लेनिन की महत्वपूर्ण रचनाओं में से एक, क्या करें , संशोधनवादियों से लड़ने के लिए आज भी उतनी ही प्रासंगिक है जितनी उस वक़्त थी जब इसे लिखा गया था।
जब विश्व कोविड 19 से जूझ रहा है, तब मई महीने में लद्दाख के दो इलाके पैंगोंग-त्सो का गलवान घाटी और फिंगर 4 में भारत और चीन की सेनाओं के हज़ार से भी ज्यादा सैनिक आमने सामने आ चुके हैं। 2017 में हुए डोकलाम के बाद यह इन दोनों देशों की सेनाओं के आमने सामने आने की दूसरी घटना है।
In today’s paper a news appeared about 30% of India’s urban population could be out of savings and unable to cover essential expenditure by June-end. Due to lockdown 84% of households suffered a loss of income.
लोकपक्ष पत्रिका का जून अंक उपलब्ध है।
मित्रगण नीचे दिए गए लिंक को क्लिक कर पीडीएफ डाऊनलोड कर सकते हैं।
एक तरफ लोग मर रहे थे, वहीं सरकार इस त्रासदी को भी एक तमाशा, एक उत्सव के रूप में तब्दील कर रही थी।
1943-44 में बंगाल में भयानक अकाल पड़ा था जिसमें लगभग 30 लाख लोगों ने भूख से तड़पकर अपनी जान गंवाई थी, कई लोगों का मानना है की यह संख्या इससे कई गुना अधिक थी। इस महा त्रासदी के पीछे थी अंग्रेज़ी साम्राज्यवादी हुक़ूमत। बंगाल में लोग जब मर रहे थे तो अंग्रेज़ी सरकार वहां से अनाज निर्यात कर रही थी।
दुनिया भर में इंसानों के सबसे चहेते साथी, इंसानियत, हक़ और बराबरी के सबसे भरोसेमंद अपराजेय योद्धा, महान दार्शनिक, अर्थशास्त्री, राजनीतिज्ञ व समाजवाद के प्रणेता एवं महान शिक्षक कार्ल मार्क्स का इस वर्ष 202 वां जन्मदिन था। 5 मई 1818 को उनका जन्म हुआ।
सामाजिक न्याय, बराबरी और इंसानी हक़ अमर रहें!!! समाजवाद ज़िंदाबाद!!!
Stop the witch-hunt of activists!
Condemn the arrests of Pinjra Tod members Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal!
Release all political prisoners!
May 25th 2020
On the evening of 23rd May 2020, the Delhi Police arrested Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, activists of Pinjra Tod and students of Jawaharlal Nehru University. Charged under FIR 48/2020, both were initially interrogated by the police at their home.
*A Ranjan and D Rashmi**
“Nicolai Lenin, the great, the genuine man, is dead. His death struck pain into the hearts of those who knew him. But the dark line of death only showed up more sharply his importance in the eyes of the world – his importance as the leader of working people. And if the cloud of hate surrounding his name, the cloud of lies and calumnies, sere still more dense than it is, no matter, there are no forces that could extinguish the torch lifted by Lenin in the darkness of the maddened world. And there has been no man who better deserved to be eternally remembered. Nicolai Lenin is dead. But the heirs of his wisdom and will are still alive. In the end honesty and truth created by man conquer. Everything must yield to those qualities which make a Man. ”
Comrade Alok Mukherjee, has put up a post on facebook which deals with Ambedkar and his evaluation. Though comrade Mukherjee has in the beginning of his statement, clarified that facebook post is not a platform for evaluation of personalities. We agree with comrade Mukherjee’s stand, yet such posts and statements published on social media do provide pointers to one’s political viewpoint and stand. For person like comrade Mukherjee, who has been a known face of the Indian Communist movement, since his days as one of the central leaders of CPI(ML) PCC and CPI(ML) Janshakti. Now a Central leader of CPI(ML) Class Struggle, (Kanu Sanyal group) his words carry weight and also merits serious reading.
पिछले दो सप्ताहों के दौरान नई दिल्ली में दिल्ली पुलिस द्वारा अनेकों कार्यकर्ताओं और छात्रों को लक्षित एवं परेशान किया गया है। खुले फर्द बयानों के तहत काम करती पुलिस उन व्यक्तियों, जिनमें से कई कोविड-19 जनित अनियोजित लॉक डाउन के चलते भोजन एवं अन्य जरूरी आपूर्त्ति से मरूहम लोगों एवं मजदूरों को अपरिहार्य रिलीफ प्रदान करने में लगे हुए हैं, को फरवरी 2020 के अन्त में उत्तर-पूर्वी दिल्ली में हुई हिंसा को भड़काने और उसमें शामिल होने के आरोप में फंसाने की कोशिश कर रही है। Continue reading “दिल्ली और कश्मीर में कार्यकर्त्ताओं एवं पत्रकारों की दुर्भावनापूर्ण खोज बन्द की जाये तथा कठोर कानून यूएपीए को रद्द किया जाये।”
इस साल लेनिन की 150वीं वर्षगांठ हम मना रहें हैं। 22 अप्रैल सन 1870 को लेनिन का जन्म रूस के शहर उलयनवोसक में हुआ था। लेनिन ने विश्व इतिहास पर अपनी एक ऐसी छाप छोड़ी, जिसे उनके दुश्मन भी लाख कोशिशों के बावज़ूद नकार पाने में असमर्थ हैं।
मैं हूं जनसमूह-भीड़–जनता
क्या पता है आपको Continue reading “जनता तब आयेगी — कार्ल सैंडबर्ग”
भारत के सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 16 मार्च, 2020 को नागरिक अधिकार कार्यकर्त्ता प्रो. आनन्द तेलतुम्बड़े और गौतम नवलखा के एण्टीसिपेटरी बेल पिटीशन को खारिज करते हुए 6 अप्रैल, 2020 को उन्हें पुलिस के समक्ष आत्मसर्पण करने का निर्देश दिया। इस फैसले के खिलाफ दायर किए गए रिव्यू पिटीशन की सुनवाई सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 8 अप्रैल को की गई।
Click here to download
Economy and Class structure of German Fascism, written by German Marxist Alfred Sohn Rethel, is an insider account of the economic and social aspect in Germany.
मोदी ने आज फिर मन की बात की, और अपने चिर परिचित नाटकीय ढंग से देशवासियों से 21 दिन के लौकडाउन के लिए माफी मांगी।
By Pratyush Nilotpal
Like the Bubonic Plague of medieval world, the modern world today is grappling with Corona pandemic that has englufed almost all part of the globe.
Below we are posting an excerpt from booklet
titled “In the Valley of Death
Kashmir Question and Marxism Leninism: (An analysis for debate)”
This booklet deals about the Kashmir question and analyses it from a Marxist Leninist perspective.
We would be soon printing this booklet.
“The working class must not constitute itself a political party; it must not, under any pretext, engage in political action, for to combat the state is to recognize the state: and this is contrary to eternal principles. Workers must not go on strike; for to struggle to increase one’s wages or to prevent their decrease is like recognizing wages: and this is contrary to the eternal principles of the emancipation of the working class! Continue reading “Political Indifferentism : Karl Marx”
The events of Grosseto, Viterbo and Treviso are the initial phase of a new and definitive development of fascism. Punitive expeditions by small bands are giving way to actions by veritable army units, armed with machine-guns. In some areas fascist cavalry is making its appearance. In Siena, thousands upon thousands of fascists assembled, on the pretext of a provincial congress, to parade in military order with their own cavalry. Continue reading “The Development of Fascism”
The political position of fascism is determined by the following basic circumstances.
10/07/2019 Adrian Chan-Wyles (PhD) Leftwing Political Analysis One comment
Trot-b1081f5fa7b7a05aa7dbef6cec1488f7Trotsky – Collaborator with Fascism!
РОЛЬ ТРОЦКОГО В КАНУН ВТОРОЙ МИРОВОЙ ВОЙНЫ
Around 400-500 women workers from Bhalswa JJ Colony, Badli (near Jahangirpuri) have been taking out daily mashal juloos
भलस्वा जेजे कॉलोनी, बादली (जहाँगीरपुरी के पास) की लगभग 400-500 महिला मज़दूर पिछले दो दिनों से एनआरसी-सीएए के खिलाफ दैनिक मशाल जूलूस निकाल रही हैं (निम्न दो वीडियो देखें)।
अंग्रेज़ी का एक शब्द है डेलूशनल(Delusional) जिसका अर्थ होता है भ्रम का शिकार होना, और जब कोई सरकार इसका शिकार होती है, तो वो 2020 में पेश बजट जैसा कुछ लाती है।
The budget of 2020, like its predecessors was high on rhetoric but devoid of any substance. The governmental denial of the economic crisis was clearly discernible, with the Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitaraman looking out of sync with the reality. It was a delusional budget, without any vision or mission!
Chinese President Xi Jinping (L), Myanmar President Win Myint (2nd L) and Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi (2nd R), attending a ceremony marking Myanmar and China’s 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations in Naypyidaw. Photo: AFP/handout
The Chinese president Xi Jinping visited Myanmar on January 17-18 2020, it was the first visit by a Chinese president in 19 years.
Uttar Pradesh CM Adityanath aka Ajay Singh Bisht is known for his anti minority rants as well as his support for a Hindutva brand of politics.
Download the book by Ludo Martens
नागरिकता संशोधन विधेयक को कैबिनेट ने मंज़ूरी दे दी और संसद में यह पास भी हो जायेगा।
इस विधेयक के कानून बन जाने के बाद भारत की नागरिकता का मुख्य आधार व्यक्ति का धर्म होगा ना की उसकी कोई और बात। यह बिल भाजपा – आरएसएस की लाइन के मुताबिक बनाया गया है, जिन्हें भारत को एक हिन्दू राष्ट्र के तौर पर पेश करना है। Continue reading “नागरिकता संशोधन विधेयक (Citizenship Amemndment Bill): भारत को हिन्दू राष्ट्र और दो राष्ट्र सिद्धांत को वैध बनाने की दिशा में एक और कदम”
राज्य की आम जनता के लिए विकास विनाश का रूप ले चुका है। राज्य में भूख से पिछले 3 सालों में 23 लोगों के मरने की खबर आई है, असल में यह संख्या कहीं अधिक होगी। कुपोषण के मामले में भी राज्य अव्वल है, पांच वर्ष से कम उम्र के आधे से अधिक बच्चे कुपोषित हैं और इनमें से 12 प्रतिशत गंभीर रूप से कुपोषित हैं। परिणामस्वरूप तीन वर्ष से कम उम्र के लगभग आधे बच्चे ठिगनेपन से ग्रसित हैं।
झारखण्ड में सिर्फ 81 सीटें हैं लेकिन राज्य मे चुनाव की अवधि करीब करीब 1 महीने की है। चुनाव नीरस और उक्ता देनेवाला साबित हो रहा है।
राज्य में वैसे पार्टियों की कमी नहीं है, और करीब करीब सभी दलों ने अपने उम्मेदवार मैदान में उतारे हैं।
कांग्रेस महाराष्ट्र को दोहराने की उम्मीद में है, तो वहीं भाजपा अपनी पूरी ताकत इस राज्य में झोंक चुकी है। Continue reading “झारखण्ड चुनाव और जनता”
यह पुस्तक ज्यॉर्जी दिमित्रोव द्वारा संयुक्त मोर्चा की कार्यनीति पर उनके तीन लेखों का संग्रह है, इन तीन लेखों मे कामरेड दिमित्रोव ने कार्यनीति पर महत्वपूर्ण विचार रखे जिनकी प्रासंगिकता आज के दौर में और भी ज्यादा हो गयी है।
“I am a communist
Because I don’t see a better economy in the world than communism.
The Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank (PMC) fiasco is an indicator of the impending economic catastrophe. PMC is on verge of bankruptcy due to it lending 2,500 crore to real estate company HDIL, which went bancrupt pulling the bank down with it.
After grabbing the bigger chunk from RBI, government has now directed the PSUs to loosen their pockets, and shelve out money for Capital Expenditure (Capex). What, does this mean? It is a jargon that amounts to ordering the few profit making PSUs to give money to corporates. When this amount would be invested into capex, it would translate to the corporates getting more work and ultimately getting sop indirectly from the government. Continue reading “Over Production Under Consumption and the Government’s Prescription”
For us, Marxist Leninists, the brilliant theses of Stalin on nationality question remains the bedrock on understanding the nationality issue a barometer to formulate our policy and tactics. Along with Stalin’s theses, there are the extant text of writings by Marx, Engels, Lenin and of the Marxists of this country where the issue has been discussed and deliberated in detail. We have dedicated a section on the understanding of nationality question with respect to Kashmir, where some of the theses have been quoted, from that period after the transfer of power, before the entire movement degenrated into the abyss of revisionism and dogmatic-Marxism of the CPI(ML) era. Apart from Stalin’s article Marxism and National Question, the Marxist-Leninist understanding on the subject is elaborated in two of Lenin’s articles dealing with the subject– “Critical Remarks on the National Question” and “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” Continue reading “Marxist Leninist Understanding on the Right of Self Determination and National Question”
भारतीय कृषि का संकट अपने चरम पर है और इसके खत्म होने का कोई आसार नजर नहीं आ रहा। यह संकट कोई एक दो साल का नहीं है बल्कि इसके तार 1990 के बाद से सरकार द्वारा अपनाई नीतियों से जुड़ी हुई है। सरकारी संस्थानों और उन पर आश्रित राजनीतिक आर्थिक पंडितों ने इस संकट पर कई बातें कही लेकिन मूल प्रश्न पर सभी खामोश रहे। किसान संगठनों का हाल भी यही रहा है, संकट को केवल उत्पाद का सही कीमत ना मिलने औ koर खेती के लागत का दिनों दिन महँगा होने इसी के आस पास अपनी बातों को रखा है। लेकिन क्या कृषि संकट सिर्फ न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य (Minimum Support Price MSP) और खेती में लगने वाले समान जैसे बीज, कीटनाशक इत्यादि के बढ़ती कीमतों की वजह से है? अगर सिर्फ यही दो संकट का कारण रहते तो फिर इसका समाधान भी आसानी से हो जाता, लेकिन ऐसा नहीं है। Continue reading “कृषि संकट और पूँजीवाद”
In the Tito clique of bourgeois nationalists, Kardelj has the reputation of being a theoretician.
On May 28 this year, Kardelj made a speech in the Yugoslav Skupshtina about the people’s committees. Continue reading “ENEMIES OF MARXISM”
This article appeared in Albania Today, 6 (85) 1985. It was presented in the Scientific Conference dedicated to the Immortal Work of Comrade Enver Hoxha Continue reading “A Great Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary and Thinker – Foto Çami”
लेनिन अपने लेख ‘मार्क्सवाद और संशोधनवाद’ में लिखते हैं कि अगर जॉमेट्री के नियम का असर मानव हितों पर होता तो उनके खंडन का प्रयास भी निश्चित तौर पर होता। लेनिन की यह बात संशोधनवाद से संघर्ष में एक सूक्ति से कम नहीं है।
लेनिन तब बर्सटीनपंथियों और काउत्स्की के संशोधनवाद से टक्कर ले रहे थे, और आज हम इनके चेलों के अलावा भांति भांति के संशोधनवादियों की पैदा हुई तरह तरह के जमात देखने को मजबूर हैं। चाहे वो यूरो-कम्युनिस्ट धारा के घोषित अघोषित समर्थक हों, ख्रुसचेवपंथी हों या अन्य तरह के ‘मार्क्सवादी’ सभी बराबर पूंजीवाद की चाकरी में लगे हुए हैं। Continue reading “संशोधनवाद के खिलाफ संघर्ष मार्क्सवादी लेनिनवादी का प्रमुख कार्य है”
In addition to the capitalist crisis, imperialist aggression, errors of social democracy and weaknesses of the revolutionary movement, a more complex process with deeper consequences is underway in Venezuela: the decomposition of the Bourgeois State. Continue reading “Editorial of Acero Revolucionario (Revolutionary Steel) Organ of Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela On the present crisis in Venezuela”
This book was written when the deeper truths about the Soviet Union, to which the eyes of many millions were opened for a short while during the war against Nazi Germany, were being temporarily obscured again by the passion of controversy about the settlement of Europe after the war.
Experience throughout the thirty years’ existence of the Soviet Union, however, suggests that study of the permanent features of the Soviet economy and polity, as they are, is a better guide to Soviet policy, and therefore to European peace and prosperity, than passion or prejudice. Continue reading “Man and Plan in Soviet Economy by ANDREW ROTHSTEIN”
Of late there has been a distinct unease among the bourgeoisie academicians’ world over on the rise of what they call as “crony” capitalism. Somehow there is an illusion among them of capitalism that has been derailed of its moral, ethics and the great ideal of freedom & free trade, usurped by what has increasingly been called as crony capitalism. Bourgeoisie academician from right to Left have been lamenting about the loss that capitalism has suffered and the crisis the capitalism is suffering and as a solution they say if the “real” capitalism is restored all the ills facing the planet would magically be solved. It is just a matter of bringing back real capitalism and get rid of cronyism or corporatism. Continue reading “Is Crony Capitalism Different from Capitalism?”
By Moni Guha
Reviewing Victor Hugo’s biography of Napoleon, Karl Marx wrote in the preface to his book, ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire’- ‘The event itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees in it only the violent act of a single individual. He does not notice that he makes this individual great instead of little by ascribing to him a personal power of initiative such as would be without parallel in world history.’ Continue reading “Khrushchev and Soviet History”
Today marks the 101st anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, an epoch of unprecedented importance for the history of human kind. It was an event that divided the known human history into two, one before the revolution and one after it. Why do we even after a century of its occurring still take cognizance of this phenomenon? In the history of world revolutions October holds a unique place, and to understand the importance we shall have to once more look at the revolutions that took place before it. Continue reading “WE RAISE THE RED FLAG COMMEMORATING THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION”
New Issue (No. 3) of Marxist-Leninist journal Scientific Socialism is out.
The issue contains the following articles: Continue reading “Scientific Socialism No.3 July 2018”
CPI(ML) Red Star (hereafter RS) led by comrade K.N.Ramachandran has published its draft political resolution for their forthcoming party congress. The said draft resolution has been published in the party’s central organ Red Star in the August 2018 is
sue. We have read the draft political resolution (hereafter pol res) with great interest. Yet we cannot say that the pol res or RS has grasped the current political situation in full, neither can say that it seems ready to counter the current situation that has taken shape particularly after 2014.
Economics is a peculiar science. Problems and controversies arise as soon as we take the first step in this field of knowledge, as soon as the fundamental question – what is the subject matter of this science – is posed. The ordinary working man, who has only a very vague idea of what economics deals with, will attribute his haziness on this particular point to a shortcoming in his general education. Yet, in a certain sense, he shares his perplexity with many learned scholars and professors who write multivolumed works dealing with the subject of economics and who teach courses in economics to college students. It appears incredible, and yet it is true, that most professors of economics have a very nebulous idea of the actual subject matter of their erudition. Continue reading “What is Economics :: Rosa Luxembourg”
Jul 19, 2018
By this, as intellectuals, social activists and academics, we want to express our deep rejection of the very serious situation of state political violence and violation of Human Rights that Nicaragua is going through, [and assert the] responsibility of the current regime of Ortega-Murillo, which has resulted in about three hundred dead in the last three months.
Below is the text of mercy petition written by V.D Savarkar to the British India Government from Cellular jail in Andaman. The authenticity of this petition has been denied by the Hindutva supporters and ideologues. Yet, this document stands and has been reproduced by RC Majumdar, who is considered to be a historian of Hindutva ideology and know for his communal bias.
The ascendancy of the BJP to power marked the beginning of fascist onslaught in India. Enforcing a militant nationalism, atrocious violations of labour laws, brutal repression of dissidents, creating mass hysteria by using various means of media, armed squads to terrorise minorities and dalits, these are the characteristics of the fascist terror that India has to face today. What is attempted in the following article is to expose the fascistic character of the ruling party, the BJP and its parent organisation, the RSS. Continue reading “Fascist Onslaught in India”
If any sector has been affected most in four years of Modi government definitely it is the economy. Courtesy Modi and his finance minister Arun Jaitley, today there has been a perceptible decline in every sector of the economy. From Manufacturing to service and from joblessness to jobless growth. The impending economic catastrophe is now round the corner, but like Nero the rulers are engrossed in rewriting history and patting themselves for their own work.
Stalin Society of India has published a booklet titled: “Why Was Stalin Denigrated and Made a Controversial Figure?” Written by the late Communist theoretician comrade Moni Guha (MG).
Stalin Society of India has published this booklet written by veteran Communist intellectual late comrade Moni Guha.
