Chapter One

Introduc.tion and Theoretical Framework

I) Introduction
The focus of the thesis is to do a case study of the Peoples' Plan Programme in Kerala.
This programme was implemented by the Kerala government in its first phase from
September 1996. The broad objectives of this study are as follows:

i) To examme the philosophy, objectives and implementation of the People's Plan

Programme within the areas chosen for fieldwork and
ii) To contextualise the relative relevance of the People's Plan Programme within the
current situation in Kerala and in the background of the theoretical framework chosen.

The details regarding the methodologies, sources of data, field areas are mentioned in
Chapter Five. However, as mentioned before, this study is on the Peoples' Plan
Programme with reference to the areas chosen for the field work. This in tum has to be
contextualised with the larger framework of the Kerala situation as well as India. Even
though the case study method limits concl usions to the case chosen, the approach of the
researcher in this study was to keep the larger theoretical framework as a foundational
context in the background. Hence the first -chapter would have the theoretical framework,
the second chapter would flow into the context of India, after which chapter three would
focus on Kerala. Chapter four concentrates on the history, theory and process of
development paradigms, planning and decentralisation as a concept. Chapter five gives
all the details of the methodology and the .·eseareh process undertaken for the study. The
sixth chapter is a presentation of the findings from the field. The last chapter would
attempt 10 conclude·on the immediate context of the findings from the field and also
suggest some larger implications which might require fmiher study.
II) Theoretical F.oamework
There are many questions in the mind when one decides on a theoretical framework. The
primacy of the situation in which one exists is paramount, apart liOin the fact that there
are 'these many ideologies or frameworks' that exist. The other question which arises is
whether one should have a clear stated theoretical fioamework at all? As is an easy way
out, one could just focus on the specific problem, elaborate on it and then conclude.
However, this could be a flawed approach, for aren't the larger contexts equally
important? How does one go about choosing what is the 'right' framework? As Baran
(J 961) states, it is important to focus not just on the parts of the problem but also on the
'whole'. The choice of the term 'a right tiamework' is in itself an 'ideologically' loaded
telID. What one can safely mention is that one can choose as per the conditions or
specificities that exist. .These conditions in terms of material or social have to be
demonstrated which the Researcher would attempt to do in the context of India and
KeraJa in tbe subsequent chapterso After careful thought and study, the choice of tbe
Researcher is to broadly operate under tbe Marxist framework.

a) Back to Marx?
Some may argue tbat Marxist tbeory has becn greatly influential, but in contemporary
times, Marx is not deemed relevant any more. The dominant paradigm that pervades us is
the standard argument that with the collapse of 'socialism' of the Soviet Union, Eastern
Europe and China, all manifestations of Marxism are dead. This 'line' of argument was
put forward by Francis Fukoyama and the rest of neo-Iiberal scholars who held forth on
the 'demise of Marxism and the end of history' in the post 1989 situation that the world
faced (See Marcuse, 2000). However, Meiksins Wood (1997 and 1998) states that Marx
rcmains as relevant as any other time, even more today, for it is precisely at this moment
that capitalism has become a truly universal system. It's universal not only in the sense
that its global, not only in the sense that just about every economic actor in the world
today is operating according to the logic of capitalism but even those on the periphery of
the economy are subject to that logic (see also Tabb, 1999 a; Magdoff, 2004 and
Eagleton, 2002 :8-9)0 Marxist theory gets its specific character in the simple fact tbat it is
about the entire capitalist system and about the internal logic of tbat system and its

2
specific capacity to totalise itself, to penneate every aspect of life, wherever it did
implant itself (Meiksins Wood, 1997; Hubennan, 1989 ed. and see also Petras, 1999 a).
Latcr Marxists even though concerned with less mature forms of capitalism, were also
concerned with how to navigate within a largely non-capitalist world (see Magdoff, 1992;
Hayter, 1981 and Baran, 1973). For instance, with all the disagreements among the
Marxists on imperialism, the basic discourse Ihere too was on the premise of expansion
of capitalism within large regions of the world that was not capitalist, a competition
between capitalist states over division and fe-division of the world. This was developed
further by Rosa Luxemburg in "The Accumulation of Capital". Her argument was that
the capitalist system needs an outlet in non- capitalist formations-which is why capitalism
inevitably means militarism and imperialism (also see Patnaik, 1999; Magdoft~ 1993;
Magdo/I, 1992; Lichtheim, 1977; Mack, Plant and Doyle, 1979 and Bottomore, 1983).
Iraq could be an example in this regard l .
Further more, there is a consolidation of the movement of capital and its transnational
character. It has always been the case, but the kind of penetration that it has achieved is
because of its explosive growth in the period beginning from 1980 onwards (see Tanzer,
1995 and Clairmount, 2000). Even though the dominant discourse is towards support for
such transnational flow for 'larger economic growth', it has not resulted in any major
structural change. Poverty levels, for instance, has only got further aggravated since neo-
liberalisation was launched with renewed vigour in the Reagan-Thatcher era. This can be
scen even within the evolving economies in third world regions such as South Korea or
even in Africa (see Samuelson, 1998:29; Johnson, 1998 and Saul and Leys, 1999). In fact
the debt situation in these regions has only aggravated further. Evidence that is emerging
from Latin America (see Veltmeyer and Petras, 1999) or the liberalisation policies
adopted in Russia post 1989 (see Mukesh, 1999; Menshikov, 1999; Radyhin, 1999;
Vieux and Petras, 1995; Quinn, 1997; Rahul, 1999 and McGeary, 1999) all demonstrate
the scale of the crisis in the capitalist system today.

