What is a Bandh? A General Strike? Or?

[kasama-rl]

the following appeared on Kasama (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/25/what-is-a-bandh-in-south-asia/):

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/bandh-in-nepal-over-murder-of-communist.jpg (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/bandh-in-nepal-over-murder-of-communist.jpg)
Bandh in Nepal over the unsolved murder of a young communist activist

by Mike Ely

As the revolutionary movements of South Asia grab more and more attention -- the word bandh is appearing. There are currently a number of major bandhs going on in Nepal -- led by Maoist forces -- including a new bandh of students shutting down thousands of schools in support of the revolutionary movement.


Jed Brandt has written (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/25/nepal-report-revolutionary-students-shut-down-8000-private-schools-indefinitely/) from Nepal:
"April 25 — Revolutionary students allied with the Maoists today shut down 8,000 private school across Nepal demanding fee hikes be immediately withdrawn. Business offices were padlocked at major schools last week. When negotiations between the student union and school owners broke down, several buses were torched. As of today, an indefinite closure was ordered as Nepal approaches the Maoist decisive May First mobilization."


And also recently (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/21/may-first-high-noon-in-nepal/):
"Indefinite bandhs are paralyzing large parts of the country after the arrest of Young Communist League (YCL) cadre in the isolated far west and Maoist student leaders in Pokhora, the central gateway to the Annapurna mountain range."


Bandh is the word used in South Asia for political shutdowns (of whole areas, neighborhoods, factories or sometimes schools).


http://mikeely.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gifBut what exactly is a bandh?


Sometimes it is translated "general strike" -- which has led to some confusing debates among forces who have very particular ideas about "general strikes" (and how they should be conducted). Other times, it has been seen through the prism of north American experience (with particular kinds of formalized strikes of trade unions and workers).


One place we can (perhaps start) is simply to share the entry in Wikipedia and have some discussion here:


Bandh (Hindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi_language): बंद), originally a Hindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi) word meaning 'closed', is a form of protest used by political activists in some countries in South Asia like India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) and Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal). During a Bandh, a major political party or a large chunk of a community declares a general strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action), usually lasting one day.
Often Bandh means that the community or political party declaring a Bandh expect the general public to stay in their homes and strike work. The main affected are shopkeepers who are expected to keep their shops closed and the public transport operators of buses and cabs are supposed to stay off the road and not carry any passengers. There have been instances of large metro cities coming to a standstill.
Bandhs are powerful means for civil disobedience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience). Because of the huge impact that a Bandh has on the local community, it is much feared as a tool of protest.
The Supreme Court of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India) tried to "ban" bandhs in 1998,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandh#cite_note-Hindu1-0) but political parties still organize them. In 2004, the Supreme Court of India fined two political parties, Bharatiya Janata Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party) (BJP) and Shiv Sena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena) for organizing a bandh in Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai) as a protest against bomb blasts in the city.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandh#cite_note-Hindu1-0) The state with the maximum Bandhs in India is Communist Party of India (Marxist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_%28Marxist%29) controlled West Bengal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandh#cite_note-1) where the average number of bandhs per year is 40-50 (ranging from a couple of hours to a maximum of 2 days per bandh).
A bandh is not the same as a Hartal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal), which simply means a strike: during a bandh, any business activity (and sometimes even traffic) in the area affected will be forcibly prevented by the strikers. However, in states where bandhs are banned, Hartals may be identical to bandhs except for the name.


Note: Bandhs are often associated with partisan political forces -- and are also used by reactionary parties in India (the Hindu chauvinist and communal elements).


* * * * * * *

The following interesting commentary on Ben's Blog (http://blogs.tear.org.au/ben/?p=402) appeared last year. Ben Thurley is part of a Christian NGO (TEAR Australia (http://www.tear.org.au/advocacy)) in Nepal, and (as you will see) not particularly sympathetic to either the bandhs or the revolution emerging in Nepal:


There have been an increasing number of bandhs across Nepal lately, some quite serious. Bandh or banda (बन्ध in Nepali) means “closed” and this common form of civic action is part strike, part blockade, part demonstration. An aggrieved group takes to the street to publicly protest about an issue of concern, and to apply maximum pressure they aim to literally close down as much regular life and work as possible.


During bandhs, markets and businesses are closed. Transport is halted through affected areas – walking might be ok, you may well be able to wheel a bicycle past (no guarantees, though) but anything with an engine is fair game. Students miss a day at school. The blockade is generally maintained through coercion and intimidation and, sometimes, more than just the threat of violence.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/1338626801_9b3de281a3_b.jpg
Burning tyres and road blocks. Bricks and sticks.

Bandhs range from relatively small-scale and local events to blockades that affect whole districts or that even occur nationally. The immediate and local effects include lost income for businesses, disruptions to work and study for workers and students, and sometimes damage to vehicles and property. If the bandh causes significant stoppages, it will generally be the poorest people who suffer disproportionately. People with little capital and few resources don’t have any buffer to tide them over a day without work, or without access to market. But the bandh is pretty indiscriminate in who it affects.


People are sometimes killed too. The current bandh in the terai (Nepal’s broad, southern plains region) has seen two protesters and one police officer (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/MYAI-7PW8M7?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=npl) killed. Earlier in the year, a person died in a bus that was set on fire during a bandh.


As well as the immediate and local impact, there may also be wider and longer-term effects, particularly where important transport routes are affected.


They are called by all sorts of groups and for all sorts of reasons:


by employer’s groups, protesting the business impact of power shortages or politically-motivated labour disputes
by unions and labour groups, calling for adequate pay and conditions
by student associations, or by various affiliates of political parties,
by sector-specific workers or entrepreneurs,
by relatives of people killed or hurt in political violence or as a result of lawlessness,
by relatives of people killed by motor vehicles, or who have died in hospital,
by committees representing a particular cause, such as relief for victims of last year’s Koshi floods, or the current bandh of the Tharu Welfare Council protesting the reclassification of the Tharu people as part of a broader Madesh (plains) ethnic identity…


Understandably, there are periodic calls from governing politicians for bandhs to be restricted or banned. These calls don’t tend to result in much action and in a combative political environment, bandhs are easily exploited and manipulated for political ends by all parties.


There have been attempts at creating bandh-free zones. Dhankuta was declared one in December, and an all-party meeting in Chitwan district did the same November last year. That didn’t last long though, and Chitwan District is now the epicentre of the indefinite bandh called by the Tharu Welfare Council.


More hopeful, possibly, is that some groups have pledged not to utilise bandhs in pursuit of their interests. There are any number of less destructive methods of public protest, so let’s hope that civil society gets more creative.

Addressing the “supply side” of bandhs is one thing. However, the “demand side”, the underlying conditions that lead to bandhs must also be addressed – whether that is institutional incapacity or failure to address grievances, or it’s ongoing insecurity and violence, or the failure to equitably and efficiently deliver services and allocate public goods.


Government, communities and civil society all have roles to play in tackling these underlying conditions. My feeling is that bandhs don’t help much here. They don’t help civil society contribute constructively to public debate. They don’t help build thriving and peaceful communities. And as for government – sure authorities may sometimes concede the bandh’s demands. But far better than having merely reactive authorities, is to have accountable and responsive ones.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/124783081_a1896a50c4_o.jpg


All easy enough, right?

Other links (given by Ben's Blog):


Nepali Times calls for a bandh ban (http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/2009/03/06/INTERESTINGTIMES/15737)
NepalBandh (http://www.nepalbandh.com/) lists all current and scheduled bandhs across the country
OCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Nepal maintains situation reports (http://ochaonline.un.org/nepal/SituationReports/tabid/3873/Default.aspx) and maps (http://www.un.org.np/maps/mapsubcatlist.php?category=2&subsubcategory=43&order_by=Title&order=1&change=0) of bandhs and other security situations around the country.
The World Food Program has a report on bandhs in Nepal, Struck Out – the everyday economic and livelihood impact of bandhs and strikes in Nepal (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/EGUA-7PVNBU?OpenDocument&RSS20&RSS20=FS)
UNDP Bangladesh released a report in 2005 called Beyond Hartals (http://www.undp.org.bd/publications/Beyond%20Hartals.pdf) (.pdf) which has a lot of relevance to Nepal’s situation. (Hartal and bandh mean essentially the same thing, though this document describes differences in their legal and constitutional status in India and Bangladesh.)

I should make it clear that we haven’t been personally affected by bandhs in a major way. There have been a few in Kathmandu over the last few months that have required us to postpone meetings, or shopping, or choose a different route to travel. But this has really only been a minor inconvenience and we haven’t been anywhere near any of the periodic confrontations between protesters and police. However, for many of our colleagues, particularly those on the Terai, bandhs are a major impediment to effective work and everyday life.

[red cat]

The blockade is generally maintained through coercion and intimidation and, sometimes, more than just the threat of violence.

A distinction must be made between bandhs called by Maoists and those called by parliamentary parties. Except for very few cases caused by over-enthusiastic base level cadres, Nepali and Indian Maoists have not used intimidation in any bandh. Intimidating the masses is a weapon for parties that do not have mass-base.

[kasama-rl]

uh, are you serious, red cat? have you ever led or joined a strike?

There is an element of intimidation in any mass shutdown, and there are always elements among the people who want to scab. When Maoists student burn busses during a bandh, do you think there isn't an element of intimidation involved?

It takes a mass base to launch a strike or campaign -- but shut downs always involve conflicts with the relatively backward or desperate.

I wrote about some of our own communist experiences with this in "Ambush at Keystone (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/26/ambush-at-keystone-1inside-the-coalminers-gas-protest/)" -- about illegal shutdowns in the U.S. coalfields (and the conflicts among the people).

[Devrim]

have you ever led or joined a strike?

I have been on strike on many occasions. The smallest being three people for four hours, and the largest 180,000 people for three and a half weeks.


There is an element of intimidation in any mass shutdown, and there are always elements among the people who want to scab.

In some strikes it really is minimal though. In the largest of the strikes I refer to above, the UK national postal strike of 1988 in my local office (118 workers) there we no scabs. In our district, South West London, there were two at the head office (approximately 1,600 workers). Non of the nineteen sub-offices had any. This is effectively 100%. The figures were similar nationally.

My point is not that there is never an element of intimidation. I have done my fair share of violent picket lines. Strikes are stronger when workers are persuaded to join them by appeals to class solidarity, not intimidated into it. That is not saying that it is wrong to physical prevent a minority who want to scab from doing so. I don't think it is.

On another point:


Bandh (Hindi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi_language): बंद), originally a Hindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi) word meaning 'closed', is a form of protest used by political activists in some countries in South Asia like India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) and Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal). During a Bandh, a major political party or a large chunk of a community declares a general strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action), usually lasting one day.
Often Bandh means that the community or political party declaring a Bandh expect the general public to stay in their homes and strike work. The main affected are shopkeepers who are expected to keep their shops closed and the public transport operators of buses and cabs are supposed to stay off the road and not carry any passengers. There have been instances of large metro cities coming to a standstill.

These types of 'strikes' are in no way working class movements.

Devrim

[red cat]

uh, are you serious, red cat? have you ever led or joined a strike?

There is an element of intimidation in any mass shutdown, and there are always elements among the people who want to scab. When Maoists student burn busses during a bandh, do you think there isn't an element of intimidation involved?

It takes a mass base to launch a strike or campaign -- but shut downs always involve conflicts with the relatively backward or desperate.

I wrote about some of our own communist experiences with this in "Ambush at Keystone (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/26/ambush-at-keystone-1inside-the-coalminers-gas-protest/)" -- about illegal shutdowns in the U.S. coalfields (and the conflicts among the people).

The burning of buses etc. is directed to harm the compradors and right wing of the national bourgeoisie. They are among the principal targets of revolutionary violence.

Intimidation in the sense of intimidating common people. Maoists never do that.

[kasama-rl]

i'm not sure what your point is in saying they are "no way working class movements."

Some of them are led by communists, some are not. Some involve strikes by workers, some do not. Some are students. Some involve striking by bus workers and cabbies.

So what? I'm just not sure what your point is.

The working class of Nepal is relatively small inside the country (and larger outside Nepal). In the revolutin itself, it is the poor farmers who are (obviouly) the main force, not the employed or industrial workers.

[Devrim]

i'm not sure what your point is in saying they are "no way working class movements."

Some of them are led by communists, some are not.

I don't think whether it is 'led by (people who call themselves) communists' in anyway determines if it is a working class struggle. To draw a parallel I am sure you will understand the state of West Bengal is run by (people who call themselves) communists.

These sort of actions are quite common in the Middle East. I have seen them myself in Lebanon, and know they have also taken place in countries such as Egypt, Palestine, and Iran.

They are not actions of the working class. They are actions organised by often nationalist, generally bourgeois political parties.


So what? I'm just not sure what your point is.

I don't think that making the local shops shut down for a day is a method of working class struggle.


The working class of Nepal is relatively small inside the country (and larger outside Nepal). In the revolutin itself, it is the poor farmers who are (obviouly) the main force, not the employed or industrial workers.

As you say, there isn't a working class revolution going on in Nepal.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think that making the local shops shut down for a day is a method of working class struggle.

If it's the working class enforcing the shut down, it is.

[Devrim]

If it's the working class enforcing the shut down, it is.

But it isn't the working class enforcing the shut down. Leftist or nationalist political parties, the people who tend to organize these things are not the working class. Sometimes they are movements based on small business owners. Events of that type happened recently in Iran during the 'green movement' yet they were not workers' strikes. The only workers strike that happened in that period was the strike at Khodor car factory. Hezbollah have organized similar events in Lebanon. Are they the working class?

I think that the same view must be taken of events in the Indian subcontinent. Just because movements that call themselves comunist organize these things it doesn't mean that they are workers' struggles.

Devrim

[kasama-rl]

REd cat writes:


" The burning of buses etc. is directed to harm the compradors and right wing of the national bourgeoisie. They are among the principal targets of revolutionary violence."

Actually the compradores and top rightists are rarely running around the streets.

In sharp class struggle, it is not actually figures in the ruling class who are the direct targets of violence. In essense revolution is the overthrow of one class by another. But its form is a war between two sections of the people.

In the case of the bandhs, and the burning of busses -- this is done to prevent or punish scabbing.


"Intimidation in the sense of intimidating common people. Maoists never do that."

Life (and revolutionary politics) is far more complex than this.

Clearly, a key principal of Maoism is reliance on the masses of people -- and reliance on the raising of consciousness as a means of persuasion and building of support. Jed Brandt's recent report from Nepal correctly quotes Mao:


“It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.”


However, it is also true that the masses of people at any given point fall into the advanced, intermediate and backward. And our tactics do not require waiting until the backward are all fully won over (such a moment will never arrive). There is always an element (even among the oppressed) who are opposed to the necessary actions (of the people in their great majority). And there is (inherently and always) an element of coercion in all social life.



Clearly, coercion by revolutioanary forces is mainly and fundamentally aimed at armed reactionaries, and the die-hard supporters of the old order, and against the ruling classes of that order themselves. But these categories do (and always will) include a section of the people that needs to be neutralized (as much as possible) and isolated (so that they don't influence and win over the intermediate).


We can discuss this historically if you want -- since it is not accurate to say that Maoists never exercise intimidation (when needed) among backward sections of the people. We could discuss (for example) the Maoist approach to backward men who beat their wives in the Chinese countryside. Or backward gangster elements among the people who wanted to keep selling opium in urban areas. Or backward forces (among peasants or workers) who worked as informants for the oppressors (whether they are the Japanese occupiers, or the KMT, or whatever).


Clearly (and this is the main point) revolutionaries oppose using intimidation and coercion as the main approach to the broad people -- a movement that does that will not survive or win (and there are some who have tried at various times.) And it is always a bitter moment when the struggle is facing setbacks, and the move of the people turns against the struggle, and the leading forces find themselves isolated and pushed back step by step -- but even then, the tendency to unleash threats and violence against the broad masses will not work (as a method), and should be resisted (even if it seems to promise short term success). Examples include the often response of trade union militants during bitter strikes that are losing, or the tendency in some revolutionary armies to want to shoot deserters (or even waverers) wholesale at difficult situations and so on. I am opposing this.


But I do think we should not be metaphysical, and think there is no necessary element of coercion in any social movement, and any revolutionary movement (or even in any modern production process.)

[kasama-rl]

Devrim:

You seem to be under the impression that only the working class matters, or that only struggles of the working class are revolutionary.

In fact, revolution in our epoch has always been an alliance of workers with other classes (especially poor farmers) -- since our goal is the end of ALL oppression (not just the oppression of workers).

Sure lots of these bandhs are the actions of student (not workers), or small shopkeepers (not workers). And it is quite excellent that these important class forces are drawn into the revolutionary movement. Without that, revolution would be quite impossible.

And (as should be obvious) you can't possibly run a future society with only workers -- the support and conscious initiative of many forces and strata are needed to make socialism work (you need, in addition to conscious workers, also teachers, and scientists, and military experts, and planners, and much more, all of whom are hopefully attracted to communist revolution and the endgoals of liberation).

[Devrim]

You seem to be under the impression that only the working class matters, or that only struggles of the working class are revolutionary.

Yes, I believe that the working class is the only revolutionary class, a position held by many other communists including just for example, Marx.


In fact, revolution in our epoch has always been an alliance of workers with other classes (especially poor farmers) --

I don't agree. I think that the working class makes revolution. When it is powerful it can pull other non-exploiting classes behind it.


since our goal is the end of ALL oppression (not just the oppression of workers).

Agreed, but I think that only the working class can enact this.


you need, in addition to conscious workers, also teachers, and scientists, and military experts, and planners, and much more, all of whom are hopefully attracted to communist revolution and the endgoals of liberation

Teachers are workers. You have a very strange analysis of class.

Devrim

[kasama-rl]

I like it when we uncover differences, and you label my views "strange." They aren't strange at all, just to you (apparently).

Devrim: I will post an essay I wrote for Kasamaproject.org, which will (better than I can summarize quickly) what my Maoist views on this are. Hope that helps.

But I think it would be big mistake to think that the working class is the ONLY revolutionary class. It may prove to be the MOST THOROUGHLY revolutionary class. Marx obviously did NOT THINK workers were the only revolutionary class (and spent much of his life thinking about potential allies for working people -- as exemplified by his letter to Abraham Lincoln (a representative of the then-still-revolutionary bourgeoisie) or his talk of "a Paris commune backed by a second edition of the German Peasant wars.")

Anyway, here is my essay, which may trigger some further thoughts.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/young-worker-in-kathmandu.jpg?w=300&h=199 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/young-worker-in-kathmandu.jpg)Young worker in Kathmandu, Nepal







Where’s the Proletariat in Mao’s Long March or Nepal’s Revolution? (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/02/03/wheres-the-proletariat-in-maos-long-march-or-nepals-revolution/)

By Mike Ely

TNL posted the important question: what is “proletarian” about communism? What is the connection between the working class and communist movement (other than vestigial markers of terminology, tradition and pretense)?


And, obviously, we know what this means (at the extreme) because we have all encountered movements that appointed themselves “vanguard of the proletariat” — often without connection, leadership, representation or even a real sense of that proletariat. We have seen circular, self-aggrandising apriori assertions.


For a year I have been thinking about a remark TNL made:

“when we debate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the real controversy is not over the word ‘dictatorship,’ but over the phrase ‘of the proletariat.’”
That is what we are engaging here. the controversy over the phrase “of the proletariat.” It is a discussion of how class is mediated through politics and ideas.


TNL now writes (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/prachanda-nepalese-people-will-seize-power/#comment-11159):

“In what real sense can you say that the proletariat led the Chinese Revolution? This seems to me a bit of doctrinaire nonsense. Certainly the CCP built up a proletarian base before the smashing of the Shanghai Uprising in 1927 and some of that base fled to the countryside to join the work amongst the peasantry. I also know that special efforts wer made to recruit “rural proletarians.” But nobody really disputes the fundamentally peasant composition of the organized forces that made the revolution. So is the claim here that the leadership of the CCP was significantly of proletarian origin or just that it “represented” the proletariat by virtue of its ideology? If its the latter, to say its metaphysical would be kind. What this stance has always signalled to me, and this was always part of my reluctance to call myself a Maoist, was a dishonest capitulation to the reigning orthodoxy of the Stalin-era Comintern in the face of obviously contradictiry facts, namely the actual class composition of the leadership and the base of both the CCP and PLA.
I’d like to take a stab at this. And to be clear from the start: I think there are real ways in which it is true to say that the Chinese revolution had proletarian leadership.


