This document was released by the Maoists as a reply to
this article by Anil biswas in The Marxist which you can read here
Download in PDF
http://www.savefile.com/projects/808495138
Download in word doc
http://www.savefile.com/projects/808495147
Lumpen Politics of CPM----A Maoist Critique!
Introduction
Mr. Anil Biswas has been entrusted by the CPI(M) with the responsibility to take the ideological cudgels against the Maoists and their party the CPI(Maoist). Mr. Biswas and his party think that the supposed attack with the pen along with administrative repression would demolish Maoists' morale. Alas! Mr. Biswas and his party's bombardment against the Maoists proved to be a miserable failure. For theory, the CPI(M) and its leader Mr. Anil now repeat nothing new to weaken our sharp ideological weapons, instead the degeneration and double-talks reaching their nadir while lending credence to abject surrender to the lap of the World Bank, the DFID, the MNCs and the World Bank's trusted men like Manmohan Singh, Montek Singh, etc. We at least welcome the CPI(M) and its 'Left-Front' in West Bengal for staying put in power more tenaciously in order that the people and in particular the section of left forces under parliamentary illusion are seeing in their own eyes to what hellish end the CPI(M) can reach. And why the Naxalites long back in 1967 predicted that the CPI(M) call of preparation for 'partisan war', the red-capped CPI(M) cadres parading in the processions, etc. were all gimmicks, a drama to divert the activists from the path of Naxalbari.
The unexpected victory of the CPI(M) in 1977 and the undisturbed stint for more than 27 years in the existing exploitative structure with, to borrow the CPI(M)'s realisation, has been possible for 'a responsible trade union', 'a stability' i.e. the party's and administration's highhandedness to keep under control Bengal's proverbial militancy. Anil's party has already purged itself of the veil of secret love for the imperialist finance capital and the World Bank. The WTO programmed globalisation has torn apart all secrecy and this social-fascist party has now come into the open to be bed fellow of the imperialist institutions, the MNCs and also the Indian National Congress which it called even a few years ago the party of the big bourgeoisie and landlords.
As degeneration demands distortions, slander campaigns and mingling with the state repressive instrument Anil and his party commit all such acts without an iota of shame. Yet, it will be a mistake to think that this social-fascist organisation will hurry to remove the word 'Marxist' from its name, or its leaders will speak in support of the World Bank, real estate sharks, lumpen and corrupt elements, etc. minus the words 'communist party' and Marx's, Engels' and Lenin's names. It is to be added here that the CPI(M)'s masters too know that banishing the revolutionary kernel those names are imperialist or capitalist friendly and attractive too to deceive the masses.
The supreme irony of the present history is that degenerate revisionist butchers can use the signboard of the communist party and only when expediency demands other suitable boards they put up for carrying on fight against socialism, It is a fact, a brute fact indeed that Andropov, the Russian ruler in the 1980s, was the head of the KGB during the rise of Solidarnose in 1980-81. It was he who was instrumental in setting up people like Mikhail Gorbachov at the helm of the revisionist Russian communist party in 1985. Similarly Boris Yealtsin, who helped formally dismantle the USSR was the former party boss in the industrial city of Sverdlovsk. The same picture is to be found in the East European countries that overturned the signboards of the communist or the workers' party. Similarly in India the signboards of the CPI(M), CPI, etc. do not matter much. What needs to be seen is the role of the degenerate people occupying the leadership positions and their politics. In India too the communist signboards are being used by the corrupt, revisionist leaders for simply hoodwinking the people.
In any case, we expected a sound polemic stuffed, even for sheer distortions, with the science of Marxism-Leninism and a presentation of a superior order in the context of the developments the world over. We are sorry to state Anil's 38-page critique or one can say rubbish adds nothing new to really face the Maoists' revolutionary politics. However, the new thing that surfaces in his writing is a justification of the so-called development with the 'help' of the World Bank, DFID, MNCs, etc. The recent Salim group's invasion of agricultural land, i.e. the CPI(M)'s call for 'Land to the industrialists (imperialist or native) and foreign compradors' has been dealt with here briefly to show off the further unmasking of the CPI(M)-led 'Left' Front in India. Obviously 'Salam Salim' is not the end of the journey of the revisionist CPI(M).
This is our critique and we do know the police machinery shall be pressed into service by the social-fascist Buddhadeb government not to propagate this Maoist rejoinder. We do not like to indulge in character assassination or slanders, we stick to cogent facts and basically concentrate on Mr. Anil's, i.e. the CPI(M)'s apparently strong points and leave out the trifles. Simultaneously we place the road map of the Maoist policy to seize power in India as the revolutionary Marxists-Leninists and Maoists in India, a part and parcel of the revolutionary struggle the world over for people's democracy and socialism. We think that this endeavour of ours to focus on revolutionary Marxism has very little scope to reach out to the common activists of the CPI(M) and those of its allies. Yet we strongly believe this will create a stir among the really left forces in India and help teach our comrades to staunchly fight against the social fascism of the CPI(M).
Revolution Betrayed: The betrayal of the CPI and CPIM
In course of world revolutionary movements two revolutionary paths emerged. One is insurgency waged by Com. Lenin in Russia and another the Protracted People's War led by com. Mao in China. Both the revolutionary movements fought with the enemy to overthrow the then existing systems and establish proletarian dictatorship or people's democratic rule. Both the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution in the first and second quarter of the 20 th century respectively and the later revolutions in Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and other unsuccessful armed struggles of Asia, Africa and Latin America and currently ongoing revolutionary struggles of various countries are all armed revolutions. In the protracted people's war the red army was built from the beginning whereas in case of insurgency in Russia and Europe in Russia and it was first the workers to be armed to form the red army and the revolution spread from the city to the village. To seize power, the party, army and the people (the United Front) were always a must. This was the history of revolution everywhere.
When the leadership of a party with communist signboard carries an outlook of liberal bourgeoisie since its birth how will it think over seizing the state power? At the time of the Russian Revolution Lenin fought with the right opportunistic line of the Mensheviks to advance the Russian revolution. Lenin established the path of the revolution, organized the party and led the movement. In the mid-July of 1917 after completing the February Revolution when preparations were going on to seize the power, Lenin categorically told in his article ' on slogan' regarding the question of the political power in this way: "And the political substance is that power can no longer be taken peacefully. It can be obtained only by winning a decisive struggle against those actually in power at the moment, namely, the military gang, the Cavaignacs, who are relying for support on the reactionary troops brought to Petrograd and on the Cadets and monarchists. " Further he added, "We said that the fundamental issue of revolution is the issue of power. We must add that it is revolutions that show us at every step how the question of where actual power lies is obscured, and reveal the divergence between formal and real power. That is one of the chief characteristics of every revolutionary period."
In his brilliant investigation of peasant movement in Hunan, Mao categorically said, "The most violent revolts and the most serious disorders have invariably occurred in places where the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords perpetrated the worst outrages." He further said that "A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years." This outlook was not at all grasped and practiced by the undivided CPI then how come we imagine the CPI, the CPI(M) will accept the ongoing revolutionary war? But the history of revisionism took new turns when the CPSU(B) turned into a revisionist party and brought forth the theory of peaceful transformation of political power. This rubbish was condemned by various communist parties of the world particularly the CPC under Mao's leadership, which vigorously fought with the CPSU(B) and opposed the line brought forth by it. A worldwide polarization happened and a new camp, which was called a revisionist camp, emerged.
Those who followed the peaceful process to capture power were identified as revisionists and those who practiced and supported armed revolution were known as revolutionaries. Then onwards a bitter struggle between the paths of revolution vs. counter-revolution has been going on. It will continue in future also because revisionism in course of its development has been playing the direct role of counter-revolution.
In our country the undivided CPI's leadership (majority in the CC) never supported the armed revolution. Before 1947 the then CPI always supported the Congress and its leadership and tried to trace out progressive elements within the Congress. It led to avoid armed revolution, and the question of seizure of political power by overthrowing British imperialism was not on the agenda of the party. When the Telangana armed revolution continued against the Indian Army, the then majority CC leadership of the CPI opposed and then withdrew it. Later they never thought over revolution on this or that pretext.
Peaceful transformation theory of revisionist Khruschev came on the agenda in the 20th Congress of the CPSU(B). At the time of anti-imperialist struggle itself the CPI joined the constituent Assembly and tried its level best to basically confine itself to the peaceful process and Gandhian forms against the British. Many a form of struggles emerged and the workers, peasants, and petty bourgeoisie fought on partial issues under the leadership of the CPI. But the party leadership never put forward an agenda for the tearing apart the Union Jack under its direct leadership. Why? Anil Biswas is now arguing against guerilla war and talking much on the Indian conditions but he avoided to tell about the situation between 1925 and 37 between 1940 and 45 period and other periods when different rebellious mass movements emerged on the scene. The CPI lower level activists led even some and others were spontaneous movements due to the maturity of the conditions against the British Raj. So many movements started peacefully but turned violent, which were inevitable due to the situation of that particular period.
When we received letters of 3 fraternal parties an agenda was prepared for militant struggle but it was not carried out by the party because the leadership never showed such a consciousness to seize the power under the leadership of proletariat. When the party was banned, when the Telangana armed revolution was practically led by the Telengana comrades and on a number of occasions there emerged scope, possibility, and conditions to organize agrarian revolution and the people actively participated in all the struggles. But a revolutionary party a completely new party which can lead the revolution and the people for it was absent and the CPI was unwilling to play its proper role. The central committee of the CPI adopted the line of right opportunism, which never accepted armed revolution.
Just before the 1st Party Congress of the CPI the CC gave the call in 1943 "Raise the united voice, we need Gandhi to end the national crisis". [Resolution adopted in the C. C. meeting held on 15 th February 1943. In 'Communist der Karmaniti, Bharater Communist Party', August 1943] Instead of fighting against imperialism the 1st Party Congress held in 1943 urged upon the party members: "… The Communist Party exhorts every member to popularize the role of the Indian allied armies as defenders.
In the threatened areas, Communists must offer organized co-operation of the people through their mass organisation and party units to the British or Indian troops for offensive as well as defensive preparations." ['Unity in Action For National Government', Political Resolution adopted in the First Party Congress of the CPI. In Documents of The Communist Movement in India, Vol. IV (1939-43) , NBA, Calcutta, August 1997, p. 600]
This was the understanding of the undivided communist party. According to the teaching of Com. Stalin, correct political line is necessary to advance the revolution in any country. After that cadres will be motivated to implement the line that will be advanced properly. But in our country cadres sacrificed every thing but the Central leadership failed to put proper line before the cadres and the people. As a whole the CC or the majority in the CC never prepared itself as a proletariat class leader to learn which Lenin advised to Russian Communists and how he transformed the party into a revolutionary party fighting economism practiced in the name of Marxism, wrong theories of the 2 nd International, the Mensheviks and the Narodniks. Lenin prepared the CPSU(B) as a true revolutionary party, which ultimately led the Russian revolution to success and for the first time a soviet power was built and it existed on the earth and influenced the entire people of the globe. We learn from the CPSU(B) history the following.
"As to the structure and composition of the Party itself, Lenin considered that it should consist of two parts: a) a close circle of regular cadres of leading Party workers, chiefly professional revolutionaries, that is, Party workers free from all occupation except Party work and possessing the necessary minimum of theoretical knowledge, political experience, organizational practice and the art of combating the tsarist police and of eluding them; and b) a broad network of local Party organizations and a large number of Party member enjoying the sympathy and support of hundreds of thousands of working people.
"I assert," Lenin wrote, "1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders that maintains continuity; 2) that the wider the masses spontaneously drawn into the struggle…. the more urgent the need of such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be ….3) that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an autocratic state the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are pro-fessionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to wipe out such an organization, and 5) the greater will be the number of people of the working class and of the other classes of society who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it." ( pp.138-39)
We did not prepare this type of Leninist party in India at the time of anti- feudal and anti British Raj struggle. Anil Biswas and his party never accept the negative role of the leadership who were never eager like true revolutionaries for the seizure of power through armed revolution. Now in his article Anil Biswas claims that Indian soil and the people will never opt for guerrilla war and armed struggle. To say this means he is totally negating the history witnessed during the colonial period. Anil actually echoes the pet anti-communist theory that India being a spiritual land can not endorse any violent communist revolution! So, we understand that a proletarian party should forget class struggle, the question of overthrowing feudalism and capitalism as such thought is itself a wrong concept. Well said! Anil Biswas Babu!!…Long live the CPM and its leadership to serve the oppressor class without preparing the mass for revolution and for the people's democracy and then proletarian dictatorship. Political swindlers like Anil, Jyoti, Sundaraya and their ilk, however, never forget to claim inheritance to the Telengana peasant revolt, the peasant upsurge in Punnapra Vyalar, etc. which the majority CPI leadership – many of whom later joined the CPI(M) – simply betrayed. Why then Mr. Anil Biswas simply rejects any possibility of implementing the Chinese Path of guerrilla war even during the colonial period and why his party leaders try to bask in the reflected glory of the Chinese path adopted by the Telengana heroes? This is most dirty type of modern revisionism.
After the right opportunist role of the CPI, Indian masses witnessed 'left' opportunism for a brief period. Left sectarianism of Ranadhive is well known to the Indian masses. Sundaraiah, Basvapunnaiah, Rajeshwar Rao who once spoke of armed revolution took a 'U' turn and later remained confined to the parliamentary pigsty for ever. The leaders like Jyoti Basu, Ranadive etc. speak of Telangana, Anil Biswas borrows a few sentences from Lenin and Mao but put iron heel on genuine Maoist movement. These leaders never play the vanguard role because they practice revisionism and now prove themselves as counter revolutionaries.
Anil Biswas wrote an article in the CPM's magazine 'The Marxist', Oct-Dec 2003, issue entitled ' The Communist Party and Organisation' in which he referred to Lenin, Mao and Stalin and posed himself as a good disciple of them and their theory. He wrote, "V I Lenin always stood opposed to the theory that spoke about the spontaneous development of society. Lenin was always careful to distinguish between "trade union consciousness" which the workers could acquire spontaneously (Selbsttät igkeit) and "social democratic consciousness" which it was the Communist Party's function to develop among them. The "new kind of a political party" that the Bolsheviks sought to build and towards which they waged a struggle within the then Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was based on the postulate that the socialist movement must not be left alone to spontaneity in any circumstances if it was to be a viable success. We recall in this connection the dictum of Mao Zedong who while speaking about revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the workers-peasants called upon the proletariat to be the "soldier-activists of the revolution" and to accomplish "with grit and resolve" the "programme of the revolution." (On Contradiction, original text, 1937) Mao did believe that otherwise the Communist Party was in danger of losing its relevance as the centralised vanguard of the proletariat. J V Stalin firmly believed that politics and ideology should be "in command, all the time" in organising, motivating, and driving forward the communist Party ". (Underlines are ours)
Then Mr. Anil we have to believe it that Jyoti babu, Buddha babu, Kakababu and obviously you Anil babu and such babus of the babudom in the name of communist leaders are 'soldier-activists of the revolution' in India! Do your cadres themselves trust you the babus? Facts tell that the least little spell of earlier deception now does not sell at all. And the exiting state allows you to propagate all such views and act just the opposite.
In our country the CPM is not at all developing even the trade union consciousness, not to speak of revolutionary consciousness. Rather it has developed mafia consciousness and dog fights in the party. Politics and ideology were never in command because they lost their credibility, as communist, then how is it possible for the CPM to practise any thing for the oppressed classes. But without writing all this, they cannot pose themselves as Marxists. They are practising social fascist ideology. Lenin said that who talks for socialism and practise revisionism will be social fascists.
The CPM accepted the Marxism of the 2nd International and it preferred to act as followers and agents of the Congress in the guise of Communists. Its leaders have always (except some CCMs at the time of the Telangana struggle and later) followed right opportunist line and never showed proletariat class-consciousness before and after 1947 to achieve the task of the proletariat dictatorship. The Telangana resistance was praised by all revolutionaries and it symbolized as a movement which sustained and was strengthened against the Nizam and later against the 'Socialist' Nehru. It is an irony who had openly or covertly opposed the Telengana peasant revolt later after its infamous withdrawal became its verbal supporters.
Jyoti Basu wrote in his article titled, 'The Communists and the Indian Freedom Struggle' [Published by CPI(M) as 50 th Anniversary Independence Series] that, "In 1946 the communists inspired Punnapra-Vayalar uprising in Travancore. Almost at the same time the peasantry in Telangana rallied under the red flag to rise up against feudal exploitation. This revolt, lasting for five years between 1946 and Oct. 1951, was the largest guerrilla peasant uprising in modern India. This revolt took away at least 4000 peasant lives. Such peasant uprisings for a better social order will continue to inspire us in building a society devoid of exploitation of man by man"
Jyoti Basu who was the CM of the West Bengal state for more than two decades never could think over armed uprising. Not only this he was the person who was instrumental in suppressing the great Naxalbari uprising which once again showed the path of Telangana to the Indian masses who joined in the struggle as a part of world socialist revolution. Jyoti Basu will praise Telangana, suppress Naxalbari to serve comprador bourgeoisie and big landlords, what can be more perfidious than his double speak?
Ranadive wrote another article titled, 'The role played by communists in the freedom struggle of India" in which he wrote "It is obvious that the C.P. did not play a decisive role in the freedom struggle, otherwise the Indian people would not have been facing the miserable conditions they are facing today, with poverty and unemployment increasing with the spectacle of a nation at discord, victims of every divisive force. The leadership of the freedom struggle remained firmly in the hands of the bourgeois leadership of the Indian national Congress. Even when mass struggles sometimes went beyond, the limits set by the congress, when people turned to armed resistance, the consciousness of the masses accepting the leadership did not change and therefore the struggle could not spread all over India." (Stress is ours)
Here one can see the way of approach and the assessment of the 'proletariat' party's leadership. The party veteran leader expressed that
1) Leadership was in the hands of bourgeoisie
2) Sometime People turned to armed resistance
3) the consciousness of the masses was that they were accepting the leadership of the Congress,
But he never said that
- the CPI never thought of emerging as an alternative to the Congress as a genuine revolutionary party.
- The CPI itself was serving and accepting the Congress leadership,
- The Communist Party had no agenda nor any role to properly lead the people for armed resistance and develop the people's liberation army (PLA).
Even our eyes were not opened when conditions matured so beautifully that an armed uprising was inevitable. This was the pathetic condition, class collaboration of the then central committee. After '47 also the CC never thought over organizing, moulding and driving the party for underground work to seize the political power. The blame was thrown on the masses always but the so-called vanguard leadership never expressed apology nor did it offer any self-criticism for its mistakes and for the collaborationist theories and anti-revolutionary role. The CPI and the CPI(M) were blaming the people that mass consciousness did not develop to participate in the revolution. Revisionists have never felt it as their failure not to develop people's consciousness. Was it possible for us to overthrow the British Raj and to change the colonial and semi-feudal system without concrete programme guided by Marxist Leninist ideology? It is the great duty of the Communists always to play the leading role to mould the mass opinion towards struggle.
So, our party, CPI(Maoist) programme correctly said that "The victory of Great October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, under the leadership of comrade Lenin, the Marxist-Leninist ideology was disseminated in our country. Under the influence of this ideology, and as a result of heroic and militant struggles waged against British imperialism by the proletariat, the CPI was born in 1925. But despite innumerable opportunities, the leadership of the proletariat and its party could not establish itself in the liberation movement. The leadership of the Communist Party continuously refused to recognise the real character of the Gandhian leadership. Thereby it failed to demarcate itself and fight against it along with taking the correct revolutionary path and revolutionary initiative. Rather, they continued to trail behind the Gandhian leadership and turned their back in linking the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Indian revolution. This leadership also failed to integrate itself with the brave Indian people, particularly the peasantry. T hey also refused to learn and follow the triumphantly advancing Chinese revolution under the leadership of comrade Mao Tse-Tung and the Chinese communist Party. They did not take the path of armed struggle for the seizure of political power in the national liberation movement. Even though the objective revolutionary situation was extremely favourable in India at the time, yet the opportunistic leadership of the communist party always turned their back to take the correct path of protracted people's war and the armed national liberation war. Actually the leadership of the Communist Party helped in derailing the anti-imperialist people's militant movement and dragged the revolutionary masses behind the Gandhian leadership through forming an opportunistic alliance with it. Most of all, this leadership betrayed the great Telangana armed revolt of the peasantry and entrenched itself in the mire of parliamentarism and revisionism in the deceptive name of using parliament " (Party Programme, CPI(Maoist) pp. 8-9)
Anil Biswas wrote in his article that, we the Maoists are totally negating the history of Indian Communist movement. Actually we are making both positive and negative assessments dialectically without having any bias or prejudice against history. We are also a part and parcel of the past history, and representing its positive aspects but never hesitate to never disown the negative ones. So our first party congress was considered as a continuation of the VII Congress, after which we disassociated ourselves from the CPM. We uphold the positive aspects as contained in our Programme in the following words: "…brave revolutionary ranks of the Communist Party stood by the side of the fighting people and led many revolutionary struggles. They laid down their valuable lives to achieve the lofty aim of completing the Indian revolution as a part of the world proletarian revolution. " (Ibid. p.9)
Actually people were always involved in struggles and a number of armed revolts were witnessed against imperialism and feudalism from the Santhal rebellion of 1854-56 to the culmination of the First War of Independence of 1857, which were the beginnings of Indian Democratic Revolution. But the undivided CPI since 1920s had no clear revolutionary programme, strategy, tactics and practice to be placed before the Indian Masses. So we have to understand that most Indian 'Communist' leaders were grown with liberal bourgeoisies outlook, not with a genuine Marxist-Leninist ideology, politics and work methods, style to advance the Indian revolution. This basic truth is not acceptable to Anil Biswas like people waving red flags to crush a red revolution in India. History shall not forgive them.
Maoism & the question of the Chinese Path
Anil Biswas negates both these aspects. Often these two are assumed to be synonymous. Biswas too gives that impression. That is not so. First let us clarify what is meant by the above two concepts.
Maoism is considered as the further development to proletarian theory after the contributions of Marxism-Leninism. By the Chinese Path we mean the path of protracted peoples' war (PPW). Maoism is applicable to all countries whether they follow the path of protracted people's war or that of insurrection. The path of PPW is applicable to particularly those backward semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries where uneven economic development, peasantry being the principal force, etc. allow for this path to be implemented. Neither does adopting Maoism nor following the Chinese Path mean replicating the Chinese revolution as is made out by Anil Biswas. In fact today the CPC has abandoned Mao and the new bourgeois leadership is close to the CPM, and naturally not to the Maoists of the world. So, when we say that in India we follow the Chinese path we mean we adopt the path of protracted people's war and that too is based on Indian conditions.
In Vietnam the liberation struggle through people's war was conducted by the entire people in all fields during a long period, using various kinds of forces to fight the enemy in all theatres of operations towns and cities, rural and mountain areas mobilizing both armed and political forces, from the long-haired army, the white-haired army to the children's army, combining guerrilla warfare in all places with decisive blows of the main forces, combining military, political and diplomatic means, combining the strength of the nation and that of the epoch. The two wars of resistance waged in 30 years against the French and American aggressors represented a great mobilization…by the theory of the 'art of people's war' [Ho Chi Minh, A Man, a Nation, An Epoch a Cause, Pham Van Dong, External Publicity Division, Minister of External Affaris, Government of India, New Delhi, pp.24-25]
This people's protracted war i.e. the Chinese Path was conducted in Laos, Combodia, Malay and many other countries. Such war is still on in Nepal, the Philippines, Peru, Columbia, etc.
We have explained this aspect in detail later.
Question of Maoism
All developments in nature and society take place through evolutionary development and revolutionary leaps. So also it is in the realm of thought. Just as Marxism and Leninism were qualitative leaps in the realm of proletarian theory so also is Maoism.
But Anil Biswas says that Mao's contribution had only relevance to the Chinese revolution and that too only upto 1956. This is what Deng like revisionists and the present leadership in China also say. The CPM is merely mouthing the present official line of the CPC. It is saying nothing new. It is no great discovery of Anil Biswas regarding Mao's role in the Great Leap Forward; the so-called mistakes have also been pointed out by Deng and Co.
But before coming to elucidate Mao's contribution on the basis of which we will establish that it is a leap in the realm of proletarian theory we shall first take up some of the confusions that Biswas tends to create.
1) Thought and Ism
Biswas says that the Chinese themselves did not call Mao's contribution as an 'ism' and it was only in the 9th Congress that it was called a Thought; and this Congress has been written off by Biswas as being a " Lin (Piao) Congress" with "anarchic decisions". He further adds that Kisanji and Prachanda in their interviews have added more to the confusion and that what they say are full of contradictions.
Unfortunately the issue is quite straightforward and the confusions and contradictions are created by Biswas to confuse and obfuscate the issue. It was not in the 9th Congress but in the 1940s that the term Mao Tse-tung Thought was first used. In the 9th Congress it was said that it was not merely applicable to China but had universal significance.
In India and internationally all Maoists have seen Mao's contribution to the theory of proletarian revolution as a leap and have adopted as their guideline Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought. Mao's contribution was put on a plane with that of Marx and Lenin. But as the Chinese first used the term "thought" and not "ism", that term remained and there is no Chinese wall between 'thought' and 'ism'. It is sheer mechanical understanding to tenaciously cling to the view that till the victory of socialism the world over no new creative thought will further emerge. It might take many decades to destroy capitalism, for that matter imperialism, but it is pureale to say either Leninism will be obsolete or no development of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism will take place. It is clear negation of the dialectics of development. Immediately after Mao's death the revisionists took power so there was no possibility for Mao's contribution to be fully compiled and assessed in China. Later some international parties began to use the term Maoism instead of Mao Thought. As the use of the term ism more clearly defines Mao's contribution than the term "thought", many parties in India and the world too switched to 'ism'. The use of the term ism is more scientific than that of "thought" and more aptly defines Mao's contribution to proletarian theory; and just because the then CPC used "thought", and there was no use of the term Maoism during Mao's lifetime as mentioned by Biswas, does not mean that we should mechanically copy what was done then. Does Mr. Anil know that Marxism as 'ism' came into use in the international communist movement after Marx's death and so also happened in case of Leninism? As far as the erstwhile MCCI and the PW go there is no change in the understanding of Mao's great contributions to proletarian theory while using the term thought or ism. It has been seen as a qualitative leap in the Marxist arsenal right from the start.
It is those within the M-L camp who resist using the term 'ism' argue that Mao's contributions cannot be equated with those of Marx and Lenin. For the genuine Maoists there is no confusion as to the role and contributions of Mao. So, it is Mr. Biswas who is seeking to add to the confusion when none exists. Of course the CPM and Biswas have never considered the significance of Mao's contribution; and inevitably their practice is not just revisionist but counter-revolutionary, joining the ruling class parties of the country. As revisionists, even their acceptance of the theories of Marx and Lenin are only in name, not in essence. Did the CPI(M) ever accept Mao thought? Why then so much fuss over Maoism? Mr. Anil and the CPI(M) never had shown guts to accept Mao Ze Dong Thought since it meant plunging into revolutionary struggle for seizure of power, not sticking to the election-victory by any means to stay in power in some states in this set up. So the regular mention of non-existence of Maoism in the CPI(M)'s mouthpiece Ganashakti is to by pass the crucial question of Mao Thought/ism itself. Such an effort is ridiculous and meant for basically hoodwinking the CPI(M) cadres. In their recent articles the CPI(M) leaders have now developed a sudden penchant for quoting in an abstract way some quotes from Mao. Is it not to show it that the CPI(M) like the anti-Mao present CPC leadership is also using this great Marxist's name to denigrate him by wholesome rejection of the contributions of Maoism?
Marxism is not a dogma, it is a guide to one's practice With the CPM adopting all World Bank, IMF, etc. policies in the states they run there is no question of its following Marxism. Anyhow let us now briefly explain why we see Mao's contributions as a leap in the development of proletarian theory.
Maoism as a leap
It matters little whether we call it a leap, a higher stage, a new contribution, etc. the essence is that in the realm of development of proletarian theory it marked a qualitative development. There would have been many great Marxist-Leninists in the interim period between Lenin/Stalin and Mao, but none contributed so significantly to the development of theory as did Mao. So, today it is the integral science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that constitutes Marxism of the present times. That is why we are of the opinion that without the ideological and theoretical weapon of Maoism, Marxism itself will be incomplete, and it will be difficult if not impossible to create revolution in one's country and further advance it towards socialism and communism. No doubt as with any dynamic thought, this too will develop in the future.
We find that Mao contributed to all realms of Marxist science — ideology, political economy, proletarian strategy and tactics (including military science) and scientific socialism. Combining the Chinese Revolution and the international proletarian revolution with the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, Com. Mao has protected, inherited and developed Marxism-Leninism to a newer and higher stage. The theory of protracted people's war was developed through revolutionary struggle for a long 28 years in colonial, semi-colonial, semi-feudal China — in a situation totally different from capitalist Europe, where Marxism till then had developed. His theory of the New Democracy is also a unique contribution to the arsenal of Marxism-Leninism.
Mao defined the working class in China as a motive force and the leading force and the peasantry as the main motive force of the people's democratic revolution. One of his major contribution lies in mapping out the course of revolution in the peasantry dominated backward china, i.e. through a protracted people's war proceeding from the countryside to the cities. This is the great theoretical contribution made by Mao in the Marxist movement for the liberation of the colonial, semi-colonial dependent countries.
Mao Tse-tung made invaluable contributions in greatly developing the proletarian philosophy of dialectical materialism including the theory of knowledge. Through his penetrating study of society and human thought and particularly fighting against the dogmatists he made a conceptual leap in understanding and developing the law of contradiction. He pointed out that the law of contradiction – the unity and struggle of opposites – is the fundamental law of motion governing nature and society including the human thought. He expounded that the unity and identity in all things and processes is temporary and relative, while the struggle between opposites is constant and absolute. His articles On Practice, On Contradictions, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Amongst the People, Talks on the Question of Philosophy, and a vast number of writings during he Cultural Revolution are his enormous contribution to the realm of philosophy. It was Comrade Mao, the great Marxist, who contributed profoundly in the philosophical field when he differentiated between two types of contradictions – antagonistic and non-antagonistic – in resolving the problems in the course of struggle and strengthening the socialist system.
In the realm of the political economy of Socialism, Com. Mao Tse-tung made tremendous advances, particularly analyzing the concrete laws of motion governing Socialist Construction, by undertaking a deep and critical analysis of the then 'Soviet Economics' and by taking lessons from the positive and negative experiences of socialist construction in Soviet Russia. During this penetrating analysis he defended and highlighted the positive achievements of the socialist construction while at the same time criticised some of its negative aspects. On the basis of this analysis including the analysis of the Chinese experience itself, com. Mao developed a new conception thereby making a major breakthrough in this field. In his masterful writing " Ten Major Relationships" Com. Mao underlined and developed new concepts for building Socialism, such as "take agriculture as the foundation and industry as the leading factor". He brilliantly developed the relations between the change in the production relations being effectively balanced with the changes in the productive forces. His Tachai and Taching models, worker's control, communes, reforms in education, health care, housing, etc were all the results of the emphasis he gave to the development of the production relations to keep pace with the growth in the productive forces.
With this higher stage of conception and understanding of the laws of socialist construction Com. Mao formulated some important guidelines in the form of slogans such as " Grasp Revolution, Promote Production", "Never Forget Class Struggle" and "Take Class Struggle as the Key Link" in carrying out production in the correct direction. Refuting the revisionist theory of "Only Expert ", com. Mao enunciated an important guideline by emphasizing the interrelationship between expertise and revolutionary politics or "Red and Expert".
Then regarding proletarian strategy and tactic Mao provided a vast arsenal of new ideas. For the entire backward countries of the world he developed the concept of the New Democratic Revolution as part of the two-stage revolution to socialism. In the realm of strategy he worked out for these countries the concept of protracted people's war as opposed to the insurrectionary path adopted in Russia and, till then, considered the only viable model for revolution. He developed the theory of guerrilla warfare and other forms into a military science through which a smaller force can defeat a bigger and vastly sophisticated force through the means of people's war. One of the greatest contributions of Com. Mao to military science lies precisely in his interpreting guerilla warfare on a strategic level. Formerly, guerilla warfare was only considered as a tactical problem. He said that throughout the period of war, guerrilla warfare and mobile warfare of a guerilla character are the chief forms of fighting. One of Mao's important contributions was to develop the military line of the party. There is a vast wealth of writings on this question. The science of people's war elaborated by Mao is used by all revolutionaries throughout the world.
Party leaders, Mao said "should themselves conduct investigation in the rural areas to get to know one or two villages" and "dissect one or two sparrows" in order to later lead the struggle in the countryside. Another essential idea of Mao is that the Party ought to give back to the masses what it has apprehended and clarified from the opinions of the masses. To do this, it is necessary for the party to get the masses' opinion and to practice the mass line. In making investigation, one must not "look at the flowers on horseback"; one must get off the horse and look at them closely. Precisely on the question of concrete matter as unity of multiples and unique revolves one of the essential, questions of materialist dialectics, as Marx stated. On this question revolves all deviations from Marxism.
Thus he explained the basic method of leadership by showing how correct ideas are formed in the leadership by taking the ideas of the masses and concentrating them, and again going to the masses, persevering in the ideas and carrying them through.
Then he evolved the question of the United Front as one of the three strategic weapons of the revolution in backward countries. " The Party established a national united front with the bourgeoisie and with the break up of the united front, engaged in bitter armed struggle with the big bourgeoisie and its allies. During the last three years, it has again entered into a period of a national united front with the bourgeoisie. It is through this kind of complex relationship with the Chinese bourgeoisie that the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China have progressed in their development. This is a special historical feature, a feature peculiar to the revolution in colonial and semi-colonial countries and not to be found in the revolutionary history of any capitalist country." [Stress ours]
Here lies one of Mao's great contributions to the treasure-house of Marxism-Leninism. This makes it crystal clear how and why it is necessary to differentiate between the comprador and the national bourgeoisie and the need for the revolutionary tactics of united front with the section of bourgeoisie opposing imperialism and the struggle with the compradors; what Mao who led to the successful completion of the first neo-democratic revolution in a semi-colonial country said that this feature was not be found in the capitalist countries is obviously a weapon for such a revolution and contribution to the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary struggle in the third world countries.
Mao further developed the Leninist concept of the proletarian Party. In order to effectively play the leading role in the movement Mao paid great attention to the question of the continuous proletarianisation of the Party. He evolved the method of using the method of criticism and self-criticism, closely linked with and relying on the vast masses of the People. Apart from fighting against bourgeois ideology and various shades of revisionism Com. Mao developed the profound understanding of how to develop and preserve and enhance the proletarian character of the party through waging active and relentless struggle against the influence of bourgeoisie tendencies inside the party ranks at all levels. In addition Mao's dialectical presentation of the understanding of democratic centralism was a significant contribution to the Marxist theory of organisational principles. He stressed on creating 'a political situation in which we have both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind and liveliness' both inside and outside the Party and said that "Otherwise it will be impossible to arouse the enthusiasm of the masses. We cannot overcome difficulties without democracy. Of course, its even more impossible to do so without centralism. But if there's no democracy there won't be any centralism."
He led the CPC in the struggle against modern revisionism led by the CPSU, the first socialist country in the world. Mao Tsetung led the international struggle against modern revisionism through initiating the Great Debate. During this great struggle he not only defended Marxism-Leninism but also developed it in some aspects. This struggle was focused on all the major questions particularly on the dictatorship of the proletariat. He set forth a new general line for the international communist movement, which paved the way for the genuine Marxist - Leninist forces for struggling against and revolting from revisionism thereby advanced towards forging and building new ML parties based on ML principles all over the globe.
Among his great contribution to the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism is launching the Great Debate with the capitalist roader revisionists who usurped power in the Soviet Union after Com. Stalin's death and exposing the degeneration of the Soviet Union into social-imperialism.
This phenomenon was new and could not be apprehended immediately. Firstly, Khruschev, Breznev and their ilk's forsaking the principles of Marxism-Leninism in words and deeds needed to be comprehended and the imperative need for discovering the essence of this revisionism through experience.
After the World War I Marxists witnessed the nefarious role of the revisionists of the Second International assuming the posts of the governments. They became a party in the assassination of Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemberg and other working class, leaders. These types of revisionists enjoyed crumbs from the exploitation of the oppressed peoples. Comrade Lenin from 1915 onwards called them social-imperialists. In his words "Fabian imperialism and social-imperialism are one and same thing: socialism in words but imperialism in deeds; opportunism becoming imperialism [Third International Tasks, July 14, 1919]
After the World War II Marxists had no problem in identifying British Laborites, French, German, Italian social democrats, etc. as representatives of the monopoly bourgeoisie in those countries.
But the case of the U.S.S.R, a forward post of international revolution, was different after Com. Stalin's death. It was the pertinent question which class the revisionists represented. The dangerously harmful Khruschevite politics, the great-power chauvinism of the soviet revisionists emerged on the scene. Mao who extensively studied this new phenomenon, the role of the rulers' of the U.S.S.R who gradually converted the socialist state into a social imperialist one.
Mr. Anil Biswas, representing the CPI(M), has tried to conceal his Himalayan ignorance and the role of his Party's Khuschevite degeneration by saying that "we have long back brought out our view on the khitchri concept of 'social imperialism'." [p. 145]. It is really a 'Khitchri concept' for the degenerate social democrats flaunting the red flag since, to borrow Lenin's concept, they are mouthing socialism and simultaneously serving imperialists and their native agents exploiting the Indian masses. To prove their great for-sightedness about the 'deviations-distortions' in the Soviet Union Anil has said that in the 1960s and 70s the CPI (M) spoke and that particularly in the CPI(M)'s 14 th Congress in 1992 "the faults in building up socialism were to a great extent identified". [p.14]. What is notable is that the CPI(M) like hypocrats have always consistently justified the social imperialist position of the Soviet Union led by beaurocratic capitalism using the legacy of Lenin. However, with basically and fundamentally siding with the Khruschev's, Breznev's and also Gorbachov's leadership in respect of its internal and external policies, the CPI(M) like some other parties made some ritualistically 'comradely criticism' of the Soviet leadership. This social-fascists' 13 th Congress held on Dec. 27 1988 to January 1989 had shown bold optimism stating that the previous three years had witnessed "changes favouring the forces of freedom, democracy, peace and socialism". And it was the great role of the Soviet Union backed by "other socialist and non-aligned countries" facilitated this progress. This CPI(M) Party Congress, instead of visualizing the ferment and imminent change towards avowedly capitalist country after years of the rule of mainly beauracratic capitalism, heaped all praise on the Soviet Union as a force "looking forward to quick economic progress" against the reverses in the capitalist countries. It almost echoed the CPSU views on the malady gripping the Soviet Union and expected the measures taken by the CPSU was sure to overcome it. [Political Resolution of the Thirteenth Party Congress, Trivandrum, December 27, 1988 to January 1989, p.1 and pp.4-6]. And once the Gorbachov regime tumbled down the social democrat parties like the CPI(M) sat into a huddle to cook rationale as to how to explain to their party followers and masses about their earlier glorification of the revisionist system as because the CPSU was at the helm and the unforeseen scenario of the Soviet Union and the consequent rejection of the Soviet's domination as well as the reins of the pro-soviet parties. This emboldened U.S. imperialism so much that in the process it directly interfered in certain countries calling themselves 'socialist' for the usurpation of power by reactionary and religious forces.
Finally, and most important of all, Mao's greatest contribution came with the launching of the GPCR. It is here that his contribution was the greatest in evolving the science of how to advance towards socialism after witnessing the reversal in the USSR and the powerful growth of capitalist roaders in China. The GPCR did not merely make gigantic leaps in the realm of proletarian culture, but in philosophy and its day to day application, in political economy on how to develop the economy to ensure its advances on the socialist path, in organizational methods within the party, and most important of all, in further developing proletarian and communist values on a mass scale. It, in essence, showed how the class struggle had to be led in the period of socialism in all aspects of the economic base as well as the superstructure, including in the party. The concept of the GPCR allowed the masses for the first time to 'Bombard Headquarters' and expose the leaders deviating from Marxism. In the name of Communist Party as the highest level of organisation revisionism did not allow the masses to openly fight and expose the revisionists. It was the great people's movement the GPCR.
William Hinton wrote in Shenfan (p.163) that Mao Zedong's and Liu Shaqui's two different lines "reflected two different approaches to China's problems and called for the implementation of very different policies. ……, and Liu Shaoqui's thesis, "the call for the consolidation of the new democratic system, was in fact a call for building capitalism." [Ibid. p.163]
On the emergence of the GPCR Hinton vividly writes in 1993 that "At every step of the way, however, Mao's line met opposition and resistance, primarily from a more "orthodox" group at the Party center that crystallized around Liu Shaoqui, a man who considered the Party to be above external supervision and capable of self-rectification without immersing itself in great mass movements of the people. The Liu group disregarded the masses as creators of history, relied on planners, stressed technology and expertise, hierarchy and one-man management, pushed material incentive as the key to management, pushed material incentive as the key to progress, and neglected transformation of each individual's world outlook as necessary groundwork for the building of socialism.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an integrated whole. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (henceforth MLM) is the most advanced and scientific ideology of the world proletariat. Not only that, MLM is the all-powerful weapon, by which we can combat and defeat bourgeois ideology and all brands of revisionism, including that which may don the garb of Maoism. Quite naturally it is not to the CPM"s liking.
Marxism arose as a science of the laws of motion of nature, society and human thought, a science of revolution at a moment in history when the proletariat made its appearance as a revolutionary class capable of shaping the destiny of the society including its own destiny. Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat that was further synthesized and developed to new and higher stages. From Marxism it developed into Marxism-Leninism. Thereafter, it further developed into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is not a science pertaining to a particular field of knowledge but a science representing a whole comprehensive philosophical system, political economy, scientific socialism, and the strategy and tactics of the proletariat in comprehending and transforming the world through revolution .
This detailed explanation of Maoism was necessary to counter Anil Biswas's negation of it. For those involved in revolutionary practice one sees the enormous need for it, which is lost to the likes of Biswas who live in the stratosphere of the ruling elite hob-nobbing with the business world.
Comprador Big Bourgeoisie
Mr. Anil Biswas has mechanically and conveniently dabbled with the nature of the Indian big bourgeoisie. He has actually repeated the old cold view of the CPI and CPI(M) to garland the Indian big bourgeoisie supposedly having a progressive role in leading the freedom movement in India. The moot point pertaining to the crucial question of revolution as to the roles of various classes is which classes are our friends and which are the enemies of the revolution. The question of Indian bourgeoisie, their divisions, etc. had been hotly debated in the CPI particularly since the 1950s. The Dangeites discovered great progressive role of the Indian bourgeoisie (except a very small section) embodied in the Nehruvian policies, internal and external. Contrarily, Gopalan, Rammurty, etc. who formed the CPI(M) later theoretically emphasized the wavering character of the big bourgeoisie, its collaborative relationship with imperialism though 'It was this class which led the struggle for independence'. It was notable here that there still remained another view in the CPI and later in the CPI(M) which clearly stated that in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country like ours the big bourgeoisie never did lead the freedom struggle against British imperialism and such bourgeoisie are comprador in nature. If Anil Biswas had the minimum intellectual honesty he would not have taken refuge in mechanical definitions and academic jugglery. Nor did he try and look at the stark reality today, particularly in this phase of imperialist globalization.
It is worth mentioning that the birth of the CPI(M) did not bring about any 'decisive break with revisionism' with the Dangeites as was claimed in its 7th Congress. Before the 4th Party Congress of the CPI a series of writings in a number of issues of the Forum came up and it is found that the majority of them showed all praise for the Nehru government. If the 4 th Party Congress decisively changed the course of the CPI history by its overtly pro-government slant, the 5th Congress pushed it further. The Political Resolutions passed highlighted the significance of the Kerala government under E.M.S. Nambordiripad as "a government led by the Communist Party have attracted world-wide attention and constitute the single biggest event in our national political life…" [Resolution of the Communist Party of India, adopted at the Extraordinary Party Congress, April 1958, A CPI Publication, p.4]. This Kerala model of government formation under the existing system became the sole aim of the CPI and later of the CPI(M). Quite in tune with this line of approach the 6th Congress in 1961 comprising both the rightist CPI and the would-be CPI(M) leaders extolled the soviet help in industrialization, criticized the policy of concessions to foreign and Indian capitalists but simultaneously warned that it would be wrong to conclude that Indian government was turning into a lackey of imperialism or compromising India's freedom. [Jatiya Ganatantrik Kartabya Sadhaner Janneye Jatiya Ganatantrik Front, Bharater Communist Partier Sastha Congress Grihita Rajnaitik Prastab, Vijayawada: 7 to 16 th April, 1961, pp. 4-9]
In December 1964 after the split of the CPI P.C.Joshi wrote "A note on the Programme of the CPI". This reliable presentation of the CPI position observed that the Indian state is "A Bourgeois Democratic National State". [ P.C.Joshi, A Note On the Programme of the CPI, CPI Publication, 1964, p.4]. Joshi further specified the objective as "the transformation of the path of independent capitalist to independent non-capitalist development." [Stress is original, Ibid. pp. 30-31] The Joshi explanation built the foundation of the CPI line of extending support to the Congress government for a "shift to the left". And the leaders of the CPI(M) phrase-mongers took the same basic line of Joshi-Dange group but for years never forgot to use anti-congress vocabulary with the backdoor support to the Congress needing its help in crisis situation.
The characterization of the Indian big bourgeoisie, the support to the Congress, the acceptance of the principled position on the 'freedom' of India in the real sense, etc. spring from the politics of reformism in Marx's name. Anil had to further justify all such bogus view in order to justify the CPI(M)'s intensity of love for the Congress about which it so long convinced the people of Bengal, Kerala, etc. as the organisation of the reactionary classes, the love marriage consummated by way of providing blood and oxygen for the sustenance of both. Rejection of semi-colonial India and justification of non-comprador character of the Indian big bourgeoisie by Anil Babu are actually to hoodwink the honest CPI(M) followers and the people who have begun to be inspired by the genuinely struggling progress of the CPI(Maoist) in West Bengal.
We should refer to the hotch-potch analysis of the Indian state character, a result of the compromise position hammered out by the theoretically dominant centrist group led by E.M.S Nambordiripad and the rest mainly comprising left phrase-mongers. It said "…the present Indian state is the organ of the class rule of the bourgeosie and landlords, led by the big bourgeoisie who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital." [CPI(M) Programme, 1964, art.56] This increasingly collaborating character, however, in the opinion of the CPI(M) theoreticians does not by way of the law of motion lead of a fall in the lap of foreign finance capital. The CPI(M) believes in the genesis and development of the Tatas, Birlas, etc. through basically long-term antagonism with the British Capital. With the taken-for-granted view of independent big bourgeoisie and of the genuinely independent country, the above view on 'increasingly compromising' role of the big bourgeoisie is immediately contradicted in the programme keeping the room for alliance saying shamelessly: "….contradiction and conflict exist between the Indian bourgeoisie including the big bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists." And so "this stratum of the bourgeoisie will be compelled to come into opposition with state power and can find a place in the people's democratic front' [Ibid, art.108 and art.106]. Some historians closer to the CPI have been pedalling for long such a distorted view on "the long-term antagonism and short-term accommodation and dependence" of the big bourgeoisie in India during the freedom movement which advanced "towards a bourgeois nation state and independent development." [Bipan Chandra, The Indian Capitalist Class and Imperialism Before 1947, In Berch Berberoglu (ed) Class, State and Development in India, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1992, p.56] When the main leaders of the CPI(M) led the mock-fight with the CPI right revisionists they at least mouthed the enigmatic view of 'increasingly compromising role' of the big bourgeoisie with imperialist capital. And the mock-fight or in their words ideological battle with the right revisionist ended with the same old CPI formulations on the fundamentals in theory and practice with 'left' phrase-mongering. The theoretical and practical degeneration of the CPI(M) with such anti-Marxist, anti-revolutionary reformist position has been crytal clear through the turnng of a social democratic party into a double-faced social fascist organisation 'increasingly compromising' with the imperialist finance capital, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, landlords particularly during its 28 years of rule in West Bengal.
It is indeed astounding that Anil Biswas should say this today when there is a gigantic leap in the imperialist penetration of the country with full support and encouragement from the ruling elite, particularly the big bourgeoisie. Today, even a child can see how the big bourgeoisie serve the imperialists and facilitate their increasing penetration in the name of 'economic reforms'. The entire 'economic reforms' being pushed through by the politicians and bureaucrats are not only not being resisted by this big bourgeois class, they are the most active and vociferous promoters of these 'reforms'. In fact, in tune with imperialist demands, they keep shouting that the pace of reforms is too slow. One only has to take a look at the regular statements of the CII, FICCI, ASSOCHEM (the Chambers of the big bourgeoisie), to understand their compradorial character. But more on that later. Let us first turn to the arguments of Anil Biswas.
Anil Biswas, utilizing a single sentence form the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, issued the sermon: The Indian big bourgeoisie can not be comprador. The CPI(M) and Anil Biswas provides another argument to disprove the compradorial character of the Indian big bourgeoisie. Biswas writes (and what the CPI(M) has repeatedly stated), that they were not comprador because they could develop an industrial base of the Indian bourgeoisie, unlike that of the Chinese bourgeoisie. Anil Biswas takes a handle form the aforesaid sixth Comintern presentation of this class to show that the Indian bourgeoisie did not comprise mere brokers of the contending industrialist powers or mere importers of finished goods and exporters of raw materials from India — which he describes as the meaning of comprador.
Firstly it is not the understanding of Marxists that compradors are mere "brokers" or "mere importers of finished goods and exporters of raw materials" as explained by the CPM or the earlier Khruschivite revisionists. This is the traditional meaning of the word comprador whose origin was Portuguese meaning 'purchaser' and coming into use to refer to a local merchants acting as a middleman between foreign producers and a local market. Anil Biswas sticks to this roots of the word comprador, and uses a single sentence quoted from the 6th Congress of the Comintern avoiding the main formulations of the Comintern to buttress his argument. But the fact is that in Marxist vocabulary it has never been used merely in that literal sense alone. Also the
...[Message clipped]
No comments:
Post a Comment