Towards Understanding the Tasks at this Moment (3)
At the end of the second part of this article published in the last issue we had discussed that it is futile to get trapped in the argument of "putting the cart before the horse." The important question is, rather to understand the relation between the cart and the horse. This essentially involves an understanding of the dialectical inter-relationship between the party and the working class, rather the working class struggle, which however has to be understood in the Marxist perspective of the inter-relation between organization and struggle. Inter- relation, here, means the dynamic action and effect of one on the other. This dynamism, that is, the role and action of one on the other is of course not independent of the objective situation. Hence, the judgment regarding which comes first - the party or the struggle is meaningless, unless analyzed in the context of the existing post-defeat situation. At this juncture, a blanket judgment will hinder the communists from carrying out their necessary and specific roles. The question is not "which comes first," rather, the actual issue is to identify and understand the relation between struggle and organization, more specifically to locate where exactly we stand regarding the dialectical relationship between the party and the working class.
The discussion on the above issue has become extremely important for addressing the existing confusion and bias among the contemporary communists, particularly for two different reasons. First, the phenomenon of detachment of the old communist parties from the working class and their degeneration into petty bourgeois parties in Russia, China and other countries of the world. Second, the non-emergence of a real working class party in any country in the backdrop of the post-defeat scenario. Yet, the workers have spontaneously started to build up resistance struggles against the ever increasing attack of the capitalists by rejecting the old parties and the party controlled old trade unions and their leadership - which we have identified as the new trend of struggle. And again there has been complete failure of the communist revolutionary groups to respond to the bestowed task of forming a united party which in turned consolidated their group existence.
Relation between party and the working class
We are all aware that a communist party is actually a party of the working class - meaning, an organization of the working class. Is this party something different from the working class? Does it mean that the party has an entity of its own that resides above or outside the working class? As it upholds and protects the interest of the working class and leads the working class struggle, it however follows that the communist party is clearly an organization or party of the working class. Hence, the above question may appear to be superfluous.
It seems natural that the working class, in response to the need of their class struggle, will chose and select the advanced workers from amongst themselves, who are capable of leading their struggle from the front, to form their leading organization or the party. Hence, from this view point, the party cannot be an organization outside or above the working class. Specifically, it has to be an organization from within the working class -- an organization of the class conscious advanced section of the class.
However, if viewed from the another angle, it might again appear that the party & the class is not one and the same; it has a distinct organizational self, since it has different and defined membership and has an organizational discipline that is not applicable to the rest of the workers. General workers on the other hand, can be members of trade unions, which emerge out of the economic struggle of the workers, and are also organizations of the workers, but such organizations can evolve without any ideology, more specifically, working class or Marxist ideology, whereas, the basis of a party is the ideology of the working class. Those who believe in the Marxist theory, ideology and scientific socialism, and moreover, we also know from Leninist principles, that those who act and work along the lines of these beliefs, are members, and constitute the party. Therefore, in all practical sense, the party is not an organization of the whole of the working class; it is an organization of a section of the working class - that section which has been able to elevate them in a developed Marxist position and has established their leading role as the conscious leaders in the class struggle. Understandably, this section is too small compared to the size of the working class, particularly in the initial stages. Secondly (and this is more important), a working class party does not mean an organization comprising of the class conscious advanced workers only. Since the key issue concerns the ideology, individuals from petty-bourgeois or bourgeois background can also become members of the party, provided they have intellectually accepted the working class ideology and have engaged themselves with the working class struggle. We are all aware of these basic tenets. Yet, it has become necessary to recapitulate these well-known facts in order to develop a deeper understanding of the relation between the party and the working class. If we are not afraid of facing the truth then we shall see that the degeneration of the old communist parties, particularly the parties which led the successful revolutions, into petty-bourgeois or bourgeois parties, have raised some serious questions. One of these questions definitely concerns the inter-relation between the party and the class - a question that cannot be avoided in order to advance the communist movement in the perspective of the existing post-defeat scenario, and which needs to be addressed in particular, at this moment, so that the immediate task of forming communist parties in different countries is not hindered.
In order to capture power by combating all the centralized and organized forces of the capitalists, the working class needs its own organized, disciplined and conscious force, i.e. the party. The party, being the centralized expression of the working class power, is essential for the struggle of the working class for its emancipation. Now, despite the fact that the party is an organization of the working class, in reality it is a representative organization of the class having a defined organizational structure, which partly consists of a section of the working class and partly includes intellectuals trained in Marxism who are not workers in accordance to their production relation. This objectively embodies contradictory trends between the organizational structure and the representative role of the working class, which is not always clearly comprehensible. One trend is that the party visualizes itself as a self-sufficient, independent and autonomous entity, irrespective of the participation and/or involvement of the working class, and assumes all the responsibilities of the well-being of the working class onto itself. In short, the party envisages itself as an independent organization protecting the interest of the working class, although it is an organization of the working class itself. In underdeveloped countries where there is substantial influence of the petty-bourgeoisie on the society, where the educated, erudite and sophisticated leaders are held in high esteem by the workers, where the impact or influence of the real class struggle is not significant, and where the workers do not take pride as members of the working class -- quite understandably, in such countries, the above trend is expected to be more prominent. And it is more so if there is a substantial presence of intellectuals from petty-bourgeois background within the party. Secondly, the shrewd and astute tactics adopted by the threatened imperialist and capitalist forces to combat the victorious march of the international socialist movement in the post second world war scenario, could further provoke & enhance the above trend. On the other hand, inspired and overwhelmed by the Russian and Chinese revolutions and by the transition of a large number of European countries to the "socialist" camp, the working class, particularly the struggling section of the class developed almost an unconditional trust and belief on the communist parties of their respective countries and entrusted the responsibilities of their well-being on the party, which essentially made them loyal followers of the party. It seems that the working population was dozing under the thought -- "if the party is in the right track, so are we." They could not remain conscious about the fact that the working class had an active role to play in order to keep the party, which is their own organization, in the right track. May be, at that time it was not possible and probably much more experience based on the ups and downs of the international socialist movement is required to attain this consciousness. Nevertheless, presently it is imperative to remain conscious that the above relationship between the party and the working class will give rise to and act as the breeding ground for the above mentioned contradictory trend, i.e., the trend of alienation. In this context, we are all aware about the immense importance laid by Lenin, on fighting against the bureaucratic trends of the party during the socialist reconstruction and state administration in post-revolutionary Russia, and for involving more and more non-party workers in this process. Unfortunately, much of this struggle by Lenin couldn't get through due to his sudden death.
Consequently, we noticed that when the signs of degeneration of the party became apparent, the working class, far from putting up any resistance, could not even identify the process. When they finally did, the disaster was already over. Unfortunately, the workers started identifying the old communist parties, generally and mostly unconsciously, during the miserable and helpless retreating phase following the defeat of the international socialist movement, that is not in the course of advancement of class struggle & organisation. Few will doubt that this has made the re-emergence of the communist movement in the context of the post defeat present situation an extremely difficult and problematic task.
In fact we think that the concept that it is the responsibility of the communist party to take care of the interests of the working class should be removed from the dictionary of the communists, as it does not truly hold the relation between party & the class. We should bear in mind that, the interests of the party and the class are inseparable and the same, and that the party is the representative of the working class interest, are not the same. It cannot be fully denied that generally the later thought works within us. We should grasp with confidence that the party is neither the emancipator nor the guardian of the working class. The existence of the contradiction between capital and labor, in a capitalist society, provides the objective basis for the working class to safeguard its class interests, for which they struggle. As the organization of the class conscious advanced section of the working class, the necessity and role of the party is to assist in advancing this struggle towards the goal of ending the contradiction between capital and labor, and obviously to provide the leading role in charting the path and direction of this struggle. It is possible for the party to attain the capability and competence to provide real leadership, not only with the help of the knowledge of Marxist theory, but, by firmly grounding itself within the working class, by continuously educating itself from the working class backed by resolute conviction on the ability of the class, and finally having been constantly tested & verified by the masses. Particularly, if we are ready to learn from the past experience of the defeat, then we must realize that grounding itself within the class essentially means complete integration with the class. Grossly we have to realize that the relation between the party and the class is not that of a bunch of leaders and a group of mere followers. The truth is that one act upon the other and the essence of development and the life of class struggle are embedded in this dynamic relation. Many might think that these are the basics of Marxism. Yes, of course. Yet, it has become immensely important to reiterate and re-establish these basic truths in their own glory in the existing post-defeat situation, because these basics became obscured in the post-Lenin period (when exactly this happened and the reasons, warrant different discussion). Importantly, this tradition is still continuing. It is unfortunate for the international proletariat movement (probably a historical limitation of the time), that the cultural revolution in China, under the leadership of Mao, which commenced through the direct intervention and initiative of the working class and the masses, in an attempt to safeguard the party from the bourgeois and bourgeois ideologues, failed to achieve a successful outcome.
The contemporary communists have often extended the quote by Lenin -- "without such organization (party) the working-class movement is doomed to impotence," to the extent so as to mean that without the conscious effort of the communists the working class is unable to advance its class struggle spontaneously; their movement is bound to remain confined within the bourgeois boundaries, etc. -- in a nutshell, the working class remains helpless and paralyzed in inaction. We all know that Lenin laid considerable stress on the conscious role of the communists and how deep seeded that influence is on today's communists. Definitely this is important, but strangely the present day communists are mostly oblivious of the long and blood-spattered history of bolshevization of the Russian social-democratic party. We often forget, or do not consider with due emphasis, that the same Lenin advocated for reserving a certain number of positions for the worker comrades in the central committee of the party, which led the first successful workers' revolution in the history of humankind. It is difficult to overlook the view Lenin attached to the immense and profound importance of the proletarian-future of the party which led him to make such proposal or decision. This aspect of Lenin's advice-cum-teachings is undoubtedly of greater significance in the post-defeat present situation, when the divided and dispersed communists have failed to unite to form a party for the last 30-35 years in spite of their so-called conscious role, and when practically the struggle for building the party is submerged in stagnancy. Only with the above understanding it will be possible, to re-establish the dialectical relation between the party and the working class, and of course to realize the proper role of the spontaneous resistance struggle of the working class in regard to overcoming the above-mentioned stagnancy, and then only present communists can really perform their required role, consistent with the present situation. Lastly, if we remain aware of the theory or the fact that "one acts upon the other" we will realize the appropriateness of what we said earlier, i.e., the futility of getting trapped in the argument concerning 'which comes first, the cart or the horse' i.e. 'party or struggle (political).' In as much it is true that that the party advances the class struggle, the role of the class struggle preceding the formation of the party is also a truth. Finally, it is to be understood that despite being a party of the working class, its inherent objective tendency of being gravitated towards a distinctive entity from that of a class, cannot be overcome simply by the consciousness of the intellectual communists of the party. The control of the working class over the party is here important and mandatory, and we have to trust that the working class shall prepare themselves for doing so by way of continuously learning from their own experience.
Workers' struggle and party formation
In the post-defeat situation, we are not concerned with the question as to what should be the relation of an existing party with the working class or class struggle, since the party does not exist at all. The issue is whether the struggle/process of formation of the party is linked to the objective class struggle, and if so, then how? Since these two issues are inextricably linked, we hope that the above discussion will help us in advancing our thoughts in the right direction for building a party in today's concrete situation.
We have discussed earlier that the present-day communists firmly believe that under no situation can the workers advance the struggle/process of party formation through their spontaneous struggle. Probably their opinion is that the task of forming the communist party is an ideological task, and hence, in today's context only the intellectuals trained in Marxism are capable of building the party. Workers struggle cannot have any role in this process. They strongly believe that in absence of a party leadership, workers' struggle is bound to remain confined within bourgeois limits. Consequently, they do not find any future of the currently emerging real resistance struggles of the workers. It is true that the foundation of a communist party is the proletarian ideology and in the final analysis the role of the communists trained and inspired by Marxist or proletarian ideology is indispensible. The issue is that they think this role is not only indispensible but the 'sole (only) factor.' Hence we find that, for them the 'only' way of forming a party is by uniting the communists i.e., by uniting the communist revolutionary groups. It is a fact that these groups are hopelessly detached from the working class. Therefore, the unity of the communist revolutionary groups will virtually tantamount to the unity of the intellectual communists, since not only the leadership of the present communist revolutionary groups is in the hands of the intellectual communists, they constitute the major portion of group membership. Hence, to them, the workers and workers' struggles have no role in formation of working class party.
It may not be wrong to state that the above-mentioned prevailing thought among today's communists is influenced by the experience of party formation after the third international, where we see that in the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, like in India and China, the intellectual communists took the initiative to form the party. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that they consider the ideological-political unity of the communist revolutionary groups as the only possible path for building a united party, following the legacy of the third international. But what they probably tend to overlook are the disparate experiences of party building in the pre-third international era. If they did, then possibly they would have got the food for new thoughts in response to the demand of the present situation.
The International Workingmen's Association, commonly known as the First International, was formed in 1868 ? a time when none of the European nations saw the birth of any communist party. We are definitely aware of the history of the February revolution of 1848, where the French workers dissociated themselves from the bourgeoisie and raged the revolutionary struggle from a position independent of bourgeoisie. At that time there was no party, and regardless of the influence of few non-worker intellectuals (the Proudhonists, Blanquists, etc.) amongst a section of the workers, the workers spontaneously participated in the revolution despite the absence of any united leadership. We also know that in the 1850s and in the early 1860s, mainly the workers of several European countries played an enterprising role in building their own organization (association) to establish a connection between their isolated struggles. The International Workingmen's Association was formed in an attempt to co-ordinate these country-wise associations. Notably, the initiative to build the International was taken by the workers since the need to unite the struggling workers of Europe developed within the workers. In this context it may be worth recollecting that the first two drafts of the above International were drafted by two persons who were both workers. However, the final draft was prepared by Marx himself, which is the well-known Inaugural address of the First International. The fact, however, is that Marx intervened in the International only after the workers had substantially advanced the process on their own initiative. We can guess the propensity of the role of the workers from a quote of Engels: "when I left the meeting, I felt that I have become taller." This was at the London conference, basically a meeting of the workers, organized by the workers in the preparatory stage of the International organization.
Nevertheless, working class party did not emerge in any country of the world when the First International (International Workingmen's Association) was formed. Party started emerging during the mid and late 1870s, although, a preliminary party was formed in Germany in 1869. We do not intend to discuss about the immense importance of the First International in the history of class struggle and proletarian revolution. But the formation of the First International, at the least proves that the view held by the contemporary communists -- under no condition can the working class advance their struggle and organization in the absence of the conscious leadership of a party -- is indeed biased and wrong. Actually, it is the continuation of the history of independent workers' struggle in European countries during 1850's (1830's, if the textile workers' movement in France & thereafter the Chartist movement of England are taken into account), which took a consolidated organizational form through the formation of First International and then the great struggle of Paris Commune, followed by a spate of workers' struggle in almost all European countries during the subsequent few years that really created the situation which led to the formation of parties in those countries, significantly consisting of a good number of advanced workers. In view of the dialectical relationship between struggle and organization, it would not be wrong to suggest that party was the crystallized, and definitely a developed organizational form of the ongoing movements. Developed because, the incessant fight of Marx and Engels against the anarchist and opportunist views of Proudhon and Lassalle, since the publication of the Communist Manifesto, and particularly within the large ambit of the International, enabled to a certain extent to establish and expand the influence of the basic principles of Marxism or Communism among the advanced workers. However, it is true that Marxist thoughts and consciousness were not in command from the beginning of newly created parties.
Here, we need to clarify one point. We have already discussed at length on the relation between the party and the working class, particularly, the inter-relation involving workers' struggle and party building in the present context, while dealing with the issue of 'cart before the horse.' We may have to proceed further. But prior to that we would like to remind that the present article "Towards Understanding The Tasks...." commenced with the emphasis on the role that today's communists should or must perform in the present situation, in the condition where objectively the class struggle is advancing in the absence of any party, in the post-defeat scenario, through the resistance struggles of the workers, wherein they are not only rejecting the old established party trade unions but have started building their autonomous resistance struggles and organizations. Few will disagree that the discussion on development of class struggle without delving into the party question, is bound to remain partial, incomplete, and irrelevant in the final analysis. Hence it is obvious that in the present article we will have to deal with the proper understanding of the relation between the new trends of workers' movement and the struggle for party formation. In this context we are first to examine our deep-seated beliefs in the light of the knowledge gained from history and from proper realization of Marxist theory. Subsequently, we will have to concretely point out how the present struggles following the new trend are intertwined with the struggle for party formation, implying how the real struggle is acting on the struggle for party formation.
Let us get back to the discussion. We are well aware, that the present communists belonging to the existing communist revolutionary groups, who think that the task of party formation is entirely concerned with ideology, who do not think that there is any essential contribution attached to the presence and advancement of the workers' struggle in the course of party formation, and to whom the format of communist party formation adopted in the colonial and/or underdeveloped countries in the post Third International period is considered as the only model, they would naturally discard the above discussed history of party formation. The argument (probably the only logic) proposed to justify their stand is that the condition during the First and pre-Second International period is different from the post-Third International phase, and hence what was possible in the former age is not possible now. Yes, we do learn from Marxism and Leninism that what is true under a given situation might not be true under a different one. For the time being, we will keep aside whether the view held by today's communists is right or wrong, but if they discard our view or opinion following the logic that 'two different times have two different conditions' then, they must also admit that even after the defeat of the first expedition of the world socialist movement (whose epicentres were the Russian and Chinese revolutions), the condition existing prior to this (post-Third International phase) has not changed -- the situation has remained same.
What do we see in reality? We have seen how those successful parties have degenerated into bourgeois parties. This eventual degeneration of the communist parties took place almost simultaneously in all countries of the world. No new working class party has evolved in any country for the last 30-35 years. After the emergence of the first party (social democratic), worldwide the parties have either transformed themselves through ideological struggle or have developed through split in the organization. But the continuity of the party was never disrupted which happened after the defeat. Secondly, the Russian revolution and particularly the post-Second World War Chinese revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois rule in the east European countries, aroused the dream of socialism within the working population and a section of the petty bourgeoisie, which has now been shattered in front of their eyes. The working class is now dispersed and frustrated. The retreat of the working class is still continuing. Most importantly, in reaction to the betrayal of the old communist parties the working class has developed an extreme apathy towards any party bearing a communist epithet. If anyone refuses to realize or accept this harsh reality, and wants to identify today's post-defeat situation with the post-Third International period when the world-socialist movement was in its forward march, and accordingly considers the present situation to be completely different from the period just preceding or following the formation of the First International, then we are forced to believe that they are turning a blind eye to the reality.
Here we must understand another point. Following the formation of the Third International, the communist parties, which grew up in the colonial or underdeveloped countries (which just got their political independence) like India, were new and the first of their kind, i.e. there was no existence of any prior party. All these parties have now become completely putrid and rotten. The working class has to start afresh to build their new party. The contemporary communists must realize that the statement - the existing parties have degenerated - is not just a simple proclamation. The effect of this on the working population is profound and intense. As a matter of fact, we need to understand that it is impossible to appropriately confront the problems associated with charting the path and the development of class struggle, by ignoring or evading the negative experiences gained by the working class due to the deterioration, betrayal, etc. of the old parties. On the contrary, such attempts will practically enhance the detachment (alienation) with the working class. We have to remember that during the formation of the first party, neither the workers nor the communists were carrying any burden of prior experience. The present scenario is definitely not similar. Will it be rational to deny that the burden of enormous theoretical confusion, ideological deviations and trend of non-proletarian politics, which are haunting the present day communists, is due to the defeat of the first expedition of the international socialist movement, and particularly the unfortunate failure or limitation to comprehend the reasons of this defeat?
Struggle and party formation -- some more thoughts
We have mentioned earlier that the growth and expanse of the workers struggles since mid-18th century in European countries brought forth the need of higher form of political organization of the working class, for which, on the other hand, objective ground was also prepared, and in its course the parties came into being. But it was not so in the course of aforesaid backward countries. For example, in our country, industrialization was in its initial stages and the workers' movements were also weak and in early stage. It is also true that primarily the intellectuals educated in Marxist theory built the communist parties in countries like India, China, Egypt, etc. But, following this if we reach the conclusion that the existence of previous class struggle to a certain extent, is not a pre-condition for party formation, then, at the least, it will not be realistic; rather it will be one-sided and incomplete and in that sense, incorrect. This is because those who are thinking or wish to think along this line are perhaps disregarding the fact that working class movement is essentially international. The first communist party in our country was formed in the backdrop of the Russian revolution and the highest expression of the working class struggle and organization at that time - the Third International, which in itself was an embodiment of the developing trend of the continuously expanding working class struggle ever since 1848, more specifically, after the First International. Definitely it also embodied the dominant foundation of the Marxist theory within the working class struggle, which was attained by incessant and strong ideological struggle under the leadership of Marx- Engels and later on by Lenin.
In this context, if the realization about the dialectical relation between struggle and organization with regards to party formation is not marred with confusion, it also becomes clear that despite the difference in situations between the period before and just after the Second International and that of the post-Third International period (in the sense that one was more developed and advancing compared to the other), in the final analysis, we see that characteristically both the situations are analogous, since the Third International contained continuity of the Second International. On the contrary, we will see that the present situation is indeed different. The degeneration and transformation of the old communist parties to bourgeois parties; retreat of the workers' movement; worldwide domination of reformism-opportunism; the absence of any international organization of the working class: in a nutshell, the defeat of the first glorious march of the international socialist movement - we are presently in such a condition or situation. Therefore, we must clearly understand, that the condition under which the intellectuals trained in Marxist theory and inspired by the Russian revolution had built the parties in the underdeveloped countries like ours', subsequent to the formation of the Third International -- such a condition does not exist in the post-defeat present situation.
We may recall the Russian experience. Most often we are led to conjure a picture that a mere twelve intellectuals like Plekhanov, Martov, Lenin and others secretly met and formed the RSDLP in Russia. What we perhaps overlook or do not remember is that Russia started experiencing the reverberations of the continuously expanding working class movement and the formation of parties in different countries across entire Europe and America during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Practically, if we disregard that despite the condition in Russia being relatively backward compared to other European countries, the Russian workers liberated themselves from the Narodnik influence and were getting more and more involved in organized struggle, where organizations like Emancipation of Labor was created, and on the other hand, if we disregard the importance of the intimate connection between the social democratic intellectuals and advanced workers with the Second International, then we will look at the formation of RSDLP as the achievement of few individuals, which of course is not true.
Some theoretical questions
We have attempted to illustrate the inter-relation between objective workers' struggle and the process/struggle for the formation of working class party in the above discussion. In fact, we have tried to understand this issue in the realm of the general relation between organization and struggle. Needless to mention, that the above inter-relation cannot be confirmed or cannot be adequately realized from apparent and merely historical aspect. Undoubtedly this is one facet. At the same time it is important to dialectically analyze the general relation between struggle and organization from a theoretical view point. In this connection we have to recall some of Marx's views of course, not merely for any abstract knowledge or comprehension. Hopefully, the relevant views of Marx will help us to understand the concrete and real-life problems associated with the development of class struggle in the post-defeat scenario.
During the early history of the workers' movement we have not seen that the workers have launched their movement by first building their organization. Rather we have seen that struggle has, in its own due course, given birth to organization, and the organization in turn has developed the struggle and advanced the movement in an organized manner. In reality, organization can be generally viewed as the crystallized form of struggle, which is expressed in the succeeding struggle. This dialectics is applicable both for economic as well as political struggles. It is also applicable for the transition from an economic to political struggle. We are aware that the expression of resentment and anger of the workers against the capitalist-owners, i.e., the spontaneous revolt/struggle of the workers created the objective demand amongst the workers to get organized, and the trade union organizations were born out of this. It is also true that the expanse and the depth of the economic struggle under the leadership of trade unions and further exposure of the character of contradiction between capital and labor through these struggles, or so to say, the enhanced expression (action) of the contradiction in a holistic and more intense manner, inevitably brings forth the contradiction of class versus a class, i.e. the necessity of political struggle. To proceed, we can say that the above need and its expression arising from the objective economic struggle, assumes the concrete form of a political organization. This thought or theory can be traced back to Marx's analysis where he states, "....And in this way, out of the separate economic movements (based on either one or more definite demands - here Marx refers to the demand of eight hours of work - author) of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of coercion." (Letter to Bolte, 1871) Herein, Marx has elucidated the relation between economic struggle and political struggle, particularly, the development and transition of economic struggle to political struggle. Marx has explained here that workers' struggle in its objective course gets elevated to a political struggle, and workers are transformed to working class. If we do not misconstrue the afore-mentioned view of Marx, then it is evident that as a consequence of the contradiction between capital and labor, the struggle which the workers primarily launch or are forced to launch, is the economic struggle. Through the advancement, proliferation and development of this struggle, the working class confronts the need of political struggle (class versus class) and therein originates political struggle, implying class struggle. Have we succeeded in internalizing this extremely valuable teaching of Marx? Or is it veiled in our consciousness? Firstly, almost all the communists belonging to the communist revolutionary groups strongly feel that the workers are bound to remain confined within the limits of trade union, i.e. bourgeois consciousness, in their economic struggle, unless they are uplifted by conscious effort and intervention from outside. Hence, today's communist strongly believe that the political struggle of the workers does not grow out of workers movements, it has to be grown (built), and the job of building this rests on the party. As if, irrespective of the condition of workers movement, like the present dispersed working class in the post-defeat scenario - only in last few years after a protracted period of retreat have they started turning around by building resistance struggles in the trade union level, which are very few in terms of numbers at this moment -- independent of this situation the party can by its conscious effort create the political struggle of the worker mass. Perhaps, due to the afore-mentioned thought which generally exists within present-day communists, we see that when the workers of a small number of factories are launching or are able to launch a noteworthy struggle by building their own independent organization (union), some of them can think of elevating these isolated struggles to revolutionary movement, and their only regret is that in the absence of a party this is not possible, and these struggles are inevitably getting trapped within the confines of the trade union domain. Actually, they have to understand that their viewpoint is basically negating Marx's opinion, where he clearly states, "...out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement." For the sake of argument let us assume that the emergence of political struggle is subjected to some condition and that condition is the presence of a political organization, implying that a political organization has already been formed. But in the same letter to Bolte, Marx writes, "...organization of the working class, itself arising from their (workers) economic struggles..." Isn't it clear from above quote that not only political struggle everywhere grows ("arises") out of economic movement, so does political organization. Let us provide the entire paragraph of the quote: "The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for the working class, and for this it is naturally necessary that a previous organization of the working class, itself arising from their economic struggles, should have been developed up to a certain point." We find how Marx himself has vividly explained the inter-relation between organization and struggle from a Marxist perspective. The working class needs a political organization for capturing power -- it is not enough to mention simply political organization -- we have to see this organization in its motion -- it has to be developed and matured; while, Marx has made this point very clear, on the other hand he has also explained that this organization (implying party) will not come out of the blue and no one else will make this party for the working class. In response to the necessity of political struggle "arising" due to the expanse and the depth of the initial economic struggles evolving out of the contradiction between capital and labor, the working class forms a different organization i.e. political organization. However, if we look at Marx's statement in connection with the entire history of formation of the First International followed by the emergence of workers' association in different European countries and finally the formation of the first parties in these countries, then we can definitely arrive at this decision or realization that, without the conscious leadership of the party, the working class can through its struggle, or more appropriately, in the course of assimilating, to a certain extent, the experiences of the objective struggles, that is to say, while learning from their experiences, and definitely due to the objective necessity, develop their own struggle, i.e. class versus class, and rise to the political stage. In our country, like any other country in the world, a working class party could not be formed following the degeneration of the old party (we have already explained why this was not possible in the backdrop of the defeat), but on the other hand, the workers have started turning around after comprehending to a certain extent the past experiences, have started to build up resistance struggles against the onslaught of capital at the trade union level by rejecting the old parties, there it is mandatory and important for the present-day communists to assimilate the teachings of Marx and Engels. However, if they cannot get out of the design of their old thoughts, then it is evident that the new journey of class struggle will keep on progressing in its own course, without waiting for anyone.
Here we would again like to clarify that the present article does not intend to deal with what should have been the specific task of the party, if it existed under the present situation, at this stage of workers' struggle. First, this is hypothetical and secondly (and this is the main reason), it is inconceivable that the working class will build up its own party organization and the situation will remain the same. Even if we ignore all other questions (discussed before), the existence of groups for the last 30-35 years - where there are as many paths or opinions as there are groups - is sufficient to prove the aforesaid statement. It is impossible for anyone, including us, to predict at what stage of development of the new trend of struggle, the real working class party based on the proletarian ideology and politics, will emerge. We also do not know where from the next party will start its journey, because this will be determined by the then objective situation, independent of our implacable and wishful planning. In the present discussion we have attempted to uphold this point from the past experience of international proletarian movement as well as from Marxist theory. It is not that everything has come to a stand-still due to the absence of a party. Following the laws of historical materialism, the working class movement would advance through several ups and downs, taking lessons from mistakes and could not but progress in an uncharted and colorful path, and uplift itself to a political struggle (class versus class). So comes the question of necessary organization (of the advanced worker leaders emerging from the struggle) arising out of the need of the struggle. And then only in the real sense the agenda of party formation will not be confined within the intellectuals (the communist revolutionary groups in today's perspective) trained in Marxist theory, but will become the agenda of the workers.
In this context let us get back to the time of Marx and Engels for a while. We may again recollect that the basis of the resolution on which the First International was founded (which was drafted by Marx himself), indeed fixed its objective on the capture of power by the working class but the call of building parties in different countries was not included in the document. The resolution (concerning party building) was taken late in the London conference in 1872. No one will say that during the initiation of the First International in 1868, Marx and Engels were not clear about the necessity of an independent party of the working class. Yet in the "Inaugural Address" (proposal), no one mentioned about party formation. Marx-Engels had to wait till 1872 for that, till the advancement of the workers' struggle in Europe, of course under the guidance of the First International, made the condition favorable and matured for party formation and acceptance of Marxist thoughts as well. It is important to remember that why the party for the working class is necessary, specially to attain emancipation from exploitation, or in a still bigger sense for the establishment of socialism, this a communist understands from a theoretical stand point as Marx and Engels did prior to even 1848. But the working class does not understand this in the same way. They understand this from their experiences of the objective struggle against capital, from the need or motivation to further develop the struggle. Only then the communist propaganda or view becomes living and does not remain confined within the communists but becomes the view of the working class, particularly the view of the advanced workers. It is probably not coincidental that the Paris commune took place in 1871, and in 1872 the First International gave the call for taking up the task for to building parties in the countries included under it.
Another aspect of the experience of the First International is worth noting here. We know the history that right from the initial stages of the First International, different trends of anarchists like the Proudhonists, Lassalleans and others had continuously tried to establish their views in the International. They had no less significant influence within the workers' movements of different countries, so to say, among the intellectuals and even the fighting workers involved in these movements. Marx-Engels had to fight incessantly against these non-proletarian views. We must remember that it would be incorrect to say that during that time the Marxist viewpoint, that is to say, communist principle and theory was established among the workers' associations of Europe, or generally among the workers' movement. Hence, in order to consolidate in a proletarian party, the historical demand of that time was to overcome or sufficiently curb the influence of these wrong views which were detrimental to class unity and to the advancement of the working class struggle. (We have used the term "communists" in a general sense, though at that time they were referred to as social democrats.)
We are certain that the contemporary communists will try to point towards the above-discussed ideological struggle, because they feel that the task of party building is essentially ideological. They also think that the economic struggle of the working class is bound to remain confined within bourgeois bounds in the absence of a conscious leadership of the party. Actually they forget the history of formation of the First International and the subsequent events. They forget about the dialectical relation between struggle and organization. We do not know what will be their answer to explain as to why Marx-Engels did not think or take any organizational initiative towards taking up the immediate task of party building in the European countries during the protracted period after the publication of the Communist Manifesto. On the contrary we see that practically they were more drawn towards the workers' associations formed by the initiative of the workers. Not only that, they welcomed the international workers' association having a disparate mosaic-like character with different views or levels and came forward to provide leadership. We have also seen how Marx took a particular self-initiative to incorporate the bourgeoisie bound trade unions of England, to the International and nevertheless succeeded in his attempt. It should not be difficult for us to understand that for Marx-Engels, keeping the European workers united was more important than providing correct direction. Actually, Marx did not impose his knowledge upon the organization, i.e. he did not present or attempted to present the communist principle in its entirety. He presented only as much as would be understandable for the workers, i.e., which the workers could grasp and comprehend with their consciousness attained or derived from the objective class struggle and organization, so that the International can take the appropriate role consistent with that time, for the journey towards socialism. The invaluable teaching of Marxism that we obtain from this is that the communists do not impose their thoughts on the working class, do not try to build up class struggle in accordance to their own design. They try to provide a concrete form to the expressed as well as unexpressed aspirations of the objectively developed class struggle and set the direction for that objective.
The communists are able to analyze objects/matter (class struggle) in their motion with the help of their knowledge of social science, philosophy, etc. Hence, in a given situation what the communists understand are not necessarily understood by the worker mass, as Lenin remarked, what is true for the communists is not true for the mass. But the working class is neither blind nor disabled nor without brains. They understand the same, of course in their own way, from the experiences of struggle, and at the same time by summarizing the experiences of various socio-political events in their own way, and learning from the mistakes. Does this imply that the party, considered to be the leader of the working class struggle and consisting of the class conscious advanced workers, or generally the communists, do not have any role in the struggle for emancipation of the workers? Actually, their imperative role is to employ their advanced consciousness in order to complete, rectify and of course to enhance the process of the sum-up of the real experiences of the working class and the learning that the class acquires from their own mistakes and accomplishments. Here one needs to remember that the communists do not force down the throat of the working class what they understand. As an example, Engels criticized the German socialists (since they went from Germany) of the Knights of Labor, which led the American workers' movement and wrote: "... But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn."(Engels to Florence Kelley, Wischnewetsky, December 28, 1886, ours in italics). By referring to the First International, party formation in different countries of Europe, etc., we have attempted to bring forth the teachings of the greatest Marxists, Marx-Engels, in the perspective of the existing post-defeat scenario and elucidate the necessity in present reality.
Back to the present
Like any other country in the world, defying the wishful thinking of the communist revolutionaries, a working class party could not be formed in our country in the last 30-35 years. If things keep moving as of now, we do not see possibility of party formation in the near future. On the other hand, the issue of party formation is yet to become an agenda of the working class. Hence, under the present condition, what could have happened if the party existed, what are the disastrous consequences due to the absence of the party -- all such discussions are simply meaningless and confusing for the working class. The important issue is to determine the current tasks so that the working class can overcome the long 30-35 years of stagnancy and can build their own party in the future. Therefore, we have to understand the present (concrete analysis of the concrete situation), identify the future that is dormant within the present and help that future to bloom. Despite the possibility of reiteration, we repeat that the situation has started changing and that change is marked by the turning around of the workers following the post-defeat retreat. They are refuting and rejecting the old party trade unions and in an attempt to confront the increasing attack of the capitalists they are launching or more correctly have started to launch, resistance struggles, by relying on their own strength -- which we have identified as the new trend of struggle. We can say without any doubt, that this trend, which right now is very feeble, will be strengthened by the escalating capitalist attacks itself. Whatever be the present condition of this new trend of workers struggle contains or embodies the future of the coming years --advancement of the class struggle and intertwined with it (keeping in mind the inter-relation between organization and party) the party formation, implying that the ingredients of future are being formed in these spontaneous struggles. Objectively, the struggle against the old, the movement of transformation of the apparently negative aspects to positive, is dependent on the expansion and on acquiring of a concrete form of these ingredients. To identify and realize these ingredients is of foremost importance and significance at this moment, so that present day communists, despite being comparatively and considerably inadequate in terms of numbers, can assume their conscious role in the afore-mentioned unconscious/partly- conscious movement of transformation, and needless to say, can justify their ability as communists.
Now, we will try to identify and understand the mutual inter-relation of the above-mentioned ingredients. Prior to that discussion, let us clarify for the last time, one fundamental point. Those who are or will be opposing our opinion or views (in spite of the discussions presented in three parts), they will definitely accuse us for trying to turn the wheel of history in the opposite direction. Probably they will also allege that we have negated the long 150 years of advancement of the communist movement, and have resorted to the time-frame of the First International. Our discussion would answer the validity of such allegations. Hence, we think there is no need to respond to these allegations separately. In contrast, we would like them to face some important questions.
(a) Is there any International or centre of communist movement at present?
(b) Be it the European countries or countries like India-China, after the formation of first party, it has always refined or cleansed itself sometimes through one or more splits, and has further established itself on communist principles ensuring continuity of the party. Particularly, intense ideological-political struggle within the Second International led the European parties under the leadership of Lenin to assemble in the Third International - why was this progressive trend in the part-life disrupted? Despite the tremendous advancement of the communist movement and after the first expedition of the international socialist movement, why do we have to think about starting from the beginning, i.e., why are we forced to think about formation of working class parties afresh?
(c) Why the communist revolutionary groups, which are essentially controlled by the intellectuals, and have undergone several splits in the last 35 years, finally cannot extricate themselves from the confined existence as groups? Some of the groups think that they are party - note that they "think," but does the working class or its advanced section think likewise?
(d) Has not the dream of socialism, which was inspired within the exploited and oppressed masses by the Russian revolution followed by the Chinese revolution, been almost wiped out? Has not the class identity of the working class been significantly shattered or faded out?
(e) In their long experience, has not the workers witnessed that the old parties were controlled by educated, middle-class intellectuals whereas, the workers were secondary? Is this not the design/format that has been rooted deep in the workers? "We do not understand much, so the responsibility of our well-being, so as to say, our past and present is dependent on the party, rather, the party leaders" - if the workers cannot come out of this mindset which is or has been imprinted over a long period of time, then would not the formation of a new party in the present situation tantamount to merely a good party replacing a bad one, i.e. a better guardian.
(f) Not only in our country, the worldwide miserable retreat of the workers' movement, their frustration, destruction of their self confidence, loss of faith in almost everything - the picture that we witnessed for more than 30-35 years (a new picture has just started emerging) - was this ever observed in this history of 150 years?
Emergence of new Elements (ingredients for future)
It would not be right to forget, that the importance and significance of the resistance struggle of the workers, as we stated - wherein, the workers have rejected the old leaders and started depending on themselves by way of forming new Unions - is due to the existing unprecedented situation, i.e. as because history has thrown us in such a miserable condition. It may be recalled that the essence of what we have stated is, while the party could not be formed by uniting the communist revolutionary groups, from within this new trend of workers' movement, which is presently finding expression mainly as resistance struggle at the factory level, the future of the development of class struggle and formation of class organization, i.e. the process of formation of working classes' own party is burgeoning. Of course, we are aware that whatever we say or think does not really matter. Any correct political resolution (analysis) is never based on anyone's thought or abstract subjective consideration. A concrete analysis of the concrete situation can determine the correct resolution and task. Hence we need to understand what exactly is happening in reality. We need to understand how the present, objective, independent struggle of the workers is creating the newer aspects/elements by breaking away from the old, and how the 'new' is related to the struggle of party formation.
First, it is true that only by forming their own, autonomous, independent trade unions the workers cannot liberate themselves from the overall influence of reformism-opportunism existing dominantly in the society, but no doubt liberation of unions from the direct control of the reformist-opportunist parties is the determining factor for the development of class struggle. Actually, these parties by exercising their control and power or authority upon the unions, they have been able to drag along the workers in the reformist path - and the workers do have no other way but to follow leaders, follow their path. Even what the workers are able to learn, or tend to learn, in their own way spontaneously, the experience of that too has been subverted by these parties-unions from whatever limited struggles that has been led by them in the direction of their reformist political line. And they were successful in keeping the workers confined within the parliamentary politics. Consequently, the workers have so far learned or were forced to learn only as much as the designs of parliamentary politics allowed them. The parties were able to augment their parliamentary (vote) interests with the unions using their authoritative power, and on the other hand, taking advantage of the dependent mentality (which was created by these parties) of the workers they cramped the spontaneity of struggle of the workers and destroyed their normal, instinctive class perception. Taking lessons from them, the bourgeois parties acted in the same manner. Hence, by rejecting and eliminating these parties from the union leadership, the workers are breaking away from these chains and in reality the path in which the workers can advance their own struggle is being carved out. Most importantly, they will be free to learn a lot many things from their struggles, from the mistakes and achievements of the struggles, which is actually their normal class wisdom, a wisdom that is not created by someone else; in summary the wisdom to advance the class struggle. Here it may be worth quoting Engels: "The masses (working 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 -- in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves." (Letter to Friedrich Sorge, November 29, 1886; italics in the original; within parenthesis ours).
Secondly, due to the betrayal of the old trade union leadership, the workers have de-facto lost their primary organizations of struggle. By building independent and autonomous unions the workers are retrieving their lost unions. Not only this, the workers are also putting an end to the condition where the parties have divided the workers into several unions to satisfy their own parliamentary interests and thereby blocked the path of united movement. We have seen at different periods during the 80s and 90s, how some communist revolutionary groups had raised the slogan of one union in one factory and also took initiative in this regard. But that remained grossly unsuccessful. This was because at that time the meaning of one union for the workers basically implied choosing any one party amongst others, and so the workers showed no interest or response. Now, the workers have started executing this, not guided by any campaign, but from the urge of putting up a strong resistance against the capitalist attack. Practically, the rejection of the old party leadership at the factory level and the recently surfaced NGO type individual leaders as well, implies the obliteration of the numerous and diverse assortment of trade unions and growth of a single colored trade union. This colour is the colour of the workers. Actually, a single united union of the workers under the leadership of the workers is emerging. Besides carrying out a strong and united struggle against the attack of the management/owner of their own industrial unit, there is another implication of the single coloured union of the workers. We have seen that, whether the workers of neighbouring factories will or will not stand in solidarity for others remain dependent on the central organization of the unions, i.e. dependent on the whims of the party leaders. Now, the workers will be able to come out of this situation. They will be able to stand by the side of movements of other workers, as co-fighters from their instinctive class sense. No one will be there to restrict them.
From the mid-80s of the last century, as the capitalist attacks were escalating, the unions found themselves practically crippled and in helpless, uncomfortable situation and became of no use to the workers. Workers' resentments were also increasing. The different unions found it expedient to come to an understanding (compromise) amongst themselves and take resort to joint movements, so that the unity (so-called unity) of the workers could be demonstrated in order to attain a bargaining position with the capitalist owners, and at the same time the workers' resentment can be tackled. It is true that as a consequence, some hope was generated among the workers who were dispersed in different unions. However, it did not take long to lose the expectations. Very soon the workers understood that the so-called unity between the union leaders - joint committees, co-ordination committees, etc. - were virtually serving the capitalists' interests. The workers will not benefit from the apparent unity of the workers achieved through the understanding among leaders. This is because the unity was virtually made to serve the interests of the leaders and it was dependent on the leaders. The objective was not that of united struggle. Based on their experiences, the workers have themselves started building a real unity for struggle by building their own independent organization, by removing the old union leadership. In this regard, the experience of the jute industry of West Bengal, in the last decade is noteworthy. Several right-left federations routinely called for strikes in jute industry; the workers participated in the strikes, and often (and this is more frequent) made anti-workers agreements with the owners/management prior to the strikes and withdrew the strikes. The workers had been accepting this. This was in fact a long tradition in the jute industry. In 2002, the workers bust this tradition. After making a terribly anti-worker agreement, the federations withdrew a strike just the day before the strike was scheduled (January 7). The workers, in defiance to this decision spontaneously went on with the strike, without any leadership. The strike continued for seven to ten days in 39 jute mills, spontaneously. Most importantly, the unity that developed following this incident enabled the workers to continue their movement against the agreement on their own without the unions for next 7/8 years and prevented enforcement of the agreement. Actually, in the new trend unions create a unity of struggling workers from below in contrast to the unity imposed from above. At this moment, naturally this unity is factory-based. But if we see object in motion, then without any doubt whatsoever, we can say that this unity is transcending the bounds of the factory and opening up the scope for a wider unity of the workers, and the possibility of united struggle of the working class, creating the foundation for united class struggle.
Thirdly, where the workers are themselves building their organization, steering those organizations, and obviously a bunch of new worker leaders are emerging out for this purpose, particularly a self confidence is developing among these new leaders - this is determining important from the perspective of awakening of the working class as an independent force in the future. The way, in which the left and right government sponsored union leaderships exerted their bureaucratic domination on the workers, have virtually destroyed the self-confidence of the workers. They were forced to remain dependent on the non-worker educated, erudite leaders who were imposed upon them by the parties. Even if there are some workers in the leadership, they hardly have any say, and cannot defy the intellectual leaders. A prolonged period of such existence within the workers has created a habit of being reliant on others. A sort of slave-like mentality has been inculcated within the workers, as if their function is to obey directives from above. Not only is this true in the socio-political perspective; the trade unions and other mass organizations of the workers are no exception. The workers have now started to spontaneously break the chains of this slavery, of course due to the objective urge for self-protection. Though, trade union is the primarily organization of the working class (unfortunately, despite the enormous advancement of the international socialist movement, today, whatever the resistance struggle is there, it is being expressed within the trade unions), yet, a self-confidence that the workers themselves can steer their organization, without depending on others, and that they are capable to decide their well-being, is gradually developing within the workers, particularly among the new advanced worker leaders. This is important since the workers had lost this ability. Undoubtedly this is just the beginning, but since the workers were completely suppressed by the leaders (and definitely the capitalists), for a long time, in this backdrop, this initiation is extremely important. We can advance a bit more to say that the self-confidence and strength, presently expressed at the trade union level, cannot remain confined in this plane. This will be continuously nourished by the experiences of moving independently in the present complex situation, which would eventually embolden, at least the advanced fighting workers to assert themselves in taking active role, not only in conducting their unions, but also in building their own party and in organizing class struggles.
We discussed above, from three different aspects (sides), how in the post-defeat situation, the new is emerging out of workers' spontaneous resistance struggle against capitalist attack by being organized in independent trade union, obviously breaking the shackles of the old party-union leadership. We will discuss another important feature later. Before that we have to keep in mind one important point. As of now, the number of new trend unions is indeed very small. We cannot say that there is a clear and strong existence of the new in front of us. Actually, the aspects of the new that we have unfurled, precisely speaking, the aspects of change within the workers, particularly, within the relatively advanced workers that we have discussed - a more clear and developed form of this will be definitely perceptible, whenever and wherever the organizations and struggle of the new trend trade unions will expand and flourish, in a word, when the number of real new unions will increase. However, we can assert without any doubt whatsoever, that this number will increase. The credit of this will not be ours. First, the credit should go the crisis-ridden capitalist class, whose assault will compel the working class towards resistance struggles. While on the other side, the continuing betrayal of the old party trade unions will drive the birth of new independent unions.
(To be completed in the next issue)
Comments:
No Comments for View