Parliamentary Politics in India!

[subham]

Since the days of Marx the question that haunts the international Communist movements is whether bourgeois parliament should be boycotted as a strategy. Lenin has answered the question in his "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". As he says, what has become obsolete for us , may not be that to the people. Thus Communists should participate in parliament during transition in order to make the people aware of the conservative and anti people character of the parliament. It's a pity that Maoists in India failed to comprehend and learn the lessons of Comrade Lenin and has acquired the issue of boycotting the parliament as a strategy when it should be taken as a tactical issue. A discussion is necessary to reconsider the matter in context of present international political scenario. Comrades, discuss!!

[KrazyRabidSheep]

There are many cases of boycotting the legislative system in order to stress the illegitimate nature of the government. There are times when this works and times when it doesn't work.

Before deciding whether or not to boycott the legislative government, the political group should ask themselves many questions.

Can we win some of the elections, and if not, what is preventing us?
What is the popular support like for both us and the opposition?
Are negotiations a plausible alternative?
Is the entire government illegitimate, or only part of it?
How is the government illegitimate?
How close are we to a revolution right now?
Is this revolution likely to turn violent?
Can we win this revolution (right now), and if not, what is preventing it?

. . .and these are only a few of the questions to ask.

Boycotting the elections makes sense when the government is obviously illegitimate and the population supports your movement, however taking political seats is not plausible (aristocratic and apartheid governments, for example).
If this is the case, then the boycott will help lead into the revolution.

If, on the other hand, it is possible to take political seats, vote and take them! You can infiltrate the government and start a revolution without bloodshed.

If the population supports the opposition more then yourselves, you need to win over more people; get the word out there! Don't let propaganda (which will undoubtedly make the boycott look negative) prevail!

Look at how long the African National Congress bided it's time before the formation of the Umkhonto we Sizwe. Look how long the Indian National Congress cooperated and tolerated British rule before openly opposing imperialism.

If these parties went off half-cocked, who is to say that apartheid wouldn't still exist in South Africa or British occupation wouldn't still exist in India (after the respective organizations were crushed, no less.)

I admit I am somewhat ignorant of India's current politics, but if there is a chance to participate in government I would take it. A foothold in government can begin a peaceful revolution, and as long as that is possible, it is worth pursuing.

[Rawthentic]

subham, you are correct. Participating or abstaining from parliament is a tactical move, not strategic and it is not a principle (like some believe).

On the one hand, the Nepali Maoists have entered into the government to both isolate and destroy the reactionary forces as well as develop the country to forge a path towards socialism.

If the Indian Maoists oppose and abstain from parliamentarianism, it should be as the Nepalis did, and that is a tactical move that can advance the revolutionary movement. They should not do it because it is 'against Marxism'... because it isn't. At this time, it may seem correct and the best thing to do, but, in the future, new and different contradictions can force or make it the best choice for them to participate in the government.

Thanks for this post comrade, it is a very important thing to discuss.


I admit I am somewhat ignorant of India's current politics, but if there is a chance to participate in government I would take it. A foothold in government can begin a peaceful revolution, and as long as that is possible, it is worth pursuing.
Sorry comrade, but it is not possible. If we take a look at the conditions in India, or any capitalist nation, the state (that is the army, courts, prisons, etc., that maintain the power of the ruling classes) cannot be defeated through peaceful marches or petitions. Never in the history of mankind has a revolution or radical change been enacted unless it is by armed struggle.

[RHIZOMES]

Our party participates in bourgeoisie elections, as we see it as the best way to legitimize and spread our politics in this period of low class struggle New Zealand is currently going through.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Sorry comrade, but it is not possible. If we take a look at the conditions in India, or any capitalist nation, the state (that is the army, courts, prisons, etc., that maintain the power of the ruling classes) cannot be defeated through peaceful marches or petitions. Never in the history of mankind has a revolution or radical change been enacted unless it is by armed struggle.
I disagree. While somewhat rarer and trickier then a violent revolution, it is entirely possible to change or replace a government through little or no violence.

Perhaps the collapsing Soviet Union is not the best example, but I have others:

Las Mariposas (Dominican Republic)
The Cedar Revolution (Lebanon)
The Rose Revolution (Georgia)
The Yellow Revolution and the EDSA Revolution of 2001 (Philippines)
The Carnation Revolution (Portugal)

By no means was the job finished after any of these revolutions, but a violent revolution is as unstable the months and years following it. It has also been proven that any revolution is often likely to backfire; the old rulers are thrown down only to be replaced by hypocritical revolutionaries.

You cannot tell me that a revolution must be violent to not fail.

Even if peaceful revolutions had never taken place, what excuse is that to not try? Mankind is constantly challenging the limits of the "possible".

Revolutionaries must not only study history, they make history.
I say if there is a chance for revolution without killing, take it. If it must be, you can always kill tomorrow, but you cannot bring back to life.

[professorchaos]

I'm of the opinion that socialism cannot be voted-in, but accept participation in elections as a way to at least combat the most reactionary forces of bourgeois society. Also, broad electoral support for a left candidate/party can be seen as a mandate or indication of revolutionary fervor.

[Rawthentic]

ok krazysheep:

do you think that the capitalist/imperialist class in the United States (or any country for that matter) will give up state power without a life and death struggle?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

ok krazysheep:

do you think that the capitalist/imperialist class in the United States (or any country for that matter) will give up state power without a life and death struggle?
Why not?

I'm sorry to say this, but if your argument has disintegrated to simply questioning my argument, where is the contribution? What's the point?

I don't recall from history any "life and death struggles" in the U.S. in 1920 or the U.K. in 1918-28. Thousands of women were not slaughtered because men wanted to retain political power.

And how about Ferdinand Marcos? He just up and left when he had every chance to assault Camp Crame and Camp Aguinaldo (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians).

I will once more reiterate my main point; a revolution is not violence, violence is a tool for the revolution. Often a revolution must rely on violent means, but it should only do so as a last resort.

A revolution is not this romanticized scenario you always hear of with soldiers, martyrs, and heroes. It consists of serious, intelligent people who practice diplomacy and work not only to eliminate the current regime. Revolutionaries must ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Mistakes such as brutality.

I am not the smartest person to live, but I know this: once you kill a person, they stay dead.
I am not a religious person, but I know this: it is not a moral act to kill a person.

I do not know about you, but I am not too eager to jump to the atrocities of war. If it must be, it will be.
Only when all other options are exhausted will I support violence; I am not arrogant enough to claim I have tried all other means.

[subham]

India is witnessing a transition as Left parties have withdrawn their support from Congress led UPA government at the centre. Although it may affect their parliamentary strength, but it is undoubtedly a triumph of ideology over opportunism. CPI(M) has proved once again that they have never compromised with their ideology of Marxism-Leninism!!

[Saorsa]

The peasants of Nandigram would disagree with that statement subham. I'll make a lengthier post in this thread tomorrow...

[subham]

Whatever has been propagated about Nandigram by media, controlled by the bourgeoisie is nothing but the sheer distortion of truth. CPI(M) is trying to provide relief to the people in this age of transition. The people who are shedding crocodile tears for farmers for the sake of electoral politics have been the loyal agents of bourgeoisie since the days of freedom struggle!! If you are interested, I'll try to provide the real facts!!