In this small but very important work, comrade Guha has analysed in detail the events that unfolded immediately after the death of Stalin. In fact MG raised question on the death and circumstances leading to the death. It has been well established now that Stalin, was very much aware of the deviations that had cropped in the party and Soviet government. Continue reading “Book Published , Why was Stalin Denigrated.., by Moni Guha”
Download the PDF
Source CIML(SH) site
Indian Prime Minister went on to yet another foreign tour, this time to China. Strangely, called ‘informal meeting’. The government sources and the even more ‘official’ media both termed this as a historic, bold and unprecedented. Something that they have been doing assiduously to all such trips undertaken by the Prime Minister, that both literally and figuratively have been in all the four corners of the world. Continue reading “Modi Meets Xi: If Wishes Were Horses”
(Reproduced from the «Zeri i Popullit» daily dated May 11, 1966), The «Naim Frasheri» Publishing House, Tirana, 1966)
1. How should «democratic freedoms» in a bourgeois state be assessed and utilized?
2. Communists and alliances with progressive forces
3. Strengthen the international unity of Marxist-Leninists
The electoral rout of CPI (M) in its last stronghold of Tripura seemed to be the culmination of the long rot which was faced by this revisionist party. Continue reading “Tripura elections 2018: Fall of the last revisionist Bastille”
by LOIZOS MICHAIL
Trotskyism Study Group CPGB
The theory of “Permanent Revolution”, as elaborated by Leon Trotsky, constitutes a central doctrine of the various groups which internationally form the “trotskyist” tendency within the Marxist movement. For the Trotskyist groups, the theory of Permanent Revolution is not just an analysis of the dynamics of the Russian revolution, but, more importantly, a major “tool” by which they interpret contemporary social reality, and upon which they construct their strategies for revolutionary transformation. Continue reading “The Theory of Permanent Revolution: A Critique”
The new issue of Marxist – Leninist journal SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM is out.
The contents are:
1. On killing of Gauri Lankesh
2. Socialism in one country: Revisiting the old debate
3 The crisis of Indian Economy
4. Is North Korea Really A Threat To United States?
5. Russian Revolution and Debt
Contribution per copy Rs 20 (print copy)
For receiving it via email in PDF format please send your email id to
To download the PDF copy the below link to your browser
War of Words
The war of words between the United States and North Korea has further intensified crisis on the Korean Peninsula.
There are some discussions that refuse to die, one of the prime reason for this is the obduracy of some who refuses to acknowledge history. This may be either due to their ignorance or due to a deliberate move on their part to sow more confusion, amongst the rank and file of the communist movement.
Dear Friends and Comrades,
Scientific Socialism (Organ of PRC-CPI ML) is out.
The contents of the journal are:
1. Revolution Cannot Succeed by Killing Soldiers: A Critique of CPI (Maoist)’s killing of CRPF in Sukma
2. OBOR Summit: Imperialism With Chinese Characteristics
3. Kashmir Question and Marxism-Leninism: An Analysis for Debate
4. Long Live the Great Victory Over Fascism!
5. OROP: The Struggle Continues. . .
6. Successful Unity Conference of Five Youth Organisations held in Patna: A Report
You may download the PDF file from here
If you are interested in getting the print copy, please send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Member Editorial Board (Scientific Socialism),
राहुल सांकृत्यायन द्वारा लिखित कार्ल मार्क्स की जीवनी, एक अत्यंत ही महत्वपूर्ण पुस्तक है, जिसे हर उस व्यक्ति को पढ़ना चाहिये जो मार्क्स के जीवन और उनके विचारों को जानना चाहते हैं।
पी. डी.ए फ़ाइल को डाउनलोड करने के लिए नीचे दिए लिंक पर क्लिक करें
Dimitrov to Stalin, 1 July 1934. Original in Russian. Type-written, with handwritten comments by Stalin.
CPI (ML) Liberation, on 14th March, came up with a note titled “Lessons of the Assembly elections”. The note, which is supposed to be a post-poll analysis of the recently concluded assembly elections should have been ideally titled “No Lessons from the Assembly elections”. Since beginning till end, it is an analysis at best, to find place in some bourgeoisie newspaper with a bit of radical posturing and does not merit to be called as a serious post –poll analysis by a Communist Party that had contested these elections along with its other comrades of the revisionist-parliamentary camp parties like the CPI,CPI(M),RSP, Forward Bloc and the recent entrant to the camp SUCI(C) –who hitherto has been calling itself the only genuine Communist Party of the country but off-late had been seen either in the company of arc-rightist Mamata Banerjee and after being snubbed by her then sailing (or should we say sinking) with the CPI(M) led Left Front plus CPI(ML)Liberation.
So for Liberation, the poll came as surprise as, like the other pundits, who are found roaming from one TV studio to other, they also failed to sense the mood of the masses. Wow! and why not, hasn’t Liberation turned itself into a party of arm-chair revolutionaries whose leadership is seen only in the rallies that they organise and never in the struggle? Such, apathy towards mass movement and the chasm that has grown between the leadership, its cadres and the masses would certainly surprise the writer of this note. But, when we saw the votes polled in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh by Liberation and its other partners, it did not surprise us, in no constituency did they manage to poll votes exceeding even 10thousand and then they still claim to be surprised, in fact, the real surprise would have been to us if even in one constituency they could muster votes exceeding 10 thousand. But Liberation since long has been living in a mirage and have evolved into a group that has personified nihilism. They have reduced themselves into a party whom nobody knows or cares about in elections and in the mass movement they have cut themselves off, so sum total is they are today neither a party who can win elections nor lead mass movements.
The note further says: “It is therefore important for every defender of democracy to make a sober analysis of the UP outcome to understand the dynamic and confront the BJP game plan.” Another chicanery. They ask the defenders of democracy to make a sober analysis, while they would continue to make non-sober analysis and who are these so-called defenders of democracy? Are they Congress Party or are the regional bourgeoisie satraps the Samajwadi Party and BSP the new defenders of democracy? We are sure that Liberation that has since long stopped doing serious analysis would ever answer.
The note has attributed the success of BJP to new social-engineering that it undertook, gladly forgetting the inroads made by the RSS-sponsored communal polarisation that it had undertaken assiduously in the hinterlands of Uttar Pradesh. Let’s see what Liberation has to say: “It, therefore, tried to replicate the social engineering success of the BJP-JDU combination with a clear focus on ‘Mahadalits’ and EBCs (the non-Jatav Dalits and non-Yadav OBCs), both independently in its own party profile and projection and through its alliance with parties like the Apna Dal and the Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party.” As well as to what has now become known as the anti-incumbency factor in Indian electoral polity. Let’s again hear the manna from the note, “If the people in UP and Uttarakhand have voted for the BJP despite demonetization, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the compelling mood for a change of government in these two states prevailed over the discomfort and pain caused by demonetization.” So this is just another regime change, and has nothing to do with the ascendency of RSS and the Saffron brotherhood!
So, there was no Muzaffarnagar, Kairana neither Aqhlak was killed for possessing a meat that the RSS wing thought was beef, and hence no fascist offence is discernable to our friends in Liberation. The people at the helm of the party, have it seems forgotten entirely the visionary words of Dimitrov when he said in 1935 – ” We cannot avoid referring also to a number of mistakes committed by the Communist Parties, mistakes that hampered our struggle against fascism. In our ranks, there were people who intolerably underrated the fascist danger, a tendency which has not everywhere been overcome to this day. Of this nature was the opinion formerly to be met within our parties to the effect that “Germany is not Italy, meaning that fascism may have succeeded in Italy, but that its success in Germany was out of the question, because the latter was an industrially and culturally highly developed country, with forty years of traditions of the working class movement in which fascism was impossible. Or the kind of opinion which is to be met with nowadays, to the effect that in countries of “classical” bourgeois democracy the soil for fascism does not exist. Such opinions may serve and have served to weaken vigilance with regard to the fascist danger, and to render the mobilisation of the proletariat in the struggle against fascism more difficult.”. We would like to remind Liberation and its leaders to once again have a look at these words and compare it with their existing activities, are they anywhere able to understand fascism that is knocking the doors, nay has already made its entry into the country?
It just pays a lip service by stating. “The big gains made by the Modi regime in this round of Assembly elections will undoubtedly embolden the Sangh brigade to intensify its fascist offensive by all means at its disposal. For the forces of democracy, this clearly calls for greater mobilisation and preparedness to resist.” Has the country not already witnessed a growing intolerance and fascistic attacks on minorities, Dalits, the working class and peasantry? Is Liberation waiting for the rightwingers to formally announce the inauguration of concentration camps across the countries? Like, Prakash Karat, who is still not able to find Fascism in the country, Liberation too is still living in a mirage of the only intensification of fascist offensive. What can we say but good luck to you?
It further has made itself a laughing stock when in conclusion it mentioned, “We must now pay serious attention to the task of challenging the new-found pro-poor pretensions of the Modi regime with the effective mobilisation of the working people for the fulfilment of their rights and aspirations.”
Yes, when the Lalu supported Ranvir Sena was on rampage against your own cadres and when the entire Left movement in Bihar was being decimated by Laloo then also you were paying serious attention to the task of Laloo’s pro-poor pretensions, and we are very sure on the same lines you would be paying a very serious attention to the task of challenging the new-found pro-poor pretensions of the Modi.
The facebook link to the note is
Two veterans and a lady, Mrs Sudesh Goyet, wife of a Major had gone on Fast Unto Death, since 15 Jan, 2017! A departure from the previous Relay Hunger Strike! A movement which has entered 19th month at Jantar Mantar and in rest of the country! Continue reading “Historical turn in OROP movement!”
मोदी नीत सरकार जब से गद्दीनशीन हुई है तभी से देश के हालात बदलते नज़र आ रहे हैं. मीडिया और खास कर के इलेक्ट्रॉनिक (टी.वी) मीडिया पर जिस तरह से सरकार ने पकड़ बनाई है वह इस देश में पहले इस स्तर पर देखने को नहीं मिला था. कमोबेश सभी तथाकथित मुख्यधारा के चैनल हो या प्रिंट मीडिया आज एक खास तरह की लाइन का पालन करते नज़र आते हैं. पत्रकारिता के कुछ मापदंड या कहे आचारसंहिता होती हैं जिसमे अव्वल है तटस्थता, समाचार की सत्यवादिता, निष्पक्षता और पाठकों के प्रति सार्वजनिक जवाबदेही, किन्तु हमारे देश की पत्रकारिता इन सब मापदंडो के विपरीत एक ख़ास राजनीतिक लाइन और व्यक्ति केन्द्रित हो गयी है.
Comrades, Honda worker’s struggle has entered the 16th day. What is the situation of the struggle, the future strategy, what is the state of the struggling workers, what does the other workers think about this resistance and how much support it is garnering? What are the analysis of the situation? who are the ones taking decision, what measures are being taken to spread this movement to different parts of the country so that it receives support from entire nook and corner of the country. These are some of the questions being asked today, unfortunately there has been no initiative from the leadership to clarify these queries about the situation, leading to several other doubts being raised.
Even then in all situation the “Sarwahara” newspaper appeals to all that apart from Delhi the voices of solidarity should be raised in various states and areas. All those who are associated with “Sarwahara” are committed that solidarity committees should be formed and from every corner of the country the belligerent workers should get support and cooperation from all the forces that seek justice.
At the same time we demand that to chalk out the future strategy of the Honda workers, a meeting of all the organisations working amidst the working class and other organisations who can come into the support should be called immediately, so that the movement should be taken to its logical conclusion, and the working class should not witness another set-back. A concrete and major initiative can be taken jointly. It is obvious that this is not possible without waging a struggle against sectarianism.
We appeal particularly to those comrades associated with our trade union IFTU (Sarwahara) that wherever possible they should not only raise their voice in support of the Honda workers but also issue posters and pamphlets, while also forming economic solidarity committees so that the struggle does not stops due to want of money. Our proletarian class fraternity which binds us internationally is our real identity that reminds us of being a working class organisation who unitedly aims to achieve the historical mission together.
So, let us initiate the task, of creating solidarity centres sending message to the belligerent workers in Delhi that wherever we are or is in whatever trade/profession, we all are workers and are united. Any struggle of ours is the joint struggle of the workers and toiling class.
Inquilab Jindabad (Long Live the Revolution)
Workers of all countries Unite
Paper distributed by Indian Federation of Trade Unions (Sarwahara) at the All-India Workers Convention organised by Mazdoor Adhikar Sangharsh Abhiyan, to together build up national campaigns on Contract labour, Minimum Wages and Changes in Labour Laws, held in Ambedkar Bhawan, Delhi on 28th August 2016.
**Note: The paper distributed was in Hindi. The below is summary of the paper, we would be uploading the entire paper when it is translated. For those who want to get the paper electronically can send us their email Id either in comment section or via email to Otheraspectgmail.com
In the times of fascism
The onslaught of capital and the challenges before working class
The working class of India whether they are proletariat or semi-proletariat, whether they are in urban or rural area, working in farms, stone crusher, in the brick kilns, or working several foot underground, or working in the small or big industries, organised or unorganised, their interest has been overlooked nee ignored by all the government in Delhi. Which every party or front has formed the government their sole intention had been to treat them as fodder for extracting more and more profits for the capitalists. For past few decades Delhi, Gurgoan, Noida, Faridabad and several more such towns have emerged as the new industrial centres where in the big and small industries millions of local and migrant workers slough day in and day out, their status not being any better than that of slaves.
Forget about legal recourse and justice, from industrial owners their bouncers to the police, landlords to the grocery shop keepers everyone is in search for their own pound of flesh from these workers. The condition is pitiable that cannot even be termed fit for basic living condition for human existence. Their work is uncertain and life pitiable. They are bound to wallow in poverty and have forgotten the meaning and essence of self-respect. As a citizen of this ‘democracy’ even though aware that they have been guaranteed some rights, but are hapless. Justice, rights such words have lost the meaning for them. After being exploited by the capitalists and oppressed by the landlords, local grocers, and their clique, they are barely in a state to sell their labour for keeping their and their kith and kin’s body and soul together, this is the sum total of their existence and life. This existence is also on incongruous and lasts till the day there is some hindrance that is the end of their entire existence. Even a simple sickness signifies death knell to them. For their existence they have to work even in most tiring circumstance and illness. To take sick leave means leave from job, which makes life span shorter. And what is the family, but new fodder for the capitalists to excrete more profits. The family is akin to a factory for the capitalist where the future commodity of labour power is prepared.
We are witnessing this sordid state of the workers since the implementation of the new economic policy was implemented by the Congress government that is from 1991. In name of economic development the policy formulated to maximise the interest of the capital, was brazenly initiated. Since then governments changed, ministers and prime minister changed the capitalist wealth increased. There was a call for social justice followed by communal violence and massacre, creating a new ‘nationalist’ record leading to formation of a new model. World over Indian growth story’s was glorified and in top capitalist of the world Indian capitalists found their coveted place. The social property transformed into private property tucked in the hands of capitalists. Democratic governments metamorphosed into nationalist government. Cities changed so did the villages, new slogans replace the old, from inside the democratic nation emerged Hindu nation, and suddenly country got catapulted to a ‘super power’. In all these paradigm shift something that remained constant was the condition of the working class. They continued to be robbed and devastated by capital. In name of development and economic progress, the worker’s rights that was won after long struggles were first practically and then legally were liquidated. This ‘reform’ in labour laws is still on going. The change is so profound that it has divided the national and worker’s interest into two antagonistic camps.
For the development of the country, sacrifice of workers has become a necessity. In the current scenario development of country is the development of capitalist. Development means the development of their treasury and to achieve this destruction of working class and toilers is the natural outcome. We can say that this country as worker’s own country is nowhere being seen as providing solace to the working class. Living within the four walls of the country nowhere protects them from being pushed to starvation and destitution. The extraction of profit and generation of capital seems to have transcended the boundaries of state. Wherever the worker sees he sees the barbarianism of capital. Entire world is dominated by the big capital. It is natural for a worker to conclude that our beloved country and the beautiful planet of ours is of no use to them till it is made bereft of the regime of capital that is from the exploiters of labour the capitalists. Capital is not only bleeding the humanity but is rescinding all the gains hitherto made by them. We would like to tell to all our comrades in this convention, that the cross road at which the working class of this country is standing and the massive onslaught of exploitation and oppression it is facing, in light of this the initiative at national level to have a united program of the workers organisation is a commendable and welcome step.
Today in all earnest we have to understand that what is the main component of the working class struggle? which is the kernel using which we would be able to successfully struggle and would be able to understand the real core of the movement.
This is truth that like the common man the workers and toilers also got mesmerised with the promise of acche din (good days) in 2014. And they voted overwhelmingly as well. But as soon as this acche din government came to power it like hurricane started hurling bure din (bad days), was this realised by the working class? If we leave the conscious class then the majority had not hoped for such eventuality. But as the situation today is, it has transgressed way beyond this bure din. We have entered in a crisis ridden dangerous days. With all its innocence and mistakes at least the working class has started realising that on name of acche din, these tiring days have been initiated from the same place where they are squeezed for profit and increase of capital. The workers were and are the first target. They are aware of the nationalist government seated in Delhi who while taking the bread out of mouth is also forcing them to be quite and not raise any voice. They are being successful also. But should we who are in the vanguard of the workers movement and who have responsibility to lead the movement forward not question ourselves that whether we were aware of this situation? The way things are turning what does it indicates? Are we ready and equipped to face the situation?
Comrades, the way the national and international capital who were struggling because of long term financial crisis, took the captain of RSS brand of fascism in Gujarat in their stride itself indicated the sordid days to come. This also indicated the intensification of workers exploitation in days to come. Those who could understand had been aware of how the acche din would be like. But what is unravelling today is not the recurrence of the ‘Gujarat brand’. The vine is new today, though the seeds might be old. It has new characteristics and is supported by the big capital both nation and international, who are inclined towards dictatorship and fascism. They do not want democracy but a despotic dictatorship so that they can take steps to come out of the crisis with impunity. They want no resistance even if they devastate the whole world. This was the Gujarat model that was show cased in 2014 as the development paradigm on basis of a sustained propaganda, this model is now being implemented at pan India level, the capitalists have been leaving no stone unturned to repeat it across the country. In reality the real name of the brand is Gujarat 2002 brand, that is an amalgamation of the state sponsored terrorism against the Muslims and the crass pro capitalist model. This brand got fillip due to the communal polarisation and the en-mass Hindu votes that it got in 2014.but there has been a quantitative change in this, from the days of sporadic communal rioters group it has evolved into a fascist clique, to call them a fascist clique would be no exaggeration. The military training and camp is no longer shrouded into secrecy but is being proudly been shown in media and social media.
The merger of interest with the big capitalists is the base with which this emergence and consolidation became successful. The working class is being exploited to the hilt and the government is helping them to do so. The government is seen as servicing the interest of the corporate and capital. This is how this vicious cycle is going. On the basis of this extraction from the working class a severe reactionary movement is ongoing, and this is being taken to its logical conclusion. This is one of the biggest challenges being faced by the working class.
This challenge has made all the other challenges immediate and distant even more difficult. The challenges have been such as the liberation of working class in itself has become almost impossible. The working class has become a quagmire. Can we who are the militant fighters for working class, can ignore this biggest challenge of our time? Can we discuss on other challenges by ignoring this phenomenon? The vicious attack being hurled on democratic rights on and on rights of expression can the working class would be able to get its economic and immediate demands fulfilled by this despotic regime? Can a united action of working class be formed without having a common minimum programme to counter fascism? All these have become so evident that if we do not think of having a united action and adopt a dilly dallying approach against fascism, which is a working class united programme in totality. We should not forget that we are talking about an initiative at national level and not a factory level initiative.
What is the current era we have described above, we would request it to be included in today’s convention. The big bourgeoisie who have become the master of the entire world particularly in past decade to overcome from their crisis would like to be owners of the entire universe to come out of the grappling crisis of fall in profit and investment. They want control over everything and they aim for an undisputed monopoly. Why did they chose BJP, and there are concrete reason for it also. But before we discuss this it is necessary to understand that not congress but any mainstream bourgeois party of the country including the Aam Admi Party is not averse to this situation. It was after all the congress which had laid the foundation of neo-liberalism in 1991, that paved way for new economic policy where the capitalists were given unbridled freedom to loot and exploit labour power and the natural resources.
This led to the reactionary and anti-people polity. The increased profit hunger of the bourgeoisie is continuation of it. It looks like that a period has successfully completed of the loot by big capital and it is ready to march on its next sojourn whose aim is to crush all the resistance and establish a despotic regime. The unfolding crisis of capital at international level is pushing the Indian big capitalists on the path with even greater vigour. A shift is discernable towards an extreme anti-democratic governance. The vehicle for this shift could only be BJP and not congress or any other party. And that is the reason why this shift needs to be deliberated upon as the working class is the most impacted class by this shift.
If we do not defeat this resurgent fascist force then we would have to be ready for a massive onslaught of reactionary destruction and devastation. The danger that is looming needs to be countered by a clarion call to the working class this is the call of the hour. The establishment of an exploitation free society goes from the graves of the reactionary forces. So let us confront the reality and come ahead to formulate a united revolutionary working class strategy and tactics. Then only we would be able to save the working class from this impeding danger and shall be able to struggle at the economic front as well. We hope that all the comrades would take a judicious revolutionary approach so that the ongoing onslaught on working class can be countered.
So it was not very surprising to hear Modi talking about Baluchistan and Azad Kashmir in his Independent speech. While Modi in a way deviated from the earlier Prime Ministers who only cautioned Pakistan but never detailed what was to be done. Modi by referring to Baluchistan took an entirely new turn. But what was the substance? As always he made himself centre of the debate, not policy not human rights violation. Has any statesman ever said:
Narendra Modi has a unique penchant to turn every act of governance into propaganda. He has still to come out of his election phase and metamorphose into serious governance, one that is not only based on phrases and self-delusion but one that actually delivers those promises.
