Relevance of Bhagat Singh: A Tribute to birth centenary

Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of history, to exclaim with Goethe:
“Sollte these Qual uns quälen Da sie unsre Lust vermehrt, Hat nicht myriaden Seelen Timur’s Herrschaft aufgezehrt?”
[“Should this torture then torment us Since it brings us greater pleasure? Were not through the rule of Timur Souls devoured without measure?”]
[From Goethe’s “An Suleika”, Westöstlicher Diwan]

Marx quoted above in his wrting " British rule in India".

Bhagat Singh

His dreams are still dreamed by youth in South Asia. He was reading Lenin just before he was hanged and said to the police, "hold a minute, now a revolutionary meet an another revolutionary."

Anant Kanhare – hanged on 19.4.1910

Marching fearlessly after his arrest

These kinds of daring/passion are already somehow lost, what we see is salaried patriotism.

The exemplary courage and fearlessness, and total contempt towards the atrocities and punishments of the Britishers shown by revolutionaries, inspired young generation so much that they continued their valiant fight against British rule without any consideration for the safety of their life.

Sanyasi Revolutionary – died on 6.5.1924

Alluri Sitaram known as “Raju”, organized hill men and tribal of Vishakhapattam and Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh in Nov 1920. His main struggle was against govt. officials. Though Alluri was recognized as a religious man, he with the help of his two lieutenants Mallu Dorey and Gautom Dorey known as “Gam Brothers” began to attack police stations. On 23.9.1922 they destroyed an army contingent with two British commanders and 30 sept they totally destroyed one police barrack. In one of the fight against huge british army Alluri died along with his twelve comrades.
The “Gam Brothes” continued their fight against British authorities till their death.

Khudiram Bose - Hanged on 11.8.1908

For their writings against Bengal partition, some editors of Bengal were given harsh punishments by Kingsford, the magistrate of Kolkata. The daring deed of avenging this cruel act was entrusted to Khudiram and Prafull kumar. On 30.4.1908 they made unsuccessful attempt on the Kingsford and killing by mistake two British ladies. Prafull kumar committed suicide when he was encountered by police and Khudiram was executed on Majafferpur jail.

Santhal Sidhu – 1855

There is no such important national monument named after him, nothing goes after his name now, when lot place, forest, sports etc are flooded with name after members of one family, who virtually rule India as dynastic ruler.

Under the leadership of Sidhu thousand of “Santhal” declared their aims to overthrow the rule of East India Company. Around 30 to 50 thousand Santhal killed in the fight against British army.

Maulavi Ahmedshah – Died on 1858

He was courageous leader and brilliant commander. He organized a band of 80000 soldiers and drove away the British army from Ayodha (Yes, same Ayodha where Ram janambhumi conflicts still going on). However a treacherous Raja killed him.

Pics courtesy: Chapekar museum

Below a conversation with a young Trotskyist friend
( He is 21 and interested in having an Ukrainian girl friend in near future. )

Here his input:

(italic text in bracket are my opinions)

On the permanent crisis of capitalism:

However, instead of permanent “crisis” I would prefer the terminology of permanent decay which more correctly brings out the fundamental character of the epoch of imperialism which we are in today. Competition from major branches of economy stand eliminated and substituted by monopoly capital. This is correct insofar as it reveals the predatory nature of monopoly however, competition on the whole has not been eliminated but rather replaced from the preceding free market competition to monopoly competition which brings out a much more aggravated , more reactionary and bloodthirsty nature of capitalism which is predatory in itself.

Imperialist globalization sounds a bit of an oxy moron. Globalization per se cannot be construed as imperialism as we understand it. To consider the same is to accept a Maoist / third-worldist perspective which considers the third world and the imperialist world as a homogenous whole. This is a flawed super-internationalist perspective that ignores altogether the very existence of nation-states which is a stark contradicting reality of the times. For the backward nations themselves I would further like to add, a uniform progress has hardly been reached by globalization and imperialism. For some nations globalization has appeared to bring about immense economic growth through tech transfer and access to international finance markets etc like India and China. For others it has brought about mass pauperization. Latin America and Africa are examples to that effect as well as some South East Asian countries like Indonesia. (I say in general all the same in all third world countries, unequal growth and misery to maximum number of peoples)

