Death Anniversary of Suleman Petras

The Anjuman-e-Mazreen Punjab (Landless Tenants Union of Punjab- AMP) organized an event on the 4th death anniversary of one of their martyred comrades-- Suleman Petras. The Communist Workers and Pesants Party (CMKP) participated whole-heartedly and expressed solidarity with AMP.

Please, read the detailed report of the event written by Taimur Rahman.

Jhera Wahway, Oh hi Khaway (He who tills the soil shall eat!)

Following are some of the pictures taken by a cadre of CMKP on the death anniversary of Suleman Petras:

The participants of the event paying attention the speeches of their leaders.

******

As can be seen the participation of women is higher than that of men.

******

The flag of AMP masted at the grave of Suleman Petras.

******

Trotskyite Decepetion Once Again

The tactics of deception and mis-representation to mislead the communist movement is the defining feature of Trotskyism. This method has been used over and over by a number of Trotskyites to propagate their bankrupt proposition of permanent revolution, which must be correctly categorized as 'permanent gloominess', to borrow the phrase from Comrade Stalin.
During a discussion with a group of Trotskyites, a small passage from the Ted Grant's book "Russia, from Revolution to Counter-Revolution" was pointed out to show statements of Lenin in support of the concept of permanent revolution. While this passage, filled with misquotations and misrepresentations, might be able to satisfy the thirst of philistines, it is no better than an example of opportunist writings for a Marxist.

The passage I am dealing with is "Lenin's internationalism" and is available at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part1.html

Quotations from 'Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) (1918):

Ted Grant wrote:
"On the 7th March 1918, Lenin weighed up the situation:
"Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. When the Bolshevik Party tackled the job alone, it did so in the firm conviction that the revolution was maturing in all countries and that in the end - but not at the very beginning - no matter what difficulties we experienced, no matter what defeats were in store for us, the world socialist revolution would come - because it is coming; would mature - because it is maturing and will reach full maturity. I repeat, our salvation from all these difficulties is an all-European revolution." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 95.)

He then concluded: "At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 98.)"

Ted Grant has completely misrepresented the conclusion that Lenin drew. One can easily observe the flawed methodology of Ted Grant by reading the complete article from which the quotations are taken.

Lenin was not waiting for the revolution in Germany at all. He wrote in "Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)" (the same article from where Mr. Grant is picking up his quotations):
"The [German] revolution will not come as quickly as we expected. History has proved this, and we must be able to take this as a fact, to reckon with the fact that the world socialist revolution cannot begin so easily in the advanced countries as the revolution began in Russia—in the land of Nicholas and Rasputin, the land in which an enormous part of the population was absolutely indifferent as to what peoples were living in the outlying regions, or what was happening there. In such a country it was quite easy to start a revolution, as easy as lifting a feather." (Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.), 1918)

What is the conclusion that Lenin highlight? Is it, as Ted Grant points out, that if "the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed"? No, it is not. If we complete the second quotation of Lenin, as used by Mr. Grant in the afore-mentioned passage, we can see what Lenin is pointing towards:

"At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed. Nevertheless, this does not in the least shake our conviction that we must be able to bear the most difficult position without blustering."(Ibid.)

Isn't it like saying that if the revolution in Germany doesn't occur then we are going to face some very hard times, yet if we try our best, socialism in one country can survive? This very obvious point has been deliberately ignored by Ted Grant. Many other philistines and opportunists, who are incapable to check from the original sources, who were finding it difficult to propagate their defunct ideas, are jubilated for the help that came from misrepresentations. Ted Grant, knowing that those who support him will never pay attention to what great Marxist intellectuals actually said, finds it convenient to quote randomly and inaccurately from the works of Lenin.

In the same article, Lenin sheds light on his stance on internationalism:

"One may dream about the field revolution on a world-wide scale, for it will come. Everything will come in due time; but for the time being, set to work to establish self-discipline, subordination before all else, so that we can have exemplary order, so that the workers for at least one hour in twenty-four may train to fight. This is a little more difficult than relating beautiful fairy-tales. This is what we can do today; in this way you will help the German revolution, the world revolution." (Ibid.)

