Reaffirm Leninism

Reaffirm Leninism

---

With the ebb of the revolutionary tide the various contingents of the revolutionary communist movement are showing signs of fatigue and despondency. Nevertheless we find that this is being covered up and embellished by various theses which in content are alien to the sprit of Leninism. "Leninism emerged from the proletarian revolution the imprint of which it cannot but bear " wrote Stalin commenting on the exceptionally revolutionary character of Leninism. This sharply demarcated it from the theses of the philistines of the Second International who argued against the proletariat's assumption of power on various grounds -- from the inadequate cultural level of the working class, the given level of productive forces to charges of Blanquism ("Blanquism expects that mankind will be emancipated from wage slavery, not by the proletarian class struggle, but through a conspiracy hatched by a small minority intellectuals") against Lenin. It led in practice to the postponement of the revolution into distant future - hence no revolution at all. All those communists who jettison Leninism or are unable to grasp the essential principles of Leninism are guilty of the same. The theses that are being peddled today are based on some belief in a linear growth of the revolution, some 'gradualist', additive approach which in effects puts off revolution from the agenda by postponing it to the distant future --- For instance, the idea of a "resistance struggle"; of area wise seizure of power embellished in the name of "protected people's war"; a so- called "mass-line" which makes it incumbent upon the revolution to take place after gradual spread of consciousness among the broad masses; or the idea of a formation of a'Left - Front Government' as an intermediary stage. All these in effect postpone the revolution --- yes, we don't exactly see a revolution around the corner --- it is question of perspective, of being well grounded in the principles and practice of Leninism. It calls for subjective preparation and advancing of well defined historical tasks instead of getting bogged down in say economism or parliamentarism.

Revolutions are leaps in the history of mankind --- a gradualist, additive approach negates the very concept of a revolution . During such upheavals "twenty years becomes twenty days" to paraphrase Marx. Revolutions definitely call for consciousness. There can be no revolution without a revolutionary theory. And for theory to become material force it 'must grip the masses'. But this consciousness can take on a mass character only during periods of revolution. Marx brilliantly expounds this in "The German Ideology"----

"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; the revolution is necessary, therefore not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew."(pg. 60)

This flows from the materialist conception of history which "does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice, and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism but only  by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations - which gave rise to this idealistic humbug. "(Ibid., pg. 61)

This basic idea vividly comes to life in Lenin's observation made after the Bolshevik revolution ---

"The petty-bourgeois democrats, their chief present-day representative, the "socialists" and "social democrats", are suffering from illusions when they imagine that the wrorking people are capable, under capitalism, of acquiring the high degree of class-consciousness, firmness of character, perception and wide political outlook that will enable them to decide, merely by voting , or at all events, to decide in advance , without long experience of struggle, that they will follow a particular class, a particular party.

"Capitalism would not be capitalism if it did not, on the one hand, condemn the masses to a downtrodden, crushed and terrified state of existence, to disunity(the country side !) and ignorance and if (capitalism) did not on the other hand, place in the hands of the bourgeoisie a gigantic apparatus of falsehood and deception to hoodwink the masses of workers and peasants, to stultify their minds, and so forth."(Election and the Dictatorship of proletariat; C.W.=30; pg. 266-67)

"In all capitalist countries, besides the proletariat which is conscious of its revolutionary aims and is capable of fighting to achieve them, there are numerous politically immature proletarian, semi-proletarian, semi-petty bourgeois strata which follow the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy (including the 'socialist' of the second international) because they have been deceive, have no confidence in their own strength, or in the strength of the proletariat, are unaware of the possibility of having their urgent needs satisfied by means of the expropriation of the exploiters.

These strata of the working and exploited people provide the vanguard of the proletariat with alliesnand give  it a stable majority of the population, but the proletariat can win these allies only with the aid of an instrument like state power, that is to say, only after it has overthrown the bourgeoisie and has destroyed the bourgeois state apparatus."(Ibid; pg. 273-74)

The conditions engendered by capitalism keep the masses in a backward state and the gigantic bourgeois state apparatus and media reinforce this by lies chicanery. Herein lies the need for the revolution as pointed out by Marx. The vanguard by making revolution 'proceeds with seven-league strides to raise the culture level of the labouring masses' (Stalin). That is not to say that the proletarian revolution is a minority revolution; no, Lenin wrote about the need to count in millions during upheavals. He asked the vanguard 'to merge with the masses', to let masses learn from their own experience (we discuss this latter). This is but very different from the so - called mass line of those groups which seek to rally the majority of the masses in 'peacetime', in advance, before they go on to make revolution (whether is the name of "resistance struggle" or whatever). This is highly un-dialectical, non-materialist as we have seen and means postponing the revolution - that is making no revolution at all. This in effect means reformism, militant economy etc. as we shall see later.

That is not to say that Leninist do not organise the masses. No, they do ; only their perspective and methods are different, they are dictated by the material conditions of life. Lenin exhorted the communists 'to work wherever the masses are found'. This very different from wanting to rally up a majority, in advance,before making revolution ---

"It would be egregious folly to fear this "reactionism (reactionism in trade union) or to try to evade or leap over it, for it would mean fearing that function of the proletarian vanguard which consists in training, educating, enlightening and drawing into the new life the most backward strata and masses of the working class and peasantry. On other hands, it would be a still greater error to postpone the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat until a time when there will not be a single worker with a narrow - minded craft outlook, or with craft and craft-union prejudices. The art of the politics (and communist's correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the condition the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able --- during and after the seizure of power --- to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people."(Left Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder; CW -31; pg. 51)

This idea also finds mention in the following thesis (On Comintern Fundamental tasks ) -

"On the other hand, the idea, common among the old parties and the old leaders of the Second International, that the majority of exploited toilers can achieve complete clarity of socialist consciousness and firm socialist convictions and character under capitalist slavery, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie (which assumes an infinite variety of forms that become more subtle and at the same time more brutal and ruthless the higher the culture level in a given capitalist country) is also idealization of capitalism and of bourgeois democracy, as well as deception of the workers. In fact it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary classe, overthrows the exploiters, suppressed them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalist - it is only after this, and only in the actual process of an acute class struggle, that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weakness engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers." (Lenin, CW - 31; pg. 187)

The materialist conception of history views the development of matter as "independent of anyone's sweet will". Of course, Marx's materialism holds that men are not only products of circumstances but also change circumstances (revolutionary practice). But man deals with material furnished by history (i.e. he deals with the objective world which exists independent of his will). That means that revolutionary practice cannot be imposed upon reality 'in dependently' but has to contend with the objective conditions. That calls for subjective preparation, for bringing to the forefront such forms of movement by which can ensure the disposition of the masses at the front during revolutionary tides. The vanguard's task precisely lies in this. It is opposed to the gradualist or linear, additive view which allows no room for sudden, unexpected twists and turns in society (times of revolutionary ferment) but settles for a road all made up for their sweet wishes. Lenin writes ---

"We do not and cannot know which spark --- of the innumerable sparks that are flying about in all countries as a result of the world economic and political crisis --- will kindle the conflagration, in the sense of rising up the masses; we must , therefore, with our new and communist principle, set to work to stir up all and sundry, even the oldest mustiest and seemingly hopeless sphere, for otherwise we shall not be able to cope with our tasks, shall not be comprehensively prepared,   shall not be inpossession of all the weapons and shall not prepare ourselves either to gain victory over the bourgeoisie (which arranged all aspects of social life and has now disarranged them - in its bourgeois fashion), or to bring about the impending communist reorganization of every sphere of life, following that victory."(Left Wing Communism; CW - 31, pg. 100) 

Only such a view of our historical tasks can save us from falling into the mire of reformism, economism or parliamentarism.

Militant Economism

A revolutionary movement has to go through many stages, zigzags before capturing power. So it is with a party. It inevitably has a period of infancy and growth. All this is indisputable. But it is very different from imposing upon the masses stages of struggle ( The "stages theory" of the economists was criticized by Lenin. This stages theory it may be mentioned, in order to avoid misunderstanding is very different from stages of the revolution determined or the basis of the disposition of the revolutionary forces --- say democratic revolution and socialist revolution ) in a subjective manner --- which abstracting from life do not allow for the twists and turns in the life of the society which obtains objectively. This is highly un-dialectical, rendering asunder the subject - object unity. Its metaphysical approach lies in the absolutisation of a certain form, a certain 'stage' to the exclusion of others. Let us, for instance, take up the much trumpeted 'Resistance Struggle' stage.

What is the 'Resistance Struggle'? Its proponents say it is an anti - landlord (anti-feudal) struggle where the masses offer resistance to the goondas and police. It is a struggle which is the initial stage of the gradualpreparation of the people for the agrarian revolution.

Engles in his prefatory note to "The peasant war in Germany" tell us that the strength and invincibility of the German working class movement lies in "the struggle (is) being waged in a planned way from its three interconnected sides, the theoretical, the political and the practical - economic (resistance to the capitalists)." But our communists with their "stages theory" of the 'resistance struggle' and so forth reduce it to the practical - economic. Why? Here is a specimen:

"What are the chief characteristics of this phase (the resistance struggle)? This is a phase of struggle mainly on the partial issues which do not directly involve the question of the state power. Partial issues are demands that are generally or apparently accepted by existing law and constitution, but are not implemented by the state in reality and their implementation is strongly opposed by the ruling classes. However this does not mean that such issues are unrelated with the question of political power. When any anti - feudal, anti - state issues are raised, it is actually against the state power. What we communists seek to do is to politicize the people and unleash their initiative by taking up these issues and solving these problems in a revolutionary way."

The first part of the above passage explicitly states its practical - economic character. By their "stages theory" and limiting themselves at a certain stag [remember, a complete 'stage' and not only just one aspect (the practical - economic) of the movement] to "realizable" demands, to demands "acceptable" to capitalism (or the semi - feudal, semi - colonial system if you will) they worship spontaneity. (See Stalin, Problems of Leninism, pg. 21 - 22) This bowing to spontaneity is complemented by a lack of theoretical concern which is manifested in the inversion of the Leninist principle of "letting the masses learn from their own experience" in the form of the leaders learning from their own experience. This is turn breeds empiricism and pragmatism. This bowing to spontaneity is one of the factors which reinforces the fragmentation in the revolutionary communist movement with various contingents at different level of experience not comprehending and appreciating each other. Let us examine the latter part of the passage --- "However this does not mean that such issues are unrelated with the question of political power. When any anti - feudal, anti - state issues are raised, it is actually against the state power." Isn't this exactly 'lending the economic struggle itself a political character'. This is what the economists in Russia said, since in the course of their practical - economic fight the masses come up against the state power it becomes related to the question of state power, i.e. their economic struggle (for land, wages etc.) leads them to politics. Exactly as the economists of yore argued. Since this fight is often fierce, conducted with the force of arms it carries the aura of being an armed struggle too. But this is militant economism, comrades and the fact of a political group conducting it doesn't free it from its spontaneous character. As Lenin said, there is spontaneity and spontaneity. The spontaneity of this mass movement in the nineties is not the spontaneity of the terroristic line of individual annihilation of the seventies. The seventies bowed to the passionate indignation of the petty - bourgeois intellectual ("The spread of guerilla 'actions' helps the broad masses to participate in the struggle. Mass organization and mass movement increase the tendency towards open and economist movement and expose the revolutionary workers before the enemy, which makes it easier for the enemy to launch attacks. Therefore, open mass movement and mass organizations are obstacle in the way of the development and expansion of guerilla warfare."(pg. 57) "The method of forming a guerilla unit has to bewholly conspiratorial . This conspiracy should be between intellectuals and on a person - to person basis. The petty - bourgeois intellectual comrade must take the initiative in this respect as far as possible. He should approach the poor peasant who, in his option has the most revolutionary potentiality, and whisper in his ears: "Don't you think it a good thing to finish off such and such a jotedar?" This is how the guerillas have to be selected and recruited singly and in secret, and organised into a unit." [ pg. 69 from Charu Mazumdar's writings compiled in 'The Historic Turning Point'] ) the nineties bows to the "mass" economic struggle. No wonder then with the spontaneity reigning in the movement in its different contingents get carried away easily by dalitism, nationalism (Tamilnadu and Khalistan etc.). That is why we say the movement is a prey to empiricism and pragmatism.

While criticizing economism Lenin wrote of the communist party --- "Social democracy represents the working class not in the latter's relation to only a given group of employers, but in its relation to all classes of modern society, to the state as an organised political force." Such is politics. But with the theory of stages --- at present that of the resistance struggle --- some contingents of the communist movement reduce themselves to the status of economic organizations, to militant trade - unionism, so to say. Now this --- "Due to sharp class and caste contradictions in the countryside the development of the anti-feudal consciousness among the people relatively easy as compared to the development of an anti-state attitude." What does 'anti feudal consciousness' mean here as opposed to "anti-state attitude"? It simply means an "anti-employer" consciousness sans phrase . That is the hallmark of any economistic movement --- arms or no arms. "Anti-state attitude" cannot be developed because of the 'stages theory' of glorifying and endowing with fetish-form one aspect of the movement and its absolutisation without regard to objective factors.

If communism is to represent the working class (in alliance with the toiling masses) in relation to the state as an organised political force it cannot rest content with such an economistic formulation of its tasks. Further, it must also take into account the fact that the state in India is an extremely centralized apparatus commanding colossal resources --- whether political or economic. Against such a state only a political movement which is concerted and centralized can be effective. Any movement which does not allow for this, which talks of base areas oblivious of the might of the state in its totality, in its widest links and ramifications, takes refuge in idealistic subterfuges and at the least is guilty of 'localism'. That is why in spite of development of "anti-feudal" attitude the state commands "prestige". It can with its resources jeopardize any such economic movement as the experience of the "reform and dole" (state patronage) programmes show.

The economicstic formulation of tasks negates the view of communism's role of representing the working class in "relation to all classes of modern society", does not take account of the disposition of class forces at any given time, their internal relations and relation to imperialism etc. By its preoccupation with "stages" it deprives the proletariat of any systematic plans to stand "at the head of the mighty force of millions rising upspontaneously."

Again the "stages" theory, the thesis of the gradual growth of the resistance struggle into agrarian revolution, guerilla zones, base areas or what you will militates against the Leninist teachings about a revolutionary situation ---

"To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, it is not every revolutionary situation that leads to revolution..We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms:

(1) When it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the "upper classes", a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for "the lower classes not to want" to live in the old way; it is also necessary that "the upper classes should be unable" to live in the way.

 (2) When the suffering and want to oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual. 

(3) When, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in "peace time", but, in turbulent-times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the "upper classes" themselves into independent historical action.

Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only the individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible.The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation. (The Collapse Of Second International)

It should speak volumes about the "stages theory" which does not take into account objective conditions, fixing the stage arbitrarily to the practical - economic. It (the stage theory) bows to spontaneity and discounts the need for subjective preparation which takes note of the Leninist teachings about imperialism, the era of proletarian revolution, the period of the direct assault upon state power. The profound and swift changes and upheavals under imperialism bring the masses into independent hisorical action and these objective changes are independent of anyone's will. Thus one can hardly fix the "stage" of preparation to one aspect --- the practical - economic. It shows the immense importance of the political struggle.

Imperialism and Politics

In this era of imperialism the importance of the political struggle becomes paramount not only because it is the era of proletarian revolution, full of crisis and profound twists and turns in the life of the masses opening up opportunities for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois rule but also because imperialism on the basis of its colossal super profits maintains a gigantic machinery to hoodwink and stultify the toiling masses and blunt the edge of their struggles. Ever since the rise of soviet power and the triumph of the Third International it has been its special business to sabotage the communist movement. Today we need not expatiate on it, this is as clear as daylight. And this also means the insidious use of the democratic institutions by imperialism. Lenin noted in his 'Imperialism and the split in socialism' ---

"The mechanics of political democracy works in the same direction. Nothing in our times can be done without elections; nothing can be done without the masses. And in era of printing and parliamentarism it isimpossible to gain the following of the masses without a widely ramified, systematically managed, well-equipped system of flattery, lies, fraud, juggling with fashionable and popular catchwords, and promising all manner of reforms and blessing to the workers right and left --- as long as they renounce the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie."

Coming from Lenin as it is, it should be highly instructive to those who are hypnotized by the mere conjuring up of the vision " masses ! ". Secondly, it shows the immense variety of forms adopted by imperialism, the whole exercise being designed for renunciation of the revolutionary struggle (for anti-communism). And if we want to act as revolutionaries i.e. preoccupy ourselves with the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and imperialist rule, we must counter all the devices forged by imperialism to maintain it hegemony. We have to take our political tasks seriously and given the immense clout of the state and its centralized nature, we cannot afford to paddle theses which paralyse our concerted political moves, making us behave like NGOs (voluntary agencies).

Very many NGOs also carry the masses with them, the red tread that runs through all of them is that they do not work for the overthrow of the present system. All their fights, organizations tasks are subordinated to the tasks of imperialism. By harnessing people's aspirations, localized 'issue-based' fights are typical of them. They are a form which combines the magic formula of decentralization, grassroots, participative 'democracy' or initiative of the masses with people's struggles ( the masses ! ). They are caricatures of the mass forms --- mass creativity, mass initiative, mass involvement, participative democracy witnessed during the glorious, epoch - making year after the revolutions in the Soviet Union, China and other people democracies. While trying to approximate these forms the system of NGOs and 'grassroots' organizations channelise and dissipate the creativity and energy of the masses so as not to affect bourgeois rule as a whole. Hence, they are non-political and one sided (environmentalist groups, human rights groups, literacy campaign groups etc.). In their whole outcome they only reinforce the present system, turning the mechanics of democracy into a prop of imperialism. No wonder then that today when bourgeois ideology is on the offensive the imperialist agencies --- World Bank etc. openly advocate and favour the execution of their projects through these agencies.

Fragmentation of the communist movement has been a yeoman service rendered by revisionism to imperialism. During Stalin's time the whole communist movement spoke with one voice and almost had a decisive influence on world affairs but ever since the movement has been unable to challenge imperialism as a body , the type of influence that Lenin spoke of ( See Lenin; Draft Theses On National And Colonial Questions; CW. Vol. 31, pg. 148 ). In India we find that fragmentation has driven the various groups into localism as a consequence of area-wise influence and a peculiar theoretical understanding (or non-understanding?) that the revolution will take place as a result of gradual area-wise seizure of power. We have already pointed out that this perception is anti-Leninist in principle and moreover does not accord with any historical experience till now ( Yes comrades, not even with the Chinese Revolution as we shall see later). It is in the state of affairs that the parties operate, locally taking up sundry people issues, many of them even unfinished takes of the democratic stage, maintain a certain amount of pressure from below. There armed nature is of course of headache for the state, for every state seeks to disarm the exploited; the Indian state being very stringent in this respect. Anyway in spite of this, the top bureaucracy advocates incorporation of the activists' in the process of identification and distribution of ceiling surplus and tenancy lands (The IPF also finds mention in the report : Report Of The Workshop 'Land Reform Unit' of Lalbahadur Shastri National Academy Of Administration, Mussoorie ; 8 - 11 Feb , 1991 ) in these tasks they also reveal their failure to take up the question of 'pressure from above' as Lenin emphasized in his 'Two - Tactics'(we, of course, do not approve the 'Liberation' above, the formation of a left front government, which we criticized in our last issue, New Series, Vol.I, No. 4, June 1994). As for managing affairs at the village level (resistance struggle, 'Jan Panchayats' etc.) it is a sort of village - level democracy which does not even touch the fringes of the centralized state power. It is what Lenin called 'wash - basin' democracy. Here is Lenin's opinion ---

The bourgeois intelligentsia of the west .seeks to divert public attention away from the fundamental questions of the economic system as whole, and of the state structure as a whole, to minor questions of localself - government Attention is diverted to the sphere of minor local questions, being directed not to the question of the chief instruments of that rule, but to the question of disturbing the crumbs thrown by the rich bourgeoisie for the "needs of the population" It blunts it, too, by assuming that local democracy is possible without the complete democratization of the center. It also blunts it with the idea of "municipal socialism", because the latter is conceivable in bourgeois society only away from the high road of the struggle, only in minor, local unimportant questions on which even the bourgeoisie may yield, may reconcile itself to without losing the possibility of preserving its class rule (CW. 13; pg. 359-362)

Today when the 'policies' framed by the state affects all aspect of our life which has been drawn closely together by the rule of capital, when economic life is 'manipulated' at metropolitan centers of world imperialism, when there are far-reaching effects of bourgeois policies on the life of the masses whether it be the 'New Economic Policy' or 'Dunkel', glorifying such democracy, rather resting content with such forms of struggle ("stages") which affect only minor, local unimportant issues only amounts to a lack of action affecting "the economic system as a whole", "the state structure as a whole". It means leaving intact the class rule of the bourgeoisie. This is tantamount to a discounting of the political struggle. It means a class struggle which is hemmed in by the subjective, imposition of "stages", by local concerns. Its means not intending to take the class struggle to its logical conclusion --- the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That should speak volumes about the theses of "gradual area wise seizure of power"etc. in a centralized state with the economic lifelines closely held in place by a shrewd bourgeoisie. It shows why anything approximating the NGO form is insidious, why local "people's power" without politics only buttresses the present system. That is what happens when you fix the struggle at the "resistance struggle" stages and so on and fight, albeit militantly, for the implementation of government programmes of distribution of ceiling surplus lands, minimum wages etc. and also take up ""developmental" !! tasks. And if you say you are breaking the semi-feudal production relations, you might be right, you are perhaps finishing some of the left-over democratic takes but as for Bolshevik politics you are far from it ! ( In our discussion 'on the stage of the Indian revolution ' we wrote --- "otherwise the 'democratic ' movement tries to draw sustenance from the unfinished tasks of solving the problem of self determination of nationalities etc. such left over democratic (anti-feudal) tasks belong to the more general question of socialist revolution . Did Lenin not point out that the future socialist revolution will have to fulfill many democratic tasks." )

The whole movement has a practical-economic character. Whether it be people's aspirations or the various problems of women, nationalists, caste etc. everywhere we find a un-Bolshevik presentation of the question. Each question acquires a peculiar autonomy rendering is susceptible to bourgeois influences and imperialist manipulation. We pointed out to the un-Bolshevik presentation of the 'peasant question' in our last issue, criticized the thesis that 'land to the tiller' per se is the touchstone of revolutionary activity. Reams of paper are devoted to accounts of land-seizures --- mostly ceiling-surplus of government lands! And this is described as the class struggle ( Even Charu Mazumdar dubbed the emphasis on land seizures as "economism".)

But, of course, some groups are vaguely conscious of all this and hence they try to wriggle out of this situation by admitting ---

"If a people's movement is not politicized right from the beginning then irrespective of how militant its character is or how strong is its spread, not only will it be impossible to free the movement from the mire of economism-reformism, but it will also be impossible to take the moement to a higher stage of struggle." The politicization of a movement does not take place by itself only through practical struggle, but it is done from outside, by the continuous and conscious effort of the proletarian party, and this protracted process has to be carried out right from the beginning."

There are politics and politics. There is a politics of Leninism defening the role of the working class party and its striving for a decisive role in politics and hegemony in the struggles of the proletarian and toiling masses as a whole. There is also the politics of "stages" artificially build up as we have seen and more over ones which arises out of the economic struggle. This 'politics' is but economism. While recognizing the need for the taking consciousness from without, this communist contingent by its "stages theory" and subjective view of mass consciousness makes all talks politicization --- perspective and propaganda regarding resistance struggle, guerilla zone, base areas etc. so many charming phrases. Marx condemned the use of such charming terms from the past which only served to conceal the real tasks. Terms such as these only serve as cover a localistic, economistic formulation of tasks, of an ostrich - like attitude towards class politics on the whole and but embellishes the long drawn - out economic movement (and any stagnation that might go with it, the fatigue and the despondency) by terms like "protected people's war". Today when policies formulated at metropolitan centres " directly " affect the life of the masses the use of such 'charming' terms becomes positively harmful, it only reveals and inability, even in terms of perspective, to come to grips with the concrete reality.

The very talk of a "protected process of raising consciousness" is anti-Leninist as we criticized earlier. It assumes that the masses, crushed and ignorant that they are under conditions engendered by capitalism, coupled with the gigantic imperialist propaganda and subversion machinery all set to thwart revolutionary movements, can attain to a high degree of consciousness in a protected process.

Of course, Marxist-Leninist are not Blanquists who believe in a minority revolution (Lenin was charged with Blanquism by the leaders of the Second International) ---

"Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses have taken up a position either of direct support for the vanguard; or at least of sympathetic neutrality towards it and of precluded support for the enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the broad masses of the working people, those oppressed by capital, to take up such a stand. For that, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions, which has been confirmed with compelling force and vividness, not only in Russia but in Germany as well. To turn resolutely towards communism, it was necessary, not only for the ignorant and often illiterate masses of Russia , but also for the literate and well-educated masses of Germany, to realize from their own bitter experience the absolute impotence spinelessness, the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie, and the utter vileness of the government of the paladins of the Second International; they had to realize that a dictatorship of extreme reactionaries. Is inevitable the only alternative to a dictatorship of the proletariat." (Left Wing Communism, C.W.=31, pg. 92-93)

This makes it incumbent upon the communists to promote such methods of struggle and forms of organization that can enable the masses to have their own political experience through which they can be brought to the revolutionary front. This is the only meaning of politicization of the masses. Otherwise talk of 'taking consciousness to the masses from outside' becomes a mere phrase. You confine the struggle to the practical-economic and talk of the politics! Yes, 'politicization' of a movement cannot take place by itself but then unless you are ready to promote and use all such forms through which the masses can have their ownpolitical experience, all these become mere tall-talk. As Lenin write for this propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. This underscores the important of political struggle, a struggle rendered a hundred times more difficult because of the gigantic machinery forged by imperialism which uses the ubiquitous media, democratic institutions, even fosters 'mass' movement etc. to subvert the revolutionary movement in a widely ramified and subtle manner. For this it is very necessary to have a proper theoretical understanding of the proletariat's tasks in order to work out tactics in the Leninist mould. Have the importance of the theoretical struggle comes to the force.

A Digression : The Chinese Experience

The Chinese revolution was not  the result of a linear growth - resistance struggle, guerilla zones, base areaset al, in that order - leading to the final capture of power in 1949. It was a revolution which was accomplished amidst wars. It had to undergo changes of tack, zigzags, retreats, compromises, manoeuvres in order to capture power. Ever since the formation of the communist party in 1921 and the Northern Expedition, the communist party had always been at war. The four periods that are out lined in the history of the Communist party of China are all periods of war ---

(1) the foundation of the party and the First Revolutionary Civil War, 1922-27,

(2) the Second Revolutionary Civil War or the War of Agrarian Revolution,1927-36,

(3) the war of Resistance of Japanese aggression, 1937-45 and

(4) the Third Revolutionary Civil War leading to the establishment of people's Republic of China in 1949 - of which there are two periods -

(i) the period of strategic defensive, 1946-47.

(ii) the period of strategic offensive, 1947-49.

The Contention of the imperialist powers for the control of China beginning with the Opium war of 1840 led to the carving up of the whole country into spheres of influence by the imperialist powers. It meant the break-up of the Chinese Empire and the emergence of local warlords. This and the powerful peasant wars and the revolution of 1911 all led to the counter-revolutionary alliance of warlords and comprador bourgeoisie with imperialism. Only thus could imperialism maintain its rule. These peculiar circumstances made armed struggle the main form of struggle in the Chinese Revolution. Hence Stalin's theses - "in China the armed revolution is fighting the armed counter-revolution. This is one of the specific features and one of the advantages of the Chinese revolution."

The first period of the CPC was of Civil War against the warlords (lackeys of imperialism) in alliance with the bourgeoisie. It ended with the betrayal of the bourgeoisie. The second period, that of the war Agrarian Revolution was waged against imperialism, the alliance of big bourgeoisie and big landlord, and the national bourgeoisie had at that time turned into a tail of the big bourgeoisie. It was during this time that base areas were formed with a workers' and peasants' regime (a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry). Thus the base areas were not the result of a linear growth through resistance struggle, guerilla zones etc. They were the centres where the Chinese party and revolutionary army could rest and build strength. They could exist because of war within the white regime. It was an important factor among others and only because of this fissure in the Chinese state could these areas exist and grow. Moreover they had a regime of workers and peasants and not a 'new democratic' one. With the Japanese aggression, the character of these regimes was changed. The CPC dropped the slogan of workers' and peasants' democratic republic, took the initiative to establish the anti-Japanese national united front, dropped such measures as confiscation of landlord's land etc. and reorganized the Red Army for the war against Japan together with the Kuomintang forces. With the defeat of Japan started the third revolutionary civil war which finally established the People's Republic of China.

This then is the Chinese experience, which is full of compromises, maneuvers, retreats, changes of tack in keeping with the objective situation. The CPC was not enamored of  any subjective plan which envisaged a linear view of the revolution growing through various "stages". Anyone who wants to learn from this rich history will not peddle theses like our comrades do artificially imposing "stages" upon revolution.

The Theoretical Struggle

Everyone in the movement admits that theory is the Achilles' heel of the revolutionary communist movement in India. And without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement wrote Lenin. If anything, under conditions of fragmentation and imperialism which covertly promotes various "schools" of Marxism-Leninism the importance of theory cannot be overemphasized. And how can any consciousness be taken from without if this "without" itself is bereft of all theoretical grounding and only "learns" from experience!

It is lack of theoretical understanding which makes this movement a prey to empiricism and pragmatism as we noted earlier. It is manifested in the growing preoccupation with issue like women's oppression, environmentalism, national struggle, all sorts of bourgeois fads trumped up by the imperialism to the exclusion of class-politics, of a fight against class rule. All these issues are dealt in an abstract, one-sided manner without linking them up with the cause of the proletariat, without a Leninist presentation which links them up with the facilitation of the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Lenist way  is to advance such policies as to turn the oppressed from the reserve of the bourgeoisie into reseves (allies) of the proletariat. In these a concrete presentation of the problem is made and not formal ones. For example, the national problem is not approached say from the view of abstract rights but from the view of the unity of the oppressed. But here the Marxist-Leninists present it in a most formal manner, following the bourgeoisie for whom the national question is presented through arousing of national animosity and hatred, through whipping up of chauvinistic feelings (witness the Naga-Kuki clashes for example, Khalistan, the mutual slaughter of Armenians and Azerbaijanis for instance).

