March-April  1999

Today, when capital is on a major offensive against labour, these words of the Manifesto, stated 150 years back, cannot ring more true. Said to be ‘outdated’, the deteriorating conditions of the working class worldwide, amidst great leaps in technology, proves its validity. Amidst all the tinkerings by the Keynesians and Monetarists, capitalist crisis looms large vindicating all the theories outlined by Marx in his historic writing — DAS KAPITAL.

Having outlined the basic laws of capitalism, it fell to Lenin to develop these further in the era of imperialism, in his path-breaking work ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’. In the present period of ‘globalisation’ and the omnipresence of speculative finance capital, Lenin’s thesis on the characteristics of imperialism, have only been accentuated ten-fold. Lenin’s contribution to political economy did not end with this, he further developed Marx’s ideas on the political economy of socialist construction. Lenin lay the basis for the new socialist economy, on which Stalin built the edifice.

A major leap in developing the political economy of socialism fell to Stalin and Mao after the victories of the revolutions in Russia and China. Understanding the laws of capitalism, and by restricting the ‘law of value’, huge advances were made in socialist construction.

In Russia, in a backward country, ruined by war and civil war, surrounded by enemies, a socialist state was created, the first in the world, with a modern industry, modern agriculture, and a modern army, strong enough to withstand and destroy the armed might of fascist Germany. Besides fighting enemy onslaughts, Stalin had to fight continuous ‘Left’ and right deviations which sought to disrupt the Soviet Union from the path of socialist construction. Trotsky from the ‘Left’ opposed alliance with the peasantry maintaining that it was a counter-revolutionary force, and that socialism in one country was impossible, and sought ‘export’ of revolution. On the other hand Bukharin and others, from the Right, talked of allowing the Kulaks to grow, so that advanced capitalist relations could develop, as a pre-requisite for socialist transformation. Fighting both trends, Stalin led the people against the Kulaks and white armies, defeated them, and guided the people to organise the cooperatives and state farms. A strong socialist economy was then built in the course of the two 5-year plans, ending 1933 and 1937. And this phenomenal growth took place at a time when the rest of the capitalist world was witnessing their worst ever Depression. Inspite of facing incalculable losses during World War II – 15 million dead, 25 million homeless and material damage exceeding the output of two 5-year plans – Stalin led the country to a strong recovery. Being the first experience of socialism, flaws existed in the process of socialist construction in the USSR, many of which were rectified by Mao.

Mao not only put forward a scientific ‘Critique of Soviet Economy’ but also developed the theory and practice of a socialist economy to a much higher plane. His slogan "Grasp Revolution, promote production" sums up the essence of his line. This principle dialectically handles the relationship between revolution and production, consciousness and matter and the superstructure and the economic base. By ‘keeping politics in command’ Mao sought to maintain a proper balance between the growth of the productive forces and the development of the production relations. He fought the Liu Shao-chi (and Deng) lines saying "political work is the life-blood of all economic work". Pushing the capitalist path of development, Liu Shao-chi had said that the principal contradiction is that "between the advanced socialist system and the backward social productive forces"; while Deng Tsiao-ping maintained that "it does not matter whether the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice." After his death in 1976, the Deng line has led to the restoration of capitalism.

Mao put forward a line for maintaining a judicious balance between industry and agriculture in the path of growth. He said,13, "It must be affirmed that heavy industry is the core of China’s economic construction. At the same time, full attention must be paid to the development of agriculture and light industry ... As agriculture and light industry develop, heavy industry, assured of its markets and funds, will grow faster." While the productive forces grew and developed, Mao put emphasis to change the production relations.... from the very basic units, in industry and agriculture.

So we find, whether it is an understanding of the functioning of the capitalist system or that of imperialism today, or the character of the economy to be built under new democracy and socialism, grasping the teaching of all — from Marx to Mao — is a must. Great revolutions, like the Vietnamese, have come to nought as they did not understand the laws of socialist political economy and so fell in the trap of state capitalism.

In India, the CPI and CPI(M) have not merely maintained all the state capitalist countries as socialist, but have even gone to the extent of terming the nationalised sector of the economy (under bourgeois rule) as socialist. Many of the fake ‘revolutionaries’ too, began to sing the same CPI/CPI(M) tune terming the USSR under Brezhnev as socialist and also present day China. Besides, they take a liberal approach towards imperialism today, suggesting alternatives within a bourgeois framework. It is only the communist revolutionaries, who not only continue to apply the basic Marxist principles to understand the economy today, but it is they who are building the rudimentary forms of a new political economy in the guerilla zones.

Marx and Engels, living in a pre-revolutionary period, were able to give a mere sketch of proletarian tactics. Its full-fledged development takes place with Lenin, once proletarian revolution comes on to the agenda of the day. As Stalin said14 "Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and of proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and practice of the proletarian revolution in general, and the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period, when developed imperialism did not exist, in the period of the proletariat’s preparation for revolution, in the period when the proletarian revolution was not an immediate practical inevitability. Lenin, however, the disciple of Marx and Engels, pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the period of the unfolding proletarian revolution....." Mao, raised these tactics to a new and highly plane, applicable universally.

It is on the question of proletarian tactics, that revisionists of all hues carry out the biggest distortions. This is particularly to be seen on the questions of violence and on the question of the question of alliances with other classes and parties. Let us look at both these questions as developed in the course of these 150 years.

First, the question of violence. Using the tools of historical materialism, Marx stated that force is the mid-wife of an old society pregnant with a new. With the experience of the Paris Commune, he developed this concept in more explicit terms. Lenin, further built on these views of Marx, and stated it is not possible for the proletariat to take-over the ready-made state machinery of the bourgeoisie... it must be smashed. He stated,15 "...attempts are being made to recognise the dictatorship of the proletariat in words in order to smuggle in, along with it the `will of the majority’, `universal suffrage’ (a la Kautsky) bourgeois parliamentarism, rejection of the idea that the entire bourgeois machinery of the state must be destroyed, smashed, blown up." Keeping the central task as that of the uprising, Lenin developed, in intricate details, the questions of strategy and tactics, legal and illegal work, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary forms of struggle, role of alliances, role of an all-Russian Party newspaper, etc. etc. Finally, the victory of the October Revolution established the path of insurrection for the developed countries.

Mao further developed the role of violence into the concept of ‘People’s War.’ This is a universally applicable principle of developing the civil war by relying on the masses and building a People’s Army. He further developed the concept of protracted people’s war, specifically for backward, semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. The creation of armed revolutionary base areas is a great strategic concept put forth by Com. Mao Ze Dong.... where in the war waged was not a pure military action, but a people’s war waged by mobilising the masses, organising the masses and relying on the masses. Mao further developed a ‘military line’ of the party, working out the principles of guerilla warfare, protracted people’s war, and base areas. As Mao said16 "Before the outbreak of war, all organisation and struggle are in preparation for the war.... after war breaks out, all organisation and struggle are coordinated with the war either directly or indirectly...."

So, on the question of violence we see a common thread in these past 150 years in the writings from Marx to Mao. Marx’s findings have been systematically developed in the course of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.... and without this important weapon, particularly Mao’s development of people’s war, any proletarian party will find itself severely handicapped.

From the days of Marx and Engels, when the proletariat was participating in the unfolding bourgeois democratic revolutions, particularly in Germany, the question of striking alliances had arisen. This took a more concrete form in the course of the Russian revolution, where Lenin in numerous articles outlined the tactics towards various bourgeois, petti-bourgeois and peasant formations in the course of the struggle against the Tsar. But it was with Mao that the structure of the alliance in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country was given a concrete ideological, political and organisational form, in his concept of the United Front.

Mao developed the ideological basis of the United Front in his theory of the four class alliance — an alliance of the working class, the peasantry, the petti-bourgeoisie etc and the national bourgeoisie, with the worker-peasant alliance as the basis. He also outlined the necessity of maintaining the leadership of the proletariat over this alliance. Besides, he also developed the details of the functioning of such an alliance, like the necessity of maintaining the independence and initiative in the alliance. Finally, Mao extended the concept of this United Front to the question of establishing the people’s democratic dictatorship, after the seizure of power, as a first step in the transition to socialism.

We find on these two cardinal questions, the revisionists resort to numerous distortions. The peaceful path is either openly stated or indirectly affirmed by tying the party in backward countries to parliamentary and legalistic struggles. On the question of United Front the revisionists in India never clearly distinguish between friends from enemies, and therefore either fall into the rightist trap of tailing the comprador bourgeoisie or resort to ‘Left’ deviations negating alliance of the four classes. Also, they are unable to distinguish the direct reserves from the indirect reserves, invariably treating temporary alliance with a section of the enemy classes as an alliance with friends. They also negate proletarian leadership over such alliances. It is only the genuine communist revolutionaries who are upholding the Marxist concept of violence, by advancing the armed agrarian revolution in India; and it is only they who build the united front, taking the worker-peasant alliance as the basis, and under the clear-cut leadership of the proletarian party.

It was Marx and Engels who were the first to state that the proletariat must have its own party and played an active role in organising the Communist League, the First and the Second Internationals. But in the pre-imperialist era, as revolution was not yet on the agenda, they could not conceive of the question of a Bolshevik-style working class party. The proletarian party, as we know it today, got its concrete from in the course of the Russian Revolution. It was Lenin, who, while countering Martov and the other (to be) Mensheviks, who put forward the principles of a party of a new type; a Bolshevik Party — a party equipped with a revolutionary theory, united on the basis of democratic centralism, built with professional revolutionaries as its core, bound by close ties with the masses and as the vanguard of the proletariat.

Mao significantly developed the Leninist concept of the party raising the question of inner-party functioning to a more scientific plane. He put forward the question of continuously remoulding the outlook of party members to develop its proletarian character by the methods of criticism and self-criticism and conducting regular rectification campaigns. He also introduced the concept of fighting incorrect tendencies and lines within the party by the process of the two-line struggle. Today, without utilising the Maoist enrichments of the functioning of a proletarian party, it will be virtually impossible to build a genuine communist party.

In fact, we find that all revisionists, first and foremost, distort the Leninist concept of a Proletarian Party, converting it into some ‘mass’ parliamentary formation. In India we find that the revisionists of all hues have basically loose, liberal, legal structures, ill-equipped to advance the class struggle beyond a certain limit, and unable to act as the real vanguard of the proletariat. While the CPI and CPI(M) have openly built ‘mass’ parliamentary outfits, the neo revisionists and the fake revolutionaries tie the party and masses in a web of legalism and parliamentarism. It is only the genuine communist revolutionaries who have built their party along Bolshevik lines — with professional revolutionaries as its core.

The seizure of power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the central aspect of any revolution. This was emphasised by Marx right from the beginning. In 1852 itself, Marx, in a letter to J.Weydemeyer said: "No credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the class. What I did that was new was to prove : 1) that the existence of classes is only bound with particular historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that the dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society". To this Lenin added,17 "Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists.... only he is a Marxist who extends recognition of the class struggle to recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat... This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested." Mao said18 "Socialist society covers a considerably long historical period. In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is a struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and there is the danger of capitalist restoration."

Inspite of such clear-cut statements, we still find many commemorating the Manifesto, without so such as a mention of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Particularly after the reversals in the USSR and China this question becomes all the more pertinent. These reversals infact, only indicate the necessity for a more authoritative assertion over the bourgeoisie, in the long period of transition from socialism to communism - and a greater understanding of this question.

In exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat it was Marx who — in the Critique of the Gotha Programme and other writings — put forward some of the basic principles of a socialist economy and of the necessity for the step by step restriction of bourgeois right. These principles were developed upon by Lenin who clearly saw that, for a long period of time petti-production engenders capitalism daily, hourly, giving rise to a bourgeoisie. In order to restrict this, soon after the seizure of power, Lenin suggested that19 "There is a petty-bourgeois tendency to transform the members of the Soviets into ‘parliamentarians’, or else into bureaucrats. We must combat this by drawing ALL the members of the Soviets into the practical work of administration. In many places the departments of the Soviets are gradually becoming merged with the Commissariats. Our aim is to draw THE WHOLE OF THE POOR into the practical work of the administration, and every step that is taken in this direction — the more varied they are, the better — should be carefully recorded, studied, systematised, tested by wider experience and embodied in law. Our aim is to ensure that EVERY toiler, after having finished his eight hours’ ‘tasks’ in productive labour, shall perform state duties WITHOUT PAY : the transition to this is particularly difficult, but this transition alone can guarantee the final consolidation of socialism."

Stalin too spoke of the inability of abolishing overnight, the ‘law of value’, which continues to operate under socialism.... and the necessity for controlling, restricting it. Though Lenin, before his death, spoke of the need for a cultural revolution, no such methods were adopted. Besides having to face continuous encirclement (and aggression) from outside, and disruption from within, the forms for continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR were not effectively developed. Learning from some of the negative experiences of the Soviet Union, Mao’s contribution to the theory and practice of socialist construction has been significant.

At the ideological plane, it was Mao who clearly pin-pointed that in the period of socialism, the principal contradiction lay between the working class and the bourgeoisie. He said20 "Class struggle is the key link and everything else hinges on it." What is more, besides recognising that the bourgeoisie is continuously engendered, it was Mao who, for the first time, pin-pointed the headquarters of this bourgeoisie. He said, "Your are making the socialist revolution, and yet don’t know where the bourgeoisie is. It is right in the Communist Party — those in power taking the capitalist road." Besides, Mao, worked out the methods to restrict bourgeois right, and the forms to bridge the gap that continuously develops between the productive forces and relations of production. He maintained that the relations of production must correspond with the growth of the productive forces. A certain level of productive forces demands corresponding relations of production. When the relations of production correspond with the productive forces, they promote the latter’s growth, otherwise they retard the growth. With a growth of the productive forces, the relations of production gradually lag behind, and, if not corrected, become shackles holding back this expansion.

And when he found the bourgeoisie strongly entrenched in society and even in the party, Mao launched the GPCR... a gigantic mass movement to cleanse the party and bureaucracy at all levels. In February 1967 Mao said21: "In the past we have waged struggles in rural areas, in factories, in the cultural field, and we carried out the socialist education movement. But all this failed to solve the problem, because we did not find a form, a method, to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspect openly, in an all-round way, and from below.... Now we have found this form — it is the GPCR. It is only by arousing the masses in their hundreds of millions to air their views freely, write big-character posters and hold great debates, that the renegades, enemy agents, and capitalist roaders in power, who have wormed their way into the party, can be exposed and their plots to restore capitalism smashed." The GPCR was a significant discovery in proletarianisation of the party, government and masses at all levels. Many of the principles developed, can be applied by all proletarian parties only the forms may differ.

Summing up the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao said 22 "Socialist society covers a considerably long historical period. In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the socialist and the capitalist road, and there is the danger of capitalist restoration. We must recognise the protracted and complex nature of this struggle. We must heighten our vigilance. We must conduct socialist education. We must correctly understand and handle class contradictions and class struggle, distinguish the contradictions between ourselves and the enemy, from those among the people and handle them correctly. Otherwise a socialist country like ours will turn into its opposite and degenerate, and capitalist restoration will take place. From now on we must remind ourselves of this every year, every month and every day so that we can retain a rather sober understanding of this problem and have a Marxist-Leninist line."

So we find from the time of Marx to Mao, the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been systematically developed... and with each new experience, it has gained greater depth and a new richness; culminating (for the present) with the GPCR. To negate it, means to negate Marxism. So also to mistake the state capitalism of Breznev’s USSR or Deng’s China as socialism, in effect, amounts to negating the dictatorship of the proletariat. Commemorating the ‘Manifesto’ is meaningless unless it can help to guide us in understanding contemporary events.

In India, we find that the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat has long since been discarded by the establishment CPI and CPI(M). When they handed over the leadership of the anti-British struggle to the Congress, they defacto, negated the necessity of a people’s democratic dictatorship.... and, in effect, supported a dictatorship of the so-called ‘national’ (actually comprador) bourgeoisie. Now, they have gone one step further, in joining the comprador bourgeois government. Even many of those ‘revolutionaries’ who take a fancy to parliament, have switched to supporting the earlier revisionists of the USSR and the present-day Chinese rulers. It is only those advancing the armed agrarian revolution, who are serious about the dictatorship of the proletariat, seeking to establish the rudimentary forms of the people’s democratic dictatorship in the guerilla zones.

PART-IV
CONCLUSION

The continuous significance of Marxism, despite the ‘end of history’ triumphalism, lies in its contribution that provides us with a comprehensive framework for understanding and analysing the process of social development and change. The Marxist critique of capitalism retains its complete relevance despite the undeniable and deep changes capitalism has gone through in the past 150 years. Anyone who reads the Manifesto again can sense the remarkable accuracy with which Marx and Engels anticipated the situation 150 years ago. They envisioned that capitalism would eventually develop into a world system. Today their prediction and analysis have been precisely confirmed by events. This is above all because of the reality that capitalism is still ultimately based on the exclusion of the majority of humanity, on the exploitation of labour, on the concentration of power, wealth and privilege, on alienation, domination, hierarchy, on the marketisation of all human and social relations.

Before the Manifesto was written communism was a mere dream of some utopian socialists. Marx and Engels, not only gave it a scientific interpretation, but also combined it with the working class movement. Fighting single-handedly against the numerous trends and philosophies then prevalent, Marxism triumphed amongst the people, as it stood for truth and was based on scientific principles. Since then, communism spread and slowly engulfed the entire world. After World War II communism ruled one-third of mankind and had a strong presence in nearly every single country of the earth. No other single ideology had ever had such a gigantic impact on the world, effecting not only its economy and polity... but also the ideas, values, culture and social life of the people. Then, came the setbacks and reversals. First, capitalist restoration took place in the USSR. Next, the strong national liberation movements in the third world, most of which were either under Marxist influence or led by Marxist parties, ended in compromises leading to the collapse of these movements, with the comprador bourgeoisie and feudals taking power. And, finally, another major blow was struck at communism with capitalist restoration in China after Mao’s death.

But, communism has always grown through bitter struggle. Its 150 years of existence has seen a series of victories and defeats. And on each occasion it has grown with a bigger and wider sweep. The disruption and breakup of the First International in 1872 was followed by the Second International with a sweep and depth far wider than its predecessor. The opportunism and collapse of the Second International, was followed by the victory of the October Revolution and the establishment of the Third International, which grew from the confines of Europe to encompass the entire globe. With the USSR turning revisionist and drawing the bulk of the communist parties in the world into the revisionist morass... the CPC led the revolutionary and communist forces throughout the world; and with the GPCR, not only did socialism discover yet another weapon against the bourgeoisie, but an entire generation of youth throughout the world was inspired towards communism.

Now, socialist China has received a grave setback. But, just as before, the setback will be temporary. The deepening crisis in the imperialist system – the accompanying horrifying conditions of the masses throughout the world making the Great Depression look relatively mild; the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of these imperialist maniacs making even a Hitler look relatively tame in comparison - must necessarily result in a new upsurge of communism.

No doubt the communism of today, will be at a plane far higher than ever before. Not only the experiences and writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, but also the great victories and causes for the setback of the Russian and Chinese revolutions and the GPCR.... can give the communists a greater depth and further insights into the laws of development of society, revolution and socialist construction, and thereby raise the theory and practice of communism. While commemorating 150 years of the Manifesto, it is futile to merely live in the past; on the contrary, the past can best be studied only in order to see the present more clearly, in order to pave the way for a brighter future.

Marxism is a comprehensive science; the pains of revolution are nothing but the birth pangs of an old society pregnant with the new; communists do not lower themselves to mere tinkering with the old decrepit order; they do not just seek a change in polity.... they seek a total and thorough break with the past, creating thereby a new polity, a new economy, a new culture, a new set of values and, most important, a new human being. Communism alone can bring happiness, freedom and prosperity to mankind. As the Communist Manifesto declared : "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win .........Working men of all countries, Unite !"

<Top>