10 SOCIAL SCIENTIST blending of so-called ^parliamentary democracy9, Socialism9, and fascism. The people then must have looked with awe at the sight of their own making — the tumbling down of the semi-fascist dictator along with the surrounding sycophants. And it must have instilled in them a new sense of confidence in their ability. March and June, 1977 : the millions of India rediscovered themselves, in a historic light. Retrieved from the brink, India has witnessed the hypocrisy of the bourgeois parliamentary system, its abuse and ineffectiveness, more acutely in those dark days of twenty months, and in general over the last thirty years. There is hardly any further need for exposing the ^system' from within or without. The net results of hundreds of land reform legislations, of laws and programmes to create a milieu for the common man to raise his head, of the promises to usher in ^the socialistic pattern of society9, or, more specifically, of the ^progressive' measures like bank nationalisation, are laid bare in full view of everybody. It is clear how the parliamentary system could be hustled into passing draconic and even ridiculous laws. All these are on record. The left parties need no longer waste their time in an attempt to participate in the system to 'expose the system". Rather, a different kind of task lies ahead of them now. The bourgeoisie are locked in an intense battle among themselves, to grab a share in a home market which is shrinking. The rich farmers' lobby has emerged as a strong force on the scene. A marriage of convenience between ^wheat' and ^whisky' has been consummated.1 This is an important part of the background in which the Left Front has come to power in West Bengal. Two Contradictions A society is defined by its two components, namely, the base (mode of production) and the superstructure. The base or the mode of production, in turn, is an ensemble of the forces of production and the relations of production. The development of society is governed by the laws of two basic contradictions, one, between the base and the superstructure, and the other, between the forces of production and the relations of production. According to an orthodox view, a hierarchical, unidirectional relationship between these three categories is said to prevail. The development of forces of production, it is contended, affects the relations of production, and as a result, the mode of production undergoes changes. Then the base or mode comes into conflict with the superstructure; and the latter moulds itself in conformity with the former. The main impulse of social progression, in terms of this orthodox thesis, originates in the forces of production, and is transmitted onwards unila-terally to the relations of production, and eventually to the superstructure. And thus the society moves ahead. The social dynamics in the Soviet Union and China, among other