Hereunder is the fourth article in the series that is being published by the WSP in response to the two papers issued by the Stalinist Maoist group 'praxis collective' led by Shashi Prakash of RCLI. In their papers, this group has presented absolutely wrong ideas on lessons of Russian Revolution and prospects and history of revolution in India. For earlier three articles, click here:
'praxis' tells us, capitalism in India in 1947, was not mature enough to deliver a bourgeois power, and claims that the power under national bourgeois was far 'advanced' than its economic basis. Then how this power of national bourgeois was established in 1947? In -un-natural way! One can only laugh at it!!
If the bourgeois power in 1947 was advanced than its economic basis, as 'praxis' tells, then this power becomes 'progressive' in history! In fact, this is the central theme of Stalinist and Maoist politics in India. And this is false to the core!
The power of Indian bourgeois that was established in 1947 was not 'advanced', but was already outmode as lagging behind by centuries to the economic basis of world capitalism. Indian economy was integral part of the world economy through capitalist markets of colonial Britain. Long before 1947, the world economy was mature as a whole not only for already obsolete bourgeois power that appeared in bygone centuries, but far ahead of it, for proletarian power. October revolution was live proof of it.
The revolutionary democracy that fought through anti-colonial revolution in India, was in essence, a struggle against this rule of world bourgeois. So in natural course, the anti-colonial revolution in India, could not have issued a bourgeois power, which by all historic parameters was already delayed in history. Bourgeois regime, thus could have established itself, only through a counter-revolution, by suppressing the wave of anti-colonial revolution and through unprecedented violence. And that was the exact course it took to come to power in 1947, first through direct persecution of mass movement and its leaders like Bhagat Singh, followed by intrigue of communal partition.
'Praxis' forgets that even before 1947, India was already ruled by bourgeois power, the power of foreign bourgeois-first Portugese then English, and that for more than a century before Indian bourgeois could come to power in 1947. So, in 1947, India was not only sufficiently mature but over-ripe, not only for the historically obsolete bourgeois power but in fact for much higher power than that- a proletarian dictatorship, followed by peasantry.
'Praxis' confuses itself by trying to solve the riddle of productive forces and production relations within confines of national frontiers of India, sealing it off from world economy as a whole, to come to a wrong conclusion that the bourgeois power in 1947 was advanced to its economic base and thus essentially had a progressive character. It ignores that the capitalist economy is essentially a world economy in first instance, while its political state is national in character.
Not to our surprise, ‘Praxis Collective’ has sanctioned a revolutionary potential and progressive role to the Indian bourgeois, having deep illusions in its role and capacity in taking to the revolutionary road. The fact is, by virtue of its position within imperialism, Indian bourgeois could not have travelled through the revolutionary road even an inch. The most natural way of its taking to power and further advance, was through compromise and arrangements not only with the sections of imperialists but with local landlords too. And therefore, the revolutionary movement in India, could have culminated not in the power of the national bourgeois in 'natural course', but in the dictatorship of the proletariat resting upon an alliance of workers and peasants in power.
Appearance of the dictatorship of the proletariat in backward Russia in 1917, instead of advanced west, demonstrated it beyond doubt that the establishment of proletarian dictatorship does not depend upon level of development of capitalism inside a country, but upon concrete correlation of class forces inside the revolution at given time. Level of development of capitalism inside the country would only determine the concrete tasks before the dictatorship in its intial phase, the tempo of advance of the revolution and the real correlation between the proletariat in power and the peasantry that follows it.
Even after 1947, ‘praxis collective’ assigns the task for Communists, to ‘pressurise the bourgeois government under Nehru’, the legitimate government which incidentally came through un-natural path, to carry out the program of reforms more radically’. That means even after bourgeois had come to power, the communists were not to fight for its overturn making a revolutionary opposition to it, but should have formed the left radical wing of this power, striving to lean it to the left instead of right. So the democratic tasks were to be realised not through revolutionary struggle of workers and peasants against bourgoeis and its government for power, but by pressurising it! This is exactly the role what old bolsheviks had been assiging to themselves in February and were rebuked by Lenin for this.
'praxis' tells us that it was the official line of Comintern under Stalin to pressurise the bourgeois government to carry out the tasks of democratic revolution. Comintern had not survived to witness 1947 and to give any such line, as it had continued to degenerate under Stalin, and was disbanded by him in 1942 to appease and assure world bourgeoisie that Kremlin has completely turned its back upon the project of 'world socialist revolution' for which Comintern was organised under Lenin and Trotsky. But, of course, it was Kremlin under Stalin which had commanded Communist Parties not to fight for power but collaborate with new bourgeois power and rather put pressure on it to carry out tasks of democratic revolution. It is why peasant uprising of telangana which had presented a great opportunity for the working class to head it towards a revolution under the leadership of its party, was scuttled by Kremlin and the leaders inside CPI under B.T. Ranadive who supported Telangana uprising were thrown out of the CPI. When bourgeois government under Nehru and Patel was brutally crushing the peasant uprising of Telangana under its military boots, Stalin was advocating the policy of pressurising the govenrment to revolutionary tasks. The opposition of Stalinists to the peasant war directed against bourgeois power which could have sent sparks for a workers' uprising in cities, is endorsed by 'praxis'. It glorifies the illusions that Kremlin itself had and exported them to India, in the power and revolutionary potential of the bourgeois. They do not even mention the telangana uprising and its lessons!
First casualty of this Stalinist line for communists, 'of pressurising' the bourgeois government for radical reforms instead of fighting for power, was the Chinese revolution itself, where Stalin had forced the CCP to collaborate with and thereby pressurise the bourgeois Kuomintang to the left. This turned out to be death warrant for the revolution of 1925-27. Trotsky, who opposed this substitution of 'pressurising' for the proletarian revolutionary struggle for power, was exlied for this sin, immediately after the defeat of Chinese revolution. Opposing this capitulationist policy of Comintern under Stalin, Trotsky wrote in "from Marxism to Pascifism", in Ocotber 1928, from Alma Ata, "Stalinist national socialism tends to convert the communist International into an auxiliary means of 'pressure' upon the bourgeoisie". " The struggle is decided not by pressure upon government, but by revolutionary struggle for power. The pascifist effects of the proletarian class struggle, like its reformist effects, are only by-products of the revolutionary struggle for power and not substitute for it."
If 1947 marks anything in history, it marks only continuity of bourgeois power, change of hands between its foreign and national, British and Indian sections, of no real significance for workers and toilers in the country. With the aid of Stalinists, the bourgeois succeeded in throwing back the revolution and could stabilise their power post-1947. Contrary to perception of 'praxis' that decorates bourgeois power of 1947 as more advanced to its economic base, this 'bourgeois democracy' was a masked dictatorship of the same world capital, that had ruled India till then through a more open and naked form-colonial rule.