[This article was prepared in Bengali in March 2021 but its English version could not be uploaded due to unforeseen circumstances. Due to its continuing relevance it is being uploaded presently—EDB FAPP]
West Bengal, along with four other states in India, is set to go to the polls. State elections in general are not very important in terms of politics across India. However, the Assembly elections in West Bengal have become important for two special reasons. First, the extremist Hindutvavadi fascist party BJP, which has been in the central government for the last seven years, has jumped at the chance to take over the state government by involving Union ministers and leaders, including the prime minister. A storm of false promises is raging. The second is in terms of proletarian politics and that is more important. A joint platform has been formed by the combined initiative of a number of communist revolutionary groups, as well as a group of democratic and progressive petty-bourgeois intellectuals, and from that platform a joint campaign is being carried out among the people centered on elections. So far, communist revolutionary groups have been seen participating in the elections, both at the center and in the states, with their own candidates. This time they were seen to campaign from the same platform together with the intellectuals.
We know the essence of their joint election-centric campaign. Our current discussion is about their speech and the spearhead of propaganda. But the question that naturally arises at the outset before we go into the discussion is that the communists have a certain ideological-political position as representatives of the working class, while the petty bourgeoisie has a position between the bourgeoisie and the working class where their progressive section is confined within bourgeois democratic consciousness and aspirations which is needless to say, is different from the revolutionary position of the working class. As a result, it is natural that their statements will be different in the election. The electoral struggle is a political struggle, in which these two different positions are participating with the same statement / programme - how is this possible? Further question is who compromised with whom? It is inconceivable that the communist revolutionaries have been able to elevate the progressive section of the petty bourgeoisie to a revolutionary proletarian consciousness, in particular, a position to accept the revolutionary programme of the working class by bringing them out of the confines of bourgeois democratic consciousness. Of course, in that case, there would have been no need to build a joint platform. Moreover, that is not at all possible in the present situation, especially where the working class itself is not organised as a class. Did the above communist revolutionary groups bring themselves down to a virtually petty bourgeois position by abandoning the independent and distinct position of the working class through the programme of the joint platform?
It is not unknown to us from Marxist theory that the bourgeoisie settles disputes between them through parliamentary electoral struggle. Therefore, the electoral struggle is in fact the struggle of the bourgeois parties and in this struggle they drag or involve a large number of people, including the workers and peasants who are in a backward condition. The right to vote is a democratic right of the people. But the people, even the backward sections of the working class, do not have the consciousness that the bourgeoisie resolves their disputes by utilising their so-called democratic rights. On the other hand, the backward people, unaware of this fact, put one of the parties of the bourgeoisie in the government by exercising their right to vote and in the end maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie. The government carries out the rule of the capitalists, standing on the support of the people, in which the workers, peasants and the toiling people are again exploited and oppressed every day. In fact, the right to vote obscures the absence of right to live a healthy life as a human being. Nothing new, all this is what Marxism teaches us. From this comes the conclusion that the revolutionary proletariat, whose aim is radical transformation of the exploitative society, cannot adopt any tactic that would sustain the rule of the present big capitalist-big landlords. And so making one of the bourgeois parties win or lose in the parliamentary elections cannot be the goal or objective of the revolutionary proletariat.
Ahead of the West Bengal elections, the main point of the propaganda carried out by the above mentioned platform among the people is 'No vote to BJP'. The aim is to thwart the fascist campaign of RSS-BJP. To be specific, it is to ensure that the BJP do not come to the power. The first question that arises is that the election is for the state of West Bengal. During the 2016 elections, the communist revolutionaries were not seen campaigning from the same platform with the petty-bourgeois intellectuals to defeat the BJP. BJP won only two seats in the '16 election. That party has now dangerously reached the doorstep of coming to government power. This would not have been possible without the overwhelming support of the people of this state. Why did a large section of the people who ended their 34-year rule and brought the Trinamool Party to power due to the anti-corruption, anti-struggle role of the CPI (M) leave the Trinamool today and go for a Hindutvavadi fascist party like the BJP? Who is mainly responsible for this? The same thing happened here. Why did a major section of the same people, who being disgusted with the corruption, strong arm tactics and anti- struggle role of the CPIM, put an end to their rule of 34 years and brought TMC in power, now went or were compelled to go on the side of a Hindutvavadi, fascist party like BJP by dumping TMC? Who is mainly responsible for this? The same thing happened here. Now the question is, in such a scenario, isn't the Trinamool or even the Left-Congress being shielded from public outrage by the way the joint platform is focusing their campaign on the slogan 'No vote to BJP'? So, whether they wish or not, in fact, are they not weakening the anti-BJP propaganda themselves? However, the main question is elsewhere and that is important. That is to say, is it at all possible to resist what fascism literally means in a parliamentary battle, that is, by defeating in the election? We know that the communist revolutionaries, who are in the joint platform, will immediately answer this question or present the argument that they are not talking about completely resisting (defeating) fascism. Only an extra-parliamentary class struggle can defeat the fascist forces. But it is possible to halt the fascist regime, partially or to some extent, by preventing BJP from staying in government or coming to power through election. For the time being, let us put aside the question of how much those very people will understand all these complete-partial jargons among whom they are campaigning. But, are they themselves aware of the interrelationship between the two, preventing fascism partially or to a certain extent and completely defeating fascism? If they consider themselves as the representatives of the working class, the communist revolutionaries, can they say that the working class will advance towards defeating fascism, that is, uprooting fascism, by preventing fascism to some extent in the electoral battle? To put it more clearly, can the class struggle, more correctly, the revolutionary class struggle be developed by making any party win or lose through the election within the parliamentary arena? Is there a relationship between the two in reality? Yes, there is a relationship. But that is of the contradiction of two opposing elements, not of mutual cooperation. The weakness of the class struggle nourishes the parliamentary illusion, while the parliamentary illusion is the obstacle to the class struggle. It is a fact that due to all these reasons of the disintegration of the working class in absence of a party, the retreat of the workers' struggle, the workers, peasants and the toiling people are confined within the parliamentary notions or consciousness of changing the government for the desire to live a little better life. The communist revolutionaries, who are taking this propaganda of 'No vote to BJP' from the joint platform to the masses, and arguing in favour of their propaganda through the logic of partial and full-fledged class struggle, etc., must understand that the people who are stuck in parliamentary illusion will understand the language of your vote only, the words about the class struggle will be no more than Greek to them. Even if we leave out theoretical aspect, they should be able to understand the truth of this from practical experience.
Looking back - an apology -Learning from experience
To understand why we are saying 'will be no more than Greek to them', we have to go back to the past for a while. It is a fact, state terrorism is a cause, but the CPI (M-L) broke up mainly as a result of adventurist politics. The internal ideological struggle within the party could not be carried out in an organised manner; perhaps it was not possible in that situation. As a result, the individual leadership and leading party workers summed up the experience of CPI (M-L) on their own and adopted different positions. The process of restructuring began, which resulted in the birth of a number of groups that later became known as the Communist Revolutionary Groups. It may be recalled that with the exception of a few, the main two issues upon which all the other groups drew a line of separation from the CPI (ML) were one, boycott of elections and two, boycott of mass organisations, especially trade union boycott – with which was related the question of denying the class role of the working class in the revolutionary struggle. It is noteworthy that the groups stood in the same negative position on the question of boycotting the elections and mass organisations; but viewing from the positive side it means participation in the elections and working among the workers, but differences persisted on various such question as how to participate in elections and also in which direction will the work be carried out among workers. The historical necessity which was present before the communist revolutionaries to take the correct Marxist stand on these issues immediately after the break-up of the CPI (M-L), through mutual discussion / debate with patience and time remained unattended. Emphasis was placed upon uniting at the organisational level with those holding similar views and the urge to prove their 'correctness'.
In fact, by the 'election boycott' slogan, CPIML rejected parliamentary i.e. electoral struggle in order to oppose/revolt against the parliamentary line of CPIM of forming government within bourgeois ruling structure. And in doing so, the fight against the reformist politics of CPIM in electoral battle remained incomplete. Instead, it so happened that they left the arena of electoral struggle entirely in the hands of the CPI (M) and in fact helped the reformist parties to confine the thinking and consciousness of the worker-peasant masses , especially of a large section of the advanced militant workers of the time, within parliamentary boundaries. In fact, a revolt was launched against reformism through 'election boycott', but the hard struggle to defeat reformist politics remained neglected and incomplete. Therefore, it was not enough to just correct the mistakes made after the break-up of the CPI (M-L). It was necessary to wage a struggle to uproot the source of the mistake, not only to revert to the old position by correcting the mistake. There was a need to participate in elections, but after arriving at the correct Marxist-Leninist solution of the questions of how and for what purpose. The onus of completing the outstanding task of struggle against the reformist politics of the CPI (M), which was neglected and remained incomplete in the CPI (M-L), naturally fell on the entire communist revolutionaries in general. The struggle was not carried out that day. The hard truth is that after almost forty years, that struggle is still outstanding. In the condition of retreat of the workers' struggle after defeat and the disintegration of the working class, the way the ruling bourgeoisie has bound the toiling masses of workers and peasants from all sides within the parliamentary boundaries and where parliamentary elections have swaying influence with almost absolute dominance over the consciousness of the people in the near absence of class struggle, it is needless to say how important it is for the representatives of the working class to determine the right tactics to participate in elections from a proletarian point of view.
Old readers of FAPP (For a Proletarian Party) may recall that during and after the 1980s, several articles were published in the magazine on the main subject of Leninist tactics of participating in bourgeois parliamentary elections. Although the direction of these writings was against the boycottists at that time, we placed more emphasis on the opposition to the reformist politics of the CPI (M) and the Left inherent in their political line of government formation in the context of Leninist tactics. We certainly would not claim that everything was clear. However, we realised that in order to be able to lead the masses in the revolutionary struggle, the workers must be organised as a class, and we all should give utmost importance to that task. In that context, according to Leninist tactics, revolutionary propaganda must be carried out among the people, especially the militant workers, in order to educate and make them aware. It is worth mentioning here that just as we carried out the revolutionary campaign in the elections standing alone with limited strength, at the same time we spoke about voting for the Left parties against the Congress. At the time of which we are talking about, the vast majority of militant workers of West Bengal were still under the organisational influence of the CPI (M) and the Left – that was an opposition to the reign of terror of Congress (including the state of emergency) on the one hand and a reaction to the adventurist politics of CPI (M-L) on the other. Perhaps, our idea was that asking to vote for the Left against the Congress would touch the working people, especially the militant section of the workers, and in that case it would be easier to make them think or conscious of the question of revolutionary struggle. Of course, there was also the question of defeating the Congress at that time. Needless to say, we still had to understand that to speak about voting or not voting for any of the parliamentary parties in the election and the struggle to free the people from parliamentary illusion could not go hand in hand. Initially it took us a while to come to this realisation. Real experience taught us more. We have seen that when we brought up the issue of voting at the end of the revolutionary campaign, only that much got registered in the backward consciousness of the people and all the rest remained obscure. On the other hand, for the same reason, the distinct revolutionary politics of the working class could not appear to the relatively leading and struggling workers with importance. Based on the analysis of this experience, we were able to come out of the old idea of participating in the parliamentary elections immediately after '89.
The struggle against fascism from a petty bourgeois point of view
It is not difficult to understand why democratic and progressive intellectuals are raising their voices against voting for the BJP. This stand of them is normal considering their class position. It is pointless to expect them to accept the revolutionary theory of the class struggle of Marxism. The role of student-intellectuals in the struggle for democracy in the present situation - be it opposition to the CAA-NRC, or opposition to the Hindutvavadi politics of the RSS-BJP in general - is undoubtedly undeniable and commendable. But it is needless to say that their protest movements are confined within the boundaries of bourgeois democracy. If there is anything to be understood as the direction of their movement, it is to protect the fragmented democracy prevailing in our country from fascist aggression. Of course, it is important to note that all governments of the past, especially since the 1970s, have continued to curb the very minimum rights granted by the constitution by enacting one black law after another, which has taken a dangerous turn in the post-2014 BJP regime. However, the communist revolutionaries within the platform can of course mark the BJP's defeat in the polls as 'partial' or 'to a degree', with respect to the complete defeat of the RSS-BJP's fascist campaign. But for the petty-bourgeois intellectuals who fully participated in the joint platform, that partiality is undoubtedly the last word. In fact, of the working class has not yet been able to overcome the impact of the defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement along with the betrayal of the so-called old communist parties. Only signs of rising anew are just beginning to appear. This is the reality at the moment. Workers are not in a position to resist the attacks on themselves. The scattered condition of the working class has not yet been over, meaning that the working class is not organised as a class. That is, they do not have their own party. Needless to say, without a party, the working class is not in a position and cannot be also, to assume the historical role of the working class as a dedicated leading soldier in the struggle for democracy. As a result, in this background, it is but natural that the democratic student-intellectuals would not have any confidence on the working class or class struggle. The question of working class leadership is completely irrelevant to them. Most importantly, in their understanding, the parliamentary struggle and non-parliamentary struggle are two different things and there is no relationship between these two. As a result, the question of how to participate in the electoral battle with what aim or direction is not a matter of their consideration. Their view is probably that if the BJP government can be prevented from coming to power in this state (remember that the BJP is now in the central government with a huge majority), there will be some relief, some salvation will be obtained from the fascist attacks which other BJP-ruled states are directing with the governmental power, the right to express one's opinion and protest will be restored. So their only objective will be to defeat the BJP in the coming election - there is no reason to doubt that. But will the revolutionary proletariat have the same purpose? Certainly not.
There are a few things that need to be clarified before moving on to the main discussion. In Indian politics, the words fascism, fascist are very common. The post-2014 Narendra Modi-led BJP government was branded as fascist. According to Marxist theory, rule means class rule, just as in our country the big capitalists-big landlords are in power. By the fascist rule of the BJP, should we understand the fascist rule of the big capitalists and big landlords in its literal meaning? In that case, will we understand that fascism has been established in the entire state system? If such a decision is made, it will not be right. There are no signs yet that the ruling class has chosen or wants to choose the path of fascism by overthrowing other democratic institutions, including parliamentary democracy, as a way out of its crisis. In this context, it is also necessary to make it clear that no party of the ruling class can establish fascism in the entire state system as it needs. It can happen only when it is needed by the ruling class.If we go by the historical example of the fascist rule of the ruling class that we have before us, would it be correct to view in this way that the same task is imposed on the working class in the present moment which was presented by the Third International at that time as a directive to the working class to form a united front with other classes or their representatives? Let the discussion on these various questions continue amongst the communist revolutionaries, maybe it will continue. We do, however, think that the way in which a section of bourgeois intellectuals viewed the BJP regime as a parliamentary autocracy would not be correct, but would be understated. It is so because, in that case, both the Hindutvavadi ideology of the RSS and the unbridled attack of the big bourgeoisie on the working people will be overlooked. Again, we do not think it would be appropriate and accurate to portray it as a fascist regime according to the old idea. However, we have used the word fascism-fascist etc. in our discussion. But it is kept in mind that the present anti-fascist struggle will be under the revolutionary struggle of the land labour and poor peasant in the leadership of the working class for a society free of exploitation, and there is no reason to change the task of organising the working class as a class and building a party for that purpose which is present in front of the communists in this post-defeat situation.
