A report about the relationship between Coca-Cola and King Mswati III of Swaziland has been published in the media across the world during the past 24 hours. It is based on a statement from the Swaziland Democracy Campaign calling for the drinks firm to sever its ties with the last absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa. Continue reading “Coca-Cola Supports Swazi Dictator”
Oh Revolutionaries of the Squares. They will not Rob us Twice!
Let us form popular committees in all the revolutionary squares
When the revolutionaries chanted for the continuation of the revolution they believed. They believed when they insisted that it had not been completed. Now it is returning, crashing into the squares. The price of freedom and justice is being paid for with the life and eyes of it youth. Ten months since the spread of the Egyptian revolution’s first spark, the foresight of those has been proven, those who called for not leaving the square, and those who sat-in time after time demanding retribution, the rights of the martyrs, the release of their colleagues who had been tried in military courts, and the departure of a regime that gave the military salute the first day, in order to steal good Egyptian hearts then swoop down and torture, arrest, judge and slaughter us today with its bullets and deadly bombs, revealing its true face. It has always been, since the first day, an extension of Mubarak’s regime.
Continue reading “Oh Revolutionaries of the Squares. They will not Rob us Twice!”
Further to our recent post (see the post The Struggle in UCPN Maoist) on the on going two line struggle in the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), below is another news on the hardline faction led by Mohan Baidya raising another revolt against the Prachnada Baburam line.
The Dear Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Jong IL died on 17th of December 2011 at age of 69. Like his birth, his death was also mystified by the state media. The KCNA release said that he died due to overwork of field inspection, later it was mentioned, that the medical cause of death being myocardial infraction or heart attack in layman’s language. It took almost 48 hours by the authorities of the DPRK to announce the news of the person who has been termed by them variously as Dear Leader, Great General, and since 2009 as the Supreme Leader. In one of the several ironies attached with him, the man who commanded the world’s fifth largest standing army and a cache of nuclear weapon was to die in a moving train as he was acrophobic (phobia of flying). Even though in one of his several official biographies, among other prowess that he possessed — one is fighter pilot mentioned also.
Kim is believed to have been born in a small fishing village of Vyatskyoe in 1941, when his father, Kim Il-Sung, was in exile in the Soviet Union. His name was filled as “Yuri Irsenovich Kim” by the Soviet bureaucrat who did the paperwork. But in North Korea’s official accounts, he was born in 1942, in a cabin, located in a secret camp of anti-Japanese guerrillas his father commanded on Mount Paektu, a holy piece of land in Korean mythology. The event, the official Korean media proclaim, was foretold by a swallow, accompanied by the appearance of a new bright star in the sky and a double-rainbow that touched the earth.
Kim Jong Il remained a controversial figure in world polity; a person, who was subject of joke and intense hate campaign of the capitalist government and media. His inimitable demeanour of elevator shoes, oversize sunglasses and a bouffant hairdo were all subject to both fascination and denouncement.
The former US president Bush decried him as a “pygmy” and placed him with other “axis of evil” regime, though he never mustered courage to attack the diminutive North while maintaining a virtual colony in the southern part of the Korean peninsula. Bush said that he would never tolerate a nuclear North Korea, but had no other option, but to look helplessly when Kim Jong Il was building nuclear stockpiles, while the giant US intelligence were scrambling for even a tiny bit of information to come out from the so called “hermit” regime.
The US and the west have been virtually proved wrong on all major issue of North Korea and the Kims.
It has been terming the regime as Communist and Marxist-Leninist, though Marxism-Leninism has been replaced by Juche ideology and all reference to Communism and Marxism-Leninism have been removed from the constitution as well as the national governance. Yet by claiming the regime to be communist – gives the imperialist powers a sinful pleasure and credibility to put all what is happening in DPRK to the vice called Marxism.
It also happens rarely in history that death of a ruler is greeted by sense of fear by the immediate neighbour. As soon as the death of Kim Jong Il was announced on the television by the quivering voice of news anchor, the South Korean cabinet was immediately convened to discuss the security issue arising due to the event.
The Japanese government also went in a panic situation with the Prime Minister declaring that “I have ordered officials to beef up intelligence-gathering on North Korea, to work closely with the United States, China and South Korea, and to prepare for further unexpected developments. We will gather information to assess how this incident will affect the situation. I have instructed (agencies) to prepare even for the unexpected to ensure this will not adversely influence peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.”
Kim Jong Il took up the reign of DPRK after the death of Kim Il Sung his father, in 1994 and ruled for next 17 years without any solid ally. A combined cunningness and eccentricity not seen in many ruler, he oversaw his country’s rise as a nuclear and ballistic missile power on one hand, while on other presided over economic chaos and country’s slide into abject poverty,with estimated 2 million population perished (in absence of any neutral body, one may take this with a pinch of salt) in a famine that lasted from the mid-to-late 1990s due to natural calamity. DPRK had to ask for food aid from the UN and other agencies.
Kim resisted efforts by China, the U.S. and other countries to persuade him to end the nuclear-weapons programme that his father had started in the 1970s. In October 2006 North Korea first tested a half-kiloton nuclear device. It tested a more powerful nuclear explosive device in May 2009, leading to stiff sanctions by the United Nations Security Council that further damaged the economy. Though independent sources claim; that the DPRK’s nuclear capability is of a kindergarten level, with no evidence that it has been able to develop the knowhow of fitting the weapon atop a missile. Of late its missile program that has been developed by reverse engineering process, using the old and obsolete Soviet missiles has itself been plagued by problems.
All news item and stories about North Korea and Kim is lashed with how this last “Stalinist” “communist” bastion is keeping its vast majority of population hungry while the rulers of the ruling Workers’ Party enjoy a lavish life. But if the mismanagement and the functioning of the DPRK is to be blamed, then the US imperialism along with its junior partners the Japanese and South Koreans are also to be equally responsible for the food shortages.
It is true that food shortages have plagued the country. But the vilifying Kim obituaries don’t mention why North Koreans are hungry. The answer is sanctions. US foreign policy, like that of the Allied powers in WWI toward Germany, has been to starve its adversary into submission. This isn’t acknowledged, for obvious reasons. First, it would reveal the inhumane lengths to which US foreign policy is prepared to reach to secure its goals. And second, North Korean hunger must be used to discredit public ownership and a central planning as a workable economic model. North Koreans are hungry, the anti-Communist myth goes, because socialism doesn’t work. The truth of the matter is that North Koreans are hungry because Washington has made them so. Not surprisingly, calls by humanitarian groups for the United States to deliver food aid are being brushed aside with a litany of bizarre excuses, the latest being that food aid can’t be delivered because Kim Jong-il’s son, Kim Jong-eun, has succeeded him. Huh? The real reason food aid won’t be delivered is because it would contradict US foreign policy. The United States once considered the death of half a million Iraqi children “worth it”. Its leaders would consider the sanctions-produced demise through starvation of as many North Koreans worth it, as well.
[Kim Jong-il’s Death is a Danger for North Korea, not its Neighbors ]
The Obituaries and reaction of his death also have been on predictable lines — by the pro DPRK regime and the heavily biased anti North Korean media.
The Economist, in its article titled Dear Leader, departed said:
“THE tyrant has perished, leaving a failing, nuclear-armed nation in the uncertain young hands of his “Great Successor”. His father, since 1994 the “Dear Leader” of one of the world’s most secretive and repressive states (iconic, to the right in the photo above), died on a train at 8.30am on Saturday morning, of a heart attack. North Korea’s 69-year-old supremo had been in poor health: he had heart disease and diabetes, and suffered a stroke in 2008. Nonetheless his demise places sudden and extraordinary pressure on his third son, his designated but untested successor, Kim Jong Un”
The New York Times in report titled A Ruler Who Turned North Korea Into a Nuclear State by David E. Sanger wrote:
Called the “Dear Leader” by his people, Kim Jong-il presided with an iron hand over a country he kept on the edge of starvation and collapse, fostering perhaps the last personality cult in the Communist world even as he banished citizens deemed disloyal to gulags or sent assassins after defectors.
He came to power after the death in 1994 of his father, Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s founder. His inheritance was an impoverished country with an uncertain place in a post-cold-war era. He played his one card, his nuclear weapons program, brilliantly, first defying efforts by the administration of George W. Bush to push his country over the brink, then exploiting America’s distraction with the war in Iraq to harvest enough nuclear fuel from his main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon to produce the fuel for six to eight weapons.
The Guardian said:
He was one of the most reclusive and widely condemned national leaders of the late 20th and early 21st century, and left his country diplomatically isolated, economically broken and divided from South Korea.
Unsurprisingly for a man who went into mourning for three years after the death in 1994 of his own father, the legendary leader Kim Il-sung, and who in the first 30 years of his political career made no public statements, even to his own people, Kim’s career is riddled with claims, counter-claims, speculation and contradiction.
On the Left, there are still many parties that hold DPRK as a socialist Marxist-Leninist state and Kim Jong Il as a great Marxist Leninist theoretician, though his only contribution to field of politics and political theory has been that of introduction of Songun(Army First) policy, where a substantial resource of the country is allocated to the Army even at the expense of the people.
In DPRK’s polity it is army and not the proletariat who are the defender of the revolution and the main role in the country has been assigned to the army and others – the working class, peasantry are to play secondary role to it. This policy is in continuation of the Juche ideology propounded by the Kim Il Sung—the eternal president of DPRK. Kim Jong added Songun to it with the avowed aim of fighting imperialism and enemies of Korean revolution.
The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist) led by Harpal Barar, who has been a vocal supporter of DPRK said:
Comrade Kim Jong Il was the most faithful, the most indefatigable and the most brilliant student of Korea’s greatest son, Comrade Kim Il Sung. It was he who took the President’s teachings of the Juche idea and the Songun idea and systematised them into a scientific programme for the revolutionary advance of the Korean people towards a great, prosperous and powerful nation.
…Comrade Kim Jong Il was modest and humble. He saw himself as a soldier and disciple of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung and as a servant of the people. He devoted himself day and night, did his best, devoted his all, to the very last moment of his life, to his revolutionary work: to the defence and security of the country, to improving the people’s livelihood, and to the lofty goals and ideals of socialism and communism.
Another British Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist Leninist) that follows the path of HardialBains, in their message of condolence observed:
There is little doubt that without Comrade Kim Jong Il leading the continued building of the DPRK as an impregnable fortress, capable of devastating retaliation on any who violate the peace, the DPRK would long since have fallen prey to the criminal aggression and wanton destruction of Anglo-American imperialism, a repeat of the Korean War of such bitter memory, wreaked upon other countries in recent times. This stand has inspired and will continue to inspire the struggling peoples of the world.
We are convinced that the Korean party and its leadership and the entire Korean people will turn their great grief into strength and march forward on the road of building a prosperous socialist country, sovereign and independent, and bring into being their cherished goal of reuniting the Korean nation by its own efforts, without outside interference. We, as they, will draw inspiration in our struggles from the heroic life and work of beloved Comrade Kim Jong Il.
New Communist Party of Britain stated:
Following Kim IlSung’s footsteps Kim Jong Il led the Workers Party of Korea into the 21st century to build a strong and prosperous democratic republic. Kim Jong Il was a leading Marxist thinker who made an important contribution to the modern communist theory as well as an astute statesman who led the Korean people through thick and thin to overcome natural disasters, imperialist blockade and diplomatic isolation.
While ensuring the DPRK’s defence against the threats and provocations of US imperialism and its lackeys Kim Jong Il worked tirelessly to ease tension on the Korean peninsula to pave the way towards the peaceful reunification of Korea.
While the Communist Party of India (Marxist) declared:
Comrade Kim Jong Il led the country and the party during some of the most difficult times in the world’s history, combating the inhuman embargo imposed by the US and the resultant economic hardships. Till his end, he stood steadfast defending the principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialism. Carrying forward the legacy of the late Kim Il Sung and his theory of Juche, Kim Jong Il propounded the theory of the Shogun to suit the conditions of the country.
So like in his lifetime Kim Jong Il even after his death created what he was best known for – uncertainty.
What will be his legacy and how will history judge him is too early to tell, but he remained one of the few ruler or dictator (depending on which side one is) who remained consistent in his struggle and opposition to imperialism.
The third generation of the Kim family Kim Jong Un has become the ‘Great Successor’. The official machinery has started what they have perfected in all these years the art of propaganda and mystification of the ruler. So Kim Jong Un who is not even 30 has already been made a four star general, and the comrade Supreme Commander.
Kim Il Sung came up with idea of Juche and termed it as the only ideology to follow, which was even greater than Marxism Leninism. Kim Jong Il came up with Songun policy terming it as “all-powerful sword and guiding banner of the Korean revolution”. Now let us wait what new Kim will come up with!
The bloody events in the Mangistauski region on December 16th have triggered a wave of indignation worldwide. Soon after the news of the shooting made it to the outside world the diplomatic missions of Kazakhstan have faced actions of protests and solidarity with the ailing workers and peaceful residents.
On December 18th in Tel-Aviv a demonstration in solidarity with the oil workers of Kazakhstan took place in front of the embassy. The demonstration was organized by the workers union “Strength to the workers”, the Arab-Jewish social movement “Tarabut” and the movement “Socialist struggle”.
In Moscow the first demonstration of solidarity took place the evening of December 16th in front of the embassy of Kazakhstan. The comrades of the committee for a workers international put up a poster with the slogan “Now in Kazakhstan a peaceful demonstration of workers under strike is being attacked”. People passing by would stop and ask questions about the events in the country. Having learned about the events in the country people expressed their repudiation and discontent. Police officers in charge of security at the embassy would also express indignation. Later in the day people, mostly left activists, would come and leave flowers tied with black ribbons. On December 17th a second action of protest and solidarity with the workers of Kazakhstan took place in Moscow. Rank-and-file citizens organized via social networks showed up at the embassy of Kazakhstan to bring flowers in order to express their felt condolences with those workers and innocent civilians of Zhanaozen who lost their lives and to protest against the Kazak authorities. No embassy officials came out to communicate with the demonstrators.
Communists of the Leningrad committee of the Russian Communist Workers Party (RCWP), the left organization “Rot Front” (not officially registered as a political organization), and comrades from leftist organizations put together a picket line under the banner of the workers union “Zaschita”. The picket line was organized on December 17th in front of the Consulate General of Kazakhstan in the presence of a large police contingent. Diplomatic officials refused to communicate with the picket line. A statement addressed to the president and deputies of the Kazakh parliament with the demand to stop violent action against workers and an expression of solidarity with those who struggle against the dictatorship of Nazarbaev was read out in public and was attached to the gate of the Consulate General.
The evening of December 16th youth organizations of leftist orientation gathered at the embassy of Kazakhstan in Kiev. A demonstration took place to demand the immediate cessation of violent action against peaceful residents of Zhanaozen. Diplomatic officials of Kazakhstan thinking that those gathered convened to congratulate them with the “day of independence” came out to greet the demonstrators. When they understood the intent of the demonstration they run away back into the premises without being able to answer questions. Demonstrators laid flowers and attached to the gates of the diplomatic mission black ribbons and placards with slogans such as “Oil is not worth blood”, “Stop the shooting of peaceful civilians”,
“Authorities of Kazakhstan are killers”.
That same date and at the same time few tens of representatives of leftist organizations, including the association “Borotba”, left opposition forces RKAS, independent anarchists and others, came out to the Consulate of Kazakhstan in Odessa. In memory of fallen representatives of the working class, left activists brought flowers and a five-pointed star made out of candles, a symbol of international proletarian solidarity, was drawn under the walls of the diplomatic mission. The security service behaved aggressively, especially the official in charge, who physically harassed peaceful demonstrators and tried to confiscate the camera of a journalist. Nevertheless, the self-confidence of the leftist activists prevented further hostile action on the side of security forces. Few brief speeches took place protesting against the action of killers dressed in police form and with a emotional support of comrades in Kazakhstan.
On December 16th in the German town of Aachen an action of protest was organized by socialists and leftists to protest against the killing of oil workers and their supporters in Kazakhstan. Despite the heavy rain and low temperatures, residents of Aachen expressed strong interests towards the events in Kazakhstan and gave a strong signal against the actions of the Kazakh authorities.
In Dublin, Paul Murphy, a deputy at the Euro-parliament from the Socialist party of Ireland and other members of the same party organized a picket line in solidarity with the Kazakh workers under attack by the authorities. The picket line got a strong support from automobiles passing by.
In Sweden there is no Kazakh embassy. As a result, the Kazakh company “Telia” was the targeted by protesters. This is a former government-owned telecommunication company that controls 98% of the grid network for mobile telephones in Kazakhstan. In the evening of December 16th in the Swedish towns of Stockholm, Goteborg and Lulea activists of the Committee for workers international distributed leaflets. Many people passing by expressed solidarity and disgust by comparing the Kazakh regime with those taken down by revolutions in the Arab-speaking world. In addition to various actions of protest, the Socialist party of Equality contacted various newspapers and unions to inform them about the bloody events.
A group of members and sympathizers of the socialist party of Belgium together with assistants to the deputy of the Euro-parliament Paul Murphy, organized an action of protest at the embassy of Kazakhstan in Brussels. Members of the socialist party of England and Wales also protested in London in order to support the struggle of the oil workers.
On December 16th the “Socialist Alternative” in Germany organized an action of protest in front of the Kazakh embassy in Berlin. Few documents were handed to embassy officials. The most important among of the documents was a letter of protest signed by three members of the Bundestag and members of a leftist organization. Activists also handed to the deputy of the Kazakh ambassador a letter from “Socialist Alternative” and another form Kristina Lenert, a deputy of the city hall in Rostock. The embassy official accepted the letters after the police (which he himself contacted!) showed up.
In Austria two actions of protest against the policies of Kazak authorities were organized: One near the Kazak Consulate in Graz and another near the Consulate in Vienna. During the action in Graz by passers were outraged by the events in Kazakhstan and reacted warmly to the organizers of the protest. In Vienna a Consulate official met the protesters. A letter of protest was handed to him.
Other organizations around the world expressed their discontent with the violent actions inflicted on workers and residents of Zhanaozen: The Communist Party of Greece, the Greek union PAME, the Communist Party of Bielorussia, Poland and Azerbaijan, the Russian Congress of Soviets of workers, specialist and state officials, the All-Ukrainian strike committee and several other unions, the Kazak organization in Poland “Wspolnota Kazachska”, the Conference of unions of Russia, the World Federation of unions, the International Conference of Unions.
On December 20th-21st a new wave of protests followed in Germany. On December 20th the “Socialist Alternative” organized simultaneous protests in Cologne and Berlin. On December 21st in Hong Kong an action of protest was organized in front of the building of the Kazak Consulate. Activists promised to launch a program of protests near the buildings of corporations linked to the oil business in Kazakhstan. On that same day Russian activists organized another picket at the monument to Engels in Moscow. On December 23rd activists of Rot Front demonstrated in front of the Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Moscow. Since December 16th picket lines take place on a daily basis at the embassy of Kazakhstan. Citizens keep bringing flowers.
At this stage a new campaign of protest coordinated internationally is being discussed. The deputy of the Euro-parliament from the Socialist party of Ireland, Paul Murphy, has collected the support of 47 deputies of left orientation and has declared about the formation of an international commission to investigate the massive shooting of workers and peaceful civilians in Zhaoneze and the village of Shetpe on December 16th, 17th and 18th. Russian civil rights activists are now willing to organize support for the workers by initiating the collection of signatures addressed at the Russian authorities to put pressure on Astana (the capital of Kazakhstan. Note of translator). They are also willing to participate in the campaign of protest to free Natalia Sokolovaya, a union attorney currently in custody of the Kazak authorities.
The struggle and the actions of protest continue.
Distributed by Proletarskaya Gazeta, 25.12.2011.
Authorities are trying to cover up the number of victims by burying bodies in the steppe
Workers activists are concerned that the authorities may be concealing the bodies of fallen comrades and innocent civilians, as had happened during the events of 1989. Then troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs also shot civilians and hid the bodies in secret locations. Already then Nazarbaev was in power in the country, a member of the Central Committee of the Kazakhstan Communist Party, and oversaw the suppression of social unrest. Today history repeats itself; only this time the oil workers under strike and local civilians have become the victims. Now the main task of the newly formed Commission of Independent Unions and the opposition is not to allow the cover up of the true scale of the atrocities by the hands of the authorities.
How about the real number of victims? As of today (December 21st 2011, our note) there are serious grounds for concerns, as only in Zhanoezen hundreds of people are considered missing. These cannot be located by their relatives in hospitals, morgues, jails and police stations. The bodies of those who are known to have died in hospitals because of injuries are not given to the relatives; this can also be considered as an insult to those families, the majority of which observe Muslim traditions. Reports about fatalities, the injured and people missing continue to arrive from the village of Shetpe, where during the night of the 17th to the 18th workers and troops clashed. In the mean time original reports about 70 fatalities have been confirmed by the mass media, witnesses among the local workers, villagers and relatives.
During the evening of December 18th an activist from the Mangistaus region, K. Sholpan, was able to give us a call. She reported that about forty people with severe injuries from firearms are still in hospital. This number does not include people injured who have been released from hospital. That day her husband was supposed to undergo surgery to extract a bullet from a Kalashnikov stuck in his belly. During the course of December 16th and 17th the injured were taken to the regional hospital, which is located 120 kilometers away from the location where the violence took place. It was then when the local hospital and all medical establishments of Zhanaozen were overwhelmed by the injured, running out of medicines and other basic means to treat injuries.
According to her during the first half an hour of clashes in Zhanaozen 22 people were killed, one person died in the way to the hospital in Aktau, three young lads and a young female died of gunshot wounds near a supermarket. Three young workers and the mother of an oil worker died in her arms. Also an 11-year-old girl, whose head was severely damaged by a bullet was lying lifeless. Towards the evening of December 16th, when marines and troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs entered the area with heavy armour the number of victims had reached 70. The police and the military even shot people who did not participate in the protests. Workers and relatives moved a large fraction of the bodies from the central areas of the city to the outskirts when the shooting started.
During the evening of December 16th and all night of December 17th shooting spread to the suburbs and residential areas of Zhanaozen, where young workers tried to resist government troops. At that time the number of fatalities surpassed 100 people. Many people among those who participated in the clashes are missing. A Commission has been formed of representatives of the local independent workers union «Aktau», of representatives of opposition parties and social organisations. This Commission intends to collect data regarding the number of fatalities, missing, injured people and those who are currently under arrest. Relatives are planned to get together to compile a list of individuals affected by the violence. However, the authorities do not allow funerals. This raises serious concerns that the authorities are hiding the bodies of missing people.
Journalists of the independent and foreign press, civil rights advocates, members of the workers’ committee of oil workers and the union «Aktau» are putting together all available data, statements of witnesses, photographs, videos. There is a significant risk that members of the leadership of the independent union and activists of the Commission may become targets, since in the cities of Zhanaozen, Shetp and Zhetybae workers and individuals who participated in the gatherings and demonstrations are being arrested massively.
We will continue to oversee the situation and to convey it as widely as we can both in our country and internationally.
Press Service of the Socialist Movement of Kazakhstan. Circulated by ‘Proletarskaya Gazeta’, December 21st 2011.
By Pankaj Prasoon
This Poem by Pankaj Prasoon salutes the undying revolutionary spirit of the people who rose against the exploitative order.
Our REVOLUTIONARY RED SALUTE to all those martyrs who gave supreme sacrifice for the cause of Equality, Freedom and for an exploitation free world.
Poetry becomes a weapon
Against the tyrants and imperialists
In Tunisia, Egypt and Syria
Yemen, Bahrain and Malaysia
For those who raised the flag of independence!
Who composed the music of revolution!
In a different note
Against injustice
Against exploitation
Against those who boast-truth will die
It says-truth will always remain alive
For dignity
Who dreamt of the spring of hope!
Welcome to that intoxicating spring
I salute
We salute
Let’s salute those
Who martyred for truth!
Salute the Zanj Rebellion
A series of small revolts
500,000 slaves
Led by Ali Ibn Muhamad
and shook
the mighty, despotic, and debauch empires
from Iran to Iraq
in the ninth century
1579
Salute
Gaspar Yanga
The slave brought from Gabon, Africa
The son of a king of Bara
Led the slave rebellion in Mexico
Alongwith his slave friends
Against the Spaniards
Defeated them
Established the independent town of the slaves
Hundred salutes to Yanga
1712
The inhuman torture of enslaved Africans
Kept under abusive and harsh conditions,
Angered 23 slaves
They came forward, showed courage
Attacked and killed nine whites by showering bullets
The criminal white colonists
Hired mercenaries
caught seventy blacks
threw 21 rebels on fire-alive!
like poultry on barbecue
Executed one on breaking wheel
It was the first slave rebellion
Salute to those 21 burnt alive
1757
East India Company unleashed a reign of terror
Barbaric inhuman rule
Fakers and Sanyasis (ascetics) couldn’t tolerate it
They defied
Took arms
All ascetics- Dushnami Nagas, Madari Sufis
Hindu, Muslims all united
started the early war for India’s independence from foreign rule
around Murshidabad and Baikunthupur forests of Jalpaiguri.
150 fakirs were killed
Salute to the Sanyasi- Fakir revolt
Salute to Majnu Shah, Bhabani Pathak, Debi Chaudhurani
1798
Midnapore, Bankura, Jangalmahal
The forest land
The forest dwellers
Adivasis-tribals
Raised their bows and arrows
against the feudal landlords
and British colonialists
who insultingly called them chuars-the mouse-eaters
And called their revolt-chuar rebellion
The Adivasis were brutally killed
Their leader Durjan Singh was murdered
Salute to them
1784
Johar
Salute
Baba Tilka Manjhi!
The first freedom fighter of India
The first warrior against the colonialists
Who launched full scale war-the first war
And wrote the first poem of independence
By bow and arrows
He was killed and hanged in a tree
Salute to him
Whom we have easily forgotten
1787
Salute to the Shays’ rebellion
Which gave nightmare to the robber barons
Living leisurely in the rich-dwellings of Massachusetts
1000 Shaysites arrested
Five killed
Rebellion crushed
But it erupted again as people’s anger
In 2011
Against the filthy rich area of New York
Reincarnated as Occupy Wall Street movement
1806-1816
The revolutionary flames
Engulfed the sal (Shorea robusta) forests of Midnapore
It kept on burning for ten years
The enemies of people killed those valiants
Achal Sinha and his 200 fellow martyrs
Salute to all of them!
1858
Johar!
Salute! !
Veer Narayan Singh Binjhwar
It was 1856
A great famine swept the forest region of Chhatisgarh
People starved to death
Landlords and merchants of Sonakhan
Stocked in their godowns foodgrain
usurped from the poor
He looted their warehouses
Distributed the food grain among the poor
The feudal and colonialists conspired
Arrested him
And publicly hanged him
1862
Johar
U Kiang Nongbah
After income tax in addition to the house-tax.
Tax was going to be imposed on betel and betel-nut.
Jaintias rose again in a fierce rebellion
The leader, guiding spirit was U Kiang Nongbah
a young man,
he said:
Ka Jinglaitluid ka long ka kyndon ba donkam
tam ha ka jingim U briew bad ka Ri kaba khlem ka jinglaitluid
ym lah tang ban ong ba ka long kaba im
(Freedom is the most important factor of a Human’s life
And a country without freedom cannot be claimed to even be alive’)
hundreds of Jaintias were killed
U Kiang Nongbah was betrayed, captured and put to the gallows publicly
From the scaffold he announced prophetically-
‘If my face turns east when I die on the rope,
we shall be free again within hundred years,
If it turns west we shall be enslaved forever ‘
How true was his prophesy!
India became free within a hundred years!
1885
Johar
Four Murmu brothers
Of a insignificant village-
Bhagnadih, Dumka
All revolutionaries-
Siddhu, Kanhu, Chand, Bhairav
British colonists, money lenders, zamindars
Usurped their land
Disgraced their women
Turned the innocent Santals into slaves
Cheated and insulted Santals
Led by Siddhu, Kanhu, Chand, Bhairav started
Sonthal rebellion
It swept across the Santhal country
Giving nightmare to those criminals
destroyed all semblance of British rule
Those criminals cheatingly
Killed Siddhu, Kanhu, Chand, Bhairav
Killed 10,000 Santals
Crushed the rebellion-
The Hul-revolution
…but the legend of the Santal Rebellion lives on
1871
Four Arab slavers with guns
entered the market
in Nyangwe, Congo
1500 people were gathered,
most of them women.
Fired shot after shot
on the terrified fugitives
Six hundred innocent killed
Salute to those who were killed!
1900
The volcano of revolution erupted
flowing lava
Birsa Munda –Dharti Aba (father of the earth)
Launched the Munda rebellion-ulgulaan
Torching the dikkus(outsiders)
Police stations and churches
Raided the property of moneylenders and zamindars.
Raised the white flag –
The symbol of Birsa Raj
The colonial government was shaken
Munda warriors assembled at Dumbari Hills
The British attacked them
Slaughtered them
Thousands of freedom fighters were killed
Dumabri became Topped Buru-mound of dead
Birsa Munda was captured
Killed in Jail
He was only 25
He was killed
But ulgulaan–
The revolution -continues
Long live ulgulaan
Long live Birsa Munda-Dharti Aba
22 January 1905
Zdravstvujte
Salute
To the simple soul
priest George Gapon
who was moved to see
the sad plight of workers of
Putilov plant
It was Czar’s Russia
Cruel, despot, tyrant, oppressor
Bloody Nicholas II was reigning
He issued the diktat-
Workers would work for hours twelve
On Saturdays ten
He raised the price of everything
Reduced the wages of the workers
Gapon was an innocent man
Thought he-Czar doesn’t know this
This is the work of his subordinates
Father Gapon organized the workers
Thousands of workers
Marched towards
The Czar’s winter palace
To give a petition
Showering bullets welcomed them
Killing one thousand of them
The workers were silenced
The movement failed
But it fuelled
Gave birth
To that revolution
That wrecked the vicious monarchy of the world
25 October 1917
The revolution
The biggest one of the 20th century
Of workers and peasants
The October revolution
Led by Lenin and Stalin
Red salute to that revolution
In the poetry of revolution new pages were added
Red pages
Russia, China, half of Europe
Cuba, Vietnam, Laos
All became red
Salute to all of them! !
