November 2004

SOME COMMENTS ON THE STAGE OF REVOLUTION IN INDI

I. Introduction

II. Stage of Revolution- Approach

III. Stage of Revolution – Experiences of German, Russian and Chinese Revolution

IV. On penetration of capital in Indian economy and stage of revolution: some facts and issues

V. Differentiation of peasantry and stage of revolution and Trotsky

VI. Neocolonialism, economic & diplomatic dependence of a country and the stage of revolution:







I. Introduction

India became a colony of Britain at a time when classical capitalism of pre-imperialist epoch was striving for world domination. At that time Britain was an imperial power of early capitalism. However during the end of 19th century and in the beginning of 20th century, capitalism including British capitalism developed in to imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. This development was associated with dominance of finance capital, a drive for export of capital and fierce inter-imperialist rivalry for re-division of market which culminated in to two world wars. The transformation of pre-capitalist society in India was taking place in this changing world economic situation- the increasing domination of finance capital through the export of capital. Both the kinds of imperialism entailed a forcible transformation of India’s pre-capitalist societies and the establishment of a new international division of labor, whereby India’s economy was internally disarticulated and integrated externally with the developed capitalist countries.

India was forced to change from a locally self sufficient economy to exporter of raw materials and food demanded by advanced capitalist countries, particularly of its colonial master, Britain. On the other hand India provided market for manufactured products supplied by Britain and other finance capital. India was a profitable field for investment of British finance capital. This was originally mainly in plantation and extractive industries, but later also in labor intensive light manufacturing which took the advantage of cheap labor of colonial India.

The sine qua non for Europianization of Indian society was the breaking up of its stereotyped primitive forms. This could not be done only through tax collectors. The destruction of India’s archaic industry -in particular combination of hand-weaving, hand-spinning and hand tilling agriculture- was necessary to deprive the villages of their self supporting character. This was achieved through “English interference having placed the spinner in Lancashire and the weaver in Bengal, or sweeping away both Hindu spinner and weaver, dissolved these semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities by blowing up their economical basis...”

These long years of colonial rule destroyed the old feudal regime, the old state apparatus, old institutions like village community. In place of fragmented warlord feudal state, it established a centralized colonial state. The old division of labor based on caste was liberated and made suitable for commodity production and exchange. The leadership of freedom struggle i.e. congress also took a centralized all India form . . For the first time in India Land was made a commodity which was subject to purchase and sale. Thus when the freedom struggle was intensified in India in the 20th century, unlike China it faced a centralized colonial state.

During both the kinds of imperialism in India, its pre-capitalist structures were undermined and a new structures necessary for capitalist development were established. This not only allowed world finance capital to penetrate and develop but also created conditions for the development of indigenous capital in industry as well as in commerce and agriculture. However, the colonial state remained the instrument of British bourgeois and was deployed against indigenous classes where their respective rights clashed.

However, there was no structural contradiction between these indigenous bourgeois and finance capital because they had a common interest of preserving capitalist social order to earn more and more profit. And this is why a section of indigenous bourgeoisie was from the very beginning a compromising class. It always tried to gain some economic & political concession by helping national revolutionary liberation movement. The compromising section of indigenous bourgeoisie was from the very beginning saddled with rising workers consciousness and revolt of workers, peasants, petty-bourgeois, small producers and middle man.

Thus we find two political trends in India’s freedom struggle- one always willing to compromise with and other revolutionary trend fighting imperialism to its tooth and nail which was related with Axis power
The compromising section of bourgeoisie achieved major constitutional reform when they got Government of India Act 1935 passed. With the passing of this Act, ‘the national movement led by compromising bourgeois was able to win the franchise for about one quarter of the adult population in 1935. While considerably less than universal franchise, and based essentially on property and educational qualifications, this was still an advance when compared to the situation in the earlier stages of colonial rule. But still India was a part of British colony.
The members of Constituent Assembly of 1946 were elected on the basis of limited franchise. In addition there were some representatives from the Princely states. The mandate to elect the Constituent Assembly was given to these Councils and legislatures by the then sovereign power, the British Parliament, under the Cabinet Mission Plan of Sir Stafford Cripps in 1946. The majority of the members elected to the Constituent Assembly belonged to the compromising sections of the bourgeoisie as the radical (fascist) section was suppressed. .
However, the transfer of power took place on August 15, 1947, following the ratification by the British Parliament of the India Independence Act. The Act provided for the creation of two new Dominions, India and Pakistan on August 15 which came into force after giving an unparallel blood bath generated by riots between Hindus and Muslims. Indian Government also suppressed brutally the rising revolts of communists.. It transferred sovereignty from the British Crown and Parliament to the Constituent Assembly. Subsequently, the Indian Constitution took effect as the fundamental law of the land on January 26, 1950. With this the toiling people of India were given universal franchise, citizenship and fundamental rights to pacify the anger of the toiling people. This was the major step towards the establishment of constitutional democracy in India. With this, India seceded with Britain but remained connected with it through common wealth headed by Queen of Britain. Thus India attained it’s independence through constitutional reform, or what we can call as through Prussian way where still parliamentary supremacy is questioned.. This led to the empowerment of the toiling people to a certain extent where they established their press, trade union and other organization and strikes. Constitutional democracy created irreconcilable contradiction between economic and political poles as capital was in the hands of the capitalist and votes(politics) were in the hands of the toiling people. CGPI wrongly concludes that there was no empowerment of people because the democracy was based on the theory of concentrating power in the executive. CGPI says: “While the democracy that came into being was objectively an advance for the Indian people, it did not lead to their empowerment. This was because this democracy was based on the theory of concentrating power in the executive, in order to deprive the masses of power.”
Similarly, Proletarian Path in its Inaugural issue published in Nov. 92, says: “Against the backdrop of this movement, the RIN mutiny, peasant revolts and working class actions came the transfer of power. A war weakened British imperialism, a special conjunction of international circumstances (the rise of the tide of the world revolution, the pressure on Britain against 'imperial preference' during the Bretton Woods negotiations etc.) made this imperative. This was the highpoint of the betrayal of the Indian people but all the same it was a significant change.” Proletarian Path: Inaugral issue Nov.1992 Page- 1
Firstly the transfer of power came against the backdrop of brutal suppression of RIN Mutiny, Telangna revolt and working class action. There was no competitive force to take state power on behalf of the toiling people The Congress was the only bourgeois political party. The working class strongest organization AITUC was broken into INTUC and other central trade unions led by bourgeois parties. The CPI had to retreat and adopt legal course of partliamentarism.
Secondly, in what sense it was high point of betrayal of the Indian bourgeois from the Indian people? Does the National democratic revolution under the leadership of bourgeois go beyond the establishment of constitutional democracy? No. It does not. It is the task of working class party to explain the vast toiling masses the significant of this change in determining their strategy in their emancipation struggle. In what sense it was a significant change? We will see that PP concludes nothing from this significant change. Proletarian Path takes an historical example and quotes the following passage of Lenin :
"To continue and intensify that slaughter, Anglo-French imperialist capital hatched court intrigues…… and fixed up a complete new government, which in fact did seize power immediately the proletarian struggle had struck the first blows at tsarism.
…….this government is not a fortuitous assemblage of persons. They are representative of the new class that has risen to political power in Russia, the class of capitalist landlords and bourgeoisie which has long been ruling our country economically…….. was quick to organise itself politically, taking control of the local govt. bodies, public education, congresses of various types, the Duma, the war industries committees etc. This new class was already "almost completely" in power by 1917, and therefore it needed only the first blows to bring tsarism to the ground and clear the way for the bourgeoisie." (Lenin/CW/23/Letters from Afar/p.303.)

However, it comments that ‘this historical analogy though limited in its applicability is important for us to appreciate the changes in the relations of classes since 1947’ Page—2 ibid. But Proletarian Path fails to appreciate the changes in the relations of classes because of Indian bourgeois coming to power. Proletarian Path only appreciates the changes in the politics, policies pursued by the Indian bourgeois after 1947 and not the causes of these changes. Though, it recognizes that political independence has its significance precisely because it allows for a freer, wider, and clearer field for the class-struggle. And nothing else. How the correlation of class forces changed after achievement of political independence in 1947 ? But it never attempted to analyze these changes.
After 1947, British imperialism was no longer in unquestioned command of the state apparatus, although it continued to wield influence. It stood in competition with other imperialist power -like American, French etc, as well as with Indian bourgeois for the influence over the state. Indian bourgeoisie used the Indian state for the furtherance of its own class interests, but they do not have an unqualified command over it, because it was to some extent subject to influence of powerful imperialism as a whole.
Before 1947, the interest of world imperialism, except the conservative section of Britain, including the Indian bourgeoisie was not to preserve the colonial rule of Britain in India, but they had common interest to preserve capitalist order and to penetrate capital in India to get the maximum profit. Before, independence, the Indian bourgeois including the vast masses of Indian people had common interest in the national liberation movement- to secede from the British rule. After independence, the world bourgeois and the Indian bourgeois have the common interest - to preserve the capitalist order and to penetrate their own capital in the most profitable areas. In opposition to this, the working class and the vast masses of toiling people had only one common interest- to overthrow the rule of capitalist order, the rule of bourgeois and to establish their own rule. But Proletarian Path fails to see these changes in the correlation of class forces.

However, there was much confusion regarding assessment of nature of Independence in India immediately after 1947. The Communist Party of India on the observation that India is still a semi-colony discerned the stage of revolution as democratic. In their 1951 Progamme they say : "India is the last biggest dependent semi colonial country in Asia still left for the enslavers to rob and exploit". They did not conclude that India has finally seceded with British imperialism. According to them consummation of democratic revolution was not completed. And therefore, theoretically they were absolutely correct. If India was still a semi-colony, the stage of revolution could be only democratic and not socialist. They characterized the national bourgeoisie as progressive and an ally of revolution. It is only at later stage that they admitted that the Indian state, instead of being a semi-colonial, semi-feudal one, was an independent national sovereign state.
The position of CPI has been summarized as follows : The sate in India is the organ of the class rule of the national bourgeoisie as a whole, in which the big bourgeoisie holds powerful influence. This class rules has strong links with the landlords. These factors give rise to the reactionary pools in the state power.” Page 114 India- State and society A Marxian Approach Edited by Dr. K. Mathew Kurian
CPM adopted its Programme at the Seventh Party Congress of the Communist Party of India held at Calcutta, October 31 to November 7, 1964 and updated by the Special Conference of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) held at Thiruvananthapuram, October 20-23, 2000 defines the class character of Indian state in the following words:
“5.1 The present Indian State is the organ of the class rule of the bourgeoisie and landlords led by the big bourgeoisie, who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital in pursuit of the capitalist path of development. This class character essentially determines the role and function of State in the life of the country.”
And it further says: “The big bourgeoisie since independence has been continuously in State power and has been utilizing that State power to strengthen its class position at the expense of the mass of the people on the one hand and compromising and bargaining with imperialism and landlordism on the other.”

Thus, subsequently, CPI & CPM both characterize the class character of Indian state as bourgeois. But in spite of that they discerned the stage of revolution as democratic because vital tasks of democratic revolution were not completed. It may be a discussion of academic interest to go in debate as to whether immediately after independence the stage of revolution will be democratic or socialist so far as it concern only with regard to the observation of facts made by different parties. Here, what we are concerned is the question of theory of determining stage of revolution. An observation made by any party at any period of time on the character of Indian state and society may be wrong if facts are not so glaring to draw correct conclusions. But if the theory, the approach of revolution is wrong, no party can come out of the mess it will make. Therefore, our primary concern is the question of theory of revolution which according to us is essential to determine the correct stage of revolution as propounded or admittedly adhered to by different parties in the context of admitted facts of each party.




II Stage of Revolution- Approach

The question of stage of revolution –democratic or socialist- is one of the central issues in today’s ideological battles. The task of exposing various falsification and distortions of Russian experiences on the one hand and increased requirement of revolutionary proletariat in using these experiences call for a further analysis and summation of the Leninist party’s experiences in the different stages of struggle for the victory of working class.
One such attempt was made by the Proletarian Path in its inaugural issue which appeared in the year 1992. In this issue the author has tried to explain the Marxist-Leninist position on this subject on the basis of experiences of German, Russian and Chinese Revolution. Besides, so many other questions like the question of capitalist development in India in its post independence period, the question of political independence of India etc… have been dealt with.
The Proletarian Path concentrated basically on two questions for determining stage of revolution in India namely (a) Class character of Indian State and b)predominant mode of production in Indian economy. As regards to first question they came to the conclusion that after 1947 state power was transferred to Indian bourgeois and they held the character of Indian state as bourgeoisie. But according to them it was not enough to determine the stage of revolution as socialist so long as pre-capitalist forces held sway in the socio-economic structure of the society; so long as peasantry was not differentiated. Therefore what PP was to do is to prove that Indian economy has undergone a major changes since 1947 and India has been transformed from a pre-dominantly pre-capitalist economy to a pre-dominantly capitalist economy through Prussian Path and as a result of penetration of capital in agriculture peasantry has been differentiated to such an extent that we can not go along with peasantry as a whole. And hence the stage of revolution has become socialist in stead of democratic in the present situation.
From the above it is clear that they are in agreement with CPI and CPM so far the stage of democratic revolution is concerned so long as vital tasks of democratic revolution are not achieved, India did not become a predominantly capitalist country and there was no substantial differentiation of peasantry, . But this very approach towards the stage of revolution is not correct, it is a deviation from Marxist-Leninist view point. We will examine in the subsequent chapter this approach in the main so far as the theory of socialist revolution is concerned.


III. Stage of Revolution – Experiences of German, Russian and Chinese Revolution

Proletarian Path in its article “The stage of Revolution: The Presentation of Question” has tried to explain the Marxist methodology of ascertaining the stage of revolution. What is this methodology? For this it quotes Stalin which runs as follows :

“Lenin says that “the main question of every revolution is the question of state power.” In the hands of which class or which classes is power concentrated, which class or which classes must be overthrown, which class or which classes must take power- such is the main question of every revolution.”
The Parties fundamental strategic slogans which retain their validity during the whole period of any particular stage of the revolution, can’t be called fundamental slogans if they are not wholly entirely based on the cardinal thesis of Lenin.” (Stalin – Problems of Leninism/p-237).
In the light of above quotations, the Proletarian Path tries to explain why Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin gave different strategic slogans ascertaining stages of revolution to be different under different conditions. First of all let us take the case of Germany. If we put the question : After the bourgeoisie revolution 1848 in Germany why Marx and Engels still envisaged of a petty bourgeois democratic revolution? And in reply, it quote Marx :- “In fact it was the bourgeois who immediately after the March Movement of 1848, took possession of the state power to force back at once the workers, their allies in the struggle in to their former oppressed position. Though the bourgeoisie was not able to accomplish this without uniting with the feudal party, which had been disposed of in March, without finally even surrendering power once again to this feudal absolutist party, still it has secured conditions for itself which, in the long run, owing to financial embarrassment of the Government, would place power in its hands and would safeguard all its interests, if it were possible for the revolutionary movement to assume already now so called peaceful development.”(ME/SW/I/p-176).
Thus after the March movement of 1848, bourgeoisie surrendered state power to the feudal class. From this or from the whole article on can not conclude that feudal forces held sway in state power as well as socio-economic structure of Germany. But Proletarian Path comments “From this analysis it is clear that feudal forces still held sway.” P-103. The expression “feudal forces still held sway” does not disclose whether feudal forces held sway in state power or economy of Germany or in both and hence here it is a vague expression and we will see the real reason behind using this expression. After quoting some other paragraphs from Marx and Engels written up to 1874 it concludes :

“We have made extensive use of quotations to show that the stage of democratic revolutions is discerned when the feudal forces hold sway in the socio economic structure and polity of the countries.”p-142 Here we will not go in detail whether feudal forces dominated in the socio economic structure of Germany in 1844 or not, rather simply like to say that the author has not understood the question of democratic revolution in Germany. Let us remember Lenin who while warning I.I.SKVORTSOV :STEPANOC against the mechanical application of German model, says : “The agrarian questions is now the national question of bourgeois development in Russia, and in order not to fall into the error of a mistaken (mechanical) application of the German model, which in many respects is correct and in all respects very valuable, to our conditions, we must clearly understand that the national question of the fully established bourgeois development of Germany was unification etc and the agrarian question : where as the national question of the financial consolidation of bourgeois development in Russia is precisely the agrarian question.” L/CW/V/P-120.
That Proletarian Path has failed to understand the ‘theoretical basis of the difference in application of Marxism in Germany in 1848-68(approximately) and in Russia in 1905-17, is clear.
Further, it is also clear that the approach to the problem of democratic revolution taken by Proletarian Path is not Marxist Leninist. While the Marxist considers the changes in the economic structure, new emerging order and its contradiction with the old regime with the old superstructures as the basis for democratic revolution, Proletarian Path considers the predominance of pre-capitalist relations and its contradiction with the old regime, old superstructure ignoring new bourgeois order as the basis of democratic revolution.

But this is not the whole story. On page 106, it says : “For a period of time so long as feudal forces existed predominantly in the economic setup of the country the workers party (After Feb revolution of 1917 in Russia) would have to decide the stage of revolution to be still a democratic one as ‘Marx & Engels had done in the case of Germany”.
This is a distortion of fact. The situation prevailing in Germany after March 1848 can’t be equated with that of Russia. In Russia after Feb revolution, the bourgeois could not surrender state power in the hands of feudal class due to resistance of workers and soldiers soviet and Bolshevik Party, where as in Germany the bourgeois surrendered state power to the feudal class after March 1848. Therefore it will be wrong to equate these two different situations.
Secondly, does Marx and Engels say that the stage of revolution will be discerned democratic even if bourgeois is in the sate power? So far as the extensive quotations from Marx and Engels and the conclusions arising there from made by Proletarian Path reply in negative as two different conditions are not the same.
The passage quoted above not only shows the failure of the author of Proletarian path in analyzing the conditions of Germany and Russia but also reflects his deviation from his earlier position.
Therefore, it is not accidental that immediately after putting his fundamental proposition, he makes a caricature of its so called “Marxist proposition” by saying that “if it is to be a democratic revolution of anti-feudal type the feudal has to exist as a class in the true sense of the term-.” Does the author hold the view that if feudal forces exist as a class in the true sense of the term; it will also hold sway in the state power? Even the observation made by Proletarian Path regarding India after 1947 indicates the predominant existence of the feudal forces in the economic setup of that country in the true sense of the term, even when the state power was transferred in the hands of the bourgeoisie and hence Proletarian Path can not escape. Thus Proletarian Path themselves hold the view that feudal class may exist as a true sense of the term but it may not hold sway in the state power. If these two conditions are not the same, why these have been equated, have been confused? Let us examine :
In India immediately after independence, according to Proletarian Path, feudal forces did not hold sway in the polity of the country as the sate power was transferred in the hands of the bourgeoisie but the feudal forces did exist as a class as India at that time was predominantly a pre-capitalist country. That is why it was necessary to amend the proposition making a caricature of its so called Marxist proposition. Thus its conclusion from the experiences of Germany and Russia boils down to : the stage of democratic revolution is discerned when the feudal forces hold sway in the socio-economic set up of the society even if the state power is in the hands of bourgeoisie. If the conclusion derived from German and Russian experiences does not fit in the Indian condition, then it is amended.
Further his proposition that …. “the so called enumeration of the remnants of semi-feudalism if not feudalism is of no avail.”(P.P. page-104) is also wrong because it ignores the character of state power which might be held sway by the feudal forces. Besides “the so called enumeration of the remnants of feudalism” along with emerging bourgeoisie order under a semi-feudal state is a good avail. Under these situations the development of capitalism does not avert the bourgeoisie democratic crisis. Lenin says:
“The development of capitalism did not avert the bourgeoisie democratic crisis in 1905, but paved the way for it and intensified it. Why? Because the old semi-feudal natural economy had been eroded, while the conditions for the new bourgeoisie economy had not yet been created. Hence the unusual intensity of 1905 crisis.” (C.W. p-488)
(The conditions for the new bourgeoisie economy and the bourgeoisie economy itself is not the one and the same thing. The development of capitalism did occur in Russia even if conditions for it had not yet been created.)
The author did not even attempt to deal with the questions ; whether conditions for the bourgeois economy had been created or not? He presents the question ; whether India is a predominantly feudal (pre-capitalist) economy or capitalist economy. And concludes that India is a predominantly capitalist economy and hence the stage of revolution will be socialist.
The above proposition reflects one of the major misconceptions in the Indian Communist movement which is still upheld by may communist parties that a country is at the stage of democratic revolution because it is predominantly characterized by feudal forces of production and thus the role of emerging bourgeoisie order is ignored.
But we know that the feudal order gives birth to the entire basis of capitalist society that comes to replace it. In fact capitalism as a system had ripened inside the feudal order. To assert itself it had to do one thing ; to break through the worn out shell of the feudal society that served its time and to bring the political structure in the line of socio-economic basis. It is this tasks that the bourgeois revolution resolves.
Further, Proletarian Path has failed to understand the consummation of democratic revolution in Germany as it is evident from their quotation from “The Peasant War in Germany” and their assertion that “For instance when towards the end of the 19th century the bourgeois forces became predominant in Germany though many relics of feudalism still existed and the demand of establishing a republic had yet not been fulfilled in Germany, the then Social Democratic Party of Germany made it a concrete analysis of concrete conditions and came to the conclusion that Germany was in the stage of socialist revolution.” Proletarian path Page 1992 – 104
Thus Social Democratic party of Germany came to the conclusion that Germany was in the stage of socialist revolution because towards the end of 19th century the bourgeois forces became predominant in the Germany though many relics of feudalism still existed. And what about the character of state ? Was it a bourgeois state ? It says “existed and the demand of establishing a republic had yet not been fulfilled in Germany.” What type of state it was ? In 1848 bourgeois surrendered state power to feudal aristocracy and towards the end of 19th century the demand of establishing a republic had yet not been fulfilled in Germany. From this can one conclude that bourgeois held sway in the state power of Germany also. The question of character of state in Germany remains un-investigated by Proletarian Path. Even though Proletarian Path concludes that democratic revolution was consummated towards the end of 19th century when bourgeois forces became dominant in Germany. Thus here again in case of Germany, Proletarian Path considers the dominant aspect of bourgeois economy in Germany without investigating the character of German state.
What does it mean by the term consummation of democratic revolution? Let us see what Lenin says on this subject :
“Generally speaking this term may be taken to mean two things. If use in its broad sense, it means the fulfillment of the objective historical tasks of the bourgeois revolution, its “consummation” i.e. removal of the very soil capable of engendering a bourgeois revolution, the consummation of entire cycle of bourgeois revolution. In this sense, for example, the bourgeoisie democratic revolution in France was consummated only in 1871 (though begin in 1789.) But if the term is used in narrow sense, it means a revolution, one of the bourgeois revolutions, one of the “waves”, if you like, that batters the old regime but does not destroy it altogether, does not remove the basis that may engender subsequent bourgeois revolutions. In this sense the revolution 1848 in Germany was “consummated” in 1850 or the fifties, but it did not in the least remove the soil for the revolutionary revival in the sixties. The revolution in 1789 in France was consummated; let say in 1794, without however, thereby removing the soil for the revolutions of 1830 and 1848.” (Lenin. vol.16 Page 202-203)
In the light of above quoted passage from Lenin it can be said that the revolution 1848 in Germany was consummated in 1850 or the fifties in its narrow sense only, it did batter the regime but it did not destroy it altogether, it did not remove the basis that that may engender subsequent bourgeois revolutions. But when did the bourgeois revolution in Germany consummated in its broad sense? Did it consummate in the end of 19th century as PP observe? Lenin says “But this possibility can become a reality only through a number of on sets (or upsurges) just as France came to the end of the “General democratic on sets not after 1789-93, but after 1871 i.e. after the verfarsungsstreit (constitutional conflict) of the sixties.” Lenin Vol 34 p-408
Thus the bourgeois revolution in Germany was consummated in 1871 in its broad sense but Proletarian Path says “Engels had further noted that the tasks of democratic revolution might be accomplished at the end of nineteenth century from above since the process through reforms had already started.” P-104 and in support of this they quotes Engels from the ‘Prefatory note to the peasant war in Germany”, the passage being as follows : “Thus it has been the peculiar fate of Prusia to complete its bourgeois revolution begun in 1808 to 1830 and advanced further to some extent in 1848- in the pleasant form of Bonapartism at the end of this century.” (ME/SW/2/P-167)
It is true that the above statement was given by Engels in 1870 but the same was revised by Engels in the year 1874. Proletarian Path in order to support its contention either conveniently ignore the writings made in 1874 or is not able to understand the same. To make it clear that Proletarian Path has failed to understand Engels, it is necessary to deal the question of democratic revolution in Germany and the character of Prusian state in particular. It is well known fact that the prefatory note to ‘The Peasant war in Germany” was written by Engels in February1870 to the second German edition of The Peasant War in Germany, Leipzig,1870. On July 1, 1874 Engels wrote a supplementary second part for the third edition which appeared in Leipzig in 1875 in which he said: “The basic precondition for the monarchy, which had been slowly rotting since 1840, was the struggle between nobility and bourgeois in which the monarchy held the balance. When the nobility no longer needed protection against the onrush of the bourgeoisie and it became necessary to protect all the propertied class against the onrush of the working class, the old absolute monarchy had to go over completely to the form of state expressly devised for this purpose; the Bonapartist Monarchy. This transition of Prusia to Bonapartism, I have already discussed else where(The Housing Question Part 2, p-20), what I did not have to stress there, but what is very essential here, is that this transition was the greatest progress made by Prusia since 1848, so much had Prusia lagged behind in modern development. It was to be sure, still a semi feudal state where as Bonapartism is, at any rate a modern form of state which presupposes the abolition of feudalism. Hence Prusia has had to begin to get rid of its numerous survivals of feudalism, to sacrifice junkerdom as such.” P-17 The Peasant War in Germany.
Thus it would be a mistake to overlook the transition which was the greatest progress made by Prusia so much had Prusia lagged behind in modern development and it will be equally erroneous to overlook these developments in deciding the question of consummation of democratic revolution in Germany.
Lenin says : “Our epoch, 1905-?, is the epoch of the revolutionary and counter revolutionary struggle between these (i.e. Prusian and American Path Ed.) paths, just as 1848-71in Germany was a period of the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary struggle between two paths of unification (=of the solution of the national problem of bourgeois development in Germany), the path through the Great German Republic and the path through the Prussian monarchy. It was only in 1871 that the second path was finally (that is where my “completely comes in) victorious. It was then that the dispute between the Lassallians and the Eisenachirs died down. It was then too that the question of a general democratic revolution in Germany died down and Naumann, David and Co. started in the nineties (twenty years latter !) to revive the corpse.” P-121 Vol-16
Thus it will be wrong to assume that the questions of a general democratic revolution in Germany did not died down in 1871 as claimed by the author of the Proletarian Path.
Now we come to the Russian experiences and the conclusion derived there from as conceived by Proletarian Path. But before that let us try to put it briefly.
During the February Revolution the masses set up the Soviet of Workers and soldiers’ Deputies which was the instrument of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. It was only due to the betrayal of the revolution by the Mensheviks that it stopped halfway and the reins of the power fall in the hands of the Provisional Govt. which established the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Having accomplished the immediate tasks i.e. the overthrow of tzarism, the party was faced with new situation which required new orientation, new strategic plan, new tactics, new slogans. In Lenin’s April thesis and in the decision of the 7th All Russia Party Conference, the Party gave the people a concrete plan of transition from the bourgeois democratic to a socialist revolution. The 6th Congress held between July 26 and Aug 3 1917, was of crucial importance for the new stage of the Revolution.
The Proletarian Path says on page 105 “The Feb 1917 was considered to be a bourgeois democratic revolution. Why? Because there the people had replaced the feudal from the state power” Though the author has not mentioned categorically the passing of state power from the feudal class to the bourgeoisie, it may be accepted assuming that the author meant so. But this does not in the least mean that the author has fully understood the nature of bourgeois democratic revolution. He puts the question : “It may be said why had Lenin given the call for the proletarian revolution in April 1917 in Russia? Can it be said that in April 1917 Russia was predominantly bourgeois so that the stage of revolution was discerned to be proletarian socialist?” ibid P-105
That Proletarian path holds the view that in April 1917 Russia was not a predominantly bourgeois country is clear when they say : “If the party of the Proletariat was not able to lead the bourgeois revolution to grow into a successful proletarian revolution what would have been the task of the proletarian in that country? In other words suppose the bourgeois revolution in February 1917 just ended in a deal with the monarchist feudal forces and the reformist bourgeois were successful in preventing the people from going further in revolution, how then the proletarian party would have decided its aim and tasks? This would be the case similar to that in Germany after 1848. For a period of time so long as feudal forces existed predominantly in the economic setup of the country the workers party would have to decide the stage of revolution to be still a democratic one as Marx & Engels had done in case of Germany.” P-106
Firstly, this is a distortion of fact. Proletarian Path forgets even what they have quoted from Lenin on the very first page which runs as follows :

“…….this government is not a fortuitous assemblage of persons. They are representative of the new class that has risen to political power in Russia, the class of capitalist landlords and bourgeoisie which has long been ruling our country economically…….. was quick to organise itself politically, taking control of the local govt. bodies, public education, congresses of various types, the Duma, the war industries committees etc. This new class was already "almost completely" in power by 1917, and therefore it needed only the first blows to bring tsarism to the ground and clear the way for the bourgeoisie." (Lenin/CW/23/Letters from Afar/p.303.)”
Thus bourgeois was ruling Russia even before Feb. revolution. The capitalist forces were predominant in the socio-economic setup of the society.
And in his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” Lenin says :This picture clearly shows, on the one hand, that commodity circulation and hence commodity production are firmly implanted in Russia. Russia is a capitalist country.” P-507, The Development of capitalism in Russia.
And after the consummation of democratic revolution in Russia Lenin says :
“In Russia the bourgeoisie rule both the economic and political life. Their interest particularly during the imperialist war , violently conflict with the interests of the majority. Hence from a materialist and Marxist and not from a formally juridical point of view we must expose this conflict and combat bourgeois deception of the people. Vol.25 (1917, Aug.)
Secondly, we know that the feudal order gives birth to the entire basis of capitalist society that comes to replace it. In fact capitalism as a system had ripened inside the feudal order. To assert itself it had to do one thing : to break through the worn out shell of the feudal society that had served its time and bring the superstructure in line with the socio-economic basis. It is not the absence of capitalism rather its development and its contradiction with the pre-capitalist feudal survival the old feudal regime that is the basis of a democratic revolution. Lenin says :
“Capitalist development in Russia has made such strides during last half century that the preservation of serfdom in agriculture has become absolutely impossible and its abolition has assumed the forms of violent crisis, of nation-wide revolution.”
Since the Proletarian Path holds the view that ‘the stage of revolution is discerned when the feudal forces hold sway in the socio economic structure and the polity of the country without referring or assigning any importance to the emerging capitalist development , they distort the Marxist position. Here one may ask : if feudal forces were predominant in economic setup of Russia just as feudal forces were predominant in the polity of that country, then where did lie the ground for democratic revolution? If certain new changes have not occurred in the economic set up of a country which is in contradiction with the old superstructure, then where in lies the ground for revolution?

Thirdly, Proletarian Path presupposes that the bourgeois revolution in February 1917 just ended in a deal (here the word deal implies surrender) with the monarchist feudal forces but they fail to see that it will amount to change in the nature of state. If bourgeois revolution ends in a deal with the monarchist feudal forces, the character of state will not be bourgeois, but feudal. Therefore, the stage of revolution will be democratic and not socialist. This is simple and one can understand. But we know that the bourgeois revolution in February 1917 did not end in a deal with the monarchist feudal forces as it did not in the case of India. Then what will be the stage of revolution? Proletarian Path conveniently escapes to answer this question. And that is why they conveniently presupposes bourgeois revolution in Feb. 1917 ending in a deal with the monarchist feudal forces. Even though Proletarian Path concludes :
“But in spite of the 'transfer of power', immediately after 1947 the vital tasks of the national bourgeois democratic revolution were not achieved. Abolition on the feudal classes and institutions, distribution of land etc. were not put into effect. The ground for the emergence of a strong anti-feudal agrarian revolution was still existing in the country. Accordingly, the Cominform and the International Communist leadership ascertained the stage of revolution in India to be democratic. And they were perfectly right. Marx and Engels in Germany after 1848, Lenin in Russia after February 1917 did find the possibility of emergence of democratic revolution in those countries. In India in 1948 the SUCI mechanically ascertained the stage of revolution in India to be proletarian socialist in opposition to the judgement of the International Communist leadership. Their argument was simple: If the fundamental question of every revolution is the question of state power, then, since the state power has passed to the Indian bourgeoisie the stage of revolutions socialist. Their presentation of the question grossly differs from that of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. The SUCI did not take into account the possibility of utilising the demands of the intermediate classes (peasantry etc.) and achieving a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, a consistent democratic rule, in order to facilitate the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the growing over of this revolution into a socialist one after 1947. We have already discussed the analysis of Marx and Engels of the conditions in Germany after 1848.”
Proletarian Path criticized SUCI for upholding stage of revolution as socialist. But the question is: if the state power has passed to the Indian bourgeois and if Indian bourgeois has not surrendered to the feudal forces as in the case of Germany in 1848 why the stage of revolution will not be socialist? Proletarian Path fails to answer this question. Was the consummation of democratic revolution not completed because the vital tasks of the national bourgeois democratic revolution were not achieved; abolition of feudal classes and institutions, distribution of land etc. were not put into effect. What for a bourgeois fight during democratic stage of revolution? Marx distinguishes between the three main forces in 19th century revolutions: According to him following forces take different stand against the old order, against autocracy, feudalism, and the serf owning system: 1) The liberal big bourgeoisie; 2) the radical petty bourgeoisie; 3) The proletariat. “The first fights for nothing more than a constitutional monarchy; the second for a democratic republic; the third, for a socialist revolution.” Lenin V; A Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution; Collected Works Volume 9; Moscow; 1962; p. 87
It means that even the liberal big bourgeoisie will not go beyond a constitutional monarchy. And what was established in India after 1947 – a constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic ? I put it to reader to decide. Does the consummation of democratic revolution implies the achievement of constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic ? Yes. We have seen from the example of revolutions in Germany and Russia that it does imply.
Further, the Cominform and the International Communist leadership did not ascertain the stage of revolution in India to be democratic considering solely that India is a predominantly pre-capitalist economy even though state power has been transferred to Indian bourgeois. This is a distortion of fact. Even the Programme adopted in 1951 stressed that "India is the last biggest dependent semi colonial country in Asia still left for the enslavers to rob and exploit". If India still was a semi-colonial country, how the international communist leadership could conclude the stage of revolution as socialist? Besides, it is enough to refer the difference of opinions of Sovietologists on the character of Indian Independence published by Vijay Singh in Revolutionary Democracy Vol. VI, No. 2, September 2000 which clearly shows that there was much confusion about the character of Indian Independence immediately after 1947.
Now let us see what Proletarian Path has to say on the question they have raised. They say : “Marxists had considered the possibility of bourgeois revolution growing into socialist revolutions. When Marx had spoken of making the revolution permanent in 1850, he had meant precisely this. Lenin had elaborated this thesis in his ‘Two Tactics in 1905’. P.P. 105
Firstly Marx has never spoken the possibility of bourgeois revolution growing into socialist revolution in a predominantly pre-capitalist economy. When Marx had spoken of making the revolution permanent in 1850, it was not in the context of a predominantly pre-capitalist economy.
Secondly, we have already shown the falsity of the views of Proletarian Path that Russia was a predominantly pre-capitalist country where feudal forces existed predominantly in the economic set up of that country. Even if we assume that Proletarian Path’s view stated above about the socio economic conditions of Russia in 1917 are correct, this proposition shows the theoretical bankruptcy of the Proletarian Path. Lenin in his ”Report of the Commission on National And colonial Questions” says :
“The question was posed as follows : are we to consider as correct the assertion that the capitalist economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance progress is to be seen since the war? We replied in the negative. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them and the Soviet Governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal in that event it will be mistaken to assume that the backward people must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of developments.” Vol 31 p. 244
Thus in the absence of Soviet Government’s aids, it would not be mistaken to assume that the backward people must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of development. Can it be said that in Feb 1917, there was any Soviet Government or Socialist state to extend help? In that condition could there exist any possibility of democratic revolution growing into socialist revolution?
Let us take the case of China. What were the socio-economic and political conditions of China? In the words of Mao: “Since the invasion of foreign capitalism and the gradual growth of capitalist elements in Chinese society , the country has changed by degrees into a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, China today is colonial in the Japanese occupied areas and basically semi-colonial in the Kuomintang areas and it is predominantly feudal or semi-feudal in both. Such, then, is the character of our Chinese society and the state of affairs in our country. The politics and economy of this society are predominantly colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal and the predominant culture, reflecting the politics and economy is also colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal.” On New Democracy- P-4
Thus Mao refers to invasion of foreign capitalism and the gradual growth of capitalist elements in Chinese society. But in spite of that it was predominantly feudal and semi-feudal. Then on page 6 Mao refers to a change that had occurred after 1st World War. He says :
“A change, however, occurred in China’s bourgeois democratic revolution after the out break of first Imperialist world war in 1914 and the founding of socialist state on one-sixth of the globe as a result of the Russian October Revolution of 1917.
Before these events, the Chinese revolution came within the old category of the bourgeois democratic revolution of which it was a part.
Since these events, the Chinese bourgeois-democratic revolution has changed ; it has come within the new category of bourgeois-democratic revolutions and as far as the alignment of revolutionary forces is concerned, forms part of the proletarian world revolution.”p-6
Thus, the Chinese revolution had come within the new category of bourgeois democratic revolution. Why? It was because as Mao says, apart from other reasons a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-colonies. This proposition was very much in line with Lenin proposition. And we know that the subsequent events in China did confirm it.

IV) On penetration of capital in Indian economy and stage of revolution some facts and issues;
In the pamphlet “Some Problems Concerning the Agrarian Movement and our Tasks” adopted by the National Council of the Communist Party of India New Delhi 1-5 April, 1975, the growth of capitalist productive consumption and the penetration of capitalist relation in post independence rural India were admitted. It was said: “During the two decades of 1950-51and 1970-71 period, while the agricultural production- the production of food grains as well as of commercial crops (with the exception of jute) has more than doubled, the percentage of cultivators in the total working population has declined from 50% in 1950-51 to 43% in 1970-71 while that of agricultural laborers has increased from 19.7% to 26.5%. In several studies, agricultural laborers already constitute nearly 35 to 40 % of working population.” This is an index of the ‘clearing’ of land for capitalism-through large scale eviction of tenants and sharecroppers and expropriation of poor peasants and of employment of large force of wage laborers by the capitalist landlords and rich peasants, though it must be admitted that the degree of development of capitalism does not always correspond to the growth in the number of landless agricultural laborers. This is accompanied by employment of a comparatively higher technique of production as is exemplified by the rapid growth in the number of pumping sets from a mere 10,000 in 1951 to 32,00,000 in 1971. There has been a similar even though slower, growth in the use of chemical fertilizers, hybrid seeds, and iron implements. A still faster development of the agro-technical base has been hampered by bottlenecks in the production of fertilizers, expansion of irrigation facilities and generation of electricity. There were already about one lakh tractors in 1971 (as against a mere 8000 in 1951) with an estimated annual demand of 75000 and domestic installed capacity of about 40000. Needless to add that employment of a technique is still confined to only a portion of the cultivated area but it does not indicate the trend.” Page-2-3.
Further, it was said, “Despite the growing importance of capitalist relation of production, various forms of semi-feudal and pre-capitalist relations continue to throttle the economy at the toiling peasants and the agricultural laborers and hamper steady growth of national economy. These can easily be identified as share cropping and various other forms of open or concealed tenancy which even now account for nearly a quarter of the area under cultivation despite a definite tendency towards declines in proportion to expansion of self cultivation by the landlords and growth of rich peasants” page-3
Thus its conclusion is that though ‘feudal land relations have been cured’ still strong survivals of semi-feudal land relations continue to prevail” while “capitalist relations of productions have made significant inroads in the agrarian set up.”
Similarly, CPM in its document Party Program observed “102(p-43) “It is common knowledge that our peasantry is not a homogenous mass, that capitalism has made decisive inroads in it and brought about definite classification among them.”
And Liberation in its political report 1-5 Jan1988 admitted “3.2 As far as Indian agrarian economy is concerned in certain states and regions viz. Punjab, Hariyana, Western U.P. and Costal Andhra, agriculture had definitely developed on capitalist lines and in many other parts of India too it is coming under the grip of modern farming market economy and credit institutions in varying degrees.
However, vast Indian countryside reels under semi-feudal and other pre-capitalist relations”
The above exhaustive quotations have been made to show that what Lal Tara the organ of C.L.I. and the Proletarian Path had tried to show about the capitalist penetration in rural India is not something new. What is new is that on the basis of these capitalist penetrations they have come to the conclusion that India is a predominantly capitalist country. Proletarian Path on Page36 concludes “We have shown through the question of the home market the decisive predominance of capitalist relations in India (and in agriculture in particular). And C.L.I. in it’s organ “The communist No.4 April, 1990” says “We maintain that capitalism is the dominant mode of production in the Indian society. Capitalist relations of production have penetrated all spheres of social life. Of course, the capitalist development in India is distorted, stunted and diseased. It retains feudal and other pre-capitalist relation in different, quarters of socio-economic life.” Page 15
Thus one can conclude that the upholders of democratic revolution do admit the increasing penetration of capital in the country side as the up holders of socialist revolution do not over look the remnants of feudalism in the countryside. Thus C.L.I. and P.P. have reduced the debate to the question of characterizing the dominant aspect of multi-structural Indian economy which according to them determines the stage of revolution in India.

In the article mentioned above, CLI (Arvind group) mentioned three broad aspects in trying to establish theoretically the formulation that India is in the stage of socialist revolution. The first was agrarian relations which must be examined objectively and in detail in order to asses the old position of India being semi-feudal i.e. principally feudal with capitalist relations to some extent creeping into the agrarian sector.
Here we find the germs of Narodnik negation of capitalism according to which the development of capitalism does avert the democratic crisis. CLI in its document “Agrarian Question in India” has summarized the agrarian relation in British India in following words : “The sum total of such features of the agrarian relation in British India is characterized as feudal and semi-feudal relations. In India there has been ample controversy and confusion even over the term ‘feudal’. The classical forms of feudalism as it existed in Europe never existed in India. This has been at the source of such controversies. But more important is the massive confusion in our movement over the term ‘semi-feudal’. Semi-feudal relations are predominantly feudal relations. The prefex semi- is added on account of the penetration to a limited extent of commodity economy and of capitalist relations. In British India such penetration was facilitated by the colonial economy and the colonial state. The conversion of a part of the agricultural surplus into imperialist capital, the appearance of wage labor in agriculture although on a small scale “and the limited penetration of commodity character and cash relations justify the addition of the prefix semi with the otherwise feudal relations. It must be kept in mind, however, that the overwhelmingly predominant factor in the agrarian relations in British India was the feudal exploitation of the peasantry at the hands of the Zamindar Landlords, moneylenders and the revenue officials and other intermediaries. One is not talking here of the feudal super-structural aspects of social relations characterized by feudal values, traditions and practices, by caste, religious and other undemocratic divisions in the society. These certainly did exist and in quite acute and widespread forms. This was an important part of the social reality- a reality which in sum total could be characterized as feudal and semi-feudal. The key point being emphasized here is : the production relations in agriculture were feudal and semi-feudal, which means that the economic base of the society was feudal and semi-feudal.” Page 21.
Thus semi-feudal relations are considered to be predominantly feudal relations and predominantly feudal relations are considered to be the base for democratic revolution just as “refusal to look ‘predominant capitalist relations’ would only ensure failure in working out a correct program for the Indian revolution (i.e. Socialist Revolution) .
Is it correct to say that predominantly feudal relations are considered to be the base for democratic revolution ? No. It is not correct. It is not the predominantly feudal relations of productions which contradicts with ‘feudal superstructure’ but the growing capitalist relations of production in the womb of feudalism that contradicts feudal superstructure and which is the base of democratic revolution. If there is no capitalist order which have grown and matured within the womb of feudal society which is in contradiction with the feudal superstructure, the old regime, there can be no democratic revolution at all. Stalin says: “The bourgeoisie revolution usually begins when there already exist more or less ready made forms belonging to the capitalist order, forms which have grown and matured within the womb of feudal society prior to the open revolution.” Problems of Leninism P-168
Thus, the change from feudal to semi-feudal to capitalist relation of production is a course of general change but it had no direct bearing on the stage of proletarian revolution which is a political course and need the exact political position on the question of revolution at a particular time.
The so called Maoist trend in the Indian Communist movement which had once raised its head in the period of early independence, assumed more importance in the Indian Communist Movement after the fight against Russian revisionism by the Chinese communist was made intense and open. This trend all over India not only upheld the Chinese position in the fight against Russian revisionism but also inherited some basic observation of Mao as regard the condition of Pre-People Republic China and blindly imposed it to the Indian condition and adopted the Mao’s strategy and tactics in the Indian condition making a caricature of Mao in India. Thus they make new assessment with regard to the stage, nature and character of Indian society and state. While rejecting the traditional understanding they characterized India as semi-feudal and semi- colonial, and some time neo-colonial and Indian state as the state of big land lord and comprador-bureaucrat capitalists and the government as a lackey of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social imperialism.
While rejecting the positions of CPI & CPM that capitalist relations are the growing trend and that they have become the predominant trend in the agrarian sector, CPI (ML) went to the other extreme by concluding that, feudal, semi-feudal relations are dominating, and that feudalism remains the social-base for imperialist domination. CPI (ML) Programme of 1970 declared that the contradiction between feudalism and broad masses of people is the principal contradiction, the resolution of which will lead to resolution of all other major contradictions.
Latter on, CPI(ML) Fani Bagchi group not only tried to develop its old position in a new fashion but today it also represents a definite trend of which many of the propositions are still upheld by other ML groups.
This trend firmly rejects the co-existence theory and hold the view that it is not capitalism rather imperialism which has penetrated the agrarian India. They differentiate between capitalist and imperialist penetration, the former being independent and the latter being comprador. Thus their peculiar theory leads to the impossibility of capitalist development under the conditions of imperialist domination or what they called the semi-colony.
In the their “Document (Draft) of the C.C. on Political and organizational crisis in the Party (CPIML Fani Bagchi group) published in the year 1988, it has been said :
“Our party has never said that in a semi-feudal society, exploitation by feudalism and capitalism co-exists.” Page – 55
and Mao had said about China which was at that time a semi-feudal and semi colonial country :
“China’s political and economic development is uneven- a weak capitalist economy coexist with a preponderant semi-feudal economy.” Mao VII Page 19
And Lenin had said “There are various kind of capitalism –semi feudalism of landownes with its host of residual privileges, which is the most reactionary and causes the masses greatest suffering ; there is also the capitalism of free farmers which is the most democratic, causes the masses less suffering and has fewer residual privileges.” C.W.19 P.377.
Thus it is wrong to say that in a semi-feudal society, exploitation by feudalism and capitalism doesn’t coexist.
Further it has been said “Whether industrial development or new capitalist method that have entered in Indian agriculture, it was to serve the interests of imperialism at the behest of imperialism which rules the country indirectly. Capitalism should not be simply written bereft of imperialism. It is imperialist penetration in India. It is feudalism serving imperialism not co-existence of feudalism and capitalism. So it is absurd to say that capitalism is developing in India.” P-56
This is the revised Indian edition of what Mao observed about China. He said: “To day a powerful Japanese imperialism is forcing its way into China and wants to reduce her to a colony; it is not the China that is developing but the Japan that is developing Japanese Capitalism in our country; and it is not the Chinese bourgeoisie but the Japanese bourgeoisie that is exercising dictatorship in our country.” P25 On N.D.
Thus to make the caricature of Mao’s statement of bare fact, what the Indian Maoist had to do was to just substitute the term ‘Japanese Capitalism’ for imperialism and draw the erroneous conclusion that capitalism should not be simply written without the conception of imperialism and that’s why what is described as capitalist penetration is nothing but imperialist penetration.
Let us see what Lenin says on this question :
“The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest the development in the capital exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism through out the world.” C.W. 22 P.- 243.
Thus, even ‘imperialist penetration’ does not do away with the rule of capital, rather it does create it ; it does not do away with the fundamental contradiction of socialization of production and private appropriation, rather it does accelerate it; it does not do away with the conditions for capitalist development, rather it does create it. Penetration of capital simply does it be it national or foreign. Penetration of capital simply does it in any country be it a colony, semi-colony or independent. In the hunt of maximum profit, the export of capital does not care for the development of its own country. Many Indian companies are doing the same thing.
And it has been further said : “It is very clear that capitalism will not be allowed to be developed by feudalism and imperialism.”
And similarly in reply to an article “Review of Prof. R.S. Rao’s Towards Understanding Semi Feudal Semi Colonial Society” of Proletarian Path Mr M.M.Somasekharan in his article “Towards understanding Indian Society” published in Red Star, February 1997 and which was republished in a pamphlet “Polemics on Understanding Indian Society by A Communist Voice Publication, says :
“We had published in the middle of last decade such a study about Kerala, a state where comparatively better land reforms were implemented compared to any other state in India. In that study we had explained the absurdity of the theory that capitalism is growing in the agrarian sector in Kerala.” See Polemics on Understanding Indian Society – A Communist Voice Publication, page – 39.
And Proetarian Path comments : “ In fact these people are afraid of using the word capitalism for any development that takes place here. So, they write that “Hariayana and Punjab type development is becoming the main trend.” If they depict it as capitalism how can they conjure up dreams of a capitalist paradise for the masses? How can they then talk of the democratic revolution – the acme of revolutionariness? Polemics on Understanding Indian Society – A Communist Voice Publication, page – 61
The development of capitalism under a semi-feudal, semi-colonial and colonial state is the economic base of democratic revolution. In that condition development of capitalism does aggravate the democratic revolution. We know that according to Mr. M. M. Somasekharan India is not an Independent country. India is a neocolonial country. If a country is not independent and development of capitalism leads to development of indigenous capital, it will be economic base of national democratic revolution. The development of indigenous capital does not avert but it aggravate the national democratic revolution. However, Mr. M. M. Somasekharan negate this for making out a case for democratic revolution under his so called frame work of neo colonial state(which is not independent) and Proletarian Path without analyzing the view of Somasekharan concludes that these people are afraid of using the word capitalism for any development that takes place here because If they depict it as capitalism they can not then talk of the democratic revolution.
Thus Proletarian Path also suffers from the same mistake- if capitalism is developing, the revolution will be not democratic but socialist.
But Somasekharan and Fani Bagchi group can not even imagine the growth of national capital in their framework of “neo-colonial or semi-colonial Indian state. Here one may ask:: if the development of capitalism can be rendered inoperative in any country by feudalism and imperialism, where in lies the ground for democratic revolution? Lenin observes : “One of the fundamental differences between bourgeoisie revolution and socialist revolution is that for the bourgeoisie revolution which arises out of feudalism, the economic organizations are gradually created in the womb of old order, gradually changing all the aspects of feudal society.” V.27 P-87
However, the document of Fani Bagchi group mentioned above says : “The co-existence theory, is a wrong conception. That is why this trend assumes little independence in the Indian ruling classes and little democracy in India which is contrary to our understanding.” P-56
Thus even little development of capitalism is denied. Here one may ask : Will the rise of new productive forces and of relations of production (capitalist) take place separately from the old system, after the disappearance of the old system.
In the same document while referring to a new trend which has been raising head in the communist movement and inside the party they say that this trend is the idea of capitalism which creates illusions among the party members that “imperialism will develop capitalism in the semi-colony” that in India the ruling classes are anti-imperialist, national, progressive and democratic. So it wants the working class to become a tail of the ruling class in the so-called struggle to finish the remnants of feudalism, wait till and then organize the socialist revolution. In short no revolution in India.” P-53
Firstly, it is a distortion of fact. Indian history shows that under British Imperialism capitalist growth had taken place both in the base and the superstructure which has been multiplied after independence. In India there is a section of bourgeoisie which is monopolistic (imperialist) itself. It is reactionary and autocrat in relation to the growth of working class, poor peasantry and oppressed nationalities.
Secondly, apart from negating the erroneous proposition that the development of capitalism averts the democratic crisis under the conditions of semi-feudal state, it comes to the erroneous conclusion that socialist revolution could be possible after elimination of remnant of feudalism without taking into consideration whether the character of state has changed to bourgeois or not. So, while determining the stage of revolution they simply forget to even refer the character of the state. If India is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country or a neo colonial country, we can not organize socialist revolution even if elements of feudal element are eliminated so long as the character of state does not change from semi-feudal semi-colonial, neo colonial to bourgeois state. In that condition we will be at the stage of democratic revolution. Does they simply forget to refer the most important factor for determining the stage of revolution- character of the state? No. They do not forget. In fact under the jargon of democratic revolution, they are working against the class consciousness and revolutionary unity of working class and injection of correct ideas of Marxism – Leninism and scientific socialism which shows the path of emancipation from wage slavery. The bourgeois character of Indian state is an established fact as it was the creation of British Imperialist.
The issue of class character of Indian society and Indian state must be differentiated. All the talks of semi-feudal semi-colonial and neo-colonial and neo-colonial aspects of Indian societies were intended to avoid the political task of Indian revolution. They had been arguing about the weakness of the working class, its inability to rise for revolution. Not only this, many of them disapproves the dissemination of the ideas of Marxism Leninism and Proletarian Internationalism and specially scientific socialism among the working class and consciously oppose the class politics of the proletariat. They are revisionist, reformist, anarchist but not Bolshewik communists.
In their programmatic paper adopted by the CRC " On Organising Agricultural Workers and Peasant Movement" (see Red Flag, September 1997 issue) they say as follows: "As a result of opening the agrarian sector to international market in more and more areas, significant changes are taking place in this sector Capitalistic relations are getting strengthened. But this is not leading to the development of independent capitalist relations, to the ever-increasing agricultural bourgeoisie or rich peasants becoming national bourgeois in character, or to India becoming a capitalist country as some of the petty bourgeois trends try to explain. On the contrary, what is happening is that the agrarian sector has also come under increasing hegemony of the imperialist forces.”
Thus even though capitalist relations are getting strengthened, this is not leading to India becoming a capitalist country as it is not an independent capitalist development. Here Redflag new democrats are in search of independent capitalism and their ally – the national bourgeoisie but to dismay their last hope from agrarian sector has not come true. There is no hope of their new democratic revolution without their allies- the agricultural bourgeoisie i.e. national bourgeoisie. These “communists” groups and parties can not stand independently on the basis of working class as they are the covert opponent of the revolutionary inertia of the working class. They are utilizing all their “democratic” rights against the party/organization formation of the modern revolutionary proletariat of India. These trends are working all over the world in collaboration with this or that international centers aided or abetted by various imperialist agencies.

In an article “On mode of production in India” published in Red Flag July-Sept- 1998 while concluding on the mode of production debate it admitted that during the post colonial phage, significant capitalist developments have taken palace in the agrarian sector under the domination of imperialist capital and market system they made the following observations :
“But it is capitalist development of a specific character that distinguishes it from that in metropolitan societies or in the imperialist countries - one that does not allow forces of production in these societies to grow rapidly as in classical capitalism. This is capitalist development under imperialist domination. Under liberalisation globalisation this capitalist development in the agrarian sector is integrating this sector more and more to international market system under the domination of imperialist capital and MNCs through the class of big landowners who are becoming predominantly comprador agricultural bourgeoisie.”
For bringing the age of classical capitalism, they are to revert the wheels of history in order to dig out the grave of classical capitalism so that the soul of national agricultural bourgeoisie may be liberated to get its rebirth. Thus while admitting the increasing penetration of capital and capitalist development under imperialist system , they wrongly conclude that the land owners are becoming comprador agricultural bourgeois. What does it mean by comprador bourgeois according to Red Flag ? Generally this term has been used as compromising bourgeois which is not independent. In the subsequent chapter we will deal with the word comprador bourgeoisie.

V) Differentiation of peasantry and stage of revolution and Trotsky

In the year 1983, a pamphlet “Points of Differences inside the CPI(M) by Siabar Sharan Shrivastava appeared in which while dealing with the controversy regarding the separate organization of the Agricultural Laborers, it was said, “But now it is being talked that the agricultural laborers organization should be registered. It is the point where the theoretical question arises that whether the question of the wages of the agricultural laborers is the basic reason of their pauperization or the main reason of their poverty and starvation is the feudal exploitation and their landlessness? The question arises whether capitalist inroads agriculture has changed the basic rural structure? Whether the main contradiction of agricultural laborers no more remains with that of feudal social order and it has transformed into with that of capitalist exploitation… If we accept it, if it is proved on the basis of the concrete facts, then entire party program must be changed and the stage and strategy of socialist revolution should be adopted.” P-22-23
Thus Com. Siabar Sharan Shrivastava comes to the conclusion that if capitalist inroads in agriculture has changed the basic rural structure, then socialist stage of revolution should be adopted.
Latter on, Proletarian Path in its inaugural issue published in the year 1992 made this proposition as the basis for discerning the socialist stage of revolution.
On page 54, the author quotes from the document “All India Kisan Sabha Report” by H.S. Surjeet:
“comrades, Land to the tiller and total abolition of landlordism have been the basic slogan of the Kisan Sabha since its inception – let me state here at the outset that the seizure and distribution of the landlords still remain the central slogan of the Kisan Sabha to propagate among the peasantry and other democratic and other democratic classes. Without a victory of this slogan, there can not be any solution to rural poverty, unemployment in the country and so on….
But the correlation of class forces which existed at the time when the Kisan Sabha inscribed these aims in its programme are not the same that exist today…
…. These land reforms had only very limited objectives the main one of which was to reform not abolish the old type feudal landlordism by converting the absentee feudal landlords into capitalist landlords personally supervising cultivation in large farms with farm servants and hired agricultural workers. This is the new type of landlord, who combines, in himself elements of both feudalism and capitalism and capitalism and capitalism. Another objective was to create a stratum of rich peasants. These two sections were to constitute the political base of the ruling party in rural areas.
We have also to note the phenomenon of the magnetization of the entire agrarian economy. Today, it is not only those who have a surplus, who are taking their produce to the market, even the poor peasant immediately after the market and later even buys the food grains requirement from the market……20% of the rural households are poor peasants possessing one or two acres of wet or 2 to 5 acres of dry land. Apart from working on their land they have to frequently hire themselves out to earn a living.
The last 50% are those who own no land at all, they earn their livelihood mainly by hiring themselves out as wage workers or are engaged in handicrafts, village services, etc….
What has to be noted is that unlike in pre-independence days, 25% of the peasants – rich middle peasants – are not moved any longer by slogan of seizure of landlords’ lands and its distribution. At the other end 70% of landless and poor peasants are not conscious and organized enough to go into action for seizure of the landlord, even when they are moved in to action, it is only for government waste land, cultivable forest land etc. Regarding even surplus land above the ceiling which the landlords are keeping illegally , the struggle as in Kerala or recently in Andhra Pradesh such surplus land occupied.
…… The Ruling class parties, whether Congress or Janata also used their control over Panchayats Samitis and Zila Parishads and also co-operatives, rural banks etc. to perpetuate the division in the peasantry and the disruption of their unity.
… Copmplete abolition of landlordism and distribution of land to the landless and land poor continues to be the central slogan of the agrarian revolution, a slogan which we have to continue to propaganda. But it is a slogan on which we can not go into action today in most parts of the country. (Kisan Sabha leads struggle H.S. Surjeet-G.S.Report of AIKS 1979)
And here are the comments given by Proletarian Path on the passage quoted above:-
“What is remarkable here is the candor with which the predominance of capitalist relations in agriculture is admitted, the differentiation among the peasantry noted. But with all that Surjeet is not willing to blaspheme while admitting that we can’t go into action with the slogan of land (to the tiller) he again and again reasserts the central slogan- “Land to the tiller”
It is almost as if events are forcing the CPM to abandon the slogan Land to the tiller and move from the democratic revolution to the stage of Socialist Revolution. But of course that would sacrilege.” P-53
Just see how akin these views are to Siabar Sharan Shrivastav who has already been quoted by us.
But how does P.P. sees this transfer of power? What are its position on this subject?
In its last chapter it says : “But in spite of the transfer of power, immediately after 1947 the vital task of the national bourgeoisie democratic revolution were not achieved.” P-107 And so the stage of revolution was to be discerned as democratic. And further it says “India today is at the stage of socialist revolution which have to complete the tasks of the unfinished democratic revolution.” P-102 Thus at the time of independence and even today, the tasks of the bourgeoisie democratic revolution has not been completed. Therefore, can’t be it said that completion and non-completion of the tasks of the bourgeoisie revolution has nothing to do with the stage revolution as observed by the Proletariat Path ?
At the time of independence, state power was transferred in the hands of the bourgeoisie. And what’s about today? Proletariat path says : “In the state power feudal forces do not exist to any significance.” Did it exist at all at the time of independence? Did the existence of feudal forces in the state power to any significance determine the stage of revolution in India as democratic in the early period of independence? Proletarian Path is silent on this question. It is not accidental that Proletarian Path while dealing with Trotsky in a separate chapter under the heading “Trotskism and the socialist Revolution” has failed to differentiate it self from Trotsky on this question and without mentioning the character of Indian state, without taking into account the character of the regime whether it is old or new, it concludes :
“it is precisely in the way that we have tackled the question. In our dealing of the agrarian question we have shown how the peasantry is no homogenous mass with similar interests, how capitalism has made deep inroads into the life of peasant masses, how the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat are arrayed against the landlord and the rich peasantry. It is on the basis of this that we reject the slogan of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’. The slogan no longer is of any use, it can’t be put into any action which would facilitate the emancipation of the proletariat, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We reject it because a complete breach of interest has taken place between the peasant bourgeoisie on the one hand and the semi-proletarian element on the other” PP Page 87-88.
We know that Trotsky too advocated socialist stage of revolution in Russia even at the time when the state power was in the hands of feudal class, when monarchy was not abolished. He asserted that since differentiation among the peasantry had increased, since imperialism was now predominant and the proletariat was pitting itself against the bourgeois nation, the role of the peasantry would decline and the agrarian revolution would not have importance which had been ascribed to it in 1905.
And in reply to this , Lenin says:
“The peasantry, he (Trotsky) asserts, are divided into starta, have become differentiated; their potential revolutionary role has dwindled more and more; in Russia a “national revolution is impossible; “we are living in the era of imperialism” says Trotsky and “imperialism doesn’t counterpose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”

Here we have an amusing example of playing with the word “imperialism”. If, in Russia, the proletariat already stands contraposed to the bourgeois nation” then Russia is facing a socialist revolution(!), and the slogan confiscate the landlord estates” (repeated by Trotsky in 1915 following the January conference of 1912), is incorrect; in that case we must speak not of “revolutionary workers’ Government, but of “workers socialist” Government. The length Trotskys’ muddled thinking goes to is evident from his phrase that by their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the non-proletarian ! popular masses” as well (No.27)Trotsky has not realized that if the proletariat induce the non proletariat masses to confiscate the landed estates and overthrow the monarchy then that will be the consummation of the “national bourgeoisie revolution” in Russia; it will be a revolutionary – democracy dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” P-419 Vol.21

The main mistake of Trotsky was that he gave a call for socialist revolution in Russia at a time when character of Russian state was feudal and not bourgeoisie.
It is wrong to say that CPSU’s difference with Trotsky was on the basis whether the peasantry was homogenous mass with similar interests or not, whether capitalism had made deep inroads into the life of peasant masses, whether the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat are arrayed against the landlord and the rich peasantry in Russian society.
Here, one may quote Lenin who while pointing out the mistake of cut-off lands programme of 1903 said : “We assumed that the elements of capitalist agriculture had already taken full shape in Russia, both in Land Lord farming (minus the cutoff lands and these conditions of bondage – hence the demand that cut-off lands be returned to the peasants and in peasant farming, which seemed to have given rise to a strong peasant bourgeoisie and therefore to be incapable of bringing about a ‘peasant agrarian revolution” Vol-13 Page 291.
But in spite of the fact that the element of capitalist agriculture had already taken full shape, Lenin did not rule out the democratic stage of revolution in Russia. Why? Apart from the survival of feudal remnants, it was because of the class character of the Russian State. Lenin himself in his latter works while analyzing the class character of the Russian state which was changing in a definite direction had said : “ The connection between the law of Jun 14, 1910 and the system of elections to the Third Duma, as well as the social composition of the later is obvious. It would have been impossible to carry out these laws, to take series of measure to put it into practice other than by establishing an alliance between the central Govt. and the feudal Landowners and upper strata of commercial-industrial bourgeoisie. We are thus faced with a distinctive stage in the entire process of capitalist evolution of the country. Does this stage do away with the retention of “power and revenue” in the hands of the landowners and the feudal type? No it does not. The changes that took place in this as in all the other spheres, do not remove the fundamental traits of the old regime, of the old relation of social forces. P.146 Lenin C.W. 17.
Here it will be interesting to deal with the views of Alliance on the above subject matter.
ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST (NORTH AMERICA) in it’s Issue NUMBER 28, January 1998 while commenting upon the polemics between PROLETARIAN PATH & REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY – concerning the stage of Indian revolution quotes the following passage of Stalin. According to Alliance the passage quoted below explains the difference between Lenin and Trotsky on the question of stage of revolution:
“Why did Lenin combat the idea of the permanent revolution? Because Lenin proposed that the revolutionary capacities of the peasantry be exhausted and the fullest use be made of their revolutionary energy for the complete liquidation of Tsarism and for the transition to the proletarian revolution; whereas the adherents of permanent revolution did not understand the important role of the peasantry, and thereby hampered the work of emancipating the peasantry from the influence of the bourgeoisie, the work of rallying the peasantry around the proletariat..
Stalin JV; Foundations of Leninism; In Problems of Leninism Moscow 1954 p. 42.
Stalin goes on to explain more fully:
The question is as follows: Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the peasantry by virtue of certain conditions of its existence already exhausted, or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis, for utilizing these potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the peasantry, the exploited majority of it, from the reserve of the bourgeoisie which it was during the bourgeoisie revolutions in the West, and still is even now, into a reserve of the proletarian, into its ally? Lenin replies to this question in the affirmative. Stalin JV; Foundations Ibid; p. 58.

Alliance further say that ‘in speaking more particularly, of the Bolshevik revolution itself, Lenin underpins the pivotal role of the assessment of the situation of the peasantry, in answering the question:
“At what stage of the revolution are we at?: Yes our revolution is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants as a whole..Beginning with April 1917, however, long before the October Revolution, that is long before we assumed power, we publicly declared and explained to the people: the revolution cannot now stop at this stage.. Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the whole of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (And to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois democratic). Then with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute Liberalism in its place. Lenin V.I. Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part, cited by J.V.Stalin, in Foundations of Leninism(April 1924); Ibid; p. 105.

From this Alliance without analyzing the above proposition of Lenin and Stalin in their concrete historical facts, drew wrong and baseless conclusion that stage of revolution will be democratic so long as we go with the peasantry as a whole even if the state power is in the hands of the bourgeois.
We know that the above propositions were written by Lenin and Stalin in the concrete situations of Russia when Czar was in the state power and not the bourgeois; the character of the state was feudal and not capitalist whereas capitalist penetration had already taken full shape in Russian economy. At that time i.e. before February revolution they were not facing with the problem where bourgeois was in state power and there were a remnant of feudalism. After February . revolution; when state power was transferred to bourgeois Lenin gave the slogan of socialist revolution. But Alliance instead of taking in to account the character of Russian State mechanically concludes that the stage of revolution will be democratic so long as peasantry could be mobilized as a whole without taking the character of the state..
Hari Kumar of Alliance in his article “Comments on the Polemic Between Proletarian Path and Revolutionary Democracy on the stage of Indian Revolution” while commenting on Proletarian Path says :
“Proletarian Path argues Lenin showed three “basic factors” to characterize capitalist relations in agriculture: 1) Employment of wage-labour and the appropriation of surplus value; b) Extended reproduction in agriculture, transformation of surplus value into capital…
Proletarian path must agree that Lenin saw a rapid onset of capitalism, expressed in Russian agriculture by : a)Dispossession of peasant masses and the creation of a rural proletariat working for wages, b)The growth of Industrial masses, c) The increasing commoditisation of agriculture, d) The role of rural capital-transformation of rural surplus into capital.
We must therefore ask Proletarian Path –if this is so, that Lenin’s analysis was that capitalism had penetrated into agriculture, how did he still advocate the first stage was democratic ? and why is it different from now in India ? Alliance’s answer to the first question is that to the extent to which the communists can pull peasants behind the proletariat ; the answer to the second is that it is not.”
Here we put a question to Alliance : Are the character of Indian state as observed by Proletarian Path similar to that of Russian State before Feb. Revolution ? Is it not a fact that Proletariat Path considers the character of Indian State as bourgeois whereas the character of Russian State before Feb. revolution was feudal? If yes, why Alliance concludes in a opportunist way from the quotation of Lenin and Stalin.
It is because Alliance fails to understand that the crucial point of departure of Lenin and Stalin with that of Trotsky was on the role of peasantry when bourgeois was not in power, or when the state power was with the feudal forces or when a country is a colony to some imperialist country. The stage of revolution will be democratic and not socialist if state power is not with the bourgeois irrespective of capitalist penetration , irrespective of employment of wage-labour and the appropriation of surplus value; extended reproduction in agriculture, transformation of surplus value into capital etc. Under the tactics of revolutionary proletariat, to go with the peasantry as whole under democratic revolution is different from ‘the revisionist tactics i.e. so long as peasantry could be mobilized as a whole’ for their economic gains- a class collaborationist approach.





VI) Neocolonialism, economic & diplomatic dependence of a country and the stage of revolution:
However, Alliance upholds the stage of revolution in India as democratic mainly because India is economically dependent country. In their article published in Issue No.28 it says: “Alliance agrees with the final conclusion on the need for an initial democratic stage; it also agrees with the view that India is still today dependent upon international financial capitalism. Indeed that is the major reason, for our agreement that the current stage is the democratic stage.”
What is the nature of India’s dependence on International finance capital. Alliance quotes: “So massive was the influx of local capital by mid-1948, in fact that Indian houses held on average, more than 85% of the equity in colonial managing agencies with the remainder held by foreigners. Thus only one year after political independence the financial dependence of colonial British enterprises on Indian shareholders had become nearly complete. D.J.Encarnation Dislodging multi-nationals. India’s strategy in Comparative perspective; 1989.p.57-8.
However it concludes that by 1947 this had resulted in a change in ownership, but not of control of the bulk of industry and trading.
Thus India’s economic dependence or control of its bulk of industry and trading by imperialism is considered to be the main reason for determining the stage of Indian revolution as democratic. However, Alliance does not call it as semi-colony like Vijay Singh in Revolutionary Democracy or neo-colony as described by CPC and various Marxist Leninist parties in India.
In his article On the Character of Indian State published in RED STAR December 1994 K N Ramachandran quotes the following passage from the Great Debate, which according to him is the explanation given to this transformation of the imperialist plunder and oppression in the Post-War years by CPC during the Great Debate : "After World War II the imperialists have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neocolonialism… An important characteristic of such neocolonialism is that the imperialists have been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule in some areas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the US enslave or control the colonial countries which have already declared their independence by organising military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing "federations" or "communities", and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic "aid" or other forms, they retain these countries as markets for their goods, sources of raw materials, and outlets for their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover they use the UN as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When they are unable to continue their rule over these countries by "peaceful means", they engineer military coups d’etat, carry out subversion, or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression".
"The US is most energetic and cunning in promoting neocolonialism. With this weapon, the US imperialists are trying hard to grab the colonies and spheres of influence of other imperialists and to establish world domination.
"This neocolonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism" (The Great Debate, Apologists of Neocolonialism, 1963)
Here, CPC identifies two characteristics of neo-colonialism - new style of colonial rule and exploitation by imperialism. What does they mean by new style of colonial rule ? They mean that the imperialists headed by US enslave or control the former colonial countries which have already declared their independence by organising military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing "federations" or "communities", and fostering puppet regimes in some areas where they were forced to do so. But it can not be concluded from this that US imperialism enslaved and controlled all former colonial countries by by organising military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing "federations" or "communities", and fostering puppet regimes without looking in to facts in each case.
In the same article they characterize India as an independent country :
“India tops the list of newly independent countries to which the Soviet union gives economic aid.” (Apologists of Neo colonialism, 1963, Comment on the open letter of the CPSU by the editorial Departments of the People Daily and Red Flag.))
But without analyzing the characteristics features of regime of each country in the light of above statement and only taking into account of economic exploitation by the imperialist countries through finance capital of imperialist countries, he wrongly concludes that the developments during the post-Second World War years, especially the consequences of this new form of imperialist plunder in the oppressed countries today clearly show that neocolonialism is nothing but a new developed phase of imperialism and India is a neo-colonial country.
In their 1993 January Plenum, CPI (ML) Red Flag has explained these developments as follows : "Lenin has correctly warned against differentiating imperialist economy from imperialist politics, and monopoly in the field of economics from monopoly in the field of politics. In reality quite opposite to what is propagated by the revisionists, the decolonisation process in the middle of this century instead of weakening the imperialist political power, only led to strengthening it more and more, parallel to the global concentration of capital. The developments in various fields of military technology and military strategy in fact led to the strengthening of imperialist military domination over the neo-colonies. Especially after the collapse of the socialist bloc, the MNCs, above mentioned various global imperialist financial political institutions and the all-around military domination together have institutionalized imperialist hegemony at global level.
".........The internationalisation of capital on the one hand has strengthened global monopolies more and more, and on the other hand has created the opportunity for the comprador capital in the neocolonial countries becoming a junior partner in the imperialist exploitation. Alongwith the destruction of the development of national capital in the colonial countries, it was the integration of the comprador capital in these countries through various means making the internationalisation of capital possible which made the decolonisation process easier".
And he concludes that ‘as a result, in the post-Second World War phase once again the world was divided into two parts : first, a handful of imperialist countries, and second, a large number of neo-colonies at various stages of neo-colonisation. India like all other oppressed countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America is transformed from colonies/ semi-colonies to neo-colonies. Understanding the character of Indian state as neo colony, and the ruling classes here as comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie is most essential to develop a correct strategy and tactics for the New Democratic Revolution in India.’
Thus, neo-colonialism finds its expression finally as relation of domination and particularly economic domination by handful of imperialist countries and a large number of neo-colonies at various stages of neo-colonization. And India’s economic control by Imperialist countries is considered to be political control by imperialist countries and India’s status is termed as Neo-colony. Neo-colonialism is seen as a new form of colonialism, a new phage of Imperialism. According to them there is no political freedom, no sovereignty to the newly Independent country. There is no political democracy (in bourgeois sense) which democratic revolution seek to achieve. Is it true. No, it is not true. Let us see what Lenin has to say :

“Big finance capital of one country can always buy up competitors in another, politically independent country and constantly does so. Economically, this is fully achievable. Economic “annexation” is fully “achievable” without political annexation and is widely practised. In the literature on imperialism you will constantly come across indications that Argentina, for example, is in reality a “trade colony” of Britain, or that Portugal is in reality a “vassal” of Britain, etc. And that is actually so: economic dependence upon British banks, indebtedness to Britain, British acquisition of their railways, mines, land, etc., enable Britain to “annex” these countries economically without violating their political independence. “
“Laws are political measures, politics. No political measure can prohibit economic phenomena. Whatever political form Poland adopts, whether she be part of Tsarist Russia or Germany, or an autonomous region, or a politically independent state, there is no prohibiting or repealing her dependence on the finance capital of the imperialist powers, or preventing that capital from buying up the shares of her industries.”
“……The independence Norway “achieved” in 1905 was only political. It could not affect its economic dependence, nor was this the intention. That is exactly the point made in our theses. We indicated that self-determination concerns only politics, and it would therefore be wrong even to raise the question of its economic unachievability. But here is Kievsky “refuting” this by citing an example of political bans being powerless against the economy! What a “refutation"! V. I. Lenin-A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism
But the apologists of Imperialist economism fail to understand that economic dependent of a country on imperialism is not a new phenomenon and that question of economic dependence and political independence can not be mixed. These are two separate questions. The aim of national liberation movement in India was to achieve political independence, to secede from British colonial rule. And this was achieved in 1947. India was seceded from British empire. It became a sovereign state. But it did not affect India’s economic dependence on finance capital, on imperialism. This was not the intention of National liberation movement led by bourgeois. Rather, the subsequent event shows that economic dependence of India on Imperialism has been strengthened. However, economic strength of India has also radically changed. The growth of finance capital of India illustrates it.

Lenin while analyzing the economic and diplomatic dependence of Pourtugal sums up that relations of big and small states become a general system, become links in the chain of operation of world finance capital in the epoch of capitalist imperialism : “A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Pourtugal. Pourtugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually for more than two hundred years, since the war of Spanish Sucession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Pourtugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and specially capital into Pourtugal and the Pourtuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Pourtugal, her telegraph cable etc. Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, they form part of the sum total of “divide the world” relations, become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital.” Imperialism the Highest stage of Capitalism -Lenin

Thus in the era of Imperialism, aspiration of independent bourgeois state and independent economic growth is nothing but an utopia. That can be possible only by breaking from the chain in absolute term of world finance capital by revolution under the leadership of proletariat.

Though he uses the word ‘comprador’ but he did not take pain to define it. Generally, in the literature of those who uphold the stage of revolution as new democratic, this word is implied as compromising bourgeois.

Here, we would like to acquaint the readers with some of observations; made by Stalin in this regard and which was quoted by Bill Bland in his “Articles For Discussion: The revolutionary process in Colonial-Type Countries” in a magazine INTERNATIONAL STUGGAL –MARXIST LENINIST NO 3 1997 PAGE-9

“Stalin pointed out in May 1925 to the students of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East that the native bourgeoisie of these countries:

`Is splitting up into two parts , a revolutionary part ( the national bourgeoisies---Ed), of which the first is continuing the revolutionary Struggle , whereas the Second is entering a block with imperialism’.( J V Stalin ‘The Political task of the university of the peoples of the East` May 1925, Works’, Volume 7; Moscow; 1954;p147

The 6th congress of the Communist Internal, in September 1928, agreed that the native bourgeoisie in colonial – type countries:

‘Do not adopt a uniform attitude to imperialism. One part, more especially the commercial bourgeoisie, directly serves the interests of imperialist capital (the so- called comprador bourgeoisie). In general, they maintain, more or less consistently, an anti- national, imperialist point of view, directed against the whole nationalist movement , as do the feudal allies of imperialism and the more highly paid native officials. The other parts of the native bourgeoisie, especially those representing the interests of the native industry, support the national movement`. 6th Congress of the Communist International: Thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in Colonial and Semi-Colonial Countries. (September 1928),in: Jane Degras (ED): ‘The Communist International 1919-1943`, Volume 2; 1971;p.538”

Though Stalin never did call it as comprador or national. Mr. Bill Bland concludes that ‘a key feature of the class structure of colonial – type country, is that the native capitalist class consists of two parts:

Firstly, THE Comprador capitalist class or comprador bourgeoisie, which has close ties with the landlord class and whose exploitation is based primarily upon foreign trade, making them like, the landlord class, dependent upon the dominating Great Power;

And

Secondly the national capitalist class or national bourgeoisie,, whose exploitation is based on the ownership of industrial enterprises and whose economic advancement is held back by the dominating Great Power” ibid—p-9

Thus according to Bill Bland comprador capital consists of those capital which extracts profit from foreign trade. It is distinguished from the national capital in so far as it does not involve productive process. Thus Mr. Bill Bland confuses the concept of comprador capital with that of commercial capital, the only difference is that the former derives it profit, in the main, through foreign trade whereas the latter derives its profit from both foreign and national trade. In fact, comprador capital in India as in elsewhere originated as a merchant capital at a definite stage of historical development and latter it was transformed in to industrial capital. And secondly, according to his concept, national bourgeoisie is the owner of industrial enterprises and whose economic advancement is held back by the imperialist power. It means that there may be an industry owned by national bourgeoisie having investment made by imperialism.

However, Goutham in his article Red September 2000 characterizes the native bourgeoisie as comprador mainly on the basis of their closest relations with the imperialist bourgeoisie which is evident from the following passage :
“The history of each big bourgeois family in India is well chronicled. These success stories explain their transformation from merchants to big bourgeoisie, from opium traders to manufactures of hundreds of items from iodised salt and cattle feeds to steel and most modern equipment. In this whole process stretching for two centuries or more, they always remained loyal to their mentors. Their close relations with Congress leaders during pre-1947 period was a lever for the imperialists to manipulate. In the post-1947 period the closest relation of Indian bourgeoisie with the imperialist system was often lauded by the imperialist leaders. From Keynesianism to monetarism, there was, or is any dichotomy between them. But still Karat, like his predecessors, finds it difficult to understand how the big bourgeoisie can become comprador ! It is a question of correctly comprehending the social developments.”

Now, let us again come to Redflag and Redstar. What is the nature of rule, regime which is to be overthrown during the period when India was a direct colony of Britain and after 1947 when colonialism was transformed in to neo-colonialism. Let us see from the observations made by Red Flag and Redstar itself.
Rectifying some serious errors of the past the programme adopted by the Fourth Conference of CPI (ML) Red Flag states : "So the basic task of the Indian revolution is to overthrow the rule of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlord classes serving imperialism. This determines the present stage of revolution, which continues to be anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution". In para 24 after pointing out the four major contradictions it states "these contradictions are interrelated and their intensification create possibilities for the incessant growth of the revolutionary movement".
From the above it can be seen that according to Red Flag the rule which is to be overthrown is the rule of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlord classes which is serving imperialism. Thus, state is in the hand of “comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlord classes”. And that is why their revolution do not set it’s task to overthrow the rule of neo-colonial power, or complete secession from neo-colonialism. If India is not a sovereign country, is it not necessary for their revolution to set it’s task to over throw the rule of neo-colonial power, for complete secession from neo-colonial power!
M M Somasekharan in his article “Put Ideological Political Line in Command(A response to CPI (ML) People's War critique) published in Red star says :
“….. the feudal forces in India had fully surrendered to colonial power and had become its dependants. Not through the loose strings of market relations as in China, but the landlordism in India was transformed as part of colonial capital accumulation directly through various means including regular tax system. British imperialism did this by conquering and breaking the backbone of traditional land relations, by reorgnising it suitably for colonial rule and capital accumulation and by creating a new system of ownership.”
“In India the colonial rule and agrarian structure were not two separate distinct forces, they were both part of the very same political economic structure.”
Thus when they refer to pre-independence India, they refer to colonial rule and not to comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlord class rule. In fact they themselves admit that there is a change in political rule after 1947 but even though they repeat that nothing has changed in the nature of rule, regime after 1947:
“Inspite of all these glaring facts and Marxist-Leninist evaluations the Trotskyists in India like their Chinese counterparts analyses the 1947 transfer of power as completion of Democratic Revolution and India entering the phase of independent capitalist development. From RSP, SUCI to recent CLI (ML) trend which disintegrated very fast, and the remnants of the Albanian revisionist trend have embraced this position thereby abandoning the revolutionary path. In continuation to their evaluation of India as a capitalist country, they are compelled to call it an imperialist one also. Even when the country is confronting acute forms of new national slavery with neocolonial plunder reaching a new zenith, by persisting in their erroneous analysis about the character of Indian state, all these forces are totally exposed as apologists of imperialism and agents of the comprador Indian ruling classes.:
Like the evaluation of Indian state as a sovereign democratic republic by the ruling classes and their political representatives, its evaluation as a capitalist one by these degenerate forces is out and out counter revolutionary. On the Character of Indian State K N Ramachandran.
This is a distortion of facts. CLI does not conclude that with the transfer of power to Indian bourgeois in 1947, the stage of revolution became socialist. It was because, according to them India was not a predominantly capitalist economy at that time and task of bourgeoisie revolution was not completed. This shows his bankruptcy and inability to understand the view points of others. They criticized SUI precisely because SUCI determined the stage of revolution as socialist immediately after independence on the sole ground that Indian bourgeoisie had come to state power. CLI in their documents “Problems of Indian revolution – Their Nature and Resolution” first published as a series of articles in Hindi in the year 1983 in their organ Lal Tara and republished in March 1985 in English while criticizing SUCI, RSPI and RSPI(M-L) stand says at page 62 as follows:

“Only on the basis of the fact that bourgeoisie came to power in 1947, they decided the stage of revolution to be socialist one. Indian bourgeoisie’s coming to power does not complete the task of bourgeois democratic revolution.”

Thus M M Somasekharan shows his intellectual bankruptcy and inability to differentiate between the stand of SUCI , RSPI of the one hand and CLI of the other.