Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels - its relevance in the present age. By Parimal Dasgupta.

 

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.

Written by Marx and Engels its relevance in the present age.

Parimal Dasgupta.

“whole history of mankind (since dissolution of primitive tribal society holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggle, “contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed”...The exploited and oppressed class the proletariat cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class – the bourgeoisie – without at the same time once and for all emancipating the society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles”. This proposition of Marx is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory had done for biology”.(Engels In The Preface to Communist Manifesto)

I

The subject of Relevancy of Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1847, in the present age has become an important-subject matter of discussion at present in political circle.

1. Marx, in repudiating the theory of Dialectical Idealism of Hegel, his teacher in philosophy and a very distinguished philosopher of Germany of a time, well-proved and well established the theory of Dialectical Materialism. By this, he created a Topsy-turvy situation in Philosophy. He explained the development of human society in dialectical process with the Theory: ‘From matter to knowledge’, opposed to the theory: ‘From Supreme idea to matter’ of Hegel. The Dialectical materialism has become the material of thinking of the exploited people for making them free from the idea of ‘Fate’, ‘Destiny’ or ‘Divine Order’, that is: Fatalism with respect to system of exploitation over them.

 2. Marx, on the basis of this materialistic dialectics, explained the class division and contradiction in the system of production at a stage of society, indicated the trend and way towards change of society. It is epoch-changing contribution to social science. In the realm of this though, his very close friend, Engels, was a fellow traveler. He has also made immense theoretical contribution in this subject. But, on the whole, as the contribution of Marx was main, this though has become known as Marxism.

3. Marx and Engels have put forward the theory for change of society through class struggle due to creation of classes and class contradictions in the society at a stage of economic system of the society in the process of social development. They have announced: “The class struggle is the key to change of  society’, ‘driving force’ of history’, ‘Lever of social revolution’. “The class struggle is the immediate driving force of history and in particular the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of modern social revolution”. (Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondences (Moscow) page 395)

4. Marx and Engels have advanced proposition for the advance of human society to Communist Society. In this course, they have explained in the affairs of economics as to ‘Value of commodity’, ‘creation of surplus value’ by the labor power engaged in production, ‘exploitation of labour power’, ‘accumulation of capital’, the theory of class struggle, ‘Revolution and Dictatorship of the proletariat’ as its basis. Marx wrote the book ‘Capital’ on the basis of economic theories. After writing of capital it has become known in Europe as ‘Bible’ of the working class. On the other side the bourgeois class described it as an ‘endeavor to rouse jealousy in the mind of illiterate person. After publication of Marx’s lecture-series-article; WAGE, LABOR and CAPITAL, the German-secret-police organization wrote in a confidential report:

“This noxious paper must indisputably exert the most corrupting influence upon the uneducated public to whom it is directed. The alluring theory of dividing up of the wealth is held out to factory workers and day laborers as an innate right and a profound hatred of the rulers and the rest of the community is inculcated into them. There would be gloomy outlook for father-land and for civilization in such succeeded in undermining religion and respect for laws and in any great measure infected the lower class of the people by means of press and these clubs..... the circumstance that the number of members (of workers union) has increased from thirty seven to seventy within a few days is worthy to note” (Marx: Man and Fighter:-Boris Nicolaevsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen: Penguin Book page 137)

This Marxian Economics is completely different from Bourgeois Economics. In it also lies blossoming of certain unblossomed theories of certain economic theoreticians of the past. On the whole it has become a ‘Political Economy’. This Economics is the material basis of the Communist politics with Marxian thought.

5. Marx and Engels were not subjective theoreticians with leisured life. They have organizers of political taking upon themselves all risk to give shape to their theories. Marx was driven out from different bourgeoisie states of Europe for his political thought and activities.

In 1847, in Europe, with active role of Marx and Engels, the communist league was formed secretly as a political organization. Between December 1847 and January 1848, the Communist Manifesto was written with joint-leadership of Marx and Engels as a Programme of the Communist League (Manifesto of the Communist Party). This has become the guiding document of Communist politics. This was necessary as, at that time, several types of thought of socialism were in existence in Europe.

Engels said that though there was joint leadership in writing this document, Marx was the main protagonist of its basic proposition of thought. Engels stated:

“The proposition is: that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up and from which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of the primitive tribal society, holding Land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class-the proletariat-cannot attain from the sway of exploiting and ruling class-the bourgeoisie-without at the same time and once and for all emancipating the society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles.

“This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’s has done for biology”. (Engels: Preface to English Edition of 1888 of Communist Manifesto)

Marx’s theory of social development is an important discovery of Social Science-just as the theory of Darwin in Biology. It is a scientific thought.

6. On the basis of this thought it has been stated in the Communist Manifesto: “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: “Abolition of Private Property”. Having given further clarification on this subject, it has also been stated in the Manifesto: “the distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property”.

That is, Communism is the protector of social property and a creative process of retaining health of society generally; it is an establishment of equal right of all to enjoy the wealth of the society. It is neither a stoicism nor a ‘pleasure’. It is a step towards buoyant development of human civilisation and society.

7. With the object of abolition of bourgeois property, the Manifesto, with a class outlook, altering the old slogan: “All men are brothers” of the Communist League, has brought in the slogan: “Working men of all countries, unite”.

This out-look of Manifesto has become dreadful for the bourgeoisie. So in the introduction of Manifesto it has been mentioned that “the specter of Communism is haunting Europe”:

“A specter is haunting Europe-the Specter of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holly alliance to exorcise the specter: Pope to Czar, Metternich to Guizot, French Radicals to German police-spies”.

Communist Manifesto is condemned by all sorts of Reaction.

8. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels have put a declaration:

“Emancipation of labour is not at all local or national problem-but a social problem-”Though, not    substance, but in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country, must of course, first of all settle the matter with their own bourgeoisie”.

Hence the Communist manifesto carried the vision of basic change of the society. The internationalism of Manifesto is not without any prop: it is based on the flow of struggle from national level.

9. The first declaration of the Manifesto is: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”. This class struggle is the basis of the Communist Manifesto that is of Communist politics. So at one time, Marx-Engels declared: “it is impossible for us to co-operate with the people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement” (Marx-Engels; selected correspondence: (Moscow) page 395).

10. Communist Manifesto, mentioned that the weapon the bourgeoisie used to dismantle has become a death giving weapon for them. It has stated:

“The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself”.

“....not only has the bourgeois forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called  into existence the men who are to wield these weapons-the modern working class-the proletariat”.

The weapon of class struggle which the bourgeoisie used to make the feudalism fall to the ground, will now be used against them; further in order to build up the capitalist society the bourgeoisie has given birth to which will be death giving for the bourgeoisie itself. The bourgeoisie has now become very vocal to resist it; but the history will work in its normal way. Communist Manifesto has brought this historical truth in the front.

11. The implication of the thought for creating new society by smashing the bourgeoisie-controlled capitalist society, which Communist Manifesto has brought, should properly be realised. It is not a matter of only freeing the proletariat from economic exploitation; It is an ending all sorts of economic and social discrimination and deprivation of the people of different stratum of society. By this, there will also occur elimination of discrimination, with respect to sex-based advantage and position of Man and Woman. The ‘secondary’ position of woman which has occurred in patriarchal society after breaking of matriarchal Society will also be eliminated. The women have become free from feudal bondage, in the capitalist society, which has been brought by bourgeoisie. Yet their economic subjugation to man continued to exist in it. The woman in bourgeois society is under domestic slavery. The bourgeoisie sees the woman as wife, a mere instrument of production. In this society the body of the women is sold as commodity, in the pattern of bourgeoisie commodity system. The prostitution of woman due to economic distress, has been legalized in bourgeois society. This position of woman would be removed in the new society which will develop through proletarian revolution because in the said new society, the labor power and social right of the woman will get full honor. The Communist Manifesto has described the position of woman in bourgeois society stating: “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production”.... Bourgeois marriage is in reality system of wives. The Manifesto has declared: “It is self evident that abolition of present system of production must bring with it the abolition of community of women, springing from that system e.g., prostitution, both public and private”. Full honor of women will occur by having freedom from economic subjugation. Emancipation of women is the barometer of progress of the society. In exploitation free society which will grow after proletarian revolution, the man and woman will be moving in the courtyard of new culture, with mental feeling of monogamy in life, the Communist Manifesto intends to create it.

12. Communist Manifesto in its declaration has described that in order to create a new society, the systems which will be or are to be introduced with the dictatorship of the proletariat, after achieving the state power by the proletariat, through class struggle, will be of following nature: “These measures will of course be different in different countries”.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries the following will be petty generally applicable:

(1)Abolition of property in land and application of all land to public purposes;

(2)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3)Abolition of all rights of inheritance

(4)Confiscation of the properties of all emigrants and rebels

(5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly.

(6)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

(7)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste land and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

(8)Equal liability for all to labor; Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture;

(9)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of distinction between town and country, by more equal distribution of population over the country.

(10)Free education for all children in public schools; abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form: Combination of education with industrial production”.

The proposal of abolition of private property in land by which the land be nationalized, is not directly nationalism of land of middle and small peasantry; it would be to bring their land under co-operative with proposal of “social help” and not by any coercion (Decision of Basic Congress of 1st Communist International and subsequent writing of Marx and Engels on peasant problem). Its object is to break the conservative attitude of peasants with respect to land gradually. These co-operatives are in the interests of the concerned peasants. The aforesaid proposals are not any sort of building of ‘castle in the air’ or ‘Rip van winkle plan’, but the objective step for the creation of new exploitation and class conflict-free society. In Soviet Russia, Lenin and Stalin and in China, Mao Tse Tung has taken steps to incorporate the above systems in the society and through such step, had brought before the people the reality of the thought of Marx and Engels. So they are the creators of real semblance of Communist Manifesto. But the social systems which have been created through their steps became alarming for the forces of reaction, bourgeoisie and imperialism. Hence the reality of Communist Manifesto has got burning revelation.

Communist Manifesto mentioning the creation of new social organization through the process of above system has put the declaration:

“When in course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of vast association of whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another”...… “We shall have an association, in which free development of each is the condition for the development of all”.

This is shiver of the bourgeoisie; but whole heartedly acceptable for the destituted proletariat, it willbe a blossoming of life for them.

13. In bourgeois society, human activities are not based on social feeling, but are based on basically the thought of ‘commodity’ and ‘wage’. That is the root of its culture. It has been stated in Communist Manifesto. “It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers”. In the thought of aforesaid exploitation-free, class-less society, which the Communist Manifesto has brought in, the human activities will be resuscitated with Social feeling. A new culture will be created thereby.

The basis of the thought of Marxism with respect to human social life is: ‘Man by nature is a social being and creative being; creation is the instinct of man in work’. In this matter the thought of bourgeois society is: Man is a selfish being; and without self-gain Man will have no instinct for work. The analysis Marxism is: “due to ‘deprivation’ in bourgeois society self gain instinct for work in Man has occurred”. After advent of new exploitation free society self-gain instinct for work will be eliminated: The man will be moving with instinct of work for creation.

14. The object of Communist Manifesto is not the solitary and isolated struggle of the Communist force, but an advancing in combination with different revolutionary struggles of the society. It has been declared in the Manifesto:

“The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things”.

“In all these movements they will bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter, what its degree of development at the time”.

Here lies the thought for formation of class front; and it is to be shaped through different realities.

15. Communist Manifesto has further declared that the Communists will fight for immediate interest of working class; that means that their struggle is not for immediate jumping to struggle for final emancipation of the proletariat; there will be a process. The declaration of the Manifesto is:

“The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement”.

On the whole, The Communists Manifesto is a historic document, a way showing to creation of a new society, free from explanation and class antagonism, having broken the bourgeoisie controlled capitalist society, through process of class struggle, with materialistic based social theory.

II

1. The Communist Manifesto has not put forward any sort of decorative plan or mechanical sketch of revolution with angle of vision of class revolution; And it is not even possible to do so, because it is dependent on situation; specially it would be considered with the back-ground of organizational strength of the working class and surrounding situation.

 In 1872, at the time of publication of German edition of Communist manifesto Marx and Engels wrote in its preface: ‘The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed”. But Marx and Engels were conscious about the necessity of creation of working class party, for conducting violent revolution of class revolution and on the subject of making other parties allies in revolution. In 1889 on 18th December, Engels in a letter to G. Trier wrote:

“We are agreed on this; the proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to new society, without violent revolution. For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day, it must- and for this, as Marx and I have been arguing ever since 1847, form distinct from all other parties and opposed to them, a conscious class party”.

“But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use the other parties for its purpose. Nor does this mean that it cannot support other parties for a short period in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom” (Marx-Engels; Selected correspondence (Moscow) page 492)

In Communist Manifesto also there is expression of this thought and angle of vision of the activities of the proletariat.

2. The ‘Strategy’ and ‘Tactics’ of this proletarian revolution have been enriched through the activities under the leadership of the Communists Parties. In revolution of 1905 in Russia, Lenin, having given analysis of mental state desiring compromise with Czarism and vacillating tendency of the bourgeois class in revolution, advanced the proposition that ‘the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution would be completed under the leadership of the Proletariat. ‘In October Revolution in 1917, Lenin brought in the front the proposition that ‘the Socialist Revolution would be carried out under the leadership of the working class and on the basis of the worker-peasant alliance in the under-developed countries like Russia’. In 1919 having brought in the forefront, the subject of leading role of the working class in the anti-imperialist National Revolution in Colonies, Lenin advanced the proposition of establishing ‘link’ between ‘Socialist Revolution’ of advanced capitalist country and ‘Democratic revolution of backward and colonial country. This became fearful for the imperialism. In the case of colonial revolution the problem, arose in China as a result of defeat of Chinese Revolution, due to betrayal of Chiang Kai Shek, Stalin have taken into consideration the subject of armed resistance of the people led by the Communist Party of China against the armed attack of Chiang Kai Shek and advanced analysis that “the Chinese Revolution would proceed in the way of “armed Revolution with armed resistance and counter-attack against armed reaction”. On the basis of it Mao Tse Tung’s theory of People’s Democratic revolution took shape in China, against Imperialism, a section of native bourgeoisie as comprador to imperialism and feudalism. It is a stage of social revolution; basically democratic revolution- not socialist revolution-it is transitional to socialism. This is its significance. At present in the colonies, where transference of state power has occurred in the post 2nd world war period, by a compromise deal between imperialism and big bourgeoisie in the wake of colonial liberation struggles, the main subject matter of revolution is also People’s or New Democratic Revolution. But in the present world situation its transition to socialism will be deeper.

But in the affair of Revolution, the main point for realization is: It is not possible to repeat the Revolution of one country in the same way in another country. The process of class mobilization will vary from country to country. So the Revolution of Communist Manifesto should be viewed with objective look.

III

1. Marx and Engels had not seen the full development of Imperialism-only sow its initial countenance; yet what they had described about the full countenance of capitalism is a follows.

“The bourgeoisie, has through its exploitation of world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country”. “To the great charging to reactionaries it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries have been destroyed or are daily destroyed......raw materials drawn from the remotest zones..... industries, whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe”.....”In place of old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse in every, universal interdependence of nations”....... it creates a world after its own image”.

This is the world exploitation process of capitalism under the control of bourgeois class. The imperialist stage of capitalism has emerged through this process.

2. This analysis of imperialism which Lenin gave, on the basis of Marxian economic proposition, is as follows: 

“Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which dominance of monopolies and finance capital has acquired pronounced importance, in which division of the world among the industrial trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe amongst the great capitalist powers has been completed”.

Imperialism is: Dominance of monopolies and finance capital and completion of division of world amongst the great capitalist powers. It is a higher stage in the development of capitalism. The conflicts and contradictions of capitalism inevitably exist in it. This is the location of world division amongst the powerful capitalist groups.

3. After creation of this world process of capitalism under the control of bourgeois class the war took place among the big capitalist groups for a share of division. Lenin has given the analysis: War is the concomitant of imperialism. It is an open expression of conflict of interest amongst the capitalists-a ‘mobilization of strength’ of each. Colony is created by capturing of backward countries. The colony is a guarantee of strength of monopoly capital. Further, in the entire system, the exploitation on the working class is also intense. So the question of taking a clear attitude about imperialism is a very important subject of communist politics. In this affair, the thought of Lenin is an extension of Marxism.

4. During the life time of Marx and Engels, a thought of “social Democracy’-which advocated the establishment of Socialism through democratic process’ arose inside the Socialist camp of Europe. It sought to correct or reject the theory of ‘class struggle’, ‘revolution’ and ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ of Marxism. It advanced the possibility of working class winning the state power through obtaining of majority of working class, by vote, in Bourgeois Parliamentary Democracy (as the working class is majority in population) and the establishment of Socialism ‘peacefully’. This idea kept in the oblivion the role of ‘force’ of bourgeois State-machinery. Marx and Engels described it as ‘petty bourgeois patch-work reform’ and declared that it could not be a “working class party”. Kautsky who became a chief theoretician of this ideology in his later period and who was also inside the camp of Socialist thought in Europe, put forward the analysis that “Imperialism is the development of capitalism to a new higher stage as advancement of “Super Imperialism” with unity of international Finance-capital without contradiction (exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital).

5. Lenin, in this affair, refuted this reasoning and analysis of Kautsky and also gave the analysis with respect to ‘subjects’ of ‘mutual contradiction inside different powerful capitalist groups’, ‘their main stay on colonies’, ‘crisis of capitalism’, ‘non-possibility of advancing trend of Imperialism etc., characterized Imperialism, as ‘parasitic capitalism’ which lives by sucking colonies, ‘decaying capitalism’, ‘moribund capitalism’. He condemned Kautsky as “Renegade”. Here lies the strong echo of condemnation, which Marx and Engels made against Social Democracy. In the 1st World War of 1914, the Social Democracy, having kept the slogan of Nationalism in the front became the supporter of Imperialist war. Lenin, on the other hand, in opposition to imperialist war, brought in the front the theory of converting ‘Imperialist war into civil war’, made success of October Revolution in 1917. So the proposition of Lenin with respect to imperialism is to be or should be the main basis of the Communist politics; without this, it will be carrying of Social Democracy, that is, theory of Kautsky, in to the Communist politics.

6. In the post-2nd world war period, with new division of world, the intense endeavour of certain imperialist groups, under the dominance of US Imperialism began to capture the world market with the strength of finance capital. With the strength of finance capital and deadly weapon, the object of US imperialism is to create the world with “its own image” Roosevelt, the President of American Federal State, announced: “Americanization of the world is our destiny”. This intensified exportation of Imperialist capital Globalization is the present structure of world exploitation of imperialism. This should be considered on the basis of the theory of Lenin; and real Communist force must decide its attitude about it. The theory of Kautsky is appearing anew to glorify this Globalisation; and it is entering in Communist Politics also. In this matter the under mentioned thought of Lenin requires deep study:

“The imperialist ideology also penetrates the working class. There is no ‘Chinese wall’ between it and other classes. The leaders of so called “Social Democratic” Party of Germany are today justly called “Social- Imperialist”, that is socialism in word and imperialist in deed”.

“Bourgeois scholars and publicists usually come out in defense of Imperialism in somewhat veiled form and obscure its complete domination and its profound roots; they strive to concentrate attention on partial and secondary details and do their best to distract attention from the main, by means of ridiculous schemes for reforms” (Lenin; imperialism; the Highest Stage of Capitalism)

Lenin depicted the Social Democratic Party as “Social Imperialists”, it would be reasonable and justified to characterize the Communist Party which will extend support to globalization of imperialist capital according to the depiction of Lenin.

7. The basic theory of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution of the Communist Manifesto continues to be valid and strong reality in the present age, that is, in the situation entailing Globalisation of Imperialist Capital. In the present time, the property difference and conflicting situation therefore have assumed deeper intensity. The position, as shaped, in different countries, that is, in the world is: In one side, a very small number of population who control and enjoy the wealth of the society; and on another side a vast destitute masses who are deprived of real enjoyment of wealth. These are two opposite poles of the society. It has taken shape of an irreconcilable contradiction of the society. The mobilisation of strength to execute the basic theory of Communist Manifesto is the only necessity of the situation. The declaration of Communist Manifesto-”United action of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat”-has now acquired a very wide dimension.

Marx and Engels, composed Communist Manifesto for the world proletariat. Yet Europe in the main was before them at that time. But in the present time the world court-yard has abjectly appeared for it. The working class of different countries, have become more closer to each other through cheap-world-labor-market. Hence the thought of proletariat revolution of Communist Manifesto will now be moving throughout the world through creation of different fighting fronts of the working class.

8. About the theory of abolition of “Private Property” of Communist Manifesto, which makes the Bourgeois-class panic-stricken and for which they spread panic, Communist Manifesto has stated:

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done away with for nine-tenth of the population, its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of this nine-tenth”.

In the present world situation, the private property lessness of vast distressed masses is the basis of the private property of small section. Advancement of society and advent of new civilisation will occur through crushing of this basis-it is what Communist Manifesto has depicted and has brought before the vision of the proletariat. It is deeply vibrating before the distressed masses.

9. In this affair the fight of the distressed masses, that is, the Proletariat, is the fight of the major section of population. It has been stated in the Communist Manifesto.

“All the previous historical movements were the movement of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

So the main strength of protection of minorities and their properties is their state-machinery. It is for this reason Communist Manifesto has brought the object of crushing the bourgeois state machinery, without which it will be impossible to build up new society.

The relevancy of Communist Manifesto should be considered on the basis of above mentioned realities not by any sort of mechanical thought.

10. In the post 2nd world war period a thought arose inside the Communist camp, with ‘new’ orientation of old social democracy to win Socialism in a peaceful way, they claim, in the present age of Atomic and Hydrogen bomb, the theory of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution’ of Marxism is obsolete and an ‘adventurism’. This was the creation of the post 2nd world war epoch and a new challenge posed to Communist Manifesto. Soviet Khrushchev-Kosygin-Gorbachev clique, brought this thought in the front. They advanced the theory of ‘concluding movement of ‘Social Revolution’ in ‘peaceful way’ and of ‘integral universe’ without ‘class- contradictions. It is ‘Modern Revisionism’ in place of ‘reformism’ of old Social Democracy. This clique, in one side, in order to create disgust against Soviet system, hurled different slanderous attack on Stalin, who after Lenin, was the main architect of Soviet System for a long time; and, in another side, they rejected the character of Worker-Peasant Dictatorship of the Soviet-State and replaced with the idea of ‘Peoples State’; Further they introduced the elements of capitalist market economy in Socialist Economy. They created an atmosphere for devastation of the Soviet State. Taking advantage of it, the Imperialist conspiracy caused such devastating position. But this devastation is temporary. Still in Russia, the Communist force exist with strength. Yeltsin who was placed as state-controller, by the Imperialists, has now been removed from state- power. The Socialist system, on basis of the thought of Communist Manifesto which was been established under the initiative of Lenin and Stalin, has not been completely devastated. They exist as a rich experience and idea among the people. It is the sign of strength of Marxism; on the other side the character of Revisionism as anti-Marxism and destroyer of socialism stands exposed.

11. It is also to be observed in the present time that after death of Mao Tse Tung, a revisionist, clique, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping having rejected the theory of Mao Tse Tung, as to “forward leap to socialism” with new “class struggle” with the proposition that “after New Democratic Revolution” the National Bourgeoisie and Rich Peasantry are not the allies, but enemies of socialist revolution, advanced a theory of ‘Mixed Economy’, taking the Bourgeoisie and Rich Peasantry as allies and obtaining cooperation with imperialist capital; and dragged the Chinese economy towards the same. The property difference in economy has immensely been aggravated there by, it has got state recognition. They have been catering it as ‘Socialism’ with Chinese characteristics”. They have retained ‘Single-Party’ rule, as if it is a ‘Dictatorship of Proletariat’. But with a political declaration they have extended invitation to the representatives of the capitalist and other classes who have ‘honestly earned property’ to be inside the Party. They have also announced that without owning full private property right advancement of China would not be possible. According to their view also, the old theory of Marxism would not be applicable or relevant in the present age; its rectification is necessary. It is another countenance of Modern Revisionism-the carrier of capitalism with new dress.

It is essential to bring special consciousness among the working class and toiling masses, in the present time, about this Modern Revisionism. It is the responsibility before the real communist force.

12. It should be observed in this context that a turmoil due to mass fury against the ruler who are the protectors of the vested interest, has been spreading in South-East Asia and other regions. It is motion towards a new mobilization of the world proletariat. So the thought of Communist Manifesto should move with all intensity.

13. But in the present world situation while applying the basic thought of Communist Manifesto it is necessary to take a clear view and attitude towards certain questions:

At first, the definition of Proletariat should be looked into with new extension. The organized shape of entire distressed masses would be its basis. Objectively, the workers of unorganized industries are to be taken in fold, in organized form, with the workers of organized industries; and the ‘unorganized force’ which has been created with the blow of Globalization of imperialist capital in different industries is to be taken as its main strength. In the present time, these forces will be ‘working men’ of the Communist Manifesto. Unity of Struggle of them is essential.

Along with it, a clear thought and attitude should be taken on certain subjects mentioned here under:

(a) At one time, the manner by which the entire middle class was taken as ally to Democratic Revolution and Socialist Revolution, cannot be made applicable in the present situation, because in the present bourgeois-state container, the top heavy education system which has been evolved, one section of middle class, who can be called ‘upper middle class’, having been developed with highly expensive higher education, have secured the position as the administrative bureaucrats in State administration, education administration and in different organizations of imperialist capital and old colonial big capital. In the present revolutionary movement the role of them is ‘reactionary’. So they should be treated as the camp of reaction. Hence in the present time, the Communist Party which will bring them in its fold as ally, will be or will be bound to be the carrier of Reaction. At present, amongst the middle class, there is ‘middle section’. In industry and other working establishment they are ‘highly salaried’ employees. They have attraction towards Socialism – (as described in Communist Manifesto, a “petty bourgeoisie”)-they are vacillating in revolutionary struggle. They are bearing the ideology of social democracy with respect to Socialism. A ‘lower section’ of the middle class, which exists thereafter, among whom a distressful condition exists-are more closer to proletarian class. They are to be taken as allies to the struggle of the proletariat.

(b) In the present time in imperialist countries and even in industrially under-developed countries, ‘the labor aristocracy’ had grown with intensity. They are the creation of industrial employers. Lenin has seen the Labor-Aristocracy at certain stage as “Labor-lieutenants” of the bourgeois class. At present, it has taken more strong intensified position. The Trade Unions of the ruling party and the parties which are strongly tagged to parliamentary politics are their main political prop. They are now the agent of collective bargaining with respect to the demands of workers; they have arrived in alternative position of the administration of the employers as the governor’ of the workers, Marx and Engels have not seen the labor aristocracy; they have seen the opportunism of Social Democracy in its primary position. This Social Democracy is the strength giver of labor aristocracy. Modern Revisionism in the present age is the pillar of labor aristocracy. At present it has become specially necessary to ‘corner’ the labor aristocracy in new working class movement with the angle of vision of proletarian revolution.

(c) In post 2nd World-War period, in the colonies where transference of state power has occurred as a result compromise deal with Imperialism, due to economic policy of the new ruling group, the control of rich peasantry has grown in agricultural economy; and in their agricultural production system the ‘peasants’ have been converted to “land labor”. These land laborers landless and poor peasantry are the rural distressed masses, and they are to be taken as extremely close ally to proletariat in revolutionary movement; the rich peasantry would be the target of attack.

(d) The thought of “class party” of Communist Manifesto has caused birth of the Communist Parties in different countries. But, in the present time, the matter of purification of the Communist Party should be taken up with very seriousness and strong attitude; Because, in the present time, imperialism and Bourgeoisie- State power are using other methods in the name to smash the Communist Party than the direct methods of repression and attack: the main tactic of them is to pollute the Party in different manners’. Apart from it, in the present time, in one way, different types of ideology of Social Democracy i.e., revisionism are entering the Communist Parties; and in another way, in organization process, there has occurred assembling in the party of the opportunists and advantage seeking elements. The removal of these from the party is essentially needed. Specially, in the present time, the tested cadres in mass movements should be taken as the ‘base of the Party; the leadership also should be oriented accordingly; Further, in the communist party, Marx- Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao Tse Tung should be taken as successive personalities of Marxism-not in served or isolated manner. Out of these personalities, to accept one isolate would be a wrong step with respect to Marxism. In the present time the slumberous position of the Communist Parties throughout the world is a noticeable event. Hence, a properly oriented Communist party is a necessity of the situation. The implication of the under mentioned declaration of Marx and Engels should deeply be realized.

“The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class themselves: we cannot therefore co-operate with the people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie”. (Marx- Engels selected correspondence 9 Moscow page 395).

Petty bourgeois dominated Communist Party will be incapable to be ‘real’ Communist Party for Proletarian Revolution. In the present time, it is observable that the petty bourgeois elements do prefer to get enter into the Communist party carrying parliamentary politics than separate Democratic Party’. It is a prop for their self-establishment. It is beyond possibility to retain revolutionary character and role of the Communist Party with flooding of this force into the communist party.

(e) In the present time in countries where transference of state power has occurred, a continued campaign and movement should be organized against the parliamentary ‘rulers’ and the said administrative system’, who or which is acting as collaborationist of imperialism and helping forces for Globalization of imperialist capital; And the flow of it should be intensified in the movement of working class and distressed masses.

14. In the present situation the Communist Manifesto be applied and practiced taking the present process of exploitation of imperialist capital into view and on the basis of the basic thought of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution’ of Communist Manifesto. We must make a strong declaration before the world proletariat that the Communist Manifesto continues to be relevant, fully living. Any declaration in the present time, as to extinguisher of the relevancy of Communist Manifesto would be acting as partisan to imperialism and its collaborators-the ‘vested interests’ and of playing the role of “enemy’ of the distressed masses.

15. In the present time, imperialism, through the process of Globalization of its capital, has given birth to, with intensified exploitation, such a distressed mass force as its “grave diggers” which will put imperialism inside the grave according to infallible law of history. This is the present ‘Declaration of the Communist Manifesto.

***********************************************************************************

Thursday, June 8, 2023

Communist Movement: The Proletarian Class and The Proletarian Party ( Concerning Paragraph One of The Party Rules.) J.V Stalin

 

Communist Movement: The Proletarian Class and the Proletarian Party(Concerning Paragraph One of the Party Rules) – J.V STALIN.

{This article is from ‘Class Struggle‘ central committee organ of CPI(ML)}

The time when people boldly proclaimed “Russia, one and indivisible,” has gone. Today even a child knows that there is no such thing as Russia “one and indivisible,” that Russia long ago split up into two opposite classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Today it is no secret to anyone that the struggle between these two classes has become the axis around which our contemporary life revolves.

Nevertheless, until recently it was difficult to notice all this, the reason being that hitherto we saw only individual groups in the arena of the struggle, for it was only individual groups in individual towns and parts of the country that waged the struggle, while the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as classes, were not easily discernible. But now towns and districts have united, various groups of the proletariat have joined hands, joint strikes and demonstrations have broken out—and before us has unfolded the magnificent picture of the struggle between the two Russias—bourgeois Russia and proletarian Russia. Two big armies have entered the arena—the army of proletarians and the army of the bourgeoisie—and the struggle between these two armies embraces the whole of our social life.

Since an army cannot operate without leaders, and since every army has a vanguard which marches at its head and lights up its path, it is obvious that with these armies there had to appear corresponding groups of leaders, corresponding parties, as they are usually called. 

Thus, the picture presents the following scene: on one side there is the bourgeois army, headed by the liberal party; on the other, there is the proletarian army, headed by the Social-Democratic Party; each army in its class struggle, is led by its own party.[1]

We have mentioned all this in order to compare the proletarian party with the proletarian class and thus briefly to bring out the general features of the Party.

The foregoing makes it sufficiently clear that the proletarian party, being a fighting group of leaders, must, firstly, be considerably smaller than the proletarian class with respect to membership; secondly, it must be superior to the proletarian class with respect to its understanding and its experience; and, thirdly, it must be a united organization.

In our opinion, what has been said needs no proof, for it is self-evident that, so long as the capitalist system exists, with its inevitably attendant poverty and backwardness of the masses, the proletariat as a whole cannot rise to the desired level of class consciousness, and, consequently, there must be a group of class-conscious leaders to enlighten the proletarian army in the spirit of socialism, to unite and lead it in its struggle. It is also clear that a party which has set out to lead the fighting proletariat must not be a chance conglomeration of individuals, but a united centralized organization, so that its activities can be directed according to a single plan.

Such, in brief, are the general features of our Party,

Bearing all this in mind, let us pass to the main question: Whom can we call a Party member? Paragraph One of the Party Rules, which is the subject of the present article, deals with precisely this question.

And so, let us examine this question.

Whom, then, can we call a member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party — i.e., what are the duties of a Party member?

Our Party is a Social-Democratic Party. This means that it has its own program (the immediate an the ultimate aims of the movement), its own tactics (methods of struggle), and its own organizational principle (form of association). Unity of programmatic, tactical and organizational views is the basis on which our Party is built. Only the unity of these views can unite the Party members in one centralized party. If unity of views collapses, the Party collapses. Consequently, only one who fully accepts the Party’s program, tactics and organizational principle can be called a Party member. Only one who has adequately studied and has fully accepted our Party’s programmatic, tactical and organizational views can be in the ranks of our Party and, thereby, in the ranks of the leaders of the proletarian army.

But is it enough for a Party member merely to accept the Party’s program, tactics and organizational views? Can a person like that be regarded as a true leader of the proletarian army? Of course not! In the first place, everybody knows that there are plenty of windbags in the world who would readily “accept” the Party’s program, tactics and organizational views, but who are incapable of being anything else than windbags. It would be a desecration of the Party’s Holy of Hollies to call a windbag like that a Party member (i.e., a leader of the proletarian army)! Moreover, our Party is not a school of philosophy or a religious sect. Is not our Party a fighting party? Since it is, is it not self-evident that our Party will not be satisfied with a platonic acceptance of its program, tactics and organizational views, that it will undoubtedly demand that its members should apply the views they have accepted? Hence, whoever wants to be a member of our Party cannot rest content with merely accepting our Party’s programmatic, tactical and organizational views, but must set about applying these views, putting them into effect.

But what does applying the Party’s views mean for a Party member? When can he apply these views? Only when he is fighting, when he is marching with the whole Party at the head of the proletarian army. Can the struggle be waged by solitary, scattered individuals? Certainly not! On the contrary, people first unite, first they organize, and only then do they go into battle. If that is not done, all struggle is fruitless. Clearly, then, the Party members, too, will be able to fight and, consequently, apply the Party’s views, only if they unite in a compact organization. It is also clear that the more compact the organization in which the Party members unite, the better will they be able to fight, and, consequently, the more fully will they apply the Party’s program, tactics and organizational views. It is not for nothing that our Party is called an organization of leaders and not a conglomeration of individuals. And, if our Party is an organization of leaders, it is obvious that only those can be regarded as members of this Party, of this organization, who work in this organization and, therefore, deem it their duty to merge their wishes with the wishes of the Party and to act in unison with the Party.

Hence, to be a Party member one must apply the Party’s program, tactics and organizational views; to apply the Party’s views one must fight for them; and to fight for these views one must work in a Party organization, work in unison with the Party. Clearly, to be a Party member one must belong to one of the Party organizations.[2] Only when we join one of the Party organizations and thus merge our personal interests with the Party’s interests can we become Party members, and, consequently, real leaders of the proletarian army.

If our Party is not a conglomeration of individual windbags, but an organization of leaders which, through its Central Committee, is worthily leading the proletarian army forward, then all that has been said above is self-evident.

