100 million+ set to strike in India

[Sam_b]

28th is likely to be the biggest strike ever seen. Thought i'd share a short article I wrote for the International Socialist Group on this. It, of course, has been all but ignored in the mainstream media.

On February 28th over 100 million Indian workers are set to participate in a one-day general strike across the subcontinent – a move branded as one of the largest shows of industrial strength in the world. The twenty-four hour walkout has the backing of India’s main trade unions from across the political spectrum, who in a rare move have united for a national tour in support of the action, and numbers are likely to surpass that of the anti-privatisation strike in 2010; which at that point was the largest worker action taken since the country’s independence in 1947. Action on the 28th will likely affect crucial areas of the nation’s economy, including public sector banks, an aviation sector currently in crisis, mining, and the closure of ports and docks.
The sheer numbers involved gives some indication as to the strength of feeling amongst the Indian working class. Compared to the dire economic prospects facing Western economies and the Eurozone, India’s economy has seen a GDP growth rate of almost 9% year on year, yet the harsh realities of the neoliberal agenda are stark. Recent studies indicate that there are 410 million people living in poverty, in contrast with a moneyed elite of fifty-five billionaires who have amassed over $250 billion since new economic policies were adopted in 1991. Many of the poorest workers are employed in construction and manual labour, where wages are often as low as 500 Rupees per month (or £6.50). With European and North American companies increasingly taking advantage of low wages and production costs by contracting to India, it is in the interests of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government to maintain the status quo. The coalition has come under increasing pressure since 2009 when allegations of corruption were lodged regarding the election. Industrial action of such a size has the possibility of weakening the UPA government further, with elections just two years away. However, where there is unity in the calling and support for the strike, concrete demands for the 28th are far from clear.
Many of the major trade union organisations in India are affiliated to a political party or organisation, and can in some cases be regarded as the labour wings of these groups. For instance the All-India Trade Union Congress, India’s oldest union representing around three million workers, has a deep and long standing association with the Communist Party of India. Much of the unions of the left, including the AITUC, have been pushing to move the strike in the direction of defending existing workers in the face of increasing attacks on the trade union movement, as well as addressing the growing problem of unemployment in urban areas. There is an urgency for these issues to be addressed. Last month in Puducherry, police opened fire on workers who were protesting being locked out of their workplace at a ceramics factory, injuring dozens and leaving a local union leader dead. A press release today by CITU, a union affiliated to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), reports that several local leaders in West Bengal were hacked to death on a demonstration in support of February 28th – murders which they allege were perpetrated by those in pay of the local government. Others on the left are calling for the implementation of a minimum wage to be rolled out across India and protection for the millions who are employed in precarious or irregular work. The government, they argue, has promised these demands in the past but are yet to implement them. Yet these are merely a handful of demands made by various different unions and organisations. Given the size of the strike this is perhaps understandable, but it may have practical implications for the success of the strike.
The danger of not agreeing to a unified list of demands is reflected in the participation of right-wing associations and unions. Shiv Sena, a Hindu nationalist organisation who in the past have been responsible for stirring up ethnic hatred against the Muslim population, have thrown their weight behind the strike, as has the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), currently in opposition to the UPA coalition in the Lok Sabha. These parties are clearly no friends of the working class – seen clearly in the BJP led administration from 1998-2004 which aggressively pursued privatisation in office, alongside playing a significant part in race-related riots in the state of Gujarat. Shiv Sena and the BJP wish to jostle for influence within the movement in order to favour their own ambitions for governance rather than to stand up for ordinary workers. It is no surprise that both parties find themselves in the same NDP alliance in the Lok Sabha, and will be keen to manoeuvre themselves by any means possible in a bid to make gains in local elections which will take place in several states over the next few months. Goa, a key target area for the BJP due to a widespread corruption scandal, will go to the polls on March 3rd.
On the other end of the spectrum, there have been mixed messages from the Indian National Trade Union Congress, affiliated to the Indian National Congress of Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Originally a supporter of the strike, in recent days the INTUC has condemned the action as “baseless and illegal”, being the only major union to do so. On a governmental level, Congress have been eerily silent about the All-India general strike for two reasons. Firstly, they do not wish to inflame a situation by generating column inches on industrial action primarily aimed against the government. Yet perhaps more important at a time of economic uncertainty, Congress realises that India has the potential to become another epicentre of anti-neoliberal unrest, and they fear scaring off foreign investment firms looking for a cheap workforce. To remedy this, the party has instead employed their union wing in an attempt to distance themselves from their critique of the strike. That the union’s leader, G.Sanjeeva Reddy, is a Congress MP in the upper house of the Indian Parliament shows the extent to which they can control the top layer of union bureaucracy. Time will tell just how successful this strategy is, as over the last several months INTUC has been involved in a bitter factional struggle between elements supporting and detracting from the government. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the political elite consider the strike to be a significant threat to their political agenda. Rakesh Sheetty, INTUC youth president, stated “We have already submitted a letter to Chief Labour Commissioner to provide security to the employers while attending their duties on Feb 28, 2012 and the unions involved in this strike should be banned”, indicating that Congress are prepared to allow their union to take up an explicit anti-worker position in defence of the status quo.
Looking back at the 100 million workers who struck in 2010, the action was successful from an economic perspective, yet lacked any real political direction and as a result little significant change arose from it.
What makes the general strike on the 28th February significant is not merely the strength of numbers involved – which will be the largest to date – but also the context of a global collapse in the neoliberal economic model. As Gurudas Dasgupta of the AITUC comments, this strike will be “only a wake up call. This is a warning signal to the United Progressive Alliance government, whose policies of neo-capitalism have brought about this situation in the country.” Plans are already being formulated for a further strike wave in the coming months of 2012. There is hope that the All-Indian general strike may have the possibility of transcending national borders, instilling confidence in workers worldwide to take on the super-rich and the austerity policies of their governments. However, the strike must not fall into the trap of lacking clarity, which severely impacted upon the longevity of the 2010 movement. The different ambitions and goals of the unions involved may not be agreed to in the form of a clear list of demands, and is unlikely to, but activists in India need to maintain the current focus of attacking a UPA government whose members have a long history of selling out the labour movement and not providing for the desperately impoverished. Right-wing elements supporting the strike for opportunist reasons run the risk of weakening the potential for a solid show of strength, and this must be opposed by the rank and file.
What is crucial is that the working class of India is united in a long-term strategy of pushing the government to make good on previous assurances to basic standards of living, and a fundamental right to work in a country where poverty is higher than in all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. The left needs to pay close attention to the events in India as the strike unfolds, standing in solidarity with workers and taking lessons in how to conduct militant resistance against those who say that ordinary people must pay for the crisis of the system.
http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2012/02/100-million-will-strike-in-india/

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Seriuosly... Hell fucking yeah!!! :thumbup1:


Sorry for the douchbag-ish comment, but really, this is so awsome that primitve expressions are allowed ;)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Yay!!!!

[m-l Power]

I think the India is going to be the future new Socialist Republic, all the communist of the world need a big example, the victory of the revolution in India would impulse our movement to other much better condition.

[daft punk]

Interesting. This hasnt made the CWI site yet, but their Indian site had an article:


http://socialism.in/?p=2276

28th February 2012 General Strike: Capitalism is THE CRISIS dump it ! (http://socialism.in/?p=2276)

http://socialism.in/wp-content/themes/bombax/images/socialism.gif

[Die Neue Zeit]

While this is impressive, Indian workers should have no illusions about their demographic situation: they are still a minority relative to the peasants and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

[the last donut of the night]

While this is impressive, Indian workers should have no illusions about their demographic situation: they are still a minority relative to the peasants and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

dnz you've kinda become revleft's mascot, i'm so sorry

[Ocean Seal]

While this is impressive, Indian workers should have no illusions about their demographic situation: they are still a minority relative to the peasants and urban petit-bourgeoisie.
So 100 million workers are on strike and yet workers power can't be achieved. Please respond with some links to some topics I won't read.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So 100 million workers are on strike and yet workers power can't be achieved. Please respond with some links to some topics I won't read.

I'm saying that it can't be achieved without full-blown civil war with the India's peasantry and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

[andyx1205]

So 100 million workers are on strike and yet workers power can't be achieved. Please respond with some links to some topics I won't read.

Workers power?

I am obviously in favour of more rights and social conditions for the people but we need to be realistic, a real workers revolution in India would be preferred when India is much more industrialized and advanced, which will be in the soon future. Since the neoliberal reforms and abandonment of India's previous economic policies, poverty in India has greatly diminished (as a percentage) and the middle class is growing and growing. This means that while a few people are getting really rich, the middle class is also growing, while a large sector of the population still lives in poverty...but this is a step forward, it's how the world works. This is why Marx and Engels so many times emphasized that you need the capitalist phase, the revolution that will bring socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat, rule by the majority) requires an advanced, industrialized country.

India's current economic policies hurt a lot of the population, yes, but they also create a larger middle class, and as this middle class grows, as the class that is supposed to direct the revolution grows, there will be newer social interests arising and these social interests, the interests of the middle class, of the proletariat, will need to be addressed. It is at this time that either the people will win concessions and social reform that increases their standard of living, or the people will launch a revolution (my position is similar to Chomsky's, support reform and other legislations that increase the quality of life for the people, and when the opportunity presents itself, break free of the prison...the prison being the capitalist system).

Please, the middle class in India is growing. We don't need a Maoist revolution, or the shithole that happened in the Soviet Union. If you actually are a Marxist, you will support India's further industrialization and economic development, until it reaches a stage ready for revolution. Too many people have died throughout history because of idealists.

[andyx1205]

My main point is that India is not ready for revolution. What the workers and unions and strikers and social activists in India can do...is win more concessions and economic rights for the people.

[Rafiq]

Die Neue Zeit raises a good point, and I'd respect the first person to admit that this is indeed a dangerous deadlock.

We need to recognize the importance of such an issue: Proletarians do not consist of a majority in the third world countries. I haven't seen anyone offer a convincing solution to the problem yet, except DNZ, and ironically, he's regarded as controversial for them. At least he actually recognizes the problem.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think the India is going to be the future new Socialist Republic, all the communist of the world need a big example, the victory of the revolution in India would impulse our movement to other much better condition.

Not without worker soviets it isn't and unless those who strike are prepared to continue the struggle at some point in time than the future of India is not looking too bright; while I certainly hope that the Indian proletarians become radicalized, to say that India will become the new socialist state,while ignoring the massive anti-maoist crackdown, and the Indian state's previous smashing of strikes, seems idealistic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I haven't seen anyone offer a convincing solution to the problem yet, except DNZ, and ironically, he's regarded as controversial for them. At least he actually recognizes the problem.

I think it's because the way I present the "thick skin" approach: how thick of a proverbial skin should proletarian demographic minorities have when it comes to dealing with as many manifestations of peasant patrimonialism (political personality cults, militarized culture, etc.) as there can possibly be?

Those who scream "Authoritarian!" or "Authoritarianism!" don't have thick enough skins for this stuff.

[gorillafuck]

We need to recognize the importance of such an issue: Proletarians do not consist of a majority in the third world countries.what?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

what?

Peasants are the most numerous I believe.

[Le Rouge]

..100 millions? Are you serious? This is like 1/10th of the total indian population.

[gorillafuck]

Peasants are the most numerous I believe.in all of the third world?

[Os Cangaceiros]

according to wikipedia:


The 467-million worker Indian labour force (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/wiki/Labour_in_India) is the world's second-largest (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_force).[6] (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qCnzNw_XQ6sJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#cite_note-FOOTNOTECentral_Intelligence_Agency-8) The service sector makes up 54% of GDP, the agricultural sector (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/wiki/Agriculture_in_India) 28%, and the industrial sector 18%. Major agricultural products include rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, and potatoes.[160] (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qCnzNw_XQ6sJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#cite_note-FOOTNOTELibrary_of_Congress2004-165) Major industries include textiles, telecommunications, chemicals, food processing, steel, transport equipment, cement, mining, petroleum, machinery, and software.[160] (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qCnzNw_XQ6sJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#cite_note-FOOTNOTELibrary_of_Congress2004-165)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Making blanket statements about the "third world" is so dumb, by the way.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

We need to recognize the importance of such an issue: Proletarians do not consist of a majority in the third world countries. I haven't seen anyone offer a convincing solution to the problem yet, except DNZ, and ironically, he's regarded as controversial for them. At least he actually recognizes the problem.

Considering you so highly prize your insanely vulgar entry level historical materialism, can you provide a materialist explanation for why the majority of the third word are, literally, peasants?

[Per Levy]

While this is impressive, Indian workers should have no illusions about their demographic situation: they are still a minority relative to the peasants and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

translation with dnz's own words "the workers should know their place".


I'm saying that it can't be achieved without full-blown civil war with the India's peasantry and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

and you know that why? why shouldnt the peasents join up with the workers? and more importently, i remember that you were in favour of the urban petit-bourgeoisie to rule in third world countries, since when are they the majority?

[Rafiq]

Considering you so highly prize your insanely vulgar entry level historical materialism, can you provide a materialist explanation for why the majority of the third word are, literally, peasants?

Capitalism hasn't fully developed there. This stuff isn't hard.

[black magick hustla]

Capitalism hasn't fully developed there. This stuff isn't hard.

it has though. the slums and the shitholes of the world are as much part of world capital as green village nyc

[PhoenixAsh]

well...this thread raised an interesting side discussion.

If some countries are not ready for revolution and if communism can not be obtained in one country (a self-sustainable area is needed) then:

1). Would a revolution in countries which are able and ready not spark a prolonged war with those which aren't and still need a capitalist system?

2). Or should a revolution be put on hold ion countries which are ready and able untill the rest of the world can follow suit?

Interesting debate topics, though crude....and I am sure somebody can post more poignant questions. If we are going to pursue this then I will split it off.


@ On topic though...the strike will be set for tomorrow. Are there any updates as to the current situation?

Specifically....Are there any updates about the participation of unions. As I read in the OP there is resistance from some large unions against the strike.

[Die Neue Zeit]

according to wikipedia:

Much of the service sector is also populated by the urban petit-bourgeoisie in the form of the self-employed.


translation with dnz's own words "the workers should know their place".

and you know that why? why shouldnt the peasents join up with the workers? and more importently, i remember that you were in favour of the urban petit-bourgeoisie to rule in third world countries, since when are they the majority?

No, I said "national petit-bourgeoisie" comprising of the socioeconomically patriotic elements within the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie. Guess who belongs to the rural petit-bourgeoisie? The peasantry.

[Sam_b]

Are there any updates about the participation of unions. As I read in the OP there is resistance from some large unions against the strike.

As far as I know at this point it is only the INTUC that has been divided on the issue, but the latest coming out of Reuters/The Hindu is saying that they now support and will be calling all out. Reddy recently said to the press that "We will have to think about our future course of action if the government does not come forward with proposals on how it will react to our demands", so that is a positive step in as much as Congress' own union is coming out against the government.

PM Manmohan Singh made an appeal for workers not to strike, amongst the TU movement this was of course laughed at.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Much of the service sector is also populated by the urban petit-bourgeoisie in the form of the self-employed.


I suspect that your ascribing belief systems to a (huge and diverse) population of people that you actually know little about.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Die Neue Zeit raises a good point, and I'd respect the first person to admit that this is indeed a dangerous deadlock.

We need to recognize the importance of such an issue: Proletarians do not consist of a majority in the third world countries. I haven't seen anyone offer a convincing solution to the problem yet, except DNZ, and ironically, he's regarded as controversial for them. At least he actually recognizes the problem.


With the stats that Explocive Situation posted above here, this strike might be the resulte of the growing proletariat and the increasing economy of India.

[Rafiq]

it has though. the slums and the shitholes of the world are as much part of world capital as green village nyc

The existence of peasantry is antithetical to a fully developed capitalist state.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The existence of peasantry is antithetical to a fully developed capitalist state.

Firstly you argued that most of the Indian people are peasants because captialism has not fully developed there.

And now your arguing that we know India is not fully captialist because peasants exist there.

Am I missing something here???



I have my doubts about the traditional Marxist definition of the peasantry, and realise mabye my definition of a peasnat is a crude as I don't know much about it, but it seems pretty clear to me most people in india are not giving tribute to some landowner out of legal obligation put apon them by their birth?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Why would the peasantry not support the industrial workers? Because an old man wrote in in a book a long time ago? I would think that the goal of both of them is the same, the peasants might not be directly exploited by capitalists but I'm sure they suffer from various trade agreements and policies instituted by the Indian state's endorsement of neoliberal capitalism
Both groups have a vested interest in achieving socialism, why would they oppose each other?

[Ocean Seal]

Die Neue Zeit raises a good point, and I'd respect the first person to admit that this is indeed a dangerous deadlock.

We need to recognize the importance of such an issue: Proletarians do not consist of a majority in the third world countries. I haven't seen anyone offer a convincing solution to the problem yet, except DNZ, and ironically, he's regarded as controversial for them. At least he actually recognizes the problem.
That is true, but that doesn't mean that a civil war will emerge, nor should it paint this strike in anything less than the most positive light. Its moments like these which rarely come around. Saying that they should have no illusions about their situation is defeatist.

And it is the worst kind of defeatism. What would right-wingers do if they had an army 100,000,000 strong? They certainly wouldn't complain about people making illusions over whether or not they were going to win a war. We have 100,000,000 workers on strike. If we do not take action to support this, if we don't fight like hell to ensure that massive progress is made here, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

Take every single active duty troop in the world and the Indian workers still outnumber them.

[Rafiq]

Firstly you argued that most of the Indian people are peasants because captialism has not fully developed there.

I said most people in the third world are peasants because capitalism has not fully developed in those areas, in the case of India, I know their is about half peasant/half proletarians (Perhaps even more peasants) and that's enough for civil war.


And now your arguing that we know India is not fully captialist because peasants exist there.


Re read :bored:

1.I mean, how exactly do you find those contradictory?

Indian people are not mostly proletarians because capitalism has not fully devleoped in that area.


2.
We can easily tell India is not fully capitalist because peasants exist there

or

1. The sky is blue, I know this because I have eyes

2. I have eyes, therefore I can easily tell the sky is blue.

:confused: What's the issue?


Am I missing something here???


Your head. Check up your ass.



I have my doubts about the traditional Marxist definition of the peasantry, and realise mabye my definition of a peasnat is a crude as I don't know much about it,

Yes, your "definition" is more legitiment than tradition Marxist definition because fuck all


but it seems pretty clear to me most people in india are not giving tribute to some landowner out of legal obligation put apon them by their birth?


Wow man, that's not what being a peasant means.

[the last donut of the night]

what do you define as third world anyways? is brazil a third world country? by its GDP, no, but by its HDI, yes. the same applies with china and india.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Does anyone know if the Naxals has taken a stance on this?


edit:
what do you define as third world anyways? is brazil a third world country? by its GDP, no, but by its HDI, yes. the same applies with china and india.
Third World means countries that stayed non-aligned during the cold war. So technically speaking Brazil is a third world country

[Decolonize The Left]

Why would the peasantry not support the industrial workers? Because an old man wrote in in a book a long time ago? I would think that the goal of both of them is the same, the peasants might not be directly exploited by capitalists but I'm sure they suffer from various trade agreements and policies instituted by the Indian state's endorsement of neoliberal capitalism
Both groups have a vested interest in achieving socialism, why would they oppose each other?

Because it's in the interest of the ruling class to have them oppose one another.

Why do gays oppose women's struggles?
Why do women oppose affirmative action?
Why do blacks oppose gay rights action?

Obviously not all of any one sub-group oppose all of any other, but these groups are easily pitted against each other by the ruling class for the simple reason of divide and conquer.

- August

[Aspiring Humanist]

Because it's in the interest of the ruling class to have them oppose one another.

Why do gays oppose women's struggles?
Why do women oppose affirmative action?
Why do blacks oppose gay rights action?

Obviously not all of any one sub-group oppose all of any other, but these groups are easily pitted against each other by the ruling class for the simple reason of divide and conquer.

- August

obviously its not all of a subgroup, using the word "some" would be a gross exaggeration in itself...you cant just blanket all those groups with an opinion you see very infrequently...its like youre stereotyping the stereotype



I'm saying that it can't be achieved without full-blown civil war with the India's peasantry and urban petit-bourgeoisie.

But even if the peasant - industrial worker "feud" is constructed by the state, why do people like this guy make a civil war between the poor sound like it would be a good thing?

[Decolonize The Left]

obviously its not all of a subgroup, using the word "some" would be a gross exaggeration in itself...you cant just blanket all those groups with an opinion you see very infrequently...its like youre stereotyping the stereotype

Dude, you missed my entire point. I'm not saying that any one sub-group feels one way about any other, in fact, I made it very clear:

Obviously not all of any one sub-group oppose all of any other, but these groups are easily pitted against each other by the ruling class for the simple reason of divide and conquer.

I'm saying that it's in the interest of one class to divide it's enemy and pit them against themselves. It's basic war strategy.

- August

[the last donut of the night]

Third World means countries that stayed non-aligned during the cold war. So technically speaking Brazil is a third world country

thereby making dnz's statements wack

[gorillafuck]

so we can get this straight, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant this is what a peasant is. the majority of people in the "third world" are this, DNZ and Rafiq?

care to back that up?

[Q]

well...this thread raised an interesting side discussion.

If some countries are not ready for revolution and if communism can not be obtained in one country (a self-sustainable area is needed) then:

1). Would a revolution in countries which are able and ready not spark a prolonged war with those which aren't and still need a capitalist system?

2). Or should a revolution be put on hold in countries which are ready and able untill the rest of the world can follow suit?

I'm more optimistic and don't believe we need the whole world for making communism work. What we need though is definitely the capitalist core: Europe, North-America, Japan, China (included for its sheer industrial base), at the least. India would be a welcoming addition to this, but not strictly necessary, I think.

If communism is then achieved in these global areas, we can, as it were, "buy out" the rest of the capitalist remaining world, if they didn't have revolution by this point, and pump in huge development programs.

But this is a subject that requires more debate to deepen out the requirements of gaining a society that is built on human need.

As for the topic: A very interesting development for sure! While India's working class is still a minority, this is surely a huge boost to working class confidence and thus building the working class as a class for its own interests. Too bad though that on the political front much still needs to be done, to say the least.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would the peasantry not support the industrial workers? Because an old man wrote in in a book a long time ago? I would think that the goal of both of them is the same, the peasants might not be directly exploited by capitalists but I'm sure they suffer from various trade agreements and policies instituted by the Indian state's endorsement of neoliberal capitalism
Both groups have a vested interest in achieving socialism, why would they oppose each other?

Well, just take a look back at why the original Soviet constitution threw equal suffrage out the door, weighting rural votes and their soviets less than urban ones. If those aren't the first shots in a civil war that would include grain expropriation antics mis-labelled "class struggle in the countryside," then we might as well be clueless about working-class relations with peasants historically.

At least Mao and co. upheld equal suffrage.

Re. vested interests, I think that proletarian demographic minorities and socioeconomic patriots amongst the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the rural petit-bourgeoisie (peasantry) have an interest in achieving what I term "Third World Caesarean Socialism." All segments have a vested interest in being "goons and thugs" (to quote my critics) directed against all bourgeois and comprador petit-bourgeois forces.

That's still quite different from an outright "dictatorship of the proletariat."

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I said most people in the third world are peasants because capitalism has not fully developed in those areas, in the case of India, I know their is about half peasant/half proletarians (Perhaps even more peasants) and that's enough for civil war.



Re read :bored:

1.I mean, how exactly do you find those contradictory?

Indian people are not mostly proletarians because capitalism has not fully devleoped in that area.


2.

or

1. The sky is blue, I know this because I have eyes

2. I have eyes, therefore I can easily tell the sky is blue.

:confused: What's the issue?


Well, in neither of those cases did you provide any separate justification for why peasants exist in India. You just said that on one hand, peasants exist because capitalism is not "developed" there and then on the other, we know capitalism is not developed there because peasants exist there; which proves nothing. I understand these statements were in response to different people, but what i was getting at is that you need to provide us with your reasoning/evidence as to why most Indians are peasants in the Marxist sense.

[daft punk]

The problem in India isnt so much the lack of urban proletraiat as the lack of socialist parties. Most of the left is Stalinist and therefore pretty much class callaboration/reformist. At least the USSR doesnt exist any more which in some respects is a blessing because Moscow cant dictate to these other places.

In the states where the CPI(M) is strong, things are ok relatively, mainly because the workers are so militant there, but nationally they propped up the Congress party.

In India, 30% live in cities, and this is expected to increase to 40% in the next 20 years. This is far higher than in Russia in 1917 when the Bolsheviks successfully, sorta, pulled off a revolution, at least for a few years.

[Red Commissar]

So, anyone have any good reports of what happened? 28th has come and gone in India. Reading some news sources indicates the strikes affected the financial and transport sectors the most, with some areas being nearly completely shut down.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The only report I read online was Al Jazeera's coverage. They made it seem like it wasn't really that big a deal.

[Sam_b]

The problem in India isnt so much the lack of urban proletraiat as the lack of socialist parties. Most of the left is Stalinist and therefore pretty much class callaboration/reformist. At least the USSR doesnt exist any more which in some respects is a blessing because Moscow cant dictate to these other places.

I disagree, there are a wide range of political organisations on the left at regional and national level. However none are particularly aligned to any national movement, and there really isn't any real broad or 'mass' party of labour organisation in my view. As for most of the left being 'Stalinist' this isn't the case as much as the most successful parties are aligned to Marxism-Leninism in principle, and that the CPI is generally not of this mould anymore. As for the CPI(M), I don't see how they have propped up the INC as they regularly organise against them, are opposed to the Congress-led government; and off the top of my head can't remember anything major that they've backed from INC that is questionable. Before this article I haven't done anything in-depth within Indian politics for a while though.

You're right that workers are militant, particularly in CPI(M) areas such as West Bengal, that have seen numerous strikes in the last few years.

[magicme]

So, anyone have any good reports of what happened? 28th has come and gone in India. Reading some news sources indicates the strikes affected the financial and transport sectors the most, with some areas being nearly completely shut down.

This. I read a little report on the BBC which also seemed to be saying it was bit of a fail but no numbers were given. It didn't get on the news at all. Does anyone have links to alternative news sources? (I got tired of google cos the first two pages on the news search I did took me to the same set of words the BBC had on other news sites).

[Rafiq]

Well, in neither of those cases did you provide any separate justification for why peasants exist in India. You just said that on one hand, peasants exist because capitalism is not "developed" there and then on the other, we know capitalism is not developed there because peasants exist there; which proves nothing. I understand these statements were in response to different people, but what i was getting at is that you need to provide us with your reasoning/evidence as to why most Indians are peasants in the Marxist sense.

1. I said I didn't know if most of them are, but at least half of them.

Now,

"The peasantry are the class of small farmers, especially in those countries which have not yet industrialised and where archaic*methods of production*continue in agriculture and the lack of means of communication leave the peasant masses in relative isolation from events around the country."

Roughly half of India's population falls into this catagory. First you ask "why" they are peasants, now you ask "how".

If you would wish to deny that they are indeed peasants, you must enlighten us with your definition of the peasantry, and why half of India's population is exempt from this catagory, in contrast to pre-maoist china's and Feudal Europe.

[andyx1205]

1. I said I didn't know if most of them are, but at least half of them.

Now,

"The peasantry are the class of small farmers, especially in those countries which have not yet industrialised and where archaic*methods of production*continue in agriculture and the lack of means of communication leave the peasant masses in relative isolation from events around the country."

Roughly half of India's population falls into this catagory. First you ask "why" they are peasants, now you ask "how".

If you would wish to deny that they are indeed peasants, you must enlighten us with your definition of the peasantry, and why half of India's population is exempt from this catagory, in contrast to pre-maoist china's and Feudal Europe.

Indeed, way too many damn idealists on this forum, I swear, they think that if any country undergoes a socialist revolution it will be a utopia...well this isn't how the world works and is completely against Marxism.

India needs time before it is ready a the socialist revolution. According to estimates, by 2025, the majority of India will belong to the middle class. From here on, India will be moving along the capitalist phase and perhaps later on India will be ready for a real dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the overwhelming majority having economic and political power over the overwhelming minority. If, lets say, the Naxalites took over India and there was a successful Maoist revolution right now, India, according to Marxism, will be on a much slower path to being ripe for the socialist stage and you will end up with an authoritarian state capitalist society, hence, India will be set BACKWARDS. Look at China, Mao did many great things such as expansion of social services which lead to higher life expectancy, greater access to education, and so forth, but ever since the neoliberal reforms in China...China has been developing economically much faster which means that opening up the market in China (though it still has a strong state control) has rapidly quickened China's path towards being ripe and ready for the "socialist phase" in Marxism. Same thing happened in India, after the neoliberal reforms, poverty has sharply decreased and the middle class is greatly growing (while at the same time India is also producing many billionaires and a large segment of the population is being either left out of this "development" or being negatively hit).

Too many idealists have thrown Marx's dialectic materialism out the window.

[ohphooey]

There's too much ground being covered in the posts. But for starters, I shall say, unfortunately, the strike comprised of almost entirely just organized sector employees,which is just around 5% of the workforce, who tend to be much better-off that unorganized sector workers. Besides, the turnout wasn't as large as anticipated because of intimidation by authorities, and the number was overstated in the first place. Anyway, the point is not that the organized sector employees should have not have struck. The point is that one would wish the strike was more widespread, though the sheer numbers were indeed high and I do see it as a positive step.

[pastradamus]

People here seem not to recognise the importance of this strike. Sure, it was only a small amount of workers as a proportion of the whole class but history has the knack of showing us that movements like this can and do seem to grow so whilst I think the idea it was to attract those kind of numbers were initially exaggerated, there is nothing to suggest that it cant grow that large scale.

[pastradamus]

Also just a note.

If Indian workers are to organise and do something good out there then they must first destroy the caste system.

[ohphooey]

I definitely think strikes are a powerful force, and wouldn't underestimate them and their potential, but the way it was being talked about, made it seem like that the entire country was turning inside out.

[ohphooey]

I would also like to add that the agrarian sector comprises about 60% of the workforce- a large portion of which is extremely poor. That is not to deny that there are better-off farmers, among them. But to label the entire agrarian sector as being a homogenous category called "petit-bourgeios", to me, is not very helpful. That's like saying, "you're only deprived if you work in an industry".

[daft punk]

I disagree, there are a wide range of political organisations on the left at regional and national level. However none are particularly aligned to any national movement, and there really isn't any real broad or 'mass' party of labour organisation in my view. As for most of the left being 'Stalinist' this isn't the case as much as the most successful parties are aligned to Marxism-Leninism in principle, and that the CPI is generally not of this mould anymore. As for the CPI(M), I don't see how they have propped up the INC as they regularly organise against them, are opposed to the Congress-led government; and off the top of my head can't remember anything major that they've backed from INC that is questionable. Before this article I haven't done anything in-depth within Indian politics for a while though.

You're right that workers are militant, particularly in CPI(M) areas such as West Bengal, that have seen numerous strikes in the last few years.

"The Communist parties - CPI and CPI(M) - are now campaigning for a ’secular front’ with the Congress against the BJP. "

http://www.socialistworld.net/print/1067

one example, I think, from 2004.

"This utterly shameless alliance of rival neo-liberal capitalist-landlordist and even communal parties, which the CPI (M) proclaims as an alternative to Congress and BJP rule, reveals the level of degeneration within the CPI (M). With no programme (political or economic) whatsoever and an alliance based on mutual convenience as to which party candidate shall be the next prime minister, the CPI(M) stands thoroughly exposed for its bankrupt, anti-worker/anti-peasant policy. Having abandoned the struggle for socialism for a capitalism-based social democracy, its search for even a ’progressive’ bourgeoisie has ended. They have become experts in managing capitalism better than the capitalists!"

http://www.socialistworld.net/print/3544

[daft punk]

I would also like to add that the agrarian sector comprises about 60% of the workforce- a large portion of which is extremely poor. That is not to deny that there are better-off farmers, among them. But to label the entire agrarian sector as being a homogenous category called "petit-bourgeios", to me, is not very helpful. That's like saying, "you're only deprived if you work in an industry".

This is very true, and was why in September 1917 Lenin dropped his slogan 'workers and peasants' in favour of you-know-who's 'workers government'. However at times, as was the case throughout most of 1917, the peasants, rich and poor, can be united against the landlords. The genius in Tr***ky's slogan was that it forced the question of who's side the poor peasants were gonna be on.

Post censored to keep certain whingers happy.



oh, there will be a CWI report, give them time, they are slow typists.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

1. I said I didn't know if most of them are, but at least half of them.

Now,

"The peasantry are the class of small farmers, especially in those countries which have not yet industrialised and where archaic*methods of production*continue in agriculture and the lack of means of communication leave the peasant masses in relative isolation from events around the country."


So you are stating that indian farmers own their own

[Rafiq]

So you are stating that indian farmers own their own

No, but by definition, they're still peasants.

Tell me, are you really a troll, or is your user name fuck all?

[Ocean Seal]

What does it matter if they are a majority peasant nation. We have 100 mil workers on strike. I don't think that anyone believes that there will be a socialist revolution anytime soon, but in countries where semi-feudal relations existed well into the 60's (like the United States for example which had debt serfdom) we have always supported strikes and believed in the strength of the working class. Never has there been an event like this, so its only logical to believe in the tremendous strength of the working class.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/strike-across-india-banking-transport-hit/234385-3.html

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No, but by definition, they're still peasants.

Tell me, are you really a troll, or is your user name fuck all?


I do not understand why you think it is trolling to doubt that your blanket statement that 50 percent of indians are peasants.

if 52 percent of the Indians workforce in agriculture or allied sectors (forestry or fishing is what is listed mainly), and unemployment is at 10 percent, that alone makes it less than 50 percent.

and then you are going to have to investigate what amount of the agricultural workers are geniuely peasants, and discount the significant amount the workers in allied sectors, so it is even lower.

Additionally, the definition you provided of the peasantry misses the crucial point; that they own or have some significant claim their own means of production. for someone who seems to feel such a big man for raving 16 year old anarchist that they don't fall into line with his version of historical materialism, it seems surprising you didn't include that.

But yeah, it really isn't importnat in terms of class definitons whether they are geographically isolated or use low tech methods of production. Do half of indians farm land they own and then use the produce, or the sale of it to support themselves - i'd definitely say not.




*(where you know, drinking organic coffee means your a unmaterlaist shithead who should be killed by the glorious felix dsychevisky or worse, raghghhg!)

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I think its a to vulgare form of marxism to say that this strike isnt of importance because of the current class structure. And thats because of materialism, a strike like this wouldnt happen if it wasnt for the conciousness of the proletariat had grown out of theire conditions. Also (as many have pointed out) big part of the agricultural work force tend to live under conditions that make them have more things in comon with the proletariat then the petite-bougeusie.

[Luís Henrique]

Capitalism hasn't fully developed there. This stuff isn't hard.

What, in your opinion, is the predominant mode of production in India?

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

An article by ICC's section in India on Indian economy focusing on the so-called Indian boom. (http://en.internationalism.org/ci/2008/indian-boom)

[ohphooey]

As pointed out, I think it might be helpful when considering the agrarian sector, to think of landlessness, tenancy, and amount of land owned. You might find this useful:
agrarianstudies.org/UserFiles/File/Rawal_Ownership_Holdings_of_Land_in_Rural_India.pd f

[Rafiq]

What, in your opinion, is the predominant mode of production in India?

Luís Henrique

India isn't the same everywhere. Some places are full blown capitalism, and some are stuck in the remnants of feudalism.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

India isn't the same everywhere. Some places are full blown capitalism, and some are stuck in the remnants of feudalism.

When you refer to the peasantry, do you mean a class that exists in capitalism, or feudalism?

At first I thought you meant to say india was still feudal in some places, but then you provided a definition of peasants that was basically "they are small farmers with their own land" which places them in the petit bourgeoisie. And now your saying parts of india are still feudal?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

As pointed out, I think it might be helpful when considering the agrarian sector, to think of landlessness, tenancy, and amount of land owned. You might find this useful:
agrarianstudies.org/UserFiles/File/Rawal_Ownership_Holdings_of_Land_in_Rural_India.pd f



finds that (within the limitations of the data) more than
40 per cent of households in rural India do not own land


Is relevant to discussing the existence of an independent peasantry vs rural proletariat

[l'Enfermé]

The October Revolution was a Proletarian Revolution, even though the peasantry was the vast majority of the Russian Empire. As Lenin said, revolutions are done by minorities, the minimum that is required is the friendly neutrality of the majority.

Anyways, this is just a single strike. No need to get so excited.

[ohphooey]

Is relevant to discussing the existence of an independent peasantry vs rural proletariat

Also, tenancy.
thehindubusinessline.in/2011/01/14/stories/2011011450260900.htm

[Luís Henrique]

Anyways, this is just a single strike. No need to get so excited.

Yeah, that. Why is it important whether the proletariat is the majority of the Indian population, if this is only a strike, not a political revolution?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

India isn't the same everywhere.

No doubt. It is one State, though. A capitalist State, or a Feudal one?


Some places are full blown capitalism, and some are stuck in the remnants of feudalism.

Which "places" are capitalist, and which are "feudal" (has India ever been feudal, that it can have remnants of feudalism, btw? (not a rhetoric question, I am interested in the answer))? What percent of the Indian production correspond to what places? Is the production of the supposedly "feudal" regions for subsistence, or is it actually sold in the markets? What part of the Indian agriculture is actually for subsistence, and what part is commercial agriculture? What part of it is actually laboured by a rural proletariat, that sells its labour power for wages, as opposed to an actual peasantry, that retains at least formal property of small parcels of land? What part of the peasantry (as in, small private or communal proprietors of land) is able to retain any significant independence, or are dependent only to pre-capitalist landlords, and what part are actually subjected to informal bourgeois exploitation, through credit, mortgages, technology leases, monopsonic markets, etc.?

A proper analysis of Indian society and economy would be in order here, not a weeping, abstract, generalisation.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

When you refer to the peasantry, do you mean a class that exists in capitalism, or feudalism?

The peasantry is inherently a remnant of Feudalism.


At first I thought you meant to say india was still feudal in some places, but then you provided a definition of peasants that was basically "they are small farmers with their own land"

That isn't what Peasants are.


which places them in the petit bourgeoisie. And now your saying parts of india are still feudal?


A lot of the times, the Peasants automatically become members of the petite-bourgeoisie, when capitalism takes a hold of every part of an economy. However, this isn't the case in India. Are you honestly trying to suggest now, that peasants in India do not even exist? In China before Mao? According to your ludicrous definition, the peasantry as a class have never existed.

Today, in India, the peasantry are a breed of the petite bourgeoisie. They are, though, still peasants.

[Rafiq]

I do not understand why you think it is trolling to doubt that your blanket statement that 50 percent of indians are peasants.

That's not why I accused you of trolling. I accused you of trolling for replying to me saying "So you are saying indian farmers own their own".


if 52 percent of the Indians workforce in agriculture or allied sectors (forestry or fishing is what is listed mainly), and unemployment is at 10 percent, that alone makes it less than 50 percent.


Fucking absurdity. Tell me where unemployment is ten percent in those specific sectors . If we pretend the Indian bourgeoisie and urban petite bourgeoisie do not exist, than the peasants are roughly half the population (the other half, being the proletarians).


and then you are going to have to investigate what amount of the agricultural workers are geniuely peasants, and discount the significant amount the workers in allied sectors, so it is even lower.


A joke. Do you even know what a Peasant is?


Additionally, the definition you provided of the peasantry misses the crucial point; that they own or have some significant claim their own means of production.

Yes, in capitalism, they become a breed of the petite bourgeoisie, if not have their land extorted from capitalists and become proletarians.


for someone who seems to feel such a big man for raving 16 year old anarchist that they don't fall into line with his version of historical materialism, it seems surprising you didn't include that.


Keep on crying. Read my posts for once, you dumb fuck. I do understand that a large portion of the peasantry owns their own means of production. But this isn't always the case, especially when you're a slave to the land owners. Which is why the Peasantry have different sectors within themselves.


But yeah, it really isn't importnat in terms of class definitons whether they are geographically isolated or use low tech methods of production. Do half of indians farm land they own and then use the produce, or the sale of it to support themselves - i'd definitely say not.


They either work for Landowners (which does not qualify them to be either proletarians nor petite bourgeois) or they own their own land. If they own their own land, they are, by definition petite bourgeois. But in countries that aren't developed, the petite bourgeoisie can sometimes make up the majority of the population (As they did in Russia, or do you want to deny that too?), so, proletarian revolution in such countries would inevitably lead to civil war.



*(where you know, drinking organic coffee means your a unmaterlaist shithead who should be killed by the glorious felix dsychevisky or worse, raghghhg!)


And you dare fucking question why I call you a troll?

[Die Neue Zeit]

At first I thought you meant to say india was still feudal in some places, but then you provided a definition of peasants that was basically "they are small farmers with their own land" which places them in the petit bourgeoisie. And now your saying parts of india are still feudal?

It doesn't matter in the end. They still aren't farm workers.


The October Revolution was a Proletarian Revolution, even though the peasantry was the vast majority of the Russian Empire. As Lenin said, revolutions are done by minorities, the minimum that is required is the friendly neutrality of the majority.

Anyways, this is just a single strike. No need to get so excited.

That's so imprecise. Class revolutions are done by class majorities. A working-class revolution cannot have merely the "friendly neutrality" of the majority of the working class proper. October was a revolution of the Bolshevik-led workers and Left-SR-led peasants.


What part of the peasantry (as in, small private or communal proprietors of land) is able to retain any significant independence, or are dependent only to pre-capitalist landlords, and what part are actually subjected to informal bourgeois exploitation, through credit, mortgages, technology leases, monopsonic markets, etc.?

Tenant farmers and sharecroppers, unless they derive the bulk of their incomes from wage labour, are still not rural proletarians. Dependence on credit, mortgages, etc. is the same as the urban petit-bourgeois conditions relative to "the bankers."


They either work for Landowners (which does not qualify them to be either proletarians nor petite bourgeois) or they own their own land. If they own their own land, they are, by definition petite bourgeois.

As in the case of tenant farmers, comrade, they don't need to actually own the land in order to be rural petit-bourgeois.


But in countries that aren't developed, the petite bourgeoisie can sometimes make up the majority of the population (As they did in Russia, or do you want to deny that too?), so, proletarian revolution in such countries would inevitably lead to civil war.

That's the bottom line, really.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I love Revleft, I really do. Tens of thousands of people participate in a general strike in Oakland and everybody is so excited about it.

There is a Indian general strike with tens of millions of people participating and what do we get on Revleft? Not really anything about how kick ass it is for the workers of India or anything, but a debate about if Indian workers are ready for socialist revolution and what the correct definition of a peasant is :rolleyes:

It's okay, I still love you.

[Amal]

Mamta Banerjee, the pseudo leftist reactionary CM of West Bengal is showing her true color. She first threatened the public sector workers a "service brake" if they take part in the strike. Now, as the only example in the whole India, she announced one day pay-cut for the striking workers.
If anyone have any illusion about her, now it's time to throw it in dustbin.

[Alf]

Article written by the ICC's section in India:



All-India workers’ strike of 28 February 2012:
General strike or union ritual?

The general strike called by trade unions representing 100 millions workers spread all across India took place on 28 Feb 2012. All national unions, belonging to all political parties, including the Hindu fundamentalist BJP, joined the strike, as did thousands of local and regional unions. Bank employees, postal and state transport workers, teachers, dock workers and many other sectors of workers participated in the strike. The fact that all unions agreed to call this strike together goes to show the dynamic of workers’ struggles behind it.

The unions put forward a mishmash of demands: defend the public sector, control prices, compulsorily register unions within 45 days, strict enforcement of labour laws, increase of minimum wages to Rs. 10000.00 per month and social security etc. They made no effort to show that the bourgeoisie is mercilessly attacking workers today as its system is in crisis and sick and rotten. Instead, the unions’ efforts were aimed at building trust in the system – the bourgeoisie can concede anything, if it wishes to do so.

But the way the unions went about this whole strike showed their real intent. For one, they did not ask several millions of their members to even formally join the strike. More than one and a half million railway workers, equal or even bigger number of state power sector workers, many others workers, most of whom are members of these unions, were not even called upon to join. While proclaiming a ‘general strike’, unions agreed to millions of their members going to work as usual and not disrupting the smooth flow of the main arteries of capitalism.

Even in sectors whose unions pledged to join the strike, their attitude was more one of proclaiming a ritual strike. Most workers who participated did so by staying at home. Unions made no big efforts to bring them onto the streets and together or organise demos. Not much effort was made to involve millions of private sector workers, who belong to striking national unions, in the strike. We can see the seriousness of this exclusion when we recall that recently and for quite some time private sector workers have been far more militant and less respectful of the laws of the bourgeoisie. Even industrial areas like Gurgaon and auto hubs near Chennai and factories like Maruti at Gurgaon and Hyundai near Chennai that have recently witnessed major strikes did not join this strike. In most industrial areas, in hundreds of big and smaller cities all across India, while public sector workers joined the strike, millions of private sector workers continued to work and their unions did not join the strike.

Why then did the unions call the strike?
It is clear that unions did not use the strike to mobilise workers, to bring them onto the streets and unify them. They used it as a ritual, as a means to let off steam, to keep workers apart, to keep them passive and demobilised. Striking workers sitting at home and watching TV do not strengthen workers’ unity or consciousness. It only encourages a sense of isolation, a sense of passivity and of a wasted opportunity. Given this attitude, why did unions then call the strike? And what made all of them, including BMS and INTUC, join it? To understand this we have to look at what is happening at the economic and social level and within the working class in India.

Worsening living conditions of workers
Despite all the big talk about economic boom by the Indian bourgeoisie, the economic situation has been worsening over the last few years. Like capitalism everywhere, the capitalist economy in India too has been in crisis. According to statistics issued by the government, the growth has stalled and come down from nine percent to nearly six percent. Many industries have been badly hit by the crisis. These include the IT sector but also other sectors like textiles, diamond processing, capital goods industries, infrastructure, private power companies and airlines. This has led to intensified attacks on the working class. General inflation has been hovering around ten percent for more than two years. Inflation in food and other items of daily use has been much higher, sometime going up to 16%. This has made the life of the working class miserable.

Development of class struggle
In the midst of these deteriorating living and working conditions, the working class has also been discovering the path to class struggle. Since 2005 we have seen a slow acceleration of class struggle all across India. Of course this is not unique to India but part of a global resurgence of the class struggle. The years 2010 and 2011 have seen numerous strikes in many sectors, including in auto hubs at Gurgaon and Chennai. Some of these struggles, as the strikes by Honda Motor Cycle workers in 2010 and Maruti Suzuki workers in 2011, had shown great militancy and determination to confront the security apparatus of the bosses. This has also been the characteristic of strikes in Hyundai Motors in Chennai, where workers struck work several time against casualisation and other attacks of the bosses. These strikes showed strong tendencies toward solidarity and spread across factories. They also expressed tendencies toward self-organization and setting up general assemblies, as seen in strikes by the Maruti workers who occupied the factory against the advice of ‘their’ union.

In addition to this slowly rising tide of class struggle, the struggles taking place in Middle East, in Greece, in Britain and the global ‘occupy movements’ have been having an echo in the Indian working class.

Fear of the contagion of class struggle
In the face of this situation the bourgeoisie has really been worried about the spread of class struggle. At times the bourgeoisie has been very scared. This fear has been clearly expressed in the face of many of the recent strikes.
At the time of violent confrontations at Honda Motor Cycles and in the face of repeated strikes in Maruti-Suzuki, this fear could be seen clearly. Each time the media was full of stories that strikes could spread and engulf other auto companies in Gurgaon and paralyse the whole area. These stories were not speculation. While the main strikes were in a few factories, other workers went to the gates of the striking companies. There were workers’ joint demos, even one strike across the whole industrial city of Gurgaon. The provincial government was itself seriously concerned about the spread of the strike. The Chief Minister and Labour Minister of Haryana, at the prompting of the Primer Minister and Union Labour Minister, brought management and union bosses together to dampen down the strike.
Like the rest of the bourgeoisie, unions have been even more concerned over loosing control over the workers if the militancy increases. Again, this was evident in strikes at Maruti in 2011 where workers took many actions against the directions and the wishes of the union.
This fear has been pushing the unions to appear to be doing something. They have called a number of ritual strikes including a bank workers’ strike in November 2011. The present strike, while without doubt an expression of the rising tide of anger and militancy within the working class, is also the latest effort of the unions to contain and channel it.

Taking the struggle into our own hands
Workers need to understand that going on a ritual strike and sitting back at home does not take us anywhere. Nor does it help to gather in a park and listen to speeches of union bosses and party MPs. The bosses and their government are attacking us because capitalism is in crisis and they have no way out. We need to understand that all workers are under attack, all are in the same boat. Remaining passive and isolated from each other does not discourage bosses from intensifying their attacks against workers. Workers need to use these occasions to come out on the streets, to mobilise themselves, to come together and discuss with other workers. They need to take their struggles into their own hands. This will not immediately solve workers’ problems but it will make it possible for us to mount a genuine struggle against the bosses to defend ourselves, to push the bosses back. It will help us develop our struggle against the whole of capitalism and work toward its destruction. As those occupying the Athens Law School in Greece in February 2012 said, in order to liberate ourselves from present crises of capitalism, “we must destroy the (capitalist) economy.”

Communist Iinternationalist, 9 March 2012

[TheRedAnarchist23]

100 million in India is equivalent to 1 million in Portugal (10%).

[TheGodlessUtopian]

100 million in India is equivalent to 1 million in Portugal (10%).

Still pretty amazing though: 10% of a country's populations striking together. Imagine future actions when economic conditions inevitably worsen.

[Amal]

Article written by the ICC's section in India:



All-India workers’ strike of 28 February 2012:
General strike or union ritual?

The general strike called by trade unions representing 100 millions workers spread all across India took place on 28 Feb 2012. All national unions, belonging to all political parties, including the Hindu fundamentalist BJP, joined the strike, as did thousands of local and regional unions. Bank employees, postal and state transport workers, teachers, dock workers and many other sectors of workers participated in the strike. The fact that all unions agreed to call this strike together goes to show the dynamic of workers’ struggles behind it.

The unions put forward a mishmash of demands: defend the public sector, control prices, compulsorily register unions within 45 days, strict enforcement of labour laws, increase of minimum wages to Rs. 10000.00 per month and social security etc. They made no effort to show that the bourgeoisie is mercilessly attacking workers today as its system is in crisis and sick and rotten. Instead, the unions’ efforts were aimed at building trust in the system – the bourgeoisie can concede anything, if it wishes to do so.

But the way the unions went about this whole strike showed their real intent. For one, they did not ask several millions of their members to even formally join the strike. More than one and a half million railway workers, equal or even bigger number of state power sector workers, many others workers, most of whom are members of these unions, were not even called upon to join. While proclaiming a ‘general strike’, unions agreed to millions of their members going to work as usual and not disrupting the smooth flow of the main arteries of capitalism.

Even in sectors whose unions pledged to join the strike, their attitude was more one of proclaiming a ritual strike. Most workers who participated did so by staying at home. Unions made no big efforts to bring them onto the streets and together or organise demos. Not much effort was made to involve millions of private sector workers, who belong to striking national unions, in the strike. We can see the seriousness of this exclusion when we recall that recently and for quite some time private sector workers have been far more militant and less respectful of the laws of the bourgeoisie. Even industrial areas like Gurgaon and auto hubs near Chennai and factories like Maruti at Gurgaon and Hyundai near Chennai that have recently witnessed major strikes did not join this strike. In most industrial areas, in hundreds of big and smaller cities all across India, while public sector workers joined the strike, millions of private sector workers continued to work and their unions did not join the strike.

Why then did the unions call the strike?
It is clear that unions did not use the strike to mobilise workers, to bring them onto the streets and unify them. They used it as a ritual, as a means to let off steam, to keep workers apart, to keep them passive and demobilised. Striking workers sitting at home and watching TV do not strengthen workers’ unity or consciousness. It only encourages a sense of isolation, a sense of passivity and of a wasted opportunity. Given this attitude, why did unions then call the strike? And what made all of them, including BMS and INTUC, join it? To understand this we have to look at what is happening at the economic and social level and within the working class in India.

Worsening living conditions of workers
Despite all the big talk about economic boom by the Indian bourgeoisie, the economic situation has been worsening over the last few years. Like capitalism everywhere, the capitalist economy in India too has been in crisis. According to statistics issued by the government, the growth has stalled and come down from nine percent to nearly six percent. Many industries have been badly hit by the crisis. These include the IT sector but also other sectors like textiles, diamond processing, capital goods industries, infrastructure, private power companies and airlines. This has led to intensified attacks on the working class. General inflation has been hovering around ten percent for more than two years. Inflation in food and other items of daily use has been much higher, sometime going up to 16%. This has made the life of the working class miserable.

Development of class struggle
In the midst of these deteriorating living and working conditions, the working class has also been discovering the path to class struggle. Since 2005 we have seen a slow acceleration of class struggle all across India. Of course this is not unique to India but part of a global resurgence of the class struggle. The years 2010 and 2011 have seen numerous strikes in many sectors, including in auto hubs at Gurgaon and Chennai. Some of these struggles, as the strikes by Honda Motor Cycle workers in 2010 and Maruti Suzuki workers in 2011, had shown great militancy and determination to confront the security apparatus of the bosses. This has also been the characteristic of strikes in Hyundai Motors in Chennai, where workers struck work several time against casualisation and other attacks of the bosses. These strikes showed strong tendencies toward solidarity and spread across factories. They also expressed tendencies toward self-organization and setting up general assemblies, as seen in strikes by the Maruti workers who occupied the factory against the advice of ‘their’ union.

In addition to this slowly rising tide of class struggle, the struggles taking place in Middle East, in Greece, in Britain and the global ‘occupy movements’ have been having an echo in the Indian working class.

Fear of the contagion of class struggle
In the face of this situation the bourgeoisie has really been worried about the spread of class struggle. At times the bourgeoisie has been very scared. This fear has been clearly expressed in the face of many of the recent strikes.
At the time of violent confrontations at Honda Motor Cycles and in the face of repeated strikes in Maruti-Suzuki, this fear could be seen clearly. Each time the media was full of stories that strikes could spread and engulf other auto companies in Gurgaon and paralyse the whole area. These stories were not speculation. While the main strikes were in a few factories, other workers went to the gates of the striking companies. There were workers’ joint demos, even one strike across the whole industrial city of Gurgaon. The provincial government was itself seriously concerned about the spread of the strike. The Chief Minister and Labour Minister of Haryana, at the prompting of the Primer Minister and Union Labour Minister, brought management and union bosses together to dampen down the strike.
Like the rest of the bourgeoisie, unions have been even more concerned over loosing control over the workers if the militancy increases. Again, this was evident in strikes at Maruti in 2011 where workers took many actions against the directions and the wishes of the union.
This fear has been pushing the unions to appear to be doing something. They have called a number of ritual strikes including a bank workers’ strike in November 2011. The present strike, while without doubt an expression of the rising tide of anger and militancy within the working class, is also the latest effort of the unions to contain and channel it.

Taking the struggle into our own hands
Workers need to understand that going on a ritual strike and sitting back at home does not take us anywhere. Nor does it help to gather in a park and listen to speeches of union bosses and party MPs. The bosses and their government are attacking us because capitalism is in crisis and they have no way out. We need to understand that all workers are under attack, all are in the same boat. Remaining passive and isolated from each other does not discourage bosses from intensifying their attacks against workers. Workers need to use these occasions to come out on the streets, to mobilise themselves, to come together and discuss with other workers. They need to take their struggles into their own hands. This will not immediately solve workers’ problems but it will make it possible for us to mount a genuine struggle against the bosses to defend ourselves, to push the bosses back. It will help us develop our struggle against the whole of capitalism and work toward its destruction. As those occupying the Athens Law School in Greece in February 2012 said, in order to liberate ourselves from present crises of capitalism, “we must destroy the (capitalist) economy.”

Communist Iinternationalist, 9 March 2012
That's the best analysis of this so-called strike. 100% correct.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@TheGodlessUtopian

"Still pretty amazing though"

If only 10% of the people would strike in Portugal...
The people of Portugal are probably one of the most reactionary peoples in the world.