Left, right and centre

While reading an article (“Peasants, the State and Civil Society” by Tom Brass) which dealt mainly with the relationship between the State and civil society, I came across a section which dealt with the idea of a political ‘third way’, a call for a political discourse that rejected and transcended that traditional dichotomy of capitalism and socialism.

There’s no denying that this sounds like a wonderful idea; where capitalism and socialism has led to some of the most acrimonious and bitter conflicts in recent history (on the political and the physical battlefields of the world), a new third way could perhaps help in ushering a new philosophy that could rid our political dialogues of the bitter partisanship that characterizes most of it today. Granted, the world we live in today is too complex to be strait-jacketed into narrow descriptions of ‘left’ and ‘right’, but this concept of a third way speaks  of a need to develop a political philosophy that would bring people closer together instead of tearing them apart.

The author, however, has rightly noted that a ‘third way’ has been developing for some time now, and its development has in fact been nothing less than divisive. One can trace the workings of a third way in the development of fascism and rabid nationalism/communalism, ideas we have been exposed to quite frequently in the past few years. It would be futile to think that all political movements owe their allegiance in some manner to leftist or right-wing thinking; nationalism and identity politics can be seen as being inspired by the worst of both worlds. The vast income differentials and free flow of culture and ideas caused by global capitalism and the presence of vested interests which would not find any measure of private property abolition palatable has led to the emergence of a political movement that stresses on the national character and emphasizes communal identity as a referring point. 

It is within this framework that we can place events like the rise of Hindutva politics or the rise of the Thakerays. Global capitalism not only tends to aggravate inequalities in income distributions, it also brings cross-border cultures into close contact, the results of which are not always assimilative or enriching. Moreover, this is not a movement based on the traditional foe of capitalism i.e socialism, perhaps because those who preach the glory of local cultures would feel most threatened by any movement that would abolish private property rights. A movement built on identity would find many takers amongst rich landlords; these same landlords would be averse to any movement that requires giving up one’s claims to private property as a requirement to fight the identity-diluting forces of global capitalism. 

(Perhaps one reason – and mind you, this might be a stretch – is that ideas of culture and belonging are expressively tied to ideas of ownership of land. You are one with your culture when you are one with your land, when you are tied to your homeland. The rallying point is “the motherland”, “the sons of the soil” etc. Ideas of regionalism and communal identity probably cannot work too well when the concept of a land to which one is tied to and belongs to no longer exists. Socialism – even weak socialism, seen mostly as a counterpoint to global capitalism – can probably not co-exist with any movement that stresses the supremacy of regional identity.)

It is in this light that one can analyze the emergence of the Shiv Sena and the recent controversies surrounding Raj Thakeray and the MNS. It is in this context that one can study the rise of Hindu nationalism, where entities like the ABVP scream “No to commercialization of education” on the one hand and “Hail Narendra Modi” on the other. It is probably in this context that one can understand Osama Bin Laden’s call to view Islam as a suitable alternative to capitalism. A global capital movement which ensures that most of the jobs (at either end of the payscale) go to those from outside a state or region, unequal regional development that enriches certain regions and pauperizes others, are just some of the factors that has led to a politics based more on identity. This is a third way that is more divisive than inclusive