communist party of india (marxist-leninist)[k.n. ramachandran] - no to reformism, no to anarchism,...

7/25/2019 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)[K.N. Ramachandran] - No to Reformism, No to Anarchism, March to Revolution; Documents of Bhopal Conf

1/123

Documents Adopted by theAll India Special Conference of the

C P I ( M L ) Held at Bhopal from7 th to 12th

November, 2009


2/123

2 No to Reformism, No to Anarchism, March to Revolution

Contents

1 Editorial 3

2 International Situation And Our Tasks 9

3 On Character of Indian State 26

4 The Principal Contradiction 52

5 Path of Indian Revolution 55

Contr ibut ion : Rs. 25

For Copies Write to:

Umakant

R-8, Pratap Market

Jangpura-B

New Delhi - 110014

Printed and Published by comrade Umakant, on behalf of the

Central Committee of the CPI(ML) and Printed at Everest Offset

Press, B-162, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi


3/123

No to Reformism, No to Anarchism, March to Revolution 3

No to Ref ormism,

No To Anarchism,March to Revolut ion

[Documents Adopted by theAll India Special Conferenceof the CPI(ML) Held at Bhopalfrom 7 to 12 November, 2009]


4/123


A H i stor i c Step F or w a r d

THE four basic documents on :International Situation and Our Tasks,

Character of Indian State, Principal Contradiction and Path of Indian

Revolutionadopted by the All India Special Conference of the Party held

at Bhopal from 7th to 12th November 2009 at the culmination of a year

long process of discussions at various levels, putting forward the

ideological-political orientation and the strategic and tactical line of the

Peoples Democratic or New Democratic Revolution breaking away from

the hitherto reformist, revisionist or sectarian positions, mark an important

step forward in the history of the Indian communist movement.

The Communist International (Comintern) under the guidance ofLenin had put forward the ideological-political orientation and the strategic

line of the two streams of the World Proletarian Socialist Revolution, ofthe socialist revolutions in the capitalist imperialist countries and thePeoples Democratic Revolution in the colonial, semi-colonial, dependentcountries under colonial domination, to be applied according to theconcrete conditions in each country. Applying the Cominterndirections

according to concrete conditions in semi-colonial China the CommunistParty of China under the leadership of Mao Tsetung could successfullycomplete the Peoples Democratic Revolution, a new type of bourgeoisdemocratic revolution under proletarian leadership, or New DemocraticRevolution.

But the experience of the Indian communist movement was quite

different. On the one hand, the CPI leadership from the beginning tried

to mechanically implement the decisions of the Comintern, often asinterpreted by the leadership of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

While doing so its practice very often went against the very revolutionaryspirit of the Comintern decisions. On the other hand, it miserably failed

to make a concrete analysis of the concrete conditions in colonial India,including a correct class analysis. It could not recognize the compradorcharacter of the big bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic class serving Britishimperialism and that of the Congress and Muslim League leaderships

serving the big bourgeois, feudal classes, in the main. As a result, eventhough the Party committees at various levels had succeeded inorganizing class and mass organizations and in leading numerous

working class and anti-feudal struggles, it failed to establish the leadershipof the working class in the independence movement, in the nationalliberation struggle to overthrow British colonialism and its lackeys. Though

the Second Congress of the CPI in 1948 threw out this reformist line,

the left adventurist line that replaced it only aggravated the problems


5/123


confronting the Party and thereby the Indian revolution.

It was in 1951, after consultation with the CPSU leadership, for the

first time a Party Programme and a Policy Statement declaring that the

Peoples Democratic Revolution in India should follow not the Soviet

path or Chinese path, but the Indian path utilizing all forms of struggle

were adopted. But this line could not survive long. Soon the great

Telengana movement was withdrawn and the Party leadership started

deviating to parliamentary cretinist path. As soon as the Krushchovite

revisionist path came to dominance in Soviet Union with its line of threepeacefulls, the CPI leadership enthusiastically embraced it. The big

bourgeoisie in India and the Congress party representing it were

characterized as predominantly national bourgeois. So it envisaged a

peaceful completion of the National Democratic Revolution, as it

redefined the PDR, in alliance with this national bourgeoisie and their

party, the Congress.

Emergence of this revisionist line soon led to intensification of inner-

party struggle against it. As the Dangeist leadership degenerated aslackeys of the Congress government, this struggle intensified leading to

the 1964 split, and formation of the CPI(Marxist). The Seventh Congress

of the Party adopted a Party Programme based on 1951 positiondenouncing the line of National Democratic Revolution of renegade CPI

and calling for completion of the Peoples Democratic Revolution. But

towards the Great Debateled by the CPC against the Soviet revisionist

line it took a centrist line, which was in essence toeing the Soviet line asproved later in the 1968 Burdwan Plenum. It analyzed the big bourgeoisie

as having dual-character, collaborating as well as contending with

imperialism. But it did not explain which is the main aspect among these

two in the present situation. In leaving it as an open question also it took

a centrist position, which was in essence a neo-revisionist one whichgot exposed soon during the 1967 elections. Surrendering to

parliamentary cretinism, in the name of defeating Congress, it aligned

with the renegade CPI, split away Congress factions and even communalparties like Muslim League in Kerala and formed ministries in Kerala

and West Bengal. It started leading these governments like the rulingclass parties. Even implementation of land reforms and distribution of

surplus land to the landless, as demanded by the All India Kisan Sabha

in 1966, was sidelined.

It was in this situation, the inner-party struggle which had brokenout soon after the Seventh Congress and was intensifying led to the

Naxalbari peasant uprising in May 1967 with Land to the Tillerslogan,

by the communist revolutionaries within the CPI(M), challenging the neo-

revisionist line of the leadership. As the CPI(M)-led West Bengal


6/123


government suppressed the struggle, with the assistance of Indira Gandhigovernment at centre, the Communist Revolutionary forces formed the

All India Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries withinthe CPI(M)and started intensifying efforts to launch struggles like theNaxalbari uprising all over India. As the CPI(M) leaderships neo-revisionist line was fully exposed in the Burdwan Plenum, the Communist

Revolutionary forces started openly revolting and formed the AICCCR,which led to the formation of the CPI(ML) in 1969.

But, if the CPI and then CPI(M) leaderships embraced the Sovietrevisionist path and started degenerating to social democratic line, theCPI(ML), instead of trying to develop its line on the basis of concreteanalysis of the Indian conditions, mechanically raised the slogan Chinesepath is our path and for some time even Chinas Chairman is ourChairman. It came under the influence of the left adventurist, sectarianline of Lin Biao which was dominating the CPC during its Ninth Congressin 1969. If the Soviet revisionist line analyzed that colonialism had cometo an end and called for peaceful co-existence with the weakenedimperialism as a strategic slogan, the Lin Biaoist line analyzed thatimperialism is facing total collapse and advocated a left adventurist linefor immediate worldwide victory of socialism. Under this influence the

character of Indian state was analyzed as semi-colonial as the pre-revolutionary China and in the Party Programme adopted by the 1970Congress of the CPI(ML) the semi-colonial and neo-colonial conceptswere used synonymously. Mechanically copying the Chinese path,

protracted peoples warand concepts like area-wise seizure of politicalpower and guerilla struggle as the only form of struggle, etc. wereadopted along with the line of annihilation. As a result, though Naxalbari

uprising could guide the CRs to break with the revisionist CPI and neo-revisionist CPI(M) leaderships, and though it brought back agrarianrevolution and the PDR or NDR back to the agenda, as CPI(ML)embraced sectarian line, it could not face the severe suppression thatfollowed, leading to its disintegration to many groups.

