Communism from Social Democracy? But not in India or China!

Communism from Social Democracy? But not in India or China!

by

Subroto Roy

July 29 2008

In the last day or so, I have had occasion to remind myself of how 20th Century Communism had, as one influence upon it, 19th Century German social democracy.  The Russian Communists did not even have “communist” in their name until the VII Petrograd Congress March 6-8 1918 when they became the “Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik)”.   That became “All Union Communist Party (Bolshevik)” by the XIV Congress of Dec 18-31 1925, and “All Union Communist Party” as late as the XIX Congress of Oct 5-15, 1952.  Between the I Congress in Minsk 1898 and V Congress in London 1905, the name was Russian Social Democratic Labour Party; at the VI Congress in Petrograd, Jul 26-Aug 3 1917, the word “Bolshevik” got added.

It has been suggested to me this was because they wanted to avoid repression by the Czarist regime.   That is a possible factor.  Equally, it is possible they were merely radicals, anarchists and social democrats who could not have anticipated the First World War, let alone the Treaty of Brest Litovsk or the Bolshevik Revolution.

Yes, after 1848, Marx himself was expelled from Brussels, returned to Paris, and worked for something called “the Communist League”.  He and Engels established themselves in Cologne and even published something called “Demands of the Communist Party in Germany”.   But their aims were radical-democratic and republican and they hardly seemed “communist” in the 20th Century sense of being Leninist.

The Russian Communist Party grew out of European socialism and the social democratic movement.  Indian communists may seem rather rootless because they, like the Chinese communists, developed from the Russian communists without having developed any social democratic origins themselves.

Postscript February 11 2009:  The above may also explain how European communists could relatively easily stop being communists and restart being social democrats again, while China’s communists and India’s communists are clueless about how best they may abandon their backward ideologies and instead become serious social democrats.

About these ads

Growth of Real Income, Money & Prices in India 1869-2008

I have warned against a “monetary meltdown” in India for more than a decade and a half now.  I said it to Rajiv Gandhi (who listened with care and respect) and after he was gone I have said it to Government economists in India, to IMF/World Bank bureaucrats in Washington, to academic audiences in India and the UK and to India’s general newspaper reading public.

Obviously I hope such a meltdown does not come about.   But inflation, or the decline in the value of money, presently is in double-digits even by the Government’s own admission.  (As a general rule, I think the decline in the value of money has been higher by several percent than what the Government says at any given time.)  Hence I am publishing again some results of my macroeconomic research on India over the years.   You are free to use them and communicate with me about them but please acknowledge them properly and do not steal.

The first graph of 1869-2004 data was published in print to accompany my Growth and Government Delusion in The Statesman February 22, 2008; it had also accompanied other similar articles, e.g. The Dream Team: A Critique in January 2006.  The second graph of 1935-2008 data was published in print to accompany my article Indian Inflation in The Statesman of  April 22 2008.

Subroto Roy

Distribution of Govt of India Expenditure (Net of Operational Income) 1995

For more than a decade and a half now, I have been engaged in some “fundamental research” about India’s public finances.  This has involved inter alia transforming the entire set of government accounting data (both Union and all States) from their present obscurity and opaqueness to what I have called a condition of “maximum feasible transparency” (see my April 29 2000 address to the Reserve Bank’s Conference of Finance Secretaries).

Here is an example of the Union Government’s 1994-1995 expenditure (net of operational income).

It is from my unpublished ongoing research and is being released as a public service for India’s people.  Readers are welcome to use it with acknowledgement under the normal “fair use” rule.  Please try not to steal it, i.e. use it without proper acknowledgement.

from-ongoing-research-of-dr-subroto-roy-on-india

Subroto Roy, Kolkata

My father, Indian diplomat, in the Shah’s Tehran 1954-1956

On the reverse of this photo is stated the date, 8 July 1955, and “the King enquiring about Indian development projects after the ceremony”.   The person he is talking to is my father, then India’s Trade Commissioner in Tehran.  The  two photos below show Mohammad Reza  Shah Pahlevi striding by a line of guests (my father is seventh from the right in the line-up) and then meeting them.

The next photo is of  Reza Shah and his Queen Soraiya Esfandiary being greeted by a senior Sikh member of the Indian community.

India’s Ambassador to Iran, Dr Tara Chand, author of History of the Freedom Movement in India, accompanies Prime Minister Hossain Ala, probably at the Indian Embassy in Tehran (there is a map of India and the figure of Mahatma Gandhi on the right).

My father with members of the Indian community in Tehran.

See also

http://independentindian.com/2012/01/14/life-of-my-father-1915/

 

One of many reasons John R Hicks was a great economist

Professor Sir John Hicks (1904-1989) was among the greatest of 20th Century economists.  I was much honoured by his letter to me of May 1 1984 sent to Blacksburg, where he acknowledged his departure in later life from the position he had taken in 1934 and 1939 on the foundations of demand theory.  (The context of our correspondence had to do with my criticism of the young Hicks and support for the ghost of Alfred Marshall.)

He later sent me a copy of his Wealth and Welfare: Collected Essays on Economic Theory, Vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981) as a gift.

In Philosophy of Economics, I said about this “It may be a sign of the times that economists, great and small, rarely if ever disclaim their past opinions; it is therefore an especially splendid example to have a great economist like Hicks doing so in this matter.”  It was remniniscent of Gottlob Frege’s response to Russell’s paradox; Philosophy of Economics described Frege’s “Letter to Russell”, 1902 (Heijenoort, From Frege to Gödel, pp. 126-128) as  “a document which must remain one of the most noble in all of modern scholarship; a fact recorded in Russell’s letter to Heijenoort.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers