The Re-election of Narendra Modi: A Representative Example of How Fascism Functions in the Twenty-first Century
Abhinav Sinha
This essay was written immediately after the re-election of Modi with even bigger mandate in May, 2019, when the most of the left circles in India were enveloped in tragic cries and deep pessimism. The same circles have suddenly become over-optimistic with the wave of anti-CAA and anti-NRC protests engulfing the entire country. Vacillating between the two extremes of euphoria and pessimism is the old bipolar disorder of Indian liberal left and left liberal circles. This essay written on 24th May, 2019 deals with the underlying causes of the victory of Modi and the tasks that face the revolutionary communist movement following this fascist victory. – Editor
Narendra Modi’s second victory on 23rd May created an unprecedented desperation among the progressive, left, left-liberal, liberal-left intelligentsia. There was an atmosphere of mourning among the petty-bourgeois progressives across the country. The social media was flooded with messages and memes denouncing the people of India. Some compared Atishi Marlena of AAP with Pragya Thakur of the BJP and claimed that the Indian masses do not deserve someone as educated as Atishi, but a semi-lunatic bigot like Pragya Thakur, conveniently forgetting that the same Atishi Marlena and her party held a press conference to clarify that she was a Hindu and a Rajput, when the BJP spread the rumour that she was a Christian! So much for the progressiveness of Indian petty bourgeois progressives! Even many so-called Marxists began their endless lament that the Indian people chose someone like Giriraj Singh over Kanhaiya Kumar, the new poster-boy of reformist-revisionist progressives of India, again showing a remarkable political amnesia. The same Kanhaiya Kumar openly declared that he was not a communist but a social-democrat; and that too, a one dedicated to the Constitution of India, Ambedkar’s political thought and was of the belief that Kashmir was an “integral part” of India! The same Kanhaiya Kumar had no hesitation in saying ‘Stalin Murdabad’ on a TV debate with Sambit Patra. Still, the liberal-left, left-liberal and reformist-revisionist intelligentsia inhabiting the confines of some of the Indian universities were shattered to see their knight in shining armour bite the dust in Begusarai! Now what? The apple of their eyes was lying on the ground rotting away, demolished and devastated, despite all the populism he had been spewing!
The next logical step for these lib-left and left-libs of all kinds (mind you! its a spectrum!) was to lose hope in the masses. Somehow, their political impotency and timidness was explained as the supposedy inherent anti-democratic, casteist, racist nature of the Indian masses. Again, they forgot that the same Indian masses had also voted for the Left Front governments in West Bengal for seven terms, in Tripura for total seven terms. The same “totalitarian communities” of India had voted the UPA twice into power, once with the Leftists and second time without the Leftists. Such libs, left-libs and lib-lefts might well be reminded of the poem by Bertolt Brecht where he says that now is the time to choose new people!
These contradictions of the liberal, reformist, and revisionist intelligentsia of India only shows the inherent incapacity of any type of social-democracy and reformism to fight against fascism. This is an important lesson of history that eludes the petty bourgeois revisionist cretins, despite all their pious intentions. There is a reasonable cause. It is only on the ruins of reformism, liberalism, revisionism and social-democracy, that the poisonous mushroom of fascism grows, especially in times of crisis of capitalism.
In this essay, we will first evaluate the concrete conditions which led to the victory of Modi-led NDA in the sixteenth Lok Sabha elections. Subsequently, we will analyse the particular characteristics of fascist rise in the Twenty-first century and its difference from its early-Twentieth century avatar, on the basis of the concrete example of Modi’s second victory. Finally, we would like to argue that it is not the time to lose heart and sink into the oblivion of desperation and rather prepare for the new phase of struggles with an effective anti-fascist political program that suits to the present times and is able to defeat fascism.
Why Modi Won?
A lot of optimistic progressive individuals had hoped that since the Modi government failed miserably on all economic fronts, it was bound to lose. No doubt, it was a real possibility, had there been a real alternative. However, the view that economic discontent among the masses due to the ruin brought about by disastrous policies like demonetisation, GST, etc. and unprecedented price rise and unemployment would automatically convert into political discontent and therefore, political votes against Modi, is totally economistic and fails to grasp the essence of politics. As Lenin said, politics is decider not economics, forgeting this is like forgeting the ABC of Marxism.