As we have seen before, the communist revolutionaries are verbally acknowledging (perhaps in writing also) that the fascist campaign of RSS-BJP can be prevented in a real sense, that fascism can be defeated only through a extra-parliamentary struggle, not through parliamentary elections. Yet, the spearhead of their programme in the electoral struggle is to defeat the BJP, that is, to utilise the traditional election. So, in reality, are they also not distinguishing between the electoral struggle and their declared extra-parliamentary struggle? Electoral struggle has its own rules that are rooted in parliamentary democracy. That is to decide who will govern from among the bourgeois parties, and there is no other purpose of the electoral struggle. In other words, the thing is that one has to go into the fight by accepting the rules of the fight. On the other hand, there is another rule of real class struggle outside the parliament. Naturally, if we look at these two rules separately, we will not find any connection between the electoral struggle and the class struggle. This way of thinking would logically lead us to the conclusion that the party for the class struggle i.e. the working class party must either boycott the elections or join the struggle between the bourgeois parties by accepting the rules of the struggle, or adopt the line of formation of own government as the Left parties did in opposition to the Congress in the sixties of the last century. So we have to understand that if we consider the parliamentary struggle and the extra parliamentary class struggle as unrelated and different, it will push us towards either left adventurism or reformist politics. The working class does not view electoral struggle and class struggle as different. In fact, the working class party participates in the elections by breaking the 'rules of the struggle', or to be clear, use the elections in the interest of class struggle without being confined within the bourgeoisie boundary of the electoral struggle. For this, the party has to participate in the electoral struggle with a distinct revolutionary programme of the class. Absence of it means practically walking the reformist path. Is it at all possible to be a reformist in the parliamentary struggle and a revolutionary in the struggle of the workers and the people outside the parliament? In fact, the way in which the communist revolutionaries are carrying out the same programme of defeating the BJP by setting up a platform with the petty-bourgeois intellectuals in the polls is sad, but we cannot avoid this question.
The revolutionary proletariat must participate in the election (more so in the current situation) but the question is how. Leninist tactics of participation in elections are not unknown to revolutionaries. However, in the context of the present discussion, the repetition of that tactic would not be entirely blameworthy.We have already stated that the working class party will participate in the electoral struggle with its revolutionary programme. The revolutionary programme is not to present abstract clichés like 'revolution must be done', 'there is no liberation from exploitation and oppression without revolution' to the people. The party will campaign with the programme with which it is organising the working class, building class struggle and at the same time drawing other sections of the exploited and oppressed people around the revolutionary struggle at that particular time.To be specific, the party does not present any separate programme to participate in the struggle for parliamentary elections. The main objective of the campaign is to free the working class and at the same time a section of the working people in more and more numbers outside the ambit of the party from parliamentary illusion and reformist propaganda and bring them to the revolutionary programme / plank, which will nurture real class struggle outside the Parliament. Secondly, the party, in compatibility with its organisational strength, i.e. according to its organisational power will try to make as many candidates win as it can on the basis of the above revolutionary propaganda (without compromising with the backwardness of the people, of course) and if one or more candidates can win, then his/ her or their job as MP will be to take the ongoing external class struggle inside the parliament and secondly to take a role in the parliament which can influence the external struggle. Needless to say, the Leninist tactics in the electoral struggle is applicable only for the party, which is the organised force of the working class, the party that is imbued with the real class struggle.
Unfortunately, it is a fact that the working class is not organised in our country, so they do not have a party. So there is no question of participating in the election struggle with the candidates. There is also no programme of revolutionary class struggle, which could be reflected in the electoral struggle. However, considering the essence of Leninist tactics, it can be said that the duty of those who are now scattered as representatives of the working class is to carry out campaigning by entering into the electoral struggle with the task or the principal programme generally present in front of them with respect to the revolutionary class struggle. What is that task? It is here that the communist revolutionary groups are without any direction - moreover, the different groups have different views. We think that those who claim themselves as representatives of the working class must first acknowledge that though there are numerous big and small groups, the real party of the working class is absent. Thus it is not difficult for us to understand that building that party will be the principal and central task of communists of todayand all their activities are subject to this central task. Since the party means the organised power of the working class, precisely the organisation of class-conscious workers, therefore, the central task of the party will demand from us a concerted effort to bring together the leading militant workers scattered across the country at present and to make them class-conscious. Is this 'feeling' of ours subjectivewhich has no theoretical basis? In this context we can recall the statements of two Marxist teachers. Marx himself said that workers are nothing if they are unorganised. One of Lenin's sayings can also be recalled in which he said that if there is no party, the working class will bear the burden of disability.These words of Marxist teachers will prove the correctness of what we think. However, from this we can conclude that in the present situation, subject to the formation of the working class party, the task of the working class representatives in the electoral struggle according to Leninist tactics will be to campaign amongst the toiling people with a stress on the workers by citing their real life experience in such a way so that they can be freed from parliamentary illusion, more specifically from the way they are confined within the politics of changing governments. However, the main focus should be on making the relatively advanced workers class-conscious and organising them, at least on attracting them to class politics. Needless to say, to help any of the bourgeoisie party lose or win does not fallunder this task.
Let's go back to the previous discussion.
Defeating BJP in the polls - a struggle against fascism?
On the question of the West Bengal elections, the communist revolutionaries from the joint platform are saying two things at the same time, or more correctly talking about two struggles. One: Electoral battle, where the BJP has to be defeated to halt or resist fascism. Two: Only extra-parliamentary struggle can defeat fascism. It is true that the way BJP has set about taking over West Bengal in this election, after getting encouraged by the results of the last parliamentary election; they will be hit hard if they fail to do so. But, of course, none of us think that it can halt the overall fascist campaign of the Sangh Parivar. Even if they can't do it today, it cannot be definitely said that they won't come back tomorrow. In fact, fascism must be uprooted. And perhaps that is why the communist revolutionaries are talking about an extra-parliamentary struggle. Good thing. But, is it sure that these words of theirs will not remain a lip service? It is important to remember that reinforcing own strength, especially the strength of the struggle, is a thousand times more important than temporarily / partially halting the opponent. The question is what we are actually doing for this. The question is, will halting (i.e. defeating) BJP in parliamentary elections by relying on others really help strengthen the struggle, or will it go against it in the final analysis?
What do communist revolutionaries mean by extra-parliamentary struggle? It is not clear to us whether it is the people's struggle for bourgeois democracy or the revolutionary struggle of the working class. However, whatever protest movement against the Hindutvavadi / fascist measures of the Modi government has been or is being carried out currently, it is mainly by the democratic student-intellectuals and since communist revolutionaries are being seen to be actively involved in these movements, it may not be unreasonable to think that by extra-parliamentary struggles, they are meaning the recent anti-CAA-NRC movement and other similar movements. However, from the point of view of the proletariat, it must not be difficult for them to understand that it is not at all the reality that the spontaneous struggle of different sections of the people without the leadership of the working class will hold back a fascist force. Only the struggle of the working class can bring the struggles of the people to a centre, unite them, show them the direction and challenge the fascist forces. Maybe they will not deny it verbally, but they will also say that the workers are not in this position; their struggle also is not in this position. That's right. We all know that workers are not in this position today. But, the question is the disorganised, scattered state of the workers, the faint trend of class struggle which is next to being absent, - are we noticing this only since the Modi government came to power at the Centre in 2014? In fact, the labour movement has been retreating since the defeat of the world socialist movement and the fall of China and Russia. Before 2014, there were Congress and other governments at the centre, except for five years in the middle of the 35-year period. There was never a BJP government in West Bengal. Today, all of a sudden, can we surmise that the class struggle will continue to develop being freed from its constraints only if there is no BJP government in West Bengal or even at the Centre? The revolutionary comrades will also say that it is unreal; because the disease is in another place. It has nothing to do with who is in government. Second, it must be clearly understood that the class independence of the working class, that is, a class position different from the position of the bourgeois petty-bourgeois ideology cannot be guaranteed by mere words or declarations. It is a matter of day to day struggle. In fact, where the international proletariat has not yet been able to stand up by summarising the defeat, the present is a time of retreat of the class movement in the all the countries, but simultaneously also of regaining the lost strength, the necessity of which is objectively beingborn among the workers by the continuous attacks of the capitalist and imperialist. It is such a time when it is not only urgent but also imperative for the representatives of the working class to preserve the class independence of the working class which means to hold on to the revolutionary politics of the proletariat, by constantly fighting against the aggression of petty-bourgeois ideology (reformist opportunist trend). In this context, the key issue in the electoral struggle, like the other struggles, is to maintain class independences with relatively greater importance in the present situation - which is possible only by following the Leninist tactics.
There is another point. The bourgeois parliamentary struggle is such that to make one party lose, some other party has to be helped to win. The fight is a fight between parties where the class remains under cover, especially in the consciousness of the people. The joint platform of petty-bourgeois intellectuals and communist revolutionaries has called for the defeat of the fascist BJP ('no vote for BJP' and 'defeat BJP' are the same thing), but did not say who to vote for. They only know why they didn't say it, but to the backward people the difference is completely meaningless, because they understand the language of voting. It seems they wanted to stress on the defeat of BJP and left the matter of calculation up to the people to decide whether Trinamool or the Left-Congress alliance can defeat BJP at any centre. Then the communist revolutionaries could also have done another thing while maintaining their individuality. They could have campaigned extensively explaining why the Sangh Parivar poses a major threat to the working people, citing instances of all out attacks on the livelihoods of working people and democracy by the BJP government at the Centre (and even in the states), in particular, in the last six years; the rest could have been left to the discretion of the people, with which discretion they have been working to change or retain the government for the last thirty years. Then, at least they would not have to be tied to the rules of parliamentary struggle (lose-win) made by the ruling class. Anyway, let's leave the point. In short, defeating BJP in the West Bengal elections means the government of either the Trinamool Congress or the Left-Congress coalition. And this is to halt fascism! The question is whether it is a resistance or a prop that can be broken at any time by the RSS-BJP fascist storm, especially if we keep in mind the horse-trading and defection of the MLAs, which is going on. Moreover, it must be remembered that the storm of aggressive Hindutvavadi fascism of the Sangh Parivar, full of falsehood and communal poison, is not like any other storms, this is like the Aila-Amphan cyclones that created great turmoil. Therefore, not just a prop, it is necessary to build a bulwark – the bulwark of the struggle of the working class and the struggle of the working people around it and the struggle of the democratic people for democracy. The question may arise, how is it possible now? That struggle is absent. True, it is not possible right now. But we can build the foundation of that bulwark now. Even in this situation, we can unite the relatively militant advance workers scattered in different parts of the country. We can make them class-conscious - that is the only basis of the struggle of the future. Probably no one would say that an anti-BJP vote means the birth of a soldier of the anti-fascist struggle, that is, making of one of the bricks of the above mentioned bulwark. The communist revolutionaries may point the finger of blame at us, saying that it is irrelevant to raise this question. To make the workers class-conscious, to organise them on a class basis, to build a class struggle - all these are extra-parliamentary work- the work in the field, in the neighborhood, in the factory gate. It is hundred percent right. But we can raise a counter question that why it is not included even in the election battle? However, we are speaking keeping in mind the limited opportunities of the electoral battle. In fact, if there is no connection between the electoral struggle and the building of a class struggle, and the two are viewed separately forgetting the Leninist tactics, then why do the workers' representatives need to enter into the struggle between the bourgeoisies and plead either for or against them? How do the class struggle benefit from it?
There is no gain but loss
We must all stand firm in this position that the fascist campaign of RSS-BJP must be resisted and defeated by the strength of the struggle of the workers and peasants, not only checked, by relying on others.. For that purpose, we should not show any slackness in organising the working class on a class basis. It would not be right to do anything that would interfere with the preparation in this direction and harm it. In fact, we have to keep the direction of the fight right and understand what our duty is at this moment.
We must first identify the source of strength of the Sangha Parivar so that we can take the spearhead of our struggle to the right place. It is not at all correct to say that the strength of the Sangh Parivar has increased since the BJP came to power in the central government in 2014, or in other words, the power of the government is the source of the fascist strength of the Sangh Parivar. In fact their strength is rooted in society and emanates from society. The way in which the RSS has influenced and organised the Hindu middle class and even the lower castes for long on the basis of extreme reactionary Hindutvavadi ideology, built a Hindutvavadi militant force, it is all done irrespective of government, that is, in an extra-parliamentary way. When they demolished the Babri Masjid, there was no BJP government at the Centre like today. Without the BJP government at the centre, they were able to awaken Hindu identity overwhelming everything else among a large number of lower strata of the followers of Hinduism, through country-wide Rath Yatras on the issue of the Ram Mandir, injecting the poison of communal divisions deep into the society. Riots were perpetrated in different parts of the country following the Rath Yatras, and the more riots, the more the victory chariot of the RSS had surged ahead. All of us know this. The question is why did this happen? How did the RSS-BJP become powerful by gathering strength from within the society, which was not possible in the nearly 40 years after independence? In this context, it is also to be kept in mind that the central government was in the hands of the BJP in an intermediate period (1999-2004). For the next ten years, there was a Congress-led UPA government. The people brought the BJP back in the 2014 elections by voting in the parliamentary elections. Why is this behaviour of the people? Why did the working class, who are the foremost soldiers in the struggle for democracy, lose their class independences and seek refuge in the voting line on a par with the backward masses? Who is responsible for this?
Since the introduction of the new economy under the Congress rule in 1991, all the bourgeois parties at the central and state levels, wherever they have been in government, have been pursuing a new economic programme and reform programme arising from that. The ruling big bourgeoisie has welcomed any or all of these parties to the government - they did not have any problem with anyone. So throughout this time they usually did not intervene in the polls. They intervened when it came to the 2014 elections – that also without any cover, which has never been seen before. In fact, through the reforms of '91, the ruling class was able to emerge from the crisis and also develop itself. But from the middle of the first decade of this century, especially in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis, their progress began to slow down. Another reform was needed - going deeper and stronger. It needed a tested and strong leader. And so in the '14 elections, they brought Narendra Modi, the creator of the Gujarat model, in front of the people and set to work to create public opinion in favour of the BJP. They spared no effort to use the media under their control and loyal intellectuals-experts. But that is one aspect. The other side is important. The BJP did not win with the votes of the capitalists and their loyalists. The people made them win. A demand was formed even amongst the people afflicted with severe hardship of their lives and livelihoods for a strong leader, who could assure them, could salvage them from a life of misery. People believed in Modi's promise of 'Achche Din', because they wanted to live by holding on to something. The bitter experience of the past pushed the people to this place. The people have not had less experience of changing the government for the last thirty / forty years. They put one party in the government, and then got frustrated, upset. Again they brought another party to the government by voting. But there was no relief. Despair increased, resentment-bitterness against any and all parties increased. This despair has dangerously pushed the people to a position of holding the individual leader as the savior who is above the party, giving birth to a blind faith towards Modi, which contains the seeds of fascist rule.
However, the cruel truth is that the people have tried unsuccessfully to survive by changing the government year after year but have not been able to think of an organised struggle outside the parliamentary boundaries to change their destiny by learning from past experience. Those who could pull the toiling people on the path of struggle for emancipation from the hardships of exploitation, deprivation and a miserable life through their struggle, that working class itself is scattered, disorganised and powerless without a party. The so-called Communist Parties of the past, which once upheld the red flag, the ideology of socialism, have themselves being degenerated, put the working class in the ranks of the backward people by distorting and devastatingthe class independence of the working class (whatever was there) and was able to push them within the boundaries of parliamentary struggle. The present condition of the workers is such that they do not have confidence in the old parties, but they do not have faith in themselves, they do not have confidence in the struggle, in fact they do not have the zeal to fight. Resentment-bitterness of day to day life do not get translated into real struggle, they store these up to be disgorged during the elections by exercising the 'right to vote'. The net result is a change of government - removing one bourgeoisie party to put another in government. There is no gain but loss. The despair has deepened. In fact, by exploiting the absence of struggle, despair and backwardness, the ruling class has been able to continue its exploitative rule in an easy and smooth way by tying the worker and the entire toiling mass from all sides in the parliamentary struggle. The representatives of the working class must understand that the fascist campaign of the RSS-BJP cannot be resisted without taking into account the above background of the rise of the BJP or rather without confronting it.
There is another important aspect. The ideological basis of the Sangh Parivar is Hindutva-Hindu pride-religious rule. In fact, the Sangh Parivar, from its inception, has continued to influence and consolidate the middle and lower section of the poor people of the society in the spirit of Hinduism as a central duty. These are not unknown to us. But the question is, since the end of the last century, how have they been able to so rapidly awaken the Hindu masses in large numbers into Hindutvavadi consciousness and become a dangerous force? Here we will see the same thing. After the defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement, especially after the fall of Russia and China, the ideology and goal of socialism which was already fading in the minds of the working people as parliamentary politics became entrenched in the so-called communist (left) parties, was almost wiped out by the aggressive propaganda of imperialist capitalist all over the world. There appeared ideological emptiness and disorientation. Standing on this ground, the Sangh Parivar was able to attract and inspire a good number of Hindu workers and toiling people to the Hindu ideology. For the same reason, Muslim fundamentalism was able to take deeper roots among the Muslim people also. We have to understand that the political rise of the BJP (the capture of the central government in 2014 and the overwhelming majority in '19) and the ideological aggression of the RSS went hand in hand – these two constitute an inseparable whole, the form or manifestation of which is fascism. It is also to be understood that the reason behind these two is the same, the retreat of the working class movement after defeat, disintegrated and directionless backward condition of the working class without a party and in the final analysis - the absence of class struggle, which we have already discussed in detail. So there is only one way of resistance - the organised united struggle of the working class and the struggle of different sections of the people centred on it. There is no room for differentiation as 'partial and total or full-fledged', and to do so would be to the detriment of the struggle for the real resistance to the BJP-RSS fascist campaign, or rather today's preparations in the direction of that struggle. Undoubtedly, this preparation will continue mainly through the struggle. Here, too, we will see that no differentiation can be made between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for bread and butter, especially the struggle to confront the onslaught of the big bourgeoisie at the moment. In the context of the struggle for emancipation from exploitation, these two constitute an inseparable whole. However, it would not be wrong to say that the fundamental contradiction of labour-capital, the constant onslaught of the bourgeoisie, will push the workers objectively into the path of struggle, and will bring forth more and more the necessity of being organised. It should be kept in mind that today's strength of BJP-RSS was not acquired in a day; it is useless to expect that the preparedness of the working class will also be built in one day. We do not know how long it will take for the working class to rise up overcoming the defeat and build its own class organisation, but it can be said with certainty that this has no relation with the BJP's defeat or victory in the elections.
In short, the rise of BJP-RSS is standing on the ground of backwardness and despair among the people (including the workers). Only the extra-parliamentary struggle can bring the people out of despair, restore confidence in themselves and in their own struggles. The debate on whether to struggle after overcoming despair or to overcome despair through struggle that is, which is earlier and which is later, is useless. The struggle against despair and backwardness at the level of the consciousness and the real struggle of the people, especially the struggle of the working class against the onslaught of the masters, must go hand in hand as a complement to each other. The struggle against despair and backwardness at the level of the consciousness and the real struggle of the people, especially the struggle of the working class against the onslaught of the capitalist class, must go hand in hand as a complement to each other. In this context, in the electoral struggle, which is in fact a struggle between the bourgeoisies, the main issue is what particular task the representatives of the working class, that is, the revolutionary proletariat, should take up to participate in that struggle in the interest of the revolutionary class struggle from the independent position of their own class. We have also seen how the defeat of the world socialist movement, a long history of betrayal, disorientation, and deep despair has led the working people, even the workers, to depend on the bourgeois government for survival. The consciousness and aspirations of the people are confined within the parliamentary boundaries - in a word, the people today are spellbound by the parliamentary illusion, which is an obstacle to the extra-parliamentary struggle. Since the working class is not organised, that is, there is no party, there is no question of electing a representative of one's own class as a Member of Parliament. Therefore, in this situation, there is only one task of today's communist revolutionaries in elections, which is to carry out the struggle to free the relatively militant section of the people, especially the workers, from parliamentary illusion by citing real experience. In that condition, if we give a call to not to vote for or defeat BJP (remaining within the vicious circle of making any of the bourgeois parties win or lose), it will be far from freeing the people from parliamentary illusion, on the contrary, it will only aggravate what is already deeply rooted. In fact, the above call of the communist revolutionaries (who are in the joint platform) who themselves speak of the need for an extra-parliamentary struggle to defeat fascism will undermine the preparation of that desired struggle, or to put it bluntly, will go against it. In that case, talking about the extra-parliamentary struggle will be a lip service only.
Conclusion
Even after so much discussion, one may ask us, you are differentiating BJP from all other bourgeois parties, you also think that BJP is a fascist party, then why are you not talking about defeating BJP? Don't you think it is better if BJP does not come to power? If an apt reply to this kind of question has to be given quickly, we will say - yes, it is good. But this answer belongs to the author himself, whose source is undoubtedly the existence of petty bourgeoisie, opportunist mentality and helplessness to a certain degree which still survives in the author's overall entity or wakes up occasionally in the face of real difficult situations, by constantly fighting hard against which we all have to keep the proletarian revolutionary position alive in the present situation. The retreat of the struggle after the defeat, the disintegrated state of the working class in absence of a party which has been in a standstill condition for nearly forty years, the increase of onslaught of the capitalist class day by day, but absence of any resistance, electoral struggle becoming the main struggle in the consciousness of the masses as well as the workers also - this situation is engendering a tendency to compromise with the backwardness of the people, unconsciously bringing slackness in the accountability towards the working class and class struggle among the present communist revolutionaries who are objectively almost isolated from the working class. As a result of this position, the spontaneous, especially electoral struggles of the hotchpotch of masses or various sections of the people including the student and intellectuals come to the fore with importance, but the task of organising the working class as a class confronting the terrible adversity of today, especially at this very moment, the most important and necessary duty of building the party by uniting the advanced workers across the country, which the proletarian revolutionary consciousness demands of us, remains neglected in practical programme. The present gains more importance, the consideration of whether the future is embedded in the present is lost. With this perspective in mind, we all along with the author have to face ourselves to realise that if we make a conscious effort to achieve the good by defeating BJP in the elections and involve the advance workers in that effort, that 'good' will work against the real good. To be precise, if we hold on to the temporary and fragile 'good' of the present, we have to sacrifice the permanent and developing 'good' of the future in return, which we as communists can never do. However, the author wants to make a point clear that if any advantage, even temporary, is gained in the struggle of the working class to become prepared through the fight of the bourgeois parties in the electoral struggle, they will certainly accept it, that is, use it, but without having any illusions about it.
In proletarian politics there is no place for all these words like good and bad, possible and impossible; if there is any, it is in reformist-opportunist politics. The sole consideration in proletarian politics is whether any task, any action is for the development of the class struggle or against it, whether that task has been taken from a concrete analysis of the concrete situation.
It is not our intention to criticise or oppose the progressive and democratic sections of the petty bourgeoisie who are talking about defeating BJP in the forthcoming state elections and campaigning among the people about it, and we are not doing that also. Communist revolutionaries are committed to proletarian politics. Our discussion is from the pain that why they are lowering themselves to the level of petty bourgeoisie by abandoning class independence.
Comments:
No Comments for View