MASA (Majdoor Adhikar Sangharsh Abhiyan): A Review
The history of joint activities of the communist revolutionary groups is a long one. This history progressed in different ways in different phases. It can be said that following the split of the CPI(ML), when the communists began organizing themselves in groups in a relatively democratic atmosphere in the post-1977 period, from then on the joint activities of these groups, known as communist revolutionary groups, commenced. These joint activities sometimes comprised of a central rally of activists of the participating group organisations, as well as, the peripheral supporter masses under the influence of them, through a joint propaganda on a particular issue. Or sometimes a comparatively 'permanent' joint platform was formed on the basis of multiple demands naming these as Joint Struggling Platform, Alternative Left Struggling Platform or some such other name. Of course, such ('permanent') platforms did not last long. After a couple of joint activities within a year or two these came to an end. Even after four decades, this trend of joint activities, which had commenced in the early eighties of the last century, is still continuing. It will not be wrong to say that as long as the communists of today remain confined within their group activities, or in other words, as long as the working class is unable to break the barriers of this group existence and form its own party throughout the country, the groups will continue to exist and with it the course of coming together and breaking-up of joint activities will continue unabatedly, as per their respective organizational necessity, in different forms at different levels in different periods.
A recent platform or organization commensurate with this trend is MASA (Majdoor Adhikar Sangharsh Abhiyan). This all-India joint platform has been formed comprising of 14 workers organization which are influenced or controlled by some communist revolutionary groups (probably 5). Amongst these, there are 2 central trade unions led by communist revolutionary organizations. There are some factory based trade unions. And then there are also some mass organizations led by communist revolutionary groups which work among workers but are not merely union organisations. This joint platform named 'MASA' came into existence two years ago through a workers' convention in Delhi. From this convention it has been pledged that the newly formed joint organization MASA, will campaign with the pressing demands of the workers and organize united struggle of the workers with the aim of building up resistance against the country-wide mounting attacks of the capitalist class and the government on the workers. Probably the name of the organization has been chosen keeping this in mind. They have raised 3 demands-abolishing contract labour system, labour laws cannot be amended, and the minimum wages has to be ascertained. Till now following the convention in Delhi, formally there have been several conventions in some states.
After the formation of MASA it was heard from one or two organizations that the unification of 14 workers organizations has created considerable enthusiasm amongst the workers. Perhaps, they had those workers in mind who have been practically waging struggles against the attacks of the employers in their own factories for quite some time and for whom, it was becoming very difficult, rather impossible, to continue with their lone fights against the combined assaults of police-administration-employers in their factories. We of course, do not know how much enthusiasm was generated among the workers. Probably it will not be astonishing at all if the proclaimed unity of 14 organizations creates some amount of a stir and expectation among the struggling workers. Especially so among the advanced workers, who are being assaulted, being in a painful condition of helplessness remaining constricted within the narrow confines of their factories and experiencing the inability to resist the all-round aggressive attacks of the capitalist class with their respective fragmented strengths. Two years have nearly passed since the inception of 'MASA'. We do not know if the initial enthusiasm of the workers is still intact or whether their yearning for a united force of the working class needed to confront the onslaughts of the capitalist class has been fulfilled or not. But this much can be said that leaving aside the entire country, even in the states where one or more constituent organization of MASA have a certain amount of mass base and activity, however little, among the workers, there also 'MASA' has been constantly carrying out propaganda and agitational campaigns with the aforementioned 3 demands, and has been unable to draw substantially more and more workers towards it. Secondly, in the beginning it was stated that 'MASA' is such an organization where the fighting advanced workers will not remain subjugated to the learned petty-bourgeois leaders from above, they will themselves undertake a significant role in the functioning of this organization; in other words, the workers themselves will conduct the functioning of the organization, and through it MASA will become a real workers' own organization. Such a development, if it really occurs, should undoubtedly be welcomed. But we do not know for sure the experience of the advanced workers in the past two years regarding this. But if the unions or workers organizations at the grass-roots remain under the control of non-worker comrades as per old tradition, can the central organization be otherwise? In this context, we should keep in mind that 'MASA' has been formed from above by the initiative of some communist revolutionary groups and not as a result of initiatives of advanced workers from the grass-roots. Another thing in this context-any type of joint activities or united effort of communist revolutionaries at any level in the current party-less condition can have two directions. One, in the direction of the unity of groups, and two, expansion of the constituent organizations and at the same time to fulfill the narrow organizational necessity of boosting up the morale of their activists and thus keep a hold on them. In case of 'MASA' probably the first point is not applicable. And regarding the second, the contradiction between the central organization and the individual group organizations, and the contradictions between the group organizations themselves are quite naturally bound to exist and manifest themselves in the days to come. Of course it is obviously difficult for us to know the present state of relationship between them. But those who have not forgotten the experiences of the host of joint activities and joint organizations of the past and are able to take lessons from it by correct analysis, for them it would be quite natural to have apprehensions about the fact that the future of MASA cannot but face the same eventuality as that of the earlier joint efforts, as MASA has also been formed in the same manner. Of course, it is undeniable that in the meanwhile there has been a change in the situation from the past. The workers have begun to assert themselves, started to rise from the long lull of the post-defeat period. By forming their own independent unions, they are trying to build up a resistance to confront their employers' onslaughts. As far as we know, some advanced workers emerging from some such struggles are in MASA. But there remain considerable reasons for apprehension that to what extent they will be able to play a determining role.
The question remains - whether in this present situation, is it at all feasible for a MASA like organization formed from above by the initiatives of some communist revolutionary groups, to develop and unite the workers struggles (which is currently manifesting itself primarily in T.U. levels) from its present scattered condition to a developed state, and to unite and organize the larger sections of worker masses for that purpose? The proper answer to this question does not lie solely within the trend of joint activities. For that we will have to concentrate on the objective analysis of the actual struggles at T.U. levels and the emerging aspirations thereof, for higher plane of struggle and the direction of its development. And this is the main subject of this discussion. But since, a discussion about the joint activities of communist revolutionaries have been initiated in the meanwhile, hence let us turn our attention to the particular experiences of these joint activities of the past before delving further into the subject mentioned above.
It will not be an exaggeration to state that West Bengal was one of the most important among two or more states where the extent and intensity of the Naxalite Movement was quite big. Probably, the number of activists of CPI(ML) was also the largest. Naturally, following the split of CPI(ML), and after their release from jail, the movement for reorganization was comparatively stronger among the leaders and activists in this state among those of the erstwhile party and also those who were outside it (those that did not join CPI(ML after breaking away from CPIM and other left parties). We are presenting a brief account of the joint activities of the communist revolutionaries in West Bengal during that period. We believe that these experiences of West Bengal will help in understanding the nature of inherent urge or motivation of the communist groups in general for the joint activities. Or to put it simpler terms, it will enable us to understand how the communist revolutionaries viewed these joint activities, which as stated earlier, presented itself in different forms at different phases.
At first a joint committee named Price Rise Resistance Committee was formed in 1980. All the communist revolutionary groups of that time were involved in this committee. Under the banner of this committee, a rally of 4-5 thousand people took place on the streets of Kolkata. A considerable number of erstwhile CPI(ML) activists, till then not attached to any of the groups, participated in this rally. Two years after this, during the tenure of Indira Gandhi in 1983, the infamous "ESMA", an act banning strikes, was enacted. In the meantime, the communist revolutionary groups had organized themselves separately. These groups, under the banner of an Anti-ESMA Committee, organized an agitational rally in Kolkata in an even larger scale, in which nearly 8 thousand people participated. In this case also, the joint initiative came to an end just after one central rally, like the earlier one. Both were issue-based activities.
Let us see the background of the above two joint activities. It took a while to overcome the scattered and somewhat aimless condition among the party workers after the split of CPI(ML) and to subsequently get united and become organized as separate groups on the basis of consensus. It can be said that the process of getting united into various groups gained some maturity by the eighties. But the groups were still in a fluid state and the agenda of reorganization in a party was still prevailing. In other words, the groups were not yet consolidated. That was accomplished after 1984-85; to be more precise, after the possibility of getting united to form the party was wasted away. Whatever it be, during the phase of those two joint programmes not only were the groups not consolidated at that time, it was also a time for the communist revolutionaries who came out of CPI(ML), to work openly among the masses after spending a lengthy period in secret organizations virtually detached from the masses. Further, it must be remembered that most of those who had organized themselves in groups had just been freed after a long stint in jail. It should be understood that it is in this background of the two above-mentioned necessities for their respective group interests, that the groups were involved in joint activities. These two joint programmes had practically helped the groups to appear openly with their distinct identities. The groups were then not in a position to conduct any activity on their own.
For a long period after 1985-86, joint activities were almost absent. It was absent because the groups did not feel about its necessity. In retrospection, we shall see that after 1986, all the big and small groups concentrated upon consolidating themselves organizationally and politically. They laid stress upon increasing their organisational strengths, that is, simply in expansion of their organizations and growth in size. Perhaps it is for the above mentioned objective that a process of splits and unity, reorganization was observed during this period. Probably, it is for this reason that fissures appeared, particularly in the mutual relationship between the various groups' leadership. Anyway, what we intend to say is that the need for joint activities was not generally felt during this period. It again came to the fore from the middle or end of the nineties.
By then, the groups had succeeded in consolidating themselves. They had been able to begin work, though on a narrow scale, among workers and peasants in some regions. Organizational consolidation to some extent was achieved. The urge to present their own organizational position and view-points before the masses on a larger scale was being generated. It must be remembered that from mid-nineties, as the attacks of the ruling class upon the working class and other sections of masses were becoming acute, the masses were also becoming more and more restless. Leave alone the question of being able to hold on to and organising the restlessness and dissension among the masses, even propagating on a comparatively large scale one's own views and standpoint were not possible for any group all alone by themselves. From this surfaced the urge to overcome this helplessness through collective initiatives. Joint activities once again took a re-birth in a new way. At that time a comparatively 'permanent' joint platform and even a joint committee was formed with not just a single issue, but even on the basis of several issues or demands. But none was in fact permanent. The joint initiatives came to an end within a year or two after conducting one or utmost two propaganda campaigns. A dispassionate analysis will reveal that this was inevitable, because the joint activities were limited to propaganda activities alone. This means the then propaganda movements had no direction towards organizing the masses, who were beyond their influence but were being attracted by the joint activities. That task was separately under the ambit of the different groups. To be specific, the fruits of joint propaganda were not reaped by the joint committee, it was reaped by the individual groups. Of course, the benefits of joint propaganda were utilized by the groups as much as possible according to their respective organizational strengths for their sole organizational interests. This was natural, because for something other than this to happen it implied consciously progressing towards the direction of organizational unity through joint activities, and on the other hand also to project a united image instead of a fragmented presence, in front of the masses. But, by then, each and every group had only one aim-to retain their existence, and/or to expand in size. That is why all the groups objected to this consciously and we are saying this on the basis of the then practical experience.
