“Third World” – Capitalism and Socialism

The “Third World” – Capitalism and Socialism – Documents

 

 

As decolonization resulted in a growing number of independent states in the “Third World,” these states were faced with the challenge of promoting economic development. There was often great debate about what approach should be followed in order to produce economic growth. As we have seen, some states adopted Communism. The primary sources illustrate some of the other ideas that were motivating the leaders of newly independent states in this period.

 

Primary Sources

 

#1 Correspondence between Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru (1945)

In this exchange Gandhi and Nehru outline very different visions for the future of India. In what specific ways do they differ, and how does each man justify his view?

 

Letter from Gandhi to Nehru (October 5, 1945)

 

[p.123] I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts not in palaces. Crores (literally ten of millions) of people will never be able to live at peace with one another in towns and palaces. They will then have no recourse but to resort to both violence and untruth. I hold that without truth and non-violence there can be nothing but destruction for humanity. We can realize truth and nonviolence only in the simplicity of village life and this simplicity can best be found in the Charkha (spinning wheel) and all that the Charkha connotes. I must not fear if the world today is going the wrong way. It may be that India too will go that way and like the proverbial moth burn itself eventually in the flame round which it dances more and more furiously. But it is my burden to protect India and through India the entire world from such a doom. The essence of what I have said is that man should rest content with what are his real needs and become self- sufficient. If he does not have this control he cannot save himself….

 

You must not imagine that I am envisaging our village life as it is today…. My ideal village will contain intelligent human beings. They will not live in dirt and darkness as animals. Men and women will be free and able to hold their own against anyone in the world. There will be neither plague nor cholera nor small pox; no one will be idle, no one will wallow in luxury. Everyone will have to contribute his quota of manual labor. I do not want to draw a large scale picture in detail. It is possible to envisage railways, post and telegraph offices etc….

 

Letter from Nehru to Gandhi (October 9, 1945)

 

Briefly put my view is that the question before us is not one of truth versus untruth or nonviolence versus violence. One assumes as one must that true co-operation and peaceful methods must be aimed at and a society which encourages these must be our objective. The whole question is how to achieve this society and what its content should be. I do not understand why a village should necessarily embody truth and non-violence. A village, normally speak

[p.124] ing, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment. Narrow-minded people are much more likely to be untruthful and violent.

 

Then again we have to put down certain objectives like a sufficiency of food, clothing, housing, education, sanitation, etc. which should be the minimum requirement for the country and for everyone. It is with these objectives in view that we must find out specifically how to attain them speedily. Again it seems to me inevitable that modern means of transport as well as many other modern developments must continue and be developed. There is no way out of it except to have them. If that is so inevitably a measure of heavy industry exists. How far will that fit in with a purely village society? Personally I hope that heavy or light industries should all be decentralized as for as possible and this is feasible now because of the development of electric power. If two types of economy exist in the country either there should be conflict between the two or one will overwhelm the other.

 

The question of independence and protection from foreign aggression, both political and economic, has also to be considered in this context. I do not think it is possible for India to be really independent unless she is a technically advanced country. I am not thinking for the moment in terms of just armies but rather of scientific growth! In the present context of the world we cannot even advance culturally without a strong background of scientific research in every department. There is today in the world a tremendous acquisitive tendency both in individuals and groups and nations, which leads to conflicts and wars. Our entire society is based on this more or less. That basis must go and be transformed into one of cooperation, not of isolation which is impossible. If this is admitted and is found feasible then attempts should be made to realize it not in terms of an economy which is cut off from the rest of the world but rather one which cooperates. From the economic or political point of view an isolated India may well be a kind of vacuum which increases the acquisitive tendencies of others and thus creates conflicts.

 

There is no question of palaces for millions of people. .But there seems to be no reason why millions should not have comfortable up to-date homes where they can lead a cultured existence. Many of the present overgrown cities have developed evils which are deplorable. Probably we have to discourage this overgrowth and at the same time encourage the village to approximate more to the culture of the town.

 

Citation: (“Gandhi and Nehru” pg#)

 

Works cited:

“Gandhi and Nehru Exchange Ideas on Development Strategy.” In The World Transformed, 1945 to the Present: A Documentary Reader, ed. Michael H. Hunt. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.

 

 

#2 Jawararlal Nehru – Toward Freedom (1941)

In this document Nehru discusses some of the factors that led to his advocacy of Indian nationalism, and his economic ideas concerning the future of India.

 

[p.119] My childhood was … a sheltered and uneventful one. I listened to the grown-up talk of my cousins without always understanding all of it. Often this talk related to the overbearing character and insulting manners of the English people, as well as Eurasians, toward Indians, and how it was the duty of every Indian to stand up to this and not to tolerate it. Instances of conflicts between the rulers and the ruled were common and were fully discussed. It was a notorious fact that whenever an Englishman killed an Indian he was acquitted by a jury of his own countrymen. In railway trains compartments were reserved for Europeans, and, however crowded the train might be and they used to be terribly crowded no Indian was allowed to travel in them, even though they were empty…. I was filled with resentment against the alien rulers of my country who misbehaved in this manner; and, whenever an Indian hit back, I was glad….

