[This article was prepared in July 2020 but could not be uploaded due to unforeseen circumstances. Due to its continuing relevance it is being uploaded presently—EDB FAPP]
From the beginning of this century, there has emerged a movement among sensitive student-youth-intellectuals on various social issues and multiple political issues, a trend that still exists. In fact, from the late eighties of the last century onwards and throughout the nineties, the stagnation that had prevailed among the students and the student movement began to break from this time. We will see that, as on the one hand, the defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement (the fall of Russia and China) gave rise to frustration, on the other hand, the new economic policy of the ruling big bourgeois in connivance with imperialist capital from '91 -'92 onwards shed a new light of hope on the students and youths in general and the urban students in particular. They dreamt of a future with their jobs, in line with the so-called economic progress of the country,or it is better to say that they wanted to dream, which managed to remove them, albeit temporarily, from the path of the natural protest movement and organisation.In any case, it would not be wrong to say thatdisillusionmentabout it is now seen in the emergence of students' protests.Secondly, the noteworthy movement of mainly the student-youth-intellectualson the demand for the removal of Egypt's dictator Mubarak in 2010 and soon after, the active participation of students and youth in the 15M movement in Spain and their important role in Greece also made an impression on progressive student-intellectuals in our country as well as in other countries of the world. Thirdly, as the BJP-RSS fascist campaign and the attacks on democracy after the BJP came to power in 2014 with absolute majority,continue to grow, the voices of protests and movements are emerging more and more among students and progressive intellectuals as a thoughtful section of society, with the question of democracy at itscentre.
In the present situation, we will see a level of protest movementnot only among students, youth and intellectuals on various issues, but also other sections of the people, especially the peasants, are being seen on the field of struggle.The Dalit people, who are the most neglected and humiliated in the society, have also been seen fighting on the streets at both the regional and central levels during the last few years.Protests against the evictions of peasants from the land for the purpose of building factories or industrial infrastructure and the eviction of the adivasis from the forest habitats in search of minerals have often erupted in protests.It is worth remembering how widespread the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare was in 2011, a few years ago, across the country. We have also seen how craftily the big capitalists used the movement to oust the Congress from central power.However, since 2014, the fact that more and more students and intellectuals have broken their inertia and taken to the streets for movement against the hindutva fascist campaign of communal divisions of the RSS-BJP, is currently the most remarkable - as we have already mentioned.
The current situation is truly unprecedented. The most advanced class in society, the most dedicated soldiers at the forefront of the struggle for democracy and the most organised compared to the oppressed people of other strata of society because of the process of capitalist production, and the class that is supposed to lead the people's movement for their very class position, the workingclass is not in the arena of class struggle today. By amending the labour law, the BJP government deprived them of their right to struggle and organisation, cut off all the meager legal benefits whichever remained, but no resistance was seen to build up from among the workers. While this is the condition of the working class, different sections of the people are spontaneously taking to the streets at their level best in the face of the growing onslaught of the ruling class and for the sake of their own livelihood.In fact, such a extraordinary situation has never been seen in any of the capitalist countries since the beginning of the history of the formation of working class parties in various European countries in the late nineteenth century. It is a fact that today we see this situation not only in our country, but all over the world. We have seen mass movements much larger than in our own country develop in other countries such as Egypt, Spain, Portugal, Greece and even in America itself, where the petty bourgeoisie sections of various strata were prominently present. Ten years later, we are seeing the same thing again, this time in a few other countries, such as Chile, Lebanon, Iraq, and Hong Kong. We also saw the yellow vest movement in France at this time. But it is alsotrue that the workers did participate in these movements. The procession of miners in the Spanish capital, Madrid, in support of Spain's 15M movement will long be remembered.A procession that virtually paralysed the city of Madrid. In Egypt, too, workers were involved in anti-Mubarak protests in the later phase. However, the workers were not in a decisive role in any of these movements as they were unorganised and without a party, to be precise, the workers were only present in these mass movements as a part of the people and in some cases from trade union positions. Needless to say, these recent mass movements are petty-bourgeois movement in their class character, where we see the urban students-youth and intellectuals in the leadership, whether with an organisational form or not. Incidentally, as all these movements were largely spontaneous and there wasa lack of direction, even large-scale struggles could not reach a developed and advanced level.Unfortunately, in most places, the movements have ended with some settlements of the immediate demandsor partial success. Let's leave it for now; we'll discuss about this later. We have cited the above events to show what an unprecedented situation has been created after the defeat of the international proletariat. The mass movements in which the working class is supposed to be in a leading position, in those they are either mere participants or indifferentto a certain extent or isolated.
Features and the question of continuity
Whether it is the recent large-scale mass movements in different countries of the world or the movement that has been going on in our country amongst the different sections of the society including students, youth and intellectuals for the last 10/12 years, we need to first bring a particular feature to our notice. That is, in most cases these movements were not or are not being led by any old established organisation or party. These are basically spontaneous manifestations of mass resentments. Somewhere a temporary committee may have been formed to continue the fight, but there is no such thing in many places. We need to differentiate the recent movements, seemingly without leadership, of the student-intellectuals and various sections of the people from the routine protest movements of the petty-bourgeois reformist parties known as the Leftists, which exploit the mass base under their influence to organise occasional protests with an eye on their parliamentary interests. In fact, these movements reflect the rejection of the established parties. We have already said that the workers are not organised as a class, that is, the party organisation of the working class is currently absent.But, in this case, we will notice a new important event. That is, even staying within the phase of retreat of the workers' movement due to the defeat, the workers have again begun to fight in their respective factories to resist the attacks of their owners, and that is not without leadership. They have come out of the grip of the old party and are building their own independent union organisations. That is, they have begun to organise, but at the moment it is primarily at the union level. Whether it is this new trend of the labour movement or the spontaneous movement of other sections of the people including the student-intellectuals without any leadership, all together are objectively paving the way for the formation of a greater new unity of the people in the days to come. Of course, its implementation will depend on how quickly the workers are able to develop, extend, and uplift today's primary unity, that is, the unity of trade unions, to build class unity and class organisation across the country on their own, and needless to say, gain ability to lead the broadmassesof exploited and oppressed people.
The biggest aspect of the struggle is continuity. The question here is whether the spontaneous movement of other sections of the people, including students and intellectuals that we are seeing in the last few years is really carrying on the continuity.When we say 'seeing', then one can only say that we ourselves are acknowledging the continuity of the petty bourgeoisie struggle irrespective of the working class movement. Yes, it is true that the protest movements, which have developed on one issue or another among the student intellectuals and various petty bourgeois sections, have continued to a certain extent.In fact, the way the ruling class is getting trapped into a crisis of its own making and in the midst of that crisis the state power is imposing the burden of the crisis on the people to hold on to their profits and positional advantages intact, it is pushing or compelling different sections of the people towards struggle. In particular, the ongoing isolated protest movements of student-intellectuals here and there in the country on the question of democracy against the Hindutvavadi communal fascist campaign of the RSS-BJP after the BJP came to power in 2014 are undoubtedly significant. From this point of view, the continuation of the recent petty-bourgeois movement is generally undeniable. But the question is elsewhere. In fact, spontaneous struggle without leadership, or more correctly, withoutorganisational leadership, has its own limitations. Firstly, this movement relies on the spontaneity of the people which fluctuate according to the situation and ultimately stand in the same place. Secondly, it is not at all possible for isolated, spontaneous and scattered movements to achieve the organised retaliatory power needed by the people to appropriately confront the organised power of the ruling class.The possibility of spontaneous mass uprisings in our country cannot be ruled out in the face of the aggression of the present RSS-BJP regime of the Hindutvavadi fascist character,as we have seen in other countries like Egypt, Spain, Portugal and Greece in 2011-12, where we have also seen how the spectacular mass-barricade movement waned after a period and sadly that spontaneous mass initiative could not rise again in the past ten years in any way. Again, its recurrence took place in a few other countries ten years later. Here too we do not know what consequences await them.
In fact, the way capitalism-imperialism is adopting rightist stance and continuing its brutal double-edged attack on the people in order to maintain its system of rule and exploitation, in the face of recurring cycles of crisis, because of that the movement of various oppressedsections of the world has been continuing from the end of the last century and will continue.We are not talking about this continuity. We are highlighting the aspect of continuity that lies in the development (not just the extent) of the people's real spontaneous struggles to an advanced level. We have seen some intellectuals who are thoughtful and perhaps somewhat aware of the recent movements in different parts of the world, including Chile, raise an important question, ‘What next’ or ‘Where will it culminate’?In our country too, this question/voice could be heard from a section of intellectuals even if it is still very feeble. At the same time, they are all pointing out the need for a leading organisation;it seems they are talking about some central organisation (especially in the case of national level struggle). Undoubtedly, important and realistic perceptions - perhaps the experience of 2011-12 is a big reason for this perception. However, it is a different question whether it is at all possible to form a separate petty-bourgeois central organisation at the central level in respect of the movements of the student-intellectuals as well as the scattered movements of other sections of the people. However, it is undeniably true that there is a need for a leading organization in the interest of the movement, that is, in order to advance the movement forward. In fact, from a proper understanding of the interrelationship between the struggle andorganisation, it can be generally said that to maintain the continuity of the mass movement (especially in a situation of lull in struggle) by summarising the experience of the movement is possible only by an organisation. But, the question is, those who are talking about the need for organisation in the context of the spontaneous struggles ofthe people or struggles of the present student youth intellectuals, are doing that just to guide these movements properly and to lead them in an organised manner towards ‘culmination’?Incidentally, a different view on the question of the need for organisation to lead the movement, or more correctly, an opposite view, seems to be taking root among a section of thinking intellectuals at the international level, who do not recognise the necessity of organisation to guide the struggle. Perhaps, in support of their statement or position, they will bring to the fore the practical experience of several spontaneous mass struggles in 2011-12 and later. It is true that the remarkable movements in Egypt, Spain and Greece went on without the leadership of any organisation. For now, let us put aside the discussion about the theorisation behind the ‘no-organisation’ thinking, which is based on a one-sided summary of the experiences of past bureaucratic parties. At the moment we have no debate as to whether a particular spontaneous movement can last for a period of time without a leading organisation.In fact, the question is about the continuity of the movement, which lies in the evolution of real partial/regional movements to advanced levels. On the question of continuity here, we must understand that it is not enough to talk about organization just for the sake of organising the struggle. The principal and decisive question is what are the goal and the direction of the organisation.
Let us make the question of direction clear, that is, let this be understood elaborately. We have already mentioned that some people have been questioning about the outcomes of the current spontaneous struggles. We can understand about theoutcomes in two ways. One: to achieve some demands within the bourgeois ruling system, which means,achieving a partial solution to the problems of our livelihood. And two: the final and overall solution to the problems of public life through radical revolutionary changes in society. One is the present, the other is the future. In a word, seeing the present in relation to the future - this is the direction, needless to say, the revolutionary direction. Working in this direction means steering the movements towards realization of the urge for an ultimate revolutionary solutionlying dormant in the real struggles of the working-peasant masses, to a higher level by opening up and developing them without remaining stuck to the goal of an immediate / partial solution within these struggles. Let us elaborate. Is the rally-blockade of one million people in Chile just because of the increase in metro fares or tuition fees? Is this huge mass movement possible at all withoutpiling up of intense resentment against the regime of the country and its caretaker government? Take the case of our country. The movement for democracy among the student-youth-intellectuals as well as the middle class against the relentless campaign of Hindutva fascist character of the RSS-BJP is apparently supposed to protect the prevailing fragmented, shrunken democracy that we have in our country.But does it not include the underlying demand for true democracy? In fact, is the ultimate culmination or solution of the struggles for democratic demands such as the problem of caste, especially the oppression of Dalits, communalism, the problem of gender in general, the struggle for democratic protection of the environment, etc., which we see in the current situation, possible without radical revolutionary change in the current society? Can the spontaneous people's struggle reach that goal on its own? Of course not. This is where lies the necessity of leadership, the leading organisation, necessity of the organization to adhere to the revolutionary direction, only which can develop real struggles to a higher level. For whom or going by class analysis, for which class will it bepossible to assume the role of leadership? We have to understand that the class which is born in the womb of capitalism, the class which is standing face-to-face with the bourgeoisie, that working class only is capable of moving forward in a revolutionary direction towards the goal of a society without exploitation, taking along the exploited and oppressed masses. It is also true that in a class-divided society the widely exploited masses, including the peasantry, must either follow the path of reform led by the bourgeoisie, or follow the path of revolution led by the working class. In fact, the leadership of the vacillating petty bourgeoisie classlying between these two classes is nothing but bourgeois (reformist) leadership in the end. While there has been no organisational leadership in the recent mass movements abroad, there has been one leadership;it can be said without underestimating the mass protests and their collective, spontaneous manifestation and importance, that the leadership is characteristically bourgeois leadership which is inevitably reflected in the demands, goals and course of action of the struggle. However, this much needs to be understood that in the absence of the organised strength of the working class and its leadership, all these mass movements result in a temporary partial settlementor success or some reforms at the most, and eventually a change of government through elections within the existing system of governance. The experience of Egypt can be recalled. We saw that 22-day siege of Tahrir Square brought about the deposal of Mubarak, but in the end the leader of the new government was able to establish an autocratic rule in a short period of time, shattering the aspirations and expectations of the people for democracy.In Greece, too, the people formed a new government with a united front of 28 organisations, SYRIZA at the front, riding on the spontaneous movements across the country; but that government surrendered, or more correctly, was compelled to surrender to the imperialist European Union (EU) despite popular opposition. The experience of where the AAP Partycame to stand, which was born out of the anti-corruption mass movement in our country, need not be reminded.
Some things need to be clarified so that there is no misunderstanding. Is it transpiring out of the above discussion that the spontaneous protest-resistance movement of other sections of the people will be suspended or we are advocating suspension as long as the working class is not able to turn around coping with the shock of defeat and form a party? Of course not. There will be protests of the exploited, oppressed and assaulted people, and individual isolated battles will take place in different places in one way or the other. They will not wait for anyone. Such as the peasant struggle against eviction, the tribal struggle for forest rights, the resistance of the lower castes against the oppression of the upper castes, especially the struggle of the Dalit masses, the student-intellectual movement for democracy against fascist campaigns -these are continuing and will continue. It is absurd to question the legitimacy of all these movements. In fact, the question is what will be the direction of these movements? The question is whether the real struggles of the people will eventually lead to a struggle for elections and change of government within the present bourgeois structure, which will ultimately help the bourgeois regime to survive or they will be directed towards a radical change ofthe prevailing exploitative society for the ultimate solution to the fundamental problems of the livelihood of the working people, including the working class.So, the question is not about these struggles, the question is about the direction of the struggles. And this is where the question of the leadership of the working classarises, because it is the organised working class and their real class struggle only that can present the direction and the goal of revolutionary change in the forefront of the spontaneous struggle of different sections of the people and unite and organise them at a higher level. If there is any point to be made from the previous discussion, it is that the main responsibility and duty of present day communists, potential communists and student-intellectuals with an aspiration for change is to go among the workers and help them, especially their advanced sections at this momentto organise themselves.
What should we understand by working class leadership?
In the post-defeat situation where the workers themselves are fragmented/scattered and disorganised and there is no visible trend of class struggle, the leadership of the working class will seem practically meaningless to those who are currently in front of the ongoing petty-bourgeois movement, even to the relatively conscious revolution-minded student-intellectuals and perhaps it is not unnatural also. In fact, at the moment, the theoretical idea or perception is very important in the context of the revolutionary struggle, about which we have discussed for so long. It isvery important because there is a lot of confusion among the intellectuals not only in our country but also at the international level. Second, the degenerated old communist parties around the world have confused the notion of 'working class leadership'. However, the first question is, which position should the workers earn to establish their leadership or hegemony over other sections of the population? It must be clearly understood that if the workers remainboundwithin their initial struggle, that is, the trade union struggle, then the question of establishing leadership over the broad masses of exploited oppressed people from that position is utter nonsense. For this, the working class has to become a working class in the real senseby uplifting themselves from the economic struggle and organising themselves as a class through the political struggle at a higher level. But that is not enough. The question remains, why the masses will acknowledge the working class as a leader? In fact, if the working class thinks only of its own emancipation, only of its own class interests, and cannot combine its own struggle for emancipation with the struggle of thebroad masses of exploited oppressed peoplefor emancipation, then it must be said that the working class has not become working classin the real sensein spite of being organised. Leading the people is a far cry. Lenin brings up this truth when he says, "From the standpoint of Marxism the class, so long as it renounces the idea of hegemony or fails to appreciate it, is not a class, or not yet a class, but a guild, or the sum total of various guilds. ” (Marxism and Nasha Zaria, Essays Collected by Lenin, Volume 16, Page 57). This fact is probably not new to intellectuals who have studied Marxism at least a little. This is the condition for the working class to become a leader.
The second aspect is more important. The question is what does leadership practicallymean? That is, how will the working class lead, what is its living form? It is needless to say that the organised power of the working class means the party. So is it that the leadership of the party means the leadership of the working class? The word is not wrong in one way. But only whenthe control of the party is in the hands of the leading and tested, class-conscious section of the working class and when it is a party standing on the real class struggle. 'Standing on the class struggle'is the essence. Therefore, even if the communist revolutionary activists, isolated from the working class, play a leading role in any movement of other sections of the people, it is not the leadership of the working class.It must also be understood that even if the communists all unite together, they will not be able to take on the role of the party in the real sense, unless that unity stands on the class struggle at the grass roots. Because it is not the only task of the party to abstractly present the ideological question, to be more precise, the goal of radical change of the social system in front of the movement and in front of the agitators.It is also not the only task of the party to show the way to the grassroots movement from the lofty seat of the ideological-political position of the proletariat or in other words to give mere advice to the struggling people. Because the people under the influence of the bourgeoisie and their movement cannot be elevated to the level of revolutionary consciousnessin this way. What is needed here is the struggle of the working class on the basis of the revolutionary programme of the party, on the strength of which only the party can bring the movement of other sections of the people under the ideological and political leadership of the class in a concrete and living form. From the experience of the international working class movement, it can be said that if the struggle of the working class is widespread and ongoing, then the appearance, character and direction of the movement of other sections of the people will be of one kind, and if not, it will be something else. However, it must be clearly understood that in absence of the class struggle, a very small fraction of people, be they student-intellectuals, or people from different walks of life, especially among student-intellectuals, can be provoked to thinkfrom the aspect of revolutionary theory, that is, ideological-political aspect. But only the organised struggle of the working class with the aim of radical change of the society can influence, attract and ultimately draw the struggling masses into the programme of united revolutionary struggle.
In fact, the struggle of the working class under the leadership of the party acts as a guidingcentrefor the struggle of other sections of the people. The more the class struggle expands and intensifies, the more it will take shape across the country, the more the centre becomes stronger, the more the spontaneous struggles of the people will gravitate towards that centre. The crux is that the condition for the working class to establish leadership / authority over the struggles of other sections of society is to be organised as a class, to form their own party and most importantly their united struggle across the country. In this context, a statement of Lenin can be recalled. Analysing the continuous (up-and-down) workers' strike movement from 1902 to 1905, he says that movements ofother classes gather around the centre, follow it, and their direction is determined by it (conveniently and inconveniently)they [mass movements] depend on it. ” (Statistics on the Russian Strike, Collected Essays, Volume 16, Page 410, Third Bracket ours). Needless to say, ‘their direction is determined by it’ is the most important thing.
In this context, we need to remember two things. First, it is never the task of the working class party to establish party leadership separately (assuming there is a party) on each of the movements formed on the basis of different demands of different sections of the people either spontaneously or under the leadership of a bourgeois-petty-bourgeois organisation, or to seize the organisation in a narrow sense. Because the question of leading a movement of specific demands within the boundaries of the bourgeois system being in the organisational leadership is irrelevant, moreover, it must be understood that it is not at all possible to develop and upgrade such separate movements directly into a revolutionary struggle. It is possible through united struggle. And the centre of this united movement is the class struggle of the working class under the leadership of the party - the workers' own continuous class movement, with immediate and final fundamental social and political demands. Second, just as the above mentioned statement of Lenin that“movements ofother classes gather around the centre” is important;on the other handthe party will also have to attract the toiling masses and their movement to the centre by organising campaigns and demonstrations,and efforts must continue to draw them to the revolutionary programme of theparty and to build a united struggle of the working people, including the united working class.But the fact is that this party of the working class is no longer there, yet, in the continuity of the communist party of the past, there are a number of communists who are divided into groups and isolated from the working class. It is impossible for groups to take on the role of party either individually or collectively, but in such an unprecedented situation, whether there is a role for today's communist revolutionaries in the context of the present isolated movements is a complex question at the moment.
Movements of different sections of the people and communist revolutionaries
As mentioned earlier, most of the fragmented movements are spontaneous and without the leadership of any established organisation. Of course, a temporary committee is being formed in some cases to carry on the struggle. But, at the same time, it is being noticed that the communist revolutionaries are leading, or more correctly organising a number of such movements within their area of work or even outside them whenever they get opportunity. It is not clear to us for what purpose they are associating themselves as the organisers of these grassroots movements. By leading the movementsin the face of various adversities with involvement with the participants of the movement, they will surely be able to extend theidentity of their respective organisations and will also be able to earnorganisational loyalty and recognition as fighting organisations from the participants due to their backward position.Probably they are getting it also. But, is it just for this purpose that they are going to lead these movements at the grassroots? Obviously it cannot be the only purpose or aim of the communists. In fact, the question is raised because, in the absence of the class struggle (above mentionedcentre) of the working class, especially when the communist revolutionaries are fragmented in numerous sects and on the other hand, the reformist influence in society has long been predominant, is it at all possible for anyone from any group position to practically unite or associate the spontaneous movement of a medley of the backward masses or the participants of that movementwith the larger class struggle (which is absent)? Let us take a look at the labour movement to understand the issue. The contradiction of labour-capital that determines the end of capitalism is directly reflected in the economic-trade union movement of workersagainst the employers.That is, in one word, the conflict of labour-capital liesbehind the trade union movement. And so the material and natural direction of economic (trade union) struggle is towards class struggle. That is why the economic struggle of the workers is principally a class struggle, but its initial form.But, the movement of other sections of the people is different, where the conflict between labour and capital is not directly reflected. We have already discussed that the question of the development of the spontaneous struggles of the people at an advanced level depends on the class struggle (centre) of the working class.
However, the question we now have to face is what will be the role of the communists while assuming the responsibility of leading the spontaneous movements of the small sections of the people? The question is undoubtedly complex and its correct answer is very difficult to find.It is also not knownwhether there is any answer at all in the present situation. It may be broadly said, however, that the need to help participants of the movements to identify the principal enemy, to present the need for a greater struggle, a united struggle of the workers and peasants, at least abstractly, and to help to assess their own movement in that context, by staying bounden to the particular movement, standing on the experience of the ongoing movement and especially by specifying the limitations of the difficult and unequal fight is undoubtedly an important task.
A point regarding a serious problem and limitation must be mentionedhere, which is inherent in the movements. First of all, theopportunity for attending to this task may not be available in all the movements. And where it is available, there are some other problems that cannot be tackled unless there is adequate awareness. In fact, when common people take the course of struggle, they have only one goal or purpose, which is to achievecertain demands or to prevent any attack by the government or the owners. Naturally, the success of the fight is his only consideration and he fights for it wholeheartedly. The present is everything to him, he does not think about the future and he cannot even think about it on his own, especially when there is no picture of the future in the absence of class struggle. In fact, the natural need of the people in all these grassroots movements is for an organisation or an individual whom they can trust and who can unite all to take the fight forward, in a narrow sense, to deal with the onslaught of the police and the ruling party. Unfortunately this is true that for them the communist workers are nothing but organisers and leaders. It is true that if the communists are in the role of leading the spontaneous struggle of a medley of the masses, they must be the leaders of that movement, but their essential entitylies elsewhere, where they differ from the petty-bourgeois reformist leadership. Practical movement has its own pull - the pull of achieving their demands and winning the struggle.At its own pace, this pull will try to divert the leaders of the movementand communists away from their essential entity and goal and drag them down to merge with the narrow interests of the movement. This is the problem or the limitation of the movement that we have mentioned. In the absence of the strength of class struggle, how far the communists concerned will be able toattend to their task, in other words, will be or are in fact able to maintain the difference with the militant petty-bourgeoisie leadership- that has become questionable in the light of various experiences.No doubt, we all have to think about this in the face of the truth. But we have to make it clear that it is not at all possible for the communist revolutionaries in their present group position to fill the deficiency or voidcreated by the absence of the party and the working class. It must be understood that merelythe presence of communist revolutionaries does not change the character of the movement.
Theoretical confusion
After the lifting of the Emergency in the late twentieth century, and throughout the first half of the eighties, revolutionary fervor andbustle were seen among a good number of students and ex-students of new generation. The vestige and influence of the revolutionary agenda that the CPI (ML) had vigorously pursued was still strongly present. Many of them at that time associated themselves with one or another group with the intention of taking an active part in revolutionary politics.But the failure of formation of either a revived CPI(M-L) party or a new party even tillthe late 80's and commencement of the process of building a group consolidation made them sceptical about the future of the revolutionary movement. However, the deepest and most decisive blow to them came when the collapse of China and Russia and the retrogression of theirtime-honoured Communist Partiesto a capitalist party finally became clear to the world proletariat. The question, the doubt, whatever was there, turned into despair. In fact, this frustration, on the one hand, removed most of them from revolutionary politics, at the same time, gave rise to a series of questions and confusions about Marxism, which were not seen even after the break-up of the CPI (M-L). Of course it is a fact that questions and doubts about Marxism had not yet taken extensive shape, and needless to say no new ideology had emerged. It happened much later. Theeffect of which is nownoticedin the new awakening of student-intellectuals to some extent, or better to say, to a good extent.
As we have said before, after the dream of the younger generationgenerated by the new economy was shattered, anti-incumbency protests and anti-status quo attitudes among student-youth-intellectuals haveemerged again, which is being manifested through various recent socio-political and issue-based movements. Undoubtedly, the extent of this awakening is (in a limited sense) greater than before.Certainly one of the major reasons is the constant attack on democracy in the BJP regimeafter 2014. But not just the question of extent, there is another big difference and that is important in the current context. There was no question about Marxism among those who got involved in revolutionary politics in the 1980s. But now not only most of the student-intellectuals who are engaged in intellectual practice, even those who want to participate in the revolutionary practice with a revolutionary aspiration for a change, are starting with a bunch of questions and confusions about the fundamental theory of Marxism-Leninism. It is not unknown to us that there is a strong discussion in the intellectual circles all over the world about the relevance and inadequacy of Marxism. It cannot be said that it has no effect on a section of the present generation of student-intellectuals in our country as well. But it seems that the dying down of the awakening of the '80s, especially the one-sided and superficial summarisation or understanding of the experience of some student activists moving away from revolutionary politics, has pushed the above-mentioned student-intellectuals towards this position. On the other hand, if they wanted to judge from a Marxist point of view for the sake of argument, they themselves would have understood that theyoung activists of that perioddid not have the deep conviction of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian politics, especially of the revolutionary leading role of the working class, which could have enabled them to stand strong in the proletarian position facing the despair due to defeat.We are not talking about belief in Marxism, it is important to remember that belief and conviction is not the same thing. Faith can become a belief by being rooted among the workers and in the workers’ movement, where only consciousness is not enough. In fact, it is only then that it is possible for thestudent-intellectuals from the petty-bourgeoisie section to get declassed and stand in the proletarian position in the face of adversity through internal struggle. Admittedly, the position of the groups isolated from the working class and the weak (almost non-existent) trend of post-defeat class struggle were not conducive to the above struggle at that time. In other words, the working class also was not in a position to draw and hold them. It is important to keep in mind that the present material condition is unfortunately nearly the same as it was at that time. Therefore, it must be understood at the same time that the road to becoming a proletarian revolutionaryis notlaid with flowers.
However, we were discussing about the rejection of the Marxist theory of working class leadership from the point of view of revolutionary-minded student-intellectuals. They have anideology, which we have already mentioned. But perhaps, it would not be wrong to say that they are judging the situation with the present condition of the workers in mind. ‘How will those who are not fighting themselves influence the fight of others, provide direction, or in one word, lead the fight?’ This is their statement. It is true that if the measure of development is how much one is fighting at the moment, then the issue of working class leadership will be irrelevant to the above student-youth, intellectuals and it is not surprising. It is childish to claim that in present disintegratedcondition of the workers, they will lead today's spontaneous movements as a class, that is, they will attract those movements to the class struggle (centre). The question is not there. The question is, will we forget the glorious role of the working class in the past history of the struggle for world socialism? Should we not understand that the present disintegrated anddisorganised condition of the workers in all the countriesand the absence of the party and class struggleis due to the betrayal of the old communist parties and above all the defeat of the first campaign of the world socialist movement? Of course, among the change-seeking student intellectuals who deny the need for working class leadership, we will see that their thinking does not stop there. They are against any permanent organization for the movement. They are also against the party. Perhaps, seeing the degenerate appearance of the old Communist Parties and the one-sided (which is wrong) assessment of the collapse of China and Russia, they have come to a simple conclusion that party leadership means imposing bureaucratic authority on the working class masses and ultimately harming the movement. According to them, in the case of people's movement, their spontaneous initiative is decisive and that is the last word of the movement. First of all, according to their thinking, it will stand that the movement will take place only if the people take to the streets on their own, otherwise not. Presumably, they feel the same way about workers. To put a one-sidedor one-dimensional emphasis on spontaneity, they actually rejected the essential aspect of intensifying the resentment of the working people and organising it intoprotests.Second, it has gone unnoticed (most important in the current context) that spontaneous struggle without leadership has a present, not a future. To put it clearly, if the aim or purpose of the spontaneous struggle of different sections of the people is to achieve only a certain immediate demand, it is possible without a leading organisation-which does not have any past or future and is bound within the bourgeois system.In fact, the real question is about the future, that is, the direction of the movement, which we have already discussed in detail. Is it at all possiblewithout continuous conscious effort to develop the partial-regional movements to a higher level that is to organise them into a countrywide united struggle by drawing them towards the centre of the class struggle with an aim to build a genuine democratic state free from exploitation through social revolution?In fact, the revolutionary-minded student-intellectuals who believe that spontaneity is the decisive and ultimate truth in the case of mass movements must also believe that the summation and spread of spontaneous workers' and people's isolated movements at its own pace will change society by assuming a countrywide shape and needless to say, will replace the leadership of the working class and the party leadership. There is no scope for extensive discussion here, but it would probably not be wrong to say that the party bureaucracy and the isolation from the working class are inherent in the party structure and inevitable in that sense - this notion or perception pushes them into a confusing position, which will make them adherents of spontaneity.
In short, since the ‘50s after World War II, in absence of appropriate struggle against bourgeois ideology, that is, reformism-revisionism-opportunism on the basis of proletarian ideology, or more correctly, the inability of the struggle which arose at the international level under the leadership of Chinese Communist partyto reach a successful culmination, and secondly, due to the inability to find answers to a set of questions arising out of the defeat of the first campaign of the struggle for world socialism, the so-called Marxist intellectuals and the potential student-youth are becoming prey of various deviations and confusionsregardingthe fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism.In fact, they are not free from the influence of the current trend of rejecting Marxism at the international level in the name of developing Marxism in a timely manner.A tendency to deny or reject the necessity of the organisation, that is, the party of the working class, the indispensability of the leadership of the working class in the social revolution, and the essential duty of organising the workers as a class is being noticed among them. We often hear, "You are talkingso much about the working class, where are the workers?"
Yes, we do not see the working class. On socio-political issues, especially in the struggle for democracy against the fascist onslaught of the BJP-RSS, where the petty-bourgeois section of society is seen, we do not see the distinct and independent struggle of the working class. But, the question is not just about the struggle, the real question is about the revolutionary struggle and the revolutionary theory of the revolutionary struggle which is most important at the moment. In our country as well as in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the big capitalists came to power after the end of the colonial rule by compromising with the feudal landlords andtaking them along. This means that the big capitalists came to power, but they did not completethe democratic revolution which they were supposed to do according to the rule of history. The bourgeois revolution and the democratic revolution remained unfinished. As a result, the principal and decisive task of the democratic revolution, namely, the radical change of the agricultural system was not carried out and not only that, but also the democratisation of the whole society by eradicating the old feudal backward system and customsremained unfinished.In the political arena, the bourgeoisie parliamentary system has been introduced from above, but the democracy that has been established in the broader socio-political sphere is not only half-baked, but terribly inferior, in which lies the arrangement to squeeze that limited democracy even more at the necessity of the ruling class and even the ruling party. However, it may not be unknown to those who go through even a little theoreticalstudythat it is not possible for the bourgeoisie in the imperialist era to take on the role historically assigned to them in terms of social development, that is to complete thedemocratic revolution.This task is being entrusted to the working class as the leading class born in the womb of capitalism, in other words, the working class has to shoulder the task of ending the pending unfinished democratic revolution in order to advance the struggle for socialism.From this aspect, the working class is the only dedicated frontline soldier and leader in the struggle for democracy. We have to understand that the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism are inextricably linked.In viewingthe struggle for democracy in isolation in the imperialist era means walking along the path of reformism.
In fact, those who do not acknowledge the inevitability of working class leadership in the struggle for democracy and the completion of the democratic revolution must either find under the microscope the leading democratic bourgeoisie in society that does not exist in reality, or they have to think of the petty-bourgeoisie to fill the void left by the democratic bourgeoisie. And finally we have to get there which is nothing but petty-bourgeois revolutionism. Needless to say, the petty bourgeoisie is the vacillating section between the two main classes, the capitalist and the worker, and naturally their position and role depend on the balance of power between these two main classes, the capitalist and the worker. We have to understand it clearly that if we try to replace the leadership of the working class with petty bourgeois leadership by judging one-sidedly the unorganised, scattered condition of the working class in the current phase of retreat of class struggledue to the defeat, it will be unrealistic and a grave mistake. Practically the so-called petty-bourgeois revolutionism is nothing but petty-bourgeois or bourgeois reformism.
Comments:
No Comments for View