The Swing Back - Tridib Chaudhuri
In the new international set up of today — in the background of the altered correlationship of forces arising out of the increasing contradiction and conflicts of interest in the Anglo-American imperialist camp and the corresponding weakness and instability of the Indian bourgeoisie feeling threatened by the challenge of the rising mass-forces in India and South East Asia—the practical exigencies of Soviet foreign policy line, which determines the international tactical line for all Stalinist Communist party, demands a new mode of approach, tentatively at least, for tackling the ruling, Indian bourgeoisie. The Indian bourgeoisie have been compelled, as we have seen, to seek its own way to come to terms with the Sino-Soviet bloc to a certain extent in order to safeguard the basic structure of its own vested interests in this country without breaking off at the same time too radically from its Anglo-American moorings. lt is apparent to the Indian bourgeoisie that it will have to forge out a modus vivendi by somehow coming to an understanding with the Sino-Soviet bloc. This has naturally offered a new opportunity from the Soviet point of view to get its own foreign policy line vis-a-vis Anglo-American imperialism reinforced with the support of Indian for whatever it is worth. It has become urgently necessary therefore for the international Stalinist movement to give up the previous policy of negation and total opposition to the Indian bourgeoisie and make cautious advances toward them and to ask the CPI recast its policies accordingly.
The ruling section of the bourgeoisie may not be immediately willing to enter into an open alliance with the Sino-Soviet bloc in Asia because of their previous commitments to Anglo-American imperialism and specific entanglements with the empire-policies of the British Commonwealth. But there are other sections of the bourgeoisie who might be. Even the ruling section will be inclined to accord a greater weight to agreements in favour of aligning India with the Sino-Soviet bloc, if it finds that the opinion of a growing section of its own class including the middle and petty bourgeoisie, and the people in general, are strongly in favour of such an alignment. But in order to bring the bourgeoisie — ruling or non-ruling, 'big' or non-'big', 'pro-imperialist', 'potentially' anti-imperialist and 'anti imperialist'— round to that position, three essential requirements have to be fulfilled:
(1) they must be convinced in the first place, that it is essentially in their own interests (i.e. their own bourgeois class interests in the commercial and industrial development of India and the expansion of their overseas markets) that they must come closer to the Sino-Soviet bloc :
(2) they must be assured that the basic structure of capitalist vested-interests and capitalist property-relations are not in immediate jeopardy, or are not threatened by any "Moscow inspired" anti-capitalist or Socialist revolution fomented by 'Russian agents" i.e., by the Stalinist Communists here: and lastly,
(3) the bourgeoisie (both in and out of the ruling circle) must be reassured that the Communists here would not take an entirely negative and disruptionist attitude towards the Government of the day, (whichever party may be in power) or undermine its administrative structure as expressed in the past two years by any kind of disruptive tactics or armed insurrection but would be prepared to renounce those tactics openly and come back to the constitutional-political arena and co-operate with parties with whom they might agree on the policy level. It is only on this basis that the formation of a "united-front" with the "national" bourgeoisie would be possible and advantage could be taken of the situation where the Indian bourgeoisie are evincing an increasing eagerness for an independent understanding and alignment with the Sino-Soviet bloc in preference to their unilateral reliance on the Anglo-American imperialist bloc as hitherto.
In the overall plan of resistance to Anglo-American imperialism within the framework of US-Soviet power politics — that is the essence of the new political stand which the Indian Communist party is inevitably called upon to take by its international leadership to-day.
Throwing out of Ranadive, condemnation of the Calcutta Thesis, tirade against the newly discovered 'left-sectarian', 'opportunist' Trotskyist deviations of the line followed blindly and unquestioningly during the past two years (because that line had at that time the hall-mark of 'international' approval and sanction from international Stalinist leadership), the orgy of penitent self-criticism, glorification of Mao and China-way, loud blares about the "correct policy" of Mao "in dealing with the national bourgeoisie," and the Mao conception of "united dictatorship of several anti-imperialist classes including the national bourgeoisie", advocacy of the necessity of allowing capitalism to continue for a long period to come in the name of an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal People's Democratic Revolution, total denial of the immediate historic perspective of the overthrow of capitalism or that of a Socialist revolution — all these logically follow as inevitable consequences from that basic position viz: United front with the national bourgeoisie.
