Brief Note on Socialism, trade union and feminism

October 4th, 2015

“It is the advance form of social system in which the exploitation of human beings by the human beings will completely end. Class divisions will be gradually erased. Dialogues and debates will go up to a new and improved stage. In the field of science technology, new characteristics will emerge. Research and investigation will progress in a new speed. Love, cooperation, mutual trust and respect will be the main feature of human society. But the struggle between truth and faults will continue. Society will make a leap forward in an unprecedented way.

Human Being will completely depend on society. In such a society, only the working class will be dignified and their lives will be prosperous.”

Delegates of GEFONT Fourth National Congress 

Understanding Socialism: What is this?

Here, the socialism we are talking about is, not only a mere fantasy, it is our political goal. As many comrades of the world are saying- socialism wont come in a plate; it is not something that will be achieve
d automatically. Instead it is a continuous process.

Various models of socialism have been practiced in the world. We should internalise that socialism should not be understand as a single-model; it has diversities and varieties within. Our final destination is the achievement of free, dignified, and prosperous life of the working people. Socialism is and should be therefore political goal of trade union movement.

We would summarise four components, which are interlinked as the essential element of the socialism: 1) Democracy, 2) Equality, 3) Freedom, and 4) Socialisation of significant part of economy

NO doubt, socialism is an equal society and equality is an end of unequal relationship; which is income, property, power and opportunity!

Seems to me, in a individual context, the issue of equality relates to their economic, social and political rights and opportunities on a par with others. In party’s context, equality relates to its policy in relation to distribution and redistribution of national income.

Through my president’s lens- I would prefer to classify equality into three categories: unequal equality, absolute equality and relative equality!

• The parties that advocate for a free market economy are the proponents of ‘unequal equality’.  As we know, in a free market economy, the powerful impose their economic-political hegemony on the weak. In such an economy, the rich got richer and the poor turn poorer.

• The advocates of ‘absolute equality’ sell heavenly dreams to the people with the slogan of ‘all are equal, and all get equality.’ This slogan stands opposed to the Marx concept of ” from each according to their ability, to each according their needs’; and introduces a practice that ultimately distributes only poverty, not equality.

• The advocates of ‘relative equality’ stand opposed to equal distribution of poverty. For them, the issue is not ‘how much rich one can be’ but ‘how to spend what amount of income and property of the rich for the benefit of the poor’. In other words, the proponents of ‘relative equality’ support the policy of enriching the poor and one that aims to elevate the low-class people to a high-class status.

As analysis of Nepali Professor CM Mishra- Nepal is now in stage of adoption an order that doesn’t kill capitalism but benefits the working class. The need of the day is to change this order to initiate a new process for consumption, investment and redistribution. The focus of redistribution should be worker-centric, which should ensure a two-way benefit to the workers: they should get wages from the employer for their work and protection from the state for their votes. This enhances the workers’ ownership of the state and transforms them into citizens.

Ours is a post-peasant society, which means- we have ended up feudal production relation through 2006 revolution, but yet to fix the capitalist production relation as of 19^th/20^th century Europe. Our journey has reached such a crossroad- one drag us in a way towards so-called market economy and other will lead us towards the socialist economy!

Contrast to the policy of various left political/social movement, we in GEFONT has developed the principle of ‘Class+3’ in order to address issues of equality/inequality and conundrums. This principle stresses the importance of class struggle to end economic exploitation, while arguing that the class element should be aware of and responsive to the three principle components of social oppression in Nepal, which is an issue that should be tackled with seriousness it deserves, bit is not one ‘equal to’ or ‘ above’ class.

Understanding Trade Union

Marx defines trade unions as “the ramparts for workers in their struggle for social revolution against capitalist”, whereas Angels defines it as the “military school for class war”. Following Marx, trade union is a stage in the period of transition, where the unionists defend their wages as the matter of priority. Then through “class struggle”, it creates the awareness of class unity, while transforming them from a class “in itself ” to a class ‘for itself’.

In common parlance, trade union is a worker’s organisation established “by the workers, for the workers, of the workers.” It is also an economic, political and social organisation in the liberation movement of the working class.

The trade union in contemporary world is, of course of the union of all working people. They are in the light of production process broadly divided into organised and unorganised; formal and informal; and intra-state and inter-state. In terms of the nature, labour is basically divided as “regular (permanent)” and “irregular (contract, daily wages, home-based, outsourcing and part-time etc).”

In order to deal the issue carefully, Nepali labour movement is confronting confusing understanding of opinion makers: they see ‘labour relation’ or say ‘industrial relation” only as ‘production relations’ and also as the study of ’employment relation’. These people also mistake the ‘bargaining process’ of labour relation for the technique of class struggle. Nepal’s left movement has an erroneous tendency to see the trade unions only as the organisation of casual labourers or daily wageworkers and ‘labour action’ as the ‘class struggle’ to transform production relation. In this tendency, spontaneous / wildcat strikes and unruly activities are taken to be the highest standard of revolutionary zeal. It is this tendency that has made Nepal’s union action portrayed more destructively aggressive and violent.

Trade Union movement of the day cannot operate on the basis of ‘revolutionary rhetoric’ or ‘understanding with management’. For the movement to be effective and sustainable, there should be theoretical/political clarity on what kind of society to be formed and what mechanism it requires to establish the hoped for society. The trade union movement of the day cannot be directed by a dogmatist call of ‘ideological purity’. Nor does this call can protect unruly behaviour motivated by an “economic/physical ” offer or greed.

We should understand, capital investors and labour-power investors in any production process are two elements having separate interest. They are inseparable alike opposite poles of magnet. To remain together, each should listen to understand and negotiate with other. Negotiate, here I don’t mean, the Compromise with the bosses! Rather I am pointing on Co-existence with the opposite class! For me co-existence is one of the three principles of dialectics. The principle which explains- unity and struggle of two opposites!

Let me I recall here Paulo Ferry- oppressor should be ready to compensate to whom s/he oppressed! The oppressed should have legitimate right to demand- and oppressor should be benevolent to pay price of the century long exploitation.

We feel, bringing together the entire workforce in the sector of industries, services, agriculture, construction, and other labour sectors of formal –informal economy can create an inclusive trade union movement, which is the need of the day. The movement, should also coordinate the self-employed, and wage workers, whether regular, or casual. The inclusive union so formed should be able to influence a political direction of the country.

Understanding Feminism

We have simple feeling; feminism does not mean the female sex! It is a term, which denotes equality. To be feminist mean, to commit ourselves- we stand for equal value of all human being! As such, a man can be the feminist and a woman can’t be feminist! It depends on role they played. For us every person who likes equality all is feminist!

Here, we should not undermined natural role directed by sex. Men and Women or people of any sexuality, if we ask equality- we are not demanding making man as of woman or making woman as of a man! Difference in sex is natural, and any behaviour based of sexual identity is issue of gender.

@bishnurimal: July 2015