- Rajesh Tyagi/ 11.10.2018
"In India today, neither has fascism been established, nor are the conditions present- in political, economic and class terms- for a fascist regime to be established", wrote Prakash Karat, the leader of Stalinist CPM, in his article titled "Know your enemy", published in Indian Express on Sept 6, 2016.
Opposing the line advocated by Sitaram Yechuri, the then General Secretary of CPM, for an alliance with Congress, Karat wrote this article two months ahead of Assembly polls in West Bengal.
Invoking the characterisation of fascism by Stalin, way back in mid 1930s, Karat argues that the trappings of a fascist regime are absent and the political regime under Modi is “right-wing authoritarian”, not “fascist”. He also termed the RSS-ideology as “semi-fascist”.
From this, Karat deduced that “The political struggle against the BJP cannot be conducted in alliance with the other major party of the ruling classes”.
Obviously, far from being a principled position, this was only a petty maneuver in the factional fight inside CPM, in so far as Karat himself was suggesting a third front poll alliance with rightwing bourgeois parties of all description, except BJP and Congress.
Many in the Stalinist left have criticised positions of Prakash Karat on different premises but without referring to or deriving any lessons themselves from the history of the struggle against fascism, inside the world socialist movement.
With an obvious and apparent aversion to the history, quite understandable and explainable through assessment of the shameful role that Stalinists have played in this struggle in not so distant past, they all agree among themselves that there is no need to tap the history for forgone lessons of the past. All history must be simply ignored and paths be sorted out afresh.
More recently, in this series, has appeared the article, by another ideologue of Stalinist CPM, Prabhat Pattanaik, “The Left and Opposition Unity: How Fascism Can Be Defeated in 2019”, published by ‘The Wire’ on Oct 8. A supporter of Yechuri line and advocate for an alliance with Congress and other bourgeois rightwing parties, Prabhat Pattanaik, opens the article drawing a wedge between today and the conditions that existed in 1930s, concluding that the memories of the bygone era of 30s constitute a baggage that prevents us from deriving correct conclusions today in fight against fascism.
Which memories? Obviously the memories of Stalin's zig-zags and the false policies of the Comintern and Kremlin under him that were implemented in 1930s and that have strangled the revolutions everywhere and facilitated the rise of Hitler in Germany and Franco in Spain. Prabhat evades discussing or even referring to this. Obviously, he wants to skip any engagement over the policies of Stalinists in 1930s and thus brushes them aside as 'memories of the past' that must be get rid of. Not surprisingly, we will soon find the writer turning to plain reiterations of 1930s, embracing the very same absurd positions of Stalinists in 1930s where they had argued for anti-fascist 'popular fronts' between Communists and the liberal bourgeoisie. The call to shun the baggage of the past memories thus turns into a call for forgetting all lessons that were learnt at such high cost in the preceding era and retreading the same path over and again.
In his article, Karat had argued that because there is no merger of the corporate and the state in India, therefore fascism is absent. Changing this paradigm, Prabhat claims that in our times it’s not the corporate and the state but communalism and the corporate that have merged to constitute fascism and that is there. At the helm of the apparently opposing positions, there however lies an agreement between the two, that if fascism is there, the tactics of ‘popular frontism’, i.e. an alliance between the working class and bourgeois parties is all granted. The two differ and argue only on the point if fascism is there or not.
What Prabhat terms as merger of corporate and communalism, is no peculiarity either of our era or of the country. Fascism, as a social movement, before capturing the state and transforming it into a fascist state, everywhere produces such reactionary conjunctures that in turn may be embedded in racist, communal and even casteist prejudices of the backward mass. The claim, on this basis, that our epoch is different from earlier one, is sheer nonsense. In fact, nothing separates us from 1930s except that the international working class is in a state of disarray and disintegration and the Soviet State that ensued from the October revolution, is absent.
Reader would seek in vain any logical connection between the narrative of these articles by two top ideologues of Stalinist left in India, the political positions they support and the conclusions they derive from that. Arguments are plain rhetoric to give ideological cover to their opportunism and petty motives in the factional struggle inside the party.
Both of them, are victims of political myopia that emanates from their adherence to Stalinist dogma and prevents them from seeing fascism, on the face of it, as a social movement, independent of any state or state forms. In giving fascism a statist edge, Stalinists suffer a political delusion and confusion, mingling the two different aspects and stages of fascism- its existence as a social movement in the first place and the state it produces after its complete political victory, later. Both Stalinist leaders, fail to see through these distinctive aspects of fascism.
Both take their departure from Benito Mussolini’s characterisation of fascism as merger of the state with the corporate. This ‘statist’ articulation of fascism by Mussolini, in fact had explained not fascism but its political manifestation after its complete victory.
This ill-conceived notion of fascism, had formed the basis of a later day even more spurious portrayal of fascism by Stalinists as ‘dictatorship’. In Dimitrov thesis, presented to the seventh world congress of the Communist International in 1935, Stalinists propounded the sinister diagnosis of fascism: “Fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital”.
In recognising the existence of fascism in India as merger of state and communalism, Prabhat, in fact, admits the fallacy of Stalin’s claim that fascism is a dictatorship. In refuting Karat’s thesis that fascism is not present in India, by necessary implication, Prabhat admits the validity of Trotsky’s analysis that fascism is nothing about statism, but is ‘the social terrorist movement of capitalism in crisis’.
Both of them, shy of admitting explicitly the correctness of Leon Trotsky’s diagnosis of fascism, continue to beat around the bush.
To cover up his footprints going towards Trotsky, Prabhat, tells us that the character of fascism has undergone a sea change since 1930s and that the memories of 1930s are the ‘real obstacle’ to the understanding of fascism. In this, he demands a complete delineation from all historical context that he pronounces to be an outdated baggage of past memories.
After this preaching, whose meaning and political essence we will discuss later, Prabhat, however turns back to embrace the real baggage of the past, to refresh his memories with Stalinist ‘popular frontism’ i.e. an alliance between bourgeois right-wing opposition parties and the workers parties, against fascism, advocated by Stalinist Comintern in mid 1930s.
In concluding that fascism is different from dictatorship, consciously or unconsciously, Prabhat picks up the calculus of Trotsky but only to apply the same very next moment to a diametrically opposite tangent of ‘popular frontism’ advocated by Stalinists.
Prabhat’s article is a calculated attempt to hit the pre-determined target, i.e. advocacy for binding the Stalinist left behind the rightwing bourgeois opposition.
Downplaying the danger of fascism, Karat had argued against making alliance with Congress. Underscoring the rise of fascism, Prabhat advocates inclusion of Congress in the popular front. While debating for and against the existence of fascism, and inclusion of Congress in the popular front, both of them however, agree that communists must subordinate themselves to the alliances with right-wing bourgeois parties of all sorts.
Leon Trotsky, the co-leader of the Russian revolution with Lenin, had seriously disputed the positions and methods of Stalinists in fight against fascism. Trotsky disputed that fascism can be understood or explained through statism. He also refuted the suggestion of Stalinists that working class must enter into rightwing alliances with capitalist parties to defeat fascism. Trotsky advocated forging of the independent United Front of workers to contain and defeat fascism.
Prabhat, in his entire article, does not even refer to these epoch making debates inside the Comintern during 1920s and 1930s on the question of fascism. Rather he chooses to refer and rely upon the definition of fascist state, by Mussolini.
Prabhat tells us that the memories of 1930s are obstacle to understanding of fascism today but he does not tell us as to what those memories are and what exactly he is referring to.
Memories of 1930s, as they are rooted in the strategic experiences of that era, are the most important source of our understanding of fascism. To Prabhat However, they are the ‘only obstacle’ on the path to understand fascism. So, Prabhat wants us to forget about the history and understand fascism altogether afresh, today. How much the Stalinists are afraid of the history and its lessons! How much they are afraid of revisiting their own past!
The question of fascism was the bone of contention inside the world socialist movement and Comintern, in 1920s and 30s that has vertically divided the Comintern into two rival camps.
Either the writer is blind altogether to these colossal debates inside world socialist movement or has evaded deliberately to refer to them as they would tend to expose the fallacy of Stalinism today, even more than that in 1930s.
Stalinists in 1935, as today, understood fascism as the dictatorship of the worst elements of finance capital. Upon deconstruction of this absurd understanding of fascism, we get that fascism, in the first instance has to be a ‘dictatorship’. So, till it is not a ‘dictatorship’, it is not fascism. Secondly, their claim that it is the dictatorship of ‘worst elements of finance capital’, implied that sections of capitalism, other than those related to finance capital, are excluded. And thirdly, it were only the ‘worst elements’ of the finance capital that were fascist, with good and even worse, out of it.
This apparently bogus characterisation of fascism, that gave huge discounts to sections of capitalists, had a deep political meaning that was rooted in the significant political developments of the preceding decade, with very serious implications for the world socialist movement. Through this, Stalinists had in fact paved the way to themselves to ally with different sections of the world bourgeoisie including the imperialist powers like France and Britain.
Without understanding these developments and their aftermath, that had taken place since 1920s and 30s and the zig-zags of Stalinists, one cannot have a grasp over the true meaning and understanding of the Stalinist conception of fascism.
In response to the isolation of the October revolution inside the Soviet Union in the backdrop of disintegration of its working class during civil war period in its immediate aftermath, and early defeats of revolutions in Europe, the Stalinists had started adapting to this isolation, disintegration and defeats of the revolution. By pledging themselves for the bureaucratic project of ‘socialism in one country’ the Stalinists openly betrayed the world socialist revolution, starting by late 1924. This national socialist approach and the consequent retreat away from internationalism, was instrumental in the destruction of the revolutionary wave in the orient, specially in China and India, where the young militant communist parties were subjected to the control, leadership and discipline of the rightwing bourgeois alliances. Based upon their narrow national interests, Stalinists had resuscitated the menshevik theory of ‘two stage revolution’, to subordinate the interests of the Chinese and Indian revolutions to national interests of Kremlin bureaucracy. Applying it to the Chinese revolution, Stalinists forced the CPI and CCP to subordinate themselves, and the youth and workers behind them, to the domination and leadership of the bourgeois parties.
The left opposition under Trotsky opposed this servile policy tooth and nail. Trotsky alongwith Lenin, had fought against this menshevik policy in the preceding era of Russian revolution. Forcing this menshevik policy upon the revolutions, the Stalinists, destroyed the revolutionary wave in China and India, perpetuating further the isolation of the October revolution. Chinese CP was perpetually subordinated to the discipline of Kuomintang till its leader Chaing Kai Shek, brutally butchered communists and revolutionary workers in 1926-27.
