ASSEMBLY ELECTION AND THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARIES
When they had originated from the erstwhile CPI ML in the seventies of last century, definitely one of the most important questions of departure of many communist revolutionary groups from the left adventurist line of CPI ML was the question of participation in the bourgeois elections. We all know that the erstwhile CPI ML followed the line of election boycott as part of their strategy, without analyzing the concrete situation of the condition of class struggle. Their stand was that the parliament is a pigsty, it is a screen, a mask, to hide the real rule of capitalists and landlords to protect and continue their unabated exploitation of toiling people, so the communists must boycott all parliamentary election whatever be the condition of class struggle.
There cannot be any doubt on this question that the parliament is indeed a pigsty. Lenin once famously said, "To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament--this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarianism, not only in parliamentary- constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics." (The State and Revolution, LCW Vol 25, pp 427-28, italics ours). The actual rule in a bourgeois republic is however carried out not by the parliament or the government elected from it but by the state, which is not elected, and which is a power though arisen from society, but has placed itself above the society by alienating more and more from it. The state in bourgeois republic, the bourgeois state, consists of bureaucracy, police military and judiciary performs the actual functions of the rule, behind the screen of parliament. This state is connected with the ruling bourgeoisie by innumerable invisible threads. The parliament is nothing but a talking shop, which actually hide the role of state and power of the bourgeoisie in that state. It gives the masses of workers and toiling people a false perception that the parliament and the government elected by it perform the actual functions of the governance, of the rule. Moreover, it keeps the masses of workers and toiling people confined within parliamentary arena. From this perception, the masses fruitlessly try to improve their conditions of life and resolve the day to day, basic problems just by changing governments. As the parliament does not alter, rather protect the basis on which the regime of exploitation and oppression continues and which is the cause of all of their basic problems like poverty, unemployment, lack of democracy etc, the change of governments within this bourgeois system of rule does not alter the conditions of life of vast masses. When the masses of toiling people remain confined with their unsuccessful efforts by changing governments, behind the curtain of parliament the real functions of oppressions are carried out by the bourgeois state, by the bureaucracy, by the police and military and by judiciary, in favour of the bourgeoisie. In this way, the parliamentary system fools the people and helps to continue the exploitation and oppression by the ruling classes. So, for their emancipation from exploitation and oppression, the working class and the toiling people must get rid of this exploitative rule and the rule of the bourgeoisie and landlords must be replaced by the democratic dictatorship of working class and peasantry. This is the path of revolution which cannot be achieved through parliament, rather for that the masses of workers and peasants must get rid of the illusion of parliament and parliament must be replaced by "a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time" like the Paris Commune.
However, the mistake of CPI ML or such organizations which follow the line of election boycott as a general line, without concrete analysis of concrete situation is that as long as the masses of toiling people, especially of working class do not get rid of the illusions of the parliament, the parliament cannot be dispensed with. Whereas the advanced section of working class can understand the role of parliament from the education of the revolutionary party and from the experience of class struggle itself, the masses of people are to be educated by the real experience of the parliament and of class struggle in general. As Lenin has taught us, "It is only as a member of the bourgeois parliament that one can, in the given historical conditions, wage a struggle against bourgeois society and parliamentarianism. The same weapon as the bourgeoisie employs in the struggle must also be used by the proletariat, of course, with entirely different aims." (Lenin, Speech on Parliamentarianism, Second Congress of The Communist International, LCW, Vol. 31, pp 253, italics ours). The real purpose of participation in bourgeois parliament has been clearly spelt out by Lenin. He said, "that this [the destruction of parliament ? Present author] is impossible without fairly long preparations, and that in most countries it is as yet impossible to destroy parliament at one stroke. We are obliged to carry on a struggle within parliament for the destruction of parliament." (Lenin, ibid, italics ours).
In these words of Lenin we can find the main essence of Leninist line on the question of participation in bourgeois parliament. On the one hand the line of election boycott as a general strategy is wrong because the adherents of this line fail to understand that it is "impossible to destroy parliament at one stroke", "without fairly long preparation" and it is for preparing masses for the destruction of parliament that communists must participate in parliaments. On the other hand, the main difference between the communist revolutionaries and the revisionists on the question of participation in bourgeois parliament and obviously in bourgeois elections, is, while the revisionists fool the workers and toiling people with the hope that with the help of the participation within parliamentary system the working masses will be able to improve their condition of living, the revolutionaries participate in the parliament to destroy it, to educate the masses about the necessity of preparation for the destruction of bourgeois parliament. Obviously, while participating in the bourgeois election, the communists must educate the masses about the real class character of the parliamentary system and educate them with the revolutionary teaching that the parliamentary system is nothing but a tool in the hands of the ruling bourgeoisie to fool them and the masses should prepare themselves for the destruction of the system, for the real emancipation from exploitation and oppression of the ruling classes, the big landlords and the big bourgeoisie, dependent on the imperialism.
Apparently, none of these discussions is new. So, why are we reiterating these old discussions? In fact, we find it necessary in view of the role taken by some communist revolutionary groups in the last assembly election of West Bengal. The manner in which these groups have participated and carried out their propaganda has raised serious question about their position, their stand on the question of participation in parliamentary election. We find necessary to review their stand so that we can learn from it and take necessary lessons. For our discussion we shall take help of two leaflets which we have with us, first of these being a joint leaflet from an alliance of five communist revolutionary groups namely CPI ML (Red Star), Majdoor Kranti Parishad (MKP), MCPI, CPI ML, and PCC CPI ML, which was also published in the SANGRAMI SANGBAD, the Bengali periodical of CPI ML (Red Star) and the second one has been one circulated by Bardhaman district committee of MKP in support of their candidate in Ausgram constituency.
We have already discussed that the primary task of a communist organization in a bourgeois parliamentary election is to unmask the class character of the parliament and the necessity of revolutionary transformation of society. However, surprisingly this most important aspect is completely absent in both the leaflets. Both the leaflets are full of criticisms of the main contending parties, namely, Trinamool Congress, CPI (M) led Left Front, Congress and BJP. It has been explained in the leaflets that by forming their government, none of the parties will be able to solve the problems of toiling people of the state. However, does that unmask the class character of the parliamentary system? Does that uphold the truth that no government in this bourgeois parliamentary system neither intends nor is capable of solving the basic fundamental problems of working class and other toiling people of society? Does this campaign imply that whoever forms the government in this present parliamentary system does not alter the fact that the real functions of rule is carried out by the bourgeois state as usual? Does it imply that all governments in the present parliamentary system only serve the ruling bourgeoisie and landlords? No, definitely not. The criticism of the bourgeois parties only tells that the government of these parties will not be able to solve the problems of the toiling people, but it does not explain that the parliamentary system as a whole works for the ruling classes, no government in this system can serve the people, can work for the toiling people. Rather, it may be logically deduced from these criticisms that if a pro-people party forms the government then the problems of people may be solved. So, rather than trying to free the working class or toiling people from the illusions they harbor about the parliamentary system, do not this type of propaganda actually increase illusions about the parliamentary system? Nowhere in both the leaflets the question of necessity of revolutionary change of society has been raised, notwithstanding the fact that the main difference between revisionist and revolutionaries on the question of participation in bourgeois parliament is that the revolutionaries participate in parliament to destroy the parliament whereas revisionists participate in parliament to maintain the illusion of bourgeois parliament over the people. Should an organization, which claims to be a communist organization, who claims to be working in the direction of revolutionary transformation of Indian society, campaign in this way in a parliamentary election?
Let us proceed. Both the leaflets have a list of demands. So, we logically thought that the organizations must have at least raised the question of necessity of revolutionary change of society and inability of parliament to achieve that change, through these demands. But, what are the demands the organizations have actually raised in the leaflets? In the joint leaflet, the list is long. It will be testing one?s patience to repeat all the demands of the list. However even a cursory glance to the list of demands makes it clear that the demands listed in the leaflet are basically reformist in nature because even if these demands are achieved the people will not be free from exploitation and oppression, the life of poverty, unemployment. There is not a single demand which can be termed as basic or fundamental demand, that is, a demand which strikes at the root of this system of exploitation and oppression from which the crores of poor, exploited and toiling people are suffering. The demands are such that even if the demands are achieved at the most their life will be somewhat better within the system. Why they have framed these demands in an election leaflet. It is definitely not a fact that a struggle is ongoing on these demands. Does it mean that if they are voted to the assembly, these demands will be fulfilled? Or, do they want to mean that the assembly elected from this election can fulfill these demands. It must be one of these two possibilities. Otherwise, these demands could not have been included in an election leaflet. Should the communists persuade the masses to believe that this assembly constituted within bourgeois framework will make their lives better? Actually, the bourgeois camp as a whole, including the reformist parties are making people believe that the assembly election will change their lives and they are making all sorts of promises which will never be fulfilled. Rather than making people understand that their basic demands can never be fulfilled within the system, the acts of the CR groups are strengthening the faith of people on the present parliamentary system. It is true that there are some demands in the said list which cannot be fulfilled within the present system. For instance, one of the demands is "work for all unemployed people". However, it has been accompanied by another demand that "if it is not possible to provide work then unemployment dole is to be given to all". Why has the second demand been framed. Does it not by itself negate the aforesaid fundamental demand?
It is not only true for this particular demand, but it is true for other demands as well. Had they not been driven by this thought, following demands would not have been framed: "public distribution for all", "full compensation to all investors (of Sarada and Rose Valley Chit fund)", "fair and remunerative price of crops", and so on. There are two problems of raising such demands. Firstly, in the condition of defeat of international proletarian movement, when the class struggle is at very low ebb for a long time, the ruling classes with able help from the revisionist parties have been successful to make the workers and peasants forget what their rightful due is. Rather than to demand the whole of their products of labour as their rightful due, the workers and peasants are satisfied with a few breadcrumbs thrown to them by the ruling classes. Should the communists try to extend the vision of the workers and peasants of their rightful due or should they tell them to remain satisfied with the breadcrumbs thrown by the ruling classes or at the most extend those to some extent? By framing such narrow, paltry demands, rather than trying to bring out workers and other toiling people from the confines of parliamentary system within which they are now very much engrossed, the communist revolutionary groups in question are more and more helping them to remain within it. Secondly, as they have mixed such demands like "work to all unemployed" with demands which are achievable within the present system, they are helping the people to believe that such demands like "work to all unemployed" can also be fulfilled within the present parliamentary system, which is totally untrue. The leaflet of MKP however has no such contradiction, because they have in the heading of the leaflet enlisted such demands like giving patta (99 years lease) of government land to landless, fair and remunerative price of crops, round the year work and proper wage to the toiling people. Not only that, they have listed a problem that all poor people have not received the ration card under food security scheme. Just think to what extent they have stooped themselves. Instead of making people understand that the food security scheme is a petty relief measure and will not give any semblance of food security to the poor people, and has been designed to keep poor people satisfied within the present exploitative, oppressive system in dire poverty they are in effect telling poor people to go for grabbing such petty reliefs. Should a revolutionary organization do such things?
Are these facts or aspects of theory unknown to them? Probably not. Then, why have they not conducted revolutionary propaganda in the elections? Are we living in such an autocratic country where revolutionary propaganda is not at all possible? Though it is true that the democracy in our country is very much limited and curtailed, nobody will say that the situation is such that revolutionary propaganda is not at all possible. Theoretically speaking, even in such a condition the revolutionaries should carry out clandestine propaganda-as they have done in Russia and other countries.
May be the organizations will remind us that we are passing through a period when class struggle is at very low ebb. Probably, they will tell us that the revolutionary propaganda will not be accepted by the workers and peasants, it will not be understood by them. Will it be a very sound logic? It is the duty of the communists to rouse the masses by revolutionary propaganda. Can they ignore that duty on the plea of condition of masses? Not only that, there are many among these organisations who claim themselves to be a communist party, even have state committees in the state of West Bengal. Is it not a irony that a communist party, which holds party congresses in regular intervals, cannot conduct revolutionary propaganda? We know that the communist party is vanguard of the advanced section of working class. The presence of a communist party means a sizeable section of working class has been organized as a class conscious force and obviously there is a strong stream of working class struggle. If that be the case why the revolutionary propaganda will not be accepted by workers and peasants?
However we know that such claims of being a party are utterly baseless and all organizations are nothing but small groups which are detached from the working class and also from other toiling people. Some of them can, at best, claim to have a little influence in some pockets. These facts have also been revealed by the results of this assembly election. So far our knowledge goes, all the candidates put up by these organizations polled very few votes. All these facts clearly show the contradiction between their claim of being a communist party and the actual reality. However, even if these organizations are considered as small organizations detached from the masses, it would not in any way absolve them from the mistakes they have done by not carrying out revolutionary propaganda in the electoral battle, which is essential for any organization which claim to be a communist organization, real representative of working class. However, the actual root of the problem lies somewhere else.
We have mentioned earlier that Lenin said "It is only as a member of the bourgeois parliament that one can?? wage a struggle against bourgeois society and parliamentarianism. ?..We are obliged to carry on a struggle within parliament for the destruction of parliament." (Lenin, Speech on Parliamentarianism, Second Congress of The Communist International, LCW, Vol. 31, pp 253, italics ours). The experience of participation of Bolsheviks in state Dumas in Russia gives us enough material to understand how the Bolsheviks participated in the parliament to educate the masses of toiling people about the class character of parliament and also of different political parties of state duma. Why was it important to participate in parliament? Lenin explained also that, that no other institution can be conceived where "all classes are as interested as they are in parliament? He said "If all classes are drawn into the parliamentary struggle, it is because the class interests and conflicts are reflected in parliament" (Lenin, Speech on Parliamentarianism, Second Congress of The Communist International, LCW, Vol. 31, pp 255, italics ours). The Bolsheviks also represented the interests of proletariat inside the parliament and exposed the class character of different parties on the questions which were very important to the proletariat and peasantry, like the question of land etc. These experiences helped them to educate the backward sections of the masses and win over them to the revolutionary struggle. The activities of Bolsheviks can be summed up as taking up the class struggle in the parliamentary arena.
These lessons of experience of international working class movement makes it clear that participation in parliament does not at all mean putting up some candidates in the parliamentary election for the sake of simply projecting oneself and for getting few votes. The participation in bourgeois parliament means participation of representatives of proletariat in the parliament to represent the class struggle going on outside the parliamentary arena, in factories, in the streets, in cities and towns and in the villages, inside the parliament with the sole aim of exposing the class character of the parliamentary system and also of the parties to educate and win over the masses to the side of proletariat class, to the side of revolution and for, not the least, strengthening the struggle going outside. Actually, participation in election or parliament cannot be a task of an organisation, it is the task of the class. The working class, organized in a party, a real proletarian party, participates in the parliamentary election, not only to raise the voice of proletariat in the electoral battle, but also to take the class struggle inside the parliament, not to achieve few demands like PDS or unemployment dole, but to expose, unmask the class character of the parliamentary system. It is needless to explain that at the present juncture in our country the proletariat is not in a position to participate in the parliament. The working class is still unorganized, disarrayed. It has no party of its own. Is it possible to truly participate in the election without a party? Obviously not. The condition of class struggle is also reflected in the condition of the communist revolutionary groups. All communist revolutionary groups, including the self-proclaimed parties, are almost detached from the working class and obviously the masses of working people. How is it then possible for them to participate in the parliament? Leave alone sending representatives in the parliament, they are not in a condition to put up struggle worthy of its name, in the electoral battle which could really represent proletarian class struggle in the parliamentary election. We totally agree with anybody who says that during the period of election even the backward section of masses, who otherwise remain indifferent about politics, get drawn into political turmoil and we also agree that participation in electoral battle helps the revolutionaries win over this section of masses and we also agree that this participation is not possible without putting up candidates in the election, because in this concrete form of struggle, people participate by voting for a particular candidate. But, the question is, do the communist revolutionary organisations really feel that by putting up a few candidates in this way they are really participating in the electoral battle? They must understand that it is not the question of putting up some candidates in election, participation in parliamentary struggle, in electoral battle is something else, which cannot be complete without participation in parliament or at least reflecting the proletarian struggle, revolutionary struggle in the arena of electoral battle as against all the classes in such a way which makes an imprint on the masses of workers so that the backward sections can be drawn towards the revolutionary struggle. And again, it is not possible without a party.
Then what should the communist do in elections in such situation? Obviously they cannot participate in election in real terms, which, as we said is not possible without a real working class party. But, they can and must carry out revolutionary propaganda. It is true that the broad masses are very much under the influence of this parliamentary system. However, there is another stream also, however weak that may be. The workers and toiling masses have experienced during last few decades that all political parties are same, they follow same path, take same anti-people, pro-rich steps whichever of them comes to power. They also feel that whoever comes to government, their basic problems of unemployment, poverty remain same. Government may change, parties change at the power, but their problems do not change. This experience is vaguely, somewhat unconsciously pushing them to understand the utter worthlessness of this parliamentary system. However, absence of class struggle, absence of a real proletarian party which will educate them about the real reason, real class analysis of this events is also absent and the ruling class is cleverly nurturing in minds of people the attraction for this parliamentary system. So, even after such experience the vast masses remain under the influence. But a small section of advanced workers and also from other toiling people is there, who are taking lessons from their experience and the communists can develop them by presenting to them the real class analysis of their experience they are facing in their life. Whether you put up a candidate or not, the situation does not change, and hence, the task does not change also. Specifically, the present-day task is to prepare more and more class-conscious elements for the party to be built, which cannot be done compromising revolutionary propaganda.
Yes, there is a change. It changes the way in which the organizations are participating. To attract the masses to vote for them, these organizations are compromising with revolutionary campaign and propaganda, ostensibly, keeping in view the backwardness of the masses. Not only these organizations have completely abandoned revolutionary campaign, they are putting up demands which are basically reformist in nature. The difference between these organizations and of the reformist parties on the question of participation in election is getting more and more blurred. Not only on the question of election, also on other questions the rightist trends are increasing within the communist revolutionaries and the reason for that is also same ? they are trying to attract backward masses towards their organizations, even when the class struggle is at low ebb. The participation of these organizations in the last assembly election is another example in this direction.
Date : 25th July, 2016
Comments:
No Comments for View