The Problem of the Party Formation and the Present Tasks of the Communists
Is there a communist party in India , just not in the name or words, but in the real sense, that is, in its deeds? We start with this question though the answer is already known to us. The fact is that since the decade of the seventies in the last century the working class is remained without a 'real' party. Some of the contemporary Communist Revolutionary Groups (CR groups) may consider themselves as a party, and indeed some do, but that will just be a subjective understanding, not an objective reality. An organisation that is alienated from the working class and undertakes no noticeable conscious effort on its own to overcome such shortcomings cannot be called a working class party. Whether the proletariat, at least its advanced section, is organised in the party is a matter of reality and not of any conjecture.
Any way, if we now recollect the words of Lenin that without organisation working class is nothing or that the working class has to carry the burden of its inability without a party, then it is not difficult to realise the present terribly pathetic and weak condition of the Indian working class. This is just not a theoretical issue. The ground reality shows that this is harsh truth. The capitalist-imperialists are ceaselessly intensifying their attacks on the working class and the oppressed toiling masses, but no effective resistance is growing up from them. The very existence of such a condition and the continuation of the same over a prolonged period of time shows how helpless and directionless working class remains when it is not organized into a political party. If this is the condition of the working class- the most advanced class of the society- then one can easily understand what are the conditions of the peasantry and other unorganised sections of the exploited people. The fact is so glaring in the present reality that it does not require very much analysis to realise it. The ruling classes and their representative political parties have been able to keep the working class divided along nationality, caste and religious lines. They have also been successful in almost totally dominating the consciousness of the vast majority of the masses. Moreover, when, in reality, we find that the working class has lost sight of the aims of socialism and are not conscious of their own class interest then we can feel how forcefully the history has projected before us the necessity of a party of their own which will free them from the grips of the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie to organise them on the basis of their own independent and separate class interest. A party capable of performing this historical task could not be formed in the last thirty years. Many of the past efforts in this direction have actually failed. There are definitely many reasons for such failures and there are some general analyses too of these reasons by the CR groups. If we keep in mind that a period of thirty years is not a short period and the necessity a party is a crying necessity, then we must feel that more objective and deep analysis is necessary.
In the past, efforts towards party formation were essentially guided by an idea that equated the problem of the formation of a communist party with the problem of unity among the CR groups. This perception is generally still in existence in the CR circles. Is that right? Apparently, this is right. Or to put it more accurately it is conditionally right. The issue of the unity of the CR groups should be understood in its inner sense. Following the teaching and guidance of the Marxist-Leninist tradition, we know that a communist party is a party of the working class. The specific meaning of this is that the communist party is the organisation and receptacle of the class conscious, advanced section of the proletariat. Therefore we must understand that formation of a communist party that can ably play its historical role demands the fulfilment of one precondition, i.e. the existence or presence of an optimum number of class-conscious workers. Incidentally, here there is a possibility of us getting trapped into the debate of 'the cart and the horse'. Another question may arise from the opposite angle. Can not we think of a possibility, where to ensure and realise the fulfilment of the above precondition, the contemporary CR groups are getting united, which may be one decisive step towards the formation of a real communist party? Whether such a possibility does really exist can be subject of research or we can keep the question in abeyance for the future. But no research is necessary to realise that this is not possible in the existing situation. There may be numerous reasons for that, and, indeed, there are many. But one visible reason is the existence of disunity among these groups on this issue. We will discuss this in a while. Right now the fundamental realisation, which we are trying to stress on others and ourselves, is that the essence of the formation of a unified party is the unification of the class-conscious advanced workers. If the present CR groups really have a working class base and if the advanced section of the working class are organised in these groups, then and only then it can be said that the unity of the CR groups will give birth to a unified party ? Because only then this unity will signify the unity of the class-conscious workers. We have put this issue just as an introduction to pave the way for a discussion of the principal issue.
At the beginning we want to raise a disturbing question. Theoretically it can be stated definitely that in a given society, in a given time, the real communists, who are committed to the working class and consider the working class interest as their own interest (as the communists have none other), should consider the task of uniting themselves as the main task for the interest of the working class and the exploited masses. It is natural for the communists to have this inclination. However, for the last thirty years we are having the extremely painful and amazing experience of the failure of the disunited communist revolutionary groups of this country to achieve unity, even the natural tendency of unity have been missing. Here lies that irritating question. Is it that the present communists are not yet fit to be called a communist? Are they really committed to the working class? Another question is very much intertwined with these. Why the working class, to whom a communist party belongs, has remained silent during this time? Why they are not spontaneously rising to resist the attacks of the ruling classes? We have to find out the right answer or the right solution to this mixed bag of questions. But from the Marxist perspective one can assert that all such inquiries would remain incomplete and half-hearted if we do not put greatest stress in trying to understand the objective reasons behind such condition of the communists and of the working class. By 'objective reasons' we mean the defeat of the first campaign of the international socialist movement, the repercussions of which are still being felt in the international and national working class movement and it can be said that they are still passing through the period of defeat. Unless we enquire, how and to what extent the impact of this defeat is still casting its spell on the consciousness of the communists and make a detailed analysis of the same, we will not be able to understand properly why for such a long time here and most of the other countries of the world a working class party could not be formed after the breakdown of the old parties.
A Special Experience in the Struggle for Party Formation:
Around ten years back we had placed a resolution before the CR groups. The salient point of that resolution had been that it was not only mandatory, but also objectively possible for all (almost all) those groups known and mutually accepted as communist revolutionary to unite and form a party. It was not that there was no recognition, in our resolution, about the existence of a good number of differences among the various CR groups. It had been also clear to us that the party would not be able to assume a Bolshevik character right at its formation, given the dimension of differences existing between the various groups at that time. We also understood that even the centralism could not be forcefully applied in practice. That is why, we stated that it might be possible to unify in a party while maintaining the group existence within the proposed party, which means, individuals with similar view-points might exist as a distinct group within the party. We thought that this arrangement would be correct and commensurate with the then prevailing conditions and we were definitely guided by the Russian experience of the R.S.D.L.P. period. Everyone could understand that the principle motivation behind adopting such a resolution was a Marxist-Leninist realization on our part that without a party the working class would have to carry the burden of inability and a drive on our part to fill up the lacunae in the existing working class movement - that is of absence of a real Proletarian Party. Through a series of writings published in this journal at that time we tried to convince the CR groups that it would not be worthwhile to stick to the idea of forming a party only after resolution of all the existing ideological-political differences among the CR groups. On the contrary, we stressed that we could prove our commitment to the working class only by accepting the mutual recognition of each other as CRG as point of unity and uniting on this basis. Obviously we also thought that the extent of centralism possible within the proposed party would be enough to successfully carry out the struggle of thrashing out the 'differences of opinion'. We also thought that entrenching itself among the working class and getting tested relentlessly through the working class struggle, the initially slack party would be able to move forward towards its transformation into a disciplined Bolshevik Party.
What was our experience? Almost none of the groups responded affirmatively. The general statement of every one was almost the same ? a party could not be formed with the existing amount of differences of opinion. It was not that earlier we were not aware of such a view. We never thought that our proposal would work like a magic and we would achieve such a result which could not be achieved in 15/20 years. However, we definitely expected that by the mutual process of exchange of thought, the struggle towards the definite objective of party formation might be started; at least, the agenda of forming a unified party would gain in importance among the CR groups as an immediate issue. This expectation had its reasons. We had given due recognition to the differences existing among the CR groups and that was stated in the proposal in no uncertain terms. But after 2 / 3 years of comprehensive and almost a unidirectional effort we found that even the starting process could not be initiated. This was the real experience. Here it needs to be clarified that we, in no way, feel the ignominy of a defeat by the rejection of our proposal by the CR groups. As Marxists, we are rather interested to find out where we have erred in our understanding. We are interested to learn from our experience whether the CR groups, including us, are still confronted with the task of preparation for the formation of a real working class party in India and if so then what is the nature of the task.
The major shortcoming of our proposal had been that we were driven more by the urge to immediately fulfil the historical necessity of the party and failed to make an objective analysis about the presence or absence of the material conditions needed for the fulfilment of this necessity. For example, the higher level of consciousness of the communists and their commitment to the working class were taken for granted beyond all questions and we could not judge beforehand whether such a higher degree of consciousness, basing on which we had started our struggle for the party formation, could realistically be expected in that time (and even now) or not. It is not unknown to the Marxist that consciousness cannot develop independent of the objective reality. Yet, we dissociated the revolutionary consciousness of the communists from the ground reality, and the interrelationship and interaction between the matter and the consciousness remained outside of our purview. Besides, is it only the communist consciousness upon which the struggle of party formation depends? Is not the inaction on part of the proletariat and their lack of spontaneity in struggle directly limiting the scope of the struggle of party formation? We cannot avoid such questions. Any way, we have to understand one thing very clearly: The effect of the conditions of defeat of the international socialist movement (which remains unchanged for the last 20 / 25 years) on the consciousness of the contemporary communists has to be understood. Otherwise any such future endeavour will meet with the same fate. Rather this would adversely affect all the necessary programmes of today to prepare the ground of tomorrow to form a unified communist party.
Nonetheless, we have to admit that although we put forward the questions of emergence and organised presence of the advance working class, but that have been done with the sole aim of strengthening the consciousness and commitment of the CR groups. In the process we have neglected the indispensability of this presence for the party formation. Needless to say, it was not an issue of strengthening the consciousness of the groups; rather it was a material condition of the formation of the party. Later we shall see that this cannot be treated in isolation from the activities of the whole of the working class. We have to admit that we have not considered this particular aspect at that time. On the other hand, we had put a one-sided stress on the unification of the CR groups, for which we had to mainly dependent on their consciousness. So the inevitable result followed. Incidentally, we realized later that there was a serious lacuna in our thought-process. If the communist revolutionaries really had that higher consciousness to which we appealed, and then we would not have to start with a party with groups and most probably would have been able to unite and consolidate in a higher stage.
TWO OBJECTIONS (?)
The formation of a party, that is, to be united into the party is a conscious task of the communists and from that angle this is also a conscious process ? in this respect one may ask why the questions of objective condition, spontaneity of struggle etc. are being raised. Indeed, this question exists in the communist revolutionary camp. We could have countered this by asking when would we reach that consciousness which could not be reached in the last 25 years, when the present communists would enter into the conscious process of party formation, and by which magic that cherished moment would arrive when all the 'differences in opinion' would dissolve. But let us keep this entire aside. We have already briefly spoken on this question, and later we will try to deal with the question more deeply. However let us clarify one or two things right here. There is no doubt that the formal task of party formation will not be accomplished by the entire working class, this will have to be accomplished by the communists as the vanguard force of the working class. If the question is about finalising the party programme on the basis of unanimity, then also this task undoubtedly is the task of the communists, or to put it more clearly, it is the task of the leaderships of the present communist revolutionary groups. But the communists do not exist in vacuum; they exist on the base of the working class. How the struggle against the so-called 'differences of opinion' is related with this base ? let this important question be temporarily set-aside. But what if that base itself remains extremely narrow, then there remains no obligation on the part of the CR groups to be accountable to that base, nor the base has the strength to ask for accounts. Is it not one of the major reasons for the continuation of the fragmentary group existence? It is to be remembered that the principal question is not that where should we get united, but it is, rather, should we get united at all or not. In the context of that aforesaid objection, our clear-cut answer is, if the communists of today would not have remained pathetically alienated from the working class, if they would have gained a workers' base, if, in spite of the adverse conditions, they could have been able to make the advanced section of the working class really class conscious and organise them as far as possible in proportion to the organisational strength of the individual groups and could become 'communists' in the real sense of the term by strictly adhering to the proletarian politics, then the efforts of the communists, even those of the group leaderships would have been enough to give birth to a unified party, to finalise a united programme. In that case it would not have been possible to block the agenda of party formation by raising the wall of differences of opinion. The communists would have then normally gravitated towards a party. Only the task of formulating a unified programme would have been left to be done.
Then there is a second question. At present we are standing on a history of over hundred years of class struggle and party. Isn't this the reality behind the question of the party formation? If the present communists have failed to unite in a party even with this history behind them, then it is the result of their subjective failure or some sort of parochialism. We would just ask the propagators of this idea to find out where this history is standing now. It is true that we have a history; it is also true that the past history has seen the spread of the socialist movement throughout the world. But, at the same time, it is also true that we are now in a condition when the history has moved backward. Just at this moment the history is demanding the reawakening of the communist movement. If we cannot understand the condition subsequent to the defeat of the international proletariat, then we would go on preparing the list of accusations against the communist revolutionaries ? their individualism, parochialism and subjective weaknesses, but would fail to strike at their root.
What Is Really The 'Differences Of Opinion'?
We have already mentioned that most of the CR groups have been unanimous in their opinion that it is impossible to form a united party with this amount of political-ideological differences among its constituents and this position has remained unchanged till today. But the question remains: why a unified party cannot be formed with differences of opinion, especially when each of them claims to be communist revolutionary and there is a mutual recognition of this, at least, formally. It is not unknown to us that varied opinions on different issues do exist in a party, and this is a sign of its life. The party itself resolves such differences through inner-party struggles conducted on the basis of the policy of democratic centralism. In other words, differences of opinion do exist in a party—only its degree and character changes according to the stages of the class struggle. We cannot conceive of the existence of a communist party in which there is no difference of opinion or all the differences have been resolved once for all. It can be said without any doubt that the history or policy of a Marxist- Leninist Party does not put any claim that at its inception a party will have to be of Bolshevik character. The party may start functioning with serious differences of opinion within it and the more it is able to entrench itself among the working class, the more its lines are get tested and verified by the struggles of the working class and of toiling masses, the more it will be disciplined consolidated and assume more and more Bolshevik character. Everybody knows these fundamentals. So, we have to return to that question ? what may be the speciality of the differences of opinion, for which even the first task cannot be accomplished, even within a long period of 25 years. A search for the answer to this question is bound to lead us to arrive at the harsh and unfortunate conclusion that many of the 'opinions' of these groups do not commensurate with communist position. By communist position we mean a position, which is consistent with the contemporary situation. With the spread and intensification of the class struggle the struggle will confront newer and newer problems which will have to be solved and the communist position will keep on changing. The line of difference between the communists and the non-communists will change and sharpen. Any way, we presume that none of the groups will agree with this conclusion. All right. But then they will have to agree that the difference of opinion is not the root cause for the failure to unite in a party! From the group position we call ourselves communists from that perspective we are all one and the same, but as soon as the question of unity crops up we suddenly become non-communists, become different from each other! Isn't it quite amusing? As if 'I' am the communist and not the 'others', and in the eyes of the 'others' 'I' am no communist at all. We know that Marxism does not care for what one 'thinks' about the other. Therefore, we have to admit what is truth. The political-ideological differences are to be understood in their inner content and not superficially.
Then should we venture out to find eighty percent or cent percent pure communists? It is, undoubtedly, an absurd proposition. The communists do not suddenly fall from the blue-sky; they develop from the society, from intimate association with the social movement. The present communist revolutionaries are products of history. Their struggle against the reformism and revisionism has put them into the upfront and this is the living truth. With all our limitations, we are all communists and we ourselves have to attain completeness taking help from the priceless treasury of Marxism in one hand and from resources of the real struggles of the working class in the other. Actually, this is the combined work of both the hands, not of any single one. If we look back to the experience of the last 20/25 years, we can see that though the ideological struggle between the CR groups have somewhat continued, its impact on the CR groups have been minimal. There is no continuity and no discernable forward movement. This ideological struggle did, neither create any trend towards convergence nor any concrete polarisation ? we are not talking about any subjective polarisation. Here we have to understand that the struggle to thrash out differences of opinion or to become real communists does not just mean abstract ideological struggle. As we will not judge the incompleteness or deviations of today's communists in isolation from the objective condition (defeat), so also we will have to understand that the ideological struggle can become concrete and effective only in connection with conscious interaction with reality, which will ensure the attainment of what is feasible in the contemporary condition. This aforesaid interaction will undoubtedly depend on the ability of the communists to determine and carry out the tasks determined from the concrete analysis of the concrete situation.
In the one side of the reality we see that the capitalists-imperialists are continuing and able to continue with their exploitation and rule all over the world in a ruthless manner. On the other side, and that is more important from the point of view of party formation, we find that in the international arena the working class is completely scattered and a overall sense of despondency and inertness has enveloped them. Losing faith on the strength, power and confidence about the struggle, the working class is in a prevalent mood of retreat. Although the oppression is intensifying day after day, the spontaneity of resistance continues to remain under cover. No doubt, such a situation is actually emboldening and facilitating the ruling classes to sharpen their attack. Secondly, in the ideological sphere of the proletarian movement there is a considerable amount of confusion, indiscipline, and anarchism, which are being reflected in the thought process and naturally in the activities of the present communists. And not only confusions, but also the leftist and rightist deviations are getting entrenched day by day. Some of the important tenets of the proletarian ideology, i.e. of Marxism are being questioned and the invaluable theory of working class hegemony is caught in a cobweb of confusion. We are pretty aware that the abysmal condition of the ideological sphere?the confusion and deviations of the communists, the lack of development of their consciousness and the resultant mutual setting apart (so much so that it is not being possible to unite), and the ebb tide in the working class struggle, their inertness, despondency and lack of spontaneity—all these are not confined within one or two countries. Rather, these two are worldwide phenomena and have arrived hand in hand. Because the source of all these is the same, about which we have referred earlier and that is the defeat of the first campaign of the international socialist movement. This main cause of this defeat is not any external attack of the enemy camp, but internal weakness of the movement. Therefore, it is needless to point out that this critical condition of the proletarian ideological sphere and the lack of spontaneity among the working class are the two sides of the same reality and are interrelated. But what is the point of their interaction, how one does act over the other, or, to put it simply, what is the nature of the interrelationship between the matter and the consciousness ? these things need to be understood more clearly. We have already stated that it is impractical to think that a communist party can be formed by the ideological struggle alone. We told that it is only possible to make the ideological struggle sharp and meaningful only if we can consciously make the interaction to take place in the plain where we are standing. We have also said that for the formation of the party, it is essential to fulfil some material conditions, like the noticeable presence of the advanced class-conscious workers and a certain degree of activity from below. Now let us see how and to what extent the fulfilment of the above conditions and the development of the ideological struggle into a sharp, lively and meaningful one are related to the real struggle of the working class. Then probably we can clarify a bit more why we are stressing that it will be wrong to abstractly put the whole blame on the lack of consciousness of the communist revolutionaries for the failure in forming the party without taking into account the objective conditions of the defeat.
We know that a communist party becomes more and more disciplined and assume more and more Bolshevik character by impregnating itself more and more into the class struggle. Class struggle is the only arena where the party line can be continuously tested and verified. This applies equally in the question of the development of the CR-s, confined in groups, i.e. in the question of the struggle against right and left deviations. But is there any opportunity for this in the present condition where the working class is scattered, the spontaneity of the struggle is almost totally absent and also the stream of class struggle is almost non-existent. Whatever stirring, scattered trade-union struggles under the leadership of the communist revolutionaries are being observed in the arena of economic struggle, these can, in no way, provide the space to the communist revolutionaries for testing and verifying their political and ideological position. It is also not happening that the different analyses (definitely more than one) of the groups on the numerous socio-political phenomena in the national and international arenas are being considered or rejected independently by the advance section of the working class, or they are reacting to these and forcing the groups to reconsider their positions. As a result each of the groups is allowed to consider its particular 'opinion' or line as the correct one and find justification of its separate existence from its own subjective yardstick ? the net result of which is that the 'differences in opinion' are persisting. Naturally, therefore, the unification remains as elusive as ever. In this context, it has to be admitted that whatever little amount of movement is there in the society, be it in the workers' movement or in some other social sphere, we are not cross-checking our positions in that light, neither we are taking lessons from our mistakes. This is a tragic commentary on the level of our consciousness.
Next we move on to the issue of the development or of developing of the advanced section of the proletariat. It is an undeniable fact that to the advanced workers in the factories the socialist ideology has fallen apart. The attraction of class politics is very feeble, and on the other hand, the inaction, passivity and submissive trends among the general mass of the workers are holding back the advanced section. This pull factor is very strong today. It is an indubitable fact that the emergence of the advanced workers from the real movement, and organising them into a class-conscious force depends, to a great extent, on the stirring from below. At least this much can be said that to fulfil one of the preconditions of party formation, i.e. presence of a certain number of class conscious workers, a certain change in the condition of the working class in terms of its spontaneity is essential. It is not that this process is completely absent even now. But whether the CR-s are playing their vital role in this condition is another question that we will discuss later. We also have to remember that the extent to which the communists would be able to entrench themselves within the working class, the more they would take up the task of consolidating them, the more the CRs would be able to realign themselves through the changing processes. In other words, in the process of preparing the workers we prepare ourselves, free ourselves from the bourgeois vices. It is therefore needless to say that more the stirring grows from the below, especially among the working class, more the space will be offered to us entrench ourselves among the working class and the more we will advance towards the formation of the party.
We have till now discussed three different aspects of the relation of a conscious process like party formation with the objective condition, to be precise, with the condition of almost complete absence of the spontaneous struggles of the working class. To speak more generally, in the context of the interrelationship between the matter and the consciousness, we have, till now, discussed the coordinates and the role of the matter separately. Now we have to understand the reverse, that is, the impact of the consciousness on the real condition. The first most relevant but contrary question we have to face here is that in a condition where an ebb tide is reigning in the working class movement, a vast majority of the common mass is being dominated by reactionary and reformist ideas and outlooks, how the interaction with such a backward condition can develop and strengthen the consciousness? Rather the reverse is supposed to happen. We cannot avoid this extremely serious question. If we cannot find the answer to this query, we will fail to understand the role of consciousness in its real depth and inner content. Nevertheless, there is no scope of difference in this regard that it is of absolute importance to the communists to hold high the flag of the proletariat in the present situation of class struggle, that would definitely demand an ideological firmness and an unwavering commitment to the proletarian politics. Here we can bear in mind one observation of Lenin. He says that if the communists have to go down into the filth, then they will have to put one foot on filth and the other on a solid ground. What does Lenin mean by filth? In a class divided society, the surface or the upper portion looks dazzling and glittery; but right beneath this thin crest lays darkness, illiteracy and unconsciousness. What a life can be other than filth if it is deprived from all the good things of life, if it is gloomy, tiresome, under crushing strain and banished to the lowest depth of the society? However, here Lenin wants to indicate to the lives of the vast majority of the workers tied to thousand strings of backwardness, victims of bourgeois, even feudal thoughts and outlooks. We know that there is no difference amid the majority of the communists in the question of getting down to the filth. But are we keeping our other foot on solid ground? While emphasising before the then "left communists" on the absolute necessity of getting down to lowest level, he did not forget to mention that the other foot should be firmly placed on solid ground. It is quite clear that the purpose of getting down to the filth is to lift the masses from the filth to the position of class struggle. But it should not be forgotten that the filth also has a downward pull — a pull to compromise with the backwardness of the working class and the masses, a pull to drag down the communists to the level of consciousness of the general mass. Here we have to understand the tremendous significance of putting the other feet firmly grounded. The living question is which pull will win?the pull of backwardness of the masses, the captives of bourgeois outlook, or the communist consciousness. In this period of defeat of the first international socialist campaign, when the working class movement is passing through a lean period, when an all-pervading dominance of the imperialists and capitalists is prevailing over the society, then we must realise how important for the communists, who are now almost totally alienated from the working class, to keep one foot firmly on their consciousness, i.e. on solid ground. We must not forget that any slight slackness of our vigil against the dangerous pull of the 'filth' may cause our downfall.
In his reference to the keeping of one foot on the solid ground Lenin surely did not mean only consciousness, he must have meant the strength of the real class struggle also. In a condition of weakness of the class struggle we are forced to put more emphasis on the factor of consciousness. But is this consciousness is unrelated with the material condition? Of course not. But what is that material condition? In all possibility, in the answer to this question we may find the answer to the one with which we are confronted. Any way, we have to decide how we should visualise the objective condition. If there exists a pull of the filth in the society then there must exist a reverse pull among the working class, and, indeed, it is there. We do realise that the opportunist- reformist parties are functioning on the basis of backwardness and the illusion of the masses on the parliamentary path of reform. But on what basis the communists are existing? Not on vacuum surely. The basis is present in the society, more particularly among the working class. We must keep in mind that there exists not one society, but two??one maintains the old one and the other gibes birth to the new one. There is no doubt that in the period of defeat the working class is dominated by an overwhelming sense of conformism and within this very trait rests another reality, an opposite reality: the objectivity of the class struggle. That is right now lying in a dormant state. Undoubtedly this reality is the basis of existence of the communists. The total process of interaction of the action of proletarian consciousness on this reality and the reality, at the same time, providing nourishment to this consciousness is the solid ground on which Lenin has asked to keep one foot firmly. Let us not fail to comprehend that in a situation where the objective condition does not manifest itself clearly, how highly important and determining is the role of the consciousness of the communists in the total process of ascertaining the objectivity of the class struggle among the huge debris of the old, of bringing out this objectivity in light and of developing it. We have to clearly understand that this consciousness is not any abstract consciousness. This consciousness has to be realised in connection with the objective reality. By objective reality we have to understand that particular part of reality where the objectivity of class struggle lies embedded. This objective condition cannot be found in the 'bandhs' of the reformists-revisionists. Rather we can find this objective condition in the spontaneous separate strike of the Jute Mill workers in defiance of the 'strike-call' of the established reformist leaders, among those workers who are eager to know the reasons behind the fall of the proletarian power in Soviet Russia and China and also in the apparently insignificant spontaneous efforts of the workers to independently unite in opposition to the naked compromising line of the old established leaders. This is the essential change about which we are talking about in the context of the formation of a unified party i.e. clear, open extension of this reality. Lastly, we have to understand that we will not be able to advance very much in the struggle for attaining the desired communist consciousness, for developing into true communists, if the backward aspects of the society can continue to dominate over the objectivity of the class struggle which we have characterised as the material basis of the existence of the communists, if we fail to grasp the objectivity of the class struggle and the present tasks in accordance with this objectivity.
We have started our discussion with the issue of party formation. There, in the perspective of our past experience and a general analysis of the objective positions of the CR groups we arrived at the conclusion that right now it is not objectively possible for them to form a united party. The present CR groups also have, through their declarations and behaviours, made it clear, particularly by the way they have forcefully brought forward the question of the differences of opinion (and we have no other option but to accept it) that the party will emerge when a higher level of consciousness will be reached. Here we have only tried to establish that the struggle to resolve or minimise the differences of opinion and the struggle to become true communists are in no way two different struggles. We have tried to understand and convince others that it is not correct to put the whole blame on the lack of consciousness of the communist revolutionaries for the failure to form an united party; the principal reason for this lies in the defeat of the first international socialist campaign, the two characteristic features of which are: one, the ideological confusion and indiscipline prevailing among the present communists and two, the prevalence of frustration, passivity and the near absence of spontaneous struggle among the working class. Finally, briefly we have to get into the discussion on the important issue of interaction between the matter and consciousness. This is done with the objective of understanding why the responsibility of concrete analysis of the concrete situation does solely rests with the CR groups in the context of the party formation and a movement towards the party formation, or to be more specific to fulfil the preconditions of the party formation, to determine the specific tasks (both theoretical and practical), and to concentrate on these tasks with vigour and zeal. There is no other avenue open to us to take conscious effort to relieve the working class of the burden of its inability forced on it by the absence of a party.
We do not know when this effort will reach its goal. The question of the international movement of the proletariat is definitely important here. However this can be stated emphatically that the more vigorously the contemporary communists perform their historically ordained tasks, closer they would get to the objective of the formation of the party.
We recognize the fact that it is only possible for a real working class party, which is the only organisation of the advanced section of the working class of the country, which only can organise the working class and develop the class struggle throughout the country. Any section or a group cannot perform this task. The objective condition in the post-defeat situation, which is responsible for the disunity and division among the communists, is also the reason behind the absence of the unified class struggle. Therefore, the situation is such that the CR groups have to carry on the preparatory work for the real struggle, which will develop in future, from their present position and performing the tasks that are commensurate with and possible in their present position. Keeping in mind the dialectical relation between organisation and struggle it can be said that following the natural process of development of the scattered preparatory movements these will reach a stage when the urge to unite in an united higher stage of class struggle will be generated within these movements and this urge will create a condition when an united organisation will take shape through the unification of the communist revolutionary groups leading these scattered movements. So this task of this preparatory work is the present task of the CR groups and this is also the work of the party formation. This proposition can be clarified further. We know and have already mentioned that the party can only attain its Bolshevik character by entrenching itself more and more among the working class, and continually testing and verifying its ideological-political line through the experiences of the class struggle. Does the same process apply equally in the pre-party stage? And here also we are confronted with a question. How will the splintered party be united? Probably we will not be making a mistake if we consider the transformation of the groups into a party and the subsequent development of the party into a Bolshevik one is a continuous process and no Chinese wall exists between these stages. Different stages of the class struggle pose different tasks before the communists. In the same way the task of forming a higher form of organisation comes to the fore. Here it can also be said that if, in the mean time, there occurs a spontaneous rising of the masses then the present tasks may change and this changed reality may accelerate the process of party formation. Any way, at present, the foremost challenge before the communist revolutionaries is to determine the present task on the basis of a concrete analysis of the concrete situation. We will now enter in a short discussion on this question. It goes without saying that we can cross an important step in the struggle of party formation if the communist revolutionaries can reach unanimity on this issue
The Rightist Pull on the Socio-Political Reality
It is a fact that in a condition where the resistance struggle against the ruling class onslaught is absent and the working class has forgotten the perspective of its goal of socialism, some other thing must fill up the blank space in the consciousness of the working class, trapped in such a backward condition and devoid of its belief in itself. As a matter of fact, taking advantage of almost total non-existence of proletarian leadership in the society, the capitalist-imperialists have been able to establish their full command over the society and with its help have been able to keep the working class and other down trodden masses attached to this exploitative system. The parliamentary elections most clearly reveal this truth. It does not require too much elaboration to show how much the downtrodden people are seeking the redress of their grievances within the bourgeois legal framework. We see how easily the religious unity enforces itself over class unity. The rightist ascendancy is sweeping across the world. All the ruling classes are increasingly taking the rightist stance. In our country, the BJP and the Sangh Parivar are openly making preparations to impose a fascist regime by using the existing religious divide in the society and by fomenting the religious frenzy of the majority Hindu population. Take for example the case of the petty bourgeois parties like the CPI (M). The way they are abandoning the left mask and taking the brief of the capitalist-imperialist interest with an opportunist excuse of a tough situation, and turning themselves as an important ally of the ruling repressive forces would have been an unthinkable proposition twenty/twenty five years back. At the same time it is a fact that they are not alone in this rightist journey; they have been able to carry their mass following along the same path. At first, we have to take this part of the situation into our consideration.
It is true that at this moment the organized working class is the only force that has the capacity to arrest this rightist onslaught. Nevertheless, we are very much aware about the present condition of the working class, which we have mentioned earlier. The vast majority of them are imprisoned in the rightist, reactionary, opportunist-revisionist trap. In this condition, it is only possible for the advanced section of the working class to arrest this rightist pull up to a certain extent and that too, if, and only if they remain organised . It is not difficult for us to realize that in a condition where the force of the class struggle is negligible how important it is to adhere to the communist consciousness. However, we must not forget that even this consciousness is under attack from different directions. Hence it has to be realised that although, at present, the communist revolutionaries are divided into several groups, still the more they can make that section of the Indian working class class-conscious and organized, who are coming into the forefront of the actual struggles (at present these struggles are mostly economic struggles) and who, at the same time, are not free from bourgeois influence and stand on this organized basis, the more they will be able to protect themselves from this rightist pull. This is the major area of work of the communists in the present scenario and by taking up this work we can prove our communist consciousness. To get slightly more emphatic on this point we may say that any lacklustre attitude towards this task and oppositely, any attempt to mobilize mass movement of a general nature would trap us unguarded against the perilous rightist pull and ultimately this would make us an easy prey to the left-right deviation.
When it comes to the question of the development of the mass movement, two principal and mandatory pre-conditions have to be fulfilled: First, spontaneity of struggle and, second, the leadership of the working class. We have already discussed the issue of spontaneity in detail and it is not necessary to repeat the same here. Still, it is found sometimes that the stereotyped "mass movements" of the opportunist lefts create confusion among the communist revolutionaries. As for example, movements like the "Bharat Bandh". A great many of the communist revolutionaries are seen to find or seek to find the expression of the spontaneous urge of the masses for struggle in the apparent success of the all- India strikes or Bandhs called by the so-called left parties and the central trade unions controlled by these parties. This is not only wrong but also illusory. The primary characteristics of spontaneity are independence and self-belonging, that is, a sense of belonging and urge of the masses for struggle. This points to a condition in which the masses are refusing to keep their feeling of anger and agitation suppressed within themselves, but, on the other hand, in their urge to find solutions to their problems, have, of their own, taken the streets to launch a struggle or are contemplating to do it. Do we find any such urge or motivation in these Bandhs? If this had been the case, before such a big country wide struggle like Bharat Bandh in a vast country like ours, we would have definitely observed the outbreak of isolated, scattered struggles of the working class as spontaneous expressions of their the anger and agitation and the all-India strikes or Bandhs would have come as natural centralized expressions of these isolated, scattered spontaneous struggles. The factory gates would not have remained so placid after such Bandhs. In a period of the retreat of the working class struggle, the degree of spontaneity of the working class can never be gauged by the degree of support for or participation in a particular programme of inert workers, devoid of self-belief and tied to the old unions. Such spontaneity of the masses can also be observed during the elections, but this spontaneity has no relation with the class struggle. In fact, essentially the spontaneity of the masses reflected in the Bandhs is nothing but the developed version of the spontaneity of the masses reflected through their participation in the elections. If at all any real spontaneity of the workers remains anywhere, it can be found in their economic struggles that are taking place in the factories, where the workers are waging a revolt against the old leadership to create a new organization of their own and trying their level best to fight out the atrocities perpetrated against them. The communists can find here the basis of their work, that is, the objectivity of class struggle. Any way, there is nothing new that we can add about the second condition concerning the leadership question. Standing on an extremely weak or almost absent class-base, it is simply out of question for a group organization to conceive about leading a mass movement. Still this much can be said that the comparatively few and scattered spontaneous struggles that can be observed even in the present condition could certainly have been developed to a certain extent if, in the mean time, we could have been able to form an united communist party and win over more and more of the advanced workers to our side.