The following must also be noted.

Up till now our Party has resembled a hospitable patriarchal family, ready to take in all who sympathize. But now that our Party has become a centralized organization, it has thrown off its patriarchal aspect and has become in all respects like a fortress, the gates of which are opened only to those who are worthy. And that is of great importance to us. At a time when the autocracy is trying to corrupt the class consciousness of the proletariat with “trade unionism,” nationalism, clericalism and the like, and when, on the other hand, the liberal intelligentsia is persistently striving to kill the political independence of the proletariat and to impose its tutelage upon it—at such a time we must be extremely vigilant and never forget that our Party is a fortress, the gates of which are opened only to those who have been tested.

We have ascertained two essential conditions of Party membership (acceptance of the program and work in a Party organization). If to these we add a third condition, namely, that a Party member must render the Party financial support, then we shall have all the conditions that give one right to the title of Party member.

Hence, a member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party is one who accepts the program ofthis Party, renders the Party financial support, and works in one of the Party organizations.

That is how Paragraph One of the Party Rules, drafted by Comrade Lenin, [3] was formulated.

The formula, as you see, springs entirely from the view that our Party is a centralized organization and not a conglomeration of individuals.

Herein lies the supreme merit of this formula.

But it appears that some comrades reject Lenin’s formula on the grounds that it is “narrow” and “inconvenient”, and propose their own formula, which, it must be supposed, is neither “narrow” nor “inconvenient”. We are referring to Martov’s [4]formula, which we shall now analyze.

Martov’s formula is: “A member of the R.S.D.L.P. is one who accepts its program, supports the Party financially and renders it regular personal assistance under the direction of one of its organizations.” As you see, this formula omits the third essential condition of Party membership, namely, the duty of Party members to work in one of the Party organizations. It appears that Martov regards this definite and essential condition as superfluous, and in his formula he has substituted for it the nebulous and dubious “personal assistance under the direction of one of the Party organizations.” It appears, then, that one can be a member of the Party without belonging to any Party organization (a fine “party”, to be sure!) and without feeling obliged to submit to the Party’s will (fine “Party discipline”, to be sure!). Well, and how can the Party “regularly” direct persons who do not belong to any Party organization and, consequently, do not feel absolutely obliged to submit to Party discipline?

That is the question that shatters Martov’s formula of Paragraph One of the Party Rules, and it is answered in masterly fashion in Lenin’s formula, inasmuch as the latter definitely stipulates that a third and indispensable condition of Party membership is that one must work in a Party organization.

All we have to do is to throw out of Martov’s formula the nebulous and meaningless “personal assistance under the direction of one of the Party organizations”. With this condition eliminated, there remain only two conditions in Martov’s formula (acceptance of the program and financial support), which, by themselves, are utterly worthless, since every windbag can “accept” the Party program and support the Party financially—but that does not in the least entitle him to Party membership.

A “convenient” formula, we must say!

We say that real Party members cannot possibly rest content with merely accepting the Party program, but must without fail strive to apply the program they have accepted. Martov answers: You are too strict, for it is not so very necessary for a Party member to apply the program he has accepted, once he is willing to render the Party financial support, and so forth. It looks as though Martov is sorry for certain windbag “Social-Democrats” and does not want to close the Party’s doors to them.

 We say, further, that inasmuch as the application of the program entails fighting, and that it is impossible to fight without unity, it is the duty of every prospective Party member to join one of the Party organizations, merge his wishes with those of the Party and, in unison with the Party, lead the fighting proletarian army, i.e., he must organize in the well-formed detachments of a centralized party. To this Martov answers: It is not so very necessary for Party members to organize in well-formed detachments, to unite in organizations; fighting single-handed is good enough.

What, then, is our Party? we ask. A chance conglomeration of individuals, or a united organization of leaders? And if it is an organization of leaders, can we regard as a member one who does not belong to it and, consequently, does not consider it his bounden duty to submit to its discipline? Martov answers that the Party is not an organization, or, rather, that the Party is an unorganized organization (fine “centralism,” to be sure!)!

Evidently, in Martov’s opinion, our Party is not a centralized organization, but a conglomeration of local organizations and individual “Social-Democrats” who have accepted our Party program, etc. But if our Party is not a centralized organization it will not be a fortress, the gates of which can be opened only for those who have been tested. And, indeed, to Martov, as is evident from his formula, the Party is not a fortress but a banquet, which every sympathizer can freely attend. A little knowledge, an equal amount of sympathy, a little financial support and there you are — you have full right to count as a Party member. Don’t listen — cries Martov to cheer up the frightened “Party members” — don’t listen to those people who maintain that a Party member must belong to one of the Party organizations and thus subordinate his wishes to the wishes of the Party. In the first place, it is hard for a man to accept these conditions; it is no joke to subordinate one’s wishes to those of the Party! And, secondly, as I have already pointed out in my explanation, the opinion of those people is mistaken. And so, gentlemen, you are welcome to ...the banquet!

It looks as though Martov is sorry for certain professors and high-school students who are loth to Subordinate their wishes to the wishes of the Party, and so he is forcing a breach in our Party fortress through which these estimable gentlemen may smuggle into our Party. He is opening the door to opportunism, and this at a time when thousands of enemies are assailing the class consciousness of the proletariat!

But that is not all. The point is that Martov’s dubious formula makes it possible for opportunism to arise in our Party from another side.

Martov’s formula, as we know, refers only to the acceptance of the program; about tactics and organization it contains not a word; and yet, unity of organizational and tactical views is no less essential for Party unity than unity of programmatic views. We may be told that nothing is said about this even in Comrade Lenin’s formula. True, but there is no need to say anything about it in Comrade Lenin’s formula. Is it not self- evident that one who works in a Party organization and, consequently, fights in unison with the Party and submits to Party discipline, cannot pursue tactics and organizational principles other than the Party’s tactics and the Party’s organizational principles? But what would you say of a “Party member” who has accepted the Party program, but does not belong to any Party organization? What guarantee is there that such a “member’s” tactics and organizational views will be those of the Party and not some other? That is what Martov’s formula fails to explain! As a result of Martov’s formula we would have a queer “party,” whose “members” subscribe to the same program (and that is questionable!), but differ in their tactical and organizational views! What ideal variety! In what way will our Party differ from a banquet?

There is just one question we should like to ask: What are we to do with the ideological and practical centralism that was handed down to us by the Second Party Congress and which is radically contradicted by Martov’s formula? Throw it overboard? If it comes to making a choice, it will undoubtedly be more correct to throw Martov’s formula overboard.

Such is the absurd formula Martov presents to us in opposition to Comrade Lenin’s formula!

We are of the opinion that the decision of the Second Party Congress, which adopted Martov’s formula, was the result of thoughtlessness, and we hope that the Third Party Congress will not fail to rectify the blunder of the Second Congress and adopt Comrade Lenin’s formula.

We shall briefly recapitulate: The proletarian army entered the arena of the struggle. Since every army must have a vanguard, this army also had to have such a vanguard. Hence the appearance of a group of proletarian leaders — the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. As the vanguard of a definite army, this Party must, firstly, be armed with its own program, tactics and organizational principle; and, secondly, it must be a united organization. To the question—who can be called a member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party? — this Party can have only one answer: one who accepts the Party program, supports the Party financially and works in one of the Party organizations.

