The recent fascist attack on the kulaks’-farmers’ movement in Lakhimpur Khiri reminds us of one of the defining characteristic features of fascism: its tendency to crush all opposition. This opposition might come from the revolutionary communist forces and the working class movement, from farmers and kulaks, from progressive intellectuals and artists, liberal bourgeoisie or even from parliamentary opposition parties. The fascist Modi government in India is increasingly showing this classic characteristic of all fascist movements and governments.
The first task of proletarian revolutionaries is to defend the democratic and civil rights in general. It is a general political task and demand. Whenever the state represses any force (except the fascists, which, anyway, is an exceptional exception in the neoliberal phase of capitalism!) and snatches away its democratic rights like the freedom to protest, demonstrate, freely assemble and express, the proletarian revolutionaries are duty-bound to oppose this suppression of democratic and civil rights, even if they do not agree with the politics and ideology of that particular political force or movement. Why?
The reason has been iterated and reiterated by Lenin and other communist revolutionaries: it is the duty of the proletariat to defend democracy, howsoever limited it is under capitalism and howsoever little it means in practice for the working masses, because it is the battle-ground of bourgeois democracy in which the proletarian class struggle can develop in the most suitable way. Secondly, it is the duty of the proletariat to defend the democratic rights and democratic space in general because it is precisely by utilizing the bourgeois democracy that the proletariat can truly reveal its limits and expose it. Third, the proletariat must oppose state repression in general (except the cases where as a matter of rare exception the bourgeois democratic state represses extreme right-wing and fascist forces due to its own political exigencies) because remaining silent on any instance of state repression is de facto support for “the right of the bourgeois state to repress”. The failure to oppose state repression in general legitimizes bourgeois state’s “right to repress” and has severe negative implications for proletariat and the working masses as well. These are the reasons why the proletarian forces must oppose every act of repression against the kulaks-farmers movement by the present fascist government of Narendra Modi, whether in formal way (by police) or in informal way (by, for instance, BJP leaders like Ajay Mishra Teny and his son).
Having said that, the proletarian revolutionaries must also understand that support for the democratic and civil rights of the rich kulaks and farmers does not entail support for their economic class demands, which are being raised by the present kulaks’-farmers’ movement. Marxists divide one into two and not merge two into one. We must divide the question of general democratic and civil rights of the rich farmers and kulaks from that of their economic class demands. The correct position is to support the former while opposing the latter. The economic class demand of the rich kulaks and farmers is MSP, which is a monopoly rent ensuring a surplus-profit to the farmers at the cost of the working masses of the country. While the working class naturally opposes big capitalists, it opposes the big capitalists not from the ground of the comparatively smaller capitalists. Who is a capitalist? A capitalist is someone who exploits wage-labour of the working class and appropriates the surplus value.
The rich farmers and kulaks are nothing but capitalist farmers and landlords who plunder the poor and lower-middle peasants and the agricultural proletariat (bulk of which comes from dalit castes) in a variety of ways. First is the entrepreneurial profit of the capitalist tenant farmers and capitalist farmer-landlords, who employ and exploit wage-labour regularly and appropriate at least the average profit. The second way is the commercial profit that accrues to the rich farmers and kulaks who also act as traders and middlemen for the small and medium peasants who do not have access to the APMC markets to sell their agricultural produce. These poor and middle peasants are forced to undersell to the kulaks-cum-middlemen who then sell this agricultural produce at MSP in the APMC markets. (It must be reminded that even if small peasants are provided access to the APMC markets, they would still be losers because they are not principal sellers of agricultural produce but principal and net buyers of agricultural produce.) Also, in many cases, the kulaks-cum-middlemen enter into contract with such poor and middle peasants to grow certain variety of certain crops in pre-determined quantity at pre-determined rates. This is contract farming by the rich kulaks and farmers to exploit the poor and middle peasants, even though the rich farmers and kulaks are opposing contract farming by the big capitalists! Therefore, the present struggle is between the agricultural bourgeoisie and the big industrial-financial bourgeoisie to secure the right to exploit the rural poor! The third way (and one of the cruelest ones) is plundering the rural poor (agricultural proletariat and marginal, poor and lower-middle peasants) through usury. These big capitalist farmers and kulaks also give credit to the agricultural proletariat as well as marginal, poor and lower-middle peasants for a variety of purposes; sometimes the loan is given for working capital to small peasants and at others it is given for special reasons, like marriage, education of children and young members of family, etc. These loans are given at exorbitant rates and have continued to be one of the principal reasons of structural indebtedness of the rural poor and their proletarianization. This is precisely the reason why the rich kulaks’ and farmers’ lobbies have shown no interest or enthusiasm in the expansion of institutional agricultural credit for poor and middle peasants, as it would rob them off the opportunity to mint money through usurious exploitation of the rural poor. On the top of all these forms of exploitation and oppression is the question of MSP, through which the rich kulaks and farmers levy a tax on the entire society in order to gain a surplus profit.
