On "Woking Class Leadership"
[Editor's note: — It'll be evident from this article that this has been written as a short polemic against the Peoples War's breakaway faction's idea about "proletarian leadership", and not as an article to discuss "proletarian leadership" in general.]
Sometimes ago, due to political differences, the secretary of West Bengal state committee of the CPI (ML) [P.W.] along with some more comrades have severed ties with that organization. They have also published a pamphlet on their differences, namely, "Some Basic Problems of Indian revolution". It has been written in the introduction of the pamphlet: " Though these questions or debates were raised within the Peoples' War party, these should be discussed in the interest of development of entire communist movement ? with this realization we are publishing this collection of writings. We hope that the opinions and debates on these writings will help the advancement of revolutionary movement".
They are very much justified in hoping that. Any important debate on ideological-political questions among the communists must be discussed within the entire communist movement. With that sense of commitment, we are starting discussion in the present article on a particular subject, "Proletarian Leadership", which is one of the various subjects raised in the three articles of the above-mentioned pamphlet. We hope that the ideological struggle, which has been initiated by the authors of the above-mentioned pamphlet, will proceed by the participation of all communist organizations. Though their ideas about "proletarian leadership" are scattered in different parts of the pamphlet, we shall confine our discussion on the first article ("Whether we can advance Indian revolution without proletarian leadership?") as the question of proletarian leadership has been discussed specifically in that article.
In the article, the problem has been presented in the following manner: "In our party and the M-L camp such a view has been formed that we will be able to advance revolution without direct leadership of the working class. Proletarian leadership is in reality leadership of the communist party. Proletarian leadership can only be effective through a party led by proletarian ideology. Proletarian leadership means leadership of proletarian ideology, not the physical or direct leadership of the proletariat."(Page 3)
It is obvious that they have placed proletarian leadership in opposition to leadership of the party and of ideology. Only physical and direct leadership of proletariat is proletarian leadership ? they have expressed such a view. Actually, leadership of the party and of ideological leadership is something contradictory with the physical and direct leadership of the working class ? such a view exists in M-L camp to a great extent.
As the M-L movement started from the premise that the Indian revolution would develop along the path of Chinese revolution and failed to grasp the essence of experience of Chinese revolution correctly, always more emphasis was given on the task of organizing peasants than on the task of organizing workers. The facts that the capitalist development in India was much greater than it was in China, that India had sufficient presence of working class and a glorious history of working class movement, had never been given adequate importance. This wrong practice has also influenced the theoretical framework of the ML camp at large. A communist party led by proletarian ideology and without a real proletarian basis has taken the appearance of 'proletarian leadership' in their consciousness. Russian path or Chinese path ? this debate has created and is still creating many difficulties in the communist movement here. (Without going into the deeper aspects, debating under the veil of quotations of Marx, Engels, Lenin is another such harmful tendency, which has been consciously avoided, in the present article)
Considering from this aspect the theoretical struggle launched by the authors of the above-mentioned pamphlet is courageous and deserves praise at least only for this reason if not for anything else. Because in conformity with the tendency of blindly following the ideas evolved in the course of Chinese revolution, such as 'encircling the towns with the villages', 'base areas', 'peoples' army', 'united front',etc the above mentioned one sided concept of proletarian leadership has enrooted almost like axioms in the M-L movement. We should congratulate the courage to think afresh about the immediate and important questions of Indian revolution like "proletarian leadership" from this camp itself. At the same time, it has to be realized that the struggle for establishing the truth by abandoning the old legacy will be long and far fledged. Ideas entangled with one another have created a complete theoretical framework and it is not possible to revise this framework partially; radical reconstruction is needed. How much this necessity has been fulfilled — we have tried to analyse the article from that aspect.
Regarding the development of such idea on proletarian leadership, they have said, "Actually this idea could take root among the revolutionaries of this country due to dissociation of the revolutionaries from the proletariat instead of acting as its vanguard"(Page 10). But what is the significance of working as the "vanguard of the proletariat"? Every group considers itself as the vanguard of the proletariat. What is the solution of the problem of their dissociation from the working class? Giving emphasis on work among the workers? Is it a fact that the groups, which give emphasis on work among the workers, are not affected by this problem? Does the problem simply revolve around giving or not giving emphasis on the work among the workers? Or, the problem is mainly in the mode of work among the workers?
What is their idea about the mode of work among the proletariat? "To establish working class leadership on the peasant movement, more and more advance sections of the proletariat must be sent in the rural areas." (Page 20) or, "The necessity of good commanders in the armed forces built up by us can mainly be fulfilled from proletarian class basis."(Page 20) That means physical participation and direct leadership of the advance workers in the rural work of the party, under the tactic of 'encirclement of towns by villages' ? this is their conception of "proletarian leadership". But the Indian edition of the tactic of 'Encircling towns by villages' has been evolved from that very theoretical framework from which has evolved that one-sided idea of "proletarian leadership" they are fighting against. Guided by this idea, ML movement had boycotted workers' movement; as it was considered as mainstay of revisionism-reformism. Even today, the rural area remains as the main centre of revolutionary movement in their idea and the role of urban work is only of assisting that main work. Even in the urban area some of these organisations are more eager to collect forces from student-youth-intelligentsia (Is it because that the response from the workers is less?) But, what the authors of present article did in the name of giving emphasis on work among the proletariat? By projecting the physical and direct leadership of the proletariat could they give any other direction outside that framework? Must the working class physically go to rural area to lead the peasantry? On the contrary, on another occasion they have said: "In our country, new democratic revolution can advance only under the leadership of working class. The proletariat will be able to assume that role only when it will be possible to organize their class struggle at least in the main industrial areas". (Page 20) But if "proletarian leadership" means 'the participation of advance workers in the party work in the rural areas', then what is the need to build up class struggle of the workers in the industrial areas? Presumably, form the reason that "the advance sections of the working class can be organized or can be drawn into the party only through the development of class struggle of the workers on the basis of politics of seizure of power"(Page 13) Well! But, regarding "proletarian leadership" is the role of class struggle only in the fact that through the class struggle the advance sections of the working class can be brought into the party? Is there any role of class struggle of the workers in spreading revolutionary influence on the society and influencing the struggles of other classes in the revolutionary direction?
At least, at one place, they have made a statement, which is almost like this. They said: "In fact, it is not possible to establish the link between peasant revolutionary movement with the anti- imperialist, anti-feudal struggle of broad masses unless the working class of India rises up against imperialism and Indian ruling classes. Without independent political role of working class (independent form the politics of the ruling classes) we cannot integrate or lead the struggle of the broad masses against imperialism and Indian Government,"(Page 19)
Very true. But why? The article could not provide any clear answer to this question. Because, to give a proper answer one has to abandon the theoretical framework that the "proletarian leadership" means "drawing of advance workers into the party for their direct participation in the rural work of the party." On the basis of that framework, at the most it may be contemplated that when working class movement will be guided by the politics of seizure of power, then it will take shape as the revolutionary movement against imperialism and Indian Government. Then it will be possible to unite peasant revolutionary movement with this movement and to advance to the seizure of power with participation of broad masses through the surge of that united movement
At least such is the image that evolves through the use of the words like " to integrate" or "to establish links". Through this concept the working class is projected only as a fighting force; the role of leadership of the working class does not become clear. Let us proceed to that.
One thing must be clarified at the outset. To develop the role of leadership of the working class, the role of the communist party is determining. It is also true that to fulfill this role the party must acquire proletarian basis. But in the present context, it is not enough to say up to this extent. Because, then the problem of establishing the leadership of the working class over other potentially revolutionary classes of society and most importantly the problem of spreading working class hegemony over the whole society is overlooked. It is true that more the advance sections of the working class can be brought into the party, more it will be easier to carry out the necessary tasks for establishing working class leadership in society. But through this, the tasks themselves do not get accomplished. Rather, by carrying out those tasks the advance workers become the leader of society in real terms and can take up the task of developing remaining workers as leaders. What are those tasks?
We will have to analyse the problem in connection with the dictatorship of proletariat and proletarian hegemony. In the present era the working class is the most revolutionary class ? not only because of its fighting power, but also for its ability to build up a society free of exploitation. It has achieved this ability not through any subjective capacity, but from its objective position in the sphere of production. In the present era, only working class can build up a higher mode of production and a society on that basis which is free form exploitation. The production relations on the basis of which the other classes are standing cannot be the basis of a higher social system. So, objectively the working class is the most revolutionary class and has the ability to lead other oppressed classes. For this reason, only the working class has a future.
So, proletarian dictatorship is necessary not only for the expropriation of ruling classes, but also to guide other oppressed classes towards abolition of all classes. Viewed from the latter aspect, dictatorship of proletariat means not only an instrument for subjugation of the bourgeoisie, but simultaneously, it is a democratic unity of the working class with other oppressed classes. It is such a unity by which the working class organizes the other classes in favour of proletarian class interest by displacing them from their conservative class basis by expanding democracy (here proletarian class interest means abolition of classes). It is possible because the expansion of democracy also develops the urge for emancipation from exploitation. Therefore, the working class dominates in this unity. It is also true in the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry in the stage of democratic revolution. Under the hegemony of the working class, this joint dictatorship establishes peoples' democracy by crossing the limits of bourgeois democracy. On the basis of peoples' democracy, again starts the advancement of the working class towards radical transformation of society, towards abolition of classes.
Does this unity form during the seizure of power? No, through the development of class struggle under the leadership of working class this unity gradually develops much before the period of seizure of power. This unity attains a solid basis through the seizure of power. Such unity under the proletarian cannot be developed only by uniting struggles of different sections of people. To develop such unity, the proletariat must wage a continuous struggle ( in the main, criticism) against the vacillations of other classes with respect to complete democracy due to their conservative class basis. The main difference between the class struggle against the ruling classes and the proletariat's struggle against other classes is ? the first one is antagonistic and the second one is non-antagonistic contradiction.
So, the proletariat does not unite with other oppressed classes only for seizure of power. Because, the seizure of power is not the ultimate aim of the working class. The state power is the weapon of working class for guiding the society towards abolition of classes. The weapon must be such that through it the real aim can be achieved. So, for the working class, the real meaning of seizure of power is the victory in the struggle for democracy i.e., the advancement in the path of compete democracy by smashing the narrow limits of bourgeois democracy. By its effort to develop the struggle of other classes against ruling classes towards this complete democracy, the hegemony of the proletariat as the advanced fighter of democracy is established and the revolutionary democratic alliance under the leadership of the proletariat is developed to overthrow the ruling classes.
To spread this hegemony of the proletariat, ideology is certainly an important weapon. Because, to draw the intermediate classes in the battle of democracy to the last the domination of bourgeois ideology must be curbed. From this aspect, it is not wrong to say that 'proletarian leadership means the leadership of proletarian ideology'. But it will be wrong to contra pose physical and direct leadership of working class with working class ideology. On the other hand, in the name of leadership of working class the tendency of negating the importance of proletarian basis generally exists in the M-L camp. We should ponder that whether what is going on in the name of leadership of ideology is really working class ideology or not.
For example, every communist says that the working class will lead peoples' democratic revolution or new democratic revolution. But, many communists also believe that the social task of this revolution is the development of capitalism under the leadership of the working class ? such non-socialist concept is considered as proletarian ideology. If we proceed with this concept we shall see that, in reality, the working class is considered, at the most, as the most consistent fighter against imperialism and feudalism. This concept is limited in the politics of seizure of power. This concept of proletarian ideology does not include the leading role of the working class in drawing the other toiling classes aroused in the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle from the bounds of bourgeois democracy, and to lead them towards the struggle for socialism on the basis of complete democracy. This concept has raised a Chinese wall between socialist and democratic revolution.
Now, consider the question of unity with rich peasants or national bourgeoisie. This has been discussed in Indian movement time and again. It is seen in history that whether the rich peasants have economic contradictions with the ruling classes do not determine their role in class struggle. The presence of working class with its independent political role has influenced the role of these classes. Confronting the revolutionary struggle of the working class, even the revolutionary bourgeoisie compromised with the reactionary forces. In the past, the rich peasants vacillated. We have seen such events in the European revolutions of 1848. We have also seen the transformation of San-Yat-Sen's Kuo-Min-Tang to Chiang-Kai-Shek's Kuo-Min-Tang in the course of the Chinese revolution. On the other hand, we have seen different experiences during the period of the Third International, due to the strength and influence of international working class movement, many backward forces (like pan-islamism) were drawn into the anti-imperialist struggle.
The working class appears as the leader of society through the political struggle of the working class guided by real proletarian ideology or socialist ideology. This political struggle influences other oppressed classes and their struggles and enlightens the society in the orientation of complete democracy by tearing apart the social bondage of the bourgeois ideology. The main task of the party is to give ideological leadership so that the workers' struggle can play this leading role In other words, party is the leader of working class and working class is the leader of the society. When party organises the class struggle of the working class on the basis of politics of socialism (not narrowly on the 'politics of seizure of power'), through it, on the one hand the party acquires proletarian basis and, on the other, also becomes able to establish proletarian hegemony. So, it will be wrong to pose the question as : either party leadership, or direct and physical leadership of advance workers.
When the workers' struggle is led by a communist party guided by real proletarian ideology, then, through that, the working class emerges as the advance fighter of democracy. Not only on itself, but its role against all forms of oppression present in the society definitely attracts other toiling classes towards it. Due to their conservative class basis vacillations, compromises, inconsistencies exist in the struggles of these classes. The bourgeoisie try to keep those struggles within the narrow limit of the bourgeois framework using the social domination of bourgeois ideology. On one hand, on every important social, political questions bourgeois politics must continuously be criticized through party movement, as well as, movements on the basis of socialist ideology. Side by side, efforts must be taken up to build up revolutionary movement based on proper demands, slogans, tactics, programs regarding those questions, and to unite other oppressed classes with this revolutionary movement. If the party cannot acquire proletarian basis, if the working class cannot be developed in practice as an independent political force, 'proletarian ideology' and 'correct political program' become fruitless.
Therefore, to establish 'working class leadership' all three are needed :- party, proletarian ideology, and politically active role of the working class, are necessary. By contraposing party and proletarian ideology with physical and direct leadership of the working class the authors of the above mentioned pamphlet placed themselves in an opposite point of the same theoretical framework existing in the ML camp which they questioned, but could not smash. Probably they could not get themselves out of that framework as they did not view the revolutionary working class struggle as socialist movement. For that reason they have suggested to send the advanced workers to lead the peasant movement; the fact that the socialist movement of the workers itself influence the society, the contradictions of the society, was forgotten.
It is not true that the entire working class must grasp socialist ideology consciously. The political struggle of the working class is initiated through the activities of advanced workers organized under the leadership of the party. Gradually it spreads among the entire class. The common workers realise the correctness of political demands-slogans-programmes of the party on the basis of their own experience and participate in the political movement led by the party. Thus under the leadership of the party the working class is politically activated and plays leading role in the society as an independent political force.
At the present moment, two tasks regarding working class leadership are absolutely necessary. Firstly, to clarify proletarian ideology the ideological struggle within communist camp and within the working class by the communists must be strengthened. Secondly, efforts must be taken to build up a united communist party to build up political struggle of working class centrally by uniting the advance workers. Our question to the authors of above-mentioned pamphlet ? is it possible to establish working class leadership without carrying out these above-mentioned two tasks?
Comments:
No Comments for View