What is Left of the Left in India?

farmers workers

While celebrating the achievements of the Left in post-colonial India, I will provide a critical assessment of the Indian Left. I argue that: objective conditions are ripe for a resurgence of the Left which, as the leader of the common people, is the only political force that can fight for a society with popular democracy, substantive equality, ecological sustainability and economic-political sovereignty, a society where people and the planet are placed before the endless accumulation of big business profit.

RISING INTERESTS IN SOCIALISM IN THE WORLD

In India as elsewhere obsessive obituaries of the Left are constantly written. So let me begin with some statistics. Interests in anti-capitalism and in socialism are growing in many parts of the world. A June 2021 poll indicates that: 36% of Americans have a negative view of capitalism; this number is much higher among the youth: 46% of 18–34-year-olds and 54% of those aged 18–24 view capitalism negatively (Gustavo, 2021). Conversely, 41% of respondents from all ages have a positive view of socialism. This number is higher for the youth: 52% of 18–24 year-olds, and 50% of 25–34 year-olds have a positive view of socialism (ibid.).

According to a 2021 poll in Canada: 35% of Canadians favour ‘moving away from capitalism’, while only 25% oppose or strongly oppose such an idea (Thompson, 2021). The European situation is not dissimilar to the North American one. Consider India. In a 2018 survey, 72% of Indians endorse ideals of socialism.[iii] 85% of Indians believe that education should be free of charge; 91% believe that free healthcare is a human right; and further, 8 in 10 Indians (83%) espouse provision of unconditional basic income for all residents. Recent research, based on Lokniti surveys, shows that there is a consensus on Left-leaning policies in India.[iv]

There are two paradoxes. While there is common people’s support for socialistic principles, the Left appears to be in decline. The Left is struggling to prove its relevance in a country like India which, with its widespread poverty and rampant social discrimination, should have, in fact, been a fertile ground for Left’s success. [v] No where in the world is the gap between legal/political equality and substantive economic inequality as great as it is in India.

PROBLEMS OF INDIA’S MASSES, AND CAPITALISM AS THE ROOT CAUSE

India’s political-economic system, after independence, has built an independent capitalist economy and has improved the conditions of the people relative to colonial times to some extent. But it has largely failed to meet the needs of the masses (bottom 80% or so). Their problems are numerous and serious: unemployment; under-employment; low wages; agrarian crisis, including forced and unfair land acquisition and increase in input prices and stagnation in output prices; stagnant household income and indeed income deflation; environmental problems; grotesque level of income and wealth inequality; attacks on secular-democratic rights; caste oppression; subjugated position of women; workplace abuses; attacks on labour rights; reduction in welfare spending; and so on. All these problems are occurring in India’s capitalist system, one which is experiencing a crisis of profitability, a crisis that afflicts other economies too. Hyper-neoliberalism is a byproduct of economic crisis; it is a ruling class reaction. Hyper-neoliberalism includes the mindless privatization of national assets and state-owned enterprises and of privatization of government-provided education and healthcare, dispossession of small-scale producers, and increasing concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the top 1%, and brutal attacks on the living standards of common people. A feature of hyper-neoliberalism is that parties on the entire political spectrum practice neoliberalism.

In India, as elsewhere, the fundamental cause of problems of workers and small-scale producers, including peasants, is capitalism. The neoliberal form of capitalism magnifies the effects of capitalist class relations. Because of these problems, people fight and/or there is a constant threat of people fighting. So, the ruling class and its political representatives resort to three C’s: meagre and cheap concessions which take the form of not collective welfare provision but private welfare (direct cash transfer – bribing individual voters), brutal physical and judicial coercion and ugly utilization of majoritarian identity politics based on religion, etc. to create division among common people and to produce consent to the system based on false national pride and false sense of who the enemies are. With the failure of the center and the Left to significantly address people’s problems, there is an attempt on the part of a large section of the capitalist class and its political representatives to shift the causes of the people’s problems from the capitalist class as such including the cronies, to a part of the nation (or, the people) – e.g. minorities, or to anyone who fights for justice – especially, the Left movement. Thus emerges a new hyper-neoliberal India. Not only has there been a change in the political sphere. There has also been a change in the cultural sphere where the super-wealthy are being openly worshipped and courted by the political representatives and bureaucracy demonstrating a servile attitude while a little bit of welfare for the masses is denigrated as revdi (sweet dish).

What is urgently needed therefore is the political mobilization of the multi-caste, multi-religion, multi-regional rural and urban working class and petty producers, including poor peasant men and women of this vast diverse country against all factions of the capitalist-landlord propertied classes and their political formations. Such a mobilization must defend people’s secular-democratic and economic rights as well as national sovereignty vis-vis imperialism. The question is how will they be mobilized? The answer is simply: only the Left parties can mobilize the masses to defend their rights. But can they?

There are at least three streams of the Left. The first is the mainstream Left (CPI, CPI-M, etc.). The Naxalite Left is the second stream; it considers India as semi-feudal and semi-colonial. A third stream is to the left of these two groups. I will concentrate on the first stream more or less.

LEFT’S ACHIEVEMENTS

India’s political culture would be poorer without the Left. The Indian Left movement is an important part of India’s progressive and secular-democratic culture which has produced selfless political leaders and activists, artists, poets, writers, teachers, journalists, scientists, professors and rationalists. [vi]  It has been engaged in class struggle in economic, political and ideological forms. It has been responsible for decentralization of governance and for the introduction and implementation of many pro-poor government policies (e.g. land reforms, employment guarantee scheme) and for the withdrawal of anti-people policies (such as the anti-farmer policies). The Left has fought against political corruption (consider the legal fight against the electoral bonds scheme); Left leaders are generally not corrupt. What is internationally celebrated as the Kerala model is a distinct contribution of the Left’s parliamentary and extra-parliamentary power. It has organized massive strikes and protests by workers and peasants and other petty producers. The Left is the conscience of the nation. The Left is the major nationalist force – nationalist, in the anti-imperialist sense and in the sense of promoting economic and political rights of the workers and petty producers who constitute the real nation. The Left is a reason for India’s national pride, if a source of the pride of a nation is when common people fight for their rights.

Not surprisingly, among the lower-income people (‘very poor’) and among unskilled workers and agricultural workers, a proportionately higher percentage of them votes for the Left parties than for other parties. For example: if 7.5% of all voters voted for the Left in 1996; among the sections that are defined as ‘very poor’, a much higher percentage (11.3%) voted for the Left. This is in stark contrast to the Right: 24.9% of all voters voted for the BJP and allied parties in 1996, while from the ‘very poor’ category, only 16% voted for them.  Yet, the Left’s influence, including electoral influence is waning. According to Lokniti surveys, its support base among shopkeepers, hawkers and semi-skilled workers has dropped since 2009. In rural areas too, the Left is not getting enough support among sharecroppers, small farmers, and unskilled service providers.[vii] The question is why, and what is to be done?

LEFT’S WEAKNESSES

Informalization, automation, business houses being against welfare, the Left not having money to fight elections, common people being divided by bourgeois politics on the basis of religion and caste, etc., and so on are the fundamental reasons for the weaknesses of the Left. They are barriers. They are not limits. They are in fact the reasons for the very existence of the Left. Some say, the dogma of Marxism, the idea of Leninist vanguard party, is a stumbling block (Chakravarty, 2012: 471-472). [viii] I don’t think so. So, what are the problems? I will focus on two: electoralism and neglect of class consciousness.

Electoralism/Parliamentarism and Management of bourgeois state

In most places, the Left comes to people once every few years, during elections. The Left spends far too much time on elections. A Left party can win many seats only by making many significant compromises and thus sacrificing the goal of class struggle. Electoral fetishism and reformism are two sides of the same coin.

Where the Left has come to power, it has spent far too much time not only on elections but also on just managing the bourgeois-state apparatuses at local and provincial levels. Management of bourgeois apparatus means pursuit of capitalist, even neoliberal capitalist policies, including forcible dispossession of petty producers (i.e. primitive accumulation). While in power it has acted like a right-leaning social democratic party trying to ensure capitalist accumulation at the expense of common people, or with a thin veneer of welfarism.

There is a consensus within the Left that provincial state apparatuses can be used as a tool of people-oriented development. This is a wrong view of the capitalist state. Provincial branches are necessary elements of the capitalist state too. There is a scale division of labour within the state, which means that the state power is shared between national level apparatuses and more local and regional level apparatuses, all of which are guided by two principles: they must defend capitalist property relations and they must promote capitalist accumulation.

Promoting neoliberalism at the provincial level and criticizing it when the national govt does it : this leads to a crisis of identity (Chakravarty, 2012: 469). Trade unions are pacified and controlled by the Left in power in order to make space for capitalist industrialization (ibid.).

Here are a few lines from a CIA report called India: Dim prospects for the communists’, declassified in 2008:

‘They have traded their class struggle philosophy for a share of parliamentary power and have gradually become integrated into the nation’s system of parliamentary democracy. (p. iii)

‘Their long-term prospects for eventually leading a national govt are almost …remote’. (p. iii)

‘By projecting themselves as simply left-leaning parties, the Indian communists have lost their distinctive revolutionary character’ (p.3)

‘Communist participation in the conventional parliamentary system of govt has reduced the revolutionary consciousness of its followers’ (p.3)

In our judgement, the CPI and CPM have consistently reined in extremist in their affiliated front organizations in order to avoid attacks on the social and economic order of which the Communists have become a part’. (p. 3)

‘India’s communists are not a revolutionary threat, nor do they pose a serious challenge to US interests’. (p. iii)

Muted development of class or socialist consciousness

Left struggle happens in three forms (Engels): economic, political and ideological. Revolutionary movement is never possible without revolutionary theoretical consciousness. Yet, there is relatively little emphasis on theoretical work and theoretical consciousness within the communist movement. Much of the writing by Left academics and ideologues appears to be oblivious of the Marxist world literature, and especially, theoretical literature. Partly as a result of electoralism, the Left has failed to transform what are merely democratic consciousness and trade union consciousness of workers and small-scale producers to what is called class consciousness proper, or socialist consciousness.[ix]

The level of ideological education of members and followers of major communist parties – the level of theoretical consciousness — is not very high. Even Left’s view of capitalist crisis is reformist – poverty/inequality and restricted demand are said to explain crisis. It fails to point to the crisis of profitability due to rising organic composition of capital as an inherent feature.

The idea of the struggle for socialism – with which the development of class consciousness is associated – is hardly raised in the Left discourse and in Left political work. Consider the 2024 election manifesto of the Left parties. Socialism is not mentioned even once.

The ideological and political work of the Left is shaped by the assumption that the goal of communists is merely to have a more democratic and more egalitarian capitalism for a near-indefinite period. The Left is wedded to the idea of a non-socialist revolution. This is a most fundamental obstacle to a serious communist movement, in part because it leads to class-collaborationism and reformism. The language of the socialist vision and the revolutionary struggle for socialism is scarce.

Electoralism plus little attempt to develop socialist class consciousness within the Left movement result in the isolation of the Left from the masses.

WHAT IS TO BE (NOT) DONE?

No to sectarianism and yes to temporary revolutionary compromise and united fronts

A non-sectarian approach must involve engaging in actual struggles. Doing so might require fighting capitalism along with (not-so-) revolutionary groups, and this may require making temporary revolutionary compromises. Lenin says, in launching class struggle, it is necessary to utilise ‘a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)’ (Lenin, 1920).[x] ‘One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists…is the idea that a revolution can be made by revolutionaries alone’ (ibid.). [xi]  Yet, both sectarianism and opportunistic alliance with bourgeois parties as strategies must be avoided.

In India, there are crucial allies whom the working class must win over for it to really become the “national class”. They include the exploited poor peasants, the dalits and adivasis.

The Left parties – as parties of class conscious workers and semi-proletarians — must be the vanguard of the masses  but must not be bureaucratic in dealing with people: ‘A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people it leads’ (Lenin, 1922)

Being able to engage in temporary compromises that serve the long-term interest of revolution, the Left requiresprincipled unity. It is not clear why CPI and CPI-M are different parties. Left unity must produce a gradually expanding united front of Left forces as representatives of common people, the forces which may remain separate organizationally and which may engage in polemical battles for theoretical and political clarity as long as they need to, but they must strike together in action, including against hyper-neoliberalism.

Because there are divisions within the Left movement, and because the level of class consciousness among many workers is rather low, there is really a need to form united fronts – 1) among Left parties if they cannot be united and 2) between them and other organizations, including non-party social movements, around specific issues. Yet a united front is not a popular front – which is a multi-class alliance that subordinates the interests of workers to that of a fraction of the capitalist class. Electoral support to bourgeois parties as so-called lesser evils is an example of popular frontism. Why should others not vote for Left to keep rightwing at bay? And if Left does not have a solid base in a place, it must not engage in electoral politics. The Left must use the electoral terrain and any other terrain to build the independence of the exploited from the exploiters – i.e. independence vis a vis bourgeois political parties and organizations.

Massive ideological education

There is clearly a need for a massive ideological class struggle to prepare the masses for the struggle for a workers and poor peasants’ state, if such a demand is not to be idealistic, voluntaristic and adventurist. The Left must establish Marxist reading groups and promote Left magazines/journals and Left culture and art and publish documentaries. It must organize progressive and Left public lectures, neighbourhood meetings, social work, workers and peasants’ coops, etc.

The Left can and must impart education to the masses to:

  • promote solidarity among common people
  • fight oppression based on religion, gender, caste, language, regionalism, indigeneity, physical appearance, food habit, sexuality, etc.,
  • strengthen national unity vis a vis imperialism
  • nurture scientific attitude
  • oppose privatization of, and damage to, nature
  • counter authoritarianism in any form
  • defend the right to provincial self-determination (autonomy of State govts)
  • have pride in scientific, egalitarian and secular aspects of ancient culture and writings
  • practice civility in public life and in the domestic sphere

Fight for reforms as a part of the fight for socialism

It is not necessary for the Left to be in government in order for it to speak on behalf of the masses and be relevant to their lives (in fact, the more the Left is embedded in governing bourgeois state apparatuses, the less relevant it becomes to the masses, generally, in terms of long-term goal of socialist revolution). More specifically, the Left can and must show its

practical relevance to the masses in at least six ways.

1. The Left can and must mobilize the masses to win concessions from employers, domestic and foreign, on the basis of strikes and protests. It must make use of transitional demands such as automatically inflation-adjusted living wage which reflect the needs of the masses whether or not the system says it can meet them. Fight against the businesses of the imperialist nations and against imperialist institutions such as World Bank and IMF, etc., is absolutely fundamental.

2. The Left can and must mobilize the masses to win concessions from the government at all

levels (center and State), in the form of progressive policies to meet people’s

needs. These policies include: food security, secure employment for all, inflation-adjusted living wages for men and women to be paid by state-owned enterprises and state apparatuses, increase in the relative wage, or the reduction in inequality between what masses get and what property owners take from the fruits of the labor of the masses, better prices for petty producers and protection from unfair dispossession from their small-scale property, freedom-from debt; free time (reduction in working hours); pension; socialized and universal access to publicly provided quality health-care, education, housing, transportation and culture, and so on.

3. The Left can and must make sure that the policies of the private and public sectors introduced under the pressure of the Left are actually implemented, and reach the masses in a participatory, non-divisive, non-discriminatory, non-corrupt way; this would make sure that the policies announced by a government do not serve as an ideological tool as false promises.[xii]

4. The must intervene at the level of production and not just distribution of income or of commodities. The state intervention must promote de-commodification and not expand the sphere of commodity circulation. In particular, the Left must demand selective nationalization and re-nationalization of important large-scale enterprises, and militant defense of the public sector. It must demand universal provision of basic goods and services.

5. The Left must engage in the fight against authoritarianism of the extreme right. As long as there is capitalist class relation, there is a tendency towards the emergence of fascistic politics expressed in the form of 1) discarding of the democratic shell of capitalism and 2) attacks on economic and political rights of the masses in order to benefit big business.

So, the fight against fascist tendencies cannot be reduced to a fight to replace the government of the Right with a more democratic-secular government, although that might be a step towards the development of higher level of consciousness and organization of the masses. Nor can the fight against fascistic tendencies be merely confined near-indefinitely to be a fight for a higher form of capitalist society, one that is more democratic, and less unequal, and where the state intervenes on behalf of the poor and regulates private businesses. In fact, the fight against hyper-neoliberal attack of rightwing forces on common people’s lives can only be seen as a step towards, and as a part of, the protracted fight for socialism. Clearly, capitalists do not mind doing business with, and actively supporting, undemocratic and authoritarian forces, whether these forces have slaughtered religious minorities or crushed democratic rights or are striking at the root of national unity. This fact is a reason enough to assert, and to tell the masses now, that capitalism itself has to go. Capitalism will go only when the Left – class conscious toiling masses organized by the communists – overthrows it.

Fascistic forces must be opposed, but one must reject the class collaborationist idea that supporting other bourgeois parties can be a method of stopping these forces.

Fight against oppression of lower castes and religious and linguistic minorities and of women must be the ABC of Left struggle; such fight must be a part of the fight for a new society.[xiii]

Repression by state-actors or by non-state actors or informal police (fascistic foot-soldiers), must be countered not only ideologically but otherwise, including by local level people’s committees, the potential future cells of the apparatus of workers and peasants’ state.

Extra-electoral struggle is the utmost priority

Elections should be mainly for communication to people about why the existing system fails to meet their needs and why it must be replaced and how. The Left must mobilize its basic classes (workers and small-scale producers) in extra-electoral activities, to fight for democratic rights and secularism and to fight for economic concessions, as a part of, and as steps towards,  the fight for socialism. It must also engage in electoral struggle but that must be seen as only a small part of its overall political work, a prime aim of which must be the development of democratic-secular consciousness, and of trade union consciousness, and then the transformation of these forms of consciousness into communist consciousness or class consciousness proper. It is this Marxist perspective that must shape Left’s approach to the electoral fight against fascistic tendencies.

What takes place outside the parliamentary arena is decisive in Left politics. To the extent that participation in the electoral arena advances the goal of independent working-class political action of workers and poor peasants, then it is worth taking part. If, however, such electoral involvement adversely impacts that goal, then the costs outweigh the benefits.

CONCLUSION

The Left must not see common people as merely suffering people but fighting people. And in so far as they are suffering people, their suffering must not be seen in terms of lack of income but in class terms, i.e. in terms of 1) lack of access to productive assets, 2) lack of control over production, and 3) lack of control over the coercive power of the state.[xiv] So Left demands should be not cash transfer to individuals but policies in support of production of collective wealth (use-values) such as state-provided education, healthcare, etc. and large-scale enterprises under democratic control of workers. It must demand building of workers’ coops and farmers coops. The Left must demand inroads into property rights of big capital including taxation on the wealthy 1%. It must demand democratic control by common people over the state’s functioning.

There are objective reasons why the Left can have political relevance to the daily lives of the masses by winning concessions for them, as a part of its struggle for a new society, a new democracy beyond capitalism. There are ways in which it can obtain some electoral support.

The spread of communalist-fascistic ideology counters the Left movement, so an ideological-political struggle against it is important but not enough. That ideology is rooted in material concerns of the ruling class, which are incompatible, ultimately, with those of the masses. The fight against that ideology must therefore be linked to the fight for economic concessions, and both of these fights must be a part of the fight against the capitalist class relation itself. In fact, the arrival of fascistic tendency as a part of, and as a response to, capitalist crisis and reaction, and the resultant miseries for common people, is a great opportunity for the Left to say this to the masses: the ruling class and its political parties are failing not only to meet economic needs but also they are failing to support basic democratic values, and therefore must be replaced.

The historical experience of struggles for socialism have shown that all talk of revolution by stages, where the first stage will supposedly involve an alliance with progressive sections of the capitalist class, only damages the independent struggles of the working class and other toiling masses and lead to their defeats. Where is Lenin’s April Theses in the communist movement? The Indian communist movement is stuck at the level of Lenin’s pre-1917 Two tactics.


Fight for economic, political and ecological reforms within capitalism is important. In fighting for reforms, the Left must, however, keep in mind the historical lesson that Lenin provided:

We solved the problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in passing, as a ‘by-product’ of our main and genuinely proletarian-revolutionary, socialist activities. We have always said that reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle. We said—and proved it by deeds—that bourgeois-democratic reforms are a by-product of the proletarian, ie, of the socialist revolution (Lenin, 1921).[xv]

Raju J Das is a Professor at York University. Information about his work is available at: https://rajudas.info.yorku.ca


[i] This is a slightly shorter version of Das, R. J. 2024. What is left of the left in the new hyper-neoliberal India? Links: International journal of socialist renewal. https://links.org.au/what-left-left-new-hyper-neoliberal-india

[ii] Raju J Das is a professor at York University, Toronto. His recent books include Critical reflections on economy and politics in India, and Marx’s Capital, Capitalism and Limits to the State: Theoretical Considerations. For more details, visit: https://rajudas.info.yorku.ca/

[iii] https://www.ipsos.com/en-in/indians-paradox-socialism-ipsos-global-survey

[iv] Verma, R. and Chhibber, P. 2023. Economic Ideology in Indian Politics: Why Do Elite and Mass Politics Differ?. Studies in Indian Politics 11(2) 274–288. ‘There has been a political consensus since independence on the centrality of the Indian state in the economic realm. …[N]o political party can turn its back on the extensive welfare state, which is closely tied to electoral mobilisation through leadership appeals’ (Verma and Chibber, 2023: 287).

[v] Joshua, A. 2021. The waning influence of the Left. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-waning-influence-of-the-left/article5912007.ece

[vi] Joy, S. 2024. Lok Sabha elections – 2024. Deccan Heraldhttps://www.deccanherald.com/elections/india/lok-sabha-elections-2024-modi-afraid-of-lefts-ideological-influence-cpis-d-raja-3007527

[vii] Verma, R. 2021. An uphill task for the Left. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/An-uphill-task-for-the-Left-Front-CPIM-in-India/article62116385.ece

[viii] Chakrabarti, A. 2012. The Indian Communist Movement at a Crossroads: A Marxian Assessment. Rethinking Marxism24(3), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2012.685288

[ix] Socialist consciousness refers to the consciousness that the interests of the workers and poor peasants are fundamentally incompatible with the interests of the capitalists (or capitalists and large-scale rentier-landowners) and their state and therefore capitalism including its state must be overthrown.

[x] Lenin, V. 1920. “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm

For more details on Lenin’s theory of temporary revolutionary compromise, see Das. R. 2024. Socialist politics and revolutionary compromise. Links. https://links.org.au/socialist-politics-and-revolutionary-compromise

[xi] Lenin, V. 1922. On the significance of militant materialism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

Lenin says: ‘Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction.’

[xii] False promises amount to lies, the aim of which is to merely calm and deceive the masses (who have also been deceived by non-fascistic bourgeois governments). Fascistic tendencies specialize in promising to deliver good things for the poor people, better than any other alternative political movement (bourgeois-democratic or leftist), without meaning to do anything or much, and in the process, they recruit sections of the masses into, and gain support for, their mass reactionary movement. They cannot deliver what they promise because doing so will hurt the basic interests of capital which they are servile supporters of.

[xiii] On the conception of a new society beyond the rule of capital, see Das, R. 2020. Human suffering during the pandemic and the need for a new society. Links. https://links.org.au/human-suffering-during-pandemic-and-need-new-society

[xiv] On the class view of society, see Das, R. 2017. Marxist class theory for a skeptical world. Leiden: Brill.

[xv]  Lenin, V. 1921. Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm

Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter

GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

The Ruse of Reason

Bamboozled by the twists and turns of politics which at one moment lift them up with sizable number of seats in Parliament and in the very next sees them plummet…

The Collective Creativity of Workers

From Unconscious Sleeping Giants to Conscious Builders of Barricades Part I Orientation One purpose of this article is to get you to think of creativity in a whole new way.…

Join Our Newsletter


Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News