1921
Revolution spread on the streets of Istanbul
Revolutionary cadre roamed
Mustafa Suphi was their leader
The paid agents of the dictator
Killed him by dagger
And thrown his corpse in the Black Sea
Black Sea became red
Salam to Mustafa Suphi
Marhabaa!
Salute!
1923
The splinter of freedom
Became a raging forest fire in Andhra Pradesh
Salute to Aluri Sitarama Raju of Chintapalli
Salute to Rampa rebellion
1950
Selamat siang
Salute to Sudisman
Great mobiliser
created
Twenty million defeated persons into
Revolutionary-a dynamic force
In Indonesia
But the revolution failed
Thousands of comrades were massacred
Sudisman was sent to gallows
1952
From the jungles of Kenya
came the slogan
Mzungu Aende Ulaya,
Mwafrika Apate Uhuru
Let the European go back to Europe (Abroad) ,
Let the African regain Independence.
Children, old all thundered-
Uma Uma
get out, get out
-expression of unrestrained emotion
nationalist response to the unfairness and oppression
freedom fighters, the ‘Mau Mau’
vowed to free Kenya from colonialism….
the Mau Mau Uprising
Habari!
Salute
to the Kapenguria Six –
Bildad Kaggia, Kung’u Karumba, Jomo Kenyatta,
Fred Kubai, Paul Ngei, and Achieng’ Oneko!
17 January 1961
Salute to Patrice Lumumba
The first democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo
Who fought for African identity. Said he:
For a thousand years, you, African, suffered like beast,
Your ashes strewn to the wind that roams the desert.
Your tyrants built the lustrous, magic temples
To preserve your soul, reserve your suffering.
Barbaric right of fist and the white right to a whip,
You had the right to die, you also could weep.
The criminal colonial Belgium
Robbers of the precious copper, gold and uranium of Congo
Conspired with the champion of democracy
-the superpower- US of A
Lumumba was arrested, beaten and tortured
Was lined up against a large tree
Then fired
And killed him
His body was hacked into pieces
Then dissolved into acid filled drum
Shame to those criminals
Who still preach and sing peons of democracy
11 September ,1973
In the Chile Stadium
While he was tortured
His fingers were being cut
He wrote the last poem of his life
Which remained unfinished
By the oozing blood of his fingers
-the swan song
Amidst bullet hurled on him
He wrote-
How hard it is to sing
when I must sing of horror.
Silence and screams is the end of my song
Salute to the great soul
Victor Jara
17 December 2010
There was a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi,
In small town Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia,
He gave free fruit and vegetables to very poor families
Affectionately he was called Basboosa-the sweet halwa
He himself was poor
Running a family of six siblings
He didn’t have a licence.
Police wanted bribe
Municipal staff wanted bribe
Confiscated his wares
Fed up with the harassment and humiliation
he procured a can of gasoline
standing in the middle of traffic,
He shouted ‘how do you expect me to make a living? ”
He immolated himself alight with a match
He died
5,000 people participated in the funeral procession
the angry crowd chanted ‘Farewell, Mohammed,
we will avenge you.
we weep for you today.
we will make those who caused your death weep
Thawrat al-Karā mah- Dignity Revolution started
Ultimately called Jasmine Revolution
Jasmine-the national flower of Tunisia
Dethroning thedictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali
Mohamed Bouazizi
wa ‘alaykum is salā m!
17 June 2011
Salam –
Yacoub Dahoub of Mauritania
who dared to set fire
himself in Nouakchott
Just in front of the President Palace
he burnt himself for a better Mauritania
where all people will enjoy justice
and revolution descended in the Arab world
in Egypt
Salam Asmaa Mahfouz
in Syria
Salam Razan Zaitouna,
In Yemen
Salam Tawakkul Karman
And so on…
The fire of revolution never subsides
It cannot be subsided
It may remain dormant for a while
Yet it will be burning inside
Its only companion is poetry
Poetry never bends
It always remains
And burns
Sending flames
with the revolution
In the frontline
It still continues
the epic of revolution
still unfinished
no one knows when it will be completed
Till then several new names would be added
in the new blood soaked chapters
Salute to all of them
And Salute…
Hama Hamami Leader of Communist Workers Party of Tunisia (POCT) , claimed yesterday (i.e 19th October 2011 –editor OA) that ”The Qatari regime is an enemy to Tunisia and the Arab World,” referring to Qatar’s alleged involvement in the guiding of democratic uprisings of 2011 in North Africa and the Middle East.
Qatar’s role in the “Arab Spring” has been a source of controversy among politicians and citizens across the Arabic-speaking world.
Many have claimed that the tiny Gulf emirate has been promoting its agenda through its television channel Al Jazeera, while others have claimed that Qatar has broader motives for backing and supporting Islamist parties.
The Tunisian Islamist Party Ennahda, whose historic election victory solidified its hold on the largest share of seats in the Constituent Assembly, was accused of having affiliations with, and accepting financial aid from, Qatar.
The extent of political and economic Qatari involvement in Tunisia’s affairs has been a large point of contention in Tunisia since the revolution. Hamma Hamami, leader of POCT, stated that Qatar is playing a dangerous game, and is only serving its own agenda. He also added that Qatar is an agent of USA and Israel.
“Qatar is playing a dangerous role under the umbrella of USA; it is a government that serves America’s agenda, and also has direct relations with Israel. Qatar’s intentions are not patriotic,” Hamami said.
Hamami also asserted that Qatar is attempting to guide moderate Islamic parties, which are popular in Qatar, toward the political choices of the USA.
“Qatar is conditioning popular Islamic parties to serve American and Western interests, and they are managing to achieve that end through the messages that Ennahda is sending to America and Western society. Ennahda is basically assuring the west that the relationship between Tunisia and the West will not change. I do not have concrete proof but this is my political analysis.”
Hamami also referred specifically to Al Jazeera, claiming that during the electoral campaign the network was 90% pro-Ennahda.
When asked about Qatar’s support for Tunisia economically, he said that Tunisia does not need financial aid as much as it needs a, “political economy.”
“Tunisia is a self-sufficient country that is rich with natural resources – it is not about having money. A good example is Libya: The country was rich but they were living in awful conditions,” he added.
“The revolutions were authentic, but the USA wants to orient these new democratic movements in their own direction,” he added.
Samir Dilou, an Ennahda member who is rumored to hold the post of the Human Rights and Transitional Justice Minister (and to be spokesperson of the upcoming Government) disagreed with Hamami.
“I respect what he said, but I do not agree with him. It is his political opinion and it lacks any concrete proof.”
He added that Tunisia’s relations with Qatar are no different from Tunisia’s relations with other Arab countries.
“Our relations with Qatar are nothing but friendly, just like any other Arab country. We want what’s in our nation’s best interest, and if that involves having economic relations with Qatar, or any other Arab country, then we will not be against it. We welcome all Arab investors.”
When asked about Al Jazeera being Pro-Ennahda, he replied,”We actually protested against Al Jazeera before because some of its broadcasts were anti-Ennahda. We respect media but Al Jazeera is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.”
The members of the Organization for the Construction of the Communist Workers Party of Germany (below Arbeit Zukunft) and KPD/ML (Red Star) ( the Communist Party Of Germany Marxist Leninist Red Star) have merged into a single organization. This is the result of more than three years of continual friendly and good collaboration based on solidarity and criticism. In the unity process the concluding joint talks showed that there were no essential differences in the ideological and political views of the two organizations that would justify the continued existence of two separate organizations before the working class.
In recent years, the working class in Germany has been facing the harshest attacks of the ruling bourgeoisie, of capital and the State since the destruction of the Nazi regime. We mention only the Agenda 2010 and the placing of the whole burden of the current overproduction crisis solely on the backs of the working people. The workers and other working people are on the defensive in this fight and are forced to continually defend themselves against a massive loss of their social rights and gains!
The lack of a strong Communist organization based on the teachings of Marxism-Leninism that irreconcilably confronts the interests of capital is a decisive weakness, which hinders the power of the workers not only in the defensive fight against these attacks. Both Arbeit Zukunft as well as the KPD/ML have been trying for many years to build up such a Communist leadership, but they were conscious of the fact that they could not fulfill the demands of the class struggle here.
Why don’t you finally unite! – That is the demand of the workers, employees, unemployed people, progressive and revolutionary-minded people again and again to us and to the countless other groups that consider themselves communist. With their merger, Arbeit Zukunft and the KPD/ML want to contribute to meeting this demand of the working class. The merger will improve our work and strengthen our forces.
It is clear to us that this only is a small step in fulfilling our duties in the class struggle. Even after our merger we can barely begin the tasks to be dealt with by a real Communist Party. Both Arbeit Zukunft and the KPD/ML know that, outside their and other organizations, there are unorganized people who are sympathetic with socialism or communism, who are confused by the many left groups. We hope that through our merger we can give these people more confidence.
It is also clear to us that we must work together with other organizations who consider themselves Marxist-Leninist. Thus we have the goal, not only of becoming stronger through concrete actions, but in particular of merging.
We do not want an unprincipled merger. The old Communist parties suffered a historic defeat, both in the formerly socialist countries where they were in power, as well as in the capitalist countries. We expect to work in the future for a unity that draws relentless consequences from this failure – especially from the defeat of the previous attempts of building socialism: in ideology and theory, in political program and the relation of a Communist Workers Party to the workers and working people. We see the roots of the defeat of the socialist countries in the continuing existence of capitalist birthmarks, and in the unconscious or conscious redevelopment of capitalist relations and their corresponding class structures. Without criticism of the ideological cover up, the clarification of these relations, without criticism of revisionism and without clarity and self-criticism there will be no new attempts at socialism. For us, the clarification of the past is the basis for the future. We must learn, so that it does not go wrong again!
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement! Lenin’s words applied today mean no less than to accomplish this task.
Our now united organization is called “Organization for the Construction of the Communist Workers Party of Germany / Arbeit Zukunft”. We think that a new, third name would only lead to more confusion. The two newspapers will to continue to exist, but with different emphases. The newspaper Arbeit Zukunft should be oriented to reach the largest number of working people, including those who so far are still not close to socialism or communism. Red Star should continue – with increased strength – as the future theoretical organ.
In the energy rich Central Asian country Kazakhstan, that has been ruled by the first and only president Nursultan Nazarbayev as his personal fief, thousands of oilmen have taken to the streets in the town of Zhanaozen, South Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan was marking the 20th anniversary of its independence on Friday, December 16. Celebrations were planned throughout the country, but the public in Zhanaozen, consisting mostly of young men, began to shout slogans and shortly afterwards trashed the scene, beat up the guards and started large-scale riots. According to official reports, protesters badly beat two policemen at this early stage of the event. (http://rt.com/politics/mass-oil-independence-zhanaozen-987/)
The rioters then went on to set on fire the city hall and the local office of the KBM oil company. Troops rushed to the city opened fire and dispersed the rioters. The Kplus TV said the violence broke out when a police car rammed into a group of oil workers who were peacefully protesting in Zhanaozen’s central square. Hundreds of KBM workers were fired in May after they had struck for months demanding higher pay.
The situation in Zhanaozen is reported to be much more dramatic, according to the various reports in media and Russian blog sites, the police opened fire at protestors, killing 70 and wounding over 500 people. The authorities have deployed 1,500 marines to the town in bid to suppress the riot. Zhanaozen had one of the most serious ethnic clashes in late Soviet history. In 1989 (then called Novyi Uzen), the population comprised of equal parts of ethnic Kazakh and people from North Caucasus republics, primarily Chechens. Several ordinary conflicts at some point led to mass fights and then riots, and the authorities had to deploy army units and armored vehicles to the town to restore order. According to various reports, the 1989 events claimed up to 200 lives.
President Nursultan Nazarbayev has declared a 20-day state of emergency and a curfew in Zhanaozen.
On Saturday unrest spread to the town of Shetpe, where several hundred supporters of the striking oil workers blocked railway traffic and set a freight train on fire. Police said it some protesters also set a New Year tree on fire and smashed windows in town. Twelve people were wounded, one of them later died in hospital, when police opened fire on the rioters.
On Sunday protests spread to the regional capital Aktau, where hundreds gathered near the main square demanding that troops be pulled out of Zhanaozen. There were no reports of clashes with police in Aktau. (www.hindu.com)
According to Russia Today Website: It’s not yet clear if the riot has connection with a seven-month long protest of oil workers Zhanaozen. Hundreds of laid-off workers had been demonstrating in the city demanding that their former employer Ozenmuinagaz paid them risk money. The action was supported by some of their former colleagues, including those working for another company, who wanted their salaries raised.
Some reports say that the violence started because the protesters were disgusted with the planned celebration in the central square, where their camp had been since May, and tried to oust people setting up equipment there. This is confirmed by some videos on the internet and the interior minister also accuses the oil workers of being the main provocateurs of the riot. However organizers of the protest deny any connection with the looting and pillaging that followed.”
Since the launch of ‘peace process’ and abandonment of the revolutionary path for peaceful way, infighting in UCPN(Maoist) has increased. A large section of the party is against the leadership of Prachanda for his alleged capitulation to the international imperialism and stabbing the revolution.
Maoist Mohan Baidhya , Party’s Senior Vice-Chairperson has warned of formation of new Maoist party if compromises were made to remain in power by sidelining the people’s liberation and changes. He said that:
“During the people’s war, the land was seized to ensure the rights of the workers in the land and calls were made to put an end to foreign intervention and unequal treaties but it was unfortunate that farmers are being evacuated from the seized lands and ‘black’ BIPPA has been signed with India,”
The hardline group led by Baidhya and Gajurel have accused Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai as being one who have stabbed the revolution and have become agents of Indian and US imperialism. Gajurel said that “Dahal and Bhattarai acted as agents of the India and discredited the people’s revolt. They have no right to stay in the Maoist party,” (Tuesday, 25 October 2011, nepalnews.com)
The hardline group has claimed that the November 1 treaty was a betrayal to the principle of Peoples’ War, “Certainly, the night of November 1 is the historic dark night. The dark night was marked as the cheerful night for the feudalists, imperialists and the expansionist and their puppets. However, on the other, the same night was marked as the night of suffering, worry and a curse for the family of the martyrs, wounded and the poor working class people. Therefore, we are presented here with the volcano of the sufferings and a thundering voice within worry.”(http://redstarnepal.com/?p=562).
Overall the situation in Maoist party is one where a furious two-line struggle is being waged. Which group emerges victorious is something to watch
Here we are giving news stories that appeared in Nepali news media.
On ideological grounds, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ remains no longer the Chairman of Unified Maoists’ Party, so said Party secretary C.P. Gajurel while addressing a press meet in Nawalpur of Sarlahi District, December 10, 2011.
“Dahal has already abandoned the ideology charted by the peoples’ revolt…… How Dahal could continue claiming that he holds significant position in the party”, asked Gajurel and said, “He has no space in the party.” ……..
……… “Differences in the party have already crossed the toleration limit. Dahal is to be entirely blamed for the ideological aberrations”, Gajurel told the media adding, “It all started with the differences over petty issues. The differences have attained a new height following unilateral decision of the Chairman to return the seized properties, humiliating rehabilitation and integration of the PLA and the fresh controversial BIPPA agreement that Baburam signed with India.”
Gajurel also disclosed that majority of the party leaders were the adherents of his own panel.
“We are not at all against peace and constitution”, Gajurel claimed and concluded by saying, that “We want honorific and scientific integration of PLA in the Nepal Army.”
Every unnatural height has a definite fall.
Source: Telegraph Nepal, Sunday, December 11, 2011
KATHMANDU: Senior Vice-Chairperson of the UCPN-Maoist Mohan Baidhya has warned of formation of new Maoist party if compromises were made to remain in power by sidelining the people’s liberation and changes.
Speaking at a program organised in the capital on the occasion of the 88th memorial day of the first literary martyr Krishna Lal Adhikari on Sunday, Baiddya, who leads the hardliners in the party, said lasting peace would not be established if the new constitution was not written in favor of the proletariat.
“During the people’s war, the land was seized to ensure the rights of the workers in the land and calls were made to put an end to foreign intervention and unequal treaties but it was unfortunate that farmers are being evacuated from the seized lands and ‘black’ BIPPA has been signed with India,” Baiddya said.
He feared that attempts were being made to continue the parliamentary system in the name of republicanism, geographical federalism and secularism in the new constitution.
He claimed that the Maoists were the true followers of Krishna Lal Adhikari, the author of ‘Makaiko Kheti’, had died in jail while serving the jail sentence on the charge of writing the same book during Rana regime.
On the occasion, Maoist leader Ishwor Chandra Gyawali, Chairperson of Krishna Lal Foundation Yognath Upadhyay and others urged to declare Adhikari a martyr by recognition of his contribution to the country.
KATHMANDU, NOV 07 – The Maoist hardline faction led by Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya and party establishment camp are at odds over returning property seized or occupied by the party.
Return of property seized or occupied by the Maoists was one of the key points agreed to in the seven-point deal signed on November 1. The Baidya faction has, however, said it will resist every effort that is made to take away the land from the poor farmers and the landless.
A day after UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal issued a circular to the party’s lower organisations directing cadres to assist in the process of returning seized property, a gathering of the Baidya camp in the Capital on Sunday directed its activists to thwart the ‘takeover’.
“We will retaliate if anyone tries to take over the land from the farmers,” said Maheshwor Dahal, the Maoist central committee member of the Baidya faction.
The government should first come up with an alternative arrangement for the farmers and the landless, he said. The dispute over the return of property has also surfaced at the local level of the Maoists with the party’s hardline faction adamant on its refusal to go with what was agreed to in the seven-point agreement.
Hari Bahadur Gyawali, the Kailali district in-charge of the Maoists and a Baidya supporter, warned of ‘bloodshed’ if the authority tried removing the landless farmers and freed Kamaiya (bonded labourers) from their land.
“We captured land with orders from Pracha-nda and Baburam and distributed it to the landless and Kamaiyas. Now, we cannot throw those people out on the roads,” Gyawali said.
The establishment faction, meanwhile, has vowed to enforce the party’s central decision. “No one can stop the central directive. The land will be returned,” said Hari Bahadur Chaudhary, Maoist district secretary of the establishment side. Records at the District Administration Office showed that around 1,354 hectares of land of more than 200 people in Kailali is under Maoist control. The Baidya faction in Sankhuwasabha called a press conference on Monday and said seized property will not be returned unless the government comes up with an alternative for the current tenants.
“We are against the decision taken by the establishment side and we demand the agreement be scrapped immediately,” said Rajendra Karki, the Sankhuwasabha district joint-secretary of the Maoists. The Baidya team has said return of the seized land is possible only after a scientific land reform commission is formed to address the plight of the landless. In some parts of Dang, Maoist activists are accused of looting paddy from farmers. Janardan Sharma of Srigaun VDC-3 claimed that Maoist activists seized 33 quintals of paddy grown on his land four days ago.
According to the Maoist Victims’ Association, over 2,000 hectares of land in Dang is under Maoist control. The party is even taking away crops produced on the land.
“The Maoists are looting the produce from the farmers, while the authorities concerned are silent on the matter,” said Lokmani Giri of the association. The Bardiya local administration has started collecting data of the seized property. The Baidya faction has, however, warned it will not let the authorities take away the land distributed to the landless farmers.
As part of its plan to return such property to the rightful owners, the government is launching a campaign from Bardiya under the monitoring of Nepali Congress (NC) leader Krishna Prasad Situala and Maoist leader Suresh Singh.
The dispute within the Maoists, however, has not let the local administration create a favourable environment to return the property, said Sanjay Gautam, the NC district president.
The revolutionary faction of UCPN-Maoist has publicized an authentic voice for the protection of the revolution. After Prachanda and Baburam factions agreed to hand over the total achievements of the People’s War, com. Kiran and com. Badal have clearly put forwarded their voice in a pres-meet held in Kathmandu today.
In the National conference Hall packed up with journalists, intellectuals and the cadres, Senior-most Vice-chairman Com. Kiran clarified all the questions that were asked from the ground. He said, “The People’s Liberation Army (PLA); which has played a significant role in the political change of the nation, has been disarmed, dishonored and dispersed through the 7-point agreement signed at the night of November 1.” Flashing over the contribution of PLA and the people, com. Kiran said, “Just before the meeting of the central committee, party chairman has signed the agreement at mid-night. He has made a serious mistake by doing so. We are going to advise him to withdraw it, correct it in the central committee meting that is going to be held tomorrow. Along with it, we have said other political parties to correct this mistake too.” Com. Kiran publicly accepted the bitter reality that party is going to be degraded day by day. He added that party should be ideology, dream and people as well as the nation. Nation and the people are dearer than any party.
In the press-meet, General Secretary of the party com. Badal exposed all the intrigues and he strongly opposed anti-people and anti-nation plots by saying that their misdeeds will be put into dust. He said, “Today is the historic day for all of us in course of fighting against imperialism and the expansionism. The moment we are holding a press-meet is a historic moment because we are going to express our commitment but not only the opinion. The gathering here is the historic gathering that is centralized to fight against the expansionism, imperialism and their puppets. We are lined here for resisting and fighting against puppets until our death.”
Clarifying the doubts and rumours that have been spread against the revolutionary faction, he added, “Certainly, the night of November 1 is the historic dark night. The dark night was marked as the cheerful night for the feudalists, imperialists and the expansionists and their puppets. However, on the other, the same night was marked as the night of suffering, worry and a curse for the family of the martyrs, wounded and the poor working class people. Therefore, we are presented here with the volcano of the sufferings and a thundering voice within worry.”
Communist party without army can not exist. Because it presents the opposite pole than the reaction, it should be with its strong pillar that is PLA. But in Nepal, PLA is being shamelessly disarmed and dispersed. He further added, “The night was the night when PLA were shamelessly disarmed, cruelly disarmed and put into dust to surrender before the reaction. Therefore, it is the black night for the PLA soldiers, the working people and the freedom-loving people. This was misfortune! However, it has brought a hurricane with it. This misfortune has brought a bright future with it. The future of the working class will smash their momentary pleasure”
In the pres-meet, he committed to drive the revolution without surrendering before the enemy. He concluded, “Comrades and journalist friends! We want to make our promise public on this occasion by putting the martyrs, wounded, prisoners and the poor people as witnesses of our commitment that we won’t let to ruin the dream of you all in vain. We will realize your own dream. The night of November 1 was the night for the culmination of the rightist disperses in the history of the communist movement of Nepal. The rightist deviation; which dissolved the PLA that has sacrificed itself for the peace and transformation, will be demised soon. Hundred thousands of new PLA soldiers will take birth from the ashes of the dissolved PLA. The land lords, puppets, imperialists and the expansionists; who are exchanging their happiness, will have no more time to feel their happiness because we are with people and their happiness.”
http://redstarnepal.com/?p=562
| [The Himalayan Times newspaper |
Monday, 03 October 2011
Radio Mirmire (89.4 MHz) , a FM radio station run by the UCPN (Maoist), has been shut down after a group of employees allegedly close to the Maoist party establishment took away its equipment Sunday night.A group of employees led by former director of the FM Bishnu Prasad Sapkota barged into the station office at Anam Nagar at around 11:30 pm and took away the computers and the transmitter.Employees involved in the capturing have said took such a step as they were not receiving salary for a long time.Employees supporting the Mohan Baidya faction have accused Sapkota of stealing the equipment.Employees and managers divided into two rival camps of the Maoist party are known to be at loggerheads for some time.
This Poem by Pankaj Prasoon salutes the undying revolutionary spirit of the people who rose against the exploitative order.
Our REVOLUTIONARY RED SALUTE to all those martyrs who gave supreme sacrifice for the cause of Equality, Freedom and for an exploitation free world.
पंकज प्रसून
कविता बन जाती हथियार
तानाशाही, राजशाही के खिलाफ
ट्यूनीशिया,मिस्र और सीरिया में
यमन,बहरीन और मलयेशिआ में
आज़ादी का परचम लहरानेवालो में
जिन्होंने क्रांति का संगीत रचा
अलग से सुर-ताल में
अन्याय के ख़िलाफ
शोषण के ख़िलाफ
उनके ख़िलाफ जो कहते हैं –सच मर जायेगा
वह कहती है –सच रहेगा ज़िंदा हमेशा
इज़्ज़त के ज़िंदगी के लिये
सपना देखा आशा के वसंत का
उस मादक वसन्त का अभिनंदन
सलाम
आओ करें सलाम उन्हें
जो कत्ल हो गये सच की ख़ातिर
सलाम ज़ंज विद्रोह को
अली इब्न मुहम्मद को
जिसने हिला दी थी चूलें
ईरान से इराक़ तक
निरंकुश बेपरवाह, बेखौफ़ बादशाहों की
नौवीं सदी में
सन् १५७०
सलाम यान्गा को !
अफीका के गाबों से लाया गया गुलाम
यान्ग बारा के राजा का बेटा था वह
जिसने संघर्ष किया अपने साथी गुलामों के साथ
स्पेनी उपनिवेशवादियों से
परास्त किया उन्हें मेक्सिको की धरती पर
स्थापित किया गुलामों का अपना आज़ाद नगर
यान्गा को सौ बार सलाम !
सन् १७१२
गोरों की नृशंस ग़ुलामी
जब हो गयी बर्दाश्त के बाहर
न्यू यार्क के कुछ अश्वेत ग़ुलाम
आगे बढ़े, हिम्मत किया
गोलियों से भून दिया नौ गोरों को
तब गोरों ने मँगवाये भाड़े के गुंडे
पकड़ लिया उन बेचारों को
झोंक दिया २१ जनों को
जलती हुई आग में
वह था पहला गुलाम विद्रोह
उन २१ शहीद गुलामों को सलाम !
सन् १७५७
शुरू किया विद्रोह फ़कीरों और सन्यासियों ने
कंपनी सरकार के खिलाफ़
दशनामी नागा सन्यासियों और मदारी सूफ़ियों ने
डेढ़ सौ फ़क़ीर मारे गये
उन साधुओं और फ़कीरों को सलाम !
सन् १७९८
मिदनापुर, बांकुड़ा और जंगलमहाल
वन प्रांतर में आग लग गयी
वन वासियों ने उठा लिये अपने तीर-कमान
उन्हें कहा गया चुहार
सामंतों, उपनिवेशवाड़ियों ने
नाम दिया चुहार विद्रोह
उस वीर पुरुष
दुर्जन सिंह को सलाम !
सन्१८०६ से १८१६
दस वर्षों तक
मिदनापुर के साल वनों में
लगी धधकने क्रांति की ज्वाला
जनता के दुश्मनों ने सारे-आम हत्या कर दी
उन वीरों की
शहीद अचल सिन्हा और उनके साथ हुए २०० शहीद
उन सभी को सलाम !
सन् १७८४
जोहार
बाबा तिलका मांझी !
भारत के पहले स्वतंत्रता सेनानी
साम्राज्यवाद से लड़ने वाले पहले योद्धा
पहली जंग जिन्होने छेड़ी
तीर-धनुष से आज़ादी की पहली कविता लिखी जिन्होने
और जिन्हे हम भूल गये
सन् १७८७
धनपतियों के खिलाफ़
मस्साचुसेट्स की धन-गलियों में
धनपतियों की नींद उड़ानेवाले
डेनियल शेज़ के शेज़ विद्रोह को
सलाम
जो सन् २०११ में उभरा फिर से
न्यू यार्क के मदमस्त, कुख्यात धन-सेठों से पटी
“क़ब्ज़ा कर लो वाल स्ट्रीट “
जनाक्रोश के रूप में
सन् १८२९
जोहार
तिरोत सिंह !
नॉंगखलाउ,मेघालय के
क्रांतिकारी शहीद
सुरमा से ब्रह्मपुत्र की ज़मीन हड़पने
ब्रिटिश उपनिवेशवादियों की साजिश को
नाकाम करने की हिम्मत करने वाले
सन् १८५८
जोहार
नारायण सिंह !
१८५६ के अकाल में
सोनाख़ान,छत्तीसगढ़ के ज़मींदारों ने अपने गोदामों में
छुपा रखे थे अनाज लूट कर ग़रीबों से
नारायण सिंह ने लूट लिया उन गोदामों को
फ़िर बाँट दिया उसे ग़रीबों में
सामंतों और उपनिवेशवादियों ने उन्हें अपना दुश्मन माना
और सरेआम फाँसी दे दी उनको
सन् १८६२
जोहार जैन्तिया के किआन्ग नोंगवा को !
पान-सुपारी विद्रोह के अगुआ
लटका दिया अँग्रेज़ी हुकूमत ने उन्हें फाँसी पर
फाँसी का फँदा लगने से पहले उन्होने किया जयघोष :
“फाँसी के बाद अगर
मेरा सर घूम गया पूरब
तो समझो सौ साल के भीतर
हो जायेगा देश आज़ाद “
सन् १८८५
जोहार चार भाइयों को
भगनाडीह, दुमका के
सिद्धो, कान्हु, चाँद, भैरव को
चार मुर्मू भाई
क्रांतिकारी
सूदखोर महाजन
भ्रष्ट ज़मींदारों के खिलाफ
आज़ादी की दीवानगी में चारों ने दे दी
अपने प्राणों की आहुति
वह था हुल
यानी क्रांति!
संताल विद्रोह
सन् १८७१
सलाम
कांगो के
उन ६०० लोगों को !
जिन्हें नयांगवा बाज़ार में
गुलामों की तिज़ारत करनेवाले
चार अरब सौदागरों ने
बीच चौराहे पर भून
सन् १९००
बहने लगी क्रांति की धारा
गर्म लावा
बिरसा मुंडा का उलगुलान
ब्रिटिश हुकूमत
गयी चरमरा
झारखंड में
क्रांति का दूसरा नाम
उलगुलान !
२२ जनवरी १९०५
पादरी ग्योर्गी हापोन को
ज़द्रास्तवूयतीए
सलाम
मज़दूरों की बदहाली देख न सका वह
ज़ारशाही रूस
बदमिज़ाज़, क्रूर, निरंकुश
ज़ार निकोलस का ज़माना था
शाही फरमान हुआ जारी –
करेंगे मज़दूर अब से
ग्यारह घंटे काम
और शनिवार को दस घंटे
सामानों की कीमतें बढ़ा दी
महंगाई बढ़ा दी
मज़दूरी घटा दी
हापोन ने समझा
ज़ार को सही खबर नहीं
उसे पता नहीं –
काम है यह उसके कारिंदों का !
कितना भोला था वह
हुआ नहीं उसे बर्दाश्त
मज़दूरों
को किया एकजुट
निकल पड़े सब
लाखों की तादाद में
ज़ार के शरद महल की ओर
जहाँ लगीं होने उन पर गोलियों की बौछार
मारे गये मज़दूर हज़ार
वह क्रांति हो गयी असफल
पर पड़ गयी नींव
विराट क्रांति की
जन्म हो गया उस क्रांति का
जिसने हिला दी चूलें
दर्ज़नों तानाशाहों और राजाओं की
२५ अक्तूबर १९१७
वह क्रांति-
बीसवीं सदी की सबसे बड़ी
मज़दूरों और किसानों की
दुनिया की सबसे बड़ी क्रांति !
अक्तूबर क्रांति !!
लाल क्रांति !!!
सूत्रधार थे जिसके लेनिन और स्तालिन
उस क्रांति को लाल सलाम !
क्रांति की इस नयी कविता में जुड़ते चले गये
सैकड़ों सफे
लाल सफे
रूस, चीन, आधा यूरोप
कूबा, वीयतनाम …
हो गये लाल
इन सबको सलाम
सन् १९२१
तुर्की में क्रांति फ़ैल गयी
इस्तांबुल की गलियों में
घूमने लगे आज़ादी के दीवाने
जिनके नायक थे मुस्तफ़ा सूफ़ी
तानाशाही के क़ारिंदों ने
छुरा घोंप कर मार दिया जिनको
और फेंक दिया काले सागर में
काला सागर हो गया लाल
मुस्तफ़ा सूफ़ी को
मरहबा
सलाम !
सन् १९२३
आंध्र प्रदेश में आज़ादी की चिनगारी
दावानल में तब्दील हो गयी
चिंतापल्ली के
अलूरी सीतारामा राजू को सलाम
रम्पा विद्रोह को सलाम !
सन् १९५२
कीनिया के जंगलों और गाँवॉं से उठने लगी आवाज़ें
मुजुन्गु आइन्दे उलाया
मवफिका अपाते उहुरु
भागो यूरोपी, भागो
अफ्रीका को रहने दो आज़ाद
बच्चे-बूढ़े कहने लगे-
उमा उमा
भागो भागो
जो बन गया माउ माउ विद्रोह
उन कापेंगुरिया -छह को सलाम !
१७जनवरी १९६१
अफ्रीकी अस्मिता की लड़ाई में शहीद
कांगो के पहले निर्वाचित प्रधान मंत्री
पात्रीस लूमूम्बा को सलाम
उनकी लाश तक को अम्ल में गला कर साफ़ कर दिया था
ज़ालिमों ने गोरे
उपनिवेशवादी
अमरीकी और बेल्जियम ने
वही जो अब लोकतंत्र के पहरेदार हैं
जिन्हें धिक्कार है
११ सितंबर १९७३
चीले स्टेडियम में
कटी हुई अंगुलियों से बहते खून से
अपनी ज़िंदगी की आख़िरी कविता लिखनेवाले
बीक्तर हारा को सलाम !
उसकी वह कविता असमाप्त रह गयी
वह कविता लिख रहा था
उस पर दनादन गोलियाँ चल रहीं थीं
वह लिख रहा था-
कितना कठिन है सहज गीत गाना
जब मुझे खौफ़ का गीत गाना है
खामोशी और चीखें
मेरी कविता का अंत हैं
१७ दिसंबर २०१०
पुलिस ज़ुल्म
और भ्रष्टाचार से आकर तंग
जल मरा
ट्यूनीशिया के शहर सिदी बुज़ीद का
मुहम्मद बुअज़ीज़ी
पढ़ा-लिखा था
बेरोज़गार था
फल बेचता था सड़कों पर
तंग आ गया था पुलिस को हफ़्ता दे-.दे कर
छह भाई-बहनों का परिवार चलाता था
मुहल्ले भर का प्यारा था
प्यार से सब उसे बसबूसा कहते थे
बसबूसा यानी मीठा हलवा
पुलिस ने उसके ठेले को जब्त कर लिया
और कहा- पैसे दो वरना
नहीं मिलेगा ठेला तेरा
वह रहा खामोश
चुपचाप लाया मिट्टी का तेल
सारे आम बीच बाज़ार
नहा लिया उस तेल से
और आग लगा ली खुद को
जल मरा वह
लेकिन आग सुलग गयी पूरे देश में
लाखों लोग उतर आये सड़कों पर
और पलट दिया तख़्ता तानाशाह बेन अली का
सुलग उठा पूरा अरब
शुरू हो गयी अरब क्रांति
यास्मिन क्रांति
अरब वसंत
बुअज़ीज़ी को सलाम !
१७ जून २०११
मारिटेनिया के याक़ूब दाऊद को सलाम !
राजधानी नवाकशौत- हवाओं की जगह
राष्ट्रपति निवास के सामने
ख़ुद को जला कर आत्महत्या की
फिर हज़ारों लोग सड़कों पर उतर आये
और क्रांति शुरू हो गयी
पूरे अरब में …
मिस्र में
असमा महफूज़ को सलाम !
सीरिया में
रज़ान जैतूना को सलाम !
यमन में
नवाकुल करमान को सलाम !
क्रांति की आग कभी बुझती नहीं
दबा दी जा सकती है
थोड़ी देर के लिये
पर वह सुलगती रहती है
अंदर ही अंदर
कविता कभी झुकती नहीं
साथ देती है हमेशा
क्रांति का, सबसे आगे
क्रांति ख़त्म कहाँ हुई है
जारी है अब तक
कविता भी अधूरी है
जाने कब होगी वह पूरी
क्रांति-गाथा में जुड़ते जायेंगे
जाने कितने नाम
उन सबको सलाम !
When in 1916 Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin expounded what historian V.G. Kiernan would later call virtually the only serious theory of imperialism, despite its shortcomings (1), Lenin cited Cecil Rhodes as among the “leading British bourgeois politicians (who) fully appreciated the connection between what might be called the purely economic and the political-social roots of modern imperialism.” (2)
Rhodes, founder of the diamond company De Beers and of the eponymous Rhodesia, had made the following remarks, which Lenin quoted at length in his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread,’ ‘bread,’ ‘bread,’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism … My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced by them in factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists. (3)
Skip ahead 95 years. Here’s US ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz:
We know that oil is the jewel in the crown of Libyan natural resources, but even in Qaddafi’s time they were starting from A to Z in terms of building infrastructure and other things. If we can get American companies here on a fairly big scale, which we will try to do everything we can to do that, then this will redound to improve the situation in the United States with respect to our own jobs. (4)
New York Times’ reporter David D. Kirkpatrick noted that “Libya’s provisional government has already said it is eager to welcome Western businesses (and)…would even give its Western backers some ‘priority’ in access to Libyan business.” (5)
A bread and butter question. Also a profit-making one.
What Ahmadinejad really said at the UN
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s address to the 66th UN General Assembly meeting provided the Iranian president with the usual occasion to make the usual points and the Western media the usual occasion to misrepresent them.
Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon wrote that Ahmadinejad “sought to stoke controversy by again questioning the Holocaust,” (6) reminding readers that Ahmadinejad had once called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, a distortion that will live on in history through its mere retelling. (What the Iranian president really said was that Israel would dissolve as the Soviet Union had.)
I read the transcript of Ahmadinejad’s address, but found no questioning of the Nazi-engineered holocaust.
Here are his remarks on Zionism and the Holocaust.
They view Zionism as a sacred notion and ideology. Any question of its very foundation and history is condemned by them as an unforgivable sin.
…
Who imposed, through deceits and hypocrisy, the Zionism and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and countries of the region?
…
If some European countries still use the Holocaust, after six decades, as the excuse to pay fine or ransom to the Zionists, should it not be an obligation upon the slave masters or colonial powers to pay reparations to the affected nations?
…
By using their imperialistic media network which is under the influence of colonialism they threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the September 11 events with sanctions and military action. (7)
It would have been more accurate for Solomon to have written that Ahmadinejad sought to stoke controversy by again questioning the legitimacy of Zionism and the manipulative use of the Nazi-perpetrated holocaust to justify it.
But these themes are unmentionable in the Western corporate media.
It is common practice to capitalize the Nazi-engineered effort to exterminate the Jews as the ‘Holocaust’, as if there had never been any other holocaust—or any at rate, any other worth mentioning. Even the transcript of Ahmadinjad’s address refers to ‘the Holocaust’ rather than ‘a holocaust.’
The Justice Process
It seems that the only argument US president Barack Obama could muster for why Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas shouldn’t seek recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN is that the ‘peace process’ would be derailed.
Let’s lay aside the obvious difficulty of Barak the Bomber caring about peace, and that the ‘peace process’ has been off the rails for some time. His objection missed the point. Recognition of a Palestinian state isn’t a question of the peace process but of the justice process, and hardly a very satisfying one at that. What justice is there in Palestinians settling for one fifth of their country? Which is what, in any practical sense, UN recognition of the Palestinian territories as a state would amount to.
But it’s better than the status quo and a starting point.
For Zionists, the peace process is a little more appealing, but is the opposite of the justice process. It means getting Palestinians to settle for even less than one-fifth of their country, and to acknowledge the theft of it as legitimate.
An aside: Over 30 countries do not recognize Israel, among them Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran and Syria.
Rational Ignoramuses?
Do those who promote what Keynes called the fallacy of thrift (or fallacy of austerity, to give it a contemporary spin) really believe what they preach: that cutting pensions, laying off public servants, raising taxes on the poor, and closing government programs, is the way to avert a deeper economic crisis for the bulk of us?
Do they even care about the bulk of us?
Or is austerity simply a way of bailing out bankers and bondholders by bleeding the rest of us dry?
British prime minister David Cameron, on a trip to Canada to compare notes with fellow deficit-hawk Stephen Harper, the Canadian PM, remarked that “Highly indebted households and governments simply cannot spend their way out of a debt crisis. The more they spend, the more debts will rise and the fundamental problem will grow.” (8)
This was reported with tacit nods of approval in Canada’s corporate press, as if Cameron’s utterings were incontrovertible, rather than the ravings of an economic illiterate (in the view of economists), or the words of a political con artist (in the view of class struggle literates.)
Highly indebted governments simply cannot cut their way out of an economic crisis. The more they cut, the more aggregate demand weakens and the worse it gets. Greece’s continued slide into economic ruin underscores the point. The United States’ inability to drag itself out of the depths of the Great Depression, until arms orders brought the economy back to life, strikes an historical cautionary note.
But recessions are not without benefits for corporate plutocrats. It’s easier to cut wages, salaries and benefits during downturns, and to enjoy bigger profits as a result. Small competitors can be driven out of business. Unions can be weakened. And governments have an excuse to slash social programs that have pushed the balance of power a little too far in labor’s direction. Indeed, all manner of sacrifices can be extracted from most of us if we’re persuaded that debt is the cause of the problem and that belt-tightening is the physic that will cure it.
My bet is that Cameron and his fellow water carriers for moneyed interests are no dummies — but they’re hoping the rest of us are.
Knowing Who Your Friends Are
Here is the widely reviled (by Western governments) Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, at the 66th session of the UN General Assembly.
After over twenty thousand NATO bombing sorties that targeted Libyan towns, including Tripoli, there is now unbelievable and most disgraceful scramble by some NATO countries for Libyan oil, indicating thereby that the real motive for their aggression against Libya was to control and own its abundant fuel resources. What a shame!
…
Yesterday, it was Iraq and Bush and Blair were the liars and aggressors as they made unfounded allegations of possessions of weapons of mass destruction. This time it is the NATO countries the liars and aggressors as they make similarly unfounded allegations of destruction of civilian lives by Gaddafi.
…
We in Africa are also duly concerned about the activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which seems to exist only for alleged offenders of the developing world, the majority of them Africans. The leaders of the powerful Western States guilty of international crime, like Bush and Blair, are routinely given the blind eye. Such selective justice has eroded the credibility of the ICC on the African continent.
…
My country fully supports the right of the gallant people of Palestine to statehood and membership of this U.N. Organisation. The U.N. must become credible by welcoming into its bosom all those whose right to attain sovereign independence and freedom from occupation and colonialism is legitimate. (9)
It’s clear why he’s reviled by imperialists, but also by leftists?
If the Movement for Democratic Change’s Morgan Tsvangirai, favorite of the West, ever becomes president, expect a very different kind of address at future General Assembly meetings.
———————————-
1. V.G. Kiernan, Marxism and Imperialism, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1974.
2. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishers, New York. 1939. p 78.
3. Ibid. p 79.
4. David D. Kirkpatrick, “U.S. reopens its embassy in Libya”, The New York Times, September 22, 2011.
5. Ibid.
6. Jay Solomon, “Iran adds Palestine statehood wrinkle”, The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2011.
7. http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=30573
8. Campbell Clark, “Cameron, Harper preach restraint in teeth of global ‘debt crisis’”, The Globe and Mail, September 22, 2011
9. http://nehandaradio.com/2011/09/24/full-text-of-robert-mugabe-speech-at-un-assembly/
Revolutionary Democracy
(http://revolutionarydemocracy.org)
In its obsession with the welfare of the multinationals, the UPA government has agreed to open up retail trade to foreign investment. Now foreign investors will be permitted to enter the multi-brand retail segment, they can hold equity up to 51 per cent. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail has now been permitted up to 51 per cent, and the FDI limit for single-brand retail has been increased to 100 per cent. This move of the UPA government is a declaration, to all, that they are bent on implementing the neo-liberal programme irrespective of what is happening in Europe and US. They have acknowledged their unflinching loyalty to neo-liberalism and the World Bank – IMF prescription of so called ‘market reforms’.
The global consulting firm AT Kearney has ranked India as top of the Global Retail Development Index. The big retail cartels were clamouring for this proposal since long, especially during a time when they are facing a virtual decimation in Europe and US due to the on-going economic crisis which is showing no sign of receding in the near future. For these companies India with its approximately US$ 395.96 billion retail market is the El Dorado that can save them from going kaput.
Some of the prominent players keen to enter into India include Wal-Mart from the US (sales last year of over $400 billion (bn) from 9,000 stores), Carrefour from France (sales $130 bn from 9,500 stores), Tesco from UK (sales $100 bn from 5,400 stores), and Metro from Germany (sales $96 bn from 2,100 stores).
The Indian government has proclaimed that the entry of multinational retail chains would enhance efficiency that will benefit the producers and consumers. The economist Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, claims that
‘We believe that it will bring modern technology to the country, improve rural infrastructure, reduce wastage of agricultural produce and enable our farmers to get better prices for their crops.’
But the fact says something else; in 1950s the US farmers received over 40 cents for every food dollar spent at supermarkets now they receive just 19 cents. So the claim that the Indian farmers would receive more from the multinational retail brands than what they are getting today is nothing but falsified propaganda by the Indian government.
Similarly the clamour regarding farmers benefitting in high value horticultural crops like fruit and vegetables is also fallacious. These crops account for only 2 per cent of the total cropped area. Fruits and vegetables being highly perishable items and in the absence of a cold storage and related cold chain facilities, the small producers will have no option but to sell their products at the price demanded by big retailers. No big foreign or domestic private retailer is going to invest huge amount of money in building rural infrastructure. So allowing FDI will in no way enable farmers to get better prices for their crops.
There have been a large number of supermarket malpractices across the globe that are normally screened from the public gaze. Tesco and Asda (owned by Wal-Mart), Britain’s two largest supermarket chains, have been accused by their suppliers of a raft of abuses including non payment to suppliers, demanding upfront payments from their suppliers and ‘contributions’ to promotional costs. Suppliers, like the Windward Islands Banana Development & Exporting Company, have alleged that Asda sparked a price war in 2002 had ‘seriously damaged’ the banana trade, seriously jeopardising the livelihood of small producers and the economies of the Caribbean islands.
Further there is no restriction put in place to protect the primary producer or smallholder interest when 86 per cent of farmers are small or marginal. The supermarkets are known to prefer large suppliers of farm produce.
Another misinformation being propagated by the protagonists of these big business is about the creation of ‘millions’ of jobs, The initial estimates by the government is that it will create over four million jobs in the small and medium industries and another 5-6 million jobs in the logistics sector in the coming three years, proclaimed Anand Sharma Minister of Commerce. This again is nothing but a wishful thinking that holds no ground when analysed objectively.
Unlike the developed countries, 51 percent of the India’s total workforce is self-employed. Retail trade is one of the biggest avenues of self employment, due to the little entry barriers and low capital involved. There are roughly between nine to eleven million retail outlets in India, most of them run as family business with a very small amount of capital involved and catering to the needs of consumers in their immediate vicinities. Compared to this, the US, has only 1.5 million outlets, catering to a market, which is almost 13 times bigger than India.
Between 1951 and 2011, the population of the US almost doubled to 312 million from 155 million, but the number of stores declined from 1.77 million in 1951 to 1.5 million in 2011. The number of ‘mom and pop’ stores employing less than ten people declined at an alarming rate from 1.6 million to only 1.1 million from 1951 to 2011.
Today the total number of people employed by Wal-Mart – the world largest retail chain – is over 2 million the world over, out of which 1.4 million are employed in the US. Due to the ongoing recession Wal-Mart has withdrawn from parts of Europe. So from which calculation is the government proclaiming that 10 million new jobs will be generated? Further Wal-Mart has a long history of high-profile labour rights violations including forced labour, minimum wage violations, denial of the right to form Trade Unions to name a few.
Analysis of the supermarket’s functioning revealed that it employs less number of workers than the traditional supply chain. Metro Cash & Carry employed 1.2 workers per tonne of tomatoes sold in Vietnam, compared with 2.9 persons employed by a traditional wholesale channel for the quantity sold.
According to a report on impact of FDI in Retail:
India has 35 towns each with a population over 1 million. If Wal-Mart were to open an average Wal-Mart store in each of these cities and they reached the average Wal-Mart performance per store – we are looking at a turnover of over Rs. 80,330 million with only 10195 employees. Extrapolating this with the average trend in India, it would mean displacing about 4,32,000 persons. If large FDI driven retailers were to take 20% of the retail trade, as the now somewhat hard-pressed Hindustan Lever Limited anxiously anticipates, this would mean a turnover of Rs.800 billion on today’s basis. This would mean an employment of just 43,540 persons displacing nearly eight million persons employed in the unorganised retail sector. (FDI in India’s Retail Sector More Bad than Good?)
The evidence from Latin American (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), African (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asian countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India) illustrate that the supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables and some other basic foods were higher than those in traditional markets.
No other country excepting China has a large a population as India. It is a challenge for India to feed its population of 1.2 billion where almost 400 million live below poverty line. Imagine if such a process takes place in India, it would pose a serious unemployment problem. With the coming of predator multinationals the government is doing nothing but creating a vast army of unemployed workforce.
The predatory market practices to oust small competitor adopted by several multinational retail chains are well known. For instance, in Thailand three foreign retailers increased their market share to 38 percent in 13 years, thereby throwing thousands of local retailers out of business. Given their huge capital base, big multinational players can invest and sustain losses for years in order to wipe out competition. Thailand is now struggling to contain the expansion of big retailers, and prevent monopolistic practices. This is a normal predatory strategy used by large players to drive out small and dispersed competition. This entails job losses by the million.
Organised players directly contact the manufacturers and get products much lower than the minimum retail price, while the small retails outlets are saddled with low margins. Big retailers like Wal-Mart play on volumes and even contract manufacturers directly to have goods manufactured for them at their specification, which a traditional retail shop can never do.
As the supermarket chains have deep pockets to sustain losses so is their predatory appetite for gobbling their competitors. The effect on the small retail may not be visible at the moment but they would certainly be perceptible in next couple of years, by then several of the self-employed would be condemned to join the army of the unemployed and some may even be forced take up the extreme step like the cotton farmers of Vidarbha and Andhra Pradesh who have themselves been the victim of the agro multinational’s hunger for profit.
So it is clear that there is no prudence behind any of the logic being mooted by the government, this entire action has been obviously taken in consonance with the vested interests acting in concert with the international capital with their Indian agents the CII & FICCI.
But then who cares!
The following is a statement from the Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist–Leninist), analysing the planned US military “intervention” in Iran.
These days it meets the security council of the United Nations Organization (UNO), consists of China, the United States, Russia, France, Britain plus Germany, who is a permanent member of this organization. Among the topics to be discussed is that of Iran, who asked to stop uranium enrichment, arguing that this is used to produce nuclear weapons. Continue reading “Iran and the new source of imperialist war”
The revolution has returned to all of Egypt’s squares and streets yet again to complete its course. The masses are once again pouring into the squares to announce that the only legitimacy is that of the revolution and the people in the heart of the squares. They affirm the masses’ distrust and refusal of the Military Council and its government. They refuse a Military Council that intentionally hindered the transitional period and impeded the revolution’s course to change and cleansing. They refuse a government that lacks power and is nothing but a secretary to the Military Council. They refuse a government that does not possess the will or ability to complete the revolution’s course. Continue reading “Let us Return to the Squares to Complete our Revolution”
The international context is marred by the crisis of the world capitalist system. Nevertheless, the February 20 Movement (le mouvement du 20 février) continues to grow. It is in this background, the Democratic Way (European Region) held its meeting on October 29th, 2011 in Saint Denis (France), in the presence of comrades Abdellah El Harif and Moumen Chabri, Secretary General and Head of Foreign Affairs, respectively.
Continue reading “Democratic Way – European Region (Morocco) : Press Release”
The election result “gives a misleading picture and do not reflect the party’s role and influence through their participation in the Tunisian revolution.” Hamma Hammami, secretary general of PCOT the press conference in Tunis on 29 in October .
TUNIS (TAP) – “Violations and infringements committed in the election campaign and on the day of the Constituent Assembly election impacted considerably on the credibility and transparency of elections,” said Secretary-General of the Tunisian Workers’ Communist Party (PCOT) Hamma Hammami.
Speaking at a news conference held on Saturday in Tunis, Mr. Hammami said the PCOT won three seats in the precincts of Sfax 1, Kairouan and Siliana, adding that the results “are deceiving and do not reflect the weight of the party and the level of its participation in the Tunisian Revolution.”
He also believed necessary to review the first multi-party elections in Tunisia and shed light on shortcomings and infringements recorded so as to “draw lessons and make sure they will not take place in the next elections.”
“Poor turn-out, suspicious funding of some candidate tickets in the elections and the partiality of several public media impacted considerably on the results of the election,” he underlined.
Moreover, the Secretary-General of PCOT denounced the use of religion in mosques and public spaces for political purposes and the launch of large-scale smear campaigns against several revolutionary forces including the PCOT.
These acts, he said, were aimed to “divert the public opinion from fundamental issues and direct its attention to ideological conflicts to break its unity.”
In this regard, Mr. Hammami expressed hope that the progressive and left forces in Tunisia draw lessons from this experience and close ranks to prepare for the next events, denying that his party had received any request for coalition in the Constituent Assembly.
The chairman of the legal committee of the party’s election campaign Habib Ziyadi said the PCOT filed appeals in the precincts of Zaghouan and Gafsa, mainly for violations committed by Al-Aridha (Popular Petition) and the “Free Patriotic Party,” infringement in counting in the precinct of Ariana and mistakes made in counting votes in Sidi Bouzid.
Adopted by the Fifth
All-Russian Congress of Soviets, July 10, 1918
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
This fundamental law becomes effective upon the publication of the same in its entirety in the ‘Izvestia of the All-Russian General Executive Committee.’ It must be published by all organs of the Soviet Government and must be posted in a prominet place in every soviet institution.
The fifth congress instructs the People’s Commissariat of Education to introduce in all schools and educational instituitions of the Russian Republic the study and explanation of the basic principles of this Constitution.
1. Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
2. The Russian Soviet Republic is organized on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of soviet national republics.
3. Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies further resolves:
(a) For the purpose of attaining the socialization of land, all private property in land is abolished, and the entire land is declared to be national property and is to be apportioned among agriculturists without compensation of the former owners, to the measure of each one’s ability to till it.
(b) All forests, treasures of the earth, and waters of general public utility, all equipment whether animate or inanimate, model farms and agricultural enterprises, are declared to be national property.
(c) As a first step toward complete transfer of ownership to the Soviet Republic of all factories, mills, mines, railways, and other means of production and transportation, the soviet law for the control of workmen and the establishment of a Supreme Soviet of National Economy is hereby confirmed so as to insure the power of the workers over the exploiters.
(d) With reference to international banking and finance, the Third Congress of Soviets is discussing the soviet decree regarding the annulment of loans made by the Government of the Czar, by landowners and the bourgeoisie, and it trust that the Soviet Government will firmly follow this course until the final victory of the international workers’ revolt against the oppression of capital.
(e) The transfer of all banks to the ownership of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, as one of the conditions of the liberation of the toiling masses from the yoke of capital, is confirmed.
(f) Universal obligation to work is introduced for the purpose of eliminating the parasitic strata of society and organizing the economic life of the country.
(g) For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
4. Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
5. It is also to this end that the Third Congress of Soviets insists upon putting an end to the barbarous policy of the bourgeois civilization which enables the exploiters of a few chosen nations to enslave hundreds of millions of the working population of Asia, of the colonies, and of small countries generally.
6. The Third Congress of Soviets hails the policy of the Council of People’s Commissars in proclaiming the full independence of Finland, in withdrawing troops from Persia, and in proclaiming the right of Armenia to self-determination.
7. The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies.
8. In its effort to create a league- free and voluntary, and for that reason all the more complete and secure- of the working classes of all the peoples of Russia, the Third Congress of Soviets merely establishes the fundamental principles of the Federation of Russian Soviet Republics, leaving to the workers and peasants of every people to decide the following question at their plenary sessions of their soviets, namely, whether or not they desire to participate, and on what basis, in the Federal government and other Federal soviet institutions.
9. The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
10. The Russian Republic is a free socialist society of all the working people of Russia. The entire power, within the boundaries of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, belongs to all the working people of Russia, united in urban and rural soviets.
11. The soviets of those regions which differentiate themselves by a special form of existence and national character may unite in autonomous regional unions, ruled by the local congress of the soviets and their executive organs.
These autonomous regional unions participate in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic upon a Federal basis.
12. The supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic belongs to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, and, in periods between the convocation of the congress, to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
13. For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen.
14. For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.
15. For the purpose of enabling the workers to hold free meetings, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers to the working class and to the poorest peasantry furnished halls, and takes care of their heating and lighting appliances.
16. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
17. For the purpose of guaranteeing to the workers real access to knowledge, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic sets itself the task of furnishing full and general free education to the workers and the poorest peasantry.
18. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic considers work the duty of every citizen of the Republic, and proclaims as its motto: ‘He shall not eat who does not work.’
19. For the purpose of defending the victory of the great peasants’ and workers’ revolution, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic recognizes the duty of all citizens of the Republic to come to the defense of their socialist fatherland, and it therefore introduces universal military training. The honor of defending the revolution with arms is accorded only to the workers, and the non-working elements are charged with the performance of other military duties.
20. In consequence of the solidarity of the workers of all nations, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic grants all political rights of Russian citizens to foreigners who live in the territory of the Russian Republic and are engaged in work and who belong to the working class. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic also recognizes the right of local soviets to grant citizenship to such foreigners without complicated formality.
21. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers shelter to all foreigners who seek refuge from political or religious persecution.
22. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, recognizing the equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their racial or national connections, proclaims all privileges on this ground, as well as oppression of national minorities, to be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Republic.
23. Being guided by the interests of the working class as a whole, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic deprives all individuals and groups of rights which could be utilized by them to the detriment of the socialist revolution.
24. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is the supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
25. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants).
Note 1: In case the provincial congress is not called before the All-Russian Congress is convoked, delegates for the latter are sent directly from the county (uyezd) congress.
Note 2: In case the regional (oblast) congress is convoked indirectly, previous to the convocation of the All-Russian Congress, delegates for the latter may be sent by the regional congress.
26. The All-Russian Congress is convoked by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at least twice a year.
27. A special The All-Russian Congress is convoked by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee upon its own initiative, or upon the request of local soviets having not less than one-third of the entire population of the Republic.
28. The All-Russian Congress elects an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of not more than 200 members.
29. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is entirely responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
30. In the periods between the convocation of the congresses, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee is the supreme power of the Republic.
31. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is the supreme legislative, executive and controlling organ of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
32. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee directs in a general way the activity of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government and of all organs of the soviet authority in the country, and it coordinates and regulates the operation of the Soviet constitution and of the resolutions of the All-Russian congresses and of the central organs of the soviet power.
33. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee considers and enacts all measures and proposals introduced by the Soviet of People’s Commissars or by the various departments, and it also issues its own decrees and regulations.
34. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee convokes the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, at which time the Executive Committee reports on its activity and on general questions.
35. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee forms a Council of People’s Commissars for the purpose of general management of the affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and it also forms departments (People’s Commissariats) for the purpose of conducting various branches.
36. The members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in the various departments (People’s Commissariats) or execute special orders of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
37. The Council of People’s Commissars is entrusted with the general management of the affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
38. For the accomplishment of this task the Council of People’s Commissars issues decrees, resolutions, orders, and, in general, takes all steps necessary for the proper and rapid conduct of governmental affairs.
39. The Council of People’s Commissars notifies immediately the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of all it’s orders and resolutions.
40. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee has the right to revoke or suspend all orders and resolutions of the Council of People’s Commissars.
41. All orders and resolutions of the Council of People’s Commissars of great political significance are referred for consideration and final approval to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
Note: Measures requiring immediate execution may be enacted directly by the Council of People’s Commisariats.
42. The members of the Council of People’s Commissars stand at the head of the various People’s Commissariats.
43. There are seventeen [sic] People’s Commissars: (a) Foreign Affairs; (b) Army; (c) Navy; (d) Interior; (e) Justice; (f) Labor; (g) Social Welfare; (h) Education; (i) Post and Telegraph; (j) National Affairs; (k) Finances; (l) Ways of Communication; (m) Agriculture; (n) Commerce and Industry; (o) National Supplies; (p) State Control; (q) Supreme Soviet of National Economy; (r) Public Health.
44. Every commissar has a collegium (committee) of which he is the president, and the members of which are appointed by the Council of People’s Commissars.
45. A People’s Commissar has the individual right to decide on all questions under the jurisdiction of his commissariat, and he is to report on his decision to the collegium. If the collegium does not agree with the commissar on some decisions, the former may, without stopping the execution of the decision, complain of it to the executive members of the Council of People’s Commissars or to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
Individual members of the collegium have this right also.
46. The Council of People’s Commissars is entirely responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
47. The People’s Commissars and the collegia of the People’s Commissariats are entirely responsible to the Council of People’s Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
48. The title of People’s Commissar belongs only to the members of the Council of People’s Commissars, which is in charge of general affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and it cannot be used by any other representative of the Soviet power, either central of local.
49. The All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee deal with the questions of state, such as:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(b) General direction of the entire interior and foreign policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(c) Establishing and changing boundaries, also ceding territory belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(d) Establishing boundaries for regional soviet unions belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, also settling disputes among them;
(e) Admission of new members to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and recognition of the secession of any parts of it;
(f) The general administrative division of the territory of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic and the approval of regional unions;
(g) Establishing and changing weights, measures, and money denominations in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(h) Foreign relations, declaration of war, and ratification of peace treaties;
(i) Making loans, signing commercial treaties and financial agreements;
(j) Working out a basis and a general plan for the national economy and for its various branches in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(k) Approval of the budget of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(l) Levying taxes and establishing the duties of citizens to the state;
(m) Establishing the bases for the organization of armed forces;
(n) State legislation, judicial organization and procedure, civil and criminal legislation, etc.;
(o) Appointment and dismissal of the individual People’s Commissars or the entire council, also approval of the president of the Council of People’s Commissars;
(p) Granting and cancelling Russian citizenship and fixing rights of foreigners;
(q) The right to declare individual and general amnesty.
50. Besides the above-mentioned questions, the All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee have charge of all other affairs which, according to their decision, require their attention.
51. The following questions are solely under the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the fundamental principles of the Soviet Constitution;
(b) Ratification of peace treaties.
52. The decision of questions indicated in paragraphs (c) and (h) of Section 49 may be made by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee only in cases it is impossible to convoke the Congress.
53. Congresses of Soviets are composed as follows:
(a) Regional: of representatives of the urban and county soviets, one representative for 25,000 inhabitants of the county, and one representative for 5,000 voters of the cities- but not more than 500 representatives for the entire region- or of representatives of the provincial congresses, chosen on the same basis, if such a congress meets before the regional congress.
(b) Provincial (gubernia): of representatives of urban and rural (volost) soviets, one representative for 10,000 inhabitants from the rural districts, and one representative for 2,000 voters in the city; altogether not more than 200 representatives for the entire province. In case the county congress meets before the provincial, election takes place on the same basis, but by the county congress instead of the rural.
(c) County: of representatives of rural soviets, one delegate for each 1,000 inhabitants, but not more than 300 delegates for the entire county.
(d) Rural (volost): of representatives of all village soviets in the volost, one delegate for ten members of the soviet.
Note 1: Representatives of urban soviets which have a population of not more than 10,000 persons participate in the county congress; village soviets of districts of less than 10,000 inhabitants unite for the purpose of electing delegates to the county congress.
Note 2: Rural soviets of less than ten members send one delegate to the rural (volost) congress.
54. Congresses of the soviets are convoked by the respective executive committees upon their own initiative, or upon request of local soviets comprising not less than one-third of the entire population of the given district. In any case they are convoked at least twice a year for regions, every three months for provinces and counties, and once a month for rural districts.
55. Every congress of soviets (regional, provincial, county, or rural) elects its executive organ- an executive committee the membership of which shall not exceed (a) for regions and provinces, twenty-five; (b) for a county, twenty; (c) for a rural district, ten. The executive committee is responsible to the congress which elected it.
56. In the boundaries of the respective territories the congress is the supreme power; during intervals between the convocations of the congress, the executive committee is the supreme power.
57. Soviets of Deputies are formed
(a) In cities, one deputy for each 1,000 inhabitants; the total to be not less than fifty and not more than 1,000 members.
(b) All other settlements (towns, villages, hamlets, etc.) of less than 10,000 inhabitants, one deputy for each 100 inhabitants; the total to be not less than three and not more than fifty deputies for each settlement.
Term of the deputy, three months.
Note: In small rural sections, whenever possible, all questions shall be decided at general meeting of voters.
58. The Soviet of Deputies elects an executive committee to deal with current affairs; not more than five members for rural districts, one for every fifty members of the soviets of cities, but not more than fifteen and not less than three in the aggregate (Petrograd and Moscow not more than forty). The executive committee is entirely responsible to the soviet which elected it.
59. The Soviet of Deputies is convoked by the executive committee upon its own initiative, or upon the request of not less than one-half of the membership of the soviet; in any case at least once a week in cities, and twice a week in rural sections.
60. Within its jurisdiction the soviet, and in cases mentioned in Section 57, NOTE, the meeting of the voters is the supreme power in the given district.
61. Regional, provincial, county, and rural organs of the soviet power and also the Soviets of Deputies have to perform the following duties:
(a) Carry out all orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet power;
(b) Take all steps for raising the cultural and economic standard of the given territory;
(c) Decide all questions of local importance within their respective territories;
(d) Coordinate all soviet activity in their respective territories.
62. The congresses of soviets and their executive committees have the right to control the activity of the local soviets (i.e., the regional congress controls all soviets of the respective region; the provincial, of the respective province, with the exception of the urban soviets, etc.); and the regional and provincial congresses and their executive committees have in addition the right to overrule the decisions of the soviets of their districts, giving notice in important cases to the central soviet authority.
63. For the purpose of performing their duties, the local soviets, rural and urban and the executive committees form sections respectively.
64. The right to vote and to be elected to the soviets is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes, irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc., of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, who shall have completed their eighteenth year by the day of election:
(a) All who have acquired the means of livelihood through labor that is productive and useful to society, and also persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to do productive work, i.e., laborers and employees of all classes who are employed in industry, trade, agriculture, etc., and peasants and Cossack agricultural laborers who employ no help for the purpose of making profits.
(b) Soldiers of the army and navy of the soviets.
(c) Citizens of the two preceding categories who have in any degree lost their capacity to work.
NOTE 1: Local soviets may, upon approval of the central power, lower the age standard mentioned herein.
NOTE 2: Non-citizens mentioned in Section 20 (Article Two, Chapter 5) have the right to vote.
65. The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:
(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits;
(b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.;
(c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers;
(d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;
(e) Employees and agents of the former police, the gendarme corps, and the Okhrana (Czar’s secret service), also members of the former reigning dynasty;
(f) Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also persons under guardianship;
(g) Persons who have been deprived by a soviet of their rights of citizenship because of selfish or dishonorable offenses, for the period fixed by the sentence.
66. Elections are conducted according to custom on days fixed by the local soviets.
67. Election takes place in the presence of an election committee and the representation of the local soviet.
68. In case the representative of the soviet cannot for valid causes be present, the chairman of the election committee takes his place, and in case the latter is absent, the chairman of the election meeting replaces him.
69. Minutes of the proceedings and result of elections are to be compiled and signed by the members of the election committee and the representative of the soviet.
70. Detailed instructions regarding the election proceedings and the participation in them of professional and other workers’ organizations are to be issued by the local soviets, according to the instructions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
71. The respective soviets receive all the records of the proceedings of the election.
72. The soviet appoints a commission to verify the election.
73. This commission reports the results to the soviet.
74. The soviet decides the question when there is doubt as to which candidate or another cannot be determined.
76. If an election was irregularly carried on in its entirety, it may be declared void by a higher soviet authority.
77. The highest authority in relation to questions of elections is the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
78. Voters who have sent a deputy to the soviet have the right to recall him, and to have a new election, according to general provisions.
79. The financial policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic in the present transition period of dictatorship of the proletariat facilitates the fundamental purpose of expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the preparation of conditions necessary for the equality of all citizens of Russia in the production and distribution of wealth. To this end it sets forth as its task the supplying of the organs of the soviet power with all necessary funds for local and state needs of the Soviet Republic, without regard to private property rights.
80. The state expenditure and income of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic are combined in the state budget.
81. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets or the All-Russian Central Executive Committee determine what matters of income and taxation shall go to the state budget and what shall go to the local soviets; they also set the limits of taxes.
82. The soviets levy taxes only for the local needs. The state needs are covered by the funds of the state treasury.
83. No expenditures out of the state treasury not set forth in the budget of income and expense shall be made without a special order of the central power.
84. The local soviets shall receive credits from the proper People’s Commissars out of the state treasury, for the purpose of making expenditures for general state needs.
85. All credits allotted to the soviets from the state treasury, and also credits approved for local needs, must be expended according to the estimates, and cannot be used for any other purposes without a special order of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Soviet of People’s Commissars.
86. Local soviets draw up semi-annual and annual estimates of income and expenditure for local needs. The estimates of urban and rural soviets participating in county congresses, and also the estimates of the county organs of the soviet power, are to be approved by provincial and regional congresses or by their executive committees; the estimates of the urban, provincial, and regional organs of the soviets are to be approved by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars.
87. The soviets may ask for additional credits from the respective People’s Commissariats for expenditures not set forth in the estimate, or where the allotted sum is insufficient.
88. In case of an insufficiency of local funds for local needs, the necessary subsidy may be obtained from the state treasury by applying to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee or the Council of People’s Commissars.
89. The coat of arms of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic consists of a red background on which a golden scythe and a hammer are placed (crosswise, handles downward) in sun-rays and surrounded by a wreath, inscribed:
90. The commercial, naval, and army flag of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic consists of a red cloth, in the left corner of which (on top, near the pole) are in golden characters the letters R.S.F.S.R., or the inscription: Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Chairman of the fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets and of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee- J. Sverdlov.
Executive Officers, All-Russian Central Executive Committee-T.I. Teodorovitch, F.A. Rosin, A.P. Rosenholx, A.C. Mitrofanov, K.G. Maximov.
Secretary of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee- V.A. Avamessov.
In the period of the Civil War and military intervention of the imperialist states some amendments and addenda to the Constitution of the R.S.F.S.R. were adopted. For instance, the seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets, held in December 1919, legislatively sanction the formation of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, defined its powers and established that the sessions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee were to be convened every two months.
The Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee directed the sittings of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, supervised the execution of decisions adopted by the latter, guided the activity both of the central and local state organs, exercised the right of pardon, and decided a number of other administrative questions. In the intervals between the sessions of the All-Russian Central Executive committee the Presidium had the right to approve or annul decisions of the Council of People’s Commissars, to appoint People’s Commissars on the recommendation of the Council of People’s Commissars, to decide questions relating to administrative-territorial division and to make preparations for the convocation of the All-Russian congresses of Soviets and sessions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
According to the decision of the seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the Executive Committees were elected by the gubernia, uyed, and volost congresses of Soviets and were considered the highest organs of Soviet state power within the territories of the gubernias, uyeds and volosts in the intervals between the sessions of the corresponding congresses of Soviets, The gubernia Executive Committees were empowered to supervise and inspect the activity of all governmental institutions on the territories under their jurisdiction (except institutions belonging to the Army in the Field), and were obliged to report back immediately to the respective central organs on the results of such supervision and inspection.
The decision of the eight All-Russian Congress of Soviets ‘Concerning Further Development of the Soviets, ‘ adopted on December 29, 1920, extending the powers of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The latter was vested with the authority to annul decisions of the Council of People’s commissars, and to adopt necessary administrative decisions on behalf of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee; at the same time it was obliged to submit reports on its activity to the regular sessions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
The eight All-Russian Congress of Soviets also extended the powers of the Council of Peoples’ Commissars. The decision of the congress stated that all urgent decrees and measures of nationwide importance, including legislative acts related to military affairs, as well as measures in the sphere of foreign relations which might impose certain commitments upon the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, were to be considered and approved by the Council of Peoples’ Commissars. The latter had the right to adopt legislative acts of nationwide importance, along with the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, All-Russian Central Executive Committee and Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The People’s Commissariats had the rights to issue decisions and orders only within the limits of their jurisdiction strictly defined in corresponding decrees of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, is Presidium and the Council of People’s Commissars.
By a decision of the eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the gubernia executive committees had the right only in extraordinary cases to suspend the execution of certain orders issued by individual People’s Commissars.
All the aforementioned amendments in no way affected the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the R.S.F.S.R. as a whole.
* (An excerpt from A. Denisvo and M. Kirichenko, Soviet State Law (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1960), pp. 50-52.
The Marxist party in Russia was created at the turning point in the history of the international working-class movement, when capitalism entered its highest and last phase, the imperialist phase of development, when it began to be transformed into parasitic, decaying and moribund capitalism, when the proletarian revolution became a question of the immediate practice. In that period Russia was the nodal point of all the contradictions of imperialism. The interests of Russian tsarism and Western imperialism were very closely interwoven. On the eve of the Second Congress of the Party V. I. Lenin wrote: “History has now confronted us with an immediate task which
is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks that confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark not only of European, but also (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.” Thatdetermined the character, the peculiar features and the international significance of the great people’s that was maturing in Russia.
Click here to download the PDF file
By BILL BLAND (Communist League)
INTRODUCTION
In his paper entitled ‘THE WPK’S STRUGGLE AGAINST REVISIONISM’, Comrade Dermot Hudson expresses agreement with a reported statement by Nina Andreyeva:
“As the Russian communist leader Dr. Nina Andreyeva remarked at the Copenhagen Seminar on the Juche Idea in 1995…”
(Dermot Hudson: ‘The WPK’s Struggle against Modern Revisionism’; p. 1).
The statement concerned was to the effect that the critique of modern revisionism made by the Workers’ Party of Korea was Continue reading “THE WORKERS’ PARTY OF KOREA AND REVISIONISM”
Irish Communist Organisation
Preface to 2nd Edition
The “Economics of Revisionism” is an account of a talk given in February 1967 by a member of the I.C.O. to an alliance of anti-revisionist groups in London called the Anti-Revisionist Front. The subjectivist approach which has characterised the British anti-revisionist movement since its inception in 1963 disrupted this alliance late in 1967.
The first edition was published under the title “Revisionism and Imperialism”. It was found that this was misleading since it suggested that the subject of the pamphlet was the policies of revisionism with relation to western imperialism, whereas in fact it dealt with the economic nature of revisionism, by which its policies are determined. Continue reading “The Economics of Revisionism”
There really is a magic bullet that can make sure Egypt’s revolution triumphs, discovers Eric Walberg
The Popular Campaign to Drop Egypt’s Debts was launched at the Journalists’ Union 31 October, with a colourful panel of speakers, including Al-Ahram Centre for Political & Strategic Studies Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Al-Naggar, Independent Trade Union head Kamal Abbas, legendary anti-corruption crusader Khaled Ali, and the head of the Tunisia twin campaign Dr Fathi Shamati. Continue reading “Egypt and the IMF: ‘Topple their debts’”
As many comrades would be aware that on 31st January 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Govt of India granted conditional clearance to the proposed South Korean firm POSCO ((Pohang Steel)) to set up:
This project that is worth US$12 billion is being touted as the largest Foreign Direct Investment, so the entire Indian ruling class is bending all so called laws and peoples’ protest for satisfying the insatiable hunger for profit by the rapacious international bourgeoisie.
The above decision was unilaterally taken by the state government who have been acting as the mercenaries of big business. This entire project will have serious impacts on environment and livelihood of the common people. If this project is implemented then over 30 villages would be forcefully displaced, and over 30,000 farmers are expected to lose their lands and livelihood.There have been in continuous protest in one form or the other for the last two years or more under the leadership of the POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti.
The Odisha state government has virtually sold all the natural resources of the state to multi-national bourgeoisie at the expense of the poor peasantry and proletariats. It has again cunningly taken a decision to construct coastal road from Paradeep to proposed POSCO site. The government along with the corporate henchmen of POSCO have been threatening the villagers. The government and the company are now trying to build an alternative road along the coast to gain access to the proposed POSCO site if this road is built then the company will have access to the proposed site at Dhinkia.
This plan of the government if it is implemented then it will mean an end to the on-going struggle and the people will be forever condemned to live life of utter penury and misery.
Other Aspect
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Dear Friends,
We earnestly appeal to all of you to send your immediate protest letter to the government of Odisha regarding its recent decision to start the construction of coastal road from Paradeep to our village for POSCO. We fear that over 400–500 henchmen of POSCO followed by police forces might forcibly enter into our area. From media reports, it may construe that they can attack on or before 3rd of November 2011. On 30th October 2011, our villagers have decided to intensify the protest if the Government goes ahead with land acquisition and construction of the coastal road.
On 27th of October 2011, the Chief Secretary of Odisha Mr. B.K Patnaik said in the media that he had asked POSCO authorities to begin work on the acquired land. Of the 4,000 and odd acres of land required by the company, the state government claims to have acquired 2,000 acres and hence POSCO could start work over this land.
In this regard, Mr. Priyabrat Patnaik, Chief Managing Director of Industrial Development Corporation of Odisha (IDCO) held a meeting with the Jagatsinghpur district officials on 28th of October, 2011.
As you all know that the government’s move to allow POSCO to start work in the area is completely illegal as the MOU has lapsed more than a year back. Opposition parties including Congress and BJP opposed Orissa government’s move to invite POSCO-India to begin work on the acquired land even before a fresh MoU was signed.
At this critical juncture, we appeal to all concerned citizens activists, intellectuals and media friends to extend their support and put consistent pressure on the government to stop the forcible eviction of the people. Our villagers in a meeting in Dhinkia also have resolved to oppose any move by the state. We know Priyabrata Pattnaik as an officer with criminal credential and can do anything to harm us and help the project. Any intervention from your side will be of help to us.
We shall inform you the further developments here.
Kindly circulate this mail widely.
In Solidarity,
Prashant Paikaray
Spokesperson, POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti
Mobile no – 09437571547
E -Mail- prashantpaikray@gmail.com
Please Write and Call…..
1.Mr. Shri Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister’s
Office, Room number 152, South Block, New Delhi, Fax: + 91 11 2301 6857;
manmohan@sansad.in
2. Mr. P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs, Ministry of
Home Affairs, 104-107 North Block, New Delhi 110 001 India, Fax: +91 11 2309 2979 / 23094221
E.mail hm@nic.in
3. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, Chairperson, National Human Rights
Commission of India, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110
001, Fax: +91 11 2334 0016, Fax No. 23384863
Email: chairnhrc@nic.in; covdnhrc@nic.in , ionhrc@nic.in
4. Naveen Patnaik, Chief Minister, Odisha,
Fax 0674-2535100 E. mail cmo@ori.nic.in
5. Mr. S. K. Patnayak, Chief Secretary, Government of Odhisa,
FAX:0674 – 2536660 e.mail csori@ori.nic.in
6. Mr. Narayan Chandra Jena, District Collectior, Jagatsinghpur,
Contact number +919437038401 Fax No : +916724220299
7. Mr. Debadutta Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mobile No- +919437094678 ,
dmjsp@ori.nic.in
On the evening of October 27, 2011, the Superior Independent Election Commission (ISIE) published the provisional results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly. The Ennahdha movement came out on top, followed respectively by the Congress for the Republic (CPR), the Democratic Forum for Labor and Liberties (FDTL), the People’s Petition for Freedom, Justice and Development… the Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia (PCOT) won only three seats, in Sfax, Kairouan and Siliana.
The PCOT has noted that these elections, the first since the revolution, were pluralist, open to all parties and all political and ideological trends. However, it cannot help pointing out the irregularities that tainted them, in the interests of truth, far from the hypocrisy of the Ben Ali era, which excels in praise and conceals the truth from the people. Continue reading “Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia (PCOT) Declaration on the Elections to the Constituent Assembly”
The brutal military aggression against Libya, carried out by the imperialist countries, France, England, U.S. and NATO and endorsed by the UN, after destroying the country, massacring tens of thousands of civilians and imposing a puppet government, has concluded its operations with the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi. We Marxist Leninists, the working-class, peoples and youth who are fighting for social liberation on all continents, reject and condemn this crime.
Continue reading “ICMLPO: THE ASSASSINATION OF GADDHAFI, A NEW CRIME OF IMPERIALISM”
Modern revisionism began with Titoite betrayal. In our first pamphlet we have given the history of its origin and some facts of history more or less chronologically. In this pamphlet, the second of our series, we have traced the historical and theoretical background of modern revisionism, which, while upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat, forcible overthrow and revolutionary violence, consolidated and strengthened bourgeois nationalism in an extremely cunning way. As the Communist Party of China was the leader, in fighting against both Titoite revisionism and Khrushchevite revisionism, the present pamphlet has dealt mainly how the CPC propagated and consolidated its “self reliance” theory and “principle” as opposed to unified efforts at building socialism in course of “fighting” Khrushchevite revisionism. Almost all the Marxist-Leninists of the world were befooled by the CPC leadership because their main attention were centred against Khrushchevite revisionism not on “self reliance”, building of socialism “singly and independently” etc. This was how the revisionism of the CPC fought against the revisionism of the C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev.
In this pamphlet we have shown how the Leninist principle of democratic centralism and international discipline, the principle of national self-determination with the right of secession, the idea of world federation of the Socialist Republics and international dictatorship of the proletariat have been betrayed by the CPC while posing as “genuine” Marxist-Leninist and champion and upholder of the purity of Marxism-Leninism.
The warm response we have got from the Marxist-Leninists of India and abroad is really encouraging. From the Central prison, Cannanore, Kerala, a communist revolutionary prisoner M.N. Rauvnni writes : “you may know our limitation to comment from here. Nevertheless I can not but say that it is an excellent work and timely, useful.” From the Central prison, Trivandrum, on behalf of the communist revolutionary prisoners there N. Surendran writes : “A commendable task on this complex and complicated situation wonders heavens.” A communist revolutionary group of Andhra writes : “You have opened our eyes. We did not know anything of the vacillations of the Chinese Party and its failure to be self-critical in regard to the struggle against Titoism. A number of facts new to us appeared in the pamphlet ….Now we understand why so much abuses are heaped on you….” Similar letters have come from Maharasthra, Assam, Delhi and Punjab. From America one of the Marxist-Leninist groups writes : “Based on the first pamphlet, we anxiously look forward to the entire series. We hereby order for 25 (twenty five) copies of the entire series and enclose a money order for $200.00 to help move things forward…… We have always been troubled by the self-reliance” theory that emerged in the anti-revisionist movement in 1960’s. As principled Marxist-Leninist followers of Comrade Stalin it is not surprising that you would come up with this important political point.” One British group of Marxist-Leninists writes : “A timely and outstanding contribution.”
The Communist Information Service, being encouraged by the letters of appreciation, pledges that it shall fight, come what may, undauntedly, for a Communist International, for proletarian internationalism, for socialist revolution against all kinds of revisionism and opportunism together with all Marxist-Leninists.
Moni Guha
Editor in-chief
Communist Information Service
May Day, 1979
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Demand from Marxist Leninist parties of U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Australia, New Zeeland and Latin American countries made this second edition indispensable. Though officially this edition is a second one, we met the demand of this booklet several times after first publication by supplying photocopy only. This booklet (Revisionism Against Revisionism, Origin of Modern Revisionism series: No. 2) along with Yugoslav Revisionism and the role of C.P.S.U. and CPC Origin of Modern Revisionism, series No. 1 selected as text book for compulsory reading for members of Ray-O-Light, an American Marxist-Leninist organization of the black workers.
The question of Mao Tse Tung thought is a crucial question for the anti-revisionist movement even today. This booklet analyses the relation of Mao Tse Tung and CPC leadership with documentary proof the rise and dominance of Khrushchevism in league with Mao Tse Tung. The international demand of this booklet proves that it retains its political and ideological significance even today, though it was first published in 1978.
In 1978, it was published by Communist Information Service, 25/1, Jyotish Roy Road, Calcutta = 700053, but this time it is being published by the PROLETARIAN PATH (171/10, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata = 700034, West Bengal, INDIA). This edition remains as it was in 1978.
MONI GUHA
(Editor, Proletarian Path)
November, 2004
1. Revisionism and Modern Revisionism
Is there any difference between revisionism in general and modern revisionism? Of course, there is difference. Revisionism is Marxism-Leninism in appearance but bourgeois ideology – opportunism, reformism, anarchism etc. – which attempts to revise the basic scientific postulates of Marxism-Leninism. The characteristic feature of opportunism and revisionism is its vagueness, amorphousness, elusiveness. Insert one incorrect word between two correct words, insert one wrong idea between two correct ideas – that is the technique of revisionism of all brands. In the name of changed or changing situation revisionism revises the very essence of Marxism-Leninism so as to serve the interests and needs of the exploiting classes. Calling itself “Creative Marxism” revisionism abandons the Marxist-Leninist position. It is the Trojan horse in the communist movement.
Historically, revisionism came to acquire certain general features which are known as the revisionism of the Second International. These aspects are : negation of class struggle, negation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, negation of the forcible overthrow of the exploiting and ruling classes, pragmatism, that is propagation of the theory that immediate movement is everything which will reach the aim i.e., economism and negation of the role of advanced ideology, the absolutisation of the role of the productive forces, negation of proletarian internationalism and international discipline of the organization of the proletariat etc., Even these general aspects of revisionism of the Second International are presented in different forms in different historical periods. Peaceful transition to socialism to day is different from the theory of peaceful development of socialism of the Second International. Additionally, each particular historical period manifests a particular aspect of revisionism.
As every change of situation demand constant progress and enrichment of Marxist-Leninist thought and practice as this constitutes inseparable components of the struggle for socialism and as in every historical period Marxism-Leninism presents itself concretely basing on its universal and fundamental tenets, so also revisionism presents itself concretely in each historical period to serve the interests and needs of the bourgeoisie. Otherwise, revisionism would be a sterile and blunt weapon.
That revisionism is modern revisionism which distorts or deflects the dominating central issue of the contemporary historical period upon which depends all other issues of the struggle of the world proletariat as a whole. One may fight against certain general aspects of revisionism skillfully bypassing and ignoring the central issue of the concerned historical period with much fanfare and that fight may appear as struggle against real revisionism but, in fact ,that struggle deflects and distorts the real central issue and consequently it misguides the struggle of the world proletariat. The criterion by which Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism are determined and distinguished is the attitude towards the dominating central issue of the period concerned.
Let us take one instance. After the immediate prospect of European revolution died down in 1919-20, the dominating central issue of that period was the building of socialism in one country, that is in Soviet Russia, with its own resources and with the ideological, political and moral (indirect) support of the world proletariat on the one hand and building and strengthening of the subjective forces through the Communist International on the other. The other alternative was to relinquish power voluntarily waiting for the subjective maturity of the condition of world revolution or to invite ignominious defeat through the ‘export of revolution’ following the ‘theory’ for direct state support of the European proletariat. In that period, opposition to the building of socialism in one country was the revisionism from the ‘left’ position. It may be noted, in this connection, that Trotsky did not come out against the class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat or proletarian internationalism. On the contrary he most robustly and emphatically, upheld all those points of the Marxism-Leninism — though in ‘left’ phrase-mongering, — yet Trotskyism opposed the dominating central issue of that period — that is ‘socialism in one country’, which determined all other issues of the world proletariat and as such, Trotskyism was, at that period, the central issue of the fight against revisionism. The struggle of the world proletariat centred against Trotskyism. The fate of the world proletariat was linked with the fate of the fight against Trotskyism and in defence of ‘socialism in one country’.
What, then, is the revisionism of our period–modern revisionism? Did modern revisionism appear, as we are told, in 1956, from the rostrum of the twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? What, then, was Yugoslav revisionism of 1948, branded as ‘modern revisionism’ by the Cominform? Was Yugoslav revisionism a figment of imagination of Stalin? We have seen in our last pamphlet [Yugoslav Revisionism and the Role of CPSU] that after the death of Stalin the C.P.S.U. and CPC jointly and unitedly made rapprochement with the Tito-Clique and rehabilitated Yugoslav revisionism declaring it Marxism-Leninism, denouncing the Cominform resolutions of 1948 and 1949 and Stalin. We have also seen that in May 1958, the C.P.S.U. and CPC turned around and again denounced the Tito-Clique as modern revisionist. It can be quite justifiably concluded that there was a Fundamental differencebetween what the Cominform characterized in 1948 as modern revisionism and what the C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev and the CPC headed by Mao-Tse Tung, meant by modern revisionism in May 1958 and subsequently.
The CPC says, “The 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. was the first step along the road of revisionism taken by the leadership of the C.P.S.U……
“…..From the very outset we held that a number of views advanced at the 20th Congress concerning the contemporary international struggle and the international Communist movement were wrong, were violation of Marxism-Leninism….” (The origin and development of the difference between the leadership of the C.P.S.U. and ourselves). It means revisionism of the Soviet Union began in 1956. What was, then, the difference between the revisionism of Khrushchev of 1956, when Khrushchev also fought against Titoite revisionism together with the CPC? There must be some important difference between the two. Otherwise how the revisionist Khrushchev fought Yugoslav revisionism and how the CPC could fight Yugoslav revisionism in alliance with Khrushchev revisionism? Khrushchev revisionism was not fought by the CPC “openly” at that time, but Titoite revisionism was not only fought openly, but also together with Khrushchev revisionism.
It is also to be noted that the Tito clique did not advocate peaceful co-existence, peaceful revolution, and peaceful competition with capitalism in 1948 as Khrushchev proposed in 1956, yet the Cominform branded Yugoslav revisionism as modern revisionism.
What, then, is modern revisionism concretely and precisely? What revisionism was fought by Khrushchev together with CPC against the Tito-clique? Again, what revisionism was fought by the CPC against Khrushchev? What issues are at stake in our period?
In order to understand all these questions let us begin from the beginning.
2. Socialism in One Country
The October revolution successfully accomplished in the midst of world crisis of imperialism on the one hand, and the revolutionary crisis on the other. Although Lenin envisaged the possibility of the victory of socialist revolution even in one country because of the operation of the law of uneven development of capitalism in the epoch of imperialism, most of the Bolsheviks including Lenin, hopefully (and the capitalists of Europe fearfully) expected revolution to break out in many of the European countries. In fact, revolutionary Governments were established in Hungary, and Slovakia, Bavaria and Austria were on the verge of revolution. Germany and Bulgaria were covered by Soviet of workers, peasants and soldiers and in France many of the returning soldiers were turning their rifles around. But the betrayal of the Second International had gone far and wide, there was no revolutionary leadership cohesive and firm enough to lead the working class to victory and counter revolution gained the upper hand.
“In the early period of revolution” said Lenin, “many entertained the hope that the socialist revolution would begin in Western Europe immediately the imperialist war ended……It could have been taken place but for the fact that the split within the proletariat of Western Europe was deeper, and the treachery of the former socialist leaders greater, than had been imagined,” (C.W. Vol .30, p.417.)
Was socialism in Soviet Russia to be given up simply because history was not turning out exactly the way Bolsheviks had expected, with revolution winning out quickly in most of the European countries? Or, was socialism to be built in this one country, turning it into a means for the world revolution? The conclusion of the Bolsheviks and Lenin was : Socialism had to be built in one country in spite of the bitterest odds and difficulties. The tide of revolution would eventually rise again, and meanwhile socialism in Soviet Russia would function as the base of world revolution.
“We have always known, and shall never forget, that ours is an international cause, and that, until the revolution takes place in all lands, including the richest and most highly civilised, our victory will be only a half-victory, perhaps even less” said Lenin. ( C.W. Vol. 31; p.33)
Elsewhere Lenin said, “Every one knows the difficulties of a revolution. It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since the final victory is only possible on a world scale and only by the JOINT EFFORTS of all the workers of all countries. (Vol.29, p.372)
Socialism is international, it can only be built on the ashes of international capital – world imperialism, so far the final victory and reconstruction of the society is concerned. As such no individual socialist country can remain content with socialism in one country.
Stalin, summing up the Leninist approach to individual socialist countries, said :
“…..Proceeding from the law of uneven development under imperialism Lenin….drew the conclusion that the victory of socialism in individual capitalist country is possible…By the victory of socialism in individual country, Lenin means the seizure of power by the proletariat, the expropriation of the capitalists and the organization of socialist production; MOREOVER ALL THESE TASKS ARE NOT end in themselves, but a means OF STANDING UP AGAINST THE REST OF THE WORLD, the capitalist world and helping the proletariat of all countries in their struggle against capitalism” (Works. Vol. 9)
Stalin further said in his Problems of Leninism : “…. Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries IS A NECESSARY CONDITION for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for final victory of socialism.”
Socialism in one country is neither a cherished goal of the communists nor a model condition for building of socialism. Desire it or not the objective social law will operate independently of the human desire and as such “socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several, while others will remain for some time bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.” (Lenin, C.W. Vol .23, p.79; emphasis in original.)
If socialism in one country is not an end in itself, and if socialism achieves victory singly country by country, at intervals, how, then, the unity of the people of all nations and countries will be achieved in such transitional period?
3. The Concept ‘Country’ and Proletarian Internationalism.
Socialism, of course, will not remain confined within a single country for ever. A time will surely come when socialism will be a fact first in more than one country, then in several countries and eventually in all countries. What will be the basis of mutual relations among the socialist countries, how the socialist countries will effect the unity of the people of all individual socialist countries, effacing the concept of “my country”? This is a question of the concrete application of proletarian internationalism in contrast with bourgeois nationalism. It is necessary to deal with the concept of “country” and its relation with the working class in this connection. The Communist Manifesto emphasized that the “country” about which the bourgeois spokesmen are so fond of prating does not exist so far the proletarian class is concerned. The arena where the proletariat wages struggle is within the boundaries of national state created and ruled by the bourgeoisie. That is why the struggle of the proletariat, in semblance, not actually, is limited within the boundary of a specific national state though the proletarians have in every country one and the same interest, one and the same enemy, one and the same war- to end capitalism, to establish socialism – to wage. Only a tiny section – the bourgeoisie – has created for itself the boundary, because “though all members of the contemporary bourgeoisie have one and the same interest so far as they constitute a specific class contravene to another class, nevertheless in their relations one with another they have conflicting interests. These antagonisms arise from the economic structure of the bourgeois system”. (Marx-The Poverty of Philosophy) – which goes by the name of ‘Country’, ‘Fatherland’ etc. So long the proletariat is not class conscious the national class state of the bourgeoisie is considered by them as their fatherland. Even the proletariat, when becomes conscious of itself as a class and seizes political power and establishes itself as a ruling class, it establishes that power within a specific boundary. Only in that sense, “though by no means in the bourgeois sense of the term” (Manifesto), the proletariat does retain national complexion of the state. The process of Internationalization which is already perceptible under capitalism i.e., in the world system of capitalist economy, “will efface these distinctions and contrasts even more…. The ending of class oppositions within the nations will end the mutual hostilities of the nations.” (Manifesto) and eventually will obliterate the boundaries and frontiers of nations and there will emerge a single nation of humanity.
On this basis Lenin, while building socialism in one country, envisaged that world socialism can only be built up on the basis of an integrated world socialist economy regulated by the international dictatorship of the proletariat based on WORLD FEDERATION OF SOCIALIST REPUBLICS on the one hand and under the leadership of a SINGLE WORLD COMMUNIST PARTY on the other as opposed to the integrated world capitalist economy regulated by international capital. That would be the crux of proletarian internationalism in practice as and when more than one socialist countries will emerge.
The overthrow of Tsarist autocracy not only unleashed a social revolution, but many national revolutions, in the course of which the Tsarist empire disintegrated into diverse national entities. Since “a whole series of nationalities in Russia” said Stalin. “Were, in fact, in a state of complete separation and in view of this, federation became a step forward…….to their drawing together, to their unity.” (Wks. Vol. 5) Lenin never regarded the atomised states as useful and advantageous for the socialist unity of the whole world. The proletarian internationalism demands unity of the people on international scale uninterrupted by disintegrative pulls of separate nationalism. According to Lenin, the large centralised state of the capitalists is an immense historical step forward from the dispersal of political power in feudal times to the future socialist unity of the whole world. That was why the Bolshevik Party, while, calling the vast Tsarist empire a “prison of nations” urged the nations and nationalities not to disintegrate by forming atomised independent states, but to remain united on the basis of voluntary union with the right of secession. This voluntary union is the union of the people on the basis of federation.
Lenin said that “federation is a transitional form to complete unity of the working people of the different nations.” (Colonial Theses). It meant that federation does not denote complete unity, but a step forward towards complete unity. Federation is a voluntary union of different sovereign states based on equality and independence of each state voluntarily limiting the sovereignty in the common interests of all the federated states as a whole to such an extent which will help all to advance quickly in the struggle against the common enemy – international capital. Secondly, federation is a two sided agreement of sovereign states; it is a, “union of equals” and as such, it may not always and under all circumstances, agree with other. In that case the concerned sovereign state may leave the federation and secede. Hence, according to Lenin, federation does not and cannot denote “complete unity” – yet it is a welcome step forward to complete unity.
As the people – not the advanced section of the working class – the Communists – of different socialist states still harbour (after the revolution) national sentiments, feelings, apprehensions and even hatred against other nations, especially against the erstwhile oppressing nation, different socialist states can only federate voluntarily on the basis of equality, independence and sovereignty with the right of secession, if necessary. Lenin spoke of this federation as federation of world socialist states as a “transitional stage to complete unity”, of the people of different nations. Complete unity of the people of different nations of the socialist states can only be achieved in the process of socialist reconstruction of society, socialization, abolition of exploitation of man by man and abolition of all classes and abolition of material and super structural bases of bourgeois and petty -bourgeois nationalism. So, it is a long way. Meanwhile, socialist state will emerge one after another. The historically determined aim of communism is complete unity of the people of the world – which is already visible in the Communists of the world – where there will remain no state boundaries and no state, humanity will be a single nation. The socialist states in this transition period must have a policy to realise this principle. That is why the dictatorship of the proletariat takes cognizance of the reality of the situation and thus recognizes and respects the equality. Independence and state sovereignty of the different socialist states and prepare the material, super structural and organizational ground for complete unity, by federating the socialist states for closer unity as a transitional stage towards complete unity.
In this connection, it must be clearly and without an iota of ambiguity, understood that behind the state apparatus of the federated socialist states the democratically centralised Communist Party remains as the guiding core – who are proletarian internationalists both in theory and practice and who are in complete unity on all issues. The members of the Communist Party are not people with national feelings, sentiments, apprehensions and hatred, but vanguard of the people of the world in complete unity (not, of course, in absolute sense) most conscious section of the working class. THE ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS NOT federalism based on equality, independence and sovereignty with the right of secession, BUT DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM. It expresses the single will of the world proletariat. This will, according to Lenin, is one and indivisible, communists of the world articulate in one voice and there is no place of divisive voice ONCE THE DECISIONS ARE TAKEN, after full and free discussion when there was equality and independence in airing the opinion. The Communist Party is a monolithic organization. When, in 1903, voices were raised by the Bundists and others for the federal structure of the Party, Lenin held that there was only one valid classwill for the workers of all nations and as such, federalism for the proletarian party cannot be tolerated. Lenin said. “we must act as a single centralised fighting organization. We must have behind us the entire proletariat without distinction of nationality and language.“
Herein lies the difference between the socialist states composed of the people and the communist Party composed of the advanced section of the proletariat. The former is in the process of complete unity while the latter is already in complete unity.
Lenin not only envisaged, but also made the federation of many Soviet States a reality in the Soviet Union, first, it was R.S.F.S.R. and afterwards USSR. At the Eighth Party Congress in March, 1919, Lenin drew a clear distinction between the principle of state organization and party organization. After federalism had been approved as the method for joining new socialist states to the R.S.F.S.R., the Party in a resolution warned that this, in no way, implies that the Russian Communist Party, in turn, must be organised as a federation of independentCommunist parties——— There must be one centralised communist party with One Central Committee, directing the ENTIRE WORK of the Party in all parts of the R.S.F.S.R. Furthermore, the resolution said, “At the present time Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Byelorussia exist as separate Soviet Republics. For the present moment these are the forms in which the state has to exist.” But ALL DECISIONS OF THE RUSSIAN COMMUNIST PARTY AND DIRECTING ORGANS ARE UNCONDITIONALLY BINDING UPON ALL PARTS OF THE PARTY REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATIONAL COMPOSITION. The Central Committees of the Ukrainian, Latvian and Lithuanian parties are accorded the rights of regional Committees of the Party and are ENTIRELY SUBORDINATED TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RUSSIAN COMMUNIST PARTY.
From the above, we see that taking into full account the sentiments, feelings etc. of the people of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Byelorussia Lenin and the Bolshevik Party did not press for federating these separate Soviet States to R.S.F.S.R. and these states remained not only independent and sovereign but also separate. Nevertheless ,Lenin did not allow the Communist Parties of these states to remain independent and sovereign. Did Lenin acted as a great nation chauvinist as the Tito-clique spoke of Stalin and which was supported by both the C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev and the CPC headed by Mao Tse-Tung? On the contrary, “this example alone should point up clearly the difference of attitude between the people and thevanguard of the people of any country . This is how proletarian internationalism was concretely practised by Lenin. The Ukrainian, Latvian and Lithuanian Parties did neither raise their eyebrows nor raised the question of independence and sovereignty of their parties, nor did they raise the question of equality between big and small parties.
Though in March 1919, Lenin agreed to the existence of Ukraine etc, as separate states, in December 1919, he urged Ukraine to federate with the R.S.F.S.R. so as to provide the toilers of the whole world with an example of a really firm union of workers and peasants of different nations struggling for Soviet power and THE CREATION OF A WORLD FEDERATED SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. This time the Ukrainian people readily agreed to federate with the R.S.F.S.R.
In December , 1922 again, Stalin, when discussing the treaty that would soon create the USSR, said, that the new Union state will have another decisive step towards the amalgamation of toilers of the whole world into A WORLD SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. Similarly , the Programme of the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928,advanced the slogan of A FEDERATION OF SOVIET REPUBLICS OF advanced countries and colonies THAT HAVE FALLEN AWAY OR ARE FALLING AWAY FROM THE IMPERIALIST SYSTEM. The various states ‘the Comintern programme continued’ will JOIN THE GROWING FEDERATION OF SOVIET REPUBLICS AND THUS enter the general system of world proletarian dictatorship. The programme also visualised that at a certain time “the federation of these Republics has FINALLY BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO A WORLD UNION OF SOCIALIST REPUBLIC uniting the whole mankind under the hegemony of the world proletariat ORGANISED AS A STATE.”
The rules adopted at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International reiterated that The Communist International — the International workers Association is union of Communist Parties in various Countries; IT IS A WORLD COMMUNIST PARTY. (International Press Correspondence, Vol. 8, no.84, November 29, 1928.)
How can the above aim of world federation of the socialist Republics as a transitional stage to complete unity of the people of all the nations be realised in life? Lenin, taking experience from the Soviet movement enriched the Marxist doctrine of the proletarian Party in conformity with the needs of the epoch of proletarian revolution and set up the Third (Communist) International in March, 1919. Lenin never regarded the Republic of Soviets AS AN END IN ITSELF” said Stalin. He always looked on it as an essential link (Stalin’s emphasis) for facilitating the victory of the working people of the whole world over capitalism. Lenin knew that this was the only right conception, both from the international standpoint and from the standpoint of preserving the Republic of Soviets itself. Lenin knew that this alone could fire the hearts of the working people of the whole world with determination to fight the decisive battle for their emancipation. This is why, on the morrow of the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he, the greatest genius, who has led the proletariat, laid the foundations of the workers’ international. This is why he never tired of extending and strengthening the union of the working people of the whole world– the Communist International.” (Works, vol. 6)
The most important features of the organizational principles of the Communist International were evolved by Lenin so that the proletarian internationalism can be expressed most concretely in day to day life–not only in words–and with the aim of smooth working of the WORLD FEDERATION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. These principles were: (a) democratic centralism in each Party to ensure, unity of will with action, on the part of the national contingents of the Communist Parties ;(b) internationalism ‘including international discipline i.e., DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM IN THE INTERNATIONAL SPHERE expressing monolithism and oneness of the aim and action of the international proletariat; and (c) the designation of the Parties of the Communist International was changed to signify and emphasise that they were not national Communist Parties but national contingents of the World Party e.g. not the countrys Communist Party. Each party desirous of joining the Communist International should bear the following name: Communist Party of such and such a country, section of the Third (Communist) International. The question of renaming of a Party is not only a formal one but is a political question of great importance. (Condition 17 of the 21 Conditions for the affiliations). The Condition No 16 said, All the resolutions of the Congress of the Communist International, as well as the resolutions of the Executive Committee are binding for all parties joining Communist International. But at the same time the Communist International said in the same Condition No 16, “At the same time the Communist International and the Executive Committee are naturally bound in every form of their activity to consider the variety of conditions under which the different parties have to work and struggle, and generally binding resolution should be passed only on such question upon which such resolutions are possible.
Consequently, proletarian internationalism did no longer remain an abstract and empty high-sounding phrase and catch-world like that of the Second International. It was made concrete and lively. Submission to the international discipline of international democratic centralism of ECCI (Executive Committee of the Communist International) subordinating the interests of individual sections of the Communist Party was the concrete and living expression and manifestation of proletarian internationalism. Behind the World Federation of Socialist Republics, the Communist International remaining as the guiding core will unite the people of different nations, through the transitional stage to complete unity. Federation of Socialist States of different nations and the Communist International were the two pillars of proletarian internationalism, conceived by Lenin, Stalin and the Communist International.
4. More on Proletarian Internationalism
Lenin defined most concretely how Marxist-Leninists should view equality, independence and state sovereignty of the socialist countries in their inter-relations and how proletarian internationalism is to be practised, in his celebrated Preliminary Theses on the national and colonial questions, known as Colonial Theses placed at the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920 . We quote a few relevant theses below:
(7)” Federation (federation of different socialist states) is a transitional form to the complete unity of the working people of different nations…
(8) “In this respect, it is the task of the Communist International to further develop and also to study and test by experiences these new federations which are arising on the basis of Soviet system and Soviet movement . In recognizing that federation is a transitional form to complete unity, it is necessary to strive for ever closer federal unity, bearing in mind first, that the Soviet Republics, surrounded, as they are, by the imperialist powers of the whole world which from the military stand-point are immeasurably stronger — cannot possibly continue to exist without the closest alliance, second ,THAT A CLOSE ECONOMIC ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS IS NECESSARY, otherwise the productive forces, which have been ruined by imperialism, cannot be restored and the well-being of the people cannot be ensured; third, THAT THERE IS A TENDENCY TOWARDS THE CREATION OF A single world economy REGULATED BY THE PROLETARIAT OF ALL NATIONS as an integrated whole, and ACCORDING TO COMMON PLAN. This tendency has already revealed itself quite clearly under capitalism AND IS BOUND TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED and consummated UNDER SOCIALISM.
(9) “Recognition of internationalism in words and its replacements in deed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism, in all propaganda, agitation and practical work, is very common not only among parties of the Second International, but also among those which have withdrawn from it and often among parties which now call themselves communists. The urgency of the struggle against this evil , against the most deep-rooted petty-bourgeois national prejudices looms ever larger with the mounting exigencies of the TASK OF CONVERTING THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT from national dictatorship (i.e., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) INTO INTERNATIONAL ONE ( i.e., A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT INVOLVING AT LEAST SEVERAL ADVANCED COUNTRIES and capable of exercising decisive influence upon world politics as a whole). Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims internationalism THE MERE RECOGNITION OF THE EQUALITY OF NATIONS and nothing more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal. Petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interest in tact , whereas proletarian internationalism demands first , that the interests of the proletarian struggle in any country should be subordinated to the interests of that struggle on a world scale and second, that a nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifice for the over-throw of international capital ….
We beg to be excused for this long quotation , but without this the problem which we are discussing would not be properly understood. These were the Leninist principle and line of the dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian internationalism and inter-relations of the socialist states. The USSR consisting of several socialist states was formed on the basis of these principles and line.
5. Socialism in Several Countries.
As long as the Soviet Union was alone a socialist country, the question of proletarian internationalism and inter-relations among socialist states as enunciated by Lenin in his Colonial Theses , was a ” mere theoretical” one , without any scope for application, except in the USSR. But the situation became a completely different one after 1945 with the emergence of new socialist countries , at first in Eastern Europe and then in Asia, so that eventually a dozen socialists countries were in existence . The era of socialism in one country changed into an era of socialism in several countries. The modern revisionists of all hues conceal this most important turning point in the history and movement of the working class carefully and ignore it altogether. But try as they will the fact remains that with this change the very approach to the question of proletarian internationalism changed in its scope and depth. THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROOT OF MODERN REVISIONISM LIES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS CHANGE. The objective basis of CONVERTING THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT FROM A NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP INTO AN INTERNATIONAL ONE, as Lenin envisaged in his Colonial Theses emerged with the emergence of socialism in several countries. Together with this ” the most deep rooted petty-bourgeois national prejudices” emerged “looming ever larger with the mounting exogenesis of the task of converting the dictatorship of the proletariat from national dictatorship into an international one” involving several countries.
Herein lies the socio-political roots of proletarian internationalism in the era of socialism in several countries on the one hand and of modern revisionism on the other. The activities of Stalin in the post 1945 period and the activities in opposition to Stalin by the Tito-clique and after the death of Stalin the activities of the C.P.S.U. , headed by Khrushchev and the CPC , headed by Mao should be judged by the task of converting or not converting the national dictatorship of one country into an international one in the era of socialism in several countries. The fundamental and dominating issue was straight and clear.
Now, we are in a better position to understand what modern revisionism is.
What was the dominating central issue upon which all other issues of the struggle of the world proletariat depended before the proletarians of all countries and the international communist movement when history transformed the situation thus? The dominating central issue did no longer remain the building of socialism in one country, singly, under the dictatorship of the proletariat of a single country but the conversion of the dictatorship of the proletariat of a single country into an international dictatorship of the proletariat of several socialists countries andthe conscious and planned building of socialism internationally as a world system under a single world proletarian leadership for the restoration of the ruined productive forces of all the socialist countries for ensuring the well being of the people of the socialist countries , for jointly confronting the imperialist powers militarily, politically as well as diplomatically . These tasks are impossible without the closest possible alliance of the socialist states militarily, economically , politically, diplomatically and organizationally . Modern revisionism and Marxism-Leninism, in this period, can only be determined and distinguished by this standard.
For the realization of this historic mission, the following tasks were urgent and imperative:
(a) revival and reconstruction of the Communist International as the guiding core for leading the international communist movement and for the building of socialism internationally as a world socialist system so that a decisive influence could be exerted in world politics and economics as a whole , so that all roads may lead to Communism , as Molotov said , through a common plan.
(b) Formation of an international economic organization involving all the socialist countries so that the process of a common plan on the basis of closer unity for an integrated socialist economy regulated collectively by the socialist countries can be started.
(c) Through the working of this process at a certain stage of the development a condition will emerge when federation of the socialist countries and international dictatorship of the proletariat will be a reality as Lenin and the Communist International envisaged.
6. Modern Revisionism
We have shown in our last pamphlet Yugoslav revisionism and the role of the C.P.S.U. and CPC , how Stalin at last succeeded in persuading the Communist Parties of the Peoples Democracies of Eastern Europe and the Communist Parties of France and Italy to form the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform). We do not know the details of the facts of tremendous opposition Stalin faced. In this connection Togliatti, in his Report to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Italy shed some light from which we can understand the depth of opposition against the revival and reconstruction of the Communist International . Togliatti said on June , 24 , 1956:
When the Information Bureau was formed , I do not deny that there was some doubt among us , as we warned that the action was substantially contrary to the line of development of the communist movement which had been adopted when the Communist International was dissolved. However , we felt the need in that situation , for renewing contacts among the different sectors of the communist movements, precisely because, that was the very time when the great cold war offensive was launched against the communist forces , against socialism, against democracy and peace”.
In the same report Togliatti further said : I do not hesitate to recall to the memory of my comrades that in several cases there were differences between what the Soviet communists said on certain matters and what we maintained ; but this never broke our mutual solidarity and understanding.
The most obvious and perhaps the most serious conflict — I recall it because it has certain degree of importance in relation to matters which are being discussed to-day – took place as recently as January 1951. At that time I had gone to Moscow for a period of convalescence, after the serious accident which had happened to me and the subsequent surgery and I found myself faced with comrade Stalins proposal that I should abandon the post of Secretary of the Italian Communist Party to assume that of Secretary General of the Information Bureau. I immediately opposed it for many reasons . I considered that such an action [creation of the post of Secretary General of the Cominform] could not fail to have serious and unfavorable repercussions on the development of the international situation, at a time which was of extreme gravity as it could not fail to indicate in the eyes of public opinion, a return to the organization of the Communist International. In the second place , I considered that it was not right to take that course regarding the organization of the international communist movement. Finally, there was personal reasons against it. There were heated arguments, but the matter was resolved satisfactorily, as comrade Stalin withdrew his proposal
What do we understand from the above two quotations from Togliatlis Report? We understand that: a spectre was haunting the revisionists- the spectre of the Communist International. All the powers of revisionists of the world had entered into a holy alliance in order to lay this spectre: Togliatti and Tito; Mao and Khrushchev, (adopted from the Manifesto) Stalin withdrew his proposal not because Stalin thought that he was wrong after the heated debate, but because it was useless to debate with an arch-revisionist . The anti-Leninists, the anti-internationalists were opposed to the idea of revival and reconstruction of the Communist International and they tried to treat the Cominform as a mere post office for receiving and dispatching reports – not as a guiding centre and executive body–of the international communist movement. The Cominform was the basic party organization of the united front” of the socialist countries. (In this connection please see the letter of the CC of the C.P.S.U. (B) to the CC of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia quoted on pages 14 – 17 in Yugoslav revisionism and the role of the C.P.S.U. and CPC).
In that letter the C.P.S.U. (B) said that the Cominform was the basic party organization of the united front of the socialist countries. What did that exactly mean? The socialist countries remained separated , condition did not mature for federating the socialist countries. A mechanism must be set up through which a common policy for all socialist countries may be taken up. That mechanism was the united front of all the socialist countries . But who will guide that united front? A party organization is needed to guide that united front and that party organization was the Cominform. That was why the letter of the CC, CPSU (B) in its letter wrote that the Cominform was the basic party organization of the united front. United front was composed ofpeople of the socialist countries, where there were diverse opinions and elements . But the Cominform was made of the communist which was not common platform, but a party organization in which all the constituent have the right to criticise others and obligation to abide by the decision of the organization and this party organization implements its policy through the common platform of the united front. Was it wrong on the part of the Cominform or Stalin to consider the Cominform as the basic party organization? The revisionists were not prepared to accept the Cominform as the basic party organization as an executive body. Proletarian internationalism in words and bourgeois nationalism in deeds, that was the stand of the revisionists. They tried to treat the Cominform as a get together affair having no executive power.
We have seen that the Tito clique was expelled from the Cominform on the charge of advocating and practising modern revisionism. Tito raised the slogan of self-reliance, independent building of socialism, went against the international discipline of the Cominform, advocated non-interference in internal party affairs, thus placing ‘his’ party in independent and sovereign status. He voiced the sentiments and wishes of the bourgeois nationalists inside the world communist movement and especially of the socialist countries in declaration like No mater how much each of us loves the land of socialism — the USSR, he can in no case love his country less which is also developing socialism.” (Yugoslav Communist Partys letter to the C.P.S.U. (B) on April 13, 1948 ). The love of socialist country of a foreign land was counterpoised with love and loyalty to ones own socialist country implying that socialism was not international but national as well as implying an inevitable contradiction between the two in building and developing socialism.
We have also seen how the C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev made rapprochement with the Tito clique in 1955, in consultation and full agreement with the CPC headed by Mao Tse-Tung to internationalise the essence of Titoite revisionism. This rapprochement was the rapprochement with modern revisionism, a revisionism against the building of socialism internationally under the collective leadership of the parties of the socialist countries in the epoch of socialism in several countries unfurling the flag of bourgeois nationalism in the shape of bourgeois equality, independence, sovereignty and non-interference and carrying that to the sphere of even party affairs thus transforming international communism into national communism. ‘Self reliance’ in building and developing socialism was their central slogan.
We are now in a position to define precisely and concretely what the Cominform meant by modern revisionism when it denounced the Tito-clique as modern revisionist.
Modern revisionism was the revisionism which repudiated and denounced the building of socialism internationally as an organised and conscious world system on the basis of a common plan under the collective leadership and guidance of socialist countries in the period of socialism in several countries on the one hand and propagated and practised ‘socialism in one country’ basing on the slogan of self-reliance and national socialist state, thus eventually coming in conflict with each other disintegrating the socialist camp and unity, on the other . This served the bourgeoisie and the imperialists.
Building of socialism internationally and collectively by all socialist countries demanded an international and collective leadership and Cominform was that international and collective leadership as basic party organization of the United front of the socialist countries through which the proletarian internationalism was expressed concretely. All the socialist countries and their states were independent and sovereign, remained as separate states but the Communist Parties were not accorded the status of independence and sovereignty as it was against the very principle and practice of proletarian internationalism.
Did Stalin commit any wrong by following the line of Lenin? Did Stalin commit any wrong by forming Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and introducing joint enterprises of the socialist countries? Was it Stalins ‘big-nation chauvinism’?
All the questions of this period of socialism in several countries , including the questions of Stalin depended on the attitude and stand on the central issue of the period : Socialism in a single country? Or socialism in several countries? Building of socialism singly? Or building of socialism internationally? Is the Communist Party a World Party? Or the Communist Party is a national party, independent and sovereign?
In fact , both the C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev and subsequently by Breznev and the CPC headed by Mao Tes-Tung consolidated and strengthened their own bourgeois nationalism respectively , after the death of Stalin , and that was why subsequently the CPC and the C.P.S.U. fought against one another in the name of fighting revisionism. We will, of course , deal with this question , somewhat in details in our pamphlet Communism in crisis – how and why? But the basic cause of this fight of revisionism against revisionism , was undoubtedly bourgeois nationalism and separatism which gave rise to hegemonism on the part of both to consolidate and strengthen national state of “socialism”. Lenin once said , One who has adopted the standpoint of nationalism , naturally arrives at the desire to erect a Chinese wall around his nationality , his national working class movement. He is unembarrassed even by the fact that it would mean building separate walls in each city, in each little town and village, unembarrassed even by the fact that by his tactics of division and dismemberment he is reducing to nil(emphasis in original) the great call for the rallying and unity of the proletarians of all nations , all races and all languages , (C.W., Vol. 6 pp. 520-21).
Let us see how bourgeois nationalism , Titoism reigned supreme in the Communist Party of China and how it consolidated and strengthened bourgeois nationalism in opposition to proletarian internationalism from 1956 onwards in the name of fighting revisionism.
7. The Stand of the CPC
Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism – these are two great class camps throughout the capitalist world and express the two policies (nay, the two world out-looks) in the national question, (Lenin , C.W. vol. 20, emphasis in original).
We will reproduce in this chapter the stand of the CPC from the well-known document. More on the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat – a CPC joint editorial article published by the Peoples Daily in December, 1956 , stating its position on equality, independence , sovereignty , the role and task of the proletarian Party, relations among socialist states, Communist Parties , proletarian internationalism and nationalism etc., accusing Stalin as big nation chauvinist and defending Yugoslav position. The document contains the fundamental stand of the CPC. This document, it may be noted, was approvingly reproduced in New Times, Moscow , in its January 10,1957 issue. Moreover , this editorial was reprinted , published and distributed in India free in a booklet form by G.Efimov, representative of the Information Department, Embassy of USSR in India and was printed at New Age Printing Press , New Delhi by D.P.Sinha. It is clear from this that both the CPC and C.P.S.U. held the same view on the contents of the document.
Our comments will follow in parentheses and we will demonstrate that the stand of the CPC is against the stand of Lenin and Marxism-Leninism. It will be clear to the readers that the CPC , in alliance with the C.P.S.U., was consolidating and strengthening Titos theory and pratice of bourgeois nationalism in the international communist movement by parading as genuine proletarian internationalism.
The editorial article says:
International solidarity of the Communist Parties of all countries is entirely a new type of relationship in the history of mankind. Naturally , the development of such relations cannot proceed without difficulties. The Communist Parties of all countries must unite , but at the same time must retain their independence.
[Ask yourselves, readers , independence from whom and what? Which independence the CPC is speaking of ? Independence from the obligation to international organization of the Communist? Independence in expressing views and opinions during discussion in international organization? Or, independence in flouting collective decisions, independence to violate international discipline, independence to advocate national exclusiveness?]
The editorial continues: When the Communist Parties maintain among themselves relations based on equality and achieve unity of views and action through genuine and NOT FORMAL consultations, their solidarity grows stronger. On the other hand , if in their relations they IMPOSE their views upon each other, SUBSTITUTE comradely suggestions by interference in the INTERNAL affairs of each other , this solidarity will by impaired…..
[Attention, comrade readers! What the “relations based on equality” means ? It means the relations between two independent and sovereign parties. This is against the very Leninist principle of international democratic centralism and international discipline. Why does not the CPC say boldly that it does not agree with the Leninist principle of proletarian party organization? If the solidarity between two national parties is impaired by formal organizational discipline i.e., by obligatory obedience to majority decision; if this is considered imposition’,’ interference’, etc., and if the absence of formal discipline helps to strengthen solidarity, why then, is the Leninist principle of democratic centralism followed in the national sphere? If only through genuine consultation and not through formal discipline on the basis of equality and independence an unity of will and action can really be achieved in the international communist movement, in the international sphere , why should not then, the wise method of consensus be practised in the national communist movement , in the national sphere ? If in the national parties and national spheres democratic centralism is not considered to be a violation of equality and independence or interference in internal affairs of and ‘imposition’ on lower units or units of other nationalities in a multinational country like China , why should it be considered so in the international sphere? In fact, the Leninist principle of organization , monolithism , organic conception of the proletarian party , everything has been questioned in the above passage, in the name of Marxism-Leninism . Are these not bourgeois concepts and practices of individuals equality and independence? Where is the idea of revolutionary party- which means , according to Lenin , power, authority? A revolutionary organization of Leninist conception in the national sphere and a liberal hotch-potch conglomeration in the international sphere? It seems that the CPCs model for proletarian internationalism is the notorious Second International. Lenin said that The method of old international (Second International) was to refer to such questions [questions concerning the particular country] to be decided by the separate party in the countries concerned . THAT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG . It is quite possible that we [ meaning here the leadership of the Communist International] are not fully aware of the conditions prevailing in this or that country. BUT WHAT WE ARE DEALING HERE is the principle underlying the tactics of the Communist Party. This is very important and we , in the name of Third International must clearly state here the Communist point of view. (Lenin, Affiliation to the British Labour Party , vol., 31). Elsewhere Lenin said that the revolutionary theory grows out of the sum total of the revolutionary experiences and revolutionary thinking of all countries in the World and that is why the principle of strategy and tactics have to be worked out collectively . (C.W. vol., 21, p 354 emphasis in original) Lenin also said that the Communist International must work out its tactics internationally. (C.W. vol., 31, p. 60 ). The position, the CPC has taken is clearly proletarian internationalism in words and bourgeois nationalism in deeds . Comrade readers , this is a most vital distinction and you must judge according to the principles at stake.]
The editorial continues: Marxism-Leninism has always combined proletarian internationalism with patriotism of EACH PEOPLE.
[Observe, how cunningly the principled internationalism of the class conscious proletariat – the Communities and the patriotism of the people have been confused. The old type of relations have existed for many centuries in those countries which have become socialist and between which in the old exploiting society there were quarrels, clashes and wars. These left bitter memories. The people of such countries may counterpoise the interests of their “own” socialist country with the interests of a ‘foreign’ socialist country–which is Patriotism of thepeople. (As the editorial deals with the relation among the socialist countries and Communist Parties–‘Patriotism’ cannot here mean the defence of the fatherland in general. A false sense of patriotism may dominate over them as a hangover of the past. (We have already seen in earlier chapter how Lenin took into account this sentiment of the Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Byelorussians, but he distinguished this sentiments of the people and the consciousness of the Communists of these countries and treated the two in different manner.) But the communists should have no such false sense. Yet the editorial confuses the people and the communists most deliberately and urges to take one attitude to both!
Secondly, who ‘combines’ (if the word is at all allowed ) this partiotism of the people with proletarian internationalism? Undoubtedly the Communist Party combines it. But is it by giving up something of proletarian internationalism and accepting something of patriotism? If patriotism comes in sharp and fundamental conflict with the proletarian internationalism what should be done then? Lenin said, as we have seen, that the petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interest intact There is not a word about it, the editorial is only in favour of combining’ patriotism with proletarian internationalism which cannot but give rise to national exclusiveness . The Communists present the principle of proletarian internationalism to the people in such a manner so that it may not wound the patriotic and national sentiment of the people. It is the policy of implementing the principle, it is never a combining]
The editorial goes on: The Communist Parties of all countries rear their members and people in the spirit of internationalism, because genuine national interest of all peoples of all countries demand friendly co-operation among nations
[Please mark how diplomatically the above sentence has been constructed! We would request the readers to go through the quotation of Lenin at the top of this chapter. Lenin said of two world outlooks so far nationalism and proletarian internationalism were concerned. From what outlook the above sentence is approached? Of course, the national interest has been qualified with an abstract word ‘genuine’. Who and which world outlook will decide and determine this high sounding ‘genuine’? In defining revisionism we have already said Insert one incorrect word between two correct words, insert one wrong idea between two correct ideas — that is the technique of revisionism of all brands”. Just see, Co-operation among nations is here equated with proletarian internationalism . In this epoch of imperialism no nation can afford to remain aloof without co-operation with other nations and as such the bourgeoisie and imperialists also advocate and practise co-operation among nations in the national interest. But where is the class content in the genuine national interest?]
The editorial proceeds on: They understand that they will have genuine confidence and devotion of the broad masses of the people and will effectively educate the masses in a spirit of internationalism and harmonise national sentiments and interests of these countries ONLY WHEN THEY REPRESENT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND SENTIMENTS.
[Attention please readers! Communists are asked to “represent national interests and sentiments” and “harmonise” with proletarian internationalism to win the confidence and devotion of the broad masses of the people! Undoubtedly, a proletarian internationalist Party must have a national policy of its own for each country which will take into account of the national peculiarities and sentiments and degree of consciousness of the people of the country concerned but that is a policy, not principle for properly implementing and realising the internationalist principle. The national contingent of the international Communist Party can only arrive at a correct policy when national policy is viewed and discussed from internationalist position, in international context. In absence of an international organization how can an exclusively national party ‘combine’ and harmonise national interests with international interests of the world proletariat? This is nothing but giving free reign to bourgeois nationalist deviation and national insularity.]
In the next paragraph the editorial says: With the purpose of strengthening the international solidarity of the socialist countries, the Communist Parties of these countries must mutually respect national interests and national feelings. This is particularly important in THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF A BIGGER COUNTRY AND A COMMUNIST PARTY OF A SMALLER COUNTRY.
[Comrade readers, rub your eyes and read that again. Communist Parties of socialist countries, bigger and smaller, instead of collectively determining the national policy for each socialist country according to the national peculiarities of the country concerned on the basis of the interests of the world proletariat and socialism as a whole, must “mutually respect national interests and national feelings” and this is called proletarian internationalism ! This time, it is not the people — but the Communist Parties. They must downgrade themselves from the position and standard of consciousness of proletarian internationalism to the position and standard of consciousness of the people. Not only that, Communists of bigger countries have been differentiated from those of smaller countries! Communists of smaller socialist countries are supposed to harbour attitudes and sentiments like those of the people of smaller countries towards the bigger socialist countries and communists of bigger countries are supposed to harbour attitudes and feelings like those of the ruling classes of the bigger countries towards the people and communists of smaller countries! Where is the class position and class consciousness? Are we to differentiate, then, between the communists of oppressed and oppressor countries? Preposterous.]
The next paragraph of the editorial continues : “To preclude resentment on the part of the smaller country, the party of the bigger country must constantly devote its attention to SETTING UP EQUAL RELATIONS. Lenin was right when he emphasized that it is …the duty of the class conscious proletariat to treat with particular caution and attention the survivals of national sentiments among countries and nationalities which have been longest oppressed (V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, Part II, Moscow, 1952 pp, 469-70).
[Here the editorial quoted Lenin in support of its stand. The emphasis on class conscious proletariat and “countries and nationalities” are ours. Firstly, Lenin did not boost up “national interest and national feelings” as the CPC likes to think. On the contrary, he spoke of survivals of these sentiments lingering among the people of socialist countries of erstwhile oppressed nations and nationalities. Secondly, Lenin did not here make distinction between the Communists of erstwhile oppressed and oppressor countries. On the contrary, he cautioned the CLASS CONSCIOUS PROLETARIAT, making a clear distinction between the people and the Communists. Lenin cautioned the class conscious proletariat of Great Russian origin to take into account the feelings of the countries and nationalities, which had been the colonies of Tsarist Russia. Naturally, the countries and nationalities who had suffered the longest oppression by the Great Russian bourgeoisie and the autocracy harboured resentment against the Great Russians in general. Yet Lenin, at no point , confused the class conscious proletariat of Great Russian origin and the Great Russian oppressors, when he discussed the nationality problem facing the Communists. He dealt the problem from the class stand point, not from the nationalist standpoint like that of the CPC.
At another point of time , in his speech to the students of Sverdlov University in 1918 Lenin said, “The Poles got help from Britain, France and America who all tried to arouse Polandsancient hatred towards her Great Russian oppressors, tried to transfer the Polish Workers’ hatred of the landowners and Tsars a hundred times deserved , to the Russian workers and peasants, and tried to make Polish workers think that the Bolsheviks like the Russian chauvinists dream of conquering Poland. Is not the Communist Party of China, in distinguishing between the communists of bigger and smaller countries trying to foster the idea that the communists of bigger countries are chauvinists who dream of annexing the smaller countries? Should we, the communist of India look askance at the communists of imperialist Britain and America? Should the communists of Kashmir , Nagaland and Mizoram look askance at us? Should communists of the Hindu origin look suspiciously at communists of Muslim origin and vice-versa because both Hindu and Muslim communalists had organised pogrom against each other? Should relations among communists of the world be determined on the basis of such differentiation? Just ponder , comrades , where the CPC is bent on dragging you, to proletarian internationalism and unity and union of world communists or to unadulterated narrow bourgeois nationalism?]
The editorial continues in the next paragraph: “As has been already stated, Stalin displayed a certain tendency toward dominant nation chauvinism in the relations of fraternal countries. The essence of this tendency lies in IGNORING THE INDEPENDENT AND EQUAL STATUS OF the Communist Parties AND SOCIALIST COUNTRIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL UNION….
[ This is the crux of the whole problem of proletarian internationalism and bourgeois nationalism. Here also the CPC does not differentiate the socialist state and socialist country on the one hand and the Communist Party on the other which Lenin so distinctly differentiated. A communist party is the party of the conscious proletarian internationalists , while a socialist country and state and its citizens are not. The basis of relations between two socialist states, especially in initial period, is one thing and the relations among the communist parties are completely another thing. Throughout the whole editorial the CPC has muddled quite deliberately the relations between the party and between the states.]
Is not the approach , the stand of the CPC fundamentally the same as that of the Tito-clique of Yugoslavia? Is not the approach , the stand of the CPC fundamentally the same as that of Khrushchev & Co. who compromised with the Hungarian revisionist Janos Kadar and Polish revisionist Gomulka, accepting their theory and stand of equality , independence and sovereignty of each national Communist Parties, thus burying proletarian internationalism?
In 1960, at the 81 Communist Party get together , where the Tito-clique was denounced as traitor to Marxism-Leninism , the essence of Titoism was accepted in relation to the relation among the Communist Parties. The statement of the 81 party said:
All the Marxist-Leninist parties are independent and have equal rights; they shape their policies according to the specific conditions of their respective countries and in keeping with Marxist-Leninist principles and support each other…EVERY PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE WORKING CLASS, TO THE WORKING PEOPLE of its own country, to the international working class and communist movement as a whole.
It means the Communist Party is first responsible to the working class and working people of its own country and then to the international working class! This is bourgeois nationalism pure and simple.
Though the CPC repudiated in 1962-63 many of the stands of 81 Party statement, it did not repudiate the stands of bourgeois nationalism in respect of Party to Party relations and socialist construction. In the event any further proof of the charge is required we will quote further instances of the CPCs double dealing, this time from its Proposals concerning the general line of the International Communist movement, the document basing on which the CPC tried to consolidate its own revisionism internationally against Khrushchevite revisionism.
The General line says:
21 , relations between socialist countries are international relation of new type . Relations between socialist countries whether large or small, whether more developed or less developed economically , must be based on complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and non-interference in each others internal affairs and must also be based on the principles of mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with proletarian internationalism.
[The first part i.e. relation based on equality , respect for territorial integrity , sovereignty and independence and non-interference in each others internal affairs is also the declared principles of Pancha Sheela or five principles of co-existence with different social systems, that is the principles of relation between a socialist and a capitalist state. Basing on these five principles principles of mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with proletarian internationalism should be observed in respect of socialist countries. Who will determine the proletarian internationalism in accordance with which principles of mutual support and mutual assistance will be worked out? That remains undefined, abstract.]
“EVERY SOCIALIST COUNTRY MUST RELY MAINLY ON ITSELF FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION.
In accordance with its own concrete conditions every socialist country must rely first of all on the diligent labour and talents of its own people, utilise all its available resources fully and in a planned way , and bring all its potential into play in socialist construction. Only thus can it build socialism effectively and develop its economy speedily.
This is the only way for each socialist country to strengthen the might of entire socialist camp and enhance the capacity to assist the revolutionary cause of the international proletariat. THEREFORE, TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLES OF MAINLY RELYING on oneself IN CONSTRUCTION is to apply proletarian internationalism concretely.
[It is the complete repudiation of what Lenin said in his Colonial Theses and complete acceptance of what the Tito-clique said against the Cominform. It is the building of socialism in one country in the period of socialism in several countries. It means that the socialist countries will reach the goal of world socialism through the road of socialism in one country singly, separately, relying on its own resources which is in essence bourgeois nationalism. Not for nothing the CPC in its greetings to the Eighth Congress of the LCY said After victory in revolution both persevered [ going against Marxism-Leninism] in the policy of building socialism independently.”]
From 1955 onwards up to 1963 the C.P.S.U. headed by Khrushchev and the CPC headed by Mao strengthened and consolidated their respective nationalism and at a certain stage of its development , they naturally came in conflict as two bourgeois nationalist interests and courses cannot live together. So both of them began to “struggle” against the other, one in the name of fighting Khrushchevite revisionism and the other in the name of fighting left sectarianism. In fact both of them were fighting for one kind of revisionism against another kind of revisionism and consolidating their respective revisionism which had no relations with Marxism- Leninism.
8. How Lenin Was Commemorated.
(More on the stand of the CPC)
Though the Khrushchev leadership in league with the CPC, dissolved the Cominform and formed the Warsaw Treaty bloc rejecting the path of relying on people and repudiating, for all practical purposes, the historic peace offensive movement of the world people organised under the leadership of Stalin and relying mainly on diplomacy and military block making, it did not dissolve the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) formed by Stalin in 1949. In this connection , it is necessary to point out that Stalin did not form any military bloc against the NATO , though NATO was formed in March, 1949. Warsaw Military Treaty bloc was formed in May, 1955. Stalin said that the war can be averted and peace can be conquered if the people themselves take up the job of conquering peace through the world-wide peace offensive. The Cominform organised such peace offensive creating international democratic organizations in different sectors and forming a broad anti-war peace offensive front. Khrushchev said during the formation of the Warsaw Military Treaty bloc that peace and war depended today on two big powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, thus rejecting the role of the organised people and absolutely relying on diplomacy and military bloc making . The CPC gave its blessing and sent its delegates as observer to the meetings of the Warsaw Military Treaty bloc . The CPC, together with the Soviet Union and others denounced Tito for not signing the 12 – Party declaration defending the Warsaw Military Treaty bloc. We will narrate and explain all these developments in our booklet Crisis of Communism – how and why? However, immediately after the death of Stalin in 1953 , the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance, which became COMECON, took a new course toward co-ordination of output and adopted a pattern of specialisation. Until 1953 , CMEAS activities had been confined to the registration of bilateral commercial trade agreements among its members. The 1953 COMECON plan was to provide a skeletal balance of whole supply and demand of key materials for the entire bloc. Meanwhile the dictatorship of the proletariat was usurped in the Soviet Union , the Soviet leaders winded up the Machine Tractor Stations (MTS) and de-socialised the main means of production in agriculture, sold it to the collective farms thus making the collective farms the owners of the principal means of production in agriculture, as well as converting the means of production into commodity within the home market , gave back enormous powers to the free traders permitting the collective farms to sell in the open market their products of kitchen gardens , opened hundreds of free markets and made the circulation of commodities and money market free thus permitting the blind and anarchic operation of the law of value. Capitalism in agriculture and trade was in the process of restoration in full speed. At the same time, the Khrushchev leadership decentralised the national economic plan and emphasis was shifted to international trade. The basis of restoration of capitalism was laid thoroughly both in national and international spheres. Naturally, the COMECON with its new plan for providing skeletal balance of the whole supply and demand of key materials for the entire bloc can not but became the instrument of unequal trade, exploitation and accumulation of capital. According to the Marxist theory world price patterns set up by the imperialists put any developed capitalist country in a position of exploiting less developed ones.
An advanced country is always in a position to sell its goods above their value even when it sells them cheaper than the competing countries, while a less developed country may offer more materialised labour in goods than it receives and yet it receives in turn commodities cheaper than it produces. The differences in levels of productivity between the two types of countries, that is to the equal exchange of more labour (less skilled and less productive on the part of less developed countries) for less labour ( more skilled and more productive on the part of highly developed countries) is a phenomenon of the capitalist society. International trade has thus perpetuated and regularised this transfer of values from the underdeveloped and developing countries to the developed countries from the very beginning of international trade. So, also the international division of capital and labour is a product of capitalism where capital and resulting industrial development is accumulated in developed countries while the rest of the world is characterised by lack of capital and industrialisation. This transfer of values is notimperialism in itself, it is the draining. Mercantile capitalism , and industrial capitalism also drained and bled white the “backward” countries , but that was not capitalist imperialism. This drainage helps to accumulate capital and in the imperialist epoch this accumulation , by way of credit , loan , aid etc., takes the character of imperialist exploitation.
What is then , the socialist way out, especially in the period of socialism in several countries and particularly when one socialist country , the Soviet Union , has become highly developed while all other Socialist countries are underdeveloped? The trade of the under-developed socialist countries with highly developed Soviet Union , based on imperialist world pricing system , would naturally and surely , lead to the drainage and transfer of values from the underdeveloped socialist countries to the developed Soviet Union – though it might not be imperialist exploitation. In Stalins time trade with the socialist countries was bilateral and on the basis of book account and after every six months the trade with the socialist countries was made balanced by way of writing off. So, no question of drains from the less developed countries to the Soviet Union did arise. Stalin , subsequently , in his Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR , pointed out the socialist way out , in the chapter Disintegration of the single market and deepening of the world crisis of the world capitalist system”. The two world parallel markets with two world prices the world pricing system of the socialist world based on non-exploitative basis could have solved the problem of drainage and transfer of value . In that case international trade of the socialist countries would have been really mutually beneficial based on mutual friendship. But after the death of Stalin the Khrushchev leadership restored capitalism inside the Soviet Union and resorted to capitalist path of international trade using its highly developed position and basing its trade on the basis of imperialist world pricing system.
To deceive and hoodwink the world people and the socialist countries in 81 Communist Party get together in 1960 and subsequently , the Soviet Union , under Khrushchev leadership, presented the theory of “world socialist system”, “international dictatorship of the proletariat”, “international division of labour” etc., in the name of Lenin and Leninism. Subsequently , the CPC and some other Peoples’ Democracies expressed their right indignation against the exploitative and unequal character of international trade of the Soviet Union. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the rising bourgeoisie and the mercantile class of the colonial and backward countries were critising the imperialist powers for drainage , transfer of values and unequal trade. There was nothing new and nothing socialist in CPCs and socialist countries’ criticism of the Soviet Union . The indignation of China and other Peoples’ democracies were expressed in bourgeois nationalist method and manner . The CPC did not place any Leninist socialist alternative of International trade among the socialist countries. Even the seven point declaration of Chou En-lai as the basis of International trade was nothing but tall promises, as no promise can be realised in foreign trade without the solid basis of alternative socialist pricing system , but China also trades and calculates on the basis of imperialist world pricing system. Like all other countries China also treat some country as most fovoured and give some special concession. But the fact remains that China also bases her calculation on the basis of imperialist world pricing system. Price discrimination against exporters of raw materials is due to the failure of the socialist countries to formulate a socialist theory and practice of international trade and socialist international pricing system. That is why the socialist countries have been forced to rely on imperialist world price as a guide and naturally , the imperialist world price brings with it the inherent discrimination against the exporters of raw materials.
With this background , let us discuss how the CPC commemorated Lenins memory on Lenins birth centenary in 1970. In critising the revisionists and social-imperialists of the Soviet Union, the CPC published and circulated an article entitled ‘Leninism or Social-imperialism?’ jointly brought out as an editorial by Peoples Daily, Red Flag and Jeifang Jambao. We will quote from this joint editorial extensively so that the readers may see the points clearly. the editorial article says :
Now let us examine what stuff this Breznev doctrine is made of.
First the theory of limited sovereignty. Breznev and company say that safeguarding their so-called interests of socialism means safeguarding super sovereignty. They flagrantly declare that Soviet revisionism has the right to determine the destiny of another country including the destiny of sovereignty….
…you have imposed your all-highest super sovereignty on the people of other countries , which means that sovereignty of other countries is limited whereas your own power of dominating other countries is unlimited……
Secondly , the theory of international dictatorship. Breznev and company assert that they have the right to ‘render military aid to a fraternal country to do away with the threat to the socialist system.’ They declare: ‘Lenin had foreseen that historical development would transform the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national into an international one , capable of decisively influencing the entire world politics.
This bunch of renegades completely distorts Lenins ideas.
In his article Preliminary draft theses on the National and Colonial questions Lenin wrote of transforming the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national one (i.e., existing in one country and incapable of determining world politics, into an international one i.e., dictatorship of the proletariat covering at least several countries and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon the whole world politics). Lenin meant here to uphold proletarian internationalism and propagate world revolution.
This is how the CPC commemorated Lenins memory and upheld Lenins ideas ! In this case also the CPC critised and opposed the Breznev doctrine from the nationalist standpoint, notfrom the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. In its denunciation of Breznev doctrine the CPC miserably failed to defend Lenins stand and equally distorted Lenins concept of international dictatorship. The Soviet revisionist clique is most cunningly using Lenins concept of an integraded world socialist economy , international dictatorship , common military , economic and foreign policy and rendering military help to other ‘socialist countries’. to legitimatize its own nefarious designs. It is the task of the Marxist-Leninists to lay bare this vile and dangerous designs behind Breznev doctrine and at the same time to resolutely defend and upheld Lenin, not to make pretence of upholding Lenins teachings while knavishly betraying his principles behind empty revolutionary rhetoric and thus propagating a negative attitude towards proletarian internationalism.
The CPCs editorial denounced the right of rendering the military aid by a socialist country to another socialist country to do away with the threat of socialist system, completely remaining mum about the class character of the military aid as well as the class aim of this aid and who receives it. The Marxist-Leninists do uphold the theory and practice of rendering military aid by a socialist country to a socialist country , nay , even to the national liberation struggle of the oppressed people and at the same time oppose the rendering of military help direct or indirect by the bourgeoisie and imperialists to the counter-revolutionaries of other countries. The CPC article ignored this class character, absolutised the formal outlook of state sovereignty and non-interference.
We know that there are two kinds , two classes of international integration of world economy: imperialist and socialist. World integration of economy is one of the laws of social development, independent of the human will and Lenin said in his Colonial Theses that this tendency is bound to develop and consumate more fully in socialist society. While upholding socialist integration of world economy , international trade , the Marxist-Leninists must at the same time , expose the imperialist integration. But the CPC, in the name of opposing ‘Breznev doctrine’ opposes from start to finish the Leninist idea and concept of socialist integration, international union of socialist countries and international dictatorship. Opposing and distorting Lenins concept of ‘International dictatorship’ it says that Lenin meant only propagation of world revolution and of proletarian internationalism. Did Lenin speak of proletarian internationalism in abstract terms ?
Marxist-Leninists while exposing the bourgeois class character of the world federation, integrated world economy etc. , upheld , at the same time, socialist world federation,, integrated world socialist system , international dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian internationalism most concretely in each concrete historical period. Let us see , how in similar situation Marxist-Leninists dealt with the problem.
During the first world war , Lenin repeatedly attacked the suggestions that a group of capitalist states might form federation after the war . In a discussion of the national question in March, 1916, Lenin dismissed Trotskys ideas of the peaceful union of equal nations under imperialism as an opportunist utopia. In April 1916, Lenin introduced a resolution at the International Socialist Conference at Kienthal, Switzerland, denouncing as a mirrage all proposals for a United States of Europe, “compulsory courts of arbitration” disarmament, and “democratic diplomacy”. Again , in an article in January 1917, Lenin branded the phrases about a federation of nations which he said were flaunted by bourgeois nationalists as disgusting hypocrisy. And this very Lenin, it must be noted, not only stood for federation of Soviets of many nations but actually created in USSR. The CPC’s article quoted extensively above do not show any sign of awareness of the class character of supranational federation.
Stalin said, when reporting upon the impending creation of a federal constitution for the USSR in 1923 that “the entire East will see that our federation is the banner of liberation , the advance guard in whose steps it must follow.” At the same time Stalin criticised the American federal system based on bureaucratic centralisation , exploitation and force . He also said that the future world federation can be genuine and lasting only under socialism and not under any system of exploitation. Hence, any other projects for supranational federation, either regional or global were opposed by Lenin and Stalin , while at the same time upholding and propagating world socialist federation.
The League of Nations wrote the Soviet legal authority Pavel Stuchka, in 1926, cannot be transformed into a superstate or a federation of states or even into a confederation because of irreconcilable contradictions among different States that constitute the League membership.
From the first days of the United Nations Organizations existence the Soviet leaders expressed their views in clearest terms , stating the differences between a federation of exploiting and a federation of socialist countries. The New Times’ editorial of December 3, 1945, protested when certain imperialist politicians were calling for the UNs radical reconstruction into a world federation. “These capitalists who demand a world state” wrote The New Times, are least of all concerned to abolish the social and national oppression existing in the world today. The value of these widely boasted remedy is, therefore , nil.
Thus we see that the Marxist-Leninists while exposing the bourgeois character of the institutions and federation sponsored by the imperialists, upheld the institutions and federation sponsored by the Communists . But the CPC editorial condemns all these concepts and institutions absolutely, irrespective of the character of these institutions, upholding bourgeois national exclusiveness and narrow bourgeois nationalism and repudiating proletarian internationalism.
The CPC editorial article could have exposed and flayed the Breznev doctrine mercilessly as being imperialist and exploitative. But the CPC has avoided the real class battle of establishing proletarian internationalism as living principle. It has denounced without any discrimination or any historical and class perspective all the institutions, including the organization of the Communist International, elsewhere , through which the concept of proletarian internationalism and international socialism can take concrete material shape.
In this connection it is necessary to note that at no time and at no place the Communist Party of China did criticise Khruschev’s dismantling of the Machine Tractor Stations and de-socialisation of one of the main means of production of the Socialist economy. On the contrary ,Mao Tse Tung in his Critique of Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, published by Monthly Review Press said, My view is that the last of the three appended letters is ENTIRELY WRONG. It expresses a deep uneasiness , a belief that the peasantry cannot be trusted to release agriculture machinery but would hang on it … Elsewhere in the same book , Mao said , Stalins point of view in his last letter is almost altogether wrong. The basic error is mistrust of the peasants. This was written long after Khrushchev dismantled the MTS and introduced capitalism in the Soviet Union. The last letter of Stalin addressed to A.V. Sanina and V.G. Venzher was against the selling of the Machine Tractor Stations to the collective farms. It appears that Mao Tse Tung also supported the selling of the MTS to the collective farms. This is not the place of the discussion of the points raised by the capitalist roaders of all hues including Mao regarding the role of the law of value in a socialist society. The Communist Information Service will discuss all this points on another occasion. In connection with Stalin’s opposition to selling the Machine Tractor Stations to the collective farmers Mao raised the question of belief and non-belief , trust and mistrust of the peasantry and thus betrayed his extremely poor understanding of Marxism-Leninism , especially the dictatorship of the proletariat. The question of belief and non-belief or trust or mistrust is extremely loose , non-class approach. Socialisation of all the means of production , especially the main means of production is a question of fundamental principle of socialism. The economic foundation of socialism is the socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production. Socialism is the first social system in history to create the conditions for the equality of the people with regard to the means of production, thereby laying the basis of an end to the exploitation of man by man. The socialisation of the means of production does not mean that the working class becomes the owner of the means of production to accrue benefit for its class only. Nor socialisation does mean that the workers become owners factory wise. The socialisation of the means of production is for the socialist mode of distribution of the wealth of the society, firstly , each according to the work and then each according to the need. No particular class, nor a section of a class can be the owner of the means of production , the society as a whole is the owner.
Now, there were hundreds of collective farms in the Soviet Unions , highly developed , developed and ordinary. Collective farm was not and cannot be a single institution of the collective farmers as such the Machine Tractors Stations could not be and was not sold to the peasant class as a whole . It was sold to those collective farms who were financially in a position to buy it. Not all the collective farms were in a position to buy it. Firstly, the sale of machine Tractor Stations to some of the Collective farms meant handing over the property of the whole peopleof the society to a particular section of the people of the society who became the master of one of the key means of production. Secondly, it meant the abolition of the prospect of socialist mode of distribution so far the agricultural products were concerned, as the owners of the means of production became the absolute owners of the production and accrued the benefits for themselves only. Thirdly, and it is most important one, it meant the loosing of unchallenged authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat as one of the vital sectors of national economy and its ‘means of production’ were no longer in the control of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Fourthly, the proletariat lost the possibility of retaining its leading role and political control. Fifthly, firm workers-peasants alliance was lost its significance and sixthly , classification and division among the peasantry became a fact and as a result of which the big collective farmers, the owners of the means of production were exploiting the other peasantry. Similar things are happening in the factory, after the introduction of ‘New reform’ and khozraschot, when responsibility for production and sale was given factory-wise.
Mao Tse Tung raised the question of belief and non-belief or trust or mistrust of the peasantry of Stalin. Did Lenin or Stalin believing and trusting the working class, hand over the means of production to the workers factory-wise and production unit-wise? Lenin and Stalin opposed the slogan of factory to the workers because that does neither usher socialised production nor socialised distribution , nor socialism. Here lies the difference between Mao Tse tung – a peasant reformer and Lenin and Stalin- the proletarian revolutionaries– an anarchist and syndicalist in the ultimate sense and the Marxist- Leninists.
9. On the Question of Nations and Nationalities.
“We have affirmed that it would be a betrayal of socialism to refuse to implement the self-determination of nations under socialism. (Lenin: The discussion on self-determination summed up.).
China is a multi-national country. She became a multinational country as a result of military expansion of the feudal empire by the Chinese emperors who annexed vast territories of non-Chinese people in the North, West and South of present-day China.
The Second Congress of the Communist Party of China , held in May, 1922 , stated that the immediate aim of the revolution was to set up a federal Republic on the basis of equality of all the peoples inhabiting in the peasant territory of China. The declaration stated most clearly and categorically that China proper [ mark the word proper carefullly] and Mongolia , Tibet and Chinese Turkestan [now Sinkiang] shall be united on the basis of a system of free federation and the Chinese Federal Republic shall be formed.
At the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party of China, held in 1928 , the Party regarded the right of self -determination up to and including secession as the principal means of ensuring the political unity and voluntary union of the peoples of different nations and nationalities of China. The Congress adopted a document whose Article 3 spoke of Chinas Union and the recognition of the right of self-determination.
The First National Congress of Chinese Soviets in November , 1931 , held at Juichen , the then capital of the Chinese Soviet Government stated , The Chinese Soviet Republic unequivocally and unconditionally recognises the right of all nations to self-determination. It continued, “This means that the regions like Mongolia, Tibet, ,Sinkiang, Yunnan, Kweichew and others , in which the majority of the population belong to non-Chinese nationalities, the working masses of these nationalities have the right to determine whether they wish to secede from the Chinese Soviet Republic and set up their own independent state or enter a Union of Soviet Republic or form an autonomous region within the Chinese Soviet Republic.
The right of different nationalities of China to national ‘self-determination’ was recorded in the Constitution of the Chinese Soviet Republic that was adopted at the Second National Congress of Soviets. The Soviet power in China, Article 14 of the Constitution stated , recognises the right of small nations [ mark the words small nations] to self-determination , their right to secede and form independent states.
Up to this period the stand of the Communist Party of China so far the question of the right of self-determination of the nations up to the right of secession and the question of China proper and conquered and annexed China concerned , were Marxist-Leninist, unambiguous and unequivocal.
On August 25, 1937, Mao Tse Tung, in his For mobilization of all nations forces for victory in the war of resistance wrote : Mobilze the Mongolians , the Hui and all other minority nationalities in accordance with the principles of national self-determination and autonomy in the common fight against Japan.(-Selected works , vol. 2).
Small nations became minority nationalities this time and naturally minority nationalities live in the territory of majority nationality having no territory of their own and as such, they have no right of self-determination , at best they can have autonomy ! The departure from the Marxist-Leninist stand on self-determination began in 1937.
In the preamble of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China adopted at the Seventh Congress of the Party in 1945, it was stated that the Communist Party of China would fight for the establishment of a new democratic Federal Republic as an independent , free , democratic single and mighty alliance of all revolutionary classes and a free union of all nationalities.
Ambiguity, amorphousness, verbosity are the cover for opportunism. Federal Republic and free union of all nationalities without the recognition of the right of self-determination and secession is nothing but rhetoric.
However , after the nation-wide victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949 the Communist Party of China discovered that the Leninist-Stalinist principle of national self-determination and federal structure of the state organization was “unsuitable” for China and as such it revised its former Leninist-Stalinist stand (which was in the process of revision since 1937) on the national question , though, strangely enough it still advocates the principle of national ‘self-determination’ so far the other multinational countries of Asia are concerned, viz, the national ‘self-determination’ of Kashimiries, Nagas and Mizos of India and Kachins and Karens of Burma! The Communist Party of China did not explain why the principle of national ‘self-determination’ and secession was suitable for India and Burma and unsuitable for China.
Let us study the post revolution Constitution of the Peoples’ Republic of China in this connection.
The preamble of the Constitution of the Peoples’ Republic of China adopted on September 20, 1954 by the First National Peoples’ Congress says: All nationalities of our country are united in one great family of free and equal nations. The unity of China’s nationalities will continue to gain strength founded as it is on ever-growing friendship and mutual aid among themselves.
In his The foundations of Leninism Stalin said “formerly, the question of the oppressed nations was usually regarded as purely a juridical question. Solemn proclamations about the national equality of rights, innumerable declaration about the “equality of nations”- that was the stock in trade of the parties of the Second International…” This can be safely applied in the case of China. Without recognizing any right to be Free and equal the preamble declared China as One great family of free and equal nations. In spite of the fact that the husband and wife constitutes the basic unit of a family the right of divorce and separation for both, in case of need, is a recognized democratic right. Lenin said that the recognition of the right of self-determination and secession was like that of divorce and separation of husband and wife. The right is a security and guarantee in case of need. Without this right free and equal one great family were nothing but empty phrases.
Chapter one, Article 3 of Constitution of 1954 says: “The Peoples’ Republic of China is a single multinational state.” The “single” means the repudiation and rejection of the Leninist principle of federal structure of the multinational state as a “traditional step towards complete unity”. This “single” means the repudiation and rejection of the Leninist principle of “voluntary union” on the basis of free and equal rights. It means forcible and compulsory union which has got no relation with Marxism-Leninism.
The Article 3 of the Constitution further says: “Regional autonomy applies in areas where people of national minority live in compact communities. NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS AREAS ARE INALIENABLE PARTS OF THE PEOPLES’ REPUBLIC OF CHINA.”
Comrade readers! Can you hear the voice of Morarji Desai in the Chinese Constitution? Article 14 of the Chinese Soviet Constitution and the Second Congress of the Communist Party of China called these people “small nations” and Mongolian, Tibetans. Yunnanese, Sinkiangese, Kewichewans were recognised as distinct nations, annexed territories and nations. Now, in 1954 Constitution they are called ‘national minorities’ within the territory of China ! The Second Congress of the Communist Party of China, in categorical and clear terms said of “China proper” and conquered and annexed territory — conquered and annexed by the feudal emperors. How can, then, the Communist Party of China, the Constitution of Peoples’ Republic of China justify that it is following Marxist-Leninist path when its Constitution declares the conquered people as national minorities and the conquered territories as “inalienable parts of the Peoples’ Republic of China? We do not find any difference between a Morarji Desai, an Indira Gandhi, who claim Kashmir, Nagaland and Mizoram as inalienable parts of India by virtue of British conquest and integration with India on the one hand and the Communist Party of China on the other. It means, like that of Indias integrity theory, the peoples of Mongolia, Tibet, Siankiang, Yunan, Kewichew have no right even to demand self-determination as they have got no territory of their own to set up independent states!
Perhaps the Fifth National Peoples Congress of the Peoples’ Republic of China, held on March 5(on the birth day of Karl Marx) 1978, after the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution for the restoration of socialist path changed this repugnant and reactionary nationalist clause? The Fifth National Peoples Congress, of course, adopted a revised Constitution. Article 4 of this Constitution says: The Peoples Republic is a unitary multinational state. Instead of a single of 1954-Constitution the 1978 – Constitution says ‘unitary: The latest constitution is mere explicit and un-ambiguous. However, the revised Constitution has not revised the last line of the Article 3 of the 1954 Constitution, which reads: All the national autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the Peoples Republic of China. The reactionary nationalist clause remains, as it was, in spite of tall claims of Cultural Revolution.
It is true that the communists do not favour atomised states of feudal days. Communists unite as many people of different nations and nationalities as they can, taking advantage of the former annexed areas of feudal or imperialist empires adopting, of course, Leninist-Stalinist principle of national self-determination up to the right of secession based on federal structure of state as free and equal voluntary partners as transitional stage to complete unity. Communists neither conquer forcibly nor colonise like those of feudal and imperialist robbers.
Lenin said, The way to the common goal complete equality, the closest association and the eventual amalgamation of all nations obviously run along different routes in each concrete case, as, let us say, the way to a point in the centre of this page runs left from one edge and right from the opposite edge. If a Social Democrat [read Communist] from a great oppressing, annexing nation [like that of China] while advocating the amalgamation of nations in general [as the Communist Party of China has done] were for a moment forget that his Nicholas II, his Wilhelm, George, Poincare etc. [and in case of Chinese Communist his emperor Ching and Republican Chiang Kai-Sheik and other warlords] also stand for amalgamation with small nations (by means of annexations Nicholas II for amalgamation with Galacia, Wilhelm II for amalgamation with Belgium etc.) [and Chiang Kai-Shiek for “amalgamation” with Mongolia and Tibet] such a Social Democrat would be a ridiculous doctrinaire in theory and abettor of imperialism in practice.
In the internationalist education the workers of the oppressor countries, emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this, there can be no internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every Social Democrat of an oppressor nation who fails to conduct such propaganda as a scoundrel and an imperialist. This is an absolute demand, even where the chance of secession being possible and practicable before the introduction of socialism is only one in a thousand.
It is our duty to teach the workers to be indifferent to national distinctions, there is no doubt about that. But it must not be the indifference of the annexationists. A member of an oppressor nations must be indifferent to whether small nations belong to his state or to a neighboring state or to themselves, according to where sympathies lie: without such indifference he is not a Social Democrat. To be an internationalist Social Democrat one must not think only of ones own nation, but place, above it the interests of all nations, their common liberty and equality. Everyone accepts this in theory but displays an annexationist indifference in practice. There is the root of evil.
On the other hand, a Social Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second word of our formula: Voluntary integration of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence of his nations and his integration with the neighbouring states X, Y, Z etc. But in all case, he must fight against small nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the whole and the general and subordinate the particular to the general interest.
People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that it is contradictory for the Social Democrat of oppressor nations to insist on the freedom to secede while Social Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the freedom to integrate. However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be any other road to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other road from the given situation to this goal.(– The discussion on self-determination summed up; all emphases in the above quotations are of Lenins).
What should we call, then, the leadership of the Communist Party of China? Abettor of imperialism in practice? How should we treat the leadership of the Communist Party of China? As scoundrel and an imperialist?
The Peoples’ Daily of China, in its editorial of November 18, 1954, hailing its Constitution wrote: Our country is a unified multinational country. How can it be called a unified country, if this union is not voluntary? Even in 1944-49 a large-scale rebellion against the Kuomintang domination took place in Sin kiang and a Peoples Democratic Government was proclaimed there and they named that Government as East Turkestan Republic dropping the Chinese name Sin Kiang. They even expressed their resentment against the attitude and behaviours of the Chinese Communists. (We will again come to this point in our booklet Why was Stalin made a Controversial Figure?) During the Long-March, the Chinese communists had to negotiate and pacify the hostilities against them with many small nations and nationalities by promising to accord their rights. Tibet was brought, under control by military might and even in1954 a great rebellion took place there against the forcible integration. A real union can only emerge on the basis of the recognition of the right of disunion whenever necessary as Lenin said.
The same editorial shamelessly said, Like the Soviet Union, we have not only proclaimed the principle of equality of nationalities, but have also insured the exercise of their, primarily, the right of equal participation in running the state by all nationalities. The Soviet Union was under the dictatorship of the proletariat whereas China was under the New Democracy, where the Constitution of 1954 did not make any provision for even nationalising the capitalist enterprises. On the contrary the Constitution safeguarded the property rights of the capitalists. There were eight democratic Parties uniting mainly 1,140,000 capitalists who were receiving a fixed interest totalling 120 million Yuan per annum. There were 1200 Deputies in the National Peoples Congress of whom 265 represented the democratic Parties. And of the 1000 seats in the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference 195 seats were held by these Parties. The state was the joint dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and other classes. It was not even the dictatorship of the proletariat in essence. The Soviet Constitution could insure, by dint of its proletarian character of the state, the principle of equality and the exercise of that right by granting the right of secession to those nationalities who were in a position to secede and form independent states, could grant independence to Poland and Finland, but the Peoples’ Republic of China, could only make solemn promise because of the nationalist character of the state. Go through any bourgeois constitution, including the constitution of India, you will find all these high-sounding honeyed phrases like equality unified mutual benefit great family of nations unity in diversity etc. These are all abstract and empty rhetoric so long these are not insured and backed by the recognition of the right of national self-determination and secession.
What are the arguments in support of this volte face of the Communist Party of China? It offers the following bourgeois nationalist, big nation chauvinistic arguments: The Chinese (Hans) constitutes the overwhelming majority (94%) of the population, they are the principal nation in the country and occupy the leading position, politically, economically and culturally. The Hans constitute 94% of Chinese population the Journal Sing Kiang Hung chi wrote in its No 23 issue of 1960, and they are the most advanced as regards their political, economic and cultural development. The merging of nationalities should, therefore, be put into effect, on the basis of one nationality. The specifics of the Han nation the same Journal wrote will become the common national specifics of national minorities. The newspaper Sin Kiang Jhipao wrote in its March 21, 1960 issue that This merging is Marxist and Communist assimilation. It is an inevitable trend in societys development. Those who oppose such assimilation oppose socialism and communism and oppose historical materialism.
This reactionary theory of assimilation through the superior culture and language is not at all a new one. Kautsky, a renegade, also advocated it. Let us quote Stalin on this point. Stalin said:
True, Mr. Kautsky, an ex-Marxist and now a renegade and reformist, asserts something that is the very opposite of what Lenin teaches us. Despite Lenin, he asserts that the victory of the proletarian revolution, in the Austro-German federal state in the middle of the last century would have led to the formation of a single, common German language and Germanisation of the Czechs because the mere force of unshackled intercourse, the mere force of modern culture of which the Germans were the vehicles, without any forcible Germanisation would have converted into Germans the backward Czechs petty-bourgeois, peasants and proletarians who had nothing to gain from the decayed nationality. (See, Preface to the German edition of Revolution and Counter Revolution) [Stalin, Political Report of the C. C. to XVI Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B); Vol:12].
While Kautsky the renegade saw the possibility of Germanisation of the backward Czechs through assimilation by higher culture the Communist Party of China advocate and practices, Hanisation of the culturally and linguistically backward minority nationalities through assimilation by superior culture and asserts it as Marxism-Leninism, historical materialism. Why do not they call themselves Kautskyiete, instead of calling Marxist-Leninists? That would have been fair and honest.
Regarding assimilation Stalin said the following:
The Beirut comrades raise the question of assimilation of the individual nationalities in the course of building a universal proletarian culture. Undoubtedly, some nationalities may, and certainly perhaps will, undergo a process of elimination. Such processes have taken place before. The point is, however, that the process of assimilation of some nationalities does not exclude but presupposes the opposite process strengthening and further development of quite a number of existing and developing nations for the partial process of assimilation of individual nationalities is the result of the general process of development of nations. It is precisely for this reason that the possible assimilation of some individual nationalities does not weaken but confirms the entirely correct thesis that proletarian universal culture does not exclude but presupposes and fosters national culture of the people, just as the national culture of the people does not annual but supplements and enriches universal proletarian culture. (Task of the University of the Peoples of the East, Vol. 7)
How beautifully the dialectical relations and the dialectical process of universal proletarian culture and national culture have been explained here! Those section of the people who has yet developed a stable written and spoken languages, who are more scattered and could not yet develop some stable elements of culture may be assimilated by process of elimination, but so far as the Mongolians, Sinkiangese and Tibetans and others are concerned the ‘assimilation’ as enunciated by the Communist Party Of China journals is absolute assimilation by the Hans, it is cultural and literary jingoism. To speak of one way assimilation “on these of one nationality” whose “backbone should be the Hans” is nothing but big-nation chauvinism.
Besides, this assimilation drive, the autonomous status of the minority nationalities of the compact areas has also been made extremely limited by the introduction of three types of autonomous units viz. (a) autonomous region, (b) autonomous districts and (c) autonomous county. There are all together five autonomous regions, twenty-nine autonomous districts and sixty-four autonomous counties. The compact region, where the non-Chinese live has also been divided into region, district and county, thus depriving the non-Chinese small nations of asingle nation to unite in a compact region. In Tibetan region the peoples Republic of China did not allow to unite all the Tibetans into one single autonomous unit and as a result a considerable number of Tibetans live outside the autonomous region, though they live in a continuous contiguous compact area.
This is the price for assimilation or Hanisation that small nations are paying. The recognition of the right of national self-determination up to secession is one of the cornerstones of proletarian internationalism. The repudiation of the Leninist-Stalinist theory and practice of the right of national self-determination is the repudiation of Marxism-Leninism.
10 Concluding Remarks
The 1949 Chinese Revolution was, undoubtedly, a great victory for the world people and world socialism in spite of its many contradictions and weaknesses. The Soviet Union, under the leadership of Stalin, played the decisive role in defeating Japan in China and Japans surrender. On August 13, 1945, Mao had to admit that the decisive factor for Japans surrender is the entry of the Soviet Union into the war. A million Red Army troops are entering Chinese North-East; this force is irresistible. (S.W. Vol. IV). Ho Chiao Mu, in his Thirty Years of the CPC, Peking, 1951, said The Soviet Army quickly annihilated the Japanese Kwantang Army and liberated North-East China. The Peoples’ Liberation Army fighting in co-ordination with the Soviet Army energetically wiped out the Japanese and puppet troops, freeing a large number of medium sized and small cities from the enemys occupation. On August, 14 Japan announced its unconditional surrender. This made the Communist Party Of Chinas position stronger. Besides this, due to the victory of World War II and general strengthening of the peoples’ forces world over the U.S. imperialism was forced to engage its mercenary forces from Europe (France, Italy etc.) to Philippines against partisan forces led by the Communist Parties. The dispersal of the U.S. forces on the one hand, and the withdrawal of the Soviet Army from the Chinese soil thus compelling the U.S. to declare non-interference militarily in the internal affairs of China putting constant pressure to withdraw U.S. forces from China enabled the Communist Party Of China to move from strategic defence into strategic offence in 1947, against Chiang Kai-Sheiks regime. These lines are not negating the invaluable importance of internal factors, but only to show that own resources theory if it is carried too far, without recognising the external factors and international help, however indirect, can only lead to narrow nationalism.
However, sensing imminent victory of the revolution in China, the Chinese national bourgeoisie, joined with the proletariat in 1947 so that the Communist Party Of China may not establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in China, as a result of which the Peoples’ Republic was established in 1949 without any war in five of the Chinese provinces and in her capital Peking. The ideological and political bases of this alliance was laid by Mao Tse Tung in his On New Democracy and On Coalition Government. The Maoists did never accept Lenins theory that bourgeois nationalism is the direct antithesis of proletarian internationalism. Mao on the contrary, attributed special characteristics to Chinese national bourgeoisie. Lenin said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the key problem of the ENTIRE proletarian class struggle. He said, This is the touchstone on which real (Lenin’s emphasis) understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested. (Vol.25, pg. 412). He further said The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. (Vol. 25, pg. 413). While Lenin defined the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry (the bourgeois democratic revolution in the shape of Peoples Democracy) as the promoter of the revolutionary process to bring about the triumph of socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, Maos On New Democracy said nothing about the power growing into the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin wrote in 1905, in his article entitled Social democracys attitude towards the peasant movement in which he pointed out that after the democratic revolution we shall at once and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class conscious proletariats, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half-way. (Vol. 9, Pg. 237). But, Mao said, for a long time to come there will exist in China a particular form of state and political power i.e., New Democracy based on the alliance of several democratic classes a system which is distinguished from the Russian system and which is perfectly necessary and reasonable thus creating a real Chinese wall between the democratic revolution and proletarian revolution and making the New Democracy a stable system.
Consequently, after the Chinese revolution the Peoples’ Republic of China remained a four class dictatorship and the state power was shared with the national bourgeoisie and the rural bourgeoisie, under which the commanding heights of the national economy could never be socialist sector and state capitalism under this regime could never be a state capitalism controlled and guided by the dictatorship of proletariat and as such could not promote socialist revolution and socialism. As such, the character of the state of the Peoples’ Republic of Chinaqualitatively became not the dictatorship of the proletariat in essence in 1949-50. However, there was a force in the Communist Party Of China who fought against Maos petty-bourgeois, non-Marxist theory and practice. In 1950-52, the Communist Party Of China rejecting Maos petty-bourgeois line and relying on state sector that had already come into existence steered a line towards socialism and proletarian dictatorship in essence. In 1950-52, the Communist Party Of China mapped out its general policy for the period of transition from capitalism to socialism in its historic document Theses for the study and propagation of the party’s general line in the period of transition. It said, Without leadership of the Communist Party Of China armed with MarxistLeninist theory of the laws of social development and representing the interests of the working class [Mark please, there is no mention of Mao Tse Tung thought here] in our country it would be impossible to implement socialist industrialisation and socialist reorganisation of agriculture, the handicraft industry and the trade and industrial enterprises owned by private capitalists. The theses, stressing the importance of establishing Leninist norms in party life noted, Collective leadership is the highest organisational principle of our party, unnecessary, excessive accentuation of the outstanding role of an individual, no matter, who he may be, cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. In these theses, the Communist Party Of China set itself the task of educating communists and the people in a spirit of internationalist solidarity, and fraternity with the socialist countries. The whole people the theses stated must be educated in a spirit of understanding that assistance to our country from the Soviet Union and the Peoples Democracies and the powerful unity of the entire camp of peace, democracy and socialism are indispensable conditions for the successful building of socialism in our country. The first five year plan of China was chalked out on the basis of above General Line. It is to be noted that this “General Line” theses were discussed and accepted after Maos return to China from his Moscow meeting with Stalin and reporting against Stalin and the Soviet Union in the Chinese Party. It is also to be noted that the Second Plenary session of the Seventh Central Committee also banned on placing Chinese comrades at par with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Mao also had to write These are several regulations which were adopted at the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee but not written in resolution The sixth is a ban on placing Chinese comrades at a par with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Our relations to them is one of pupils to teachers and that is how it should be. (S. W., Vol. V, Pg.111).
All these were great blows to Maos bourgeois nationalist line of self reliance and building socialism in own country in own fashion. But he could gather strength, after the death of Stalin and usurpation of the dictatorship of the proletariat by Khrushchevite clique in the Soviet Union to oppose the General Line of the First Five year Plan of China and thus could launch the Great Leap Forward movement together with his theory of Correct handling of the Contradictions among the people in which he advocated and practised the four class dictatorship and class peace and class collaboration with the national bourgeoisie thus burying of prospect of a socialist revolution in China.
Ray O Light a Marxist-Leninist organisation of the USA correctly concluded in its booklet The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the International Marxist-Leninist Movement, Maos thought became a support for Khrushchevs thought for the thought of a modern revisionism’ based on the negation of Stalin and proletarian internationalism.
END
A brilliant analysis of Stalin and his teaching, an eye opener for all those who denigrate him.
A must read for all Communist Revolutionaries.
Note: This post was earler posted on another site but was taken down due to some policy issue. It is being uploaded here: Continue reading “He who does not defend Stalin, is an opportunist and a coward”
Click here to download the PDF file
Following are comments from the online group Marxist Leninist List <marxist-leninist-list@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu>
Marxist Front <marxistfrontatyahoo.co.in) on 26 September 2011 wrote:
A critical Evaluation of Mao-tse-tung, was published in the journal Gegen Die Strömung: Organ of West German Marxist Leninist Party in 1981.
Blog Other aspect has uploaded the scanned document at:
https://otheraspect.wordpress.com/.
It seems to be a good evaluation of Mao
Comrade Mark Scott <mark1scott55atyahoo.com> on 27 September 2011 wrote:
Comrades,
It seems to be a fair statement but I find no evaluation of Mao as that should be complete with both Mao’s so-called revisionist lines followed by a Marxist-Leninist correction of those revisionist lines which it does neither.
It does, however, provide a fair and accurate assessment that because of questionable Maoist positions taken by self-fashioned Maoists after Mao that Maoism should not be treated with hostility as some Marxist-Leninists are fond of doing.
Some Marxist-Leninists have also twisted Lenin’s and Stalin’s writings into revisionist contortions as we have clearly seen even on this list all in the name of Lenin and Stalin but we still defend these great leaders and never trivialize or belittle them or the importance of their contributions to proletarian revolution.
Fraternally
Mark Scott
Comrade frankenstein580 frankied002atyahoo.com, 14 October 2011 wrote:
I agree that the German article is a fair though incomplete assessment of Mao. Mao is not the greatest Marxist Leninist of our era; Stalin remains that immortal paragon in that sense and so far, if you will. And like the dictatorship of the proletariat, the defense of Stalin expresses a necessary condition for the victory of communism. But I also have great respect for Enver Hoxha and the PLA, and believe that they were quite enough timely in their criticism of khrushchevite revisionism and then Maoist deviation and revisionism, despite their errors. I’ll always remember the PLA as the Albanian people’s leader against fascism and for socialist revolution and comrade Enver Hoxha as an outstanding advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
We see that the future can not belong to idle hands. We have witnessed that no coalition government nor new democracy, social democracy or the like can guarantee the negation of the exploitation of man by man. Only the dictatorship and democratic ways of the revolutionary people, those who abhor exploitation and value progress and science and inventions, can lift all of humanity out of misery. The working class is indeed the emancipators, that whom everyone awaits, the determining factor, the true achievers. We are the contradiction; the opposite in the unity; that which the few expected would NOT perform; the majority, the multitude, the people. We shall break asunder the old connections with capital and establish new relations with our products and with nature. A relations in which humanity lives happily with each other and ends class sufferings. Let the machines and robots and computers be our tools! And our weapons our security!
The proletariat has no where to go but forward.
yours
f580
by Moni Guha
This paper was presented on behalf of Moni Guha at a ‘study week’ recently organised by the Indian Institute of Advanced Study at Shimla. “The Tribune” in its report on the deliberations dubbed this paper “blatantly pro-Stalinist” and we plead guilty. A welcome compliment for us.
This paper has briefly dealt with the problem and we will take up the issue in detail in all its aspects in a series of articles in the subsequent issues of Proletarian Path. Continue reading “Collapse of Socialism”
The ‘mainstream’ corporate media that till all the time was jeering towards a hung parliament with the Indian National Congress led UPA loosing seats while the rightist Bhartiya Janata Party led NDA gaining some, and on the whole predicting a hung parliament are now cheering for the almost absolute majority that the UPA got. They are touting this as a victory for the neo-liberal reforms seen as one taking India closer to the glamour of capitalist world. The bourgeoisie hireling media during the entire course of previous Lok Sabha were sulking on the lack of reforms due to Left’s obstruction. Even today when the world over people are seeing the after effects of the brazen free market reform the media truly subservient to their bourgeoisie masters are still harping for a free market reforms.
Parliamentary Left’s Bourgeoisie Politics
It is beyond doubt that the results have come as big surprise to the parliamentary Left (led by the revisionist CPI-M and the much older and largely redundant CPI). What is surprising is that this drubbing came at a time when the global capitalist order is going through its worst phase and world over there is a perceptible rise in Left wing politics.
From their all time high of 61 seats that they bagged in the general election in 2004 their tally has come to record low of 24. The Left’s 2004 electoral tally was a mere coincidence and not an outcome of any political struggle. Yet the Narcissist leadership of official left far removed from the ground reality concluded the result as something permanent and started dreaming of coming to power by cobbling together a potpourri of disparate power hungry politicians no better than their partners in the two ‘national’ alliance. This attempt of popping a Third Front proved to be a ‘Third Farce’ meeting the same fate like its previous two avatars in the mid nineties. The shameless electoral manoeuvre of co-opting with the reactionary bourgeoisie leaders like Mayawati (BSP) Jayalaitha (AIADMK) and providing secular credential to Naveen Patnaik (BJD of Orissa) who till few months ago was happily cohabitating with BJP and other Hindutva groups further alienated the masses from the hypocritical polity of the Left. This entire exercise to form the Third front since beginning was nothing but an insane anti-Congress and anti-BJP rhetoric, having no agenda to further the cause of working class or peasantry.
In the left stronghold states of Kerala, west Bengal and Tripura, barring Tripura Left have lost in both Kerala and West Bengal. In other parts of country the Left has been perceptibly weak and has done nothing to remove its historical weakness, the mandarins of CPI and CPM have magical solution for the entire ills of the world they have till date not been able to solve the class-caste dichotomy of the large tracts of Indian heartland. Though the area has witnessed several people’s movement but there has hardly been any leading role taken up by the two parliamentary ‘communist’ parties[1]. On the other hand they have been seen leaving the working class and peasantry in lurch as happened in Gurgaon where the CPI’s trade union wing left the workers in the hands of goons hired by the management of Japanese multinational Honda and the state police, while the national union Leadership eloped — lock stock and barrel.
Both the ‘communist’ parties today have degenerated into another bourgeoisie vote catching outfit and have lost their historic role of being an advance guard of proletariats and its allies the peasantry. CPI and CPM are looked by the average people as another political party and same has been the case with the urban and rural proletariats also. The leadership of the party have also been doing nothing else but politics of winning parliamentary and assembly seats, aligning with this or that bourgeoisie political outfits.
The only sensible alliance that the Left parties entered into was in Bihar and to some extent in Jharkhand. In Bihar which has been a hot bed of revolutionary left politics CPI, CPI (M) and CPI (ML) Liberation formed a United Left Block (ULB). Though, by far more logical activity than that of Third Front; the ULB since start was not supposed to make any significant headway. Years of tailism has reduced, the CPI and CPI (M) to shadow parties of the RJD in Bihar while the Liberation by not joining hands with the RJD, was just able to maintain its separate identity in the political field. Though Liberation; has lost its major support base that it had gained during its armed struggle days. In fact party in its recently held congress openly admitted that liquidationist tendencies are gaining ground. The new generation of the party cadres are coming not from grassroots but from premiere universities like JNU are more inclined towards post-modernist ideology. They carry all sorts of anti-Marxist notion with themselves which at the end harming the movement and making it rudderless and directionless. More or less same is happening with party also. Liberation the latest entrant into the parliamentary club may also become the first major Trotskyite political formation having any significant though dwindling ground support.
Though Left parties have been decimated in both their stronghold of West Bengal and Kerala, the reason for the defeat are quite different.
Where as in Kerala the government is still popular and have not been seen openly chartering a neo liberalist path and the Chief Minister V S Ach is seen as an upright principled man. But the internal squabbling and factionalism has not only badly affected the functioning of the party, but also the central leadership chose to side with the corrupt and neo liberal-leaning faction of P. Vijayan. The pro-capital activities of this group, such as the SNS Lavlin scandal where Vijayan is an accused, acceptance of huge monetary contributions from S. Martin, the “lottery king” of Kerala and the blocking of the land requisition drive against the Tatas in Munnar, have only reinforced the pro-capital image of the party in the eyes of the people. Also CPI M’s hobnobbing with Islamic communal PDP did not augur well with the secular mass base of the party. During the seat sharing CPI M displeased some of its smaller allies like the CPI and Janata Dal (Secular) that also caused rupture in the hitherto monolithic Left Democratic Front. The ruckus over seat sharing and the way it was projected in the media made the front look like a replica of Congress led United Democratic Front, alienating a large chunk of the undecided neutral votes. The state of Left Front in Kerala would be dealt with in another article.
The CPI (M) in West Bengal: Leftist when in opposition Rightist when in power
If nationally the CPM and its allies have been resisting neo liberal reforms, yet the same CPI (M) and its other punitive partners had no qualms in implementing the same neo liberal reforms in West Bengal. Their CM Buddhadeb Bhattacharya had no issues in hugging Tata’s and Salem. Latter being involved in; execution of hundreds of communists in Indonesia.
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.
The CPM boss Prakash Karat has been lecturing and writing long articles on the exploitation in SEZs across the country but same Karat has no qualm in declaring SEZs in Bengal as ‘progressive’. Isn’t it Indian version of Khrushchev?
Commenting on the capitulation of the CPI M leaders to the camp of neo liberalism Ashok Mitra the well known left analyst and Finance minister in the First Left Front government in W.B observed[2]:
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.
Unfortunately some of the Trotskyite in India (for instance see the blog New Wave new-wave-nw.blogspot.com[3]), in their all encompassing rage towards Stalinist principle and to ascribe everything wrong to Stalin, have been calling these and several such measures taken by the CPI(M) as ‘Stalinist policies’ and have termed CPI(M) a Stalinist party. Does the step taken up by the party in West Bengal constitute Stalinism or revisionism?
Would our learned friends—the firm defender of Bolshevism, care us to show from the collected works of Stalin or of people whom they call as Stalinists where they have endorsed such practice? If they can show this, only then they would have the right to indulge in such misleading phrase mongering.
The process of restoration of capitalism and undermining the philosophy of Marxism Leninism was initiated during the Khrushchev and Brezhnev era, when they had undertaken effort to undermine the gains from the Stalin period and move away from the Leninist principle– that is why they constitute revisionism.
The signs of impending disaster were very much evident. In the Panchayat elections held in 2008, CPI M and allies had got similar drubbing, but the valid point is why CPI M that boasts of cadre in every village was not able to gauge the impending debacle? This point has been summed up in following word by a CPM sympathiser
“But the whole point in case here is how come we were not aware about this very strong anti-incumbency wave blowing all over the place in the state. That leaves the whole organization high and dry, and clearly shows either our comrades have lost touch with the grass root, or people have deserted the party cadres in such a way that they even didn’t open up in front of our cadres about their anguish and anger. They preferred to show their wrath against the party through ballot, and this phenomenon, if true, is quite chilly. Whereas a communist party is supposed to be with the people like a fish in water [sic]. Probably if our party could have anticipated a rout in the elections, we would have been much happier today; at least it would have showed we haven’t lost touch with the reality.” (http://www.pragoti.org/node/3435#comment-2312 )
Three Decades of ‘communist’ rule in West Bengal
Here it would not be out of context to check the score card of the three decades of Left Front rule in West Bengal.
In 1977, CPI(M) came to power riding the anti congress wave, immediately on ascending to power the party declared that it would try to implement the socialist model despite the odds it faces in bourgeoisie democratic setup. It loudly had then proclaimed that its government would implement alternative path of economic development based on Marxist ideology. Bengal model was to be the show piece that CPI-M wanted to replicate nation wide. But these three decades of ‘communist’ rule excepting some limited land reforms that it achieved during the initial days of its power the next two decades has been a lost era for Bengal that has lead to the cul-de-sac of economic stagnation.
The land reform also is also not without its own problems. The reform has resulted in fragmented land holding that today has become largely uneconomical. Then here is the problem of agrarian landless workers and the share croppers or the Bhagidars
In West Bengal, the landless exceed the landowners by about one and half times in numbers [for every ten landowners there are fifteen landless]. For the rest of the country, the average distribution is roughly ten (landowner) to eight (landless). In states like Punjab, Haryana, Tamilnadu, Gujrat etc., where rapid industrialisation is taking place on agricultural land, the ratios are ten (landowners) to six, four or three (landless). Therefore, there is less hassle in acquiring agricultural land.[4]
CPI (M) all these years has colligated the struggle of landless agrarian labourer under the larger peasant struggle. In Bengal there is still no organisation on agrarian labourer associated with CPI (M), but they are part of the Kisan Sabha (Farmer’s Union). As a result today there is no voice of the landless when it comes to land acquisition. These rural proletariats have no say in any compensation that is disbursed when land is acquired for industrial use. It was these landless workers and Bagidars whose economic interest were hurt the most when land was acquired in Nandigram and Singur and they overwhelmingly this time opposed the CPI M’s brand of ‘socialism’ for Mamata’s brand of ‘democracy’
CPI (M)’s obsession with the Land reforms and Panchayat has led to complete neglect of other vital social sector like education, health, public transport and even minority welfare.
A distinctive characteristic of every government professing the principle of socialism has been eradication of illiteracy and promoting health care programme. Even in backward country like Albania under the rule of Enver Hoxha, the state had initiated several measures to alleviate literacy level and enhance health care. Illiteracy from 90-95% in rural areas in 1939 went down to 30% by 1950 and by 1985 it was equal to that of the United States of America. In health care Malaria was completely eradicated.
To promote literacy and health care the state government does not have to be dependent on the Central government, hence the favourite nag line of the ‘communist’ government of step-motherly treatment from the Central government.
Health
According to West Bengal government’s own Human Development Report, married women in West Bengal, on average, have a lower body-mass index than the average Indian woman, suggesting greater undernourishment. Married women in West Bengal also have a greater likelihood of suffering from anemia than the average Indian woman. This data is from the. The Governemnt has failed to utilise funds earmarked for helath sector, the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Audit Report (Civil), West Bengal for the Year 2006-2007 stated that “During 2002-2007, the (West Bengal government’s) department could not spend the budgeted funds of Rs 357.13 crore for urban health services. Further, unutilised funds of Rs 1.50 crore remained parked in the personal ledger accounts of the Superintendents of two hospitals for over seven years.”
Similar is the case with Education sector, West Bengal has the second highest school dropout rate among major states of India.
In recent report prepared by the Pratichi Trust founded by Amartya Sen brings out the sad but trustworthy picture of this apathy. In the census of 1991, West Bengal occupied the 19th position in the order of literacy; at snails’ pace, the position improved to 18th in 2001. According to the census of 2001, three-fourths of the 31.5% of illiterates of the state resided in the villages. It is difficult to comprehend that, in the 21st century; over two and a half crore illiterates reside in a state under continuous ‘communist’ rule for over three decades? It is important to note that literacy is not the only criterion for industrial employment; some language and arithmetic skills are also needed. The record of West Bengal on this score is pathetic. With respect to at least nine years of school-education for young people in the age group of 20-24, the state lags behind the national average. Out of 40,782 villages in the state, there is a middle school only in 5541 villages. There are 18,624 middle schools within a radius of 5 kilometers of a village. As a result, over 40% of the villages do not have a middle school within a radius of 5 kilometers. Yet, the rulers of this state frequently boast of ‘excellence’.[5]
When it came to implementing schemes that the party laid claims for getting them passed in Parliament its result in its own ruled state shows an abject failure
In 2006-07, the person-days of NREGA(National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: The NREGA provides a legal guarantee for one hundred days of employment in every financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do public work-related unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage, the Left parties along with many NGOs were in forefront to get the act passed.) employment generated per rural household was 6 in West Bengal and 3 in Kerala, with both states figuring in the list of the 3 worst performers. Compared to this, the all-India average was 17 person-days, and Chhattisgarh generated 34, Madhya Pradesh 56, Assam 70 and Rajasthan 77 person-days . A similar picture emerges for the next year too: in 2007-08, West Bengal generated 8 person-days and Kerala 6 person-days, much below the all-India average of 16 person-days.
Voices of Revisionism to the fore
The drubbing has given a fillip to party’s liberal (read the openly pro capitalist pro Congress neo liberal social democratic) section to again raise its voice against party’s ‘hard’line leadership that had taken at least some stance against open liberalisation a
“People are just fed up with the CPI-M Politburo’s anti-people stance of formulating policies in air-conditioned rooms. A party can’t be run on the basis of policies alone. Politics is to be understood through the public pulse,” –CPI-M leader Subhas Chakraborty.
The coming days may witness a sharp contradiction arising in the party between the neo liberal group near to the former CM Jyoti Basu and the ‘hardliner’ group led by Karat and other central leadership. People like Subhas Chakraborty and even Buddhdhadev Bhattacharya seems still to have turned Nelson’s eye to the real cause of party’s mauling and have been blaming the stance of central leadership regarding withdrawal of support to the congress government and opposing of reforms. They seem to be endorsing the view that the results have been a victory for the forces of neo-liberalism and stable government.
In coming days several such voices are expected to emanate from various quarters of the party the revisionist have history of liquidation and decimation of communist parties from giants like the CPSU to the smaller yet powerful entities like CPGB. So if we see voices clamouring for complete change of the party on patterns of European leftist outfits then it should not come as a big surprise.
Conclusion
It is certain that as and when the new government unleashes the next round of neo liberal economic agenda and draconian laws, the lives of large sections of the Indian population will be tremendously affected.
The Left deserves an applause that because of their persistent opposition to reforms is core financial sectors like Banking, Finance and Pension that Indian economy remained insulated from the recession sweeping the entire capitalist world. Even after the global financial meltdown and crumpling of the financial giants like AIG and Lehman Brothers, Indian banks and financial market were able to with stand the shock.
Now the new government has made its stand amply clear that it would speed up the process of neo-liberal reforms that it could not achieve due to Left’s reluctance. This means submitting the large amount of fund in Pension deposit to the whimsical nature of stock and capital market, privatising the profit making Public sector industries, giving virtual infinite power to the international and comprador bourgeoisies in exploiting working class. The capitalists and their lackeys in media are all in a joyous mood about the impending capitalism that is coming to India shore, largely oblivious to the current state of capitalism world wide. The working class is in for severe repression and exploitation.
Today those at the helm of CPI (M) both at the central and state level have jettisoned the idea of socialism accepting capitalist path as the ultimate truth. Communism for CPI (M) has become just a word in its nomenclature and revolution has been limited to the slogan of inqilab jindabad (Long Live Revolution) that is to be just parroted in rallies and strikes. It has the same significance in CPI (M) today as the poem/anthem Red Flag had in the British Labour Party before being finally discarded by the openly pro capitalist Blaire and company.
The severe mauling of CPI (M) has also given the revolutionary left a chance to consolidate itself to fill the space created by the degeneration of CPM into open party of capitalist class. If the revolutionary communist groups adapt correct tactics then there is a major scope of reinvigorating the revolutionary left movement in India once again. The need of the hour is to unite the Revolutionary and progressive forces and initiate a country wide mass peoples struggle in order to halt and reverse the onslaught of neo liberalism. Neo liberalism has to be substituted by a programme of pro-people industrial development founded on adequate compensation for the potentially displaced and the consent of the working people that would put people’s interest before corporate interest. This is the immediate task of the genuine left and democratic forces in the country.
June, 2009
1.In the Aftermath of Nandigram Prabhat Patnaik Economic and Political Weekly, May 26, 2007
2.On the Events in Nandigram, Revolutionary Democracy, Vol. XIII, No. 2, September 2007
3.CPM’s Grazing Land, Sumit Mitra Revolutionary Democracy, Vol. XIII, No. 2, September 2007
4.Stalemate in Bengal, Economic and Political Weekly, March 21-27,200
Notes and Reference:
[1] A detail analysis of CPI(M)’s revisionism, see the article Chameleon has revealed its true colours, at http://www.geocities.com/marxistfront
[2] Ashok Mitra, Why Fool yourself?/ Introspection may help the CPI(M) recognize a harsh truth, Fri, 2009-05-22 21:28, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090522/jsp/opinion/story_10994551.jsp, accessed (4/06/2009)
[3] One of the few Trotskyite sites from India ‘The New Wave’
[4] CPM’s Grazing Land, Sumit Mitra Revolutionary Democracy, Vol. XIII, No. 2, September 2007
[5] op. cite
Comrade Moni Guha breathed his last on the morning of 7th April 2009 in the city of Kolkata. He was 95. Born on 29th September 1914, comrade Guha was veteran of the Indian communist movement who devoted almost eighty years of his life upholding the banner of Marxism Leninism. Though never a successful mass leader of any political party comrade Guha always strove for organizing group of comrades who really understood the basic tenets of Marxism Leninism and who would be ‘class-for-itself’ and not just ‘class-in-itself’. It is a remarkable testimony to his personal and political qualities that he was held in high esteem even by his critics.
A man with an encyclopeadic knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, his identity as a scholar in Marxism and specially as Stalinist scholar is acknowledged even by his most vocal critic, comrade Guha came in contact and crossed swords with many of the titans of the communist movement such as M.N. Roy, B.T. Ranadive and Charu Majumdar. It goes to comrade Moni Guha’s analytical prowess that he was among the first few who understood the revisionist strands in the 20th Congress of the CPSU within weeks of the event, when other communist intellectuals and parties were still trying to interpret the emerging phenomenon.
His small booklet ‘Revisionism against Revisionism’ is a brilliant piece of Marxist analysis where comrade Guha,, meticulously exposed the deviations almost amounting to revisionism in Mao’s and CPC’s struggle with CPSU, that he termed as a struggle between two revisionists. His other works like Moscow Trial, 20th Congress and Stalin, Yugoslav question and the Role of CPC and CPSU, , Mao supplements Krushchev , Trotsky in the eyes of Lenin, Mao-tse-tung, are works par excellence in the great tradition of Marxism Leninism, aimed understanding the root cause of revisionism that has come to plague the international communist Movement. Though on the character of Indian revolution Com. Guha held that India has become a capitalist country and the stage of revolution has thus become socialist, this view we think is erroneous given the objective and subjective condition prevailing in India today. the data and the stage of industrialisation, state of agricultural sector all, according to us points that India is still a middle level capitalist country, a junior member of the imperialist club hence the stage of revolution has to be democratic rather than Socialistic!
Some of comrade Moni Guha’s articles can be found on the website of his Journal Proletariat Path at http://www23.brinkster.com/proletarianpath/
Comrade Guha’s View on the Stage and characteristic of Indian Revolution titled “Marxist Methodology and the Current Stage of the Indian Revolution” athttp://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/stage.htm
For the past two decades “globalisation” has become the buzzword. In recent history hardly any other process has dominated the spectrum of social science as globalisation. From political scientists to economists, from right wingers to the ultra leftist, from academics to corporate managers everyone has been analysing and trying to understand this phenomenon unfolding before us all. Like the Russian roulette the unfolding globalisation has in itself all the tragicomic events causing a global Domino ripple hitherto unheard and unseen.
In this entire drama what is intriguing is the fact the as more and more world enters into the so-called “global age”, the analysis and ‘prophesies’ of Marx increasingly seems to be coming true.
At the dissolution of Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of ideology” and capitalism’s indisputable victory and consigning Marxism to dust bin of history. Hardly did he imagine that less than a decade and half the very same bourgeoisies economist and intelligentsia would be forced to read and re-read the works of a person, termed the ‘Satan’ more than 150 years after his death. A person whom they have refuted ad infinitum and terming his views as anachronistic.
It must have been quite difficult for the international speculator George Soros – the revered new age financial guru –by the mainstream media and the bourgeoisie world over to write:
Global Capitalism “is coming apart at the seams”
John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge of the fiercely pro market The Economist in their book A Future Perfect: The Challenges and hidden Promise of Globalisation:
“As a prophet of socialism Marx may be kaput; but as a prophet of the ‘Universal interdependence of nation’ as he called globalisation, he can still seem startling relevant ….his description of globalisation remains as sharp today as it was 150 years ago”
So it becomes pertinent to understand how Marx investigated and analysed the process of ‘globalisation’. Though he never used the term ‘globalisation’ per say of capital yet the underlying meaning is clearly discernable in the Marxian term ‘world market’ and ‘foreign trade’. Both of them, being liberally used in the extant text of Marx (and of course also Engels). For Marx ‘capitalism’ represented a specific mode of production characterised by the separation of producer (i.e. the workers) from the means of production, based on wage, labour and capital.
….labour is the workers own life activity, the manifestation of his own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of subsistence.
(Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital, Pg 153, Selected Works Vol. 1, Progress Publisher, Moscow 1977, USSR)
The commodification of labour, says Marx is specific characteristic of Capitalism:
“Labour power was not always commodity.”
(ibid.)
The Capitalist Mode of Production (C.M.P)
“….replaces and put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” (Karl Marx and Fredric Engels; Communist Manifesto (CM), SW 1, Pg 111).
Unlike earlier mode of production, the Capitalist Mode of Production takes the form of commodity. Labour subsumes under capital, and every occupation become a “paid wage labour” (Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto, Pg 111) to the bourgeoisie.
Here it is important to understand how the Capitalist Mode of Production differs from all the other historic modes of production that it succeeded.
Where as in all the pre-Capitalist Mode of Production, the society was driven by need, CMP replaced it with exchange. To elaborate, a product in the pre Capitalist society was in demand for its value of utilization (or need) by the consumers, it is diametrically different case in the capitalist society.
In CMP products take form of commodity.
A commodity is an exchangeable product used to satisfy human need. Every commodity has an associated value associated to it. This value can further be sub categorized into use-value and Exchange value (or simply value). The utility the thing makes constitutes its use-value. Wher as the exchange value (or simply value) is proportion in which a certain number of use-values of one kind can be exchanged for certain number use values of other kinds. A common feature of all commodities is that they are “product of labour”. Each particular commodity represents only a certain share of “socially necessary ‘labour time’. The magnitude of value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour for the production of a given commodity.
“Whenever by an exchange, we equate as value our different products by that very act, we also equate as human labour, the different kind of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this nevertheless we do it.”
(Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, Section 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR)
Further for a commodity the exchange value constitutes the quantitative value and the use value represents the quantitative aspect of value. In determining the price of a commodity the use value constitutes the substratum of the price of a commodity.
The value of a commodity consists in the fact that its owner relinquishes its own use value and pockets its exchange value.
(Engels, Housing Question III, SW Vol.2)
The pre capitalist social formation were characterised by use-value in CMP it is the exchange value which dominates, hence the Surplus Value (SV), that though present in all class divided society assumes a much greater significance. Whereas the surplus value can originate outside the sphere of production in pre Capitalist Mode of Production, where it represents essentially a transfer value (so-called primitive accumulation of capital) and is circumscribed by the approximate fixed cycle if needs. But under CMP where capital controls and dominates the sphere of production, it assumes significance, as it represents a constant increase in value.
The Capitalist Mode of Production thus is characterised by lust of production, that drives it into a maddening rage, termed by Marx as ‘enrichment mania’
“The enrichment mania itself is impossible without money, the common form in which all commodities are transformed as exchange values. All other accumulation and passion for accumulation appear as naturally given, limited, on the one hand by needs, and, on the other hand, conditioned by the limited nature if the product.” (Marx, contribution to the Critique of political Economy)
Thus it is only under CMP that exchange value replaces the need value.
“….it is the exchange value and not use value which is the determining end-in-itself of the movement”. (Marx, Capital Vol.1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR)
Further Marx writes “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instrument of production and thereby the relation of production and with them the whole relation of society”. (KM, CM, Pg 111)
While investigating the process of production, Marx analysed in detail he Theory of Surplus Value — which he described as his most important contribution to the progress of economic analysis. (Marx, Letter to Engels, 24 August 1867)
The production of surplus value was widely used by Marx during his course of analysis of Capitalist Mode of Production one finds its repeated use in Marx’s extant text. The limitation of space prohibits us from going in detail of discussing about surplus Value which in itself constitutes separate topic of discussion.
As if commenting on the current trend of imperialism and the multinationals to homoginise the word order, Marx wrote:
“….the bourgeoisie has through it exploitation if the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries whose introduction became a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zone; industries whose products are consumed not only at home but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes….
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization.” (Marx and Engels, CM, Pg.112)
“Capital” writes Marx, “also is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeoisie production relation, a production relation of bourgeoisie society.” He further writes “Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labour and raw material or only of material products; it consists just as much exchange values, all the products of which it consists are commodities. Capital is therefore, not only a sum of material product; it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitude.”
(Marx, Wage, Labour and Capital, SW Vol. 1, Pg 160)
In CMP there exists “the epidemic of over production..” capitalist production in no way produces at an arbitrary level. On the contrary the mot it develops the more it is compelled to produce on a scale which has nothing to do with immediate demands, but which depends on the continuous enlargement of the world market. (The bourgeois i.e. capital cannot stop this spiral growth of “production for production’s sake as an end in itself” (Marx, ibid)
The modern bourgeoisie society, says Marx, with its relations of production of exchange a n of production and of exchange, is like sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the power of the nether world whom he has called up by his spell (KM, CM, 113)
The bourgeoisie society has to sustain this growth not only sustain they have to augment it for their own survival. “the essential condition for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeoisie class, is the formation and augmentation of capital…” (KM, CM 119)
Let us recall that the hallmark of a Capitalist Mode of Production is the appropriation of Surplus Value. In all other previous modes of production, it was the use value and not exchange value which governed the production, but in CMP the use value is replaced by exchange value, hence unlike the pre Capitalist Mode of Production, the Surplus Value hence generated cannot be circumscribed.
On the contrary the CMP the value of surplus Value assumes far greater importance and becomes the dominant theme. The capital can only generate more Surplus Value if it keeps itself in the circuitous motion. Marx’s brilliant and much famed formula (M-C….P….C’ -M’) elucidates this motion. This circuitous motion can only sustain itself if the external trade develops and reaches to the ‘world market’. The external trade transforms the ‘market’ into ‘new market’. this develops the true nature of value of the surplus product. This world market changes the character of money that money now develops into world money while the abstract labour metamorphosis into social labour.
The edifice of CMP rests on the development of labour as social labour. The entire transformation can only happen on the basis of external trade and the enlargement of the world
As capital tends to create surplus value continuously, it creates complimentary poles of exchange, thus propagate CMP across the globe.
The world market is therefore the pre-supposition as well as result of the capitalist production.
(Marx, Theorien Uber den Mehrwert, vol 3 (1861-1863), Berlin)
Each limit from point of capital is an obstruction that has to be surmounted, even at the cost of the destruction of productive force.
“Capital tends to submit each moment of production itself to exchange, to substitute its own mode of production for modes of production (appearing earlier) which it finds too much rooted in nature. (Marx, Grundrisse der kritik der political economy)
Thus capital tends to root out all other modes of production, that it comes to view as obstructionist in its incessant growth, hence it goes on a spree of destruction of all vestiges of the earlier society.
They (feudal mode of production) had to be burst as under, they were burst asunder
(Communist Manifesto, SW1)
Then capital goes on to homoginise the world in its own image. “it compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst i.e. to become bourgeois itself. In one word it creates a world after its own image (KM, CM, 112)
All determination is negative, and all negation is determination wrote Karl Marx in the first manuscript of Capital
Capital in its own course of temporal spatial development, strewn with plunder, enslavement, dispersion of masses perpetrated at a scale unknown to human beings sows its own seed of negation.
The class it creates for its own development exacerbates its own nemesis. The proletariats stands directly confronting it and halting its death march to crate a new society. One hand the bourgeois society carries within its own womb seed of its own destruction; on the pother it creates the material foundation of a new society.
The CMP is credited for the development of productive forces, which it has carried forward more than any previous mode of production.
“Only such a movement on a world scale makes possible the replacement of local individuals whose horizon is world –historic (Marx, German Ideology)
Marx Economist or Revolutionary
With all analysis of Marxism a central point that one should never forget is that Marx above all was an internationalist and a revolutionary. The academia and generally the resurgent Marxist academia of the first world while discussing the Marxian theory of capitalism; overemphasizes on the “economist” Marx, while forgetting the real Marx—the internationalist revolutionary Marx.
Amidst their economic jargon and mathematical equations, somewhere the soul of Marx is completely neglected. The works of Marx and Engels above all their analysis and interpretation carries within itself the ultimate goal for which they were penned. The class anger, the historical program of awakening the working class from their slumber is today what is missing from the scores of papers produced every year from the numerous universities and research institutions. Economic Marxism cannot be isolated from its overall superset of political economy. Marxism is not another subset of Economics enumerating statistics and devoid of any human emotions. It is a methodology of analysing the ills that is plaguing the present society and how to end this impasse.
Marx profoundly wrote about the ‘interdependence of the nations’ as well as the ‘positive side of capital’ his admiration of CMP as a superior economic system can be seen from the following lines where though against the devastating effects of British imperialism in India, he appreciates the bourgeois as it [will] …
“….create the material basis of the new world—on the one hand the universal intercourse founded upon the mutual dependency of mankind, and the means of that intercourse…”
(Marx, Future Results of British Rule in India, SW 1 199)
He expressed his optimism that colonial power whatever may have the crimes of England (in case of India) she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. Thus for Marx the process of interdependence of nation would bring about not only benefits for the bourgeois but would hasten the social transformation of the pre Capitalist Mode of Production societies.
In 1847, addressing the workers, Marx termed big industries, the free trade and world market as the ‘positive side of capital’. Without capitalism there would have been no proletariat, neither could the material means for the worker’s emancipation and the foundation of a new society could be laid. He believed capitalism as an historically inevitable, a step along the path of humanities destiny.
Based on this theses Marx declared his unequivocal support for Free Trade. While giving lecture on the ‘Corn Law’ he proclaimed his full support for free trade:
Why Marx Justified Free Trade
Justifying his ‘vote for free trade’ Marx explained “The system of free trade is destructive. It dissolves the old nationality and drives towards extreme antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In a word the system of free trade hastens social revolution.”
On the whole the CMP to meet its pre destines fate, it has to become unbearable not only for the few but to the whole class of working people. Producing a masses of individuals deprived of means of living on one hand and at the other immense wealth confronting the deprived concentrated in hands of few; dominating their every aspect of life as an alien power. The world market then becomes the playground where this process finds its most brutal expression and the logical conclusion.
Contradiction is pre requisite for progress. The only way a mode of production paves way for the other more superior mode of production is by the historical development of their inherent contradiction. The capitalist system continuously seeks to overcome its inherent antagonism. But its crisis keeps recurring, and assumes the form of cycle.
In the opening chapter of ‘Capital’ Marx termed the inherent cyclical crisis as the character of Capitalism:
If the interval in time between the two complementary phase of the complete metamorphosis of a commodity become too great, if the split between the sale and purchase becomes too pronounced, the intimate connection between them, their oneness, asserts itself by producing — a crisis. The anti theses, use value and value (i.e. exchange value — P.); the contradictions that private labour is bound to manifest itself as direct social labour , that a particularised concrete kind of labour has to pass for abstract human labour; the contradiction between the personification of objects and the representation of persons by things; all these antitheses and contradictions, which are immanent in commodities, assert themselves, and develop their modes of motion; in metamorphosis of a commodity, these modes therefore imply the possibility, and no more than the possibility of crises. The conversion of this mere possibility and no more than the possibility crises. The conversion of this mere possibility into reality is the result of a long series of relations…..(Marx, Capital vol.-I)
In the Communist Manifesto Marx pellucidly explains the capitalist’s futile attempt to overcome the periodic crises.
“And how does the bourgeois get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other by conquest of new market, and by the more through exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented”.
“Capitalist production begets with the necessity of a natural process, its own negation. What is glaring in this periodic crises is the revolt of the bourgeoisie’s ‘grave diggers’ against their own ‘producers.’
Rising like phoenix arises the workers now not alone but as a class forming a movement that unlike all previous movement is “the self conscious movement independent movement of the immense majority.” Smashing along its triumphal march the present and all vestiges of past modes of production that hitherto were based on one class exploiting other; the proletariats march towards forming “Union of Free Individuals”, heralding the exploitation less “Associated Mode of Production.” Superior than all the other system and thus entering ushering an era of proletarian internationalism, the globalised society of the masses.
“History is Judge, its executioner—the proletariats”
Notes and Reference:
The works cited, apart from Capital, of Karl Marx, has been referenced from “Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Selected Works (in three volumes), Progress Publishers, Moscow”. The volume and page numbers cited are as they appeared in the Fourth printing 1977 of the selected works.
This article was written in 2008 and published in Counter Currents
The classical Marxian definitions are:
Productive labour is labour power within the sphere of production which is exchanged with capital and which is the direct source of surplus value.
Unproductive labour is labour power within the sphere of exchange (circulation) which is exchanged with revenue, (i.e. wages and profits) and which is not a source of surplus value. Continue reading “PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE LABOUR”
Other Aspect 