I For further elaboration on the Marxist notion of imperialism and its efTects post 1945 see Mack, Plant and
Doyle, 1979; Botlomore, 1983; Grenville, 1980; DutL 1946; Chomsky and Herman, 1994; Polychroniou,
1995; Wood, 1986; Anderson, 1984; Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1979; Walker, 1979, Paramjeet, 1995;
Vardarajan, 1995; Voice of Vanguard, 1997; Shivakumar, 1995; Thatcher, 1993; Chakravarti, 1995;
Srinivas, 1996; Jackson, 1993, Matar, 1992; Friedman, 1997; and Jalce, 1977.

3
China is the latest example to exhibit a 'recent success' in the capitalist world. Here too,
it is constantly overlooked that the foundation of the present "prosperity" of China is
largely due to the rapid advances that Socialist China made in the field of education,
health, land refonn and gender issues. For instance, infant mortality rate fell from 150 in
1960 to 30 in 1995 and life expectancy at birth increased from 47.1 years in 1960 to 68.6
years (Tang, 1999:97). Deng Xioping's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" was
launched in Post Mao China which saw the restoration of Capitalism in the Eastern
regions and now to the whole of China. This policy resulted in an extraordinary flow of
FDls and rapid expansion of the open market. Here the concern is to see what these
policies mean to the Chinese people and has the opening up helped the people? This
doesn't seem to be the case for if one sees studies emananting from China, the levels of
income disparity are huge, poverty has increased rapidly (for estimates and trends since
the Deng era, see Tang, 1999 and Chai, 1995) and the development gains in the field of
gender, agriculture, land refonns and health, have infact been reversed (see Chai, 1995;
Howard and Howard, 1995 and Mobo Gao, 1999). All this could threaten the very nature
of economic reforms that are being carried out in China.

If one goes beyond the growing capitalist economies such as China, an examination of
developed economies such as Japan and the United States show a crisis in the system.
Japan has still not recovered from the massive bubble burst of 1989 (sec Tabb, 1999, b
and Clairmount, 2001). Japan has been stuck in the depression that followed the banking
and property market collapse in 1989, with no visible sight of getting out of it. It can be
argued that it is the very nature of capitalism to go through these eycles (like in the case
of Japan) but it is systemic, rather than that of a result of a particular policy (Tabb, 1999
b). But since Japan is one of the fore runners that led the evolution of capitalism in the
last century, its ability or inability, or how it gets out of its present state may foreshadow
the very future of capitalism (Tabb, 1999 b: 89). Going beyond these examples, it is in
the United States economy that the sheer irrationality of the capitalist system comes to
fore (Henwood, 1999). Inspite of recording huge volumes of budget deficits to the tune of
an average of $ 250 billion pcr year, the United States emerges uncontested. United
States has no sense of doom as is now faced by the Japanese (at least at the face of
•
things). This inspite of the fact that the United States has scen industrial production

4
 decline from 4.9% in 1960-70 to 2.6% in 1980-90; a rapid decline of investment, falling
wages, a sh0l1age of tax revenue and lising unemployment (Magdoff, 1992; Chernomas,
1999 and Clairmount, 2001). In the year 2000, close to $4000 billion was wiped out of
the US stock market and the net worth of US households in February (assets minus
liabilities) dived for the first time since 1946 (Clainnount, 2001: 1387). Savings have
also declined drastically as more and more Americans spend more than what they eam. In
fact, during the first quarter of 1999, US households recorded their first negative savings
2
rate since the early 19305, spending 100.5 % of their income after taxes (Henwood,
1999: 140). Apart from this, are the huge deficits that the United States is piling up year
after year and inspite of this; the United States has not just a growth rate but also emerges
out of such crisis. This is primarily because the capital that flows into the United States is
far more than what it needs to finance its needs, and this has been particularly true in the
1990s (Henwood, \999). All economies of the world are linked in some form or the other
with the US economy and hence the flow of capital continues into the US economy
which in tum is· living on borrowing from it to fulfill its current-account and budget
deficits. Apmi from this, there is another vital fact, and that the United States is the
supreme military power and practically all international institutions are controlled in
great degree by it; be it the United Nations or financial institutions.

• The point of all of the above is to question existing notions today (at the 'dominant
level') stressing that Marxist thought is no longer relevant. These notions get manifested
even in seemingly 'progressive' circles. It has become common place among 'left'
intellectuals to say that a major epochal shift had taken place in the early I 970s, that it is
"the birth of a new era" and a major qualitative leap different from the constant changes
has occurred in the process of capitalist development (Meiksins Wood, 1998). This kind
of language (of a new "era") has been prevalent within ensuing periods but what has
repeatedly been ignored is the fact that basic issues still remain to be addressed. The new
era may be called by different names but basically, the same "epochal shift" runs as a
kind of leitmotif through a wide spectrum of intellectual currents (Meiksins Wood, 1998).
One of the best examples in this regard is the propagation of the 'Third Way'.

, For povcny cSlimates in the US see the LIS data on developed economics as cited in Henwood, 1999; For
a further picture on emerging trends in the political economy of the United States see Whitney, 2001;
Prashad, 2000; and Winslow, 2000.

5
What is the Third Way? The Third Way is actually a critique of Free Market Capitalism
and State Socialism. The Free Market is inhumane and exclusive and that statist
Socialism supposedly denies the individual freedom of Choice and incentives to engage
in entrepreneurial activity (Petras, 2000). The Third Way is about an economy and
society that combines the positives in both these standpoints, that of the free market and
that of State Socialism. The Blairite- Giddens formulation of the Third Way is not
something new. On the contrary it is as: old as the late nineteenth century when the
German Social Democratic Party (and all other social democrat pmties) proposed an
alternative paradigm to a path between Revolutionary politics and Capitalism (Petras,
2000). The leading theorist for this at that time was Eduard Bernstein whose book
"Evolutionary Socialism" laid out this argument of Refonn versus Revolution and these
arguments were also reflected in the writings of Karl Kautsky too (Petras, 2000). While
the early Third Way did improve social welfare, but when it came to responding to the
crisis situation it sided with the capitalists citing the argument of political democracy
while failing to ally with the revolutionary forces against fascism and authoritarian
capitalism, as was seen in the case of Germany, Austria and Italy (Petras, 2000, also see
Dutt, 1946: 120-225). Navarro (1999) has also critiqued Giddens's "third Way" in terms
of definitions of traditions of Social democracy and neo-liberalism in Europe and in
terms of his position with regard to Civil Society whcre in the explicit position is that in
West em Democracies the expansion of the welfare state intrinsically impoverishes civil
society. Giddens refers to the United Sta tes as an example where the "richness of civil
society is seen inspile of the under developed nature of the welfare state" (in comparison
to say, Europe). This is certainly not true and there seems to be no evidence to this
premise (Navarro, 1999). Giddens's remarks about the family and the welfare state are
punctuated with remarks such as "pensions create dependency" and the need for the
elderly to be "responsible" to society and to do their share. As Navarro (J 999) states what
is most pointed about this concept of the "third way" is that thcre is nothing new about it.
It is a conservative step back from even social democracy and is remarkably silent on
what implications it has for the Third World. India and Kerala come to mind when one
sees such approaches to development and social change. The moot point in the above
section is that many have assumed that with the collapse of the state socialism, Marx's

6
writings are of archival significance. This is particularly not true as Marx was never the
theorist of 'actually existing' state socialism or of national liberation (Osborne, 2005).
Marx was-and remains- first and foremost a critical analyst of capitalism, a theorist of its
social dynamics and the conditions needed to overcome it (Osborne, 2005:3). With the
spread of capitalism across the globe and its burgeoning 'in' the 'once under-developed'
economics such as Brazil and India, Marx's writings have become more, not less relevant
to the present (Osborne, 2005). Fut1her more, as Hobsbawm (1973) has stated, the
relevance of Marxism and its success in the world may not just depend on such
elementary failures of capitalism such as mass unemployment and economic collapse for
it is much more complex; but in countries where the case against capitalism (in the form
of imperialism or neo-imperialism) remains obvious; where starvation and misery are
widespread, the arguments for Marxism 'seem much simpler' (Hobsbawm, 1973).
Another way to put forth the endurance of Marxism is because of the fact that the work of
Marx taken as a whole is a sustained indictment of one injustice: that the profit, comfort,
luxury of another man 3 is paid by the loss, the misery and the denial of another (Mills,
1963: 33).

b) Some Thoughts on Marxist Theory

Having
,
examined the question regarding the continued relevance of Marxist thought, this
section would deal with some of the theoretical aspects of Marxism. Many questions arise
here. For example, is it possible to summarise Marxist thought?4 Marx wrote at such
enormous length, on so many different subjects, that it is not easy t() see his ideas as
whole (Singer, \996). Some may point out that Marx's central thought is of humans as
natural, social, practical and historical beings, and of history as an on going struggle of
the classes (Osbome, 2005). However, his ideas are much more than summations. his
complex and diverse. Moreover, there is so much of literature, on so many 'types' and
'areas of Marxism' that it is not possible to bring all the ideas on to this one section.
What can be said is that the influence of what Marx wrote has been widespread; so much

3 The word 'man' is being quoted primarily from the source. In the contemporary I)olitical sense, the

e"clusive use of the word 'man' in reference to the whole of human kind would be inappropriate. The
fender connotation of the usage of this word is recognised.
See Trotsky (2005 cd.) as a way of an example.

7
so that political positions on 'for or against' emanate from the point of view of this
framework. Marx's influence has not been limited to only governments that considered
themselves Marxist and claimed-however implausibly- to use Marxist principles to
decide how nations should be run (Singer, 1996). Conservative governments globally
have ushered in social refonns to cut thc ground from under revolutionary Marxist
opposition movements and even when there was no threat of revolutionary social unrest
taking over nations, the existence of such movements anywhere in the world served to
justify governments in increasing anns spending and restricting individual rights in the
name of nationallinternal security (Singer, 1996). A vivid example in this regard is the
way the central and state governments in India act militarily to the ongoing Maoist
Movement. The 'Salva ludam' in Chattisgarh is a good example to demonstrate the way
human rights violations exist at such a massive scale in the name of safeguarding
"national security".
On the level of thought rather than practical politics, Marx's contribution is equally
significant; for Marx's ideas brought about modern Sociology, transfonned the study of
history and profoundly affected philosophy, literature and the arts (Singer, 1996). In
broad tenns, Marx's work is not inhibited by the boundary walls of academic disciplines
and it is used in such a manner to fonn a master view of the structure of society in all its
realms; the mechanics of history of that society and the roles of individuals in all their
nuances (Mills, 1963:37). Moreover, in Marxism the elements of capitalist society form a
working model of society. Rightly or wrongly, they are constructed in close and specific
interconnections with one another (Mills, 1963). These imputed connections are the
specific theories of Marx and, taken together, these theories make up his most general
theory: the theory of historical change and the place of revolution within it (Mills, 1963).

The idea of the evolution of Marx (as is widely known) began as a "Hegelian" as he
constantly referred to Hegel's 'The Phenomenology of the Mind' in his early writings. In
a basic sense, 'The Phenomenology of the Mind' traces the development of MindS from

5 Tile German "'ord for Mind is sometimes Iranslaled as 'Spirit" and Hegel uses ilia refer to the spiritual
side of Ihe universe, which appears in his writings as a kind of universal mind. There has been a good
debate aboul whether Ihis universal mind is inlended to be God or whether Hegel was identifying God with
Ihe world as a whole.

