Resolution Of The Editorial Board On The Stands Of The Communist Revolutionaries Regarding Agrarian Question
1. Even during the periods of '70s & '80s, there used to be a plenty of differences and many debates among the Communist Revolutionary (CR) organisations on whether at all capitalist development had taken place in Indian agriculture; if so, then does its extent warrant any mention; has there been any notable changes in Indian agriculture or agrarian relations. Now, for the time being, there are almost no such controversies. Most of the CR organisations now admit that today Indian agriculture is not at the level of what it was, say 50 or 60 years back; there had taken place a capitalist development, even if to a small extent; and due to that, at least some changes have occurred in the fields of agricultural production and agrarian relations. These organisations still have differences on the extent of this capitalist development, but almost everybody of them now admit that (or, we can say, they are almost unanimous about the fact that) the capitalist development in Indian agriculture, still, to a great extent is incomplete; truly speaking, Indian agriculture is within a process of transformation from feudal agriculture to capitalist agriculture; and there exist in India very many feudal remnants. In spite of this near unanimity, we must remember that among the CR organisations there are still differences as regards both the extents of capitalist development and feudal remnants.
2. In spite of the near unanimity on the fact that capitalist development has taken place at least to some extent in Indian agriculture, for many related questions (related to this very capitalist development), among the CR organisations there exist much that is hazy and lacking clarity of thought. Such questions are whether Indian agriculture is passing through a capitalist, or in other words, bourgeois-democratic transformation process; if so, then whether the ruling classes of India are following a definite way towards this bourgeois-democratic transformation in agriculture; whether there exists another alternative path of this transformation; what are the relationships between each of these paths with the working class led peoples? democratic revolution; what should be the CR organisations? attitude or position regarding the demands arising out of the existing agricultural/agrarian problems; etc. etc. And these are the subjects that are very little discussed in the literatures of the CR organisations, so little that it can be called negligible. But these very subjects require and demand attention and analysis if we are to play conscious role in the development of our working class led peoples? democratic revolution.
3. If we divide almost equally the 20th century that we have just passed into two nearly equal halves, and compare the second half with the first one, some important and glaring differences can be noticed in the fields of Indian agriculture. In the first half agriculture is almost stagnant, medieval; total yield and productivity are nearly stranded, growthless; stratification (or, class differentiation) among the peasantry is at a very low level; predominance of ''unfree?? labour; modern agriculture is almost absent; market is very much limited, almost in local/zonal level; etc. etc. Compared with all these, in the second half, increase and development is noticeable in all the aspects mentioned. Needless to say, that without a capitalist development all these would have been impossible. Again if we subdivide the second half in still smaller intervals of 12 to 15 years each, we?ll observe that in each such subdivision increment and development has happened in almost all aspects than the preceding subdivision. Not only that, we?ll see that between the last 3 years and first 3 years of each subdivision there are positive changes. And all these could not have happened, had the old feudal agriculture been kept intact. So it is easy to understand that during the last 50 years there has been continuing a steady and continuous development of capitalism in Indian agriculture, in spite of its very slow pace, along with a slow bourgeois-democratic change. That the bourgeois-democratic changes, a continuous development of capitalism are and have been, occurring, this very fact indicates that, in spite of its slowness, a bourgeois-democratic, i.e. capitalist transformation process is going on in Indian agriculture.
