 |
Jaye Gaskia(With Microphone)
|
By
Jaye Gaskia
This is not going
to be a full paper, and as it says in the title it is just some preliminary
observations, still general, not yet specific!
There is a certain
strain [call it brand, trend etc if you may] of ‘Ultra-Leftism’ which has
always been around, which has always dogged the history of the global
revolutionary movement, and which is of course present here in the midst of our
own struggle for the revolutionary transformation of our country. Lenin
dismissed it as ‘an infantile disorder’, and wrote extensively about it. In the
end, and ultimately such ‘ultra-leftism always end in a most virulent form of
sectarianism – something that elevates itself above the real world, absolutises
itself, and dismisses every other effort as at best irrelevant, and at worst,
counter-revolutionary!
This ‘infantile
disorder’ [to use Lenin’s conception] starts by attempting to radically
redefine the nature and character of classes in oppressive societies; the
nature and character of the class struggle engendered by that oppression and
exploitation; and consequently the critical and essential role and place of
different classes in the struggle for national liberation and social
emancipation, which by the way since the advent of the state always goes on
hand in hand! There is no struggle for social emancipation which is not at once
also a struggle for national liberation! This is because the class struggle
within nations takes place within the same space and time as, and is an
integral part of the struggle of classes across nations and national
boundaries.
Capitalism
engenders a situation of both internal exploitation and domination of a ruling
class over other subordinate classes within a country; as well as that of the
external domination and exploitation of a country by other countries – the
phenomenon of imperialism. But this external domination occurs and is aided and
abetted by the more or less forced collaboration of the ruling classes of the
dominated country with the ruling classes of the dominating countries.
Enough of the
introductions at this point; Let us come back to the subject of ultra-left
pseudo radicalism! This ultra-leftism always aims at dismissing the
revolutionary potential and the leading role in the revolution against the
capitalist order of the working class. It does this by deliberately or
unconsciously conflating the class as a whole, the class as an heterogeneous
entity [the class in itself as well as the class for itself] with the various
strata and institutions/structures/organs of the class. So for example the the
trade unions as organs of the working class to mediate the rule of capital are
conflated with the class and substituted for the class at a more general level.
And at even more specific levels, the trade union bureaucracy and the emergent
labour aristocracy is substituted for the trade union, and ultimately for the
working class. So the general tendency of the aristocracy to seek accommodation
with capital [essentially because that is the organic role of the trade union
institution – it is not a substitute for a political party or platform]; then
it follows that the working class is no longer a revolutionary class and must
cede is vanguard role in the revolution against capitalism to other classes and
strata.
Thus begins the
rush and scramble to replace the working class, it’s historically conditioned
revolutionary potential and revolutionary role in the revolution to overcome
and transcend capitalism. All manner of candidate revolutionary classes and
stratas are then lined up; from the peasantry through the urban petit
bourgeoisie, radicalized middle class elements, the studentry [in the period of
their heightened radicalism], through to so-called progressive [in our case
progress-thief] bourgeois politicians!
In our student days
back in the mid 80s to the mid 90s of the last century, there were those [who
perhaps believing they would be formal students for ever] were very quick to
proclaim the studentry as the new revolutionary class to lead the struggle for
social emancipation! There were others who broadened the studentry to include
all youths, and faithfully proclaimed the youth strata of society as the
revolutionary class! And there were those who decided to look instead to the
peasant farmer in the rural areas and to de-class elements in the urban
ghettoes for the revolutionary substitute of the working class.
These tendencies to
dismiss the revolutionary potential of the working class and ultimately dismiss
collaboration and joint work with the organs of the working class usually
become more visible and grow bolder in moments of revolutionary crises. The
deeper the revolutionary crises and the more fluid the revolutionary dynamics
of the class the class struggle, the quicker these ultra-leftists are to
dismiss the working class and proclaim themselves the new revolutionary center
and beacon.
So for instance in
our situation, form the betrayal which concluded the January Uprising, the
conclusion is drawn about the no longer progressive character and therefore new
counter-revolutionary character of the whole working class! We must therefore
no longer collaborate with labour in this ultra-left mode of thinking and
acting.
There is also on
the part of the labour aristocracy, consequent upon the revolutionary tensions
engendered in revolutionary crises such as the January Uprising, to become
disdainful of the non-trade union allies, to be dismissive of them as radicals
whose only value is a nuisance one!
So when you have
such ultra-leftism on one side and ultra unionism on the other, the end result
is a sectarianism that weakens the movement and only plays into and
inadvertently strengthens the hands of a weakened ruling class in the class
contestation for influence over the direction of society, and ultimately power
to effect that influence.
Other
characteristics of this self serving and counterproductive ultra-left
radicalism can be seen in the way other activists and other theaters and
terrains of the class struggle are disdainfully dismissed. So these ultra-left
radicals see counter revolutionaries everywhere; they have a siege mentality;
NGOism [the believe that society can be transformed through reforms led by non
state entities since the state has abdicated its role] is equated and conflated
with any activist who just happens to be working [as a member of the working
class] with NGOs! So in this warped conception of reality every activist who
works with an NGO is an NGOist and is not and cannot be a revolutionary!
Similarly every
activist who works with the trade unions as a paid worker and member of the
working class is also ultimately a labour aristocrat, and therefore a counter
revolutionary!
And these
determinations are made by people who hunt with the foxes during daytime and
forage with the hares at night time! People who justify a slide towards
opportunism with the identification and proclamation of a so-called progressive
[read progress-thief] wing of the bourgeoisie, with whom they associate and
collaborate, while dismissing the revolutionary potential of others!
To include it is
important to emphasize that it is not where one works or makes a living that
makes one into a revolutionary activist! It is your political convictions, and
how you organise and mobilize, working with others, that essentially defines
your revolutionary activism.
To conclude, why
have I written about this now, and in this way? Because one of the single most
significant dangers and obstacles facing our movement of popular struggles for
social emancipation is the subtle development of once again this tendency
towards Ultra-Left Pseudo-Radicalism; and I am in agreement with Lenin in
characterizing it as an ‘Infantile disorder’ which is feeding the ossification
of a malignant sectarianism in our midst.
(Gaskia
is National Convener of United Action For Democracy [UAD])
