J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film Ivan the Terrible

One of the consequence of the anti-Stalin campaign initiated by the CPSU in 1953 has been that a number of facets of Stalin's interventions on cultural questions are virtually unknown in the Communist movement. It is a telling commentary on this state of affairs that Paresh Dhar in his review of Asok Chattopadhyaya's book Martiya Chirayat Bhabana - Silpa Sahitya Prasanga (in Bengali) can write that 'what is most striking is that by a special research work, Asok has unveiled Stalin's numerous involvements with art and literature of which we never heard before', (Frontier, May 24th, 1997).

This discussion took place between Stalin, Zhdanov and Molotov from the political leadership of the CPSU(b), and S.M, Eisenstein and N. Cherkasov at the end of February, 1947. It was an integral part of the attempt by the Bolshevik party in the post-war period to raise the artistic level of Soviet culture and to eliminate weaknesses in ideological and political content.1 Prior to the discussion the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) had on September 4th, 1946 taken a decision on the film Glowing life. Parts of the decision which bear on Ivan the Terrible are cited here:

'The fact of the matter is that many of our leading cinema workers - producers, directors and scenario writers - are taking a lighthearted and irresponsible attitude to their duties and are not working conscientiously on the films they produce. The chief defect in their work is failure to study subject matter... Producer Eisenstein betrayed ignorance of historical facts in the second series of Ivan Grozny, depicting Ivan Grozny's progressive army, the oprichniki, as a gang of degenerates reminiscent of the American Ku Klux Klan. Ivan Grozny, a man of strong will and character, is shown as a spineless weakling, as a Hamlet type...

'One of the fundamental reasons for the production of worthless films is the lack of knowledge of subject matter and the lighthearted attitude of scenario writers and producers to their work.

'The Central Committee finds that the Ministry of Cinematography, and primarily its head, Comrade Bolshakov, exercises inadequate supervision over film studios, producers and scenario writers, is doing too little to improve the quality of films and is spending large sums of money to no useful purpose. Leading officials of the Ministry of Cinematography take an irresponsible attitude to the work entrusted to them and are indifferent to the ideological and political content and artistic merits of the films being produced.

'The Central Committee is of the opinion that the work of the Ministry's Art Council is incorrectly organized. The council does not ensure impartial and

business-like criticism of films for production. It often takes an apolitical attitude in its judgement of film and pays little attention to their idea-content. Many of its members display lack of principle in their assessment of films, their judgment being based on personal, friendly relations with the producers. The absence of criticism in the cinema and the prevalent narrow-circle atmosphere are among the chief reasons for the production of poor films.

'Art workers must realise that those who continue to take an irresponsible, lighthearted attitude to their work, may well find themselves superfluous and outside the ranks of progressive Soviet art, for the cultural requirements and demands of the Soviet theatregoer have developed and the Party and Government will continue to cultivate among the people good taste and encourage exacting demands on works of art.' (Decisions of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U.(b) On Literature and Art (]946-1948), Moscow, 1951, pp. 26-28.)

1. An earlier criticism of the films of Eisenstein (Strike, The Battleship Potemkin, October, and The General Line) was published in 1931: I. Anissimov, 'The Films of Eisenstein'. This has been reprinted in Bulletin International, 64-67, April-July 1983, pp. 74-91. (In French).

We were summoned to the Kremlin at about 11 o'clock [In the evening - Ed.]. At 10.50 we reached the reception. Exactly at 11 o'clock Poskrebyshev came out to escort us to the cabinet.

At the back of the room were Stalin, Molotov and Zhdanov.

We entered, exchanged greetings and sat around the table.

Stalin. You wrote a letter. The answer got delayed a little. We are meeting late. I first thought of giving a written answer but then I decided that talking will be better. As I am very busy and have no time I decided to meet you here after a long interval. I received your letter in November.

Zhdanov. You received it while stilI in Sochi.

Stalin. Yes, yes. In Sochi. What have you decided to do with the film?

We are saying that we have divided the second part of the film into two sections, because of which the Livonsky March has not been included. As a result there is a disproportion between the different parts of the film. So it is necessary to correct the film by editing the existing material and to shoot mainly the Livonsky march.

Stalin. Have you studied History?

Eisenstein. More or less.

Stalin. More or less? I am also a little familiar with history. You have shown the oprichnina incorrectly. The oprichnina was the army of the king. It was different from the feudal army which could remove its banner and leave the battleground at any moment - the regular army, the progressive army was formed. You have shown this oprichnina to be like the Ku-Klux-Klan.

Eisenstein said that they wear white cowls but we have black ones.

Molotov. This does not make a major difference.

Stalin. Your tsar has come out as being indecisive, he resembles Hamlet. Everybody prompts him as to what is to be done, and he himself does not take any decision... Tsar Ivan was a great and a wise ruler, and if he is compared with Ludwig XI (you have read about Ludwig XI who prepared absolutism for Ludwig XIV), then Ivan the Terrible is in the tenth heaven. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter Ist was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them and allowed foreign influence into the country and permitted the Germanisation of Russia. Catherine allowed it even more. And further. Was the court of Alexander I really a Russian court? Was the Court of Nicolaus I a Russian court? No, they were German courts.

The most outstanding contribution of Ivan the Terrible was that he was the first to introduce the government monopoly of external trade. Ivan the Terrible was the first and Lenin was the second.

Zhdanov. The Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein came out as a neurotic.

Molotov. In general, emphasis was given to psychologism, excessive stress was laid on internal psychological contradictions and personal emotions.

Stalin. It is necessary to show the historical figure in correct style. For example it was not correct that in the first series Ivan the Terrible kissed his wife so long. At that period it was not permitted.

Zhdanov. The film is made in the Byzantine style but there also it was not done.

Molotov. The second series is very restricted in domes and vaults, there is no fresh air, no wider Moscow, it does not show the people. One may show conversations, repressions but not this.

Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was extremely cruel. It is possible to show why he had to be cruel.

One of the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible was that he did not completely finish off the five big feudal families. If he had destroyed these five families then there would not have been the Time of Troubles. If Ivan the Terrible executed someone then he repented and prayed for a long time. God disturbed him on these matters... It was necessary to be decisive.

Molotov. It is necessary to show historical incidents in a comprehensive way. For example the incident with the drama of Demyan Bedny Bogatyp. Demyan Bedny mocked the baptism of Russia, but in reality acceptance of Christianity was a progressive event for its historical development.

Stalin. Of course, we are not good Christians but to deny the progressive role of Christianity at that particular stage is impossible. This incident had a very great importance because this turned the Russian state to contacts with the West, and not to an orientation towards the East.

About relations with the East, Stalin said that after the recent liberation from the Tatar yoke, Ivan the Terrible united Russia in a hurried way so as to have a stronghold to face a fresh Tatar attack. Astrakhan was already conquered and they could have attacked Moscow at any moment, The Crimean Tatars also could have done this.

Stalin. Demyan Bedny did not have the correct historical perspective. When we shifted the statue of Minin and Podzharsky closer to the church of Vasily Blazhenova then Demyan Bedny protested and wrote that the statue must be thrown away and that Minin and Podzharsky must be forgotten. In answer to this letter, I called him 'Ivan, do not forget your own family'. We cannot throw away history...'

Next Stalin made a series of remarks regarding the interpretation of Ivan the Terrible and said that Malyuta Skuratov was a great army general and died a hero's death in the war with Livonia.

Cherkasov in reply said that criticism always helped and that after criticism Pudovkin made a good film Admiral Nakhimov. 'We are sure that we will not do worse. I am working on the character of Ivan the Terrible not only the film, but also in the theatre. I fell in love with this character and think that our alteration of the scenes will be correct and truthful'.

In response to this Stalin replied (addressing Molotov and Zhdanov) - 'Let's try?'

Cherkasov I am sure that the alteration will be successful.

Stalin. May god help you, - every day a new year. (Laughs.)

Eisenstein. We are saying that in the first part a number of moments were successful and this gives us the confidence for making the second series.

Stalin. We are not talking about what you have achieved, but now we are talking about the shortcomings.

Eisenstein asked whether there were some more instructions regarding the film.

Stalin. I am not giving you instructions but expressing the viewer's opinion. It is necessary that historical characters are reflected correctly. What did Glinka show us? What is this Glinka. This is Maksim and not Glinka. [They were talking about the film Composer Glinka made by L. Arnshtam. The main role was played by B. Chirkov.] Artist Chirkov could not express himself and for an artist the greatest quality is the capability to transform himself. (Addressing Cherkasov) - you are capable of transforming yourself.

In answer to this Zhdanov said that Cherkasov was unlucky with Ivan the Terrible. There was still panic with regard to Spring and he started to act as a janitor - in the film In the Name of Life he plays a janitor.

Cherkasov said that he had acted the maximum number of tsars and he had even acted as Peter Ist and Aleksei.

Zhdanov. According to the hereditary line. He proceeded according to the hereditary line.

Stalin. It is necessary to show historical figures correctly and strongly. (To Eisenstein). You directed Alexander Nevsky. It came out very well. The most important thing is to maintain the style of the historical period. The director may deviate from history; it is not correct if he simply copies from the historical materials, he must work on his ideas but within the boundary of style. The director may vary within the style of that historical period.

Zhdanov said that Eisenstein is fascinated by the shadows (which distracts viewers from the action), and the beard of Ivan the Terrible and that Ivan the Terrible raises his head too often, so that his beard can be seen.

Eisenstein promised to shorten the beard of Ivan the Terrible in future.

Stalin. (Recalling different actors from the first part of the film Ivan the Terrible) Kurbsky - is magnificent. Staritsky is very good (Artist Kadochnikov). He catches the flies excellently. Also: the future tsar, he is catching flies with his hands! These type of details are necessary. They reveal the essence of man.

...The conversation then switched to the situation in Czechoslovakia in connection with Cherkasov's participation in the Soviet film festival. Cherkasov narrated the popularity of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia.

The discussion then touched upon the destruction of the Czechoslovakian cities by the Americans.

Stalin. Our job was to enter Prague before the Americans. The Americans were in a great hurry, but owing to Koniev's attack we were able to outdistance the Americans and strike Prague just before its fall. The Americans bombed Czechoslovakian industry. They maintained this policy throughout Europe, for them it was important to destroy those industries which were in competition with them. They bombed with taste.

Cherkasov spoke about the album of photographs of Franco and Goebbels which was with Ambassador Zorin at his villa.

