WSF And MR2004 - A Discussion
In January 2004 two anti-imperialist international assemblages took place on Indian soil. One is WSF and another is MR2004. Both have been organised in the same place, i.e., Mumbai and at the same time., WSF from January 15-20 and MR200 from January17-20, which according to the organizers themselves, "will run parallel to the World Social Forum (WSF) Mumbai programme". Actually MR2004 have been organised in opposition to WSF and the organisers of MR2004 have made their intention clear by announcing MR2004 with a critique of WSF. Some of the Communist Revolutionary groups of India participated in WSF and a few other Indian Communist Revolutionary groups were behind the formation of MR2004. Moreover, these two simultaneous anti- imperialist assemblages on Indian soil have attracted the attentions of the Indian big bourgeois press and few of the big dailies have come out with big coverage of these events with oblique criticisms of their own. Hence it is beyond doubt that WSF and MR2004 have become an important agenda before the entire Indian Communist Revolutionary camp and demand serious attention. This discussion is an attempt to meet this demand.
Background — A Short Sketch
The statement that WSF and MR2004 have not suddenly fallen from the skies, have a background and are connected with some sort of the development of the world situation reflects an ABC of understanding and does not demand very much retrospection. The spectacular mass mobilization voicing protests against imperialist globalisation, WTO etc. starting from Seattle in 1999 and continuing through Nice, Rome, Genoa, etc. and the recent mammoth protests against naked US aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq, specially pronounced in the case of American aggression on Iraq and in the advanced capitalist countries of the world reflects an international situation which is behind the formation of both WSF and MR2004.
After the Second World War the imperialists, in their keen pursuit to keep the volatility of the world in check- more specially of their own countries, established the so-called 'welfare states' in their own countries and undertook a programme of catering some bits and pieces of concessions to the working and petty-bourgeois classes of these countries in the forms of medical insurance, unemployment dole, old age pensions, etc., etc. But from the eighties decade of the last century the imperialist ruling bourgeoisie of these countries started to press the reverse gear. A process of withdrawal of these concessions began from this period. The 'virtues' of the free-market economy, private industry were suddenly re-discovered and nationalization of industries and government control on economy became dirty words. Some new phrases like Thatcherism, Reganomics and Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) were invented and quickly gained both popularity and notoriety. Then in the beginning of the nineties of the past century the erstwhile Soviet Russia collapsed and the imperialists, especially their undisputed leader US imperialism gleefully unleashed a naked aggressive campaign on the toiling people of the world. Repeated warnings are being given to the world that the world has now become a unipolar one and that the free market economy is the new god of this time. Globalisation, liberalization, downsizing of the personnel etc. are the new lethal weapons of the imperialists in their present naked aggression. And these lethal weapons are now hitting all the toiling people of the world very hard. The working class and the lower rung of the petty-bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries are being more and more harshly robbed of their concessions, which they have been enjoying before and are now finding themselves at the receiving end after a comparatively peaceful period. Consequently they have become so much restive and agitated that their restiveness and agitation have now started to flow into the streets. The imperialist exploitation and aggression on the people of the Third World have become more naked, more intense and more brazen. IMF and the World Bank are dictating their lives and the Structural Adjustment Programme is suffocating them. The recent events of Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina etc. have clearly shown to the world how much the countries of the Third World are being mercilessly ruined by the imperialists, particularly by US imperialism and how much the effect of this is pushing the people of these countries into the path of agitation and mass action. The more recent US aggressions on Afghanistan and Iraq, more particularly on Iraq have shown to the world the absolute shamelessly naked face of US imperialism. After these events it is clear that in the present situation US imperialism cares two pence for the world opinion. This unashamed haughtiness and arrogance of the US rulers have aroused indignation all over the world This is, in short, the background behind the formation of WSF and MR2004 and the twin anti-imperialist congregations that are taking place in Mumbai and some sort of understanding about it is essential for making any evaluation of WSF and MR2004.
World Social Forum ( WSF )
The first mammoth mass demonstration against imperialist globalisation took place in Seattle city of USA in 1999 where the Economic Summit of the imperialist countries was taking place. The World Social Forum (WSF) was first organized in 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, which, according to the announcement made in the first meeting, was organised "as a counter to the annual summit of corporate and political leaders at the World Economic Forum". "Another world is possible"—this theme of WSF was developed in the first meeting. The fact that some of the principal participants of the Seattle demonstration were also frontline organizers of WSF revealed a close connection between the two. After the first meeting it became an annual affair and the second and third meetings were organized at the same venue in 2002and 2003. The meeting of WSF in Mumbai in January 2004 is going to be the fourth annual World Social Forum. There a number of revealing indicators that exposes WSF to have assumed the character of a convenient instrument of the imperialists to conspire against, mislead, soften and keep the anti- imperialist struggles limited within the boundaries of their choice. It is meaningless to debate whether this character of WSF was conceived right at its formation or not. It is also not our intention to accuse all the participants of the World Social Forum to be conscious partners in this imperialist conspiracy. This question is also immaterial. Because what really count is its objective character and the objective role it is bound to play.
The Charter Of Principles of WSF, adopted at its second annual meting, is quiet revealing and sufficiently exposes its intentions and true character.
The no.1 clause of the charter declares that: -"The World Social Forum is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neoliberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building of a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships among Mankind and between it and the Earth".
Hence, from the outset, WSF has made it abundantly clear that it is never been conceived as an organization of struggle against imperialism. On the other hand, it is intended to be just " an open meeting place for reflective thinking, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action." What all these words "full of sound and fury" signify? Of course, these words do not signify "nothing". These words are deliberately and skilfully coined to conceal the truth that these globalisation, liberalisation, etc., are the natural consequences of imperialism and taking "effective action" against these demands taking effective action to build up struggles directed towards the aim of wiping out imperialism from the face of the earth. This intention becomes all the more clear from the way the fundamental questions of the class and the leadership in the perspective of the struggle against imperialism have been left out and a phrase like "civil society" has been used to give an image of a non-class character of the opposition "to neoliberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism". Furthermore, what is meant by " a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships among Mankind and between it and the Earth"? Why this jugglery of words and extreme vagueness? Why WSF cannot talk straight in its Charter Of Principles? Because it intends to keep it extremely vague, full of jugglery of words. The draft makers of this Charter Of Principles must have worked very hard to invent phrases like 'planetary society' to confuse the class question while looking smart and the word 'Mankind' hides the truth of class difference and class conflict existing in to-day's societies and gives an false
image of the possibility of building a 'fruitful relationships among' all the classes and of the desirability of it.
In the 6th clause of the charter it has been stated that: "The participants of the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that proposes to be taken as establishing positions of the Forum as a body".
This statement makes it quite clear that WSF is never intended to be an organization capable of taking any action; it is meant to be an impotent body which will meet annually for 'reflective thinking, democratic debating of ideas... free exchange of experiences, etc., etc". There cannot be any doubt that such an organisation, instead of uniting the anti- imperialist struggles of the masses, will make them impotent.
The 8th clause of the charter declares that: "The World Social Forum is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, non- governmental and non-party context..."The pluralism is again emphasized in the next clause, wherein it is stated that;"The World Social Forum will always open to pluralism and to the diversity of activities and ways of engaging of the organizations and movements that decide to participate in it...".
But, strangely enough, this much-vaunted pluralism finds its burial in the very next clause that states that: "The World Social Forum is opposed to all totalitarian and reductionist views of economy, development and history..." Anybody conversant with the hysteric anti-Marxist campaign of the imperialist-bourgeois camp in this present period will easily understand what is meant by "totalitarian and reductionist views of economy, development and history". The present 'learned' anti-Marxist campaigners have attributed this label to Marxism. So it comes out that WSF is opposed to Marxism and its commitment to pluralism does not include Marxism. Imperialism will surely appreciate this!
WSF has made it clear that: "Neither party representatives nor military organizations shall participate in the Forum. Government leaders and members of legislature who accept the commitments of this Charter may be invited to participate in a personal capacity". (Cl.9) These two sentences are inserted to give the authority to the organisers of WSF to debar any person from attending any meeting of the Forum whom they dislike and on the other hand, invite any person of their own choice to participate in WSF. Actually, the Workers' Party of Brazil (PT) which is presently the party in power there, is one of the principal founders of WSF and our own CPI (M) and CPI are taking dominant parts in the organisation of the ensuing congregation of WSF in Mumbai. In paper the members of these parties are
participating in WSF not as party members, but as members of different mass organisations led by those parties. Actually this is eyewash. On the other hand, "Lula" da Silva, the present President of Brazil, was one of the principal speakers in the previous three WSF's and in the Second WSF a high-level government delegation from France participated that included six ministers. Do not make a mistake! If you are very much inquisitive then you should know that Lula and the six ministers of the imperialist government of France have participated in the Forum in personal capacities!
To cap it all clause no.13 of the charter declares that WSF "...seeks to strengthen and create new national and international links among organizations and movements of society that....will increase the capacity for non-violence social resistance to the process of dehumanisation the world is undergoing and to the violence used by the state...". So the good-natured, gentle people of WSF are only for non-violent path of resistance against imperialism that is armed to the teeth and is on a killing spree throughout the world! Isn't it clear that WSF cannot develop anything except extremely innocuous anti-imperialist struggles, which will definitely get an approving nod from the imperialist camp? Moreover, it is quite apparent that this clause gives the organizers of WSF the power to debar any organization from participating in WSF with the accusation that it is following a 'violent path of resistance'. And this is not just a conjecture Real events have proved this to be true.
We have dealt, more or less at length, with the Charter Of Principles of WSF, because we feel that this charter tells us everything about the character and the objective role of WSF. There are also some other revealing facts. We shall cast a quick glance at one or two of these and leave out others so as not to make our discussion unnecessarily repetitive. The Zapatista Movement of Mexico was debarred from participating and the Argentina Mothers of Martyrs (Madre de la Plaza del Mayo) was denied the right to address the forum, although being invited. In the first WSF the Columbian guerrilla organization FARC was not even provided with a press conference. Who had taken these decisions? Nobody seems to know clearly. So it seems that in spite of all the talks about 'pluralism', 'democratic debate' WSF is actually run by a coterie. Who are there in the coterie? At the centre of the decision-making within the Forum has been the Brazilian Organizing committee (OC) which created the International Council (IC) by invitation. 6 out of the 8 members of the Brazilian OC and more than half of the members of the International IC are NGO's, many of those are very big and different imperialist funding agencies fund almost all of those. Apart from the NGO's the IC is packed with the members of various social-democratic parties. With this organization structure it can well be understood who actually run WSF and there have been continuous criticism and opposition within WSF against the method of running of the organization and of decision-making. . Lastly, what can one expect from an anti-imperialist forum in which there are parties like Brazil's Workers Party, India's CPI (M) and CPI who are, at one hand, mouthing anti-imperialist rhetoric, while at the same time implementing the globalisation programme of the imperialists from the seat of governmental power?
Incidentally, judging from the perspective of the participations of CPI (M) and CPI the Charter Of Principles of WSF reveals itself as a Charter Of Non-Principles while at the same time revealing the extremely unprincipled characters of the participants. How can WSF accommodate members of the parties like CPI (M) and CPI and similarly how can the members of these parties participate in WSF, when the Forum has declared its opposition against Marxism and these parties still call themselves Marxists? More significantly, how can some of the Indian Communist Revolutionary groups participate in this Forum accepting the said Charter Of Principles with its opposition to Marxism and complete adherence to non-violent path of resistance?
MR2004
Due to reasons obvious from the above discussion there had been strong criticisms and oppositions against WSF right from its inception Various organizations and ideologues of the radical left throughout the world, specially from Europe and Latin America voiced their oppositions and criticisms against WSF and exposed its real character as 'advocates of globalisation with a human face'. This opposition found its echo in India also. In the first week of January 2003, Hyderabad witnessed a massive gathering of various organizations and individuals under the banner of Asia Social Forum (ASF) organized by the World Social Forum. In opposition to ASF a parallel rally was organized at the same venue and in the same week by another forum of Indian origin, Forum Against Imperialist Globalisation (FAIG) with its programme of exposing the true face of WSF and developing a real anti-imperialist struggle in India. The anti- imperialist congregation, Mumbai Resistance 2004 (MR-2004) which is taking place now, is a continuation and product of this process of protest and criticism.
In the handouts released in connection with the organization of MR-2004 ('Introducing MR-2004', 'Why MR-2004'etc.) the organizers have clarified their points of opposition to WSF and put forward their premises. Apart from these, the Peoples War Group (PWG) of India, the dominant force behind FAIG and the organization of MR-2004, have also published their criticism against WSF while justifying the organization of MR-2004. While introducing MR-2004 it has been declared, "It (MR2004) is an international event, part of the process of building a strong worldwide anti-imperialist movement that seeks to take the people of the world, including those attending WSF, beyond the limits of "reflective thinking and debate" towards organized resistance against imperialist globalisation and imperialist wars". ('Introducing MR-2004'). This statement reflects a position, which is fundamentally positive than that of WSF. All the real anti- imperialist forces cannot but agree with the declaration of MR-2004 that "The battle against globalisation cannot be restricted to fighting examples of the brutality of the system, but has to move towards fighting against their real cause.... MR-2004 identifies the capitalist imperialist system as the prime enemy of the world people and the root cause of the devastation being caused throughout the world in the name of globalisation". (Why MR-2004). They have also correctly pointed out that "Imperialism cannot be reformed—it has to be smashed" and thereby have reminded all the anti-imperialist forces about the real perspective of their struggles against imperialism. Summing up its analysis about WSF, MR-2004 has characterized WSF as a "platform that basically channelises dissent into avenues acceptable to
the big capitalist powers that are the perpetrators of the ravage and plunder of the imperialist globalisation and war". (Why MR-2004). This conclusion is absolutely correct, as we have seen earlier.
Furthermore, the organisers of MR-2004 have clearly stated their position about parties like Brazil's Workers' Party and India's CPI (M) etc and about the NGO's funded by different imperialist funding agencies.. In explaining 'Why MR- 2004' they have categorically made it known that "Those who implement Liberalisation-Privatisation-Globalisation policies while claiming to oppose globalisation are not real allies" and that "Funding Agencies have a vested interest". Consequently they have excluded these forces from their proposed anti-imperialist platform. It is essential to point out that this move meets the demand of a real anti-imperialist platform in the present context.
But in spite of such positive positions of MR-2004 in relation to WSF, we are afraid that it has displayed certain limitations, incompleteness, weaknesses in the perspective of developing total opposition to imperialism and the struggle to smash imperialism and this necessarily demands discussion. We hasten to point out here that these limitations, weaknesses etc. are not our main points of discussion about MR-2004, for that matter about such anti- imperialist platforms as a whole. We are mainly concerned with a question of more fundamental nature—the question of justification of taking up this task of building an international anti-imperialist forum or platform, from the point of view of the main historical task that confronts the international proletariat at present. . We shall take up this question in the last part of our article. In the mean time, let us quickly glance through some of the limitations etc.
(i) While correctly bringing forward the absolute necessity of the actual struggles of the masses in resisting imperialism, in the place of ridiculous 'reflection and debate', the organizers of MR-2004 have completely neglected the most important question of leadership in this context. When one places the question of the real struggles of the masses in opposition to 'reflection, exchange of experiences, etc.' and more particularly, focuses on the necessity of smashing imperialism, then it becomes imperative to state the truth that without the proletariat leading the anti-imperialist struggles of the masses it is impossible to build up real resistance against imperialism and that the smashing of imperialism necessitates revolutionary war of the masses under the leadership of the proletariat. Unfortunately this is not mentioned in any of the documents of MR-2004, not even in the article published in the mouthpiece of PWG. Needless to say that the absence of this vital part of the truth has considerably weakened the premises of MR-2004 and has obscured the real essence of the truth
(ii) As a natural consequence of this limitation the working class and the other exploited classes are treated at par in the documents of MR-2004 and thereby the objective special class position of the working class and its potential special role has been completely ignored. By ascribing equal importance to the working class, rich peasants, oppressed lower castes, minority religious groups, women, the organisers of MR-2004 has, in reality, obscured the existing differences in the objective class positions and potential roles among these social groups and has robbed the class content of the anti-imperialist struggle. Does not this stand practically support the idea of the 'civil society', which WSF has put forward? Does it not practically negates the necessity of uniting the oppressed classes and sections under the leadership of the proletariat which, in real terms, means opposition to the politics of class struggle?
(iii) During the period of preparation of WSF the revolutionary communist group, PWG, wrote an article in their mouthpiece, entitled 'WSF, NGOs and our Stand'. In the article, PWG had elaborately exposed the role of the NGOs as the agents of imperialism and had correctly opposed WSF for its NGO dominated characteristic. 'Why MR-2004' contains a paragraph exposing the imperialist funding agencies as having vested interests. But strangely nothing is spoken about the NGOs in this literature. And more strangely, 'Introducing MR-2004'contains a single sentence in its last clause, which reads "It (MR-2004) firmly believes that funding from imperialist/capitalist governments, corporates or foreign institutional sources can never help the peoples' movements, and will not get fund from these sources". Apart from this single sentence not a single word is spent about NGOs and their role nor it is explicitly stated whether MR- 2004 will accommodate NGOs or not. A surprising silence is maintained in this context. Why? Are we to believe that this question is left open? And if this question is left open then how MR-2004 is going to draw a clear line of distinction between 'the pro- and anti-globalisation camps' which it wants to as per its declaration? Is not the line of distinction getting blurred in this process?
Apart from this, among the 'Initiators of MR-2004' we find the name of an organization by the name of Muslim Youth of India. It is clearly a religious organization and an Islamic organization as such. Can a religious organization be one of the initiators of a platform that vows to build the struggle to smash imperialism? This is not the place to start a thorough discussion on this question. At present we want to raise two points in this context. Firstly, in the present situation due to specific historic reasons Islam and various Islamic organizations are in the forefront of worldwide anti-imperialist struggles and imperialism, particularly its present leader US imperialism has now on a warpath against Pan-Islamism. But the initiators of an organization or forum whose declared aim is to smash imperialism must understand that Pan- Islamic forces, as such, are not and cannot fight with the object of smashing imperialism. Because the struggle for smashing imperialism is inseparably linked with the struggle for socialism—a truth that, MR-2004 itself has accepted. And socialism is an anathema to all religions, all fundamentalist organizations, including Pan-Islamism and Pan-Islamic organizations. Secondly, we want to remind the communist revolutionary forces behind the formation of MR-2004 about Lenin's emphasis, in his Colonial Thesis placed before the Third International, on urgent necessity of an intense ideological battle against Pan-Islamism and of defeating it in order to establish proletarian leadership over anti- imperialist struggles. And that was in a world with a communist movement, which was strong, swiftly growing and advancing towards ideological consolidation through the formation of the Third International and with a high tide of anti- imperialist struggle. We are now living in a different world where the worldwide communist movement is fragmented, ideologically confused and very weak in relation to its influence on the working class and the toiling masses, to say the least. Though recently we are witnessing huge mass demonstrations against the onslaughts and aggressions of imperialist globalisation, still the present worldwide anti-imperialist struggle is nowhere near the crest of high tide reached during the time of formation of the Third International. And the ideological presence of proletariat is almost non-existent in these anti-imperialist protests while Pan-Islamism is very much conspicuous by its dominant presence. In this context is it not the fact that intense ideological fight against Pan-Islamism has become all the more urgent and imperative than in the early twenties of the past century? Surprisingly, not only MR-2004, but also the communist revolutionary forces behind it are absolutely silent about meeting this necessity.
(iv) Although MR-2004 is supposed to be given the shape of an anti-imperialist forum the programme assigned to it is bound to jeopardize its intended content. The programme of MR-2004 has almost become a programme of the Peoples' Democratic Revolution of India. Almost all the unsolved fundamental problems of the unfinished democratic revolution of India like, caste repression, national repression, communalism, dangers of fascism, women problem etc. have found place in the declaration of MR-2004. Not only these, problems of environment, of cultural degeneration have also been included in the declaration. An anti-imperialist forum can contain only those problems, demands and struggles that have specifically grown out of direct imperialist exploitation and aggression and are specifically directed against imperialist onslaught. Now if we stretch our reasoning to an unreasonable limit we can discover the hands of imperialism behind all the fundamental problems of a country like India. But it cannot be asserted that all the major struggles of the Indian masses are directed against imperialism. The struggle against Hinduvta fascism of BJP can never be given the label of anti-imperialist struggle and for that matter the struggle for the abolition of caste division and oppression is not directed against imperialism as such. We are, in no way, on a faultfinding mission. What we want to emphasize here that with the programme assigned to it MR-2004 can never be able to develop and function as an anti-imperialist forum. There is every reason to conclude that the organizers of MR-2004 are driven by a subjective desire to mobilise, by any means, as many sections of the people as possible.
We have already pointed out that these limitations; weaknesses, errors etc. are not our main point of discussion or main concern about organizations like MR-2004. Rather we feel that these limitations, errors etc. are the inevitable outcome of a fundamental misunderstanding. We are mainly concerned about this. Hence we refrain from stretching further our discussion about the limitations, weaknesses contained in the declarations of MR-2004 or in the reasoning put forward by the communist revolutionary forces behind it.
In the Perspective of the Present Main Task
We have already pointed out that our fundamental question about the justification of the formation of MR-2004 or any such international anti-imperialist platform lies in the understanding of the main historical task, which the proletariat presently faces, both nationally and internationally. And this demands our close attention to the fundamental characteristics of the present situation.
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 movement. Both nationally and internationally, the effects of this defeat are so apparent that no Marxist- Leninist can deny those. This is evident from the fact that we inevitably find the use of such phrases as 'temporary set- back of socialist movement', 'temporary retreat of the proletarian movement' etc. in all the present-day Marxist-Leninist literatures, whenever the analysis of the present situation crops up. But unfortunately, it cannot be said that the real and total significance of this defeat has been generally and uniformly grasped by the present communist revolutionaries. This is reflected in the non-recognition of the defeat in its totality, in the light-hearted way the effects of this defeat are waived aside and more significantly, in not giving any consideration to the fact that this defeat of the international proletarian movement has created a new situation and placed a new main task for the revolutionary proletariat. The lack of understanding of the new situation and the new main task is very much evident among a considerable section of the communist revolutionaries and very many of them are continuing to look at the world in the old way and move in the old way, which, of course, they cannot do fully, because of the irresistible dictates of the reality. This truth is reflected in the methods of formation and programmes of WSF and MR2004 and our fundamental question and concern is this.
We are fully conscious that in discussing about WSF and MR2004 it will be out of place to indulge in a full-fledged discussion on the present situation and the main task of the revolutionary proletariat. We shall, of course, concentrate on the subject under discussion and the present situation and the task emanating there from will be dealt as those will naturally appear in the course of the discussion.
It is quite clear that both WSF and MR2004 are the consequences of the series of big anti-globalisation demonstrations starting from Seattle and continued through Nice, Rome, Genoa, etc. and the huge worldwide protests against US aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq. The first WSF took place close at the heels of Seattle demonstration and many of the important organisers of WSF had been the front rankers in the Seattle. The opening lines of 'Why MR- 2004' state: "Ever since the momentous Seattle demonstrations of 1999, the localised and scattered struggles of the people in the different parts of the globe transformed into a mighty wave of anti-globalisation protests, targeting the destruction and havoc wrought by the imperialist powers in the name of globalisation. After the War on Afghanistan and more specifically before, during and after the War on Iraq, another clear target has been identified—the war mongering rulers of the imperialist countries". In 'Introducing MR-2004'it has been declared: "The MR-2004 considers itself as a continuation of the militant traditions set in the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements that assumed a new intensity after Seattle".
The massive protests against imperialist globalisation and against US aggressions, especially in the advanced capitalist countries, are, of course, important events reflecting a growth and spread of the trend of anti-imperialism all over the world. But the question is whether the communist revolutionaries can visualise the development of the revolutionary struggle of the masses against imperialism as a "continuation of the militant traditions set in the anti- globalisation and anti-war movements" of the Seattle- type. The question confronts us because MR-2004 has quite rightly reminded us "Imperialism cannot be Reformed-it has to be smashed". And one cannot talk of the objective of smashing of imperialism without meaning revolutionary struggle of the masses against imperialism. Incidentally, militant struggle does not necessarily mean revolutionary struggle. Militancy is a form and revolutionarism is content. There had been numerous examples in the past where reformist struggles had taken the form of militancy and the reformists had consciously given the struggles the form of militancy to hide their intentions to keep the struggles limited within the boundaries of reformism. And the great teachers of Marxism-Leninism had repeatedly warned us about the danger of confusing militant struggles with revolutionary struggles. But since MR-2004 has focussed on the truth that real struggle against imperialism necessarily means struggle to smash it, so we take it that they mean revolutionary struggle against imperialism.
It had been widely reported that the anti-globalisation demonstrations in Seattle, Nice, Genoa, etc and the subsequent anti-US demonstrations mobilised multiple types of people, people of different colours and hues most of whom joined the demonstrations with their own sets of demands. Among the participants of the anti-globalisation demonstrations were the workers organised in different reactionary and reformist trade unions, unorganised workers, environmentalists—people of the green movement, French peasants backed by their government, anarchists, lesbians, etc., etc. and the communists were hopelessly outnumbered by these people. And the NGOs backed by imperialist agencies were conspicuous by their dominant presence A wide variety of demands were projected in these demonstrations- from the scrapping of WTO, to the French peasants resistance to lowering of agricultural subsidies and extending to the length of demands for the rights of homosexuals and lesbians. Consequently, these demonstrations did not have a clear single focus. But the demonstrations did objectively assume a particular characteristic imparted by the character and aspirations of the majority of the participants. It is apparent from the fact that these demonstrations were generally being described as 'anti-globalisation'. Even MR-2004 and the communist revolutionaries behind its formation had described these demonstrations 'anti-globalisation'. So 'anti-globalisation' has been the main characteristic of these demonstrations, which means these demonstrations have been principally directed against the harsh and ill effects of imperialist globalisation and not against imperialism as such. Had there been no posters or banners in the demonstrations calling for the abolition of imperialism and capitalism? Of course, a few such posters or banners were observed in the demonstrations. But it was quite obvious that such voices had been so few that these could not made any noticeable impact on the general character of the demonstrations and that the voice of anti-globalisation had been loud and dominating. When MR-2004 is up in arms against WSF (and quite rightly) for its conspiracy to keep the anti-imperialist struggles limited within the bounds of anti-globalisation and give the globalisation a human face, then why it has remained blind to the inherent limitations of the Seattle-type
demonstrations and eulogised those as 'momentous'?
A noticeable feature of these demonstrations has been the large presence of NGOs, many of which are funded by the imperialist agencies. It is to be further noted that some of the big NGOs, such as ATTAC (Action for Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens), Genoa Social Forum, World forum of Alternatives etc. that took prominent parts in the formation of WSF were also in the forefront of Seattle-type demonstrations. Why this truth has gone unnoticed both by MR-2004 and the communist revolutionaries active behind its formation, specially when PWG has reminded us in bold letters "To sum up, the NGOs are apologists for imperialism who cloak themselves in attractive languages".
The article published in the mouthpiece of PWG about WSF carries an analysis under the sub-title "Reflection of the inter-imperialist contradictions in the WSF". This reflection was also very much evident in the demonstrations in Seattle and other cities of Europe. The vociferous presence of French peasants sanctioned by the French imperialist government, protesting against the conspiracy of US imperialists to grab a greater share of the world agricultural market, the attempt of some of the European NGOs to direct the protests only against US imperialism etc. were all evidences of this reflection. Can the communist revolutionaries remain blind to this truth?
Of course, a substantial number of workers participated in these demonstrations and the participation of the workers increased as the demonstrations continued. It is also true that a fair amount of spontaneity can be noticeable in these workers' participations. But what has been the nature of the spontaneity. Can those participations be recognised as spontaneous working class participation"? We must keep in mind that we can call only such participations of workers in any protest or demonstration as spontaneous working class participation where the workers spontaneously participate with their class demands or in other words, demands emanating from their specific class position in the society. Can this phenomenon be observed in the workers' participation in these demonstrations? Absolutely not . In Seattle a majority of the participating American workers participated under the leadership of the reactionary American trade union AFL-CIO and AFL-CIO was voicing protests not against imperialism, not against US imperialism and not even against imperialist globalisation as such. The organisation took part in the demonstration with some narrow trade union demands created by the globalisation policy of their imperialist government, such as demands against wage cut, curtailment of the social security measures, shifting of the American industries to the poor Third World countries in search of cheap labour, etc. In the same way the majority of the workers who participated in the anti- globalisation demonstrations in Europe were led by different European Social-Democratic trade unions and mainly voiced their protests against the recent curtailment of social security measures. Most importantly, not a single communist-led trade unions has been present in these demonstrations, as because such type of trade unions are almost non-existent in the social reality, in the daily lives of the workers of these countries.
The almost worldwide protest demonstrations against US aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq were marked by the dominant presence of Islamic and bourgeois pacifist organisations and the dominant voice in these demonstrations were for peace and not for worldwide revolutionary struggle against imperialism.
To sum up, these anti-globalisation and anti-US demonstrations were predominantly of bourgeois character and essentially bourgeois-led, although not in an organised way. There is very little of revolutionary traditions 'set in' these anti-globalisation and anti-war movements. One must take note of the fact that the demonstration in Nice is more or less a repetition of the one in Seattle and the demonstration in Rome is also more or less a repetition of the one in Nice and so on and so forth. And that is why all these demonstrations can be clubbed together with the singular nomenclature of' 'demonstrations of the Seattle-type'. Each of these is an end in itself and none of these has been able to create the seeds of movements of a higher plane. How can the revolutionary struggle of the masses for the elimination of imperialism develop as a continuation of the 'revolutionary traditions' set in these protests and demonstrations? It is quite apparent that one cannot reach this conclusion without subjectively imposing revolutionary trends on these demonstrations, which these do not objectively posses and this type of subjective imposition is inevitable when one fails to grasp the fundamental characteristics of the present situation and the main task of the situation emanating from the understanding of these fundamental characteristics.
We have already pointed out that the fundamental characteristics of the present situation are linked with and are product of the defeat of the first campaign of the international socialist movement. The fragmented, confused and incoherent state of the present international and different national communist movements, the continuation of the period of low ebb and despondency in the working class movement, the marked decline of the influence of Marxism- Leninism through out the world, establishment of almost total dominance of bourgeois ideology and politics over the majority section of the working class and the other toiling section of the people, the naked exhibition of brutal power and arrogance of imperialism as a whole and US imperialism in particular, the spread of a noticeable right swing through the world, gaining of popularity of reactionary ideologies like Pan-Islamism, Hinduvta, etc, the growth and rapid spread of anti-Marxist outlook like Post-Modernism, the rapid advance of the power and influence of the NGOs among the toiling masses —all these bear testimony to this truth. In this overall condition these protests are being organised. We have drawn attention to the microscopic presence of the communists, complete absence of the revolutionary trade unions in these demonstrations and to the participation of the workers not as representatives of the working class, not as carrier of the banner of working class politics—but as workers under the dominance of bourgeois ideology and politics. Can we conceive of the growth and development of the revolutionary struggle to smash imperialism without the communist movement acquiring such a position of strength so as to enable to fight for establishing leadership over the growing anti-imperialist struggle of the masses and without the participation of the workers as representatives of its class? No, we cannot, because both the theory and the experiences of the past teach us that it is impossible. Hence the revolutionary communists must understand that at the present moment the national and international communist movement is not objectively confronted with the task of fighting against the bourgeoisie for the leadership over the growing anti-imperialist struggle of the masses. Because, firstly, both nationally and internationally, the communist movement is absolutely not in a position to launch that fight; and secondly, due to the dispersion of the working class as a class by the impact if the defeat and almost total domination of bourgeois ideology and politics over the majority of the workers these types of anti-imperialist protests or demonstrations will inevitably remain chained within bourgeois limits and will never give rise to higher stage of movement. 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 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. The present history cries for the revolutionary communists to fully grasp these essential tasks and wholeheartedly concentrate on carrying out those. We never want to mean that the development of the revolutionary movements entirely depends on the completion of these tasks. There is absolutely no yardstick by which we can precisely measure the completion of these tasks and it is impossible to invent such a yardstick. But we can tell that the resurrection of the communist movement and the rise of the working class from the ashes of the defeat are intimately connected with one reacting on the other. And we are certain that at certain point of development of these two mutually interacting processes the condition for the development of the revolutionary movement will be created and the revolutionary proletarian movement will be confronted with the task of organising anti-imperialist platforms or forums to unite the world wide anti-imperialist struggles of the masses. It is impossible to predict right now at what moment in the future this point will be reached. It depends on many factors, particularly on the revolutionary communists' wholehearted approach towards and determination for the taking up of these essential tasks of the moment. The revolutionary proletarian movement does not fall from the skies. For its development this movement demands preparation-both subjective and objective. And historically this movement is passing through a preparatory period. Hence the communists cannot but take up the tasks of the preparation. This is the call of the moment.
The failure to understand and grasp the fundamental tasks of the day has forced the organisers of MR-2004 into many errors, limitations and contradictions, some of which we have noted earlier. We have seen that Mr-2004 has omitted the essential question of proletarian leadership. Why? Because the reality forced them to do it. The reality of the present abject weakness of the communist movement is so palpable that it will be height of absurdity to call for establishing proletarian leadership over the anti-globalisation demonstrations etc. This reality has forced this omission. Take another example. After exposing the role of WSF as promoters of 'a pacifist approach' and 'giving a human face to the terrible exploitation carried out by the capitalist class', the article published in the mouthpiece of PWG tells us in the end; "At the same time, we should guard ourselves against adopting a sectarian approach towards WSF. Our approach should be of unity and struggle—unity in so far as they adopt an anti-imperialist approach and take up people's issues and struggle in the ideological-political sphere on their non-class or supra-class standpoint and their reformist approach in fighting imperialism"(Bold in the original) How can you expect WSF (mind that WSF as a whole, not some of its participants) to 'adopt an anti-imperialist approach' when you criticise them as promoters of 'giving a human face to the terrible exploitation carried out by the capitalists'? Isn't it a glaring contradiction? Obviously, the consciousness about their own limitations in relation to the impossible task undertaken by them has forced them into this glaring contradiction.
In 'Introducing MR2004' it has been stated: "MR-2004, being held in Mumbai, in particular seeks to take the anti- imperialist movement in India one step forward..." Is the anti-imperialist movement very much evident in India now? How can one take a movement one step forward when the movement is not much in evidence? The superimposition of a task of the future on the present context has forced the organisers of MR-2004 to invent such an anti-imperialist struggle in India that can be taken one step forward.
The organisers of MR-2004 have demanded that it is 'an international event, part of the process of building a strong world wide anti-imperialist movement. But we find that among the 21 'Initiator' organisations only 6 are based outside India; so it is obvious MR-2004 is predominantly an Indian event. Again we find an instance where the reality contradicts the declaration and thereby proves the declaration to be the reflection of a subjective desire. This is bound to happen when one fails to read the call of the objective reality and is driven by subjectivism
The world wide anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle under the leadership of the international proletariat can never be a continuation of the Seattle type of demonstrations. This struggle will develop on a different basis and will be of different composition in which the communists will occupy an important position, if not the dominant one, the participation of the working class as a class will be quite evident and there will be no space for the reflection of the inter-imperialist contradiction. The development of such a revolutionary struggle entirely depends on the ability of the communist to grasp the main task of the moment and advance towards the fulfilment of the task. History never allows skipping of the stages—both in the case of social development and movement.
Comments:
No Comments for View