Once Again On MR 2004
On the February, 2004 issue of this journal we published a discussion on WSF and MR 2004 which were simultaneously held in Mumbai in January, 2004. In that discussion, while agreeing, in main, with the organisers of MR 2004 on their criticism about WSF, we raised some questions about MR 2004, about the justifiability of organising such an anti-imperialist international platform in the present concrete situation of the international proletarian movement and about the ideological position of this platform. On the June, 2004, issue of People's March, which is known to reflects the views and positions of CPI(ML)-PW, an article has been published with the heading 'The Question of an Approach to WSF/MR'. The article, apart from reiterating the criticisms of MR against WSF, has tried to counter the different criticisms against MR 2004, raised from different quarters including some of the existing communist revolutionary groups of India, and to justify the platform of MR. We have been included in this bag.
In the article the critics of MR has been divided in two categories? one belonging to 'left' trend and the other belonging to right trend. The decoration of the left with inverted coma has been explained later by characterising this trend as 'Left in Form, Right in Essence'. The right trend had been further subdivided into two categories: one, (most probably) unashamedly right and the other 'rightist trend, which was defeatist'. The article has placed us, along with CPI(ML)-Red Flag, in the last category. We do not know whether rightist trend with the adjective 'defeatist' is better or worse than unashamedly rightist trend. So we do not know whether we are the 'worst offender' in the eyes of the writer of the article. But even the 'worst offender' has the right to defend himself or herself and put forward his or her arguments of defence. So let us try to put forward our arguments of defence and let the board of jury (readers) give their verdict.
Unanswered Questions
Firstly, we want to point out that the article, published by People's March, has probably overlooked some of the questions raised by us in our aforesaid discussion, which are of very fundamental nature as per our perception. Alternatively, the writer of the article may have some different perception and may have considered those questions to be so insignificant or irrelevant that those do not deserve any answer. We would have welcomed if there had been any mention and slight elaboration of the perception of the writer about those questions. As these are absent in the article, we take this opportunity to repeat those questions with the fond hope of getting answers in the near future. The questions are: ? (1) Can the communist revolutionaries visualise the development of the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the masses as a "continuation of the militant traditions set in the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements'' of the Seattle- type as visualised by the organisers of MR 2004? (2) Whether an anti-imperialist platform can serve its real purpose, if its programme becomes almost a programme of the Indian Peoples' Democratic Revolution, as has been the case with the programme of MR, or, an anti-imperialist platform can contain only those problems, demands and struggles that have specifically grown out of the direct imperialist exploitation and aggression and are specifically directed against imperialist onslaught? (3) Can just 'militancy' be equated with revolutionarism? On, in other words, can we say that all militant struggles are revolutionary struggles, particularly when we can find many examples of 'militant reformism' in the past and present of the working class and mass struggles? (4) Is the anti-imperialist struggles of the Indian masses very much evident now which "MR-2004... in particular seeks to take... one step forward"? In this context it must be clarified that to the Marxist-Leninists, the protest- demonstrations by the activists and sympathisers of the parties and groups do not mean mass struggles; it is a mass struggle when masses who so long has remained outside politics, are drawn into a political struggle and there is a spontaneous participation of the such masses in the struggle. Can we find very many evidences of such anti-imperialist mass struggles in the present Indian situation?
A Contradiction?
After giving a short description of the present international situation the writer of the article summed up the situation in this way-- "So we are faced with a situation where the objective situation is excellent for revolutionary advance but the proletarian forces are, as yet, weak. How then is this contradiction to be solved"? [1] Before dealing with the answer to the question, as given by the writer, let us have close look at the above statement itself.
Is it a real contradiction, objectively existing in the present international situation, or a subjective discovery, discovered to justify a pre-prepared answer? The question arises because of a number of reasons.
Firstly, after the advent of Marxism in the world scene as the ideology of the proletariat, more especially after the formation of Communist Parties as political parties of the proletariat, the world history had never witnessed such a contradiction to grow and exist. On the other hand, the world history bears testimony to the exact opposite phenomenon. In the past we had seen that in potentially objective revolutionary situations ("where the objective situation is excellent for revolutionary advance") the proletarian struggles invariably grew, the proletarian forces which had been comparatively weak in the earlier period invariably gathered strength, the mass base of the Communist Parties among the mass, in general and the working class, in particular, grew wider and stronger. We had witnessed all these during and immediately after the First World War and the Second World War and during the sixties and early seventies of the past century. Then why is that we are witnessing an exact opposite phenomenon in the present international situation which has been unprecedented in the history of the international proletarian movement of past hundred years or more?
Secondly, while justifying the conclusion that the "objective situation is excellent fro revolutionary advance" the writer of the article has given a description of the present national and international situation. Surprisingly, both these descriptions are wholly concentrated in establishing the fact the both in the national and international arena, the imperialists and the national ruling classes have intensified their exploitations and oppressions many a times Now in the present times this is such a glaring fact that nobody can deny. But the intensification of the exploitation and oppression on the masses, by itself, does not produce an objective situation that is excellent for revolutionary advance. These factors create an useful pre-condition for such an objective condition to develop. But the development such a condition requires the fulfilment some other essential pre-conditions. While elaborating the facts about the intensification of exploitations and oppressions on the masses in the international field the writer of the article has commented: "People are bound to resist". [2] The statement is, of course, correct, but in the historical sense and not inevitably in the immediate or present sense. There are numerous instances in history when manifold intensification of exploitation and oppression on the masses and sharp deterioration of the conditions of the masses have not been immediately confronted with resistance and revolutionary movement of the masses. How long the fascist regime of Franco continued in Spain even after a civil war? How long the butchers and mass-killers of the communists continued to oppress and suppress the workers and masses in Indonesia? What happened in Chile after fascist Pinochet captured governmental power through the dead body strewn path of genocide? How many years passed after he was dethroned and for the sake of truth should it not be admitted that various factors worked behind the ousting of Pinochet from power, the pressure of the mass movement was not the only factor? We know that we will again be accused of spreading pessimism by citing only the negative examples. Unfortunately, the history does contain a number of negative examples and to comprehend the truth in its totality we have to take into consideration both the positive and negative examples. Sometimes we do forget that the working class and the toiling masses are not children, but the actual makers of history and of revolutions, and feel the reality from the actual conditions of their daily lives If they are really in a mood to respond to the call of resistance, to the call of revolutionary struggles, then no power can stop them doing it by propagating pessimism. On the other hand if, in a certain condition, they are not in this mood, then they cannot be 'allured' to revolutionary struggle by the distribution of 'chocolates of optimism' among them.
Now let us come back to our original discussion. What we want to emphasise is that the fact that oppression and exploitation on the masses have intensified considerably is not enough to prove that the situation is excellent for revolutionary advance. Speaking about the features of a revolutionary situation Lenin had said: "What generally speaking are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms: (1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the "upper classes", a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for the "lower classes not to want" to live in the old way; it is necessary that "the upper classes should be unable to live in the old way"; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in "peace time", but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the "upper classes" themselves into independent historical action.
Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but also even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation"[3] (Emphasis in bold letters is ours)
We can clearly see that, according to Lenin, "when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual" is one of the three symptoms, not the only one and the "totality of all" these three symptoms indicate a revolutionary situation. Now we want to draw attention to the first and third symptoms. Can we observe any signs in the present Indian objective conditions indicating that it has become impossible for the ruling classes of India to "maintain their rule without any change", that it has become "unable for the upper classes to live in the old way"? The correct and truthful answer to the question is---no. The Indian ruling camp or any section of it is reflecting no dissatisfaction or uneasiness with the limited and deformed parliamentary form of rule which has been established in 1947 and showing no expressed desire to change this form of rule. It is quite apparent that even BJP does not seem eager to change this form of rule. Secondly, do we see signs of any fissure among the ruling classes of India? The answer is again---no. That Congress and BJP is fighting against each other in the elections does not, in any way, indicate any fissure within the ruling classes. This is very much part of the essential features of the parliamentary form of rule. There is no indication that a particular section of the ruling classes has rallied behind Congress and another section behind BJP and that these two sections are at loggerheads against each other which is reflected in Congress and BJP advocating different policies of rule. On the other hand, we find that the Indian ruling classes or any section of it are not affected, in any way, by the change of government at the centre and they show least concern whether there is a Congress-led or a BJP-led government at the centre. At the same time, we observe that there in absolutely no difference between the policies pursued by Congress and BJP in the running of the government. To really understand what is meant by the growth of fissures within the ruling classes we have to look back at Russia of 1905 and pre- February 1917, Germany of the late twenties and early thirties of the last century, at almost whole of Europe just after the Second World War. In a much smaller way than those above instances we had observed such an instance in India in the seventies of the last century when a spilt in the Indian ruling camp was quite apparent, one section rallying behind Indira Congress and another behind Jay Prakash Naryans, two sections tied to the interests of two super powers and fighting fiercely against each other, not only in the parliamentary arena but also in the extra-parliamentary arena, relying more on the latter and drawing masses in their internal struggle.
About the third symptom, as formulated by Lenin, we want to draw special attention to the following: "... as a consequence of the above causes (crisis in the policy of the ruling classes and the development of fissure within the ruling camp, and the intensification of exploitation and oppression of the masses), there is a considerable increase in the activities of the masses" and the masses are drawn "into independent historical action and that too 'by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the "upper classes" themselves".
Firstly, what is meant by "independent historical action"? Independent of what, and why not any action but specifically "historical" action? Obviously, by "independent" Lenin meant independent of parties, groups or leaders, i.e. spontaneous action and by "historical action" he meant action destined by history i.e. revolutionary action. Hence a revolutionary situation or an objective situation "excellent for revolutionary action" must contain instances of outbursts of spontaneous revolutionary struggles of the working class and the masses. That the lower classes are refusing to live in the old way is not to be understood in the negative way, from moans and sighs, but from positive signs of their refusal, from the spontaneous development of such struggles which, from the point of both content and form, show marked tendencies of going beyond the existing legal and constitutional framework.
Is this symptom noticeable in the present Indian reality? Let us have a look at the Indian working class, the leader of the Indian People's Democratic Revolution It has to be noted that India has a comparatively sizeable working class, though quite a minority with respect to the total Indian toiling mass and this working class has a glorious history of struggle---both economic and political. There cannot be two opinions about the fact that in the present condition the Indian working class is under fierce attack. The onslaught of "globalisation" has hit them severely But do we notice "a considerable increase in the activities" among the vast majority of the members of this working class? Unfortunately, no. On the other hand, it can clearly be observed that they are being dominated by a sense of despondency, passivity, and inertness. The only stir that can be observed among them is in the arena of economic struggle and that too of the lower form. The elections are the only political arena where the masses of workers seem to be present. We fully agree with the writer of the article "Gujarat is the tip of the iceberg" [4]. But how, at present, is the Indian working class reacting to this truth? Are they, through their practical activities, have proved that they are conscious of this truth? Can we observe any stirring among the mass of workers against the fascist advance of Hinduvta? How did the Indian working class react during the Gujarat genocide of the Muslims? Forget about whole of India, look at the workers of Gujarat. It is not that Gujarat has very few workers. Gujarat is one of the more industrially developed states of India. But have we heard any voice of protest from the workers of Gujarat against this genocide, observed any significant activities, endeavours of the workers of Gujarat to stand against the genocide. Every crisis reveals some truth. The genocide of Gujarat created a crisis and revealed the truth about the present conditions of the Indian working class and the toiling masses. The truth was that while the Sangha Parivar carried on their programme of genocide of the Muslim population, apart from few innocuous protests by the petty-bourgeois intellectuals in papers, journals, internets and seminars, the vast majority of the working class and the toiling masses of India remained silent spectators to this horrible incident. How the working class of India reacted against US imperialism's naked aggression on Iraq? Leave aside the question of worker's spontaneous reaction, has any organisation been able to organise a single note-worthy predominantly worker's protest-demonstration against US imperialism's aggression? It is absolutely unnecessary to cite more examples. Because the present stark reality is that the working class is almost totally under the dominance of bourgeois ideology, bourgeois outlook and is being led by bourgeois politics and this reality is so much apparent that it does not require very much deep insight to grasp this truth. We are not talking about individual cases, but of the mass phenomena, because, according to Lenin, "?social science (like science generally) usually deals with mass phenomena, not with individual cases"[5] (The emphasis is in the original). It is really, really surprising that, with the working class in such a sorry condition, a communist organisation, i.e. an organisation of the proletariat can visualise the present objective condition as "excellent for revolutionary advance" and can remain completely unconcerned about the condition of the working class.
What about the peasants---the principal ally of the proletariat in the People's Democratic Revolution? Do we observe any "considerable increase of activities" among them? We do not want to go into details about it, because, we feel that one example is enough to indicate the present state of affairs within the peasantry. The growing incidents of suicides among the peasants have now been very much talked about, focused, analysed and made a serious issue by almost all the existing communist revolutionary organisations including PW. There is absolutely no doubt that these incidents convey the truth about the intensification of exploitation on the peasants. But these can never be examples of "considerable increase of their activities", of their "independent historical action". On the contrary, these are examples of negative reaction of the peasants to the intensification of exploitation on them, examples of their being affected by a sense of despondency, deep frustration and pessimism. You cannot expect revolutionary action from them when they are in such a state of affairs. Incidentally, the number of suicide of peasants is highest in Andhra Pradesh, the stronghold of PW.
We do not want to deal any further on this subject, because we think, it is not necessary. That the present Indian condition is not "excellent" for revolutionary action is so apparent that we feel that it does not require much elaboration to prove it. It is manifested in the advance of BJP and Sangha Parivar and their gaining such strength so as to being able to conduct unopposed a genocide of the Muslim community in Gujarat, in the complete swing of the revisionist parties like CPI(M), CPI, etc to the right, in the spread of a noticeable right trend/deviations among the communist revolutionaries, in the increase of the influence of caste and communal division on the working class, in the extreme scarcity of extra-parliamentary struggles of the working class and the peasantry and the inability of the communist revolutionaries to fill up this void, etc., etc. Moreover, we do think that PW has practically acknowledged this fact in agreeing to sit for negotiation with the Andhra Pradesh Government. It is a fact that when two warring sides agree to sit for negotiation without a complete victory of one or the other, then by this act both the sides give recognition to their respective realisation that the conditions are not conducive for offensive action. It is the truth, irrespective of what the concerned sides might think, understand or declare. Compromises are not ruled out or anything sinful in proletarian struggle. On the other hand, during the course of proletarian struggle sometimes compromises become essential and obligatory. At the same time, while making a compromise the proletarian organisations must understand and tell the truth that it is a compromise and have to be made under certain unfavourable conditions, conditions not favourable for offensive action. Otherwise, any compromise cannot be used for going into offensive action in the future.
We refrain from dealing with the international situation, because it will unnecessarily burden the discussion. We have referred Lenin's formulation of the revolutionary situation. Anybody can apply this formulation and find out the exact state of affairs in the international scene In this context we want to raise just one question. In order to establish the conclusion that the present international situation is "excellent for revolutionary advance", the article has placed the examples of Nepal, Philippines, Peru, Turkey and, of course, India. We have discussed about India. The example of Nepal is incontestable. But are the revolutionary struggles in Turkey, Philippines and Peru are advancing now? Anyway, this is not our main question. Our main question is ? whether Nepal, Peru, Turkey, and Philippines are sufficient indicators for understanding the objective situation of the whole world?
Before the concluding the discussion on this issue, we want one point to be noted.
The optimism of the communists rests on the solid footing of history, of the correct and scientific understanding of the dialectics of the historical movement, of the inevitability of the proletarian revolution and the journey of the human society towards socialism, not necessarily always on present and to be precise, more on future than on present. There have been in the past and will be in the future periods of defeat, of retreat, of weakening, of general inactivity in the international history of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, which are known as "non-revolutionary periods". In such periods it is impossible to make any "revolutionary advance", in the sense of actual struggles of the working classes and toiling masses. But, at the same time, it is absolutely essential for the revolutionary communists to keep the flag of proletarian revolution flying at such non-revolutionary periods, otherwise they will not be able to utilise the revolutionary situation which is bound to develop sometimes in the future. But in order to be able to do so the first and foremost task of the communists is to acknowledge the truth that the period is non-revolutionary and then grasp the specific features of that period so that specific tasks of that specific period can be formulated. According to Lenin, "?a concrete analysis of the concrete situation" constitutes "the very gist, the living soul of Marxism"[6] The interest of the proletarian revolution demands from the revolutionary communists the ability to grasp the truth, to face the reality boldly and straight in its face, even if that reality, for the time being, may be darkest and formulate correct programme in accordance with the demands of that particular period. We must learn to carry on our work under averse conditions, averse not only because of state repression, but also and mainly because of the pessimism and inertness of the proletariat and the toiling masses, because of their withdrawal from the field of proletarian politics and following the political leadership of the bourgeoisie, because of their apathy towards struggle. The communists can never evade the truth about today. If they do then tomorrow will not be theirs.
Weakness of the Proletarian Forces — Its Cause as per People's March
Why is the proletarian forces are weak internationally? The article says: ? "It is true that after the reversal of China the proletarian movement (by which we mean genuine Maoist movement) is weak. But what is the chief source of weakness? It is because of the ideological content, where revisionism has eaten into the very vitals of the communist movement. Earlier itself the Khrushchev revisionists had catalysed the reversal of vast numbers of communist parties throughout the world. Then, the CPC was liquidated from within after 1976. The resulted in further reversal within the ICM (international communist movement)............ In the 1980s and early 1990s there was a big swing to the right, with conservatives turning fascistic, with social-democrats turning conservative, with revisionist communist parties turning social democrats and with many a Maoist party turning into new communist parties or with parties with strong right tendencies. Yet, through all these, Maoist movements grew in some parts of the world, particularly in Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Turkey and India". [7]
This 'simple' analysis leaves a host of very serious questions unanswered. We want to emphasis here that this is an extremely serious issue, if not the fundamental issue before the International Communist Movement. The seriousness of the issue can easily be gauged from the devastating effects of the defeats of the proletarian powers in Russia and China on the working class and the toiling masses all over the world. The effects can be observed from the domination of a sense of despondency, frustration, resignation on the working class and the oppressed mass through the world, from the prominently noticeable disillusionment of the vast section of the working class about socialist movement, about communist parties, about socialist ideology, their loss of faith on their own strength and their struggle, their en mass desertion of the camp of proletarian revolution and moving over to the camp of bourgeoisie, the fragmentation of the communist parties, the extremely scare existence of communist patties worth its name in the world map, the considerable weakening of the influence of the ideals of Marxism-Leninism all over the world and the rapid growth of newer and newer reactionary thoughts like Post-Modernism, etc. and host of other objective phenomena. We want to remind here that socialism is the ideology of the working class and they are the bearer and carrier of socialism. The condition of the working class struggle is a sure indicator of the objective condition of the proletarian struggle. Can communists remain aloof from the stark reality of the unprecedented weakening of international working class movement? Can any communist remain content in the "simple" general statement that the revisionists are the culprits? Revisionism had been there right from the birth of Marxism and in the course of development of the international socialist movement it had to confront powerful revisionist conspiracies many a times. The international socialist
movement had seen Bernsteins, Plekhanovs, Martovs, Kautskys and Li Shao-Chis. But they had never been able to weaken the revolutionary proletarian movement in such a way, had never been able to reduce the movement to such a pitiable condition. Revisionism is revisionism and it will never give up its task of plotting against proletarian revolutions. But the question confronting the International Proletarian Movement now is: ? Why revisionism has been able to "eat up the very vitals of the communist movement"- a phenomenon like which has never been seen before in the history of the communist movement?
Why Khrushchevites were to able to wrest power just after the death of Stalin without any serious opposition from the Russian proletariat in a country where the socialist revolution won its first victory in the history of the world under the leadership of the Bolshevik party led by Lenin and that too after over four decades of socialist reconstruction, the initial part of which was personally supervised by Lenin? What were the factors that helped the Khrushchev revisionists to "catalyse the reversal of vast numbers of communist parties all over the world"? Why the world history saw almost a repetition of the Russian experience in China in 1976, just after Mao's death, after almost 30 years' of Proletarian Dictatorship, after Mao's intense and persistent struggle against revisionism--not only within China, but also in the international arena and even after Cultural Revolution personally led by Mao Ze-Dong? Why the communes in China, set up during Mao's period, could be dismantled so easily, almost without any serious opposition? Why the communist powers in the countries of East Europe fell like a pack of cards? Was the liquidation of CPC such a commonplace affair that can be dismissed with a single sentence ?? "Then, the CPC was liquidated from within after 1976"? Why and how a party like CPC which had captured power after a glorious history of prolonged revolutionary struggle, added a new chapter to the history of the international socialist movement, was in the forefront of the international struggle against revisionism and led the Cultural Revolution, could be liquidated from within?
These questions cannot be dismissed as questions invented by intellectuals, by academicians, by those who want to avoid the rigor of practice and pass their time in cosy armchairs in the name of theoretical work. These questions have developed from and posed by the past practice of the international proletarian movement and so confronting the present international proletarian movement. Like all other streams of science, the international socialist movements, in different phase of its development, is invariably confronted with some problems or questions thrown by the past practice, which demands answers or solutions for further development of this movement. At present, the international communist movement is confronted with these questions and we cannot keep our eyes closed from this. The communists cannot act as camels and bury their faces in the sand to escape from a roaring storm. We must remember that the fall was from a great height and so the crash had been earth shaking. It is useless to feign that there has been no crash, because, the working class and the oppressed masses of the world, the actual makers of revolution, has been severely affected by the shattering crash. The beacons of light have extinguished before their eyes. A series of anguished "whys" is plaguing them and present communists must tackle these "whys". That the present communists are internationally confronted with the task of rebuilding and resurrecting the communist and working class movement is extremely glaring and it is unthinkable that any communist can remain indifferent to it. And that rebuilding and resurrection demands tackling of these "whys" in the light of fundamental truths of Marxism-Leninism. We are in no way, asserting that this should be and can be done in the comfortable isolation of drawing rooms, in the ivory towers of "pure theory". This should be and can be done along with the working class and the toiling masses, more particularly with the working class, because these are the real problems of the movement, very much the real problems of the real proletariat and the toiling masses. Of course, the objective logic of their lives is inexorably pushing the working class towards struggle, towards Marxism-Leninism, towards socialist ideology. But this pushing does not follow the same path, same contour under all conditions. These questions are very much influencing the present path, present contour. We cannot avoid those. We must remember that theory solves the problems of practice.
United Front
The subject of "United Front" has been discussed in the article, more or less in detail. The questions of its 'building", of keeping the independence of the working class in the united front, sectarian approaches towards building of the united front have all been discussed in the article along with Mao's teachings on this subject. All these are very fine. But there' s 'a hole in the bucket'. Where is the United Front actually? Can it be 'built to order' and under all circumstances?
Here we request the readers to excuse us for we will be stating some general truths, some ABCs of organisation and struggle. But we emphasise that we have no intention of teaching these ABCs to anybody. We are doing this for our own sake, only for clarifying our viewpoint.
Now what is a United Front? Every student of Marxism-Leninism knows that an United Front is an alliance of different classes, of which one of them is the working class and that an united front organisation is an organisation or instrument of actual struggle and not of propaganda. From these essential characteristics of the United Front it follows that it cannot be "built:" as such, but it develops in the course of actual struggle not only of proletariat, but also of other classes, the other possible constituents of the United Front. Hence, the formation, the building of a United Front necessitates the fulfilment of certain pre-conditions in the objective conditions. The pre-conditions are: -
(1) Not only proletariat, but also other classes, the other constituents of the United Front must be involved, of their own, in actual struggle against the common enemy. It must be remembered that, apart from proletariat, no other classes feels or has the capacity to feel the necessity or desire to unify with the proletariat just on the basis of theoretical understanding of the objective necessity of the struggle. Hence, they feel the necessity or urge of uniting with the proletariat only when the logic of the actual struggle pushes them towards the unity. It must be remembered that as United Front is an alliance of different classes, so only the urge of the proletariat is not enough to form or built a United Front. Other classes must feel the urge to unify, which cannot be generated without these classes being involved in actual struggle against the common enemy.
(2) Only the fulfilment of the above pre-condition is not enough. At the same time, the proletariat, by its previous activities, have been able to project, in reality, that it is the most consistent, most resolute and strongest fighter against the common enemy and to impart the realisation among the other classes that without uniting with the proletariat they have practically no chance in the struggle against the common enemy. Otherwise why these classes will spontaneously turn towards the proletariat? When there is question of unity or alliance of different forces then the real existence of the desire of all the concerned forces for unity is absolutely essential for forging a unity, the desire may not necessarily be of the same intensity or dimension.
We have seen different examples of proletariat-led United Fronts in the history of the international proletarian struggle??different in type, different in the history of their formation, different in the outcome of the struggle under the United Front. We have seen a particular type of United Front in Russian revolution, another type in the Spanish Civil War and another in China. But if we look at these examples closely, we will find that all those United Fronts have one thing in common?the fulfilment of the above pre-conditions.
Let us look at the Chinese example--the most celebrated one in the international history of proletarian revolution. The issue of the United Front had not been taken up by Mao nor became a subject of discussion before the then CPC all through the twenties of the past century. It became an issue only after the Japan imperialism's attack on China and that too not in the beginning of this attack. After 1931 the Japanese imperialists started its military campaign against China, but an United Front of CPC with Kuomintang was not formed at that time. Such a United Front was formed or "built", if you please, in 1937 only. Why? Let us have a short glance at the history of the Chinese Revolution in that period. From the writings of Mao we learn: ? "As far back as 1933, the Chinese Communist Party issued a declaration stating that it was ready to conclude an agreement for resisting Japan with any section of the Kuomintang army on three conditions, namely, that attack on the Red Army be stopped, that democratic freedoms be granted to the people and that the people be armed. This decision was made because after the September 18th Incident in 1931, resistance to the Japanese imperialist invasion became the primary task of the Chinese people. But we did not succeed in our objective In August 1935, the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Red Army called upon all political parties and groups and the people throughout the country to organise an anti-Japanese united army and a government of national defence for a common fight against Japanese imperialism. In December of that year, the Chinese Communist Party adopted a resolution on the formation of an anti-Japanese national united front with the national bourgeoisie"[8] This was written by Mao in September29, 1937. We want the readers to note two things: one, in 1933 CPC called for an alliance with a section of the Kuomintang army, not with the whole of it; two, CPC adopted a resolution for an united front with the national bourgeoisie in December, 1935 and not right at its formation. Why? We shall soon see.
Writing about "Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism" in December, 1937, Mao wrote: "The recent Eastern Hopei incident and diplomatic talks are clear indications of this trend of events which threaten the survival of the whole Chinese people. This faces all classes and political groups in China with the question of what to do. Resist? Surrender? Or vacillate between the two?
Let us see how the different classes in China answer this question.
The workers and the peasants are all demanding resistance. The revolution of 1924-1927, the agrarian revolution of 1927 to the present day, and the anti-Japanese tide since the Incident of September 18, 1931, have all proved that the working class and peasantry are the most resolute forces in the Chinese Revolution.
The petty bourgeoisie is also demanding resistance. Have not the student youth and the urban petty bourgeoisie already started a broad anti-Japanese movement?
The national bourgeoisie presents a complicated problem. This class took part in the revolution of 1924-1927, but terrified by the flames of the revolution, it later deserted to the enemy of the people, the Chiang Kai-shek clique. The question is whether there is any sign that this class will undergo a change in the present circumstances. We think there is."[9] A little later in the same article Mao explained why he thought so. "Whose class interests does the 19th Route Army led by Tsai Ting-kai and others represent? Those of the national bourgeoisie, the upper petty bourgeoisie, and the rich peasants and the small landlords in the countryside. Did not Tsai Ting-kai and his associates once fight bitterly against the Red Army? Yes, but they subsequently concluded an anti-Japanese and anti-Chiang alliance with the Red Army. In Kiangsi, they had attacked the Red Army, but later in Sanghai they fought the Japanese imperialists; later still, in Funkien they came to terms with the Red Army and turned their guns against Chiang Kai-shek."[10] While talking about the circumstances of the formation of an united front with Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang in 1937 Mao wrote after citing two declaration of policy, one by CPC and another by the Kuomintang: "Here we have two historic political declarations on the Lukouchiao Incident, one by the Communist Party and the other by the Kuomintang. They have this point in common: both stand for a resolute war of resistance and oppose compromise and concessions."[11]
These are all incontestable facts of history. What we learn from these facts? These facts clearly prove that an united front can never be formed or built just on the basis of economic analysis or on the basis of possibilities. Mao could think of an united front only when all the classes of the united front were drawn into spontaneous open struggles against the Japanese imperialism and actually an undeclared, unorganised united front was functioning in the ground reality: then and then only it was possible to give that unorganised, undeclared united front a conscious, declared and organised form. Otherwise Mao would not have searched for the answer to the question of formulating a correct programme in the condition of the attack of the Japanese imperialism from the real activities of different classes of the then China, from the reality of the actual independent struggles of the classes. It should be noted that Mao thought of uniting with a section of the Kuomintang army when a section of that army actually started to fight against Japanese imperialism, actually came to terms with Red Army and turned their guns against Chiang Kai-Seik. And again when Kuomintang openly declared their political policy of resolute resistance against Japanese attack then and then only it was possible to form a united front with them. Lastly, when did Mao discuss about the necessity of protecting the independence of the proletariat in the united front and the steps to be taken for realising this? Exactly when the united front had taken shape and functioning and when the issue had become a real issue, an issue of practical struggle.
Can the Indian communists discuss in the way shown by Mao in the present objective condition? Can they show that the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie or any section of it are actually fighting against imperialism in general and US imperialism in particular? Has the Indian proletariat been able to prove by their real deeds that they are the most resolute fighters in this struggle? Absolutely no. Then why is this detailed discussion about United Front? Will not this discussion be an discussion about an imaginary problem, an imaginary issue? Of course the Indian communists will have to face this problem, this issue and discuss about it, but not now, in some future days when this issue will become a real issue of the real struggle of the proletariat.
We have already spoken about the present state of affairs within the proletariat and the peasantry. We want to add a few sentences about two other sections. We have seen that the struggles of the student youth have found a prominent place in Mao's evaluation of the objective condition of the then China. What about the present objective conditions of the Indian student youth? Haven't we observed an almost total silence and inertness from the student youths during US imperialist's naked aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq? The students are the most sensitive section of the society and sometimes this section sounds the arrival of a storm. Did the reactions of the students during US's aggression on Iraq carry any such message? How can we forget that the glorious role of the Indian students in all previous anti-imperialist struggles right up to the seventies of the past century? Can we forget the McNamara incident of the Vietnam days when a mammoth student demonstration blocked McNamara's entry into Kolkata and forced him to go back right from DumDum Airport?
And what about national bourgeoisie? In China of 1937 Mao had found that the Chinese bourgeoisie presented a complicated problem. Here in India of 2004 the Indian national bourgeoisie are presenting an impossible problem. How it is possible to evaluate their position and activities when it is not yet revealed in the Indian reality who are the national bourgeoisie or who are their representatives? It should be particularly noted that in the 30s of the past century the Chinese national bourgeoisie clearly revealed their anti-Japanese imperialist role by starting an armed resistance of their own and uniting with the Red Army in the actual field of struggle. Can we, till now find any trace of such a national bourgeoisie?
So will not the formation of a united front in this concrete condition of India be an absurd proposition? The history of the proletarian revolution and the laws of the dialectics of the movement have taught us that an united front can not be formed just on the basis of possibilities or of economic analysis.
By the way, a weak proletarian force can never maintain its independence in any form of alliance just by dint of its theoretical superiority or superiority of understanding.
Testing of Political Line
The article has reminded us that "... the political line of the party is sharpened (nay tested) only when applied to contemporary reality, which helps best (to) direct the ongoing movements towards revolution"[11]. It is absolutely true and there cannot be any objection about it. But there are two problems associated with this truth. Firstly, what do we understand by 'application to contemporary reality"? Secondly, how the communists analyse the test results and take lesson from it?
In regard to the first question, we must understand that in order to have a political line really tested and verified from application, it must be done to the totality of the contemporary reality, not to any insignificant part of it. And with regard to the second, the communists test and verify any of their political line from the reaction to that line of the broad mass of the working class and of the toiling mass??from the acceptance or rejection of the line by those. Moreover, among these, the communists put special emphasis on the reaction of the working class, as because a communist party is the party of the working class. We want to emphasise here that for testing and verifying of a political line from its application to contemporary reality it is essential that the test results should taken be from its social application, from its application among the vast majority of the working class and the toiling mass and their reactions. Lenin once said: "?and politics begins where millions of men and women are; where there are not thousands, but millions??that is where serious politics begin"[12] Is People's March drawing our attention to the application of political lines in this dimension of contemporary reality and the counting of the reactions of not thousands, but millions of workers and peasants? We have every reason to doubt it.
Take the example of the political line of boycott of elections. Firstly, the boycottists have never been in a position to apply this line to the Indian contemporary reality in its totality. And secondly and most importantly, is clear as day light that almost the whole of the Indian working class has been continuously rejecting this line by their practical action and so also the vast majority of the peasantry. Is there any sign that PW is seriously looking at the test result, far from taking correct lessons from these results? When Lenin admitted that Bolshevik's line of boycott of the Witte Duma elections was wrong, his main reasoning was that the vast majority of the working class of the then Russia had rejected the line by their practical action. Has PWG anything to learn from this?
Instead of noticing any signs of serious endeavour to learn from the test results, we notice a strange phenomenon. In the same issue of People's March where the article about which we are discussing, have been published, i.e. in the June, 2004 issue of their journal, we find an article with the heading "AP Elections: Rout of a Fascist". The heading itself admits that a fascist can be routed through an election (which, by the way, an exaggeration). As the heading tells the article is an analysis of the election results of Andhra Pradesh. Isn't it quite surprising that the boycottist should go in for a lengthy analysis of the results of an election? And what does the analysis tell? We will cite just two examples. In the very first paragraph of the article we find this statement: "This blue-eyed boy of big business, Bill Gates, Clintons and their clan (Chandrababu Naidu) was kicked out by mass discontent against his horrifying rule"[13] How was Chandrababu Naidu kicked out? Of course through an election. Who kicked him out? Of course, the common people of
AP and that too not by direct assault, but by casting their votes against him and his party. And again in the fourth paragraph we find: "It (the election results) was a clear-cut rejection of the World Bank sponsored economic policies and the politics of brutal repression"[14]. Again we find an acceptance of the fact an election, in the present concrete conditions of India do reflect a political decision of the masses. These statements are, at the same time, practical admission of the truth that the masses are participating in the elections and that too in Andhra Pradesh, the stronghold of PWG. Is it possible to call for a boycott of the election and welcome the election results as "Routing of A Fascist" in the same breadth? We really do not know.
About Stage of Preparation
We, in our discussion about WSF and MR2004 published in the February, 2004 issue of our journal, have characterised that: "And historically this movement (the international communist movement of which the Indian communist movement is an integral part) is passing through a preparatory period". On this People's March has this comment to make: "There is no fixed so-called "preparatory stage" for re-building the communist movement as propounded by FAPP. To accomplish any task there will always be need for preparatory work, but one need not raise it to the status of a "stage" to justify passivity, and use it as the theoretical framework to negate anti-imperialist initiatives such as MR or more intense initiatives as the on-going people's wars in India and elsewhere."[15]
Now this is an extremely generalised statement and in the field of practical politics these types of generalised statements hardly help. We, in our discussion, have categorically analysed what we mean by preparatory stage, why it is not just any type of preparation, the particularity of this task in the present concrete situation. We have pointedly stated that "The fundamental characteristics of the present situation are linked with and are the product of the singular fact that the international proletarian movement is still passing through the period of defeat of the first campaign of the international socialist proletariat"[16] To refute our characterisation of the 'preparatory stage" and the speciality of it the above-mentioned fundamental point will have to be refuted first and that will have to be refuted by concrete analysis of the concrete situation, by taking into account the concrete condition of the nternational working class movement, by analysing the tremendous world-wide impact of the defeat of the proletarian revolutions in Russia and China on the international working class movement and not by treating them casually as if these are very minor matters. As the proletarian revolutions in Russia and China were events of world-historical importance producing unprecedented worldwide impact on the struggles of the working class and the exploited masses, so were the counter- revolutions in these countries.
We would like to refer to a statement from our article from which it would be quite clear what we want to mean by preparation. We had said: "Hence for the development of revolutionary struggle against imperialism and as a matter of fact, for the development of any revolutionary class and mass struggle the revival of the communist movement, replanting its roots within the working class, the unfurling of the banner of the proletarian revolution, the rise of the working class from the ashes of the defeat and the drawing a considerable section of it towards the ideals of socialism are absolutely essential"[17]. So we have placed the question of the revival of the communist movement in intimate connection with the rise of the working class from the ashes of the defeat.
The preparation for the revival of the communist movement involves the taking up the work of solving the problems confronting the present communist movement, of winning the advanced section of the working class to its fold, of rooting the movement within the working class, of lifting the vast majority the working class from their present disillusionment about the ideals of Marxism-Leninism, of re-establishing the fundamental truths of Marxism-Leninism. And preparatory work for the rise of the working class from the ashes of the defeat means helping them to assimilate the experiences of the defeat, take appropriate lessons and organising their practical struggles wherever possible.
Further elaborating their views about the preparatory work People's March says: " So, for example, what is now the CPI (ML)-PW, did much of the "preparatory" work in the 1970s itself after the setback in 1972 and was able to begin armed struggle by 1980; thereby it was able to grow to a sizeable strength. Yet, in the overall context of the victory of the Indian revolution, it is still at the preparatory level where the Party, Army and the UF -- the three magic weapons -- are yet to be consolidated. One can say this would be achieved if the major unity process (particularly that between MCCI and PW) culminated in the formation of basically one Maoist Party in the country"[18].
We have no doubt that PW must have done much of its preparatory work and is still doing. But we are afraid that the preparatory works referred to by PW reflects very little of the preparatory work which we meant and more importantly, which is demanded for the resurrection of the communist movement. How we would have wished that the unity of MCCI and PW would be able to solve the fundamental problem of the formation of a united communist party in India! But unfortunately it will not. Because, neither MCC nor PW and as a matter of fact, any of the communist revolutionary groups in India have been able to take a forward step towards solving the main problems which are confronting the present International Communist Movement, towards winning the advanced section of the Indian working class, towards rooting the movement among the working class and towards helping the working class in correctly assimilating the experience of the defeat.
In this connection we want to point out that when we have written in our previous article that "We have seen that MR- 2004 has omitted the essential question of proletarian leadership", then we have meant proletarian leadership and not the leadership of any of the existing communist revolutionary groups. We want to emphasise that none of the existing communist revolutionary groups is in a position to claim that its leadership represent proletarian leadership because of the above reasons. Whether any organisation has been able to win over the advanced section of the working class or the majority of it, is something that can be observed and verified from objective reality, not a question of subjective understanding. So there is no contradiction between our above observation and our statement "the People's War Group (PWG) of India, the dominant force behind FAIG and the organisation of MR-2004..."
People's March have accused us that probably we do not consider the forces represented by MCCI and PW as communist forces. To this accusation we want to point out that we do not consider ourselves as judges with the authority of giving verdict in the dispute of correctly characterising the communist forces. Who are we to give such verdict? Does the answer to this question depend on the subjective valuation of any individual or group? Most probably not. Because we have seen in the history of the international communist movement that history decides this issue, at any particular juncture of history of this movement the objective conditions of the movement of that moment produces some specific criteria for deciding the issue. Is it not essential for us in this particular moment of history to search for these objective criteria and not to depend on such subjective evaluations, which can never be objectively verified? To be frank we are extremely surprised by this particular accusation of People's March. Till now we are under the impression that forces like PW and MCCI do not consider us communists because we are advocating the 'hateful' revisionist line of participating in the elections!
Lastly, we want to humbly point out that we are not "looking at a basket of apples and crying ourselves hoarse saying that there are no apples" Who wants to be an object of universal ridicule by denying the existence of such an openly visible objective phenomenon like the presence of apples? But if the truth is that all the apples in the basket (we consider ourselves as one of the apples) are partially rotten, some more, some less which demands the removal of the rotten part, and the apples are adamantly refusing to accept this truth, then what can one do?
We fully agree with People's March that the question of alliance with the Islamic fundamentalists against imperialism is a serious matter and have to be dealt separately. We have a mind to take up this question sometime in the future.
References: --
1. People's March, June 2004, p-28
2. Ibid, p-28
3. Lenin---Coll.Wks., V--21, p-213
4. People's March, June 2004, p-21
5. Lenin---Coll.Wks., V-21, p-244
6. Lenin---Coll.Wks., V-31, p-166
7. People's March, June2004, p-27
8. Mao--Sel.Wks. V-II, p-35-36
9. Ibid, V-I, p - 154-156
10 . Ibid, V-I, p-156
11. Ibid, V-II, p-15
12. Lenin--Coll.Wks., V-27, p-100
13. People's March, June 2004, p-9
14. People's March, June 2004, p-9
15. People's March, June 2004, p-28
16. FAPP, February, 2004, p-57
17. FAPP, February, 2004, p-62
18. People's March, June 2004, p-28
Comments:
No Comments for View