The big capitalist class opposes this surplus profit of the rich kulaks and farmers because it creates an upward pressure on wages and threatens the already low rates of profits to fall even further. Marx, Kautsky (when he was still a Marxist) as well as Lenin clearly and repeatedly showed that the proletariat and poor peasantry have no business defending the surplus profit of the rich kulaks and farmers in any way. This surplus profit for the agricultural bourgeoisie has assumed a variety of forms historically: it can be in the form of a protective tariff on the cheap agricultural imports, it can be a monopoly price determined by the state (a political monopoly) or it can be in the form of absolute ground-rent in the conditions of private monopoly ownership of land and sometimes this surplus profit accrues due to a combination of more than one forms, that have been enumerated above.
In the case of India, it is certainly a combination of more than one factor. On the one hand, since the private monopoly ownership of land exists, the absolute rent also exists; on the other hand, the MSP (a “political” monopoly price fixed by state to benefit the agricultural bourgeoisie) ensures surplus-profit to the kulaks and rich farmers through, what Marx had called ‘an independent monopoly price’. The determining factor here is the independent monopoly price, which accrues to both, the capitalist tenant farmer as well as capitalist farmer-landlord. The only difference in the above two classes is that the capitalist tenant farmers have to hand over surplus profit accruing to them in the form of monopoly rent, partially, to the capitalist landlord. The part accruing to the capitalist landlord is transformed into absolute rent and the part that remains with the capitalist tenant farmer continues to exist in the form of monopoly rent. In case of the capitalist farmer landlord, the entire absolute rent (owing to the private monopoly ownership of land) as well as the monopoly rent (owing to the independent monopoly price of MSP) is pocketed by him along with the average profit.
We also know from Marx, Kautsky and Lenin, that in opposition to differential rent of both kinds, the absolute rent as well as monopoly rent cause an increase in the prices of the agricultural commodities, over and above the average price, that is, the prices of production. Thus, it is one of the principal structural reasons of inflationary pressures on the prices of agricultural goods in general. While, this is detrimental to the big industrial-financial capitalists too as it creates an upward pressure on the wages and therefore (other conditions remaining constant) causes a squeeze on the profits, because the new value created in production can be divided into wages and profits; it is also detrimental for the working class and working masses in general because upward pressure on wages does not always mean a wage increment immediately or a wage increment in the same proportion. The implication from this is that the real wages of the working class fall because the surplus profit accruing to the agricultural bourgeoisie also causes a deduction from the wages (even if the nominal wage remains the same or even increases). From these different reasons emerge the different intent and cause of the big capitalist class on the one hand and that of the working class on the other, of resisting this surplus profit of the agricultural bourgeoisie. This too has been clarified by Kautsky and Lenin as well as Marx and Engels on more occasions than one.
In short, the above are the ways in which the agricultural bourgeoisie exploits the working class and poor peasantry as well as other sections of the rural poor and above are the reasons why the working masses in general must oppose the anti-people demand of the present rich kulaks’ and farmers’ movement. The increasing MSP only hurts the working poor in general and only benefit the agricultural bourgeoisie, specifically of Punjab, Haryana and Western UP, in the particular case of India.
The present farmers’ movement for the reasons already enumerated is not a mass movement in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist sense. The agricultural bourgeoisie does not constitute a part of the masses anymore. India is a capitalist country and Indian bourgeoisie is politically-independent bourgeoisie, which has nothing in common with the people. It is neither a comprador bourgeoisie, nor a national bourgeoisie today, nor an imperialist bourgeoisie yet. It is a ‘junior partner’ of imperialism, which is politically-independent and economically partially-dependent on imperialism for capital and technology. We are in the stage of socialist revolution and no part of bourgeoisie is going to be a strategic class ally of the proletariat in revolution. In other words, following the dynamic meaning of the term ‘masses’ established by Lenin and enriched by Mao, it must be said that rich kulaks and capitalist farmers do not form a part of the masses or ‘the people’. In the contradiction between the people and the enemy, it is the proletariat, poor peasantry and other sections of semi-proletariat, and the lower middle classes (including lower-middle peasantry), which constitute what Lenin and Mao would term as ‘the masses’ or Mao would define as ‘the people’. All factions of bourgeoisie including the small and medium capitalists, small and medium commercial capitalists, the agricultural bourgeoisie form part of the ruling class or, to borrow from Mao, ‘the enemy’. Therefore, the situation of ML groups/organizations/parties that believe in the stage of socialist revolution and still support the present rich farmers’ movement is particularly ridiculous. Those who believe India to be a semi-feudal semi-colonial social formation can still find some reason to justify their support for the present rich farmers’ movement, though they too find themselves in a compromising position because it is the same rich farmers which are termed by them as being feudal landlords at times, when they cannot find any actual feudal landlord. Still, even in the stage of new democratic revolution, as Mao pointed out, it is poor peasants, semi-proletariat and middle peasants who are firm allies, whereas the rich farmers are vacillating allies. However, it would be a mockery of Maoism to call these Narodist-communists as Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, at least in terms of understanding.
In short, all the factions of bourgeoisie including the industrial-financial big capitalist class, small and medium capitalist class, the commercial capitalist class and the agricultural bourgeoisie are parts of the ruling class, or, ‘the enemy’ in the stage of socialist revolution.
Does that mean that there are no internal contradictions between the different factions of the capitalist class? No! We know from Marx that the ‘hostile brotherhood’ of the bourgeoisie develops through competition in the market, or, in other words, it is the averaging of the rates of profit through competition between capitals that constitutes the bourgeoisie as a social class. The internal competition and conflict between different factions of bourgeoisie and between different capitals within the same factions of bourgeoisie is the most natural thing; nothing else can be expected. This is one of the characteristic features of a capitalist economy. At present also, the factions of Indian bourgeoisie are involved in constant competition and conflict. Therefore, on the question of 100 percent FDI in the retail trade, there is a conflict between the small and medium commercial capitalists as well as small traders on the one hand and the big capitalist class on the other. Similarly, on the question of apportioning of the appropriated surplus value in the agricultural sector, there is a conflict between the agricultural bourgeoisie and the big industrial-financial capitalist class. These are internal contradictions of the ruling class.
The fact that a number of agricultural proletariat as well as poor and lower-middle peasants also go to the rich farmers’ movement demonstrates nothing more than the fact that the role of ideology and politics is principal and also that the structural economic dependence of agricultural workers as well as indebted small and medium peasants obliges them to tailend the rich farmers and kulaks even when they have not an iota of will of tailending them politically. If the presence of various agricultural workers and poor peasants makes the present farmers’ movement a movement of the rural poor as well, then all social movements of regressive and reactionary classes in the history of class society would become movements of the people, from Ram Temple Movement to Anti-Reservation Movement. It is not the constitution of the crowd that determines the political class character of the movement, but the class essence of the demands of a movement and ideology and politics of the movement and leadership.
The class character of the present rich kulaks’ and farmers’ movement has been exposed more than once in the course of the present movement itself. The most recent ones are the killing of a dalit worker by Nihangas at the protest site on Delhi border. A dalit worker Lakhbir Singh was first decapitated and paraded in the entire protest site and then killed by the Nihangas and finally his body was hung at a barricade to convey a message. Lakhbir Singh had allegedly ‘disrespected a religious scripture’. Now, this logic of ‘hurt sentiments’ is the same that is used by all religious fundamentalists, extreme right-wingers and fascists to attack the vulnerable sections of society like dalits, women, religious minorities, etc. No one would deny the fundamentalist character of the Nihangas and their act at the Singhu Border, including the leadership of the rich kulaks’ and farmers’ movement. The rich kulaks’ and farmers’ movement tried to distance itself from the Nihangas and tried to portray the entire incident as something done by the ‘fringe elements’ at the behest of the fascists. However, the fact remains that when Lakhbir Singh was decapitated and paraded at the protest site, there was only one old farmer who meekly protested by saying that Singh had already been punished for disrespecting the religious text and there is no need to go any further. Still, Singh was killed by the Nihangas and his body was hung at a barricade.
Moreover, the farmers’ organizations, while expressing “regret” on this killing also added that a religious text must not be ‘disrespected’! Thus, the Sikh religious fundamentalists must not be antagonized! The farmers’ organizations walked a tight-rope here by condemning the murder as well as the alleged disrespecting of the religious text, so as not to alienate the Sikh sentiments! This is behavior, not of a progressive political leadership, but a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois opportunist political leadership. Just suppose: if dalit workers do the same to Jatt rich farmers for disrespecting their human dignity and honour for centuries, what would be the result? Is the sanctity of a religious scripture more important than a human life?
The revolutionary communist position is against the logic of ‘hurt sentiments’ and the false binary of ‘tolerance-intolerance’. The proletarian position is that it is no business of communists to propagate atheism and disrespect the religious sentiments in the society, but at the same time they unconditionally support the civil and democratic right of any citizen to express their views or feelings about religious symbols or scriptures and they unconditionally condemn and oppose any attack on this individual freedom. However, the farmers’ leadership (including the ML leadership) failed to take this position and educate their cadre on the democratic principles of secularism and individual liberty; rather, it took an opportunist position by condemning both, the killing as well as ‘disrespecting of religious scripture’. This is a typical bourgeois and petty-bourgeois liberal and opportunist stand and it has nothing to do whatsoever with the communist position. A few days later another Nihanga attacked another dalit worker and broke his leg for not giving him a chicken for free.
Even more important is the question why have the farmers’ organizations allowed the Nihangas at their protest sites? What do Nihangas have to do with farmers’ protests, except a Sikh religious identity of a section of farmers? If the organizations leading the protests claim to be progressive and even Marxist-Leninist (!), they must refuse to allow such elements in the farmers’ protest, even if it is a protest of rich kulaks and farmers. However, in Punjab, a general tendency of liberalism and conciliationism towards Sikhism is prevalent even among ML groups and except a few exceptions most forces betray this lack of courage to take a correct ideological position on this question.
The class character of the present rich kulaks’ and farmers’ movement was also revealed during the lockdown and the period following it, when in most of the villages of Punjab and Haryana, the Jatt Sikh and Jat rich farmers panchayats and khaps fixed a ceiling on the wages of the agricultural workers. The farmers’ organization again tried to distance themselves from these decisions of hundreds of panchayats and caste khaps, calling it, once again, activity of some ‘fringe elements’. However, it was clear to everyone that the rich capitalist farmers had been doing what a capitalist would do in conditions of shortage of labour, namely, trying to control the rise of wages and keep them as low as possible. The lockdown and the period that followed saw severe labour shortage due to lack of cheap migrant labour. The dalit workers were refusing to work on low wages. Therefore, the rich farmers’ and kulaks’ panchayats and khaps fixed a wage-ceiling and threatened boycott of anyone who demanded or paid more wages. There were many incidents of violence against dalit workers in villages due to dispute on wages.
In the same period, when the turn up of poor peasant families and agricultural workers at the protest sites of Tikri Border and Singhu Border was declining, the same khaps and panchayats imposed fines on families which did not send any family member to the protest sites. It cannot be imagined how a dalit day-wager’s family would regularly send someone to the protest site, even when the protest and its issue of the protest goes against the class interests of the agricultural proletariat! However, the form of social oppression based on caste is being used constantly by the rich kulaks’ and farmers’ organizations to oblige the non-willing poor peasants and agricultural workers to participate in the movement.
All these incidents are not aberration from pattern or trend. It is the pattern and trend that reveals the true class character of the rich farmers and kulaks as well as their movement for MSP.
There are a number of comrades who accept the reactionary character of the class demands raised by the rich farmers’ movement and yet contend that it is against fascism and therefore it must be supported tactically. However, the fact is that the present movement is not against fascism. Most of the farmers’ organizations were praising the government when till 2019 the MSP for paddy and wheat was being increased continuously. Most of the farmers’ organizations extended their support to the BJP in the western UP even when the BJP manufactured riots against Muslims. The same could be applied to Haryana too, though in a different way. The fact is that the coincidence of opposition of the farmers’ movement to Modi government and the fascist character of Modi government does not in any way make the present farmers’ movement a politically anti-fascist movement, even though, due to Narodist-communist leadership of some of the major farmers’ unions, the farmers’ movement frequently uses anti-fascist symbolism. At the same time, the same “communist” leaders have no qualms whatsoever in collaborating with the open stooges of the BJP, namely, the Tikait brothers! However, a few months ago two of the principal unions leading the protest, the BKU (Ugrahan) and Krantikaari Kisaan Union, clearly said that they were ready to take back the movement if the Modi government repeals the first two laws that threaten the MSP! These statements shred any shroud of doubt on the fact that the present rich farmers’ movement is centred principally on the demand of saving MSP. Any movement or opposition that targets Modi government does use anti-fascist tropes and symbolisms, including many political parties within the parliament, for example TMC (Mahua Moitra), Congress (Mani Shankar Ayyar and Manish Tiwary), etc. Does that make them anti-fascists? One needs to understand that it is only revolutionary proletarian forces that can truly oppose fascism today. All other appearances of alleged anti-fascism are basically products of political opportunism and pragmatism.
However, still, the revolutionary proletarian forces must defend the democratic and civil rights in general. For instance, even if the revolutionary proletarian forces are clear on the proposition that they can only make tactical participation in the bourgeois parliament and elections and the latter never lead to revolutionary transformation of the society, they would certainly oppose any act to ban bourgeois elections and disband the parliament and legislative assemblies by the fascist government. Similarly, the proletarian forces would also oppose fascist repression on the democratic rights of any force, including the political parliamentary opposition. Suppose, the fascist government of Modi bans any electoral party which becomes an electoral threat to the BJP at the centre or at the state level, would not the revolutionary proletariat oppose it? Certainly, it would because not opposing it would legitimize fascist state’s, in particular, and capitalist state’s, in general, “right to repress” and it would have extremely negative implications for the proletarian class struggles as well.
Therefore, while the revolutionary communists are duty-bound to oppose the fascist government’s attack on the democratic and civil rights of the farmers’ movement, they are also duty-bound to reveal the true class character of the present rich farmers’ and kulaks’ movement, its anti-people demands and its anti-worker character, in order to constitute a politically-independent position and political line of the proletariat and poor peasants. Only by constituting this position through constant ideological and political struggle can the revolutionary communists lead the working masses to make tactical use of the internal contradictions of the ruling classes. Without an independent class position and political line, the proletariat and the working masses will be used by this or that bourgeois force. Therefore, the present task is to reveal the character of the fascist government representing the interests of the industrial-financial capitalist class in the main, as well as the true class character of the agricultural bourgeoisie which is striving to maintain its economic hegemony in the countryside and using its political clout to retain its major share of the appropriated surplus value in agriculture.
We cannot and must not side with one of the factions of bourgeoisie and must maintain the political independence of the working class in order to establish a proletarian class line among the masses. Without this political line, the different classes of the masses would tailend this or that bourgeois political force, their movements will always ultimately be circumscribed by bourgeois politics and ideology. The communist activists must organize the poor peasants and agricultural proletariat on their independent class demands, reveal that they have nothing to gain from the MSP, rather they would lose if this monopoly price is retained and increased; they must organize the rural poor in their independent mass organizations, like agricultural proletariat’s unions and unions of poor working peasants. Without independent proletarian class line and independent mass organizations, the poor working peasants and agricultural proletariat are doomed to tailend the rich farmers and kulaks due to lack of political class consciousness as well as their structural economic dependence.
