Having arrived at the conclusion that there is need to “develop” Lenin’s teachings on the question of imperialism in accordance with concrete conditions; or in an attempt to fill the vacuum said to have emerged due to the alleged failure on the part of Marxist Leninist forces or rectify the distortions that crept into the theoretical and political analysis of the developments, especially in the post second world war period, KNRamachandran has come out with certain formulations. These formulations, in essence, declare that certain essential aspects of Lenin’s teachings on imperialism had come obsolete and propose certain amendments to Marxism Leninism.
Ramachandran asserts that in the “neo colonial phase” of imperialism, “basic changes “or “qualitatively distinct changes” had taken place in the form of imperialist exploitation and hegemony. More importantly, he concludes: (a)”the fifth characteristic, “the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed” is no longer evident. (b)”with the disappearance of the territorial division of the world as one of the basic features of imperialism, though six decades have elapsed after world war 2nd no world war has taken place for division and re division of the world.”(3) In the neo colonial phase, “financial oligarchy, along with this the speculative character of finance capital has achieved predominance” (4)”The whole imperialist economy and political frame-work under went significant changes.”(5)”As possibilities for territorial extension of the market, bringing in new areas under its control no longer exists; it can be achieved only through expansion of market and financial sectors, an intensification of exploitation of human and natural resources of the neo colonial countries”.
These conclusions are theoretically anti Marxist-Leninist; politically are wrought with danger of driving one into the reformist mire; factually are based on a total distortion of facts and politically carry harmful consequences for the revolutionary movement and the struggle against imperialism.
These conclusions seek to reform imperialism. They assure that the imperialists are no more in a position to extend the areas of control and they are left with only economic means but not the means of war to extend their markets, financial sectors and loot of human and natural resources. In essence, according to these conclusions the inter-imperialist contradictions and rivalries in the present world cannot go beyond the competition in the economic sphere and war as a means of major imperialist powers to settle the question who dominate the world has become obsolete.
But the realities are otherwise.
Today, the imperialist powers, more particularly US imperialists, are doing everything to retain their monopoly on most sophisticated and most destructive weapons – both in terms of quantity and quality. The US imperialists and, in a lesser degree, other imperialist powers are having military bases at a number of chosen strategic points throughout the world. They had built up military alliances such as NATO and are using the same threaten, attack and subjugate other countries. The US attempts and moves to encircle of arms and Russia militarily, maintain its upper hand over it in the strength of arms and Russia attempts to oppose it and resort to counter moves are unending features in the present world. We find no country today which is not threatened or interfered or bullied or attacked by the US imperialists. We had seen many proxy wars in different countries waged by the imperialist powers, more particularly the two super powers, in their contention for hegemony. It is a fact that the imperialist powers who were engaged in armed invasions and who are responsible for many mini and proxy wars and internal armed conflicts and coups, etc. had shed blood, brought human and material destruction and committed barbarities many times greater than what we had seen in two world wars taken together. In every region in the world, the US maintains military out posts such as Israel and it is engaged in constantly multiplying them with a view to use them to bring the countries and people under its control and domination.
So none of the basic features of imperialism, including the territorial division of markets, has either disappeared or was abandoned by the imperialist powers. The contradictions, rivalries and contention for markets and spheres of influence continued all along last six decades period. Some times their intensity was either more or less; sometimes they had manifested between the two main or leading rivals. Sometimes, the imperialists had settled their disputes over share of spoils ‘peacefully’ as they were then confronted with more formidable enemy in the form of oppressed people or a potential rival within their own camp. Direct and physical control on a country or region is not the only form or method that determines whether a particular country or region has come under the influence or domination of an imperialist power. There are different forms and degrees of influence or domination. It is not just subjective wishes of imperialist powers that determine the form. They act in accordance with the concrete situation and decide what can be a best course and form to realize their aims in the given situation. War has never been the only weapon, but one important weapon to decide the question, who dominates a country or region. The imperialists use this weapon basing on their assessment of the concrete situation.
Ramachandran’s conclusion that the possibilities for territorial division of markets and their expansion “no longer exist today “have no relation to the realities. His argument, basing on the fact that since no world war has taken place after 1945 we can conclude that the imperialists had abandoned war as a means of dividing or expanding their markets or areas of domination is too simplistic.
The developments in the last more than six decades were full of zig zags, ups and downs and turbulence. The balance of powers within the imperialist camp as well as between imperialism in general and US in particular on one side and the democratic, national socialist forces had been undergoing many changes and ups and downs. While forces of revolution are struggling hard against many odds to withstand and turn the situation in their own favor, the imperialists and reactionary forces that are plagued by their own crises, contradictions and rivalries are doing everything to pursue their own interests. The US imperialists who had come up in the post-second-world war period the leader of world capitalist system, had been doing everything to cut to size other imperialist powers while, at the same time, finding common cause with them in the suppression of forces of revolution. They are working with a clear aim of weakening and preventing other imperialist powers from becoming potential contenders not only economically, but also militarily for world hegemony. These courses of development show that the inter-imperialist contradictions and rivalry continue to operate even today in every sphere, including military. While antagonism and irreconcilability are the fundamental features of inter-imperialist contradictions, the contentions or collusions among the imperialists would change their positions from primary to secondary and, sometimes, both go together in accordance with the concrete conditions. Declaring that war no longer remains a means of resolving the inter-imperialist contradictions is nothing but denying the fundamental character of imperialism and attempting at reforming Leninism.
Ramachandran says: “except for some military bases and enclaves, imperialist countries are no more keeping any countries, even the smallest ones, under their territorial control. Even after aggression and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by US led imperialist forces, puppet governments were soon constituted and even fake elections were organized to give them pseudo democratic cover. “
It is height of absurdity.
In his eagerness to present imperialism as a ‘peaceful’ vegetarian animal, Ramachandran is minimizing the imperialist strategic, world wide spread of military network into just “some military bases and enclaves.” In his eagerness to prove that the imperialist are no more in a position to pursue the policy of dividing or re-dividing the territories, he is excluding even countries ruled by the puppets (and protected by the occupationist armed forces) from the countries territorially occupied by the imperialists. What is the difficulty for him to call the countries like Afghanistan and Iraq as neo colonies? His difficulty is: this will go against his own conclusion that ‘the imperialist countries are no longer keeping any countries, even the smallest ones under their territorial occupation’. It goes against his conclusion that the world today is ‘divided into the imperialist countries and large number of neo-colonial countries’ if he puts countries like Afghanistan and Iraq in a category different from others. His apprehension is: if he puts the countries like this in a separate category, the category of neo-colony, he may be compelled to put countries like India, not ruled by the puppets but by the comprador bourgeois-landlord classes who are in alliance with imperialism, in the category of semi-colony. So, he has chosen to put all these countries in one basket – basket of neo-colonial countries, as countries outside the realm of territorial domination or control of imperialist powers.
Ramachandran has come out with one more dangerous formulation. He says, “instead of territorial domination these countries under the former colonial domination are now controlled through their ever intensifying integration to imperialist capital-market system and internationalization of production through international financial agencies and MNCs.”
Lenin explained: “Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among them and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and ‘spheres of influence’ of the monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things ‘naturally’ gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels. This is a new stage of world concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the preceding stages.” Lenin called it ‘super monopoly’ too.
So, capitalism - in its investment of capital, production and marketing is international in character. Imperialism which has assumed the leadership of world capitalism has taken it to new heights. Thus it is not at all a new phenomenon.
Today, there is a trend in the international communist movement which advocates that the international class struggle and world revolution had assumed more importance than earlier because the internationalization of production and market and consequent and inevitable fall of national boundaries are a growing phenomenon. Objectively, this theory only serves the purpose of relegating the task of revolution to a secondary place in the individual countries and reducing the international struggle against imperialism into an abstract and general campaign.
Lenin, in his time, too confronted this problem in a different form. Here is what Lenin wrote: “certain bourgeois writers (now joined by Karl kautsky, who has completely abandoned the Marxist Position he had held, for example, in 1909) have expressed the opinion that international cartels, being one of the most striking expressions of the internationalization of capital, give the hope of peace among nations under capitalism. Theoretically, this opinion is absolutely absurd, which in practice it is sophistry and a dishonest defense of the worst opportunism.”
Lenin has dealt the slogan of “United states of the world “too. He wrote, “A united states of world (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism – until the time when the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a united states of the world would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such country to the others.
On the question of colonialism and neo colonialism; Ramachandran has come out with some confused and inconsistent ideas.
He confused the form with content. He calls a country which, even according to him is in process of neo colonization as a neo colony. He views, neo colonization not as a policy pursued by imperialism to exploit and control another country but as a “phase” of imperialism. He sees no difference between a country ruled by the Comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois and land lord classes in alliance with imperialism and a country ruled by puppets installed and protected by the imperialists.
When Lenin concluded in 1916 that “the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed,” he did not mean that the entire world was divided in to ‘imperialist countries and a large number of colonial countries’ as Ramachandran puts it now (imperialist countries and large number of colonial countries).
Lenin said,” Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also diverse forms of dependent countries which politically, and formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch.”
Ramachandran referred to ‘semi colony’ as ‘a transitional form,’ a’ form of dependence’. He mentioned Portugal an independent sovereign state as a “British protectorate” but, at the same, a country owning small colonies.
The point here is: It is simplistic and wrong to put all countries be it in the period of colonial period or neo colonial period in one broad vision. Because, in both these periods, countries were or are under diverse forms of dependence or control.
As everyone knows, the neo colonialism as a policy of imperialism is a post second world war phenomenon. The policy of colonialism received a powerful blow with the defeat of Fascism, victories or advance of the national liberation, national independence movements and people’s revolutions in the world. Historically, colonialism became obsolete and stood thoroughly exposed. However, the imperialism was only weakened but not over thrown. In the face of rising tide of national liberation, national independence movements and people’s revolutions the imperialist powers had to change their tactics to survive and pursue their policy of plunder and domination. The US imperialists, who had certain advantages over the other imperialist powers, had come to the fore as a champion of these new tactics and policy, came to be known as neo colonial country, the imperialists in general and US in particular had put this policy in practice in accordance with the concrete conditions in each country and region. They adopted the processes and different forms of control and domination.
The essence of debate and struggle between the CPSU on one side and the CPC on the other side at the time of Great debate on the question of imperialism and neo colonialism was: the CPSU asserted that the colonialism has collapsed once forever and therefore, the proletariat was left with no task of leading the national and democratic revolutions and peoples’ revolutions. The CPC said that imperialism has not certainly given up the colonialism, but merely change to new form, neo colonialism. It has correctly pointed out that this neo colonialism is more pernicious and more sinister form of colonialism and therefore, the national, democratic and people’s revolutions must be carried with all firmness and thorough to the end.
At the same time, the CPC has evaluated the concrete situation in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It said: “The whole groups of countries have declared their independence. Many of this countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remains object of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as areas of contention between the old and neo colonialists. In some, the old colonialists have changed into neo colonialists and retain their colonial rule through their trained agents. In others, the wolf left through the front door but the tiger has entered through back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new, and more powerful and more dangerous, US imperialism. The people of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced by the tentacles of neo colonialism, represented by US imperialism.”
The CPC also warned that the imperialists, headed by the US enslave or control countries which have already declared their independence by organizing military blocks, setting military bases, establishing ‘federations’ or ‘communities’ and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic ‘aid’ or other forms, they retain these countries as markets…….. Source of raw material and outlets for their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of people of these countries. They use UN to interfere in the internal affairs of a country, subject them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When these ‘peaceful’ means fail, they engineer military coups, carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression. The developments in the last more than three decades had confirmed the correctness of this entire evaluation.
By his refusal to clearly define the basic features of neo colony and to demarcate it from other countries Ramachandran is only diluting the meaning of a neo colony.
Ramachandran has come to the fore with criticism or comments on the Marxist Leninist force that they had not made enough efforts to study and analyze post second world war period. In their international struggle against imperialism, they had put the main edge against the US, as they assessed the US imperialism as the biggest exploiter, biggest oppressor and the common enemy of entire world people. When the Soviet Union has come up as a social imperialist super power with designs and moves and entered into contention with another super power – US – for world hegemony and both seemed to be pushing the world towards another global war, the Marxist Leninist forces had rightly focused their main edge of international struggle against the two super powers as the biggest exploiters, biggest oppressors and main source of war in the given international situation at the time. They pursued an international line of opposing imperialism in general, the hegemonies and war policies of two powers in particular and advancing revolutions in their own countries in accordance with basic tasks and concrete situation in their countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the US as a single super power has stepped up its hegemonic drive in an offensive way, the Marxist Leninist forces took note of this change and pursued the line and tasks suitably. In the entire period the Marxists Leninists firmly upheld Lenin’s definition on imperialism, the formulation, the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and pursued line and task by applying Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung thought to concrete conditions.
Mistakes in the evaluation of situations; in the application of theory to concrete situations and the sectarian or right deviationist tilts in formulating the task and practice had occurred in some occasions and on the part of some sections of Marxist Leninist forces. Such mistakes and deviations, no doubt, proved costly. However, they were within the reach of correction provided the concerned forces took the guidance and help of Marxism- Leninism- Mao’s thought. Ramachandran’s criticism or comment on the CPC and the Marxist Leninist forces is only a product of his conclusion that some aspects of Lenin’s teaching on imperialism had become obsolete and need amendment. So, naturally, he negates the efforts made by the Marxist Leninist forces in right direction.
On the characterization of Indian Society and state Ramachandran says: “India is a neo colonial country”.
“With this the neo colonization unprecedentedly intensified the Indian economy increasingly integrated to international monopoly capital and market system, with speculative capital dominating all spheres. India, like other former colonial, semi colonial and dependent countries of the colonial phase has become a neo colonial country, a country under ever intensifying neo colonization.”
“Thus this country was transformed from a colony of British imperialism to a country under neo colonial domination by various imperialist powers, especially US imperialism. Later when socialist Soviet Union degenerated to a social imperialist super power and the imperialist contradiction between US and Soviet Union started intensifying, this contradiction was reflected in the Indian ruling classes also. But in the main this inter-imperialist contradictions was utilized by the Indian state for maneuvering for its benefits and to pursue a hegemonic policy in south Asia.”
Here Ramachandran in infirm and inconsistent in his ideas on the question. He contradicts his neo colony characterization when he also says that India is a “country ever intensifying neo colonization” which only means that the process is still on.
Ramachandran agrees that various imperialist powers are contending in India for domination with US being in an upper hand in this contention. He agrees that the inter-imperialist contradictions are reflecting in the Indian ruling classes and the Indian state has utilized the same for maneuvering for its benefits. Elsewhere in his path document he explained that “even while the India big bourgeoisie and bureaucratic class have contradiction with imperialism which is often reflected in their maneuvers to utilize the inter-imperialist contradictions for their benefit, their collaboration with imperialism is basic…..” “So whether one calls it a junior partner or dependent bourgeoisie, its basic character remains the same.”
Our outline Programme says: “The ruling classes represented by the comprador-bureaucratic bourgeoisie and big land lord classes depending and serving imperialism is engaged in joint exploitation and plunder of the country and people.”At another place it also said, “In the present world situation, the neo colonial form of exploitation is intensifying with every passing year and various imperialist powers are contending for dominant position in India.”
Puppets cannot be expected to be in a position to either ‘share power’ or ‘collaborate’ or ‘junior partner or engage themselves in ‘joint exploitation and plunder’ together with imperialist power or ‘utilize the inter-imperialist contradiction’ and pursue a policy of ‘hegemonism’ in a region. A puppet as long as he is a puppet cannot pursue economic and political interests’ independent form and opposed to his imperialist master. But a comprador as long as he is a comprador can enjoy some maneuverability with in frame of serving imperialism on the whole vis a vis a particular imperialist power when they are contending for domination in the country.
When we call India as semi colonial we are clear that it is neither a colony nor an independent country. It is a country which was transformed from a colony to semi colony. It is transitional form adopted by the imperialists in collusion with the Indian ruling classes to safeguard their own interests in the face of irresistibly surging movement for national liberation in India; collapse of Fascism, national forces in to a formidable force. So this semi colonial form was a road block laid on the way to prevent India from becoming an independent country. Their move to transfer power to the Indian ruling classes and withdraw to the background was also a sort of step backward, again, to protect their interests in the changed conditions. A semi colony may either be pushed back into colonial embrace if the imperialists succeed in their counter revolutionary designs and neo colonial drive may save itself from this disaster and take a road of independence and democracy if the revolutionary forces succeed in leading the NDR to victory.
Neo colony is a country ruled by puppets of one imperialist power or a bloc of powers. It need not necessarily be a military occupied country. State here may sometimes do the garb of democracy, independence and sovereignty to befool the people. But it is the imperialist masters who decide its policies and the state will be required to execute them to the best satisfaction of the imperialist master.
In semi colony, such as India, the stage of revolution will be NDR and overthrowing feudalism and imperialism are its basic tasks. In the present phase, while according to primary importance to agrarian revolution as it brings the main revolutionary force – toiling peasants and the rural masses – into revolutionary action we would do everything to intensify the struggle against imperialism. The revolution may go over to the phase of national war even within the frame of NDR when the situation matures for it. In a neo colony, the stage of revolution will be National Democratic Revolution. Here the principal thrust of revolution will be directed against imperialism and their puppets, while at the same time, doing everything to strengthen the democratic content of the revolution by intensifying the struggle to weaken and dismantle the feudal social basis of imperialism in the country. When the country becomes an occupied one, the revolution assumes the character of National Liberation Movement from the beginning and all other struggles, including the struggle for democratic reform would be linked in a way to strengthen and advance NLM as a whole.
Ramachandran concluded that ‘recognizing neo colonization as the present phase of imperialism and finance capital, and characterizing the Indian State as neo colonial is Marxist Leninist Position. The revolutionary orientation to lead the NDR forward can be developed only based on these positions.” He argues that characterizing India as semi colonial after so many momentous developments in the post world war 2nd years has “already led to the communist movement vacillating between right opportunism and left sectarianism and vice versa to the failure to concretely analyze the Indian situation and develop the theory and practice of Indian revolution.”
These are empty assertions. In his entire note, Ramachandran has brought nothing to show how he differentiates a neo colony from a semi colony except repeating certain oblivious and uncontroversial facts such as that the imperialist countries, especially US imperialists are pursuing neo colonial forms of exploitation and plunder to gain domination over India and the policies associated with the globalization brought an added momentum and speed for the neo colonial drive. He agrees with all the formulations and elaborations contained in the outline of the programme which are quite in consonance with the semi colonial character of the Indian society and state. Despite all this, he concludes that the non adoption of the word, ‘neo colony’ has already led the communist movement to vacillate between right opportunism and sectarianism, etc. it is unfair.
Barring a section of CRs who over a period of time, have arrived at the conclusion that India is relatively independent, all the other CRs continue to adopt the semi colonial formulation with same elaboration as we have made in our outline Programme. There was a time when the words semi colony and neo colony synonymously used, but the word neo colony was abandoned eventually after a discussion and debate which led to see a clear differentiation between the two in content and form. It was correct. So it is simplistic as well as sweeping to attribute right opportunism or left sectarianism to the semi colonial formulation. To claim that neo colonial formulation alone is a Marxist Leninist position without explaining where it qualitatively differs from semi colony and what changes it brings in the tasks and direction of revolution defined in our outline Programme.
So we must adopt the characterization of ‘semi colonial and semi feudal society and state’ for India with all the elaboration contained in our outline Programme.
*******************************************************************
