Towards Understanding The Tasks At This Moment (2)
In the very beginning, it should be noted that the old communist parties of our country, viz,.the CPI,CPI(M) etc., never really took up the task of organising the workers on class basis and naturally, the important task of establishing revolutionary leadership of the proletariat over peasantry and oppressed, toiling people as whole, remained neglected. Though CPI(M) was formed on the basis of so called opposition to the reformist politics of CPI, practically nothing changed in this respect. Behind the theoretical mask, they, in fact, considered the workers as a mere fighting and organised force. It is true that in the beginning they had given stress on the work of organising the workers and with the help of trade unions controlled by them, they were also able to bring a large number of fighting workers into the fold of the party. It was, however, possible because at that period of time, there was significant churnings and reverberations of the revolutions of Russia and China among the workers and these parties were not as rotten as of now. On the contrary, they could maintain a revolutionary facade and the workers were also attracted towards these parties, especially towards CPI(M). However, the party betrayed these workers, betrayed the working class as a whole. It did not take much time before their practical political activities made amply clear the real aim of their work of organising the workers. It was nothing but to gain the strength necessary to combat the bourgeois parties in the arena of parliamentary politics. In reality, as these parties kept on changing themselves to parliamentary parties, and so to say, turned themselves completely into reformist-opportunist parties, they conveniently brought down the workers in the same row with other sections of toiling people of society. Instead of arousing the revolutionary soul or the class revolutionary instinct of the working class, these old communist parties destroyed it and uprooted the workers from their own, natural class groove and pushed them in such a groove, where they are a mere conglomeration of men bound with the capitalist system, where their class identity had been almost erased. It should be kept in mind that these parties consciously brought the workers to this position by using and betraying the faith and dependence which the workers once kept on this or these parties. The parties could deal such a heavy blow to the class very smoothly and virtually without any opposition because of the then condition where reformism-opportunism became victorious internationally, the first campaign of international socialist movement was defeated and because, it goes without saying, in our country too, the continuity of communist party was disrupted as after CPI(M) no real revolutionary proletarian party was formed since the CPI(ML) failed. However, it is one side of reality. But, there was also another side., which generally remained obscured and suppressed and had been pushed into the forefront as a cruel reality of the gigantic impact of the defeat. In fact, if we delve deeper, we shall see that there is another reason due to which the parties could betray the working class smoothly and almost unopposed, and that reason was inherent among the workers, among the working class itself. The working class, especially their vanguards, unknowingly betrayed with the aim, interest and aspiration of their own class by giving almost a blank cheque for their everything, good or bad, to the party, especially to the then Marxist intellectual leaders of the party. They virtually betrayed with the bloody uprising of the French proletariat of 1948, with the Paris commune, with the martyrs who created the heroic struggle of the May day movement of America, and above all, with the Bolshevik workers of Russia who raised the flag of revolution in Russia with their tremendous sacrifices. They, who should have controlled and led the party - their own party, actually, brought themselves down into the ranks of the blind followers of the party. It is true that the old parties, sliding along the path of reformism-opportunism have been able to push down the workers, even their leading members, to the bottom line but is it not also true, that the workers themselves to a certain extent were responsible for this eventuality? The working class must face this truth and they will face it someday or the other in the interest of their own class.
We firmly believe that according to the law of historical development of society, the workers will raise themselves from the bottom, will definitely return to their natural groove or track, will arouse their revolutionary class character, will take forward the society by removing all obstacles which have created the present lull in the natural development of society and will complete the historical mission of the proletariat. We should keep in mind that only the first offensive of international socialist movement has been defeated, not the international socialist movement as a whole. Due to their inexperience, their errors, the international proletariat has received a severe jolt and has only gone a step backward. We must remember that in this great struggle of establishing socialism by abolishing capitalism from whole of earth, forty, sixty or even hundred years is nothing. It is true that the defeat of its first expedition has disarrayed and disorganised the international working class. This huge blow demonstrates that there is no smooth road in this struggle for socialism in the days ahead. Those who have been pushed on to the feet of the bourgeoisie, that working class will learn from practical experiences, from innumerable mistakes which they may commit in their own struggle, and they will change themselves continuously and will throw newer leaders from themselves and in this way they will again rise up and will make themselves capable and equipped to advance to complete the historical revolutionary mission of the proletariat.
It is heartening for the communists of all countries, about which we have also discussed previously, that, almost from the beginning of this century, the working class has again started to move forward in its own way with its own characteristics, somewhat unconsciously or semi-consciously and naturally in small steps. Undoubtedly, new journey means breaking up or rejection of old. In the present circumstances, new journey means building up resistance to the ongoing and increasing attacks of the capitalists by ending the passivity and inactivity of the post defeat long period of retreat of the international proletariat. New journey means tearing off the shackles of old parties, spontaneously building up their own struggles on their own, by rejecting, ignoring and sometimes revolting against the old leaders and of course by building their own organisations. New journey means that the history has started moving again after a period of lull. It is embodied in the series of blockade of main arteries of the big cities of Europe and America by the masses of people including thousands of workers challenging the governments, besides the series of militant struggles of the workers on their own demands, about which we have already discussed in detail in the last issue of this journal. Even if these struggles get halted temporarily due to state terror or due to the mistakes of struggling masses themselves, the working class will not return to the old world of passivity and inactivity. They will learn from experience and will move forward in a more correct path. We have this faith because this period is such that, standing upon their natural summing up of their bitter experiences of last thirty-forty years. this new journey, this reawakening of the workers have started around the whole world and it goes without saying that this is consistent with the present situation and does not depend on the wishes of the communists. In fact, the present time is such that the workers have started, unconsciously or semi-consciously, to return to its own class track in diverse, multifarious and sometimes in unorthodox ways, from where the old degenerated communist parties and their allies had uprooted it and dumped it into the track laid by the bourgeoisie by almost completely eroding the natural class entity of the working class, and time is such that the working has lost its own party, but new party has not yet been built up. Only if we have this perspective in our mind, we shall be able to comprehend the present appearance of the workers struggles and mass struggles of Greece, Spain, Portugal, America, Egypt etc in their distinctiveness and characteristics. In this perspective we shall be able to understand the importance and significance of the new trend of working class movement of building up struggle by forming their own organisations. In this perspective, the communists will have to understand what should be their conscious role.
Today's communists are hindrance to themselves
It is unfortunate that the communists themselves, more precisely, their thinking itself is a hindrance for adopting the above-mentioned conscious role. It is known to everyone that those who consider themselves as communists, are divided in innumerable groups. It is also a fact that these groups are not being able to remain united for long, these groups are breaking up to make way for another new group and ultimately the total number of groups are increasing continuously. Probably a thorough research will be necessary to determine the number of groups in India at present. Be that as it may. Now, we shall examine the positions of different groups regarding the present situation. Some groups are there, which do not at all consider that there has been a change or change in process in the situation after defeat. It is their theoretical stand that only a party, working class party can bring about a change in the situation, the workers themselves are not able to change it. We do not clearly know the stands of majority of the groups, but we think that they recognise, albeit formally, that there has been a change in the situation in last eight to ten years. However, they only recognise that part of the situation where the workers are taking the path of struggle leaving the period of despondency, passivity behind them. They are not taking into consideration that due to necessity of struggle, the workers are also building up their own, separate union organisations and resolving or trying to resolve the problem of organisation they are facing. Had they considered the class struggle in motion and had they kept in mind the fact that till now the old parties, using their hold on union organisations, have been able to obstruct the objective motion of class struggle which the workers could not resist, and, above all, had they understood the interrelation between struggle and organisation correctly, they would have been able to see that the aspect of organisation, i.e., separation from old, in which is inherent the summing up of their practical experience of past, is the main aspect of the change of situation, a change which they themselves admit. Be that as it may, it is clear from this fact that even though these groups recognise the change in situation formally, they do not recognise the change in its essence and in this aspect, practically these groups are no different from the former groups.In fact, there may be innumerable differences among these groups, but at one point they all seem to be strongly united. That point is, only a working class party, a communist party, can lead the spontaneous struggles of workers towards a conscious direction and develop those struggles to united class struggle. On the other hand, without the leadership of party, the spontaneous struggles of workers are bound to remain within bourgeois ideology and it goes without saying that these struggles do not have any future and ultimately these struggles will go astray, will go in vain, will fail to make advancement towards its destiny and so and so. In fact, all the groups are here united, strongly united, about this that from their own struggle the working class do not learn anything in the direction of class consciousness. Rather, what they learn is ultimately nothing but bourgeois lessons.So it is natural that these groups will not consider the fact that there is any significance or importance of workers building up their own organisation, rejecting the old party-union leadership. It is also natural that they will consider this phenomenon to be nothing but the expression of trade union mentality.
Okay, Its fine. Although, in the last issue of this periodical we have tried to unfold and explain why these groups' afforesaid understanding is one sided, incomplete and is therefore not correct, but let us assume for the time being that we are wrong and they are correct. But, then, from their position, it emerges without any ambiguity, that, faced with the question being posed by the changing situation, in particular, as to what would be first task of the communists at the moment, formation of the united party indeed is the one and only answer logical to their stand. Further, they are to arrive at a conclusion that anything not directly connected with the task of party building, is useless and therefore not permissible.
Then why remain divided ? What stops you forming the party?
Here, in the very beginning, it should be made clear from our side, we do not have any reason to dispute this statement, in general, that the first and foremost duty of the communists and obviously, of the working class is the formation of the party. There is no doubt that had the advanced class conscious section of the working class been organised --that would itself be party of the working class, that means, the leading organisation of whole working class -- then the party could have summed up correctly and completely the lessons, which the workers are learning from their past experience of struggle and organisation and with which they are building up their own independent organisation (trade union), and the party would have developed the workers in totality and would have raised them into the arena of bigger and more developed class struggle. Of course, had the party existed -- not only existed, had it been entrenched among the workers -- which means the presence of an influential current of class struggle within society -- then there would not have been a trend of building up independent organisation among the workers -- and even if there was such a trend, it would have meant dissociation from the class struggle or class position and in that case the advanced, class conscious workers would have opposed that trend. Be that as it may, it is undeniable that had there been a party, and certainly, had the party been in a leading position, it would have been possible for that party to organise planfully, and with comparative greater speed, the spontaneous struggle or journey of the workers which have started among them, in the direction towards returning to their own class position, own class track from the very track where they had been dumped by the oppurtunists-reformists by completely eroding the natural class instinct of the workers and thereby obstructing the objective motion of class struggle. So, there is no question about the absolutely essential role of party in developing the class struggle and struggle for socialism. Our question or objection lies elsewhere. It is their simplistic approach of counterposing the idea that workers unconsciously advance in the path of class struggle by taking lesson from their own struggle and organisation, against the necessity and role of the party, thereby rejecting the ongoing forward movement that the workers are making by way of abandoning the old party-union leadership.
Q: Why the party is not forming? How will it be formed?
The communist revolutionary groups, who really think that in absence of party i.e., if there is no conscious intervention or leadership of the party, the spontaneous struggle of workers, how much intense and wide it may be, it has no future and that struggle will only breed trade union mentality and will remain confined within the bounds of bourgeois ideology, are they really sincere in their thinking? If they are really committed to the working class, if they consider themselves to be communists, then according to their thinking they should have been totally concentrated in the task of the formation of the party. In fact, the task of formation of party should be taken up leaving all other works. In other words, nothing but such tasks should be taken up as mandatory, which are directly connected with the task of formation of party.
It has been mentioned earlier ( in the previous issue of this journal) that, in the seventies of last century, a break in continuity occurred in the communist movement of almost all countries. We observed that reformsm-revisionism-opportunism expressed itself among the old parties in its ugliest, naked form and it was impossible to rectify the party and reorganise it on the basis of correct proletarian line. But on the other hand, almost from its formation, the ultra-left line prevailed upon the new party, i.e. CPI(ML). That party broke up almost immediately and the communists got divided into a number of groups. Before the formation of these breakaway CPI(ML) groups, already there had been a number of groups, which were formed by the communists, who left the CPI(M) but did not join the CPI(ML). Be that as it may, We know, except a few ones, the stated position of all these groups were against both right reformism-opportunism and the ultra-left line. It is a fact that they could not get united and form a party, so as to carry on the continuity of the communist party. Everybody maintained their group positions which did not end even after 35 years. But, curiously the task of party-building still occupies first position in the list of immediate tasks of every group. Undoubtedly, the logical and none-the-less straight means to fulfill the no. 1 task is to make possible what was not possible before, i.e., today we are to fulfill what was at that time the demand of history and continuation of communist party, which we could not fulfill whatever the reason be. If we consider ourselves communists and committed to working class than why are we not carrying out the number one task of communists? We are carefully avoiding this question and even though we have placed the task of party-building at the top of our agenda in our declarations, in reality we are acting otherwise. Even after being "communists" we do not act as communists, then are we really communists or we are merely semi-communists of half-communists? On one hand we shall keep saying that the spontaneous struggles of workers and the formation of the workers own organisations are meaningless without the leadership or intervention of the party, these ventures or efforts of the workers do not have any future, inevitably these ventures will remain within the bourgeois limits, to visualise anything else is against Marxism-Leninism, etc, but we shall not take the easy and logical path for party-building. Then are we not betraying the working class, and also ourselves? Is it expected from those who consider themselves real communists? Isn't it a serious matter to ponder over?
In brief, it is meaningless to repeat without any context what is not possible if the party is not present. If they really believe that "the party is foremost, rest are next to that", and if they also think that in this process of party-building the workers or their real spontaneous struggles do not have any role, if they really think that the party must be formed by the intelligentsia then can they come forward and place before the working class how much they have proceeded in the process of unity of communist revolutionary groups, in the formation of the party, not in words but in deeds. We are certain that they will not be able to tell the workers that the process of party-building is advancing. Because, firstly, no such process is going on. Secondly, all of them think that the task of party formation is the task of intellectuals only, and here, the workers, even the advanced section of workers do not have any role. Therefore, no question of their involvement in party formation. The consequence is clear and it is before us. Ideological-political struggles amongst the communist revolutionary groups have been going on for 30 to 35 years, but they could not take any unified position. On the contrary, the distance between them has increased clearly and the communists could not proceed one inch in the task of party formation, which has ironically remained their first and foremost task for these long years. Nevertheless, for 35 years they are reiterating those same meaningless words -- this or that is not possible if the party is not present. They are reiterating that -- it goes without saying that the struggles evolving by own efforts of the workers, by forming their own organisations do not have any future, they are bound to fail etc., etc.. Does the commitment to the working class lie only in declaring the necessity of the party and giving caution from above that this happens and that does not happen without the party?
It is ironic that those who think that the party will be formed by the unity of the communist revolutionary groups do not really believe so from the bottom of their heart. What is the reality? One group practically claimed itself the party by convening the ninth congress of CPI(ML) in continuation of previous congresses of communist party of India. Though the word "Liberation" remains in bracket, what else is CPI(ML) other than a party? CPI(ML) ND also follows the same legacy. All the CPI(ML) groups with tails like COC, SOC are all same. Everybody aims to establish itself, to make itself bigger. We do not really think that anybody hopes that these groups will be able to get united and form a party. If, at all, somebody thinks so, the others consider it as a mere dream. Besides these groups, a number of small groups ( none of them is big) are there who are busy with their work trying to prove the correctness of their political-ideological position as against others. Much paper and ink are being wasted. But, nobody is able prove anything. Everybody remains where they were before. They will join in thousands of joint programmes, keeping their separate identity, but never they will get united in a single organisation. All efforts will be concentrated to carry out the joint programmes and it will end there.
Stagnation and Motion
Year after year same thing is continuing. As if, it is a struggle for existence by competition. In reality, the communist revolutionary groups are remaining confined and stagnating. There is however a change and it is continuously happening. The groups are breaking up, newer groups are coming into picture. But, after much ups and downs what remains is also another group -- in a different name, in a different shape. Sometimes with some minor changes in the political programme. It is stagnation -- stagnation of group existence. To be precise, this stagnation is the permanency of group existence and in the absence of the movement in the direction of party as against the historical role of groups as a transition to the party. Besides that, from the beginning these groups were generally alienated from the working class and though in last 40 years or so, some of these groups were able to create some influence on the workers but that also remained in the local sphere, with respect to the trade union movement and naturally could not change the general condition of alienation.
On the contrary, if there is any change, that change we shall observe among the workers, who are waking up from the stupor of post-defeat period and are spontaneously entering into the arena of struggle against the onslaught of the capitalists and for that struggle they are forming their own independent and separate organisations after rejecting the leadership of old party-unions. Herein lay the liveliness, mobility of workers movement in today's condition and through these movements is growing up a new trend of workers movement -- which is developing and dynamic due to the objective condition itself. If we do not get mentally tied with any particular framed thought-process then we shall be able to see and recognise this new growing trend in workers and mass struggles of Egypt, South Africa, USA, and different countries of Europe including Spain, Greece, Great Britain. And who denies that the life of any matter is in its motion.
In the previous part of this article, in our discussion on the question of change in situation we had shown that the present communists are not ushering in this change of situation, the workers are bringing about this change in situation by their spontaneous struggles and their own organisations formed in the course of these struggles. It is more important to understand what exactly is happening at present, how the possibilites of future is revealing from within, and whether the present spontaneous independent endeavours of the workers have any relation with the development of class struggle and the party building in future, and if there is any, then what is the concrete shape of that relation. If we are able to understand that then we shall be able to comprehend the theory in its concrete manifestation. We shall enter into that main discussion. But before that, we should clarify some other concepts.
We have already stressed that it is meaningless to discuss what would have been the role of working-class party, because you cannot discuss about something which is not there. We may also clarify to the pessimists that it is not necessary to make us understand that howsoever developed and widespread class struggle be, if it is not finally led by a truly Marxist party which has been tested by the working class and entrenched within them, i.e. a real communist party, it cannot reach the final struggle of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism. We say to the communist revolutionary groups,"why you are wasting your energy in criticising us in this regard? On the contrary, see to yourselves, question yourselves why this stagnation, why you could not end group existence, why alienation prevails even after 40 years?" We shall also tell them, do not just observe from a distance the struggles of the workers which they are building up after breaking off their apathy, passivity and immobility and do not try to burden them with your subjective wish and thought and drag them from behind. Those who want to take the role worthy of the name of communists, should remember that the commitment towards the working class does not lie in parroting to the workers the necessity of the party and confusing them by repeatedly telling them what is not possible in the absence of the party. Whatever outcome be, at least it will not end and can not end group stagnation. On the contrary, it will not be able to reduce the isolation from the working class, rather it will augment it. Commitment lies in our help to the workers to advance and develop the movement which the workers have started in absence of the party.
Probably, all communist revolutionary groups admit that the reawakening of communist movement is the main task or aim which is confronting the revolutionary proletariat in the condition after the defeat of first campaign of international socialist movement. But, it is not sufficient to just understand the task, the main thing is to understand the concrete meaning of that task in this concrete, terribly devastating situation where the whole working class has been thrown in due to the severe impact of the defeat. We are to understand where stands the movement for reawakening at present and from where and how that movement is starting. Which communist group does not know that the communist movement is "the combination of socialism and the working-class movement". This combination means imbibing the workers movement with the theory of socialism ( it goes without saying that this movement is not trade union movement, this movement is class movement of the working class). The first question is who will imbibe? Is it possible that the communist intellectuals will float the theory in air and the spontaneous movement of the workers will get hold of that theory and assimilate it themselves. Only the advanced class-conscious section of the working class i.e., a party can do it and it will be able to do it only when that party is entrenched in the working class and is able to influence the practical workers' movement. We have said earlier that only an assembly of marxist intellectuals, in other words, intellectuals who have accepted working class ideology does not mean a party, a party can become capable of fulfilling its historical role only when class conscious workers are in the party in sufficient numbers, to be precise in absolute majority and one in decisive role. How else can the party become entrenched amongst the workers? How the party will become a real party? Is it not a fact that even after separate efforts of the groups in these 35 years of group existence,-- if we ignore for the time being the question that how many of them are really sincere in this work-- how many communist workers or workers who can be roughly termed class conscious we have within us? Only a handfull. Moreover, they are not united in a single organisation. Is it possible for them -- only a handful and even those divided in different groups -- to attract or earn the trust and confidence of the workers en masse.? The fact that it is not at all possible is evident from the existing isolation of the groups from the workers. On the other hand, it is also cruel fact that no conscious intervetion can unite even these handfull advanced class conscious workers, because unity of these workers depends on the unity of the communist groups, which is again not possible in the present condition.
So far we have observed that if we consider in the perspective of reawakening of the communist movement, one of the condition of this reawakening, that is introducing the theory of socialism within the workers movement is practically absent at present We said practically, because it is not that the communist groups are not addressing small groups of the workers through revolutionary campaigns with their limited strength, but it is beyond the capacity of the communists, now scattered, to develop, to uplift the class struggle to the struggle for emancipation from wage slavery, to the struggle for socialism by associating themselves with that struggle and leading that struggle. It is only possible for a unified party strengthened by an army of advanced class conscious workers and standing on a wide mass base of workers. In this post-defeat period, even from the perspective of the task of reawakening of the communist movement, which is confronting the revolutionary proletariat at present, this stagnation, about which we have discussed before, is a pathetically painful reality. This reality can not be concealed by the titbits of theory and if we do that it will not show our commitment to the working class.
Now, we should give our attention to the other important condition. We shall observe that even this condition is absent. The class struggle has not reached the level, where it will be able to assimilate theory in a living manner. We are in such condition where the workers are just beginning to fight back from a disarrayed state, a period of retreat in the wake of defeat of international socialist movement. The workers of our country is beginning this fightback through their own trade union movement, about which we have discussed before. In this situation by the separate efforts of the communist groups it is only possible to make a very small section of workers, to be precise a handfull of workers, class conscious and indoctrinate them in socialist ideology. We are observing this in reality.The communist movement is moving only in that way which is possible in this situation. How much devastating the defeat be, the communist movement can not be obliterated. The continuity of communist movement has broken up, it is very weak, but there is a continuity. The communist movement is continuing along that path. But, as the communist movement has to rise up from a pile of ruins, it is moving very slowly and also in fragmented manner and taking along the old garbage, where on one hand the present communists are not only divided, they are not free from the ideological deviations and confusions and specially rightist deviations and on other hand the condition of workers movement is also miserable
Then where lies the future? Enlargement of one or two or even some more groups, expansion of area of activity, being able to make some more workers class-conscious, considering ourselves to be a party or like a party in none of the above we shall be able to find the future. If we want to see the future, we shall be able to see it within the workers, within the workers' movement. Whereas the communists are messed up in stagnation, the workers are coming out or beginning to come out from the inactivity, passivity, inertia, in a word, from stagnation, which is moving, advancing. Due to contradiction between labour and capital in general, and particularly because the imperialists and capitalists are throwing the burden of their crisis on the workers and the toiling people of the whole world in such brutal manner, the spontaneous workers' movement will definitely grow - must grow - and already we are observing its manifestations in the mass struggles in growing number of countries around the whole world, especially in the countries of Europe and America. Workers' movements are also growing up with their own entity and characteristics, as we have observed in the recent workers' movement of Egypt. We can observe the same mobility in our country also, though not as widespread or intense as the former struggles. The workers all around have been thrashed for so long and they are now fighting back --- it is one aspect. Another aspect is there and if we do not note this aspect we shall not be able to understand the real nature of the present mobility. The workers are summing up their past experience to an extent, to put it plainly they are learning from their past experience of one-sided attack by the capitalists. They are abandoning their prolonged and deeply entrenched habit of depending on the leadership of party-union, for everything good or bad on those leaders and are beginning to exercise their own strength, own authority in the arena of struggle and wherever possible they are forming their own organisations by rejecting all the old leaders. In which direction this aspect of mobility is taking will be evident to us if we remember one pronouncement of Engels which he made regarding the workers movement in America, "The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement--no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement", ( letter to Sorge, November 29, 1886, Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence). That means, the workers definitely learn from their class party and become conscious, but also learns from struggle if that struggle do not follow the path shown by the bourgeois ideologists, if that struggle and the path of workers, is the path learnt and created by the workers themselves. If the struggles, those that have been started by the workers themselves without the outside leaders in last few years, grow, then the extent of their learning through the experience of struggle will also expand. In reality, the resistance of the workers are increasing and will increase because the capitalists themselves are pushing the workers into the arena of struggle. Struggle and spontaneously learning from the struggle and through that development of consciousness among the workers -- herein lies the mobility of present situation. So, at present the communists, who are engaging themselves in their efforts to reawaken the communist movement, must shift their focus towards this aspect of mobility of present situation. They should understand that there is no means within them with which they can be able to extricate themselves from the stagnation they are now in. Some of the groups lament -- the workers are now moving forward, they are building up some heroic struggles like Maruti workers, but with respect to the workers communists are falling behind etc etc. We tell them do not lament, it will not help, it is better to accept this cruel reality. Rather, the mentality that 'We are your leader' should be left aside, communists should refrain themselves from giving unnecessary advices to the workers like "without conscious direction spontaneous struggles will be this or that, will go astray" etc ( because detached from the working class, specially without being acceptable to the workers, it is meaningless to tell about this direction from outside and only satisfies ourselves) and the spontaneous struggles of the workers should be welcomed, the correct sum up of their struggles should be taken to the workers so that the partial or incomplete lessons they are learning from struggle can become complete. Moreover, the communists should help the steps to become meaningful and real, the steps which the workers are taking themselves to carry forward their struggle by taking lessons from the struggle on their own ( The onslaught of the capitalists will force them to go forward, to build up countrywide struggle). The communists should develop and enhance the mobility of the workers movement ( from both of its aspects -- struggle and learning). This mobility and on the other hand, strength of the communists gained from this struggle will help the communists to come out from stagnation and to take proper role.
Cart before horse?
We know that a barrage of questions will be hurled against the discussion in the previous section. On the first hand, it is natural to think that we are discarding and reversing the known and accepted truths of the communist movement. Almost like putting the cart before horse. It is natural that those who are not understanding or comprehending the depth and gravity of the devastating situation in which the internaional proletarian movement has been thrown into by the defeat of first campaign of international socialist movement, will vehemently attack our contentions and also stamp us as anti-Marxist-Leninist. But, is it not a fact that the dream of communism and socialism which was once kindled in the minds of the mass workers, especially in the minds of the advanced workers, by the flare of the revolution of Russia and China has been shattered completely? The old communist parties got rotten completely, but new party could not be formed in continuation of communist movement. Due to this condition, how, on the one hand, the leaderless disarrayed condition of the working class and acute despondency and faithlessness, has kept the natural spontaneity of the workers masses strangulated for 25-30 years ( which is beginning to change), need not be explained to the communist comrades, especially those who are sincerely working amongst the workers. Are not the comrades feeling it to be quite tough facing the fact that how much deep the apathy and scepticism is running among the fighting workers as a reaction to the betrayal of the old parties? Practically, the negative experience of old parties has pushed the workers into thinking that the party means domination on the workers. Is it possible to remove that negative education by theoretical discussions or by campaigning the necessity of party for the struggle of socialism? Especially when the workers are devastated by attacks on all fronts. Has the communist movement seen such a pathetic condition before in the past? Why talk about the workers only? What about the comrades themselves? Why they could not get united in these long 35 years? Why there is the trend of divergence among them instead of convergence? Why they are competing with each other? Why everybody is busy in trying to prove others wrong ( though the net result is zero)?
We should not underestimate what a huge backlash has been generated by the fall of Russia and China, because with that the worker masses lost the place on which they reposed absolute faith, which was to them the source of inspiration. The effect was devastating specially because the disgraced old communist parties were to inculcate among the workers the habit of depending on outside forces rather than depending on their own strength and these parties always show-cased either Russia or China. It is also a fact that had the Communist Party of China been able to succeed in its fight against the capitalist roaders inside the party and had the revolutionary proletariat been able to uphold the flag, then an international communist centre would have existed ( it goes without saying that then international socialist movement would not have faced defeat). Now, there is no international centre which can help the communists to understand what is right and what is wrong and also to help the disunited, divided communists of different countries to get united in unified organisations. Never have such a situation arisen in the history of the international communist movement after the First International. It is true, that there was a gap of 17/18 years in between the end of First International and the beginning of Second International, but then Marx ( until 1883) and Engels were there and they were the centre. Here, we should understand another point which is important and more relevant. We know that the communist parties of one or two countries cannot be the international centre of communists. But, despite this fact, after 2nd world war when the Third International became non-existent, Russia and China practically became the centres of international communist movement. For the time being we leave aside the question whether it was correct or not.
We have noted before that undoubtedly the main tasks which is confronting the communists at present is the formation of party, but the most important thing is to decide the course we should follow to achieve this goal. Is there any easy way out? There was an easy way -- Getting united in a party. That did not happen in last 35 years. It is known to many that in the pages of this journal about 15 years ago, we advanced a proposal to all CR groups to get united and form a party on the basis of positional unity of the communist revolutionaries as against right revisionism on one hand and left adventurism on the other keeping group existence in tact inside the party. That proposal was rejected at that time. After that, only one path remains open and that is the path of ideological-political struggle and through that struggle to resolve the questions, confusions and deviations, in one word, overcoming the divergent views among the communists which resulted from the defeat and thereby get united on the basis of ideological-political unity. But the problem is who will judge what is right and what is wrong? We are all Judges! The consequences of this is here to be seen by all of us. In fact, an international centre, recognised by all, could have judged, to say properly, could have helped to judge. But, we have seen that that is also not possible. Then remains the struggle of the masses from below. In reality, only the spontaneous struggle of worker masses ( their own struggle) can play the role of "judge". In the present situation spontaneous struggle along the new trend is that touchstone, by the rubbing of which we can examine what is right and what is wrong. The present day communists who sincerely want to take the necessary role for the reawakening of the communist movement, will have to look below, towards the rising resistance movements of the workers, will have to understand the characteristics and course of development of these struggles, will have to understand direction of motion of development from which they will have to collect necessary materials for their development and by integrating themselves with these struggles they will have to assimilate theory in its concrete manifestation and only then it will become guide to action.
Whether the barrenness on the question of the formation of party through the unity of the communist revolutionary groups, which we have already discussed previously, will ever end and also whether the detachment of the present-day communists will ever end are questions which may be kept aside at the present moment. But, it is beyond doubt that the thought of getting united by ideological struggle is generally absent among the communist groups or even if it is there, it is very weak. We know that there are some groups who however give stress on the role of ideological-political unity regarding the formation of united party and they are very sincere in this issue and probably, hopeful. Surely, they are not ignorant about the net result of the ideological struggle which has been conducted so far, how much fragmented that may be. If these communists try to comprehend objectively the condition in which the international proletarian movement got defeated and also the intensity and magnitude of the defeat then it will not be difficult to realise that the defeat has drastically curtailed the capacity of necessary and fruitful ideological struggle. But, whatever else the defeat may curtail, it cannot eradicate the contradiction between labour and capital. Rather, the onslaught of the capitalists for super-profit is increasing their crisis, this contradiction. So, even though the communists could not resolve their problems, the workers and other sections of toiling people are rising up in protest, in spontaneous struggles, and simultaneously they are summing up their past experiences to an extent, in their own way. And all these are happening in the absence of a leading party i.e, without the party.
Some of the communist groups are throwing allegations to us that we are fitting car before the horse. We know, that there is danger of explaining something with the help of analogy. Even then we might reply that the condition of horses are such that they are chewing grass, but they do not have the power to pull the cart. However, this cart is such a cart that though it may not be able to reach its final destination, but it has got the ability to move forward and not only that, it can also push the horses from behind. Actually, the fact is in the context of class struggle, horse and cart are not two totally separate things. Here the Party is the horse, which is the army of advanced class-conscious section of the workers, i.e. the cart according to our analogy. Of course, there is a difference and the difference is that leading section has acquired the Marxist viewpoint. The interrelation between the working class and its party is such that one is acting upon the other and the working class is not as inanimate as nuts and bolts (like in the cart) that they will have to be pulled by someone. Honestly speaking, if we introspect ourselves then we shall be able to understand that deep inside our thought we consider the party as the master and the working class as a passive object, ( and naturally the party decides everything in this scheme of things) rather than as a leading committee or leading organisation of the living movement of the working class. Probably, we are failing to assimilate in totality, (not one-sided), the teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao . And due to this reason, we have so much obstructions in our thought to acknowledge the truth that the working class and is able to move forward the class struggle in absence of party. And we do not hesitate to confuse the dialectical relationship between the party and the working class mechanically with the relation between cart and horse. Needless to mention, that how much harmful such way of thinking can be. It has already done immense harm to the communist movement. As a matter of fact, we are experiencing the mistakes and harmfulness of this thought even more now, in this present period of defeat. Whatever that may be, it is meaningless to get ourselves entangled in this web of thought that which comes first, the cart or the horse. The theory of Leninist party is recognised in the international communist movement. We are definitely not raising any question about that. The living question we are confronting now, is that the party has not been formed and because of that the role of the party is not there. Furthermore, the communist parties of past have rotten beyond rectification, and the worker masses are disillusioned, disgusted with these parties. In this situation, without waiting for the communist to form the party, in reality, without any leadership the workers are building up their resistance struggle by forming their own organisations, and learning from their experiences on their own, obviously not tutored and in this manner, they are moving forward in the path of class struggle. Now the question is whether shall we ignore this reality and restrain the workers by telling them that these way their movement has no future ( Of course, it is a pipe dream that the workers will listen to us) or without thrusting our subjective wishes upon the struggles and organisations of workers , we shall try to protect and develop as much as possible the potential of class struggle, class consciousness and organisation which are evolving within these struggles and simultaneously, with ups and downs, we shall be transforming ourselves to real communists, i.e. integrating ourselves with the moving 'cart' we shall also become 'horse' in real terms. We have said earlier that some groups acknowledge that the communists are lagging behind the workers struggles. Well, we thank them for this recognition. But, we want to emphasize here that the thought and also the effort of overtaking the workers and their practical struggles are not only meaningless but also wrong. Firstly, it is not possible for anybody in this condition of group existence. Besides that, even if we consider for the sake of argument that a party is formed, in this condition of long-standing detachment of the communists from the working class, it is not possible to overtake. Because, one can not put oneself in front just by declaring 'we are here'. Standing in front means leading, that means acceptance from the workers, especially the struggling workers. If the present day communists do not think to come to the front just from a hackneyed way of thinking, if they want to take suitable role to achieve the historical goal of class struggle, then they should leave aside such thoughts that 'we are the leaders', 'we are the decision makers', rather we should go to the below and extend help to the new trend of real, spontaneous worker struggles, to put properly, they should get integrated with the new emerging within the old garbage and in real terms should hold the hands of worker leaders, who are rising from the struggles and getting conscious It is not only to extricate ourselves from class alienation but also for taking necessary conscious role to prepare the workers and the grounds for building a true working class party.
(To be concluded)
Comments:
No Comments for View