Written by Damodar on The Other Aspect blog.
The 21st
party congress of CPI (M) recently concluded at Visakhapatnam with the
usual ritualistic flavour that has become the hallmark of such events
for the parties of Left Front particularly the CPI and the CPI (M). The
party congress would be known for selecting or rather electing
“unanimously” its new General Secretary Sitaram Yechury. Though the
outgoing general secretary, Prakash Karat wanted the post to go to
Ramachandran Pillai. The ongoing factional struggle between Karat and
Yechury was somehow saved from being open in public when the Karat
faction backtracked on the voting for new General Secretary. While
Yechury was backed by West Bengal delegates, Pillai a Karat man enjoyed
the support of the Pinarayi Vijayan faction from Kerala, but the Bengal
lobby wanted a more pragmatic (read one who can hob nob with Congress
and other parties) man at helm.
The party
Congress of CPI (M), no longer evinces the same interest particularly
among the Left movement as it did few years ago. No communist
group/party or left journal devoted any analysis or criticism to the
policy/issues raised in the congress. A major reason might have been
that for CPI-M, like its counterpart bourgeoisie parties there has been a
wide gap between its political-organisational reports and its politics
on ground level. Further the dwindling base of the party and its almost
moribund energy was enough to deter the bourgeoisie media. For the
revolutionary Left, it has stopped taking cognizance of this party’s
activities since long. Revisionist parties — as the CPI (M) has become–,
adopts something in their party congresses while doing the opposite
when it comes to the realm of day to day politics. This is an important
characteristic of revisionism that differentiates it from a genuine
revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Party.
Yet, nationally
and internationally there are several comrades who still consider CPI
and CPI (M) a still Marxist-Leninist formation, hence we would like to
take this opportunity to analyse the resolutions particularly the new
Political Tactical Line (PTL) adopted in the congress. At the same time
it is our duty as a Marxist Leninist to wage a struggle to expose the
real intention of reformist-revisionists so that their real intention
comes to the fore.
21st Congress: The identity Crisis.
The Congress
took place at a time when the party finds itself at the lowest. It has
secured the lowest number of seat in Lok Sabha since its formation, its
rule in the states is at lowest with only tiny Tripura saving the grace,
the confidence of the leadership is at lowest so is the enthusiasm of
the cadres. The set back of Bengal has still not gone so is the
factional crisis in Kerala. In other parts of the country it was hardly
any force to reckon with but there also it has lost its confidence to
lead mass movement. The net result is the party is grappling with severe
identity crisis. The spaces being vacated by it are being grabbed by
new entities like Aam Admi Party (AAP) in Delhi and even by NGOs in
several places. It has squarely failed to cash on the anti-establishment
feeling of the common masses and in its once strong hold the party is
seen as equally corrupt with rank opportunists, and self-seekers found
it highly rewarding to join the party and to ditch it as well. So it is
not a surprise when a senior party leader admitted that around 40,000
members have quit the CPM in West Bengal since 2011 and major section of
it joining the BJP. The decimation and decline shows no sign of
abetment, if the recently concluded bye-elections and the civic
elections are any sign, where the Trinmool Congress resoundingly
trampled the party and Left front’s candidates. Bengal unit is no longer
able to mobilise masses on the scale as when it was in power.
Left front
government in its eagerness to hug the capitalists nudged the peasant
& proletariats, who in turn dumped him in the elections. The people
have thoroughly rejected the conversion of CPI (M) from a social
democratic party to that of agent of national and international finance
capital. It’s policy of embracing industrialisation-at-any-cost by
appeasing international and national capital and inviting predatory
multinationals like Wal-Mart in the naïve belief of advancing the
“productive forces”. It forcibly acquired land, deeply antagonising
peasants and the working class as well. But only the
revolutionary force and its organisation can help in advancement of
productive force. After three decades of stagnant rule based on terror,
intimidation and sycophancy CPM neither commanded a revolutionary force
nor was it ever a revolutionary organisation.
The
Singur-Nandigram occurrences weren’t causes but effects/symptoms of a
deeper malaise: pursuit of neoliberalism, which the party’s central
leadership assails. The CPM, with a strongly upper-caste sophisticated,
westernised, middle and upper middle class leadership, failed to combat
caste, gender and anti-Muslim discrimination not is it able to
understand the changing dynamics of the Indian polity. It became a party
of careerists bereft of imagination, yet complacent and arrogant first
towards its smaller partners and then to the people at large. Tales of
party leaders threatening masses and silencing every voice of dissent
using most heinous ways that only a bourgeoisie party is capable of
undertaking that too against fellow communist showed the rot that had
engulfed it.
In name of
industrialisation the CPM government was happy to give away with
hundreds of acres of fertile land perhaps best quality agrarian land of
the country at throw away price to Tata. When the people protested they
even did not blink an eye to shoot the poor peasants and rural
proletariats their support base for decades and terming them as
reactionaries.
Prakash Karat
has been lecturing and writing long articles on the exploitation in SEZs
across the country but same Karat had no qualm in declaring SEZs in
Bengal as ‘progressive’.
Similarly in
Kerala it has suffered setbacks because of the CPM-instigated murder of
political rivals like T.P. Chandrasekharan, neglect of social and gender
issues, and outright opposition to Western Ghats conservation and
support for encroachers. The party today is seen to be no different than
Congress of RSS. Gone are the days of mass mobilisation today it relies
on mob mobilisation to silence its critique. Several top leadership of
Kerala have been implicated in various scams. In Lavalin scam the
party’s State Secretary and the former Politburo member Pinarayi Vijayan
is directly involved.
The leadership
both at national and state levels seems to have lost the capacity to
lead independent mass actions. Years of tailism and being propped on the
crutches of this or that bourgeoisie party has done away with the
capability of agitation, a fact that has been accepted in the Congress
as well.
The Congress apart from adopting regular resolutions and reports adopted a new PTL. The previous PTL was adopted at the 13th congress held at Thiruvananthapuram from December 27 1988 to 1st January 1999.
The Political Tactical Line: Nothing new!
Suddenly a
realisation has dawned in the party that there is something wrong with
their strategy and the organisation. From where did this sudden fountain
of realisation erupt? It did not emanate as a result of any genuine
desire to resist the onslaught of capital but the new PTL itself answers
it. It says:
“The 2014 Lok Sabha election review conducted by the Central Committee in June 2014 had concluded that the Party has been unable to advance for sometime and this was reflected in the poor performance of the Party in the election.…The election review report adopted by the Central Committee stated that:“In successive Party Congresses we have been emphasizing the need for enhancing the independent strength of the Party. Some of the states have attributed the erosion of our independent strength to the tactics of aligning with the bourgeois parties. The failure to advance the independent strength of the Party necessitates a reexamination of the political-tactical line that we have been pursuing”.
So the necessity of reviewing the PTL came from the massive drubbing that it got in the elections.
Since 1989-90 it may be remembered CPI (M) with its politics of
alliance along with manipulations what may be termed as Harikishen
Surjeet’s line was instrumental in playing a major role in power-play/
power broker role. Though the party never had any significant pan India
presence, yet the Machiavellian politics of Surjeet kept CPI(M) at
centre of Delhi’s power gallery.
Today things
are very different, The party’s sudden deemphasizing of electoral
politics and rhetorical calls for “mobilizing the masses” are due to its
marginalization in bourgeois parliamentary politics. So to be relevant
it has to raise the bogey of mass mobilization as recently we saw AAP
doing in Delhi. In fact CPI (M) has been highly mesmerised with the
polity and tactics of AAP. Its mouthpiece even eulogised the Kejriwal’s
team and indirectly pleading for an alliance, but unfortunately it got
no feeler from the later for having any kind of alliance.
The PTL further says:
“The P-TL is the tactics we adopt from time to time in a specific situation in order to advance towards our strategic goal which is the People’s Democratic Revolution. The tactical goal we have set out in the P-TL is the forging of a Left and democratic Front in order to present the Left and democratic alternative to the bourgeois-landlord order. The struggle to forge the Left and democratic alternative is part of our effort to change the correlation of class forces so that we can advance towards our strategic goal.”