We find that the movement with this sort of the preoccupation with issues to the exclusion of class-politics, grounded as it is on the quicksand of theoretical juggling, constantly yields to ideologies alien to Marxism. It smuggles in Freud, Ambedkar et al into the movement in the name of the inadequacy of Marxism : Marxism-Leninism doesn't answer all question! Trying to impose their own ignorance upon the teachers of the proletariat they take cover under alien ideologies. The Marxist treasury house is extremely rich, profound and many sided and only one who is well-versed in it, one with firm theorical foundations can creatively applied , can truly say 'it is not a dogma but a guide to action.' For others creative application can mean nothing other than taking refuge in subversive anti working class ideologies. That is why it is important to conduct a theoretical struggle; so that the revolutionary content of Marxism-Leninism may be re-established.

Lack of the theoretical struggle in the Marxist-Leninist movement has not only led to economism, reformism, left adventureism, right deviation etc. but also precluded any proper self-critism in the movement itself. If during the Charu Mazumdar's time questions raised against such claims like the formation of the People's Liberation Army ("It is by snatching rifles at Magurjan that the People's Liberation Army of West Bengal's peasantry has emerged."Charu Mazumdar; Liberation Anthology, vol. II, pg. 114.) were silenced by charges of "Doubtism" etc., if those who saw the use of parliamentary forms ridiculed the "boycottists", if those who advocated 'mass line' against the line of 'individual annihilation' were accused as rightist, it is due to the lack of proper theoretical struggle and what the leaders lacked in their theoretical training they tried to learn from their own experience. And there was a massive trading of charges. Most of the leaders were at one time or other pilloried as revisionist. It is interesting that in spite of violent changes of the 'line's of most parties they still trade charges of the sort without seriously carrying out a theoretical struggle. This violent change in 'line' is also due to the one sided emphasis now on one (say the illegal) and then on other (say the parliamentary) form in keeping with the leaders' empirical observations, lack of theoretical understanding etc. If the movement must get out of its morass it must pay attention to this aspect for theory alone can give movement orientation, confidence and understanding of the inner relations of events and enlighten practice.

Whither the Movement ?

After 1947, the Indian bourgeoisie fostered industrial growth by embarking upon policies designed to expropriate the direct producers (deficit budgeting, taxes etc.) and thus threw vast masses on to the periphery of society. The organised industrial working class under its revisionist leadership failed to take any political initiative during this period. It could have taken the political leadership and ensured its hegemony if it occupied itself with the question of state power, with the question of the overthrow of the predatory state which was bleeding the masses white in its efforts to build up a miserable industrial base. The path traversed by Indian capitalism , the landlord-bourgeois path of slow and gradual severing of pre-capitalist relations brought untold miseries to the working people. The expropriated and overburdened toiling masses were seething with discontent leading to many struggles. But the organised working class did not think of rallying all these masses around itself and contending for state power. It had bartered away its independent political initiative and leadership of the toiling masses for a mess of pottage. This was the breeding ground for opportunism in the working class movement which has today brought the whole movement to this sorry pass.

There was then a concomitant of the revolutionary communists away from the organised working class. This added to the weakness of a movement which never had a working class social composition, making a vulnerable to all sorts of petty-bourgeois, non-working class influences. Although by taking up and identifying with the struggles of the toiling masses this contingent could retain it overall revolutionary character, it could never master proletarian politics i.e. Bolshevism. Today when due to the profound crisis, the social base of the bourgeoisie is bound to shrink; when the deteriorating conditions of the organised working class renders it less susceptible to opportunism (Opportunism in the strict sense of pandering to sectional and short-term interests of sections of the working class or toiling masses disregarding the interests of the movement as a whole and its long term [historical] tasks. ), it is the task of the revolutionary communists to take up organizational tasks anew in the Leninist mould. It must take a Leninist appraisal of all struggles. The movement had gained in breadth though temporarily losing its political orientation. The practical economic side, of mass struggles, along with the assertion of the arming of the toiling masses, has been developed though in a one-sided manner. We should try to link this up with theoretical and political struggles, reaffirming Leninism, as communists who can truly stand at the head of the struggles of the masses.

- End -