Stalin. It is good that we finished these pigs. It is horrifying to think what would have happened if these scoundrels had won.

Cherkasov mentioned the graduation ceremony of the Soviet colony in Prague. He spoke of the children of emigrants who were studying there. It was very sad for these children who think of Russia as their motherland, as their home, when they were born there and had never been to Russia.

Stalin. It is unfortunate for these children. They are not at fault.

Molotov. Now we are giving a big opportunity to the children to return to Russia.

Stalin pointed to Cherkasov that he had the capacity for incarnation and that we have still the capacity to incarnate the artist Khmelev.

Cherkasov said that he had learnt a lot while working as an extra in the Marine Theatre in Leningrad. At that time the great master of incarnation Shaliapin acted and appeared on stage.

Stalin. He was a great actor.

Zhdanov asked: how is the shooting of the film Spring going on.

Cherkasov. We will finish it soon. Towards spring we are going to release Spring.

Zhdanov said that he liked the content of Spring a lot. The artist Orlova played very well.

Cherkasov. The artist Plyatt acted very well.

Zhdanov. And how did Ranevskaya act! (Waves his hand.)

Cherkasov. For the first time in my life I appeared in a film without a beard, without a moustache, without a cloak, without make-up. Playing the role of a director, I am a bit ashamed of my appearance and I feel like hiding behind my characters. This role is a lot of responsibility because I must represent a Soviet director and all our directors are worried: How will a Soviet director be shown?

Molotov. And here Cherkasov is settling scores with all the directors! When the film Spring was called into question, Cherkasov read an editorial in the newspaper Soviet Art regarding Spring and decided the film was already banned. And then Zhdanov said: Cherkasov saw that all the preparations for Spring had perished so he took on the role of a janitor. Then Zhdanov spoke disapproving of the critical storm which had come up around Spring.

Stalin was interested to know how the actress Orlova had acted. He approved of her as an actress.

Cherkasov said that this actress had a great capability of working and an immense talent.

Zhdanov. Orlova acted extremely well. And everybody remembered Volga-Volga and the role of the postman Orlova had played.

Cherkasov. Have you watched In the Name of Life?

Stalin. No, I have not watched it, but we have a good report from Kliment Efremovich. Voroshilov liked the film.

Then that means that all the questions are solved. What do you think Comrades (addresses Molotov and Zhdanov), should we give Comrades Cherkasov and Eisenstein the opportunity to complete the film? - and added - please convey all this to Comrade Bolshakov.

Cherkasov asked about some details in the film and about the outward appearance of Ivan the Terrible.

Stalin. His appearance is right, there is no need to change it. The outward appearance of Ivan the Terrible is fine.

Cherkasov. Can the scene about the murder of Staritskova be retained in the scenario?

Stalin. You may retain it. The murder did take place.

Cherkasov. We have a scene in which Malyuta Skuratov strangles the Metropolit Philip.

Zhdanov. It was in the Tver Otroch-Monastery?

Cherkasov. Yes, is it necessary to keep this scene? Stalin said that it was necessary to retain this scene as it was historically correct.

Molotov said it was necessary to show repression but at the same time one must show the purposes for which it was done. For this it was necessary to show state activities on a wider canvas and not to immerse oneself only with the scenes in the basements and enclosed areas. One must show wide state activity.

Cherkasov expressed his ideas regarding the future of the altered scenes and the second series.

Stalin. How does the film end? How better to do this, to make another two films - that is second and third series. How are we planning to this?

Eisenstein said that it was better to combine the already shot material of the second series with what was left of the scenario - and produce one big film.

Everyone agreed to this.

Stalin. How is your film going to end?

Cherkasov said that the film would end with the defeat of Livonia, the tragic death of Malyuta Skuratov, the march towards the sea where Ivan the Terrible is standing, surrounded by the army, and says, 'We are standing on the sea and will be standing!'

Stalin. This is how it turned out and a bit more than this.

Cherkasov asked whether it would be necessary to show the outline of the film for confirmation by the Politburo.

Stalin. It is not necessary to present the scenario, decide it by yourselves. It is generally difficult to judge from the scenario, it is easier to talk about a ready product. (To Molotov.) You must be wanting to read the scenario?

Molotov. No, I work in other fields. Let Bolshakov read it.

Eisenstein said that it was better not to hurry with the production of this film.

This comment drew an active reaction from everybody.

Stalin. It is absolutely necessary not to hurry, and in general to hasten the film would lead to its being shut down rather than its being released. Repin worked on the Zaporozhye Cossacks Writing Their Reply to the Turkish Sultan for 11 years.

Molotov. 13 years.

Stalin (with insistence) 11 years.

Everybody came to the conclusion that only a long spell of work may in reality produce a good film.

Regarding the film Ivan the Terrible Stalin said - That if necessary take one and a half, two even three years to produce this film. But the film should be good, it should be 'sculptured'. We must raise quality. Let there be fewer films, but with greater quality. The viewer has grown up and we must show him good productions.

It was discussed that Tselikovskaya acted well in other characters, she acts well but she is a ballerina.

We answered that it was impossible to summon another actress to Alma-Ata.

Stalin said that the directors should be adamant and demand whatever they need. But our directors too easily yield on their own demands. It sometimes happens that a great actor is necessary but it is played by someone who does not suit the role. This is because the actor demands and receives the role while the director agrees.

Eisenstein. The actress Gosheva could not be released from the Arts Theatre in Alma-Ata for the shooting. We searched two years for an Anastasia.

Stalin. Artist Zharov incorrectly looked upon his character without any seriousness in the film Ivan the Terrible. He is not a serious Army-General.

Zhdanov. This is not Malyuta Skuratov but an opera-hat.

Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was a more nationalist tsar, more foresighted, he did not allow foreign influence in Russia. Peter Ist opened the gate to Europe and allowed in too many foreigners.

Cherkasov said that it was unfortunate and a personal shame that he had not seen the second part of the film Ivan the Terrible. When the film was edited and shown he had been at that time in Leningrad.

Eisenstein also added that he had not seen the complete version of the film because he had fallen ill after completing it.

This caused great surprise and animation.

The discussion ended with Stalin wishing them success and saying 'May god help them!'

They shook hands and left. At 00.10 minutes the conversation ended.

An addition was made to this report by Eisenstein and Cherkasov:

'Zhdanov also said: 'In the film there is too much over-indulgence of religious rituals.'

Translated from the Russian by Sumana Jha.

Courtesy: G. Maryamov: Kremlevskii Tsenzor, Moscow, 1992, pp. 84-91.  www,revolutionarydemocracy.org

Medical

https://youtu.be/0LSaoy7TO3Q

उद्धरण

⭕ जिस वर्ग के पास बड़े पैमाने पर लूटने-खसोटने की ताक़त होती है उसके पास सरकार को नियन्त्रित करने और अपनी लूट-खसोट को क़ानूनी जामा पहनाने की भी ताक़त होती है!

🖊यूजीन डेब्स (अमेरिकी मज़दूर नेता, 1855-1926)

⭕ जिस धरती पर हर अगले मिनट एक बच्चा भूख या बीमारी से मरता हो, वहाँ पर शासक वर्ग की दृष्टि से चीज़ों को समझने की आदत डाली जाती है। लोगों को इस दशा को एक स्वाभाविक दशा समझने के लिए प्रशिक्षित किया जाता है। *लोग व्यवस्था को देशभक्ति से जोड़ लेते हैं और इस तरह से व्यवस्था का विरोधी एक देशद्रोही अथवा विदेशी एजेण्ट बन जाता है। जंगल के कानूनों को पवित्र रूप दे दिया जाता है ताकि पराजित लोग अपनी हालत को अपनी नियति समझ बैठें।*

🖊एदुआर्दो ख़ालियानो (अर्जेण्टीना के लेखक)

⭕ मेरे लिए यह कल्पना करना कठिन है कि एक बेरोज़गार भूखा व्यक्ति किस तरह की "निजी स्वतन्त्रता" का आनन्द उठाता है। *वास्तविक स्वतन्त्रता केवल वहीं हो सकती है जहाँ एक व्यक्ति द्वारा दूसरे का शोषण और उत्पीड़न न हो; जहाँ बेरोज़गारी न हो, और जहाँ किसी व्यक्ति को अपना रोज़गार, अपना घर और रोटी छिन जाने के भय में जीना न पड़ता हो।* केवल ऐसे ही समाज में निजी और किसी भी अन्य प्रकार की स्वतन्त्रता वास्तव में मौजूद हो सकती है, न कि सिर्फ़ काग़ज़ पर।

🖊जोसेफ़ स्तालिन (रूसी क्रांति के महान नेता )

⭕ स्वतन्त्रता प्रत्येक मनुष्य का अमिट अधिकार है। हर मनुष्य को अपने श्रम का फल पाने जैसा सभी प्रकार का अधिकार है और प्रत्येक राष्ट्र अपने मूलभूत प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का पूर्ण स्वामी है। *अगर कोई सरकार जनता को उसके इन मूलभूत अधिकारों से वंचित रखती है तो जनता का केवल यह अधिकार ही नहीं बल्कि आवश्यक कर्त्तव्य भी बन जाता है कि ऐसी सरकार को समाप्त कर दे।*

✍ शहीद भगत सिंह 

⭕ *क़ानून की पवित्रता तभी तक रखी जा सकती है जब तक वह जनता के दिल यानी भावनाओं को प्रकट करता है।* जब यह शोषणकारी समूह के हाथों में एक पुर्ज़ा बन जाता है तब अपनी पवित्रता और महत्त्व खो बैठता है। न्याय प्रदान करने के लिए मूल बात यह है कि हर तरह के लाभ या हित का ख़ात्मा होना चाहिए। ज्यों ही क़ानून सामाजिक आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करना बन्द कर देता है त्यों ही ज़ुल्म और अन्याय को बढ़ाने का हथियार बन जाता है। ऐसे क़ानूनों को जारी रखना सामूहिक हितों पर विशेष हितों की दम्भपूर्ण ज़बरदस्ती के सिवाय कुछ नहीं है।

✍ शहीद भगत सिंह

15 अगस्त 1947 स्वतंत्रता दिवस या भारत विभाजन दिवस

https://chat.whatsapp.com/GT2jU90QNNC3OjpyfKWwQv

*

    

1857 भारत के प्रथम स्वतंत्रता संग्राम से लेकर 15 अगस्त 1947 तक भारत की जनता ने अभूतपूर्व शहादत के साथ संर्घष किया था। क्रान्तिकारियों ने बलिदान और कुर्बानी की परम्परा कायम किया था। हजारों लोग फांसी के फन्दे पर चढ़ गये थे। लाखों गोलियों से भून दिये गये थे। करोड़ों लोग बारा-बार जन आन्दोलनों के दौरान जेल गये यातनायें सहे, तब जाकर 15 अगस्त 1947 के दिन ब्रिटिश साम्राज्यवाद हारकर भारत छोड़ने के लिए बाध्य हुआ था। लेकिन अपनी पूंजी सुरक्षित करने के लिए भारत के दलाल पूंजीपतियों के साथ एक समझौता किया जिसके तहत अपने चहेतों को सत्ता सौंप कर भारत भारत के दो टुकड़े कर दिया। अत: जिसे आज हम स्वतंत्रता दिवस के रूप में याद करते हैं दरअसल वह भारत का विभाजन दिवस है। 

    

भारत के विभाजन का प्रस्ताव- 10 जुलाई 1947 को अखिल भारतीय कांग्रेस कमेटी ने पारित किया था। पंडित नेहरू द्वारा लिखित, सरदार पटेल द्वारा समर्थित और गान्धी जी द्वारा अनुमोदित था। क्या कहीं कोई देश भक्त अपने देश के विभाजन के लिए प्रस्ताव पारित करता है। ऐसी तथा कथित आजादी विश्व इतिहास में नहीं मिलता है। जो बेमिशाल है। जहाँ गुलाम बनाने वाली ब्रिटिश साम्राज्यवादी शक्ति का प्रतिनिधि वायसराय माउन्टबेटन ही सत्ता हस्तान्तरण के लगभग 10 महीने बाद तक भारत का वायसराय बना रहा। 

    

यह सत्ता हस्तान्तरण पूरी तरह से भारत की जनता के खून से डूबी हुयी थी। जहाँ 14 अगस्त 1947 तक भारत का जो हिन्दू और मुसलमान आपस में मिलकर अंग्रेजो से लड़ते थे वे ही अब तथा कथित आजादी के कारण पूरे देश व्यापी पैमाने पर एक दूसरे का खून बहाने लगे। इधर 15 अगस्त 1947 से 17 अगस्त 1947 तक 3 दिन तक भारत के लोगों को पता नहीं था कि वे हिन्दुस्तान में है या पाकिस्तान में है। उधर सत्ताधारी अंग्रेजों ने जान बूझकर साम्प्रदायिक दंगा करवाया था। परिणामस्वरूप 3 दिनों में 10 लाख से अधिक लोग साम्प्रदायिक दंगों में मारे गये। एक करोड़ लोगे अपने देश में शरणार्थी बनकर रह गये। एक करोड लोग अपने देश में शरणार्थी बनकर एक कोने से दूसरे कोने तक अपनी जान बचाने के लिए दौड़ भाग करते रहे। अरबों-खरबों की पूंजी सम्पत्ति और धन देश की जनता का बरबाद हुआ। इसके लिए जिम्मेदार गद्दार दलाल पूॅजीवादी नेताओं को सजा मिलनी चाहिए थी किन्तु 14 अगस्त की रात्रि ने उन्हे गद्दारी का इनाम मिला। और सत्तारूढ हो गये। नेहरू पटेल भारत के प्रधानमंत्री और उपप्रधान मंत्री बनकर सरकार चलाने लगे, उधर जिन्ना साहब पाकिस्तान का गर्वनर जनरल बन गये, यद्यपि देश के मालिक भारत की जनता ने इन दोनों को सत्ता नहीं सौंपी। भारत जो पूरा सामंती और पूरा औपनिवेशिक देश थ वह अर्द्ध सामंती, कर अर्धऔपनिवेशिक में बदल गया तथा पूँजीवादी व्यवस्था कायम हो गयी। सत्ता हस्तान्तरण के बाद ब्रिटिश राजसत्ता और व्यवस्था सेना, पुलिस, नौकरशाही, ब्रिटिश का ही कानून कायदे सत्ता और व्यवस्था का पुराना ढांचा ब्रिटिश पूंजी की सत्ता ज्यों की त्यों आज भी कायम है। बहु चर्चित आजादी आधी-अधूरी आजादी है यह मात्र सत्ता का ही हस्तान्तरण है जो पूजीवादी व्यवस्था की नीव है। चूंकि भारत के पूॅजीवादी व्यवस्था की नीव पड़ चुकी थी, वर्ग संघर्ष का रास्ता छोड़कर चुनाव वोट का रास्ता अपना लिए गये, परिणामस्वरूप 74 वर्षों में एक तरफ मेहनतकश जनता के विरूद्ध लाठी, गोली, जेल, कचेहरी निर्मम शासन जारी है। दूसरी तरफ हर चुनाव लोकतांत्रिक नाटक के बाद मंहगाई, बेरोजगारी, भुखमरी, बीमारी, कुशिक्षा, बेकारी, हत्या, बलात्कार बढ़ती जा रही है। अमीर अमीर होता जा रहा है, गरीब गरीब होता जा रहा है। देश में पूजीपतियों की संख्या बढ़ती जा रही है। ऐसा क्यों है, विचारणीय प्रश्न है? भारत की संसदीय प्रणाली (लोकतंत्र) जिसे जनतंत्र भी कहा जाता है। झूठ बोलने और जनता को धोखा देने का हथियार बन गया है। झूठ बोलने का पक्का सबूत आगे है। 

    

राजनीति अर्थनीति की धुरी है। अर्थनीति का चक्कर राजनीति लगाती है। आर्थिक दरिद्रता के कारण वर्तमान समय में समाज में राजनैतिक दरिद्रता छा गयी है। विचारधारा और सिद्धान्त की राजनीति खत्म हो गयी है, निजी स्वार्थ के लिए दल-बदल आम बात हो गयी है। चूँकि पूॅजीवादी व्यवस्था पर आधारित है। जिसके पास बहुतेरे हथकंडे है झूठ बोलना, गलत वादा करना, जनता को धोखा देना चुनाव के दौरान शराब, कपड़ा, पैसा तथा अनेक वादा करना और हर तरह से तिकड़म करके चुनाव जीतना असली कार्य है। और यह चरित्र सारी पूजीवादी पार्टियों की है। सबका चरित्र और सिद्धान्त एक जैसा है। सारी पूजीवादी पार्टियां कितना झूठ बोलती है और किया गया वादा पूरा नहीं किया। उसका नमूना नीचे है। 

1- सम्पूर्ण क्रान्ति का नारा 1977 में श्री जयप्रकाश नारायण के नेतृत्व में दिया गया जिसमें भ्रष्टाचार बेरोजगारी, बेकारी, कुशिक्षा समाप्त होगी और शोषण मुक्त समाज बनेगा। मगर जनता पार्टी का शासन आया एक भी वादे पूरे नहीं हुए। इसी तरह-

2- हर हाथ को काम, हर खेत को पानी, का नारा (कांग्रेस का)

3- जय जवान जय किसान का नारा (कांग्रेस का)

4- गरीबी मिटाओ का नारा (कांग्रेस का)

5- बैंको का राष्ट्रीयकरण का नारा(कांग्रेस का)

6- भूख भय और भ्रष्टाचार मिटाओ (भाजपा का)

7-शाइनिंग इण्डिया का नारा (भाजपा का)

8- अच्छा दिन आयेगा, मंदिर वहीं बनायेंगे, सबका साथ सबका विकास (भाजपा का)

9- विदेशों में जमा धन सत्ता में आने के बाद 90 दिन में 15-15 लाख प्रत्येक परिवार को दिया जायेगा (भाजपा का)

10- भाजपा ने वादा किया था प्रतिवर्ष 2 करोड नौकरियां देंगे परन्तु नोट बंदी, जी0एस0टी0 निजीकरण आदि के जरिये 22 करोड़ नौकरियां छीन लिया। 

11- भाजपा ने वादा किया था कि मंहगाई रोकेंगे लेकिन सारी चीजों का मंहगायी के दाम आसमान छू रहा है, डीजल, पेट्रोल का गैस खाद-बीज आदि के दाम लगातार बढ़ती जा रही है। फिर भी कहते हैं कि किसानों के आय 2022 तक दो गुना हो जायेगा। 

12- भाजपा ने वादा किया गया था भ्रष्टाचार रोकेंगे लेकिन नोटबन्दी के रूप में विश्व इतिहास का सबसे बड़ा भ्रष्टाचार कर डाला। 

13- भाजपा ने वादा किया था महिलाओं की सुरक्षा, बेटी-पढाओं, बेटी बचाओं का नारा दिया था मगर आज सांसद महिला की रक्षा सांसद भवन में न हो सकी अब सांसद में क्या हो रहा है आप लोगों के सामने है। 

14-  मोदी जी देश में कोई कल कारखाना नहीं लगवाया बल्कि जो था वह भी बन्द हो गया जिसमें मजदूर काम करते उत्पादन बढ़ता और मजदूरों का जीवन स्तर ऊँचा उठता देश माला-माल हो जाता किन्तु उनके चुनावी क्षेत्र वाराणसी, पांच सितारा होटल तैयार हो रहा है। क्या उस होटल में मजदूर या किसान जायेगें।

   

यह कहा जाता है कि यह जनतंत्र है लोकतन्त्र है। क्योंकि जनता द्वारा चुने गये हैं। लेकिन भारत में जनतंत्र का मखौल उड़ा रहे हैं। मन की बात कहकर तानाशाही कर रहे हैं यानी जनतंत्र का खात्मा कर रहे हैं। इटली के मुसोलिनी और जर्मनी के हिटलर से भी आगे बढ़ गये हैं। 135 करोड़ देशवासियों से टी0वी0 चैनल पर संवाद करते हैं। गौर करने की बात है कि मोदी जी कहते थे कि मुझे देश का चौकीदार बना दीजिये। चौकीदार नहीं देशा का प्रधानमंत्री बना दिये लेकिन हीरा व्यापारी नीरव मोदी विदेश चला गया उसे पकड़ नहीं पाये और न ही उसे भारत बुला पाये और न ही विदेशो में जमा पूँजी मंगा पाये। कैसे चौकीदार निकले? इसके अतिरिक्त दूसरी तरफ मोदी जी पूजीपतियों के हाथ हवाई अड्डे रेलवे आदि को बेच रहे है। और अब देश बेचने वाले हैं। 

भारत में झूठ बोलने की आजादी को ही अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता कहा जाता है। भारत का संसदीय लोकतंत्र इसी झूठ का नमूना है। आजदी के नाम पर उसे सिर्फ झूठे वादे धोखा विश्वासघात मिलता है। अत: जनता मांग करती है कि झूठ वाले करने वाले नेताओं के खिलाफ कानून बनाया जाय और सजा दिलाया जाय। कहते हैं 1952 के पूर्व जमीन के मालिक जमीन्दार या राजा-महाराजा हुआ करते थे किन्तु 1952 में तथाकथित जमीन्दारी टूटने के बाद जमीन किसानों को मिला जबकि अभी भी जमीन्दारी कायम है। भोजन, वस्त्र और मकान का सवाल जमीन से हल होगा जो आज तक नहीं हल हो सका। आजादी के पूर्व से ही जमीन के सवाल पर 1946 से 1952 तक तेलंगाना में हथियार बन्द किसानों का संघर्ष जमीन के लिए चल रहा था तब जाकर 1952 में जमीन्दारी आधी-अधूरी टूटी। आचार्य बिनोवा भावे भी भूमि सुधार आन्दोलन चलाये फिर भी जमीन का सवाल आज तक नहीं हल हुआ। 

  

आजादी की लड़ाई चल रही थी उसी समय 1946 से 1951 तक तेलंगाना में हथियार बन्द किसान संघर्ष जमीन के लिए चल रहा था। तेलंगाना किसान संघर्ष के ताप से डरकर 1952 में जमीन्दारी उन्मूलन कानून लागू हुआ। मगर भूमिहीन व गरीब किसानों को जमीन नहीं मिली। तभी तो जमीन के लिए, नक्सलवादी किसान आन्दोलन तिभागा, छतहरा, कुडवा मानिकपुर आदि तमाम जगहों पर किसान आन्दोलन कुछ किसानों को जमीन मिली। क्योंकि 1952 के पहले जमीन का मलिक राजा राजवाडे, जमीन्दार होते थे, जो अंग्रेजों के दलाल थे। किसान लगान जमीन्दार को देता था किन्तु जमीन्दारी उन्मूलन के बाद जो किसान माल गुजारी का 10 गुना जमा करके जमीन का मालिक बन गया। किन्तु आज भी जमीन का अधिकांश हिस्सा जमीन्दारों के पास रह गया। वह आज भी ज्यों का त्यो है। नक्सलवाड़ी के ताप से डरकर देश में सीलिंग एक्ट 1975 में लागू हुआ पुनः परिणाम स्वरूप जमीन को पट्टा देने का कार्य सरकार ने शुरू कर दिया। किन्तु जमीन का सवाल अभी अधूरा है जमीन्दारों के नाम आज भी जमीन का निर्णायक हिस्सा पड़ा हुआ है। 

    

भोजन, वस्त्र और मकान का निदान समाधान जमीन ही है। लेकिन मोदी जी की सरकार आने पर किसान विरोधी नीति जमीन अधिग्रहण अध्यादेश 2015 मे ही आ गयी है जिससे किसानों को जो मिली जमीन थी वह भी छीनना शुरू हो गया। तथाकथित आजादी 1947 के बाद लगभग 74 वर्षों में किसान आन्दोलन जो आज लगभग 8 महीनों से दिल्ली के निकट टिकरी बार्डर पर, गाजीपुर बार्डर पर चल रहा है। यह किसान विरोधी काला कानून जन विरोधी है क्योंकि किसानों की जमीन छीनकर पूँजीपतियों के हक में अदानी और अम्बानी के हाथ में गिरवी करने की साजिश है। इस साज़िश के खिलाफ गर्मी बरसात, भयंकर ठंडक, एवं भयंकर कोरोना महामारी से जूझते हुए किसान संघर्षरत हैं। उनमें से 600से अधिक किसानों की मौत भी हो गयी, लेकिन तानाशाह मोदी को केवल पूजीपति ही दिखायी दे रहे हैं। ऐसे वीर सपूत किसानों को मेरा लाल सलाम एवं उन आन्दोलन कारियों को मै शत-शत नमन करता हूँ तथा वंदन एवं अभिनन्दन करता हूँ और मैं आपके साथ हूँ।

    

आइये इन परिस्थितियों में हम अपना सम्पूर्ण आजादी के लिए नया भारत बनाने के लिए जन आन्दोलन के माध्यम से क्रान्ति का बिगुल बजायें। *-इन्कलाब जिन्दाबाद!!*

  

*क्रान्तिकारी अभिवादन के साथ-*

*सूर्यदेव सिंह एडवोकेट(बस्ती)*

*जनवादी अधिवक्ता संघ*

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

Eliza Burt Gamble

एलिजा बट गम्बल (1841–1920): जिसने डार्विन को गलत साबित किया।

शायद आपको आश्चर्य हो लेकिन यह तथ्य है कि डार्विन महिलाओं को पुरुषों से कमतर मानते थे। इसके लिए उन्होंने 1871 में प्रकाशित अपनी किताब 'The Descent of Man' में तथाकथित 'वैज्ञानिक तथ्य' दिए है। इस किताब के आने तक डार्विन की प्रतिष्ठा आसमान छू रही थी। लेकिन अमेरिका में महिला आंदोलन में सक्रिय एलिजा बट गम्बल (Eliza Burt Gamble ) को डार्विन के 'वैज्ञानिक तर्क' वैज्ञानिक नही लगे और उन्होंने डार्विन को उनके ही क्षेत्र में चुनौती देने की ठान ली। इसके लिए उन्होंने लाइब्रेरी की राह पकड़ी और उस समय तक के जीव विज्ञान का अध्ययन किया। अंत मे 1894 में उन्होंने एक बेहद महत्वपूर्ण किताब लिखी -The Evolution of Woman: An Inquiry into the Dogma of Her Inferiority to Man इसमे उन्होंने डार्विन के तर्क को उन्हीं के विकासवाद के सिद्धान्त के आधार पर काटा और साबित किया कि महिलाएं पुरुषों से किसी भी मायने में हीन नही है। वे उनके बराबर है। जो अंतर हमे दिखता है वे जैविक नही बल्कि सांस्कृतिक व सामाजिक है। लेकिन यह विक्टोरियन युग था, और डार्विन का यह सिद्धांत कि महिलाएँ पुरुषों से हीन होती है, उस समय का 'कॉमन सेंस' था। इसके अलावा महिलाओं को वैज्ञानिक के रूप में स्वीकार करने का चलन नही था। याद कीजिये कि 2 बार नोबेल जीतने वाली मैडम क्युरी को भी फ्रेंच वैज्ञानिक सोसाइटी में प्रवेश नही दिया गया था। डार्विन से पहली बार टकराने वाली यह किताब 1950-60 के प्रखर नारीवादी आंदोलनों के कारण ही स्थापित हो सकी और तमाम नारीवादी आंदोलनों का आधार बन सकी.

आज से ठीक 100 साल पहले उनकी मृत्यु हुई. तब से लेकर आज तक भिन्न भिन्न रूपों में डार्विन और एलिजा बट गम्बल की यह लड़ाई जारी है. आज भी तमाम तथाकथिक वैज्ञानिक शोधों में यह साबित करने का प्रयास किया जाता है की महिलाएं पुरुषों से अलग है. जेंडर और सेक्स का घालमेल आज भी जारी है. लेकिन एलिजा बट गम्बल की परंपरा के वैज्ञानिक विशेषकर महिला वैज्ञानिक आज सफलतापूर्वक उन 'वैज्ञानिक' मिथकों

को अपने वैज्ञानिक तर्कों से धवस्त कर रहे / रही हैं और भविष्य की नींव रख रहे/रही हैं, जो पूरी तरह महिला-पुरुष समानता पर आधारित है.

एलिजा बट गम्बल की कहानी हमें यही बताती है की विज्ञान भी जरूरी नहीं कि वैज्ञानिक ही हो. यहाँ भी समाज की तरह ही तमाम पूर्वाग्रहों की तीखी लड़ाई जारी रहती है. मार्क्स ने इस बारे में बहुत ही सटीक कहा था- तर्क हमेशा होता है, लेकिन जरूरी नहीं कि वो अपने तार्किक रूप में ही हो. [Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form]

#मनीष आज़ाद

स्तालिन

स्तालिन का जन्म 18 दिसंबर 1878 को और मृत्यु  5 मार्च 1953 को हुई थी।

स्तालिन के दत्तक पुत्र अर्तेम सेर्गीव ने लिखा है- एक बार स्तालिन के बेटे ने अपने "स्तालिन" उपनाम का प्रयोग सजा से बचने के लिए किया। स्तालिन को जब पता चला तो वो बहुत गुस्सा हुए। इस बात पर उनका बेटा वसीली बोला कि "मेरा उपनाम भी "स्तालिन" है। मैं भी एक स्तालिन हूँ।" स्तालिन ने कहा कि "नहीं तुम स्तालिन नहीं हो। मैं भी स्तालिन नहीं हूँ। स्तालिन सोवियत सत्ता का प्रतीक है। और जनता ही सोवियत सत्ता है।"

जब कामरेड स्तालिन की मृत्यु हुई उस समय उनकी संपत्ति थी :-

एक जोड़ा जूते

दो मिलिट्री ड्रेस

बैंक खाते में 900 रूबल...

केनेथ नील कैमरून लिखते हैं - स्तालिन ने सर्वहारा वर्ग के लिए जो किया था उतना उन्होंने बुर्जुआ वर्ग के लिए किया होता तो बुर्जुआ हलकों में उनको बहुत पहले ही सिर्फ सदी का नहीं बल्कि आज तक पैदा हुए सबसे महान लोगों में से एक घोषित कर दिया गया होता।

हार्वड के स्मिथ लिखते हैं - ''इस शताब्दी के पहले आधे हिस्से में अगर किसी आदमी ने दुनिया को बदलने के लिये सबसे ज्यादा काम किया था तो वे स्तालिन ही थे।''

द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध के दौरान नाज़ी सेनाएं मास्को के अंदर तक घुस आई थी। सोवियत सुरक्षा एजेंसियों, सेना के उच्चाधिकारियों और पोलित ब्यूरो के सदस्यों, सभी की राय यही थी कि स्तालिन को किसी सुरक्षित जगह पर चले जाना चाहिए। लेकिन स्तालिन ने कहीं भी जाने से इंकार कर दिया और वहीँ एक छोटी सी झोंपड़ी से लाल सेना व सोवियत जनता का नेतृत्व करते रहे। यह था स्तालिन का व्यक्तित्व और उनकी इच्छाशक्ति। इसका कारण भी था। एक तो वह वर्ग संघर्ष और क्रांति की आग से तपकर तैयार हुए नेता थे, और दूसरा वे सोवियत जनता की शक्ति में अटूट विश्वास रखते थे।

विश्वयुद्ध के दौरान स्तालिन का बेटा फौज में लेफ्टिनेंट था। वह जर्मन फौज द्वारा बंदी बना लिया गया। हिटलर ने प्रस्ताव दिया था कि जर्मनी के एक जनरल को छोड़ने पर बदले में स्तालिन के बेटे को छोड़ दिया जाएगा। स्टालिन ने यह कहकर इंकार कर दिया कि , "एक सामान्य-से लेफ्टिनेंट के बदले नाजी फौज के किसी जनरल को नहीं छोड़ा जा सकता।"

एक बार स्तालिन की बेटी स्वेतलाना के लिए एक अच्छे फ्लैट की व्यवस्था की गई थी तो ये सुनकर स्तालिन बहुत गुस्सा हुए और उन्होंने कहा," क्या वह केंद्रीय कमेटी की सदस्य है या पोलित ब्यूरो की सदस्य है कि उसके लिए अलग इंतजाम होगा? जहाँ सब रहेंगे, वहीं वह भी रहेगी।"

स्तालिन के बॉडीगार्ड ने एक इंटरव्यू में बताया था कि विश्वयुद्ध में विजय के बाद सोवियत संघ की सर्वोच्च सोवियत ने स्तालिन को "सोवियत संघ का नायक" सम्मान देने की घोषणा की। स्तालिन ने यह कहते हुए यह अवार्ड लेने से मना कर दिया कि वे नायक नहीं हैं। नायक है सोवियत संघ की लाल सेना और सोवियत संघ की जनता जिसने इस युद्ध को असंख्य कुर्बानियां देकर जीता है। हालाँकि अपनी मृत्यु के बाद वे उनको नहीं रोक पाये और उनको मरणोपरान्त यह अवार्ड दिया गया।

अमरीकी लेखिका व पत्रकार अन्ना लुई स्ट्रांग स्तालिन के बारे में लिखती हैं :- "फ़िनलैंड की स्वतंत्रता तो बोल्शेविक क्रांति का सीधा तोहफा थी। जब जार का पतन हो गया तो फ़िनलैंड ने स्वतंत्रता की मांग की। तब वह रूसी साम्राज्य का हिस्सा था। केरेंसकी सरकार ने इसे नामंजूर कर दिया। ब्रिटेन, फ्रांस और अमेरिका भी तब फ़िनलैंड की स्वतंत्रता के पक्षधर नहीं थे। वे नहीं चाहते थे कि पहले विश्वयुद्ध में उनका मित्र रहा जारशाही साम्राज्य टूट जाए। बोल्शेविकों के सत्ता सँभालते ही राष्ट्रीयताओं से जुड़ी समस्याओं के मंत्री स्तालिन ने इस बात को आगे बढाया कि फ़िनलैंड के अनुरोध को स्वीकार कर लिया जाए। उन्होंने कहा था: 'फिनिश जनता निश्चित तौर पर स्वतंत्रता की मांग कर रही है इसलिए "सर्वहारा का राज्य" उस मांग को मंजूर किए बिना नहीं रह सकता।......."

'............मैंने "मास्को न्यूज़" नामक अख़बार को संगठित किया था। उसके रूसी संपादक के साथ मैं ऐसे चकरा देने वाले झगड़ों में उलझ गई थी कि इस्तीफा दे देना चाहती थी। रूस छोड़कर ही चली जाना चाहती थी। एक मित्र की सलाह पर मैंने अपनी शिकायत स्टालिन को लिख भेजी। उनके ऑफिस ने मुझे फ़ोन करके बताया कि मैं "चली आऊँ और इस सम्बन्ध में कुछ जिम्मेदार कामरेडों से बात कर लूं"। यह बात इतने सहज ढ़ंग से कही गई थी कि जब मैंने खुद को उसी टेबल पर स्तालिन, कगानोविच और वोरोशिलोव के साथ मौजूद पाया तो अवाक रह गई। वे लोग भी वहां उपस्थित थे जिनके खिलाफ मैंने शिकायत की थी। छोटी सी वह पोलिट ब्यूरो पूरे सोवियत संघ की संचालन समिति थी। आज वह मेरी शिकायत पर विचार करने बैठ गई थी। मैं लज्जित हो गई।.....'

स्तालिन के नेतृत्व में जब सोवियत संघ ने अपना संविधान बनाया तो क्या हुआ था। पढ़िए :-

"संविधान को पास करने का तरीका बहुत महत्वपूर्ण था। लगभग एक वर्ष तक यह आयोग राज्यों और स्वैछिक समाजों के विभिन्न ऐतिहासिक रूपों का अध्ययन करता रहा जिनके जरिये विभिन्न काल में लोग साझे लक्ष्यों के लिए संगठित होते रहे थे। उसके बाद सरकार ने जून 1936 में एक प्रस्तावित मसविदे को तदर्थ रूप से स्वीकार करके जनता के बीच बहस के लिए 6 करोड़ प्रतियां वितरित कीं। इस पर 5,27,000 बैठकों में तीन करोड़ साठ लाख लोगों ने विचार-विमर्श किया। लोगों ने एक लाख चौवन हजार संशोधन सुझाए। निश्चित तौर पर इनमे से काफी में दोहराव था और कई ऐसे थे जो संविधान की बजाय किसी कानून संहिता के ज्यादा अनुकूल थे। फिर भी जनता की इस पहलकदमी से 43 संशोधन सचमुच अपनाये गए।"

स्तालिन को स्तालिन यूँ ही नहीं कहा जाता था। रूसी भाषा में इसका मतलब है "स्टील का आदमी"। वह सच में फौलादी इरादों वाले नेता थे। एक पिछड़े हुए भूखे नंगे देश को महाशक्ति में बदलना किसी टटपूंजीए के बस की बात नहीं है। तमाम पूंजीवादी साम्राज्यवादी कुत्साप्रचार के बावजूद आज भी रूस की जनता अपने इस महान नेता को उतना ही प्यार करती है। कुछ समय पहले रूस में हुए एक सर्वे में स्तालिन को आधुनिक समय का सबसे महान रूसी चुना गया है।

Via Navmeet Nav

बेरोज़गारी की मार झेलती युवा आबादी चूँकि लूट और मुनाफ़े पर टिकी हुई पूँजीवादी व्यवस्था के लिए बेरोज़गारों का होना पूँजीपतियों के मुनाफ़े के लिए सेहतमन्द होता है। ऐसे में इस व्यवस्था की परिधि में रहकर बेरोज़गारी से निजात पाने के बारे में सोचना अन्ततोगत्वा दिवास्वप्न साबित होगा। आज ‘सबको शिक्षा, सबको काम’ के नारे के इर्द-गिर्द एक बड़ी लामबन्दी क़ायम करते हुए आन्दोलन छेड़ने की ज़रू�

बेरोज़गारी की मार झेलती युवा आबादी

http://ahwanmag.com/archives/7735

धर्म के बारे में :

------------------------------

हमारा कार्यक्रम पूर्णतः वैज्ञानिक, और इसके अतिरिक्त भौतिकवादी विश्व दृष्टिकोण पर आधारित है । इसलिए हमारे कार्यक्रम की व्याख्या में धार्मिक कुहासे के सच्चे ऐतिहासिक और आर्थिक स्रोतों की व्याख्या भी आवश्यक रूप से शामिल है । हमारे प्रचार कार्य में आवश्यक रूप से अनीश्वरवाद का प्रचार भी शामिल होना चाहिए; उपयुक्त वैज्ञानिक साहित्य का प्रकाशन भी, जिस पर एकतन्त्रीय सामन्ती शासन ने अब तक कठोर प्रतिबन्ध लगा रखा था और जिसे प्रकाशित करने पर दण्ड दिया जाता था, अब हमारी पार्टी के कार्य का एक क्षेत्र बन जाना चाहिए । अब हमें सम्भवतः एंगेल्स की उस सलाह का अनुसरण करना होगा जो उन्होंने एक बार जर्मन समाजवादियों को दी थी-अर्थात हमें फ़्रांस के अठारहवीं शताब्दी के प्रबोधकों और अनीश्वरवादियों के साहित्य का अनुवाद करना और उसका व्यापक प्रचार करना चाहिए ।

लेकिन हमें किसी भी हालत में धार्मिक प्रश्न को अरूप, आदर्शवादी ढंग से, वर्ग संघर्ष से असम्बद्ध एक "बौद्धिक" प्रश्न के रूप में उठाने की ग़लती का शिकार नहीं बनना चाहिए, जैसा कि बुर्जुआ वर्ग के बीच उग्रवादी जनवादी कभी-कभी किया करते हैं । यह सोचना मूर्खता होगी कि मज़दूर अवाम के सीमाहीन शोषण और संस्कारहीनता पर आधारित समाज में धार्मिक पूर्वाग्रहों को केवल प्रचारात्मक साधनों से ही समाप्त किया जा सकता है । इस बात को भुला देना कि मानव जाति पर लदा धर्म का जुआ समाज के अन्तर्गत आर्थिक जुए का ही प्रतिबिम्ब और परिणाम है, बुर्जुआ संकीर्णता ही होगी । सर्वहारा यदि पूँजीवाद की काली शक्तियों के विरुद्ध स्वयं अपने संघर्ष से प्रबुद्ध नहीं होगा तो पुस्तिकाओं और शिक्षाओं की कोई भी मात्रा उन्हें प्रबुद्ध नहीं बना सकती । हमारी दृष्टि में, धरती पर स्वर्ग बनाने के लिए उत्पीड़ित वर्ग के इस वास्तविक क्रान्तिकारी संघर्ष में एकता परलोक के स्वर्ग के बारे में सर्वहारा दृष्टिकोण की एकता से कहीं अधिक महत्वपूर्ण है ।

यही कारण है कि हम अपने कार्यक्रम में अपनी नास्तिकता को न तो शामिल करते हैं और न हमें करना चाहिए । और यही कारण है कि हम ऐसे सर्वहाराओं को, जिनमें अभी तक पुराने पूर्वाग्रहों के अवशेष विद्यमान हैं, अपनी पार्टी में शामिल होने पर न तो रोक लगाते हैं, न हमें इस पर रोक लगानी चाहिए। हम वैज्ञानिक दृष्टिकोण की शिक्षा सदा देंगे और हमारे लिए विभिन्न "ईसाइयों" की विसंगतियों से संघर्ष चलाना भी जरूरी है। लेकिन इसका जरा भी यह अर्थ नहीं है कि धार्मिक प्रश्न को प्रथम वरीयता दे देनी चाहिये । न ही इसका यह अर्थ है कि हमें उन घटिया मत-मतान्तरों और निरर्थक विचारों के कारण, जो तेजी से महत्वहीन होते जा रहे हैं और स्वयं आर्थिक विकास की धारा में तेजी से कूड़े के ढेर की तरह किनारे लगते जा रहे हैं, वास्तविक क्रान्तिकारी आर्थिक और राजनीतिक संघर्ष की शक्तियों को बँट जाने देना चाहिए ।

प्रतिक्रियावादी बुर्जुआ वर्ग ने अपने आप को हर जगह धार्मिक झगड़ों को उभाड़ने के दुष्कृत्यों में संलग्न किया है, और वह रूस में भी ऐसा करने जा रहा है-इसमें उसका उद्देश्य आम जनता का ध्यान वास्तविक महत्व की और बुनियादी आर्थिक और राजनीतिक समस्याओं से हटाना है जिन्हें अब समस्त रूस का सर्वहारा वर्ग क्रांतिकारी संघर्ष में एकजुट हो कर व्यावहारिक रूप से हल कर रहा है । सर्वहारा की शक्तियों को बाँटने की यह प्रतिक्रियावादी नीति, जो आज ब्लैक हंड्रेड (राजतंत्र समर्थक गिरोहों) द्वारा किये हत्याकाण्डों में मुख्य रूप से प्रकट हुई है, भविष्य में और परिष्कृत रूप ग्रहण कर सकती हैं । हम इसका विरोध हर हालत में शान्तिपूर्वक, अडिगता और धैर्य के साथ सर्वहारा एकजुटता और वैज्ञानिक दृष्टिकोण की शिक्षा द्वारा करेंगे - एक ऐसी शिक्षा द्वारा करेंगे जिसमें किसी भी प्रकार के महत्वहीन मतभेदों के लिए कोई स्थान नहीं है । क्रान्तिकारी सर्वहारा, जहाँ तक राज्य का संबंध है, धर्म को वास्तव में एक व्यक्तिगत मामला बनाने में सफल होगा । और इस राजनीतिक प्रणाली में, जिसमें मध्यकालीन सड़न साफ़ हो चुकी होगी, सर्वहारा आर्थिक ग़ुलामी के, जो कि मानव जाति के धार्मिक शोषण का वास्तविक स्रोत है, उन्मूलन के लिए सर्वहारा वर्ग व्यापक और खुला संघर्ष चलायेगा ।

                                 लेनिन ( समाजवाद और धर्म )

The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

The socialist revolution is not one single act, not one single battle on a single front; but a whole epoch of intensified class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e., battles around all the problems of economics and politics, which can culminate only in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

V. I.   Lenin

The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Trade Unions - Marx

Karl Marx said long ago: "Trade Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerrilla warfare against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system."

Trade union politics

Lenin said: "There could not have been Social Democratic (read Communist) consciousness among the workers.

It would have to be brought to them from without.

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e. that conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied class, by intellectuals. By their social status, the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia." (What is to be Done, Selected Works, 3 Volume Edition, Vol. 3, pp. 148-149).

The crux of this thought is of critical importance to Indian workers today. What is the way forward: is the way forward to confine the workers to trade unionism, to trade union struggles, or is it to work to lift the consciousness of the workers to the level of Communist (scientific socialist) consciousness, and build a revolutionary scientific socialist party of the working class capable of leading the whole struggle against capitalism? To do the former is to perpetuate capitalism: to do the latter is to prepare for the overthrow of capitalism. Modern revisionists in India seek to confine the workers to trade unionism, to trade union politics, and thus to do something which does not really challenge capitalism as a social system.

Trade Union

In Value, Price & Profit, Marx says: 

"Instead of the conservative motto: 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: 'Abolition of the wages system'!"

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/australia/hill-looking/two.htm

Trade unions - Lenin

Trade unions represented enormous progress for the workingclass at the beginning of the development of capitalism as the transition from the disunity and helplessness of the workers to the rudiments of class organisation. When the highest form of proletarian class organisation began to arise, viz, the revolutionary party of the proletariat (which does not deserve the name until it learns to bind the leaders with the class and with the masses into one single indissoluble whole), the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary traits, a certain craft narrowness, a certain tendency toward becoming non-political, a certain inertness, etc. But the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, anywhere in the world, proceed otherwise than through the trade unions, through their interaction with the party of the proletariat . . .(Lenin, Selected Works, 12 Volume Edition, Vol. 10, pp. 90-91.)

Observation on “Some Comments on the Stage of Revolution in India” by Proletarian Politics

FORWARD, BACKWARD OR IN ZIGZAG:

Observation on "Some Comments on the Stage of Revolution in India" by Proletarian Politics 

Marxist Front (INDIA)

marxistfront@yahoo.co.in

 

Manoj Sinha of Proletarian Politics has written a long Comment on the Stage of revolution in India, (Proletarian Politics, Volume 1 November 2004)

In this article we will not go into the details of the draft under discussion; it will only show how Proletarian Politics (Pr P) and Manoj Sinha(MKS) has strayed from the central theme and jumbled up the entire topic leading to further confusion to the reader who thaught that something concrete and worth pondering is in offering.

Allow me to quote in full the sometimes-lengthy passages from his Comment in italics to enable the readers afresh to be quite abreast with the thaughts of MKS

 

The theses of Proletarian Politics cognises nothing but the elementary generalisation from direct facts as they exist. Such observations may be quite sufficient for everyday ordinary requirements, but cannot reveal the true essence, or the content of the subject.

 

MKS has based his comment on the following papers/analysis

·        Proletarian Path's' On the Stage of Indian Revolution' which appeared in its inaugural issue (New Series, Vol. I, No. I, Nov-Dec., 1992);

·        Revolutionary Democracy 'On the Stage of the Indian Revolution' in its Vol. II, No. 1, April-May 1996

·        Alliance (Marxist-Leninist) Upon the Polemic Between Proletarian Path & Revolutionary Democracy --Concerning The Stage of the Indian Revolution.

 

Sinha begins:

            The sine qua non for Europianization of Indian society was the breaking up of its stereotyped primitive forms. This could not be done only through tax collectors. The destruction of India's archaic industry -in particular combination of hand-weaving, hand-spinning and hand tilling agriculture- was necessary to deprive the villages of their self supporting character. This was achieved through "English interference having placed the spinner in Lancashire and the weaver in Bengal, or sweeping away both Hindu spinner and weaver, dissolved these semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities by blowing up their economical basis..."

 These long years of colonial rule destroyed the old feudal regime, the old state apparatus, old institutions like village community. In place of fragmented warlord feudal state, it established a centralized colonial state. The old division of labor based on caste was  liberated and made suitable for commodity production and exchange.

             During both the  kinds  of  imperialism in India, its pre-capitalist structures were undermined and  a  new structures necessary for capitalist development were established. This not only allowed world finance capital to penetrate and develop but also created conditions for the development of indigenous capital in industry as well as in commerce and agriculture. However, the colonial state remained the instrument of British bourgeois and was deployed against indigenous classes where their respective rights clashed.

              Sinha says that the long years destroyed the old feudal institutions, the old state apparatus, old institutions like village community. Which is partially correct.

 When British rule was established in Bengal and Oudh in the latter part of the 18th century, the colonial administration formed a class of intermediary revenue collectors who were drawn from the native landed nobility itself—i.e. the native ruling feudal lords. These revenue collectors called Zamindars were basically different from the Jaqirdars and Subahdars of the Mughal period in that they did not have the administrative powers of the feudal lords of the Mughal period. In addition to Zamindars there were the princely states, which were controlled by the British through a subsidiary alliance, under which the princes had freedom in their own internal administration so long as they regularly paid tributes to the colonial authority. As a result, different revenue systems and tenancy laws prevailed in different parts of India. The Zamindars had many arbitrary powers but this was never formally recognized and the British administration did not interfere with the Zamindars till their arbitrary powers did not create a rival center of power. To begin with no Zamindar had a private army, he could not dispense justice and he could levy no tax which was not sanctioned by the colonial administration. This prevented a Zamindar from becoming mini or a semi-independent ruler, which the Jagirdars and Mansabdars could easily become under the Mughals. But the economic base of the Zamindars were intact. Hence there was a change in the political status of the native ruling class, but their social and economic base were kept intact.

But it was not from these collaborators of British colonialism that the first Indian capitalists were to emerge. The Zamindars were the rural lackeys of the British colonialists who due to the rights of revenue collection conferred on them by the British developed a vested interest in supporting the British colonial rule.

 The British Governor-General Cornwallis (1786-93) institutionalized the feudal system in order to consolidate the colonial interest. Permanent Settlement introduced by Cornwallis was the required institution in this regard. Permanent Settlement not only preserved and maintained the feudal system but it was a tax collection mechanism of the British government. But the greatest vacuum that was created through this system was the absence of an accountable government. Within the state apparatus, a bureaucratic network, down to concerned police stations via the district and sub-divisional administration, was the structure of the administration.

Thus we see that the Imperialist rulers of India had no interest in destroying the old feudalism and replacing it with modern capitalism. Rather they preserved and helped feudalism though typical to Indian style flourish and helped them in becoming the lackeys of the new government. While the people were just neglected. Thus what MLS says does not go with history. Though the development of Capitalism as Marx said was a product of developmental work done by the Colonialist power it was not as what MKS has to say.

 Here it would also be pertinent to understand the developemnt of Liberal Democracy and Capitalism in India.

 DEVELOPEMNT OF DEMOCRACY IN INDIA AS COMPARED WITH THE WEST

 

The development of democratic process in India has been quite different from that of the West. Like Feudalism, Democracy has taken a very different form in this country, which is confusing to political, and social scientists as well as the common people.

In comparison to the West, in India democracy did not arise quite as as a result of political struggles of ordinary working people. While 20th century mass movements of workers, peasants and "Depressed Classes"(the backward castes) did add in significant measure to the popular pressures upon the colonial state as much as shaping the formal political strategies of the Indian National Congress but on the whole the Democratic process remained a prerogative o f the western educated higher caste rich leaders both from the Hindu and the Muslim community.

 Historically the political process of democratization in the West has been the sometimes rapid; sometimes slow erosion of communities, supported by the growth of capitalism with its marked indifference to the life of communities. While the phenomenon is centuries old, it gathers momentum especially after the Industrial revolution, beginning in the 18th century. By the 19th century bourgeois individualism, the cornerstone of liberal democracy and capitalism was already the order of the day. These two salient facts need to be contrasted with the historical facts of the Indian social and political environment.

 In an ethos of the kind that has always prevailed in India at least in living memory -- Caste system have held sway, both over the lives of individuals as well as over public life. These communities are not naturally democratic. On the contrary, within themselves, as much as in relation to each other, they are organized hierarchically. Indian family arrangements, for instance, are uninhibitedly patriarchal and authoritarian. Caste remains an obstinate social fact in the Indian countryside, and often, even in urban India. Besides, outwardly, these communities are externally as greedily materialistic as corporate institutions in the Western world, even if values of sharing and cooperation have been sustained, in the past, within them (without the faintest realization of the inherent hypocrisy underlying this double-standard).

 

On the role of Indian Bourgeoisie Proletarian Politics says:

However, there was no structural contradiction between these indigenous bourgeois and finance capital because they had a common interest of preserving capitalist social order to earn more and more profit. And this is why a section of indigenous bourgeoisie was from the very beginning a compromising class. It always tried to gain some economic & political concession  by helping national revolutionary liberation movement.   The compromising section of indigenous bourgeoisie was from the very beginning saddled with rising workers consciousness and revolt of workers, peasants, petty-bourgeois, small producers and middle man.

 

Sinha further says:

……. The compromising section of bourgeois achieved major constitutional reform  when they got Government of  India Act 1935 passed. With the passing of this Act, 'the national movement led by compromising bourgeois was able to win the franchise for about one quarter of the adult population in 1935. While considerably less than universal franchise, and based essentially on property and educational qualifications, this was still an advance when compared to the situation in the earlier stages of colonial rule. But still India was a part of British colony.   

Sinha calls the Bourgeoisie in the national liberation movement probably he is referring to the BIrlas and the Seths of the then rising indian Bourgeoisie who formed the core of the initial freedom movement particularly before the advent of Mahatma Gandhi as compromising, but what is new he is saying?  Is it not the known characteristics of the Bourgeoisie? To quote Lenin where he has cited Marx:

As marx's theory of the distinction between the three main forces in 19th century revolutions: According to this theory the following forces take a stand against the old order, against autocracy, feudalism, and the serf owning system: 1) The liberal big bourgeoisie; 2) the radical petty bourgeoisie; 3) The proletariat. The first fights for nothing more than a constitutional monarchy; the second for a democratic republic; the third, for a socialist revolution.

--Lenin V; ATwo Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution@; Collected Works Volume 9; Moscow; 1962; p. 87.

On the attainment of Indian independence Proletarian Politics says that  the people got limited empowerment and as agrees with the Proletarian Path that India followed the Prussian Path Model; and further lambasts parties like the CGPI (Communist Ghadar Party of India) for saying that the people had no empowerment in the post-colonial India. To quote the Proletarian Politics :

    … India attained it's independence through constitutional reform, or what we can call as through Prussian way where still parliamentary supremacy is questioned..  This  led to the empowerment of the toiling people to a certain extent where they established their press, trade union and other organization  and strikes. 

…Constitutional democracy created irreconcilable contradiction between economic and political poles  as capital was in the hands of the capitalist and votes(politics)  were in the hands of the toiling people.  

 

Sinha takes on the Proletarian Path saying that they have undermined the importance of the transfer of power by only looking at one side of the picture – i.e. the on the changes in the politics and not looking at the larger picture on the changing correlation pf the class forces. Sinha says that the class interest divided the Indian Bourgeoisie with the Indian working class as they started pursuing different goals former of integrating with the World Bourgeoisie and the other with a aim for  workers revolution. But again what Sinha is saying is known to all then What is new that he is trying to say with the readers, along with this Sinha has nowhere taken pain to substantiated his pints with any historical facts or figures, he has adapted a priest like approach where the priest tells all he has to say and the devotees listen to him without raising any question or asking for more clarification.  Which is most un-Marxist in its polemics.

 Sinha says that the Indian Bourgeoisie started to become comprador of the international Bourgeoisie to preserve the capitalist order and to penetrate their own capital in the most profitable areas. Which again is not true.

  At Independence in 1947, private foreign capital dominated the narrow industrial base in India. It was three quarters

British-owned, concentrated mostly in extractive industries and trade, and managed by expatriate Europeans. The continued dominance of these colonial enterprises was an irritant to nationalist sentiments. Fledgling Indian business houses envisioned a future in which foreign interests would be curtailed, and Indian industry and markets reserved for swadeshi (that is, domestic) capital.

 

The term swadeshi had its origin in the turn-of-the-century Swadeshi Movement that aimed to boycott foreign goods. Subsequently, the term became emblematic of nearly all forms of hostility to foreign interests. The Bombay Plan (formally, A Plan of Economic Development in India, 1944), an early articulation of hostility of Indian business houses to foreign capital. led to the formation of the Swadeshi League. In 1953, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry adopted the Swadeshi Resolution. Nationalists were only too conscious of the record of foreign investment in India: the East India Company, arguably the largest foreign direct investment enterprise in Indian history, had later formed the basis for imperial rule.

The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948, while conceding that 'participation of foreign capital and enterprise will be of value to the rapid industrialization of the country', demanded that 'the conditions under which it may participate be carefully regulated in the national interest. As a rule, majority interest in ownership and effective control should always be in Indian hands', and called for a gradual replacement of foreign personnel.

 (Private Foreign Investment in India, August 1999, Authors: Suma Athreye, Manchester School of Management, England, Sandeep Kapur, Birkbeck College, University of London, England

                     

            The Indian Governemnt tried to break itself with the international finance Capital is again evident with the folowwing table:

 

1947          India's independence.

 

1956            -second Five-Year Plan focuses on government led industrialization—strict foreign exchange and import controls enacted.

 

1969          all domestically owned banks nationalized.

 

1972          all insurance companies nationalized.

 

1973             all foreign investment placed under governmental control; limited foreign holdings to under 40%.

AGRARIAN SITUATION IN INDIA

Relations with the peasantry and with the bourgeoisie are two fundamental questions of tactics to be solved by the Communist Parties in backward countries with preponderant peasant populations. 

IIn Indian agriculture the prevalence of attached labour (in the sense of farm servants) has declined considerably, as confirmed by Jodhka (1994), and especially so in the more irrigated and commercialised regions. Venkateswarlu (1997) makes a similar finding for coastal Andhra Pradesh. Attached farm labourer relationships are still found in dry and backward regions. One report on bonded labour in Medak District, another dry area of Andhra Pradesh, noted the widespread prevalence of attached labour (Subrahmaniam et al, 1994), putting the figure at 500,000 with bonded labour among them as 13,000. From the interplay of the semi-feudalism thesis and the deproletarianisation thesis we draw two conclusions. Firstly the forms of labour relations are diverse across India, and one therefore expects the dynamic trajectories arising from them to be varied. Secondly, the labels used for classes and power groups in analytical theories (e.g. semi-feudal landlords; capitalist class; workers) are potent in themselves when they become integrated into political action. Instead of making a conscious choice between competing labels for social classes, it may be important to recognise diverse forms of exploitation—– between castes; between genders; patriarchal exploitation of the young; and class exploitation. Each of these forms in turn interacts with the others. 

A social relations approach rejects the dualism offered by the Brass-vs.-Bhaduri debate in favour of integrating feminist insights with marxist theories. A similar integration is achieved by Kapadia  in her gem-cutting and agricultural-labouring case studies. We also see a variety of social structures stressed by Kalpagam , who is analysing women's informal-sector work. The social relations appr

ee-labour analyses (1997b: 38). However Brass ignores the problem that the conceptions of 'worker' and 'labour' used by most contributors to Free and Unfree Labour: The Debate Continues are anathema to feminists who wish to transcend the dualism of productive-vs.-reproductive work (e.g. Himmelweit  who criticizes the assumption of a work-nonwork divide).4 For transformative politics, it is important to identify explicitly oppressive modes of social behaviour, both within and between households.  A third school of thought lies out side of the political-economy tradition. Neoclassical economists such as Srinivasan (1989) have examined the labour-credit linkage. These economists analyse contractual debt bondage as risk-averting behaviour of the bonded labourer, who is assumed to be a rational maximiser of his/her utility in light of the conditions they live in. By accepting a year long contract, one reduces the transactions costs of finding alternative employment avenues and one avoids unemployment. Unemployment would be worse than the contract which guarantees some work and food for a person and their children. The oppression is taken to be an acceptable cost of reducing risk. 

Such an approach is shallow in its understanding of the nature of bondage and poverty. Authors in this tradition claim to be more objective than the marxists. However Olsen  has stressed the subjective positioning of such authors and the specific norms that are embedded in their claim that bondage contracts must be efficient. The claim is also functionalist since research on transactions costs and risk aversion could not falsify the claim that all contracts are efficient. Contracts are seen merely to function to keep the capitalist economy working efficiently. Neoclassical economics has been evolving from demand-supply models, through transactions-costs analysis, to information economics, and now centres on the 'new information economics' which we have called neo-institutionalism. Hoff and Stiglitz give a presentation of the theory, while Hodgson  distinguishes the old and new institutionalisms. However the apolitical economists still underplay the role of local politics and social power in the development of labour relations. Caste, gender and household dynamics play no role in these models. In common with methodological individualism generally, the new institutional economics has an implicit gender bias and a claim to value-freeness, whereas the political economists are prepared to make their normative positions explicit and to open them up to debate. These epistemological differences help to explain why both of the political economy schools are so open to the introduction of feminist ideas, whereas the neo-institutionalists are not. 

Sinha agrees with the 1951 programmes of the CPI where the Party said : "India is the last biggest dependent semi colonial country in Asia still left for the enslavers to rob and exploit".

Which according to Sinha is absolutely correct though the stats says something else

    

 DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM: The Stage of Revolution

 

On the Stage of revolution the summation of the Proletarian Path theses is that India since gaining independence has transformed itself into a capitalist country from a pre-dominantly pre-capitalist economy. They assert that India has been following the Prussian Path model. Hence the stage of revolution has become socialist instead of democratic in the present situation.

When we talk about bourgeoisie taking power and removing the last vestiges of feudalism, we have to take into consideration the Indian condition and society. We cannot mechanically put any ideology according to a particular condition.

History does not come in neat bundles nor is it the case that a new mode of production eliminates the old one instantly as it appears on the scene. Typically, a new mode of production already begins to develop within a society in which an old mode of production is dominant. Two modes of production 'coexist', in mutual contradiction, for a time, until the forces associated with the new and rising mode of production complete the destruction of the old. That was Lenin's conclusion as he analysed the 'The Development of Capitalism in Russia.

Sinha has repeatedly said that capitalism already exists in feudalism. That is conceptual perplexity. Capitalism does not exist within feudalism. It comes into existence in opposition to it. What we have is a situation in which developing capitalism is present in a social formation in which feudalism is dominant, the challenging forces of capitalism being antagonistic to the dominant forces of feudalism.

Much confusion derives from inability to differentiate and analyse the contradiction between the nascent yet developing capitalism and dominant but declining feudalism. Comrades like Sinha and other mechanically try to understand this social dynamics and try to substantiate their preconceived notions by citing long passages from Marx and Lenin and also mechanically trying to find seeds of similarity in what happened in Germany and Russia with what is happening in India. This has been the irony of the Indian Communist Leaders and the movement in general that they have always tried to imitate the happening of the communist revolution, what is needed is that we should be guided by the victories of the Working class but not blindfolded with these epochs so as to we forget and do not see the alleys on which we have to tread towards our final goal.

Way back in 1921, Lenin told the communists of the Eastern countries to work out their own strategy basing on the general lessons of Russia's Bolshevik revolution. He also warned them that they might not get the answers to their problems in any communist book.

It was this task that Mao Tse Tung undertook in right earnest and went on to successfully establish the People's Republic in China while the Indian Communist Party leadership miserably failed to grasp its significance.

 

The market is, of course, an essential component of the mechanism of capitalism. But, except in pseudo-Marxist works, such as those of Immanuel Wallerstein (1974), the market does not define the structure of capitalism. What is specific and central to the capitalist mode of production (in agricultural capitalism as well as industrial) is the separation of the producer from the means of production. As Marx himself put it, 'This separation of labour from the conditions of labour is the precondition of capitalist production.' (Marx, 1969:78)

Marx is quite consistent in his analysis of capitalism. As in his later works, his statements in the Manifesto too speak of the separation of the producer from the means of production that creates two antagonistic classes namely free labour and the capitalist owner of the means of production. With the rise of capitalism, he points out, society as a whole is split into two great classes directly facing each other: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

In, The German Ideology Marx points out that 'the bourgeoisie itself finally absorbs all earlier possessing classes (while it develops the majority of the earlier non-possessing classes, and a part of the earlier possessing class, into a new class, the proletariat). (Marx, 1960:48) .

The concept of mode of production entails determinations as follows:

Feudal Mode of Production (FMP)

Capitalist Mode of Production (CMP)

Col. MP

Unfree Labour, rendered not necessarily in the form of labour services but taking a variety of possible forms.

Free Labour, (1) 'free' from possession of means of production and also (2) juridically free, to sell labour power to the capitalist

- as in CMP -

Extra-economic coercion in the extraction of the surplus

Extraction of surplus value through the economic process of 'free' sale of labour power

- as in CMP -

Fusion of economic and political power at the point of production, in a localised structure of power. (The case of the 'Absolutist State' is discussed below).

Formal separation of economic and political power and the emergence of a bourgeois state and its laws.

The creation of a colonial state, as instrument of metropolitan capital.

Mainly self-sufficient village/ manorial economy supplemented by simple commodity circulation and petty commodity production; portion of the surplus goes into trade. Feudalism is compatible with global commerce. But there is no Generalised Commodity Production and labour itself is not yet a commodity.

Generalised Commodity Production, with balanced production of capital goods (Dept. I) and consumer goods (Dept II), the two sectors bearing a relationship as discussed by Marx in Capital Vol. II. Labour power itself is a commodity, freely traded in the labour market.

Circuit of lopsided Generalised Commodity Production is completed via metropolis with production of raw materials etc. for export; manufactured goods, including capital goods being mainly imported. No development of Dept I, i.e. capital goods production).

Simple Reproduction – the surplus is mainly consumed by the exploiting classes, so that the economy basically reproduces itself at the existing technological level

Extended Reproduction of capital, with the surplus contributing to capital accumulation and rising productivity.

Extended Reproduction of Capital is realised via the metropolis, colonial exploitation contributing to capital accumulation in the metropolis.

Source Colonialism and the Rise of Capitalism: Hamza Alavi

 

 The impact of capital on colonized societies did not generate, as Marx had expected, a capitalist mode of production there. But neither did that leave the pre-capitalist structures in the colonies unchanged. The structures of colonial social formations took a specific shape, as we shall see from the example of India. The resulting structure was neither the unchanged pre-colonial one nor was it identical with that of metropolitan capitalism.

 

Sinha has been confusing in his analysis an example:

Proletarian Path in its article "The stage of Revolution: The Presentation of Question" has tried to explain the Marxist methodology of ascertaining the stage of revolution. What is this methodology? For this it quotes Stalin which runs as follows :

 

"Lenin says that "the main question of every revolution is the question of state power." In the hands of which class or which classes is power concentrated, which class or which classes must be overthrown, which class or which classes must take power- such is the main question of every revolution."

The Parties fundamental strategic slogans which retain their  validity during the whole period of any particular stage of the revolution, can't be called fundamental slogans if they are not wholly entirely based on the cardinal thesis of Lenin." (Stalin – Problems of Leninism/p-237).

The passage quoted above not only shows the failure of the author of Proletarian path in analyzing the conditions of Germany and Russia but also reflects his deviation from his earlier position.

Therefore, it is not accidental that immediately after putting his fundamental proposition, he makes a caricature of  its so called "Marxist proposition" by saying that  "if it is to be a democratic revolution of anti-feudal type the feudal has to exist as a class in the true sense of the term-." Does the author hold the view that if feudal forces exist as a class in the true sense of the term; it will also hold sway in the state power? Even the observation made by Proletarian Path regarding India after 1947 indicates the predominant existence of the feudal forces in the economic setup of that country in the true sense of the term, even when the state power   was transferred in the hands of the bourgeoisie and hence Proletarian Path cannot escape. Thus Proletarian Path themselves hold the view that feudal class may exist as a true sense of the term but it may not hold sway in the state power. If these two conditions are not the same, why these have been equated, have been confused? Let us examine:

In India immediately after independence, according to Proletarian Path, feudal forces did not hold sway in the polity of the country as the state power was transferred in the hands of the bourgeoisie but the feudal forces did exist as a class as India at that time was predominantly a pre-capitalist country. That is why it was necessary to amend the proposition making a caricature of its so called Marxist proposition. Thus its conclusion from the experiences of Germany and Russia boils down to : the stage of democratic revolution is discerned  when the feudal forces hold sway in the socio-economic set up of the society even if the state power is in the hands of bourgeoisie. If the conclusion derived from German and Russian experiences does not fit in the Indian condition, then it is amended. 

Further his proposition that. "the so called enumeration of the remnants of semi-feudalism if not feudalism is of no avail."(P.P. page-104) is also wrong because it ignores the character of state power which might be held sway by the feudal forces. Besides "the so called enumeration of the remnants of feudalism" along with emerging bourgeoisie order under a semi-feudal state is a good avail. Under [p1]

What does one make out of this …I leave it for the readers to decide.

 

Sinha has been quoting long passages from various works of Marx Engle's Lenin and Stalin to suggest how the thesis of Proletarian Path and even SUCI has been wrong. But the pertinent question is even if we agree with Sinha's assumption that the conditions of Germany was different from Russia of Feb. 1917 and if we are allowed to say so from India today what is the point he is trying to assert. At the start of his paper he said India has entered into a Capitalist stage—if it is so then the stage of revolution should be Socialist for it cannot be Democratic, because of its logical reason(s). Then the part III of his paper Stage of Revolution – Experiences of German, Russian and Chinese Revolution he seems to be against this position. Why?

As usual he doe not arrive to any conclusion and so one cannot say what is his position on a particular issue, which he raises brilliantly but leaves the point at the fag end.

 

CONCLUSION

The tragedy of Indian communist movement is that the leaders and ideologues get bogged down on some trivial word or sentence and waste all their energy on solving the mystery, which never was. Yet History rolls on in its due course. It happened with the undivided CPI at time of Telangana, it happened in the period aftermath of Naxalbari uprising. The more they think the muddier the analysis becomes. It has happened with Proletarian Politics of Manoj Sinha.

 

Let us ask a question, where did Marx and Lenin say that the Proletariats are the only class given the sole prerogative to make revolution. Where did they say that a country should analyse it to the threadbare what is its mode of Production or stuff like that before giving the clarion call for revolution.

CPI-Marxist said that it will not start any movement in the Hindi heartland of Bihar and UP their Logic : 'Bihar is one of the most backward of Indian States, beset with rigid caste polarizations and devoid of any history of bourgeois reforms worth the name'. But the same Bihar became the hotbed of Revolutionary activity and is still holding the flag of revolution up and high. While the social Democrats of india viz the CPI and CPI M jhave been relegated to regional forces, the revolutionary winds are sweeping the villages and the farms. If urban proletariats have become pety bourgeoise should'nt the revolutionary's turn to the fields which is hot bed of exploitation and oppression—feudal, semi feudal or capitalist, the crux of the matter is in India there is exploitation and oppression and it has to be weded out and smashed. This is the Revolutionary task and Revolutionary Goal.

Marx said: " Philosopher's have interpreted the world in various ways the point however is to change it". Change can only be by a revolutionaery action anot revolutionary discourse.

 

 

 

 

REFERENCE

Alavi, Hamza

1980

'India: Transition from Feudalism to Colonial Capitalism' in Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1980,

Alavi, Hamza

1981

'Structure of Colonial Social Formations' in Economic and Political Weekly, XVI-10-12, (Annual Number) 1981

Alavi, Hamza, Doug McEachern et al

1982

'India, the Transition to Colonial Capitalism' (reprint of Alavi 1980) in Hamza Alavi, Doug. McEachern et al 'Capitalism and Colonial Production' London, 1982

Alavi, Hamza

1989

'Formation of the Social Structure of South Asia Under the Impact of Colonialism' in Hamza Alavi and John Harriss (eds) Sociology of Developing Societies — SOUTH ASIA', London and New York

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Information