Thus, if the failure to apply the Marxist-Leninist teachings in Indiabased on concrete analysis of the concrete conditions here led CPI andCPI(M) to social democratic path, it led the CPI(ML) and other CR groupsto sectarian line, both causing immense damage to the movement. Thesocial democratic sections led by CPI(M) continued to degenerate to

the ruling class positions, first as apologists of neo-colonialism and lateras executioners of neo-colonial policies wherever they are in power.Though this degeneration has led to a number of groups starting withthe MCPI in 1978 to split away from the CPI(M) during last three decades,none of them have so far succeeded to make a concrete analysis of the

Indian situation and to develop a revolutionary line based on it to complete


7/123


the tasks of the PDR. As a result, most of them have become part ofruling class parties/alliances or continue to vacillate incapable of takinga concrete path for revolutionary advance. Meanwhile, some of the fringegroups analyzing India as a independent capitalist country in the stageof socialist revolution are in effect serving the ruling system as theapologists of the neo-colonial plunder of imperialism. A section of the

CR forces, the erstwhile CPI(ML) Peoples War, CPI(ML) Party Unityand MCC who have united to form the CPI(Maoist), in the name of

upholding Maoism, which is nothing but the Lin Biaoist line, are followingthe old sectarian line in more rabid, anarchist way based on their pathof revolution analysing India as semi-colonial mechanically copyingthe Chinese path in vastly different Indian conditions.

There are a number of CPI(ML) and other CR groups who claim to

have rejected the sectarian line and adopted the mass line. Whetherthey have a Path of Revolution document or not, all of them explain indetail the differences between the pre-revolutionary Chinese and presentIndian conditions, but at the same time pursue the strategy of protractedpeoples war, mechanically repeating the path Mao had analyzed in hismilitary writings according to Chinese conditions. They refuse torecognize the momentous changes that have taken place after the

Second World War, when threatened with the onward march of theinternational communist movement, the inherent crisis of the capitalistimperialist system and as a consequence of the changes in the balanceof forces among the imperialist powers, the colonial system of plunderwas replaced by neo-colonial plunder by the imperialist camp led by USimperialism. Most of them are still rejecting the contradiction betweenthe imperialist and socialist forces as one of the major contradiction atglobal level under the influence of the class collaborationist Three WorldTheory, which they still worship. Similarly they have an allergy towardsseeking truth from facts to recognize the neo-colonial changes thathave taken place in the imperialist plunder utilizing the domination offinance capital and market system through instruments like IMF-World

Band-WTO and MNCs. At the most their concept about neo-colonisationdo not go beyond the Soviet revisionist concept of neo-colony of USimperialism, which was dished out by numerous Soviet studies of 1960s

and 1970s.

As Lenin wrote about the place of imperialism in history, in theconcluding part of his epochal work Imperialism, the Highest Stage ofCapitalism: the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unlessit is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism. A few

paragraphs before it, he has almost prophesied a picture of the futurebeyond the colonial phase as: When the colonies of European powers,for instance, comprised only one tenth of the territory of Africa (as was


8/123


the case in 1876), colonial policy was able to develop by methods other

than that of monopoly by the free grabbing of territories, so to speak.

But when nine-tenth of Africa had been seized (by 1900), when the whole

world had been divided up, there was inevitably ushered in the era of

monopoly possession of colonies, and consequently, of particularly

intense struggle for the division and re-division of the world. But this

process, after the two world wars for the division and re-division of the

world, led to the intensification of anti-imperialist struggles, to the growth

of national liberation movements, to countries with one-third of worldpopulation becoming part of socialist camp led by Soviet Union and to

the sharpening of its own inherent cyclic crises. In this situation, under

the new balance of forces among the imperialist powers following the

Second World War, when US imperialism replaced Britain as the leader

of the imperialist camp, the old colonialism was replaced by neo-

colonialism, with finance capital and market dominating all fields.

As Lenin foresaw almost a century back, finance capital had added

the struggle for the source of raw materials, for the export of capital, for

sphere of influence, i.e., for spheres for profitable deals, concessions,

monopoly profits and so on, economic territory in general. As finance

capital is becoming more and more speculative and parasitic, as marketforces have become unprecedentedly dominant aided by speculative

capital, it was inevitable that the colonial phase had to be replaced by

the neo-colonial phase when the struggle for control of raw materials,

for the export of capital, competition for spheres of influence or profitable

deals, concessions, monopoly profits, for market control have become

the dominant feature.

It is the failure to recognize these momentous changes in imperialist

policy during the post-World War II decades and to make necessarychanges in its own approach to confront them that led to the fall of the

socialist forces from the position of great strength they had reached half

a century ago. When capitalism had reached its monopoly stage,

imperialism, Kautsky and Bernstein had analyzed that compared tocapitalism, imperialism is a less harmful force with which collaboration

was possible, leading to the collapse of the Second International. Almostsimilarly, when imperialism took the neo-colonial forms of plunder, forceslike the Krushchovites, without recognizing that it is more barbarousand pernicious, called for peaceful competition and co-existence with it,

or collaboration with it, leading to the grave setbacks suffered by theICM including the disintegration of Soviet Union and degeneration of

socialist China into an imperialist power.

The failure to recognize this vicious and pernicious neo-colonisation

even after all the damages it has already created, and the failure to


9/123


develop the strategic and tactical line capable of combating it had led to

the present stagnation and splintering of the revolutionary movement,

with most of the forces fumbling in darkness, like blind men describing

an elephant.

It is in this critical juncture, in continuation to the studies started

from early 1960s within the ICM and the efforts made based on them by

us from 1980s, India state is analyzed as a country under neo-

colonisation, as part of the ever-intensifying ongoing imperialist plunder

in new forms around the world. With this analysis the mechanicalrepetition of India as a semi-colony, semi-feudal country like China

started in 1960s along with the Chinese path, and concepts like

protracted peoples war are bid farewell to. The fast changes taking

place in the mode of production trasforming the earlier dominant feudal

forces to remnants of feudal relations existing only in some areas is

recognized. The agrarian revolution is explained in the neo-colonial

context. Above all, the initiative for establishing the proletarian leadership

in the PDR or NDR, both in theory and in practice is highlighted. This

has led to the categorical declaration that it is not any peasant revolution

or the march of few roving guerilla squads in search of backward areas

in the ever-dwindling jungles where feudal mode of production aresupposed to exist still, which is going to complete the PDR. Only the

proletariat can lead the PDR to its victory and advance towards the

socialist revolution by establishing the workers-peasant alliance and

leading all the revolutionary classes and sections in countrywide

upsurges.

Based on these positions the Path of Indian Revolutionis drafted

according to the concrete conditions here, fully recognizing the vastness

and complex nature of the country. Strongly rebuffing and throwing out

concepts like heroes make revolution, the Marxist-Leninist teaching

that it is the masses who create history, revolution is the festival of the

masses is re-established. Whether it is the call for initiating the

reorganization of the Communist Internationalor for launching massive

peoples movements capable of overthrowing the Indian state led by the

comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisies and landlord classes serving

imperialism put forward by the four basic document adopted by the All

India Special Conference of CPI(ML), they have historic importance.

They open the way for the unity of all genuine communists advancing

the party building, uncompromisingly fighting against the right opportunist

as well as anarchist, alien trends. These documents are put forward for

an ever deeper discussion at all levels, cutting across the boundaries of

different organizations, and for putting them to active revolutionary

practice.


10/123


I n t e r n a t i o n a l S i t u a t i o n

And Ou r Ta sk s

INTRODUCTION

When the CPI (ML) Red Flag had presented its document onInternational Developments and Tasks of the Marxist Leninists in 1997in its Fourth All India Conference, it had started off by saying that theworld was characterised by two important factors. First, the grave crisisof the world imperialist system and, second, the challenges faced bythe Marxist-Leninist forces. The world situation today is still in the maincharacterised by the same two main factors.

The economic crisis of the world imperialist system has grown indepth and intensity to a level where the official banks of many leadingindustrial countries have accepted, between October 2008 and now, thatthose countries were officially in recession. The fall in the stock market,

where, by the end of 2008, the indices had slipped to below half thepeak levels of 2008, caused many to characterise this crisis as being worsethan the crisis of 1929. The number of jobs lost has reached phenomenallevels and today stands at the worst levels since the past 40 years formost countries including many imperialist countries. The rise in pricesof essential commodities has caused food riots in places as diverse asEgypt and Bangladesh.

While analysing the global meltdown we are concerned not onlywith the depth of this crisis, but, more importantly, with its spread.Stock markets from New York to Shanghai have all been victims of thiscrisis. It is a measure of the level of globalisation achieved in todays

capital market that the effect spreads almost immediately, in a more orless uniform manner, all over the globe. The capital market crisis hashit all over the globe.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

In 1997, we had analysed how internationalism was always the basisof the proletarian strategy. How Marx, Engels and Lenin had putforward their understanding on the interlinking between the need fornational revolutions and internationalism and how Stalin, the ThirdInternational and Mao had basically adhered to this same line. Aftershowing how Maos understanding of the New Democratic Revolution


11/123


and the understanding of the Peoples Democratic Revolution putforward by Stalin and the Third International were only continuationsof the path opened up by Lenin in the Colonial Theses, we have putforward the arguments that In the neo-colonial situation when theglobalisation of capital is reaching its highest level and the linking of globalcapital is getting completed, the bourgeoisie cannot at all become thespokespersons for progressive nationalism.Then again,

In the neo-colonial phase following World War II the Internationalisation

of capital reached new dimensions both in depth and spread. This took theconsensus about which Lenin had said, between the bourgeoisie of theimperialist countries and the neo-colonies further ahead. It increased theeconomic and political intercourse between them in a more counterrevolutionary way. The bourgeoisie in the neo-colonies have becomeintegral part of the global bourgeoisie who is engaged in strengthening tothe maximum extent the collaboration with all anti-national, anti-democratic reactionary forces against the revolutionary forces; it is not arevolutionary bourgeoisie, but it represents its imperialist decadent stage.This bourgeoisie which has become the ruling classes in the neo-coloniesis not only totally incapable of carrying out the tasks of the nationaldemocratic revolution, but also relies on the side of the world imperialistcounter-revolution.

The responsibility for carrying out the anti-imperialist democraticrevolution in the neo-colonies is thus vested on the working class morethan ever today in this situation.

The situation that has been referred to in this paragraph has onlyintensified. In the past decade, since the earlier document was published,many developments have taken place at the world level. This can bedescribed in terms of the intensification of all the fundamentalcontradictions at the international level.

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN SOCIALIST FORCESAND IMPERIALIST FORCES

The Keynesian policies, initially put forward at the time of 1930crisis, which were already being unravelled in 1970s under the policiesof monetarism, have been further rolled back. The prescriptions putforward by what is popularly called the Washington Consensus havebeen pushed systematically all over the globe. Neo-liberal policies ofrestricting fiscal deficits, mainly by cutting public expenditure, reducingtaxation on the rich and the corporate sector, allowing interest rates,exchange rates, etc. to be guided by the market, import liberalisation,privatisation and liberalisation of the economy and strengthening of


12/123


private property rights have been imposed all over the world, includingin the imperialist countries. These neo-liberal policies, under the nameof globalisation are being imposed upon the neo-colonies all over theworld. All markets in the neo-colonies, including the capital market,agriculture, land, water, education, health-care, are being opened toimperialist investment. Today there is a more or less total co-optionof the bourgeoisie in the neo-colonies into the imperialist system. Allthe more therefore, this bourgeoisie is on the side of world imperialist

counter-revolution.At the same time, imperialism, led by US imperialism, still continues

it policy of backing the most reactionary and subversive, religious fanaticelements all over the world. They back the Hindu fundamentalist forcesin India and Christian fundamentalist forces in Latin America, besidescontinuing to back Islamic fundamentalist forces in Saudi Arabia andthe Emirates. Racism is growing all over the world. There is thus adefinite growth in the level of fascicisation all over the world anddemocratic rights are being curtailed all over the world, not only in theneo-colonies, but also in the imperialist countries, as a result of thepolicies of neo-liberalism.

The 1997 document does not mention the question of environmentwhich is fast growing into an irresolvable crisis for the imperialist system.The imperialist countries are unwilling to take real measures to curbpollution, since, indeed, such measures cannot be taken within theexisting system which is approaching the contradiction between peopleand nature in an antagonistic manner and can be basically resolved onlyafter the dismantling of the imperialist system. This is not to say thatthe democratic demands for changes in environment policies of variouscountries all over the world are useless. Rather, we must note thatimperialism is unwilling to give any importance to seriousenvironmental issues in its quest for greater profits and more avenuesfor investment. It is this unwillingness of the imperialist countries that

has resulted in the failure of the Kyoto Protocol and of the decisions ofthe later Bali meeting on global warming. Instead, the system of buyingthe right to pollute, in the form of carbon credits, has helped to openanother investment avenue for imperialism.

Though there is not a socialist camp of socialist countries is inexistence today, there is a massive peoples movement developingagainst globalisation. From Seattle to Hong Kong, the worlds peopleare coming together to protest against the WTO and its adverse effects.Massive demonstrations were held all over the world, from Japan toMadrid and London to Melbourne against the Iraq war. Though theWSF is nothing more than an international supermarket of NGOs, it


13/123


reflects the internationalisation of the struggle against imperialistglobalisation and its ill effects. Massive world-wide movements aregrowing against fascicisation, for democratic rights and against thedegradation of the environment. All of Latin America has risen inopposition to US imperialism and a bevy of Governments have beenformed there on the basis of opposition to US imperialism. These rangefrom the consistent anti-imperialist stands of Venezuela under HugoChavez, Bolivia under Evo Morales and Cuba under the Castros to the

slightly milder opposition of Argentina under Kirchener and still milderopposition of Lula in Brazil. There have been international protests byfarmers, automobile workers and other sections. All these go to showthat the opposition to imperialism is no more restricted to the local oreven the national level but has taken on international dimensions. Thusit is clear that this contradiction between imperialism and socialist forcesis intensifying day by day.

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN IMPERIALISM ANDOPPRESSED PEOPLES AND NATIONS

Besides the general increase in the intensity of globalisation leading

to the unprecedented crisis as pointed out above, epochal events havetaken place in the past decade. Imperialism, under the leadership of USimperialism has invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq and isthreatening to do the same with Iran and North Korea. The theory ofpre-emptive strikes has given license to imperialist powers to policethe world in their own interests. Though the US has always beensupporting covert warfare in countries like Angola and Nicaragua bybacking all sorts of dictators and even fanatics, with Afghanistan andIraq it has taken more pernicious forms. The puppet governmentsinstalled there are almost under their direct control. The level of plunderand oppression in these neo-colonies has increased many times.

The US has actively intervened in the past ten years to balkanisemany regions of the world. The former Yugoslavia has been brokeninto unrecognisable tiny pieces, the US has fomented attempts at chaosin Chechenya and now Pakistan lies in serious danger of being brokenup. This is the attempt of imperialism, led by US imperialism, to trivialisethe issue of national liberation, by using it to fragment nations.

Another change in the past ten years has been that the supportgiven by imperialism, led by US imperialism, to all sorts of ragtag, motleyforces, including the worst type of religious fanaticism, has come backto haunt them. The Taliban and various Islamic terrorist groups havestarted to engage in open combat against the US. Such terrorist groups,


14/123


which were created and nurtured by the US in the past and many ofwhich are still being contacted and trained by the CIA have given riseto the imperialist theory of war on terrorism which has so transformedthe lives of people all over the world.

Another distinguishing feature of the last decade is the rise of Israelas the front paw of US imperialism, especially in the crucial West Asianregion. This illegal state has, over the past decade heightened theapartheid regime it has imposed in Palestine and created a series of

Bantustans there. Given that the West Asia is the centre of the militaryattack of imperialism, led by US imperialism, at present and thatPalestine / Israel can be considered to be at the centre of the West Asianquestion, the struggle of the Palestinian people for the liberation of theirfatherland takes on an added importance beyond just that of a nationalliberation struggle.

Yet another new development which has taken place in thiscontradiction. Imperialist countries and even some of the richer neo-colonies are buying land for cultivating food in the poorer nations ofAfrica. This land runs into lakhs of acres and is sometimes the size of asmall country itself. All this shows that the contradiction between

Imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples of the world isgrowing more intense and taking newer forms.

CONTRADICTION BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOUR

The recent economic crisis is the clearest indication of the growthof this contradiction. The crisis of imperialism is getting intensified witheach passing day and the only way out of the crisis for imperialism is toburden the working class and the oppressed peoples all over the worldwith this crisis. This has gone to the extent where trillions of dollarsworth of bail-outs are being openly given to the large MNCs andfinancial institutions out of public funds.

At the same time, we are seeing that the working class strugglesare increasing at international level. Solidarity actions are taking placein many countries. The longshoremen in US went on strike against theIraq war. Struggles of automobile workers are crossing nationalboundaries like the struggle against GM and Daimler-Chrysler. Unionsare becoming active in the struggle against the degradation of theenvironment and other political issues. Though the trade unionmovement all over the world, by and large, is still in the hands ofreformist and revisionist forces, it cannot be denied that there is an up-swing both in the struggle of the working class and in theinternationalisation of this struggle.


15/123


CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE IMPERIALISTPOWERS AND AMONGST MONOPOLY GROUPS

The last decade has also seen an intensification of the contradictionsbetween imperialist powers and between monopoly groups. TheShanghai Co-ordination is trying to give some resistance to the movesof the imperialist countries led by US imperialism. There is also anintensification of the contradictions within the Western Bloc. France and

Germany like imperialist countries are demanding a larger share of thepie.

All the above, then, show that over the last decade, globalisationhas been pushed more intensively and aggressively. by imperialism,led by US imperialism, all over the world. If in 1997, we could reach aconclusion to the effect that the international content of the NewDemocratic Revolution has grown, then that conclusion is all the moreapt in todays world. As a result, while upholding the inter-relationand inter-penetration of all these major contradictions, the contradictionbetween imperialism and oppressed peoples and nations is the principalcontradiction at the international level in the concrete conditions of the

present times. Therefore, the conclusion that we had reached that thereis a need to build up the International Communist Movement once again,holds true with even greater force in todays situation.

HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE

Though we had set out the history of the struggle for building upthe International Communist Movement in some detail in the 1997document, it is necessary to go over some of the parts of this historyanew.

The First and Second Internationals were formed by Marx andEngels and laid the basis for the principle that internationalism is one of

the basic principles of the proletarian revolutionary movement. TheThird International, built under the leadership of Lenin and continuedunder the leadership of Stalin, carried forward the work of the earliertwo internationals and established Marxism-Leninism as one of theleading political forces in the world. The Third International or theCommunist International (or Comintern as it was also known) playeda great role in guiding the newly emerging parties all over the world inbuilding up a world-wide communist movement which was able tocapture power in an area covering half of the earths surface andaccounting for a third of its population.

The Communist International was dissolved in the middle of 1943.


16/123


This was the time when the World War II was at its fiercest phase. Stalinlooked upon the dissolution of the Comintern as a necessary sacrificefor the strengthening of the Anti-Fascist United Front with the imperialistpowers, US, UK and France, to fight fascism by exposing the fascistbogey about communist world-domination. This step was taken at atime when Germany had steam-rolled its way over France, Britain wasbeing repeatedly bombed and Leningrad was under siege but at thesame time the Soviet Union had taken the offensive by handing the

Germans their first big defeat of the war in Stalingrad. We have to fullyanalyse the dissolution of the Comintern as to whether it was, indeed,necessary or can be seen as a mistake. The fact remains that after June1943, the Comintern stood dissolved and there was no authoritativeorganisation which could hold the communist movement together.

An objective historical evaluation of dissolution of the Cominternis indispensable at this juncture. It took place at a critical time when thefascist axis of Germany-Italy-Japan was still threatening to carry forwardtheir plans for world domination. Strengthening the anti-fascist frontwas of utmost importance. But the US led imperialists had other ideasand were delaying the opening of he second front against Nazi forces.

Besides, imperialism led by US imperialism was planning to launch anall out future offensive for its world hegemony. It was preparing theground for transforming the old colonialism into neo-colonialism. Thestrategic step towards this was put forward in 1941 in the form of theAtlantic Charterjointly drafted by Britain and USA, the vanishing andascending supreme arbiters respectively of the imperialist world. Theessential economic, political and military foundations for the neo-colonial phase of imperialism were being developed by them. Even muchbefore the formal ending of World War II through the bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki, with the unparallel superiority it was gainingin the military, economic and political realms as the fascist forces werebeing decimated, the US was firmly putting forward its new blue-print

for the neo-colonial world order.But the dissolution of the Comintern which ought to have been

concretely evaluated in relation to this crucial historical transformation,was interpreted as a tactical move. On the contrary, it should be seen asa strategic error in this background. Lack of an international leadershipon the part of world proletariat at this critical juncture led to severesetbacks in scientifically evaluating the laws of motion of finance capitaland putting forward the concrete programme of action againstimperialism in its neo-colonial phase. The dissolution of the Cominternin the name of defending fatherland and for the success of the anti-fascist front, in fact, did immense harm to the world proletariat as it


17/123


denied the decisive role of the communist party and the CommunistInternational, the only weapons before the working class and oppressedpeople in their fight against capital and imperialist domination. In brief,in juxtaposing the defence of Soviet Union against the interests of theinternational socialism and relegating the latter to the background, theinternational proletariat lost an authoritative organisation to lead theworld people against the neo-colonisation process unleashed by US ledimperialism in the post WW II phase. The negative attitude taken by

the Chinese Communist Party and the leadership of other communistparties including the CPI at that time by supporting this dissolutionalso contributed much in aggravating the situation. In course of time,influenced by the attitude of the CPC from the second half of 1960s theerroneous view that an international is not a necessity also gotstrengthened in the international communist movement.

