Where We Stand

A Mazdoor Mukti Declaration

On The Eve Of Long March
While emerging as a definite communist tendency Mazdoor Mukti had to pass through a long process of identifying and fighting the anti-communist trends in the Indian and world communist movement. Following are the basic tenets which fundamentally distinguish Mazdoor Mukti from the current dominating communist party streams. Mazdoor Mukti dissociates itself from the patriotic current in the communist movement, which not only speaks in patriotic language, but also takes pride in it. Basing itself on the analysis of the international character of the capital and holding high the banner of international working class interest, Mazdoor Mukti once again declares—Workers have no country of their own, so they do not have patriotism. Along with giving due recognition to the historical progressive role of the struggle for national self-determination and independence, anti-feudal peasant struggle and antiautocratic struggle for democracy, Mazdoor Mukti draws attention to their limitations and refuses to walk abreast those communists who have taken the liquidationist path of integrating communist programme and consciousness with the aforesaid struggles and aspirations. Mazdoor Mukti unequivocally declares that its support to these struggles is only temporary and conditional; and it integrates itself only with the immediate and ultimate interest of the working class. Mazdoor Mukti refuses to intervene in the political and social events of the country and abroad from the interest of any other strata or class; it always attempts to fight against every trend and manifestation of class-deviation and reasserts that communists have no other interest than the overall interest of the working class and each and every question of legitimacy-illegitimacy, progress, reaction has to be judged from the interest and outlook of the working class and the working class only. Mazdoor Mukti declares comradeship with the workers-revolutionary current of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc. being enlightened by the blood-bathed experiences of workers’ revolts against the dictatorship of bureaucratic-military coalition under the leadership of the so-called communists of those countries. Refusing to give credence to the regimes of party-hegemony and party-dictatorship as dictatorship of the proletariat, Mazdoor Mukti proclaims aloud—no to party dictatorship, but yes to workers’ dictatorship enriched with workers’ democracy; rejects the model of equating statised economy (minus social control) In a nut-shell, Mazdoor Mukti is a revolt against the established but degenerated current within the communist movement; Mazdoor Mukti is a struggle for re-establishment of the classical principles of communism; Mazdoor Mukti is an attempt to search and re-search for the theoretical positions of the communist movement. Mazdoor Mukti, which has emerged through its long fight against the degenerated current in the communist movement, has already constituted itself as a definite and separate communist stream through the social study and practice, criticism and selfcriticism and of course, with its limitations and conscious attempt to intervene in the

workers’ movement. And from its very inception, Mazdoor Mukti has discovered its existence as an almost lone fighter facing challenge from both sides—on the one hand, the colossal institutional force of the barren, reformist, reactionary stream in the name of communism, on the other, the ‘leftist’ tendency, which though started from the positive role of revolting against the degenerated stream have submerged into the theoretical ambiguity, confusion and anarchy, and have been failing to emerge out of the aimless and endless attempts of permutation and combination of the groups. However, we are aware of our financial and organizational weakness. Yet, relying on the zeal of a handful of activists, supporters and sympathizers, we dare to proceed further at the call of the hour to perform this difficult task. In this hour of crisis we are not alone, communists of the country and abroad fighting in the same spirit are providing us with continuous inspiration. We hope, the communist activists and advanced workers who hold similar views, will welcome our struggle and effort to defend and enrich the existence of this developing communist trend and join hands with us. Let us begin our long march with this hope. 15 June 1988 (Revised on 6 November, 2006)

The following section is not intended to be a programme of a communist party or wouldbe-party. This is only a brief introduction of some of the major stands taken by Mazdoor Mukti during its development. Though it does not cover all the positions that Mazdoor Mukti has taken in its short life, still we hope, it will help readers to understand its basic political orientation. The resolutions may also provide input in the developing Indian communist movement. All suggestions and criticisms are welcome. [‘Where We Stand’ was first formulated and published in 1988. Mazdoor Mukti has undergone through a rich experience of theory and practice since then. Though our basic positions remain one and the same, we have incorporated minor changes and editing of the original text. Some new sections are also added.]

On Stage Of Revolution
[After a long study and many debates, both within and outside, Mazdoor Mukti, resolved its stand on the stage of revolution. There are serious controversies and great confusion on this question in Indian communist circles. For more clarity on the issue, in the first part, we have discussed the general criterion to determine the stage of revolution, and in the second part, we have applied the same in concrete condition of India. The issue has been discussed, taking modern capitalist world into account]

From the historical perspective, as capital and labour are negation of one other, the one and only task remains in front of the working class—that is to abolish capital and capitalism and build a socialist/communist society through socialist revolution. Yet, due to existence of some special circumstances, the task of accomplishing democratic revolution becomes an immediate strategic aim. In that case, the workers not only have to be a party to the democratic revolution, but even have to lead that revolution to further the cause of the very socialist revolution. But what is the criterion to determine whether the working class faces democratic revolution as an immediate task? 1. The degree of existence of the remnants of feudalism; or, the degree of existence of political, social, socio-economic influence of imperialism, monopoly or big capitalism is not the criterion to determine the stage of revolution in any country. The determining, criterion is whether the respective country enjoys bourgeois democracy, or not. 2. If, a) a country is directly subjugated by any colonial power, or a nation is oppressed by another nation, the subjugated country or the oppressed nation is in the stage of National Liberation. b) the state structure of a country is autocratic, be it Bonapartist, fascist or otherwise, then the country is in the stage of Bourgeois Democratic Revolution. c) the state structure of a country is bourgeois democratic, then the country is in the stage of Proletarian Socialist Revolution. Of course, in that case, the incomplete tasks of the democratic revolution, if any, are to be resolved as by-products of the socialist revolution. [The existence of bourgeois democracy presupposes the dominance of capitalist production relations.] 3. The communists and the advanced section of the working class support democratic revolution not for the free and speedy development of capitalism, but for the free and speedy development of class struggle, in order to gain the favourable arena to fight capitalism thoroughly.

Therefore, when the masses of the workers march together with the democratic or the national bourgeoisie against autocratic or colonial rule, the communists and the advanced section of the working class must keep its identity separate and should never forget for a moment that the struggle for democracy itself will not liberate the class, it will only provide proper arena to fight for its liberation. Therefore, the revolution transcends the bourgeois limits as soon as the bourgeois class seizes the state power and in that event the immediate strategic task of the working class will be to destroy the bourgeois state machinery and order. In other words, democratic revolution immediately develops into socialist revolution. In this connection, it may be emphasized as to how and where this thesis differentiates from other (following) theses on the same issue: a) Unless capitalism is developed to certain maturity, the socialist revolution does not appear as an agenda, and therefore the working class must be a party to the democratic revolution. The working class must also be a party to the development of capitalism and defer class struggle and socialist revolution till the capitalism matures. b) The democratic revolution will bring forth the dictatorship of the working class and the democratic bourgeois. As in the present era there can be no revolution without the leadership of the working class, this joint dictatorship will become, in essence, the dictatorship of the proletariat (without passing through a second revolution i.e., socialist one) and will build up socialist society. This is the reason why it should be termed as a new pattern of democratic revolution, New Democratic Revolution. c) In society or country where the immediate strategic task is democratic, the bourgeois cannot lead the revolution. This has to be lead by the working class and will lead to the dictatorship of the working class. Thus the revolution will attain the character of Permanent Revolution. This dictatorship will primarily accomplish the democratic tasks and gradually and eventually take up the socialist tasks to accomplish.

1. With the transfer of power on the 15 August 1947, India ousted the foreign colonial power from the arena of the state power and has been transformed from a colonial state into an independent sovereign state. The capacity of foreign imperialism, to influence the matters of state policy does not disprove the truth of this fundamental shift of forces in the state power. 2. The British colonial power had transferred power to the Indian National Congress, an organisation of the Indian national bourgeois, on ad-hoc basis. The national bourgeois had perfected and consolidated its power through the formal establishment of the Democratic Republic in 1950. With the aforesaid dual process, the tasks of the national liberation and democratic revolution are, in the main, completed.

