Leftists in India and elsewhere are good at perceiving the grand design. They are masters in their assessment of principle trends of global finance capitalism, inviolability of cyclical crises in Capitalism, the ensuing inter-imperialist contradictions and fascism on a global scale etc. Accordingly the recently released Draft Political Resolution (DPR) of Communist Party of India (Marxist) sheds some light on the emergence of neo-fascist tendencies. While dealing with international situation the DPR discusses about the Rightward Shift in paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13. In assessing the broad trends in international situation, the draft resolution has concluded, “The period has seen a further political rightward shift in many countries in the world with the rise of extreme rightwing neo-fascist forces in Europe. The ascendancy of Donald Trump as the President of USA, representing the most reactionary sections of the US ruling class, further strengthened this trend”

Before coming to the section on the rightward shift, the draft resolution has dealt with the Global Capitalist Crisis, Global Unemployment, Widening Inequalities and Growing Popular Protests. Drawing from its assessment of each of these aspects of Global Capitalism the DPR has concluded, “In the face of the current crisis, imperialism pursues aggressive neo-liberalism combined with a global divisive agenda fostering domestic local and regional tensions. This engenders the growth of racism, xenophobia and extreme rightwing neo-fascist tendencies.” While hoping for better prospects, the DPR rightly concluded, “It is clear that in the coming days, the political direction of many of the countries of the world will be determined by the political success in marshalling popular discontent between left-oriented democratic forces and the political right.” So far, so good.

Let us assume that the understanding expounded in the draft political resolution is correct. Then we shall look into it, for the basic characteristic features of neo-fascism. Neo-fascism, political philosophy and the movement that arose in Europe in the decades, post World War II. Neo-fascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed liberal individualism, organised persistent multipronged attack on Marxist traditions, exhorted majoritarianism, transformed the Other into a punching bag to galvanise the majority population (for short term and long term gains), portrayed themselves as protectors of traditional national culture and religion, glorified violence and military heroism, and promoted populist right-wing economic programs.  The neo-fascist tendency places blame for the country’s problems on the other. This Other keeps varying from country to country. In multi-cultural and multi-national societies, this becomes the minority populations, in multi religious societies the minority religion becomes the punching bag under neo-fascism.
 
The other important aspect that these neo-fascists present before respective nations is that the achievement of orderly society is possibly only through their grit and determination. If fascism at the beginning of 20^th century was a manifestation of  a crude Monopoly Capitalism, the neo-fascism of today is like finance capitalism, concealed and deceitful in its approach. Monopoly Capitalism strangles the ordinary lives of people like a beastly wolf; globalised finance capital strangles public life by adopting crocodile-like movements under water. The characteristic of the neo-fascists is akin to that of crocodile under water rather than a wolf in forest.

Apart from these similarities, neo-fascism is not a simply revival of fascism. Neo-fascism’s approach towards 21^st century hegemony is intertwined in sustaining the hegemony of globalised finance capitalism by drawing the domestic markets into the backyards of the former by stifling, strangling any kind of dissent in its form and content. Neo-fascists tended to focus on non-nationals in European context and Muslims in the Indian context. After decades of post-war decolonisation, neo-fascists in the west fought battles for “urban space,” capturing the minds of a new generation by demonizing the Other. With increasing urbanisation also came a shift in the electoral bases of fascist-oriented movements which gave a new turn for mobilisational politics. The rise of the Shiv Sena is the best example for this trend. Finally, the gradual acceptance of democratic norms by the vast majority of third world countries reduced the appeal of authoritarian ideologies and required that neo-fascist parties make a concerted effort to portray themselves as democratic and “mainstream.” Some neo-fascists even included words like “democratic” and “liberal” to name of their movements.

Hinting at the ultra modern optics adopted by the neo-fascists, indicating a transformation, in 1996 Roger Eatwell cautioned: “Beware of men—and women—wearing smart Italian suits: the color is now gray, the material is cut to fit the times, but the aim is still power.…Fascism is on the move once more, even if its most sophisticated forms have learned to dress to suit the times.” Similarly, historian Richard Wolin described these movements as “designer fascism.” Here it is pertinent to draw the attention of John Wiess, a Wayne state University history professor, who described ‘what is fascist’ in his 1967 book The Fascist Tradition: Radical Rightwing Extremism in Modern Europe who ascribed the notions of organised conceptions of community, philosophical idealism, idealisation of masculinity, virtues, resentment of mass democracy, elitist conceptions of leadership, rascism, militarism and imperialism to the representative concepts of neo-fascism.

Weiss observed, “Any study of fascism which centers too narrowly on the fascists and Nazis alone may miss the true significance of right-wing extremism. For, without necessarily becoming party members or accepting the entire range of party principles themselves, aristocratic landlords, army officers, government and civil service officials, and important industrialists in Italy and Germany helped bring fascists to power.” Without the aid of President Paul von Hindenburg, Chancellor Franz Von Papen and other German conservatives, Hitler, who never won an electoral majority, would not have been appointed chancellor.

