A Letter To A Marxist-Feminist
------------------------------

No matter it puts one in minority or majority group, but it is always
good to declare his/her position. Because, that gives one, the urge
to commit him/her for the good of it, as well as, to undertake the
burden of criticism of the bad of it. Criticism may be positive or
negative, constructive or destructive. While negative or destructive
criticism may make one wary of it, on the other hand, the dialectics
of positive and/or constructive criticism may enlighten both side to
come out of the orthodoxy which otherwise puts one in the, "square
box of fixed dimensions" of intellectual captivity.

What is the "Marxist Feminist" viewpoint of the "Liberation and
Development of Bangladesh" – the query made in those very words
deserves merit or not to make an answer upto the point it deserves,
rather would not be clarified, unless study of the historic epoch of
development of the World vis-à-vis Bangladesh is made in context.

The whole nexus of socio-economic and political events have effects
on growth and development, but any singular proposition or one-
dimensional theory of dialectics regarding determination of
condition, which achieves growth and development, is bound to be an
abstraction rather than reality.

Marxist Theory of Development and Independence of Bangladesh:

Karl Marx is one of the influential thinkers who proposed a theory
regarding socio-economic and political model for growth and
development prophesizing collapse of the Classical Model of
Capitalistic Development -- on the basis of a singular and fixed
assumption that -- the profit motif of the capitalist as such has to
put him on the "treadmill" of technological progress causing
chronic "technological unemployment" forcing the capitalists to
assume a monopolistic position to increase price without increasing
wages putting themselves in the self-defeating cycle of short run
fluctuations and in the long run leading to revolution and collapse
of capitalist mode of production for growth and development.

About Karl Marx, much more has been written than he himself ever
wrote. Nonetheless, Karl Marx's theory of development was being
written at a time when the capitalist economists were also in deep
dilemma to find the theories of neo-classical model of capitalist
development when the writers of Classical Model of Capitalism also
concluded the prognosis of capitalism with the very words --
"leading to stagnation" --nothing better than Marx's proposition of -
- "leading to collapse".

However, the efforts of Karl Marx made available to humankind
sizeable bricks for the construction of theory of growth and
development, although those structures collapsed because some of the
pillars were faulty. Notwithstanding, Karl Marx's contribution of in-
depth analysis of the theory of capitalist development embarked
undeniable influence in putting capitalism in its historical setting
which helped a good deal in evaluating its past and future. At the
same time, Marx's sociological and political theory provided very
important clues to explain the economic history of underdeveloped
countries although his own literature seriously lacked dealing
problems of underdevelopment.

Hence, although we may be very wary of the pitfalls in the Marxist
system itself—affected more than that—when pulverized under the
stampede of tons of anti-Marxist literatures and media responses
produced by the think tanks of the West—including the most damaging
trail of rhetoric campaign of US Senator Mc Arthy during 50's
equating nationalistic progressive democratic movements
as "socialists"-- leading to cold war dynamism pegging the history
with covert conspiracies of assassinations, destabilization, and
disengagement of the socio-economic development efforts of the rising
democratic socio-political and cultural intellectuals and activists
of the third world including and in the West & USA—the unnecessary
burden of endless theoretical polemics and divisions of the Marxist
intellectuals—nonetheless, including for all those errors committed
from within and outside, the importance of Marxist theory of socio-
economic and political development is impossible to ignore when it
has much to contribute to an understanding of development or the lack
of it.

Capital accumulation is the very core of economic development. But,
capital withers away leading to increase in poverty if positive trend
of both, the growth and productivity is not sustained. Growth needs
investment from the savings coming from the output. The savings
increases with increase of productivity vis-à-vis the output/input
ratio. The productivity increases if the investments are made for
simultaneous enhancement of all of the production functions, i.e. T-
Level of Technology, L (1)- Size of Labour (Reduction of
Unemployment), L (2)-Skill of Labour, Q-stock of capital, K-The level
of known resources, and C-Level of Consumer spending (the wages
bill). Keeping in mind the iron law of diminishing return, with
critical cautions made that, increase of any or few of the factors of
production function but if not made in all of them together without
making any exception would invariably result in diminishing return.
These are the basics of the theories of economic development.