Brain-dead free market fundamentalists who have little to offer but they only to make astrologers look good. I cannot however, appreciate the following point as much which appears to avoid mention of the rise of the USA as an imperialist power as well as Japan over the decaying corpse of European imperialism which threw up the most reactionary capitalist institution yet seen in the form of fascism. The nature of the prolonged crisis of capitalism itself is more complex than in presented here which was shown by a crisis of overproduction and subsequent destruction of massive capital in the form of world war I and world war II each succeeding prolonged and painfully exploitative periods of deflation in which holders of credit are favored more than borrowers. Generally speaking it has summarized some of the key economic developments of the post world war reconstruction period which showed flawed efforts at controlling the tremendous financial mess threw up by the preceding periods however an omission has been made on the mention of the usury institution of the petro-dollar by America as a substitution of the gold standard. The succeeding section seems to summarize the character of the crisis of 1973 correctly as a crisis of overproduction wherein the resumption of global trajectory of capitalism was revived. In addition to this I would say this phase marked the end of productive reconstruction of capitalism in which finance capital temporarily played down. The same section should ideally have also included the phase b/w 1945 and 1973 in which there were global mass movements of the proletariat which were put down by the dual combination of fierce oppression and Stalinist bureaucratic treachery. The latter aspect is especially significant for our purposes of exposing the weaknesses of Stalinism.

On the whole a negative omission of the political role of the Stalinist bureaucracy which played on the whole a dirigiste / protectionist role which acted in the best as a stop gap against imperialism and in the worst case as an agency of imperialism to restrain the revolutionary proletarian movements throughout the world. The current condition of the post Stalinist world and we may say that an implicit admission was made therein of the stop-gap like role played by world Stalinism against imperialism.

On World Economy and the Nation State:

The relations between the nation-state and world capitalism, as a whole is presented here as inherent contradiction between an economic system that socializes and a socio-political structure of the nation state which acts as a barrier to the same. Thus we see dialectical relation b/w imperialism and the nation-state. A dialectical relation is exists no doubt. My disagreement with the instant relation lies is in its presentation of the socio-political entity of the nation state as the main harbinger of capitalism. Historically, the emergence of the modern bourgeoisie nation-state appeared with the negation of the old feudal structure which subdued all political relations which would act in a way to unite the people of a given nation into a fragmented economic relation and a quasi centralized monarchy. In the modern nation state we see that it acting as a carrier of bourgeois property relations subdues all pre-existing relations into the bourgeois socio-political and economic framework in a transcendental incorporation. Hence, the gradual transformation from feudal property relations to capitalist also gave rise to the emergence of the nation state. The said form of property arrived not after but before the emergence of modern nation-states. Hence, capitalism itself appeared not with the appearance of the nation-state rather with the appearance of bourgeois property. In time global transitions from pre-capitalist to capitalist forms took place not through neat transitions as they had in Europe but through exploitation and imperialist adventure and which resulted in the imposition of European bourgeois property relations upon the orient and Africa. In other words the progressive national movements which arose in EuropeAsia and Africa and Latin America. Thus the national movements against imperialism have in themselves a progressive content working against the reactionary institution of imperialism. (Common, nation states are no more has its progressive role, Bourgeoisie national just becomes alter ego to British intruder of that period, a role repeated again, taken by Bourgeoisie this time to its own people as Marx said, “Now, the British in East India accepted from their predecessors the department of finance and of war, but they have neglected entirely that of public works. Hence the deterioration of an agriculture which is not capable of being conducted on the British principle of free competition, of laissez-faire and laissez-aller. But in Asiatic empires we are quite accustomed to see agriculture deteriorating under one government and reviving again under some other government. There the harvests correspond to good or bad government, as they change in Europe with good or bad seasons. Thus the oppression and neglect of agriculture, bad as it is, could not be looked upon as the final blow dealt to Indian society by the British intruder, had it not been attended by a circumstance of quite different importance, a novelty in the annals of the whole Asiatic world. However changing the political aspect of India’s past must appear, its social condition has remained unaltered since its remotest antiquity, until the first decennium of the 19th century.”) These struggles further class struggle in a progressive revolutionary direction and thus require our unconditional support. However, national-democratic goals are not an end in themselves and that develops uninterruptedly into the socialist revolution and the fulfillment of socialist proletarian goals. This is the essence of permanent revolution which shows their relevance all the more in every national struggle. They cannot possibly circumscribe national self determination but must begin from that and uninterruptedly mature into a socialist proletarian revolution. It would thus be criminal of us to take a view of nation-states as reactionary institutions of imperialism. The nation-states in themselves in this epoch of imperialism have outlived their progressive character economically and as political institutions. Their use for imperialism is little more than cannon fodder for providing a conducive atmosphere for the development of exploitative and usury relations. along with the movement against reactionary feudalism were realized in full with the realization of the socio-political entity of the nation-state. The same was restrained from arising in the colonized world in