We shall see that the phase of joint activities of almost all groups came to an end at the close of the twentieth century. What happened after that is, the joint activities of a few groups are proceeding as per their convenience in a halting manner however with different composition at different times. MASA is a joint activity of this phase, and that is our principal topic of discussion. We want to make it clear that we had to discuss the history of joint activities in a detailed manner with instances from West Bengal to put forth two general truths-(1) As the objective situation kept changing and on the other hand as the groups kept on consolidating their group positions through a process of splits and unities, restructuring and reorganising, subsequent to their emergence after the splintering of CPI(ML), the thoughts and ideas, to be more clear, the objectives and motivation of the groups on the question of joint activities also kept changing accordingly; (2) the joint initiatives of the communist revolutionaries were never undertaken on the basis of their commitment towards class interests or class struggle (at whatever level it prevailed). Rather, it was undertaken to fulfill the organizational interests of the respective groups.
Lastly, we shall reflect on a particular experience of joint activity separately. This experience is very significant in the context of the present discussion because it resembles today's 'MASA'. In the year 1984, all the trade unions of the revolutionary camp in general, came together and formed a united organization in the name of Joint Council of Trade Unions (JCTU). It need not be said that for objective reasons, all those revolutionary activists who opposed the line of boycott of the trade unions during the 1970s and continued their work among the workers in trade unions, they were in a predominant position among the participants of JCTU. After a very short preparation a rally was held in Kolkata under the banner of JCTU with some demands, in which nearly 14 thousand workers participated. This was no mean an achievement in the era of the Left Front in West Bengal. The formation of JCTU not only stimulated the then revolutionary activists who were in a scattered condition, but also created a stir among the struggling workers. But JCTU did not even last for 2 years, the chief cause being contradictions between the communist groups. There is no scope for detailed description here, and neither is it necessary. In short, at that time one group wanted to see JCTU as a central organization and contrarily, another group was bent on keeping JCTU as a loose coordination. Compared to others these two groups were bigger. Due to the arrogance of both these organizations the conflict could not be resolved within the organisation. JCTU became ineffective and ceased to exist within 2 years. But looking back, we shall find that though the above mentioned cause came to the forefront, there were other deeper causes behind the petering out of JCTU. We have mentioned earlier that right from 1985-86 onwards when the chances of the unification of groups have come to an end, all the groups, laying stress upon their separate individual existence, moved towards consolidating their own organistions. In this condition, it was not possible for an organization like JCTU to exist and expand. It is true that JCTU was formed with trade unions, but all the unions were controlled by one or the other communist group (there were one or two exceptions who wanted to hold on to JCTU)- so, it was imperative for any group conflict to be reflected within JCTU. JCTU did not practically get the time and opportunity to develop a new independent class basis among workers outside of the pale of the groups that could have held JCTU together. Of course, it was not even possible to buy that time because for that a single unity of purpose between the groups was necessary which did not exist in reality. At exactly the same time, a joint organization of the revolutionary peasants organization was formed which too met the same fate as JCTU.
A long 30-40 years have passed since then. Though the conditions of movement have basically remained the same, in the main (workers movement have not yet been able to turn around from the phase of retreat of the post-defeat period), a lot of changes have occurred. 'MASA' has been born under these circumstances. There is yet another difference between the past joint activities and 'MASA'. In the past, we have seen almost all revolutionary groups taking part in the joint activities, whereas, there are only 4/5 groups involved in 'MASA'. 'MASA' is not a collective platform or organization of trade unions like JCTU. Among the 14 workers organizations that have created 'MASA', there are factory-based unions as well as two central trade union organizations (if not in activity, but surely in name). These are some organizations which are not unions, but work among the workers. Due to this hotchpotch character, 'MASA' is neither a central trade union, nor a federation of central trade unions. Then, is 'MASA' a joint platform of some revolutionary groups? In other words, is 'MASA' a mass political organization of workers, formed by the joint initiative of some revolutionary groups and controlled by them?
Let us leave aside the discussion about the character of 'MASA' for the time being. The cardinal question is for which purpose has 'MASA' been formed by the respective groups? During the formation of MASA it was declared that MASA will organize propaganda and protest movements among the workers throughout the country with three demands (abolishing the contract sytem, resisting labour law reforms and ensuring minimum wages). From here it can be deduced that MASA is considering itself to be the necessary central organization for organizing united struggles of the workers on central issues. Whether this assessment is correct or at all practical with respect to the present concrete situation of workers movement, is our prinicipal topic of discussion. And for that purpose, it is necessary to understand clearly -what are the aspirations arising objectively from the struggles itself for developing the present workers movement and also what are the concrete steps/tasks as demanded accordingly.
[ A relevant addition/comment: Recently, MASA called for a central protest gathering of workers in Delhi on the 3rd March with a Charter of Demands comprising of 17 central demands. They had also started propaganda among workers with this programme. It remains incomprehensible that based upon what analysis of the concrete practical situation did MASA feel it necessary to embark with not merely three but an entire gamut of 17-point Charter of Demands in front of the workers. Do they believe that the workers are spontaneously carrying out struggles in their own places throughout the country, or at least, on a considerably large scale, and hence in order to raise those struggles to a unified country-wide struggle, it has become necessary to prepare a comprehensive Charter of Demands ? Or, are they presuming that carrying out propaganda work with a Charter of Demands will enthuse the workers to such an extent that it will be possible to organize them directly in the field of united struggles by arousing their anger and dissension? We do not know what they are thinking, but if these are their thoughts with respect to the present condition of workers movements, then those thoughts are totally impractical and baseless. What will one not find in their Charter of Demands? Apart from privatization to price-rise and unemployment, there are also the issues of Anganwadi mid-day meal workers, MNREGA workers. Anyway, if MASA's leadership want their wish-list to be known by putting up together such a Charter of Demands, they have every right to do so -we have nothing to say. But the sooner they realize that their intention doesn't make any difference for the workers movements, the better. This much can be said with certainty that the advanced workers emerging from today's difficult conditions of struggle at the grass-roots, wouldn't unnecessarily put their labour to prepare such a Charter of Demands. This is so because, at this moment, their actual problem is different and the solution to it is also different. Anyway, finally, the 17-point Charter of Demands proves beyond doubt that MASA considers itself to be a central organisation of the working class].
