Excerpts from the doc.........its imperative we Indianise it. Bharatiya Samajwad is what we need to think about 2) A revolutionary doctrine for the parliamentary/bourgeois constitution tactic - It is most important to create a detailed doctrine on the tactic of parliamentary participation, tightly coupled to the plan of the peoples revolution. There should be no doubt that the current constitutional system of India is extremely conducive to taking ahead the revolutionary objective. It has democratic processes & opportunities unthinkable in the times of Comrade Lenin or Comrade Mao. Moreover, the supreme objective is a far higher & real democracy, a system which will be sustained & bettered; surely it can’t be achieved by subversion or shortcuts. It is imperative that we grow quickly across the country and for that it needs to be mandated that leaders created in the bases have to move out of their comfort zones or parliamentary positions and set up organisations in new areas. Not just provide leadership at 30,000 feet but work on the ground and painstakingly create the organisations with their own hands. But, like quantum entities, like dialectics, the current system has a duality. If the participation by a communist party is not based on revolutionary doctrine which treats it as a tactic, a means to the greater end, it ensnares a) one & all in a revisionist embrace & b) pushes committed comrades towards the adventurist mistake. On the other hand, the bourgeois & the feudal parties are armed & are continuously smashing the democratic infrastructure. Moreover, it has grown itself to such massive proportions that it sucks in the entire organisation through its multiple events, leaving little bandwidth to do anything else. This democratic pomp is also accompanied by large scale abuse of the law & democratic ethic by all political parties & the bourgeoisie. There is a regular fall in the writ of the law across the country. Institutions are bent with impunity. Therefore it is this duality which has to be the central dialectic of using this tactic. This is not the place to go into details but a couple of examples might shed light on the general direction. A key component of this doctrine has to be the application of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat to parliamentary participation. Whether in power in a state or the country, in opposition or as mere parliamentarians, communists have to lead the people to the task of smashing the bourgeois apparatus. Did we not have such opportunities in the last 40 years? Why is the ‘socialist’ in the constitution & judicial activism not used to at least smash the feudal elements and regressive capital? This doctrine would have helped the masses to understand the contradictions that the communist party faces in sharing bourgeois parliamentary power. It is their personal involvement in executing the most important objective of the proletariat, i.e. of smashing the exploiting & oppressive apparatus of bourgeois society which would make them masters of dialectics, not mere words from a leader. Another example would be the obvious movement to the next stage of the capitalist land reforms in the mid 80s. If the small & middle farmers were enabled to take control over the price of their products, if they had been led by the communists to smash the exploitative MSP by the Union govt, smashed the brokers in between, this movement would have not only increased their realisation( instead of a dole like bonus), but also made them revolutionary. The exploitative hold of finance capital on the banking system should have been smashed, capital would have been brought into farming by the revolutionary peasants themselves & the contradiction between industry & agriculture would have lessened. Singur & Nandigram, which are guaranteed contradictions in the transition between agriculture to industry, definitely when communists share bourgeois parliamentary power, would have been avoided. Let us take another instance. Instead of DFID help to close down industry, the proletariat should have been led to create & run their own companies, build a supply chain with the villages. In the states run by the communists, large scale employment intensive & tightly integrated industry could have been created by the toiling masses by conserving their surplus generated & channelling it into investment capital. The fact that 90% of the states savings in the financial system is invested outside the state was unaddressed and a golden opportunity to create an alternative model of capitalising industry and agriculture was missed. Could we not raise a three-pronged fight of 1) increasing the salaries of farm workers, 2) price of agricultural produce, 3) subsidies? These two instances would have created joint efforts of the workers & peasants & would have furthered the strategic unity of these two classes. Communists have to be more intelligent & efficient than the capitalist, which would be the case if he is led by a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The parliamentary privileges & power available should be used to gain tactical advantage across the country & institutions. Once the parliamentary participation (& should not be equated to just running govts) is a part of the tactical plan of the revolution, a lot of mistakes would be avoided. With the correct understanding of the current phase of imperialism & the clearly visible weakening of the bourgeois parties, the movement would have decided against supporting the govt in 2004. A tactical position based on the objective of exposing the weaknesses of the anti-people parties & smashing the bourgeois state apparatus would have resulted in long term gains. Mao’s strategy of drawing the more powerful enemy deep, giving them a long rope and attacking it at their weakest links when the enemy was the weakest would have been the clear dialectical solution. There was absolutely no need to enter the UPA to keep the BJP out. The minority govt led by the Cong would have been formed with the issue-based support by the left. The desire of a section to even join hands with the completely tainted & discredited Cong in the 2014 LS, which had no small role in influencing the tactics, campaign & verdict, would have been avoided. One of the principal short term tactics of the communist movement then should have been exposing the weaknesses of the main bourgeois parties, the Cong & BJP, not addressing their leaders in this newly learnt fad, my friend or seeking blessings from enemies of the movement before polls, but letting the instability of those govts be exposed & tactical bargains along with leading the peoples movements would have immensely benefitted the movement. The conspiracy of the enemy camp in stealing the elections from us would be fought with peoples movements, not colourful presentations in front of the bourgeois media. It would have sent its best to build organisations, not man executive positions. What can justify the decision of fielding in the 2014 LS polls one of the most brilliant of organisational leaders, an emerging leader across the state, one of the very few creators of peoples movements? Instead of imbibing parliamentary pomp, it would have attempted to smash the anti-people environment masked by these pomp & fads. In the absence of such a doctrine, we have imbibed the very lumpen qualities of bourgeois-feudal parties & sacrificed democracy at the altar of electoral victory. A revolutionary party, free from the virus of revisionism or adventurism would have had no issues in having its leader sit in the PMs chair in 1996. If the doctrine of proletarian dictatorship in times of partial power in a bourgeois democracy had been ready and the entire party was firm on Marxist-Leninist principles, the strategic importance of that historic opportunity could never have been missed. At the same time, a revolutionary party without the virus of revision would have led popular movements across the nation, of tens of crores of workers, farmers, students, etc along with its record 61 MPs instead of the compromise. It would have graduated to being the principal opposition to the growing right & taken a big chunk of the falling support of the centrist forces. It would have created a detailed doctrine of the alternative economic, social & constitutional policy a long time back, demonstrated parts of it in its participation in parliamentary power, which would be the principal slogan during the polls & exposed the hypocrisy of the right. The extremely corrupt attempt at trying to throw the weapon of time at Marxism-Leninism has to be fought. The market, is an outcome of Smiths invisible hand which has always been the euphemistic representation of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie & their supreme hegemony over the produced surplus. It was also status quoist, in those times of transition. It is the primary infrastructure which enables both appropriation & expropriation. What needs to be learnt by communists in the 21st century, on this account, is how to protect human genius which discovers, invents, and innovates, from bureaucratic & feudal ills that penetrate a socialist state apparatus. And there is no reason why true communists cannot learn this & provide choice & incentive to the human race of a completely different nature, in a completely different manner. All this will unite the entire communist movement & reduce the friction of ideological deviations which is a major impediment. Comrade Mao & his teachings cannot be left to the adventurists. The mainstream communist movement has to make him their own, as also lead the people that these Maoists purport to lead currently. We have to realise that the leading communist party has to take responsibility of the breakup of the movement into so many pieces & to bring them together now.
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 11:37:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015