It is a fact that in the concrete situation existing after the victory ofgreat October Revolution and coming into the existence of the SovietUnion Lenin had put into practice the concept of the CommunistInternational as an international party working based on the principlesof democratic centralism. Drawing from its vast experience in both

theory and practice the CPSU was in effect guiding the Comintern. Laterwhen a large number communist parties came into existence and theparties like CPC started leading the revolutionary movements in theircountries various questions regarding analysing the concrete conditionsin these countries and developing the revolutionary line had comeforward. On some occasions the Comintern advice given under theSoviet guidance had proved wrong resulting in internal struggles. TheCPCs criticism of Comintern was linked to similar problems. The answerto this problem was not dissolution of the Comintern but reorganisingit conforming to the developing situation. Or from an international partythe Comintern had to transform into an international organisation ofthe communist parties which are developing their theory and practice

according to concrete conditions in their own countries. Only in thisway the international communist movement could face the seriouschallenge posed during that period both by the fascist forces on the oneside and the US-UK forces evolving a neo-colonial offensive on the other.But dissolving the Comintern as a tactical move, as explained, tostrengthen the Anti-Fascist United Front in effect amounted to dissolvingthe party for the united front. While upholding comrade Stalin as a greatMarxist-Leninist, who gave leadership to the ICM at very difficultjuncture, the question whether the dissolution of the Comintern was acorrect step should be subjected to serious discussion.

In the period after the World War II, the Communist Party of Soviet


18/123


Union (CPSU) continued to play a leading role in the world communistmovement. It was continued to be looked up to as the father party byall communist parties all over the world. However, since they and theICM in general were not able to recognise the change in the system ofexploitation of imperialism from the colonial phase to the neo-colonialone, they were not able to understand the changes that were takingplace in the world. It was the wrong evaluation of the concrete situationof the world situation which had led Krushchovite leadership, which

was successful in coming to power, to conclude that the introduction ofneo-colonial policies including the de-colonisation as a weakening ofimperialism. Besides, the strength of the socialist forces and their prestigeall over the world was overestimated. This led the Khruschovite forcesto come to the conclusion that revolution was no more necessary in thenewly-liberated countries and they put forward the theory of thethree peacefuls, that is, peaceful co-existence and peaceful competitionwith imperialism and peaceful transition to socialism.

Thus the capitalist roaders led by Krushchov took the movementaway from the path of revolution due to erroneous evaluation of theconcrete conditions in the world after the Second World War. The

transformation from the colonial to the neo-colonial phase was neitherstudied nor understood. The epochal importance of the IMF, the WBand the nascent GATT talks was not understood. The phenomenalgrowth of the MNCs in this period was neither understood nor studied.

It was the CPC which took the lead in the struggle against this rightreactionary line of the CPSU leadership. They put forward a correctorientation regarding neo-colonisation in the course of the GreatDebate between the CPSU and the CPC. In the article Apologists ofNeo-colonialism(which was the fourth comment on the letter of theCPSU), the CPC explained, after referring to the contention of the CPSU,that colonialism was being destroyed:

What are the facts?Consider, first, the situation in Asia and Africa. There a whole group ofcountries have declared their independence.But many of these countrieshave not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control andenslavement and remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression aswell as arenas of contention between the old and new colonialists. In some,the old colonialists have changed into neo-colonialists and retain theircolonial rule through their trained agents. In others, the wolf has left bythe front door, but the tiger has entered through the back door, the oldcolonialism being replaced by the new, more powerful and more dangerousU. S. colonialism. The peoples of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced


19/123


by the tentacles of neo-colonialism, represented by U. S. imperialism.

Next, listen to the voice of the people of Latin America. The Second HavanaDeclaration says, Latin America today is under a more ferociousimperialism, more powerful and ruthless than the Spanish colonialempire.

It adds:

Since the end of the Second World War, . . . North American investments

exceed 10 billion dollars. Latin America moreover supplies cheap rawmaterials and pays high prices for manufactured articles.

It says further:

. . . there flows from Latin America to the United States a constant torrentof money: some $4,000 per minute, $5 million per day, $2 billion peryear, $10 billion each five years. For each thousand dollars which leavesus, one dead body remains. $1,000 per death, that is the price of what iscalled imperialism.

The facts are clear. After World War II the imperialists have certainly notgiven up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neo-colonialism.

An important characteristic of such neo-colonialism is that the imperialistshave been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule in someareas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relyingon the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed bythe United States enslave or control the colonial countries and countrieswhich have already declared their independence by organizing militaryblocs, setting up military bases, establishing federations orcommunities, and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic aidor other forms, they retain these countries as markets for their goods,sources of raw material and outlets for their export of capital, plunder theriches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover, theyuse the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internalaffairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economicand cultural aggression. When they are unable to continue their rule overthese countries by peaceful means, they engineer military coups detat,carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention andaggression.

The United States is most energetic and cunning in promoting neo-colonialism. With this weapon, the U.S. imperialists are trying hard tograb the colonies and spheres of influence of other imperialists and toestablish world domination.

This neo-colonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism.


20/123


Thus it is clear that the Chinese party had correctly seen theevolution of the colonial phase into the neo-colonial one. However theChinese party, at that time was itself engaged in a severe struggle againstthe rightist line of Liu-Shao-Chi. Due to this reason they were not ableto take up the task of carrying forward the theoretical study of neo-colonialism. Later, under the left line under the leadership of Lin Biao,the Chinese party, not only did not carry forward the study of theinternational situation, but also did not take any initiative to reorganisethe Communist International.

The left line under Lin Biao caused great harm to the internationalcommunist movement. In the 1997 document, we have identified that ithad wrongly changed the era from the Leninist understanding of thisbeing the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution to defining it asa new era that of imperialism heading for total collapse and socialismadvancing towards world-wide victory.

It was Lin Biao who first put forward the mistaken idea thatprotracted peoples war is the only path for revolution in all thecountries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. He said, in his article Longli ve the vi ctory of t he Peoples War (1966):

It must be emphasized that Comrade Mao Tse-tungs theory of theestablishment of rural revolutionary base areas and the encirclement ofthe cities from the countryside is of outstanding and universal practicalimportance for the present revolutionary struggles of all the oppressednations and peoples, and particularly for the revolutionary struggles ofthe oppressed nations and peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin Americaagainst imperialism and its lackeys.

It was Lin Biao, again, who published the red book and wrote aforeword for the same. It was his followers, during the culturalrevolution, who put forward the concept that there was no need to study- that, in fact, the more you study, the more foolish you become.

Erroneously analysing the world situation Lin Biao like Khrushchevbefore him once again put forward the idea of a weakened imperialism.He said, The imperialist system resembles a dying person who is sinkingfast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills. The emergence of Khrushchevrevisionism is a product of imperialist policy and reflects the death-bed struggleof imperialism.

It was again Lin Biao who put forward the idea of a rural-basedparty. In the Long live the victory ...quoted above, he asserts:

Many countries and peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America are nowbeing subjected to aggression and enslavement on a serious scale by the


21/123


imperialists headed by the United States and their lackeys. The basicpolitical and economic conditions in many of these countries have manysimilarities to those that prevailed in old China. As in China, the peasantquestion is extremely important in these regions. The peasants constitutethe main force of the national-democratic revolution against theimperialists and their lackeys. In committing aggression against thesecountries, the imperialists usually begin by seizing the big cities and themain lines of communication, but they are unable to bring the vast

countryside completely under their control. The countryside, and thecountryside alone, can provide the broad areas in which the revolutionariescan manoeuvre freely. The countryside, and the countryside alone, canprovide the revolutionary bases from which the revolutionaries can goforward to final victory. Precisely for this reason, Comrade Mao Tse-tungstheory of establishing revolutionary base areas in the rural districts andencircling the cities from the countryside is attracting more and moreattention among the people in these regions.

It must be made clear here that Mao had never said that the ChinesePath is applicable to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.On the contrary he had advised the leaders of the Marxist-Leninist

parties visiting China repeatedly that they should develop therevolutionary in their own countries only according to the concreteconditions there. Still this line of Lin Biaos was taken as gospel truthand two generations of the Marxist-Leninists all over the world had toface severe setbacks in their attempts to build up base areas andguerrilla zones mechanically following the Chinese Path. It wasthis line of Lin Biao which led to the neglect of mass line includingbuilding up of mass organisations and working class movement.

THE MAOISTS REVISITED

We have already mentioned in our 1997 document that the parties

which call themselves Maoist and which follow Maoism areprecisely those who still uphold all the wrong understandings putforward by the left sectarian line under the leadership of Lin Biao,irrespective of whether they overtly uphold Lin Biao or not.

As part of this discussion two more points have to be discussed.Firstly, there are many parties, especially in Latin America, who upholdMaoism though they do not uphold the sectarian line of say, theSandero Luminoso (Shining Path) of Peru or of the PhilippinesCommunist Party or the Turkish Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)(TKP/ML). Many of such parties like the RCP of Argentina or the MaoistCommunist Party of Colombia are actually adopting the mass line. They


22/123


have adopted the concept of Maoism in the peculiar circumstances ofLatin America, where it symbolised the opposition to Khruschoviterevisionism in the 1970s.

The second question of importance while discussing the Maoistparties is the question of Nepal. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)has played a significant role in the struggle to overthrow the monarchy.For this, even they had to change their tactics and lay down their arms.At the same time the CPN(Maoist) has been stressing that they support

a new socialism and that the socialism of the 20th century has failed.They have also asserted a new concept of democracy in the 21stcentury which entails multi-party electoral democracy even afterthe revolution. All such concepts are grouped in what is referred to asPrachanda path. At the same time, this party is engaged in a severeinner-party struggle about the way forward. Whether it will be able toovercome its theoretical shortcomings and come forward is a matter ofinterest to the ICM.

DEVELOPMENTS AFTER LIN BIAO

Though the Tenth Congress of the CPC in 1973 claimed to have

rectified the erroneous understanding of the era put forward by theNinth Congress, as we have mentioned in the 1997 document, nodocument has come to light which shows how the CPC has evaluatedthe mistakes of the line led by Lin Biao except criticising him for hisConfucian thinking. In any case, there was no attempt to further deepenthe understanding of the neo-colonial system. In the absence of such aserious study and in reaction to the sectarian line of Lin Biao that hademerged during the Cultural Revolution, in spite of its historicalsignificance, it was easy for the capitalist roaders like Deng to usurppower. One of the vehicles for achieving this was the class-collaborationist Theory of Three Worlds. This was another rightdeviation which in effect neglected the contradiction between capitaland labour, between imperialism and socialist forces and one-sidedlyemphasised the contradiction among the imperialist forces, mechanicallydividing the world on a non-class basis into First, Second and Thirdworlds.

Since the General Line document of 1963, Marxist-Leninists all overthe world have generally accepted the present fundamentalcontradictions at the global level as:

The contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp;the contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie in the capitalistcountries, the contradiction between oppressed nations and peoples and


23/123


imperialism; the contradictions among imperialist countries and amongmonopoly capitalist groups.

In slightly different words, this was also, more or less, theunderstanding of the Third International.

While the deviation lead by Khruschov one-sidedly stressed thecontradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp,neglecting the other contradictions, the sectarian line of Lin Biao laidone-sided stress on the contradiction between oppressed nations andimperialism neglecting the other contradictions. This resulted in manyof them taking a negative view of proletarian internationalism inpractice. Many of the sectarian parties (both of the left and rightvarieties) have ceased to accept the contradiction between the socialistforces and the imperialism under the influence of these erroneous lines.

There are also many other alien world outlooks that have emergedin the Marxist-Leninist movement due to the failure to make a concreteanalysis of the post-World War II world situation and in the absence offraternal exchange of views among the Marxist-Leninist forces with aview to overcome the past mistakes and to develop the ICM includingthe development of a centre to guide it forward. These include the post-modern ideas, with their emphasis on new social movements andfinally on solutions within the system. All these alien trends have to beuncompromisingly exposed and struggled against.

The efforts to develop fraternal relations among the Marxist-Leninist parties and to rebuild the ICM will have to start in continuationto the line put forward by the Third International and the General Lineof 1963, asserting the fundamental contradictions at the internationallevel. It includes the study of the development, maturing and inter-play of these contradictions in the period of neo-colonialism.

BUILDING UP THE ICM

Many attempts have been made to understand the developmentsall over the world and the causes for the setbacks to the ICM. Theyinclude the International Communist Seminar held in Brussels by thePTB every year, the ICMLPO formed under the JCG of which, the MLPD,BP (NK /T), CPN (Mashal), and our party among others are included,the other ICMLPO comprised of parties which are pro-Albanian, theNorth Star Compass, the RIM, etc.

The International Communist Seminar in Brussels was started as ayearly affair in the year 1990. It concentrated mainly on the question ofthe restoration of capitalism in the USSR. However, they allowed for an


24/123


eclectic combination of those calling themselves Marxist (from theCPI to the CPI (Maoist)) to attend this seminar and present papers. Ittherefore has not served the purpose of advancing the theoreticalunderstanding at the international level, though it has put forward somenew ideas on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. The ICMLPOformed by the pro-Albanian parties, brings out a magazine known asUnite et Lutte or Unity and Struggle. This group is hamstrung intheir theoretical endeavours by their historical understanding and is itstheoretical endeavours are therefore confined to a very small compassof mechanically vindicating the stand of Stalin. The North StarCompass is a group which brings out a magazine in this name, whoseaim is the restoration of the USSR. However, there is no clarity amongthem on the socialism they are talking about, whether it is the socialismunder Lenin and Stalin or the socialism under Khruschov, Brezhnev,Andropov, etc. They are limited in their understanding to opposingGlasnost and Perestroika which, in their opinion, was responsiblefor the collapse of the Soviet Union. Besides the RevolutionaryInternationalist Movement (RIM) led by the RCP, USA, a union ofMaoist parties is also significant for the harm it does to the ICM.

The most active and politically vital grouping is the ICMLPO which

is largely hosted by the MLPD of Germany. There is the JCG which co-ordinates the work of the ICMLPO. It has so far held 9 Conferences. Itbrings out an International Newsletter It is composed of parties whoaccept Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought or Marxism-Leninismand a positive view of Mao Tsetung.

The shortcoming of this group is that it also includes parties whoare openly Maoist, like the CPP of the Philippines, the TKP(ML) ofTurkey and even the CPI (Maoist). Hence it is very difficult for thisgrouping to advance, as it is, in the main reduced to another internationalforum for debate.

Our organisation when it was called CRC, CPI(ML) from 1979 hasbeen one of the f irst in India to seek the rebuilding of the ICM. This wasprompted by the fact that we were among the first in India to opposethe Three World Theory and the Dengists in China along with theEnver Hoxhaites. Based on this approach our organisation send ourapproach papers to an international conference with the RCP of Chileand RCP of USA among others and called for reorganising the ICMbased on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. In the secondinternational conference of 1984, we put forward a document explainingour neo-colonial approach and calling for building a platform of theML parties. But RCP, USA along with its sectarian understanding basedon Lin Biaoism evaluated that war has become the main danger and


25/123


called for immediate formation of an international. We walked out whenthey went ahead with the formation of RIM which has become a centreof anarchist organisations upholding Maoism. In spite of this setback,we continued our efforts for the unity of the like-minded Marxist-Leninist forces. It is as a result of it the CPI(ML) Red Flag played anactive role in the ICMLPO including sending a delegation to its 8

th

Conference in 2004.

The recent past after Vijayawada Unity Conference has seen us

reneging on our international duties. We were not able to attend anyinternational meetings or conferences due to the sectarian line of theCPI(ML) 2003 with whom the CPI(ML) Red Flag had united. We had torestrain ourselves from attending the Brussels seminar or the ICMLPOmeetings, though we could attend the MLPD Congress in 2008. As aresult of these we were not able to take any stand on the internationalsituation and our tasks in this period. We have now overcome thissectarian tendency in the party by separating from it.

During the course of the 9th Congress of the ICMLPO, under theinitiative of the MLPD a Declaration on the Building of an InternationalForm of Organization for the Coordination of the Work of Autonomous

Revolutionary Parties and Organizations was adopted. This declarationfocuses on the need for revolutionary parties and organisations to joinforces in todays situation. It focuses on the need to build regional andinternational forms of organisation for Marxist-Leninists, the workingclass and also the entire anti-imperialist movement. This gave rise tothe ICOR or the International Co-ordination.

Besides actively working in the ICOR, it is also necessary to developfraternal relations with other ML parties, especially in South Asia andalso in the West Asian region. The developments in West Asia arealready affecting the politics of South Asia, especially Pakistan. We musttherefore make great efforts to develop close relations with parties inSouth Asia and in West Asia who have an understanding akin to ours.

There are many parties, in other continents, especially in LatinAmerica, Europe and Africa with whom we have developed contactsand who are close to our understanding. We must nurture these contactsand develop them where ever possible.

The present situation calls for initiative to form a forum of MLparties from different countries who are fighting both, right revisionismand left sectarianism, including the line of protracted peoples war asthe only path for countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Suchparties who uphold Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought orMarxism-Leninism and a positive attitude towards Mao Tsetung


26/123


Thought should constitute themselves into a Marxist-Leninist Forum toorganise solidarity actions, organize international conferences, todevelop the General Line of the ICM and to move towards a newCommunist International.

It is time for our party to take up this international task in rightearnest. As detailed above, in the present world situation, theinternational content of the Peoples or New Democratic Revolution hasgreatly increased and we cannot make revolution in a vast country like

India without launching uncompromising struggles against imperialismand its lackeys and agents, uniting with the Marxist-Leninist forces atglobal level.

Workers of All Countries, Unite;

Workers of the World, Unite With the

Oppressed Peoples and Oppressed Nations;

Oppose Imperialism and Reaction in All

Countries;

Strive for World Peace, National Liberation,Peoples Democracy and Socialism;

Strengthen the Socialist Forces;

Bring the Proletarian World Revolution Step by

Step to Complete Victory;

And Establish a New World Without

Imperialism, Without Capitalism and Without

the Exploitation of Man by Man !

Uphold Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung

Thought !

Long Live Proletarian Internationalism !

13th November, 2009 CC, CPI(ML)


27/123


On The Cha r a c t e r O f

I n d ia n St a t e

1. INTRODUCTION.

T

HE character of the Indian state along with that of the big

bourgeoisie is one of the foremost questions very seriouslydiscussed in the communist movement from early days. Till 1947 therewas unanimity that it is a colonial state under British imperialism. Butunanimity on the characterization of the big bourgeoisie, whether it isnational or comprador bureaucratic eluded right from those days. Whatis meant by so-called decolonisation policy, the changes that took placein the form of imperialist plunder in the countries under its domination,what character the Indian state took after the transfer of power, etc. arequestions of serious polemics since the post-World War II years. Thoughduring 1950s and 1960s these questions were seriously debated, and fora time colonial, semi colonial, dependent and neo-colonial weresynonymously used from the second half of 1970s, in spite of acceptingthe emergence of neo-colonial plunder by all, the debate on thefundamental changes which were taking place at international andnational level started getting subdued. The consequences of themomentous developments that took place during post-World War IIyears started disappearing from the debates. There were very little effortsto develop Lenins teachings on imperialism according to concreteconditions. The basic changes taking place in the course of changingfrom colonial to neocolonial phase were side lined. Though almost allorganizations accept the important differences that existed between pre-revolutionary China and India, and more so between pre-revolutionaryChina and present India many of them are satisfied by calling both semi-colonial. The basic changes that have taken place in the form ofexploitation and hegemony of imperialism under the leadership of USimperialism during the postWW II decades are suppressed whileputting forward various approaches regarding the character of Post-1947 Indian state. As a result, whether the Indian state is semi-colonial,dependent, neocolonial or capitalist has become a question of seriousdebate among all the parties/organizations/groups claiming to pursueMarxist ideology. What is attempted here is to arrive at a basicunderstanding on this question through concrete analysis of thehistorical evolution of colonialism and its later changes in this era ofimperialism and proletarian revolution, guided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.


28/123


2. BEGINNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFCOLONIZATION PHASE.

Marx and Engels have analysed and pointed out succinctly howcapitalism and the bourgeoisie developed and the role played by themin the Communist Manifesto as follows: The bourgeoisie cannot existwithout constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, andthereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relationsof society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unalteredform, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlierindustrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production uninterrupteddisturbance of all social conditions, ever lasting, uncertainty andagitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed,fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudicesand opinions, are swept away, all new formed ones become antiquatedbefore they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy isprofaned, and man is at last, compelled to face with sober senses hisreal conditions of life and his relations with his kind.

They have also pointed out how the bourgeoisie sets out to plunderthe world in the name of civilizing the barbarians bringing down all

resistances and initiating colonization in the most barbarous forms. Theyexplained: The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of allinstruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means ofcommunication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations, intocivilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillerywith which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces thebarbarians intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. Itcompels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois modeof production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilizationinto their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, itcreates a world after its own image.

Explaining the rapacious colonization policy which led to formationand development of capitalism, Marx wrote: The discovery of goldand silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment inmines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest andlooting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for thecommercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the eraof capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momentsof primitive accumulation. (Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1 p. 751)

Marx analyses how the large scale industrial production undercapitalism compels the bourgeoisie to seek more and more outlets tosell their manufactured goods in abundant supply as follows: As soon


29/123


as manufacture gains sufficient strength, and particularly large-scaleindustry, it creates in its turn a market for itself, by capturing it throughits commodities. At this point commerce becomes the servant ofindustrial production, for which continued expansion of the marketbecomes a vital necessity. Ever more extended mass production floodsthe existing market, and thereby works continually for a still greaterexpansion of this market, for breaking out of its limits. (Karl Marx,Capital, Vol. 3 p.336)

Lenin has elaborated this colonization process as follows.:Colonialpolicy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism andeven before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery pursued a colonialpolicy and practiced imperialism. But general disquisitions onimperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamentaldifference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into themost vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: Greater Romeand Greater Britain. Even the capitalist colonial policy of previousstages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy offinance capital.

