DOCUMENT I

Are We Really Fighting For The Establishment of The Dictatorship of The Proletariat As An Essential Prerequisite For Building Socialism?
What I'm writing here is based on my understanding of Marxism (Marx-Engels-Lenin) and the experience earned through my work within the workers of organized industry for almost 25 years. So please don't see me as a Marxist confined exclusively in the realm of debatediscussions or as an activist little interested in theoretical and ideological struggle. Here is nothing more to say. Let's proceed to the subject. In their joint writing Communist Manifesto, Marx-Engels clearly expressed the view that for its emancipation the working class must first elevate itself to the position of ruling class. Here itself was the indication towards their more developed view about dictatorship of the proletariat. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" first appeared, as per my knowledge, in Marx's writing Class struggle in France. But even till then what would be the nature and appearance of dictatorship of the proletariat was not depicted. And that they refrained from doing quite consciously; for this they depended on further development of class struggle. Based on the experience of the Paris Commune (1871), Marx first enunciated the nature, essence and historical importance of dictatorship of the proletariat in his writing The Civil War in France. As per Lenin's observation, in the period between the fall of Paris Commune (1871) and the commencement of World War I (1914), there was a peaceful development of capitalism. And this was exactly the period during which a gradual polarization was occurring among the then 'socialists': socialists {later to be called communists) committed to the path of dictatorship of the proletariat and socialists espousing parliamentary path. This was the perspective based on which Lenin had to write his famous writing Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky, up till now, in my view, the greatest document of fight against opportunism. With a view to a possibility of World Socialist Revolution, the Third Communist International was built up in 1919, making a clear cut break from the downgraded Second International, under the direct leadership of Lenin. Here a noticeable change was observed. In the First International the attempt was to organize the working class alone in the world plane, where as in the Third International it was the working class and oppressed people of the world. In my view the change was quite reasonable. Because in the time of Marx, the era of socialist revolution had not yet come. Capitalism had not yet entered in its decadent phase. So the emphasis was only on ideological and organisational preparation of the working class. The age of finance capital (the new feature of imperialism, quite different from colonialism) started in the last part of the nineteenth century. This new feature was elaborated by Lenin in his writing Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism. The First World War was envisaged by Lenin as the eve of world socialist revolution. Hence was his vehement attack on the socialists in word but opportunists in essence. In fact, in the wake of the First World War, many possibilities of socialist revolution had been

unfolding in West Europe, the citadel of capitalism at that time. Lenin had an idea that the movements against feudalism and imperialism in the backward countries could be integrated with the unfolding class struggle of the working class in West Europe against capitalism. Hence came the idea of People's Democratic Revolutions in the backward countries as in integral part of World Socialist Revolution and to be led by the working class. But it was later seen that all possibilities of socialist revolution in West Europe were lost mainly due to strong influence of opportunism in the working class movement there. Lenin had to regret, saying "The greatest misfortune of Europe is that it has no revolutionary party". Naturally, the world socialist revolution as envisaged by Lenin did not materialize, even though there was the Great October Revolution (1917) in Russia. But the working class movements in the advanced capitalist countries still remained within the bound of bourgeois parliament and no further possibility of socialist revolution emerged there. Naturally, the Russian Revolution had to encounter a great crisis (expressed many times by Lenin in his later day writings) and never could it overcome this problem despite the expansion of the so called "socialist world". Ultimately it also became evident that the "socialist world" was actually rotting down in the garb capitalism and there was no hope of its survival even through the Great Debates in the sixties and Great Cultural Revolution in China. Actually the prospect of world socialist revolution as visualized by Lenin got destroyed in the twentieth decade itself. The following revolutions including the revolution in China (1949) could not obviously express themselves as an integral part of World Socialist Revolution. Because the working class in the citadel of capitalism hopelessly failed to assume its revolutionary role against capitalism. Thus the original idea of People's Democratic Revolution in the backward countries, as an integral part of World Socialist Revolution and to be led by the working class, as envisaged by Lenin had to undergo many transformations in a direction far away from socialism. The original CPI (ML) line in India, and also the lines practiced by the following fragments of it, have to be judged in the backdrop of this historical perspective only. Even though the CPI had a good work within the working class and the forties decade of the last century witnessed a prospective revolutionary fervour (well documented in Uttal Challish: Ekti Osomapto Biplob by Amalendu Sengupta), it could not hold on to the revolutionary path and finally allied itself with the shameless revisionist line floated by the CPSU led by Khrushchev. Naturally a split in the CPI became inevitable. And it really occurred in 1964 with the formation of the CPI (M). Many people at that time could not sense that the split was actually a farce little connected to a revolutionary line. That the apparent revolutionary gesture was only to camouflage its reformist essence was implicit in article 112 of the Party Programme, which was nothing but a line to form a government within the existing parliamentary set up with a mere reformist purpose hardly linked with a revolutionary mission. If it was not true, how could these two parties remain in a front for such a long time? The concept of front, as per my knowledge, came in the world communist movement only with a view to an immediate particular target such as to defeat fascist onslaught or imperialist aggression, etc. And that front is also supposed to be constituted not merely comprising some parties but various classes intent to fight the common enemy. The CPI (M) has distorted this concept altogether. And perhaps everybody can now understand that the Left Front is nothing but a parliamentary alliance with the sole purpose of forming a so-called alternative government within the present set up. In fact, in the original Party Programme this line was kept open quite consciously. If this is kept in mind, there is no scope to derive that the CPI (M) "deviated" from its original line. The CPI (M) that we see today is not a "deformed" but a "developed" form of the CPI (M) of 1964. So a revolt against the reformist and revisionist essence of the CPI (M) was also inevitable. Hence came the CPI (ML). But, in my view, the revolt of the CPI (ML) against reformism