In other words, the Indian bourgeois, despite its vacillations and compromises, did not make any blunder to put its monopoly control over the state power. The Indian state has thus become a state of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois class as a whole. The people, who by pointing to some of the incomplete tasks of the democratic revolution, or ‘half-heartedness’ of the Indian bourgeoisie, try to deny this very truth, are yet to understand the basic concept of state and revolution. 3. The aspirations for political power of all the sections of the bourgeois class have been exhausted through the attainment of democratic structure (leaving aside some marginal cases). Therefore, it is neither possible, nor is ever manifested that any section of the Indian bourgeoisie is fighting for any alternative radical structure of state power. Through the mechanism of parliamentary democracy, on the one hand, each and every section of the bourgeois class gets the opportunity to compete and change state policy in its favour and, on the other, the bourgeois class as a whole gets the scope to rule over the masses in the name of people. In this way, the Indian state has become the organ of the class rule of the bourgeois class as a whole, not of any particular section or sections of the bourgeoisie. [Yet, there may be and there have been some important contradictions of this or that particular section of the bourgeoisie with the state on some social or political issues, but that are obviously of partial character and should be viewed as a subordinate question with respect to the overall perspective.] 4. Indian proletariat and toiling masses are not suffering from the absence of (bourgeois) democracy, but from the bourgeois fraud of the democracy. In real life also, the principal content of the on-going people’s struggles is directed against poverty, unemployment, price rise etc, for which capitalism is directly responsible. From the above-mentioned observations, it is evident that, the only force which can thoroughly oppose the Indian state and social system is the working class, and its strategic allies will be the semi-proletariat and property-less masses of the country and the world proletariat. There is no scope of making strategic alliance with any section of the bourgeois. Therefore, the stage of the Indian revolution is undoubtedly Proletarian Socialist.

Towards formulating The Agrarian Programme of India
[We are aware of the vastness and diverse method of production of the Indian agricultural system. We are in the process of developing an agrarian programme for India. In the mean time, synopsis of our studies and experiences is being placed here for discussion and positive inputs.] 1. The peasantry is just a section of the bourgeoisie in aspiration. But in some specific juncture peasant interest may coincide with the worker-interest. So there is no question for the communists to build up a peasant organisation as its branch organisation. So to say, a communist party cannot integrate itself with a peasant organisation. 2. In the reign of capital a vast section of the peasantry cannot satisfy its capitalist aspiration. Rather their existence as capitalist is always at stake. In this situation, proletariat cannot promise to protect them as capitalists but should explain to them with patience that their future lies with that of the proletariat. 3. The communists treat peasant problems and peasants’ interest not from the point of view of a peasant but in accordance with the immediate and future interest of the proletariat. 4. When feudalism dominates over a rural society the peasants remain deprived of their land-rights. A peasant finds her/his aspirations to be satisfied by achieving total right over land. For this, the peasants have always acted as a motive force in overthrowing feudalism by the bourgeoisie. The communists and the advance section of the proletariat stand by the anti-feudal peasant struggle and give it temporary and conditional support for the free development of class struggle, not to serve the capitalist aspirations of the peasants. 5. In a society, so much the feudal ties are loosened, the anti-feudal role of the peasant diminishes to that extent and there arises capitalist competition among the peasants themselves. In and through the competition a section become well-to-do peasant. A vast section of the peasantry gradually and ultimately becomes agriculture-labourer. In this situation peasant movement become the movement to fulfill and to consolidate their capitalist desires, such as, to get remunerative prices, to lower the prices of agricultural input, etc. In this type of movement the workers have no interests. Therefore, the communists cannot support those movements. 6. Though in the fight for abolition of feudalism workers support the peasants for their own interest, they do not adopt privatisation of land as their own call. Workers’ interest, motto and aim is socialisation of land and agricultural production as speedy as possible, not privatisation of land. But they may have to compromise and support land distribution conditionally and critically according to the situation.

7. Though the communists cannot give any assurance to make the peasants survive as small capitalists or, support their aspirations to be a big capitalist, they should not blaze or attempt to overthrow them by force. It is well-witted to draw them closer showing the example of collective large scale production and its advantage. But at the same time it should be stated clearly that they would not be able to survive as small producers. There is no way out of their well-being except collective large scale production and soclalisation. 8. In spite of complexity, it is evident that anti-feudal struggle is not a determining factor in Indian agriculture today. Though the movement for taking possession of vested land, abolishing share tenancy etc. are anti-feudal in nature; firstly, those are not the movements of mass peasantry and secondly, at best, those movements exist in only a tiny percent of the total area of agriculture. On the contrary, mass-peasant movements are developing with greater intensity in a capitalist direction, e.g. for remunerative prices, to reduce the price of agricultural input etc. 9. Modernized large-scale productions are present in good extent in Indian agriculture. Reduction of those farm-holding into small-holding is against the development of the society. It would be correct for the communists to contravene this sort of propagation. 10. In India, cleavage between the agricultural labourers and peasant bourgeois is manifested by the movement of agricultural labourers for higher wages, to a large extent. The communists must support and organise those movements unconditionally. Doing so they can evolve their real class base in rural area, which may help to develop an independent agricultural workers movement. 11. The small and marginal farmers constitute a large section of the rural population. Not obscuring its class position the communists should try to workout a strategy to draw them closer as far as possible or at least to neutralise them. Otherwise, their task in the rural area would be harder by as great as ten times.

For Trade Union Unity with Democracy
[ The following resolution is not any general orientation of the attitude of the communists towards trade union movement. This is only an attempt to locate, recognise and fight the vices in the on-going tradeunion movement of India] 1. Trade unions are the centres of primary class unity of the workers to build their resistance struggle against owners and the management. 2. As because the task of a trade union is to unite the broadest section of the workers on factory/trade-level, it obviously becomes a united front of the workers, with different views and trends. So, it is obligatory for a trade union to provide freedom of opinions.

3. Trade unions have to deal with not only the economic offences of the capitalist class, but also various political offences. Besides, the day-to-day political questions also come into the arena of trade union activities. So, it is not possible for a trade union to become apolitical. But there should be space for every political trend to intervene and act within the trade union movement, and on the other hand, there should not be a monopoly control by any party over trade union on political questions. The organisation has to be run in accordance with the maturity earned through the competition and clashes among the various political trends within the working class movement, in general, and trade union movement, in particular. 4. Initially, workers in several countries had united to form a unified resistance on factory or trade level. India had similar experience. For obvious reasons, these trade-unions encompassed workers of different shades and opinions. In due course, these primary centres of trade unions were united in a single all India platform, All India Trade Union Congress. 5. a) In subsequent years, initially in the decades of ‘40s and and ‘50s and then as a general trend, there were splits and splits. A number of central trade unions were born, under the direct control of rightist and leftist parties. The splits in central trade unions, in turn, have their due imprint in unions at the level of factory and industry. Thus the primary centres of workers unity have been split into pieces on the crude party line. b) The splits in the trade unions have not only diminished the strength of the workers to fight against the capitalist onslaught, but also have infected the workers with the unhealthy spirit of sectarian party-based competition within them. 6. Along with the culture of splitism, trade union bureaucracy is the other vice, which is impairing the trade union movement in India. Both policy and day-to-day matters are decided over the heads of the workers and eventually the workers loose interest in tradeunion affairs which in turn strengthens the hands of the trade-union bosses. 7. Though there are sporadic oppositions against bureaucracy and splittism, the worker’s struggle and maturity have not yet gathered sufficient strength to challenge these practices. Only in some exceptional cases, at the height of trade union movement, there are symptoms of undoing the splitism and establishing democracy to the maximum extent. 8. The splits have sometimes sharply diminished the strength of the workers in a particular factory or trade to such an extent that it becomes impossible to launch a movement by a single trade union. So, a round-about unity is to be sought by combining several unions in a single platform. This piecemeal arrangement though serves the purpose partially and temporarily, points out the impropriety of the splitism and cannot fulfill the need of a single trade-union. 9. In these circumstances, the slogan of ‘one union in one trade, with trade-union democracy’ has to be raised. It is obvious that this slogan itself can neither unite the workers, nor can it provide democracy in the unions; but the slogan, on the one hand, will

highlight the ideal concept of trade union and help to raise the consciousness of workers about trade unions and, on the other, may be used to isolate the vested interests who split the unions for their own purposes. 10. The success of the slogan of ‘trade-union unity with democracy’ will largely depend on the initiative and movements from below; the interest and thrust of class struggle will not only sweep away the unnecessary split in the trade-union movements, but also stimulate the spirit of true democracy in the trade union movement. 11. It is not mandatory that each and every factory or, trade-based movement has to be carried out within the form of trade union. The affected workers may think that all the existing trade unions have become impediments for the development of their struggle. In that case, they may build a new union suited for the said movement or seek for some form outside the trade union form (as we have witnessed in the form of Factory Council, Factory Committee, Shop Floor Organiasation or Solidarity—different forms in different times). These types of organisations beyond the form of trade union may give birth to an alternative stream of workers’ movement. 12. Some communists, in order to push their revolutionary agenda, turn back from the trade union movement and seek always for ‘pure” revolutionary movement. Thus they leave the primary and broadest centre of working class in the hands of the reactionary forces. On the other, some communists consider it only as a cadre-recruiting centre and thus underestimate and neglect the role of dynamics and strength of the trade union movement in the development of class struggle. While attempting to imbue the spirit of democracy and unity in the trade union movement, the communists and the advanced section of the working class must fight restlessly against both the harmful tendencies.

Summarisation of the Positive and Negative Lessons of the Rich Experiences of the Attempts towards Twentieth Century Socialist Revolution
1. The Russian Revolution which was initiated in 1917 was encircled by the world capitalism due to the failure of the expected world revolution. Side by side, a major section the advanced section of the working class who led the revolution was devastated and physically liquidated in the civil war which followed the revolution. These two factors weaken the ongoing revolution and lessen the role of the working class. In this difficult situation the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Soviet Union decided to continue the revolution on its own and resist the counter-revolution and gradually substitute the working class. As a natural consequence, it was unequivocally declared that the power to the Communist Party is equivalent to the power to the working class. This declaration was not limited to declaration only, this equivalence was theorized. Thus the socialist

revolution not only lost its direction and dynamism, but the socialist revolution was deprived of its necessary milieu and precondition—the worker’s democracy. While attempting to save the socialist revolution ‘from outside’ attack, the fort was usurped ‘from within’. The Russian Revolution was thus defeated. But, this historical defeat was designated as historical victory, and it was true, however sad it might be, that the great majority of rank and file communists and advanced section of the working class have accepted this negative lesson as a positive one. 2. In continuation of the aforesaid developments and lessons, democracy was negated in political activities under the one-Party rule, the statisation of all economic enterprises was carried out enthusiastically, all the production drive was carried out with the spirit of ‘accumulation for the sake of accumulation” and in an attempt to catch or, even surpass the production capacity of USA. More these drives were carried out, more the hurrah of building socialism was proclaimed. And when on the one hand, the majority of the living leadership of the old Bolshevik—the ‘old guard’ was either expelled from the Party or given death penalty or sent to Siberia, and thus ‘rectification’ was accomplished and on the other, all the means of production were nationalized, then it was declared with great pride that socialism was achieved in Soviet Union and the communism was knocking at the door. Yet how much, what and how the production will be organized—nothing of them was decided by the worker-producers. Everything related to production and distribution remained in the hands of the party bureaucracy. The private capitalism was abolished, but it was replaced by state-bureaucratic capitalism; the (capitalist) market economy was replaced by (capitalist) command economy. 3. When ‘socialism’ was gradually and eventually being established in the Soviet Union, the state instead of ‘withering away’ was getting stronger day by day. The political life was crippled by the crude intervention of KGB and other organs of the state; all sorts of opposition were throttled by intimidation and oppression and even physical liquidation by the Party and state hierarchy. Though ‘Socialism was established’, ‘class was abolished’, yet the state remained omnipotent. Therefore, an innovative theory had to be imported— the state will exist in socialism, which will be abolished only in communism. And thus to turn the defeat of Soviet Union into a victory, the theory had to be revised which made a long-standing impact on the communist party’s thought process. Thus it became possible to designate a handful of petty bourgeois leadership as a communist party, if they put the garb of Marxism on themselves; to call a national liberation movement or democratic revolution a socialist revolution or something like that if led by those self-proclaimed communist parties and to designate dictatorship of a Communist Party as the dictatorship of the proletariat and the nationalization drive of those party-states as socialist programme. In this manner, state capitalism was established in the name of socialism in China, one after another country of East Europe, Vietnam, Kampuchia and thus the theory of substitutionism achieved more recognition and acceptance. Though a good number of communists have been declining to accept those revolutions as socialist and raising their voices of dissent for the last couple of decades and advocated a different paradigm and path of socialist revolution, their voices were suppressed in the euphoria of ‘victory of socialism’ and history written by the victorious side.

4. At last, when one after another ‘socialist’ citadel was demolished in Soviet Union and countries of eastern Europe; and when in China, the student revolt of Tien-an-mein Square was suppressed in bloodshed and consequently ‘market socialism’ was introduced, the rank and file communists fell into a great gloomy atmosphere and they are yet to come out from that defeatist and frustrating situation. On the other, the triumphant bourgeois camp raised “hurrah’ loudly and declared ‘the end of history’ to point out that the capitalism is the ultimate destiny of the humankind and nothing is possible beyond capitalism. 5. The rich lessons which we have gained through the contours of attempts of socialist revolution in the twentieth century may be summed up as follows. This is though basically a resurrection of the old socialist learning, but at the same time it may lead to contribution to the same. a) The socialist revolution in its essence is international. The revolution may begin in any country, but if it has to attain its victory and accomplish its tasks, it has to be enriched on international scale. It does not mean that unless prior guarantee of international revolution is achieved, any nascent revolution in a country has to be deferred or unless the socialist revolution is spread at every corner of the globe it is doomed to failure. This lesson only suggests that the socialist revolution—to get its desired success— has to be spread to such a geopolitical area that the new society must surpass the capitalist society in all its dimensions and conversely, the rest of the (capitalist) world must not get a chance to dictate its terms on the new society. We may sum up our lessons through the great debate on ‘socialism in one country’. b) Abolition of private capitalism or establishment of state control over the economy, is in no way abolition of capital. The aim of socialist revolution cannot be establishment of state control over economy. The state control over economy is nothing but another edition of capitalism. The aim of capitalism must be abolition of all kind of capital, and it can be achieved only by the social control on production and distribution from below through the association of producers. Therefore success of completion of socialist revolution will abolish classes and state simultaneously. This classless and stateless society has been and only can be termed as socialism or communism (alternative names of the same socioeconomic system). We have witnessed and have been still witnessing the capitalist barbarity of warfare and arm-race; poverty, famine, hunger is the very presence of luxury and wastage. This capitalist civilization is no more tolerable. ‘Barbarity or, civilization?’ –this question has never been so acute and glaring! The soviet model of capitalism or socialism— whatever it be named—has crumbled down. Let us initiate our fresh endevpour to smash capitalism and begin the socialist revolution of twenty-first century decrying both the state capitalist model and the most recent edition of capitalism.

An Appeal
It is an hour of crisis for the communist activists and the communist movement. The bright red banner of communism has been faded out and defamed in the hands of the very people who go by the name of communists. After the fall of socalled socialist citadel one after another, the banner of socialism and communism has lost its esteem to such an extent that they no longer inspire millions and millions of exploited and oppressed people throughout the world to fight for their emancipation. In the mean time, the real nature of the one-party states and the statebureaucratic capitalist economy which were termed as socialist, have been more and more exposed. As a result, the working class and the oppressed people have turned their face away not only from those self-proclaimed communists, but also started looking at the socialist ideals and ideologies with suspicion. At the same time, despite having come back of the old form of society based on private capital after the fall of state capitalist economies, they have failed to solve any problem of the broad masses, rather accentuated the old problems of poverty, inequality and hunger. Therefore, the intellectual lackeys of the capitalists, who, jubilant witnessing the return of capitalism had declared ‘the end of history’ after the fall of Soviet Union and proclaimed the final victory of capitalism, soon proved to be wrong. Their ‘hurray’ transformed into tragedy, their wise prediction failed miserably. Here in India, the communists who rightly revolted against reformism and parliamentarism and defied the revisionist leadership soon embraced left adventurism and subsequently gave birth to innumerable groups. These groups failed to elevate themselves to any meaningful intervening organization. Rather they were drowned into theoretical blunder and confusion. Those groups while continuing infights and failing in their repeated attempts to unite, became complacent with their self-satisfactory unique contribution and have finally made themselves irrelevant and almost exhausted. Not only in this country, the communists in the whole world have become marginalized. It needs continuous drive to assess and reassess all the inherited old positions and to seek for new orientation and positions through theoretical debates and practice. It also demands to re-study Marxism and stand firm on class standpoint. Undaunted and uncompromising fight is needed to resurrect the radical, libertarian enlightened principles and traditions of Marxism and to usher a new era of world communist movement. On the banner of revolt, to be unfurled today, the following principles deserve to be inscribed in bold relief:


