Tag: capitalism

भेड़िया, भेड़िया: नव-उदारवादी राजतंत्र और उदारवादी वामपंथ


1

“भेड़िया आया, भेड़िया आया” वाली कहानी याद कीजिए। वह एक बच्चे की कहानी है जो ‘भेड़िया आया, भेड़िया आया” का झूठमूठ शोर मचाकर गाँववासियों को इतना तंग करता है कि जब सचमुच भेड़िये आते हैं तो उसको बचाने कोई नहीं आता। पर वह बच्चा गाँववालों से शायद ज्यादा समझदार था। उसे भेड़िए के आने की संभावना का पता था, वो तो बाकियों की तैयारी की परीक्षा ले रहा था, और बता रहा था कि कुछ करो कि भेड़िए के आने की संभावना ही न रहे। आज देखिए, हर जगह ड्रिल होते हैं, युद्ध की तैयारी, आग से बचने की तैयारी, भूकंप के वक्त आप क्या करेंगे उसके लिए तैयारी — इन सब के लिए ड्रिल होते हैं। शायद वह बच्चा अपने समय से आगे था, और यही उसका दोष था।

हम लोगों की स्थिति कुछ गाँववालों की तरह हो गयी है। असल मे हमारी कहानी उनसे भी ज्यादा हास्यास्पद है और दुखांत भी। भेड़िए के आने का डर तो पूंजीवाद में लगातार रहता है, हमें उसके लिए हमेशा सतर्क रहना चाहिए और तैयारी करनी चाहिए — इस तैयारी में भेड़िए के अवतरित होने की संभावना का भी नाश शामिल है। परंतु जो बच्चे पहले “भेड़िया, भेड़िया” चिल्लाते थे, उन्हें बचकाना बोलकर इतना शर्मसार किया जाता था कि उन्होंने भेड़िया देखना ही बंद कर दिया और प्रौढ़ हो गए। या फिर छिपे भेड़ियों ने उन्हें निगल लिया।

हमने आज के लिए अपने आप को कभी तैयार ही नही किया। आज जब भेड़िये छुट्टा घूम रहे हैं और सड़कों पर उन्ही का राज है तो अब हम हैं जो “भेड़िया, भेड़िया” चिल्लाने के अलावा कुछ नहीं कर पा रहे हैं। भेड़िए भी शातिर हो गए हैं — वे चोगा पहन कर घूमते हैं, ताकि हम चिल्लाएँ नहीं। कभी कभी तो ऐसा हो जाता है कि हम जब “भेड़िया, भेड़िया” चिल्लाने लगते हैं तो कई भेड़िए भी हमारे साथ चिल्लाने लगते हैं — अक्सर देखा गया है कि हमारे बच्चे भी ये सब देखकर “भेड़िया भेड़िया” की जगह मोगली की तरह हू-हूआने लगे हैं।

2

शायद हालात इतने बुरे नहीं हैं। देखिए हम आप कितना व्यवस्था को गलिया रहे हैं, कुछ हुआ तो नहीं। जहाँ बुरी है स्थिति वहाँ इतना आप कर सकते हैं? ज्यादा दूर जाने की ज़रूरत नहीं है, पूछिए कश्मीरियों से। हममें से कुछ नामदारों को अब ईनामदार बना रही है व्यवस्था, इससे ज्यादा क्या हो रहा है? हमारे लिए नया नेतृत्व और नई राजनीतिक भाषाएँ तैयार हो रही हैं।

अब प्रशांत भूषण के मामले में ही देखिए, उनके पक्ष में तो अटॉर्नी जनरल भी खड़े हैं यानी सत्ता पक्ष भी खड़ा है। अगर आप ध्यान दें तो सत्ता पक्ष बारंबार न्यायालय की अभिजात्य स्वायत्तता पर प्रश्नचिह्न उठाता है। हमारी सारी दलीलें जो आज हम दे रहे हैं उसका इस्तेमाल सत्तापक्ष न्यायपालिका की अभिजात्य स्वायत्तता के खिलाफ मतैक्य विकसित करने में कर रहा है।

हम न्यायपालिका की अभिजात्यता यानी अपने आप को आलोचना से ऊपर मानने की उसकी प्रवृत्ति के खिलाफ बोल रहे हैं, पर हम उसकी पूर्ण स्वायत्तता को बचाना चाहते हैं। हमारा मानना है कि न्यायपालिका सत्तापक्ष के हित में काम कर रही है, और उसके आलोचकों को हतोत्साहित कर रही है। जबकि ऐसा होना नहीं चाहिए।

