The Struggle Of Various Sections Of The People - The Task Of
For quite some time, the struggles of various sections of the people, occasionally locally or centrally, have been seen to emerge. Among these sections are students and intellectuals, and again there are identity-based Dalits, Backward Classes (OBCs), tribals, indigenous people, women's section, oppressed ethnic groups, etc. First of all, we have to mention the movement against CAA-NRC in 2019; the month-long sit-in protests at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi and Park Circus Maidan in Kolkata took the form of a central movement. In Kolkata, about 30-35 thousand people also participated in the protest march of mainly students and intellectuals. Another major spontaneous movement we saw was after the Nirbhaya rape and murder case, where a large number ofboth men and women, mainly from petty bourgeois families, continuallyparticipated in the protest marches. That was in 2012. Then, after theBJP came to power at the Centre, mainly students and intellectuals tookto the streets at various places at different times to protest againstthe fascist attacks of the RSS-BJP, bringing the issue of democracy tothe fore. Assaults by police forces were also not a few. It is alsoimportant to note that all these isolated protests and movementsdeveloped spontaneously, without any party or organized leadership.
We saw another large-scale movement during this period, and that wasthe All India Strike of the Dalit masses on April 2, 2018. Although someregional Dalit organizations took an initiative, this strike was largelyspontaneous. It cannot be said that this strike was peaceful. There wereseveral instances of clashes between the protesting Dalits and thepolice. However, a central strike is not a big deal, what needs to besaid is, at the local level spontaneous protests and movements of Dalitsagainst the oppression and tyranny of the upper castes have been goingon and still continuing for a long time in spite of many ups anddowns.
We have just highlighted a few incidents regarding the movements ofdifferent sections of the people. Besides these, in the last few years,we have seen the struggle of indigenous people in several places likeNiyamgiri against eviction from forest. We have also seen the movementof oppressed nationalities. We have seen another big movement that hasgenerated the biggest excitement, where the vast peasant masses ofPunjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, led by rich farmers, foughtrelentlessly for almost a year and finally forced the central governmentto withdraw the three agricultural laws. There is no need forrepetition; everyone is probably familiar with the events of thesemovements. In fact, the most important and unfortunate thing about thecurrent situation is that movements by various sections of the peopleare taking place from time to time, but the class that is the mostadvanced class in society - the working class - is not in struggletoday. This is undoubtedly a peculiar situation. Especially since thedefeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement, theworkers' struggle has been in a state of retreat. Unfortunately, even inthe last fifty years, the working class has not been able to overcomethe shock of defeat and turn around. Even in this situation, there aresigns of a turnaround in the process of forming their own independentunions and fighting, but it has become stalled for now. As a result, theworkers are still scattered and unorganized. Needless to say, there isno party of the working class, no stream of class struggle. Yet it is afact that only the struggle of the working class under the leadership ofthe Communist Party can influence the struggle of other exploited andoppressed sections of the people and draw them into the revolutionarystruggle to build a truly democratic society free from exploitation.Therefore, it goes without saying that, in the current situation ofabsence of a party, in the situation of absence of class struggle, thestruggle of various sections of the people, led by the pettybourgeoisie, is bound to be largely confined to achieving certainreforms and benefits at the most, which will ultimately push and isindeed pushing them towards the politics of changing the governmentwithin the parliamentary structure.
There is no working class party, but there are communists incontinuation of the past, who are divided into different groups. This isalso a strange situation. If these communist revolutionary groups couldunite and form a party to start with, then it would have been somethingdifferent. But, that has not happened even in fifty years. Leave asidethe question of developing class struggle from merely a group position,even it is not at all easy to organize and make the relatively advancedworkers class-conscious. In such a situation, what role can thecommunists, who are divided into groups, play in the movement of othersections of the people, or whether they have any direct role to play atall, this question has been surfacing again and again. Recently, thisquestion has come to the forefront with much force in connection withthe women's movement in West Bengal. Our current discussion is on thisissue. Let it be mentioned here, the struggle for democracy of thestudent intellectuals against the fascist onslaught and the struggle ofthe peasants have not been kept within the scope of this discussion.
First of all, we need to remember that communists, that is, theCommunist Party, are committed to the class struggle and that all theiractivities are conducted with the aim of nourishing and developing theclass struggle, in other words, within the context of the classstruggle. On the contrary, from the position of the vanguard of theworking class, any action by communists is unacceptable which helps tofurther entrench the reformist ideas prevailing in society, or on thecontrary hinders or corrupts the development of revolutionary ideas andconsciousness. The answer to the above question must be sought from thisrevolutionary perspective.
Women's Movement in West Bengal
A few days ago we saw two notable independent yet closely linkedmovements. One was the struggle of junior doctors in government medicalcolleges in West Bengal. The second was the women's movement, in whichmen were also involved to some extent. Both these movements started fromthe same source. On August 9 last year, a female junior doctor at the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata was raped and murderedlate at night while on duty inside the hospital. In strong reaction tothis brutal incident, junior doctors at RG Kar started a strike the nextday, and within a day or two, the movement spread to all governmentmedical colleges in the state. The women's movement, properly speaking,began on August 14 with the ?Reclaim the night' campaign in Kolkata andother cities and suburbs. Then, for more than two months, the movementcontinued with regular marches, rallies, human chains, etc., sometimesat night, sometimes during the day. According to many eyewitnesses,millions of women participated in the movement in one way or anotherthroughout the entire period. It would not be an exaggeration to saythat the phenomenon of women coming out of their homes in droves andjoining processions on the streets to protest incidents of sexualviolence has not been seen, at least not in the recent past. In anycase, whether it is the women's movement or the doctors' movement, thereseems no need to give a detailed account, because almost everyone knowsabout it; especially it should not be unknown to those who follow themedia,. Rather, we will mainly analyse the women's movement from aproletarian perspective in the context of the movements of various othersections of the people mentioned above and the requirement or not of anyrole to be played by communists in it.
First of all, it is necessary to understand that between the doctors'movement and the women's movement - although the two had similar issuesof ?justice' and ?punishment for rapists', the doctors' movement needsto be viewed separately. The junior doctors' movement had some demandsthat are not relevant to the women's movement. In fact, the juniordoctors' movement is a movement of a group of people with similarinterests employed in the same profession at a particular level; and inthat sense, their strike movement generally falls in the category of a?trade union' movement. On the other hand, there was the social presenceof women as one part (half) of the two parts in society, women and men,with the identity of women irrespective of class and caste. Therefore,the women's movement should be seen as a movement of a specialidentity-based group in society. Our current discussion revolves aroundthe latter.
Participation of Communists in the Women'sMovement
During the two and a half month long women's movement, multiplecommunist groups were seen participating in their processions andrallies almost every day. It is not only that, but many have even takenthe initiative to organize processions in some regional areas in thevein of the main movement. The working class is the most advanced classin society, and the communists are their representatives, their leadingconscious force. The question is, did the communists who involvedthemselves in the women's movement or the civil society marches do so asa communist, or with an independent stance of the class they represent?No, at least we did not see that apparently. Of course, it is true thatthere was no organized leadership working in the entire movement.Rather, this spontaneously formed movement had decided in its coursefrom the very beginning that no outside organization or party will beallowed to participate with a banner, that is, with any independentstatement/demand of theirs. In fact, ?we want justice', ?we wantpunishment for the rapist' ?this kind of slogan has guided this movementfor a long time. As a result, it stands to reason that in order toparticipate in the movement, one has to accept the aboveslogans/demands, be bound by them, and join the procession. Therefore,it was not possible for the communists to join the movement with anindependent position, this is understandable. But, does that mean thatwe should abandon our communist identity and join the women's protestssolely out of urge to protest, and would become the tail-enders of apetty-bourgeois movement confined within bourgeois boundary? In fact,the role of the communists throughout the entire movement was nodifferent at the individual level from the role of the other commonwomen activists. Is this behaviour of the communists acceptable from aproletarian perspective?
Note that we will face similar questions in the case of the Dalitmovement as well. The people identified as Dalits have their ownmovement within the society against social discrimination and oppressionby the upper castes, which is known as the Dalit movement. It is a factthat the Dalit people are not united, nor do they have a unifiedorganization. Therefore, the struggle of Dalits is sometimes seendeveloping at the local level, which has no continuity. However, in thissituation, the Dalit movement emerged with a militant face during thenationwide strike on April 2, 2018. Although the movement was basicallyspontaneous, however, some sort of understanding between various localorganizations under the leadership of the petty-bourgeois also played arole. However, in this context, we would like to bring up the question:In the extra-parliamentary (excluding the BSP movement) Dalit movement,whether central or local, will revolutionary communists, i.e.class-conscious workers, lower themselves to Dalit consciousness andmerge with that movement, to strengthen the Dalit movement or to breakthe isolation from Dalits? Even the slogan ?Jai Bhim-Lal Salam' (?Bhimmeans Bhimrao Ambedkar) can be heard from the members of severalcommunist groups ? which means only one thing. That is ? theunderstanding and unity of the communists with the Dalits. Obviously itdoes not need an explanation that this unity is not at the level ofclass struggle. It is a fact that whether it is a spontaneous movementwithout any leadership or a relatively organized movement led bypetty-bourgeois Dalit intellectuals, its demands are either to protector expand the reservation system, or to achieve some minor reformswithin the bourgeois system. As a result, directly participating in amovement of this nature would mean keeping Dalits confined withinbourgeois constitutional boundaries, while hiding the truth that thereis no freedom from caste discrimination and oppression without a radicalchange in the social system and ultimately thus helping to perpetuatethe caste system, one of the major ills of society. The vanguard of theworking class can never do this. Of course, if the communists have theidea that by entering the Dalit movement they can elevate the movementtowards revolution, then we will discuss later how unrealistic andsubjective that idea is.
Let us return to the discussion of the women's movement. We don'tknow exactly what thoughts led the communists to join the women'smovement or the civil society movement, but it seems that the motivationto protest and emotion led them to this place. Later, however, some ofthem came up with an argument as to why they joined the movement. Theargument was that not only women from middle-class or upper-classfamilies, but also working-class women from various strata joined themovement. It is truly a strange argument. The first thing that strikesis in that case one is joining with one section of the procession, butnot with another section of the protesters in the same procession ? canthis be possible? Besides, everyone knows that the majority of theprotesters were women from middle-class and upper-class families. Theywere the ones who controlled the movement. It would probably not bewrong to say here that the middle class was the driving force of themovement and it was they who drew the upper class women on the one handand the lower class women on the other into the movement. It is beyonddoubt that the number of women from working class or poor families wasvery minor. They did not have any separate demands, either. Overall, nomatter what we think subjectively, this movement was primarily amovement of the middle and upper classes, in a word, a petty-bourgeoismovement. The mere presence of lower-class women did not, and cannot,change the class character of the movement. Moreover, if we have toaccept the above argument in support of joining the movement, then thevast majority of Dalits are toiling people, and following the samelogic, it is mandatory for us to be part of any Dalit movement. In fact,the question is not who are participating in the movement, but ratherthe goals and objectives of the movement, the demands of the movement,and how we view that movement in the context of class struggle. From theother side, the goals and demands of a movement and the form of themovement determine, that is, they clarify the class character of themovement and the class position of the movement.
The Demand ? ?We Want Justice', ?We Want Punishment Of TheRapist'
First of all, we need to make one thing clear. In various programmesincluding the ?Reclaim the night', as well as in processions, ralliesand human chains, one demand has been repeatedly voiced - ?We wantjustice', although another demand included in the main demand was ?Wewant punishment' - meaning we want punishment for the rapist andmurderer of the trainee doctor at R G Kar Hospital. We have seen thatthe phrase ?We Want Justice' has been used more often during the ralliesand processions. The correct meaning of this phrase is - we want notjust trial, but proper justice. Was there really a clear idea that toobtain real justice, what should happen or what should be achieved, evenamong the frontline participants, leaving aside the general mass ofwomen protesters? In fact, if we assume that justice will be achievedonly if the rapist is served a death sentence within the prevailinglegal system, then wouldn't the extent and depth of the word ?justice'be confined within a narrow boundary? The question is raised because ina class-divided society, the judgment of justice and injustice is notclass-neutral. The working class and the capitalist class that standsopposite it ? these two cannot have the same judgment. From theperspective of the working class, one person will exploit anotherperson, one will dominate another, is unjust and immoral; on the otherhand, to exploit workers for profit and to protect and increase privatewealth is ethical and just in the judgment of the capitalist class. Itis on the basis of this latter principle that society is running, orrather is being run. Specifically, the current state structure ?bureaucracy, the court system i.e. judiciary, etc., and the socialsystem that is compatible with it ? is based on this latter principle inthe interests of the property owners.
So, it is of utmost importance that from which perspective thequestion of justice is being judged - bourgeois (capitalist class) orproletariat. From that perspective, if the death sentence for the rapistof Abhaya is (if it is proclaimed?) considered to be justice, thenwouldn't the struggle for real justice be effectively eclipsed?
From the first day to the last day of the two-and-a-half-month-longmovement, the women had one and the same demand, which we haverepeatedly mentioned. But it is also no secret that the rape of atrainee doctor by R.G. Kar is not an isolated and exceptional incident.Rape of women is happening all over the country every day, especiallyrape and torture of Dalit women by upper caste men. How many suchincidents are suppressed, not reported to the police or remains shut upeven after being filed or go through the legal maze of the courts foryears, there is no way to find out. Leaving aside the shame, agony andsocial stigma of such countless victims of rape, shall we remain stuckin the demand for ?justice' for just one? Junior doctors will raisethere voice in strong response to the brutal rape and murder of theircolleague and their organization and it is only natural that they wouldjoin the movement demanding justice for Abhaya by breaking thecorruption of the authorities and the collusion between the authoritiesand the police ? although they also had a bunch of other professionaland medical demands. If we had seen women erupt in a one- or two-dayprotest movement demanding the punishment of the rapist with that sameintense reaction, it would have been one thing. But for almost two and ahalf months, they took to the streets in thousands and continued theirmovement without a break. That is no small thing. Though there arevarious reasons for this, such as safety of women of their own families,solidarity with trainee doctors in terms of class position, especiallyamong the middle and upper classes, but without the growing resentmentagainst the ongoing oppression of women at both the personal and sociallevels, it doesn't seem like that a movement of so many people couldhave continued for so long. But this overall resentment againstoppression of women remained confined within the demand for justice forone person and it found no expression. This was not even possible withinthis movement, because it requires another struggle, which can pull atthe roots of society.
In the context of the demand, we will bring forward two more issues.The movement demanded justice. Justice means legal justice within theprevailing state system. Justice is based on the FIR-Charge sheet, LowerCourt, High Court, Supreme Court ? all these are the steps of justice.Not a single step can be skipped. It may be remembered that the voiceraised firstly from the movement was that the investigation should behanded over to the CBI. Later they themselves complained at one pointand protested at the CBI office, alleging that the investigation was notbeing done properly and was not progressing quickly enough. Then, afterthe verdict in the lower court, they are now having to protest again ?why life imprisonment, why not death penalty? Doesn't this realexperience actually pose the question to both the women at the forefrontof the movement and the men involved in the movement that rape willcontinue to occur in society, and should we just run after it withdemands for justice in every case, or should we think about building astruggle so that rape is eradicated from society forever?
There is no doubt that the pressure of the movement played a role inthe relatively quick verdict of the lower court. Two statements wereheard from some of those who were active from the first day of themovement to the end. One was, ?No matter how powerful you are, no onewill get through.' We don't know if they were aware of how high aposition they were placing the bourgeois legal system in with thisstatement. Moreover, what they said was not right. There may beexceptions, but in the current regime, the powerful and wealthy will getand will continue to be acquitted. The next thing they said was, ?We cantoo'. This is important. The revolutionary proletariat will welcome thisconfidence of women. But we will tell them ? not only this, you can domuch greater things. You can, stand shoulder to shoulder with your malecomrades and change the rotten bourgeois system; not just to achievesome isolated reforms in your lives.
Anyway, let's come to the second of the two points mentioned above inthe context of demands. This is the most important. It must beremembered that in a patriarchal society, rape is only a part of theongoing oppression and humiliation that women have to endure within thefamily, at work, and throughout social life. Of course, it is true thatmurder of bride, rape are extremely violent and ugly manifestations ofoppression against women. However, what is being said is that patriarchy- that is, male supremacy and domination - will continue; oppression andviolence against women - sometimes silent and hidden, sometimes overt -will continue; but rape will be eliminated from society in isolation, itis not possible. The death penalty for two or five people will not bringabout any change in the situation. Real experience will bear itstestimony. In fact, patriarchy is deeply rooted in society. It must beremembered that patriarchy did not suddenly fall from the sky. In short,since the day women in the entire society were separated from theprocess of production and were assigned to the activities of givingbirth to children, raising them, and handling all household chores,since that day, thousands of years ago, patriarchy, or the supremacy anddomination of men over women, have been historically established insociety. After passing the long stages of progress of civilization,though the concept of democracy has taken an institutional and legalform in the political and social spheres in the prevailing capitalistsystem, society at all levels has not been able to free itself frompatriarchy, or male dominance, which has been entrenched for thousandsof years. Even if we leave aside the daily incidents of rape and abuseof women in backward capitalist countries like ours, the recent movementunder the banner of ?ME TOO' in advanced capitalist countries will bearwitness to it. In fact, to get rid of rape and abuse of women,patriarchy, or male dominance, must be uprooted from society. It is alsoa fact that as long as private ownership of the means of productionexists, the economic and social divisions of master and servant, highand low, powerful and powerless will continue, and oppression of oneagainst the other will continue. In this perspective, if the end of maledominance and the complete liberation of women are to be achieved, arevolutionary change in society is required; a new society that is trulydemocratic and free from exploitation is needed. Specifically, in therelations of production, individual ownership must be abolished andsocial ownership must be established and only a state system that canensure that production and distribution for the needs of society, notfor anyone's profit, and above all, where the collective labour ofsociety, irrespective of men or women, will be engaged in thatproduction, women will gain economic freedom. In short, there is onlyone way to eradicate patriarchy and the oppression of women from society- social ownership of the means of production and harmonious collectivelabour of men and women. And this can only be ensured when the rule ofthe big capitalists and big landlords can be overthrown and the rule ofthe working people can be established, which is possible only throughthe revolutionary struggle of the worker-peasant masses led by workingclass.
You will see that we will reach the same conclusion regarding theoppression of Dalits. Everyone knows that the origin of the currentcaste system in our country lies in the caste system imposed from aboveon the basis of division of labour thousands of years ago. So here too,we will see that the roots of the caste system are very deep in society.It goes without saying that a long struggle will have to be waged tocompletely eradicate caste system and Dalit oppression from society. Theprerequisite for this struggle is the complete uprooting of the landlordsystem that still exists and the redistribution of the occupied land,which can break the feudal oligarchy, the power and dominance of theupper caste due to their ownership of land. This requires arevolutionary change in the current social system, an end to the rule ofbig capitalists and big landlords, which we also discussed above in thequestion of eliminating patriarchy.
But Where Is The Problem? Today's Reality - A Bunch OfQuestions And Confusion
The problem is that the most advanced class in society today, theworking class, which historically, due to its class position, has thepower to lead the vast masses of people who are exploited, deprived, andoppressed in various ways under the rule of the bourgeoisie andlandlords, is itself incapable today. The power of the working classmeans the organized power of the working class, its struggle, that is,the power of class struggle. But the real situation is that the workersare still scattered and unorganized due to the severe shock of defeat.There is no party; naturally there is no stream of class struggle. Thishas been the situation for the last fifty years. What is the future ofthe spontaneous movements of various sections of the people that havedeveloped spontaneously in this situation, which will continue todevelop regardless of the will of the working class? How will communistsview these movements? We must see from the perspective of theproletariat, in the context of the class struggle ? this is perhapsunderstood, but what is its specific and clear meaning? A series of suchquestions are posed before us. Only Marxists know that the liberation ofthe working class will be brought about by the working class, and theywill at the same time liberate the people. Communists do not, and willnot, deny this fundamental Marxist theory, that is, the theory of theleadership of the working class. But in practical politics, are they allholding on to this theory and conducting their practical activities? Orare they able to? The question is uncomfortable, but it cannot becompletely ignored. It can certainly be said at least that among manyrevolutionary-minded intellectuals in general, and especially among thenon-organizational ?individual communists', the tendency to deny thistheory is quite strong. In the meantime, some people are also seenpresenting new theories in the name of developing Marxism again. Itseems that the long-standing state of disintegration and incapacity ofthe working class and, on the other hand, the failure of the workingclass to retain power in China and Russia and the lack of a propersumming-up of the experience of the defeat of the first campaign of thestruggle for world socialism has pushed them to this anti-Marxistposition. In the current state of the workers' struggle, it is notsurprising if this atmosphere (?) shakes the faith of the organizedcommunists. However, the point we want to make is that if the historicalrole of the leadership of the working class is to be dismissed, then itmust be said that different sections of the people, especiallyidentity-based sections of the people, must bring about their ownliberation. So does this mean that in order to eradicate women'soppression, violence against women, and rape from society, in short, tobe forever freed from the oppression of patriarchy, women's society mustdevelop its own independent struggle? In short, the problem is theirs,the pain is theirs and so they must fight the battle? Is this how weshould look at the matter? Then, should the lower castes, the Dalits,also have to fight separately and on their own to free themselves fromthe oppression of the upper castes, and ultimately to end the castesystem? If we look at it this way, the indigenous people of themountains and forests must also fight separately to establish theirright to live independently with their own society and culture, freefrom the deprivation, neglect, and exploitation that have beenperpetuated in society for centuries. We have already discussed the pathto liberation. Based on that discussion, it must be said then that eachsection will have to bring about revolutionary changes throughout thecountry separately. This is really ridiculous. The liberation of thepeople will be brought about by the people (the workers are also justmerely a part of this people) ? there are some proponents of such aschool of thought or theory. Without going into a detailed discussion onthis question, it can at least be said that this line of thought has acertain influence, although not always clearly, on a section of thepetty-bourgeois intellectuals who believe in revolution. In thiscontext, if we proceed with the above discussion, it stands to reasonthat not only a single isolated struggle, the struggles of differentsections of the people must be unified. The first point where we willget stuck is who will unite them? Secondly, this is important, the sumof the struggles for different reforms, that is, even if those strugglesspontaneously unite, it will not, cannot, be transformed into arevolutionary movement- it will remain a struggle for reform only. Sothe question is not about simply uniting but about the aim or directionof the struggle. In fact, it must be understood that historically, dueto class positions (not due to someone's subjective wishes), only theworking class, or rather their class struggle, can unite and pull thevast exploited and oppressed masses under its umbrella in arevolutionary direction. How this will happen, that is, what form itwill take in the final phase, will depend on the actual conditions ofthat time. However, it would be a grave mistake to assume this willhappen through unification of the identity-based struggles and it willamount to thinking that the impossible is possible, and would also be arejection of Marxism.
There is another thing. You may recall, at the beginning of thearticle, we made some criticisms about the participation of communistsin the women's movement. The question was, since it was not possible toparticipate in the movement with an independent position/statement inreality, wouldn't participating in the movement like the other commonagitators be in reality a form of following the tail end ofpetty-bourgeois movement? But, there is another question at thebeginning that is more important. Even if participation in the movementin an organized manner were not prohibited, would the existence ofcommunists still be considered an independent revolutionary position?Because it is a fact that the communists do not have any separate socialforce, the strength of the communists as the leading conscious force ofthe working class is actually the strength of the organized workingclass and its class struggle. Presence of communists in a movement meanspresence of the working class. Therefore, in the current party-lesssituation, with the working class in a scattered condition, and morespecifically, in the absence of the stream of class struggle, communistswho are isolated from the working class, that is, communist groups,could have been present under the banner of their own organization, butit would not have been the independent revolutionary position of theworking class, that is, it would not have been a presence with arevolutionary platform. In the context of the class struggle, the abovebanner would have carried no meaning; rather, it would have resulted injumping on the bandwagon of the petty bourgeois movement with thebanner.
In today's situation, where there is no party, we discussed from oneperspective whether or not the communists should join the movement basedon the demands of individual sections of the people. Even then, a bigquestion remains. Even if there were a party, that is, even if theworking class were organized, would it have been the right thing from aclass perspective for them to join these movements (if there was anopportunity, of course)? This question is related to the relationshipbetween the class struggle and the movements of other sections of thepeople. To clarify our understanding/perception in this context, we willlook at two issues. First, to give an example, the demand for land inthe hands of the peasants in the working class's ?Charter of Demand' isa key demand, which is a prerequisite for freedom from Dalit oppressionand the end of the caste system. Now, whether it is the demand for anend to the caste system or the demand for land, what obligation does theworking class have to march together in a procession with the movementof the Dalits themselves demanding reservation or reform within theprevailing bourgeois system in order to raise their revolutionary classdemands? Secondly, the struggle of the workers must be distinguishedfrom the struggles of individual sections of the people. The objectivedirection of the movement of each individual struggle of the workers istowards a united struggle of the class against the capitalist class.That is why the great Marxist teachers have mentioned the trade unionstruggle as the primary form or embryo of the class struggle. Therefore,the participation of communists in the trade union movement and economicmovement of the workers is not only permissible, but also mandatory.Raising trade unions to a revolutionary position is a major task forcommunists. Even the communists, or rather class-conscious workers,enter the workers' movement led by the reformists-opportunists as theaim is to win over the workers influenced by the reformists to arevolutionary direction and to try to influence the movement as well. Inthis case, we know that the communists follow the principle, ?Marchunitedly, move separately.? Needless to say, this principle does notapply to the movements of other sections of the people, and that isbecause of the different class position of the agitators.
Let's break it down a bit. Movements of Dalits for demands ofreservation or for any reform, movements of women for ?justice' or onthe demand for legal and administrative measures for women's safety-should we think in this way that we should enter into the movement ofsuch backward sections and elevate each of them separately in arevolutionary direction, and establish the leadership of the workingclass over them? Is this what we mean by ?working class leadership'? Toput it bluntly, if we work with this idea, we will make mistakes andfall into a lot of confusion. We must clearly understand that directioncannot be imposed. Just as direction has to be imparted, there is also aprocess of receiving that direction. In reality, on one hand the growingproblems of public life, their experience of real movement, on the otherhand, the continuous revolutionary propaganda of the working class partyand above all, trust in the party, especially in the strength of theclass struggle, can and does make the revolutionary direction and at thesame time the leadership of the working class acceptable to thestruggling masses. Ultimately, it is the class struggle that bringsdifferent sections of the people together under one umbrella, which wehave already mentioned.
In Context Of What Is To Be Done
One thing we must first admit. We have been going through a verydifficult situation for a long time. Even the trade union movement hasalso come to a standstill, let alone the party-class struggle. On theone hand, the despair and passivity that has generally instilled amongthe workers as a result of the intense shock of defeat, and on the otherhand, the joint terror of the owner-government and the ruling class ?itis extremely difficult to organize even the relatively advanced workerscountering all these factors. Even if the workers' own struggle at thetrade union level has arisen in some regions isolatedly, it is notpossible to maintain its continuity. Overall, there is no promisingchange in the situation in the labour movement. In such a situation,most communist groups are seen compromising with the backwardconsciousness of the people in the pursuit of quick organizationalsuccess, And so, perhaps, the spontaneous movement of each section ofthe people, especially if it takes a larger form, is stirring up andattracting these communists who are divided into factions, which in turnis leading them to join these movements. Just as this tendency amongcommunist revolutionaries is undeniable, the existence of a tendency toremain passive and indifferent in these movements from the position of?we have nothing to do' cannot be denied. We must wage a struggleagainst both these tendencies, which is in fact a struggle against thecommunists themselves.
No matter how difficult the situation is, we must not deviate fromthe line of the revolutionary proletariat, nor should we sit idlewaiting for the future. The situation will change according tohistorical rules, the working class will rise again after enduring theshock of defeat, and it will definitely, but we do not know when. But wedo know that at this moment, we must take up the initial task ofpreparing for that day and hastening that day, firmly in hand. Inreality, the thrashing of the workers lying down in an unorganizedstate, day after day, in the face of the increasingly violent attacks ofthe capitalist class; the protests and movements of individual sectionsof the people against all oppression getting stuck in a few scatteredreforms within the organizational structure - all these are bringing tothe fore the necessity of immediately building a party by thrusting theclass-conscious vanguard of the working class, the communists. Even inthe last forty years, the communists have not or could not jointly builda party. The workers themselves must build their own party. This is thedirective of history to them. They have to prepare themselves for this,meaning that the relatively advanced workers have to become classconscious and unite. Those who consider themselves to be trulycommunists, it is undoubtedly obligatory for them to help the workers inthis preparatory work and we firmly believe that the centre of gravityof their entire activity must be placed here and here alone. We are notunaware that the workers will be able to become class conscious andclass organised in the real sense only on that day, the day they willnot be bound only by their own interests, but will consider theinterests of the vast exploited and oppressed people as their owninterests. In this context, it is important to make workers aware oftheir own accumulated issues of protest (such as oppression of Dalits byupper castes, oppression of women in patriarchy, etc.) expressed throughthe movements of different sections of the people and especially to makethem aware of and prepare them for the leading role of the working class- whether we have done this or not, or how much we have been able to do,should be the basis for judging the role of communists in the movementof individual section of the people (such as the recent women'smovement), especially during the movement and afterwards, when there isa stirring in society. One thing to understand here is that hundreds oftimes greater effort should be made at the factory gates and in theworkers' quarters than the effort for walking in the procession.
Besides, we have another big task which is no less important at themoment in the context of our immediate and central task of building theparty. To intervene in such entire movement, to influence them ? that iscertainly not possible; but it would be wrong to assume that a sectionof the protesters, as well as the protesting and change-seeking studentsand intellectuals outside the movement, cannot be made to think about ahigher and larger unified struggle and cannot be made aware to someextent. In the absence of a party, this task is undoubtedly not easyfrom a group standpoint. Nevertheless, we have to and will continue towork on making even a small portion of them class conscious, especiallyin context of the building of the party. However, to be specific here,analyzing the movement from a class perspective, bringing up thelimitations of the movement, and showing the path to the ultimatesuccessful culmination of the respective mass movement (such as completewomen's emancipation, the end of the caste system, etc.) - it is theduty of the communists to spread as much propaganda as possible aboutthese things within their current means. We must understand that this isalso a kind of intervention from outside the movement - but arevolutionary intervention. In particular, focusing on the recent twoand a half month-long women's movement, probably there was anopportunity to take this campaign to the thinking section of studentsand intellectuals and influence them to some extent. Incidentally, itcan be said that some people who walked in almost every procession havebeen heard to lament, "So much has happened, but what is the result?"However, the question remains to be seen to what extent the communistsas a whole were able to seize this opportunity, or whether they wereable to seize it at all.
Comments:
No Comments for View