "non-partisanship", gives one a sense of both
comfort and fulfillment. This seductive appeal is heightened by the
contemporary ambience of middle class disdain for politics which the
phenomenon of globalization, subtly but assiduously, nurtures and promotes.

The answer to the question with which we started, namely why have so many
intellectuals turned against the Left with such fury, lies to a significant
extent in the fact that this fury against the Left is also fed by a revolt
against politics. The revolt against the CPI(M) is simultaneously a revolt
against politics. The combination of anti-communism with a rejection of
politics in general gives this revolt that added edge, that special anger.
It is the anger of the morality of the "anti-political" against the morality
of the "political", for Communism, notwithstanding its substitution of the
"political" for the "moral", has nonetheless a moral appeal. The venom in
the anti-Left intellectuals' attack on the Left comes from the fact that
this struggle, of the "morality of the anti-political" against the "morality
of the political", takes on the character of a desperate last struggle, a
final push to destroy the latter, since "our day has come at last!".

Ironically it was a group of US-based academics led by Noam Chomsky who
sought to introduce a political perspective to the anti-Left agitation of
the intellectuals on Nandigram. It is they who pointed out that in the
anti-imperialist struggle, which is the defining struggle of our times (the
struggle around the principal contradiction), the organized Left was an
essential component of the camp of the "people", and that nothing should be
done to disrupt the unity of the camp of the "people". But the response of
the anti-Left intellectuals to the injection of this political perspective
was a barrage of attacks on Chomsky et al for taking a "pro-CPI(M)"
position.

A political position ipso facto was identified as a "pro-CPI(M)" position.
There could be no clearer proof of the proposition that the revolt of the
intellectuals against the Left was simultaneously a revolt against politics,
a disdain for politics that has become so prevalent a phenomenon in the era
of globalization that it affects as much the proponents of globalization as
its avowed critics. In fact these critics and the votaries of imperialist
globalization share in this respect the same terrain of discourse.

The hallmark of the organized Left lies precisely in the fact it rejects
this terrain of discourse, that it accords centrality to politics, that it
does not substitute an abstract Olympian moralism for concrete political
mobilization. It is for this reason therefore that the Left's attitude to
these intellectuals must be informed by politics; it cannot be a mirror
image of their attitude to the Left.

No comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
Arise Awake Stop not till the goal is reached. - Swami Vivekananda Swami ji is my inspiration, not as a monk but as a social reformer and for his universal-ism.