दूसरी तरफ, सत्तापक्ष भी न्यायपालिका की अभिजात्यता पर प्रश्न चिह्न उठाता है ताकि न्यायपालिका अपने आपको शासन की तात्कालिक और गतिमान आवश्यकताओं के दायरे में सीमित रखे। इसीलिए न्यायाधीशों की बहाली का अधिकार सत्तापक्ष अपने हाथ मे रखना चाहता है। हम जो माहौल तैयार कर रहे हैं उसका इस्तेमाल सत्तापक्ष न्यायपालिका की स्वायत्तता को सापेक्ष अथवा सीमित करने में करेगा।

न्यायिक अभिजात्यता न्यायिक स्वायत्तता का नतीजा है। पर यह स्वायत्तता पूंजीवादी राजसत्ता की संरचना से पैदा होती है। वर्ग विभाजित समाज की वह देन है जिसके तहत सामाजिक अनुबंध और शांति बनाए रखने के लिए स्वायत्त संस्थाओं की ज़रूरत होती है। परंतु आज नव-उदारवाद के दौर में पूंजीवादी राजसत्ताओं को इस तरह के अनुबंध और शांति बनाए रखने के लिए लगातार विधि-विधान में बदलाव की ज़रूरत पड़ रही है, जिसमें सांस्थानिक स्वायत्तता पूर्ण क्या सापेक्ष भी बनाए रखने में दिक्कत हो रही है।

यह राजसत्ता के निरंतर संकट का दौर है — ऐसा नहीं है कि वह शांति और स्वायत्तता बनाए नहीं रखना चाहती, परंतु उसके लिए स्थायित्व चाहिए। भूमंडलीय पूंजीवादी विकास की धारा राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर स्थायित्व बरकरार रहने नहीं दे रही है। जब सहमति नहीं तो राजसत्ता का आदिमाधार प्रपीड़न काम आता है। और हमारे देश में यही हो रहा है। सत्ताएँ ऐसी सरकारें ला रही हैं जो संकटग्रस्त माहौल में जागती उत्कंठाओं को लामबंध कर उनकी व्यवस्था-विरोधी प्रवृत्ति को कुंद कर व्यवस्थापरक बना दे। आज हमारे साथ भी ऐसा ही हो रहा है — हम व्यवस्था के भूत के संरक्षक हो गए हैं।

सत्ता पक्ष हमारी विडंबना को जानता है — नहीं बोलने में भी नुक़सान है, बोलने में भी नुक़सान है। क्योंकि बोलने के दायरे में ही आज विपक्षवादी राजनीति सिमट गई है — समस्या वहां है। यथास्थिति के तहत समाधान खोजने की यह विडंबना है। हमारी पूरी राजनीति मतचर्चा में सिमट जाती है, संरचनात्मक प्रश्नों पर व्यवहार की गुंजाइश नहीं रहती।

व्यवस्था विपक्ष अथवा वामपंथ को खत्म नहीं कर रही, उन्हें उपयोगी बना रही है। खत्म होने का डर हमें व्यवस्थापरक रूप में उपयोगी बनाता है क्योंकि उस डर के अलग-अलग दर के मुताबिक हम सामाजिक उत्कंठाओं के विभिन्न स्तरों को तात्कालिक अभिव्यक्ति देकर तुष्ट कर देते हैं। अलग-अलग ब्रांड के पक्ष और विपक्ष का व्यस्थापरक उपयोग यही है। नरम से गरम तक, सभी को इस प्रक्रिया में रोज़गार मिलता है — कोई खाली हाथ नहीं रहता। राजनीति का नव-उदारीकरण है ये।

हाँ, ये ज़रूर है कि अब अगर व्यवस्था सचमुच मारने पर उतरेगी तो हम इतने नंगे हो चुके हैं कि कोई खोह नही मिलेगा छुपने को — और ये सब हमारी तथाकथित “सक्रियता” से हुआ है। ये है व्यवस्था का कमाल, जिसका हम भंडाफोड़ करने चले थे।

3

कहाँ पर क्या, कितना बोलना है, अभिव्यक्ति की संरचना बिल्कुल घालमेल हो गई है — आलाप, विलाप, संलाप सब कर्कश एकालाप हो गए हैं। तात्कालिक अभिव्यक्ति और प्रसारण की सुविधा ने हमारे अंदर हमारी राजनीतिक सामाजिक उपस्थिति का स्फीत भाव (inflated sense) पैदा कर दिया है — जिसका पैमाना फ्रेंड लिस्ट, इमोजी और अंगूठे की गिनती से तय होता है।

प्रसिद्ध मीडिया दार्शनिक मार्शल मैक्लुहान ने संदेश पर मीडिया की संरचना के असर को समझ कर ही दो तरह से मीडिया को परिभाषित किया था — “मीडिया इज़ मेसेज” (मीडिया संदेश है) और “मीडिया इज़ मसाज” (मीडिया मालिश है)। यही परिभाषाएँ सोशल मीडिया के लिए भी सटीक हैं। जिस तरह की प्रतिक्रियात्मकता और भाषा की एकरूपता सोशल मीडिया प्लेटफार्म पर दिखती है, और जिस तरह से वे हमारे अंदर उपस्थिति की स्फीत भावना जागृत करती है उसके लिए यह बिल्कुल ही सही है — सोशल मीडिया सामाजिक मालिश है। इसके हमाम में हम सब नंगे हैं और एक दूसरे की मालिश में लगे हैं। ध्यान रहे, मालिश में केवल सहलाना नहीं होता, चोट भी लगती है।

हालांकि प्रतिक्रिया प्राकृतिक नियम है, और प्राकृतिक स्थायित्व के लिए यह ज़रूरी है, समाज और राजनीति में तात्कालिक (इमीडिएट) प्रतिक्रिया यथास्थिति बनाए रखने का साधन मात्र है — व्यवस्थापरक अथवा वर्चस्वीय राजनीतिक क्रिया की वह पूरक है। वह विपक्षीय राजनीति की सीमा दिखाती है।

शायद मार्क्स क्रांतिकारियों को “ओल्ड मोल” (प्राचीन छछूंदर) इसीलिए कहते थे — जो व्यवस्था के अंतर्विरोधों को तीव्र करता हुआ, उसकी नींव को ही खोखला कर देता है, वह सतही तात्कालिकता की क्षणभंगुरता में बहता नहीं है। उसके स्पेक्टेकल की चकाचौंध में अपने आप को बेनकाब नहीं करता है। और यह काम “तात्कालिक” प्रतिनिधत्ववादियों की “खुली” राजनीति से बिल्कुल भिन्न है। इनकी राजनीति तात्कालिकता में शोषितों की व्यवस्था-विरोधी ऊर्जा को तीन-तेरह करने का साधन मात्र बन जाती है। इस अर्थ में प्रतिक्रयात्मक राजनीति को प्रतिक्रियावादी बनने में देर नही लगती और इसी रूप में वह व्यवस्थापरक क्रिया की पूरक है, वह उसी में जड़ित रहती है।

4

आंतोनियो ग्राम्शी के मुताबिक बुद्धिजीवी दो प्रकार के होते हैं। उनके अनुसार जैविक बुद्धिजीवियों और पारंपरिक बुद्धिजीवियों में अंतर होता है। जैविक बुद्धिजीवी किसी न किसी सामाजिक वर्ग से सीधे और मूलतः सचेतन तौर पर जुड़े होते हैं। पारंपरिक बुद्धिजीवी, वर्गीय समाज के उत्पाद होते हुए भी अपने आप को वर्गो और उनके आपसी संघर्षों से परे और ऊपर मानते हैं।

हम “सार्वजनिक बुद्धिजीवियों” को ग्राम्शी के इस पारिभाषिक विभेद में कहां रखेंगे?

मुझे लगता है कि भारत और विश्व मे बुद्धिजीवियों के लिए जो आज संकट पैदा हुआ है वह उनकी स्वच्छंदता के विरोधाभासी गुण से पैदा हुआ संकट है। यह संकट बुद्धिजीवियो की वाचाल सार्वजनिकता और वर्गोपरि भ्रम का है। सार्वजनिक बुद्धि की यह स्वच्छंदता पूंजीवाद में राजसत्ता के वर्गीय आधार से उसकी भ्रामक सापेक्ष स्वायत्तता की देन है। सार्वजनिक बुद्धि का स्वच्छंद बाज़ार पूंजीवाद की आरंभिक राजनीतिक आत्मा — “स्वतंत्रता, समानता, भाईचारा” — को वैचारिक स्तर पर संजोता है, जिससे कि पूंजी का वैचारिक वर्चस्व बना रहे और उसके असली अर्थ को पैजामा पहनाया जा सके।

पूंजीवाद की नवउदारवादी अवस्था मे पत्रकारिता और प्रकाशन के उद्योग की मदद से सार्वजनिक बुद्धि की स्वच्छन्दता का गहन बाजार पनपता है। परंतु नतीजा यह है कि इस अवस्था के संकट में सब से पहले इन्हीं सार्वजनिक बुद्धिजीवियों पर गाज़ गिरती है — उन्हें अपना वर्गीय आधार तय करना होता है। उनकी सार्वजनिकता और वाचालता उन्हें तानाशाही सत्ता के लिए आसान निशाना बना देती हैं। सत्ता उनकी इस दुर्दशा का इस्तेमाल प्रतिरोध के स्वरों को दबाने के लिए और व्यवस्था की शक्तियों को बटोर कर उसे सुदृढ़ करने के लिए करती है। सार्वजनिक बुद्धिजीवी जवाबी वर्चस्वकारी वर्गीय जैविकता को उभरने से रोकते हैं। बड़े नामों के बचाव में जो वामपंथ और उदारवाद का गठजोड़ पैदा होता है वो “सबाल्टर्न” शक्तियों की रणनीतिक निरंतरता और सुगढ़ता के लिए दिक्कतें पैदा करता है।

