Belying the expectation of a concrete analytical appraisal
The November 2003 issue of New Democracy contains an article by Com. Pradeep Singh Thakur under the heading of "Appraisal of History Requires Analytical Perspective" The article is a critique of certain comments made in the joint statement of the recent merger of the two communist revolutionary organisations, CPI(ML), Unity Initiative and COI(ML). Questioning the rationale put forward in the joint statement behind the adoption of the name of CPI (ML) by the merged organisation, the article in New Democracy has in, hard works, taken exception to the very assessments of the then CPI(ML) and its history during the Naxalbari movement. In essence, Com. Pradeep has, in the above-mentioned article, accused the leadership of the merged organisation for veering away from the course of an objective evaluation of history, thus deviating from the teachings the great Marxist thinkers.
In Com. Pradeep's words, "The vital question then is - why did the leadership of the two organisations agree to the name [of CPI(ML)]? Their answer is "Despite committing serious blunders, the CPI(ML) gave the slogan - 'The path of Telengana and Naxalbari is our path', Proceeding from this question Com. Pradeep adds, "Lenin had taught us to remember "we should judge the parties not by their words, but by their deeds." ...... Reminding the signatories of the joint statement of the above teaching of Lenin, we will like to point out that though, according to their statement, CPI(ML) committed "serious blunders," "vulgarised Marxism-Leninism-Mao Ze-dong Thought" and "prated in words that the path of Naxalbari is our path, but in practice rejected the lessons of Naxalbari and upheld the left deviation, anarchism and terrorism of Com. Charu Mazumder," they laid importance on the words, the slogans of the party, and not on its deeds!"
The criticism raised by Com. Pradeep is indeed serious. It, on the one hand, concerns the approach generally expected to be taken by any communist, worth its name, to adopt a proper analytical perspective for objective appraisal of any event, be it a part of history. On the other hand, the particular topic in question involves such a period of upheaval and fervour that it carries a special significance to the revolutionary camp of this country as a whole even after three decades. Further the discussion is important in view of the prevailing condition of the revolutionary camp, which Com. Pradeep himself has acknowledged by such words which expressed the necessity "to go deeply into complex matters", "to analyse and study them" ... "Drawing simple conclusions ... will not do" as "then the extent to which CR forces could be united will not be done..." Definitely it is an important corollary in this prolonged phase of confusion, diverse interpretations and disarrayed existence of the communist revolutionary organisations. Naturally as a part of this we were enthused by the approach taken by Com. Pradeep at the very outset of the article. It was a welcome intervention, raising our expectations of having a glimpse of some such instances of concrete analytical appraisal.
Denouncing the activities of the CPI(ML) in no uncertain terms only to adopt in the very next step the same name on the basis of its pronouncements in the joint statement is out and out against the very outlook of materialism. If the basis of this communist principle can be expressed in relation to mankind as "As individuals express their life so they are", then putting in this particular context it undoubtedly also means, as an organisation express its activity in its movement so it is, in spite of all its declarations and promises. Naturally, after the assessments of the activities of the CPI(ML) as expressed by the merged organisations the decision to adopt the name of the same CPI(ML) is inexplicable by any rationality. The merged organisations have undoubtedly taken a questionable position in this respect. The important question is, why? In this context Com. Pradeep has thought it useful to remind us of the teaching of Lenin - "We should judge parties not by their words, but by their deeds!" But is it simple the lack of such insight of the leadership of the organisation that have played the part? It would be sheer self-deception to expect such naivety from the matured leadership of the organisations as they are. But let us come to that later. Let us in the meantime see what Com. Pradeep has in store for us after that start with a flourish.
In an urge to delve deeper into the 'self contradiction' of the two organisations Com. Pradeep proceeded to counter their analyses of CPI (ML). In Com. Pradeep's words, the two organisations "were forced to adopt the same CPI (ML).." even though they were amongst "those who wanted to abandon" it at one time. Then, from where did this compulsion arise? In an endeavour to explain the reasons behind that, Com. Pradeep has presented us with his ideas of "analytical perspective". Com. Pradeep points out that "Mr. Reality" has compelled the merged organisations in this manner. He has taken up the task in the article of New Democracy to explain this "Mr. Reality" of his, which according to him, the joint statement has failed to take into appraisal resulting in their self-contradictory position. What is the picture of that 'reality'? Com. Pradeep says "some called for the formation of a separate party .... thanks to Mr. Reality, this call has almost died out"...."the CPI(ML) again stood on its feet ....like a Phoenix, made rectifications....rebuffing those who had rung the death-knell of CPI(ML), ....it has proclaimed the task of formation of a unitary communist Party as a task that must be accomplished."
It is an undeniable fact that the attempts at forming a new Communist Party, distinctively separate from a reunified CPI(ML) did not materialise. But is it the only truth? If reality did not subscribe to the idea of the builders of a separate, new Communist Party, did it respond positively to the formation of a reunified CPI(ML) either? Neither CPI(ML) could be reunited nor a new Communist Party could be formed, and that is the whole truth. Till after three decades of the breaking up of CPI(ML) there is only splintered existence. Rising above subjective notions, which is very much essential for building up an analytical perspective, we all have to admit the harsh reality that over the last thirty years numerous attempts at building a Communist Party, whether new or a reunified CPI(ML), or even to start with, a coordination platform of the communist revolutionary organisations in that direction, has failed miserably.
Quite unexpectedly Com. Pradeep has contradicted this simple fact. Instead he has taken refuge in his idea that "the CPI(ML) again stood on its feet ....like a Phoenix ....rebuffing those who had rung the death-knell of CPI(ML)...." Comrade, if that is your idea of reality, then while negating the formation of distinctively new Communist Party, why have you talked in the same breath that - "it has proclaimed the task of formation of a unitary Communist Party." Doesn't it mean that it has still remained a proclamation only, which is still to be accomplished—and that also for a long period of three decades? If reality would have carried such a possibility in its womb, then its realisation after repeated attempts could not have remained elusive for so long.
Com. Pradeep also talked of "rectifications" of the negative aspects and "preservation" of the positive aspects of CPI(ML) with Com. SNS playing a role in it. Even if that is accepted, what has been the outcome? Did it lead the revolutionary forces of the camp towards a new realisation and convergence? Com SNS's fight, which started in the decade of seventies of the last century itself, was unable to rebuild CPI(ML) as the focus of potential revolutionary struggles. Instead, the organisation led by Com SNS himself split further and further into PCC, to CC and then later to Janashakti and ND rather than achieving organisational and ideological unity of the camp. Similarly other such attempts at achieving unity could not break the cycle of merger and splits. This is the downright truth. But the recognition of this all-pervading organisational splintering and anarchy, this all-afflicting malaise could not find its place in Com. Pradeep's 'analytical' perspective. Instead he sees only the turning down by "Mr. Reality" of attempts at forming a new communist party and the rising of CPI(ML) like a "Phoenix", searching for the roots of self-contradiction of others the 'analytical perspective' has tuned it into a tool to prop-up preconceived notions. Partial facts have only been recognized leading to such conclusions that the whole of reality does not affirm by any means.
Toying with reality in such a manner to produce make-believe "Mr. Reality" has its inevitable hazards, which Com. Pradeep also could not, avoid. In the midst of painting a picture of the rise of CPI (ML) he had to admit the continuing splintering of the revolutionary forces - "Could any one prevent this break-up?" For a moment Com. Pradeep's scheme seemed to give way in the face of this admission. But look how incredibly and desperately he tried to defend his scheme! The next moment he retorts "But those who claims to have built up their organisations on correct political and organisational principles, why do they have to face break up?" The significance of the splits has been overshadowed beneath his theme of "Mr. Reality", which has been made to subscribe headlong to the idea of the rise of the CPI (ML). Even the faint chance of rethinking on it has been squandered away amidst counter-questioning, "why do they have to face break up?" It could not self-searchingly give way to the question—"Why do we have to break up?" On the contrary, in defence of his theme he hastily skips to another conclusion of his— "Even after the breaking up of CPI (ML)....can this reality be any way disputed that an overwhelming majority of the CRs....has remained with the CPI (ML)?"
And it is here that Com. Pradeep is back to square one. The very point of criticism he started with against the joint statement of judging parties by their 'words' instead of 'deeds' has at this point also engulfed his thoughts. The teaching of Lenin, which he reminded us of, has remained imprisoned in those words and its essence in real life could not guide him in search for a just analysis. We won't have to go far to understand this. The same issue (November, 2003) of New Democracy contains two other articles "Individual Attacks not in the Interest of Revolutionary Movement" and "Danger of Revisionism and Anarchist Activities in the path of Agrarian Revolutionary Movement". In the former article, one CPI(ML) organisation, CPI(ML)-PW's acts of individual violence has been criticised, while in the latter 'revisionist' CPI(ML) Liberation and 'anarchist' MCC has been castigated in no mild a tone. If Liberation is 'revisionist', then it is also a CPI(ML) organisation. If MCC is 'anarchist' it is, at the same time, working out for some sort of merger with another CPI(ML) organisation at present. Thus all these divergences do not corroborate, in any way, with Com. Pradeep's idea of the 'same CPI(ML)' that according to him COI(ML) and CPI(ML)-Unity Initiative have been 'forced to adopt'. Still he turns a blind eye to these stubborn facts and says with quite a feeling of satisfaction - "Can this reality be any way disputed that the overwhelming majority of CRs .......has remained with the CPI (ML)? Even of those who were outside CPI(ML), an overwhelming majority was associated with CPI(ML)? ....There is a clear move in this direction". Ultimately Com. Pradeep has also got stuck in the same quagmire, clinging to the namesakes, forgetting their divergent deeds.
Thirty years ago the debates could not be resolved 'at the central level', even after the withdrawal of repression's of the Indira Congress regime, with the revolutionary organisations in a comparatively fluid stage and all the attempts towards forming a united party failed. Thirty years down the lane each such organisation has consolidated having manifold structures, and mass organisations almost like a party. Experiences of joint activity in platform like Forum against Imperialist Globalisation (FAIG); the recent three separate platforms vis-?-vis WSF conference at Mumbai- MR, People against Imperialism and another of CPI(ML)-Red Flag bear testimony to this divergence. But Com. Pradeep sees only the similarity of the name, not the deeds. He has got trapped in the halo of that name which has obscured the real 'Mr. Reality' from his sight and his thoughts. Going back to the joint statement, the decision makers of those organisations were probably compelled to take the name of CPI(ML) because of the glory associated with this name for the Naxalbari movement of the sixties of the last decade and the continuing influence of that name among the communist revolutionary forces. Hence in spite of the denunciation of its deeds, the importance of the name reigned over their decision. It is here that a change of attitude has become an utmost necessity. If the name is to be adopted for utilising the influence and acceptability in the revolutionary camp although the deeds are fit to be denounced then that amounts to opportunism, which Com. Pradeep could not express straightway. If the name is sufficient to infer unanimity of thought and organisation rather than the deeds, which, at the same time, can even be stamped as 'revisionist' or 'anarchist' than that is also subjectivism relying only on the appearance rather than the essence. So in the true spirit of a scientific materialistic approach in order to arrive at a real analytical appraisal, it has become necessary to detach our hearts from the name and concentrate on the deeds. Com. Pradeep's initial promise of such an approach finally led to the belying of such expectations.
Thus, he admitted that the mistakes of CPI(ML) 'could not be unitedly corrected through debates and discussions at the central level', which gave rise to splits in the party later. Still in such a context he has referred to Marx's teachings from the debate on the central line of the Chinese Communist Party during the period 1931 to 1935, which is totally misplaced. That struggle between two lines took place within the arena of the Chinese Party, which was able to accommodate it and resolve it in spite of bitter struggle whatsoever. On the contrary, the basis of CPI(ML) could not provide the inner strength and unanimity of thought sufficient to resolve the debates within the party. This is a significant difference that has been overlooked. It reveals that, although the CPI(ML) had to face tremendous state repression of the Indira Gandhi regime, the main cause of the splits have been internal. This has been subsequently confirmed by the fact that even after withdrawal of this repression, the party elements could not regroup and reunite within a reasonable time to revive the party. Quite logically the very basis of CPI(ML) ought to come under question, albeit more so after the continued existence of confusion and diverse evaluations even after three decades.
Looking from a different angle, when we see that Com. Pradeep goes on harping about the rise and revival of the CPI(ML), justifying it by the fact that the 'overwhelming majority' of the CR organisation are 'with the CPI(ML)' (even though in name only as we have seen) the absence of an important factor in his appraisal is noticeable. Where has the working class gone? There is no mention of that class whose vanguard is supposed to be the Communist Party! The communist revolutionary organisation have negligible contact and insignificant influence over the working class, while the working class passing through a continuous phase of defeat and disorganised existence. It is bearing the brunt of large-scale attacks of the imperialists and the capitalist class. In the midst of such a situation, can there be any dispassionate, objective, discussion of the problems of 'rising' and revival of a Communist Party only on the basis of apparent coming together of communist revolutionary organisations, without taking into account, the position of the working class and the ways and means of its emergence into the area of class politics?
Specially, this question is of great importance as the CPI(ML)'s activities in the initial phase have condemned us for such grave evasions. Memory cannot be so short as to forget that the 50s and 60s of the last century, that is the period just before and during the formation of the CPI(ML), witnessed potential workers struggles in society which were then boycotted by the CPI(ML) leadership. In the name of adopting the Chinese path of revolution, distorted versions of theory justifying this position came into prevalence at that time- "In exchange for lots of blood we have learnt that revolution is the higher form of class struggle and class-struggle is the only path along which each problem can be solved. Class-struggle can only be led by our class——poor, landless, peasants (Do Not Hesitate to Give the Politics of Seizure of Power to the Poor, Landless Peasants - July 1970) and "If the poor, landless peasants, cannot be raised to the leadership however great the possibility of revolution exists that will be doomed to failure"(Ibid).
After such acute, vivid experiences and standing amidst the painful present that the working-class is passing through no meaningful appraisal or evaluation can just be imagined without establishing the relationship between the revival or formation of Communist Party and determination of the tasks before the working-class. We have found in the history of communist movement that the condition of the working class in whose name communists swear, has always provided the real basis and direction towards advancement, be it towards achieving the formation of an united party, with its requisite strength and stability sufficient to lead the working class or towards more and more Bolshevisation of the party. While dealing with such problems the great leaders Mao and Lenin inevitably led the communists to such questions. Thus Lenin, speaking about this basic condition of unity and stability of the party in the Preface To The Collection TWELVE YEARS, said in 1907 after recalling the failure in this respect in 1898 "The first Social Democratic Congress was held in 1898. It founded the Russian Social Democratic Party....The central party bodies, however, was suppressed by the police and could not be re-established. There was, in fact, no united party: unity was still only an idea, a directive."[LCW—Vol-13, page-100, Emphasis ours] Later, throwing light on the tasks pursued by the communists led by Iskra over the period 1900-1905 he went on to say "The question arises, who accomplished, who brought on into being, this superior unity, solidarity and stability of our party? It was accomplished by the organisation of the professional revolutionaries, to the building of which Iskra made the greatest contribution......Basically, of course, their success was due to the fact that the working-class whose best representatives built the Social Democratic party, for objective economic reasons possesses a greater capacity for organisation than any either class in capitalist society, without this condition an organisation of professional revolutionaries would be nothing more than a play thing, an adventure, a mere signboard. What is to be done? repeatedly emphasizes this, pointing out that the organisation it advocates has no meaning apart from its connection with the "genuine revolutionary class that is spontaneously rising to struggle". But the objective maximum ability of the proletariat to unite in a class is realised through living people, and living organisation." [Ibid, page-103-104, All the emphasises are ours] Apart from the various obvious dissimilarities in conditions then and now what demands attention from us is the importance of this basic relation of building a stable united party and the connection of the working class with its best representatives.
Even the Chinese Party and Mao's experiences and teachings to which the CPI(ML) from its inception went on declaring its allegiance, had something different to say from the CPI(ML)'s understanding and formulations on leadership of "poor landless peasants". In "Problems of Strategy in China 's Revolutionary War" Mao said—"The masses of China 's peasantry and urban petty bourgeoisie wish to take an active part in the revolutionary war and to carry it to complete victory. They are the main forces in the revolutionary war, but, being small-scale producers, they are limited in their political outlook (and some of the unemployed masses have anarchist views), so that they are unable to give correct leadership in the war. Therefore, in an era when the proletariat has already appeared on the political stage, the responsibility for leading China 's revolutionary war inevitably falls on the shoulders of the Chinese Communist Party. In this era, any revolutionary war will definitely end in defeat if it lacks, or sans counter to the leadership of the proletariat and the Communist Party" [Mao—Selected Works, vol:1, page-181-182]. Naturally, after such grave lapses of the past, the failure of the so-called 'rectifications' to unify and the continuing confusion and divergences among the CR organisation at present, even if the unity of the 'overwhelming majority' of these organisation are sought minus the emergence of the 'most revolutionary class', the working class in the scene, won't it be a 'play thing, an adventure, a mere signboard'? Without ascertaining the 'deeds' to be consciously and assiduously pursued to awaken the working class from its present position of disorganisation and defeat, without the CR organisations themselves learning from the conditions of the working-class about the ways and means to overcome the obstacles in its path of emergence into class-struggle, the struggle to build up connection with the "genuine revolutionary class" will never take off. That will go on further postponing the formation of a vibrant and stable communist party that can achieve the realisation of the 'objective maximum ability of the proletariat to unite in a class'.
On the question of splits in the CR organisations we have seen Com. Pradeep for a movement did show signs of standing up to the truth - 'mistakes could not be unitedly corrected .....at the central level'. But the very next moment he passed over to his theme of the 'rise' of the CPI(ML) and' its overwhelming majority'. Here also his construction of reality stood in his way of probing the extent and significance of splits. The discussion did not advance.
If we look at the position of the revolutionary forces not only at the national plane but worldwide, it cannot be missed that this incidence of split and disunited organisations is a worldwide phenomenon. If CPI(ML) rose at a time when such ML organisations sprang up it was under the influence and inspiration of the Chinese Communist Party in the late 60s of the last century when CPC was the torch-bearer of the international communist movement after the Great Debate with the revisionist Soviet leadership and at the start of the Cultural Revolution in China. It brought to the fore the connection between the conditions of the communist movement at the international plane and the movement at the national plane. Presently that inter-relation is once again felt in a negative way in the aftermath of the defeat of the proletarian forces in Soviet Union , China and elsewhere. The international defeat has bred confusion, disunity and desertion. A truly, revolutionary Communist Party hardly exist .in any country. The movement has remained restricted within small groups with hardly any influence on the working-class.. The Communists earnestly seeking unity and revival of the revolutionary politics of class struggle cannot avoid addressing the nature of damage inflicted by the international defeat. In order to march towards a new, vibrant Communist Party, a new level of critical thinking, scrutiny, assimilation and rediscovering and retrieving the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism have become an important and urgent part of present struggle.
In fact to add another point positively, for appraising and assimilating the lessons of the past experiences, as for instance, the history of CPI(ML) in this case, it should be linked up with the struggle for adoption and advancement of the tasks of the present, under newer conditions. Lenin, after the defeat of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907, in the midst of organisational and ideological crisis in 1909 thus expressed "The recent all Russian conference of R.S.D.L.P.....marks a turning point in the development of Russian working-class movement after the victory of counter-revolution....These decisions gave a very definite answer to the question of the cause and the significance of the crisis, as well as the means of overcoming it....
A Marxist analysis of the present-day class relations and the new policy of tsarism; an indication of the immediate aim of the struggle....an appreciation of the lessons of the revolution as regards the correctness of the revolutionary Social Democratic tactics, elucidation of the party crisis; solutions of problems of relations between legal and illegal organisations, recognising the necessity of utilising the Duma tribune....such was the principal content of the decisions of the conference which provide a complete answer to the question of the party of the working-class choosing a definite path in the present difficult period ."
Thus Lenin in real life stood for the 'deeds' to be pursued in newer conditions of a difficult period, combining with it the struggle for appreciation of the positive and negative lessons of the past, instead of clinging to the past.
Com. Pradeep has referred to Lenin's article "On The Collapse Of The Second International". Standing on the achievement of such tasks and the advancement of the Bolshevik Party Lenin was able to draw lines of demarcation with the social chauvinist and centrist leaders of the Second International, 'appraising' these trends and their roots of opportunism which developed in the peaceful conditions of development of capitalism in the 90s of the nineteenth, century. Today standing amidst our opportunism, subjectivism and above all deep-seated confusion regarding the essentials of Marxism-Leninism we will have to strive to advance from the present to really reach the point of assimilation of the lessons of the past or in com. Pradeep's words, the real 'appraisal of history'.
Comments:
No Comments for View