The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century
Brussels, 4-6 May 2007
www.icsbrussels.org , ics[at]icsbrussels.org
The
Teachings of the November Revolution in the Context
of our Experiences of Party building
Manik Mukherjee
Socialist Unity Centre of India
Lenin said that, "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1, and at the same time he pointed out that the Communist Party is a vanguard detachment of the working class who would lead this revolution. He also said that "The role of the vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."1 These Leninist teachings are as much valid today as they were hundred years ago when Lenin enunciated them. We know that there would have been no November Revolution if the revolutionary party of the Russian working class was not there. So also the RSDLP (Bolsheviks) could not have been established, if the revolutionary theory of Marxism had not been concretized on the Russian soil by Lenin, and the theory and practice of proletarian revolution had not been concretely formulated by him. In the eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century, the ideas of Marxism and socialism were spreading rapidly through the length and breadth of Russia, Hundreds of Marxist circles and groups, claiming to be parties, were there cherishing the idea of socialism. Labour movements were also gaining strength. Ideas of "spontaneity", "economic struggle alone", "anarchism", "individual or group terrorism" were floating in the air. Lenin provided a concrete analysis of the prevailing situation of the period in 1901: "It must be confessed that the question of the character of the struggle and the means by which it is to be carried on – which is a fundamental question from a practical point – still remains unsettled and still gives rise to serious differences which reveal a deplorable uncertainty and ideological wavering."2 Thus Lenin put the question straight and simultaneously took up the historic responsibility of settling the fundamental question of the proletarian revolution.
Basing himself on the conclusions of Marx and Engels, and taking into consideration the experience of the revolutionary movement in the new epoch, Lenin scientifically worked out and elaborated a complete and integrated body of thought on the organization of Communist Party. Lenin had to wage relentless ideological battle within the RSDLP, particularly against the Mensheviks. Here he was fiercely against any compromise or capitulation. He even went to the extent of rupturing with the old RSDLP and formed a new party RSDLP(Bolsheviks), the genuine revolutionary party. Through long and protracted ideological and organizational struggle Lenin conclusively proved that, "In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the ‘lower depths’ of utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the proletariat can become, and will inevitably become, an invincible force only when its ideological unification by the principles of Marxism is consolidated by the material unity of an organization which will weld millions of workers to an army of the working class."3 Lenin also said that, "A social democrat* must never for a moment forget that the proletariat will inevitably have to wage a class struggle for socialism even against the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. This is beyond doubt. Hence the absolute necessity of a separate, independent, strictly class party of social democracy."4 Lenin expressed with absolute clarity and precision that, "The party is the politically conscious, advanced section of the class, it is its vanguard. The strength of that vanguard is ten times, a hundred times, more than a hundred times, greater than its numbers. Is that possible? Can the strength of hundreds be greater than the strength of thousands? It can be and is, when the hundreds are organized."5
This was the ‘party of a new type’, founded and led by Lenin – a party that had as its aim the conquest of political power by the proletariat, that spearheaded the revolutionary movement on the basis of correct ideology and correct practice, a party equipped with a revolutionary theory, united within itself by a combination of democracy and discipline and bound by close ties with the masses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In those days the term social democracy did not have the reactionary connotation as it does today. It was used in the sense of a progressive ideology with a revolutionary content.
These Leninist teachings, in fact, played as the pivot in our struggle to build up the Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI) as the genuine communist party in the country. Applying the basic teachings of Marxism to the concrete situations existing in the Indian soil, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh, founder General Secretary of SUCI further developed the understanding of the Leninist model of Party building. Our party SUCI grew out of the anti-colonial, nationalist revolutionary current in the glorious anti-imperialist struggle of the Indian people against the British rule. The great November Revolution in Soviet Russia made a deep imprint on various sections of the Indian people engaged in the freedom movement. Many people came forward with the dream of building a revolutionary party on the Indian soil. Their sincerity and sacrifice, physical and intellectual endeavour were exemplary. Communist Party of India (CPI) was established; other parties were Revolutionary Socialist Party of India (RSP), Gadar Party, Revolutionary Communist Party of India (RCPI), Bolshevik Party, etc.. But none could show the correct path to proletarian revolution in a colonial country through a concrete analysis of the Indian situation. CPI became the biggest party. It got the recognition of the international communist movement and could draw into its fold the best sons and daughters of the soil. But to Comrade Shibdas Ghosh CPI was never a revolutionary party. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh and his close compatriots, who were militant fighters in the uncompromising revolutionary stream of the anti-imperialist struggle, came to the conclusion that the then CPI was not a genuine working class party which could lead the people in the revolutionary struggle for emancipation and establishment of socialism. Comrade Ghosh came to the above conclusion about CPI not just because the CPI had committed so many mistakes in the formulation and implementation of its political line during the freedom struggle. The mistakes were of a fundamental nature so that the Indian bourgeoisie took over the leadership of the movement and the people’s aspiration for freedom was belied. The mistakes stemmed from an utter failure to grasp the correct Marxist outlook, method of analysis and method of application. Through his brilliant analysis he showed that the CPI had never followed the correct Leninist process of dialectical methodology in the process of building up the party and in its process of thinking and action. It had never adhered to the process of democratic centralism; in fact it was nothing more than a petit bourgeois party which could not be reformed to a true Communist Party.
So he set himself to the task of building up a new party. He said that "without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary party. But by revolutionary theory Lenin did not mean just the political programme and policies of a party; he actually meant a complete epistemological category developed by the central leadership of the party by dialectically coordinating the understanding and experiences of different branches of knowledge including science and covering all aspects of life."6 Taking lessons from the experiences in the Indian struggle and correctly evaluating the past mistakes and failures of the working class movement in India, Comrade Ghosh and a few others, on May Day, 1946, formed a ‘Platform of Action’ with a party content before giving a structural shape of the party in the process of concretizing Marxism-Leninism on the Indian soil. This was the first phase of building up the SUCI. This ‘Platform of Action’ was developed as an instrument for the unification of the socialist forces that would identify their interest completely with that of the working class without reservation and would pledge themselves to carry forward the revolution on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, socialism and communism as against capitalism, imperialism and fascism. In this process, further developing the Leninist teachings on party building, he enunciated that three primary conditions are to be fulfilled for the formation of a communist party. "First, those who have taken the lead in forming the party would have to lay the foundation of ideological centralism first among themselves through a socialist movement based on dialectical materialism, covering all aspects, including the minutest details of their personal lives."7 Second, "it is always to be borne in mind that the struggle for developing a concrete concept of collective leadership is, in essence, the primary struggle to build up a communist party. For this, unless ideological centralism, that is to say, one process of thinking, uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach, singleness of purpose has been developed, the concrete conception and personified expression of collective leadership within the party cannot be made possible at all. And unless this condition is fulfilled, it is to be understood that the time has not yet come to give a final organizational shape to the party."7 Elaborating on Lenin’s teaching that collective knowledge of all the members of the party is collective leadership he said that collective leadership in a communist party does not mean following the method of committee decision. "… the collective knowledge is the knowledge derived from the struggles conducted by the leaders, workers, the rank and file, the class and the masses, personified and concretized in the best way in a person in the highest organ of the party. And only when such a personification of the collective knowledge and experience of the party takes a concrete shape, is an objective condition created inside the party for elimination of individualism, individual leadership and groupism from the party life, and the party can be said to have established the norms of proletarian democracy and given birth to collective leadership only at this stage."8 "The emergence of Lenin’s leadership in the Russian Bolshevik Party or that of Mao Zedong in the Communist Party of China is nothing but the emergence of the collective leadership in its concrete form in those parties."8 Third, "through relentless and painstaking struggle a band of professional revolutionaries is to be developed from among the leaders and cadres who have taken up the cause of formation of a revolutionary working class party."7 By ‘professional revolutionary’ he did not mean a paid whole-time worker. Professional revolutionaries are those who constitute the most advanced section of the militant and class conscious proletariat, who by engaging themselves constantly in the very many complex battles of the revolutionary life, happily, unwaveringly and without any reservation, by rising above all their personal considerations, needs and difficulties, can identify themselves with the interest of the working class, revolution and the party, placing themselves at the complete disposal of the party. Lenin said, "I assert : (1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders maintaining continuity; ….. that the organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; (4) that in an autocratic state, the more we confine membership of such an organization to professional revolutionaries trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult it will be to unearth the organization."1 Thus Lenin talked about the idea of professional revolutionaries in the context of the working of the underground party in the Czarist Russia. They were the revolutionaries who were prepared to lay down their lives in the cause of the party to further the revolution. Elaborating Lenin’s idea further Comrade Ghosh said that today being a professional revolutionary is inseparable linked with the struggle to attain the communist character.
He always emphasized the importance of intense and continuous ideological struggle within the party to raise the revolutionary consciousness and cultural standard of the leaders and cadres of the party covering all aspects of life even in the minutest details. The struggle is to attain the proletarian cultural standard which really means to free oneself of all sorts of private property mental complex. "It is necessary that the leaders should involve the party comrades in constant common association, constant common discussion and constant common activity so that the comrades can find answers to their every problem in minutest detail and the struggle to acquire communist ethics and culture gets strengthened."9
Another point to which Comrade Ghosh placed great importance is that the existence of groups is impossible in a genuine communist party; "A genuine communist party never tolerates any tendency of groupism inside the party, because groups means parallels and existence of parallel trends of thought in it, which is a characteristic feature of bourgeois parties."10 In the context of ideological struggle within the party, Comrade Ghosh pointed out the fallacy of the Lin Biao line adopted at the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China that there would always be two-line struggle within the party – struggle between the bourgeois line and the proletarian line, remarking that in that case the working class party cannot be called the vanguard detachment of the proletariat. Differences may arise within a genuine communist party. "But such a difference is a difference or contradiction of ideas, views and experiences of the individuals of the party within the framework of the same methodological approach or trend of thinking. But existence of such differences or contradictions within a communist party does never mean existence of different trends of thinking."11 Such differences or contradictions have to be resolved through intense ideological struggles. But this is not to be viewed as a struggle between class enemies. "Rather we are to conduct the struggle in such a manner that not only the mutual relation between the comrades is not impaired, on the contrary, the understanding between them becomes clearer, their relation closer, and the unity of the party cemented further through correct resolution of the contradiction, further strengthening the party in the process. So, we are to fight till complete resolution of the specific question, but do it in the framework of overall unity of the party – such is the character of this struggle."12 With these thoughts, after ideological and organizational struggles carried out along these lines from the ‘Platform of Action’ from May 1946, and only after fulfilling the essential preconditions did the Party emerge through the founding convention on April 24, 1948.
In Lenin’s days bourgeois humanism had not reached the totally decadent stage that it has today. Now its role is completely exhausted and the sense of individualism and freedom of the individual which once played such an important role in liberating man from feudal shackles has appeared as a great danger in all progressive movements. The pernicious effects of individualism are a menace not only for socialist movements, but are corrupting even the liberal democratic values. Building up our party at this time Comrade Shibdas Ghosh pointed out that in this period of total decadence of bourgeois humanist values a new and higher standard of character, a deeper realization of communist ethics and morality is demanded of the leaders and cadres of the communist movement. If we merely try to copy what Lenin said, or what Mao said this is bound to end up in failure. In industrially advanced countries like UK, USA, or even India, the problem of individualism has assumed a very acute form; the bourgeois sense of liberty has turned into a privilege. He remarked, "Is it possible to fight out individualism in a country like India, where it has taken an acute form and appeared as an exceedingly complex problem, with the same standard of communist character with which it was possible to accomplish revolution in Russia or China, where the bourgeois sense of values had not become completely exhausted in the pre-revolutionary period?"13 He said that in earlier times the highest standard of communist consciousness was considered to be "to surrender unconditionally and happily the individual interest to the social interest, place the cause of revolution and party above all and subordinate individual interest to the cause of revolution and party….But this cannot be considered as the adequate standard for leading communists in the newer complexities of present-day life."14…Today "a more intense and arduous struggle is to be conducted for complete identification (italics added) of self interest with the interest of society with unflagging dedication and constant vigil."15 He further said, "…surrendering personal interest to social interest is not the same as identification of personal interest with social interest. The question of surrendering personal interest presupposes separate existence of personal interest. But when personal interest is identified with social interest, it no longer exists as a separate entity."16… "It is a struggle in the realm of ethics."16
Comrade Ghosh underscored the importance of fight against individualism in a socialist society. For, as long as the state exists, even if it is a socialist one, it exists as an instrument of coercion. He said: "Even in socialism the individual must have to submit to the social interest, and the trend of revolt against the repressive character of the socialist state would appear repeatedly in the individuals….Time and again the individual would revolt and his indifferent attitude towards social problems would grow more and more. As a result, the appeal of the nobility of communist ideology and the power of communist dedication would lose their attraction, or it would lead to the trend of liberalization….And if this process continues, then this would give birth to revisionism and that would only help in the restoration of capitalism."17 Comrade Ghosh showed that it is the lowering of standard of communist consciousness that is mainly responsible for revisionism to appear and eventually usurp the leadership in socialist Soviet Russia. Of course this could happen because the material conditions, the economic ingredients, conducive to breeding of revisionism existed in the form of dormant seeds of capitalism within the socialist economy. And due to deficiency in the ideological sphere these dormant seeds got revived and sprouted up. The great leader of the proletariat Comrade Stalin was pointing to this danger when he was discussing in the 19th Congress of CPSU the need to fight out the private property sense. In China too Comrade Mao ushered in the Cultural Revolution to raise the ideological standard of the leaders and cadres and the people as a whole. But this legacy was discarded by the revisionist leadership of Khruschev and Deng which ultimately led to restoration of capitalism in Soviet Russia and China.
Following the process of conducting intense socialist ideological struggles among the leaders and cadres, building up a band of professional revolutionaries committed to the struggle of identifying the individual interest to the social interest, laying the foundation of democratic centralism, conducting study circles, study classes and schools of politics among different sections of the toiling people, upholding the nobility of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and developing an epistemological category encompassing all branches of knowledge and science, Comrade Ghosh shaped out the party.
Throughout the fiftynine years of its existence the party has carried out uncompromising struggles involving workers, poor peasants, agricultural labourers and all sections of toiling masses. It built up trade unions in industries and mass fronts among peasants, students, youths and women. It has made untiring efforts to forge a broad based unity of all left and democratic parties and forces and to build up country-wide powerful, militant people’s movements. Following Comrade Ghosh’s teachings it is trying to build up people’s committees and volunteer corps to conduct movements for combating various problems in their daily lives, with the object of giving birth to people’s alternative power. At the same time it is carrying out incessant inner party struggle to elevate the political-ethical-moral-cultural standards of its cadres and leaders. Through its ideology and actions it has earned the confidence of the struggling masses and from a handful of comrades at its inception the party has expanded to a mighty organization today.
Like all other genuine communist parties our party considers itself to be an inseparable part and parcel of the international communist movement and it always tries to hold aloft the banner of proletarian internationalism. In each and every issue in the international arena our party, under the leadership of Comrade Ghosh defended socialism, communism and international solidarity of the working class; at the same time with a spirit of self-criticism Comrade Ghosh pointed out any shortcoming perceived by our party - be it on the handling of Marshal Tito’s deviation, or the revisionist traits manifested in the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of Soviet Russia, or the Hungary crisis, or Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization drive, or the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, or the revisionist line of the Communist Party of China after the demise of Comrade Mao Ze Dong – with the sole objective of strengthening the international communist movement. Our party emphasizes that to carry the world socialist movement forward we should have a correct understanding of the changes in world situation and their significance. We hold that the class positions and class contradictions that exist today are basically the same as in Lenin’s time. Historically we are still in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. The great changes that have taken place in the recent past are the dismantling of socialism in Soviet Russia and the East European countries and the disintegration of the socialist camp consequent upon the counter-revolution in Soviet Russia. The imperialist camp became bolder after these events, but this does not change Lenin’s formulation.
We firmly believe that to resist the onslaught of imperialism broad-based people’s fronts must be built up and consolidated in all countries with communists at the core. While building up effective people’s resistance through such broad based anti-imperialist fronts, through continuous ideological struggles and exchange of opinions we should strive to arrive at a uniformity of understanding and advance towards the goal of socialism. We are making an appeal for a global coordination of anti-imperialist movements in different countries. Only such globally coordinated movements on a firm ideological base can drive away the disarray and frustration in the socialist movement and infuse it with revolutionary fervour.
References