Web placed by Alliance October 2001

Kolkata India; January to March 2001, p. 36-51; New Series;
Editor Moni Guha

Foreword By Alliance
    In our own opinion this is an important debate for all Marxist-Leninists in "developing" countries. It describes clearly the dilemmas they face today.
    For Marxists-Leninists in "developed" coutnries, it is also important - hinging as it does on the interpretation of the "modes of production" and the "relations of production" - key notions for Marxist-Leninists.
    For both sets of comrades, other dimensions - such as the nature of the debates in the Comunist International - make this debate critical. We will not belabour these matter here but will shortly comment on them.


    The Proletarian Path, in its Inaugural issue (New Series, vol.1, I No.1, Nov-Dec,1992) published its stand on the stage of revolution in India now, calling it socialist. Comrade Vijay Singh, editor, Revolutionary Democracy (in its vol.3, No.2, Sept, 1997), challenging the stand of the Proletarian Path and advancing the stage as a democratic one, published a long article: "A critique of the contemporary Adherent of the views of M.N. Roy, Evgeny Varga and Leon Trotsky on the Stage of Revolution in India", on pages 40-60. Subsequently Alliance M-L of Canada also published an article in its organ No-28, January 1998, in support of the democratic stage of revolution in India - though it criticised the arguments of Revolutionary Democracy.

    A healthy dialogue on this vital issue was in the process of developing. Proletarian Path was duty bound morally and politically to continue this dialogue defending its stand which it failed to do. This unpardonable lapse of the proletarian path is now being rectified by meeting the challenges of RevolutionM Democracy and Aliance-M-L.

We must meet this challenge in two parts separately.

    The Stage of Revolution And The Journal "Revolutionary Dernocracy"

    Introduction: There is a popular Bengali proverb - Dhan Vante Shiver Geet (Shiva's song while husking paddy) meaning a quite unnecessary and irrelevant song on the occasion concerned. Our most learned critique Revolutionary Democracy, sang, likewise, a quite unnecessary and iirrelevant song of  'real' or 'genuine' industrialisation and programme of the 6th Congress of Communist International, while speaking of the determination of the stage of revolution in India; in its rejoinder to Proletarian Path and its editor in Revolutionarv Democracy , vol III, No. 2, Sept.1997 [in "A critique of the Contemporary Adherents of the views of M.N.Roy, Evgeny Varga and Leon Trotsky on the current stage of Revolution in India" on pages 40 to 60]. Besides its irrelevant songs of 'real' or 'genuine' industrialisation and programme of the 6th Congress of Communist International it also tried its best to vitiate and turn a healthy Marxist polemic into an antagonistic warfare by using such filthy invectives which can only be used against the worst enemies of revolution and of the proletarian class. Proletarian path will try its best to avoid the path of hatred, enmity and revenge and will strictly follow the norms of Comradely Criticism in continuing this polemic.

    The Proletarian Path stands firmly on its arguments put forward in its Inaugural issue (New Series vol.1, No. I Nov.-Dec. 1992) and as such, this article it will only show and prove Revolutionary Democracy's utter ignorance of the ABC of Marxism and the essence of the programme of the 6th Congress of Communist International.

    The central pointof the polemic between the Proletarian Path and the Revolutionary Democracy (hence forth PP and RD) are NOT on the fake or genuine industrialisation BUT on the political economy of India. All Marxist-Leninists know that the proper subject matter of political economy is formed by human social relations that take shape during the production of the material things of life the SOCIAL SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION. BUT our critic RD, unfortunately, bypassing the politica economy or the social relations of India sang the song of productive forces or machine making machine - completely extricating it from the relations of production ! It has made capitalism synonymous with the manufacture of machine making machine, completely ignoring the emergence of different types of capitalism since the period of imperialism when export of capital instead of export of goods and the process of globalisation of capital and capitalism began. Though it referred to the programme of the 6th Congress of Communist International (hence forth only The Programme) in its defence, it totally disregarded the programme in its assessment of capitalism in India. Whereas, in contrast to RD, the programme says:

    PP now will show and prove how childish and un-Marxist is the stand and interpretation of RD's first and foremost important subject-matter under the sub-heading "Productive forces, production Relations And the Determination of the Stage of Revolution."     The editor of PP said:     In reply to the above, RD, in its rejoinder, once again betrayed its ignorance about the ABC of Marxist conception on the indissoluble relations between the productive forces and relations of production and their character and role. RD, conciously or unconsciously violating the law of indissoluble unity and contradiction and analysis and synthesis of Marxism, extricated the productive forces from the relations of production and has made the productive forces all-in-all and thus has arrived at the wrong and un-Marxist conclusion that without the manufacture of Machine-making machine or heavy industry, there cannot be any capitalism and capitalist relations. With a view to prove this gem our critique has said:     PP most humbly, but quite resolutely challenges RD to show where and when Marx "established" this arrant nonsense.

    On the basis of this arrant nonsense our critique RD, like that of Napoleon at Waterloo shouts:

        We are forced to begin from the beginning of Marxism and we appeal to the readers to excuse us.
        What are the productive Forces?

        Productive Forces are means of production and people who set the means of production in motion.
        Describing the labour process, Marx noted that human labour and the means of production are interconnected and interdependent. Labour is inconceivable without means of production and the means of production is meaningless without labour. And human labour always has a definite social form. Lenin said:

    Else where Lenin said:     We would request our Critic and readers to please note carefully Lenin's words - "is conditioned". Marx said that the productive forces are INDICATORS of man's position with respect to technology and natural forces of human society. What do then Lenin's - "is conditioned" -  and Marx's -  "indicators" -  really mean? It clearly means that the productive forces DO NOT DETERMINE the economic system of society. It can help us to guess the level of development of human society.

    So, the un-Marxist and banal theory of our critic that the level of the development of productive forces determines the economic system of society holds no water. Marx could not and in fact did not "establish" this nonsense.
    What, then, determine the various economic systems of society? Marx, unambigously and categorically said:

    Stalin, in his Dialectical And Historical Materialism explained Marx's this "specific manner" in a most brilliant way. The three systems of class exploitation known to history, differ from one another NOT ONLY in the ownership of the means of production, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY in the manner in which the labourers and the means of production are united. Stalin points out that the basis of the relations of production under the slave system was full ownership by the slave-owner of the means of production - i.e., the slaves; the basis of the relations of production under feudal system was full ownership by the feudal lords of the means of production and the partial ownership of the workers in production - the serfs; the basis of relations of production under the capitalist system was the ownership by the capitalist of the means of production but not the workers in production.

    It is crystal clear from the above that Marx "established" NOT that the level of productive forces determine the economic system of society, BUT that the specific manner of unity between the labourers and the means of production determine the specific economic system of society. The above also means that our RD's critical assertion is nothing but arrant nonsense.

    As the ownership of the means of production plays so important a part in forming the relations of production, that is why relations of production are also called "property relations" - which is the "legal" term of relation of production.

    Though the means of production and the labourers who set the means of production into action constitute the productive forces, yet to obtain vital material things, "for production to go at all" -  IT IS NOT ENOUGH to have productive forces only - whatever may be the level of their development. Men have to co-operate with one another TO ENTER INTO DEFINITE SOCIAL AND PRODUCTION RELATIONS. Hence the productive forces and the relations of production in their indissoluble dialectical unity form TWO ASPECTS OF SOCIAL PRODUCTION AND one cannot think one without the other.

    But RD in its infantile over-enthusiaism towards the productive forces has, unfortunately, made it all-in-all, as things without any soul, surprisingly enough, exactly like those of bourgeoise and vulgar economists. Marx, in refuting such interpretation of capital in terms of productive forces said:

    Unfortunately, RD has forgotten that the productive forces always function in a certain economic form WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION OF A SPECIFIC TYPE. No one can isolate and extricate the productive forces from the relations of production EVEN THEORETICALLY. Unquestionably the level of development of productive forces (means of production, technology, science, standard of knowledge and skill etc,..) of the past society predetermines the basis of relations of production corresponding to the given stage of history. In this sense, and only in this sense productive forces are primary and the relations of production are secondary. But THIS DOES NOT MEAN IN THE LEAST that the level of development of the productive forces determine the economic system of society. Our critique (From RD) has gone too far in its wild imagination and thus made the role of the relation of production a passive by-stander. But the fact is: having developed on the basis of the past, the societal relations of production exercise an active and tremendous feed-back influence on the productive forces, either promoting their rapid development, or, holding them back and inhibiting their growth. So, ignoring, isolating and extricating the active role of the relations of production and their exertion of a feed-back influence upon the productive forces is not Marxism, but a caricature of Marxism.

    Endless caricature of Marxism has been performed by our critic RD. The Marxist understanding of political economy is so miserably betrayed. Thus our critique has made the "economic development" synonymous with the productive forces. It has brought Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin to the witness box in defence of this queer theory of productive forces. It has said: "in opposition to the approach of Poletarian Path Lenin took the level of economic developmen of Russia as his point of departure in determining the stage of revolution".

    Then it quoted Lenin as follows:

    It is really unfortunate that our critic does not know about the basic difference between the "level of development of the productive forces" and "the degree of economic development", in spite of Lenin's "objective Condition" in paranthesis. Is "objective condition" or "the degree of economic development" of Lenin synonymus with our critic's "level of productive forces"? Even a novice knows that the productive forces and "objective condition" or "economic development" are NOT the same thing. The two denote completely different things. One cow and man does never mean two cows or two men. "Economic development" or the "objective condition" are the sum-total of the socio-economic condition of society and is the subject matter of political economy of which the PP spoke. Whereas the productive forces are the subject matter of technology, science and skills of the workers. What then, is political economy? In his "Anti-Duhring", Engels said that the political economy, in its broadest sense, is the science of laws governing the production and exchange of material values in human society. Obviously, the productive forces do not cover the production and exchange. To build up economy and to make economic development a certain mode of production is required. And what is mode of production? MODE OF PRODUCTION is constituted by the UNITY OF PRODUCTIVE FORCES AND THE CORRESPONDING RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. Without taking all these into account and their laws one cannot have any understanding of economy or objective condition. Can productive forces alone, then, be synonymous with the "objective condition"?

    It is clear now that the Leninist approach and the point of departure of Lenin and the programme in determining the stage of revolution were NOT "the level of development of productive forces" or 'machine-making machine' - BUT the economy as a whole i.e., The science of political economy. The approach and the point of departure of PP (see PP in its Inaugural issue) is also the economic development or objective condition of India as a whole; i.e., the science of political economy of India.

    So, it is not PP but the RD, who has made caricature of Marxism; and PP believes that RD will very soon realise its Himalayan drawback in grasping Marxist science and acquire the quality of Bolshevik modesty.

How Does RD read and understand the programme of the 6th Congress of Communist International and Stalin?

    The PP has challenged RD besides incontestably proving that RD has misread, misunderstood and thus misinterpreted the question of relation between the productive forces and the relations of production. In PP we will now discuss and prove, that our critic has once again misread, misunderstood and misinterpreted both Stalin and the programme of the 6th Congress of communist International - so far as the questions of  'genuine' or 'real industrialisation', and the development of world capitalism and world proletarian socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, are concerned.

    Manufacturing of machine - making machine is the solid criteria of 'real industrialisation'and the development of a society into capitalism from feudalism - according to RD - who asks us to wait up to that stage, and meanwhile, let the slogan of socialism be kept in the cold storage. Objectively and in last analysis it is a slogan betraying the cause of revolution and socialism. And the wonder of wonders is that RD referred to Stalin and the programme in its defence. But Lenin in 1921 thought of skipping over the painful developmental stage of backward countries directly to socialism during the 2nd Congress of Communist International. Besides, both Stalin and the Programme spoke NOT AT ALL of capitalist industrialisation. Both spoke about the socialist inclustrialisation and socialist construction, as they very well knew that since the complete division of the world amongst the
imperialist powers there can be no question of  'real' or 'genuine' industrialisation of the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries. But that did not mean the stopping of the process of development and globalisation of capitalism. The programme said:

    Unfortunately, our critic hopelessly fails to understand these "variety of types of capitalism" as it understands only one type of capitalism, the classical type. To it, other types of capitalism is no capitalism at all as it does not manufacture machine-making machine. A logic indeed!

    Does the above quotation mean that the programme debated over the question of  'real' and 'fake' or genuine capitalist industrialisation?

    Elsewhere, The Programme said:

    Does the above quotation mean that The Programme debated over the question of 'real' and 'fake' capitalist industrialisation ? On the contrary, it recognised capitalism in backward countries as capitalism and even "considerably developed industry" despite the spectacular absence of 'machine-making machine'  in these countries. And lastly, it spoke of the "inadequacy" of "independent socialist construction", NOT of capitalist construction.

    PP likes to know why, then those childish, unnecessary and irrelevant babble of RD and its reference to The Programme?

    Did Stalin speak and debate over the question of  'real' or 'genuine' capitalist industrialisation in his speech on The First Five Year Plan? He spoke on socialist industrialisation and the importance and significance of Department 1, in this respect only.

    In this case also the reference of our critics is irrelevant and unnecessary.

    Finally, did the programme direct the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries to effect a bourgeois democratic revolution WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF WORLD BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY AS A PART OF WORLD CAPITALISM, AS A TRANSITIONAL STAGE, AS IT EXISTS TODAY?

    Definitely not. The programme placed the perspective of world proletarian Socialist Revolution and AS A TRANSITIONAL STAGE TO THAT WORLD PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION. The programme directed the Colonial, Semi-colonial and Dependent countries to effect a bourgeois democratic revolution WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF WORLD PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AS PART AND PARCEL OF WORLD PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY AND WORLD PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. Or we may call it SOCIALIST GLOBALISATION.

    Here is what Stalin said about The Programme:

    Where, then, is the relevance of our critic in referring to the Programme? Is there any relevance of the said Programme in today's context? We do not expect that our critic friend RD - will become a pedantic and academic one. Why then does our critic advise us to effect a bourgeois democratic revolution within the frame-work of world bourgeois democracy and capitalist globalisation and then objectively erects a Chinese wall between the democratic revolution and socialist revolution? Why then doe sour critic advocate "revolutionary Democracy" in words?

    By the way, may the PP ask RD why it abandoned Peoples Democratic Revolution of CPI (M) and others and why it embraced Revolutionary Democracy?

    RD first speaks that "Nothing has changed since the transfer of power in 1947" and then speaks of the necessity of an agrarian revolution as the axis of its bourgeois democratic revolution, of course, under the leadership of the working class. PP likes to know:     This spectacular onward march of the productive forces in agriculture is due to the change of relations of production in agriculture. How does RD explain this change of relations of production and at the same time defend 'nothing has changed since the transfer of power in 1947?'
    What is bourgeois democratic revolution? Emancipation of the peasant serfs from the stranglehold of feudal bondage so that the free peasants may freely sell their labour-power in the market in both industrial and agriculture sector in order to develop capitalism and capitalist relations of production in both the sectors. Due to the bourgeois democratic revolution made under the leadership of the Indian bourgeoisie (though incomplete and unfinished), the peasant serfs have become the free labourers.
    Do you RD, agree that the relations of production in agriculture has changed? If so, how do you defend your assertion that "nothing has changed since the transfer of power in 1947"?
    What is the basis of feudal relations of production, feudal bondage? The basis of feudal relations of production, according to Stalin is "full ownership by the feudal lords of the means of production, the partial ownership of the workers in production - the serf" (Stalin: Dialectical and Historical Materialism). But the peasants of India are no longer serfs. Is it not a change of fundamental nature in post-independent India?

    Question 2 : Why, in spite of the emancipation of the serfs from feudal bondage, and in spite of the spectacular rise in agriculture production, is Indian agriculture facing a severe crisis of over-production? And why at the same time does the agrarian population live a life of utter poverty and misery and remain backward? Is it because of the peculiar character of Indian capitalism? What inhibits and hinder India's productive forces to go forward - Feudalism or Capitalism?

Question 3: What is the over-all economy of India - Feudalism or Capitalist? Is the industrial sector integral part of the feudal economy and politics? Does feudalism lead capitalism or capitalism lead feudalism ?
    PP is of the firm opinion that it is not feudalism but Indian capitalism which is holding back the productive forces of India.
    Yes, the capitalist relations of production in India have turned into fetters - not the feudal relations of production - and our task is to smash these fetters to march ahead. The incomplete and half-finished bourgeois democratic revolution can only be completed as a by-product of socialist

    PP is quite aware of the tremendous influence of feudal ideas and practices IN THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, BUT THIS IS NOT IN THE REALM OF ECONOMIC BASE, IN THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. Determination of the strategic goal is one thing which is related to the relations of production, to the economic base; whereas the determination of the tactical line is another thing which is related to the superstructure to men's mind. Our critic RD seeing and feeling the tremendous influence of feudal ideas and practice forgets to distinguish between the base and superstructure and between the stategy and tactics.

    PP is quite aware also of the vastness and unequal development of Indian economics and politics. Concrete local conditions should be kept in mind while concretising the slogan and immediate tasks but, they should always be based on over-all condition of Indian economics and politics.

    We give below the summerised view of Alliance M-L on Proletarian Path's position in regard to the socialist stage of revolution in India to enable the readers to be quite acquainted with the stand of Alliance M-L:     Argument 1  : "But we would argue to Proletarian Path that if Lenin's view of the determining features of the Democratic stage of the revolution are considered we cannot be said to be at the socialist stage ......"

Answer to Argument I : Unfortunately the above arguement is a quite irrelevant one as the Proletarian Path does not consider the slogan. "Together with the peasantry as a whole against mediavalism is an appropriate slogan as "IT CLASHES VIOLENTLY WITH LIFE" Of Indian situation.

    Let us quote the whole passage from our inaugural issue (NovDec- 1992), chapter 'The class struggle in agrarian Sector p. 64.

    We are sorry, the Indian reality compels us not to consider the democratic stage as an appropriate one and our conclusion is in quite order with Lenin's determining features.

Argument 2: We argue to Proletarian Path that if they truly do feel that as they say "we do not deny the existence of a certain incidence of debt bondage among agricultural workers "or" the relatively considerable incidence of share cropping "then there are tasks [of democratic revolution] left over ...........

Answer, to Argument 2: 1) Bonded through indebtedness:

    If we take into consideration the rural urban migration during the period from 1971 to 1991, we find that during 1971 to 1981, 28 million rural people and during 1981-91, 22 million rural people migrated from the rural area to cities. Thus a total of 50 million people have migrated from the country side to the cities.

    What does it mean? It means that bonded are no longer bonded, they are free from the Feudal and semi-feudal bondage. The migration testifies eloquently to the reality of freedom. Besides, usurious money lending is no longer as lucrative and as safe as it used to be. It may be noted that the percentage of share of agricultural money lenders has gone down from 23.0 percent in 1971 to 8.3 percent in 1981. The rural rich have diverted their money into others sectors where the rate of return is higher and more secure.

    So, despite the incidence of bonded labour (feudal and semifeudal) capitalist relations are growing more rapidly. Hence the Proletarian Path, which taking into consideration the incidence of debt bondage does not forget to take into consideration the process of change and its degrees.

    2) Share cropping: Though share-cropping is a recognised semi-feudal feature, however it should please be noted that in absolute terms (India as a whole) the share cropping arrangements account for only 3 percent of the total operational area (See NSS (National Sample Survey) Report on Land Holding-1971-72 to 1982). This by no mean can be considered as a major phenomenon of Indian agriculture.

    Lenin, in his Development of Capitalism in Russia has shown that the share-cropping system also may be a feature of Capitalist relations. That in India share-cropping is being reduced to a mode of surplus appropriation under the sway of Capitalist relations, is also clear from the fact that the surplus produce appropriated from the share croppers is increasingly being turned into commodity, and is being realised in the market as a cash profit. Therefore share cropping too has come under the Cash nexus and under the market relations.

    We would most humbly argue Alliance to take the dialectics of changing process into consideration.

Argument 3: Then, "there are task [of Democratic Revolution] left over."

Answer to Argument 3 : Proletarian Path is quite aware that the Prussian Path of the Indian bourgeois-landord State has left over many vital tasks of democratic revolution. But we argue to Alliance:

    In fact, the bourgeois democracy because of its very character cannot complete the task of bourgeois democratic revolution. It keeps as left over for the socialist revolution to complete it. Lenin said : Argument No.4 "if Engels can advise in 1894 Italy what amounts to a "restepping of Certain Stage" in the conditions of an "incompleteness" it can be argued that given current subjective illusions and current objective strengths of imperialism it is necessary to do the same in India in 1997"

Answer to Argument No.4 : Proletarian Path thinks that Alliance M-L has misread Engels 'letter to Turati. Engels did not ask Turati to "reshape certain Stage", On the contrary, Engels asked Turati to divide the stage of the Conquest of power by the proletariat" into phases. The stage denotes the strategic goal while the phase denotes tactical line which leads towards the strategic goal. Does Alliance conclude that the Proletarian Path would launch a socialist revolution on the morrow of its announcement of the stage as socialist? Did Lenin launch a socialist revolution on the morrow of placing his April Theses? Socialist Revolution as a stage is a strategic goal. All the tactical lines of different phases of socialist goal must have a living link with the strategic goal so that the movement of all phases lead the people to its strategic goal. It means: All STREAMS TO THE SOCIALIST SEA.

    In conclusion Proletarian Path would like to say that there are many examples in history that the stern reality has trampled down all the calculations of the wise men and has compelled the realists to abruptly change their line in order to successfully meet the exigencies of the reality. We quote below Lenin. Lenin said:

    Proletarian path also thinks that there is no alternative today When American imperialism together with the Indian ruling classes are conspiring to destroy the independence, freedom and sovereignty of India other than socialist revolution. It is a dire necessity. [When the above paper went for DTP [printing-Alliance], we received a copy of North Star Compass, vol 9, Dec 6, 2000 (the organ of the International Council for Friendship And Solidarity With Soviet People) published from Canada, in which, we find a "report" on "Labour Movement in India" sent by Comrade Vijay Singh, the editor of Revolutionary Democracy. We reprint below the relevant portion of the said report and our comments]:
    The "report" inter-alia says:     The above "report"is a concealed challenge to Marxism-Leninism, above all, a challenge to Lenin and Stalin.

    Firstly because, Marxism-Leninism never said that the "overwhelming large segment of the labouring people" will objectively play the "role of a vanguard of social change". There is a qualitative difference between the industrial proletariat and the "labouring people". Industrial proletariat are the products of capitalist system of production relations and its natural "grave diggers": Whereas the "labouring people" may not necessarily be the products of capitalist relations of production - they may be the products of different pre-capitalist relations, which exist in spite of the dominating role of capitalist system of production.

    Comrade Vijay Singh in order to revise Marxism-Leninism, deliberately forgets to make this fundamental difference between the industrial proletariat and the labouring people.

    Secondly, Marx and Engels clearly said that there are two categories of industrial proletariat viz : "class for itself" and "class in-itself" - meaning the first as the vanguard and the latter as "objectively revolutionary".
    So, it is clear from the above that Marx and Engels did never say that "the overwhelming large segment of the labouring people" should be "objectively placed in the role of a vanguard of social change". They said that the industrial proletariat as a class are objectively the vanguard of the social change while a section of the industrial proletariat is subjectively for the class i.e. the Vanguard.

    Why then, this "overwhelming segment of labouring people" theory? Clearly to sow more confussion in the communist movement.

    Thirdly, Lenin and Stalin clearly said that the proletariat of India is objectively in a position to play the role of vanguard and it is the tasks of the communists to educate and equip the Indian proletariat.

    In 1921, at the Second Congress of the Communist International, it was Lenin who on the amendment of M.N.Roy's Supplementary theses emphasised the need for preparing the Indian Proletariat to be the vanguard of the liberation movement.

    Did Lenin speak of the subjective preparation in the absence of any objective basis?

    In 1925, Stalin, in addressing the "University of the peoples' of East" had distinguished three different categories of Colonial and dependent Countries. The social factors were the relative strength of the working class, the degree of the proletariasation and the potentialities of the role of a vanguard. (See Stalin, Works; vol.7; Moscow 1954, p. 149) This classification of Stalin had very serious strategical and tactical implications for the Communist Party of India. Stalin concluded that in
the ountries like India, the proletariat had the potential to surge to the leadership of the bourgeois democratic struggles:

    Did Stalin advise the proletariat to subjectively prepare the proletariat for hegemony in the absence of any objective basis of its preparation?

    Let Comrade Vijay Singh clearly and categorically say that the assessment of Lenin and Stalin was a fundamental mistake and need revision and then, we will deal with his statistics.


Now-a-days it goes without saying that funds are a must for an undertaking and as PP is not managed along commercial lines, it appeals to different communist groups and individuals for the much - needed support of them in this respect for carrying on with its aim for communist unity and struggle. Readers and Comrades with your timely financial help will not only provide us a favour but also bind us in an obligation which is but our aspiration.

We may have your generous contributions by way of either A/c payee DD or money order in favour of Manindra Mohan Guha payable at Calcutta at the following address:
Moni Guha 2511, Jyotish Roy Road Calcutta - 700 053 


ML Review     |     Alliance ML     |   WB Bland Archive    |    Albania Society