On The Question Of Democracy
The question of democracy has become increasingly important in the political sphere due to the continuing rise of fascist forces in India over the past few decades. The desire or demand for democracy exists not only among the working class, but also among the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. For that reason, a section of students and intellectuals has raised a voice against this onslaught of fascism. It would not be wrong to say that due to the absence of the class struggle of the working class, this protest of the democratic student-intellectuals is considered by many to be the most important against the fascist offensive. But, the question is, will the revolutionary communists also consider their struggle for democracy within the same boundaries as the petty-bourgeois section's desire for democracy is restricted (because of their class-position)? Will the demands of the communists on the question of democracy be the same as the demands of these petty-bourgeois intellectuals? It is not that this question was not discussed earlier. However, the present juncture demands a deeper discussion about the role of communists on the question of democracy.
What is democracy?
Is democracy is merely a parliamentary system? Does democracy merelymean the people's right to elect their representatives in thelegislature within this parliamentary system? can it be said thatdemocracy is truly established in the society only if this electionprocess is free, fair, unbridled, corruption-free? Does democracy meanfreedom of expression where every citizen can freely express his opinionwithout any fear of reprisal from the state? Or, does democracy mean theright to struggle with their demands and to be able to become organizedfor it? Ask any bourgeois intellectual and you will probably hear aboutsome of such rights or set of rights.
Democracy is understood as a system of governance, which operates onthe basis of the opinion of the majority, that is, according to theopinion of the majority, the rules and regulations of the governance aredecided through the representative bodies, which are formed throughelections. But, the presence or absence of such representative bodiesbased on the opinion of the majority does not determine whetherdemocracy exists or not. The biggest proof of this is the currentbourgeois democracies. Lack of democracy is very evident here. It can besaid that these democracies do not truly reflect the opinion of themajority of the people. In fact, even if decisions are made on the basisof majority opinion, it cannot always be said to reflect democracy.Let's say, at some point the majority of the people of the country votedin favor of making the country a religious state. On the face of it, itmay seem that the decision is democratic, because it is taken by themajority of people. But, only for that reason can this decision beaccepted as democratic? Especially in this case the decision meanttaking away the freedom of following any religion for followers otherthan the adherents of one particular religion or even the freedom of notadhering to any religion of the atheists. However, we know that one ofthe fundamental principles of democracy is the freedom of every personto follow (and practice) the religion of his choice or no religion atall. Hence the decision to establish a religious state is against thebasic democratic principle. More precisely, secularism or the principleof separation of state from religion has been one of the fundamentalpillars of democracy since its inception. The move to separate the statefrom religion was historically a progressive move and an integral partof the democratic struggle when the bourgeoisie was fighting againstfeudalism. So, it cannot be said that the decision to make a religiousstate is democratic because it is a decision taken based on the opinionof the majority of the people, because that decision stands against thebasic position of democracy. For that reason, it is difficult tocharacterise the decision of the majority itself as democracy. The mainpoint is that the majority of the people are able to make decisions intheir own interest only when they become free from all dependence on,ties to, and control of the upper strata of society and can makedecisions based on their own independent will. No decision can be calleddemocratic by mere decision making process.
Let's take another example. Unions run by communists or organisationsof people belonging to a section of the exploited classes are generallysupposed to be run in a democratic manner. Not that it doesn't formallyhappen, at least in most cases. This means that decisions are made basedon consensus either of the members or according to the opinion of themajority. But, does it really become democratic? Most of the time,especially in this phase of weak stream of class struggle, it is seenthat the decision of the leadership becomes the decision of theorganisation because of the dependence of the workers or the rural pooron the leaders. The question is not whether the decision is correct ornot, the fact is that the process is not truly democratic. The membersof the organization do not make those decisions entirely on their ownjudgment, but largely because of their dependence on the leaders. Forthat reason, it is clear here also that democracy is not manifested bythe mere fact whether the decision is of the majority or not. The realjudgment is whether the majority of the people have decided according totheir independent thoughts, being aware of their class interests ornot.
Democracy, then, does not mean having or not having a parliamentarysystem, nor merely the right to elect one's own representatives.Democracy is not only about freedom of expression. Not even just theright to struggle and organise. These are parts of democracy, but inisolation this part or the aggregate of these parts are not democracy.Democracy is different from all these.
So what do we mean by democracy? Lenin said, ?Democracy meansequality?. (State and Revolution, Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 25, pg-476). Just because Lenin said it doesn't mean it has to be accepted astruth. It is evident from the way the concept of democracy has emergedin history. The question of democracy was first raised by thebourgeoisie. When the bourgeoisie in Europe united all the workingpeople, the third estate, as it was called then, for a bourgeoisdemocratic revolution aimed at overthrowing feudalism, they did so inthe name of democracy. In the stratified feudal society of those times,where no one had any rights outside the king or emperor and the eliteand priestly community, they demanded equal rights for all. This was theessence of democracy.
The bourgeois came to power with the promise of democracy, but aftercoming to power, all the power went into the hands of the bourgeoisieand practically the workers and toiling people did not get any rights.Of course, what else could have happened? Obviously, the exploiters andexploited can never have equal rights in a society based onexploitation. If it happens, how can the society survive? But, as timewent on, the bourgeoisie continued to descend from its ideals ofdemocracy that was avowed during the French Revolution or the thenbourgeois revolutions. Their undemocratic, reactionary character tookfinal shape in the age of imperialism.
Let's return to Lenin's quote. If we try to understand the quote alittle deeper, at the very beginning of the quote, we are likely tostumble. Why does Lenin say that democracy means equality? How candemocracy bring equality? Equality can come only in a classless society,in communism - we know that. Lenin makes it clear in the next part ofthe quote. In the next section Lenin says, ?The great significance ofthe proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan willbe clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition ofclasses. But, democracy means only formal equality.?(LCW, Vol-25, pg?476-477, in both cases the italics are in the originaltext).
It should be noted that the meaning of democracy has been interpretedtwice in two different ways in the same quotation. First it is said that'democracy means equality' (democracy means equality). In the secondcase, it is slightly changed and it is said that 'democracy means onlyformal equality' (democracy means only formal equality). Are those wordscontradictory? No, it's not. In fact, at first the real meaning ofdemocracy is explained ? the real meaning of democracy is equality. But,later when the meaning of democracy is explained second time, it isexplained from the point of view of what democracy means in a capitalistsociety ? we are told that the democratic system of rule that we see ina capitalist society is not real democracy, therefore here democracydoes not mean equality, here democracy means formal equality. These twoforms of democracy form the fundamental difference between proletarianand bourgeois class viewpoint about democracy. The proletariatalways judges democracy in the perspective of real equality, and nomatter how much the bourgeoisie demands democracy, it can never gobeyond the boundaries of formal equality.
Formal equality and its basis
In capitalist society, why democracy is merely formal equality? Ingeneral, in capitalist countries formally everyone has equal rights.Every person born in that country, rich or poor, has the right tocitizenship. Everyone has equal rights under the law, rich and poor,irrespective of caste, race or colour. In most capitalist countries alladult citizens now have the right to vote, one vote for everyone.
But, in reality there cannot be equality. It should not be difficultto understand that in no class-divided society, the exploiters and theexploited can have equal rights. In any society based on exploitation,the exploiters are the ruling class. It cannot be otherwise even in acapitalist society. In capitalist society, even though there areostensibly equal rights, in reality there are no equal rights.
In a capitalist society, the state belongs to the capitalists. Thatstate is run in the interests of the bourgeoisie, to suppress theexploited classes, i.e., the working class and other toiling masses. Thepeople can choose their representatives through the right to vote, butthe power to govern actually rests in the hands of officials of thestate apparatus, who are not elected and like puppet characters, aretied by a thousand strings to the bourgeoisie. It is the bourgeoisie whoremaining behind the scenes pull the strings of governance. That is whythe democracy of the capitalist society is actually a democracy for thebourgeoisie, not a democracy for the working class. The true meaning ofbourgeois democracy in capitalist society is bourgeois dictatorship. Inbourgeois democracy or bourgeois dictatorship all the rights ofgovernance are in the hands of the capitalists, the working class has noright to rule in the real sense, neither there is any possibility ofthem having that. The workers and toiling masses are even deprived of alarge part of the rights, which are given to the common citizens by theconstitution.
This is something that the class-conscious proletariat can constantlyfeel through their experience of struggle. Although everyone is equalbefore law, but de facto the rich enjoy the legal rights, because theycan 'buy' justice in various ways with their money. Most of the time thejudgment of the court does not go in favor of the workers, no matter howfair it is according to the law. Even if any time the workers are ableto get a favourable judgement as an exception, the capitalists have thepower to defy the judgement. Everyone has the right of expression butworkers or toiling people cannot exercise that right. The rich canspread their word by publishing their own newspapers or TV channels, orby buying the media companies. The working people cannot do that. Tohold a meeting anywhere in the city permission is required from themunicipality or administration, which they do not give unless theworkers are organized. Even the organized workers are often not giventhat permission by the concerned bourgeois authorities. However, therich can rent big halls and hold their own meetings. Moreover, the lawalso provides various measures by which the rights of the working classcan be seized. Workers have the right to struggle, but there is alsoSection 144, based on which meetings and rallies can be prohibited.Workers have the right to strike, but that right is also restricted byvarious regulations. In the end, there is the system of coercion by thepolice and employers' goons to break the strike.
For this reason, in a bourgeois democracy, equal rights can beestablished only in the formal sense, but not in the real sense. Buteven this formal equal right is also a great advance over previoussocieties. The bourgeoisie has fulfilled a historic task by establishingthis democracy. There was no question of any kind of equal rights, oreven formal equality, in the economic foundations or class relationsupon which pre-capitalist societies stood. Slavery was based on theexploitation of a section of the population as slaves, who had no rightsas human beings. Even in a feudal system only the king or the nobilityand the priestly community had the right to participate in the system ofgovernance. Extra-economic coercion was one of the major basis ofexploitation of landlords and feudal lords in feudal society. For thatreason, all the rights were in the hands of the king or emperor, feudallords and zamindars and common subjects were deprived of rights.Capitalism was the first to bring about such an economic relationship inwhich both the capitalist and the worker were ostensibly equal (Note 1).The source of capital's profit is the labour power of the worker. It isthrough this profit that capital constantly increases itself and thewheel of production moves. The worker sells this labor power and thecapitalist buys it. Like all other commodities, labour-power is tradedon an equal footing, between two independent buyers and sellers. Thecapitalist buys labour-power at its value. The value of any product isdetermined by the amount of labour inherent in the product. The value oflabour-power is also determined by the value of the specific thingsrequired on an average for the subsistence of the workers at any giventime in order to ensure supply of it continually. Another aspect is thatthis transaction of equal value is between two independent people. Thecapitalist is free here. Moreover, the worker is free to decide whetherto sell his labor power at all or if he wants to sell it then to sell itto which capitalist. This freedom of the workers have to be seen fromtwo aspects: firstly, they are freed from the old feudal bonds and havebecome free people, becoming owner of their own labour-power andsecondly, by losing all the means of production they have also becomefree from it. That is why the relationship here is between two freepeople. [Note 2]
Thus, the historical role played by the bourgeoisie is that theyfirst brought forward the question of democracy, as equal rights. Sometry to say that democracy was established in Athens in ancient Greece,or in some state in India in ancient times like the Lichchhavi rule. Itis not difficult to understand that these are democracies in name, infact no similarity can be found with the concept of modern democracy.Greek civilization was based on slavery. As a result, there is no pointin talking about equal rights there. The same applies to the monarchialstates in India. And especially in a society where the society wasdivided into different strata through the caste system and a large partof the people were pushed out of this caste system and they were leftdeprived in all aspects, equal rights are not possible even in theformal sense. At most in these particular societies, 'democracy' couldhave meant that there was no single king or emperor, as in other feudalsystems, but the aristocracy ruled collectively. That is, this'democracy' means the democracy of the elite. This 'democracy' hasnothing to do with modern democracies where there is formal equalrights, the apparent right of every citizen to participate ingovernance.
Working class democracy
We have already explained that bourgeois democracy belongs tothe bourgeoisie only and in bourgeois democracy where the working classdoes not have equal rights; it is not the responsibility of theworking class to protect that bourgeois democracy. The goal of theworking class is to establish real democracy where every person insociety will enjoy equal rights in the real sense and not just in theformal sense. How can real democracy be established? Realdemocracy can be established through the establishment of working classdemocracy or working class dictatorship after the seizure of state powerby the working class. However, one thing needs to be said here. It istrue that even in this state all classes cannot have equal rights. It isso because classes also exist in this society and in a society wherethere is class conflict, the ruler and the ruled cannot have equalrights. The stage of the dictatorship of the working class is the stageof transition from capitalism to socialism, in which the working classis the ruler and the capitalist class is ruled. One of the mainfunctions of the proletarian state is to suppress the capitalist classdislodged from power, so that they cannot recapture power. That is whythe rights of the capitalist class have to be undermined to a greatextent. In short, working class democracy is democracy for the workingclass and not for the capitalists. But, unlike bourgeois democracy,working class democracy, is not a democracy of a small minority, likebourgeois democracy, but a democracy of the vast majority of people.That is why democracy extends far in this phase of the dictatorship ofthe working class. Secondly, through this stage of the dictatorship ofthe working class, the society moves towards abolition of classes.Complete democracy means equal rights for all people in the society.That is only possible when classes are abolished. But as society movestowards complete democracy, the necessity of the state gradually withersaway, and hence also the necessity of democracy as a form of governance.It may sound a bit surprising, but if we look at democracy as aparticular stage of governance in the development of society, it shouldnot be difficult to understand that the extent to which democracyexpands, to that extent democracy tends to wither away. In thewords of Lenin, ?The more complete the democracy, the nearer the momentwhen it becomes unnecessary. (Lenin, State and Revolution,Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 479, emphasis ours). In a classless societyall people are equal. Everyone is free, independent. In this societyevery man is a producer and every one labours according to his ability,and receives according to his needs. That is why there is no question ofgiving rights in this society neither there is any question of takingrights away.
Hence on the question of democracy the communistrevolutionaries should always educate the workers in the education ofthis real democracy, bring the goal of real democracy before theworkers, bring before them the way to achieve it and educatethem. Not only that, but if the class-conscious revolutionarydetachment of the working class are present in the society, if theirparty is present, they will free all the working people from theconfines of bourgeois democracy (which have become more and more narrow,restricted) and make them join the struggle for real democracy, thestruggle for real equal rights.
Democracy in a country like India
In a country like India, where the democratic revolution isincomplete, where the remnants of feudal relations of production existsin the society to a great extent, even bourgeois democracy has not fullydeveloped. Moreover, India's ruling system bears the stamp of theBritish-era colonial ruling system to a good extent. Rather it isappropriate to say that the big bourgeoisie of India are running theirrule keeping the colonial governance structure largely unchanged. It isnot difficult to understand that this regime is extremely undemocraticwhen the state apparatus that the imperialist rulers created to suppressthe oppressed people of the colony remains intact. Evidence of thisranges from the sedition laws, to the continuation of detention withouttrial laws in various guises, and even laws such as the Armed ForcesSpecial Powers Act, which allows the army to kill people and about whichthe civilian judiciary has no power to prosecute. The government canrepress any protest by force, imprison protestors for days withouttrial, brutally suppress the struggles of workers and toiling peoplewith police terror, etc.
However, if we judge democracy only in terms of various draconianlaws, or curtailment of some legal rights, then we cannot judge theexisting democracy in India in terms of real democracy. Real democracymeans abolition of caste division, as a large section of the Indiansociety has been de facto kept deprived of rights by beinglabeled as so-called lower caste. Complete democracy means abolishingoppression of various oppressed nationalities including the indigenousadivasi people. It also means ending the parallel rule thatlarge landowners in rural areas continue to exercise by defying any formof legal system. The biggest thing is that in a backward country likeours, the consciousness of people as independent human beings has notdeveloped in large sections of the people. The thought of acceptingpeople of the upper strata as masters is still ingrained in the commonmasses. Unhesitating reliance on the advices of priests or Brahmins,regarded as incarnations of God, still prevails largely among the commonpeople. In short, still now the realisation that everyone is equal ashuman beings, everyone should have equal rights, is there among very fewpeople. Where independent development of individuals has not occurred,it is natural that the question of equal rights has not yet developedamong the masses. If this development does not happen, then how can wemove towards the goal of real democracy?
It needs to be said that apart from class exploitation andoppression, various forms of social discrimination like--casteoppression and discrimination, national oppression, is not compatiblewith the economic basis of capitalism. This is because in front ofcapital the worker is merely an owner of labour-power, and hence it doesnot matter to capital who is selling the labour-power. But, from onestage of its development, capitalism began to compromise with feudalism,which is why the bourgeoisie, instead of trying to overthrow the oldfeudal relations as it did during the era of bourgeois revolution, itcontinued to preserve and utilise those relations. Secondly, this stageis the imperialist stage of capitalism, which stands on the basis ofmonopoly. During this time, capitalism has brought back and supportingvarious reactionary ideals and various customs, practices, institutions,etc., standing on its basis. For that reason, at this stage ofcapitalism, the working class has to shoulder the task of eliminatingvarious types of undemocratic practices and systems from the society,starting from caste oppression and division.
Consequently, the question of democracy is not merely decidedon the basis of whether everyone has the right to vote, whether free,fair elections are being held or not, or even whether black laws arebeing repealed. The question of democracy is the question of theabolition of caste, the question of democracy is the question of theabolition of national oppression, the question of democracy is thequestion of equal rights for men and women, it is the question ofestablishing the rule of the majority of workers and toiling people andultimately the question of equal rights for all people. The struggle ofthe class-conscious proletariat is the struggle to establish this realdemocracy. The class-conscious proletariat cannot struggle formerely some extension of bourgeois democracy, because to do so wouldultimately mean accepting or standing for bourgeois dictatorship. If wewant to establish real democracy, we have to complete the democraticrevolution under the leadership of the working class and move towardscommunism on the path of socialist revolution. The task of theclass-conscious proletariat is to try to build this struggle.
The question is, does the working class have no rights in a bourgeoisdemocracy? Bourgeois democracy is actually bourgeois dictatorship,because in fact the right to govern is entirely in the hands of thebourgeoisie, the working class or other toiling masses have no right inthis regard. Democracy for the working class in bourgeois democracymeans the right to struggle and organize. This democracy is used by theworking class to build class unity and its organization in the struggleagainst capital. How much of this democracy exists in a capitalistcountry depends on the state of class struggle between the working classand the ruling bourgeoisie, although ultimately it depends on how muchdemocracy the ruling bourgeoisie is willing to give in accordance withits class interests.
Building class unity and class struggle of the working class isessential for the struggle of democracy because the working class aloneis the vanguard of democracy. From the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, weknow that the struggle for democracy can be led either by thebourgeoisie or by the working class. The history of the world has shownus that there is no other possibility, no other path. But, it is not atall possible for the bourgeoisie to struggle for real democracy, becauseof their class position. This is especially more so in the context ofthe bourgeois of the imperialist era, who have moved far away even fromthe ideals of bourgeois democracy. Only the working class can fight fordemocracy to its final conclusion, fight for establishment of realdemocracy. The question is not what the working class is doing today,what state they are in, but the role of the working class is determinedby its class position. For that, of course, the working class mustorganize itself on the basis of its class politics, build its ownclass-conscious forces, a genuine Communist Party. That is why the dutyof the Communists at the present time is to awaken the workers fromtheir present scattered, inactive, hopeless state and unite theirleading forces into a real class party, a Communist Party. It is notonly necessary for the liberation of the working class and the laboringpeople from class exploitation, but it is also necessary for thestruggle of democracy.
Once again, it can be made clear that within a capitalist society theworking class must unite the toiling masses and continue with thestruggle for democracy. But, their struggle cannot be limited to somereforms within the sphere of the capitalist system. The goal of theworking class struggle is to move towards real democracy throughrevolutionary struggle. Of course they will utilise the reforms thatwill result as a by-product of this revolutionary struggle, but for thefurther advancement of the revolutionary struggle of the working class,and never for a struggle for some democratic reforms.
Fascist offensive and the working class
Due to the incompleteness of the democratic revolution, the remnantsof the old feudal relations of production still persist in the society,and to whatever extent some of those have been removed, being done onlythrough reforms, the basis of democracy in our country is very narrow,even in the context of bourgeois democracy very limited and constricted.For the last few decades, there has been an attack to take away thatlimited, narrow democracy and establish a fascist regime in the country.Details about this attack are unnecessary. Based on the discussion wemade earlier about how the struggle for democracy is viewed by theworking class, it is necessary to judge what the role of real communistsshould be amidst the current fascist campaign.
There are two relevant and important points to be kept in mind in thepresent discussion from the earlier discussion about how the workingclass sees the struggle for democracy. Firstly, the aim of theworking class struggle is not the reform of bourgeois democracy, but theaim of the working class struggle is real democracy. Secondly, anyexpansion of bourgeois democracy as a by-product of the revolutionarystruggle is used by the working class in the interests of thedevelopment of its class struggle and class organization.However, the working class does not struggle for some reformswithin bourgeois democracy. The reasons are as follows. First,the reforms achieved by the working class as a by-product of therevolutionary struggle are more extensive and durable. Second, thestruggle for bourgeois reform only obscures the vision of the workingclass about its revolutionary goals.
We know that in terms of class position the most advanced soldier inthe struggle for democracy is the working class. However, it is a harshreality that the working class today is far from that position. Theworking class has still not been able to come out of its state ofdespondency, passivity, and disorganized existence that resulted afterthe defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement and thetreachery of the so-called communist parties. Hence, the working classis not in a position to counter this attack on democracy in this presentcondition.
So what should the Communists do now in the context of the fascistoffensive? In fact, it appears that several communist revolutionarygroups feel that when the working class is not present on the stage ofstruggle, it is necessary to rely on the bourgeois-petty-bourgeoisforces to thwart the offensive of fascist forces. That is why they arejoining forces with the parliamentary bourgeoisie-petty-bourgeoisparties and thinking of preventing the rise of BJP by supporting them inthe elections.
Theoretically we have seen that it is not possible for any section ofthe bourgeoisie (naturally the bourgeoisie of the imperialist era) tostruggle for real democracy, far from leading that struggle. And whatare we actually seeing in India today? Neither the ruling big bourgeoisparties like the Congress, nor even the parliamentary political partiesrepresenting the regional bourgeoisie are themselves democratic enoughto struggle for democracy. They cannot stand against the ideals of theSangh Parivar, because they are also more or less influenced by thatideal. They have been compromising more and more with communalism andreligious ideals to appeal to the backward sections of the majorityHindu population. All these parliamentary parties have the soleobjective of opposing the BJP to capture the seat of the central orstate government. As a result, it is impossible for them to fight fordemocracy in real sense.
Besides, there are the petty-bourgeois intellectuals. Certainly, asection among the petty-bourgeois intellectuals are protesting againstand trying to resist the Sangh Parivar offensive. Nevertheless, it ismeaningless to expect that they will organize the working class and theworking people and struggle for real democracy. They don't have theability to do that.
In fact, even the petty-bourgeois intellectuals who are vociferousagainst the fascist offensive of the Sangh Parivar have their conceptionof democracy confined within the present bourgeois democratic frameworkof India. Its manifestation is repeatedly seen in their organizedgatherings. Sometimes the preamble of the Constitution of India is readto call for the protection of this Constitution. Sometimes theparticipants display the Indian national flag to show their support forthe present Republic of India. The question is, is the bourgeoisdemocracy that has been given a legal form or structure in theConstitution of India really democratic? The British imperialists, intheir interest, to suppress the subjugated people of India, created thisconstitution. How can such a constitution be democratic? Theconstitution still not only contains the sedition clause, against whicheven the representatives of the bourgeoisie are vocal. That constitutioncontains Section-144 of CrPC, various laws of detention without trial, abunch of undemocratic laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.This constitution provided for punishment against caste oppression, butthe upper caste people's real seat of power, the exclusive ownership ofvast amount of land in the countryside, has been maintained and theiroppression continuing on that strength. In this very constitution,restrictions on the right to struggle and organization of the workershave been put in various ways. This is the stark reality! If thebourgeois constitution does not take the side of the bourgeoisie, thenwho will take the side? This constitution did not separate the statefrom religion, which has led to the rise of communalism and on which theforces of aggressive Hindutva grew and became adept at carrying out thepresent fascist offensive. In 1947, India's big bourgeoisie came topower and built up an edifice with some small changes in the powerstructure they inherited from their colonial masters. Hence thedemocracy was stunted and restricted from the very beginning. Those whohold up the constitution of this republic, those who show their trustand support by raising the flag of this republic, they are standing infavour of this stunted, constricted bourgeois democracy. Are theystruggling for real democracy? Obviously not, and because of their classcharacter it is not possible for them to do so.
To sum up, none of the bourgeois or petty-bourgeois parties orvarious organizations that in some way or other are opposing theaggresive Hindutva fascist offensive of the RSS-BJP, are unableto struggle for real democracy. To join them means nothing but tostruggle for some reforms within this bourgeois democracy. As we havealready discussed, the aim of the working class is not to make somereforms in this bourgeois democracy, but to extend it, to move towardsreal democracy.
Incidentally, one thing needs to be said here. If we think that whenan organization, with a section of the people, takes to the streetseither with demands for democracy or to defend democracy within thisbourgeois system, it is a struggle outside the parliamentary arena andwhen it puts up candidates in elections or supports a party in theelections, then it is a struggle within the parliamentary arena?thenmaking such simplistic distinctions will be utterly wrong. We need tounderstand that if the struggle for democracy is stuck within theconfines of bourgeois democracy, it is bound to enter the parliamentaryconfines. Because, in this bourgeois democracy, where there is aparliamentary system, any struggle within the boundaries of bourgeoisdemocracy has to be ultimately resolved within the parliamentary system,not outside of it. For this reason it is seen, that any such movementultimately becomes precipitated within the confines of parliamentarystruggle. Think of the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement of 2011.Out of that struggle was born the Aam Aadmi Party, which quickly enteredthe parliamentary fold and eventually ended up like the other bourgeoisparties. Leaders like Jignesh Mevani, Hardik Patel, Alpesh Thakur, oreven Chandrasekhar Azad who emerged as a response to the Dalit struggleor a spontaneous struggle of the people have all taken refuge in someparliamentary party. Therefore, the question is not whether the struggleis a street struggle or not, the question is whether the aim of thestruggle is to reform within this bourgeois democracy or to breakthrough the barriers of bourgeois democracy and establish realdemocracy. There is no reason to doubt that if reform within bourgeoisdemocracy is the goal, the struggle will be confined withinparliamentary boundaries. That means, the outcome of that struggle willbe within this parliamentary system, the electoral system. In the end,either they will stand for some parliamentary bourgeois-petty-bourgeoisparty or else they will have to enter the parliamentary stage forming anew party.
One may say here that today when the working class is scattered andthe fascist offensive of the RSS-BJP is intensifying, should not effortsbe made to stop that offensive? First let's stop the fascist offensive,then we can think about the fight for real democracy. We are used tohearing many variations of such argument.
First, what is the actual experience? We have already discussed aboutthe parliamentary bourgeois-petty-bourgeois parties. It need not berepeated. No other force appears capable of struggling to resist themarch of fascism. This is natural because the intellectuals or othergroups of the petty-bourgeois have no means to awaken the people fromthe grass-roots against the offensive of fascism. However, it should beclear that this offensive of RSS-BJP cannot be defeated without the massstruggle of grass-roots. It is so because the influence on the backwardsections of the Hindu population is the main strength of RSS-BJP. TheRSS-BJP cannot be defeated unless it is separated from this section.That is only possible through building a collective struggle ofworkers-peasants and agricultural labourers. Building it means buildingthe class unity of the working class, building its class struggle,building its class party. Only the vanguard of the working class unitedin a class party can build the struggle by uniting the rural poor andforming alliances with the peasants. Naturally the struggle will beagainst the exploitation and oppression of the rulers and exploiters.Through that revolutionary struggle, the working class and the toilingpeople will not only struggle against exploitation, but also struggleagainst the fascist offensive and overcome the barriers of this systemto advance towards true democracy. That is why the struggle againstfascism and the revolutionary struggle of workers and peasants are notseparate. [Note 3]
Secondly, those who are making alliances with various petty-bourgeoisforces outside the opposition parliamentary parties are mistaken if theythink that through this the communist revolutionary groups will elevatethe petty-bourgeoisie. Attracting a section of the petty-bourgeoisie torevolutionary politics would have been possible only if there had been agenuine party of the working class standing on the line of the classstruggle of the working class, which at present does not exist.
So, what should the communists do? Will the communists sit quietly?Of course not. If the communists really mean that the working class isthe only force in society that can fight for real democracy, then theyhave to work to awaken that class, and to organize the advanced sectionof what is possible today on the basis of class politics. It is truethat we do not know when the working class will rise with its gloriousrole after the defeat. But citing the present danger of fascism, if analliance with the bourgeois-petty-bourgeois is made, it would meantoeing bourgeois-petty-bourgeois politics. As because, in order to enteror stay in this alliance, the communists have to compromise with thebourgeois politics, and setting aside the goal of real democracy, theywill have to demand some reforms within the prevailing bourgeoisdemocracy. In short, instead of elevating the petty-bourgeois forces tothe revolutionary level, they will have to descend to the level ofpetty-bourgeois politics. This would, firstly, undermine the mostimportant task of organizing the working class as a class and secondly,corrupt the consciousness of the small section of the workers or massesthat they are organising.
Hence, it is the task of the communists to carry revolutionarypolitics among the workers and toiling masses and thereby attract asmall but advanced section of them to revolutionary politics today andorganize them under the banner of class politics. Only this smallsection of the workers and toiling masses will carry forward the bannerof class struggle. There is no doubt that the task is difficult. But, ifthe revolutionary communists do not do that, then who will carry forwardthe revolutionary flag in the society? Above all, not doing this meansthrowing away the flag of real democracy, the flag of revolution. Thecommunists have to decide what they will do.
Notes:
1. This may be a little clearer from two quotations from Capital. Thefirst is in the chapter on Commodity in Capital, where Marx says thatthe famous Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle first said thatthere can be no exchange without equals, and no equality withoutsymmetry or compatibility. ""Exchange," he says, "cannot take placewithout equality, and equality not without commensurability." ( Capital,Vol-1, Commodities, pg-65 )But Aristotle could not go further. That is,it was not possible for Aristotle to understand that exchange on thebasis of equality could take place on the basis of the inherent labourwithin the two commodities. While saying that, Marx said, "There was,however, an important fact which prevented Aristotle from seeing that,to attribute value to commodities, is merely a mode of expressing alllabour as equal human labour, and consequently as labour of equalquality." (Ibid) Why? That is also explained by Marx then, ?Greeksociety was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its naturalbasis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The secret ofthe expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal andequivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general,cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has alreadyacquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however,is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce oflabour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, thedominant relation between man and man, is that of owners ofcommodities?(Capital, Vol-1 , pg 65-66, ProgressPublishers, Emphasis and italics are the current author's)
2. Marx made it clear in a sentence in Capital that under capitalismthe capitalist and the worker buy and sell labor power as two freepeople at equal prices. Marx said, ?He and the owner of money meet inthe market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights,with this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both,therefore, are equal in the eyes of the law? (Capital, Vol-1, pg- 165,Progress Publishers)
3. We have to understand that no communist group or even a coalitionof groups can take the place of a real communist party. Many talk offorming alliances with parliamentary bourgeois-petty-bourgeois parties,including reformist-revisionist parties, in the name of forming ananti-fascist united front, citing past experience. The experiences ofthe anti-fascist united fronts that we have seen in the past were foractual struggle in reality against fascism. But none of these partiesare trying to build such a struggle in the true sense, and they have nocapacity to build that struggle. On the other hand, the communistrevolutionary groups are also completely isolated from the working classand the toiling people and there is no room for doubt that the workingclass and the toiling people in general are not able to build a struggleagainst the attacks of the ruling class unleashed on themselves.So howwill they build a political struggle against the ruling class? Wherethere is no real struggle against fascism, the question of a unitedfront for struggle is meaningless.
Comments:
No Comments for View