Yet, the fact is that almost all the groups have, at the central point of their programme, the agenda of developing mass movement. Sometimes this is followed as an individual effort, at other times jointly. But not only theoretical analysis, but also the experience of the ground reality has amply demonstrated the fact that the revolutionary mass movement cannot be made to order and it has never happened in that way. At present, all the communist revolutionary groups have, at their basis, an extremely weak mass support, which allows the scope only for organizing agitation demonstrations and, in reality, the practical programs of the groups are now confined within this. Another phenomenon can be observed here. Instead of putting main stress on attracting the working class and organizing the advanced section of the class through their mass programs, more stress is often laid on extending the group's influence over the mixed bag of poor and middle class population, and this is sometimes done with a growing tendency to proclaim the presence of the concerned group among the given population. As a natural consequence of these, the issues/demands, which have the possibility of attracting the sympathy of the general mass, come to the forefront. It is impossible to achieve the participation of the general mass in continuous movement without the organization and struggle of the working class developing to a certain extent. Even if a mass movement does take place without the development to a certain extent of the organization and struggle of the working class as a result of some special action and interaction, then also it will not be possible to sustain that movement, or, in other words, such a movement will not be stored in the treasury of class struggle. It is not that we do not have one or two such experiences. The most important point here, however, is that in the present condition, when there is no established working class authority/ leadership in the society, any programme to influence the general masses would inevitably lead us to compromise with the deep rooted backward and reformist bourgeois thinking and aspirations now prevalent among them. To be more specific, if the communist revolutionaries follow the above-mentioned path, then in the view of their present level of consciousness, the general mass will take them as a pro-poor, better parliamentary alternative to the CPI (M), although the communist revolutionaries do not want it. It is needless to say, even if one is able to extend the organisational influence in this way that has nothing to do with the interests of class struggle. At most, this could be of some help to the parliamentary activities and nothing else. Here we have to keep in mind that the objectivity of class struggle cannot be found in the real basis of existence of the opportunist-reformist parties. We have to wait for the outbreak of the spontaneous revolts of the people; we can only stimulate such revolts through our sustained propaganda. We have to understand the painful truth that a prolonged period of alienated existence from the working class and the masses has created an urge among the groups to overcome such alienation at once, which ultimately is bound to lead towards capitulation to the rightist pull. Even we would look at those who are propagating armed struggle, contemplating to redress the immediate problems of the masses through the deployment of armed squads and mobilizing selected people from the masses in militant activities, we would find that they are, in reality, compromising with the desires of reforms of the masses, who are dominated by backward bourgeois ideology.
The aforesaid discussion categorically persuades us to conclude that subject to the formation of the party and for advancing towards the objective of the party formation and for arresting the contemporary rightist political pull which is working on the communists, that is, to remain firm in the class position, we have to give priority to the task of developing the advanced workers as class conscious workers and organizing them. The task, indeed, can be accomplished even within the limitations of group existence. Even in all our mass activities like revolutionary propaganda, protest, and agitation etc., we have to remain conscious that this objective remains at the centre. The spontaneity of the working class struggle is now reflected mostly in the domain of economic struggle. It is imperative that enough emphasis is put in this sphere. But we have to keep in mind that the real basis of the activities of the communists can only be found only there, where the workers are developing or getting ready to develop struggle and organisation after ousting the old, established trade union leaders. That is why it is imperative to put utmost importance to launch a struggle to set free the workers from the bondage of reformist-opportunist politics into which the old parties have kept the trade-union movement tied. To accomplish this task it is urgent and mandatory for the communists to hold fast to the class line. Only then, it would be possible to politically organise those advanced workers whom the actual struggles are throwing to the forefront.
The leadership or hegemony of working class
It is very much known to the communist revolutionaries and we have discussed earlier that the Communist party is really a party of the proletariat and the intellectuals have to declass themselves to rally around such a party. Nevertheless, in order to keep the class basis of the party in tact and well protected, that is, to develop into a working class party in the real sense of the term; it is not enough to take a theoretical and ideological stand only. Often most of the communists fail to note why the presence of class conscious workers in the party is essential and why Lenin has put so much importance on the involvement of more and more worker communists in directing the organizational activities of the party. Perhaps for this reason they put little importance to the role of the preparation of the advanced workers in the task of party formation. It may not be completely wrong to say that the contemporary communists are exhibiting quite a laxity, even some sort of indifference in comprehending the significance of adhering to the question of the proletarian leadership and its importance in the struggle for socialism. It is not enough for the working class to organize itself just for the sake of protecting its own class interest If the class cannot develop itself as the leader of the toiling and oppressed masses, both at the ideological plane and in real struggle, then, as per Lenin, even if the working class is organised, such an organisation is bound to remain as a sect, it can never grow as a real class organisation. Any move towards extending organisational influence among the masses by compromising with the bourgeois thinking and aspirations, now prevailing among the vast majority of them and developing struggles from above will inevitably, in reality, push towards a position where the above truth will be neglected. It is already happening now. It can even be observed that while we may give a good deal of attention to the task of making the advanced workers conscious about their own class interest, we give little attention to the task of making them conscious about the fact that it is also their class interest to stand by the peasantry and lead them in their struggle for land. An opposite tendency of ascribing the role of leadership of the coming People's Democratic Revolution to the peasantry can also be observed among a number of communist revolutionary groups. In fact, if we can not realize the unquestionable importance and significance of the leadership of the proletariat, then it would neither be possible to free the large mass of peasantry from the influence of bourgeois development and illusion, nor would it be possible to complete the peasant revolution in connection with the journey towards socialism and confusion will engulf us repeatedly. It should not be forgotten that the role of the working class is just not limited to the completion of the unfinished tasks of the democratic revolution, but its aim is to march forward for the attainment of socialism.
The Significance of the Struggle against Revisionism-Reformism and Opportunism
We all know that since the advent of imperialism in the beginning of the last century, opportunism has turned into a permanent and institutionalised danger within the ambit of proletarian struggle. We all know how the extreme opportunism of the leaders of the Second International, in the name of revising Marxism, completely degenerated the Second International from within and how Lenin and his comrades-in-arms relentlessly fought against the leaders of the Second International from a minority position and kept the flag of international proletarian revolution flying. The Third International was born because of this struggle under the leadership of Lenin. At the same time, it was not that the imperialism-capitalism turned weak as a result; rather, they continued with their various tactics of direct and indirect attacks against the struggle for socialism in the international scale as well as in various countries. We have to keep in mind that from that time they had started to more and more opt for indirect attack on the working class struggle, i.e., for taking the course of corrupting it from inside. Perhaps, it is better to say that they were somewhat compelled to do so in the context of their failure to destroy the newly born Soviet state. The main cause of degeneration of the international socialist struggle, which started its immensely potential journey with the Soviet rules of Russia and China at its front, was not any direct external attack. It degenerated mainly because of its internal decadence and weakness and taking advantage of this, the imperialists and capitalists had been able to re-establish their worldwide supremacy. The causes of the failure of the victorious campaign of the international working class to combat the cunning tactics of the imperialist-capitalists and of this devastating defeat should be deeply enquired and analysed. Nonetheless, from the experiences of the Second International it can be asserted that if the international communist had not been severely weakened by opportunism, then the international socialist struggle would not have to pass through this terribly painful period of defeat. It is also to be understood that in a condition of defeat where the dominance of reformism and revisionism has been able to shatter the defence of the working class and where the class struggle is in an extreme disoriented condition, an overwhelming and unprecedented ideological confusion prevails in this arena, to what depth the dominance of reformism-revisionism has spread its roots within the working class has not remained as a subject of conjecture, but has been clearly revealed in the terrible experiences of real life. Therefore, it does not need any further elaboration to understand how much important it is for the communists to launch an all-round fight against opportunism and reformism, both intensely and cautiously, for combating the defeat and making a turn around. Our claim to be communist will be seriously questioned if we show slightest negligence or indifference in carrying out this task. We have to analyse deeply and identify the definite manifestations of the reformism-opportunism in this condition of defeat and it is undoubtedly our inviolable duty to fight against those to realize our immediate aim of party formation. We know that in our country all the existing communist revolutionary groups have emerged through splits from the old revisionist-reformist parties. However, we have to remember that spilt from these parties and a complete split from revisionism-reformism and opportunism is not the same thing. Although it is true that in continuation of the world-wide struggle launched under the leadership of the then Chinese Communist Party against the opportunist line of class collaboration pursued under the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party, organizational splits took place in the old Communist Parties all over the world and new parties/groups emerged. At the same time, it is also true that this great struggle could not reach its successful culmination. We have to bear in mind that communists of today have to take up this unfinished task anew in this phase of defeat. They have to carry forward the process of organizational separation to its full culmination by completely separating themselves from reformism and revisionism and firmly adhering to the proletarian line. In the current socio-political scenario, the manner in which the rightist pull is destabilizing the communist revolutionary groups and, at least not allowing them to remain firm in the proletarian line only highlights the importance and magnitude of the task mentioned above. It is known to all Marxists that it is not possible to take a firm stance in favour of the proletarian line and properly combat the deep-rooted influence of reformism-revisionism on the workers (more so in the present period of defeat) without effecting a complete separation from reformism-revisionism. At the present moment this struggle have to be carried out many times more resolutely within the organizations, i.e., within the communist revolutionary camp than among the masses. Are the communist revolutionary groups conscious about this task?
If we view those who are generally identified and known as communist revolutionary groups as a block or camp, we will find the existence of both ultra-leftism and right-opportunism. Everyone recognizes this truth, and yet each of these groups thinks that its proletarian position is beyond question. Groups like PW and MCC brand all other groups who are not involved in armed struggle or do not follow the line of election boycott as more or less rightist . In contrast, the other groups brand these two as ultra-left . It is widely known that such a division exists within the communist revolutionary camp. But the group division should not influence us. For the sake of our main discussion let us set aside this name-calling to which different communist revolutionary groups are indulging now. Because, none of the existing communist revolutionary groups can claim that they are well entrenched within the working class. Rather, the fact is that all of these groups, whether left or right, are miserably alienated from the working class. Moreover, in many cases, both right and left deviations are existing in combination. Therefore, it is meaningless to superficially or subjectively decide about the right and left division among the communist revolutionary groups. One has to realize that in order to get entrenched within the working class, or, in other words, to develop an advanced class conscious army of the proletariat in the real sense of the term and to become real communists in the present period, it is most important to fight against the right and ultra-left tendencies/ deviations existing in the communist revolutionary camp. The first question in this context that obviously comes to our mind is which is the major threat to present the proletarian movement—right or ultra-left inclinations/deviations? On which struggle should we put more stress? From the consideration of organizational strength the struggle against ultra-left deviations comes to the fore. However, is it so?
Unfortunately, it is true that among the communist revolutionary groups in India ideological struggle is very much a neglected arena. Especially during this phase of defeat and in the context of profound confusion existing in the political and ideological milieu, both the quality and quantity of the ideological struggles are quite short of their marks. It is also a fact that it is very rare to find a group that is not uselessly and baselessly rigid in the question of its ideas and stands. If we could have moved with the spirit of 'let us think and let others think', then undoubtedly we could have greatly benefited in really preparing ourselves as communists and advancing towards realization of the objective of the formation of an united party. Apart from this, it is not the case that the ultra-left or the rightist s are seriously and sincerely conducting the ideological struggle among themselves. Even the anti-ultra groups are not seen to be engaged in any sort of profound and continuous ideological struggle against each other. In the broader interest of the communist movement, all the groups should ponder how to break the stalemate. However, let us return to the original issue. We have already said that it will be purposeless to make the existing division of ultra-leftism and anti-ultra leftism an issue . Rather we must look into those inclinations or trends that are hindering the work of developing into real communists or advancing towards the formation of a united party or even the practical tasks like organizing workers in the economic struggles. Readers may remember our previous discussion on how the rightist pull is increasing in the socio-political sphere, and how the present communists have also are trapped into this whirlpool. The ruling classes also are, on one hand, very skilfully not only keeping the parliamentary structure in tact, but also keeping it moving and, on the other hand, continuing with the very slow rated programme of various types of reforms which are, nonetheless, percolating to the masses in droplets. The working class is retreating after the defeat and over and above, it is facing an intensified attack from the ruling classes. In such a situation, the reformist tendencies are bound to increase or substantially remain in tact among the generally inert working class. How much the rightist tendency of reformism of the masses is influencing the communist revolutionaries can well be gauged from the fact that even the ultra-left organizations are also forced, in their strongholds, to put forward demands of bourgeois reforms of different dimensions in line with the aspirations of reforms of the masses. Any way, we have already discussed how deeply the rightist pull is working within those who, from the outward appearance of the ultra-lefts, are considering the ultra-left line as the principal threat. Their indifference to this fact is really unfortunate. If they had a proper realization about the intensification of the domination of bourgeois ideology and the extension of penetration of the roots of revisionism and reformism within the society as a whole, even among the retreating working class, then they could not have categorized ultra-leftism as the principal threat and neglected the necessity of fighting against opportunism while fighting against ultra-leftism. In fact, we have got to realize that the more the proletarian position can clearly be strengthened through continuously struggling against the reformist-opportunist tendencies, the more successfully the ultra-left adventurist line can be combated. To be more precise, it is definitely essential to fight directly against the different manifestations of the ultra-left line and there is no question of belittling the necessity of this struggle But at the same time, undoubtedly it is a fact that the success of this struggle will mainly depend on the success of the struggle against the right-opportunism. It can be emphatically stated that on the question of participation in the electoral process of the present parliamentary structure if we can not free ourselves the bourgeois outlook and really grasp Leninist tactics of participation in bourgeois elections and follow it in real life, then it would not be possible for us to strike at the root of the 'boycott line'. Moreover, if we do not keep in our mind that the fundamental task is to organize the working class independently and separately and also if we forget that the communists use the limited democratic rights and the legal opportunities available in the bourgeois system for this objective only and instead of this if we keep workers' economic struggle and the actual mass movements (however insignificant these may be) dependent on the bourgeois legal-administrative institutions and on bourgeois-petty bourgeois forces, then we would not be able to combat the ultra ?left line. Rather, unwittingly, we would strengthen it. And it is really happening! Any way, the scope of this article does not allow us to discuss the methods of struggle against the left deviations here. In the context of the earlier discussion, what we are trying to say is that to fight the ultra-left deviation it is mandatory and important for us to fight the reformist-opportunist trends. Lastly, we want to ask those who consider the ultra-left adventurism as the principal threat, to consider the fact that the influence of left adventurist line on the working class, specially on its comparatively advanced section is insignificant, whereas it is not so in the case of the influence of reformism and revisionism.
There must be some reason behind the lacking and to some extent indifference of the communist revolutionary groups in grasping the tremendous importance of the struggle against reformism and opportunism. To find it out we have to look back. It is a fact that most of the present communist revolutionary groups have emerged from the CPI (ML). Every one knows that the ultra-left line had dominated the party, and it was a major factor leading to its split. One section, after minor adjustments, remained attached to the old political-ideological position. A majority of these groups, however, had to stand against the left adventurism of the erstwhile party, and its new followers. Naturally, struggle against the reformist-opportunist line was not important in their agenda as they must have taken the formation of CPI (ML) out of the split from CPI (M) as a complete and decisive break from reformism and revisionism. Yet, if they had given proper attention to the question why the new party, formed through a split in the old revisionist party after a struggle within it, was allowed to be dominated by an ultra-left adventurist line very quickly, almost from its birth, then they could not have failed to grasp the above mentioned importance and necessity. They would have realized that the genesis of this problem remained entrenched in the incompleteness and weakness of the ideological struggle within the old party, viz, CPI (M). Any way, we shall see that in the later period even after the break up of CPI (ML) the unfinished struggle against reformism and revisionism, in fact, remained unfinished. On the other hand, those who continued with the old CPI (ML) line possibly thought that they were actually fighting revisionism-reformism through the line of formation of armed squad with the objective of establishing liberated area and of vote-boycott. They did not seem to notice to what depth reformism had spread its roots within the society and more specially, how much the bourgeois ideology had extended its domination on the consciousness of the vast majority of the mass including the working class. It is impossible to fight against reformism-opportunism or for that matter against the backwardness of the masses while virtually ignoring to follow the politics of separately and independently organizing the working class and raising it to the position of leader of the struggles of the vast majority of the exploited mass, even if by taking up arms. This is clearly felt during the elections. The bottom line is, at a time when historically from the point of view of the communist movement the struggle against the powerful reformism and revisionism of CPI (M) and other 'left' parties and its influence on the working class was most important the adherents of the old CPI (ML) line set it aside and the majority of the communist revolutionary groups had to actually fight mainly against the ultra-left line and its practice. The contradiction was not resolved then. It has now assumed a complex shape. If we are serious about the task of party formation, then we should immediately resolve this contradiction. And to do this we should fight the right-opportunism with utmost seriousness, without ignoring the struggle against left deviations.
The importance of theoretical tasks
Up to this point, we have discussed from various aspects about the tasks, which demand immediate attention of the communists. We have tried to determine the tasks from a specific analysis of the objective situation. Again, we have tried to place our analysis or viewpoint the role of these tasks in helping us to advance towards party formation. Every one must have noticed that in evaluating the situation or grasping the present tasks, the defeat of the first campaign of the International Socialist Struggle have been our perspective. In all possibility, an appropriate recognition of the defeat is not there among the majority of the CR groups. We believe that the reason behind the divergence of opinion among the communist revolutionaries about the task of the moment has stemmed from this lack of recognition or proper recognition of the defeat. Can we really find any sort of reason for this present unprecedented condition anywhere except in the defeat of the International Proletariat? In fact, if the communists cannot straightaway face this hard truth of defeat, then they would fail to explain their isolation from the working class and they would treat this isolation very lightly. At the same time, they would also treat lightly the awesome hold of bourgeois thinking and aspirations on the vast majority of the working class and as a result, they are bound to be dominated by subjective errors or confusions in their assessment of the present tasks. We have to keep in mind that if the defeated force really wants to resurrect itself from the ashes, wants to snatch victory in the coming days, then it has to first recognize the defeat.
A break has been created in the continuity of the International Communist Movement, born after the Communist Manifesto , assumed its continuity especially after the formation of the First International and gloriously advanced with the victorious proletarian revolutions in Russia and China . The International Communist movement is now wrecked. The task of resurrecting the movement from this wreckage is the biggest challenge before the Communists of today. The defeat has raised a series of important questions before them and has given birth to numerous deviations and confusions. These questions and confusions cannot be avoided. Undoubtedly, this requires a deeper understanding of Marxism and remaining faithful to it a great and vast theoretical work of enquiry and analysis. If the glorious communist movement of the past is to be regenerated and infused new life in its continuity and then anybody and everybody in the world worth the name of communist has to take up this task. With utmost importance they have to find out the root cause of the failure of the proletarian movement and its remedy.
The glorious history of the communist movement is a reality; it is there and it will be there to provide inspiration to the future communist movement. Similarly, the history of the defeat of the movement is also a reality. Whatever its impact on the contemporary society and however deep its effect may be in the context of history it is a momentary phenomenon. At the same time, it is also true that the present communist movement will not be able to advance without challenging the reality born out of this defeat. It is already mentioned that the defeat of the International Proletariat had not taken place because of some external and direct attack by the imperialist-capitalist forces, but due to an internal process of decadence within the movement itself. Therefore, we have to challenge the way or path through which the degenerated revisionist parties could impose the defeat on the working class. Is it true that the communist revolutionaries of today have freed themselves from the old pattern of thinking and doing work? The history of the gradual assertion of authority of the intellectuals or the 'Babu' communists in the old parties and the conversion of the parties into a virtual guardian and direction-giver of the 'less educated' workers and masses is not unknown to us. The parties remained a working class party only in name. The soldiers of the struggle for communist resurgence must find out how this has happened and how these 'guardian' parties could lead the working class into the path of degradation, into the path of selling themselves to the bourgeoisie. Over and above, they must find out how the revisionist could capture the working class party, how this could happen in the countries where the revolutions had been victorious under the leadership of the communist parties. We have to ponder on these issues with utmost sincerity. But it can be said right now that the presence of the class-conscious workers, i.e. worker communists in the old parties, both quantitatively and qualitatively must have been weak. If polluted water can enter into the politics of class struggle, or, in other words, if the imperialists can insert poisonous water into the politics of class struggle, then such weakness is bound to creep in. It is also true that only the advanced section of the working class, firmly embedded among the masses that can block the entry of such poisonous water and keep the party uninjured. If the dominance of intellectual 'Babus' is established within the party and such dominance is allowed to settle down, then this main basic strength of the party is bound to weaken and one part of it is bound to degenerate, which by our experiences with the CPI ? CPI (M)'s have abundantly shown. Are the present communists—the communist revolutionary groups who are thinking of forming a new united communist party—really conscious of this? We are conscious that in the present conditions it is extremely difficult and hard to get advanced workers and make them class conscious? But are not conscious efforts on the part of communist revolutionary groups found to be lacking in this regard? Are we completely free from the tendency of seeing ourselves as 'compassionate guardians'?
The defeat of the first campaign of the International Struggle for Socialism has raised numerous questions before the communists, encompassing the ideological plane as well as the practical tasks of the present moment. We have to realize that in order to primary identify these problems/questions and then proceed towards finding the answers/solutions, it is extremely important to analyse the past and to carry on theoretical enquiry and analysis in order to comprehend the reality of the period of defeat, standing on the basis of the correct realization of the fundamental concepts of Marxism. It will not be possible to resurrect the wrecked communist movement or to combat the anti-Marxist ideologies of different hues, like, Post-Modernism, and held high the glorious flag of Marxism-Leninism without taking up this task with all earnestness. We have already given due importance to the discussion of the present set of practical tasks which the communists are facing now. We must declare here quite forcefully that if the contemporary communists are committed to the interest of the working class and, if they really want to build a communist party to accomplish this task, then besides continuing their present tasks sincerely, they should strengthen the process of theoretical exploration and analysis with utmost importance. It is necessary for the communists of the world to appreciate that the principal task for them is to analytically understand the reasons of the defeat of the first campaign of the International Movement for Socialism. In the international plane, the project is going on. The Indian Communist must participate in the project. Whether they will do it jointly or not is an issue, which they have to decide.
Comments:
No Comments for View