As Socialism has passed from project to reality,
people’s feelings about it have undergone a great change. Back in the
nineteenth century it was a ‘movement’, a romantic aspiration which set its
devotees apart like a sect. They conceived of Socialism as a final end, a
drastic, clear-cut transformation by which all the ills of our social being
would be set right at a blow. The Marxists were, and are, the worst victims of
this mentality, but not the only ones. Wells, I am afraid, shared it and helped
very much to spread it.
Now that socialist policies have been put into
effect in many countries, the romance has evaporated. Socialism has been found
to create evils of its own, while on the other hand Capitalism has proved capable
of many of the achievements Socialism was believed to monopolise.
As an economic system, Capitalism has proved
susceptible of wide variation and reform. At its best it has yielded a high
level of general prosperity, and comprehensive social services even for the
poorest. It is probable that the trade cycle can be controlled–though we cannot
say yet that it will be controlled in time to save the world from disaster–so
that full employment and general security can be achieved. Capitalism will
never again have the field to itself, but its complete abolition now appears
unnecessary. People are thinking more and more in terms of a combination of the
best features of Capitalism, Socialism and Co-operation.
Capitalism was criticised almost as much for its
bad influence on politics as for its economic defects. Looking back from the
era of dictatorship to the Liberal Age we seem to discern a paradise.
Undoubtedly the nineteenth century was more civilised than the twentieth is;
and it is surely significant that the standards of the nineteenth century are
most fully preserved in the countries which preserve most of Capitalism. The
pioneer country of Socialism has also been the pioneer of totalitarianism and
most of the other twentieth century barbarities. The comparison is unfair, no
doubt, but it does carry a lesson.
Capitalism, again, was at one time thought to be
responsible for war. It had a good deal to do with the 1914 war, though I am
sure Lenin and Brailsford exaggerate in making it the sole villain. But it had
little to do with the war of 1939; and now, when the most fully socialist power
is the most nationalist and most aggressive, the reproach seems laughable.
On the other hand, as Socialism has come to seem
less desirable it has appeared more inevitable. It would be too much to say
that it is an unavoidable evil, but it no longer stands as an ideal. It is a
practical policy, to be applied where suitable, to be modified as seems best,
to be discarded where it proves to have been a mistake, in a businesslike
spirit. It partakes of the nature of means rather than of end, and whether, in
its application, the balance is good or ill depends entirely on how we make use
of it.
Socialism has more appeal to a backward than to an
advanced country–that is an important cause of its premature application, and
therefore of its discredit. A backward country is one in which, relatively to
others, Capitalism has failed. It may be said that in India it has not failed
but has been kept back by foreign control, so that, now that control has gone,
it may make up lost ground. That is partly true, but one doubts if the
restraint of foreign control was as severe as all that. In any case, as it is
now, Indian Capitalism is weak in enterprise, in organising capacity, in technical
knowledge, and one may say in the spirit of service. (Rather, perhaps, it goes
in for wrong kinds of service: an Indian millionaire will endow temples rather
than libraries or research). The productive apparatus it has built up is too
small to satisfy the country’s actual demand, and far too small for its
potential demand. India could go ahead under Capitalism if certain conditions
were fulfilled: if she were isolated from foreign competition, if her people
were isolated from foreign ideas to the extent of tolerating very slow economic
progress, and if the population were stable. None of these conditions is
fulfilled.
If we trust to Capitalism, it will go ahead on its
narrow industrial front, leaving the great mass of the people almost
unaffected. It will soon reach the limits of the existing, market, which it
will be able to expand but slowly, and will then have to cease producing more
or seek markets abroad against strong competition. But the public will not
tolerate either course. That is the penalty of being a backward country in a
go-ahead world. The day has gone by when the rural population could safely be
left to its poverty; if the economic system does not quickly meet its needs, it
will vote against the Government, and then riot and finally revolt. Discontent
will be much accentuated by the high rate of increase of population, which
brings it about that, unless production rises by considerably more than one per
cent per annum, conditions get actually worse. For two years we have failed
even to maintain the level of production, not to speak of raising it.
It is this economic outlook which renders the
prospect of Congress rule so precarious. Congress is now talking of Socialism,
but it is a slow-moving body, and for a long time yet it will confine itself to
encouraging Capitalism. The policies of the Central and Provincial Governments
make that clear. It is true that Congress has in view some constructive
projects, irrigation works and the like. But it will be five to ten years
before these show results, and in ten years we shall be facing revolution. In
any case these projects amount to comparatively little. They do not approach in
magnitude the vast and comprehensive economic drive which is necessary if the
country is to be saved. The reports of the National Planning Committee seem to
fall short of what is needed in the same way. The N. P. C. Sub-Committee on
Population advocates birth-control, but the Congress as it is now constituted
is most unlikely to tackle the question, and this leaves a formidable obstacle
in its way which a different policy might remove.
Could a socialist policy succeed? It would probably
be free from ideological objections to birth-control, but how practically it
could go about reducing the birth-rate I cannot suggest. Unless it did so,
however, and achieved substantial results in a few years, its prospects of
success would not be bright. In regard to increasing agricultural production,
it could hope to do better than Capitalism by promoting co-operation at the
expense of the middleman. It could certainly provide technical aids to
agriculture more adequately. It could hope to mobilise labour support for an
industrialisation drive better than Capitalism. It could certainly overcome the
difficulty to the restricted market, which now seems to face Capitalism. On the
other hand it would probably be put to worse straits than Capitalism for want
of managerial ability; this would depend on how far it succeeded in
co-operating with Capitalism. Mr. E. da Costa has pointed out that shortage of
managers is a restriction which will gravely hamper any type of economic
development; and it would be difficult to remedy even by hiring men from
abroad. Lack of capital goods, finally, would be a most serious obstacle, which
would tell against Socialism precisely in proportion as its plans of expansion
exceeded those of Capitalism. Possibly nothing short of a Marshall Plan for
India will solve this problem. A capitalist regime might hope to obtain
American aid more easily than a, socialist one; but in fact it would depend on
the imminence of Communism more than on any other factor.
This brief review suggests that Socialism, if it
had the country fairly united behind it, would have some advantages over
Capitalism, but would by no means be assured of success. The prospects for
Capitalism however are gloomy. Nevertheless that is the policy that the present
Central and Provincial Governments have decided to follow. If they pursue it
regardless of consequences–and major changes in such matters are hot easy to
make–they will be faced within quite a short time with a revolutionary
situation. Though disillusionment is already to be noticed, the Congress can
bank confidently on its accumulated popularity for the first elections under
the new constitution. Even so, the Communists will win a good many seats and
are likely to be the only significant opposition party. But at the following
elections, with a record of economic failure and support of profiteers and such
unpopular figures, the Congress may well lose its majority to the Communists in
many States and Provinces–if there are fair and free elections.
If this is the prospect, our new democracy is going
to be subjected to severe strain. The Communist Party is not on the same
footing as other parties. Great numbers of people, who are otherwise good
democrats and quite innocent of any attachment to Capitalism, would regard the
victory of the Communist Party as a disaster to be averted at almost any cost.
Certainly most Congressmen would take that view. Accordingly the rise of a
powerful communist party would provoke the Congress to transform itself into an
anti-Communist party. Its main propaganda line would necessarily be demagogic
nationalism and the glorification of tradition, and it would be prepared to take
extra-constitutional measures to keep its enemies out of power. Strong bodies
of opinion of just this type are already organizing themselves. It would be
easy for the Congress to come to terms with this powerful movement. In short,
if we reject the temptation to go Fascist in response to the Muslims’
provocation, we shall do so in response to the Communists’.
It is because of this sort of prospect that critics
of the Congress call it a potentially Fascist party. Nobody doubts the present
intention of the great bulk of Congress members and supporters to maintain a
liberal democracy. Nor is it questioned that there is much in the national
tradition, of universalism and toleration, which makes for a liberal system. In
favourable conditions these trends would prevail. But conditions are not going
to be favourable. The temptation to resort to any available means to keep the
Communists out of power will be strong, and the great majority of those who
value the national culture and national independence, as well as those who feel
their privileges threatened, will yield to it. It will not perhaps be an
extreme type of Fascism like the German. It will be restrained by religion, and
by the national character. But it will be obscurantist, it will stress the
wrong elements in the national tradition, producing an atmosphere which will
not be favourable to a modern culture; and it is likely to be militaristic, to
the extent of preparing and perhaps waging war against what is now the national
enemy, Pakistan. And that will be disastrous.
This is an unpleasant picture. But those who
dislike it are in an awkward position, for the alternative is worse. Though the
fascist type of reaction against Communism is objectionable, the Fascists’
reasons for their opposition are largely valid.
The Communists would probably solve the economic
problem–ultimately; for, once in power, they would have the field to themselves
and could do as they pleased. But their methods have no conspicuous advantage
over others’. Their technique of combining inducements, propaganda and terror
has produced hard work in Russia; in this matter they might have an advantage.
But in the matter of capital goods, technicians and managers they would be
worse off, and it is doubtful if Russia could, help them much. India is at
least as unprepared for such an economic system as Russia was thirty years ago,
and her economic problem is vastly more difficult: we are far poorer in
resources and are seriously overpopulated. At the very best, then, the history
of Russia since the Revolution would repeat itself: the Communists would
eventually win through to relative economic prosperity, but at a hideous cost
in life and suffering. In all probability the cost would be much higher than it
has been in Russia.
But alternative policies cannot guarantee to avoid
large-scale suffering. Bad as the prospect is, it is not their economic
programme which weighs most with people who oppose the Communists.
The Communist Party is on a different footing from
other parties. There is a fundamental difference, and that is the discontinuity
between the Communists in opposition and the Communists in power. Everybody
admires the zeal and self-sacrifice of the Communist boys who go about the
villages and the slums inspiring the lowest of the low to revolt against their
lot. We admire them, though we feel that there is something not quite sane in
this ferocious enthusiasm, and that if they got their sansculottes into power
their regime would hardly be tolerant or cultured. Nevertheless, if that were all
we had to fear, we should hesitate to oppose them. The point is that that is
not all. The zealots are under discipline, and the people they would put into
power are not the ragged multitudes in the localities, but the Party Centre,
which is a loyal section of the Comintern. The Communists know how to carry a
popular victory over into a party dictatorship, exercised eventually over the
very men who led the victory. There is of course no question of their playing
the parliamentary game: once in power there is no way of getting them out,
however unpopular their regime. And it would not even be theirs: power would be
wielded ultimately from Moscow.
Ten or fifteen years ago even that was not
unacceptable. We must have a world government some day, and Moscow seemed as
good a head-quarters for it as any. Now almost any other headquarters would be
preferable. By 1937 it had become clear that the regime in Russia had failed to
fulfil expectations. Economic progress, though considerable, was disappointing,
and political and cultural developments were alarming and have become
increasingly so. Russia is now a Class-State in much the same sense as any
other. A substantial section of its population (10 million adults at least)
work in concentration camps. The rest vary from miserably poor to wealthy.
According to Louis Fischer, a reliable observer, even that highlight of the
early Soviet regime, its freedom from national prejudice, is becoming dim.
There is no semblance of democracy or liberty: it is government by secret
police in the fullest sense. The dictatorship leaves no aspect of life out of
its purview. It interferes arbitrarily in cultural matters, with the result
that the brilliant Russian culture of the Tsarist period is dead. Even science
seems to be withering under a regime which punishes with death men who hold
what the political authorities consider to be false scientific opinions. The
whole State is militarised, and its foreign policy since the recent war
suggests that it contemplates extension of the revolution by conquest over the
rest of the world. Certainly the chief responsibility for the threat to peace
which now exists is Russia’s.
The roots of all this are to be found in Marx and
Lenin, but there are other trends, and it was not perhaps inevitable, even in
so backward a country as Russia, that things should develop this way. However,
that is what has happened, and the communist movement everywhere is now
thoroughly drilled in the Stalin pattern. There is no reason to expect that
countries newly brought under Communist rule will experience a different
system. The countries of Eastern Europe are evidently going the same way.
Thus it is a fundamental error to judge Communism
by the sincere and generous idealism of the Communists before the revolution:
the idealists are soon corrupted or purged. It is to overlook an absolute
discontinuity. To embrace Communism is, for the sake of distant and
questionable economic benefits, to lose individual and national liberty and all
culture, national or any other; and to help in spreading this appalling system
over the rest of the world, possibly by means of aggressive war, which might
result in universal destruction.
India is thus faced with a difficult choice.
Undoubtedly of the two alternatives Communism is the worse, but National
Capitalism ending up in a kind of Fascism is not inspiring either. I believe
that Socialists should make it their business to find a third way.
The main lines of the policy they must follow are
clear enough. Their basic aim is to preserve political democracy and personal
liberty, and this determines their policies on other issues. If it required
that they should abandon Socialism, they would have to do so. In Indian
conditions, however, it does not. Indeed they ought to become more enthusiastic,
though less dogmatic, in their Socialism than they were, though for reasons
different from the traditional ones.
This third policy is, in the nature of the case, a
middle-of-the road policy. Its aim is to prevent that polarisation of the
community into two warring camps which would set us on the way to dictatorship.
But it must avoid the usual vice of middle-of-the road policies, defensiveness.
It can defend the established values of liberty and democracy only if it can
solve the economic problem, and this it can do only if it can arouse the
enthusiasm or a mass movement. It must have an economic policy which can be put
into effect by democratic governments and popular bodies like panchayats and
co-operatives and trade unions, but will raise standards fast enough to prevent
the masses falling victim to Communist demagogy. Such a policy will have to be
Socialist, even if that is not abstractly necessary, just for psychological
reasons. But in our conditions it is broadly necessary. There is no hope of sufficiently
rapid economic advance if the main responsibility rests with private
enterprise.
The psychological dynamic of the movement will then
be liberty, equality, democracy, Socialism. All are somewhat faded, but they
are worthy aims, which we can refurbish if we will. But though most of the
Socialists probably agree with what has been said here, they seem to have felt
that the traditional slogans have lost their appeal and they can get ahead only
by adding new ones, and of course the most tempting ones are nationalist. The
Socialists have vied with orthodox Congressmen in anti-British fervour, and
latterly in anti-Muslim fervour.
Clearly this is risky. They are Fascist cries,
encouraging the Fascist type of emotional atmosphere. There is no political or
economic content in them. At best they win votes; they do nothing to prepare
the voter for the constructive effort which the Socialist must aim to
stimulate. Socialism must be anti-Moscow, but that slogan has some content, and
in fact is defensible only if it means liberty, equality and democracy.
Is there any chance for a policy of this kind?
Well, the Radical Party, to which I belong, stands for it. The Socialist Party,
surely not a negligible body, stands for it. The A.I.C.C., not an unimportant
body, has just passed a resolution exactly in line with it. Obviously a very
large part of the educated public would accept it. The Congress with its
capitalist affiliations, orthodox economic ideas, and weakness for
old-fashioned religious nationalist sentiment, is a big obstacle, though we can
hope that experience in the next few years will teach it. But the biggest
obstacle is the lazy assumption that with the Congress in power, with Nehru at
its head, all is well. There is no general realisation that the matter is
desperately urgent, that we have very little time left before things get beyond
saving, and an open fight between the fanatics of Right and Left becomes
unavoidable. We shall get Socialism in India, in a form compatible with decency
and culture, only if enough people wake up quickly and set about consolidating
the central column of sanity.