RECONSTRUCTING COMMUNISM: WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? A ZIZEK-LOHIA VIEW

I have two people at hand who, I think can be the guiding light of revolution in this country. A naive reactionist will say that this is a mere romanticism, no revolution is coming. I do not want to engage in stupid debates like these, "Is there a revolution coming?" or which is better, "Evolution or revolution", precisely because, these are topics in which, if a leftist delves himself in, the very moment he loses the battle. Because reform without changing the socio-economic structure will just reproduce the same modes of production and hence, we will circle back to same set of socio-economic problems that we have right now. 

So, the two people I will employ here are Slavoj Zizek and his idea of a new communism, and Ram Manohar Lohia, the Indian socialist and his idea of Sapt-padi Kranti (the seven-step revolution). 

Let us start with Lohia. He gave an idea of what task a revolutionary has to undertake in order to bring real concrete changes. He mentions these things: 

1. Most revolutions are not revolutions, they are political reforms, shifts. Modi coming to power to replace congress dynasty, a political shift, yes, but not a revolution, no. Why? Precisely because the mode of production is the same. The control on modes of production remains the same. Now, in fact, it is more and more privatization than before. So, Lohia says, first understand what revolution is? it is a shift in the socio-economic mode of production. If a communist party brings it, well and good, if someone else brings it, well and good, we care about socio-economic justice and a shift in the socio-economic system as such. 

2. And how do we ensure that a reform is in fact going to be a revolution? A grand consolidated thought. Vichar! A thought which is so concrete and solution oriented, that the followers do not find an ambiguity as to what they are following. I mean, followers can follow you for your cult personality, your mass appeal, your one or two major agendas but the real concrete following is when people subscribe to the idea that you propose, the idea of socio-economic change.

3. A political party of change or any organizational agency of change. The classical Marxist view is that of a communist party. But now, I suppose, we can dilute it to civil societies and public spheres. But, in fact, a dedicated group of people to the cause is important. 

4. The politics done should not be uni-dimensional, that is either to win elections, or anything else. He mentions five jobs of political agent or agency today, namely.

 a) Satta Yog (To participate and win elections)

 b) Sangharsh Yog (To take pain staking developments which might seem like defeat but it is actually and essentiality).  

 c) Sah-yog (Constructive work) Something which congress faction during freedom struggle was wishing to do. Actually, going to people, helping them in their problems, you do not need to be in power in order to help and build a social base. 

  d) Gyan Yog (The stagnancy of knowledge leads to faith system, which is a problem, people asked once Den Xiao ping, the liberalization of Chinese economy guy, did you not believe in your communist ideas, why did you need to liberalize market systems? he replied, one thing he learnt from the communist discourse, that it has to be interpreted again and again, reconstructed in different socio-economic time and space, we have a plan and one step in this was liberalization of economy. It is not the end; it is the beginning. I say, this can be said by a true communist, a true communist can dare to do the opposite to his ideology.  What do we learn from Marx? Marx, being a Hegelian, critiques Hegel himself to build the theory, the discourse. A true Marxist is not one who accepts Marx in his entirety like a god, but one who interprets and even critiques him to find a better scientific socialist system, you can be a better Marxist today than Marx himself was, we learn from him that Marx is in some places not Marxist enough.)

  e) Dhyan Yog (Frankfurt neo-Marxist school experience have made us realize that the reason for stability of capitalist structure is not outside, it is hidden within human. Capitalist structures your desire by creating an object cause of desire, Objet Petit a, through which a loop of never-ending desire takes birth. This was similar to the spiritual idea of how Maya controls what you think and what you want. So, today theory cannot just deal with collectives and historical dialectics, it has to develop within itself and individual centric psychoanalytic angle, where the new socio-economic structures are in fact, emancipatory to the human beings in terms of their desire. I call it, Communism should not provide alternative to cold-drinks like coke, it should provoke the idea of how cold-drink is the substitute of a better drink, water. Thirst can only be satisfied via water and not cold drink. An emancipatory system which helps people overcome the objet petit a, the object cause of desire. 

Now we come to Zizek's version of what is to be done. Here's what he says, 

1. We need to construct the state apparatus. What does he mean by this? He means not a different political system from democratic system. He means this. We see, the liberal democratic system is often two folded, it has elected representatives, political parties, and Selected permanent bureaucracy. He meant that a bureaucratic socialist structure, a sort of what India already has, may be a reform here and there, a steel frame, which functions and delivers whosoever comes in power. A machinery, non-politicized, so much so that it is concerned with basic amenities and needs reaching people and administrative ease. Zizek adds, the sign of a well-functioning bureaucracy is that it should not be visible to people. It should be alienated from people. It means, it should be functioning so well that no civilian even realizes that he lives within a framework of a state. The work of state is only criticized when it does not deliver but hinders in public life, it should be an ether like structure, which is invisible, away from any mentions, but it delivers. This also negates the neo-liberal propaganda which says, state should withdraw from people's lives. I would say, it should work rather, in such a way that it seems so smooth, and people experience it as freedom. 

2. The second task of today is more philosophical. It has to do with create a "this worldly social consciousness". A modernist would say, to create a secular atmosphere. An atmosphere where people stop relying on the other-worldly entities and concepts. This secularization of public spheres, civil societies and general public conscience should not happen through a rejection of religion or spirituality.  It should happen, rather via religion. Religion should come in to take itself out of people's lives. Gods should tell us work for yourself, do not rely on me, I do not exist. What do I mean by this? Let me explain. 

The most materialist scene in any Indian cinema I watched was in the movie, "The Mountain man", where Nawazuddin Siddiqui, the Dashrath Manjhi guy, says to the reporter when the reporter asks him to say something after he made a way in the mountain, he says, "Do not sit relying on God, what if God is relying on you", This is what I mean. Dare I say, Manjhi was a Dalit. Only an outcast can think in the most materialist terms. It is not simple atheism. Simple atheism is ineffective in political struggles and any personal struggles. Also, the normal spirituality also makes a personal lethargic and giving up everything on God. Here, there is a need of material spirituality like this. This is not rejecting God. Rather saying that what if God wants you to work. To create a heaven on earth. He created hell on earth so that you can make it a heaven. This will be the ultimate victory of man's caliber over God's will. In fact, God's will be to test the man's will. This "This worldliness feeling that man is enough to take care of man's problems and no God is required is healthy spirituality". Tell me what you would prefer? a child who is responsible takes care of himself, lives a secure life or one who lingers around parents, is a needy motherfucker. 

3. Third is same as Lohia's Dhyan Yog. 

4. Last but not the least, it may be possible in future that the system disintegrates because the Objet petit a, is again born and people's shadow, the desiring self, wishes to take over. The capitalist structures are so inherent in man's conscience, that they may reappear. One always, has to be ready, for this "Disorder under heaven", as Mao would have put it in a different context. And the reiteration of above steps then should again be done by some revolutionary consciousness, the Drshta of the capitalist structures. 

What I like about these two plans, chronologies, that they are so inclusive. Zizek's final point encompasses the reiteration, the failures also. Lohia's Sangharsh and Gyan yog encompasses an everlasting philosophical battle against natural unjust order of things. So, this is what is the way. Reconstructing communism.