The proletariat It is held out that proletariat, as a necessary product of industrialisation, and being the most exploited and

disinherited class, is a gravedigger to its parent capitalist class and demolishes capitalism as a way of life. Hence, proletariat class was declared historically destined to be revolutionary. The postulate of this historicity has proved a fiasco, much before a world revolution could be accomplished. Nowhere, not even in Russia the proletariat as a class could accomplish socialist revolution. Officially too it was an affair of peasants, workers and soldiers there in 1917. Perhaps, with booty from its colonial possessions in its lap, this dying capitalist class has exhibited the type of resilience over this period, was much under-estimated and the characteristics attributed to the proletariat stood aborted to the dismay of hopefuls. Another wrong interpretation was that the proletariat is a homogenous class, free from the urge of private property and hence free from individualism! The idea was further enlarged to an absurd proposition/ proportion that the real communist party as its sole vanguard has necessarily to be homogeneous like human organism, which it cannot ever. Still, the situation as available today in the beginning of twenty-first century under capitalism requires a fresh look into the question. The deprivation now of the rural based farming community in third world countries, barring the upper crust comprising hardly 10 percent of rural India, is more acute than that of the factory based industrial proletariat. This huge population is truly in a bind. The factory proletariat, as a part of the organised urban economy subsists on a better level relatively at the cost of huge unorganised rural working force and a collaborator to the system against the later. The economy in India for the last fifty years or so is working on this principle. Even on ideological plane, the few minor implements and small pieces in land with heavy majority of farmers, more so in India, is a poor consolation in relation to properties with the core in industrial work force. Under capitalism nowhere the proletariat exhibits less crazy for property. Working in conjunction with diehard corrupt capitalists-industrialists, the proletariat habitually is attuned to such malfeasance and feels less burdened with social values and ethics himself. Under socialist dispensation too proletariat as a class did not show better qualities. In the trade union movement such qualities of the proletariat have brought glaring fissures between masses of the people and the organised working class of industrial vantage. Russian experiment in building socialism with industry as its core, proved a fertile ground for giving rise to marauders in number out of industrial proletariat, as was the case in capitalist-imperialist Europe. Indian experience of last fifty years supports this conclusion in substance with honourable exceptions here and there, as it is every where possible to happen. Another related question also needs to be answered in this connection. How much the growing number of industrial proletariat, more so in India on the basis of industrialisation spree, free from their feudal past and uprooted from their rural moorings have helped the progressive movement for a fundamental change in society, by the way? How this proletariat braces the communal frenzy of the type nation faced in recent Gujarat genocide? How they themselves behave in such situations of political thuggery? The answer is dismal. Then, how much enlightened proletariat duly groomed during 74 years of socialist society in Russia that constituted overwhelming majority of the population in that country, came to defend their rule when it started crumbling in 1991 or when the ruling party there started playing to the tune of capitalist-imperialist America and its life-style much earlier?

The answer again is emphatically dismal. What is the meaning then of this double speak about the liberating role of developed productive forces and means of production through industrialization ballyhoo to the grinding conditions of the people? Nothing better than a big hoax in confusing chatter. It is hard to claim that the liberation movement is anywhere near the goal either due to this increase in numbers of proletarians world over. Truly, it was not expected of communists to prove such block-headed in matters of socia l science and its practice as they have done unfortunately. The first dangerous outcome of this block-headedness of communists over formulations once advanced, is the consolidation of power structure, with many subgroups co-opted in favour of capitalist development.