The Objective Course of Class Struggle and Role of Consciousness
In the last few years we are witnessing a rise in the worker's movement, not only in India but in the whole world. After the failure of the First onward march of the International socialist movement, the working class had entered a phase of despair, inaction and absence of struggle and for a prolonged period suffered miserably as it could not resist the ruthless one sided onslaught of the bourgeoisie of the Imperialist and other countries. They are now coming out of this phase and again waking up in the arena of class struggle. Even though, the upswing of struggle in India is not as prominent as it is in USA and Europe, here too we are observing a clear change in the worker's movement in the last few years. Not only has the level of struggling activity gone up, there are some qualitative changes in the struggles, and some important features are being observed in the struggles. We have made an elaborate discussion on this new trend in the worker's movement, explaining its special features, in a separate article in this issue of FAPP ("A new trend in the worker's movement-what will the communists do?"---Shakti Mitra). In that article we have discussed at length how the workers, by summing up, unconsciously or so to say, semiconsciously, their experience of the betrayal by the leadership of the old existing parties, are attempting, in a new way, to develop their struggle and organisation independently and on their own. We have also discussed in that article how they are attempting to keep their control over their new struggles and organisations. We have also discussed that in the backdrop of the absence of a real Communist party for the last four decades this trend of worker's movement assumes tremendous significance. Not only do these struggles mark the beginnings of the attempts of the working class to rise up again, but they also are the unconscious or semiconscious attempts of the working class to rid themselves of the old revisionist, reformist parties and their politics. In the above-mentioned article we raised the importance of the task of developing the workers as class conscious workers by elevating their efforts in the conscious plane, the task of guiding, developing the course of their struggle towards the higher struggle for emancipation from exploitation and also underlined the importance of taking up of these tasks by the communists. Whether this analysis of ours regarding the present state of the worker's movement is objective, proper and correct will have to be judged by a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, and the final verdict on this will obviously be passed by the future development of class struggle. We have made some discussions on this topic, and if necessary we will discuss further on some other aspects of this question. But in view of the prevailing confusions and misconceptions regarding the proletariat's own struggle, our analysis needs to be discussed from another aspect.
What is that aspect? In a word, that aspect is to judge whether our analysis regarding the current situation in the worker's movement is correct from a theoretical viewpoint. Is it at all possible, theoretically speaking, that the proletariat, in the course of its own spontaneous movements, is able to sum up its experiences to a certain extent, and based on that sum up, is able to dissociate itself to a certain degree from revisionism-reformism? Is it at all possible that in the course of spontaneous movements a consciousness develops among the workers, that is not merely or not only regarding economic or Trade Union struggle and tactics, but also to an extent political in nature? If, at all, such consciousness develops, then is it not bound to be within the limits and confines of bourgeois consciousness or ideology? Or is it possible that the spontaneous economic struggle of the proletariat, irrespective of their personal inclinations, can lead to or develop into a unified independent class struggle of the proletariat against the whole of the bourgeois class? And within the spontaneous economic struggle of the proletariat may develop such political elements which help the development of class struggle, and which help the workers to advance towards developing into class conscious workers.
The second aspect that needs to be discussed is whether the spontaneous economic struggle of the proletariat can develop into a political struggle without the intervention of any external force - in other words, without the intervention of a communist party. Can the proletariat, in the course of its own struggles, and without any role played by communists, proceed towards attaining class consciousness? There is another much deeper question related to this ---- can the proletariat, solely through its own struggles, learn anything beyond trade union teachings or politics? Or is it that in the context of attaining class consciousness everything needs to be taught to the proletariat from outside? What is the actual significance of the statement that Communist or Socialist consciousness has to be taken to the proletariat from outside?
All Communists agree that socialist ideology is the ideology of the working class and that the communist party is the party of the vanguard of the proletariat. But confusion and lack of clarity reign in the communist camp over the role and leadership of the proletariat in building the Communist party. To a large number (that is to say majority) of the communist revolutionary groups in India, the meaning of this is restricted to the ideological leadership of the proletariat, i.e., a party can become the party of working class if it accepts communism or socialism as its guiding ideology, no separate or distinct role of working class is necessary. And there is no difference between the proletariat and other classes in their potential to embrace and contain the ideology --- there is no distinct, separate importance of the working class. This can be said of those CR groups who give no importance in practice to the objective role of the proletariat. But even those groups who accept the objective role of the proletariat ---- do they, too, accept its actual significance? Is it not a fact that they too believe that the proletariat cannot advance on its own? That by their own efforts the proletariat can only engage in economic struggles, and that without the help and the leadership of Communists, the proletariat cannot develop political struggles of its class? Do we not view the proletariat only as followers? Do we accept the role of the proletariat in developing their own political consciousness, or do we assume or believe that it is only the revolutionary intelligentsia that can be the exponent and vehicle of (revolutionary) consciousness?
These are complex questions and we do not claim to have a complete answer to all of them. But we need to face these questions and understand what views the great teachers of Marxism Leninism have upheld on these questions. These discussions are becoming even more important when, after a long period of despair and inactivity of the proletariat following the defeat of the world socialist movement, in country after country of the world the proletariat is again entering the field of struggle and building up struggles and organisations entirely on their own effort and initiative. Because, whether we shall be able to realize the importance and significance of these independent initiatives of the working class depends on the viewpoint we are taking to judge the these efforts. Needless to say, communists can only play a correct role in these events if they understand the significance and importance of these efforts of the proletariat. We want this discussion of ours to stimulate deep reflection and searching among the Communist activists, so that through the clash of different ideas and opinions, we shall be able to raise ourselves to a developed position, which will guide us, and encourage us to correctly involve ourselves to the goal of development of class struggle.
What is Class Struggle?
We all remember those famous starting lines of the Communist Manifesto: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."(Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels, Progress Publishers, page 35). We all know that since the birth of class differences in society, there has existed class struggle between the exploiting and exploited classes of society. This struggle is sometimes dormant, at other times it takes the form of open battles, but it is without break, and continues without stopping, and can end only with the transition to classless society. It is through this class struggle that society develops; class struggle is the motive force behind the development of society.
Naturally, class struggle takes place continuously in capitalist society too. But Marx has stated elsewhere in the Communist Manifesto: "every class struggle is a political struggle'. (ibid, page 45). We get an echo of this elsewhere in Marx's writings. Lenin, too, later stated: "The first profession de foi of world socialism, the Communist Manifesto, established a truth that has since become an elementary verity-that every class struggle is a political struggle, that the working-class movement only then grows out of its embryonic state, its infancy, and becomes a class movement when it makes the transition to the political struggle." (Apropos of the Profession de Foi, LCW volume 4 page 287, italics in original). We can interpret this to mean that until the proletariat embarks on political struggle, their struggles cannot be called class struggle. Economic struggle can never be placed in the category of class struggle, only political struggle is class struggle. Then, what is the meaning of the phrase that class struggle continues always, uninterrupted? We get from another of Lenin's writings: "Socialism is introduced by the ideologists into the proletarian class struggle, which develops spontaneously on the basis of capitalist relationships" (A Letter to the Northern League, LCW volume 6,page 161, italics in original, bold by us). The question of introducing socialism into the class struggle is very important and we shall deal with it later. For the moment we want to draw attention to the last part of the quote. "proletarian struggle..develops spontaneously on the basis of capitalist relationships". Then is it that Lenin here wants to say that political struggle develops spontaneously on the basis of capitalist relationships? How do we interpret these words?
Also to be considered here is a well known excerpt from Engels. That is - class struggle has three sides - economic struggle, political struggle and theoretical struggle. Speaking about the German worker's movement, Engels said: "For the first time in the history of the labour movement the struggle is being so conducted that its three sides, the theoretical, the political and the practical economical (opposition to the capitalists), form one harmonious and well-planned entity. In this concentric attack, as it were, lies the strength and invincibility of the German movement." (Addendum to the Preface to the second edition, Peasant war in Germany, Engels). Here Engels has considered economic struggle to be a side of class struggle. This is not an isolated incident or writing. In the resolution of the First International on working class political action, it was stated: "in the struggle of the working class, its economic movement and its political action are indissolubly united" (Engels to the Editorial Board of the Tourin Newspaper IL PROLETARIO ITALIANO, November 29, 1871, Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 256).We observe the same sort of statements in Lenin's writings too. "Every strike against a capitalist results in the military and police being let loose on the workers. Every economic struggle necessarily becomes a political struggle, and Social-Democracy must indissolubly combine the one with the other into a single class struggle of the proletariat" (Our Programme, LCW volume 4). Then, is there any self contradiction within these words?
Actually, if we delve deeper we will find there is no self contradiction in these writings of the great teachers of Marxism. It is only if we do not see class struggle in its motion that we will see these types of class struggle unconnected with each other, and will miss their mutual dialectical relationship. We will then fail to comprehend the real significance of these words of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Class struggle in motion
Let us repeat Lenin's previous quotation:" "Socialism is introduced by the ideologists into the proletarian class struggle, which develops spontaneously on the basis of capitalist relationships."
Actually, this is the fundamental truth of the materialist conception of history. There is no doubt that this spontaneous class struggle surfaces continuously in society mainly through economic struggle against the capitalists. But this struggle does not attain the complete form of class struggle because class struggle can only develop into its full form when the whole of the proletarian class battles against the whole of the capitalist class. Clarifying this, Lenin said: "When the workers of a single factory or of a single branch of industry engage in struggle against their employer or employers, is this class struggle? No, this is only a weak embryo of it." (Our Immediate Task, LCW Volume 4, Page 215) This struggle is a weak embryo of class struggle because here class does not confront class. On the other hand, this is a weak embryo of "Class struggle" because this struggle too, has its origins in the Contradiction of labour and capital, and through it workers struggle with capital. The term "struggle with capital" is not ours, but a statement of Engels. In his letter to Bebel criticising the Gotha programme of the German social democratic Party, Engels criticised the absence of the mention of Trade unions in that programme and wrote: " ?for this is the real class organisation of the proletariat, in which it wage its daily struggles with capital,?" (Letter to August Bebel, Engels March 18-28, 1875, Marx Engels Selected correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 275).
Explaining the difference of economic and political struggle, Marx wrote in his famous letter to Bolte: "..the attempt by strikes, etc., in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to compel individual capitalists to reduce the working day, is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force through an eight-hour, etc., law is a political movement." (Marx to Friedrich Bolte in New York, November 23, 1871, Marx Engels Selected correspondence, Progress Publishers Page 254, italics in original).
We are all familiar with this statement of Marx. But the discussion of which this quotation forms a part is even more significant. Let us see the full discussion. In that letter Marx had written: "The ultimate object of the political movement of the working class is, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires that the organisation of the working class, an organisation which arises from the economic struggles, should previously reach a certain level of development.
On the other hand, however, every movement in which the working class as a class confronts the ruling classes and tries to constrain them by pressure from without is a political movement. For instance, the attempt by strikes, etc., in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to compel individual capitalists to reduce the working day, is a purely economic movement. On the other hand, the movement to force through an eight-hour, etc., law is a political movement. And in this way, out of separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say, a class movement, with the object of enforcing its interests in a general form, in a form possessing general, socially coercive force. While these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are in turn equally a means of developing this organisation." (Ibid, italics in original letter, bold letter ours)
Some aspects are to be noted from this quotation, which need to be pondered. Firstly, Marx states here that the ultimate aim of the proletariat's movement is the conquest of political power, for which an organisation of the proletariat is necessary. This organisation arises from the proletariat's economic struggles, and to be fit for conquest of political power it must reach a certain level. Secondly, after such words like "on the other hand", "however" Marx has stated that every struggle in which the proletariat tries to constrain the ruling class by pressure from without is a political struggle. That is, the ultimate goal of the proletariat's political struggle is conquest of power, but the struggles of the proletariat which, though limited within the bounds of capitalism, try to resist the ruling class, are also political struggles. That is to say, even if a struggle is confined within the bounds of the capitalist system, if it is transformed into a struggle of the whole of the proletariat, then too, it is a political struggle of the proletariat. Thirdly, from separate economic struggles everywhere there grows a political struggle. That is to say, everywhere it is only after passing through a stage of economic struggle proletariat's struggle is can reach the stage of political struggle.
With this, remember that famous quotation from Marx: "class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" (MARX TO JOSEPH WEYDEMEYER, March 5, 1852,, Marx Engels Selected correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 64
If we judge these writings of the great teachers in their totality, we arrive at this conclusion that class struggle develops spontaneously in society due to class contradictions, and mainly in the form of economic struggles. Since through these struggles it is not transformed into a conscious struggle of the whole class, so it is not class struggle in its full sense, it is just its primary form. By being transformed into a struggle of the whole class it becomes a political struggle. It is in this course of development of class struggle that it proceeds towards its ultimate aim, capture of power by the proletariat, towards establishment of proletarian dictatorship. If we judge or view class struggle in the context of this course of development, then we will not view the different forms of class struggle in isolation from each other, but rather we will view them in interrelation with each other and in their process of transformation.
Transition from the stage of economic struggle to the stage of political struggle
If we look at the history of the working clas's struggle, then we find that in every country the proletarian movement has initially gone through a stage of economic struggle and later has developed to the stage of political struggle. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels discussed this course of development of the proletarian struggle in the advanced capitalist countries in the last decades of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century. We also find in the writings of Lenin of the last decade of the nineteenth century, a description of how the Russian proletariat was gradually developing from its infancy period, the period of economic struggles, into the stage of political struggle. In fact, in his letter to Bolte Marx clearly states: "And in this way, out of separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say, a class movement, with the object of enforcing its interests in a general form" ( ibid, italics in original letter, bold letter ours). So without the development of economic struggle of the proletariat its political struggle cannot develop and political struggle develops through the development of economic struggle.
What is the significance of Marx's statement that political struggle of the proletariat arises from the stage of economic struggle? One meaning that we can think of is that in the world the proletarian struggle has historically developed along this path. While this is true generally, it is also true for the development of the proletarian struggle in each country. If we observe the development of the proletariat in each country, we find that everywhere the proletarian struggle has started through economic struggle, and then their political struggle has developed. The question is, is this statement of Marx true only for the starting phase of development of the proletarian struggle? Is there any general significance of the statement? In the quotation from Lenin we quoted earlier we have seen that economic struggle is the period of infancy of the proletarian struggle, and it only becomes class struggle when it is transformed into political struggle. If we judge the statement that economic struggle is the period of infancy of the proletarian movement, from the perspective of the starting phase of the development of proletarian struggle, then there should not occur economic struggles when the phase of political struggle is reached. Because, one can not return to infancy after going past it. But we know and see that in any capitalist country economic struggle continues all the time. In the words of Lenin: "The trade union struggle is one of the constant forms of the whole worker's movement, one always needed under capitalism and essential at all times." (Lenin to S.I. Gusev, L.C.W. vol. 34, page 355-359). And we have also seen before from Engel's writings that this economic struggle is one of the three sides of the class struggle of the proletariat. It was at such time when, in the perspective of the struggle of the German proletariat, Engels had described economic struggle as one of the three sides of class struggle, then the proletariat's class struggle historically had already entered the stage of political struggle, and not only that, its party was already created. We have already seen that even at that stage Engels had spoken of waging daily struggles with capital through trade unions. This means that the fact that the proletariat carries out the primary form of class struggle through economic struggle, is not only true for the initial stage of development of class struggle in any country.
That is, there is always a possibility of transition from economic to political struggle. As long as the exploitation by capital remains in society, economic struggle takes place spontaneously. The development of this economic struggle continuously pushes the proletariat objectively towards a struggle of the whole class against the whole (capitalist) class, towards its political struggle, and draws more and more sections of the proletariat into the stream of political struggle.
But if it happens that, in any country, the proletarian struggle after reaching the stage of political struggle and after a party of the proletariat formed, the struggle gets smashed and goes into disarray, the party is destroyed, and the proletariat is going through a period of partylessness position, devoid of political struggle, for a long time, then, does it follow from the logic that the proletariat had once transitioned from the stage of economic struggle to that of political struggle, that a political struggle of the proletariat can grow up again directly? On the other hand is it not true that due to having passed through a long period devoid of political struggle, the proletarian struggle in such a country has to start its development again from the stage of economic struggle, build up the organisations of economic struggle and following that path proceed towards building its political organisation? Just due to the fact that historically once the class struggle had developed through the phase of economic struggle and entered the political phase, is it true that in the condition stated above a political struggle can now grow up bypassing the stage of economic struggle? Is it not true that as class struggle suffered such a setback, so it is but natural that class struggle will again develop through its economic phase and only passing through that phase it will be possible for the proletariat to enter the phase of political struggle? In such times is there any alternative path other than this for the development of class struggle? Class struggle will again have to proceed from its economic stage to develop further. Of course, in the meantime society has progressed a lot. In the previous period Marxism had not appeared in society, but after that it had gained a strong foothold in the proletariat and the proletarian struggle had developed to the stage of capture of power by the proletariat. History cannot fully erase this glorious history. So, this is only logical, that in the period following (that is at present) the proletarian struggle, though having to start again from the economic stage, will definitely not repeat the previous phase but will rather proceed from a more advanced position than before.
The role of the party in the transition from economic struggle to political struggle
From the materialist conception of history (which by the way is one of the main important contributions of Marxism) we know that the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat which develops every moment in society (due to the position of the proletariat in society, due to class antagonisms) proceeds objectively towards ultimate capture of power by the proletariat. The role of the communists is not to build up any other struggle but to guide this struggle and help to develop the above mentioned struggle of the proletariat so that it can reach its goal after overcoming all barriers and in the shortest possible time. On the 5th of January, 1879, Marx had stated in an interview given to the magazine Chicago Tribune: "The working classes move spontaneously, without knowing what the ends of the movement will be. The socialists invent no movement, but merely tell the workmen what its character and its ends will be." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm). Lenin too had stated, "It (Marxism - present author) taught us how to discern, beneath the pall of rooted customs, political intrigues, abstruse laws, and intricate doctrines-the class struggle, the struggle between the propertied classes in all their variety and the propertyless mass, the proletariat, which is at the head of all the propertyless. It made clear the real task of a revolutionary socialist party: not to draw up plans for refashioning society, not to preach to the capitalists and their hangers-on about improving the lot of the workers, not to hatch conspiracies, but to organise the class struggle of the proletariat and to lead this struggle, the ultimate aim of which is the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the organisation of a socialist society." (Our Programme, L.C.W. Vol. 4, Page 210-211, italics in original writing). Class struggle is not created or made by Communists; it grows out of the class contradictions in class divided society. The role of the communists is to organise the class struggle that grows spontaneously, to develop it, to try to develop it towards a struggle of the whole class, to steer it in the direction of Socialism - these are the tasks of the communists. In even clearer words, Stalin had explained the words of Lenin as follows: "Lenin says that sooner or later the proletariat will not only separate from the bourgeoisie, but will bring about the social revolution, i.e., will overthrow the bourgeoisie. The taskof Social-Democracy-he adds-is to try to makethis come about as quickly as possible, and to comeabout consciously." (Briefly About the Disagreements in the Party, Stalin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, page 112-113, italics in original).
From these writings we can conclude that, the proletarian struggle that grows up spontaneously in society due to class contradictions has as the inevitable direction of its development the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. We shall see later in detail that the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie derail this direction of development of class struggle. They try to confine the proletariat's struggle within the limits of this society, to some improvement of the conditions of the proletariat. If there is a communist Party in any country then it is natural that every struggle of the proletariat will be led by the communist party, and, foiling the conspiracy of the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie, it will lead the proletarian struggle towards the goal of socialism. Because a true communist party is the party of the proletariat, and it not only has a base in the proletariat, but rather the advanced guard of the proletariat is organised within that party.
But if there is no communist party, if communists are not at the helm of the proletarian struggle, then can the proletariat by its own efforts and capacity build a political struggle? Is the proletariat so weak that without the role of the communists it is unable to build its political struggle against the bourgeoisie?
The objective course of the proletarian struggle that we have just discussed predicts otherwise. It is natural, from this objective course of the struggle, that the proletarian struggle takes the form of political struggle. We have already seen Marx's writings: "And in this way, out of separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say, a class movement, with the object of enforcing its interests in a general form, in a form possessing general, socially coercive force." (Marx to Friedrich Bolte in New York, November 23, 1871, Marx Engels Selected correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 254, italics in original).
If we look back at the past history of the proletariat, we will find that the proletariat, in the course of its struggles, has by its own efforts, that is without the help of the revolutionary intelligentsia (those intellectuals of bourgeois origin who are working for the emancipation of the proletariat) has developed political struggles, has brought its class demands to the forefront, and has even presented to society important guiding truths in its struggle to proceed from capitalist to socialist society. In the 1830s and 1840s in England, in the case of the Chartist Movement, we have seen that there without any external leadership from outside the working class, the proletariat had built a political struggle like the chartist Movement. Its demands included the right of proletarians to send their own representatives in the electoral system. The main force behind the bourgeois democratic revolution of February 1848 was the proletariat, who had forced the bourgeoisie to carry out the revolution because they had thought that through this revolution their own demands would also be realised. But when after the capture of power by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat found that the Constitution created as a result of the revolution safeguarded only the interests of the bourgeoisie, the workers of Paris tried to capture power in June 1848. This uprising was drowned in blood by the bourgeoisie. This uprising by the proletariat of Paris in June 1848 was the first expression of the independent power of the proletariat. The role of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 had so terrorised the bourgeoisie that they left the path of revolutionary capture of power from the feudal lords, and instead started taking the path of compromise with the feudal forces. After 1848, the proletariat of Paris captured power in 1871 and created the Paris Commune, which was the first proletarian state. It was based on the experience of the Paris Commune that Marx and Engels first formulated the nature of the proletarian dictatorship in the period after the capture of power by the proletariat. It is to be remembered that this Paris Commune was created by the proletariat on its own. These independent attempts and struggles of the proletariat are but a proof of their infinite potential.
Some one can say that the new trend of worker's movement in India that we have described are all of the economic stage, so in this discussion the discussion of these historical struggles of the proletariat is out of context. There is no question of disagreeing with the fact that in no way are the current struggles of the Indian proletariat comparable with these historical struggles of the proletariat. Actually to us the raising of the example of these struggles of the proletariat in today's context is important because through these struggles it is demonstrated that the proletariat in its independent capacity, without the leadership of any party, even without the presence of any communist party, is able to build up political struggle. This power or capacity of the proletariat is inherent in its class position in society, in its class antagonism with the capitalist class, which at every moment forces it to stand against the capitalist class, to struggle to expropriate it.
Why does there arise a possibility of a transition from economic to political struggle? Even though the capitalists carry out exploitation of the workers in their own industry or factory, each capitalist carries out the exploitation carries out exploitation as part of the whole capitalist class, as they are linked to the economy of the whole country, and on the whole carry out the same policies at the level of the factory. So the exploitation carried out by the individual capitalists at the factory level, is a part of the attack of the whole capitalist class against the working class, the class struggle of the capitalist class against the proletariat goes on through these attacks of individual capitalists. The Bourgeois government stands in support behind these attacks of the whole capitalist class, who represent the whole capitalist class, and safeguard its interests. When the proletarian struggle starts spreading through the whole of the country, then the workers of different parts of the country start realising that they have common interests, that they are combating the same policies of the capitalist class in every individual factory. As a result of this there starts developing a struggle of the whole of the proletariat against the whole of the capitalist class, out of the isolated struggles of the workers. There develops a political struggle of the proletariat against the government safeguarding the interests of the bourgeoisie. This tendency of transition from the economic to the political struggle is present irrespective of the presence of Communists, the work of the communists is to steer this tendency of class struggle towards overthrow of the current system and in the direction of establishment of a new socialist order, by defeating the influence of revisionist - reformist or other bourgeois ideologies. In a word, the task of the communists is to help to accelerate the objective course of class struggle.
The political consciousness that emerges out of economic struggle
But, the struggle that is still limited to the economic stage-can that give rise to any political consciousness? We have seen in the quotation from Marx that he said: "And in this way, out of separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement" (ibid, bold letter ours, italics in original). We have also seen in Lenin's writing: "Every economic struggle necessarily becomes a political struggle" (Our Programme, L.C.W., Vol. 4, Page 213, bold letters ours). If we judge these words of Lenin in connection with the other discussions of that writing then we find that, by "becomes a political struggle" Lenin meant here how the workers get a political education through economic struggle.
Due to the reason that there is the objective possibility of transition to political struggle in economic struggle, there can also take place the birth of political consciousness in economic struggle. Even economic struggle pits the workers face to face with different policies of the government. It teaches the workers that this state and government actually represent the capitalist class. The workers start confronting the whole of the capitalist class through the policies of the Government. They start becoming conscious of different bourgeois parties and organisations, and the necessity of uniting the whole of the proletariat against these organisations is felt, particularly by the leading sections of the proletariat. There can be no general guideline or level of what type of political consciousness can be born in which economic struggle, that depends on what stage the proletarian movement is passing through at that time. Workers can and do learn from their experiences even without the presence of the communists. Communists are able to learn from these experiences quickly and with greater clarity than the ordinary workers because of their theoretical realisation about the course of development of the whole of society, and the course of development of class struggle. They can take these teachings in a much better way and in their totality, to the workers. In this context we can note that while speaking of the ideological representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, Marx wrote that the theoreticians who represent the petty bourgeoisie "are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent." (Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx Engels Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 1, page 424). We need to remember here that in this quotation Marx does not only raise a problem, but also indicates the solution to that problem. So, from this quotation we possibly can conclude that the solution or realisation, towards which the struggles of the proletariat unconsciously push the proletariat, is the same solution which the communists, as its theoretical representative, find out and disseminate amongst the proletariat.
The workers generally learn a lot through their own struggles and through the actions and counteractions of events happening in society. Engels stressed this fact in a letter of his on the American worker's movement of the 1880s. In this letter he wrote: "The masses must have time and opportunity to develop, and they have the opportunity only when they have a movement of their own - no matter in what form so long as it is their own movement - in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn from their experience. ( Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge, November 29, 1886, Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 374, Italics in original letter)
To understand the significance of this quotation, we need to know some of the analyses and opinions of Engels regarding the American worker's movement of 1886. We get a very good analysis regarding this struggle of the American working class in the 1992 Introduction to the American edition of the book "The Condition of the Working class in England". This introduction is also well known by the name "Labour movement in America". The abovementioned worker's movement of America started in February 1886. But very soon it started to increase in breadth and spread to wide areas of America. It gradually crossed the bounds of economic struggle and started developing into a political struggle. Even after the famous event of May 1886 in Chicago, Engels wrote in another letter to Laura Lafargue on 23rd May 1886: "If the present American movement - which so far as it is not exclusively German, is still in the Trades Union stage - had got a great victory on the 8 hours question, Trades Unionism would have become a fixed and final dogma. While a mixed result will help to show them that it is necessary to go beyond "high wages and short hours."" (Marx Engels on the United States Page 306, Bold letter ours Italics in original). It needs to be mentioned here that by the words 'not exclusively German' Engels was referring to the Socialist Labour Party of America composed of ?migr? German Socialists, who in his words were a party only in name without any linkages with the working class.
That is, at least till May Engels had viewed this struggle as mainly a trade union struggle. Not only that, the leadership of this struggle was mainly in the hands of the Knights Of Labour, regarding which organisation the comments of Engels were: "..confused principles and ludicrous organisations"... "The worst side of the Knights of Labour was their political neutrality, which has resulted in sheer trickery on the part of Powderlys, etc."(Engels to Sorge, November 29, 1886, Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 373-374) The Knights of labour had even forbidden the workers from taking part in the historical May Day strike of 1886. This was the stated aim and activity of the organisation.
In spite of all these, Engels gave importance to this organisation, and was of the opinion that workers would learn from this struggle of their own and find and approach the goal of their class. In Engel's words, the continuous development of the American workers and their advancement on the road to revolution was: "a heaving, fermenting mass of plastic material seeking the shape and form appropriate to its inherent nature" (Engels, Labour Movement in America, Marx and Engels on the United States, Page 287). For this very reason, on 28th December 1886 Engels wrote to Florence Kelly: "The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own. Therefore I think also the Knights of Labour a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within" ( Engels to Florence Kelly-wischenewetzky, 28th December, 1886, Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 376, italics in original, bold letters ours).
The main truth that emerges out of these writings of Engels is that, the working class definitely learns from its "own movement" if it is acting and on the move as a class, it learns even without any conscious communist leadership. This is because it can proceed just on the basis of its natural class instinct and its experience in the struggle against capital, towards attaining political consciousness, towards political struggle and even towards formation of its own political party. Actually in that writing itself Engels had written: "The spontaneous, instinctive movements of these vast masses of working people, over a vast extent of country, the simultaneous outburst of their common discontent with a miserable social condition, the same everywhere and due .to the same causes, made them conscious of the fact, that they formed a new and distinct class of American society; a class of - practically speaking - more or less hereditary wage-workers, proletarians. And with true American instinct this consciousness led them at once to take the next step towards their deliverance: the formation of a political working-men's party..." (Labour Movement in America, Marx Engels on the United States, Page 284, bold letters ours).
Lenin and "What is to be done?"
Many Communists, including those who believe in the leading role of the proletariat strongly believe and try to convince others that without the help of Communists workers can't do anything other than Trade Union struggle.
What is the basis of this belief? Or to put it in another way, where is the strength of their belief drawn from? The question arises because we have seen from the preceding discussion that the teachings of Marx and Engels, and the past experience of the struggles of the proletariat, teach us something totally different. Their strongest, possibly only logic is based on some parts of the famous book 'What is to be done?' written by Lenin in 1902 to struggle against the economists. In this book Lenin has written at one place: "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc." ('What is to be done?' L.C.W. Vol. 5 Page 375) Just after this, Lenin had said, "The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectual." (ibid) Apart from this, from some other quotations from 'What is to be done?' they draw this conclusion that the proletariat learns nothing more than trade union lessons from the economic struggle, there can be no political lessons in what they learn from it. In their opinion no political consciousness can emanate from the proletariat, political consciousness can only be taken to the proletariat from outside the class. And this consciousness can only be taken to the proletariat by the revolutionary intelligentsia because they are the only exponents and vehicles of consciousness. They also think that a transition is possible from the economic stage to the stage of political struggle but that is possible only with the help of the Communist party.
It is true that if we judge these quotations from Lenin in isolation then there appears to be a contradiction between their content and the opinions of Marx and Engels. A resolution of this apparent conflict is only possible by judging these quotations of Lenin in their correct perspective. But many communists do not attempt that and instead try to resolve the apparent conflict in a peculiar logic - that logic is that all these truths (that proletarian struggle's objective course is towards rising to a higher stage of class struggle, that the proletariat can build up political struggles based on their class instinct, that there grows political consciousness amongst them) were true in the phase of the First International but are no longer true in the era of Imperialism. Because in the imperialist era revisionism-reformism has become a force outside the proletarian movement, as a result of which the sway of revisionism and reformism is so strong that the proletarian struggle, through its own objective course, is not capable any longer of developing towards overthrowing the bourgeois order, and the proletariat is even not able to build up political struggles with its own initiative. We will discuss this question at length later on. But this sort of a logic raises questions the very basic tenets of Marxism, because if revisionism-reformism is able to keep the proletariat confined fully to bourgeois ideology, if proceeding towards overthrow of the bourgeois order or building up political struggles is impossible without the conscious intervention of the revolutionary intelligentsia from outside, then we have to arrive at the conclusion that that in the imperialist era there is no objective trend in the proletarian movement towards overthrowing the bourgeois order or building up a political struggle against the capitalists. But it is a fundamental tenet of Marxism - that because of its class position the proletariat is the only revolutionary class, only the proletariat is capable of overthrowing capitalism, and taking society towards Socialism.
Whatever that may be, let us return to our context of the excerpts from Lenin's 'what is to be done?'. If we inspect the first quotation closely, where Lenin states that by its own efforts the proletariat is only able to develop Trade Union consciousness, we will find that there Lenin even brands the attempt to force the Government to promulgate Labour laws as an example of Trade Union consciousness. But as we have already seen, Marx stated: "..the attempt by strikes, etc., in a particular factory or even in a particular trade to compel individual capitalists to reduce the working day, is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force through an eight-hour, etc., law is a political movement." (Marx to Friedrich Bolte in New York, November 23, 1871, Marx Engels Selected correspondence, Progress Publishers, Page 254, italics in original). Even Lenin himself in his same book 'what is to be done?' has quoted this passage from Marx. Lenin has here branded political consciousness as Trade Union consciousness.
'What is to be done?' was written in 1902. Those who try to present Lenin's views in totality just by some excerpts from 'What is to be done?' possibly forget that a few years before writing 'What is to be done?' Lenin had prepared a draft programme for a future Social Democratic Party in a writing of 1895 titled 'Draft and Explanation of a Programme for the Social-Democratic Party', and had given an explanation of the points in the programme in that same article. In that article, to explain what was meant by class consciousness in the programme Lenin wrote: "The worker's class-consciousness means the worker's understanding that the only way to improve their conditions and to achieve their emancipation is to conduct a struggle against the capitalist and factory-owner class created by the big factories. Further, the worker's class-consciousness means their understanding that the interests of all the workers of any particular country are identical, that they all constitute one class, separate from all the other classes in society. Finally, the class-consciousness of the workers means the worker's understanding that to achieve their aims they have to work to influence affairs of state, just as the landlords and the capitalists did, and are continuing to do now." (Draft and Explanation of a Programme for the Social-Democratic Party, L.C.W. Vol. 2 Page 112-113).
Just after this he had explained: "By what means do the workers reach an understanding of all this?" (ibid) In explaining that Lenin has discussed how in their struggle against the capitalists workers attain class consciousness. He has also discussed how they learn from their strikes and struggles. Outlining what lessons are learnt through this struggle, Lenin further wrote: "The mass of working folk learn from this struggle, firstly, ??the workers learn to understand the significance and the essence of exploitation as a whole, learn to understand the social system based on the exploitation of labour by capital. Secondly, in the process of this struggle the workers test their strength, learn to organise, learn to understand the need for and the significance of organisation. The extension of this struggle and the increasing frequency of clashes inevitably lead to a further extension of the struggle, to the development of a sense of unity, a sense of solidarity-at first among the workers of a particular locality, and then among the workers of the entire country, among the entire working class. Thirdly, this struggle develops the worker's political consciousness. The living condition of the mass of working folk places them in such a position that they do not (cannot) possess either the leisure or the opportunity to ponder over problems of state. On the other hand, the worker's struggle against the factory owners for their daily needs automatically and inevitably spurs the workers on to think of state, political questions, questions of how the Russian state is governed, how laws and regulations are issued, and whose interests they serve. Each clash in the factory necessarily brings the workers into conflict with the laws and representatives of state authority" (Ibid). The point to note here is that Lenin did not mean Socialist consciousness when referring to class consciousness. And whatever he meant by class consciousness, was also explained by him as emanating from the experience of the struggle of the proletariat. Secondly, here Lenin has stated quite clearly that the political consciousness of the proletariat also develops from these economic struggles. On the contrary, in 'What is to be done?' Lenin states that on their own, through their own struggles the proletariat is able to attain only Trade Union consciousness. Why this difference? If we go into the details we will find that the very thing that Lenin characterises as class consciousness in 1895, is again termed Trade Union consciousness by him in 'What is to be done?' in 1902. This becomes even clearer in the second part of the quotation from 'What is to be done?'. Here Lenin did not counterpose class consciousness against Trade Union consciousness, but instead has counterposed Socialist consciousness.
That political consciousness can develop through economic struggle, however, was stated by Lenin even in 'What is to be done?'. In a footnote in one of the later chapters of the book he wrote: "Very often the economic struggle spontaneously assumes a political character, that is to say, without the intervention of the "revolutionary bacilli - the intelligentsia", without the intervention of the class-conscious Social-Democrats. The economic struggle of the English workers, for instance, also assumed a political character without any intervention on the part of the socialists. The task of the Social-Democrats, however, is not exhausted by political agitation on an economic basis; their task is to convert trade-unionist politics into Social-Democratic political struggle, to utilise the sparks of political consciousness which the economic struggle generates among the workers, for the purpose of raising the workers to the level of Social-Democratic political consciousness." ('What is to be done?' L.C.W. Vol. 5 Page 415-416, italics in original, bold letters ours). Here the fact that Lenin has brought to the fore is, sparks of political consciousness are created within economic struggle, within economic struggle there spontaneously awakens political consciousness and it is the task of the communists to stimulate this awakening and raise it to the level of communist consciousness.
Why did Lenin, in 1902, term as Trade Union consciousness the same thing which in 1895 he termed class consciousness? In 1902 the situation had changed - at that time the economists had emerged as a barrier to the development of the proletarian struggle, who wanted to confine the proletariat to economic struggle. They opposed the taking of Socialist ideology to the proletariat, and wanted to limit the political consciousness of the proletariat only to the class consciousness they could attain through their natural class instinct. Lenin had emphasized the point in order to vigorously bring forward the question of the necessity of taking Socialist ideology to the proletariat. Naturally the class consciousness that can develop from economic struggle, the own struggle of the proletariat, did not get any importance from him, such was the demand of the situation. This is an indisputable fact that, once Socialist or Communist ideology is established in society, class consciousness cannot be complete without Socialist consciousness. But from these writings of Lenin it is clear that it will be a mistake to consider Socialist consciousness and class consciousness as the same thing. The sense and urge of uniting the proletariat against the capitalist class, of organising to force the Government to accept class demands through struggle, and even the understanding that the capitalist class must be overthrown to end exploitation - all of these are class consciousness, which the proletariat can attain in the course of its own struggles without the role of communists. But the conception of Socialism, the theory of Socialism, do not emerge out of the proletarian struggle, they have to be taken in from outside the struggle of the proletariat.
During the same period when 'What is to be done?' was written, Lenin discussed about the programme of a group called the Northern League and said that it would be wrong to call Socialism as the class interest of the proletariat, and termed it as very dangerous. In his letter written to the Northern League Lenin wrote: "? 2 begins with an extremely inaccurate, ambiguous, and dangerous statement: "considering socialism to be the class interest of the proletariat." These words identify, as it were, socialism with the "class interest of the proletariat." And this identification is absolutely incorrect. Precisely at the present time, when an exceedingly narrow conception of the "class interests of the proletariat" has become extremely widespread, it is quite impermissible to present a formulation which, if it can be somehow acceptable, will be accepted only if the expression "class interest" is understood in an extremely broad sense. "Class interest" impels the proletarians to unite, to fight against the capitalists, to think about the prerequisites of their emancipation. "Class interest" makes them receptive to socialism. But socialism, as the ideology of the class struggle of the proletariat, is subject to the general conditions governing the inception, development, and consolidation of an ideology; in other words, it is founded on the sum total of human knowledge, presupposes a high level of scientific development, demands scientific work,.. etc., etc. Socialism is introduced by the ideologists into the proletarian class struggle, which develops spontaneously on the basis of capitalist relationships. The formulation of ? 2, however, throws an altogether false light on the real relation of socialism to the class struggle"( A letter to the Northern League, L.C.W. Vol. 6 Page 161, italics in original, bold letter ours). The point to note here is that here Lenin has termed as class interest only that which is emanated from spontaneously developed class struggle based on capitalist relationships. That is the reason why Lenin has termed it not only wrong but dangerous to term Socialism as class interest, because if we say that we will have to deny the truth that Socialism is not born in spontaneous class struggle but has to be taken from outside. If, however someone takes this to mean that Socialism is against the class interests of the proletariat then that will be a great mistake. Here too we will see that from the substance of the previous excerpt from Lenin's writings we can say that in this socio economic system the very position of the proletariat as a class forces it to ponder over the preconditions of its emancipation. It does not need any explanation that pondering over the preconditions of emancipation cannot be called mere trade union consciousness, whatever else we may term it.
"the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness" -- if these words of Lenin as written in 'What is to be done?' are read in the context of Lenin's other writings and the thoughts of Marx and Engels, then it should not be difficult for us to understand that by Trade Union consciousness Lenin did not imply only the consciousness of trade union struggles. Firstly, then in that excerpt, he would not have termed the consciousness of the struggle against the government to promulgate labour laws (which even Marx and Engels had identified as part of the political struggle) as Trade Union consciousness. Secondly, in the same book he would not have presented the task of converting Trade Unionist politics into Socialist politics. Thirdly, if Lenin had really thought that the proletariat by their own efforts could not do anything outside the Trade Union struggle, then it would not have been possible for Stalin to quote from the book "One step forward, Two steps back" written around the same time by Lenin, and say: "But Lenin says that sooner or later the proletariat will not only separate from thebourgeoisie, but will bring about the social revolution,i.e., will overthrow the bourgeoisie. The taskof Social-Democracy-he adds-is to try to makethis come about as quickly as possible, and to comeabout consciously. Yes, consciously and not spontaneously,for it is about this consciousness that Leninwrites." BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE PARTY, Stalin Collected Works, Vol. 1., Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954, page 112-113)What exactly did Lenin say in "One Step forward, Two Steps back"? To explain that every striking worker cannot be a Party member, Lenin wrote: "And for that very reason it is wrong to want "every striker" to have the right to call himself a Party member, for if "every strike" were not only a spontaneous expression of the powerful class instinct and of the class struggle which is leading inevitably to the social revolution, but a conscious expression of that process". (One step forward, two steps back. L.C.W. Vol. 7, Page 273). But there is no evidence that Lenin had different opinion about this statement of Stalin.
Possibly, Lenin used the term Trade Union consciousness, or Trade Unionist politics, in a wider sense. In capitalist society, class struggle is born spontaneously from class antagonisms. The proletariat carries out this spontaneous struggle not only against the owner of an individual factory or against the owner of an industry, the class antagonisms force them to continuously organise as a class against the whole of the capitalist class, to promulgate countrywide laws and wrest other demands in the interests of the whole class. Socialist consciousness, which needs to be taken to the proletariat from the outside of the spontaneous struggle of the workers, and which is the consciousness of overthrowing this capitalist order and establishing Socialism -- this consciousness was presented by Lenin in opposition to the above mentioned consciousness which springs spontaneously from class antagonisms, and so termed this consciousness Trade Union consciousness or Trade Unionist politics.
Actually, "'what is to be done?'" was written from a very specific and particular perspective - That perspective was the struggle against Economism. Because of this struggle Lenin had to place his main emphasis on taking socialist consciousness to the proletariat from outside, because the economists were at that time rejecting this as an essential duty of the Communists. Their view was that socialist consciousness would grow up spontaneously from within the economic struggle. As because it was written from this perspective, there was less emphasis on the positive aspects of economic struggle, and more emphasis was placed on the work or duty of taking socialist consciousness from outside to the proletariat. There are many misconceptions centred around the concept of taking (socialist consciousness) from outside to the proletariat - these we will discuss some time later.
Since it was written from this perspective, so Lenin himself later commented and warned that it would be wrong to seek a complete conception of the building up or growing up of ideology and the relation between spontaneity and consciousness from this book. We all know that 'What is to be done?' was written just before the Second Congress of the RSDLP or in the preparatory phase to struggle against the economists. In the 2nd Congress of R.S.D.L.P., he said, in the context of some debates that arose in the Congress regarding the book, "I shall now go over to that disputed passage in my pamphlet, 'what is to be done?', which gave rise to so much discussion here. After all this discussion, I think that the question has been so clarified that very little remains for me to add. It is obvious that here an episode in the struggle against "economism" has been confused with a discussion of the principles of a major theoretical question (the formation of an ideology)." (Speech on the Party Programme, Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P, L.C.W. Vol 6, page 488). Not only that, in the Second Congress, in the discussion regarding the Party Programme, after answering different criticisms regarding the book, Lenin concluded his discussion by saying: "To conclude. We all now know that the "economists" have gone to one extreme. To straighten matters out some body had to pull in the other direction-and that is what I have done. I am convinced that Russian Social-Democracy will always vigorously straighten out whatever has been twisted by opportunism of any kind, and that therefore our line of action will always be the straightest and the fittest for action."( Ibid, Page 489). From these words of Lenin is it not clear that in 'What is to be done?' he leant on one side, emphasized more on one aspect, in order to struggle against the Economists, and so to come to an understanding regarding the content of the book we must keep this perspective in mind?
A summary of the discussion so far
In the discussion we have done so far, some important points have come up, let us summarise them now.
Class struggle is born in society spontaneously out of class antagonisms, mainly in the form of economic struggles. Since these struggles are not the conscious struggles of the whole class, so these are not class struggle in their complete sense, they are only its primary form. By becoming or developing into a struggle of the whole class they become political struggle. It is in this path of development that class struggle reaches its ultimate aim, the capture of power by the proletariat, and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If we judge class struggle in this process of development then we will not view its different forms in isolation from each other, but rather we will be able to analyse them in their interconnection and in a process of change.
In the process of development of economic struggle at a particular stage there develops the political struggle of the proletariat. Political struggle can grow up independent of the presence of Communists, through the development of the proletariat's own struggle. It is the duty of the Communists to direct this objective course of class struggle in the right direction, and defeating the influence of bourgeois ideology, to help advance the class struggle to its right end, which is the overthrow of bourgeois rule and establishment of proletarian dictatorship, overthrow of the capitalist economic system and establishment of the Socialist economic order. In one word, communists only give a conscious form to the objective, unconscious process of class struggle that develops due to class antagonism, they cannot create this process, they merely accelerate it.
After the defeat of the First onward march of the International socialist movement the proletariat entered a long phase of inaction, ebb of their movement and absence of their own class party. Due to this, it is natural that the development of class struggle will again be through the economic stage, and only after the economic struggles and the organisations necessary for those struggles are built up and pass through a period of development, that the political struggle of the proletariat can grow up again. The beginning of the reawakening of the proletarian struggle will be through economic struggles.
The proletariat learns from its economic struggles and this learning is not only of the level of trade unions. They attain a degree of political consciousness too. What will be the nature of that political consciousness and of what level, depends on what level or phase the proletarian struggle is passing through at that time.
In our discussions till now, we have mainly discussed in somewhat detail the point that whether the proletariat can learn on their own from their experiences of a process of struggle that is still mainly in the economic phase such lessons or truths that can help it proceed towards class consciousness. But, can the experience of its struggles, even if they be of political struggles, make it fully class conscious? Particularly since the time when Socialist consciousness has found its base in the proletariat, has become recognized as the ideology of the proletariat, can class consciousness attain its full form without Socialist consciousness? Even if we leave aside this question, we think there is no room for doubt that class consciousness and Socialist consciousness are not synonymous. Class consciousness is born from the position of the proletariat in the production relations of capitalism, from the oppression and exploitation of the capitalist class and the experience of the proletariat's struggles against that exploitation, which continuously drive it towards the consciousness of organising as an independent class against the exploitation of capital, of struggling collectively against the capitalist class, and even of the necessity to overthrow capitalist rule. On the other hand, Socialist consciousness cannot be born within the proletariat out of its spontaneous struggles, it has to be taken to the proletariat from outside. But what is the actual meaning of the phrase that this consciousness has to be taken to the proletariat from outside? Does it mean that it has to be taken from outside the working class? Does it mean that Socialist consciousness is created by the revolutionary intelligentsia, only they can contain this consciousness and only they have the capacity to take it to the proletariat? Is it impossible for the proletariat to play any role in grasping Socialist ideology and proceeding with that ideology, without the intelligentsia? If that is so, then what is the importance of the class position of the proletariat in acting as the bearers of the Socialist ideology? Can its class position and the experience of its struggles play any role in helping it to grasp, contain and develop the Socialist ideology? Many misconceptions and a lot of confusion prevail in the Communist camp on these questions. There is an urgent need for an in-depth understanding, especially to grasp the significance of the present worker's movement with respect to reawakening of the communist movement. But the present article is already too lengthy, so we will discuss these questions later at some other time. Let us end here.
Comments:
| Name- | PRATEEK |
|---|---|
| Comment- | QUITE DARING! U HAVE STARTED QUESTIONING MANY OF THE PREVAILING CASTLES BUILT IN OUR MINDS |