Quotation from "Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Workers', Soldiers' And Peasants' Deputies":

Ted Grant presents the following quotation of Lenin:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score. The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity. We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious." (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72.)

The above quotation is taken from "Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Workers', Soldiers' And Peasants' Deputies", where it appears in a very different shape. Mr. Grant has combined different parts knowing that philistines will never bother to check the original sources.
The first part of the "quotation" is taken from what following excerpt:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will riot be empty words."(Lenin, Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Workers', Soldiers' And Peasants' Deputies, 1918)

The second part of "quotation" is taken from somewhere else, tough from the same article.
What does Ted Grant wants to suggest by using Lenin's quotations? According to Ted Grant, these quotations proved that "he [Lenin] thought that the October Revolution could not survive for any length of time."

Much to the dislike of Ted Grant and his friends, Lenin wrote in the same article that "The example of the Soviet Republic will stand before them for a long time to come. Our socialist Republic of Soviets will stand secure, as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the working people." (Ibid.)

Perhaps, Ted Grant is firm that his work would be appreciated only by unscholarly opportunists, who have never bothered to read Lenin from the original sources.
In conclusion, the example of Ted Grant strongly reaffirms the observations of Lenin regarding Trotsky:

"Trotsky unites all to whom ideological decay is dear, all who are not concerned with the defence of Marxism; all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think, and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the `hero of the hour' and gather all the shabby elements around himself. The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat." (Lenin, Letter to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., 1910)

CMKP Poster Campaign

Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party (Communist Workers and Peasants Party- CMKP) Lahore has decided to launch a poster campaign. Posters will be placed in the workers' living quarters in the Industrial Area of Lahore.

Following are the posters designed by the CMKP for the campaign:

Workers of the World, Unite!

The Capitalist system is based on the exploitation of Workers.

Communism is the thoery of emancipation of the Working class.

Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party

*****

Theory of Communism, a solution to the Capitalist system!

Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party

****

******

Transfer of power in Cuba

Many people have raised the argument that the provisional transfer of power from Fidel to his brother Raul in Cuba is a dictatorial move and similiar to transfer of power in a monrachy. This view is incorrect.

Article 94 of The Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 provides that "in cases of the absence, illness or death of the president of the Council of State, the first vice president assumes the president's duties." Who is the first vice president of the Council of State of Cuba? Happens to be Gen. Raul Castro Ruz (since 1976). Moreover, the first vice president of the Council of State is elected by National Assembly of People's Power, not appointed by the Presedent.

According to the constitution of Cuba, Comrade Fidel Castro had no option but to transfer his powers the Comrade Raul Castro. Had Comrade Fidel Castro done otherwise, his action could have been termed as dictatorial.


Sources:
List of Council of Ministers of the Government of Cuba:
http://www.netforcuba.org/InfoCuba-EN/Government/CubanGovernment.htm

Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992:
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

On Revolutionary Intelligentsia

The question about the role of revolutionary intelligentsia in the communist movement of Pakistan is extremely important. The erroneous slogan of "only workers should lead workers" turned out to be extremely expensive for the progress of revolutionary struggle, and became a potent factor in the decline of the movement. This incorrect resolution was a product of the misguided understanding of Marxism-Leninism of the past leaders of the communist movement of Pakistan.


To start with, who is an intellectual? "The term "intellectuals" refers to all those who have had middle school or higher education and those with similar educational levels. They include university and middle school teachers and staff members, university and middle school students, primary school teachers, professionals, engineers and technicians, among whom the university and middle school students occupy an important position". (Footnote from Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Volume II, p. 303)


The role of revolutionary intelligentsia in the proletarian struggle was first presented by founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, in their most famous pronouncement "The Communist Manifesto":


"Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class (in fact, within the whole range of old society) assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."


With these words, Marx and Engels described the evolution of revolutionary intelligentsia from the ranks of bourgeoisie as a historical necessity. It is for this reason that even when the attitude of the communist movement was antagonistic towards intellectuals, the latter kept on springing up, and waged a protracted struggle to correct the line of the movement and bring it in conformity with Marxism-Leninism.


Once the principle was laid down by Marx and Engels, it was, just like any other part of Marxist theory, elaborated and highlighted by Lenin. Lenin wrote in his eminent work "What is to be Done?":


"Finally, when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of degeneration going on within the ruling class and the entire society becomes so glaring that a section of the ruling class joins the revolutionary workers. Therefore, just as at an earlier period, a section of the feudals went over to the capitalist class, now a portion of the capitalist class goes over to the workers. Especially a part of the intellectuals who have understood the laws of history and can see that the working class holds the future in its hands."


Lenin further provided:


" We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia."


While expounding on the tenants of Marxism-Leninism, Comrade Mao Tse-Tung not only emphasized the role of revolutionary intelligentsia in the revolution, but also exposed the incorrect stance of those who undermined the importance of intelligentsia.


The decision of the Central Committee of Chinese Communist Party "Recruit Large Numbers of Intelligentsia" (1939), drafted by Comrade Mao, clearly laid out that "without the participation of intellectuals victory of revolution is impossible." (Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Volume II, p. 301)


According to the Comrade Mao, the reason behind the discrimination of intellectuals is "due to the failure to understand the importance of the intellectuals for the revolutionary cause, the difference between intellectuals in colonial and semi-colonial countries and those in capitalist countries and the difference between intellectuals who serve the landlords and the bourgeoisie and those who serve the working class and the peasantry..." (Ibid.)


The ultimate objective of the inclusion of intellectuals in the party activities is to raise the intellectual level of the workers and peasants, to facilitate the development of intellectuals from amongst workers and peasants. In this mission, the help from the the 'bourgeois class traitors' is meaningful and critical as "the proletariat cannot produce intellectuals of the its own without the help of the existing intellectuals." (Ibid., p. 303)


Moreover, Mao further elaborated on the principle: "The revolutionary forces can not be successfully organized and revolutionary work can not be successfully conducted without the participation of revolutionary intellectuals." (Mao, "Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party", Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Volume II, p. 322)


Mao suggests that the tough revolutionary intellectuals have some sort-comings, due to their class background, these are not incurable infections. These short-comings can be removed if these intellectuals throw themselves "heart and soul into the mass revolutionary struggles, or [make] up their mind to serve the interests of the masses and become one with them". (Ibid.)


In conclusion, while elaborating on an importance of revolutionary intelligentsia, Mao provided very clear and accurate directions to the Communist Party of China:


"On admitting intellectuals into the Party, more attention must be paid to their degree of loyalty, so as to ensure still tighter Party organization in those areas. We should maintain suitable contact with the huge numbers of non-Party intellectuals who sympathize with us and organize them in great struggle for resistence to Japan and for democracy, and in the cultural movement and the work of the united front."(Mao, "Recruit Large Numbers of Intelligentsia", Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Volume II, p. 303)


Therefore, the slogan of "only workers should lead workers", which discriminates against the revolutionary intelligentsia, is in contradiction with the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism. Countless revolutionaries, including the most brilliant minds-- such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Chou En Lai-- emerged from the ranks of bourgeoisie and played an extremely instrumental part in the progress of the revolutionary struggle.


CMKP and Revolutionary Intelligentsia


The stance of CMKP on the role of revolutionary intelligentsia is attached below

(excerpts from www.cmkp.tk "Marxism for Beginners").


In every society a special segment of the population is separated from the general work of production to perform of the role of thinkers. Their role in society is not to engage in the direct process of production but to conceive, think, reflect, ponder, contemplate, study, examine, research and analyze all the different elements of society. This group of individuals are called the intelligentsia (danishwar). In a society divided between rich and poor, the intelligentsia (danishwar) are also trained by the rich and serve the rich. They not only develop new scientific discoveries, they also develop ideologies through which the rich can control the poor. However, as the process of scientific inquiry and human understanding develops, a tiny section of the intelligentsia (danishwar) begins to scientifically uncover the economic basis of the exploitation of the working class. They begin to understand the laws of class struggle and history. They begin to unravel all the different mechanisms through which the ruling class is able to control the working class. As they uncover this truth, the truth makes them more and more revolutionary minded. Thus, a small portion of the intelligentsia that has grasped the scientific basis of exploitation and class struggle becomes the revolutionary intelligentsia (inqalabi danishwar). In other words, they are class traitors to the capitalist class...


... The revolutionary intelligentsia plays a very important role in bringing a scientific understanding of the dynamics of history and class struggle to the entire working class. The fact is that the deeper the depth of knowledge of the revolutionary intelligentsia, the greater their loyalty to the working class. That is why the greatest leaders of the workers of the world have been the greatest intellectual minds of the last two centuries. For example, Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all from privileged backgrounds, but their vast knowledge about the capitalist system forms the basis of the principles of class struggle of all the workers of the world today. Thus, on the one hand, workers must learn to distinguish genuine revolutionary intellectuals from impostors, and on the other hand, safeguard and learn from genuine revolutionary intellectuals. But it is not necessary that revolutionary intellectuals come exclusively from privileged backgrounds. Workers who have been hardened by many years of class struggle posses an extraordinary instinct and natural understanding of the dynamics of society. Battle hardened workers are an invaluable asset of the working class movement. Thus, the leadership of the working class (the vanguard) should be composed of the most knowledgeable and revolutionary elements recruited from the revolutionary intelligentsia and battle hardened workers.

Isreal's attacks on Lebanon

"At this stage we do not think we have to activate massive ground forces into Lebanon but if we have to do this, we will," Moshe Kaplinsky, Israel's deputy army chief, shamelessly declared through the Israel Radio on July 18th. The statements coming out from the Israeli offices indicate that they plan to continue the attacks on the Lebanon on the pretext of rescuing its two Israeli soldiers, while ignoring hundreds of Arabs suffering in Israeli jails. Israeli president has also expressed that Israel is not going to back out even if the situation leads to a conflict between two countries.

Israeli attack have entered their seventh day, killing more than 227 people, including 203 civilians, and causing massive damage to Lebanese civilian transport infrastructure built over decades to support the struggling economy.

Israel's attacks and all such acts of brutality and barbarity must be condemned.

Selected Works from CMKP Discussion Forum

• Lebanon: The Latest Zionist Offensive (July 14, 2006)

• Twelve Hour Working Day and its Implications (July, 2006)

• Party Conference against Military Dictatorship and Fundamentalism (April, 2006)

• CMKP Statement on Cartoons published in Danish and other European Newspapers (February, 2006)

• Felicitations on the 10^th Anniversary of the CPN (Maoists) Revolutionary Struggle

• CMKP Condemns US Bombing of Pakistani Villages (January, 2006)

• International Appeal for Solidarity with the Earthquake Victims in Pakistan (October, 2005)

• CMKP Condemns London Terrorist Attacks, Holds Washington Responsible (July, 2005)

• Fraternal Greetings to CPI(M) from CMKP (April, 2005)

• In Solidarity with “Revolutionary Democracy” (February, 2005)

• Heartiest Felicitations to Revolutionary Warriors of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) on the 9^th Anniversary of the People’s War (February, 2005)

• Pakistani Troops Should go to Iraq to Fight US Occupation (August, 2004)
  

• CMKP Martyrs Day (July, 2004)

• A conversation with the General Secretary of CMKP (July, 2004)
  

• First Draft of Political Resolutions for Socialism in Pakistan (June, 2004)

• Open Letter to All Fraternal Left Parties and Organizations On the Formation of the United Left Front (June, 2004)

• On the History of Communist Movement in Pakistan (September, 2001)

For more articles, please visit the “Analysis” section of CMKP website.

Mazdoor Action Committee Demonstration

Report by Hassan Nasir of CMKP (redpak2000@yahoo.com)

The demonstration of the Mazdoor Action Committee held yesterday was
an incredible success. Over a thousand people attended the rally
organized against the extention of the working day to 12 hours and
all the newspapers of Pakistan have carried pictures and/or articles
about our demonstration.

It was an incredibly hot and humid day yesterday and the July sun
was unsparing. Despite the heat workers came with red banners flying
in high spirits. Tons of buses came in from all industrial areas of
Lahore and each bus was not only brimming with workers inside,
workers an equal number of workers sat and stood on the roof of each
bus to attend this rally. Other workers from Gulberg industrial
area, Kot Lakhpat and Railway workshops came on motorcycles, cycles,
and by foot.

The first workers to get to the location assembled in the small
green area next to the press club unfurling their banners and
raising their flags waiting for their comrades. Spirits were so high
that even before the full force of the demonstration had arrived,
workers began to raise slogans, read poetry and make speaches
against the government. Bashir Zafar (leader of the APTUF--Kot
Lakhpat) and President APTUF General Secretary Railway Workers Union
Fazl-e-Wahid addressed the audience and argued that workers should
ensure that party of the government (PML(Q)) should not be able to
campaign in their areas. They argued that if this party, responsible
for extending the working day to 12 hours, enters a workers district
workers should get a hold of them and blacken their faces before
sending them packing back.

Later as bus after bus of workers arrived the demonstration swelled
to an enormous size and the diminutive green area was insufficient.
The demonstration moved to a small adjoining intersection area. The
tempo of slogans on continued to build throughout this period
especially when slogans were led by the leaders of the Working
Women's Organization.

Read the full Report.


Mazdoor Action Committee is the union of Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party, All Pakistan Trade Union Federation, Anjuman Mazarin (Landless peasants organization), Working Women's Organization, and Bhatta Mazdoor Ittehad (Brick Kiln labour union).
..

Pictures:





Long Live the Revolution!

Sign the Petition

Please sign the online unity statement demanding the immediate release of UP students Karen and Sherlyn and justice for all victims of Arroyo's reign of terror.

http://www.petitiononline.com/070406/petition.html

Long Live the Revolution!

On Socialism in One Country

[This post includes a group of messages written by my comrade- Bhagat Singh-during the course of an open polemics.]


You have reverted into the tradition of Trotskyism. The tradition of slandering and fabrication. You said:

Lenin says in his article “On the slogan of a United states of Europe”:

”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 alone.”

[Progress Publishers volume 21 , p 339-343]


The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class alliance between the proletariat and the labouring masses of the peasantry for the purpose of overthrowing capital, for achieving the final victory of socialism, on the condition that the guiding force of this alliance is the proletariat.
The theory of permanent revolution is not a question of "slightly" underestimating or "slightly" overestimating the revolutionary potentialities of the peasant movement, as certain diplomatic advocates of "permanent revolution" are now fond of expressing it. It is a question of the nature of the new proletarian state which arose as a result of the October Revolution. It is a question of the character of the proletarian power, of the foundations of the dictatorship of the proletariat itself.

page 123
"The dictatorship of the proletariat," says Lenin, "is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of working people (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restoration, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism." (See Vol. XXIV, p. 311.)

And further on:
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, if we translate this Latin, scientific, historical-philosophical term into simpler language, means the following:
"Only a definite class, namely, the urban workers and the factory, industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the toilers and exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital, in the process of the overthrow itself, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist social system, in the whole struggle for the complete abolition of classes." (See Vol. XXIV, p. 336.)

Such is the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat given by Lenin.

Lenin constantly reiterated that without an alliance with these masses of other nationalities the proletariat of Russia could not achieve victory. In his articles on the national question and in his speeches at the congresses of the Comintern, Lenin repeatedly said that the victory of the world revolution was impossible without a revolutionary alliance, a revolutionary bloc, between the proletariat of the advanced countries and the oppressed peoples of the enslaved colonies. But what are colonies if not the oppressed labouring masses, and, primarily, the labouring masses of the peasantry? Who does not know that the question of the liberation of the colonies is essentially a question of the liberation of the labouring masses of the non-proletarian classes from the oppression and exploitation of finance capital?

But from this it follows that Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a purely "Russian" theory, but a theory which necessarily applies to all countries. Bolshevism is not only a Russian phenomenon. "Bolshevism," says Lenin, is "a model of tactics for all." (See Vol. XXIII, p. 386 )

Such are the characteristics of the first specific feature of the October Revolution.
How do matters stand with regard to Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" in the light of this specific feature of the October Revolution?

We shall not dwell at length on Trotsky's position when he "simply" forgot all about the peasantry as a revolutionary force and advanced the slogan of "No tsar, but a workers' government," that is, the slogan of revolution without the peasantry. Even Radek, that diplomatic defender of "permanent revolution," is now obliged to admit that "permanent
revolution" in 1905 meant a "leap into the air" away from reality. Now, apparently everyone admits that it is not worth while bothering with this "leap into the air" any more.
Nor shall we dwell at length on Trotsky's position in the period of the war, say, in 1915, when, in his article "The Struggle for Power," proceeding from the fact that "we are living in the era of imperialism," that imperialism "sets up not the bourgeois nation in opposition to the old regime, but the proletariat in opposition to the bourgeois nation," he arrived at the conclusion that the revolutionary role of the peasantry was bound to subside, that the slogan of the confiscation of the land no longer had the same importance as formerly. It is well known that at that time, Lenin, examining this article of Trotsky's, accused him of "denying" "the role of the peasantry," and said that "Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal labour politicians in Russia who understand 'denial' of the role of the peasantry to mean refusal to rouse the peasants to revolution!" (See Vol. XVIII, p. 318.)

Let us rather pass on to the later works of Trotsky on this subject, to the works of the period when the proletarian dictatorship had already become established and when Trotsky had had the opportunity to test his theory of "permanent revolution" in the light of actual events and to correct his errors. Let us take Trotsky's "Preface" to his book The Year 1905, written in 1922. Here is what Trotsky says in this "Preface" concerning "permanent revolution":
"It was precisely during the interval between January 9 and the October strike of 1905 that the views on the character of the revolutionary development of Russia which came to be known as the theory of 'permanent revolution' crystallized in the author's mind. This abstruse term represented the revolution, whose immediate objectives were bourgeois in nature, could not, however, stop when these objectives had been achieved. The revolution would not be able to solve its immediate bourgeois problems except by placing the proletariat in power. And the latter, upon assuming power, would not be able to confine itself to the bourgeois limits of the revolution. On the contrary, precisely in order to ensure its victory, the proletarian vanguard would be forced in the very early stages of its rule to make deep inroads not only into feudal property but into bourgeois property as well. In this it would come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers' government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only on an international scale, in the arena of the world proletarian revolution."

That is what Trotsky says about his "permanent revolution."

One need only compare this quotation with the above quotations from Lenin's works on the dictatorship of the proletariat to perceive the great chasm that separates Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat from Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution."
Lenin speaks of the alliance between the proletariat and the labouring strata of the peasantry as the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky sees a "hostile collision " between "the proletarian vanguard" and "the broad masses of the peasantry."

Lenin speaks of the leadership of the toiling and exploited masses by the proletariat. Trotsky sees "contradictions in the position of a workers' government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population."

According to Lenin, the revolution draws its strength primarily from among the workers and peasants of Russia itself.

According to Trotsky, the necessary strength can be found only "in the arena of the world proletarian revolution."

But what if the world revolution is fated to arrive with some delay? Is there any ray of hope for our revolution? Trotsky offers no ray of hope; for "the contradictions in the position of a workers' government . . . could be solved only . . . in the arena of the world proletarian revolution." According to this plan, there is but one prospect left for our revolution: to vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution.
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Lenin?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a power which rests on an alliance between the proletariat and the labouring masses of the peasantry for "the complete overthrow of capital" and for "the final establishment and consolidation of socialism."

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Trotsky?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a power which comes "into hostile collision" with "the broad masses of the peas antry" and seeks the solution of its "contradictions" only "in the arena of the world proletarian revolution."

What difference is there between this "theory of permanent revolution" and the well-known theory of Menshevism which repudiates the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat?
Essentially, there is no difference.

There can be no doubt at all. "Permanent revolution" is not a mere underestimation of the revolutionary potentialities of the peasant movement. "Permanent revolution" is an underestimation of the peasant movement which leads to the repudiation of Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotsky's "permanent revolution" is a variety of Menshevism.
This is how matters stand with regard to the first specific feature of the October Revolution.
What are the characteristics of the second specific feature of the October Revolution?

In his study of imperialism, especially in the period of the war, Lenin arrived at the law of the uneven, spasmodic, economic and political development of the capitalist countries. According to this law, the development of enterprises, trusts, branches of industry and individual countries proceeds not evenly -- not according to an established sequence, not in such a way that one trust, one branch of industry or one country is always in advance of the others, while other trusts or countries keep consistently one behind the other -- but spasmodically, with interruptions in the development of some countries and leaps ahead in the development of others. Under these circumstances the "quite legitimate" striving of the countries that have slowed down to hold their old positions, and the equally "legitimate" striving of the countries that have leapt ahead to seize new positions, lead to a situation in which armed clashes among the imperialist countries become an inescapable neces sity. Such was the case, for example, with Germany, which half a century ago was a backward country in comparison with France and Britain. The same must be said of Japan as compared with Russia. It is well known, however, that by the beginning of the twentieth century Germany and Japan had leapt so far ahead that Germany had succeeded in overtaking France and had bcgun to press Britain hard on the world market, while Japan was pressing Russia. As is well known, it was from these contradictions that the recent imperialist war arose.

his law proceeds from the following:

1) "Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the vast ma jority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries" (see Preface to the French edition ot Lenin's Imperialism, Vol. XIX, p. 74);

2) "This 'booty' is shared between two or three powerful world robbers armed to the teeth (America, Britain, Japan), who involve the whole world in their war over the sharing of their booty" (ibid.);

3) The growth of contradictions within the world system of financial oppression and the inevitability of armed clashes lead to the world front of imperialism becoming easily vulnerable to revolution, and to a breach in this front in individual coun tries becoming probable;

4) This breach is most likely to occur at those points, and in those countries, where the chain of the imperialist front is weakest, that is to say, where imperialism is least consolidated, and where it is easiest for a revolution to expand;

5) In view of this, the victory of socialism in one country, even if that country is less developed in the capitalist sense, while capitalism remains in other countries, even if those countries are more highly developed in the capitalist sense -- is quite possible and probable.

Such, briefly, are the foundations of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.

What is the second specific feature of the October Revolution? The second specific feature of the October Revolution lies in the fact that this revolution represents a model of the practical application of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.

He who has not understood this specific feature of the October Revolution will never understand either the international nature of this revolution, or its colossal international might, or the specific features of its foreign policy.

"Uneven economic and political development," says Lenin, "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." For "the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." (See Vol. XVIII, pp. 232-33.)

The opportunists of all countries assert that the proletarian revolution can begin -- if it is to begin anywhere at all, according to their theory -- only in industrially developed countries, and that the more highly developed these countries are industrially the more chances there are for the victory of socialism. Moreover, according to them, the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, and one in which capitalism is little developed at that, is excluded as something absolutely im probable. As far back as the period of the war, Lenin, taking as his basis the law of the uneven development of the imperialist states, opposed to the opportunists his theory of the proletarian revolution about the victory of socialism in one country, even if that country is one in which capitalism is less developed.

It is well known that the October Revolution fully confirmed the correctness of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.
How do matters stand with Trotsky's "permanent revolution" in the light of Lenin's theory of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country?
Let us take Trotsky's pamphlet Our Revolution (1906).
Trotsky writes:
"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. This we cannot doubt for an instant."

What does this quotation mean? It means that the victory of socialism in one country, in this case Russia, is impossible "without direct state support from the European proletariat," i.e., before the European proletariat has conquered power.

What is there in common between this "theory" and Lenin's thesis on the possibility of the victory of socialism "in one capitalist country taken separately"? Clearly, there is nothing in common.

But let us assume that Trotsky's pamphlet, which was published in 1906, at a time when it was difficult to determine the character of our revolution, contains inadvertent errors and does not fully correspond to Trotsky's views at a later period. Let us examine another pamphlet written by Trotsky, his Peace Programme, which appeared before the October Revolution of 1917 and has now (1924) been republished in his book The Year 1917. In this pamphlet Trotsky criticizes Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution about the victory of socialism in one country and opposes to it the slogan of a United States of Europe. He asserts that the victory of socialism in one country is impossible, that the victory of socialism is possible only as the victory of several of the principal countries of Europe (Britain, Russia, Germany), which combine into a United States of Europe; otherwise it is not possible at all. He says quite plainly that "a victorious revolution in Russia or in Britain is inconceivable without a revolution in Germany, and vice versa."

"The only more or less concrete historical argument," says Trotsky, "advanced against the slogan of a United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss Sotsial-Demokrat (at that time the central organ of the Bolsheviks -- J. St. ) in the following sentence: 'Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.' From this the Sotsial-Demokrat draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible argument. But this unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of Britain, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa and Asia all these countries represent capitalist 'Europe,' which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no country in its struggle must 'wait' for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that the idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporizing international inaction. Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think -- as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify -- that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could exist in isolation in a capitalist world."
As you see, we have before us the same theory of the simultaneous victory of socialism in the principal countries of Europe which, as a rule, excludes Lenin's theory of revolution about the victory of socialism in one country.

Carried away by his criticism of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution, Trotsky unwittingly dealt himself a smashing blow in his pamphlet Peace Programme which appeared in 1917 and was republished in 1924.

But perhaps this pamphlet, too, has become out of date and has ceased for some reason or other to correspond to Trotsky's present views? Let us take his later works, written after the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country, in Russia. Let us take, for example, Trotsky's "Postscript," written in 1922, for the new edition of his pamphlet Peace Programme. Here is what he says in this "Postscript":

"The assertion reiterated several times in the Peace Programme that a proletarian revolution cannot culminate victoriously within national bounds may perhaps seem to some readers to have been refuted by the nearly five years' experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be unwarranted, The fact that the workers' state has held out against the whole world in one country, and a backward country at that, testifies to the colossal might of the proletariat, which in other, more advanced, more civilized countries will be truly capable of performing miracles. But while we have held our ground as a state politically and militarily, we have not arrived, or even begun to arrive, at the creation of a socialist society. . . . As long as the bourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreements with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory[*] of the proletariat in the major European countries." Thus speaks Trotsky, plainly sinning against reality and stubbornly trying to save his "permanent revolution" from final shipwreck.

It appears, then, that, twist and turn as you like, we not only have "not arrived," but we have "not even begun to arrive" at the creation of a socialist society. It appears that some people have been hoping for "agreements with the capitalist world," but it also appears that nothing will come of these agreements; for, twist and turn as you like, "real progress of a socialist economy" will not be possible until the proletariat has been victorious in the "major European countries."
Well, then, since there is still no victory in the West, the only "choice" that remains for the revolution in Russia is: either to rot away or to degenerate into a bourgeois state.
It is no accident that Trotsky has been talking for two years now about the "degeneration" of our Party.

It is no accident that last year Trotsky prophesied the "doom" of our country.
How can this strange "theory" be reconciled with Lenin's theory of the "victory of socialism in one country"?

How can this strange "prospect" be reconciled with Lenin's view that the New Economic Policy will enable us "to build the foundations of socialist economy"?

How can this "permanent" hopelessness be reconciled, for instance, with the following words of Lenin: "Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. We still retain our old bad opinion of icons. We have dragged socialism into everyday life, and here we must find our way. This is the task of our day, the task of our epoch. Permit me to conclude by expressing the conviction that, difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and no matter how many difficulties it may entail, we shall all -- not in one day, but in the course of several years -- all of us together fulfil it whatever happens so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (See Vol. XXVII, p. 366.)

How can this "permanent" gloominess of Trotsky's be reconciled, for instance, with the following words of Lenin:

"As a matter of fact, state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc. -- is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building." (See Vol. XXVII, p 392.)[2]
It is plain that these two views are incompatible and cannot in any way be reconciled. Trotsky's "permanent revolution" is the repudiation of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution; and conversely, Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution is the repudiation of the theory of "permanent revolution."

From the masterpiece "On the Opposition" written by none other than the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our epoch: Joseph Stalin. The man who DESTROYED the ideological roots of the decadent theory of Trotskyism

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!
Long Live Stalin!
Long Live Mao Tse Tung!
Long Live Ho Chi Minh!
Long Live Che Guevara!
Long Live Kim Il Sung!
Long Live the victory of Socialism!

Death to revisionism!
Death to Trotskyism

Bhagat Singh can be reached at bhagatlives@gmail.com