'Gana Manch' -- Another Futile Effort Of The Communist Revolutionaries
Some organisations have recently in a Convention, held on end-August this year(2014) in Kolkata, WB, have formed one united platform for struggle, attributed as 'Working Peoples Movement for Democracy', to be known as, in short, "Gana Manch". These organisations are Samajik Nyay Bichar Mancha, Majdoor Kranti Parishad (MKP), Radical Socialist, CPI (ML)-Liberation and Left Collective. The first one & the last are both breakway factions from CPI (M), the former led by Abdur Rejjak Mollah & the latter by Prasenjit Bose, erstwhile SFI leader from JNU having few students as followers. One can recognize Rejjak Mollah. He was a veteran leader in CPI (M). He had a long association with CPI (M) since its inception. Curious enough, after remaining in CPI (M), sometimes as minister in Left Front Government for several terms, obviously during the whole period of Party's gradual degeneration, he found it expedient to come out with a difference (obviously not ideological) with the party which he finally left some 3-4 years back. Prasenjit too, though not a veteran, decided to leave the party after its decadence became complete & it appears, he has no ideological difference with the parent party. Having said so, it is, however, not intended to raise question as to how CPI (ML)-Liberation & MKP, both commonly known as communist revolutionary organisation, come together with the above two CPI (M)-breakway faction in united platform for struggle for democracy & secularism. Truly speaking, we are not at all surprised at the turn of the event, recalling the past record of both the former groups, particularly CPI (ML). It has been found very often in alliance with the left parties, including CPI (M) in parliamentary struggle, or some issue-based programme in some States. MKP might not forget the experience of joining hands with Trinamool Congress in case of Singoor movement, which was, however, subsequently admitted by themselves as mistake. Still we get perplexed at their present conduct, i.e., formation of Manch from above, given their laid-down emphasis on the task of independently organising working class as a class. We do not know how they can reconcile the formation of Gana Manch to their avowed principal task, as we find in both the Declaration and Resolution, no reference of Working Class, but only of people in general. It is really a baffling question as to how can they conceive of people's struggle for democracy and secularism and against corporate loot and such others, with no organised force of working class.
However, let us see what the constituents of Gana Manch are actually aiming at & what is the political perspective behind their exercise , as reflected overtly & covertly in the declaration. But better we examine first the efficacy of Gana Manch, if there be at all, in so far the building of peoples' struggle is concerned. As they appear to have stated the perspective and objectives of 'Working People's Movement for Democracy & Secularism -- in short, Gana Manch' in their Declaration & when the August Resolution has been adapted from the said Declaration, we mainly rely on the contents of the Declaration, of course along with the Resolution in the discussion on the subject.
The Resolution states, "In the context of socio-economic and political situation which is alarming to the State (WB) and the country, we have formed one platform for struggle ...". In the earlier Declaration issued by the aforesaid five organisations, they stated that they 'have felt the need to unite in a common platform' to organise & build people's struggle. Their intention is, no doubt, good and there shouldn't be any question about it. But the question lies elsewhere. How come that their unity would practically be translated into people's struggle? It is true that working class & different sections of toiling people are terribly hardpressed and it is particularly since the days of New Economic Policy which is becoming more & more fierceful with increasing offensive against the people in the name of Globalisation & Liberalisation. But it is equally true that in spite of all out offensive of the capitalists-imperialists there has been no corresponding resistance from the workers & other oppressed people. Precisely speaking, the above group organisations might have felt the need to get united in a platform, from the analysis of the present socio-economic & political situations, presumably the situation arising out of ascent of BJP to power, but one cannot but confront the most intriguing question; do the working class and the toiling people themselves actually need it? One can straightway answer the question in negative if, however, he/she can have correct objective assessment/analysis of the present condition of the class and obviously the past experience, and how the working class is, in its own way, summing up its experiences. Herein lies two major factors or aspects related to the question of struggle & organisation. Firstly, working class along with other exploited & oppressed masses are yet to turn around from the severe impact of the defeat of the first offensive of world socialist movement. Workers' movement is still passing through the phase of retreat worldwide. They lost the party which they once relied on as their own, while no party of the proletariat, i.e., the party of advanced class conscious workers is born as yet. They are disarrayed & disintegrated. This situation has been generally continuing for about 35-40 years; of course, signs of change in the situation are becoming visible in different countries since last decade. However, it is painfully true that people are mainly guided by parliamentary aspirations & they have no other way but to express their resentment and anger by way of frequently changing parties -- obviously, bourgeoisie parties -- in the government, thanks absence of class organisation & class struggle and deeply entrenched reformist-opportunist politics of the so-called left parties and on the other hans, cunningness of the ruling class. Given the situation as above, it is to be understood clearly that ground reality is not so that people would get into the streets to generate what can be called people's struggle as envisaged by the leaders of Gana Manch, if just a readymade organisation, or united platform, or any co-ordination of any set of communist revolutionary groups is presented before the masses from above.
Second aspect, or point is also none-the-less important. Above we dealt with the problems of struggle. Now let us get into the question of organisation. At the present disarrayed and leaderless condition of the working class, organisation question seems to be more important for the future development of class struggle. It is common experience before the workers, how the old organisations, to be specific the Left Parties betrayed their cause and struggle, rather took keen interest in serving the capitalists. As a matter of fact, working class & toiling people generally, and fighting workers in particular, do not now trust these organisations, while they do have none to trust upon. Getting deep into this phenomenon we shall find that disastrous effect of the defeat , so to say, the fall of Russia & China on the one hand & utter degeneration of old lefts on the other, not only demoralised and made the working class helpless, but most significantly, rather alarmingly and as a bye-product, left a deep scar in the body of class movement itself -- an apathy and apprehension towards organisation as such. Equally true for other sections of toiling people. This has further been aggravated due to the fact that communist revolutionary groups failed to unite themselves, bluntly speaking, due to latter's narrow & sometimes aggressive groupism. As a consequence, the question of organisation remains unanswered before the working class and others.
There is nothing to disagree that the political groups, irrespective of their being old or newly emerged, are largely isolated from the masses in a varying degree. As in the big country like ours, groups claiming to be All India organisation can at best boast of few scattered pockets of some sort of influence here & there over a miniscule section of the masses. The five constituents of Gana Manch are no exception. The very act of their being united in platform for struggle, in itself suggests that they are aware that none of them is in a position to organise people's struggle separately and they are to combine to have the ability and to earn credence so as to mobilise mass of people into the streets. We suppose, this is their thought process, and what else could be there, if, of course they do not have other intention than that of building struggle. But at the same time, they are to reckon that mere algebraic sum of group organisations does not necessarily yield to qualitative change. Secondly, had it been a case that there is a continuing struggle of workers or people in general even in small dimension, under the individual leadership of the organisations, their unity from above would have united the separate struggles. And, that resultant united struggle would have been positive in regard to class, and/or mass struggle, at least to an extent. But everybody knows this is not the case here. If, on the other hand, it is the question of drawing people in struggle, i.e., building struggle afresh, then the groups should better reckon the truth, firstly, any group or a combination of groups cannot play the role of a party and secondly, communists cannot create struggle from above. It is the task of party to make the ground hot by agitational campaign and propaganda amongst the masses and obviously to organise and lead the struggle that is growing. By Party we mean centralised proletarian party which is to grow continuously earning confidence & trust of the people, particularly the working class by being consistently tested & verified by the masses through their practical experience. However, finally it can be said that Gana Manch, or likewise organisation, presenting itself as struggle platform, i.e., platform for mass struggle, can at best make some joint rally of the supporters and followers of the respective constituent groups, already organised to an extent, due to their past efforts. This can't be otherwise of routine programme as we often see in other cases.
Practically, the experience of joint platform, forum etc is nothing new. Particularly since the nineties of the past century we have seen numerous such Mancha, Forum, Joint Committee or such other, coming into existence with a bang and dying a silent death within a short span of time. Sometimes cross-interest of groups, sometimes unequal committment to the cause of unity and primarily the lack of response from the masses and finally the efficacy of the united organisation being questioned, ultimately play the villain for the silence. This is what is undeniable experience. There is another recent experience, albeit with a bit difference. One such organisation named PDF (People's Democratic Forum) was formed some 3-4 years back on All India basis with exclusive initiative and under the leadership of CPI (ML)-Red Star along with few small groups. One or two such small groups have reportedly joined the forum at later stage. The Forum was formed with a long list of political demands and pledge for building people's struggle. As we are informed, it still exists, thanks to Big Brother CPI (ML)-Red Star and urge from the smaller fries (groups) to get an identity & projection. It would probably be not wrong for one to question whether the PDF is in reality the united platform of groups worth its name, or simply a face of CPI (ML)? Yes, PDF in its name contested in a number of constituencies in last Lok Sabha election, but can it claim that it has organised & led people's struggle in the streets over any of the demands out of their long list, during its tenure of existence for about four years? Can it further claim that it could enlist in its fold, at least some of the relatively serious independently functioning groups? Summing up, this is another piece of sectarianism, and what else!
In the last few paragraphs, we discussed in general, the trend within the Communist Revolutionary Groups of uniting in a partial or joint platform with selective few of mutual liking and interest and tried to show why this sort of platform, forum etc cannot actually serve their avowed purpose of building people's struggle, firstly by objective analysis and secondly on the basis of practical experiences of such platforms. Now, let us dwell on some other relevant question, political aspects in particular, of the said declaration and the resolutions adopted at 2nd Aug Convention in Kolkata by the constituents of Gana Manch.
The Declaration states, "We have felt the need to unite in a common platform in the backdrop of Modi-led BJP's ascent in the country...". Then they narrated in brief, the events/fact on post-BJP's coming to power, to assertively project how BJP-RSS combine is posing great danger to democracy and secularism in our country. Again, since Gana Manch is mainly based in the state of West Bengal, understandably, they have, gone on describing Trinamool Cong govt's aggression on democracy by a reign of terror and also about the corruption of the govt. & party in general. In so far as people's struggle is concerned, this is obviously one side, although incomplete without reference to the behaviour of the ruling class, but what about the other? What is the condition of the working class and other sections of the toiling people? By condition, we don't mean how they are hard-pressed. We mean what is the mood of the masses, what is the movement going in them, i.e., how & in what manner their resentment and anger are being expressed. This is precisely conditional for people's struggle to grow even if we keep aside the vital question , i.e., of organisation. The Declaration is curiously silent on this above aspect, i.e., 'the other side'. It has, however, been pointed out in relation to West Bengal that people are getting disillusioned about Trinamool Cong and they are frustrated. But communists should be knowing that mere frustration or severe oppression, although a condition, but cannot by themselves get the disintegreated people mobilised in organised mass struggle, however not ruling out the possibility of spontaneous outburst. Do the leaders of Gana Manch seriously believe that without at least the organised participation of working class there would not be consistent struggle for democracy and secularism of true nature, precisely in the present context.
Let us proceed further. It is about political perspective. It has been stated in the Declaration, "... while the Congress has been decisively rejected, other forces, including the Left, have failed to offer a credible progressive alternative" (Italics ours). Earlier sentence states, "BJP's victory in the general election was mainly because of the misrule, corruption & anti-people policies of Cong-led UPA regime ...". It is clear that it has been suggested that had there been an alternative force, understably Left, for cashing in anti-Congress resentment of masses, BJP's ascent to power in Union Govt could have been thwarted, or might have been, at least, challenged. And at the same time, it could have been possible to hold back the emergence of BJP in West Bengal as was reflected in substantial increase of their vote share. One is to acknowledge that BJP came to power through parliamentary election and needless to say, not through revolutionary struggle. So, if any 'other forces' was to act as an alternative to BJP, it must obviously be in the electoral field. Hence, one cannot but logically conclude that vision, or political perspective of people's struggle should be, as per what leaders of Gana Manch stated, to attain strength & necessary mass base so as to be able to finally act as a parliamentary alternative, obviously to bourgeoisie parties, where CPM and the left parties failed to do so, having been alienated from the masses. Is it therefore not evident that 'offering credible progressive alternative' is nothing but to fill the void left by the old lefts and become a real left? Whether it is at all possible or whether it is at all advisable to repeat history of old lefts is a separate question, although it is a moot question.
The history of degeneration of CPM and other Left parties is itself illustrious. We should take lesson out of it. The pathetic degeneration or to say, the alleged 'failure' of CPI-CPM and others has its genesis in their practical politics in their hey-days of late 50s & 60s of the last century when they on one hand focussed on the Congress Party as enemy of the people and as root cause of people's sufferings while on the other hand, organised the then militant struggle of the workers-peasants and suffering middle-class directing it against Congress rule. They never made the effort to independently organise working class as a class, i.e., a class against the capitalists and its allies, the actual rulers. So it happened what was destined to happen. Where the militant workers-peasant struggle would have led to -- that was a big question. Whether to revolutionary path, or to electoral consolidation? The answer is in the history, we know. In fact, the logical culmination of anti-Congress policies (basically reformist-revisionist politics, though not explicit at that time) of the Left parties, however with a strong mass base could not be other than formation of govts in three states. Thereafter degeneration of these parties went on uninterrupted. And in the process the CPM etc landed themselves to a position as of now where they are to face heavy rejection from the masses on whom once they had strong grip as leaders of the people's struggles. Even after having such experience -- forget about ideological question -- are we permitted to repeat the old story? When the old tradition of 'Left politics' still cast its long shadow over the working class movement and where people on the whole are dominated by the influence of parliamentary politics, is it not now becoming hundredfold a necessity for today's communists to cling firmly on to proletarian ideology and politics, at least to refrain from doing things that augment reformism? Does the adherence to proletarian politics endorse our urge for being simply alternative, alternative to old Left which would, in fact, polute or damage the revolutionary class politics and eventually lead us to think of general people's movement targeting the bourgeoisie party in power, be it Congress, BJP or Trinamool (WB), eventually taking us away from the cardinal task of preparing & organising the workers as a class for the future development of class struggle? One may ask us that why we have brought in the CPM experience with so much emphasis. Yes, we honestly did it and raised the above questions, because the present situation is really vulnerable. Working class is still on retreat since defeat. They have just started turning around, and that too, in the sphere of economic struggle. Serious weakness is there in ideological struggle against reformism-opportunism. Left adventurist activities further impairs the struggle, rather emboldens reformist trends in reaction. Communists are dispersed in groups & are painfully isolated from the working class. This is the overall condition that is conducive for the growth of trends towards right deviation among the Communist Revolutionaries in general and unfortunately it is being found happening.
Leftism is, in fact, a misnomer. It has somehow earned a special, so to say, a distinct status in Indian politics. Politically speaking, it has to be either reformist or revolutionary if at all the term Left is to be used. Curiously, we find, in the post-2nd World War situation, specially after the split in the International Communist movement, both the petty-bourgeoisie reformist-revisionists and the proletarian revolutionaries were all branded as 'Left'. Ostensibly it has been the handiwork of bourgeoisie press/media and bourgeoisie parties. They can do it for their own interests, but why should the Communist revolutionaries get into the trap. This confuses the masses and gets them in difficulty to differentiate the above two trends, particularly when there is no proletarian party and as due to a very thin presence of class struggle, the working class and others are still under dominant influence of parliamentarism. Further, the people are traditionally accustomed to the word 'Left' in association with CPI, CPI (M) etc. Therefore it is of no use squabbling with the word 'Left' and trying to prove to the masses that 'we are the real Left'. Let the 'Brand Left' be better left with the reformist-opportunist petty-bourgeoisie parties like CPI-CPI (M) etc. No communist revolutionary, worth its name, should claim themselves to be 'Left', irrespective of inserting 'alternative Left' as prefix.
Further it is to be understood that Left politics, as was earlier practised by the old parties keeping along pro-people struggling image, is not at all possible or practicable today in the present situation. Specifically, it is not feasible to get back to the late 1950's and 60's period -- ostensibly the peak period of Left movement that led to the formation of the govt. This is primarily due to two reasons: (i) change in situation -- the earlier period was of rise of workers' & peasants' struggle, while now the class and mass struggle is on retreat, thanks to defeat of the first offensive of world socialist movement. As a consequence of betrayal of old Left parties there has grown not only all-round rejection of these parties, but has also induced in them a negative experience in regard to Party itself (of course, when it comes to them from above). Besides, working class, particularly its advanced section is summing up by their own, the experience of the degeneration of old parties; (ii) crisis of capitalism the world over -- the only way for the ruling classes to survive and even extract super profit -- given the disarrayed and retreating condition of the working class -- is ruthlessly to snatch or severely squeeze the benefits and rights of the people, once earned through collective struggle. Concession or compromise is being terribly resisted by the capitalists -- aided by the overzealous support of police & administration. Non-revolutionary politics, such as conceiving people's struggle shorn of revolutionary perspective, is bound to gravitate to parliamentary struggle and by way of it, to finally succumb to the ruling classes, as it ultimately happened in case of CPI-CPI (M) etc. The aggression can only be combatted from class position, i.e., revolutionary position. And this cannot be done without arousing the working class, or in other words, without the organised workers getting into action as leading force.
We have earlier stated that tendency towards right deviation has been growing in varied degree, amongst Communist revolutionary groups -- objective situation helping the growth. Is the Declaration and/or the Resolution of the aforesaid Gana Manch free from such danger? For instance, it has been stated in the very beginning of the Declaration, ".... We have felt the need to unite in common platform in the backdrop of Modi-led BJP's ascent" in the country ... (quote ours).
Why it could not be 'in the backdrop of fiercefully rising onslaught of big Capital and imperialists'? Secondly it has been stated, Congress has been decisively rejected by the masses for its misrule, corruption and anti-people policies. Where is the class content? It is true that people, for its backwardness, spontaneously understand party-rule and not class rule. They see the government as maker of policies involving their lives. In all fields they are to face directly the government and the party in the government. However, there is no doubt that the working class and also toiling people would eventually identify the capitalists beyond the government and the party, from experience of their own struggle. But why not the communists or the would-be builders of people's struggle should tell the truth to the fighting people, especially its advanced section, that the cause of their resentment and anger lies in the increasing offensive and policy aggression (globalisation-liberalisation) of capitalists and imperialists, which this and that party (now BJP) implements and steers thru' their governments. It is really an irony that while the ruling capitalist class puts the masses to suffering, but again use that very suffering for their own interest when required as they were found to when BJP did the same desperately in the last Loksabha election. It may be a curious expression, but nevertheless a truth, if we say that Big Capital of India and imperialists themselves rejected Congress and brought BJP, another bourgeoisie party, to power as Congress has been failing to speed up reforms as was vigorously wanted by the Big Capital, or in other words, Corporate houses. Should we not rather focus on the above aspect from proletarian angle instead of reiterating, so to say, highlighting that aspect, i.e., of rejection of Congress by the masses due to its corruption, misrule etc, what the bourgeoisie media and all the bourgeoisie parties including Lefts, had been pressing forward? Otherwise, are we not to shy away from proletarian position?
Before conclusion, some comments on the composition of Gana Manch, in particular. Are all the constituents serious in their avowed declaration/purpose of building people's struggle? Are all of them committed to their unity, i.e., to United Platform? CPI (ML) Liberation is reported to have already joined in the bigger platform or Front of mainstream Left parties under the leadership of CPI (M). By such a conduct they have not only betrayed their reformist-opportunist leaning, but at the same time have left behind the question as to what would be their position in Gana Manch. How can they remain committed in two separate platforms at a time where the purpose is almost the same? In fact, no one needs wracking one's head to get the answer, since platform with the Left Front parties would obviously offer them by far the greater all-India projection and more so, as it had always been CPI (ML)'s mission for having a 'Left Alternative' along with mainstream left parties. Now is it not a paradox that two constituents of the united platform comes out of CPI (M) while another one gets into CPI (M)-led front? Whatsoever, we do not have difficulty in understanding CPI (ML)'s politics & what they are aiming at. They have at last got the dividend of their politics in their inclusion in Left Front. It is also not a secret they care a little about any critique of right deviation. They are clear about it -- and no pretension at all. And, what about the other two CPI (M)-breakway factions? It can be unhesitatingly stated that just a departure from CPI (M) and that too, after about half a century of the first major revolt within CPI (M), does not allow them being projected before the masses as a fighting proletarian forces. How come then, MKP, which claims to have been pursuing proletarain politics and which apparently emphasises most of the task on organising Working Class as a Class, can go for an united platform of struggle along with these above organisations, virtually allowing the CPI (M)-breakway factions to not only project themselves as a fighting force, but also to avail of the opportunity to cleanse themselves of the hated CPI (M) image? Do they honestly believe that such hotch-potch unity of groups or organisations from above shall be able to unite people for struggle -- setting aside for the time being the fundamental question as to the practicability of people's struggle at the present moment and also the question of class angle as we discussed earlier --- particularly when it is not the question of issue-based local/partial agitation but of building people's struggle over a 'grocer's list' of varied demands which requires relatively homogenous semi-parmanent combination with closer unity and understanding amongst the participants, which could only grow out of earlier, i.e., past practices. Truly speaking, we understand CPI (ML) as we stated above, but it is not really understandable what MKP is actually aiming at by way of Gana Manch. They might have their own narrow organisational interest or compulsion, but whatever be the reason, they should understand that their conduct has only landed them to reformist petty-bourgeoisie position. Not same but similar experience was there when they shared platform with Trinamool during Singur movement in West Bengal which, however they admitted as mistake in the face of criticism from outside and presumably from within. It is really unfortunate that by just getting into hotch-potch petty-bourgeoisie unity in the name of people's struggle they again landed themselves to the same position, thereby raising an unavoidable question: are they at all remaining consistent in commitment to proletarian politics? Are they really serious in their avowed task of independently organising the working class?
The above question becomes further relevant if we look at the assorted list of demands adopted by Gana Manch in the Convention of 2nd August. Here we have no scope for analysing the demands altogether. But let us take out only the first one of the demand list which states: "State and Central Govts will have to take initiative to re-open the closed factories like Jessop-Hind Motor-Shalimar-several Jute Mills etc". What lesson they are giving to the workers? We know that workers do not even have their own independent unions in their respective factories, not to speak of having bigger unity of workers as a whole. They are really helpless at the moment in the face of severe capitalist attack. Now, are not the leaders of Gana Manch asking the helpless workers to rely on the govts for, say, reopening the mills. Who knows not that employer-Capitalists close down their factories for their interest and as per design, almost in all the cases, to shift the burden of their own crisis/problems on the workers. Govts are giving them full backing. Actually what initiative is being sought for? Is it not for arranging (virtually forcing the workers) for re-opening the mills fully on the conditions laid down by the employer? Precisely speaking, the aforesaid demand or such other demands can never be demands of the workers, primarily as these are against their interest and more so from class point of view. This takes the workers to reformist path, 1800 away from the path of arousing and preparing the workers for united class-resistance against capitalist attack.
In conclusion, let us make one thing clear. As a matter of fact, we are not much concerned about Gana Manch in itself. Virtually, we do not rule out the possibility of Manch fading out even before this writing sees the light of the day in print. We are rather concerned about the particular trend within the communist revolutionary groups as being reflected in forming united forum/platform in the name of building so-called people's struggle. The whole of discussion we made, is to be viewed in that perspective. Firstly, this politics reflects lack of correct and objective appraisal of the present situation and of recognition of the severe impact of the defeat of the first offensive of World Socialist Movement as manifested in the present retreating and disarrayed condition of the working class and most importantly in the absence of the truly All India working class party. Secondly, it indicates that we feel shy of accepting our isolation with the working class & the people in general. Agony of isolation from the masses and that too, for a long time, is understandable, but communists worthy of its name should have the strength and courage to face the agony. We are to understand that given the situation, there is no shortcut, easy or quicker remedy to the agony of isolation. There is no point in denying that in the near-absence of the spontaneity of struggle, particularly among the working class on one hand, and in the absence of proletarian party on the other, any attempt from CR groups to get rid of isolation, i.e., to attain mass-base, e.g., by way of trying to build struggle from above, would eventually compel them to adopt reformist-opportunist, so to say, petty-bourgeoisie politics, as because primarily mass is at present, under dominant influence of parliamentary politics. It is true that workers seem to be passive, at the moment petty-bourgeoisie mass is sometimes seen coming into the streets for protest on this and that issue, mainly social, sometimes on the question of democracy, although these are generally spontaneous and without any organised leadership, be it of established parties, or even of communist group or groups. In the context of above phenomenon, should the communists, the vanguard of working class, divert their attention to organising the petty-bourgeoisie movement with a view to involving themselves in mass activity so as to break the isolation? Of course, how far it is practicable is altogether a different question. But if it at all happens it may at best give a petty-bourgeoisie mass base. Here we must remember that when we talk about isolation, it is primarily from the working class. If we do not like to go by apparent gain of the present at the cost of future, we are not to be swayed by the alleged isolation. As we said, we are to face it, we are to hold out stubbornly the proletarian politics, the politics of organising the working class as a class. And again, if it is the question of catching the masses in their places, i.e., where they are, we are to catch the workers where they are. They have started coming out of passivity in their trade unions. They have started resisting capitalist onslaughts by forming their separate independent Union, abandoning the old established leaderships in all, where, in fact, lies the future of class struggle. We are to catch them here in this place. It should be the top priority for the communists worthy of its name. They should be with the ongoing movement of the workers by way of helping them to firstly organise independent unions in factories, and most importantly helping the advanced workers emerging out of the plant-level movements to get united in all-India plane, notwithstanding however, the vitally important task of preparing the army of class-conscious workers. No doubt, this is painstaking job but no way of escaping it. We have made elaborate discussion on this aspect in four issues of this Journal, including the present, which may be referred to for proper understanding on the above high-priority task.
Comments:
No Comments for View