1. 21st
Century Socialism and Ecological Marxism
A few Uncomfortable Questions
Sri Arunesh Majumder (arunesh.majumder@gmail.cm) &
Dr. Kanchan Kr. Bhowmik (spmlivelihoods.wbsrlm@gmail.com)
Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is now an established fact
that capitalism rules the roost in the world. The supremacy of capitalism as the
dominant system does not face any immediate challenge. Yet the dominant voice
of capitalism is no longer one of euphoria. The triumphalist cries of a few years
ago are increasingly giving way to notes of caution and uncertainty. More and
more people now realise that what collapsed with the demolition of the Berlin wall
or the disintegration of the Soviet Union was not just Soviet style socialism but
also the edifice of what had come to be known as the welfare-state version of
capitalism. The end of the Cold War period has come to signify the beginning of a
new era of great uncertainties in which even good old capitalism looks increasingly
unfamiliar.
This new era has begun to lend a new relevance to Marx and Marxism. Even
bourgeois thinkers and writers have developed a new fondness for Marx. They are
pleasantly surprised that way back in the 1840s and 50s, Marx could so brilliantly
apprehend the dynamic of what they now call globalization! Indeed, passages from
the Communist Manifesto have begun to find their ways quite mysteriously to
World Bank reports and some of the best bourgeois commentaries on globalization
(see, for instance, the Thomas Friedman bestseller The Lexus and the Olive Tree).
Of course, they would cite only passages where Marx highlights the essential
capitalist thrust for accumulation and expansion and the latent potential for
tremendous growth of productive forces and production, conveniently bypassing
the basic Marxist analysis of crises and inherent contradictions of capitalism. Even
the most critical bourgeois thinkers have never been prepared to think beyond
capitalism and it is quite natural that their reading of Marx will only be selective
and sanitized.
In certain ways, the present period appears comparable to the latter half of the
nineteenth century when Marx was immersed in his analysis of capitalism and
Marxism was yet to establish its ideological sway over the international working
class movement and the radical or progressive discourse. That was when Marxism

2. collaborated and contended with all sorts of non-capitalist or anti-capitalist
ideologies even as it developed its distinct and thorough analysis of capitalism and
the bourgeois state. The First International (International Workingmen’s
Association, 1864-73) was a global united front of sorts comprising Marxists,
anarchists and various schools of trade unionists. The anti-globalisation protests
today present a somewhat similar picture with perhaps a much wider array of
ideological shades and political currents. A whole range of schools of dissent and
resistance are maturing in their own ways. Marxism no longer occupies the
hegemonic heights in a way it did during the World War years or for that matter
even during much of the Cold War era. But Marxism is quite used to it. In the
course of its history of 150 years and more, Marxism has been engaged in a
relentless war with the ideologies of capitalism and it has often had to fight its way
back under extremely hostile conditions.
Let the bourgeois intellectual world feel surprised and shocked over the return of
Karl Marx. We Marxists now also need to return to Marx. We need Marxism today
not just as a doctrine of resistance, more importantly we have got to rediscover the
depth and breadth of Marx’s analysis of capitalism. We need Marxism as a guide
to action as well comprehension.
Let us look at this question of globalization. Whether we talk of technology,
production, trade or most obviously, communication and finance, we are
witnessing an unprecedentedly rapid and massive integration of the world capitalist
economy. It is true that the thrust to globalize is an inherent tendency of capitalism,
but it is not always that one sees the operation of a tendency with such great force
and unmistakable clarity. It is also possible to argue that the world has seen phases
when trade was probably even more free and migration of labour more widespread
(of course, the developed countries continue to be highly restrictive of mobility of
labour), but that does not in any way reduce the tremendous impact and intensity of
the present conjuncture. In spite of tremendous technological changes, rise of mega
corporations and mind-boggling volumes and mobility of finance, we can still
rediscover any number of insights in Marx’s analysis of capital and capitalism,
which can enable us to gain a better understanding of global capitalism.
In their accounts and analyses of globalisation, non-Marxist thinkers and especially
bourgeois ideologues often give us only a technological picture centred around
information revolution or what is now known as the new or ICE (information-
communication-entertainment) economy. The underlying framework of capitalism
or imperialism, defined as the highest phase of capitalism by Lenin, is either taken
for granted or sought to be hidden behind the blinding dazzle of technology. In

3. other words, the discourse of globalization is used to camouflage capitalism and to
nurture illusions about a democratic capitalism, equating globalization to
democratization. Friedman, for instance, describes globalization as a convergence
of three democratizations: democratization of technology, democratization of
information and democratization of finance. It is evident that more and more
people are daily being drawn into the vortex of technology, information and
finance; but if we differentiate between victims and beneficiaries, between passive
and active participation, between being at the receiving end and being able to
influence and make decisions or ‘choices’, then we can only talk about the creation
of possibilities of democratization. And, to be sure, these possibilities cannot be
realized without overthrowing the rule of capital. To correct the picture, Marxists
or leftwing intellectuals and activists have started qualifying the term as imperialist
or capitalist globalization to demarcate it from a possible and desirable socialist
globalization or internationalization. Ellen Meiksins Wood prefers to replace the
word globalization by what she calls universalisation of capitalism.
Unprecedented expansion of capitalism, both extensive and intensive, is
undeniably of the essence of globalisation. This means the logic of commodity
production has successfully penetrated many hitherto untouched areas, both
geographically as well as in terms of human activity. The process has been greatly
facilitated by the mind-boggling ongoing advances in technology. Thanks to digital
technology and the communications revolution, virtually every idea can be
transformed into information, and every activity can be converted into digitised
data. And all these data and information then enter the complex circuit of
commodities whether in the sphere of production, exchange or consumption. This
explosion of commodities has also reinforced what Marx had called ‘commodity
fetishism’. Once again we need to tear apart the veil of commodities to grasp the
real character of capital and capitalist production.
Marx and Engels had made it repeatedly clear that capital itself embodies the
essential antagonism between social production and private appropriation. Capital,
they argued again and again, is a collective product which can be set in motion, in
the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, and hence
capital represents not personal, but social power. The Marxist argument against
productive capital has nothing to do with its size or composition, it is directed only
against its social or class character. By calling for abolition of bourgeois private
property or conversion of capital into common property, they wanted precisely to
resolve the antagonism between social production and private appropriation in
favour of social appropriation.

4. The role of the capitalist, they had noted, had started becoming redundant in the
process of production at quite an early stage of the development of capital and
industry. Way back in the Communist Manifesto, they had characterized the
bourgeoisie as an “involuntary promoter” of industry. In Capital they trace the
growing disappearance of the capitalist from the process of production. “Just as, at
first, the capitalist is relieved from manual labour so soon as his capital has reached
that minimum amount with which real capitalist production begins, so now, he
hands over the work of direct and constant supervision of the individual workman,
and groups of workmen, to a special kind of wage-labourer.” (Capital, Volume I).
With the development of credit, “the money capitalist is confronted by the
investing capitalist, … the mere manager, who has no title whatever to the capital
whether by borrowing or otherwise, performs all the real functions of the investing
capitalist as such; only the functionary remains and the capitalist disappears from
the process of production as a superfluous person …” (Capital, Volume III).
Eventually, the joint-stock company “reproduces a new aristocracy of finance, a
new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators, and merely
nominal directors: a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of company
promoting, stock jobbing, and speculation. It is private production without the
control of private property.” (Capital, Volume III).
From the join-stock companies to the present-day multinational corporations, from
money capital wedded to industrial production to high-velocity finance chasing the
speculative mirage, today the capitalist has grown still more superfluous. The
disappearance or dissolution of the capitalist into a whole new variety of parasites,
a veritable army of speculators, is a growing feature of contemporary capitalism.
This has taken parasitism to incredible lengths and we can see the kind of havoc it
is playing with the productive economy. In a way this is reflected in the growing
contribution of the service sector to the GDP of almost every country. Of course
the service sector is no longer confined to the realm of exchange or circulation,
advances in technology and changes in methods of production have in many ways
blurred the earlier distinction between manufacturing and service sectors. But
whether production takes place in the manufacturing sector or in the service sector,
the association of substantial sections of the bourgeoisie with the organization and
processes of production is getting more and more remote.
Bourgeois commentators however have a different way of presenting the picture.
They say, it is the labourer who is becoming superfluous. This superfluity of labour
is sought to be demonstrated not only through enormous levels of retrenchment
and casualisation of labour, but also theoretically by referring to the new economy.
They point out that not only has the knowledge-economy begun to catch up with, if

5. not supersede, the old brick-and-mortar economy, in terms of output, but it has also
profoundly changed the production patterns of the latter. Automation has started
acquiring incredible proportions. In 1992, the Lexus luxury car factory in Toyota
City, which Friedman uses as a symbol of the emerging pattern of developed
industrial production under globalization, was producing 300 Lexus sedans each
day employing 66 human beings and 310 robots. And the job done by all these
human beings was essentially of the nature of quality control work. In other words,
surplus is produced either by robots or increasingly by self-employed professionals
or knowledge-workers, replacing labour from the pivotal position held earlier in
any scheme of material production.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that for every such Lexus plant, the world
economy is still dotted with thousands of sweatshops. And such sweatshops are
fairly well dispersed. Integration also means interpenetration and hence we have
growing pockets of third world in the first world just as we have islands of first
world prosperity coming up within the third world. As for the claim of the new
economy replacing the old economy, the real-life relation between the two is
clearly proving to be much more complementary. Software cannot but presuppose
hardware. Intellectual production can only thrive on an ever-expanding foundation
of material production. Even assuming that the Lexus plant will increasingly
become the norm in material production, it in no way refutes the absolutely central
and original role of labour in the generation of surplus.
Capital, however knowledge-intensive or hi-tech, is nothing but accumulated
labour. And the challenge precisely is to reverse the existing relationship between
dead labour and living labour. As the Manifesto put it, “In bourgeois society, living
labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society,
accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of
the labourer.” Of course, when material production is carried out on a highly
mechanized or automated basis, the mediation between dead labour and living
labour undergoes a certain twist. The outcome is unemployment, dead labour
converting living labour into idle labour. Another related development is the
growth of casualisation or flexibilisation of labour, which generally means a
throwback to so much more dehumanisation and disempowerment.
Let us not forget that the vision of communist society in Marx is premised on the
basis of absolutely abundant supply of all material and cultural necessities of life
so that humankind can begin to move from the realm of necessity to the realm of
freedom. The technological progress attained so far by human civilisation under
capitalism, or in spite of capitalism, is quite commensurate with this direction. The

6. vision of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ can
only be realised in a society where labour is highly refined and surplus abundant.
There is already a steady swelling of the middle classes (who “rest with all their
weight upon the working class and at the same time increase the social security and
power of the upper class”) with great improvements in living standards. But
capitalism being capitalism, freedom can only be a privilege for a fortunate few.
Prosperity under capitalist logic can only be accompanied by a further accentuation
of social disparity.
It is true that in hours of profound capitalist crises and victorious revolutions, Marx
and all subsequent Marxist thinkers have at times tended to be carried away by an
element of over-optimism. But overall, in its history of a little more than a century
and a half, Marxism has never hesitated in acknowledging the resilience of
capitalism. In sharp contrast to utopian visions of alternatives to capitalism, in
Marxism the journey ‘beyond’ capitalism is routed ‘through’ capitalism. “No
social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is
room in it have been developed; and new, higher relations of production never
appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb
of the old society,” wrote Marx in his 1859 preface to A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy. And talking about productive forces, Marx and
Engels repeatedly noted the many impulses to their development: constant
revolutionising of the instruments and methods of production, creation of new
needs and wants, a constantly expanding world-market giving a cosmopolitan
character to production and consumption in every country, and most crucially, the
enforced periodic destruction of productive forces, the universal war of
devastation.
Development of productive forces apart, they also paid due attention to the fact of
greater social mobility under capitalism than any previous mode of production. For
instance, we come across this extremely insightful passage in Capital (Volume III):
“This circumstance, that a man without wealth, but with energy, strength of
character, ability, and business sense, is able to become a capitalist, is greatly
admired by the economic apologists of capitalism, since it shows that the
commercial value of each individual is more or less accurately estimated under the
capitalist mode of production. Although this situation continually brings an
unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune into the field, and into competition
with the existing individual capitalists, it also consolidates the rule of capital itself,
enlarges its basis, and enables it to recruit ever new forces for itself out of the
lower layers of society. … The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the most
prominent men of the dominated classes the more stable and dangerous is its rule.”

7. In other words, if Marx talked about the periodic crises returning ever more
threateningly, about the falling rate of profit and about the bourgeoisie arming its
own grave-diggers, he was also very much alive to the constant development of
productive forces and to factors lending stability and consolidation to the rule of
capital. Even the most critical bourgeois thinkers, who do not write fictions about a
friction-free or crisis-free capitalism, cannot rid themselves of the fond hope of
holding the positive and negative sides, the expansive and preservative aspects on
the one hand and the restrictive and destructive aspects on the other, in an eternal
balance. Schumpeter calls it creative destruction and believes capitalism can
endlessly go on perfecting this art. Friedman talks of a dynamic balance between
the Lexus and the olive tree, his chosen metaphors for the global and the local.
They make it sound like a natural law and through all his rigorous study and
analysis of capitalism, the one thing Marx did was to demystify this ‘naturalness’
of capitalism.
Long before the Fukuyamas came up with their thesis of end of history, Marx was
able to detect and reject this ‘endist’ streak common to all bourgeois economists.
In his famous polemic with Proudhon in the Poverty of Philosophy, Marx said
quite categorically, “When they say that the present-day relations – the relations of
bourgeois production – are natural, the economists imply that these are the
relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity
with the laws of nature. Thus, these relations are themselves natural laws
independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always
govern society. Thus there has been history, but there is no longer any.”
For Marx history continues to progress through capitalism and beyond. As we have
already noted, this question of ‘beyond’ grows from ‘within’. The conditions of
bourgeois society are too narrow for the wealth created by them, noted the
Communist Manifesto. The contradiction between production for its own sake,
production for the satisfaction of human needs and production for profit,
production for capital is perpetual and central to capitalism. In his analysis of
capitalism Marx follows this contradiction through to its end and this is how he
arrives at socialism and communism.
“The real limitation upon capitalist production”, says Marx in Capital (Vol. III), “is
capital itself. It is the fact that capital and its self-expansion are the beginning and
end, the motive and aim of production; that production is regarded as production
for capital, instead of the means of production being considered simply as means
for extending the conditions of human life for the benefit of the society of
producers. The limits within which the preservation and augmentation of the value