It has been two years since he stormed into power riding on huge unpopularity of the Congress led UPA that had become synonym with corruption and indifference to the people’s aspiration. Modi promised to alter everything from history to contemporary events.
But his two years of governance has been one of hollow phrasea and empty promises. His actions have been pari-materia to those of the Indian National Congress. The right wing Hindutva government under Narendra Modi, has been the frontrunner in carrying out attacks upon the workers and toilers and has been brazenly favouring the capitalists both national and multi-national in name of development. Though the southern turn of the economy has not halted. Under Modi Government, the communalism and anti-worker policies have been institutionalised, and the right wing militias have got open patronage from the ruling party.
India today is being reduced to a vassal state of the United States and Modi has accentuated the process initiated by the Congress. Today the Indian military installations have been opened to the US military and the day is not far off when they would pass under the virtual military command of US imperialism. Yet, Modi and the corporate controlled media has been eulogising the foreign policy as if it is a manna for the country. Diplomacy is a fine art and it cannot be governed from the streets and with sloganeering. But, Modi who has spend more time out of the country has turned it into a road show. His numerous foreign visit has borne nothing but has only costed the exchequer. A recent RTI revealed that the 2014 US visit costed Rs. 9 crore (one crore is ten million ) while bearing no tangible returns as not even single MoU was signed.
Now coming to Kashmir. The state which has been in perpetual trouble owing to Pakistan’s interference and the callous attitude of the Indian government has been ruled by a coalition of PDP and BJP. Since coming to power the alliance government has only exacerbated the trouble for the common people, leading to even more animosity for India in the minds of common man. Modi while electioneering and during his stint as the Chief Minister of Gujarat had always roared that he will teach Pakistan a lesson if given chance. When the chance came the ‘Iron’ man only squeaked. While the bête noire Pakistan continued its policy or shall we say did not get frightened as was expected. Something that is unpalatable for the right wing supporters and the bhakats – the sole certifying authority and custodian of nationalism.
So it was not very surprising to hear Modi talking about Baluchistan and Azad Kashmir in his Independent speech. While Modi in a way deviated from the earlier Prime Ministers who only cautioned Pakistan but never detailed what was to be done. Modi by referring to Baluchistan took an entirely new turn. But what was the substance? As always he made himself centre of the debate, not policy not human rights violation. Has any statesman ever said:
“Today I want to specially honour and thank to some people from the ramparts of Red Fort. For the past few days the people of Baluchistan, the people of Gilgit, the people of Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the way their citizens have heartily thanked me, the way they have acknowledged me, the goodwill they have shown towards me, the people settled far across, the land which I have not seen, the people I have not met ever, but people settled at far across acknowledge the Prime Minister of India, they honour him…”
Why these people are congratulating Modi and praising him? What has been the contribution of India that too in past three years that has brought such tremendous goodwill for Modi? India has not liberated these areas neither has it intervened in any tangible or intangible way in supporting the Baluch people’s struggle or those in Gilgit Baltistan whose legal existence is still in question. ‘Azad Kashmir’ still remains a non legal entity that is neither azad (free) nor part of Pakistan and in effect remains a colony of Islamabad, run by the Pak military and the dreaded Islamabad. The Indian Kashmir issue is anywhere near a solution. The contribution of BJP in both centre and state has even further polarised the state polity, with pallet gun doing the rest.
So whom was Modi trying to placate, definitely not the international community nor would Pakistan establishment who has left no stone unturned in humiliating and defying India at every given moment. Pakistan does not seem to be panicked by Modi’s reference on the other side it has now got an arsenal to open a new front against New Delhi in international fora stating India’s direct intervention in its internal affairs. Something that the Pakistani establishment seems to cash on.
The reference has not made any new headway into the genuine democratic struggle being waged by the groups in Baluchistan, nor has it made new friends for India in Pak Occupied Kashmir (PoK or Azad Kashmir) and Gilgit Baltistan. Yes, what such statements would do is to embolden the ruthless Pakistani Army to further crack and crush the nascent movements and throttle those whom it considers the genuine voice of people. For those not aware of the situation in PoK or Gilgit there is a widespread discontent against the Pakistani control. The Pak military and the ISI controls the area as if it were a colony. A report by Human Rights Watch after the earthquake of 2005 stated:
“Pakistani military installations have often been placed in close proximity to highly populated civilian areas, ostensibly because of a lack of space. However, many Kashmiris told Human Rights Watch that the Pakistani military used the bases to keep a close watch on the population to ensure political compliance and control. Instead of helping to protect the population, the military uses its close proximity to the civilian population to commit abuses.”
So this is the situation and unfortunately the Prime Minister with his statement has not done anything to change it. What he has done is to divert the attention of the media from Kashmir, something that this government has been adept in doing. But with a docile media why the rich and powerful should be worried.
Modi’s sole concern was his uncomfort with the thought of disenchantment that might be creeping into the minds of his disciples (as they are not supporters) and he wanted to show case how powerful he is, something it seems he succeeded in.
Diplomacy and to some extent, the democratic movement being waged in these areas was the casualty but then who cares till the throne is safe and secured!
2 सितम्बर 2016 को देशव्यापी आम हड़ताल सफल करें
Indian Federation of Trade Unions (Sarwahara) parcha on the 2nd September strike.
Click to download the PDF.
2 sept strike parcha in Hindi
The Bolshevik Revolution not only overturned the political and economic system that was based on exploitation but also brought with it a revolutionary reorganisation of the entire society. One of the major component was the reorganisation and implementation of a socialist health care system, which took care of the citizen from their cradle to grave. Continue reading “The Soviet Union Looks To Its Health”
Yet I had had to recognize that under him Russia was not being merely tyrannized over and held down; it was being governed and it was getting on. Everything I had heard in favour of the First Five Year Plan I had put through a severely sceptical sieve, and yet there remained a growing effect of successful enterprise. I had listened more and more greedily to any first-hand gossip I could hear about both these contrasted men. I had already put a query against my grim anticipation of a sort of Bluebeard at the centre of Russian affairs. Indeed if I had not been in reaction against these first preconceptions and wanting to get nearer the truth of the matter, I should never have gone again to Moscow.”
“I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and to these qualities it is, and to nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendency in Russia. I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him, but I realize that he owes his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him.”
~H.G. Wells –Experiment in Autobiography
Check out H.G. Well’s interview of J.V. Stalin:
कामरेड सतनाम हमारे बीच नहीं रहे, जिन्दगी के आखिरी वर्षों में अवसाद (डिप्रेशन) और अकेलापन झेलते हुए अंततः उन्होंने ने भी वही राह चुनली, जिसे कुछ ही वर्ष पहले कामरेड कानू सान्याल ने चुना था। किसी का इस तरह जाना और खास कर के ऐसे कामरेड का जिसने अपनी पूरी जिन्दगी ही उस नये सवेरे, उस शोषण मुक्त समाज को हकीकत में उतरने के लिये समर्पित कर दिया हो, वही इतना निराश हो जाये की उसे जिन्दगी ही अर्थहीन लगने लगे यह, एक दिल कचोटने वाली स्थिति को उत्पन्न करता है। कानू से सतनाम तक, और इन दोनों के बीच ना जाने कितने और हमारे पुराने और नये साथी अपनी जिन्दगी को ही खत्म करने जैसा निर्णय लेने पर मजबूर हो रहे हैं। पिछले कुछ दिनों में तो कई कामरेड के बारे में सुनने को मिलाता रहा ही कि उनकी मृत्यु आत्महत्या की तरफ़ ही इशारा करती है।
सतनाम के द्वारा उठाया गया कदम, केवल एक आदमी के स्थिति के बारे में इशारा नहीं करता, बल्कि यह भारतीय वामपंथी आन्दोलन के संकट की ओर इंगित करता है, जिसे चाह के भी नाकारा नहीं जा सकता। भटकाव, बिखराव और पिछले कुछ दशकों से ठहराव से जूझता हमारा आन्दोलन में साथियों का विश्वास टूटना और निराशाजनक स्थिति का कोई विकल्प न पाना खुद में पराजयवादिता और हताशा को जन्म देता है। दुखद तो यह है, कि आज भी कठमुल्लेपन का शिकार स्वघोषित आन्दोलन के नेता इस बात को या तो समझ पाने में नाकम है या फिर उनमे आन्दोलन के संकट को देखने और उसपर विवेचना करने की शक्ति बाकी ही नहीं रही। दोनों स्थिति एक भयावह भविष्य की ओर इशारा करती है। पुराने घिसे पिटे राजनीतिक लाइन से चिपके रहना और उसे ही किसी तरह से आडा तिरछा कर पेश करना शायद इस आन्दोलन के खून में बस गया है, हम जूते को पैर में फिट करने के लिये पैर काटने के पक्षधर हो गए है। दुनिया आगे बढ़ गयी है और हम आज भी 1970 के दशक में कदम ताल कर रहे है, और कदम ताल करते करते सेना थक तो सकती है, लेकिन आगे नहीं बढ़ सकती। क्या वही हमारे साथ नहीं हो रहा? वाम आन्दोलन किसी बाहरी शत्रु से नहीं पराजित हुआ है और ना ही हो रहा है, इसका संकट खुद का के अन्दर का है, उस हठधर्मिता (dogma) का है, जिसने पुरे आन्दोलन के आँखों पर जैसे कलि पट्टी लगा दी हो, चाहे पिछले 40 वर्षों से जंगलों में या 65 वर्षों में संसद में बैठ कर क्रांति करने वाली पार्टी हो या इन दोनों के बीच खंड खंड बिखरे दर्ज़नों ग्रुप, प्री-पार्टी संगठन, या फिर अकेला वामपंथी, कोई भी ठोस बात नहीं बोलता, शायद ठोस आंकलन ना करना ही इस देश के वाम आन्दोलन का मार्क्सवाद-लेनिनवाद को तोहफा है।
जब भी ऐसी दुखद घटना घटती है तो विषद के साथ साथ हमे कुछ आवाज़ उन कामरेड की भी सुनायी पड़ने लगती है, जो अंग्रेजी के शब्द जजमेंटल (आलोचनात्मक) हो कर पूरी घटना को एक व्यक्ति के भगोड़ेपन उसका कमज़ोर होना, जैसे शब्दों का इस्तेमाल कर पिंड छुड़ा लेते हैं। लेकिन जो तटस्थ हैं, इतिहास उनका भी अपराध लिखेगा।
1950 के मध्य और 60 के दशक, से वाम आन्दोलन ने केवल तरह तरह के प्रयोग ही किये हैं, चाहे सी.पी.आई और बाद में सी.पी.एम का कांग्रेस और अन्य बुर्जुआ पार्टियों के साथ यूनाइटेड फ्रंट की नीति हो या फिर माओवादिओं की जातिगत समीकरण, ममता के साथ बैठना हो, इन सभी प्रयोगों में कहीं हमारा अपना सिद्धांत पीछे छूटता गया, हम मार्क्स, लेनिन के उदाहरण को दोहराते तो रहे, पर उनका मर्म भूलते गये, आज भी शायद ही कोई पार्टी/ग्रुप हो जिसके पास देश में बढ़ते फ़ासीवाद से मुकाबला करने का ठोस आंकलन और प्लान है। जय भीम-लाल सलाम इसी कड़ी की नवीनतम प्रयोग है, जिसकी परिणति यदि इतिहास को देखें तो कुछ बहुत आशावादी नहीं दिखती, हम बुर्जुआ पार्टिओं के साथ तो जाने के आतुर नज़र आते हैं लेकिन खुद अपने दुसरे क्रन्तिकारी कम्युनिस्ट ग्रुप के साथ संयुक्त मोर्चा बनाने में कतई उत्साहित नहीं होते, हमे अपनों से डर है।
आज समय आ गया है, कि हम सब साथ मिल बैठ कर एक बार फिर से विचार करें कि, कहाँ हमसे चूक हो गयी, जिसके कारण कानू और सतनाम को इस कदर दुनिया छोडनी पड़ी? विचार करें कि कैसे हम अपने सिद्धांत को वापिस उसके मर्म में फिर से जाने, एक शब्द में वापिस सही मार्क्सवाद-लेनिनवाद की तरफ चलें, अपने झूठे अहंकार, सम्प्रदायवाद, कठमुल्लेपन को छोड़ना ही होगा नहीं तो सामजिक आन्दोलन की गतिकी, हम सबी को इतिहास के कूड़ेखाने में दफ़न कर देगी।
यदि आज हम इन बातों पर संजीदगी से कुछ समय लगा लें, तो यही सतनाम को सच्ची श्रद्दांजलि होगी।
मई दिवस के उपलक्ष में हमारे संगठन लोकपक्ष और उसारी मज़दूर एकता मंच (निर्माण मज़दूर एकता मंच) द्वारा जारी पर्चा।
पी. डी. एफ. फॉर्मेट में नीचे दिये लिंक से आप इसे डाउनलोड कर सकते हैं।
Narendra Modi’s now famous foreign trips touted by his cohorts as undertaken to boost India’s image and attract much sort after Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has become a matter of closer scrutiny. Though for Modi, it seems that these trips are more for boosting his own image and for whom diplomacy is also conducted in the same way as he conducts his election campaign. These trips that are beamed live on most of the TV channels that is controlled by his close capitalist friends, fails to mention the real outcome achieved from the visit. The Prime Minister’s antics like taking selfies with the Indian diaspora or hugging the foreign head of states may enthuses his fans back home but what do they really translate into, is something debatable. It seems, sometimes that the visit is not of a PM but a person on vacation. The way the Indian diaspora is being pampered it would not be surprising when he will initiate a process of giving right to vote for them as well. It is a known truth that majority of these diaspora are BJP supporters and even have in the past showered the party with much needed foreign currency!
A closer scrutiny of the statements and reality on the state of FDI inflow and its relationship with Modi’s travel leads us to a diametrically opposite and puzzling picture. Last few months two senior cabinet ministers have made contradictory statements on the amount of FDI that the country has received. One statement said that FDI has increased by 49 percent while the other more to the tune of the present government way of functioning attributed an increase of 40 FDI from countries where the PM has visited.
According to the data compiled by the Department of Industrial Policy and Planning (DIPP) In 2014-15 the total FDI flow in India were estimated at $44.88 billion, a growth of 23 per cent over $36.39 billion in 2013-14. If one leaves the re-invested earnings and other capital from the total FDI flow, one gets what is described as FDI equity inflows. Now as per this measurement FDI equity inflows in 2014-15 was slightly higher at 27 per cent – up at $30.93 billion from $24.3 billion from 2013-14. So, how cum the data of 49 per cent rise in FDI was calculated is something mysterious for us. Probably it was also another election type statement emanating from the BJP arsenal. Even, when calculated in Rupees term the FDI growth is far from 49 per cent, FDI equity flows increased by 28 per cent from Rs 1,47,518 crore (Rs 1.47 trillion) in 2013-14 to Rs 1,89,107 crore (Rs 1.89 trillion) in 2014-15. Thus in reality the actual FDI flows increased in a range of 23 to 28 per cent, way below the 49 per cent mark.
Business Standard notes that, during the six-month period, foreign investment inflows showed a fluctuating trend. The highest foreign direct investment (FDI) received in January was $4.48 billion, compared to $2.18 billion in the same month a year ago. FDI inflows also grew in February to $3.28 billion compared to $2.01 billion. However, the month of March saw a dip and reached $2.11 billion against $3.53 billion in the same month a year ago.
The situation becomes murkier if one compares the statement with the data compiled by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), according to the RBI data, FDI flows were estimated at $34 billion in 2014-15, an increase of just 12 per cent over the previous year’s $30.7 billion.
Take any data that is available in public domain and the fact remains that nowhere during the aforementioned period was there an increase of 49 percent. Total FDI flows in the first three months of 2015-16 rose to $12.47 billion, up 12 per cent over $11.11 billion in the same period of 2014-15. Though in terms of FDI equity flows, the increase is higher $9.51 billion compared to $7.2 billion in the same period, which represents an increase of almost 32 per cent. The only data point that shows FDI growth closer to the 49 per cent range is the RBI number for the first quarter of 2015-16. At $11.5 billion, it represents a rise of 43 per cent over $8.03 billion in the first quarter of 2014-15. But then the claim was a 49 per cent increase in the last one year.
Now let us see how the statement about Modi’s visits garnering more FDI stands to the scrutiny when compared against the data made available by the same government and not any “secular” “leftist” type of people or organisation who are always against tarnishing the great achievements made by Modi and his government.
Till date Modi has visited 26 countries, out of which six are those who figure in the list of top 10 FDI investor and it is not for the first time, but these countries Mauritius, Singapore, Japan, the United States, Germany and France, have traditionally been the top ten countries accounting for FDI in India. Out of these Mauritius being the top one is not due to real economics but a means to circumvent tax and gain other benefits due to the prevailing relations with that country. But this is a matter of separate analysis. FDI flows from Mauritius grew by 85 per cent and those from the US and France increased by 126 per cent and 108 per cent, respectively. But growth for Singapore, Japan and Germany were much lower at 12 per cent, 21 per cent and eight per cent, respectively.
According to the stats given by DIPP during January-June 2015 – the latest period for which data is available – FDI from the US, Germany, Japan and France stood at $0.97 billion, 0.27 billion, $1.12 billion and $0.2.
Madan Sabnavis, chief economist, CARE Ratings counters another much touted figure made by the government and published in a leading financial daily of India that claimed a figure of $31 billion. He says, “”The figure of $31 billion (as reported by Financial Times) looks unlikely as there has been no big-ticket investment this year in any of the significant sectors of manufacturing. Even in the sectors where the government has relaxed FDI norms such as defence, railways and insurance, nothing much happened. Manufacturing is yet to receive any substantial boost,”
The other 20 countries visited by Modi made an insignificant amount of FDI that is not expected to change, the readers might remember that in next 2 months countries like Mongolia, Bhutan, Fiji, Myanmar, Seychelles, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, where the Prime Minister had visited would not transform economically to such entities that can invest billions of dollars to upset the cart!
Another puzzling trend in FDI is that though Modi and his team has been telling us that FDI’s are happening in the sector that would boost employment and fuel growth but the data again is bewildering at least to us.! Though, what stand will Modi take on e-retail is still ambiguous but the FDI in trading (which would include e-commerce and retail) almost doubled to $2.7 billion in 2014-15. We all know how much job can this sector create and of what quality.
Now is this another ‘feel good’ factor or acche din factor we leave it to the discretion of our dear readers.
Data from DIPP, Business Standard and Rediff.com
Against the massive assault on the interest of working class, one day nationwide general strike called on 2nd September by Central Trade Unions (CITU, INTUC, HMS BMS and others)
A Note by IFTU (Sarwahara)
“Once Again Tokenism”
On 2nd September 2015, CITU, AITUC, AICCTU, IFTU (New Democracy), HMS and BMS and few others have once again called for a country wide “one day strike” against the extensive anti-working class action being taken by the Modi Government by amending the provisions of Labour laws. They have particularly appealed to the working class to make this strike a success. IFTU (Sarwahara) supports the working class demands that forms the part of the agenda of this strike and so is not against the strike. Having said this, however, the real question arises as such: Is this call for a “one day strike” is, in genuineness a call for a struggle? Isn’t it, in reality, an attempted act to evade from struggle? Till when we will have this “one day strike”? Tokenism in name of struggle will go on for how long? The history and our own experience of these token strikes called by the central trade unions and federations since 1991 reveal that this tokenism is but an escape route to run away from the working class struggles and certainly not a call for a genuine working class action. When the history of the working class defeat will be penned, then these tokenism will be held as one of the major internal factors that led to the wkg class defeat. When the need of the hour is to build up a movement that can compel the capitalist-fascist government to halt its attacks on the working class as well as smash its bloated ego, then what is the logic of calling for such one day token strikes is understandable.
The place that such “one day strikes” have in the working class struggle needs to be understood here. These are like “flag march” of the detachments of the workers, through which the working class cautions the bourgeoisie and its government that if the assault does not stops then it will lead to battle on the streets. Thus, “flag march” can happen once, twice or even thrice. The point to ponder over here is: If, even after such marches, the capitalist assault continues, will workers still continue to do the flag march or will prepare for the combat? But we find since 1991 that these unions have done the “Flag March” for umpteen times and they are still doing it. They are not ready to move to the second i.e higher stage of struggle. They cannot think about a fight, even in their dream. And on the other hand, the assault on the working class continues unabated. The bastions of the working class are crumbling one after the other. These unions have made blunt this form of struggle i.e “Flag March” (One day token strike as a warning) which was once a critical weapon in the arsenal of the working class. They have converted it into a means of concealing their escapism thus disgracing and tarnishing it completely. The result is that the perpetual practice of tokenism has taken it toll on the moral of working class by killing the workers’ aspirations for struggles with each passing of the day.
We saw the result of the 6-10 January (5 days) “historic” Coal India strike. Not only the strike was called off after 2 days, but BMS, and behind it all the other unions (including CITU and AITUC) was seen fleeing from the battle and sitting in lap of Modi’s Govt. The working class could not prevent the Coal Ordinance from being passed. Today again, under the leadership of same BMS, the same deserter left unions and federations are undertaking one day strike against the Labour Laws reforms. Therefore its outcome is very well known even before its beginning. In a way, It is an indication to the government that now we have done the ritual of struggle, you do now whatever you want to do.
And, this is sure to happen. As we were unable to prevent the Coal India Ordinance, similarly we will fail to get the labour laws amendments revoked, due to the incongruity of these unions.
