the marxist leninist, oct 2009

Issue No. 3 October 2009

Theoretical Journal of the CPI (ML)

2 The Marxist-Leninist

Contents1. Editorial 3

2. Atlantic Charter 6

3. Brettonwoods Agreement 7

4. On Dissolution Of The Communist International 10

5. Communist Information Bureau Resolutions (Nov. 1949) 13

6. Marx Against Keynes 24

7. Apologists Of Neo-Colonialism 37

8. India: Show-Case of US Neo-Colonialism 40

9. What Has Happened? 42

10. Intensifying the Revolutionary Struggle andonsolidating the World Proletarian SolidarityAgainst Global Imperialism 80

11. The Devastating Effects of Neo-Liberalism on theNeo-Colonially Dependent Countries 87

12. On Internationalism and Nationalism 105

13. On Mode of Production in India 117

14. How the Theory of “Protracted People’s War” hasHarmed Marxist-Leninist Movement 132

Editorial Board

KN Ramachandran

Sanjay Singhvi

Umakant Contribution : Rs. 25

The Marxist-Leninist

UmakantR-8, Pratap MarketJangpura-BNew Delhi - 110014

Printed and Published by Umakant, R-8, Pratap Market,Jangpura-B, New Delhi - 110014 and Printed at EverestOffset Press, B-162, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi

The Marxist-Leninist 3

EditorialAS LENIN explained so well “Without a revolutionary theorythere can be no revolutionary movement” and “There can be nostrong socialist party without a revolutionary theory”. The severesetback suffered by the international communist movement (ICM)from the brilliant height it had reached half a century backrepeatedly underlines the correctness of this Leninist teaching. Itis proved again and again that on the whole it is the theoreticalweakness leading to compromising political positions on the sideof the ICM, in spite of the Marxist-Leninist struggle against itcontinuing all through giving rise to instances of great leap forward,which had led to the weakening of the ICM. So the task of buildinga powerful, revolutionary Communist Party in India and thereorganisation of the Communist International calls for puttingthe importance of developing the Marxist-Leninist theoreticalunderstanding according to the concrete conditions of today inthe forefront. The All India Special Conference of the CPI(ML)from 7th November concentrate its efforts on this vital question.The contents of the third issue of the theoretical organ of the CCof CPI(ML) are selected from this perspective.

The Atlantic Charter of 1941 and Bretton woodsAgreements of 1944 laid the foundation for the launching of theneo-colonial counter-revolutionary offensive by the US-ledimperialist camp in the post-WW II situation to combat the growingstrength of the socialist camp and national liberation movements.The Atlantic Charter and a summary of Bretton WoodsAgreements are reproduced to show how cunningly,conspiratorially the imperialist camp was going ahead with its task.

At the same time the dissolution of Comintern in 1943and the Resolution of the Cominform in 1949 show that theICM could not recognise the gravity of the steps taken by theimperialist camp to regain their initiative and to consolidate theirstrength by replacing the colonial forms of plunder and hegemonywith the neo-colonial forms. Contrary to what Marx and Engelsdid by organising the First International and reorganising it soonafter its dissolution in to Second International taking in toconsideration the experience and lessons of Paris Commune,


and Lenin did after the collapse of the Second International byreorganising it soon as Third or Communist International, puttingforward the theoretical understanding about imperialism, bydeveloping the theory and practice of communist struggles in theera of imperialism and proletarian revolution and leading OctoberRevolution to victory, no initiative was taken to reorganise theCommunist International in spite of the maddening pace with whichthe US-led imperialist camp was uniting their forces and launchingcounter attacks against the revolutionary forces. Secondly, theCominform Resolution is permeated with the fear of war threatsfrom the imperialist camp. It overwhelmingly stressed on the peacemovement. It reflected a defensive approach while the prime needof that historical juncture was a revolutionary offensive at theinternational level to overthrow the imperialist system and itslackeys. The Cominform Resolution as a result did not reflect theconcrete analysis of then existing situation, and diluted the Marxist-Leninist approach needed in that situation. That is why the studyof these two is of great importance for a correct evaluation of theweaknesses in the ICM which helped the revisionists, the capitalistroaders to subvert the movement from within in later years.

The article “Marx Against Keynes” reproduced from Lalkar(published from Britain, website www.lalkar.org) analyses howKeynes stood against the Marxist teachings and greatlycontributed in the post Great Depression period to save the globalimperialist system. It will held to understand how opportunist isthe utterances of Amartya Sen and the CPI(M) brand ofeconomists and intellectuals.

The Quotations from the “Apologists of Neo-colonialism”and the article in People’s Daily of China in 1968 on transformationof India into a typical show-case of neo-colonialism revealshow the CPC under Mao’s leadership had correctly evaluated thetransformation of imperialist plunder and hegemonic efforts fromcolonialism to neo-colonialism. Though the CPC could not carryforward the tasks of developing this theoretical understanding todevelop Lenin’s teachings on imperialism according to prevailingglobal situation due to the intensification of the two-line strugglewith it, these contributions are of great importance to develop ourunderstanding about neo-colonialism.


The evaluation of “What Happened” in 1960s in Indonesiawhen the PKI (Communist Party of Indonesia) was decimatedunder a barbarous onslaught by Suharto’s military regimesupported by US imperialism is of great importance to the ICM.Together with it, the evaluation of Indonesia as a neo-colonialcountry by the PKI and the political-organisational tasks it hasnow taken up based on the understanding to reorganise the partywork are of great significance.

A chapter from Twilight of the Gods: GotterdammerungOver the “New World Order” by com. Stefan Engel, chairmanof the MLPD, gives an overview of the Devastating Effects ofNeo-Liberalism on the Neo-Colonially Dependent Countries, whichwill help to deepen the understanding on neo-colonialism.

The article on “Nationalism and Internationalism” by com.K.N. Ramachandran provides an evaluation of the post WW IIdevelopments, especially the weaknesses in the approach ofSoviet and Chinese leaderships to overcome nationalist limitationsof some of the positions taken by them in which atmosphere itbecame easy for the capitalist roaders to usurp the leadershipcausing severe setbacks to the ICM.

On “Mode of Production” published in the July-September1998 issue of Red Flag, the theoretical organ of erstwhile CPI(ML)Red Flag, provides an overview of the debate on this questionthat took place in the Economic and Political Weekly, on the basisof a neo-colonial understanding during 1960s and early 1970s.

The articles of com. Sanjay Singhiv are self-explanatory. Wehope this issue of The Marxist Leninist shall help to further sharpenthe debate on the question of neo-colonialism and to provide thebasis for developing the theoretical approaches of therevolutionary movement according to concrete conditions oftoday. ●

New Delhi With revolutionary greetings

26-09-2009 Editorial board


ATLANTIC CHARTER[Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and

Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941]

THE President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr.Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, beingmet together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in thenational policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopesfor a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord withthe freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of governmentunder which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and selfgovernment restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;Fourth, they will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations,to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished,of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of theworld which are needed for their economic prosperity;Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nationsin the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labourstandards, economic advancement and social security;Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to seeestablished a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwellingin safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurancethat all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fearand want;Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas andoceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic aswell as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force.Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continueto be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outsideof their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and perma-nent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential.They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which willlighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments. ●

Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston S. Churchill[http://en.wikipedia.org]


BRETTONWOODS AGREEMENTPURPOSES AND GOALS: The Bretton Woods Conference took place inJuly 1944, but did not become operative until 1959, when all the Europeancurrencies became convertible. Under this system, the IMF and the IBRD wereestablished. The IMF was developed as a permanent international body. Thesummary of agreements states, “The nations should consult and agree oninternational monetary changes which affect each other. They should outlawpractices which are agreed to be harmful to world prosperity, and they shouldassist each other to overcome short-term exchange difficulties.” The IBRDwas created to speed up post-war reconstruction, to aid political stability, andto foster peace. This was to be fulfilled through the establishment of programsfor reconstruction and development.

THE MAIN TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WERE: 1) Formation of theIMF and the IBRD (presently part of the World Bank). 2) Adjustably peggedforeign exchange market rate system: The exchange rates were fixed, with theprovision of changing them if necessary. 3) Currencies were required to beconvertible for trade related and other current account transactions. Thegovernments, however, had the power to regulate ostentatious capital flows. 4)As it was possible that exchange rates thus established might not be favourableto a country’s balance of payments position, the governments had the power torevise them by up to 10%. 5) All member countries were required to subscribeto the IMF’s capital.

ENCOURAGING OPEN MARKETS: The seminal idea behind the BrettonWoods Conference was the notion of open markets. In Henry Morgenthau’sfarewell remarks at the conference, he stated that the establishment of the IMFand the World Bank marked the end of economic nationalism. This meantcountries would maintain their national interest, but trade blocks and economicspheres of influence would no longer be their means. The second idea behindthe Bretton Woods Conference was joint management of the Western political-economic order. Meaning that the foremost industrial democratic nations mustlower barriers to trade and the movement of capital, in addition to theirresponsibility to govern the system.

THE BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS CONTROVERSY:In the last stages of the Second World War, in 1944 at the Bretton WoodsConference The Bank of International Settlements became the crux in a fightthat broke out, when the Norwegian delegation put forth evidence that the BISwas guilty in war crimes and put forth a move to dissolve the bank, which theAmericans, specifically President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and HenryMorgenthau supported, resulting in a fight between on one side several Europeannations, the American and the Norwegian delegation, led by Henry Morgenthau


and Harry Dexter White, and on the other side the British delegation, headedby John Maynard Keynes and Chase Bank representative Dean Atcheson whotried to veto the dissolution of the bank.

The problem was that the BIS, formed in 1930, and its main proponents ofits establishment, were the then Governor of The Bank of England, MontagueNorman and his colleague Hjalmar Schacht, later Adolf Hitlers finance minister.The Bank was originally intended to facilitate money transfers arising fromsettling an obligation arising from a peace treaty. After World War I, the needfor the bank was suggested in 1929 by the Young Committee, as a means oftransfer for German reparations payments - see Treaty of Versailles. The planwas agreed in August of that year at a conference at the Hague, and a charterfor the bank was drafted at the International Bankers Conference at BadenBaden in November. The charter was adopted at a second Hague Conferenceon January 20, 1930.The Original board of directors of the BIS included twoappointees of Hitler, Walter Funk and Emil Puhl, as well as Herman Schmitzthe director of IG Farben and Baron von Schroeder the owner of the J.H.SteinBank, the bank that held the deposits of the Gestapo.

As a result of allegations that the BIS had helped the Germans loot assetsfrom occupied countries during World War II, the United Nations Monetaryand Financial Conference recommended the “liquidation of the Bank forInternational Settlements at the earliest possible moment.” This task, whichwas originally proposed by Norway and supported by other European delegates,as well as the United States and Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White, wasnever undertaken.

In July 1944 Dean Atcheson interrupted Keynes in a meeting fearing thatthe BIS would be dissolved by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Keyneswent to Henry Morgenthau to prevent the dissolution of the BIS, or have itpostponed, but the next day the dissolution of the BIS was approved. The Britishdelegation did not give up and the dissolution of the bank was held up just longenough until after Roosevelt had died, in April of 1945 the British and Harry S.Truman stopped the dissolution of the BIS.

Monetary order in a post-war world: The need for postwar Westerneconomic order was resolved with the agreements made on monetary orderand open system of trade at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference which allowedfor the synthesis of Britain’s desire for full employment and economic stabilityand the United States’ desire for free trade.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION: The Conference alsoproposed the creation of an International Trade Organization (ITO) to establishrules and regulations for international trade. The ITO would have complementedthe other two Bretton Woods proposed international bodies: the IMF and theWorld Bank. The ITO charter was agreed on at the U.N. Conference on Trade


and Employment (held in Havana, Cuba, in March 1948), but was not ratifiedby the U.S. Senate. As a result, the ITO never came into existence.

However, in 1995, the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations establishedthe World Trade Organization (WTO) as the replacement body for GATT. TheGATT principles and agreements were adopted by the WTO, which was chargedwith administering and extending them.

John Maynard Keynes represented the UK at the conference, and HarryDexter White represented the US.

John Maynard Keynes proposed the ICU as a way to regulate the balanceof trade. His concern was that countries with a trade deficit would be unable toclimb out of it, paying ever more interest to service their ever greater debt, andtherefore stifling global growth. The ICU would effectively be a bank with itsown currency (the “bancor”), exchangeable with national currencies at a fixedrate. Nations would be the unit for accounting between nations, so their tradedeficits or surpluses could be measured by it. On top of that, each countrywould have an overdraft facility in its “bancor” account with the ICU. Keynesproposed having a maximum overdraft of half the average trade size over fiveyears. If a country went over that, it would be charged interest, obliging a countryto reduce its currency value and prevent capital exports. But countries withtrade surpluses would also be charged interest at 10% if their surplus was morethan half the size of their permitted overdraft, obliging them to increase theircurrency values and export more capital. If, at the year’s end, their creditexceeded the maximum (half the size of the overdraft in surpslus) the surpluswould be confiscated.

Lionel Robbins reported that “it would be difficult to exaggerate theelectrifying effect on thought throughout the whole relevant apparatus ofgovernment ... nothing so imaginative and so ambitious had ever beendiscussed”. However, Harry Dexter White, representing America which wasthe world’s biggest creditor said “We have been perfectly adamant on that point.We have taken the position of absolutely no.” Instead he proposed anInternational Stabilisation Fund (now the IMF), which would place the burdenof maintaining the balance of trade on the deficit nations, and imposing nolimit on the surplus that rich countries could accumulate. White also proposedcreation of the IBRD (now part of the World Bank) which would provide capitalfor economic reconstruction after the war.

White managed to ensure that the US had special veto powers over anymajor decision made by the IMF or the World Bank, meaning effectively thattheir “conditionalities” in the way of strict institutional reforms are neverimposed. Furthermore, the IMF insists that the foreign exchange reservesmaintained by other nations are held in the form of dollars, so no matter howmuch debt the US accumulates, its economy will not collapse. ●

[http://en.wikipedia.org]


ON DISSOLUTION OF THECOMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

[The statement set out hereunder was submitted to allCommunist Parties by the Executive Committee of

Communist International (ECCI) on May 15, 1943. Uponreceiving endorsement by these parties, the Communist

International was dissolved forthwith.]

THE HISTORICAL ROLE of the Communist International, organisedin 1919 as a result of the political collapse of the overwhelming majority of theold pre-war workers’ parties, consisted in that it preserved the teachings ofMarxism from vulgarisation and distortion by opportunist elements of the labourmovement. In a number of countries it helped to unite the vanguard of theadvanced workers into genuine workers’ parties, helped them to mobilise themass of the toilers in defence of their economic and political interests for thestruggle against fascism and the war which it been prepared for support of theSoviet Union as the main bulwark against fascism. The Communist Internationaltirelessly exposed the base undermining activity of the Hitlerites in foreignstates, who masked these activities with outcries about the alleged interferenceof the Communist International in the internal affairs of these states.

But long before the war it became increasingly clear that, to the extentthat the internal as well as the international situation of individual countriesbecame more complicated, the solution of the problems of the labour movementof each individual country through the medium of some international centrewould meet with insuperable obstacles.

The deep differences in the historical roads of development of each countryof the world, the diverse character and even the contradiction in their socialorders, the difference in the level and rate of their social and politicaldevelopment and finally the difference in the degree of consciousness andorganisation of the workers’ conditioned also the various problems which facethe working class of each individual country.

The entire course of events for the past quarter of a century, as well as theaccumulated experiences of the Communist International, have convincinglyproved that the organisational form for uniting the workers as chosen by theFirst Congress of the Communist International, which corresponded to the needsof the initial period of rebirth of the labour movement, more and more outliveditself in proportion to the growth of this movement and the increasing complexityof problems in each country, and that this form even became a hindrance to thefurther strengthening of the national workers’ parties.


The world war unleashed by the Hitlerites still further sharpened thedifferences in the conditions in the various countries, drawing a deep line ofdemarcation between the countries which became bearers of the Hitlerite tyrannyand the freedom-loving peoples united in the mighty anti-Hitler coalition.Whereas in the countries of the Hitlerite bloc the basic task of the workers,toilers and all honest people is to contribute in every conceivable way towardsthe defeat of this bloc by undermining the Hitlerite war machine from within,by helping to overthrow the Governments responsible for the war, in the countriesof the anti-Hitler coalition the sacred duty of the broadest masses of the people,and first and foremost of progressive workers, is to support in every way thewar efforts of the Governments of those countries for the sake of the speediestdestruction of the Hitlerite bloc and to secure friendly collaboration betweenthe nations on the basis of their equal rights. At the same time it must not beoverlooked that individual countries which adhere to the anti-Hitler coalitionalso have their specific tasks.

Thus, for instance, in countries occupied by the Hitlerites and which havelost their State independence, the basic task of the progressive workers andbroad masses of the people is to develop the armed struggle which is growinginto a war of national liberation against Hitlerite Germany.

At the same time the war of liberation of freedom-loving peoples againstthe Hitlerite coalition, irrespective of party or religion, has made it still moreevident that the national upsurge and mobilisation for the speediest victoryover the enemy can best and most fruitfully be realised by the vanguard of thelabour movement of each country within the framework of its state.

The Seventh Congress of the Communist International held in 1935, takinginto consideration the changes which had come to pass in the internationalsituation as well as in the labour movement, changes which demanded greaterflexibility and independence for its sections in solving the problems facingthem, already then emphasised the need for the E.C.C.I., when deciding uponall problems of the labour movement, “to proceed from the concrete situationand specific conditions obtaining in each particular country and as a rule avoiddirect intervention in internal organisational matters of the Communist Parties.”

The E.C.C.I. was guided by these same considerations when it took noteof and approved the decision of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. in November,1940, to leave the ranks of the Communist International.

Communists guided by the teachings of the founders of Marxism-Leninismnever advocated the preservation of organisational forms which have becomeobsolete; they always subordinated the organisational forms of the labourmovement and its methods of work to the basis political interests of the labourmovement as a whole, to the peculiarities of given historical conditions and tothose problems which arise directly from these conditions.


They remember the example of the great Marx who united the progressiveworkers into the ranks of the International Workingmen’s Association and afterthe First International fulfilled its historical task, having laid the basis for thedevelopment of workers’ parties in the countries of Europe and America, Marx,as a result of the growing need to create national workers’ mass parties, broughtabut the dissolution of the First International inasmuch as this form oforganisation no longer corresponded to this need.

Proceeding from the above-stated considerations, and taking into accountthe growth and political maturity of the Communist Parties and their leadingcadres in individual countries, and also in view of the fact that during the presentwar a number of sections have raised the question of dissolution of theCommunist International, the Presidium of the E.C.C.I., unable owing to theconditions of the world war to convene the Congress of the CommunistInternational, permits itself to submit for approval by sections of the CommunistInternational the following proposal:

To dissolve the Communist International as a guiding centre of theinternational labour movement, releasing sections of the CommunistInternational from the obligations ensuing from the constitution and decisionsof the Congresses of the Communist International.

The Presidium of the E.C.C.I. calls upon all adherents of the CommunistInternational to concentrate their forces on all-round support for, and activeparticipation in, the Liberation War of the peoples and States of the anti-Hitlercoalition in order to hasten the destruction of the mortal enemy of the workingpeople – fascism and its allies and vassals. ●

[Signed by members of the Presidium of the E.C.C.I.: Gottwald,Dimitrov, Zhdanov, Kolarov, Koplonig, Kuusinen, Manuilssky, Mary,Pieck, Thorez, Florin, Ercoli, and immediately endorsed by therepresentatives of the following Communist Parties, who were livingin exile in Moscow: Bianco (Italy), Dolores Ibarruri (Spain), Lehtinen(Finland), Pauker (Rumania), Rakosi (Hungary)]


COMMUNIST INFORMATIONBUREAU RESOLUTIONS

(NOVEMBER 1949)I. THE DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE STRUGGLE

AGAINST THE WARMONGERS

THE representatives of the Communist Party of Bulgaria, the RumanianWorkers’ Party, the Hungarian Working People’s Party, the Polish UnitedWorkers’ Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), theFrench Communist Party, the Italian Communist Party and the Communist Partyof Czechoslovakia, after discussing the question of the defence of peace andthe struggle against the warmongers, reached unanimous agreement on thefollowing conclusions:

The events of the last two years have fully confirmed the correctness ofthe analysis of the international situation made by the first conference of theInformation Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ Parties in September 1947.

During this period the two lines in world policy have been still more clearlyand more sharply revealed: the line of the democratic anti-imperialist campheaded by the U.S.S.R., the camp which conducts a persistent and consistentstruggle for peace among the peoples and for democracy; and the line of theimperialist antidemocratic camp headed by the ruling circles of the United States,the camp which has as its main aim the forcible establishment of Anglo-Americanworld domination, the enslavement of foreign countries and peoples, thedestruction of democracy and the unleashing of a new war.

FORCES OF PEACE GROW STRONGER

Moreover, the aggressiveness of the imperialist camp continues to increase.The ruling circles of the United States and Britain are openly conducting apolicy of aggression and preparation of a new war. In the struggle against thecamp of imperialism and war, the forces of peace, democracy and Socialismhave grown and become strong. The further growth of the might of the SovietUnion, the political and economic strengthening of the countries of the people’sdemocracy and their embarking upon the road of building Socialism, the historicvictory of the Chinese people’s Revolution over the united forces of internalreaction and American imperialism, the creation of the German DemocraticRepublic, the strengthening of the Communist Parties and the growth of thedemocratic movement in the capitalist countries, the great scope of themovement of the partisans of peace — all this signifies a great widening and


strengthening of the anti-imperialist and democratic camp.

At the same time the imperialist and anti-democratic camp is becomingweaker. The successes of the forces of democracy and Socialism, the maturingeconomic crisis, the further sharpening of the general crisis of the capitalistsystem, the sharpening of the internal and external contradictions of that system,testify to the increasing weakening of imperialism.

The change in the correlation of forces in the international arena in favourof the camp of peace and democracy provokes mad fury and rage among theimperialist warmongers. The Anglo-American imperialists count upon changingthe course of historical development by means of a war, to solve their internaland external contradictions and difficulties, to consolidate the position ofmonopoly capital, and to achieve world domination.

IMPERIALIST WAR PREPARATIONS

Feeling that time works against them, the imperialists in feverish haste areknocking together various blocs and alliances of reactionary forces for therealisation of their aggressive plans. The whole policy of the Anglo-Americanimperialist bloc serves the preparation of a new war. It finds its expression inthe frustration of a peace settlement with Germany and Japan, the completionof the dismemberment of Germany, the transformation of Germany’s Westernzones and of Japan, occupied by American troops, into hot-beds of fascism andrevanchism and into jumping-off grounds for the realisation of the aggressiveplans of that bloc.

The enslaving Marshall Plan, its direct extension into Western Union andthe North-Atlantic military bloc, directed against all peace-loving peoples, theunrestrained armaments race in the United States and in the West-Europeancountries, the inflated military budgets and the extension of the network ofAmerican military bases serve this policy. This policy also finds its expressionin the refusal of the Anglo-American bloc to prohibit atomic weapons despitethe collapse of the legend of American atomic monopoly, and in the fomentingof war hysteria by all possible means.

This policy determines the whole line of the Anglo-American bloc in theUnited Nations organisation, aimed at undermining U.N.O. and transforming itinto a tool of American monopolies.

The imperialists’ policy of unleashing a new war has also found expressionin the plot exposed at the Budapest trial of Rajk and Brankov, a plot which wasorganised by Anglo-American circles against the countries of People’sDemocracy and the Soviet Union, with the assistance of the nationalist fascistTito clique who have become a band of agents of international imperialistReaction. The policy of preparing a new war means, for the masses of thepeople of the capitalist countries, a continuous growth in the unbearable burdens


of taxation, an increase in the poverty of the working masses, side by side witha fabulous increase in the super-profits of the monopolies which are enrichingthemselves from the armaments race.

The maturing economic crisis is bringing still more poverty, unemployment,hunger and fear of the morrow to the working people of the capitalist countries.At the same time the policy of war preparations is linked with continuousencroachments by the ruling imperialist circles on the elementary and vitalrights and democratic liberties of the mass of the people. Intensified reaction inall spheres of social, political and ideological life, the use of fascist methods ofclub law against the progressive, and democratic forces of the people — theseare the measures by which the imperialist bourgeoisie are trying to prepare therear for a robber war.

Thus, like the fascist aggressors, the Anglo-American bloc is engaged inpreparing a new war in all spheres: military strategic measures, political pressureand blackmail, economic expansion and the enslavement of peoples, ideologicalstupefaction of the masses and the strengthening of reaction.

IMPERIALISTS OVERESTIMATE THEIR STRENGTH

The bosses of American imperialism are making their plans for unleashinga new world war and for the conquest of world domination without taking intoaccount the actual relation of forces between the camp of imperialism and thecamp of Socialism.

Their plans for world domination have even less foundation and are moreadventurist than the plans of the Hitlerite and Japanese imperialists. TheAmerican imperialists clearly overestimate their strength and underestimatethe growing strength and organisation of the anti-imperialist camp. The historicalsituation today differs radically from the situation in which the Second WorldWar was prepared, and in the present international conditions it is incomparablymore difficult for the warmongers to carry out their bloodthirsty plans. “Thehorrors of the recent war are too fresh in the minds of the people and the socialforces in favour of peace are too great for Churchill’s pupils in aggression to beable to overpower and deflect them towards a new war.” (Stalin.)

The peoples do not want war, and hate war. They are becoming more andmore conscious of the terrible abyss into which the imperialists are trying todraw them. The continuous struggle of the Soviet Union, the countries ofPeople’s Democracy and the international working class and the democraticmovement for peace, for the freedom and independence of nations and againstthe warmongers, is daily finding ever more powerful support from the broadestsections of the populations of all countries of the world.

Hence the development of the mighty movement of the supporters of peace.This movement includes in its ranks more than 600 million people and is


broadening and growing, embracing all countries of the world and drawinginto its ranks ever more fighters against the threat of war. The movement of thesupporters of peace is a vivid indication of the fact that the mass of the peopleare taking the cause of safeguarding peace into their own hands, aredemonstrating their unswerving will to defend peace and avert war.

WE MUST NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE WAR DANGER

However, it would be mistaken and harmful for the cause of peace tounderestimate the danger of the new war that is being prepared by the imperialistPowers, headed by the United States of America and Britain.

The tremendous growth of the forces of the camp of democracy andSocialism should not evoke in the ranks of the true fighters for peace any kindof complacency. It would be profoundly and unpardonably misleading toconsider that the threat of war has diminished.

The experience of history teaches that the more hopeless the cause ofimperialist reaction, the more it rages, the greater grows the danger of militaryadventures. Only the most tremendous vigilance on the part of the people, theirfirm determination to fight actively with all their might and with every possiblemeans for peace, will smash to atoms the criminal designs of the instigators ofa new war. In the conditions of an intensifying threat of a new war, a great andhistoric responsibility rests with the Communist and Workers’ Parties.

The struggle for a stable and lasting peace, for organising and rallying theforces standing for peace against those standing for war, must today occupy thecentral place in all the work of the Communist Parties and democraticorganisations. For the fulfilment of the great and noble task of saving mankindfrom the threat of a new war, the representatives of Communist and Workers’Parties regard the following as their most important tasks:

THE MOST URGENT TASKS

(1) It is necessary to work still more stubbornly for the organisationalconsolidation and extension of the movement of the supporters of peace, drawinginto that movement ever-new sections of the population and converting it intoa nation-wide movement.

Particular attention should be devoted to bringing into the movement ofthe supporters of peace the trade unions, women’s, youth, co-operative, sports,cultural and educational, religious and other organisations, as well as scientists,writers, journalists, workers in the field of culture, parliamentary leaders andother political and social leaders who are in favour of peace and are againstwar.

Today the tasks loom particularly imperatively of rallying all honestsupporters of peace, irrespective of religious faiths, political views and party


membership, on the broadest platform of the struggle for peace and against thethreat of the new war which hangs over mankind.

(2) For the further development of the movement of the supporters ofpeace, the more active participation of the working class in this movement andthe solidarity and unity of its ranks are of decisive importance. For this reasonit is a primary task of the Communist and Workers’ Parties to bring into theranks of the fighters for peace the broadest sections of the working class, tocreate a firm unity of the working class, to organise joint action of the varioussections of the proletariat on the basis of the common platform of the strugglefor peace and for the national independence of their country.

(3) Unity of the working class can only be won through determined struggleagainst the Right-Wing Socialist splitters and disorganisers of the working-class movement. The Right-Wing Socialists of the type of Bevin, Attlee, Blum,Guy Mollet, Spaak, Schumacher, Renner, Saragat, and the reactionary tradeunion leaders like Green, Carey, Deakin, conducting a splitting, anti-popularpolicy, are the bitterest enemies of the working class, the accomplices of thewarmongers and lackeys of imperialism, who conceal their betrayal in pseudo-Socialist, cosmopolitan phraseology.

The Communist and Workers’ Parties, continuously fighting for peace,must day by day expose the Right-Wing Socialist leaders as the bitterest enemiesof peace. It is essential to develop and consolidate to the utmost the co-operationand unity of action among the lower organisations and the rank-and-file membersof the Socialist parties, to support all truly honest elements in the ranks of theseparties, explaining to them the disastrous nature of the policy of the reactionaryRight-Wing leaders.

(4) The Communist and Workers’ Parties must oppose the misanthropicpropaganda of the aggressors who are striving to convert the countries of Europeand Asia into bloody battlefields, with the broadest propaganda for stable andlasting peace among the peoples. They must continuously expose the aggressiveblocs and military-political alliances — first and foremost, Western Union andthe North-Atlantic bloc. They must widely explain that a new war would bringthe peoples most profound disaster and colossal destruction, and that the struggleagainst war and in defence of peace is the task of all peoples of the world. It isnecessary to ensure that war propaganda, the preaching of racial hatred andenmity among peoples, which is being conducted by the agents of Anglo-American imperialism, meets with sharp condemnation on the part of the entiredemocratic public in every country. It is necessary to ensure that not one singleaction on the part of the propagandists of a new war remains without a rebufffrom the honest supporters of peace.

(5) To make wide use of the new, effective and tested forms of mass strugglefor peace, such as committees in defence of peace in towns and villages, the


drawing up of petitions and protests, ballots among the population, which havebeen widely practised in France and Italy, publication and distribution ofliterature exposing the war preparations, the collection of funds for the strugglefor peace, the organisation of boycotts of films, newspapers, books, periodicals,broadcasting companies and of the institutions and leaders propagating theidea of a new war. All these constitute a most important task of Communist andWorkers’ Parties.

(6) The Communist and Workers’ Parties in capitalist countries considerit their duty to join in a single whole the struggle for national independence andthe struggle for peace; continuously to expose the anti-national, treacherousnature of the policy of the bourgeois Governments which have become thedirect agents of aggressive American imperialism; to unite and consolidate allthe democratic and patriotic forces of the country round slogans calling forabolition of the ignominious subordination to the American monopolies, andfor a return to the path of an independent foreign and home policy correspondingto the national interests of the peoples.

It is necessary to rally the widest sections of the people in the capitalistcountries in defence of democratic rights and liberties, continuously explainingthat the defence of peace is indissolubly linked, with the defence of the vitalinterests of the working class and the working masses, with the defence of theireconomic and political rights, important tasks face the Communist Parties ofFrance, Italy, Britain, West Germany and other countries, whose peoples theAmerican imperialists want to use as cannon fodder in order to carry out theiraggressive plans. Their duty is to develop still further the struggle for peaceand for the smashing of the criminal designs of the Anglo-American warmongers.

(7) The Communist and Workers’ Parties of the countries of People’sDemocracy and the Soviet Union have, together with the task of exposing theimperialist warmongers and their accomplices, the task of further strengtheningthe camp of peace and Socialism, for the sake of defending peace and the securityof nations.

(8) The Anglo-American imperialists assign a considerable role in theexecution of their aggressive plans, particularly in Central and South-EastEurope, to the nationalist Tito clique, which is employed in the espionage serviceof the imperialists. The task of defending peace and struggling against thewarmongers demands the further exposure of this clique which has gone overto the camp of the bitter enemies of peace, democracy and Socialism — thecamp of imperialism and fascism.

For the first time in the history of mankind there has arisen an organisedpeace front, headed by the Soviet Union, the bulwark and standard-bearer ofpeace throughout the world. The courageous call of the Communist Parties,proclaiming that the peoples will never fight against the first land of Socialism


in the world, against the Soviet Union, is being spread ever more widely amongthe mass of the people in the capitalist countries. In the days of the war againstfascism, the Communist Parties were the vanguard of the nationwide resistanceto the invaders. In the post-war period the Communist and Workers’ Parties arethe front-rank fighters for the vital interests of their peoples, against a new war.

United together under the leadership of the working class, all the opponentsof a new war — working people and men and women of science and culture —are organising a mighty peace front capable of frustrating the criminal designsof the imperialists. The outcome of the developing gigantic struggle for peacedepends to a great extent on the energy and initiative of the Communist Parties.It rests primarily with the Communists, as vanguard fighters, to transform thepossibility of foiling the warmongers’ plans into an actual fact.

The forces of democracy, the forces of the supporters of peace considerablyexceed the forces of reaction. It is a question of still further increasing thevigilance of the peoples towards the warmongers, of organising and rallyingthe broad mass of the people for the active defence of peace, for the sake of thebasic interests of the peoples, for the sake of their life and liberty.

II. WORKING-CLASS UNITY AND THE TASKS OF THECOMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ PARTIES

The preparation of a new war which is being conducted by the Anglo-American imperialists, the campaign of bourgeois reaction against thedemocratic rights and economic interests of the working class and the massesof the people, demand a strengthening of the struggle of the working class tosafeguard and consolidate peace, to organise a decisive rebuff to the warmongersand to the onslaught of imperialist reaction. The guarantee of success in thisstruggle is unity in the ranks of the working class.

Post-war experience shows that the policy of splitting the working classmovement occupies one of the most important places in the arsenal of tacticalmeans and measures used by the imperialists for the unleashing of a new war,for the suppression of the forces of democracy and Socialism, and for sharplylowering the standard of living of the mass of the people.

Never before in the whole history of the international working-classmovement has working-class unity, both within individual countries and on aworld scale, been of such decisive importance as at the present time. Unity inthe ranks of the working class is necessary in order to defend peace, to thwartthe criminal designs of the warmongers and to foil the imperialists’ plot againstdemocracy and Socialism, to avert the establishment of fascist methods ofdomination, to offer a decisive rebuff to the campaign of monopoly capitalagainst the vital interests of the working class and to achieve an improvementin the economic position of the working masses.


These tasks can be achieved first and foremost on the basis of rallying thebroad masses of the working class, irrespective of party membership, tradeunion organisation and religious faith. Unity from below is the most effectiveway of rallying all workers for the sake of the defence of peace and the nationalindependence of their countries, for the sake of the defence of the economicinterests and democratic rights of the working people. Working-class unity isfully attainable, despite the opposition of the leading centres of all the tradeunions and parties, led by splitters and enemies of unity.

The post-war period has been marked by big successes in the eliminationof the split in the working class and in the rallying of the democratic forces ingeneral, an expression of which was the formation of the World Federation ofTrade Unions, the Women’s International Democratic Federation, and the WorldFederation of Democratic Youth, and the convening of the World Congress ofPartisans of Peace. The successes of unity are expressed in the strengthening ofthe General Confederation of Labour in France, the establishment of a unitedtrade union association in Italy — the Italian General Confederation of Labour— and in the militant activities of the French and Italian proletariat.