After the Chinese revolution, suffering one defeat after the other, went on dialysis by 1928, Stalin decided to try his hands on an ultra-left political gamble. He invented the fantasy of ‘third period’, inaugurating a series of misadventures, thrusting upon the CPs, already bleeding white from the defeats and repression in the preceding period, an ultra-left policy of undertaking armed rebellions. Stalin claimed that a new age in world history has started where Communists must open the strategic offensive on all fronts.
Trotsky opposed it once again. He said that it was not upswing but the downturn of the world revolution, where the need is to retreat and prepare seriously for future battles. However, as sequel to the defeats of the revolution inside and outside of the Soviet Union, Trotsky was cornered and then banished from Russia. Thereafter, the policies of Stalinists, completely destroyed the Chinese revolution by 1928.
Reflection of this ‘third period’ policy, invented and applied in the Chinese revolution to its detriment, proved even more devastating in Germany, where it facilitated the rise of Hitler to power. This ultra-left adventure by Stalinists, isolated the German CP- KPD and divided the working class, making it vulnerable to fascist assaults. Comintern under Stalinists argued that there was no need for a united front in Germany between the workers under social democratic SPD and the communist workers led by and organised under KPD. Stalinists claimed that social democracy was social fascism and communists must break with it. This was diametrically opposite to the thesis of Comintern under Lenin and Trotsky and a full turn away from the earlier policy of Stalinists where Comintern under Stalin had subordinated the Chinese CP to bourgeois KMT. This about-turn, gave support to the stance of SPD in Germany and divided the working class. SPD and KPD even supported Nazis against each other. Stalinists, directly assisted Hitler in his Red referendum. Stalinists helped the breaking up of the emerging iron front of the workers against fascists, directly facilitating the victory of Nazis to power.
After the two major jolts to the Stalinist ‘third period policy’ sent it to ventilator, gasping for a breath and Hitler started to dismantle the German revolution, Stalin took another somersault. In the seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, that took place amidst the Stalinist terror campaign inside the Soviet Union, to silence all opposition to the series of failures, perpetuated by the false policies of Stalin that had suffocated the revolutions in China, England and Germany, Stalinists proposed a U-turn. After the ‘Third period’ policy, they argued now for a policy diametrically opposite to it, the policy of ‘Popular Frontism’ i.e. forging alliances between the liberal bourgeois and workers parties. It was during this period that Stalin made futile attempts to take to the tail of French and British bourgeoisie. Failing in this political maneuver, Stalin, would later enter into war alliance with Hitler in late 1939.
In 1935, in their attempt to pave the way for alliances with the so called ‘democratic bourgeoisie’, that included the imperialist powers like France and Britain, Stalinists thrusted everywhere this policy of ‘popular frontism’. This ‘popular frontism’ was only the reincarnation of the very same menshevik policy through which the CCP in China was tagged to bourgeois KMT, the day before and the Chinese revolution was strangled. This policy of adhering to imperialist powers and the bourgeois parties all over the world, further subordinated the CPs to the imperialists and to the colonialists and national bourgeoisie in colonies. Before making alliance with Hitler in August 1939, alliances with France and Britain were attempted and the struggles in their colonies were halted, then the revolutionary movement in Germany was damaged and finally, after break of the alliance with Hitler, the Stalinists assisted in putting down the revolutionary movement inside France, Britain and their colonies. This policy, subordinated the communists to the bourgeoisie and its parties completely and destroyed the revolutions not only in Europe but in colonies as well.
Revolutions in China and India were the critical victims under the axe of this flawed policy alongside those in France, England, Germany, Spain and Greece.
As Stalinism has got no independent role to play in history, except as the tutelage of world bourgeoisie, its adherence to the bourgeoisie, has been almost perpetual. The policy of making alliances of different sorts with the bourgeois parties, leaders and movements, is the basic strategic orientation of Stalinsits till today. Anti-fascism is merely a pretext, an apology for them to cover up their adherence to bourgeoisie, its leaders and parties.
It is in this context that we must examine the purport of the article by Prabhat Pattanaik, whose whole thrust is the reorientation of youth and workers to the very same menshevik-stalinist ‘popular frontism’- a Congress-led rightwing bourgeois alliance, to which youth and workers must be subordinated at any cost.
Though Prabhat starts with advising us to delete our memories of 1930s, but only to stealthily return himself to the same and import the trashed experiences from it. He repeats Stalin by rote and proposes to repeat the same flawed policy once again.
He tells us that 'fascism was defeated by communists', but he does not tell us that in this the international working class was subordinated by Stalinists to French, British and US imperialisms, that had completely marginalised the world socialist revolution and left the working class everywhere disoriented and disorganised.
How fascism can be defeated in 2019? By forging an alliance between the left and the opposition, he answers! In this formula, the ‘left’ is Stalinist left and the ‘opposition’ is obviously all rightwing opposition, from Congress to RJD, SP, BSP, TMC and so on.
So it is clear to us that Prabhat is not ready to forget the memories of 1930s. What he wants us to forget, are the bitter strategic lessons from 1930s that the international working class has drawn at immense expense. Through this appeal, he wants to cover up the footprints of criminal policies of Stalinists that have smothered the revolutions and isolated and disintegrated the working class over the globe.
Amidst the immense preparations being undertaken by politico-military establishments in all major countries of the world for the impending war, Prabhat argues against the possibility of a real war. His reasoning- the globalised finance does not like it!
Karat says fascism cannot take over the state. Prabhat says neither fascism can take over the state nor the war is a possibility!
Prabhat’s other logic is that the borrowing-financed state expenditure, as was the case in Germany and Japan, in 1930s, is not a possibility today. Reason? The globalised finance does not like it!
These cynical utterances are made at a time when world bourgeoisie is already beating a retreat and constricting its wings into its national nests. At a time when bourgeoisie is turned back to the path of economic nationalism from its trumpeted goal of globalisation. Can there be a bigger stupidity than this?
Prabhat conveniently forgets that the globalised finance, is part of the world economy that despite of its more and more integration on a global scale remains rooted in the structures of the political state of national bourgeoisie, and at its helm, is compartmentalised among these nation states, that hold the sway over political life. It is these national states that are real sources and hotbed of fascism at home and wars abroad.
The rise and expansion of Chinese economy and the cynical drive by US administration since the days of Obama and pushed forward far more aggressively under Trump, to isolate China and relegate it to the status of a semi-colony, is the guarantee of a war.
Wars and fascism emanate not from the integration of world economy but from its partition among the nations and the private property upon which they rest.
Our world, today, is no doubt more integrated than ever, but it would be childish to forget that it was so during the last two world wars and innumerable wars in between. The finance capital holds the sway and dominates the world economy since the opening of the last century. This integration of world economy does not prevent the wars, but in fact facilitates them, by creating ever new imbalances on larger scale and at greater tempo.
The more economic life tends to integrate and integrates on the global scale, the more national states strive to put it under their control. It is this striving that supplies necessary impulse to the wars and fascism. Prabhat cites the globalised finance as deterrent to the prospects of a war. On the contrary, it is the pool of global finance, control and dominance upon which, constitutes the chief component of the war drive among big powers at present. Globalised finance and then globalised production, far from eliminating the prospects of war, have laid down new foundations for future wars.
The claim that integration of economy on world scale would prevent the wars, is a mockery of all politics and economics. The point Prabhat is making, is the argument of Karl Kautsky and not of Lenin.
In distinguishing fascism of 1930s from the present, Prabhat refers to liberal democracy submitting before fascism. But the same was the course in all countries where fascists had won in the past. Liberals were diluted into channels of fascism. Fascists, conquered everywhere, step by step. Even in classic example of Germany, fascists took to power using ladder of bourgeois democracy. The complete victory of fascism, where it achieves its aim of establishing an authoritarian state, by overthrowing the institutions of bourgeois democracy, needs the conditions not only of a general decline but some sudden turn, triggering a crisis that renders bourgeois democracy an unbearable burden. Its progress may be rapid or slow, but at the helm, it is fascism. In different countries, the point where fascists muster enough strength to do away with bourgeois democracy, may be different and may grow at different pace, but it is fascism everywhere.
Contrary to misconception of Mussolini and Stalin, Fascism, per-se is nothing about the state power. In power or out of it, it is still fascism. Capturing the state, overthrow of bourgeois democracy and merger of the corporate and state, are only its cherished, avowed objectives that it may or may not be able to achieve.
Prabhat assures us that the fascists in India neither can invoke a war nor can they establish a fascist state. Prabhat overlooks that its not the fascists that look for war, but it’s the war that is seeking them desperately to resolve the tensions that have built up during the last many decades after WWII. The drive to war, is not subject to the mercy of fascists in India or elsewhere. Its primarily the proliferation and overgrowth of economic life on a world scale that the big powers crave to keep under their control. This proliferation and the resultant craving of the national states, are the chief source of the war drive. The impulse to the war is coming not from the fascism in India, but from the conflict of big powers chiefly from the tug between US and China.
In his article, Prabhat pays lip service to the fight against fascism. To be sure, his high sounding exhortation- ‘going beyond the poll alliances’, does not imply a military bloc against fascists, but a 'Popular Front Government' of social welfare. Article is full of demagogy of a Stalinist, designed to cover up the most opportunist policy of entering into the alliances with rightwing bourgeois parties. His article is only an apology for this old and long treaded policy of Stalinists.
A program based on ahistoric, pragmatist, empirical perspective, imported from the failed past, is being trumpeted aloud. Karat, Prabhat, and all of their Stalinist supporters as well as critiques, are in agreement that the lessons of the past must be forgotten. They be not discussed at all. All conclusions must be drawn afresh for today, as if there is no history or historic trajectory and no linkage between the past and the present.
Most important lessons that must be drawn are completely forgotten. Foremost among them is the complete independence and centrality of the working class in the fight against fascism.
The suggestions of giving primacy to and the centrist adaptation with identity based movements like dalitism and feminism are the attempts of pushing the revolutionary movement into a blind alley of popular frontism.
No fight against fascism can however be launched on a national paradigm and from a nationally oriented perspective. Internationalism is the core aspect of this fight.
Fascism is nothing but capitalism. It is violent response of capitalism on a national basis, to its own crisis. Fascism is economic nationalism. The war upon fascism, is the war upon capitalism.
Thus no successful offensive can ever be mounted against fascism in conjunction with the capitalist parties. Any alliances with rightwing bourgeois parties would only subordinate the youth and workers to the bourgeois political establishment and blunt the struggle.
Working class and young communist fighters must decisively reject any and all such popular fronts with the leaders and parties of the right-wing.
We must forge iron front of all workers against fascists not in defence of bourgeois democracy, but for establishment of socialism. This front cannot be achieved through bogus poll alliances or closed door seminars, but in direct and open fight against the fascists in streets.
We must not turn our backs upon the history and its essential lessons, but must honestly draw a balance sheet of the victories and defeats of the last century and derive strategic conclusions from it to form the basis for a revolutionary Marxist program to defeat fascism and capitalism.
Opposing the line advocated by Sitaram Yechuri, the then General Secretary of CPM, for an alliance with Congress, Karat wrote this article two months ahead of Assembly polls in West Bengal.
Invoking the characterisation of fascism by Stalin, way back in mid 1930s, Karat argues that the trappings of a fascist regime are absent and the political regime under Modi is “right-wing authoritarian”, not “fascist”. He also termed the RSS-ideology as “semi-fascist”.
From this, Karat deduced that “The political struggle against the BJP cannot be conducted in alliance with the other major party of the ruling classes”.
Obviously, far from being a principled position, this was only a petty maneuver in the factional fight inside CPM, in so far as Karat himself was suggesting a third front poll alliance with rightwing bourgeois parties of all description, except BJP and Congress.
Many in the Stalinist left have criticised positions of Prakash Karat on different premises but without referring to or deriving any lessons themselves from the history of the struggle against fascism, inside the world socialist movement.
With an obvious and apparent aversion to the history, quite understandable and explainable through assessment of the shameful role that Stalinists have played in this struggle in not so distant past, they all agree among themselves that there is no need to tap the history for forgone lessons of the past. All history must be simply ignored and paths be sorted out afresh.
More recently, in this series, has appeared the article, by another ideologue of Stalinist CPM, Prabhat Pattanaik, “The Left and Opposition Unity: How Fascism Can Be Defeated in 2019”, published by ‘The Wire’ on Oct 8. A supporter of Yechuri line and advocate for an alliance with Congress and other bourgeois rightwing parties, Prabhat Pattanaik, opens the article drawing a wedge between today and the conditions that existed in 1930s, concluding that the memories of the bygone era of 30s constitute a baggage that prevents us from deriving correct conclusions today in fight against fascism.
Which memories? Obviously the memories of Stalin's zig-zags and the false policies of the Comintern and Kremlin under him that were implemented in 1930s and that have strangled the revolutions everywhere and facilitated the rise of Hitler in Germany and Franco in Spain. Prabhat evades discussing or even referring to this. Obviously, he wants to skip any engagement over the policies of Stalinists in 1930s and thus brushes them aside as 'memories of the past' that must be get rid of. Not surprisingly, we will soon find the writer turning to plain reiterations of 1930s, embracing the very same absurd positions of Stalinists in 1930s where they had argued for anti-fascist 'popular fronts' between Communists and the liberal bourgeoisie. The call to shun the baggage of the past memories thus turns into a call for forgetting all lessons that were learnt at such high cost in the preceding era and retreading the same path over and again.
In his article, Karat had argued that because there is no merger of the corporate and the state in India, therefore fascism is absent. Changing this paradigm, Prabhat claims that in our times it’s not the corporate and the state but communalism and the corporate that have merged to constitute fascism and that is there. At the helm of the apparently opposing positions, there however lies an agreement between the two, that if fascism is there, the tactics of ‘popular frontism’, i.e. an alliance between the working class and bourgeois parties is all granted. The two differ and argue only on the point if fascism is there or not.
What Prabhat terms as merger of corporate and communalism, is no peculiarity either of our era or of the country. Fascism, as a social movement, before capturing the state and transforming it into a fascist state, everywhere produces such reactionary conjunctures that in turn may be embedded in racist, communal and even casteist prejudices of the backward mass. The claim, on this basis, that our epoch is different from earlier one, is sheer nonsense. In fact, nothing separates us from 1930s except that the international working class is in a state of disarray and disintegration and the Soviet State that ensued from the October revolution, is absent.
Reader would seek in vain any logical connection between the narrative of these articles by two top ideologues of Stalinist left in India, the political positions they support and the conclusions they derive from that. Arguments are plain rhetoric to give ideological cover to their opportunism and petty motives in the factional struggle inside the party.
Both of them, are victims of political myopia that emanates from their adherence to Stalinist dogma and prevents them from seeing fascism, on the face of it, as a social movement, independent of any state or state forms. In giving fascism a statist edge, Stalinists suffer a political delusion and confusion, mingling the two different aspects and stages of fascism- its existence as a social movement in the first place and the state it produces after its complete political victory, later. Both Stalinist leaders, fail to see through these distinctive aspects of fascism.
Both take their departure from Benito Mussolini’s characterisation of fascism as merger of the state with the corporate. This ‘statist’ articulation of fascism by Mussolini, in fact had explained not fascism but its political manifestation after its complete victory.
This ill-conceived notion of fascism, had formed the basis of a later day even more spurious portrayal of fascism by Stalinists as ‘dictatorship’. In Dimitrov thesis, presented to the seventh world congress of the Communist International in 1935, Stalinists propounded the sinister diagnosis of fascism: “Fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital”.
In recognising the existence of fascism in India as merger of state and communalism, Prabhat, in fact, admits the fallacy of Stalin’s claim that fascism is a dictatorship. In refuting Karat’s thesis that fascism is not present in India, by necessary implication, Prabhat admits the validity of Trotsky’s analysis that fascism is nothing about statism, but is ‘the social terrorist movement of capitalism in crisis’.
Both of them, shy of admitting explicitly the correctness of Leon Trotsky’s diagnosis of fascism, continue to beat around the bush.
To cover up his footprints going towards Trotsky, Prabhat, tells us that the character of fascism has undergone a sea change since 1930s and that the memories of 1930s are the ‘real obstacle’ to the understanding of fascism. In this, he demands a complete delineation from all historical context that he pronounces to be an outdated baggage of past memories.
After this preaching, whose meaning and political essence we will discuss later, Prabhat, however turns back to embrace the real baggage of the past, to refresh his memories with Stalinist ‘popular frontism’ i.e. an alliance between bourgeois right-wing opposition parties and the workers parties, against fascism, advocated by Stalinist Comintern in mid 1930s.
In concluding that fascism is different from dictatorship, consciously or unconsciously, Prabhat picks up the calculus of Trotsky but only to apply the same very next moment to a diametrically opposite tangent of ‘popular frontism’ advocated by Stalinists.
Prabhat’s article is a calculated attempt to hit the pre-determined target, i.e. advocacy for binding the Stalinist left behind the rightwing bourgeois opposition.
Downplaying the danger of fascism, Karat had argued against making alliance with Congress. Underscoring the rise of fascism, Prabhat advocates inclusion of Congress in the popular front. While debating for and against the existence of fascism, and inclusion of Congress in the popular front, both of them however, agree that communists must subordinate themselves to the alliances with right-wing bourgeois parties of all sorts.
Leon Trotsky, the co-leader of the Russian revolution with Lenin, had seriously disputed the positions and methods of Stalinists in fight against fascism. Trotsky disputed that fascism can be understood or explained through statism. He also refuted the suggestion of Stalinists that working class must enter into rightwing alliances with capitalist parties to defeat fascism. Trotsky advocated forging of the independent United Front of workers to contain and defeat fascism.
Prabhat, in his entire article, does not even refer to these epoch making debates inside the Comintern during 1920s and 1930s on the question of fascism. Rather he chooses to refer and rely upon the definition of fascist state, by Mussolini.
Prabhat tells us that the memories of 1930s are obstacle to understanding of fascism today but he does not tell us as to what those memories are and what exactly he is referring to.
Memories of 1930s, as they are rooted in the strategic experiences of that era, are the most important source of our understanding of fascism. To Prabhat However, they are the ‘only obstacle’ on the path to understand fascism. So, Prabhat wants us to forget about the history and understand fascism altogether afresh, today. How much the Stalinists are afraid of the history and its lessons! How much they are afraid of revisiting their own past!
The question of fascism was the bone of contention inside the world socialist movement and Comintern, in 1920s and 30s that has vertically divided the Comintern into two rival camps.
Either the writer is blind altogether to these colossal debates inside world socialist movement or has evaded deliberately to refer to them as they would tend to expose the fallacy of Stalinism today, even more than that in 1930s.
Stalinists in 1935, as today, understood fascism as the dictatorship of the worst elements of finance capital. Upon deconstruction of this absurd understanding of fascism, we get that fascism, in the first instance has to be a ‘dictatorship’. So, till it is not a ‘dictatorship’, it is not fascism. Secondly, their claim that it is the dictatorship of ‘worst elements of finance capital’, implied that sections of capitalism, other than those related to finance capital, are excluded. And thirdly, it were only the ‘worst elements’ of the finance capital that were fascist, with good and even worse, out of it.
This apparently bogus characterisation of fascism, that gave huge discounts to sections of capitalists, had a deep political meaning that was rooted in the significant political developments of the preceding decade, with very serious implications for the world socialist movement. Through this, Stalinists had in fact paved the way to themselves to ally with different sections of the world bourgeoisie including the imperialist powers like France and Britain.
Without understanding these developments and their aftermath, that had taken place since 1920s and 30s and the zig-zags of Stalinists, one cannot have a grasp over the true meaning and understanding of the Stalinist conception of fascism.
In response to the isolation of the October revolution inside the Soviet Union in the backdrop of disintegration of its working class during civil war period in its immediate aftermath, and early defeats of revolutions in Europe, the Stalinists had started adapting to this isolation, disintegration and defeats of the revolution. By pledging themselves for the bureaucratic project of ‘socialism in one country’ the Stalinists openly betrayed the world socialist revolution, starting by late 1924. This national socialist approach and the consequent retreat away from internationalism, was instrumental in the destruction of the revolutionary wave in the orient, specially in China and India, where the young militant communist parties were subjected to the control, leadership and discipline of the rightwing bourgeois alliances. Based upon their narrow national interests, Stalinists had resuscitated the menshevik theory of ‘two stage revolution’, to subordinate the interests of the Chinese and Indian revolutions to national interests of Kremlin bureaucracy. Applying it to the Chinese revolution, Stalinists forced the CPI and CCP to subordinate themselves, and the youth and workers behind them, to the domination and leadership of the bourgeois parties.
The left opposition under Trotsky opposed this servile policy tooth and nail. Trotsky alongwith Lenin, had fought against this menshevik policy in the preceding era of Russian revolution. Forcing this menshevik policy upon the revolutions, the Stalinists, destroyed the revolutionary wave in China and India, perpetuating further the isolation of the October revolution. Chinese CP was perpetually subordinated to the discipline of Kuomintang till its leader Chaing Kai Shek, brutally butchered communists and revolutionary workers in 1926-27.
After the Chinese revolution, suffering one defeat after the other, went on dialysis by 1928, Stalin decided to try his hands on an ultra-left political gamble. He invented the fantasy of ‘third period’, inaugurating a series of misadventures, thrusting upon the CPs, already bleeding white from the defeats and repression in the preceding period, an ultra-left policy of undertaking armed rebellions. Stalin claimed that a new age in world history has started where Communists must open the strategic offensive on all fronts.
Trotsky opposed it once again. He said that it was not upswing but the downturn of the world revolution, where the need is to retreat and prepare seriously for future battles. However, as sequel to the defeats of the revolution inside and outside of the Soviet Union, Trotsky was cornered and then banished from Russia. Thereafter, the policies of Stalinists, completely destroyed the Chinese revolution by 1928.
Reflection of this ‘third period’ policy, invented and applied in the Chinese revolution to its detriment, proved even more devastating in Germany, where it facilitated the rise of Hitler to power. This ultra-left adventure by Stalinists, isolated the German CP- KPD and divided the working class, making it vulnerable to fascist assaults. Comintern under Stalinists argued that there was no need for a united front in Germany between the workers under social democratic SPD and the communist workers led by and organised under KPD. Stalinists claimed that social democracy was social fascism and communists must break with it. This was diametrically opposite to the thesis of Comintern under Lenin and Trotsky and a full turn away from the earlier policy of Stalinists where Comintern under Stalin had subordinated the Chinese CP to bourgeois KMT. This about-turn, gave support to the stance of SPD in Germany and divided the working class. SPD and KPD even supported Nazis against each other. Stalinists, directly assisted Hitler in his Red referendum. Stalinists helped the breaking up of the emerging iron front of the workers against fascists, directly facilitating the victory of Nazis to power.
After the two major jolts to the Stalinist ‘third period policy’ sent it to ventilator, gasping for a breath and Hitler started to dismantle the German revolution, Stalin took another somersault. In the seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, that took place amidst the Stalinist terror campaign inside the Soviet Union, to silence all opposition to the series of failures, perpetuated by the false policies of Stalin that had suffocated the revolutions in China, England and Germany, Stalinists proposed a U-turn. After the ‘Third period’ policy, they argued now for a policy diametrically opposite to it, the policy of ‘Popular Frontism’ i.e. forging alliances between the liberal bourgeois and workers parties. It was during this period that Stalin made futile attempts to take to the tail of French and British bourgeoisie. Failing in this political maneuver, Stalin, would later enter into war alliance with Hitler in late 1939.
In 1935, in their attempt to pave the way for alliances with the so called ‘democratic bourgeoisie’, that included the imperialist powers like France and Britain, Stalinists thrusted everywhere this policy of ‘popular frontism’. This ‘popular frontism’ was only the reincarnation of the very same menshevik policy through which the CCP in China was tagged to bourgeois KMT, the day before and the Chinese revolution was strangled. This policy of adhering to imperialist powers and the bourgeois parties all over the world, further subordinated the CPs to the imperialists and to the colonialists and national bourgeoisie in colonies. Before making alliance with Hitler in August 1939, alliances with France and Britain were attempted and the struggles in their colonies were halted, then the revolutionary movement in Germany was damaged and finally, after break of the alliance with Hitler, the Stalinists assisted in putting down the revolutionary movement inside France, Britain and their colonies. This policy, subordinated the communists to the bourgeoisie and its parties completely and destroyed the revolutions not only in Europe but in colonies as well.
Revolutions in China and India were the critical victims under the axe of this flawed policy alongside those in France, England, Germany, Spain and Greece.
As Stalinism has got no independent role to play in history, except as the tutelage of world bourgeoisie, its adherence to the bourgeoisie, has been almost perpetual. The policy of making alliances of different sorts with the bourgeois parties, leaders and movements, is the basic strategic orientation of Stalinsits till today. Anti-fascism is merely a pretext, an apology for them to cover up their adherence to bourgeoisie, its leaders and parties.
It is in this context that we must examine the purport of the article by Prabhat Pattanaik, whose whole thrust is the reorientation of youth and workers to the very same menshevik-stalinist ‘popular frontism’- a Congress-led rightwing bourgeois alliance, to which youth and workers must be subordinated at any cost.
Though Prabhat starts with advising us to delete our memories of 1930s, but only to stealthily return himself to the same and import the trashed experiences from it. He repeats Stalin by rote and proposes to repeat the same flawed policy once again.
He tells us that 'fascism was defeated by communists', but he does not tell us that in this the international working class was subordinated by Stalinists to French, British and US imperialisms, that had completely marginalised the world socialist revolution and left the working class everywhere disoriented and disorganised.
How fascism can be defeated in 2019? By forging an alliance between the left and the opposition, he answers! In this formula, the ‘left’ is Stalinist left and the ‘opposition’ is obviously all rightwing opposition, from Congress to RJD, SP, BSP, TMC and so on.
So it is clear to us that Prabhat is not ready to forget the memories of 1930s. What he wants us to forget, are the bitter strategic lessons from 1930s that the international working class has drawn at immense expense. Through this appeal, he wants to cover up the footprints of criminal policies of Stalinists that have smothered the revolutions and isolated and disintegrated the working class over the globe.
Amidst the immense preparations being undertaken by politico-military establishments in all major countries of the world for the impending war, Prabhat argues against the possibility of a real war. His reasoning- the globalised finance does not like it!
Karat says fascism cannot take over the state. Prabhat says neither fascism can take over the state nor the war is a possibility!
Prabhat’s other logic is that the borrowing-financed state expenditure, as was the case in Germany and Japan, in 1930s, is not a possibility today. Reason? The globalised finance does not like it!
These cynical utterances are made at a time when world bourgeoisie is already beating a retreat and constricting its wings into its national nests. At a time when bourgeoisie is turned back to the path of economic nationalism from its trumpeted goal of globalisation. Can there be a bigger stupidity than this?
Prabhat conveniently forgets that the globalised finance, is part of the world economy that despite of its more and more integration on a global scale remains rooted in the structures of the political state of national bourgeoisie, and at its helm, is compartmentalised among these nation states, that hold the sway over political life. It is these national states that are real sources and hotbed of fascism at home and wars abroad.
The rise and expansion of Chinese economy and the cynical drive by US administration since the days of Obama and pushed forward far more aggressively under Trump, to isolate China and relegate it to the status of a semi-colony, is the guarantee of a war.
Wars and fascism emanate not from the integration of world economy but from its partition among the nations and the private property upon which they rest.
Our world, today, is no doubt more integrated than ever, but it would be childish to forget that it was so during the last two world wars and innumerable wars in between. The finance capital holds the sway and dominates the world economy since the opening of the last century. This integration of world economy does not prevent the wars, but in fact facilitates them, by creating ever new imbalances on larger scale and at greater tempo.
The more economic life tends to integrate and integrates on the global scale, the more national states strive to put it under their control. It is this striving that supplies necessary impulse to the wars and fascism. Prabhat cites the globalised finance as deterrent to the prospects of a war. On the contrary, it is the pool of global finance, control and dominance upon which, constitutes the chief component of the war drive among big powers at present. Globalised finance and then globalised production, far from eliminating the prospects of war, have laid down new foundations for future wars.
The claim that integration of economy on world scale would prevent the wars, is a mockery of all politics and economics. The point Prabhat is making, is the argument of Karl Kautsky and not of Lenin.
In distinguishing fascism of 1930s from the present, Prabhat refers to liberal democracy submitting before fascism. But the same was the course in all countries where fascists had won in the past. Liberals were diluted into channels of fascism. Fascists, conquered everywhere, step by step. Even in classic example of Germany, fascists took to power using ladder of bourgeois democracy. The complete victory of fascism, where it achieves its aim of establishing an authoritarian state, by overthrowing the institutions of bourgeois democracy, needs the conditions not only of a general decline but some sudden turn, triggering a crisis that renders bourgeois democracy an unbearable burden. Its progress may be rapid or slow, but at the helm, it is fascism. In different countries, the point where fascists muster enough strength to do away with bourgeois democracy, may be different and may grow at different pace, but it is fascism everywhere.
Contrary to misconception of Mussolini and Stalin, Fascism, per-se is nothing about the state power. In power or out of it, it is still fascism. Capturing the state, overthrow of bourgeois democracy and merger of the corporate and state, are only its cherished, avowed objectives that it may or may not be able to achieve.
Prabhat assures us that the fascists in India neither can invoke a war nor can they establish a fascist state. Prabhat overlooks that its not the fascists that look for war, but it’s the war that is seeking them desperately to resolve the tensions that have built up during the last many decades after WWII. The drive to war, is not subject to the mercy of fascists in India or elsewhere. Its primarily the proliferation and overgrowth of economic life on a world scale that the big powers crave to keep under their control. This proliferation and the resultant craving of the national states, are the chief source of the war drive. The impulse to the war is coming not from the fascism in India, but from the conflict of big powers chiefly from the tug between US and China.
In his article, Prabhat pays lip service to the fight against fascism. To be sure, his high sounding exhortation- ‘going beyond the poll alliances’, does not imply a military bloc against fascists, but a 'Popular Front Government' of social welfare. Article is full of demagogy of a Stalinist, designed to cover up the most opportunist policy of entering into the alliances with rightwing bourgeois parties. His article is only an apology for this old and long treaded policy of Stalinists.
A program based on ahistoric, pragmatist, empirical perspective, imported from the failed past, is being trumpeted aloud. Karat, Prabhat, and all of their Stalinist supporters as well as critiques, are in agreement that the lessons of the past must be forgotten. They be not discussed at all. All conclusions must be drawn afresh for today, as if there is no history or historic trajectory and no linkage between the past and the present.
Most important lessons that must be drawn are completely forgotten. Foremost among them is the complete independence and centrality of the working class in the fight against fascism.
The suggestions of giving primacy to and the centrist adaptation with identity based movements like dalitism and feminism are the attempts of pushing the revolutionary movement into a blind alley of popular frontism.
No fight against fascism can however be launched on a national paradigm and from a nationally oriented perspective. Internationalism is the core aspect of this fight.
Fascism is nothing but capitalism. It is violent response of capitalism on a national basis, to its own crisis. Fascism is economic nationalism. The war upon fascism, is the war upon capitalism.
Thus no successful offensive can ever be mounted against fascism in conjunction with the capitalist parties. Any alliances with rightwing bourgeois parties would only subordinate the youth and workers to the bourgeois political establishment and blunt the struggle.
Working class and young communist fighters must decisively reject any and all such popular fronts with the leaders and parties of the right-wing.
We must forge iron front of all workers against fascists not in defence of bourgeois democracy, but for establishment of socialism. This front cannot be achieved through bogus poll alliances or closed door seminars, but in direct and open fight against the fascists in streets.
We must not turn our backs upon the history and its essential lessons, but must honestly draw a balance sheet of the victories and defeats of the last century and derive strategic conclusions from it to form the basis for a revolutionary Marxist program to defeat fascism and capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment