On 2nd Sept Industrial Strike: Confusion Amongst Communist Revolutionaries
Again on 2nd September the ritual of one day All India General Strike of Central unions got virtually performed under the covert supervision of ruling classes and the Government. They in fact allowed the strike to happen. There had been an exhibition of negotiation before the strike by the Government in an apparent intention to avert the strike, both parties knowing fully well that there could not be any agreement. Formal negotiation was held only to help BMS, the labour wing of RSS to wriggle out of the declared strike call and to save the BJP Government from embarrassment. And so it happened, BMS dissociated themselves from the strike, just few days before 2nd September.
The 2nd September strike event was in the line and repetition of previous one-day strikes held since New Economic Policy started in 1991. As a matter of fact, the central unions affiliated to different opposition parties, obviously excluding the union attached to party in Central Government, have taken it upon themselves as their self imposed duty to sit together and give a call to All India workers for one day nationwide strikes at regular intervals in the spirit of religious ritual. There have been umpteen times (at least more than 12) such strike calls, every time one day strikes, during the last 25 years. It would be found that for all these strikes, the target remains essentially the same, i.e., against the overall policy of Globalisation-Liberalisation adopted by the ruling classes, aided and guided by the imperialists. For their mutual interest, however, specific list of demands vary at times, according to the then specific nature of attack on the working class and the people. It had been the general experience that while the series of one-day strike goes on at regular intervals, the attack on the working class goes on increasing as usual and that too with alarming speed. Curious to note that even when on one hand all-round attack on the livelihood and on the right to organize and struggle is getting stepped up by days, on the other hand the so-called strike never steps up from one-day confines to higher ones. This goes on repeating for the last 25 years, always with nil efficacies, obviously having no deterrent impact on the aggressiveness of capitalists-imperialists.
This is inevitable. Strike, all we know, is a form of struggle, Strike is organized action of workers, be it in plant level economic struggle or nationwide resistance of the working class against the capitalist class. In fact it is not important who calls the strike, it is important and cardinal that workers have the united resolution to adopt the particular form of struggle as strike to resist capitalist offensive or to face the ruling class to concede to their demands. We further learn from the history of working class movement that in places, workers adopt militant demonstration on the streets, sometimes concurrently with strike action as another form of their struggle. Whichever be the case, the basic point we are to understand that workers struggle cannot be built only on the basis of their resentment over the condition they are forced to live in, it happens only when they want to act in an organized manner to change that very condition, i.e., in other words, when workers can get into required position so as to act through their own organization, be it a party or trade union or such other organization. To emphasise, workers or working class as a whole, can truly launch a struggle through and under the leadership of that very organization which has already been integrated with the workers by being tested and verified by the mass of workers in particular, thereby earning their trust and confidence. These are all from the fundamental principles of Marxism. We only reiterate those as we feel the necessity to do so in the present context.
No one is required to wreck his head to conclude that the central trade unions who gave the call for 2nd September All India strike, and similar strikes in the past, do not come in the category of aforesaid organization. It is by practical and bitter experience of the past, the workers now identify the above unions and of the parties to which the unions are affiliated as betrayers of their struggle. They have seen how the unions nakedly, over the head of the workers, sacrificed their interest in the altar of profit and super-profit of capitalists-imperialists. They have the bitter experience how the leaders of these unions, without any exception, actually forced the workers to bear the burden of crisis of the individual capitalist and of their class as a whole, by applying their bureaucratic control over the organization and sometimes even by muscle power when required. Workers and also the other sections of toiling people, have also seen how the related parties even those on whom they relied once and had confidence actually, while in government, implemented those anti-worker, anti-people policies against which they are now asking the workers to strike. And hence the present situation is like that; workers do not consider the established old unions as their organization, they are abandoning or getting detached from the unions, but are yet to build and organize their own, although for the last few years new independent, workers own TU organization are coming up here and there, of course indicating an unmistakable trend in that direction.
The above, however, covers one side of the present scenario of workers movement. There is another side. This side or face of the scenario is that of present condition of the workers themselves. It is due to the defeat of the world socialist movement (its first offensive) and subsequent to concurrent degeneration of old communist and socialist parties and their role of betrayal. The working class in general still are in retreating condition. It is a worldwide phenomenon. It is true that after a long phase of passivity and frustration workers are being seen gradually turning around and going for spontaneous struggle, thanks to increasing ferocity of overall attack of the capitalists. But it is a fact that deep wounds of betrayal by the old leaders on the other hand and the working class not being able, as yet, to sum up their bitter experience of the past, wholly and in an organized manner and finally a leaderless condition ? no trust and virtual rejection of old leaders, but absence of new centralized trusted leaders i.e., organization ? all these have left an intrinsic feeling of aversion to struggle in the minds of workers in general. As we stated above, working class has already started coming out of it and the situation is changing ? it is bound to change ? and the new will emerge and raise its head from the ashes of the past betrayal. Significantly, unlike in European countries and elsewhere, where workers along with other section of oppressed people have been found coming out onto the streets in thousands, independently without the old parties, here in our country the new beginning is being found in plant level economic struggles, workers forming their own independent TU organization abandoning the old established trade unions. No doubt, here lies the future of class struggle and class organization but it is to be admitted without any inhibition that now what is happening is only the beginning. Working class is, in main, still in disarrayed and helpless condition in the absence of organization and with not so strong presence of spontaneity for struggle necessary for overcoming the prevailing constraints. In other words, workers are not in a position to go for nationwide united struggle although their resentment against increasing attack on their livelihood by the ruling classes is mounting.
It is in the above backdrop, one has to view the routine one-day strike called by the central unions during the past years and hence to make the correct appraisal of the 2nd September All India strike in continuation of past. The central unions have, as usual, declared that the strike was successful. But, what this so-called 'success' is, with respect to workers and other sections of toiling people? Is it that this 'success' would motivate the working class to raise their struggle to a higher plane by being better organized? One has the answer if he goes by the past strikes which were all end-in-themselves. Further, it would be a fool's job to imagine that the Union Government will restrain itself in its aggression over the working class and the people. Government is not at all required to learn afresh from such strikes that the people oppose its 'reforms measures', particularly the ruthless attack on the livelihood and onslaught on the workers right to struggle and organize, Government is bound to roll on its offensive as it is bound to the interest of its masters ? the ruling classes and the imperialists. Truly speaking, the one day routine strike and particularly the way it is done cannot strike the arrogance of the ruling classes and their pet government. Government presumably deemed it wise to pass it over, considering it as a necessary evil. So what is the success the union leaders are talking about?
Yes, they can claim some amount of success in terms of reported increase (although marginal) in number of workers absent on the day of strike, i.e., 2nd September, It cannot be denied that the central unions still have organized presence in good number of factories and establishment, which might have worked in the strike. It is also reported that number of, so to say, strike breakers this time is less. In other words, sizeable section of workers, although, having serious reservation about the efficacy of the strike and about the real intention of unions, whom they consider as betrayer in their economic struggles, refrained themselves from reporting to duty on the day of strike, ostensibly with the understanding that acting otherwise would mean support to the other side, i.e., the Government. If permitted, it can be said that this is something like negative voting in parliamentary elections. Thirdly, it has been reported from several industrial belts, particularly new ones that through mutual arrangement factories remained closed on strike day and workers were to work in lieu, on the weekly off day. If with all these, one can claim success of the strike, it is up to him to do so. But it would not be only ridiculous but also deceiving to workers.
Central unions may however, claim success elsewhere. Overwhelming majority of communist revolutionary organizations and their associated unions were found to have given a full throated support to the strike call of the central unions. Ostensibly, this support would help the unions in their attempt to justify relevance of their strike call and to regain at least to an extent, their lost image by projecting themselves as struggling unions, of course whether or how far workers would be deceived or duped is a different question. Practically, when the old unions are being rejected by the workers and it is getting clear to them that such one-day strikes are actually "unions' strike" and not "workers'" as rightly expressed by an activist of one of the left unions in a private conversation, what logic could be there for the communist revolutionaries to support the 2nd September strike and to actively campaign for the strike? They have their reasons, as expressed in their campaign materials and other writings. Only by examining their declared standpoint it can be understood whether their unequivocal support to the strike actually helped the old unions to lift their image or conversely lower their own images before the eyes of struggling workers.
RED STAR says in its editorial "...these very trade union centres and unions affiliated to them (that) have alienated the working class from struggle for years..." and their parent parties "try to implement neo-liberal and all kinds of anti-worker policies, when in government in centre or the states." Essentially right. But how it could visualize the presence of "the pressure of the masses of workers" that is said to have compelled these very unions to call for a general strike. This is the logic that is common to most of communist revolutionary organization, behind their stand of supporting the 2nd September strike. But the question is pressure of what? It is true that workers are being terribly cornered and oppressed by the unbridled onslaught of the capitalists be it in UPA or NDA government, since the introduction of NEP in 1991, Are we to believe that simple presence of strong but helpless resentment of workers over their unbearable suffering is compelling the old unions to call for action, like one day nationwide strike? Had it been so, the unions would not have "alienate(d) the working class from struggle over the years". Is it that RED STAR suggests 'pressure' as pressure of spontaneity of struggle from below? But is it possible for those who are in touch with this ground reality, to vouch for the presence of spontaneity of struggle among working class in general. If one does not ignore the fact that working class is yet to come out ( it has started but very slowly and that too by the workers themselves) of the deep shock impact of the defeat of the first offensive of world socialist movement and of the betrayal of old leaders and that there has been long absence of working class's own party, he would not have any difficulty to understand how the basic spontaneity of struggle is at the moment subdued or in other words, enchained by the above deterrent factors. In fact, there is a compelling 'pressure' but this is different and it is from within the leaders. RED STAR says, " Central unions have now been compelled ...". Compulsion, as it appears has been shown in positive light i.e., it would help developing workers struggle, so to say, class struggle as a whole. Otherwise they would not have possibly supported the one day strike, even to the extent of giving call to workers to make the strike success. We are afraid, how, in that event they can explain and qualify repetitive nature of several one day All India general strike in the span of last 20-25 years. Do they actually think that the so called success of 2nd September strike will arouse and embolden the workers to fight against capitalist attack in their respective plants or on the other hand force the ruling classes and its government to restrain even by an inch in their unbridled attack on the working class and the people? Past experience gives the answer. At most, these should however, be another one-day All India strike obviously by central unions but for that we may have to wait for next two to three years, if in any way the situation does not change otherwise. In short, their (unions) compulsion has nothing to do with development of class struggle. It is really unfortunate that CPI (ML) of Red Star, but why only Red Star, almost all the communist revolutionary organisations have to look out for compulsion theory so as to justify their support to old unions led one-day All India strike on 2nd September. But if they could have made objective assessment of the present situation it would then be possible for them to find out that the central unions do have compulsion to bring in programmes like All India strikes only to protect their own space to operate and stop being turned cipher with respect to both Government and the working class. No denying that workers are moving away from these unions.
Same or similar logic is there in a joint statement issued by four unions viz., TUCI, NTUI, IFTU, AICCTU, in support of 2nd September general strike. We know three unions (barring NTUI) are associated with one or other communist revolutionary groups. At the first instance, it will be interesting to note that two and half page of the three page statement deals with the elaborate description of anti-people, anti-worker policies and steps that are being adopted and pursued by BJP led Government at the centre. Most striking is however that there has been not a single criticism or exposure of central unions. Again, the said statement allowed only one single paragraph at the end whereby they called upon workers to join the All India strike called by 11 central unions. Supposedly, in the said paragraph they have touched upon their reasoning behind their support to the strike. Really speaking, it would be difficult for anyone to ascertain primarily as to whether the statement is from unions attached to revolutionary organsiations or it is from reformist betrayer unions.
It has been stated by the four unions that they "always responded to every joint-call in the interest of working class unity" ( bold letter ours) And hence they were for 2nd September strike. Undoubtedly a great confusion and departure from Marxism or so as to say, from proletarian policies. What unity they are talking about? Definitely, it is not that unity that workers are forging by themselves and from below. Here on this occasion of strike there can be so-called unity of workers through the unity of only parties of unions from above. Virtually, is it not the fact, irrespective of whether they agree or not, that by calling the workers under their influence, to join the strike in the name of unity of 'working' class, the four union combination `did actually go for unsaid joint action, i.e., join the bandwagon of CITU led unions! Is it permissible for at least those who are supposed to uphold the banner of revolutionary politics? Moreover, the unity they are talking about is working class unity. How can they visualize class unity in the present condition? We all know the left parties (no question about bourgeois political parties like the Congress) did never organize the working class as a class even in their heydays. They were never for working class leadership. In fact they brought down the workers in the same rank of other section of toiling people and used their militant struggle for parliamentary gain. And now they are totally degenerated. So now, talking about working class unity with respect to unity with these unions is not only confusing but also goes against the interest of working class.
The four unions' statement, while referring to the recent strikes in coal industry, further states that the one-day strike will contribute to this resistance. Do they sincerely believe what they said? In fact it is the general experience that the series of one-day strike had in no way been connected with plant level or even industry level struggle. It virtually runs parallel. To be precise, one-day strike may at best be connected to intensified attack on the workers but it is not dictated by the urge of uniting and elevating plant level real resistance struggle. Nor it enthuses the workers below to escalate their struggle in new areas, plant level or industry wise. Actually speaking , it is the planning rather conspiracy of the old established union to give a call from the top for one day ( note, it is never even two days) general strike to shirk their responsibility to organize plant level resistance struggle, better to say to hide their role of betrayal in real struggle of workers in the factories. Is it not that communist revolutionary groups and/or unions under their leadership are to face stiff opposition from the old unions in the plant level struggles? Can they deny it? Unfortunately, it appears that they have decided not only to support the strike but also to act as a sponsor for some other reason or compulsions, might be it is to come into relevance in the all India plane and/or to come out of long isolation. If it is so, they are to ponder whether by doing it proletarian independence is eventually sacrificed.
There is also another trend of thought, amongst communist revolutionary organizations, although not essentially different from others. It probably like that : central unions have called the strike under compulsion and we are to take advantage of it to further workers' struggle. They have been found to not only support the strike, they also took an active role to organize the strike in one area of their presence. Elsewhere, they issued leaflets in the name of few unions, asking the workers in general to join TU strike. Hence, in regard to open stand there is no difference with others, such as the above-mentioned four union combination. However, it is not clear how and in what way the advantage can be taken. One Hindi journal, 'Mehanatkash', run by one communist revolutionary groups, said after the strike that workers had more spontaneity this time for the strike. We are not sure if it is meant to be localized or partial phenomenon or applicable to whole of the country. Secondly, it is difficult to be quantified. Did they find from their practical experience increase in spontaneity among workers for plant level struggle also? Anyway, even if we accept their assessment that the workers showed more spontaneity in this 2nd September one-day strike, but saying so what they actually meant? Is it that the spontaneous participation of more workers would actually turn the usually routine imbecile strike of the unions to workers' strike thereby demonstrating that very workers power so as to be reckoned by the ruling classes and the Government. If it could be so, they would have been fully justified to parallely organize the strike. We can recall one Greek worker declaring " They call the strike and we organize it". But it was in the period of upheaval of workers and people in some European countries, like Spain, Greece, etc against austerity drive in 2011-12. The situation in India bears not even any resemblance to that of those countries ? communist revolutionaries cannot perhaps disagree. 'Mehanatkash' of course suggests that it is upon this spontaneity of workers as seen during the 2nd September strike, plant level independent ( i.e., barring old unions) struggles can and have to be developed and spread which in turn be united to give birth to one 'Mahasangha'. Nothing to refute. And then where is the necessity to call upon workers in general to make the strike successful which would only provide extra leverage for the central old unions to further deceive the fighting workers?
Lastly, in the midst of leaflets, journals, statements of several communist revolutionary organizations in support of one day strike of 2nd sept, we find one particular address or statement by one organization named IFTU(Sarvahara) which as it appears did not support the strike. They have rightly raised the cardinal question , "Is this call for a "one day strike" is, in genuineness a call for a struggle?" They further stated that "this tokenism (of one day strike ?FAPP) is but an escape route to run away from the working class struggles and ...". The statement contains scathing criticism of old central unions and for that it referred to the coal strike called by these unions for five days ( 6-10 January, 2015) which was called off after two days, with the unions virtually 'fleeing from battle'. While highlighting the necessity to build up real resistance struggle of working class against anti-worker steps being taken in the guise of labour law amendments by the Modi's Government, IFTU (Sarvahara) also touched upon the question of getting away from the quagmire of the central trade unions and the ways to get out of it.
IFTU(Sarvahara)'s stand taken on the 2nd September strike is of course interesting in the backdrop of almost all CR organisations and their unions giving unequivocal support to strike call by central unions. While we desire to deal with the statement in all perspectives in coming days, we may in the meantime, get some points clarified. In fact they have qualified one-day strike in general as the 'flag march' of the detachment of workers, clarifying further that it is a warning only. Class conscious proletariats know well that strike is a form of their struggle as demonstration is. Workers adopt either of the form or even both depending on the concrete condition. It is true that one-day strike has limited objective but it may someway strike or put pressure upon the individual capitalist or the capitalist class and its government, here also depending on specific condition, particularly the condition of spontaneity amongst workers. One historical instance can be recalled here in this connection. The Left parties in West Bengal called for one-day general strike on 10th March, 1966. Such was the spontaneity below, the strike got militant, several casualties were there in police firing and most importantly the strike spontaneously continued for two days more warranting military flag march in Kolkata and other towns. That very historical struggle was betrayed by the parties is of course a different matter. IFTU(Sarvahara) is to think again whether it would be correct to qualify one-day strike as only flag march ( note : Flag march is not a military action). We are to further note a true nationwide strike of working class in a big country like ours with so many diversities within is not a simple matter and it has to be preceded by series of struggle below. And then the one day strike does not only act as caution but acts as prelude to bigger strike. Anyway, a thoroughgoing discussion is needed on this subject also, following the teachings of Engels and Lenin.
The above address /statement ended with a sentence "let us participate in the 2nd September...". Should it not be appropriate to say 'Let us not oppose....', that would have been commensurate with the whole of the context explained in the statement.
Comments:
No Comments for View