Social Formation in Bangladesh: Political Economy of State, Class, and Capitalism

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

• Central Objective: The paper provides a theoretical discussion on the social formation in Bangladesh using a political economic approach.

• Historical Scope: It traces structures from the pre-British period to the British Raj ($1757$-$1947$), the Pakistan period ($1947$-$1971$), and post-independence Bangladesh ($1971$-$2014$).

• Core Theses:

  • Scientific explanation for any society requires understanding the mode of production, which determines the formation of state, class, and capitalism.

  • The "businessmen-politician oligarchy" in Bangladesh creates a "political mode of production" that reshapes the social structure.

  • Social formation in Bangladesh is highly hybrid, featuring elements of post-colonial nationalist ideals and neoliberal market principles.

• Methodology: The study employs a qualitative case study methodology, relying on published materials and data from a Marxist and neo-Marxist perspective.

Social Formation in the Pre-British Period

• The Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP): Marx identifies Asia as a society that "fell asleep in history" due to a structure that remained stagnant until external penetration. Key characteristics include:

  • Hydraulic economy (artificial irrigation by canals).

  • Despotic government.

  • Rigid caste system.

  • Absence of private property (noted by Marx and Engels as the key to the Oriental world).

• Marx's Metaphor for Hindostan: Marx describes the Indian sub-continent as an "Italy of Asiatic dimensions," comparing the Himalayas to the Alps and the Plains of Bengal to the Plains of Lombardy. Despite this "world of voluptuousness," he labels it the "Ireland of the East" due to its "world of woes."

• State Authority: During the pre-British period, kings were the sole authority with three departments:

  1. Finance.

  2. War.

  3. Public Works.

• NASCENT Class Structure: Social formation was based solely on agriculture and merchant trades; a Western-style class and capitalism did not exist.

The British Period ($1757$-$1947$): Plunder and Stagnation

• Primitive Capital Accumulation: Capitalism was not brought to India to develop it; instead, the English bourgeoisie plundered resource surpluses. Marx notes that the British "drags individuals and peoples through blood and dirt."

• Structural Modification of the State: The British Raj focused only on Finance (interior plundering) and War (external plundering), entirely neglecting Public Works.

• Destruction of Industry: The British broke down the union between agriculture and manufacturing.

  • The export of twist from Britain to India rose by a proportion of $1$ to $5,200$ between $1818$ and $1836$.

  • British muslin exports to India rose from nearly $1,000,000$ yards in $1824$ to over $64,000,000$ yards in $1837$.

  • The population of Dacca plummeted from $150,000$ to $20,000$.

• Class Formation: The period produced an English-educated managerial class (middle class) but no indigenous bourgeoisie. Prominent colonial classes included:

  • Metropolitan Bourgeoisie.

  • New Middle Class (imitators of values, not originators).

  • Zamindars (large landlords).

  • Money-lenders and Rayatas.

The Pakistan Period ($1947$-$1971$): The Overdeveloped State

• Colonial Treatment: West Pakistan treated East Pakistan as a colony, accumulating capital through plundering resources and exploiting surpluses.

• Hamza Alavi's "Overdeveloped State": Post-colonial states like Pakistan/Bangladesh inherited a powerful bureaucratic-military apparatus created by colonial interests to subordinate native classes. The state is "relatively autonomous" from class structure.

• Military-Bureaucratic Oligarchy: This group is the real elite, mediating between three competing propertied classes:

  1. Metropolitan bourgeoisie.

  2. Indigenous/state-dependent national bourgeoisie.

  3. Landed class.

• The 22 Business Families: State-led development in West Pakistan ($1947$-$1960$s) allowed $22$ families to accumulate massive wealth, leading to regional inequality and the pro-independence movement in East Pakistan.

• Comprador Bourgeoisie: Mao Zedong's term for a class that acts as a junior partner to foreign industry; Frank terms this "lumpenbourgeoisie."

Bangladesh ($1971$-$Present$): State and Class Evolution

• Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Era ($1971$-$1975$):

  • Nationalized major industries.

  • Created a patronage system where political power was used to accumulate wealth.

  • Resulted in a financial crisis due to pay constraints and lack of management.

• Ziaur Rahman Era: Initiated privatization and inducted retired civil/military bureaucrats into the cabinet. Formed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

• Ershad Era: Accelerated IMF and World Bank sponsored privatization projects via the industrial policies of $1982$ and $1984$.

• Neoliberal Expansion ($1990$s-Present): Emergence of new classes including garment owners, real estate moguls, NGO managers, and remittance earners.

The "Political Mode of Production"

• Function: In Bangladesh, politics serves as a means of production. Businessmen invest money to win elections; once in power, their political influence becomes a "force of production" to benefit their own businesses.

• Businessmen-Politician Oligarchy: Similar to the financial aristocrats in France described by Marx. They are largely non-productive, accumulating wealth through "prowling" capital accumulation via:

  • Internal Plundering: Land grabbing, loan scams, tax evasion, stock market crashes, and illegal syndicates.

  • External Plundering: Securing foreign aid, projects, and commissions.

Class Characteristics of Political Parties in Bangladesh

• Awami League (AL):

  • Urban: Salaried middle class, elite, civil society, police, entrepreneurs, students, urban poor.

  • Rural: Small peasants, middlemen, NGO workers.

  • Dynamics: Businessmen-politician oligarchy and patron-client relationships.

• Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP):

  • Urban: Military bureaucrats, apparel/stock traders, right-wing Islamists, pro-Chinese leftists.

  • Rural: Landed class, landless farmers.

• Jatiyo Party (JP):

  • Urban: Military personnel, NGO managers, holders of "black money."

  • Rural: Destitute, peasants.

• Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI):

  • Urban/Rural: Religious fundamentalists, urban youth.

  • Dynamics: Religious-masses alliance and international liaison.

Modern Class Statistics and Discrepancies ($2014$ Data)

• Abul Barkat's Findings:

  • Total Population approx. $150$ million.

  • Upper Class: $4.1$ million ($2.7\%$ of population).

  • Rent Seekers/Lumpen Bourgeoisie: $2$ million (politicians and businessmen).

  • Middle Class: $31.3\%$ ($7$ million upper-middle; $14.5$ million middle-middle; $25$ million lower-middle).

  • Poor: $100$ million ($66\%$).

• BBS (Official) Data Contrast: BBS reported only $26.4\%$ poor people in $2014$, suggesting an underestimation of poverty's severity.

Questions & Discussion

• Why does agriculture still dominate despite low GDP contribution?

  • Agriculture engages over $50\%$ of the population but contributes only $19\%$ to GDP, compared to services at $51\%$ and industry at $29\%$. This is a characteristic of "peripheral formations" (Samir Amin) where proletarianization is incomplete.

• What is "Cultural Lag" in Bangladesh?

  • Defined by William Ogburn, it refers to the gap between political institutions and political culture. Despite restoring parliamentary democracy in $1991$, the culture remains authoritarian, involving parliament boycotts, hartals (shutdowns), and oborodhs (blockades).