ON CHARACTER OF INDIAN SOCIETY.

 ON CHARACTER OF INDIAN SOCIETY.

Com. P.Jaswantha Rao.

Four decades have passed since the Communist Revolutionaries broke away from neo-revisionism. One of the basic differences that demarcated CRs from neo-revisionism was and still is the assessment of the character of Indian society as semi-feudal and semi-colonial one. The neo-revisionists maintained that India is politically independent and capitalist with remnants of feudalism.

Even today many of the CRs maintain that India is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. Yet there prevailed confusion about the understanding of semi-feudal and semi-colonial nature and its interrelation and operation. Because of this confusion time and again many questions are being raised about the character, its existence, and operation. During these four decades, many developments appeared in the Indian society. How to understand these changes? Have they affected the basic nature of Indian society?

The bourgeois propaganda machine has been spreading that feudalism was relegated to history and India is a capitalist country aspiring to become world power corroborating the aspirations of the Indian big bourgeoisie which came off its age and is able to compete in the international market. Do the changes that occurred during the last four decades warrant such a conclusion?

When we discuss the character of Indian society, we can not discuss feudalism and imperialism as separate entities. From the beginning they are interrelated.

When we look into the feudalism in India, we are aware that it differs from European feudalism in many respects. The Asiatic mode of production that prevailed in India before the advent of colonial conquest was destroyed by British rule. On the other hand, the British reconstructed Indian society in such a fashion that it served the colonial subjugation and plunder. With the introduction of railways, the British sowed the seeds of capitalist relations in India. At the same time in the agrarian sector, which had no right of property in land, they imposed zamindari and ryotwari land tenure systems. In both the systems land was considered as private property and commodity and was placed in the hands of landlords. Thus the Indian feudal system was created and nurtured by the colonial power and acted as a conduit to siphon off wealth from rural India to colonial metropolis. It acted as the social base for the colonial power.

On the other hand, by creating Zamindari and other forms of intermediaries, the British created buffer tier between it and the people so as to insulate the colonial power from the direct onslaught on the people. When the wrath of the people threatened to bring down the zamindari, the colonial power intervened to suppress the revolt. Moreover, utilizing the feudal system it imposed upon India as its social base had helped colonialism in more than one way. One of the major benefits was the plunder that led to the accumulation of capital on a huge scale in Europe. This accumulated wealth from the colonies had played a major role in transforming capitalism into its highest stage, imperialism.

Thus India was a colony and feudal society with capitalist relations scattered here and there under British rule. In the process of the development of mercantile capitalism into Imperialism, the British started some industries like cotton ginning, jute, textiles etc. In the course, British rule gave birth to a local merchant class that thrived on supplying raw materials to industries and selling British industrial products.

While the railways and other industries gave birth to the working class, it also created a middle class for its administrative needs. To meet these needs it introduced modern education which brought progressive and democratic ideas to the Indian people.

As capitalism grew into imperialism, as the financial capitals gained the upper hand on the economy, and as the world capitalist system mired in the crisis leading to the world war, Industrialization accelerated with the mercantile class turning into capitalists acting as compradors to British Bourgeoisie. Thus the capitalist development from the beginning was tied to imperialism with innumerable ties. And the Indian capitalist class was from its inception comprador in nature.

At the height of the Indian people’s movement for national liberation, The British colonialists reached a compromise with the big bourgeoisie and the big landlords and turned over their rule to the latter with the secret understanding that they basically kept the economic interests of the British colonialists intact. Consequently, foreign investments have not only been safeguarded but have been allowed to grow with stupendous speed. Even though certain privileges of feudal princes and zamindars have been abolished, the feudal land system and in its wake feudal class and caste relations have not only been preserved as a whole but in some respects have been strengthened. Added to this has been the increasing dependence of the government on foreign aid. Economic independence has become a mirage. Thus India became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society.

One may be inclined to call it as semi-capitalist. But it does not represent the reality. It is natural for the capitalist relations to constantly reproduce themselves and finally break from the shackles of feudalism by destroying it. But here imperialism had an important role. The world over imperialism has lost its progressive role and joined hands with every reactionary class to perpetuate its hegemony and exploitation as the fear of being overthrown by the working class revolution overwhelmed it after the Paris Commune and the victory of the great October Revolution. As the Indian Feudal system was designed and nurtured by imperialism it acted as a faithful servant to imperialism. The capitalist relations in agriculture were allowed to grow to the extent that it would facilitate the exploitation by imperialism.

Hence capitalist relations in agriculture have no future of its own; its fate is sealed by imperialism. They could not grow on their own to the level of destroying the feudal society and developing the Indian Society into a capitalist one. Taking this reality into cognizance, we characterized it as semi-feudal as its overthrow only can move the Indian society on the path of progress.

After the transfer of power, The Indian ruling classes were forced to adopt certain anti-feudal measures under the pressure of anti-feudal heroic struggles waged by the Indian Peasantry. Prominent among them was the heroic Telangana peasant armed struggle. The new Indian regime while drowned the peasant movements in blood, sought to sow illusions among the people. Mouthing the progressive slogans, the Nehru regime enacted the Zamindari Abolition Act, the Tenancy Protection Act and later land ceiling act. But these acts were never implemented in the spirit of declared intentions. With innumerable in-built loopholes, these allowed landlord sections to retain their hold on the vast tracts of land. Not a single acre of land was given to landless poor except those lands which were occupied by the peasants in the course of their struggle.

This policy of duping the people continued for two decades. By 1967, the unrest among peasant masses grew and drew them into struggles for land. Prominent among them were Naxalbari and Srikakulam struggles. While the congress government suppressed these movements with bullets, it also gave calls to distribute lands to the poor. It amended land ceiling laws and started to call them land reforms. However, the ruling classes had no intention of implementing the revolutionary land reforms that destroys feudalism and redistribute the land based on land to the tiller. The carrot and stick policy inherited from their colonial rulers was skillfully implemented by the Indian ruling classes.

At the same time, the Indian ruling classes and their government adopted the green revolution strategy with all the directions and financial help from imperialism, particularly US imperialism. This strategy aimed at preventing the revolution from the downtrodden by increasing the yield of crops with the infusion of technology known as­­ High Yielding Varieties. Actually, these HYVs are High Response Varieties’. They increase yields if only the inputs were correspondingly increased. These inputs include water, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds. While the World Bank extended loans and grants to irrigation projects to create pockets of irrigated areas, MNCs supplied their products such as fertilizers and pesticides, and reaped profits. On the whole, the Green Revolution strategy served as a conduit for foreign capital to penetrate into the agriculture sector. Even by conservative estimates, nearly more than half of the income generated by the increased yields was pocketed by the MNCs.

As Com.T.Nagi Reddy explained in his statement “India Mortgaged”, the bourgeois and landlord government of India has taken to the path of gradual transformation of landlord latifundia into the bourgeois economy, with all its plans for the supply of seeds, fertilizers, use of pesticides, mechanization of agriculture, extensive funneling of state loans into the landlord economy with the help of immense aid from the international finance. As Lenin has explained this evolution into bourgeois-Junker-landlord economy….. , condemns the peasants to decades of most harrowing expropriation and bondage.

He further explained that “this is what we are witnessing in our country today. The excruciating pain that  the rural economy today is undergoing – the forceful eviction of small peasants and tenants, the growth of concentration of land, the increase in the number of agricultural labor, and the growing hegemony of upper castes over lower castes – are all symptoms of this growing disease.”  He called upon Communist Revolutionaries to firmly oppose this transformation of Feudal Landlordism by supporting the fighting peasantry for the total liquidation of Feudal Landlordism.

The developments in later decades proved that Com.TN was correct.

The crisis in the green revolution strategy as it expressed in its failure to sustain the continuous rise of productivity of crops led to widespread unrest among the peasantry and rural masses. In the absence of genuinely democratic and communist leadership, this unrest was channelized by the ruling class sections in late 1970s and 80s. The farmers leaders like Sarad Joshi, Tikayat sing, Nanjundaswamy etc had come on the scene to lead many a struggle. it is a well known fact that the social dynamic factor that contributed to the Khalistan movement in Punjab was the crisis in the green revolution.

The failure of green revolution landed the country in a severe crisis.

During this period, the industrial base of the Indian society had been widened through of the adoption of public sector as the leader. As clearly observed by Marx in his writings, once the capitalist relations were introduced in a country like India which has all the potential to develop into a capitalist country, nothing could stop the reproduction of these capitalist relations. This gave rise national bourgeoisie mainly in the form of small scale industry. But imperialism with its strangulating hold on the Indian state had been either destroying these rising capitalist relations through uneven competition or adopting them to serve its monopoly interests. Numerous instances can be quoted here how the imperialism amalgamated the indigenous industries or destroyed them. Suffice it to say that as a result the Indian national bourgeoisie could not able to grow beyond certain stages and assert it in terms of its class interests. Thus the emerging capitalist relations in the industrial section were always remained in a deep crisis, living at the mercy of Indian big bourgeoisie and imperialism. On the other hand, the big bourgeoisie continues to be comprador in nature through myriad arrangement in the form of joint ventures, and technical and financial collaborations. Even though the value of assets and investments by the big bourgeoisie grew phenomenally, their dependence on imperialism also grew proportionally.

In the first half of 1980 decade, the Indian economy faced a severe all-round crisis and the Indian ruling classes turned to the imperialism to extricate them from the crisis. The imperialist financial institutions – World Bank and IMF – started dictating restructuring of Indian economy so as to increase the imperialist plunder many times. The loan taken from the IMF was paid back by the Indira Gandhi government not because the Indian economy had turned around but because of remittances made by the Indian workers toiling in gulf countries. While this was tom-tom as the success of the policies that were implemented, the crisis forced the Indian government to prostrate before their imperialist masters and PV Narasimha Rao’s government embarked on the New Economic policies as designed and dictated by imperialism.

The New Economic Policies had turned the agriculture into economically unviable activity for the poor and middle peasants. Some of these measures are hiking the rates of electricity, fertilizers and irrigation water. The effect of these set of policies was immediately felt by the vast peasant masses. The deep rooted malaise got expressed in the form of suicides by the peasants. The depth and extent of the crisis can be gauged by the very fact that the total number of suicides by farmers surpassed one and a half lakhs in the span of 8 years. Yet the Indian ruling classes and their political representatives were undaunted in their pursuit of the policies dictated by imperialism and started exhorting the virtues of implementation of second stage of economic reforms, particularly in agriculture, second stage of green revolution.  This makes it clear that it was a deliberate policy and not an aberration. The aim of this strategy was to implement a set policy that turns the Indian agriculture into an appendage to the imperialist economy. The Indian agriculture shall produce to meet the commercial needs of the agribusiness MNCs and not to meet the needs of the Indian people. By pauperizing the poor and middle peasants through economic levers, the ruling classes intend to push the peasants into contact and/or corporate farming which in practice degrade the peasant to tied producer or farm land supervising the cultivation on behalf of the MNC. The slogan of intensive cultivation and mechanization of agriculture which led to green revolution and the country into an intractable crisis, continue to hold the field with addition of genetically modified seeds which are designed to perpetuate the dependence of agricultural production upon the MNCs for inevitable use of inputs. Thus the penetration of imperialist capital into agriculture will take place with full force.

The effect of these policies has led to the concentration of land in the hands of neo-rich sections that amassed wealth by siphoning off public funds. This concentration is not of the nature of capitalist relations. The land is being increasingly leased out to the peasants at exorbitant rent, which is nothing but extra-economic coercion because otherwise, land is not available to the peasants who had no other way of employment. The increasing number of rent farming indicates this.

Yes, the form of feudal exploitation had changed; but not the content. The vast masses of the peasantry (which includes landless laborers, poor and middle peasants) were forced to submit to exploitation being deprived of the means of production that is land. During the last four decades, with the penetration of imperialist capital, the peasant masses have been burdened with the additional task of quenching thirst of imperialist sharks.

Hence, the agricultural sector has witnessed many changes but continues to reel under feudal forms of exploitation and imperialist plunder. The intensity of exploitation had increased many folds withholding any progress of the Indian society towards independent capitalism and the Indian ruling classes along with the imperialism maintaining the status quo to safeguard their rule. Hence Indian society continues to be semi-feudal in nature.

The new economic policies being implemented as part of the globalization strategy of imperialism have brought vast changes in the industrial sector. In pursuit of maximizing profits imperialism gobbled up the manufacturing sector in India often replacing the Indian big bourgeoisie. The basic sectors like iron and steel, coal, non-ferrous metal, and power generation went into the hands of foreign monopoly capitalists. Even in the service sector telecommunications was taken over by the telecom MNCs and the public sector BSNL is up for sale. The most publicized infrastructure projects being implemented are all pocketed by foreign companies in the name of joint ventures. Foreign capital has occupied commanding heights in the Indian economy. India became a happy hunting ground for every imperialist to plunder our national resources, human labor and financial resources at whatever rate they like. All the imperialist countries are competing with each other to increase their hold on our economy.

The Indian big bourgeoisie has grown; their assets grew at astronomical numbers; their industries grew in numbers. When we dissect each and every investment made by the big bourgeoisie, we will find they were tied with foreign capital with innumerable threads like financial, technical, and corporate collaborations. And the foreign capitalist had the final say in running the industry. The big bourgeoisie claims itself as corporate entity, but in fact, almost all the big bourgeois houses function as private limited companies in the form of Hindu undivided family; and thus they are in no way answerable to society; even if they were not called for disclosing their profits. Despite apparent growth, the growth of the Indian big bourgeoisie is stunted because of its comprador nature and its dependence on imperialism for its survival. The increase of imperialist hold on Indian society denotes that it continues to be semi-colonial in nature.

The apparent changes that we are witnessing during the last four decades are brought into effect to meet the changing exploiting needs of imperialism and the Indian big bourgeoisie. And thus it has not intended to change its status as a semi-colony.

Thus India continues as a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. Unless and until the Revolutionary Redistribution of Land based on the LAND TO THE TILLER is implemented, the feudal relations and their existence will not disappear. Unless and until the imperialist capital was thrown out of the country with its allies, Indian society does progress an inch forward. Imperialism, Feudalism, and bureaucratic comprador capitalism are decisive impediments to the progress of Indian Society into a democratic, self-reliant, and independent society. Only the success of the New Democratic Revolution will guarantee such a transformation. It is the duty of Communist Revolutionaries to strive to build a united party that provides leadership to the revolutionary struggles of the Indian people.

                     **************************************

INDIAN REVOLUTION - INDIAN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

  INDIAN REVOLUTION – INDIAN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

Almost a hundred years have passed since the formation of the Communist Party of India. Since its inception, the party has been subjected to repression. This repression was unleashed on the freedom-loving national revolutionaries as well as on the communist fighters who participated in the independence struggle with an anti-imperialist aim. They were implicated in the Peshawar, Lahore, Kanpur, and Meerut conspiracy cases. In the trial of the Kanpur and Meerut conspiracy cases, Communists had not concealed their ideals and causes. They declared that it was not at all a crime to wage the struggle for the liberation of the people of India from the imperialist shackles and to emancipate the toiling masses of workers, peasants, and weaker sections from economic, political and cultural exploitation. They voiced the necessity for the people to organize against feudalism, imperialism, and capitalism.

  We as communists, from 1925 to 1947, and then up to 1952, had built the movements of workers and peasants while participating in the independence movement. We have organized many a militant struggle of the working class. The middle-class employees and teachers got organized under our leadership. We organized the writers and artists with patriotic, democratic, and socialist aims. We fought for the rights of women and made them part of the movement for independence and peace. The communist party established itself as the party of the toiling people with the policies and slogans: oppose fascist war, protect socialism, oppose communalism and national chauvinism, and oppose the attempts of the imperialist, feudal, and capitalist forces to flare up communal, caste and regional clashes among the people.

 Until 1942, for two decades, the party through its hard and untiring work in the face of many repressions got itself identified as the third largest party in the country. It gained wide recognition among the people even amid internal struggles on the policies of the party. The people's movement had reached the level of armed resistance.

 The party worked with a concrete program against feudal ideology. It owned up and brought to light many social reformers and progressive writers. It showed the way for a new culture by promoting it on a wider scale the widow marriages. Social marriages as against the traditional form of marriage. It opposed child marriages and marriages against the will of the girls. It worked for gender equality. The communist party swam against the tide at a time when untouchability, caste discrimination, and blind faiths and practices were prevalent.

 The Communist Party educated the people on how to resist the feudal atrocities: if you do not have a stick in your hand even a goat will bite you; get yourselves armed and fight against caste oppression and communal attacks. It was the party that inculcated consciousness among the people and made them organize around the general slogans of independence, democracy, socialism, and world peace led the people’s movements, and built the organized people's resistance against imperialism and feudalism. The dedicated work without expecting anything in return personally and even laying down their own lives by thousands of party members and hundreds of party cadre were invaluable. We cannot forget the positive impact they have made on the society. The values and commitments established by that generation of communists continue to inspire and are worth emulating to us even today.

 The communist movement means the organizations and the agitations and struggles conducted by the organizations of patriots, democrats, workers, peasants, other toiling people in urban and rural areas, women, youth, students, children, writers, and artists as well as defying the atrocities committed by the exploiting classes and repression by the state. More than this the communist movement means the movement built through the life sacrificing work for a social cause.

 This was one phase. It was the best phase in the communist movement. But it could not march forward. Why it was so? True, it could not march ahead; faced setbacks. Yet the cause of communism is there standing tall before us. With the strength of this cause, we will review the history; learn lessons from it, and march forward.

  The defeat of fascism in the Second World War and the victory of peace-loving, democratic, and communist forces have brought many changes in the world. The victory of the Soviet Union; its reconstruction of the country from the destruction brought by the fascist war; the march of socialist construction; the coming to power of workers' parties in East Europe; the Chinese Revolution at the verge of victory; the rise of peasants and workers struggles in our country; the progress of the party in various sectors – all this had two types of influence on the party leadership and ranks. Subjective thinking had overtaken the dialectical materialist approach. The central leadership of the party led the worker's and peasants movements with two types of guidance. The differences in the political and ideological understandings of the leadership were the reason for this situation. There was a struggle on two or three understandings at the level of central leadership.

 We cannot forget the fact that the root cause for the split in the communist party was the differences in the assessment of the character of the bourgeoisie in India and the ideological differences that arose in the international communist movement. A friendly discussion on these issues can enable us to correct the mistakes in our understanding and show the way for our unity.

 Along with the above issue, there is another crucial issue: the confusion that prevailed in deciding the character of our society. At what stage we are now in the process of development of society from slave to semi-slave to feudal to the semi-feudal, capitalist, and socialist system? The communist movement is plagued with confusion and differences on this issue.

 The character of the big bourgeoisie in India and the process under which the power had come into its hands; its subservient relations with imperialism; the support of imperialism to feudalism and feudal landlords' support to imperialism help each other to withstand or not – does these questions remain as points of difference? Are not serious differences existing in the assessment of these issues?

 Who is the national bourgeoisie? Is it industrialist or big business? Is it the upper middle class and middle class that owns and earns private property? Has not lack of clarity on this issue led to disunity in the party?

 Has not the phenomenon manifested in the leadership of the party that was over-awed by the philosophical thinking of and qualities of the bourgeois leadership of the national movement, blunted our class orientation and the edge of our class struggle? Has not the role of our party as one of the leaders of a national movement been reduced? As a result of this, had not the basic classes of the party – rural toilers and urban workers – run behind the mirage of reforms by the exploiting government? Had not many alien theories raised their ugly heads due to abandoning dialectical and materialist principles in conducting class struggles? Has not the party’s mass base and hold not weakened? In the struggle of the proletariat, who stands by our side, and who takes the side of exploiting classes? Are we deciding on these questions based on class analysis? Are not our capabilities being lost because of alien class outlooks on this issue?

 Many communist sympathizers, well-wishers of the revolutionary movement, and even our adversaries think that personal ambitions, egos, and careerism are the reasons for the inability of communists to remain in one organization. Consequently, pessimism is being expressed. Are there no ideological, political, or organizational reasons for the spread of such tendencies?

 The communist party does not discuss the differences based on ideological principles and class struggles. The discussions are being focused on non-issues and secondary issues.

 Taking this as an advantage, some opportunist intellectuals who vulgarize communist ideas are mixing some progressive ideas with romanticism. They are spreading certain theories and ideas that are anti-Marxist and serve the interests of exploiting classes. They are trying to project themselves as the ‘guides for the misguided communists’. This is a prominent trend today. Our failure to be sufficiently cautious about these intellectuals who maintain close relations with the communists and move around spreading wrong interpretations of communist theories and the histories of class struggle. As a consequence, alien class theories, trends, and practices are creeping into the party and are creating impediments to the process of our development. These forces cannot destroy us, but they remain as hurdles for class struggles and the unity of class movements.

Keeping this whole situation in our view, where to begin our discussions? What are the ideological tenets to formulate clear-cut policies? We have to concentrate on these issues.

 What is the character of Indian society? What is the stage of the Indian revolution? There is a need for deeper and wider discussion on these issues. There is a need for discussions on the feudal and semi-feudal and colonial and semi-colonial characters. Is the understanding of the penetration of capital into the rural economy new? Is then the idea that the entry of capital into rural India would change the nature of Indian society being pushed forward? Then should the communist party adopt achieving socialism as its sole aim and work? If so, have we to change the understanding that imperialism, feudalism, and the comprador bourgeoisie have become the main impediments to the progress of the people of India?

 Then are we proposing to put aside our program of CPI (ML)? No, not at all. Our documents have to be tested in practice. If we let the documents remain as just documents and move in our way, will not our integrity towards our policies be questioned? So, we have to continue our practice based on our party’s documents. At the same time, we are placing the above questions and issues for discussion keeping in view the long-term perspective and the task of rallying and uniting forces on a broader scale. It is not unnatural if questions like: Is it correct to engage in academic discussions and is it necessary to open up Pandora’s Box now etc. to crop up. Yet it will cause no harm to the movement as long as we have enough convictions and commitment towards the cause and practice.

 The confusions being spread by the opportunist theoreticians and intellectuals have been influencing the genuine communists, and Marxist-Leninists and disheartening the well-wishers of the communist movement. So, the above issues are meant for wider discussion. Without keeping aside our practice, discussing the problems faced by the revolutionary movement dispassionately stands as a historic task and responsibility before all the communists today….

=========================================================================

 

 

IMPERIALIST GIANT CORPORATIONS INTO OUR AGRICULTURAL SECTOR.

 IMPERIALIST GIANT CORPORATIONS INTO OUR AGRICULTURAL SECTOR.

(This article is from ‘Class Struggle’ – Monthly Organ of CPI(ML) Central Committee)

Already the Indian agricultural sector is steeped in severe crisis due to the implementation of imperialist globalization policies for the past four decades. Small and marginal farmers are pushed into abject poverty and distress. Imperialist giant seed corporations like Monsanto have caused the suicides of thousands of cotton farmers. Still, these imperialist giant corporations are not content even after draining away the surplus created in the Indian agricultural sector in the form of profits, royalties, and fees for the supply of technical help. They are persistently making inroads into our agricultural sector, through devious means.

The imperialist global farm giant Walmart is one such corporation that has already penetrated the Indian agricultural sector. It has entered through so-called non-profit organizations which are being funded by its philanthropy arm Walmart Foundation. These non-profit organizations in turn create the so-called farmer producer organizations (FPOs) touting that they will help farmers thrive by building the collective strength of small and marginal farmers – those with land holdings of less than 1.1 hectares. They also claim that they provide technical support to help farmers build infrastructure to connect to formal markets so that smallholder farmer can grow their incomes and improve their livelihoods and that they will cut out middlemen.

With such dubious promises, as if the small and marginal farmers are pushed into distress due to a lack of infrastructure and technical support to connect to formal markets Walmart by mesmerizing farmers in penetrating into our agricultural sector. The Vice president of Walmart's philanthropy claims that the company complements the union government's work.

Walmart which had already experimented in Central America and Mexico in the past, has penetrated into India, through a farming network of 500 organizations (FPOs) with eight lakh farmers across nine states – Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Odisha, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Madya Pradesh. These ‘non-profit’ organizations with different names are already working among small and marginal farmers cultivating coffee, cashews, mint, mango, vegetables, wheat, and millet. Walmart in 2020 launched the formation and scheme of promotion of 10,000 farmer producer organizations to push forward 10,000 new FPOs until 2027-28. Thus, Walmart created such a network linking with farmers and is promoting it.

Imperialist Giant Corporations into our Agricultural Sector! ‘Non–profit’ organizations like Techno Serve, Digital Green, and Pradhan entered into Andhra Pradesh 6 years ago associating with coffee farmers in Arakuvalley, cashew farmers and women farmers, and with farmers cultivating chilies, cashew, and turmeric in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states.

These ‘non-profit’ organizations claim that 13% of cashew prices increased due to their intervention and that the farmer’s revenues have increased by over 500%. They specifically claim that they have brought on board a bunch of large institutional buyers such as Blue Tokai and Starbucks to purchase coffee from Arakuvalley. They claim that through FPOs the farmers benefited by getting improved yield and revenues. They also claim most of what is produced is sold domestically by the exposure in the reliance stores etc.

However, it is unknown to what extent Walmart is profiting through its middle-man non-profit agencies by selling coffee, cashews, turmeric, and chilies to large institutional buyers. But, that Walmart is benefiting enormously by entering into the Indian agricultural sector is a certainty. That without earning profits, it will never commit to investing $39 million in India creating FPOs is an irrefutable fact.

This type of farming FPOs may destroy the traditional ‘mandi’ system and weaken cooperative societies in existence and the entire agricultural market will be encroached by these imperialist giant corporations at the peril of small and marginal farmers. In the near future, they may be pushed into bankruptcy to sell away these small land holdings due to the monopolization of the markets as we often witness in the cases of tobacco-cultivating farmers in various states of our country.

It is unknown whether the farmers have really benefited through FPOs or not, but it is a hard fact that the prices of coffee, cashews, turmeric, and chilies for the customers have abnormally increased. Probably by offering a pinch of extra revenue to farmers, Walmart must have been profiting and looting in the mountains.

The experiences of the farmers of Central America and Mexico with regard to the experiment of Walmart through, FPOs created by its non-profit organizations are unknown and have to be studied in depth.

Probably Walmart’s penetration into the Indian agricultural sector is another refined form of East India company’s entry into India.

But one thing is clear. Walmart is initially entering into agricultural market in India, with a profit motive. We have already witnessed how the transnational giant corporation Monsanto played havoc with our farmers and their lives.

So, we have to be alert and cautious against this sort of penetration of imperialist giant corporations into the Indian agricultural sector and the impending perils attendant to such penetration. ********************************************************************************

SEMI-FEUDALISM , CAPITALISM , IMPERIALISM , INTER RELATIONS.

 SEMI- FEUDALISM – CAPITALISM – IMPERIALISM – INTER RELATIONS. By

Late Com. P. Jaswant Rao.

Indian society has the nature of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial system. These two are so entwined as to be indivisible. While feudalism serves as a social base for imperialism, imperialism in turn strives to uphold the feudal system by bringing about changes in it to suit its needs of exploitation. This document tries to analyze this in-depth by the method of materialist dialectical historical methodology.

Karl Marx explained that in shaking up the self-reliant closed economic system, thriving in India, China, and other Asiatic Societies, British colonial rule played a revolutionary role. He stated the following about the restructuring it has undertaken in the agricultural sector aftermath of the said destruction:

“Both the zamindari and raitwari systems are agrarian revolutions ensuring out of British orders. But the two systems stand in opposition to each other. One is of regal nature and the other of democratic nature. One is the distorted form of the English landlord system. The other is a distorted form of French peasant ownership. Both are regressive. Both have irreconcilable contradictions ingrained in them. They have been created not for the sake of peasants who cultivate or for the sake of lords who hold feudal rights. They were created for the sake of the government which imposes the burden of tax on land”.

Marx has described the manner in which the Indian rural system was destroyed and how the feudal system, which was required for exploitative colonial rule, was restructured. Since then all the changes which British rulers affected in the feudal system have been continued without altering its fundamental nature.

At the same time, Marx also keenly analyzed the future consequences of British rule. The British rulers who destroyed the economic system of India which had all the potential of developing into a capitalist system, have in turn introduced capitalist relations through the formation of Railway lines. And their further development could not be checked.

He felt that those developing capitalist relations and the rise of the working class resulting from them would not only undo the British rule but also lead to industrial development which would lead to the abolition of the feudal system and along with it the abolition of the caste system and its characteristic hereditary division of labor.

With colonial exploitation as the main economic source, the capitalist system in European countries has morphed into its highest form namely imperialism. Giving up the progressive role it played till then, it has compromised with all the reactionary elements including feudalism. It has protected them and formed them as its social base and continued its hegemony.

Conscious of its inability to curb the growth of capitalist relations which were introduced by it in colonies, it adopted the policy of holding them under its wing. As a result of this, the independent development of them was prevented. It created a comprador bourgeoisie that was bound to it in a thousand different links. This is how the Indian comprador class came into existence. Indian big bourgeoisie grew up under the lens of British rulers and acted in collusion with the feudal forces. The Indian big bourgeoisie usurped the leadership of the anti-colonial national movement and its political representative namely,

Indian National Congress never offered any program to the peasants, leaving aside an anti-feudal one, at any stage of a national movement. It has also watered down the anti-feudal movements taken up by the anti-feudal peasantry on their own initiative.

The great leader Lenin who had made an in-depth study of these conditions declared that the only way for the colonies to develop was the bourgeoisie mode of agriculture.

He stated that the development can occur in two forms. One is the transformation through the reformation of the feudal economic system. The other is to abolish feudalism through revolution.

This was the situation in India in 1947 when the transfer of power occurred. The direct rule of the Britishers ended and the transfer of power to the Indian big bourgeoisie and the big landlord class occurred.

On one side the peasantry was waging an anti-feudal struggle. The heroic Telangana peasant armed struggle had already begun. This brought onto the agenda the abolition of the feudal system and the revolutionary land reforms demanding land to the tiller. This posed the question of the reform path proposed by Lenin or the revolutionary path in the face of the ruling classes.

Indian ruling classes have chosen the Path of reform. Accordingly, they have picked up the reformative measures of abolition of the zamindari system and land ceiling legislation.

These were meant to create illusions in the minds of the peasantry. At the same time, they have drowned the peasant struggles in bloody repression. The abolition of the zamindari system gave the rights to Zamindars over vast swathes of land and the peasants got nothing. Land ceiling legislation with so many loopholes in them failed to help the takeover of the lands under the occupation of landlords. These policies adopted by the Indian ruling classes soon after the takeover of power indicate that they intended to preserve the status quo.

After brutally suppressing the peasant movements only the ruling classes took measures to bring about a change in the feudal system slowly and gradually.

Com. TN concluded that “Every specific step which the government implemented in this direction helped in strengthening the feudal base in rural areas”.

“With all the talk of land reforms and its innocuous land ceiling legislation and tenancy acts, no democratic land reforms have been implemented by the Congress government in its long tenure in office for the last 23 years. Practically no change in land relations has taken place, except that with the vigorous implementation of Panchayat Raj, Cooperative institutions, loans for tractors and other agricultural machines, etc., only happened. The economic and political strength of the landlords has been further strengthened in the rural economy. (P.417, India Mortgaged, 2002 edition)

About what harmful effects this gradual change has brought by the 1960 decade, Com.TN has described as follows:

“This is what we are witnessing in our country today. The excruciating pain that the rural economy today is undergoing — the forceful eviction of small peasants and tenants, the growth of concentration of land, the increase in the number of agricultural labor, and the growing hegemony of the upper castes over lower castes — are all symptoms of this growing disease. Lenin has explained that “The evolution is the transformation of feudal bondage into servitude and capitalist exploitation on the land of feudal landlords” (Ibid, P.414)

He has also enunciated our tasks at that stage of social evolution:

“Therefore, no communist can support this kind of evolution of feudal landlordism. Our task is to firmly oppose it by supporting the fighting peasantry to liquidate feudal landlordism”. (P. 414)

This was the situation by the 1960s. By then itself green revolution was on the go. The green revolution was strategically framed for the entry of imperialist capital into Indian agriculture in the form of technological know–how with the aim of preventing a revolutionary peasant upsurge. To this end in some areas of the country development of irrigation infrastructure was initiated. As a follow-up high-yielding crop varieties were introduced which can yield big only with the inputs of high quantity chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These varieties introduced at the behest of American monopoly capitalist organizations such as the Ford Foundation, covered almost all types of crops.

Green Revolution strategy made peasantry the purchasers of high-yielding seed varieties and thus created a market for the agro-industry of imperialist countries. Com. TN. has described the Green Revolution strategy as follows:

“Therefore, it is clear that the imperialist policy of improving agricultural production in under-developed countries is only to develop a profitable demand by the underdeveloped countries for obtaining additional goods necessary for agricultural development” (P. 144)

“Another result of this policy would be that, with the strengthening of landlordism in the countryside, the social tensions which have been growing between the haves and have-nots will intensify, creating bitter struggles between the landlords and the downtrodden agricultural labor and poor peasantry in all walks of life-economic and political” (P.145)

Just in the span of a decade, the Green Revolution strategy fell into crisis. The crop yields stagnated. Contrary to the expectations of the government the rich farmers and the feudal landlords played no role in the venture of the Green Revolution. It was the small farmers who increased agricultural production with the support of subsidies offered by the government. But with the stagnation of crop yields the poor and middle-class farmers are mired in problems.

Under these circumstances, the crisis in India's economic and political system sharpened. The people of India were beset with restlessness. A wave of people's movements cropped up demanding solutions to the problems faced by them. The Adivasi and Peasant revolts in Srikakulam and Naxalbari had shaken the Indian political system.

This led to the second phase of reforms in the agricultural sector undertaken by the government. To divert the peasantry from the path of struggle the ruling classes spread the illusions with a series of land ceiling legislation. At the same time, they unleashed brutal repression on people’s struggles. Also, they ventured to water down the power of people's unity inculcating divisive politics based on caste, religion, and regionalism. As a result of the crisis borne out of the Green Revolution life became unbearable and the youth were in a state of desperation. We are aware that the Congress government diverted this into the Khalistan movement in Punjab.

At this very juncture imperialism in order to get over its crisis formulated strategies to throw its burden on the third-world countries. Its target was to see that imperialist finance capital got more and more penetration into the agricultural sector of those countries.

With this, the World Bank came forward with its version of the solution to the problems. It prepared a report on the effect that food grains produced in India with the help of subsidies provided by the government to the farmers are of high cost and that they are available in the international market at a lesser price. So, Indian farmers should give up their production and instead, they better cultivate export-oriented commercial crops. With the income gained, food grains may be imported at a lesser cost.

But the real reason for the crisis in the venture of Green Revolution is that much of the surplus produce goes into the purchase of agricultural in-puts (fertilizers, etc....) manufactured by imperialist industries and this finds its way to the imperialist countries, leaving no gain to the peasantry. By suppressing this fundamental reason and highlighting only the factor of low yields of crops, this version of interpretation has the strategic aim of latching the Indian agricultural sector to the wheels of imperialist exploitation.

The Indian ruling classes by accepting the dictates of imperialists have begun to implement them. By propagating the lie that the subsidies offered to the peasantry were an unbearable burden, they began to cut to the lowest levels. The irrigation service charges, electricity charges, and fertilizer prices have been raised. All this has gradually led the peasantry into a debt trap. That this has led three lakh peasants to suicidal end is a well-known fact. Through financial leverage, they set out to remove peasants from their lands.

During this period technical know-how in agricultural practices rose up in imperialist countries. The technical know-how regarding genetically improved varieties of crops, animals, and biofuels has made great progress. With this in hand imperialism drove forward to turn the agricultural sector of the third world countries as tail-end to its economic system. Besides capturing crores of acres of fertile land in the countries of the African continent, and in countries like India by way of contract farming and corporate cultivation, it has tried to get the agricultural sector under its control. We have been enlightening the evolution and consequences of all this at appropriate junctures.

The question confronting here is whether these transformations have brought about a change in the feudal relations in the agrarian system?

1. Centralization of land: There is not much of a change in the level of concentration of land between the 1960s and 2010s. Even when the number of small and marginal farmers increased, they together hold only 30% of land either now or then. Less than 5% of those with more than 25 acres hold 30% of the land.

2. Even though the centralization of land is continuing and has brought in capitalist relations to some extent, they are in constant stagnation. Mechanization of agriculture, institutional loan lending, utilization of modern technology, cold storage - all these cannot take a step forward without governmental support. All the recent governmental steps offering financial support to utilize the above indicate the crisis in the just-said capitalist relations.

3. In the conditions of increasing landlessness, the depressed state of the extra-economic poor peasantry, increase in the number of agricultural laborers and lack of alternative employment in the population of agricultural dependency leads to the enhancement of the fundamental cause of exploitation, namely, extra-economic coercion.

In this coercion, we find an increase in the number of tenant farmers and enhanced rates of lease. These tenants are not capitalist tenants. These lease rates are governed by capitalist economic principles. It is well known that capitalism does not hesitate to utilize pre-capitalist modes of exploitation. An example of this is the exploitation of Mexican migrant labor in the grape gardens of America.

4. What are the reasons for the stagnation of capitalist relations in the Indian agricultural sector? The reason is that while the major part of the wealth created through labor in agriculture is whisked away by imperialism, a large part of the remaining wealth is gulped by big business. This appears clear in the case of commercial crops. As a result agricultural sector is deprived of any surplus. As such capital investment fund remains unavailable for the expansion of capitalist relations in the agricultural sector. That is why the demand for the increase in investment by the government in the agricultural sector is coming to the fore again and again. With the intention of encouraging capitalist relations government has undertaken the flow of bureaucratic capital into the making of cold storage, market yards , and institutional lending.

5. Just as it is keeping the capitalist relations in the industrial sector in its control and allowing them to grow only to the extent they serve its interests of exploitation, imperialism is also bent on regulating the extant capitalist relations in the agricultural sector. We can gain an understanding of this if we critically analyze the suggestions of the World Bank regarding the so-called reforms in agriculture.

Finally,

When we define a society as semi-feudal it means that in that society feudal relations and capitalist relations are cohabiting. Those capitalist relations should naturally grow and reach a level to abolish feudal relations. But imperialism and the comprador bourgeoisie are playing a role in arresting this process. As a result, capitalist relations are steeped in crisis. They have not grown to the level of abolishing feudal relations. They have no independent future.

Today we are witnessing the harmful effects of this slow and gradual social evolution.

The concentration of lands in the hands of a few; land grab by the native and foreign bourgeoisie with the collusion of the state; the growing landlessness among the rural population; peasantry in debt-trap; unemployment of agricultural labor; the ongoing farmer suicides; the nominal employment schemes brought up to pacify the angry peasantry; oppressive measures by the state, these being labeled as upper caste attacks on lower castes, these are disease symptoms of gradual, slow social transformation. These disease symptoms which Com. T.N. had pointed out five decades ago are being witnessed by us today in a more severe form.

As Lenin said, “It implies the utmost preservation of bondage and the serfdom (remodeled on bourgeois lines), the least rapid development of the productive forces and the retarded development of capitalism; it implies infinitely greater misery and suffering,  exploitation and oppression for the broad masses of the peasantry, and consequently also for the proletariat.” (Lenin, Page 243)

I conclude my paper with the words of com. TN once again: “Therefore, no communist can support this kind of evolution of feudal landlordism. Our task is to firmly oppose it by supporting the fighting peasantry to liquidate feudal landlordism”. (P. 414)

(Document Presented by Com. P. Jaswantha Rao in the Seminar on “Indian Revolution-Indian Communist Movement” in Vijayawada on the 3rd and 4th of April, 2015). =======================================================================

The Real, Fundamental, and Principal Cause behind Ethnic-Conflict, Violence and Conflagration in Manipur.

 The Real, Fundamental, and Principal Cause behind Ethnic-Conflict, Violence and Conflagration in Manipur. (This article is from ‘class struggle’, the Monthly Organ of CPI(ML).

Manipur is one of the northeastern states of India, a state consisting of a multi-ethnic population, since May 3, communal riots have been raging unabated unleashing, unprecedented human displacement, loss of lives, and destruction of property. Houses, churches, temples, etc. are vandalized besides arson across five districts. Central and state governments are unable to bring out any peace to the state with their actions. This ethnic conflict spurted into violence is perceived to be the consequence of a long-standing hill-valley identity divide in the state, which is avoidable if the governments have provided proper governance by focusing on the accommodation of the identity of various tribes and their culture and adopted the policies that could bring out unity and amity among the population of different tribes and ethnicity.

In 1949 Manipur merged into the Indian Union. From that time onwards even the independent rulers of India have been ruling the population of Manipur with the very same policies of colonial rulers and the mindset of the colonial rulers. Instead of providing  governance of fulfilling the aspirations and well-being of the people of various tribes inhabiting in the state by promoting their cultural identities in bringing about unity among them, any difference that arises between the tribes has been treated as an issue and problem of maintenance of law and order and suppressed with ferocious state oppression. Added to this, the tactics adopted by the rulers of political parties for catching the votes based on tribal identities and religious and caste identities of the people too had caused a divide among the people of Manipur.

The topography of Manipur too had played a great deal for the divide of people based on the identity of hill or valley in-habitation. While there is 10% landmass in Manipur, 90% are hills. Out of the 20,85,000 population of Manipur, 60% live in the land mass area of Imphal at the center of the state and the remaining 40% of the population inhabit in the surrounding hills.

About 60% Manipur population that lives in Imphal valley and other valleys belong to non-tribal Meiteis and the 40% population living in the hills are tribal of around 33 tribes comprising of Naga and Kuki-Zomi clans.

While more than 83% of the Meitei people are associated with Hinduism, more than 90% of Kuki-Zomi people are Christians. Hinduism penetrated into Manipur in the late 15th century, but large scale adaption of Hindu religion is attributed to the influence of Vaishnav monks. Caste entered Manipur VIA Hinduism broadly dividing Meitei community into 3 castes- the Brahmin, the Kshatriya and the scheduled caste. This division of the population into Hindus and Christians too played a considerable part in the community and ethnic divide on the basis of religions in recent times particularly after BJP entered into central and state rule with its policies of religious hatred against others of Hinduism.

Successive governments have not focused on even development in the state and caused uneven development between land-mass (urban) and hill areas. As a result of this, the better educated urban dwellers of Imphal Valley comprising mainly Hindus – the Meiteis – have better access to good quality drinking water, clean cooking fuel, education and hospitals. They dominate public sector jobs, a higher share of jobs in the industries which provide better employment opportunities. Whereas the relatively less educated tribal people that live in hilly regions which are covered mostly by forests have relatively poor access to basic facilities. The tribal hill population is poorly represented in public sector jobs. Very few of the tribal work in industries and do not earn a sufficient income. They are mainly dependent on hills and forests for their livelihoods. Even in the Manipur state assembly while the Meiteis who live in the landmass area of Imphal valley and Jiribam valley of 5 districts who enjoy a demographic and political advantage send 40 MLAs to the 60-member assembly; the tribal people living in hill areas of 10 districts send only 20 MLAs. The Meiteis are more advanced in all spheres. Meiteis are the vocal section, as is the case even in the other states of India, where the people from plains encroach upon the land and lives of the less educated and of different culture and customs from those of the majority Hindu community, which maintains and imposes its so-called cultural and intellectual superiority over the tribal clans and community. These circumstances have exacerbated the differences in the conflict between these communities, which have been brewing for the past 3 decades, often leading to clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities leading to violence and vandalism.

Successive governments have not attempted to diffuse the tensions and smooth out the differences and antagonism between the communities but instead treated them as law and order problems and dealt accordingly.

The BJP government of Manipur state under the Chief Minister, N. Biren Singh instead of genuinely recognizing and accommodating substantively the territorial rights and identities of tribal, has adopted aggressive and majoritarian projects undermining the tribal rights and identities under Article 371C of the Constitution where ‘scheduled matters’ on the hill areas are made invisible by brute legislative majority. The Meiteis with the support of BJP government has succeeded partially in their attempt to dissolve land rights of tribals in the valley areas which is a major reason to set for the present day conflagrations.

On the other hand, the judiciary system and judiciary have considered and adjudged the conflicts and the claims of the communities, based on the legalistic merits according to the colonial laws entrenched in our judicial system but not based on the reality of the day, circumstances and prevailing conditions.

There is one more thing to be said here. After evicting tribals from the forests in the name of protected forests, reserve forests and wildlife sanctuaries, they are handed over to private institutions/trusts in the name of community reserves/forests in the name of conservation. More than 200 of the 220 community reserves/forests in the country are in the northeastern states. Nearly 75 percent of Manipur forests are managed by these communities. Most of the community reserves are held by the Wildlife Trust of India, a partner in the UK’s World Land Trust. The World Land Trust is the reason for the eviction of tribals and indigenous peoples from the forests by encroaching on forests in many countries of the world in the name of the conservation of forests and wildlife. The Wildlife Trust of India and the intellectuals who fall in with the trust have filed a case that led to the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict to evict tribal from the forests.

The BJP government in Manipur has violently evicted tribals in the name of protecting protected forests, reserve forests and wildlife sanctuaries. A total of 35,000 tribes were forcibly evacuated. Demonstrations have been held across the state in a phased manner for some time now to protest against this forcible move. The discontent intensified when the chief minister himself declared that those who took part in the protests were encroaches, drug smugglers, poppy cultivators and illegal immigrants.

In the name of “war against drugs” the state government, attacked tribals instead of arresting and punishing the real culprits – the international drug cartels and the big investors from the valley who are the king-pins of drug trade. Churches that have been in existence for more than five decades were demolished in the name of illegal constructions, just days before Easter Day, when Christians offer holy prayers in April in the area where clashes are taking place. As a result of this series of actions, the discontent and anger among the tribals, which was like an ember, was ignited into conflagration by the court’s verdict.

The order of the High Court to concede a demand for ST status of the Meiteis the majority, has been the last straw that flared up the conflict into violence and conflagration of the present day i.e., on May 4 the rag-tag mobs in Imphal and valley areas have completely targeted and erased the land titles that the tribal held for centuries in the valley and accomplished it, clearly denotes the fundamental and principal cause of these conflagrations: (i.e.) the inviolable rights of tribal and the question of land ownership.

The very question of M. Manihar Singh Kongpal a Meitei leader in Imphal that “we are not allowed to buy land in the hills and settle there. How is it fair” speaks volumes about the actual and real reason behind this conflagration. By hook or crook the people of the majority community – the Meiteis – intend to nullify the constitutional land rights of tribal, people living in the hills and deny them the right to purchase land in landmass valley areas of Manipur with the willing support of BJP rulers. Vested interests in collusion with the BJP state government intend to grab and buy the wealthy and resource-rich hills and lands of tribal displacing the tribal from their natural habitats and lands under their ownership as has been happening throughout the world in the name of neo-liberal economic policies – the imperialism of the day.

Thus the question of land ownership of tribal is the actual cause behind the present day ethnic conflict and conflagration. Unless this problem is solved, in favor of protecting the constitutional rights and land ownership rights of tribal, such conflicts will raise and continue even leading to the armed struggles of the tribal, as has been happening elsewhere in India as well as in some of the African Countries!

The BJP and its state and central governments are fully responsible for flaring up this conflagration in Manipur, which adopted an anti-tribal and majoritarian project and agenda against the rights of the hill tribal people of Manipur.

=========================================================================

Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels - its relevance in the present age. By Parimal Dasgupta.

 

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.

Written by Marx and Engels its relevance in the present age.

Parimal Dasgupta.

“whole history of mankind (since dissolution of primitive tribal society holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggle, “contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed”...The exploited and oppressed class the proletariat cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class – the bourgeoisie – without at the same time once and for all emancipating the society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles”. This proposition of Marx is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory had done for biology”.(Engels In The Preface to Communist Manifesto)

I

The subject of Relevancy of Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1847, in the present age has become an important-subject matter of discussion at present in political circle.

1. Marx, in repudiating the theory of Dialectical Idealism of Hegel, his teacher in philosophy and a very distinguished philosopher of Germany of a time, well-proved and well established the theory of Dialectical Materialism. By this, he created a Topsy-turvy situation in Philosophy. He explained the development of human society in dialectical process with the Theory: ‘From matter to knowledge’, opposed to the theory: ‘From Supreme idea to matter’ of Hegel. The Dialectical materialism has become the material of thinking of the exploited people for making them free from the idea of ‘Fate’, ‘Destiny’ or ‘Divine Order’, that is: Fatalism with respect to system of exploitation over them.

 2. Marx, on the basis of this materialistic dialectics, explained the class division and contradiction in the system of production at a stage of society, indicated the trend and way towards change of society. It is epoch-changing contribution to social science. In the realm of this though, his very close friend, Engels, was a fellow traveler. He has also made immense theoretical contribution in this subject. But, on the whole, as the contribution of Marx was main, this though has become known as Marxism.

3. Marx and Engels have put forward the theory for change of society through class struggle due to creation of classes and class contradictions in the society at a stage of economic system of the society in the process of social development. They have announced: “The class struggle is the key to change of  society’, ‘driving force’ of history’, ‘Lever of social revolution’. “The class struggle is the immediate driving force of history and in particular the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of modern social revolution”. (Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondences (Moscow) page 395)

4. Marx and Engels have advanced proposition for the advance of human society to Communist Society. In this course, they have explained in the affairs of economics as to ‘Value of commodity’, ‘creation of surplus value’ by the labor power engaged in production, ‘exploitation of labour power’, ‘accumulation of capital’, the theory of class struggle, ‘Revolution and Dictatorship of the proletariat’ as its basis. Marx wrote the book ‘Capital’ on the basis of economic theories. After writing of capital it has become known in Europe as ‘Bible’ of the working class. On the other side the bourgeois class described it as an ‘endeavor to rouse jealousy in the mind of illiterate person. After publication of Marx’s lecture-series-article; WAGE, LABOR and CAPITAL, the German-secret-police organization wrote in a confidential report:

“This noxious paper must indisputably exert the most corrupting influence upon the uneducated public to whom it is directed. The alluring theory of dividing up of the wealth is held out to factory workers and day laborers as an innate right and a profound hatred of the rulers and the rest of the community is inculcated into them. There would be gloomy outlook for father-land and for civilization in such succeeded in undermining religion and respect for laws and in any great measure infected the lower class of the people by means of press and these clubs..... the circumstance that the number of members (of workers union) has increased from thirty seven to seventy within a few days is worthy to note” (Marx: Man and Fighter:-Boris Nicolaevsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen: Penguin Book page 137)

This Marxian Economics is completely different from Bourgeois Economics. In it also lies blossoming of certain unblossomed theories of certain economic theoreticians of the past. On the whole it has become a ‘Political Economy’. This Economics is the material basis of the Communist politics with Marxian thought.

5. Marx and Engels were not subjective theoreticians with leisured life. They have organizers of political taking upon themselves all risk to give shape to their theories. Marx was driven out from different bourgeoisie states of Europe for his political thought and activities.

In 1847, in Europe, with active role of Marx and Engels, the communist league was formed secretly as a political organization. Between December 1847 and January 1848, the Communist Manifesto was written with joint-leadership of Marx and Engels as a Programme of the Communist League (Manifesto of the Communist Party). This has become the guiding document of Communist politics. This was necessary as, at that time, several types of thought of socialism were in existence in Europe.

Engels said that though there was joint leadership in writing this document, Marx was the main protagonist of its basic proposition of thought. Engels stated:

“The proposition is: that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up and from which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of the primitive tribal society, holding Land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class-the proletariat-cannot attain from the sway of exploiting and ruling class-the bourgeoisie-without at the same time and once and for all emancipating the society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles.

“This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’s has done for biology”. (Engels: Preface to English Edition of 1888 of Communist Manifesto)

Marx’s theory of social development is an important discovery of Social Science-just as the theory of Darwin in Biology. It is a scientific thought.

6. On the basis of this thought it has been stated in the Communist Manifesto: “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: “Abolition of Private Property”. Having given further clarification on this subject, it has also been stated in the Manifesto: “the distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property”.

That is, Communism is the protector of social property and a creative process of retaining health of society generally; it is an establishment of equal right of all to enjoy the wealth of the society. It is neither a stoicism nor a ‘pleasure’. It is a step towards buoyant development of human civilisation and society.

7. With the object of abolition of bourgeois property, the Manifesto, with a class outlook, altering the old slogan: “All men are brothers” of the Communist League, has brought in the slogan: “Working men of all countries, unite”.

This out-look of Manifesto has become dreadful for the bourgeoisie. So in the introduction of Manifesto it has been mentioned that “the specter of Communism is haunting Europe”:

“A specter is haunting Europe-the Specter of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holly alliance to exorcise the specter: Pope to Czar, Metternich to Guizot, French Radicals to German police-spies”.

Communist Manifesto is condemned by all sorts of Reaction.

8. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels have put a declaration:

“Emancipation of labour is not at all local or national problem-but a social problem-”Though, not    substance, but in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country, must of course, first of all settle the matter with their own bourgeoisie”.

Hence the Communist manifesto carried the vision of basic change of the society. The internationalism of Manifesto is not without any prop: it is based on the flow of struggle from national level.

9. The first declaration of the Manifesto is: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”. This class struggle is the basis of the Communist Manifesto that is of Communist politics. So at one time, Marx-Engels declared: “it is impossible for us to co-operate with the people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement” (Marx-Engels; selected correspondence: (Moscow) page 395).

10. Communist Manifesto, mentioned that the weapon the bourgeoisie used to dismantle has become a death giving weapon for them. It has stated:

“The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself”.

“....not only has the bourgeois forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called  into existence the men who are to wield these weapons-the modern working class-the proletariat”.

The weapon of class struggle which the bourgeoisie used to make the feudalism fall to the ground, will now be used against them; further in order to build up the capitalist society the bourgeoisie has given birth to which will be death giving for the bourgeoisie itself. The bourgeoisie has now become very vocal to resist it; but the history will work in its normal way. Communist Manifesto has brought this historical truth in the front.

11. The implication of the thought for creating new society by smashing the bourgeoisie-controlled capitalist society, which Communist Manifesto has brought, should properly be realised. It is not a matter of only freeing the proletariat from economic exploitation; It is an ending all sorts of economic and social discrimination and deprivation of the people of different stratum of society. By this, there will also occur elimination of discrimination, with respect to sex-based advantage and position of Man and Woman. The ‘secondary’ position of woman which has occurred in patriarchal society after breaking of matriarchal Society will also be eliminated. The women have become free from feudal bondage, in the capitalist society, which has been brought by bourgeoisie. Yet their economic subjugation to man continued to exist in it. The woman in bourgeois society is under domestic slavery. The bourgeoisie sees the woman as wife, a mere instrument of production. In this society the body of the women is sold as commodity, in the pattern of bourgeoisie commodity system. The prostitution of woman due to economic distress, has been legalized in bourgeois society. This position of woman would be removed in the new society which will develop through proletarian revolution because in the said new society, the labor power and social right of the woman will get full honor. The Communist Manifesto has described the position of woman in bourgeois society stating: “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production”.... Bourgeois marriage is in reality system of wives. The Manifesto has declared: “It is self evident that abolition of present system of production must bring with it the abolition of community of women, springing from that system e.g., prostitution, both public and private”. Full honor of women will occur by having freedom from economic subjugation. Emancipation of women is the barometer of progress of the society. In exploitation free society which will grow after proletarian revolution, the man and woman will be moving in the courtyard of new culture, with mental feeling of monogamy in life, the Communist Manifesto intends to create it.

12. Communist Manifesto in its declaration has described that in order to create a new society, the systems which will be or are to be introduced with the dictatorship of the proletariat, after achieving the state power by the proletariat, through class struggle, will be of following nature: “These measures will of course be different in different countries”.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries the following will be petty generally applicable:

(1)Abolition of property in land and application of all land to public purposes;

(2)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3)Abolition of all rights of inheritance

(4)Confiscation of the properties of all emigrants and rebels

(5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly.

(6)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

(7)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste land and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

(8)Equal liability for all to labor; Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture;

(9)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of distinction between town and country, by more equal distribution of population over the country.

(10)Free education for all children in public schools; abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form: Combination of education with industrial production”.

The proposal of abolition of private property in land by which the land be nationalized, is not directly nationalism of land of middle and small peasantry; it would be to bring their land under co-operative with proposal of “social help” and not by any coercion (Decision of Basic Congress of 1st Communist International and subsequent writing of Marx and Engels on peasant problem). Its object is to break the conservative attitude of peasants with respect to land gradually. These co-operatives are in the interests of the concerned peasants. The aforesaid proposals are not any sort of building of ‘castle in the air’ or ‘Rip van winkle plan’, but the objective step for the creation of new exploitation and class conflict-free society. In Soviet Russia, Lenin and Stalin and in China, Mao Tse Tung has taken steps to incorporate the above systems in the society and through such step, had brought before the people the reality of the thought of Marx and Engels. So they are the creators of real semblance of Communist Manifesto. But the social systems which have been created through their steps became alarming for the forces of reaction, bourgeoisie and imperialism. Hence the reality of Communist Manifesto has got burning revelation.

Communist Manifesto mentioning the creation of new social organization through the process of above system has put the declaration:

“When in course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of vast association of whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another”...… “We shall have an association, in which free development of each is the condition for the development of all”.

This is shiver of the bourgeoisie; but whole heartedly acceptable for the destituted proletariat, it willbe a blossoming of life for them.

13. In bourgeois society, human activities are not based on social feeling, but are based on basically the thought of ‘commodity’ and ‘wage’. That is the root of its culture. It has been stated in Communist Manifesto. “It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers”. In the thought of aforesaid exploitation-free, class-less society, which the Communist Manifesto has brought in, the human activities will be resuscitated with Social feeling. A new culture will be created thereby.

The basis of the thought of Marxism with respect to human social life is: ‘Man by nature is a social being and creative being; creation is the instinct of man in work’. In this matter the thought of bourgeois society is: Man is a selfish being; and without self-gain Man will have no instinct for work. The analysis Marxism is: “due to ‘deprivation’ in bourgeois society self gain instinct for work in Man has occurred”. After advent of new exploitation free society self-gain instinct for work will be eliminated: The man will be moving with instinct of work for creation.

14. The object of Communist Manifesto is not the solitary and isolated struggle of the Communist force, but an advancing in combination with different revolutionary struggles of the society. It has been declared in the Manifesto:

“The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things”.

“In all these movements they will bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter, what its degree of development at the time”.

Here lies the thought for formation of class front; and it is to be shaped through different realities.

15. Communist Manifesto has further declared that the Communists will fight for immediate interest of working class; that means that their struggle is not for immediate jumping to struggle for final emancipation of the proletariat; there will be a process. The declaration of the Manifesto is:

“The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement”.

On the whole, The Communists Manifesto is a historic document, a way showing to creation of a new society, free from explanation and class antagonism, having broken the bourgeoisie controlled capitalist society, through process of class struggle, with materialistic based social theory.

II

1. The Communist Manifesto has not put forward any sort of decorative plan or mechanical sketch of revolution with angle of vision of class revolution; And it is not even possible to do so, because it is dependent on situation; specially it would be considered with the back-ground of organizational strength of the working class and surrounding situation.

 In 1872, at the time of publication of German edition of Communist manifesto Marx and Engels wrote in its preface: ‘The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed”. But Marx and Engels were conscious about the necessity of creation of working class party, for conducting violent revolution of class revolution and on the subject of making other parties allies in revolution. In 1889 on 18th December, Engels in a letter to G. Trier wrote:

“We are agreed on this; the proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to new society, without violent revolution. For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day, it must- and for this, as Marx and I have been arguing ever since 1847, form distinct from all other parties and opposed to them, a conscious class party”.

“But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use the other parties for its purpose. Nor does this mean that it cannot support other parties for a short period in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom” (Marx-Engels; Selected correspondence (Moscow) page 492)

In Communist Manifesto also there is expression of this thought and angle of vision of the activities of the proletariat.

2. The ‘Strategy’ and ‘Tactics’ of this proletarian revolution have been enriched through the activities under the leadership of the Communists Parties. In revolution of 1905 in Russia, Lenin, having given analysis of mental state desiring compromise with Czarism and vacillating tendency of the bourgeois class in revolution, advanced the proposition that ‘the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution would be completed under the leadership of the Proletariat. ‘In October Revolution in 1917, Lenin brought in the front the proposition that ‘the Socialist Revolution would be carried out under the leadership of the working class and on the basis of the worker-peasant alliance in the under-developed countries like Russia’. In 1919 having brought in the forefront, the subject of leading role of the working class in the anti-imperialist National Revolution in Colonies, Lenin advanced the proposition of establishing ‘link’ between ‘Socialist Revolution’ of advanced capitalist country and ‘Democratic revolution of backward and colonial country. This became fearful for the imperialism. In the case of colonial revolution the problem, arose in China as a result of defeat of Chinese Revolution, due to betrayal of Chiang Kai Shek, Stalin have taken into consideration the subject of armed resistance of the people led by the Communist Party of China against the armed attack of Chiang Kai Shek and advanced analysis that “the Chinese Revolution would proceed in the way of “armed Revolution with armed resistance and counter-attack against armed reaction”. On the basis of it Mao Tse Tung’s theory of People’s Democratic revolution took shape in China, against Imperialism, a section of native bourgeoisie as comprador to imperialism and feudalism. It is a stage of social revolution; basically democratic revolution- not socialist revolution-it is transitional to socialism. This is its significance. At present in the colonies, where transference of state power has occurred in the post 2nd world war period, by a compromise deal between imperialism and big bourgeoisie in the wake of colonial liberation struggles, the main subject matter of revolution is also People’s or New Democratic Revolution. But in the present world situation its transition to socialism will be deeper.

But in the affair of Revolution, the main point for realization is: It is not possible to repeat the Revolution of one country in the same way in another country. The process of class mobilization will vary from country to country. So the Revolution of Communist Manifesto should be viewed with objective look.

III

1. Marx and Engels had not seen the full development of Imperialism-only sow its initial countenance; yet what they had described about the full countenance of capitalism is a follows.

“The bourgeoisie, has through its exploitation of world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country”. “To the great charging to reactionaries it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries have been destroyed or are daily destroyed......raw materials drawn from the remotest zones..... industries, whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe”.....”In place of old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse in every, universal interdependence of nations”....... it creates a world after its own image”.

This is the world exploitation process of capitalism under the control of bourgeois class. The imperialist stage of capitalism has emerged through this process.

2. This analysis of imperialism which Lenin gave, on the basis of Marxian economic proposition, is as follows: 

“Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which dominance of monopolies and finance capital has acquired pronounced importance, in which division of the world among the industrial trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe amongst the great capitalist powers has been completed”.

Imperialism is: Dominance of monopolies and finance capital and completion of division of world amongst the great capitalist powers. It is a higher stage in the development of capitalism. The conflicts and contradictions of capitalism inevitably exist in it. This is the location of world division amongst the powerful capitalist groups.

3. After creation of this world process of capitalism under the control of bourgeois class the war took place among the big capitalist groups for a share of division. Lenin has given the analysis: War is the concomitant of imperialism. It is an open expression of conflict of interest amongst the capitalists-a ‘mobilization of strength’ of each. Colony is created by capturing of backward countries. The colony is a guarantee of strength of monopoly capital. Further, in the entire system, the exploitation on the working class is also intense. So the question of taking a clear attitude about imperialism is a very important subject of communist politics. In this affair, the thought of Lenin is an extension of Marxism.

4. During the life time of Marx and Engels, a thought of “social Democracy’-which advocated the establishment of Socialism through democratic process’ arose inside the Socialist camp of Europe. It sought to correct or reject the theory of ‘class struggle’, ‘revolution’ and ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ of Marxism. It advanced the possibility of working class winning the state power through obtaining of majority of working class, by vote, in Bourgeois Parliamentary Democracy (as the working class is majority in population) and the establishment of Socialism ‘peacefully’. This idea kept in the oblivion the role of ‘force’ of bourgeois State-machinery. Marx and Engels described it as ‘petty bourgeois patch-work reform’ and declared that it could not be a “working class party”. Kautsky who became a chief theoretician of this ideology in his later period and who was also inside the camp of Socialist thought in Europe, put forward the analysis that “Imperialism is the development of capitalism to a new higher stage as advancement of “Super Imperialism” with unity of international Finance-capital without contradiction (exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital).

5. Lenin, in this affair, refuted this reasoning and analysis of Kautsky and also gave the analysis with respect to ‘subjects’ of ‘mutual contradiction inside different powerful capitalist groups’, ‘their main stay on colonies’, ‘crisis of capitalism’, ‘non-possibility of advancing trend of Imperialism etc., characterized Imperialism, as ‘parasitic capitalism’ which lives by sucking colonies, ‘decaying capitalism’, ‘moribund capitalism’. He condemned Kautsky as “Renegade”. Here lies the strong echo of condemnation, which Marx and Engels made against Social Democracy. In the 1st World War of 1914, the Social Democracy, having kept the slogan of Nationalism in the front became the supporter of Imperialist war. Lenin, on the other hand, in opposition to imperialist war, brought in the front the theory of converting ‘Imperialist war into civil war’, made success of October Revolution in 1917. So the proposition of Lenin with respect to imperialism is to be or should be the main basis of the Communist politics; without this, it will be carrying of Social Democracy, that is, theory of Kautsky, in to the Communist politics.

6. In the post-2nd world war period, with new division of world, the intense endeavour of certain imperialist groups, under the dominance of US Imperialism began to capture the world market with the strength of finance capital. With the strength of finance capital and deadly weapon, the object of US imperialism is to create the world with “its own image” Roosevelt, the President of American Federal State, announced: “Americanization of the world is our destiny”. This intensified exportation of Imperialist capital Globalization is the present structure of world exploitation of imperialism. This should be considered on the basis of the theory of Lenin; and real Communist force must decide its attitude about it. The theory of Kautsky is appearing anew to glorify this Globalisation; and it is entering in Communist Politics also. In this matter the under mentioned thought of Lenin requires deep study:

“The imperialist ideology also penetrates the working class. There is no ‘Chinese wall’ between it and other classes. The leaders of so called “Social Democratic” Party of Germany are today justly called “Social- Imperialist”, that is socialism in word and imperialist in deed”.

“Bourgeois scholars and publicists usually come out in defense of Imperialism in somewhat veiled form and obscure its complete domination and its profound roots; they strive to concentrate attention on partial and secondary details and do their best to distract attention from the main, by means of ridiculous schemes for reforms” (Lenin; imperialism; the Highest Stage of Capitalism)

Lenin depicted the Social Democratic Party as “Social Imperialists”, it would be reasonable and justified to characterize the Communist Party which will extend support to globalization of imperialist capital according to the depiction of Lenin.

7. The basic theory of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution of the Communist Manifesto continues to be valid and strong reality in the present age, that is, in the situation entailing Globalisation of Imperialist Capital. In the present time, the property difference and conflicting situation therefore have assumed deeper intensity. The position, as shaped, in different countries, that is, in the world is: In one side, a very small number of population who control and enjoy the wealth of the society; and on another side a vast destitute masses who are deprived of real enjoyment of wealth. These are two opposite poles of the society. It has taken shape of an irreconcilable contradiction of the society. The mobilisation of strength to execute the basic theory of Communist Manifesto is the only necessity of the situation. The declaration of Communist Manifesto-”United action of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat”-has now acquired a very wide dimension.

Marx and Engels, composed Communist Manifesto for the world proletariat. Yet Europe in the main was before them at that time. But in the present time the world court-yard has abjectly appeared for it. The working class of different countries, have become more closer to each other through cheap-world-labor-market. Hence the thought of proletariat revolution of Communist Manifesto will now be moving throughout the world through creation of different fighting fronts of the working class.

8. About the theory of abolition of “Private Property” of Communist Manifesto, which makes the Bourgeois-class panic-stricken and for which they spread panic, Communist Manifesto has stated:

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society private property is already done away with for nine-tenth of the population, its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of this nine-tenth”.

In the present world situation, the private property lessness of vast distressed masses is the basis of the private property of small section. Advancement of society and advent of new civilisation will occur through crushing of this basis-it is what Communist Manifesto has depicted and has brought before the vision of the proletariat. It is deeply vibrating before the distressed masses.

9. In this affair the fight of the distressed masses, that is, the Proletariat, is the fight of the major section of population. It has been stated in the Communist Manifesto.

“All the previous historical movements were the movement of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

So the main strength of protection of minorities and their properties is their state-machinery. It is for this reason Communist Manifesto has brought the object of crushing the bourgeois state machinery, without which it will be impossible to build up new society.

The relevancy of Communist Manifesto should be considered on the basis of above mentioned realities not by any sort of mechanical thought.

10. In the post 2nd world war period a thought arose inside the Communist camp, with ‘new’ orientation of old social democracy to win Socialism in a peaceful way, they claim, in the present age of Atomic and Hydrogen bomb, the theory of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution’ of Marxism is obsolete and an ‘adventurism’. This was the creation of the post 2nd world war epoch and a new challenge posed to Communist Manifesto. Soviet Khrushchev-Kosygin-Gorbachev clique, brought this thought in the front. They advanced the theory of ‘concluding movement of ‘Social Revolution’ in ‘peaceful way’ and of ‘integral universe’ without ‘class- contradictions. It is ‘Modern Revisionism’ in place of ‘reformism’ of old Social Democracy. This clique, in one side, in order to create disgust against Soviet system, hurled different slanderous attack on Stalin, who after Lenin, was the main architect of Soviet System for a long time; and, in another side, they rejected the character of Worker-Peasant Dictatorship of the Soviet-State and replaced with the idea of ‘Peoples State’; Further they introduced the elements of capitalist market economy in Socialist Economy. They created an atmosphere for devastation of the Soviet State. Taking advantage of it, the Imperialist conspiracy caused such devastating position. But this devastation is temporary. Still in Russia, the Communist force exist with strength. Yeltsin who was placed as state-controller, by the Imperialists, has now been removed from state- power. The Socialist system, on basis of the thought of Communist Manifesto which was been established under the initiative of Lenin and Stalin, has not been completely devastated. They exist as a rich experience and idea among the people. It is the sign of strength of Marxism; on the other side the character of Revisionism as anti-Marxism and destroyer of socialism stands exposed.

11. It is also to be observed in the present time that after death of Mao Tse Tung, a revisionist, clique, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping having rejected the theory of Mao Tse Tung, as to “forward leap to socialism” with new “class struggle” with the proposition that “after New Democratic Revolution” the National Bourgeoisie and Rich Peasantry are not the allies, but enemies of socialist revolution, advanced a theory of ‘Mixed Economy’, taking the Bourgeoisie and Rich Peasantry as allies and obtaining cooperation with imperialist capital; and dragged the Chinese economy towards the same. The property difference in economy has immensely been aggravated there by, it has got state recognition. They have been catering it as ‘Socialism’ with Chinese characteristics”. They have retained ‘Single-Party’ rule, as if it is a ‘Dictatorship of Proletariat’. But with a political declaration they have extended invitation to the representatives of the capitalist and other classes who have ‘honestly earned property’ to be inside the Party. They have also announced that without owning full private property right advancement of China would not be possible. According to their view also, the old theory of Marxism would not be applicable or relevant in the present age; its rectification is necessary. It is another countenance of Modern Revisionism-the carrier of capitalism with new dress.

It is essential to bring special consciousness among the working class and toiling masses, in the present time, about this Modern Revisionism. It is the responsibility before the real communist force.

12. It should be observed in this context that a turmoil due to mass fury against the ruler who are the protectors of the vested interest, has been spreading in South-East Asia and other regions. It is motion towards a new mobilization of the world proletariat. So the thought of Communist Manifesto should move with all intensity.

13. But in the present world situation while applying the basic thought of Communist Manifesto it is necessary to take a clear view and attitude towards certain questions:

At first, the definition of Proletariat should be looked into with new extension. The organized shape of entire distressed masses would be its basis. Objectively, the workers of unorganized industries are to be taken in fold, in organized form, with the workers of organized industries; and the ‘unorganized force’ which has been created with the blow of Globalization of imperialist capital in different industries is to be taken as its main strength. In the present time, these forces will be ‘working men’ of the Communist Manifesto. Unity of Struggle of them is essential.

Along with it, a clear thought and attitude should be taken on certain subjects mentioned here under:

(a) At one time, the manner by which the entire middle class was taken as ally to Democratic Revolution and Socialist Revolution, cannot be made applicable in the present situation, because in the present bourgeois-state container, the top heavy education system which has been evolved, one section of middle class, who can be called ‘upper middle class’, having been developed with highly expensive higher education, have secured the position as the administrative bureaucrats in State administration, education administration and in different organizations of imperialist capital and old colonial big capital. In the present revolutionary movement the role of them is ‘reactionary’. So they should be treated as the camp of reaction. Hence in the present time, the Communist Party which will bring them in its fold as ally, will be or will be bound to be the carrier of Reaction. At present, amongst the middle class, there is ‘middle section’. In industry and other working establishment they are ‘highly salaried’ employees. They have attraction towards Socialism – (as described in Communist Manifesto, a “petty bourgeoisie”)-they are vacillating in revolutionary struggle. They are bearing the ideology of social democracy with respect to Socialism. A ‘lower section’ of the middle class, which exists thereafter, among whom a distressful condition exists-are more closer to proletarian class. They are to be taken as allies to the struggle of the proletariat.

(b) In the present time in imperialist countries and even in industrially under-developed countries, ‘the labor aristocracy’ had grown with intensity. They are the creation of industrial employers. Lenin has seen the Labor-Aristocracy at certain stage as “Labor-lieutenants” of the bourgeois class. At present, it has taken more strong intensified position. The Trade Unions of the ruling party and the parties which are strongly tagged to parliamentary politics are their main political prop. They are now the agent of collective bargaining with respect to the demands of workers; they have arrived in alternative position of the administration of the employers as the governor’ of the workers, Marx and Engels have not seen the labor aristocracy; they have seen the opportunism of Social Democracy in its primary position. This Social Democracy is the strength giver of labor aristocracy. Modern Revisionism in the present age is the pillar of labor aristocracy. At present it has become specially necessary to ‘corner’ the labor aristocracy in new working class movement with the angle of vision of proletarian revolution.

(c) In post 2nd World-War period, in the colonies where transference of state power has occurred as a result compromise deal with Imperialism, due to economic policy of the new ruling group, the control of rich peasantry has grown in agricultural economy; and in their agricultural production system the ‘peasants’ have been converted to “land labor”. These land laborers landless and poor peasantry are the rural distressed masses, and they are to be taken as extremely close ally to proletariat in revolutionary movement; the rich peasantry would be the target of attack.

(d) The thought of “class party” of Communist Manifesto has caused birth of the Communist Parties in different countries. But, in the present time, the matter of purification of the Communist Party should be taken up with very seriousness and strong attitude; Because, in the present time, imperialism and Bourgeoisie- State power are using other methods in the name to smash the Communist Party than the direct methods of repression and attack: the main tactic of them is to pollute the Party in different manners’. Apart from it, in the present time, in one way, different types of ideology of Social Democracy i.e., revisionism are entering the Communist Parties; and in another way, in organization process, there has occurred assembling in the party of the opportunists and advantage seeking elements. The removal of these from the party is essentially needed. Specially, in the present time, the tested cadres in mass movements should be taken as the ‘base of the Party; the leadership also should be oriented accordingly; Further, in the communist party, Marx- Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao Tse Tung should be taken as successive personalities of Marxism-not in served or isolated manner. Out of these personalities, to accept one isolate would be a wrong step with respect to Marxism. In the present time the slumberous position of the Communist Parties throughout the world is a noticeable event. Hence, a properly oriented Communist party is a necessity of the situation. The implication of the under mentioned declaration of Marx and Engels should deeply be realized.

“The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class themselves: we cannot therefore co-operate with the people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie”. (Marx- Engels selected correspondence 9 Moscow page 395).

Petty bourgeois dominated Communist Party will be incapable to be ‘real’ Communist Party for Proletarian Revolution. In the present time, it is observable that the petty bourgeois elements do prefer to get enter into the Communist party carrying parliamentary politics than separate Democratic Party’. It is a prop for their self-establishment. It is beyond possibility to retain revolutionary character and role of the Communist Party with flooding of this force into the communist party.

(e) In the present time in countries where transference of state power has occurred, a continued campaign and movement should be organized against the parliamentary ‘rulers’ and the said administrative system’, who or which is acting as collaborationist of imperialism and helping forces for Globalization of imperialist capital; And the flow of it should be intensified in the movement of working class and distressed masses.

14. In the present situation the Communist Manifesto be applied and practiced taking the present process of exploitation of imperialist capital into view and on the basis of the basic thought of ‘class struggle’ and ‘Revolution’ of Communist Manifesto. We must make a strong declaration before the world proletariat that the Communist Manifesto continues to be relevant, fully living. Any declaration in the present time, as to extinguisher of the relevancy of Communist Manifesto would be acting as partisan to imperialism and its collaborators-the ‘vested interests’ and of playing the role of “enemy’ of the distressed masses.

15. In the present time, imperialism, through the process of Globalization of its capital, has given birth to, with intensified exploitation, such a distressed mass force as its “grave diggers” which will put imperialism inside the grave according to infallible law of history. This is the present ‘Declaration of the Communist Manifesto.

***********************************************************************************