8. of capital, which is based upon the expropriation and pauperisation of the great
mass of producers, must take place, are always conflicting with the methods of
production which capital must employ to attain its ends. These methods lead
directly towards an unlimited expansion of production, towards an unconditional
development of the productive forces of society. The means, the unconditional
development of the productive forces of society, enter continually into conflict
with the limited end, the self-expansion of the existing capital. Thus while the
capitalist mode of production is one of the historical means by which the material
forces of production are developed and by which the world market they imply is
created, it represents at the same time a perpetual contradiction between this
historical task and the social relations of production which it establishes.”
“The ultimate cause of all real crises”, continues Marx, “is always the poverty and
restricted consumption of the masses, in contrast with the tendency of capitalist
production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute
power of consumption of society would be their limit.”
If in the present era of globalisation propelled by scientific and technological
revolution, the world is witnessing gigantic strides towards an unlimited expansion
of production and unconditional development of productive forces, the
accentuation of inequalities within and across countries and regions continues to
resist this tendency with one real crisis after another. Meanwhile, the relentless
development of technology has unleashed tremendous subversive potential,
replenishing the ranks of grave-diggers with a whole range of new weapons. If the
capitalist is fast becoming superfluous, much of the old architecture of the
bourgeois state is being rendered anachronistic. The arrival of the Net has opened
up enormous possibilities of human cooperation which can finally bid farewell to
the bureaucratic state machine. As the world is reduced to the cliched global
village, there is evidently an unimaginably greater international awareness of the
crises and contradictions of capitalism. The extent of human misery and
environmental degradation has never been known so thoroughly. And as recent
protests show, many people have begun to tread the path from awareness to action,
from ‘virtual’ community to real solidarity. As capitalism spreads to every nook
and corner of the world and as it seeps through every pore of social life and human
activity, it has to own its contradictions like never before. Nothing really remains
external any more, nothing can spill over into another domain. Like wealth
outgrowing the narrow confines of bourgeois society, the crises and contradictions
lurking in every corner too leave the system increasingly bursting at the seams.

9. As globalization accentuates inequalities and aggravates the crisis of survival for
most of us at the receiving end in the third world, it undoubtedly has to be resisted
and our current moorings have to be defended. This immediate, defensive nature of
the battle is inescapable and we Marxists will invariably find ourselves surrounded
by all sorts of revivalists and utopians, conservatives and reformists in this battle.
As Marxists, we will of course demarcate ourselves by carrying the defensive
battle of resistance into the realm of subversion and transformation. And for the
journey forward, we will return again and again to Marx for new insights and
inspiration.
Environmental Protection
and People-centric Development
“Man lives from nature, i.e. nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing
dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man’s physical and mental life is
linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of
nature.”
Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1
1. Destruction of livelihood, grab of land and resources, eviction from land,
pollution that endangers health and safety, and devastation of environment, is all
being justified by the ruling classes in the name of ‘development.’ At the same
time, people are being deprived of basic rights of education, health, housing, and
other kinds of social welfare, which ought to be the fundamental parameters of
development in any country.
2. Asserting a people’s agenda of development calls for firm measures to
reverse corporate-led ‘development’, and counter the rampant privatisation of
resources, assets, and services; and for placing people’s own concerns and local,
participatory democratic decision-making at the centre of development. The basic
principle of development must be redefined as ensuring people’s control over
resources; and use of revenue generated from such resources for social welfare as a
priority.
3. Over the past few decades, the growing damage to ecosystems and living
environments, and the diminishing access to resources that sustain human lives
have brought to the fore serious concerns about environmental degradation and
ecological imbalance. The fallout of the damage to ecosystems and environment
has to be borne mainly by the most deprived and vulnerable sections of society –
fisher people, communities who depend on forests and common pastures for their
livelihoods, the urban poor who live in slums that dot our cities, small farmers and

10. landless agrarian labourers and so on. Moreover, even within these deprived
communities, it is often women who shoulder a far greater burden of the damage.
4. ‘Solutions’ offered by the ruling classes for a host of environmental
problems – from global warming, to industrial pollution and depletion of water and
forests resources – inevitably fall within the same market and profit-based
framework which exacerbated the problems in the first place. Moreover, these
‘solutions’ often end up forcing the poorest of the poor and the most marginalized
people – who are usually also the victims of environmental degradation and
ecological damage – to bear the whole burden of environmental ‘protection’. It is
the responsibility of the revolutionary movement to oppose and reject this
framework and forcefully articulate environmental and ecological concerns from a
completely different framework rooted in the interests of the most vulnerable and
deprived sections of society. We have to articulate a vision of development that
does not destroy the source of peoples’ livelihoods, a model of development that is
safe, as well as sensitive to the real needs of the rural and urban poor.
Environmental Concerns in Agriculture
5. Over and above perpetual neglect of agriculture, the excessive and
indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, promoted by the state in
the interest of their manufacturers and to try and temporarily manage the agrarian
crisis, is causing long-term damage to soil fertility in this country known for its
fertility over the ages. Moreover the exposure to chemicals and the slow seepage of
dangerous and hazardous chemicals into soil and water is resulting in the alarming
rise of all sorts of diseases, including cancer, amongst farmers in areas with a long
history of heavy pesticide and fertilizer usage. The extraordinarily high incidence
of cancer in such regions – far above the national average – is a telling
confirmation of this dark side of ‘development’.
6. The issue of the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has also brought
to the fore the blatant double standards being followed by imperialist forces led by
the US. To begin with, on the one hand, these powers coerced countries like India
to adopt a model of chemical-intensive agriculture in order to protect the interests
of agri-business back home. On the other hand, they are now rejecting Indian
products on the ground that they are ‘unhealthy’ and contain unacceptable level of
pesticides. Also, super-rich multinational corporations follow very different food
safety standards in countries like the US and UK and in third world countries like
India. The pesticide contents in the very same products sold by the same company
are different in different countries, in a classic indication of double standards and
the lack of concern for the health and safety of people in the third world. It is
therefore important to raise the demand that the Indian government scientifically
regulate the use of chemicals and promote alternative agricultural techniques and
the use of organic pesticides and fertilizers.

11. 7. Rather than addressing the structural problems of agriculture, the ruling
classes in India have been trying to promote genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). Already Bt Cotton has been used on a substantial scale and the
experience is highly alarming. In many cases the initial high yields stagnated pretty
soon and pesticide use actually increased in the long run, contrary to the advertised
benefits. Above all, the continuing spate of farmers’ suicide in areas of Bt Cotton
cultivation suggests that at least in the current Indian conditions this is a curse on
our agriculture and agriculturists.
8. Moreover, there are several serious ecological concerns related to the use of
GMOs, such as the adverse impact they have on biodiversity and the culture of
mixed cropping. The use of GMOs kills weeds as well as other plants in their
vicinity. In our country weeds are not considered entirely ‘useless’ plants; in many
areas they are used as leafy green vegetables for human consumption or as fodder
for livestock. Similarly, medicinal plants which GMOs destroy are valuable for
health and veterinary care. For all these reasons we must demand immediate
ban/moratorium on the use of these deadly organisms in both cash and food crops.
9. While opposing all such corporate-dictated technocratic ‘solutions’ imposed
on us at the behest of international agri-business, we demand adoption of
alternative strategies of agrarian development suitable for peculiar Indian
conditions with state planning, funding and encouragement. It is entirely possible
to advance along this way by properly utilising the indigenous seeds, manures and
other inputs and by mobilizing the knowledge of Indian peasants accumulated over
millennia as well as patriotic agricultural scientists who are not agents of MNCs.
We must bring the pressure of mass movement to bear on the government and
force it to stop such conspiracies and change over to a pro-peasant pro-people
strategy of agrarian development based on thoroughgoing agrarian reform.
Industrial pollution and environmental concerns
10. Industrial pollution – pollution of the air by routine release of gases and
pollutants, the pollution of water sources by discharge of hazardous effluents, and
the solid industrial wastes dumped by industries – is yet another serious
environmental concern. This problem is growing more acute by the day, what with
the so-called Pollution Control Boards seeped in corruption and deeply committed
to protect the interests of big business. Of particular concern are (a) occupational
health and safety concerns of workers in the polluting factories and (b) the
industrial effluents released into rivers and lakes without proper treatment, which
are making the water practically unusable by local communities. The problem of
polluted water resources is further aggravated by the massive intake of fresh water
by industry but the government remains as unconcerned as ever.
11. While demanding that industries should be forced to meet existing
environmental standards and be penalised for violations, we should also demand

12. better and stricter regulations. Moreover, there is a need to try and go beyond the
‘end-of-pipe’ solutions for tackling industrial pollution, by demanding that
industries install technologies and processes which are more environment-friendly
and generate less pollution.
Issues Concerning
Nuclear Energy
12. Especially in the wake of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal signed by the UPA
Government and the subsequent nuclear overdrive, there is an urgent need to
confront the use of nuclear energy even for so-called ‘peaceful’ purposes of
generating energy. The government is pushing for a massive increase in India’s
installed nuclear capacity from the current 4,120 MWe to a whopping 63,000
MWe by 2032. And this road-map was not changed even after the Fukushima
disaster, which happened in one of the so-called ‘safest’ and most ‘technologically-
advanced’ plants in the world, raising concerns about what would happen in case
of an accident in a backward country like ours!
13. Accidents apart, the entire process of energy generation from nuclear fission
routinely exposes people to harmful radiations on a continuous basis. Moreover, as
opposed to false claims routinely made by nuclear establishment across the
world, nuclear power plants are most often more expensive than other
sources of energy; far from being ‘renewable’ and ‘perennial’, the existing supplies
of uranium will last us a maximum of 80 more years after which there will be no
nuclear fuel to run our plants; and taking into account the entire process of
generating nuclear energy, from mining to storage of wastes, it is no less harmful
in greenhouse gas emissions as compared to coal or gas based electricity
generation. The proposed plant at Jaitapur (with the European Pressurised Reactor
technology) for instance will cost Rs 19.5 crore/MWe as compared to Rs 5
crore/MWe for a coal-based plant. Moreover, the cost of nuclear power has been
increasing, as opposed to the falling costs of solar and wind power.
14. It is precisely for these reasons that globally, the dependence on nuclear
energy has been falling; the number of nuclear reactors nuclear power stations in
operation worldwide is likely to decrease by 22% by the year 2020, and by about
29% by the year 2030. Germany for instance has announced that it will close down
all its nuclear power plants and become nuclear free by 2022. But the ruling elite in
India is shamelessly going the opposite way to please the US imperialism in utter
disregard of people’s interest and national sovereignty.
15. We must therefore expose and resist the US-sponsored nuclear overdrive,
and run campaigns bolstered by facts and logic to support and strengthen the
ongoing anti-nuclear plant movements in Jaitapur, Koodankulam, Haripur,
Fatehabad and elsewhere. The UPA along with the Nitish government has recently
proposed two new plants in Katihar and Nawada districts of Bihar, and here too,

13. the projects will have to be robustly opposed.
Environment and Health: Asbestos, Dumping of
Toxic Wastes
16. On 13 May 2011, the Supreme Court banned the use, sale, production and
export of endosulfan throughout the country, citing its harmful effects, till the time
a joint committee (formed under the aegis of the Indian Council of Medical
Research and the Agriculture Commissioner) submits its report to the court about
the harmful effects of this widely used killer pesticide. The verdict came as a major
boost to the protracted, two-decade long movement against endosulfan – a
movement that exposed the unholy nexus between government institutions and
profit-hungry corporations. This battle needs to be continued till a country-wide
ban is imposed.
17. There is also a need to intensify struggles against other potential killers like
asbestos. All forms of asbestos pose completely unacceptable hazards to workers
who mine it or work with it, and also to anyone who is exposed to asbestos for
substantial periods of time. However, in a repeat of the tragic story of endosulfan,
despite well-documented information, governments at the central and state levels
are hell-bent on promoting the asbestos industry. While fifty-five countries in the
world have already banned asbestos, new asbestos plants are being set up in India.
In Bihar, new plants are proposed in Bhojpur, West Champaran, Muzzafarpur,
Vaishali and Madhubani, and the Bihar government has even passed the Bihar
Agricultural Land Conversion for Non-agricultural Use Act in 2012 to facilitate the
construction of these plants. This promotion of asbestos continues despite the fact
that alternatives to asbestos exist. Moreover, the central government has allowed
countries like Russia and Canada to dump huge quantities of this toxic material in
India.
18. The ship-breaking industry in Alang (Gujarat) and some other ports
constitute yet another area of concern. In these ports hazardous substances are
imported and handled by workers – mostly migrants from Bihar, UP, Orissa and
Jharkhand – often in a clandestine and non-transparent manner in order to hide
blatant violations of a host of laws. We oppose all such anti-people policies and
practices and extend our fullest support to various campaigns against these.
Wildlife Conservation and Human-animal Conflicts
19. In different parts of the country, we continue to witness human-animal
conflicts: whether is the almost daily struggle of villagers against elephants in
Kerala and Karnataka for instance, or the state-sponsored eviction of people in the
name of wildlife conservation. These issues definitely pose a challenge of
achieving a balance between the need to ensure human sustenance and the equally
important need to protect natural ecosystems and the various species dependent on
them. This challenge is rendered all the more difficult by the efforts of the ruling

14. classes to portray the victims as the real ‘problem’. Thus the tribal living in forests,
who has a long history of coexistence with the tiger, who has no real desire to
poach and kill tigers simply to hang their skins as wall decoration, suddenly
becomes the ‘intruder’, the poacher, the prime enemy of the wildlife conservation
project.
20. Two major issues need to inform our positions on the human-animal
conflict. Firstly, if steps are not taken to maintain at least a minimum forest cover
and if this basic survival need of various species is not addressed, the conflict will
increase. Secondly, poaching of animals is driven not by the local population but
by the market consisting of upper class customers in far-away cities and countries.
When forest cover is destroyed, it is mostly to cater to the needs of industry, real-
estate and middle-class and upper class interests, while the villagers physically
closest to the forest bear the brunt of animal attacks. It is they who understand the
conflict best, and also have no interest in destroying ecological balance and
exacerbating the conflict, so they are the best placed to find appropriate solutions.
It is therefore necessary to actively involve local communities and villagers living
in close proximity to animals in the process of conservation.
On Climate Change and
Water Scarcity
21. Global warming and climate change resulting from greenhouse gas
emissions have already assumed alarming proportions, with concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being way beyond the safe limits demarcated by
scientists, and continuously increasing. While there is a crying need to address this
issue globally in a holistic manner, any possible solution has routinely been
stymied by the arrogance and bullying tactics of imperialist forces led by the US.
22. The poor and developing countries of the world have always maintained that
different countries should have differentiated responsibilities towards tacking the
problem of climate change based on (a) the historic or accumulated contribution of
different countries in generating greenhouse gas emissions and (b) current per
capita emissions. Historically, it is the heavily industrialised, super-rich
‘developed’ nations which have been responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.
The US for instance is responsible for 25% of the total greenhouse gas emissions
in the world. The per capita emissions in the US are also by far the highest in the
world: 20.1 tonnes of CO2 - compared to India’s 0.9 tonnes, and China’s 2.3
tonnes per person per year. Therefore, the US should have the greatest
responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
23. By contrast, the US has always demanded that developing economies with
huge populations like India and China should also submit to legally binding
emission reductions, even if their per capita emissions are no way comparable.
India and China have finally capitulated to this bullying: according to the dubious

15. deal reached at the Durban Climate Change conference (November-December
2011), global climate change negotiations will not be based on the question of
equity any more. We find this unacceptable and demand of the Government of
India to continue the fight for a just and effective policy framework in tackling
climate change. It is particularly necessary to ensure that the issue of climate
change does not become yet another mechanism for the rich corporations
(suppliers of techniques and instruments of pollution control for example) and
nations to make more profits at the expense of poorer nations, that poor and
developing countries receive adequate global funds for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and that these funds are efficiently used.
24. It is the poor who bears the brunt of climate change – whether from the
unpredictable monsoon patterns, the growing reduction in water availability in our
snow-fed rivers, or from the diseases like malaria and dengue whose prevalence is
linked to climate change.
25. Our country has 20% of the world’s population but only 4% of the world’s
fresh water. That too is rapidly depleting owing to fast urbanisation, increased use
of water in post-green revolution agriculture and by reckless industrialists and
sundry other factors. Meanwhile, urban areas are reeling under regular water
shortages while inter-state conflicts over river water (e.g., between Karnataka and
Tamilnadu over Kaveri water) has become a recurring phenomenon. Even as
ground water is getting depleted from the aquifers, surface water is often highly
polluted. The many rules and regulations on the books are regularly flouted by
industry or remain on paper simply because there are no adequate sewage
treatment facilities. Simultaneously with improving such facilities and other
measures like regularly cleaning up the rivers, lakes, canals and other water
resources, it is necessary to develop a new scientific approach to water
conservation and utilisation. The focus must be shifted from massive projects to
small and less dramatic attempts to recharge depleted aquifers and ensure adequate
water for agricultural and home use in villages by (a) reconstructing traditional
village tanks, (b) building a series of small check dams to collect rainwater during
the monsoon season, (c) replant deforested areas to address the real water needs,
and similar other measures have proved much more successful. In urban centres
such rain water harvesting projects can and must be pressed into service.
Forest Rights and Development
26. Struggles against land acquisition and mining projects and for forest rights
have emerged as a key area of militant mass movement in India today, one that has
thrown up a tough challenge to the use of state power to expropriate natural
resources in the interests of big capital, indigenous and foreign.
27. While supporting these struggles against accumulation of capital by
dispossession of the labouring people, we demand that all natural resources must

16. be brought under democratic, collective control. We therefore propose the
following basic principles as the foundation for all laws relating to forests, land
and minerals:
a. All community and individual rights under the Forest Rights Act must be
recognised and respected. Similar procedures should be put in place to recognise
individual and community rights over revenue lands.
b. The powers of the gram sabha under Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled
Areas) Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) must be respected. All forest
diversion in violation of the FRA and done without the consent of gram sabhas
must be immediately stopped. State governments – like those in Rajasthan and
Andhra Pradesh – which have framed Rules contrary to PESA must be made to
withdraw them. All tribal areas should be brought under the Fifth or Sixth
Schedules.
28. Samatha, a group working in the Scheduled Tribes areas of Andhra Pradesh,
filed a case against the state government for leasing out tribal lands to private
mining companies in such areas. The SLP filed in the Supreme Court led to a
historic judgment in July 1997 by a three judge-bench. Known popularly as the
Samatha judgment, it nullified all mining leases granted by the State government in
the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. Only the State
Mineral Development Corporation or a cooperative of the tribal people, it ruled,
could take up mining activity and that too in compliance with the Forest
Conservation Act and the Environment Protection Act. It also recognised the
Constitution (73rd) Amendment and the PESA, under which gramsabhas are
competent to preserve and safeguard community resources, and reiterated the right
of self-governance of adivasis. This judgment must be followed in letter and spirit
in all relevant cases for safeguarding the lives and livelihood of the marginalized
people.
a. Land use plans should be made in a democratic process, involving local
elected bodies.
b. All projects that involve acquisition of land or expropriation of natural
resources must require the informed consent of the gram sabhas of the affected
villages, all the more so in tribal and forest areas.
c. Any change in land use above the land ceiling should be treated as an
acquisition and therefore subjected to requirements for consent of the community
and provisions for rehabilitation.
d. State subsidies and projects should be awarded to local people for running a
project on a cooperative basis or utilising the natural resources collectively.
Subsidies and tax incentives for corporate expropriation of resources should be
halted. In place of forced acquisition, land and other resources needed for mining
and industries may be leased from local communities through democratic

17. consultations.
e. All pro-corporate legislations like the SEZ Act 2005 and the present Land
Acquisition Bill must be strongly opposed. Where large projects are voluntarily
agreed to by communities, ownership of share equity in the project should be
provided to the community as per the Bhuria Committee recommendations of
1996; there should also be provision of complete rehabilitation in tribal areas with
land for land and land to landless people. Further, a white paper should be brought
out by the government about the total displacement, rehabilitation and resource
expropriation that has taken place since independence. Further expropriation for
large projects should be halted until this is completed.
29. In the past two decades of liberalisation, there has been a relentless drive
towards privatisation of natural resources – as exemplified by the successive
changes to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR
Act) that open up minerals for private/corporate control, and also by moves to open
up forests, rivers, and land for corporate use. This corporate grab of resources and
land has led to intensified displacement and eviction, backed, as a rule, by intense
state repression. It has also heralded massive corruption and threatens the country’s
food security and forest cover. The only beneficiaries of this policy have been the
mega corporations that have amassed huge profits from private expropriation and
export of precious national wealth, and corrupt politicians that have facilitated the
plunder. Protection of natural resources by all means, including nationalisation of
mineral resources, must be an urgent priority.
People’s Welfare and People’s Rights
30. On the one hand, natural resources which are a national asset are being
indiscriminately plundered to benefit a handful of Indian and foreign corporations,
with no benefits, in fact huge losses for the national exchequer. On the other hand,
‘fund crunch’ becomes the plea for privatisation, which puts basic health,
education, housing and other essentials for dignified survival, out of reach for the
poor.
31. India’s abysmal social indicators in the matter of nutrition, and maternal and
child mortality point to the disastrous impact of crumbling public health
infrastructure. Vast areas of rural India, more so the forest areas, are devoid of the
most basic healthcare. Preventable diseases routinely spiral into epidemics,
claiming thousands of lives every year. With the privatization of health care, the
poor denied access to hospitals and left at the mercy of exorbitant private hospitals.
Diagnostics and medical investigation are increasingly privatized and expensive,
and preventive healthcare (for e.g prevention of communicable diseases and
epidemics) is completely and criminally neglected. In the name of a promise of
free healthcare to BPL card-holders, corporate hospitals get public land at
throwaway prices, but subsequently, the poor are denied care and subjected to

18. indignities.
32. We must strive to build popular struggles for people’s right to public health;
demanding well-equipped health centres in every village; preventive health
campaigns to end epidemics; well-equipped public hospitals modeled on AIIMS in
every state with all facilities for diagnostics and research; and free prosthetics,
educational and other aids to ensure a dignified life for all differently-abled people.
33. The right to education must also be a rallying point for popular struggles.
Privatized schooling and higher education, exorbitant fees, a permanent divide
between good quality schools for the rich and poor quality schools for the poor,
have all emerged as features of the Indian education system. Struggles against
arbitrary fee structures and exploitative school and college managements, by
parents and students alike, are being witnessed. We must strive to build popular
struggles for the right to equitable schooling through a neighborhood common
school system, and the universal right to public-funded school and higher
education.
34. The right to universal food security and housing must also be an essential
part of a people’s agenda for development and dignity. The country urgently needs
a pro-people policy shift to protect resources and uphold people’s rights, dignity
and autonomy, and the party shall work relentlessly to that end.