A comment on J.P. Dixit’s Booklet “National & and Comprador Bourgeoisie in India”

 The question of alliance is one of the most important questions  for the working class and its party in determining  its strategy and tactics in and during its emancipation struggle. The most serious mistake in this regard of the communist parties in India particularly after independence has been to identify some progressive sections among the bourgeois and to surrender the interest of the proletariat to the interest of the bourgeois ,in the name of some sort  of alliance with the bourgeois .Mr .J. P. Dixit  (henceforth we will  mention J.P.D. in  short) also belongs to such current. He justifies the alliance of working class with the “national bourgeois.

In the preface to his booklet “National and comprador bourgeoisie in India first published in Oct 1989 and republished in April 1998, he starts the discussion upon the subject of National and Comprador Bourgeoisie in India with a reference  to Bippin  Chandra’s statement and concludes that the “industrial development through the instrumentality of foreign capital is the point of view of the comprador” and that this “comprador point of view was not only present in the 19^th  century and has ruled over this country after the year 1947 but also that the so called ‘public sector’ the much acclaimed ‘socialist sector’ of the Khruschev range variety has been nothing but an instrument of imperialism.

Is the point of view that industrial development through the instrumentality of foreign capital  is the point of view of comprador? No, it is not true. Let us see the case of Russia. How industrial development was effected in Russia before the October Revolution? Stalin in his speech on the subject ‘Industrialization and and the Grain Problem’ delivered on July 9 1928 says as follows, “Under the bourgeois system in our country, industry , transport, etc., were usually developed with the help of loans,  Whether you take the building of new factories or the re-equipment  of old ones, whether you take the laying of new railways  or the erection of big electric power stations- not one of these undertakings was able to dispense with foreign loans. But they were  enslaving loans.’ S.W. VOL. 2, Page 127. So here Stalin is referring the case of industrial development in Russia thorough the instrumentality of foreign capital. Further he says : ‘In the capitalist countries industrialization was usually effected ,in the main ,by robbing other countries ,by robbing colonies or less enslaving loans from abroad. Page126 Neither in Russia nor in other countries this process of industrial development through the instrumentality of foreign capital was called comprador point of view and industrial development through purely “national capital” as nationalist point of view. What is the comprador capital? No where in his whole article Mr. J.P.D. takes pain to define it.

However, 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`. 6<sup>th</sup> 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 at a definite stage of economic  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 and industry owned by national bourgeoisie having investment made by imperialism. This bourgeoisie is wrongly called by Mr. JPD as comprador bourgeoisie.

Are we in support of industrial development through finance capital? Certainly not. Today there is hardly any progressive person who supports it. MR. JPD also opposes it in his own fashion. But we will later see that he opposes it from a purely petty-bourgeois position and not from a working class position. He simply adopts/accepts the argument of the nationalist point of view without exposing its hypocrisy, petty-bourgeois illusion.

Further, he is fully in agreement with Bipin Chandra who summarizes the point of view of the nationalist sections of bourgeoisie standing against the comprador point of view. Bipin Chandra concludes:

“A large majority of Indian leaders, however, opposed the use of foreign capital and denied that its beneficial effects out weighted its baneful consequences. The starting point of their reasoning was the belief that the impact of Industrialization or development of material resources through the opening of railways, canals, mines, plantations and factories on the national wealth and prosperity of a country could not be examined separately from the question under what circumstances was the industrialization carried out and who benefited from it. They argued that since it was foreign enterprise that was for the most part developing Indian resources, it was the foreign capitalist who raped the advantages resulting from this development and appropriated the additional wealth thus produced. Hence, foreign capital did not and could not contribute to the prosperity of the nation or improve the economic condition of its people, even though a few incidental benefits might flow from it……… The development of Indian resources by foreign capital actually meant not development but ‘despoliation’ and exploitation of these resources.” Page---12

Mr. JPD is in full agreement with Bipin Chandra. He says ‘clearly it is the point of view of the nationalist section of bourgeoisie.’ Page – 13

Thus on the question of industrial development, Mr. JPD refers two points of view – comprador pint of view and nationalist point of view. What is the working class point of view? Mr.JPD is silent over this. What is his point of view? We will see that his point of view is of the nationalist section of bourgeoisie. Before that we would like to acquaint the reader what Lenin has to say on the export of capital that runs as follows:

“The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported”  C.W.22P-243.

Since the advent of British capital, Indian economy has been and is the part of world economy  and hence today, the development of capitalism in India and its historic fate cannot be examined in isolation with and independent of world economy and particularly the movement of finance capital. ( Here we would like to make it clear  that all talk of independent economic development after 1947 and haling of self reliance by revisionists parties is nothing but the glorification of Big bourgeoisie and ML movemnt rightly came out against this independent economic growth concept. There is an element of truth that the development of Indian economy has not been independent rather it has been dependent on world imperialism. And hence they came out against imperialism and big bourgeoisie  or  what they call it as comprador class. But they opposed it not from the working class position rather from a petty-bourgeois position. Mr. JPD is not an exception of such current. An  another specific feature of their was that some of ML group refused to recognize it as capitalist development. They call it not as capitalist development rather as imperialist penetration.) Hundreds years of imperialist penetration through the export of capital in India, could do nothing but lead to development of capitalism in India and it has indeed done so. At this stage, naturally there  arises a question, whether the development of capitalism has created enough ground  for socialism, whether it has well facilitated the base for social expropriation of means of production and capitalist relation has become a hindrance to the growth of productive forces or capitalism is still growing, progressive? Instead of examining these questions, he confuses the whole matter by fully supporting Mr. Bipin Chandra that foreign capital can’t  actually  develop Indian ‘resources’ where as national capital can actually develop Indian ‘resources’, foreign capital did not, and could not contribute to the prosperity of the nation or improve the economic condition of its people, implied meaning thereby  that national capital can improve the economic condition of its people. Page-12. We know that prosperity of nation means nothing but the prosperity of national bourgeoisie. How national capital improves the economic condition of its people, we can see from the example of England when national capital was growing in the 19^th century. Marx in his capital (Vol1) has given a detailed description  of the detoriating condition of workers under the rule of capital. Besides, we want to refer our readers to the most well known book of  F.E. “The conditions of working class in England”, Marx says

“It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at the one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation misery , agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole…” Capital Volume 1 P-604.

That both foreign capital and national capital cannot develop or improve the economic condition of its people is a fact of history. And hence to support the proposition that the point of view of national section of bourgeoisie stands against the point of view of comprador section of bourgeoisie which through the instrumentality of foreign capital can’t improve the economic condition of its people  and keep silent whether ‘national capital’  can  improve the economic condition of its people, is nothing but to create bourgeoisie illusion among the working class, is nothing but false glorification national bourgeoisie. That Mr. JPD  completely fails to visualize that development of capitalism necessarily involves improvishment of vast majority of people is evident from his following  observation:

“Looking back a couple of centuries ago, one would find clear manifestations of an Indian capitalism in its embioronic form with its developing agriculture, handicrafts, guilds, small production units and market etc. It could easily be maintained that given the free and unhampered development of this historical process, the agriculture and the small production  would have gradually grown into medium and heavy production constituting a fully grown capitalist economy.” Page-19.

Here we would like to put a simple question. Can small peasant and small production grow into medium and heavy production without majority  of them becoming pauper? Here in lies the utopia of Mr. JPD. Lenin says:

“ …… a detailed Social- Democratic programme which does not make it clear that capitalism must naturally lead to mass poverty and mass destitution and does not regard the struggle against this poverty and this destitution as the content of  Social – Democracy’s aspiration, ignores the decisive aspect of our movement and thus has a conspicuous deficiency.” Lenin C.W. P48

Thus in his whole article where ever he refers the growth of capitalism with the instrument of ‘national capital’, he fails to visualize that growth of capital necessarily involves impoverishment of vast masses, growth of capital involves both concentration and centralization of capital etc.

Nevertheless, Mr. JPD claims to “dispel the confusion that has been wantonly created between the two sections of the Indian bourgeoisie”. P-13 Let us see how he identifies these two sections and attributes different role to it.

Mr. JPD asserts that the question of establishing the identities of the various section of the Indian bourgeoisie and defining their respective roles during a revolutionary process is the most basic question  of strategy and tactics of Indian democratic revolution. And this means to identify the national bourgeoisie and comprador bourgeoisie in India. And then he alleges that all the enemies of Indian people and revolution have either attempted to mislead the revolutionaries on this question or have remained silence over it.  In his whole article he tries to prove as to why the communist party, the representative of the working class should ally with national bourgeoisie, why it should follow a four class alliance strategy and tactics. But there is also an another question : Why the national bourgeoisie should and must follow the leadership of working class? On that question he is totally silent. It appears that he does not want the national bourgeoisie to follow the working class leadership, but he wants working class to follow national bourgeoisie leadership, to fight for their aspiration of an economy predominated by small-scale industry, market economy, laissze-faire, decentralization, to counterpoise the ideology of working class, its interest and its aspiration and all this in the name of making  the national bourgeoisie the ally of working class in the revolution, in the name of not to frighten the national bourgeoisie from the  impending revolution.

Who is that national bourgeoisie? Mr. JPD defines it as follows:

“Needless to say that the middle classes in India viz. the rich, middle and small farmers, craftsmen, small producers, traders etc. constitute the national bourgeoisie of this country.” Page 22.

Mr. JPD fails to visualize the role of finance capital in rural India, the emerging new correlation of class forces in rural India due to penetration  of finance capital and market economy since independence. The Red Flag in its article “On mode of production in India” observes:

“The rich peasant or agricultural bourgeois class which is getting richer and more powerful under increasing neo-colonialisation is in the main closely linked with and serving the interests of imperialism. While this class along with the MNC are raping huge profits, the agricultural workers are getting increasingly pauperized, the poor and marginal peasants are mostly loosing out and getting transformed into agricultural workers, and even a section of the middle peasants are also getting reduced to marginal peasants.” Page 29 The Red Flag Number 10 July September 1998.

Thus Mr.JPD fails to take note of all these developments. Secondly, fails to explain small producers, what category of manufacturer it consists of. He does not take pain to present even a single data on it from the concrete Indian condition. From the table A it can be seen that 76.1% factories in India employing 0 to 49 persons employs 17.4% of the total work force and they contribute a gross output of only 13.4% where as the rest 24.9% factories employing 50 and above persons employs 82.6% of the total work force and contribute 86.4% of the total gross output(Page 80 STATISTICAL OUTLINE OF INDIA 1996-97  by TATA SERVICES LIMITED DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS.) That India in not a country predominated by small scale commodity producers is evident from the above facts. This shows a high degree of concentration of workers in Industrial sector.  Can the former category of small producers be classified as national bourgeoisie having antagonistic interests with the big bourgeoisie (foreign and comprador)? Certainly not. Are not they willing to become junior partner of big bourgeois (foreign and comprador)? Of course they are. In fact most of them are ancillary of big one.

And who are the representative parties of this “national bourgeoisie” in India? Those are according to Mr. JPD,  all the bourgeoisie rightist parties viz. Janta party, B.J.P., J.D., R.J.D. etc. save and except  the Indian National Congress.

So these are the parties which are against the comprador point of view, they do not want industrial development through the instrumentality of foreign capital because it will not develop the economic condition of its people? Besides these parties are not against the industrial development through the instrumentality of foreign capita is an undisputed fact today. We want to refer the Trade Policy Review of India held on April 16 and 17, 1998 in Geneva in which the new B.J.P. led government’s rededication to the liberalization program was widely appeared.  In that T.P.R. meeting, the Indian delegation  reassured them in the following words, “We strongly believes in and support the rule based nature of the W.T.O., we also recognize the right of the domestic industry to raise their concerns” The Management Accounting July 1998 Page 494.

Besides the comments of his comrade-in-arm Mr. Sohan Sharma on Page 98 in his book ------------------ on the approach of BJP towards the foreign capital clearly shows that even BJP is not against the penetration of foreign capital in the field of technology (page 28)

And hence to identify the party of “National bourgeoisie” on the basis of that the national bourgeoisie is against the penetration of foreign capital is wrong. These bourgeoisie parties do make it a rallying point for coming to power but in no way they are against the penetration of foreign capital. And we must evaluate any party not from its words but form it deeds.

From the ongoing discussion, one can conclude that Mr. JPD has not been able to identify the representative party of ‘national bourgeoisie’ as distinguished from the representative party of the comprador bourgeoisie.

Now let us come to analyze how Mr. JPD visualize national capital as a growing, developing phenomenon in a country like India fully dominated by imperialism.

He asserts that the national bourgeoisie is growing and there is a contradiction between growing national capital and imperialism. So Mr. JPD visualizes growth of other than Tata, Birla , Bajaj brand of national bourgeoisie under imperialist rule. We are afraid Mr. JPD will have to change his opinion that “in undeveloped and under developed economies, the national capital cannot independently co-exist with imperialism.” But the question is : which section of national bourgeoisie is growing? Rich peasant, middle peasant, small farmers, craft man, small producers or traders? Can growth possible without making majority of them pauper?

The development of capital involves both centralization and concentration of capital leading to proletarianization and impoverishment of  majority of small producers. One cannot escape of it. This process eventually lead to centralization and concentration of capital so long as the rule of capital, rule of market economy is there. Hence, it is in the interest of majority of small farmers, craftsmen, small producers to come to the side of working class, to end the rule of capital. But on the other hand there is a possibility for a few to grow in to larger one at the ruin of majority. This is the illusion the the bourgeoisie(Bourgeoisie as a whole) is constantly inducing among the people. Sometimes by giving subsidies, sometimes by giving protection, they are constantly creating the illusion that they can develop , they can survive. Mr. JPD instead of smashing this bourgeoisie illusion, all the time tries to make it more glaring.

He refers to the dual role of ‘national bourgeoisie’ but he is unable to give any explanation as to why it is so.

“With proletarian leadership in existence, the national bourgeoisie will historically keep moving between two poles i.e. the proletariat and imperialism, hence playing a weak dual, inconsistent and fabby(rightly described in the Chinese Revolutionary  Context). Fearing both it will shift to the proletarian leadership in the event of imperialism emerging strong and to imperialism in opposite situation.” Page 26.

Why you are shy of writing Chinese semi-colonial and semi-feudal context, instead of Chinese revolutionary context’? And assert that what was true in a semi-colonial semi-feudal context is also true in neo-colonial context! This is nothing but a caricature of the ‘Chinese revolutionary context’. Anyway, imperialism emerging stronger and emerging weak, is the cause of vacillation of ‘national bourgeoisie’. The possibility of siding the national bourgeoisie to imperialism is there in event of opposite situation i.e. imperialism emerging weak or proletariat emerging stronger. There can e no other meaning of “an opposite situation”. When the proletariat can possibly become stronger ? At the point of time or just before when the correlation of class forces is such or maturing or approaching in such a way that it can capture the state power through revolutionary means. It means when there is a revolutionary situation. And in that situation what will the national bourgeoisie do? According to author it will side with the imperialism. Then what is the need of four class alliance strategy and tactics? It means that there will be a no successful revolution in India. But what is the position today? Whether imperialism is not strong today? And with whom is the national bourgeoisie  and its representative? With working class or with imperialism? I leave it to the readers to decide.

The national bourgeoisie is afraid of being expropriated of their small property. And that is why it keeps on moving between two poles-proletarian and big bourgeoisie(Comprador and foreign). Their death is certain. But in one case, e.g. through the development of capitalism, is painful. In other case e.g. through gradual socialization of their small private property from co-operative ownership to social ownership, they can escape sufferings, the painful process of being proletarianized. There is no other alternative for the weak and small national bourgeoisie, But Mr. JPD sees the role of national bourgeoisie as an counterbalancing factor- some times fighting the imperialism sometimes siding with the imperialism. And he highlights only this role. Here we will like to acquaint our readers with one (out of 10) of the characteristics of national bourgeoisie which should be borne in mind as advised by Mr. JPD. It runs as follows:

“The national bourgeoisie (weak, developing, scattered) needs for its objective reasons, economic and political decentralization while imperialism (developed finance and monopoly capital) and comprador classes need, for their objective requirements, centralization of the economic and political order. The national bourgeoisie, again, for its basic reasons of undevelopment, needs free and competitive market and a laissez-faire economy while imperialism and comprador capital need a monopolistic and corporate economy. The national bourgeoisie has its own economic priorities which are in favor of agriculture and small (also medium to some extent) production. This, again in contradiction with the needs of imperialism and the comprador capital whose economic priorities favor the big and heavy industry”. Pate 23-24

The aspiration of ‘national bourgeoisie’ is nothing but the petty-bourgeoisie criticism of imperialism, a dream of  going back to” free competition, laissez-faire economy”. The poor petty bourgeoisies is against centralization of production, against socialization of production and hence it dreams of going back. The party of the working class justifies the need for socialization of production. If the production is so socialization it means that it is ripe enough for expropriation.

Secondly, aspiration of ‘national bourgeoisie’ for decentralization of economic and political power, competitive and a laissez-faire economy doesn’t amount to coming to the side of working class for expropriation of centralized production. Hence to support this utopian aspiration without having a program to expropriate  the private capital of big bourgeoisie(comprador) is a betrayal with the interest of the working class, even within the limit of democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat.Mr. JPD no where in his whole article says a single word for the expropriation of the private capital of the private capital of the big bourgeoisie. He only refers to fight against the so-called take-off theory, imperialism and particularly social imperialism-all in vague and abstract term. Is it not necessary to expropriate the private capital of big bourgeoisie and imperialist? Thus his whole jargon of revolutionary tactical line in which middle class constitute the main body, does not aim at expropriation of big bourgeoisie capital. He says:

“The year 1977 saw, for the first time, the historic rout of the comprador bourgeoisie at the hands of the scattered, week and confused national bourgeoisie who could not visualize the course of its struggle beyond the restoration of democratic liberty.” Page 34.

So, it was for the first time, the historic rout of comprador bourgeoisie at the hands of the scattered, week, and confused national bourgeoisie, without expropriation of comprador big bourgeoisie private capital and without touching foreign capital, without touching the neo-colonial state apparatus, in a most peaceful parliamentary democratic method, more peaceful than what was envisaged in 26^th  Congress by the Soviet Revisionism.!

When Janta Party as the representative of the national bourgeoisie came to power in 1947 and did nothing to oppose the “take off thory” Mr. JPD concludes:

“Let there be no doubt that fighting  the ‘take-off’ and other comprador ‘theories’ can be done only under the leadership of the proletariat, through its vanguard party. Presently, the facts remain that the Indian national bourgeoisie failed to grasp the neo-colonial context of the comprador policies.” Page 33

So, the national bourgeoisie failed to grasp the neo-colonial context of the comprador congress policies. And you wish to make them understand! What is that? Takeoff theory and other comprador policies. That is all! Nothing about expropriation of comprador and foreign capital. Thus the democratic revolution Mr. J.P.D. envisages is of a bourgeoisie category, under the leadership of the national bourgeoisie which does not aim to expropriate the capital of comprador and foreign bourgeoisie.

Further, without examining the changes in the co-relation of class forces after 1947 i.e. after independence and taking ‘colonies’ ’semi colonies’ and neo-colonies as identical term, he abuses  C.P.I. & C.P.M. for not accepting for class theory and concludes that revolutionary tactics “Not only accepts the undoubtable existence of national bourgeoisie  in colonies, semi-colonies and neo-colonies but also envisages a four class or a broadest united front unavoidably including the national bourgeoisie as an indisputable partner of revolutionary democratic tactics.”

Further, the above allegations are factually incorrect because theoretically both C.P.I. & C.P.M. accept  a four class or broadest united front. Yes, they have some differences  as to who is the representative  party of national bourgeoisie. In fact, these brand of left parties have been a tail of bourgeoisie(national or comprador big bourgeoisie) In search of friendly section among the bourgeoisie on one or other pretext and making alliance with them, they have caused serious sabotage to the working class. This has amounted to unconditional surrender of the interest of working class to the interest of bourgeoisie of either section, unconditional surrender of working class leadership  to the petty-bourgeoisie leadership in the national political mainstream. Mr. JPD instead of criticizing this right deviation of these so called left parties, alleges that they do not uphold revolutionary tactics which envisage a four class alliance or a broadest untied front.

Secondly it is also incorrect to say that the revolutionary tactics of Lenin, Stalin, & Mao envisages a four class or a broadest united front unavoidably including the national bourgeoisie as an indispensable part of the revolutionary democratic tactics  in a ‘neo-colonial country’. Since he has not made any reference or has given any extracts from the classical literature to support his proposition, we are unable to make any further comment on this point. However, we want to make it clear that the term semi-colony, colony and neo-colony are not identical terms. For example, even in post 2^nd world war communist literature, the term neo-colony ahs been used as a country which is politically free but is still  under imperialist economic exploitation. In Great Debate against Soviet Revisionism, India has been used by C.P.C. as newly independent country. “India tops the list of newly independent countries to which the Soviet Union gives econimic aid”( Page-146, The greate debate, Masline Publications, Nove 94, reprint).

Further, let us see what the 6^th Congress of the Communist International has to say on the question of national bourgeoisie :

‘The bourgeois-democratic revolution, consistently pursued, will be transformed into the proletarian revolution in those colonies and semi-colonies where the proletarian acts as leader and exercises hegemony over the movement --- In these countries the main task is to organize the workers and peasants independently in the communist party of the proletariat ….. and emancipate them from the influence of the bourgeoisie.’ 6^th Congress of Communist International : Programme of the Communist  International (September 1928), in Jane Degras : Volume 2; p. 507,522.

Further, in a resolution issued in 1927 runs as follows:

“The ECCI issued directives concerned with preparing the workers and peasants for struggle  against the bourgeoisie and their armed forces. This was a few months before Chiang Kai-Shek’s coup. Subsequent events….. confirmed the Comintern’s prediction : a radical regrouping of classes occurred, the bourgeoisie committed treachery and deserted to the enemy camp: the revolution moved on to a higher stage’ ibid p-393.

Further, Stalin observes as follows :

‘In  the first period of the Chinese Revolution …. The national bourgeoisie sided with the revolution. Chiang Kai-Shek’s coup marks the desertion of the national bourgeoisie from the revolution.’ J.V. Stalin : Question of the Chinese Revolution’ April 1927 Volume 9 p.226.

That India is a politically independent country and is not a colonial country is a fact. But to Mr. JPD the transformation of a country from colonial to politically independent country is not a major change, not a qualitative change. That is why he is unable to comprehend the changes in the co-relation of class forces, in the character of Indian State after 1947 and directly advocates tailism of ‘national bourgeoisie’ in the guise of fighting imperialism and that too form a petty-bourgeoisie position. While referring the acute decisive debate and struggle in the third decade of this century on the question of national bourgeoisie and its possible revolutionary role in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, he simply takes it granted  that it is also applicable to a country like India:

“This also means that all these propositions and attempts which purports to keep the national bourgeoisie  and a  democratic united front out of the revolutionary tactical line in colonial, semi-colonial  and neo-colonial countries are Trotskyits maneovaours  meant for sabotaging the revolution it self”.

Thus his so called ‘revolutionary tactics of alliance with the national bourgeoisie  is based  not on the actual observation of condition and circumstances of India but on the fact that strategy and tactics applicable in a colonial and semi-colonial country is also applicable in a ‘neo-colonial’ country like India. Here again we would like to refer the reader to the thesis of 6^th Congress which runs as follows:

“Temporary cooperation is permissible, and in certain circumstances even a temporary alliance, between the communist party and the national revolutionary movement, provided that the latter is genuine revolutionary movement, that it genuinely struggles against the ruling power, and that it’s representatives do not hamper the Communists in their work.”  6^th Congress, Communist International: Thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonial and Semi-Colonial Countries(September 1928 Jane Degra Vol 2 p.542.

We have already seen that representative of party of national  bourgeoisie also holds the comprador point of view and they only differ  in words and in deeds in so far as actual fight against imperialism is concerned. This simply indicates that the very conception and use of ‘national bourgeoisie’ and all talks of alliance with it in the name of four class alliance theory is nothing but right deviation and petty bourgeoisie illusion in the present Indian context. The conception of ‘national bourgeoisie’ of author infact contains agglomeration of different classes having diverse economic status and different economic political interest. It contains from the poor peasant to rich peasants, handicrafts to small , middle capitalist producers. Hundreds years of imperialist penetration, the development of capitalism through capital could do nothing but make this stratification intense. Now at this stage, we are bound to think over the question—whether this ‘national bourgeoisie’ as a whole become our friends ? From the ongoing discussion it appears that it can not. Therefore it is necessary  to identify and isolate those sections of bourgeoisie who are earning earning profit just equal to subsistence wage from those who are generating surplus. Only these sections can be isolated from the influence of bourgeoisie because their existence is in danger and they are nearer to the proletariat. And hence we can conclude that the only friends of the working class in the impending revolution can be the poor peasants, the handicrafts the petty bourgeoisie section earning profit more or less equal to subsistence wage and not the whole ‘national bourgeoisie’. Of course they are under the influence of different parties of bourgeoisie –comprador and national. But these bourgeoisie illusions can not long last. From the event of scandal after scandal, right from Chara Ghotala to Hawala Ghotala , from the total surrender of the parties of big bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie before their imperialist masters, they have learnt that they are not the true representatives of these people. But on the other hand they do not see any alternative other than one or other form of  bourgeoisie reformism. The need of the day is to organize them on true ground, for expropriation of private capital(both comprador and foreign) without which their conditions can not be improved. Only in this way they can become the true friends of working class in the impending revolution and can assist the working class in shaping the society in right direction, in fulfilling the historical mission of the proletariat, in emancipating the whole society from the slavery of capital (both foreign and national). Only in this way the strategy and tactics  of the working class party can become fully in consistent with the objective situation prevailing today in India.

Before we end, we want to address our author and put before him a straight forward question – your revolutionary strategy and tactics aim to expropriate which property – feudal property, private property of comprador class or private property of imperialist, i.e. foreign capital. The sins of private property have become so evident today that even without referring any theoretical ground, a program for its expropriation can be made a rallying point and, of course, a revolutionary point of departure from all rotten bourgeoisie and revisionist political trend.

Note : 1. National Bourgeoisie : It has been common to use the term national bourgeoisie  to refer to a fraction of the capitalist  class in underdeveloped  countries which is anti-imperialist. This implies that it is a potential allies of the working class in the anti-imperialist  struggle, a struggle characteristically supported  by the petty bourgeoisie  and the peasantry. Thus the term is normally defined with respect to role of a part of the bourgeoisie in the political sphere. This manner of defining the national bourgeoisie is rather unsatisfactory, however, since it presupposes contradiction between fractions of the local bourgeoisie and imperialism. The term ‘comprador bourgeiosie’ is applied to the portion of the local bourgeoisie which tends to ally itself  with imperialism. Some authors attempt distinguish these two fractions of the bourgeoisie in backward countries by their relation to the means of production. But this very definition is against the definition of class given by Lenin.

According to this method the comprador bourgeoisie is defined as the portion of the local capitalist class whose capital is in circulation (commerce, banking etc.) Involved exclusively in the circulation of commodities, this fraction of the local bourgeoisie is characteristically allied with capital from the imperialist countries, particularly MERCHANT CAPITAL. The national bourgeoisie, on the other hand, can be defined as the local bourgeoisie which has its capital in the sphere of production, within the national boundaries of the backward countries.