Bhangar Movement & The Tactics of Red Star
Since last few months of last year the villagers spread over a large area of Bhangar near the city of Kolkata have been fighting an intense struggle to oppose the construction of a power grid and the forceful land acquisition by the government. Despite severe terror including arrest of some of the leading activists of CPI(ML) Red Star, and several other leading agitators under the UAPA act for nearly six months, the government and the Trinamul Congress have so far failed to crush the movement. They have been forced to retreat, at least temporarily. But the hoodlum forces of the Trinamul Congress and the government have not withdrawn -they are waiting eagerly for their next opportunity. Presently they are conducting intermittent attacks and trying to destroy the struggle by corroding it from within and by striking at opportune moments. Under this circumstance, it is quite natural the leadership of this struggle, to search for paths that can take this movement towards a successful conclusion. Any organization in leadership would have done the same, and the one in leadership here - the leadership of CPI(ML) Red Star organization is also attempting likewise. The situation is undoubtedly adverse; their task consequently is extremely tough.
The CPI(ML) Red Star leadership has taken a particular path in an attempt to combat this situation. What is that path? In an attempt to resist the potential attack of the government, they have decided to expand the support base of this struggle. Following this decision they have build a joint committee consisting of several organizations including 17 organizations under the leadership of CPIM and have started taking some joint programs both centrally as well as in Bhangar. Explaining this decision, an article titled "Bhangar: On Widening the Support Base of the Movement to Defeat the Encirclement and Suppression Policy of Trinmool Congress Government" authored by the General Secretary of the Central Committee, Com. K. Ramachandran, was published in the May 2017 issue of their central organ ?Red Star'. Due to its very content the article demands detailed discussion. First, because this article was not written by any local leader or activist, it was written by the general secretary of the organization, who is a very senior leader of the communist revolutionary movement of India. Secondly, the entire content of the article is in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist ideology. It is important to oppose the wrong thoughts that have been put forward in this article.
Red Star's logic
In the attempt to justify their stand to form an alliance with the parties of the Left Front, Com. Ramachandran writes: "As the intensity of suppression by the ruling system is intensifying,......the Committee (the Committee for protection of land, livelihood, ecology and environment of Bhangar - FAPP) had to take measures to broaden the support base on the basis of commonly agreed points, in order to put pressure on the government for settling the matter in a democratic way." In the latter part of the article, it has been mentioned that this implies the alliance with 17 parties including SUCI (Communist), CPI(ML) Liberation, PDS, etc. under the leadership of CPIM. In response to the criticism by "some of the friendly forces" regarding this alliance, Com. Ramachandran justifies the formation of this alliance by saying: "While raising these apprehensions these friends are forgetting this fact that the Bhangar movement is a mass movement with some specific demands. It cannot continue indefinitely, and the leadership of this movement is duty bound to adopt necessary tactics to achieve the demands put forward." (Emphasis ours). Two arguments emerge from this statement in support of the alliance. One, achieving the demands is of cardinal importance and any tactics may be followed to achieve that purpose. And, two, the alliance with CPI(M), etc. will enable or at least facilitate to achieve the demands. Can there be any other meaning? Probably no.
Whether an alliance with CPI(M) would facilitate achievement of the demands is a secondary question. The primary concern is with the first argument. This argument too has two parts. Firstly, if in any mass movement, the communists are in leadership, then their main aim would be the achievement of the demands. And secondly, it is the duty of leadership is to take any tactics which is necessary for this purpose. Since realisation of demand is the main aim, any tactics can be assumed. This logic reminds us of the infamous quote of Deng Xiaoping: "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice."
Not only Red Star, perhaps many other communist revolutionary groups believe that the achievement of demands should be the principal aim of the leadership of any mass movement. Rather, they would ask us - "what is so wrong in this consideration?" Hence, it is important to discuss this point in details. We will do this shortly. Prior to that let us first deal with another small question.
The question is: if demand fulfilment is the main target, then following the same logic, why did Red Star not include the Congress party in this joint committee? In the article, just prior to putting forth this argument the author mentions that Congress too supported the movement. While discussing about Congress, Com. Ramachandran attempted to analyse the class character of Congress, while the same was not done for CPI(M). What did he say? He said, "As far as the Congress is concerned, our stand is that it is a rightist ruling class party, trying hard to come back to power to pursue the neo-liberal, corporatization policies in its own way, wherever it is in power." Subsequently he remarked, "But, considering the logistics in Bengal, if it comes forward to adopt these demands and support this issue based movement, can we adopt an approach of non-cooperation towards it?" And if you cannot adopt "non-cooperation" then you can well step alongside Congress in the joint rally. Then what is the significance of the statements like "ruling class party," neo-liberals, following corporatization policies, etc.? Does the significance lie in the "tactics" that Congress cannot be included in the joint committee, but they can be a part of joint program? Indeed! To what extent would you like to drag tactics? We know that tactics for the communists is the tactics for the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat, which depends on the condition of the existing class struggle and which at that point of time is a "part of strategy, subordinate to it and serving it." (Stalin, Strategy and Tactics, Problems of Leninism) They have used the word tactics just like the way contemporary bourgeois parties use the term tactics i.e. in a narrow sense of self interest. Is it right for the communists to bring down the word tactics to this level?
Tactics for achieving demands
Possibly, Com. Ramachandran too has some doubts about whether the communists can resort to any tactics for achieving demands. Otherwise why would he analyze the class character of the Congress party? This point could have been resolved only by considering whether it would have facilitated the achievement of demand or not. Isn't it? However, irrespective of the doubts, the primary logic for joint movement with the Left Front parties is this - they are duty bound to achieve the demands and for achievement of demands it is important to ally with the CPI(M). Else, it would not be possible to keep the struggle alive under the attack of the government.
Is this logic of Com. Ramachandran correct? The clear answer is no - this argument of Com. Ramachandran is not correct. When communists either participate or lead movements for partial demands, then achievement of demands cannot be the only or even the most important issue in front of them. Hence, tactics cannot be decided based on whether they are necessary for achievement of demands or not.
Why? Even if it is possible to achieve the demands of any partial struggle, the larger and fundamental problems of life remains unresolved, at the most some temporary and partial relief of life's problems are achieved. Is the objective of the communists limited to arrange for amelioration of some of the life's problems of the working class or the masses? Of course, not. The aim of the communists is to move towards liberation from all sorts of exploitation and oppression, i.e. towards the path of socialism, or more correctly, their aim is to provide leadership and direction to the struggle of the working class for emancipation from exploitation. From the standpoint of this logic many ultra-left friends advocate for boycott of mass movement. Since according to them, mass movements do not lead to emancipation of the masses from exploitation, rather, they remain confined within this exploitative system. Is this ultra-left thought correct? Of course, not. This is because large majority of the working class and the toiling masses gets introduced to struggle through the movements for immediate, partial demands of the masses. The toiling people struggle to achieve the demands of their movement. But do the communists participate in mass movements for fulfilment of demands? No. for the communists, the movements for immediate and short-tem demands are not important for achieving the demands, they are important for the preparation of the struggle for emancipation from exploitation.
Hence, communists never judge the success of a movement from the perspective of achievement of demands, they judge it on the basis of the advancement of the working class and the toiling masses towards complete emancipation from exploitation through a particular movement. After the May day struggle in America, Engels wrote in a letter to Laura Lafarge, "If the present American movement ??. had got a great victory on the 8 hours question, Trades Unionism would have become a fixed and final dogma. While a mixed result will help to show them that it is necessary to go beyond ?high wages and short hours'." (Engels wrote in a letter to Laura Lafarge, 23rd May 1886, Marx and Engels on the Trade Unions, Edited by Kenneth Lapides). We would like to note that Engels here did not lay stress on the achieving the demands of the movement, much more importance was attached to the advancement of the movement towards emancipation by going beyond the demand for ?high wages and short hours'.
Who would deem achievement of demands as the only or main objective in movements for partial demands? Not the communists, but the revisionists think along this line. Along with Com. Ramachandran, many others are probably familiar with the following words of Lenin, "Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital." (Marxism and Reformism, Lenin, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 19, pages 372-375; Emphasis ours).
Anyone can still claim that while considering demand fulfilment as the main aim in movements with partial demands, one can also prepare for revolution in other times. What is the problem?
Let us consider their argument to be correct for the sake of argument. The question is - how then will the communists prepare the working class or the toiling masses in the revolutionary direction. The movements with partial demands are important to the communists since through these struggles the working class and the toiling masses prepare themselves for the struggle for emancipation from all exploitation. How does this preparation advance through the struggles for partial demands? Through the movements for partial demands the working class and the toiling masses start to get organized as a class, get united, are able to identify the class character of this state and the allied forces from the field of the movement (the teachings acquired from the field of movement is more than hundreds of political propaganda pamphlets). From their own experiences they are able to realize the limitation and incompleteness of the partial demands and the necessity for emancipation from exploitation. It is right that the movements for partial demands are movements for reforms, but if the communists confine the outlook of the masses within these reforms, then the necessity for revolution, the need for the struggle for emancipation from all exploitation will never emerge within the masses. Revolutionary struggle cannot suddenly emerge from nowhere. Isn't it?
The same teaching was imparted to us by Marx and Engels 150 years ago through the Communist Manifesto. While trying to enumerate where exactly the communists are different from the other parties, the Communist Manifesto says, "The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement." (Emphasis ours) A clear distinction between the communists and the reformists is made through this. The reformists can see only the immediate aims or the instantaneous interests of the working class, but the communists represent the future in the struggles for immediate demands. Needless to explain that ?future' here represents the aim for emancipation from exploitation.
Every movement for partial demands arising from the very own demands of workers and toiling masses arises due to the class contradictions existing in the society. Hence, there has to be an element in such movements, which works towards the development of class struggle, or in other words, works in the revolutionary direction. On the other hand, since the struggles are for reforms, for partial demands, and since these demands can be achieved within the existing social system, there is always another element present in these struggles, which works towards the reform of this exploitative society and naturally against the development of class struggle and towards class collaboration. The communists while trying to reduce the elements opposing the development of class struggle try to enhance the elements that work towards development of class struggle. In the movements for partial demands in which the communists are involved, particularly when they are in the leadership, they are not duty bound to adopt necessary tactics for achieving the demands, they are duty bound to represent and nurture the elements that are working towards development of class struggle. If they are duty bound to achieve the demands, then they cannot advance the elements that are working towards the development of class struggle. Demand achievement is the sole aim and any tactics may be assumed for that purpose - this is the argument of the reformists and not of the communists.
Bhangar movement and Red Star's tactics
Now, one can say - OK, we do understand that demand achievement cannot be the primary aim of the communists. But fulfilment of the demand is definitely desirable. The movement will then be victorious. The organization of the poor people will be strengthened. If the tactics of joint activities with parties like CPIM make the movement victorious, then finally the struggle and organization of the poor will be benefitted. What is the harm in that? Aren't you being too finicky?
If someone thinks like above, then it means that the person has superficially understood what we are saying, and has not followed the crux. Hence, let us further dissect and explain with some experiences of real life. We would ask them to recall the anti-land acquisition victorious movements of Singur, Nandigram where demands were achieved. But did the class struggle advance through these movements? Did the poor peoples' struggle of Singur Nandigram give rise to any trend or organization that can at least minimally advance towards emancipation from exploitation? Though the movement was victorious and demands were fulfilled, it only helped in increasing the influence of Trinamul Congress party. Here, we will not discuss why this happened; we brought forward this experience merely to explain that even if a movement is victorious and partial demands are achieved class struggle may not advance. It may simply assist the reformists or other bourgeois parties to increase their influence.
Some may stubbornly argue - ?the influence of Trinamul Congress was present even before Singur Nandigram. Hence the victory of the movement helped in increasing the influence of Trinamul Congress. But the leadership of the Bhangar struggle is in the hands of Red Star or the communist revolutionaries. In this case therefore, if the movement is victorious and demands are achieved, the organization of Red Star or the communist revolutionaries will advance, which means advancement of the politics of class struggle.'
If the Bhangar movement is victorious, the organization of Red Star or the communist revolutionaries may increase. But the real question is regarding the development of revolutionary politics within the masses. Isn't it? Whether revolutionary politics will advance or not will not depend on the victory of the movement, it will depend on the politics adopted during the movement - reformist or revolutionary. The question is not regarding the increase of strength of one or more organisation, the question is which politics is gaining strength - reformist politics or revolutionary politics, the politics of class compromise or the politics of class struggle. That depends on the politics adopted by the leadership of the movement for partial demands. Depends on which political trend the masses associated with the movement, particularly the leadership, the advanced section are being inspired, depends on the politics they are being internalized with. Is it possible to unfurl the revolutionary politics in totality through the movements for partial demands? Of course not. But the contradiction or the struggle between these two politics is bound to objectively emerge through these struggles. However little emerges, the task of the communists is to uphold, within that limited confine, the politics of revolution or class struggle.
In this regard, the Bhangar movement or for that matter any movement against land acquisition has a particular inherent limitation. These movements are not movements with the class demands of the workers or toiling masses. These movements not only involve workers or landless labourers or poor peasants but in general all villagers are involved with such struggles. The demands of the movement also reflect that this is primarily a movement of the land owners. But the demand for stopping construction of power grid or the demand for ending the terror of the Trinamul leaders is a demand of other villagers as well and for that reason they also got involved with the movement. This means people of different classes are involved in this struggle. The demand cannot be considered as a class demand. Therefore, the objective motion against this system that is present in movements with class demands is not present in such movements.
Then, is there no objective basis to bring forward the question of revolutionary politics through such struggles? No, this is not the case. The contemporary struggles that have emerged against forceful land acquisition have two significant aspects which help in bringing revolutionary politics to the forefront.
First, these types of movements are against the attack of the development model of the state prepared by the capitalist class, a development model that is directed to develop only the big capitalist and the upper strata of the society by ruining the life and livelihood of poor people. This is not a model of any government or any particular political party; it is a model of the capitalist class. Hence, irrespective of the party forming the government, the same model is made effective by whoever is in power. Are the parties only responsible for this? Not, at all. Different organs of the state are eager to make this model effective and that is precisely why they are hell-bent to destroy all these struggles. Hence, these struggles are objectively forcing the struggling people of these movements to stand against the state, though they are unaware about the class character of the state. For this reason, these movements are providing the opportunity and scope to the communists to unveil and make the people, associated with the movements, conscious about the class character of the state and also of the various parliamentary political parties. Not only that, such movements are also providing a scope to firmly present how in opposition to this model of development of the capitalist class, the true development of the masses should take place and why this real development cannot happen unless the workers and peasants assume political power.
Secondly, there is another and, probably, more important aspect. We have been witnessing that the bitter experiences of the masses with the political parties have already started alienating them from the parties. It will be difficult to find any spontaneous struggle of the working population, where the fighting workers and toiling masses are not trying to assert and maintain their control over the movements. This trend or tendency is not being witnessed only in workers' movements but in nearly all mass movements. We have discussed in details about this trend of workers movement earlier, and there is hardly any need to reiterate the same here. In mass movements too, many a times we are observing that the masses are building up the movements without the old parties through their independent initiatives. Of course, the tendency of this independent initiative of the masses is not of the same significance or same importance with regards to the development of class struggle as compared to the trend in workers movement. However, this too has certain positive potential.
The alienation of the masses from these political parties is an unconscious process happening through their experiences. People themselves are summing up their acquired experiences, about these parties. Communists here have the scope to complete the summarization of the masses and develop it through class analysis. This implies that the masses must be made to understand that the political parties are assuming such anti-people role not because one or some of their leaders are bad and corrupt, but because these political parties are actually parties of the capitalist class and looks after their interests. Through this it may be possible to uplift the class consciousness of a section of the toiling masses involved in these struggles.
A question may arise that, in spite of an alliance with CPIM or the so-called Left Front parties under its leadership, is it not possible to carry out this work through our distinct independent activities? Here, we should note another important characteristic of the Bhangar movement. When the people of Bhangar first got involved in this movement, they did so without involving or maintaining any connection with CPIM. And it is not that CPIM has no organisation in Bhangar. On the contrary, we all know that prior to 2011 CPIM organisation had a major influence in this area. True, that in the last few years the organisation has become fragmented, but it is unlikely that they have no organisational presence. Rather, the activists of CPIML Red Star, whom the struggling people of Bhangar accepted as leaders of their movement had no prior organisation in Bhangar. Hence, it is not that the people of Bhangar chose CPIML Red Star because of their organisational strength. By rejecting to hold the hand of CPIM, the people of Bhangar made it evident that they do not rely or trust CPIM. This is natural. The face of CPIM and Left Front with which the masses got accustomed in the last 34 years had identified them as a force opposed to such movements - as a result the masses did not rely on them.
If it so happened that a section of the people of Bhangar, still relied on CPIM, albeit incorrectly, and if they had fought under the leadership of CPIM, and CPIM too, in their attempt to regain their lost influence, remained at the forefront and led the movement, in that case, to build up on the struggling unity of the masses, and to expose the true character of CPIM in front of the masses through their struggle and finally to isolate them, a possibility of joint activities of the fighting masses could have been considered. This is not what happened in reality. Com. Ramachandran even did not claim that people of Bhangar invited CPIM for joint activities at a later stage. It is clear from his writing that the decision of joint program with the CPIM was a decision of the leadership. They decided that joint programs should be taken with CPIM and other organisations, with the aim of creating a pressure on the government which will force the government to negotiate with the leadership organisation of the movement. Secondly, they primarily emphasised on centrally organised joint programs outside Bhangar. Com. Ramachandran writes, "There are good possibilities for such a massive rally (the joint rally of 8th May - FAPP) putting pressure on the central and state governments to start negotiations and settle the issue. Even if it does not materialize urgently, a polarization at state level will follow, which will be help the movement." This means, Red Star believes that the parliamentary opposition parties, which have no difference with Trinamul Congress from the perspective of exploitation and repression of the masses, those who oppose Trinamul Congress only for the sake of assuming power, can be used to create a pressure on the government. Did they think what consequence this tactics may have on the development of the independent force of the masses?
What is the harm in joint activities with CPIM?
With regards to the Bhangar movement, Red Star had taken joint programs with CPIM and other organisations of the left front. The basis of a joint program is that all the partners of such a program should be independently fighting for the cause. If the individual organisations do not themselves fight then what will the joint struggle mean? Are the organisations of the Left Front or the CPIM carrying out any struggle with the demands of the masses? Does Red Star have any such analysis about CPIM or the Left Front organisations? We sincerely hope that Red Star is not suffering from any such delusion. Since, CPIM and the Left Front organisations are not in power, they may well support the mass movement of Bhangar, but they are definitely not doing so for the interest of the movement, they are doing so to revive their image of mass sympathy so that they may come back to power in the near future. By being in power for such a long period, CPIM has inextricably entangled themselves with the interests and policies of the capitalist class and now they neither have the ability nor the desire to disentangle. Does Red Star have any doubt regarding the transformation of CPIM into just another political party serving the interest of the capitalists? With this class character, is it really possible to build a true struggle of mass interest or participate sincerely in any mass movement? Even if they temporarily participate in any movement from their indomitable desire to return to power, then too, they will finally betray the masses. Are we not witnessing the same with Trinamul Congress? Not that the Trinamul have betrayed with the demands of Singur Nandigram. They stayed with the movements till the end and assisted in achieving the demands of these movements. But did that alter their class character? Of course not? Rather, utilizing the movements of Singur Nandigram they assumed power and started implementing a plethora of attacks on working class and the toiling masses for the interest of the ruling class. Continuous assaults on workers struggle and right to organise are going on unabated, in a style very similar to that of CPIM, through the joint terror of police forces and their lumpen goons. Notwithstanding the opportunity they took by participating and staying at the forefront of the anti-land grab movements which finally helped them to assume power, now, unabashedly they are bringing down the same attacks of forceful land acquisition on different sections of the population of West Bengal. Not only in Bhangar, but, also in several other areas. Is it only a betrayal with the people in the areas of forceful land annexation, or is it a betrayal with the entire toiling masses of West Bengal? Isn't it also a betrayal with the toiling masses of Singur Nandigram? Will the role of CPIM or the other left front parties be any different?
What did the Red Star convey to the people, particularly the struggling people by forming an alliance with CPIM and other parliamentary reformist parties? They conveyed to the masses that these parties may remain with the struggle of the masses. Implying, they are not the forces serving the interests of the big capitalist class. They conveyed that it is possible for the forces that have become inextricably entangled with this system to remain in the struggle of the masses against the capitalist class, even possible to provide leadership in these struggles. That is just the opposite of the truth that these parties have become parties of the capitalists which the masses came to realize through their experiences. Hence, instead of providing a conscious shape to the unconscious realisation of the masses about the class character of CPIM and other reformist parties, Red Star contributed in making the realisation more obscure.
Secondly, the task of the communists was to develop the independent initiative of the masses that was evident from the beginning of the movement, instead they were taught to depend on CPIM and other parties of the left front. Hence, the communists interrupted the objective process that was initiated by the mass instead of developing it and wrongly directed it in the opposite direction.
This means that, instead of developing the potential of class struggle that emerged in this movement, the communists are destroying that potential. Even if the demands are achieved, development of class struggle will not be helped. On the contrary, this will act against the development of class struggle by helping in restoring the influence of the reformists.
Does self-criticism of CPIM of its role in Singur Nandigram movement makes it acceptable for joint programme?
Com. Ramachandran mentioned in his article that CPIM and the Left Front parties were prepared to participate in the protest march of 30th January, but, because "some of the forces in the Solidarity Committee raised objections to CPI(M) like forces joining without making open self-criticism for the Singur-Nandigram like repressions during its long rule, the leaders did not join the March, though their supporters joined it." It is difficult to believe that the left leaders prepared to join the protest march without any discussion with the leadership of the Red Star, and that Red Star was unaware of the fact that finally the supporters of CPIM and Left Front parties joined the rally. Had there been any objection from Red Star, CPIM workers would not have been able to join the rally and the leaders would not have prepared to participate. If instead of the leaders only the general activists of the left parties participate then does is not still remain a participation of CPIM or left front? Does it not constitute a joint activity with CPIM and Left Front parties? At the most the presence of the left parties does not become conspicuous.
However, we shall now want to discuss upon a different question. Neither we know who raised the objections, nor we know about their objections. If we go by the information provided by Com. Ramachandran, then it implies that if CPIM or the Left Front parties self-criticise about their repression in Singur Nandigram, then it is fine to enter into joint activities with them. Is the actual politics of CPIM can be understood only by their role in the repression of the Singur Nandigram struggle? Or is it just a manifestation? The true essence of CPIM and Left Front parties can be found in their politics of serving the interest of the capitalist class. An adherence to such politics and assumption of power inevitably leads to the path of suppression and terror, and leaves no other alternative. For the sake of argument, even if we assume that CPIM and the left parties self criticise their role in suppression of Singur Nandigram movement, does that alter their class position? Why only raise the question of self-criticism of repression in Singur Nandigram? As because those were movements against land acquisition? Is it possible to dissect and judge the politics of a party in such piecemeal manner? Self-criticism of Singur Nandigram can make them a part of the anti-land acquisition movement of Bhangar, and self-criticism for their acting as hanger-on of the owner of Hukum Chand Jute mill will make them an ally in that movement - is this the way to judge CPIM's politics? We have to clearly understand that CPIM and other Left Front parties' present position outside the government has not affected any change in their politics which is still very much directed to serve the interests of the capitalist class. By considering them as an ally in the Bhangar movement, a false projection of CPIM and left parties are placed in front of the masses which thereby assists their dishonesty and fraud, and whether we want or not, either consciously or unconsciously, it is tantamount to deceiving the working class and the toiling masses. Self-criticism of Singur Nandigram in no way alters this reality.
Is it possible to simultaneously uphold independent left assertion and undertake joint programs with the "left parties"?
Com Ramchandran has informed us that since CPIM is implementing the politics of "neo-liberalism and corporatization" wherever they are in power, CPIML Red Star "consistently follow this policy of independent left assertion at all India level,". How do they carry out this work? They have not formed any alliance with the CPIM in any election and have joined hands with other left and democratic forces in different states. However, Com. Ramachandran has also informed that "at the same time" they have "joined hands with not only the CPI(M) led LF parties or individuals from them but also with even NGOs" in different struggles like the movementagainst nuclear power or in slum/housing movements. However, Com. Ramachandran has not made any effort to justify or explain why such actions are correct. Perhaps he thought that the very fact of having precedence for taking such program is the main logic - can they ever make mistakes?
Will they explain to us how is it possible to uphold independent left assertion despite taking joint programs in movements wherever masses are active? However, the inconsistency of their logic is not limited here only. The entire idea he has put forward in this regard unfortunately has no connection with Marxism Leninism. We are sorry that we have to make such a comment regarding a veteran comrade like Com. Ramachandran. We should discuss this in detail.
The politics of every party reflect the interest of some class. In a capitalist society most of the political parties represent the bourgeois class interest since they are the dominating class in capitalism and their ideology is also the dominant ideology. There may be different parties representing the bourgeois interest since, even after representing the bourgeois class interest there may still be some differences in their interests and politics. Only then the working class can advance in its struggle for emancipation, when it can free itself from the bourgeois ideology and politics and get organized in a party with the class politics of the working class and serving the class interest of the working class; build up a class party independent of bourgeois ideology and politics. Just a different party does not mean an independent position. When Marxists speak of independent position then it implies a position independent of bourgeois ideology and politics. It demands an independent class position in contrast to bourgeois class politics for every political issue. And, this independent class position cannot be limited only to propaganda. In order to take a real independent position one has to take such independent position in movements as well. Because in the final analysis, building of the working classes independent struggle is of cardinal importance.
Unfortunately, when Com. Ramachandran spoke about assertion of an independent position, not for once did he speak about independent assertion of the class; instead he spoke of upholding independent left assertion. Why is he speaking of left position instead of class position? By "left" position, no definite class politics is understood. Actually the term "left" is very much a term within parliamentary politics, which is grossly within bourgeois political domain. Hence, he confuses the real significance of assuming an independent position and brings it down to a position of organizational independence with parties like CPIM, etc; virtually rejecting the questions of ideology, politics etc.
It is important to assert an independent position with respect to every issue that is connected with the interests of the working class and the toiling masses. All the reformist and bourgeois-petty bourgeois political parties participate in the spontaneous movements of the workers and toiling masses in an attempt to restrict these movements within the confines of this system and to mislead the objective motion that is directed towards revolutionary transformation of the society. Hence, if any organisation representing the interests of the working class truly intends to establish the working class and toiling masses in the independent position of the working class, then it definitely has to participate in the spontaneous movements and try to organise them in this independent position. The force of the workers and the toiling masses organised in an independent position, for the sake of development of class struggle can at times enter into temporary alliance with certain reformist petty bourgeois political party or organisation or even with some bourgeois party or force. But of course without causing any harm to the consciousness or organisation of the independent force of the working and toiling masses. Com. Ramachandran did not bother to enter into any such discussion. Instead he said that by assuming a separate position with regards to CPIM or by carrying out independent propaganda in certain political questions one can assume an independent position and following this it is possible to join hands with the reformist parties in real struggles, and still the independent position remains intact. The need for the struggle against the politics of the reformist parties with the class politics of the working class in spontaneous movements is therefore relegated to insignificance, and the task of organising the struggling and advanced section of the class and the masses is also annulled. The fallacy in their thoughts is inherent within their own theory of independent left assertion.
The question of expanding the support base
Let us return to the Bhangar movement. There is no doubt that the Trinamul Congress government is trying to break the Bhangar movement by unleashing terror. They are waiting for an opportune moment when the reaction to their terror does not put them in a difficult situation. They are waiting for the gradual and substantial decay of the force of the movement, when they will be in a relatively advantageous position to unleash more terror.
Therefore it is very important to expand the support base of this movement so that the government is unable to let loose more terror. Hence, the necessity of expanding the support base which the leadership of Red Star is thinking is indeed not wrong. But the question is with their tactics to increase the support base by involving various parliamentary opposition political parties . These parties have not gone to the people of Bhangar to extend their help or to advance the mass movement. We have clearly discussed their real intention and we feel that not much political acumen is needed to understand this. Not that the Red Star leadership does not understand. Why then is the leadership of Red Star involving these parties. Probably, because they are seeing no other option to increase the support base.
Actually, since they have not seen the Bhangar movement in the overall perspective of development of class struggle, they could not find any path other than resorting to these parties. The support for any struggle of the toiling masses can come from other sections of the working class and the toiling masses. Instead of searching for support within this section they sought support from the parliamentary parties, whose strength lies in the strength of parliamentary politics; which is evidently not the strength of mass movement. It is not that a section of the toiling poor masses is not under their influence. But they are not part of the struggling masses. It will be impossible to find a single factory in West Bengal, where the organisations of Left Front do not side with the capitalist owners and betray the workers. It will be impossible to find a single village where there has been a struggle of the landless labourers and the poor peasants and where the rural rulers and the riches under the organised leadership of these left parties have not attacked the struggling masses. Does that mean that no section of the toiling masses is under the influence of these parties? No, it is not that. There is a section, a part of the under-developed masses, who are with these parties with the hope to get some small crumbs of reliefs from the panchayats or other organisations, where these parties are present in the leadership. Since they are no longer in power their ability to give some dribs and drabs to the masse has drastically reduced and their followers have also consequently gone down. However large their organisation may be, it is never a representative of struggle. There is a section of struggling masses outside the ambit of these parties, who may be small in terms of numbers but the true representatives of struggle and they are the actual friends of the Bhangar. If the support base has to be increased, one has to go to these sections only.
Red Star may ask - what is the strength of this struggling section that they will oppose the attack of the state? This question is completely baseless. However, only those who do not realize that the actual driving force of the society is the strength of the working masses, those who consider the strength of the parties in isolation, will ask such questions. Had they judged the reformist-revisionist parties in the perspective of class struggle, they would have realized that these forces are actually powerless since they do not represent the forces of struggle. Using their organisation strength they may exhibit in a big rally, but in the field of the movement, more clearly in the field of class struggle they are powerless. In reality, their strength is a force of opposition to the working class and the toiling masses, which rest on the inertness and backwardness of the working class and toiling masses.
The actual strength is in the working class and the poor rural population. This strength is now latent. Due to the betrayal of the revisionist-reformists, they have lost their strength and have become weak. But when this force awakens, the power of this force is immense - this is not merely a theoretical proposition - the world has seen many such evidences and will see again in future. The question is those who consider themselves as communist - will they work to rouse this strength or will they work to assist the opposite forces to expand? The answer is simple. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that they are unable to understand this simple answer.
And, can we say that the actual strength of the working class and the toiling masses is completely hidden? Which force till date has resisted the immense influence of Trinamul Congress goons and the government forces? Due to which force the police have so far failed to enter Bhangar and destroy the movement? Is that the due to any party power? Not at all. The force that has till date resisted the goons of Trinamul Congress and Arabul Islam- is that the force of CPIM? Red Star knows it very well; in fact they are supposed to know it better than the others that this force is the force of the toiling masses of Bhangar. The strength of this force has so long resisted the police and Arabul's thugs. We hope in the coming days, based on the support of the neighbouring villages, the people of Bhangar will continue to do this formidable struggle.
Should we not learn anything from the past experiences?
Should we not try to learn from our experiences? We have seen in the past that many who claim themselves as communist revolutionaries had tried to join hands with the Trinamul Congress in many ways in an attempt to oppose the Left Front government. A sizeable section of the communist revolutionaries allied with the Trinamul Congress in the Singur Nandigram struggle. As a consequence a section has entered Trinamul Congress and has become a part of the ruling front. At that time, the communist revolutionaries effectively portrayed the Trinamul Congress as a fighting force in front of the masses. Is it possible to deny that there is some minor role of these communist revolutionaries in helping Trinamul to form the government utilising the struggle of Singur Nandigram? Trinamul Congress after assuming power naturally did exactly the same thing which the Left Front did while in power and what the communist revolutionaries tried to resist by joining hands with Trinamul. To remain in power in this bourgeois system it is inevitable to serve the interest of the ruling classes; CPIM and left front did this and Trinamul is doing the same. Trinamul is doing it in a more easily without any cover since they were always a representative party of the ruling class. Hence what they are doing today is completely consistent with their class character and politics. Now the communist revolutionaries have found their allies in the Left Front parties. Once an organisation claimed that they will build a mass movement by forming a mass platform with Rezzak Mollah, who defected from CPIM. Rezzak Mollah joined Trinamul in the hope of becoming a minister; the mass platform was also dissolved. Then at least they could say that Rezzak Mollah opposed the role of CPIM in Singur Nandigram. Though even then, it was very clear that there is no difference of Rezzak Mollah with the politics of CPIM. Today they have directly started forming alliances with the Left Front parties. There is one reason for all such attempts of alliances - their trust on the working class politics is very weak. Can't we hope that they will overcome this weakness and firmly align with the working class politics?
Comments:
No Comments for View