If we go back to the years of 2012-2014 India, we could find several similarities in the sequence of events that lead to position of Narendra Modi as Prime Ministerial candidate. During the Great Depression, thousands of middle-class conservatives fearful of the growing power of the left abandoned traditional right-wing parties and adopted fascism. The ideological distance traveled from traditional conservatism to Nazism was sometimes small, since many of the ideas that Hitler exploited in the 1930s had long been common currency within the German right. Similarly John Luckacs, Hungarian Marxist, who authored Hitler of History, argued that there is no such thing as generic fascism.

Had the draft political resolution’s assessment of the preconditions for the emergence of neo-fascist forces stood on sound foundation, it would have considered the preconditions existing in current day India. To recap from the draft resolution itself, the preconditions of the rise and consolidation of neo-fascism in the West lies in  Global Capitalist Crisis, Global Unemployment, Widening Inequalities and Growing Popular Protests. Obviously all these preconditions prevailed in India as well, states the draft political resolution. In its own words, the draft resolution says this about the Modi dispensation, “This regime is characterised by an intensified pursuit of neo-liberal policies, resulting in all round attacks on the working people; the concerted effort to implement the RSS’s Hindutva agenda which threatens the secular democratic framework of the State, accompanied by attacks on the minorities and Dalits; a reinforcement of the strategic alliance with the United States and playing the role of a  subordinate ally; and building the architecture of authoritarianism by curbing parliamentary democracy, subverting constitutional institutions and democratic rights.”
 
On account of economic growth, it says, “The economic slowdown has been sharpest in the real sectors of the economy and in particular in the informal sectors.” On unemployment there is a detailed discussion: “The biggest failure of the Modi Government has been on employment. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) data, about 1.5 million (15 lakh) jobs were lost during January-April 2017 as compared to the previous four months of September to December 2016” and “after 25 years of liberalisation, India has become one of the most unequal societies in the world. A 2016 study on the basis of the data collected by the National Sample Survey Organisation showed that the richest 1 per cent of Indians hold 28 per cent of all the wealth in the country.”is what it says about the widening inequalities in the country. It lists scores of other forms of attacks on ordinary lives in subsequent sections. The resolution also lists out instances of growing popular protest by drawing our attention towards the flurry of movements, some achieved instant relief like those of Kisan movements, some occurred as part of routine, like all India strikes by trade unions.
 
The resolution admits, “The last nearly four years have seen the unfolding of the blueprint of the RSS utilising State power to infiltrate (hierarchies and structures) and RSS personnel in key positions in various institutions of the State. Most of the Governors of states appointed are BJP-RSS men, some of whom utilise their positions to advocate the communal agenda. Constitutional bodies are being subverted from within. BJP and RSS leaders openly express their desire to change the Constitution.”
 
The last one, then, is the distinguishing feature from the preconditions that existed (before), when the resolution talks about the emergence of neo-fascism. Let us mark this distinguishing feature. The Party’s think tanks including the premiere ones – Polit Bureau and Central Committee – have arrived at a conclusion that reflect a peculiar situation, not akin to any international pattern and is peculiar to India alone.

 After observing all these phenomena , developments and instances correctly, one would have expected that the Party would equate the emergence of this extreme rightward shift that coincides with the concentration of unbridled power in one single man’s hand with that of neo-fascism. But that has not happened. This author strongly feels that the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the foremost lead thinker of the Indian Left movement (and also the one who provided a guiding light to analyse the global events in the post Soviet era), has faltered in recognising the character of the impending danger.
 
While summing up the possible consequences of the above listed features, the draft resolution states, “2.78: The BJP has consolidated its political position. Under the Modi Government, there has been an intensification of the neo-liberal capitalist exploitation of the people; the secular-democratic framework of the Constitution is being eroded with the pursuit of the Hindutva agenda; and the BJP-led government has bound India closer to the imperialist strategy of the United States. All this marks the onset of an authoritarian-communal regime.”
 
This conclusion, is, I feel, is dictated by the assessment made in the 21^st Congress rather than taking subsequent developments into consideration. The 21^st Congress of the Party, held at Visakhapatnam in 2015, had evaluated the situation that emerged after 2014 general elections as, “This (2014 general election results and consequential developments)  has set the stage for a rightwing offensive comprising an aggressive pursuit of neo-liberal policies and a full-scale attempt by the RSS-led Hindutva forces to advance their communal agenda. Such a conjuncture presages growing  authoritarianism”. (Para 2.1).
 
