Recent Movement Of The Jute Workers: A Review
I
We will discuss here a new phenomenon in present-day workers' struggle. This has been manifest in Jute workers' struggle continuing in varied form of resistance, both industry wise and mill wise particularly since 2002. Needless to say, these struggles are in trade union plane and within the state of West Bengal where the jute mills are mainly clustered and significantly where left reformist parties do have a strong foothold.
Let us first see what actually happened?
Workers first demonstrated their independent action in 2002, when the old established unions called off their own declared strike, just a day before the strike was to resume, by handing over to the workers an industry-wise black agreement with owners. The agreement was, in the face of it, so derogatory and anti worker that the workers refused to accept the agreement even without full knowledge of whole content of the agreement. Then what happened was really strange and surprising for which not only the old leaders did not have any inkling, but the communists operating in the field were also not prepared. The workers defied the strike call-off decision and spontaneously went out for strike by themselves. It was an all-out strike in 39 mills for the first two days. The strike continued thereafter in 18 mills covering approximately eighty thousand workers, scattered in three districts. It lasted for 5-7 days and even 10 days in one or two mills. As a result, the agreement could not be readily implemented in respective mills, although, however, the workers were not able to force the unions to rescind the agreement.
Mill owners however did not lie low. They thought that industry wise agitation would calm down in a short space of time and it would be possible for them to forcibly implement the agreement in individual mills. Two major derogatory clauses of the agreement were: one related to productivity linked wage and the other, reduction of wage of a large number of workers in the name of fixing guaranteed minimum wage of Rs. 100/day. In fact, individual mill owners, after a pause, started offensive with the help of old unions against the workers in their own mills in a desperate bid to implement the above two clauses in main, but here also they faced a stiff spontaneous resistance of the workers that took the form of occasional strike. Some of the mills were put to lockout to crush the workers resistance. In fact, we would find that industry wise action of 2002 of jute workers was then virtually switched over to plant level resistance which was nothing but the continuation of industry-wise strike of 2002 in a different form. In the face of plant level resistance of workers jute mill owners got little success in implementing the agreement in the floor level and if at all in few places minimum wage clause could be implemented and the provision of productivity-linked wage, could perhaps, nowhere be implemented. These all happened in spite of fierce joint attack of Management-unions-govt. administration.
In 2004, again a agreement between the unions and the mill owners association was signed providing adequate instrument in the hands of mill owners so as to get those two old clauses of 2002 agreement brought down to floor level. Most interestingly, even after 2004 agreement, workers kept on giving resistance in their respective mills and are still holding back the above provisions from being implemented. The vigour and strength shown in the first industry-wise strike in the year 2002, in naturally now little weaker, and we wonder how long the jute workers alone will be able to hold on their struggle through plant level struggle in the face of continuing naked aggression of the mill management and the state machinery, but the fact still remains that at least the provision of productivity-linked-wage has until now, remain unimplemented, in the majority of existing jute mills.
This is the story in short. Let us make it clear that we are here not to describe the details of jute workers struggle that started through industry-wise spontaneous strike in 2002. We would be rather interested to analyse this struggle and also of the behavioural pattern of the jute workers that have been manifested in the last three years' resistance struggle, both industry-wise and plant-wise. We are to focus on some striking and interesting features i.e., some phenomenal aspects that have been revealed in the basically trade union struggle of the jute workers. This would be necessary for us to understand whether the above struggle throws any light on the general trend of workers movement to emerge and if so what should be the task of present-day communists, particularly in relation of trade union struggle.
