ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST
(NORTH AMERICA) Issue NUMBER 25. January
1997 HOW THE KHRUSCHEVITES DISTORTED
THESTRUGGLES IN THE COLONIAL WORLD The Cover Photograph in the
original hard copy: Shows photograph of Khruschev being kissed on his
arrival by Tito at Belgrade airport 1963: captioned: "The Meeting
Of Two Revisionist Minds" TABLE CONTENTS FOR ALLIANCE 25:
INTRODUCTION
I. LENIN & STALIN'S TWO STAGE STRATEGY FOR COLONIAL
TYPE COUNTRIES
a) The Potential Progressive Role For Bourgeois Democracy b) The Two Stages of the Revolution c) Leading Role of Working Class d) Role Of The Soviet State In The Absence of a Native
Industrial Proletariat
2. STALIN REFINES THE COLONIAL THESES TO DEFINE MORE
FULLY THE TYPES OF COLONIAL COUNTRIES
SUMMARY OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST VIEW
3. KHRUSHCHEV DISTORTS THE MARXIST-LENINIST LINE ON REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL AND SEMI-COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES a)The Nature of the Newly Formed States -Neo~colonies
and The Band ung Conference b) The General State of the World - Towards Eternal
Peace or to imperialist war? c) Changing the Line, Khrushchev Against Soviet Marxist-Leninist
Orientalists - the 20 th Party Congress c) The Khruschevites Test The Communist Strength Of
The Communist Parties of the World - The Struggle of the Party Labour of
Albania Against Khrushchev
4. CAPPING THE EDIFICE OF KHRUSCHEVITE REVISIONISM
IN THE LINE OF REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
5. THE RESULTS OF THE KHRUSCHEVITE LINE IN INDIA
CONCLUSlONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
This issue of Alliance, examines Three Questions
of a general significance, all upon the Khruschevite revisionist distortion
of the revolutionary process in colonial type countries.
These Three Questions Are:
1. Was the line of Lenin and Stalin in the revolutionary
process in colonial and semi-colonial countries followed, after Stalin=s
death?
2. To what extent was the sabotage and revisionism
of Khrushchev resisted by the Communist Parties of the world, following
the traitorous 20 th Party Congress of the CPSU?
3. What is the route for revolution, in countries where
a national bourgeoisie has already taken power, but has not completed its
democratic revolutionary agenda?.
We start from the point the view that until Stalin=s
death, the USSR was a socialist country. During Stalin=s
life, the USSR fostered correct Marxist-Leninist attitudes to, and in,
the parties of the world. This changed with the death of Stalin. That nodal
point of change, was accompanied by the degeneration of socialism into
capitalism. As capitalism was restored, relations with the communist parties
of the world, and with the governments of countries allied to the USSR,
were no longer socialist in nature. How could they be, if the home country
was not any longer socialist?
In this post-Stalin period, the correct line of the two
stage struggle in developing and colonial type countries, as first developed
by Lenin and carried out by Stalin, was subverted. In fact it was mis-used,
in order to justify the support of reactionary bourgeois regimes. In answering
question (3), we are forcibly reminded of Stalin=s
lectures to The Sverdlov University. In these talks, later known as >The
Foundations of Leninism=,
Stalin asked :
>The question
is as follows: Are the liberation potentialities latent in the revolutionary
liberation movement of the oppressed countries already exhausted or not;
and if not, is there any hope, any basis for utilizing these potentialities
for the proletarian revolution for transforming the dependent and colonial
countries from a reserve of the imperialist bourgeoises into a reserve
of the revolutionary proletarians, into an ally of the latter?@
Stalin J.V. AFoundations
of Leninism@; (April 1924) In
Problems of Leninism; Moscow; 1954; p. 73.
At that time Stalin answered :
ALeninism replies
to the question in the affirmative@.
Stalin J.V. AFoundations
of Leninism@; (April 1924) In
Problems of Leninism; Moscow; 1954; p. 73.
Of course Marxist-Leninists are not dogmatists, and know
that things change. We will argue that Stalin=s
answer is still in general correct today. But the full answer, is not simply
a formula. The full answer depends upon the specifics of the country under
discussion. Indeed Stalin said much the same :
AThe nationally
peculiar and nationally specific features in each separate country must
unfailingly be taken into account by the Comintern when drawing up guiding
directives for the working class movement of the country concerned.@
Stalin J.V. ANotes
on Contemporary Themes@; (July
1927); In Works; Volume 9; Moscow; 1954; p.337.
Recently Comrade W.B.Bland read a paper to the Marxist-Leninist
Seminar in London, in July 1993, entitled : @The
Revolutionary Process in Colonial Type Countries,@
on behalf of the Communist League (CL) (UK). We are indebted to
the CL and Comrade Bland for this paper, which remains critical to our
understanding of how to organise the revolutionary movement in the colonial
countries. But while this paper detailed accurately the revisionism of
Maoism, and its various variants (Kim Il Sung-ism; Leduan-ism
etc), it did not deal with the issue of Khruschevite distortions
of this theme. This was appropriate at that time. In general, Marxist-Leninists
have tended to direct their theoretical fire at those who are >closest
to us=. In general this has meant
the trend of Maoism, that brand of revisionism that hailed Stalin as a
Marxist-Leninist albeit grudgingly (See Joint Statement Alliance, Communist
League, & Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey): 'Upon Unity &
Ideology- An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens"; London; March 1996)
in order to deceive the highest levels of potential Marxists.
But, since the disintegration of the revisionist former
USSR state following Gorbachev, many formerly deceived, but honest pro-USSR
comrades, are trying to find their bearings. These comrades exist in every
country including the former USSR. Moreover, the number of countries that
departed from Marxism-Leninism, having been led astray by Khruschevite
mis-direction, far out weigh those that followed mistakenly the Maoist
path. It is the situation of such countries, and such honest comrades,
that prompts this paper. Partly as a consequence of this, and having we
hope, dealt with at least part of this background, we will in the next
issue of Alliance, deal with the problems of one particular country
NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLES
1. LENIN & STALIN=S
TWO STAGE STRATEGY FOR COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
The line of Marxists-Leninists, on revolution in colonial
type countries, was first codified by Lenin in debates at the Second
Communist International (CI) Congress.. Lenin had to argue against
an initial opposition, but then finally won over the dissidents. Lenin=s
line was adopted. The basic questions faced by the CI, had been:
i) To what extent was struggle for democratic rights
and democratic revolution, significant for the proletarian revolution in
colonial type countries? Linked to this, what attitude to take to the most
progressive representatives of the bourgeoises in those countries?
ii) Finally how did this relate to the socialist
revolution?
a) The Potential Progressive Role For Bourgeois Democracy.
Mabendra Nath Roy (M.N.Roy) had pointed out the vacillating
nature of the colonial bourgeoisie, Roy had said and emphasised only the
negative aspects, and the inevitable later counter -revolutionary
turn of the bourgeoisie :
"Afraid of revolution, the nationalist bourgeoisie would
compromise with imperialism in return for some economic and political concessions
to their class. The working class should be prepared to take over at that
crisis the leadership of the struggle of national liberation and transform
it into a revolutionary mass movement."
M.N.Roy, "Memoirs", Bombay, 1964; p.382.
But in contrast to Roy, Lenin thought that in the first stage
of the revolution, the bourgeois democrats had a potentially useful role
to play, early on in the struggle, from the view-point of the proletarian
movement:
"All the Communist parties must assist the bourgeois
democratic liberation movement in these (ie colonial type countries-ed)..
The Communist International (CI) must enter into a temporary alliance with
bourgeois democracy in colonial and backward countries."
V.I.Lenin : Preliminary Draft of Theses on National and
Colonial Questions, 2nd Cong. CI in "Selected Works", Volume10, London,
1946; p. 236-7.
Nonetheless, taking Roy=s
view into account, Lenin made one significant change, to his own
original Draft Theses. This would clarify, that the working class in a
colonial type country, should support a bourgeois-led movement only
if it was genuinely revolutionary. To achieve this clarification,
the term "bourgeois democratic", was replaced by the term "nationalist-revolutionary".
Lenin openly acknowledged the original controversy to the question:
"I would like to particularly emphasise the question
of the bourgeois democratic movements in backward countries. It was this
question that gave rise to some disagreement. We argued about whether it
would be correct, in principle and in theory, to declare that the CI and
the CP's should support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries.
As a result of this discussion we unanimously decided to speak of the nationalist-revolutionary
movements instead of the 'bourgeois-democratic' movement. There is not
the slightest doubt that every nationalist movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic
movement.. But it was agreed that if we speak about the bourgeois-democratic
movement all distinction between reformist and revolutionary movements
will be obliterated; whereas in recent times this distinction has been
fully and clearly revealed in the backward and colonial countries, of the
imperialist bourgeois is trying with all its might to implant the reformist
movement also among the oppressed nations.. In the Commission this was
proved irrefutably, and we came to the conclusion that the only correct
thing to do was to take this distinction into consideration and nearly
everywhere to substitute the term "nationalist-revolutionary" for
the term Abourgeois-democratic".
The meaning of this change is that we communists should, and will, support
bourgeois liberation movements only when these movement do not hinder us
in training and organising the peasants and the broad masses of the exploited
in a revolutionary spirit.. The above mentioned distinction has now been
drawn in all the theses, and I think that, thanks to this, our point of
view has been formulated much more precisely." Lenin. Report Of Commission
on the National and Colonial Questions, Ibid, p 241.
The differences between a more resolute section (In Lenin=s
phrase : >nationalist-revolutionary=)
of the bourgeoisie and a less resolute section have an economic basis.
The first, the more resolute bourgeois section, is composed of those
who have an economic interest in obtaining freedom from foreign imperialism.
They are called national bourgeoisie. They
are indigenous capitalists who wish to displace imperialism and its' middle
men, so that they can keep all the colony's profits for itself. Being usually
very weak, they have to enlist the aid of the masses ie. working classes
and peasantry. Emerging from the oppression of the Ottoman Empire, the
weak and nascent national bourgeoisie of the Middle East, initially struggled
in the main against British and French; then in the main against USA imperialism.
The second , less resolute bourgeois section, are those
who derive their profit from a link to foreign imperialism, and are closely
related to the feudal landowning aristocratic class. They are called comprador
bourgeoisie. When imperialism settled
into its' colonies it used local indigenous rulers and leading individuals
as their surrogates. This tactic became especially important when the revolutionary
movements in the colonies appeared to be successful in fighting off the
imperialists. These indigenous agents were usually buyers and traders whose
livelihood depended upon the Imperialists. Often landed feudal gentry were
also allied to imperialism. One definition of the comprador bourgeoisie
is as follows:
"In China, a native
servant employed as head of the native staff, and as agent, by European
houses."
Shorter Oxford Dictionary,
Oxford 1988."
Once the proletariat succeeds in >Training
the peasants and the broad masses of the exploited in a revolutionary spirit@,
then they will win the leadership of the national-democratic revolution.
But when the working class is seen to win the leadership of the national-democratic
movements, the national bourgeoisie will desert the national democratic
revolution, and go over to the imperialist counter-revolution. The national
bourgeoisie will prefer even a subordinate exploiting position under imperialism,
to the possibility that the working class will use its leading position,
to transform the national-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.
This Marxist-Leninist position was put in the "Theses on the Eastern
Question", adopted by the 4th Congress of the CI in November 1922.
"At first the indigenous (national-ed) bourgeois and
intelligentsia are the champions of the colonial revolutionary movements,
but as the proletarian and semi-proletarian peasant masses are drawn in,
the bourgeois and bourgeois-agrarian elements begin to turn away from the
movement in proportion as the social interests of the lower classes of
people come to the forefront."
Theses on the Eastern Question, 4th Congress CI, J.Degras
(ed)" The Communist International: 1919-1943: Documents", Volume 1; London;
1971; p.388.
By 1925, Stalin could emphasise that the differentiation
between >revolutionary parts=
and >compromising parts=
of the bourgeoisie had already occurred in some countries. For instance:
"In countries like Egypt and China, where the
national bourgeoisie has already split up into a revolutionary party and
a compromising party."
JVStalin: ATasks
of University of People's of East@,
(May 18th, 1925); Volume 7 Works; Moscow; 1954. pp. 135-146.
Whether or not the differentiation had taken place, Stalin
pointed out would change the goals of the proletariat in those countries
At the stage that the national bourgeoisie is beginning to waver, it will
then become imperative to expose the national bourgeoisie. The desire of
the national bourgeoisie to resist the socialist revolution, inevitably
leads to a struggle. At that juncture the question of breaking the AChinese
Wall@ (In Lenin=s
prescient phraseology to Kautsy) between the democratic revolution towards
the socialist revolution, becomes paramount. To flinch at this point, perhaps
to >save the alliance with the
national bourgeoisie=, is to
desert the revolutionlin. Stalin emphasised the need at this point to expose
the national bourgeoisie:
AThe tasks
of this bloc (ie-bloc of two forces - the Communist Party and the party
of the revolutionary petty bourgeois -Ed) are to expose the half-heartedness
and inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie and to wage a determined
struggle against imperialism.A
J.V.Stalin: ATasks
of University of People's of East@,
Ibid; Works Volume 7; pp. 135-146
b) The Two Stages of the Revolution
It is well known that the successful Bolshevik revolution
itself, was a two stage revolution. This no doubt informed Lenin=s
thought on the international significance of the Bolshevik stages. And
in words to be later cited by Stalin, in >Foundations
of Leninism=, Lenin pointed out
to >The Renegade Kautsky=,
that the Bolshevik Revolution had been a bourgeois revolution when it marched
with the whole peasantry. Lenin emphasised that it became transformed
later :
AYes our revolution
is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants
as a whole.. Beginning with April 1917, however, long before the
October Revolution, that is long before we assumed power, we publicly declared
and explained to the people: the revolution cannot now stop at this stage..
Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by
the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First,
with the he >whole=
of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism
(And to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois democratic).
Then with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all
the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the
kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist
one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and
second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness
of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants,
means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute Liberalism
in its place.@ (NB. Emphasis
in original).
Lenin V.I. AThe
Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky@
(Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part,
cited by J.V.Stalin, in >Foundations
of Leninism=(April 1924); Ibid;
p. 105.
Thus the stages of the revolution, depend upon TWO things: 1. The tasks to perform; And 2. The forces necessary to undertake alliances with
- in order to fulfill those tasks.
This staging was applied, by Lenin, to the strategy for
the revolution in colonial countries. This is seen in his repeated insistence
that the proletariat cannot ignore in the colonial type countries the democratic
struggles of the poor against feudal survivals. In his address to the Baku
First Congress of the People=s
of the East, Lenin said :
AMost of the
Eastern peoples are in a worse situation that the most backward country
in Europe-Russia. But in our struggle against feudal survivals and capitalism,
we succeeded in uniting the peasants and workers of Russia; and it was
because the peasants and workers united against capitalism and feudalism
that our victory was so easy.. the majority of the Eastern peoples are
typical representatives of the working people-not workers how have passed
through the schools of capitalist factories, but typical representatives
of the working and exploited peasant masses who are victims of medieval
oppression.. You must be able to apply that theory and practice (of communism-Editor)
to conditions in which the bulk of the population are peasants, and in
which the task is to wage a struggle against medieval survivals and not
against capitalism.. You will have to base yourselves on the bourgeois
nationalism.. At the same time you must find your way to the working and
exploited masses of every country. You must tell them in a language that
they understand that their only hope of emancipation lies in the victory
of the international revolution, and that the international proletariat
is the only ally of the all the hundreds of millions of the working and
exploited peoples of the East.@
V.I.Lenin: AAddress
To the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organisations of the Peoples
Of the East@; Collected Works
Vol 30; Moscow; 1966; p. 160-162
Stalin followed Lenin=s
line, for the revolutionary struggles in colonial and semi-colonial countries
- to pass from the first through to the second stage of the revolution.
The stages of the revolution flowed from the CI Theses. Because Stalin
survived Lenin, and steered the USSR through into the establishment of
socialism, Stalin could practically assist the implementation of this line,
in other countries. Thus Stalin analysed the situation for China for example
as follows :
AWhat are the
stages in the Chinese Revolution? In my opinion there should be three:
The first stage is the revolution of an all-national
united front, the Canton period, when the revolution was striking chiefly
at foreign imperialism, and the national bourgeoisie supported the revolutionary
movement;
The second stage is the bourgeois democratic revolution,
after the national troops reached the Yangtze River, when the national
bourgeoisie deserted the revolution and the agrarian movement grew into
a mighty revolution of tens of millions of the peasantry. The Chinese revolution
is now at the second stage of its development;
The third stage is the Soviet revolution which has not
yet come, but will come.@
J.V.Stalin; AOn
the International Situation and the Defence of the USS@;
Joint Plenum of CC and the CPSU Control Commission; (August 1 1927); Works;
Volume 10; Moscow; 1954; p.16-17
Stalin=s First
Stage And The Second Stage Together Constitute What Is Termed The Bourgeois
Democratic Revolution. Stalin emphasised that the Amain
axis@ in the Bourgeois democratic
revolution was the agrarian one:
AThe characteristic
feature .. Of the Turkish revolution (The Kemalists).. is that it got stuck
at the Afirst step@,
at the first stage of its development, at the stage of the bourgeois liberation
movement, without even attempting to pass to the second stage of its development,
the stage of the agrarian revolution.@
Stalin; Speech August 1927: "International Situaion &
Defence USSR"; Volume 10; Moscow 1954; p.346.
Trotskyism rejects the viewpoint of Lenin and Stalin
that the national capitalist class can play a revolutionary role in relation
to the national-democratic state of the revolutionary process. As Trotsky
argued against Stalin :
AThe national
bourgeoisie has been essentially an instrument of the compradors and imperialism.@
Trotsky L: =The Chinese Revolution
and the Theses of Comrade Stalin=;
In >Problems of the Chinese Revolution=;
Ann Arbor (USA); 1967; p. 21.
Elsewhere we have described Stalin=s
rebuttals, and how the correct implementation of the revolutionary line
in China was destroyed by Mao and the revisionist of the Communist Party
of China.(Joint Statement by Alliance, Communist League (UK)
and Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) : >Upon
Unity and Ideology -An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens.@;
London; March 1996.)
Nonetheless, Stalin obviously had to further develop the
basic line of Lenin, as there had been new developments following Lenin=s
death. This development can be seen in Stalin=s
later speeches.
c) Leading Role of Working Class
Partly followingRoy=s
ADraft Supplementary Theses@,
Lenin agreed that if the revolutionary process in a colonial type country
were under the leadership of the working class, such a country could
avoid a period of capitalist development. As Lenin pointed out this
related to the question of whether the capitalist stage of development
could possibly be overcome if the working class could lead the democratic
revolutionary struggle. Lenin agreed with Roy, that in such a case, it
was not inevitable that the country would inevitably go through capitalism
:
"A rather lively debate on this question took place
in the Commission, not only in connection with the theses which I signed
but still more in connection with Cmde Roy's Theses which Cmde Roy will
defend here and which with certain amendments were adopted unanimously.
The question was presented in the following way :
'Can we recognise as correct the assertion that the capitalist
stage of development of national economy is inevitable of those backward
countries which are now liberating themselves?.. We reply to this question
in the negative. If the revolutionary victorious proletariat carries on
a systematic propaganda amongst them, and of the Soviet governments render
them all the assistance they possibly can, it will be wrong to assume that
the capitalist stage is inevitable of the backward nationalities. The CI
must lay down and give the theoretical grounds of the proposition that,
with the aid of the proletariat of the most advanced countries the backward
countries may pass to the Soviet system and, after passing through a definite
stage of development, to Communism, without passing through the capitalist
stage of development." Lenin, Report of the Commission, Ibid, p.243.
Hence Marxist-Leninists, see that if the working class gains
leadership of the national-democratic revolution; this revolution can be
transformed relatively uninterruptedly, into a socialist revolution. Incidentally
Mao disagrees with this key point. (Joint Statement by Alliance, Communist
League (UK) and Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) : >Upon
Unity and Ideology -An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens.@;
London; March 1996)
In fact, Roy recognised that in some colonial-type countries
- such as India and China - a significant native working class existed,
objectively capable of gaining the leadership of the national-democratic
revolution there :
"A new movement among the exploited masses has started
in India, which has spread rapidly and found expression in gigantic strike
movements. this mass movement is not controlled by the revolutionary nationalists,
but is developing independently in spite of the fact that the nationalists
are endeavouring to make use of it of their own purposes. This movement
of the masses is of a revolutionary character."
M.N.Roy. Speech 2nd Congress CI, Cited G.Adhikari, "Documents
CP India"; Delhi; 1971; p.191-2.
This was why Lenin approved Roy's modified supplementary
theses. Stalin points out that it was the distinction between countries
with and countries without a proletariat, that was the hinge :
"Both in his speeches and his theses (at the 2nd Congress
of CI-ed) Lenin has in mind the countries where :
'There can be no question of purely proletarian movement,'
where,
'There is practically no industrial proletariat.'
Why were the Supplementary Theses needed? In order
to single out from the backward colonial countries which have no industrial
proletariat such countries as China and India, of which it cannot be said
that they have 'practically no industrial proletariat'. Read the "Supplementary
Theses", and you will realise that they refer chiefly to China and India...
How could it happen that Roy's special Theses were needed
to "Supplement" Lenin's theses? The fact is that Lenin's Theses were written
and published long before the Second Congress opened.. prior to the discussion
in the Special Commission of the Second Congress. And since the Second
Congress revealed the necessity of singling out from the backward countries
such countries as China and India the necessity of 'Supplementary Theses'
arose."
Stalin J.V. : "Questions of the Chinese Revolution",
AWorks@;
Vol 9; Moscow 1954; p.236-238.d) Role Of The Soviet State In The Absence of a Native
Industrial Proletariat
As outlined above, in general the leading role even in
the first phase of the revolution (ie the national democratic revolution)
should where possible be exercised by the working class. But what should
be the strategy of Marxists-Leninists if there was no, or a very small,
or only a weak working class in the colony or semi-colony?
In this case, the leadership was to be exercised by comrade
working classes of the world. In particular those of socialist sates, if
there were any. In fact, the responsibility of the socialist state and
its= proletariat, was outlined
clearly in the Theses adopted under Lenin=s
direction, at the Second Congress of the Comintern.Without a significant
working class in the colonial country, leadership devolved to the Soviet
state, and the working class of the developed capitalist countries.
In fact under this circumstance it may be possible to
successfully go through the first national democratic revolution thought
to the second phase the socialist stage without traversing capitalism :
"If the revolutionary victorious proletariat carries
on systematic propaganda among them, and if the Soviet governments render
them all the assistance they possibly can.. the backward countries may
pass to the Soviet system, and after passing through a definite stage of
development to Communism without passing though the capitalist stage of
development."
Lenin. Report on the Commission. Ibid, p.243.
2. STALIN REFINES THE COLONIAL
THESES TO DEFINE MORE FULLY THE TYPES OF COLONIAL COUNTRIES
Even by 1925, Stalin had taken the Leninist theory and
critically applied it to the international situation. Stalin, in addressing
the AUniversity of The People's
of the East@, had distinguished
by 1925, three different categories of >colonial
and dependent= countries.
Stalin distinguished between these countries, upon the basis of the degree
of proletarianisation, and consistent with this, there were differences
in the maturity and the differentiation of the bourgeoisie. In this method
Stalin took the injunctions of the Theses Second Congress and brought them
up to date for the 1925 period. Moreover, his analysis took the Theses,
and applied them, in an almost country-by -country manner, to take into
account the critical factor. This critical factor was the relative
strength of the working class :
"Formerly the colonial East was pictured as a homogenous
whole. Today that picture no longer corresponds to the truth. We have now,
at least three categories of colonial and dependent countries. Firstly
countries like Morocco who have little or not proletariat, and are industrially
quite undeveloped. Secondly countries like China and Egypt which
are under-developed industries and have a relatively small proletariat.
Thirdly countries like India, which are capitalistically more or
less developed and have a more or less numerous national proletariat. Clearly
all these countries cannot possibly be put on a par with one another."
J.V.Stalin : Speech to Communist University of Toilers
of the East, 1925; @Tasks of
the University of the People=s
of the East.@; Works Vol 7; Moscow;
1954; p. 149
This classification had very serious strategic and tactical
implications for the proletarian parties in the countries concerned. For
example, in the thirdtype of countries, like India, the bourgeoisie
was already split into two factions, a revolutionary and a wavering faction.
This meant that the bourgeoisie were already very wary of the democratic
revolution, that was inflaming the socialist masses:
"The situation is somewhat different in countries like
India. The fundamental and new feature of the conditions of life in countries
like India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split up into
a revolutionary part and a compromising part, but primarily that the compromising
section of the bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike
a deal with imperialism, Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism,
and concerned with more about its money bags than about the interests of
its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie is going over entirely
to the camp of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming
a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country."
Stalin, "Tasks of the University of the People=s
of the East"; Ibid. p.150
The specific tasks of the proletariat in the different countries
would vary then, according to the differences they confronted, in the bourgeois
that opposed them. In countries like India, the proletariat had the potential
to surge to the leadership of the national democratic struggle:
"The victory of the revolution cannot be achieved unless
this bloc is smashed, but in order to smash this bloc (ie The >bloc
with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country.=
-Ed), fire must be concentrated on the compromising national bourgeoisie,
its treachery exposed, the toiling masses freed from its influence, and
the conditions necessary for the hegemony of the proletariat systematically
prepared. In other words, in colonies like India it is a matter of preparing
the proletariat for the role of leader of the liberation movement, step
by step dislodging the bourgeoisie and its mouthpieces from this honourable
post. The task is to create an anti-imperialist bloc and to ensure the
hegemony of the proletariat in this bloc. This bloc can assume although
it need not always necessarily do so, the form of a single Workers and
Peasants Party, formally bound by a single platform. In such centuries
the independence of the Communist Party must be, the chief slogan of the
advanced communist elements, for the hegemony of the proletariat can be
prepared and brought about by the Communist party. But the communist party
can and must enter into an open bloc with the revolutionary part of the
bourgeoisie in order, after isolating the compromising national bourgeoisie,
to lead the vast masses of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie in the
struggle against imperialism."
J.V.Stalin "Tasks of the University of Peoples of the
East"; Ibid; Volume 7; p.150-151.
Stalin was a leading proponent of the Workers and Peasants
Parties. But the Communist International implemented a disastrous Ultra-Left
Turn, repudiating the role of these >mixed=
parties. . As part of this Ultra-Leftism, "non-pure" Communist organisations,
such as the Workers and Peasants Parties were to be destroyed. This ultra-sectarian
approach destroyed the developing revolution in India. (This was documented
in Alliance Number 5; October 1995:@The
Role of the bourgeoisie in colonial type countries. What is the Class character
of the Indian State?). This rout was led by the hidden revisionist OTTO
KUUSINEN, whose later twists on this question are pivotal to understanding
the Khruschevite distortions.
But what about the other end of the spectrum? What about those countries where Stalin saw >little
or no proletariat=? He had mentioned
Morocco, though he could have discussed many others of course. Here Stalin
adhered to the Colonial Theses, where it was argued that the socialist
country and its proletariat would have to exercise leadership. He had already
pointed out in the same lectures :
ALasting victory
cannot be achieved in the colonial and dependent counties without a real
link between the liberation movement in these countries and the proletarian
movement in the advanced countries of the world@.
Stalin; >Tasks
of the University of the Peoples of the East=;
Ibid; p. 148.
Nonetheless, the immediate tasks in countries like Morocco,
were to weld the >united national
Front against imperialism= :
AIn countries
like Morocco, where the national bourgeoisie has, as yet, no grounds for
splitting up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, the tasks
of the communist elements is to take all measures to create a united national
front against imperialism. In such countries, the communist elements can
be grouped into a single party only the course of the struggle against
imperialism, particularly after a victorious revolutionary struggle against
imperialism.@
Stalin;@Tasks
of University of Peoples of East=;
Ibid; p. 149.
Stalin ended this talk by pointing out there were two
deviations, >Which must be
combated if real revolutionary cadres are to be trained@.
The first deviation was to dissolve the movement into the bourgeois
movement:
AThe first
deviation lies in an under-estimation of the revolutionary potentialities
of the liberation movement and in an over-estimation of the idea of a united,
all-embracing national front in the colonies and dependent countries, irrespective
of the sate and degree of development of those countries. That is a deviation
to the Right, and its is fraught with the danger of the revolutionary movement
becoming debased and of the voices of the communist elements becoming drowned
in the general chorus of the bourgeois nationalists. It is direct duty
of the University of the People=s
of the East to wage a determined struggle against that deviation.@
Stalin;@Tasks
of University of Peoples of East=;
Ibid; p. 153-154.
This First deviation would later form the foundation of
several related revisionisms : Firstly Dimitrov revisionism; then of Maoist
revisionism; then of Tito-ite revisionism; and finally of Khruschevite
revisionism.
AThe second
deviation lies an over-estimation of the revolutionary potentialities of
the liberation movements and in an under-estimation of the liberation movement
and in an under-estimation of the role of an alliance between the working
class and the revolutionary bourgeoisie against imperialism. It seems to
me, that the Communists in Java who not long ago mistakenly put forward
the slogan of Soviet power for their country, are suffering from this deviation.
That is a deviation to the Left, and it is fraught with the danger of the
Communist Party becoming divorced from the masses and converted into a
sect. A determined struggle against that deviation is an essential condition
for the training of real revolutionary cadres of the colonies and dependent
countries of the East.@ Stalin;
@Tasks of University of Peoples
of East=; Ibid; p. 154.
This deviation is the foundation of Trotskyism when applied
to the developing countries. Abundant warnings against this deviation had already
been sounded. Nowadays some honest non-Trotskyite comrades, in disgust
at the results of the First deviation applied by revisionists, adhere to
this mistaken position.
SUMMARY OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST
VIEW :
It is useful before examining the changes undertaken
by revisionism during the Khrushchev era, to attempt a simple summary of
the above guidelines offered by Lenin and Stalin:
1. There is in the early phase of a revolutionary
liberation struggle, some potential benefit to the proletarian movement,
to allying with the revolutionary bourgeoisie.
2. But this benefit will vary in its importance,
by the degree of the already existing proletarianization of the country;
and the degree to which its counterpart the bourgeoisie has become antagonistic
to the revolution and the degree to which it may have formed links to imperialism.
3. Once the revolutionary bourgeoisie have shown
their vacillation, it is critical to open fire on them ideologically, and
not to continue to attempt to form revolutionary alliances=
with them. At this stage the working class must continue to lead in alliance
with the peasantry.
4. The exact moment to pass from the first phase
of the revolution (ie the national democratic revolution) through to the
second phase (ie the socialist stage), depends upon two factors :
The first is an objective one and the second one a subjective
one:
First - whether there are any tasks of the first phase
left to compete,
and second - the revolutionary temper of the workers
and peasants.
5. The tasks of the first stage are in essence:
>Against the
monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (And to that extent
the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois democratic)=;
Lenin V.I. AThe
Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky@
(Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part,
cited by J.V.Stalin, in >Foundations
of Leninism=(April 1924); Ibid;
p. 105.
Hereafter Lenin "Renegade Kautsky";
6. Other than the revolutionary bourgeoisie, the
allies at that first stage are:
>The >whole=
of the peasants=.
7. The tasks of the second stage are in essence
to clearly turn towards socialism :
>against
capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks,
the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist
one.= Lenin"Renegade Kautsky";
8. The allies for the second stage are :
>The poor peasants,
with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited=.
Lenin "Renegade Kautsky";
9. To attempt to artificially separate the first
and the second stage is Liberalism ore worse, conscious revisionism or
>distortion=:
>To attempt
to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate
them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat
and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism
dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute Liberalism in its place.=
Lenin V.I. AThe
Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky@
(Nov 1918); In Selected Works; Vol 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 128-9. In part,
cited by J.V.Stalin, in >Foundations
of Leninism=(April 1924); Ibid;
p. 105.
10. The responsibility of a socialist state,
to embryonic liberation movements where there were no large numbers of
proletarians was to render assistance, such that the leadership was exercised
by the workers of the developed world in particular the socialist countries.
In such countries the possibility with such assistance, was to bypass the
capitalist stage of development.We will see that the Khrushchev forces, in particular
led in this matter by Kuusinen and Mikoyan, completely distorted this revolutionary
line.
3. KHRUSHCHEV DISTORTS THE
MARXIST-LENINIST LINE ON REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL AND SEMI-COLONIAL TYPE
COUNTRIES
a) The Nature of the Newly Formed States - Neo-Colonies
- And the Bandung Conference
Following the 20th party Congress of the CPSU, in February
1956, Khrushchev began overtly changing the line in the colonial type countries.
We cannot here, further discuss the distortions that had entered the relations
of the USSR with the People=s
Democracies. We understand the difficulty experienced by the erst-while
supporters of the USSR after Stalin=s
death, at the term >Social-imperialist@.
But in truth, this is how this relation must be characterised. We
will provide further documentation to support this, at a later stage.
But, here we will only aim to un-ravel how the insurgent
national liberation struggles were defused and led into blind alleys, by
the USSR. Following the death of Stalin, in the main, initially Stalin=s
injunctions were still carried out, in the countries of the Arab Middle
East. Despite the presence of hidden revisionists, many of the Soviet pundits,
in fact, still stubbornly insisted upon the Marxist-Leninist line. This
can be seen in such statements as that by V.B.Lutsiky of Moscow
University who wrote:
AWhile Egypt,
Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen were formally
independent states, in fact they were dependent on the Americans, and British..
Arab communists were fighting to unite the people of these countries into
one anti-imperialist front under the leadership of the working class; they
were said to be supported by the peasants, the Aurban
middle strata@, the middle bourgeoises,
and even by that part of the big national bourgeoisie which did not collaborate
with the foreign monopolies.@
V. Lutskiy Voprosy Ekonomiki No 5; 1952; pp 69-85;
Cited by Aryeh Yodfat AArab
Politics in the Soviet Mirror@;
New York; 1973; p. 3.
So as Yodfat notes, the change in line following Stalin=s
death was:
>Slow and marked
from time to time by a retreat to old concepts and policies@.
Aryeh Yodfat AArab
Politics in the Soviet Mirror@;
Ibid; p.4.
Nonetheless, as Marxist-Leninist policies were being gradually
purged in the party, the Soviet revisionists adopted the classic capitalist
positions. Being capitalists, they needed some new markets. As the
economy of the Soviet Union was turned to a profit basis, they were confronted
with an excess capacity, as gauged by the need to make profit. Markets
were needed to make profits. Revisionists now looked internationally for
such markets. These were found initially in the former People=s
Democracies. But the new states that had fought for independence formed
another potential arena. The parties that came to power in some semi-colonial
countries, were led by the national bourgeoisie. Now, having achieved it,
they wished to hold onto power and certainly not enter the communist route.
These would form Khrushchev=s
new markets.
Despite their new states, the national bourgeoisie
of those countries, still faced intense pressure from traditional imperialists. In addition they had great difficulty in simply raising
the necessary capital to transform their country into modern industrial
states. They were forced therefore to resort to a socialist
rhetoric with an elaborate facade of ASocialism@.
The new bourgeoisie hoped to overcome the difficulty of
capital accumulation, by using the entire reserves of the whole
state. Using this reserve, they tried to industrialize their countries
by the path of Nationalization. This was the rationale ofsuch
paths variously called as AUjaama
Socialism@ in Tanzania, or
of ANehru Socialism@
in India. We in Alliance, have previously documented the class basis of
ANehru Socialism@,
as a class coalition between compradors and national bourgeoisie, assisted
by feudal landowners. (Alliance Number 5).
The case of the state of Tanzania, as being dominated
by a national bourgeoisie who were forced into a spurious socialism, was
fully documented by the Communist League in October 1979. (Communist League:
ANyerere=s
AAfrican Socialism@-
A Cloak for neo-colonialism@;
In Compass; London; October 1979.)
Both States, that had supposedly entered some sort of
mystical Third Path. Marxist-Leninists predicted that these attempts
were doomed to failure, since there is no Third Path, there is only:
Either Socialism or Capitalism.
Why would the "Third Path" fail? Because the traditional imperialists were unchanged,
and were determined to retain their markets, and would put pressure on
these countries. So apart from their own internal markets, the new national
bourgeoises could not sell goods anywhere, because the imperialists closed
potential markets doors to the new national states. Nor could they capitalize
as has already been pointed out, because of the problems of capital accumulation.
Finally, nor could they obtain technological equipment.
Only the socialist path could enable them to do all
this, without enslaving themselves once more.
But in 1955, these hard facts were not yet evident to
the still hopeful national bourgeoisie. Before they realized these facts,
and before they made their later inevitable and squalid accommodations
with imperialism, they frantically searched for a mythical Third Path.
This Third Path would supposedly steer away from the Scylla of revolution
and between the Charybdis of imperialism. Out of this desire, was born
the notion of >Neutralism=.
The strategy of 'neutralism', meant playing off
one set of imperialists, against another set. The others were hopefully
viewed as beingother potential allies on the world stage. The national
bourgeoisie of these counties, therefore attempted to find security behind
the Khrushchev USSR - in order to avoid revolution, and also, to evade
the clutches of traditional imperialists. The strategy was to play one
>sponsor=
off against another >sponsor=.
But instead of the Socialist help they might have received
from a Marxist-Leninist state, they simply ended up in the clutches of
a neo-imperialism masquerading as a socialist fraternal aid. Whether the
new states led by these national bourgeoisie remained in the clutches of
the traditional Western imperialists, or fell into the cluthces of new
revisionist social-imperialist USSR, they were no longer colonies. They
had become neo-coliones or semi-colonies.
The concrete form this Third Path strategy would take
was the Bandung Conference. Here the desire for an alternative route
to industrializing their nations was articulated. Bandung took final shape,
after initial meetings between India=s
Jawharlal Nehru and China=s Chou
En Lai, over the vexed territorial issue of Tibet. It was Nehru=s
meetings with Chou En Lai, the Premier of China, on the latter=s
visit to India, that sparked Nehru=s
interest. The ensuing Sino-Indian Agreement of April 29, 1954 upon
Tibet, announced a program called : Pancha Shilla(Five Principles).
These were:
AMutual respect
for each other=s territorial
integrity and sovereignty , nonaggression, non- interference in each other=s
internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence.@
Dallin D.J. "Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin@;
Philadelphia 1961; p. 297.
Naturally Khrushchev had some reservations about the obvious
Chinese involvement, but to maintain the influence of the USSR and to curb
that of the Chinese, the government of the USSR was supportive of Bandung.
Some 340 delegates from 29 countries attended the Bandung Conference.
But the Soviet revisionists did not attend, the only two outwardly ACommunist
Parties@ that were in attendance,
were China and North Vietnam. It is notable that both of these states were
under the full or the partial control of their own national bourgeoises.
(See Joint Statement Alliance, Communist league, MLCP; & see Bland
July 1993 : @The Revolutionary
Process in Colonial Type Countries@;
& see CL On Mao 1970).
The themes of the conference revolved around anti-imperialism.
At the conference, some more Western orientated delegates charged the USSR
with a colonial relationship towards the former People=s
Democracies, using the phrase >New
Colonialism=. (Dallin; Ibid;
p. 300-301.)
However, in general a pro-USSR line was taken at the Conference.
Of itself the Bandung Conference was not necessarily an incorrect step.
At the 3rd Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania
this was specifically noted by the Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha:
AThe Albanian
people hailed the historic Bandung Conference and are whole heartedly at
one with all the peoples of Asia and Africa still in bondage, who are fighting
to wipe out the odious yoke of colonialism once and for all. The Albanian
people and their government have declared their adherence to the well known
Five Principles of peaceful coexistence among states of different social
systems, which have been proclaimed by the governments of the People=s
Republic of China and the Republic of India@.
Hoxha, Enver: AReport
to the 3rd Congress of the PLA@;
Vol 2; Selected Works; Tirana 1975; p.498.
Was this assessment of the PLA correct?
We think it is. We remind Marxist-Leninists of the need
to exploit even the smallest differences between capitalists. As Lenin
pointed out the working class must take advantage of >even
the smallest differences. Furthermore, the PLA, definitely still asserted
the movement to war of the imperialists :
AWithin
the last 5 years state expenditure for military equipment in the United
States has increased four-fold, in Britain also four-fold, and in France
three-fold.. It is understandable that with the major contradictions existing
within the capitalist system, with the present trend of preparing for a
new war.. The crisis of capitalism is becoming deeper and deeper.@ Hoxha AReport
to the 3rd Congress of the PLA@;
Ibid; p. 490.
This approach of the PLA was quite different from the perspective
of the Khruschevite revisionists, as we show below. Instead of the possibility
of using the Bandung Conference to move towards revolution, Bandung held
a different significance for Khruschevite revisionism. It marked the recognition
by the new Soviet revisionists, that these countries were searching for
alternative sponsors to the traditional imperialists.
The Soviet revisionists took the various hints requesting
"help" that the national bourgeoisises were offering. Very soon, they initiated
collaborations with industrialists in these countries.
The first was with Birla, an industrialist
in India. (Dallin Ibid; p. 303.) The USSR financed Birla=s
steel mills. In fact, the transformation of these former colonies of the
West, into the neo-colonies of the newly dominant and rampant Soviet imperialists
was only just beginning.
Meanwhile inside the former soviet state of the USSR,
the struggle continued.
b) The general State of the World - Towards eternal
Peace or to imperialist war? It appears that some honestly stubborn, and correct Oriental
specialists, such as I.Tishin (See November 1954 in Kommunist -
Cited Yodfat bid, p. 4) and L.N.Vatolina (In 1955 - See Sovetskoye
Vostokovedeniye - cited by Yodfat Ibid; p. 5) were still able to resist
successfully revisionism, sufficiently at least, to uphold for a short
time the Marxist-Leninist views.
However matters would soon change, following the 20th
Party Congress of the CPSU. The ideological ground was laid to enable
the revisionists, to force a change in line from the remaining die-hards,
now that Stalin was safely dead. In common with many of the revisionist
lines taken by Khrushchev, this line had also been fought against already,
during Stalin=s life.
Where did the attitude of the PLA (quoted above), regarding
the war preparations of the imperialists spring from? It will be recalled
that Stalin had before his death, unequivocally characterised the world,
as being divided into only Two Camps : the Socialist and the Capitalist
Camps. Stalin had pointed out that, the then domination in the latter
camp of the USA was only temporary. The struggle for markets, and the inter-capitalist
rivalry would ensure the continuation of wars. This is contained in his
final work: "Economic Problems of Socialism In the USSR". This last
intervention of Stalin was delivered as a rebuke to the revisionists, who
were led by Khrushchev, at the 19th Party Congress. The work also served
to halt revionism in its= tracks.
Comrade Bland and the Communist League (ACL@
UK) have described how the revisionist manouevres to sideline Stalin during
his life time, were foiled by his counter-attack contained in this work.
The primary thrust of Stalin=s
AEconomic Problems@,
was to refute the rampant, but incorrect revisionist doctrines, that were
then sweeping into the party with vigor. The most important of these was
of course, the proposals to re-introduce private profit, albeit masked
as Aincentive payments@.
This move was led by Voznosenksy and Khrushchev. All these machinations
are analyzed in detail in Comrade Bland=s
"Restoration of Capitalism In the USSR" (See on the Alliance site).
Further details on these proposed revisionist moves are
also contained in the report on the revisionist Eugene Varga. (See reprint
in Alliance Number 17, October 1995; also on the web).
However, there was another and linked thrust that Stalin
made in >Economic Problems=.
Stalin wished to correct the naive assertions of the new, supposed >Peace-fullness=
of the world:
ASome comrades
hold that, owing to the development of new international conditions since
the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to
be inevitable. They hold that the contradictions between the socialist
camp and the capitalist camp are more acute than the contradictions among
the capitalist countries; that the USA has brought th other capitalist
countries sufficiently under its sway to be able to prevent them going
o war among themselves.. These comrades are mistaken.. It would be mistaken
to think that things can continue to >go
well= (For the USA-Editor) for
Aall eternity@,
that the countries will tolerate the domination and oppression of the United
States endlessly, that they will not endeavor to tear loose from American
bondage... Consequently the struggle of the capitalist countries for markets
and their desire to crush their competitors proved in practice to be stronger
than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp..
But it follows from this that the inevitability of wars between capitalist
countries remains in force. A
Stalin JV. AEconomic
Problems of Socialism In the USSR@;
Moscow; 1952; p. 37-41
@It is said
that Lenin=s thesis that imperialism
inevitably generates war must now be regarded as obsolete, since powerful
forces have come forward today in defence of peace and against another
world war. That is not true. The object of the present day peace movement
is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace
and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently the aim of this
movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism - it confines
itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace.. It is possible that
in a definite conjuncture of circumstances the fight for peace will develop
here and there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be
the present-day peace movement. It will be movement for the overthrow of
capitalism.A
Stalin JV; Ibid, p. 37-41 .
c) Changing The Line: Khruschev Against Soviet Marxist-Leninist
Orientalists - The 20th Party Congress. But following the death of Stalin, Khruschevite revisionism
was able to jettison this viewpoint. The re-alignments of forces evidenced
by the Bandung Conference (See above), facilitated the Khruschevite saccharine
view of world relations. At the 20th Party Congress, various addresses
were now made, that advocated a >closer
support= with the >developing
countries=. And the bourgeois
nationalist leaders like Nehru and Nasser were prominently raised as examples.
To facilitate this revisionist move, the world's divisions were re-classified.
Now a newly designated >Zone
of Peace=, was offered as
a theoretical veneer for supporting bourgeois nationalist regimes :
ASupport was
expressed for the national bourgeoisie and leaders of nationalist movements
such as Jawaharlal Nehru in India, U NU in Burma and Nasser in Egypt. Changes
were also made in the accepted Atwo
camps@ formula which divided
the world into a socialist and a capitalist camp. The >Zone
of peace@ was added, covering
a socialist and the uncommitted states.. Apeace@
continued to be used as a description synonymous with.. Soviet foreign
policy@.
Yodfat; Ibid; p. 6.
If none of the Orientalists, had sufficiently heard the din
of approaching revisionism, a >wake-up=
call was issued. This came from Mikoyan A.A. From the CPSU presidium
he issued a command to the lagging Marxist-Leninist Orientalists, for a
Arevival of Soviet oriental studies@
:
AWhile the
East has recently awakened, this Institute (of Eastern Studies in the USSR
Academy of Sciences - Ed) is still asleep.@
Yodfat; Ibid; p. 6.
Of course, this so-called ARevival
of Soviet oriental studies@,
in reality meant the destruction of Marxist-Leninist principles. This revisionist
call was supported fully by Otto V Kuusinen, also a Presidium member.
Kuusinen sanctified Gandhi and catigated previous "sectarain mistkes" by
Soviet Orientalists. However - he calmly ignored his own role in the Ultra-Left
sectarianism of the Sixth Comintern Conference (the one that had torpedoed
the Workers and Peasants Parties of India) the revisionist Kuusinen sanctimoniously
called for a :
AReappraisal
of the role of the national bourgeoisie.. And recognition of its importance..
He referred to the visits paid by First Secretary of the CPSU Nikita Khrushchev
and Premier N.A.Bulganin to India, when they acknowledged the Aprominent
role@ of Gandhi in Indian history
and so took the initiative in correcting the sectarians mistakes made earlier
in the .. Soviet Orientalists and.. The Communist International.@
Yodfat; Ibid; p. 6.
Increasingly from this point on, the Soviet Oriental experts,
were pushed into adopting a revisionist line. An editorial in Sovetskoye
Vostokovedeniye (1956, no. 1) now listed alleged >mistakes=
in the previously Soviet line. The article suggested these >mistakes=
all revolved around the >exaggeration
of feudal remnants= which had
led Soviet Orientalists to >underestimate
developments in India, Burma, Indonesia, Egypt, and other Eastern countries@;
and to >underestimate=
the role of the national bourgeoisie. (Yodfat; Ibid; p. 7)
This had all led apparently, to an >under-estimation
of Gandhi=. In fact, the role
of Gandhi was especially >sanitized=
in this new revisionist version. One of the leading ideological revisionists
in this period, was the Soviet Indologist A.M.Dyakov (A.M.Dyakov
& I.M.Resyner, Sovremennyy Vostok; No 5; 1956; pp 21-23; Cited Yodfat
Ibid; p. 12.)
Dyakov had previously adopted in the main, correct
Marxist-Leninist positions on India. But he now capitulated to revisionism.
The new versions of the role of Gandhi were contrary to Stalin=s
written positions on Gandhi. Stalin had viewed Gandhi as follows :
"As regards India, Indo-China, Indonesia, Africa etc;
the growth of the revolutionary movement in those countries, which at times
assumes the form of national war for liberation, leaves no room for doubt.
Messieurs the bourgeois count on flooding those countries with blood and
on relying on police bayonets, calling people like Gandhi to their assistance.
There can be do doubt that police bayonets make a poor prop. Tsarism in
its day also tried to rely on police bayonets, but everybody knows that
kind of prop they turned out to be. As regards assistants of the Gandhi
type, tsars had a whole herd of them in the shape of liberal compromisers
of every kind, but nothing came of this except discomfiture.@
Stalin J.V. Political Report of CC to the 16th Congress
CPSU(B); (June1930); Works; Vol 12; 1955; p.259.
Obviously, any analysis of Gandhi, that sanitizes his
constant kow-towing to British imperialism, cannot be free of a pro-imperialist stance. (See Alliance
Number 5).
Within a year, even the very definition of the national
bourgeoisie was being re-drawn away from a purely economic basis. It was
much broadened. The definition was extended to now include :
Firstly, any one who stated that the USSR under
Khrushchev was a good thing; and,
Secondly; it included those who even if they were
remote from the workers, or even if they compromised with imperialists,
might be deemed to havean >objective
value=:
>Professor Ye
M. Zhukov argued that Soviet support for the national bourgeoisie should
not only be given to those whose policies were in harmony with Soviet views;
certain other parties and groups deserved support despite their limited
aims; their remoteness from the working class, or their tendency to distinguish
not only the Asubjective direction@
of their activities, but the objective results. In Egypt Nasser, for example,
might Asubjectively@
preach anti-communism, persecute communists, tend to compromise with the
West, etc; but Aobjectively@
his foreign policy furthered Soviet aims and therefore deserved support.A
Cited Yodfat Ibid; p. 12.
Obviously, this >objective
value= was a very variable
and flexible feast, and was served only to those whom the Russian revisionists
wished to favour. But, the revisionists were still a little sensitive to
the potential charges of anti-Marxism-Leninism. Even now, only a steady
and continual - but slow - modifications to the definitions of the national
and the comprador bourgeoisie were made throughout this time. It is true
that verbally matters were made clear. But in print, the
changes were made slower.
The main platform where these changes were formally announced,
was the meeting of Eighty-One Communist Parties in Moscow of 1960.
This amounted to a test run, to see how far revisionism could go without
being challenged. In fact, it did seem that revisionism could go pretty
far without challenge. There were only two significant sections of the
world communist movement that stood up and challenged the Russian revisionists.
This was firstly the Peoples Republic Socialist Albania
(PRSA), and then the PRSA and People=s
Republic of China. We have dealt with the responses of the Communist
Party China (CPC) to the CPSU(B) before. We argued that the delay in the
challenge to the Khruschevites was a further evidence of Maoist opportunism.
(See Alliance, Communist League, Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey)
Joint Statement; AUpon Unity
and Ideology-An Open letter to Ludo Martens@;
London 1996.)
We will now briefly digress to point out the position
that the Party Labour Albania (PLA) took, was the first significant and
open dissent, that was faced by the Khruschevite revisionists.
It is perfectly true that the Albanians did not
at first challenge the 20 the Party Congress openly. In the Selected
Works of Enver Hoxha, it is stated that this was for two main reasons.
Firstly they felt that further assistance to capitalism
would be rendered by open squabbles; and,
Secondly, that it was still unclear as to whether
or not Khrushchev was not making an honest mistake as opposed to a traitorous
betrayal:
AAt that time
our Party could not come out openly against the theses of the 20 th party
Congress, because this would have served only the enemies of communism
who had launched a furious attack on Marxism-Leninism and the socialist
camp, and also became the Party of Labour of Albania was not yet fully
convinced that Khrushchev and his group had betrayed Marxism-Leninism,
and still hoped that the Soviet leadership would realize its mistakes and
correct them.@
Hoxha E: @Report
to the 3rd Congress of the PLA@;Selected
Works; Tirana; Volume 2; p. 484.
However, in private correspondence, the PLA had criticized
the revisionist theses of the 20 th party Congress:
AAt the same
time through party channels, the Central Committee of our party had informed
the CC of the CPSU of all its reservation and objections regarding the
theses of the 20 th Congress and the revisionist activity of the Soviet
Leadership.@
Hoxha E: @Report
to the 3rd Congress of the PLA@;
Selected Works; Tirana; Volume 2; p. 484.
It is moreover a fact, that the Report at the 3 rd Congress
of the PLA, had correctly taken the line of Stalin, on the inevitability
under imperialism of a new world war:
AIt is understandable
that with the major contradictions existing within the capitalist system
with the present trend of preparing for a new war, with the endless creation
of aggressive alliances and war pacts,.. The crisis of capitalism is becoming
deeper and deeper.. Already the USA is losing its monopoly.. The Americans
wanting to sow the wind are reaping the whirlwind..@
Hoxha E: @Report
to the 3rd Congress of the PLA@;Selected
Works; Tirana; Volume 2; p. 490-91.
The view of the PLA on the national liberation struggle was
not changed, because their conception of the revolutionary road to socialism
had not changed. All this had inevitably led to further friction between
the determined revisionist path, and the path of the PLA. Pressure on Albania
emanating from Khrushchev was exerted. Aptly, this reached a crescendo
with Khrushchev urging Hoxha to embrace Tito. Tito had long been an un-acceptable
trend for the Marxist-Leninist following the Cominform exposure. (See Analysis
by Communist league, in Alliance Number 7; June 1994).
In fact Tito was the stalking horse of Western imperialism
within the camp, being developed under Stalin., for socialism. Even as
early as November 13th 1956, in internal meetings of the PLA Political
Bureau great agitation was being voiced about the changes in the former
People=s Democracies being engineered
between the CPSU and Tito:
AI want to
say right at the start that the moments we are living through are very
serious and critical... I told the Soviet Ambassador (Krylov-ed) that Janos
Kadar=s government had been formed
in close collaboration between the Central Committee off the CPSU and Tito
and he accepted this saying: ASo
it turns out to be@..
Then Krylov asked me what we thought of Imre Nagy=s
going to Rumania and whether we agreed or not. I answered in this way:
Awe have stated
and state again that Imre Nagy is a traitor who has opened the door to
fascism. Tito has stated: AImre
Nagy is with us@, while we Albanians
say that Imre Nagy and Co. Are anti-Soviet. How is it possible that a traitor
who has killed Soviet soldiers who has called on the imperialists to come
to the aid of the counter-revolution, should now be sent to Rumania to
a friendly country?..." The recent article written by us giving a clear
statement of our views on all matters of principle in connection with the
Polish and Hungarian events was published in full in Pravda without any
alternation (Pravda November 8, 1956).. We have the right to take a further
step in exposing the activities of Tito and his clique.. We have told the
Soviet comrades where we differ from them and they now the position and
attitude we maintain... Titoism must be exposed. The stand the Soviet comrades
have maintained on this issue following the 20th Congress has been such
that the danger of Titoism is minimized not properly evaluated.@
Hoxha E. AIn
No Way Will We Make Concessions On Principles@;
Vol 2; Ibid; p.617-630.
Still, the PLA made clear, in the same article, that to have
an open breach from the CPSU, without further specific evidence of a conscious
revisionism, as opposed to a series of honest mistakes, was incorrect at
that time. But at a meeting insisted upon by Hoxha in Moscow, the Khruschevites
backed down to some extent. However that meeting showed, a little more
clearly that only unsatisfactory answers were being given to the Albanians.
But even now, the revisionists had still not fully stepped out of the shadows
as yet. (Detailed in ; Hoxha E; ATo
keep Our Unity Strong For it is Vital@;
(Jan 3, 1957); Vol 2; Ibid; pp. 631-654.)
But steadily the position did become all too clear.
By the time of his Report to the 3rd Plenum of the
CC of the PLA in February 1957, Hoxha was able to give a clear
appraisal of the tactic of imperialism to split the Socialist camp, and
of Tito=s role in this. Also
the pernicious slogans that were used by this campaign were exposed. These
slogans were:
Firstly Acreative
development of Marxism-Leninism@;
secondly of AApplying
Marxism in a creative way under the specific conditions of each country@;
and Thirdly of a struggle Aagainst
>Stalinism".
All these slogans were correctly and openly identified
as pernicious, by Hoxha and the PLA. (Hoxha AOn
International Situation & Tasks of Party@;
3rd Plenum CC PLA; Vol 2; Ibid; pp 687-689).
By the time of the Report to the 10th Plenum of the
CC of the PLA, on June 20th 1958, Hoxha was able to be even more explicit.
He charged that the alliance between the CPSU and the
Tito-ites was dangerous and heading to a threat to socialism. (Hoxha; AOn
the anti-Marxist and anti socialist views once more expressed at the 7th
Congress of the League of communists of Yugoslavia... Report At the 10th
Plenum, of the CC of the PLA. June 20th 1958.; Vol 2; Ibid; p. 751.)
By the June of 1960, the Khruschevites revisionists
had fully show their hand by blatant manipulations at the Bucharest
meeting. The meeting had been organized by Khruschev forces to deal
with the dissent being offered by the CPC, which was finding its way into
the comunsit press. The PLA agreed to go to this meeting, preparing to
argue for a future open meeting to resolve differcnes. At Bucharest however,
the PLA found a "kangaroo court"; one at which the absent CPC was being
charged with severe "misconduct". The PLA took a principled stand. This
was expressed as follows:
"Our Party adopted a correct stand..
First the differences in question are differences between
the CPSU and the CPC;
Second the Bucharest meeting was premature and was conducted
in violation of Leninist organizational rules;
third our Party will voice its opinion on these differences
in the coming meeting which should be prepared according to the rules and
existing practices of the communist and workers parties."
Hoxha E; "Letter of the CC of the PLA To All Party Basic
Organisations, on the Proceeding of the June 1960 Bucharest meeting and
the disagreements that had emerged there between the CPSU and the CPC.
(Aug 9th 1960); In Vol 2; Ibid; p.789.
This stand led to an even more blatant CPSU-revisionist pressure
upon the PLA. The PLA was in fact now condemned for not siding with the
CPSU in open denunciation of the CPC. Naturally this would have been unprincipled
to do so. Especially so, given the manner in which it was proposed by the
CPSU(B), without any principled discussion and documentation. The PLA now
recognized that this was no longer anything but a conscious policy of sabotage
of the world communist movement. An open denunciation had to follow, which
occurred at the "Meeting of 81Communist and Workers Parties in Moscow",
from 10th November to 1st December 1960. Hoxha's speech exposed revisionism
clearly. It pointed out that far from "Zones of Peace", the world was being
directed to war.
4. CAPPING THlE EDIFICE OF
KHRUSCHEVITE REVISIONISM - IN THE LINE OF REVOLUTION IN COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES
As discussed above, the Meeting of 81 Communist and Workers
Parties, was where Khruschevism unveiled fully its open changes to the
Leninist line on revolution in colonial type countries. The way was now
clear for the Soviet revisionists. The growing breach between those willing
to stand up, like the PLA with the CPC (even if hesitatingly - like the
CPC), and the Soviet revisionists, would allow them no longer just to gingerly
tread on egg shells. They came out fully and openly now. Following the
meeting of the Eighty-One Parties, the revisionists were courageous enough
to commit themselves more clearly in print. Written changes became much
easier to spot in the texts emanating from Moscow.
The 'theoretical advance' that was offered by the Soviet
revisionists, was that of the National Democracy. This introduced
the term : "A state of
national democracy".
Now the revisionist pace quickened, and became ever clearer.
By 1961, the editor of World Marxist Review - A. Rumyantsev, would
charge that Marxists were being too sectarian, if they did not adopt more
frequent 'blocs' with national bourgeoisie. He cited the error of the lranian
Communists, who failed to support Musadiq's struggle to nationalise the
oil industry, as an instance of this >sectarianism=.
(Cited Yodfat; Ibid; p. 13).
But, even by the time of the writing of the new 1961 CPSU
Programme, at least upon paper, things had not apparently gone too far
away. In the text wording, in this 1961 programme, the definitions of the
national bourgeoisie still resembles those of Lenin and Stalin:
>The national
bourgeoisie is dual in character.. Where it is not connected with the imperialist
circles (it) is objectively interested in accomplishing the basic task
of an anti-imperialist and anti- feudal revolution. Its progressive role
and its ability to participate in the solution of pressing national problems
are, therefore not yet spent. But as the contradiction between the working
people and the propertied classes grows and the class struggle inside the
country becomes more acute, the national bourgeoisie shows an increasing
inclination to compromise with imperialism and domestic reaction.@
Cited Yodfat; Ibid; p. 15.
But as the articles from 1962 would make plain, the plaudit
and description of a role that was @still
progressive@ - would continue
to be handed to those national bourgeoisie, where they had already achieved
state power. Even where in fact, as the articles themselves admitted, the
national bourgeoisie were in the process now of Aturning
against the masses.@ This
drastic revision became even clearer in the newly offered classification
of the Afro-Asian developing countries in 1962.
This classification has Six Categories :
A1. Those with
relatively well developed capitalist relations and classes where the national
bourgeoisie were in power, as in India, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia etc;
2. Those with less well developed capitalist relations
and a weaker national bourgeoisie who sometimes shared power with the feudals
(Iraq, Morocco, Somalia , Sudan etc,)
3. Countries in which power was in the hands of a pro-imperialist
bourgeoisie, sometimes in coalition with feudal owning classes (Turkey,
Pakistan).
4. Ghana, Guinea, and Mali were a special group in which
there were strong forces aiming at a non-capitalist path of development.
5. Pro-imperialist ex-colonial countries such as the
former French colonies in West and Equatorial Africa.
6. Centuries where the feudal class was still strong,
where there was little capitalist development and virtually no bourgeoisie.
In foreign affairs they were neutralist (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia,
Afghanistan etc). A
Cited Yodfat, Ibid; p.15-16; From R.Avakov & G. Mirskiy
MEiMO, No. 4, 1962; pp 76-79
Apparently the United Arab Republic was difficult to classify,
and was not put into the scheme.
Things were finally becoming explicitly clear, as to
how the Khruschevites wished to disrupt the revolutionary process in the
colonial type countries. The plan was :
A) To extract the Soviet revisionists from any
state responsibility to any principled and clearly defined group of national
liberation struggles, and to keep their options totally open;
B) Added to which they wished to reserve the right
to the USSR support of any designated >national
bourgeoisie=, extending throughout
the >Chinese wall@
(identified by Lenin) between the first stage and the second stage of the
revolution.
The solution they would adopted for these revisionist
ends was the state of ANational
Democracy@. The
movies usually disclaim, "any passing similarities to other persons or
events"! We cannot - since : Here we note the passing similarity to Mao=s
ANew Democratic State." This passing similarity was not fortuitous and was
definitely intended!
The Khruschevite revisionist line on ANational
Democracy@, was later explained
in print by Boris Ponomorev head of the CPSU Department for relations
with Non-Governing Communist parties; and then by A.Sobolev an editor
of the World Marxist Review. This latter article, in the World Marxist
Review 1963, Number 2; Vol 6; Feb p.39-48 is now examined in detail, since
it provides the definitive >spoor=
or tracks, by which to follow the subsequent RIGHT REVISIONIST DISTORTIONS
of the national liberation strategy and tactics.
1. In the article Sobolev firstly classifies the various
states existing. The break-down is roughly correct and was given by
Sobolev as follows :
>The problem
is extremely complex. The countries fighting for national freedom have
features that are peculiar to each as well as certain common features.
There are countries that have gone a long way along the capitalist path,
have their own national industry and a working class; some of these countries
even have a monopoly bourgeoisie; although foreign capital and feudal survivals
play an important part in their economy.
More numerous is the group of countries with a colonial,
feudal economy with more or less pronounced elements of developing capitalism.
Here we find a national bourgeoisie, although this still small in numbers,
and a working class, but the feudal and even pre-feudal forms of exploitation
weigh heavily on the people.
Further there are countries where capitalist relationships
are only beginning to emerge, where the national bourgeoisie has either
not taken shape or exists only in embryo, where the working class is in
the formative stage and where the feudal class had gone, although survivals
of tribalism are preserved in the countryside.
Then there are the countries where capitalism has not
yet appreciably developed, where the economy is dominated by foreign capitalists
or feudal overlords, and where the national bourgeoisie has not crystallized
as a class.@
Sobolev "World Marxist Review"; 1963; Number 2; Volume
6: Feb; p. 39-48.
Sobolev correctly concludes from this taxonomy that classification
is only approximate, and that the common features are :
AThey are economically
dependent on imperialism; their productive forces , the different forces
notwithstanding, are underdeveloped; and their relations of production
represent a crazy-quilt of diverse property relationships.@
Sobolev Ibid; p. 40.
2. Sobolev correctly points out that many of these national
bourgeoisie are spuriously using the language of >socialism=
:
AThe historical
senility of capitalism is obvious to many political leaders.. Nehru for
example declares that the capitalist method has nothing to offer the underdeveloped
countries. Socialism is India=
aim.. President Sukharno of Indonesia advocates as the ultimate aim the
building of a just society - AIndonesian
socialism@...etc. There is no
doubt that the various concepts are not identical.. Some bear the stamp
of petty-bourgeois blundering; others represent illusory attempts by their
national bourgeoisie to combine the incompatible-the advantages of socialism
and their own narrower interests; still others clearly reveal elements
of demagogy.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.41.
3. However Sobolev then goes on to dogmatically assert
that they have a 'sound democratic core' :
ABut the fact
remains that most of those concepts emerged in the course of a bitter struggle
against imperialism , reflecting an agonizing search for effective ways
of speedily solving urgent problems. They contain a sound democratic core,
a still latent germ of the future. Indeed they resolve into a program of
national-democratic revolution, and essentially anti-imperialist agrarian
revolution of a new type to sweep away all the romanced of feudalism and
tribal relations.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.41.
4. He then sketches out a possible solution to the problem,
which amounts to a type of argument that 'the best efforts of the bourgeoisie
must be encouraged', to bring them over to socialism:
AMarxists paraphrasing
Lenin, put the question thus : If a revolutionary democrat or a member
of the national bourgeoisie is willing to take one step forward, it is
the duty of the Marxist to help him take two. It is likewise noteworthy,
that in elaborating a program for the democratic stage of the revolution,
the patriotic forces are orientating on socialism.. There is then the possibility
that many revolutionary democrats will come over to the position of scientific
socialism."
Sobolev Ibid; p.41-2.
5. This solution may in fact, according to Sobolev, allow
a "Non-Capitalist way":
AAdoption of
the position of scientific socialism by larger numbers of revolutionary
democrats will make for a better understanding of the motive forces of
the revolution... the most effective way to ensure the progress of the
newly-emerged countries, to solve the democratic tasks, to develop the
economy and the lay the social, economic and political ground work for
building socialism is the no-capitalist way... The most important aspect
of the non-capitalist way is socio-economic and class development leading
from colonial feudal or semi-feudal economy bypassing the capitalist stage
to socialism... it is the social mechanism for the transition of a number
of countries from a semi-colonial semi-feudal economy with more or less
pronounced capitalist relationships to a socialist economy bypassing the
stage of mature industrial capitalism.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.42.
6. This is in effect the state of "National democracy":
AThe political
forms of social organisation ..can be extremely varied. However we believe
that as things are, the most expedient and effective form, although of
course not the only one, is the state of national democracy. .. The establishment
of the state of national democracy is the tangible expression of the victory
of the patriotic democratic forces over reaction; ie. Over the imperialists,
the compradores, and the feudal overlords. It is the first stage of popular
government@.
Sobolev Ibid; p.43.
7. In marked contrast to Lenin and Stalin (but not in
contrast to Mao) this stage can last "may years":
ALastly the
duration of the non-capitalist stage will not be the same in al instances.
In some instances it will be a mere episode... In others it may involve
many years of gradual change in the socio-economic relations.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.44.
8. This state of "National Democracy", objectively represents
the interests of several classes including workers:
"A feature of national democracy and one that lends it
its transitional character, is that it is not a single state of a single
class, or even of two classes-workers and peasants; nor will it be a dictatorship
of a single class or even of two classes. It will be a state representing
the interests of the entire patriotic section of the society vis--vis the
deposed reactionary classes... This struggle within the framework of the
alliance is aimed at preventing any attempt to place narrow class interests
above the interests of the nation... The cooperative sector .. Which is
main headway in most of the new national states will be an important factor
of progress@.
Sobolev Ibid; p.44
9. Correctly Sobolev points out the difficulty in capital
accumulation faced by these national bourgeoisie :
A It should
also be borne in mind that private capital in technologically lagging countries
is unable to provide the accumulations needed for the rapid establishment
of a modern industry@.
Sobolev Ibid; p.41.
10. The entry of the 'socialist' countries is presented
as having modified the behaviour of the imperialists. This is of course
correct, since the national bourgeoisie were trying to play one set of
predators off against one another:
AIn view of
the role played by the socialist countries, the imperialists have been
compelled to maneuver.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.40.
11. The leadership of the democratic struggles is presented
as being able to be exercised by 'any democratic class' - this is quite
a revisionist and anti-Leninist thesis:
"National democracy can be established under the leadership
of any democratic class- the working class, the peasantry, or the small
urban bourgeoisie. In some countries the leading force may be the intelligentsia
including the revolutionary army officers. In countries where the is no
working class or where it in only emerging, the peasantry can play an independent
revolutionary role.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.46.
12. The tasks of the Democratic revolution are depicted
on the whole correctly. But they encompassed the entire phase of industrialisation
- something that Sobolev had himself already acknowledged, was virtually
impossible for the struggling national bourgeoisise:
AThe tasks
:
-first it is imperative to abolish all form of pre-capitalist
relations and all exploitation by carrying out an agrarian reform and overcoming
the survivals of the primitive tribal system. Of prime importance is the
expropriation of the Latifundists and the big planters;
-Second all form of economic dependence on imperialism
must be done away with by alienating the property of the foreign monopolies,
changing the structure of industry and ensuring the balance of between
the various branches reconstructing agriculture and going over to diversified
farming, and turning towards the socialist countries in the sphere of world
economic relations;
-Third gradual industrialization must be effected. To
solve these tasks it is essential to take the offensive against the ultra-reactionary
classes which offer desperate resistance and undoubtedly will continue
to do so. Consequently the class struggle between the democratic and the
feudal compardore alignment may be expected to grow sharper.@
Sobolev Ibid; p.47.
The basic view was to support state nationalization. But
as Hoxha had already pointed out in relation to Yugoslavia:
"By identifying state monopoly capitalism with >socialism=
the Yugoslav revisionists distort the essence of the present-day capitalist
sate and try to present it, not as w a weapon in the hand so the monopoly
bourgeoisie, but as if it stands above the classes. They do this to negate
the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the destruction
of the old bourgeois state apparatus."
Enver Hoxha; AOn
the anti-Marxist and anti socialist views once more expressed at the 7th
Congress of the League of communist of Yugoslavia... Report At 10th Plenum,
of the CC of the PLA. Jun 20 1958; Vol 2; Ibid; p. 751.
CONCLUSIONS : KHRUSCHEVISM
APPLIED TO THE COLONIAL TYPE COUNTRIES THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS: 1. The leaders of the national democratic revolution
could be any progressive class.
2. The democratic phase could last many years.
3. I)uring this democratic phase the process of industrialization
could be completed.
4. Many 'revolutionary democrats' will be won to socialism;
and 'patriotic forces' were orientated to socialism.
5. They will build the non-capitalist path towards a
fliture socialism, that can bypass 'mature industrial capitalism'.
6. The national democratic state was a class coalition
of several progressive classes.
These were clearly revisionist tactics aimed to garner
support for corrupt national bourgeoisie governments. These governments
were being courted by the Khruschevite revisionist, to become the ne~colonies
of the revisionist USSR, as opposed to remaining as the neo-colonies of
transitional imperialist countries like the USA.
5. THE RESULTS OF THE KHRUSCHEVITE
LINE IN INDIA
India is a case that shows the re'visionist line being applied
very clearly, and exposes its errors(See Alliance numbers 5 October 1993;
and 16 July 1995). Since Khrushchev had identified Nehru as an important
example of the type of leader who can supposedly steer a path through a
non-capitalist development"; we wish to remind readers that India certainly
has not done that.
The facts to the contrary show that:
a) The national bourgeoisie came to power in a class
coalition after the partition of India;
b) Despite carrying out a part of their agenda for industrialization
they did not complete the tasks of the national democratic revolution.
The historic role of the national bourgeoisie of india as a whole is finished.
c) That therefore the democratic revolution still needs
completion.
d) Since India is a multi-national state that has oppressed
nationalities, it is still possible that there may develop nascent 'regional
national bourgeoises, with whom the proletariat could ally temporarily.
e) That the main internal ally of the working classes
of India is the peasantry.
Below, we remind readers of some of the points underlying
(a), (b) and (c). Point (d) will be flirther clarified in a tuture article.
Point (e) we believe, follows from the article above.
a) The national bourgeoisie came to power in a class
coalition after the partition of India We previously characterised the state established after
the accession to power of Nehru as a class coalition composed of:
"1. The Pan-Indian Marwari national bourgeoisie led by
Jawharlal Nehru,
2. A comprador bourgeoisie led by Sardar Villabhai Patel;
3. The landlord class led by Sardar Villabhai Patel.
"
See Alliance 5; p.122.
b) The Democratic Revolutionary Tasks are still to be
undertaken, but Not in alliance with the Pan-Indian bourgeoisie. This class
reneged on the national democratic tasks, and can no longer be considered
as allies of the workers and peasants. We previously pointed out, that the tasks of the national
democratic revolution have not been competed despite the accession to power
of the Nehru Government (See Alliance 16; pp 87-91).
Firstly we have argued before that land concentration
was increasing rather than diminishing:
AThe Government
of India itself gives corroborating figures.
Firstly land concentration is occurring. According
to official figures the class of landlords and rich peasants holding 15
acres or more of land; holds more than 50% of the total land, although
consisting only 7% of the rural population."
(P.S.Appu: Ceilings on Agricultural; Holdings', Government
of India; 1971; p.38.)
Secondly, the bourgeoisie are assisting this trend.
The concentration of landholding has increased since the 'so-called Independence':
"Concentration of landholding and other assets in the
hands of a tiny minority of landlords and rich farmers and a corresponding
pauperisation and proletarianisation at the bottom has emerged as distinct
trends after Independence".
(A.R.Desai; 'India's Path of Development'; Bombay; 1984;
p.15).Thirdly, the state has directed its' policies, to
a considerable extent to the benefit of the rich peasantry:
"A disproportionately large share of the benefits accruing
from the heavy investments made by society during the last two decades
in irrigation, rural electrification, community development, road building,
agricultural extension etc; has gone to the rich farmers, Those with more
land have derived a larger share of the increased prosperity. This progress
has also led to a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the rural
elites... The Cooperative Societies, controlled as they are in most parts
of the country by the rich framers, seldom cater to the needs of the weaker
section of the population. The benefits of community development programmes,
as of all other development efforts in general have accrued to the richer
sections of society, leaving the poor untouched."
(P.S.Appu: Ibid; p.37; 39)."Since independence considerable public investments
have been made in irrigation, rural electrification, community development,
road building, agricultural extension etc; .. The benefits of these public
investment have been largely accrued to the bigger landowners, who are
not required to pay any betterment levy to even reasonable irrigation rates.
The benefits of the recent breakthrough in agricultural production based
on the adoption of modern technology have also gone mainly to the well-to-do
farers, On of the spectacular results has been a widening of disparities
in health and income in rural areas".
(Planning Commission:'Report of the Task Force on Agrarian
Relations' Government of India; 1973; p.14)
"The state.. has launched schemes to create social, political,
cultural and economic institution to strengthen her positions of power
of the richer section of the peasantry and the trading class through which
it is initiating the process of capital formation and of reshaping of agrarian
production and the rural social order.. The Indian bourgeois has successfully
transformed Indian agrarian society into one composed of small group of
landlords and rich peasants, and vast armies of agrarian proletariat and
pauperised peasants, with vast numbers of human derelicts-the unemployed
or economically superfluous population..
With a view to strengthening this class of rich peasantry
and landlords.. the Indian bourgeois has provided extensive facilities
like the supply of seeds, fertilisers, improved tools, irrigation and water
supply as well as faculties for credit and improved means of communication
and transport. It has further, allowed various kinds of organisations like
cooperative, land mortgage bans, marketing and purchasing societies, panchayats
and others, which primarily serve the same purpose...
The Indian bourgeois state, as part of its agrarian strategy,
is also elaborating varieties of ..institutions which in the context of
class polarisation in agrarian areas are basically being used to enable
those richer sections to influence and control the rural population.
The cooperatives, the gram and nyay panchayats, the educational,
youth womens' and other organisations which have been elaborated in the
agrarian society are also associational forms which have been cleverly
worked out by the Indian bourgeois state to provide powerful levers for
the richer section of the village communities to establish their control
over the village poor and to provide necessary facilities to subserve the
interests of the these richer peasants."
(A.R.Desai; Ibid; p.149-50;158-59)
Fourthly, the domination of the state by landowners
particularly large landowners is admitted by Indian government reports
and other studies:
"The attitude of the bureaucracy towards the implementation
of land reform is generally lukewarm, and often apathetic. this is, of
course, inevitable because , as in the case of the men who wield political
power, those in the higher echelons of the administration are also substantial
landowners themselves or they have close links with big landowners, the
village functionaries.. Are inevitably petty landowners.. they were also
under the sway of the big landowners."
(The Planning Commission; Ibid.; p.9.)
"The rich and well-to-do farm groups in India count very
much in the inner councils of the Congress Party both in the Centre and
the States".
(W.Ladejinsky:"Economic and Political Weekly", Bombay;
30 September, 1972)
"A nation wide survey conducted under the auspices of
the National Institute of Community Development in 1965.. revealed that
64% of the rural politicians, or almost two-thirds, owned 10 acres or more
of land each with 38.2% owning 25 acres or more each." (S.Arora:"Economic
and Political Weekly"; Bombay; Annual Number 1972).
Moreover data indicate that the:
"Land re-distribution statistics show that up to 1985-86
the proportion of poor peasantry was maintaining itself-and that with a
growing population remaining dependent on agriculture, the whole agrarian
structure was in a sense "pushed down": more and more holdings and a grater
proportion of the area operated was in a marginal category."
(Omvedt G. AReinventing
Revolution - New Social Movements and the Socialist Tradition in India@;
New York; 1993; p.34.)
ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL FARM HOLDINGS AND AREA OPERATED. 1970-71 1980-81 1985-86 Percent of Operational Holdings Marginal (0-1 hect)
50.6 56.4
58.1
Small (1-2 hect)
19.1 18.1
18.3
Semi-medium (2-4 hect)
15.2 14.0
13.5
Medium (4-10 Hect)
11.2 9.1
8.1
Large (over 10 Hect)
3.9 2.4
2.0
(From Omvedt G; Ibid; Table 2.1; p.35).
BIBLIOGRAPHY Alliance, Communist League (UK) and Marxist-Leninist
Communist Party (Turkey) : 'Joint Statement Upon Unity and Ideology' -
An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens"; London; March 1996.
Alliance 5: "Role of bourgeoisie in colonial ~'pe countries.
What is the class character of India?" USA, oct 1995.
Alliance Number 13. "Restoration of Capitalism in the
USSR", Bv W.B.Bland.
Alliance Number 17:" Revisionism of Varga and Voznosensky"')
Oct 1995. Reprint of Communist League materials.
Appu P.S. " Ceilings on Agricultural; Holdings', Government
of India" 1971
Communist League: "Nyerere's "African Socialism"- A Cloak
for neo-colonialism"; Compass; London; October 1979.
Coinmtern: Theses on the Eastern Question, 4th Congress
Cl, J.Degras (ed)" The Communist
International: 1919-1943: Documents", Volume I,
london; 1971.
Dallin D.J. "Soviet Foreign PolicyAfter Stalin"; Philadelphia
1961.
Desai A.R. 'India's Path of Development'; Bombay; 1954
Hoxha, E: "Report to the 3rd Congress of the PLA"; Vol
2; Selected Works; Tirana 1975; p.495.
Hoxha E. "On International Situation & Tasks of Party";
3rd Plenum CC PLA; Vol 2, Ibid; pp 657-659. Hoxha E. "In No
Wav Will We Make Concessions On Principles"; Vol 2; Ibid; p.617-630.
Hoxha E: "To keep Our Unity Strong For it is Vital';
(Jan 3, 1957); Vol 2; Ibid; pp.631-654.
Hoxha; 'On the anti-Marxist and anti socialist views
once more expressed at the 7th Congress of the League of communists of
Yugoslavia... Report At the 10th Plenum, of the CC of the PLA. June 20th
1955.; Vol2; Ibid;p.751.
Hoxha F; "letter of the CC of the PLA To All party basic
organisations on the Proceeding of the June 1960 Bucharest meeting and
the disagreements that had emerged there between the CPSU and the CPC."
(Aug 9th 1960); Vol 2; Ibid; p.759.
Hoxha; "On the anti-Marxist and anti socialist views
once more expressed at the 7th Congress of the League of communist of Yugoslavia..Report
At 10th Plenum, of the CC of the PLA. Jun 20 1955; Vol 2; p.751.
Lenin V.1. : : Preliminary Draft of Theses on National
and Colonial Questions, 2nd Congress Communist International in" Selected
Works", Volume 10, London, 1946; p.236-7.
Lenin V.1. "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsy"' (1915); Sel. Works; Vol 3;Moscow; 1971; p. 125-9.
Lenin VI : "Address To Second All-Russia Congress of
Communist Organisations of the Peoples Of' the East": Collected Works Vol
30; Moscow; 1966; p.160-162.
Omvedt G. "Reinventing Revolution-New Social Movements
& Socialist Tradition in India"; New York; 1993
Planning Commission: 'Report of the Task Force on Agrarian
Relations' Govermment of India; 1973
Roy M.N. :,"Memoirs, Bombay, 1964;
Roy MN.. Speech 2nd Congress CI, Cited G.Adhikari,
'Documents CP India; Delhi; 1971p.191-2.
Sobolev A "World Marxist Review" 1963, Number 2; Vol
6; Feb p.39-45
Stalin J.V .:"Foundations of Leninism"; (April 1924)
In Problems of Leninism; Moscow; 1954; p.73
Stalin J.V. : "Notes on Contemporary Themes"; (July 1927);
In Works; Volume 9; Moscow; 1954; p.337.
Stalin J.V.:" Tasks of University of People's of East",
May 15th, 1925; Works; Moscow 1954; Vol 7; pp135-146.
Stalin J.V.: "On the International Situation and the
Defence of the tJSS"; Joint Plenum of CC and the CPSU Control Commission;
August 11927. Vol 10; p.16-17.
Stalin J. V.: "Questions of the Chinese Revolution",
"Works"; Vol 9; p.236-235.
Stalin JV. "Economic Problems of Socialism In the USSR";
Moscow; 1952.
Stalin J.V. "Political Report of CC to the 16th Congress
CPSU(B); (June1930); Works; Vol 12; 1955; p.259.
Trotsky L: 'The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of
Comrade Stalin'; In 'Problems of the Chinese Revolution', Ann Arbor (USA);
1967;
Yodfat Ary'eh: "Arab Politics in the Soviet M'irror";
New York; 1973
END BACK TO "WHAT
IS NEW?"
EDITOR=S
REMARKS REGARDING AN OMISSION IN ISSUE 23 ALLIANCE.
The editor apologizes regarding an error that has been
noted in the last issue of alliance, Namely Number 23. There, we had attempted
to collate the significant remarks of Lenin and Stalin upon the Negroes
in the USA. To this date, we believe that we have only omitted two references.
These are provided below. It does not to us, appear to alter the analysis,
that we have made in Alliance 23. If anything, they appear to strengthen
it. Nonetheless, this was an omission. We of course would gratefully acknowledge
the remarks of comrades, as to any other statements, that we may in addition
have missed. Indeed any corrections are welcome. In any case, the two references
below are omissions that we can rectify straight away.
The First is by Lenin; In Volume 31; Collected Works;
Moscow; 1966; pp. 159-161.
Lenin is here discussing the >Preliminary
Draft These on the Agrarian Question@,
then being discussed at the Second Congress of Comintern,
1920. At the point of citation below, Lenin is discussing the question
of the expropriation of the lands of the >big
agricultural enterprises, and is generally here arguing that :
AThe Communist
International is of the opinion that in the case of the advanced capitalist
countries, it would be correct to keep most of the big agricultural
enterprises intact and to keep them on the lines of the >state
farms= in Russia. But it would
however be grossly erroneous to exaggerate or to stereotype this rule,
and never to permit the free grant of part of the land that belonged
to the expropriated expropriators to the neighboring small and sometimes
middle peasants.@
He then adduces three reasons to substantiate this
view. His third reason is as follows :
AThird, in
all capitalist countries, even the most advanced, there still exist survivals
of medieval, semi-feudal exploitation of the neighboring small peasants
by the big landowners, as in the case of the Instleute (tenant farmers)
in Germany,, the metayers in France, and the sharecroppers in the United
States (not only the Negroes, who, in the Southern States, are mostly exploited
in this way, but sometimes whites too). In such cases it is incumbent on
the proletarian state to great the small peasants free use of the lands
they have formerly rented.AIt may be seen that Lenin is again noting the share-cropping
existence of the majority of the Negroes, and points out that this is not
unique, but also occurs in whites sometimes.
The second omission is one citation of Stalin=s=s
that we had overlooked. This is in : Works: Volume 13; Moscow 1955; reprint
London; pp.267-279. Here Stalin simply states in reply to a question that
no country in the world has a monopoly of ability in the mechanical industries
:
AIn general
I consider it impossible to assume that the workers of any particular nation
are incapable of mastering new technique. If we look at the matter from
the racial point of view, then in the United States, for instance, the
Negroes are considered Abottom
category men,@ yet they master
techniques no worse that the whites. The question of the mastery of technique
by the workers of a particular nation is not a biological question, not
a question of heredity, but a question of time: today they have not mastered
it, tomorrow they will learn and master it. Everyone including the Bushman
can master technique provided he is helped.@
p. 271-271.
Perhaps it is worth noting also, that in Stalin=s
article AThe National Question
and Leninism-Reply to comrades Meshkov, Kovalchuk & others@
(Volume 11; Moscow 1954; p.348-371), we find no mention of the ABlack
Nation.@ These extracts should
be added by our readers, to the comments in Alliance 23.