“Politics is not an art of possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and unpalatable.”
We are certainly enlightened by forceful and weighty words of John Kenneth Galbraith, famously known as Ken Galbraith.
The hard-hitting and poignant expression by an eminent Noble Laureate, economist and Harvard professor,apply with full force to the choices which are politically identified and politically imposed on a society. The choice amongst ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ is a politically identified, politically embraced,politically implemented and politically imposed choice for designing and operating what is broadly described as ‘national economy’.
‘Socialistic principles’, like the principles, norms and designs of all alternative economic models, namely, communism or capitalism, are also politically believed to be relevant in the context of social justice.In the political and legal glossary the socialist principles are collectively referred to as ‘socialism’. The suffix ‘ism’ is a lexical vestibule of ideological or philosophical connotations of the dove-tailed ‘main word’.
A peep into the spectrum of judicial opinion at the threshold stage of evaluation of the impact of socialism on the constitutional values of India will be conducive to a fairer study of the subject.
“Though the word ‘socialist’ was not originally incorporated in the preamble to the constitution, the idea of socialist goal was imprinted in the Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution. The object of these Articles is to usher in a socialist State by gradual improvement of the masses. The principal aim of a socialist State as envisaged in the Preamble is to eliminate inequality in income and status and standard of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and specially provide security from cradle to grave. This amongst others on economic side envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of income. This is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism. From a wholly feudal exploited slave society to a vibrant, throbbing socialist welfare society is a long march but during this journey to the fulfillment of goal of every State action taken must be directed, and must be so interpreted as to take the society one step towards the goal.” (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 (139))
“What is meant by socialism in India is not socialism of the Marxian brand. That is why even Pandit Nehru avoided the word “socialism” and introduced the expression “socialistic pattern of society” which meant “equal opportunity” to each individual for progress. On the economic front gradual nationalization of, and State control over, industries. To facilitate gradual State control over industries, the ideal now set up in the Preamble will help the process.” (State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai 1984 SC 326)
“The concept of socialism or a socialistic State has undergone changes from time to time, from country to country and from thinkers to thinkers. But some basic concept still holds the field. The difference pointed put by the Supreme court in an earlier case (Akadasi Padhan v State of Orissa AIR 1963 SC 1047) between the doctrinaire approach to the problem of socialism and the pragmatic approach is very apt, and may enable the courts to lean more and more in favour of nationalization and State ownership of an industry, after the addition of the word “socialist” in the Preamble of the Constitution. But at the same time the Supreme Court posed a pertinent question-“Can it be pushed to such an extreme so as to ignore completely the interests of another section of the public, namely, the private owners of undertakings?” The Supreme Court replied the question posed to itself in the affirmative and upheld the fundamental right of the private owners of the industry.” (Excel Wear v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25)
An overview of political models active and functional across the global communities,lucidly demonstrates multiple limitations qua inter-conceptual comparison methodology. Apparently in the absence of precise measurement methods forverticalor quality calibration of any particular political ideology in the trinity of capitalism, socialism and communism, the comparative studies are not feasible by known a priori and a posteriori methods. The comparative studies inter se these three broad-based economic schools are certainly not free from imperfections, deficiencies and omissions. The attempts to draw up credible distinctions, qua, the questions of universal validity of any particular school out of the afore-mentioned trinity ,in the forms of academic or scientific endeavours, are turning into loose-threaded disciplines which are quintessentially describable as connaisance approachee( Refer:August Comte : ‘it comes closer to truth without ever reaching it’ ).
However, some references to the available texts on the subjects indicate that‘socialism’ is a milestone in the trajectories of political economy,carved by the socio-political processes, to traverse the philosophical distance across the path of human curiosity from a destination ‘capitalism’ to a destination ‘communism’ and vice versa. Apparently ‘socialism’ as a school of thought appears as a structure, fairly distanced both from‘capitalism’and‘communism’.
Even the specific predilections politically embraced by the communities for any particular school , do not per se serve as a valid statistical foundation to credibly evaluate or conclude the endless discourse on the inter-school values of ‘capitalism’,’ socialism’ and ‘communism’.We cannot disagree with Thomas Hobbes, who aptly opined that it is not wisdom but an authority that makes law.Thus all schools of thought, wherever existing, howsoever operating are politically planted realities, seeded and nurtured by an authoritative opinion of the moment rather than a well-researched option closed in through any valid and credible comparative studies of the inter se values and potential worth.
