Issue NUMBER 25.  January 1997


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"




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



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






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 :

At that time Stalin answered : 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 : 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



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 :

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: 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: 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:

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. 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: 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: 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 :

Thus the stages of the revolution, depend upon TWO things:
1. The tasks to perform;
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 :

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 : 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: 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 : 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 following Roy=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 :

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 :


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 :

This classification had very serious strategic and tactical implications for the proletarian parties in the countries concerned. For example, in the third type 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 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: 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 :

Nonetheless, the immediate tasks in countries like Morocco, were to weld the >united national Front against imperialism= : 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: 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. 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.


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:

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.


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:

So as Yodfat notes, the change in line following Stalin=s death was: 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 of such 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 being other 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:

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:

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 :

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:

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 : 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@ : 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 : 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 :

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 :

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:

However, in private correspondence, the PLA had criticized the revisionist theses of the 20 th party Congress: 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: 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:

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:

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.


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:

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 :

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 :

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 : 2. Sobolev correctly points out that many of these national bourgeoisie are spuriously using the language of >socialism= : 3. However Sobolev then goes on to dogmatically assert that they have a 'sound democratic core' : 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: 5. This solution may in fact, according to Sobolev, allow a "Non-Capitalist way": 6. This is in effect the state of "National democracy": 7. In marked contrast to Lenin and Stalin (but not in contrast to Mao) this stage can last "may years": 8. This state of "National Democracy", objectively represents the interests of several classes including workers: 9. Correctly Sobolev points out the difficulty in capital accumulation faced by these national bourgeoisie : 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:  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: 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: The basic view was to support state nationalization. But as Hoxha had already pointed out in relation to Yugoslavia: 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: 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:

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:

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:

                                                        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).

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





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.A It 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.