Not a Matter of Sociology or Demographics


First, I want to dig into what it does not mean: It does not mean that a sociological class of Chinese workers literally and directly led the Chinese peasants in revolution. There were of course actual workers involved in the revolution at each point. The early CCP built itself among workers (and among supporters of the then-revolutionary KMT from other class). They had a base among railroad workers and in Shanghai. Mao himself went among the coal miners of Anyuan. And there were considerable numbers of miners in the Autumn harvest uprising that was defeated — among the forces Mao then led up into the Chingkang mountain region to create his first political base area.


But, again, to be clear: it is not the existence of people of working class origin at key posts or in key numbers within the party, the army or the leadership that is the basis for saying that there is “proletarian leadership.”


The basis for saying there is “proletarian leadership” lies somewhere else. Let me zoom out (instead of zooming in).

Something Radically New That We Associate with “The Proletariat”


Starting with the Paris Commune something new is stirring in the world — there is an increasing organized, increasingly self-conscious and increasingly international attempt to carry though a revolutionary movement against class society itself. With the Russian revolution, it bursts on the world stage in an unprecedented way, and the theory leading the Russian revolution bursts into the sight of oppressed and revolutionary people all over the world. Mao writes that the cannons of the October Revolooution brought us Marxism-Leninism.


This view of proletarian revolution starts by seeing all of the communist revolutions as a world process. And after the 1917 revolution something new happens, the proletarian revolutionary movement of Europe connects with the anti-colonial movements of Asia — and the outlook (and the organized forces) emerging from the most radical socialist/communist circles in Europe starts to profoundly influence and shape those anti-colonial movements. And (at the same time, as they take root) those anti-colonial movements start to reshape and influence the ideas and organizational forms that fell into their hands.


It is often hard to look back in history and actually see the shocking nature of things that radical and new. But this was something shockingly new.


Previously the resistance to colonialism had taken the form of a defense of traditional society. (See the so-called Sepoy Mutiny of India, or the Native American resistance to European advances in the Americas.) And the problem with those strategies of resistance was that the European advances came with steel and gunpowder and offering commodities that no one on earth could resist…. cheap needles, cheap cloth, cheap knives, steel pots, opium, whisky and much more.


So suddenly you had a radical new form of militant resistance to colonial domination that had appropriated for itself a vision of modern development — it intended to learn, adopt and recreate the advances of the colonial countries (industry, modern armies, scientific farming, communications, world trade), but on a basis that was both profoundly indigenous and naitonally independent, and on a bases that promised egalitarianism (in the place of the abject degradation and poverty of the colonial relations).


As Mao bluntly put it (in a thesis that would be a battleground over the following decades): “Only socialism can save China.”


This break — this opening for a new kind of resistance in the colonial world, the ideology and politics that led that break — is what “proletarian leadership” means. It represents that arrival and maturation of something radically new in the power struggles of the world –the connection of the people’s struggles with communism (as goal and outlook).
In the early politics of this transition, the term “proletarian leadership” meant both a communist line leading the national democratic struggle, and also a strategic assumption that urban workers were (demographically) the strategic base of revolution, and that working class soviets were the “discovered” universal political form for socialist transition.


The first part of this was, in fact, crucial. The second part of this proved, in fact, to be doctrinaire and disconnected with the realities of most colonial countries. (Attempts at urban uprisings in China, reproduced the isolation of the Paris commune — i.e. they could not stand as small radical islands surrounded by an unaroused countryside. Or they reproduced the rash failures of the German uprisings of 1923, they were called into being by a leadership in Moscow that underestimated the importance of particularity.)
So a second startling break happened: Mao developed a strategic approach that actually flowed from the conditions of China — where the great revolutionary potential of the peasantry was married to the great revolutionary potential of anti-colonial resistance. It was done through the means of a specific concept of “united front” — one that “united all who could be united against the real enemy.” It was done under a specific concept of who the “real enemy” was — using a theory of stages that identified key contradictions and their development over time.


This second startling break required a serious rupture with orthodoxy among the communists. The communist international sent a series of plenipotentiaries and annointed a series of Chinese leaders to impose their strategic assumptions (li-li san, wang ming, Bo Gu etc.) And Mao’s approach in strategy and his break in the realm of ideology was carried out through a series of sharp struggles with the comintern. (Mao was knocked down repeatedly, and had to fight for his line to victories first at the Tsunyi conference in 1935, and then in the Rectification movement in isolated Yenan, and then again in a series of struggle with Soviet-alligned elements over the 1950s.)


Mao’s break — the development of a communist revolutionary conception for a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country — required a break with what the very term

“proletarian leadership” meant.


And it turned out to have a great deal of general importance because of how “things turned out” over the last century.

One of the ironies of the last century of history is that revolutionary successes have mainly come in the most backward of countries. Instead of breaking out in the most developed countries, it often broke out at the margins.


In Russia you had the heavy weight of Tsarist autocracy in sharp contrast with the very largest and most modern factories — the most hateful backwardness confronting a footloose working class concentrated raw and restless in new urban areas. But by the time you get to the Chinese revolution, we are speaking of a country with only a very small working class (2% by some calculations), and a vast impoverished countryside representing the great defining bulk of the country and its people. And still today, communist revolution has taken root in Peru (in the 1980s), in some India’s most backward and tribal areas, in Nepal, in places in eastern Turkey, and so on — again at the margins of the world market, not at its heart. And in areas of intense peasant distress and national oppression, not in the heartlands of working class concentrations and exploitation.

On one hand, as I’ve been pointing out, Mao’s application of “proletarian leadership” meant a distancing from a naive sociological meaning (i.e. “proletarian leadership” means workers lead the movement at the grass roots and in the organization at every level). This is not about the proletariat as a class in itself — it is about the historic and international impact of the class for itself (the impact of its self-consciousness concentrated in communist organization, politics and theory).

It privileges the idea that ideas have a class character, and that “proletarian leadership” also means the leadership of a particular ideology and set of goals that are said to be “characteristic of the proletariat” (as a class for itself). And it has a conception of the communist movement (internationally) and the communist party in each country as a representative (not of “the workers” in that country) but of the proletariat as an international class, as a carrier of the most advanced philosophy, strategic thinking and organizational principles of the proletariat as an international class at that stage of the world revolutions development.

The Contradiction That Raises the Question

Now to put it sharply: If you zoom in from outer space, and look at Mao’s rag tag army on the long march — an army of bone-weary peasant soldiers and a few intellectual, traveling through some the most remote and impoverished areas of Asia — moving from the mountain fastness in southern China to the even more remote loess regions on the fringes of the Mongolian steppes in Yenan… It is easy to ask (as TNL does) what is proletarian about any of this? How can one look at that force, and that project and say “it is proletarian led”?


TNL makes a second point:

“To my mind this sort of invocation of the proletariat did damage to the neccesary theorization of the historical fact of a peasant revolution under the leadership of the intelligentsia in which the actual proletariat was (as might be expected in a country like China where it was puny and politically weak) relatively marginal. This bowing to the supposedly unique revolutionary character of the proletariat leaves the theory and practice of new Democracy more open to these obviously quite shallow criticisms. It also leads to real muddle about what precisely it means to speak of the proletariat, something that always seemed much more a moral category than a political-economic one in how it was used by the RCP.”
I agree that (in the hands of some!) this “invocation of the proletariat” has done damage to the understanding of what was actually going on. In part because it was often “invoked” and never broken down (the way i am trying to do here). And in part because in the hands of some it is rather simply an article of faith and circular logic. (“we communists represent the proletariat, so where we are the proletariat is leading.”)



But we can’t criticize a theory merely because it has been abused, and because that abuse did damage.


And I would say there is sufficient truth to that “invocation” (correctly understood) that we should clarify what we mean, not simply discard it.


But I think one needs to tease out (of that same picture) what is distinctive about this Long March, and this Red Army, and its Maoist leadership — in order to identify the things that Maoists call its “proletarian leadership.”


First, this army is distinctive from any previous peasant army in the world by a number of very startling and new breaks.


One example: Edgar Snow reports that peasant delegations would travel large distances to find this half-starved Red Army and beg them to “pass through our county” — come kill and disposses our oppressors. And they would often come with prepared pleas for “Mr. Sow-ei-ei.” The word had spread through China’s peasants that something new had arisen, this Sow-ei-ei (this Soviet form of government in the ChingKang base area) — and they wanted to be in touch with it. They often thought it was the name of a man, but in fact it was something else, it was a lingistic marker for the proletarian leadership, and the distinctive nature of THIS peasant army.


This (sociologically) peasant army had different goals than any previous peasant army — it was shown by the red stars on their hats (which symbolized the final goal — classless society and communism). It was shown by the connection of THIS peasant army with the worlds only socialist government and society (they were traveling to Yenan for two reasons: a) to be close to the Soviet border region for supply and communication, and b) to be closer to the Japanese occupation zones to be able to take an independent frontrank place in that war of resistance.) And ideologically, this army trained its soldiers in ideas that have never (ever) emerged from peasant armies (or from centuries of indigenous anti-colonial resistance). They were concentrated in the basic rules of the army (the “Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Rules of Attention”) which were the most radical imaginable rupture with the conduct of all the other fragmented armies then crisscrossing warlord-infested China. And they were elaborated in all the other materials that the increasingly literate solders (and captured KMT soldiers) were taught in the political education classes that soon became famous.


So in those ways, this clearly peasant army was “proletarian led.” It is an understanding that requires a sense of the proletariat as an international class, as a historic class, as a class that has (through levels of mediation) given rise to the most extreme revolutionary movement (communism) — and when that communist movement (at its best, not its worst) has a profound impact on the struggles of a country, this can be said to be the impact (and even the leadership) of the proletariat (at that level of historic abstraction and mediation) in ways relatively autonomous from the immediate involvement and consciousness of the workers in that country.


I don’t mean literally autonomous, but only relatively autonomous, as will will explore for a bit. There has to be some mediated connection between the “proletariat as a historic class” and the working class of any particular time and place (as a class in itself). And it is not simply a connection of “section slice” (I.e. you slice through the proletariat-as-a-historic-class and you get the working class of this moment). Because we are also talking about matters of “interest” in a historical materialist sense, (not just real historical continuity of sociological class forms and experiences).

The Role of Workers in the Communist Revolution


And in the Maoist experience of China, the “proletariat” was not just an ideological marker. There was always a concerted effort for this revolution did seek (whenever possible) to sink roots among the workers, and bring them to the fore as a class-in-itself becoming a class-for-itself.


One early example of this was when the Maoist armies started taking cities — there were quickly line struggles over who to “rely on” in the cities: Some wanted to rely on the exisitng administration(i.e. take over the state as it existed, but run it with new methods), some wanted to apply the methods from the countryside (i.e. find the most radicalized poor peasants living on the fringes of urban life), and Mao argued (strongly) that the revolution finally had a chance to connect with, mobilize and relying the masses of working people in these urban areas (and that this focus had an important strategic component). So while I am arguing that the notion of “proletarian leadership” does not rest on the presence and initiative of people (literally) of working class origin — Mao and the other Maoists were quite conscious of wanting to make and strengthen that link, in order the strengthen the social basis for proletarian ideas within a movement (and within a country) of overwhelmingly non-proletarian classes. This same approach came forward in the GPCR, where the revolution was first triggered in schools among the youth (red guards) and among the soldiers (the publication of the Red Book), but where mao struggled to bring the actual workers into the conflict (not just as fresh footsoldiers in a key social sphere, but as a potentially transformative force.)


So to be clear: while “proletarian leadership” in the Maoist context mainly refers to strategic, ideological and organizational approaches “characteristic of the proletariat as a historic class” — there is an element where it also refers to the need to bring workers-as-workers to the fore (as possible) to play a special and transformative role (strengthening the basis for upholding and developing the line that represents “proletarian leadership.”)


Final: There is a degree of abstraction to this Maoist concept of “proletarian leadership” that seems (to TNL) as “a bit of doctrinaire nonsense.” (Perhaps similar to the way, the idea of uniting with the national bourgeoisie in order to advance to communism seems like Alice in Wonderland nonsense to Chuck).


There is an outlook that says “proletarian leadership” either means that actual workers are actually leading the movement — or else we have crossed over to double talk and bullshit.


At the heart of this is the question of whether classes (and specifically the working class) have (a) historic interests characteristic of the proletariat as a class, (b) whether there are ideas (philosophies, strategies, verdicts) that are characteristic of the proletariat as a class. And whether those things can be said whether or not the actual workers in a specific country have embraced them (yet) or not. Marxism (and certainly Maoism) says that socialism and communism are world historic goals entwined with the world historic interests of the workers as a class.


In recent struggles with the RCP we have collided with a particularly fictious, self-serving and circular version of this: i.e. “we are the vanguard of the proletariat, what we say represent the way to communism, therefore we are the representatives of the proletariat, and any attempt to measure that in the real world violates point number on, i.e. we are the vanguard of the proletariat.” In other words, in some self-created bubbles, the notion of “proletarian leadership” has been drained of all connection with reality and real people, and has simply become a marker for an ideology (i.e. some localized version of MLM or trotskyism or whatever.) I am convinced we have to break with that idealist view, and not tolerate, and certainly not reproduce it.


But on the other hand, I am arguing that there are ways in which the communist movement, rising up for revolution, even at the head of non-workingclass millions, does represent (in a way that is real, in a sweeping sense) “proletarian leadership.”


I think we can talk of working class and proletariat in both senses, and have to make clear in our discussions which sense we are using. There is a real existing working class (at every moment, in every country), and there is also the presence and linkages that represent the work, goals and historic interests of “the working class as a historic class.”
And looking at the Chinese revolution, and the huge transformative impact of “proletarian ideas” on that anti-feudal, anti-colonial struggle — can help us understand the degree to which this second sense of “proletarian leadership” as material existence.

[Devrim]

I like it when we uncover differences, and you label my views "strange." They aren't strange at all, just to you (apparently).


Yes, I do think it is strange that someone who considers themselves to be a communist thinks that teachers aren't workers. Of course if you look at class in a sociological way, you can come up with these sort of ideas. There are lots of people, including lots of teachers who think that teachers are 'middle class'. That isn't strange. For people who call themselves communists to come out with this sort of thing is.


But I think it would be big mistake to think that the working class is the ONLY revolutionary class...Marx obviously did NOT THINK workers were the only revolutionary class

I don't think that Marx saying it makes it true, but it is actually what he did think about modern society. I would advise that you check out the first page of the Manifesto:


Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

Devrim

[red cat]

REd cat writes:



Actually the compradores and top rightists are rarely running around the streets. Their property is targeted.


In sharp class struggle, it is not actually figures in the ruling class who are the direct targets of violence. In essense revolution is the overthrow of one class by another. But its form is a war between two sections of the people.

In the case of the bandhs, and the burning of busses -- this is done to prevent or punish scabbing.

Life (and revolutionary politics) is far more complex than this.

Clearly, a key principal of Maoism is reliance on the masses of people -- and reliance on the raising of consciousness as a means of persuasion and building of support. Jed Brandt's recent report from Nepal correctly quotes Mao:
“It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.”


However, it is also true that the masses of people at any given point fall into the advanced, intermediate and backward. And our tactics do not require waiting until the backward are all fully won over (such a moment will never arrive). There is always an element (even among the oppressed) who are opposed to the necessary actions (of the people in their great majority). And there is (inherently and always) an element of coercion in all social life.



Clearly, coercion by revolutioanary forces is mainly and fundamentally aimed at armed reactionaries, and the die-hard supporters of the old order, and against the ruling classes of that order themselves. But these categories do (and always will) include a section of the people that needs to be neutralized (as much as possible) and isolated (so that they don't influence and win over the intermediate).


We can discuss this historically if you want -- since it is not accurate to say that Maoists never exercise intimidation (when needed) among backward sections of the people. We could discuss (for example) the Maoist approach to backward men who beat their wives in the Chinese countryside. Or backward gangster elements among the people who wanted to keep selling opium in urban areas. Or backward forces (among peasants or workers) who worked as informants for the oppressors (whether they are the Japanese occupiers, or the KMT, or whatever).

Clearly (and this is the main point) revolutionaries oppose using intimidation and coercion as the main approach to the broad people -- a movement that does that will not survive or win (and there are some who have tried at various times.) And it is always a bitter moment when the struggle is facing setbacks, and the move of the people turns against the struggle, and the leading forces find themselves isolated and pushed back step by step -- but even then, the tendency to unleash threats and violence against the broad masses will not work (as a method), and should be resisted (even if it seems to promise short term success). Examples include the often response of trade union militants during bitter strikes that are losing, or the tendency in some revolutionary armies to want to shoot deserters (or even waverers) wholesale at difficult situations and so on. I am opposing this.


But I do think we should not be metaphysical, and think there is no necessary element of coercion in any social movement, and any revolutionary movement (or even in any modern production process.)Notice that with respect to the contradiction being approached, Maoists never intimidate the oppressed people. When the enemy is rural patriarchy, the contradiction is highly violent, which at present causes the rural women becoming Maoists before anyone else does, and using the resultant power in teaching manners to their husbands.

What do Maoists use bandhs for ? For several reasons, as follows:

1) Measuring their own strength and support against that of the ruling class.

2) Preventing the common people from being present in certain areas where military actions are going to take place.

3) Showing the extent of the mass support that they enjoy to troops deployed against them, thereby demoralizing the mercenaries.

4) In very special cases, for bringing about an economic blockade in a certain area.

5) Appealing to the international masses by proving that they have a mass base.

6) Carrying on political propaganda programs at several places at a time. Government troops are generally to scared to attack during bandhs.

7) Boosting up support and expressing solidarity for democratic organizations in cities by calling bandhs on the same days as these do.

The use of intimidation as a method would lead the bandh not serving the purpose for which it was called, in case of points 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7, as these would affect the masses in a negative way and readily be reported by the bourgeois mass-media. Point 2 is possible only where the Maoists have a firm mass base so that participation in the bandh would be voluntary anyway.

In third world countries, the ruling class is extremely small in numbers when compared to the oppressed classes. The ruling class is joined by members of the oppressed classes who are provided a relatively better standard of living. But even these class-traitors are extremely small in number. These class traitors form the greatest military threat to Maoists, as they are the tools of local reactionaries and act as police informers. It is wrong to assume that Maoists will abstain from using any kind of force against them.

In case of point 4, intimidation is directly aimed at the ruling class, because when Maoists are powerful enough to call this type of bandhs, only organized truck-caravans belonging to compradors, accompanied by armed goons, dare to violate the bandh.

A Maoist bandh would lose its revolutionary nature if at certain times intimidation is not at all used against these numerical minorities serving the ruling class. Still, it is done in a very small scale. What is meant by intimidating citizens during bandhs is quite different from this. In a typical bandh called by parliamentary parties, there will be hundreds of incidents in each city of student examinees, patients, daily wage workers etc being stopped from reaching their destinations and even beaten up in the streets. Any open shops will be looted and burnt in the strongholds of that party. It is wrong to compare this sort of large scale reactionary terrorism with the few incidents of intimidation directed against the ruling class in Maoist bandhs.

[kasama-rl]

Let's start with where we agree:


"It is wrong to compare this sort of large scale reactionary terrorism with the few incidents of intimidation directed against the ruling class in Maoist bandhs."This is true.

But the issue is whether there are contradictions among the people that require elements of (a) coercion and (b) intimidation.

The example of beating up scabs during workers strikes is a simple example of how, at times, backward sections of the people run into elements of dictatorship excercised by the relatively advanced.


"Notice that with respect to the contradiction being approached, Maoists never intimidate the oppressed people. When the enemy is rural patriarchy, the contradiction is highly violent, which at present causes the rural women becoming Maoists before anyone else does, and using the resultant power in teaching manners to their husbands."I gave the example of Maoist-led women beating up brutal husbands in rural china.

in this case both the women, and their husbands are poor peasants. They are both among the people. And (as red cat points out) this conflict can be quite sharp.

And the basic method is (of course) persuasion and educaton. I.e. the red army forces would explain that the old ways were not gone, and it was no longer ok to beat women or sell them etc. But when husbands carried out old traditional beatings, it was the women (not the army) that acted -- i.e. the communists relied on the advanced (on this question) to enforce the new laws. (it is an application of the mass line.)

In this case, the husbands are not a class enemy. Their class position didn't suddenly change because they were acting in reactionary traditional ways. But they were targetted (after repeated warnings). and in a few (selected cases) were publicly hauled into the village square, tied to a chair, beaten by the village women, and left there for an afternoon as an example.

This is the actual history of revolution in China. It is a clear example of how revolution happened in a village. And it is also an example of how (at times, and in carefully chosen ways) the advanced among the people sometimes apply force to "make an example" -- and it is not just the beaten men who are intimidated, but all the other men watching too. And anyone thinking of violating the new rules of the new society thinks "oh, there are consequences, and the people are now themselves enforcing these new rules."

this is a correct application of revolutoinary methods, right?