GROUP SECT PARTY AND THE FUTURE
Article 7a?In its struggle against the collective power of the possessing classes the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself as distinct political party, opposed to all the old parties formed by the possessing classes.
This constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes.
The coalition of the forces of the working class, already achieved by the economic struggle, must also serve, in the hands of this class, as a lever in its struggle against the political power of its exploiters. [Resolution on the rules of International Workingmen's Association, 1871, September]
Year 2017, India: Working-class party is absent, which means the working-class is not organized in its own class party. To fulfil the necessity of their struggles, the workers have been unable to build a united organization for struggle out of their practical-economic struggles. As a consequence, in their struggle against the ruling capitalist class, the working class is powerless. But the attacks of the capitalist class are mounting alarmingly day by day. The dispersed fragmented working class is bearing the brunt of the attacks almost one-sidedly. In such a situation the present-day communists are split up into a bunch of groups. Naturally (due to their existence in the form of groups) they are in the main isolated from the working class. Almost for the last 40 years the groups are in a state of repeated mergers and splits. But ultimately the group existence of the communists has persisted.
Year 2037, India: The same condition persists. Party has not been formed. The so-called communist revolutionaries have not been able to come out of their group existence. The only difference is that some of them who were relatively bigger among the groups, becoming still bigger have started claiming themselves to be parties. Secondly their political activities and aspirations and attempts for building up a mass base in a condition of isolation from the working class has increased the rightist trend in general, which however had already started prior to 2017. It must be further remembered becoming a bigger group does neither mean it is a proletarian party, nor assembling of more and more communist intellectuals means the organization of the working class as a class. Whatever else it be, in sum and substance the condition of the communist revolutionary groups as a whole remained the same as it was 60 years ago. Possibility of any change in this condition is not seen.
(Note: Isn't it predicting what will happen 20 years hence? Accusation accepted. But it needs to be mentioned here that behind such a "prediction" there is an analysis of the experience of past and present. It hasn't been done by going through the horoscopes of the groups. Such a prediction is based on the assumption that (a) the national and international situation has continued to remain unchanged, (b) the militant leading workers who have emerged from the factory-level economic struggles have not been able to advance in the direction of a country-wide independent workers organization by themselves for combatting the tremendously increasing attacks of the capitalist class)
The trend of existence of groups, that is seen in India as of now, has its origin in the period about 40 years ago at the end of the last century, especially after the disintegration of CPI(ML). Of course to say it more correctly, the origin is earlier, when communist activists revolting against the reformist, revisionist politics of CPI(M) and other left parties a number of came out of those organisations in the late sixties and early seventies of the last century. A section among them without joining the CPI(ML) took a position of a number of groups, big and small. Among the present groups the majority are however break-aways from CPI(ML). All these groups have passed through numerous mergers and splits for over 40 years. Of course due to that generally there has not been nor is there any transformation of the group positions in the context of formation of a party. We tried to just illustrate that with those picturisations of two periods at the start.
But on further enquiring about the subject we will see that a big transformation has actually occurred. Transformation has occurred not in the general position of group existence but in the 'characteristics' of the groups. 'Group characteristics' is not a familiar term, but anything more appropriate could not be found. Whatever it be, we need to clarify what we want to mean by 'group characteristic', otherwise there may remain scope for confusion.
Since the time at the end of 19th century when the parties (Social Democratic) for the first time were formed in European countries we did not see Communists in group existence in the ensuing Communist movement. As we stated what we are witnessing now, its origin lies 40 years ago, at the end of the last century, generally speaking in a period of defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement. Albeit in the period prior to party formation in the European countries there were a number of group organisations based on different ideologies of Proudhon, Lassalle, Blanqui etc, to which Marx-Engels referred to as sects. Of course these were not communist groups. They were termed as socialist sects although that had no relation to scientific socialism. Marx never thought of uniting these groups to form the party. Rather Marx-Engels continually struggled against their sectarian thinking. That history will be discussed later in the interests of clarifying the present subject of discussion.
Undoubtedly the political position of the existing groups in our country are different from one another. It must be remembered that with the disintegration of CPI(ML) there was a long break in the continuity of a communist party and in a party-less condition a bunch of groups came into existence. Of course prior to that a number of groups emerged which separated themselves from the old communist and socialist parties but did not join the CPI(ML). Of course all these groups have a communist identity and are known as communist revolutionaries. Naturally considering the historical situation in which these groups have emerged, it can be said with certainty that their historical aims and mission had then been determined due to particular characteristic features of their birth. That is, carrying on with the continuance of party or in other words continuing with the trend of 100 years (especially from the period of the 3rd International) of party history uninterruptedly, by building a new party, in effect through liquidation of group existence by merging into a united party. From this angle, the period of group existence is simply a short transitional period in the context of a party. This is what we have mentioned as 'group characteristic'. Now we will be showing how the natural and inherent 'group characteristic' of the so-called communist revolutionary groups could become lost.
Of course it is undeniable that the declared aim of the groups which emerged on disintegration of CPI(ML) was reorganization of the party. Due to that reason at the start they thought about themselves as party-groups. Those organisations who referred to themselves by names as CPI(ML)-this or CPI(ML)-that used to call themselves part of the party or party-groups. During the first 5 to 7 years there were a number of efforts for forming or reorganizing a party. Those efforts failed. Even a more organised effort to form a co-ordination committee of all the groups in 1984 advanced quite a lot but ultimately failed. After this the idea of 'party-group' started receding into the background. Probably it became clear to the groups that it is not possible in reality to form a party uniting the groups. At that time there must have been a number of reasons for the failure of efforts to unite into a party. But then one feature was generally noticeable. Among all the participating groups, especially the bigger organisations, there was a trend that let all be united but on the basis of their own thinkings i.e. ideological political positions or in other words accepting their views. Naturally what was inevitable happened. This experience at least revealed one thing that all the groups, within 5 to 7 years or 10 years of their emergence have formulated and consolidated their positions. In this context it will not be wrong to say that in that period of post-defeat retreat of the working class movement, the betrayal of the old parties and a situation of frustration of the worker masses after the failure of CPI(ML), the groups had a craving for a pure, and abstract political position dominated by their respective thinking generally. Actually after the disintegration of CPI(ML) there emerged a directionless dispersed condition which centred around numerous questions that arose within the activists. The activists in that condition primarily united around certain individual leaders. Naturally the leadership of such small formations in an urgent urge to organize the groups had to rely on their individual consciousness and mainly subjective viewpoint to sum up the experience of past incidents, especially left adventurism and thereby to consolidate the separate political positions of the individual groups. Unfortunately from the start most of the groups were disconnected/isolated from workers because CPI(ML) itself had no base among the workers. In reality commitment to working class interests and undoubtedly the political standpoint of working class could have enabled objective evaluation of the past experience and adoption of correct proletarian position. It could have enabled the groups to advance towards convergence and unity of the groups by removing aside the rigid positions of respective groups. But there prevailed among the communist revolutionaries the weakness or near-absence of that commitment to politics of the working class remained, whose roots ultimately lay inherent in the incompleteness, deviation and distortion of struggle against CPI(M) or in other words the reformism-revisionism and opportunism of the old parties.
For the moment it has been necessary to bring forth incidents of the past, firstly to understand the present role and character of the so-called communist revolutionary groups, which will enable us to present our main subject of discussion in proper light. In brief the aspect which we have brought forth with emphasis is that by the mid-eighties itself the groups became to some extent separately organized and consolidated politically and ideologically. Looking from this angle, the sectarian thought arising out of rigidity of political consolidation of the groups and each thinking themself to be correct, came into existence within 5-7 years of their formation and that played a big role behind the failure to unite in a party. That failure in turn pushed the groups further towards adopting consolidation, expansion, and getting organized in a more comprehensive way as the prime task or direction. This trend in spite of numerous splits and mergers has remained uninterrupted and has in fact has become strengthened. As a consequence it has been seen that through these efforts of independent activities and attempting to create bigger mass base with the aim of becoming bigger organisations the communist revolutionary organisations have become projected as Marxist-Leninist political organisations or parties ( in the backward consciousness of masses). The truth that the efficacy of a communist group's emergence and existence, as we stated is in getting merged within a party, had become relegated to the background and thus erased with this. In such a situation we are face-to-face with a big question. If the historic mission and hence the group characteristic that the groups were entrusted with during their initial years become absent from the groups of the present then can the groups be truly identified as communist groups?
Then are each and every one of these groups parties? It is known to Marxists that there cannot be a number of communist parties in a country. At any point of time however this can be groups but that within a party. The present day communists are not at all ignorant about this. And why it cannot be so that also they are quite aware of. But the interesting thing is their very activities and position would appear to be as that of a party (apart from those which are very small). At least ten organisations can be found who by their own understanding have already formulated the programme of Indian revolution which undoubtedly is the task of a communist party. One organization even declares themself to be the communist party and they openly claim that they are continuing with the legacy of the communist party in this country after the collapse of CPI(ML). How far such a claim of projecting themselves as a communist party is logical and true in essence, that question is being kept aside for the time being. But it is undeniable that the political activities, style of work and organization structures of other groups are not much different from that of the above-mentioned organization. Adopting positions in respect of important political and social happenings, campaigning on that basis among the masses, participating in elections (Vidhan Sabha, even in several instances Lok Sabha), forming mass frontal organisations among workers, peasants, students etc?in the traditions of earlier communist parties, and working for mass base through these----in all these aspects there is no basic difference of the other groups with the above-mentioned so-called party. This is a peculiar contradiction, group functioning as party, with which the groups are continuing. Undoubtedly after the failure to unite in a party through initial efforts as the groups have gone on consolidating, on the other hand the compulsions of situation (for the sectarian interests to spread their own mass base)---all these have virtually led the groups into this contradictory position. It is also undeniable that the more the groups have become entrenched in such a contradiction that is, the more the groups have gone on moving like parties the more distant has become party formation. Here one more thing needs clarification. There is a thinking prevalent among the communist organisations that by means of struggle within the communist camp a higher political and ideological unity has to be achieved on the basis of which a unified party can be formed. But one big question remains out of view. Is this possible without getting integrated with the workers movement? The most important thing is, in the post-defeat situation that movement which can keep the ideological struggle active and present itself in concrete terms before us, push and prod us to learn and help us to achieve correct proletarian position, is absent.
Anyway one thing is clear now. There is no scope of a party being formed by unity of the communist revolutionary groups. But does this mean that class struggle doesn't have a future? The situation will continue like this? Will really our prediction become true?
This cannot be. The future is there and it is inherent in the very capital labour contradiction of the capitalist system. Historical materialism teaches us that. In this context if we do not fail to analyse and understand the real position in the present situation then we will see that the immediate future is implanted where the workers in their respective factories have started to build their own independent unions to resist the increasing attacks of the capitalists. In reality we have to understand that the future of class struggle, the future of formation of working class party at this moment is not in the hands of the communist revolutionary organisations. It is in the hands of the workers, particularly the leading workers emerging from such struggles.
Up till now we have tried to understand the condition of the communist revolutionary organisations in the light of 40 years of experience. Now for some time we will discuss about the past history of world communist movement. Of course in order to find out the correct direction so as to rise up again from the present post-defeat dispersed condition of the working class. Firstly it must be remembered that, since the later part of 19th century i.e. after the formation of the first party (Social Democratic) in the European countries (including Russia), more particularly after the period of formation of communist parties in different countries including ours, under the influence of the 3rd International later, never did such a pathetic directionless condition arise. From the experience of this period i.e, of the 3rd International and thereafter we can search for the reasons of the defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement. But to rise up from the position in which the defeat has dumped us into and find out the direction to move ahead we have to look back to the period of emergence of communist movement, particularly to the history surrounding the 1st International or the International Workingmen's Association in Europe. We have to look into the workers' independent role and not simply on the role of Marx and Engels. Of course to gather more material and lessons necessary to combat today's tough situation and at the same time to brush up our thinking. Not just to transplant something from that history into the present. It must not be forgotten that the practical struggles of workers unconsciously bring out before us the path of class struggle. The task of communists is to formulate it with their scientific thought and help in the advancement of it.
Let us examine that period------
(a) The period mentioned was a time in the 19th century when after the defeat of the revolution of 1848 not only the workers of France and Germany but the workers of all the countries of Europe once again started rising up in struggles after a period of lull and hopelessness. They were emerging with lessons from the failed revolution that they have to rise separating themselves from the bourgeois and take independent position. Based on such a situation, mainly on the initiative of the advanced workers the International Workingmen's Association came up throughout Europe. This is known as the 1st International in the history of the communist movement. At present not only in post-defeat Europe but even throughout the world the dispersed and retreating condition of the working class is continuing for a long time. In the midst of this the workers have recently started to rise up in struggles again outside the fold of any of the existing organizations.
(b) It was a time when no working class party had been there in any of the countries. It was a stage in history of formation of parties for the first time in different countries with the workers getting involved in the process as a class. With this aim the Workingmen's Association played a very important and decisive role. Unfortunately now is where after 150 years of party history, we are faced with the task of forming not the first but a new party which the communist revolutionary groups could not even accomplish in 40 years.
(c) It has been already mentioned earlier that there were a number of Proudhonist, Lassallean, etc.. group organisations active among the workers which were termed by Marx-Engels as sects with respect to class struggle. One big difference that these sects had in comparison with the present-day communist revolutionary groups is that they came into existence connected with the workers movement. Marx commented once that Proudhon, Lassalle, Blanqui etc?.had big influence on the workers. Because of that with the aim of uniting the large sections of workers within the Workingmen's Association Marx and Engels had to launch intense struggle against the sect mentality from inside and outside of the Association.
LOOKING AT THE EXPERIENCE OF 19TH CENTURY
The Article 7(a) which has been mentioned at the start of this writing was not there among the accepted documents of the 1st International at the time of its formation in 1864. It is not unknown to us that the document "Inaugural Address to The International Workingmen's Association" on the basis of which the unity of the struggling workers and struggling workers organization was achieved, is the creation of the author of The Communist Manifesto himself--- Karl Marx. But what is to be noted is he did not bring in the question of party in this inaugural address. This aspect was added to the Rules of the International after 7 years of advancement of the International as Article 7a on the basis of a resolution accepted at the Hague Congress in 1871. What was the reason for this? It could never be so that in 1864 (after 18 years of publication of the Communist Manifesto) Marx and Engels remained oblivious to the indispensability of a party in social revolution. What could have been the reason that while Marx inserted the issue of seizure of power as a direction for class struggle and hence that of the organization in the accepted resolution of Workingmen's Association he did not bring in the immediate task of party formation indispensable for it? This is where we will find the Marxist approach in Marx. Based on the concrete analysis of the then reality he understood that at the time of formation of the 1st International the European workers were not in a position to get united in a party. From the midst of workers, even from the then advanced struggling sections among them, the urge of a party did not arise. Naturally in such a condition he did not impose his "Marxist thought" on the workers, as they didn't do anywhere else in their lifetime. He emphasized on the development of the workers' movement.
At the time of birth of the Workingmen's Association the European workers were not in a position to form a party. One of the main reason for that being the fact that a large section of the workers were influenced by the sects. As mentioned earlier Proudhon, Lassalle etc ?.had major influence on them. Although these leaders talked of socialism they were in opposition on issues of class struggle and organization. Undoubtedly Marx and his adherent workers were clear in their understanding that that if these trends cannot be defeated or in other words if the workers were unable to come out of the above-mentioned influence through the experience of their own real struggles, working class struggle would neither be able to grow nor its advancement would be possible. It goes without saying that it would also be impossible for working class to unite in a party. Marx and Engels looked at it from both angles. Evidence of it can be found in a letter to Bolte (23rd November, 1871) where Marx wrote, "The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers' movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other." (Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol-44, Page 252). In this context if we look at our present condition then we will be able to understand the general truth inherent in this statement. Isn't it a truth about today's reality that the existence of communist revolutionary groups and there prevalence for so long a time is due to the lull in the workers movement in a situation of defeat and on the other hand the existence of these groups is acting as a hindrance/impediment to the progress of the real struggle of the workers? Of course whether terming the groups generally as sects would be proper or not that is a question.
In fact throughout the period of its existence, the Workingmen's Association i.e. the 1st International had to persistently carry on the struggle against sect mentality. Actually Proudhon, Lassalle, Blanqui uninterruptedly continued with their efforts to establish their respective sect outlook within the Association. Naturally the International carried on continually with its struggle against these diverging/divisive sect mentalities within the organization. Even Marx and Engels standing in support of the policies and activities of the International taken by the Association, at times severely criticized the sect mentality and thus the anti-class-struggle positions of Proudhon, Lassalle etc?, through articles and letters written to different persons. It becomes clear from a statement in the letter to Bolte mentioned earlier. In that letter he said, "And the history of the International was a continual struggle of the General Council against the sects and attempts by amateurs to assert themselves within the International itself against the real movement of the working class." (Bold ours, italics in original, Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol-44, Page 252). To be precise, the struggle of the General Council was getting reflected concretely in the then actual workers' movement of Europe. As long as the International was in existence, in all the countries of Europe the struggle advanced in the direction set by the International and under the leadership of the General Council. The workers also more and more gravitated towards their real class position. In spite of being followers of the sects, as the workers were basically workers i.e. their position was in the midst of the capital-labour contradiction, hence from their experience they converged in the direction of the International and started participating more and more in the united class struggle. And in this way through their practical struggles the workers, the adherents of sects, were coming outside the influence of sects, weakening the sect movement and built up the basis of a broad workers' unity. Undoubtedly standing upon this at one time (in 1871) it became possible for the International to adopt the resolution for necessity of formation of parties in different countries. It is this very role of the International with respect to the objective movement which is most important and educative for us. In the words of Marx, "
THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCES OF THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL: Firstly, one thing must be noted that Marx Engels did not attempt to organize the European workers on the basis of their ideology i.e. on the basis of proletarian ideology. Clearly, that condition was not in existence then. Because till that time (especially the 50s and 60s of 19th century) their ideology i.e. the influence of Marxism was not substantially established among the European working class. Hence attempting to organize the workers on the basis of proletarian ideology or communist principles would have resulted in an organization of only a section among the working class. There is no reason to believe that Marx and Engels were unaware of this. On the contrary the very fact of becoming engaged with the Workingmen's Association and playing a leading role in that organization proves that they emphasized on the united organization and struggle of the whole of the then European working class undoubtedly remaining conscious about what kind of unity of the wide sections of the workers are possible and necessary at specific historical situations. Otherwise there cannot be any other explanation of Marx's initiative and hard work in the matter of Workingmen's Association, especially at a time when he was intensely occupied with important theoretical work. In reality from wherever the Workingmen's Association might have started, within 7 years the unity of the European working class reached new heights and it goes without saying that it was inherent within the movement of the Workingmen's Association itself. Where do we stand today? The glorious past that the communist movement or class struggle had has been lost. In a party-less condition the working class is disintegrated. Due to the betrayal of the old communist parties and on the other the shock and awe of defeat of the world socialist movement the vision of socialism is almost erased. It is almost from the ruins that the communist movement has to rise and of course it will rise. In such a condition the painful and harsh reality is not only that the communist revolutionaries are splintered into numerous groups but they are on the whole isolated from the working class. At a time when the working class and the wide sections of oppressed masses are being steam-rolled under the absolute dominance of the ruling classes. Exploitation and oppression is continually intensifying unhindered. Obviously in the interests of class struggle what is needed at this moment is a country-wide workers unity---struggling unity which can really confront the onslaught of the capitalist class. It is however impossible to achieve that even if just the communist groups unite at the top. Besides that, unity of the country-wide workers on the basis of communist principles cannot be imagined, which is possible only by under the leadership of a communist party i.e. a real working class party. Hence in such a prevailing situation the big question is whether the present-day communists are willing to come out of their respective isolated boundaries of organizational interests, not remaining confined within self-complacence that "we have kept the communist movement alive" but is willing to think in a different way in the light of the lessons of the experiences of the International Workingmen's Association of the 19th century.
WORKERS ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMEN'S ASSOCIATION
We must remember that Marx and Engels did not use their intellect and strength of character to plan a scheme and mobilise the then advanced, militant workers of Europe to build up this organization. Regardless of the presence of Marx and Engels' the workers of different countries of Europe proceeded by themselves to a large extent in building up a united central organization throughout Europe. As far it is known, because of Engels and more particularly due to insistence of his follower and long-time comrade Ecarius Marx participated in it only in the final stages of formation of the organization. And probably he instantly understood the inherent importance and significance of it in the context of the future development of class struggle. After that we have seen his active role which is now a part of communist history. Secondly, even though it is recognized as the 1st International among the three Internationals but still it was not based upon communist principles. Today for all of us who have grown amidst the ideas of 3rd International and cannot think of workers' organisations and struggles up to even trade union struggles without the leadership and conscious intervention of the communist party or organization, to us the 1st International may appear to be just a hotch-potch organization. Workers of diverse ideologies (including the sects) assembled in it. It appears surprising how Marx put in his effort to bring the British Labour Union into the organization and succeeded in it. Taking a leading position in such a hotch-potch organization (of course workers organization) Marx Engels worked tirelessly. Of course what a great historical role this hotch-potch organization played that we have discussed sometime earlier.
CHARACTERISTIC ATTRIBUTES OF A SECT
In what way there is the relevance today and what lessons we should accept from the various aspects of the 19th century workers movement of Europe discussed above that may be considered later. Before that some other things need to be clarified in brief. What should we understand by sects? What is the characteristic attribute of sects? Let us try to find out the answers to this from different statements of Marx and Engels.
In a letter to Schweitzer on October 13th 1868 Marx quite clearly presented his opinion on this matter. At one place in the letter he wrote, "You yourself have personally experienced the contradiction between the movement of a sect and the movement of a class. The sect sees its raison d'etre and its point of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the movement". (Marx Engels collected works Vol-43, page-133, italics in original). It goes without saying that the respective shibboleth of Proudhon, Lassalle, Blanqui etc?were not the same. There is no scope here nor is it necessary to discuss about what were their distinct statements and positions in politics in reality. But we will be able to understand about their commonness regarding their identifying mark (shibboleth) or positions through one example. At that time, particularly in the decade of 1850s after the failure of the revolution of 1848, the workers coming out of their brief despondency, in an urge to get organized to combat the attacks of the capitalists started forming union organisations. Proudhon and others detached themselves from the progress of the workers movement and opposed formation of any kind of workers organization. They even rejected the trade union struggle. In reality they did not realize the importance and significance of the then early trade union movement and organization in the general movement of the working class to become a class for itself in the post 1848 period, which culminated in the formation of the 1st International. On the contrary opposing the movement in the name of so-called "worker's interest" they attempted to transplant their subjective ideas fabricated from outside the movement on the workers. In this context it must be remembered that in the initial stages they had a substantial influence on the workers. And because of that, Marx and Engels and of course the 1st International had to wage a relentless struggle against sect mentality. The idea of sect becomes clearer with what Marx said about Lassalle, "He fell into Proudhon's mistake of not seeking the real basis of his agitation in the actual elements of the class movement, but of wishing, instead, to prescribe for that movement a course determined by a certain doctrinaire recipe". ( bold ours, Marx Engels collected works Vol-43, page-133).
The lessons from the experience of 19th century and the statements of Marx and Engels presents before us a fundamental question whether the workers movement or the class struggle will proceed along a path shown and directed by someone's ideas or it will be decided by the then practical needs of struggle arising out of capitalist-labour contradiction (that may differ in degrees)? The concept behind the statements as 'communists build up struggles' is that workers struggles arise and develop under the influence of the theoretical positions, so to say the ideas and policies of communist leaders. Such a one-sided expression of thought (i.e. communists build up struggles) has been seen among the communists in the period after the Second World War extreme manifestations of which were there in the CPI and CPI(M). Unfortunately the communists of today i.e. the communist revolutionaries are carrying on with this legacy in various extents. Suppose if ten communists end-up thinking simultaneously that the class struggle will proceed and develop in accordance with the ideas and hence the path they have individually innovated (of course from the same source---so-called Marxism-Leninism) and if consequently ten different ideas are imposed on the workers, then can you imagine what will emerge out of it? Contrary to this, Marxism teaches us that the practical and inevitable struggles and actions taken by the workers from real necessities reveal and present before us historically the path of class struggle. The conscious role of the communists is to develop it in the direction of socialism by freeing it from the clutches of reformism and opportunism. That consciousness grows from the assimilation of knowledge of philosophy and science (Marxist theory) and that of the reality.
Even keeping in mind the apprehensions of our writing becoming burdened with excerpts we cannot avoid mentioning a statement of Engels on this issue. It goes without saying that what Marx termed as 'element of struggle' is not someone's subjective invention. It is something inherent within the real struggle in the action of the workers as mentioned earlier. Engels clearly expresses this in The Housing Question writing, " Mulberger answers that as far as the Latin workers are concerned, "the principles formulated by Proudhon are almost everywhere the driving spirit of the movement." This I must deny. First of all, the "driving spirit" of the working-class movement nowhere lies in "principles," but everywhere in the development of large-scale industry and its effects, the accumulation and concentration of capital, on the one hand, and of the proletariat, on the other." (Engels, The Housing Question-III, Marx & Engels Selected Works, Vol-2, Page-354). The statement is quite clear, but Engels further clarified it while talking about the Paris Commune in the same article-----"in all its economic measures the "driving spirit" was not any set of "principles" but simple, practical needs."(Ibid, bold ours).
We are apprehensive that the communist revolutionary groups (of course those who will read this) would tell us to stop this discussion here. We would by ourselves have also stopped the discussion about sects here. Probably they would raise questions like---"What is the relation of the 19th century sects referred to by Marx to today's context? Are the sects of those times and today's communists similar?" No, definitely not. The biggest reason for that is there is a gap of 150 years of history of the communist movement between these two periods. Such as, the sects or the leaders of the sects of those times did not accept the theory of class struggle. They opposed the political action and organization of the workers. They did not believe in the necessity of seizure of power for socialist reconstruction. Undoubtedly these cannot be said about the present day communists. But the question lies somewhere else. In the context of the characteristic attribute of sects that Marx and Engels exposed and criticized vehemently while carrying on the struggle against the ideologies of Proudhon, Lassalle, Blanqui etc? are today's communist groups in the main any different? Shedding away the "group character" and consolidating the respective group organisations over 30-35 years, the tendency of subordinating the working-class interests to group-interests, having a relation more of opposition and competition instead of mutual understanding and cooperation among the groups, adhering rigidly to the group's ideological and political position like the holy scriptures and above all clinging to the idea of building the workers and peoples movements in accordance with each group's own ideas and policies and trying to act in that line----aren't all these the reflection of sect mentality?
Here one thing need to be mentioned. An idea is often heard of and it is also consolidating among the intellectuals. Broadly speaking the idea is ---- group position has to be totally abolished. Firstly, none can negate a historical fact simply by their wish. Further such thinking is misplaced. But that is a separate discussion the scope of which is not present here. Yet for the necessity of the present discussion another aspect needs to be clarified. Virtually citing Marx's statement (in the relation between sects and working-class movement, growth of one means decline of the other) it can be said that after the start of the history of party formation, particularly after the 3rd International sects have become historically obsolete. Agreed, but we should also remember that after the defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement communist movement has receded with a tremendous jolt. It is a reality now that the working-class is not in a position to form their party. The stream of class struggle is very feeble. Evaluating the group existence of the communist revolutionaries ignoring the prevalent reality will be utterly wrong. Let us assume that groups become defunct/are wiped away but on the other hand the party has not been formed yet. Then will not the present-day communists, the potential communists be kept away from organizational processes/procedures and driven to the level of individuals free from discipline? Actually in the struggle of the workers to rise up independently overcoming the setback of the defeat the role of the groups act in a way as an impediment but on the other hand it cannot be denied also that in a post-defeat party-less condition the groups in another way has a positive role to play in the interests of the communist movement. We have to understand the dialectical relation between the two. Speaking clearly, even though there is a general trend of rightist deviation (in different extents) among the groups, still in the present situation of tremendous assault and almost all-pervasive dominance of the bourgeois ideology it is through the groups that the communist ideology remain alive. Secondly, the groups which are working sincerely among the workers, they are in spite of their limited capacity preparing a section of advanced workers to become class-conscious to an extent, even though very small in number. The significance of this for the future party cannot be denied. In the end it should be reiterated that elimination of groups doesn't just depend on someone's whims. Only the development of the independent class struggle will eliminate it at a stage. A statement of Marx may help us in understanding this where he said, "Sects are (historically) justified so long as the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historical movement." (Letter to Bolte, 23rd Nov 1871, Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol-44, Page 252).
In the context of sects (in opposition to it) Marx contraposed the words 'class movement', 'real movement of the working class'. Looking at it from the other angle he identified the position of sects in relation to the class movement. The problem is, where is the class struggle in the present situation in which we are standing? In the present situation what should we understand as class struggle? It is true that any organized and concrete form of working-class struggle is not visible. As in other countries of the world, the workers here also have been still unable to rise up from the setback of defeat of the world socialist movement. The working-class is still generally in a position of retreat. The communists are splintered into numerous organisations and isolated from the working-class. These are all true indeed but will this continue indefinitely? Is it that what we 'predicted' at the start is going to happen in reality? But this cannot be according to the laws of history. It cannot be such that the contradiction between capital and labour will go on intensifying but the contradiction will not take the form of struggle. However big blow or the devastating impact of defeat be there it may take time but at the end the working class by their moves shall finally and inevitably be able to confront the impact and turn-around from the post-defeat long retreat in the coming days obviously by way of assimilating the past experience and practical needs. If we are not blind to this we will see that time has started arriving. In reality we are witnessing the start of turning around of the workers in several regions during the last 10-12 years. Overcoming almost 30-35 years of despondency and passivity the workers have started rising up in struggles in their respective factories at the trade union level, which is only possible for them to do at the present moment. The noticeable thing is, in these struggles the workers are building up their unions independently leaving aside the old organisations and parties and through this they are breaking the divisions among workers created by the old organisations and carrying on their struggles uniting all the workers of their factory. If we do not make a mistake to identify or understand then we will be able to further see that through these apparently isolated factory-based independent struggles the workers are coming out of their period of retreat that was precipitated due to defeat. And out of this the trend of new awakening of the workers has started emerging. The 'real workers struggle' referred to by Marx can be found in the present situation within this trend and nowhere else. It must be made clear that the change in situation during the last 10-12 years that we are talking about is not just because the workers are rising up in struggles but mainly due to the fact that the workers are building up their independent organisations without any intervention from outside (including the communists), summing up to an extent their past experience. It is true that a factory-based isolated struggle is not really a class struggle but within these struggles the class struggle and the future of class struggle is inherent. These struggles are the real elements of class movement which Marx talked about.
Why are we saying so? That we have explained elaborately in four issues of this periodical earlier. Briefly it can be stated in this way. Undoubtedly each of these isolated factory-based struggles are tremendously uneven battles. On one hand there is the joint attack of the employers and the police-administration-government on the other they are fighting against it isolatedly and single-handedly. As a result, it is becoming very difficult, almost impossible for the workers to carry on their struggles and get redressed. Leaving aside very few exceptional instances where the workers have been able to win even though not fully, but a substantial part of their demands, the general experience is that of retreat in the face of tremendous onslaughts, in fact, experience of failure. This failure is again objectively giving birth to a yearning among struggling workers, especially those from the practical plant-level struggles, for collecting enough strength and building up united struggle to combat effectively the all-pervasive attack of the capitalist class, which is possible only by united organization of the workers. Undoubtedly in the present dispersed condition of the working-class what is becoming most essential at the moment is workers unity at all level of action finally leading to a united country-wide struggling organization of the workers. It goes without saying that that the urge for united struggle and organization is arising out of reality, to be specific----experience of the aforesaid failure. It is no one's subjectively invented scheme or prescription. The experience of the last 40 years has clearly established the fact that not only the political unity of the working-class through the unity of the communist revolutionary groups is a distant dream, there is not even a scope for primary class unity for struggle. However some communist revolutionary groups are recently being found to have been united in one All India organization at TU level, presumably involving unions controlled by them and some other local organisations engaged in work among workers in local plane. Again as usual it is an attempt from above to unite the workers, surely as a part of prevailing joint practice among communist revolutionary groups. But what is its efficacy in relation to the necessary task of uniting All India workers in a real struggling organization? Firstly, how many unions, especially of industrial workers do all of them hold? Presumably not even .01% of the total unions of our country. As we saw earlier how much the communist revolutionaries are isolated from the working class. Secondly, the attempt cannot be judged without taking into cognizance the prevailing general relation of competition between the groups. However let us wait and see how it works. But one thing can be said from the past experience that such unity can at best serve their individual organizational interests but in any case not the cause of real unity of the working class necessary for united class struggle. In the absence of a party enjoying the confidence of the class, any such attempt from above is destined to remain within the narrow confines of the constituents. One should not overlook the recent trend of workers forming their own independent unions for struggle. Hence the unity that is necessary depends initially on the struggling workers, particularly on the independent initiative and leading role of the advanced workers tempered through their struggles. This is the path of rising up by overcoming the blows of defeat. Undeniably this path is neither easy nor short. Through numerous ups and downs, experiencing numerous jolts the workers are proceeding towards their goal. History has pushed us into such a position. But the journey hasn't stopped. A time will come when we will see that even in spite of tremendous assaults of each factory owner along with the police-administration newer and newer factory workers are rising up in struggles, on the other the leading workers emerging from the struggles are not only thinking about the unity of the advanced workers but in reality are taking initiative in that direction in their localities.
Unfortunately the communist groups are not seeing the inherent objective trend within the developing workers struggles. On the contrary they are clinging to the ideas of building up class struggle on the basis of their respective organizational frame of thought and policies. Of course quite a few organisations, which are putting maximum importance on their work among workers are standing in support of the attacked workers and supporting their struggles with all their might. Undoubtedly praiseworthy. But the question remains with the aim behind it. It is undeniable that with the experience of tremendous assault in an uneven factory-based battle two diverse trends are arising among the workers. Only in the face of setback like dismissal of leading workers, retrenchment, indiscriminate arrests and in cases the weakest section of workers being won over by management, the fighting and in someway advanced workers, without submitting, however prefer to keep alive their receding struggle, but depending on the so-called outside strength of petty-bourgeois democratic and in some cases this or that communist revolutionary group. At the present moment when the workers struggle has just started raising its head and in the absence of support base of workers at the grass-root, no doubt this trend is likely to be the main trend within the workers. And the other trend is by way of summing up the experience of their dedicated struggle, workers, particularly the leading workers, are becoming conscious that it is almost impossible to really combat the powerful attack of the capitalist-government alliance only on the basis of their strength of the isolated plant-level struggles and what is needed is united strength of workers below, at the ground, at least locality-wise, which could be initially only support to struggling workers and none else. Those who claim themselves to be communists what will they do? Will they stand up against the trends of easy path of self-defense through opportunist compromises or dependence on others or on the contrary support the workers to keep their independence (because of which the workers initially rejected the old and established their own union)? Or will they base themselves on the earlier way of getting out of helplessness by attempting to find ways and means, planning different methods of revival for the workers, in short, think that it is the task of the communists to revive the struggle? Virtually if they act with the mentality of a guardian shielding the experience of failure from the consciousness of the workers and neglect the growing urge for large-scale unity, will that work in favour of development of the working-class movement or will that become a hurdle in its path? The communists have to face this question. However whether it is at all possible to revive and strengthen the struggles i.e. whether in the present situation through plant-level singular fights the balance of powers between the workers and the factory owners can be tilted in favour of the workers or not that will be revealed by experience only and probably it is being revealed.
At the end, if the communist revolutionary groups, particularly those which are giving prime importance to the organization and making the working-class class conscious, do not want to take upon themselves the accusation of being sects then they will have to move away from the direction of consolidating and expanding their individual organisations, hold back from imposing (forcing down their throats) their abstract ideas on the workers and above all play a conscious and active role for realizing the objective necessity of unity of the workers in the present situation. Of course continuing at the same time with the task of making the potential section among the fighting workers class conscious and carrying on with the political campaign within the working-class.
Comments:
No Comments for View