The BJP-RSS duo is in power in more states than it was in 2015. The BJP-RSS occupied the highest positions that the democracy can offer – President,  Prime Minister, Vice President and Lok Sabha speaker. More than dozen RSS Sevaks have occupied Chief Ministerial positions. The top bureaucratic positions are occupied by persons who are eager to prove their allegiance to RSS directly. The top defence establishment is tilted more rightward than ever before. The essence of mass democracy, fundamental rights of all are being openly discarded and vehemently opposed. The wisdom of a barbaric age is being depicted as divine wisdom. After first, USA and the UK, for the first time in any third world country, the Darwinian theory of evolution is shunned by persons in constitutional authority. However, unfortunately, the CPI (M) is still stuck in its 2015 assessment of the Modi government, particularly in its use of the vocabulary, ‘presages’.
 
The draft political resolution has failed to recognise the impending threat of this Indian variant of an emergent neo-fascism. There could be only three possibilities behind such a flawed understanding. First, that the Party might not have considered the described pre-conditions (as arrived at by its own conclusions) as not dangerous enough to pose the eventual threat. In that case, the conclusion of “2.115 (i) Given the experience of the nearly four years rule of the Modi Government it is imperative to defeat the BJP government in order to isolate the Hindutva communal forces and reverse the anti-people economic policies,” is itself an objective that becomes redundant. Second, it must be stuck in a time warp, which goes against the basic tenets of Marxism. For Marxism, nothing is static. Everything changes. If we have conclude that the Party’s thought process is stuck in a time warp, we would need to admit that the Party is thinking in reverse gear. If these two are not the reasons, then, the Party is willfully refusing to recognise and accept the changing circumstances and the dire need to change its tactics in tune with the times. This would be suicidal for any Communist Party. The history of the First and Second Communist International is replete with examples of several parties that were stuck a in time wrap and got decimated at the hands of class enemies.
 
In this context, the words of the pragmatic theoretician, German Marxist Dimitrov’s found in his report to the Communist International provide a dire warning, “before the establishment of the fascistic dictatorship, bourgeois governments pass through a number of preliminary stages and institute a number of reactionary measures, which directly facilitate the accession to power of fascism. Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisies and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages, is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but on the contrary, facilitates that victory.”

The post For the CPI (M), Has the Buck Stopped in 2014? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Characterising the principle class enemy is the single most important task before any Communist Party. In discharging this critical task, the former General Secretary of the CPI(M) set out the terms of the debate in a column in the Indian Express, way back in 2016, in which he termed the BJP government as authoritarian but not fascist. This has led to considerable debate directly within Party fora and indirectly, through media platforms. In a kind of conclusion of this ongoing debate, Prakash Karat, the former General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist) and one among the pre-eminent ideologues of Communist movement in today’s India, through a detailed interview to the Indian Express’ web edition added to his reflections reflection on how to characterize the Modi government.  Since his is an important contribution for advancing the debate concerning Left politics in India, I have relied on his conclusions collated from various interviews and interventions available in media. Justifying his characterisation of Modi government, he told Indian Express that in country after country, rightwing leaders have emerged and enjoy the popularity of the people. In my opinion, he has missed out on a basic distinction. Rightwing leaders in the west are different from those in India.

Unlike in the west, in India, the rightwing is rooted within multi-layered social complexities and strongly established sense of The Other. The value and role of constructing the sense of The Other  for mobilisational politics in a country like ours, in which a medieval ideology stills holds considerable sway over the daily life of the common man, has enormous potential. This is reflected in not only their conception of the multiple strategies but also their implementation-al capacities of this multi headed hydra.

The danger was rightly pointed out by the Party in its election review of the 2016 Assam and Bengal assembly elections, wherein it stated clearly that the BJP was adopting state specific strategies to maximise its vote bank and ‘winnability.’ Within such an overall a situation, for an important ideologue to draw such a conclusion that the Modi phenomenon is akin to Western right wing phenomena appears divorced from the ground realities of Indian reality and specifics. This will have far-reaching consequences not only for the Left in India, but to India as a whole.

In effect, this means that Karat wants to treat the Modi phenomenon by under-emphaising its roots in the well oiled mechanism of the RSS whose vast network played a key role in both 2014 and successive elections. The RSS officially acknowledged that it was because of 40,000 RSS workers, who had been entrenched in the daily life of the Assamese for about five years that they could win Assam for the first time. In UP, lakhs of RSS workers were at service of the BJP. Even in Gujarat, it is a fact that about seven lakh RSS workers are into booth level poll management.

When we are treat the Modi  phenomenon as an authoritarian tendency confined to the popularity of an individual leader, like the Indira Gandhi episode in politics, we are utterly misreading the conjuncture, structure and decades old campaign (of hate and division) that has propped him up. The authoritarianism that had emerged in Western societies particularly in Europe and America during the ongoing crisis of global finance capitalism, as analysed, has never had any explicit or implicit blue print to re-draw (or re-construct)their societies. As we all know, these societies are result of a protracted struggle for modernisation and deeply anchored in liberal democratic social values.  These authoritarian leaders, whom Prakash Karat refers to, are only aimed at only maximizing the profits for finance capital rather than focusing on re-constructing the social values based on a liberal democratic ethics. But the authoritarian fascism that Modi represents is completely in contrast to that of Western authoritarianism.

The authoritarianism with Modi at its fountain head is not only to ensure the fullest implementation of  neo-liberalism but also to  re-christen the ordinary lives  of people by redrawing the social ethos on whose basis they stood up, through invocation of fascist the Hindu rashtra design. One stark difference can be brought to the notice of the readers: when in opposition, the BJP/RSS combine used anti-Muslim ism to maximize its reach and vote bank. But once seated in power solidly, its focus has shifted to more diversified bases of social life. That is why since the formation of the NDA 2 government headed  by Modi, the scope of cultural politics  has got amplified from its limited anti-Muslim plank (though that remains at its core) to a larger ‘un-Hindu’ practices of beef eating, Gita, love jihad etc. Imposing a Hindutva agenda coupled with a changed electioneering is creating un-mitigating consequences on social identities. This is laying a fertile ground for a deep- seated subaltern division among social identities weakening existing solidarities within civil society.

The Party has failed to project an alternative narrative which can play a role in putting forth an alternative cohesive platform. What the Party has discussed in public forums is not linked to the daily lives of ordinary public. It needs to re-christen its narrative to reach the public at large.  For that it needs to shun its pedagogy, and adopt a people’s pedagogy. The failure of the Indian Left lies in its inability to present a viable and attractive alternative for re-constructing India. While taking recourse into history, a section of the Party leadership has put forward the failed Maha ghatabandhan experiment in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh to wean the voters away from BJP and its affiliates. The reason behind this also lies in its failure to present an alternative narrative which rekindles the hope and confidence among Indians, apart from its own cadres.
 
Let us look particularly at one more aspect of recent developments. As long as the BJP confined itself to criticizing Congress policies, without presenting an alternative for reconstructing the nation, they also failed to dislodge the Congress from Center. That was the time when Modi came up with a new narrative that attracted considerable sections of society and gave a wider acceptance of a disguised Hindutva polity in the name of rebuilding the nation. What is crucially affecting and impacting on the daily life of Indians is the communalisation of civic society. Its ramifications are felt across the regions, communities and castes. Unless we turn this into an agenda for electoral mobilisation, the CPIM) efforts are going to be like another ‘anti-nuclear agreement style move’ which distances itself from the public. The acumen and expertise of a section of leadership has failed to distinguish the election strategies of BJP with its open and vicious anti-Muslim plank and used disaggregated social identities to stoke anti-Mulsim and anti-Dalit feelings, anti regional sentiments while eulogizing nationalism. A section of leadership also put forth their argument that they (the BJP/RSS) use religious nationalism, ultra nationalism, attack democratic rights but they are also people who work within the political system. By putting forth this argument they have forgotten the distinction between working within the political system and hollowing out the same system by being at its top.

It is evident that, since the 1970s and the Jan Sangh’s partnership in the Janata government, the RSS constantly and gradually worked out its agenda to destabilize the same political system, methodically. Attacking the pillars of parliamentary democracy is the key strategy of RSS which yielded results for it. If we forget this key aspect, we will be at fault in understanding what lies underneath the so called Modi phenomenon and end up equating this with any other kind of authoritarian tendency.

We can see that no other rightwing authoritarianism (that Prakash Karat refers to), has entrenched entrenched itself into the State apparatus as deeply and as tactically as the BJP and RSS has done over the last four decades. Moreover, Hitler also came to power through the political system he opposed and got acceptance for himself by being within the very same system. The aim is same but the strategy different. Just because the RSS is deploying a different strategy, we should not fail in recognizing its fascist tendencies.

Such an erroneous conclusion will end lead us towards Kaleeya Mardhanam without a Krishna of the synchronized collective secular forces and movements emerging with both minimal and maximum demands. This could prove to be a disaster for the Indian Left. It is this difference in appreciation that underlies the differences between the majority and minority draft resolutions presented at the Central Committee meeting at Kolkata. From the above discussion, it is evident that the draft political resolution adopted by the CC with a majority vote, failed to appreciate the grand design of the Sangh Parivar’s Hindu Rashtra project and which led it to characterize the Modi government as merely authoritarian. This will have far-reaching consequences for the forthcoming general elections. This difference in appreciation of fact should be widely debated now rather than reducing them to merely, pro Congress or anti Congress stands. Such a projection would not be a good thing for either the CPI (M) or for the Left and Secular forces in general.

Related Articles:

1. Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post It is RSS that makes Indian Authoritarianism Fascist: CPI(M) Resolution appeared first on SabrangIndia.