India Unlocked: World’s “Biggest Lockdown” and Workers’ Long March


“… never torment a creature for sport,
for it might be loaded.” – Ernst Bloch

At times, states compete to showcase merchandise and relative productive capacities. Other times, many of these states sell misery to gain access to economic packages, charities and loans. Today is the time when they compete to show off their capacity to impose the most efficient lockdown on their citizenry. Of course, the priority is to make this imposition consensual, because that would showcase the self-discipline of the national workforce. But if that doesn’t work, then the dosages of coercion are streamlined to measure the states’ disciplining capacity. The Narendra Modi government’s chest-thumping claim to run the “world’s biggest lockdown” was to showcase the realisation of the neoliberal ideal of a “strong state” in India — the carrots-and-sticks hidden behind the quinine-and-quarantine lockdown. 

The Story of India’s Lockdown

With the absence of any coherent public health system, in the nationalist war against the “Chinese virus”, India has been relying on the dedicated medical workforce of much maligned public hospitals fending the virus without sufficient protection and supplies. Of course, popular pseudoscience is also there, factoring in a hot summer and the cumulative impact of other vaccines etc, along with the placebo effects of the homeopathic recipes. 

Even with regard to the so-called practice of “social distancing” and its generalisation through the lockdown, much was left to the play of the complex and sinister traditional divisions — such as caste and communal divides among others — within the Indian society. One can speculate that this factor might have played a role in the slow expansion of the pandemic in India. 

However, it goes to the credit of supposedly the most vulnerable in India who called the Indian state’s bluff, making its rhetoric of a successful and strong lockdown evaporate into thin air. The migrant’s faint cry to be allowed to go back home became a collective roar, and a long march in defiance of the strictures and coercive forces ensued.

We are witness to a process of how the vulnerabilities of the weakest become their strength; how their weak actions lead to a legitimation crisis of the state (and also at many times capitalist crisis in general). It is not very difficult to see how existential defiance of India’s migrants and the working class in general unravelled the neat choreography of the lockdown, making it meaningless. The exodus of internal migrants (India’s “biggest intangible assets” and “India’s real economic dynamo: a silent force“) and the anticipated volatility in the labour market have made capital jittery. 

The Narendra Modi government, with President Trump’s encouragement, was already planning to catch companies flying away from China. The labour laws were being derailed to clear the way. But nobody heard the plates shifting — the lockdown just couldn’t lock the workers in! Their footlooseness, which was the biggest asset, has become a great liability now.

The Liberal Politics of Victimhood and Representation

The tremors were felt everywhere. The state was trying to control the damage desperately by providing buses, rations, and identifying potential stars in children, cycling hundreds of miles carrying their parents. On the other hand, the sensitive gentry could see the faces of orphans whose parents died in an accident while cycling 750 kilometres back home, or see blood splattered on the railway tracks.  

In a recent article in The Indian Express, one of the most sensible political scientists in India, Suhas Palshikar, expressed the angst of the majority of the self-acclaimed politically conscious people on the side of left and liberals. He lamented “the incongruous image of the politicians and the political party” — they talk of the people but “betray an instinctive choice of ‘law and order’ and a techno-bureaucratic idea of governance”. It seems they are “on a holiday” and abstaining from politics. At the time when the central government is “caught in the trap of regulation and denial,” and “beset with uncontrollably delusional self-belief”, the opposition forces should have taken the initiative to  “come up with a robust alternative route to governance” (of course, Kerala is already showing the way!). 

According to Palshikar, there should be “a political response to the pandemic,” for which “resumption of democratic contestation is a must”, since “politics alone can be survival therapy for democracy.” He advises the Congress and its leadership to ask the party workers “to hit the roads, talk with suffering workers, walk with them”, only then they would “realise that taking a stand also means mixing with the people.” 

Palshikar’s plea for the “resumption of democratic contestation” may seem inspiring at the time when there are so many people who are left uncared-for during the pandemic. It might motivate the opposition to see a political opportunity here, and the government too might see their pragmatic mistakes. But there are many assumptions on the basis of which such a plea is made. It seems Palshikar and, with him, most liberals and leftists in India assume that there is never a democratic agency of those who are surplused by the system, as there is no political agency beyond the legitimate state apparatuses — institutional and ideological. 

With the WHO’s recognition of Covid-19 as a pandemic, the governments did what they are always good at when they are forced into action, i.e, to reach out for coercive measures. In the absence of vaccination and any understanding of the infecting germ, these measures take the form of imposing ancient “tribal traditions” of prevention (as J.D. Bernal used to call them) —social distancing, isolation and quarantine. But the liberal conscience, represented by Palshikar and others, demands an official opposition which will act as a corrective to this coercion. 

The Real Opposition beyond Spectacular Politics

What happened instead is something, which, though, is not very uncanny in history, but, generally, goes unseen and unrecognised. It is accounted only in a retrospective reading of the people’s history. It happens beyond the spectacle of formal politics, which doesn’t have any category to capture this phenomenon in its positive grammar, except as a subaltern that never speaks. 

The wails of pain, agony and anger of India’s internal migrants and workers in general have shattered the adamantine chains of the lockdown. The lockdown was never successful except in the ritualites of the already cocooned little bourgeois within everyone (meaning, everyone individually or as an aggregate of individuals). We found the appropriate nuclear environment of safety and discipline, and sang the “Middle Class Blues”: 

“The streets are empty. 
The deals are closed. 
The sirens are silent. 
All that will pass.” (Hans Magnus Enzensberger) 

Among the working masses, the lockdown as a generalisation of “social distancing”  was anyway meaningless, and its imposition amounted to an outrage. They felt what they are —surplus-ed and other-ed. 

There are talks about the consolidation of the state and the rise of authoritarianism, but it is seldom recognised that this is a result of the exposed weakness of the state, its inability to regulate workers’ self activities and, especially, the panic and fear that they instill among other classes. Those who see these workers only as victims, which they are in the legitimate framework of political economy, are unable to see the organic resistance of the workers to the systemic regulation. 

What argumentative liberals and online radicals couldn’t achieve was accomplished by the synergistic effects of the “weapons of the weak”. In fact, they are still waiting for the powers who imposed the lockdown to end it, so that, once again, they are able to lead these victims of the system back to the normal systemic cycle —some want them to fulfil their duties, and some, mainly those who are on the side of the left, would want them to struggle for their rights. What an irony!

There is nothing to celebrate here, but everything to understand — in order to imagine a new politics organically grounded in the everydayness of working class resistance.

The Game of Pursuit, Or the Chowkidar-Chor Narrative


अत्तुं वाञ्छति शांभवो गणपतेराखुं क्षुधार्तः फणी
तं च क्रौंचरिपो: शिखी गिरिसुतासिंहोऽपि नागाशनम्।
इत्थं यत्र परिग्रहस्य घटना शंभोरपि स्याद्गृहे
तत्रान्यस्य कथं न भावि जगतो यस्मात्स्वरूपं हि तत्॥

“The snake on the body of Siva, oppressed with hunger, wishes to eat Ganapati’s mouse; him (the snake) Kartikeya’s peacock wishes to devour; while Parvati’s lion (her vehicle) desires to make a meal of the elephant (mouthed Ganapati-mistaken for an elephant): when such is the constitution of Siva’s household even, how can such a state of things be not found in the rest of the world, since such is but the nature of the world?”

Thus Panchatantra takes the game of pursuit as “the nature of the world” and teaches the strategies and tactics to survive and win in the fields of commerce, state affairs and everyday life. If that was true of the ancient centuries of Indian history, what can we say of our own conjuncture. Our daily lives are proof of this, and so is our politics. But Panchatantra’s time had a solace that the plans or evil intentions did not often succeed, and hence the world continued to exist:

सर्पाणां च खलानां च परद्रव्यापहारिणाम् ।
अभिप्राया न सिध्यन्ति तेनेदं वर्तते जगत् ॥

But today there is no escape. We are all chowkidars (security guards), and, therefore, are chors (thieves) – of course, relatively.

I

Games People Play

The chowkidar-chor narrative is an opportunistic discursive instrument to impress upon the public to garner votes. But why does it have an appeal? Because, it is the folklore (katha) of our times, an articulation of our prevailing common sense, as Gramsci would put. It is so organic that it can be called infantile. Why not, even a child finds a voice in this dialectical narrative. Isn’t it the same game of chor-police that children play, where every child knows that the chor and the police are floating signifiers?

This narrative resonates with the psyche of our times. And thus, instead of simply condemning it we must take it as a symptom of the sickness that afflicts our social body or more correctly, a sign of its (un)healthiness. It is only by accessing the materiality of our social body through a critical understanding of such narratives, that we can access the healthy sections of our social body whose nourishment is our only hope. In other words, this narrative is a key to unlock “the healthy nucleus that exists in ‘common sense’”(Gramsci). Its analysis and critical retelling can trigger a much wanted alienation effect in this hyper-immediate responsive world by providing space-time to objectively understand ourselves – the nature of our world. Only thus can emerge the good sense, and the critical sense. It can be a parable for meditations and to develop mediations to grasp the material element of immediate consciousness and spontaneous philosophies of our times.

The lore reveals the stark nature of the neoliberal conjuncture – a near universal feeling of being hunted, and a universal aspiration of becoming a hunter. This game of pursuit-evasion is at the heart of the political and cultural milieu of our conjuncture. Everybody tries to put herself in a position of the pursuer but must evade other pursuers-evaders. “When such is the constitution of Siva’s household even, how can such a state of things be not found in the rest of the world, since such is but the nature of the world?” She can make sense of her existential crisis through such narratives, and learn to live with it. But then, even to transcend this crisis, its understanding is needed, for which what is the better beginning than these narratives themselves – the expressions of this crisis.

More than any institution and organization, it is this narrative that captures and productivises the anxieties of the (post)modern man. An institution lacks the plasticity that an empty narrative or metaphor like this has. The latter can homogenise all experiences by providing them a minimal, but universal form – it adjusts itself to any situation, while an institution must chisel the experiences to fit them.

II

The Neoliberal State

As a parable, the chowkidar-chor narrative further reveals in a condensed form two sequential and defining characteristics of the (post) modern state that has emerged throughout the globe – especially with the recent right-wing assertions. Firstly, it reveals the nature of the neoliberal state in its bare form – the state’s reduction to chowkidari. And, secondly, its gradual disembodiment and dispersal. Besides the chowkidar (an agent of the state) everybody is a potential chor. Thus, everybody seeks to become a chowkidar. Hence, the agency of the state expands. The state universalizes itself by dissolving itself into every individual. We are the state unto ourselves and others.

So, capital attains the dissolution of the state, while communists are still fighting over statist or anti-statist paths. However, this dissolution is attained by universalization of the state. You will never be able to pinpoint the presence of the state, but it is always present in every nook and corner of our being. It is present through our anxieties and alertness, and their institutionalisation. A globally extended and internally-intended lean (re)produced state is a post-fordist state based on self-and-peer surveillance.

Following Michael Taussig (The Magic of the State, 1997), we can perhaps assert that the state’s presence expands with its disembodiment. The spirit of the state, freed from any particular form, potentially can possess every form. That’s the Magic of the State in the age of Finance and Information. The state, as a node of capitalist accumulation and regulation, seeps into every societal relationship universally equalising them. They all find their universal articulation in the minimalist relationship of the hunter and the hunted, of the chowkidar and the chor.

III

Internal Relations

न विना पार्थिवो भृत्यैर्न भृत्याः पार्थिवं विना ।
तेषां च व्यवहारोऽयं परस्परनिबन्धनः ॥
अरैः सन्धार्यते नाभिर्नाभौ चाराः प्रतिष्ठिताः ।
स्वामिसेवकयोरेवं वृत्तिचक्रं प्रवर्तते ॥

According to our ancient wisdom, certain relationships are like that of a nave and spokes in a wheel. अरैः सन्धार्यते नाभिर्नाभौ चाराः प्रतिष्ठिताः. “The nave is supported by the spokes and the spokes are planted into the nave.” The nave and the spokes are mutually dependent. This dependence is not external, but तेषां च व्यवहारोऽयं परस्परनिबन्धनम्॥. They are in the relationship of mutual constitutivity. Panchatantra thus explains the nature of the master-slave dialectic. Similar is the relationship between a chowkidar (security guard) and a chor (thief), they constitute one another. Both identities are meaningful only in their relationship. So a chowkidar is himself only in relation to a chor, and a chor in relation to a chowkidar. Hence, the chowkidar must have a chor to pose himself as a chowkidar.

Even if the wheel of relationship turns, which frequently does, the only change will be that the chor will slide to the spokes and become a chowkidar, and the chowkidar will try to cling to the nave and become a chor. Moreover, as the wheel runs infinitely faster in the age of information and as the time-span for completing a cycle becomes smaller, who knows better than our head chowkidar, the chowkidar and the chor become identical.

IV

Chinese Wisdom

The positive opposition in the cycle is caught up in its grammar and its continuity. It can never transcend the binary from within the narrative. The criticism must destroy the enclosures of the narrative freeing the flow of the negative from the chains of positive productivism. The circularity of power can be ruptured only by first recognising its foundation. The great Chinese sage, Lao Tsu provides a hint:

Thirty spokes will converge
In the hub of a wheel;
But the use of the cart
Will depend on the part
Of the hub that is void.

It is in the emptiness and void of the hub that the reason for the nave, spokes and the wheel is found.

With a wall all around
A clay bowl is molded;
But the use of the bowl
Will depend on the part
Of the bowl that is void.

It is only in that void that the rationale for the existence of a clay bowl resides.

Cut out windows and doors
In the house as you build;
But the use of the house
Will depend on the space
In the walls that is void.

It is the space enclosed by windows, doors and concrete walls that gives meaning to enclosures.

So advantage is had
From whatever is there;
But usefulness rises
From whatever is not.

It is this “whatever is not” that must be grasped to unravel the closed circularity of power, which seeks to absorb the negative therein, to positivise and productivise it, enclose it within the dualism of closed circularity.

[Note: Texts and Translations from Panchatantra have been taken from MR Kale (1912), Pancatantra of Visnusarman, Delhi: MLBD. (Reprint 2015) There are variations both in original texts and interpretations in various published versions of Panchatantra, but the narratival tenor and ideas are more-or-less same.]

Proletarian class determination: epistemology or ontology?


“Class determination of knowledge means that we do not know whether determination actually takes place in reality as the proletariat depicts it, since this class only knows reality through that facet of the prism corresponding to its collocation in the social structure. In a sense, therefore, the proletariat imposes its view of reality upon this latter so that determination is first of all an epistemological concept rather than an ontological one. This, however, calls for neither idealism nor absolute relativism since, from the point of view of the proletariat, its view does come from (is determined by) concrete reality and has inherent in itself the possibility of knowing reality correctly, as shown by verification. In short, the point of view of the proletariat is that each class secretes its own knowledge (class determined relativism of knowledge) and that within this view only the proletariat has the possibility of gaining a correct knowledge of all (and not only some) aspects of reality because of this class’s position in the societal labour process (class determined supersession of knowledge’s relativism).

“We do not claim that the proletariat depicts real processes as they take place in reality (reflection). But we do claim that this class’s view has the objectively determined possibility of being correct, to find a ‘match’ with the reality it depicts. It is in this sense that determination can be referred to as an epistemological calling into existence. And, it is in this sense that our view differs from the ‘reflection’ theory and can be called non-reflective realism: knowledge is not determined simply by material transformation, but by this transformation immersed in specific social contexts, that is, by the real concrete.”
–Guglielmo Carchedi, ‘Problems in Class Analysis: Production, knowledge, and the function of capital‘

To be read, in my view, as a crucial theoretical explication of Lenin’s axiom of truth being partisan, and Marx’s Eleventh thesis on Feurbach. Particularly the latter, on account of it being much abused as a shibboleth by vulgar ‘Marxian’-pragmatists. Justice can be done to Marx’s privileging of changing the world over interpreting it only if one grasps this affirmation of world-change rigorously in terms of Marx and Engels’ concept of “the real movement” and Marx’s conception of “practical materialism” that he derives through his critique of Feurbach’s “contemplative materialism” in The German Ideology and Theses on Feurbach. Thus Marx’s critique of interpretation, which is basically a critique of materialism articulated in contemplative terms, is not only a rejection of the primacy of contemplation but is also, by the same token, a severe criticism of decisionist pragmatism, which is contemplation reconstituted at the practical level of abstraction. Clearly, Marx’s privileging of world-change over world-interpretation is a dialectical critique of contemplation by having the modality of contemplation brush itself against its own grain. A theoretical, and philosophical, move that does not abandon knowledge and epistemology but radically alters their conception and status. And in this regard, Althusser’s explication of “overdetermination” and “epistemological void” (in ‘Contradiction and Overdetermination’) and his conception of “limit-form” (in ‘Marxism is Not a Historicism’), together with Badiou’s concepts of “metaontology” (in Being and Event) and “politics-as-its-own-thought” (in Metapolitics) are also indispensable.

The Porn Controversy: Save Desire from the Moral Police and the Sexual Liberaliser Alike


The recent ban on pornography, and the liberaliser’s discourse of outrage it has triggered, proves yet again the problem of sexual/libidinal economy is too serious a business to be left either to the ham-handed ways of the fascistic moral-police or the knee-jerk exertions of the terrorists and (academic) merchants of desire. Truth be told, they are the obverse of one another and are mutually constitutive of the neurotic subjecthood of capital in its late, crisis-ridden, neoliberal moment..

Marquis de Sade’s affirmative conception of an anti-procreative sexuality with its basis in revolutionary republicanism (see his ‘Philosophy in the Bedroom’), together with Wilhelm Reich and Pier Paolo Pasolini’s concerted engagement with the question of sexual economy as an economy of desire — and its productivising regimentation, and psycho-somatic and psycho-social segmentation in capitalism –, point us in directions that are much more fruitful in terms of strategising a politico-sexual revolution that will unleash an emancipated, anti-hetero-normative sex-economy of free association of direct producers.

The government decision to ban pornographic sites on the internet is, therefore, not an occasion for spectacles of outrage and liberal exhibitionism. It is, instead, to be seen as an opportunity to work towards instituting the thinking and discourse of a radical sexual/libidinal economy. For, it’s precisely the absence of such discourse and thinking vis-a-vis the concrete historical circumstances of the conjunctural crisis of capital as manifest in its sexual moment that has led to the consolidation of repressive sexual morality. It is this sexual morality that is the molecular basis of the current ban.

All concerned would do well to realise that the BJP-led Union government’s decision to ban internet pornography is a step forward for the project of politico-sexual counter-revolution. Such a move is counter-revolutionary precisely because it seeks to validate itself by drawing upon, instrumentalising and mystifying objective sex-revolutionary possibilities posited by psycho-social segmentation and psycho-somatic stratification (which includes “genitalisation of desire”) of desire and sexuality in their moment of precarity and crisis. It follows, therefore, that a politico-sexual counter-revolution kicks in and accomplishes itself precisely when objective revolutionary possibilities exist without being subjectively actualised as such.

In such circumstances, to envisage opposition to this ban in reactive terms — without lending even half a thought to how such opposition can be orientated to transform the structure of social relations of production, which in its historically concrete mediation makes possible and indexes psycho-social segmentation and psycho-somatic regimentation of desire — will just not do. Such liberal reactive politics of opposition to the consolidation of repressive sexual morality effectively amounts to no more than demanding the preservation of a given regime or order of socio-sexual privileges that the politico-sexual counter-revolution tends to alter only by preserving and reinforcing its basic structure of psycho-social and psycho-somatic segmentation of desire through its formal recomposition.

Clearly, such reactive politics of opposition to the ban is as implicated and invested in the structure of psycho-social and psycho-somatic segmentation of desire as the counter-revolutionary move to ban pornography. Therefore, the reactive politics of sexual liberalisation — as opposed to the transformative revolutionary politics of sexual liberation — reinforces the discursive-moral paradigm, which provides sustenance and support to the fascistic politico-sexual counter-revolution. Something the proponents of sexual liberalisation apparently oppose with much sound and fury. The reactive, all concerned would do well to realise, is also reactionary. And no less reactionary — probably more — than naked reaction itself because it deceives by the apparent vigour of its oppositional claim with regard to what is openly reactionary, all the while reinforcing the latter’s condition of possibility.

The Meaning of Anti-Casteism


Ambedkar clearly defined the meaning of the struggle against the caste system. For him it was not simply a petty bourgeois assertion of identity, a struggle for mere representation, as many exponents for and against the dalit movement have propounded. In his ILP days and again in “Who were the Shudras” (1946), Ambedkar essentially viewed the origin and function of caste (and therefore casteism) as conversion of “the scheme of division of work into a scheme of division of workers, into fixed and permanent occupational categories”. So the revolt against the caste system (or casteism in a capitalist society) is a revolt against the material and ideological division of workers, against the labour market segmentation, against the individualist-competitive ethic (a petty bourgeois tendency) among workers (which frequently takes identitarian forms). Only by questioning and destroying the whiteness of the “white” workers, a larger united working class movement could be posed in racist societies like the US. Similarly in a casteist society like India, only by attacking the “upper/middle-caste-ness” among workers, a working class alternative could be posed. A drastic reorientation of the dalit movement (and therefore of the working class movement) is needed if it has to pose a real challenge to the caste system and casteism, as Ambedkar understood them. Dalit Movement has to re-emerge as the vanguard of the working class movement.

Beyond anti-capitalism


The following statement from an ML leader is obviously in right direction – trying to deconstruct the Singur movement, identifying various forces in it. However, in my view, a further ideologico-practical move has to be made – mobilising the ‘new’ working class evolving around these neoliberal projects – an unorganised multitude which neoliberalism is bound to proliferate. Only this will stop us from being trapped in the mire of ‘nostalgic’ anti-capitalism, and encourage us to move ahead in the direction of beyond-capitalism.

Kolkata, September 4 At a time when Naxal groups are demonstrating along with Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee against the Tata Motors’ small car factory in Singur, CPI-ML (Liberation) — the largest Naxal party — vociferously criticised the Mamata brigade on Thursday.

The party criticised Mamata and her followers for siding with land owners, without sparing a thought for the landless labourers and unrecorded bargadars (those with no-eviction rights).

“She is only speaking about land owners in Singur. Why are they silent about the landless labourers and others? Those who are demonstrating in Singur and claim to be Naxals should fight for landless labourers,” said Kartik Pal, Politburo member of CPI-ML (Liberation).

According to a survey conducted by the party, there are 300 people who are either landless labourers or unrecorded bargadars in Singur.

“A number of them are absentee landowners who have already received payment for their land. But the agricultural labourers have got nothing. Neither Mamata Banerjee nor the state government is thinking about them,” Pal added.

At present, small Naxal groups are sharing the dias with Mamata in Singur. They include CPI-ML (SOC) led by Purnendu Bose and Dola Sen, CPI-ML (ND) led by Paltu Sen.