So much for that coveted goal of Peoples’ Democratic Revolution, which this party wants to achieve by forging a Left and democratic Front. Interestingly
the mention of revolution starts and ends here. The entire document
then is about forging or not forging alliance with the other parties! It
does not mention any substantial tactics to be adopted vis-à-vis the
working class nor with the peasantry.
One is bound to ask, who are the “democratic”
parties? While the PTL has left us to speculate, but those who have
been following the Indian polity even cursorily would have no hesitation
in answering the question. For the CPM leadership the democratic forces
among others today are the siblings of the so-called Janata Parivar
like the Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal, Rashtirya Janata Dal and similar
parties. Now everyone knows the character of these parties and what harm
they have done in stalling the progress of the working class and
peasant movement. These rank casteist outfits are no better than the
rightist or the Bourgeoisie outfits. In fact when there will a call for
decisive struggle against the forces of fascism and capitalism, these
outfits instead of being with the working class and toiling masses would
ally with the capitalist and fascist forces.
The Political Resolution of the 10th Congress explained the Left and democratic Front as follows: “The struggle to build this front is part of our endeavour to bring about a change in the correlation of class forces, to end a situation in which the people can choose only between two bourgeois-landlord parties, and get imprisoned within the framework of the present system. By gathering all Left and democratic forces together for further advance, the Party makes a beginning to consolidate these forces which, in future, will participate in shaping the alliance for People’s Democracy under the leadership of the working class. The left and democratic Front is not to be understood as only an alliance for elections or Ministry, but a fighting alliance of the forces for immediate advance – economic and political – and for isolating the reactionary classes that hold the economy in their grip.”
This point needs to be elaborated. The Party has elucidated its intention of gathering the Left and democratic forces for future advance of the party, to shape
the alliance for People’s Democracy (emphasis ours) so much so for the
caricature of Peoples’ Democracy! Peoples’ Democracy as propounded by
Stalin and further elaborated by Dimitrov is a special form of
dictatorship of the proletariat, where there is a class alliance with
other progressive forces under the general leadership of the Communist
or workers’ party. This model of Peoples’ Democracy was implemented
immediately after the Second World War in Eastern Europe and China.
The characteristic feature of Peoples’ Democracy is:
The rise and development of people’s democracy should be examined concretely and historically, since people’s democracy is passing through various stages and its class content changes, depending on the stage.The first stage is the stage of agrarian, anti-feudal, anti-imperialist revolution, in the course of which people’s democracy arises as the organ of revolutionary power, representing in its content something in the nature of dictatorship of the working class and peasantry, the working class having the leading role. A characteristic feature of this power is that it directs its sharp edge against imperialism, against fascism.The second stage is the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class in the form of people’s democracy and the building of Socialism. (A. Sobolev, Peoples’ Democracy as a Form of Political Organisation of Society)
So we leave it
to the good sense of our comrade readers to decide which politics of CPM
confirms to their working towards the course of achieving the Peoples’
Democratic Revolution. What has been the role of CPM in fight against
imperialism or against Fascism? When they were in power, the policies
adapted by them were no different from that of any other bourgeoisie
party.
Before
proceeding further we would like to state another related issue, which
gets mentioned prominently. The PTL in point 14 further states about the
adoption of Left Democratic Secular Front:
For this we have to look for the reasons within the P-TL itself. From the 13th Congress (1988) we started talking of the unity of the Left and secular forces. We made a distinction between the immediate task of forging a non-Congress secular alternative to meet the current situation and the task of building the Left and democratic Front. By the 15th Congress we had set out the slogan of the unity of the Left, democratic and secular forces. By that time we had more or less concluded that the Left and democratic Front is a distant goal and is not a realizable slogan as reiterated in the 11th Congress of the Party. By and by we relegated the Left and democratic Front to a propaganda slogan. The Left, democratic and secular alliance became the new interim slogan. While this began as a slogan against the Rajiv Gandhi Congress government to rally the non-Congress secular bourgeois parties while demarcating from the BJP, later it became the slogan directed against the BJP. It is on that basis that we joined the United Front, without participating in the government in 1996.
Now in terms of secular,
the most important secular formation for our “Marxist” friends apart
from the so-called democratic parties are parties like AIADMK, DMK, TDP
etc. who share the crumbs with our revolutionary “Marxists” thus helping
them win a seat here a seat there. Though, it never has crossed the
mind of our comrades to check about the secular credentials of these
parties. The less said the better. All such “secular” and “democratic”
parties have no qualm of hobnobbing with the BJP or Congress as the
compulsion of the parliamentary polity demands.
The Entire PTL
is full of such jingoism and pseudo revolutionary phrase mongering, but
we will not go into the detail in interest of space and time of our dear
comrade readers.
How different
were CPM from the other bourgeoisie parties when in power? After the
2004 elections Ashok Mitra wrote an article commenting on the
capitulation of the CPI M leaders to the camp of neo liberalism, he
wrote:
The main poll issue in West Bengal was the state government’s policy of capitalist industrial growth; events in Singur and Nandigram were offshoots of that policy. Many sections, including staunch long-time supporters of the Left cause, had been shocked by the cynical nonchalance initially exhibited by the state government on police firing on women and children in Nandigram. A series of other faux pas was committed in its wake, including the messy affair of the Tata small car project. The electorate reached its conclusion on the government’s putting all its eggs in the Nano basket. Once the Tatas departed, the state administration was dubbed not only insensitive, but incompetent as well. Questions have continued to be raised one after another: was it really necessary to take over fertile land at Singur, why could not the Tatas be prevailed upon to choose an alternative site, why did not the state government apply adequate pressure on the United Progressive Alliance regime in New Delhi — which was assumed to depend upon Left support for survival — to pass the necessary legislation so that land belonging to closed factories could be taken over to locate new industries? And why the state government was reluctant to lobby earnestly in the national capital for adequate resources from centrally controlled public financial institutions to the state exchequer, which could have ensured industrial expansion in the public domain itself — whether this reluctance was merely due to lack of resources or because of a deeper ideological reason such as a loss of faith in socialistic precepts and practices.A number of other unsavoury facts also need to be laid bare. A state government does not have too much of funds or other spoils to distribute. But in a milieu where feudal elements co-inhabit with the petit bourgeoisie, persons in a position to dispense only little favours can also attract fair-weather friends and gather sycophants around them. Concentric circles of favour-rendering develop fast. Merit necessarily takes a backseat in official decisions. Corruption, never mind how small-scale, creeps in. Nepotism, sprouting at the top, gradually infects descending rungs of administration, including the panchayats. Much of all this has taken place of late within the precincts of the Left regime. The net effect is a steep decline in the quality of governance. The fall in efficiency is illustrated by the inept handling of programmes like the rural employment guarantee scheme. To make things worse, all this has been accompanied by a kind of hauteur which goes ill with radical commitment.
As we have
mentioned umpteen times revisionist parties use revolutionary phrase
mongering to hide their revisionist character. Same goes with our great
defenders of Socialism and Peoples’ Democracy, while degeneration and
double-talks reach their nadir while lending credence to abject
surrender to the lap of the World Bank, the IMF, the MNCs and the World
Bank’s trusted men like Manmohan Singh or even the regional allies of
capitalism like Mulaym Singh and Chandrababu Naidu. Did not Tito or
Khruschev continued to hang the Communist, Marxist and other
revolutionary sign boards, while doing the exact opposite of what the
tenants of Marxism Leninism teaches.
But we must
commend the CPM leadership for they are always not dishonest. In point
number 17, they have been ultra-honest (if there is any such word in
English):
As the realization of a third alternative became more unattainable, in the 18th Congress Political Resolution another distinction was made between the electoral understanding for specific elections by drawing the non-Congress bourgeois parties and the building of a third alternative. Thus the Left and democratic Front was relegated to the third phase of our task. The first phase being the immediate current task of electoral understanding for a specific election by drawing in the non-Congress bourgeois secular parties. The second phase being the formation of a third alternative based on a common programme which would be forged by building joint movements and struggles. The third phase was the building of the Left and democratic Front.
Reading this
point in conjunction with point 16 and above, clearly demonstrates the
real intention and politics of the party. The aim of the party three
layers down is elections and nothing but elections. First they want or
wanted to build an electoral understanding of non -Congress (or now non
BJP) parties followed by a common front like the discredited United
Front and followed by the so called Left Democratic Front. So the party
will work for elections and nothing but elections. We all know that the
limitations of bourgeoisie elections, and neither are we for boycotting
it like some of the adventurist groups claims, but basing the entire
politics around parliament, did not Lenin sharply criticised this
tendency terming it as parliamentary cretinism? What can one gain but
few reforms for the working class even if one has a commanding position
in such institution? A quote from Lenin will not be out of place here.
Lenin in his article titled “Marxism and Reformism” wrote:
Unlike the
anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for
measures that improve the conditions of the working people without
destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the
Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who,
directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working
class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois
deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will
always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of
capital.
The liberal
bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take
them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to
divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that
reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a
weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the
workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled. (emphasis ours)
Now this is what CPM aims for, some reforms!
The PTL goes on
to summarise the experience of various fronts and alliances that the
party had undertook in the past and not so distant past in a tone that
resembles a chronological reading of the government formation since the
National Front days. While the party has accepted its mistakes there has
been no self-criticism or mention of its wrongdoing in Bengal and
Kerala. So much for honesty of a revolutionary communist party! It has
though in passing mentioned,:
“What has to be recognised is that the processes underway during the globalisation-neo-liberal regime have posed new problems for the Left and has created adverse conditions for developing the movements of the working class, agrarian, students, youth and women. It is imperative that we understand the processes at work and work out new and suitable tactics and organisational methods.”
But as much CPM
may gloss over its mistakes the proletariats have not. In Bengal the
toiling class has not forgotten the tyranny and high handedness of the
party nomenklatura who adopted all kinds of legitimate and
illegitimate means to bring success to their rule and satisfy the
mandarins or babus (from Jyoti babu to Buddhadeb babu) at the Muzaffar
Ahmed Bhawan (the West Bengal state HQ) rather than the toiling masses
and even to silence the enemies. The coal field of Bengal still
reverberates from the atrocities and the terror of the CITUs leadership.
The people have not forgotten the several bloody attacks perpetrated by
the hooligans at the behest of the party. The cowardly assassination of
the fire brand trade union and highly respected communist leader
comrade Sunil Pal on 29-12-2009 by the hired goons and marauders of CPI
(M) is still fresh in the minds of people of coalfields. His only fault
being that he was a dedicated Marxist-Leninist whose sole aim being to
bring justice and safeguard the workers interest against the capitals
offensive.
The CPM
de-radicalised the trade unions and lost its prime working class cadres,
reducing Trade Union to being a dovetail of the government and a means
for money collection and keeping in check the working class. At every
juncture CITU was found capitulating to the whims of capital. Apart from
one day ritualistic strike and dharna, whose outcome is known to all
and sundry beforehand it has only compromised the interest of the
working class at an all India level. During the Maruti struggle CITU
instead of giving a militant leadership to the struggle was seen siding
with the management and on the pretext of maintainingindustrial peace
was seen chiding the belligerent workers. When the workers were put in
jail it did nothing to bring them out but at every crucial juncture
sided with the management.
Similarly in
the struggle against Coal ordinance in January 2015, the CITU leadership
since beginning of the strike had adopted a defeatist position and was
only seen praying and pleading to the government for some reforms. We
are once again reminded of the words said by Lenin for the reformists,
“Fight to improve your condition as a slave, but regard the thought of
overthrowing slavery as a harmful utopia”! does it not fit CPM today?
Another glaring
point that finds no mention in either the PTL of the Pol-Org Report is
the support the CPI-M extended to Pranab Mukherjee in the last
presidential election. The CPI Congress document on the past
developments noted this and informed its members of the division
suffered by the Left on this issue when the CPI and other Left parties
refused to follow the CPI-M and back Pranab due to his role in carrying
out neoliberal reforms. The CPI-M’s backing of Pranab is not so simple
as it may seem—for behind it was the largesse by a Big Business house
(with which Pranab is deeply associated) to the CPI-M.
With all the
tall promises and phrase of mass mobilization the PTL amply gives the
direction that party will take on ground. Consider point 30, it says:
There can be swift changes in the political situation. New contradictions may merge amongst the bourgeois parties and within them. Political parties may undergo changes through splits or coming together to form a new party. Flexible tactics should be evolved to deal with the situation. In our pursuit of united actions, joint platforms may have to be formed with various social movements, people’s mobilizations and issue-based movements.
So, in event of
an alliance this clause will be invoked to hoodwink the cadres, in
guise of “contradiction” opportunist alliance will be forged,
neo-liberalism will be supported and the bourgeoisie will be given free
hand to rule. Same intention is reflected in point 46.
Given the danger posed by the communal forces reinforced by the BJP in power with an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, we should strive for the broader unity of the secular and democratic forces. Such joint platforms are necessary for a wider mobilization against communalism. Such platforms, however, should not be seen as the basis for electoral alliances.
Given the
nature and ambition of these democratic and secular parties whom our
friends had just termed as agent of capitalist and supporter of capital,
there is again a yearning for an alliance. Old love never dies! By the
time the PTL came for conclusion, the authors of this document could not
suppress their desire for alliance.
So after all the epithets and brickbats the point 61 mentions:
Electoral tactics should be dovetailed to the primacy of building the Left and democratic front. In the present stage, given the role of the regional parties, there is no basis for forging an alliance with them at the national level. Instead, we can have electoral adjustments with non-Left secular parties in states wherever required in the Party’s interests and which can help rally the Left and democratic forces in the state. (Emphasis ours)
Voila here we
are back to square one, the party will continue to do what it has done,
and it will just not change. Years of tailism cannot be shed in one day
or rather one congress. So, the party will enter in alliance with the
non-Left secular parties in states and not at national level, but then
comrades of CPM you yourself do not contest elections on national level
if we compare your seats with the national parties! Since its formation
CPM has failed to develop even the trade union consciousness, not to
speak of revolutionary consciousness. Rather it has developed mafia
consciousness and factional fights. Politics and ideology were never in
command because they lost their credibility, as communist, the line
pursued by it under the banner of Marxism-Leninism stands exposed
through its ideological line and practice at all levels. Then how is it
possible for the CPM to practise anything for the oppressed classes?
Conclusion
As Lenin wrote, “Reformism
is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual
improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the
domination of capital.” The CPM is no different.
Sitaram Yechury
is known to follow the Surjeet line and there is already a campaign
that the party is preparing to cosy up its relationship with Congress.
As mentioned in a news magazine known to be close to both CPI and CPM
“Yechury is eager to join hands with the Congress in combating the Sangh Parivar.
It betrays a pathological antipathy for the Congress and a flawed
understanding of the present situation. the Congress does not mean only
Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi or Manmohan Singh. The Congress means the
hundreds of thousands of Congress-supporting masses spread all over the
country whose participation is essential in any move-ment against
communalism and in defence of secularism. The Left can deny this reality
and cling to the old slogan of ‘Left-Democratic Unity’ only at its own
peril and at the cost of weakening the movement.”
The party today
has not learnt from its past mistakes nor is it in its agenda to
counter and challenge the onslaught of neo-liberalism and imperialism.
At best it will continue to give the knee jerked reaction in form of out
dated token strikes and rallies to LPG (Liberalisation, Privatisation
and Globalisation). Today the task of the revolutionary communist has to
be to expose this farce and unleash an in-depth political and
theoretical offensive against it to expose its opportunist line and
practice.
****
Gironde:
One of the two political groups of the bourgeoisie during the French
bourgeois revolution at the close of the eighteenth century. The
Girondists, as distinct from Jacobins, vacillated between revolution and
counter-revolution, and their policy was one of compromise with the
monarchy. Lenin frequently stressed that the Mensheviks represented the
Girondist trend in the working-class movement.
Readers may also like to read our analysis on Left Front
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen