-Rajesh
Tyagi/ 12 July 2012
Unable to digest this blatant servility of the CPM to the bourgeois, more young cadres of the party, who had hitherto supported their Stalinist leadership, were forced to revolt. First was the convenor of research wing of CPM, Prasenjit, who resigned against the declaration. Dissident chorus was then joined by the leaders of the student wing (SFI) of the party in Jawahar Lal Nehru University in New Delhi. True to its character, Stalinist leadership took no time in dissolving the unit and expelling the dissidents to block all debate on the issue. The revolt however sparked a row, bringing into focus the overall flawed politics of Stalinists in supporting the sections of bourgeois.
CPI (M) the core Stalinist Party in
India, recently declared its support for the candidate of ruling Congress (I),
Pranab Mukherjee. Pranab Mukherjee was the sitting Union Minister for Finance
in the central cabinet and has been supervising the pro-investor regime set up
by the coalition government of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by the Congress
party.
The dubious support was declared by
the CPM, despite a clear resolution in its recent Kozhikode Congress
recognising capitalist landlord character of Congress, its role in perpetuating
neo-liberal policies and a declaration to oppose it.
Unable to digest this blatant servility of the CPM to the bourgeois, more young cadres of the party, who had hitherto supported their Stalinist leadership, were forced to revolt. First was the convenor of research wing of CPM, Prasenjit, who resigned against the declaration. Dissident chorus was then joined by the leaders of the student wing (SFI) of the party in Jawahar Lal Nehru University in New Delhi. True to its character, Stalinist leadership took no time in dissolving the unit and expelling the dissidents to block all debate on the issue. The revolt however sparked a row, bringing into focus the overall flawed politics of Stalinists in supporting the sections of bourgeois.
The dissidents, however, trained and
rooted in Stalinist political school themselves, failed to hit the nail,
arguing that the declaration was not in consonance with the program and
resolutions of CPM. They misled themselves in believing that the Stalinist
leadership, in declaring support for Congress candidate, has divested from its
political trajectory. The fact goes that in supporting the candidate of ruling
Congress- a bourgeois landlord party- the Stalinists have acted in complete
consonance with the program and perspective of Stalinism, which in turn is
based upon an open policy of subordination of working class to the national
bourgeois.
Contrary to innocent beliefs of young
dissidents of CPM, It is not the leaders of CPM who can be credited or
dis-credited with innovating this tail-ist policy of collaboration with
national bourgeois. It was Stalin at the head of soviet bureaucracy and the
Comintern who advocated such collaboration, a Menshevik recipe, as the only road
to revolution. Working class and its parties, were forced to enter into alliances
-‘popular fronts’- with their national bourgeois everywhere in China, Germany,
Spain and submit to its politics and discipline and were thus prevented
permanently from fighting against the bourgeois.
‘Popular Frontism’ i.e. collaborating
with sections of bourgeois, was the policy of the Comintern under Stalin and
Dimitrov in China, forcing Chinese working class and the communist party in
subordination to bourgeois Kuomintang and its leader Chiang Kai Shek and then
Wang Ching Wi, which diffused a mature revolutionary situation in China in
1925-27. Popular Frontism, i.e. making alliance with bourgeois parties, was the
desperate reaction of Stalinists to the rise to power of Hitler in Germany in
1933, after the flawed policies advocated by them, prevented the working class
from rising in unison against the rule of capital and facilitated the rise of Nazis.
Since then, ‘popular frontism’ has been practised time and again in Spain, Chile,
Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Middle East, so on and so forth with same disastrous
consequences for the working class.
Following the Stalinist policy of
popular frontism, Stalinists had repeatedly forged alliances with sections of
capitalists. These alliances, in their turn have rendered great service to the
capitalists by binding working class to their rule and thus keeping them in
power. Devoid of the perspective of world socialist revolution, the ‘anti-fascism’
of Stalinists has become a permanent apology for support to democratic
capitalism. Stalinists, have disoriented the working class and youth away from
the program of socialist revolution and have misled it towards democratic
capitalism.
However, completely oblivious to the lessons
of history, Stalinists continue to forge popular fronts with bourgeois,
rallying behind democratic capitalism. 20th Congress of the CPM recently
held in Kozhikode, has not only reiterated the policy of entering into
alliances with sections of bourgeois but has focussed upon it. Stalinists
continue arguing that within the ranks of national bourgeois there exist
democratic and progressive sections, and continue to adhere to these sections
of bourgeois on the pretext of support to secular forces. Stalinists refuse to
see that fascism is the policy of capitalism in crisis, rather argue that fascism
is the rule of “worst elements of finance capital”, seeking an apology to cling
to liberal-democratic sections of capitalism.
However, within no time that CPM in
its 20th Congress resolved to oppose the capitalist-landlord alliances
of UPA and NDA, and forge a ‘left democratic alliance’ with sprinter bourgeois
parties, it has thrown its weight behind the Congress candidate in run up to
the post of President.
While Stalinist CPM has declared open
support to Congress candidate, CPI has abstained from the race intriguingly.
None of the Stalinist parties, however, has come forward to launch an offensive
to discredit the pro-investor regime set up by UPA and NDA in succession to
each other. Stalinists have assisted in binding the working class to the rule
of capitalists, their parties and leaders.
This was not the first time that
Stalinists had entered into manuevres with bourgeois parties. Since its
inception in 1925, Stalinist CPI had become more and more complacent with
sections of bourgeois, both colonial and imperial. CPI had gone down in history for its misdeeds including
its support to the agreement between British imperialism and the colonial
bourgeoisie to suppress the democratic revolution in the name of “independence”
and communal partition of the sub-continent, supporting the capitalist-landlord
government under Nehru after 1947, supporting emergency under Indira Gandhi,
hailing the Stalinist and Maoist bureaucracies in USSR and China as socialist
regimes.
After 1947, Stalinists have
functioned as chief agency of the Indian bourgeoisie rendering critical support
to it in moments of crisis and by putting down the struggles of the working
class through political trickery or outright brutal repression. Stalinists have
played critical role in tying up the working class to the bourgeois parties
like Congress, which they themselves term as reactionary.
Stalinists not only glorified the bourgeois government under Nehru as progressive and democratic in the past, but more recently CPM rendered support to the right-wing coalition government of Janata Party formed in 1977, while Stalinist CPI supported imposition of emergency by Indira Gandhi. Both Stalinist parties had supported the government under V.P. Singh, which was supported by the extreme right wing BJP on the right.
Stalinists not only glorified the bourgeois government under Nehru as progressive and democratic in the past, but more recently CPM rendered support to the right-wing coalition government of Janata Party formed in 1977, while Stalinist CPI supported imposition of emergency by Indira Gandhi. Both Stalinist parties had supported the government under V.P. Singh, which was supported by the extreme right wing BJP on the right.
CPM has played crucial role in drafting of the Common Minimum Program
of UPA with a left face, to mislead the workers and toilers in believing that
the UPA regime would produce better life conditions for them. CPM and its left
front continued to support the UPA regime, while UPA implemented the
devastating ‘neo-liberal’ policies dictated by the global capital. Despite its
acknowledgement that UPA regime was no better than NDA’s on both domestic and
foreign fronts, CPM and its other Stalinist allies in ‘left front’, did not
withdraw the critical support to it, until they were kicked out by the Congress
itself on the issue of Indo-US nuclear deal. However, instead of drawing
correct lessons from this humiliation, big sections of CPM still regret the
break with UPA regime in 2008.
Kicked out of the alliance in 2008,
that they forged with UPA government at the centre, giving support to it from
outside since 2004 general elections, Stalinists had started to look out for
forging alliances with rest of bourgeois parties. While they entered into
informal alliances even with extreme right-wing parties like BJP on issues like
FDI and corruption, they sought formal alliance into a “third front” with
practically any bourgeois party which could be roped in. This project however
landed in a fiasco, as all the bourgeois parties, big or small, got polarised
between UPA and NDA in 2009 general elections, leaving Stalinists in a lurch.
CPM has emerged as a splinter group
from the CPI in 1964, in follow up to the deepening Sino-Soviet dispute. Since
its emergence, CPM has a whole history of rendering critical support to
sections of bourgeois and its parties and thereby subordinating the working class
to the rule of capitalists and landlords. Even after its organisational split
from the CPI, which had become a tail of ruling Congress, CPM has never
criticised the basic politics of CPI, rather adhered to it.
Stalinists and the parties under
them, like CPI-CPM, in fact form a ‘left wing’ of the bourgeois rule, and their
cravings for ‘left and democratic alternative’ are tricky recipe for the crisis
management of this rule, by tagging the working class to the tail of sections
of bourgeois in a ‘popular front’. Stalinists
and behind them Maoists, proceed from the weakness of working class, presuming
the sections of bourgeois to be the real repository of all political strength.
Both of them deny the ability of the working class to bring about a social
revolution in India and thus vouch for democratic capitalism and hence
collaboration with sections of bourgeois.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers may post their comments here!