Saneet Chakradeo

Asian International and Strategic Thought

Socialism in India: Conflicting International Outlooks?

A o g the arious stra ds of I dia s rich and diverse political thought, socialist and Marxist

ideas have found peculiar prominence over the years. Indeed, India is one of the few liberal,

capitalist democracies in the world to have semi-autonomous regions governed by political

parties with an officially socialist ideology. Because of its historical importance in world

politics, socialism does have a coherent set of ideas on world order and how human societies

ought to be structured. In line with the dominant political ideologies in India that have a well-

established international outlook, socialist ideas have generally been categorized as having a

si gular o eptio of I dia s out ard approa h. But this otio see s to redu e the i tri ate

conflicts within the various socialist paradigms and ignores ideological nuances which have

been historically prevalent across the world.

This essay aims to delineate the distinctions ithi the roader so ialist ideologies i I dia s

international thought by initially analysing conflicting currents in the Indian Leftist movement

through a historical survey spanning across the twentieth and early twenty-first century. The

major communist parties of India - the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist

Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM) dominate the Left political establishment in the country. But

India has historically seen a variety of socialist ideas gain influence, even though they seem

to be non-e iste t i toda s politi al la ds ape. An example of the same is a more libertarian

form of socialism as espoused by Indian freedom fighters MPT Acharya and Har Dayal, whose

ideas have been unearthed by historians in recent times. The essay attempts to also use the

framework laid out by Bajpai (2014) for assessing international outlooks of the two diverging
socialist schools by looking at their perceptions on three aspects – the nature of international

life, the nature of the adversary, and the role of force. A summary of the analysis will be

presented in a brief conclusion.

Diverging Socialist Conceptions in India

A cursory glance at the current political discourse in India would make anyone question the

eminence of socialist thought in the country. However, worker unions and activist movements

across regions have ensured that socialist ideas hold considerable clout in Indian politics. But

the history of socialism in India has been dominated by the communist parties, which were

born out of the struggle against the British in the 1920s.

The CPI was the first communist party that was formed in India. Although the exact year of

the conception of the party is contested, the official date of establishment maintained by the

party is 26th December 1925. Among the multiple founding members of the party were the

well known intellectual MN Roy and the largely unknown revolutionary MPT Acharya. The

foundations of the communist movement in India were rooted in revolutionary nationalism

that began to hold ground among the educated classes in Bengal in the late nineteenth

century. Mainly influenced by the writings of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and Swami

Vivekananda, some of the key influencers of the communist movement began their

revolutionary activities working with the members of the Anushilan Samiti, a Bengal based

voluntary organization that advocated revolutionary violence as the sole means of

overturning British rule in India (Ray 2002).

While it is obvious that the Russian Revolution led by the Bolsheviks, which in itself is

considered to be highly revisionist by many Marxists, had a massive influence on the

ideological underpinnings of CPI s age da, a elie e that the Part took a e e ore
right-ward turn by renouncing attempts to galvanize independent and grassroot level worker

o e e ts a d alig i g ith the elite leadership of the Co gress, alled a o the left

as the progressi e ourgeoisie (Vanaik 1986). The stor of the ai strea Left i I dia

from then on is seen as a continual devolvement of traditional Marxist ideals and major

revision in terms of strategy, which can be seen even today. At the expense of sounding

dramatic, it would have been inconceivable for Marx to approve of the policies carried out in

his name by contemporary Marxists the world over, India being no exception. As notable

scholar Praful Bidwai remarks –

I deed, it is ha d to o e a oss e e a se ious efe e e to Ma s Capital, not to speak of

a commentary on it, in the writings of Communist Party intellectuals, however voluminous.

Most first-generation communist party leaders I have known have never read Capital or other

se ious theo eti al o ks Ma su h as the G u d isse , o , to take a do e a ples,

Marxists like ‘osa Lu e u g o A to io G a s i. (Bidwai 2015)

Having said that, there have been examples of more radical socialists participating in the

independence struggle, MPT Acharya being a good example of the same. He initially gained

notoriety within the British ruling class as the editor of a publication called India that came

out with literature highly critical of the Raj and was steadfastly pursued by the British for his

revolutionary work. This prompted him to flee to Europe, where he got involved with the

India House, and further built on his anti-British credentials through collaborations with other

activists. A string of events led him to meet Lenin in 1919, after which he got involved with

the Communist International and later joined MN Roy in founding the CPI (Yadav 1992).

But soon, major differences emerged between him and Roy over ideology and the happenings

in Russia, which led to Acharya becoming increasingly critical of the international communist

movement in general over the following years. Apart from a stau h oppositio to ‘o s tight
control over the CPI, he progressively adopted a more libertarian socialist approach and was

influenced by the ideas of prominent anarchist thinkers of the time, mainly active in Europe

(Radhan 2002). Acharya managed to galvanise support from fellow revolutionaries such as

Ranchoddas Lotvala, who established the Institute of Indian Sociology, later renamed as the

Libertarian Socialist Institute, and led the counter-communist revolutionary movement from

then on.

A har a s differe es ith the communist movement are summed up in his quote –

We a e ot agai st Co u is a d e do ot ake a disti tio et ee a Co u ist

revolutionary or just a revolutionary. All we object to is forcible conversion to Communism; at

least in the form dictated ‘o a d the Co i te . (Barker et al. 2017)

This ideological rift between authoritarian and libertarian socialism is representative of the

histori al glo al o e e ts ho ha e ee at o fli t e er si e Mar s o eptio of

socialism was challenged by thinkers such as Proudhon and Bakunin, who proposed a more

direct democratic approach towards achieving social and economic equality. Libertarians

believed the working class revolution could never achieve its ultimate goal by usurping state

powers and forming vanguard parties, which would give rise to a different kind of oppressive

regime. The later failures of the Bolshevik revolution, wherein the worker councils or Soviets

were dismantled as soon as Lenin seized control, is precisely what Bakunin had predicted and

ter ed the ‘ed Bureau ra (Chomsky 1994). It is only understandable that similar

conceptions of socialist ideologies were lapped up by sections of Indian revolutionaries as

well, as most were influenced by European radicals of the time. It is important to note that

Acharya was not alone in his alignment with the libertarian socialist movement in India, with

figures such as Har Dayal and Bhagat Singh also espousing similar ideas through their writings.

The Tamil social activist Periyar Ramaswamy shows inclinations towards libertarian thinking
in his work. In contemporary times, thinkers such as K Balagopal, Arundhati Roy, and Jean

Dreze have written on similar ideas of social organization.

Having made the case for the existence of diverging socialist philosophies in the Indian

independence struggle, I will now attempt to analyse how these differing notions of socialist

thought could have different visions for I dia s i ter atio al outlook.

The Nature of International Life

While all socialists broadly agree on several important fundamentals of how a society ought

to be structured, there are important differences in the strategies adopted by libertarian and

authoritarian socialists. While both camps agree on the necessity of looking beyond the

nation-state as the ultimate system of organization, the communists insist on a temporary or

pra ti al approa h of seizi g state powers to achieve economic and social equality, before

the state ithers a a i to full-fledged communism. This falls directly in contrast to the

fundamentals of libertarian socialism, whose adherents reject a centralized state ownership

and control of the economy, while advocating for a completely horizontal distribution of

resources.

This extreme contempt for the state is derived from the central principle of libertarian

socialism of rejection of all illegitimate hierarchies. But, this notion of a state-less society is

not where libertarian socialist thought begins. Rather, a deep suspicion towards all authority

and concentration of power is where this anarchist tendency is derived from (Dreze 2016).

Although communism as envisaged by Marx is ultimately stateless, Marxists-Leninists

adopted a prag ati approa h to o u is a d alled it so ialis . Bakunin, who was a

major influence on Indian revolutionaries such as Har Dayal, prophesied in his work Statism

and Anarchy –
 The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial.

Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the

a e of the alleged stupidit of the latte a d the alleged i tellige e of the former.

Therefore, they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve

and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political

and economic subjugation of the masses of the people. (1873)

Like all Marxists around the world, Indian communists also pledged allegiance to the USSR,

Lenin, and later Stalin, which meant adoption of a highly statist stance towards revolution.

MPT Acharya renounced this form of autocratic uprising and advocated for a truly democratic

structure of organization –

I the Ma ia so-called class-state, the Bureaucracy and Party come before all workers, for

they are the mainstay of the State and Government. There cannot be even a class state, for all

the class cannot conduct the state-after delegation of its powers. Especially as every state is

e t alist, i.e. despoti . (Libcom 2018)

While Marxists promote the use of class as the fundamental unit of human organization,

libertarian socialists argue that a further distinction of society can be achieved by considering

individual sovereignty as a viable unit of the same. Statists argue that emergent nation-state

associations overturn lower units at ethical and political levels, counter to which, anarchists

point out the greater normative significance of the individual. Some libertarians go beyond

this individualist conception and advocate small groups or communities to have self-

autonomy while conceiving a self-sustainable society (Prichard 2012). Hence, a federalist

structuring of international society is the ultimate aim of libertarian socialists, without

o pro isi g on strategies to achieve this condition.

socialism to the rest of the world, and the interim need of the nation-state (Bajpai 2014). This

consequently meant the existence of international relations between states, adherence to

state sovereignty, war, and thus, national armies. But, for libertarian socialists, there should

be continuous struggle towards achieving conditions where the foundations of the nation-

state itself can be toppled and appeals for support from the wider global community can be

extracted to achieve further recognition of their federalist existence. Noted activist K

Balagopal wrote in his critique of communist theory and its applications to the Indian context:

In such an effort (a Leninist vanguard party), the suppressed masses would not even be half

awakened to their potential. Even if such a party were to claim that it learns from the people,

and even if [it] were to honestly try to do so, the very strategy would be inadequate. If there

can at all be a si gle pa t hi h ould lead a o e e t fo so ial t a sfo atio , it a

only be a federally structured organisation, whose free and equal units would be the political

units, centred on the self-directed struggles of various sections of the deprived. (2011)

The First International, founded by Karl Marx and other European radicals of the time, defined

socialism as the abolition of the wage system (Libcom 2018). This was the central tenet on

which a socialist economy was supposed to have been established. Having overseen the

failures of the Bolsheviks in eradicating wage slavery, Acharya turned to Proudhon and Peter

Kropotki , the ‘ussia thi ker, to for ulate a trul so ialist e o o i odel. This li eral

kind of communism began with the establishment of local councils, owned by workers, that

could drive industry and production to meet the needs of these federations. Kropotkin

differed from Marx in attributing the fruits of labour to the entire community, instead of the

worker solely, as he foresaw the conditions that led to the worker being able to produce this

labour. Similarly, Acharya believed that all things wherever found were the common property
of all local councils, and that they arrange production and distribution of all things produced

everywhere for the greatest benefit of everyone. He echoed Kropotki s de a d of ell-

ei g for all .

Thus, libertarian socialists of today would envision a global society evocative of the Spanish

territories of Catalo ia a d Arago post the “pa ish orkers re olutio of 1936, hi h

witnessed the widespread implementation of libertarian socialist principles through worker

run communes for a period of three years. Although there have been multiple experiments

of establishing stateless societies, the worker-controlled Spanish regions led by the National

Confederation of Labour (CNT) and Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI) have been the most

prominent examples of how anarchical societies could be envisioned. It is extremely pertinent

to point out here that the demise of these worker-controlled economies was facilitated by

the stifli g of support “tali s “o iet U io efore Fra o s for es took o er i 1939.

Contemporary libertarian socialists in India, while sympathetic towards this ideology,

vehemently oppose Marxist dominance of Leftist politics, and focus on achieving

emancipation for the oppressed minorities within the country while harbouring sympathies

for their counterparts across the world. Leading libertarian socialists today understand the

enormous gap in existing circumstances and their ideal society, and define their goals as

defending some state institutions from attack, while trying to pry them open to more

meaningful public participation (Chomsky 1996).

The Nature of the Adversary

Be ause of the statist i li atio s of Mar ists, atio al le el threats for o u ist states

can be envisioned. Lenin s theory of imperialism posits that capitalist countries go to war with

other countries over the need for sustaining their economies and market dominance. Because

capitalism is the principal ideological adversary for communists, leading capitalist states like
the US are the primary threat to national security for Marxists. In order to achieve Marxist

socialism, the global influence of the capitalist states needs to be reigned in, and attempts to

spread this totalitarian form of government to other nations should be pursued. This makes

other communist nations allies, no matter how autocratic. Marxists more or less share the

contempt for global capitalism and capitalist states with libertarian socialists on the global

stage. They have concurrent views on issues such as the use of nuclear weapons, imperialist

foreign policy, global environmental activism, and economic globalization. Also, any form of

fascistic organization is strongly condemned by both camps.

Internally, the Indian bourgeoisie along with the dominant political parties, form the

oppressive class that needs to be toppled, according to the Marxists. Again, greater emphasis

is laid out on class distinctions than any other categorization, leading to a narrow-minded

approach to achieving equality. With little to no consideration for concepts such as identity

and related structural oppression, Indian Marxists rely on a strictly economic perception of

social justice. When the primary vehicle of social change is moved from class to the individual,

identity begins to have greater relevance in facilitating revolution. A society under state

control can have distinctions on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender, race, and

even caste, which systemically ingrains the oppression of minority identities. We can see the

prevalent ignorance regarding issues such as women s rights and backward castes rights

among Indian Marxists by looking at the representation of these identities within the party

leadership. Indeed, the politburo membership of some of the biggest communist parties in

the world also alludes to this point. It validates the notion of the Indian Marxists having a

rather blindsided view of liberation with their over-emphasis on using class as a tool for

emancipation.
If the dismantling of all illegitimate hierarchies is the key objective of libertarian socialism, the

recognition of systemic oppression on the lines of gender, race, religion, and caste becomes

of primary importance. Along with identifying struggles based on class distinctions, libertarian

socialists evaluate the imbalances caused by the state capitalist apparatus and work towards

empowering oppressed sections of the population such as women, Dalits, religious minorities,

persons with disabilities, and of course, the poor. Activists such as Arundhati Roy and K

Balagopal have been leading efforts towards rehabilitation of indigenous populations

displaced due to industrialization and minority rights in India. Again, Balagopal has pertinent

words for the same –

What see s to e e ui ed a e lo alised oth spatiall a d so iall o e e ts that a e

specific enough to bring out the full potential and engender the full self-realisation of various

oppressed groups, subsequently federated into a wider movement that can (in a free and

democratic way) channelise the aroused energies into a broad movement. (Balagopal 2011)

Thus, due to ideological oppositions to the capitalist status quo, adherents of both forms of

socialist thought have several overlapping views on what the nature of the adversary is. But

there are important differences in the strategy to be adopted towards change between both

schools. The pre-eminence of class in the analysis of societal failures within Marxists makes

for a myopic interpretation of struggle in the eyes of libertarians, who envisage a systemic

diagnosis of inequality, looking beyond economic distinctions within the society. This

difference of opinion also lends to a divergent view of what the international nature of the

adversary is for both schools. While for Marxists, working class solidarity extends across

borders, libertarians refer to the existence of systemic oppression of certain sections of the

society across every state-capitalist entity, such as women, the LGBT community, unfairly
targeted Muslims due to rampant Islamophobia, and indigenous peoples, and allude to the

dominance of the Anglo-Saxon race in the world economy.

The Role of Force

Having different views on what the nature of the adversary is makes for a unique conception

of the use of force in both socialist ideologies. Marxists and communists have never had an

aversion to the use of violence to achieve their goals. Indeed, as per Marxists, the social fabric

within a capitalist system imposes violence on to the working classes due to its inherent

oppression, and only an armed struggle against the bourgeoisie can lead to success. The

Leninists, thus, argue for the existence of organized armies within the state apparatus to help

tackle and resist global imperialism. Although contemporary Indian Marxists would dislike the

diversion of resources from developmental measures towards the strengthening of the

military, they would treat it as a practical and necessary compromise (Bajpai 2014).

Internationally, along with condemning the use of force by capitalist regimes, Indian Marxists

ignore the aggressive overtures of so-called communist forces, including China. This aligns

with the historical support provided to Stalin, Mao, and a few other Marxist-Leninist regimes

by Indian communists of the time.

This is a major point of deflection regarding the use of force for libertarians. They treat state-

affiliated violence of any kind as abhorrent and unjust. In the current scenario, this obviously

excludes states employing self defence against another aggressor state. While treating every

human life as sacrosanct, they recognize the right to self-determination of oppressed

ethnicities, and its expression in the form of a nation-state. This, according to some of them,

does not particularly make them inherently violent . Traditionally, libertarians have been of

the opinion that the use of violence against an unjust authority can be a legitimate tool for

gaining justice. Indian revolutionary and the founder of the Ghadar Party in the US, Lala Har
Dayal, was involved in extensive anti-British activities around the turn of the twentieth

century, and celebrated the assassination attempts on the then Indian Viceroy. Having

established the Bakunin Institute of California, which he described as the first monastery of

anarchism , he advocated for a social revolution in India against the British as per the ideas of

Bakunin (Puri 1983).

MPT Acharya, on the other hand, believed that libertarians are absolute pacifists and

humanists and that arms corrupt and blunt the mind . They do not want to see a truly

libertarian society established with the help of arms and soldiers but through social solidarity.

He believed that every armed revolution will fail to emancipate mankind as a worse

government will take over from a bad one with the help of armed men (Libcom 2018).

Although this notion may seem contradictory to the imagery of a revolutionary, it is not

entirely uncommon within libertarian socialist thought. There have been pacifist socialists

such as Leo Tolstoy and Henry David Thoreau, who could be termed anarcho-pacifists in their

approach towards challenging the status quo (Woodcock 1962).

Hence, whereas Marxists have had a consistent attitude towards the role of force and

violence in their struggle against capitalism, there have been conflicting views among

libertarians on whether a violent grassroots revolution is justified in achieving their

objectives.

Concluding Remarks

The historical conflict between authoritarian and libertarian socialism since the emergence of

the two philosophies in Europe has had echoes in India also. Principled differences regarding

the nature of the revolution and the struggle against the British led to the formation of two

separate factions within the communist movement in India. Although the roots of the struggle
were based in the era of colonial oppression, the ultimate aims of both the movements can

be said to be too idealistic for the world even today. However, that does not stop

contemporary adherents of these ideologies to conceive ideas on world order based on the

existing conditions in society. This essay is an attempt to provide a definitive distinction

between these conceptions within the two socialist schools of thought.

The primary conflict between the two schools is regarding the need of a temporary state

before a fully autonomous and stateless society is reached. The ideological roots of this

conflict are based on differing notions with respect to systemic oppression and the unit of

societal characterization on which the struggle for liberation should be based on. While

Marxists prefer using class as the primary instrument for achieving communism, libertarians

advocate for a deeper look at society to identify structural subjugation based on identity.

Although the history of Leftist thought in India is widely associated with the communist

parties, there have been differing currents that have not received as much attention as they

probably deserve. The ideas of revolutionaries such as MPT Acharya and Har Dayal have not

yet managed to carve out a niche within India s broader political spectrum, but they surely

offer unique insights into approaches for carrying out large scale social movements. While it

can be safe to say that the current political climate in India does not warrant an immediate

and widespread adoption of such ideas, but as contemporary libertarians would say, they are

the ones effecting social change on all fronts currently. Moreover, libertarian socialist thought

can help us with closely evaluating the relationship between class and identity, be wary of all

forms of authoritarianism, and expand our knowledge of democracy.

___________________________________________________________________________
References

• Bajpai, K., 2014. Indian Grand Strategy: Six Schools of Thought. In I dia s G a d “t ategy (pp.

127-164). Routledge India.

• Vanaik, A., 1986. The Indian Left. New Left Review, (159), p.49.

• Bidwai, P., 2015. The phoenix moment: Challenges confronting the Indian left. Harper Collins.

• Barker, A., Pereira, M.E., Cortez, M.T., Pereira, P.A. and Martins, O. eds., 2017. Personal

Narratives, Peripheral Theatres: Essays on the Great War (1914–18). Springer.

• Chomsky, N., 1994. Notes on anarchism.

• Raiot. 2018. Anarchism in India. [ONLINE] Available at: [Link]

[Accessed 20 April 2018].

• Bakunin, M.A., 1990. Bakunin: Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge University Press.

• [Link]. 2018. What is Anarchism? - MPT Acharya. [ONLINE] Available

at: [Link] [Accessed 20 April 2018]

• Prichard, A., 2012. 6 Anarchy, Anarchism and International Relations. The Continuum

Companion to Anarchism, p.96.

• Balagopal, K. , Popula “t uggles: “o e Questio s fo Co u ist Theo a d P a ti e ,

in Ear to the Ground (New Delhi: Navayana), p. 375.

• Chomsky (1996), Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order

(London: Pluto), p. 75

• Puri, H.K., 1983. Ghadar movement: ideology, organisation & strategy. South Asia Books.

• George Woodcock, A., 1962. A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Cleveland, World

Publishing Co., Meridian Books, 504.

• Ray, S., 2002. In Freedom's Quest: (Vol. 1). Minerva Associates (Publications).

• Yadav, B.D., 1992. MPT Acharya: Reminiscences of an Indian revolutionary.

• Radhan, O.P. (2002), Encyclopaedia of Political Parties, New Delhi: Anmol Publications PVT.

LTD.