Essence of KNRamachandran Politics Aravind Sinha.
The most important aspect of Ramachandran’s politics is his understanding of imperialism and the world order that emerged after Second World War. Let us look at what he says in this respect in his documents.
“The consequences of the momentous developments that took place during the post World War II years started disappearing from the debates. There were very little efforts to analyze and ‘develop’ Lenin’s teachings on imperialism according to concrete conditions. The basic changes taking place in the course of changing from colonial to neo-colonial phase were side lined.”
So Ramachandran took upon himself to ‘develop’ Lenin’s teachings in the present ‘phase of neo-colonialism’ after World War II. In this endeavor he found that the fifth characteristic of imperialism, as defined by Lenin, has become obsolete. In Ramachandran’s words:-“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 II even though numerous local wars and imperialist aggressive wars continue to take place, no world war have taken place for division and re-division of the world so far.”
Again, regarding these local wars he further says, “But what is taking place now is low intensity warfare as an imperialist of class struggle, a strategy of class war against the masses of the people.” So, according to Ramachandran these ‘local wars’ and “imperialist aggressive wars” are “class war against the masses of the people,” not war between imperialist powers. In this way Ramachandran has not only declared ‘territorial division of the world among imperialist powers’ obsolete, but has also declared that in the present phase of neo-colonialism, war among imperialist powers has become non-existent. So, in his opinion this characteristic features of imperialism that inter-imperialist rivalry and wars are inevitable in the era of imperialism, has also become obsolete. So what is left after World War II is a world which is divided between imperialist powers on the one hand, and new colonies on the other. Imperialist powers in this world have succeeded in resolving their conflict for territory and markets peacefully, and have imposed a neo-colonial exploitative system on other countries which are neo-colonies of the united imperialism. Imperialism unleashes aggressive wars and the people when they rise against this system of neo-colonial system. But no wars are taken place due to rivalry among imperialist powers. In this analysis imperialism become more powerful after World War II they imposed’neo-colonization’ on the world “which is a more pernicious form of colonization.” Then what about successful liberation struggles in Vietnam and other countries of the world? What about cold war between US imperialism and Soviet Social Imperialism? What about present day war going as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these not for world hegemony by US imperialism Vis-a Vis other imperialist powers.
The way Ramachandran has ‘developed’ the Lenin’s thesis on imperialism has brought him close to Kautsky’s line of ultra-imperialism or super imperialism. Kautsky visualized a ‘peaceful’ world order in which imperialism resolved their differences peacefully and ruled the colonial people through brute force. In this way a prolonged phase of brutal exploitation and oppression would continue in the world. Lenin on the other hand saw bitter rivalry and wars among the imperialist countries for colonies, raw materials and markets. These wars, local or world war would weaken the imperialist system and provide opportunity to the proletariat and other revolutionary people to make new democratic and socialist Revolutions. That is why Stalin defined, “Leninism is the Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution.” Ramachandran going Kautsky’s ways overestimates the strength of imperialism and underestimates the strength and power of the people. Again by rejecting Lenin’s thesis of contradiction being the principal aspect of inter-imperialist relationship leading to war. He rejects the possibility of emerging opportunities for the oppressed people to make successful revolution. Inter-imperialist rivalry and hegemonic designs of the US imperialism have resulted in numerous wars and conflict zones in the world. This weakens imperialist global order and provides opportunities to the revolutionaries to advance revolutionary struggle for NDR and socialism. Present day global financial crisis and melt down is the outcome of all the contradictions of imperialist system which Lenin had characterized. In this way Ramachandran has fallen in the ditch of right opportunism by rejecting Lenin.
Basing upon this wrong analysis Ramachandran makes serious mistakes regarding Indian Revolution. He Says, “The principal contradiction in present day India and the path of revolution leading to victory of the NDR can be defined and developed only based on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of Indian State as a state under neo-colonialism or a neo-colonial one.”He further elaborates his ideas on these vital questions in the following way:- “In the present neo-colonial conditions I India the principal contradiction is between the alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capital and landlords on the one hand and the broad masses of the people on the other.”
On the question of path of Indian revolution, he rejects the concept of ‘area-wise seizure of political power’ and ‘base areas’ as influence of localism and advocates: “significant changes that have taken place in the concrete situation in recent decades, especially after launching of neo-liberal offensive by imperialism and the native ruling classes call for a country wide offensive by the revolutionary forces mobilizing tens of millions.”
From these passages it is clear that Ramachandran does not accept semi-feudalism also which he had accepted in 2005 Unity conference. So, he has replaced ‘feudalism by ‘landlordism’ in his definition of Principal Contradiction in India. So, in his analysis semi-feudalism is not there, and a capitalist system has been foisted on the whole country by Imperialism. So, economic and political developments are one inter connected whole in the country. No fault lines, discontinuities distortions or disfigurements of local natures are caused due to feudalism. So, the revolutionary forces should, and can be organized at all India level, and they should launch all India revolutionary offensives. Brave words! But hardly any action matching these brave words. Any person even a with even a ordinary knowledge of contemporary political history of India knows that most of the movements have been regional or state wise or local in nature. But Ramachandran lives in world of imagination built by his erroneous concepts. And what are weapons in this all India Revolutionary offensive? It is fighting lections in as many seats as possible, even at those places where his party is nearly non-existent. He thinks that just by giving call to fight against imperialism during elections he can mobilize “millions” at All India level to launch an all India offensive.
This way Ramachandran’s line is a line of opportunism and parliamentary cretinism. By rejecting Lenin’s thesis on imperialism in the name of ‘developing’ Lenin’s teaching he has embraced the concept of Second International led by Karl Kautsky. This is the line of social democracy, capitulations to imperialism, and parliamentary path. So, this line must be rejected lock, stack and barrel.
===================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment