By Moni Guha
Reviewing Victor Hugo’s biography of Napoleon, Karl Marx wrote in the preface to his book, ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire’- ‘The event itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees in it only the violent act of a single individual. He does not notice that he makes this individual great instead of little by ascribing to him a personal power of initiative such as would be without parallel in world history.’ Continue reading
Stalin Society of India has published this booklet written by veteran Communist intellectual late comrade Moni Guha.
In this small but very important work, comrade Guha has analysed in detail the events that unfolded immediately after the death of Stalin. In fact MG raised question on the death and circumstances leading to the death. It has been well established now that Stalin, was very much aware of the deviations that had cropped in the party and Soviet government.
His attempts towards implementing the democratic reforms in the Soviet Union and particularly the Communist party was thwarted by the still hidden revisionist clique and the circumstances in which Soviet Union found itself due to the events of second world war and the task of defeating Fascism as well as securing the liberation of those parts that were ravished by the marauding forces of fascist reaction.
The price of the booklet is Rs. 30 (extra charge for courier)
We have few copies of it, contact us if you want to purchase
It has always been our understanding on Mao, that he was a revisionist and an Anti-Marxist Leninist. With new documents and papers coming out of various Archives, our view has been solidified in light of such information. Mao, had always adopted a vacillating position when it came to matter of international import that concerned the International Communist Movement. At one hand he went to China and asked Stalin of every possible help, including to get his works reviewed by Soviet experts to asking for help on industrialisation.
On numerous occasion he did not fail to eulogies Stalin and writing to him that Soviet Party being the headquarters and Stalin the captain, and immediately after the 20th CPSU Party Congress like Khrushchev turned all guns again same Stalin whom he had called in 1939 as “…Stalin is the leader of the world revolution. This is of paramount importance. It is a great event that mankind is blessed with Stalin. Since we have him, things can go well. As you all know, Marx is dead and so are Engels and Lenin. Had there been no Stalin, who would there be to give directions?“
The below document titled “MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING” further exposes the sheer un-Marxist attitude of Mao when he shamelessly puts blame on Stalin even stating that Stalin blocked our revolution.
But, it was not the end in 1958 Mao again did a U turn and in October 25, 1966 said “The revisionist leading clique of the Soviet Union, the Tito clique of Yugoslavia, and all the other cliques of renegades and scabs of various shades are mere dust heaps in comparison, while you, a lofty mountain, tower to the skies.”
We leave it to the discretion of our dear comrades who still harbour respect and faith in Mao, and to what is said as Mao-Tse-Tung thought or Maoism.
[All emphasis and underline are ours.]
“MINUTES, MAO’S CONVERSATION WITH A YUGOSLAVIAN COMMUNIST UNION DELEGATION, BEIJING
We welcome you to China. We are very pleased at your visit. We have been supported by you, as well as by other brotherly [Communist] parties. We are invariably supporting you as much as all the other brotherly parties. In today’s world, the Marxist and Communist front remains united, whether in places where success [of Communist revolution] is achieved or not yet achieved. However, there were times when we were not so united; there were times when we let you down. We listened to the opinions of the Information Bureau  in the past. Although we did not take part in the Bureau’s [business], we found it difficult not to support it. In 1949 the Bureau condemned you as butchers and Hitler-style fascists, and we kept silent on the resolution [condemning you], although we published articles to criticize you in 1948. In retrospect, we should not have done that; we should have discussed [this issue] with you: if some of your viewpoints were incorrect, [we should have let] you conduct self-criticism, and there was no need to hurry [into the controversy] as [we] did. The same thing is true to us: should you disagree with us, you should do the same thing, that is, the adoption of a method of persuasion and consultation. There have not been that many successful cases in which one criticizes foreign parties in newspapers. [Your] case offers a profound historical lesson for the international communist movement. Although you have suffered from it, the international communist movement has learned a lesson from this mistake. [The international communist movement] must fully understand [the seriousness of] this mistake.
When you offered to recognize new China, we did not respond, nor did we decline it. Undoubtedly, we should not have rejected it, because there was no reason for us to do so. When Britain recognized us, we did not say no to it. How could we find any excuse to reject the recognition of a socialist country?
There was, however, another factor which prevented us from responding to you: the Soviet friends did not want us to form diplomatic relations with you. If so, was China an independent state? Of course, yes. If an independent state, why, then, did we follow their instructions? [My] comrades, when the Soviet Union requested us to follow their suit at that time, it was difficult for us to oppose it. It was because at that time some people claimed that there were two Titos in the world: one in Yugoslavia, the other in China, even if no one passed a resolution that Mao Zedong was Tito. I have once pointed out to the Soviet comrades that [they] suspected that I was a half-hearted Tito, but they refuse to recognize it. When did they remove the tag of half-hearted Tito from my head? The tag was removed after [China] decided to resist America [in Korea] and came to [North] Korea’s aid and when [we] dealt the US imperialists a blow.
The Wang Ming line was in fact Stalin’s line. It ended up destroying ninety percent of our strength in our bases, and one hundred percent of [our strength] in the white areas. Comrade [Liu] Shaoqi pointed this out in his report to the Eighth [Party] Congress. Why, then, did he not openly attribute [the losses] to the [impact of] Stalin’s line? There is an explanation. The Soviet Party itself could criticize Stalin; but it would be inappropriate for us to criticize him. We should maintain a good relationship with the Soviet Union. Maybe [we] could make our criticism public sometime in the future. It has to be that way in today’s world, because facts are facts. The Comintern made numerous mistakes in the past. Its early and late stages were not so bad, but its middle stage was not so good: it was all right when Lenin was alive and when [Georgii] Dimitrov was in charge. The first Wang Ming line dominated [our party] for four years, and the Chinese revolution suffered the biggest losses.Wang Ming is now in Moscow taking a sick leave, but still we are going to elect him to be a member of the party’s Central Committee. He indeed is an instructor for our party; he is a professor, an invaluable one who could not be purchased by money. He has taught the whole party, so that it would not follow his line.
That was the first time when we got the worst of Stalin.
The second time was during the anti-Japanese war. Speaking Russian and good at flattering Stalin, Wang Ming could directly communicate with Stalin. Sent back to China by Stalin, he tried to set [us] toward right deviation this time, instead of following the leftist line he had previously advocated. Advocating [CCP] collaboration with the Guomindang [the Nationalist Party or GMD], he can be described as “decking himself out and self-inviting [to the GMD];” he wanted [us] to obey the GMD whole-heartedly. The Six-Principle Program he put forward was to overturn our Party’s Ten-Principle Policy. [His program] opposed establishing anti-Japanese bases, advocated giving up our Party’s own armed force, and preached that as long as Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] was in power, there would be peace [in China]. We redressed this deviation. [Ironically,] Jiang Jieshi helped us correct this mistake: while Wang Ming “decked himself out and fawned on [Jiang],” Jiang Jieshi “slapped his face and kicked him out.” Hence, Jiang Jieshi was China’s best instructor: he had educated the people of the whole nation as well as all of our Party members. Jiang lectured with his machine guns whereas Wang Ming educated us with his own words.
The third time was after Japan’s surrender and the end of the Second World War. Stalin met with [Winston] Churchill and [Franklin D.] Roosevelt and decided to give the whole of China to America and Jiang Jieshi. In terms of material and moral support, especially moral support, Stalin hardly gave any to us, the Communist Party, but supported Jiang Jieshi. This decision was made at the Yalta conference. Stalin later told Tito [this decision] who mentioned his conversation [with Stalin on this decision] in his autobiography.
Only after the dissolution of the Comintern did we start to enjoy more freedom. We had already begun to criticize opportunism and the Wang Ming line, and unfolded the rectification movement. The rectification, in fact, was aimed at denouncing the mistakes that Stalin and the Comintern had committed in directing the Chinese revolution; however, we did not openly mention a word about Stalin and the Comintern. Sometime in the near future, [we] may openly do so. There are two explanations of why we did not openly criticize [Stalin and the Comintern]: first, as we followed their instructions, we have to take some responsibility ourselves. Nobody compelled us to follow their instructions! Nobody forced us to be wrongfully deviated to right and left directions! There are two kinds of Chinese: one kind is a dogmatist who completely accepts Stalin’s line; the other opposes dogmatism, thus refusing to obey [Stalin’s] instructions. Second, we do not want to displease [the Soviets], to disrupt our relations with the Soviet Union. The Comintern has never made self-criticism on these mistakes; nor has the Soviet Union ever mentioned these mistakes. We would have fallen out with them had we raised our criticism.
The fourth time was when [Moscow] regarded me as a half-hearted Tito or semi-Titoist. Not only in the Soviet Union but also in other socialist countries and some non-socialist countries were there some people who had suspected whether China’s was a real revolution.
You might wonder why [we] still pay a tribute to Stalin in China by hanging his portrait on the wall. Comrades from Moscow have informed us that they no longer hang Stalin’s portraits and only display Lenin’s and current leaders’ portraits in public parade. They, however, did not ask us to follow their suit. We find it very difficult to cope. The four mistakes committed by Stalin are yet to be made known to the Chinese people as well as to our whole party. Our situation is quite different from yours: your [suffering inflicted by Stalin] is known to the people and to the whole world. Within our party, the mistakes of the two Wang Ming lines are well known; but our people do not know that these mistakes originated in Stalin. Only our Central Committee was aware that Stalin blocked our revolution and regarded me as a half-hearted Tito.
We had no objection that the Soviet Union functions as a center [of the world revolution] because it benefits the socialist movement. You may disagree [with us] on this point. You wholeheartedly support Khrushchev’s campaign to criticize Stalin, but we cannot do the same because our people would dislike it. In the previous parades [in China], we held up portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, as well as those of a few Chinese [leaders]—Mao, Liu [Shaoqi], Zhou [Enlai], and Zhu [De] —and other brotherly parties’ leaders. Now we adopt a measure of “overthrowing all”: no one’s portrait is handed out. For this year’s “First of May” celebration, Ambassador Bobkoveshi already saw in Beijing that no one’s portrait was held in parade. However, the portraits of five dead persons—Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin and Sun [Yat-sen]—and a not yet dead person—Mao Zedong—are still hanging [on the wall]. Let them hang on the wall! You Yugoslavians may comment that the Soviet Union no longer hangs Stalin’s portrait, but the Chinese still do.
As of this date some people remain suspicious of whether our socialism can be successfully constructed and stick to the assertion that our Communist Party is a phony one. What can we do? These people eat and sleep every day and then propagate that the Chinese Communist Party is not really a communist party, and that China’s socialist construction is bound to fail. To them, it would be a bewildering thing if socialism could be built in China! Look out, [they warn]. China might become an imperialist country—to follow America, Britain, and France to become the fourth imperialist country! At present China has little industry, thus is in no position [to be an imperialist country]; but [China] will become formidable in one hundred years! Chinggis Khan might be brought to life; consequently Europe would suffer again, and Yugoslavia might be conquered! The “Yellow Peril” must be prevented!
There is absolutely no ground for this to happen! The CCP is a Marxist-Leninist Party. The Chinese people are peace-loving people. We believe that aggression is a crime, therefore, we will never seize an inch of territory or a piece of grass from others. We love peace and we are Marxists.
We oppose great power politics in international relations. Although our industry is small, all things considered, we can be regarded as a big power. Hence some people [in China] begin to be cocky. We then warn them: “Lower your heads and act with your tails tucked between your legs.” When I was little, my mother often taught me to behave “with tails tucked between legs.” This is a correct teaching and now I often mention it to my comrades.
Domestically, we oppose Pan-Hanism, because this tendency is harmful to the unity of all ethnic groups. Hegemonism and Pan-Hanism both are sectarianism. Those who have hegemonious tendencies only care about their own interests but ignore others’, whereas those Pan-Hanists only care about the Han people and regard the Han people as superior to others, thus damaging [the interests of] all the minorities.
Some people have asserted in the past that China has no intention to be friends with other countries, but wants to split with the Soviet Union, thus becoming a troublemaker. Now, however, this kind of people shrinks to only a handful in the socialist countries; their number has been reduced since the War to Resist America and Assist Korea. It is, however, a totally different thing for the imperialists: the stronger China becomes, the more scared they will be. They also understand that China is not that terrifying as long as China has no advanced industry, and as long as China continues to rely on human power. The Soviet Union remains the most fearsome [for the imperialists] whereas China is merely the second. What they are afraid of is our politics and that we may have an enormous impact in Asia. That is why they keep spreading the words that China will be out of control and will invade others, so on and so forth.
We have been very cautious and modest, trying to overcome arrogance but adhering to the “Five Principles.” We know we have been bullied in the past; we understand how it feels to be bullied. You would have had the same feeling, wouldn’t you?
China’s future hinges upon socialism. It will take fifty or even one hundred years to turn China into a wealthy and powerful country. Now no [formidable] blocking force stands in China’s way. China is a huge country with a population of one fourth of that of the world. Nevertheless, her contribution to the world is yet to be compatible with her population size, and this situation will have to change, although my generation and even my son’s generation may not see the change taking place. How it will change in the future depends on how [China] develops. China may make mistakes or become corrupt; the current good situation may take a bad turn and, then, the bad situation may take a good turn. There can be little doubt, though, that even if [China’s] situation takes a bad turn, it may not become as decadent a society as that of Jiang Jieshi’s. This anticipation is based on dialectics. Affirmation, negation, and, then, negation of negation. The path in the future is bound to be tortuous.
Corruption, bureaucracy, hegemonism, and arrogance all may take effect in China. However, the Chinese people are inclined to be modest and willing to learn from others. One explanation is that we have little “capital” at our disposal: first, we did not invent Marxism which we learned from others; second, we did not experience the October Revolution and our revolution did not achieve victory until 1949, some thirty-two years after the October Revolution; third, we were only a branch army, not a main force, during the Second World War; fourth, with little modern industry, we merely have agriculture and some shabby, tattered handicrafts. Although there are some people among us who appear to be cocky, they are in no position to be cocky; at most, [they can merely show] their tails one or two meters high. But we must prevent this from happening in the future: it may become dangerous [for us] in ten to twenty years and even more dangerous in forty to fifty years.
My comrades, let me advise you that you should also watch out for this potential. Your industry is much modernized and has experienced a more rapid growth; Stalin made you suffer and hence, justice is on your side. All of this, though, may become your [mental] burden.
The above-mentioned four mistakes Stalin committed [concerning China] may also become our burden. When China becomes industrialized in later years, it will be more likely that we get cocky. Upon your return to your country, please tell your youngsters that, should China stick her tail up in the future, even if the tail becomes ten thousand meters high, still they must criticize China. [You] must keep an eye on China, and the entire world must keep an eye on China. At that time, I definitely will not be here: I will already be attending a conference together with Marx.
We are sorry that we hurt you before, thus owing you a good deal. Killing must be compensated by life and debts must be paid in cash. We have criticized you before, but why do we still keep quiet? Before [Khrushchev’s] criticism of Stalin, we were not in a position to be as explicit about some issues as we are now. In my previous conversations with [Ambassador] Bobkoveshi, I could only say that as long as the Soviet Union did not criticize Stalin, we would be in no position to do so; as long as the Soviet Union did not restore [diplomatic] relations with Yugoslavia, we could not establish relations with you. Now these issues can be openly discussed. I have already talked to the Soviet comrades about the four mistakes that Stalin had committed [to China]; I talked to [Soviet Ambassador Pavel] Yudin about it, and I shall talk to Khrushchev about it next time when we meet. I talk to you about it because you are our comrades. However, we still cannot publish this in the newspapers, because the imperialists should not be allowed to know about it. We may openly talk about one or two mistakes of Stalin’s in the future. Our situation is quite different from yours: Tito’s autobiography mentions Stalin because you have already broken up with the Soviet Union.
Stalin advocated dialectical materialism, but sometimes he lacked materialism and, instead, practiced metaphysics; he wrote about historical materialism, but very often suffered from historical idealism. Some of his behavior, such as going to extremes, fostering personal myth, and embarrassing others, are by no means [forms] of materialism.
Before I met with Stalin, I did not have much good feeling about him. I disliked reading his works, and I have read only “On the Basis of Leninism,” a long article criticizing Trotsky, and “Be Carried Away by Success,” etc. I disliked even more his articles on the Chinese revolution. He was very different from Lenin: Lenin shared his heart with others and treated others as equals whereas Stalin liked to stand above every one else and order others around. This style can be detected from his works. After I met with him, I became even more disgusted: I quarreled a lot with him in Moscow. Stalin was excitable by temperament. When he became agitated, he would spell out nasty things.
I have written altogether three pieces praising Stalin. The first was written in Yanan to celebrate his sixtieth birthday [21 December 1939—ed.], the second was the congratulatory speech [I delivered] in Moscow [in December 1949—ed.], and the third was an article requested by Pravda after his death [March 1953—ed.]. I always dislike congratulating others as well as being congratulated by others. When I was in Moscow to celebrate his birthday, what else could I have done if I had chosen not to congratulate him? Could I have cursed him instead? After his death the Soviet Union needed our support and we also wanted to support the Soviet Union. Consequently, I wrote that piece to praise his virtues and achievements. That piece was not for Stalin; it was for the Soviet Communist Party. As for the piece I did in Yanan, I had to ignore my personal feelings and treat him as the leader of a socialist country. Therefore, that piece was rather vigorous whereas the other two came out of [political] need, not my heart, nor at my will. Human life is just as contradictory as this: your emotion tells you not to write these pieces, but your rationality compels you to do so.
Now that Moscow has criticized Stalin, we are free to talk about these issues. Today I tell you about the four mistakes committed by Stalin, but, in order to maintain relations with the Soviet Union, [we] cannot publish them in our newspapers. Since Khrushchev’s report only mentioned the conflict over the sugar plant while discussing Stalin’s mistakes concerning us, we feel it inappropriate to make them public. There are other issues involving conflicts and controversies.
Generally speaking, the Soviet Union is good. It is good because of four factors: Marxism-Leninism, the October Revolution, the main force [of the socialist camp], and industrialization. They have their negative side, and have made some mistakes. However, their achievements constitute the major part [of their past] while their shortcomings are of secondary significance. Now that the enemy is taking advantage of the criticism of Stalin to take the offensive on a world-wide scale, we ought to support the Soviet Union. They will certainly correct their mistakes. Khrushchev already corrected the mistake concerning Yugoslavia. They are already aware of Wang Ming’s mistakes, although in the past they were unhappy with our criticism of Wang Ming. They have also removed the “half-hearted Tito” [label from me], thus, eliminating altogether [the labels on] one and a half Titos. We are pleased to see that Tito’s tag was removed.
Some of our people are still unhappy with the criticism of Stalin. However, such criticism has positive effects because it destroys mythologies, and opens [black] boxes. This entails liberation, indeed, a “war of liberation.” With it, people are becoming so courageous that they will speak their minds, as well as be able to think about issues.
Liberty, equality, and fraternity are slogans of the bourgeoisie, but now we have to fight for them. Is [our relationship with Moscow] a father-and-son relationship or one between brothers? It was between father and son in the past; now it more or less resembles a brotherly relationship, but the shadow of the father-and-son relationship is not completely removed. This is understandable, because changes can never be completed in one day. With certain openness, people are now able to think freely and independently. Now there is, in a sense, the atmosphere of anti-feudalism: a father-and-son relationship is giving way to a brotherly relationship, and a patriarchal system is being toppled. During [Stalin’s] time people’s minds were so tightly controlled that even the feudalist control had been surpassed. While some enlightened feudal lords or emperors would accept criticism, [Stalin] would tolerate none. Yugoslavia might also have such a ruler [in your history] who might take it well even when people cursed him right in his face. The capitalist society has taken a step ahead of the feudalist society. The Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States are allowed to quarrel with each other.
We socialist countries must find [better] solutions. Certainly, we need concentration and unification; otherwise, uniformity cannot be maintained. The uniformity of people’s minds is in our favor, enabling us to achieve industrialization in a short period and to deal with the imperialists. It, however, embodies some shortcomings, that is, people are made afraid of speaking out. Therefore, we must find some ways to encourage people to speak out. Our Politburo’s comrades have recently been considering these issues.
Few people in China have ever openly criticized me. The [Chinese] people are tolerant of my shortcomings and mistakes. It is because we always want to serve the people and do good things for the people. Although we sometimes also suffer from bossism and bureaucracy, the people believe that we have done more good things than bad ones and, as a result, they praise us more than criticize us. Consequently, an idol is created: when some people criticize me, others would oppose them and accuse them of disrespecting the leader. Everyday I and other comrades of the central leadership receive some three hundred letters, some of which are critical of us. These letters, however, are either not signed or signed with a false name. The authors are not afraid that we would suppress them, but they are afraid that others around them would make them suffer.
You mentioned “On Ten Relationships.” This resulted from one-and-a-half-months of discussions between me and thirty-four ministers [of the government]. What opinions could I myself have put forward without them? All I did was to put together their suggestions, and I did not create anything. Any creation requires materials and factories. However, I am no longer a good factory. All my equipment is out-of-date, I need to be improved and re-equipped as much as do the factories in Britain. I am getting old and can no longer play the major role but had to assume a minor part. As you can see, I merely played a minor role during this Party’s National Congress whereas Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and others assumed the primary functions.
 The content of this conversation suggests that it occurred between 15 and 28 September 1956, when the CCP’s Eighth National Congress was in session.
 This refers to the Information Bureau of Communist and Workers’ Parties (Cominform), which was established in September 1947 by the parties of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and Yugoslavia. The Bureau announced that it was ending its activities in April 1956.
 Wang Ming (1904-1974), also known as Chen Shaoyu, was a returnee from the Soviet Union and a leading member of the Chinese Communist Party in the 1930s. Official Chinese Communist view claims that Wang Ming committed “ultra-leftist” mistakes in the early 1930s and “ultra-rightist” mistakes in the late 1930s.
 The white areas were Guomindang-controlled areas.
 Liu Shaoqi was vice chairman of the CCP Central Committee and chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s National Congress. He was China’s second most important leader.
 The Chinese Communist party’s eighth national congress was held in Beijing on 15-27 September 1956.
 Georgii Dimitrov (1882-1949), a Bulgarian communist, was the Comintern’s secretary general from 1935 to 1943.
 Mao here pointed to the period from 1931 to 1935, during which the “international section,” of which Wang Ming was a leading member, controlled the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
 Zhu De was then vice chairman of the CCP Central Committee and vice chairman of the PRC.
 Bobkoveshi was Yugoslavia’s first ambassador to the PRC, with whom Mao Zedong met for the first time on 30 June 1955.
 Chinggis Khan, also spelled Genghis Jenghiz, was born about 1167, when the Mongolian-speaking tribes still lacked a common name. He became their great organizer and unifier. Before his death in 1227, Chinggis established the basis for a far-flung Eurasian empire by conquering its inner zone across Central Asia. The Mongols are remembered for their wanton aggressiveness both in Europe and in Asia, and this trait was certainly present in Chinggis.
 The Han nationality is the majority nationality in China, which counts for over 95 percent of the Chinese population.
 The “War to Resist America and Assist Korea” describes China’s participation in the Korean War from October 1950 to July 1953.
 The five principles were first introduced by Zhou Enlai while meeting a delegation from India on 31 December 1953. These principles—(1) mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, (2) mutual non-aggression, (3) mutual non-interference in international affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit, and (5) peaceful coexistence—were later repeatedly claimed by the Chinese government as the foundation of the PRC’s foreign policy.
 China did not establish diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia until January 1955, although the Yugoslavian government recognized the PRC as early as 5 October 1949, four days after the PRC’s establishment.
 P. F. Yudin (1899-1968), a prominent philosopher and a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party from 1952 to 1961, was Soviet ambassador to China from 1953 to 1959.
 “On Ten Relationships” was one of Mao’s major works in the 1950s. He discussed the relationship between industry and agriculture and heavy industry and light industry, between coastal industry and industry in the interior, between economic construction and national defense, between the state, the unit of production, and individual producers, between the center and the regions, between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities, between party and non-party, between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, between right and wrong, and between China and other countries. For an English translation of one version of the article, see Stuart Schram, ed., Chairman Mao Talks to the People (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), 61-83.
 Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were all leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. At the Party’s Eighth Congress in September 1956, Liu and Zhou were elected the Party’s vice chairmen, and Deng the Party’s general secretary.
Mao Zedong waijiao wenxuan [Selected Diplomatic Papers of Mao Zedong] (Beijing: The Central Press of Historical Documents, 1993), 251-262. Translated and Annotated by Zhang Shu Guang and Chen Jian
This document taken from
Other Aspect is going to upload some of the important articles that were published in the Cominform journal “For a Lasting Peace, For a Peoples’ Democracy”.
The relevance of these articles are still very much there and we hope they will prove to be a guiding spirit for the international communist movement.
The comrades who were publishing the journal Ideological Fightback, issued this open letter titled “AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR COMRADES WHO ARE UNEASY AND DISSATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT ANTI-LENINIST SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC DIRECTION OF THE FACTION THAT CALLS ITSELF THE CPUSA”. In this letter they have exposed the liquidationist and bureaucratic tendency of the existing leadership of CPUSA that has become throughly revisionist, with no chance of returning back to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist tradition. That is the reason why the comrades have constituted themselves in a new party the Party of Communists USA. Though, we do not support splitting of existing Communist parties, but in such case where the parent party becomes throughly revisionist and anti-ML, it becomes the duty of revolutionary Communists to come out of such entity and wage a fresh struggle from new platform. With the character of CPUSA very clear, we fully support the comrades of Party of Communists USA. On behalf of comrades of Other Aspect we sent our revolutionary greetings to the comrades and hope that under the new party the Communist movement in USA will go to higher level of struggle and a step closer to achieving Socialism.
Red Salute to Party of Communists USA
Long Live Marxism-Leninism
In 1919, our forerunners were members of the Socialist Party, but because of the Socialist Party’s support of American imperialism in WWI and their antagonism to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917, they left the Socialist Party structure because they had an allegiance to a Marxist-Leninist ideology, not to a structure. Once again, communists are facing the same problem within the party structure. Some people who call themselves “communists” seem to have a loyalty to a structure (the 23rd St. faction). We are not communists unless we follow the science of Marxism-Leninism and its world outlook (which tens of millions continue to support today).
Just as in 1919 when the previous party structure no longer suited the revolutionary conditions in the world, so today the present structure at 23rd Street has incrementally accommodated itself to a social democratic, opportunist “pragmatic” direction.
There are those who have been sitting on the fence, hoping for a change at the upcoming convention in June 2014.
Over the last few years, many have come to the realization that there will not be any substantial change in our party’s ideological direction. To those comrades who have seen the party change drastically from pro-Soviet, revolutionary Marxism-Leninism to an anti-Leninist, social democratic accommodation to the bourgeois Democratic Party, we understand your frustration and disappointment.
The CPUSA, as we knew it, has deserted us.
Because of the closing of every bookstore around the country, the destruction of every mass organization that the Party built during the 70s (Women for Racial and Economic Equality, National Anti-Imperialist Movement in Solidarity with African Liberation, Trade Unionists for Action and Democracy (TUAD), the destruction of the printed edition of a party newspaper (The People’s World / Nuestro Mundo) and magazines (Political Affairs, Jewish Affairs, Black Liberation Journal), allowing the youth league to wither and its publication (Dynamic) to go out of existence, transformed from a rank and file driven, democratic centralist vanguard organization of workers into a top-heavy salaried bureaucracy of petty-bourgeois liberals, we finally realized that there was no turning back.
We were forced to make a difficult decision, which has been further validated by the condemnation of the new ideological direction of the 23rd St. faction by the leadership of the communist parties of Greece, Mexico, Germany, Canada, Zimbabwe, Hungary, Spain (PCPE) and others. Former and longtime CPUSA members around the country finally agreed that a new party formation was needed to continue the class struggle here in the United States. Those of us who uphold and support the Soviet experience and historic communist ideology are in the midst of regrouping.
Since 2011, many of us who had been long-time members of the CPUSA have been part of a movement to nationally coordinate a pre-party formation called the National Council of Communists USA (NCCUSA), with its ideological magazine, Ideological Fightback, its website http://ideologicalfightback.com/and its youth group, the League of Young Communists USA (LYCUSA). Our continuous growth has culminated in the understanding that the time is indeed ripe for the birth of a new Marxist Leninist party of the working class, agreeing to become the American affiliate of the international communist movement.
This has resulted in the launching of our newspaper,The Worker, and the birth of our new party name, Party of Communists, USA (PCUSA).
We will not abandon the struggle! We need your valuable experience and dedication.
We must continue to have Marxist-Leninist leadership in the American communist movement. Please contact us so we can continue to work together.
We look forward to working with you for a bright future of socialism in the USA.
Your comrades in the Party of Communists USA
From Albania Today, 1984, 5
By Nexhmedin Dumani and Zydi Pepa – Economists
In all its policy pursued towards the question of the peasantry our partyhas been guided by the teachings of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, which it has implemented, defended and further developed in conformity with the concrete socio-economic conditions of our country.
Comrade Enver Hoxha has summed up the history of the centuries-long struggles, the socio-economic situation of the country in general and of the peasantry in particular, therefrom he reached the important conclusion that despite the backwardness of the agrarian relations, our country had “…a most revolutionary peasantry which has always been at the forefront of the struggle for the land, for freedom and independence.”1 He has pointed out the important progressive role of the peasantry in the struggle for freedom, independence and social progress, estimating the great revolutionary energies that lay latent in the ranks of the Albanian peasantry, “in favour of that class which had the peasantry on its side”.2 This definition was basic in the work of the Party for the building of the strategy and tactics in the National Liberation War and in construction of the socialist society.
In the conditions in which the working class constituted a very small section of the population, the effort to secure a powerful revolutionary ally, as was the numerous working peasantry had special and decisive importance for the fates of the National Liberation War. On this basis the Party created the political-military alliance of the working class with the working peasantry during the war. The Party instructed that special importance must be attached to the Party work in the countryside, because the peasantry constituted the majority of our people, therefore the countryside should be the source of the main forces for the liberation war.
The political-military alliance of the working class with the peasantry, created during the National Liberation War, was further strengthened and consolidated after the liberation of the country also in the economic field, which after the triumph of the people’s revolution was the main field of the struggle. All the measures adopted by the Party alter the liberation of the country for the revival of the economy, the implementation of the Land Reform and the socialist transformation of agriculture, have been guided by Comrade Enver Hoxha’s teaching that, “socialism is not built only in the town, just for the working class, but also in the countryside and for the peasantry as well.”3 This thesis of principle has been and remains one of the most important links which has guaranteed the successful construction of socialism in our country.
At the liberation of the country agriculture, like all the other sectors of the economy, was in a state of marked backwardness. Only 10.2 per cent of the arable area was cultivated and 10 per cent of this was irrigable. In the structure of crops, cereals occupied 83.5 per cent of the acreage and Albania still never secured all the bread grain supply for the people. The land was worked with primitive methods; mechanized means, chemical fertilizers, insecticides, selected seeds, etc., were almost unknown. The motor draught power accounted for just 0.8 per cent of the total draught power of the country.4 The best lands and most of the land was in the hands of big landowners, the landed bourgeoisie and the landowner-bourgeois state, which jointly owned 39.8 per cent of the acreage of arable land, at a time when 13.9 per cent5 of the peasant families of the country were landless.
In these conditions, the primary problem was the revolutionary transformation of the old agrarian relations, because “Democracy cannot be otherwise conceived, because there is no democracy without carrying out large-scale social, economic, political and cultural reforms and, in the first place, without carrying out the Land Reform, especially in a country like ours, in which feudalism existed in its most savage form, in which the peasants were exploited by the landowning beyes.”6 In the conditions of our country the carrying out of the land reform was an imperative dictated by the need to solve the antagonistic contradiction between the working peasantry and the big landowners. That was a major democratic transformation that remained to be done in agriculture.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism have defined two roads for the solution of this problem: either through the nationalization of the whole of the land, or through the confiscation of the lands owned by the big landed proprietors and their distribution to the landless and land-poor peasants for their personal use. They have pointed out that the nationalization of the land is a social condition necessary for ensuring the development and progress of agriculture. Lenin wrote that the land should become the property of the whole people…7 On the other hand, Lenin pointed out that in the conditions of the countries in which the feeling of the private ownership of the land is strong, the proletarian state should not liquidate the private ownership of the land immediately.
From the analysis of the socio-economic relations which dominated in our countryside, the Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha reached the correct conclusion that in the conditions of our country it was better the apply the method of the confiscation of the land of big proprietors and its distribution to the landless and land-poor peasants for their personal use, through the enactment of the land reform.
The carrying out of the Land Reform according to the principle “the land belongs to the tiller”, prohibition of the buying, leasing, alienation, mortgaging and transfer by deed, etc. of the land, all this constitutes a creative implementation of the fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism on this problem. Comrade Enver Hoxha says: “We did not proclaim the nationalization of the land because this would not be understood correctly by our peasantry, in which the petty-bourgeois feeling of private ownership of the land was very strong. We promulgated some laws to the effect that the peasant had not the right to alienate the land, thereby he was barred from the right to sell, to exchange, and transform it. Thus, although we did not proclaim the nationalization of the land de jure, .we had nationalized it de facto with the gradual measures we took”.8
The Land Reform was a genuine agrarian revolution both in content and form, and in the methods of its implementation, because it definitively liquidated the leftovers from feudalism in the economy.
The Land Reform in our country was a deep-going reform of the kind that can be carried out only when the working class is in power. It was carried out within a short time, in a revolutionary way and through revolutionary methods and in the conditions of a stern class struggle. It was carried out by the working masses of the countryside, led by the working class and its Party. In the Land Reform the peasants “…saw that in fact they were in power, that the Party and the state showed a great care for them, were interested in them. This encouraged the peasant who realized his own strength, built up the confiscation that just as he had won in the war under the leadership of the Party, so he could score other successes with the Party in the leadership.”9
All this made the Land Reform an important preliminary measure for the socialist transformation of agriculture. The Law on the Land Reform specifies that no one has the right the sell or buy the land. This was a question of principle on which the future collectivisation of agriculture would be based.
Carrying out of the Land Reform created the condition to begin the socialist transformation of the countryside. The only read for socialism to be built in the countryside was the establishment of the socialist relations of production, the replacement of the private ownership of the land by the large-scale socialist ownership. The Party of Labour kept in mind the teachings of Lenin who said that “the distribution of the land to the peasants in a good beginning. It must be used to show that the land can be taken from the landowners and be transferred to the hands of the peasants. But this is not enough. The way out is the collective work of the land.”10
The building of socialism necessarily requires the socialist transformation of agriculture, too. Comrade Enver Hoxha says, “The Party is aware that our state cannot base itself on two different economic bases for a long time: on the socialist sector of the economy in the towns and on private sector of small producers in the countryside. Therefore, the creation al the socialist sector also, in agriculture is an historical necessity for the triumph of socialism.”l1
The transformation on a socialist basis of the small private economies cannot be realized by the same methods and means and on the same roads as those through which the socialist socialization of the main means of production was carried out in industry. Therefore, the Party instructed that it would be extremely dangerous to proceed with the creation of the socialist sector in the countryside along the same lines as in the towns, through the expropriation of all the economies of small-scale peasant producers. From the start, basing itself on the immortal teachings of the great Lenin, the Party has stressed that the building of socialism in the countryside would be carried out by gradually organizing the small peasant economies into large-scale collective economies, on the basis of the peasants’ free will, on the road of the socialist transformation of agriculture.
The road of the expropriation and nationalization of the means of production, which was property of small producers is unacceptable, not only in the beginning, when the working class has just taken political power, but also in the further process of the socialist construction. This road leads to the weakening of the alliance of the working class with the peasantry.
On this very important question, the Party of Labour and Comrade Enver Hoxha based themselves on the teachings of V. I. Lenin, who has pointed out that in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the existence of the socialist social ownership of the main means of production, co-operation is the most suitable, the most acceptable, the most understandable, the most advantageous road for changing the small-scale private economies into large-scale socialist economies.
The forty-year long experience of the construction of socialism in our country has confirmed that the socialist transformation of agriculture cannot be realized without ensuring the leading role of the working class and its Party, because it is the party which makes the peasantry conscious of the need to set out of its own will on the road of collectivization, which transforms the consciousness, the world outlook and psychology of the peasant, and which constitutes the guarantee for the success of this revolutionary process. For this reason, from the first steps taken for the collectivization of agriculture, Comrade Enver Hoxha instructed, “The conviction of the poor and middle peasants about the need for passing from the individual small-scale economies, over to the large-scale united cooperativist socialist economies and about the advantages of the latter will be achieved only through a great deal of political and organizational work by the organs of our Party.
“Without ceaseless work in this direction, even if the cooperatives are set up, they will be dissolved again or will always remain weak.”12
The ensuring and continuous strengthening of the leading role of the Party both during the creation of the cooperativist order and in the continuous strengthening of the socialist relations in them is considered by the Party as a vital necessity for carrying out the revolution and building socialism in the countryside.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism have stressed that the transition to the collective work on the land can be done only on a voluntary basis, that the duty of the working class, which has state power in its hands, towards the small and middle peasants, is first of all, to ensure that their private mode of production and their private ownership should become collective, not by compulsion, but through the example and by giving them social assistance for this purpose. Taking account of these teachings, the Party of Labour instructed since 1947 that the question of the peasant working cooperatives is an important and delicate question, too, and the peasants should by no means be compelled against their will to join the cooperatives, because not only is this not advisable but it is also harmful. The peasant must be convinced about joining the cooperative on his own.
Both during the setting up of the agricultural cooperatives, and later, in the process of the improvement of the socialist relations of production in the countryside, in the great work for the unification of the agricultural cooperatives, the transformation of some of them into higher-type cooperatives and some higher-type cooperatives into state farms, in the improvement of the forms of organization anti management, etc., the PLA has relied on the will of the peasantry. On the other hand, it has combated the views of all kinds of revisionists, who misinterpreting this Leninist principle, raising it to a fetish, wanted to leave the process of the socialist collectivization of the countryside completely to spontaneity, subject to the operation of the laws of market relations.
Speaking of the necessity of combining the principle of voluntarism in the process of the collectivization of agriculture with its conscious direction by the Party, Comrade Enver Hoxha points out: “…we may be told that by planning the collectivization of agriculture we are violating the Leninist principle of voluntarism. We are not violating this principle in any way…. Hence, without violating the Leninist principles on collectivisation, we may make forecasts and so collectivization proceed according to plan in the plains.”13
As our experience has confirmed, the socialist collectivization of small producers in the countryside is carried out through the class struggle, which has its objective causes and serves as the main motive force in this process. The Party has pursued a revolutionary class policy in the waging of the class struggle in the countryside in the right direction. After analysing and correctly determining the social groups of the peasantry, the Party relied on the poor peasants in alliance with the middle peasants, and took measures for the political isolation, economic restriction and liquidation of the rich peasants (kulaks).
Basing himself on the teachings of Lenin on the criteria of identifying the kulaks as a class, Comrade Enver Hoxha formulated the characteristics of the kulaks in Albania. This formulation served as the basis for building up the policy of differentiating the social groups and for waging the class struggle in the countryside. In connection with this problem, he says: “The Land Reform in most cases left the kulak only part of his lands, which is equal with the acreage which the middle peasant hnd. But we can in no way distinguish the kulak by the acreage of land he possesses today; a kulak is said to be such judging from the means of production, the draught animals, implements or work, he has the house in which he lives, the size of his stalls, barns and granary, etc. But the main characteristic remains what Lenin says: “The exploitation of hired labourers or servants who the kulak employs even for a short period…” The kulak is also identified on the basis of his distant and recent past, the views he held in the past, his relations with the beys and his men, his old possessions, the means of production, his trade and speculation on the black market. The past does not exonerate the kulak, this must not be neglected when we describe him as such.”14
The struggle against the kulak should be waged correctly without confusing him with the middle peasant or taking the middle peasant for a kulak. Comrade Enver Hoxha has stressed, “It is a grave mistake to allow any weakening of the stern class struggle in the countryside, however, it is another just as grave mistake to qualify the middle peasants, who should be the allies of the poor peasants in the struggle against kulaks, for what they are not – as kulaks.”15
From the 1st Congress the Party issued the directive: “Cooperation is a new sector of the agricultural economy on a socialist basis. The Party and the state will do everything to enlarge it with all-round material, organizational, instructive and political cultural assistance.”16
The PLA not only has given this sector all-round aid, but has considered that the aid to be given this sector is a great political matter, because through this aid the further strengthening of the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry is ensured, the hegemonic role of the working class is guaranteed in practice, the working peasantry is drawn on to the road of collectivization and strengthening of the cooperativist order.
In order to give practical solution to the requirements deriving from this principle, the PLA orientated the development of the national economy towards the development of industry with priority and within it to the branches of heavy industry, because the latter is in a position to create the possibilities for the town to give thorough technical and social aid to the backward and fragmented country, to create the material basis for a very considerable increase of the productivity of labour in agriculture and in the peasant economy, in general, thus stimulating the small peasants, through the strength of the example, to go over to the large-scale collective agriculture with machines.
By accepting the great role of the development of industry in creating the material-technical base of agriculture, in the socialist transformation of the countryside, by taking measures for its development and strengthening, the PLA has at the same time, combated the views of the Yugoslav revisionists who claim that the collectivization of agriculture should begin after the complete industrialization of the country. These views of the Yugoslav revisionists, which are a variant of the anti-Marxist thesis that socialism emerges spontaneously due to the high level of development of the productive forces, are aimed at importalizing the domination of capitalist relations.
In order to assist the cooperativist sector, our socialist state has adopted all-round measures for the creation, extension and strengthening of the machine and tractor stations with agricultural machines, cadres and specialists. The state participates with its means in large-scale investments for land improvement schemes, irrigation, draining, opening of new lands, the systematization of the land, the linking up to all villages with telephone, the development of education, culture and health services in the countryside, which favour the development of the agricultural cooperatives.
But the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha have continuously demanded that the state aid for the development and strengthening of the cooperativist order should be correctly understood from its political aspect, because, here too, as for any other problem, the decisive thing is the collective work of the peasants, reliance on their own forces. The PLA has combated the concepts that the agricultural cooperatives should expect everything from the state.
The correct definition of the most suitable form of collectivization and the stages through which this problem would be solved, have great theoretical and practical importance for the socialist transformation of the small and middle producers of the countryside.
While attaching importance to the lower forms of cooperation, such as those in the field of circulation (buyers and sellers’ cooperatives), which played an important role in the preparation of the conditions for passing over to higher forms of cooperation, for disseminating the idea of collectivization in the field of production among the ranks of the peasantry, the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha have at the same time, orientated the collectivization of agriculture towards the agricultural cooperatives of production, The general acceptance by the peasantry of the Party’s orientation for passing over directly to the stage of the agricultural cooperatives of production, as Comrade Enver Hoxha has said, was determined by the fact that the working peasantry had created a lofty political consciousness and had unshaken confidence in the correctness of the line of the Party, confidence which was created during the National Liberation War and later through the measures which the Party adopted in favour of the peasantry, such as the Land Reform, etc.
Besides deciding the suitable form of cooperation, the PLA has also correctly determined the stages through which this process was to be carried out, as well as the tasks that must be confronted and measures that must be taken in each stage. By dividing the process of collectivization in our country into two main stages, which cover the periods 1946-1955 and 1956- 1967, the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha had to fight both the views for unduly hastening the setting up of agricultural cooperatives, and the views which tried to inhibit this process in an artificial manner. It is a fact that among the countries where the regime of people’s democracy was established after the Second World War, Albania entered sooner, with greater determination and consistently, on the road of the socialist transformation of the country. But in this rapid advance it did not discard anything of the Leninist concept of the stages of the revolution. The only thing we discarded were the Yugoslav theories together with the sinister aims which were hidden behind them, and which we foiled.
The Party defined correctly the slogan of the first stage, according to which in the collectivisation of agriculture, “…we must neither hasten, nor mark time”, with the aim of ensuring the economic-organizational strengthening of the agricultural cooperatives so that they showed in practice their indisputable superiority over the individual peasant economy, and gain the necessary experience to proceed more rapidly with the socialist collectivisation of agriculture in general. Comrade Enver Hoxha has stressed, “Our task… is to strengthen the existing cooperatives, and not to increase them, that is, our aim is not quantity but quality. The rapid increase of numbers brings great dangers if we do not prepare the ground well and do not lay sound bases for this.”17 From the year 1946 to 1955 there were 318 cooperatives comprising 9.8 per cent of the peasant families and 11.4 per cent of the arable land.18
The 3rd Congress of the PLA, held in May 1950 set the task for the collectivization of agriculture in general to be completed within the 2nd Five-Year Plan, primarily in the plains zone and partly in the hilly zones. The number of new agriculture cooperatives set up in 1956 was 563, or about twice as many as had been set up in the first preparatory stage. Until 1959 about 83 per cent of the arable land in the possession of the peasants was collectivized.19 The year 1960 marked the successful conclusion, in general, of the socialist collectivization of the small and middle producers, the establishment of socialist relations, the building of the economic base of socialism, in the countryside. After 1960, collectivization was extended in the mountainous zones, and finally covered the whole country in 1967.
The successful conclusion of the socialist collectivization of the small and middle producers of the countryside in Albania was the second revolution, the most radical revolutionary change in the socio-economic relations in the countryside. It liquidated the basis of the antagonistic contradictions between town and countryside, opened the road for the development of agriculture at rapid rates along with industry, for raising the material and cultural level of the peasantry, for strengthening and consolidating the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry, for solving the contradiction between the political superstructure and the economic base.
Analysing the economic and social situation of the .countryside after the completion of the socialist collectivization of agriculture, the PLA reached the correct conclusion that the establishment of the socialist relations in the countryside does not mark the ending of the socialist transformation of agriculture, that this is a long process which comprises a series of revolutionary changes of a social, economic, technical, cultural and ideological character. In these conditions the problem of the further deepening of the socialist transformation of agriculture was an objective necessity which was dictated by the new stage of the historical development of our country – the complete construction of the socialist society.
After the collectivization of the whole countryside, it was necessary to proceed uninterruptedly with the improvement of the socialist relations of production with revolutionary methods, to ensure an impetuous development of the productive forces, the material-technical base of agriculture. Therefore, the 4th Congress of the PLA orientated the development of agriculture on the road of intensification.
Conceiving the intensification of agriculture as a planned rational and harmonized development on scientific bases of complex factors – human, material, agro-technical and natural, which condition the agricultural production, the Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha have correctly determined the priorities of its development of the zones, sectors, branches and crops in conformity with the development of agriculture and the tasks it has had in each stage of the country’s socio-economic development. In this way, by giving priority to the intensification of the plains zone, the Party has not neglected the hilly and mountainous zones, On the other hand, while giving priority to the production of bread grain, it has, at the same time, fought for and measured the complex and harmonious development of the agriculture and the tasks it has had in each stage of the country’s socio-economic development. In this way, by giving priority to the intensification of the plains zone, the Party has not neglected the hilly and mountainous zones. On the other hand, while giving priority to the production of bread grain, it has, at the same time, fought for and secured the complex and harmonious development of the agricultural production on a broad front.
The process of the intensification of agriculture in our country, with the main part of the population and work force situated in the countryside, when our country has already set out on the road of its transformation into an industrial-agrarian country with developed industry and advanced agriculture, constitutes another important contribution to the theory and practice of the socialist transformation of agriculture and of the socialist construction of the country in general.
In opposition to the practices of the capitalist and revisionist countries, in which the intensification of agriculture has been accompanied with the mass depopulation of the village, in our country the intensification of agriculture is conditioned by a high level of population of the countryside. Comrade Enver Hoxha has said: “We march on the road of the intensification of agricultural production in the conditions when we continue to increase the work force in agriculture from the population of the countryside and parlly from that of the towns. Likewise, we are implementing with success the policy of the continuous narrowing of the distinctions between town and countryside. Advancing on this road is a great success in the interest of the whole society, a thing which does not occur anywhere else in the world, where the village population is drained and agriculture is degrading.”20
By giving priority to the development of the productive forces through the intensification of agriculture, the Party has emphasized the need to continuously improve the socialist relations in the countryside in a revolutionary manner.
The PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha have consistently followed the dialectics of mutual connections between the forces of production and the relations of production, have taken timely measures and defined correct directions for the improvement of these relations in all their aspects and constituent elements. In this aspect, our Party has remained loyal to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and has explored new roads and paths.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism have stressed that the complete construction of socialism in the countryside requires the transformation of the group ownership into state ownership. In this direction, the teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha about the setting up of the higher-type agricultural cooperatives, the criteria and the conditions required for the agricultural cooperatives to be changed into state farms, as well as those which have to do with the treatment of the problem of the cooperativists personal plot and personal livestock as a special kind of personal property in socialism, have special importance in theory and practice.
In order to realize these important tasks our Party has proceeded carefully, in conformity with the development of the productive forces in general and those of the countryside in particular, in order to prepare the necessary socio-economic and ideological-political conditions. Thus, along with the process of the socialist collectivization of small and middle producers in the countryside, the Party adopted measures to raise the socialization of the group ownership to a higher level, through the voluntary union of the agricultural cooperatives. This process developed gradually, in struggle against the tendencies to hastening it unduly and giving priority to the plains zone in the beginning, and to the hilly-mountainous zones later.
A further step ahead in the improvement of the socialist relations of ownership in the countryside was the creation of the higher-type cooperatives. The setting up of such cooperatives marked a new step on the road of the changing of the cooperativist ownership into the ownership of the entire people. At the 6th Congress of the PLA Comrade Enver Hoxha stressed: “The creation of the higher-type cooperatives has great theoretical and practical importance for the present and future of our socialist agriculture – the complete construction of socialism in the countryside.”21 The theoretical importance of the creation of the higher-type agricultural cooperatives lies in the fact that with them a new higher form of the development of the ownership of the group was discovered. The transition of the agricultural cooperatives into state farms cannot be realized without going through another form more advanced than the ordinary type of the agricultural cooperative.
The PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha orientates that, in the beginning, the higher type cooperatives should be created from the stronger cooperatives of the plain zone, because precisely in this group of economics of the plains the condition had matured for such a change and because they could prove their superiority as a new higher form of the development of the group ownership. The result achieved in these years by the higher type cooperatives proved in practice the correctness of the line of the Party. In the 7th Five-Year Plan they have extended in other zones of the country, thus becoming a massive phenomenon in the process of the building of socialism in the countryside.
A distinguishing feature of the higher-type cooperatives is that the state participates with non-return investments in the objects of the productive sphere, thus becoming co-owner with the cooperatives, creating in this manner a combination of the two forms of socialist ownership.
The ideas and teachings of Comrade Enver Hoxha on the conditions which the higher-type cooperatives should meet in order to be transformed into state farms, the most appropriate time of their conversion into state farms, the solution of the problem of the cooperativists pay, the objects comprised in the payment system, the occupation with work of the additional work force in these cooperatives, the problems which have to do with the cooperativists’ personal plot and livestock in the cooperatives which are to be changed into state farms, etc., have theoretical and practical importance for the further development of the process of the socialist transformation of agriculture.
Another important factor for the improvement of the relations in the field of ownership in the countryside, are the measures the Party has adopted for the reduction of the cooperativists’ personal plot of land and the formation of collective herds from the cooperativist personal livestock. The cooperativists’ personal plot of land, as an economic fact, emerged together with the collectivization of agriculture. The cooperativists’ personal plot is a compensating auxiliary economy of a temporary character, for personal consumption. With the ever better fulfilment of the needs of the cooperativist families, with the raising of the level of their well-being, the cooperativists plot should be gradually reduced until it disappear completely in a given stage. Comrade Enver Hoxha says: “If we achieve abundance in the cooperative, that is, if the peasant sees that he gets most of the income from the cooperative and not from the cooperativists’ personal plot and when he actually, and not in words, has the possibility to buy milk, meat, vegetables, fruits, etc. from the cooperative only then he will realize that his own personal plot is a stumbling block.”22
In our country the personal plot of the cooperativists has kept shrinking, with the result that the role of this economy as complementary to the needs of the cooperativist family has also been limited.
The modem revisionists, with the Soviet revisionists at their head, consider the cooperativists’ personal plot not only as a fact that does not tend to disappear, but, on the contrary, regard it as an indispensable phenomenon which must be further developed and extended, not only in the countryside but also in the towns. At the 8th Congress of the PLA, Comrade Enver Hoxha has pointed out: “In the Soviet Union and elsewhere, the existing form of collective capitalism is now associated, to a large degree, with direct forms of private property. The individual private economies are regarded by the revisionists as a main source for the production of meat, milk and other agricultural products, moreover, they are even being given the animals of the kolkhozes and sovkhozes to feed and raise, thus liquidating any trace of the socialist system in the countryside. This is the course that has led the agriculture of many of these countries, in which the shortage of food and agricultural raw materials has become one of the most serious problems for the life of the working masses today, into a profound crisis.”23
The perfecting of the relations of distribution, and especially those which have to do with the remuneration of work, occupy a special place in the work of the Party for the further strengthening and deepening of the process of socialist transformation of agriculture. Assessing correctly the decisive role of production as the basis on which the standard of living is raised, the Party has, at the same time, assessed correctly the active role of distribution over production and consumption, therefore, it has continuously paid great attention to it. In all the stages of the socialist construction of the countryside the Party has established such forms of distribution which respond to the development of the productive forces and the degree of consciousness of the working people of agriculture. It has devoted special care to perfecting the distribution of agricultural and livestock production, of bread grain in particular, maintaining correct proportions between the needs for the extended reproduction, the general needs of the state and the needs for the cooperativists’ personal consumption. Alongside these, attention has been attached to the distribution of the incomes realized in the agricultural cooperatives, dividing it into accumulation fund and consumption fund. It has fought the manifestations of creating the accumulation fund at the expense of the consumption fund, as well as the manifestations of the creation of the consumption fund at the expense of the accumulation fund, and the unjustified use of the fund of accumulation for building untimely projects, etc. The Party, with its correct, farsighted policy, has brought about the uninterrupted development of the cooperativist order and the uplift of the material and cultural well-being of the working peasantry.
Special care has been devoted to improving the remuneration according to the amount and quality of the work done. The forms of remuneration of work in agriculture have been improved continuously. The form of remuneration in kind for the cooperativists was overcome, and we are gradually proceeding to the elimination of the work-day as a measure of compensation, through its replacement with payment against work quota.
The uninterrupted development of the productive forces in agriculture, the deepening and intensification of agricultural production all over the country, in general, and in the plains zones, in particular, the combination of the state relations with those of the agricultural cooperatives has been considered and treated in close connection with the needs for the further improvement of the relations of exchange. Simultaneously, the uninterrupted improvement of the relations of exchange is necessary for opening the road more broadly to the development of the productive forces and the preparation of the conditions for the gradual transition to the voluntary transformation of the group property into the property of the entire people in a natural manner. The improvement of the relations of production in the countryside in the field of exchange, as in all other fields, is handled in such a manner as to ensure the gradual extension of the sphere of the relations of state ownership and the narrowing of the sphere of the relations of cooperativist ownership.
The important ideas Comrade Enver Hoxha has given for the passing, to a more extensive and higher scale, over to concentration and cooperation, the amplication of agricultural-crop rotation not only inside individual agricultural economies, but also in groups of economies, even beyond the limits of present-day administrative divisions, the gradual transition of planning in the agricultural cooperatives included in the zone of priority intensification from the form of recommendations to the form of directives, the unification of the system of planned indices of the agricultural cooperatives with those of the state farms, the strengthening of state check-up on the process of the fulfilment of the plan, on the utilisation of incomes, on expenditure, etc., the improvement of the forms of internal organisation of work and production in agricultural cooperatives towards the forms which are used in the state sector of agriculture, the deepening of specialization through the elimination of some activities which are carried out by the cooperatives and some other enterprises, the improvement of the distribution of agricultural production among the districts and within the districts, etc., these constitute some important theoretical and practical directions in the field of the improvement of the relations of management and organization of work and production in the countryside.
Terraces of fruit trees – vines, olives, citruses and agricultural crops
are cut out on the slopes of the hills and mountains of Albania
The results achieved by the Albanian agriculture show in practice the correctness and vitality of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, the correctness of the line and policy worked out and pursued by the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha for the socialist transformation and development of the countryside.
At the 8th Congress of the PLA, Comrade Enver Hoxha said: “The revolutionary transformations and the progress achieved in agriculture represent one of the greatest victories of the line and policy of the Party for the construction of socialism. The fact that during nearly four decades of the people’s state power agricultural production in general in our country has continued to increase about two times more rapidly than the population, that the real per capita income of the peasantry has gone up to 10 to 20 per cent from one five-year plan to another, that now, as compared with 1960, agricultural production has increased 1.7 times per unit of arable land and 1.6 times per agricultural worker, is clear evidence of the correctness of this policy.”24
1 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 22, p. 371, Alb. ed.
2 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 17, p. 434, Alb. ed.
3 Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, p. 64, Eng. ed.
4 Statistical Yearbook of the PRA, year 1973, pp. 113, 119, 171.
5 Statistical Yearbook of the PRA, year 1959, p. 84.
6 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 3, p. 86, Alb. ed.
7 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works. vol. 27, p. 538, Alb. ed.
8 Enver Hoxha, On the 7th Five-Year Plan, p. 415, Alb. ed.
9 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 5, p. 343, Alb. ed.
10 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 28, p. 188, Alb. ed.
11 Enver Hoxha, About Socialist Agriculture, vol. 1, Tirana 1980, p. 445, Alb. ed.
12 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 5, p. 353, Alb. ed.
13 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 13, p. 106, Alb. ed.
14 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 6, p. 17, Alb. ed.
15 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 9, p. 66, Alb. ed.
16 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 5, p. 345, Alb. ed.
17 Enter Hoxha, Works, vol. 8, p. 202, Alb. ed.
18 Statistical Yearbook of the PRA, year 1958, p. 55.
19 Statistical Yearbook of the PRA, year 1960, p. 87.
20 Enver Hoxha, Reports and Speeches 1980-1981 p. 187, Alb. ed.
21 Enver Hoxha, Report to the 6th Congress of the PLA, p. 81, Alb. ed.
22 Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 18, p. 344, Alb. ed.
23 Enver Hoxha, Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA, p, 41, Eng. ed.
24 Ibidem, pp. 28-29, Eng. ed.
Notes on the “Marxian Trunk” and Primarily, on the Marxian Root of Our Party
Moissaye J. Olgin
It is easy to confess Marxism. But Marxism is not a confession of faith. Marxism is even more than a set of doctrines. Marxism is the only scientific method of investigating social matters. To be a Marxist means, not only to have read “Das Kapital” and a few other books, but to be able to apply the Marxian analysis to living and therefore continually changing social conditions. He who knows how to apply this analysis correctly, and whose correctness of analysis has been proven by subsequent events, is a true Marxist. He who only mimicks the methods of Marxism, he whose conclusions are being repudiated by the course of events, is a pseudo-Marxist.
This little essay wishes to suggest that the leader of the minority, John Pepper, is a pseudo-Marxist.
We have chosen John Pepper because it an open secret that he is still the moving spirit of the minority group. If the minority calls itself the Marxian trunk, then John Pepper is certainly the main Marxism root. If the root is hollow, then there is something the matter with the trunk.
How did John Pepper apply the Marxism analysis to conditions in the United States? It must be remarked that the application of Marxism to history in the making, is Leninism. “If we wish, comrades, to define what is Leninism,” said N.K. Kroupskaya, the widow of the late Lenin, in an address before the teachers of Leninism mobilized to instruct the “Lenin Enrollment,” “we must say that it is Marxism applied to contemporary realities.” How, then, did John Popper practice Leninism in this country?
Let us take only one or two instances. At the Chicago convention of July 3-5, 1923, the federated farmer-labor party was proclaimed as existing. Was it a real party? Did it have a solid foundation? Was it a logical outcome of ripening conditions among the working masses?
Subsequent events have proven that it had no solid foundation, that it was an artificial contrivance. A year after July 3-5, the F.F.L.P. was thoroly forgotten. Six months after its coming into nominal being, it was hardly more than a name and a wish. This proves beyond dispute that it was a still born organization. What was the duty of a Marxist after the formation of that so-called party? Plainly, it was incumbent upon him to give an adequate estimation of what had happened to analyze the forces that were operating around the party, to have a realistic understanding of the new organization, and thus to indicate a correct attitude for the Workers (Communist) Party.
Did John Pepper make such an analysis? True, he used, all the phraseology of Marxism. But this is what he found:
“Summed up in a single phrase, the historic significance of the July 3 convention is this: The first real mass party of American workers and farmers has been founded in Chicago.”
“The new F.F.L.P. is a mass party. It is the first mass party of workers and farmers in the United States.”
“The new F.F.L.P. is no artificial product of a mass doctrine, but is the result d a special American development.”
“It is a party of rank and file.”
This is how John Pepper estimated the new organization. That his estimation was entirely erroneous, entirely subjective, i.e. entirely nonMarxian, is evident from the total disappearance of the F.F.L.P., from its non-existing at the present time. A “real party,” a “mass party,” a “result of a special American development,” a “party of rank and file” does not disappear within six months. Plainly, John Pepper gave an expression of his ardent wish, not of the actualities of American political life. Plainly he did something entirely opposed to Marxism.
But maybe he only made propaganda among the members of the Workers Party? Maybe he personally knew the truth about the F.F.L.P. Maybe he wrote as he did only to fire the imagination of the Communists in this country in order that they might devote themselves the more diligently to the building of the new party? If this were the case, it would be worse than the grossest error of estimation, because nothing is more injurious to the cause of Communism than misleading the workers as to the character of the organization they have to deal with.
However, it appears that John Pepper actually believed the F.F.L.P. be “a real mass party of American workers and farmers.” This evident from the fact that he broadcasted his findings all over the C.I. thru the medium of the International Press Correspondence (Inprecor, July 26, 1923, article by John Pepper. “The First Party of American Workers and Farmers,”) Pepper thus proved that he either failed to understand America, or he failed to understand what is a real mass party. At any rate he proved to be less of a Marxist and more of the type that Lenin admonished in the following words:
“Less political clatter. Less intellectual reasoning. Nearer to life.” (Article “On the Character of our Papers.”)
John Pepper not only made the mistake of heralding the lifeless organization as the mass party of American workers and farmers, but persisted in his mistake. For months in succession, even as late as March, 1924, when the F.F.L.P. was no more than a shadow, he continued to view the future leadership of the Workers Party in the class struggle as based on the non-existent F.F. L.P. So strong is the influence John Pepper’s mistakes on the present minority of our C. E. C., that its latest thesis still invokes the ghost of the F.F.L.P. and it still asserts that the Workers Party could have made the F.F.L.P. a living thing if it wished to do so. Strange conception for Marxists. A small party, numbering a score of thousand members could have created a greater party numbering at least hundreds of thousands! And vice versa: A mass party, “a real mass party of workers and farmers,” springing from “special American development,” ceased to exist because a small party, avowedly not a mass party, failed to send out a few organizers and speakers to help it. If this be a Marxian conception, what, then, is the voluntaristic conception which was fought against by Marx-Lenin, and how far is it from the theory of “heroes and masses?”
But let us return to John Popper, John Pepper knew very well that it is the duty of the Communists to lead the workers. He knew it as a doctrine. He also realized that it is necessary for the American Communists to lead the American workers. Out of this theoretical realization sprang his conviction that the Workers Party is already leading the working masses. In numbers of articles and theses he stressed the idea that America had reached a stage where the workers were just looking for the Communists to lead them. This may seem preposterous after the experiences of June 17, July 4 and the election campaign of 1924, but this is what John Pepper told the Communist International in an article, “The Workers Party at a Turning Point!” (Inprecor, Sept. 27, 1923.):
“The laboring masses of the U. S. consider the Communists as their leaders, and they expect us to show them the best ways and means of fighting against the capitalists and the capitalist government.”
When a Communist makes such statements before the Communist International they can have only one meaning: that the popularity of the Communists and their party is widespread among the non-partisan workers, that the non-partisan workers have gropingly come to the realization of the necessity of combatting the capitalist government, and that it is up to the Communists to throw out slogans and take the lead. Tested by the situation of September, 1923, and by subsequent developments, such statements appear to be a bombastic phrase. It is against such statements that Stalin warns in his book “On Lenin and Leninism.”
“As against ‘revolutionary’ empty clangor,” he writes, “Lenin emphasized the simple everyday affairs, thus making it clear that ‘revolutionary’ fiction was contrary both to the spirit and the letter of true Leninism. Less luxurious phrases, says Lenin, more simple everyday work . . .
Less political clatter, more attention to the simplest but living facts of Communist contractive work’ (Article ‘Great Beginning’).”
But how is it that John Pepper could make such elementary errors in Marxian Judgment? It is because his entire conception of American life was as he wished to see it and not as it appeared in reality. John Pepper, the supposed Marxist, the man that still holds the C. E. C. minority under his sway, lived in a world of Illusions.
Wherein lies the strength of Marxism? In its adherence to reality of social life, in its ability to analyze the facts of social life so as to find the law of their development, so as to be able to forecast the main lines of the future. “Theory, does not form an independent kingdom,” says the Russian Marxian philosopher, Deborin, in his book, “Lenin as a Thinker.” “Theory that stands the test of practice is objective truth. We should not confine ourselves to objects that exist in our heads, Marx taught us, but we must deal with concrete objects.”
The following quotation should suffice to prove that John Popper confined himself to “objects that existed in his head” and that those objects he proclaimed to be the reality of American life. In his article “Facing the Third American Revolution” (in the Liberator of September, 1923) he speaks of the revolution as having become a stirring fact in the United States: “Never before in the world’s history” he writes, “not even in capitalist history, has it happened that such immense migrations, such deep changes in the manner of living of such great masses of people could take place in the short period of three years . . . It was a gigantic task to stir up the non-political conservative mass of American workers, farmers and colored slaves; but capitalism has succeeded in performing this miracle. Politics today has become a mass occupation. The basis of American conservative democracy was the inert mass of farmers. This basis is now collapsing. The last sure reverse of capitalism in America was the eight million Negroes in the south. This last reserve is in the act of deserting it . . . The workers are beginning to organize politically. The bankrupt farmers are overthrowing the most sacred fundamental law of capitalism, cash payments, and do not pay their debts. The Negroes in the south are making an unarmed Spartacus uprising.”
Does it not look like a veritable revolution? Indeed it does. So it was understood by John Pepper himself who in the October, 1923, Liberator, in an article “Shall we Assume Leadership?” speaks of the “more and more imminent revolutionary crisis looming up.” An imminent revolutionary crisis is understood in the Communist International in one way only; it means what the words imply: a great upheaval of large masses against the foundations of capitalism.
Now, we know that the minority will label an attack on such misleading declaration as “non-revolutionary,” as failure to see the deep changes wrought in American life by the war, as living in the pre-war mentality. To this we beg to reply that if there are in our party some members who see no changes in capitalism since 1914 and who do not realize the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system (such people represent the remnants of the S.P. psychology in our party), this does not justify blundering in the opposite direction. One is just as bad as the other. Neither is real Leninism.
“Vladimir Ilyitch,” says Kamenev, “may be called the profoundest realist, the man of the soil, i.e. a man who always knows how to reckon with real life, who knows how to combine theory with practice, a slogan with the modes of realizing it in life, who combines the greatest revolutionary passion with the greatest coolness in estimating the forces of the fighting parties and classes” (“Lenin and His Party,” p. 35)
If this to Leninism, then what are Pepper’s declamations? The generous reader may try and excuse him on the ground that even a Leninist may sometimes be mistaken. This is true. But John Pepper was too often mistaken, he was too deeply mistaken and he never acknowledged mistakes which is again contrary to true Leninism. The above article, “Facing the Third American Revolution,” which in America appeared in September, and was written in August, 1923, was in its main parts reprinted by Pepper in the Moscow “Pravda” at the time when the Fifth Congress of the C.I. was in session, that is to say, June, 1924, ten months after its first appearance. In the summer of 1924 John Pepper still saw the imminent revolution which he saw in the summer of 1923. Nothing had changed for Pepper, only this, that to the general analysis of American socio-political life he added in the “Pravda” the following paragraph:
“And last but not least, for the first time in the history of the United States there appears on the scene a Communist Party, which has its roots in the masses and is not a sect, A MASS COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE WORKING CLASS.”
He did not know we had already a mass Communist Party. He must be grateful to John Pepper for discovering it.
But while all these statements, only show how Marxism analysis should not be made, the last one throws a strange light on the slogan of a “class farmer-labor party” appearing in the minority thesis. If our goal of a mass Communist Party has already been achieved, why not utilize part of our spare energy to build a new “class farmer-labor party?”
Published in The Daily Worker, Thursday, January 8, 1925
In this article late communist thinker comrade Moni Guha, exposes the revisionist ploy of denigrating Stalin so that the renegade from Marxism like Titos and Khruschevs could tighten their regime at the cost of socialism and revolution.
An extremely important document and equally important analysis.
Chapter – 1
How and Why Stalin Died – Immediate Cause
Immediately after the 19th Congress of the communist party of the Soviet Union, held in November 1952, only a few months before his death, Stalin was given final touch to the implementation of the Congress decisions. Leningrad organization headed by Khrushchev was severely criticized in Molotov’s political report for “wrong consumer approach to collective farm development” and “attention to economic affairs only, neglecting ideological matters”. The 19th Congress detected a number of ‘shortcomings’, ‘errors’ and ‘inadmissible and moribund features’ in the internal life of many organizations of the CPSU. ‘Evasion and suppression of criticism from below’, ‘pernicious and profoundly anti-party attitude to criticism by subordinates’, ‘concealment by some leading workers of the true state of the affairs in the plants and institutions in their charge’, ‘close coteries who constituted themselves into a sort of mutual insurance society’, ‘bureaucratic degeneration’, ‘filching of collective farm property by some party, Soviet and agriculture officers’ were pin pointed in Molotov’s political report. Marshal Zukhov and Kosygin had already been demoted. Verga’s and Vozenesesky’s ‘theories’ of ‘non-inevitability of war’, ’emergence and development of new elements of socialism in post war capitalist economy’, “peaceful and gradual development of socialism in capitalist countries’ and possibility of development of non-antagonistic relations between the socialist and capitalist countries and stable and permanent peaceful co-existence of the two systems” etc. were already demolished through long debates and polemics organised under the leadership of Stalin and Vozenesesky was taken to task and Varga admitted his “revisionist mistakes”. Malenkov’s political report gave a clarion call to “wage a determined struggle against private property mentality and morality, against ideological corruption of unstable elements and the task of reforming the Central Committee brining into leadership of a large number of new – people was just taken up by Stalin.Economic problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R already demolished the theory of “Market Socialism” and policies of capitulation and restoration of capitalism. A new programme of the CPSU for building communism was under preparation.
Together with all these, in January, 1953, less than two months before Stalin’s death, it was also announced by the Security department that an investigation was proceeding into conspiracy among opposition elements. These elements, it was further said , were linked with British and American intelligence and some arrests had already been made. The investigation had been initiated directly from Stalin’s secretariat. It was also announced that the investigation had arrived at a conclusion that the opposition elements had been responsible for Zdhanov’s death in 1948.
In this connection we would request the reader to direct back their attention to a news item published in the New York Times in December 1948 which said that some leading members of the Soviet Union were interested to end the war of nerves (Cold War) between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. , in opposition to Stalin’s policy of continuing the cold war.
However, who was Zdhanov ? Zdhanov had been the best Marxist theoretician in the Soviet Union after Stalin. In the post war years, he, together with Stalin was engaged in cleansing the Augean stables of the Soviet Union. During the war years entire efforts and energies were concentrated for wining the war and patriotism was the central slogan. As a result much deviations from proletarian ideology was rampant. Zdhanov , together with Stalin , played a leading role to correct these deviations in almost all walks of Soviet life. Zdhanov also had led the Soviet delegation to the inaugural meeting of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) . Naturally he became the target for the opposition elements, to say nothing of the imperialists.
You can well imagine the condition. As soon as the January, 1953 announcement and the news of arrest of some persons were made the situation was then at the sharpest point. Malenkov’s political report, Zukhov’s and Kosygin’s demotion, Stalin’s Economic problems, proposal for the reform of the Central Committee and last Stalins probing into opposition conspiracy. Either swift and resolute action to prevent the revelation of the opposition intrigue to the full extent or the inevitable dreadful consequences. The opposition elements thought correctly that the probe was obviously coming to close with which their fate is indissolubly connected.
A hectic preparation to remove Stalin was now on the immediate agenda of the opposition elements. Two weeks before Stalin’s death , the news of sudden death of General Kosynkin appeared in Izvestia of February 17, 1953. General Kosynkin was the chief of the department for the security of the Administration of Kremlin and was personally responsible for security of Stalin. On February 28, 1953, four days before the death of Stalin , the personal bodyguard of Stalin was found nowhere. His whereabouts or fate still remains unknown ! If the death of Stalin was unexplained and from natural cause , certainly the prior deaths, in this situation, of the Kremlin security Chief, General Kosynkin and the sudden vanishing of Stalin’s body guard were clearly remarkable coincidences !
It was on the night of March 3, 1953. It was Wednesday. Moscow radio announced that Stalin had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage on the previous Sunday , that is on March 1, 1953. It remains still unexplained why the announcement was made after long three days.
Stalin dies on 5th March , 1953.
Undoubtedly, the announcement of the trial of opposition elements hastened Stalin’s death and it was the immediate cause of his death.
It may be noted that all the accused of the “Doctor’s plot” were released on March 6, 1953 with an announcement that the arrests were made due to some misinformation and misunderstanding !
Though detailed medical bulletins were issued, until the announcement of Stalin’s death, there was no report on the cause of his death except the first brief announcement of brain haemorrhage. It is noteworthy to point out that in the very first medical bulletin, the Soviet leaders hastened to emphasis that even in the event of Stalin’s recovery, he would not be able to return to his “leading responsibilities”. It was not ‘normal activities’ but “leading responsibilities”. Obviously, it was of highest importance to them.
At the present point in history, no one as yet, except those directly concerned, can know the exact cause of Stalin’s death. There has been no investigation as yet into the cause of Stalin’s death and no official report on the subject, in spite of the fact that doubtful reports about the cause of his death “leaked” from time to time. Among all those “leakages”, we may mention one. After the 20th Congress of CPSU, Tito, the blood brother of Khrushchev , visited the Soviet Union. After his return from conclusion with the Soviet leaders Tito was reported to have told a senior official of a NATO Country that from his visit to the Soviet Union he had formed the opinion that Stalin was murdered by Soviet Party leadership. This statement of Tito was published in the British press, for example, in Daily Telegraph in July 1956 under the heading “Tito Says Stalin Was Murdered”. In spite of this public statement, the rank and file of the world communist movement, being so lulled by their respective leaderships into illusions of class peace during those three years, had so lost their revolutionary vigilance that this public statement could pass without any out cries in the parties, without any demand for independent investigation as to the cause of Stalin’s death, without any public party comment !
Of course, the statement of Tito a renegade from Marxism, in all probability was made on behalf of Khrushchev another renegade from Marxism as part of ‘leaking’ of information to gauge the reaction of the world communists. Khrushchev became doubly sure that he had won the hearts (if there was any) of the renegades.
Let alone an investigation into cause of Stalin’s death, a decision was pushed through the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, that Stalin’s body be removed from the Lenin Mausoleum to a Kremlin grave. Do you think that this was an act of mere revenge, or of political sadism on the part of Khrushchev or merely the culminating point in a campaign of Stalin’s denigration? If you think in this over-simplistic way, you are gravely mistaken, dear comrades. Recall the event that happened in that Congress. Chou -En – Lai brought to Moscow a wreath for Stalin with an inscription in large golden letters “A GREAT MARXIST – LENINIST”. A powerful speech was delivered by him, in defense of Albania which Khrushchev angrily told the delegates not to applaud when the delegates were already applauding it. Albania had already withdrawn its public support to the Soviet revisionist policies and had launched polemics undermining the revisionist position in the international communist movement. Now Khrushchev had to face the withdrawal of public support from the powerful and most respected Communist Party of China. That was a new and unpleasant prospect for Khrushchev. It is clear that the decision of removing Stalin’s body was an urgent practical necessity for the leading Soviet revisionists and there were rumors that Stalin’s body was reduced to ashes before burial. In advance of any “unfavourable” turn of events Khrushchev wished to prevent any later independent investigation into the cause of Stalin’s death.
Whatever conclusion we reach on the available evidence does not invalidate the undeniable existence of two opposing groups in the Soviet leadership and the equally undeniable conflict between their policies and their basic ideology. That was the basic cause of Stalin’s mysterious death and that was the class struggle on international scale.
What , then, was this conflict ?
Chapter – 2
The Background – Class Against Class
The victory of the Soviet Union and freedom-loving nations in the Second World War radically changed the entire international situation. Above all, it changed the relation of the forces between two social systems – socialism and capitalism – in favour of socialism. Immediately before the Second World War the situation – so far the alignment of the class forces was concerned internationally – was most unfavourable to the world communist movement. Accordingly the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International took a correct defensive path, a path of conscious and organised retreat with a view to retrieve the position in favour of the world proletariat. The victory of the Soviet Union, the emergence of people’s democracies, the upsurge of National Liberation struggle in the oppressed countries and the upsurge of the democratic movement in the capitalist countries changed the international situation in favour of the world proletariat and socialism.
This was a situation which the imperialists did not want. The ruling circle of the United States and Great Britain expected that as a result of the exhausting war, the Soviet Union would be bled-white and enfeebled, would cease to be a great power and would become dependent upon the United States and Great Britain. The hopes of the imperialists proved to be illusory and groundless.
Though, during the war of Soviet Union and the allied countries acted together, in spite of the difference about the war aims, the difference between the two conceptions of the object of war and of the post-war world became exceptionally glaring when the war came to an end. The U.S.S.R., the peoples’ Democracies and other democratic countries launched a determined struggle to liquidate remnants of fascism and to strengthen the democratic order. The ruling circle of the United States and Great Britain, however, began to protect the remnants of fascism to strangle the forces of democracy and national liberation and to prepare for a new war with the object of establishing their own domination of the world. Thus two lines on question of post-war policy became revealed and this led to the formation of two camps – the imperialist camp – and the democratic camp.
Already concerned with the visible world development from capitalism to socialism and developing opposition to imperialism, the imperialist thought that their possession of nuclear weapons, especially in the period of their temporary monopoly and the unprecedented military force would enable them to arrest and if possible reverse the wheel of history. In other words, the imperialists were using all their class power and energy in an attempt to maintain imperialist status quo. That was the role of nuclear weapons for the imperialists. Molotov said , “As we know , a sort of new religion has become widespread among expansionist circles in the U.S.A.; having no faith in their own internal forces they put their faith in the secret of atom bomb although this secret has long ceased to be a secret.”( Speech at the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution , 6th November, 1947: Speeches – Molotov , vol. II , F.L.P.H. Moscow, 1949 )
The attitude towards the nuclear weapons become the central issue in the determination of foreign and home policy of the Soviet Union in the leadership of the CPSU.
Despite the temporary imperialist nuclear monopoly, Stalin continued to carry forward a consistent proletarian internationalist foreign policy without any concession or ideological retreat, knowing that the answer to the perennial imperialist threat lay in unwavering opposition to imperialism and mobilization of socialist camp and all anti-imperialist forces. The launching of international peace offensive in Stalin’s days had the aim of carrying this policy forward on a board front, again, as principled and practical answer to imperialist pressure.
The opposition elements, the revisionist section of the leadership of the Soviet party believed that Stalin’s through-going opposition to imperialism, specially in the “nuclear age” was becoming highly dangerous to Soviet national interest. They believed that the Soviet Union must at all cost buy off the threat of nuclear destruction by concessions to imperialism – easing the tension between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. The threat of nuclear weapons gave rise to fear in a section of the communists of the world including a section of the Soviet leadership and this was the international basis of modern revisionism. For the revisionists nuclear weapons are a force in themselves, outside objective social laws, the threatened use of which can act as some kind of the catalyst in international politics to compel the basic social forces to forego the historically necessary world mission of emancipating the people as well as themselves! So, to them Marxism became outdated in the ‘nuclear age’ and that required thorough revision. The essence of Khrushchev’s position in this respect was long ago publicly recognized by a leading capitalist politician, Harold Macmillan , who described Khrushchev approvingly as the “first Soviet statesman to recognize that Karl Marx was a pre-atomic man.” This deflection from dialectical and historical materialism promoted fear in them and the fear led them to opportunism, capitulation and bourgeois nationalism. Thus the revisionist section of the leadership of the Soviet party demanded a line of “least resistance” and “smooth-sailing” – to which Stalin did not pay any heed.
It may be noted in this connection that this line of “least resistance” and “smooth sailing” was persisting in the Soviet party since its very birth in a section of diplomats of foreign commissariat (Ministry), but could not come as a party line due to Stalin’s unflinching Marxist leadership for more than 25 years, from Lenin’s death to the victory over fascism. Stalin had personified the firm Soviet opposition to the class enemies of socialism with marked clarity and theoretical foresight.
Let us recapitulate the past to understand the position of Stalin vis–vis the revisionists. In 1925, in a talk to the students of Sverdlov University Stalin analysed the opposition of certain Soviet diplomats to proletarian internationalist foreign policy:
“Support the liberation movement in China? But why? Wouldn’t that be dangerous? Wouldn’t it bring us into conflict with other countries? Wouldn’t it be better if we established “spheres of influence” in China in conjunction with other “advanced” powers and snatched something from China for our own benefit? That would be both useful and safe
“Such is the now new type of nationalist “frame of mind” which is trying to liquidate the foreign policy of the October Revolution and is cultivating the elements of degeneration.”
Stalin said further, “That is a path of nationalism and degeneration, the path of complete liquidation of the proletariat’s international policy, for people afflicted with this disease regard our country not as a part of the whole that is called the world revolutionary movement, but as the beginning and the end of the movement believing that the interests of all other countries be sacrificed to the interests of our country(Stalin : Works, vol. VII, F.L.P.H. Moscow , 1954, Proletarian Path. 69 and 70, emphasis added)”
In a later work Stalin contrasted opposite lines of foreign policy for the Soviet Union. Stalin said: “either we continue to pursue a revolutionary policy rallying the proletarians and oppressed of all countries around the working class of the U.S.S.R. Or we renounce our revolutionary policy and agree to make a number of fundamental concessions to international capital”
“Britain for instance, demands that we join her in establishing predatory spheres of influence somewhere or other in Persia, Afghanistan or Turkey, say, and assures us that if we made this concession, she would be prepared to establish “friendship” with us
“America demands that we renounce in principle the policy of supporting the emancipation movement of the working class in other countries and says that if we made this concession everything would go smoothly
“… We cannot agree to these or similar concessions without being false to ourselves…”(Stalin – works, vol. XI; pp.58-60)
It is clear that both in this and above example , Stalin is not arguing in the abstract but resisting a tendency in a Soviet leadership. It appears rather as if Stalin was arguing with the Khrushchevite revisionists.
During the Spanish Civil War in 1936-37, a section of the foreign Ministry of the Soviet Union wanted to follow the same line of “least resistance” and the line of nationalism giving concession to imperialism. Litvinoff wanted to accept the British plan but Stalin stuck to his guns and the Soviet Union refused to grant Franco international status as a combatant as per with the international Brigade insisting that it had every right in the world of continue aiding the duly elected Republican Government, which it did until the bitter end. The controversy in the Soviet leadership “leaked” and the New York Times of October 29, 1937 described how the “unyielding Stalin ” representing “Russian stubbornness” refuse to go along. It wrote, “A struggle has been going on all this week between Joseph Stalin and foreign minister Maxim Litvinoff.”
Stalin said, ” the danger of nationalism, must regarded as springing from the growth of bourgeois influence on the party, in the sphere of the foreign policy, in the sphere of struggle that the capitalist states are waging against the state of the proletarian dictatorship. There can scarcely be any doubt that the pressure of the capitalist states on our state is enormous, that the people who are handling our foreign policy do not always succeed in resisting this pressure, that the danger of complications often gives rise to temptation to take the path of least resistance, the path of nationalism.
“On the other hand it is obvious that the first country to be victorious can retain the role of standard bearer of the world revolutionary movement only on the basis of consistent internationalism, only on the basis of foreign policy of October Revolution, and that the path of least resistance and of nationalism in foreign policy is the path of the isolation and the decay of the first country to be victorious.”( Stalin – Works, pg. 170-71)
In connection with the role of standard bearer of the world revolutionary movement of the first victorious country following is the attitude and stand of the modern revisionist. In a speech to the delegates from the fraternal “socialist” countries on February, 1960, Khrushchev declared : “What does ‘at the head’ gives us? It gives us neither milk, nor butter, neither potatoes nor vegetables, nor flats. Perhaps it gives us something morally? Nothing at all.” Again in a speech to the fraternal delegates on June 24, 1960 he declared : “What is the use of ‘at the head’ for us? To hell with it.” Khrushchev treated the role of standard bearer as cash-crop.
The starting point of the argument of the modern revisionist section of the CPSU leadership was that the existence of the nuclear weapons cancels out Marxism and makes any principled policy “out of date”. They basically retreated from Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and departed from the Leninist position that imperialism was the source of war. Instead they argued that the source of war was the conflict between the two camps of imperialism and socialism. Reducing this theory further they said that the conflict between the Soviet Union and Anglo-U.S. imperialisms was the direct source of conflict and war and the Soviet Union’s all sorts of support to the liberation war, especially of Korea and Vietnam was the source of intensification of the world tension. Hence they demanded the betrayal of the cause of the Korean and Indo-Chinese people for the relaxation of the international tension. They demanded to change the thorough-going opposition to imperialism for the replacement of this policy with a policy of ‘deal’ with imperialism sitting around the table.
From this basis perspective of deal with imperialism stemmed all other revisionist policy. The revisionist section of the leadership of the CPSU opposed all the formulation of Stalin contained in his Economic Problems of Socialism In The U.S.S.R. We have seen how the revisionists opposed the Leninist theory that imperialism is the source of war. They also opposed Stalin’s formulation of two parallel world markets – socialist and capitalist which we will discuss now, as this is one of the cardinal question of building socialism in the period when socialism is one country was replaced by socialism in many countries and orthodox colonialism was replaced by neo-colonialism.
Two Parallel World Market : Stalin said, “The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War . The economic consequence of the existence of the two opposite camps was that the single all-embracing world market disintegrated, so that now we have to parallel world markets also confronting one another.
” It follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the world’s resources by the major capitalist countries will not expand but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the world market will deteriorate and their industries will be operating more and more below capacity. That .. is what is meant by the depending of the general crisis of the world capitalist system in connection with the disintegration of the world market.”( Stalin : Economic Problems of Socialism In The U.S.S.R.)
We are told by the revisionists that it is another of “Stalin’s error”. They refute Stalin by saying :
“In no way whatever does the socialist international division of labour imply autarchy [Economic self-sufficiency – Moni.Guha] on the side of socialist camp. it follows from the Leninist principle of peaceful co-existence that the socialist and capitalist economic system together form the world economy. And this entirely forms the economic base for the peaceful co-existence of two world systems. The more developed the socialist division of labour, the greater the opportunities for exchange between two systems.
“The fact that world prices are used as the first basis for price formation on the socialist world market indicates that the socialist and capitalist markets are part of a single world market. ” (World Marxist Review: “The International Division of Labour” – December, 1958. )
We will briefly discuss this question here.
It has always been held by Marxist – beginning from Marx down to Stalin – that socialism would abolish the division of labour. Marx said, with the division of labour in which all these contradictions are implicit – is given simultaneously the distribution and indeed unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labour and its products, hence property the division of labour implies the possibility, nay the fact, that intellectual and material activity – enjoyment and labour, production and consumption – devolve on different individuals, and that the ONLY POSSIBILITY OF THEIR NOT COMING INTO CONTRADICTION LIES IN THE negation IN ITS TURN of the division of labour.”( K. Marx : “Germaldeology” F.L.P.H., Moscow 1949 pg. 44; Emphasis in italics are original while the emphasizes in capital letters and bolds of the last sentence supplied.)
While Marx said that in order to end the contradictions inherent in the division of labour it was necessary to negate the division of labour itself, the revisionist say “more developed the socialist division of labour, the greater the opportunities for exchange between the two system”! Not only that. The revisionist “theory” further says that the “socialist international division of labour” “frees the division of labour from the antagonistic form”! ( World Marxist Review – “International division of labour”, December 1958) Why, then, you are not bold enough, my dear revisionists, to say that Marx was wrong, he could not understand that the socialist international division of labour frees the division of labour from all antagonism? Why, then don’t you say that it was wrong for Marx to conclude that the negation of division of labour can only resolve the contradiction inherent in it? Here you see, the revisionists are not prepared to create a material basis for the abolition of division of labour, on the contrary, they are interested in creating a material basis for the emancipation of the division of labour from its antagonistic form through greater development of international division of labour with a view to “facilitate greater exchange between the two system”. And it is called by them socialism!
Indeed “Stalin’s error” on this point dates back to Marx.
The revisionists prove their “single world market” theory by saying that since the “world prices are used as the first basis for price formation on the socialist world market price” the socialist world market must be “a part of a single world market”. But who said that the world prices would be used as the first basis for the price formation of the socialist world market? There cannot be any basis for socialist competition if the imperialist world prices are used as the first basis for the price formation of the socialist world market. It is a capitalist competition not socialist competition if the socialist countries trade in international arena on the basis of the imperialist world prices as all the vices inherent in the imperialist world prices will gobble up “socialism.” In speaking of two parallel world markets – capitalist and socialist – Stalin did neither mean nor say that the socialist world market will use imperialist world price as its first basis for its price formation.
After all what are the world prices?
According to the Marxist economics world prices pattern put only developed country in a position of exploiting less developed ones. The totally of exchange relations between a developed country, which exchanges manufactured goods and underdeveloped country which exchanges primary products has been organised by the imperialists in such a way as to work systematically to the disadvantage of the undeveloped country and to the advantage of the developed country. The difference in level of productivity between two types of countries – less productive and less skilled on the part of undeveloped country and more skilled and more productive on the part of developed country is a fact. As a result more labour of undeveloped country is exchanged with less labour of the developed country. This is what is called “unequal exchange”. It is unequal exchange between the developed and underdeveloped country by which the capitalist class (and the “socialist” of single world market) of the developed country gains at expense of the people of undeveloped territory, even if it is sold cheaper by one of the developed countries than other developed countries. It is capitalist competition.
Marx drew the attention to such unequal exchange:
“Capital invested to foreign trade are in a position to yield a higher rate of profit , because , in the first place, they come in competition with commodities produced in other countries with lesser facilities of production, , so that an advanced country is enabled to sell its goods above their value even when it sells cheaper than the competing countries.”(K. Marx, Capital, vol.3; emphasis added)
The Soviet Union, rejecting and repudiating Stalin’s theory of two parallel world markets and following the revisionist “theory” of single world market and “international division of labour” based on imperialist world prices as the first basis for the price formation is gaining at the expense of Comecon countries and the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America capitalistically competing with the imperialist competitors. The “higher rate of profit” which they earn are invested as capital in the Soviet Union and hence the Soviet Union is no longer a socialist country.
Che Guevara, then the Finance Minister of “socialist” Cuba strongly criticized the practice of world market prices and argued, ” How can it be ‘mutually advantageous’ to sell at world market prices the primary materials which cost the under-developed countries boundless sweat and suffering and to buy the world market prices the machines produced in the great automatized factories of the present day?” He further said, “If we establish this sort of relation between two groups of nations, it must be admitted that the socialist countries are, in a certain way, accomplices of imperialist exploitation. The socialist countries have the moral duty to liquidate their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the west.”( Che Guevara : Speech at the “”2nd Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity” on 24th February ,1965)
China, Rumania, Hungary and the other “socialist” countries said almost the same thing like Che Guevara. They felt the sting of Soviet Union’s exploitation, but failed to go beyond bourgeois nationalist protest. None of them demanded a parallel world socialist market based on socialist pricing system. On the contrary, these countries also trade on the basis of imperialist world prices. India, U.A.R. and other countries also protested against the unequal exchange of the “socialist ” Soviet Union. They do not find any fundamental or radical difference between the capitalist competition and “socialist” competition.
Stalin envisaged a parallel socialist world market on the basis of a socialist theory of international trade based on un-exploitative socialist pricing policy which would socialistically compete with the ever shrinking capitalist world market and thus would draw the undeveloped countries towards socialist camp, which would in turn intensify the general crisis of capitalism more and more.
The single world market theory based on imperialist world prices and capitalist nature of competition in the world market by the revisionists has brought the “socialist” countries in the orbit of the capitalist crisis. The Economist of London in its January, 1976 issue writes: “western inflation is pushing up the price of Comecon’s imports while western recession is making it increasingly difficult for Comecon members to maintain, let alone expand.” It is not only the London Economist but Soviet prime minister also had to admit this fact. In his speech to the 29th Comecon Council meeting, in June 1975, he openly admitted that the inflation in the west has certain effect on the Soviet bloc.
The tremendous and increasing indebtedness of the Comecon countries, including the U.S.S.R. to west European, Japanese and U.S. banking interest is noteworthy. The U.S. imperialism is gaining an ever greater economic and political foothold in the Comecon countries at the expense of peaceful co-existence on the basis of peaceful competition in capitalist way in a single world market. We are neither opposed to peaceful co-existence nor to peaceful competition with capitalism, but we like to follow that line on the basis of socialist pricing system of the parallel world socialist market competing capitalismSocialistically. Herein lies the fundamental ideological and political difference between Marxism and revisionism.
The revisionist section of the leadership of the CPSU did not find any other suitable alternative to save the situation in their favour but Stalin’s death and that was why Stalin “died”.
Chapter – 3
What Happened After The Death of Stalin?
To understand clearly what happened after the death of Stalin, it is necessary to know the situation when Stalin died.
Stalin died in March 1953. He died at a time when the relative stability of capitalist markets had become a thing of the past and the ‘disintegration of the single all-embracing world market’ had already set in and two parallel world markets – the socialist and capitalist – confronting one another, contracting the capitalist world market more and more further deepening the general crisis of capitalism – was in the process of offing.
Stalin died at a time when the “theories expounded by Lenin in the spring of 1916, namely that in spite of the decay of capitalism “on the whole capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before” had lost its validity”(Stalin : Economic Problems of socialism in the U.S.S.R.), at a time when, capitalism had even lost its tendency to relative growth in the framework of all-round absolute decay.
Stalin died at a time when, the development of social contradiction had been moving the world proletariat towards revolution and the imperialist towards a new war; at a time when, the fight for peace ‘the peace offensive’ had become the fight against the social forces that were conspiring a war; at a time when, the whole world had become a single field of social battle in which the forces of socialism and national liberation on the one hand and the forces of capitalism and national reaction on the other, confronted one another eye ball to eye ball as two organised forces, the former headed by STALIN, socialist camp and the Cominform and the latter by Anglo-American imperialisms together with modern revisionism; at a time when, every local crisis had assumed a world-wide importance.
Stalin died at a time when, the national liberation struggle of the oppressed people had become not only objectively, but also subjectively, the part and parcels of the world proletarian socialist revolution on the one hand and at a time when, the imperialist vultures, through neo-colonial policy had been buying off, in addition to the feudal class, national reformists and had been engineering a policy of localized civil warin an attempt at crushing the national liberation struggle one by one on the other; at the time when, the unified and joint intervention by the world socialist forces and the forces of national liberation struggle had been foiling the conspiracy of localized civil war by imperialism as in Korea.
Stalin died at a time when, the development of socialism in the Soviet Union had reached crucial turning point demanding transformation of the collective farmers into the property of the whole people – replacing group ownership – by an “all-embracing production sector” and ‘products-exchange’ thus doing away with the commodity-money relations and market economy, opening the floodgates of the second, higher phase of socialism, viz., communism.
Stalin died at the time when the ‘theories’ of peaceful growing of socialism, ‘structural reform of capitalism’ form within the framework of Yalta and UNO on the one hand and ‘sudden nuclear attack as the decisive factor in the out come of war’ and ‘peace at any price’ on the other giving right to opportunism had been rising their ugly heads in the international communist movement, in the Soviet Union and countries of People’s Democracies; at a time when Stalin had already launched a bitter ideological as well as political struggle against the liquidationism of Verga, Vozenesesky, Browder and Tito.
Stalin died at a time when the deviations and errors of the wartime had already been detected and pin-pointed and the investigation of the crimes of the opposition elements had been undertaken; at a time when the reforms of the Central Committee, purging out the weak-nerved and wavering elements had been undertaken.
In fine, Stalin died at a time when, on the one hand, under his far-sighted leadership the world imperialist system had been brought to the brink of precipice ushering the world system of socialism – replacing socialism in one country, at a time when the material basis of exerting a decisive influence on world politics as a whole by the international dictatorship of the proletariat exercised through the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) had already emerged and on the other hand, when Anglo-American imperialisms, in league with the modern revisionists had already infiltrated deeply into the international communist movement; at a time, when the world proletariat had stood against the world bourgeoisie as class against class and eye to eye.
Stalin died at such a crucial point of history when the brightest unique prospect and greatest black danger – a prospect of revolution and the danger of counter-revolution – at the highest of the greatest class battle of history-confronted each other. It demanded a dynamic subjective leadership at least equal to Stalin.
Frederic Engles wrote to F. Sorge, just immediately after the death of Karl Marx ” mankind is shorter by a head and the greatest head of our time at that. The proletarian movement goes on, but gone its central figure to which Frenchmen, Russian, Americans and Germans spontaneously turned at critical moments to receive always that clear, incontestable counsel which only genius and perfect understanding of the situation can give. Local and lesser minds, if not humbugs will now have free hands. The final victory is certain, but circuitous path, temporary and local errors, things even now are so unavoidable,will become more common than ever. Well , we must see it through. What else are we here for?”(Marx Engles Correspondance : National Book Agency , 1946, Emphasis supplied)
It was more true after the death of Stalin. After his death we have not only “local and lesser minds” but also “humbugs”. The darkest period in the international communist movement descended after the death of Stalin.
What happened after the death of Stalin?
Stalin died in March 1953, and abruptly the high tide of revolution so far the subjective role of the leadership was concern reversed. In July, 1953, within less than four months of Stalin’s death, the leaders of the Soviet Union and China capitulated to U.S. imperialism and forced the Korean people to accept division of their nation and a permanent occupation of the southern half by U.S. forces. It was declared that the era of the cold war between socialism and capitalism was ended replacing it by an era of mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence between capitalism and socialism based on ‘relaxation of international tension’ as it the struggle for socialism and national liberation were the sources responsible for the intensification of international tension and war conspiracy ! The struggle against the threat and danger of the third world war was arbitrarily separated from the struggle against imperialism implying that classes and nations oppressed by imperialism should abandon revolutionary struggles in the interest of “preserving peace”. The problem of peace was isolated from the problem of human emancipation, from all kinds of exploitation, placing “peace” in abstract way. It meant the repudiation and rejection of the thorough-going struggle against the social forces that conspire and make war, it meant the repudiation and rejection of the differentiation between Revolutionary war and the war of aggression, it meant the repudiation and rejection of Marxism and class struggle. (See explanatory Note.)1
Stalin died in March 1953 and by July of that year the socialized means of production of agriculture sector of Soviet Union – the Machine Tractor Stations (MTS) were desocialized and were sold to those collective farms which were financially capable of outright purchasing it, thus laying the foundation of differentiation and inequality among the collective farm peasantry and making a tiny section of the peasants group owners of one of the most vital economic sectors, of the means of production doing away with the very economic basis of socialism in agriculture thus laying the foundation of the restoration of capitalism. Collective farms were allowed to sell their kitchen garden products together with their hens, pigs, milk, butter, eggs and meat in the ‘free market’ as commodity, thus extending the scope and range of the operation of the law of value , commodity – money relations and market economy intensifying the instincts and morality of the private property thus opening widely the gates for capitalism to enter into, guaranteeing the consumer approach to collective farm production for which Khrushchev was criticized at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in November, 1952. (See explanatory Note.)2
Stalin died in March 1953 and in September of that year Soviet Red Army General Talensky rejecting Stalin’s formula of “permanently operating factors” in war (See explanatory Note.)3 introduced the ‘theory’ that in the ‘nuclear age’ atom bomb can determine the fact and outcome of war at the very first phase of war by attacking suddenly(See explanatory Note.)4, once more providing Stalin’s prophetic words that “Atom bombs are intended for intimidating the weak nerved(See explanatory Note.)5“.
Stalin died in March 1953, and in November of that year – the World Peace Council – a creation of Stalin – planned for a world conference for the “relaxation of international tension” renouncing the struggle for peace against the source of war and the conspirators of war, under the cloak of “saving the world from the war”, forgetting that appeasement of imperialist aggression and aggressive designs cannot preserve peace, on the contrary, makes the war inevitable.
Stalin died in March 1953 and in 1954 when Dulles – the U.S. state secretary – threatened mass retaliation with atom bomb should the Vietnamese proceed further beyond Dien-bein Phu and the Chinese overtly intervene in Indo-China, the Soviet Union and China, in the name of ‘preserving peace’ ‘preventing another world war’ forced the Vietnamese army and the indo-Chinese people to end the war of liberation short of gaining complete independence. The Geneva capitulation(See explanatory Note.)6 was the continuation of the Korean capitulation translating the ‘peace at any price’ into reality in the name of averting atomic disaster.
In the same year, 1954, Afro-Asian Bandung conference was held under the joint leadership of Pandit Nehru and Chou-En-Lai virtually denouncing the two world theory of Lenin and Stalin, with a view to create a ‘Third Neutral Force’ comprising of the ruling classes of the colonial type countries – who would be neither in the socialist camp nor in the imperialist camp and who would purse a ‘third path’ which would neither be proletarian nor be imperialist, thus, in the name of erecting a ‘Chinese wall against imperialist penetration’ erected a real Chinese wall between the world proletarian socialist revolution and the national liberation struggle as well as between the democratic (agrarian) revolution and struggle for national independence, surrendering the interest of the peasantry in particular and workers in general at the feet of national-reformist-feudal alliance, making the national liberation struggle pawn of power politics and appendage of this or that great power bloc.(See explanatory Note.)7
Stalin died in March 1953, and in may 1955 Warsaw Military bloc was formed with the blessing and participation of China as fraternal observer, basing on power politics – minus the people. Khrushchev declared that the maintenance of peace or unleashing of war depended on the two super powers – the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., rejecting and repudiating the inexorable social law of war and peace and following the imperialist logic of ‘force theory’(See explanatory Note.)8. Rejecting Stalin’s line of relying on people and mobilizing them against war preparation and war conspiracies of the imperialist(See explanatory Note.)9 the leader of the ‘socialist’ countries relied on power politics and power diplomacy, creating the illusion of false peace thus disarming the people ideologically, politically and organizationally.
In the same year in June 1955, the gang of Tito was rehabilitated in complicity with China and modern revisionism in the shape of ‘national communism’ was recognized as Marxism-Leninism by the leaders of the Soviet Union and China denouncing Stalin as ‘big nation Chauvinist’ and embracing Tito as ‘Great Comrade.’(See explanatory Note.)10
Thus the stage was set for the drama of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and denunciation of the Marxism-Leninism in the name of denunciation of the ‘cult of personality’ and Stalin.
Stalin was again murdered, in February in 1956, in the secret chamber of Khrushchev, in presence of the fraternal delegates from all countries(See explanatory Note.)11, without a single voice of protest.
In 1956, in July, the Cominform, the embryonic Communist International was winded up with the support of China, thus burying the disciplined proletarian internationalism in the shape of international democratic centralism, giving everybody the right to interpret proletarian internationalism as it thinks fit.(See explanatory Note.)12
The April and December 1956 articles On the historical experience and More on historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the deliberations of the 18th Congress of the CPC held in September, 1956, including Mao – Tse – Tung’s opening speech in which he said “At its 20th Congress held not long ago, the Communist Party of Soviet Union formulated many correct policies and criticized shortcomings which were found in the party “, were nothing but the loyal echo of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
The capitulation and sellout that began in Korea failed to produce desired result. Nuclear threat gave rise to fear and fear led the revisionist capitulation for the preservation of national interest at the expense of others but even such capitulation failed to preserve nationalist interest, more capitulation was demanded by imperialism. As a result, first the revisionist Soviet leadership tried to pacify U.S. imperialism at the expense of China and then the policy of threat against threat emerged. By this process the Soviet Union transformed itself into Russian neo-imperialist super power.
The two world parallel markets – socialist and capitalist – are today again a thing of the past, the material basis of exerting decisive influence in world politics as a whole by the socialist camp no longer exist today as there is no longer socialist camp. Instead of contracting the imperialist world market, it is extending and even successfully penetrating in all ‘socialist’ countries including the Soviet Union and China. The ‘socialist’ countries are fighting one against other – one calling the other “expansionist”. The Soviet Union, the Comecon countries and China are today partners of joint enterprise and joint exploitation with the imperialists in a single one market. Moscow and Beijing both are providing more and more breathing space to the imperialists and are busy in building fence after fence around the brink of the precipice where Stalin had driven the imperialists – so that imperialists may not fall tumbling down into the very precipice and may gather strength and overcome the danger of falling straightaway.
Stalin’s death was a dire necessity for the bourgeoisie and their henchmen, the revisionists and so Stalin had to die and the capitalist world was made safe, at least for some decades.
It is no use to chant like ‘mantras‘ was what splendid things Stalin did in his life time, it is of no use to celebrate Stalin’s birth centenary as rituals. It is necessary and imperative to discuss and judge how and why the post-Stalin leadership of the international communist movement betrayed Stalin, the world proletariat, the oppressed people and Marxism-Leninism and that only can enable us to resurrect Marxism-Leninism and help us to find out the root as to WHY WAS STALIN DENIGRATED AND MADE A CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE. Otherwise “What else we are here for?”
Explanatory Notes of Chapter 3
Explanatory Note : 1
Korean capitulation :Since the U.S. intervention of Korea under the flag of United Nation, Stalin was urging for a peaceful settlement of the Korean issue on the basis of complete withdrawal of foreign troops Korea to enable the Korean people to settle it by themselves. In response to Nehrus appeal to Stalin for peaceful settlement of the Korean issue, Stalin re-iterated the same thing. Even in the Armistice Agreement in June 1953, after the death of Stalin, it was stipulated that the forthcoming political conference will discuss the question of withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea. Kim II Sung said in the 6thPlenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea on 5th August 1953:
The armistice signifies a great victory for us. Through the armistice did not bring complete peace to Korea, the conclusion of the Armistice Agreement marked an initial step towards the peaceful settlement of the Korean issue, – a first exemplary contribution to the relaxation of international tension. By concluding the Armistice Agreement we have come to open up the possibilities for the peaceful settlement of the question of our countrys unification.
The forthcoming political conference should naturally reflect and defend the just claims, desire, will and fundamental interests of the Korean people. Therefore, our people will under no circumstances tolerate and thoroughly reject any attempt or plot of the imperialist interventionists contrary to them.
The basis aim of the political conference is to get all the troops of the United States and its satellite countries to withdraw from South Korea and to enable the Korean people to settle the Korean issue by themselves and to prevent foreigners from interfering in the internal affairs of our country.
We do not find any difference in the basis aim of proposed political conference to be held between the representative of the United States on the one hand and Korea, the Soviet Union, China and etc. on the other side as it corresponds with the policy declared by Stalin, before his death.
But after stating the basic aim of the political conference Kim II Sung went on :
With the political conference approaching the U.S. imperialist are already making a fuss behind the scenes. Notwithstanding the singing of Armistice Agreement in which it was stipulated that the chief aim of the political conference is to discuss the question of withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea, the notorious war monger Dulles U.S. Secretary of state concluded the so-called ROK-U.S. Mutual defense pact(ROK: Republic of Korea,South) with Syngman Rhee. This pact is aimed at stationing aggressive forces of the United States in south Korea indefinitely, and whenever necessary, unleashing another criminal war of aggression in Korea, in violence of the Armistice Agreement. The ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Pact is an aggressive pact which allows U.S. imperialism to obstruct peaceful reunification of our country and interfere in our domestic affairs. It is a glaringly country selling pact under which Syngman Rhee clique sell the southern half of our country to the U.S. bandits. To conclude such a pact at a time when the political conference is in the offing is an act of hindering a reasonable solution of the Korean question at the political conference(Kim II Sung : Selected Works. Vol. 1; F.L.P.H. ; Pyogyang, Korea, 1976, pp 416-18, emphases supplied)
In spite of this categorical statement about the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Pact on the eve of the political conference, the leaders of the Soviet Union and China did not hesitate to hatch a Korea-selling conspiracy with the U.S. imperialists. They made a treaty of peace with the U.S. imperialists and allowed to remain U.S. military force in South Korea agreeing to the partitioning of the country indefinitely. Even today Korea remains divided and U.S. military base remains in South Korea. The declared basic aim of political conference and the stipulations of the Armistice Agreement were smoke screens with a view to lull the Korean and world people.
The question is : Was a capitulation or compromise or a tactical retreat necessary from the military and political position on the part of North Korea, China and the Soviet Union? Was the continuation of war and settlement of it by military means really quite unfavourable to the position of the socialist camp? Let us quote Mao – Tse Tung, who was one of the architects of this ignominious betrayal to the cause of Korean as well as world people. Mao – Tse – Tung said the following in September 1953, immediately after Peace Treaty was signed :
After three years we have won a great victory, in the war to resist U.S. aggression and aid Korea
We fought U.S. imperialism, an enemy welding weapons many times superior to ours and yet we were able to win and compelled it to agree to a truce. Why was the truce possible?
First, military, the U.S. aggressors were in unfavourable position and were on receiving end. If they have not accepted truce, then the whole battle line would have been broken through and Seoul would have fallen into the hands of Korean people. The situation became evident in the summer of the last year.
Second, politically, the enemy had many internal contradictions and the people of the world demanded peace.
Third economically, the enemy spent vast sum of money in the war of aggression against Korea and his budgetary revenue and expenditures were not balanced. (Mao – Tse – Tung: Selected Works, vol. V, Peking, 1977, pp. 115, emphasis supplied)
May we then ask, why, in spite of such a favourable situation the Soviet Union and China did not compel the U.S. imperialist for the abrogation of ROK-U.S. Mutual Defence Pact and for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from South Korea which was the declared aim of the political conference as stipulated in the Armistice Agreement? May we then, ask, who compelled whom? Obviously, the peace Treaty was neither a military necessity nor a tactical retreat, Mao – Tse – Tung said, that it was a great victory. May we ask, on whose terms the peace treaty was drafted and signed? The U.S. forces remained in South Korea, Korea remained partitioned, not a single item of the declared basic aim of the political conference was agreed by the U.S., then how can it be said that the U.S. was compelled to make a truce? How can it be said that it was a great victory? Whose position was made advantageous by the peace treaty?
In fact, it was a great betrayal and sell out so far the interests of the Korean people and world proletarian interest were concerned. It was the fear of nuclear threat and peace at any price which compelled the modern revisionists to sell out Korean people for the sake of narrow bourgeois nationalist interests of the Soviet Union and China.
Elsewhere Mao – Tse – Tung said that Korean peace treaty was a compromise. There he did not say it as great victory. Did not we compromise with the Americans on the 36th parallel in Korea? (Ibid, pp.575, written on November 18, 1957). Of course, the peace treaty was both a great victory and compromise to Mao – Tse – Tung and the modern revisionists. It was a great victory for nationalist China, because the threat against China remained no more after the withdrawal of imperialist forces from North Korea, especially from the banks of Yulu River. It may be noted in this connection that China did not involve herself in Korean War before Pong yang, the capital of North Korea, fell to the U.S. hands, before the U.S. forces were near the Yulu River, in spite of the repeated requests from Stalin. China join the Korean War only when she was directly threatened. Apparently the volunteer action of China in Korea would appear like proletarian internationalism, though in fact, it was bourgeois nationalism. In spite of that it was objectively anti imperialist. It may also be noted that, in spite of the military support of the Korean cause by China, China did not confiscate and nationalize U.S. owned enterprises, in spite of the fact that the U.S. imperialist imposed economic blockade against China and freezed Chinas overseas assets. The U.S. enterprises were only placed under the state control.
When the United States used the Korean War as a pretext to freeze our overseas assets and impose on economic blockade and embargo on us, our government retaliated with the announcement, on December 28, 1950, that control would be exerted over property belonging to the United States imperialists. (Liao Kai-lung : From Yenan To Peking ;1954, pp.154)
So, withdrawal of the U.S. forces from North Korea was a great victory from the point of bourgeois nationalist interest of China and a compromise from the point of interest of the Korean people.
Now it is up to the readers to judge whether it was a betrayal and capitulation to imperialism.
Explanatory Note : 2
Marx said, The fact that (capitalism) produces commodity does not differentiate it from other mode of production ; but rather the fact that being a commodity is dominant and determining characteristic of its products.Furthermore, already implicit in the commodity.is the materialization of the social features of production, which characterise the entire capitalist mode of production. (Marx , Capital ; vol. 3 ; pp.858)
That is why it has been fundamental to Marxism that the abolition of cap meant abolition of the commodity system.
The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer (Engles , Anti-Duhring; pp.311).
Socialism, as is known, means the abolition of the commodity economy. (Lenin ; The Agrarian Questions vol.15)
Now after the October Revolution commodity production was not abolished all at once in the Soviet Union. In fact, commodity production grew rapidly for some years after 1921. This was made necessary by the destruction of productive forces in the civil war. To get production going it was necessary to free commodity production and exchange for a period – (Lenin told it a temporary retreat). while at the same time building up the productive forces owned by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
For a certain period in the development of socialism commodity production and circulation could play a positive role provided that the dictatorship of the proletariat was upheld and strengthened, that the level of consciousness of the masses was being raised, that the area of socialist production for area was strengthened and expanded contracting simultaneously the area of commodity circulation through the medium of money. But, in the long run, socialism and commodity production and circulation were incompatible. This Marxist-Leninist position was clearly stated by Stalin in 1952 in his Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., especially, in Reply to Comrades Sanina and Venzher.
The argument of the opposition elements of the CPSU leadership was as follows, which revealed after the triumph of modern revisionism in the CPSU after the death of Stalin:
The idea gained wide currency in recent years that commodity circulation is allegedly incompatible with the prospect of going over from socialism to communism. Such a formulation of the question is wrong. The dialectics of the socialist economy consists precisely in the fact that we shall arrive at the withering away of commodity production and money circulation in the phase of communism as a result of the utmost development of commodity-money relations in the socialist stage of development. ( Ostrovityanov, Marxism today; August, 1958 issue)
We have seen in the question from Marx above that the capitalist production in the heighest form of commodity production. Besides that question, Marx made it more clear when he said , the production, untilcapitalist production serves as it basis. (Marx , Capital , vol.2;pp.31)
We have also seen that socialism involve abolition of the commodity economy from the question of Engles and Lenin. But to the modern revisionists it was Stalins another mistake. They say, it is not capitalism, but socialism which is the heighest form of commodity economy. Indeed, to them, the bad thing about capitalist production is not commodity production, production for sale and profit, but that it hinderscommodity production and hence the task of socialism is to remove this hindrance and make socialism the heighest form of commodity production!
It is necessary to mention here that the communist party of China and the communist party of India (then undivided) supported Khrushchev when Khrushchev desocialized the MTS. The CPC appealed to the world communists to support it and rally around Khrushchev while the CPI through the article of Bhowani Sen (Who came back from Moscow) in Swadhinata, paid a glowing tribute to the Unique Silent Revolution in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev leadership! Subsequently Mao wrote:
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 (Mao – Tse – Tung ; Comments on Stalins Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. Monthly Review Publication. 1979, Emphasis supplied; For a reply on Mao – Tse – Tungs comment see Revisionism Against Revisionism by Moni Guha.)
Explanatory Note : 3
Stalins Permanently operating factors in war :Stalin said : The element of the surprise and suddenness, as a reserve of German fascist troops is completely spent. This removes the inequality in fighting conditions created by the suddenness of the German fascist attack. Now the outcome of the war will be decided not by such fortuitous elements as surprise, but the permanently operating factors: stability of the rear; morale of the army, quantity and quality of divisions, equipment of the army and organizing ability of the commanding personel of the army. (Stalin: On the great patriotic war of the Soviet Union,Moscow, 1946, pp.45; emphasis supplied.)
What are stability of rear and morale of the army?
The Pravda correspondent asked Stalin during the Korean war Are the American and British General and officers inferior to Chinese and Korean? In reply Stalin said : No they are not. The American and British Generals and officer are not a whit inferior to the generals and officers of any other country. as to the soldiers of U.S.A. and Great Britain , they, as we know gave a good account of themselves in war against Hitler and militarist Japan. What, then, is the reason (of the defeat of the interventionists)? The reason is that the soldiers regard this war against Korea and China as unjust, whereas the war against Hitler and militarist Japan they regarded as fully just. The fact is that this war is extremely unpopular with the American and British soldiers. (Stalin : Interview with Pravda, February, 17, 1951)
So war aim is another factors in the permanently operating factors, which is the secret of the morale of the people in rear and the army in front.
Explanatory Note : 4
General Telensky in September 1953, issue of the Military Thought – a journal for the officer of the Red Army opened a debate questioning the validity of the Stalins permanently operating factors in the outcome of the war in Nuclear age. Marshal Rotmistov of the Red Army, also, supporting General Talensky wrote that surprise and sudden atomic attack can determine the outcome of the war. Stalin called this factor of suddenness as fortuitous and emphasized on permanently operating factors. However in April 1955, Talenskys thesis was accepted officially and Stalins permanently operating factors were rejected saying it as outdated. Thus the force theory minus the people came into being, Malenkov upheld Stalins permanently operating factors and as a result Malenkov was forced to resign from the Premiership !
Explanatory Note : 5
Stalin, in reply to the question of the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times Alexender Werth, on September 17, 1946 said :
I do not consider the atom bomb to be serious a force as some politicians are inclined to consider it. Atom bombs are intended for intimidating the weak nerved, but they cannot decide the outcome of the war, since for this atom bombs are not entirely sufficient. Of course, the monopolist possession of the secret of the atom bomb creates a menace, but against this, there are at least two remedies : (a) the monopolist possession of the atom bomb cannot last long ; (b) the use of atom bomb will be prohibited. (Interview with Stalin; emphases added)
Explanatory Note : 6
Geneva Capitulation : According to the account given by the General Giap in his Dien-bien Phu, at the time of victory at Dien-bien Phu, the Pathet Lao guerrilla forces in Laos were consolidating its power and rule in a considerable area in the alliance with the Vietnamese forces, the Khmer rouge revolutionary forces of Cambodia were organizing themselves under the instruction of the communist party of Indo-China and military defeat of Franco-U.S. forces throughout Indo-China were more than certain. Giap also said that after the spectacular victory at Dien-bien Phu the Franco-U.S. forces were taking shelters and mobilizing their forces in South Vietnam.
Giap said that the victory of the revolutionary forces throughout Indo-China was more than certain after the victory at Dien-bien Phu. Why, then, the Geneva agreement? Immediately after the ignominious defeat at Dien-bien Phu, Dulles, the U.S. secretary of state released a bellicose statement saying that should the Vietnamese proceed further beyond Dien-bian Phu and should the Chinese overtly intervene in Indo-China, U.S. will retaliate with atom bomb. This threat un-nerved Khrushchev, Chou-Engles-Lai, Jawharlal Nehru, Tito and Nasser equally. All of them put their brains together to find out a path to avert the danger of another world war and atomic disaster on the basis of the prescription of relaxation of international tension. It was the continuation of the same policy of capitulation to atomic threat that started in Korea.
What were the stipulations of the Geneva agreement? The North Vietnam up to the north of 18th parallel would be recognized as Democratic Republic of Vietnam and America, France and other powers will not interfere in the internal affairs of DRV and the DRV will have sovereign rights to organize their territory as they like. Secondly, the South Vietnam, south of 18th parallel (where, it may be noted, the Franco-U.S. force have taken shelter and were mobilizing their forces, according to General Giap), will constitute a government with Ngo Dinh Diem as head of the government (please also note the revisionist leaderships did not learn from the bitter experience of the ROK-US Mutual Defense Pact in South Korea ) and an election would be held there after one year to decide the question of reunification of both the North and South Vietnam. Thirdly, Indo-China will be partitioned into three distinct sovereign states viz. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Laos and Cambodia will be ruled by their respective kings and Vietnam must not interfere in their internal affairs. Fourthly, the DRV will ask the people of the South Vietnam to lay down and surrender their arms to carry out only open, legal and peaceful propaganda for peaceful reunification. A neutral observer commission will be formed to observe that the stipulation of the Geneva agreement were strictly followed. The Soviet Union, China and other members of the socialist camp, at once, withheld proletarian internationalist support to become members of the neutral objective observer and enforcers commission, thus becoming arbiter between imperialism and the oppressed peoples !
It is also to be noted that the U.S.A. did not sign the Geneva agreement. It only gave a gentlemens (?) assurance that it will respect the stipulations of the agreement. U.S. imperialism entered into South Vietnam no sooner the French troops pulled out and tore up the agreements, established puppet Diem in power, massacred thousands of people. In Indo-China,… both the Chinese and Soviets actually put pressure on the Vietminh to accept far less territory than they had liberated by force of arms and drop claims on Cambodia and Laos. (Vietnam : History, document and opinions on a major world crisis Editor, Marvin E. Gelleman, New York, 1965). The promised election in South Vietnam was never held.
Explanatory Note : 7
The false idea on which Khrushchev and all modern revisionists based their incorrect attitude to imperialism that imperialist politician like Kennedy and Johnson can alter the very nature of imperialism by their good intentions, can decide to remove from imperialism its drive towards war if certain concessions were given, proved to be wrong in course of time. The more the policy of appeasement failed, the more Khrushchev was compelled to brandish nuclear weapons at the imperialists in an effort to compel them meet half-way and thus Khrushchev who surrendered to nuclear threat-resorted to nuclear threat and joined the imperialists by adopting same imperialist attitude to nuclear weapon-threat against threat. Thus Khrushchev organised the Warsaw Military Pact against NATO. The force theory naturally disregarded the internal basic social forces and relied on force. The process of becoming a super power with force theory began and the socialist Soviet Union degenerated into a Russian neo-imperialist.
Explanatory Note : 8
In reply to the question Do you consider another world war inevitable? By the Pravda correspondent on February 17, 1951, Stalin said the following :
No, at the present time, at any rate, it cannot be considered inevitable.
Of course, there are in the United States of America and Great Britain, as well as in France, aggressive forces, who are thirsting for another war. They need war in order to rake in super-profits and to plunder other countries. These are billionaires and millionaires, who regard war as a paying proposition yielding gigantic profits.
The aggressive forces hold the reactionary governments in their grip and direct them. But at the same time they fear their people, who do not want another war and stand for the maintenance of peace. They are, therefore, trying to use the reactionary governments to enmesh their people in a web of lies, to deceive them and represent another war as a defensive war and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as an aggressive policy. They are trying to deceive their people in order to foist their aggressive plans upon them and inveigle them into another war.
It is for this reason that they are scared of the peace campaign, fearing that it might expose the aggressive designs of the reactionary governments.
How will this struggle between aggressive and peace loving forces end?
Peace will be preserved and consolidate if the people take the cause of preserving peace into their own hands and uphold it to the end. It may become inevitable if a web of lies, deceiving them and inveiling them into another world war.
Hence a broad campaign for the preservation of peace, as a means of exposing the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now of paramount importance (Interview with Pravda correspondent;Moscow, 1951, emphasis added)
In another place, in February, 1952, Stalin said :
The object of the present-day peace movement is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently the aim of this movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism it confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace. In this respect, the present-day peace movement differs from the movement of the time of the First World War for the conversion of the imperialist war into Civil War, since the latter movement went further and pursued socialist aims.
Stalin did not stop here. He viewed the peace movement dialectically and dynamically. He did not restrict the peace movement into the boundaries of four walls of bourgeois democracy. Stalin further said :
It is possible that in a definite conjunction of circumstance the fight for peace will develop here or there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement; it will be a movement for the overthrow of capitalism.
Regarding the peace movement itself Stalin further said :
But, all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will not be enough, because, for all the success of the peace movement, imperialism will remain, continue in force and consequently, inevitability of wars will also continue in force.
To eliminate the inevitably of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism.(Stalin, Economic Problem of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.)
Thus we see how Stalin linked the problem of peace with the aim of socialism.
Explanatory Note : 9
See, Yugoslav Revisionism and the Role of the CPC and CPSU by Moni Guha.
Explanatory Note : 10
Roger Garudy was one of the fraternal delegates to the 20th Congress of the CPSU from France. He wrote in his revisionist book The turning point of socialism:
True, the manner of self criticism [meaning Khrushchevs secret report Moni Guha] was strange, having made in camera and ON CONDITION THAT FRATERNAL PARTIES SHOULD NOT DIVULGE ITS TERMS.
Explanatory Note : 11
Opening address of Mao – Tse Tung, at the 18th National Congress of the CPC.
The Role of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
International Marxist-Leninist Movement
The October Revolution vs. The “Cultural Revolution”
By Youth for Stalin
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.
Nepal: “Prachanda remains no longer Chairman of Nepal
Maoist”: C. P. Gajurel
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
Nepal: Baidhya warns of birth of new Maoist party
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.
“Maoist row over returning property”
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.
‘No Surrender’: Kiran and Badal
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.”
Nepal: UCPN (M) infighting leads to closure of party’s FM station
|[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.
By BILL BLAND (Communist League)
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
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
Revisionism Against Revisionism
By Moni Guha
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.
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.
(Editor, Proletarian Path)
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.
Click here to download the PDF file
Following are comments from the online group Marxist Leninist List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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:
It seems to be a good evaluation of Mao
Comrade Mark Scott <mark1scott55atyahoo.com> on 27 September 2011 wrote:
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.
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.
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. 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:
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), 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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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:
 A detail analysis of CPI(M)’s revisionism, see the article Chameleon has revealed its true colours, at http://www.geocities.com/marxistfront
 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)
 One of the few Trotskyite sites from India ‘The New Wave’
 CPM’s Grazing Land, Sumit Mitra Revolutionary Democracy, Vol. XIII, No. 2, September 2007
 op. cite