2003 and re-asserting the
points therein. We will not repeat the points mentioned in the People’s March
critique but merely deal with the points at a larger plane, and the implication
that these have on tactics against the enemy.
Here we will deal
with the question of class analysis (pt II in the article) then come to the
question of UF and tactics (dealt within point 1 of the AWTW article, printed in
2005/31) and lastly deal with the question of ideology in the same three points
that the article has taken up.
1) Question of Class
Analysis
After once again
denying that the CoRIM views the WSF as an "anti-imperialist organisation" the
entire section II. Class Analysis of the WSF, does not anywhere take a
clear-cut stand on the class character of the WSF. It deals with a number of
other factors but does not conclude what is its class content. Any real
revolutionary tactics can only follow first from an understanding as to the
class nature of the WSF. Afterall, to have a thorough understanding of the class
forces at play in any given situation is a pre-requisite for devising correct
tactics. This is fundamental to the issue, but the AWTW article seeks too
obfuscate the issue. Let us see what it says regarding the class character of
WSF and its leadership.
Firstly, the closest
the article comes to defining the class content of the WSF is in the earlier
section where it says that "There are many arenas in which leadership is in
the hands of opponents of proletarian revolution…….". This is a very vague
statement as opponents of proletarian revolution can be pro-imperialist,
but they can also be petti-bourgeois revolutionaries, petti-bourgeois
reformists, national bourgeois, etc. It is fundamental to understand what the
exact class nature is if we are to devise correct tactics. It is not correct to
lump all non-proletarian class forces together for devising tactics as then the
proletariat will not be able to differentiate between those non-proletarian
forces that may be positive and those reactionary. Also the statement says that
there are many arenas where the leadership is in the hands of opponents of
proletarian revolution. It is not clear which these are. It should be
clearly stated, otherwise all such statements made, only add to the confusion.
The methodology
adopted by the author of the article, particularly in this section, is that in
order to avoid making a clear-cut stand it takes subsidiary issues and makes
these the basis of giving a picture of the WSF. Like it says that, some of
the leaders or financial backers of the WSF do see it…. as "a safety valve" for
the imperialist system. But what about the overall leadership!! Do some of
the leadership not see it as a "safety-valve". It would be best if the AWTW
identified these leaders. Such an eclectic approach is visible throughout —
some of the leaders, many arenas in which leadership, etc, must be
qualified with what is the principle character of the leadership and the line
that it gives the WSF. Without understanding the principle aspect of an entity
it is impossible to have a full understanding of it.
So, without analyzing
all the forces in the WSF leadership and the programme of the WSF, it merely
makes a reference to one of its constituents, that too somewhat favourably. It
gives a clean chit to ATTAC and is silent on the ruling-class social democrats
and NGOs that basically wield control over it. Even assuming there is a debate
on ATTAC what about all the other forces and financiers? At the International
plane there is Lula’s party, Social-democratic leaders/ministers from Europe,
etc., and in India there was the CPI/CPM that dominates these bodies in
conjunctions with high-flying NGOs. Why is the AWTW article still silent about
these forces in the leadership of the WSF? Also why again does not the article
say a word on the role of these imperialist-funded NGOs which have become a
major weapon to infiltrate the poor and their movements to divert them from the
revolutionary path? Also why is it silent on the massive source of funds to the
WSF from well established imperialist agencies? Finally not a word is mentioned
on the WSF programme and structure. No doubt many positive elements have been
associated with the WSF; but it is not these that determine its class character
— that is decided by its leadership.
One would have
expected that these issues would have been analysed to get to the class
character of the WSF. But this is not done but instead takes up a number of
issues that seeks to divert from such an analysis. In fact in section II which
is entitled Class Analysis of the WSF, it does not even make an attempt
to analyse the class character of the WSF, and mostly deals with other factors,
which too we shall discuss below. People’s March (as also Aspects of Indian
Economy) has had a series of articles analysing the WSF, NGOs and even the
elements that dominated the Mumbai WSF event. No such attempt is made either to
counter those detailed analyses or to do an independent analysis. Without a
proper understanding into its class essence, what tactics can it devise?
Now let us look at
the numerous issues most of which are unrelated to the issue of the Class
Analysis of the WSF:
1
Question of practice: In this same
section the AWTW article says: Nowhere is PM’s confusion more evident than in
the way it tries to distinguish the armed struggles led by forces such as the
armed social-democrats of the EZLN in Mexico (the Zapatistas) and the armed
revisionists of the FARC in Columbia from the kind of generally unarmed
social-democrat and revisionist forces playing a leading role in the WSF.
Whether one pressures the existing state structures through a single dramatic
armed action followed by a decade of seeking a negotiated participation in the
reactionary state machinery, as the EZLN has done, or whether one tries more
consistently to advance one’s goals through strikes or elections, as some WSF
leaders have done, is really not a fundamental distinction. Revolutionaries,
reformists and counter-revolutionaries alike can use violence or relatively
peaceful forms of struggle, such as negotiations, strikes or gheraoes (mass
encirclements). What fundamentally distinguishes one from another is what line,
what strategy, and what objectives are followed by a political grouping and the
different tactics that flow from this. It is reversing cause and effect to focus
on the armed or unarmed nature of a given political force and then try on that
basis to extrapolate its political nature. Here we have quoted at length as
this point is given much importance and repeated in a number of places.
Firstly it goes
without saying that for there to be real/radical change in the system it must be
led by genuine proletarian forces which today are those that have MLM as their
guidance, adopt a revolutionary political/organizational/military line and have
serious practice on that basis. On this there is no debate.
But, to merely say
the above is an absolutist approach to the question. Marxist dialectics teaches
us that nothing in this world is absolute; everything is relative. An absolutist
approach goes against dialectics. One divides into two and every phenomena, when
broken down will have two aspects ……. the positive and the negative. An
absolutist approach does not try and understand the aspects at play but only
looks at the phenomena as it finally appears. It does not understand that all
phenomena are in a process of continuous change due to the unity and struggle of
opposites within it. It is only by understanding these aspects in struggle can
communist intervention help the process of transformation and development of all
forces in the interests of revolution. Not to see this results in an academic
approach which serves little tactical purpose. And without tactics no strategy
can be implemented.
So in order to have
correct tactics we must study such political formations in depth, and not lump
all in one category. Though none of the forces mentioned above may have a
revolutionary programme (and also they are not reactionaries), for the sake of
tactics it is necessary to study their practice and role in class struggle. So,
non-proletarian forces involved in people’s movements, can be of various kinds:
those involved in armed struggle against an imperialist power; those involved in
militant actions and strikes; those involved in mere reform work, those involved
only in TU negotiations and passive economism; those involved merely in
electioneering; etc etc. ( we are not even considering those floated by
reactionaries to divert movements and act as safety valves) Quite naturally the
former type which are more deeply and actively involved in the class struggle
have a more positive element to them while the latter are more negative. More in
depth analysis of each in relation to the on-going class struggle would also be
necessary to understand the specificity in each case. Such analysis is
fundamental if we are to devise correct tactics to win over the maximum force to
the revolution and build effective UFs. Besides, at any one time it is necessary
to pin-point the principal enemy and unite all forces fighting against it, under
proletarian leadership. The problem with the AWTW approach is that it negates
the need to understand the role of such forces in the on-going class struggles.
So, it equates the WSF carnival with the struggles at the barricades, it lumps
together, strike activity and election politics; strikes/gheraos and
negotiations; and finally peaceful and violent struggles. So in reality, however
compromising they may be politically, the armed struggles in Columbian and
Chiapas is directed against America for which hundreds have given their lives.
The US is determined to crush them either with guns or through peace talks.
There too lakhs are taking part (not just in the WSF), most of whom are the most
oppressed. Even if the AWTW is unable to distinguish between these, the
imperialists and reactionaries do — brutally crushing the violent and militant,
while pampering the peaceful and reformist.
The practical role in
the class struggle is an important criteria to assess forces for any tactics.
Mere repetition of strategic concepts without having tactical plans is abstract
and counter-productive.
Finally to conclude
this section, we repeat once again that it is the leadership that gives the
class character of any organization as it is they who set the line for the
organization, its structure, its orientation, etc etc. For this reason as the
WSF leadership is basically pro-imperialist it has that class character and acts
as a safety-valve to diffuse the ongoing struggle against imperialism. But as
regards its constituents many will be positive forces. In concrete struggle
activities we shall definitively unite with them on the streets. We do not
therefore put in the same category much of the rank-and-file of these
organization and the masses being rallied by the hundreds of organizations, in
the same category as the leadership. Our entire approach has been to precisely
bring these forces out of the ideological influence of the WSF leadership.
II Question of
Intervention and UF
Regarding the
question of "participation" in the WSF the AWTW article says: The fact of the
matter is that tens of thousands of leaflets with a revolutionary orientation
were distributed at the WSF by forces associated with RIM. Wasn’t this a good
thing? No doubt it was. But how effective was it given each of the hundreds
of organisations also distributed such leaflets on a big scale. The involvement
of revolutionaries in MR did not in anyway restrict such propaganda. Infact as
already mentioned in the PM article CCOMPOSA and others such organisations also
distributed leaflets in both the programmes. They even booked stalls for the
sale of their literature within the WSF. Forces associated with the sponsors of
the MR even went the venue of the WSF to raise questions, etc and participate in
the debates, though not officially.
Carrying
revolutionary propaganda is only one aspect of political intervention, and not
the most important. The main point is the need also for political and
organizational consolidation and a deepening of the struggle against imperialism
with a long term perspective. This is to be done, not only at the Party level
which is mentioned in the CoRIM letter, but also at the UF level. What CoRIM and
the AWTW article seems to ignore is the latter. In this case it would mean
political and organizational consolidation of the maximum number of
anti-imperialist forces on the programme set by the revolutionaries and to draw
them from the sphere of endless debates to actual struggles against imperialism.
This would have been impossible from within the WSF given its structure,
controls, politics and amorphousness. So, the need for an MR type programme to
facilitate the building of an alternative pole within the anti-imperialist
movement. In organizing it there may have been some lacunae; that is not the
point. This can always be improved with more experience. The point is the
perspective and the class standpoint to be taken, propagated and consolidated.
It is only through such a process that the anti-imperialist struggle can grow in
a spiral like way — both in its extent and in depth.
The problem with both
the RIM letter and the AWTW article is that it does not see the need for uniting
with all anti-imperialist forces on a minimum programme, but only sees the need
to propagate the "revolutionary line", that too mostly in abstraction. In the
present case pushing the "revolutionary line" would entail a thoroughgoing
exposure of the WSF and then presenting an alternative. In addition the CoRIM
does not seek to try and analyse the affectivity of such intervention in real
practice. Good intentions and "pure" politics serve little purpose unless they
are linked to the concrete practice of advancing the class struggle at the
ground level and thorough-going and concrete political exposures and solid
organisational consolidation of all positive forces against the main enemy.
In this section the
AWTW article does admit that It is true, but tautological, to argue that the
possibility of putting forward a revolutionary viewpoint will be greater in
forums organised by revolutionaries. But it is also a fact that in
its approach the AWTW tends to put both WSF and MR in a similar bracket
eulogizing in fact the thousands that come for the WSF with little or no mention
of the political advantages to have been gained from the MR. On the contrary its
political standpoint on MR has, in essence, been viewed as being over-critical
of the WSF (as on the question of the WSF slogan, postmodernism, analysis of
ATTAC, etc). In effect the approach of AWTW is to focus on the WSF and giving no
real role to the MR-type event. Overall this comes from a positive approach to
the WSF and not, in real terms, considering it as some form of "an
anti-imperialist organisation". That is why even in section II it avoids a
clear-cut stand. That is why it wanted MR to tone down its criticism of WSF.
But, if it did that, the very reason for holding the MR event would cease to
exist.
Then again, as in
Section II, the AWTW article says: From the days of Marx and Engels to the
present, communists have participated in trade unions, co-operatives, cultural
associations, organisational committees for political campaigns, etc. - the list
is endless. And then adds: no serious revolutionary movement in any
country can avoid intervening in diverse forms and organisations. So the
question of the leadership of an organisation alone cannot answer the question
of whether or not it is correct for communists to participate in a given
political event. We have no argument with this whatsoever. The point however
is can a political platform like WSF, floated by its sponsors, be compared to
the trade unions, co-operatives, cultural associations, organisational
committees for political campaigns, etc. We think not. In addition what
should be the nature of the intervention? Let us look at both these points:
The WSF is a
political platform set up by its sponsors and financiers while the other
organizations are those of the workers to fight for their interests. How can the
two be compared? They are quite different. The former is set up for a political
purpose while the latter come up in the course of the struggles of the working
class against the bourgeoisie. So, the method of intervention will quite
obviously be different. On the question of the nature of the intervention, MR
too was a method of intervention. The propagation of revolutionary politics was
not done by MR but by the parties directly and their literature. This was done
widely in both MR and WSF independently of the MR constituents. So, what AWTW/RIM
says should have been the main task was anyhow done. But the point was how best
to effectively expose the fake opposition of the WSF leadership and help the
process of developing an alternative and genuine anti-imperialist pole within
the anti-globalisation movement. This was best done from without the WSF than
from within. One reason for this being that from within it was not possible to
draw clear lines of demarcation as numerous trends exist. Earlier dissent from
within at the Porto Alegere has shown this. Besides, the very structure of WSF
would not allow effective opposition to the political content. Secondly, anarchy
reigns at the WSF (for the participants, not the leadership who run the show and
plan the major political content), so the consolidation of positive forces is
not possible within the WSF. Thirdly the MR created a platform for all those
anti-imperialist forces that saw through the hoax of the anti-imperialism of the
ruling social-democrats and the NGOs. Fourthly, it was able to pose this
alternative internationally and throughout India on a large scale to those who
even went to the WSF.
There is no
all-encompassing theory on how and when to intervene in on-going events. No
generalizations in such questions help develop creative tactics. The important
question must be a clear-cut class approach to the events (in this case the WSF)
and clear cut aims and plans on how best to use the situation to intensify the
class struggle (in this case the anti-imperialist struggle); which entails the
most effective process for political exposure, organizational consolidation (at
various levels ……….. party, UF, etc) and intensified struggles. The tactics in a
given situation will be determined by these factors. With the AWTW/RIM vague on
its stand towards the WSF and with no approach for uniting all anti-imperialist
forces to create a genuine anti-imperialist pole within the on-going movement,
it is reduced to the one point approach of merely propagating the MLM ‘line’
within the WSF (and MR). There can be no real MLM "line" on this issue (or for
that matter any issue) without a clear-cut class analysis on the event being
dealt with!!!.
III The Question of
Ideology
When the PM article
has already clarified the CoRIM accusation that "in MR rejection of
post-modernism a pre-requisite for unity in what should be a united front effort
like Mumbai Resistance can only lead to unnecessary divisiveness", we wonder
why this is repeated in the AWTW article. Nowhere was this made a criteria, the
point made in the PM article was that post-modernism is a dangerous anti-Marxist
ideology and should be widely attacked and there should be no ban on attacking
it in MR as suggested in the RIM letter.
In fact this entire
section on "ideology" has only created a bogey unconnected to what PM has ever
said (regarding MR there certainly may have been some flaws in the method of
building a broad front) as there has been no question of denying that there
are different ideologies that are contending within the movement of opposition
to globalization and that there was need for communist intervention. It has
been explained earlier and repeated now how this was also done. The point to be
repeated is that this can only be done not by repeating again and again the need
for independent ideological work, but by a concrete class analysis of WSF
and a political and organizational plan for the consolidation and
intensification of a genuine anti-imperialist movement.
Further, to deflect
from the serious political error in RIM’s approach the AWTW article has now
raised some extraneous issue of: danger of forgetting the role of communists
in presenting and fighting for their ideology and instead looking for some sort
of "united front" or "anti-imperialist" ideology. Such a search is both illusory
and dangerous. This has never been raised or implied anywhere by PM
articles. Let us repeat the point on the question of UF tactics and the question
of ideology.
While not repeating
the arguments detailedly explained in the PM article to thoroughly expose the
politics of the WSF (its programme, its central slogan, its anarchical method,
its ideologies, etc) we re-assert that it is necessary to unite with all forces
genuinely fighting imperialism, while at the same time exposing and struggling
against their short-comings, inconsistencies, and ideological deviations. Today,
in this period of the all-round and massive offence of imperialism on the
backward countries of the world many forces and various sections of the people
are rising against it. These may be post-modernist, Islamic, Gandhian, liberal
Marxists, Trotskyites, nationality and other patriotic forces, etc. Whatever
their ideology their basic class content is petti-bourgeois and in some cases
maybe national bourgeois. Yet, all these should not be equated and given equal
importance, and they should be gauged by the extent and depth of their actual
practice in fighting imperialism at the ground level. Proletarian forces must
unite with them against the common enemy after due consideration of their actual
role in the struggles against the varied aspects of the imperialist offensive.
And while doing so they must struggle against their incorrect ideologies,
whether it is postmodernist, Islamic, Gandhian, Trotskite, etc. Nowhere has it
been raised that there should be some sort of "united front" or
"anti-imperialist" ideology.
It must be remembered
that these NGOs and social-democrats and for that matter the WSF’s important aim
(besides others) is to create a wedge between the revolutionaries and other
democratic and progressive sections, to isolate the revolutionaries, making it
easier for them to be crushed. We should not fall into their trap either through
a sectarian or a tailist approach. The WSF has a clear-cut ideological agenda —
that "another world is possible" without struggle or revolution. This too is the
consistent agenda of the NGOs and social democrats. It is this agenda that has
to be clearly countered, and in the most effective and thorough-going manner
possible. People’s March, in its series of articles, as also Aspects of Indian
Economy in its special issue, to a large extent attempted this. No such attempt
is seen in AWTW.
One last point that
the AWTW article mentions in a "Footnote" which says Actually PM refers to
"the leadership" of any organisation and not the line. While the question of
leadership and line are closely intertwined, it is in our opinion more correct
to focus on the question of political and ideological line. Now this is
splitting hairs. Who sets the political and ideological line? The
leadership or the rank-and-file of any organization? When we speak of leadership
it also entails the line that they set for the organization. Besides, the
AWTW/RIM has nowhere tried even to analyse the line, programme, constitution,
etc of the WSF. This has been analysed at length in earlier PM articles.
Besides, merely setting a line in abstraction is of little significance
if it is not clearly linked to practice. There is often much radical talk
(particularly this has been so in India) but little practice in that direction.
Conclusion
In conclusion we
would appeal to the CoRIM to come out with its clear-cut stand on the programme
of the WSF as well as on post-modernism and the NGOs flooding the world, instead
of indulging in abstract analysis and referring to points unrelated to the
subject or to the standpoint expressed in the PM articles. We hope that it
clearly states how to practically go about uniting the maximum forces in the
given situation, while thoroughly exposing the leadership of the NGOs and
social-democrats, to build the most effective and widest possible front against
the imperialists, particularly US imperialism, under proletarian leadership.
Given the vicious offensive of imperialist globalization, this is the burning
need of the day.
January 1, 2006
