November 2006

A Comment on the polemics between Proletarian Path and Revolutionary Democracy on the Stage of Revolution.

The main mistake while determining the stage of revolution in India lies not in over-estimating or under-estimating the level of economic development in India and basing itself on the predominant aspect of feudal economy or capitalist economy for determining revolution as democratic or socialist, but lies in considering the same as independent of and in isolation with its relation to the character of Indian state, one of the basic elements of superstructure in determining the stage of revolution. Both Proletarian Path & Revolutionary Democracy are not exception in this regard.

We have dealt with the views of Proletarian Path in detail in our article “Some Comments on the Stage of Revolution in India” in November 2004 issue of Proletarian Politics. This article comments on Com. Vijay Singh’s article “On the Stage of the Indian Revolution” published in Revolutionary Democracy Vol. II No1 April 1996 and on the reply and rejoinder exchanged between Proletarian Path and Revolutionary Democracy during the period 1996 and 2003.

Com. Vijay Singh, the editor of Revolutionary Democracy while inviting comments on his “On the Stage of the Indian Revolution” says:

'The following sketch attempts to cognise aspects of the Indian society and state. It argues that the colonial relationship between world capitalism and India has remained intact after 1947, not just in terms of continuing and deepening dependency on international financial capital, but also in terms of the successful efforts of imperialism to retard the development of heavy industry, of production of machinery by machinery. Imperialism, moreover, has preserved the pronounced survivals of tribe, caste and feudalism, which are retarding factors for the development of the productive forces in India. While the semi-colonial and semi-feudal character of the country remains intact, a certain degree of industrial development has taken place at a snail's pace which has led to the development of a medium level of capitalist development. In such conditions, the programmatic perspective of democratic revolution remains relevant until such times as the proletariat led by a revolutionary Communist Party secures the leadership of the agrarian struggles. 1

This is the gist of his whole article and we will deal with all the points raised under separate heading referring from his whole article as well as subsequent articles published in reply and rejoinder by Revolutionary Democracy and Proletarian Path.

A. On the question of political independence of India and its semi-colonial character.

Revolutionary Democracy states ‘that the colonial relationship between world capitalism and India has remained intact after 1947’. If this fact is true, there can be no dispute about stage of revolution as democratic irrespective of level of economic development, irrespective of genuine industrialization has taken place or not. But our readers know that this is not a true fact. There is no colonial relationship between Imperialism and India after 1947. After 1947 the character of political rule, the regime is not colonial but national bourgeoisie irrespective of India’s economic dependence on Imperialism. Economic dependency of a country to imperialism, finance capital or world capitalism does not amount to colonial relationship or political bondage and hence there can be no element of national liberation movement as Com Vijay Singh asserts in his whole article.


Com. Vijay Singh refers A. M. Dyakov who according to him argued in 1949 “that with the transfer of power in 1947 to the big Indian ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlords that colonial dependence and the survivals of feudalism remained untouched.” Though Dyakov did not use the word “transfer of power in 1947 to the big Indian ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlords” in the sense that he never considers the big Indian ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlords as new ruling classes, he considers the establishment of two Dominions as an imperialist maneuver and he supports CPI evaluation in December 1947 which characterized the Nehru Government as a whole as a government of the Indian big bourgeoisie, which had entered into an agreement with British imperialism and formed an alliance with the Indian princes and landlords. He appears to conceive the creation of two dominions as a simple continuation of constitutional reform started by Britishers in 1909 on the basis of which the right wing of the congress came to a compromise with British imperialism.

Besides, Dyakov’s conclusion that Indian independence was illusionary was based on some major political facts which he refers in his article from post independence political events. He refers national congress declaring in 1949 openly that henceforth India would remain in the British empire and he asserts that “it was only in order to dupe the masses that an “independent” Republic was proclaimed with the British King as a symbol of the “unity of the Commonwealth of Nations”. He observes both the Indian Dominions greatly dependent upon Britain and the USA in political and military-strategic respects. He says “As before, the governors of certain provinces, and number of leading officials in State apparatus of India and Pakistan and instructors in the armies are British.” He also refers economic dependence of India on Britain and USA but no where he concludes that India’s economic dependence in itself implies it’s political dependence as Comrade Vijay Singh does. So let us come to Com. Vijay Singh again. .

Com. Vijay Singh refers A. M. Dyakov’s 1949 writing without disagreeing with him that there was a transfer of power in 1947 to big Indian ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlords; he refers financial difficulties of the new government (it was not the new government, it was the same provisional government formed prior to 15 August 1947), he refers new ruling classes concluding alliance with British and US imperialism after 1947, even though he concludes that no fundamental changes took place after 1947. Transfer of power to new ruling class, according to Revolutionary Democracy, is not a fundamental change. This is quite un-Marxist. When Lenin says that fundamental question of every revolution is the question of state power, what does it mean? Does it not mean transfer of power from one class or classes to other class or classes? He does not consider all these changes as fundamental changes because he is looking for the fundamental changes of his own conception which would embark India upon a path of independent capitalist development. His conception of fundamental change is opposed to the conception of Comintern which he himself has referred :

“It considered that only the revolution of workers and peasants through the establishment of the democratic dictatorship could lead the colonial countries onto the road of independent and self reliance, industrialization was possible only by following the path of non-capitalist development.” 2

Of course, revolution of workers and peasants and establishment of democratic dictatorship only in the colonial condition could lead the colonial countries including India onto the road of independent and self reliance, industrialization was possible only by following the path of non-capitalist development because there would have been a fundamental change i.e. transfer of power from colonial imperialism to workers and peasants of that country. But, had there been a fundamental change according to the conception of Vijay Singh, it would have embarked India upon independent capitalist path of development. It is strange that still Com. Vijay Singh considers himself as a stern follower of the line of Comintern. Com. Vijay Singh starts his investigation with the question ‘Did a fundamental change take place in India after 1947 which enabled it to embark upon a path of independent capitalist development?’ 3 Thus, according to Vijay Singh, had there been a fundamental change in India after 1947, it would have embarked India on the path of independence capitalist development. Even if we assume that transfer of power to big ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlord can not be termed as a fundamental change and transfer of power to workers and peasant can only be termed as fundamental change, according to Vijay Singh, this fundamental change would have embarked India upon the path of independent capitalist development in contrast to the path of non-capitalist development as envisaged by Comintern. Is there any difference between the path of independent capitalist development and the path of non-capitalist development? Had there been a democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants after 1947, would India have embarked upon the path of independent capitalist development or on the path of non-capitalist development?
The path of independent capitalist development is an old path under bourgeois dictatorship when capitalism was in its initial stage. This path was taken by the European and American bourgeoisie, but in the new era of imperialism when division of world between the imperialist power has already been completed, the conception of path of independent capitalist development in isolation with and independent of world division of labour is a myth. The capitalist development in India after 1947 has to take place in struggle with and dependent on world division of labour as a part of world capitalist economy, world market. But it is wrong to conclude from this that this conclusively prove the political dependence of India and that India has not own its political dependence in 1947.
Com. Vijay Singh does agree with A. M. Dyakov that ‘India had firmly embarked on the path of capitalist development since the second half of the 19th century and by 1947 she belonged to the category of the more industrially developed colonies with a ‘national bourgeoisie and a numerous proletariat.’ But this industrial development, according to Com. Vijay Singh, was not a genuine industrialization because there was no ‘development of heavy industry, of the production of machinery by machinery’ without which there can be no independent capitalist development. After taking into account of various five years plans of Government of India, he concludes that ‘despite a decade of industrial development by the end of the Third Five Year Plan production of the means of production did not in general get underway’ and he agrees with the writings of A. I. Medovoy written in the mid 1980 that ‘even though private and state investment in large scale industry had been considerable the industrialization of India was still at the stage of building the basis of industry: the production of means of production.’ 4

All these facts have been put forward by Com. Vijay Singh to prove it conclusively that India has not broken out the bonds of colonial system. He concludes :
“Economic development in India after 1947 suggests that the notions put forward at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928 have been vindicated. In the absence of the democratic dictatorship of the working class and working peoples, genuine industrialization i.e. ‘production of machinery by machinery’, and the end of the important survivals of feudalism and other pre-capitalist remnants has not taken place. India remains an agrarian country. Nehruvian ‘socialism’ proved incapable of following an independent path of capitalist development.” 5

And further he says:
“This suggests that India in the half centrury after 1947 has effected a transition from being one of the more industrially advanced countries of the colonial world to the economic level of the more backward of the pre-Second War Eastern European States as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal agrarian-raw material appendage of world capitalism.” 6

Thus, Vijay Singh wrongly concludes that India is a semi-colony, it has not broken from the bonds of colonial system, there is no fundamental change after 1947 in spite of transfer of power to big ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlord class, to new ruling class- all these are proved by Com. Vijay Singh because Nehruvian ‘socialism of ruling class proved incapable of independent path of capitalist development even after 1947. In support of his proposition he quotes an extract of “The Congress of the Peoples of the East’ held in Baku in 1920 which runs as follows:

“If the capitalist system is retained in Europe and Asia, the countries of the East which win freedom from political dependence upon the imperialist countries, being more backward industrially, inevitably remain in complete economic dependence on the later, and, as before, serve as areas of the application of the finance capital of the European industrial countries.” 7

Here, Baku Congress clearly distinguishes between political dependence and economic dependence and concludes that even in the event of wining freedom from political dependence by the countries of the East, they will remain in complete economic dependence of Europe and Asia so long as the capitalist system is retained there. But according to Vijay Singh it suggests that ‘even the establishment of the political independence of the colonial countries does not enable them to break out of the bonds of the colonial system because of the continued economic dependence on imperialism.’ 8
Firstly, Vijay Singh wrongly concludes here that the bonds of colonial system of a country is similar to economic dependence of a country on imperialism even if it has won its political independence. How, a country will be politically independent and at the same it will be under colonial bonds? Does Baku Congress suggests that ‘even the establishment of the political independence of the colonial countries does not enable them to break out of the bonds of the colonial system’? Secondly, the break from the economic dependence on imperialism and the break from the bond of colonialism is not the one and the same thing which Com. Vijay Singh fails to see. Colonialism emerged as a result of military and political annexation of one country by other; it replaced its own colonial political authority in the subjected country with the national political authority of that country and uses that authority to extract more and more surplus. Therefore, the break from colonial bond means replacement of colonial political authority by national political authority of that country. But it does not imply that a country which has replaced colonial political authority with its own national political authority will also break from economic domination of imperialism.

Further, from the above quotation, it is clear that even if a country is economically dependent, it does not necessarily implies that it will be politically also dependent; it might have own freedom from political dependence. If a country has won freedom from political dependence, can it be termed as a colony or semi-colony? If India has own freedom from political dependence of Britain in 1947, can it be termed as a semi-colony because it is economically dependent on imperialism? Genuinely speaking, here, Vijay Singh should have dealt this question whether India won freedom from political dependence from Britain in 1947 or not. But Vijay Singh very conveniently escapes this question here and concludes on the above quotes of Baku Congress that ‘if the colonial countries are to become independent economically then they require to develop their productive basis by establishing big industry, and as imperialism seeks to retain its colonial system it cannot, in general, favor a policy of industrialization’. 9

It is totally a misinterpretation of Baku congress. Did Baku Congress deals with the question of colonial countries or it deal with the countries of the East which won freedom from political dependence. Are colonial countries which Com. Vijay Singh refers and the , the countries of the East which won freedom from political dependence comes under the same category? Is there any difference between these two?

But while dealing with programme of struggle in India he says that ‘imperialism has to be combated to establish the national independence of the country.’ 10

It is strange that Com. Vijay Singh agrees that there was a transfer of power to new ruling class i.e. big Indian ‘national’ bourgeoisie and landlord who were making alliance with British and US imperialism, even though he considers that independence has not been established in India. If India has not won its independence and national independence of the country is yet to be established then how Bauku Congress is relevant. Baku Congress deals with the situation where a country has won it freedom from political dependence but it is still economically under imperialist domination.

He refers Stalin who argued that it was October Revolution ‘which liberated Russia from her semi-colonial situation’. 11 Here, Stalin is using the word ‘semi-colonial situation’ in a purely economic sense. Does Stalin here mean to say that Russia at that time had not won its political dependence? We know that this was not the case.

Since Vijay Singh fails to differentiate between economic dependence and political dependence and he assumes that if there is economic dependence there will be implied political dependence, colonial bondage, it was but natural that he would have considered the question of post war sterling balances as a purely economic question. He has discussed this question under the heading “Did the Post War Sterling Balance Indicate Indian Economic Independence?” It is well known fact that huge sterling balances were accrued to India by the supply of raw materials to British at time of second world war. B.T. Ranadive rightly remarks that ‘the sterling balances were not an index of Inidan wealth but a measure of the forced tribute taken by Britain from India. India was transformed from a debtor to a ‘creditor’ slave of Britain who was forced to give a loan by denying herself the necessaries of life.’ 12


Here, the question arises whether Britain could able to force India to give loan by denying herself the necessaries of life because of economic domination or because of political domination? After post independence, did Britain retain this power (political) to take this type of tribute from India? If not, can it be still termed as politically dependent, as a colony or semi-colony of Britain? In 1948 I. M. Lemin or other Sovietologists had hardly any facts before them from post independence India to examine all these questions. But today, there is a history of more than half century before us and we do not find any such instances. Com. Vijay Singh should examine all these questions on the basis of facts of post independence India and he should not blindly follow from the views of Sovietologist written during the period 1946 to 1949.

But here we would like to put an another question which is relevant for ascertaining the character of Indian State. Did the transfer of power in 1947 do away with the retention of power and revenue in the hands of Britishers, the old colonial regime? Yes, it did. Then, is it not absurd to say that colonial relationship remained intact after 1947? Com. Vijay Singh does not examine all these questions without which the class character of Indian State, its very nature whether it is colonial or not, whether the state power is in the hands of colonial regime or in the hands of Indian ‘national’ big bourgeoisie and landlord class, can not be ascertained.

Lenin 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. 13

We would request Revolutionary Democracy to once again consider and analyze the class character of Indian state in the light of above cardinal thesis of Lenin and then decide whether India is a semi-colony or has won her political dependence.

While replying Proletarian Path which denies the slogan of the CPI after 1947 “Ye azadi jhuthi hai” RD comments :’It may be asked : had the grip of foreign capitalist investment been broken in 1947? Had genuine industrialization, the production of means of production of heavy industry, come to the fore in 1947? It is known that foreign investments had expanded after 1947. British capital investments in India doubled after 1947 and profits grew correspondingly. Despite some industrial development having been undertaken in the Second and Third Five-Year Pans, the production of the means of the production of heavy industry has yet to begin in general.” 14

Thus Vijay Singh put forward economic dependence of India, Imperialist penetration and their economic domination to prove that India is politically dependent, to prove that India is a semi-colony, to prove that transfer of power was a farce. This is contrary to Marxism-Leninism. Let us see what Lenin has to say on this issue:
“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"! 15
Com. Vijay Singh, here, appears to be victim of trend of Imperialist Ecomomism. However, in support of his thesis, Vijay Singh also refers Lenin who at the 2nd congress of the Comintern had outlined the need to constantly :

‘explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, the deception systematically practiced by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. 16
’
It is true that India was militarily, financially and economically dependent on Britain before 1947 but what about after 1947. Is India militarily dependent upon Britain today? Has India not her own armies under her command today? Is there any difference between financial dependence and economic dependence? Whether financial powers vests in Indian State or in the hand of Britain after 1947? Financial decisions are taken by the ruling bourgeoisie through their representative government or by Britain?

Thus, his assertion that the colonial relationship between world capitalism and India has remained intact after 1947, that India is still a semi-colony and that national independence has yet to be established in India is nothing but a myth, and his dream of independent capitalist path in opposition of non-capitalist path as envisaged by Comintern is a sign of right deviation.

B) Extent of capitalist and pre-capitalist mode of production in agriculture:
As an upholder of democratic revolution Com. Vijay Singh is hesitant of admitting growth of capitalist development in agriculture. Though he admits that there is a certain degree of development of capitalism in agriculture, but according to him it has not led to a shift from rent to profit as a main source of appropriation in the rural sector. According to him ‘cost of production is not a consideration as producer is producing for personal consumption in a semi-economy natural economy.’ It is because ‘the Prussian path of development of attempted capitalism in agriculture formed a semi-feudal capitalism which maximizes the retention of the survivals pre-capitalist tribal, caste and feudal form of labor.” 17


All his investigation which moves around the extent and degree of capitalist and pre-capitalist mode of production in Indian agriculture is without concluding their relations with the existing superstructure, without concluding which one of mode of productions is in contradictions with the existing superstructure. This is contrary to Leninist method of investigating a multi-structural economy. Lenin had analyzed the multi-structural aspects of Russian economy in order to ascertain their relation with the superstructure and had found that the growth of capitalism in agriculture was violently in contradiction with the existing feudal superstructure.
Com. Vijay Singh sees Prussian path of development of attempted capitalism in agriculture forming a semi-feudal capitalism maximizing the retention of the survivals pre-capitalist tribal, caste and feudal form of labor. His failure to see the growing contradiction of capitalist mode of production with the superstructure and over emphasis on the survival of pre-capitalist production in isolation of and unconnected with the superstructure, has led him nearer to Narodnik thesis of denying the growth of capitalism in agriculture. He agrees with U. Patnaik that ‘Accumulation from agriculture which takes place on the basis of pre-capitalist structures gets concentrated in the hands of landowners, merchants, black-marketers and usurers and is not utilized in production but in the sphere of parasitic consumption and in the sphere of trade, the black market, usury and rent exploitation’. And that ‘In this manner pre-capitalist accumulation expands at the expense of industrial capital.’ 18


Thus, just as he sees the growth of foreign capital at the expense of national capital leading to economic and political domination in India after 1947, he sees the growth of pre-capitalist accumulation at the expense of industrial capital leading to domination of landowners, merchants, black-marketers and usurers. Thus, we find numerous reference of semi-colonial and semi-feudal superstructure and semi-colonial and semi-feudal economy. There is no reference of any growing contradiction of base and superstructure, there is no reference of economic base of revolution of what so ever.


On Prussian path

In reply to Proletarian Path Com. Vijay Singh says :

“The Editor of Proletarian Path seems less sanguine on the existence of the predominantly capitalist character of agrarian relations in India today but he is confident that the process of transformation from feudalism to capitalist relations is 'under process'. It is apparent that Proletarian Path does not think that the question of the existence of the survivals of feudalism is of significance.” 19

We agree with Vijay Singh that one must examine significance of existence of feudalism, and particularly, here, its significance in determining the stage of revolution. But he did not examine this. He puts the question :

“Here the question must be raised: has the Prussian path of agrarian development in any country ended the survivals of feudalism on the path of transition from feudalism to capitalism?” 20

He refers the case of Germany to prove that Prussian Path did not lead to predominance of capitalist production there. After referring F.Engels and Stalin he concludes that :
A century and a half of the Prussian path in Prussia itself did not terminate the powerful survivals of feudalism. It was the democratic forces in Eastern Germany which abolished the feudal landlords as a class through the implementation of the policy of 'land to the tiller' after the victory over fascism. 21
As usual he did not examine the significance of survivals of feudalism in Germany. Did survival of feudalism in Germany till the feudal landlords as a class through the implementation of the policy of ‘land to the tiller’ after the victory over fascism, determined the stage of revolution as democratic? No, not at all. To make it more clear, 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 that the national question of the fully established bourgeois development of Germany was unification and the agrarian question just as the national question of the bourgeois development in India before 1947 was the question of political independence and agrarian question. Prussian State was under the process of evolutionary change, was in transition from semi-feudal to modern capitalist form of state which was completed finally in 1871. This was a fundamental change, a greatest progress made by Prussia, so much had Prusia lagged behind in modern development since 1840. In his supplementary second part to the prefatory note for the third edition of ‘The Peasant war in Germany’ written on July 1, 1874 which appeared in Leipzig in 1875, Engels 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. 22

Thus, the transition from semi-feudal state to modern state(bourgeoisie state) was the greatest progress since 1848. In 1871, when this transition was made by Prussia, there were numerous survivals of feudalism which Prussia still had to begin to get ride of. In spite of that stage of democratic revolution was considered to be consummated in its broad sense. Why? Because character of state had changed from feudal to bourgeoisie irrespective of the fact that Prussia still had to begin to get ride of numerous survivals of feudalism. Lenin has also referred the above greatest transition of Prussia.
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.” 23 P-121 Vol-16
Now, we would like to ask Com. Vijay Singh: Does Com. Vijay Singh still think that the question of the existence of the survivals of feudalism is of any significance in determining the stage of revolution?
While attacking Proletarian Path, he says :
Neither in Prussia nor in Russia were the relics of feudalism eliminated through the Prussian path, but we are told by Proletarian Path that this was so in India. ln both Prussia and Russia feudalism was terminated by the seizure of the feudal estates by the peasantry, but in India we are told that without an agrarian revolution the powerful relics of feudalism have been liquidated.” 24
But the question still remains : What was the significance of survival of feudalism in determining stage of Revolution in both Prussia and Russia? Is it not that after 1871 in Germany and after Feb. 1917 in Russia it has no significance in determining stage of revolution? Therefore, can not we conclude that remnant or survival of feudalism has nothing to do with the stage of revolution if the nature of state becomes bourgeoisie, if the general bourgeoisie democratic rights are established? Yes. We can.

C) Trotskyite Approach of RD

But if ‘the semi-colonial and semi-feudal character of the country remains intact’ and even if ‘a certain degree of industrial development has taken place at a snail's pace which has led to the development of a medium level of capitalist development’ , is it correct to say that ‘in such conditions, the programmatic perspective of democratic revolution remains relevant until such times as the proletariat led by a revolutionary Communist Party secures the leadership of the agrarian struggles?’ No. It is not correct. So long as democratic revolution is not fully consummated in its broad sense, the programmatic perspective of democratic revolution will be relevant even if the proletariat led by revolutionary Communist Party secures leadership of the agrarian struggles. Similarly, if the semi-colonial or colonial character of the country remains intact, democratic revolution will remain relevant irrespective of the fact whether proletariat led by a revolutionary Communist Party has secured leadership of agrarian struggle or not. The programmatic perspective of democratic revolution remains relevant until such times as the proletariat & the peasantry as a whole led by a revolutionary Communist Party demolish feudal or colonial state power and establishes democratic dictatorship. Only then the question of growing over of democratic revolution to socialist revolution will arise and not before even if it secures leadership of agrarian struggle at any stage of its struggle. Secondly, can proletariat led by a revolutionary Communist Party think of accomplishing democratic revolution without securing leadership of agrarian revolution?

Then, what is difference between Com. Vijay Singh and Trotsky. Here, there is no difference. Because, contrary to Trotsky, the Marxist position is that so long as the character of state is feudal, semi-feudal, colonial or semi-colonial; so long as democratic rights are not established, irrespective of even high level of capitalist development, irrespective of proletariat securing leadership of agrarian revolution, the stage of revolution will be democratic and not socialist. And in that conditions, the role of peasantry as a whole can not be denied, because the stage of revolution will be democratic. It is most unfortunate that Vijay Singh fails to understand this simple point, though he refers Stalin recalling Lenin that “Lenin had objected to any underestimation of the role and importance of the petty-bourgeoisie, particularly the peasantry; it was this which had led to Lenin opposing Trotsky who before the February revolution had not understood the importance of the peasant question, and had argued that the slogan of the movement was ‘no tsar, but a worker’s government.’ 25

Lenin opposed Trotsky who did not understand the importance of the peasant question before February revolution. And what about after the February revolution- was there any relevant change in the character of Russian State? Com. Vijay Singh does not take pain to note that before February revolution, state power was with the feudal forces, tsar as its political head and after February revolution state power was in the hands of bourgeoisie forces . The character of state has changed from feudal to bourgeois as character of Indian state has changed from colonial to bourgeois after 1947- bourgeoisie has been placed in the state power.

The main mistake of Trotsky was that he gave a call for workers government in Russia at a time when character of Russian state was feudal and not bourgeoisie.
May we ask Comrade Vijay Singh whether Lenin has any difference with Trotsky on the question of peasantry even after February revolution, when the state power was transferred from the feudal to bourgeoisie forces and the character of state was changed from feudal to capitalist ?
Com. Vijay Singh fails to understand that even though immediately after Feb. Revolution of 1917, the vast masses of petti-bourgeois appeared on the scene and it gave predominance to petti-bourgeois parties, the Socialist Revolutionary and Menshevik, Lenin gave call for socialist revolution and gave the slogan of proletariat with poor peasantry and not with the peasantry as a whole. Why? Because the character of state has changed from semi-feudal to bourgeois. Did Lenin underestimate the role of peasantry after Feb. Revolution, during the stage of socialist revolution? Com. Vijay Singh has completely failed to understand two stage of revolution and approach of Lenin and Trotsky on this subject. What has been objected by Lenin to Trotsky before February revolution when the character of Russian state was feudal, can not be blindly applied in the changed situations when the state power was transferred to bourgeoisie after February revolution.
Let us take another example. Com. Vijay Singh puts the following questions:
“Is it possible then for the revolution in a country such as India to undergo proletarian revolution which has a number of bourgeois tasks to carry out? To solve, as it were, the problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in passing, as a by-product of the proletarian-socialist revolution.

This very question was raised in the discussions of the Comintern and the CPSU(b) in 1928 for a country of medium level capitalist development, Poland, which was more industrially developed than Russia of 1913, and which in 1928 was far more economically developed than contemporary India.” 26

This is the height ! Com. Vijay Singh fails to understand that this very question can not be raised in the context of a country so long as that country remains a colony or so long as state power is with the feudal forces. No one has raised this question in such context. There is no dispute in communist movement, except Trotskyite, that in a colonial country, in which the character of state is colonial, there can not be possibility of proletarian socialist revolution without achieving the national democratic revolution even if industrially it is a more developed country. Similarly, if the character of state is feudal i.e. state power is in the hands of feudal forces, there can not be possibility of proletarian socialist revolution without abolishing the feudal regime, irrespective of level of economic development of that country.

From the above discussion, can we conclude that Com. Vijay Singh is a Trotskyite? Perhaps not. But I am of the opinion that he is saddled with the ghost of Trotsky. Trotsky is in the very framework of his thinking process, in his mind. Therefore all his quotations with regard to medium level of capitalist countries from the authority of “The Programme of Communist International” and Stalin are incomplete without referring the character of state of those countries in which the peasant question precluded the establishment of proletarian dictatorship and transition to socialism as immediate stage. In his whole article, he has not considered the question of character of state in relation to level of economic development, the new emerging mode of production, he has ignored it and has examined it in a mechanical way, in independent of and in isolation with the mode of production, the level of economic development. Trotsky underestimated the role of peasantry before February revolution when the character of state was not bourgeoisie but feudal and the growth of capitalist mode of production was in contradiction with feudal superstructure. When Lenin gave a call of socialist revolution with the slogan of alliance of the proletariat with the poor peasant after February revolution, Kamenve and others opposed it on the ground of non-completion of tasks of bourgeoisie democratic revolution. In April 1917, Comrade Y. Kamenev, in Pravda No. 27, formulated his "disagreements" with Lenin’s theses of socialist revolution in the following words
"As for Comrade Lenin's general scheme, it appears to us unacceptable, inasmuch as it proceeds from the assumption that the bourgeois-democratic revolution is completed, and builds on the immediate transformation of this revolution into a socialist revolution.'
And Lenin says in reply to Com. Kamenev:
“Indeed, reality shows us both the passing of power into the hands of the bourgeoisie (a "completed" bourgeois-democratic revolution of the usual type) and, side by side with the real government, the existence of a parallel government which represents the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry". This "second government" has itself ceded the power to the bourgeoisie, has chained itself to the bourgeois government.
Is this reality covered by Comrade Kamenev's old-Bolshevik formula, which says that "the bourgeois-democratic revolution is not completed"?
It is not. The formula is obsolete. It is no good at all. It is dead. And it is no use trying to revive it.” 27
Is it not that Com. Vijay Singh is on the same track of Kamenve & others because he is opposing proletarian socialist revolution on the same ground of non-completion of tasks of bourgeoisie democratic revolution and existence of survivals of feudalism in India and fails to see the character of Indian state as bourgeois? I leave it to Com. Vijay Singh to reply after thorough examination and analysis of Indian state.

D) Programmatic perspective

As we have already seen, Com. Vijay Singh visualizes independent capitalist path in contrast to non-capitalist path of development as envisaged by Comintern of 1928 after the fundamental change, it was but natural that his programmatic perspective could not have crossed the bourgeoisie limit of usual type. If we look at his programme of struggle which Revolutionary Democracy requires is nearer to Nehruvian Socialism entailing an element of public sector or Indira Socialism entailing an element of nationalization of Banking Industries. He is afraid of putting the word expropriation of capitalist property.

However according to Com. Vijay Singh :
“The need for democratic revolution is indicated by the domination of imperialism and the big Indian bourgeoisie dependent upon it which is engaged in an intensified offensive under the slogans of liberalization and structural readjustment progammes; imperialism has to be combated to establish the national independence of the country.” 28


If this is so, the prime task will be the expropriation of private capital of imperialists and the big Indian bourgeoisie. We do not understand why Com. Vijay Singh is hesitating in putting this task in the programme of revolutionary democracy in clear words .

In his programme of struggle he says on this issue as follows:

“1. Complete break with world imperialism headed by U.S. Imperialism
2….
7. Nationalization of main branches of Industry……...”29

Is complete break with world imperialism headed by U.S. Imperialism possible without expropriating their capital. Thus there is no indication of expropriation of capitalist private property of all the imperialists and big Indian bourgeoisie. Even while referring nationalization of main Industries, he is afraid of putting the word ‘nationalization of capitalist properties of all imperialists and big Indian bourgeoisie.” He only refers ‘main branch of industry leaving convenient space for the bourgeoisie in general. As usual petty-bourgeoisie political trend, he is also scared of attacking private capital and does not want to use the word ‘expropriation of capital.

E) The Productive forces & production relation and stage of revolution.

The slogan of the united CPI ‘Ye Azadi jhuthi hai’ (The independence is a lie) was not incorrect in its economic sense. But whether the independence was a lie in its political sense, whether political independence was achieved in 1947, Com. Moni Guha considers this question worthless to deal with. He says : I don’t like to enter into debate over this “silly” question.’ 30 How strange it is that the question of character of state after 1947 is a silly question for Com. Moni Guha even though he enters into debate with Revolutionary Democracy on Marxist methodology of determining stage of revolution. It was but natural that he would have become the victim of ideology of Kamenev & others who even after transfer of power from feudal forces to bourgeois forces after the Feb. revolution in Russia opposed Lenin’s call of socialist revolution on the ground of non-completion of tasks of bourgeoisie democratic revolution. We know that Proletarian Path holds the stage of revolution as democratic because ‘in spite of transfer of power immediately after 1947 the vital tasks of the national bourgeoisie democratic revolution were not achieved, ‘abolition of feudal classes and institutions, distribution of lands etc were not put into effect’. 31 But according to Proletarian Path, after 1947 there was a change in economic scenario though with a snail pace following the Prussian path and capitalist economy has become predominant and hence the stage of revolution should be socialist. But if the character of state is still colonial and there is no political independence to India as envisaged by Revolutionary Democracy, can only the capitalist growth of the economy, whether slow or rapid, lead India to the stage of proletarian socialist revolution? Certainly not. And it is this reason that the character of Indian state, the question of political independence while entering into debate with Revolutionary Democracy for determining stage of revolution in India becomes relevant question and not a silly question. Without settling this question all your endeavors to prove the growth of capitalist development through Prussian path is worth less. However, Com. Moni Guha proceeds without settling this question and hence it was natural that he would have presented his thesis of relation of production as determining the stage of revolution in complete isolation with and independent of and without referring its relation to the character of state, one of the basic element of superstructure while making criticism of Com. Vijay Singh’s article “On The Stage of Revolution“ . He says :

“1. In determining the stage of revolution Revolutionary Democracy’s point of departure is ‘machine making machines or heavy industry’ not the relation of production in industry and agriculture. I consider this point of departure is quite un-Marxist in determining the stage of revolution.” 32

The relation of production in industry or in agriculture in itself does not determine stage of revolution if it is not taken into account its contradiction with superstructure. If there is capitalist relation of production in industry and in agriculture but the state power, one of the basic elements of superstructure is feudal, democratic rights are not established, the stage of revolution will be democratic. Similarly if there is capitalist relation of production in industry and in agriculture but the state power, one of the basic elements of superstructure is not feudal or colonial and democratic rights have been established, the stage of revolution will be socialist and not democratic. Thus capitalist relation of production in itself does not determine the stage of revolution, if the nature of superstructure which is in contradiction with it, is not taken in to consideration.

The essence of debate between Com. Moni Guha and Com. Vijay Singh is reduced here to : which one of the elements of mode of production –productive forces or production relation –determines stage of revolution independent of and in isolation with the character of state, one of the basic elements of superstructure.

It is forgotten that mode of production constitutes both productive forces and production relations which is the economic base of the society in its definite stage of historical development.

It is true that changes in productive forces lead to changes in production relation leading to changes in mode of production which determines the economic structure of the society upon which depends the superstructure, political institution, etc. When there is changes in productive forces leading to changes in corresponding production relation, a new mode of production is given birth to in the womb of old society, containing along side it old mode of production and old superstructure.
The new mode of production contradicts with the old superstructure which becomes a hindrance, fetters in the development of productive forces and production relation. It is this contradiction between new mode of production and old superstructure of which men becomes conscious of and the stage of revolutionary overthrow of state, one of the basic elements of superstructure becomes absolute necessary.

Therefore, while determining the stage of revolution it is necessary to ascertain which political superstructure has become obsolete in relation to growth of productive forces and production relation.

If the nature of superstructure is feudal, if the state power is in the hands of feudal forces, democratic rights are not established, naturally it is the growth of capitalist relations of production which will contradict with old feudal superstructure. In that condition, the pre-capitalist mode of production will not contradict but corresponds with feudal superstructure.

If the nature of superstructure is colonial, if the sate power, the regime is not national but colonial, it is the relative growth of native capitalism-their economic, political and social strength – which will contradict with colonial superstructure and not the increasing colonial economic penetration, their increasing economic domination. This was the internal factor of national liberation movement apart from external factor.

Once the bourgeoisie superstructure, its political institution – the bourgeoisie state- is established, democratic rights are established, the old feudal regime or colonial regime is completely battered and/or replaced by bourgeoisie regime, the stage of revolution becomes socialist, the main contradiction becomes the contradiction of private appropriation and social nature of production which can be resolved by only expropriation of private capitalist property.

It is in this sense that the question of state power, one of the basic elements of superstructure is the principal question of every revolution as stated by Lenin.

The bourgeoisie regime, in its true sense for the purpose of determining stage of revolution, is supposed to be established by consummation of democratic revolution. 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.” 33 (Lenin. vol.16 Page 202-203)
From the above quotation it is clear that consummation of democratic revolution in its broad sense means the complete destruction of old regime, which is the basis to engender subsequent bourgeois revolutions. Thus, the contradiction of old regime with the new productive forces and production relation is the basis of revolution and the consummation of revolution depends whether the regime has been destroyed completely or not.
In his article “The Polemic on the stage of revolution in India” published in Proletarian Path January –March 2001, Com. Moni Guha criticizes Com. Vijay Singh on the ground that machinery making machinery or productive forces are not synonymous with ‘economic development’ or objective condition which are the sum total of the socio economic condition of the society and concludes:
“It is clear now that the Leninist approach and the point of departure of Lenin and the programme in determining the stage of revolution were Not “the level of development of productive forces” or ‘machine-making machine’. But the economy as a whole i.e. The science of political economy. The approach and point of departure of pp is also the economic development of India.” 34
Latter on in his reply, Com. Vijay Singh disagrees with Com. Moni Guha that he has ‘reduced the notion of economic development to the development of level of productive forces of production’ and declares :
“This journal has argued, consistent with the views of Lenin, Stalin and the Comintern, that the economic development of the society is the starting point in determining the stage of revolution, It is not the only point, for the subjective conditions are also to be taken into account when determining the current stage of revolution.” 35

Thus, both Com. Vijay Singh and Com. Moni Guha finally reaches on the same conclusion – economy as a whole as a determining factor for the stage of revolution. Thus, so far as, theoretical approach is concerned, there is no difference. But let us come to Com. Vijay Singh again how he comes to that erroneous conclusion.

In his first article referred above, Com. Vijay Singh was neither able to formulate his theory of stage of revolution on the basis of contradiction between base and super structure nor he refers such contradiction from concrete facts of India either in the context of pre-independence or post independence India. He considers India and the Indian state as well as superstructure as semi-colonial and semi-feudal, economy as semi-colonial and semi-feudal. He sees expansion of pre-capitalist accumulation at the expense of Industrial Capital. He is hesitant to admit growth of capitalism. In fact he depicts a picture where there is no indication of growth of contradiction between base and superstructure. If this is so, there is no ground of revolution in his whole thesis except his sympathy with the toiling masses, except his hatred against exploitation by imperialism, big bourgeoisie and feudalism of the Indian people. This is a purely ethical approach contrary to Marxist approach.

Thus, in his first article, he took a purely ethical approach towards revolution. But while replying to Moni Guha, he completely distorts Marxism-Leninism.

In his reply to Moni Guha Vijay Singh says :
“In opposition to the approach of Proletarian Path Lenin took the level of economic development of Russia as his point of departure in determining the stage of revolution. In 1905 in his classic work Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution he argued:
'The degree of Russia's economic development (an objective condition), and the degree of class-consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat (a subjective condition inseparably bound up with the objective condition) make the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class impossible.
Lenin was specifically countering those who were afflicted with 'the absurd and semi-anarchist idea of the conquest of power for a socialist revolution.'36
The above writings of Lenin were written during June-July 1905 when there was a debate on the question of Provisional Government. Here, Com. Vijay Singh fails to understand the difference between the possibility of revolution and the stage of revolution. The possibility of revolution depends, apart from other factors, upon the degree of contradiction between new productive forces and production relation on the one hand and superstructure on the other hand. The development of capitalism –the development of new productive forces and production relation- in Russia, for example, had intensified its violent contradiction with feudal superstructure and had hastened the outbreak of democratic revolution. To raise class consciousness, to spread socialist enlightment and to build an organization of the broad masses of the proletariat, democratic rights were required to be established first as a pre condition, was to be achieved only by completion of democratic revolution. Of course, considering the low level of productive forces in Russia in 1905, there was no possibility of achieving socialism. But this did not prevent Lenin to call for a socialist revolution in April Theses after Feb. revolution of 1917 when democratic revolution was completed in spite of the opposition of Kamenev & others. Lenin while commenting on one of the stalwarts of 2nd International has said :
"The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible." All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution.” 37
Secondly, Com. Vijay Singh has not quoted the full paragraphs which runs as follows :
“'The degree of Russia's economic development (an objective condition), and the degree of class-consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat (a subjective condition inseparably bound up with the objective condition) make the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class impossible. Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the democratic revolution which is now taking place; only the most naive optimists can forget how little as yet the masses of the workers are informed about the aims of Socialism and about the methods of achieving; “38

What was the bourgeois nature of revolution ? 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.” 39

“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.”
Thus it was the development of capitalism and not its low level of development which was in contradiction with the superstructure which had made the preservation of serfdom in agriculture absolutely impossible. Level of economic development is always seen by Lenin in relation to its superstructure as and when he refers the nature of revolution.

Now let us see on what ground Lenin fought with anarchist who were in favor of immediate socialist revolution:

“In answer to the anarchist objections that we are putting off the socialist revolution, we say: we are not putting it off, but we are taking the first step towards it in the only possible way, along the only correct road, namely, the road of a democratic republic.” 40

Thus it was not on the ground of low level economic development but on the ground that the political freedom was not achieved, democratic republic was not established, monarchy, the regime of tsar was not abolished, Lenin fought with anarchist. It is only Vijay Singh who sees the level of economic development as determining the stage of revolution independent of and in isolation with and without taking into consideration the character of regime whether it was bourgeoisie or feudal.

Lenin further elaborates this point :

. “If any workers ask us at the given moment why we should not go ahead and carry out our maximum program, we shall answer by pointing out how far the masses of the democratically-minded people still are from Socialism, how undeveloped class antagonisms still are, how unorganized the proletarians still are. Organize hundreds of thousands of workers all over Russia; enlist the sympathy of millions for our program! Try to do this without confining yourselves to high-sounding but hollow anarchist phrases—and you will see at once that in order to achieve this organization, in order to spread this socialist enlightenment, we must achieve the fullest possible measure of democratic reforms. 41

Thus in order to achieve such organization, in order to spread the socialist enlightenment, the first step was to achieve fullest possible measure of democratic reforms- this was the precondition for entering into the stage of socialist revolution which was to be fulfilled through democratic revolution.
Lenin further says:
“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 vulgarize it, to substitute liberalism in its place. It means smuggling in a reactionary defense of the bourgeoisie against the socialist proletariat by means of quasi-scientific references to the progressive character of the bourgeoisie in comparison with medievalism.” 42
From the discussion, it is clear that level of economic development can not be taken as a determining factor in deciding stage of revolution in isolation with and independent of and without referring its contradiction with the superstructure, the regime, the character of state power which Vijay Singh does in his whole article in reply to Moni Guha. The nature of revolution depends on the nature of regime which is to be fought. If the struggle is directed against medievalism, monarchy, the nature of revolution is democratic and the peasant as a whole is the ally of the revolution. After consummation of democratic revolution, the struggle is directed against capitalism, against the rich Kulak, the nature of revolution is socialist and the poor peasant is the ally of the revolution.
In further reply to Moni Guha’s article Com. Vijay Singh says in his last article :
Marx established that the level of development of the productive forces determines the economic system of society. The mode of production of material values is the main force in the system of the material conditions of society. It is this force which determines the physiognomy of the whole of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another. The mode of production is the embodiment of the unity of the productive forces of society and men's relations of production which develop in production. The relations of production, which Proletarian Path sees as its starting point, correspond to a definite stage in the development of the productive forces of society; the production relations are determined by the productive forces. 43

Here, Marx is emphasizing the role of development of productive force in determining the economic system of society and relations of productions and not the stage of revolution, The economic system of the society & production relation of the one hand and the stage of revolution on the other are not one and the same thing. But in their polemics of both Vijay Singh and Moni Guha, this confusion prevails till end.
In Aug 1917 Lenin while analyzing situation in Russia says:
“In Russia, the bourgeoisie rule both economic and political life. Their interests particularly during the imperialist war, violently conflict with the interests of the majority. Hence from a materialist and Marxist, not from a formally juridical point of view, we must expose this conflict and combat bourgeois deception of the people.” 44
We end here with a request to Com. Vijay Singh to analyze whether in India, bourgeoisie forces or ‘semi- colonial and semi-feudal forces’ rule both economic and political life after 1947? Whether interests of the bourgeoisie is in conflict with the interests of the majority or not? Whether it is necessary in the context of India to expose this conflict and combat bourgeois deception of the people or not?


References :

1.’On the stage of the Indian Revolution’, “Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
2. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
3. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
4. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
5. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
6. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
7. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996 (Quoted from “'Theses on the agrarian question' in 'Baku: Congress of the Peoples of the East', 1920, Stenographic Report, London, 1977, p. 143.
8. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
9. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
10. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
11.Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996 Quoted from “J. Stalin, 'Works', Vol. 11, Moscow, 1954, p. 162.
12. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997 Quoted from B.T. Ranadive, 'India's Sterling Balances,' in G. Adhikari ed., Marxist Miscellany, Vol. 2, Bombay, 1945, p. 138.
13. Lenin Collected Works Vol. 17 page -146
14. A Critique of the Contemporary Adherents of the Views of M. N. Roy , Evgeny Varga and Leon Trotsky on the Current Stage of Revolution in India- by Vijay Singh; pulished in Revolutionary Democracy” VolII. II No.II, September 1997
15. V. I. Lenin-A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism
16. V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, Moscow, 1974, p. 150.
17. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
18. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996 quoted from U. Patnaik, 'Classical Theory of Rent and Its Application to India', Journal of Peasant Studies, Jan.-April, 1983, pp. 71-87; A.I. Medovoy, op. cit., pp. 97-102.
19. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
20. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
21. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
22. ‘The Peasant war in Germany’ F, Engels page-17
23. Lenin C.W Vol-16, . P-121
24. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
25. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
26.Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
27. Lenin : Letters on Tactics
28. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
29. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol. II No.I, April 1996
30. Marist Methodology and the Current Stage of Revolution –Moni Guha Published in Revolutionary Democracy VOL III No.2 Sept 1997
31. Proletarian Path, Inaugural Issue 1992 Vol No.1 Nove-Dec page-107
32.Marist Methodology and the Current Stage of Revolution –Moni Guha Published in Revolutionary Democracy VOL III No.2 Sept 1997
33. Lenin C.W. VOL. 16 Page. 202-203
34. “The Polemic on the stage of revolution in India” published in Proletarian Path January –March 2001, Com. Moni Guha page-41
35. Critical Remarks on Contemporary ‘Decolonisation’ Vijay Singh Published in Revolutionary Democracy Volume X No. 1 April 2003
36. Revolutionary Democracy” Vol III. No.II, September 1997
37. Lenin Collected Works, Volume 33 (p. 476-80)
38. Lenin- Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
39. Lenin - C.W. Vol. XIX p-488
40. Lenin- Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
41 .ibid
42. Lenin-The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
43. Critical Remarks on Contemporary ‘Decolonisation’ Vijay Singh Published in Revolutionary Democracy Volume X No. 1 April 2003
44. Lenin C.W. Vol. XXV Page- 201