Towards Understanding the Tasks at this Moment (4)
We have so far discussed three aspects of the new trend of workers' movement based on how during the long period of absence of a communist party, the working class has spontaneously started to turn around following a prolonged period of retreat and have started to build their own organization and real resistance struggles; how through this trend the unconscious or semiconscious preparation of the working class, particularly their advanced section, towards the struggle for building their own independent party, which is currently the most important requirement for the development of class struggle in the future, has commenced. Now we will discuss yet another (the fourth) important aspect. We have earlier noted that the upsurge of spontaneous mass movement without the leadership of any established party organization, rather by rejecting the old leadership as witnessed in many countries of the world during the last four-five years has not been largely seen in our country. Here the picture is different. The workers in our country have started to turn around, primarily through the factory based economic struggles. Apparently, how could there be any political significance or characteristic of these trade union level economic struggles, particularly when these spontaneous struggles have emerged out of some specific economic demands of the specific factory workers and without any connection with political leadership? But shall we judge the present trade union struggles on a general yardstick, in isolation from the post-defeat retreating era of workers' struggle and the present condition of the international working class movement? We have to realize that present workers are not in the period when workers first built their trade unions during the early phase of class struggle and when capitalism was in its initial stages. Now, when they are building their new economic struggles they have behind them the experience of more than one hundred and fifty years of trade union struggle, but it is true at the same time that they had to retreat from the height that was achieved through the long history of struggle, and the organizations have also slipped out of their hands. We have to bear in mind that these present-day struggles have commenced and are taking place at a time when the working class is in disarray, and needless to say that the unified organization of the working class - the political leadership - the party, which is necessary for countrywide unified struggle of the working class for combating the overall attack of the capitalists, is absent; and when the imperialist-capitalists are unleashing similar attack on the working class and the masses throughout the world through the same policy of globalization-liberalization. This is a time when the apparently disconnected trade union struggles seem to be confronting the owner of a single factory but each owner is actually backed up by the imperialist aided capitalist class as a whole. In reality the workers are confronting the policy of globalization-liberalization, and directly facing the police and administration. This is a time when we are witnessing that 149 workers of Maruti are jailed for over two years and denied bail, not for any legal reason, but denied bail so as to avoid creating any negative impression for the foreign investors.
In an attempt to confront the capitalist attack under the present situation, the dispersed workers are choosing, rather being forced to choose, a path that is feasible. That is to revive the factory based trade union organization and resist through such organization. And through the experience of these struggles the workers are learning a lot, and assimilating their understanding. Actually, the workers are directly facing many political questions while waging their struggle in the present scenario. They are to understand these questions to an extent, in order to advance their struggle. Particularly, the success of the terribly unequal battle in trade union plane is presently very limited, rather dominated by failures. On one hand the workers are witnessing that the form of the attack on their factory is similar to that in the other neighbouring factories, not only that, the form of attack is same throughout the country - for example, reduction of permanent employees and recruitment of contract workers, wage cuts, curtailment of the existing benefits, curbing the trade union rights by brute force of the police and by introducing new laws, etc. On the other hand, the failure to achieve the demands through these struggles, the practical experience of plant-level lone battle getting terribly tough, is giving rise to a thought within the struggling workers, particularly within the advanced section of these workers, and of course, very forcefully within the frontline worker-leaders of the new fighting unions --- ?if the attack is unified then why are we disunited?' The aspiration for a united struggle is arising primarily from the uneven fights and their experiences of failures. It is undeniable that the number of the new-trend trade unions is presently very small; but If one sees this beginning in isolation and cannot visualize this in motion, then we are really helpless. It is also true that at this moment aspiration for unified struggle is very weak, but it cannot be denied that more the number of the independent struggling unions of the workers and their struggle increases, this aspiration will consequently gain momentum and then, from the urge for realizing this aspiration, workers cannot but face the inevitable question of building of a unified organization. In Europe and America, where different sections of the population have taken to streets in thousands and millions, organised road blockades, there we have witnessed that people have spontaneously brought forward new slogans, which include slogans like: injury to one is injury to all. Actually, the manner in which the capitalist-imperialists, in an attempt to shift the burden of their crisis, are unleashing their worldwide attack on the people including the working class, that itself is the major cause of pushing the most organized work-force of the society i.e., the working class, towards unification. There is no doubt that these factories where the workers are building their own independent organization by rejecting the old party unions, are virtually acting as the birthplace of working class unification, and from these birthplaces the leaders of tomorrow's working class movement are born.
This is because in order to advance their own struggle in the absence of anyone at the top, the frontline leaders of the new trend trade unions are forced to understand by themselves, the relationship between their factory struggle and the great offensive of the entire capitalists or the ruling class, forced to understand the universal character of the practical demands of the trade unions, meaning the inter-relation of the demands with the comprehensive policy of the capitalists. In general, the present condition is objectively pushing the consciousness of the struggling workers, particularly their advanced section, beyond trade union consciousness based on capitalist-worker relationship. For example, abolition of contract labour policy, protection of trade union organizations, that is in other words, the demand for the right of struggle and organization is pulling the working class out of the trade union consciousness and practically introducing them into the world of political consciousness. Undoubtedly, this would happen because the advanced workers are being able to sum up and assimilate their experiences to certain extent. They would be learning from their own experiences and obviously not from the reformists-opportunists.
The above-indicated four major aspects or characteristics (due to the particular situation) of the new trend trade unions -- although primarily within the confines of economic struggle -- are objectively giving rise to a process in the context of the development of class struggle and class organization which in essence is objectively pushing these new trend trade unions outside economic struggle, that is, beyond the strict limits of unions - it will, perhaps, not be wrong to ascribe this process as an unconscious political process. We have discussed before that though the trade unions are fighting separately on a factory basis or trade basis against the capitalist or capitalists (of that trade), in effect and largely they are fighting, in the absence of Party, so to say of centralised class struggle against the central attack of the genralised policy of the capitalist class. Needless to say, a contradiction between content and form is originating from within these unions. This contradiction is leading to the above-mentioned political process within the trade unions. We have done this discussion before. Nevertheless, we have only repeated the same, particularly for understanding the above-indicated four aspects from proper perspective. But, for proper grasping of the above process, so as to say, to clearly and firmly realize the importance and significance of the new trend unions in the context of the development of class struggle in the present situation, it is also important to assess the general theoretical aspect of evolution of organization.
Evolution of workers' organization
Briefly: whatever is the form or purpose of an organization, the first significance of existence of any workers' organization is that in that particular context the workers are organized and are not individuals. Although the workers are bound to each other by the shackles of capitalist production relation, as long as they remain individuals, they are helpless and powerless against capitalist exploitation, and under such a situation they are mere objects of exploitation as individuals. The history of the beginning of organization of the working class is more than one hundred and fifty years old. History has also shown us that the first form of organization of the working class was trade unions; either factory based or trade based, the workers were first organized through these trade unions for their struggle against capital. From a historical perspective, through the assistance of the primary trade union organizations, and as a consequence of the consummation of the spread and development of the initial anti-capital struggles through primarily-built trade unions, and based on that foundation, and following the necessity for building a unified, i.e. political struggle against the ruling class, the workers had built a higher level, countrywide organization whose first expression was seen during the Chartist movement in Britain (which was political in character). Needless to say that only after the advent of Marxism, the concept of modern party evolved. But this party does not fall from the sky, meaning, it is simply not possible for the Marxist intellectuals to build a real working class party, irrespective of the development of the workers' struggle. Hence, we need to understand that with the increase in contradiction between capital and labour and as a result of the necessity of political struggle arising out of spontaneous economic struggles, a central organization of the workers evolve and in the process of its evolution it gets impregnated with proletarian ideology and gets transformed to the modern party or a Marxist party. History also reveals that working class was able to develop their struggle, i.e. class struggle and take it to the highest stage and was successful in some countries in establishing the highest form of their organization, which is the proletarian state, through which the working class was transformed from the exploited to the ruler, a position from where they could, in respective countries, take up the struggle for overthrow of capitalism. That they could not hold on to their success is a different issue.
From the history of class struggle and at the same time from Marxist theory and dialectical materialism it is established that advancement of struggle through a particular form of workers' organization, simultaneously gives birth to the elements and resources of a more developed organization which of course is not evident and remains in a dormant state inside the old organisation. If these ingredients are not consciously suppressed from outside, then the higher and more developed organization would assume a clear form following the laws of dialectics. In one word, the evolution and transformation of organization as a distinct entity compared to the older form is inextricably related to the evolution of struggle. This means that under the leadership of a particular and necessary organization that is consistent with a particular stage of workers struggle, during the development of that struggle to a higher stage, develops a higher form of organization that is capable of organizing and leading the higher struggle. Here it should be clarified that the above is historically true but how the definite relation between struggle and organization, i.e. how one will act on other, is space-time dependent. This general aspect of evolution of organization will undoubtedly help us in arriving at a more firm position and in clarifying our understanding regarding the significance and importance of independent organization of the workers, particularly, about the four aspects or characteristics that have been discussed before.
Despite the above discussion some may confront us with that obstinate question - when the working class after leaving behind the primary organizational stage, worldwide and in our country, could elevate themselves to the stage of building a party, i.e., presently when we are standing on the long history of party, then in early twenty first century, how comes the question of stressing on the trade union struggle and organization from ?below' in regard to the development of class struggle and particularly in the process of building a party organization? Are we not walking backwards? There is one simple answer to this question: not we, it is the workers who are stressing. It is true that we are too think of stepping a bit backward in order to advance, as because situation is compelling us to do so. Actually, we had earlier raised six questions regarding the present situation following the defeat of the first expedition of the world socialist movement, before the contemporary communists (in the last issue of this journal). Had the critics looked into those six questions in an unbiased manner, probably they would not have raised questions regarding this?from below'. Probably, they would not have rigidly held on to their view - in today's context, that party building is a conscious process and only the communists (read intellectual communists), in isolation with the real workers struggle, are the embodiment of this conscious process, more so, if they placed themselves in front of the hard reality that in the last thirty five years the communists of our country (probably of all countries) could not build a party to even start with.
It is true that during the mid seventies of the last century, a large section of the workers, especially almost all the workers of the organized sector came within the fold of trade unions. A communist party was also formed during the early twentieth century. That party has degenerated and a new party has not emerged. Despite the existence of party tradition for more than a century at an international level, in reality, not only in our country, but in almost all countries of the world at present there is no party of the working class. On the other hand, though there is a formal existence of the trade unions under the control of the old party/parties, effectively there is no organization through which the workers can offer some initial resistance against the onslaught of capital. In short, the age old trade unions are no longer in the hands of the workers. Are these mere statement of events? We need to understand that the discontinuity in the party tradition is inextricably related to defeat related discontinuity of the communist movement. Contemporary communists are not insulated from the far reaching and immense effect of this phenomenon, whose inevitable consequence is seen through the experience of failure of last thirty five years. On the other hand, at this moment the relatively advanced fighting workers cannot think of directly taking up the task of party building, what they can is to retrieve the lost trade unions which they started. The advanced workers, who were politically and organizationally trained to some extent by the communist parties, are either extremely frustrated or are trapped in the reformist-opportunist web. Hence, fresh bands of advanced workers are required for taking up the task of party building, who are objectively arising from within the new trend trade unions, and of course this is happening irrespective of the efforts of the communist revolutionary groups trying to train and educate some selected workers within their limited area of work.
Direction? Another confusion
Let us address another confusion or wrong conception. If we leave aside those communist revolutionaries who do not lay any importance on the recent phenomenon of workers forming their own independent trade unions, but, even amongst those who give importance, a large section of them feel that if a political direction is not given from outside, then the present unions and the workers of these unions, in spite of having potentiality are destined to be driven astray and into the trap of opportunism thereby giving rise to frustration within the workers.
We are not very clear about what they actually mean by political direction. Imparting class consciousness to the frontline struggling potential workers, coordinating the union activities by taking opinion of all the workers, electing leaders in turn, etc - it is presumed these are not meant by them. Then, by direction, do they mean carrying out political campaign within the struggling workers of the new trade unions? If this is the case, then obviously we have nothing to say. But raising a question of giving political direction to the workers' economic movement, it seems, they mean conscious effort for establishing the relation or connection between the trade union level economic struggles and the working class's general, i.e. political struggle. It is not that this is impossible. They are correct, however, in abstraction. We have seen, in a conference held in 1913 after the Lena goldmine incident, , the central committee of the Russian party under Lenin's leadership, stressed upon winning over the union towards the party, i.e. congregating the workers and their organization, i.e. their union, in the party program. ?This Conference is of the opinion that in electing delegates to the sick benefit societies, in all trade union activities, etc., it is necessary, while upholding the complete unity of the movement and the submission of the minority to the majority, to pursue the Party line, secure the election of supporters of the Party for all responsible posts, etc.? (Resolutions of the Summer, 1913, Joint Conference of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. and Party Officials, Lenin Collected Works Vol 19, Page 426-427). But it is important to remember the condition of the workers movement in Russia when this decision was taken. At that time economic and political demands were interwoven in the workers' strikes. Additionally, economic and political strikes were held side by side. We see at the beginning of the above conference, ?owing to the very circumstances of the struggle the mass economic movement, which in many cases starts with the most elementary demands, is to an increasing degree merging with the revolutionary working class movement.? (ibid). Comrades will definitely note that we at present are not in a similar situation. We are far off. We don't have even a party.
Bluntly speaking, it is possible to provide political direction to the union struggle only when there is a party of the working class and that party has a strong mass base, on the other hand a strong trend of revolutionary class struggle is present within the society, and of course when based on the advancement and development of economic struggle, a need for political struggle arises (or arising) within the struggling workers so as to carry forward their struggle. Hence, today when the party of working class has not been formed and in the absence of any centralized unified working class movement, the issue of providing political direction to this and that individual (and isolated) union movement is virtually a wishful thought. In the present context when the workers have just initiated to come out, by their own, from their dispersed condition and prolonged period of helplessness and inaction, and have started reclaiming their factory based unions, any attempt by the communists to provide revolutionary direction to these union or unions is not only meaningless and unnecessary, rather if they attempt to do so at this stage they will further alienate themselves from the workers and on the other side will hamper the process of independent unification of the workers, necessary to combat the increasing attack of the capitalists.
Another point. Even if there is any influence or control of any communist revolutionary group over any of the new trend trade unions, then due to the very presence of aforesaid objective and subjective reasons it will still be impossible for that group, in the present context to provide political direction to that movement. Despite being accused of repetition, we repeat, it is impossible for a group to perform the task of a party, but the problem unfortunately is, all groups, at least the ones that do some work within the masses, they practically behave as a Party, may be, or a way to justify Group existence and/or its so-called effectiveness. Conversely, a question is found to be insistently pressed as to, if workers can themselves do everything, what is then left for the communists to act? Undoubtedly, this question at present is very important and the answer is even more important. We do not have the scope for detailed discussion on this matter here. But, grossly, we can indicate about some tasks, of course keeping in view that the independent initiative of the workers is not hampered. One: to fight against the tendency or the inclination of the workers towards militant explosions as a compulsive reaction to the intense attack, in the present difficult condition arising out of the uneven war scenario; particularly, to make the workers, more specifically their advanced section conscious about the fact that the capitalists consciously instigate the workers into a violent path so that the movements can be crushed by unleashing a greater attack from above. At the same time on the reverse side there is the necessity to fight against the trend and thought to find shelter in the old parties in a bid to survive against tremendous odds. Yet we believe, that irrespective of the role (which is at the moment very limited) of the communist revolutionaries, if such incidents occur, the workers will stumble and learn from the ups and downs of their real life experiences and will rise up to find the correct path. Second: though an independent organizational position is taken by rejecting the old parties, it is natural that the old framework or the pattern of trade union movement, like, putting more stress on negotiation compared to struggle, laying faith on the legal system, keeping the workers unconscious about the working class interests and provoking the thoughts of their only factory-based gains or loss, leader-dependence, etc will continue to have some lingering effect during the initial phase; hence, to help the workers to fight against these effects by repeatedly recalling the past experiences. Third: as per the general rule of capitalism, the capitalists in different factories exploit and torture the workers for generation of profit. However, it is being observed everywhere in the world over the last 20-30 years that the capitalists class in an attempt to mitigate or to resist its own crisis is following the imperialist design and unleashing an ever increasing and severe attack on the working class and the masses. The main aspect of this design, which is now known as the globalization-liberalization policy, is to withdraw the rights and benefits that were earned by the workers, or in other words, to achieve more production at a lower cost. Consequently, the nature of attack and the demands are pretty much the same in different factories. The fighting workers, particularly the advanced understand this to a certain extent through their objective struggles. One of the major tasks of the communists associated with struggle is, however, to make this clear in the consciousness of workers through practical experiences of struggle, why in today's condition it is not just resisting the capitalist at a factory level; they are made to stand against the unified force of the entire capitalists and why do they need to think and prepare themselves for building up a proper and be-fitting resistance with the power of the unified workers in order to combat the unified attack of the capitalist class. More specifically, the analysis and assimilation of the practical movements that is being done spontaneously by the workers need to be presented in its complete form, i.e. in the political perspective, before the workers, particularly their advanced section.
Do the new trend trade unions really have no direction? What we understand by conscious, political direction and what we discussed a while ago, obviously that direction is not present. But if we judge the direction as the objective course of this union movement, it is then to be understood that, building of new union by workers themselves by rejecting the old and having no external influence and control, obviously by way of spontaneous assimilation of their past experience and thereby signifying inherent trend amongst workers towards settling score with the past -- under the present condition, this is the direction and what else? This direction is objectively reflected in the present new movements. It is also true that this direction is apparently at the trade union level. Then can this be called a direction? Why not? First, how one can deny that by way of dissociation from the old parties and taking an independent position - workers have already started moving in a direction. Further, if we keep in mind what we have earlier discussed about the objective movement within the organisation & struggle of new-trend unions towards building of nation-wide united working-class struggle and organisation, then we should not fail to identify and comprehend the bigger direction of objective development of class struggle the new unions possess. Hence, where the communists are almost detached from the working class and the masses and where the working class is leaderless and disarrayed and have just started to organize (at the union level) after recuperating from the blow of defeat, there the apprehension and political concern that is expressed through the urge of the communists to hastily provide political direction to these struggles - with full respect to them, we will rather say that instead of entering into a ?direction-imbroglio' they should perform the necessary conscious role in assisting and nourishing the development of the objective process of the afore-mentioned struggle and organization.
We know that those who are not willing to accept the above-mentioned role will raise a question at the very beginning. They will say that trade union movement is a spontaneous movement; here the consciousness of the workers is bound to be confined within the anti-capitalist i.e. trade union consciousness. This cannot give rise to class consciousness. This has to be introduced within the workers from outside, meaning from outside the trade union, etc. We have presented a detailed discussion on this regard in another issue of this journal. Neither is there any need to repeat, nor is there a scope for repetition. If by class consciousness, a complete socialist consciousness is implied, then yes, we agree they are right. But, comrades might have noticed if they looked carefully, that while discussing the significance and importance of the new trend workers movement we did not bring in socialist consciousness. Of course trade union consciousness and socialist consciousness determine two distinctly different and clear positions. The question is - are they separated by a wall? Either trade union consciousness or socialist consciousness - is this how we should view? Should we not understand class consciousness in its progression similarly as we understand workers movement in its motion?
When individual workers or groups of workers identify themselves with all other workers and consider the entire capitalist class as their enemy then that too is class consciousness, of course in an initial stage.
Again, this too is class consciousness which educates the workers with the idea that in order to eradicate exploitation and oppression the working class has to capture political power.
Class consciousness attains the highest stage when it makes the working class conscious that to capture and hold on to political power, dictatorship of the proletariat has to be established by complete destruction of the old state and communism has to be established through socialism.
What we are trying to highlight here is - either socialist consciousness or trade union consciousness - the workers will always remain in one of these compartments - this is not the correct outlook. Secondly, the development of class consciousness should be viewed as a continuous process, whose course is primarily dependent on the extent-strength of exposure of the objective contradiction between capital and labour, i.e. on the condition of the working class movement. It is true that class conscious advanced vanguard of working class, i.e. the party will influence and hasten the above-mentioned objective process of development of workers' consciousness - if the working class is organized in a party. This is inevitably the party's task, but it will be a mistake if we are stuck with a decision that in the absence of party this process will remain stalled.
We feel that there is another point in the questions and opposition of the comrades. Will not the new, separate organizations that workers are building attain permanency? Since new organization is for fighting, for the purpose of combating capitalist attack the workers will think of their own unions - is this not natural? Why will workers feel and confront the necessity of building a different organization if that is not brought from outside? Definitely this would have happened, or to be more precise, working class movement would have attained stagnancy in trade unions if through the trade unions in the different factories, the increasing demand of workers could be met with, or more generally speaking, capitalism could have remained in an eternal state of development through worker-capitalist cooperation. Is it necessary to point out that this is not possible? Nevertheless, it is a general truth that when workers emerge out of an unorganized condition and get organized in trade unions, then the workers unity is contained in that and at the same time the tendency to expand the unity is born in that due to objective reasons. In the present situation, where despite a long history of trade union movement, the workers today are again building their unions anew, there we need to understand that just as tendency of stability will be there even in the new trend trade unions as a general truth, on the other hand the organized intense attack of the capitalist class, the isolated and terribly uneven fights of individual factories and most importantly the frequent experiences of failure will finally enhance the other trend, which is - a trend of class unity, primarily at this moment, development of the initiative for unified struggle for self defence against the attack of the capitalist class.
We are definitely aware of the famous quote by Marx, ?it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.?
From the above quote and from similar opinion/analysis of Marx and Engels in different situations it is clear that consciousness detached from reality cannot exist. More specifically, consciousness arises from reality; it is the reflection of reality on human self, reflection in abstraction, while on the other hand it concretely acts on reality and changes it. By reality we mean objective situation, which is not static, which is continuously changing. Generally or when viewed in abstraction, throughout the entire phase of capitalism the labour-capital contradiction remains unchanged. But in reality in the process of evolutionary development of class struggle this contradiction, i.e. relation between labour and capital, undergoes a deep and intense change. Actually the above quote of Marx brings out the general and abstract inter-relationship between consciousness and situation. But this again comes out of the abstract form, when the development process is viewed in association with the change in the objective situation. Consciousness assumes a definite and concrete form in that definite situation. No doubt, the concrete and the abstract form of consciousness are related and inter-twined, i.e. one resides in the other.
In a letter written in 1886 to Florence Kelley, Engels while commenting on providing direction to the American workers' struggle said, ?Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible.? (bold ours) Here we will draw attention towards two aspects. First, ?process involves successive phases? and second, ?to expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out ... is to expect the impossible.? The later takes us to this realization that Engels was relying on the particular situation of the American workers prevailing at that time and by considering the particular phase of movement, and by considering the phase of consolidation at the national level under the leadership of Knights of Labour, he stressed upon the definite conscious roles German socialists working in America should have.
Both, Marx's analysis of matter and consciousness and Engels' advice to the German socialists in America have been drawn in here so as to get deep into our head what has been discussed before, i.e., it is not possible to organize the workers in a revolutionary political struggle irrespective of the real condition of the working class movement only through the conscious effort of the communists from above, and however hard we try it is not possible to drive in socialist consciousness into large section of workers. Hence, those contemporary communist revolutionaries who acknowledge the leadership of working class in the next revolution and considers the task of building a party at the national level as the prime and central task, and for that reason working seriously within the workers with a view to organizing the working class as a class, they should hasten the objective course of the new trend movements and should assume a helping role for the purpose of attainment of a conclusion of this course, i.e. for the building up of a unified organization of the workers at an all India scale. Needless to say, they will assume or will be able to assume this role if they do not attempt to impose upon the workers, in abstraction, the thought of organising and making them conscious along the so-called correct theoretical basis, i.e. in a revolutionary direction in today's perspective; alternatively through concrete analysis of concrete situation of today when 30/35 years have elapsed after defeat, they may better try to understand that at this moment the most important thing is to get rid of the disarrayed unorganized condition of the working class, which the workers have spontaneously initiated through building their self-controlled independent unions, albeit slowly.
Country-wide workers' organization is a process - role of the advanced workers
Before delving into this topic let us clarify once again, that building of a central organization of the workers through independent initiative of workers would not have been there, had there been a working class party or communist party in the true sense. This is because party does not merely mean a joint statement of the communists. Party can become a party only when it becomes the organization of the advanced class conscious workers. And with that strength, party (Marxist Leninist) can really organize large section of workers as a class on the basis of proletarian ideology i.e. in the revolutionary direction. In that case, the phenomenon of building of independent trade unions by rejecting the old parties by the workers would not have manifested as a new trend rather that would have been particular and exceptional. The workers would not have had to advance exclusively by learning from the experiences of real struggle. Painful but true that working class party has not yet evolved in our country. There is no possibility of party formation through the unity of the communist revolutionaries, notwithstanding their number. Hence we have to realize that the path of uniting and organizing the working class as a class under the leadership of the party is a non-option at this moment.
Secondly, we would like to emphasize that the concept of building a country-wide organization (platform) of the workers is not our brainchild. It is backed by concrete analysis of concrete situation. Building of an independent workers organization is highly objective. Not that the workers will, but are in reality dissociating from the old right-left established party-unions by taking lessons from their own past experiences. Those who are intimately connected with the workers are aware that a telescope will be required to locate a factory where the workers have faith in the old leaders and are unwilling to dissociate with them. After a protracted period of remaining divided in various unions when the workers have now started building their own union in their own factory, then undoubtedly it reflects their aspiration for unity. ?Dissociation' and ?aspiration for unity' - these two are determining objectivity. The new trend workers movement rest on these two. Actually, situation has started to change.
The primary driving force for building a countrywide unified organization of the workers is the growing aspiration for unity that is born out of the real necessity to resist the overall attack of the capitalist class, i.e., the aspiration to acquire unified strength. Needless to say that at this moment this aspiration will be more and more observed within the frontline struggling workers involved in the factory based uneven fights. Again, this is also a fact that the capitalist class with the muscle of the state power will impose the burden of their crisis on the working class and the toiling masses. The spontaneous movements within the workers and the masses which is being observed during the last 8/10 years in several countries of the world along with our country, reveal that the manner in which the attack of imperialist capital and indigenous capitalists on Indian working class and masses is increasing day by day, and will further increase in the coming days - the symptoms of which are clear from the measures of the BJP government - apparently it may sound prophetic, but it is undeniable fact that ever increasing attack will draw a larger cross section of workers into the field of struggle. If the above-mentioned ?dissociation' process is kept in mind, it can be said that the number of new independent unions will also increase. The number of experienced, organizer workers and to an extent conscious worker evolving from this struggle will increase, and then the agenda for unity at all-India level in the true sense will assume a living character. If the membership of the central organization today is hundred, tomorrow it will be thousand, day after tens of thousands. It is important to start. The advancement of this will be ensured by the real situation.
That the concept of all-India level central organization of the workers is not our subjective and wishful thought is proved or witnessed not merely by objective analysis, but also from the spontaneous response and reaction of the workers. A campaign was conducted in several industrial areas of a state for building of the central organization. Almost everywhere (where the workers are primarily confined within the old trade unions) the response from the workers, particularly the struggling workers was - ?exactly, this is what should happen; there is no other way out.? But, it was also observed that how the countrywide organization will grow or ?shall we be able to do this? - there is a dilemma on these questions within the workers. At this stage they can think of being united on a local basis. This appears to be normal given the position in which the reformist-opportunist parties have downgraded the workers. Despite this, nearly two hundred workers (and only them) from different industries assembled at one place, discussed within themselves, and have formed a steering committee for building up the all-India workers' platform. Here we would like to mention another example from another side. The workers of Maruti factory at Gurgaon formed their own union in 2010-11 and waged a belligerent fight against the extremely influential multinational owner for more than a year and were finally successful. At that time the workers were so confident about the ability of their own union that they did not think or want to think about an all-India based united organization or even about building a local workers unity. When, in the wake of the intense joint attack of the management and the government, the workers could not stand alone, were dispersed and forced to retreat, only then the advanced struggling workers started attempting to get united with workers of other factories of Gurgaon to form a united committee, and as far as we know, advanced workers of several factories have responded to this effort and are participating. Few more such incidents can be mentioned. But this is undeniable that such incidents are indeed insignificant at the moment in terms of the huge number of workers in India, but what is important is the indication for the future that these incidents carry with them.
If someone concentrates on the extensive discussion that we have made in the last few issues of this journal, then it would not be difficult for him/her or them to understand that the axis of our discussion is the objective development of workers movement. The aforesaid objective movement would suggest that, from the very urge for unity to resist capitalist onslaught, what begins in the building of plant level union would eventually culminate, through an objective process, in nation-wide unity of workers, i.e., workers' platform at an All-India level. Needless to say that the organization developing from below as a result of workers' initiative to meet the requirement of practical struggle in the absence of a party, cannot in itself assume a proletarian ideology. Then what is the future of the all-India workers' platform? Will not the workers remain confined in their own fights only? This is the likely question from our communist friends. First, we would ask them to realize the historical significance of formation of a countrywide organization of the workers. Under the present situation, instead of thinking much beyond, think of what you would do when such a situation arises. Actually if from the requirement of resistance struggle a unified platform is formed, continuity of struggle, its development, particularly internal contradiction within organisation will not allow it to remain in same position; such a platform will continue evolving. At the first instance, all-India organization will no doubt, provide strength & support to factory level or trade level struggles, but the central organization is to mainly organize countrywide struggle on the basis of central demands of the workers, a struggle which is in many ways a struggle of the working class against the capitalist class, i.e. political struggle. For the sake of class unity it has to stand against caste-system, religious communalism and national oppression present in the society. Objectively, realization and continuous sum-up of real experiences of struggle (the advanced workers are expected to have by then reached a position from where they will be able to do it in a relatively advanced level and it is also expected that class conscious workers coming from a different political process will also be present in the frontline) and action-reaction of socio-political events will politicize the organization. It is important to clarify here that it is not that in this process the all-India platform will be transformed to a revolutionary working class party. It will not be wrong to say that while the role of the Marxism-Leninism trained communist intellectuals in building the future party is perhaps inevitable, but overall platform movement and simultaneously advanced workers becoming class conscious to some extent through that process will have a determining role, as a matter of fact they will have to be there for the cause of building a working class party in the real sense. In this context, the communists who are contemplating today about providing political direction to the new trend trade unions, they may think about doing so there in the days of countrywide workers struggle. But their doing so will only be possible if from starting of the phase of formation of a countrywide unified organization they engage themselves in an assisting role and to certain extent become trustworthy to the workers in the process. Actually, this role may create the objectivity for unification of the communists.
We were in the post all-India platform formation discussion. Let us return to the present, where the issue is of formation or building the organization. Undoubtedly this organization will be an organization of the relatively advanced workers, because the aspiration for unity of general workers can be reflected and materialized through the advanced. At this moment, the main role will be or has to be taken by the frontline leaders evolving from the new trend trade union movement. We have already mentioned the necessity of increase in number of new trend unions in the context of building a unified organization at the all-India level. But this definitely does not mean that the working class has to first win over a large number of unions and based on that only, the countrywide central organization can evolve. Actually, optimum number of new unions is required so that leading workers from these unions be sufficient in number and strength so as to be in a position to not only build the ?Manch', but also to conduct the regular activities of the organisation once formed. Of course, they are not the only one for the job. Advanced workers from different factories where new union is yet to be formed, are also very likely to join the forum. Because urge for wider unity, so to say nationwide unity is also within them -- be it from experience of their own struggle or be it realising the general condition of the working class being brutally cornered by the capitalist class. The number of workers from the new Unions would, perhaps be comparatively bigger than the later set of workers at the present moment, at least initially. Further, it is believed that as because the former workers have had the intiative and experience, they are naturally expected to move further and at the same time be competent in taking up the leading role in the formation of All-India organisation. In fact, they are to take up this role.
It is impossible for anyone to calculate and predict how and when the all-India level workers united organization, i.e. the ?Manch' will take shape, i.e., what has started with the formation of independent plant level union shall culminate in nationwide unity of workers. This is dependent on the active role of the advanced workers. Also dependent on the ups and downs of workers movement. Actually, in the present national and international situation, where the workers and masses, just after recovering, to an extent, from the impact of defeat and after overcoming their helpless & disarrayed condition have just started to spontaneously reorganize, particularly when the reformist-opportunist parties have shattered the self-confidence of the workers, there it would be wrong to assume that the above process will advance smoothly and in a linear manner. The important thing is the continually increasing urge for unity within the workers, which will maintain the motion of this process. And, the possibility that workers from all over the country or from even several states will directly congregate at a place and will organize, cannot be completely ruled out but the probability seems to be extremely remote. The difference in characteristics of the different states is probably the reason behind this. But the workers who are taking the cardinal role or can take that role, they have to consistently continue their effort to build up relationship with the advanced workers of different parts. It may happen, in one or two states or places, due to particular situation, a possibility might arise that advanced workers are getting united and organized, obviously with the perspective of larger unity. In that case the aforesaid work of establishing relationship amongst the countrywide workers can be carried out relatively faster and in an organized manner. Side by side, from the aspiration for unity, the struggling advanced workers of different industrial areas can get united on a local basis, the possibility of which at this moment is the very high, whose indication is being found in some recent events. Practically, in today's situation when it is becoming increasingly difficult to individually fight an uneven battle against the joint attack of capitalists and government, a local workers' unity shall or may primarily evolve and take shape from the common need for mutual help & support, more so, for mobilising collective strength in favour of each one's battle. But if once the workers can get organized on a local basis, whatever be the name, solidarity committee, struggle committee, steering committee, objective condition shall drive them towards taking united programme on ?common issue'. Hence it would not be right to put the local organization or organizations of the workers in opposition to the country-wide platform, and these should be viewed as steps for larger unity.
We have already mentioned that it is meaningless to design a definite pattern for the formation of the all-India platform. The aspiration for unity is the main thing. We need to understand that the above mentioned objective process shall have to go through an unknown varied path with several ups and downs and above all with so many external and internal hurdles to cross, and it will take a long time before it can reach its conclusion, particularly before a large section of the workers be brought under the umbrella of a central platform. Definitely there is a huge problem. It is not easy job for workers of one part of the country to establish connection with workers of another corner. Besides there is the problem of language. The advanced workers on move will definitely take care of this, but herein lies a role of the communists. Undoubtedly, this can be said that if they put in effort to the best of their ability in order to arrange connection between the advanced workers of different parts of the country, then that will hasten and nourish the above-mentioned movement.
Party formation
In the present stage of class struggle the most important task of the communist revolutionaries from their group positions is to make the potential workers politically conscious, however limited be their organizational boundary. We are, in fact, talking about those communists who in opposition to the narrow interest or objective of their own groups (like, ?we will become large' or more and more projection of their group) are sincerely devoted to the working class interest. Actually, the working class needs such communists who on concrete analysis of the objective course of workers movement will be able to take definite conscious role and on the contrary will not impose their wishful thoughts. Needless to say, during the preparatory phase of party formation, it is immensely important to make more and more fighting potential workers class conscious, as against group consciousness. These workers, no doubt, will be the frontline warriors of the future party. On the other hand, through the development of the countrywide organization and struggle of the workers, certain level of unity of working class will evolve which will act as the foundation of the party and most importantly, another set of to an extent class conscious rank of workers will emerge countrywide, beyond the organisational limit of the groups . Hence two tasks, viz. (1) to assist the spontaneous effort and initiative from below for a countrywide organization of the workers as the attainment of aspiration for unity within workers, and (2) to make more and more advanced workers conscious - both these tasks are obligatory and compulsory for the present communists. The existing position of the communist revolutionaries have in reality negated the possibility of party formation through their unity, and the desire of any single group to become a party to be recognised by the Indian working class is mere ridiculous. Therefore, those communist who want to remain committed and devoted to the interest of the working class as opposed to the narrow interest of their own groups, they are required to primarily make themselves free from the rigidity of their thoughts. This is the demand of history at this moment. They have to understand that the objective motion and development of the spontaneous workers movement, and the growth of advanced workers from within; on the other side, their effort leading to more and more workers becoming class conscious and thirdly, consistent struggle against the non-proletarian (right & left) deviation and trend in a concrete form (not in abstraction) - at one stage through the confluence of these aspects, real communist party can be formed, a party controlled & led by the vanguards of the working class -- how this unification in process will occur, or whether history in future will take a different turn or not is impossible to predict, but this can definitely and emphatically be said that no other path other than this is at this moment present in front of the working class. (The End)
Comments:
No Comments for View