United front with the national bourgeoisie was the essence of the political line of the CPI in the pre-1948 days under Joshi. From People's War united front with British imperialism the party then stepped down a rung in the ladder and sought alliance with the Congress Leadership and the bourgeoisie who coming into power in the crest of a popular mass upsurge by entering into a backdoor compromisist deal with the British Government.
United Front with the Congress leadership basking in the full glory of national adulation by the naively trustful masses of the people — would be surest way, Joshi had hoped, to politically rehabilitate CPI in the eyes of the masses. But he forgot that the new alliance that was forged between the Indian bourgeoisie and Anglo-American imperialism on the basis of the so-called 'transfer of power' and 'independence' was primarily directed agaist the USSR and the democratic 'people's camp', and that Anglo-American imperalism had already deserted the 'camp of the people.' He forgot, in other words, that it was impossible for the People's War coalition to continue for long in the post-war period and could not foresee that the fact of its break-up was soon going to be announced by Zhdanov who would lay down an over-all plan of resistance to Anglo-American (or more precisely American) imperialism. The indiscretion committed by Joshi constituted the fact of his eagerness to rehabilitate the party politically after People's War betrayal by currying favour with the Congress leadership and thus he carried forward the understanding of the war-period to the post-war, which inevitably came into conflict with the requirements of Soviet foreign policy in the background of the growing estrangement, power-rivalry and hostility between Anglo-America and the USSR. Joshi was therefore made to take leave with the slur of reformism labelled on his head.
United front with the bourgeoisie — that precisely was the essence of Joshi-ite reformism also. How did this reformism find expression? "After the partition of India" points out Maslennikov (another leading India-expert of the CPSU), the "leadership of the Communist Party took the decision to support the bourgeois" (mark, not big bourgeois) "Nehru Government and decided on the 'expediency' of forming a united national front from Gandhi to the Communists." "This reformist line was strongly criticised and condemned" he adds with evident approval, in the Second Congress of the Communist Party of India which took place in February-March, 1948." both Ranadive and Joshi now seem to be agreed that it was an essentially 'opportunistic' 'class-collaborationist 'Menshevik' line, a line of complete surrender to bourgeois nationalism and nothing else (for Joshi's opinions on his own past mistakes see : Views No. 1). After the 'leftist' hay-fever of the past two years and playing with the tactics of combining the "most elementary" forms of struggle with the "most advanced," petition filing before Industrial Tribunals with wielding of arms in the Telengana way essentially in the hope of pushing the masses to the position where they will echo the party's slogan for ending the bourgeois governments," after two years of continuous encouragement from the international leadership in their fight against the government of the bourgeoisie, the party is now being told to change its tactics and form a broad "nationwide united front" with "all classes, parties and groups willing to defend the national independence and freedom of India" including the national bourgeoisie.
There will be fight henceforth against Anglo-American imperialists alone, also against the "reactionary" big bourgeoisie (presumably there may be some "progressive" big-bourgeois groups.1 still lurking here and there; or it may be that some of the big-bourgeois leaders who have been playing a reactionary role uptil now may turn progressive. But in any case, it is specifically the "reactionary" ones who will have to be fought, and feudal princes who are collaborating with the imperialists — but not against "national bourgeoisie" as such) or their government. The "national bourgeoisie" who are collaborating with imperialism are to be treated "as an ally" as Li Li-San pointed out in his speech before the Trade Union Conference of Asian and Australasian countries in Peking last November!
The Cominform directive does not of course ask the Indian Communists to support the Nehru Government specifically or immediately enter into an united front with the Congress leaders as Joshi did in 1947. The Cominform apparently puts forward unexceptionable suggestions about forming 'a nation-wide united-front' with all anti-imperialist classes in the China fashion. It quotes Liu Shao-Chi only to emphasize that the path taken by Chinese people under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung and the Chinese Communist Party, is the path that should be taken by the people of India and the Indian Communist Party also. This is apparently all. But the pointer is clear. Consult Mao, follow the China-way and find out your allies from the rich peasants, petty-bourgeoisie, important sectors of the middle bourgeoisie, even from willing big-bourgeois groups also if opportunity arises in the fight against America and Anglo-America and their collaborators in the fight for the defence of the "national independence and freedom of India." For, has not Mao definitely said that "the new democratic revolution is to eliminate only feudalism and monopoly capitalism, only the landlord class and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie (collaborating with imperialism) — not capitalism in general". and that" it will be still necessary to permit the existence, for a long period of the capitalist economy represented by the broad petty-bourgeoisie and the middle bourgeoisie even after the nation wide victory of the revolution"?
Then how can you exclude any body or any section of the bourgeoisie at this stage — when the nation-wide victory of revolution has not yet been achieved in India
There are good reasons too why Nehru or the Congress Government of India has not been mentioned by name openly as possible allies. In the first place it should be remembered that the position of Nehru Government is still "ambiguous" to a great extent in the Stalinist point of view (Berezhkov) owing to its past Anglo-American affiliation which it has not yet cut off. In the second place, Zhukov has clearly pointed out that "the progressive character of this or that social movement, revolutionary or reactionary nature of this or that party is at the present time determined by its attitude, towards the Soviet Union, to the camp of democracy and Socialism." Zhukov specifically applied this criterion in the case of the colonial bourgeoisie. "The controversy as to at what stage the colonial bourgeoisie begins to play a reactionary role" (or a revolutionary role), "can be solved only" under the conditions when an answer is given to this main question —" i.e. attitude towards the SU. The attitude of the Indian Communists to a united front with Nehru and the Congress Government will as a matter of course be decided concretely as concrete circumstances arise. But the way cannot be barred by obstinately and dogmatically clinging to the formulation of the Second Congress thesis of the CPI that henceforth "every step forward of the popular struggle is to be taken not only in opposition to imperialism but in opposition to the bourgeoisie also."
Nehru may not immediately come in the "broad nationwide United front." Moreover, the question of extending all-out support to Nehru will not in any case arise till Nehru makes his attitudes less "ambiguous" with regard to the 'democratic' camp.
But if the entire "national" bourgeoisie is included in the enemy camp along with imperialism, and if the threat is held out that the people's Democratic revolution will be directed not only against the Anglo-American imperialist camp but also for the 'simultaneous' building up of Socialism, then not only will no ally be found from the ranks of the big bourgeoisie, but also middle bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeosie will not be inclined to come. So the line of the Calcuta thesis has to be scrapped now in the interest of a "broad nationwide united front" with the "national" bourgeoisie. The only difference between this "broad nation-wide united front" suggested by the Cominform Editorial and the pre-1948 "united national front" advocated by Joshi is that instead of employing the abstract class term (an algebraic term one may say) 'national bourgeoisie', Joshi mentioned Nehru Government and the Congress leaders by name—without taking into account Nehru Government's affiliations with Anglo-America and the two-camp division of the world and without putting forward before that Government the crucial categorical demand for entering into a closer alliance with the Soviet camp. But there is absolutely no fundamental difference from the point of view of its class content.
In order to direct the minds of the CPI ranks to the necessity of seeking, "fellow travellers" from the camp of the 'national bourgeoisie' as distinguished from its ruling section, clear hints have been thrown by Soviet India experts from time to time as to the particular capitalist groups who might come with them and may support them against the government (provided the movement is directed against imperialism and feudalism only and not against capitalism as such or the capitalist class). Based on A. M. Dyakov's thesis that the agreement between British imperialism and Indian big bourgeoisie was an alliance of the former with Gujrati and Marwari capitalist alone the suggestion was developed that individual groupings from the national bourgeoisie particularly those of other nationalities whose interests are adversely affected by the alliance between foreign capital and the Gujrati-Marwari group might be brought in. The first self-critical statement of the Ranadivite Polit-Bureau after publication of the Cominform Editorial expressed its willingness to explore these possibilities. As a typical instance of the lines on which the party's mind is working, the sudden anxiety displayed by the Bengal Provincial Committee of the CPI in their criticism of the PB about the ruin of Bengali banks and Bengali trade and industries in the "unequal competition" with Tatas and Birlas (although the Tatas are neither Gujrati nor a Marwari firm) may be cited (Bengal PC statement of 14.4.50). In other words attempts will be made from now onwards to bring the dissatisfied and disgruntled Bengali bankers and industrialists (and their counterparts in other provinces) in the "broad nation-wide united front" to the formation of which the Cominform Editorial Board directs the Indian Communists. It is easy to see that distinction between this united front and the united national front advocated by Joshi would be less than that between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, but for the 'ambiguous' foreign policy manoeuvres of Nehru against which Berezhkov complains. If Nehru cares to remove those ambiguities and brings India nearer to the Sino-Soviet bloc then perhaps even the 'bourgeois' Nehru Government would not remain untouchable for long.
In the meantime we may expect to witness ardent Communist pleadings for Bengali banking and Bengali industrial development, a sight which would be worth even for the gods to see!
All this is being done on the specious theoretical plea-advanced with authoritative citations from Stalin and Mao Tse-tung that India is still a colonial country with ruling power concentrated in the hands of British imperialism and native princes and their big bourgeois collaborators, and the struggle in India is primarily a colonial national liberation struggle where the 'national" bourgeoisie or a section of it 'may for some time' play a revolutionary role (Stalin).
That the colonial bourgeoisie may under certain circumstances play a progressive role, to a certain limited extent, with regard to the national liberation struggle in colonial and dependent countries is however elementary Marxism-Leninism. The strangest part of the whole affair is that these ABC principles are being hurled at the party now after so many years! Quotations are lifted from Stalin's writings of 25 years ago in order to prove that the Indian bourgeoisie is now split into two sections as Stalin had foreseen—the treacherous reformist section represented by the 'big' bourgeoisie who are collaborating with imperialism and had entered into a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of their own country, and the revolutionary section and from that premise is deduced the necessity of concentrating fire on the compromising and collaborationist section of the national bourgeoisie and entering into a united front with the revolutionary section.
The particular passage which is often referred to in this connection occurs in Stalin's address to the University of the Toilers of the East at Taskhent in May, 1925. His speech had particular reference to conditions obtaining in different colonial countries then, i.e., 1925, nearly three decades back from to-day.
It should be particularly noted that Stalin was at that time especially concerned to emphasize the difference in the political situation and class alignments of different colonial countries and the tasks that confronted the respective Communist Parties of those countries at that time, in the different concrete set up of their respective countries.
Briefly, he divided the colonial countries into three categories (I) industrially undeveloped colonies, like Morocco, which have almost no proletariat and where the national bourgeoisie had yet no grounds for splitting into a revolutionary party and a compromising party; (2) countries like China and Egypt, which were industrially less developed with a comparatively small proletariat, and where the bourgeoisie was split, but the compromising section had not as yet welded itself to imperialism; and (3) capitalistically developed colonies like India, where the compromising section had treachrously gone over to imperialism and formed bloc with the latter. He wanted the Communists in India to form a united front — "a national revolutionary anti-imperialist bloc" — the working class would try to ensure its hegemony step by step by dislodging the bourgeoisie from the position of leadership over the liberation movement.
It will be evident to everybody that Stalin's analysis had direct relevance to conditions when a split occurred in the Indian National Congress after the Constitutional reforms introduced by the British Government in 1918-19, the break-away of the moderate leaders from the Congress and the formation of the Liberal Party which entered into direct collaboration with British imperialism, on the basis of sham Diarchical Reforms in the provincial sphere. It will also be evident that this split, or the subsequent split in the leadership of the Congress between the Gandhians and the Swarajists after the collapse of the non-cooperation movement and the betrayal of the bourgeois leadership of the Congress in 1921, or the going over of a handful political leaders from the top-notch section of big bourgeois representatives to the side of imperialism without any semblance of a share in actual political power (which was concentrated in the hands of irresponsible imperialist bureaucrats) and the going-over of the major bourgeois party in the country viz: the Congress (as well as the Liberals) to an alliance with British imperialism on the basis of formal transfer of power and the international recognition of India as an independent Sovereign State in 1947, do not stand on the same par, either politically or socio-historically. This 'transfer of power' has, it is true, given the masses of Indian people no more than a semblance of independence. It has not been in any sense a transfer of power (the right of self-determination) to the masses of the people or their freedom. But the substantial legal and constitutional reality of the transfer of power to the bourgeoisie and recognition of the independent Sovereign Status of India as a state are also there.
Unless it were so, there would be no point in making the slogan of “the defence of the national independence and freedom of India” the basic slogan for the coming phase of mass struggles in Inida as was done by Cominform Editorial article. Neither would there be any point in raising the demand that Nehru Government should enter into an alliance with democratic camp led by the Sino-Soviet bloc. How could he enter into such alliance without any semblance of power?
What use would the reformist colonial bourgeoisie of India make of the formal sovereign power granted to them is a seperate matter. We all know that the Indian bourgeoisie would be the last to cut off their subservient imperialist colonial entanglements. But that does not do away with the fact that the Indian bourgeoisie as the new ruling class have the absolute legal and political power in their hands to extricate themselves from those entanglements and enter into whatever international alliances and diplomatic line-up they like by virtue of the independent Sovereign status of India. It should not be forgotten that it is the bourgeois Congress government under Nehru which has kept India interlinked with the British Commonwealth—not British imperialism, or British Parliament.