Against attempts to make working class interests, positions and outlooks subservient to those of any nation, state, party, group or other class, the communists should again and again proclaim that they have no other interests than that of the working class and that in their theories and activities they are guided entirely and exclusively by the interests, positions and outlooks of the working class taken as a whole. Against attempts to orient the workers on national, regional, local or pragmatic lines, the communists while taking active part in issues relevant to workers and other oppressed masses must always uphold the international and long term interests of the working class. Against attempts to replace the role of the working class in its own emancipation by various self-style liberating agents, the communists must consistently advocate that emancipation of the working class or building socialism is impossible without the self-conscious activity of the proletarian masses from below—and that this activity can never be replaced by the agencies from above of whatever sort, however conscious, noble or correct, be it a party, group or individual. Against the claim of the majority of the communist organizations and their leaders that they are the sole repositories of working class consciousness and as such they are the only legitimate decision makers on behalf of the workers, and the working class, the communists should strongly maintain that such organizations or their leaders can never be the only repositories of workers’ consciousness and as such they have no right to monopolise the decision making process of the working class. On the contrary, communist organizations and their leaders should endeavour to consolidate, formulate and propagate the experiences that have been historically accumulated and are being spontaneously generated through class struggle and with it they should help in the process of the development of workers’ consciousness and in their capacity to take decision. Against the common practice of replacing the spontaneous activities of the proletarian masses by the Party commands and organizations, the communists should hold that the party while trying to organize the proletarian masses, should never replace their spontaneous activities. Party’s task lies in trying to guide or lead the working class in movement, but never in ruling over it. Against usurpation and monopolization of political power by the socalled Communist Parties and designating that power as proletarian power, the communists should boldly declare that the party power is not and can never be synonymous with workers’ state. They should boldly reiterate that without acquiring the minimum essence of the






fundamental features of proletarian power and democracy first exhibited in Paris Commune and then formulated by Karl Marx, there can be no question of proletarian power or state. vii) Against the claim of the various ruling Communist Parties and their supporters that in their regimes state ownership and control of the economy are respectively social ownership and control and as such they constitute the socialist economy, the communists should maintain that socialism as a social system means abolition of classes, state and exploitation; social ownership and control are totally incompatible with state ownership and control; and that socialism has not yet been achieved in any part of the world whatsoever.

Comrades, these principles of revolutionary Marxism express the objective tendencies and laws of the international working class struggle; therein lies their invincibility. In every part of our planet the objective reality of ongoing working class struggle is incessantly and indomitably challenging the falsifiers of Marxism. And under the impact of this class struggle revolutionary Marxist forces are coming up everywhere to take on the honourable task of resurrecting and upholding the traditions and principles of revolutionary Marxism. Today it is an indispensable task to help developing class struggle in the best possible way. In enunciating the above principles we have only attempted to frame the primary rallying ideas of the revolutionary Marxist forces. We know that many differences exist among these forces on many other points. We also recognize that a critical review of the Marxist theory and a development thereof are also very much called for today to deal with the new and complex problems of the society and class struggle that have come up. It is our firm conviction that agreement on the above principles will help us to come together initially as a step towards building up a camp of revolutionary socialists. On the one hand, it will help us in joining our forces in the battle for the revival of revolutionary Marxism, and, on the other hand, it will be a great step forward towards resolving our differences and achieving the much-needed development of our theory and practice. We, with all the warmth of our hearts, are looking forward to the day when the revolutionary Marxists all over the world will be associated internationally to hold aloft the banner of communism, the banner that is destined to become in the hands of the oppressed, the exploited, the wretched of the earth, the banner of inspiration, freedom and deliverance. Mazdoor Mukti 6 November 2006

Contact Address: Mazdoor Mukti P 494 A Keyatola Road, Kolkata 700029 E Mail ID: mazdoormukti@yahoo.com Contact person: Gautam Sen, Mobile: +91-94338 82799 Mira roy, Mobile: +91-98301 93003

We cannot therefore ally ourselves with the people who openly declare that the workers are too uneducated to free themselves and must first be liberated from above by Philanthropists by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois. As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one road open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving power of history, and in particular the class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution. It is, therefore impossible for us to co-operation with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement. When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working class themselves. Karl Marx Circular Letter, 1879

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful