1 THE PRESENT DAY WORLD If life is struggle for a bright future, the first query arises as to what is the

nature of present day circumstances we, the people are living in? It is wise to know the friends and foes on the way, lest we are led in blind alley by blind allegiance. Let us recount. We, the peoples: Realise that presently society is living past the long period of experiences of (a) two bloody World Wars for colonial possessions in search of loot by Europeans carrying the cross of civilising mission over blacks and browns, (b) strenuous efforts by captains of metropolitan capital to get going amidst trying conditions with and without democratic practice of their own make, (c) efforts spanning almost two-third of twentieth century to build a new man and a new society in socialism after seizure of state-power in different countries, led by Soviet Union under dictatorship of proletariat and ruled single -handed by a vanguard party of proletariat with a band of professional revolutionaries in command and democratic centralism as its kernel of organisational fidelity, while in case of China and few more countries of peoples democracy pattern, (d) efforts spanning over half a century to build a welfare state of Gandhian socialism or democratic socialism of various hues by transfer of state power through peaceful means, now gone over to American way completely. We, the toiling people are faced with a delicate situation today that requires patient evaluation to seek concrete answers for a better future. This can profitably be done, if such elements that govern the general atmosphere, as above, are taken note of, studied and draw due lessons from without blinkers. Simultaneously, certain old, but useless, blinkers need be cast away. We are living in a world that has earned new complexities of late. Uncouth banditry in international relations is the way with imperialist forces to reshape the new world order of their make. Money and Muscle are being used by them openly as instruments of blackmail for mustering support from client rulers of other nations so that banditry may rule uncontested. The People It would be worthwhile to underline the reference point first. Since the days when state emerged in history, the people are a distinct category to this day. The political theory of a later period that ascribed representative character to the State is a fiction of a dubious character that does not work in fact, at least not now with global finance capital on rampage universally and the type of control it exercises on economy and politics worldwide. In the circumstances, reference point for this submission is the people as against the state. Needless to say that the people denote to the category of citizens who live by their honest labour. This underlines our basis of logic. The context To understand concretely what happened and why, it will be rewarding to see first what we are faced to. The society worldwide is full of injustice, wants and misery despite honest labour. Indignity faces man every moment from bullies and powerful. Avoidable strife pervades in spite of sermons of peace and tranquillity all around without any recess. It is the law. Honest labour does not pay any more; nor is simplicity of conduct honoured any longer. Suspicion abounds everywhere. Cut-throat competition to oust the other in dark alley is a principle fully adorned shamelessly, unmindful to the social deficit. Crash individualism reigns supreme, with no parallel in past history. If society is to survive, it cannot go this way. It needs a rupture with its present. Simply put, today society is crying for a basic change in its relations, Indian society no less.

The state today is truly a leviathan. It is a heavy cross around the neck of commoners with all despotic powers in its hands, notwithstanding the democratic commitments. Under a wellgroomed democratic veneer, octopus-like reach of the government is frightening in its implications for common man. Complete control over resources with the state has made life of hapless citizens totally dependent on its will today. Moreover, it has agencies, which create conditions for any despotic step government intends to take to curb rights of citizens. This was not within the scheme of things the state was conceived for. It made the state all-powerful and conversely, the life of commoners miserable. The situation has to be overturned. The present in fact is the sin we, the peoples are reaping for not taking steps in defence of our natural rights against the state for these years in time. The pain of the present is likely to be prolonged further if people keep sitting back. The future of young generations to come will be shaped by the action people start taking today to assert their natural rights seriously in their own hands without waiting further for others to ameliorate conditions for them. It is true; the present cannot go on lingering heavy for ever on the heads. It must be overturned for good. The law of motion beacons them to initiate first steps to reach the peak. Present has to be turned for the future! And a better future at that!! Law of motion True that change is the law of nature. Nothing is static, ever. And society is no exception. It is always in flux. The flux effects change incessantly and prepare material conditions for a leap, leading to a new round. Let us recall that the present Industrial society had started groaning of acute pains within a century of its existence in its cradle comprising few countries of Europe. Toiling millions started getting restive and the society crying for a just order amidst inhuman exploitation and oppression. By late eighteenth and early nineteenth century socialists of various hues, some of them quite honest in their profession appeared on the scene and did try to ameliorate its ills by suggesting various routes, but to no avail. Malaise was too deep as a result of capitalist expropriation, internal and external, leading to perpetual strife and tension when a plea was made with reason for a fundamental change in social relations. Conditions brought Marx on the scene to plead for change This was the time when among others, Marx and Engels, with few of their compatriots tried for a viable diagnosis and suggested an outline of basic change. They reasoned that private property led an intense effort to earn profit and expropriate labour; transformed labour as commodity and formation of capital as the focal point of social effort, thereby establishing new social relations based on inequity resulting in constant strife, instability and war. Since man and society cannot sustain for long in such trying conditions with dignity, a fundamental change in production relations is the necessity where capital and the state structure cease to dominate. Fundamental change pleaded The credit goes to Karl Marx and F. Engels along with some of their dedicated colleagues to concretise what is meant by a fundamental change in society in this era of capitalist organisation. These social thinkers in their wisdom charted a path for abolition of classes and the state. For them, workingmen were the fountainhead for such a fundamental change in society, and with no via media to bring equity, peace and abundance, while managing their affairs of life for themselves. Marx suggested recourse from each according to his ability, to each according to his work without expropriation while destroying the foundation for parasites and leading to the society that will live by the principle, from each according to his or her ability, to each according to the

need, with attending abundance in social production and ever upgrading machinery to lighten the work load on the real producers of social wealth. Marx-Engels traced the course of history that man had traversed in his march to civilisation and summarised lessons for charting out his fortune in future for a better and peaceful life. The analysis concluded that primitive accumulation, leading to the rise of mercantile capital gave an urge for individual ownership in its wake. It provided a strong impetus to the system of expropriation necessary for an era of industrial revolution with capital at its centre and individualism as the philosophy to guide. As a result, this era of industrial and commercial culture ensured replacement of labour - power by the pernicious instrument of capital as the focal point of social production that has brought the society to its knees. This replacement necessarily dehumanised man in the process. Another characteristic feature of capital, according to this analysis is the rapid alienation of man from means of social production, leading ultimately to his or her transformation as a commodity in the world of market. Capital has a latent tendency to centralise and concentrate in few hands while putting millions after millions to destitution with an elaborate system of expropriation of surplus value created by spending of labourpower. It works profitably only under a highly centralised and powerful state structure to subdue the deprived that constitute the majority of population. They took help from the basics of natural sciences for their logic to arrive at their varied conclusions. The schema of their logic naturally changed the whole gamut of perceptions and gave a new meaning to the social obligation of concerned citizens. This was one course suggested for the development of society. Later, in the early part of twentieth century, Lenin with his companions followed this logic of fundamental change on Marxist reasoning to new dimensions on a number of important questions on social engineering and waged a consistent struggle to change the social and economic fabric to the new design. Lenin pleaded for a highly centralised state structure to usher in socialism under dictatorship of the proletariat as a new variant of democracy. He led Russian revolution in 1917 to this design, followed by other countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba etc with specific characteristics of their own having a glittering hope of a better future for humanity. In India, on the other hand, M.K Gandhi became a classical example among those who propounded and professed for a reformatory path with vengeance. He abhorred the very idea of fundamental change (by then associated with October Revolution of 1917 in Russia), fighting it with an alibi in violence taking it synonymous with revolution that signified basic change in every branch of science, including social science. He pleaded for cooperation between capital and labour and advanced the concept of Trusteeship to give his plea a philosophical base. The Russian exercise of 1917 was singularly a mass action with almost no violence relatively. Armed upsurge overwhelmed the old rulers. Violence there came afterwards to defend the country from outsiders when many other countries intervened on behalf of the over-thrown Russian bourgeoisie and a brutal civil war ravaged it for almost three years thereafter. The violence was not the creed of Russian revolution. Violence came later to defend the gain. It is true that Soviet state too, like any other state world wide, adopted brutal structure to rule. The violence heaped on the civil society by foreign crusaders during this prolonged civil war and paranoia so generated in defence led to develop a brutal state structure there that was responsible for many distortions in that experiment later. But that is a separate question.

Still Gandhi in India used this history to formulate his accusation against Marxist philosophy on violence. Indian followers of Marxist philosophy faltered and fell prey to the trap while Gandhi made a creed of non-violence in a way that appealed to the common psyche. When Bhagat Singh reasoned on this question and punctured a hole in this effort, the message aborted for lack of a sustainable organisation in comparison to Congress with Gandhi at its head to carry out the campaign relentlessly with massive support from native rulers. Gandhis campaign, laced with political aim, drew a large number of followers whom he groomed well with his train of thoughts to harness their energies for independence movement. Here was suggested another course said to be as less painful and demanding than revolution. To draw millions of commoners in the struggle for independence was Gandhis singular achievement with no parallel in Indian history so far. For this he utilised various stratagems like a master craftsman patiently reverting to social and cultural causes intermittently for political mobilisation and building up his own ideological-organisational leadership in Congress party. Like all political leaders and parties in history, it was Gandhi who with a singular mind, but more brazenly capped the mass zeal and initiative fully and confined it to himself as dictator of the struggle. He did not allow any movement going over his dotted line while people, mistakenly though reposed faith in the political leadership. He abhorred any and every spontaneous movement from the masses, as other political parties and leaders do. This seems to be the main reason for the reverence he readily received then from the emerging bourgeoisie in the country. Here Gandhi was different from Marx on this question. Gandhi used the mass strength to serve his purpose on the dotted line, while Marx had an abiding faith in their creativity. Gandhi suffered, though, unprecedented ignominy while alive when his heir apparent and other disciples, on attaining power did not care about the philosophy he had advanced during Independence struggle as a blueprint for India of his liking. That did not suit the rising capitalist class that had a different vision of its own. So, it can be taken safely that his ideas found no field for even experimentation and test for truth while holding state power. The case of Lenin in Russia had been a bit different in this matter. In Russia the precepts of Lenin on strategic questions were under experiment till the period of Stalin at least. In the later period, one can take shelter to claim that Lenin, Stalin stood betrayed by the followers on essential points of strategy, though this betrayal theory tells a sad commentary on the efficacy of revolutionary principles for a communist formation, as propounded by him. In case of Gandhi, the claim on his behalf that self-afflicting and non-violent methods from him in conducting struggle for freedom proved remarkably successful with the attainment of Independence, remain largely unsubstantiated on historical facts. This claim, though, is being repeated ad nauseam so long on state patronage with the result that unsuspecting masses at large now tend to believe in it as something like a gospel truth. As for his methods, there is hardly any substance to prove that British rulers became less barbaric in repression and imperial aims because of Gandhian methods or these methods helped to change their heart in terms of colonial possessions and ambitions. British rulers proved as warmongers for possessions as ever! Indian people suffered no less during its struggle for independence than any other, barring the leaders! The lawful and peaceful methods of conducting mass struggle as enunciated and popularised by Gandhi and Congress party as models of non-violent methods during freedom struggle like satyagrah, dharna and fasts proved as inconsequential as ever to exercise any moral influence on congress rulers themselves after independence. Non-cooperation was forgotten as a tool to pressurise by political parties thereafter.

The heir-apparent and followers of Gandhi later proved classical examples of stark failure of Gandhian philosophy in social trusteeship and methods by running an outright exploitative system, exercising oppressive power, blatant misuse of authority, amassing ill-gotten wealth and vulgar consumption with no limit to exercise pelf and privileges associated with power while ruling over the country after independence. Both Lenin and Gandhi dubbed by practice On the question of approach to this problem of social change, we may summarise that the path represented by Gandhi collapsed before it could take off, the one for basic change represented by Lenin and Stalin in countries of socialist camp floundered after 74 years of experimentation. In a way, twentieth century proved a play ground for experimentation in building a new society on both, Leninist and Gandhian principles and floundered because of some serious and grave weaknesses in their respective thought and practice. Gandhi pleaded for status quo. That was the first basic reason for his path to be rejected. No amount of human face plastered over can endear capitalism to its victims. It can befool few for some period and prolong their misery in trail. Capital is an instrument devised to expropriate labour-power and devastation of natural resources in the interest of a handful of people who can manipulate the state affairs because of their position in the establishment. It is necessary neither for social production nor equitable distribution. Gandhi pleaded for both the labour and capital but failed to convince the common man. Trickle down theory later failed to trick the masses. One point is beyond contest: Gandhian concepts could not reason with the present day reality while the experiment to build socialism spanning more than seven decades of twentieth entury proved abortive. Reasons for its failure are many. Some are basic, weighty and socially logical. Still, some similarity between the two claimants is remarkable: both relied on weaving dreams on equity, justice, peace and variant of socialism, for one. Followers of Gandhi in India sang for socialistic pattern, while it was life dream for Lenin. Another strange similarity between the two is the mode of development that remained centred on industrialcommercial complex with slight variations that bred capitalism in both the cases. Both Lenin and Gandhi relied on the centralised state as their instrument to bring social change and progress, though emphasis varied for obvious reasons. While Gandhi himself stood for a decentralised polity, his followers proved adamant to follow a highly centralised course with capital and state structure both, much to the disappointment of the teacher. Gandhi himself was aware of the trajectory capital is destined to take on, as his disciples knew well that capital has an inherent tendency to centralise and that without a corresponding centralised state structure, capital cannot thrive! This riddle, however, Gandhi never explained in his theory to the masses. Gandhian model found certain long-standing adherents but none to practise, except in personal life by some. That did not solve the basic question of a viable alternative for a sustainable society. As is known, capitalist, big or small cannot sustain as a trustee of the social good while exercising for gain. May be, there is any exceptional individual. But exceptions do not make a rule. Utopian socialist with capital to work upon, could not do it in history. On theoretical plane, the capital - small and more so, the big capital cannot deliver justice, equity and peace to the toiling mass. It is an illusion Gandhi was privy to customise and propagate without any tangible logic. The principle of trusteeship proved a vain effort to refurbish the ugly face of capitalism targeted mainly to be sold to its victims, when it works for self. The experiment initiated by Lenin for a fundamental change had its own logic, but failed to deliver despite 74 years of hard labour and profession of a faith. Though his many adversaries and critics, both friends and foes, did warn of pitfalls early in the experiment, yet the logic

Lenin presented had won the day for him and a grand experiment continued for almost major part of twentieth century. It attracted a large section of toiling peoples world wide and as many intellectuals. However, when the experiment aborted and acknowledged so around 1991, legitimate question came up to investigate the reasons thereof. The query became more poignant to delve with those who are for such a change, basically adhering to the creed. If the October Revolution in 1917 heralded a new era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the relapse to world capitalist order by 1991 ringed a similar change of fundamental significance. The balance of forces tilted aggressively in favour of regression, at least for the time being. It also signifies that a good section of proletariat from industrial-commercial and service sectors has gone over to the capitalist class as a collaborator in action and in aspirations completely. The capitalist class has worked assiduously to cultivate its working force as a partner in easy income. As a result, the proletariat class have lost a good part of its basic character by falling prey to unearned income. In addition, the wage earners of the world are a divided lot now; one section standing against the interests of the other. Earlier, labour aristocracy in Europe was a happy partner in spoils of the external loot and worked to save the capitalist system from collapse, while industrial labour in erstwhile colonial countries worked to demolish it in early part of twentieth century. Now the situation has taken a different course. In Europe workingmen are fighting WTO scheme on wage account and spectre of unemployment is looming large in the face of this sacrificial goat to cut production costs to tide over market crisis, while aspirants from third world countries are favouring implementation of such policies in expectations of high scale earnings! Out-sourcing of jobs to countries like China and India represents this contradiction sharply. On the other hand, with the collapse of socialist experiment, world capitalism, led by America moved fast to consolidate its grip both ideologically and militarily so that no such effort is repeated to throw out capitalist order as was the case in the early part of twentieth century! New tools are forged and financial clout is used for submission. By over a decade of this effort, WTO, with all its pacts and agreements have emerged as the single most powerful instrument of subjugation of Asian, African and Latin American countries to surrender their natural resources, labour-power and political sovereignty cheap in favour of western world of financial expansion. Assertion of this new acquired might was explicit in Afghanistan, Iraq and now it is out to cut the under belly of Russia in Eastern Europe and central Asia. Iran and Nepal are the other immediate fields of interest for American expansionism. European nations, including Russia are not opposed to such American expansionism as such, what they desire is a reasonable share! China and India, in Asia are other powerful contenders to such capitalist growth, out now with gusto depending more and more on external expropriation and internal squeeze. Capitalist-Imperialist assault is on the rise. Its chief instrument is financial muscle. WTO is working over night to shift natural resources to western possession. Forcible occupation of energy resources is another facet of its military muscle apart from sabotage and blackmail diplomacy. But it is all different from its old variant in the sense that native rulers every where are the happy collaborators in this assault in the interest of their respective bourgeoisies. The ruling class in each country have turned subservient to these goals of financial oligarchies. And consequently, reap a share in the loot. Capitalisation of agriculture is on the high agenda now in each country, to play the assigned role of facilitator for industrial-commercial interests, putting subsistence agriculture under severe threat of ruin. The blue-print from WTO is designed to do the job as rapidly as possible. 1

THE PRESENT DAY WORLD If life is struggle for a bright future, the first query arises as to what is the nature of present day circumstances we, the people are living in? It is wise to know the friends and foes on the way, lest we are led in blind alley by blind allegiance. Let us recount. We, the peoples: Realise that presently society is living past the long period of experiences of (a) two bloody World Wars for colonial possessions in search of loot by Europeans carrying the cross of civilising mission over blacks and browns, (b) strenuous efforts by captains of metropolitan capital to get going amidst trying conditions with and without democratic practice of their own make, (c) efforts spanning almost two-third of twentieth century to build a new man and a new society in socialism after seizure of state-power in different countries, led by Soviet Union under dictatorship of proletariat and ruled single -handed by a vanguard party of proletariat with a band of professional revolutionaries in command and democratic centralism as its kernel of organisational fidelity, while in case of China and few more countries of peoples democracy pattern, (d) efforts spanning over half a century to build a welfare state of Gandhian socialism or democratic socialism of various hues by transfer of state power through peaceful means, now gone over to American way completely. We, the toiling people are faced with a delicate situation today that requires patient evaluation to seek concrete answers for a better future. This can profitably be done, if such elements that govern the general atmosphere, as above, are taken note of, studied and draw due lessons from without blinkers. Simultaneously, certain old, but useless, blinkers need be cast away. We are living in a world that has earned new complexities of late. Uncouth banditry in international relations is the way with imperialist forces to reshape the new world order of their make. Money and Muscle are being used by them openly as instruments of blackmail for mustering support from client rulers of other nations so that banditry may rule uncontested. The People It would be worthwhile to underline the reference point first. Since the days when state emerged in history, the people are a distinct category to this day. The political theory of a later period that ascribed representative character to the State is a fiction of a dubious character that does not work in fact, at least not now with global finance capital on rampage universally and the type of control it exercises on economy and politics worldwide. In the circumstances, reference point for this submission is the people as against the state. Needless to say that the people denote to the category of citizens who live by their honest labour. This underlines our basis of logic. The context To understand concretely what happened and why, it will be rewarding to see first what we are faced to. The society worldwide is full of injustice, wants and misery despite honest labour. Indignity faces man every moment from bullies and powerful. Avoidable strife pervades in spite of sermons of peace and tranquillity all around without any recess. It is the law. Honest labour does not pay any more; nor is simplicity of conduct honoured any longer. Suspicion abounds everywhere. Cut-throat competition to oust the other in dark alley is a principle fully adorned shamelessly, unmindful to the social deficit. Crash individualism reigns supreme, with no parallel in past history. If society is to survive, it cannot go this way. It needs a rupture with its present. Simply put, today society is crying for a basic change in its relations, Indian society no less.

The state today is truly a leviathan. It is a heavy cross around the neck of commoners with all despotic powers in its hands, notwithstanding the democratic commitments. Under a wellgroomed democratic veneer, octopus-like reach of the government is frightening in its implications for common man. Complete control over resources with the state has made life of hapless citizens totally dependent on its will today. Moreover, it has agencies, which create conditions for any despotic step government intends to take to curb rights of citizens. This was not within the scheme of things the state was conceived for. It made the state all-powerful and conversely, the life of commoners miserable. The situation has to be overturned. The present in fact is the sin we, the peoples are reaping for not taking steps in defence of our natural rights against the state for these years in time. The pain of the present is likely to be prolonged further if people keep sitting back. The future of young generations to come will be shaped by the action people start taking today to assert their natural rights seriously in their own hands without waiting further for others to ameliorate conditions for them. It is true; the present cannot go on lingering heavy for ever on the heads. It must be overturned for good. The law of motion beacons them to initiate first steps to reach the peak. Present has to be turned for the future! And a better future at that!! Law of motion True that change is the law of nature. Nothing is static, ever. And society is no exception. It is always in flux. The flux effects change incessantly and prepare material conditions for a leap, leading to a new round. Let us recall that the present Industrial society had started groaning of acute pains within a century of its existence in its cradle comprising few countries of Europe. Toiling millions started getting restive and the society crying for a just order amidst inhuman exploitation and oppression. By late eighteenth and early nineteenth century socialists of various hues, some of them quite honest in their profession appeared on the scene and did try to ameliorate its ills by suggesting various routes, but to no avail. Malaise was too deep as a result of capitalist expropriation, internal and external, leading to perpetual strife and tension when a plea was made with reason for a fundamental change in social relations. Conditions brought Marx on the scene to plead for change This was the time when among others, Marx and Engels, with few of their compatriots tried for a viable diagnosis and suggested an outline of basic change. They reasoned that private property led an intense effort to earn profit and expropriate labour; transformed labour as commodity and formation of capital as the focal point of social effort, thereby establishing new social relations based on inequity resulting in constant strife, instability and war. Since man and society cannot sustain for long in such trying conditions with dignity, a fundamental change in production relations is the necessity where capital and the state structure cease to dominate. Fundamental change pleaded The credit goes to Karl Marx and F. Engels along with some of their dedicated colleagues to concretise what is meant by a fundamental change in society in this era of capitalist organisation. These social thinkers in their wisdom charted a path for abolition of classes and the state. For them, workingmen were the fountainhead for such a fundamental change in society, and with no via media to bring equity, peace and abundance, while managing their affairs of life for themselves. Marx suggested recourse from each according to his ability, to each according to his work without expropriation while destroying the foundation for parasites and leading to the society that will live by the principle, from each according to his or her ability, to each according to the

need, with attending abundance in social production and ever upgrading machinery to lighten the work load on the real producers of social wealth. Marx-Engels traced the course of history that man had traversed in his march to civilisation and summarised lessons for charting out his fortune in future for a better and peaceful life. The analysis concluded that primitive accumulation, leading to the rise of mercantile capital gave an urge for individual ownership in its wake. It provided a strong impetus to the system of expropriation necessary for an era of industrial revolution with capital at its centre and individualism as the philosophy to guide. As a result, this era of industrial and commercial culture ensured replacement of labour - power by the pernicious instrument of capital as the focal point of social production that has brought the society to its knees. This replacement necessarily dehumanised man in the process. Another characteristic feature of capital, according to this analysis is the rapid alienation of man from means of social production, leading ultimately to his or her transformation as a commodity in the world of market. Capital has a latent tendency to centralise and concentrate in few hands while putting millions after millions to destitution with an elaborate system of expropriation of surplus value created by spending of labourpower. It works profitably only under a highly centralised and powerful state structure to subdue the deprived that constitute the majority of population. They took help from the basics of natural sciences for their logic to arrive at their varied conclusions. The schema of their logic naturally changed the whole gamut of perceptions and gave a new meaning to the social obligation of concerned citizens. This was one course suggested for the development of society. Later, in the early part of twentieth century, Lenin with his companions followed this logic of fundamental change on Marxist reasoning to new dimensions on a number of important questions on social engineering and waged a consistent struggle to change the social and economic fabric to the new design. Lenin pleaded for a highly centralised state structure to usher in socialism under dictatorship of the proletariat as a new variant of democracy. He led Russian revolution in 1917 to this design, followed by other countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba etc with specific characteristics of their own having a glittering hope of a better future for humanity. In India, on the other hand, M.K Gandhi became a classical example among those who propounded and professed for a reformatory path with vengeance. He abhorred the very idea of fundamental change (by then associated with October Revolution of 1917 in Russia), fighting it with an alibi in violence taking it synonymous with revolution that signified basic change in every branch of science, including social science. He pleaded for cooperation between capital and labour and advanced the concept of Trusteeship to give his plea a philosophical base. The Russian exercise of 1917 was singularly a mass action with almost no violence relatively. Armed upsurge overwhelmed the old rulers. Violence there came afterwards to defend the country from outsiders when many other countries intervened on behalf of the over-thrown Russian bourgeoisie and a brutal civil war ravaged it for almost three years thereafter. The violence was not the creed of Russian revolution. Violence came later to defend the gain. It is true that Soviet state too, like any other state world wide, adopted brutal structure to rule. The violence heaped on the civil society by foreign crusaders during this prolonged civil war and paranoia so generated in defence led to develop a brutal state structure there that was responsible for many distortions in that experiment later. But that is a separate question.

Still Gandhi in India used this history to formulate his accusation against Marxist philosophy on violence. Indian followers of Marxist philosophy faltered and fell prey to the trap while Gandhi made a creed of non-violence in a way that appealed to the common psyche. When Bhagat Singh reasoned on this question and punctured a hole in this effort, the message aborted for lack of a sustainable organisation in comparison to Congress with Gandhi at its head to carry out the campaign relentlessly with massive support from native rulers. Gandhis campaign, laced with political aim, drew a large number of followers whom he groomed well with his train of thoughts to harness their energies for independence movement. Here was suggested another course said to be as less painful and demanding than revolution. To draw millions of commoners in the struggle for independence was Gandhis singular achievement with no parallel in Indian history so far. For this he utilised various stratagems like a master craftsman patiently reverting to social and cultural causes intermittently for political mobilisation and building up his own ideological-organisational leadership in Congress party. Like all political leaders and parties in history, it was Gandhi who with a singular mind, but more brazenly capped the mass zeal and initiative fully and confined it to himself as dictator of the struggle. He did not allow any movement going over his dotted line while people, mistakenly though reposed faith in the political leadership. He abhorred any and every spontaneous movement from the masses, as other political parties and leaders do. This seems to be the main reason for the reverence he readily received then from the emerging bourgeoisie in the country. Here Gandhi was different from Marx on this question. Gandhi used the mass strength to serve his purpose on the dotted line, while Marx had an abiding faith in their creativity. Gandhi suffered, though, unprecedented ignominy while alive when his heir apparent and other disciples, on attaining power did not care about the philosophy he had advanced during Independence struggle as a blueprint for India of his liking. That did not suit the rising capitalist class that had a different vision of its own. So, it can be taken safely that his ideas found no field for even experimentation and test for truth while holding state power. The case of Lenin in Russia had been a bit different in this matter. In Russia the precepts of Lenin on strategic questions were under experiment till the period of Stalin at least. In the later period, one can take shelter to claim that Lenin, Stalin stood betrayed by the followers on essential points of strategy, though this betrayal theory tells a sad commentary on the efficacy of revolutionary principles for a communist formation, as propounded by him. In case of Gandhi, the claim on his behalf that self-afflicting and non-violent methods from him in conducting struggle for freedom proved remarkably successful with the attainment of Independence, remain largely unsubstantiated on historical facts. This claim, though, is being repeated ad nauseam so long on state patronage with the result that unsuspecting masses at large now tend to believe in it as something like a gospel truth. As for his methods, there is hardly any substance to prove that British rulers became less barbaric in repression and imperial aims because of Gandhian methods or these methods helped to change their heart in terms of colonial possessions and ambitions. British rulers proved as warmongers for possessions as ever! Indian people suffered no less during its struggle for independence than any other, barring the leaders! The lawful and peaceful methods of conducting mass struggle as enunciated and popularised by Gandhi and Congress party as models of non-violent methods during freedom struggle like satyagrah, dharna and fasts proved as inconsequential as ever to exercise any moral influence on congress rulers themselves after independence. Non-cooperation was forgotten as a tool to pressurise by political parties thereafter.

The heir-apparent and followers of Gandhi later proved classical examples of stark failure of Gandhian philosophy in social trusteeship and methods by running an outright exploitative system, exercising oppressive power, blatant misuse of authority, amassing ill-gotten wealth and vulgar consumption with no limit to exercise pelf and privileges associated with power while ruling over the country after independence. Both Lenin and Gandhi dubbed by practice On the question of approach to this problem of social change, we may summarise that the path represented by Gandhi collapsed before it could take off, the one for basic change represented by Lenin and Stalin in countries of socialist camp floundered after 74 years of experimentation. In a way, twentieth century proved a play ground for experimentation in building a new society on both, Leninist and Gandhian principles and floundered because of some serious and grave weaknesses in their respective thought and practice. Gandhi pleaded for status quo. That was the first basic reason for his path to be rejected. No amount of human face plastered over can endear capitalism to its victims. It can befool few for some period and prolong their misery in trail. Capital is an instrument devised to expropriate labour-power and devastation of natural resources in the interest of a handful of people who can manipulate the state affairs because of their position in the establishment. It is necessary neither for social production nor equitable distribution. Gandhi pleaded for both the labour and capital but failed to convince the common man. Trickle down theory later failed to trick the masses. One point is beyond contest: Gandhian concepts could not reason with the present day reality while the experiment to build socialism spanning more than seven decades of twentieth entury proved abortive. Reasons for its failure are many. Some are basic, weighty and socially logical. Still, some similarity between the two claimants is remarkable: both relied on weaving dreams on equity, justice, peace and variant of socialism, for one. Followers of Gandhi in India sang for socialistic pattern, while it was life dream for Lenin. Another strange similarity between the two is the mode of development that remained centred on industrialcommercial complex with slight variations that bred capitalism in both the cases. Both Lenin and Gandhi relied on the centralised state as their instrument to bring social change and progress, though emphasis varied for obvious reasons. While Gandhi himself stood for a decentralised polity, his followers proved adamant to follow a highly centralised course with capital and state structure both, much to the disappointment of the teacher. Gandhi himself was aware of the trajectory capital is destined to take on, as his disciples knew well that capital has an inherent tendency to centralise and that without a corresponding centralised state structure, capital cannot thrive! This riddle, however, Gandhi never explained in his theory to the masses. Gandhian model found certain long-standing adherents but none to practise, except in personal life by some. That did not solve the basic question of a viable alternative for a sustainable society. As is known, capitalist, big or small cannot sustain as a trustee of the social good while exercising for gain. May be, there is any exceptional individual. But exceptions do not make a rule. Utopian socialist with capital to work upon, could not do it in history. On theoretical plane, the capital - small and more so, the big capital cannot deliver justice, equity and peace to the toiling mass. It is an illusion Gandhi was privy to customise and propagate without any tangible logic. The principle of trusteeship proved a vain effort to refurbish the ugly face of capitalism targeted mainly to be sold to its victims, when it works for self. The experiment initiated by Lenin for a fundamental change had its own logic, but failed to deliver despite 74 years of hard labour and profession of a faith. Though his many adversaries and critics, both friends and foes, did warn of pitfalls early in the experiment, yet the logic

Lenin presented had won the day for him and a grand experiment continued for almost major part of twentieth century. It attracted a large section of toiling peoples world wide and as many intellectuals. However, when the experiment aborted and acknowledged so around 1991, legitimate question came up to investigate the reasons thereof. The query became more poignant to delve with those who are for such a change, basically adhering to the creed. If the October Revolution in 1917 heralded a new era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the relapse to world capitalist order by 1991 ringed a similar change of fundamental significance. The balance of forces tilted aggressively in favour of regression, at least for the time being. It also signifies that a good section of proletariat from industrial-commercial and service sectors has gone over to the capitalist class as a collaborator in action and in aspirations completely. The capitalist class has worked assiduously to cultivate its working force as a partner in easy income. As a result, the proletariat class have lost a good part of its basic character by falling prey to unearned income. In addition, the wage earners of the world are a divided lot now; one section standing against the interests of the other. Earlier, labour aristocracy in Europe was a happy partner in spoils of the external loot and worked to save the capitalist system from collapse, while industrial labour in erstwhile colonial countries worked to demolish it in early part of twentieth century. Now the situation has taken a different course. In Europe workingmen are fighting WTO scheme on wage account and spectre of unemployment is looming large in the face of this sacrificial goat to cut production costs to tide over market crisis, while aspirants from third world countries are favouring implementation of such policies in expectations of high scale earnings! Out-sourcing of jobs to countries like China and India represents this contradiction sharply. On the other hand, with the collapse of socialist experiment, world capitalism, led by America moved fast to consolidate its grip both ideologically and militarily so that no such effort is repeated to throw out capitalist order as was the case in the early part of twentieth century! New tools are forged and financial clout is used for submission. By over a decade of this effort, WTO, with all its pacts and agreements have emerged as the single most powerful instrument of subjugation of Asian, African and Latin American countries to surrender their natural resources, labour-power and political sovereignty cheap in favour of western world of financial expansion. Assertion of this new acquired might was explicit in Afghanistan, Iraq and now it is out to cut the under belly of Russia in Eastern Europe and central Asia. Iran and Nepal are the other immediate fields of interest for American expansionism. European nations, including Russia are not opposed to such American expansionism as such, what they desire is a reasonable share! China and India, in Asia are other powerful contenders to such capitalist growth, out now with gusto depending more and more on external expropriation and internal squeeze. Capitalist-Imperialist assault is on the rise. Its chief instrument is financial muscle. WTO is working over night to shift natural resources to western possession. Forcible occupation of energy resources is another facet of its military muscle apart from sabotage and blackmail diplomacy. But it is all different from its old variant in the sense that native rulers every where are the happy collaborators in this assault in the interest of their respective bourgeoisies. The ruling class in each country have turned subservient to these goals of financial oligarchies. And consequently, reap a share in the loot. Capitalisation of agriculture is on the high agenda now in each country, to play the assigned role of facilitator for industrial-commercial interests, putting subsistence agriculture under severe threat of ruin. The blue-print from WTO is designed to do the job as rapidly as possible.

1 THE PRESENT DAY WORLD If life is struggle for a bright future, the first query arises as to what is the nature of present day circumstances we, the people are living in? It is wise to know the friends and foes on the way, lest we are led in blind alley by blind allegiance. Let us recount. We, the peoples: Realise that presently society is living past the long period of experiences of (a) two bloody World Wars for colonial possessions in search of loot by Europeans carrying the cross of civilising mission over blacks and browns, (b) strenuous efforts by captains of metropolitan capital to get going amidst trying conditions with and without democratic practice of their own make, (c) efforts spanning almost two-third of twentieth century to build a new man and a new society in socialism after seizure of state-power in different countries, led by Soviet Union under dictatorship of proletariat and ruled single -handed by a vanguard party of proletariat with a band of professional revolutionaries in command and democratic centralism as its kernel of organisational fidelity, while in case of China and few more countries of peoples democracy pattern, (d) efforts spanning over half a century to build a welfare state of Gandhian socialism or democratic socialism of various hues by transfer of state power through peaceful means, now gone over to American way completely. We, the toiling people are faced with a delicate situation today that requires patient evaluation to seek concrete answers for a better future. This can profitably be done, if such elements that govern the general atmosphere, as above, are taken note of, studied and draw due lessons from without blinkers. Simultaneously, certain old, but useless, blinkers need be cast away. We are living in a world that has earned new complexities of late. Uncouth banditry in international relations is the way with imperialist forces to reshape the new world order of their make. Money and Muscle are being used by them openly as instruments of blackmail for mustering support from client rulers of other nations so that banditry may rule uncontested. The People It would be worthwhile to underline the reference point first. Since the days when state emerged in history, the people are a distinct category to this day. The political theory of a later period that ascribed representative character to the State is a fiction of a dubious character that does not work in fact, at least not now with global finance capital on rampage universally and the type of control it exercises on economy and politics worldwide. In the circumstances, reference point for this submission is the people as against the state. Needless to say that the people denote to the category of citizens who live by their honest labour. This underlines our basis of logic. The context To understand concretely what happened and why, it will be rewarding to see first what we are faced to. The society worldwide is full of injustice, wants and misery despite honest labour. Indignity faces man every moment from bullies and powerful. Avoidable strife pervades in spite of sermons of peace and tranquillity all around without any recess. It is the law. Honest labour does not pay any more; nor is simplicity of conduct honoured any longer. Suspicion abounds everywhere. Cut-throat competition to oust the other in dark alley is a principle fully adorned shamelessly, unmindful to the social deficit. Crash individualism reigns supreme, with no parallel in past history. If society is to survive, it cannot go this way. It needs a rupture with its present. Simply put, today society is crying for a basic change in its relations, Indian society no less.

The state today is truly a leviathan. It is a heavy cross around the neck of commoners with all despotic powers in its hands, notwithstanding the democratic commitments. Under a wellgroomed democratic veneer, octopus-like reach of the government is frightening in its implications for common man. Complete control over resources with the state has made life of hapless citizens totally dependent on its will today. Moreover, it has agencies, which create conditions for any despotic step government intends to take to curb rights of citizens. This was not within the scheme of things the state was conceived for. It made the state all-powerful and conversely, the life of commoners miserable. The situation has to be overturned. The present in fact is the sin we, the peoples are reaping for not taking steps in defence of our natural rights against the state for these years in time. The pain of the present is likely to be prolonged further if people keep sitting back. The future of young generations to come will be shaped by the action people start taking today to assert their natural rights seriously in their own hands without waiting further for others to ameliorate conditions for them. It is true; the present cannot go on lingering heavy for ever on the heads. It must be overturned for good. The law of motion beacons them to initiate first steps to reach the peak. Present has to be turned for the future! And a better future at that!! Law of motion True that change is the law of nature. Nothing is static, ever. And society is no exception. It is always in flux. The flux effects change incessantly and prepare material conditions for a leap, leading to a new round. Let us recall that the present Industrial society had started groaning of acute pains within a century of its existence in its cradle comprising few countries of Europe. Toiling millions started getting restive and the society crying for a just order amidst inhuman exploitation and oppression. By late eighteenth and early nineteenth century socialists of various hues, some of them quite honest in their profession appeared on the scene and did try to ameliorate its ills by suggesting various routes, but to no avail. Malaise was too deep as a result of capitalist expropriation, internal and external, leading to perpetual strife and tension when a plea was made with reason for a fundamental change in social relations. Conditions brought Marx on the scene to plead for change This was the time when among others, Marx and Engels, with few of their compatriots tried for a viable diagnosis and suggested an outline of basic change. They reasoned that private property led an intense effort to earn profit and expropriate labour; transformed labour as commodity and formation of capital as the focal point of social effort, thereby establishing new social relations based on inequity resulting in constant strife, instability and war. Since man and society cannot sustain for long in such trying conditions with dignity, a fundamental change in production relations is the necessity where capital and the state structure cease to dominate. Fundamental change pleaded The credit goes to Karl Marx and F. Engels along with some of their dedicated colleagues to concretise what is meant by a fundamental change in society in this era of capitalist organisation. These social thinkers in their wisdom charted a path for abolition of classes and the state. For them, workingmen were the fountainhead for such a fundamental change in society, and with no via media to bring equity, peace and abundance, while managing their affairs of life for themselves. Marx suggested recourse from each according to his ability, to each according to his work without expropriation while destroying the foundation for parasites and leading to the society that will live by the principle, from each according to his or her ability, to each according to the

need, with attending abundance in social production and ever upgrading machinery to lighten the work load on the real producers of social wealth. Marx-Engels traced the course of history that man had traversed in his march to civilisation and summarised lessons for charting out his fortune in future for a better and peaceful life. The analysis concluded that primitive accumulation, leading to the rise of mercantile capital gave an urge for individual ownership in its wake. It provided a strong impetus to the system of expropriation necessary for an era of industrial revolution with capital at its centre and individualism as the philosophy to guide. As a result, this era of industrial and commercial culture ensured replacement of labour - power by the pernicious instrument of capital as the focal point of social production that has brought the society to its knees. This replacement necessarily dehumanised man in the process. Another characteristic feature of capital, according to this analysis is the rapid alienation of man from means of social production, leading ultimately to his or her transformation as a commodity in the world of market. Capital has a latent tendency to centralise and concentrate in few hands while putting millions after millions to destitution with an elaborate system of expropriation of surplus value created by spending of labourpower. It works profitably only under a highly centralised and powerful state structure to subdue the deprived that constitute the majority of population. They took help from the basics of natural sciences for their logic to arrive at their varied conclusions. The schema of their logic naturally changed the whole gamut of perceptions and gave a new meaning to the social obligation of concerned citizens. This was one course suggested for the development of society. Later, in the early part of twentieth century, Lenin with his companions followed this logic of fundamental change on Marxist reasoning to new dimensions on a number of important questions on social engineering and waged a consistent struggle to change the social and economic fabric to the new design. Lenin pleaded for a highly centralised state structure to usher in socialism under dictatorship of the proletariat as a new variant of democracy. He led Russian revolution in 1917 to this design, followed by other countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba etc with specific characteristics of their own having a glittering hope of a better future for humanity. In India, on the other hand, M.K Gandhi became a classical example among those who propounded and professed for a reformatory path with vengeance. He abhorred the very idea of fundamental change (by then associated with October Revolution of 1917 in Russia), fighting it with an alibi in violence taking it synonymous with revolution that signified basic change in every branch of science, including social science. He pleaded for cooperation between capital and labour and advanced the concept of Trusteeship to give his plea a philosophical base. The Russian exercise of 1917 was singularly a mass action with almost no violence relatively. Armed upsurge overwhelmed the old rulers. Violence there came afterwards to defend the country from outsiders when many other countries intervened on behalf of the over-thrown Russian bourgeoisie and a brutal civil war ravaged it for almost three years thereafter. The violence was not the creed of Russian revolution. Violence came later to defend the gain. It is true that Soviet state too, like any other state world wide, adopted brutal structure to rule. The violence heaped on the civil society by foreign crusaders during this prolonged civil war and paranoia so generated in defence led to develop a brutal state structure there that was responsible for many distortions in that experiment later. But that is a separate question.

Still Gandhi in India used this history to formulate his accusation against Marxist philosophy on violence. Indian followers of Marxist philosophy faltered and fell prey to the trap while Gandhi made a creed of non-violence in a way that appealed to the common psyche. When Bhagat Singh reasoned on this question and punctured a hole in this effort, the message aborted for lack of a sustainable organisation in comparison to Congress with Gandhi at its head to carry out the campaign relentlessly with massive support from native rulers. Gandhis campaign, laced with political aim, drew a large number of followers whom he groomed well with his train of thoughts to harness their energies for independence movement. Here was suggested another course said to be as less painful and demanding than revolution. To draw millions of commoners in the struggle for independence was Gandhis singular achievement with no parallel in Indian history so far. For this he utilised various stratagems like a master craftsman patiently reverting to social and cultural causes intermittently for political mobilisation and building up his own ideological-organisational leadership in Congress party. Like all political leaders and parties in history, it was Gandhi who with a singular mind, but more brazenly capped the mass zeal and initiative fully and confined it to himself as dictator of the struggle. He did not allow any movement going over his dotted line while people, mistakenly though reposed faith in the political leadership. He abhorred any and every spontaneous movement from the masses, as other political parties and leaders do. This seems to be the main reason for the reverence he readily received then from the emerging bourgeoisie in the country. Here Gandhi was different from Marx on this question. Gandhi used the mass strength to serve his purpose on the dotted line, while Marx had an abiding faith in their creativity. Gandhi suffered, though, unprecedented ignominy while alive when his heir apparent and other disciples, on attaining power did not care about the philosophy he had advanced during Independence struggle as a blueprint for India of his liking. That did not suit the rising capitalist class that had a different vision of its own. So, it can be taken safely that his ideas found no field for even experimentation and test for truth while holding state power. The case of Lenin in Russia had been a bit different in this matter. In Russia the precepts of Lenin on strategic questions were under experiment till the period of Stalin at least. In the later period, one can take shelter to claim that Lenin, Stalin stood betrayed by the followers on essential points of strategy, though this betrayal theory tells a sad commentary on the efficacy of revolutionary principles for a communist formation, as propounded by him. In case of Gandhi, the claim on his behalf that self-afflicting and non-violent methods from him in conducting struggle for freedom proved remarkably successful with the attainment of Independence, remain largely unsubstantiated on historical facts. This claim, though, is being repeated ad nauseam so long on state patronage with the result that unsuspecting masses at large now tend to believe in it as something like a gospel truth. As for his methods, there is hardly any substance to prove that British rulers became less barbaric in repression and imperial aims because of Gandhian methods or these methods helped to change their heart in terms of colonial possessions and ambitions. British rulers proved as warmongers for possessions as ever! Indian people suffered no less during its struggle for independence than any other, barring the leaders! The lawful and peaceful methods of conducting mass struggle as enunciated and popularised by Gandhi and Congress party as models of non-violent methods during freedom struggle like satyagrah, dharna and fasts proved as inconsequential as ever to exercise any moral influence on congress rulers themselves after independence. Non-cooperation was forgotten as a tool to pressurise by political parties thereafter.

The heir-apparent and followers of Gandhi later proved classical examples of stark failure of Gandhian philosophy in social trusteeship and methods by running an outright exploitative system, exercising oppressive power, blatant misuse of authority, amassing ill-gotten wealth and vulgar consumption with no limit to exercise pelf and privileges associated with power while ruling over the country after independence. Both Lenin and Gandhi dubbed by practice On the question of approach to this problem of social change, we may summarise that the path represented by Gandhi collapsed before it could take off, the one for basic change represented by Lenin and Stalin in countries of socialist camp floundered after 74 years of experimentation. In a way, twentieth century proved a play ground for experimentation in building a new society on both, Leninist and Gandhian principles and floundered because of some serious and grave weaknesses in their respective thought and practice. Gandhi pleaded for status quo. That was the first basic reason for his path to be rejected. No amount of human face plastered over can endear capitalism to its victims. It can befool few for some period and prolong their misery in trail. Capital is an instrument devised to expropriate labour-power and devastation of natural resources in the interest of a handful of people who can manipulate the state affairs because of their position in the establishment. It is necessary neither for social production nor equitable distribution. Gandhi pleaded for both the labour and capital but failed to convince the common man. Trickle down theory later failed to trick the masses. One point is beyond contest: Gandhian concepts could not reason with the present day reality while the experiment to build socialism spanning more than seven decades of twentieth entury proved abortive. Reasons for its failure are many. Some are basic, weighty and socially logical. Still, some similarity between the two claimants is remarkable: both relied on weaving dreams on equity, justice, peace and variant of socialism, for one. Followers of Gandhi in India sang for socialistic pattern, while it was life dream for Lenin. Another strange similarity between the two is the mode of development that remained centred on industrialcommercial complex with slight variations that bred capitalism in both the cases. Both Lenin and Gandhi relied on the centralised state as their instrument to bring social change and progress, though emphasis varied for obvious reasons. While Gandhi himself stood for a decentralised polity, his followers proved adamant to follow a highly centralised course with capital and state structure both, much to the disappointment of the teacher. Gandhi himself was aware of the trajectory capital is destined to take on, as his disciples knew well that capital has an inherent tendency to centralise and that without a corresponding centralised state structure, capital cannot thrive! This riddle, however, Gandhi never explained in his theory to the masses. Gandhian model found certain long-standing adherents but none to practise, except in personal life by some. That did not solve the basic question of a viable alternative for a sustainable society. As is known, capitalist, big or small cannot sustain as a trustee of the social good while exercising for gain. May be, there is any exceptional individual. But exceptions do not make a rule. Utopian socialist with capital to work upon, could not do it in history. On theoretical plane, the capital - small and more so, the big capital cannot deliver justice, equity and peace to the toiling mass. It is an illusion Gandhi was privy to customise and propagate without any tangible logic. The principle of trusteeship proved a vain effort to refurbish the ugly face of capitalism targeted mainly to be sold to its victims, when it works for self. The experiment initiated by Lenin for a fundamental change had its own logic, but failed to deliver despite 74 years of hard labour and profession of a faith. Though his many adversaries and critics, both friends and foes, did warn of pitfalls early in the experiment, yet the logic

Lenin presented had won the day for him and a grand experiment continued for almost major part of twentieth century. It attracted a large section of toiling peoples world wide and as many intellectuals. However, when the experiment aborted and acknowledged so around 1991, legitimate question came up to investigate the reasons thereof. The query became more poignant to delve with those who are for such a change, basically adhering to the creed. If the October Revolution in 1917 heralded a new era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the relapse to world capitalist order by 1991 ringed a similar change of fundamental significance. The balance of forces tilted aggressively in favour of regression, at least for the time being. It also signifies that a good section of proletariat from industrial-commercial and service sectors has gone over to the capitalist class as a collaborator in action and in aspirations completely. The capitalist class has worked assiduously to cultivate its working force as a partner in easy income. As a result, the proletariat class have lost a good part of its basic character by falling prey to unearned income. In addition, the wage earners of the world are a divided lot now; one section standing against the interests of the other. Earlier, labour aristocracy in Europe was a happy partner in spoils of the external loot and worked to save the capitalist system from collapse, while industrial labour in erstwhile colonial countries worked to demolish it in early part of twentieth century. Now the situation has taken a different course. In Europe workingmen are fighting WTO scheme on wage account and spectre of unemployment is looming large in the face of this sacrificial goat to cut production costs to tide over market crisis, while aspirants from third world countries are favouring implementation of such policies in expectations of high scale earnings! Out-sourcing of jobs to countries like China and India represents this contradiction sharply. On the other hand, with the collapse of socialist experiment, world capitalism, led by America moved fast to consolidate its grip both ideologically and militarily so that no such effort is repeated to throw out capitalist order as was the case in the early part of twentieth century! New tools are forged and financial clout is used for submission. By over a decade of this effort, WTO, with all its pacts and agreements have emerged as the single most powerful instrument of subjugation of Asian, African and Latin American countries to surrender their natural resources, labour-power and political sovereignty cheap in favour of western world of financial expansion. Assertion of this new acquired might was explicit in Afghanistan, Iraq and now it is out to cut the under belly of Russia in Eastern Europe and central Asia. Iran and Nepal are the other immediate fields of interest for American expansionism. European nations, including Russia are not opposed to such American expansionism as such, what they desire is a reasonable share! China and India, in Asia are other powerful contenders to such capitalist growth, out now with gusto depending more and more on external expropriation and internal squeeze. Capitalist-Imperialist assault is on the rise. Its chief instrument is financial muscle. WTO is working over night to shift natural resources to western possession. Forcible occupation of energy resources is another facet of its military muscle apart from sabotage and blackmail diplomacy. But it is all different from its old variant in the sense that native rulers every where are the happy collaborators in this assault in the interest of their respective bourgeoisies. The ruling class in each country have turned subservient to these goals of financial oligarchies. And consequently, reap a share in the loot. Capitalisation of agriculture is on the high agenda now in each country, to play the assigned role of facilitator for industrial-commercial interests, putting subsistence agriculture under severe threat of ruin. The blue-print from WTO is designed to do the job as rapidly as possible.