Transfer of formal sovereign power and constitutionally unfettered ruling authority into their hands (i.e. the bourgeoisie) formed as a matter of fact the basis of the alliance between Indian bourgeoisie and Anglo-American imperialism. Moreover it should also be noted that this final act of compromise between imperialism and the Congress as the major bourgeois party has not led to any split in the camp of the bourgeoisie. Liberals, illiberals, Gandhians Swarajists, parliamentarians, non-parliamentarians, former ‘lefts’ and ‘Socialists’ are all united behind the ruling party — viz: the Congress and its government. Why? The significance of this major fact should not be overlooked—it is because this means that the entire Indian bourgeoisie feel that they i.e., the class for itself, have got command over ruling power to-day. When we speak of the revolutionary section of the anti-imperialist bourgeoisie today in Stalin’s sense of the term employed 25 years ago, we must also ask ourselves who are they? What are their organizations? What are their political organizations and platforms? Have the Bengali bankers and industrialists and the stalwarts of Bengal National Chamber of Commerce ranged in revolutionary array with the workers and peasants against Gujrati-Marwari collaborators of imperialism?
Self-contradictions undoubtedly there are; and there must be, amongst the various strata and groups of the bourgeoisie : some are in actual governmental power, some are out of it. The middle and petty-bourgeoisie, small manufacturers etc., are often in sharp conflict with the big bourgeoisie. The party of the working class must take advantage of these. But does that mean that the “national” bourgeoisie, or a major section of it, are split from the big bourgeoisie in the same sense in which Stalin spoke in 1925?
It is clear to any Marxist-Leninist beyond any shadow of doubt that self-contradictions in the camp of the bourgeoisie cannot be used as a plea for class-collaboration or alliance with the latter. And it is also clear that here isolated sentences torn from their context from the entirely correct Leninist analysis given by Stalin with reference to conditions obtaining in India 25 years ago, are being sought to be used, now in 1950, as a cover for a “broad nation-wide united front” with the “national bourgeoisie” and open class-collaboration in the expectation that the support of this bourgeoisie might be pressed into service for aligning India with the Sino-Soviet bloc.
It should be noted however that Stalin did not plead even then, in favour of a “broad nation-wide front” in which the “national bourgeoisie” was also to be included. The exact word of Stalin’s directive contained in the address to UTE were as follows:
“To set up a national revolutionary-bloc of workers, peasants and revolutionary intelligentsia against the bloc of the compromising national bourgeoisie and imperialism.”
The “national” bourgeoisie had no place in this revolutionary anti-imperialist bloc of which Stalin spoke in 1925.
This was of course long before the days of “peaceful co-existence of capitalism and Socialism side by side” and “people’s Democracy. 2
The entire theoretical basis of the new stand of the CPI and the Mao version of People’s Democracy stands or falls with objective verity of the contention that India is a colonial country still, even after ‘transfer of power’ to the Indian bourgeoisie, and it is primarily a bourgeois-democratic revolution which historically remains as the order of the day, even now. And, if India is a colonial country even now, then there can be no sense in talking of a Socialist revolution, or basing the strategy and tactics of the working class party on those of a proletarian Socialist revolution for the overthrow of capitalism and the building up of Socialism. There can be no “one-stage” revolution or skipping-over of the democratic stage. This again is elementary Marxism-Leninism. It is from the premise or contention of the backward stage of economic development of a colonial country that Mao Tse Tung’s arguments about “the necessity of permitting the existence for a long period of the capitalist economy.......even after the nationwide victory of the revolution” are deduced. The same set of arguments are now being applied to India also, in order to prove that Socialism is nowhere near about the order of the day in the coming phase of mass struggles in India. The entire perspective is that of a democratic revolution or a democratic anti-imperialist national liberation struggle, and of the strategy of broad nationwide united front including the “national liberation movement.
The bourgeoisie must be treated as an ally and all talk of Socialism or Socialist revolution must stop because India is a colonial country.
No Marxist-Leninist would perhaps contend (except the renegade M. N. Roy) that because British imperialism has handed over power to the Indian bourgeoisie, through a backdoor compromisist deal arrived with latter as a mutual safeguard against the rising post-war revolutionary upsurge, India has been decolonised. Lenin had pointed out long ago in his classic analysis of the imperialist phase of capitalism that an essentially colonial status is not entirely incompatible with formal political independence and sovereignty.
Finance capital is such great..., such a decisive force in all economic and international relations, that it is capable of subordinating to itself,and actually does subordinate to itself, even states enjoying complete political independence (Imperialism : P74, Selected Works).
Hence he referred to a variety of forms of dependence, to :
countries which formally are politically independent, but which are, in fact, enmeshed in a net of financial and economic dependence.
The transfer of full political rights and sovereign power to the Indian bourgeoisie means that the order of colonial status has been radically overhauled on the basis of practical political and economic exigencies of the highest stage of finance-capitalism and its inevitable post-war crisis. Threatened by the impact of an almost insuperable economic crisis on the one hand, and by the tidal waves of revolutionary mass upheavals in.the colonies themselves on the other, this overhauling and readjustment of the previously existing political and economic relationship of Britain with India in collusion with the national bourgeoisie, was under the circumstances, the only possible way out for crisis-ridden British imperialism. While considering the significances of this overhauling of the colonial status of India and the transition to a new or higher, or more subtle, disguised form of that status i.e. the status of financial and diplomatic dependence in spite of formal political independence—the satellite status) we must not loose sight of the following two basic facts:
1) That political power has been transferred to the Indian bourgeoisie, and the Indian bourgeoisie represented by the leadership of the Congress was installed in the position of direct ruling authority in place of imperialism vis-a-vis the masses.
2) That India is not a backward colonial country industrially undeveloped, with little or no proletariat or a comparatively small proletariat, say like Indo-China, Morocco or even China; it has rather been always regarded as a capitalistically developed colony with a comparatively large proletariat (and a politically mature and comparatively well-organised national bourgeoisie).
The self-expansion of this bourgeoisie in the period between two world wars and the relative importance of their share in the capital invested in banking, trade and industries in this country— particularly during the second world war-has also to be borne in mind. This has not certainly made them co-equals of the British or American finance-capitalists, or the capitalists of the advanced metropolitan countries, either in economic power or the international ramifications of their vested interests. Neither has their financial or political dependence on British and American capitalists become any less thereby. But the increase in the relative share of the Indian bourgeoisie in the exploitation of the Indian market, their self-expansion i.e., combined with the transfer of political power in their hands and their installation to the position of the new ruling class in place of foreign imperialism, as well as the recognition of the formal sovereign independent status of India, which cannot but involve a corresponding shift in the class alignments and correlationship of forces in India are factors which a Marxist-Leninist could ill afford to ignore.
We are confronted with the same historical situation the possibility of which Lenin envisaged in the context of the bourgeois democratic phase of revolution in Russia as early as 1905 :
If the forces of revolutionary working class and peasantry prove inadequate for a decisive victory (of the revolution over Tsarism) the matter will end in a deal between Tsarism and the most ‘inconsistent’ and most ‘self-seeking’ elements of the bourgeoisie....Tsarism will have the time to conclude the deal which is already in preparation by Messieurs the Bulygins on the one side and Messieurs the Struves on the other...The whole thing will end in a curtailed constitution, or if the worst comes to the worst, in a travesty of a constitution. This will be an abortive, half-baked bourgeois revolution.
Are we not also witnessing a similar process of an abortive, miscarried, half baked bourgeois-democratic revolution in India with the bourgeoisie installed in ruling power through a backdoor compromisist deal with imperialism?
The coming to power of the bourgeoisie do not certainly mean that the fundamental tasks of bourgeois-democratic revolution have been completed. But it means that within the generic colonial and dependent status of India—(‘a capitalistically developed colonial country’ —Stalin) there has occurred a transfer of direct ruling power from the hands of one class viz: British finance-capitalism and native feudalism to the hands of another viz: the native Indian bourgeoisie. To that extent, and to that extent only, the bourgeois-democratic revolution has been completed in a “truncated, half-baked, abortive manner” as Lenin envisaged and from a colony under the direct rule of British imperialism and native feudalism India became a semi-colonial, satellite capitalist state dependent on British finance-capital (one of the ‘transitional’ forms of dependence and subservience to finance-capital and imperialism to which Lenin drew our attention in ‘Imperialism’) with the national bourgeoisie, and not imperialism-feudalism, as the direct ruling power.
The stock-argument of present day Stalinists against this characterisation of the political and economic status of India is that a historical analogy drawn from the Russian context does not apply to India. Because Russia was an imperialist country whereas India is a colonial country; and the fundamental distinction drawn between the situation in an imperialist country and a colonial country is one of the basic elementary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
This is undeniably true. But at the sametime we must not also forget that Russia was far from the status of the most advanced finance capitalistic and metropolitan imperialist country of the same order as that of Britain, France, Germany or USA. Russia was an ‘imperialist’ country where queerly enough even the bourgeois-democratic phase of revolution was not completed and feudal autocracy continued to rule till February 1917. The bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia was not as a matter of fact completed till the Socialist phase of revolution began in October 1917. Russia was thus an ‘imperialist’ country where a feudal aristocracy, instead of the finance-capitalistic bourgeoisie, was the direct ruling class till February 1917. The entire economic life of Russia was under the absolute domination of foreign finance-capitalism (predominantly French & British) till the Socialist revolution of October 1917. Hence Lenin did not characterise Tsarist Russia simply as an ‘imperialist’ country without any qualification, but rather as a ‘militarist-feudal’ imperialist country, (cf. Stalin, ‘Foundations of Leninism’ Pp. 16-17). The socio-historical and political significance of this specific Leninist characterisation of Russian imperialism must in no case be lost sight of. To the extent that Russia remained under the domination of feudal autocracy and foreign finance-capitalism, to the extent that the bourgeois-democratic revolution remained unfulfilled there, to that extent the historical situation in Russia was bound to have certain broad similarities to the situation of colonial and semi-colonial countries like India. For the strategic objective of revolution in these countries and in Tsarist Russia was broadly the same, in first instance viz: the overthrow of the rule of feudalism and foreign finance-capitalism. In countries like India foreign finance-capitalism ruled directly in alliance with a subservient feudal aristrocracy and princedom. In Russia foreign finance-capitalism ruled indirectly behind the facade of the seemingly absolute, militarist-autocratic rule of Tsarism and native feudalism.
We would degenerate into hair-brained dogmatists if we simply go on repeating by rote that Russia was an ‘imperialist’country and ‘India’ remains a ‘colonial’ country, without taking into account the concrete distinguishing features between an imperialist country and an imperialist country, those between a colony and a colony. As a matter of fact as Lenin pointed out in 1917 that “the division of the world into two principal groups—of colony owning (imperialist) countries on the one hand and colonies on the other—is not the only typical feature of this period, there is also a variety of forms of dependence.” Logically this implies that there are a corresponding variety of inter-linking or interweaving (cf. Stalin, ibid pp 17-19) ot tne oourgeois-democratic and Socialist tasks of revolution confronting the proletariat of different countries. Stalin also drew our attention to this cardinal historic fact in 1925 in his address to the UTE with reference to colonial East:
The peculiarity of the colonies and dependent countries at the present time is that a single and all embracing colonial East no longer exists. In earlier days the colonial East was pictured as something single and homogeneous. This picture no longer corresponds to the truth.
It was on this basis that Stalin drew a fundamental distinction between conditions in China and those in India. And his disciples today, would however seek to quote the self-same Stalin, with glosses from Mao, in order to prove that because India is a colonial country, so India must follow the China-way; and because India must follow the China-way, so it will be necessary to stop all talks about Socialist Revolution and to permit the prolonged existence of Capitalism even after the ‘nation-wide’ victory of democratic revolution. The latest Mao version of Stalinism and Mao Tse-Tung’s theory about “the necessity of permitting the existence of capitalism for a long period” on the plea of economic backwardness of colonial countries, not only militates against the earlier Lenin-Stalin theory about concrete historical peculiarities subsisting between imperialist countries each other and those between colonial countries amongst themselves, they equally militate against Lenin’s celebrated admonition about the interrelation between the democratic and Socialist phases of revolution in the present day world. “To attempt to raise an aritficial Chinese wall between the democratic and the Socialist revolutions” said Lenin in 1917 — ”to seperate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants means monstrously, to distort Marxism, to vulgarise it, to substitute liberalism in its place.”
The present day Mao-Stalinists of India precisely resort to this sort of distortion and vulgarisation of Marxism by postulating the “economic backwardness” of colonies as the reason for envisaging a prolonged existence of capitalism after the victory of democratic revolution even in the case of “capitalistically developed” colonies such as India. In former times these would be regarded as nothing but Menshevik deviations pure and simple.
It must however be pointed out here in legitimate defence of Mao, that when he spoke of the necessity of permitting the prolonged existence of capitalism in China (a thoroughly Menshevik conception though,) he had in mind the context of “the backwardness of Chinese economy.” He atleast did not originally confuse between the conditions obtaining in India with those in China in the manner of his Indian followers.
The China-way of Mao was however foisted on India and on all colonial countries by the Cominform leadership in order to bring round the Indian Party to the course of class-collaboration and appeasement of the “national” bourgeoisie, to the course of seeking “fellow travellers” from capitalist ranks. For a denial of the prespective of a Socialist revolution in the name of democratic national liberationist struggle in the colonies or a colonial national revolution at once opens the way for an alliance (however temporary) with the ‘national’ bourgeoisie, on which pretext issues of proletarian class-struggle against the capitalists and against capitalism as such may be subsumed under the larger issue of the national-liberation struggle against foreign imperialism. That is the precise historic meaning of the China-way.
It goes without saying of course, that the smashing of the imperialist, finance-capitalist thraldom to which the ruling Indian bourgeoisie have kept the masses of Indian people yoked till now in their own interest, is one of the major historical tasks of coming phase of revolution. Overthrow and liquidation of feudalism is an equally fundamental task which the Indian proletariat will have to undertake in that phase. But as Lenin pointed out repeatedly, the most crucial issue in all revolutions is constituted by the question of power, and which class wields that power at any particular historical moment. For it is only by overthrowing that class that the proletariat could hope to place itself in the position wherefrom to solve the problems of revolution and carry out the historic tasks that confront it. In the specific historical context of India where the bourgeoisie have been installed to the position of a ruling class in collusion with imperialism, the tasks of the democratic revolution will have to be carried out by methods of class struggle, and a class revolution waged against the bourgeoisie, and by overthrowing the ruling bourgeoisie from power. The anti-imperialist and anti-feudal democratic phase of the revolution certainly remain on the historic order of the day. But in order to carry out the task of that phase, we have first to overthrow and dislodge the capitalist class from power. Because it is the power of the capitalist class and bourgeois-dom which acts as the defence barrier or cover for imperialist exploitation. This means, in other words, that to the extent that power is wielded by the Indian capitalist class as the new ruling authority, the historical perspective of an anti-capitalist, Socialist revolution, a revolution for the overthrow of the rule of capital, for totally doing away with all vestiges of imperialist feudal exploitation and carrying forward the democratic revolution to its logical culmination, for establishing the rule of toilers and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and passing over on that basis to the phase of Socialist revolution—also comes to the fore front.
Formerly the denial of the perspective of the Socialist revolution in such historical conditions as those in India today, where the bourgeoisie is installed in actual ruling power, on the plea of the democratic phase of revolution, would be condemned even by Stalinists themselves as unalloyed Menshevik deviation from the line of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. “This current objection (against the perspective of a Socialist Revolution) one that is usually raised in the bourgeois, Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik press”, Lenin pointed out thirtythree years ago — “is nothing but a reactionary defence of backward capitalism” (cf. India). “We are not ripe for Socialism, it is claimed, it is too early to ‘introduce’ Socialism, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, and therefore we must be the menials of the bourgeoisie.”
Lenin further added,
The pseudo-Marxist servitors of the bourgeoisie who argue in this way do not understand, what imperialism is, what capitalist monopoly is, what the State is, and what revolutionary democracy is. For if they did understand, they would be bound to admit that there can be no progress without an advance towards Socialism.
The only difference between ‘pseudo-Marxist servitors of the bourgeoisie’ in Lenin’s days and their confreres now, lies in the fact that instead of expressing a desire “to become menials of bourgeoisie” they arrogate to themselves the proud position of the “friends and allies” of the bourgeoisie, and seek to treat the bourgeoisie not as “national enemies but allies.” That is the basic content of the China-way and the Cominform directive to CPI.
1. Certain sections of the "big bourgeoisie" do as a matter of fact place themselves in the "broad nation-wide united front" in the Stalinist conception of People's Democracy. This has been clearly pointed out by the American Stalinist writer Frederick. V. Field early last year in course of explaining Mao Tse-Tung's Thesis of New Democracy. "The vital social forces of the new democracy" comments Field after giving a quotation from Mao about multi-class united dictatorship, "are the proletariat, the peasants, the intelligentsia, and other petty bourgeois elements... The coalition will also include important sectors of the middle bourgeoisie and certain sections of the big bourgeoisie". (Pol, affairs, Jan. 1949).
2. For the full text of Stalin’s address see: ‘On the Colonial question’— Lenin, Stalin, Zhukov.