At the first instance, one cannot but take note of high level of spontaneity amongst the jute workers as a whole. We must remember that the first industry-wise strike in 2002 was absolutely spontaneous. It is known to us that though, since globalisation process picked up in mid nineties of the past century, there have been signs of workers expressing their discontent and anger through isolated struggles in T.U plane and formations of new trade unions, we are still passing through a continuing phase of inactivity, passivity and a deep sense of helpless submissiveness amongst the whole of working class in general. It goes without saying that the resistance struggle of jute workers in such a situation bears much significance. Though there may be some particularity of jute industry, which contributed to jute workers struggle in the present dimension, it however does not fail to indicate signs of growing spontaneity of struggle and a new mood amongst the working class in general, which we must not miss. But again, this in not the aspect we are going to discuss here. As we observe, the striking phenomenal aspect of jute workers struggle lie elsewhere, and let us now deal with those striking features. We will focus on two important and distinct features.
No 1: Throughout the struggle be it industry-wise or be at mill-wise it will be seen there is no visible leadership. Struggle without functional leadership and without organisation is really a paradox in the face of it. But it is an undeniable fact that more than eighty thousand workers covering about 20 scattered mills did go for all out strike for at least 5 days and simultaneously it is also a fact that there was no leading committee or likewise, having central command for leading the united strike. Even in subsequent plant level resistances, through strikes or facing lockouts, we find no functional and/or visible leaders, not even informal committee of workers or any semblance of organisation in the orthodox sense. It is a contradiction no doubt and we are sure that the workers' struggle for its own interest of development would seek out the resolution of the contradiction in days to come. But before approaching to this question of so-called paradox and also with a view to achieving the answer to the question it would be expedient for us to objectively analyse the whole proceeding and explain this phenomenon.
No 2: It is equally interesting and perhaps more significant. We find that in all the mills where the workers participated in industry-wise strike in 2002 it was absolutely total strike. In the subsequent period, whenever there was any plant level agitation, demonstration and strike, they have always been found to be total. No incident of strike-break is reported. The old union-wise division of workers did actually vanish during these actions. Workers made their own unity of struggle by themselves, and of course without any leadership. And no wonder, the old leaders remain cornered and defied as long as the struggle continues i.e., workers were on move. But the old organisations do not die. How again the old leaders can make themselves present in the scene and can spoil the possible fruits of the struggle of the workers i.e., debar the workers from extracting the benefits of struggle shall be discussed when we will discuss the limitations of the workers struggle, to be precise, this limitation of not having their own separate organisation.
Besides the above two most important feature of the jute workers struggle, we are to take note of different kind of experience which is however, no less significant. We know that in some of the mills there are separate trade unions as against the old established unions, which are generally found to be led by this or that communist revolutionary group. These are obviously new unions and they seem to be committed to the path of struggle as opposed to capitulationist line of all shades of the old existing reformist and reactionary unions. But it is apparently strange that on the question of practical struggle the jute workers of these particular mills did abandon the old unions but did not alternatively choose these new unions on the question of organising and leading their struggle. May be the workers do not place these unions in the ranks of old Unions like that of CITU, INTUC etc, but it is undeniable fact that for their own unity and for their struggle workers did not find it expedient to rally under these new unions. They did cut across not only the old unions but also the new CR led unions. Is it only the failure of the leadership of the new unions or there are some objective reasons behind this conduct of the workers? Hope we will get the answer after two main features are explained.
Let us first have a glimpse over a particular tradition of jute workers' struggle and organisation. This could throw some light on the question as to how the spontaneous strike of jute worker could engulf the major part of the jute industry at a time.
It is known to everybody concerned that the jute workers have a long tradition of industry-wise organisation and struggle. Here we will find that the established old central organisations like INTUC, AITUC, CITU etc do not have separate mill wise Union. They have industry wise registered union of omnibus nature and workers of different mills are directly the members, of that central union. We may also find this union structure in Tea industry. However, this is not the practice in Engineering industry where we will find more of individual factory-wise unions and then a federation of such unions. Now there must have been reason behind the aforesaid tradition of industry wise omnibus union in jute and tea industry. One reason may be that in each of these two industries production system and products are some or almost same within itself. Further these two industries are old and of colonial era, majority of them being century old. Industry wise workers action was in vogue in that period i.e., period of early industrialisation in our country. One more important reason is that in jute industry in particular, the mill-owners' association has always been strong and organised and the polices of individual mill management are, in main, governed and controlled centrally by this association. No doubt this policy structure did contribute to the tradition of united industry-wise struggle of the jute workers. There have been many changes in many aspects, particularly the role of old established trade unions and also the functioning of association vis-?-vis mill-management but the above tradition of industry-wise struggle in still continuing in main and is still rooted in the minds of jute workers as a whole. We can recall that in 2002, the strike call that was withdrawn, had been given by all unions. And when the workers spontaneously stood up against the agreement imposed on them, we find in them that very natural tendency or tradition as we call it, which drove them to united industry-wise strike at that particular moment.
From the point of view of trade union movement, we know industry wise united struggle should normally be more advantageous and effective for the workers having common cause, than plant level separated struggle. Yes, it in true if, of course, there is real struggle. It is true under the condition when workers do have the spontaneity of struggle and most importantly union leadership is serious and committed to building true resistance struggle against capitalist offensive, and further, workers have trust and confidence on their leaders. But what is the present condition? Is it not fully opposite? Is it not that the so called left parties have not only abandoned the path of class struggle but also made the trade union struggle subservient to the interest of the capitalist? There are people, who welcome industry wise struggle even led by the established left unions, be it one day strike or the like, as positive development of T.U struggle with respect to plant level struggle. They are totally confused. They fail to see the minus sign added to the so-called struggle i.e., in the leadership question. We know that 3 is greater than 2. Even after minus sign came in before the number these people still go on insisting that -3 is greater than -2.
There is difference between industry-wise strike and industry-wise strike. It is the difference between the one led by the old unions to ultimately serve the interest of capitalist, and the other, which workers themselves made defying the old leaders. And there, in this difference, lies the great significance of the spontaneous jute workers strike of the year 2002. The question of minus sign is to be seen from this perspective.
To explain what we said, we must turn our back to a distant past. And before that, we are to take up the experience of West Bengal, once a citadel of left movement. We will find that this minus sign, through not in bold line, first appeared in 1969 at the time of U.F govt in West Bengal when the left parties were the main constituents. What actually happened then? At the instance of the state govt. industry-wise wage settlement was fist introduced covering the main industries like engineering, jute, tea and cotton textiles: obviously the left parties and the left trade unions were behind the move, but most interesting fact was that the employers in main welcomed this initiative of the state govt. in spite of their own problem arising out of varied interests amongst them. Why they welcomed the process of industry-wise wage settlement? To get this answer we must have a view of the then condition of workers struggle in the state. From mid sixties of the past century, particularly after 1st U.F govt. came into being in 1967 these was a spate of serious militant struggle in individual factories and this militant wave swept over not only the big industries but also middle and small ones. Left unions were mainly in leadership. Left parties, saddled in government were perplexed as to what was happening. On the other hand the capitalists were initially cornered and they were virtually on the run. Union govt. in a hurry had to clamp down Presidents' rule in the state ending 7 months' U.F rule in the state, no doubt, mainly from the compulsion amongst other, to counter the offensive of the workers and possibilities it had. Temporarily they succeeded. Workers' ongoing struggles were ruthlessly suppressed. But the fighting mood of the workers in general was not dampened. It was on this background 2nd U.F govt. was formed with left parties in greater control. It was on this background, the govt. initiative for industry-wise wage negotiation across the table come to the capitalist class, particularly to the owners of big companies as a great relief, as they thought it to be the most effective and easy path to enchain the militancy of the workers and escape retaliation. And what about the left parties and their leadership? Most interestingly, they had the same objective, although from a different angle. They had learnt something from the experience of their previous government. They were very much conscious that it was this militancy of the workers that cost their first government. It was to be reined if the govt. (1969) was to stay. Meanwhile, it would be relevant to note that after the fall of 1st U.F govt. and before the next govt. came into being i.e., during the Presidents' rule in the state, the left leaders manoeuvred in restricting the workers just in one-day strike in each of the industries, whereas the then mood of the workers was for greater offensive through continuous strike. For instance, proposed continuous strike in Engineering Industry was withdrawn unilaterally just a day before this strike was to resume. It was a great betrayal, and in its continuation this process of industry-wise wage settlement came into being.
It so happened thereafter that that betrayal of left parties and of their central T.U organisations on one hand and failure of CPI (ML) to combat the betrayal and develop i.e., failure to grasp and act on this objective necessity of advancement of class struggle on the other, did virtually demoralize the workers from inside. They had to reconcile to the little bit of gain in wage increase through subsequent tripartite industry-wise wage settlements. But what they lost was their spontaneity of struggle. They lost their own initiative. They finally lost their organisation. Meanwhile the defeat in the first offensive of international struggle for socialism started having its terrible effect on the working class struggle. Passivity and helplessness prevailed on the working class practically making them submissive and dependant on the same old leaders who not only betrayed to their cause, but also utilized the retreat of the working class to assert their reformist domination over the workers. At the behest of both right and left trade unions in the mills, plant level resistance struggle virtually withered away and what remained is industry wise wage settlement at the mercy of employer and that too after long gaps. However, correctly speaking, the working class have been so pushed to so defensive position in the face of mounting offensive of the capitalist during the last decade or more, it has now been the question of wage reduction rather than wage rise being confronted by the workers, jute workers in particular. Strikes are called, but these are all to ultimately thrust black agreements on workers as we saw in jute industry in 2002. Pro-management role of the leaders and their deception of strike got so exposed to the jute workers that they refused to obey the strike call earlier in the year 2000.
In this process serious change happened in the field of trade unions. We have seen earlier that joint activity of all shades of old unions, both left and right got initiated during industry-wise wage negotiation and subsequently it became somewhat consolidated due to compulsion of their individual interests. But till then all such joint activities remained confined in central level. In other words, right-left joint activity was not there in individual factory plane, there might have been one or two exception. But from early mid 1980's joint leadership was found prevalent in individual factories. Obviously the common cause that brought the contending unions closer was finally their helplessness in the face of ever increasing onslaught of the capitalists, but was mainly the compulsion of respective organisational interest to hold on resenting workers. Workers who were already on retreat were initially made to believe that unity of workers necessary for protection from capitalist attack in plant level could be achieved if only the leader of unions got united. Eventually this apparent unity of passive workers without struggle i.e., the unity of leaders at the top became the tool in the hands of capitalists.
II
The left unions, which in the past fought many serious battles, finally degraded themselves to the level of age-old right reactionary trade unions like INTUC etc; and in fact the difference between them whatever remaining, got erased from the minds of the workers during the period of 1980's. And at one point of time workers found themselves fully at the mercy of the leaders and virtually became helpless captive in the hands of strong combination of old leaders with full backing of the employers. The relation between leaders and workers virtually turned out to be that of masters and slaves.
Revolt against masters has already started. During the last one or two decades, particularly after NEP-globalisation came in, pro-struggle workers are being found to abandon the old established unions, thereby forming separate new organisations. But these revolts were in individual plant level and it is natural at this stage that the number of such units are not large enough. The jute workers' spontaneous strike is to be viewed as the continuation of the above process but definitely with a difference. Firstly, no new union was formed, but the struggle continued. Moreover 2002 industry wise strike that covered about one hundred thousand workers with full participation in at least 20 mills and continued for 5 to 7 days, even if we keep aside these subsequent mill-wise resistance struggle, was no doubt the first major revolt in a big scale against captivity, against shackles, to which the workers in general remained tied up for almost three decades. The revolt, however, could not culminate in final and decisive departure from the old leaders, and the problems of building workers independent organisation still remain to be solved; but that does not in any way undermine the great significance of 2002 strike and nevertheless of the plant level resistances that followed. Notwithstanding the fact that there was presence of high level of spontaneity amongst jute workers, the specific history or the so-called tradition of jute workers' organisation and struggle which we noted earlier, no less contributed to the spontaneous industry-wise strike that took place without organisation or even without any functional leadership. This particularity cannot, however, be ignored.
Question still remains as to how a practical struggle of workers could be possible without organisation in true sense. We have already observed that in all the mills involve in industry-wise strike (2002) of jute workers it was a total strike. Equally it was true in the case of subsequent resistance strikes or actions in individual mills. Workers defied their leaders and the unions but were not disordered. They remained united, cutting across their respective unions. It was the case of workers making their own unity of struggle i.e. unity from below, and for that they had to come out of the bonded unity from above. The workers did it spontaneously. There was no conscious intervention or role of any outside leadership whatsoever. How was it then possible for the workers to take, by themselves, such a big step forward which not only happened to be the most important and striking aspect of the jute workers' struggle but which probably bears also the far-reaching significance on the question of workers resistance struggle to come in near future. Mind it, workers forged their unity for struggle, they are still maintaining it, but they did not adopt the conventional path i.e. they did not move towards forming union. How did it actually happen and also why? And this is, no doubt, a big WHY. It is not that the jute workers are unaware of the inherent connection between struggle and organisation; they are very much conversant with long history of union and even party organisation. Is it not therefore, that there was element of consciousness having particular characteristic that was found in the spontaneous act of jute workers? There is no point in reminding us that consciousness being referred to above can not be a class or political consciousness, as we all know that it does not itself grow within trade union struggle. What we emphasis here is that there must have been some ?consciousness' which guided the jute workers in their struggle. What is, of course, its nature? Here we can take the help of what Lenin said in his famous book, What Is To Be Done. He said, ?there is spontaneity and spontaneity' i.e. he made difference between spontaneity of working class of a particular period of history and that of other. He further clarified the above statement with the help of historical reference by saying, compared with these revolt (of mid-nineteenth century-S.M.) the strike of the nineties might even be described as conscious to such an extent that they do mark the progress which the working class movement made in that period. Now how this progress is to be qualified? We are to understand the meaning of the word ?progress' obviously in historical sense, in as much as it contained the summing-up of the experience of working class movement of past years, even if there is no marked or absolute progress and advancement in the field of class struggle. Progress has to be judged in different parameter, so to say, relatively in the period of general defeat of international working class. Anyway, going by the above teaching of Lenin, the past experiences of last three decades through which the working class in our country has passed must have brought in the presence of specific consciousness in today's spontaneous struggle of workers ? here in this case the jute workers. In depth analysis of the general and composite imprint of the national and international experiences of both advancement (offensive march of socialist movement) and also the retreat, in order to make correct appraisal of the present-day spontaneity, however, stands to be a big task before present day Marxist. But here in micro plane, we may be permitted to recount the stage-wise experience of jute workers during the period of about last 25 to 30 years, in relation to their organisation and struggle and also examine how the above experiences are being summed-up in their own way by the workers in question. This partial summing up, in absence of correct and complete summing-up by a party would naturally govern and guide the spontaneous activity of workers and herein probably lies the answer to the vexed question of organisation vis-?-vis struggle of jute workers as we raised earlier.
Let us recount the experience of working class in general, broadly since the sixties of the previous century where there were offensive militant T.U. struggle in main industrial centres of the country. Jute workers had however earlier history of militant struggle in early fifties or so. That was the time when left unions were surging ahead confronting congress-led unions in organised industries. This was manifest mostly in West Bengal amongst few other states, where workers had almost full reliance on lefts and to note further, there was no sign of right-left joint leadership in T.U. struggle.
Then we find a long period of serenity, during which workers struggle started receding, frustration among workers was setting in. Reformism penetrated further into the politics of CPI (M) and other left parties. CPI (ML) got trapped in anarchist politics and suffered isolation from working class. It was the period when Emergency was declared. Whatever protests were there, they were ruthlessly suppressed. As a whole, erstwhile struggling unions became defensive and almost inactive. It was subsequently found that in spite of change in political scenario after revocation of emergency and defeat of the congress govt. at the centre and many other states, workers struggle and obviously the old trade unions failed to come out of their defensive position, than to further rightwing slide of the reformist-opportunist parties. Although, the heroic strike of rail workers in 1974 was ultimately betrayed by the old leaders, it could nevertheless leave deep impact on the workers all over India, and old leaders including that of left, in the aforesaid change of political scenario, led some T.U. struggle in some states hitherto remained in the backseat. But that was very short-lived. Some great attempts of workers' resistance struggle were, however, made at that time in different parts of the country sans West Bengal, probably the last one being the 72 days' strike by Cotton Textile workers in Maharashtra, and then again, after a big gap, the militant struggle of Kanpur Cotton Textile workers in 1988. But these struggles, in isolation, could not affect any change in the then prevailing condition of workers movement of the country. This was because of lack of direction and proper leadership and most importantly due to the fact that working class movement in general was then already on retreating condition. In fact, absence of a working class party in real life helped the reformist and reactionary old trade unions consolidate their grip and control over the overall demoralised workers.
We must note that it was in this background that there appeared the new phenomenon of joint leadership of both right and left unions in plant level as we told earlier. Demoralised and retreating workers severely cornered by capitalists, could not but rely on the joint leadership of the old unions, since new leading force failed to emerge. They were by and large influenced by the cunning propaganda of the old leaders that resistance struggle against capitalist attack would eventually be fruitless and on the contrary would do more harm to the workers. Besides, the workers to whom the conspiracy of joint leadership and the politics behind it was not then exposed (not that it is fully exposed today), believed that if the unions did not at least fight each other it would ensure unity of workers and help better bargaining and they could have some protection at least. But what actually happened? It is only through bloody experience during the period of eighties the working class could learn that ?unity from above' actually turned out to be a tool in the hands of the capitalists to squeeze them further and they could earn only black agreement from the hands of the old leaders. Experience taught the workers that the faith they placed on the joint leadership was totally misplaced and they started turning their back to not only to joint leadership of the old unions but also to the latter individually. This is by way of workers summing up their own experience by themselves and obviously in the absence of conscious summing up, which was not at all possible by those workers themselves, they could not actually turn their back to the reformism-opportunism of the parties in control of the unions.
Thereafter workers passed and are still passing through another experience, i.e. the experience of independent trade unions having no affiliation to established old central unions. It was, no doubt a co-incidence that at the time workers started assimilating the experience of eighties, almost simultaneously (early nineties) New Economic Policy came into force resulting in fierce attack on the working class and people by the ruling classes. Workers who wanted to fight back abandoned their old leaders and formed new unions in their respective factories and obviously this was by way of assimilating the painful experience of betrayal by the old existing unions during the past decades. The momentum of forming separate fighting union is however very weak and the number of such factories is still small. In some of such units workers fought serious battle under the leadership of newly formed struggling union and could largely resist the attack of capitalists. But we will find this scenario only in those units where the new unions were able to rally large majority of the workers. Unfortunately at present the new fighting unions are mainly minority union, good amount of workers being held back in old unions adding strength to the employers and on the other hand curbing the fighting strength of workers necessary for building effective resistance against the ever-increasing offensive of capitalists. Obviously, workers T.U. struggles based on such partial unity are becoming tremendously difficult in the face of joint attack of Management, Administration and mafias of the old unions, very often eluding success in real sense i.e. success as desired by the workers. These experiences would naturally tend to have deterrent effect on the general workers in those factories where spontaneity of struggle amongst workers is not so high. We must understand that workers with their backwardness are not expected to realise the historical role of new unions in the task of breaking the entrenched domination of the old leaders. But the leading workers must, without which the new unions would eventually be disarrayed thereby demoralizing the workers in the fence. Truly speaking, for the historical role to be taken by the new emerging unions, the leading workers are to be made conscious that individual employers attack is nothing but the integral component of the all out concerted attack of the capitalist class as a whole, and particularly in the wake of globalisation what is needed for effective resistance in the united struggle of the working class; and with this perspective only T.U. struggle are to be led. Secondly, the leading workers of the partial unions must take utmost care in leading their struggle in a manner that in the course of struggle as much as possible of the remaining workers are drawn into struggle and get united with the workers ready for struggle. We have already stressed on this very important point earlier. In this case, the role of the leading worker is highly important. And it is to be understood that the leading workers will be able to perform their role by themselves and get the job at least to some extent, only if they are motivated and trained with the politics of class struggle.
One would really be not able to lead today's tough unequal battle against the terrible offensive of the capitalist class and fight against the influence of reformism-opportunism having been penetrated deep into the present day trade union movement unless more and firmer position of class struggle is taken. And no doubt in it, that the living struggle would objectively push the leading workers to the above-mentioned position of class struggle. Question remains as to how to assimilate the objective experience of struggle in conscious plane. Obviously it is the task of communist revolutionaries who are by and large leading these new independent unions, to help the workers in the assimilation process. But unfortunately they are failing with some scattered exceptions. As a result, it is being generally found that the workers who revolt against the old leaders do take the first step by forming separate union of their own, but the subsequent step, i.e. the building of the same unity under one struggling union, fails, thus failing to unify whole or large majority of workers the struggle fails to earn full momentum, thereby curbing the effectively of the actual struggle, as we said earlier. Workers are still going through such experience of new unions which, as we mentioned earlier, came about through spontaneous assimilation of the previous experience of betrayal of old leaders, particularly that of joint leadership during eighties of the past century. Obviously it is true for jute workers also.
Jute workers' behaviour since the 2002 strike is, however, to be seen in this background. They behaved differently. It is undeniable fact that C.R-led new unions in quite a good number of mills did actually fail to generate new hope in the minds of jute workers as also of workers in general. The jute workers, who had already passed through the painful bitter experience of joint leadership in the past in particular, did not take their, the CR-led unions', occasional participation in joint activities with the old unions in good grace. Any way, jute workers spontaneous struggle without forming any formal or visible organisation has revealed to us that the course of forming partial union of fighting workers first, and then resolving the question of unity, is not the only course before the working class in coming out of the bondage of old unions and building resistance struggle against ever growing capitalist offensive. And we must take note of this truth deep into our heart, that in the period of general retreat of the working class when there is no discernible stream of class struggle, communist revolutionaries are disjointed and not equal to the task, to be precise when tested and trustworthy working class's own party is absent, and in the event of high level of spontaneously of struggle, the unity question would likely be valued most by the fighting workers. And in this condition it is more likely that the workers would simultaneously have to go through various unorthodox methods or ways, which they would find convenient and applicable, depending on the particularity of the condition. We believe, more the spontaneity amongst workers in depth and width, more will there be such unorthodox expressions in workers' struggle in the days to come, and unfortunately communist revolutionaries would lag behind as apparent from the way they are moving. History would probably need some longer period for the assimilation, to a higher plane, of such varied and till-date unknown experiences and for the consequent solution of the present day problem of organisation vis-?-vis struggle in real life. Not only in trade union plane, this would simultaneously play role in the solution of the problem of building real working class party in our country. Yes, we can assertively say that the way the jute workers behaved during 2002 strike and are still behaving in plant level resistances, spontaneously solving the question of necessary unity, leaving the question of organisation for the future, is one of such unorthodox peculiar way referred to above, commensurate to particular tradition of jute workers on one hand and their high level of spontaneity on the other. Nevertheless, we cannot leave the aspect of consciousness arising out of their own assimilation of past experiences, unnoticed.
Comments:
No Comments for View