4. ''In Volume III of Capital (2. Teil, S. 156) [Vol. 3, p. 603 English trans. Moscow edition-ed] Marx had already pointed out that the form of landed property with which the incipient capitalist mode of production is confronted does not suit capitalism. Capitalism creates for itself the required forms of agrarian relationships out of the old forms, out of the feudal landed property, peasant?s commune property, clan property etc. In that chapter, Marx compares the different methods by which capital creates the required forms of landed property. In Germany the reshaping of the medieval forms of landed property proceeded in a reformative way, so to speak. It adapted itself to routine, to tradition, to the feudal estates that were slowly converted into Junker estates, to the routine of indolent peasants who were undergoing the difficult transition from corv?e to the condition of the Knecht and Grossbauer. In England this reshaping proceeded in a revolutionary, violent way; but the violence was practised for the benefit of the landlords, it was practised on the masses of the peasants, who were taxed to exhaustion, driven from the villages, evicted, and who died out, or emigrated. In America this reshaping went on to a violent way as regards the slave farms in the Southern States. There violence was applied against the slave-owning landlords. Their estates were broken up, and the large feudal estates were transformed into small bourgeois farms. As regards, the mass of ''un-appropriated?? American lands, the role of creating the new agrarian relationships to suit the new mode of production (i.e., capitalism) was played by the ''American General Redistribution??, by the Anti-rent movement of the forties, the Homestead Act etc.? [Lenin, collected works, V. 13, p. 275-76; Moscow ed. 1972]
5. Marx mentioned three different ways, paths, in the history of transition from pre-capitalist to capitalist agriculture?the landlords? revolutionary path as taken in England; the landlords? Junker path as followed in Germany; and the American revolutionary path, which was practised against the Southern slave-owning landlords, and nationalisation of land programme pursued in the West in favour of the peasants. In short, they can be termed as the British path, Prussian path, and American path respectively. Among these three different paths (or ways) the British one was an exception compared to the other two. At a definite moment of history, under certain particular historical conditions, the English aristocratic landlords could and did pursue this path, which was (and is) not possible for landlords of other countries (or nations). So as process of bourgeois-democratic transformation of agriculture there remains in history, de facto, the Junker (or landlord-bourgeois, or reformist) path and the peasant path (or peasant-proletarian path, or revolutionary path).
6. With the development of capitalism in industry and agriculture at the last part of the nineteenth century, in Russia, the possibility of transformation to capitalist agriculture along either of the two paths became clear. From 1905 onwards, Lenin repeatedly pointed out the possibilities of transformation through either of the two paths. Following the footsteps of Marx, Lenin showed how along both of these two paths total change (bourgeois-democratic change) in agriculture was possible. In his words: ''Either the old landlord economy, bound as it is by thousands of threads of serfdom, is retained and turns slowly into purely capitalist, 'Junker? economy. The basis of final transition from labour service to capitalism is the internal metamorphosis of feudalist landlord economy. The entire agrarian system of the state becomes capitalist and for a long time retains feudalist features. Or the old landlord economy is broken up by revolution, which destroys all the relics of serfdom, and large landownership in the first place. The basis of the final transition from labour-service to capitalism is the free development of small peasant farming, which has received a tremendous impetus as a result of the expropriation of the landlords? estates in the interest of the peasantry. The entire agrarian system becomes capitalist; for the more completely the vestiges of serfdom are destroyed, the more rapidly does the differentiation of the peasantry proceed. In other words: either?the retention, in the main, of landed proprietorship and of the chief supports of the old 'superstructure?; hence, the predominant role of the liberal-monarchist bourgeois and landlord, the rapid transition of the well-to-do peasantry to their side, the degradation of the peasant masses, not only expropriated on a vast scale but enslaved in addition, by one or other kind of cadet-proposed land-redemption payments, and downtrodden and dulled by the dominance of reaction; the executors of such a bourgeois revolution will be politicians of a type approximating to the Octobrists. Or?the destruction of landlordism and of all the chief supports of the corresponding old 'superstructure?; the predominant role of the proletariat and peasant masses, with the neutralising of the unstable and counter-revolutionary bourgeois; the speediest and freest development of the productive forces on a capitalist basis, under the best circumstances for the worker and peasant masses at all conceivable under commodity production; hence, the establishment of the most favourable conditions for the further accomplishment by the working class of its real and fundamental task of socialist reorganization. Of course, infinitely diverse combinations of elements of this or that type of capitalist evolution are possible, and only hopeless pedants could set about solving the peculiar and complex problems arising merely quoting this or that of Marx about a different historical epoch.?? (Lenin, collected works, Vol. 3, p. 32-33; introduction to the second edition [July 1907] of ''The Development of Capitalism in Russia?? [First published on March 1899]; LCW Moscow-ed ? 64)
7. The two possible paths of transition from feudal agriculture to capitalist agriculture, i.e., from old, medieval agriculture to bourgeois-democratic agriculture as discussed by Marx and Lenin (quoted above) are naturally connected with two different outcomes of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. One result?the counter revolutionary bourgeoisie being the leader of the revolution make compromises with the enemies of the revolution, the old reactionary forces, and stops the revolution half way. The old legal-political framework is mainly maintained and undergoing a course of very slow bourgeois-democratic reforms, at last becomes compatible to bourgeois rule; the old royal weapons of suppression remain as much as possible; for a long long time old customs, prejudices, institutions, ideas will survive; and keeping the people downtrodden and adopting the slow and long path of bourgeois-democratic reforms, the country will emerge, at last, as a bourgeois-democratic country. The other result?the total victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; working class led revolution of the worker-peasant alliance wins over broad strata of the petty-bourgeois population and defeats the vacillations of the bourgeoisie, thus uproot the reactionary feudal order; all pre-capitalist vestiges are swept away and the country completes bourgeois-democratic transformation; thus the way for the speediest, freest, broadest and all round development of productive forces is opened; and creates for the working class the most favourable conditions possible under commodity production for its fight for socialism. Since 1905, Lenin, while repeatedly pointing out the two possible outcomes of bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, also highlighted in his characteristic bold manner that each of these outcomes is integrally related to the corresponding paths of bourgeois-democratic transformation of agriculture. Needless to say that the then Russia?s characteristic was the fight between revolutionary peasant path and reformist landlord path, fight between two paths which are connected to two final result of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; generally speaking, fight between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat over the leadership of the bourgeois-democratic resolution, particularly to win over the vast petty bourgeois strata, including the peasantry.
8. In the first few decades of the era of imperialism and world socialist revolution, up to the 2nd world war, due to the policy of imperialism there had not taken place any steady and continuous development of capitalism in the colonies and semi-colonies (notwithstanding capitalist development to certain extent in some of such countries; and neither was it also possible also due to that very imperialist policy. Such being the condition there was no way out for a steady and continuous development of capitalism in agriculture through reformist path, and hence, in such countries there did not arise any struggle between two paths of capitalist development in agriculture.
9. But the situation changed remarkably after the Second World War. Confronted with the developing revolution Imperialism had to retreat considerably. In order to stem the tide of revolution in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and to keep them solidly within the imperialist orbit, in order to nip in the bud the growing peasant revolution by changing the age-old agriculture, imperialism had taken the recourse to such measures or rather forced the native ruling allies to initiate such a course of development which is really unprecedented. This new process was not only in contrary to the so long practised imperialist policy, but, simultaneously, it was also a peculiar mixture of some elements of both the paths as discussed by Lenin (see, cl. 6 specially the last sentence of the quotation). Landlordism was abolished, the state purchased the landlords? land through compensation (in the form of long term govt. bonds); the ruling classes, represented through their appointed committee, supervised the distribution of that land stock among the peasantry; and thus the possibility of a revolutionary upsurge of the peasantry was wrecked by giving land to the peasantry; and total transformation of the agro-system was completed in the main; though in all such countries old customs, prejudices, institutions, ideas, etc. were retained to a large extent; the sovereignty of the people, including the working class and peasantry (which is the content of republic) was not achieved.
10. It will be wrong to assume that under imperialism (in the imperialist era) the victory through the first (reformist) path is theoretically impossible?for no valid reason can be cited. Moreover, the post-second world war imperialist initiated bourgeois-democratic transformation of agriculture in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. countries are so real, factual, that it cannot be ignored. Hence, practically the victory through the first path is not impossible, but very much possible under certain conditions. In the present epoch of imperialism and world socialist revolution as time and again there will be imperialist wars and revolutions, and so time and again will arise the possibility of victory through the first path. So, the theoreticians of the proletariat must recover from the illusion that the possibility of victory through the first path has gone forever.
11. Since 1947 the native ruling classes of India, led by the big bourgeoisie, have undertaken reform programmes, one after another, for the development of capitalism to change the old feudal agriculture and develop capitalism. Such programmes, taken as a whole, can be termed as advance along the landlord-bourgeois path, or Junker path, or reformist path. As part of this journey along Junker path came one by one the abolition of zamindari act, the land holding (upper limit) ceiling acts etc. In this process, as time passed, other measures were initiated to stimulate and widen the capitalist development in agriculture: some arrangement of govt. sponsored irrigation system and thus the total amount of irrigated land was extended to some extent; HYV cultivation started and for that seeds, chemical fertilizers; insecticides, pesticides were made available; rural electrification was extended; roads and markets developed; govt. directed the banks to extend the loan facility to the farmers to provide the extra cost needed for capitalist agriculture (the programme of giving loan to priority/preferential sector); governmental 'charities? were arranged to supply some agro-inputs; support prices (what is really the procurement prices of the govt.) for some agro-products were declared at regular time intervals so that the farmers may get enough profits in spite of the rising cost of the inputs needed for this new type of agriculture, etc. Through these and many other arrangements, in some states widely, and in others in some zones, to some extent, agriculture in capitalist method has extended. Due to all these, undoubtedly, a development of productive forces took place, or, has been taking place, though it proceeded haltingly, slowly, somewhat limping, and only to some degrees. Thus the ruling classes pursued in their own way, to create a small stratum (compared with the rest) of rich peasants (and capitalist landlords) and win them over to their side; alongside bringing frustration, deprivation, oppression, extortion, ruin and pain for the vast masses of the peasantry. Even now, half a century after the journey along reformist path started, large feudal remnants remain in the Indian agriculture, and consequently, which pollute and vitiate the rural and urban lives, in a word, the whole national life in India.
12. It is quite natural that the major bulk of the govt. programmes and arrangements were captured by the capitalist landlords and rich peasants, while only a little part could percolate downwards to the vast majority of the peasantry. For this very reason the capitalist landlord-kulak lobby was strengthened and asserted themselves in various parts of India. By taking recourse to many measures and demonstrating many shows of their strength, they have been realizing many privileges and concessions since mid-sixties of the last century. Through Punjabi Jat-Akali movement (particularly after the establishment of Sant Fateh Singh?s leadership), Nasik type movements and Tikayet-led type movements; through the person of ex (late) prime minister Choudhury Charan Singh and ex-deputy prime minister Devilal, etc. they have been playing an influential role in the politics of ruling classes in India. But we must remember that their influence is, though strong and firm in different states? political level, it is not up to that degree in the Union Govt. level. But then also, their influence there have remained sufficient in the last few decades, and, at a certain time, they were even able to send 35% of the total MPs from among themselves. It is only due to their strength and influence that the Union and different state govt-s had to halt many times their schemes of reducing the grant to this lobby. Declaring support prices to enable them to extract a good profit, enlarging loan facility and loan repayment abating programmes (the latter took place twice), extending rural electrification, road, transportation system, enhancing subsidies, or, at least keeping them at the same level, trying to reformulate the land-ceiling laws for their sake, and till it happens, keeping enough loop holes in the existing laws regarding land-ceiling, etc. are their strongly voiced demands.
13. This general tendency of all Indian agriculture is also very much in force in West Bengal, even under the rule of the CPI (M) led Left Front Govt. And not only that as compared to the preceding phase, in this phase (i.e. post-?77 period) that tendency has accelerated. Due to that, from the ?80s onwards, in the last century, agricultural output has continued to climb up in W.B. But in spite of all these, in West Bengal, powerful landlord-kulak lobby has not yet emerged. Two of the programmes of the Left Front Govt. regime (''barga?? recording, and distribution of Govt. ''khas?? land to the landless) demands special explanation. In `70-`71 the rent of the bargadars were so revised as to allow them to keep a share of the surplus instead of total appropriation of the surplus by the landlords as was the practice till then. But the act was not enforced in that regime; it remained only on papers. In their first tenure the L.F. Govt. stirred the wide section of the sharecroppers and official recording of such peasants was taken up in right earnest. Recorded bargadars were ensured of legally permitted part of the total product, and a major part of the sharecroppers took that legal privilege (this was the L.F. Govt.?s 'famous? ''Operation Barga??). Apparently, it may seem that thus the L.F. Govt. proved to be govt. of the poor, by taking a step in favour of the poor barga peasant. But what actually happened? The ownership of the land remained with the same, previous landowners, rent (in kind) remained, though to a somewhat decreased level, the bargadar remained a barga-peasant, only his share was, a little bit, increased. By getting that increased share of surplus the necessity of increasing production by introducing new, capitalist method of agriculture was formed and the rent was decreased only apparently, for the time being, i.e., till the total production is increased to such high level by capitalist agriculture, that even though the proportion of landlord?s share was decreased, the aggregate rent received by him gets larger in amount than before; only up to that time not only the proportionate share but also the aggregate rent is decreased. In sum, the development along the landlord-bourgeois path, the reformist path, was strengthened, accelerated by the governmental measures. Again, as a part of this Junker path of development, the land ceiling acts were enacted much before the L.F. Govt. was installed in ?77. Accordingly, all the non-peasant-owned land was not seized by the govt., but only their right of land holding was limited by the ceiling and these were also not much enforced in the previous regime and remained largely on paper. The L.F. Govt. of West Bengal only pursued this programme of Junker path and distributed the surplus land to the landless peasants with some success and thus proved itself to be a staunch adherent of that Junker Path.
14. In spite of following the Junker path of development, in Indian agriculture, particularly in the case of agrarian relations and land ownership, remnants of feudalism is still widespread and Indian agriculture is far from a bourgeois-democratic agro-system. It shows that the final victory of the landlord-bourgeois path, the reformist path, is still quite far-off, which naturally implies that possibility of agrarian transformation through the peasants? path, the revolutionary path is still there. Thus there still remains the possibility of victory of any of these two paths and as such in reality a struggle is going on between these two paths, as to which of the two paths will be ultimately victorious. Before the initiation of the Junker path of development, the struggle for the peasants? path, the revolutionary path was going on. It was manifested boldly and powerfully in the Telengana struggle; and though it went out of sight from time to time, the flames of peasants? revolts could not be, and was not, put off. Against medieval bondages and slavish serfdom, exploitation, usurpation and suppression, through the continuous agitations and legal-illegal struggles of the peasantry, through the irregular, interrupted, unsynchronised and scattered revolts, through the Naxalbari type of struggles, the peasantry?s fight for a peasants? revolutionary path is continuing. So one of the characteristics of Indian politics is the fight between the two paths regarding which one will ultimately win. The fight between these two paths is, in essence, the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat in establishing leadership on peasantry, in democratic revolution. Bourgeois leadership will imply transformation along the first path?implying that the present state will remain almost the same and only very slowly turn to be a bourgeois state, the lamentable dependence on imperialism will stay, and the people will be kept downtrodden. On the contrary, if proletarian leadership is established, it will imply total victory along the second path, total uprooting of the zamindari system, imperialist bondages-dependence and expropriation of imperialist-dependent big bourgeoisie, total victory of the ongoing democratic revolution, total disintegration of the present state and creation of a new state compatible with workers-peasants rule, the flowering of the revolutionary potential of the working class and peasantry and all toiling masses?and finally, commencing the march towards socialism.
15. In this above-mentioned perspective it is evident that the C.R. organisations of India are naturally not just the supporters, but spokesmen and leaders of above-mentioned transformation through the revolutionary path. These organisations are firmly resolute on arousing, organising, leading the peasant masses to that end. Revolutionary communists, i.e., the representatives of the revolutionary proletariat know that without socialism the proletariat will not be emancipated and that is why socialist revolution is needed. But India at present is not in the stage of socialist revolution, rather, it is in the previous stage of democratic revolution. Exactly speaking, the Indian revolution is divided into two stages?the present peoples? democratic revolution, and the future socialist revolution. From the Marxist-Leninist theory, and from the practices of Russia and China, we know that in between these two (the DR and the SR) there is no Chinese Wall, rather the complete victory of DR opens ajar the door towards transformation to SR. So the essence of the line of the proletarian led peasants? path, the revolutionary path, or, what is widely known in India as the Agrarian Revolutionary path is utilising properly, realising in practice the revolutionary potential of the peasantry towards the transition to socialist revolution.
16. In light of the above mentioned discussions (in various clauses) we may agree upon the following points: -
(a) The CRs are representatives of the interests of the working class; they are its advanced vanguards. Such demands, programmes that run counter to the interests of the workers, agricultural workers, poor peasants or rural semi-proletarians can never be supported by the CRs. The workers and agricultural-workers sell their labour-powers and get meagre wages, by which they are supposed to buy necessities of their life. The demand for increasing prices (support-prices) of agricultural products would naturally mean increases in market prices of essentials (say, food) articles, and it is same as demanding to put extra burden on these classes, in a word, going against their interests.
Though not so regular buyers like the proletariat and agro-proletariat, the poor peasant masses, the semi-proletarians are also big purchasers of food stuff and other agro-products. So the demand to increase prices/support-prices of agro-products goes against these classes also.
Even arguing that the middle peasantry is suffering due to lower prices of agro-products, the CRs cannot raise such demands, nor can support them. Another fallacious reasoning is also heard sometimes?that the poor (and middle) peasants are also partly (and almost wholly) peasant-owners and are suffering from the escalating cost of inputs and depressed price of outputs.
But it will not help, as increases in agro-output prices can not alleviate them from suffering, because: ?
(i) almost his entire product from the meagre amount of land he owns is consumed by him/his family, so he cannot be benefited from an increase in output price;
(ii) even if his products find their way to the market (say, in case of potatoes, other vegetables, etc. etc.), due to the pressure of repaying loan or loan instalment and input costs (inputs bought in credit) he has to sell a big part (or whole) of his product immediately after harvesting, and that too, naturally, at a depressed price to the aartiya (aaratdar), etc. middleman, and the latter thrives by profiting from selling it at higher price later in the season. So in the case of middle and poor peasants those who profit from the distress sales and later announced higher support-prices are, generally, those middle men.
Days after completion of the harvesting season the central or state govt. agencies start buying from the market. The financial capacity to hoard the products till market prices are up belong to the capitalist landlords and kulaks or wealthy peasants and they are the only strata who profit from the increased support prices.
So they demand for increased support-prices is their demand.
(b) The CRs cannot play any effective role in favour of movements, with such like demands, as it is. The peasants, in general, particularly the middle peasants are, unlike the workers, not sellers of labour power, but petty proprietors of land, some agricultural implements, the agro-products, etc. As they are oppressed (sometimes very intensely) by the bourgeois-landlord-imperialist combine, their very existence as petty proprietor often gets endangered; and hence frequently they take resort to such movements, or, raise such demands, demand such programmes, whose aim is not the revolutionary uprooting of the present set-up, rather, is sustaining and ensuring their own existence as property owners in this very set-up. So long the movements are not for seizure of all landed properties of all non-peasant proprietors such movements become only, in essence, a narrow movements for elongation of the life of the present set-up. And the real meaning of maintaining this present set-up with, of course, some 'benevolent? reforms is nothing but keeping alive that very system which is continuously bringing uncertainties, curses, destitution and sufferings. The CRs, as revolutionary force, can not raise or voice such demands, neither can support them: i.e.,
But this does not mean that the CRs will be frontally opposing such movements or will be passive onlookers ? rather they will have to go to explain to the middle peasantry that those apparent solutions to their problems as raised by such demands are in reality, only some patch-works, and why these apparent solutions will not lead towards real solutions of the problems they are facing; and the real solution is ........................?. the CRs will have to steer toilers? movement to the right tract, towards revolution.
