Some Views on the Revolutionary Path - 1 The communist organizations I see around me are sectarian.

This cannot augur wel l for the revolutionary cause. They are always worried about things like "lest t his member be snatched away from us" and "let's see if we can somehow manage to make them work for our party" etc. They are not concerned about generating and f ostering genuine revolutionary mindset and practices. It is always about "our gr oup" - closed doorism of the extreme sort. This just comes at least from two thi ngs - firstly, a feudal-bourgeoisie hangover and fetishism about "mine", "my" i.e. private ownership and monopoly [this is my group, I am right, We know the r evolutionary ideology correctly, We will win, we will beat them, We can't let th em know, They should work for us, We will hoard the information lest others know it and use it for their own use etc.] and secondly, and this is at least for th e organizations I have known as some of the most prominent "radical" ones in Kol kata-west bengal, they are mostly headed [intellectually and influentially - in ways which matter anyway - irrespective of what's on paper] by people from/servi ng elite institutions and professions, who are generally beneficiaries of and ar e in love with, this system of dominance [at least parts of it] - maybe in a dif ferent form - more on this later - and which they don't admit, i.e. elitists. {i t is comparable to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be perfectly attune with th e reason why workers will be opposed to the capitalist system, if you are not a worker yourself. your reasons for opposition to the system WILL be different, so mething, despite the scientific obviousness, which is religiously denied by thes e elitist communists who somehow will make it appear they know better than the r est about, well, everything!! They are a "class apart" and so they must be rever ed and listened to.} Another, though something not familiar closely to me but wh ich I have seen too, is the presence of a crude, militant leadership who are mor e closer to genuine working class because of their lifestyles and dedication to militant opposition to the capitalist system, but still maintain an intellectual unquestionable domination and authority/hierarchy that can't be challenged , mo re like in a military outfit, as opposed to the more deceptive and subtle [and y et equally, if not worse] form of subordination induced in the elitist leadershi p-oriented parties/orgs. This probably applies to the orgs already taking the pa th of armed resistance. So any program called by them is by definition a sectarian one because the group giving the call intends to gain mileage from it .... either get more people int o their group [that coporation like "recruitment strategy - luring with half tru ths and outright lies and deceptions about the group, revealing their true natur e only later - exploiting the psychological need of a person who is looking to d o some activity with good intention, for example, giving the psychological impre ssion that "space" is being made for the "free" activity of an individual only b ound within the revolutionary ideological boundary and none else - although it i s always limited by the ambit of the group - the individual becomes just another member of the group only, with no general comradeship to anyone believing in th e same revolutionary cause, because of the rather limited time and opportunity a vailable for such after doing the mundane duties of the present group - which is decided in sectarian fashion by the "committee" hierarchies, detached from the larger revolutionary cause - not to mention the obligatory feelings that generat e in members over time to act according to the sectarian nature of their own org s towards others - thus making it nearly impossible to be not sectarian while re maining in a sectarian group - thus it shows it is a function of the instituion, is this sectarianism, the institution of "party" as we know, the dominant preva lent concept of party, anyway, among communists] or just get their name famous . .. so because "means shapes the end" , the ill, sectarian intention of the peopl e [group/org] giving the initial call CAN never make it NOT sectarian because th ey are going act like it as well..... people attending their programs will not g ain genuine revolutionary insight but only sectarian ones ... And when it comes to movements, the nastiest of sectarianism often comes to the

fore...they cant even get their shit together when it matters the most. So it is bunch of bullshit when they say that there will be unity when there is a "revolutionary spark" or "upsurge" in the future...they are already dividing t he people and because of the lack of unity now, the revolutionary forces will no t be in a position to give the definite edge over the enemies, capitalsits and t heir stooges, during that critical hour. This doesn't mean the ideological diffe rences, [if genuine, it is also more like personal ego without a doubt, the hist ory of splits and the nature of the splits show that] need not be sorted out or they be ignored for the sake of an artificial forceful "unity". Indeed, that won 't be true unity. But a genuine open, non-sectarian umbrella organization is a M UST without which nothing will work out, and this should be done without the hie rarchies and authorities and impositions, the "duty-bound" structures, the verti cal hierarchical committees etc. Practice and convince - but never impose, other wise it will not be a revolution and overthrow of exploitation but another hegem ony replacing the current one - should be the outlook. This is the true revoluti onary outlook. {Of course - this too can be debated openly and publicly but the basic premises have to be there!} One may say - what if the people are "swayed" if the programs are made public et c. Firstly, at this present stage, there are no really secret works to be done [ I am leaving out any that are already trying to do so] - or at least being done. So now everything can be done publicly. Don't do "study classes" - do public di scussions as a form of organizational activity. A few people can always do study sessions of their own. But the moment it is about the organization, they must m ake sure not to have any special powers and influences. They can merely give the call and convene it. They can act as coordinators. They become one of the peopl e. But they have no special voice. They have no special powers [under any circum stances]. They must strive to achieve this - a society reeling under servitude m entality, the feudal hangover and attraction towards "leadership" which is also increased by bourgeoisie mentality, need to be fought diligently at every step, smashing authorities and hierarchies of all kinds - sexual, caste, race and diff erent kinds of psychological dominations which must be fought now, then and ther e , everytime - all the while - can't be left for the nonsensical economic reduc tionist approach of "leave these things till after the "Revolution" against capi talism - no, without these, the exploitation will return in other forms - power to dominate = power to exploit. That happens through private capitalism, and som etimes state capitalism. That's what happened in the state capitalist regimes, e ach one starting out ostensibly as "socialist" regimes. Both challenging others freely and sincere self-introspection and self-criticism and subjecting one's ow n views to public scrutiny should be constant endeavor. What can the present orgs do? They cannot be reformed - given their terribly rea ctionary structuring, they simply need to be done away with. If the same individ uals can get over the problems, they simply need to recreate a new organization - they may be many in number, doesn't matter, if they have some different politi cal ideas - but even though exactitude may not be achieved yet, it needs to be w orked out through the genuine efforts by coming under a giant anti capitalist um brella - owned and run by no one group or even a set of groups but by all believ ing in the overthrow of capitalism and even better, wanting a society free of cl ass, state and exploitation - the "communist utopia". This organization will obv iously be run collectively and can never really be "overrun" by capitalists. Bec ause there is nothing to overrun. There is no tangilble organization, there is n othing to break. Physical occupations [like building to hold the open public mee tings or the councils chosen by the people etc.] can always work towards finding other alternatives if crackdowns, on the physical structures only needed for fu nctionality, are done by the state. But the actual organic body of the revolutio nary masses always remain in connection, in contact - the umbrella organization IS the coordination, nothing more.

The organization is only the collection of all forces in the revolutionary briga de - by revolutionary is meant AT A MINIMUM all those believing in and fighting for the overthrow of capitalism. The organization will help to coordinate and ta ke collective decisions. Most importantly, it will HELP RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES. To bring the differences up and genuinely debate them is something that is neve r done and is left to a phantom "it will happen in the future when quantitative increase in revolutionary upsurge will create qualitative push towards revolutio nary toppling of the system" by the present day sectarian groups/orgs/parties on the radical left. It is only through practice and efforts from now on that the real change will take place - it can't be left SUPERSTITIOUSLY on something that will never come on its own. Besides, fighting dogmatism, domination, elitism and all other negative aspects which haunt and terrorize the revolutionary cause because of the narrowness of t he sectarian groups will also be a major feature undertaken in the organization, again, through rigorous public debates. Basically, the organization has to be of individual people ideologically believi ng in a revolutionary cause coming freely to associate and find solutions to wor king together, as need be.