New Trend in the Workers Movement
In the prolonged low ebb in the working class struggle that has been continuing since the defeat of the first forward march of the international working class movement, a change of situation is being witnessed in last few years, rather since the beginning of the last decade. Workers have started building up fights at the factory level to resist capitalist assaults, breaking free the shackles of passivity, frustration and helplessness. Certainly it cannot be regarded as the end of the phase of post-defeat retreat of the working class; but, undoubtedly the workers have started to turn around. This process has virtually started from the first part of the last decade and has now slowly started to take a clear shape, which, in recent times, is being proved by the experiences of the developed countries and to some extent of other countries too. Perhaps, we can say that although the phase of defeat of the working class that has been continuing in the international scale is yet to end, a change is occurring in the condition of prolonged low ebb of workers struggles; the working class, in different countries, has started entering into the arena of struggle, in varying magnitude.
This change of situation is more or less evident and understandable. But within this process of the change in situation there are some more aspects, which demand deeper attention from the revolutionary communists. The experiences of these workers' struggles are showing that the workers are not only entering into the arena of struggle, but they are doing so on the basis of an appraisal of their experiences of past struggles and organisations made by themselves and are trying to advance in their own way with their own learning from that evaluation of experiences.
How we will judge this changed situation, whether this change has any importance or significance for the development of class struggle in the coming days, and what is more, what conscious role we need to take considering this change of situation is the subject of discussion of this present essay. But to start that discourse, we first need to realize clearly the characteristics of this change and how it has started.
Change - Where & How
At first, even, if we consider the case of our country as a stand-alone case then we shall see that from the inception of this century an awakening of resistance fights among the workers can be noticed against capitalist offensives at the factory level or at the industry level. The 2002 Jute Workers' fight in the jute mills of Bengal was perhaps the first to draw our attention. On January 2002 the various big-medium-small old trade unions of different colours and shades had called for an industry-wide indefinite strike on the basis of a horde of demands. There is a longstanding tradition in the Bengal's jute mills: when all the unions together declare a strike then total strike takes place in all the jute mills; and the unions make some agreement with the Owners' Association (IJMA); and the workers get back to work conceding that agreement. But this time, on 2002, an unprecedented incident happened. The unions, before the strike was going to begin, made an agreement, a 'black' agreement this time too, with the owners' association and withdrew the strike just a day before the declared date of strike. This is also not a new phenomenon. The new thing that happened is that workers of 39 jute mills flouted that agreement and spontaneously started their own strike together totally defying and disregarding all the unions from the proposed date of strike; and what is more, they did that industry-wide strike without any central union/federation, which means without any leadership for unifying the workers of all the jute mills. Naturally, that spontaneous strike of the workers could not reach its 'successful finale'; but this strike brought into reality very forcefully two significant things - (1) thereafter the owners tried their best for 7-8 years to implement that black agreement in various ways, but they could not do so; they could not do that due to workers' persistent resistances in all but 2-3 mills; there is no mill where the workers did not make total work stoppages more than once whenever the management tried to implement that agreement; then (2) and this is more important: the workers, who previously could not even think of getting out of the grips of old established trade unions & their leaders who had placed themselves over the head the workers, 'from above', now dared to defy the domination of those unions and their sponsoring parties, rebelled against all of them, spontaneously they got united and continued their fights and are still carrying on. It is true that it is very difficult to stand in the same position for 10 long years in the same way; and the 2002 tempo and temperament are perhaps not in the same position as it was; but the jute workers did not return to the fold of those old trade unions yet. They are trying to solve their own problems themselves. Drawing a broad though somewhat unclear line of distinction with the 'past', they demarcated their 'present'; they came out of the shadows of the habit of leader-dependence and started their own thought-process independently, and took the rein of struggle, took their own fate, in their own hands. These things brought forth at that time that, a significant change in the workers struggle was in the offing.
It is a fact that the change that can be noticed in the sphere of workers' struggle is in the ambit of Trade Union struggles. In other words, starting from the beginning of this century, or particularly in the last 6-7 years, the aspect of the change in situation which we are trying to focus, that is, the change in behaviour of the workers, their thought process, in a word the aspect regarding their struggles, is still mainly taking place in the level of Trade Union struggle; the change is being manifested concretely within and through trade union level struggles. It is because the workers' struggles are still predominantly confined in the level of trade union struggle in general. On the one hand, the extreme reformist-revisionist degeneration and fall of the CPI, CPIM and, on the other hand, the disintegration of CPIML into factions, the working class has not yet been able to create their own party; that party is still absent. No new change has occurred towards the issue of solving the problem of partyless-ness, which means that the possibility of emergence of a true working class party, i.e., the real communist party is not yet being visible in near future. On the one hand, a prolonged phase of post-defeat retreat that has been continuing in the working class struggle, on the other, the non-emergence of a new party of the working class - in such a condition, it is no doubt impossible that the working-class by its presence in the arena of political struggle are exerting themselves to establish its own independent power and identity. If we look from another angle, we shall see that during this phase of retreat, wherein from the beginning of the '80s of the last century in the face of an intense and escalating assault of the capitalists in all the factories the workers could not build up any meaningful resistance for 20-22 years, it is an absurd illusion to think that the workers will spontaneously confront the capitalist attack by their independent political struggle. So where else the change in workers' struggles can appear at this moment other than in the sphere of trade union struggle?
We have of course started with the example of jute workers' struggle, but it is not that only from a single manifestation we are drawing a general conclusion that a change in situation is taking place. If we look into various industrial zones of India we shall see that a stirring has started to an extent among the workers. From the '80s of last century, particularly after the quick onset of dominance of globalisation-liberalisation in this country, attacks of the capitalists became fierce day by day, and the pent up resentment of the people against all that has been manifesting themselves in diverse ways. Even, it was being manifested through the general elections. But those manifestations are not our issue of discussion; those are without active role of the workers' struggle. Anyway, what is important is that the workers have started to take an about-turn towards opposing the attacks of the capitalists instead of surrendering and are trying to develop resistance in their respective factories. Not only in our country but also, if we look at other places around the world, particularly in Europe, we are witnessing a fresh air has been blowing in case of workers' fights for the last 7-8 years. Rather, workers' struggles on those countries are much more extensive as well as intensive than in our country. Thousands and thousands of workers there are pouring into the streets. Intense fights against the police are taking place. The powers of the states are unable to douse the flames of fury. In our country the resistance fights of the workers are still mainly confined in the factory plane, although surely we cannot forget the 2005 incident of Gurgaon Honda workers' blood-stained struggle against police. Then in South India we have seen vigorous fights of workers of Hyundai, Pricol, MRF, Foxxcon etc; not only that, but time and again we are witnessing workers' indignation turning towards violent incidents. The NCR region, at Gurgaon, Noida, Gzb and even the textile zone of Punjab are not as tranquil as it had been previously - with dissension, agitations, strikes. In West Bengal, where waves of workers struggle, once comparatively mightier than those of other states, brought for the capitalists sleepless nights, and where due to the betrayal of the trade unions and also the state terror a cold wave pervaded, in that state too the workers, taking lessons from their own experiences, have started to turn around and to stand on their own foot in a new way. All these happened in the last 7-8 years. The workers, who could not stand firmly against the offensive of the capitalists for last 20 years or more, who had surrendered to all sorts of atrocious conditionality of the capitalists and tried to save themselves in any way they can, have now started to get up shaking off their passive helplessness. This is the change in situation. But this is only one aspect; there is another facet and the importance and significance of that is far greater. That one is the aspect of organisation.
Worker comrades may recap that when in the beginning we presented the picture of jute workers' spontaneous fights in West Bengal, we also mentioned that they not only fought against the capitalist attacks but also they had to fight rebelling against the age old domination of all the left-or-right unions. This very feature in fact totally demarcates the 'present' or 'new' that is being emerged from the workers' struggle. But it should also have to be mentioned that when in 2002 the jute workers carried out their own first strike and also in the later years when they came out of the old trade unions, united themselves spontaneously and organised their own strikes several times in factory levels they did not formally create any separate union organisation. There are some problems and we shall discuss later the reasons behind that. However, in general, the new trend that is emerging in the workers' movements through factory based trade union level fights embodies in main the characteristic feature, such as, the workers are rebelling against the old TU leadership; they are making a departure from those old TU-s; they are making their own separate organisation, keeping it under their control and new set of worker leaders are also emerging from them. At first we shall see why at all it became necessary for the workers to leave the old TU-s and create new separate TU-s?
The Necessity of Creating New Unions
We know that the capitalist class is launching more and more intensive as well as extensive attacks on the working class and the toiling people through the implementation of globalisation-liberalisation program to ensure their super profit; governments, be at centre or at state level, be of this or that parliamentary party or alliance of parties, are all giving the capitalist class all sorts of assistances. But it is a fact the ever-increasing assaults on the working class was on the rise since the beginning of the '80s of the last century. And from that time the bourgeois parties like the Congress, the BJP and even the reformist-revisionist left parties also pulled the rein of the workers struggles, to assist, de facto, the capitalist onslaught -- from that time the quicker transgressing of those left parties has started and their sliding down the slope of reformism at a quicker pace. Of course it is true that within this phase too, particularly between 1977 and 1983 a wave of TU struggles swelled in states other than WB, but instead of growing it into a high tide, these struggles swiftly waned in absence of correct leadership, or in other words, due to the betrayal of the old established leaderships; and then followed the continuous, almost permanent, retreat. It should be mentioned here that in WB, after the tumultuous years of workers' struggles 1967-1969, the workers' struggles experienced a screeching halt facing the state terror. In some sense, the retreat of the workers in WB had started since that time. WB of 1980s saw non-stop abject surrender of the old established TU-s and one after other black-agreements in all the factories. But let us put aside the state-wise analyses of rise and fall of workers struggle; but it would perhaps not be incorrect to conclude that, considering the overall picture of India, since the mid-1980s, particularly, after the failure of the heroic 72 days textile strike in Maharashtra, the workers were compelled to surrender in front of the capitalist attacks, thanks to the line of compromise and class collaboration and class conspiracy of the old established TU-s; and when the capitalist class, emboldened by the New Economic Policy, started steam-rolling the working class, the workers' unions, which were supposed to be the weapons of fight against capitalist attacks, became nakedly, brazenly and vigorously the weapon to protect the interest of the capitalist class. The Party-Union leadership forced its way from above on the workers and the workers became virtual prisoner-slaves chained by the parties. Formally, the union was of course there, but in real terms it was no longer there.
When new ripples started emerging among the working class, and when it was realised that there is no other way left to the cornered workers but to fight back, then the old unions appeared as the main obstacle. In other words, since last 20-30 years, the workers have lost their weapon to fight, their unions. So it has become utmost important to the struggling workers to reclaim their lost weapon, i.e., to solve the problem of organisation. And with the partial/spontaneous/semi-conscious sum up of their own experiences they took the task of reclaiming their weapons in their own hands. In reality there was no other way in front of the workers than to reject the old rotten TU-s and to create new organisations. So what is 'new' that the workers are not only coming out of passivity, frustration, the age old practice of dependence on leaders, but they also have started creating their own new organisation challenging the old.
The Matter [Change] - In Motion
We told it earlier that the change in the workers' movement had been evident only since last 7-8 years. It is also a fact that the number of new unions is very few at this moment, as far as we know, it is just a handful. So undoubtedly we shall encounter a question: basing on the little undulations in the workers' movement and based on the small number of newly built trade unions is it at all permissible or justifiable to tell that a new change has started within the workers' movement? We must clarify. Even if we assume the justification of the question we cannot get away without facing an opposite question: is there no interconnection or commonness among the various new struggles and organisation-building processes that have been taking place among workers, that too without any 'external aid', in different zones in India? Are all these merely isolated events? Is the inherent cause or urge for formation of these unions different from each other? Does it not reflect the emergence of the necessity & aspiration to confront a common objective condition? The correct and objective answer to such questions will inevitably lead to the conclusion that these current events are not separated or isolated ones, rather through them a change from the old is being reflected, a change obviously driven by objective condition which is in transition/motion and hence they cannot but signify a definite trend or stream. It can be said with conviction that in the condition of a long drawn partyless-ness, where the established reformist-revisionist left parties have degenerated to the rightist slope and are trying their best to establish them as protectors of this present regime and where the main role of all the left and right party-controlled established trade unions is to protect the interest of the capitalists, and moreover where the capitalist crisis is compelling the workers and other toilers to take the road of struggle, the workers will have to abandon old established parties and unions and create their own unions independently for the sake of resisting the attacks. In the handful of unions we are seeing only the beginning. Further, we are to understand that the workers' spontaneous resistances at the factory level and building up of workers new unions are connected with each other.
But alongside this it is also undeniable that within the big fights that were seen among the workers in the last few years (we are not speaking of the phoney 'struggles') we have seen such instances where the workers are fighting the battle remaining 'within' the old trade unions (i.e., carrying their old banners). How is it possible? How those same trade unions, whose policy is to compromise-and-adjust in relation to the capitalist attacks and which force the workers to swallow the compromises, can lead such struggle? But for one or two exception within old leaders ( may be for some particular reasons), the analyses of the course of those struggles lead us to a general conclusion that, really speaking, there the workers are fighting while formally keeping the old leaders in the front or sometimes compelling the old leadership to walk alongside. It is understandable that (1) 'workers are fighting under the leadership and direction of old leaders' and (2) 'workers are fighting themselves being within the old trade union platform by formally keeping those betrayer leaders in the front' are two different things, they are not the same. Here the words 'keeping those ? in the front' go to suggest that the workers have garnered an amount of control over the fights in their own hands and exerting that; they are not letting the control panel totally in the hands of the old leaders. This means a condition - the workers do not have faith and confidence on the old leadership and at the same time due to several reasons (one being that a new set of leaders are yet to gain full confidence) cannot organise themselves leaving aside the old leadership. It can be said to be a middle-of-the-road case. This halfway situation cannot last long - though it can last temporarily, for a time being, by containing somehow the contradiction of the workers and old leaders - of course if they do not want to go back to their past state of passivity and frustration and of course if they want to march forward. In reality, the aggressive offensive of the imperialists-capitalists, the more and more brazen display of loyalty to the capitalists by the betrayer old leadership and, what is more, the emergence of new leaders from the fights of the workers will all contribute to strengthening of self-confidence among the workers and these will push them to take up the rein of organisation in their own hands and solve above-mentioned contradiction. If we do not assume as axiom that the workers are fated to tail meekly one or other party, and on the other hand, if we fail to keep even a minimum confidence on the power of the workers, that the workers, without any external aid, firstly by being pushed by objective necessity and then through the experiences of their practical struggle, can come out of the shackles of the old party dominance and can take their own independent separate position, then merely the apparent aspects of these 'halfway' cases will come to our notice, & we shall fail to see the 'matter' in 'motion'.
We have some recent experiences regarding this, whose correct appraisal and analysis can only be done if we see the related events in motion. In the last 2-3 years we saw even such a case where the workers rejected and abandoned the old trade unions, themselves united and formed their own new union, are continuing fight, but, facing tremendous unfavourable conditions, particularly police atrocities, in order to keep their unity and organisation intact, the workers have had to adhere to an external force (a party in this case). Here also the same question comes. Will we only see that the workers could not keep their own new position intact, or will we highlight the independent desire, initiative and fight to break down the old chains and keep confidence on themselves? It should be noted however that along with this mentioned experience we also have some different experiences in another two factories. There the workers built up their own separate fights and organisations, but after a year or so, in one case they were compelled to take shelter in the fold of BJP and in another case they gyrated towards TMC (trinamool congress). But in both the cases, within a year, the workers expelled the external leaders (in one case crudely shoved them, literally) and came back to their own independent position. Actually the question is whether to see the contradiction and conflict of the workers with the old party-union leadership 'in motion' or not. We should keep in mind that that the workers have started rebelling against the old leadership and are trying to stand with their heads high due to the objective compulsion of the reality, not due to subjective desires of some individual workers. So we are to realise that creating a new separate union, to maintain that platform and the fight for that are all included in a single tendency, which we can term as a trend of change in recent situation, of course only if we observe the fight of the workers to stand independently in its motion.