It is this obvious truth that Comrade Lenin has expressed in his splendid formula.

Proletariatis Brdzola

(The Proletarian Struggle), No.8, January 1, 1905

Notes :

[1] We do not mention the other parties in Russia, because there is no need to deal with them in examining the questions under discussion.

[2] Just as every complex organism is made up of an incalculable number of extremely simple organisms, so our Party, being a complex and general organization, is made up of numerous district and local bodies called Party organizations, provided they have been endorsed by the Party congress or the Central Committee. As you see, not only committees are called Party organizations. To direct the activities of these organizations according to a single plan there is a Central Committee, through which these local Party organizations constitute one large centralized organization.

[3] Lenin is the outstanding theoretician and practical leader of revolutionary Social-Democracy.

[4] Martov is one of the editors of Iskra.

***********************************************************************************

Sunday, May 1, 2022

TAKE UP THE TASK OF BUILDING A REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. Written by Late Comrade Sushital Roy Choudhuri.




[Reprinted from Liberation, Vol. I, No. 5 (March 1968).
The author of this article was Sushital Roy Choudhuri.]
[This is an English version of an article published in the Bengali weekly Deshabrati of January 11, 1968 - Editor, Liberation.]


Analysing the experiences of the Chinese Revolution, Chairman Mao Tse-tung said in hisOn the People's Democratic Dictatorship:"A well-disciplined Party armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of the people; an army under the leadership of such a Party, a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a Party- these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy" (Selected Works, Vol. 4, p.422 ).


It is not fortuitous that Chairman Mao, in mentioning the three main weapons, took up the question of a revolutionary Party, a Party "armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of the people" at the very beginning. By this, Chairman Mao has upheld a universally applicable Marxist-Leninist scientific principle and pointed out how the truth of this principle was confirmed by the experience of the Chinese Revolution also.


The history of the Russian Revolution also shows how in the beginning of the first revolutionary upsurge in the twentieth century Lenin raised the question "of an organization of struggle, and of political agitation among the masses" ("Where To Begin", Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 18). Lenin said: "Without a strong organization skilled in waging political struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of the name of tactics" (Ibid.).

Today no one in the international working class movement dare deny in principle the necessity of a party of the working class. But the experiences of the international communist movement show that it is not enough to accept in principle the necessity of such a party. The actual building up of such a party in practice is quite a difficult and complex problem. How and in what manner can the Party establish close and firm links with the broadest sections of the people? How and in what manner can the Party be kept constantly and fully armed with the Marxist-Leninist theories? How can the method of self-criticism be applied fruitfully and efficiently? How should the party discipline be built up creatively?


We must be able to find out satisfactory solutions to these practical problems relating to Party building. And in solving these problems it becomes necessary at times to carry on big and long drawn struggles inside the Party.


A close study of Lenin's What Is To Be Done? shows how even Lenin himself had to wage a fierce ideological struggle over the question: what should be the nature and substance of the Party's political agitation?


There is a certain breed of Marxists who, in practice, disclaim even the highest principle of Marxism, namely, that the toiling classes must win their liberation through their own efforts. They are afraid to follow the path indicated by Chairman Mao Tse-tung and are, therefore, afraid unreservedly to declare before the whole world that "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history" ("On Coalition Government", Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 257), and that "The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge" ("Preface & Postscript to Rural Surveys", Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 12).


These "Marxist" heroes are in reality nothing but quacks and have only one prescription to offer to the working class and the toiling people, namely, immediate economic demands and "palpable results." It often happens, however, that these people choose to become windbags in order to hide their real nature and begin to shout: "the political struggle of the working class is merely the widest, most developed, and most effective form of economic struggles", "lend the economic struggle itself a political character as far as possible," "the economic struggle is the most widely applicable method of drawing the masses into active political struggle", etc. These, incidentally, are typical examples of the wretched propaganda of the Economists since Lenin's days.


At other times these people even talk about the politics of ministry-making and breaking. But they always take good care to avoid referring to the fundamental question in politics, its higher form, i.e., the question of state power. Lenin had to carry out a fierce ideological struggle at the first stages of Party-building against these pseudo-Marxists and to demolish their theories.


From our own bitter experiences we have learnt that there is no dearth of such "Marxist" leaders in our country also. They also utter the same pseudo-Marxist phrases as referred to above or some variants of them. Their latest additions to such vocabulary are phrases like "the trade union movement should not be kept confined to the level of trade unionism but should be conducted with a political perspective" (According to newspaper reports, a conference of workers' representatives (?) held under the auspices of the Rashtriya Sangram Samity (a joint body of various trade unions in West Bengal) on December 31, last year took this profound decision. -SR.)


The real trouble with these pseudo-Marxists is that they are mortally afraid to go beyond the existing limits set by the bourgeois system. What they really aspire to is to secure for themselves "respectable" positions inside the bourgeois setup with the help of the people by posing before them as their leaders. They talk politics all right but only of a low order. In all their agitation and propaganda they scrupulously avoid all talks of politics of the highest order, the real question -the question of state power. These unscrupulous opportunists pretend that their hearts are "melting" at the misery of the workers and other toiling people and claim to be their leaders, but are, in reality, nothing but willing vehicles of bourgeois ideology in the workers' movement. The bourgeoisie, i.e., the people in "high places", invariably look down upon the workers and other toiling people, i.e., the men of the "lower depths" as the rabble and fools.


The pseudo-Marxists have nothing in common with the great leaders of Marxism-Leninism - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung - and have nothing of the great love and sympathy that these leaders had or have for the people of "the lower depths". These opportunists have no faith whatsoever in the intelligence of the downtrodden masses and so are unable to follow Lenin, who always dared to tell the plain truth to the working class.


At the beginning of the Russian Revolution, this is what Lenin said: "The change-over from boom to crisis will not only teach our workers that united struggle is a permanent necessity, it will also destroy the harmful illusions that began to take shape at the time of industrial prosperity.


By means of strikes, the workers were able in some places to force concessions from the employers with comparative ease, and this 'economic' struggle assumed an exaggerated significance; it was forgotten that trade unions and strikes can, at best, only win slightly better terms for the sale of labour-power as a commodity. Trade unions and strikes cannot help in times of crisis when there is no demand for this 'commodity', they cannot change the conditions which convert labour-power into a commodity and which doom the masses of working people to dire need and unemployment.


To change these conditions, a revolutionary struggle against the whole existing social and political system is necessary; the industrial crisis will convince very many workers of the justice of this statement." ("Another Massacre", Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 26-27. Emphasis mine - SR.)

Lenin, in the very beginning, taught the working class: "Strikes, therefore, teach the workers to unite; they show them that they can struggle against the capitalists only when they are united; strikes teach the workers to think of the struggle of the whole working class against the whole class of factory owners and against the arbitrary, police government. This is the reason why socialists call strikes 'a school of war', a school in which the workers learn to make war on their enemies for the liberation of the whole people, of all who labour, from the yoke of government officials and from the yoke of capital.

"'A school of war' is however, not war itself. When strikes are widespread among the workers, some of the workers (including some socialists) begin to believe that the working class can confine itself to strikes, strike funds, or strike associations alone: that by strikes alone the working class can achieve a considerable improvement in its conditions or even its emancipation.

When they see what power there is in a united working class and even in small strikes, some think that the working class has only to organize a general strike throughout the whole country for the workers to get everything they want from the capitalists and the government.


It is a mistaken idea. Strikes are one of the ways in which the working class struggles for its emancipation, but they are not the only way; and if workers do not turn their attention to other means of conducting the struggle, they will slow down the growth and the successes of the working class.


Furthermore, even in those countries where workers' unions exist openly and have huge funds at their disposal, the working class can still not confine itself to strikes as a means of struggle. All that is necessary is a hitch in the affairs of industry (a crisis, such as the one that is approaching in Russia today) and the factory owners will even deliberately cause strikes, because it is to their advantage to cease work for a time and to deplete the workers' funds.


The workers, therefore, cannot under any circumstances, confine themselves to strike actions and strike associations." ("On Strikes", written at the end of 1899; Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 317-18).
While a crisis was approaching and while taking up the task of building the Party, Lenin stressed before the Russian workers the need for training in other methods also. And what did he point out in particular?


The experience of the Russian Revolution as well as of the entire international working class movement has made it abundantly clear that "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun". This simple formulation of Chairman Mao crystallizes a rich experience and is directly based upon Lenin's teachings and is the continuation and development of Lenin's heritage.


Similarly,the formulations of Chairman Mao that in the final analysis it is the people that decide the course of human progress and about the role of "the conscious activity of man" reflect his profound understanding of the same and are infused with the great confidence that Lenin had in the working class.

But why do we need to remember all this today when we are proceeding towards building up a genuinely revolutionary party in India? Are we then opposed to the strike actions of the workers and employees, or to general strikes?


Absolutely not. Strikes are "a school of war". No genuine Communist can ever think of opposing them as a policy. But we do want our workers and employees to become fully conscious of all the aspects of the strike action, its effectiveness and its limitations from a truly Marxist-Leninist point of view; we do want them to raise their consciousness to a higher level and train themselves in such a manner that they become able to use and direct the weapon of strike actions to help develop and advance the genuinely revolutionary stream, namely, the agrarian revolution.


We know what a great role the strike actions play in educating the masses about the necessity of united action. But we also want to tell the working class that strike action is only one of many weapons in their hands and that they cannot afford to confine all their activities to handling that weapon alone. They must necessarily be able to train themselves up in order to use other forms of struggle, other weapons also.

Today they must also be able to forge the new weapon - the weapon of the revolutionary struggles of the peasants. In the present conditions of India this has become the main political task before the Indian working class.

Lenin set forth certain features characteristic of a revolutionary situation in a given country. Judging by these, we find that an excellent revolutionary situation is prevailing in India today. What is more, the revolutionary peasant struggle in Naxalbari, led by the revolutionary comrades of the Darjeeling district and guided by the ever-shining Thought of Mao Tse-tung, the greatest living Marxist-Leninist of our day, has opened up before us the path along which the Indian Revolution can advance to victory.


The people's revolutionary struggle in our country has to follow this path to victory. This is the path of the revolutionary struggle of the people waged under the leadership of the working class organized around a clear-cut political programme and based upon the alliance of the workers and the peasants; this is the path to establish and develop, under the leadership of the working class, revolutionary peasant bases in the rural areas, to create liberated zones by overthrowing the feudal forces in the villages and to expand these zones through a long, fierce, protracted and bloody struggle until imperialism and its lackeys, the comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and feudalism, are overthrown and the entire country is liberated.


The most urgent task before the working class today is, therefore, to begin to prepare for this in every manner possible. But the revisionists, neo-revisionists, right-wing petty- bourgeois, pseudo-Marxist- the leaders of the CPI (M), Dangeite and other left parties who claim to be Marxists-have chosen to rally behind Sri Ajoy Mukherjee, a thoroughly anti-communist Gandhite and faithful adherent of the reactionary Congress Party's policies and ideals, just at this moment and launched a "crusade" of so-called civil disobedience movement in order to get back their lost ministerial guddis and also for distracting people's attention to a quite different direction considered 'safe' for the ruling classes.


Unfortunate though it is, still the fact is that perverted politics continues to be spread even from the platform of the central organizations of the working class because they are dominated by the revisionists and neo-revisionists. So it is evident that today the task of building up a genuine revolutionary working class party can be carried out successfully only by waging a determined and powerful ideological struggle. And during this ideological struggle, we must repeatedly and tirelessly explain before the working class and other toiling people the essential question in politics-the question of state power- and the question of the highest form of class struggle as well as the orientation of this struggle, i.e., the specific form it will take in this country.


In order that we may successfully carry out this task, it is imperative for us to take all-round measures to build up a genuinely revolutionary party which, as Chairman Mao teaches, is the first of the three weapons necessary to make a successful revolution.


No doubt, the task is difficult. Moreover, the ruling classes have turned their spearhead of attack against us and thus made it more difficult. Still we are proud of it, of being reaction's main target. And it has never been possible for the reactionary rulers in any country to subdue the determination of revolutionaries through persecution and repression.


We, the revolutionaries in the CPI(M) and outside, shall with all modesty strive to become, through unsparing and hard labour, worthy disciples of Lenin and Mao Tse-tung in this country. We have no doubt whatsoever that we shall be able to win over all genuine revolutionaries and all honest political workers seeking a change to our side.

And we shall never forget what Lenin taught us: "To establish and consolidate Party means to establish and consolidate unity among all Russian Social-Democrats (read: the Indian Communists - SR.); such unity cannot be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of a meeting of representatives; it must be worked for. In the first place, it is necessary to develop a common Party literature - common, not only in the sense that it must serve the whole of the Russian movement (read: the Indian movement - SR.) rather than separate districts, that it must discuss the questions of the movement as a whole and assist the class-conscious proletarians in their struggle instead of dealing merely with local questions, but common also in the sense that it must unite all the available literary forces, that it must express all shades of opinion and views prevailing among Russian Social-Democrats (read: revolutionaries in the Indian Communist movement - SR.), not as isolated workers, but as comrades united in the ranks of a single organization by a common struggle.


Secondly, we must work to achieve an organization especially for the purpose of establishing and maintaining contact among all the centres of the movement, of supplying complete and timely information about the movement, and of delivering our newspapers and periodicals regularly to all parts of Russia (read: all parts of India - SR.).


Only when such an organization has been founded, only when a Russian (read: Indian - SR.) socialist post has been established, will the Party possess a sound foundation, only then will it become a real fact and, therefore, a mighty political force" ("Draft of a Declaration of the Editorial Board of ISKRA and ZARYA", Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 323-24).


In our country the revisionists and the neo-revisionists have exposed themselves. Therefore, it is only they who will be excluded from having any say in this great task of building a genuinely revolutionary party in our country.


NOTES 

ISKRA (The Spark): The first all-Russian illegal Marxist newspaper founded by Lenin in 1900. While in exile in Siberia, Lenin evolved a plan for its publication abroad. It played an important role in building the Marxist revolutionary party of the working class in Russia. Iskra became the centre for the unification of Party forces, for the gathering and training of Party workers in Russia. Lenin was actually its editor-in-chief and the leading figure.

 
ZARYA (Dawn): A Marxist scientific and political magazine published legally in
Stuttgart in 1901-2 by the Iskra Editorial Board

============================================================================



Visitors

flagcounter.com/more/OFw2">free counters