The extent of harm that these unions have bestowed on the workers movement, can be gauged from the fact that during the 6-10 January ‘historic Coal India strike’ they were silent on the labour laws amendments. Today they are howling at the labour laws amendments and are silent on the coal ordinance bill that was passed, and there is no word on revoking it. If due to their incompetence, defeatist and lackadaisical attitude, the provision to do away with the existing labour laws is passed, then should we understand that they will end all struggles against the passing of such amendments? What else than this will be a bigger service to the bourgeoisie and it’s Government?
In this situation, everything now rests in the hands of the working class and its truly advance rank and file spread throughout the country. How to get away with the quagmire of the central trade unions and what are the ways to get out of it, will depend on their preparedness and maturity. But what we wish to declare unambiguously today is that without getting out of the morass created by the central trade unions, thought of any meaningful struggle is a wishful thinking. This will happen only when the advance elements of the working class would take an initiative from within at the national level to demolish the present impasse created by these renegade unions, and take up full initiative to build the unity of working class. No doubt, the necessity of a single, united and a truly revolutionary vanguard of the working class is being deeply felt here, in the absence of which the main responsibility lies directly on the strong shoulder of its advance elements.
That is why, we call upon all the advance elements of the working class to expose those who have reneged on the class struggle by decoupling the working class from it, and have established a series of blunt “one day strikes” bringing the working class movement to such a sorry state. The time has come to take up the daunting task of creation of a nationwide revolutionary centre of workers movement. We are divided, yet we are the only real vanguard elements of the working class and we should initiate it unitedly right now.
It is to be noted that IFTU(Sarwahara), had declared its intention immediately after debacle of the 5 days strike in January. We noted that there is no possibility of a significant working class struggle and that is why we are moving towards the formation of a new national revolutionary forum of the working class. IFTU(Sarwahara) once again declares that these unions might be bigger in terms of numbers and size, but they have no future, as they have renegaded from the working class interest. On the other hand we or the unions like us may be smaller in size, but we have the future because we are the vanguard of the working class in terms of its both immediate and the long-term interests, and are in the struggle with firm conviction on working class.
We have not accepted defeat, whereas the other unions pretentiously carrying the Red Flag have not only accepted defeat, but they have found a safe haven of their own in the capitalist system itself. They can have small skirmishes with the bourgeoisie but are hand in glove with them. They have accepted to adjust with neo-liberalism and to harmonise their moves after some displeasure with them. They have accepted that the onslaught of capitalism-fascism is destined and have happily limited themselves to some petty reforms. This becomes palpable after witnessing their ground work and seeing how they have made for themselves a definite place in the management, government and the existing system.
The sum total of our above statement is that when the working class is unarmed amidst the massive onslaught of the capitalism-fascism, then the 2nd September ceremonial (one day) strike is a whimper. This nowhere arouses the hope of struggle among the vulnerable and dejected workers. This is not a call for the workers to arise against the exploitation and oppression.
Workers brothers and sisters, today we are in such a situation that we are being mugged by force and deceit. Hence we appeal to all the advance elements of the working class and particularly to our IFTU(S) comrades that we have to understand this dual task that is before us. It is not only arduous but tortuous. We appeal to our IFTU(S) comrades that during the 2 September strike we will have to boost our organisational, political and ideological activities among the workers. On one hand it is our duty that in spite of central trade unions’ ceremonial, defeatist attitude we counter the capitalist-fascist forces who oppose this strike. We need to agitate the workers in a mammoth way against the anti-workers steps being taken in the guise of labour amendments by the Modi’s government, and prepare them for the epic working class struggle that will be waged in the present and future. On the other side, it is our cardinal duty to expose the central trade unions who have enmeshed the entire strength of the working class and limited it to just “One day strike”, we would expose their incompetent and renegade character. We have to understand that we have to utilise this event to educate the working class by all possible means and to take the goal of the creation of revolutionary working class centre to the widest possible sections of the working class.
Let us participate in the 2 September strike with the following declaration:
End the ceremonial One day Strike, unite for a decisive, momentous militant struggle
*Jointly issued by comrade Shekhar, Damodar and Kanhai for the central committee of Indian Federation of Trade Unions (Sarwahara)
The Trotskyites, true to their campaign of distorting history, have been portraying the theory and practice of Gramsci, as something that was in opposition to what they term as “Stalinism”. To counter their vilification drive and the lies we are posting an article from Communist Platform, which was published in the journal Unity & Struggle, the organ of ICMLPO.
In this article it is clear that Gramsci was never against the Soviet Union nor comrade Stalin.
GRAMSCI, A BOLSHEVIK
One of the coursest vulgarities propagated about Antonio Gramsci by the opportunist politicians and the bourgeois intellectuals is the alleged distance, or even the contrast, between his positions and those defended by Lenin and Stalin, consequently his proximity with Trotsky’s ideas.
The origins of this legend are remote and well orchestrated, beginning from the fascist “Il Messaggero“, which, in announcing the Gramsci’s death, spoke in ignorant and cowardly fashion of “his fidelity to Trotsky“.
In the sixties and seventies of last century, Gramsci’s “trotskism” was the daily bread of revisionist swindlers, which in this manner constructed the unworthy mythology of the extraneousness or even the aversion between the “good” Gramsci and the “wicked” Stalin.
In reality, from the cheking of the texts is coming out exactly the opposite, namely the coincidence with the Bolshevik positions and a clean-cut criticism of the positions of Trotsky and other Stalin’s opposers. So let’s leave now Gramsci to speak.
In his activity of leader and secretary of the Communist Party of Italy
In 1924 Gramsci, in his address to the “Conference of Como”, sketched a parallel between Trotsky and Bordiga (who had moreover some differences of view), criticizing the one and the other:
“Trotsky’s attitude, initially, can be compared to comrade Bordiga’s at present. Trotsky, although taking part “in a disciplined manner” in the work of the party, had through his attitude of passive opposition – similar to Bordiga’s – created a state of unease throughout the party, which could not fail to get a whiff of this situation. […] This shows that opposition – even kept within the limits of a formal discipline – on the part of exceptional personalities in the workers’ movement can not merely hamper the development of the revolutionary situation, but can put in danger the very conquests of the revolution.” (A. GRAMSCI, La costruzione del Partito comunista. 1923-1926, Einaudi, Torino, 1971).
In the following year Gramsci, pursuing his struggle for the Party’s bolshevization, asserted that Trotsky’s positions about the “American supercapitalsm” were dangerous and had to be rejected because, “deferring tha revolution to an indetermined time, they would displace all tactics of Communist International […[ and would displace the Russian State’s tactics too, because, if the European revolution is postponed for a whole historical period, namely if the Russian working class can not, for a long period of time, relay on the support of the proletariat of other countries, it’s evident that the Russian revolution has to modify itself”
(Record of the Gramsci’s report to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Italy of 6 February 1925).
Always Gramsci was aware of the importance of the struggle against the deviations from leninism and against fractionism. So, in the same report he stated: “Besides, the motion ought to say that Trotsky’s conceptions, and first of all his attitude, represent a danger, as, in a country where a party alone exists, the lack of unity in the party split the State. This produces a counter-revolutionary movement: […] At last, from the Trotsky question we ought to draw some lessons for our party. Trotsky, before the last measures, was in the same position where now is Bordiga in our party. He had in the Central Committee a part merely figurative. His position represented a tendential state of fraction, likewise the Bordiga’s attitude maintains in our party an objective fractionistic situation .[…] Bordiga’s attitude has disastrous repercussions, likewise had that of Trotsky ” (Ibid.).
Again in 1925, in occasion of the V Plenum of the enlarged Executive of International, the italian delegation, led by Gramsci, sided without reservations in favour of the Stalin’s positions concerning the criticism towards Trotsky.
For Gramsci the choice of socialism’s edification in URSS, in the conditions of capitalistic encirclement, was consistent with the necessities of a period characterized by the relative stabilization of capitalism and the ebbing of revolutionary wave.
Therefore his intransigent criticism to Trotsky, to the strategy of “permanent revolution” which he considered incorrect, simplistic, insufficient, and his agreement with the strategy and policy of Bolshevik leading group: an agreement that, as we’ll see, he will confirm in his Prison Notebooks.
Always Gramsci worried for the cohesion of Russian party, needed by proletariat both at national and international level.
In those years, in which the divergent positions between the Soviet party and the trotskyist and zinovievist block were become programmatic, Gramsci several times warned about the disgregation risks upon which the international bourgeosie would certainly lever in order to knock down the proletarian power in Russia.
With regard to the struggle engaged by the CC of PCR (b) against the opposition block of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, Gramsci wrote:
“In fact, a question is prominent in the measures jointly adopted by the Central Committee and the Central Commission of Control of the Communist Party of U.R.S.S.: the defence of the organizational unity of the Party itself. It’s evident that, on this ground, no concession or compromise is possible, whoever is the beginner of the work of Party’s disgregation, whatever is the nature and the width of his past merits, whatever is the position that he holds at the head of communist organisation. […] So we think as well that all the International must steadily gather close around the Central Committee of the Communist Party of URSS in order to approve its energy, rigour and resolution in striking whoever is attempting the Party’s unity” (Measures of the C. C. of C. P. of URSS in defence of Party’s unity, in “L’Unità, 27 July 1926).
By the same worry for the organisational and ideological unity of the Soviet party, and for its national and international repercussions (particularly for the struggle that was conducted in Italy in aid of Party’s development), is inspired the famous “Letter to the Committee of Soviet Communist Party” of October 1926, published in GRAMSCI, Scritti politici, III, Editori Riuniti, 1973).
In this letter Gramsci, in the name of Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Italy, did intervene in the harsh political clash that was developing in URSS between the Bolshevik leading group and the trotskyist-zinovievist opposition, declaring “basically correct the political line of the majority of the Central Committee of the CPSU”, headed by Stalin.
Although Gramsci was only partially informed about the Russian situation, his siding with the Leninist majority about the contents of the struggle was downright and unequivocal. The essential charge to the splinter-block of oppositions is very hard and motivated by a reason of principle, explained by Gramsci in very clear terms:
“We repeat that we are struck by the fact that the attitude of the opposition [Zinoviev, Kamenev e Trotzky] concerns the entire political line of the Central Committee, and touches the very heart of the Leninist doctrine and the political action of our Soviet party. It is the principle and practice of the proletariat’s hegemony that are brought into question; the fundamental relations of alliance between workers and peasants that are disturbed and placed in danger: i.e. the pillars of the workers’ state and the revolution.”
Being a fierce supporter of Leninism, Gramsci in the same letter harshly criticized “the root of the errors of the Joint Opposition, and the origin of the latent dangers contained in its activities. In the ideology and practice of the Joint Opposition are born again, to the full, the whole tradition of social democracy and syndicalism which has hitherto prevented the Western proletariat from organizing itself as a leading class.”
It’s a stance that Gramsci further reinforced in the following “Letter to Togliatti” (26th october 1926), in which, thinking about the slowness of the bolshevization process inside the
occidental parties, wrote: “The Russian discussion and the ideology of the Oppositions play a greater role in this slowing down and halting insofar as the Oppositions represent in Russia all the old prejudices of class corporatism and syndicalism that weigh on the traditions of the Western proletariat and slow down their ideological and political development.”
And he concluded pointing out:“Our letter was a whole indictment of the opposition, not made in demagogic terms, but precisely for that reason more effective and more serious”(Ibid.).
Therefore is completely without foundation an interpretation of these letters that aims to strenghten the idea about a “Gramsci trotskyist” or oscillating. It’s very clear on which side Gramsci stood in the struggle that developed within the Russian party: on the side of the Bolshevik majority of the Party members.
In the Prison Notebooks
As it’s well-known, the revisionists assert that Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks does not writes about Stalin, or only indirectly, and when he hints at Stalin’s URSS, he mentions it in a critical way (cfr., for instance, the thesis of G. Vacca in L’URSS staliniana nell’analisi dei Quaderni del carcere, in Gorbacev e la sinistra europea, Roma 1989, p. 75).
It is a matter of lies and mistifications, as the passages in Prison Notebooks relating to Soviet socialism are all in favour of Lenin and Stalin and against Trotsky. Four are the questions that Gramsci tackles in his Notebooks in order to defend Bolshevism and criticize Trotsky: 1) the theory of permanent revolution; 2) the revolution’s phases, and the consequent strategy and tactics; 3) the industrialization in URSS; 4) the relation between internationalism and national policy.
Let’s survey now the notes of Prison Notebooks, on the basis of the edition of International Gramsci Society (IGS). The text corresponds to that one of the Critical edition edited by V. Gerratana and published by Einaudi in 1975. In square brackets we insert the necessary explications of pseudonyms (for instance, in the Notebooks Lenin is named Ilich or Ilici, Stalin is named Bessarion, Trotsky sometimes is named Bronstein, sometimes Leone Davidovici or Davidovich) and of periphrases used by Gramsci in order to elude the Fascist censorship.
- Gramsci wrote about Trotsky already in Notebook 1, at the end of an important note entitled “Class political leadership before and after the coming to the government”. Taking as a starting point the events of Italian “Risorgimento”, he was referring to the enormous and quite new problems that Soviet government had to face. In this note Gramsci was directly concerned with the Trotskyist password of “permanent revolution”:
“With respect to the ‘Jacobin’ slogan launched by Marx to Germany in 1846-49 [the idea of uninterrupted revolution], its complex fortunes are worth studying. Taken up again, systematized, developed, intellectualized by the Parvus-Bronstein [Helphand-Trotzky] group, it proved inert and ineffective in 1905, and subsequently. It had become an abstract thing, belonging in the scientist’s cabinet. The tendency which opposed it [Bolshevism] in this literary form, and indeed did not use it ‘on purpose’, applied it in fact in a form which adhered to actual, concrete, living history, adapted to the time and particular society which had to be transformed; as the alliance of two social groups [working class and peasants] with the hegemony of the urban group [working class]”.
According to Gramsci, modern Jacobinism expressed itself first of all in a policy of alliance with peasants, under the working class egemony. So Gramsci esteemed the value of the correct Bolshevik policy conducted by Stalin against the Trotskyist thesis of “permanent revolution”. This thesis dismissed the importance of poor peasants as a revolutionary force and expressed an entire mistrust in proletariat’s capacity of leading all exploited and
oppressed people in the revolution, so much it denied the possibility of socialism edification in a country alone.
The note ends with a very hard charge against Trotsky, who is compared with the reactionary bourgeois Crispi: “In one case [Trotsky], you had the Jacobin temperament without an adequate political content; in the second [Bolshevism], a Jacobin temperament and content derived from the new historical relations, and not from a literary and intellectualistic label.”
It’s interesting to observe that this same note was taken again almost integrally in Notebook 19, written in 1934-35, namely after the definitive breaking off with Troskyism.
Gramsci went back to the question of “permanent revolution” in a famous note intitled “Position war and manoeuvred or frontal war”:
“It should be seen whether Bronstein’s [Trotsky] famous theory about the permanent character of the movement is not the political reflection of the theory of war of manoeuvre (recall the observation of the cossack general Krasnov) -i.e. in the last analysis, a reflection of the general-economic-cuItural-social conditions in a country in which the structures of national life are embryonic and loose, and incapable of becoming ‘trench or fortress’. In this case one might say that Bronstein, apparently ‘Western’, was in fact a cosmopolitan -i.e. superficially national and superficially Western or European.
Ilich [Lenin] on the other hand was profoundly national and profoundly European. Bronstein in his memoirs recalls being told that his theory had been proved true … fifteen years later, and replying to the epigram with another epigram. In reality his theory, as such, was good neither fifteen years earlier nor fifteen years later.”
After having opposed Lenin to Trotsky, Gramsci added: “Bronstein’s theory can be compared to that of certain French syndicalists on the general strike, and to Rosa’s [Luxemburg] theory in the work translated by Alessandri. Rosa’s pamphlet and theories anyway influenced the French syndicalists”.
- In his reflections, Gramsci linked the question of “permanent revolution” to the question of the transition from the “war of manouvre” to the “war of position”. In particular, after the defeat of the revolution in Germany in 1923, and the transition of the worker movement to defensive positions, Gramsci was convinced that the problem of the development of the revolutionary process in Europe had to be re-elaborated, understanding the reasons of the the temporary failure and establishing the revolutionary tasks appropriate for the new phase.
The observation contained in Notebook 6, § 138 is dedicated to this relevant strategic and tactical question:
“Transition from the War of Manoeuvre (and from Frontal Attack) to the War of Position in the Political Field as Well. This seems to me to be the most important question of political theory that the post-war period has posed, and the most difficult to solve correctly. It is related to the problems raised by Bronstein [Trotsky], who in one way or another can be considered the political theorist of frontal attack in a period in which it only leads to defeats.”
Facing the complex problem of the alternative, or rather of the combination, between “assault tactic” and “siege tactic”, that had place in the debate of the Communist International, Gramsci started from a consideration of extraordinary importance, systematically ignored by the revisionists and reformists: “All this indicates that we have entered a culminating phase in the political-historical situation, since in politics the ‘war of position’, once won, is decisive definitively.”
On the base of this consideration, that Gramsci realized analyzing the profound crisis of leadership and government skill of the bourgeoisie, but also the greater resistance of the State apparatus in the West and the existence of large intermediate social groups, he added in
Notebook 7 § 16:
“It seems to me that Ilich [Lenin] understood that a change was necessary from the war of manoeuvre applied victoriously in the East in 1917, to a war of position which was the only form possible in the West […] This is what the formula of the “united front” seems to me to mean […] Ilich, however, did not have time to expand his formula – though it should be borne in mind that he could only have expanded it theoretically, whereas the fundamental task was a national one; that is to say, it required a reconaissance of the terrain and identification of the elements of trench and fortress represented by the elements of civil society”.
We are here in the heart of the research that Gramsci developed in the Notebooks. But there was another key aspect of strategic and tactical methods determined by relations of power historically created: that of the Soviet Union. Regarding this question, Gramsci wrote:
“The war of position demands enormous sacrifices by infinite masses of people. So an unprecedented concentration of hegemony is necessary, and hence a more ‘interventionist’ government, which will take the offensive more openly against the oppositionists and organize permanently the ‘impossibility’ of internal disintegration with controls of every kind, political, administrative, etc., reinforcement of the hegemonic ‘positions’ of the dominant group, etc.”
It’s an open adhesion to Stalin politics, to the reinforcement of proletarian dictatorship. A political line that “requires exceptional qualities of patience and inventiveness”, but was the only one successuful in that concrete historic situation. A political line diametrically opposed to Trotsky’s line.
- As we have seen, a fundamental aspect of the “war of position” was the defence of Soviet power and of socialism edification. In this last case too, acute problems did arise. To the utmost interesting is the criticism expressed by Gramscy at the beginning of a famous note (Notebook 4, § 52):
“Americanism and fordism. The tendency represented by Lev Davidovitch [Trotsky] was closely connected to this series of problems, a fact which does not seem to me to have been fully brought out. Its essential content, from this point of view, consisted in an “over”-resolute (and therefore not rationalised) will to give supremacy in national life to industry and industrial methods, to accelerate, through coercion imposed from the outside, the growth of discipline and order in production, and to adapt customs to the necessities of work. Given the general way in which all the problems connected with this tendency were conceived, it was destined necessarily to end up in a form of Bonapartism. Hence the inexorable necessity of crushing it.”
Gramsci here takes into account one of the crucial questions of the debate that involved the RCP (b) and the Communist International in the Twenties of last century: the question of the forms and rhythms of industrialization and NEP.
According to Gramsci, Trotsky is the highest representative of a harmful tendency, a kind of “americanism”, founded on the coercion, the command and the military systems, namely the upholder of the forced and accelerated introduction of forms of production, modes of living and culture tied to the requirements of private capital (not carelessly Gramsci reminded the “interest of Lev Davidovic [Trotsky] in Americanism. He wrote articles, researched into the “byt” [life, mode of living] and in literature”).
In the same note Gramsci affirmed that “the principle of coercion, direct or indirect, in the ordering of production and work, is correct: but the form which it assumed was mistaken. The military model had become a pernicious prejudice and the militarization of labour was a failure”.
Therefore it was a position irreconcilable with Leninism, a position which contradicted the “temporary retreat” of the NEP and would bring about the break of the alliance with paysans and the ruine of Soviet power. So it was a tendency that had to be smashed without delay, as it aimed to capitalism’s restauration.
Gramsci never evinced doubts on this matter. In fact, in two other occasions he explained and approved the Trotsky’s liquidation: in Notebook 14 § 76, seeing it in perspective as “an episode of the liquidation of the «black» parliament too that existed after the abolition of the «legal» parliament”; and in Notebook 22 (dateable at 1934), when, referring to Trotsky’s tendency, he confirmed “the inexorable necessity of smashing it”.
- Last but not least, we present another note of great importance: the one contained in Notebook 14, § 68, in which Gramsci, taking as the starting point the talk of Stalin at Sverdlov University of Moscow (9 June 1925 – see the note below), put directly in antithesis Stalin (Bessarion) and Trotsky (Davidovici).
Gramsci writes, examining deeply the question of the relation between internationalism and the national policy:
“A work (in the form of questions and answers) by Joseph Bessarion [Stalin] dating from September 1927: it deals with certain key problems of the science and art of politics. The problem which seems to me to need further elaboration is the following: how, according to the philosophy of praxis (as it manifests itself politically) whether as formulated by its founder [Marx] or particularly as restated by its most recent great theoretician [Lenin] the international situation should be considered in its national aspect. In reality, the internal relations of any nation are the result of a combination which is ‘original’ and (in a certain sense) unique: these relations must be understood and conceived in their originality and uniqueness if one wishes to dominate them and direct them. To be sure, the line of development is towards internationalism, but the point of departure is ‘national’ -and it is from this point of departure that one must begin. Yet the perspective is international and cannot be otherwise. Consequently, it is necessary to study accurately the combination of national forces which the international class [the proletariat] will have to lead and develop, in accordance with the international perspective and directives [those of the Comintern]. […] It is on this point, in my opinion, that the fundamental disagreement between Leo Davidovici [Trotsky] and Bessarion [Stalin] as interpreter of the majority movement [Bolshevism] really hinges. The accusations of nationalism are inept if they refer to the nucleus of the question. If one studies the majoritarians’ struggle from 1902 up to 1917, one can see that its originality consisted in purging internationalism of every vague and purely ideological (in a pejorative sense) element, to give it a realistic political content.”
It’s clear as daylight that Gramsci, drafting “the fundamental disagreement“ that divided Trotsky/Davidovici and Stalin/Bessarion, stood up firmly by the side of Stalin, the interpreter of Bolshevism who, in estimation of Gramsci, correctly drew up and solved the problem of the combination of the national forces that the international class must direct and develop in the perspective of world communism.
One of the best Bolsheviks
In the light of the texts, an interpretation of Gramsci’s thought in a Trotskyist sense results without any ground. On the contrary, from the Gramsci’s work, the reflections contained in the Prison Notebooks included, emerges inequivocally a ruthless criticism of Trotsky.
In all passages where Gramsci writes about Trotsky the content is always of harsh polemic. At the same time, he appraised positively the Lenin’s and Stalin’s choices, approved the Bolshevik policy, those features too that bourgeosie and revisionists embrace in the misleading concept of “totalitarism”.
There is no handwriting or discourse in which Gramsci, in freedom or in prison, has negatively appraised or even has denigrated the leadership of Bolshevik party and comrade Stalin.
So, the forgers of modern revisionism, the magicians of “socialism of the 21th century” and the bourgeois and reactionary intellectuals are completetely disconfermed.
Antonio Gramsci was a great revolutionary leader of proletariat, a giant of the communist thought and action who always fought the anti-leninist deviations, who always defended the proletarian dictature, the system of working-class democracy embodied in the Counsels (Soviet) against the false bourgeois democracy and its socialdemocratic variants (as the today’s “participative democracy”). He always insisted on the necessity of a revolutionary transformation of whole society through the demolition of the bourgeois State, and always remained devoted to marxism-leninism and to proletarian socialism, until the last day of his life.
As wrote the Comintern on the occasioni of his death: “Strictly binded to the masses, capable of instruct itself at the school of the masses, able to know all aspects of the social ide, inflexible revolutionary faithfult until his last breath to the Communist International and to his own party, Gramsci leaves to us the memory of one of the best representative of the generation of Bolshevik that, in the ranks of Communist International, was builded in the spirit of the doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, in the spirit of Bolshevism“.
To snatch Antonio Gramsci, the great communist leader, from the bourgeoisie, revisionist and opportunist jaws is an important task for revolutionary proletariat.
|June 2014||Communist Platform (Italy)|
Note: This Stalin’s speech, titled Questions and answers (Works, vol. 7) was translated in italian language and published in serial form by “L’Unità” in 1926. Gramsci, quoting by heart in jail, confused the date of that speech with the date (September 1927) of the Stalin’s Interview with the first American workers delegation, that was in questions and replies too (Works, vol. 10), whose Gramsci in jail had read an account in a magazine.
The exchange of dates was not noticed by the editor of the critical edition of Prison Notebooks, Valentino Gerratana, who has perpetuated the mistake with a misleading explanatory note. Instead it’s clear that Gramsci was referring to the Questions and answers of 1925 (cfr., particularly, the Stalin’s reply to the question n. 2) and 9).
It has always been our understanding on Mao, that he was a revisionist and an Anti-Marxist Leninist. With new documents and papers coming out of various Archives, our view has been solidified in light of such information. Mao, had always adopted a vacillating position when it came to matter of international import…document titled “MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING” further exposes the sheer un-Marxist attitude of Mao when he shamelessly puts blame on Stalin even stating that Stalin blocked our revolution.
It has always been our understanding on Mao, that he was a revisionist and an Anti-Marxist Leninist. With new documents and papers coming out of various Archives, our view has been solidified in light of such information. Mao, had always adopted a vacillating position when it came to matter of international import that concerned the International Communist Movement. At one hand he went to China and asked Stalin of every possible help, including to get his works reviewed by Soviet experts to asking for help on industrialisation.
On numerous occasion he did not fail to eulogies Stalin and writing to him that Soviet Party being the headquarters and Stalin the captain, and immediately after the 20th CPSU Party Congress like Khrushchev turned all guns again same Stalin whom he had called in 1939 as “…Stalin is the leader of the world revolution. This is of paramount importance. It is a great event that mankind is blessed with Stalin. Since we have him, things can go well. As you all know, Marx is dead and so are Engels and Lenin. Had there been no Stalin, who would there be to give directions?“
The below document titled “MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING” further exposes the sheer un-Marxist attitude of Mao when he shamelessly puts blame on Stalin even stating that Stalin blocked our revolution.
But, it was not the end in 1958 Mao again did a U turn and in October 25, 1966 said “The revisionist leading clique of the Soviet Union, the Tito clique of Yugoslavia, and all the other cliques of renegades and scabs of various shades are mere dust heaps in comparison, while you, a lofty mountain, tower to the skies.”
We leave it to the discretion of our dear comrades who still harbour respect and faith in Mao, and to what is said as Mao-Tse-Tung thought or Maoism.
[All emphasis and underline are ours.]
“MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING
We welcome you to China. We are very pleased at your visit. We have been supported by you, as well as by other brotherly [Communist] parties. We are invariably supporting you as much as all the other brotherly parties. In today’s world, the Marxist and Communist front remains united, whether in places where success [of Communist revolution] is achieved or not yet achieved. However, there were times when we were not so united; there were times when we let you down. We listened to the opinions of the Information Bureau  in the past. Although we did not take part in the Bureau’s [business], we found it difficult not to support it. In 1949 the Bureau condemned you as butchers and Hitler-style fascists, and we kept silent on the resolution [condemning you], although we published articles to criticize you in 1948. In retrospect, we should not have done that; we should have discussed [this issue] with you: if some of your viewpoints were incorrect, [we should have let] you conduct self-criticism, and there was no need to hurry [into the controversy] as [we] did. The same thing is true to us: should you disagree with us, you should do the same thing, that is, the adoption of a method of persuasion and consultation. There have not been that many successful cases in which one criticizes foreign parties in newspapers. [Your] case offers a profound historical lesson for the international communist movement. Although you have suffered from it, the international communist movement has learned a lesson from this mistake. [The international communist movement] must fully understand [the seriousness of] this mistake.
When you offered to recognize new China, we did not respond, nor did we decline it. Undoubtedly, we should not have rejected it, because there was no reason for us to do so. When Britain recognized us, we did not say no to it. How could we find any excuse to reject the recognition of a socialist country?
There was, however, another factor which prevented us from responding to you: the Soviet friends did not want us to form diplomatic relations with you. If so, was China an independent state? Of course, yes. If an independent state, why, then, did we follow their instructions? [My] comrades, when the Soviet Union requested us to follow their suit at that time, it was difficult for us to oppose it. It was because at that time some people claimed that there were two Titos in the world: one in Yugoslavia, the other in China, even if no one passed a resolution that Mao Zedong was Tito. I have once pointed out to the Soviet comrades that [they] suspected that I was a half-hearted Tito, but they refuse to recognize it. When did they remove the tag of half-hearted Tito from my head? The tag was removed after [China] decided to resist America [in Korea] and came to [North] Korea’s aid and when [we] dealt the US imperialists a blow.
The Wang Ming line was in fact Stalin’s line. It ended up destroying ninety percent of our strength in our bases, and one hundred percent of [our strength] in the white areas. Comrade [Liu] Shaoqi pointed this out in his report to the Eighth [Party] Congress. Why, then, did he not openly attribute [the losses] to the [impact of] Stalin’s line? There is an explanation. The Soviet Party itself could criticize Stalin; but it would be inappropriate for us to criticize him. We should maintain a good relationship with the Soviet Union. Maybe [we] could make our criticism public sometime in the future. It has to be that way in today’s world, because facts are facts. The Comintern made numerous mistakes in the past. Its early and late stages were not so bad, but its middle stage was not so good: it was all right when Lenin was alive and when [Georgii] Dimitrov was in charge. The first Wang Ming line dominated [our party] for four years, and the Chinese revolution suffered the biggest losses.Wang Ming is now in Moscow taking a sick leave, but still we are going to elect him to be a member of the party’s Central Committee. He indeed is an instructor for our party; he is a professor, an invaluable one who could not be purchased by money. He has taught the whole party, so that it would not follow his line.
That was the first time when we got the worst of Stalin.
The second time was during the anti-Japanese war. Speaking Russian and good at flattering Stalin, Wang Ming could directly communicate with Stalin. Sent back to China by Stalin, he tried to set [us] toward right deviation this time, instead of following the leftist line he had previously advocated. Advocating [CCP] collaboration with the Guomindang [the Nationalist Party or GMD], he can be described as “decking himself out and self-inviting [to the GMD];” he wanted [us] to obey the GMD whole-heartedly. The Six-Principle Program he put forward was to overturn our Party’s Ten-Principle Policy. [His program] opposed establishing anti-Japanese bases, advocated giving up our Party’s own armed force, and preached that as long as Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] was in power, there would be peace [in China]. We redressed this deviation. [Ironically,] Jiang Jieshi helped us correct this mistake: while Wang Ming “decked himself out and fawned on [Jiang],” Jiang Jieshi “slapped his face and kicked him out.” Hence, Jiang Jieshi was China’s best instructor: he had educated the people of the whole nation as well as all of our Party members. Jiang lectured with his machine guns whereas Wang Ming educated us with his own words.
The third time was after Japan’s surrender and the end of the Second World War. Stalin met with [Winston] Churchill and [Franklin D.] Roosevelt and decided to give the whole of China to America and Jiang Jieshi. In terms of material and moral support, especially moral support, Stalin hardly gave any to us, the Communist Party, but supported Jiang Jieshi. This decision was made at the Yalta conference. Stalin later told Tito [this decision] who mentioned his conversation [with Stalin on this decision] in his autobiography.
Only after the dissolution of the Comintern did we start to enjoy more freedom. We had already begun to criticize opportunism and the Wang Ming line, and unfolded the rectification movement. The rectification, in fact, was aimed at denouncing the mistakes that Stalin and the Comintern had committed in directing the Chinese revolution; however, we did not openly mention a word about Stalin and the Comintern. Sometime in the near future, [we] may openly do so. There are two explanations of why we did not openly criticize [Stalin and the Comintern]: first, as we followed their instructions, we have to take some responsibility ourselves. Nobody compelled us to follow their instructions! Nobody forced us to be wrongfully deviated to right and left directions! There are two kinds of Chinese: one kind is a dogmatist who completely accepts Stalin’s line; the other opposes dogmatism, thus refusing to obey [Stalin’s] instructions. Second, we do not want to displease [the Soviets], to disrupt our relations with the Soviet Union. The Comintern has never made self-criticism on these mistakes; nor has the Soviet Union ever mentioned these mistakes. We would have fallen out with them had we raised our criticism.
The fourth time was when [Moscow] regarded me as a half-hearted Tito or semi-Titoist. Not only in the Soviet Union but also in other socialist countries and some non-socialist countries were there some people who had suspected whether China’s was a real revolution.
You might wonder why [we] still pay a tribute to Stalin in China by hanging his portrait on the wall. Comrades from Moscow have informed us that they no longer hang Stalin’s portraits and only display Lenin’s and current leaders’ portraits in public parade. They, however, did not ask us to follow their suit. We find it very difficult to cope. The four mistakes committed by Stalin are yet to be made known to the Chinese people as well as to our whole party. Our situation is quite different from yours: your [suffering inflicted by Stalin] is known to the people and to the whole world. Within our party, the mistakes of the two Wang Ming lines are well known; but our people do not know that these mistakes originated in Stalin. Only our Central Committee was aware that Stalin blocked our revolution and regarded me as a half-hearted Tito.
We had no objection that the Soviet Union functions as a center [of the world revolution] because it benefits the socialist movement. You may disagree [with us] on this point. You wholeheartedly support Khrushchev’s campaign to criticize Stalin, but we cannot do the same because our people would dislike it. In the previous parades [in China], we held up portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, as well as those of a few Chinese [leaders]—Mao, Liu [Shaoqi], Zhou [Enlai], and Zhu [De] —and other brotherly parties’ leaders. Now we adopt a measure of “overthrowing all”: no one’s portrait is handed out. For this year’s “First of May” celebration, Ambassador Bobkoveshi already saw in Beijing that no one’s portrait was held in parade. However, the portraits of five dead persons—Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin and Sun [Yat-sen]—and a not yet dead person—Mao Zedong—are still hanging [on the wall]. Let them hang on the wall! You Yugoslavians may comment that the Soviet Union no longer hangs Stalin’s portrait, but the Chinese still do.
As of this date some people remain suspicious of whether our socialism can be successfully constructed and stick to the assertion that our Communist Party is a phony one. What can we do? These people eat and sleep every day and then propagate that the Chinese Communist Party is not really a communist party, and that China’s socialist construction is bound to fail. To them, it would be a bewildering thing if socialism could be built in China! Look out, [they warn]. China might become an imperialist country—to follow America, Britain, and France to become the fourth imperialist country! At present China has little industry, thus is in no position [to be an imperialist country]; but [China] will become formidable in one hundred years! Chinggis Khan might be brought to life; consequently Europe would suffer again, and Yugoslavia might be conquered! The “Yellow Peril” must be prevented!
There is absolutely no ground for this to happen! The CCP is a Marxist-Leninist Party. The Chinese people are peace-loving people. We believe that aggression is a crime, therefore, we will never seize an inch of territory or a piece of grass from others. We love peace and we are Marxists.
We oppose great power politics in international relations. Although our industry is small, all things considered, we can be regarded as a big power. Hence some people [in China] begin to be cocky. We then warn them: “Lower your heads and act with your tails tucked between your legs.” When I was little, my mother often taught me to behave “with tails tucked between legs.” This is a correct teaching and now I often mention it to my comrades.
Domestically, we oppose Pan-Hanism, because this tendency is harmful to the unity of all ethnic groups. Hegemonism and Pan-Hanism both are sectarianism. Those who have hegemonious tendencies only care about their own interests but ignore others’, whereas those Pan-Hanists only care about the Han people and regard the Han people as superior to others, thus damaging [the interests of] all the minorities.
Some people have asserted in the past that China has no intention to be friends with other countries, but wants to split with the Soviet Union, thus becoming a troublemaker. Now, however, this kind of people shrinks to only a handful in the socialist countries; their number has been reduced since the War to Resist America and Assist Korea. It is, however, a totally different thing for the imperialists: the stronger China becomes, the more scared they will be. They also understand that China is not that terrifying as long as China has no advanced industry, and as long as China continues to rely on human power. The Soviet Union remains the most fearsome [for the imperialists] whereas China is merely the second. What they are afraid of is our politics and that we may have an enormous impact in Asia. That is why they keep spreading the words that China will be out of control and will invade others, so on and so forth.
We have been very cautious and modest, trying to overcome arrogance but adhering to the “Five Principles.” We know we have been bullied in the past; we understand how it feels to be bullied. You would have had the same feeling, wouldn’t you?
China’s future hinges upon socialism. It will take fifty or even one hundred years to turn China into a wealthy and powerful country. Now no [formidable] blocking force stands in China’s way. China is a huge country with a population of one fourth of that of the world. Nevertheless, her contribution to the world is yet to be compatible with her population size, and this situation will have to change, although my generation and even my son’s generation may not see the change taking place. How it will change in the future depends on how [China] develops. China may make mistakes or become corrupt; the current good situation may take a bad turn and, then, the bad situation may take a good turn. There can be little doubt, though, that even if [China’s] situation takes a bad turn, it may not become as decadent a society as that of Jiang Jieshi’s. This anticipation is based on dialectics. Affirmation, negation, and, then, negation of negation. The path in the future is bound to be tortuous.
Corruption, bureaucracy, hegemonism, and arrogance all may take effect in China. However, the Chinese people are inclined to be modest and willing to learn from others. One explanation is that we have little “capital” at our disposal: first, we did not invent Marxism which we learned from others; second, we did not experience the October Revolution and our revolution did not achieve victory until 1949, some thirty-two years after the October Revolution; third, we were only a branch army, not a main force, during the Second World War; fourth, with little modern industry, we merely have agriculture and some shabby, tattered handicrafts. Although there are some people among us who appear to be cocky, they are in no position to be cocky; at most, [they can merely show] their tails one or two meters high. But we must prevent this from happening in the future: it may become dangerous [for us] in ten to twenty years and even more dangerous in forty to fifty years.
My comrades, let me advise you that you should also watch out for this potential. Your industry is much modernized and has experienced a more rapid growth; Stalin made you suffer and hence, justice is on your side. All of this, though, may become your [mental] burden.
The above-mentioned four mistakes Stalin committed [concerning China] may also become our burden. When China becomes industrialized in later years, it will be more likely that we get cocky. Upon your return to your country, please tell your youngsters that, should China stick her tail up in the future, even if the tail becomes ten thousand meters high, still they must criticize China. [You] must keep an eye on China, and the entire world must keep an eye on China. At that time, I definitely will not be here: I will already be attending a conference together with Marx.
We are sorry that we hurt you before, thus owing you a good deal. Killing must be compensated by life and debts must be paid in cash. We have criticized you before, but why do we still keep quiet? Before [Khrushchev’s] criticism of Stalin, we were not in a position to be as explicit about some issues as we are now. In my previous conversations with [Ambassador] Bobkoveshi, I could only say that as long as the Soviet Union did not criticize Stalin, we would be in no position to do so; as long as the Soviet Union did not restore [diplomatic] relations with Yugoslavia, we could not establish relations with you. Now these issues can be openly discussed. I have already talked to the Soviet comrades about the four mistakes that Stalin had committed [to China]; I talked to [Soviet Ambassador Pavel] Yudin about it, and I shall talk to Khrushchev about it next time when we meet. I talk to you about it because you are our comrades. However, we still cannot publish this in the newspapers, because the imperialists should not be allowed to know about it. We may openly talk about one or two mistakes of Stalin’s in the future. Our situation is quite different from yours: Tito’s autobiography mentions Stalin because you have already broken up with the Soviet Union.
Stalin advocated dialectical materialism, but sometimes he lacked materialism and, instead, practiced metaphysics; he wrote about historical materialism, but very often suffered from historical idealism. Some of his behavior, such as going to extremes, fostering personal myth, and embarrassing others, are by no means [forms] of materialism.
Before I met with Stalin, I did not have much good feeling about him. I disliked reading his works, and I have read only “On the Basis of Leninism,” a long article criticizing Trotsky, and “Be Carried Away by Success,” etc. I disliked even more his articles on the Chinese revolution. He was very different from Lenin: Lenin shared his heart with others and treated others as equals whereas Stalin liked to stand above every one else and order others around. This style can be detected from his works. After I met with him, I became even more disgusted: I quarreled a lot with him in Moscow. Stalin was excitable by temperament. When he became agitated, he would spell out nasty things.
I have written altogether three pieces praising Stalin. The first was written in Yanan to celebrate his sixtieth birthday [21 December 1939—ed.], the second was the congratulatory speech [I delivered] in Moscow [in December 1949—ed.], and the third was an article requested by Pravda after his death [March 1953—ed.]. I always dislike congratulating others as well as being congratulated by others. When I was in Moscow to celebrate his birthday, what else could I have done if I had chosen not to congratulate him? Could I have cursed him instead? After his death the Soviet Union needed our support and we also wanted to support the Soviet Union. Consequently, I wrote that piece to praise his virtues and achievements. That piece was not for Stalin; it was for the Soviet Communist Party. As for the piece I did in Yanan, I had to ignore my personal feelings and treat him as the leader of a socialist country. Therefore, that piece was rather vigorous whereas the other two came out of [political] need, not my heart, nor at my will. Human life is just as contradictory as this: your emotion tells you not to write these pieces, but your rationality compels you to do so.
Now that Moscow has criticized Stalin, we are free to talk about these issues. Today I tell you about the four mistakes committed by Stalin, but, in order to maintain relations with the Soviet Union, [we] cannot publish them in our newspapers. Since Khrushchev’s report only mentioned the conflict over the sugar plant while discussing Stalin’s mistakes concerning us, we feel it inappropriate to make them public. There are other issues involving conflicts and controversies.
Generally speaking, the Soviet Union is good. It is good because of four factors: Marxism-Leninism, the October Revolution, the main force [of the socialist camp], and industrialization. They have their negative side, and have made some mistakes. However, their achievements constitute the major part [of their past] while their shortcomings are of secondary significance. Now that the enemy is taking advantage of the criticism of Stalin to take the offensive on a world-wide scale, we ought to support the Soviet Union. They will certainly correct their mistakes. Khrushchev already corrected the mistake concerning Yugoslavia. They are already aware of Wang Ming’s mistakes, although in the past they were unhappy with our criticism of Wang Ming. They have also removed the “half-hearted Tito” [label from me], thus, eliminating altogether [the labels on] one and a half Titos. We are pleased to see that Tito’s tag was removed.
Some of our people are still unhappy with the criticism of Stalin. However, such criticism has positive effects because it destroys mythologies, and opens [black] boxes. This entails liberation, indeed, a “war of liberation.” With it, people are becoming so courageous that they will speak their minds, as well as be able to think about issues.
Liberty, equality, and fraternity are slogans of the bourgeoisie, but now we have to fight for them. Is [our relationship with Moscow] a father-and-son relationship or one between brothers? It was between father and son in the past; now it more or less resembles a brotherly relationship, but the shadow of the father-and-son relationship is not completely removed. This is understandable, because changes can never be completed in one day. With certain openness, people are now able to think freely and independently. Now there is, in a sense, the atmosphere of anti-feudalism: a father-and-son relationship is giving way to a brotherly relationship, and a patriarchal system is being toppled. During [Stalin’s] time people’s minds were so tightly controlled that even the feudalist control had been surpassed. While some enlightened feudal lords or emperors would accept criticism, [Stalin] would tolerate none. Yugoslavia might also have such a ruler [in your history] who might take it well even when people cursed him right in his face. The capitalist society has taken a step ahead of the feudalist society. The Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States are allowed to quarrel with each other.
We socialist countries must find [better] solutions. Certainly, we need concentration and unification; otherwise, uniformity cannot be maintained. The uniformity of people’s minds is in our favor, enabling us to achieve industrialization in a short period and to deal with the imperialists. It, however, embodies some shortcomings, that is, people are made afraid of speaking out. Therefore, we must find some ways to encourage people to speak out. Our Politburo’s comrades have recently been considering these issues.
Few people in China have ever openly criticized me. The [Chinese] people are tolerant of my shortcomings and mistakes. It is because we always want to serve the people and do good things for the people. Although we sometimes also suffer from bossism and bureaucracy, the people believe that we have done more good things than bad ones and, as a result, they praise us more than criticize us. Consequently, an idol is created: when some people criticize me, others would oppose them and accuse them of disrespecting the leader. Everyday I and other comrades of the central leadership receive some three hundred letters, some of which are critical of us. These letters, however, are either not signed or signed with a false name. The authors are not afraid that we would suppress them, but they are afraid that others around them would make them suffer.
You mentioned “On Ten Relationships.” This resulted from one-and-a-half-months of discussions between me and thirty-four ministers [of the government]. What opinions could I myself have put forward without them? All I did was to put together their suggestions, and I did not create anything. Any creation requires materials and factories. However, I am no longer a good factory. All my equipment is out-of-date, I need to be improved and re-equipped as much as do the factories in Britain. I am getting old and can no longer play the major role but had to assume a minor part. As you can see, I merely played a minor role during this Party’s National Congress whereas Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and others assumed the primary functions.
 The content of this conversation suggests that it occurred between 15 and 28 September 1956, when the CCP’s Eighth National Congress was in session.
 This refers to the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers’ Parties (Cominform), which was established in September 1947 by the parties of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and Yugoslavia. The Bureau announced that it was ending its activities in April 1956.
 Wang Ming (1904-1974), also known as Chen Shaoyu, was a returnee from the Soviet Union and a leading member of the Chinese Communist Party in the 1930s. Official Chinese Communist view claims that Wang Ming committed “ultra-leftist” mistakes in the early 1930s and “ultra-rightist” mistakes in the late 1930s.
 The white areas were Guomindang-controlled areas.
 Liu Shaoqi was vice chairman of the CCP Central Committee and chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s National Congress. He was China’s second most important leader.
 The Chinese Communist party’s eighth national congress was held in Beijing on 15-27 September 1956.
 Georgii Dimitrov (1882-1949), a Bulgarian communist, was the Comintern’s secretary general from 1935 to 1943.
 Mao here pointed to the period from 1931 to 1935, during which the “international section,” of which Wang Ming was a leading member, controlled the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
 Zhu De was then vice chairman of the CCP Central Committee and vice chairman of the PRC.
 Bobkoveshi was Yugoslavia’s first ambassador to the PRC, with whom Mao Zedong met for the first time on 30 June 1955.
 Chinggis Khan, also spelled Genghis Jenghiz, was born about 1167, when the Mongolian-speaking tribes still lacked a common name. He became their great organizer and unifier. Before his death in 1227, Chinggis established the basis for a far-flung Eurasian empire by conquering its inner zone across Central Asia. The Mongols are remembered for their wanton aggressiveness both in Europe and in Asia, and this trait was certainly present in Chinggis.
 The Han nationality is the majority nationality in China, which counts for over 95 percent of the Chinese population.
 The “War to Resist America and Assist Korea” describes China’s participation in the Korean War from October 1950 to July 1953.
 The five principles were first introduced by Zhou Enlai while meeting a delegation from India on 31 December 1953. These principles—(1) mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, (2) mutual non-aggression, (3) mutual non-interference in international affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit, and (5) peaceful coexistence—were later repeatedly claimed by the Chinese government as the foundation of the PRC’s foreign policy.
 China did not establish diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia until January 1955, although the Yugoslavian government recognized the PRC as early as 5 October 1949, four days after the PRC’s establishment.
 P. F. Yudin (1899-1968), a prominent philosopher and a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party from 1952 to 1961, was Soviet ambassador to China from 1953 to 1959.
 “On Ten Relationships” was one of Mao’s major works in the 1950s. He discussed the relationship between industry and agriculture and heavy industry and light industry, between coastal industry and industry in the interior, between economic construction and national defense, between the state, the unit of production, and individual producers, between the center and the regions, between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities, between party and non-party, between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, between right and wrong, and between China and other countries. For an English translation of one version of the article, see Stuart Schram, ed., Chairman Mao Talks to the People (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), 61-83.
 Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were all leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. At the Party’s Eighth Congress in September 1956, Liu and Zhou were elected the Party’s vice chairmen, and Deng the Party’s general secretary.
Mao Zedong waijiao wenxuan [Selected Diplomatic Papers of Mao Zedong] (Beijing: The Central Press of Historical Documents, 1993), 251-262. Translated and Annotated by Zhang Shu Guang and Chen Jian
This document taken from
From Greece to Ireland and from USA to Japan a spectre is haunting international capitalism, the spectre of public debt. If the year 2008 would go into history as the year when banks started to default; 2010 would be remembered as the year when countries started defaulting on their loans.
The recent financial crisis has led to a sharp increase of public debt on a scale unprecedented since the end of Second World War. Today the debt-to-GDP ratio (that is the cumulative total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country’s home currency) of the G7 group of nations is at its highest level for 60 years. The debt-to-GDP ratio of a country indicates its ability to pay back its debt, the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio the less likely the country will pay back its debt back and higher the chances of its default. The recent financial crisis has further exacerbated this problem with what we are witnessing today being systematic crisis of capitalism. The debt crisis is not an isolated event but continuation of the general crisis facing neo-liberalism, since the bursting of the sub-prime market. The more the government intervenes to avert the crisis the further it shifts to other sectors.
When the subprime mortgage crisis occurred in 2007, governments in US and Europe to stop the freefall of banking and other financial institutions made the people (taxpayers) take on the burden of all the toxic waste which these institutions had been accruing since the initiation of the golden days of unbridled free market economy, that replaced Keynesian economic theory with that of Milton Friedman’s theses of giving all power to the market. As a result of massive doles, amounting to trillions of dollars these countries have accrued the biggest deficits in peacetime. So from sub-prime mortgage crisis we have the ‘sovereign debt crises’ with particularly profound impact in Europe, with Iceland and Greece being the first casualties.
According to an estimate by Moody’s, the sovereign debt has jumped from 62 percent of world GDP in 2007 to 85 percent in 2009. Over the same period, the average fiscal deficit in the G20 rose from 1 percent of GDP to 7.9 percent. These trends were much more pronounced in advanced countries due to sharper output declines, a more severe banking crisis, and highly developed social safety nets. Since 2007, debt in seven out of the nine advanced G20 countries increased by more than 10 percent of GDP. By contrast, debt-to-GDP ratios declined or are little changed in eight of the ten emerging economies in the G20.1
As per the report of World Bank the debt-to-GDP ratio of the world’s advanced economies at the end of last year had reached an unattainable 99 percent. While that of Greece’s ratio stands at 111.5 percent; Japan’s is at whopping 219 percent; the US, 84 percent; even Germany long considered the cornerstone of Euro fiscal discipline has 79 percent and the United Kingdom, 69 percent.
In United States the federal government between 2011 and 2020 is expected to accumulate a deficit of almost $10 trillion as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. By 2023 total government debt is expected to reach 100% of GDP.
Debt Levels, Bond Yields, and Governance Indicators
|Government Debt (% of GDP)||10-Year Government Bond Yield||Governance Indicatora|
|Country||2007||2009||2007 Q4||2009 Q4||Percentile Rank (0-99)|
a Average of World Bank Governance Indicators. 0 indicates lowest score; 100 indicates highest score.
Sources: World Bank, OECD, IMF Staff Report, European Commission. Quoted from Is a Sovereign Debt Crisis Looming2
Note: The figures for countries may change due to rapidly changing countries debt-default
The European Commission has warned that rising budget deficits, retarded growth and weakening banking sector support ‘feeding into significantly higher public debt levels.’ The governments since 2008 have been doling out large amounts to defaulting financial institutions so that they keep afloat, resulting in a massive bail out amounting to $10.4 trillion.3 According to The Economist, the amount of government debt per person has risen from $16,000 in 2001 to $34,000 now, and household debt has gone up from $27,000 to $44,000. In Britain government debt per head has almost trebled, from £5,000 in 2001 to nearly £18,000 today, and household debt has jumped from just under £14,000 to £24,000.
Bringing the debt to a more manageable level is a daunting task. Ramin Toloui of PIMCO, a fund-management group, explains the dilemma as: ‘When government debt reaches extreme levels, concerns about government creditworthiness become so severe that additional government spending produces increases in long-term interest rates that exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, the economic contraction.’4
In March 2010 a report to the Bank for International Settlements noted that ‘our projections of public debt ratios lead us to conclude that the path pursued by fiscal authorities in a number of industrial countries is unsustainable. Drastic measures are necessary to check the rapid growth of current and future liabilities of governments and reduce their adverse consequences for long-term growth and monetary stability.’5
To come out of sovereign default the governments led by both the right-wing and social democratic parties have announced various austerity measures aimed at cutting a range of social welfare schemes like cut in the health sector, pension funds, rise in students fee etc. People are being made to pay for the follies of bankers and capitalists. The present crisis has come handy for those protagonists of neo-liberalism who wanted to end all sorts of meagre benefits that the working masses have been enjoying in the bourgeois regimes. Austerity measures are being touted as the only way to resolve sovereign debt default. What is being targeted to end? Throughout the European Union the governments are planning to increase the retirement age beyond 65, while millions of young people are jobless. Mass dismissal and using the bogey of lay-offs as a blackmail to reduce wages are being carried out with impunity. There have been reports of a massive rise in tax in countries facing debt problem at the behest of IMF-WB and lender nations. Women and migrant workers are being particularly targeted.
In Greece the wages of public employees has been reduced by 15-20% and the government indicates that further cuts are in the offing. The French finance minister Christine Lagarde told theFinancial Times,6 promising €40 billion of spending cuts and tax increases. Whereas Ireland – the second casualty of this ongoing European roulette, has announced plans to slash public spending 20 per cent over the next four years to tackle the country’s soaring budget deficit. The measure also includes a 12 per cent cut in the minimum wage, cutting nearly 25,000 public sector jobs and bringing it to 2005 levels, a massive rise in the VAT and income tax rates. Even the fees of students are to be drastically increased. While the bail-out money would be made used for restructuring of the country’s battered banking industry,7 the Irish government has declared that ‘Most of the funds aimed for Irish banks will become part of a “standby facility” available to replenish the banks’ cash cushions if new losses flare up’’.8
Furthermore the rightist forces that act as mercenaries of the capitalist class have begun to raise the bogey of chauvinism and have in many places started threatening the migrant and workers from minority community and nationality in name of protecting national interest. These forces since long have been instrument of the bourgeoisies to break working class solidarity and create animosity between the workers of various nationalities so as to dilute the growing class struggle.
According to the Economist, one out of every six U.S. workers has taken a wage cut in this recession, and amazingly, four out of every 10 African-Americans has experienced unemployment during this crisis. Looking at food stamps, an additional 37 million people went onto food stamps in the U.S. in 2009 and 40 percent of those recipients are working for a wage. They’re not unemployed – they’re simply the working poor that can’t make ends meet.
The goal of these ‘austerity drives’ is ‘to carry out another transfer of riches of great magnitude, from labour to capital, to ensure the profits of the banks and the most powerful monopolies.’9
Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Poverty rise in capitalist countries
Since 2009 poverty in the working age population in United States has reached its highest level in almost 5 decades with more than one-third of those being children. In 2009 those living below the poverty line reached 44 million, that is 14.3 percent of the total population, the highest level since 1994. According to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics released in September, last year one in every seven persons lives below the poverty line of $21,954 for a family of four, and almost 40 percent of single women led families living in poverty. The rise in poverty is most severe among the blacks and Latinos.
How does the government plan to counter this increasing poverty? Simply – by readjusting the statistical data. The US census bureau is planning to change the methodology how the poverty figures are calculated. According to new rule of calculation the food coupons and tax credits would be calculated as income! So with one stroke of a wand almost 8 million additional people would be removed from poverty figures. This is not the first time when the US government and its agencies have readjusted their counting style to ‘readjust’ the figures. In 1994 during time of Clinton’s tenure as president of United States, the decision was made to count only those unemployed people who have been seeking for a job for less than one year as part of workforce. With this magical readjustment the administration was able to wipe out millions of out of job workers from the official unemployment count.
A report published by Eurofound observed: ‘In Portugal, the in-work poverty risk rose from 10% in 2007 to 12% in 2008, with a two percentage point increase for both men and women. In Bulgaria, the in-work poverty risk of self-employed people reached a record level of 10% in 2008. According to the Irish contribution, the recession hit Ireland particularly hard and had a very negative impact on the working poor: those who did not lose their jobs in many cases had their pay reduced and/or saw increases in taxes and social security contributions.’10
Public debt as primitive accumulation of wealth
The character of public debt was brilliantly depicted by Marx in Capital, Vol. 1 in the following words:
The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on functioning in their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class of lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between the government and the nation – as also apart from the tax-farmers, merchants, private manufacturers, to whom a good part of every national loan renders the service of a capital fallen from heaven – the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy.11
One of the features of ‘primitive accumulation’ as defined by Marx is the forceful appropriation of communally held resources like land by raiders and extraction of tribute or rent from the resources that passed to them now as personal asset. In today’s scenario the analogue has occurred, in banking and financial sector, when banks gave loans freely to corporate mercenaries to be used in buyouts or to purchase the public sector entities being privatised globally.
The financial investors today aim for total returns – that is earning plus interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realised. The emphasis is on the capital gains in stocks, bonds and real estate. Even for the companies engaged in production there has been emphasis on financialisation to generate capital gains (or total return) for investors while neglecting the generation of industrial capital formation. The financial cycle aims at creating a perpetual cyclic motion, sustaining debt growth increasing exponentially by creating new credits to inflate the stock market and real estate sector to cover debtor’s falling interest.
This dynamics of stripping the assets, was characterised by Marx as usury capital that is opposite of industrial capital. Financial securities over period of time assume form of anti-wealth – that is claim on the means of production and income earned by engaging on productive sector. This mechanism of growth cannot remain viable for long; interest payments are sustained by stripping productive assets, diminishing the growth and creation of surplus in the productive sector.
This is what the ‘free market’ alternative to concept of ‘planned and regulated’ economy developed by Marx-Engels and enriched by Lenin and Stalin, has brought to the common masses. Yet the pro-financial ideologues of neo-liberalism depict the regulated and controlled economy as a road to serfdom, as if the alternative endorsed by Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan have not been a road to debt peonage.
Public debt and neo-liberalism
A brief discussion about neo-liberalism that has come to dominate capitalism particularly since the 1980s is crucial to understand the root cause behind the present morass the capitalist economies find themselves in.
In the seventeenth century the British political Economist Sir William Petty formed the economic doctrine advocating a free enterprise system operating on its own without any sort of government intervention. This doctrine came to be known as Market Liberalism or laissez-faire. This concept was further systematised and examined in more detail scientifically in the eighteenth century by the famous economist Adam Smith in his treatise the Wealth of Nations. Smith a great defender of bourgeois liberalism believed that order not chaos would reign if individuals are left alone in matters of economic activity. His famous concept of the ‘invisible hand’ constantly guiding the market economy along with competition as its controlling mechanism became the cornerstone of bourgeois liberal economic thinking.
Later Jean-Baptiste Say, a follower of Smith’s economic thinking observed that supply creates its own demand and the income to purchase what is produced. What is saved will be invested; therefore there cannot be lack of purchasing power. Say’s idea was later expounded by several bourgeois political economists and providing the foundation of equilibrium theory. Marx refuted Say’s idea as ‘absurd dogma’ and pointed out in Capital that anarchy of production in a market economy leads to the crisis of overproduction and lack of consumer’s purchasing power, that is the key cause to the periodic economic crisis in capitalism.
The nineteenth century was an era of protectionism and departure from the concept of laissez-faire, as the US government of the time imposed restrictions on banking and interstate commerce and also enacted the anti-trust legislations. During the great depression in 1929, the economic thinking further shifted away from laissez- faire towards the Keynesian theory, as it was Keynes theory that was instrumental in bringing the economy out of recession. Keynes had vehemently disagreed with Say’s thinking arguing that lack of purchasing power can be due to lack of purchasing capacity due to not having full employment. According to Keynes a temporary deficit spending by the government to cure economic stagnation and mass employment can bring the economy out of recession and on path of growth
The Keynesian economic system in varying forms was followed by the entire capitalist countries and even by some newly independent countries (including India where Nehruvian Socialism was nothing but a potpourri of Keynesian and state socialist economic system). As an impact of Keynes the capitalist governments promulgated various kinds of legislations restricting banking and financial activity. For instance after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the US government introduced the Banking Act of 1933 popularly called known as the Glass–Steagall Act primarily aimed at controlling speculation and keeping banks from doing business in Wall Street and vice versa; effectively it erected a wall between the banking and securities businesses. Commercial banking activities were tightly controlled and closely monitored. Commercial banks originated and retained consumer and commercial loans and were discouraged from giving excessively risky loans and providing liquidity to financial institutions during time of market stress.
This regulated version of capitalism worked till once more voices from various economic and political circles started once more for market reforms.
It was the time of neo-liberalism whose exponent, Milton Friedman, was a vocal proponent of laissez-faire capitalism who equated even personal freedom with free market stating, ‘Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself’. For him there was no other way but the unrestrained market that holds the key to people’s well being, his oft cited quote was ‘…there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.’
In the early 1970 during capitalism’s so called ‘golden age’ Friedman argued that laissez-faire capitalism can be revived by reducing public spending, deregulating the financial and banking sector, tax cuts and privatising public sector (government owned) industries. If such conditions are provided, then the free market can perfectly manage the economy on its own. Friedman and his colleagues at the Chicago University who internationally came to be known as the ‘Chicago boys’ became the driving force in popularising this thesis that became the underpinning ideology of the Structural Adjustment Programme (popularly known as Liberalisation) or neo-imperialism.
After the CIA sponsored coup in Chile which brought Pinochet to power in September 1973, the Chicago Boys went to carry out the ideology of Friedman to work to reconstruct the Chilean economy with a devastating outcome. The Chilean economy collapsed as real wages declined; unemployment rose severely, and the rich became richer at the expense of the working class. Chile became one of the most unequal societies where consumerism (for the few) flourished while the working class in the country was pauperised.
Even then neo-liberalism became the preferred economic policy of three major world leaders. Margaret Thatcher of Britain in 1979, and Ronald Reagan in the US in 1981 became the vociferous proponents of neoliberalism and unrestrained market economy. After the death of Mao and the consolidation of power by the Deng clique, neo-liberalism was gradually implemented in China in the grab of modernising the economy and development of Chinese economy to be at par with that of the advanced capitalist economies. After the implementation of the strategy in these countries the idea was prescribed as the solution to all the ills plaguing the Third world countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union including Russia.
This arrangement worked exceedingly well for capitalism till 1970s, when strong voices for financial deregulation and unleashing the financial sector’s prowess for growth started. It was also the period when the Third World debt and Savings and Loan crises had started in several countries. Voices against financial regulation started and in absence of strong Leftist opposition the free market ideology gained major victory. The elimination of the 1930s legislation segregating the commercial banking and financial markets in 1999 was the culmination of two decades of radical deregulation. The new system came to be known as the New Financial Architecture (NFA). NFA replaced all restrictions on financial market with lightly regulated capital market based globalised financial system, where speculation and generation of fictitious money became the normal business cycle. The world over the large commercial banks became integrated into giant financial conglomerates that include investment banks and mutual, hedge and private equity funds as well as bank-created SIVs (structured investment vehicle12).
In the words of George Soros:
Since 1980, regulations have been progressively relaxed until they have practically disappeared. The super-boom got out of hand when the new products became so complicated that the authorities could no longer calculate their risks and started relying on the risk management methods of the banks themselves.13
The banking and financial sector led growth, the stock market and information technology boom in the late 1990s, and the financial bubble of 2003-2007 led to a general perception that the growth was permanent and the efficiency of financial market under neo-liberalism (now called as the NFA) permeated the global financial sector. Not only the common masses but even the bourgeoisie economists and Wall Street pundits started wallowing in the glory of NFA, the government and the corporate controlled media were singing paeans to it. All discussions revolved around growth and increasing profit.
Meanwhile neo-liberalism was given a theoretical appearance in name of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) by the IMF and World Bank for the third world countries. At one time the SAP was the prescribed medicine by the IMF and World Bank duo and was administered to at least 70 countries in Asia and East Europe. Wherever the SAP was implemented it killed the patient instead of the disease. The condition of countries where SAP was imposed has been analysed in following words:
‘The Bank-IMF sponsored SAP has two phases. The first phase is short-term macro-economic stabilisation. It is followed by implementation of a necessary structural reforms phase. In the early 80s, most SAPs focused on a narrow range of policies aimed at reducing account deficits. As the debt crisis deepened and it became obvious that the stabilisation programmes were not working, the US Treasury Secretary, Mr. James Baker came up with a strategy to solve the debt crisis. This was called the ‘Baker Plan’. Under this plan, the WB was asked to impose more comprehensive conditions on the debtor countries. By 1990, majority of the countries that had received conditional loans from the IMF also received structural adjustment loans with harsh conditionalities from the Bank. In 1992, the bank’s lending for SAPs totalled 5847 million or 27% of its total commitments. … These [the creditor countries – Pratyush] countries were told that the structural reforms were essential for sustaining growth and economic stability. Faced with the threat of a cut off of external funds aid needed to service the mounting debts incurred from western private banks in the 1970s, these countries had no choice but to implement the painful measures demanded by the Bank. Fourteen years after the World Bank issued its first structural adjustment loan, most countries are still waiting for the market to “work its magic”. Despite global adjustment, the third world’s debt burden rose from $785 billion at the beginning of the debt crisis in 1978 to $1.3 trillion in 1992. The structural adjustment loans from the Bank have enabled the third world countries to make interest payments to western commercial banks. Having done this, the Bank went on applying adjustment policies to assure a regular supply of repayments in the medium and long term. Thus, the structural adjustment has brought neither growth nor debt relief, it has certainly intensified poverty.’ 14
Behind all the euphoria trouble was brewing, which if the bourgeois economists were not able to see was clearly discernable from a Marxist perspective. The World Bank in one of its researches identified that between late 1970s and early 2000s 117 systematic banking crises occurred. Every time they were rescued by Central Bank intervention through monetary policy and many times by massive bail outs. Thus it is not only in the present crisis that financial gains were made to private benefit but the losses in the crisis were socialised.
The US credit market debt was 168% of GDP in 1981 and over 350% in 2007. Financial assets were less than five times larger than US GDP in 1980, but over ten times as large in 2007. The notional value of all derivative contracts rose from about three times global GDP in 1999 to over 11 times global GDP in 2007. The notional value of credit default swap derivatives rose from about $6 trillion in December 2004 to $62 trillion three years later. In the US, the share of total corporate profits generated in the financial sector grew from 10% in the early 1980s to 40% in 2006.15
Since 1980, the start of the neo-liberalism, the very wealthy have flourished, while everyone else has seen low growth or stagnation.
As the crisis deepens voices for going back to Keynesianism are increasingly being heard from various quarters. The solution of simply going back to Keynesianism or some variation of it as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and others have been suggesting is not sufficient nor is the solution to the present chaos. The Keynesian approach fails to confront the fact that conflicting class interest are at play in different economic strategies and that some forms of state intervention could resolve the crisis within capitalism.
The notion of Keynesianism and its various manifestations is the belief that the system will not self-organise. However, neither allowing the economy to deflate further from here via austerity, nor throwing more debt-marked stimulus will solve the present day problem. Keynesianism is only concerned about short-term crisis-management; while fully ignoring the capitalist cycles, at the most it mildly moderates the cycle’s amplitude and period. This approach at the most can buy space and time for bourgeois politicians to hoodwink people, while leaving the economy run through its usual spiral down effect.
The deficit spending as well as bail-outs become a major reason for capitalist countries’ sovereign debts. Lenders eventually deny further loans to the over-indebted countries, who then are forced to adopt the so-called austerity measures of raising taxes or cut on public spending to qualify for more loans. A consequence to austerity drive is a decline in the real wages and living standards. These measures only help in exacerbating the suffering of the masses further, as discussed in this article above.
Keynesian programmes being propagated or implemented to end the crisis, even if they succeed in stabilising capitalism to some extent, would surely over time initiate its own demise and then go back to laissez-faire capitalism. The approach may give some breathing ground to capitalism but can never provide a permanent solution.
The crisis has shown that in spite of the all recovery and protection mechanism, capitalism is inherently unstable and prone to failure. It does not only destroy financial wealth but also destroys productive economy, jobs, social security and even has a destructive impact on ecological wealth.
It produces ‘recovery’ for those who actually were responsible for the crisis and austerity for all others. The politicians and leaders are saying there is no alternative to economic austerity and raised taxes, even the social democratic and left bourgeois politicians have jumped to rescue finance capital, not realising that until industrial capital is freed from the clutch of neo-con finance capital the crisis cannot be solved. But can even rescuing the industrial capital solve the inherent crisis of capitalism? The older contradiction between labour and industrial capital over wages and working conditions would remain and it would only get accentuated as the class polarisation increases world over.
The entire mess that world capitalism finds itself has been told by Merrill Lynch banker, who said, ‘Our world is broken, and I honestly don’t know what is going to replace it.’
The basic question that emerges from this Greek tragedy and European roulette is what final act the working class of Greece, Ireland (as well as the European working class) enact. Will it end in tragedy where the people would be condemned to suffering and terminal decline or will they stand up and resist the system that has brought them nothing but austerity programmes so that the rich may live a comfortable life. Progressive forces all over the world are closely watching this play being enacted in Europe, because they know that sooner than later they would also be called to play their part.
Let us wait and see.
1. Uri Dadush, Bennett Stancil, Is a Sovereign Debt Crisis Looming? at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/ publications/ index.cfm? fa=view &id=24798; accessed September 25, 2010.
3. Nomi Prins and Krisztina Ugrin, It Takes a Pillage: An Epic Tale of Power, Deceit, and Untold Trillions; (New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2009).
4. The Unkindest Cuts, The Economist; June 24, 2010.
5. ibid Unkindest Cuts.
6. ‘Fiscal Rules Face Obstacles, warns Lagarde’, Financial Times (14 September) accessed 25th September.
7. Online Walls Street Journal, Ailing Ireland Accepts Bailout; http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB1000142405274870 356730457562836 2883493 310.html; accessed on 22 November 2010.
9. Communiqué of the European Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations meeting in June in Paris. In Europe and the world, the workers, youth, people, refuse to pay for the crisis of the capitalist system at http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org
10. Eurofound, Working poor in Europe, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0910026s/tn0910026s_6.htm; accessed September 25, 2010.
11. Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 31: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist, Penguin Publisher, Pelican Classics.
12. A structured investment vehicle (SIV) is a special purpose vehicle i.e. a company that is created solely for a particular financial transaction or series of transactions. It may sometimes be something other than a company, such as a trust. The SIV’s debts may, or may not, be raised with recourse to the ‘real’ borrower. SIV buys long term bonds and other fixed income securities, funding this by issuing short or medium term debt such as commercial paper. SIVs are also called conduits because they create a channel through which the long term debt they invest in can be funded by short term debt. They have also proved to be a conduit through which banks have bought back mortgage debt that they had apparently off-loaded through securitisation – although the banks that buy may not be those that sold, the risk comes back into the banking system (definition from moneyterms.co.uk).
13. George Soros, ‘The worst market crisis in 60 years,’ Financial Times, January 23, 2008.
14. The Bank and Structural Adjustment, at http://www.ieo.org/wb-index.html; accessed on 16 November 2010.
15. James Crotty; Structural Causes of the Global Financial Crisis: A Critical Assessment of the ‘New Financial Architecture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2008.
Hindi Translation of Greek Trade Union Front PAME (All Workers Militant Front) statement — Information On The Attack of the SYRIZA Government Against Social Security–
Hindi Translation of Greek Trade Union Front PAME (All Workers Militant Front) statement — Information On The Attack of the SYRIZA Government Against Social Security–
सिरिज़ा सरकार ने लगभग सारे बुर्जुआ दलों की मदद से सामाजिक सुरक्षा क्षेत्र में नई मजदूर विरोधी कदम उठाना शुरु कर दिया है. वो इसी तरह के अतिरिक्त अधिनियम/प्रस्ताव को पारित करना जारी रखेगी, जिनका उद्देश्य जो थोडे सामाजिक सुरक्षा बची है उसे ख़तम करना, तथा निजी बीमा मॉडल जिसमें व्यक्ति का योगदान उसके नौकरी पर आधारित होगा. यह यूरोपियन यूनियन की पेंशन पर ‘ग्रीन बुक’ में लिखित नियम पर आधारित है.
यह तथाकथित गैर-वेतन(मज़दूरी) कटौती बड़े पूँजी कि पिछ्ले कई वर्षों से मांग थी और अभी भी है.
सरकार और पूंजीपति वर्ग नें जल्दी से जल्दी यूरोपियन यूनियन के स्तर पर हुई कई वर्ष पहले के निर्णय को लागू करने का फैसला कर लिया है, इस फैसले के तहत सामाजिक सुरक्षा प्रणाली की जगह एक ऐसी व्यवस्था स्थापित की जायेगी जिसमे पेंशन दान की तरह होगा, और इसमें राज्य और मालिकों को उनके योगदान से पूरी तरह से निजात मिल जायेगा। वे एक ऐसे सामाजिक बीमा प्रणाली की तैयारी कर रहें हैं, जहाँ बीमा धारक अपने रिटायरमेंट के 67 के उम्र बाद भी नौकरी की भीख मांगेगे, ताकि वह जीने के लिये न्यूनतम पेंशन की आवश्यकता को पूरा कर सके।
अभी तक इन प्रावधानों को लागू सिर्फ एक ही कारण से नहीं किया जा सका था, वह था वर्ग आधारित ट्रेड यूनियन का प्रतिरोध आन्दोलन।
अभी तक संकट के दौरान भी हमने जिन (सामाजिक सुरक्षा) व्यवस्था को हमने बचा कर रखा था उसे यह “वाम” सरकार ने ख़तम कर दिया, जिसका जनहित पर दुखद परिणाम पड़ा है।
यह संगठित होने और लड़ने का समय है। निराशा और हार के लिये कोई जगह नहीं है। यह समय है मजदूर वर्ग के प्रतिकार का। अपनी महाशक्ति को जांचने का, वह महाशक्ति जो अभी तक इस यूरोपियन यूनियन से टकराव के बिना सरकारी परिवर्तन पर उमीदें लगा रखी थी।
सामाजिक सुरक्षा पर अबतक पारित कर दिये गए कानून
- 1 जुलाई 2015 सप्लीमेंट्री (पूरक) पेंशन में 6% कटौती और मुख्य पेंशन में 2% की कटौती
- राज्य द्वारा न्यूनतम गारेंटी कि समाप्ति, जो लोग 67 वर्ष की आयु से पहले रिटायर कर गए हैं उनके पेंशन में 60% तक कि कटौती. इस कदम से महिलायें, मातायें और विकलांगता पेंशन पाने वाले, स्वरोजगार व्यक्ति सबसे ज्यादा प्रभावित होंगे
- 1 जनवरी २०१६ से २०२१ तक सभी राज्य द्वारा वित्तीय सहायता पर रोक।
- वे लोग जो 1.1.२०१५ के बार रिटायर किये हैं उनके मुख्य पेंशन की गणना नए तरीके से करना, इसका मतलब जो 67 वर्ष के पहले और 1 जुलाई २०१५ के बाद रिटायर किये हैं उनके पेंशन में करीब ३०% से ५०% तक कि कटौती।
कानून जो पारित होने वाले हैं
- ३००,००० लोगों के रिटायरमेंट कि अवधी 1 से १२ साल तक बढ़ाना
- अगले 5 सालों में जल्दी रिटायरमेंट (early retirement) पर 80% तक की कटौती
अभी और जो प्रस्ताव अक्टूबर २०१५ तक पारित किये जायेंगे उनमे ट्रेड यूनियन विरोधी सुधार और हड़ताल करने के अधिकार को ख़तम करना तथा मजदूरों कि व्यापक स्तर पर छटनी शामिल है।
हमें बर्दाश्त नहीं है, और ना ही हम इसकी इजाज़त देते हैं – हम उन्हें उखाड़ फेंकने के लिए संगठित हो रहे हैं!
केवल संगठित वर्ग आधारित संघर्ष इन नये और पुराने प्रस्ताव और मजदूर विरोधी कानून को ख़तम कर सकता है।
हमें इस दरिद्रता भरे भयंकर दुस्वापन को ख़तम करना होगा~केवल वर्ग संघर्ष में ही सच्ची उम्मीद है। हम जो भी पेंशन और स्वस्थ्य सेवा में अधिकार बचे हैं उनकी रक्षा करनी होगी। हम लड़ेंगे अपने हुए नुकसान को वापिस पाने के लिये और पेंशन और सामाजिक हक़ को आज के स्तर पर लाने के लिये। हर कार्यस्थल पर मजबूत और बड़ा ट्रेड यूनियन, जो कि मजदूरों को एकत्रित और संगठित करेगा, वो एक मज़बूत संयुक्त मोर्चा तैयार करेगा मालिकों, ग्रीस की सरकार और ई.यू के खिलाफ। सामाजिक भागीदारी और मालिकों द्वारा पोषित वर्ग सहयोग की बात करने वाले दलाल ट्रेड-यूनियनवादीयों के ज़हरीले प्रभाव के खिलाफ संघर्ष करना. सामाजिक गठबंधन को मज़बूत करना। सामाजिक सुरक्षा, पेंशन और स्वास्थ्य सुविधा स्वरोज़गार और छोटे किसानों का भी मसला है।
यह हमारी प्रतिक्रिया है। मजदूर विरोधी ‘समझौतों के खिलाफ हमारा गठबंधन। कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता कि वे कितने ही कानून बनाये, केवल जिस कानून के प्रति हमारी निष्ठा है, वह है “जो मजदूरों के लिए न्यायसंगत है”!
हमें अपने शक्तियों को संगठित करते हुए, यह मांग करना हैं कि जो हमारा है, वह जनता की ज़रूरतों को पूरा करने के लिये है, ना कि (पूंजीपति) एकाधिकार के मुनाफे के लिये.
Translated from English to Hindi by Damodar
This article analyses the 21st party congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). It critiques the Political Tactical Line document of the party terming it as another revisionist document.
Written by Damodar
The 21st party congress of CPI (M) recently concluded at Visakhapatnam with the usual ritualistic flavour that has become the hallmark of such events for the parties of Left Front particularly the CPI and the CPI (M). The party congress would be known for selecting or rather electing “unanimously” its new General Secretary Sitaram Yechury. Though the outgoing general secretary, Prakash Karat wanted the post to go to Ramachandran Pillai. The ongoing factional struggle between Karat and Yechury was somehow saved from being open in public when the Karat faction backtracked on the voting for new General Secretary. While Yechury was backed by West Bengal delegates, Pillai a Karat man enjoyed the support of the Pinarayi Vijayan faction from Kerala, but the Bengal lobby wanted a more pragmatic (read one who can hob nob with Congress and other parties) man at helm.
The party Congress of CPI (M), no longer evinces the same interest particularly among the Left movement as it did few years ago. No communist group/party or left journal devoted any analysis or criticism to the policy/issues raised in the congress. A major reason might have been that for CPI-M, like its counterpart bourgeoisie parties there has been a wide gap between its political-organisational reports and its politics on ground level. Further the dwindling base of the party and its almost moribund energy was enough to deter the bourgeoisie media. For the revolutionary Left, it has stopped taking cognizance of this party’s activities since long. Revisionist parties — as the CPI (M) has become–, adopts something in their party congresses while doing the opposite when it comes to the realm of day to day politics. This is an important characteristic of revisionism that differentiates it from a genuine revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Party.
Yet, nationally and internationally there are several comrades who still consider CPI and CPI (M) a still Marxist-Leninist formation, hence we would like to take this opportunity to analyse the resolutions particularly the new Political Tactical Line (PTL) adopted in the congress. At the same time it is our duty as a Marxist Leninist to wage a struggle to expose the real intention of reformist-revisionists so that their real intention comes to the fore.
21st Congress: The identity Crisis.
The Congress took place at a time when the party finds itself at the lowest. It has secured the lowest number of seat in Lok Sabha since its formation, its rule in the states is at lowest with only tiny Tripura saving the grace, the confidence of the leadership is at lowest so is the enthusiasm of the cadres. The set back of Bengal has still not gone so is the factional crisis in Kerala. In other parts of the country it was hardly any force to reckon with but there also it has lost its confidence to lead mass movement. The net result is the party is grappling with severe identity crisis. The spaces being vacated by it are being grabbed by new entities like Aam Admi Party (AAP) in Delhi and even by NGOs in several places. It has squarely failed to cash on the anti-establishment feeling of the common masses and in its once strong hold the party is seen as equally corrupt with rank opportunists, and self-seekers found it highly rewarding to join the party and to ditch it as well. So it is not a surprise when a senior party leader admitted that around 40,000 members have quit the CPM in West Bengal since 2011 and major section of it joining the BJP. The decimation and decline shows no sign of abetment, if the recently concluded bye-elections and the civic elections are any sign, where the Trinmool Congress resoundingly trampled the party and Left front’s candidates. Bengal unit is no longer able to mobilise masses on the scale as when it was in power.
Left front government in its eagerness to hug the capitalists nudged the peasant & proletariats, who in turn dumped him in the elections. The people have thoroughly rejected the conversion of CPI (M) from a social democratic party to that of agent of national and international finance capital. It’s policy of embracing industrialisation-at-any-cost by appeasing international and national capital and inviting predatory multinationals like Wal-Mart in the naïve belief of advancing the “productive forces”. It forcibly acquired land, deeply antagonising peasants and the working class as well. But only the revolutionary force and its organisation can help in advancement of productive force. After three decades of stagnant rule based on terror, intimidation and sycophancy CPM neither commanded a revolutionary force nor was it ever a revolutionary organisation.
The Singur-Nandigram occurrences weren’t causes but effects/symptoms of a deeper malaise: pursuit of neoliberalism, which the party’s central leadership assails. The CPM, with a strongly upper-caste sophisticated, westernised, middle and upper middle class leadership, failed to combat caste, gender and anti-Muslim discrimination not is it able to understand the changing dynamics of the Indian polity. It became a party of careerists bereft of imagination, yet complacent and arrogant first towards its smaller partners and then to the people at large. Tales of party leaders threatening masses and silencing every voice of dissent using most heinous ways that only a bourgeoisie party is capable of undertaking that too against fellow communist showed the rot that had engulfed it.
In name of industrialisation the CPM government was happy to give away with hundreds of acres of fertile land perhaps best quality agrarian land of the country at throw away price to Tata. When the people protested they even did not blink an eye to shoot the poor peasants and rural proletariats their support base for decades and terming them as reactionaries.
Prakash Karat has been lecturing and writing long articles on the exploitation in SEZs across the country but same Karat had no qualm in declaring SEZs in Bengal as ‘progressive’.
Similarly in Kerala it has suffered setbacks because of the CPM-instigated murder of political rivals like T.P. Chandrasekharan, neglect of social and gender issues, and outright opposition to Western Ghats conservation and support for encroachers. The party today is seen to be no different than Congress of RSS. Gone are the days of mass mobilisation today it relies on mob mobilisation to silence its critique. Several top leadership of Kerala have been implicated in various scams. In Lavalin scam the party’s State Secretary and the former Politburo member Pinarayi Vijayan is directly involved.
The leadership both at national and state levels seems to have lost the capacity to lead independent mass actions. Years of tailism and being propped on the crutches of this or that bourgeoisie party has done away with the capability of agitation, a fact that has been accepted in the Congress as well.
The Congress apart from adopting regular resolutions and reports adopted a new PTL. The previous PTL was adopted at the 13th congress held at Thiruvananthapuram from December 27 1988 to 1st January 1999.
The Political Tactical Line: Nothing new!
Suddenly a realisation has dawned in the party that there is something wrong with their strategy and the organisation. From where did this sudden fountain of realisation erupt? It did not emanate as a result of any genuine desire to resist the onslaught of capital but the new PTL itself answers it. It says:
“The 2014 Lok Sabha election review conducted by the Central Committee in June 2014 had concluded that the Party has been unable to advance for sometime and this was reflected in the poor performance of the Party in the election.…The election review report adopted by the Central Committee stated that:
“In successive Party Congresses we have been emphasizing the need for enhancing the independent strength of the Party. Some of the states have attributed the erosion of our independent strength to the tactics of aligning with the bourgeois parties. The failure to advance the independent strength of the Party necessitates a reexamination of the political-tactical line that we have been pursuing”.
So the necessity of reviewing the PTL came from the massive drubbing that it got in the elections. Since 1989-90 it may be remembered CPI (M) with its politics of alliance along with manipulations what may be termed as Harikishen Surjeet’s line was instrumental in playing a major role in power-play/ power broker role. Though the party never had any significant pan India presence, yet the Machiavellian politics of Surjeet kept CPI(M) at centre of Delhi’s power gallery.
Today things are very different, The party’s sudden deemphasizing of electoral politics and rhetorical calls for “mobilizing the masses” are due to its marginalization in bourgeois parliamentary politics. So to be relevant it has to raise the bogey of mass mobilization as recently we saw AAP doing in Delhi. In fact CPI (M) has been highly mesmerised with the polity and tactics of AAP. Its mouthpiece even eulogised the Kejriwal’s team and indirectly pleading for an alliance, but unfortunately it got no feeler from the later for having any kind of alliance.
The PTL further says:
“The P-TL is the tactics we adopt from time to time in a specific situation in order to advance towards our strategic goal which is the People’s Democratic Revolution. The tactical goal we have set out in the P-TL is the forging of a Left and democratic Front in order to present the Left and democratic alternative to the bourgeois-landlord order. The struggle to forge the Left and democratic alternative is part of our effort to change the correlation of class forces so that we can advance towards our strategic goal.”
So much for that coveted goal of Peoples’ Democratic Revolution, which this party wants to achieve by forging a Left and democratic Front. Interestingly the mention of revolution starts and ends here. The entire document then is about forging or not forging alliance with the other parties! It does not mention any substantial tactics to be adopted vis-à-vis the working class nor with the peasantry.
One is bound to ask, who are the “democratic” parties? While the PTL has left us to speculate, but those who have been following the Indian polity even cursorily would have no hesitation in answering the question. For the CPM leadership the democratic forces among others today are the siblings of the so-called Janata Parivar like the Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal, Rashtirya Janata Dal and similar parties. Now everyone knows the character of these parties and what harm they have done in stalling the progress of the working class and peasant movement. These rank casteist outfits are no better than the rightist or the Bourgeoisie outfits. In fact when there will a call for decisive struggle against the forces of fascism and capitalism, these outfits instead of being with the working class and toiling masses would ally with the capitalist and fascist forces.
The Political Resolution of the 10th Congress explained the Left and democratic Front as follows: “The struggle to build this front is part of our endeavour to bring about a change in the correlation of class forces, to end a situation in which the people can choose only between two bourgeois-landlord parties, and get imprisoned within the framework of the present system. By gathering all Left and democratic forces together for further advance, the Party makes a beginning to consolidate these forces which, in future, will participate in shaping the alliance for People’s Democracy under the leadership of the working class. The left and democratic Front is not to be understood as only an alliance for elections or Ministry, but a fighting alliance of the forces for immediate advance – economic and political – and for isolating the reactionary classes that hold the economy in their grip.”
This point needs to be elaborated. The Party has elucidated its intention of gathering the Left and democratic forces for future advance of the party, to shape the alliance for People’s Democracy (emphasis ours) so much so for the caricature of Peoples’ Democracy! Peoples’ Democracy as propounded by Stalin and further elaborated by Dimitrov is a special form of dictatorship of the proletariat, where there is a class alliance with other progressive forces under the general leadership of the Communist or workers’ party. This model of Peoples’ Democracy was implemented immediately after the Second World War in Eastern Europe and China.
The characteristic feature of Peoples’ Democracy is:
The rise and development of people’s democracy should be examined concretely and historically, since people’s democracy is passing through various stages and its class content changes, depending on the stage.
The first stage is the stage of agrarian, anti-feudal, anti-imperialist revolution, in the course of which people’s democracy arises as the organ of revolutionary power, representing in its content something in the nature of dictatorship of the working class and peasantry, the working class having the leading role. A characteristic feature of this power is that it directs its sharp edge against imperialism, against fascism.
The second stage is the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class in the form of people’s democracy and the building of Socialism. (A. Sobolev, Peoples’ Democracy as a Form of Political Organisation of Society)
So we leave it to the good sense of our comrade readers to decide which politics of CPM confirms to their working towards the course of achieving the Peoples’ Democratic Revolution. What has been the role of CPM in fight against imperialism or against Fascism? When they were in power, the policies adapted by them were no different from that of any other bourgeoisie party.
Before proceeding further we would like to state another related issue, which gets mentioned prominently. The PTL in point 14 further states about the adoption of Left Democratic Secular Front:
For this we have to look for the reasons within the P-TL itself. From the 13th Congress (1988) we started talking of the unity of the Left and secular forces. We made a distinction between the immediate task of forging a non-Congress secular alternative to meet the current situation and the task of building the Left and democratic Front. By the 15th Congress we had set out the slogan of the unity of the Left, democratic and secular forces. By that time we had more or less concluded that the Left and democratic Front is a distant goal and is not a realizable slogan as reiterated in the 11th Congress of the Party. By and by we relegated the Left and democratic Front to a propaganda slogan. The Left, democratic and secular alliance became the new interim slogan. While this began as a slogan against the Rajiv Gandhi Congress government to rally the non-Congress secular bourgeois parties while demarcating from the BJP, later it became the slogan directed against the BJP. It is on that basis that we joined the United Front, without participating in the government in 1996.
Now in terms of secular, the most important secular formation for our “Marxist” friends apart from the so-called democratic parties are parties like AIADMK, DMK, TDP etc. who share the crumbs with our revolutionary “Marxists” thus helping them win a seat here a seat there. Though, it never has crossed the mind of our comrades to check about the secular credentials of these parties. The less said the better. All such “secular” and “democratic” parties have no qualm of hobnobbing with the BJP or Congress as the compulsion of the parliamentary polity demands.
The Entire PTL is full of such jingoism and pseudo revolutionary phrase mongering, but we will not go into the detail in interest of space and time of our dear comrade readers.
How different were CPM from the other bourgeoisie parties when in power? After the 2004 elections Ashok Mitra wrote an article commenting on the capitulation of the CPI M leaders to the camp of neo liberalism, he wrote:
The main poll issue in West Bengal was the state government’s policy of capitalist industrial growth; events in Singur and Nandigram were offshoots of that policy. Many sections, including staunch long-time supporters of the Left cause, had been shocked by the cynical nonchalance initially exhibited by the state government on police firing on women and children in Nandigram. A series of other faux pas was committed in its wake, including the messy affair of the Tata small car project. The electorate reached its conclusion on the government’s putting all its eggs in the Nano basket. Once the Tatas departed, the state administration was dubbed not only insensitive, but incompetent as well. Questions have continued to be raised one after another: was it really necessary to take over fertile land at Singur, why could not the Tatas be prevailed upon to choose an alternative site, why did not the state government apply adequate pressure on the United Progressive Alliance regime in New Delhi — which was assumed to depend upon Left support for survival — to pass the necessary legislation so that land belonging to closed factories could be taken over to locate new industries? And why the state government was reluctant to lobby earnestly in the national capital for adequate resources from centrally controlled public financial institutions to the state exchequer, which could have ensured industrial expansion in the public domain itself — whether this reluctance was merely due to lack of resources or because of a deeper ideological reason such as a loss of faith in socialistic precepts and practices.
A number of other unsavoury facts also need to be laid bare. A state government does not have too much of funds or other spoils to distribute. But in a milieu where feudal elements co-inhabit with the petit bourgeoisie, persons in a position to dispense only little favours can also attract fair-weather friends and gather sycophants around them. Concentric circles of favour-rendering develop fast. Merit necessarily takes a backseat in official decisions. Corruption, never mind how small-scale, creeps in. Nepotism, sprouting at the top, gradually infects descending rungs of administration, including the panchayats. Much of all this has taken place of late within the precincts of the Left regime. The net effect is a steep decline in the quality of governance. The fall in efficiency is illustrated by the inept handling of programmes like the rural employment guarantee scheme. To make things worse, all this has been accompanied by a kind of hauteur which goes ill with radical commitment.
As we have mentioned umpteen times revisionist parties use revolutionary phrase mongering to hide their revisionist character. Same goes with our great defenders of Socialism and Peoples’ Democracy, while degeneration and double-talks reach their nadir while lending credence to abject surrender to the lap of the World Bank, the IMF, the MNCs and the World Bank’s trusted men like Manmohan Singh or even the regional allies of capitalism like Mulaym Singh and Chandrababu Naidu. Did not Tito or Khruschev continued to hang the Communist, Marxist and other revolutionary sign boards, while doing the exact opposite of what the tenants of Marxism Leninism teaches.
But we must commend the CPM leadership for they are always not dishonest. In point number 17, they have been ultra-honest (if there is any such word in English):
As the realization of a third alternative became more unattainable, in the 18th Congress Political Resolution another distinction was made between the electoral understanding for specific elections by drawing the non-Congress bourgeois parties and the building of a third alternative. Thus the Left and democratic Front was relegated to the third phase of our task. The first phase being the immediate current task of electoral understanding for a specific election by drawing in the non-Congress bourgeois secular parties. The second phase being the formation of a third alternative based on a common programme which would be forged by building joint movements and struggles. The third phase was the building of the Left and democratic Front.
Reading this point in conjunction with point 16 and above, clearly demonstrates the real intention and politics of the party. The aim of the party three layers down is elections and nothing but elections. First they want or wanted to build an electoral understanding of non -Congress (or now non BJP) parties followed by a common front like the discredited United Front and followed by the so called Left Democratic Front. So the party will work for elections and nothing but elections. We all know that the limitations of bourgeoisie elections, and neither are we for boycotting it like some of the adventurist groups claims, but basing the entire politics around parliament, did not Lenin sharply criticised this tendency terming it as parliamentary cretinism? What can one gain but few reforms for the working class even if one has a commanding position in such institution? A quote from Lenin will not be out of place here. Lenin in his article titled “Marxism and Reformism” wrote:
Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.
The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled. (emphasis ours)
Now this is what CPM aims for, some reforms!
The PTL goes on to summarise the experience of various fronts and alliances that the party had undertook in the past and not so distant past in a tone that resembles a chronological reading of the government formation since the National Front days. While the party has accepted its mistakes there has been no self-criticism or mention of its wrongdoing in Bengal and Kerala. So much for honesty of a revolutionary communist party! It has though in passing mentioned,:
“What has to be recognised is that the processes underway during the globalisation-neo-liberal regime have posed new problems for the Left and has created adverse conditions for developing the movements of the working class, agrarian, students, youth and women. It is imperative that we understand the processes at work and work out new and suitable tactics and organisational methods.”
But as much CPM may gloss over its mistakes the proletariats have not. In Bengal the toiling class has not forgotten the tyranny and high handedness of the party nomenklatura who adopted all kinds of legitimate and illegitimate means to bring success to their rule and satisfy the mandarins or babus (from Jyoti babu to Buddhadeb babu) at the Muzaffar Ahmed Bhawan (the West Bengal state HQ) rather than the toiling masses and even to silence the enemies. The coal field of Bengal still reverberates from the atrocities and the terror of the CITUs leadership. The people have not forgotten the several bloody attacks perpetrated by the hooligans at the behest of the party. The cowardly assassination of the fire brand trade union and highly respected communist leader comrade Sunil Pal on 29-12-2009 by the hired goons and marauders of CPI (M) is still fresh in the minds of people of coalfields. His only fault being that he was a dedicated Marxist-Leninist whose sole aim being to bring justice and safeguard the workers interest against the capitals offensive.
The CPM de-radicalised the trade unions and lost its prime working class cadres, reducing Trade Union to being a dovetail of the government and a means for money collection and keeping in check the working class. At every juncture CITU was found capitulating to the whims of capital. Apart from one day ritualistic strike and dharna, whose outcome is known to all and sundry beforehand it has only compromised the interest of the working class at an all India level. During the Maruti struggle CITU instead of giving a militant leadership to the struggle was seen siding with the management and on the pretext of maintaining industrial peace was seen chiding the belligerent workers. When the workers were put in jail it did nothing to bring them out but at every crucial juncture sided with the management.
Similarly in the struggle against Coal ordinance in January 2015, the CITU leadership since beginning of the strike had adopted a defeatist position and was only seen praying and pleading to the government for some reforms. We are once again reminded of the words said by Lenin for the reformists, “Fight to improve your condition as a slave, but regard the thought of overthrowing slavery as a harmful utopia”! does it not fit CPM today?
Another glaring point that finds no mention in either the PTL of the Pol-Org Report is the support the CPI-M extended to Pranab Mukherjee in the last presidential election. The CPI Congress document on the past developments noted this and informed its members of the division suffered by the Left on this issue when the CPI and other Left parties refused to follow the CPI-M and back Pranab due to his role in carrying out neoliberal reforms. The CPI-M’s backing of Pranab is not so simple as it may seem—for behind it was the largesse by a Big Business house (with which Pranab is deeply associated) to the CPI-M.
With all the tall promises and phrase of mass mobilization the PTL amply gives the direction that party will take on ground. Consider point 30, it says:
There can be swift changes in the political situation. New contradictions may merge amongst the bourgeois parties and within them. Political parties may undergo changes through splits or coming together to form a new party. Flexible tactics should be evolved to deal with the situation. In our pursuit of united actions, joint platforms may have to be formed with various social movements, people’s mobilizations and issue-based movements.
So, in event of an alliance this clause will be invoked to hoodwink the cadres, in guise of “contradiction” opportunist alliance will be forged, neo-liberalism will be supported and the bourgeoisie will be given free hand to rule. Same intention is reflected in point 46.
Given the danger posed by the communal forces reinforced by the BJP in power with an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, we should strive for the broader unity of the secular and democratic forces. Such joint platforms are necessary for a wider mobilization against communalism. Such platforms, however, should not be seen as the basis for electoral alliances.
Given the nature and ambition of these democratic and secular parties whom our friends had just termed as agent of capitalist and supporter of capital, there is again a yearning for an alliance. Old love never dies! By the time the PTL came for conclusion, the authors of this document could not suppress their desire for alliance.
So after all the epithets and brickbats the point 61 mentions:
Electoral tactics should be dovetailed to the primacy of building the Left and democratic front. In the present stage, given the role of the regional parties, there is no basis for forging an alliance with them at the national level. Instead, we can have electoral adjustments with non-Left secular parties in states wherever required in the Party’s interests and which can help rally the Left and democratic forces in the state. (Emphasis ours)
Voila here we are back to square one, the party will continue to do what it has done, and it will just not change. Years of tailism cannot be shed in one day or rather one congress. So, the party will enter in alliance with the non-Left secular parties in states and not at national level, but then comrades of CPM you yourself do not contest elections on national level if we compare your seats with the national parties! Since its formation CPM has failed to develop even the trade union consciousness, not to speak of revolutionary consciousness. Rather it has developed mafia consciousness and factional fights. Politics and ideology were never in command because they lost their credibility, as communist, the line pursued by it under the banner of Marxism-Leninism stands exposed through its ideological line and practice at all levels. Then how is it possible for the CPM to practise anything for the oppressed classes?
As Lenin wrote, “Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.” The CPM is no different.
Sitaram Yechury is known to follow the Surjeet line and there is already a campaign that the party is preparing to cosy up its relationship with Congress. As mentioned in a news magazine known to be close to both CPI and CPM “Yechury is eager to join hands with the Congress in combating the Sangh Parivar. It betrays a pathological antipathy for the Congress and a flawed understanding of the present situation. the Congress does not mean only Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi or Manmohan Singh. The Congress means the hundreds of thousands of Congress-supporting masses spread all over the country whose participation is essential in any move-ment against communalism and in defence of secularism. The Left can deny this reality and cling to the old slogan of ‘Left-Democratic Unity’ only at its own peril and at the cost of weakening the movement.”
The party today has not learnt from its past mistakes nor is it in its agenda to counter and challenge the onslaught of neo-liberalism and imperialism. At best it will continue to give the knee jerked reaction in form of out dated token strikes and rallies to LPG (Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation). Today the task of the revolutionary communist has to be to expose this farce and unleash an in-depth political and theoretical offensive against it to expose its opportunist line and practice.
Gironde: One of the two political groups of the bourgeoisie during the French bourgeois revolution at the close of the eighteenth century. The Girondists, as distinct from Jacobins, vacillated between revolution and counter-revolution, and their policy was one of compromise with the monarchy. Lenin frequently stressed that the Mensheviks represented the Girondist trend in the working-class movement.
Readers may also like to read our analysis on Left Front
This article appeared in the Cominform journal written by comrade Ville Pessi, General Secretary, Communist Party of Finland.
Struggle of Working Class of Finland for Peace and Better Living Conditions
Ville Pessi, General Secretary, Communist Party of Finland
For PDF please click here
Or copy the URL in your browser:
On Lenin’s birthday we as his disciple are honoured to be part of the movement to end the rule of exploitation. In words of his friend and comrade Maxim Gorky — Never has there been a man who deserves more to be remem-bered forever by the whole world.
The Unconquerable Inscription
During the war
In a cell of the Italian prison in San Carlo
Full of imprisoned soldiers, drunks and thieves
A socialist soldier, with an indelible pencil, scratched on the wall:
Long live Lenin!
High above, in the semi-dark cell, hardly visible, but
Written in large letters.
As the warders saw it, they sent for a painter with a bucket of lime.
And with a long stemmed brush he whitewashed the threatening inscription.
Since, however, with his lime, he painted over the letters only
Stood above in the cell, now in chalk:
Long live Lenin!
Next another painter daubed over the whole stretch with a broad brush
So that for hours it disappeared, but towards morning
As the lime dried, the inscription underneath was again conspicuous:
Long live Lenin!
Then dispatched the warder a bricklayer with a chisel against the inscription
And he scratched out letter by letter, one hour long
And as he was done, now colourless, but up above in the wall
But deeply carved, stood the unconquerable inscription:
Long live Lenin!
Now, said the soldier, get rid of the wall!
(Based on facts, as narrated by Giovanni Germanetto, imprisoned in 1917, in a publication in Zuerich in 1930 after his release. The soldier was an Alps climber – Translator).
from Rev. Demo
The article “Fascist Essence of Tito Clique” was written by Vasile Luca and published in the Cominform journal For Lasting Peace, the article exposes the Tito’s anti-Marxist Leninist position and it exposes the Fascistic character of the Yugoslav leadership
Download the article in PDF format from here
Or copy the below URL in your browser.
Lee Kuan Yew
On 23 March 2015, Lee Kuan Yew the first Prime Minister of Singapore and former leader of the ruling People’s Action Party died at the age of 91.
There was an out-pour of condolences and grief’s from the leaders around the world for a man who was termed by US President Obama as “a true giant of history” and “…one of the great strategists of Asian affairs”. While the Chinese President Xi Jinping described him as an “old friend of China”, the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi described him as “…far-sighted statesman and a lion among leaders”. Continue reading “Lee Kuan Yew: The proponent of crony-capitalism is dead”
Leninism – Great Ideological Weapon of Communist and Workers’ Parties published in the Cominform journal “For a Lasting Peace, For a Peoples’ Democracy”.
Other Aspect is going to upload some of the important articles that were published in the Cominform journal “For a Lasting Peace, For a Peoples’ Democracy”.
The relevance of these articles are still very much there and we hope they will prove to be a guiding spirit for the international communist movement.
IFTU (Sarwahara) Press Release on the Coal Strike
Dear Friends and Comrades,
Please find link below of the press release issued by our Union Khan Mazdoor Karmachari Union (KMKU) on the recently concluded Coal miner’s strike, that was called off without any tangible gain for the working class.
The Khan Mazdoor Karmachari Union (Indian Federation of Trade Unions – Sarwahara) strongly Condemns and opposes the barbaric lathicharge by CISF personnel on the striking workers of Rajmahal (ECL) at the behest of Management in which at least three workers are seriously injured and have been hospitalised. Continue reading “The state brutality on the belligerent Coal workers shows the real intention of the Government: IFTU-Sarwahara”
We cannot afford to stop our resistance against capital and its lackeys
PROCESSION AND GHERAO OF ECL HEADQUARTER BY KHAN MAZDOOR KARMCHARI UNION (IFTU-Sarwahara) HELD SUCCESSFULLY ON 21-10-2014.
Let us continue our struggle!
The booklet was written by comrade A K Roy of Marxist Coordination Committee, in this cde. Roy promulgates a new Marxist view of understanding the Dalit Question in India. We have scanned the booklet and posting it for wider reach. The book is out of print, some of the pages of the book were so spoilt that a good quality scan was beyond the capability of our scanner. We will try to type those pages in near future.
Below we are posting a leaflet released by Khan Mazdoor Karmachari union against implementing an anti-worker biometric attendance system i.e. an attendance system by way of biometric scanning.
A widespread discontent is discernible among the workers, but due to capitulationist stance by the tailist trade unions comprising of CITU(affiliated to CPI M) , INTTUC (affiliated to Trinmool Congress), HMS (Social Democrats), BMS (affiliated to BJP), INTUC (affiliated to Congress), a united action could not be initiated. Continue reading “Bio-Metric Attendance is an attempt to enslave the workers”
This article was written in light of recent development where various communist parties and groups have been openly trying to forge an alliance with Medha Patkar led National Alliance of Peoples’ Movement, which is today India’s largest conglomeration of NGOs.
We hope that this article will generate greater debate amongst the left forces of the country.