Even these three main schools of political thought, namely, ‘capitalism’ , ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ do not remain perpetually immutable, in essence and form,on the hard grounds of socio-political realities. The aforesaid trinity of political schools is neither designed nor constructed in the monolithic shape of exclusive, independent and xenophobic fortifications. There are multiple perspectives, such as, classical, liberal and neo-liberal which always keep gaining deeper and deeper footholds in the functional paradigms of these schools.Such perspectives operate as cultural intrusions and slowly initiate and even support the affirmative processes of purging and de-radicalizing the value-systems and functional paradigms indifferent schools, existing in the diverse locales of polity.
Historical hindsight bears out that ever since the dawn of civilizations, an individual remained almost submerged in the massive ‘unsubstantiality’ of multiple aggregations and stratifications, be these called his clan, tribe, caste, community, country or political outfit. Thus the social and political focus remained unwaveringly on the outfits or aggregations or stratifications, howsoever named, while the individual, in the socio-political realities, always remained as an insignificant statistical aspect, literally representing an invisible constituent,of politically relevant mass of ‘unsubstantiality’.
The emancipation of individuals from the eternal subjugation of various outfits or aggregations or stratifications and consequential celebration of ‘person-hood’ of an individual in contra-distinction with universality of mass of ‘unsubstantiality’,coupled with continuous struggles of the enlightened individuals for the social and political recognition of their independent person hood de hors such mass of ‘unsubstantiality’,ripened into adorable political ideals that led to grand welcome of the political philosophy of‘capitalism’ in the society.
‘Capitalism’ as a political philosophy or as an applied political practice, envisages private ownership of trade and industry in a country.Thus, the economy in a capitalist school of polity is exclusively a private enterprise characterized by private ownership of means of production, free markets and the operations for profit. These features of economy synchronized with policy of laissez faire which mandates bare minimum State intervention, are strongly believed to result in triumph of individualism and subordination of collective personality of State, especially in the corridors of economic realities. This school of political thought is viewed as a glorious triumph of individualism.
However, ‘capitalism’ as a school of political thought is often criticized for forming a privileged class of capitalists and for being highly vulnerable to exploitative strategies of the capitalists.
John Maynard Keynes says: “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone”.
Thus an open public discourse on capitalism witnesses a clash of political opinions. On the one hand, well-pitched rhapsody of ‘triumph of individual’ while on the other a loud rhetoric of ‘discomfiture of the individual’, even in the concluding pro-capitalism tendencies and trends such discourse continues with a string of unanswered questions.
‘Communism’, on the other hand,is a radical school of anti-capitalist thinkers and has its formal origin in the theories of two German students of Hegel, namely, Karl Marx (1818-1883 ) a protagonist of class wars and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895 ), a German Philosopher and sociologist. Their theory,commonly viewed as ideological extremism, is known as Marxist Theory. As per the Marxist theory of communism, property of the State is owned by the community, while each individual is required to contribute his share in the progress of the community. For such State-mandated and State-controlled paradigm, every individual is paid wages according to his abilities and needs. In the politically-driven pursuit of community upliftment and a classless society, under the political regime of communism, an individual melts into a mass of ‘unsubstantiality’. In fact a focused State action is undertaken to treat the private property owners as ‘exploitative class’ and to confiscate their property as a pre-eminent feature of this extremist ideology, which was hailed by Lenin as a State policy of a civilized proletariat. The ‘communism’ school of political philosophy thrives only in a political climate of dictatorship, where the individuals have no voice.
An aphorism of Ludwig Von Mises, an Australian economist explains the political reality in a communist social setting:“The Marxian love for democratic institutions was a stratagem only,a pious fraud for deception of the masses. Within a socialist community there is no room for freedom”.
Socialism is a political and economic philosophy envisaging means of production, distribution and exchange be owned or regulated by community as a whole. However, in contrast with communism it does not lead to extinguishment of personhood of individuals.
Even with regard to socialism as a school of thought, Australian economist opined that every socialist is a disgruntled dictator.In fact, various softer versions of socialism, such as Fabian socialism pushed public opinion in favour of collectivization of the control of economic enterprises to keep the imperialism at bay in any society.The rallying cry of French revolution liberteʼ,egalite and fraternite were posited as values of socialism to politically aggrandize the public opinion base in its favour. However, on practical grounds as socialism hardens, the touted values of liberte, egalite and fraternite get distorted and disarrayed in the polity.
It was aptly opined by Mark Twain that while facts are always stubborn, statistics are pliable. India, statistically alone, leaned in favour of socialism as per the constitutional script of nation building.
Justice S B Sinha, speaking for the Bench in State of Punjab v Devans Modern BreweriesLtd.( 2004 )11 SCC 26, highlighted the obvious ;
“Socialism might have been a catchword from our history. It may be present in the Preamble of our Constitution. However, due to the liberalization policy adopted by the central government from the early nineties, this view that Indian society is wedded to socialism is withering away”.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice in Fatehchand Himmatlal V. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2 SCC 670, para 22 has held as under:
“(…) State action defending the weaker sections from social injustice and all forms of exploitation and raising the standard of living of the people necessarily imply that economic activities, attired as trade or business or commerce, can be de-recognized as trade or business. At this point, the legal culture and the public morals of a nation may merge, economic justice and taboo of traumatic trade may meet and jurisprudence may frown upon dark and deadly dealings, constitutional refusal to consecrate exploitation as “trade” in a socialist Republic like ours argues itself.”
In T.N. Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Assn. V. State of T.N., (1980) 3 SCC 97, para 18, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has held as under:
“Probably, the injustice of the past, when suddenly set right by the equity of the present, puts on a molested mien and the beneficiaries of the status quo cry for help against injustice to them. The law, as an instrument of social justice, takes a longer look to neutralize the sins of history. Be that as it may, judicial power cannot rush in where even administrative feet fear to tread.”
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud C.J. in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, para 3 has held as under:
“The profound rhetoric of socialism must be translated into practice for, the problems which confront the State are problems of human destiny”
In the regime of philosophy and logic for the purpose of clarity of the concepts, philosophically a dichotomy is created as a tool of research. This dichotomy distinguishes ‘universals’ from ‘particulars’. Universals are conceived as abstract and generalized concepts of which particulars are treated as concrete constituents. In Metaphysics, if ‘humanity’ is a universal, personhood of Socrates(illustratively) is particular.
Nominalism is a doctrine holding that universal ideas are mere names, without any corresponding reality and that only particular objects exist. Nominalism is attributed originally to William of Occam. A philosopher and a renowned thinker of his time who also propounded a law known as Occam’s Razor. Another form of nominalism was propounded by Buridan, known as Buridan’s Nominalism. About the Buridan’s Nominalism, it is opined that it is parsimonious way of practicing philosophy and does not explore the ‘universals’ in totality. There is also a fictum theory of universals which also highlights that all universals in the Aristotlian categories are non-existent.
‘Naturalism’ in the field of philosophy is sum total of theories of John Dewey, Ernst Nagel,Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. It focuses on scientific methods to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’. The philosophical commitments and philosophical cogency of ‘naturalism’ as a school of philosophy, coupled with their stringent standards of investigation, in contrast with spooky methods of inferences in some other philosophical disciplines, with respect to study of facts create a positive space for philosophy of naturalism. As the facts bear out, no philosopher today can conveniently treat himself as non-naturalist.
Methodological naturalism is closely associated with legal Realism and finds prominent place in Brian Leiter’s reinterpretation of Realism.Substantive naturalism centrally features in the Scandinavian legal Realist literature. Thus, the perspective of methodological naturalism and substantive naturalism are relevant to evaluate the concept, textual content, and policy of socialism in the constitutional scheme of India.
Be it as it may,seen through the aforesaid perspective of ‘nominalism’, socialism as a school of thought per se falls in the logical and philosophical category of ‘universals’, while actual ownership of means of production, actual paradigms of the markets(State-controlled or free) in a society feature as‘particulars’. From this particular perspective, study of‘particulars’ demonstrates that no valid conclusion empirically follows that India, on the factual strength as distinguished from statistical presentations, is a Socialist state. Even the judicial view about socialism does not support any firm and solid existence of socialistic model of economy in India. One has to read Directive Principles of State policy in the Constitution of India, to understand the modulation, subtleties and nuances of the socio- economic vision of the founding fathers of the Constitution. At best, it can be stated that India does not reject socialistic principles in so far as the same synchronize with fundamental ideals of social justice in the Indian Context.
John Rawls expounded the theory of ‘social justice’in his monumental work ‘Justice as fairness’. He theorized that the natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor it is unjust that persons are born into a society at some particular position. According to Rawls, what is just or unjust is the way institutions deal with these facts.
John Rawls while correlating justice to the virtue of individuals expounds a proposition that societies cannot encourage group of free riders and every member of the society is bound to contribute towards the task of social justice and to earnestly uphold his obligation of affirmative contribution in the processes of justice. Thus, the role of institutions to support the ideals of egalitarianism in the social economic realities, in an indirect manner operates as non-rejection of the values and principles of socialism. John Rawls is also described as a reticent socialist of 21st Century.
If the facts are subjected to a deeper study in the domain of legal Realism which is an offshoot of Methodological Naturalism , one cannot overlook the veritable opinion of Nani Palkhivala who, while making a hard-hitting comment : “our brand of socialism has not resulted in transfer of wealth from rich to the poor but only from the honest rich to the dishonest rich. The said eminent jurist aptly concludes: ‘Socialism and social justice are wholly different concepts. Socialism is to social justice what a ritual is to religion and a dogma is to truth”.