On Vital importance of namely the international character of the socialist revolution:

It would thus naturally make space of an open analysis of international factors and forces which give rise to such a character of the socialist revolution. Quite unfortunately the clauses under the above mentioned section do not show such understanding. You have begun with the claim that the era of “national projects” had ended with the end of the First World War. This claim is so thoroughly detached from the practical experiences of the last century which far from showing the end of national “projects” as you call them has shown the emergence of a strong current of national movements culminating in the end of the colonial system this constitutes an important chapter of class struggles of the proletariat which has been entirely overlooked in this section. I would quote Marx where he said “Whilst the struggles of the proletariat are national in action they are international in essence”. This was the dialectics of proletarian internationalism as espoused by Marx himself. Your position in the aforementioned clause seems to almost thoroughly contradict this position where you call for the “orientation” of the masses flowing in the reverse direction to that of Marx’s when you say it must flow from international to national. While asserting the position of Marx which Trotsky later espoused you seem to conclude that the proletariat which begins its action on the national scale does so from the heightened awareness of an internationalist perspective. The points subsequent to these seem to be generally correct an exposition on the nature of imperialism and capitalism as well as posing the objective need for its revolutionary overthrow. I have in brief underlined my position regarding the history of class struggles the place of the Bolshevik revolution and the inadequacy of the Fifth Internationalist movement. I shall merely reiterate the same point here which seems to imply the formation of a new revolutionary international as a tool for the world working class to unite under a revolutionary international banner. (Ok thats something I agree upon) Even if it does not do so it still raises a question as to where precisely our position lays with respect to the divergent trends of the internationalist Trotskyist movement.

The revolution as it would unfold in India would have requisite characteristics of both the ideal formation of revolutions as they unfold in backward countries generally speaking as well as its own subjective peculiarities. It seems strives to explain our understanding of a socialist proletarian revolution as it would unfold in India. This is a rather large endeavor in itself which would require a thorough and concrete analysis of conditions as they exist in India in relation to the objective conditions as exists the world over. As far as this section is concerned, what is lacking is a thorough analysis of the objective conditions as it exists today in this pre-revolutionary phase of the country and how they would play out in the plane of class struggles as they emerge in its full revolutionary form culminating in the conquest of power by the proletariat. This is one of the basic pre-requisites of the building of a socialist economy in any country not just a backward one like India with a tremendous semi-feudal weight upon itself. However, questions of a fundamental nature relating to our impending political tasks and our view points on the various classes and parties as they stand do not find mention here. The omissions made in the sections apart, the omission of an appraisal of the classes and parties itself make the programme rather weak in this respect. I would suggest a brief statement to this effect be added. You have described the process of revolution in India as a “single process”. I am unable to understand what precisely you intend to explain by describing the revolution as a “single process”. Do you view the political capture of power by the proletariat an exclusively political exercise detached from social class dynamics? you seem to simplify the significance of India to mere geo-political equations without looking into the various economic dimensions of the Indian economy with relation to the world economy as a whole neither does it seem to consider the possible paths through which a revolution would unfold in India (ok, added here as in South Asia) and what impact it would have. The other observations with respect to these points are more or less factual relating to the degree in which the peasantry holds economic importance in India. The peasantry does not comprise 2/3rds of the Indian population rather the population of rural India is at about 56% of the national population and out of which about 70% are peasants. The economic contribution of agriculture to the Indian economy as a whole is marginal relative to its demographic weight. The characterization of the immediate tasks of the proletarian revolution in India is basically correct in the sense that the proletarian regime would be faced with solving the agrarian problem which is of great urgency. Without resolving this all important unfinished task of the bourgeoisie (yes, with some national questions, ethnic questions, dalit questions, caste questions etc.) the proletarian cannot hope to advance into socialism leaving a vast unfinished task of rural reform. On the ambiguity of the phrase “radical transformation of rural relations”, my doubt is that when we are speaking of such a “radical transformation” do we intend to do this keeping the institution of private property through limited land reforms? Or is it our intention to go in for the full nationalization of land? On this point I would like to further ask how pray do we intend to collectivize production in the countryside keeping the restraining institution of private property? The two are mutually contradicting. The correct dialectical understanding in this regard in my opinion is that the nationalization of land while depriving the usury propertied classes in India would provide relief to both marginal and deprived landless rural proletariat. The proletarian regime would at the first instance not merely gain the political alliance of the peasant and urban petty bourgeois class but also continue to hinge on the support of these elastic classes at least in the initial period of transformation of society upon conquering political power. This is more out of necessity than anything else especially in the case of a backward semi-feudal country like ours. the nature of the political party of the proletariat and its tactical functioning pertaining to the political independence of the party in relation to its political tasks, the support of the peasantry in the impending revolution, the central tasks of the proletarian regime in India and ultimately its impact on a world stage. Generally speaking they seem to treat these issues in a somewhat speculative manner rather then being concrete and objective. This is reflected which attempts to draw out a line for the Indian revolution and its impact on the world stage. In this epoch of imperialism where global integration of the economy and the saturation of the productive forces of capitalism have already taken place a revolution in a country of great political and economic significance would undoubtedly start out a climactic chain reaction of revolutionary upheavals not merely restricted to the South Asian region or even the Asian region but all across the world. But even so I would still caution on treading around this point too closely. The question of the later spread of revolution from India to the world is a matter that can only be decided upon the revolutionary conquest of power by the proletariat in India. Such conquest no matter how small the country in which it takes place has a naturally electrifying effect across the globe. In this I would like to draw attention to the impact the revolutionary struggles in Vietnam and Cuba have had. With respect to the “central task of the proletarian regime”, it seems that you have confused the “central task” of the regime with that of the immediate tasks. According to this the central task of the proletariat is not that of building socialism but that of spreading the revolution to the advanced countries! (Wow…spreading it to USA, London,etc, this I doubt as an Indian revolution can’t be a single transformation process somewhere in Earth, there is more possibility of chain events of revolutions in many countries.)You are in effect suggesting that because the proletariat in India is not an advanced proletariat they must resort to servicing the needs of the advanced workers of Europe, East Asia and America for their revolution! Further more I would like to question what precisely is meant here by the word “central task”. Immediately upon capturing power the central task of the Russian proletariat was the abolishing of feudalism and Tsarism. Thereafter, during the event of civil war the central task was the defense of the revolution against forces of counter revolution. And for the purpose of achieving the central task of building socialism in Russia it was evident that there was a necessity of the revolution to spread internationally. More specifically to Germany which was one of the 5 leading imperialist nations in the world as well as an immediate regional power with relation to Russia’s geo-political disposition. Thus, the central task of a revolutionary regime in IndiaIndia and for that matter the whole world is the abolition of capitalism and supplanting it with a socialist economic and socio-political structure. cannot be restricted to merely one goal under ideal conditions but the same must have a dynamic character to it. You seem to be considering the same as a static phenomenon which I hold is completely wrong. But then these doubts emanate from confusions regarding the way “the central tasks” have been described in the section. Looking at the long term the central task of the proletariat in

On Classes in Indian society and their role in the revolutionary struggle:

Earlier one comrade had suggested the formation of a new constituent assembly of workers and peasants as a tool to win them over. It is a good suggestion and presents itself as an aspect of the transitional demand which provides a bridge between the present capitalist structure of society and economy and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this suggestion does not auger well with the specific task of winning over the peasantry. Considering the experience of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 and later revolutionary upheavals the task of winning over the peasantry had been intrinsically linked with the transformation of land relations in the countryside. This radical transformation which culminates in the collectivization of production can only be achieved by the full nationalization of land. This for the small peasantry does not amount to its seizure and the forced displacement of the peasant from his land but rather acts to secure his life which is tied in with the produce of the land. This will act only to the detriment of the usury classes of rural India the landholders, moneylenders etc. Thus I forward the demand for the nationalization of land in India as a transitional demand for the revolutionary transformation of productive relations in the countryside and thereafter the gradual and voluntary transformation from individual peasant production to collectivized productive relations. With regard to the nature of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat the draft appears to give a rather undue significance to the rural aspect of the impending tasks of the revolutionary proletariat. This I say not just for this section but even the foregoing sections. India it must be understood is a far more proletarianized country then Russia was at the time of revolution. Today nearly half of India resides in cities. (I don’t think it is correct statics, not half of India resides in cities) A great swathe of the population has been expropriated from the country side (I’d say brutally starved out by the advance of capitalism) and incorporated into the city as the urban proletariat. Thus, the working class holds a paramount significance in terms of its economic strength more or less at par with the national bourgeoisie. This objective pre-requisite of revolution has already been fulfilled. What is lacking more seriously is the lack of the subjective factor of revolutionary leadership which can transform the proletariat into a fighting force which will in the long run be able to take the reigns of power and complete the revolutionary overthrow of the dictatorship of capitalism. I agree with the characterization of the peasantry which very correctly identifies its political elasticity and general characterless and sheer lack of revolutionary understanding however, this does not diminish the significance of the peasantry as a revolutionary auxiliary to the proletariat in its quest to conquer power from the bourgeoisie. One other point the draft almost completely misses out on is the question of the rural proletariat, the large and middle peasants. They too generally speaking assume the role of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie in a rural setting however; in relation to the small and marginal peasants they are on a more secure economic footing then the semi-pauperized marginal and small farmers. How we intend to reconcile these differences in the countryside and what the role of these classes will be in the revolutionary struggle remains an open question which the draft does not answer in this section.

The subsequent section which deals with the national bourgeoisie is another significant section however, not as significant as the preceding section which deals with the peasantry. Its importance lay in the present day positioning of this national bourgeois in relation to world capitalism as a whole and the characteristics it displays. The instant section is correct in so far as it identifies the failures of the bourgeoisie to accomplish the national democratic tasks that history had set before it however I cannot but disagree with the characterization in the second half of the section. It seems to overlook the structure of the Indian economy and the changes that it underwent since the establishment of the dictatorship of the Indian bourgeois in 1947 and straight away uncritically analyzes the import of foreign capital as one that has reduced India to a complete dependency of the same. The facts belie the assertion that India is a semi-colony in any sense or a neo-colony. ( read INDIA BECOMING A COLONY AGAIN ) The fact is that India today has achieved the heights of capitalist development which has allowed for the emergence of a largely monopolistic economy and thereafter the export of capital and the super exploitation of foreign labor. India as of 2009 exported roughly $69 billion worth of fdi mostly in African Asian and Latin American countries. It has emerged as a lender nation lending loans upto $ 4billion to backward countries which in every way show more semi-colonial characteristics than India does or ever did (e.g Afghanistan). However, India has reached this advanced stage of capitalism which shows itself in the monopolistic structure of the economy more or less divided among giant monopolistic corporations both privately owned as well as state owned. The draft is correct in so far as it identifies the shortcomings of the Stalinists and Maoists in understanding the fact that the national bourgeoisie has expended all its productive potential however it fails to identify the rather myopic perspectives of Maoists and Stalinists who forward a somewhat Menshevik alternative of limited reforms of the Indian economy aimed at a more protectionist structure that had existed earlier in India in the 4 decades that succeeded the attainment of bourgeois independence in 1947. This alternative economic solution which seems to suggest that India is a semi-colony or will become one if it allows in more foreign capital into India completely ignores the dynamics of the modern day economy of India which has emerged imperialist in its own right. The Maoist and Stalinist arguments against the entrance of foreign capital almost suggests as though nationalized industry under the rule of the bourgeois would constitute a ready bulwark against imperialism as a whole! They seem to have either forgotten or deliberately ignored Lenin’s conclusions on imperialism and the nature of the same that he had deduced. Imperialism and by that I mean modern imperialism based on monopoly capital and the dominance of finance capital on industrial capital arises not on the arbitrary will of any monopolist or even as a matter of policy decisions by bourgeois governments but arises as a natural formation of capitalism as a result of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which gives rise to monopoly capital and the peculiar manner in which it behaves namely the export of capital to compensate for the inadequacy of mere export of goods. These fundamental characteristics of imperialism exist in India. What is significant in this regard is that India has arrived at this stage without fulfilling some of the rudimentary national bourgeois goals which include the transformation of social relations in the countryside and the abolition of old pre-capitalist relations in the form of the caste system this stark contrast between the advance of capitalism and the existence of pre-capitalist relations provides a perfect case for the proletarian revolution. The fact of India’s emergence into imperialism merely adds more political and economic strength to the otherwise backward Indian proletariat who has yet to taste the levels of advancement which the major imperialist nations of Europe, America and East Asia have achieved. Under conditions of revolution this very nation that in lieu with world imperialism enslaves the workers and peasants of other nation would transform itself and become their liberator! The dismantling of India’s imperialist edifice in fact would amount to the fulfillment of national democratic tasks which history has thrust upon the proletariat of India. This would be done through the undoing of partition and the merger of India Pakistan and Bangladesh into a free union of Socialist republics (once the revolutionary tide has swept into these nations) the proclamation for independence of Kashmir, and the unconditional granting of independence to all oppressed nationalities (yeah..sure). The return of occupied lands of Nepal, and the absolute repudiation of all pending debts owed to India by third world nations and the exit of India from imperialistic bi-lateral organizations like the IMF and the ADB ( in which India is incidentally the 6^th largest stake holder after China ). However, these are based on observations only regarding the present status of India in the greater scheme of world imperialism. These positions are by no means absolute and by no means static and would be subject to regular updating considering the world situation and the conditions as existing in the nation. I am not trying to provide a cookbook solution to the issues revolving around the imperialist tendencies of India nor am I saying that these would automatically resolve all standing issues which have their own complexities. (I understand it… pal) However, the general direction of the revolutionary struggle of the Indian proletarian would be incomplete without taking into consideration aspects of anti-imperialism within India i.e anti-‘Indian imperialism’. The proletarian must be mobilized to act against its own nation in the interest of the world proletarian whenever its bourgeois acts in an imperialist / oppressive way. This is the essence of proletarian international solidarity. This is vital importance for the impending revolution. And then there is the question of political positions with regard to aggressions upon India and aggressions made by India on other nations. Considering India’s imperialist dynamic it becomes outright betrayal to let the sons of workers and peasants in the army march into the enemies ranks for the sake of imperialist designs. My stance with regard to an Indo-Pak war is to call for unconditional revolutionary defeat of the Indian bourgeois in the instance that it is the aggressor and to call for the same even in case of an invasion by Pakistan upon India but simultaneously calling for the transformation of the revolutionary transformation of the imperialist war on Pakistan’s end into an anti-imperialist civil war aimed at its comprador bourgeois which takes its orders from Washington rather than Islamabad and is by now an absolute slave of IMF loans which seem to flow into their nation at a unbelievable pace each year. This in my view is keeping in line with both the strategy of revolutionary defeatism as well as the essence of proletarian internationalism. This is in brief my views on the nature of the national bourgeois and from this point stems my disagreement with the draft’s position on the same. The possibility (or rather the impossibility) of forming united fronts with bourgeois parties I feel the same has been improperly treated and leaves a huge grey area. The question of united fronts is not so simple. In the last 80 years of the last century we have had several conflicting examples of united fronts some ending in brilliant success and some ending in dismal failure. In India it is the latter we have seen with regard to the narrow electoral alliance between the Congress and the CPIM and the latter’s eventual liquidation as a significant political force in the country. On the other side of the spectrum we have a most successful example of its application in the second Chinese revolution which leads to the overthrow of the semi-fascist bourgeois KMT from China then there is also the united front of the Bolsheviks and Kerenesky against the Cossack hordes of Kornilov. The united front as I view it differs from that of a popular front in that is allows for the party of the proletariat to organize independent of its ally while fighting against a common enemy. This position is summarized by the beautiful dialectic of “March separately but strike together”. This dialectic must be borne in mind when speaking of any kind of united front with the bourgeois or anyone else. You completely ignored it and gone in with a somewhat ultra leftist position as was taken by the German KPD with regard to posing a united front with the SPD against Hitler. Had the United front formed there would have been a chance of defeating Hitler and arresting the rise of Fascism in Germany at a very critical juncture when they had arisen as a mass force. From these above significant examples (which I may add are by no means exhaustive) one can construe some fundamental pre-conditions for calling a united front into existence. If I were to summarize it would be thus:

1. That there must be an urgent threat against the proletariat in which the forces of the proletarian may not be sufficient to counter the same.

2. That the ally in a united front must pose as an alternative that would be better than the extreme reaction, this would threaten even rudimentary gains made by it. (E.g. Kerensky in relation to Kornilov was a lesser evil since the latter would reinstate the Czar and defeat even the limited freedoms of bourgeois democracy)

3. The front is only a temporary formation which dissolves once its central aims are fulfilled. (E.g the defeat of the imperialist aggression of Japan upon China)

The above summary is by no means any exhaustive text of the united front but a brief explanation of the political tactic. Keeping the above in mind I conclude that the position to be taken in this regard should take into considerations the conditions present in the country that can justify the necessary evil of allying with the political formations of the class enemy. United fronts cannot be called into existence in a sui generis manner as had been done by the CPIM so many times in the Indian context under various pretexts ignoring completely the class character of the political parties or the class forces playing out in India at any given time. I would like to further add that while condemning the much abused policies of Stalinists who it is needless to say understand next to nothing about the tactics of the united front, you have not made so much as a whisper on the much abused policies of several revisionist Trotskyist groups who practice the most condemnable compromises under the pretext of the now proven failure of entryism. Time and again this flawed policy which so completely compromises the organizational independence of the proletarian party has lead to the complete disintegration and in worse cases dissolution of political parties. We have seen the same happen in the case of the BLPI whose historical role in class struggles in India has been almost completely omitted. The instant section which deals with the national bourgeois also omits the role played by reactionary fascist parties and where they stand in the political spectrum in India and how their presence will affect the course of class struggles. The question of fascist and semi-fascist parties is all the more important while considering the question of the united front with liberal bourgeois parties.

One of important political question is our position on Stalinist and Maoist parties in India. Ideologically hardly any difference exists in the core ideas of the Stalinist and Maoist, root them in “the common soil of stagism”. However, that’s where most if not all the similarities end. When we speak of Stalinist formations in India we generally refer to the parliamentary cretins of the CPIM and CPI who despite their bureaucratic formation and organization are rooted in the working class nonetheless but while we speak of the Maoists generally it is pertaining to those parties who base themselves largely on the peasantry and more specifically to the Naxalites who have reduced revolutionary class struggle to the military exercise of protracted guerilla struggle (“quick and dead” policies). I am neither against armed tactics nor even against guerilla tactics generally speaking (more I think as left RAMBO actions). I am however stringently opposed to the universalization of tactics and raising tactical questions to the plane of strategy. Both the Stalinists and Maoists are guilty of making this blunder. The same has not found mention in the instant section. I would like to point out the factual incorrectness of the assertion that the Stalinist “two stages” theory developed in accordance to their world view. The advent of the bourgeois in central and Eastern Europe took place at a belated period owing to the failure of revolutions in Prussia in 1848 and the incompleteness of the Italian revolution. In both cases the unfulfilled tasks of the bourgeois revolution and the belated entry of the bourgeois into the era of capitalism gave rise to the phenomenon of fascism which found a fertile ground in the semi pauperized petty bourgeois in these countries. This of course deals more with the question of fascism and less with Stalinism and Maoism and its role in India. A question on the Stalinists and Maoist formations in the country which I would raise which is related to the question of the united front is whether in the instance of a threat of an urgent nature we would ally with a Stalinist or Maoist formation to counter say a fascist force who are an imminent threat to the working class. In the aforementioned point which deals with the question of formation of united fronts seems to indicate this where you say that we only propose united fronts with working class parties. The Stalinists and Maoists have bureaucratic and heavily centralized political formations which stratify the leadership of these political formations from the class that they base themselves on. This however must not be confused as being the complete detachment from the class. The Stalinists and Maoist parties are essentially workers parties however they behave in a way that acts ultimately to the detriment of the class they represent.

On trade unions:

Its significant both as a practical question as well as making for an interesting topic for theoretical deliberations. The question of trade unions has been a bone of contention for many a revolutionary as is evident from the various polemical texts from the foremost revolutionaries of the last century. Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa generally speaking tend to take a rather pessimistic view on this question while Marx and Engels took a relatively optimistic view of the same. This is the general understanding. The LRCI document on trade unions which I have attached along with this mail in my opinion is a pragmatic take on the question of the trade unions which is most consistent with the correct revolutionary outlooks on the same as espoused by Trotsky, Marx and Lenin. The same pragmatic position finds an expression in the transitional programme wherein Trotsky admits the role of the trade union as an elemental organizational need of the proletarian before the attainment of higher forms of organization like Factory Committees and Worker’s Soviets. We cannot circumscribe the elemental organizations of the working class and reach directly at these higher forms of organization which are the products of a very advanced stage of the class struggle. We must keep in mind that the revolutionary class isn’t revolutionary at all times. It may not always be readily willing to form such advanced forms of organizations of dual power which challenge bourgeois rule to its very bare essence. We have to work with the existing tools that the workers posses in their struggle against the dictatorship of capital. However, Trotsky as well as Lenin had very correctly criticized the approaches of the Anarchists towards the question of the Trade Unions as well as identified the negative tendencies of trade unions. The Anarchist approach hitherto has been to form isolated revolutionary trade unions counter posed to the more bureaucratized apparatuses. This amounts to nothing more than an ultra leftist Puritanism and a pinprick on capitalism. Lenin in Left Wing Communism had underlined the correct approach towards reactionary trade unions (who form the majority of India’s unionized workforce) wherein he mentioned the radical intervention of revolutionary workers into the unions as a means of challenging the rigid trade union bureaucracies. Only through such interventions can the real ailment plaguing unions can be cured namely that of bureaucratic control. The fight against the union apparatuses is in essence a fight against their leadership and not the union itself which presents the least bad possibility to the working class between having a union which may provide some redress and not having any organization in the absence of which they do not find any means of expressing their grievance or having any organized apparatus to fight the bourgeoisie with. However, notwithstanding these aforesaid positions, in the instant section you seem to have gone with the pessimistic line of the ICFI which claims that Trade unions have only a negative role in the class struggles of the proletariat which make them repressive tools of the bourgeois under conditions of highly centralized monopoly structure against the period of progressive “free market” capitalism. The assertion is only partially true. Whilst it is true that monopoly capitalism has restrained the freedom of formation and action of unions to an unbelievable extent we cannot write off unions entirely. The present disposition of trade unions as subordinated to the control of the capitalist class in the workplace only makes the case for formation of higher more democratic and independent organizations of the workers and a revolutionary struggle against the bureaucratic apparatuses of the unions which serve the interests of the capital first and foremost as a consequence of its commitment to defending its own privileged position in relation to the large majority of workers. The other assertion that the era of “free market” capitalism represented the era of the progressive fighting unions is rather suspect. Judging by the fragmented nature of the Chartist movement in England and its limited reformist perspective I wouldn’t say that the vitality of the union movement was any greater in the era of “free market” laissez faire capitalism then it is now. Rather if we consider the tremendous socialization of production and the formation of unions as mass organizations as was the case with the German union movement the era of imperialism showed the most progressive trend hitherto seen in the Trade Union movement wherein the mass unison of the proletariat has been achieved under the organization of the Trade Union. However, the same phenomenon of concentration of capital and integration of finance capital and industrial capital in the era of imperialism produces a dialectal phenomenon wherein the socialization and organization of labor is counter posed to the formation of restrictive bureaucratic apparatuses in the Trade Union as a consequence of monopoly capitalism. I’ll conclude by stating my position with regard to the question of Trade unions thus: Recognizing that they are but an elemental need of the working class and simultaneously admitting their degeneration as bureaucratic apparatuses under the de facto control of the bourgeois for the purposes of containing the proletarian at the workplace I conclude that the fight against unionism is in essence a fight against its bureaucratic leadership and not the union itself nor against unionism per se. We call for the overthrow of the bureaucratic leadership which bring the union under the constraints imposed by the bourgeois and strive to achieve the fullest independence of the union from the clutches of the bourgeois capitalists. This can only be done through the conscious intervention of the revolutionary party of the proletariat.

On National struggles and self determination:

I would like to draw your attention to the comments made in the earlier mail relating to the treatment of nationalism. The general treatment of nationalism as observed earlier seems to have had their culmination which held that the nation-state had become entirely invalid and that all national movements for self-determination are necessarily redundant. How then do we reconcile the movements for self-determination where there are actually oppressed nationalities? Is not national self-determination a national democratic goal left unfinished by the bourgeois whose completion must be made at the hands of the proletarian regime? I leave it at this question.

On “Identity” movements:

Such movements are in essence reactionary currents which only harm international and national working class solidarity and attempt to divide them into rival “communities” or “identities”. It thus has the effect of supplanting class consciousness with a reactionary communal consciousness. The worker would cease to identify himself as a worker and his main enemy as the class enemy and identify the communal enemy or the rival community as his main enemy. This only serves the interests of the bourgeois who from time to time resort to such reactionary currents in the event they are unable to control the militant rebellious proletariat. It thus inevitably becomes a tool of oppression of the bourgeois.

me: Ok ok....but we seems see all virtual revolutionary, laptop revolutionary, keybord revolutionary....where is field practice..
he said: you are.. a skeptic..

I lit my cigarette


me: look at time line, 1857 - first indian uprising, birth of nations, nationalities, just after almost hundread year 1947 - power shifted to national bourgeise...then what do you think about 2040/50...
he said: ha ha ha ha ha...comon don't go with mathamatics.....social history does not go with mathamatics

me: lets we find a bar now...