(c) the agrarian reform programme that is progressing in India along the Junker path for the transition from feudal relations to capitalist relations, embraces a series of acts and programmes. Included are the land ceiling acts (which gave rise to sarkari 'khas? lands and also to ''benami?? lands?lands recorded under false names, illegally possessed/operated by the 'ex? landlords); acts regarding sharecroppers, etc. Demands for bettering such acts, criticism in the tone that these acts are not properly executed/enforced, carrying propaganda for removing the loopholes of such acts ? all these amount to sanctifying these acts, to endeavour for making the Junker path more effective, strong and durable. Naturally, the CRs cannot do such things.
But one must remember that if the peasantry, on its own (i.e., without the effort of the CRs) develop spontaneously a struggle for seizure of khas and benami lands, then the CRs must participate in that struggle with the aim of broadening the limited 'aim? of the struggle, towards helping to develop the struggle for seizure of all lands belonging to non-peasant owners.
(d) Due to the journey along the Junker path, taken by the ruling classes of India, a powerful lobby, comprising of capitalist landlords and rich peasants, has emerged. It has raised demands for increased support price of agri-products, increased subsidies for agri-inputs, easy loans (including loan repayment abatement/cancellation) etc. to fortify its position, and thereby indirectly, to strengthen the Junker reform process. Though the rich peasants are 'allies? in the democratic revolution, it is evident that unless and until a revolutionary upsurge of the vast peasant masses emerges from below for the victory of the peasants? revolutionary path, and the kulaks becomes its supporters and participants, until that happens, the kulaks stay de facto active supporters and adherents of the Junker path; and hence, before that happens, support to them means directly opposing the peasants revolutionary path.
(e) The dependence of the Indian native ruling classes on imperialism is nothing new. Since the time of 'power-transfer? it has been there, and with time, the imperialist exploitation only increased. The dependence on, and, extortion by imperialists are continuing all over our economy including the agricultural sector also, and at times, they were intensified. Resisting and suspending the indigenous research for developing fertiliser production technology; maintaining the dependence on imperialism regarding fertilizer-producing raw-material-technology-machinery (also dependence, to an extent, on fertiliser import); initiating programme to make the peasantry totally dependent on chemical agriculture (particularly the dangerous one sided dependence on nitrogenous fertilisers) to the profit of the giant imperialist chemical corporations, making the peasantry totally dependent on chemical insecticides-pesticides in spite of their rising prices and decreasing effectiveness; extending governmental support for making big dams, and maintaining imperialist dependence on the making of such dams (including raw materials, etc.); resisting, again and again, indigenous research in developing agriculture; keeping depressed the prices of the exportable agro-outputs for external markets: steps and measures to all these effects were taken to strengthen the bondage of the ruling classes with imperialism, and to continue their dependence on imperialism. But let aside revealing the total picture of this shameful dependence (even in the first four decades in the last half century), not even a past of it came highlighted, consistently in the propaganda of the CRs. Even those who term India as a ''semi-colony?? were also remarkably far short of, lagging far behind, in this respect.
Some years after Mao?s death the Chinese Govt. openly started swinging in favour of imperialists, and on ?91 socialist facade of the Soviet Union was removed. From then on a process was started in the name of liberalisation, globalisation, etc. for compelling particularly the third world to bow down totally to the orders of what later became WTO. And through that pressure further extended and more direct became imperialist exploitation, (through terminator or other GM seeds, arranging for the food processing industry big cultivation zones through land leasing or contract farming etc for the supply of their raw materials, through the IPR/patent policy, etc. etc.) which are indicating towards a bleaker and dangerous future. Protest movements have sprang up against all these (though under non proletarian leadership). While participating in such moves some of the CRs are speaking such things and in such a way that as if the imperialist exploitation in only a recent (post ?40) phenomenon, as if the whole history of imperialist domination and exploitation before and up to that time has got erased.
That the matter is not so, is to be brought in the propaganda of the CRs. Along with this, even while participating or supporting such above mentioned movements if and when other considerations permit, the CRs should see that their propaganda do not get confined within the limited and 'immediate? horizon of such movements, and so that the necessity of totally uprooting the imperialist dependence and tribute is properly explained.
Comments:
No Comments for View