Ever since the defeat of the first offensive of the World Socialist Movement, the workers movements have been passing through a lengthy period of retreat everywhere. This bitter truth is known to everyone of us. The old communist parties have degenerated a long time back, but a new, real working -class party could not be formed till date. The onslaughts of the ruling class on the working class and the masses are becoming acute and violent with each passing day in every country. Yet, the working class cannot offer a proper resistance to it due to its party-less scattered condition. The workers continue to bear severe brunt of these one-sided attacks. However, from the beginning of this century, a change has been noticed in this situation. Spontaneous flashes of workers struggles have been observed in Egypt, Spain, Greece, France etc. The development of workers resistance to some extent can be seen in our country too. But here, the resistance struggles are occurring at factory based trade union levels. In fact, whenever the workers, by overcoming the long period of inertia and frustration in a party-less disarrayed condition, are aspiring to resist the capitalist employers' attacks, then that resistance, quite naturally is emerging as a factory-based union struggle for which the workers are being compelled to create their own independent struggling organization or unions. Wherever these struggles are surfacing, the workers are not only to fight against their individual capitalist employer, they are also compelled to fight against the united concerted attacks of the employers i.e., against the united power of the capitalist class. This is because behind the attacks unleashed by the capitalist employers in their own factories are actually the all-pervasive, aggressive policies and well organized, definite planning of the whole capitalist class, which, entails mostly reduction of workforce, increase in workload on reduced workforce, wage reduction, 12 hours duty and above all employing more and more contract workers,- and on the other hand, snatching away of all the hard-won benefits and opportunities and denying the right to struggle and form organization etc. We shall see this aggressive onslaught of the central planning of the whole capitalist class is being unleashed upon the workers in different forms, in different factories, separately. Consequently, the present factory-based union struggles are confronting the powerful combined forces of the capitalist class, and the police-administration of the government protecting the interest of the capitalist class. We know that trade union is the primary form of organization of the workers for wresting economic demands. But in reality, the workers are being compelled to confront and resist the all-round attacks of the capitalist class only with their unions. It goes without saying that a contradiction is arising here between the union organisations and the struggles-a contradiction between the form and content of the unions. To put it more clearly, the contradiction lies in the fact that the factory-based or industry based structures of the union is remaining the same, but new content, i.e., the character of struggle against class, or political character of struggle is making its way into the union struggles. So, we have to realize that the solution of the problem of development of the present workers movement (which is basically at T.U. level now) in the current situation, chiefly depends on the resolution or in other words in coming out of the contradiction mentioned above. Development here means development of class struggle in the true sense. Not the kind of superficial 'strike-movements' imposed by the central trade unions of the degenerated old communist parties.
The question now is, how will this contradiction be resolved? At first, we have to understand that this resolution is not possible from within the trade unions, just as militant trade unionism is not the solution to this. The resolution to the afore-mentioned contradiction, in other words the path of development of workers movement, has to be understood from outside the trade unions but however not negating the actual factory-based trade union struggles. This last statement is the most significant at this moment. In fact, the frame of thought or pre-conceived notion inherited from past communist movements (probably in a wrong and one-sided fashion), such as it is the communists who create class-struggle through their conscious efforts, is bound to stumble if applied in today's post-defeat, party-less condition (which has been prevailing for more than 40 years), where the workers themselves, have begun their march towards a new path of building resistance struggles by spontaneously forming their own independent organization at the grass-root level. For the sake of argument, it can be said that if a revolutionary party of the working class could have been formed standing upon a rebellion against the reformist-revisionist politics of CPI(M) in the last phase of the sixties of last century-a party, that would have naturally developed the class-struggle throughout the country in the last 40 years and then it can be undoubtedly stated that the above unorthodox expression of working class movement would not have been manifested in the way it has, and probably, a different history would have been written. Anyway, it does not require much to say that the path of resolution to the above-mentioned inherent contradiction in the workers practical struggles lie on the development of united struggles of the workers against the ruling class. In other words, the united struggle of the workers against the all-out attacks of the capitalist class is the required path of resistance. But the question is not merely here, the moot question is how will the necessary country-wide organization required for such a struggle, be formed, which is absent now? To be more precise, from where will the forces or elements for the formation of the afore-mentioned central organization come? Will these elements come from the actual grass-roots level struggles and the workers present in the forefront of those struggles, or will that depend upon the role, initiatives and joint programmes taken from above by the communists that are split into numerous groups? It is in this perspective that we have to consider whether the approach and formation of organizations like MASA, demanding itself to be a central organization of the workers, is at all correct or not?
The struggle for emancipation of the proletariat is, in its essence, class struggle. To create the class organization necessary for the development of this class-struggle and ultimately to form a working class party, is the main and fundamental task of the working class in the present, post-defeat, party-less condition. From this point of view, for the communists, who are supposed to play the role of vanguard of the working class, the task of forming a party is the central task of the communists, and needless to say, all the initiatives and activities of the communists should, remain subservient to the afore-mentioned central task. Here what is already known by everyone is only being reiterated. In fact, it remains a question whether the concerned communist revolutionary groups have kept the above perspective or objective of party formation in their consideration while forming MASA. And even if they have done that it is still not clear to us what interrelationship is there between the two. They too have not clarified it. At least from the past experiences of joint programmes it cannot be said at all, that they have any objective to advance towards unity by gradually relegating their group existence. But this is just one aspect. We shall take note of another aspect. This aspect is most important to get the proper answer to the question-in which process and path will the necessity of the present, the central organization of the workers, develop? We know that the very life of Marxism, the very gist, the living soul of Marxism is-a concrete analysis of a concrete situation ( Lenin). It need not be said that by concrete situation the concrete condition of working class and class-struggle have to be understood. From that perspective, the present condition can be grossly denoted as follows:
A party-less condition, and the so-called communists are divided into multitudinous groups, the period of retreat of proletarian struggles after the defeat of the World Socialist Movement continues and as a result, the trend of class-struggle is very feeble, and this condition has been prevailing since the last 30/35 years. But again, in this condition, a new reality is being manifested since the last 10/12 years. This reality has been ushered in by the workers themselves. Workers have begun struggles in a number of factories to resist the attacks of capitalist employers through their trade unions. Secondly, (and this is more significant), in almost all of these cases, the workers are essentially forming their own new struggling unions, rejecting the old parties/unions (where, in the past the workers trade unions had been created by the initiatives of the party and needless to say, by keeping the learned petty-bourgeois leaders of the parties at their helm). It is of this new reality that a concrete objective analysis is required, because without it, we shall fail to find the path or direction for the advancement and development of workers struggles by making an about-turn from the period of retreat of workers movements. It is the actual struggles in reality that reveals the path for the further development of struggles - sometimes in a said, and sometimes in an unsaid manner. The task of the Communist Party, as the advanced conscious army of the working class, is here, to formulate the said and unsaid expressions emerging from reality, and present it before the workers in a concrete form. The true communists do not invent their knowledge and stream of thought. They acquire it from the object, remaining connected and associated closely with the object. We shouldn't forget this fundamental aspect of Marxism during the present discussion.
The Communist know from the knowledge of Marxist theory, that if the working class is not organized, to be more precise, if there is no party of the working class, then the scattered, fragmented working class has no power, it carries the burden of powerlessness. In such a condition the question of leading a movement of the broader masses is totally inconsequential. From Marxist theory, it is also known to the communists that to properly combat the all-pervasive attack of the capitalist class, there is no other option other than the united struggles of the workers, and for that purpose building up a united organization is of utmost necessity. Despite knowing this we do not know what answer will the communist revolutionary groups give for squandering the possibilities of uniting and forming a party in the beginning of the 1980s, and also for holding on to their group existence as they went on further consolidating it. As we have mentioned earlier that if they could have become responsible and accountable towards the working class and class struggle instead of serving their group interests, then perhaps, the subsequent history would have been different. At least, they would not have to wrack their brains about creating centrally a MASA like organization anew to resist the comprehensive attacks of the capitalist class today. Actually, those who failed to execute the actual task of formation of the party, they are now up and coming from above before the workers, sometimes individually and sometimes jointly, presumably with the august purpose of organizing these struggles but off course, by keeping their group existence and group interests intact. These type of efforts had been adopted previously too, but we are all too much familiar with the outcome. They remain confined to some propaganda and agitational programmes based upon their activists-members-supporters and a very negligible section of masses under the influence of the groups, nothing beyond that. Consequently the inevitable happens which should obviously happen on remaining in stagnation. At some point of time the initiatives taken from above gets lost. Sadly, in spite of so much experiences of the past, MASA or MASA like organizations continue to spring into existence and probably, will continue to do so because the communist revolutionaries believe that this is the only path. As if, it is they who would have to do whatever needs to be done. They do not believe that another path is making its presence felt in the current situation, i.e., the struggling workers, especially their advanced section, are themselves capable of creating their united organization. Actually, the present day communists suffer from a deep-rooted misconception that the workers do not learn anything on their own, they have to be taught everything - contrary to what Marx-Engels have repeatedly said. In short, the communists of today think that it is they who must carry forward the workers holding them by their hand. So it is natural for them to assume that the required united organization, necessary to confront the attacks of the capitalists must also be formed by the communists. Well, but probably, they forget that today's communist revolutionaries, divided into multitudinous groups, are in the main detached from the working class. At most, it can be said that they are standing upon a very narrow workers base. They also do not think about the fact that whether the joint efforts or initiatives of some groups (for e.g. MASA or MASA-like organization), as an alternative to the party, with their limited capacity, can at all be trust-worthy and reliable to the mass of workers, deceived and betrayed by the old parties. The groups who lay stress upon and work diligently among workers know well that the resistance struggles of today are arising from amongst the workers; they themselves are forming their own union, which is practically being manifested as a new trend. Even those workers, who are maintaining a relation, or are being compelled to do so, with the old central trade unions for various constraints, are also practically conducting their own unions and struggles on their own. The workers are holding on to their independent position or trying to hold on to it even where they are working together with some communist group for help. Lastly, hence the groups have to think whether the organization created by them from above will be at all compatible with these new thoughts and trends of the workers?
If we do not remain confined within our subjective thoughts, then we shall observe that in the current situation another actual direction for the formation of a central organization of the struggling workers, is taking birth from the practical struggles of the workers themselves. This path is the workers' own path, it is not being taught to them from outside. We have already discussed in detail that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the workers to counter the immense power of the capitalist class on the strength of one's factory-based individual struggles. In short, isolated factory-level struggles are becoming practically impossible. Yet for their sheer necessity of survival the workers are being compelled to fight, and it is through the experiences of their struggles that they are realizing the necessity of increasing their strength. And from here, the necessity or urge to unite, i.e. to form a united organization, is taking birth. This is the truth because this is reality. It is also being noticed that the struggling workers, cornered and bruised by the ruthless assaults of the capitalist class, the police and administration, are trying to connect with the workers of other factories, particularly, the advanced workers of other factories in and around their area. Solidarity is being forged. Of course till now, in a slow, gradual pace. In some places, the workers are getting united while standing in solidarity with each other. The significant thing is, this urge for unity is not dependent upon anybody's whims or wishes. Of course it is till now in a very primary stage. But the relentless attacks of crisis-ridden capitalist class are more and more pushing and prodding the workers towards this unity. This is also a fact that more the grass-root resistance struggles spread, out of practical necessity and the area-based unity (be it in the name of solidarity committee or any other) there will unfold and expand further, this unities, which will objectively push the workers spontaneously towards country-wide unity. Of course the advanced workers emerging from these struggles will have to undertake and execute a significant role in this process. If the communists do not want to restrict themselves to their sectarian thoughts, then it will not be difficult for them to recognize this direction of workers unity arising from reality. It will also not be difficult to recognize that the area -wise unity, built by the workers themselves (solidarity committee) is the primary form of the future country-wide united organization. Whether the communists will take a conscious role to help and develop this process of workers unity taking shape from the below or whether they will stick to their pre-determined stratagem, is up to them to decide.
Is it at all possible for a country wide united organization of the workers to be formed from the bottom by their own initiatives? Such a question may arise and it is indeed arising. We shall see that the principal notion behind this is the thought that the workers will not be able to do so by themselves. We have already discussed what the workers are capable of doing. We are not reiterating it here. Actually the communist revolutionaries who are raising this question are doing so merely based upon their observations of the present condition of workers. It is undeniably true, that the workers at present are nowhere near their historical role as of the most advanced class of society. Dependence upon petty bourgeois leadership is highly pre-dominant. But if we arrive at a general conclusion based upon the present condition of workers, then are we not raising serious doubt and putting into question the historically glorious role of the working class during the campaign of the World Socialist movement, particularly the Russian revolution? Shall we not refute the Marxist theory regarding the leading role of the working class in social revolution? Is their present incapability and powerlessness also a pointer to their future incapability? Of course, if anyone wishes to overlook what the workers are capable of doing even today, signs of which are discernible in the new unions, then it is needless to talk about these. Then there are many other questions also in opposition to this thought. For instance, what are the numbers of factories where the workers are fighting by forming their own independent unions? Maximum 20, 30 or 40! True that this number is abysmally low compared to the whole. But it is also true that though at a snail's pace, this number is steadily increasing. It is a trend and that is important. Anyway, we have to remember that the workers were not in this position in the sixties of the last century. Why is it so now? Obviously, there are considerable reasons behind this and if we are unable to grasp those reasons and fail to analyse the situation objectively, then we will practically put the workers on the dock by raising such questions like, they are incapable, numerically negligible, etc. We will be indeed thrusting the failure of the communists on the workers. Firstly, we need to understand that after the defeat of the world socialist movement became clearly evident, in fact even from a period quite earlier than that, the working class has been going through a basically a situation of lull in their struggle, due to the betrayal of the old communist parties and also due to the unfortunate failure of the CPI(ML). Passing through a situation of inertia, inactivity without struggle, in a leadership-less condition for a lengthy period of 40 years, class struggle had been severely paralysed. Expecting a quick revival from such a condition will be purely subjective. Secondly, though very few in terms of numbers at the moment, we should not lose the significance of the fact amidst present conditions that the workers are forming and/or running their own unions independently. Forming such organization means coming out of and shedding of the deep-rooted practice and legacy thrust upon the workers to depend upon and be followers of the party, rather, petty-bourgeois leadership. It means, proceeding towards establishing their control over their own struggles and organizations, in short, attempting to come to the forefront from the position of back-benchers. Easier said than done, this task is incredibly difficult and any expectation of a quick transformation is indeed unreal and fanciful. It took so long to break. We do not know how much longer will it take to create the new. But this much can be definitely said that we have to view the present, factory-based or industry-based resistance struggles (for e.g. the struggle of the tea garden workers of Munnar) as the beginning or the first steps progressing towards a new path, towards the path of a united working-class struggle by detaching themselves from the old. As stated earlier, the more the grass-root level struggles will go on spreading, the more the reality for unity will be created.
Anyway, irrespective of our wishes, the reality is that under the present circumstances the workers will continue to embrace the path of factory-based union struggle to combat the aggressive juggernaut of the capitalist class for quite a long time to come. To express it in other words, if some bigger change in national or international situation doesn't take place the working class won't spontaneously skip the factory-based resistance struggles and leap into the arena of united country-wide struggle. It is of course true that an aspiration for a united struggle is growing among the workers of the present resistance struggles, particularly amongst the assaulted and battered advanced workers (as also within a section of workers surrounding them). But we have to remember that aspiration is one thing and to materialize it or to give it an organized form is a different thing. Amidst the pre-dominant condition of lull in struggle that is generally prevailing at present, standing upon the few number and magnitude of the current resistance struggles a united struggle is hard to come by. In such a condition, leave alone MASA, even if a party is somehow conjured out of the revolutionary groups by some sheer magic, it might usher in some changes, but to expect that the large section of worker masses would embark upon a united class struggle with the party at their forefront is like (to speak sternly) living in a fool's paradise. In such a condition at the grass root, there can be only one kind of all-India 'movement' - a routine strike of a day or two called by the treacherous reformist-revisionist parties. Hence ultimately we have to realize that a united central organization is absolutely necessary to effectively combat the attacks of the capitalist class, but the pre-condition for it is an expansion and advancement of the struggles of the worker at grass roots level to some extent which is currently at the stage of factory-based union struggles and which is progressing, though slowly with the gradual increase in number of struggles.
To prevent any miscommunication or misunderstanding from such a discussion certain things need to be clarified. From the history of the international working class movement, we are aware that struggle between workers and capitalist employers arose with the advent of workers in society after the start of the Industrial Revolution. The workers initially progressed for a long time through spontaneous outbursts and protests sometimes in the form of Luddite movement by destroying machines, sometimes in the form of damaging houses and properties of the bourgeois. After that the workers learnt to become organised in trade unions. In fact, there is a long history of trade union struggles prior to the formation of working class parties (in different countries of Europe in the later part of 19th century), i.e. of getting organized as a class. Hence, after our discussion above, a question may arise whether the pre-condition for the workers, to get organized as a class (i.e. in their party) or even build up their united struggles in the present party-less fragmented condition, is that workers will have to be advance through the same lengthy period of advancement of the trade union struggles in similar fashion as in their early history they had to do? In one word it can be said-no. Owing to the fact that, we have behind us 150 years of party-history. Then behind us we have a history of the First and Second International during the era of Marx and Engels. We are standing upon the experience of the Russian Revolution and the Third International comprising of communist parties of different countries. Above all, with respect to the present discussion this is significant, that the union movement had reached its zenith in the sixties of the last century in our country. At least, this much can be said that the workers union had been formed in almost all organized sectors and formidable struggles had been fought too. Therefore, the point is not that we will have to start everything anew. The point here is of liquidating the old rotten unions and building the new ones instead, just as the communist party was born in our country about 100 years ago, and that party has to the built up again by assimilating lessons from the past. Union or Party is not something alien even to the new generation of workers. Well then, what do we mean by pre-condition (an expansion or broadening of the grass roots union struggles) ? We mean : 1) If the workers themselves are not in struggle, then it is impossible that in such a situation they will participate in country-wide united struggles and so naturally the building up of united organization doesn't arise. (2) It is one thing if a wave of struggle develops, but generally that is not the scenario now. In fact it cannot be true that everyone will be in the same position of struggle. When the workers have just merely begun to turn around after remaining passive for so long only a section can be found involved in the struggles at this initial stage. These struggles are at the moment, trade union struggles based at the factory-level or industry. If the advanced workers emerging from these grass-root struggles can themselves get united without waiting for others, then standing upon the basis of that unity, it will be possible to draw in and unite larger sections of other workers through a process and this will be possible because the aspiration for united struggle to resist the unbridled attacks of the capitalist class is objectively being generated among the workers in general. Further the workers who will create this united struggle and organization will not fall from the sky, but their supply line will be the grass-root struggles. It is a fact that, the necessary all-India organization-trust-worthy and reliable to the wider section of workers and also capable of organising struggles throughout the country-cannot be thought to be realized not merely immediately but even within a couple of years. Hence the point is making preparations with that aim in mind and understanding through which way that can be realized. For an example this task can be thought about in two steps. Firstly, the advanced workers should forge a link between themselves, irrespective of the fact whether their number is 50 or 100. And then by collectively standing in solidarity with the new struggles, efforts must be made to draw in the front-ranking militant workers of those struggles to make them part of this initiative. If a sizable section of advanced workers (let us assume 300-350 in number) from at least 5-7 big industrial zones get involved in this initiative, and if they are in a position to form a minimum platform so as to advance this initiative in a comparatively organized and developed manner, in a wider scale, then that platform should be formed formally. This platform will have two-fold tasks: One, to propagate as much as possible within the workers throughout the country the message that, we shall determine our own future. And two, to extend support to the grass root resistance struggles at the trade union level and to help in creating of area based solidarity committees with the advanced workers involved in the struggles and those from outside of those struggles. Undoubtedly, at this point of time, the second task must be given more importance. During the course of this whole movement the active, the front-ranking workers should keep in mind that the more the factory based resistance struggles will spread (the escalation of these struggles is a reality and does not depend upon anybody's wishes) the more will the worker's task of creating a central organization become strengthened and gain mobility. And again, the more this task of creating a central organization becomes strengthened, the more will it influence the grass-root level struggles, nourish and help in its expansion. This interrelationship between the two should not be forgotten.
We know that those who formed MASA do not believe that the workers themselves can and will form a united organization for the necessity of their own struggles. Hence, the above mentioned aspect of inter-relationship will also perhaps appear irrelevant and impractical to them. Consequently, the significance and importance of the grass-roots struggles that we are trying to emphasize with respect to the development of class struggles in future may appear meaningless to them. Their declaration during the formation of MASA and especially their 17 point Charter of Demands reveal that they are applying more stress on building united struggle of workers based on propaganda campaigns. It is because they believe that irrespective of the post-defeat party-less phase of retreat and disarrayed condition of the workers, only through the leadership initiative and role of the communists the workers can be brought together for a united struggle on the basis of central demands. Actually, the indifference and inability of these communist groups connected with MASA and the present day communist revolutionaries in general, to grasp the tremendously adverse situation in the midst of which the working class is placed today after the degeneration and betrayal of the old communist parties, a lengthy period of party-less condition, a massive debacle in the continuity of the communist movement and the consequent break in the movement is really astonishing and unfortunate. Hence it is natural that instead of making conscious efforts to determine the present tasks by analyzing the concrete situation, they have been blindly and one-sidedly following like a sermon the past practice of communist movement that advanced during the post-Third International phase and practically considering the role of the party detached from the class. Most importantly perhaps they have also forgotten that the joint activities of groups (in which MASA is included) cannot by any means take up the role of the party. In fact, if it is done so, it will only harm the spontaneous signs of awakening of the working class.
Standing upon even a narrow worker base, MASA or some other joint platform of the communist revolutionaries can of course carry on propaganda work centrally with some general demands or issues. There is nothing to say about it. Undoubtedly what is possible alone can be propagated on a broader scale when several people come together. The morale of activists can also be pepped up by showing that something is happening. They can even involve one or two workers other than those under the influence of their own groups into the propaganda campaign. But undoubtedly question will definitely come up that which of the groups will induct these workers in their respective fold. Our experience of the joint activities in the past is not pleasant. Anyway, the main question is about viewing oneself as the central organization of the working class and to develop a united struggle. That this is not possible we have discussed in detail. Still, for the sake of argument, let us assume that whatever MASA (i.e. the groups) is thinking up is correct, i.e. they will be successful in organizing the working class in a united struggle if not today, then tomorrow. Then we have to assume that a considerable section of advanced and struggling workers outside the influence of these groups would be drawn under the leadership of MASA and needless to say, to achieve that MASA has to reach a position where it can attract, earn the trust, belief and become a source of reliability of the workers. It means MASA has to expand beyond the present narrow workers' base and become a suitable, strong organization capable of organizing effective struggles (not just carrying on propaganda) in future. The question remains, how will the workers base expand? It can be stated without any hesitation that in this generally prevailing condition of lull at present, it is not possible to do this on the strength of propaganda campaigns alone. In that case, they will have to turn their attention towards where the workers are coming out of their passivity and to some extent, engaging in struggles, that is, towards the factory-based trade union struggles. So, if MASA has to attain the above objective, then the respective groups will have to bring more and more workers unions under their direct leadership and control. This can happen with one or two unions, particularly among the downtrodden neglected, unorganized toiling masses who are at the bottom-most rung of the society. But the experience of the past few years reveal that the unions formed by the workers to resist the attacks of capitalist employers are being created by themselves virtually not with the aid of any outside political organization. This behaviour of the workers is not some isolated incident. It is the result of a certain level of summing up of their past experiences. Hence if someone again, by remaining confined within the old trends of forming this-Party's union or that-Party's union, tread the same path of creating group-led unions, i.e. they too think of organizing the workers particularly in organized sectors, forming group-led and controlled unions from above, then it will be akin to choosing the opposite path to the one already chosen and endorsed by the workers by their actions. The outcome of this is not difficult to imagine.
Now let us conclude. We here make it clear that although we focussed our discussion on MASA, it is to be viewed as a general discussion on the question of the prevailing approach and practice of communist revolutionaries in regard to joint activity and in particular forming MASA-like central organization from above. Perhaps we all agree that it is the main concern of revolutionary proletariat at the moment to decide how and in which way working class could overcome the post-defeat disarrayed condition and get united and organized. We have tried throughout our discussion to mainly explain why the traditional path in today's post-defeat condition does not help us in achieving the goal, a cardinal reason amongst others being absence of the working class party. Not only that this would rather act as deterrent to the objective towards unity arising out of independent factory-wise workers struggle, where the workers are being found to demonstrate their own active initiative and flare of leadership which is precisely the necessary condition for workers own unity and organization. But here we are to acknowledge that while there is a new emerging trend among workers, of forming their own independent organization for struggle abandoning old leaders, it is also true that as it is in transitional stage the new carries along with it the old habit and practice, such as dependence on educated outsiders.
Should we work based on the backwardness of the old, still persisting in the minds of the workers and accordingly get ourselves stuck up in the old traditional path of doing everything from above or stand by the latter i.e. help the workers for the progressively objective development of the new trend? That is the question. Further, if anyone suggests, why can't we combine both and new, we would simply say that both cannot coexist together, as one stands opposed to the other, one is born abandoning the old. The CR groups at the helm of MASA are to think over whether MASA or MASA like organization shall actually be helping us address the present-day main concern for the effective unity of working class so as to combat the capitalist offensive either in local or national plane, however, ensuring the leading role of advanced workers. One more point in this regard. We are aware that CR groups working seriously among the workers, have some class conscious workers in their organization and obviously they have achieved it by their long sustained effort. They may be small in number but they are greatly valuable in the present context of working class movement. Having allegiance to their respective political organizations these workers would naturally vouch for MASA and work for it, following the leaders. Had it been otherwise, i.e. if these worker could have mobilized their own energy and experience and of course their consciousness in organizing fellow workers for an united independent organization, that would have been of great help to strengthen the unity movement objectively arising out of the present day practical struggles of the workers and in that case the new movement would have found its own natural leaders. Unfortunately these workers having been made to be confined in the MASA movement, the real forward looking unity movement gets deprived of their services. We are all to think over, whether the potentiality of these workers and hence the long effort of communist revolutionaries would simply get wasted or they are made to perform their historical leading role?
Comments:
No Comments for View