The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the

domination of monopolist associations of big employers. Thesemonopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of rawmaterials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zealthe international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive theirrivals of all opportunity of competing to buy up, for example, ironfields, oil fields etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopoliescomplete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggles againstcompetition including the case of the adversary wanting to be protectedby a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism isdeveloped, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, themore intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materialsthroughout the whole world, the more desperate is the struggle for the

acquisition of colonies.Aided by the expansion of colonies and intensification of colonial

plunder as the concentration of capital went on growing, it necessarilyled to monopolisation. This led to the transformation from the era oflaissez fairecapitalism to the era of imperialism, which is historicallyand scientifically explained by Lenin in his momentous work,Imperialism, the Highest stage of Capitalism. He pointed out: Imperialismis capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance ofmonopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export ofcapital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division ofthe world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division


30/123


of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers hasbeen completed. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp 266-267)

This led to intense struggles, to colonial wars and later to the WorldWars I and II for division and redivision of the world among the colonialpowers. Lenin wrote: When the colonies of the European powers, forinstance, comprised only one-tenth of the territory of Africa (as was thecase in 1876), colonial policy was able to develop by methods other thanthose of monopoly by the free grabbing of territories, so to speak.

But when nine-tenths of Africa had been seized (by 1900), when thewhole world had been divided up, there was inevitably ushered in theera of monopoly possession of colonies and, consequently, of particularlyintense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world.(Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin, Collected Works,Volume 22, pp. 299-300)

Proceeding from the analysis of the transformation of capitalismfrom its free competition to monopoly stage, to imperialism, Lenindefined imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism. In this periodfinance capital, the bank capital of a few very big monopolist bankswent on merging with the capital of the monopolist associations of

industrialists. It proceeded to colonial policy of monopolist possessionof the territory of the world, which was completely divided up. Thenwithout forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions ingeneral, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon inits full development, he gave the following definition for imperialism(italics ours) : 1) the concentration of production and capital hasdeveloped to such a high stage that it has created monopolies whichplay a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital withindustrial capital and the creation, on the basis of his finance capital,of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished fromthe export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) theformation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share

the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the wholeworld among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialismis capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance ofmonopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the exportof capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the divisionof the world among the international trusts has begun; in which thedivision of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powershas been completed. (ibid)

Quoting from the studies of various contemporary scholars, Leninexplained that this colonization drive was quite multi-linear, complexand uneven. Many of these studies had given figures only for colonies,


31/123


where the hegemony of imperialism is complete. Proceeding from there,Lenin tried to present a complete picture of the division of the worldadding data not only on the countries that had become colonies, butalso on non-colonial and semi-colonial countries in which categoryhe included Persia, China and Turkey: the first of these countries isalready almost completely a colony, the second and third are becomingsuch. To give more clarity on what Lenin meant by semi-colonial, thetransitionalform, his analysis on this question is reproduced: Alongsidethe colonial possessions of the Great Powers, we have placed the smallcolonies of the small states, which are, so to speak, the next objects of apossible and probable redivision of colonies. These small states mostlyretain their colonies only because the big powers are torn by conflictinginterests, friction, etc., which prevent them from coming to an agreementon the division of the spoils. As to the semi-colonial states, theyprovide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found inall spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such adecisive, you might say force in all economic and in all internationalrelations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, toitself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shallshortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most

convenient, and derives the greatest profit from, a form of subjectionwhich involves the loss of the political independence of the subjectedcountries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial countriesprovide a typical example of the middle stage. It is natural that thestruggle for these semi-dependent countries should have becomeparticularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of theworld has already been divided up. (ibid, p 227)

Explaining how under colonization, the Asian, African and LatinAmerican countries, or all countries other than the imperialist countries,were brought under domination both economic and political control ofimperialism, Lenin divided these countries to colonies which were under

total economic, political and territorial control of any one of theimperialist countries, to semi-colonies, ie., countries in the transitionalstage, where many imperialist countries continued to dominateincluding territorial domination, and to dependent countries which wereformally independent but in fact enmeshed in the net of financial anddiplomatic dependence. To make this question more clear the followingparas from Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalismare reproducedbelow:

Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalistimperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreignpolicy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic


32/123


and political division of the world, give rise to a number oftransitionalforms of state dependence. Not only are the two maingroups of countries, those owning colonies, and the coloniesthemselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countrieswhich, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, areenmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, aretypical of this epoch, we have already referred to one form ofdependence the semi-colony. An example of another is providedby Argentina.

South America, and especially Argentina, writes Schulze-Gaevernitz in his work on British imperialism, is so dependentfinancially on London that it ought to be described as almost aBritish commercial colony. Basing himself on the reports of theAustro - Hungarian Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilderestimated the amount of British capital invested in Argentina at8750 million francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strongconnections British finance capital (and its faithful friend,diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie, withthe circles that control the whole of that countrys economic andpolitical life. (ibid)

Explaining the economic and political condition of China duringthe 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, Mao Tsetung has explained vividly howChina was a semi-colonial country which was in a transitional stage. Bythe 1920s China had become a semi-colonial country with a number ofimperialist countries exporting finance capital to it with vast areas ofits coastal region occupied by these imperialist powers territorially andthe country under the rule of comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie andfeudalists serving imperialism. In 1930s when Japanese imperialismattacked and occupied large areas of North China, Mao added that Chinahad become a colonial, semi-colonial country, further explaining thetransitional form of semi-colonial formations.

Thus, as far as the definitions of imperialism during the colonialphase are concerned, the categorization of colonial, semi-colonial anddependent countries during this phase, and the transitional conditionof semi-colonial countries are abundantly clear from the Marxist-Leninistanalyses of those decades.

3. CHALLENGES FACED BY THE COLONIAL SYSTEM

The challenges posed by the general crisis inherent in the capitalistsystem could not be resolved through the intensification of the plunderof human and natural resources of the countries under colonization


33/123


through ever larger measures of export of finance capital by theimperialist countries following the transformation of capitalism to itsmonopoly stage, imperialism. On the one hand, the second half of 19th

century witnessed numerous wars among the colonial powers fordivision and redivision of the world. It led not to the resolution of thisproblem, but to the World War I for redivision of the world. But itcreated more problems than it resolved. The 1930s witnessed theGreatDepression. To get out of it a section of the imperialist countries led byNazi Germany embraced fascism and launched yet another global warfor territorial conquest, for redivision of the world.

As Marx and Engels pointed out in Communist Manifestoand furtherexplained through their numerous works, the emergence of capitalismand its efforts to recreate the world on its own image did not gounchallenged. Capitalism had created its own grave-diggers, theworking class who went on waging numerous struggles to liberatethemselves and the world from the plunder and oppression of capitalistonslaughts. As imperialism emerged, these struggles against itsbarbarism further intensified, with the working class struggles to resolvethe ever-mounting contradiction between capital and labour joining withthe struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations in the colonized

countries, in the colonies, semi-colonies and dependent countries, fornational liberation and democratic revolution. Once the victoriousOctober Revolution gave birth to the first socialist country, Soviet Union,because of its goal to abolish all exploitation of humans by humans, itexpressed solidarity with the national liberation movements, and theCommunist Internationalrepresented both the streams of proletarianrevolution and national liberation. This question was well explainedby Stalin as follows:-

The October Revolution,

1. Has widened the scope of the national question and convertedit from the particular question of combating national oppression in

Europe into the general question of emancipating the oppressedpeoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism;

2. It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation andthe right paths towards it, has thereby greatly facilitated the causeof the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of the West and theEast, and has drawn them into the common current of the victoriousstruggles against imperialism;

3. It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West andthe enslaved East, having created a new front of revolutions againstworld imperialism, extending from the proletarians of the West,


34/123


through the Russian revolution, to the oppressed peoples of theEast. (The October Revolution, and the National Questions, Stalin,Works, Vol. 4, p.170)

This question was further explained by Mao Tsetung as follows:There are two kinds of World revolution, the first belonging to thebourgeois or capitalist category. The era of this kind of world