 

[p.120] Many of us had cut adrift from [the] peasant outlook, and the old ways of thought and custom and religion had become alien to us. We called ourselves

[p.121] moderns and thought in terms of “progress,” and industrialization and a higher standard of living and collectivization. We considered the peasant’s viewpoint reactionary; and some, a growing number, looked with favor toward socialism and communism….

 

I had long been drawn to socialism and communism, and Russia had appealed to me. Much in Soviet Russia I dislike: the ruthless suppression of all contrary opinion, the wholesale regimentation, the unnecessary violence (as I thought) in carrying out various policies. But there was no lack of violence and suppression in the capitalist world, and I realized more and more how the very basis and foundation of our acquisitive society and property was violence…. A measure of political liberty meant little indeed when the fear of starvation was always compelling the vast majority of people everywhere to submit to the will of the few, to the greater glory and advantage of the latter….

 

With all her blunders, Soviet Russia had triumphed over enormous difficulties and taken great strides toward this new order. While the rest of the world was in the grip of the depression and going backward in some ways, in the Soviet country a great new world was being built up before our eyes. Russia, following the great Lenin, looked into the future and thought only of what was to be, while other countries lay numbed under the dead hand of the past and spent their energy in preserving the useless relics of a bygone age…. The presence and example of the Soviets was a bright and heartening phenomenon in a dark and dismal world….

 

Citation: (“Jawaharal Nehru” pg#)

 

Works cited:

“Jawaharal Nehru Recounts the Influences that Shaped his Social Outlook and Politics.” In The World Transformed, 1945 to the Present: A Documentary Reader, ed. Michael H. Hunt. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.

 

#3 Julius Nyerere – Ujamaa: The Basis of African Socialism (1962)

Although Julius Nyerere was a socialist, he promoted the idea that there was a particularly African form of socialism. What were the key components of his African version of socialism? How did he contrast this with capitalism?

 

Socialism, like democracy, is an attitude of mind. In a socialist society it is the socialist attitude of mind, and not the rigid adherence to a standard political pattern, which is needed to ensure that the people care for each other’s welfare….

 

In the individual, as in the society, it is an attitude of mind which distinguishes the socialist from the non-socialist. It has nothing to do with the possession or non-possession of wealth. Destitute people can be potential capitalists–exploiters of their fellow human beings. A millionaire can equally be a socialist; he may value his wealth only because it can be used in the service of his fellow men. But the man who uses wealth for the purpose of dominating any of his fellows is a capitalist. So is the man who would if he could!…

 

The appearance of millionaires in any society is no proof of its affluence; they can be produced by very poor countries like Tanganyika just as well as by rich countries like the United States of America. For it is not efficiency of production, nor the amount of wealth in a country, which makes millionaires; it is the uneven distribution of what is produced. The basic difference between a socialist society and a capitalist society does not lie in their methods of producing wealth, but in the way that wealth is distributed. While, therefore, a millionaire could be a good socialist, he could hardly be the product of a socialist society.

 

Since the appearance of millionaires in a society does not depend on its affluence, sociologists may find it interesting to try and find out why our societies in Africa did not, in fact, produce any millionaires–for we certainly had enough wealth to create a few. I think they would discover that it was because the organization of traditional African society–its distribution of the wealth it produced–was such that there was hardly any room for parasitism….

 

Acquisitiveness for the purpose of gaining power and prestige is unsocialist. In an acquisitive society wealth tends to corrupt those who possess it. it tends to breed in them a desire to live more comfortably than their fellows, to dress better, and in every way to outdo them. They begin to feel they must climb as far above their neighbors as they can. The visible contrast between their own comfort and the comparative discomfort of the rest of society becomes almost essential to the enjoyment of their wealth, and this sets off the spiral of personal competition–which is then anti-social….

 

When a society is so organized that it cares about its individuals, then, provided he is willing to work, no individual within that society should worry about what will happen to him tomorrow if he does not hoard wealth today. Society itself should look after him, or his widow, or his orphans. This is exactly what traditional African society in doing. Both the “rich” and the “poor” individual were completely secure in African society….

 

In traditional African society everybody was a worker. There was no other way of earning a living for the community. Even the Elder, who appeared to be enjoying himself without doing any work and for whom everybody else appeared to be working, had, in fact, worked hard all his younger days. The wealth he now appeared to possess was not his, personally; it was only “his” as the elder of the group which had produced it. He was a guardian. The wealth itself gave him neither power nor prestige. The respect paid to him by the young was his because he was older than they, and had served his community longer; and the “poor” Elder enjoyed as much respect in our community as the “rich” Elder.

 

When I say that in traditional African society everybody was a worker, I do not use the word “worker” simply as opposed to “employer” but also as opposed to “loiterer” or “idler.” One of the most socialistic achievements of our society was the sense of security it gave to its members, and the universal hospitality on which they could rely. But it is too often forgotten, nowadays, that the basis of this great socialistic achievement was this: that it was taken for granted that every member of society–barring only the children and the infirm–contributed his fair share of effort towards the production of its wealth.

 

Not only was the capitalist, or the landed exploiter, unknown to traditional African society, but we did not have that other form of modern parasite–the loiterer, or idler, who accepts the hospitality of society as his “right” but gives nothing in return! Capitalistic exploitation was impossible. Loitering was an unthinkable disgrace….

 

The other use of the word “worker,” in its specialized sense of “employee” as opposed to “employer,” reflects a capitalistic attitude of mind which was introduced into Africa with the coming of colonialism and is totally foreign to our own way of thinking. In the old days the African had never aspired to the possession of personal wealth for the purpose of dominating any of his fellows. He had never had laborers or “factory hands” to do his work for him.

 

But then came the foreign capitalists. They were wealthy. They were powerful. And the African naturally started wanting to be wealthy too. There is nothing wrong in our wanting to be wealthy; nor is it a bad thing for us to want to acquire the power which wealth brings with it. But it most certainly is wrong if we want the wealth and the power so that we can dominate somebody else.

 

Our first step, therefore, must be to re-educate ourselves; to regain our former attitude of mind. In our traditional African society we were individuals within a community. We took care of the community, and the community took care of us. We neither needed nor wished to exploit our fellow men.

 

And in rejecting the capitalist attitude of mind which colonialism brought into Africa, we must reject also the capitalist methods which go with it. One of these is the individual ownership of land. To us in Africa land was always recognized as belonging to the community. Each individual within our society had a right to the use of land, because otherwise he could not earn his living and one cannot have the right to life without having the right to some means of maintaining it. But the African’s right to land was simply the right to use it: he had no other right to it, nor did it occur to him to try and claim one….

 

Tanganyika, today, is a poor country. The standard of living of the masses of our people is shamefully low. But if every man and woman in the country takes up the challenge and works to the limit of his or her ability for the good of the whole society, Tanganyika will prosper; and that prosperity will be shared by all her people….

 

The foundation, and the objective, of African socialism is the extended family. The true African socialist does not look on one class of men as his brethren and another as his natural enemies…. “Ujamaa,” then, or “familyhood,” describes our socialism. It is opposed to capitalism, which seeks to build a happy society on the basis of the exploitation of man by man; and it is equally opposed to doctrinaire socialism which seeks to build its happy society on a philosophy of inevitable conflict between man and man.

 

Citation: (“Ujamaa”)

 

Works cited:

“Ujamaa – The Basis of African Socialism.” Columbia University, n.d. Web. 17 August 2016.

 

 

Secondary Sources

 

#1 Michael Hunt – The World Transformed – Required

Hunt discusses the economic policies pursued by India after independence. What are his main criticisms of those policies?

 

[p.134] The new government made merely half-hearted efforts to realize Gandhi’s vision of social justice….

 

Rural poverty persisted despite land reform legislation and a campaign of village development launched in the 1950s. These measures did little to change the shocking facts on the ground. In the 1950s a hundred million peasants were landless or homeless or both, and 80 percent of the electorate in the world’s largest democracy was illiterate. Poverty and deprivation in the countryside where four-fifths of Indians still lived in the 1960s contrasted powerfully with the urban world of the educated and the wealthy….

 

The failure of Gandhi’s populist commitment to equality and a better life had several sources…. The party disproportionately served industrialists, well-educated party leaders, and their privileged allies at the local level. A business community that had taken shape under British protection and that had financially backed the Congress party’s push for political independence reinforced resistance to social policies involving redistribution of wealth…. The failure of Congress-dominated national and

[p.136] provincial governments to invest in education, health care, and social welfare helped perpetuate the cycle of chronic ill health, infectious disease, and crippling illiteracy and despair. In the end, this failure doomed much of India’s population to some of the worst poverty seen in the third world….

 

In a broad sense, India’s colonial legacy also played a role in undermining Gandhi’s vision of a just, egalitarian society. The top of India’s political class hailed from privileged groups that had been trained in the best British schools, socialized in British ways, plugged into “old school” networks of influence, and co-opted into the colonial government. They shared with the British upper crust who had ruled India a belief in their right to lead. They also shared a commitment to preserving a strongly hierarchical, secular, class-conscious social system that favored them and their kind.

 

Jawaharlal Nehru was one of those well-born English speakers….

 

Both the institutions and values of the new Indian state drew heavily on a colonial legacy. The state’s backbone was an army and bureaucracy trained under the British. Its economic policy was heavily influenced by the British Labour

[p.137] Party’s commitment to a mixed economy with a prominent role for public enterprise and bureaucratic regulation. State investments made through a series of five-year plans together with generous economic assistance from both sides in the Cold War made India’s major cities look like British centers of heavy industry…. The English-trained and English-speaking officials of the new India with their eyes set on industrial development took pride in their country’s role as a leader of states refusing to take sides in the Cold War even while taking money from the Cold War rivals. Their neglect of the countryside left India what it had been under their colonial predecessors—a land of stark inequalities.

 

Citation: (Hunt pg#)

 

Works cited:

Hunt, Michael H. The World Transformed: 1945 to the Present. Oxford University Press, 2014.

 

HI 103 West & the World The “Third World” – Capitalism and Socialism 6