Friday, December 30, 2005

Two articles about Stalin


In order to answer the allegations against the great revolutionary leader, Comrade J. V. Stalin, links of two articles are provided in this post. One of the articles is by Comrade Krupskaya, wife of Lenin, and the other one is a summary and commentary of an article by Maria Ulyanova, sister of Lenin. Both the articles are written in defense of Stalin against the groundless allegations by Trotsky, and his counter-revolutionary gang.

"The Slander Drive of Second International" by N.Krupskaya

"On the Relations between Lenin and Stalin" by Maria Ulyanova
(; also present at:

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Sajjad Zaheer

With the partition of the Indian Sub-Continent came the arduous task
for the Communists of the region: to set up and strengthen a Communist
Party in the newly formed country Pakistan. The enormity of the task
demanded a man with multifarious talents, yet one with such dynamism that
could galvanize and lead the path to the emancipation of the
proletariat in this country. The man who set out to complete this task: Sajjad

It was while studying at Oxford and London universities that the then
young Sajjad Zaheer organized a group of left-minded Indian students to
work for the national freedom struggle in 1927 and developed contacts
with the British Communist Party. He convened the founding conference of
Progressive Writers’ Association (PWA) in London in 1935 and prepared
its manifesto. Coming back to India in November 1935, he started
practicing law at Allahabad High Court and was appointed secretary of the
Allahabad Congress Committee and worked in close cooperation with Nehru,
K.M. Ashraf and Z.A. Ahmed. He came into contact with the leaders of the
then underground Communist Party of India. Later he became the
Secretary of the U.P. State Committee and a Central Committee Member of the
undivided Communist Party of India. He was the chief architect of the
historic first conference of PWA in Lucknow in1936 inaugurated by

With such credentials to his name, it is easy to see why Sajjad
Zaheer was chosen as the first Secretary General of the Communist Party of
Pakistan when it was established among difficult conditions in 1948.
Though a small party, the CPP was well disciplined and tightly organized.
The CPP set up many frontal organizations. Amongst the most prominent
was the Progressive Writers Movement inspired by Sajjad Zaheer and Faiz
Ahmed Faiz. The party laid the foundations for the Railway Workers
Union (RWU) and the Pakistan Trade Union Federation. Similarly the
Democratic Students Front enjoyed substantial influence in the student

But continuous persecution by the pro-imperialist establishment of
Pakistan adversely affected the nascent and fragile Communist movement
forcing it underground. The so-called Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case in 1951
in which the top leadership of the CPP, including Sajjad Zaheer,
Mohammad Hussain Ata and Lenin-Prize winning poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz were all
implicated and also imprisoned, dealt a heavy blow to the Communist
movement. After his release in 1954, Sajjad Zaheer continued to lead the
left cultural movement through PWA, Indian Peoples’ Theatrical association
(IPTA) and Afro-Asian Writer’s Association in India. The PWA
influenced and galvanized writers, poets, and artists in diverse branches of
creative activity. It played a gigantic role in the literary field in
almost all the major languages of the subcontinent. It was virtually the
nursery for political activists, trade unionists, cadres of the peasant
movement students and leaders.

The Sino-Soviet split in the international communist movement in the
late 1960s also adversely affected the movement in Pakistan.
Nonetheless, in Pakistan all elements retained a comradely attitude towards each
other and continued to wage a joint struggle against their common
enemy. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, owing to the betrayal
Marxism-Leninism by the post-Stalin leadership, caused even immense confusion
and vacillation. In these circumstances those organizations that
firmly defended Marxism-Leninism decided to put aside their differences and
unite as one party. Thus, the Communist Party of Pakistan led by
Comrade Imam Ali Nazish and the Mazdoor Kissan Party (founded by Major
Ishaq) led by Ghulam Nabi Kalu committed themselves to a historic merger in
1994 to form the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party. The first chairman of
the united CMKP was Imam Ali Nazish (1994-98) followed by Comrade Sufi
Abdul Khalik Baloch (1998-present). Two splinter groups that could not
grasp the significance of this historic union parted company for
opportunist reasons or personal ambitions. Despite these tribulations the
CMKP remains steadfast to its principles of Marxist-Leninist unity.

The CMKP stands for a peoples’ democratic revolution to create the
conditions for a socialist society. The party has boldly championed the
right of nations to self-determination, fought against military
dictatorships, struggled against religious extremists, upheld the rights of
women and minorities, and championed the cause of the oppressed. We feel
that it is our historic duty to build meaningful, firm, and lasting
relations with the leftwing and communist parties of South Asia. This is
necessary not only to initiate a dialogue within the left but also to
fight against imperialism and win true national sovereignty and economic
independence. The ruling-class of India and Pakistan has perpetually
kept the region in an economically destructive state of continuous
militarization. In these circumstances, the growing cohesion of the left
across South Asia is the only real guarantee of eliminating the
possibility of war. The CMKP is working to bring about a broad-based alliance of
left-wing parties and anti-imperialist forces in Pakistan as well as
meaningful affinity with the Marxist-Leninist parties of South Asia.

Sajjad Zaheer dedicated his whole life to the communist movement and
the emancipation of the working-class. The fighting unity of all
Marxist-Leninists, the broad alliance of secular-democratic anti-imperialist
forces, and peace between the peoples of South Asia, this is the
inheritance of the Communist Party of Pakistan built and led by Sajjad
Zaheer. We salute Sajjad Zaheer whose pioneering work for the communist
movement in its formative stage in the most difficult post-partition
conditions continues to inspire the next generation of revolutionaries.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005


`Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.'
This was the resolution with which Mao Zedong , on December 21, 1939, "in the distant caves of that huge China, toasted Stalin's sixtieth birthday."

Mao Tse-Tung, `Stalin, Friend of the Chinese People', Works, vol. 2, p. 335.

Saturday, December 17, 2005


(Excerpt from Hassan Nasir's article "Imperialism and Awami Jamhori Forum" presented to the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party email list. Complete text of the article is present at

Lenin says:

"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist combines of industrialists; and, on the other, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which
has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolistic possession of the territory of the world which has been completely divided up."

Lenin provides further clerifications:

"[A] definition of imperialism will include the following five of its basic features:
1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital," of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves; and 5) territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the
international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."

Therefore, Imperialism does not mean militaristic or aggressive behaviour. That can be done by any power (feudal, capitalist, religious, or fascist). Lets be very clear on this. Imperialism is
not behaviour, or a policy, or a personal habit of this or that ruler. Imperialism is a social system that has the following five characteristics:

1) monopoly
2) domination of finance capital
3) Export of capital
4) International capitalist combines (cartels)
5) Territorial division of the world

Is India a society that has reached monopoly capitalism, where the big banks dominate, that exports capital, and has divided the world within its own capitalist combines, and engaged in the territorial division of the world. Hardly.

In fact, its quite clear that India is a country that is dominated by monopoly capitalism from US and Europe, is dominated by foreign big banks, is receiving international imperialist capital (MNC's), has been captured by capitalist combines and cartels (coke, Levi's, Pepsi, Gap), and has been territorially dominated during colonial times (British Raj).

So to characterise India as an Imperialist country is not only preposterous, in fact, it only seeks to serve the interests of the Pakistani bourgeoisie. Whosoever characterizes India as an
Imperialist country will automatically come to the conclusion that war between India and Pakistan is a "National Liberation Struggle" on the part of Pakistan and that the workers should support the Pakistani bourgeoisie against the imperialist Indian bourgeoisie. This is class capitulationism and pure opportunism. It would imply that leftist rhetoric is being utilised to support the foreign policy of the Pakistani bourgeoisie over and above the international interests of the working class.

Therefore, the view that India is an Imperialist country is entirely incorrect. The correct view is that India is a neo-colonial society. This is historically and scientifically correct.

Next was the Soviet Union an "Imperialist" country.

Again I want to come back to Lenin's definition of Imperialism. Imperialism is not aggressive behaviour. Just because the Soviet Union invaded Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1980 does not imply that the USSR was an imperialist society. Although all three invasions hurt the "nationalist" sentiment of people in those countries, but the invasions in and of themselves do not prove that the Soviet Union was a society dominated by 1. monopoly capitalism, 2. finance capital, 3. the desire to export capital 4. the USSR had divided the world among its capitalist cartels, 5) Had engaged in a colonial territorial division of the world.

Bill Bland and Martin Nichalous have made a strong case in their respective books to show that the process of the restoration of capitalism had begun in 1956 and had been tremendously accelerated in 1965, but having read their books in detail, I'm still not convinced that they have been able to conclusively prove that the Soviet Union was DOMINATED BY MONOPOLY FINANCE CAPITAL. For example, even Bill Bland and Martin Nichalous have to admit that the move to fully restore private property was begun under perestroika under the advice of Leonid Abalkin. And the complete restoration of Private Property in the USSR (which occurred with Gaider's so called "shock therapy" in 1993) required the 1991 Boris Yeltsin counter-revolution as a pre-requisite. Therefore, given that private property was only fully restored in 1993 under the shock therapy reforms of Gaider, given that these reforms could not be implemented without the complete overthrow of the rule of the communist party (which had by this time
degenerated into a completely revisionist party) which occurred in 1991 under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, how is it possible that the Soviet Union had already come to be dominated by Monopoly Capitalism, Finance Capital, Export of Capital, Cartels, and Territorial Division back in 1956 or 1965.

The answer is that it is not possible. The theory of Soviet Social Imperialism that was accepted at the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China and also accepted by the Labour Party of Albania was a counter-revolutionary theory. The principle proponent of this theory was Lin Biao who despite his great contributions in all other respects made a serious error with respect to this particular piece of analysis. Comrade Sam Marcy has correctly stated that the theory of Soviet Social Imperialism was NOT a product not of a dispassionate scientific appraisal of the actually existing social system in the Soviet Union but a knee jerk reaction owing to the fear of a Soviet
invasion of the PRC. Furthermore, the CIA did its best to aggravate these differences by "leaking" incorrect information to the Chinese that the Soviets were preparing for a surgical strike against China's nuclear instalments. The end of the Cold War has definitively proved
that this was a piece of deliberate misinformation to worsen the Sino-Soviet split in order to weaken both the USSR and China.

Furthermore, what conclusion can we reach if we believe that the Soviet Union was indeed an imperialist system.

1) All nationalist struggles in the USSR were struggles
for "National Liberation" and should be supported.
2) All struggles for "democracy" were struggles against an
imperialist system that should be supported.

In a word, all counter-revolutionary struggles such as Sajudis in Estonia, Solidarity in Poland, Democratic Russia in Russia, the pope all over Eastern Europe were all struggles against an imperialist system. Well it later turns out that these were all struggles to restore a capitalist system. And those communists who were mislead by the slogan of Soviet Social Imperialism ended up supporting all of these struggles thereby weakening their own forces.

Conclusion, India, China, Soviet Union are not imperialist countries. USA, Britian, France, Germany, and Japan are imperialist countries (there is sufficient proof that they are dominated by monopoly finance capital etc. etc.). An imperialist country is entirely different from a socialist society that has degenerated owing to the influence of opportunism. A socialist society that has
degenerated owing to the influence of revisionism may engage in certain actions that are militaristic, chauvinist, and actions that hurt the "national sentiments" of other countries. Even this unjustified militaristic action in and of itself, however, in no way implies that that country is now an `imperialist' society.

I hope this clears up the position of the CMKP with respect to imperialism, the Soviet Union, China, India and so on.

In solidarity
Hassan Nasir

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Discussion on Orkut community: "Islam Socialist Revolution"

Z said, “If the USSR departs from the Marxist policy by brutal policies during the Stalinist era and afterwards as well, it is all OK...Marxism remains a valid concept!”

My reply,
This is not my double standards but your complete failure to comprehend Marxism. Marxism is beyond any single individual. ‘How did Stalin do to defend the precepts of Marxism’ is a topic for another discussion. Nonetheless, in my opinion he did a wonderful job.

Z said, “But when Islam is taken over by monarchist enemies of the people, Islamic Socialism as a concept seems to become invalid. Why?”

My reply,
The communist doctrines were abused Modern Revisionists of SU, not Stalin, for a period extending from 1953 to 1991. If my mathematics is not wrong then that is for 38 years. In case of Islam, the period of abuse was roughly 1300 years. Keeping everything else constant, Islam seems to be much more capable of ‘internal abuse’ then scientific socialism. There is no room for revisionism is Marxism, as it is brought to practical world. It is a principle of Dialectical Materialism, as formulated by Karl Marx, not Islam, that a society can not step from an advanced stage to means of production and productive relations to an ‘old’ one. The effect of the principle is not that that cannot happen, but such an attempt would result in a catastrophe, that we have seen as the economy of Russia became smaller than that of Norway as it marched into capitalism.

Z said, “Vidrohi, this clearly shows that religion is something that Marxists suspect and fear.”

My reply,
What clearly shows that? Your assertions based on incorrect logic and reason let alone true historic facts.

Z said, “a) you will never have the mass support needed to fulfill your purpose.”

My reply,
Wrong. This is never the response of people, if that is all you fear. Workers understand they are divided on religious grounds by the bourgeoisie. The proletariat appreciates messages of solidarity that is beyond the limitations of religion. Your assertion emerges from distrust towards the mental incapability of workers. Few hours among the proletariat, if at all that happens, would be enough for you revise your ‘a proiri’ principle.

Z said, “you will be following a system devised by someone like Marx who was an intellectual sitting and writing in a library in England...he was not exactly a revolutionary, was he?”

Lets see. Esmod Wright writes about Marx for the book “Great Europeans”:

“In any event he (Marx) was never-unlike Hegel- an Ivory Tower philosopher; he always sought to combine the theory with organization and action; he was always a man of two worlds, the study and the forum. By nature combative, he turned towards politics and journalism and abandoned his dream of becoming a university teacher.” (Page 366)

Wright’s article is highly critical of Marx’s personality. Yet he affirms the revolutionary character of Karl Marx.

Z said, “Marxism alone does not have enough vitality as an idea... ”

My reply,
Perhaps you, like me, have not studied Marxism thoroughly.

Z said, “Do you think that the imperialist powers of today will even allow you to carry on peacefully after your revolution?I do not think so! ”

My reply,
Just like your previous assertions, this is wrong as well. I recognize that imperialist powers of today would practice all their might to cause a counter-revolution.

Z said, “Your idea is to tell them that Marx said so-and-so, so it must be right. ”

My reply,
You have started to degenerate. This is not the scientific approach. The people once assured that their well protected by socialist regime, would provide the state all the support that it needs to fight an anti-imperialist war.

Z said, “We prove to the people that GOD commands them to bring about a socialist system. Who sounds more convincing to them? You or us? You do not understand the power of Islam as an idea... ”

My reply,
I would like to know when Lenin invoked a god to gather support from the people of SU to fight a Civil War in which six imperialist powers were directly involved. Which religion Ho Chi Minh referred to fight against two imperialist powers, France, and US successively in the Vietnam War, where thousands of Vietnamese peasants sacrificed to ensure a better future for their children. Which divine command has the Fidel Castro and his fellow Cubans followed while fighting an economic war against imperialism for the past forty years? You don’t understand the power of Marxism and proletariat…

I don’t need to answer any question, as I can say straight away, to inform you that we do not share the same platform.

Workers of all religions, Unite!

Friday, December 09, 2005

Another View of Stalin

These days I am reading "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. It is a very thorough study of propoganda, emerging from the right-wing and Trotskyists, against the great leader of socialism. The rich contributions of Stalin must not be ignored, let alone misunderstood. An online copy of the above mentioned book is present at:"

Have a good reading!

Monday, December 05, 2005

Venezuelans vote for Congress

Venezuelans vote for Congress
CARACAS (Venezuela), Dec 4: Venezuelans voted on Sunday in a congressional election with lawmakers allied to left-wing President Hugo Chavez looked set to sweep most seats after the main opposition parties boycotted the poll.

Hours before voting began, an oil pipeline in the west of the country was damaged by a small blast the government branded a sabotage attack on the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.

"This is a miserable terrorist attack," Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel told state television.

Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said the explosion at a pipeline supplying the country's huge Amuay-Cardon refinery had not affected fuel supplies or exports and that firefighters had controlled a subsequent fire and oil spill.

The damaged pipeline carried 150,000 barrels per day to the refinery, state news agency ABN said. Authorities said the explosion was caused by a home-made pipe bomb, but they stopped short of directly accusing Chavez opponents, blaming only "radical groups."

Chavez, a former army officer opposed to Washington, has accused US officials of orchestrating the boycott to trigger a political crisis. - Reuters


Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually.