Tehrik Publications, 383/4 Fatehpuri ColonyRohtak-124001 (Haryana)India+919729961518, +919416358044
REVISITING A DREAM IN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT
2016
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
2
REVISITING THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT Revisiting the dream that went sour is always a rewarding exercise in self correction to remain on course but painful one. Ours is a realistic dream for a beautiful future but a bit difficult to translate and so reminds the practitioners repeatedly to visit. We went dreamers in early life following a tradition of believing the worthy teachers. Teachers too may themselves be dreamers like us, but leader-teacher is a dangerous category to rely. And we were in the hands of this evil genius and followed it uncritically without much experience at the beginning; though we remain always grateful to such people for the introduction to a worthy task in life, indeed. World Communist movement was once the universal hope. Liberation from servitude of capital had become the war cry. But its leaders failed the peoples badly in mid stream. Problem persists and noose tightened frighteningly. Taking the animal by horns is the only alternative. The spirit of the movement has to be resurrected; with renewed vigour. Past should not deter the merit of the case, despite what leaders did.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
3
The society is bigger than leaders who have a place in museums for children to look at periodically. It is our life and we must live. In answer to the times, communist philosophy came up with the idea to replace capitalist relations, social strife and inflicted misery. It concretised the aspirations of working people for a new society on principles of equity, justice and peace. Twentieth century saw a grand experiment undertaken on principles so enunciated first by Marx-Engels and later elaborated by Lenin. Peoples reposed faith. That experiment, however, flopped by default and declared as closed, reverting to old relations. The communist movement in fact was the dominating philosophy and influenced liberation struggles of the peoples to come out of colonial exploitation and misery. But the debacle in its collapse by 1991 attracted much attention on its cause. The philosophy of liberation and the vision for a new bright future is still the cause for much debate, deliberation and action. When the experiments in USSR and China floundered criticism both from friends and foes was carping; none however made us wiser to move ahead. Haggards have positions pre-determined, people need to look fresh. A Self-Critique Twentieth century saw not only the beginning and collapse of a grand project in redefining social relations led by mainly USSR and China though reasons for rise and fall
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
4
of both are not the same. The experiment was to translate principles of theory while communist movement is intended to create ground for social change to occur in different countries. The experiment was conducted by s leadership through a state, which had declared itself as declared itself as dictatorship of proletariat with all essential elements of armed organ of ruling elites. The movement was conducted by leaders and ranks of communists believing their leaders. The failure of this experiment was universal, since the leading light symbolised by USSR and China floundered. The collapse of the experiment brought forward many conceptions and formulations on its theory put up by the leadership as basics that failed to materialise. The ebb in communist movement set in first due to wrong faith in the concept of authority, symbolised during the period of experiment by USSR or China as also simultaneously by a substantial change in correlation of forces due to shift in composition of working populations in these countries of experiment. For both, leadership of communist parties betrayed the trust that failed miserably to uphold vitality in philosophy. The loss to experiment and communist movement is great. In fact, reliance on a communist party as instrument of communist movement as also of the experiment, proved a belief. Consequently, movement remained infected with debilitating faults in conception and practice. Mass of the people stood disarmed ideologically, socially, culturally and organisationally in front of brutal enemies in state and the capital.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
5
Ailments and skewed principles An objective critique of the communist movement is called for to know what went wrong and why in its journey that had aroused high hopes and whether it can still has the capacity to deliver or needs better alternative model instead. Since it was communist ideology which had imbibed the liberation movement to free society from an utterly decaying capitalist mode, it may be rewarding to find out if there existed any deficiency in its outlook somewhere or whether the hope itself was misplaced. Let us make a statement in the very beginning that failings of communist movement are much deeper and agonising; with some aspects which only insiders can perceive to requisite extent, if obduracy is kept aside, rhetoric left aside and necessity to learn from practice is overwhelming. Let us as humble communist practitioners intervene, investigate and search answers to such sticky questions in all sincerity, shedding bias and preconceived notions of all hues. We propose to do what is required in the circumstance with utter honesty of purpose and with whatever little knowledge of social relations we have gained through the struggle. For us, no organisational interests to uphold principles and safeguard formulations are supreme. We are insiders; as part of the communist movement we have many sad experiences. Many questions of theory and practice do trouble us. We found that not only leaders/ teachers at various levels, ranks too have gone stale in matters of theory and practice.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
6
First Grade Blunder: State as Instrument of Progress The fatal blunder leadership after Marx committed, more so during period of building socialism, was to sidetrack first principal contradiction between people at the state. It was a major blunder in theory. When this contra diction was put under carpet, people suffered from a blurred vision. In such a situation when state comes into conflict with the ruled, which it generallydoes, people tend t o bear it. The state gets a lease oflife from such blurred visio n in mistaken belief that its action is for common good action is for common good, when it is not. The ruled in such a situation tend to take oppression as inevitable. The first instinct to resist goes unattended. Moreover, the state structure in countries, which claimed that they were building socialism, did not reflect in any field that it was transitory in nature, preparing seriously to wither away. The situation of believing in state as a benevolent institution proved fatal in Soviet Union. It can happen only when citizens are made blind on question of state and its character. In USSR the people were made to believe that Soviet state is people’s state which it can never. The nature of state is always unfriendly to the ruled and citizens in USSR were never its masters. It cannot be. No alternative was devised in its place. With Marxist faith in the strength and creativity of masses, level of reliance on state structure to build socialism by Lenin is inexplicable. It sapped energy of the masses. Lenin was for a ruthless state machine during the transitory i.e. socialism. Among the four major
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
7
contradictions that he enunciated to focus primary attention of the movement during this era of ‘imperialism and proletarian revolution’ this firs principle contradiction of present day society curiously did not find any place in his scheme of logic. The effort to build socialism paid price for it. It is worth remembering that state power in Russia as elsewhere did never pass into hands of the masses so enjoined in a coined slogan for revolution i.e. All Power to Soviets. In the name of Soviets, again state power remained centred into hands of a small number of leaders, normally selected on choice by other leaders in the ruling communist party or trade unions where coteries worked. True, it was in the name of workers, soldiers and peasants! Yet, it was a replica of representative democracy and a sure travesty of the slogan. Perhaps, like all rulers in history, leadership in Soviet Union too disbelieved in the efficacy of people’s power or just feared mass energy it was bound to release. In any case, communist party acted against Marxist postulate. On hindsight, it may be said that over-looking of this primary contradiction in society certainly was one of Lenin’s most devastating disservice to the science of socialism as a tactician. He placed much of his heart on service of a state structure to deliver during this phase of the socialist construction without any tangible check on its fangs. Lenin’s postulate on so-called socialist state as people’s state blinded reason against ruthless state oppression not always justifiable, especially when it was incumbent first to persuade some sections of society, especially peasants
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
8
on economic measures it was taking. The whole democratic process remained thwarted, people remained disarmed ideologically and organisationally against might of the powerful state. Likewise, Chinese leadership later put its heart on its own capacity to handle state power, while releasing initially market forces in its economy. Such an extraordinary belief in its own capacity, a subjective factor, to handle state power to mould an objective law of economic operation was something foolish to believe. It in effect helped in restoring capitalism with state help and revolution stood betrayed.
Governance: Dictatorship of Proletariat To handle state a concept in theory came for dictatorship of proletariat. Lenin gave emphasis on it and made it a litmus test of fidelity on revolutionary practice. The formulation, however, proved futile. The dictatorship of proletariat completely failed in eliminating the bourgeoisie as a class in USSR during almost 74 years of its uncouth operation, reflecting more as dictatorship than democratic. The concept hides behind two wrongs and seeks to justify its necessity with regulation by the party of proletariat to invoke confidence in an instrument of repression. It is a wrong theory to justify existence of state as an instrument of governance and building socialism which this formulation seeks to do.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
9
Firstly, to reaffirm confidence in state is good for rulers but fatally bad for the ruled. Secondly, to invest in state the role of benefactor through sponsoring development projects with public money is not only bad politics since it provides legitimacy for another channel to benefit capitalist class on public expense. It will open another venue to rob Peter and pay Pal. Thirdly, on both counts this justification is being utilised by all parties of right to a highly centralised state as sacrosanct, necessary and sacrosanct, necessary and inevitable for maintaining law and order in society and promoting progress, while the beneficiaries remain capitalist class. The concept relating to dictatorship of proletariat is a myth deliberately created to hide behind it the uncouth exercise of unaccounted authority on a fallacious premise of proletariat class being revolutionary. It merely legitimises rule of communist party in its name replacing selfgovernance by the people. Party Replaced People The second most important blunder in theory, concerned about the question of organisation. Lenin as leader/teacher of revolutionary politics advocated need for a political party as an instrument for conducting communist movement. Ideologically speaking, Marx had propounded a concept of people’s power, workingmen as moving force of history. Self-emancipation of proletarian looses all meanings. He had developed an abiding faith in their capacity to work for social change of a new type with attributes like creativity and initiative in abundance due to their working conditions. It got a beating from the concept of political
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
10
party as driving force for social change instead, for universal application. Lenin did it first; later magnified manifold by others in line taking a cue from Marx’s utterance on Paris Commune and perfecting the logic to turn it upside down. It proved a big shift from the teacher on a vital question of principle that muddled the exercise to a point of no return. A political organisation tasked with handling question of state power replaced people as driving force of revolution for social change, thus reducing it to mere capture of state power; a master-stroke to decompose the concept of socialist revolution indeed. When the task is assigned to it for capturing state power for a different class through revolution, as was ordained by Lenin, willingly or unwillingly it is admitted that state as an institution to rule over masses remains intact under changed dispensation and political party will act its tool to oppress the ruled on dotted line. The communist party became the party of rule over the people. The role of masses was thus transferred to a party of the elites as self-proclaimed representative of proletariat in the of class approach. In consequence, Theory stands changed and the Practice boiled down to outright elitism where party acts as something superior to the working people themselves. Where was the necessity to form a political party and name it communist in conducting the movement? None, is the answer in short. Taking into account the Taking into account the difference between organisation and political party as two formal forms, it was wrong to go for a political party.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
11
Despite features of choice added by Lenin to it, a political party, after coming into being, has its own dynamics unfolded with its internal mechanism of structure, mores and disciplinary code of a formal type instrument. Imbued with an object of capturing or sharing the state power, political party in operation is bound to affect its internal harmony and create bickering for hegemony giving rise to self interest of various natures, killing ultimately the endowed aim from outside of reordering social relations on communitarian basis. This is what happened in USSR, China, Vietnam, India, France and Germany to name a few. See another disturbing feature within these parties: it was observed that with change of leadership in a ruling communist party in USSR or China, especially after the demise of Stalin and Mao respectively, shift in ideological positions often occurred simultaneously that started baffling cadres everywhere, while leadership of communist parties elsewhere followed change in policy as meekly and obediently. So the formulations changed as easily with change in command! What sort of objectivity in such a game? There were no signs of any critical appraisal of discarded positions and/or freshly undertaken. Blindness reigned supreme; turning such a leadership staled in approach and practice. The noticeable stink inside these parties grew universally and at speed, though many aspects of this bad breath drew serious attention only after tragic collapse of Soviet experiment by 1991 and China earlier. It made us collate things afresh in proper sequence thereafter. The state power where it ruled or power-game played for capturing state apparatus corrupted in intellect, cultural
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
12
and morals while Individual interests laced their way of life with impunity. Communists, hardly? Production Made Primary For industrial spree, less said the better. Raising production, ipso facto, is not progress. It cannot be. Production must have an object to sub-serve; material goods that satisfy social needs with harmony and peace. To chase production and the productivity in themselves for capital accumulation i.e. maximising profits breeds essentially a rich field ruling for constant tension and conflict. This cannot serve social needs and hence not worth to serve the object of growth. Non-socialist mode of production The leadership in socialist countries, including Lenin and Stalin and Mao deliberately opted to build socialism by capitalist means. It proved a bigger tragedy of sorts. Not only that, to achieve higher level of production unnecessary faith was placed on industrial mode of production in unchaste haste by copying Adam Smith and Ricardo, who were high priests of unabashed capitalism and individual enterprise; ignoring the aspect of stability to society that industrialisation cannot provide, where speed is the essence. It forgot deliberately that so far development in capitalist mode was dependent on internal as well as external expropriation and deprivation of commons in addition to surplus value as a matter of principle. Denying private right to property does not change the character of capital that expropriates to generate more capital. It surprises that how such a leadership could introduce, so easily and without any dissenting voice about a production
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
13
system in the country that in effect bred individualism to no end, as it was bound to do. It is fairly known that uncouth individualism as a philosophy of life is product of industrial commercial revolution and that Marxists do contest it on logical grounds. The self-perpetuating, self-seeking and crafty leadership on the other hand sought to fight this individuality to attain uniformity instead, where it lost control over both. There were allegations galore that the dignity of man was suppressed, at times ruthlessly, in the name of fighting ‘individualism’ to the extent of justifying even physical violence. Many times the individuality was mixed up with individualism. Times testified that this proved a tragedy of proportions with no redeeming features. Basically, this European model of development had emerged and flourished on large-scale internal and external expropriation. It could not be otherwise in Soviet Union, as also in other so-called socialist countries, though direct external expropriation in their case was not possible. After collapse many complained about the internal expropriation in USSR. Naturally, these countries had to bear resultant effects of this model in spite of the fact that means of production were in command of state, with a powerful leadership and a vast political army of cadres to direct and control. Building socialism through economic principles of capitalism on pretentious grounds led the experiment to wilderness. Still communist leadership world over clung to it and has not learnt anything from collapse of Soviet game-plan.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
14
Another query; how long commodity production will last in a socialist structure and how best to offset its effect in social relations? How this dialectics will play out in practice when, practically both the socialist and capitalist nation-states exist and national jingoism is worked up, off and on by rulers to seek mass support for such faulty and wrong actions, while beating rivals on false scores? There is no doubt that in course of their rule Soviet, Chinese or the Vietnamese leadership, among others fell, prey to this jingoism in name of theory, where ranks in their respective organisations went mute followers. Failures Examined Inadequately With collapse of socialist camp, many reasons were advanced for mass consumption by failed leadership according to respective perceptions. None however looked into salient formulations of theory and practice that failed to deliver, lest it demolish their own credibility to lead. Many of them turned coats as per flow of winds to safeguard their careers. Communists, not the least! For example: There was no adequate explanation from any quarter what was the source of huge wealth found with hordes of leaders, including high ranking officers in Red Army, in these countries of communist faith, if individualism had not ruled social life and misuse of authority did not occur there underneath. To find such conduct in cultural degradation of individuals amounts to mere clever diversion and skirting the issue. It does not explain cause of the disease that made possible for such a vide spread theft by one category of people or the other, when there was no legal right to hold private
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
15
property in USSR. The rot to rob public property during a period after collapse of USSR raises a question on the level of socialist consciousness generated during over seven decades of the proletarian dictatorship there. If proletarian dictatorship survives on fear alone how it may be rated as different from bourgeois dictatorship then?
Enigma: Individualism One cannot ignore the growth of individualism in the womb of socialist society of their make in USSR, despite dictatorship of proletariat working for seven decades in that country with no right of private property. It was a sheer riddle to find individualism raging to that degree in Soviet Union. China also could not escape same tragedy and so in Vietnam. There is no riddle however in it. The dependence on industrial mode produce less scope of plenty to offset wants of people and more of individualism from its womb, despite ideological offensive for a socialist philosophy to have its sway. The said socialist experiment did produce enough individualism which had provided the single most solid ground for capitalist relations to take over but could not produce plenty of soaps in these countries. A tragedy of sorts, no doubt it is. Individualism which found congenial ground to prosper was most effective factor that killed the new experiment and led to the collapse of entire Soviet camp. But leadership was at its best to avoid investigating it. In effect, leadership successfully took recourse to such pep talks that helped in putting off both substantive issues from radar. What it did at its creative best resulted in engaging communist/socialist cadres in peripheral issues of
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
16
insignificance It beautifully saved the capitalist mode from searching glare and its ugly character remained out of reach for any serious challenge. Responsibility for this post-collapse ideological surrender deliberately to capitalist machinations or lies with the careerist leadership of these communist parties. The ranks remained mere followers. On question of organisation we may talk a bit more. It was Lenin again, who by making party a pre-condition to revolution, created a fetish of it that blunted the creative thinking among them a difficult proposition by leaders while ranks in the communist movement turned sterile with fatal consequences. Lenin and Question of Organisation It needs to be investigated and studied as to how certain myths in communist movement itself were built around questions of organisation. It is important to realise how in course of time difference between an organisation and a political party was obliterated, deliberately. True, importance of a formal type of organisation was once stressed by Marx when he analysed failure of the Paris Commune and started making efforts along with his many compatriots to fill gap by organising the First International Workingmen Association. Later, it was Lenin as a master strategist and tactician in a tearing hurry to capture state power who had laid his own course and gave shape to an under- ground organisation for overthrow of Czarist autocracy when he was confronting a plethora of problems working with various types of people in revolutionary movement of Russia. In course of this struggle, he developed a whole philosophy of organisation
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
17
pertaining to the interest of working class and termed it as an organisation of a ‘new type’ to stress its distinct feature from older genre. It is known that bourgeoisie as a ruling class felt threatened of its own kin in democracy at a stage of development all because it had released mass energy of colossal degree. To obviate the danger, it laboured in converting it into representative form instead and groomed it into a political party to control and regulate the jinn, ensuring its own life safe from insetting turmoil. It is known in political theory that ruling bourgeoisie is safe with representative democracy, while the working masses need participative democracy where they can utilise mass energy and creativity for social governance. History was ignored in hurry. After crafting the insidious institution in a political party of representative character, Lenin proceeded fast to create cardinal principles of organisation for the communist party. He had termed one as ‘democratic centralism’ with a single centre of authority, a paid membership, and a band of ‘professional revolutionaries’ forming its core, putting it an integrated whole. It reflected the spirit in organisation. Another fundamental postulate he laboriously elaborated as dictatorship of the proletariat. To concretise the form of socialist revolution, another postulate was advanced that made capturing of state power a pre-condition to socialist construction by over throwing the old order from state power. Thus, the whole revolution was thus turned into a dog fight for state power and then holding it tight in image of revolution.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
18
Since the Soviet communist party monopolised power after revolution in 1917, on behalf of workers, soldiers and peasants as single representative of proletariat, both the postulates i.e. democratic centralism and dictatorship of the proletariat pertaining to different categories happened to merge together and became rooted in the system. The third element of party being a vanguard of proletariat completed the juggernaut that turned the ruling leadership absolute in authority to subdue people in the name of revolution. This proved fatal in the long run for society as well as for a set up devised to give it a fresh shape. Lenin was not to live beyond January 1924. His successors translated his postulates in a difficult situation with zeal and vigour, more weight to Lenin’s words afterwards than the spirit, perhaps to bolster position of leading group against others in struggle for supremacy within ruling junta. It led to feuds, coups, violence and disintegration of structure. What Lenin himself said about the organisational principles, let us turn to Congress of Third Communist International that had adopted a resolution on organisation in 1921? Lenin could appear for a brief period in the Fourth Congress next year and denounced this resolution of this International in unequivocal terms. This is what Lenin Lenin in his report to Congress on November 13, 1922 said about it: “At the Third Congress, in 1921, we adopted a resolution on organisational structure of the communist parties and on the methods and content of their activities. The resolution is an excellent one, but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say, everything in it is based on Russian conditions.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
19
This is its good point, but it is also its failing. It is its failing because I am sure that no foreigner can read it. I have read it again before saying this. In the first place, it is too long, containing fifty or more points. Foreigners are not usually able to read such things. Secondly, even if they read it, they will not understand it because it is too Russian. Not because it is written in Russian- it has been excellently translated into all the languages - but because it is thoroughly imbued with Russian spirit. And thirdly, if by way of exception some does understand it, he cannot carry it out. This is its third defect. I have talked with a few of the foreigner delegates and hopes to discuss matters in detail with a large number of them from different countries during the Congress, though I shall not take part in its proceedings, for unfortunately it is impossible for me to do that. I have the impression that we made a big mistake with this resolution, namely that we blocked our own road to further success. As I have said already, the resolution is excellently drafted; I am prepared to subscribe to every one of its fifty or more points. But we have not learnt how to present our Russian experience to foreigners. All that was said in resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not realise this, we shall be unable this, we shall be unable to move ahead. I think that after five years of the Russian revolution the most important thing for all of us, Russian and foreign comrades alike, is to sit down and study. We have only now obtained the opportunity to do so. I do not know how long this opportunity will last. I do not know how long the
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
20
capitalist powers will give us the opportunity to study in peace. But we must take advantage of every moment of respite from fighting, from war, to study and to study from scratch. The whole party and all strata of the population of Russia prove this by their thirst for knowledge. This striving to learn shows that our most important task today is to study and study hard. Our foreign comrades too must study. I do not mean that they have to learn to read and write and to understand, as we still have to do. There is a dispute as to whether this concerns proletarian or bourgeois culture. I shall leave the question open. But one thing is certain: we have to begin by learning to read and write and to understand what they read. Foreigners do not need that. They need something more advanced: first of all, among other things they must learn to understand what we have written about organisational structure of communist parties and what the foreign comrades have signed without reading and understanding. This must be their first task. The resolution must be carried out. It cannot be carried out over night; that is absolutely impossible. The resolution is too Russian, it reflects Russian experience. That is why it is quite unintelligible to foreigners and they cannot be content with hanging it in a corner like an icon and praying to it. Nothing will be achieved that way. They must assimilate part of the Russian experience. Just how that will be done, I do not know ‌what we are studying in the general sense. They however, must study in the special sense, in order that they really understand the organisation, structure, the method and content of revolutionary work. If they do that, I am sure the prospects of the world revolution will not be good, but excellent.�
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
21
Teaching Ignored That did not happen. In all likelihood, Russian compatriots did not heed the advice of their teacher to study and avoid help in drafting resolutions for the world wide movement based on Russian spirit; apparently foreigners also shirked study in a special way as suggested by the leader to the disadvantage of both. This resolution is popularly known as Leninist principles of party organisation in communist parlance. The leadership that succeeded him later, perhaps, found much meaning in his comment that resolution is ‘excellent’ one and must be ‘carried out’, casting aside his study that by adopting this resolution ‘we made a big mistake’. Despite the admission of mistake by the teacher, followers after him continued treading the easy path faithfully and are continuing till now. Lenin though was forthright in his remarks on this ‘Russian’ resolution by Third International and much concerned about averting tragedy it implied. Still, it could not be averted. The tragedy however unfolded when this resolution by the International with Russian spirit continued to remain a touch stone of organisational fidelity with formations world over. The Russian spirit permeates almost in all such formulations for universal application till the collapse of the experiment in Russia itself. No other variation was allowed to enter domain. Not much is known how this happened to materialise despite warning from the teacher of its ills. These principles of organisation from Lenin are not merely dependent on a particular resolution from CPSU or third
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
22
international which he himself repudiated. How it occurred then? History is the best answer. Let us study. Myths around organisation Principle of Democratic Centralism The Bolshevik party under leadership of Lenin successfully captured state power in Russia through ‘Socialist Revolution’ of 1917. The era of ‘imperialism and proletarian revolution’ inaugurated by this revolution was dominated by few concepts developed and practised by communist parties chiselled as instruments of ‘change’ to over throw capitalism and build socialism, guided mainly by Lenin. One was the principle of democratic centralism. It gained currency and became central to any communist organisation. Lenin distinguished his understanding of proletarian democracy as superior to the one prevalent bourgeois democracy, but underlined it with emphasis on centralism as its distinguishing trait. Proletarian democracy emphatically was relegated to a partial role only for the proletarians to enjoy. Since bourgeoisie as a class was to be eliminated as per scheme for proletarian revolution to succeed, it was denied any right under this new form of democracy. In between there remained other sections of society, like family farmers who also were by implication kept out of its purview, though for some period these were designated as friends of the proletarians to be treated differently from enemy class. Democracy Rests on Individual entity Lenin worked zealously to distinguish between proletarian democracies from old bourgeoisie democracy; he could not
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
23
or did not conveniently foresee danger in its basic ingredient in individualism. Democracy takes individual as its primary object of concern, all because of its class origin in industrial capital. Basically, the concept of democracy was brought in to serve bourgeois class with individual rights made sacrosanct. Socialist thought cannot afford to borrow such a concept that goes contrary to its basic principles as it did. No better alternative in consonance with its principles of social cohesion under socialist thought was conceived to replace individualist approach. Tragedy occurred. Similarly tragedy occurred also on representative form of democracy that had reduced the whole concept to a sham. Happily representative form of democracy was embraced, with nor regret. All power to soviets had remained ineffective to the last with highly centralised party at the top with no effective check from below. All rulers in human history fear the energies of active mass of the people most. Soviet rulers fared no better. Neither Chinese, nor the Vietnamese after revolution fared different. The same is true of other so-called socialist countries. With such concentration of authority in hands of a centralised leadership, the initiative and activism of rank and file in a communist party is extinguished like-wise. In such a condition, initiative of people is a far cry to expect. People will remain lifeless mass where leaders rule. In democracy, as a matter of principle, people are supreme. Representative democracy ostensibly, was brought in by bourgeoisie to manage its unwieldy massenergy! But in prac tice it was designed to sideline powerof people and in its pla
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
24
ce ‘representative’ was placedabove people to rule them ba sically with help of armedmachinery. Lenin fell for it, knowin gly or unknowingly. As a result, democracy was extinguished in Soviet Union; what remained was a absurd dictatorship over the people, fully armed, arrogant, unaccounted, manipulative and unrepentant. In realm of political organisation, the damage was much more pernicious. Alienation of people from the ruling party and the state there occurred. Here in bourgeois democracy, the ‘representative’ virtually replaces its principle ‘master’, its creator- the people, while the institution of political party faithfully discharges its duty assigned to it by history and paralyses the people’s power to contain effects of democracy on the dotted line. The story in Soviet Union was no different. The very idea of a party from Lenin as being the vanguard is untenable. To assume representative character of a class having varied and at times conflicting interests even within the industrial proletariat by a party is a fallacy deliberately created. The worst sufferers were the working people world over for no fault of theirs. They paid price in believing a wrong concept, uncritically. It was a dangerous path full of sludge that led it surely to ruin. In wielding state power, ‘representative’ vanguard in the shape of a communist party placing itself even above the ‘class’ with no check from its parent source proved a farce of high magnitude in the name of proletarian democracy as the capitalist class did in case of its own democracy. There was no clear cut break down past to chart a new course.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
25
Centralism is antithetic to the concept of communism which cannot be justified on logic of consonance during its transitory stage of socialism, if this stage is not defined something hostile to a stateless stage of communism based on self-management of civic affairs by its citizens in communitarian settings. The transitory stage of socialism must be designed to prepare for switching over to this stateless communism. The transitory stage must not go wild to a contrary setting. Future of mankind resides in noncentralised and self-regulatory polity, after bearing a highly inhuman stage of centralised one that was crafted to serve interests of minority over the majority for expropriation. Highly centralised state machinery under socialist stage cannot graduate to discharge this duty to prepare the ground for a non-centralised and self-managed communist society propounded by Marx and Engels. The characteristic of a centralised polity under capitalism to cater interests of industrial-commercial-financial complex is much nearer to its nature. The tragedy however was severe when it struck roots in erstwhile Soviet Union as an industrialised state that once professed socialism. There was another folly. The Lenin’s principle of democratic centralism contrived for a communist party was applied to all social economic formations like Trade Unions and Peasant organisations. That had stifled the whole whole social life with no safety valve to breath safe. Dictatorship of Proletariat Presuming that the proletariat (industrial labour), as the most potently revolutionary class under capitalism, is the harbinger of social change from capitalist relations to social
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
26
relations in society, the theory was crafted that a state will usher in a revolutionary bliss under its leadership and socialism being a transitory stage where forcefully driven out of state power, the capitalist class necessarily has to be kept suppressed, so it will remain an armed dictatorship of the proletariat. Logic went like this. After capturing state power in November 1917, the new state was called as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics USSR) and termed as to be a dictatorship of Proletariat, while simultaneously it was announced to be a new form of democracy which is better than bourgeois democracy. How it faired in USSR during its rule for 74 years? Briefly, there was nothing democratic in it to brag about. It was as representatives-based sham of a democracy in essence. Bourgeois democracy, also a representative-based system, is a fraud in the name of democracy that serves capitalist development. The Soviet democracy too did nothing better than development of capitalist accumulation as in all capitalist countries do in the rest of the world. Soviet Union was thus another tragedy of sorts. It produced a lot of capital which world hailed as a remarkable achievement in development and termed it as another super-power. But, so what is there exceptional to the workingmen/women for celebration about this status of a super-power? Labour-power as source of this expropriation remained at the mercy of state power and was a subject of repression, if ever it defied the law of exploitation, as in other capitalist countries. There emerged another feature of the dictatorship of proletariat in USSR: The proletariat class stood equated with
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
27
communist party and the party was equated with its Polit Bureau while it was equated with the supreme leader, when dictatorship permeated al-through its spines! Democracy at all stages remained formal; subject to the wishes of the powerful. At top of the hierarchy both in the ruling party and the government, including its legislative bodies power remained vested with the successful manipulator-in-chief. With cosmetic variance, it was nothing superior to what capitalist democracies offer, in essence. Barring expert propagandists, this ultimately threw up a full crop of intellectual dwarfs from amongst the new generation of communists in USSR and consequently in the whole of the movement during its period of experiment. Then, what is there to celebrate about this concept of proletarian dictatorship? It remained dictatorship, pure and simple. As a concept, it could not have been otherwise. In centralised structure the proletarian dictatorship bred clearly a pyramid like Brahmanical hierarchy in operation with inbred arbitrariness. It created a class division within organisation, leading to antagonism breading suspicion and confusion of worst kind and encouraged isolation from the masses, with octopus like bureaucracy at the top. The impregnable wall between leaders and the led became a reality worse than one between citizens and their elected representatives in parliamentary political frame. If Leon Trotsky had labelled such structures as ‘bureaucratic socialism during his tiff with Stalin for supremacy, the fact that bureaucracy had over-powered the experiment with iron grip does not loose relevance for study.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
28
Second, if defining the democratic centralism was good enough, yet nowhere in world had it flowered as postulated that defines its universal failure. One cannot find a single case of a communist party where this principle worked as defined. It proved at best a beautiful mirage to talk about, yet crafty enough for the leadership to introduce a system of subduing ranks and the masses for its arbitrary rule and conduct; a refined method in self justification of high handedness in practice. Having a central object in capturing state power for social change or bringing high speed development, having huge privileges tagged along, all communist parties everywhere turned mere cesspool of intrigues and worst manipulations. It left two main possibilities open for explanations: one, individual interests predominated within leadership of parties craving for privileges of power attached with such organism as armed state; second, possibly an infantile infatuation for utilising armed power of state establishment must have turned too nasty with leaders to play truant with Lenin’s own postulate about state. In both cases, however, communist philosophy remained the real victim. Clearly, the organisational principles based on ‘democratic ‘centralism’ did provide an easy route for leadership to hammer party along their group interests in name of class while making cheating easy in the name of revolution by sheer regimentation. This did prove fatal to the very experiment. Principle of Vanguard Party Fourthly, it is presumed that self-proclaimed vanguard party of the proletariat represents the whole class and acts on its
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
29
behalf; even without providing its legitimacy reasonably ever, to claim claim mystic support of a amorphous class for its arbitrary conduct. It is a deliberate myth created with hard labour –perhaps to ride roughshod over society with least accountability. This myth of vanguard party helped to create arrogance in cadres and leaders leading to alienation of worst kind. Fifth, a class of parasitic professionals in politics is created with inflated arrogance of their infallibility, superior knowledge and a false sense of ‘sacrifice’ to rule, with all evil influences to rub society at wrong ends. It hardly helps to create a better man, capable to take over a communist society to higher form of self-management. Sixth, operation of these so-called principles in organisation leaves virtually its General Secretary of the party at best a sole arbiter of social good with no reasonable and reliable check what so ever. The whole centralised party structure unfailingly creates an emasculated band of ‘professional politicians’, who are supposed to exercise another myth in ‘criticism and self-criticism’ of their leaders to checkmate possible distortions. It never worked anywhere what it is supposed to deliver so far. The system groomed by Lenin to Stalin as also Beria, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin in Soviet Union and Mao to Deng in China, while in Vietnam from Ho Chi Minh to much little pygmies in other countries thereafter as arbiters of social good with generations to suffer in the end. It is like playing lottery drakes with future of society that no serious activist would like to arbiter.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
30
Seven, if once communist party is accepted as repository of working class interest par excellence, adage that best available is ‘elected’ to posts in leadership then stands endowed with ‘highest of wisdom that go to make aristocracy give rise to at the top and followers meek enough to accept it perennially in intellectual and also organisational sense. In such circumstances, intellectual dwarfism observed of late in communist movement world over is not surprising a development. Discipline in such dispensation is used to smooth away rough edges but to curtail perceived threats to leadership, even by violent methods at times, so common in communist movement. Eighth, accusation that leadership in a communist party is self-perpetuating cannot be brushed aside lightly with such absurd postulates in organisation. Ninth, level of alienation people felt in Soviet Union from such a leadership, as also of reluctance seen among working masses to join ranks of communist parties was quite visible during last few years of its rule. The concept of authority provides much needed grist to the principle of democratic centralism. The concept of‘authority ’ in a communist party needs be scrutinised afresh, totally rejecting iniquitous grades and privileges. The communist parties universally now have lost credibility for following wrong concepts and manipulative practice face a situation where these survive merely on the concept of authority in political field just as state does in matters of governance. The unfortunate aspect is that by hammering this concept of authority as sacrosanct by communist leadership for long, the people by now stand conditioned to its necessity
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
31
when the very concept of non-centralised polity of selfmanagement stands debunked as useless. It is tragic legacy from them which even the future has to contend. Indian Experience: Case of genuine communist party! How leadership translates such formulations? The example to illustrate must come from a self-proclaimed and selfconfessed ‘genuine’ one, though other ‘non-genuine’ like CPI, CPI (M), CPI (ML) are almost similar in content. The case of a ‘genuine’ among them will help to provide better insight into the morass these gentlemen are stuck and took theory and communist movement as their hand maid with impunity, despite honest ranks in them. The so-called ‘real communist party’ in India prides that basing on the principle of democratic centralism, the party, like human organism, has to be necessarily a single organic whole of monolithic character, developing a collective leadership, concretely personified in its highest organ of command and its democratic functioning on the basis of centralism, ideological and organisational, the former leading to the latter to take shape. It asks its members to develop one process of thinking, uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach and singleness of purpose on matters covering all aspects of life. At another level, party tells its members that the process involves subordination of the individual to the organisation, of the minority to the majority, of the lower to the central committee of the party. These are few gems of wisdom from this group. Explaining it to pliant ranks that this is proletarian democracy that
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
32
emanates from a proletarian class outlook, reflecting a proletarian way, that is collective way of life. Party asks for subordination to be conscious, voluntary and happy. This party teaches that ‘interest of the party is interest of the toiling people in general and the working class in particular should be placed above all other interests. Party discipline should be observed unfailingly and decisions of the leading bodies carried out strictly and happily identifying himself/herself with the interest of the party, the class and the revolution. Yes, identifying oneself with interest of party, class and the revolution is a unique demand in rhythmical way from its leaders for typical uniformity. There is no way for cadres of party to go except what this party thinks about class and revolution and how it defines these categories in its wisdom. As per this leadership, cause of revolution so interpreted by it decides the truth; facts may be created accordingly. It is a demand for complete surrender to the leadership to leadership of this party, both on intellectual and organisational grounds on the strength of democratic centralism propounded by Lenin. It can breed nothing but dwarfs in the movement ultimately, as it did. Jargons apart, no one can beat this, perhaps to plead for such a hideous Brahmanical hierarchy, creating both caste and the class division at the same time in a self-confessed ‘genuine’ communist party of sorts! There is no doubt that this feat was achieved under this ‘Leninist’ principle of ‘democratic centralism’ for a party organisation. The leadership of this ‘genuine’ communist organisation is never tired of its claim of original contributions to a higher
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
33
understanding of communist principles in Indian soil, in dire justification of its existence. The scrutiny, however, of its past of more than sixty eight years is quite a revealing chapter in self praise. Tricky premise An absurd premise was developed by this ‘only communist’ party that a revolutionary organisation has to be modelled like a human organism. The premise, wittingly or unwittingly, justifies ‘division of labour’ between mental and physical labour, typically a capitalist theory on growth in economy for better organisation of expatriations of skills giving rise to hierarchy and maximisation of profits, while in sociological terms a justification for Brahmanical varnas in social stratification. Such a division of labour power pushes artificial division between cadres and leaders falsifies Marxist understanding of a just social order, where withering away of such division is a prerequisite. Why this principle is inevitable in a communist party? It is not explained. There is nothing in science to suggest that a formal organisation that is a communist party can be equated with natural organism as human being is. For birth and later for their growth processes both in human organism and a political formation are totally different categories and incomparable. To ascribe such features between two incompatibles is the worst conditioning for uniform thinking cannot but lead to worst regimentation of thought in a party, killing creativity and initiative in society to a level of fascist absurdity.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
34
Pleading for developing collective leadership concretely personified through an individual placed at the highest level in organisation is plainly a minesweeping job for a supreme leader at top of organisation as an embodiment of wisdom, generally found only in Brahmanical order taken copiously from Manuvadi social stratification in India. On another aspect none can beat this genuine party on its Marxist wisdom. The leader teaches: “if a revolutionary fails to transform members of his family into revolutionaries then his relations with them should cease forever. This is fundamental issue. Again, ‘the revolutionary may feel pain if his beloved (or wife) is not a comrade. But he knows …countless beloveds will come, relieve him of his torment and fill his heart with love’…. And: ‘those who cannot surrender self, love, affection, tenderness, family, his everything to party, can never be a communist of first rank’. This is how ‘study in a special way’ is carried to abnormal absurdities and theory is made, remade and broken. One thing certainly can be said that this party falls much too short on practice, while it is a very sad tale on morals and conduct. With such principles, party has taken a fascist character in behaviour and practice with a Brahmanical hierarchy intact, having no respect to those principles of its own make, when outright lies are used as normal tricks in the game at need. The Practice Understanding goes that theory and practice must work in concert with each other; practice has to serve theory and theory must guide practice to remain in step with it. But it hardly worked like it in these parties who remained busy in
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
35
playing games of power. Most often leadership exhibits capabilities in theorising practice for the followers to remain loyal both in realm of state and political organisation in USSR, China and others as vanguard of ruling classes is a good indication how the system faulted. It is incontestable that communists have been valiant fighters for the social cause. People depended on them for lead and believed their words. They had earned credibility over a long period for integrity, selfless dedication to the cause and fearless sacrifices from innumerable fighters had become an illuminating history for young to emulate. However, what peoples in different countries professing socialism ultimately experienced in the last decade of twentieth century is a sad story in betrayal by the very leadership in command. Apart, in countries where capitalist onslaught continues unabated and communist parties profess fidelity to workingmen, experiences about the leadership were no different. No doubt that some where something went terribly wrong. It is noticed that while concretising many important aspects of theory in search of easy and rapid short cuts to build socialism, the communist leadership faulted seriously. On practice the blunders are of no less magnitude. For the first, let us cite a few examples. The split in world communist movement and emergence of its two hostile blocks, one led by the big brother – Soviet Union and the other by China, was a first serious blow to its image of international solidarity and comradeship. Narrow national interests worked to over-shadow principles instead. Hegemony got currency. The prestige earned by
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
36
Soviet Union, as a consistent harbinger of peace in the world and supporter of independence struggles in colonial countries as also a victorious giant in the war against fascism stood badly shaken. It emerged as a narrow nationalist state in search of hegemony, while China contented on the same plane. It is an irony of sorts that the Chinese leadership have not only shed off international communist movement, but turned inward for nationalist objectives alone, whereas earlier it had claimed leadership of the international communist movement as a genuine upholder of principles in contest to CPSU! Almost similar was the case with Vietnamese leadership, who were later found lining up their young girls for presenting roses in search of dollars to the same visiting Americans on their shore. Here an important question arises: despite claim of internationalist solidarity as an abiding principle in communist movement what is the place for fidelity to national causes and how both can meet simultaneously? One unmistakable fact emerged that political class came out as nothing different from its historical parentage in the long run. The last ruling patriarch of USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, along with his much ambitious wife celebrated fulfilment of their life dream and the Soviet Camp was declared dead by 1991. The ruling parties in countries of Soviet camp stood disbanded without tears. Poland paved the way earlier on whims of Pope claiming affinity with Polish nationality. Its trade union by the name of ‘Solidarity’ proved the disgracing force.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
37
Chinese revolution had started moving to death earlier but with crafty jargons none protested against from the communist movement. Those who had supported the system in USSR from outside the ring were surprised to find billionaires over night in Moscow, including some commanders of the Red Army which had adorned the red star to defend socialist system. The ruling PoliticalBureau was inhabited by Berias, Brezhnevs, Yeltsins and the by Berias, Brezhnevs, Yeltsins and the like of Gorbachevs, who could easily find space in an organisation of new type groomed by none else than Lenin with those high principles of organisation. Society in the old socialist camp reversed back with much vengeance, having a corresponding structure to support. The reversal brought back all those social relations that breed strife, greed, manipulations and crime in tail. It was brought by those who knew all about dark features of capitalism in the past and the present. How people of USSR accepted this to happen in a society that was in turmoil for long in quest of new initiatives for social justice, is another aspect of the question. How in a communist organisation of Lenin and Stalin, such persons could invent a practice of offering gifts to leaders and used it like a ladder to rise in party hierarchy? Who will explain as to how Yeltsin ‘the drunkard’ could sneak into its Polit-Bureau who later proved to be stooge of America in lust for state power like none else. It is a sad commentary on infallibility of organisational principles of party sanctioned by none other than Lenin and Stalin and the Third International?
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
38
When a section among fighters for communism, especially its leaders, turned as rulers in many countries, people found them wanting on many important counts as usual. Serious questions were raised on their conduct. Over a long period of observation and practice has given a chance to see through what leaders in communist parties preach and what they do in practice, barring a few honourable exceptions, whose dedication and honesty of purpose is unimpeachable. In fact these exceptions are the glittering stars that attract common mass to the ideology like a magnet. Even best in bourgeois world could not find place in the rolls of honour. But these remain exceptions, not the rule which was the expectation from communists. The communist movement, however, demands necessarily attributes of honesty of purpose in thought and practice pervading all its ranks. It was found that where ever communist leadership was engaged in political-games to capture or share power they were easily resorting to manipulations, mean methods and shady deals like any other party, not the least compatible with declared principles it was supposed to follow. Privileges associated with state power and pelf attracted these leaders no less than others that created strong grounds for alienation within ranks. Take another yardstick. Despite their claim on organisation of an opposite class to the capital, plight today of communist or socialist parties of Marxist orientation again underlines the inherent bourgeois characteristics. These parties are as faction ridden as any other infested by selfcentred careerists to gain status or grab pelf and power.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
39
This is but a sure symptom of individualism working within unabated to serve capitalist growth in society. Organisational principles apart, communists or socialists subscribing to Marxism are as corrupt and compromising as as in parties of any other faith are today, but stand more regimented and closed. There is hardly anything special to distinguish these entities, other than rhetoric on ideology and disciplinary faith. In their zeal of being part of a vanguard, the leaders easily slipped into a conceited lot with arrogance unbound. They took it to themselves that what they say is the only truth, how they look at things is right and surely logical. The other opinion was equated with betrayal of faith; suspicion reigned supreme with manipulators having a heyday, ultimately shutting out intellectual regeneration. While polemics with adversaries, even Lenin paved way for a haughty style that later turned into a hallmark of selfrighteousness and crude behaviour with the opponent, many times with hollow reasoning. This ultimately belittled the role of a man and human dignity became the easy victim. The provision of ‘inner-struggle’ in a communist party taken as a dependable mechanism for self-correction and a sure antidote to miscarriage of just conduct proved a virtual hoax. Nowhere, in no communist party this mechanism ever proved effective to check the rot or help correct a deviation in time. Rather, there are instances in legion when those taken in over the promise of inner-struggle had to pay heavy price for their impudence in challenging established leadership of time even where party was not in power. The
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
40
case of ruling parties was despicable in this regard and brought much bad name. Violence was freely used to settle issues, branding any voice of dissent as treason against state, inviting capital punishment at will, provision of criticism and self-criticism loosing even its face value. As highest organs of authority of Lenin’s type within communist parties, Central Committees or Polit-Bureaus , or like ‘Control Commissions’ that were supposed to balance arbitrary powers of C.C and PBs, were turned easily as mere pack of hand-picked loyalists of ruling ones. In numerous cases, Spineless people entered these institutions of authority, like Gorbachev, Yeltsin. If democracy was the word, how it happened then that with a change of an individual in command effected immediate change in policy-making bodies too with members having tendencies for clapping new leader all the time. In one case Khrushchev got a decision changed in his favour with active help of an armed band by keeping the entire Polit bureau hostage, got rid of all inconvenient members of the Bureau and Central Committee immediately thereafter taking the country in his boot by capturing the total administrative machinery, along with Red Army. It cannot be explained, except as a treacherous machination by people infested with sheer individualism, manifesting in sheer group politics for retaining or capturing state power that must be useful to one. With such conditions in a so-called communist party there is nothing surprising to find that initiative and activism of masses stood evaporated in all countries of socialist camp. Non-ruling communist parties too habitually behave with
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
41
people as if these are doers and people have simply to repose faith in them! See another facet. Propaganda is neatly important for dissemination of information and help kindling awareness. But mastering tricks in mis-information and outright disinformation is a crime against humanity with no justification whatsoever, more so if it is done utilising extensive state resources. Ruling parties, including communist parties were found resorting to such methods unchecked with the people when they were manipulated to doctored truths. Stories abound when falsehood was resorted to and truth suppressed only to buttress a particular set of leaders. Arrogance of being ‘vanguard’ have done much damage when people are taken as mere tools to be ‘treated’ and ‘educated’ by these superior humans as teachers, not as colleagues in matters knowledge. Another facade of political parties is illustrated by what they do in these legislative chambers of present day set up. They become happy collaborators in manipulating these institutions to subdue people. The sad Indian story is an eloquent testimony. It blunted consciousness of the masses. The accumulated dirt and moss in communist parties again was a telling testimony to ill effects of this centralised polity. It has sapped zeal out and left communist movement gasping. The masses stood aside and leadership remained content with their privileges as a class of rulers; they surpassed even bourgeois rulers in many cases and corrupted such organisations to bones. This is said to remind all those practitioners of revolutionary ideology that there is nothing sacrosanct about any
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
42
postulate or formulation coming from any ‘authority’ of faith, whatsoever for today unless it satisfies the test of objective truth without blinkers of past. It must satisfy test of today. So far, practice is laden of quotations from this authority or the other to claim fidelity. This led to sterile action generally with follies in trail that has done more harm than clarity. There is qualitative change of reverse order in the situation after 1991 that demands creative approach to problems of today. Exercise must begin with analysisof what went wrong in Soviet and Chinese experiments and why? What mars its further growth is skewed understanding on certain features the communists harboured so far in theory on many aspects and its practice in the mistaken belief that what Lenin said about Russian path is the path to revolution everywhere and revolutionary change thereafter. One such understanding relates to question of capturing state power that necessarily involves a question of armed struggle as means to reach the object. In this context the question of violence/non-violence came up for contest. Communists were accused of unalloyed faith in the philosophy of violence. The Communist circles universally have contributed no less to confuse the issue by propagating a saying that violence is the midwife to revolutionary regeneration of society. Perhaps, Indian communists at one time perforce had focused this formulation to combat influence that had gained currency in a non-question of non-violence vis-Ă vis violence, which Mahatma Gandhi had raised to counter
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
43
the rising influence of revolutionary politics, quite an anathema to him in the conflict between labour and capital. Gandhi was in favour of collaboration between the two, propounding the concept of trusteeship. In fact, he was deeply abhorrent to the very idea of initiative from the people for regeneration of social relations; he wanted their energy to be used but within a prescribed frame of his own mark! And as a master tactician, he had raised this issue of violence and non-violence to wean away the masses to his side of thinking. When Bhagat Singh and his colleagues replied with much ease and logically, they were ignored by those who had developed antipathy to the ideals of these young men in the struggle for freedom by terming them as urchins. It was a fatal digression which the movement was asked to pay for its raw ideological pursuit at the time of great turmoil in Indian history for independence against brutal British colonial power. Unfortunately, there was none to contest the question on theory after these ‘urchins’ were removed from the scene by execution in 1931. The dynamics worked against the social cause. None in the movement then visualised that the question will be haunting the people’s movement even after independence with much more harm than visualised to the people’s cause. May be, Indian communists were right in using such idiom to counter ideological offensive from Mahatma. The ultimate outfall of the ‘midwife’ argument did prove debilitating to the mass movement itself with much serious ramifications, not seen earlier by the authors. They did not
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
44
convincingly answer Gandhi’s poser on the ‘end justifies means’ banter from them. And it proved a handy tool in his hands to isolate their politics of revolutionary change from the common man of average psyche of peace. In addition, this midwife formulation in the long run posed a dangerous mind-set to extol violence as a matter of radical faith in routine, which has nothing to do with revolutionary practice. Violence in such a milieu tends to take routine character in dealing any and every dissenting voice with revolutionary fervour, even within the organisations. Leadership of revolutionary politics did not counter this to happen. And the movement had to pay a price for their ideological failure. Mahatma had not confronted violence in history by proponents of capital in history to come up by controlling community resources for private gain. The justification for violence is to capture the state power against a ferocious and armed adversary. Basic in logic first is extolling the virtue of capturing state power; violence then is justified in trail as a means to gain it for the supreme object by a handful of enthusiastic cadres. Later, violence gains importance to retain this state power and ultimately it turns into a base of this power that goes against the ruled masses, oppression, and coercive methods and gets a veneer of legitimacy! Centralised power then plays havoc in the society. This has its own dynamics to operate, which goes against the people ultimately. History is witness to the fact that violence breeds violence. It consumes human sensibilities. It ultimately devours its own children of revolution.
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
45
Violence blunts human qualities that are basic to a communist, if any one swears to be one. In case of basic change, with faith in strength and creativity of the people at large, the question of violence is a wrong poser and turns non-relevant. Butchers and murderers have different trajectory.Murderer is different from a butcher. Murderer goes in panic while the butcher has a plan to achieve. One tends to call names to butcher and legitimately too. Butchers and hangmen do their job religiously, with fervour and zeal taking the object in routine. May be, the butchers are not bad. Normally, they are not. Still they stink. Murderers too may have a cause, good or bad. So, one has to be careful about understanding both. Violence and non-violence go together, as a matter of philosophy. One exists with the other. If there is no violence, non-violence looses relevance; so it cannot claim the status of a creed as Mahatma tried to assign it with, like a devoted Jain. Violence cannot be a basis of legitimate social existence, nor is non-violence its mast to hang by. For a peaceful and contended life such basic issues have to be addressed de nova. In matters of people’s movement the poser of non-violence vis-à -vis violence is a non issue and a false alarm. Even in criminal jurisprudence, violence in self defence is no violence and is well recognised as legitimate. In reverse, violence as the creed is not acceptable in normal course of social life. Then, why to muddle the issue, if there is no hidden agenda? Atleast this cannot be a yard-
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
46
stick to accept or reject in an ideology of social change for good. Much more goes to decide its merits or demerits. Another poser from Gandhi related to ends and means. He had charged Indian communists in course of Independence struggle of following a postulate that ends justify means to isolate them from common masses, who were generally weak on philosophical issues involved. The poser in fact had involved a moral question for those who were engaged in mass struggles for liberation. Indian communists failed the test; they were trapped and lost for want of philosophical clarity on the issue. Gandhi and after him all his disciples took full advantage and could put communists on wrong footing. Simply put, means have to be in consonance with the ends; as the means do influence an outcome. Since the poser from Mahatma related to a movement, which involves participants nurturing certain values and their aspirations for better life, means do influence their cultural mores too. Naturally tactics of movement cannot and must not cross the strategic aims in search of shortcuts. This is basic. It is observed that leaders many times do commit wrongs in this regard; search for shortcuts had badly damaged the object in consequence. Communist movement in India had suffered much with such failures too. Morality and ethics in social relations have their own force. True, these are not static categories for ever. But to conduct affairs without having regard for any standard of social behaviour and transgressing ethical and moral values of times cannot be justified on any count. Communists are people who are more than any others have a better sense
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
47
of social values and cannot act otherwise under any false pretext. They are more sensitive than a common man. If not, then doubtful if one is a communist of any worth. False faiths carried their price The Communist movement of the past has erred to rely on industrialisation of society and its system of production on wage labour. Individualism reigned supreme as a necessary by-product of the mode, revelled by proponents of capital. It wrought havoc on social relation giving birth to one that was devastating to human values. The outfall was not worth cheering about. Lenin and Mao were on common page on this count. Mahatma Gandhi also was virtually no better, he reposed faith in capital, small or big that was hardly worth. Starting from Adam Smith to Ricardo and Marx-Engels are no guide for the future of society on this count. On such legacy on their shoulders Indian Communists did little to study native conditions on their own, though much knowledge was available at hand. They failed to appraise Indian social norms and values except on borrowed Western wisdom, duly propagated by colonisers in their own interest to pose themselves advanced in relation to Indian who they dubbed as uncouth. They could not fathom strength of native economics and culture and paid heavy price for this folly by loosing support of working masses. With experiences so gross in deficit, society needs better treatment and has to build a viable mode of production afresh, keeping in view that the rising demands are better met with least dislocation and assuring peace, tranquillity, free from expropriation of human labour and nature where social relations find better space under the sun, than
Revisiting a Dream in communist movement
48
hitherto. Let us understand pristine rural India, not the infected rural India available today with so many ills of an alien origin. It may provide answers to many of questions that Indian communists have made a mess. In terms of social base, individualism, especially of existentialism variety is not worth consideration. A better relationship is the need than hitherto. Manufacturing stage did not bare its fangs, but the stage of industrial growth in corporate capital has nothing to rejoice about. One should be careful about the future danger inherent. Communism is not what dogmas tell. It is not jumlas, clichĂŠs and jargons emanating from one leader or the other, neither the texts. It is a better sense of social justice without expropriation of human labour and a way of life that is more natural to human values to live in peace on equal footing with others. Fresh formulations and concepts better than the past, answering the call of times is required to craft in light of the sad experiences of the past. It is dream worth having, based on the realities of human life and its capabilities in rhythm with nature. It is born from the past blunders humanity was pushed in by the base desires of few. History is with us. Let us dream and the dream, which is worth translation for good of humanity and the nature for a sustainable source.