Indian movements won’t connect the dots…yet
Indian movements won’t connect the dots…yet
by Prairie Fire
An interview with G.N. Saibaba has been circulating the internet. According to a reactionary blog, Fire on the Mountain, “Saibaba is 40 years old. He was born in Andhra Pradesh, a Southern state in India. He lives in Delhi now. He is the Deputy Secretary of the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), an All Indian Federation of Revolutionary People’s Organisations.”(1)
This interview is typical of what we’ve read in documents by the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The orientations of such documents are generally closer to Leading Light Communism than documents by other parties on the international scene claiming to be Maoist. Perhaps the reason that “traditional Maoism” is popular in India is because Charu Mazumdar, one of the founders of the Naxalite movement, was a follower of Lin Biao. Even though various fakes have been circulating Indian documents in order to boost their own prestige, the views often expressed are closer to that of Lin Biao’s Long Live the Victory of People’s War! It is certain that the more discerning of the fakes are keen to the fact that most of their readers won’t see these disconnects. Such is the behavior of those who unite around a fan club approach. Contrary to this, we do not willy-nilly circulate Third World documents for opportunist reasons. We have several criticisms of this document.
In the interview, Saibaba places great emphasis on the role of bourgeois ideology and bourgeois infiltration in capitalist restoration.
Saibaba: “..The Maoists believe that the demise of socialist construction in Russia and China was mainly due to the revisionist line that developed within the respective Communist Parties of those countries. The capitalist-roaders in Russia and China captured power back from the working class because those parties could not guard against the infiltration of the bourgeoisie into the proletarian parties. The failure of the socialist projects have taught important lessons to the international proletariat in carrying forward the class struggle against the bourgeoisie in various countries and the monopoly bourgeoisie at the international level. In no country in the world has class struggle succeeded without armed struggle.” (2)
The police paradigm, connected to the “coup” non-explanation, of capitalist restoration is inadequate. It fails to grasp the structural inequalities in socialism that continually generate a new bourgeoisie within the party and state. Even if a Communist Party discovered a way to prevent bourgeois infiltration, the inequalities implied in socialism itself will continually generate bourgeois privileges and accompanying reactionary ideologies. If not addressed, the nature of the party and state transform from instruments of proletarian rule to instruments of bourgeois rule. The police paradigm is probably the least valuable tool in understanding the reversal of socialism. The best way to understand capitalist restoration is through understanding structural causes and ideological causes.
Saibaba: “..Unfortunately in many of the European countries as well as in some of the third world countries today, extraneous class ideologies have been creeping in, in the name of “21st century democracy,” “liberal organising principles” and acceptance of a “multiparty system.” Even within the policies of the Communist Parties, the need today is to drive them towards Bolshevisation, Leninist Parties which can lead the proletariat to victories in the process of which lessons can be drawn from the earlier failures which should be understood as temporary setback for the world proletariat in the long historical onward march.” (3)
In the above passage, a pure ideological account without a structural analysis ends up in pure metaphysics. Rather than attributing the European revolutionary “setbacks” to structural causes, the passage just assumes that the main problem is ideological. Thinking people are well aware that the main reason for the absolute lack of proletarian revolutions in the First World is because the vast majority in the First World is not exploited in any meaningful sense. The wretched of the Earth barely exist in the First World.
The failure by Third World movements to understand global class structure scientifically is itself a product of bourgeois ideology; it is a result of upholding a globalized version of the Theory of Productive Forces.
Saibaba: “30 percent of Indian population live in urban and semi-urban areas and 70 percent in the countryside. Overall, about 77% of the people live on Rs. 20/- a day i.e. half a US dollar a day on an average. Unemployment is rampant in every part of India..”(4)
Contrast Indian poverty to wealth in the United States. A rough figure for median personal income per workday for people (working and non-working) in the United States over 15 years of age is $119.03 (roughly Rs. 4,946.88). (5) Similar numbers can be found for European countries. The only way that one can see First Worlders as exploited is if one believes that First Worlders are entitled to more based not on their actual labor, but based on the supposed level of First World productive forces. Plus, such a false argument ignores the fact that productive labor hardly exists anymore in the United States. First World wage earners have more access to capital and a better standard of living than much of the Third World bourgeoisie. First World consumption is so decadent that it is not even sustainable ecologically. In the end, the First Worldist “argument” is that First Worlders are entitled to more simply because they are First Worlders. Pure chauvinism.
Ideology is not a main reason for First World “setbacks.” The First World is populated by social fascists, some even claiming to be Maoists. Even if all of these miniscule, social-fascist sects closed up shop in the United States, then joined the Obama campaign, there would be little change in the revolutionary situation on the ground. Hardly anyone in the United States would notice if PSL, WWP, ISO, CPUSA, RCPUSA, SL, etc. shut down their operations. The main damage being done by these social fascists is not in undermining a nonexistent revolutionary situation in the United States. Rather, the main damage done by these miniscule sects is their ideological impact on Third World movements, corrupting them with First Worldism. These miniscule sects have large resources because they are based in the First World; a social-fascist sect of 100 people can project onto the global stage an image of itself as a major party. Third World movements need to wise up; they need to realize that the vast majority in the First World has little interest in fake communists of any stripe. The vast majority in the First World has even less interest in actual proletarian movements, Leading Light movements.
The real reason for “setbacks” is understood by structural analysis, global class analysis. Individuals in the First World make many times more than individuals in Third World. Americans make hundreds of times more than Indians. Americans have a standard of living that is hardly imaginable in India. The reason there is no proletarian revolution in the First World is because there is no significant First World proletariat, no revolutionary class. Leading Lights have outgrown the moronic hype, utopianism, and dogmatism of the fakes. We reject their “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Ostrichism.” We admit that there is no great wave of First World revolutions on the horizon. Let’s get real. The burden is on revolutionaries in the First World to develop a viable revolutionary practice under these incredibly adverse conditions.
Saibaba: “There is an extremely favourable revolutionary situation in India and also in all the “third world” countries. In each of these countries, the domestic crisis is growing while international crisis is also growing. The “third world” countries need not wait for any third world war to accomplish their revolutions. There may not be a Third World War in the classical sense, even though Bush promises one. The conditions of war exist in different ways. The world is already in a type of war, but its shape is different now. For example, the US is fighting a military war against the people of Iraq and an economic war on the people of India, and both varieties of wars kill the people in the same magnitude. So why does the US need to declare war on India when the Indian ruling classes are willing to facilitate everything for the imperialists? The growing contradictions among the imperialist forces can quickly change from collusion to conflicts. The background is already prepared and the revolutionary situation is already ripe. It is the subjective forces of the communists that have to take advantage of the situation and strengthen their forces. The ruling class hegemony will be crushed in no time if the imperialists don’t come to their rescue in each of these countries when the revolutionary masses organise themselves. Similarly, a break in the imperialist chain anywhere will catch like wildfire and the irreversible collapses of the imperialist/monopoly bourgeois rule in the West will follow the suit. The proletarian parties in Europe and other parts of the West should prepare the ground before for this impending and indispensable eventuality soon.”(6)
What “break in the imperialist chain” does Saibaba envision? If he holds that world revolution begins in the weak links of imperialism, in the Third World, then we have no disagreement. The sun of world revolution rises in the East and sets in the West. What does Saibaba mean by the “collapse of the imperialist/monoply bourgeois rule in the West?” This is meaningful only if it includes nearly the entire West, the Western bourgeoisified populations as a whole.
Saibaba says that proletarian parties in the West should prepare the ground for the fall of the West. However, since there are no aboveground Leading Light parties in the West, Saibaba’s statement is meaningless or very misleading. Which “proletarian parties” are being referred to? Leading Lights are hoping to speed along the destruction of the First World. We believe that there are revolutionaries in India who will reject First Worldist ideology once and for all. We will see brave revolutionary movements dispense with the Theory of Productive Forces once and for all. “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Ostrichism” is the past. Leading Light Communism is the future.
1. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india.html 2. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india.html 3. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india_26.html 4. http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2008/03/inside-look-at-maoist-strategy-in-india_26.html