The Necessary Role the Communists
Through the previous discussion we tried to highlight that the situation has started to change and the workers are carrying out that change by themselves by way of giving birth to a definite trend characterised by their factory based trade union level struggles and for building up of their own separate unions. In this change there is, de facto, no role of the communists; but when for the past few years the workers have started changing the situation of struggle and when the workers are doing this spontaneously, should the communists stand aloof ignoring the beginning phase of this change trivialising it? Or, should they make concrete analysis of the concrete reality and basing on that formulate necessary role or steps and take the responsibility of carrying them out? Of course the greatest obstacle towards taking the necessary role is the more than 30 long years of segregated group existence of the communists which they could not yet overcome. A painful separation from the masses of the working class and also other toilers and an eternal cycle of split-merger-split? have, as if, become the destiny of the revolutionary communist groups. Besides, a desperate bid to 'win over' backward masses of people under reformist influence has resulted in increase of rightist tendencies in a good many number of these groups. In fact, it is not possible for segregated groups to intervene in the objective reality; only a party can do that. But the unfortunate fact is this that the communist groups could not do away with their group existence to become a united single party. And there is no sign of any change in this picture in near future. So, those communists who are earnestly working to organise the working class as a class and who are facing a bunch of real problems that are cropping up from the present struggles, they must ponder over this question - what role is demanded from them by this changing situation in the workers' movement. For this the first task is to demarcate and mark the new trend of TU struggles and organisations and to locate their possibilities, because these are to be developed. And for this it is needed to sweep aside all sorts of subjective thinking, desire, etc and base oneself on the Marxist-Leninist truth: concrete analysis of concrete conditions and to formulate tasks accordingly. Side by side it must also to be pondered whether all the tasks, whatever is formulated on the basis of this concrete analysis, can be taken up by together.
Will we consider the workers' effort to oust the old leadership and taking the organisation under their own control and authority to be same as just a change in the union leadership or leadership-takeover as was the case when the workers, in the past, had tried to bring INTUC in place of CITU or AITUC in place of INTUC and so on, ostensibly for protection from, or to resist the capitalist onslaught, though in vain? One who is thinking like this perhaps fails to observe the basic difference. The difference is very obvious and there is no reason to confuse the two. Behind the change of leadership of parties among the established ones was the old obstinate habit of dependence on forces external to the workers. And what is happening now is the fight against that habit or custom of dependence on others, depending on workers' own power and initiative. This difference did not fall suddenly from the sky; neither there is any subjective wish or desire of some individuals; behind this there is certainly the bitter lesson of their past real-life experiences.
We are to note that the desire to form own separate union discarding the old is one thing and to build up that union in reality as well as to preserve it against severe odds is something completely different. It is not at all an easy task to shape the desire into reality. Had that been easier then we would have had a longer list of names of unions of new trend. Only struggle and vigorous struggle of the workers can fill in the gap between these two, and nothing else. The workers have to confront a lot of obstacles. External obstacles are there, like charge sheet, suspension or even sacking of the new worker-leaders, attacks by the forces of old parties and of police, obstructing registration of the new union by the administration, etc etc. How many times the fighting advanced workers of the jute mills were put in police lock-up under false cases and how the workers' enemies are trying to frighten them through all these are not unknown to us. In fact we should find that the reason behind the peculiar conduct of jute workers that they are not going for organisation in spite of their series of resistance struggle without and as against the traditional unions, lies in the hostility of this situation. Often-heard comment from fighting jute workers are : (1) If we form union our leader workers would invariably be exposed to victimisation and all-out attack or it would even run the risk of leaders being bought over by the management, and (2) it would be extremely difficult, in some cases almost impossible to withstand (with lone strength - author.) the ruthless terrorisation of police-party-management-administration nexus (this apprehension is not without basis - author). Here, in this connection we must not fail to understand that it is this terrible hostile condition in the surrounding which drives, in cases, the workers to take shelter of (i.e., formally adopting) old union banners ( old leaders) for the sake of their own struggle, as we mentioned earlier. Precisely speaking, as long as the new struggles remain few in numbers, no doubt, it would be very difficult for workers in individual factory (to combat capitalist-Govt-party-union nexus) with lone strength and they are to advance through this and that tactical move.
But if we look deeper, we shall see that the main impediment is not there outside, but it is there within the workers themselves. This stumbling block is: to overestimate the power of the forces external to the workers, i.e., the forces of party, union leaders and the longstanding sticky habit of relying on the leaders and feeling themselves as mere underlings. This implies the opposite too: i.e., to underestimate workers' own power, not having sufficient self-confidence that 'we can do', sufficient courage that 'we can do that ourselves'. To surmount the hurdles outside and inside is really a tough fight. One major precondition for that fight is, at the least, a solid unity of all the workers in the factory basis. To build up this unity is very arduous, but on the other hand once this unity is achieved then it will not only help in the creation of their own union but also it will create the organisational foundation for future united struggle of the workers as a whole. To defeat the obstacle within self the workers need thoroughgoing change in themselves. Remembering the old sermon, to change the outside world we need to change ourselves. And for that what is necessary, is that the workers are to make themselves capable of thinking independently which obviously implies development in workers consciousness to an extent. Now the question is, whether the communists shall help the workers in the above objective movement of transformation and development of workers necessary to hold out their independent resistance struggle and organisation in the present concrete situation or they will remain aloof clinging to the view that "TU struggle can only give rise to TU consciousness." It is for them to decide, but if they prefer to ignore the objective movement it can only be said that the situation would not remain static, workers will move on by themselves, learning lessons from their experience. To be precise, the experience of intense struggle, that the workers are to go through at the present condition for building up and holding out their own independent union in the face of joint attack of Govt.-capitalist-old parties, can not but bring about a change in the workers involved; whether it will be in the realm of learning to rely on own united power or attaining awareness to identify the source and nature of capitalist attack or such other. And these can not let the workers, particularly the leading workers be confined in the level of TU consciousness.
We must realise particularly that for the new set of worker leaders of the new unions, change in self is all the more relevant and it is also necessary for the advancement of struggle. Their role as leadership is not only necessary for the struggle of formation of new union but it is more importantly needed for sustaining the struggle, sustaining the newly built union platform, which means, to keep in tact the unity of the workers by continuously combating the manoeuvre of the old parties to demoralise the workers on reformist-opportunist line This important and necessary role demands that the new leaders, or at least a part of them, must attain some amount of political maturity and class-consciousness. Just by the so called trade union consciousness it is not possible to overcome the external and internal hurdles, particularly the subjective ones; it is neither possible to carry on struggle in proper direction
As expected, the complicated question that we are to face here is: where from this necessary consciousness will come - because, there is neither a working class party; nor a stream of political struggle able to stamp an imprint on the society is present! Apparently it seems to be a riddle or puzzle-labyrinth? What is it? It is the objective necessity of workers struggle that has set the new trend, obviously in the absence of working class party, but again to prepare able and conscious ( of course to an extent) leadership for sustaining and developing the same new trend what is needed is non-existent But is it really an unsolvable puzzle? Will this puzzle lead us to conclude that what we discussed, that is the new emerging trend of workers' movement, the creation of independent union rejecting the reformist-revisionist leadership, is unreal and baseless? Is the importance or significance of the new trend just an illusion? Firstly it goes without saying that had there been a party worth its name, in existence, there would not have been any question of new trend and naturally the significance thereof in the context of class struggle. Course of events would have been obviously different. But the truth is otherwise and one should not run away from truth. Undoubtedly we shall never be able to solve the riddle if we do not take into cognizance the dialectical interacting interrelation between matter and consciousness, particularly, if we take asaxiom that the workers, in their own, through their own struggles and/or through impacts and reactions of social-political events, do not learn anything, they are to be educated from outside - we shall not be able to see the solution if we do not come out of the vortex of this type of thought processes. It is true that consciousness influences matter, and is it not also true that matter influences consciousness? Objectively speaking, the wound of the injury of the defeat of international communist movement is so deep and intense - so much are the confusions and deviations in the sphere of communist ideology - moreover, in our country, the way the CPIML splintered into numerous groups and the distances among them are only increasing instead of diminishing - so slowly the history is limping - that the splintered communists could not unite to make a party in the last 30 long years - they are so terribly divorced from the working class - so near-absent they are in the heart of the toiling people - that these groups will act on 'matter' and they 'are' changing or 'will' change the condition is nothing but a subjective dream. But if 'consciousness' fail to act on matter, matter will not sit idle, matter will not stop acting on consciousness. Really speaking, in the context of this present discussion, the answer to the puzzle is here: the developed consciousness (to an extent political, at least with political element) which is necessary for the advanced worker-leaders to grasp and advance the movement of the new trend, in this concrete reality at present, the trade union struggle itself virtually facing the all-out offensive of the capitalists will go on giving birth to that necessary consciousness, in other words it may be said that they will learn from their struggles.
In this context we are to keep in mind that the factory based or industry based trade union movement in its spontaneous and unchained natural motion, breaking off the shackles of bureaucratic party authority and shaking off the trance of revisionist reformism, is here, in the above, treated as the 'matter'. Secondly, it should also have to be kept in mind that the trade union movement under discussion is not trade union movement, per se, under any general condition; it is neither the trade union movement in its primary inception phase in a country, nor the opposite, that is, it is in a condition where the working class is in the phase of development of political struggle, which means the working class has already been well organised as a class. At present we are standing in an unprecedented situation where the first forward march of the international communist movement has met a defeat, the class is in a phase of retreat, and the class is disarrayed, while on the other hand there is a long history of trade union movement and political movement. If we fail to differentiate post defeat specific condition or if we ignore the difference as insignificant then we will fail to evaluate the new trend and the workers' new conducts in the context of development of class struggle in future days.
And again we must not forget two major aspects of the condition. No: 1 - when old communist parties have rotten and degenerated or failed whereas new party has yet not been built up and no such near-future possibility is visible, and no: 2 - from a unbearable static inertia of post-defeat frustration, inactivity and struggle-less situation when the working class has again started entering the arena of spontaneous struggle, then they are doing so from trade union plane or they are compelled to do so; and as the old trade unions have also been degenerated so they are to solve the problem of organisation too. If a working class party were present then the workers would not have to think of solving by themselves, the problem of organisation, needed in the trade union level movement. The tradition of party-union as it has been going on for a long time and as that tradition was further consolidated since the 1970s, the workers would not have faced any difficulty in leaving one old party led union and accepting another union led by that working class party; that would have happened concurrently. But if it were just a change of union, that is, if it were limited within just taking shelter of a honest, militant, reliable party, then there would not have been any necessity of struggle, there would not have been any importance or significance of such events in the context of development of class struggle. Actually, if there were really a true communist party there would not have been events of mere 'change' in union banner. Existence of a true communist party means existence of a minimum army, detachment, of advanced organised hardened (by class struggle) workers even in the phase of post-defeat retreat in continuation of the old stream of class struggle; it means an army of advanced workers who have influence on a section of workers and who are acknowledged in the society in general. That party would not have only assisted the workers in building up their organisation when situation demanded so in this period of beginning of melting of frozen ice, i.e., beginning of breaking the static inertia, if any, but would have done so with its politically recognised identity; that party would also have simultaneously tried to draw the militant trade unions towards its independent and separate political programme and course of actions. That party is not there. And the class is also not at that position. None of the above two-flank task is possible for the communist revolutionary group to take up. It is beyond their capacity. So what is needed to be done is to be determined by what is possible, in other words, what definite and actual role the communists can take up, with their group existence, in the present circumstances is to be ascertained This role is not exhausted just by helping the fighting workers in building up their new unions; rather a bigger part of that role will be to help the workers in the fight against their inner obstacle in such a way that at least the advanced workers can prepare themselves in building up class unity in days to come. To say more definitely, the required role is to help the new unions to become real new unions, and to help the leading workers develop their political possibility.
The characteristics of present Economic Struggles - the Contradictions within - United Struggle
We all know that Economic struggle or the Trade Union struggle is a form of class struggle, but it is a primary form. It is also not unknown to us that in a capitalist society trade union movement is one manifestation of the contradiction of capital and labour just as another manifestation is political struggle. What the trade union struggle manifests as a beginning i.e., primary form, the same manifests itself in a developed form through the political struggle, and then the same manifests itself as the socialist movement, finally the revolution, through which the capital-vs.-labour contradiction is to be solved by the destruction of capitalism which gave birth to that contradiction. We can realise that as they arise from the same contradiction, the natural dynamics of working class movement is the transition from the primary form to the developed form. This inherent (natural) movement of workers' struggle gets obstructed and misled by reformism-opportunism - the ideology which is infused within workers' struggle from outside by alien forces and on the other hand class conscious??..is aware that again an outside intervention is needed to fight the different alien trends and obviously to let go ahead unhindered and also hasten, the objective movement arising out of the aforesaid contradiction. We feel, to clarify and get into understanding in totality the principles of Marxism-Leninism in this regard warrant serious discussion. Perhaps it will not be possible within the ambit of present discussion. But definitely shall have to do it sometime later, more so, for the necessity to comprehend the concrete role of consciousness in the present concrete situation, relying on Marxist-Leninist principles and formulation. We shall also have to understand that whether that transformation-transition process from one form to another works only 'consciously', or, side by side, simultaneously it also works in a non-conscious-semi-conscious way. Meanwhile if we do not refrain from observing, studying the class struggle in motion and cogitate, adjudge accordingly, then, in the present context of this discussion it will perhaps not be incorrect if we say that the extent of primary-ness of the primary form is related to the concrete historical phase of the economic (trade union) movement; in other words, the extent of presence of the element of developed (political) struggle within the primary form will depend on the concrete particularities of the actual trade union movement at that particular time. Seen from this angle, a trade union movement in a country in the time of crisis of capitalism will bear some different, separate particularities, features of the trade union movement other than that during the peaceful development of capitalism. Precisely speaking, there will be difference of particularities within trade union movement between the pre-defeat condition and the post-defeat condition. So, whether the new set of leaders of the movement of new trend, who are coming up from the rank and file struggling workers, can themselves acquire spontaneously, without any external aid, political lessons from their own experience of practical struggles, without getting confined within the strict boundary of trade union consciousness, or, to what extent they can learn in this way, are to be understood by analysing, adjudging, cogitating the inner contradictions, particularities, the concrete motion of this present new trend of movement.
Mainly through the dissolution of the Soviet Russia and degeneration of China the defeat of the international socialist movement was brazenly exposed, and thereafter, the imperialist-capitalist camp is prancing and swaggering all over the world. in pursuance of the globalisation-liberalisation programme. Ruling classes of all the other countries are united, in their own interest, under the authority and leadership of imperialism. They are steamrolling at a devastating speed their chariot of super-profit trampling the working class and other toilers of all the countries. On the other side, all over the world the old communist parties degenerated, decayed and are working with the policy of class-collaboration and by betraying more and more the working class they lean more and more towards maintaining the capitalist interest. So, in various countries, particularly in the developed world, Europe for example, we recently saw some remarkable workers' militant struggles either not bothering the old leadership or at best by keeping old banners. We are to understand the trade union movement in our country keeping the aforesaid events too in our mind. In the trade union movement now there is not only the fight against capitalists, but also there is a fight against the dead-burden of the old leaders, parties and their different ploys and manoeuvres. Here we are to realise that the role of the workers in this situation essentially means the role of the advanced workers who are coming up through the struggles of new trend; and hence, many things of the future, including the development of the real class organisation in future, depend on whether through the struggles these advanced worker-leaders are taking proper lessons from their experiences and thus whether they are advancing towards gaining the desired competence of new leaders in real terms.
In our country, after the start of the implementation of new economic policy, even before that too, we saw that the worker-vs.-capitalist conflict was more centred around resisting the charters of demands imposed by the capitalists than focused on demands placed by the workers demanding higher wages, better working condition and benefits and so on; it can be said that such was the general picture. The central blue print of the globalisation-liberalisation programme following which the capitalists are waging their war is essentially to deprive the working class forcibly the rights and somewhat favourable working conditions that it earned through prolonged struggles and to impose newer sets of appalling and precarious provisos. The attacks in different factories at different times were not isolated events; even though they might have been executed in isolated manner or separately, all such capitalist attacks have commonness; e.g. - a lowering of wages (in real terms), increase of work-load, decrease in number of permanent workers and increase of temporary ones (who get less wage and benefits but have higher work-loads) and curtailment (and if possible wiping out) of the right to struggle and organise. In reality, the capitalists are smashing down the long established legal and conventional frameworks governing the labour-capital relation. The situation is such that the capitalists are united and their assaults are centralised, whereas, the working class has to resist that attacks in isolated factory level depending on limited diminutive power available at individual factory. Only united, combined strength of the working class could actually combat it. But for that the working class must have a party or at least a central organisation that can assemble workers throughout the country, both of which are non-existent now. We should remember that during the period when this type of situation prevail the trade union struggle can not but bear a contradiction - the contradiction between the inherent character of trade union movement and the real fight that the trade union has to launch or is launching. This contradiction is pushing the workers, particularly the new leaders, to face a bunch of questions beyond the scope of the individual capitalist-labour contradiction, questions relating to 'class', and the new leaders are being forced to think over those questions in the interest of advancing their real fights. They are to comprehend those to some extent, they are to realise the globalisation-liberalisation policy and programme.
Even if they do not understand that fully consciously that the solution to that contradiction of the trade union movement lies in united struggle of the working class, the worker-leaders have started to understand from the interests of their real fights the necessity of united struggle. We can recapitulate what the Maruti-Suzuki CEO Mr Khattar had told some years earlier after crushing the workers' struggle there in 2002. He said (though we cannot remember the exact words now) - I could have agreed to the workers demands (which means Maruti could afford that financially) but I didn't do so because it would have created a pressure on the whole auto industry (i.e., on his class, capitalists). This type of open statement clearly demonstrates how much united the capitalist class is, how class-conscious they are. Everywhere they are dispensing permanent workers and are filling up with contract workers. The workers, through their blood-stained experience of resisting this in a single factory, are made to understand how their fight on this issue is connected with other fights (and would-be fights) in various other factories on the same issue. Secondly, it is due to that aforesaid contradiction, workers in several industries are giving really a tough fight, but failure is the general outcome, if some 'success' is met with at a place or two then that is very much limited, partial. And experiences of isolated factory based highly un-equal fights are in fact pushing unconsciously the fighting workers towards the solution of the aforesaid contradiction in the political arena. Whether the workers taking lessons from their apparent-failures, will march forward relying on their own strength towards uniting on a class basis, or whether they, getting exhausted, will go back to the dark world of helplessness and inactivity, the world where they were and from where they came out, only future can tell. But it is also a fact that the mindless attacks of the capitalists are in reality pushing the workers back to the wall and unknowingly impelling the workers to get united. Undoubtedly, this future unity of the workers will not be the same as a 'unity' of workers under the umbrella of the 'unity' of 'oppositional' parties of various colours including the revisionist-opportunist ones, on the other hand that unity will be achieved keeping those parties at bay and opposing that old 'unity'. It has to be an independent unity of the workers themselves. Whether the workers' struggle will advance following this path will depend on the new worker-leaders, a minimum level of preparation of them by way of taking lessons from their experiences of struggles in isolated factory based plane, and of course the determinant condition is the unity of these leaders in a countrywide scale. It goes without saying that the responsibility of the communists is to help the advanced worker-leaders in achieving this unity.
All India Platform of Advanced Workers
But how is it possible for the advanced worker-leaders scattered over different corners of such a vast country, to unite? Is that really possible? When a party is not there, not even at a central political platform, who will then assemble those workers? Undoubtedly it is an important question. Actually speaking, the political organisation of the working class which takes up the necessary and effective tasks for the advancement of class struggle at that particular moment is nothing but a party, whether that possesses all the qualities necessary for a fully developed class party or not. But, if really there were such an organisation, why it would have limited itself in assisting only advanced worker-leaders to unite instead of uniting and organising the masses of the class countrywide? Such questions, seemingly, confront us with another riddle; that is: as there is no party it is necessary for the advanced workers to unite, whereas, for the unity of the advanced workers it is necessary to have a party. Anyway, a riddle is a riddle; moreover, it has got a plain and simple answer: the pan-India unity of the advanced workers that we mentioned can be built up by the advanced workers themselves, even without any 'external help'. That is difficult but not impossible. But one help may be useful for them. We already discussed that the new leaders of the new unions and also the active advanced workers of such factories where they could not yet dissociate with the old and make their own independent union are feeling and realising that why they need to be united and why to resist properly the all-out well-orchestrated assault of the capitalists, a united struggle of the workers is necessary. Once they realise truly such need for unity then they themselves can take up the work needed to translate the necessity to reality. The only thing needed is the self confidence, that 'we can', which the workers have lost due to the long-lasting habit of depending on the 'educated' babu-s of the old parties. To awaken that self confidence is a helpful act. There are so many examples in the history of international working class struggle about what great organisational capabilities the workers can have, and that is not unknown to us. So, a big part of the 'external' help will be to help start the process of making that unity. We believe it firmly, rather it is our conviction that if a sufficiently noteworthy number of advanced workers can take up the work then they will be able to pave the way for uniting other workers.
To build up the All India Platform of the advanced workers the basic requirements are of course the urge, self confidence and manifestation of the organising capability in the workers in general and advanced workers in particular. Side by side it is also no less important to chalk out the aims and objectives and concrete programmes of the platform. Firstly, it should be made clear that this platform will be of the workers and only of the workers, non-worker individual or communist-activist should have no place in that platform. There is no question of this platform maintaining any contact or relation whatsoever with any old established parliamentary party, because the birth of this platform is through rebellion against all of these parties, unions and their leaders. This platform must be run under the strict control of and leadership of the workers themselves. Besides, the workers should always be aware and vigilant so that this platform does not turn to be an organisation under one communist group or a combination of some groups. Because, otherwise it will not only be unhelpful for the platform either at present or in future, rather that will jeopardise the all India unity of workers. If the revolutionary communists want to help the workers in building up that platform, if they want to help workers with their own ideas regarding the function of this platform, that is welcome; but in what direction the workers will move, what they will do and what not, etc all issues will have to be ultimately decided by the workers themselves. If some erroneous decision is arrived by that way, there is nothing to worry. The workers will correct themselves through taking lessons from their own experiences.
If the revolutionary communists earnestly want to help in the making of the platform, in its development, then they must understand that this platform is not the political organisation of the class and also this platform is not an organisation of TU stratum. If we really understand the demand of the present workers movement then we can see that this platform, at least in its inception, will bear the characteristics of an organisation of semi-political nature. As every matter, in this case a movement has a beginning and also an end, we perhaps cannot now exactly ascertain what, how and where the finale will be with respect to this organisation, but it can certainly be said that the dynamic of this all India platform will be towards becoming a political organisation. Needless to say, the said probable development and finale will depend on mainly two factors - (1) assemblage of more and more advanced workers so that the all India platform can really become an All India platform not only in character but also in organisational reality (by participation of advanced workers of main industrial zones of India), and (2) assemblage also of the class conscious workers of variance, who are stranded isolated here and there all over India, into this platform and their taking adept role in the work of the platform.
Anyway, till the working class party is not built up, how far the platform can develop, to what finale it can reach or can it reach any such goal at all, etc are subjects whose discussion is not necessary now. At this moment, the beginning of the platform is what is important. In this present situation the most important thing is achieving a unity of advanced workers who, still now, are separate from one another, are disarrayed. It was mentioned earlier that the platform is to start as a semi-political platform. If we observe closely we shall see that the needs or demands of unity of workers are coming from two angles: - (One) to combat properly the all-out attack of the capitalists masses of workers throughout the country need to united struggle; (Two) to combat the attack of the nexus of capitalists-parties-governments against each and every new union, against each endeavour of forming workers own organisation, to help workers in various factories in forming new unions and to sustain struggle and the new unions. Both these aspects are to be reflected within the workers platform and we must bear it in mind that at the beginning stage the second shall be no less a major one. On the other hand, as the aim or main purpose of the all India workers' platform will be to build up countrywide struggle of workers against the ruling class offensive, which may not be possible in real terms at the beginning stage, but to approach that target the platform will have to undertake, as much as possible, to continue agitation-propaganda regarding workers' main demands and regarding important social-political issues, based on consensus, among the workers of various industrial zones of India.
After the defeat of the first forward march of the international socialist movement came a prolonged phase of inaction and frustration, but overcoming these negative approach the workers' movement, almost spontaneously, slowly, is standing again with head held high. We tried to understand its dynamics and particularities and by analysis those we pointed to the necessity, the demand, of the unity of the workers coming up from the concrete struggles, and from that, we presented the proposal of the Ail India Platform of Workers. This programme is not posed contrary to building up of the needed party. Rather, for the very absence of that party the need is there for the All India Platform of Workers, and this platform will be helpful in the process of building up of the party. Definitely speaking, the extent the platform will be able to take more and more political character, the extent in which the advanced workers will get prepared to take developed role, to that extent all they will become able soldiers in the fight for building the party. It will be incorrect to visualise the All India Platform dissociating from this perspective.
Comments:
| Name- | prateek |
|---|---|
| Comment- | quite a thought provoking article daring to analyse and question the present state of affairs but this site should be carefully maintained. it is very necessary for the moment prateek |