In the countries of People’s Democracy historic successes have been wonas regards unity of the working class. United parties of the working class havebeen set up, as well as united trade unions, and united co-operative, youth,women’s and other organisations. This working-class unity played a decisiverole in the successes achieved in the economic and cultural advance in thecountries of People’s Democracy, ensured for the working class the leadingrole in the State, and ensured radical improvements in the material conditionsof the working masses.

All this points to the tremendous urge of the working class towardsconsolidating its ranks, and points to the existence of real possibilities of creatinga united front of the working class against the united forces of reaction, fromthe American imperialists to the Right-Wing Socialists.

The American and British imperialists and their satellites in the countriesof Europe are striving to split and disorganise the forces of the proletariat andof the people in general, placing particular hopes in the Right-Wing Socialistsand reactionary trade union leaders. On direct instructions from the Americanand British imperialists, the Right-Wing Socialist leaders and reactionary tradeunion leaders are splitting the ranks of the working-class movement from thetop and trying to destroy the united organisations of the working class whichhave been set up in the post-war period. They have tried to smash the WorldFederation of Trade Union from within, have organised breakaway groupings— the Force Ouvrière in France, the so-called Federation of Labour in Italy —and they are preparing to set up a breakaway international trade union centre.

Splitting attempts of this kind have also been made by the leaders of the


Catholic organisations in certain countries. The appraisal of the treacherousactions of the Right-Wing Socialist leaders, as the bitterest enemies of working-class unity and the accomplices of imperialism, given by the first conference ofthe Information Bureau of Communist Parties, has been fully confirmed.

Today the Right-Wing Socialists act not only as agents of the bourgeoisiein their own countries, but as agents of American imperialism, converting theSocial-Democratic parties of the countries of Europe into American parties,direct tools of United States imperialist aggression.

In those countries where the Right-Wing Socialists are in the Government— Britain, France, Austria, and the Scandinavian countries — they act as theardent defenders of the Marshall Plan, Western Union and North Atlantic Treaty,and all similar forms of American expansion. These pseudo-Socialists carryout the foulest role in the persecution of working-class and democraticorganisations which defend the interests of the working people. Sliding fartherand farther down the path of betrayal of the interests of the working class,democracy and Socialism, and having completely disowned Marxist teaching,the Right-Wing Socialists are now acting as the defenders and propagandistsof the robber ideology of American imperialism.

Their theory of democratic Socialism, of the third force, their cosmopolitanravings about the need to renounce national sovereignty, are nothing butideological camouflage of the aggression of American and British imperialism.The wretched offspring of the Second International (which rotted alive) — theso-called Committee of International Socialist Conferences (C.O.M.I.S.C.O.)— has become the rallying ground of the vilest splitters and disorganisers ofthe working-class movement. This organisation has become an espionage centrein the employment of the British and American intelligence services.

Only in decisive battle against the Right-Wing Socialist splitters anddisorganisers of the working-class, movement can working-class unity be won.

II

The Information Bureau considers it the primary task of the CommunistParties to struggle continuously to unite and organise all the forces of the workingclass in order to offer powerful resistance to the insolent claims of Anglo-American imperialism, to frustrate their gamble on a new world war, to defendand consolidate the cause of peace and international security, to doom to failurethe offensive of monopoly capital against the standard of living of the workingmasses.

In the present international situation, it is the direct duty of the CommunistParties to explain that if the working class do not secure unity in their ranks,they will deprive themselves of the most important weapon in the struggle againstthe growing threat of a new world war and the offensive of imperialist reaction


on the standard of living of the working people.

While conducting an irreconcilable and consistent struggle in theory andpractice against the Right-Wing Socialists and reactionary trade union leadersand mercilessly exposing them and isolating them from the masses, theCommunists should patiently and persistently explain to the rank-and-file SocialDemocrat workers the full importance of working-class unity, should draw theminto the active struggle for peace, bread and democratic liberties, and shouldpursue a policy of joint action for the achievement of these aims.

The tried method of achieving unity for the working class is unity of actionon the part of its various sections. Agreed joint action in individual enterprises,in whole branches of industry, on a town, regional, national and internationalscale, mobilises the broadest masses for the struggle for the most immediateneeds which they best understand, and serves to establish permanent unity inthe proletarian ranks. The achievement of unified working-class action frombelow can be expressed in the formation in factories and institutions ofcommittees in defence of peace, in the organisation of mass demonstrationsagainst the warmongers, in joint action on the part of the workers for the purposeof defending democratic rights and improving their economic position.

In the struggle for working-class unity special attention should be given tothe masses of Catholic workers and working people and their organisation,bearing in mind that religious convictions are not an obstacle to working-classunity, particularly when this unity is needed to save peace. Concrete joint actionin the field of economic demands, co-ordination of the struggle of the class andCatholic trade unions, etc., can be effective means of bringing the Catholicworkers into the common front of struggle for peace.

A most important task of the Communist Parties in every capitalist countryis to do everything possible to secure unity of the trade union movement. Todayit is of tremendous importance to draw unorganised workers into the trade unionsand into active struggle. In the capitalist countries these workers comprise aconsiderable part of the proletariat. If the Communist Parties properly organisethe work among the unorganised workers, they will be able to achieve importantsuccesses in the task of securing working-class unity.

The Information Bureau considers that it is necessary, on the basis ofworking-class unity, to establish national unity of all democratic forces for thepurpose of mobilising the broad masses of the people for the struggle againstAnglo-American imperialism and reaction at home. Of extreme importance isthe day-to-day work in the various mass organisations of the working people:women’s, youth, peasant, co-operative and other organisations.

Unity of the working-class movement and the rallying of all democraticforces is necessary, not only for the solution of the day-to-day and current tasks


of the working class and the mass of the working people, but also for the solutionof the basic questions which confront the proletariat as a class which is leadingthe struggle for the elimination of the power of monopoly capital, for the Socialistre-construction of society. On the basis of the successes achieved in securingunity of the working-class movement and rallying all the democratic forces, itwill become possible to develop the struggle in capitalist countries for the settingup of governments which will rally all the patriotic forces opposed to theenslavement of their countries by American imperialism, will adopt the policyof stable peace among peoples, will stop the armaments race and will raise thestandard of living of the working masses.

In the countries of People’s Democracy, the Communist and Workers’Parties are confronted with the task of still further consolidating the working-class unity already achieved and the united trade union, cooperative, women’s,youth and other organisations already created.

* * *

The Information Bureau considers that the further success of the strugglefor working-class unity and the rallying of the democratic forces dependsprimarily on improvements in all the organisational and ideological work ofevery Communist and Workers’ Party. For the Communist and Workers’ Parties,the ideological exposure of, and the irreconcilable struggle against, allmanifestations of opportunism, sectarianism and bourgeois-nationalism, andthe struggle against the penetration of enemy agents into the party milieu, areof decisive importance.

The lessons which arise from the exposure of the Tito-Rankovic spy cliqueimperatively demand that the Communist and Workers’ Parties should increaserevolutionary vigilance to the utmost. The agents of the Tito clique are todayacting as the bitterest splitters in the ranks of the working class and democraticmovements and are carrying out the will of the American imperialists. A decisivestruggle is necessary, therefore, against the intrigues of these agents of theimperialists, wherever they try to work in workers’ and democratic organisations.

The organisational and ideological-political strengthening of theCommunist and Workers’ Parties on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism is a most important condition for the successful struggle of the workingclass for unity in their ranks, for the cause of peace, for the national independenceof their countries, for democracy and Socialism. ●


MARX AGAINST KEYNESALMOST without exception, the bourgeois media have been forced to comeround to the view that the current capitalist economic crisis is going to be atleast as serious as that which started in 1929. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,International Business Editor of the Daily Telegraph, contemplating the effectsof the economic downturn in Germany and Spain quotes Jacques Cailloux ofRBS as saying that “the pace of contraction in Europe is now disturbinglyclose to levels seen in the Great Depression ... Even the worst case scenariospeople talked about now look too optimistic”. But, he adds, “at least theauthorities have done enough to prevent the vicious downward spiral fromaccelerating. We haven’t seen the sort of run on bank deposits or massbankruptcies that occurred in the 1930s”.

The reason we have not done so (although there is still time!) is the massivegovernment interventions that have saved major banks from the ignominiouscollapse that overtook Lehmann Brothers. The repercussions of that collapseacted as a lifeline for other insolvent banks and brought national governmentsrushing to the rescue. As a result, “We are all Keynesians now”, to quote thewords of Richards Nixon uttered 3 decades ago when he was President, wordsthat are echoing everywhere in bourgeois circles today.

“The phrase rings truer today than at any time since, as governmentsseize on John Maynard Keynes’s idea that fiscal stimulus - public spendingand tax cuts - can help dig their economies out of recession.

“The sudden resurgence of Keynesian policy is a stunning reversal of theorthodoxy of the past several decades, which held that efforts to use fiscalpolicy to manage the economy and mitigate downturns were doomed to failure.Now only Germany remains publicly skeptical that fiscal stimulus will work ....

“The incoming administration of Barack Obama is preparing a two-yearfiscal stimulus package with a reported price tag of $675bn-$775bn, whichmany Washington-based analysts believe could swell to $850bn (£580bn,€600bn) or even $1,000bn - between 5 per cent and 7 per cent of nationalincome.

“Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, told reporters in late December thatif monetary policy was impaired - in large part because of problems within thefinancial system - ‘then governments have to use fiscal policy, and that hasbeen seen in every country of the world’.

“Launching France’s fiscal stimulus, President Nicolas Sarkozy said: ‘Ouranswer to this crisis is investment because it is the best way to support growthand save the jobs of today - and the only way to prepare for the jobs of


tomorrow.’ “ (Chris Giles, Ralph Atkins and Krishna Guha, ‘The undeniableshift to Keynes’, Financial Times 31 December 2009).

Even impeccable right wingers like Roger Bootle, Managing Director ofCapital Economics and economic adviser to Deloittes now proclaims:

“We now find ourselves in Keynesian conditions. So this is the time forKeynesian solutions. What are the implications? There is nothing anti-Keynesian about trying to get out of the current position through lower interestrates. For anyone who believes in markets and is wary about state action, thismust be the first resort. But don’t be surprised if this does not work.

“In that instance, don’t be shy about allowing huge increases ingovernment borrowing to stave off depression. Finance must not be confusedwith economics. Debt has to be serviced all right, and this has costs, but idlemen and machines are real costs which are never recoverable and hence areborne forever” (‘We now face Keynesian conditions and need truly Keynesiansolutions’, Daily Telegraph, 28 October 2008).

President Obama has jumped right on the Keynesian bandwagon:

“Obama has explicitly drawn on folk memories of FDR’s New Deal, tellingtelevision viewers to “keep in mind that in 1932, 1933 the unemployment ratewas 25%”.

“Obama is probably right to assume that those same memories have itthat the massive state interventionism of the New Deal triumphantly restoredAmerica to full employment. That’s why he felt comfortable in asserting, onthe eve of the launch of a $2 trillion (or so) injection of taxpayers’ money,‘There is no disagreement that we need . . . a recovery plan that will help tojump-start the economy’ “ (Dominic Lawson, ‘Obama’s new deal is the sameold blunder, Sunday Times, 15 February 2009).

Let us not forget our own Gordon Brown who has been hailed as the saviourof the western world through his advocacy of a worldwide coordinated returnto Keynes:

“In a panel discussion [at Davos] of less than an hour, Mr Brown didsomething that had seemed impossible only minutes before - he offered a wayout of the crisis. While the oracles and lemming-leaders were unimpressed byMr Brown’s message, the lemming-followers had adulation written on theirfaces as they filed out of the Congress Hall.

“How did he do it? First, Mr Brown explained that recessions were anatural feature of capitalism and that they rarely lasted for more than a yearor two. But surely this recession felt different? Yes, but mainly because this onewas “the first crisis of the global age”. As a result, global solutions wererequired. He added that a certain British economist had explained why such


recessions happened and how they could be overcome. His name was JohnMaynard Keynes, and the Prime Minister described poignantly how he hadseen a document in the Treasury archives in which the young Keynes’s proposalsfor saving Britain from the Great Depression were dismissed by the Chancellorin only three scribbled words: ‘inflation, extravagance, bankruptcy’. Finally,Mr Brown moved on to a three-stage response from governments around theworld. The first stage was to stabilise the financial system and prevent bankfailures. After Henry Paulson’s catastrophic blunder in bankrupting Lehman,this had been achieved. The second stage, now in progress, is to counteractthe collapse of private economic activity triggered by the near-failure of everybank in the world with huge doses of monetary and fiscal stimulus. The thirdstage will be to restore the growth of credit by forcing banks to increase theirlending” (Anatole Kaletsky, ‘Why I would back the Prime Minister for a NobelPrize, The Times, 2 February 2009).

WHAT EXACTLY IS KEYNESIANISM?

Roger Bootle (op.cit.) has usefully summed up Keynes’ major conclusionsin the following terms:

“I can reduce Keynes’ view to seven essential propositions.

“1. The [capitalist] economic system is naturally prone to periods ofdepression.

“2. When one occurs, the system is not necessarily self-correcting.

“3. Such depressions are not the result of individual choice. On thecontrary, individuals en masse can become trapped in a depression which is inno one’s interest but which, as individuals, no one can counter-act.

“4. This represents pure waste. Unemployed workers want to work, andbusinesses want to use their productive capacity. If they did, then the thingsthey produced would be available for all to buy, and the incomes they receivedwould enable them to purchase the products of others.

“5. For individuals it may be appropriate to react to difficult times bysaving more. Yet collectively this is a disaster. One man’s saving is anotherman’s reduced income. Extra borrowing by the Government, if it encouragesmore output, can be self-financing.

“6. The key is aggregate demand. In normal circumstances it is possibleto influence this by changes in interest rates. But there is a level below whichinterest rates cannot go and at that point conventional monetary policy ispowerless. Moreover, even if interest rates can be lowered this may have noeffect if people cannot or will not borrow.

“7. At this point, aggregate demand can only be boosted by the Government


borrowing more, either to spend directly or to give to others to spend via taxcuts or the like.”

To answer this question in more depth, however, and in order to understandKeynes’ underlying assumptions, we have drawn on a pamphlet by the erstwhileCPGB’s John Eaton, written in 1950 and entitled Marx against Keynes.

“The pre-Keynesians argued that every product that went to market createda purchasing power corresponding to its value, since production costs andother incomes generated in the processes of production and distribution (wages,cost of materials, rent, interest, salaries, profit, etc.) exactly equaled the totalvalue of the product sold. (This doctrine is generally known as ‘Says’s Law’...

“Keynes opposed the view that the capitalist system necessarily generatedenough purchasing power, or ... effective demand ... to keep all factors ofproduction employed.” (pp.30-31)

And further: “The Keynesian theory of employment runs as follows:

“Expenditure takes two forms – investment expenditure and consumptionexpenditure. The latter depends upon (i) incomes received, coupled with (ii)the extent to which these incomes are spent or saved; for example, if incomestotalling, say, £10 billion are paid out and of these 90% is spent on consumptionand 10% is saved, effective demand arising from consumption is £9 billion.

“But, says Keynes, the mere fact that people aim at saving 10% of theirincomes does not mean that this balance of ‘unspent’ or ‘saved’ incomes ... isforthwith and necessarily spent on investment goods.

“In fact, the decision to spend income on consumption is quite separateand distinct from the decision to increase expenditure on capital equipment,etc. This latter decision is taken by the capitalist ...; and it is taken in the lightof the prospects of making a profit.

“The essence of the Keynesian theory of employment is then this: thelevel of employment is determined by the total effective demand, which meanstotal purchasers of consumer goods plus investment expenditure. In so far asincome not spent on consumption fails to be matched by expenditure oninvestment goods, there is a falling off of total demand and therefore of outputand employment as a whole, which, of course, brings with it a reduction inincomes.” (pp. 33-34)

Also: “It follows from this line of reasoning that to maintain full or highemployment and output it is necessary to maintain investment expenditure atthe right level. If this is not done, economic activity falls, incomes paid out inthe form of profits and the wage bill dwindle. In short, effective demand in theform of consumption expenditure falls short of the level necessary to maintainfull employment and output.


“Full employment can, however, be maintained – says Keynes – if theState takes special steps to keep investment expenditure at the right level; this,he says, it may do by (a) controlling the rate of interest; (b) itself undertakinginvestment or public works expenditure; (c) exercising some general control –about which Keynes is nowhere very precise – over all forms of investment.”(page 38)

And “Keynes ... also advocates measures designed to increase the‘propensity to consume’. These measures include (i) increasing purchasingpower ... and (ii) taxation designed to redistribute incomes in favour of thelower income groups (who save less). However, the emphasis on the secondgroup of remedies is less marked.” (Page 39).

KEYNES’ FATAL FLAW

The fatal flaw in Keynes is that, having failed correctly to identify thecause of the crisis, his ‘solutions’ amount to nothing more than the blind treatmentof symptoms. His remedies do not avert crises – at best they ‘manage’ them insuch a way as to enable the bourgeoisie to maintain control over the indignantmasses whose livelihoods are being destroyed. Saving the banks, for instance,is not just a question of handouts to disgustingly rich bankers. It is also, andabove all, a question of ensuring that ordinary masses continue to receive theirwages from their employers’ bank accounts so long as they remain employed,and are in turn able to withdraw these wages from their own accounts whenthey wish to spend them. It is fair to say that if bank account holders in theirmillions suddenly found themselves cut off from the cash that funds theireveryday existence, riots would certainly ensue. It remains to be seen, however,whether the rescues will work in the long term.

Keynesianism is based on false premises, and cannot therefore lead toconsistently correct predictions. As Eaton says on page 29-30:

“Keynes does not abandon the basic bourgeois premises. He accepts thesubjective value theory of his bourgeois predecessors (the ‘marginal utilitytheory’) and rejects the labour theory of value of Adam Smith, Ricardo andMarx.

“The essential point of the subjective value theories is that they focusattention on buying and selling – the process of exchange and distribution –and fail to explain the relationship of men in the process of production. Whereasthe labour theory of value shows how, before goods enter exchange, value hasalready been embodied in them by the expenditure of productive labour [avalue expropriated by the capitalist], according to the subjective theories goodsacquire their value only in the process of exchange...

“The practical value of the bourgeois value theories and in particular


their application in the bourgeois wages theory, is, then, that they hide thenature of capitalist exploitation.”

What is this ‘marginal utility’ theory that Keynes adopts, and why does itmatter that he rejects the labour theory of value?

Keynes agrees with the laissez faire economists that “the wage is equal tothe marginal product of labour”. ... The theory ... seems to say that the workeris paid for what he produces. If this were so, then the argument that the workeris exploited would fall to the ground ...

“On closer examination, however, we find that the ‘product’ in theexpression ‘marginal product’ has not got the plain meaning of ‘produced bylabour’. The bourgeois economist argues that a number of ‘factors ofproduction’ contribute to the productive process, such as machinery, money atthe bank, stocks of materials, the enterprise and imagination of the board ofdirectors, the factory building, the land on which it stands, as well, of course,as the workers. ... The reward that each unit of each factor of productiongets, says the bourgeois economist, equals the marginal product, which is theadditional output that would result from adding one unit (the ‘marginal’ unit)of one factor of production...

“Some bourgeois economists have said in so many words that this marginalproductivity theory shows that the worker gets paid the due value of what heproduces. This is playing with words, for the activity of producing in theeconomic sense of the term is nothing but the activity of the human beingengaged in production, namely labour. If labour were really rewarded withthe full value of what it produces, nothing at all would go to the owners ofCapital and Land. ...” (p.44-45)

In other words, the ‘marginal utility’ theory, by refusing to accept thatvalue is exclusively produced by labour and that capitalist profit arises fromthe expropriation of a part of the product of that labour, completely obliteratesthe antagonistic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working class –between profit and wages.

This enables bourgeois economists to ignore the fact that the greater theprofits expropriated by the bourgeoisie, the lower the wages (and therefore thelower the consumption power) of the working-class masses.

THE RESULT OF THIS

“In the period of monopoly capitalism the contradiction betweenproductive capacity and the purchasing power of the masses becomes moreand more acute, for three basic reasons: (1) accumulation ... becomesprogressively greater; (2) wages and middle class incomes are squeezed byrising prices; (3) average technique and intensity of work (that is, output per


man) is high and tending to rise, so that the workers’ share in what they producein terms of goods tends to fall. Markets are insufficient.

“This leads to desperate struggles between the monopoly groupings whichattempt to establish monopoly domination on a world scale. Two world warshave resulted from their antagonisms” (p.100-101).

And naturally the bourgeois economists are unable to see that “The causeof crisis is the contradiction in capital itself, the contradiction, inherent in theworker-capitalist relationship, between social production and capitalistappropriation of the product.”(p. 104-5)

Because of this, “Keynes in effect argues that there is no necessaryconnection between production for profit and economic crisis. The Marxiststandpoint by contrast is that economic crisis is inseparably bound up with theprofit system.

“The basic cause of crisis is that the personal incomes received by themasses of the people are continually being reduced relatively to the expansionof production capacity which takes place in the course of every boom.” (p.87-88)

As a result of Keynes’ basic theoretical errors – entirely dictated by thebourgeois class interests he serves – Keynes has no real answers to capitalistcrisis.

Where Keynesian ‘remedies’ have been applied in the past as a cure forcrisis, invariably inflation has intervened, causing the decimation of thepurchasing power of wages, savings, pensions. The winners were the indebtedwho found their debt burdens lightened. Generally for the masses of people,however, living standards fall regardless of the application of Keynesianremedies. The fact is that:

“More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull theUnited States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. The sorryfacts bear this out. The unemployment rate in the US was still 19% in 1939 [asopposed to 25% in 1933]. Over the following four years the number ofunemployed workers declined dramatically, by more than 7m. This had a veryparticular reason: the number of men in military service rose by 8.6m.”(Dominic Lawson, op.cit.).

Nevertheless, Keynes is still flavour of the month with the bourgeoisieand its politicians who, like Obama, have all kinds of reasons for ignoringinconvenient lessons of the 1930s and for rewriting history, even if it is just anexample of the triumph of hope over experience.

The expansion of the boom years has under capitalism to be balanced bycontraction in the recession years. The only problem is that not a single


bourgeois can afford to carry on in business at a reduced scale, allowing lossesto eat away at his profits. Not a single capitalist can resist trying to maintainsome profitability, or at least reducing his losses, by dismissing as many of hisworkforce as possible. If the bourgeois state gives these people employment,not a single bourgeois is willing to pay taxes to finance the state to employthem, leaving the state with only the options of printing money (leading toinflation) or borrowing money (leaving it to future generations of taxpayers torepay the debt – at the expense of their ability to spend money on consumptionand investment alike and therefore delaying the possibility of economicrecovery).

Keynesian remedies theoretically could facilitate a more orderly recessionbut in practice contradictions between different sectors of the ruling class andbetween different imperialist and capitalist powers become so acute that theydevelop into antagonisms, principally because of the uneven impact of crisison different capitalists and imperialists.

“In a capitalist boom such as we have been going through, greatdisproportions develop between the department of industry devoted toproduction goods and that devoted to consumption goods and also betweenthe various industries in each of these departments.

“The production goods sector is very often developed far beyond the pointthat is necessary to supply all the varied sectors of industry with new equipment. This flows from the fact that the economy is not centrally planned and theextent to which the various sectors of industry have expanded depended on therate at which profits could be made, capitalist speculations, the availability ofsupplies to enable expansion to take place in various industries, and otherchance factors.

“These disproportions remain concealed as the boom develops. It is onlywhen the boom is collapsing that their extent is revealed.

“When these disproportions have been carried to extreme lengths in theproduction goods section, no amount of juggling with purchasing power – orany other central controls – will induce the capitalist class to place sufficientorders to employ those industries to full capacity.” (Eaton, p.129).

In these circumstances, the bourgeoisie finds it impossible to sing fromthe same hymn sheet. No company that is capable of surviving the crisis iswilling to have its profitability reduced by measures designed to save businesses(and their associated employees) that are less fortunate. In fact every bourgeoiswants there to be high spending capacity so he can sell his products, whilepaying his own workers as little as possible and reducing his workforce to thegreatest possible extent. Every bourgeois would like the state to increase itsspending – providing jobs and therefore enhancing workers’ consumption


powers, as well as distributing profitable contracts to bourgeois concerns – butnot if that means he has to provide the state with the finance to do so throughhigher taxes!

So while every bourgeois clutches eagerly at the increased consumptionthat Keynesian remedies promise to provide, they universally baulk at payingthe cost. As a result:

“Unfortunately, even among those enlightened enough to see the need fora powerful stimulus, there are internal disagreements between those whoemphasise the monetary and financial side and those who emphasise fiscalpolicy. And there are divisions within divisions. There are divisions betweenthose who emphasise interest rate cuts followed by so-called quantitative easingand those who call for a reconstruction of the banking system. Among thosewho favour a fiscal stimulus there are divisions between those who urge morepublic spending and those favouring tax cuts.” (Samuel Brittan, ‘Economicdominoes are still falling’, Financial Times, 14 February 2009).

This contradiction between what every bourgeois wants for himself andwhat he wants for others also explains the agonising of Joseph Stilgitz in ‘Giveus more bangs for our bailout bucks’, The Times, 27 January 2009:

“A strong stimulus is one that delivers a big bang for the buck – andquickly. Tax cuts work quickly but, in times like these, are relatively ineffective.With an overhang of debt and asset values declining, most of last February’sUS tax cuts were not spent. Yet, remarkably, some are arguing that a substantialfraction of the Obama stimulus should take the form of a tax cut. The firstfocus should be on preventing further spending cutbacks; with states andlocalities limited to spending what they receive in revenues, and with taxrevenues falling precipitously, making up for this shortfall is the natural placeto begin.

“Second, spending should have as positive a long-run impact as possible.To be sure, the spending will lead to a rise in indebtedness. But if it creates anasset, whether human capital, infrastructure or new technologies, then thenation’s balance sheet may even be improved. Tax cuts aimed at promotingconsumption simply increase liabilities, with no asset to match.

“Carefully designed business tax cuts, linked to higher investment, canprovide a big bang for the buck and raise productivity. Unfortunately, some ofbusiness tax cuts being discussed in the US are likely to have minimal effect oninvestment.

“It is remarkable how countries can be so penny-wise and pound-foolish.Politicians squabble for weeks over how or whether to spend a relatively smallamount. Yet, in almost a blink of the eye, a $700 billion blank cheque wasgiven to bail out banks. We need to put that in proportion: it is greater than all


of the foreign aid from rich to poor countries for seven years. It could put USsocial security on a sound footing for a century.

“The hundreds of billions given to the banks have not done what waspromised. Credit is not flowing. Part of the reason is that the bailout was notwell thought through. As we were pouring money into the banks, they werepouring money out...”

At the end of the day, the Keynesian ‘stimulus’ has to be paid for. The USstimulus being promoted by Obama “will be expensive, more expensive thanthe Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined and Nancy Pelosi, Senate majorityleader [sic], has called it a mere ‘down payment’” (Christopher Caldwell, ‘Isthe stimulus Obama’s Iraq, Financial Times, 31 January 2009).

The bourgeoisie does not want to pay for the stimulus. The alternativesare to borrow money and make the working class repay the loans through aprogramme of high taxation on low incomes – cutting future consumption – orprinting money (or “quantitative easing”, to use the current fashionableeuphemism). Indeed, to ‘allow’ a moderate amount of ‘controlled’ inflationseems to Tim Leunig (‘Coordinated inflation can bail us all out’, FinancialTimes, 16 February 2009) the ideal answer:

“It would help government finances by inflating away 10 per cent of totalgovernment debt. This lowers the interest burden for future taxpayers. Sincetaxes are levied primarily on income, this has both equity and efficiency benefits.It is (more) equitable as the cost of recession will be borne by wealth holdersas well as income generators, and it is (more) efficient in that it reduces theextent of incentive-reducing tax rises on income in the future.

“Companies will benefit in two ways. First, a portion of their debt willdisappear, with the benefit being the largest for those companies that havedebts with fixed interest, such as corporate bonds.

“Second, while real wages seem to be downwardly flexible, nominal wagesare less so. Higher inflation allows more companies and workers to agree toreal wage cuts than would otherwise be the case. This is both useful for thosefirms that are currently uncompetitive, and preferable for society, because wagecuts are more equitable than unemployment.

“A rise in inflation also means that declines in real house prices translateinto less negative equity, freeing up the housing market. This is beneficial forlabour mobility and helpful to the real economy because additional housesales spur economic activity.

“Banks would gain in three ways. Inflation reduces future bad debts bymaking debt servicing easier. It makes defaults less costly because real collateralis more likely to exceed nominal debt. Finally, it makes existing bad debts lessonerous on the balance sheet. This reduces the need for government


recapitalisations and “bad banks” and increases the ability of governments tosell recently acquired banks. This, in turn, reduces the debt burden on futuretaxpayers.

“An extra 2 points of inflation for five years is not a “get out of jail freecard”. Bank shareholders, rightly, will still lose greatly from their managers’decisions. Future taxpayers will, inevitably, still bear most of the cost of counter-cyclical government spending.

“It is not costless. Regrettably, prudent savers will see their assets reduced.That might be the price society has to pay to keep the banking system afloatwithout crippling future taxpayers.”

Tim Leunig’s proposals, however, would certainly draw howls of ragefrom companies that are managing to turn a profit despite the recession, whowill certainly not want to find that profit reduced or annihilated by inflation -not to speak of millions of those living on fixed incomes such as pensions.

Enhanced contradictions lead to war

The bourgeois economists of today, while no longer as triumphalist as atthe time of the collapse of the USSR and the eastern bloc of erstwhile socialistcountries, while no longer as foolish as to jubilantly pronounce the death ofMarxism as they then did, are still unable or unwilling to accept the truth that itis impossible to get rid of the crises of overproduction while capitalism lasts. Under this system of production, the expansive force of modern industry comesup against the resistance offered by the limited capacity of consumption, by thelimited capacity of the market to absorb the products of industry, owing to theimpoverishment of the masses. As the expansion of the markets cannot keeppace with the expansion of production, collision becomes inevitable and, failingthe overthrow of the capitalist system, these collisions become periodic. Thishas been the case since 1825, the year when the first general crisis of capitalismbroke out.

Neither Keynesianism nor monetarism, neither inflation nor deflation, offerany solution to the problem of the crises of overproduction under capitalism. They merely offer temporary palliatives, which, far from being the cure theyare presented as by the bourgeoisie and its intellects, only make the maladyworse by “paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, andby diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented” (Marx and Engels,The Communist Manifesto, p.38).

Neither Keynesianism nor monetarism is able, in the final analysis, to doaway with the continuing impoverishment of the masses under capitalism - animpoverishment which serves to undermine consumer spending and economicgrowth, thus inevitably bringing to a shuddering halt any recovery engineeredthrough a combination of monetary and fiscal tricks and precipitating yet another


crisis, for the “...last cause of real crises always remains the poverty andrestricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalistproduction to develop the productive forces as if only the absolute power ofconsumption of the entire society would be their limit” (K Marx, Capital, VolIII, p.484).

The crisis of capitalism is propelling various imperialist countries, on theone hand to wage wars for domination against the oppressed countries, as forinstance in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, and on the other hand it is servingto intensify inter-imperialist contradictions to a new pitch. In the end, thesecontradictions, which in the final analysis boil down to a struggle for theredivision of the world, cannot be resolved amicably and peacefully. The leadingpowers involved in this life-and-death struggle are bound, unless stopped by aseries of proletarian revolutions, to come to blows with each other.

Capitalism by its very nature is inextricably bound up with crises ofoverproduction and with war. Neither crises in industry nor wars in politicscan be eliminated without the overthrow of capitalism.

The productive forces of modern industry long ago outgrew the capitalistmode of using them. Only the proletariat, through the seizure of state power,the transformation of the socialised means of production into public property,the organisation of “socialised production upon a predetermined plan”, canfree the means of production from their character as capital, and thus rid societyof the tyranny of the periodically-recurring crises of overproduction andimperialist wars. “To accomplish this act of universal emancipation,” to quotethe never-to-be-forgotten words of Engels, “is the historical mission of themodern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions andthus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarianclass a full knowledge of the conditions and the meaning of the momentous actit is called upon to accomplish - this is the task of the theoretical expression ofthe proletarian movement, scientific socialism” (Anti-Dühring, p.395).

If any proof be needed of the above analysis of Marx and Engels, it isfurnished by a comparative study of the economies of the leading capitalistcountries, on the one hand, and that of the socialist USSR, on the other hand,during the Great Depression, which started in 1929 and lasted more than 10years - well into the Second World War. Between 1929 and 1933, the USeconomy shrank by a third. Only in 1937 did the physical volume of productionreach the levels of 1929 - only to slide again. In the 10 years between 1930-1940, only once (in 1937) did the average number of US jobless during theyear drop below 8 million. In 1933, a quarter of the labour force (13 million)in the US were out of work. The rest of the capitalist world too was in the gripof an unprecedented depression, suffering from similar levels of economiccontraction and rising unemployment.


In comparison with the doom and gloom, despair and despondencyengulfing the entire capitalist world, the USSR, the land of socialism, alonestood as a shining beacon of rising production, rising employment and workingclass power, beckoning the world proletariat, by its sheer existence, to overthrowcapitalism. As the capitalist crisis wreaked havoc on the economies of all themajor capitalist countries, year by year the USSR registered world-historicincreases in industrial production. From 1929 to 1933, Soviet industrialproduction more than doubled, while unemployment disappeared completely,never to return while the USSR lasted.

In the end, imperialism could find no way out of the crisis other thanthrough the horrors of the Second World War, which brought untold destructionand wiped out 55 million workers and peasants, including 27 million from theUSSR, which led, and made the greatest sacrifices in, the successful fight againstHitlerite fascism.

CONCLUSION

It can be seen that Keynes based his belief that crisis could be averted onfalse premises and failure, or more correctly unwillingness, to understand theantagonism between wages and profits, let alone the necessary implication ofthis, which is the relative impoverishment of the working masses and of theoppressed countries, which will erect a barrier that will sooner or later preventthe bourgeoisie from selling the products of their ever expanding industries. John Eaton’s book referred to above explains all this very well, although he inturn exhibits traces of erroneous understanding in that he seems to believe thatKeynesianism is incapable of increasing the share of the working class in thenational wealth - at least temporarily. From the end of the Second World Warto the mid-1970s, however, what is known as the ‘Keynesian consensus’ in factdelivered a higher proportion of national wealth to the working masses, in theform, for instance, of free education and health services and unemploymentand welfare benefits - however grudgingly conceded. It is the extraction ofsuperprofits by imperialism from the oppressed countries of the world that hasmade this largesse even possible - and it was the imperialist bourgeoisie’s fearof proletarian revolution as long as the living successes of Soviet Russia andother socialist countries were threatening to lead the working masses torevolution that motivated the bourgeoisie to distribute that largesse. Even todayin the midst of crisis, benefits still accrue to the working masses in imperialistcountries that are certainly not available to the exploited and oppressed massesof the third world. In the context of Eaton’s book, this is not a very importantpoint; but in the wider context of understanding the strength of opportunism inthe working-class movements of the imperialist countries and resisting its call,then the error is potentially fatal. Even at the time of writing, John Eaton wasunable to see the treacherous and reactionary role of the ‘left’ wing of the LabourParty, although he was still capable of seeing that the only way out of ☞


APOLOGISTS OFNEO-COLONIALISM

[Comment By The CPC On The Open Letter OfThe Central Committee Of The CPSU, October 22, 1963]

A GREAT revolutionary storm has spread through Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica since World War II. Independence has been proclaimed in more thanfifty Asian and African countries. China, Viet Nam, Korea and Cuba have takenthe road of socialism. The face of Asia, Africa and Latin America has undergonea tremendous change.

While revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies suffered serioussetbacks after World War I owing to suppression by the imperialists and theirlackeys, the situation after World War II is fundamentally different. Theimperialists are no longer able to extinguish the prairie fire of national liberation.Their old colonial system is fast disintegrating. Their rear has become a frontof raging anti-imperialist struggles. Imperialist rule has been overthrown insome colonial and dependent countries, and in others it has suffered heavyblows and is tottering. This inevitably weakens and shakes the rule of imperialismin the metropolitan countries.

recurrent crisis was to overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist plannedeconomy under the aegis of a working-class state – ideas that his party, theCPGB, were gradually to abandon.

With these reservations, however, we do not hesitate to recommend hispamphlet to the modern reader who will find there many arguments extremelyrelevant to the present situation, to explain the attempts by the bourgeoisie toput Keynesian remedies into effect and to arm the working class against beingdeceived into believing that these will safeguard their interests. Our job is toensure that Keynesianism is not used to draw the working masses into pursuitof a futile reformism and away from the road to proletarian revolution – theironly salvation. ●

NOTES

[1.] Notwithstanding its sceptical public stance, the German governmenttoo has poured in a lot of money to prop up and bail out its bankruptfinancial institutions.

[Reproduced from www.lalkar.org]


The victories of the people’s revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America,together with the rise of the socialist camp, sound a triumphant paean to ourday and age.

The storm of the people’s revolution in Asia, Africa and Latin Americarequires every political force in the world to take a stand. This mightyrevolutionary storm makes the imperialists and colonialists tremble and therevolutionary people of the world rejoice. The imperialists and colonialistssay, “Terrible, terrible!” The revolutionary people say, “Fine, fine!” Theimperialists and colonialists say, “It is rebellion, which is forbidden.” Therevolutionary people say, “It is revolution, which is the people’s right and aninexorable current of history.”

An important line of demarcation between the Marxist-Leninists and themodern revisionists is the attitude taken towards this extremely sharp issue ofcontemporary world politics. The Marxist-Leninists firmly side with theoppressed nations and actively support the national liberation movement. Themodern revisionists in fact side with the imperialists and colonialists andrepudiate and oppose the national liberation movement in every possible way.

In their words, the leaders of the CPSU dare not completely discard theslogans of support for the national liberation movement, and at times, for thesake of their own interests, they even take certain measures which create theappearance of support. But if we probe to the essence and consider their viewsand policies over a number of years, we see clearly that their attitude towardsthe liberation struggles of the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica is a passive or scornful or negative one, and that they serve as apologistsfor neo-colonialism. ..........

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 countries havenot completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavementand remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as arenas ofcontention between the old and new colonialists. In some, the old colonialistshave changed into neo-colonialists and retain their colonial rule through theirtrained agents. In others, the wolf has left by the front door, but the tiger hasentered through the back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new,more powerful and more dangerous U. S. colonialism. The peoples of Asia andAfrica are seriously menaced by the tentacles of neo-colonialism, representedby 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 ferocious imperialism,more powerful and ruthless than the Spanish colonial empire.”


It adds:

Since the end of the Second World War, . . . North American investmentsexceed 10 billion dollars. Latin America moreover supplies cheap raw materialsand 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 per year, $10billion each five years. For each thousand dollars which leaves us, one deadbody remains. $1,000 per death, that is the price of what is called 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 imperialists havebeen forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule in some areas and toadopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents theyhave selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslaveor control the colonial countries and countries which have already declaredtheir independence by organizing military blocs, setting up military bases,establishing “federations” or “communities”, and fostering puppet regimes. Bymeans of economic “aid” or other forms, they retain these countries as marketsfor their goods, sources of raw material and outlets for their export of capital,plunder the riches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover,they use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internalaffairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic andcultural aggression. When they are unable to continue their rule over thesecountries by “peaceful” means, they engineer military coups d’etat, carry outsubversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression.

The United States is most energetic and cunning in promoting neo-colonialism. With this weapon, the U.S. imperialists are trying hard to grab thecolonies and spheres of influence of other imperialists and to establish worlddomination.

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

[SOURCE: by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People’sDaily) and Hongqi (Red Flag), Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1963]


INDIA: SHOW-CASE OFUS NEO-COLONIALISM

THE People’s Daily in a commentary on May 8 exposed India as a show-case of U.S. neo-colonialism. The commentary says:

India, under the rule of the big landlord class and the big bourgeoisie, hasbeen lauded by the trumpeters of the imperialists as a “show-case of democracy”.As a matter of fact, it is nothing else but a typical show-case of U.S. neo-colonialism.

True, the United States has not put any governor-general in India, but theIndian Government which represents the interests of the big landlord class andthe big bourgeoisie fulfils the function of a governor’s office of a U.S. colony.In foreign affairs, the Indian Government is closely following U.S. imperialism.At home, by utilising its state power to issue all kinds of decrees andregulations, it has thrown the door wide open to U.S. imperialism’s controlover India’s politics, economy and military affairs. The reactionary Indian rulersare actually a bunch of agents hired and paid for by the U.S. neo-colonialists.

The weapons and equipments of the reactionary armed forces of India aresupplied by U.S. imperialism and its accomplice, the Soviet revisionist rulingclique. They are employed by U.S. imperialism and its accomplice to suppressthe Indian people’s revolutionary struggle and to launch military provocationsin Asia.

True, the United States has not formally set up an “East India Company”in India. Nevertheless, in the past twenty years, the United States’ control andexploitation of India has been on a scale comparable to that of the British,which has a history of colonialism in India of three hundred years. The massiveinfiltration of U.S. monopoly capital into India has enabled it to grab fabulousprofits while the thousands of so-called American “experts” and “advisers”who have wormed their way into the economic, political, military and culturalspheres have stepped up their control and enslavement of the country. India’snatural resources have been sucked out by the United States in large quantities.India has become a market for the flooding of American goods. Through thedumping of “surplus” farm produce alone, the United States controls one halfof India’s currency as well as its finance and banking. The United States hasalso been steadily deepening the agricultural crisis in India and aggravating itsstarvation for years on end. Each year millions of working people die ofstarvations in India. Isn’t this a fact of the bloody and ruthless U.S. imperialistexploitation of the Indian people?


Our great teacher chairman Mao has pointed out: “The biggest imperialismin the world today is U.S. imperialism. It has its lackeys in many countries.Those backed by imperialism are precisely discarded by the broad masses ofthe people”.

U.S. imperialism has carried out its neo-colonialist policy of enslavingIndia precisely by means of fostering its agents in India. This neo-colonialisttactics of U.S. imperialism is more sinister and ferocious than that of the oldcolonialists!

The Soviet revisionist renegade clique is blabbering enthusiastically aboutthis show-case of U.S. neo-colonialism. And, on top of that, it is trying itsutmost to rule this “show-case” jointly with U.S. imperialism. The Sovietrevisionist ruling clique is now only second to the United States in the degreeof control over India through its “aid”. It has become the biggest supplier ofmilitary “aid” and the second biggest creditor to India, and it ranks third intrading with the country. The Soviet revisionist renegade clique, also, ispracticing neo-colonialism in India in collusion with U.S. imperialism.

However, U.S. imperialism and its accomplices of every description cannever fool the awakening broad masses of the Indian people, no matter howhard they try to hoax them and no matter how painstakingly they try to embellishthemselves. The Indian people will certainly rise to smash this show-case ofU.S. neo-colonialism, break up the cannibal feast of imperialism and Indianreaction, and build a bright new India. ●

[From June 1968 issue of Liberation]


Document of Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI)

What Has Happened?[Important questions of our Party Life]

INTRODUCTION

THE September 30 Movement (henceforth: G-30-S), with all its accompanyingsufferings and bitterness, is not an isolated phenomenon. It was an inevitableresult of preceding events, the zenith of a series of preceding happenings.

As communists we have to study, to understand and to evaluate the tragedywe went through. We have to study it from all angles in order to learn as muchas possible from it.

In studying and evaluating we cannot avoid criticism and self-criticism asto the mistakes which we have made in the past, because without studying thatevent from all possible angles we cannot draw correct and objective conclusions.Besides, we, as Communists, have to stick to the principle that criticism andself-criticism are necessary in order to avoid the same mistakes in the futureand to take the correct road towards a correct aim.

To cover up mistakes is not the method of work of Communists andCommunist parties. Lenin said:

“.... The attitude of a party towards its own mistakes is one of the mostimportant and surest ways to evaluate how serious that party is and how inpractice it fulfils its obligations towards all workers. Frankly admitting mistakes,establishing its causes, analyzing the conditions which have brought about thesemistakes, that is the basic feature of a serious party. That is the course to betaken to educate and to instruct the class and then the masses .....” (CollectedWorks, XXV, 200)

Lately we often hear that under the present white terror it would not beproper to level criticism sand self-criticism of our mistakes since that wouldhelp the enemy and stab us in the back.

Such an opinion is of course wrong. Exactly because we have to face sucha savage enemy, we must know and eradicate our mistakes and weaknesses inorder to emerge with new force and energy and to avoid taking the wrong courseagain. For the very reason that we desire to live, to grow and to be strong, wehave to pull out all the diseases and poison which are within us. Said comradeStalin:

“..... There are people who think that to expose one’s own mistakes and tomake self-criticism is dangerous for the party since that could be used by the


enemy against the party of the proletariat. Such a view was regarded by Leninas narrow-minded and completely erroneous.....” (Works, VI, 89-90).

As a matter of fact, already since 1904 , when the party in Russia was stillvery weak, Lenin put forward this question of criticism and self-criticism assomething which had immediately to be carried out (Works, VI, 161). Such amethod of criticism and self-criticism is one of the basic features of a Leninistparty.

I

WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE SEPTEMBER 30 MOVEMENT?

A Few Words On The Development of Revisionism In Indonesia

1. THE SEPTEMBER 30 MOVEMENT IS NOT A REVOLUTION BUT“LEFT” ADVENTURISM

The actions of the September 30 Movement (G-30-S) were clearly not arevolution, the more a revolution led by a Marxist-Leninist party.

The basic problem of every revolution is the seizure of state power, carriedout by force of arms, based on the consciousness, conviction and strength ofthe people’s mass in particular of the workers and peasants, under the sole andall-embracing leadership of the Communist party, with a clear, correct and cleanprogram, banners and slogan.

The G-30-S was evidently not a revolution, also because the most importantand basic feature of a revolution was absent.

What is this most important and basic feature of a revolution?

The most important and basic feature of every revolution is the transfer(seizure) of power from one class to another class. (Lenin: letters on Tactics).

The movement, launched by the G-30-S had better be called “left”adventurism. Right from the start it copied the bourgeoisie with their “councilof generals”. It was Trotskyist, basing itself on intrigues and terror and leavingits execution to (apart of) the patriotic army, which ought to be not more than asecondary reserve. As Lenin pointed out: “..... to be successful, a revolution(uprising) must not base itself on intrigues and on a party, but on the advancedclass. This is the first point. A revolution (uprising) has to base itself on thezenith of revolutionary insurrections by the people. This is the second point. Arevolution has to base itself on the turning point in the history of a revolution indevelopment, when the activities of the people’s ranks reach their climax andwhen hesitation in the enemy’s ranks and in the ranks of the weak, half-heartedand wavering friends of the revolution (meant is here the small bourgeoisie) isat its summit. This is the third point” (Collected Works, XXVI, 23)


The experience of all revolutions led by the proletariat, have proved howcorrect those words of Lenin are an how inseparable are those three points,which have to be taken as a single whole. The G-30-S not only did not fulfilthese Leninist conditions at all, it was even the reverse.

First: It was not based on strength and the interests of the people’s masses,on the advanced class, but on intrigues and terror.

Second: It was not based on the zenith of the revolutionary insurrectionsby the people who considered it the right time to take up arms until the lastdrop of blood (Stalin: Foundations of Leninism), because in the last 14 yearsthe people have indeed not been prepared and educated for the seizure of powerby arms.

Third: a) It was not carried out at the moment when the enemy was at thesummit of its weakness and hesitation, but exactly when they were strong andconsolidated, economically (by intensive exploitation via the nationalenterprises) as well as militarily.

b) The hesitation of the national bourgeoisie was not at the summit. Aslong as the national bourgeoisie is not yet sufficiently exposed before the masses,it can be regarded by the masses as a leader, and thus can divert the attention ofthe masses from its only leader, the Party. (When the G-30-S broke out, theallies of the revolution could be said to have the same prestige in the eyes ofthe masses, because of the propaganda for Nasakom (Nationalism, Religionand Communism) and the demands of a nasakomization in all fields which putall parties on a par).

As a matter of course, right from the start it could be foretold that thisadventure would meet with failure.

Never in her 45 years’ history had the PKI suffered such enormous lossesas now, as a result of the G-30-S. Marxism-Leninism is the iron law of thedevelopment of society and of the international struggle of the proletariat. Adeviation from Marxism-Leninism means also a deviation from the iron lawitself and will surely result in damage and suffering in an amount, correspondingto the amount of the deviation.

2. STRATEGICAL AND TACTICAL MISTAKES

a) Marxist-Leninist strategy, the science of leading the revolutionarystruggle of the proletariat, has long ago been abandoned by the Partyleadership.

This reached its culmination in the G-30-S. As was the case with the partiesof the Second International, the Party leadership too, during the last 15 years,has never had an integral whole of strategy and tactics, but loose ideas, notconnected with each other.


The greatest deviation of the Party leadership did not lie in the use ofparliamentary struggle, but (though covered will all means and arguments) ingiving an exaggerated meaning, attention and energy to parliamentary struggleand peaceful means and in actually considering it the only from of struggle.

It is not astonishing that after the forced outbreak of the G-30-S, i.e. whenextra-parliamentary forms of struggle emerged, the Party leadership lost itshead and was not able to lead the struggle in a correct way.

b) Tactics have to be subordinated to strategy

The essence of legal, parliamentary and reformist work

The strategy for certain period of the revolution does not change, but tactics,being a part of strategy, have to be changed many times, in accordance with thetide of the revolution.

Tactics deal with the forms of struggle and the forms of organization ofthe proletarian struggle in combinations. That means that in a situation whenthe Party experiences white terror, tactics too must automatically be immediatelyadjusted to it; it has to abandon its former tactics which were proper for theperiod of the peaceful road. This change of tactics must be such that during theperiod of white terror it has not only the task of safeguarding the Party and thepeoples’ masses from wholesale destruction; it must also guarantee thecontinuation of the struggle of the Party and of the people’s masses, immediatelyand in a correct way.

This must naturally be prepared long before and this can only be donewhen the Party in every situation, the more in a peaceful situation, intensifies itrevolutionary work.

Legal, parliamentary and reformist work in relatively peaceful periodshas to be used to weaken the bourgeois government, to strengthen and toconsolidate the preparations for the revolution. Legal, parliamentary andreformist work must only be used as an instrument to combine legal and illegalwork, to intensify illegal work in preparing the masses in a revolutionary way,by actions, for the armed struggle which is sure to come (Stalin: Foundationsof Leninism).

When the revolution has broken out or when white terror rages the Partycan then correctly and immediately adjust itself to the situation, continue thestruggle properly and immediately, and safeguard the Party and the people’smasses from wholesale destruction.

c) The mistake in using reserves

Marxism-Leninism teaches that there are two reserves of the revolution,i.e. direct and indirect reserves.


Direct reserves are:

1. The peasant of the middle strata (not the village proletariat orpoor peasants) and other middle strata.

2. The proletariat of neighbour countries.

3. Revolutionary movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries.

4. The victories and the results of proletarian dictatorship.

Indirect reserves are:

1 The contradictions and conflicts between the non-proletarianclasses.

2 The contradictions, conflicts and wars (e.g. imperialist wars canbe used by the proletariat in its offensive or in manoeuvring whenforced to retreat.

Indirect reserves must have our attention, also because those indirectreserves can sometimes play a big role in the progress of the revolution. But itmust be remembered and always be taken into account that in using those indirectreserves we must by no means involve ourselves in their controversies andcontradictions, under whatsoever argument. We have to use those reserves todirect them in order to weaken the enemy and to strengthen our own position.

In this connection the task of the Party as the strategic leader is to useproperly all those reserves in order to achieve the principal aim of the revolutionin a certain period of that revolution.

We know that before and during the G-30-S (up till now) the Partyleadership has wrongly involved itself in the contradictions of non-proletarianclasses and then entrusted itself to the bourgeoisie and her to leader.

What are the other mistakes in using those reserves?

As a further explanation of above we herewith put forward the Marxist-Leninist conditions for the proper use of reserves. These conditions have beencompletely abandoned by the Party leadership.

The necessary conditions, which have been abandoned, are:

a. Concentration of the basic revolutionary forces in places where the enemyis weakest.

• That concentration has to be carried out at a decisive moment, i.e. whenthe revolution is ripe. It must also be done when offensive is at itsfiercest, bringing the uprising right to the door and when bringing reservesto the vanguard (Party) at this moment is a decisive factor for the victoryof the revolution.


In discussing and analysing the theses of Marx and Engels on Uprising,Lenin drew the following conclusions on the conditions of strategic use ofthose revolutionary forces:

• Don’t play with uprising, but once we start be aware that we have tobring it to the end.

• Concentrate a great amount of forces at the decisive point; otherwise theenemy, who is superior in preparations and in organisation, will certainlycrush the uprising.

• Once an uprising has started, we have to act with determination and wemust anyhow be always in the offensive. Defensive means death for everyuprising and armed struggle.

• We have to attack the enemy by surprise and to choose the momentwhen the enemy’s forces are divided.

• During the uprising we must have daily successes; in the towns we mustscore successes every hour. In any uprising we have to raise continuouslythe morale, courage, determination and optimism of the masses on theuprising and on its victory.

b) In choosing the right moment for a decisive blow, besides the above-mentioned (1) conditions, Lenin added (Collected Works, Vol. XXV, page 229):

• All forces of the enemy classes are sufficiently twisted, confused, havesufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle beyond their forces.

• All wavering and unstable elements, small bourgeoisie and nationalbourgeoisie, have sufficiently besmirched themselves before the massesbecause of their wavering attitude, their trickery and their own bankruptcy.

• In circles of the proletariat emerges and quickly grows the mass feelingto support the most determined, most daring and revolutionary actions.

To choose the right moment, without undue haste (abandoning the masses),and on the other hand not tailing behind the masses, but at the right moment,that is an absolute condition. To ignore this absolute condition means losingtempo and will certainly result in destruction of the uprising, as we have seenin the case of the G-30-S.

C) When a decision has been taken, we have to follow unceasingly thecourse taken, irrespective of the difficulties and complications to be met. TheParty must not only always pursue the course taken, but has also to establish aclean, correct and continuous course for the masses. The masses must alwaysbe led to the correct road, have to be gathered around their vanguard and not beled astray. To determine and to pursue a zigzag course, as has been done by theParty leadership during the G-30-S, will result in a zigzag of everything; the


masses are left without leadership and without aim. This mistake is called: lossof direction (loss of course).

d) In calling up the reserves, the Party has always to take full account of aretreat in good order when the enemy is strong, when the battle, forced upon bythe enemy, is clearly detrimental. The Party has to take proper account of anorderly retreat for preparing the reserves (under the Party leadership) to strikeback at the right time.

“….. A revolutionary Party must be able to convince – and the revolutionaryclass has via bitter experience learned how to convince that victory cannot beachieved when it does not know how to attack and how to retreat in good order…..” (Lenin, Collected Work, XXV, 177). The strategic objective is to wintime, deceive the enemy and to regroup its forces for counter-attacks. The Partyleadership has before, during and after the G-30-S forgotten and thrown awaythese fundamental Marxist-Leninist teachings on strategy and tactics. Theinevitable results have thus been: destruction and sufferings, new additions tothe arsenal of our struggle.

3. “LEFT” OPPORTUNISM, A TWIN BROTHER OF REVISIONISM

The leftist acts which gave birth to the September 30 tragedy basicallyreflects the subjective character and desires of the impatient small bourgeoisie.It is a twin brother of revisionism which was rampant before, and which for along time has been pursued by our Party leadership.

The revisionism pursued by the Party leadership, is essentially based onthe illusion that state power can be achieved by peaceful means and not byarmed force.

On this base were developed and put into practice new “theories” onrevolution, the state and the class struggle. These “theories” not only have nosources in Marxism-Leninism, but even denied its fundamental principles.

4. HOW HAS REVISIONISM IN INDONESIA DEVELOPED?On the eve of the general election, the Party leadership stated concretely

that “General elections are the road to a People’s Democratic Government”.This theory is fully in accordance with the theory of the opportunist leaders ofthe Second International, Karl Kautsky and Bernstein. (Lenin: The Collapse ofthe Second International). Although this slogan in the election manifesto hassecretly been withdrawn, there were at the same time other factors whichprevented those revisionist theories to be openly and fundamentally correctedand its sources to be examined. Those “theories” were even “enriched” withnew “theories”, i.e. the “revolution from above and from below”, “two aspectsin state power”, “the stomach is moving to the right – politics to the left”, etc.,etc.


WHAT WERE THOSE FACTORS?

The first factor: The concept of President Sukarno of February 21, 1957

On February 21, 1957, President Sukarno announced his concept on a“Mutual Aid Cabinet” in which Communists would take part. The Partyleadership spontaneously agreed to it and mobilised all funds and forces toachieve this aim. In this connection, together with the new “victories” in thegeneral elections for the regional parliaments and the appointment of Partyrepresentatives as members of the BPH’s (regional executive bodies), as Bupati’s(regional district heads), as Mayors, etc., the Party leadership definitely, on alarge and embracing scale (by putting the most important cadres on these posts)carried out the “revolution from above” — in essence: intrigue — to gain statepower by peaceful means, in conformity with President Sukarno’s concept.

Mass actions were henceforth organised, mobilised and developed to servethis “revolution from above”, within the framework of the existing laws, and tocreate “democratic laws”. The Party developed and revived the legalism ofTan Ling Djie, who considered that everything could and had to be solved bymeans of formal-juridical laws. The difference was that now, the forum of theConstituent Assembly (later: MPRS = Temporary People’s Congress),Parliament, Regional Parliaments, National Planning Board, etc. etc., it wasrevived on a much larger scale.

With the argument “class interests are subordinated to national interests”,class struggle and class analysis became increasingly blurred, were removedand replaced by the “Nasakom” idea of President Sukarno. In its furtherdevelopment it was this Nasakom idea that essentially directed all activities ofthe unity front etc. It is self-evident that we then surrendered the leadership tothe bourgeoisie and the landlords. (It is of interest that the research of Com.Aidit himself in Java has shown that the majority of landlords in Java belongmainly to the nationalist and religious groups). All this went so far as to culminatein our acceptance of the Manipol (Political Manifesto), which actually pulleddown the pillars of Marxism, i.e. the leadership of the proletariat in therevolution, the class struggle and state power.

In the VIII CC Plenum, 1959, Com. Aidit frankly declared that theleadership of guided democracy had to be in the hands of President Sukarno.This was later developed to its zenith in connection with the demands of aNasakom cabinet.

Class struggle in Indonesia was thus consciously abolished. All kinds ofarguments on this question have been put forward, of which the essence ishowever the same: to achieve power by peaceful means.

The second factor: The tactics of influencing, using and restricting,employed by the rightists and the middle-roaders.


We all know that rightist and middle-road forces (who have drawn lessonsfrom history and from negative experiences, especially from Communist partiesaboard) employ the tactics of influencing, using and restricting our Party. Thisis in fact no new thing if we want to learn from history.

At the end of the last century, after the bourgeoisie in their attempts todestroy the Communist movement switched over from armed force to “flexible”tactics, i.e. influencing, using and restricting them, the damage suffered by theCommunist movement in Europe became much bigger than before, i.e. whenthe bourgeoisie used force.

Those tactics gave birth to rightist opportunism on a large scale whichundermined Communist parties. They were also the main reasons of the moreand more receding revolutionary crisis, thus intensifying exploitation by capitalof the proletariat.

Throughout its history, the bourgeoisie has always used complicated tacticsto destroy its enemies. The essence of those tactics is to bestow positions,facilities and high-sounding promises to Communist leaders and members,without giving them real state power.

What happened in Indonesia was:

On the one hand: the Party succeeded in entering the cabinet, succeededin obtaining “extraordinary” results and facilities by occupying several functionsin government institutes, and other like facilities. The results of parliamentarystruggle, achieved by the Party during the last few years exceeded the results ofparliamentary struggle, achieved by any other fraternal Party outside the Socialistbloc. This raised the prestige and the standing of the Party within a short spanof time.

On the other hand: the bourgeoisie actually succeeded in:a. Using the PKI (Communist Party of Indonesia) as a bumper against

the people

b. Using the PKI to get the support of the people

c. Undermining the PKI from within.

In this way they achieved that the road of the armed revolution wasabandoned and replaced by the fertile growth of revisionism. This fertile growthwas prepared by the creation of a layer of cultured party leaders, with highpositions and high income, isolated from the sufferings of the working masses.This layer lived in pleasure upon the accumulated profits, drawn from theexploitation by national capital. (Collected Works, Vol. XIX, page 77)

The G-30-S has shown us how all those “results” of the Party were actuallymeaningless and only a bait of the bourgeoisie who purposely trapped us. We


fell into this trap because we were very eager to swallow the bait.

The G-30-S and its “epilogue” has proved clearly how rotten our bodywas from within, and how (a big part of) its leadership was “bourgeoisie incommunist clothes”, unable to lead the people and control the situation.

Third factor: The removal of the six conditions for a Leninist type of party

With revisionism rampant in the Party leadership, the six factors for aLeninist type of party were gradually removed by the Party leadership. TheParty sunk to the level of other non-communist parties, with the result that thebody of the Party rotted away from within. (On the six conditions for a Leniniststype of party, see the chapter “On the Party”).

Under the slogan “Party cadres and Party masses” the doors of the Partywere widely opened for the acceptance of new members. In this way the Partywas invaded and joined on a large scale by non and anti-proletarian elements ata time when revisionism reigned supreme in circles of the Party leadership.This accelerated the fall of the Party in the mud of revisionism.

The fourth factor: The failure of the Marxist-Leninist groups

The development of revisionism in Indonesia can of course not be separatedfrom the failure of Marxist-Leninist elements and groups in the Party to upholdMarxism-Leninism and to purge the Party from revisionist elements andideology.

The principal causes of this failure were:

a. These M-L elements and groups did not master sufficiently Marxist-Leninist theory so that they had a wrong interpretation of democratic centralism,of discipline and of “the minority following the majority”.

As we will explain in the chapter on the Party, in the revisionist partyevery member has to struggle against the revisionist line and revisionist teachingsand has to refuse carrying them out.

“To submit to discipline” without more, to help implement those ideas,means to spread them among the masses, to develop them in practice, whichmeans that, together with tens of millions of people, they draw themselvescloser to wholesale destruction. This fallacy caused the M-L elements and groupsin the Party to submit themselves without more to the decisions, line andinstructions of the Party leadership. This not only meant that they participatedin carrying out and developing the revisionist line, but also that, when the Partyleadership considered them “too dangerous”, they were removed from allinternal positions in the Party by means of “throwing them above” (membersof parliament, national Planning Board, enterprise’s councils, etc.), sendingthem abroad (in embassies, representations of the Party and of mass organisationsabroad, etc.) and by actually removing them in the literary sense of the word.


b. Those elements and groups were not well organised because of falsenotions (“afraid to be accused of making factions”), which caused them tostruggle sporadically and/or individually. Such a struggle was of course notefficient and was easily disarmed by the leadership.

c. Being of petty-bourgeois origin, these ML elements and groups inheritedmany negative features like soon giving up, voluntarily yielding their rights(resigning), “averse to kick up a row”, etc. etc. Not a few among them, as aresult of “being thrown above” were enjoying their new jobs and forgot theirhigh aspirations for the victory of Marxism-Leninism and the revolution.

d. As a result of all these, M-L elements and groups had of course noorgan (magazine, papers, etc.) as a means of co-ordination of these elementsand groups and to spread Marxism-Leninism and to mobilise the masses ingeneral. Those M-L groups and elements thus failed in their struggle whichfurther accelerated the rate of development of revisionism in Indonesia.

The fifth factor: Influence of the revisionism of Khrushchev

This influence was from the very outset received with open arms by theParty leadership, until the end of 1962 (The report of com. Aidit to the CCPlenum at the end of 1962 still mentioned the CPSU as the leader and centre ofthe World Communist Movement). Since that time we were on “bad terms”with the CPSU, but this was restricted to the question of:

a. peaceful co-existence between capitalism and socialism

b. the state of the whole people in the countries where CommunistParty had already achieved victory

c. the building of a Communist society at the present time

d. peaceful co-existence between colonial countries and oppressorcountries

e. the question of disarmament.

In short: question of external policy.

Internally we agreed completely with Khrushchev on peaceful transfer ofpower.

5. THE SPECIFIC FEATURE OF REVISIONISM IN INDONESIA

It strikes us that the modern revisionists in Indonesia have a specificoutward appearance. We still remember that formerly the Party leadershippretended to be “anti-remo” (anti-modern revisionism), “anti-Khrushchev”,“genuine Marxist-Leninist”, “siding with the RRT (People’s Republic of China)”,“firmly waging an anti-imperialist struggle”, etc. etc., despite slogans and masksthey remained revisionists.


Because of the level of fundamental theoretical knowledge of Marxism-Leninism of the masses of Party members, which was purposely lowered bythe Party leadership (and replaced by remo theories), they could deceive themasses of Party members and cadres by its pseudo-revolutionary outwardappearance and slogans. The Party leadership thus succeeded in getting almostunreserved support from the masses of Party members.

Those specific features were caused by the general conditions in Indonesiawhich were rather different from conditions in other countries which also gavebirth to modern revisionist theories.

a. After the armed struggle against the Dutch had ended, the Indonesianworking class via its Party took part in peaceful parliamentary struggle; afterthe return of the RI (Republic Indonesia) to the 1945 Constitution it even tookpart in the government cabinet. The national bourgeoisie, however, who, becauseof this legal struggle succeeded in using, influencing and restricting theIndonesian proletariat and its Party, was by virtue of the semi-colonial andsemi-feudal character of Indonesian society, anti-feudal and anti-imperialistwithin certain limits.

b. Small bourgeois elements and peasants formed the majority of Partymembers; among them were even lumpen proletariat (those who use impropermeans for their livelihood).

These particular conditions caused that on the one hand the Indonesianremos (modern revisionists) continued to “firmly” wage an anti-imperialiststruggle whereas on the other hand they were characterised by a double facedattitude, exaggerations (like: “Marxism” as subject in all state universities,nasakomization of all governmental and social institutions, etc.), superficialityand vulgarism.

It is thus impossible to know the real nature of he Indonesian “remos”only by looking at their outward appearance and their slogans: they could makeMarxist-Leninist sounding speeches (actually just loose parts of Marxism-Leninism), they seemed hard-working, cordinal and friendly toward cadres andmembers, etc., etc., but what they feared most was an examination of theirwork and their working programme on the basis of criticism and self-criticism,in a genuine Marxist-Leninist way.

6. FROM RIGHT TO “LEFT” AND BACK TO RIGHT AGAIN

It goes without saying that such a Party, which was entirely contradictoryto the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, would not be able to accomplish itshistorical mission.

It was more and more felt that all its results were void. This caused theParty leadership on the one hand to drift increasingly closer to the bourgeoisiewhereas on the other hand they tried to protect themselves towards the demands


and revolutionary instincts of the people’s masses, the Party cadres and members,by fierce and ardent speeches, slogans and phraseology.

In particular on financial and economic questions the Party leadershiptried hard to create “concepts” which would “aid” the people, but which evenmore exposed their incapacity. They forgot that this state is a bourgeois state,where crises are inevitable and incurable. They forgot that one of the mainfeatures of revisionism is exactly the attempt to help the bourgeois state out ofthe crisis, thus rejecting the thesis that crises in capitalism are inevitable (Lenin:Against Revisionism, 117).

The question then arose: What to do?

As they saw that the revolutionary instinct of the masses became more andmore oriented to the correct road, they started delivering speeches on the“necessity to prepare for the possibility of armed struggle, to build revolutionarybases”, etc.

But all that needed of course a correct understanding of Marxism-Leninism,needed preparations which would take long time, full energy, correct strategyand tactics. The weaknesses in the Party and revolutionary mass organisationswhich became known to com. Aidit after his research on the rural areas in Java,and after twice have made investigations on the spot, was not at all accordingto the small bourgeois wishes of the Party leadership which was imbued withimpatience to gain quick victory.

The deteriorating health of President Sukarno and the coup in Algeria byBoumedienne on the one hand alarmed the Party leadership and caused themfear that the rightist “council of generals”, in charge of the armed forces (army),would take the road of Boumedienne. On the other hand it inspired the Partyleadership to hastily agree with the G-30-S and to support their actions, a “left”adventurist act which they regarded as the easiest and quickest way to accomplishthe revolution.

Revisionist thought thus turned the wheel to the “left” denying Lenin’sfundamental thesis which runs as follows:

“….. To confirm the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean,irrespective of victims, at any time, plunging into attacks as a typhoon in anuprising. This is madness. For an uprising to succeed are needed long, skilledand exact preparations which demand many sacrifices ……” (Lenin: Notes ofthe publicist).

And after that “left” adventurism failed dismally, they lost their head andimmediately ran into the valley of rightist opportunism, i.e. liquidationism,surrendering to the attacks of reaction under the pretext of “guarding the legalityof the Party” and guarding the “National Unity Front with Nasakom-axis”.


They put the fate of the party in the hands of another person (President Sukarno),begging him to “interfere and defend justice and law”.

While white terror was raging, com. Aidit issued an instruction to “upholdthe legality of the Party”, and to “carry out the line of active defence”.

Lenin said that in such a situation, in a situation where the Party hasimmediately to move underground, the ultra-rightists always urge to upholdthe legality of the Party, at any cost.

Such a situation is called: crisis of organisation and crisis of politics (Lenin:Selected Works, Vo. 1, page 616).

That so-called “line of active defence” did not recommend us “to defendourselves in order to strike back” (Mao Tse-tung’s words). The Party leadershipmeant “defence only” or “total defence”.

It is this line which Mao Tse-tung called the line of “blockheads” and“fools” (Selected Military Writings, 103).

And so it was.

The G-30-S was launched.

As a variant on Marx’s words in “the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”,the Party leadership “began tragically and ended as a clown”. It is theresponsibility of all of us to take up the banner of the Proletariat which hasbeen thrown away by the Party leadership in its flight, and to wave it proudlyfrom the ranks of the Indonesian proletariat and People in a determined strugglewhich will end in victory.

The earth of our fatherland had once again been suffused with the bloodof her sons and daughters. We are determined to see to it that their sufferings,their sincerity, their Communist courage, will not be in vain.

Has not Lenin said: “Do not bow your heads, Comrade. We will certainlywin, just because we are right….”.

IITHE STATE

In order to know how far the Party leadership has gone in abandoning thefundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, we will look first of all at the deviationsin their theories about the state as well as their attitude towards the state.

The attitude and concept of a Communist Party concerning the state is oneof the main indications of whether that party is Marxist-Leninist or not.

1. The theory on the pro-people’s aspect and the anti-people’s aspect instate power.


As is known, the Party leadership held a “theory” that in the teachings ofMarx and Lenin themselves, we will first explain some terms within theframework of that “theory”.

The words “pro-people” and “anti-people” reflect two groups which arein antagonistic contradiction with each other. With “pro-people” is naturallymeant also the workers’ class and the peasant, who are considered to berepresented by the Communists in the cabinet. In “anti-people” is of courseincluded the bourgeoisie, the imperialists (or their compradors) and thelandlords.

Everyone knows that the bourgeoisie, imperialists their compradors exploitthe workers, and that an irreconcilable class struggle is waged between them.In the same way the landlords are the class which exploits the peasantry; alsobetween them is waged an irreconcilable class struggle.

The conclusion can thus be drawn that the theory on two aspects inunderstood as the existence of two some antagonistically contradictory classesin state power, but who are held together by state power.

What did Lenin say on this matter?

In his “State and Revolution” Lenin said:

“…. The state is the result and manifestation of irreconcilable classcontradictions. The state emerges …. when objectively the class struggle cannotbe reconciled. And the existence of the state automatically proves that the classstruggle is irreconcilable …..” In that book Lenin also quoted Marx’s wordsthat the state is an instrument of power of one class towards the other. It is thusimpossible that two such antagonistically contradictory classes exist in onestate power. A state of slave owners is an instrument for oppressing the slavesby the slave owners; the feudal state is the instrument of the landlords to suppressthe peasants; the bourgeois state is the instrument of the bourgeoisie to suppressthe proletariat; the People’s Democratic state/Socialist state is an instrument ofProletariat to suppress the bourgeoisie/landlords and all other exploiter classes.

“The state”, wrote Lenin in above-mentioned book, “is a state of the classwhich is strongest and dominant in economy, and which by means of the statebecomes also the class which dominates in politics and thus has a new instrument(the state) to strengthen its position and the exploitation and oppression of theother class”.

It is clear that the Party leadership has distorted the most fundamentalthesis of Marxism-Leninism on the state. Their “theory” is actually a sermonfor class peace and class collaboration, embraced in the state power.

2. What were the consequences of this distorted theory?

It goes without saying that not only theory was distorted; it has also


consequences in political deeds.

What were those political deeds which had their source in that distortedtheory?

First: the attitude to the question of how to seize state power

We know that in this connection the Party leadership has drawn theconclusion that within the framework of the state at that time (when Communiststook part in it) the principal task of the Party (according to com. Aidit) was notto overthrow state power but to increasingly enlarge its pro-people’s aspectand to reduce its anti-people’s aspect, and at last to oust completely the anti-people’s aspect.

This attitude is in complete contradiction with Marxism-Leninism. Why?Because they thought that with the ousting of the anti-people’s aspect from thecabinet would be created a power qualitatively different from the former one,since a cabinet which entirely consists of a pro-people’s aspect is a cabinet/state of the People’s Democracy.

A new variant of the standpoint of the opportunists of the SecondInternational and of Khrushchev, i.e. that the transition in a peaceful way.

Lenin however wrote: “We have said and we will explain further, that theteachings of Marx and Engels on the inevitability of the revolution by forcepoints to the bourgeois state ….” (State and Revolution).

At times the Party leadership defended themselves that they did not mean“not to make revolution” because “completely ousting the anti-people’s aspect”would mean “revolution”.

This is of course nonsense because Marx, Engels and Lenin meant by“revolution” a revolution with armed force to seize the entire state power (wherecommunists do not take part in it) by destroying the entire old state machine.To discuss state power (and state machine) as two separated parts (this aspectand that aspect) is an old trick of the opportunists. When the state has to beseized and the entire old state machine to be destroyed what would then be the“destiny” of the “pro-peoples’ aspect” in the old state power? Has it to bedestroyed too? That would be a pity.

Lenin taught us: “…. If the problem is to confirm the revolution, everyonehas already confirmed it. It has since long been confirmed by Mr. Struve andthe Ozvobozhdentsi, and is now confirmed by Mr. Witte and also by NicolaiRomanov (the Czar) ….. All that is illusion, except the power …..” (The situationreaches its decisive moments, in ‘Proletarii’, No. 25, 1905).

Used Aidit not to say: “The similarity between Marxism and Bung Karno’steachings is the fact that both teach revolution …..” Formerly the Czar, nowBung Karno.


Second: What are actually the attempts to “enlarge the pro-people’s aspect”and to “oust the anti-people’s aspect”?

The main point of the implementation of that theory was the “peaceful”road and the total neglection of the preparations for an armed revolution. Theroot of all teachings of Marx and Engels however, is, as Lenin said in his “Stateand Revolution”, to uncalculate the concept of the inevitability of the revolutionby force.

This “peaceful” road was centred in “cultivating President Sukarno” insuch a way that factually we surrendered ourselves and our masses to him. OurAgitpop (agitation and propaganda) was for the greater part devoted to thoseactions, conducted by the masses which we organised.

What had to be done by the Agitprop in this connection?

In “State and Revolution”, Lenin also said that it is treason (as was thecase with Kautsky) when we do not exclusively in a systematic and continuousway, propagandise to the masses the necessity to seize power by force.

Third: What are Communist ministers in fact?

As a logical consequence of the above-mentioned theory, the Partyleadership continuously tried to increase the number of Communist ministersin the cabinet. But, as we know, the Party never succeeded in getting a realposition in government, which proves that Lenin was right when he prohibitedCommunists (at that time called “socialists”) to sit in a cabinet, controlled bythe bourgeoisie. “…. That is why we see in all kinds of coalition cabinets inwhich socialists have seat, that they (the socialists), though there are amongthem really sincere people, in fact proved to be useless ornaments or curtainsof the bourgeois government, the lighting rod of that government, an instrumentto deceive the masses. So it was in the past and so it will be in the future as longas the bourgeois system exists and as long as the bourgeois bureaucraticapparatus remains in good order….” (Lenin: On the dictatorship of theProletariat, 21).

That is why we saw that our Party via agitation and propaganda as well asvia the position of its representatives in cabinet and in other governmentalapparatus could not possibly educate the masses towards armed struggle becausethey themselves were a part of that state. Their position was an instrument ofthe bourgeoisie to deceive the masses, to be lighting rod for the fury of themasses towards the state which exploited and oppressed them.

The party leadership thus made itself an instrument of the oppressors tooppress and exploit the masses via the state.

As Lenin said: “….. Opportunism is our main enemy…. Practice has shownus that those who were active in the workers’ movement and were carried away


by the stream of opportunism, became better defenders of the bourgeoisie thanthe bourgeoisie itself. Without accomplices originating from the working classitself (who became opportunists), the bourgeoisie would not be able to maintainits rule.... (The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Proletarian Revolution,page 74).

Fourth: “Making this state mouth-watering for the people”, a revisionistconcept

Within the framework of “democratizing” the government, within theframework of “helping to relieve the economic burden of the people”, the Partyleadership, via the state, has fought for all sorts of “democratic” and patriotic”laws and regulations, fought for the realisation of “guided economy”, etc. Onthis matter the Party leadership not only forgot the fundamental Marxist-Leninistthesis on the inevitability of crises in the capitalist system and the inevitabilityof exploitation of the people by their oppressors via the state, but also thatlaws, constitution, etc. are completely useless if they are not in conformity withreality and if they are separated from its class character/ the state…. (Lenin:Collected Works, XV, 308). Besides, making these state laws mouth-wateringfor the proletariat and the people in general (the laws on agrarian reform, oncrop division, on land reform courts, etc.) and to base mass actions upon them,is essentially the same as to spread illusions on this state which has to be seizedby force and to be destroyed. (Lenin: The First Congress of the Comintern, in“Lenin on the Workers’ class movement and the International CommunistMovement, 225).

In particular on the redistribution of land and the abolishment of monopolyon agrarian produce, Lenin said: “…. Attempts to bring about changes like theabolishment of land tenure rights without compensation, the abolishment ofthe monopoly on flour (think of the Law on Agrarian Reform and on CropDivision in Indonesia), is the greatest illusion, the greatest self-deception, anddeception of the People…” (Lenin: One of the Fundamental Problems of theRevolution).

At a certain moment of its history, every Communist party will be facedwith only two alternatives: It seizes the power from the bourgeoisie by force orit faces white terror. In this connection every Party has to prepare itself, baseditself on the masses and to lead them in preparing the armed revolution in thegenuine sense of the word. Marx and Lenin warned us not to be obsessed bythe existing laws or constitution. In his “Two Tactics” Lenin wrote: “…. TheConference forgets that as long as state power is in the hands of the Czar, alldecisions achieved by whatsoever representatives, will remain faint-heartednonsense, just like the “decisions” of the Frankfurter Parliament, well knownin the history of the German Revolution of 1848. In his “Neue RheinischeZietugn”, Marx, the representative of revolutionary proletariat, lashed the


Frankfurter liberals with merciless sarcasm, because they spoke such beautifulwords, took all kinds of “democratic” decisions, “created” all kinds of freedomwhile actually they left the power in the hands of the prince. They failed toorganise the armed struggle against the military forces of the prince.

And while the Osvoboshdentsi were engaged in talking, the prince usedhis time to consolidate his military forces and the counter-revolution, whichbased itself on real strength and which in the end swept clean all those democratswho had only their splendid “decisions”…..”

Objections could be raised like: “but President Sukarno cannot becompared with other Heads of State….”

In its polemics with the CPSU on Kennedy, whom Khrushchev called: “agood man, surrounded by wolves”, the Chinese Communist Party answeredabout it like this: “The leadership of the CPSU seems to have forgotten that themost elementary thesis of Marxism says that the Heads of State is the mostcharacteristic representative of the class in power….”

Also Lenin said: “The forms of a bourgeois state are varied, from the mostdemocratic to the most absolute, but in essence they are one: a tool of oppressionand exploitation of the bourgeoisie towards the proletariat….”

When Communist would face white terror, on which side would beSukarno? On the side of the counter revolution, i.e. on the side of the state, oron the side of the PKI (Communist Party of Indonesia)? He would have tochoose. There is no middle road. And history has given proof of this.

Fifth: the non-Leninist attitude of the Party leadership towards Parliament,MPRS (Temporary People’s Congress) and other representative bodies

The Party leadership has used this forum to support the government; iteven took part in consolidating the state.

Indeed, the Parliament has to be used well, every possibility has to beexplored, examined and exploited. A rejection to use this would be childishand leftist. But this has to be done in such a way that it increasingly pushes thesituation to a revolutionary crisis, to be consolidation of the preparations toseize power by force.

What were Lenin’s instruction on this matter?

“…. This bourgeois parliament has to be used in a revolutionary way. Theproletariat must also use bourgeois parliament, but with a different aim. Aslong as we are not strong enough to destroy the bourgeois parliament, we mustwork to oppose it from without and from within. As long as there are workers— not only proletariat but also semi-proletariat and small peasants — who stillhave faith in the democratic instruments of the bourgeoisie, used to deceive the


workers, we have to explain this deceit from that very platform which isconsidered by the backward part of the workers, in particular by the non-proletarian workers, as the principal and most authoritative body. As long aswe, Communists, are not strong enough to seize state power and to hold electionby the workers themselves ... we have to use this forum to explain the relationsbetween the classes and the Party, the relations between landlords and peasants,between rich peasants and poor peasants, between big capital and employees,workers, small bourgeoisie, etc. …” (Letter for the Austrian Communists).

The Party leadership could raise another objection: Our representativebodies are democratic and reflect mutual aid between Nasakom-partners. Thismust not be destroyed but improved.

But that objection was refuted long ago by Lenin: “The higher (bourgeois)democracy, the more bourgeois parliament bows for the money owners….”(Selected Works, II/2, 52).

What was put forward by Lenin proved completely true after the G-30-S.What has been done by Arudji Hartawinata and the Parliament as a whole?

Sixth: The blurring of the class character of the State. The similarity withthe Italian revisionists.

We have seen how the Party leadership for a long time has taken a non-Leninist road in matters of state and revolution. We will briefly show here thatthis non-Leninist road was not something particular but was related and similarto the road taken by other revisionists, in this case the Italian revisionists.

It looked as if our Party and the Italian Communist Party took differentroads, but the difference was in fact restricted to the external political lineonly; the internal line was essentially the same.

It is not surprising when in the Budapest meeting (within the frameworkof the Congress of the Rumanian Communist Party) we were countered by theItalian comrade with a.o. the following words: “…. The Indonesian comradeshave attacked us because of our theory of “structural Reform”. Indeed, it is wewho have made this theory, but the irony lies in the fact that it is the Indonesiancomrades who attacked our theory, who have applied it themselves inIndonesia….”

What are the most salient features of this similarity? The way of thoughtof the Italian Communist Party leadership, known under the name of “StructuralReform” can briefly be set forth as follows: “…. Politically: in the frameworkof bourgeois dictatorship to change progressively the balance of forces and thestructural balance of the state and thus forcing the growth of new classes in thatstate leadership via the legal ways of the bourgeois state, bourgeois constitutionand bourgeois parliament.


Economically: in the framework of the capitalist system graduallyrestricting and breaking monopoly capital via nationalisation, planning and thestate sector of economy, which has to hold the commanding posts. In short, toconfirm the possibility that in this way socialism can be achieved via bourgeoisdictatorship.”

Literature: The difference between com. Togliatti and us – Peking (Thesesfor the Xth Congress of the Italian Communist Party).

Comparing this revisionist line of the Italian CP with the line followedand practiced by our Party leadership, we cannot distinguish any difference atall.

Politically, in the state of this bourgeois democracy we have always triedto Nasakomize the cabinet via legal way as: the 1945 constitution, the parliament,MPRS, palace-intrigues, change of the balance of forces, enlarge the pro-people’s aspect, etc.

Economically: trying to anything to “stand on our own feet”, to implementthe “Economic Declaration”, the 1001 movement, to increase the state’scommanding posts in the economic sector …. as the conditions to accomplishthe national-democratic stage, moving onward to socialism. Nationalisationwas considered as the other “absolute condition” to strengthen the state economysector and to abolish monopoly capital. The workers’ class had to take part inthe enterprise’s councils, the managing boards of national enterprises, nationalstate enterprises, etc. All this in order to accomplish the national-democraticstate, moving onward to socialism.

Was that correct, according to the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism?By no means; it was their very anti-thesis.

Marxism-Leninism teaches us that each state power must always beanalysed from the class standpoint.

The deviations of the Italian revisionists, headed by Togliatti, and of ourParty leadership are actually the same as the deviations by Kautsky and otherfigures of the Second International, who have been clearly exposed by Leninin his “State and Revolution”.

Especially in this connection the revisionists have forgotten the principaldifference between a proletarian and bourgeois revolution.

What did Lenin say on this subject?

“…. The difference between a socialist and a bourgeois revolution lies inthe very fact that the bourgeois revolution already contains the ready-madeforms of capitalist relations. Whereas …. the power of the proletariat …. doesnot inherit any such ready-made relations.” (Quoted from “The differences


between com. Togliatti and us”, 95).

Every state power has the role to defend and to consolidate the existingrelations since it is a direct manifestation of those production relations. Thatmeans that every state has the role to defend and to consolidate the existingeconomic and social structure.

The characteristic feature of capitalist society is the very fact that it cannotpossibly contain seeds of socialism in it. That is why a capitalist (bourgeois)state cannot possibly contain people who represent the proletarian class —except the pseudo representatives of that class. Why cannot there exist anyseeds of proletarian relations in capitalist production relation? Because theproletariat is “the class of modern wage workers who, because they have nomeans of production of their own, are forced to sell their labour power in orderto live….” (Note by Engels to the “Communist Manifesto”, English edition,1886).

When the proletariat in capitalist society already possesses means ofproduction, it is no proletariat any more.

The courses pursued by both Parties are thus completely revisionist anddeny the fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism. Because to carry thenational-democratic revolution through to the end, moving onward to socialism,in fact means the dictatorship of the People’s Democracy, i.e. the dictatorshipof the proletariat at the lowest stage.

To achieve this is need a revolution by force of arms to seize the state as awhole, to destroy the old state machine, and to replace it by a new one.

Attempts as “National Planning Board”, “Enterprise’s Councils”, “toparticipate in the managing boards”, etc. not only have never been proved to besuccessful, but have even more drifted the workers’ class away from the realseizure of state power, i.e. the revolution by force. Attempts at “nationalisation”and “to strengthen the state sector of the economy” within the framework ofthis state means only consolidating this bourgeois state in the economic field.

Consolidating socialism by nationalisation and strengthening of the statesector of the economy is possible only within the framework of a state led bythe Proletariat, i.e. a People’s Democratic State.

The mistake of principle by the Party leadership in connection with thosenationalisation efforts were: a) It did not take into account the class characterof the state, and b) it considered that with nationalisation, etc. the nationaldemocratic revolution was accomplished, being the beginning of the socialistpath.

To differentiate themselves from the Italian revisionists, the Partyleadership has put forward the “thesis” that the above-mentioned question could


not be separated from the problem of the revolution. But we have already shownthat on the problem of the Revolution, the Party had blurred and obliterated itsreal meaning, its essence.

Seventh: Contradictory theses, phraseology and slogans

As Stalin has said, one of the most important features of the opportunistsof the Second International is the continuous quoting of the writing of Marx,Engels, a.o., but at the same time launching theses, phraseology, slogans andtheories, which are in contradiction with each other. (Works, VI, 83).

The confirmation of class struggle, of revolution, of the state as a tool ofoppression, was mixed up with Nasakom, the revolution from above and frombelow, and the pro-people’s and anti-people’s aspects. Almost daily we comeacross these conflicting theses in the Party publications and in speeches byimportant Party leaders and also in Party standard books such as “SelectedWorks of D.N. Aidit”, etc.

Besides those questions there is one important problem whose meaninghas been distorted by the Party leadership, i.e. the problem of state Apparatus.

According to Engels, the features of a state are, a.o.: the formation of itspublic power composed of armed forces, police and other organs of force.

In the revolution, the Proletariat must not only seize power by force, but ithas also to destroy the existing state machine and to replace it by a new one.The army (armed forces) and the bureaucracy are the main parts of the state,the parasites, bleeding white the oppressed classes.

The Party leadership however considered the Indonesian armed forces asthe “genuine child of the Revolution” and thus patriotic and democratic. Becausethe majority originated from the working class and the peasants, it could notpossibly deny its class origin. At a mass meeting of the P(emuda) R(akyat) —People’s Youth in Cheribon, com. Aidit even said: “…. Our armed forces areactually armed peasants….”

In his writings from 1959, titled “Back to the ’45 constitution for a changein politics and in life”, com. Aidit wrote: “…. Our attitude, a priori rejectingmilitary participation in the cabinet is of course not a correct attitude, becausemilitary as well as Communists and nationalists are also citizens of RI” (SelectedWorks of D.N. Aidit, III, 69).

We could ask: How about Soemitro, Kartosoewirjo and Kahar Muzakkar?Could we accept them into a cabinet because they too are citizens of the RI?

In this connection we read on the cover of the above-mentioned book(published by a commission of the CC, consisting of 4 people) the following:“…. The slogan for Democracy and a Mutual Aid Cabinet (from the VIth


Congress of the PKI, 1959) …. Created the conditions in politics, organisationand ideology to bring the Indonesian People and Nation closer to the strategicaim of the Indonesian revolution….” That was also the reason why afterwardsthe Party leadership launched the slogan: “For workers, peasants and soldiers”.

Is this not all too clear proof of how the Party leadership blurred the classcharacter of the state and in particular of the state apparatus? This was also thereason why the Party leadership “forgot” that at a certain moment we woulddirectly be confronted with these Indonesian armed forces, as has been provedin the case of the G-30-S event. The G-30-S event has been the unremovablewitness of this absurd attitude trying to place revolution on a par with “left”adventurism.

Certainly, we must not neglect working in the armed forces of the enemy,but this must be done with full consciousness that they are only a secondaryreserve: (We could add that in the course of history the majority of the army ofan oppressing ruling class was composed of people who originated from theoppressed class. The problem is not their class origin but the new class, i.e. theoppression tool of the state, as a parasite. Since that moment they stop being apart of their old class, they have definitely entered their new class.)

III

ON THE NATIONAL UNITY FRONT (NUF)

1. Class analysis. Two kinds of alliances

The question of the NUF (as well as of the other problems of society) isinseparably connected with class relations in society. There are two kinds ofalliances in the NUF:

a. The basic alliance: the alliance of workers and peasants and otherworking people, but with the workers-peasants as nucleus.

b. The supporting alliance: the alliance of workers and nationalbourgeoisie and other patriotic elements.

Our Party leadership, with its slogan “the NUF with the workers andpeasants as pillars and Nasakom as axis” has actually blurred class interests.

2. The basic question of every NUF is the hegemony (leadership)

The class which has the hegemony in the NUF decides the road of itsdevelopment and of the revolution (and thus also decides the outcome andeven the future of the revolution).

That is why the workers’ class with its party, the PKI, has to contend forthe hegemony with:


a. The national bourgeoisie who want to establish a bourgeois democraticstate/a democratic state of old type, by means of the “middle road”.

b. The big bourgeoisie/compradors/bureaucrat-capitalists, who want tomake/retain our state as a semi-colonial state.

The victory of the national bourgeoisie or comprador bourgeoisie meansthe defeat of the revolution.

3. The formation and strengthening of a revolutionary NUF must be basedon experience and an understanding of who is friend and who is foe, withthe ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

The enemies of a National Democratic Revolution of new type are:imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalists/compradors. The maindifficulty in distinguishing correctly between friend and foe lies in the divisionof the bourgeoisie in two groups:

a. The big bourgeoisie, dependent on imperialism and making commoncause with feudal forces, and therefore the targets of the revolution.

b. The national bourgeoisie, double-faced and prone to compromise, isa wavering ally but capable of taking part in the national democraticrevolution.

We do not discuss here the small bourgeoisie as these will be discussedseparately.

These groups are difficult to distinguish because the process of formationand differentiation of the big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie resultsalso in intermediate groups and groups in transition from one group to theother.

4. The correct stand towards friends and foe is to lead the allies in a firmstruggle against the common enemy and step by step achieving victory.

In order to realise its hegemony in the revolution, the workers’ class has toprove itself the most consistent and the most courageous group, fighting in thefront ranks of the revolutionary struggle and leading that revolutionary struggleindependently.

To contend itself with being an assistant or a coolie of the bourgeoisie, ashas been the case till now (towards the comprador bourgeoisie as well as thenational bourgeoisie, via National Front organisation led by military/landlords/national bourgeoisie and to emphasise work in palace-intrigues), is virtuallythe same as bringing the national revolution to failure.

The Party leadership was not only a party to the decision to create thePresident “Great leader of the Revolution”, it permanently regarded him in


their daily political activities as the unifying figure whose opinions had alwaysto be respected.

It has been proved in the prologue, in the actual event and during theepilogue of the G-30-S, that the Party surrendered the leadership to a double-faced figure whose real face was opposing the dictatorship of the People’sDemocracy.

The Party leadership, with the argument “firm in principle, flexible in itsimplementation”, adhered steadfastly to the common program only andabandoned its own program, in its actions, statements, in agitation andpropaganda, etc.

Three very characteristic events could be chosen as the climax of all this:

a. In the prologue period: In a mass meeting on the occasion of the closureof the Second MPRS Plenum in 1963 in Bandung, com. Aidit declared somethinglike this: “May Socialism be realised under the leadership of President Sukarnowithin a not too long span of time”.

On another occasion com. Aidit stated that the Pantjasila was a unifyingphilosophy, which was not only valid for the national-democratic stage, butalso for the next, socialist stage.

To deal in such a way with philosophy means to recognise the existence ofclass collaboration, because philosophy is the expression of class interests andeach class has its own interests which, as a whole, cannot be unified with thoseof other classes.

This applies with greater force to a socialist society where there is onlythe dictatorship of the proletariat whose philosophy is Marxism. To confirmthe Pantjasila as the unifying philosophy in the socialist phase, is the same asto confirm the dictatorship of the whole people — Khrushchev’s theory.

On the occasion of the 45th anniversary of the PKI, i.e. at the official forumof Party life, com. Aidit called the President the Great leader of the Revolutionand said that the Indonesian people could never go hungry since the villagersused cassava for building dams against floods. Such talk did not only surrenderthe leadership to the bourgeoisie but also blurred the class struggle, sinceeconomic problems (starvation, etc.) form the very basis of class struggle, whichmust be raised to a political plane.

b. During the G-30-S event, the Party leadership formed a RevolutionaryCouncil which was not dominated by us; they made thus a fundamental mistake,not grasping the actual meaning of the revolution. On the one hand the Partyleadership performed leftist acts whereas on the other hand the Party leadership(in the case of the Unity Front and the power) based itself on rightist thought.


c. In the epilogue of the G-30-S, the Party leadership through leafletsdeclared that in conformity with President Sukarno’s orders the PKI would notput up any resistance, in whatsoever form!

5. On the basis in the Unity Front

Not to understand that the alliance of workers and peasants forms thebasis of the NUF, to contrary, basing itself on the alliance with the bourgeoisie,is rightist opportunism.

On the peasants: in order to understand and to have a thorough knowledgeon the place of the peasants in the NUF, it would be good to recall what MaoTse-tung wrote in his Research on the Peasant Movement in Hunan, in 1927.He showed that there are three attitudes towards the peasants:

a. To be in front of them and to lead them;

b. To stand behind them and to criticise them while swaying the arms;

c. To stand face to face with them and to fight them.

The only correct attitude is to be in front of them, to go forward, in thesense of leading their actions.

The Party leadership in the past also “adopted” this correct attitude.Actually, as was the case with the other parties who officially supported thePolitical Manifesto, the Party never put it into practice. The Party did notcontinue leading the peasant actions in Bojolali, Kediri, Klaten, etc. …., untilcertain results were attained, did not connect them with actions by workers inthe towns, especially transport workers (who are the direct link between townand village), and did not lift them to actions on a national and political plane.

These one sided actions were even slowed down because of the President’sorder, and were directed into channels of legalism a la Tan Ling Djie; that is tosay by demanding and then establishing land reform courts where representativesof peasant mass organisations, members of the Unity Front, had a seat; the 3Ministers’ Committee (in which sat com. Njoto), etc. ….

The attitude of the Party leadership of standing behind the peasant, swayingtheir arms and criticise them in a non-Communist way for being “stupid”, making“big mistakes”, etc. …. was even more lamentable.

6. What is the most fundamental work in the NUF?

The moves and actions of the workers are, at any time, the most fundamentalactivities for the Party work. The entire work of the Unity Front has to be builtwithin the framework of actions by workers and peasants, and also by fishermenon the coasts.

Those actions must always be lifted to a political plane, in the sense of


bringing the people’s masses under the leadership of the Party, increasinglycloser to the seizure of state power by force.

The policy and acts of the Party leadership in the past however havevirtually driven the masses away from the revolutionary crisis since it causedthe masses to have more illusions about this state and its President, the GreatLeader of its Revolution, and since the actions were not directed to the seizureof state power by force.

7. On the role of the urban small bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie

The urban small bourgeoisie, large in number and suffering under theoppression of imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalists and feudalism, is for the greaterpart revolutionary. They are on the whole and important force for the national-democratic revolution of new type and are the trusted allies of the workers’class.

To unite with the small bourgeoisie is the principal work in the towns. Toattract the national bourgeoisies and other patriotic elements is a task of theUnity Front in the towns, to be carried out by the workers’ class after thefundamental works have been accomplished.

8. On the question of influencing, restricting and using

The workers’ class in the NUF endeavours to influence and to attract otherclasses and groups. In the same way other classes and groups try to influenceand to shake the workers’ class, or, in other, more usual words: to influence, torestrict and to use.

The workers’ class must not allow itself to be influenced and shaked byother classes and groups, thus sinking to the same level as their allies or to thelevel of assistant or coolie of their allies. To prevent this, some conditions mustbe fulfilled, the main ones, a.o.:

a. Basically, the workers’ class must have a Marxist-Leninist Party,

b. The workers’ class with the Party as its vanguard has to draw a distinctclass boundary with all its allies.

This means, politically, to have an independent program and slogan of itsown and then, on the basis of that program and those slogan, to reach agreements(on some points, on most points, or on all points), with other classes and groupsin order to forge the Unity Front in different spheres and on different levels,while maintaining an independent attitude and acting independently on all basicdifferences, raising all those allies gradually to their own minimum program.Not following this line results in a hotchpotch, in capitulationism or in Khvostism(tailing after the others) in the NUF.

This is what we experienced with the Political Manifesto (Manipol), where


we lowered ourselves to Marxism without its main pillar and abandoned ourown program so that we entrusted ourselves to the bourgeoisie, tailing afterthem, and allowing us to be influenced, restricted and used.

9. On the conditions to attract the middle forces.

The role of the armed forces

Mao Tse-tung wrote (in “The question of tactics in the anti-Japanese unityfront”), that the task to attract the middle forces can only be performed underthe following conditions:

a. we are strong enoughb. we appreciate themc. our firm struggle against the die-hards scores successive victories.

Though the Party leadership professed to implement those conditions, theywere actually only window-dressing.

But let us take a genuinely Marxist-Leninist view of the question: Thecondition “we are strong enough” must be more fully explained. From thepractice of the Chinese revolution where the working class and its Party timeand again has felt the bitter experiences of the oppression by the internal andexternal enemy, and the betrayal by their allies, com. Li Wei-han drew theconclusion that without armed forces in the hand, it had been impossible forthe working class and the Communist Party to lead the people’s revolutionindependently, to gain and to maintain the hegemony in the Unity Front. Withoutarmed forces, the working class and its Party could be kicked out by thebourgeoisie at any time (Li Wei-han, 33).

G-30-S event has taught us the all too bitter lesson: we were not onlykicked out from the National Front which had been boasted on by the Partyleadership, but we also allowed the Party and almost all progressive groups inIndonesia to be destroyed without any appreciable resistance.

In China — as a result of the local historical developments — the middlegroups have never had armed forces of their own, whereas in Indonesia therightist and the middle groups have their armed forces.

That means that to attract the middle forces in Indonesia so much themore are needed armed forces of the workers and peasants themselves. This isthe condition to attract the middle groups, to criticise their compromisingcharacter and to stimulate their anti-imperialist and anti-feudal character.

IV

ON THE PARTY

In the Past, the Party leadership boasted the PKI to be a Marxist-Leninist


Party and the biggest Party outside the socialist bloc. Is it true that, to be strong,a Party with the greatest quantity of members is needed? Is it true that with abig number of members that Party automatically becomes Marxist-Leninist?

The fact that we failed in the Unity Front, and more so, in the question ofthe G-30-S, clearly show that our Party was not a strong Party, the more aMarxist-Leninist Party.

Revisionism, which held sway in the Party leadership, dragged our Partyto the valley of bourgeois ideology and made us forget all conditions for thebuilding of a Party of Leninist type.

The enormous damage, suffered by our Party because it took the wrongroad, and the fact that without a Marxist-Leninist Party the people cannotpossibly gain a just and prosperous society, oblige us to rebuild our Party on agenuine Marxist-Leninist basis.

We nee a militant and revolutionary Party, capable to lead the proletariatin the struggle to seize power, with enough experience to find the correct roadin a complex revolutionary situation, able to withstand any storm — a beaconfor the final victory, in short, a Party of Leninist type.

Analysing all aspects of the G-30-S failure and taking a look into thefuture in seeking a way out of the damage, suffered by our society and ourParty, we can draw the basic conclusion that the very essence of this way outlies, first and foremost, in the rebuilding of our Party. This reconstruction mustembrace the Party throughout the country, clean from revisionist ideology andelements, with correct strategy and tactics, and implementing all fundamentalMarxist-Leninist teachings, which we have briefly touched upon in the foregoingpages.

Therefore, in the first stage of our work, all energy, attention and activitieshave to be devoted to the building of the Party and, within this framework, wehave to integrate ourselves dialectically with masses of workers, peasants,fishermen and urban small bourgeoisie in their actions which must progressivelybe higher levels.

What are the conditions for such a Party of Leninist type?

First: It has to be the foremost detachment of the proletariat.

As the foremost detachment of the proletariat it must be composed of thebest elements of the proletariat. The proletariat is a class with high discipline,revolutionary spirit, sepi ing pamrih rame ing gawe (unselfish, imbued with azest for work).

From this class, the Party has to choose and to draw the best elements.The acceptance of members is thus not a question of quantity only but rather ofquality.


The argument always put forward is: Yes, but from that very quantityemerges quality.

Those who put forward this argument seem to forget that the Party, thatthe Party members, must be of a quality, which grows out of quantity of theworking class. From that quality will then grow again a new, highest quality.

This foremost detachment must be armed with correct Marxist-Leninisttheory, because “without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionarymovement” (Lenin).

Those revolutionary theories are: Marxism-Leninism, merged with theobjective situation and development in Indonesia. The implementation ofMarxism-Leninism in the specific conditions in Indonesia can by no means bemade a cause for turning Marxism-Leninism upside down.

Marxism-Leninism must be implemented in such a way that it comprisespractice, situation and development in Indonesia on the basis of pure,fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism.

The struggle of every Communist Party is a very difficult one, more difficultthan whatever kind of war (Lenin). A Communist Party must therefore be capableto lead the proletariat in a protracted, difficult and complex struggle. It must befar-seeing, it must know when to attack and when to retreat (if forced to), but itmust always lead the proletariat/people’s masses in whatever situation.

In short, the Party must be the General Staff of the Proletariat. The Partymust be distinguished from the proletariat, but this does not mean that it isseparated from the proletariat. It must be distinguished because it is theleadership of the proletariat/other non-proletariat masses.

Without this distinction the Party standard is lowered to the level ofcommon masses, not of chosen quality, and thus cannot possibly take thecommand.

The distinction between the Party and the proletariat/other non-proletariatmasses will exist as long as there exist classes.

But if the distinction between the Party and the proletariat and other non-proletariat masses becomes a ravine which separates them, then the Party is nota Communist Party any longer.

The Party and the masses must always be connected, as flesh and nails, itmust always and in any situation be accepted by the masses and lead the masses.The paramount slogan for masses and Party must be “close to the heart andclose to the eyes”.

Did we fulfil this first condition for a Party in the past? What were theconditions for becoming a member of our Party? Was it not a fact that filling in


a blank was the only condition for becoming a Party member, with the resultthat our party became a Party of quantity and was thus flooded by small bourgeoismud and poison?

The first outside the socialist bloc — in quantity, quantity of members aswell as in quantity of mud and poison inside.

The second feature: The Party is the organised detachment of the workingclass.

To be able to lead the very difficult struggle against the enemy, well andefficiently organised, the Party is not only the foremost detachment of theproletariat, but must also be its organised detachment. To be able to lead theproletariat and tens of millions of other masses, the organisation of the Partymust be tight and efficient, united in an iron discipline, binding on every Partymember and every Party organisation. Not everyone can become Party memberbecause to perform his task well, every Party member must be able to lead themasses on the lines laid down by the Party.

Every Party member has thus to join one of the Party organisations. EveryParty member and every Party organisation must therefore, at any time and inany situation, be able to lead, organise and mobilise the masses within theframework of the preparations for revolution and focussing on revolution.

Ironically, the opposite was true: Party organisation (Factions, resorts,etc.) was not solid unity, able to lead, mobilise and organise the masses; theyeven quarrelled and disputed among themselves. We can answer for ourselveswhat were our experiences in this connection.

As an organised detachment, the Party must be a single system of all itsorganisations, where the minority submits to the majority, where Party work isled from one centre (democratic centralism).

It is within this framework that we have to maintain discipline, irondiscipline on the basis of common decisions with a single supervision andleadership. Such kind of discipline is not dead discipline but self-imposeddiscipline based on principle and conviction.

This is possible when:

a. the Party is a Party whose members are of the best quality of theproletariat;

b. internal democracy within the Party is revived and developed which isto say that the opinions of all members, without exception, are heard anddiscussed in guided meetings;

c. in the leadership who implements and controls the decisions, areconcentrated the best elements of the members, able to creatively develop thedecisions taken;


d. each member, the more the leadership, must master the fundamentaltheories and the concrete situation;

e. the inner-party struggle must be based on:

• the pureness of Marxism-Leninism;

• the monolith character of the Party;

• the control of the implementation and elaboration of the decisions;

• the elevation of the ideological and organisational level by means ofcriticism and self-criticism at the tight time and always taking in mindthat within this framework unnecessary contradictions and non-proletarian methods must be avoided.

When all this is correctly conducted without “corruption” of one of its“pillars”, there will be no feeling of democracy as an unnecessary formalityand of centralism as bureaucracy and commandism.

But in an emergency situation where democracy cannot possibly bepracticed as it should be (e.g. in a revolution, revolutionary situation,revolutionary crisis, a.o.) and where quick decisions have to be taken to avoidthe hovering and destruction of the Party and the masses, centralism must bethe only permitted way, according to the principle that in any situation theParty has to lead the proletariat and other people’s masses.

In the past those conditions have been ignored by the Party leadership,with the result that the Party became an inert body with a leadership who couldonly give orders since they had become “a layer of bourgeoisie in Communistclothes”.

The third feature: The Party must be the highest form of organisation ofthe proletarian class.

The proletariat and other people’s masses have also other organisationbesides the Party, like: trade unions, co-operatives, women organisations, etc.…. The majority of those organisations are non-Party, but are absolutelynecessary for the working class, because without those organisations it wouldbe impossible to consolidate the Party leadership in several fields of struggle.

The problem is how all those numerous organisations can be led from asingle centre, so that they do not obstruct each other, all serving the proletariaton the basis of the same principle.

Who must lay out the line and the course?

A Marxist-Leninist Party can and must fulfil such task, because:

a. It is the centre, unifying the best elements of the class, directlyconnected with the non-Party organisation concerned, and in general


also leading it.

b. It is the centre of the best elements of the proletariat and is thus thebest school for training its members and other proletarian elements tolead all kinds of organisation forms of the proletariat.

c. As the best school to train leaders of the working class it is by virtueof its experience and prestige the only organisation capable to centralisethe struggle of the proletariat. Each non-Party organisation thusbecomes a continuously moving link, connecting the Party with theclass and the classes.

This does not mean that trade union, women, youth, student, peasantorganisations, etc. must officially follow the Party leadership. The point is thatevery Party member in those organisations must with might and main fight forit that in practice the organisation concerned voluntarily accepts the Partyleadership.

In the past, applying the same yardstick to all organisational activities, i.e.within the framework of the NUF — Nas (Nationalist groups), A (Religiousgroups) and Kom (Communist groups) — the Party leadership indirectly causedthe masses with the same class interests to be divided in organisations used onNas, A and Kom. The result was that the class struggle and other forms ofstruggle were pushed in a direction of struggle which essentially blurredeverything, since they joined the Unity Front on the basis of the common programunder bourgeois leadership, abandoning their own program.

More, the open or secret proclamation of mass organisation, as: tradeunions, youth-student-scientist-women-organisations, a.o. led by Party members,as Communist organisations (to obtain a place in the Nasakom forum), meantactually to reduce the position of its cadres from mass leaders who had to bringthe masses closer to the Party (not only those in the mass organisation) to thelevel of leaders who only took care of its members who were actually alreadyclose to the Party.

The cadres were thus bound hand and foot and their liberty of actionrestricted. In this way the strategic task could not be performed, i.e. the task ofthe Party members in that mass organisation to bring broad masses in a positionwhere it could support the Party, directly or indirectly (for instance, by adoptinga neutral attitude) when the Party launched and armed uprising (revolution) toseize power. Our bitter experience with the G-30-S has proved this.

The fourth feature: The Party is a tool of the dictatorship of the proletariat

The Party is the highest form of organisation of the proletarian class but itis not an aim. The aim of the proletariat is to abolish exploitation. The “greatness”of the Party, the “good reputation” of the Party does not mean anything if it is


not able to perform its task as the general staff for successfully seizing statepower.

The entire work of the Party must therefore basically be directed to theseizure of power to establish the dictatorship of the people’s democracy.

That seizure of power can be carried out only by an armed revolution. Thetask to a Communist Party who has already achieved victory is the same, i.e. itremains a tool of the dictatorship of the proletariat which must be consolidatedand developed to the highest summit, until the classes in society have beenabolished.

The fifth feature: The Party is the realisation of the unity of thought andincompatible with factions

The proletariat will not gain victory without a strong party, based onsolidarity and iron discipline. But iron discipline is not possible without absoluteand complete unity of thought and unity of action of every Party member.

This does not mean that there are no differences of opinion within theParty (see the Second feature). The point is that after those differences of opinionhave sufficiently been discussed and then decided about, after criticism havesufficiently levelled, all Party members must absolutely abide by the decisions.

The forming of factions must therefore be prevented, i.e. groups of Partymembers who do not want to bow to the collective leadership, and follow a lineby themselves which they consider the right one, thus creating a multi-centredParty system.

In this connection it must be remembered that opportunism and revisionismare the only reason of faction forming.

In a Party, headed by a revisionist group, the formation of factions isunavoidable. Revisionism is the manifestation of bourgeois ideology; theeconomic basis of the bourgeoisie is free competition. Their ideology withunhealthy competition is therefore the contrary of proletarian ideology with itssingle leadership.

The epilogue, the event and the prologue of the G-30-S have given clearproofs of how the Party leadership has failed in factionalism with the inevitableresult that the line which were laid out were crisscross and confused.

The sixth feature: The Party can only be strong if it cleans itself ofopportunist elements

As has bee said above, the mainspring of factionalism is opportunism.What are the other sources of factionalism?

a. The party accepts also members who originate from other classes:


from the small bourgeoisie, national bourgeoisie, intellectuals,peasants, etc. They contain ideological remnants which cannot beimmediately removed.

b. The upper layer of the proletariat in the Party, the Party members inparliament, the members of representative bodies and members ofgovernment, etc. ….

They are bourgeoisied proletariat who can enjoy living on the profits,robbed together by the bourgeoisie. It is the source of factionalism, underminingParty unity.

To fight imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalists and feudalism, to preparerevolution to seize power with such troops, is similar to being squashed by theenemy and allow itself to be stabbed in the back. To purge the Party continuouslyfrom such elements is therefore the basic condition for leading the revolutionand to gain hegemony and victory. Com. Stalin has shown that the theory whichwould “defeat” opportunist elements by ideological struggle within the Party,the theory to “overcome” these elements within the framework of one party,such theory is a putrid and dangerous theory (Works, VI 192). Com. Lenin toohas shown that “at such moments it is not only absolutely necessary to removethe Mensheviks, the reformists from the Party, but even useful to remove goodCommunists who show vacillation and a tendency to “unite” with the reformists,from all responsible posts …., the slightest hesitation in the Party ranks canruin everything, abandon the revolution and tear the power from the hands ofthe proletariat. The leave of these wavering leaders at such a moment (themoments on the eve of the revolution) does not weaken but strengthen theParty, the workers’ movement and the revolution …” (Collected Works, XXV,462, 463, 464).

In “Notes from a publicist”, Lenin further said that to feel pity for sometens of thousands or some hundreds of thousands revisionist/opportunist …..will harm “the interests of tens of millions of people.”

One of our principal tasks in the future is therefore to steel the Party,firmly and continuously, in the struggle to destroy and remove reformism,opportunism and revisionism. There is no other way, there never was antherway.

V

ON THE ARMED STRUGGLE

The revisionist leadership of the Party spread the fairy tale that the ABRI(armed forces of the RI) were patriotic and democratic and therefore the childof the revolution, originating from the workers’ and peasant classes. This made


the Party leadership take the peaceful road by collaborating with the rulingclass and not preparing for the armed struggle.

The G-30-S, though an armed struggle, is clearly not an armed struggle ofMarxist-Leninist type, since it does not fulfill the conditions which we haveelaborated in the foregoing pages.

How is the Marxist-Leninist view of this armed struggle (revolution)? Wemust, first and foremost, incalculate the concept that “political power growsout the barrel of the gun” and that “the Marxist-Leninist principles on thisrevolution are general truth, in China as well as in other countries” (Mao Tse-tung: Problems of War and Strategy, 1-13).

Lenin too said: “…. Who confirms class struggle must inevitably confirmcivil war, which in every class society is a natural continuation, and undercertain conditions an unavoidable continuation, a development andintensification of class struggle.

All great revolutions have proved this. To avoid civil war, to forget this,means to sink in extreme opportunism and to deny the socialist revolution”.(Quoted by Che Guevara in “Guerrilla Warfare, a method”, 8-9).

Is it true that an armed struggle is not possible without a hinterland? Therevolution of Russia, Cuba and Zanzibar have proved that this fairy tale doesnot hold true.

A revolution must be based on the strength of the people, led by the Party,not on geographical consideration or on an already victorious neighbour state.

A hinterland can indeed play a big role but it is not decisive. This wasstrategically already established by Lenin and Stalin (Stalin: “On strategy andtacticss”, in works VI, 161).

What is the meaning of the bourgeois armed forces?

We have explained above that the armed forces of the RI are the backboneof the state which will defend that state against us and therefore at decisivemoments, will face us. In such a situation we have only two choices. Theydestroy us or we destroy them (Che Guevara, op. cit., 2).

But though we must regard the armed forces of the RI as the backbone ofthe state whom we have to destroy, we must not neglect working in their circles,to undermine them from within and to draw as many as possible of their membersto our side.

But those who have gone over to our side are only secondary reserves andcan never be regarded as primary reserves.

What is the essence and the future of this armed struggle?


It cannot be denied that his struggle will be struggle on many fronts and amulti-various struggle. It will demand many sacrifices from all of us, manyvictims and much blood will certainly be shed. In preparing every Party memberand the people’s masses to be ready to enter the battle field, there will inevitablyrise the question: Can these sacrifices, sufferings and blood-spilling not beavoided? Yes, what can we say?

This armed struggle is a struggle which is forced upon us by the armedbourgeoisie. To ignore this fact means to let the sufferings of humanity growbigger and to increase useless blood-spilling, as has been evident with this G-30-S.

This armed struggle will sooner or later break out, that is certain. It is ahistorical necessity, and we do not want to shift this historical task on the nextgeneration.

The wounds suffered by our Fatherland, by our people, yes, by the Historyof Humanity, will heal in the future, when the working people, led by the Party,has seized state power, and Socialism will be established, in peace and mutualaffection.

Then people will probably talk about past times, when our Party rose againfrom the wounds it suffered and led the proletariat and the people of Indonesiato eradicate the sores, caused by the past on their oppressors.

People will talk on our Party, the PKI, the Indonesian Communist Party,who never could be destroyed by defeat and oppression no matter how cruel,but even rose again as the victor in a fierce decisive battle. ●

[*The experience of revolution and counter-revolution in Indonesia is arich experience for the ICM. The counter-revolutionary coup in whichover half a million communists and sympathisers were assassinated by thereactionary army led by the hated army general Suharto is one of the worstblack events in the entire history of mankind. What were the mistakes ofthe leadership of the Communist Party of Indonesia which gave groundfor the fascist army to launch such ghastly massacre?]


INTENSIFYING THEREVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE AND

CONSOLIDATING THE WORLDPROLETARIAN SOLIDARITY

AGAINST GLOBAL IMPERIALISMDear comrades,

IT IS an honour for us to be with you all for participating this forum which isto come to terms in uniting our actions and intensifying our struggle andsolidarity amongst Marxist-Leninist parties and revolutionary organisations allover the world, especially Asia, in order to fight against all forms of injustice,oppression and exploitation conducted by imperialism and reactionary ruler inthe country.

In Indonesia, the reactionary regime intentionally oppresses in a colossalway all Communists and revolutionary progressive democratic movements.These prove only as an initial step in destroying all political system and thedemocratic foundation throughout Indonesia. These are done by the existingregime in order to pave the path for the world monopoly capitalist in exploitingsystematically the workers and simultaneously plundering the economic wealthof the country.

INDONESIA IS A NEO-COLONIAL COUNTRY WITH THE WELL-CONSOLIDATED RESIDUE

OF FEUDALISM

The global imperialism, controlled fully by the world monopoly capitalist,has resulted in destroying the Indonesian economy and impoverishing the peoplewhich today known as one of the poorest in the world. All aid and assistancefrom IMF, World Bank, ADB which are institutions controlled by worldcapitalists, apparently are not able to lift Indonesia from its worsening economy.Moreover, the national economy of the country becomes more dependent onthe world monopoly capitalist by imposing privatisation programme concerningthe assets of national economic wealth and by interfering for the sake ofefficiency and free market economic globalisation. By the assistance of thoseinstitutions, the reactionary regime formulates “new development strategy”called “structural adjustment programme”. What happened then? The regimethat follows such economic policies in fact cannot lift itself from the deepeningdebt trap. Instead, the living standard of the people becomes down-grading. Itbecomes crystal clear that those advices deriving from the above mentioned


institutions are not able to solve the crises in Indonesia. On the contrary, almostall initiatives taken by the government are ruining the people. This shows thedoctrine “free market” of neo-liberalism is a trick. Up to 31st of January 2009the total debt of the country reaches US $ 166.7 billions, or 32% of GNP,consisting actually foreign debt as much as US$ 74.6 billions and internal debtin the form of certificate from security payments climbs to the amount of US$92.1 billions.

Since the enforcement of Foreign Capital Investment Law, huge foreigncapital belonging to the world monopoly capitalists flows into Indonesia. Almostall economic sectors have been penetrated and controlled by foreign companiessuch as oil, gas, minerals, telecommunications, retails, banks, cement, chemicalindustries, water, plantations, service and industrial manufactures.

The power as shaped by the reactionary of the country is the power ofbourgeois dictatorship which is fascist in character, undertakes open terroragainst working class and communist, so that they can freely launch politicaland economic repression in order to take super-profit maximally by openingthe door so widely to foreign capital, and the Indonesian economy becomesdependent on imperialism financially speaking, also on trade and technologywhich in the end also dependent in political and military terms.

Economic policies which are in any way relying on the foreign capitalbring in fact about the worsening of the economy of our country and cause thecontinuing deepening of “economic crisis”. Economic dependency and the hugedebt have shaped Indonesia as a neo-colony for the world imperialist/monopolycapitalists.

Beside the neo-colonial character of Indonesian economy, there is someresidue of feudalism which in fact exists firmly in countryside. Indonesianpopulation is made of 60% peasants whose lives are relying on agriculturalproducts. There is only slightly different with the fate of workers, the peasantstoo are impoverished in the countryside. The penetration of capitalismthroughout villages in the country is bringing out significant change inproduction relations in villages. However, one character is land monopoly bylandlord, which still exists firmly. The feudalistic exploitation in nowtransformed into capitalist one. The landlord that earlier used share crops system,partly is transformed to wage-system in exploiting the landless peasants. Thatis why, in the countryside, we can still find exploitation according to feudalsystem, also land monopoly by landlords. To understand such a condition isvery important, as it shall define the character of the change we should undertakethrough Indonesian revolution.

The assessment saying that there exists strong residue of feudalism is verysignificant, because it defines the revolutionary character. Here conclusion canbe drawn: the country remains a neo-colonial one with strong residue of


feudalism. These are the causes of poverty, under development of the peoplethat live in a country which has fertile soil and provided with prosperous naturalresources. It is wrong to say that the cause of poverty and under development islack of capital or corruption as propagated by the exploiting class. Imperialismmaintains the feudalist system and uses it as the base for the capitalistexploitation in the countryside.

THE ONLY WAY IS THE REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE

Through empirical practice that we have so far, we can say that the rulingclass power derived from the neo-colonial economic system will no other waydedicate to the economic system which has given birth to said power, and willmaintains and develops it. General elections done by the bourgeois ruling classdisappointed the people and the mass, as they saw intrigues, competitionsbetween representatives of bourgeoisie in fighting for positions of their ownclique, which is in essence the division of position and gaining power forcontributing the repression of the already oppressed classes in the country. Inthe recent legislative elections, about 40% of legitimate voters did notparticipate. The solution as given through general elections and exhibited bybourgeois political parties, do not offer anything to deconstruct the system thatbrings about the worsening economy. The fundamental change can only beachieved by destroying the existing economic and political system and thisneed real forces, the driving forces and the principal forces that lead the changeunder consideration. Therefore, it is the duty of the Indonesian proletariat torise, mobilise and organise the oppressed mass, the workers, the peasants, andthe non-peasants little bourgeoisie to make fundamental social change inIndonesia which is a neo-colonial country by character to become a free anddemocratic one. Indonesian proletarian should pay attention solely to createthe conditions for leading the agrarian revolution by the armed peasants, whichis to be the principal struggle in achieving the Indonesian People’s DemocraticRevolution.

World history has taught us for underdeveloped countries, especially inthe countries where peasants form the majority of the mass who suffer mostlyfrom oppression and those whose rights are so severely violated or completelytaken away, then the only valid way out is the revolutionary way. Such a pathneed an objective revolutionary situation for commencing the revolution, butwe should not only wait the objective situation in the whole country. Therevolution can be started by launching the struggle from the countryside toencircle the towns and cities.

US imperialism is the main force of imperialists as it shows through itseconomic, political and military power. So our joint struggle all over the worldshould be mostly emphasised towards US as the no. one imperialist power intoday’s world.


Within the imperialist countries, each ML party should exercise the struggleof the working class and its alliance against imperialist bourgeois in the countryand support revolutionary struggle and anti-imperialist actions of the oppressedpeople and nations. In the oppressing countries, on the other hand, ML partiesand organisations should study particular concrete situation and lead therevolutionary struggle against imperialist forces which oppresses mostly in thecountry and last but not least the ruling class in the country. ML parties andorganisations from oppressed countries are obliged to educate the proletarianand people in their country with the spirit of proletarian internationalism sothat they can unite with the proletarian of the imperialist countries.

In the countries occupied by imperialism, the most urgent tasks ahead ofcommunists are to create unity as broad as possible in mobilisation against anddriving away the occupying power. They should also take historicalresponsibility to lead the national liberation movement towards revolution andsocialism.

As Lenin teaches us, there is only one solution for the people all over theworld under imperialism: socialism!

In the coming future, ML parties and revolutionary organisations shouldcoordinate closely neatly. With the spirit of proletarian internationalism, wemust strengthen the ideological, political and organisational line within theframework of the consolidation of the International Communist Movement, sothat we can break the chains of the imperialist oppression and also eliminatethe revisionist ideological penetration.

PARTY BUILDING

To understand the problem and obstacles we have in building the party,we need to explicate in a general way the history of the Party.

The Party is established on the 23rd of May 1920, which is the oldestcommunist party in Asia. In her still young age, in 1926, the Party had led thefirst armed struggle at a national scale, against the Dutch colonial government.It seems that this is the first party in Asia, which has led the armed struggleagainst colonialism. Thus, starting from her birth, the Party has not takencompromises as the way to fight against oppression of a nation to other nation,of human being to other human being, and has traditionally launched therevolutionary struggle by arms.

However, the Party has experienced three severe bloody attacks. We notedthem as white terrors, since they were launched by subsequent reactionary rulingclass of the country. These terrors reflect the degree of the fierce class strugglein the country.

Our Party has also noted that each time it experiences the terror, we looseour leader, even the whole members of leadership, through murder or put in


concentration camp. This shows not only the how savage the class enemy is,but also the weakness in the building the organisations of the Party. This impliesto the continuing the revolutionary movement, the Party has to give birth newcadres who should build the Party from the beginning.

The first White Terror launched by the Dutch imperialist following thefailure of 1926 revolt. The government forbid the Party and all members of theleadership have been arrested and put in the camp concentration at a remoteand isolated area called Boven Digul, Papua, which is populated by backwardpeople. Not until 1935, the Party found a momentum to be built illegally byyoung cadres. They operated underground for a decade an found its way toappear after the Indonesian people has succeeded in seizing the political powerfrom Japanese fascists in 1945.

The second White Terror (1948) launched by reactionary bourgeois of thecountry in a conspiracy with US imperialist, have provoked the communistleadership of the armed militia in Madiun, an important town in East Java. Thisforced the militia to defend and protect themselves from the provokedaggression. This act of defensiveness is seen as an act of revolt by the communistsagainst the bourgeois government by establishing ‘Soviet’ government inMadiun. This provocation is launched by the reactionary to prevent thecommunists in consolidating their forces following self-criticism as they madesome political mistakes for the last two years. The Party had released a resolutioncalled ‘New Path for the Republic Indonesia’. The incident is then known as“Madiun Provocation (1948)” and is used by the reactionaries of the country tolaunch the terror against the communists throughout the country. Thousandscommunists and cadres were killed. The principal leadership were caught andwithout any process, have been executed. Once again, Party leadership hasbeen cut off. However, there were some young leaders who escaped from theterror and through 1950s have succeeded in (re)building the Party throughoutthe country. Starting with some 10,000 members, the Party through 1950s hadbecome almost 3 million in 1960s, which were spreading throughout thearchipellago and consisted all ethnical groups. In the mean time, the Party wassaid as the biggest one outside the CPC and CPSU.

The third White Terror, repeatedly the Party experienced the severest attackfrom the reactionary class of the country, which seemed not only in nationalterms but international one. This time the reactionary used the incident of G-30-S (30th September Movement) as a raison d’être. G-30-S was a movementof young army officers which took place on 30th September 1965 to abductsome generals belonged to the right-wing army leadership, to be brought toPresident Sukarno. Few leadership of the Party have been involved in the abovementioned movement outside the regular mechanism of Party organisation. Forthe army, the involvement of few Party leadership in the movement, was morethan enough to launch fierce attack against the Party. The Party and all


revolutionary mass organisations were dissolved and banned. The chasing inphysical terms, then took place throughout the country and conducted by thearmy by mobilising uninformed masses. And communists and their sympathisersbecame victims. Within one and half months, thousands of dedicated and wellexperienced cadres have been killed, and other hundreds of thousands havebeen arrested and detained for some decades without any legal process. Thechief leadership was murdered. Within a very short time, Party organisationwas completely destroyed and paralysed.

A big question should be raised somehow: Why could the Party with itsorganisations spread throughout the county be destroyed within such a shorttime and without any revenge at all? How was it possible that cadres andmembers were passively killed?

Rest of the Party leadership who escaped in the mean time has made self-criticism on the serious mistakes made by the Party concerning the politicalline. All answers regarding the above mentioned questions were found in theSelf-Criticism of the Polit Bureau of the Central Committee of the CommunistParty of Indonesia, dated 1966. This document explicates all weaknesses ofthe Party during her 20 years of (re)building process. These covers:

• In the field of ideology: the leadership suffered from subjectivism,which according to the sister parties formulated as petty bourgeoismethod of thinking, not the proletarian mode of thought;

• In political field: the leadership took the opportunist and revisionistway such as parliamentary and peace, instead of revolutionary way inachieving the revolution in Indonesia;

• In the field of organisation: the leadership has adopted the liberalism,which meant that organisation was open widely for new membership,even without any ideological qualifications.

The above mentioned Self-Criticism has pointed out solutions, which wereformulated in the following Three Banners of the Party, namely:

1. Party building according the ML principles, free from subjectivism,opportunism and revisionism;

2. People’s Armed Struggle which is in essence the peasant armed strugglefrom arming the agrarian revolution, whish is anti-feudal under theleadership of working class;

3. Revolutionary United Front on basis of an alliance between workersand peasants under the leadership of working class.

In 1967, the Party leadership has made serious endeavour to rebuild theParty through selection and organising former cadres and members and tried totransform the open and legal Party to be completely illegal and closed one;


form parliamentary struggle to made preparation for armed struggle as shownin the Self-Criticism document dated from 1966. Revolutionary bases haveinitially built in some places for preparing the armed struggle.

Somehow by the end of 1967, the reactionary forces launched attack inseveral revolutionary bases. This was the second phase of effort in destroyingthe Party, which has been declared to be dissolved up to its roots. The diminishingof communists had taken place not only in base-areas, but also throughout thecountry. Intensive chase to communists and their sympathisers who have notbeen caught through the saying “arrest first, and the reason follows. IndonesianArmed Forces will not take a risk for the existence of communists outside thedetention places”. Party leaders were killed or arrested and sentenced to deathor to life-long imprisonment. Repeatedly the Party lose all leaders, and all cadreswho have much experience in building the Party. Since the destroying of allprepared revolutionary base-areas (1968), the effort to rebuild the Party hasbeen halted completely.

Throughout 1970s, as international pressure increased, the military regimein Indonesia was forced to release tens of thousand communists and theirsympathisers from some concentration camps. However, their space of physicalmovement was restricted. They received specific mark in their ID, and theywere not allowed to take any function in social organisations. They were notallowed to work as a teacher, become a civil servant, in army, etc.

However, at the beginning of 1980, some small number of Party cadreswho took responsibility to continue revolutionary works, have made seriousefforts to rebuild the Party by establishing an interim Central leadership. Partybuilding has been done by combining the building process from above andfrom the below. This is not an easy work. Major cadres still suffer from traumaand are forced to work underground amongst the people who have been educatedand drilled to be anti-communist for some decades during the military regime.

After some 20 years of working, then the above mentioned interim centralleadership in 2000 has succeeded in organising Party Congress, which was the8th one. The Congress has adopted new Constitution and Programmme, andreaffirms the Self-Criticism dated 1966 as the principal way to rebuild the Partyand nominate new members of Central Committee and Executive Committee.

While it carried out continuously the rectification movement in the wholeParty, by the end of 2005, the Party carried out the 9th Congress. The Congressdecided to uphold firmly Marxism-Leninism and Maoism principles, to realisethe three banners of the Party especially the second banner through preparationsof the revolutionary bases concretely. ●

Let us intensify the revolutionary struggle and consolidate the worldproletarian solidarity against global imperialism!

[Communist Party of Indonesia, June, 2009]


THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF

NEO-LIBERALISM ON THE

NEO-COLONIALLY DEPENDENT

COUNTRIESSTEFAN ENGLE

After the Second World War, the people’s liberation struggle smashed the oldcolonial system. A strong ally of the liberation struggle was the socialist camp.In this situation, imperialism was compelled to develop new forms ofcolonialism. The book, Neo-colonialism and the Changes in the NationalLiberation Struggle, explained this as follows:

As long as imperialism and its law-governed striving for elimination ofcompetition, for world domination exist, there will also be colonialism.The division of nations into oppressing and oppressed constitutes theessence of imperialism.

The forms and methods of imperialism, however, have changedconsiderably since the Second World War. (Klaus Arnecke and Stefan Engel,Neo-colonialism and the Changes in the National Liberation Struggle, p.68)

The imperialists take advantage of the economic and political weaknessof the former colonies and semi-colonies in order to restore their influence.Willi Dickhut wrote in his book, State-Monopoly Capitalism in the FederalRepublic of Germany (FRG), about the new method of neo-colonialism:

Through neo-colonialism, the developing countries become “open” toplunder by the imperialist countries. The developing countries fall intodependence and acquire the character of semi-colonies. The imperialistsincrease capital export to these countries to further deepen their influence.This lets the proletariat grow and gain strength, on the one hand; on theother hand, it weakens the ruling national bourgeoisie in these countries.Through the economic dependence they become more and more politicallydependent, to the point that the ruling forces of these countries becomepuppets of imperialism. The competition between the monopolies reflectsin the power struggle between the various factions of the puppets. (Vol. II,p. 375)

The imperialist countries do not display any particular scruples in their


neo-colonial exploitation and oppression: economic blackmail, diplomaticinterference, use of agents, subversion going as far as overthrow of governments,dependence through military training programs and sale of weapons, alsointerference by force — all this belongs to the instruments of neo-colonial rule.

THE CRISIS OF NEO-COLONIALISM

In the 1980s, a deep crisis of neo-colonialism developed. World tradeshrank and investments in the developing countries dropped dramatically. Manydeveloping countries could service their debts only in a limited way or not atall, with the consequence of a sharpening international debt crisis. This hadsignificant repercussions on the finance of the imperialist countries.

The imperialist answer to the crisis of neo-colonialism was the policy ofneo-liberalism with its propaganda of unrestricted flow of capital, privatisation,deregulation and a changed role of the state. The governments of the neo-colonially dependent countries were to guarantee the international monopolyfree trade in goods and services, a free flow of capital and the freedom toinvest. The book, Neo-colonialism and the Changes in the National LiberationStruggle, comments this:

Since the beginning of the nineties, the imperialists and their puppets inthe dependent countries have been promising the masses the big changethrough an economic policy of so-called neoliberalism.

The term “liberalism” conveys the illusion of free competition, of freedevelopment of economic forces. Its tru content, however, consists in theliquidation of competition in the dependent countries and in theendeavour to integrate their economies ever more fully in theinternational production and distribution of multinational corporations.(p. 271; emphasis added)

The economic expansion of the international monopolies could onlysucceed if the masses in the neo-colonially dependent countries were won forthis policy. The masses were rightly outraged about corruption, the overblownstate apparatus, many forms of bureaucratic harassment, hyperinflation,technological backwardness and the inefficiency of the state-owned enterprisesas well as the oppressive tax burden. Populist politicians like Manem inArgentina or Fujimori in Peru demagogically too up this criticism and — withthe slogan of neo-liberalism — temporarily succeeded in creating a mood ofgoing forward, by which they were able to win elections and tackle the neo-liberal project.

The “Brandy Plan”, devised by the former US Treasury Secretary Bradyin 1989, undertook to centrally steer the policy of neo-liberalism in the interestof international finance capital. The book Argentinien — Leben, Sehnsuchtund Kampf am Rio De la Plata (Argentina — Life, Longing and Struggle onthe Rio de la Plata) explained this as follows:


The Brady Plan was imposed on more than 60 countries in Asia, Africaand Latin America for the purpose of “re-scheduling” their debts. Thisplan was the beginning of a turn in the economic policy towards thedependent countries.

To repay their debts, the developing countries’ national resources were tobe sold to the highest bidder on the international finance market. Thismeans debts are changed into equity participation by the internationalmonopoly capital. The capital of the developing countries is drasticallydevalued, allowing the multinational corporations to by up factories, stocksof raw materials and agricultural projects dirt-cheap and put the centralsector of these countries’ national economies under the direct control ofinternational monopoly capital. Stefan Engel, Argentinien: Leben,Sehnsucht und Kampf an Rio de la Plata, S. 108)

Neo-liberalism created decisive prerequisite for the reorganisation ofinternational production in the neo-colonial countries. It subjugated the nationaleconomies of the neo-colonial countries to the international process of theproduction and reproduction of the international monopolies. In the process itdemonstrated a single-mindedness and unscrupulousness the eclipsed everythingthat had been practiced by neo-colonialism in the past.

SELLOUT OF THE CHOICEST PRICES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES TO THE

INTERNATIONAL MONOPOLIES

Since the middle of the 1980s, the most important method for subjugationhas been the privatisation of state-owned enterprises. Peter Rösler, the deputymanaging director of the Ibero-American Association, summed up in a dossierfor the foreign trade portal iXPOS in 2001:

The results of privatisation in Latin America are absolutely impressive:the sale of more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises during the past tenyears yielded revenues totalling about US$150 billion. (Peter Rösler,“Ausländische Direktin-vesstitionen in Lateinamerika” [Foreign DirectInvestment in Latin America], www.exposlde, March 29, 2002)

In the countries at which the spearhead of the privatisation offensive wasdirected, the state-owned enterprises’ share of the gross national product droppeddrastically: in Bolivia from 16.65 percent in 1980 to 5.22 percent in 1997, inBrazil from 10.81 percent in 1992 to 5.90 percent in 1996, in Chile from 17percent in 1985 to 6.79 percent in 1996, and in Peru from 19.59 percent in1983 to 3.1 percent in 1997.

Another focus of privatisation was in the former CMEA countries in Easternand Central Europe. Expressing satisfaction, a “Top Information Leaflet forBusiness” praised the development in Bulgaria:

Under the Kostov government, the reform forces brought Bulgaria a


structural reform in 1997 encompassing all spheres. The privatisation ofindustry, trade and services was accelerated. A currency council wasestablished and the Bulgarian Lev firmly linked with the Deutsche Mark.The government succeeded in achieving a rapid political and economicstabilisation and a speedy renewal of legislation with an eye to the desiredEU membership…. Four fifths of the industrial assets could be privatised.(East-West-Institute at the University of Koblenz-Landau [ed.], “BulgariaTop Information Leaflet for Business”, No. 3, 2002)

The privatisation and sell-out of state-owned enterprises to theinternational monopolies reveal what is the core of the reorganisation ofinternational production in the neo-colonial countries. The extent of this sell-out is expressed by the gigantic growth of foreign direct investment. Theinternational monopolies increased their investments in these countries fromUS$115 billion in 1980 to US$1,2.6 billion in 2000, that is by more than tenfold.

The massive penetration of the international monopolies into the processof the production and reproduction of the neo-colonially dependent countriestriggered a structural crisis there, whose consequences above all the workingclass and the broad masses had to bear. It destroyed to a great extent the industrialbase, so far so it did not fit in with the structures of the globally organisedsystem of production of the international monopolies. The delegate of theCPI(ML) New Democracy gave a report at the Seventh International Conferenceof Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations in the fall of 2001 about theconsequences of this process for India:

In the industrial sector, already 4 lakh (400,000) of industries are closedor locked out, rendering millions of workers jobless. Their trade unionrights are curtailed. Due to the dictated policies of the World Bank,privatisation is taking place rapidly….. Already 40 million unemployedworkers are registered in employment exchanges. Thus, the unemployedarmy is increasing day by day sharpening the contradiction between theworkers and the bourgeoisie. (Country Report India, 2001)

In the August 1998, the Peruvian magazine Eureka analysed the destructionof jobs in important sectors of the Peruvian economy:

• Mining: of the former 75,000 miners, there are only 32,000 still employed.

• Fish processing: of the 35,000 workers in the former 21 fish factories,there are only 400 to 500 left.

• In the harbour, there used to be 4,898 workers with unlimited contractsand 5,300 fixed-term workers. After privatisation there remained 1.070workers.

• Petro Peru had 11,300 employees in 1990; after the company wasprivatised and broken up, there were only 1,600 left.


• Construction: of the former 300,000 employees about 60 percent areunemployed.

(Source: Eureka, publication of the Centre for Social Research, AMARU,Lima, Peru, No. 2, August 1998)

The business journalist Harald Stück analysed in 1996 which prime piecesof the economy interest the international monopolies most:

Affected are mainly the economic sectors petrochemicals,telecommunications, water, gas and electricity production, banks, the steelindustry, transport, harbour and mining. (Harald Stück, “Privatisierung inLateinamerika, Die Rolle der deutschen Industrie” [Privatisation in LatinAmerica: The Role of German Industry], Matices, No. 2, winter 1996/97)

In fact, direct investment rose sharply in the course of the 1990s in thesesectors in particular, for instance in Latin America fro US$65.124 billion toUS$237.156 billion, which was an increase of 264 percent. In the Central andEastern European countries, such investments even rose nine-fold in the periodbetween the first and the second halves of the 1990s; in East Asia/Pacific by246 percent. In Europe/Central Asia, too, there was an eleven-fold increase toUS$76.8 billion.

To make this sell-out profitable for the international monopolies, the IMFand the World Bank frequently demanded price increase for water, energy andother services before they granted these countries the re-scheduling of theirdebts and new credits.

Not only economic measures, but also political and military interferenceare used by the international monopolies to assert their claim to dominance. Atthe Seventh International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties andOrganisations, the delegate from Bangladesh reported:

Very recently the US government demanded that our air space, land andsea ports be allowed to be used by the US army if necessary in order tofight Afghanistan, which is far away from Bangladesh. Government andall the bourgeois parties gladly agreed to it…. Us interference is veryopen in our country. For example, the US ambassador openly proposedbefore our national election what should be the program of the first onehundred days of the newly elected government. The ambassador had theaudacity to demand that political parties should include her proposals intheir election manifesto, and the major bourgeois parties met theambassador and agreed to her proposal. The government of Bangladeshhas nearly completed a contract with a US company to lease out land for198 years to construct a new seaport by the side of our old port… Our gasfields have already been handed over to several US an done British andone Irish company on terms highly detrimental to our national interest.(Country Report Bangladesh, 2001)


Table 54

Investments in sectors of the infrastructure with private participation(in millions of US dollars)

Latin East Europe CEE South Middle SubAmerica/ Asia/ Central Countries1 Asia East/North SaharanCaribbean Pacific Asia Africa Africa

Telecommunications

1990-1994 32954 9434 3120 2988 838 118 586

1995-2000 99165 46365 52508 41791 12131 6729 10681

Changein percent 201 392 1583 1299 1348 5602 1724

Energy

1990-1994 13026 16698 2174 1456 3909 3132 139

1995-2000 82102 46980 18448 9404 16181 7794 4092

Changein percent 530 181 749 546 314 149 2846

Transport

1990-1994 14634 10095 1089 1089 127 — 49

1995-2000 43105 35946 258 2533 1714 1220 1937

Changein percent 195 25 6 199 133 1251 — 3869

Water and sanitation

1990-1994 4510 4023 16 16 — — 24

1995-2000 12784 9902 2578 1596 216 4106 1595

Chagein percent 184 146 16009 9872 — — 6544

1Central and Eastern Europe: Poland, Hungary, Russia, Czech Republic,Romania, Croatia, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine,Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova.

Source: World Development Indicators 2002

The imperialist appropriation of the means for serving the masses’ basicneeds and of the natural resources characterises most clearly the establishment


of the all-round rule of the international monopolies over the whole society inthe neo-colonial countries.

THE STRUGGLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONOPOLIES FOR DIRECT CONTROL OVER

RAW MATERIALS

Safeguarding the raw material base is the primary interest of theinternational monopolies. After the collapse of the old colonial regimes, thecontrol over raw material regions passed to the countries that had becomeindependent. At first, the international monopolies adopted a policy of beatingdown the prices for raw materials and increasing the prices for industrial goods,both measures carried out at the expense of the developing countries. Thisprice gap resulted in a considerable increase in debt mainly in those countrieswhere raw material export was the most important or even decisive source ofincome. In 1998, for example, the proceeds from mineral oil made up 97.7percent of Nigeria’s export revenues, 95 percent of Kuwait’s, 90 percent eachof Libya’s and Saudi Arabia’s, 85 percent of Iran’s and 72 percent of Venezuela’s.Guinea depends to more than 70 percent on the export of bauxite, Jamaica tomore than 50 percent. Zambia receives more than 80 percent of its exportrevenues from copper, Chile 30 percent. According to a survey by the UNdevelopment organisation, UNCTAD, as many as 83 developing countries obtain50 percent of their export earning from only tow or three raw materials (miningand/or agriculture).

But this dependence did not alter the fact that the neo-colonial countriescontinued to have the direct control over their raw materials. In the eyes of theinternational monopolies, this was an element of uncertainty. In reference tomineral oil — the world’s most important energy raw material with a 40 percentshare of primary energy consumption — a study of the German Federal Institutefor Geo-science and Raw Material Research expressed clearly what they aremost afraid of:

A reason for concern is the fact that almost two thirds of the world’s reservesare concentrated in only five countries of the Middle East, with aroundthree fourth under the control of OPEC. (Bundesanstalt fürGeowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hanover [ed], Commodity Top News,No. 13 of January 2001)

In the 1990s, a large number of mines in neo-colonial countries wereprivatised, as envisaged by the Brandy Plan. The international monopolies hadthe state property transferred to them and, in return, redeemed debts of thedeveloping countries. Between 1987 and 1998, in the sector of non-ferrousand steel-refining metals there were 176 cases of privatisation, takeovers andmergers worldwide worth a total of US$53.6 billion. In gold mining, a domainof Anglo-American, in the same period there were 182 mergers, takeovers andcases of privatisation involving capital totalling US$39.9 billion. The systematic


acquisition of enterprises exploiting raw materials led to the concentration ofthe world market shares for iron ore in the hands of just a few corporations in2000.

Among the 500 large international monopolies in 2001, BHP Billiton heldrank 281, Anglo-American rank 341, and Ruhrkohle AG rank 365.

Table 55

World market shares of non-ferrous metals

Non-ferrous metals No. of corporations World market shares in %

Copper 6 50Niobium 3 100Tantalum 2 75Titanium 4 561

Vanadium 3 921 Share refers to “Western world”

Source: DIW-Wochenbericht, No. 3, 2000

The monopolies also subjugated the international trade in agriculturalproducts. Purchase and sale of agricultural raw materials were concentrated inthe hands of three to six of the largest international monopolies.

Table 56

Market power of multinational corporations in agricultureConcentration of the international trade in agricultural products

(Share of three to six of the largest international corporations in theworldwide trade in these products)

Product Share of world export of agricultural product in %

Wheat 85-90 Maize (cron) 85-90

Sugar 60 Coffee 85-90

Rice 70 Cocoa bean 85

Tea 80 Bananas 70-75

Timber 90 Cotton 85-90

Hides and skins 25 Tobacco 85-90

Natural rubber 70-75 Jute and jute products 85-90

Source: Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry on “Globalisation of theWorld Economy – Challenges and Answers”


The neo-liberal policies organised the transition from indirect to directcontrol of the resources by the international monopolies. No longer contentwith controlling the raw material markets, they now also took charge ofextraction and trading. In a way, this meant a return to the old method ofcolonialism — but on a new basis. The control of raw material sources andproduction facilities lies directly in the hands of the imperialist powers andtheir monopolies. New is only that the neo-colonies possess politicalindependence, formally at least. For outward appearance, the governments bearthe political responsibility; behind this façade, however, the internationalmonopolies hold sway. So the novelty is a comprehensive system of deceptionand manipulation. That fact that, in reality, the international monopoliesdetermines the policy of the neo-colonial countries is covered up to avoid anopen confrontation with the working class and the broad masses and to retardthe anti-imperialist liberation struggle.

The more the masses see through this system of deception and manipulationand understand the imperialist essence of the new relations of exploitation, themore the class struggle in the neo-colonial countries and the struggle for nationaland social liberation will turn directly against the organs of international financecapital. Then these masses will fight under the leadership of the internationalworking class to overcome the imperialist world system.

THE EXPANSION OF WORLD TRADE AND THE INTERNATIONAL INTRODUCTION OF

MONOPOLY PRICES

The international monopolies let the production facilities acquired in theneo-colonial countries produce mainly for export. On the other hand, the forcedtakeover of trade barriers was used to flood the markets with imported goods.Trade monopolies like Wal-Mart destroyed the national food markets andmonopolised the supply of food to the population — initially at dumping prices,but after eliminating the competitors, at monopoly prices. Willi dickhutcommented:

A consequence of the monopoly price noticeable to everyone is thetremendous upward trend of prices which is characteristic of the economiclife of all the highly developed capitalist countries. Lenin already mentioned“the rise in the cost of living ….. due to the growth of capitalist monopolies”(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 459). (Economic Development andClass Struggle, Part II)

The cost of living rose particularly in the countries to which the mostcapital flowed during the reorganisation of international production. In Brazilthe price index climbed to 1,741 times the 1992 level in 2001. In Argentina itrose between 1990 and 1995 fourfold, in Mexico between 1990 and 2001 by afactor of 5.7, in South Korea by more than two thirds, in Chile and South Africaby a factor of 1.5. In Indonesia the price index almost quadrupled over this


period, in the Philippines it increased by a factor of 2.5. In Peru it even rose bya factor of 25.8. Not that this tremendous increase in the cost of living was justan ugly side effect of the reorganisation of international production, it wasrather a deliberately pursued policy to make the markets especially of theindustrially more developed of the developing countries attractive forinvestments of the international monopolies. An often dramatic curtailment ofbuying power was imposed upon the masses, frequently combined with acomplete change in their previous life circumstances.

Table 57

Cost of living index

Cost of living index in countries receiving the most capital in the courseof the reorganisation of international production (index 1995 = 100)

Country 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Brazil 0.11 100 111.1 119.9 124.5 138.6 157.7 1714.1

Argentina 24.7 100 100.2 100.7 101.6 100.4 99.5 98.4

Mexico 44.5 100 134.4 162.1 187.9 219.1 239.9 255.1

Chile 52.2 100 107.4 113.9 119.8 123.8 128.5 133.1

Peru 5.5 100 111.0 121.2 129.8 134.3 139.4 142.1

South Korea 74.0 100 105.0 109.6 117.9 118.8 121.5 126.5

Indonesia 65.3 100 107.9 114.6 181.6 218.8 217.7 253.0

Malaysia — 100 103.5 106.3 111.9 115.0 116.7 —

Thailand 79.0 100 105.8 111.4 120.1 120.6 122.4 124.4

Philippines 58.2 100 108.3 115.4 126.6 135.1 140.9 149.5

Taiwan 81.9 100 103.1 104.2 106.1 106.4 107.8 107.8

India 60.7 100 109.0 116.8 132.3 138.4 144.0 149.4

CzechRepublic 91.72 100 108.9 118.1 130.7 133.5 138.7 145.2

Hungary 32.3 100 123.6 146.2 167.2 183.9 201.9 220.2

Poland — 100 119.9 137.7 153.7 164.9 181.6 191.5

South Africa 58.6 100 107.4 116.6 124.6 131.1 138.1 146.0

Egypt 56.0 100 107.2 112.1 116.1 122.2 125.6 —

1 Figure for 19922 Figure for 1994Sources: Statistiches Jahrbuch für das Ausland; OECD


Monopoly prices can only be obtained if the monopolies do in fact controlthe internal market, i.e., competition has been eliminated. The monopoly pricesin the developing countries are a sure sign that international monopolies haveestablished their rule over the national markets. Willi Dickhut wrote:

As long as he can maintain his monopoly, that is, as long as he can preventthe “inflow” of outside capital into his sphere, he can, by the method offixing a high monopoly price, gain profit that goes beyond the averageprofit, in brief, he can gain monopoly profit. However, the same thinghappens if several capitalists take joint measures to keep away competition…. Therefore, the monopoly price is predatory price determined not byeconomic laws but by the rapacity of the monopolies. The monopolycapitalists use their monopoly for excessive price increase and for wilfulexploitation of the customers dependent on them. (ibid).

To push through monopoly prices, in certain countries like Peru andArgentina, or also in Thailand, South Korea and in Philippines, the nationalcurrency was directly linked to the imperialist currency, the dollar or euro. InMarch 2000 Ecuador replaced its previous national currency, the Sucre, by thedollar. The reason cited were loss of confidence in the local currency, continuedhigh inflation, and the hope of easier access to international technology andinternational know-how. A broadcast on Deutschlandfunk radio on April 28,2002, clearly pointed out the real beneficiaries of “dollarization” in Ecuador:

Ecuadorian monetary policy now is formulated in the USA …. Dollarizationis good probably for those companies that invest here themselves. That is tosay, that invests a dollar in machines and the like. They now, of course, nolonger face the risk of losing that dollar due to inflation. Foreign firms haveindeed invested more in Ecuador since dollarization, albeit on a low level andmainly in the ecologically controversial heavy oil pipeline OCP. (Kerstin Fischerand Johannes Beck, “Aus Argentinien nichts gelernt? Dollarization in Ecuador”[No Lessons Learned From Argentina? Dollarization in Ecuador], manuscriptof broadcast, pp. 3 and 4)

HARBINGERS OF FUTURE BREAKDOWNS OF NEO-COLONIALISM

The Asian crisis of 1997-98 was chiefly triggered off by the conduct ofbig European and Japanese banks. Hardest hit by the crisis were Indonesia,South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. Since more attractiveloan transactions were not to be had in Europe and Japan, the banks had veritablyswamped these five countries with credits, the sum of which rose from $6.1billion in 1993 to $40.6 billion in 1997, i.e., more than six-fold. EconomistJörg Huffschmid commented:

Prospect of high profit, stable exchange rates, and unimpeded movementof capital — these were the constellations that emerged in the Asian


countries, partly developing on their own, partly created at the insistenceof third parties, and that made these countries the ideal haven for frustratedcapital from the metropolises…. The weakness of the Asian finance sector,criticised by the IMF, if anything was that it led itself be drawn in and tookthese credits — and then had to somehow put them to further use in thecountry. Since a sufficient number of sound investment projects were notavailable, the funds simply went to unsound projects, and a considerablepart just circulated in the finance sector. The result was a meteoric rise instock prices. (Politische Ökonomie de Finanzärkte, p. 181)

The speculation also accelerated the general price rise. Asian goods becamemore expensive and were thus harder to sell in the world market. Exportsdeclined relative to imports. The export proceeds now no longer sufficed torepay the loans. Compounding the situation was the linkage to the US dollar ofthe currencies of Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, the Philippines andIndonesia. When exchange rate of the dollar rose in relation to most othercurrencies in 1995, the exchange rates of the Asian currencies pegged to thedollar increased accordingly. This further raised the world market prices of thegoods from these countries.

At the beginning of 1997 the international banks and currency dealersbecame convinced that the Asian currencies in question were overvalued. Forthis reason, linking with the US dollar had to be abandoned and the currenciesdevaluated. The national governments resisted devaluation at first, selling foreigncurrency, for they knew that devaluation would make the repayment of theloans, denominated in US dollar, must more difficult and that it would be thedeath of many companies. But the foreign exchange reserves were limited. Inearly July 1997 the Thai government had to give up the fight and unlinked itscurrency from the dollar. Just two weeks later Malaysia followed, and a monthlater Indonesia. Many banks and enterprises were imperilled, and the prices ofstocks from these countries took a nosedive.

After reverting to flexible exchange rated the East Asian currencies lostsubstantial value by the spring of 1998. the devaluation relative to the US dollarcame to about 50 percent in Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea and Philippines,and even 84 percent in Indonesia.

This called international currency speculation into action, which had bankedon the devaluation of the Asian currencies. International banks instantly withdrewUS$32.3 billion in loans — and the economies of the countries concernedcollapsed forthwith. Jörg Huffschmid aptly commented:

The prosperity one had worked hard to gain for many years was gonewithin a few weeks. Strictly speaking, it was not destroyed but transformedinto debts: to the IMF, to Western governments and Western enterprises.(ibid, p182)


This devaluation expropriated a large part the wealth of entire countries,and that on a previously unknown scale. The ones who suffered most from theconsequences of this financial speculation were the broad masses. Their hard-earned money, their savings all of the sudden were worth less. The IMF estimatedthat, due to the crisis, poverty doubled in Indonesia and rose by 75 percent inThailand and South Korea. In these three countries alone, at least 22 millionpeople were thrust into misery, suffered hunger, were made homeless andthreatened in their very existence.

The international monopolies took advantage of the situation to buy upenterprises in these countries at give away prices and so carry on their policy ofthe reorganisation of international production at the expense of these countriesyet more aggressively.

In 1998 the crisis spread to Russia, and in 1998-1999 to the entire Mercosur(Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguary), ruining millions of people theretoo. Brazil managed at first to pass on the effects of the economic crisis toParaguay, Uruguay and Argentina. The devaluation of the Brazilian currencycheapened the production of Brazil’s exports, and the neighbouring countriessuddenly lost their ability to compete. This plunged them into deep economiccrises. But that provided only temporary respite to Brazil before Brazil too wasafflicted by a deep economic crisis.

ARGENTINA’S ROAD TO NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY

The breakdown of Argentina was a lesson in the future developments ofneo-colonialism. International finance capital quickly and fully subjugated oneof the industrially most highly developed countries of Latin America. The stockof foreign direct investments increased from US$6.6 billion in 1985 to US$73.1billion in 2000. This put Argentina at the top of the neo-colonially dependentcountries, second only to Brazil, Mexico and Singapore.

Most of Argentina’s 20 biggest monopoly groups are in the possession orunder the control of international monopolies from other countries. In 2000,according to the analyses of the Argentinean Marxist-Leninist scientist CarlosEchagüe, these were

• Repsol YPF, petroleum: Spain• Techint, steel: formally Argentina, but in reality Italy• Telefónica: telephone, television: Spain• Carrefour, supermarkets: France• Telcom: Italy and France• Disco/Americanos, supermarkets: Netherlands/Argentina• Péres Companc, foods: Argentina• ENDESA, electricity: Spain• SHELL, oil: Netherlands/United Kingdom


• Clarin, mass media: Russia/Argentina• Cargill, agriculture: USA• Ford, automobiles: USA• Philip Morris, tobacco/foods: USA• Macri, conglomerate: Argentina• Esso, oil: USA• Fiat, automobile: Italy• Coca Cola, foods: USA• Renault, automobiles: France• Volkswagen, automobiles: Germany• Arcor, foods: Argentina

The chemical and petrochemical industry and the oil refineries in Argentinaofficially are 80 percent foreign-owned, but in reality almost wholly in foreignhands. Sixty percent of the food industry and entire automobile industry belongto foreign corporations. Even the iron and steel industry, thought to be entirelynational, is dominated in reality by Russian and Italian capital.

DECEPTIVE HOPES IN PRIVATISATION POLICY

The sell-out of the Argentine economy to foreign monopolies did notimmediately meet with the resistance of the masses, even though it entailedbankruptcies and massive job destruction from the start. The reason was thatthe proceeds of privatisation temporarily took the strain off the state budget.For a short while it appeared as though the debt could be gotten under control.Wages also rose for a time. In the book, Argentinien — Leben, Sehnsucht undKampf am Rio de la Plata we read:

Many Argentinean working people pinned great hopes on Menem. In factwhen Menem took office the average monthly wage rose. In 1989 theywere $175. in the first quarter of 1990 they increased to $190, in the secondquarter to $271, in the third quarter to $349 and in November/December1990 even to $490.

Naturally this wage increase was accompanied a depreciation of the dollar.But at any rate the real wage rose. (p.100)

Argentina’s growing indebtedness was indeed slowed between 1990 and1993. In 1993 it even temporarily declined a bit, but then rose again sharplyafter 1994 and soon reached new dimensions. Between 1993 and 2000 theamount that had to be put up for annual debt service nearly quintupled: fromUS$5.9 billion to the record level of US$27.3 billion. In spite of this, overallindebtedness more than doubled, from US$64.7 billion to US$146.2 billion.

The illusory hopes of gaining prosperity from the sell-out of national wealthto the international monopolies were dashed after just a few years. For thecredits of the IMF and World Bank, interest and principal had to be paid, but at


the same time the country was bereft of major sources of income following thesale of the state-owned enterprises. The international monopolies made evergreater demands on the infrastructure, demanded government investments, butdid not even dream of paying taxes in Argentina to strengthen the state. On thecontrary, the state treasury was increasingly plundered.

Linkage of the Argentine Peso to the US dollar could not save the countryeither. In 1991 economics minister Domingo Cavallo boasted that this wouldgive his country “at least six decades of stability”. But with the economic crisis,Argentina encountered growing difficulty repaying the loans. Thereupon theIMF in December 2001 stopped the disbursement of already pledged credits.Loans could still be obtained on the international capital markets, but thereArgentina had to pay a 40 percent risk premium. When the government leakedout its intension to discontinue the linkage of the Peso to the US dollar, a massrun on the banks occurred on November 30, 2001. Justifiably, savers feared thedrastic devaluation of their savings. On that day alone over US$2 billion werewithdrawn from accounts.

On December 1, 2001, the government curtailed the rights of savers todraw on their bank deposits, which gave rise to enraged protests particularlyfrom the petty-bourgeois intermediate strata. On December 5 the IMF announcedthat Argentina could not expect to get any further loans and that the previouslyagreed loan of US$1.26 billion would not be paid out. This was designed toforce the government to lop $4 billion off its budget, but that exacerbated theprotests, of course. A new general strike took place on December 19, 2001,which led to the national popular rebellion called the Argentinazo.

On December 20, 2001, President De la Rua had to resign. On January 1,2002, Eduardo Duhalde was instated as President. The US governmentdemanded that the new government present a credible economic program beforeUS funds could again flow to Argentina. As first measures, therefore, the linkageof the peso to the dallor was in fact annulled and the government was grantedextensive powers to combat the economic crisis. But that did not help either. InMay 2002 the peso had to be devalued by 70 percent, which heated up inflationand further reduced the income of the masses.

These developments evidenced the close interaction between debt crisisand economic crisis. Both crises deepened, and when the imperialist countries,with the help of the IMF passed on their own economic problems to Argentina,a hopeless situation arose there. By June, mass unemployment reached theofficial level of 30 percent, and the prices of food rose 50 percent.

REPERCUSSIONS ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CAPITAL

In the first quarter of 2002, the production of goods in Argentina fell by20.1 percent, construction activity by 46.1 percent. Every tenth employee lost


his or her job in 2001. Private consumption declined 21 percent. Argentinaexperienced the deepest economic crisis in its history. Of Argentina’s 36 millioninhabitants, almost 15 million had to subsist below the poverty level.

This had repercussions on the international monopolies. In the first sevenmonths of 2002 the automobile industry cut back output by 45 percent. Argentineproduction was exported to 80 percent in the past, mainly to Mexico and Brazil.The peso devaluation did benefit exports, but due to the world economic crisisthe international markets had shrunk too.

In 1998 Volkswagen, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, GM, Renault, Peugeot-Citröen, Fiat and Toyota still employed 27,000 blue and white-collared workersin Argentina; in August 2002 it was only a little less than 15,000 — and morethan 5,000 of them were temporarily laid off.

Other sectors were heavily affected too. The oil company Repsol YPF hadto take losses of almost a billion US dollar, France Telecom and the SpanishTelefónica, both stakeholders in Telecom Argentina, reported losses of US$318million and US$328 million in their annual financial statements.

Banks and financial institutions experienced massive setbacks because ofthe losses from “peso-ization”, the decline in the value of government bonds,and as a consequence of default due to mass unemployment and pauperisation.Foreign banks held a market share of 73 percent in Argentina in 2000; it hasjust been 15 percent in 1994. they “mastered” the crisis by writing off the lossesand thus destroying capital.

Table 58

Write-offs and valuation adjustments of international banks for losses inArgentina (in millions of US dollars)

Bank Year 2001

Citigroup/USA 2200

Banco Santander Central Hispano/Spain 1200

Fleet Boston Financial Corporation/USA 1100

Banco Bilbao/Spain 947

Crédit Agricole/France 934

Intesa BCI/Italy 661

Source: Die Welt of April 26, 2002, and January 31, 2003

The IMF demanded the privatisation by Argentina of the last state-ownedbanks, including the National Bank. This would give the internationalmonopolies direct access to 20 million hectares of land for which these bankshave extended mortgage loans.


At the end of 2002, one year after the cessation of debt servicing, no newagreement had been reached yet between the government of Argentina and theIMF; merely the deferral of due payments had been conceded. The measuresdemanded by the IMF, which boiled down to still more drastic plundering ofthe Argentine working people, could not be implemented at that time — sostrongly had the mass resistance shaken the state apparatus.

THE NEO-LIBERAL POLICY DISASTER MAKES THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES A FOCAL

POINT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLASS STRUGGLE

Neo-liberalism started out claiming to be able to resolve the crisis of neo-colonialism. But the balance of ten years of neo-liberal policies has beendevastating. The budget and debt crises could be dampened only for a time,then broke out anew and all the more violently. Admittedly, there were short-rum company formation and job creating drives, but the complete subjectionof the economies of the dependent countries to the international monopoliesdestroyed the national industries and ended in catastrophic mass unemploymentand mass poverty. And new President could raise the hopes of the masses onlyfor a short period; then they turned out to be true vassals of the imperialists,subordinated their countries to the dictates of IMF and World Bank and gaveup any remnant of national independence and sovereignty.

Neo-colonialism slid into a new crisis, deeper and more comprehensivethan that at the beginning of the4 9980s. This crisis operates on the basis of thereorganisation of international production and, above all, affects all sides ofthe entire system of world economy, all the way to the imperialist centres.

Mass struggles develop exactly around central issues of neo-liberal policies.The bourgeois weekly Die Zeit reported about struggles over water in SouthAfrica, Argentina, Ghana, Paraguay, India, Canada and Bolivia whichsuccessfully targeted the international energy monopolies:

The UN has long been warning that in future wars would no longer bewaged for scarce oil but for scarce water; in Porto Alegre one meets peoplewho already fight out such wars today. They come from Bolivia andArgentina, from Ghana and India, from the USA and Paraguay. They fightagainst the privatisation of water supply in their countries and communities.

In Cochabamba, the third largest city of Bolivia, in the spring of 2000 themunicipal water company was sold to the US corporation Bechtel. Here,too, prices rose drastically. Here, too, resistance formed. Mass protestsoccurred, the police responded with teargas, rubber projectiles and finallylive ammunition. The government declared martial law. Unionists andcommunity spokesmen were arrested and banished. According to AmnestyInternational, five people died in this war over water, which lasted severalweeks. In the end the “Coordination for the Defense of Water and Life”


won out. (Toralf Staud, “More Important Than Oil”, in: Die Zeit of February3, 2002).

One effect of the neo-liberal policies which is important for the future isthe extreme weakening of the state apparatuses in the neo-colonially dependentand oppressed countries. The class contradictions intensify, in the LatinAmerican countries a transnational revolutionary ferment is developing, butthe state and military machines are hardly able anymore to act against thismovement. A Bolivian Marxist-Leninist summed up the ‘water rebellion”:

The success of this struggle was an enormous encouragement to the massesin Bolivia. It became evident: neo-liberalism is not an all-powerful force!…. The masses are beginning to recover from the defeat of the past years,they have lost their fear of the government. The international monopoliesfear this. (Rote Fahne, No. 45, 2000)

The strength of the mass movements and the weakness of the neo-colonialstates also explains the increasing militarisation of the relations betweendeveloping countries and imperialist countries. More and more often theimperialists find themselves forced to maintain a military presence in the neo-colonial and semi-colonial countries in order to sustain the relations of powerand exploitation. This tendency is an expression of the aggravated crisis ofneo-colonialism. The crisis of neo-liberalism made the class struggle in theneo-colonially exploited and oppressed countries a focal point of theinternational class struggle. ●

[From “Twilight of the Gods – Götterdämmerung over the “NewWorld Order”, by Stefan Engel]


On Internationalism and NationalismK.N. Ramachandran

THE International Situation and Our Task (Draft document for the All IndiaSpecial Conference) points out that the dissolution of the Comintern “shouldbe seen as a strategic error in this background. Lack of an internationalleadership on the part of world proletariat at this critical juncture led to severesetbacks in scientifically evaluating the laws of motion of finance capital andputting forward the concrete programme of action against imperialism in itsneo-colonial phase. The dissolution of the Comintern in the name of defending“fatherland” and for the success of the anti-fascist front, in fact, did immenseharm to the world proletariat as it denied the decisive role of the communistparty and the Communist International, the only weapons before the workingclass and oppressed people in their fight against capital and imperialistdomination. In brief, in juxtaposing the defence of Soviet Union against theinterests of the international socialism and relegating the latter to thebackground, the international proletariat lost an authoritative organisation tolead the world people against the neo-colonisation process unleashed by USled imperialism in the post WW II phase”. To make this point more clear ananalysis of the approach of Soviet Union and China vis-à-vis this dissolutionand their approach towards the inter-relation between nationalism and proletarianinternationalism is necessary.

Lenin had put forward a well defined Marxist approach towards bourgeoisnationalism and proletarian internationalism, distinguishing them from eachother. Explaining this aspect it is stated in the 1997 international document:“Lenin’s approach to this subject itself was different. What is hidden in thesetwo basically different positions is the basic class difference between thebourgeois chauvinism of the social imperialism and proletarianinternationalism. Lenin saw the contradiction between socialist bloc andimperialism, between labour and capital, and between national liberationstruggles and imperialism not as isolated ones. On the contrary he saw themas a single whole. For Lenin the proletarian internationalism and the nationalinterest of Soviet Union were not in contradiction. For, Russian state was notan exploiting, bourgeois state as it was till the revolution, but a proletarianstate which has taken up the goal of world revolution, its basis itself isinternational interests of revolution; bourgeois chauvinism is alien to it andbelong to its enemy category. Instead of this comprehensive proletarianapproach put forward by Lenin, the bourgeois mechanical materialism andsectarianism which got strengthened within the international working classmovement in the later period led to seeing the subject isolated, separated fromeach other as the bourgeoisie always do.” (On International Developments


and Tasks of Marxist-Leninist Parties, see The Marxist-Leninist, July 2009)

Explaining this aspect Mao wrote: “It is an era in which the world capitalistfront has collapsed in one part of the globe (one-sixth of the world) andhas fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the remainingcapitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on thecolonies and semi-colonies, in which a socialist state has been establishedand has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberationmovement of all colonies and semi-colonies, and in which the proletariatof the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself from the social-imperialist influence of the social-democratic parties and has proclaimedits support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies.In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directedagainst imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie orinternational capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of thebourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category. It isno longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but ispart of the new world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution.“ (Mao, On New Democracy, Vol. II)

The CPC’s letter on General Line in connection with the Great Debate of1963 which later became the General Line of the world revolutionary Marxism,in general repeatedly stress upon this Leninist approach. It sums up therevolutionary principles of 1957 Moscow Declaration and 1960 Moscowstatement as follows : “Workers of all countries unite, workers of world, unitewith the oppressed people and oppressed nations; oppose imperialism andreaction in all countries; strive for world peace, national liberation, people’sdemocracy, and socialism; consolidate and expand the socialist camp; bringthe proletarian world revolution step by step to complete victory; and establisha new world without imperialism, without capitalism and without exploitationof may by man”.

How was this Marxist-Leninist approach towards the relation betweennationalism and proletarian internationalism, between building socialism in acountry where the proletariat and its allies have succeeded to capture politicalpower and fulfilling the tasks of proletarian internationalism was applied inpractice in Soviet Union and in China under the leadership of the CPSU andCPC calls for a close examination in the context of the severe setbacks sufferedby the ICM.

SOVIET EXPERIENCE

Exposing and uncompromisingly struggling against the social democraticline of Kautsky and company who opposed the revolutionary socialisttransformation initiated in Soviet Union and the pseudo-internationalistapproach of Trotsky which was later put forward as the concept of ‘permanent


revolution’, Lenin always stressed that Soviet Union should remain as therevolutionary base area of World Proletarian Socialist Revolution. It is in linewith this proletarian internationalist approach Lenin gave leadership toreorganize the Second International as Third or Communist International in1919, struggled against all hues of social democracy and sectarian views in thethen existing workers’ parties of Europe and North America in order to givethem a revolutionary orientation, put forward the Colonial Thesis calling forcompleting the tasks of national liberation and bourgeois democratic revolutionin the Afro-Asian-Latin American countries subjected to colonial dominationunder the working class leadership and develop the theory and practice ofrevolutionary Marxism in all spheres.

Even when calling for launching the New Economic Policy (NEP)immediately after the October Revolution to recover the Soviet Union from thedisastrous consequences of World War I, from the sabotages by the bourgeoiselements and from the economic blockade and aggression launched by thecombined imperialist forces, Lenin emphasized that it is only a tactical step toovercome present difficulties and to save the revolution in order to leap forwardin coming days. Lenin was not mincing words in his support to the nationalliberation movements in colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries andin calling for the proletarian revolutions in the imperialist countries.

In continuation to these, in Colonial Thesis Lenin pointed out thedetermining contradiction in the then concrete situation, and explained therelationship between the Soviet system’s victory over world capitalism and theSoviet movements of various countries along with the advancement of allnational liberation movements as follows: “The world political situation hasnow placed the dictatorship of the proletariat on the order of the day. Worldpolitical developments are of necessity concentrated on a single focus, thestruggle of the world bourgeoisie against the Soviet Russian Republic, aroundwhich are inevitably grouped, on the other hand, the Soviet movements of theadvanced workers in all countries, and on the other all the national liberationmovements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities, who arelearning from bitter experience that their only salvation lies in the Sovietsystem’s victory over world capitalism”. This contradiction between worldimperialism and socialist system was not seen by Lenin as the contradictionbetween Soviet Union and US alone as the Khrushchevites interpreted it in avery narrow, chauvinistic sense later.

LENIN ATTACKS THE SLOGAN OF ‘DEFENCE OF FATHERLAND’

Declaring that the collapse of the Second International is the Collapse ofopportunism, Lenin said: “The question of the fatherland — we shall reply tothe opportunists — cannot be posed without due consideration of the concretehistorical nature of the present war. This is an imperialist war, i.e., it is beingwaged at a time of the highest development of capitalism, a time of its


approaching end. The working class must first “constitute itself within thenation”, the Communist Manifesto declares, emphasising the limits andconditions of our recognition of nationality and fatherland as essential formsof the bourgeois system, and, consequently, of the bourgeois fatherland. Theopportunists distort that truth by extending to the period of the end of capitalismthat which was true of the period of its rise. With reference to the former periodand to the tasks of the proletariat in its struggle to destroy, not feudalism butcapitalism, the Communist Manifesto gives a clear and precise formula: “Theworkingmen have no country.” One can well understand why the opportunistsare so afraid to accept this socialist proposition, afraid even, in most cases,openly to reckon with it. The socialist movement cannot triumph within the oldframework of the fatherland. It creates new and superior forms of human society,in which the legitimate needs and progressive aspirations of the working massesof each nationality will, for the first time, be met through international unity,provided existing national partitions are removed. To the present-daybourgeoisie’s attempts to divide and disunite them by means of hypocriticalappeals for the “defence of the fatherland” the class-conscious workers willreply with ever new and persevering efforts to unite the workers of variousnations in the struggle to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie of all nations.

“The bourgeoisie is duping the masses by disguising imperialist rapinewith the old ideology of a “national war”. This deceit is being shown up by theproletariat, which has brought forward its slogan of turning the imperialist warinto a civil war. This was the slogan of the Stuttgart and Basle resolutions,which had in mind, not war in general, but precisely the present war and spoke,not of “defence of the fatherland”, but of “hastening the downfall of capitalism”,of utilising the war-created crisis for this purpose, and of the example providedby the Paris Commune. The latter was an instance of a war of nations beingturned into a civil war......

“Down with mawkishly sanctimonious and fatuous appeals for “peace atany price”! Let us raise high the banner of civil war! Imperialism sets at hazardthe fate of European culture: this war will soon be followed by others, unlessthere are a series of successful revolutions. The story about this being the “lastwar” is a hollow and dangerous fabrication, a piece of philistine “mythology”.The proletarian banner of civil war will rally together, not only hundreds ofthousands of class-conscious workers but millions of semi-proletarians andpetty bourgeois, now deceived by chauvinism, but whom the horrors of warwill not only intimidate and depress, but also enlighten, teach, arouse, organise,steel and prepare for the war against the bourgeoisie of their “own” countryand “foreign” countries. And this will take place, if not today, then tomorrow, ifnot during the war, then after it, if not in this war then in the next one.

“The Second International is dead, overcome by opportunism. Down withopportunism, and long live the Third International, purged not only of“turncoats”, but of opportunism as well.


“The Second International did its share of useful preparatory work inpreliminarily organising the proletarian masses during the long, “peaceful”period of the most brutal capitalist slavery and most rapid capitalist progress inthe last third of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. Tothe Third International falls the task of organising the proletarian forces for arevolutionary onslaught against the capitalist governments, for civil war againstthe bourgeoisie of all countries for the capture of political power, for the triumphof socialism!”

Though it was during the years of the World War I that Lenin wrote thesewords and led the revolutionary practice based on them, his call that the workingclass should raise themselves from bourgeois nationalist positions based defenceof fatherland like slogans and direct their struggles for a higher form of societyis of universal importance and was relevant even during the years of WorldWar II. The correctness or otherwise of raising of defence of fatherland sloganand dissolution of Comintern by the Soviet leadership should be analysed basedon Lenin’s teachings.

FROM ANTI-FASCIST UNITED FRONT TO COMINTERN’S DISSOLUTION

Though the World War I was fought for re-division of the world amongthe imperialist powers, it did not lead to resolution of this problem. On thecontrary, the defeat of the Germany-led imperialist powers and imposition ofUK-US dictates over them only led to aggravation of the inter-imperialistcontradiction. Combined with the fall out of the outbreak of the unprecedentedlysharp economic crisis in the imperialist countries in 1930s, these countries,especially Germany and Italy went under fascist rule throwing up a new andmost serious challenge to the proletarian revolutionary movements and thenational liberation struggles. It was by analysing the new situation that the 7th

Congress of the Comintern in 1935 called on the ICM to build a powerful anti-fascist movement at international level.

The Resolution of the Seventh Comintern Congress on Fascism, WorkingClass Unity and the Tasks of the Comintern stated: “The Communists, whilefighting also against the illusion that war can be eliminated while the capitalistsystem still exists, are exerting and will exert every effort to prevent war. Shoulda new imperialist world war break out, despite all efforts of the working classto prevent it, the communists will strive to lead the opponents of war, organisedin the struggle for peace, to the struggle for the transformation of the imperialistwar into civil war against the fascist instigators of war, against the bourgeoisie,for the overthrow of capitalism….

“At the present historical juncture, when on one-sixth part of the globethe Soviet Union defends socialism and peace for all humanity, the most vitalinterests of the workers and toilers of all countries demand that in pursuingthe policy of the working class, in waging the struggle for peace, the struggle


against imperialist war before and after the outbreak of hostilities, the defenceof the Soviet Union must be considered paramount

“If the commencement of a counter-revolutionary war forces the SovietUnion to set the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army in motion for the defence ofsocialism, the communists will call upon all toilers to work, with all the meansat their disposal and at any price, for the victory of the Red Army over thearmies of the imperialists.”

In order to carry out the anti-fascist tasks in the context of a fascistaggression on USSR and in order to wipe out the fascist forces, explaining theneed for strengthening of the Communist Parties, the Resolution stated: “TheCongress emphasises with particular stress that only the further all-roundconsolidation of the communist parties themselves, the development of theirinitiative, the carrying out of a policy based on Marxist-Leninist principles,and the application of correct flexible tactics, which take into account theconcrete situation and the alignment of class forces, can ensure the mobilisationof the widest masses of toilers for the united struggle against fascism, againstcapitalism.”

The Comintern’s call for building the Anti-Fascist United Front was wellexplained in the 1935 Resolution as a part of the General Line of the ICM inthe concrete situation when fascism emerged and posed grave threat not onlyto the national liberation movements and to the socialist forces led by SovietUnion but even to the bourgeois democratic institutions. So far as it was limitedto the needs of the situation during the World War II, even the tactical allianceforged by the Soviet Union with the imperialist powers, US, UK and France,against the fascist axis forces of Germany, Italy and Japan after the fascistsattacked on it was a positive step. But the weakness in the approach towardsimplementing the Comintern’s call started surfacing soon when the Sovietleadership started to turn this tactical step into a strategic one.

The division of the imperialist camp in to the fascist axis forces and theallied forces of US, UK and France had taken place basically on the questionof re-division of the world between them. Both were pursuing imperialist policiesand had colluded for many years in opposing the national liberation movementsand socialist forces led by Soviet Union. Both blocs had their own blue-printsabout the post-WW II situation. Both were opposed to Comintern and callingfor its dissolution. And the US-UK forces had put forward the Atlantic Charterin 1941 in order to dominate the post-WW II situation through new forms ofhegemony and plunder. Even after forging alliance with the Soviet Union, theUS-UK forces had delayed opening of the promised second battle front againstthe fascist forces indefinitely. As far as the US-UK forces were concerned theyscrupulously limited the alliance with Soviet Union to tactical level and utilisedall possibilities to gain initiative over Soviet Union. In spite of all these facts,


that the Soviet leadership was influenced by the weakness of considering thetactical alliance increasingly as a strategic one was a serious error.

This erroneous approach started with the approach of focussing entirelyon ‘defence of fatherland’ even when Lenin had severely condemned thisapproach pursued by the social democrats during WW I leading to the collapseof the Second International. Soon after forging the alliance with the US-UK-French powers, the decision of the Soviet leadership to sign the Atlantic Chartershowed that it did not recognise its counter-revolutionary character. When USorganised the Brettenwood Agreements in 1944 leading to the formation ofIMF and World Bank as another step towards transforming the colonial phaseof plunder to neo-colonial phase, the gravity of the challenge posed against theICM by the US-led imperialist forces through this step was again not recognised.It led to Soviet Union joining IMF and World Bank later. And the decision todissolve Comintern in 1943 in the name of strengthening the Anti-Fascist UnitedFront was the most crucial decision which turned out as a serious compromise.This error was compounded when the promised reorganisation of the CommunistInternational in the 1943 dissolution statement was never taken up.

The dropping of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by USimperialism in August 1945 even when the total rout of the fascist axis forceswas abundantly clear with the victorious march of the Soviet Red Army toBerlin, with the liberation of the East European countries, with the surrender ofMussolini and Hiterite forces and with Japan agreeing to surrender was anarrogant declaration of Cold War against the socialist camp led by Soviet Unionand of the launching of neo-colonisation at global level by the imperialist campunder US leadership. When this consolidation of the imperialist camp and itslaunching of neo-colonisation which is more sinister and pernicious than theold colonialism challenging the growing socialist camp, the national liberationforces and the world proletariat, oppressed peoples and nations was takingplace, in spite of mentioning about the necessity for combating imperialistchallenges in the central organ of the Cominform, For Lasting Peace and ForPeople’s Democracy, the Soviet leadership and Cominform in the main failedto come forward to deepen the ideological and political struggle againstimperialism and its lackeys.

On the contrary Soviet Union signed the Potsdam and later Yaltaagreements with the US-led forces which led to a compromise determining theareas of influence of both sides in Europe. Whether such a ‘line of control’shall help the world Proletarian Socialist Revolution was not given any seriousconsideration. This compromise led to Soviet Union calling on the CommunistParties in Western Europe, especially in France, which had led powerful guerrillastruggle against the Nazi occupying forces, to surrender arms. Only because ofthese agreements and Soviet Union failing to extend support, the revolution inGreece on the verge of victory failed. As a result of these agreements, in the


absence of a Communist International to extend solidarity to the revolutionarymovements which were fighting against new pernicious offensive of the US-led imperialist forces and in the atmosphere of a compromising situation created,the rightist trends started getting strengthened in the Communist Parties ofEurope. Though Yugoslavia under Titoist leadership which had started openlycollaborating with the imperialist powers was expelled from Cominform, as aresult of the failure to develop ideological and political understanding aboutthe Cold War and neo-colonial offensive launched by the US-led imperialistcamp, the rightist trend in Europe went on getting strengthened.

In West Asia and North Africa, which had already become the main regionof petroleum production, and which had become strategically crucial for theimperialist camp, following the WW II national liberation movements andCommunist Parties were getting strengthened. Anti-imperialist movements werecoming to dominance along with leftist, radical political forces. In thisatmosphere, it was a well calculated conspiratorial move of the imperialistcamp to impose Israel, a Zionist state, on the soil of Palestine. Israel was animperialist outpost in West Asia to sabotage the national liberation movementsand to help tightening of the imperialist stranglehold over this strategic region.Without recognising the gravity of this imperialist move Soviet Union recognisedIsrael, even though formation of it was contrary to the Leninist teachings onnationality question which Stalin had well explained in 1920s. This compromiseby the Soviet Union with the imperialist camp started causing immense harmto the Arab people’s national liberation movements.

On the whole in the post WW II situation, in spite of these weaknesses,the East Wind of socialist countries and national liberation movements hadbecome so powerful that they looked like prevailing over the West Wind ofimperialism and its lackeys internationally. It was by recognising this fact thatright from the time of the WW II itself the think-tanks of US imperialism hadstarted developing its strategy and tactics to combat this mortal challenge bylaunching the neo-colonial offensive. What was required from the side of thesocialist forces, especially Soviet Union which was looked upon as theundisputed leader of the ICM was a serious initiative to develop theunderstanding about the new imperialist offensive through neo-colonialism,reorganisation of the Communist International according to the needs of theconcrete conditions then and an uncompromising struggle against the US-ledimperialist camp and its lackeys, with a clear cut proletarian internationalistapproach. But when US-led imperialist camp launched the United NationsOrganisation (UN) to consolidate the so-called ‘de-colonised’ or ‘newlyindependent’ countries around the imperialist countries, without recognisingthe long term perspective of imperialists, Soviet Union became part of it. Evenwhen North Korea was attacked under UN flag by US imperialism this mistakewas not rectified. The need for organising and developing a parallel UN against


the US-led UN was never even thought of. All these developments show that incontinuation to the ‘defence of the fatherland’ approach of the WW II years,Soviet Union continued to give priority to its own preservation even by makingserious compromises with the imperialist camp. These policies amounted tosubordinating proletarian internationalism to nationalist needs of protectingSoviet Union. It can be seen that it was this weakness which was gettingmanifested more and more during and after WW II years which weakened theBolshevik positions and created a favourable situation for the capitalist roadersled by Khrushchev to usurp power and to put forward the ‘theory of threepeacefuls’, or ‘theory of peaceful co-existence and competition with imperialismand peaceful transition to socialism’ in the 22nd Congress of CPSU.

WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA

In the course of Chinese revolution, it is a fact that some of the advisesgiven by the Comintern leadership without correct cognizance of the concreteconditions including the balance of forces in China had caused harm to therevolutionary movement there. Based on these experiences the CPC hadendorsed the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943. But that it also failed totake the initiative to influence the ICM for reorganising the CommunistInternational according to the demands of the new situation cannot be ignored.It should be seen in the light of the earlier quoted approach of Lenin whoworked hard for a new international immediately following the collapse of theSecond International in 1913-14 period.

In spite of it, the Proposal Concerning the General Line of the ICM putforward by the CPC in 1963 as part of the Great Debate launched against therevisionist line of Khrushchev which had come to dominate Soviet Union andthe summing up of the positions of the 1957 Moscow Statement and 1960Moscow Communiqué as already quoted were major contributions to the ICM.

This General Line along with the Nine Comments published by the CPCthen had provided a necessary foundation to reorganise the CommunistInternational. If this reorganisation was taken up, it would have providedtremendous enthusiasm and support to the newly emerging Marxist-Leninistparties around the world to develop their revolutionary line according to theconcrete conditions in their own countries and to march forward. But neitherany effort was made to develop the ideological, political understanding aboutimperialism and its neo-colonial offensive based on Leninist positions and incontinuation to the explanations provided in the Great Debate documents, norto reorganise the Communist International. As a result, all the newly emergingMarxist-Leninist parties started upholding whatever is said and done by theCPC blindly. This mechanical approach led all of them to become victims ofwhichever line was coming into dominance in the CPC during the period ofintense inner-party struggle in it.


CONSEQUENCES OF THE INNER-PARTY STRUGGLE WITHIN CPC

As Mao explained later, the ‘theory of productive forces’ had come todominance during the Eighth Congress of the CPC in 1956 against the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the tasks during the socialist transformation period. Likethe revisionist line which had come to dominate the CPSU, the advocates ofthis capitalist road in China also had no perspective about reorganising theCommunist International. They were actually against it. In 1961 even in anarticle of Chou Enlai, though he was not part of the capitalist roaders, thenecessity for reorganising the Communist International was questioned.

In this situation, though the Proposal Concerning the General Line of theICM and documents explaining its various aspects were published in 1963, asthe struggle against the capitalist roaders had become the central agenda, thequestion of rebuilding the Communist International was not even a subject ofserious discussion. The international contacts of the CPC were limited to visitsof the newly emerged ML parties and leaders of the ‘third world’ countries.Even when the Chinese arguments on the border dispute with India in the mainwere correct, the border war with India, and later the border skirmishes withSoviet Union when the ideological struggle between them had become fiercehad started manifesting the influence of nationalism superseding the proletarianinternationalism, adversely affecting the ideological struggle then going on.

The ‘left’ sectarian line started exerting its influence in the CPC with thepublication of the “Long Live the Victory of People’s War” in 1965 by Lin Biaocalling for a mechanical application of the line of the ‘protracted people’s war’that was practiced in China during the liberation struggle all over the worldirrespective of the concrete conditions of other countries. In 1969, in the NinthCongress of the CPC this line came to dominance within it replacing the Leninistconcept of the present era as that of imperialism and proletarian revolutionwith the concept of an era of total collapse of imperialism and world-widevictory of socialism. Like Khrushchev, Lin Biao also under estimated the strengthof the imperialist forces. But contrary to the former’s line of class collaborationand compromise with imperialism, Lin Biao called for a ‘left’ adventurist lineof surrounding the ‘cities’, that is the imperialist countries, with the‘countryside’, that is, the national liberation movements. In spite of it Lin Biaodid not call for reorganising the Communist International. On the contrary, hisinternationalism was limited to mechanical bowing down of all the ML partiesto this adventurist line. Within this approach what was concealed was anoverdose of nationalism.

Though the socialist roaders were apparently in control in the TenthCongress of the CPC in 1973, a thorough rectification of the line adopted in theNinth Congress was not taken up. Besides as a result of the damage caused byhis adventurist, sectarian line, as soon as Lin Biao was overthrown in 1971, the


rightist line started dominating in the CPC and in Chinese state apparatus. At atime when a threat of Soviet invasion of the nuclear centres of China was beingdiscussed, the Chinese government went for ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ and thevisit of US state secretary Kissinger followed by US president Nixon’s visit in1972 when the US imperialists were intensifying their aggression against NorthVietnam, bombing even areas very near to Chinese border. Once again the US-led imperialist were arrogantly declaring that they are not ready for any sort ofcompromise. Once again it was the socialist China which started compromisinglike Soviet Union earlier, providing opportunity for US to utilise thecontradiction between China and Soviet Union, thereby weakening the supportboth the countries had pledged to Vietnamese people.

This weakness of counter posing nationalism against proletarianinternationalist approach and making the latter increasingly weak led almost tothe obliteration of the fundamental contradiction between imperialism andsocialism and projecting “the awakening and growth of the third world is amajor event in contemporary international relations”, as Chou Enlai did in hisreport to the Tenth Congress. It should be remembered that this analysis wasmade and Deng Tsiaoping who was reinstated made his UN speech in 1974which marked the attempt of the capitalist roaders to smuggle in the class-collaborationist ‘theory of three worlds’ when contrary to what Deng said then,and in spite of the advance of the national liberation movements in Vietnam,Laos and Kampuchia, under the neo-colonial offensive the Latin Americancountries were falling in debt trap. More and more Afro-Asian countries werecoming under increasing control of IMF-World Bank and MNCs. There wasno attempt to recognise the neo-colonial plunder getting intensified day by dayunder imperialist capital-market control.

The contradiction with the Soviet social imperialism was also taken bythe Chinese government to the level of compromising with the US supportedforces in Angola and Mozambique who were trying to sabotage the nationalliberation movements there supported by Soviet Union. There was no noteworthyattempt to develop the ideological-political understanding about the neo-colonialstrategy and tactics of the imperialist camp and to combat it. While USimperialism and Soviet social imperialism were contending and colluding forworld domination, there was a tendency in China of compromising with theformer, by depicting the latter as the principal enemy. The proletarianinternationalist approach was becoming weaker while nationalist tendencieswere gaining strength. An analysis of the experiences of the two decades fromthe 1956 Eighth Congress of the CPC shows that in spite of the Great Debateagainst Soviet revisionist line, in spite of the contributions of the CulturalRevolution, and in spite of the great strides in socialist construction, the inner-party struggle went on intensifying with first the rightist trend, then the ‘left’trend and once again the rightist trend coming to domination, continuously


weakening the proletarian internationalist approach. It is these weaknesses whichprovided a favourable atmosphere for the capitalist roaders to usurp power assoon as Mao died and to degenerate China in to capitalist path.

CHALLENGES BEFORE THE ICM TODAY

During the last five decades the ICM is reduced from a position of greatstrength to a very weak one today. In this situation, any analysis which statesthat so long as Stalin was there everything was OK in Soviet Union or as longas Mao was leading everything was OK in China will be mechanical. It willamount to overlooking the fierce class struggle which was continuing under thedictatorship of proletariat there and in other socialist countries, overlookingthe inevitable inner-party struggle taking place in a communist party as areflection of the class struggle going on in the society. Failure to grasp this hasled almost all the communist parties formed under the guidance of Cominternand a large number of Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations that haveemerged in the 1960s and their splinter groups to metaphysical positionsabandoning the essence of dialectical materialist approach.

With the emergence of the capitalist system which was “recreating theworld in its own image”, the internationalisation of production and theinternationalisation of the class struggle also started intensifying. That is whyMarx and Engels called in The Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the World,Untie”. They declared that working class has no nation, and they launched theFirst International, which was reorganised as the Second International takingthe experience of the Paris Commune after a brief gap. Continuing the basicunderstanding, immediately after the collapse of the Second International Leninenvisaged its reorganisation and soon put it in to practice following the victoryof October Revolution. After the great contributions made by the CommunistInternational, after its dissolution in 1943, if it is not reorganised even aftermore than 66 years, it is not due to any temporary aberration. It is basically dueto the basic weakness of the ICM to recognise the cardinal importance ofproletarian internationalism, as a result of the nationalist thinking supersedingthe proletarian internationalist spirit. It was this cardinal weakness, thisfundamental error which played the most important role in leading the socialistcountries to capitalist restoration and such a large number of communist partiesand groups to social democratic degeneration or to the anarchist path.

The challenge before the ICM is to recognise this weakness, develop theLeninist teachings on imperialism to recognise and to combat it in its neo-colonial phase, to uphold proletarian internationalist positionsuncompromisingly, and to march toward reorganising the CommunistInternational according to the present concrete conditions, firmly declaringthat socialism is the only alternative to imperialism. ●


On Mode of Production in IndiaObserver

The Naxalbari peasant uprising led by Communist Revolutionaries, and theformation of CPI(ML) in 1969 rejecting the Khrushchevite revisionist pathand putting forward a programmatic approach for advancing the NewDemocratic Revolution (NDR) were momentous developments in the historyof Indian communist movement as well as of our country in general. Therejection of Khrushchevite concepts of peaceful co-existence and peacefulcompetition with the imperialist system and peaceful transition to socialism,and the revisionist-reformist line pursued by the CPI-CPI(M) leaderships, andupholding the revolutionary path of NDR along with countrywide revolutionarystruggles gave a new impetus to the Communist movement. In continuation togreat Telengana and Tebhaga and other glorious movements led by the undividedCPI, Naxalbari enthused the toiling masses all over the country.

When we are evaluating the experience of the last three decades and thepresent situation, it is becoming all the more clear that, in spite of all the setbacksand splits suffered by the Naxalbari movement, only around its basic positionsa polarisation of all the Communist forces all over the country and building upa united and countrywide anti-imperialist, anti-state movement is possible, theintensifying neo-colonial slavery and growing fascist threats can be effectivelycountered.

But for realising this, the revolutionary forces should be strengthened atboth ideological-political and organisational planes. That is, by rectifying presentshortcomings the ideological-political line should be developed based on theThird International and 1963 Great Debate positions and as a continuation ofthe position of the undivided Communist movement and of 1970 programme.Also, by settling accounts with the sectarian approaches the party should bereorganised and class/mass organisations built up based on Bolshevik lines.The decision of the 1997 Fourth All India Conference of CPI(ML) Red Flagwas an important step forward in this direction. The amended Programmeadopted by this Conference has given a qualitatively developed orientation tothe mode of production debate taking place in thes country by rectifying theearlier erroneous approach towards feudalism in the 1970 Programme.

The 1997 amended Programme states: “16. Even five decades after thetransfer of power semi-feudal, pre-capitalist relations still continue in vast areasof the country. Along with this, under the new economic policies landaccumulation is promoted for agri-business, for integrating the agrarian sectorto international market. A new rich peasant class emerging from continuingstate policies including the new economic policies are serving imperialist


interests. The number of agricultural workers is swelling with the devastationof landless and poor, and even a section of middle peasants. The removal ofsubsidies and increasing cost of agricultural inputs have also further sharpenedthe contradictions in this sector.” Following this it is stated: “So the basic taskof Indian revolution is to overthrow the rule of comprador bourgeois-bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes serving imperialism”.

This Programmatic approach is further explained in the approach paperadopted by the CRC “On Organising Agricultural Workers and PeasantMovement” (see Red Flag, September 1997 issue) as follows: “As a result ofopening the agrarian sector to international market in more and more areas,significant changes are taking place in this sector. Capitalist relations are gettingstrengthened. But this is not leading to the development of independent capitalistrelations, to the ever increasing agricultural bourgeoisies or rich peasantsbecoming national bourgeois in character, or to India becoming a capitalistcountry as some of the petty-bourgeois trends try to explain. On the contrary,what is happening is that the agrarian sector has also come under increasinghegemony of the imperialist forces. Whatever self-reliance was existing is alsodisappearing. The agrarian sector is also reduced to an appendage of theimperialist industrial trade interests. It is reduced to a source of resources forthe imperialist capital.

“The rich peasant or agricultural bourgeois class which is getting richerand more powerful under increasing neo-colonisation is in the main closelylinked with and serving the interests of imperialism. While this class alongwith the MNCs are reaping huge profits, the agricultural workers are gettingincreasingly pauperised, the poor and marginal peasants are mostly loosing outand getting transformed into agricultural workers, and even a section of middlepeasants are also getting reduced to marginal peasants. This has intensified thecontradictions between the agricultural workers, poor and middle peasants anda section of rich peasants having patriotic and democratic outlook on the onehand, and the rich peasants and landlords who are increasingly becomingcomprador in character and the Indian state led by comprador bourgeois-bureaucratic bourgeois-big landlord classes serving imperialist interests on theother hand”.

These long quotes are given here to show that following two decades longstudies and practice linked to these studies the Fourth Conference has basicallychanged the 1970 position which stated that “the contradiction betweenfeudalism and broad masses of people is the principal contradiction, theresolution of which will lead to the resolution of all other contradictions” andthat “feudalism serves as the social base of imperialism”. While this positionhelped to reduce the target of NDR to feudalism simplistically, and to evolve atactical line based on the “line of annihilation of the class enemies”, it wentagainst all the teachings and experiences of the Third International and those


of all the Communist Parties, including the CPC and undivided CPI, built upunder the guidance of Third International. It refused to see the changes that hadstarted taking place in the pre-capitalist relations existing in the country duringthe colonial period itself, and later during the post-colonial period at a fasterpace. Along with this it refused to recognise the inter-relation and inter-penetration of all the major contradictions and one-sidedly emphasised thecontradiction with feudalism. The latter aspect is already discussed in detail inthe article “On the Question of Principal Contradiction” (see Red Flag, April-June 1998). Here we are focusing on the former aspect which asserted thatfeudalism is the social base for the domination of imperialism, that still feudalor semi-feudal relations are the predominant trend in India, and that capitalistdevelopment is not at all a significant trend here. In the years following the 9th

Congress of CPC held in 1969, when sectarianism dominated the entire approachtowards the strategy and tactics of the newly emerging ML parties includingCPI(ML), one can understand the taking up of such an erroneous approachtowards feudalism and the so-called predominance of feudal, semi-feudalrelations, and categorisation of Indian society as semi-feudal. But in the concreteconditions of today, when still more significant and fast changes have furthertransformed the agrarian scene, when all productive and service sectors in allthe countries under imperialist domination are brought under ever-expandingglobalisation, and when all the ML organisations are claiming that they havesettled accounts with the sectarian past, if the same old approach towardsfeudalism and the mode of production is maintained by these ML organisations,it should be a matter of great concern. It is the responsibility of the ML forcesto develop a healthy ideological polemics focussing on this vital question as apart of overall struggle to develop the ideological-political line.

MODE OF PRODUCTION DEBATE IN THE 1970S

In the early 1970s after the formation of the CPI(ML) there were threewell-defined positions on mode of production in India among the broad spectrumof the forces who are termed as ‘left’. A small section including RSP, SUCI likeforces continued to argue that with the transfer of power in 1947 the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution is completed and India became a capitalist country withthe Indian state transformed to a bourgeois democratic state. The CPI andCPI(M) took the position that capitalism is the growing trend though thedemocratic revolution is still not completed. According to CPI the dominantbourgeois class including the emerging bourgeoisie in the agricultural sectorare national bourgeois in character. It also envisaged the completion of the so-called ‘national democratic revolution’ under the leadership of this ‘nationalbourgeoisie’. The CPI(M) with the characterisation of big bourgeois-big landlordclasses as the ruling classes also emphasised growing capitalist relations andtermed the big bourgeoisie as having dual-character, national as well ascollaborating with imperialism. Both were violently opposed to the stand of


the CPI(ML) that this big bourgeoisie in India is comprador in character, andboth in effect rejected the increasing imperialist domiantion.

In the characterisation of the mode of production in India, in the course ofrejecting the positions that India is capitalist, or that capitalist relations are thegrowing trend and that they have become the predominant trend in the agrariansector, CPI(ML) forces went to the other extreme by analysing that feudal,semi-feudal relations are dominating, and that feudalism remains the social-base for imperialist domination. CPI(ML) Programme of 1970 as pointed outearlier also analysed that the contradiction between feudalism and broad massesof people is the principal contradiction, the resolution of which will lead toresolution of all other major contradictions.

It was in these circumstances a debate on mode of production in India wasinitiated and carried forward by some of the well-known left economic scholarsduring 1970-78 in the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) which is nowcollected and edited by Utsa Patnaik in a Sameeksha Trust publication titled“Agrarian Relations and Accumulation: the Mode of Production Debate inIndia”. Starting by an article by Ashok Rudra based on his studies in Punjab, itwas an inquiry into whether the capitalist relations are developing in agrariansector, whether it is a growing trend, and if so its character. One importantfeature of this debate was that all the participants in the discussion rejected theposition that India is an independent capitalist country. All the studies revealedthat it is a basically erroneous stand totally contradicting the concrete analysisof the concrete situation.

Replying to Ashok Rudra’s 1970 stand (which he has amended later) onIndian agrarian scene, Utsa Patnaik in her 1971 rejoinder wrote: “A new classof capitalist farmer is emerging: this is a phenomenon common to every region,insofar as every area has been subject to the same forces – albeit operating withvarying intensity – of an expanding market and enhanced profitability ofagricultural production. The rate at which capitalist development is occurringvaries widely in different regions depending on many historical and currentcircumstances; it may be near zero in some, but the reality of the process cannotbe denied.

“The development of the capitalist form of organisation must be looked atas a historical process, not as a once-for-all event. The capitalist does notsuddenly appear out the blue as a clearly defined ‘pure’ socio-economic type,he develops within the pre-existing non-capitalist economic structure…..”

She concluded: “….. analysis of the agrarian structure today andparticularly of its class nature, is bedevilled by the prevalence of pre-conceivedformulae, e.g., that the dominant relations of production are ‘semi-feudal’. Infact the post-colonial structure with its inter action of developing capitalismwith pre-capitalist organisation is a great deal more complex than can be summed


up in a single unqualified phrase. Not least important is the immensely unevendevelopment of different regions, which is inevitable, given the vase size of thecountry. It is necessary to analyse this complex reality concretely and not evadethe job by falling back on convenient formulae. Secondly, to recognise andanalyse the reality of limited capitalist development which is taking place todayis very different, in my view, from putting forward the thesis that anything likea successful capitalist transformation of Indian agriculture is at all possible. Onthe contrary, it is necessary to analyse the nature of the capitalist developmentnow taking place, precisely to identify its limits. People who profess to bemore interested in the ‘red revolution’ than in the ‘green revolution’ tend, quiteincorrectly, to regard the recognition of the fact of limited capitalist developmentas identical with a conceptual shelving of the ‘red’ revolution in favour of the‘green’. Hence, their eagerness to deny the reality of the process taking place.The causality of such misconceived radicalism is concrete analysis. (emphasisadded).

In his rejoinder Ashok Rudra, while agreeing that changes have taken place,argued that “they are largely of a quantitative order, within the framework ofthe production relations and class structure as has been existing from before.The emergence of a new class would imply that the transformation of quantityinto quality has taken place”. Yes, such a transformation is yet to take place,but the fact that capitalist relations were developing could not be denied.

Participating in this debate Paresh Chattopadhyay wrote: “….. Afterasserting that “peasant industry, in spite of its incomparatively tinyestablishments and low productivity of labour, its primitive technique and smallnumber of wage workers, is capitalism” Lenin observed that the Narodniks“cannot grasp the point that capital is a certain relation between people, a relationwhich remains the same whether the categories under comparison are at a higheror lower level of development”. The fact is that, capital and wage labour alwaysgo together, they are inseparable. As Marx showed “wage labour and capitalare two forms constituting, at different moments, one form and stand and falltogether” (Grundrisse). The problem with his intervention was that he couldnot differentiate the development of capitalism in Western Europe and NorthAmerica from its development in Tsarist Russia, or later in the colonial andpost-colonial conditions in a country like India. So he could not contribute tothe debate and jumped to mechanical conclusions. It is to be correctly analysedhow Marx’s and Lenin’s analysis is operating in a country under imperialistdomination.

In response to his arguments Utsa Patnaik replied: “Marx applied aparticular method of historical materialism to a systematic analysis, in particular,of the genesis and development of the capitalist mode of production in theconcrete historical experience of West Europe. Marx’s model (as elaborated inCapital) uses abstractions of feudalism to establish at the theoretical level the


laws of movement of the capitalist mode once it has emerged out of thecontradictions of feudalism. In my view, our task is to apply the Marxist methodto the concrete historical experience of India. This experience is a highly specificone: namely, the subjugation of a country with pre-capitalist mode of productionby a capitalist power. Therefore, we cannot simply take over in a mechanicalfashion the propositions proven or demonstrated to hold for the classical ‘model’of Marx and assume that they hold in the historically specific situation of acolonised country. We must rather try to apply the Marxist method to the specificdata of Indian experience. (The starting point of such an attempt has to be atheory of imperialism)”.

According to her what happened was that an interaction took place betweenthe externally introduced juridical forms and property relations – which howevermodified in their application, were in their basis and origin bourgeois – and theexisting pre-capitalist production relations. We can concur with this argumentto a great extent. This point becomes clearer when Utsa Patnaik later added:“India never saw an integrated development of capitalist production relationsand generalised commodity production, out of the internal contradictions of itspre-capitalist mode. Whatever the possibility which might have existed for sucha independent integrated development, it was made historically irrelevant byimperialism. We find that generalised commodity production was imposed fromoutside in the process of imperialist exploitation itself. India was forced toenter the network of world capitalist exchange relations: its pre-capitalisteconomy was broken up and a fair section of the peasantry was pauperised intolandlessness.

From this position Utsa Patnaik attacked Andre Gunder Frank type ofpositions, namely, all countries dominated by imperialism entered the networkof world capitalist exchange relationships (and also thereby experiencedgeneralised commodity production to a greater or lesser degree). Therefore allthese countries are ‘capitalist’. Therefore the only possible immediateprogramme of a revolutionary political party in each of these countries must besocialist revolution. It failed to distinguish between capital in the sphere ofexchange and capital in the sphere of production and therefore the implicitassumption that the first always implies the second. In other words, this schoolreduced the relation between the imperialist countries and the countries underimperialist domination to one of unequal exchange between the centre andperiphery. This dependency theory led all those who came under its influenceto basically erroneous positions.

These discussions lead us to the conclusions that capitalism as a trendstarted appearing in the agricultural scene from the colonial days, particularlyduring the imperialist epoch of the colonial period roughly beginning with thelatter half of the 19th century itself. It was happening when imperialism wassmothering the indigenous enterprises and subjugating the country. But as Lenin


said, “the export of capital greatly accelerated the development of capitalismin the countries to which it is exported” and that “capitalism is growing withthe greatest rapidity in the colonies”. So however truncated in character,capitalist relations started developing during colonial days itself because of thevery nature of imperialism. This process was well explained by Marx and Engelsin the oft-quoted passage of The Communist Manifesto as follows: “All oldestablished national industries have been destroyed or are being destroyed.They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life anddeath question for all nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenousraw materials, but raw materials drawn from the remotest zones; industrieswhose products are consumed not only at home, but in every quarter of theglobe. In place of the old wants satisfied by the production of the country, wefind we find new wants requiring for their satisfaction the products of distantlands. We have universal inter-dependence of nations. All nations, on pains ofextinction (are compelled) to adopt the bourgeois mode of production: it compelsthem to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to becomebourgeois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own image”.

Presently when globalisation has reached unprecedented levels, it is not atall difficult to see how correct was this great observation. To analyse that societyremained stagnant with pre-capitalist relations of production during the colonialand post colonial periods, and to conclude that capitalist relations are notdeveloping under imperialist domination during these periods according to theconcrete conditions of each country will be going against the Marxist teachings,and the concrete developments in all Asian, African, Latin American countries.

ON COLONIAL AND POST-COLONIAL MODES OF PRODUCTION

Participating in this debate Hamza Alavi stated (1975): “The colonialregime transformed the existing feudal mode of localised production andlocalised appropriation by a complete transformation of the agrarian economyin the second half of the 19th century, when railway and steamships were tocarry raw materials like cotton, indigo, jute and other commodities, which werenow to be grown by Indian farmers, to England. That was against the backgroundof destruction of Indian industry and the pauperisation of the artisans who wentto swell the ranks of the destitute on the land. Instead of a local exchangebetween Indian artisans and Indian agriculturists, the produce of the agriculturewas to be carried to distant shores and manufactured goods were to be imported.The Indian economy was disarticulated and subordinated to colonialism. Itselements were no longer integrated internally and directly but only by virtue ofthe separate ties of its different segments with the metropolitan economy. Itwas no longer a feudal mode of production. It had already been transformedinto a colonial mode of production. Generalised commodity production in thecolony did not have the same character as that in the imperialist centre itselfbecause of that disarticulation as pointed out by Samar Amin. It was a


disarticulated generalised commodity production – precisely, a colonial formof deformed, generalised, commodity production.

“Further, unlike the feudal mode of production that had preceded it, thecolonial mode of production was no longer one of simple reproduction, butone of extended reproduction. But here again its disformity arising from thecolonial status should be seen. The result of the internal disarticulation of thecolonial economy, and the extraction of the surplus by the colonial power meantthat the extended reproduction could not be realised within the economy ofcolony but could be realised only through the imperialist centre. The surplusvalue extracted from the colony went to support capital accumulation at thecentre and to raise the organic composition of capital (i.e., higher capital intensityof investment) at the centre while destituting the colonial economy.” Thusaccording to Hamza Alvi the colonial form was a deformed extendedreproduction.

The historical process of development of the colonial mode of productionis further explained by Hamza Alvi: “Colonial conquest not only displaced thecrumbling power of the Mughal Empire and set up the colonial state. It alsotransformed the structure of power at the local level, concomitantly with thecreation of ‘bourgeois landed property’ whereby land became the property ofthe zamindar, dispossessing the cultivator. Whereas before the change, he peasantsharecropper was unfree and the surplus was extracted from him by the zamindarby virtue of the jurisdiction and coercive force that he directly exercised overhim, now it was to be on a new basis. The ‘petty sovereignties’ of the zamindarswere abolished under new colonial dispensation that separated political power,now vested in the colonial state, from the economic power of the zamindars.The latter who were ‘landlords’ now became ‘landonwers’. On the surface,their relationships with their sharecroppers do not appear to be very differentfrom what they were before. An empiricist reading of history could easily leadone to suppose that this was unchanged. But the basis of that relationship wasfundamentally altered. The peasant was now legally free to leave his zamindar.But being dispossessed, he could have no access to the means of his livelihoodwithout turning to the landowner for whom he now worked out of economiccompulsion, ‘freely’. The peasant became a seller of labour power due to hisdispossession.”

So it can be concluded that as a consequence of a series of changesimplemented by the colonial state social relations of production in theagricultural sector started getting transformed. The pre-colonial feudal structurestated dissolved, the peasants were separated from the means of productionand livelihood, land, which became property in the hands of landowners, theirlocalised structures of power having been dissolved and incorporated into thestructure of colonial state. Economic compulsion was substituted in place ofdirect political compulsion to draw a surplus from the ‘free’ labour. Based on


these arguments Hamza Alvi proceeded to establish that a peripheral capitalisteconomy started developing during the colonial phase itself through a longprocess – which he has explained in the following way:

Indian cotton and silk textile industries as well as other industries basedon domestic production were destroyed in the early phase of colonisation. Withthe development of railways and a general improvement in the means of transportand communication Indian agriculture was progressively turned towards theproduction of crops for the metropolitan markets, especially cotton, jute andindigo; some crops such as tea were produced in plantations owned bycolonialists. Elsewhere, peasants started producing food crops as cash crops tofeed not only the newly emerging towns as bases of colonial trade, but also thepeasants in other areas who had turned into production of export crops. Thusthe old pattern of localised production started getting broken and production ofcommodities for an international market as well as for an expanding domesticmarket was taken up in hand. Likewise, with the progressive destruction oflocal manufacturing production, a market was established for imports fromEngland. Thus there was a movement towards generalised commodityproduction. But, as was stated earlier, this was a form of generalised commodityproduction that was not giving rise to independent capitalist development butwas specific to peripheral capitalism, the circuit of commodity circulation beingcompleted via the link with the metropolis, through exports and imports. Thesurplus extracted by colonial capital, likewise, created a form of extendedreproduction of capital which was generated in the colony, but accumulated bythe colonialists.

In his analysis of the manner in which the rise of capitalism was caused‘disintegration of the peasantry’, Lenin did identify two aspects of the processwhich provides leads into the problem and illuminates the contemporaryprocesses too which are visible in peripheral capitalist societies. He recognised,first, according to Hamza Alvi, the effects of the impact of capitalism in breakingdown the self-sufficiency of the peasant economy and drawing them increasinglyinto the circuit of generalised commodity production generated by the capitalisteconomy, and secondly, on the increasing migration of the peasant who, as aconsequence of the disintegration of peasant economy, had to look for outsideemployment to supplement the bankrupt farm economy and to subsidise thelivelihood of those depended on it. According to Hamza Alvi, manycontemporary writers like Bernstein (1977) has concluded that ‘peasant haveto be located in their relations with capital and the state, in other words, within‘capitalist relations of production’ mediated through forms of householdproduction which are a site of a struggle for effective possession and controlbetween the producers and capital/state”. All these leads in the direction that inthe aftermath of the impact of the colonial capital and the transformation thatfollows in the colonial and later in post-colonial decades, the peasant economies


have ceased to be ‘pre-capitalist’. While some old forms are still persisting, theunderlying structural basis is transformed, according to Hamza Alvi. But it iscapitalist development of a specific character that distinguishes it from that inmetropolitan societies or in the imperialist centres – one that does not allowforces of production in these societies to grow rapidly as in classical capitalism.This is capitalist development under imperialist domination. Underliberalisation/globalisation this capitalist development in the agrarian sector isintegrating this sector more and more to international market system under thedomination of imperialist capital and MNCs through the class of big landownerswho are becoming predominantly comprador agricultural bourgeoisie.

ON FEUDAL AND CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION

In the mode of production debate there is a major trend that still analysesthe agrarian sector as still dominated by pre-capitalist or semi-feudalrelationships. A Bhaduri (EPW, 1973) has explained the basic features of semi-feudalism as: “(1) An extensive non-legalised share-cropping system, (2)Perpetual indebtedness of the small tenants, (3) (Rural exploiters) operatingboth as landowners and lenders to the small tenants and (4) Tenants havingincomplete access to the market.” According to the critique of Jairus Banaji(EPW, 1977), Bhaduri describes a system of production in which the power ofmoney is clearly of fundamental importance; the small producer who may, forexample, be a sharecropper, is ‘indebted’ to his landlord, who extorts surpluslabour from him on the basis of a relationship that is fundamentally one ofeconomic dependence. The ‘consumption loans’ through which the smallproducer is bound to his landlord-moneylender, form advances for thereproduction of his labour power. The small producers bear no direct relationshipto the market, because his landlord-moneylender intervenes in the process ofreproduction to realise the surplus labour extorted from his on the market. Evenaccepting that such an ‘ideal’ concept of semi-feudalism existed once, can onestate based on both macro and micro studies that such a system is dominatingthe rural scene today?

Besides, as Ashok Rudra explains (EPW, 1978), it will be fallacious totreat institutions like share-cropping or tenancy, money lending, attached labour,etc. only as expression of feudal relations of production. It is true that similarinstitutions have functioned in pre-capitalist social formations and have actedas fetters to the development of capitalist forces and relations of production.But there is no justification to treat them as unchangeable or unadoptable tonew conditions.

First let us take the case of tenancy. A. Rudra explains: “As long as theowner of the land is a pure rentier who takes no interest in production decisionand does not perform any entrepreneurial functions and who uses up the rentfor purposes of consumption or unproductive investment, the tenancy could be


regarded as a feudal institution. It is more so when there is a relation ofdomination and subordination between the landlord and the tenant which isextra-economic in nature. Such a relation may pervade all parts of the tenant’sprivate and social life. The whole village society may be dominated by a handfulof neo-cultivating landlords. In such a situation the village society can becharacterised as feudalistic and tenancy can be treated as part of it.

But during last decades this situation has undergone major changes in vastareas. Tenancy do not occur today in many areas as an integral part of socialorganisation involving domination based on direct compulsion or extra economiccoercion, nor does the tenancy contract necessarily involve such feudalisticfeatures. Tenancy arrangements can be straight forward contracts between twoparties. Then it can fit well into a vehicle for emerging capitalist tendencies.This is more so when the landlords takes interest in production to the extent ofsharing costs and making advances to the tenant as part of cost of production.

Again tenancy can be a full-fledged capitalist institution when the tenantis the dominant party and the lesser is a small landowner. It is an emergingtrend in different part of the country that enterprising famers are leasing frompoor small landowners. So tenancy as an institution can accommodate capitalistrelations also.

Then the institution of money-lending, A. Rudra points out that is hasbeen regarded as an institution that has been an obstacle to the emergence ofcapitalist forces and relations of production due to its dual role. Firstly, it hasbeen one of the ways in which capital has been diverted away from productivechannels. Secondly, usury has the role of preservation of a power structurewhere a few rural rich maintaining a dominating control over the lives of therural poor. Though this was the condition till few years back, it has been changingfast in recent times.

Credit plays an essential part in the productive process and some part theloan taken, and increasingly a major part of it is for purpose of production.Many rich farmers who engage in money lending for whom it is neither aprincipal nor a subsidiary occupation give loan for consumption as well asproduction. So lumping together all kinds of loans to make estimates ofindebtedness of the peasantry and to treat it as an indicator for showing theexistence of feudalism is wrong. If this method is adopted one might confusehighly advanced areas where lot of inputs and for them loans are utilised withthe areas which are still under remnants of feudal relations. In the areas ofintensive cultivation extent of indebtedness of peasantry can be an index of thedevelopment of capitalist forces.

Now let us turn to the criterion of non-free labour or the insufficientdevelopment of labour market as an indicator of the continued prevalence offeudalistic relations. As A. Rudra says, while interpreting lack of freedom of


labourers in many studies, it is very often forgotten that for Marx a free labourmarket is one which is free from constraints arising out of extra-economicfactors. A non-free labourer is one who is prevented by extra-economic coerciveforces to sell his labour power to the maximum bidder.

While analysing this, one should not forget extra-economic factors likecaste, traditions, etc. which is preventing some sections from engaging in labouror some type of labour. Similarly, many of the examples cited to show lack offreedom in the labour market can take place under capitalist or any other relationsof production also. Extreme destitution of landless and poor peasants andagricultural workers cannot be cited as example for feudal relations. As explainedby Marx in first Volume of Capital, living conditions of industrial proletariatduring the early days of capitalism was not different. The condition ofunorganised workers, who are most numerous today and who live in slums orghettos is also not different. Workers whether in rural or urban areas are nowloosing even the bargaining power that existed so far due to the existence of anincreasing ‘reserve army’ of unemployed.

Regarding ‘bonded’ labour all studies show that in quantitative terms theirnumber is very limited. Again if a farm servant or tenant who has taken loanfrom the landlord or employer may not be free to leave him, the same isapplicable to one who is employed under a capitalist type farm or governmententerprise also. We should recognise that all debt-relations in agrarian sectordo not constitute bonded labour system.

Similarly, annual farm servants are also considered by some as an indicationof feudal relations. In is fallacious to say that daily contract with casual workersis capitalistic and annual or long-term contracts as feudalistic, especially whenoutside agriculture long-term contract is treated as perfectly normal and whenlong-term or permanent contracts are preferred.

So by citing such institutions one cannot define a mode of productionfeudal or capitalistic as these institutions themselves are subject to changesand the same institution can exist under both with necessary changes. Onlydependence arising out of extra-economic factor can be termed feudal. In asociety where vast majority are poor and only minority are rich, and where theinstitutions are meant to buttress the strength of the rich, as Rudra writes, thepoor cannot but be dependent on the rich in various ways. This cannot be takenas an indicator of feudal relations.

From here Rudra goes to put forward certain criteria to characterise pre-capitalist production relations. They are, according to him, (1) surplus extractedthrough extra economic coercion of ‘unfree’ labour, (2) surplus appropriateddirectly without intervention of any market, (3) surplus dissipated in luxuryconsumption as well as in different unproductive investments, leaving stock ofproductive capital unchanged and production in a cycle of simple reproduction,


and (4) technology remains unchanged. All macro and micro studies conductedby numerous agencies and institutions during the last decades in all regionsshow that all these conditions are fast changing and the areas under pre-capitalistor semi-feudal relations are fast decreasing. It is a decreasing trend.

Now let us see the characteristics of capitalistic relations pointed out byRudra: They are (1) surplus extracted from ‘free’ sellers of labour power in acommodity production process, (2) surplus realised exchange in a commodityexchange process, (3) surplus reinvested giving rise to a continued process ofaccumulation of capital and ever-expanding reproduction, (4) pursuit of profitleading to changes in the organic composition of capital and a continuous processof technological advancement.

The most serious flaw in the analysis of A. Rudra here is that he only seetwo possible modes of production, either feudal or capitalistic. He does notbother to give cognizance to the analysis made by Hamza Alvi about colonialand post-colonial changes in the mode of production and the role of imperialismin this. If Hamza Alvi defined these capitalistic changes as peripheral, Rudra isexplaining the characteristics of independent capitalist development as happenedin West European countries and explained by Marx in Capital, as if it canhappen in a country like India which is under intensifying neo-colonialdomination following two centuries of colonial domination. Once this aspect isalso seriously considered, it is not difficult to see that all the four characteristicsof capitalistic relations as pointed out by Rudra are becoming more and morevisible in India, of course, under the domination of imperialist capital and marketsystem.

APPROACH TOWARDS CLASS ANALYSIS IN THE RURAL AREAS

Lenin discussed the following classes in the context of the Europeancapitalist countries in 1920 in the ‘Preliminary Draft Thesis on the AgrarianQuestion’ presented to the Second Congress of the Comintern.

1) First, the agricultural proletariat, wage-labourers (by the year, season,or day) who obtain their livelihood by working for hire at capitalistagricultural enterprises.

2) Second, the semi-proletariat or peasants who till tiny plots of land,that is, those who obtain their livelihood partly as wage labourers andpartly by working their own or rented plots of land, which providetheir families only with part of their means of subsistence.

3) Third, the small peasantry, i.e., the small-scale tillers who either asowners or tenants, hold small plots of land which enable them to satisfythe needs of their families and their farms, and do not hire outsidelabour.

4) In the economic sense one should understand by ‘middle peasants’


those small farmers who, (i) either as owners or tenants hold plots ofland that are also small, but under capitalism, are sufficient not onlyto provide, as a general rule, a meagre subsistence for the family andthe bare minimum needed to maintain the farm, but also produce ascertain surplus which, in good years at least, be converted into capital;(ii) quite frequently …. Resort to the employment of hired labour.

5) The big peasants are capitalist entrepreneurs in agriculture, who as arule, employ several hired labourers and are connected with the‘peasantry’ only in their low cultural level, habits of life and the manuallabour they themselves perform on their farms.

6) “…. The big landowners, who, in capitalist countries, directly orthrough their tenant farmers, systematically exploit wage labour andthe neighbouring small (and not infrequently part of the middle)peasantry, do not themselves engage in manual labour, and are in themain descended from feudal lords”.

The main difference between Lenin’s characterisation of classes in Europeand of Mao Tsetung in China is that while the former analyses the classes in aregion where capitalist development has taken place to a great extent, latterdealt with a semi-colonial country where imperialism had not succeeded inestablishing total colonial domination and where, as a result, feudal relationswere till then predominant. According to Mao’s analysis the classes in the ruralareas in China were; (i) the landlords, (ii) the rich peasant, (iii) the middlepeasant; (iv) the poor peasant and (v) the agricultural workers. Compared toChina’s agrarian structure when Mao analysed it in the 1930s, the agrariansector in India has undergone many changes in the colonial period itself. In thepost-colonial years changes took place very fast. Under liberalisation/globalisation these changes bringing in capitalistic relations under imperialistdomination are taking place faster.

The agricultural workers are increasing in strength among the agrarianclasses. With the intensification of neo-colonisation, growing integration ofagrarian sector with international market system and the consequent peripheralor neo-colonial form of capitalist development more and more sections ofpeasantry are getting pauperised and they are also getting reduced to agriculturalworkers. Thus the agricultural workers are the most numerous, most organisedand biggest class in the agrarian sector. They get their livelihood wholly ormainly by selling their labour power.

The poor and marginal peasants till tiny plots of their own land and landtaken on rent and obtain part of their livelihood as wage-labourers. Undermounting pressure of liberalisation/globalisation this section, by and large, isgetting reduced to the status of agricultural workers.


The middle peasants own their land, or own part of their land and rentsome more land. He earns his income mainly from his own or his family’slabour. But at times he has to hire some labour also. While the lower/marginalsections undergo impoverishment fast under liberalisation/globalisation andare forced to resort to even suicide as happened in large numbers recently, onlya small upper section make an upward movement.

All the exploiting sections in the agrarian sector can be included in theclass of landlords which include the rich peasants. The growing force withinthis class is the comprador agricultural bourgeoisie who are through variousways connected with imperialist capital, MNCs and the market system. This isthe dominant ruling class in the rural area. They employ several hired labourersand utilised modern technological equipments and facilities.

CONCLUSION

Peripheral, post-colonial, neo-colonial, or stunted, however one may call,it is a fact that in continuation to the efforts initiated by British imperialismduring the colonial phase, in the post-colonial phase significant capitalistdevelopments have taken place in the agrarian sector under the domination ofimperialist capital and market system. As a result, through the ruling classpolicies the agrarian sector is also increasingly getting integrated to theinternational market system. MNCs are increasingly penetrating into this fieldalso.

All these developments prove the fallacy of the stand earlier taken by theML movement in the 1970s that feudalism is the principal contradiction, theresolution of which will resolve all major contradictions and that feudalismserves as the social base for imperialist plunder. Only by rejecting this so-called ‘theory of feudalism’ or semi-feudalism, recognising the correct relationbetween the anti-imperialist, anti-comprador, anti-feudal struggles accordingto present concrete conditions, the struggle of NDR can be carried forward. Ascientific analysis of the changes taking place in the rural areas will help todevelop an agrarian programme, to develop the tactical line for intensifyingclass struggle and to concretely explain the agrarian revolution in presentsituation.

It is in this context the Marxist-Leninist forces should take initiative todevelop the debate on the mode of production and characterisation of the Indianstate so that all previous erroneous, sectarian positions can be rejected, and thegeneral line for the NDR can be developed concretely based on a scientificclass analysis. ●

[The Red Flag, July-September 1998]


HOW THE THEORY OF“PROTRACTED PEOPLE’S WAR”HAS HARMED THE MARXIST-

LENINIST MOVEMENT

TODAY, almost all the Communist parties all over the world, who profess“Maoism” and many who profess “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Dze Dong Thought”state that the path of revolution that is required to be followed in all countries,which are under the domination of imperialism, including countries that arevariously referred to as “semi-colonial” and “neo-colonial” is the path of“Protracted Peoples’ War”. It may be true that this phrase has today come tomean different things to different people. Some people use the term to describewhat is, in essence, an application of the “foco” concept put forward by CheGuevara. Yet others use it to describe nothing more than a strategy of buildingup a people’s movement. Many use it as a mere slogan to testify to their“revolutionary” credentials without ever leaving their armchairs. We proposethat, in all these manifestations, this term is being brutally abused and has misledthe revolutionary movements all over the world and has been the cause oftremendous harm to the revolutionary movement all over the world.

Till 1965, in Communist literature, the term “people’s war” was neverused to describe revolution or even a strategy for revolution. It was commonlyused only as a category of war – war between countries, or at least betweenarmies. It was used to distinguish a just war from a predatory imperialist war. Itwas used to signify a war which had the support of the people and in which thepeople were enthusiastically taking part. It was never used to signify a strategyfor revolution.

The term was first used by Com. Lenin during the time of the First WorldWar in the course of his polemics against Kautsky and the other classcollaborationist renegades of the Second International. He first used the termin 1914 in his writing, “Positions and Tasks of the Socialist International”published in the Sotsial-Democrat No. 33 of 1st November 1914. Here, whileanswering the argument of the renegades that internationalism consists of theworkers of one country shooting down the workers of another, allegedly in“defense of the fatherland”, he refers to the 1st World War as a “People’s war”.What he means by this term is merely that the war enjoys “popular” chauvinistsupport. He says:

Sanjay Singhvi


“War is no chance happening, no “sin” as is thought by Christianpriests (who are no whit behind the opportunists in preachingpatriotism, humanity and peace), but an inevitable stage of capitalism,just as legitimate a form of the capitalist way of life as peace is. Present-day war is a people’s war. What follows from this truth is not that wemust swim with the “popular” current of chauvinism, but that theclass contradictions dividing the nations continue to exist in wartimeand manifest themselves in conditions of war.”

Lenin goes on to clarify the meaning of People’s War in his writing “TheCollapse of the Second International” published in the journal KommunistNos. 1-2. This was written in May-June 1915, by which time the true nature ofthe war as an imperialist war for colonies stood revealed. Here Lenin assertsthat the 1st World War was not, then, a people’s war. While explaining howKautsky and Plekhanov are misleading the people by comparing the presentimperialist war with certain just and revolutionary wars of the earlier century(like the peasant wars in Germany) and while relying upon the Basle resolutionof the Second International (where it had been resolved to oppose the presentimperialist war), in his defense, he says:

“The Basle resolution does not speak of a national or a people’s war— examples of which have occurred in Europe, wars that were eventypical of the period of 1789-1871 — or of a revolutionary war, whichSocial-Democrats have never renounced, but of the present war, whichis the outcome of “capitalist imperialism” and “dynastic interests”,the outcome of “the policy of conquest” pursued by both groups ofbelligerent powers — the Austro-German and the Anglo Franco-Russian. Plekhanov, Kautsky and Co. are flagrantly deceiving theworkers by repeating the selfish lie of the bourgeoisie of all countries,which is striving with all its might to depict this imperialist andpredatory war for colonies as a people’s war, a war of defence (forany side); when they seek to justify this war by citing historicalexamples of non-imperialist wars.” Here Lenin opposes people’s war tothe present imperialist war. In any case, it is clear as crystal that Lenin isnot using the term “people’s war” as a strategy for revolution but is usingit to define a particular kind of war. He is using it as a category of theuniversal term “war” which is also used as a war between countries.

Stalin also used the term “people’s war”. In his Order of the day issued on1st May 1943, in the thick of the Second World War, he asserts that theparticipation of the whole of the people in the war effort on the part of theSoviet Union has made the war a “people’s war”. He says:

“Comrades! The Soviet people display the greatest solicitude for theirRed Army. They are ready to devote all their strength to the task of


still further increasing the military might of our Soviet land. In lessthan four months the peoples of the Soviet Union contributed overseven billion rubles to the Red Army Fund. This is further proof thatthe war against the Germans is indeed a people’s war of all the nationsinhabiting the Soviet Union. The workers, collective farmers andintellectuals are working tirelessly in factory, office, transport systemand collective and state farm, staunchly and bravely bearing all theprivations caused by the war. But the war against the German fascistinvaders demands that the Red Army should receive still more guns,tanks, aircraft, machine guns, automatic rifles, mortars, ammunition,equipment and food supplies. Hence the workers, collective farmersand the entire Soviet intelligentsia must work with redoubled energyto supply the needs of the front.

All our people, and all our institutions in the rear, must work with thesmoothness and precision of a well-made clock. Let us recall the behestof our great Lenin: “Since war has proved inevitable — everything forthe war, and the slightest laxity or lack of energy must be punished inconformity with wartime laws.””

Here too Stalin does not use the term “people’s war” in the nature of astrategy for revolution but only as a category of war between nations.

Mao talks of people’s war only in terms of actual war. He has nevermentioned it in terms of a strategy for making revolution or in the nature of a“path for revolution”. He talks of people’s war during two phases of the Chineserevolution. The first phase is during the fight against the Japanese aggressorsduring the period from 1935 to 1945 or so. Almost inevitably, during this period,he uses the phrase “people’s war” only in the form “people’s war of resistance”.This can be seen in various writings of Mao like “Situation and Tasks in Anti-Japanese War After the Fall of Shanghai and Taiyuan”. This is the outline fora report made by Com. Mao Dze Dong to a meeting of party activists in Yenanin November 1937. Here, for the first time Mao puts forward his understandingof what is a people’s war. The first four points of the report read thus:

“1. We support any kind of war of resistance, even though partial,against the invasion of Japanese imperialism. For partial resistanceis a step forward from non-resistance, and to a certain extent it isrevolutionary in character and is a war in defence of the motherland.

2. However, a war of partial resistance by the government alonewithout the mass participation of the people will certainly fail, as wehave already pointed out (at the meeting of Party activists in Yenanin April of this year, at the Party’s National Conference in May, andin the resolution[1] of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee


in August). For it is not a national revolutionary war in the full sense,not a people’s war.

3. We stand for a national revolutionary war in the full sense, a war inwhich the entire people are mobilized, in other words, total resistance.For only such resistance constitutes a people’s war and can achievethe goal of defending the motherland.

4. Although the war of partial resistance advocated by the Kuomintangalso constitutes a national war and is revolutionary in character to acertain extent, its revolutionary character is far from complete. Partialresistance is bound to lead to defeat in the war; it can never successfullydefend the motherland....”

Thus it is again clear that when talking of “people’s war” Mao is using theterm to describe an actual war. One in which the Japanese imperialists, with thehelp of the German and Italian Fascists, had actually invaded China. In fact, inhis writing “On Coalition Government” (1945) Com. Mao has stated that thePeople’s War of Resistance started in 1931 with the Japanese invasion of China.Thus Mao does not refer to the earlier period from 1927, though the long marchhad started, as a “people’s war”.

Again, in the period from 1945 to 1950, Mao again used the term “people’swar” almost always only in the form of “people’s war of liberation”. In his“Address to the Preparatory Meeting of the New Political ConsultativeConference” (15th June 1949) he has clearly stated that the People’s War ofLiberation began in 1946. In various writings written around 1949, like “Onthe People’s Democratic Dictatorship” he has referred to the “people’s war ofliberation” as going on for three years. This shows that Mao was not referringto the whole of the strategy from 1927, when the long march began as a “people’swar”.

In understanding the concept of “people’s war” as put forward by Mao, itis also necessary to understand the history of the Chinese Revolution. In 1924,the Communist Party had aligned with the Kuomintang under the leadership ofDr. Sun Yat-Sen and had formed a common united front. Together they had ledsuch important campaigns as the Northern Expedition. However, after the deathof Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the Kuomintang, under the leadership of Chian Kai-Shekundertook a purge of the party and the army. It broke relationships with theCommunist party and subsequently, after the Japanese invasion in 1931, took aline of partial resistance to the Japanese. Due to all these factors, it was left tothe Communist party to take the brunt of the fight for resistance to the Japaneseinvasion. The Communist party adopted the strategy of converting this warinto a people’s war, where the whole population is mobilised to fight againstthe Japanese invaders. In 1937, they again entered into an alliance with the


Kuomintang against the Japanese invasion. Though this alliance was fragileand suffered many setbacks because of the treachery of the Kuomintang, itlasted for the period of this war against the Japanese, that is, until the end of the2nd World War in 1945, when the Japanese invaders were finally driven out.

By this time, the Red Army was in occupation of vast areas of land. Theliberated areas of China extended from Inner Mongolia in the north to Hainanisland in the south and accounted for a population of 95.5 million. It was like aseparate country from the Kuomintang ruled China. From the end of the 2ndWorld War in 1945, an attempt was made to make peace with the Kuomintangand concentrate on the progress of China. However, again the Kuomintangbroke its truce and from June, 1946, the Red Army launched a second “people’swar”, the “people’s war of liberation”. As mentioned above, in this period Maotalks of the “people’s war of liberation” in many writings, but he sees it as adistinct war started in 1946. He is again referring to an actual war being foughtbetween the Red Army and the Kuomintang army as is clear from the contextof all the writings of this period. He is referring to “people’s war” as a form ofwarfare and not as a path of revolution.

In various writings he refers to methods to be used “...in our people’s warof liberation and the agrarian revolution...” (“Cast Away Illusions Prepare forStruggle” (1949)). Similarly in “The Chinese People Have Stood Up” (1949)Mao writes, “In a little more than three years the Chinese people, led bythe Chinese Communist Party, have quickly awakened and organizedthemselves into a nation-wide united front against imperialism, feudalism,bureaucrat-capitalism and their general representative, the reactionaryKuomintang government, supported the People’s War of Liberation,basically defeated the reactionary Kuomintang government, overthrownthe rule of imperialism in China and restored the Political ConsultativeConference.” Here he sees the revolutionary struggle of the people assupporting the People’s War of Liberation. Once again he differentiates betweenthe revolutionary struggle of the people and the People’s War of Liberation. In“Eternal Glory to the Heroes of the People” (1949) he says,

“Eternal glory to the heroes of the people who laid down their lives inthe people’s war of liberation and the people’s revolution in the pastthree years!

Eternal glory to the heroes of the people who laid down their lives inthe people’s war of liberation and the people’s revolution in the pastthirty years!...”

Again, he differentiates between the people’s war and the people’srevolution. He makes a similar differentiation in “The Bankruptcy of the IdealistConception of History” (1949) when he says:


“Well, then, if Sun Yat-sen could learn from the Soviet people and theSoviet people are not imperialist aggressors, why can’t his successors,the Chinese who live after him, learn from the Soviet people? Whyare the Chinese, Sun Yat-sen excepted, described as “dominated bythe Soviet Union” and as “the fifth column of the Comintern” and“lackeys of Red imperialism” for learning the scientific world outlookand the theory of social revolution through Marxism-Leninism, linkingthese with China’s specific characteristics, starting the ChinesePeople’s War of Liberation and the great people’s revolution andfounding a republic of the people’s democratic dictatorship? Can therebe such superior logic anywhere in the world?”

Here again he differentiates between the “People’s War of Liberation”and the “...great people’s revolution...”.

In an interesting passage in “Farewell to Leighton Stuart” (1949) hedescribes a historical war of Chinese legend of the 8th Century as a “people’swar of that time”. This shows that he could not have meant “people’s war” tomean a strategy for revolution for semi-colonial and colonial countries.

All these writings of Mao make his understanding clear. The specifichistorical conditions China of that time foisted a war upon the Communiststhere, first against the back-stabbing of the Kuomintang in 1927, then againstthe Japanese invaders from 1931 and finally against the Kuomintang for theliberation of China from 1945. In all these periods, it must be remembered thatthe Chinese Communist Party started with an army of over 50000 which hadbroken away from the Kuomintang in 1927. Mao says consistently that the RedArmy fights the war. On the other hand, he says that the people make revolution.When the whole of the people support the war, then the nature of the war changesand becomes a “people’s war”.

This cannot however mean that “war” is necessary for revolution. If, asand when, imperialism may foist a war upon the people, the Communist Partymust be ready to fight it and turn it into a “people’s war”. There may also besituations when the Communist party of a certain country reaches a stage whereit is capable of launching a war and defeating the ruling classes. No communistparty can escape the reality that today, peaceful transition to socialism is notpossible anywhere in the world. However the form of violent seizure of powermay be insurrection or war or some other form. It is especially true that nowriting of Mao says that “people’s war”, or indeed “war”, is the only form inwhich semi-colonial or neo-colonial countries can make revolution. Thisassertion was left for Lin Biao to make in 1966 as we shall see below.

Even after 1950, Mao has used the term “people’s war” only in the senseof an actual war. He talks of the people’s war in Korea in “Order to the Chinese


People’s Volunteers”. Similarly, the Central Committee of the CPC also usedthe term “people’s war” till 1965, only in the form of referring to an actual war.They referred to the people’s war in Algeria during the great Debate in the“General line document”. Even in 1965, in an Editorial of the People’s Daily,commemorating the 20th anniversary of the victory against Fascism, there is areference to the “Soviet People’s War” against Fascism.

In 1938 Mao wrote on his most important writings on War ca led “OnProtracted War”. In this he explains why China was bound to win the war andthe Japanese were bound to lose and also why the victory was not possible in ashort time and that how, therefore, the war would be protracted. However, inthis writing Mao conciously never used the term “people’s war” since theCommunist Party was then fighting the war in alliance with the Kuomintangand other political forces. Thus, Mao has never actually used the phrase“protracted people’s war”. This however, is not the point. The point is thatwhether talking of “people’s war” or “protracted war” Mao was always referringto an actual war and not to a path for revolution.

Then, in 1966, came Lin Biao’s writing “Long live the Victory in thePeople’s War”. In this he has repeatedly stated that the Chinese path of revolutionis applicable to all the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. He said:

“It must be emphasized that Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of theestablishment of rural revolutionary base areas and the encirclementof the cities from the countryside is of outstanding and universalpractical importance for the present revolutionary struggles of allthe oppressed nations and peoples, and particularly for therevolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples in Asia,Africa and Latin America against imperialism and its lackeys.”

In the same writing, he has stated,

“Many countries and peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America arenow being subjected to aggression and enslavement on a serious scaleby the imperialists headed by the United States and their lackeys. Thebasic political and economic conditions in many of these countrieshave many similarities to those that prevailed in old China. As in China,the peasant question is extremely important in these regions. Thepeasants constitute the main force of the national-democraticrevolution against the imperialists and their lackeys. In committingaggression against these countries, the imperialists usually begin byseizing the big cities and the main lines of communication, but theyare unable to bring the vast countryside completely under their control.The countryside, and the countryside alone, can provide the broadareas in which the revolutionaries can manoeuvre freely. Thecountryside, and the countryside alone, can provide the revolutionary


bases from which the revolutionaries can go forward to final victory.Precisely for this reason, Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory ofestablishing revolutionary base areas in the rural districts andencircling the cities from the countryside is attracting more and moreattention among the people in these regions.”

Here, Lin Biao has wrongly analysed the situation in the former coloniesas one in which “war” is inevitable and the only form of making revolution. Onthis basis he has gone further, and put forward that the strategy to be followedin such a revolutionary war will have to be the same as was followed in China,completely losing sight of the changes that had taken place in the world sincethe Chinese revolution, following on imperialism adopting the neo-colonialform of exploitation as opposed to the former colonial form of exploitation.

In certain situations, even under neo-colonialism, there may be situationswhere war is thrust upon the people, as is the case, presently, in countries likeAfghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. In such situations, the lessonslearnt during the course of the people’s war in China may well prove invaluable,though, here also the actual strategy and tactics will have to be worked out onthe basis of the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. However, Lin Biaois clearly mistaken when he calls for the adoption of the Chinese path universally,particularly in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. This mistakenunderstanding stems from his mistaken assessment of imperialism at that timewhich itself stems from a refusal to understand the changes that had taken placefrom the colonial system to the neo-colonial system.

In 1966, this mistake was worse confounded with the publication of the“Red Book” otherwise known as “Quotations from Com. Mao Tse Tung”. LinBiao was responsible for the arrangement of the quotations as well as for writingthe foreword. There is a chapter in this book which is on “People’s War”. Inthis chapter, disembodied quotations from Mao’s writings do not make it clearthat he was referring only to a strategy and tactics for war and make it seem asit he was referring to tactics and strategy for revolution.

Mao never talked of “protracted people’s war”. Mao did say in “OnCoalition Government” that “The Chinese people’s War of Resistance hasfollowed a tortuous course.”. However, he never used the phrase “protractedpeople’s war” much less used it to describe a strategy for revolution and evenless insisted that it must be the only form of making revolution in the currenttimes, particularly in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

In fact, in one of his most popular military writings, “On Protracted War”,written in 1938, Mao is careful not to refer to the war of that time as a “people’swar” since it was being fought in alliance with the Kuomintang and other politicalparties of China.


With the popularisation of the Red Book, many ML parties all over theworld took it for granted that the only path for revolution is the path of“protracted people’s war”, i.e. the establishing of rural base areas and theencirclement of the cities from the countryside. While insisting that this wasthe only path for revolution, many of the ML parties did not realise that theywere restricting them to fighting a war as the only path for revolution. Particularyin the neo-colonial period, when there has not been any world war for such along period, this strategy was eminently ill-suited to the situation. Thousandsof the youth, drawn to this line by their eagerness to fight the right revisionistline of Khrushchov – the most dynamic and vivacious of the revolutionaryyouth all over the world, fell prey to this mistaken understanding.

The net effect of this line was not only the waste of the youth of almosttwo generations, but also the divorce of the communist revolutionaries fromthe masses. Though, in words, this line called for “people’s war” in effect it ledto communist revolutionaries trying to foment a war where none existed, merelyso that they could turn it into a “people’s war”. Many of the groups which triedto foment such wars were only tiny miniscule groups which indulged more inadventurist heroics than in any real war. It became fashionable for all communistrevolutionaries to organise themselves more in the form of armies than in theform of a party. This line led to the abandonment of the struggle of the workersand the trade unions to the reformists and the revisionists. It led to the decimationof the communist youth and students’ movement all over the world and toisolationist and anarchist slogans like “Boycott of elections”. To live in thedelusion that they were fighting a war, such groups are even willing to abandonall democratic norms, all communist morals and decency and even the masses.

For two generations now, the communist revolutionaries, under theinfluence of the line of “protracted people’s war” have been torn away from themasses. We have to boldly and unhesitatingly reject this line. A severe strugglewill have to be waged against the many overt and covert manifestations of thisline. Only a very thorough rectification will be able to bring the revolutionarymovement back on the path of socialist and New Democratic Revolution. ●

the marxist leninist, oct 2009

Documents