and revisionism was weak, limited and incomplete in many respects. The main aspect of the revolt was a demarcation between revolutionary path and parliamentary path. Only this much is appreciable. But the big question is: what was the class content of this revolt? I think it needs no further investigation about the fact that the CPI (ML) envisaged a revolution in India even without the practical leadership of the working class, even though India had a glorious past of working class movement. Then what could be the class nature of the revolution as envisaged by the CPI (ML)? It is generally assumed that the original CPI (ML) line was to free the Indian subcontinent from the yoke of feudalism and imperialism through a democratic revolution under the leadership of the working class. Then why did it sidetrack from the task of building the much needed working class leadership and leave the working class under the influence of the CPI and CPI (M)? What was in its mind indeed? Everybody perhaps knows that elimination of feudalism does not automatically lead to socialism. It rather strengthens capitalism ----- particularly when the democratic revolution miserably lacks leadership of the working class. (It would be better at this point to once again go through Two Tactics of Social Democracy in Democratic Revolution by Lenin.) And when democratic revolution without working class leadership certainly fails to move beyond capitalism, the revolution at last inevitably gets entrapped in the bourgeois parliamentary system, because the parliamentary system is the best suited form of governance for capitalist socio-economic formation. In fact, there was no basic difference between the CPI (M) and CPI (ML) as far as fight against feudalism is concerned, except the form of this fight. The former adopted a bureaucratic path from above after assuming the power of governance while the former was for revolutionary path from below. But both of them were basically bourgeois in nature. Because like the CPI (M), the CPI (ML) too had practically no vision of democratic revolution under the leadership of the working class as an integral part of world socialist revolution. Otherwise it would not desert the working class at the hands of the revisionists. Secondly, the CPI (ML)'s understanding of imperialism, I think, was quite different from that of Lenin as elaborated in his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Its view still remained confined within the old colonial form of imperialism, even if it analysed that India was a "semi-colonial" country. It failed to understand the nature of finance capital as the real source of capitalist imperialism, which can rule the world without even colonies. And due to this lack of understanding only that the CPI(ML) envisaged a democratic revolution in the Indian subcontinent, intended to free it from feudalism and imperialism, without it being led by the working class and, for the same reason, without being an integral part of world socialist revolution. In fact, with the gradual diminishing of the prospect of socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, mainly due to the strong influence of opportunism within the working class there, the democratic revolutions in the less developed and backward countries got detached from a socialist perspective and internationalist outlook, and ultimately got confined in disparate national boundaries; better to say that they failed to move beyond bourgeois nationalism and that's why bourgeois parliamentarism as well. This is true for most of the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist parties in the so-called third world countries. Two ideal examples are the CPI (MLLiberation) and the Maoists in Nepal. Many more groups are likely to encounter the same fate if they do not break with the CPI (ML) legacies and engage themselves in the most vital task of building the working class leadership, especially in the changed perspective that India is now a basically capitalist country intrinsically connected with world capitalism. __________________________________

DOCUMENT II

Hold High the Revolutionary Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought & Defeat All Alien Trends!
Dear Comrade, At the outset, let me express my heartiest thanks to you for penning such a detailed account of your thoughts. As I had told you earlier, my experience in practical politics is quite trivial in comparison to yours. However, for being directly attached with the revolutionary movement for about a decade, I have done some reading (and some work too!) of the works of Marx-Engels and those stalwarts who have travelled through the complicated path of scientific socialism. On the basis of such meagre resources I am trying to put in writing a point by point rebuttal of your document. Comrade, let us argue, even bicker, with each other. But at the same time let us make sure that we will sing the Internationale with a united voice and make our enemiesthe feudalists, the capitalists and the imperialistssneak away in frustration. Anyway, let us not waste anymore time. You have opined that though Marx had coined the word dictatorship of the proletariat in the earlier phase of the 1850s, he could expound its nature, essence and of course its historical import only after the experience of the Paris commune. Comrade, I cannot comply with this opinion of yours, as on March 5, 1852, the 34-year old Marx wrote the following words to one of his comradesJoseph Weydmeyer: Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. From the above excerpt it becomes as clear as daylight that from the very inception Marx was quite sure about the characteristics and significance of his invention. So, it is improper to infer that he could enunciate the principles and magnitude of the concerned phrase only after gaining experience from the commune events. Let us now scan the history of the Second International. The era between latter part of the nineteenth century and the initial days of the twentieth witnessed a peaceful development of capitalism. Even Engels, the then chief of the International Council, stated that peaceful movements, in contrast to the violent ones, were reaping a better harvest, and thus, should not be at all neglected. He welcomed the German working class for supplying its fellow companions in all countries with a new weapon in the form of universal suffrage. But this tactical proclamation made the adherents of Communism pay a heavy price as certain people like Liebknecht and those in the editorial board of Vorwartsthe mouthpiece of the German Social

Democratic Partytried to use it in defence of their pacifism. They quoted Engels out of context, distorted his writings, misinterpreted his views! This made the old philosopher furious. He wrote two angry letters to Paul Lafargue and Karl Kautsky, accusing Liebknecht and his men of distorting his views and presenting him as a peaceful worshipper of legality at any price!! Engels was, however, unable to put down in black and white his criticism of this intellectual fraud because of an untimely demise. After his death in 1895, Eduard Bernstein, one of Engelss collaborators and an eminent German Social Democrat, formed a powerful critique of Marx. He aimed at diminishing the fundamentals of Marxism under the pretext of revising it. He objected to Engelss decision of revision of tactics and held that a thorough revision in the realm of Marxist strategy was needed. Bernstein designed to sabotage the revolutionary spirit of Marxism through legalistic ideas. He peddled that working class governments could be established even without a decisive class-war. This theory was resolutely opposed by Kautsky, one of the major theoreticians of the Second International. But despite his opposition to Bernsteins, Kautskythe Marxist Pope, as he was called by his fellow mensank neck-deep in the morass of revisionism during the First World War. In later years he, along with the Menshevik scoundrels, opposed the October Revolution and compared Lenin and the Bolsheviks to mere terrorists. The Kautskyites were such dogmatists that they could not fathom the essence of the monopoly nature of Capitalisma different breed of capital of which Marx had little ideaand issued a call to defend the fatherland during the first imperialist world war (instead of issuing the slogan of turning it into a civil war) and thereby joined the ranks of the social chauvinists. They were so much absorbed in legalism that they sacrificed the revolutionary aims of the proletariat for the sake of preserving the legal organisations, thus selling the proletariat's right to revolution for a mess of pottage (Lenin) Lenin correctly showed that in the era of Finance Capital the bourgeoisie is left with no positive role to play in the society, and therefore, must be destroyed as a class at any price. To do so, he put forward the strategy and tactics of proletarian revolution in the era of imperialism. He enunciated that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, decadent or parasitic capitalism and moribund capitalism. He declared it is the last and final phase of capitalism and the dawn of social revolution. Till now, as I presume, there is not much difference of opinion between us. But Comrade, before concluding this portion I would like to make a small comment on two specific pronouncements of yours. In your document you have written that finance capital is a new feature of imperialism. I am not in agreement with this statement. Rather, I STRONGLY disagree. It is not a new feature of imperialism; it is imperialism. I think you have confused imperialism with expansionism and hegemonism. Another thing you claimed is that, finance capital is different from colonialism. Yes, it is. But can you oppose the fact that finance capital itself is a tool for colonising others? Direct colonisation gradually changed to indirect colonisation after the Second World War. But during the First World War, imperialism championed direct colonisation of other countries for using them as agricultural appendages. It was obligated to beat a retreat only when national-liberation movements in different colonies and semi-colonies gathered powerful momentumbecause of the fall of the Axis powers in the Second World War. It abandoned its classical method and embraced Neo-colonialismthe colonial policy that, through subtle methods and manoeuvres, propagates and consolidates capitalism and impedes the advance of the national-liberation movement in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and extracts from them the largest possible profits and strengthens its own economic, political, ideological and military-strategic footholds.

The Third Communist International, commonly known as the Comintern, was established a few years after the founding of the dictatorship of the working class and the poor peasantry (under the leadership of the former) in Russia with an intention of releasing the toilers and the oppressed masses in the fundamental waythrough a decisive class war. As pointed out earlier, by then, due to the installation of monopoly capitalism, the bourgeoisie was stripped off its robe of progressiveness. Therefore, the idea of bourgeois democratic revolution in countries where feudal survivals (supported by the imperialists) were strong was outmoded. Hence, a new kind of revolution was needed. The concept of Peoples Democratic Revolution (henceforth PDR) was thus born. The PDR is a twofold revolution: on the one hand, it accomplishes the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, does away with the muck of feudal production relation, and on the other, creates the optimal condition for its revolutionary transition to socialism. Most people argue that the idea of PDR was shaped by the leaders of the Comintern. This is pure oversimplification. A proper reading of the works of Marx and Engels present a different picture altogether. In 1847, when Marx and Engels joined the Communist League, the latter was instructed to draft its programme document. He prepared a couple of them, the first being the Draft of the Communist Confession of Faitha document explaining the orientation of the League in simple question-answer pattern. The other one was Principles of Communisma more detailed treatment of the previous draft. Here Engels envisaged the course of the proletarian revolution in the following way: What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat. (Stress added by the present author) This is a glaring instance of the fact that the concept of PDR, precisely its essence, was originally developed by Marx and Engels, and not by anybody of the later generation. Whatever the Comintern comrades practiced or uttered regarding this special form of revolution, was not their exclusive creation, but a brilliant discovery by them in the golden treasury of the literature of the founding fathers. Comrade, from the end section of the first part of your letter it appears to me that you have tried justifying the Trotskyist line of world revolution. I consider Trotskys remark"Without direct state support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to maintain itself in power and to transform its temporary rule into a lasting socialist dictatorship"a partial denial of Leninism. One can easily give explanation for such claims by citing from Engelss. But that does not ideologically refute the significance of establishing socialism in one country. It was Comrade Lenin who first noted that uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. These instructions were diligently followed by Comrade Stalin during the phase of Soviet reconstruction and the Second World War.

Neither Lenin, nor Stalin was against world revolution. But they were practical people. They were men of action. And most importantly, they were adherents of dialectical materialism. Stalin made a proper assessment of the victory of socialism in one country in the following way: It goes without saying that for the complete victory of socialism, for a complete guarantee against the restoration of the old order, the united efforts of the proletarians of several countries are necessary. It goes without saying that, without the support given to our revolution by the proletariat of Europe, the proletariat of Russia could not have held out against the general onslaught, just as without the support given by the revolution in Russia to the revolutionary movement in the West the latter could not have developed at the pace at which it has begun to develop since the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia. It goes without saying that we need support. But what does support of our revolution by the West-European proletariat imply? Is not the sympathy of the European workers for our revolution, their readiness to thwart the imperialists' plans of intervention is not all this support, real assistance? Unquestionably it is. Without such support, without such assistance, not only from the European workers but also from the colonial and dependent countries, the proletarian dictatorship in Russia would have been hard pressed. Up to now, has this sympathy and this assistance, coupled with the might of our Red Army and the readiness of the workers and peasants of Russia to defend their socialist fatherland to the last has all this been sufficient to beat off the attacks of the imperialists and to win us the necessary conditions for the serious work of construction? Yes, it has been sufficient. Is this sympathy growing stronger, or is it waning? Unquestionably, it is growing stronger. Hence, have we favourable conditions, not only for pushing on with the organizing of socialist economy, but also, in our turn, for giving support to the West-European workers and to the oppressed peoples of the East? Yes, we have. But why did the Soviet Union collapse? Is it because of a few persons like Khrushchov, and Brezhnev? Or is it because there was no world revolution in 1917? No, neither of these assumptions is correct. It collapsed chiefly because the Soviet communists failed to comprehend these words of Marx: The chief reason why the socialists do not understand the dictatorship of the proletariat is that they do not carry the idea of the class struggle to its logical conclusion. Since Russia was a weak capitalist country, the Bolsheviks under Lenin and Stalin were initially compelled to exercise a certain degree of state capitalism for developing the forces of production. But that could not hamper the socialist course of the country, as the leadership was still in the hands of the proletarian class. But later, when the neo-bourgeoisie, in the form of farm manager, supervisor, etc., was born in the production sector, things started changing. In spite of nationalising the means of production they became its virtual owner and mounted oppression on the working class for the appropriation of surpluswhich the Soviet state used as economic aid to create banana republics in Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Africa and Latin America. Instead of identifying the class conflict between the working class and this neo-bourgeoisie, the postStalin leadership firmed up their hegemonist pursuits. To renounce the existence of fierce class struggle in post-revolutionary society, Khrushchov declared: The 20th Congress of our Party rightly criticised JV Stalins mistaken thesis that class struggle grows sharper as the successes of socialist construction increase. He, as well as the later leadership, ignored that the entire eastern bloc (including the Soviet itself) was gradually rotting down in the grab of social-capitalism and social imperialism. Although the Great Debate (GD) between the CPC and the CPSU in the 1960s restored the fundamental essence of Leninism, ushered in a new phase in revolutionary praxis, the Chinese party, which came to power in 1949 by ousting the US puppet Kuomintang and its warlord allies, too fell victim to revisionism. The GDs logical continuation, the Great Proletarian Cultural

Revolution (GPCR), despite being a Marxist phenomenon, in its latter stages degenerated to a mere power struggle between various groups. The revisionist onslaught in the CPC began with a barrack coupby killing Lin Piao, the closest comrade-in-arms and successor to Chairman Mao. But, in spite of this failure, it is improper to hold that the Chinese revolution could not express itself as the integral part of the world socialist revolution. Dear Comrade, Such an assertion, Im awfully sorry to say, only displays a limited grasp of Marxism-Leninism. Chu Teh was totally correct when he said: The Chinese people, who gained the victory after having overcome numerous difficulties and set-backs over a period of more than 30 years, have always profoundly felt that the October Socialist Revolution of 1917 is the real herald and inspirer of the revolutionary struggles of modern China. Under the influence of the October Socialist Revolution, the Chinese working class and the Chinese people learned the invincible revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, and created a revolutionary political party of the proletariat along the lines indicated by Lenin and. Stalin, namely, the Communist Party of China. The Chinese people have achieved their great historic triumph under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism and headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, loyal pupil of Marx and Lenin. The October Socialist Revolution has profoundly influenced the Chinese people. You are of the view that the original idea of People's Democratic Revolution in the backward countries, as an integral part of World Socialist Revolution and to be led by the working class, as envisaged by Lenin had to undergo many transformations in a direction far away from socialism. I really do not understand why you are saying so! You are probably saying this because the next big revolution after Russia was accomplished in a country (China) where it was led to victory chiefly by peasants (and not by the working class). The Chinese revolution was an agrarian revolution (the first stage of PDR), i.e., its primary aims were (1) the liquidation of feudal property; (2) division of the land amongst the peasantry; (3) no confiscation or nationalisation of the property of the national bourgeoisie, but its development. But after eight or ten years China entered the second stage of revolution, which is characterised by the agrarian revolution passing over to the expropriation of the national bourgeoisie. (Stalin). How can one forget that this was a beginning of the Socialist revolution in China?! By implementing this model China overcame poverty and instituted a successful universal public distribution system. Was it possible under capitalism? Comrade, let us not get sectarian, please. The politics of the undivided CPI (M-L) as well as that of the CPI and the CPI (M) will have to be judged in the backdrop of this historic perspective. You have written that although the CPI had laudable presence among the Indian working class during the 1940s, it could not hold on to its prospective revolutionary fervour for pursuing the opportunist line of Khrushchov from the mid 50s. As far as facts are concerned, the CPI had a considerable influence among the organised working class of India even in the 70s. But, its revisionist-reformist past is much older than you suppose. Even in the 40s, the CPI leadership, first under PC Joshi and then BT Ranadive, just destroyed the great possibilities of revolution. Revisionism was deep-rooted in the CPI from the 30s itself. The CPSUs thesis only contributed to its fast reformist deterioration and nothing more. Now for the CPI (M), I simply do not want to spare a word. It is useless. Although in the face of semi-fascist attacks joint activities are necessary, the key purpose behind any tactical alliance with them should be the following: It cannot be expected that workers who are under the influence of those Social Democratic ideology of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, which has been instilled in them for decades, will break with this ideology of their own accord, by the action of objective causes

alone. No. It is our business, the business of Communists, to help them free themselves from the hold of reformist ideology. The work of explaining the principles and programme of Communism must be carried on patiently, in a comradely fashion, and must be adapted to the degree of development of the individual Social Democratic workers. Our criticism of Social Democracy must become more concrete and systematic, and must be based on the experience of the Social Democratic masses themselves. It must be borne in mind that primarily by utilizing their experience in the joint struggle with the Communists against the class enemy will it be possible and necessary to facilitate and speed up the revolutionary development of the Social Democratic workers. There is no more effective way for overcoming the doubts and hesitations of the Social Democratic workers than by their participation in the proletarian united front. (Dimitrov) As conflict between revisionism and Marxism-Leninism increased, the revolutionaries, with Respected Leader Comrade Charu Majumdar (CM) at their core, created Naxalbari and pushed forward the cause of the democratic revolution in India by overthrowing parliamentary cretinism and other revisionist tendencies. CM emphatically explained the strategy and tactics of the future revolutionary struggles in his famous eight documentsthe programme-guide of Indian revolution. He was the first and foremost in our country to espouse a Bolshevik spirit and the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism. Under his able leadership a genuine communist party in the form CPI (M-L) was born. You argue that the ML leadership envisaged a revolution in India without the practical leadership of the working class. Being carried away by this opinion, you have even gone to the extant of doubting the class orientation of the Naxal movement. I really do not know from where you acquired this knowledge. Documents reveal that although CM characterised the Indian revolution to be chiefly agrarian in content, he was well aware of the leading position of the working class. He wrote time and again: The peasant masses of India cannot liberate themselves and the country without the leadership of the working class. The working class is the most revolutionary class and the most organized detachment of the Indian people. That is why only the working class can lead the Indian revolution to victory, and why the Indian people can overthrow the four big mountains only by carrying on their struggle under the leadership of this class. CM was actually opposed to trade unionism (but not to trade union activities), since he believed that it would only increase legal illusions and diminish the fighting capacity of the party. He categorically instructed the party cadres, especially those operating among the industrial proletariat, to work as factions in secret in trade unions under the leadership of others and try to win over the working class for joining the armed agrarian revolution. Unlike Parimal Dasgupta or Pramode Sengupta, CM was not in favour of forming centralised trade unions. He knew that such organisations would only create splits in the working class movement and would blunt its revolutionary sharpness. Although he identified the trade union as a platform for defensive battles against the attacks of the class enemy, he asked his cadres to aid the workers with class conscious politics, so that they become capable of leading both offensive and defensive battles: We should never make the workers mere followers of our Party cadres, nor jump in to lead them. We should not prevent the workers from organizing trade unions where there is none. The trade union struggles will be carried on by the ordinary workers and our Party cadres should not involve themselves in such struggles. The task of our cadres is to propagate revolutionary politics and build secret Party organization. Once we are able through this work to create confidence among the ordinary workers and help them take initiative, individuals from among them will come forward to give competent leadership in trade

union struggles also and fight the revisionists even in that sphere. This is not only desirable but also possible. Hence, CM actually tried to restore its true revolutionary spirit of trade unions. He waged an ideological war against those phrasemongers, who, like those pacifists [actually socialchauvinists] of the Second International, tried to float the counter-revolutionary idea of trade unionism and sink the party in the fumes of legalism. CM correctly upheld the offensive battle, i.e. armed struggle, as the principal mode of struggle, and the defensive battle [movement through different mass organisations] as an auxiliary form. This is dialectics. Comrade, Your next allegation is that, there is no difference in essence in the anti-feudal struggle of the CPI (M) and CPI (M-L). What can I say now, Comrade? I really do not have any idea how to respond to such a monstrous claim. You have also alleged that the CPI (M-L)'s perception of imperialism was much flawed as its views remained confined within the old colonial form of imperialism, even if it analysed that India was a semi-colonial country. Could you please explain what exactly you are trying mean by this? Comrade, India is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country based on neo-colonial principles of exploitation. While some capitalist development has been superimposed, no qualitative change has taken place at the core of the Indian state. The basic task, therefore, is to overthrow the rule of feudalism, comprador-bureaucratic capitalism and imperialism. We are in the stage of PDR, the essence of which is agrarian revolution. __________________________________