8
its first appearance as individual minds, conscious but neither self-conscious nor free, to a
Mind as a free and fully self-conscious unity; however in Hegel, the process is neither
purely historical, nor purely logical, ·but a 'somewhat combination of the two' (Singer,
1996: 17). As per Hegel, the development of the mind is 'dialectical,6 and the progress of
the dialectical development of the mind is always progress towards freedom for as Hegel
states, "The History of the World is none other than the progress of the consciousness of
freedom" (cited in Singer, 1996:20-21). However, the dialectical elements of Marx's
theory were taken from Hegel which came to be known as 'dialectical materialism'. Marx
rejected the whole of Hegel's idealistic philosophy while retaining his dialectical method
(Hunt, 1963). In the famous passage from the Introduction to the first volume of Capital,
he stated:

"My own dialectical method is not only different from the Hegelian, but its direct
opposite. For Hegel...the thinking process is the creator of the real world and the real
world is the outward manifestation of the 'Idea'. With me, on the other hand, the ideal is
nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into
terms ofthought. .. " (cited in Hunt, 1963: 54).

Marx himself conceived his theoretical work primarily, if not exclusively, as a critique of
political economy from the stand point of the revolutionary proletariat, and as a
materialist conception of history (Fetscher, 2000). Materialist in the sense that the way in
which material production is .carried on (the technique of production in the broad sense)
and is organised 7 , is the determining factor in political organisation and in the intellectual
representations of an epoch (Fetscher, 2000). The combination of materialism with
dialectics transforms both (Edgley, 2000). Dialectical materialism is not reductive for it
does not reduce ideas to matter, assel1ing their ultimate identity (Edgley, 2000: 142). It
holds, dialectically, that the material and the ideal are different, in fact are opposites, but
within a unity in which the material is basic or primary; for matter can exist without the

" It is in the celebrated passage in the Phenomenology of the master and slave which illustrates what Hegel
means by the 'dialectical' and introduces an idea echoed in Marx's view of the relationship between the
capitalist and the worker (sec Singer, 19%: /7).
7 In Marx's terminology. the relations of production (see Fetscher, 2000).

9
mind, but not vice versa, and mind was historically emergent from matter and remains
dependent on it (Edgley, 2000). Further more, the philosophically significant
connotations of Marx's 'Materialist conception of History' are (Roy, 2000): a) a denial of
autonomy, and then of the primacy of ideas in social life; b) a methodological
commitment to concrete historiographical research, as opposed to abstract philosophical
reflection; c) a conception of the centrality of human praxis in the production and
reproduction of social life; d) a stress on the significance of labour, as involving the
transfonnation of nature and the mediation of social relations, in human history; e) an
emphasis on the significance of nature of man, where in Marx conceives man as
essentially one with nature as opposite to the earlier conception of man as essentially
opposed to and dominating nature; and; f) his views about the man-nature relationship as
asymmetrically internal-with man as essentially dependent on nature, but nature as
essentially independent of man (Roy, 2000:369). In historical materialism, Man
contends that the economic structure of society, constituted by its relations of production,
is the real foundation of society (Shaw, 2000). A core thesis of historical materialism is
that the different socio-economic organis,ations of production which have characterised'
human history 31'ise or fall as they enable or impede the expansion of a society's
productive capacity (Shaw, 2000:235), The growth of the productive forces thus explains
the general course of historl. To augment this, Marx was of the view that the various
spheres and realms of society reflect the dominant mode of production and that the
general consciousness of an epoch is shaped by the nature of its production (Shaw, 2000).

The 'Critique of Political Economy'- in confonnity of this materialist conception of

history-comprises not simply a critique of 'false representations', but also a critique of
the objective (material, social) conditions which necessarily produce these
representations (Fetscher, 2000). It has been stressed in Marx's writings that the only
class which can assimilate the critique of political economy without damage to itself is
the proletariat; and indeed the assimilation of this critique is the necessary pre-condition
for its emancipation (Fetscher, 2000). While individual members of the bourgeoisie (like

B The productive forces, howevcr, include not just the mcans of pmductioll (tools. machines, factories and
so on), out labour power-the skills, knowledge, experience and other human faculties used in work (see
Shaw, 2000)

10
Engels, for example) can transcend from their class positions, but it is inconceivable that
a whole class can do the same (Fetscher, 2000). As is evident, the concept of class has a
central impOliance in Marxist theory; it is the class structure of capitalism and the class
stmggles in such a society which constituted a major reference for the Marxist theory of
history, subsequently, the idea of class conflict as the driving force of history was
extended as is seen in the Communist Manifesto. However, Marx and Engels did
recognise that the notion of class was not a linear definition and it has its complexities.
Marx and Engels recognised the 'complications' of social ranking or stratification in
relation to the basic classes (Bottomore, 1983). Marx observes that even in England,
where the economic structure is "most highly and classically developed .. .intennediate
and transitional strata obscure the class boundaries" (cited in Bottomore, 1983:85). The
other aspect concerning the notions of class concerns the situation and development of
the two principal classes in capitalist society, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. In
defining these tenns, he wrote:

"Economic conditions had in the first place transfonned the mass of people into workers.
The domination of capital crcated the cornmon situation and common interests of this
class. Thus, this mass is already a class in relation to capital, but not yet a class for itself.
In the struggle, this lTIass unites and forms itself into a class for itself. The interests which
it defends becomes class interests" (cited in Bottomore, 1983:85).

As mentioned above, even though a certain definition was given to these tenns by Marx
but the scope for intern1ediate and transitional strata is not ruled out (Bottomore, 1983).
He recognises that classes are not homogenous and that there will be many of them as
there are well marked degrees of social status (Hunt, 1963). Going beyond the functional
differences, Marx holds that the antagoni sm between those who control the means of
production and those who do not, would give rise to profound contradiction and it is
through this very contradiction that progress is effected (Hunt, 1963: 65). The force
which lies behind the dialectic of history and moves the world is not therefore the clash
of nations, as Hegel and other historians supposed, but the clash of the classes or class
struggle (Hunt, 1963). Class interest thus takes the place of national interest (in the long
tenn). Marxists have identified complexities in thjs aspect, tor it is also a fact that the

II
'reconciliation' of notions of 'Nation' and that of 'Class' are linked to the conditions of
the period and Marx's ideas are more or less linked to a 'later period' in which nationality
struggles have 'seen its culmination'(see also Hunt, 1963:65-66). However, linked to the
notions of class in a capitalist system is another important concept and that being the
notion of alienation. In Marx's sense, an action through which (or the state in which) a
person, a group, an institution, or a society becomes alien to the results or products of its
own activity and to the activity itself and to the nature how one lives can be defined as
alienation (Petrovic, 2000: II). Thus conceived, alienation is always self-alienation, that
is, the alienation of man of his self from himself (from his human possibilities) through
himself and through his own activity (Petrovic, 2000). As per Marx, man not only
alienates a pm1 of himself from God, he also alienates other products of his' spiritual'
activity in the form of philosophy, common sense, art, morals; he alienates products of
his economic activity in the form of commodity, money, capital and he alienates products
of his social activity in the form of the state, law and social institutions (Petrovic, 2000).
A question that has been widely discussed is whether self-alienation is an essential,
imperishable property of man as man, or is it characteristic only of one historical stage in
human development (Petrovic, 2000). Marx himself seems to have indicated that man had
always been self-alienated thus far; but that he nonetheless could and should come of his
own (Petrovic, 2000). The process of dc-alienation has been linked to a close connection
between the individual and society, so that neither can be carried out without the other,
nor can one be reduced to the other (Petrovic, 2000). "For it is possible to create a social
system that would be favourable to the development of de-alienated individuals, but it is
not possible to organise a society which would automatically produce sueh individuals"
(Petrovic, 2000: 16). Alienation thus becomes one of the central concepts in Marxism for
Marx's aim was to pave the way for a radical revolution and for the realisation of
commulllsm understood as 'the reintegration of man, his return to himself, the
suppression of man's self-alienation' (Petrov.ic, 2000).

The notion of democracy and its meaning in Marxism is important when one examines
the goal of Revolution. From his earliest writings, Marx has been committed to the ideal
of direct democracy (Lukes, 2000). Marx's view of bourgeois democracy characterised
by universal sulli-age, political liberties, the rule of law and political competition was,

12
however, complex and sensitive to its contradictory possibilities (Lukes, 2000). Of the
bourgeois democratic republic, he spelled Qut that its constitution sanctions power of the
bourgeoisie while withdrawing the political guarantees of this power, forcing it 'into
democratic conditions, which at every moment help the hostile classes to victory and
jeopardise the very foundations of bourgeois society' (cited .in Lukes, 2000: 134). One
strand of thought has focused on this possibility, envisaging the eventual victory of
socialism through the ballot box and parliament (Lukes, 2000). Lenin sharply disagreed
with this view holding that it was natural for a liberal to speak of "democracy" in general;
but a Marxist would never forget to ask: "for what class" (cited in Lukes, 2000: 134).
Another perspective can be seen in the thought of Gramsei, for whom the development of
popular forces within bourgeois democracies through political mobilization and
organisation and the development of counter-hegemonic culture might encourage the
expansion of whatever possibilities for socialist transformation they may contain (Lukes,
2000). Such a view may have to come to grips with the problem of democratic consent
and how to win it for socialism (Lukes, 2000). At this point, some points of reference
need to be madc. Politically, Marx directs attention to the agency of historical change-the
proletariat- and he argues with facts and figures and theory that this developing
connection between human agency and implicit goal is the most important trend in
capitalist society; for by the development of this agency within it, capitalist society itself
would be overthrown and socialism installed (Mills, 1963). The historical creation of the
proletariat is the central thrust within the capitalist realm of necessity and that thrust is
driving capitalism toward the revolutionary leap into the socialist epoch, into the realm of
freedom (Mills, 1963:81). This connection of goal with agency is at once a moral and
intellectual strategy and this connection has been at the bottom of the continual second
thoughts and major revisions by Marxists who have come after Marx (Mills, 1963). To
explain the economic and social meehani-cs by which this built-in historical agency is
developed, and how this development inevitably leads 10 the overthrow of capitalism -
these arc the organising points of Marxism. To explain delays in this development and
find ways to facilitate and speed it up, or patiently wait for it - these are the points from
which subsequent varieties of Marxism depart (Mills, 1963:81-82). Lenin's contributions
come to the fore here. Specifically, Leninism is an approach to the seizure of power for

13
and by the proletariat and the building of socialist society, which legitimates
revolutionary action by the party on behal f of the working class (sec Shub, 1965 and
Lane, 2000:311). Lenin stressing on the importance of theory, called for a party created
by intellectuals and, at any rate at the outset, composed mainly by them (Carr, 1986:28).
Lenin stressed on the role of the communist party as a weapon of struggle; the party
being composed of class conscious Marxists (Shub, 1965 and Lane, 2000). Rather than
relying on the spontaneous development of consciousness in the working class, Leninists
see the pmty as a catalyst bringing revolutionary theory and political organisation to the
exploited masses (Lane, 2000). The party would be envisaged as consisting of a
'revolutionary elite' imposing a revolutionary consciousness on the mass of the workers
and Lenin drew a sharp distinction between the proletariat and the party (Carr, 1986: 29).
Leninism also gives a greater role to revolutionary workers and peasants than to the
revolutionary proletariat as such; to the 'underdeveloped' or semi-colonial countries
rather than advanced capitalist countries and it emphasises the leading role of the party
rather than the spontaneous activity of the working class (Lane, 2000). Rosa Luxemburg
was a principled opponent of Leninism on this issue, stressing the importance of
spontaneous class consciousness (Lane, 2000). However, according to Lenin, the
weakness of any workers' movement was that the 'spontaneous' element had outstripped
'consciousness' (Carr, 1986). Lenin argued that not only should the workers be
encouraged to put forward political as well as economic demands, but that they should be
imbued with a conscious revolutionary purpose and conduct a consciously planned
revolutionary campaign; hence 'consciousness was adopted as the opposing catchword to
'spontaneity' (Carr, 1986: 27-30). The theoretical discussion on 'spontaneity' and
'consciousness' is a vital practical issue of the nature and function of a revolutionary
party (Carr, 1986). It has to be added here that no serious Marxist would believe that a
small elite of revolutionaries could by itself make a revolution and no one insisted more
powerfully than Lenin himself that without the masses, no serious political action was
possible (Carr, 1986:30).

In Leninism, Marxism was an all embracing world view and political theory which had to
be brought into the proletariat from the outside by an organisatiun created specifically for
the purpose-'the palty of a new type' (see Hill, 1971 and Fetschcr, 2000). Thus the

14
relation between the working class and working class consciousness was reversed; first
the cadre pal1y, with the help of the intellectuals this class consciousness, who belonged
to it, developed this class consciousness, of which the 'Marxist world view' formed the
core; and subsequently this consciousness was transmitted to the working class which
grew rapidly alter the revolution (Hill, 1971 and Fetscher, 2000). Later, Leninism, as this
doctrine of Marxism was called; was used quite uncritically by Stalin with devastating
consequences to ensure the discipline and exclusiveness of the cadre party, and its
incontestable claim to leadership (Fetscher, 2000). Under Stalin, during the construction
of bureaucratic state socialism, Marxism-Leninism became the 'official doctrine' which
was an obligatory outlook for all Soviet citizens. It has to be noted that Marx's
contributions to a critical theory were not improved, but rather devalued, by this
incorporation into a Marxist world view (Fetscher, 2000). In no sense did Marx advocate
that his ideas should take the place of religion. On the contrary; "the emergence and
persistence of a state imposed, authoritatively detell1lined world view, can be interpreted,
following Marx himself, as the expression of un-free social and political conditions; and
the dogmatic world view (such as Stalinism) would vanish of its won accord if the social
and political structures of bureaucratic domination, which this ideology merely serves,
were transcended" (Fetscher, 2000:349).

It is the issue of the superstructure within Marxism that is paramount here and it is the
Chinese example during 1949-1975 that in many senses tried to tackle this issue
(Robinson, 1969). In a basic sense what this means is; after the revolution, the focus
should not just be on tackling economic disparities at the 'structural level' but importance
should also be on issues of the superstructure (the realm of 'set ideas', class attitudes,
belief systems, religious beliefs et.al). These have to be politically addressed and this is
where the concept of continued revolution comes into play. As an example, Robinson
(I969) states, even after land reform takes place, the landlord may not completely
acquiesce to relinquishing his privileges and past position of power; which in tum would
lead to the revolution being subverted. The necessity to carry through another revolution
after power has been seized lies in the objective law of class struggle for every revolution
needs to be consolidated as there is always. the possibility of the restoration of capitalism
(Robinson, 1969). 11 is here that Mao's perspective to Marxist theory comes to the fore.

15
As per Mao, the rcstoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union is seen concretely in the
Khrushchev era by 1956 9 and he could see the same tendency in China too; hence the
need to carry the revolution into the superstructure of the economic system 10 (see
Robinson 1969 and also Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973). As per Robinson (1969),
transforming the base is not enough to create socialism; it has to be extended to the
superstructure in the widest sense of the tenn; in all aspects of lite, education and the
relationships of people to each other. The superstructure reacts to the base (Robinson,
1969).

It is crucial to examine the Chinese Revolution in the context of Marxist theory. 11 is an

important component of Marxist discourse. Moreover, in the Marxist sense, the Chinese
example is also important to spell out the vast attempts done in the field of decentralised
planning for development. More about that would be examined later in the thesis. It
would not be possible to summarise the entire Chinese Revolution here because of the
historical vastness of the subject but China under Mao is highly contested; a huge
scholarship deeming it as unmitigated disaster and an equally huge scholarship tenning it
as a breakthrough for the Chinese people. Scholarship condemning Mao's policies
(especially the Cultural Revolution) has continued till todayll. On the other spectrum are
economists that have consistently examined and supported the Chinese Revolution (See
Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973; Robinson, 1969 and 1963; Myrdal and Kessle, 1970;
Burchett and Alley, 1976; Avakian, 1989; Schram, 1967 and \969; Suyin, 1973; Tang,
1999; Chai, 1995; Mobo Gao, 1999 and Howard and Howard, 1995). The debates in
political philosophy; the mass involvement of the peasantry, land reforms, the gender
question and the state of health post 1947 shows the massive scale of the Chinese
Revolution. There is also another contention with regard to the Chinese Revolution and

9 The question as 10 lile exacl period that saw the 'resloration of capitalism' in the Soviet Union is a matter
of debate. Many scholar< view the Stalin period itself as 'the bcginning of the underground capitalist
economy'. However. one can state concretely lhat by the time Gorbhachev look power, nearly 15% of the
Soviet economy was "undcrcover capitalist economy" (sec Menshikov, 1999:94-96). However, there is no
disputc to the fact thallhe erstwhi Ie Soviet Union (today) has seen lhe complete resloration of capitalism.
10 Cited from the slatcment made on November 1967 by the committee in the 'base of Sll'uggles' in

Shanghai; (see Robinson 1969 and also Wheelwrighl and McFarl~ne, 1973).
II A vivid eonlemporary example would be T7,e Privare Life of Chairman Mao by Li Zhisui. Li's book
published in 1994 has been a huge publishing success in lhc West (see Li, 1994). Michael Lynch's (2004)
well known biography of Mao is a "mixed one" filled with contradictory portrayals, punctuating Mao's
remarkably progressive policies on women Wilh portrayals of his sexual misdemeanors.

16
the Asian situation. One aspect of generalisation states (rather inaccurately) that Asians
as a whole with their customs, traditions, beliefs and way of life are 'entirely opposed' to
Communism and that the Chinese period of communism (the Mao period) is "un-
Chinese"; the other contention is that Mao and the Chinese 'brand of communism' are
declared 'too Chinese' and therefore 'unsuited' to other Asian countries (Suyin,
1973: 146). Both these contentions may serve as simplifications but what has been
observed in China is that every peasant revolt in China has seen the revival of collective
organisation, and redistribution of land to the tiller; and that the Taiping revolt unbound
women's feet, proclaimed their equality and formed guerrilla women battalions (Suyin,
1973; see also Burchett and Alley, J 976).

So what were the ways that the application of Marxism was applied in the Chinese
situation? Mao makes this basic point in describing the Chinese Revolution; that its
character is actually a bourgeois-democratic one; since Chinese society is colonial, semi-
colonial and semi-feudal and that the principle opponents are imperialism and feudalism;
the bourgeoisie would participate by means of a national and democratic revolution
(Avakian, 1989). However this is different from the democratic revolutions in the West in
that it results not in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie but in a dictatorship of the united
front of all revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat (Avakian, 1989:
216-217). This phase is a pre-requisite as it clears the way for a socialist revolution by
overthrowing the domination of imperialism and making a qualitative break by
expropriating (as a first major step), the capital of the big bourgeoisie tied to and
dependent on imperialism (Avakian, 1989: 217). In sum, a new democracy means not a
bourgeois revolution, led by the bourgeoisie and leading to a capitalist society-nor does it
mean a revolution in the abstract-it means a revolution against imperialism, pre-capitalist
social relations, and the domestic class forces that represent and uphold all this (Avakian,
1989). It leads, in other words, to a particular form of the dictatorship of the proletariat-
involving a broad class alliance but led by the class conscious proletariat and thereby
opens the way to socialism (Avakian, 1989). This gives way to higher levels of
challenges; for the process of social transformation would have just begun. Mao stressed
that even under the dictatorship of the proletariat; the earlier system can just be 'restricted
not eliminated' and therefore if people in authority who take the capitalist path usurp

17
power, "it would be easy for them to rig up the capitalist system (again)" (cited in
Avakian, 1989:222). Mao also linked this with the fact that, especially in the more
economically backward countries where socialism is established, the contradictions
between town and country and between workers and peasants would continue to be acute
(Avakian, 1989). It is here that the word 'contradiction' needs to be examined.

The law of contradiction, the law of the unity of opposites in all things, is the basic law in
dialectical materialism. Mao's contribution in the development of this proposition is
important: 'On Contradiction' (1937) and its corollary: 'On the Correct Handling of
Contradictions' (1957)12. As per Mao, the word contradiction applies to every aspect of
reality; it is within the 'very essence of things'. It is also the basic law of thought (as
Lenin put it); it is universal and absolute. This duality of everything Mao adapted, with a
mixture of homely proverbs and classical references- "failure is the mother of success';
'one divides into two'; 'out of calamity comes fOltune' (cited from Suyin, 1973: 148). In
Lenin, the abstract theorising on contradiction as a philosophical pl'ecept becomes in Mao
a statement of absolute importance applicable to man himself: applicable to every instant
of living and to every facet of life (Suyin, 1973). Man is contradiction perSonified; and
the resolution of contradictions can come only with political awareness. And awareness is
a conscious self-willed effoI1 at analysing a situation, grasping the main contradiction of
the problem at hand, either external or applied to man by man himself, who in the process
of this growing awareness comes to maturity, thus transforming himself (Suyin, 1973:
149).
This transfOlmation of man is, in Mao's VIew, the most essential, important and
continuous process in the establishment of a new socialist system (Suyin, 1973). Hence
the importance that Mao places on correct ideology. For it is true that a revolutionary
theory tested and retested by the practice of revolution has yet another development. For
even after the 'victory of socialism', there are still contradictions in the social system, for
the new was born of the old and, in the process towards a classless society, the rooted
habits, modes of thought and feelings of the past kcep taking us back (Suyin, 1973). No

I~ The texts 'On Contradictions' and 'On the Correct Handling of Contradictions.' Ilave been taken from the
anthology of Mao's writings edited by Anne Frcmante (1972), Mentor books, Chicago.

18
socialist system would work if this is lost sight of; so long as classes exist there will be
contradiction between correct and incorrect ideas, not only among people but also within
the communist party (Suyin, 1973; see also Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973 and
Burchett and Alley, 1976). These contradictions, in tum have to be resolved 1101 through
coercion but through a tradition of debate, argument and criticism; as Mao states 'only
through debate can one change minds; cutting off heads does not change things' (cited
from Suyin, 1973: 153). This has obvious. reference to Stalinism (see Robinson, 1969).
For as Mao states, there is no better way to unite than by argument; for argument and
debate, criticism and self-criticism, produce their own persuasion and their own unity.
This was tme even in the crisis period of 1959-61 post the Great Lcap Forward. Onc of
the aspects defining this is the revolutionary zeal accompanying the sentiment that 'a
social destiny' must be revealed to the Chinese people and for this there must exist a
unity of action and thought (Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973: 224). Maoists hold that
under the previous system (including the years 1952-57 and 1962-64), the tendency was
to increase the power of the government apparatus and also the ascendancy of the higher
classes over the lower (Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973; Robinson, 1969 and Burchett
and Alley, 1976). This view is in line with the thought that attacks the institution of
property towards the demand for social equality; and in this, it has to grabble with two
elements: the imperatives of technology and industrialism; and the concentration of
power 1I1 the hands of those who promote them (Burchett and Alley, 1976 and
Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973 :225). The argument here is that if industry is allowed
10 follow its own logic; that is; if technological expansion and economic growth become
exclusive objectives to which others are sacrificed, and if politics is kept from interfering
with the inner imperatives and 'self evident success' of industrial development, then
people will find themselves deprivcd of effective freedom, even if they reap the
indispensable Marxian material conditions of freedom (Wheelwright and McFarlane,
1973: 226). People must, therefore, be freed not only from the necessity of eking out a
living but also from the imperalives of technologyD If they are not freed, then they will,

13 Tl1is does 110t lmply peasant anarchism or a rev-o[t against machinery. As Wheelwright and McFarlane

(1973) state; Mao's demand was actually directed: at a strong political leadership-not only to guide and
initiate the course of economic development but also to make it last.

19
as it happened in the Soviet Union, succumb to a new group of governors-the technocrats
who shape the responses of workers to technological needs (Wheelwright and McFarlane,
1973 :226). Maoists warn of the centralization of power entailed by industrial society and
the need to 'check' it by 'relying on the masses'. This view is particularly important in
the context of decentralisation of political power and in the planning process.

Revolutionary elan is the key as far as the Chinese Marxist experience is concerned. For
it is necessary to seek institutional means of pursuing a permanent revolution, to
undertake stlUggles which will change people into revolutionaries with a collectivist
outlook-for the task of socialism after the revolution is the same as building a socialist
movement (Wheelwright and McFarlane, 1973; Suyin, 1973; Robinson, 1969; Myrdal
and Kessle, 1970 and Burchett and Alley, 1976). Another dimension that is particular to
the Chinese experience is the nationwide movement towards moral incentives which is as
important as material incentives in building an equal and just society. Lastly, the Chinese
Marxist experience demonstrated that in peasant societies, revolution, followed by the
construction of socialist values is at least possiblel 4 (Wheelwright and McFarlane,
1973:222).

c) In Conclusion

As spelled before in this section, the idea was to present some thoughts on Marxism. The
idea was not to promote it as the "only way" but to let this theoretical fi'amework serve as
a foundation to this thesis. The intention was also not to present Marx-Lenin-Mao as
some sort of a 'linear' evolution of Marxist thought. The crux was to spell out the
relevance of its ideas. This is not to reiterate that this the 'only way' but to raise issues of
human existence and question them 1S . Probably what can be said 'conclusively' is that
one must understand and use consistently the principle of historical specificity; for any
man can think only within his times; but he can think about the past and the future, thus

14 The point here is that Marx wrote primarily about industrial societies and wrote little about peaSa"1
struggles. To follow the "purist" Marxist line to its logical conclusions, it would be necessary to argue that
all successful peasant revolutions; (Vietnam, China cllld Korea) arc ~historicaJ mjstakes~ but this would be
dogmatic, an approach that Marx surely would have repudiated.
J5 How we live and how we should live as William Morris would statc. Only the metaphorical applications
to the title orlhat essay are being referred to here.

20
attempting to expand 'his time', constructing out of its materials the image of an epoch
(Mills, 1963). That is why Marx's work still lives. Dead Marxism is just the opposite. It
means to call upon Marx (or Lenin, Trotsk y or Mao) as 'Authority'; to treat their texts as
sacred and the view that it is all true and that it contains all that men (or women) necd to
know (Mills, 1963: 103). For the social processes to be alive for radical change, one must
continue to ask that vital question: 'Why do I believe what [ believe?' Hence we must go
round about to find the roots of our own beliefs (Robinson, 1962). It is here that ideology
comes in; it is applicable in all research. To take an example- 'All men are equal' is a
proposition that provides a programme for research. If the research question is to find out
whether class or colour is correlated with the statistical distribution of innate ability; then
this is not an easy task, for ideology has soaked right into the material we are to deal with
(Robinson, 1962:9). For what is ability and how can we devise a method of measurement
that separates what is innate from what is due to environment? Even though many would
advocate a struggle to eliminate ideology from the answer but the point here is that
without ideology, we would never have thought of the question (Robinson, 1962).
Ideology is indispensable in the world of action in social life and a society cannot exist
unless its members have common feelings about what is the way to conduct its affairs;
and these common feelings arc expressed in ideology (Robinson, 1962:9). At a societal
level, the first essential for economists or social scientists would be to 'try seriously' to
combat, not foster, the ideology which pretends that values which can be measured in
money arc the only ones that ought to count (Robinson, 1962: /37).

The idea of this section is to provide some sort of a philosophical rationale, a theoretical
overview to this thesis. This section may also serve as a 'reiterating factor' to the research
themes in this study; that decentralised planning at the level of the masses has to have a
political back drop and that is a vital factor to further development. This theoretical
framework serves another purpose; that it is also a 'way of examining' the socio-political
and material conditions in the region of study. In this thesis the area of examination is the
decentralisation process of planning in the state of Kerala. India, as a nation state, is the
larger context of Kerala. The political, economic, cultural and social policies/ethos of the
larger context has its bearing on the state of Kerala. Hence the examination begins from
there.