Economic discontents do not translate automatically into political discontent. There must be an agent which is capable of transforming the scattered economic discontent into organised political resistance. In the absence of such a political agent, the result might be just the opposite, as re-election of Modi shows. In fact, in the absence of such an agent, the scattered economic discontent of the masses, especially the petty-bourgeois masses threatened with proletarisation might well lead them into the arms of some kind of extreme Right-wing reaction, including fascism. Strictly speaking, as far as the electoral defeat of the fascists is concerned, such an agent in the Twenty-first century is very unlikely (not impossible in certain political conjunctures) to come from among the other bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties. In the Twentieth century, this was relatively more likely to happen. However, in the Twenty-first century with the moribund and parasitic character of imperialism reaching unprecedented limits in the phase of Globalisation, the remaining potency and potential of the bourgeoisie has been exhausted almost totally. Even in the Twentieth century, the bourgeoisie could at best produce the likes of de Gaulle in the western world and the likes of Sukarno, Nehru, Nasser in the so-called Third World. However, in the present times, it cannot even produce bourgeois leaders like them. As a consequence, in the Twenty-first century, more than ever, it is only the revolutionary communist forces with revolutionary class alliance with the lower echelons of, especially, salaried petty-bourgeoisie (the lower middle classes), the poor peasantry and common working masses, that can effectively resist the resistible rise of fascism.
Since there is no such force at present in India that can effectively transform the scattered economic discontent of the masses into an organised political resistance, the BJP succeeded in leading the masses towards the wave of jingoism and communal fascism and a large section of the masses voted for Modi, despite the unspeakable economic hardships that it faced in the last five years due to the economic policies of Modi government.
The second important observation regarding the victory confirms the fact that generally it is the power of capital that determines who will be the victor in bourgeois elections. Everyone knows that the BJP received tremendous and unprecedented support from the corporate houses. The total expenditure of the BJP in recent Lok Sabha elections was a staggering 27,000 crore rupees. This is far more than the expenditure of all the other parties combined. This allowed the BJP to make the bourgeois media its own unofficial mouthpiece. When the masses are tired and exhausted by poverty, unemployment, inflation and corruption, lacking political class consciousness, the mere repetition of lies and propaganda plays a very important role. Fascists under Modi had the entire state and corporate media at their disposal. The shameless and naked treachery of media was never so fully at display in the entire history of India. It is very clear that the infiltration of the state apparatus and media by the RSS, continuing for almost seven decades is paying dividends. It is not simply the buying off of the media by Modi-Shah-led BJP but also the ideological and political hegemonisation of the media, that has led to this state of affairs.
The third most important factor in the victory of Modi is something that fascism of the Twentieth century also had: a strong cadre-based organisation. We cannot dwell upon the historical background of the development of the organisational theory of fascism, but this much would suffice to state here that the idea of cadre-based organisational model was borrowed from the organisational theory of communist parties, though other aspects of a fascist organisation are diametrically opposite to communist party theory. The support of a strong cadre-based organisation silently helped the BJP in its electoral victory. To sustain the vast network of institutions, running a relentless grassroot propaganda campaign and making the communal fascist narrative the dominant narrative through ingenious methods, it is essential for the BJP to have the strong cadre-based organisation of the RSS. This huge and well-oiled machinery functions constantly without making any noise, with determined and committed fascist organisers and propagandists, who do not work for immediate gains and are driven and motivated by the communal fascist ideology. This is something that no other bourgeois political party has in India. The role of this machinery in the victory of Modi cannot be overstated.
The fourth notable feature of this victory of Modi is again the result of the deep and systematic infiltration of the state apparatus including the armed forces, the police, the bureaucracy and judiciary by the Hindutva fascists in India in a protracted process. Doubtless, the strong cadre-based organisation plays an indispensable role in this. Every politically conscious citizen of India has been a witness to the openly compromised role of the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, the Police and the armed forces during the elections. Everybody saw how these institutions of the state apparatus were openly working for the victory of the BJP. From the well-founded suspicions of the EVM tampering to the refusal of the Election Commission to act on the model code of conduct by Modi, Shah and other BJP leaders, it was evident that it was not simply the EVMs that might well have been tampered with, but the very Election Commission and the election process were hacked by the fascist infiltration by the BJP. It is noteworthy that only three forces opposed the 100 percent verification of the VVPATs: the BJP, the EC and the SC! Also significant is the fact that despite spending thousands of crores on the VVPAT machines, the EC refused to do even 50 percent verification or even count the VVPATs first in order to ascertain that there is no mismatch. Later, it was found that on 370 seats, there was a mismatch! Of course, without this, it is possible that the BJP might not have been able to attain majority on its own and might have fell well short of the majority mark on its own. They might still have emerged as the largest single party and formed the government with the support of other parties. However, then it would have been a bit of a difficult road ahead for the Modi-Shah combine. Nevertheless, the deep infiltration of the state apparatus by the Sangh Parivaar ensured that the BJP wins majority on its own. This infiltration has been done on the basis of not only money power, muscle power but also on the strength of ideological hegemonisation of these institutions by the Sangh Parivaar in a long-drawn process.
The fifth feature has confirmed our old analysis of the characteristic features of the rise of fascism in the Twenty-first century. The molecular permeation effected by the RSS and entire Sangh Parivaar in the last seventy years is paying off now. The rise of Hindutva Fascism in India can be explained by different overlapping processes. First process was one of origin and development of Hindutva fascist ideology beginning from V. D. Savarkar, passing through Hedgevar and reaching its climax with Golwalkar. They laid the foundations of the fascist ideology in its Hindutva avatar. This process began with the 1910s and reached a defining point by the 1940s, though quantitative additions continued even after that. The second process partially overlaps with the first one chronologically and is characterised by the building of a strong cadre-based organisation. This process starts in the 1920s and reaches its climax in the 1940s, though quantitative developments have continued till present. The third process is one of development of institutions by the RSS that it uses even today for creating a communal fascist consensus in society by establishing myths as common sense, constructing a false enemy by using the figure of the other, in this case, Muslims and other minorities. This began in the 1930s and continues till present. The vast network of shakhas, schools, cultural institutions, publications, etc. run by the RSS is the result of this process. The fourth process began in the 1920s with the foundation of the RSS itself. This process was one of development of a small but strong support base among the trading petty bourgeoisie by the RSS. However, before the Independence it was not possible for the RSS to develop a reactionary social movement of the petty bourgeoisie because the broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie were supporting the national movement led by the Congress, from which the RSS always maintained a safe distance and instead colluded with the British colonial state. After the Independence too, due to assassination of Gandhi, the RSS remained partially ostracised and side-lined in the society till the early-1960s. During the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the fortunes of the RSS began to rise on the basis of anti-communist propaganda. The Congress government was more than happy with this and therefore allowed the RSS to run its dirty slandering campaign against the communists. Then during the first non-Congress governments in the states in the late-1960s, the RSS came back into the mainstream politics of India, thanks to the Socialists under Ram Manohar Lohia, who brought Jana Sangh into the political mainstream. The sin to allow the RSS to creep back into the mainstream politics of India lies at the door of the reformists, Socialists and social-democrats. Since the early-1970s, the RSS began its attempt to erect a reactionary social movement of the petty-bourgeoisie; however, their attempts began to bear fruits only in the 1980s. The economic crisis that characterised the Indian economy in the 1980s was the crisis of the public sector capitalism. The state monopoly capitalism that has helped the Indian private capitalist class to stand on its feet, had now become a hindrance for the latter. It felt suffocated in the dominant mode of regulation of the Nehruvian public sector capitalism. In the mid-1980s we see Rajiv Gandhi talking about ‘computer age’ and deregulation by ending ‘inspector raj’ and ‘quota raj’. At the same time, different factions of the petty bourgeoisie felt dissatisfied for different reasons. As the regulation was giving way to deregulation, the lower echelons of the trading petty bourgeoisie as well as the salaried petty bourgeoisie was feeling the threat of proletarisation. It was unaware of the reasons behind its increasing social and economic insecurity and was frustrated. On the other hand, the upward mobile section of the petty bourgeoisie shared the dream of becoming upper middle or big bourgeoisie and wanted free hand to exploit labour of others. The old regulatory mechanisms were a hindrance for them. They too wanted ‘freedom of exploitation’ like their big brothers, the big bourgeoisie. Both these sections were constantly living in a blind reaction groping in the dark, looking for an enemy. The Sangh Parivaar gave them the enemy in the form of Muslims, dalits, other religious minorities, etc. Soon this enemy figure was enlarged to encompass all political opposition, especially the communists. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement was the first paroxysm of Hindutva Fascism in India beginning in 1986 and ending with the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 and formation of BJP governments in a number of states. The second paraxysm was the Gujarat Genocide of 2002, which led to re-election of Modi in Gujarat. The third paroxysm came with the so-called anti-corruption movement since 2011, in which Anna Hazare clearly played the role of RSS stooge and Arvind Kejriwal knowingly played into the hands of the RSS. This ended with the election of Modi in 2014, the first fascist government with simple majority. This process was one of building a reactionary movement of the petty bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat, serving the interests of indigenous and foreign big capital. It started in the 1970s and has reached its culmination with the re-election of Modi in the recent Lok Sabha elections. All these processes together constitute the rise of Hindutva Fascism in India from 1920s till present. This long period has allowed the Indian fascists to effect a molecular permeation by waging a long war of positions. This is one of the novel elements of the Twenty-first century fascism. Unlike the Twentieth century fascism, it is not characterised by a cataclysmic rise and fall. We have argued elsewhere that this change is because of the change in the nature of occurrence of economic crisis of capitalism (Abhinav Sinha, 2019, ‘Resistible Rise of Fascism and the Challenges of the Working Class Movement in India’ (written in 2016), Subversive Interventions, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow; Abhinav Sinha, 2016, ‘Post-Script’, Faasivaad Kya Hai aur Isse Kaise Ladein, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow). We would not go in the detail here, as the interested readers can read the referred paper to understand the whole argument. The recent victory of Modi confirms our analysis of molecular permeation and positional warfare by Indian fascism.
The sixth notable feature of Modi’s victory was the open corruption of the entire bourgeois democratic process, to which we have alluded above. We have argued elsewhere (Abhinav Sinha, 2019, ‘Resistible Rise of Fascism and the Challenges of the Working Class Movement in India’ (written in 2016), Subversive Interventions, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow; Abhinav Sinha, 2016, ‘Post-Script’, Faasivaad Kya Hai aur Isse Kaise Ladein, Rahul Foundation, Lucknow) that the Twenty-first century fascism does not need to do away with the shell of the bourgeois democracy. Fascism can, not only come into power within the framework of bourgeois democracy, but also continue to be in power without discarding the shell of bourgeois democracy. The reason for that is that even reactionaries learn from their mistakes and even fascist politics and ideology performs a ‘redemptive activity’. Since the bourgeois democracy itself has become so weak and empty now, there is no need to do away with this hegemonic form. It is possible to destroy the institutions of bourgeois democracy to such an extent that they do not mean much. This is precisely what has happened with the most cherished institutions of bourgeois democracy since the rise of Modi to power. Take the example of the very process of bourgeois elections, the Election Commission, the Judiciary, the armed forces, the police, the entire bureaucracy in India today. The form remains but the content has been considerably destroyed. This has made possible for fascists in the Twenty-first century to continue with the shell of the bourgeois democracy; come and go out of power, without going out of existence, and remain in the late capitalist society (especially, since the beginning of the Long Depression from the 1970s) as a constant presence, even if they are not in power.
As we mentioned, in such a situation, it is possible for fascism to come into and go out of power without being totally destroyed in a cataclysmic process, as happened with the fascist projects in the Twentieth century. The bourgeoisie and imperialism need fascism and other forms of right-wing reaction more than ever today. Fascism, even when out of power, acts as an ‘informal state power’ of the bourgeoisie against the working class movement. The metaphor of a chained dog fits it more than ever. The example of the RSS is illuminating here. Even when not in power, the Sangh Parivaar has played the role of strike-breakers, terrorist gangs and anti-worker squads with full complicity of the bourgeois state, irrespective of who is in power. That is why, despite incriminating evidence of RSS terrorism, no future government will ever ban it, like it was banned by Patel after Gandhi’s assassination. That time has passed now. It is not possible anymore and it is not necessary anymore for the bourgeoisie to take such a drastic step.
This also explains why, more than ever, it is not possible to defeat fascism by mere parliamentarism. It was not possible even in the Twentieth century, but now it would be a lunacy to think so. Associated with this parliamentarism is the strategy of new poster boys and poster girls of revisionism, reformism and social-democracy, for instance, Kanhaiya Kumar, Jignesh Mevani, Shehla Rashid and the likes, namely, the strategy of aggregative equationalism. In other words, abandoning the class politics in essence, and resorting to the alchemical formula of creating aggregative equations like ‘Muslims + Dalits + Women + Tribals’ to defeat the rise of fascism. The re-election of Modi should make this clear to such people that such aggregative equationalism, first of all, is impractical and impossible and secondly, even if formed in a certain conjuncture, it would not have the potency to resist fascism effectively. It is high time this fact is realised. Those who have studied the voting pattern of dalit masses, tribals in many states, and women in the recent Lok Sabha elections should have realised this. This aggregative equationalism is in essence identity politics which substitutes political line for identity. It is axiomatic for such people to think that dalits will vote against the BJP because they are dalit; women will vote against the BJP because they are women and tribals will vote against the BJP because they are tribals. This election should be an eye-opener for such identitarians. It is class politics and political line which is decider ultimately, not the identity. Even when it appears as if identity is determining the voting pattern or other political behavioural patterns, it is class dynamics which is playing beneath the surface, as any in-depth study will show. Still waters run deep.
Our Tasks
In view of the foregoing analysis, the tasks of resisting the present fascist rise can be derived. One similarity that the Twenty-first century fascism shares with the Twentieth century fascism is that its rise is still resistible and there is no reason to lose heart or sink into depression due to the victory of Modi. On the contrary, we simply cannot afford to become disheartened and gloomy. As history shows, fascism targets its victims not because of what they do, but also because of what they are. From religious, racial and ethnic minorities to all forms of political opposition like revolutionary communists, radical anarchists and rationalists, fascism attacks them because of who and what they are, not simply because of what they do. As Gramsci said, fascism waits for the working class to become politically passive and then falls upon it like a calamity. Therefore, those who become passive under the influence of hopelessness, too, are bound to be attacked by fascists and they must understand this. The only alternative that we have is: struggle and resist! Whenever faced with an effective and powerful opposition from revolutionary forces and mass movements, fascism either retreats or engages in suicidal aggression. The question therefore is this: how to build revolutionary mass movements? How to organise a revolutionary working class movement?
In order to build a revolutionary working class movement and mass movements, the two basic pre-requisites are: revolutionary theory and revolutionary organisation. Without revolutionary theory, the mass movements are at the disposal of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology and constantly run the risk of ideological capitulation, as we have seen in many countries in the last one decade.
By revolutionary theory, we mean the latest stage in the development of Marxist science and an active committment to it. In other words, Marxist science enriched by the scientific teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, enriched by the sum-up of the socialist experiments of the USSR and China, that collapsed in 1953 and 1976 respectively, and enriched by the analysis of the last five decades of capitalist triumphalism as well as the unprecedented terminal crisis of world capitalism. In other words, Marxism as not a conjunctural theory, but a general approach and method, as a living science, as a worldview.
However, a correct understanding of the Marxist science is neither possible nor sufficient without the implementation of the revolutionary massline. Without gathering the scattered and rudimentary correct ideas among the masses and scientific generalisation of these ideas to derive the correct political line, there can be no revolutionary theory. Besides, without arousing, mobilizing and organizing the masses against all forms of oppression and exploitation, under the guidance of this political line, this political line cannot constantly develop in a correct direction and will become a form of dogma, empiricism or positivism. In other words, for Marxists, every analysis/investigation is also, at the same time, always-already, a call for action. Marxism is a guiding thought of action, the philosophy of praxis. Such investigation and action requires a revolutionary vanguard party armed with Marxist science, in other words, the revolutionary organisation of the proletariat.
Only under the leadership of the revolutionary vanguard armed with the revolutionary theory, can revolutionary mass movements develop. Any social movement or mass movement is not always-already progressive. We must not forget that fascism itself is a reactionary social movement of the petty bourgeoisie, though it serves the interests of the big capital in the main. There can be many other forms of regressive mass movements, for example, we saw one mass movement of such character during the anti-corruption crusades of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal in 2011. Without the leadership of a revolutionary vanguard armed with revolutionary theory, mass movements and even working class movement run the risk of hegemonisation by bourgeois and/or petty-bourgeois ideology. Therefore, simply plunging into action, driven by some kind of zeal to counter the fascists is not enough. We must build a new revolutionary communist party in order to make such mass movements possible that can resist and defeat fascism. All other mass movements, faced with fascist repression or due to protracted tiresome struggle, or if some of their pecuniary demands seem to be fulfilled, will fizzle out. Only under the revolutionary leadership of a revolutionary communist party can these mass movements become constituents of a revolutionary movement. Only such a revolutionary movement can resist and defeat fascism.
These arguments will slide over the politically deaf ears of social-democrats, reformists and revisionists of different varieties. We already know that. All they would hear is “old communist dogmatic prescriptions” in our analysis. They would continue to claim that fascism has to be resisted by relying on ‘the great Indian constitution’, ‘the great Indian judiciary’, ‘ call for reverting back to welfarism and Nehruvian socialism’, ‘emotional calls for humanism, secularism and democracy’! However, it is evident where such claims and calls have led these social-democrats, reformists and revisionists, especially after the recent Lok Sabha elections! They are in tatters! Their cretinism is very much clear and so is the fact that such claims and calls can never be effective against fascist rise. It has become increasingly impossible to form a general political anti-fascist front with the social-democrats, reformists and revisionists. We have written elsewhere (ibid) that the strategy of ‘popular front’ is not possible anymore to resist fascism effectively. Any petty bourgeois/bourgeois democratic, reformist, social-democratic, or revisionist force in the united front against fascism will prevent it from going beyond the wall and will frustrate it within the limits of bourgeois constitutionality and legality and what we have called as ‘reactive defencism’. They would be a disabling force for any such front today. What we need today is not a ‘popular front’, but a ‘united front of the working class’. That means a united front of revolutionary communist organisations and parties. The experience of past five years have proven beyond doubt that the need of the hour is a revolutionary united front of the working class, rather than a ‘popular front’ because no part of bourgeoisie in the Twenty-first century has such a democratic and progressive potential so as to be able to fight against fascist rise in a determined fashion. The experience of CPI, CPM, CPI (ML) Liberation, etc. on the one hand and RJD, BSP, SP, RLD, etc. on the other, prove this fact beyond doubt.
Thus, what we need is this: building a revolutionary communist party armed with revolutionary Marxist theory as the foundation; building of revolutionary mass movements of students, youth, poor peasatry, women, anti-caste movements under the leadership of the revolutionary mass organisations guided by such revolutionary communist party; and building a ‘united front of the working class’. We cannot dwell upon the new ways of revolutionary mass work here, but one can refer to our hypotheses about that in our previous writings (ibid). This much can be said here that in order to fight against the fascists effectively, it is necessary for the revolutionary communists to fight against the economistic and trade unionistic tendencies; do not limit the revolutionary work within the confines of the workplace and focus on the neighbourhoods of the working class and lower middle classes with persistent institutionalised revolutionary reform work; develop neighbourhood-based unions and occupational sectoral unions of workers, besides the factory-based trade unions; develop a strong revolutionary anti-caste movement that goes beyond the Ambedkarite Deweyan pragmatist politics and identity politics; develop a strong revolutionary women’s movement that fights against all forms of identity politics; building a revolutionary cultural movement including revolutionary alternative media. However, this is not an exhaustive list of tasks and such a list cannot be made
a priori. We would recommend the readers to go through the above-mentioned references, where we have dwelt on these questions in detail.
In the end, we would say that this is not the time to lose hope and become a pessimist. Rather, it is the time to build the revolutionary movement with new energy and new zeal, of doing new experiments with creative zest. This is not the time to become indifferent. As Gramsci once said:
“I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate indifferent.
“The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates with great power on history. The indifference operates passively, but it operates. It is fate, that which cannot counted on. It twists programs and ruins the best-coneived plans. It is the raw material that ruins intelligence…I also hate the indiffernt because…because their whimpering of eternally innocent ones annoys me. I make each one liable: how they have tackled with the task that life has given and gives them every day, what have they done, and especially, what they have not done….I am a partisan, I am alive, I feel the pulse of the activity of the future city that those on my side are building is alive in their conscience. Alive, I am a partisan. That is why I hate the ones that don’t take sides, I hate the indifferent.”
“It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. … the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier.”
– Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League