The demand of "provincial autonomy" claiming the due share of
sovereignty on the savings accrued from productive activity of the
then people of "East Pakistan" when denied, justified the demand
for "national independence". I do not want to go into discussing on
collateral incidents here or the psyche of finding wide gaps between
expectation and achievement out from the national independence,
because I found those topics not only got often grounded on naivety
but also on immature as well as wrong analysis of the stage of
development-- which characterizes the presence of the current
negativities on the surface of Bangladesh. A Marxist on the other
hand will term the present stage of development which Bangladesh is
undergoing is that of "primitive accumulation of capital"-- rather
which would be considered by me to have been made in better
understandable terms, since history will corroborate that many
countries including the developed ones in the West or the East all
once went through these phases in their history of socio-economic and
political development —although, in my opinion it alone however did
not provide us with all the answers —again as, it would have been
made on fixed and singular nature of assumptions of mono-dimensional
dialectics —which the Marxists would often tend to stick to.

On the other hand -- while responding to the query—it would be
prudent to rather focus the analysis comparing the available
empirical data on various dimensions of development and
underdevelopment of the nation states of the World, and compare them--
in the ongoing historic epoch-- with those of one of the developing
nation of it, which is Bangladesh.

Development Theories and Market Mechanisms:

But before going into providing the statistics on various dimensions
of development and underdevelopment and further proceeding towards
the comparative study and analysis made on the basis of those
statistical data-- it would be a bit worthwhile to take a brief
sojourn on the views and economic theories including practices and
results of different forms of markets.

Theoretically and also practically, the driving force of "profit
maximization" in capitalist economic system has a tendency to create
a "monopoly market". But, a monopoly market can either
control "price" or "supply" but cannot control both. Because, if the
monopolist would like to increase the "supply"; then the "demand"
also have to be increased and that is not achievable without
decreasing price or increasing wages (purchasing power).

Karl Marx blindly assumed that the "capitalist" will not be inclined
to increase the wages beyond and above the subsistence level,
consequently, the average and marginal rate of return or profit would
decrease, in turn decreasing the total "return" affecting
the "monopolist entrepreneur's" ability in being on the treadmill of
steady growth keeping the balanced upward trend of all the factors
and components of output functions, to avoid the affect of law of
diminishing return—thus leading to fatality of self defeating path of
destruction..

Hence, looking into these scenario, the Marxist analysis was further
reaching into the conclusion that-- in this situation the capitalists
without going on sufficiently increasing the labour and wage function
have to take an imperialist political position to reduce other cost
of the input of the "operating expenditures" finding sources of cheap
raw materials, or by expanding the market beyond its domestic
territory through coercive means, of colonial and neo-colonial
expansions also resulting in massive World Wars and destruction of
civilization, when and where the revolution then will become
inevitable with the Communists taking the vanguard position of
the "working class" to fulfill their historic task to lead the
revolution for establishing the "Socialist States", in place.

On the other hand, since "laissez faire" demanded freedom and out of
it leading to formation of democratic institution for governance of
the nation states, therefore, in reality-- the capitalists, the
capitalist governments and the trade unions—the trio, pursued
policies simultaneously (which included recognizing collective
bargaining with the trade unions, legislations to maintain perfect
competition in the market etc.), but in varied forms and degrees
resulting into mixed results in the various dimensions of socio-
economic development depending on the extent of the measures so taken
differently in different capitalist countries--rather than heading
towards the path of fatal destruction of capitalism leading to
socialist revolution.

In any case, in comparison to the national growth and capital return--
the trade unions in the capitalist countries although were the least
benefited out of the trio and evidence in favour of which would be
found in the empirical data provided in the later part of this
response--however, it is needless to mention that, the benefit in
monetary terms of real wages attained by the trade unions in the
developed capitalist countries-- when compared with that of the
socialist or pre-socialist countries-- outweighed the achievements
compared to that of the socialists or pre-socialist countries, due to
typical higher overall national rate of return (growth) achieved
largely caused due to the success of the capitalist governments to
have maintained perfect competition in the market.

Conversely, in case of "socialist economy", although Karl Marx
envisaged "maximization of technology, wages and skill of the labour
forces" to become the driving force for growth and development, but
due to imposition of iron hand state control on "price", "supply"
and "demand" –i.e. on all the three factors of the market also
created a "socialist monopolist market", vanishing competition out of
the market. Socialist policy of excessive reduction in the gap
between "real output per labour" and the "real wages" leaning to pro-
workers policy following the historic dictum, "from each according to
his ability, to each according to his work", caused imperfection in
the labour market-- profoundly affecting the rate of return and
growth, followed by reduction in the rate of capital accumulation
needed to remain the "socialist" in ahead on the treadmill of steady
growth of the output and productivity functions which were required
for unhampered and steady development in technology, management and
skill. Hence the socialist economy get caught eventually under the
law of diminishing return which was inescapable in case of unbalanced
growth of all the factors and functions which influence growth.

Marxist economists' lack of understanding on importance of
establishing a market with "perfect competition", ultimately led them
to adopt reforms in the "market policies" inviting competition from
the private as well as public entrepreneurs, to avoid destruction.
Due to being late in realizing the real dynamics of growth and
development, very few socialist countries could escape the massive
political upheaval and socio-economic instability leading to bringing
those changes or economic disasters caused for and by these unstable
transitory phases of policy reforms.

In any case, we have come a long way, from the days of Adams, Smiths
and Miles predicting the Classical Capitalism to `stagnate' or that
of Karl Marx prophesizing its `collapse'. Capitalism neither
stagnated nor collapsed, but not because Adam, Smith, Miles or Marx
were wrong but on the other hand the modern development economists
contributed historically to reform and humanize the "Model of
Classical Capitalism", and rationalize the iron handed
autocratic "Communist States" integrating one after another the
effective actors and factors positive to social and cultural
development.

The understanding and integration of complementary functions of these
actors and factors of socio-economic development conceptualized
ultimately and explained the role of the Governments to act and be
benefited in making of "mixed economies" characterizing pluralistic
and egalitarian "welfare states" side by side in establishment of
fundamentals of philosophies of just and equitable models of
national, regional/international co-operations, while consistently
striving for structural adjustments and readjustments, to and for
these ends.

Comparative Study of Trends of Development:

Hence, presented herein are few of the empirical statistics, which
may explain the effects of the economic policies influencing socio-
economic and political development of the individual and/or the
groups of the nation states.

The measurement of economic development is reflected in terms of GDP
Index. For computation of this index in the current year (2004)
report of UNDP, a base value of per capita GDP of US $ 40,000
(Purchasing Power Parity) has been considered. The value of the GDP
Index is the ratio of logarithm value of the per capita income of the
subject country, to the logarithm value of US $ 40,000.

The sole purpose of economic development is to improve the quality of
human lives. The commitment of the society for human development and
the achieved level of human development are therefore matters of
great importance for the human civilization. The measurement of human
development of a nation state is reflected in terms of Human
Development Index (HDI), which takes into account, the level of life
expectancy of the population (as measurement of development in health
sector), the level of access to education (rate of literacy and
enrollment in various levels of education institutions), and the GDP
Index. The GDP Index with a weightage of one-third is also considered
in computation of the HDI, because apart from health and education
there are other essentials of human life where the rate of per capita
income does play a role.

Although, generally the GDP Index of the socialist or pre-socialist
countries are lower than the developed capitalist countries, but
their relative ranking positions of the Human Development Index (HDI)
compared to their respective ranking in the GDP Index of all these
countries have very high positive values. On the other hand many
developed capitalist countries may also have comparatively lower
indices of Human Development hence HDI when compared with their
respective level of growth in per capita GDP as well as the GDP
Indices.

An example may be cited to clarify this particular characteristic.
Cuba has a GDP Index of 0.66 only but her Human Development Index is
0.809. If compared with neighbouring Mexico it would be rather found
that although Mexico has much higher GDP Index than that of Cuba i.e.
0.75 but still their Human Development Index is lower than Cuba, i.e.
0.802.

When it is invariably true for the entire socialist or the pre-
socialist bloc to have higher ranking in Human Development Index
(HDI) compared to their respective level and ranking position GDP
Index, providing ample evidence that the socialist or pre-socialist
countries have profound socio-political commitment for pro-people
investments i.e. in education, health, shelter etc. which are the
basic needs for human development but unfortunately because their GDP
Index is generally low, therefore, they have generally lower standard
of living compared to developed capitalist countries, particularly
the OECD countries, hence ultimately scoring an aggregate lower value
of HDI when compared with the OECD countries.

On the other hand, while in the capitalist countries generally their
investment in the social sector is driven primarily with their
commitment for economic growth, therefore when a comparison between
their ranking in the GDP Index and the ranking in the HDI would be
made, it would reveal that, unlike that of the socialist or pre-
socialist countries-- the capitalist countries in general including
the developed capitalist countries (OECD countries) have lower Human
Development Indices than their respective GDP Indices-- except with a
very few exceptions.

Even if we compare these features between USA and UK, we shall find
that the GDP Index of USA is 0.98 and that of UK is 0.93, but the
Human Development Index of these two countries are almost same, and
hence for USA the HDI is 0.939 (lower than her GDP Index) and for UK
the HDI is 0.936 (a little higher than her GDP Index).

Also it is interesting to note that, the per capita GDP of USA is US
$ 35,750 (PPP) and that of UK is much lower, that is US $ 26,150
(PPP). It shows, even though, UK have per capita GDP lower than USA
by US $ 9,600 (PPP), but these two countries have almost same rate of
Human Development achieved. This is featured by the fact that the
economic policies of UK have higher influence of trade unions and
democratic institutions for determination of wages, salaries and
other social services. Similar features like UK exist in Sweden,
Australia, Belgium, Japan, France, and New Zealand etc. when the
opposite features are observed in countries like USA, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany and Italy and in almost all the
capitalist countries in general.

The situation is further worse in those capitalist countries where
the trade union and/or other democratic institutions are extremely
weak or being ruled by landed autocracy. For example, Equatorial
Guinea where the GDP Index is 0.95 which is even higher than UK but
have Human Development Index of 0.703, marking a very high negative
value i.e. (-103) in the comparative ranking made with the two
different indices i.e. the HDI and the GDP Index.

Few capitalist countries those who have very high negative values of
Human Development compared to their respective achieved Economic
Development measured in terms of difference in rankings between HDI
and GDP Index, are—Botswana (-67), South Africa (-66), Gabon (-50),
Namibia (-48), Angola (-38), Swaziland (-37), Saudi Arabia (-37),
Oman (-32), Iran (-31), Guinea (-30), Grenada (-28), Dominican
Republic (-27), UAE (-26), Algeria (-25), Zimbabwe (-25), Mauritania
(-25), Lesotho (-24), Tunisia (-23), Qatar (-21), Burkina Faso (-20),
Belize (-19), Morocco (-17), Bahamas (-16), Guatemala (-15) etc.

Although, the socialist or pre-socialist countries have high HDI
compared to their respective GDP Index but developed capitalist
countries (OECD) have achieved not only high GDP Index but also High
Human Development Index, showing higher living standard than the
socialist countries or pre-socialist countries in general. As stated
earlier, this was achieved due to adoption of capitalist economic
policies linked with "mixed economy" and "welfare oriented" social
programmes. In those capitalist countries there is presence of strong
democratic institutions assertive to providence of human rights, rule
of law and egalitarian economic policy.

The GDP Index of Bangladesh is 0.47 but her HDI is 0.509, which means
it has a positive effort for human development despite its
comparative lower GDP, explaining its positive commitment in social
sector investments. If we compare the position of Bangladesh in the
South Asian context then we shall find that like Bangladesh, only
Srilanka has high positive value in the ranking of Human Development
Index when compared to their GDP ranking, but on the other hand both
India (-10) and Pakistan (-7) are having negative values compared to
their rankings in between HDI and GDP Indices.

The study will remain incomplete unless the trends of development
between India and China will not be compared. The readers may note,
the GDP Indices and the HDI of these two countries. GDP Index of
China is 0.64 and that of India is 0.55, while the Human Development
Index (HDI) of China is 0.745 and that of India is 0.595. India got
her independence in 1947 when China established socialist government
in 1949. India pursued democratic system of governance unlike China
who pursued single party system of socialist government. Today, India
is the biggest populated democracy of the World and similarly China
is the biggest populated Socialist country of the World. Compared
with India, today China has higher position than India both in the
economic and human development.

The development economists have debated on this issue of growth
models of India and china for long and there is no single opinion on
this phenomenon. However, the most acceptable clue is that, China
pursuing pure Socialist economic policy achieved higher development
of human resources in the early years of its history of development
and then at later stage that paid large dividend for them when they
undertook market reforms inviting competition among the
national/international public/private entrepreneurs giving them
tremendous boost in economic development.

As recorded in the data of economic performances it may be found that
the rate of economic growth achieved by China, in the years between
1990-2002 is recorded as 8.6 %, and that of India is 4.0 % during the
same period. However, China adopted market reforms much ahead of
other socialist countries, and that, not only saved them from
internal political destabilization but also gave them sustained and
uninterrupted political environment conducive to growth.

Comparative Study on Trends of Gender Related Developments:

While HDI measures average achievement of human development
irrespective of gender, the Gender-related Development Index (GDI)
adjusts the average achievement to reflect the inequalities between
men and women in the dimensions of, (a) a long and healthy life as
measured by life expectancy at birth, (b) knowledge, as measured by
the rate of literacy and combined rate of enrollment, and (c) income
as measured by the share of earned per capita GNP, with equal
weightage given on these three components.

Since, GDI only measures the gender related inequality, therefore,
the real development of women has close relation with achieved human
development of the individual nation state. Gender related inequality
exists in all countries of the World except the lone country, which
escapes this disqualification, is, Sweden.

In case of GDI also, considering equal opportunity in access in the
field of education, health and income generated economic activities,
invariably, all the socialist or pre-socialist countries have least
inequality hence positive places in the ranking of GDI versus HDI.
But on the other hand the developed capitalist countries have
generally shown that their ranking in gender related development
indices (GDI) compared to their respective ranking in human
development (HDI) are either at par and/or at lower level except
Iceland, UK, France and Portugal. Among the developed capitalist
countries Japan, Ireland and Austria have quite high degree of
inequality in gender related development.

Although there is less disparity between genders in the field of
health and education in developed or medium developed capitalist
countries but in case of inequality in economic activity, hence
income, the situation is quite worse in general in all the capitalist
countries when the Female Economic Activity Rate are taken into
consideration for study, exposing very high level of income
inequality between gender groups.

If we compare with average results, we shall see that, the Female
Economic Activity Rate of female in socialist or pre-socialist
countries stands at a value of 81% compared to male. While even in
the high-income OECD countries this value of income share of women is
lower and stands at 74 % compared to male group.

The World Average of Female Economic Activity Rate as percentage of
male rate is 69 %. Some of the developed capitalist countries have
shown very high gender inequality in income generating activity rate
even below the figure of world average. Those countries are,
Netherlands (67%), Belgium (67%), Japan (68%), Ireland (53 %),
Switzerland (66 %), Austria (66%), Luxemburg (58%), Spain (57%),
Italy (59%) and Greece (59%).

Female Economic Activity Rate as percentage of male rate is highest
in East Asia and Pacific (82 %) and the lowest is in Arab Sates
(42%). In South Asia, it is 52 %, which is still below the World
average of 69 %, which exposes presence of unfavorable patriarchal
tradition affecting openness in creation of opportunity and
involvement of women in income generating activities.

If we look into the data of HDI and GDI respectively of the South
Asian countries we shall find lower inequality in gender-related
development exists in Srilanka and Bangladesh, and comparatively
higher gender-related inequality exists in India and Pakistan. These
data are-- Srilanka (HDI-0.740, GDI-0.738), Bangladesh (HDI-0.509 &
GDI- 0.499), India (HDI-0.595 & GDI-0.572) and Pakistan (HDI-0.497 &
GDI- 0.471).

In South Asia, Female Economic Activity Rate as percentage of male
rate is highest in Maldives (80 %), followed by Bangladesh (76%),
Nepal (67%), Srilanka (56%), India (50%) and Pakistan (44%).

Conclusions:

On the basis of empirical data available and with those having
furnished above, the findings may be summarized as in below: -

1) Economic Development, is better achieved as indicated by high GDP
Indices-- are in those countries where capitalist economic policy is
adopted maintaining perfect competition in the market.

2) Human Development is better achieved as indicated by higher Human
Development Indices in those countries where there is mixed economy
and welfare oriented economic policy. The socialist and pre-socialist
countries have achieved higher rate of human development compared to
their low economic development. Marxist philosophy although have
strong positive leaning to human development but could not surpass
achievement of the level of human development hence living standard
compared to capitalist OECD countries because of attainment of lower
rate of economic growth and per capita GDP.

3) Gender-related development is better achieved where already there
are conditions prevailing for achievement of better human
development, but further to that, strong presence of gender specific
social commitment is necessary to reduce inequality in gender related
development. Sole conditions conducive to economic and human
development do not guarantee equal development in gender related
development indices. Marxist philosophy has specific contribution for
achieving better performance in enhancing Gender Development Indices
(GDI) and particularly in the field of Female Economic Activity Rate,
emphasizing economic empowerment of women.

4) In South Asian context, inequality in Gender-related Development
when compared with overall respective Human Development is quite high
in India and Pakistan and quite low in Bangladesh and Srilanka.
Female Economic Activity Rate as percentage of male rate in
Bangladesh is also better achieved than India and Pakistan. This may
be considered as combined result of progressive democratic socio-
political movements including pro-active movements of the Women's
Organizations, NGOs, as well as initiatives coming from female
leaderships of the major political parties of the country. There is
no reason to assume that the female leaderships of the major
political parties since inherit their leaderships from deceased male
members from their families are anti-feminine to gender-related
developments.

5) Feminism is not monopoly of women, similarly anti-feminism is not
universal to male members of the society. Marxist Feminists have
positive contribution to gender-related development and empowerment
since history of 1st International, but when Marxist theory of
development is undergoing reform, inevitably it calls for reform of
the Marxist Feminist theory, too.

Afroza Begum
Dhaka, August 7, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Source of data used –Human Development Report, 2004 of UNDP.