The Politics of 'Left Revival'
There has been a recent spurt in the use of words like 'Alternative Left', 'true Left', 'Left Revival' etc., in the writings of a number of Communist Revolutionary groups in their respective political journal sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly. It appears that these words and the theme thereof are coming to the fore in the backdrop of expressed debacle of old traditional left parties like CPI, CPI (M) and others in last Loksabha election and more importantly the almost total rout of the aforesaid left parties in the last state election of West Bengal, thereby ending their 34 years stint in governmental power in the state. It is rather assumed that they are eager to fill the void created by these old left parties and thereby to woo the petty bourgeoisie intelligentsia, both old and new, who have a left leaning but disillusioned with the traditional left parties, by way of projecting themselves as holders of the left flag dropped by the old parties. Actually when they talk of alternative left, true left etc., it sounds like Left is needed, not of an old type but of a new type. Better for them to exclaim, 'Left is dead, long live the Left'!
We have already examined the above subject, although briefly, in an article named, 'Ganamancha- Another Futile Attempt of Communist Revolutionaries' in the last issue of this journal. Present one is for elaboration with the intent to demonstrate that what is needed is the politics of revolutionary proletariat and particularly that of hegemony of the working class. We must not miss the focus.
Alternative Left is however, not a new slogan. Call of Left Alternative was given long back in mid-eighties of the last century, by an organisation which goes by the name of CPI(ML)- Liberation. We subsequently saw how in the long process the slogan of Left alternative descended to Left & Democratic Unity whereby CPI (ML)-Liberation is now in a joint front with the old Left parties, i.e., CPI, CPI (M) etc. It is really curious to note that they found it expedient to go into alliance with the old Left parties at a time, when the latter stand totally degenerated and rejected by the masses. Before getting into the subject of the present discussion, we have simply referred to above experience with the hope that this may act as firsthand lesson to other CR groups who seem to still nurture a liking to the word 'Left' and vouch for 'alternative left', or 'true left'. Above all, a word is simply not a word; it embodies a specific brand of politics. The question is, are we to revive that politics?
But primarily, the intriguing question is which period of Left politics is to be revived? No answer is there from these CR groups. No doubt, the talking about of Left, so to say 'Left Alternative', is too general & vague. As however, voices for revival of Left are being heard louder in the wake of the degeneration of the old Left parties like CPI, CPI (M) etc. it can logically be assumed that these groups are seeking to revive that very Left which was there prior to the degeneration of the Left parties. May be according to them, the Left parties, which in the earlier period could draw large section of the toiling masses in the struggle, has been left entirely abandoned by the parties and hence a vacuum. And it has to be filled up.
Still there remains a question. Acknowledging the fact that degeneration is a process, question is at what point of time or period, the old parties stood degenerated, or in other words, when they finally ceased to be 'Left'? Where lay the dividing line? Corollary question: what is, in specific, the true Left politics whose revival is presumably sought for? They have not defined. At least, we have not heard anything.
It is generally acknowledged that the Left movement in our country has its peak in sixties of the last century, based on militant struggles of the workers and the masses under the leadership of CPI (M) in the main. Supposedly, Left politics at that time used to be considered as revolutionary politics. Since, in particular, Communist Party in India had its continuity in CPI (M) formed after split in erstwhile communist party CPI. Therefore, it would not be probably wrong to assume that when the CR groups are talking about 'true Left', 'revival of Left' etc, they do actually refer to that Left as of mid-sixties.
Let us further clarify. It is all known to us that it was only after participation of Left parties in government under bourgeoisie constitution in West Bengal & other two states, & particularly after the killing of thirteen peasants in Naxalbari struggle, & presumably the vacillating attitude towards workers' struggles, the dissident revolutionary section within CPI (M) revolted and subsequently majority of them formed a new party, CPI (ML) upholding the banner of revolution, while others remained as groups/organisation (Marxist Leninist) with separate identity. Hence, for the present Communist Revolutionary groups (with few exceptions), which are break-aways from the CPI (ML) & other M-L groups, CPI (M) of pre-1967 & post-1967 cannot be the same. It follows logically that for them, CPI (M) cannot be called 'true Left' either way, i.e., in both the periods of pre & post 1967, provided however, they do not suggest that formation of CPI (ML) was premature. Anyway, it comes that the year 1967 was for them, the aforesaid dividing line. To be specific, the Communist Revolutionary organisations vying for being 'true Left' with the slogan of 'Left Revival' want to attain that very 'Left' as it was in the CPI (M) prior to 1967. Really speaking, it couldn't be otherwise as they have not come up with any other re-definition of Leftism, i.e., Left Politics.
Now the question is how was the CPI (M) prior to 1967, i.e., before the dividing line as said above. The question needs serious discussion for our proper understanding. We shall be doing it later on in the present article. Meanwhile, we just urge upon the CR groups to ponder over two things. Firstly, had CPI (M) followed revolutionary politics, there would have been no revolt in the party & the necessity of formation of CPI (ML) would not arise. Decision for participation in government had its root in the very programme and politics that CPI (M) followed since its inception in 1964. Can it be that the party suddenly turned revisionist-reformist? Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that CPI (ML) got swayed by Left-Adventurist line & tactical blunders, they did uphold the revolutionary banner, but never called themselves as 'New Left', 'True Left', or such others.
What 'Left' really means in Marxist movement?
We find from the history of world communist movement that the term 'Left' had occasionally been used to attribute or denote radical/revolutionary trends within the Socialist/Social-Democratic Parties. It had also been used to denote extremism, so to say, the adventurist trend within the working class struggle and/or communist movement in general. For instance, Lenin termed Serrati & his followers as 'Left' with respect to the collaborationist line of Turrati in the Italian Socialist Party. The radical wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in Russia used to be called as 'Left SR'. We all know, Bolshevik Party in the phase of Democratic Revolution made alliance with this section forming a bloc & obviously not with the whole of the Party. In fact, there are many such instances in the history of the communist movement. One such relevant example from our country: the faction opposing the revisionist politics of CPI was initially called & projected as Left-CPI. Of course, it was for a very brief period. Very soon CPI split & the left faction consolidated itself in a new party in the name of CPI (M). However, from such instances, it comes out that the term 'Left' is attributed to a trend/bloc etc, as a part within the whole ? and obviously, the term is not supposed to cover the whole, although the part can develop to whole ? either by transforming the whole itself, or by having a separate identity in entirety ? through internal struggles. Further, we are to understand that when in politics one is left, it must be with respect to something opposite, i.e., the right. Of course, the term 'Left' has been used to even denote adventurist deviations, but even then it is with respect to a position which is correct. Hence the question, CPI (M) as a whole, after the split of CPI, is 'Left' against what?
Here lies an interesting point. If CPI (M) is 'left' of CPI & it is called a Left Party, then CPI cannot be called 'Left' at the same time. But what we get from experience, both of past & of present? In State election in the year 1967, two separate 'fronts' were formed to fight out the common enemy Congress. One was led by CPI (M), comprising other parties like RSP-Forward Block etc, & it was named 'United Left Front (ULF)'. The other was virtually led by CPI & it was called as 'People's United Left Front (PULF)'. Note, both claimed to be 'Left'. It was not all. Both the fronts joined together to form government in the state after the election. And again, within a year or so, after the said government got dismissed by President's rule, the two fronts merged into one & called themselves as 'United Front (UF)' in order to fight Congress effectively in 1969 election. Finally UF developed into straightway Left Front which consisted of CPI (M)-CPI-RSP-Forward Block as main constituents. This event shows that all the parties in the Left Front were mutually considered and accepted as Left Party. Now to be precise, CPI having been included in the category of 'Left' in its entirety and in the same bracket with CPI (M), what brand (nature) of politics CPI (M)'s leftism & at the same time the 'left' in its entirety, did represent? Was it not, even in its peak period of mid-sixties, based on pro-people & pro-struggle anti-Congressism (against party of the ruling classes) in general? We don't know, whether the CR organisations aspiring to be 'true Left' have a different understanding of 'Left' politics. Do they consider that this 'Left' politics as synonymous to revolutionary proletarian politics? Anyway, it is for them to clarify. But they should remember two cogent points. It is the very compulsion of formation of government and on the other hand, agitation of the masses that the parties aroused, aiming at overthrowing Congress from the State Government that brought CPI & CPI (M) together. Secondly, participation in a bourgeoisie government was not accidental. It was nothing but a continuation of politics pursued in previous years. Politics of mass struggle directed against Congress, the party of the bourgeoisie, projecting it as the enemy & root cause of the sufferings of the people & obviously not directed against the bourgeoisie class.
Looking at the past we'll see 'Leftist Party', 'Party of the Left' ? this sort of terminology came to exist all over the world after the 2nd World War, particularly in the underdeveloped countries. The Parties like CPI in our country, affiliated to 3rd International used to be known as Communist Party. CPI was then never referred to, or addressed as Left Party. Thanks to the cunningness of Indian bourgeoisie class in power, sometimes from early fifties, the then communist parties (CPI) was getting recognised by the ruling system, ostensibly taking into cognizance the shift in the party line from so-called left-adventurist line of late forties. Precisely speaking, in the era of peaceful development of capitalism, particularly in the newly independent countries like India in the post-2nd World War situation, & in the backdrop of moribund capitalism being infused with new vigour of the like riding on Keynesian economics & on the policies of 'Welfare State', cunning attempt was made by Indian ruling classes to draw the communist party/parties & other socialist parties like RSP-Forward Block etc into the vortex of parliamentary activities and thereby converting them as the party of opposition in parliamentary fora. History has proven that they were successful; however thanks to the politics of 'peaceful co-existence', it prevailed over the Communist Party of India (CPI) by the influence of Soviet line in World Socialist Movement, i.e., the line of replacing the communist principles of revolutionary war, civil war, by the slogan and politics of COLD-WAR between capitalist-imperialist block & socialist block under USSR. It can be said that over this period, bourgeoisie parties & the bourgeoisie media in the main, started addressing/branding the communist parties as Left. During & after split in CPI, CPI (M) fought the Soviet line projecting itself as a revolutionary party before the toiling masses. But the new party did not take up the cardinal task of organising working class as a class, which was being ignored by CPI. We have already seen how both the CPI & CPI (M) eventually got into the same category, i.e., of 'Left' & how that had stabilized itself in the form of Left Front.
Meanwhile, some words on the term 'Alternative Left'. The word verily suggests, as we noted earlier in the discussion, that old traditional left parties have degenerated, but the politics of 'Left' is not lost & it is to be revived. The word further signifies that new 'Left' party shall have to emerge, upholding 'Left' politics as the alternative to old traditional left parties. The organisations which speak & strive for 'alternative left' or 'true left' ("true" being essentially nothing but "alternative") call themselves Communist Revolutionary. Now we know, 'foot' can be compared to, so to say, be alternative to 'metre' or 'centimetre' in measuring length. But how 'foot' can be the alternative to 'pound', which is used in the measurement of weight? And, hence, how can the proletarian revolutionary politics be treated as alternative to reformism-opportunism ? essentially the bourgeoisie politics, both being antagonistic in relation to one another. One has to develop by defeating the other. Anyway, this is a side issue; let us keep it aside and get into the core issue.
Let us assume for the time being that Communist Revolutionary groups or organisations aspiring to be 'Real Left', or 'Alternative Left', do actually mean it is 'Revolutionary Left'. Even if we go by our assumption, one can ask what makes them to inherit the term 'Left', while one is aware of the genesis of 'Left' nomenclature? We have seen earlier, how policies of 'Left' earned a distinct status in post-2nd World War situation. Both the revisionist-reformist and the Marxist revolutionaries used to be put into the same bracket as 'Left'. It was, perhaps, a deliberate move by the bourgeoisie press/media & bourgeoisie parties. They might have their own reason to do this, but why the Communist revolutionaries should get into the trap? Actually both claiming to be 'Left', it would be sheer confusion for the masses in differentiating between the two, particularly at the present post-defeat condition when in the absence of working class and the people are under dominant influence of parliamentarism.
Even if it is meant 'revolutionary', the very presence of the word 'Left' irrespective of insertion of any prefix like 'alternative', or 'real' & irrespective of what is meant by the communists, would eventually lead the left masses, particularly their advanced sections to treat it as another variety of 'Left' and nothing more, to be precise, as another variety of traditional left parties. For Communist Revolutionaries competing to prove oneself 'true Left' is not only useless, but also harmful for revolutionary cause.
It is needless to mention that the above elaboration we made is only on the assumption that 'true left' is being seen as 'revolutionary left' by the concerned Communist Revolutionary organisations. But unfortunately, fact speaks otherwise. There is, in fact, nothing to deduce from the practical politics and activities of CR organisations (be it a Group or self-proclaimed Party) and also from their ideological position, that the very 'Left' they are talking about is revolutionary 'Left', rather it would be evident that their 'alternative (or, true) left' is really 'alternative left', or in other words, revival and following the policies of old 'left' of say, sixties of the last century, vis-a-vis the present, degenerated 'left'. We have stated earlier that they have not yet given a specific definition of so-called 'left' politics
How were the old 'Left' parties like CPI-CPI (M)-RSP etc? What had been the essence, or to put it correctly, what had been the class basis of the 'Left' politics of older days that is supposed to be warranting its revival after 50 yrs?
As CPI (M) held the continuity of Communist Party after having departed from revisionist CPI, let us take their case first. In their very Programme adopted in Party Congress and which acted as basis of the Party, there was a provision (Clause No 112) allowing participation in bourgeoisie government through parliamentary election. Mind it, it was not about participation in bourgeoisie revolutionary government, it was simply formation of a government under the bourgeoisie constitution. It is true that this provision in the Programme did not get exposure at that time, i.e., from 1964-67 & the rank and file of the Party and obviously the advanced fighting workers were not perhaps aware of this point. But no doubt, subsequent conversion of CPI (M) into a full-fledged parliamentary party had its root in this very provision of Clause 112 of their Programme. Although CPI (M), standing on the then militant struggles of the workers-peasants, could initially pose themselves as revolutionary communists in an apparent fight against the revisionist line of CPI, they actually started their journey with a cardinal deviation which very soon manifested in the forming of government, that too with CPI, in West Bengal in 1967. The agenda of revolution was practically relegated to back seat, betraying the then growing revolutionary spirit of the masses. Most importantly, although the question of working class leadership was in the Programme, but it remained overshadowed by the above & other provisions, & eventually the task of preparing & organising working class as class remained ignored. It would be really difficult for the present communists to conceive the intensity and extent of workers-peasant struggle that was there in the period of late fifties & sixties of the last century. And the fact is that Left parties, separately and/or jointly, organised & led those struggles. As we already stated, it was the period when the Left movement was at its peak. Ostensibly, today's Communist Revolutionaries who are talking about 'true Left'/'alternative Left', obviously in contrast to degenerated old 'Left' are trying to take up or emulate the struggling role that the 'Left' parties apparently had during that period. Really speaking, when at one end, the present-day communist organisations find it an uphill task, even with joint effort, to organise a mass rally of even five hundred or a thousand, the perception of mass mobilisation in tens of thousands in militant struggles of those days, on the other, can in the face of it, but be in their minds in a big way. But it seems that they acknowledge or see the role of 'Left' parties only by considering the struggles they led, whereas the other side, i.e., their simultaneous role of compromise and betrayal to those militant struggles of workers & peasants is lost sight of. One instance may be enough to understand their role of betrayal in regard to revolutionary class struggle. It was in 1966. Rashtriya Sangram Samity, a joint mass organisation under the leadership of 'Left' parties in West Bengal, called for one day general strike (Hartal, as used to be called) on 10th of March. Hartal was continued for the next day, i.e., on 11th March, over the head of the leaders spontaneously by the people themselves. The whole of the state remained totally paralysed. Not a single factory or office establishment worked. Shops, even cigarette vendors were shut down. Roads were literally empty ? no transport, no private car. Trains remained halted at places. Masses with red flag demonstrated at places. Obviously heavy police repression got into action and there were several casualties. Army flag march was conducted not only in capital, but also in district towns. Yet the strike continued on 12th March. Total scenario remained unchanged. Significantly, militant advanced workers of big factories took the lead. But on the other side, the party leadership looked bewildered & helpless & was literally clueless about what was going on & what to do. Obviously to bring down the great spontaneous movement of the masses and for diversion, the parties at last appeared on the stage, and gave a call to observe 19th March as 'a Day of Mourning' through a rally in the capital. When conscious revolutionary leadership was needed to provide further programmes to elevate the great spontaneous upheaval of the masses to develop & spread revolutionary class struggle, the 'Left' parties virtually acted contrary to it. Dedicated party cadres and the militant workers who fought gallantly against police repression during three days of strike responded to the call of 'Day of Mourning' as party loyalist, without however, realising what a great betrayal got silently enacted behind their back.
Even from the very magnitude of the 'Mourning Day' rally, one can further get an idea how deep & widespread was the agitation of the workers & peasants at that time. The rally was to start from a park in Central Calcutta and to end in a five point crossing in the northern range of the city ? a stretch of 4-5 kilometres. When the front end of the rally reached its destination, the trail was still in the park. The whole stretch was jammed with people covering the whole width of the road. About half a million people rallied. This account is not simply from historical record. This is from the man ? author of this article itself ? who along with other comrades was present in the rally, however as a local organiser.
And there is no doubt, the great Food Movement of 1966 had largely helped the Left parties to defeat Congress and form government in the state of West Bengal in the next election of 1967. Or, in other words, 'Left' parties encashed the Food Movement in particular and also the militant trade union struggles of the earlier period, in the Assembly election of 1967. Growing class struggle in fields & factories and in the streets was made to converge to electoral struggle. This was obviously the beginning of the process which inevitably & finally transformed CPI (M) and other 'Left' parties into parliamentary party.
The process was however, not simple and straight. People considered defeat of Congress & formation of UF government in West Bengal as their victory. Workers & peasants were still then in struggling mood. They felt emboldened to intensify their struggle with "their" parties in the government, without however being conscious of the contradiction between the constitutional government and the party/parties in the government. Actually the 'Left' parties were in a fix at least for the time, post-1967. They ascended to the governmental power standing on the struggles of the workers & peasants & other sections of the toiling people. But on the other hand, running a government would require them to abide by the law of the land, i.e., they are to act as party of the law and order that serves the interest of the ruling classes, as opposed to working class & the people. Actually, it was not possible for them like the Congress regime to oppose & confront the struggle of the people, especially those of the workers, that had picked up after UF govt came in to the power. But with the compulsion & commitment to running of the government, the parties could not but reconcile to the interest of the ruling classes. This contradiction actually led them to use force, as in Naxalbari and against workers in some places. They took recourse to diffuse the spontaneous struggle of the workers & peasants with the help of their the then organisational authority in general, virtually leaving the fighting workers in an extremely difficult & defensive situation in the face of capitalist counter attack. Hundreds of factories were put into long drawn lock-out. Govt remained a silent spectator. But even the balancing act of the parties failed to save their government. As we all know, the government was dismissed through constitutional provision of article 356, just after 9 months of its formation. The 'Left' parties got the message. They were to move further to the right, to further betrayal of people's movement. It was their time for summing up of the experience of the govt.
Again in regard to aforesaid process of their transformation, the year 1968, i.e., the period of President's Rule in the state had been really crucial. To be precise, the 'Left' parties under the leadership of CPI (M), were to decide whether to go back to their struggling role, whatever it was, of earlier period prior to 1967 election or to move away from struggle and to prepare & re-orient the masses for the next election. They chose the latter one. Whereas on the other hand, the working class in particular, who were then under severe onslaught of the capitalists by way of lock-out and massive retrenchment, although got upset by the shock of dismissal of UF government, but were still then in a mood to fight back. As the 'Left' parties had already set their eyes to the next election, especially after taking the message from the fate of 1967 govt, they betrayed the struggling mood of the workers. In fact, they resorted to solve the abovementioned contradictions by moving further to the right.
Let us refer to an instance. Engineering workers numbering about two & a half lakhs were then the most active, most fighting and leading contingent of workers. In early-1968, i.e., during President's rule, they were to go for a continuous strike (note, it was not a one-day strike). There was tremendous enthusiasm among the workers. They were truly prepared for the strike. Workers made a preparatory rally of about 30 thousands in the capital. But the strike was withdrawn just one day before it was to start. What transpired instead, was a formal one-day state-wide industrial strike some times after. Significantly, the representative of one organisation opposed the move, but next morning he had to concede on mandate from the party to which he used to belong. It was, no doubt, a great betrayal, as, had the strike taken place, the overall situation presumably would have changed. It virtually dampened the morale of wide range of workers in Jute-Textile-Cotton& Tea garden, who were getting prepared to go for strike, obviously to resist the counter-attack.
In the prevailing condition, the 'Left' parties with CPI (M) in lead, were largely successful in their campaign among the masses for linking latter's agitation and anguish against capitalist onslaught with the task of necessary preparation for winning the next election, & in arousing the masses with the sentiment of giving a befitting reply in the ensuing state assembly election, to the then Congress govt at the centre which overthrew the state govt. Summing up, the parliamentary trend within CPI (M) & other 'Left' parties which remained dormant during the period of great 'Food Movement' and around, started getting explicitly clear after the experience of fall of UF govt of 967. The process of transformation to a full fledged parliamentary party got further strengthened during and after second UF govt when the parties had to go through similar experience as that of the previous one.
In an apology, we had to deal, in some details, the experience of West Bengal in regard to CPI (M) and other 'Left' parties, as the 'Left' movement in West Bengal was at its helm with respect to other states, and the course through which CPI (M) passed in this State actually influenced & shaped all India politics & practical politics of the whole of CPI (M) in subsequent years, notwithstanding the fact that there arose some difference within the Party in the latter days when the State Unit got entrenched in Govt-oriented politics. Speaking other way, degeneration of CPI (M) can be better tracked from the history of its State Unit.
Further, we focussed on some important events of 1960s only to show how the growing movement of the workers & peasants under the leadership of the 'Left' parties was skilfully betrayed by the parties themselves and was eventually used by them for their electoral gain. Most importantly, the above elaboration was made only to impress upon those Communist Revolutionary organisations vying for 'Left Revival', apparently projecting themselves as 'real Left'/'true Left', that if they emulate the struggling role of CPI (M) of '60s decade, they are to simultaneously emulate their role of betrayal.
'Left' politics is essentially parliamentary politics ? in conclusion
Should there be any confusion about it? It is to be emphatically stated that having any such confusion would not only be harmful, but also dangerous for class-conscious proletariat. It would, in fact, act as deterrent for them to fight out the prevalent strong & almost unilateral influence of reformism & parliamentary politics over the working class in general and thereby to prepare & organise the advanced fighting workers as an advanced detachment of proletariat, in its historical mission to organise the working class as a class for class struggle in the days to come. In a word, it is not permissible for today's communists having slightest confusion regarding the class nature of the 'Left' politics in its entirety.
Finally ...
This article is to be viewed in the backdrop of a vulnerable situation we are passing through. It is becoming extremely difficult for the revolutionary proletariat to remain firm on class line ? politically & ideologically ? and to have its firm grip on the flag of revolutionary class struggle. Since the defeat of the 1st offensive of world socialist movement, the working class in our country, as elsewhere in the world is yet to turn around from the retreat. Without its vanguards being united & organised, working class is still in disarrayed condition, & is therefore kept open to the aggressive influence of bourgeoisie ideology in the shape of reformism. And unfortunately, this is in turn acting upon the vanguards, or so to say, upon the vanguards in making. In concrete terms, there is at present no party of working class and the communists (broadly categorising) are disintegrated in several groups and/or self-proclaimed 'parties'. Honestly admitting, these organisations with their separate existence are largely isolated from the working class, i.e., the leading class of the society on which communists are supposed to be based. It is same in the case of masses also.
It seems that the communist revolutionary organisations are driven by the main concern or motivation for coming out of isolation. It is of course, a big question whether simply this motivation or urge for countering isolation, i.e., for drawing the masses within one's organisational fold can at all be the guiding principle for the communists in their line of activities, or on the contrary, it would be the fundamental principle and/or task of organising workers on class line and preparing the working class for class struggle, irrespective of whatever be the level of isolation from the masses at any point of time, of course, without diluting in any way the principles of Marxism-Leninism. However, keeping the big question aside for the time being, let us see what the communist revolutionaries are actually doing for addressing the problems of mass isolation.
Firstly, it appears that they refuse to acknowledge that isolation from the masses is at this moment inevitable, and there cannot be any shortcut to end this. It appears from their conduct they fail to recognise genuinely the gravity of the impact of the defeat & the party-less condition of the working class. They also seem to forget that they are in Groups, not in a Party. And hence, in this circumstances, any urge to building mass movement will be eventually heading to formation of joint front or platform of like-minded Groups from above, who are however, guided by their own convenience. This cannot & does not generate mass movement. Isolation inevitably continues. In the name of mass movement, what actually happens is the caricature of great mass movement of 1960's. It would be painfully true that any attempt by today's CR groups, individually or jointly, to apply the model of 'Left' movement of '60s, by being 'real Left', in the absolutely different condition of today, shall not only be ridiculously fruitless, but will in the main act as a severe deterrent to the real task of the day, the task of preparing the advanced detachment of class conscious proletariat and uniting & organising them in a party. Actually, the objective of being 'real Left' as alternative to the present 'Left' parties sufficiently indicates that the concerned CR groups are akin to competing the old "Left' in latter's field, i.e., with the same weapon as those of the old 'Left' and on which the latter have better control and expertise.
We must not forget that, after breaking away from the revisionist line of the CPI, new party CPI (M) was born. It held out the revolutionary banner. It had the respect of the communist party from fighting workers-peasants & the middle class. Party leadership, perhaps, didn't have then the idea that the party would eventually one day be converted to a full-fledged parliamentary party. Yet it happened. As already said, it was not accidental. Seeds of future were there in the-then present. In fact, we are to understand that mere intention or declaration is not all. Main thing is what you are actually doing in relation to class struggle, whether you are following the politics of class struggle, or not; and for that, whether you are preparing and organising working class so as to be able to lead the peasants & other sections of the toiling masses for the revolution to come, or not. As already stated, CPI (M) ignored this cardinal task since its birth. And consequently, they (and also all other 'Left' parties) were inclined to develop general mass movement (where workers are treated as in the same category with other sections of the masses, including the middle class). Secondly, and most importantly, be it the mass movement, or the militant trade union struggle in the factories, Congress as the ruling bourgeoisie party used to be projected as the main & ultimate enemy ? a consequential fall-out of the absence of the politics of class struggle. The question is, aren't the present CR groups in general, doing the same thing ? only it is BJP at present in place of Congress? Aren't they following willy-nilly the footprints of old 'Left' parties that finally led them to the present state of degeneration where in the name of serving people, they are actually engaged in competing bourgeoisie parties in maintaining the present bourgeoisie constitutional system? How the people's interest could be served has been amply demonstrated during 34 years' rule in the State of West Bengal! Meanwhile, we again make it clear that we dealt in bit details the process of transformation of 'Left' parties so that we, the present Communists, can take proper lesson out of it.
These are to be pondered over, at least by those Groups which seem to be serious in working amongst workers. We must keep in mind that we are passing through a vulnerable situation where holding out revolutionary class position is extremely difficult. As already stated, mass of people including the workers are entrenched in parliamentary politics. Any attempt by the CR groups to win over the masses as they are, whether by 'creating' mass movement from above and/or by indiscriminately putting as much candidate in the parliamentary election (obviously forgetting about the Leninist tactics of participation in bourgeoisie election) or such other means would eventually bring them down to the level of masses and would further strengthen the right wing trend amongst them. This is alarming, as this is now not only a possibility. We are actually witnessing such things in real life. It is not unknown to us how a Communist Revolutionary organisation first raised the slogan of 'alternative Left' in mid-1980s and finally landed itself in a joint front/platform with the old 'Left'. As a matter of fact, right trend is generally being found to be increasing among CR groups, of course in varying degrees, as seen, for instance, in bad compromises in joint activities ? be it in case of mass movement, or in participation in parliamentary election. To summarise, aspiring for being 'true Left', 'real Left' etc would simply be embodying the right trend. It is really disturbing when it comes from apparently serious groups, working amongst workers. As already stated, they are to ponder over it. They must understand that the main cardinal question is not 'revival of Left politics', but the 'revival of the Communist Movement'.
Comments:
No Comments for View