Some critical questions on left practice
Posted by
Some critical questions on left
practice
Arup Baisya
This skewed vision developed
within the garb of revolutionary activism and revolutionary zeal to complete the
imminent revolution in third world left many questions out of the purview of
left discourse within the practicing left circles. After the disintegration of
Soviet Russia, and when the facts, hitherto remained unnoticed or discarded
being treated as the conspiracy of the capitalist roaders, started pouring out
abundantly in a neo-liberal environ from within the Chinese society confirming
its reversal from socialist trend, the most of the practicing left became
puzzled and started questioning Leninist position on imperialism and Mao’s path
of revolution. Instead of dwelling on the ‘really existing capitalism’ and the
mistakes in the socialism building process and thus improving the concept of
‘theory and practice’ behind the revolutionary success story to fit in a new
set of existing parameters, they preferred to go for a paradigm shift from the
Leninist and Mao’s position. The defeatist tendency instilled in the minds of
millions of left activists has actually provoked some left intellectuals to
delineate the present situation in such a way that being far from Leninist
position justifies the left inactivity or activity without the immediate agenda
to defeat imperialism and to transcend capitalism. This, at least for the time
being, suits the activists to cope with the argument of eternal capitalism.
The three main premises on which
the aberrant and skewed vision have its fall out can be identified as (1) the
question of imperialist rivalry (2) the socialist democracy (3) the
revolutionary organization.
On the first question of
imperialist rivalry, a section of the left intellectuals want to describe the
current phase of capitalist competition as ‘collaborative competition’ that
nullifies the Leninist formulation on imperialist rivalry and war. Aizaz Ahmad asserts
an element of fundamental novelty of present situation by stating “the first
specificity of this regime (in the United Sates) lies in the fact that,
thanks to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, this is the first time in human
history that a single imperial power is so dominant over its rival that it
really has no rival, near or far, precisely at the time when it has the
greatest capacity to dominate the globe”.1 He further asserts that
Lenin’s conception of ‘inter-imperialist rivalry’ arose in the course of a conjunctural
analysis required by an intense debate on whether a world war was imminent or
not. He also points out, “the specificity of the conjuncture in the imperialism
of our time, as different from Lenin’s, is that its core – consisting of advanced
capitalist countries – is comprised of neither rivals nor equals”.2 He
even rules out the idea of inter-imperialist rivalry being shifted from the
Atlantic zone to Pacific zone as less plausible and more or less futuristic.
Evidently any form of ‘imperialist rivalry’ in Leninist sense of the term does
not hold good in his scheme of things depicting the present time.
Lenin locates the nature of
imperialism in the modes of behaviour of monopoly capitalism to protect and
increase their profit. Among the essential features of the imperialist stage,
according to Lenin, are the economic struggle (or alliances) among sectors of
finance capital for division of markets and investment opportunities in the
advanced as well as the underdeveloped nations, and the military and diplomatic
struggle among the imperialist powers for control and influence over weaker
nations, industrialised as well as
non-industrialised. Lenin emphasises imperialism as the culmination of inherent
dynamism of capitalism and imperialist rivalry as the extension of the logic of
this inherent dynamics rather than as formulation evolving from conjunctural
analysis of Lenin’s time. The imperialist rivalry is the basic tenet of
capitalism in monopoly phase, the only difference is that at a certain point of
time, one power-center may be economically and politically much more powerful
than others who may strive to avoid full-blown conflict as a tactical move. But
this armistice among the imperialist powers is not a primary feature of the
time, rather the intrinsic crisis as well as monopolistic interest set the
trend to face one another as rivals to combat. The basic premise of Lenin’s
theorisation of imperialism as monopoly stage of capitalism, during which
finance capital is in the ascendancy and the imperialist rivalry do hold good
in the present time and provide us the necessary framework to analyse the
situation unfolding at this juncture. Harry Magdoff describes the features of
the post-World War II years as the integration of military production with the
dominant industrial sectors, the drive of multinational corporation toward
worldwide control of the most profitable and newest industries in both the
periphery and advanced countries and the priority of the interest of
military-multinational industry on the affairs of the state. He is right when
he states, “true, this describes primarily the situation in the united states,
but at the same time it outlines the path now being followed in rival
imperialist powers – a process that may well be speeded up in view of the
weakness now being revealed in the internal and external position of U.S.
capitalism”.3
The second premise on which the
main stream left discourse that enables the heartbroken left-activists to
remain complacence in coping up with the existing system and striving for
reform is the question of socialist democracy. This discourse is based on
Stalinist theoretical enunciation that withering away of state would occur
through its reinforcement and leading role of the party. These two ideas
combined give rise to strengthened state-power with the communist party at its
overwhelming control. Going by the Stalinist conception, they believe that this
state cannot exercise ‘function of repression’ because in the socialist state,
exploitation is suppressed, the exploiters no longer exist, there is no one to
be suppressed. As the democracy and politics get withered away with the
withering away of state as the instrument of suppression and dominance, there
cannot be any socialist democracy. So only task on the question of democracy is
to attain purest form of bourgeois democracy in a bourgeois state and as a
result, the struggle for democracy is limited to rectify the aberration in
bourgeois democracy in a bourgeois state, not to extend it. The task of
simultaneously weakening the state power and strengthening the social power
under the leadership of working class gets obliterated from communist
proggramme that revolves around the reformist act of taking corrective measures
to attain purest form of bourgeois democracy and then discard the essence of
this democracy altogether instead of extending it in the futuristic project of
socialism building. Charles Bettelheim writes, “the Stalinist ideology of the
state and of its relationship with citizens thus enunciates a double discourse :
a “democratic discourse” which is in contradiction with facts and an absolutist
and repressive discourse which is a commentary on actual practice. This duality
is an expression of a social schizophrenia. It reflects the deep contradictions
of an economic and political system which oppresses this masses, subjects them
to repression and exploits them with an intensity rarely attained in history”.4
The third most important aspect
that needs to be discussed and debated is the question of communist
organisation. The skewed vision on the question of communist organisation can
be traced back even to Lenin’s time and as such demands a historical-anecdote
of the period of the heydays of communism. This aspect is not restricted to the
main stream left only, but extends to the fringe groups who are in essence
radical in other fronts. Lenin’s idea of ‘Vanguardism’ is ripe with
implications that can arrest the process of working class self-consciousness.
Being the vanguard, the communist party and its activist-leaders are
indoctrinated as the infallible mass-leaders who only bear the knowledge to
lead the civilization ahead. Mao’s idea of communist activist as ‘the fish in
the water’, though a better extension of vanguardist idea, is also problematic
in initiating the process of development of mass-consciousness. This metaphor
that symbolises communist organiser as ‘fish’ and society as ‘water’ is closely
inter-related with the question of being declassed. As the fish can be brought
from outside and thrown into the stagnant water, a communist activist becomes
leader of the working class from outside and it does not entail the communist
who is evolved from within the class and the mutual interaction between the
activist and society to ensure the raising of self-consciousness of working
class. As the activists constitute the basic foundation of the party-strength,
the party is bestowed with responsibility to train them who in turn repose high
esteem to the party high-ups for preparing the theoretical materials to train
them. Thus the social division of mental and physical labour starts replicating
itself within the party life and sets the ground for cultism. Recently the
ruminations on this question are becoming visible within the practicing left
circle, after the demise of “really existing socialism” and extreme loss of
ground and discredit of the main stream left forces. It is now being felt that the
organisational practice of the communists till date is not in keeping with the
Marxist concept of withering away of state and politics. So keeping in view the
Lenin’s theoretical concept of consciousness to the masses from without and
proletarian vanguard, Stalinist practice, Gramsci’s concept of organic
intellectual and Rosa Luxembourgian critiques, this organizational question
needs to be discussed & debated at length.
On the organization question,
Luxemburg took an overall organic view. Her polemics against Lenin can be
understood when she says, “let us speak plainly, historically, the errors committed
by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful and more
valuable than the infallibility of the best of all possible central committees”.5
But over-dependence on spontaneity
may distract the party organiser from its educator role and transform the party-leaders
into quotidian activists in a sterile situation or quixotic in a vibrant
situation with a built-in ‘empiricist outlook’. That Luxemburg was aware of
this is clear from her passage that states, “On the one hand, we have the mass;
on the other, its historic goal, located outside the existing society. On one
hand, we have the day-to-day struggle; on the other, the social revolution.
Such are the terms of the dialectical contradiction through which the socialist
movement makes its way. It follows that this movement can best advance by
taking betwixt and between the two dangers by which it is constantly being
threatened. One is the loss of its mass character; the other the abandonment of
its goal. One is the danger of sinking back to the condition of a sect; the
other, the danger of becoming a movement of bourgeois social reform. That is
why it is illusory, and contrary to historic experience, to hope to fix, once
for always, the direction of the revolutionary socialist struggle with the aid
of formal means, which are expected to secure the labour movement against
possibilities of opportunist digression”6. Like Lenin, Gramsci also finds
the remedy of the problem in democratic centralism. But in his opinion,
democratic centralism must be elastic, it comes alive in so far as it is
continuously interpreted and adapted to necessity. It needs continual renewal.
Democratic centralism, again, must be ‘organic’ in the sense that both the
leaders and the rank and file must obey the rule of democracy. So the central
core of the organizational problem lies on the question of organic nature of
party members and the continuously evolving and extending the party democracy
vis-à-vis overall democracy. It must be emphasized that the evolving
consciousness of the masses should transform their status from object of
history to the subject with the withering away of the party itself and in this
context, mass-action is to be given utmost
importance as Rosa Luxemburg envisaged.
Notes :
(1) Iran , Afghanistan : The Imperialism Of
Our Time, by Aijaz Ahmad, LeftWord Books, March 2005, page 239. italic words in
parenthesis are additions of the author of this article.
(2) Ibid, page 242.
(3) Imperialism
: From the Colonial Age to the Present, by Harry Magdoff, Monthly Review Press
1978. page 111.
(4) Cass
Struggle in the USSR ,
Third Period : 1930-1941, Part 2: The Dominators, by Charles Bettelheim, T R
Publication Pvt Ltd 1996, page 17
(5) Readings in Revolution and
Organization : Rosa Luxemburg And Her Critic : Selected and Introduced by
Sobhanlal DattaGupta, Pearl Publishers, September 1994, page 139.
(6) The Rosa Luxemburg Reader, edited by Peter
Hudis & Kelvin B. Anderson, Cornerstone Publication August 2005, page 263.
0 comments:
Post a Comment